20190116 : Corporatism is the control of government by big business. This is what we have in the USA today. The main difference between corporatism and fascism is the level of repressions against opposition. Corporatism now tales forma of inverted totalitarism and use ostracism instead of phycal repressions ( Jan 16, 2019 , profile.theguardian.com )
divideand conquer 1. To gain or maintain power by generating tension among others, especially those less powerful,
so that they cannot unite in opposition.
Notable quotes:
"... In its most general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal, but I'm hoping I can say something new. ..."
"... The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy. ..."
"... Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity. ..."
"... If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members, who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump. ..."
I've been thinking about the various versions of and critiques of identity politics that are around at the moment.
In its most
general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that
members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different
things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal,
but I'm hoping I can say something new.
You missed one important line of critique -- identity politics as a dirty political strategy of soft neoliberals.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been important to politics. But neoliberalism's
radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into
identity groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. Self-government requires uniting
through our commonalities and aspiring to achieve a shared future.
When individuals fall back onto clans, tribes, and us-versus-them identities, the political community gets fragmented. It becomes
harder for people to see each other as part of that same shared future.
Demagogues [more correctly neoliberals -- likbez] rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism,
which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and
marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for
a free and democratic society.
The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies.
As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary
neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that
some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they
then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy.
Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies
of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity.
Of course, the result is to leave in place political and economic structures that harm the very groups that inclusionary neoliberals
claim to support. The foreign policy adventures of the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists haven't fared much better
than economic policy or cultural politics. The U.S. and its coalition partners have been bogged down in the war in Afghanistan
for 18 years and counting. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is a liberal democracy, nor did the attempt to establish democracy in
Iraq lead to a domino effect that swept the Middle East and reformed its governments for the better. Instead, power in Iraq has
shifted from American occupiers to sectarian militias, to the Iraqi government, to Islamic State terrorists, and back to the Iraqi
government -- and more than 100,000 Iraqis are dead.
Or take the liberal internationalist 2011 intervention in Libya. The result was not a peaceful transition to stable democracy
but instead civil war and instability, with thousands dead as the country splintered and portions were overrun by terrorist groups.
On the grounds of democracy promotion, it is hard to say these interventions were a success. And for those motivated to expand
human rights around the world, it is hard to justify these wars as humanitarian victories -- on the civilian death count alone.
Indeed, the central anchoring assumptions of the American foreign policy establishment have been proven wrong. Foreign policymakers
largely assumed that all good things would go together -- democracy, markets, and human rights -- and so they thought opening
China to trade would inexorably lead to it becoming a liberal democracy. They were wrong. They thought Russia would become liberal
through swift democratization and privatization. They were wrong.
They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was desirable even if the political
system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. And to be clear, Donald Trump
had nothing to do with them. All of these failures were evident prior to the 2016 election.
If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing
of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members,
who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump.
Initially Clinton calculation was that trade union voters has nowhere to go anyways, and it was correct for first decade or so
of his betrayal. But gradually trade union members and lower middle class started to leave Dems in droves (Demexit, compare with
Brexit) and that where identity politics was invented to compensate for this loss.
So in addition to issues that you mention we also need to view the role of identity politics as the political strategy of the
"soft neoliberals " directed at discrediting and the suppression of nationalism.
The resurgence of nationalism is the inevitable byproduct of the dominance of neoliberalism, resurgence which I think is capable
to bury neoliberalism as it lost popular support (which now is limited to financial oligarchy and high income professional groups,
such as we can find in corporate and military brass, (shrinking) IT sector, upper strata of academy, upper strata of medical professionals,
etc)
That means that the structure of the current system isn't just flawed which imply that most problems are relatively minor and
can be fixed by making some tweaks. It is unfixable, because the "Identity wars" reflect a deep moral contradictions within neoliberal
ideology. And they can't be solved within this framework.
Europe is willing to defy the U.S. on Nordstream to the point of forcing the U.S. to openly and nakedly destroy its reputation
with European contractors and governments to stop one pipeline in a place where multiple gas pipelines will be needed for future
growth.
This is the diplomatic equivalent of the nuclear option. And the neocons in the Senate just pushed the button. Europe understands
what this is really about, the U.S. retaining its imperial position as the policy setter for all the world. If it can set energy
policy for Europe then it can set everything else.
And it's clear that the leadership in Europe is done with that status quo. The Trump administration from the beginning has used
NATO as an excuse to mask its real intentions towards Europe, which is continued domination of its policies. Trump complains that
the U.S. pays into NATO to protect Europe from Russia but then Europe buys its energy from Russia. That's unfair, Donald complains,
like a little bitch, frankly, even though he right on the surface. But if the recent NATO summit is any indication, Europe is no
longer interested in NATO performing that function. French President Emmanuel Macron wants NATO re-purposed to fight global terror,
a terrible idea. NATO should just be ended.
But you'll notice how Trump doesn't talk about that anymore. He wants more billions pumped into NATO while the U.S. still sets
its policies. This is not a boondoggle for the MIC as much as it's a Sword of Damocles to hold over Europe's head. The U.S.'s involvement
in should be ended immediately, the troops brought home and the billions of dollars spent here as opposed to occupying most of Europe
to point missiles at a Russia wholly uninterested in imperial ambitions no less harboring any of them.
And Trump also knows this but thinks stopping Nordstream 2 is the price Europe has to pay him for this privilege. It's insane.
The time has come for Europe to act independently from the U.S. As much as I despise the EU, to untangle it from the U.S. on energy
policy is the means by which for it to then deal with its problems internally. It can't do that while the U.S. is threatening it.
Circling the wagons against the immediate threat, as it were.
And that means protecting its companies and citizens from the economic depredations of power-mad neoconservatives in the U.S.
Senate like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.
Allseas, the Swiss company laying the pipe for Nordstream 2,
has halted construction for now
, awaiting instructions from the U.S. Gazprom will likely step in to finish the job and Germany will green light any of the necessary
permits to get the pipeline done. Those people will be put out of work just in time for Christmas, turning thousands of people against
the U.S. Commerce drives people together, politics drives them apart.
But, at the same time, the urgency to finish Nordstream 2 on time is wholly irrelevant now because Ukraine and Russia came to
terms on a new five-year gas transit contract. This ensures Gazprom can meet its contractual deliveries to Europe that no one thought
could be done on time. But when the Nazi threat to Zelensky meeting with Merkel, Macron and Putin in Paris failed to materialize,
a gas deal was on the horizon.
And, guess what? U.S. LNG will still not have the marginal lever over Europe's energy policy because of that. Putin and Zelensky
outmaneuvered Cruz, Graham and Trump on this. Because that's what this boils down to. By keeping Russian gas out of Europe, it was
supposed to constrain not only Russia's growth but also Europe's. Because then the U.S. government can control who and how much energy
can make it into European markets at critical junctures politically.
That was the Bolton Doctrine to National Security. And that doctrine brought nothing but misery to millions.
And if you look back over the past five years of U.S./EU relations you will see this gambit clearly for what it was, a way to
continue European vassalage at the hands of the U.S. by forcing market share of U.S. providers into European markets.
Again, it gets back to Trump's ideas about Emergy Dominance
and becoming the supplier of the marginal erg of energy to important economies around the world.
The smart play for the EU now that the gas transit deal is in place is to threaten counter-sanctions against the U.S. and bar
all LNG shipments into Europe. Gas prices are at historic lows, gas supplies are overflowing thanks to fears of a deal not being
in place.
So, a three to six month embargo of U.S. LNG into Europe to bleed off excess supply while Nordstream 2 is completed would be the
right play politically.
But, in reality, they won't need to, because the U.S. won't be able to import much into Europe under current prices and market
conditions. And once Nordstream 2 is complete, LNG sales to Europe should crater.
In the end, I guess it's too bad for Ted Cruz that economics and basic human ingenuity are more powerful than legislatures. Because
Nordstream 2 will be completed. Turkstream's other trains into Europe will be built. Venezuela will continue rebuilding its energy
sector with Russian and Chinese help.
There is no place for U.S. LNG in Europe outside of the Poles literally burning money virtue signaling their Russophobia. Nordstream 2 was a response to the revolt in Ukraine, to replace any potential losses in market share to Europe. Now Russia will
have what it had before passing through Ukraine along with Nordstream 2. By 2024 there will be at least two trains from Turkstream
coming into Europe.
Iran will keep expanding exports, settling its oil and gas trade through Russian banks. And the U.S. will continue to fulminate
and make itself even more irrelevant over time. What men like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump refuse to understand is that when you go nuclear you can't ever go back. If you threaten
the nuclear option, there's no fall back position.
And when those that you threaten with annihilation survive they are made all the stronger for passing through the eye of the needle. Looking at Gazprom's balance sheet right now, that's my take.
Turkey, since 2011, has been waging a pro-Sunni proxy war in Syria, in the hope of one day
establishing in Damascus a pro-Turkey, Islamist regime. This ambition has failed, costing
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's Turkey violent political turmoil on both sides of
Turkey's 911-km border with Syria and billions of dollars spent on more than 4 million Syrian
refugees scattered across the Turkish soil.
In Egypt, in 2011-2012, Erdoğan aggressively supported the failed Muslim Brotherhood
government and deeply antagonized the incumbent -- then-general but now president -- Abdel
Fattah al-Sisi. Since Erdoğan's efforts in Syria and Egypt failed, his Sunni Islamist
ambitions have found a new proxy-war theater: Libya.
On December 10,
Erdoğan said he could deploy troops in Libya if the UN-backed Government of National
Accord (GNA) in Tripoli (which Turkey supports) requested it. Erdoğan's talks with GNA's
head, Fayez al-Sarraj, who is fighting a war against the Libyan National Army (LNA) of General
Khalifa Haftar, produced two ostensibly strategic agreements: a memorandum of understanding on
providing the GNA with arms, military training and personnel; and a maritime agreement
delineating exclusive economic zones in the Mediterranean waters.
Greece and Egypt protested immediately while the European Council unequivocally condemned
the controversial accords. Meanwhile, the deals apparently escalated a proxy competition
between Turkey's old (Greece) and new (Egypt and the United Arab Emirates) rivals.
With the al-Sarraj handshake, Erdoğan is apparently aiming to:
minimize Turkey's isolation in the Mediterranean, one which has gradually worsened since
2010, following one diplomatic crisis after another with Israel;
counter strategic cooperation between Cyprus, Greece, Egypt and Israel, including joint
diplomatic, energy and military initiatives;
cut into the emerging Cypriot-Greek-Egyptian-Israeli maritime bloc;
push back against Arab (Egyptian and UAE) pressure on al-Sarraj;
fill the European vacuum in Libya; and
emerge as a deal-breaker in the Mediterranean rather than a deal-maker.
All that ambition requires military hardware as well as diplomatic software. Since 2011, a
year after the Mavi Marmara incident ruptured relations with Israel, Turkey has been investing
billions of dollars in naval technologies, in an apparent effort to build up the hardware it
would one day require.
In the eight years since then, Turkey has built
four Ada-class corvettes; two Landing Ship Tank (LST) vessels; eight fast Landing Craft Tank
(LCT) vessels; 16 military patrol ships; two deep-sea rescue ships; one submarine rescue ship;
and four assault boats.
The jewel in the naval treasury box is a $1 billion Landing Platform Dock (LPD), now being
built under license from Spain's Navantia shipyards, to be operational in 2021. The TCG
Anadolu , Turkey's first amphibious assault ship, will carry a battalion-sized unit of
1,200 troops and personnel, eight utility helicopters and three unmanned aerial vehicles; it
also will transport 150 vehicles, including battle tanks. It also may be able to deploy short
takeoff and vertical landing STOVL F-35 fighter jets. Turkey will be the third operator in the
world of this ship type, after Spain and Australia.
Erdoğan's naval ambitions, however, are not limited just to an emerging fleet of
conventional vessels. In 2016, he said
that the LPD program would hopefully be the first step toward producing a "most elite" aircraft
carrier. He also said he "sees it as a major deficiency that we still do not have a nuclear
vessel."
On December 22, Turkey's first Type 214 class submarine, the TCG Piri Reis , hit the seas
with a ceremony attended by Erdoğan. "Today,"
he said , "we gathered here for the docking of Piri Reis . As of 2020, a submarine will go
into service each year. By 2027, all six of our submarines will be at our seas for
service."
Unsurprisingly the docking ceremony reminded Erdoğan of his Libyan gambit: "We will
evaluate every opportunity in land, sea and air. If needed, we will increase military support
in Libya."
Erdoğan seems to think that his best defense in the Mediterranean power game is an
offense. On December 15, Turkish Naval Forces
intercepted an Israeli research ship, the Bat Galim , in Cypriot waters and escorted it
away, as tension over natural resource exploration continued to rise in the region.
On December 16, Turkey dispatched a surveillance and reconnaissance drone to the
Turkish-controlled north of the divided island of Cyprus. A week before the drone deployment,
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said that Ankara could use its
military forces to halt gas drilling in waters off Cyprus that it claims as its own.
Libya is another risky proxy war theater for Turkey. Its deals with the al-Sarraj government
over troop deployment and maritime borders will become null and void if the Libyan civil war,
begun in 2014, ends with Gen. Haftar's victory. The chief of staff of the LNA, Farag
Al-Mahdawi,
announced that his forces would sink any Turkish ship approaching the Libyan coast. "I have
an order; as soon as the Turkish research vessels arrive, I will have a solution. I will sink
them myself," Al-Mahdawi warned, noting that the order was coming from Haftar. On December 21,
Haftar's forces seized
a Grenada-flagged ship with Turkish crew aboard, on the suspicion that it was carrying arms.
The ship was later released.
The European Union is another factor why Erdoğan, once again, is probably betting on
the wrong horse. Technically speaking, Turkey is a candidate for full EU membership, but it is
an open secret that accession talks have not moved an inch during the past several years, and
with no prospects of progress in sight. Making membership prospects even gloomier, EU foreign
ministers in November
agreed on economic sanctions for Ankara for violating Cyprus' maritime economic zone by
drilling off the island.
The Mediterranean chess game leaves Turkey in alliance with the breakaway Turkish Cypriot
statelet and one of the warring factions in Libya, versus a strategic grouping of Greece,
Cyprus, Egypt (and the UAE), Israel, and the other warring Libyan group.
One emerging power in Libya, however, is not a Western state actor. After controlling Syria
in favor of President Bashar al-Assad and establishing permanent military bases inside and off
the coast of the country, Russia has the potential to step into the Libyan theater with a
bigger proxy and direct force, to establish its second permanent Mediterranean military
presence. As in Syria, where divergent interests did not stop Turkey from becoming a
remote-controlled Russian player, Moscow can once again make use of the Turkish card to
undermine Western interests in Libya.
Also as in Syria, Turkey's Islamist agenda will probably fail in Libya, but by the time
Erdoğan understands that, it might be too late to get out of Moscow's orbit.
Instead of finding the real culprits - ISIS remnants, disgruntled locals, Kurds who want
to regain control over Kirkuk - the U.S. decided that Kata'ib Hizbullah was the group guilty
of the attack....
Yesterday's attacks guarantee that all U.S. troops will have to leave Iraq and will
thereby also lose their supply lines to Syria.
One wonders if that was the real intend of those strikes.
Just like with 9/11 and Iraq where the US government immediately pushed its pre-existing
agenda, so the US doesn't care who really launches attacks on US and US-client positions in
Iraq and Syria but automatically assigns them to Hezbollah and thus to Iran, in accord with
the pre-existing neocon wet dream of provoking a full-scale war with Iran.
If that's the US intent, to escalate against Iran, and if conversely the Iraq government
is serious about kicking out the US military, we'll have the confrontation discussed in the
open thread.
As for the idea that Trump was briar-patching here, wanting a good legalistic pretext to
withdraw troops from Iraq (which would then trigger the practical supply-based pretext to
withdraw them from Syria and not "take the oil" after all), well even if he had such confused
thoughts, we've already seen how spineless he is about trying to assert his will over that of
the neocon bureaucracies, civilian and military. Do we really expect them to agree to vacate
Iraq merely because the legally constituted supposedly sovereign government told them to? It
seems more likely they'll tell the government they're not going anywhere and demand that the
government help them suppress non-governmental resistance to their ongoing presence, or else.
(I don't know if there's yet been a formal order to leave from the Iraqi government, or just
rhetoric in an attempt to save face.)
Being almost 100% sure that Israeli cornering East Mediterranean gas reserves was a done
deal
and after Cyprus gerrymandered its EEZ under UNCLOS -- and Greece signing up
as pipeline terminus in Europe -- Trump put this cart before horse -- and sanctioned
Nord Stream. Europe was to get Israeli gas. Then Turkey and Libya declared EZZ,
and pipeline cannot go!
Also. there will be other claimants to reserves -- Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza.
Nice try -- but Israel will not be supplying Germany gas any time soon.
The other possible replacements include Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, Deputy Secretary of
State Biegun, U.S. ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell, Trump's Iran envoy Brian Hook, and two
hard-liners from the Senate, Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton. Most of these names inspire some
mixture of loathing and dread, and of the seven men being considered Biegun is the only one
remotely qualified to take the job. Hook has
disqualified himself , and he shouldn't even be working at the State Department right now
much less running it. Grenell functions as little more than an international
troll , and he has done a terrible job representing the U.S. in Berlin, so promoting him
would be an equally terrible mistake.
Rubio and Cotton are fanatics with the most toxic foreign policy views, and they would also
likely be very poor managers of the department. In that respect, they are very much like
Pompeo. Mnuchin would likely have great difficulty getting confirmed, and replacing one
sanctions-happy Secretary with the Treasury Secretary who has been enforcing those sanctions is
no improvement at all. As for O'Brien, he was a
bad choice for National Security Advisor , he has done nothing since he took over from
Bolton to suggest otherwise, and so it makes absolutely no sense to promote him. Biegun clearly
has the confidence of the Senate following his overwhelming confirmation vote to be Deputy
Secretary, so having him take over the department for whatever time is left in Trump's term
seems the best available choice.
It is a measure of how chaotic and unsuccessful Trump's foreign policy is that we are
talking about the possible nomination of a third Secretary of State in less than three years.
Pompeo has outlasted many of his administration colleagues to become one of the longest-serving
Cabinet officials under this president, and his tenure is not even two years old. It is no
wonder that the list of likely replacements is so weak. Who would want to join a scandal-ridden
administration with a failed foreign policy?
Pompeo's departure will be good news for the State Department, and the sooner it comes the
better. There has rarely been a Secretary of State as dishonest and political as Pompeo, and
his brief time running the department has been one of the low points in its history.
Considering the damage that Pompeo has done along with the harm done by Tillerson, the next
Secretary of State will have a lot of work to do to rebuild and not much time to do it in.
Pompeo should clear the way for the next Secretary and resign as soon as possible.
Lyttennburgh, I can think of a couple of reasons for Erdogan's Libyan adventure. First, he'd
rather have those battle tested jihadis in Libya than on his border or in his country.
Second, he may have his eyes on Mediterranean oil. Lastly, he may see a friendly Libyan
government as an ally or province of his Ottoman Empire dream. No matter what the reason,
he's setting himself up for another confrontation with Russia.
Combating the scourge of US-supported terrorists in Syria at the behest of its government
aside, Russia's involvement elsewhere is diplomatic, including in Libya.
Obama regime-led aggression in 2011 transformed Africa's most developed nation into a
charnel house, a dystopian failed state, endless war raging with no resolution in prospect.
Wherever wars rage, chances are US dirty hands are involved, clearly the case in multiple
countries, including Libya.
Russia is not involved in the country militarily. Claims otherwise are fabricated. Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov strongly denied them, saying:
"I categorically refute speculations of this kind. We are acting in the interest of the
Libyan settlement," adding:
"We are supporting the existing effort, including through the United Nations. We maintain a
dialogue with those who somehow influence the situation."
"We do not think that there is any grounds for such statements, such fiction, but this is
not the first time that US media spread different speculations, wicked rumors, falsehoods
targeting us."
"We have already gotten used to this, and we take it in stride. However, I have to
acknowledge that recurrent hoaxes of this kind exercise a negative influence on the sentiment
of the US domestic public, and the general atmosphere in the United States."
"Unfortunately it does not promote normalization of our ties, although we strive for
it."
A November NYT propaganda piece falsely accused Russia of involvement militarily in Libya --
instead of focusing on how the Obama regime raped and destroyed the country.
Trump hardliners support warlord Khalifa Haftar, a longtime CIA asset, a former US resident,
commander of the so-called Libyan National Army (LNA) -- waging war on the UN-backed
Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA).
Since US-led aggression toppled Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011 and sodomized him to death,
the US continued to wage secret drone war on the country, conducting hundreds of strikes,
continuing since Trump took office.
The Times falsely claimed "Russian mercenaries (and) snipers" are involved in Libya -- no
evidence cited proving what's not so, adding:
Hundreds of "Russian fighters (are) part of a broad campaign by the Kremlin to reassert its
influence across the Middle East and Africa (sic)."
"It has introduced advanced Sukhoi jets, coordinated missile strikes, and precision-guided
artillery, as well as the snipers -- the same playbook that made Moscow a kingmaker in the
Syrian civil war (sic)."
There's nothing remotely "civil" about US aggression in Syria. No evidence suggests Russia
is involved militarily in Libya with heavy or other weapons.
The Kremlin didn't intervene in the country on behalf of anyone. Its involvement is
diplomatic to try resolving the mess US aggression created -- what the Times and other
establishment media cheerled.
Days earlier, Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed false claims
about Kremlin involvement in Libya militarily, saying:
Moscow officials maintain diplomatic contact "with all current Libyan political forces,"
adding:
Congressional hardliners drafted the so-called Libya Stabilization Act -- imposing sanctions
on Russia for its "imaginary military presence in" the country.
The measure falsely accuses Moscow of "military intervention," blaming what doesn't exist on
destabilizing the country, ignoring how US-led NATO smashed Libya, massacring countless
thousands, displacing many more, destroying their livelihoods and well-being
"I wonder how US lawmakers describe the illegal US armed forces presence in Syria or the
reckless actions of the (Obama regime) in Libya to their voters," Zakharova stressed.
The Times propaganda piece barely acknowledged Trump regime support for Haftar, mentioning
it buried well into its article, ignoring its April 2019 piece, headlined:
Like it was earlier noted, the "New Detente" isn't perfect, as seen most recently by the US'
decision to impose sanctions on
the companies involved in Nord Stream II's construction, but once again, the state of relations
in general are still comparatively better than their nadir in mid-2014 immediately after the
EuroMaidan coup and Crimea's reunification with Russia. The US is still trying to "contain"
Russia with mixed success, while Russia is undertaking its best efforts to break out of this
"containment" noose and even "flip" some of the US' traditional partners such as Turkey, so the
New
Cold War probably won't end anytime soon. Nor, for that matter, did anybody reasonably
expect that it would, but just like during the Old Cold War, there comes a time when the
involved parties believe that it's in their best interests to proverbially take a break and
enter into a period of detente. It seems as though that phase is only now just beginning but
which has finally borne some fruit after Trump promised to pursue this outcome all throughout
the 2016 campaign.
One can argue over why that hasn't already happened to the extent that he promised (or even
if he was fully sincere in the first place), but the point to focus on in the here and now is
that some tangible progress has finally been made concerning the future of Russia's
trans-Ukrainian gas supplies to the EU. From the looks of it, all the relevant players --
Russia, Ukraine, the EU, and the US -- have concrete interests in seeing that this agreement is
upheld. It's convenient for Russia to continue using existing pipelines, Ukraine wants to get
paid for its transit role, the EU desires reliable but cheap gas imports, and the US recognizes
that this outcome perpetuates the geostrategic role of its Ukrainian proxy that it could then
leverage as a "bargaining chip" for reaching a more substantive "New Detente" with Russia
sometime next year or the one afterwards. That said, while each player has their interests,
they don't exactly trust one another for different reasons, which means that the "New Detente"
might still be offset if any of them decides to play the spoiler or is undermined by their
"deep states".
So Turkey goes against Uncle Sam and Egypt. Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... Erdogan's eyes set on defeating Benghazi-based General Khalifa Haftar, it appears this arms and jihadist rat line has conveniently been reversed . ..."
"... In a deepening proxy war, Turkey aims to send its Navy to protect Tripoli, while its troops train and coordinate forces of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, according to a senior Turkish official. Turkey recently signed a critical maritime deal with oil-rich Libya that serves energy interests of both countries and aims to salvage billions of dollars of business contracts thrown into limbo by the conflict . ..."
"... Remember when the CIA thought it was a good idea to train and fund jihadists in Syria to topple Assad? ..."
"... The conflict in Syria has become a rallying point for jihadists from around the world. More than 20,000 foreign fighters are fighting or have fought in Syria, and most are part of jihadist groups, including Jubhat al Nusra (JAN) and Islamic State (IS). North Africa has provided a large portion of these foreign fighters, from countries as diverse as Morocco and Libya. ..."
Bloomberg has confirmed on Friday the prior rumors that Turkey will be sending mercenaries
to Libya -- where it is propping up the UN-backed government in Tripoli (the GNA) -- are true.
"Turkey is preparing to deploy troops and naval forces to support the
internationally-recognized Libyan government, joining a planned push by Ankara-backed Syrian
rebels to defeat strongman Khalifa Haftar,"
reports Bloomberg .
Though Ankara has yet to confirm or deny the new reports, Erdogan's Turkey has for years
overseen a Libya-to-Turkey-to-Syria arms
"rat line" which saw both heavy weaponry and jihadists fighters transported for the purpose
of toppling Assad. But now with Erdogan's eyes set on defeating Benghazi-based General Khalifa
Haftar, it appears this arms and jihadist rat line has conveniently been reversed
.
This also as President Erdogan
in a speech on Thursday presented plans to send Turkish national troops bolster Tripoli as
well .
Possibly thousands from among the so-called Turkish Free Syrian Army (formerly the FSA),
with most of its fighters currently attacking Syrian Kurds in the ongoing 'Operation Peace
Spring', will now be sent into Libya.
There are reports suggesting Turkey is ready to pay $2,000 a month for each Syrian 'rebel'
willing to go to Libya .
TFSA source told me Turkey will be offering fighters from all TFSA factions $2,000/month
to go to Libya.
And akin to the current proxy war which has seen both the US, Kurds, and Sunni Islamists
backed by Turkey wrangle over Syria's oil rich eastern region, Libya is heating up to be the
latest 'oil and gas prize' -- but with immensely more at stake. As Bloomberg notes:
In a deepening proxy war, Turkey aims to send its Navy to protect Tripoli, while its
troops train and coordinate forces of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, according to a senior
Turkish official. Turkey recently signed a critical maritime deal with oil-rich Libya that
serves energy interests of both countries and aims to salvage billions of dollars of business
contracts thrown into limbo by the conflict .
As we
predicted earlier , Libya and the southern Mediterranean is on its way to becoming the next
big Middle East conflict of 2020 , also with Egypt and even Russia warning of further
involvement to block Turkey's increasing role on the ground.
And as the mainstream media finally stops ignoring the looming catastrophe for north Africa
and the region (still in denial as to the fruits of US-NATO "liberated" Libya after Gaddafi was
overthrown and killed), it
must be remembered that in another ironic plot twist, the CIA trained the very FSA 'rebel'
fighters now on their way to Libya .
Gee who would have ever predicted? It's the foreign fighter 'rat line' in reverse.
Remember when the CIA thought it was a good idea to train and fund jihadists in Syria to
topple Assad? Via a 2015
military study :
The conflict in Syria has become a rallying point for jihadists from around the world.
More than 20,000 foreign fighters are fighting or have fought in Syria, and most are part of
jihadist groups, including Jubhat al Nusra (JAN) and Islamic State (IS). North Africa has provided a large portion of these
foreign fighters, from countries as diverse as Morocco and Libya. Who are these North African fighters, and why are they
going to Syria? What do they hope to accomplish there, and do they want to return to their home countries?
Considering the tens of thousands of foreign fighters which poured into Syria starting in
2011 and 2012 in the first place, many of them from Libya, perhaps many are now simply headed
"home" -- ready to further the proxy war chaos at Erdogan's bidding.
NATO IS NOTHING more than an extension of George Soros' arm as it is also an extension
of the Rothschild arm! Most should have gleaned this by now, particularly recognizing the
radical Wahhabism that was included in this band of merry global thugs (Saudi Arabia) to do
the bidding of the globalist satanic cabal. Kind of sad hearing this kind of neive
responses from the gallery...sorry Mr. teolawki but you missed the forest for the
trees.
What is naive is not understanding that Turkey is the current NATO nations gateway for
all manner of illicit and illegitimat activity to foment and perpetuate the forever wars in
the ME. This has been going on since well before Benghazi and has only gotten worse under
Erdogan.
If you have a way to snap your fingers and solve every problem simultaneously, then
please do so. Otherwise it must be undertaken one step at a time. Closing that Turkish
gateway permanently is an excellent start.
"... Splitting Naftogaz into separate companies could allow Soros to take control of one of the new branches and essentially privatize its profits. He already suggested that he indirectly brought in US consulting company, McKinsey, to advise Naftogaz on the privatization " big bang ." ..."
"... The totality of what is revealed in the three hacked documents show that Soros is effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation's Ukraine branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine's independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government into power. ..."
"... Soros' foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in the US State Department ..."
Rarely does the world get a true look inside the corrupt world of Western oligarchs and
the brazen manipulations they use to enhance their fortunes at the expense of the public
good.
The following comes from correspondence of the Hungarian-born billionaire, now naturalized
American speculator, George Soros. The hacker group CyberBerkut has published online letters
allegedly written by Soros that reveal him not only as puppet master of the US-backed Ukraine
regime .
They also reveal his machinations with the US Government and the officials of the European
Union in a scheme where, if he succeeds, he could win billions in the plunder of Ukraine
assets. All, of course, would be at the expense of Ukrainian citizens and of EU
taxpayers.
What the three hacked documents reveal is a degree of behind-the-scene manipulation of the
most minute details of the Kiev regime by the New York billionaire.
In the longest memo, dated March 15, 2015 and marked "Confidential" Soros outlines a
detailed map of actions for the Ukraine regime. Titled, "A short and medium term comprehensive
strategy for the new Ukraine," the memo from Soros calls for steps to "restore the fighting
capacity of Ukraine without violating the Minsk agreement." To do the restoring, Soros blithely
notes that "General Wesley Clark, Polish General Skrzypczak and a few specialists under the
auspices of the Atlantic Council [emphasis added -- f.w.e.] will advise President Poroshenko
how to restore the fighting capacity of Ukraine without violating the Minsk agreement
."
Soros also calls for supplying lethal arms to Ukraine and secretly training Ukrainian army
personnel in Romania to avoid direct NATO presence in Ukraine . The
Atlantic Council is a leading Washington pro-NATO think tank .
Notably, Wesley Clark is also a business associate of Soros in BNK Petroleum which does
business in Poland.
Clark, some might recall, was the mentally-unstable NATO General in charge of the 1999
bombing of Serbia who ordered NATO soldiers to fire on Russian soldiers guarding the Pristina
International Airport. The Russians were there as a part of an agreed joint NATO–Russia
peacekeeping operation supposed to police Kosovo. The British Commander, General Mike Jackson
refused Clark, retorting, "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you ." Now Clark apparently decided to
come out of retirement for the chance to go at Russia directly.
Naked asset grab
In his March 2015 memo Soros further writes that Ukrainian President Poroshenko's "first
priority must be to regain control of financial markets," which he assures Poroshenko that
Soros would be ready to assist in: "I am ready to call Jack Lew of the US Treasury to sound him
out about the swap agreement."
He also calls on the EU to give Ukraine an annual aid sum of €11 billion via a special
EU borrowing facility. Soros proposes in effect using the EU's "AAA" top credit rating to
provide a risk insurance for investment into Ukraine.
Whose risk would the EU insure?
Soros details, "I am prepared to invest up to €1 billion in Ukrainian businesses.
This is likely to attract the interest of the investment community. As stated above, Ukraine
must become an attractive investment destination."
Not to leave any doubt, Soros continues, "The investments will be for-profit but I will
pledge to contribute the profits to my foundations. This should allay suspicions that I am
advocating policies in search of personal gain. "
For anyone familiar with the history of the Soros Open Society Foundations in Eastern Europe
and around the world since the late 1980's, will know that his supposedly philanthropic
"democracy-building" projects in Poland, Russia, or Ukraine in the 1990's allowed Soros the
businessman to literally plunder the former communist countries using Harvard University's
"shock therapy" messiah, and Soros associate, Jeffrey Sachs, to convince the post-Soviet
governments to privatize and open to a "free market" at once, rather than gradually.
The example of Soros in Liberia is instructive for understanding the seemingly seamless
interplay between Soros the shrewd businessman and Soros the philanthropist. In West Africa
George Soros backed a former Open Society employee of his, Liberian President Ellen Johnson
Sirleaf, giving her international publicity and through his influence, even arranging a Nobel
Peace Prize for her in 2011, insuring her election as president. Before her presidency she had
been well-indoctrinated into the Western free market game, studying economics at Harvard and
working for the US-controlled World Bank in Washington and the Rockefeller Citibank in Nairobi.
Before becoming Liberia's President, she worked for Soros directly as chair of his Open Society
Initiative for West Africa ( OSIWA
).
Once in office, President Sirleaf opened the doors for Soros to take over major Liberian
gold and base metals assets along with his partner, Nathaniel Rothschild. One of her first acts
as President was to also invite the Pentagon's new Africa Command, AFRICOM, into Liberia whose
purpose as a Liberian investigation revealed, was to "protect George Soros and Rothschild
mining operations in West Africa rather than champion stability and human rights ."
Naftogaz the target
The Soros memo makes clear he has his eyes on the Ukrainian state gas and energy monopoly,
Naftogaz. He writes, "The centerpiece of economic reforms will be the reorganization of
Naftogaz and the introduction of market pricing for all forms of energy, replacing hidden
subsidies
"
In an earlier letter Soros wrote in December 2014 to both President Poroshenko and Prime
Minister Yatsenyuk, Soros openly called for his Shock Therapy:
"I want to appeal to you to unite behind the reformers in your government and give your
wholehearted support to a radical, 'big bang' type of approach. That is to say,
administrative controls would be removed and the economy would move to market prices rapidly
rather than gradually Naftogaz needs to be reorganized with a big bang replacing the hidden
subsidies
"
Splitting Naftogaz into separate companies could allow Soros to take control of one of
the new branches and essentially privatize its profits. He already suggested that he indirectly
brought in US consulting company, McKinsey, to advise Naftogaz on the privatization "
big bang
."
The Puppet-Master?
The totality of what is revealed in the three hacked documents show that Soros is
effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation's Ukraine
branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His
IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet
Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine's independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also
admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government
into power.
Soros' foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought
the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in
the US State Department . In 2004 just weeks after Soros' International Renaissance
Foundation had succeeded in getting Viktor Yushchenko as President of Ukraine, Michael McFaul
wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post. McFaul, a specialist in organizing color revolutions,
who later became US Ambassador to Russia, revealed:
Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The American agents of
influence would prefer different language to describe their activities -- democratic
assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc. -- but their work, however
labeled, seeks to influence political change in Ukraine. The U.S. Agency for International
Development, the National Endowment for Democracy and a few other foundations sponsored certain
U.S. organizations, including Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, the
National Democratic Institute, the Solidarity Center, the Eurasia Foundation, Internews and
several others to provide small grants and technical assistance to Ukrainian civil society. The
European Union, individual European countries and the Soros-funded International Renaissance
Foundation did the same .
Soros
shapes 'New Ukraine'
Today the CyberBerkut hacked papers show that Soros' IRF money is behind creation of a
National Reform Council, a body organized by presidential decree from Poroshenko which allows
the Ukrainian president to push bills through Ukraine's legislature. Soros writes,
"The framework for bringing the various branches of government together has also emerged.
The National Reform Council (NRC) brings together the presidential administration, the
cabinet of ministers, the Rada and its committees and civil society. The International
Renaissance Foundation which is the Ukrainian branch of the Soros Foundations was the sole
financial supporter of the NRC until now "
Soros' NRC in effect is the vehicle to allow the President to override parliamentary debate
to push through "reforms," with the declared first priority being privatization of Naftogaz and
raising gas prices drastically to Ukrainian industry and households, something the bankrupt
country can hardly afford .
In his letter to Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk, Soros hints that he played a key role in
selection of three key non-Ukrainian ministers -- Natalia Jaresko, an American ex- State
Department official as Finance Minister; Aivras Abromavicius of Lithuania as Economics
Minister, and a health minister from Georgia. Soros in his December 2014 letter, referring to
his proposal for a "big bank" privatization of Naftogaz and price rise, states,
"You are fortunate to have appointed three 'new Ukrainian' ministers and several natives
(sic) who are committed to this approach
."
Elsewhere Soros speaks about de facto creating the impression within the EU that the current
government of Yatsenyuk is finally cleaning out the notorious corruption that has dominated
every Kiev regime since 1991. Creating that temporary reform illusion, he remarks, will
convince the EU to cough up the €11 billion annual investment insurance fund. His March
2015 paper says that, "It is essential for the government to produce a visible demonstration
(sic) during the next three months in order to change the widely prevailing image of Ukraine as
an utterly corrupt country." That he states will open the EU to make the €11 billion
insurance guarantee investment fund .
While saying that it is important to show Ukraine as a country that is not corrupt, Soros
reveals he has little concern when transparency and proper procedures block his agenda. Talking
about his proposals to reform Ukraine's constitution to enable privatizations and other
Soros-friendly moves, he complains,
"The process has been slowed down by the insistence of the newly elected Rada on proper
procedures and total transparency
."
Soros suggests that he intends to create this "visible demonstration" through his
initiatives, such as using the Soros-funded National Reform Council, a body organized by
presidential decree which allows the Ukrainian president to push bills through Ukraine's
legislature.
George Soros is also using his new European Council on Foreign Relations think-tank to lobby
his Ukraine strategy, with his council members such as Alexander Graf Lambsdorff or Joschka
Fischer or Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, not to mention former ECB head, Jean-Claude Trichet no
doubt laying a subtle role.
George Soros, now 84, was born in Hungary as a Jew, George Sorosz. Soros once boasted in a
TV interview that he posed during the war as a gentile with forged papers, assisting the Horthy
government to seize property of other Hungarian Jews who were being shipped to the Nazi death
camps. Soros told the TV moderator, "There was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that
was–well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets–that if I weren't
there–of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would."
This is the same morality apparently behind Soros' activities in Ukraine today. It seems
again to matter not to him that the Ukrainian government he helped bring to power in February
2014 US coup d'etat is riddled with explicit anti-semites and self-proclaimed neo-Nazis from
the Svoboda Party and Pravy Sektor. George Soros is clearly a devotee of
"public-private-partnership." Only here the public gets fleeced to enrich private investors
like Mr. Soros and friends. Cynically, Soros signs his Ukraine strategy memo, "George
Soros–A self-appointed advocate of the new Ukraine, March 12, 2015."
And now we learn that our own State Department was filling Soros coffers with our taxpayer
money to use against us and destroy our republic.
Whenever Democrats scream about cuts in foreign aid, know that they are squealing because
their "cut" of the laundered funds is in jeopardy and they have to answer to Soros for the
rest.
He's contributed a lot of money to the Dem Party to be so insulated from not only
prosecution but from criticism. If and when he gets criticized in a publication or article,
he screams "Anti-Semitism!" He's become good at making everything a win-win for himself.
Preaches socialism out of one side of his mouth to "virtue signal" to the world and then
loots the objects thereof out of the other side of his mouth for the benefit of his alleged
foundations. Why we can't prosecute him for interfering in our elections with his stolen
money is something hard to understand.
Ukraine is *** infested. I would like to know Soros ties to Igor Kolomoisky.
"Once in office, President Sirleaf opened the doors for Soros to take over major Liberian
gold and base metals assets along with his partner, Nathaniel Rothschild. One of her first
acts as President was to also invite the Pentagon's new Africa Command, AFRICOM, into Liberia
whose purpose as a Liberian investigation revealed, was to "protect George Soros and
Rothschild mining operations in West Africa rather than champion stability and human
rights ."
Wherever there are wealthy *** Zionist fascist oligarch sociopaths there is trouble...
"... Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the end of the Soviet System (with Western criminal thieving BILLIONAIRES who rushed in to plunder Russia (Yeltsin Years) ---- Russians now live longer than the degraded, and impoverished Americans with what the Junk Food Nation serves in the US of A. ..."
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Washington's Unmasked Imperialism Towards
Europe And Russia by Tyler Durden Sat, 12/28/2019 - 07:00 0
SHARES
Washington must think the rest of the world is as stupid as many of its own politicians are.
Its passing into law – signed by President Trump this week – of sanctions to halt
the Nord Stream-2 and Turk Stream gas supply projects is a naked imperialist move to bludgeon
the European energy market for its own economic advantage.
US sanctions are planned to hit European companies involved with Russia's Gazprom in the
construction of the 1,225-kilometer pipeline under the Baltic Sea which will deliver natural
gas from Russia to Germany and elsewhere across the European Union. The €9.5 billion
($11bn) project is 80 per cent complete and is due to be finished early next year.
It is quite clear – because US politicians have openly acknowledged it – that
Washington's aim is to oust Russia as the main natural gas exporter to the giant EU market, and
to replace with more expensive American-produced gas.
What's hilarious is the way American politicians, diplomats and news media are portraying
this US assault on market principles and the sovereignty of nations as an act of chivalry.
Washington claims that the sanctions are "pro-European" because they are "saving Europe from
dependency on Russia for its energy". The American hypocrisy crescendoes with the further claim
that by stopping Russia earning lucrative export revenues, then Moscow will be constrained from
"interfering" in European nations. As if Washington's own actions are not interference on a
massive scale.
European politicians and businesses are not buying this American claptrap. The vast
overstepping by Washington into European affairs has prompted EU governments to question the
nature of the trans-Atlantic relation. About time too. Thus, Washington's hubris and bullying
are undermining its objective of dominating Europe for its own selfish interests.
Russia, Germany and others have defiantly
told Washington its weaponizing of economic sanctions will not halt the Nord Stream nor the
Turk Stream projects.
As German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
said earlier this month, "it is unacceptable" for the US to brazenly interfere in European
and Russian energy trade. The American pretext of supposedly "protecting" the national security
of its purported European allies is frankly laughable.
The American agenda is a blatantly imperialistic reordering of the energy market to benefit
US economic interests. To pull off this audacious scam, Washington, by necessity, has to
demonize and isolate Russia, while also trampling roughshod over its European allies. Europe
has partly aided this American stitch-up of its own interests because it has foolishly indulged
in the US antagonism towards Russia with sanctions due to the Ukraine conflict, Crimea and
other anti-Russia smears.
The legislation being whistled through the American Congress by both Republicans and
Democrats (collectively dubbed the War Party) is recklessly fueling tensions between the US and
Russia. In trying to gain economic advantages over Europe's energy, Washington is wantonly
ramping up animus towards Moscow.
Apart from the sanctions against Russian and European companies partnering on Nord Stream,
the US Congress passed separate legislation which seeks to boost American oil and gas
production in the East Mediterranean.
A Radio Free Europe
report this week was headlined: 'Congress Passes More Legislation Aimed At Curbing Russia's
Energy Grip On Europe'.
The headline should more accurately have been worded: 'Congress Passes More Legislation
Aimed At Bolstering America's Energy Grip On Europe'.
The RFE report states: "The bipartisan Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership
Act, which was approved on December 19, is the latest piece of US legislation passed this year
that aims to diversify [sic] Europe's energy sources away from Kremlin-controlled
companies."
Again, the American double-think is jaw-dropping. Such is the arrogance of a flailing,
delusional empire when it can publicly justify with a straight face an energy-market-grab with
a veneer of virtue.
US oil and gas giants are moving into the East Mediterranean. Exxon Mobil
announced the discovery of a major natural gas field off Cyprus in February this year.
American firms are also
partnering with Israeli companies to begin gas production in the Leviathan Field located
off the coast at Haifa.
There is no doubt that the US sanctions targeting Nord Stream and Turk Stream are part of a
bigger concerted pincer movement by Washington to corner the EU energy market of 500 million
consumers (more than double the US population).
Colin Cavell, a US professor of political science, commented to Strategic Culture
Foundation: "What should be hammered down in this continuing debate over which country will be
able to deliver oil and natural gas to Europe is the fact that neither the United States nor,
and especially, the Republican Party, stand for so-called free trade."
Free-trade capitalism is supposed to be an ideological pillar of the US. In this ideology,
governments should not interfere with market supply and demand. But paradoxically as far as
US-imposed sanctions on Russian-European energy companies are concerned the American Congress
is "quintessentially anti-free market", notes Cavell.
In its shameless profiteering, Washington is acting aggressively towards Russia and Europe
while flouting its own supposed economic principles and relying on brute force to win its
arguments. America's imperialist agenda towards Europe and Russia is how world wars are
instigated.
"You will buy our more expensive, less efficient, non-market solution, you will pay for it
with King Dollars, and by gawd, YOU WILL LIKE IT, now shuddup, Vassals!" -- Uncle Scam and
the Reloonicans
I live in Denmark, a country Nord Stream 2 is going through. We are (used to be?) one of
the strongest allies to the US. But recent developments have alienated a lot of danes to the
US.
First Trump publicly announced he wanted to buy the isle of Greenland from Denmark.
Greenland is the largest isle in the world and of strategic importance. But you don't just
buy a part of another country, and this offer was firmly refused. As response to the refusal
Trump cancelled a previously planned official visit to Denmark. This was seen by most danes
as an insult.
Denmark was the last country holding out on permissions needed to build Nord Stream 2, but
after this incident we allowed the project to go forward. I believe the Greenland incident
caused the change making Denmark approve Nord Stream 2.
After this we have had other incidents. One is on the Faroe Islands (a part of Denmark),
where both US and Chinese ambassadors interfered in our internal affairs trying to influence
if Huawei could be used for 5G in this self-governing part of our country. Another is a
follow-up to the Greenland incident mentioned, where the US now wants to open a diplomatic
mission on the island, probably in an attempt to influence the local government to accept
that the US buys the island.
During the last year I have seen sentiment among my fellow citizens going from "the US is
great, let us support and follow them" to "we have to be careful of these guys, they
interfere in our internal affairs and try to break up our country".
I believe the US government is underestimating how much they are alienating the Europeans
with this line of foreing policy.
Its a guess but I think there are other hidden issues here nobody wants to talk about. Of
course, Trump idea of buying the island was stupid but I believe it arouse out of
frustration. You see, US wants to build huge military base there. Danes won't permit that.
The reason US wants to do it is because sea between Iceland and England/Norway is a
chokepoint aimed against Russian subs. This is the only place where they can be reasonably
stopped. It is nothing new, the same thing happened during WWII war at so called "war of
Atlantic" where the most of the fighting happened between German U-boats and alliance
marines.
You most certainly can buy land from other countries. Thomas Jefferson purchased the
entire center of N. America from the French and for pennies. We also purchased Alaska from
the Russians for next to nothing as well. Both land masses are much larger than all of
Europe.
You guys don't need Greenland so give it to us for pennies.
Russia has the largest proven reserves of easily recoverable oil and natural gas on Earth.
The US has about a decade to choke Russia to death. Economic sanctions, regime change, cyber
attacks...whatever it takes. If the US doesn't utterly break Russia soon, Russia will become
the next, (and last) empire on Earth. NeoConThink.
"The US has about a decade to choke Russia to death. "
Actually you are absolutely wrong on this. It is the other way around. Russia has to get
out of US chokefold NOW or it will likely disintegrate.
Why? In short, economy, geogaphy and even more importantly demographics.
Today there are about 110 million native Russians there. Next to them are about 40 million
muslims living there. Muslims have about twice as big reproduction rate as Russians do. It is
estimated that in 30 years if current trends stand it will be 50/50. Worse, in ten years
there will be only about 90 million Russians living there.
There are other issues as well. About 25 percent of Russian men die before the age of 55.
The reason? Alcoholism and drug abuse. Have you ever heard about cheap Rusian drug called
Krokodil?
It kills you slowly first then fast. Your body just ROTS AWAY and falls off. Literally!
Like you have bare bones instead of feet. No kidding. Just check on you tube.
Another problem is soldier materiel. It is estimated that only about 30 percent of males
between the age of 18-25 are healthy enough to join military. As of today it is barely
sufficient to fill the ranks. In 10 years Russian military will have to shrink by 20 percent.
From that perspective it is do or die for Russia right now. This is most likely the peak of
their military power, then it will slowly deteriorate. Putin knows that, hence he lashes out
at its neighbours, most notably Poland. Economy shrinks, military is on vane, hence he needs
an enemy to rally his people around. Or else!
Then there is China. Make your best bet what they will do in the far east when Russia lies
prostate.Remember, Russia took over a lot of Chinese territory in late XIX century there.
Yep, the area around Vladivostok and other nearby territories, the size close to that of
today's France..There are millions of Chinese already living there.In the Asian south Chinese already took controll of the former
Russian stans. They rule there, not Putin. You didn't know that?
"There are other issues as well. About 25 percent of Russian men die before the age of 55.
The reason? Alcoholism and drug abuse. Have you ever heard about cheap Rusian drug called
Krokodil?
It kills you slowly first then fast. Your body just ROTS AWAY and falls off. Literally!
Like you have bare bones instead of feet. No kidding. Just check on you tube."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the end of the Soviet System (with Western criminal
thieving BILLIONAIRES who rushed in to plunder Russia (Yeltsin Years) ---- Russians now live
longer than the degraded, and impoverished Americans with what the Junk Food Nation serves in
the US of A.
" Washington must think the rest of the world is as stupid as many of its own
politicians are"
No, washington thinks no such thing. It doesnt really understand how stupid its own
politicians are. Nor DOES IT CARE!.
Did anyone watch the impeachment proceedings? Now, THAT was stupid, stupid for the
whole world to watch. And then there is the chocoate cake diplomacy of Trump, the elegance
and sophistication of Pompeo, Bolton, and the digniity of Nikki Haley. Putting Raytheon to
run our Pentagon is a magical touch.
Comment from a friend of mine concerning the statement below. He has excellent security
credentials:
"Our President has made the world far more dangerous by withdrawing from treaties without
attempting to negotiate new ones. No country is well served by this. The situation is very
destabilizing."
The Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Sergey Shoigu:
- I hope that a full-scale war is not a question today. And all the risks and consequences
that such a full-scale war entails are obvious to everyone.
Regarding the third world war, there are a very large number of different statements. The
most accurate and adequate of them seems to me: "I do not know exactly what the third world
war will be. But I know for sure that she will be the last. "
However, if we talk about the number of threats to our country, then they do not become
less. The United States has already withdrawn from two important nuclear arms control
treaties. So far, the START-3 treaty remains, which is also under discussion in the USA: to
renew it or not to renew it?
As a result of this approach, the world is becoming more unpredictable and less secure. At
the current level of informatization and automation, there is a high probability of errors in
the weapons control system.
That is why recently issues of ensuring information security have come to the fore. When
you are aware of your vulnerability and are interested in maintaining balance and universal
equal security, it makes you turn on your head.
And when you think how the United States continues to believe by inertia that a balance of
power has developed in your favor, a variety of ideas may come to your head, including not
the most reasonable ones. It is in this situation that I see the main threat now, and not
only for Russia, "the minister replied.
It's good cop/bad cop nonsense. Europe is occupied territory, and American huffing and
puffing at Russia is just meant to get Europe "better deals" for their projects with Russia.
The only ones who don't get it are spooks and Neo-Libs/Cons
What is not expected is rational discussion on what I have described here. But since facts
contrary to my expose here are missing I doubt it will happen.
" But remember also that todays Russia is ruled by a Tsar named Putin"
Im amazed at how long this silly meme can be maintained.
Putin is NOT and autocrat, he has to struggle with a delicate balance. between the Atlantic integrationists and Eurasiaon soveriigntists. The oligarchy installed by the US is still strong in Russian. They have not won their
soveriignty yet.
"... Time and time again Washington has tightened Russian sanctions in an effort to crush the Russian economy. When virtually every legal outlet had been sanctioned, Washington has turned to sanctioning third parties that cooperate with Russia. ..."
"... North American investors, led fully by Wall Street, account for over half of the foreign capital flowing into Russian stocks, according to the Moscow Exchange. By comparison, Russia's next door neighbors in Europe account for only 26%. ..."
"... Speaking on German TV, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said the sanctions were an infringement of sovereignty... The US sanctions have also angered Russia and the European Union, which says it should be able to decide its own energy policies. ..."
"... "As a matter of principle, the EU opposes the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business," a spokesman for the trading bloc told AFP news agency on Saturday. ..."
"... According to German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, the American sanctions amount to "interference in autonomous decisions taken in Europe." ..."
"... Iran, Malaysia, Turkey and Qatar are considering trading among themselves in gold and through a barter system as a hedge against any future economic sanctions on them, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Saturday. ..."
"... They have their own undersea pipe-laying equipment and experience. These sanctions will only delay the completion date for a few more months. Russia under Putin is very patient, resolute and not prone to rash decisions. They play the long game and will win out in the end. ..."
"... The Great Gas Game: Vesti Presents a New Documentary Film About Pipelines and Power youtube.com ..."
"... Nord Stream 2 is financed by leading energy companies from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Austria, ENGIE, OMV, Shell, Uniper and Wintershall Dea. A multi-billion Euro investment in European industry and services, the project involves more than 200 companies from 17 countries worldwide. ..."
"... Well, congratulations Congress and Trump. This will drive a wedge between the US and Europe. Can you just imagine how those investing in NS2 feel about the US. The US is saying in effect - lose all of your investment because we have determined that the project is against our geopolitical/economic interests. And to make matters worse the pipeline will be completed, probably only 2 months behind schedule. So the financial backers will get hit, but will eventually see returns due to Russian efforts. Russia could have built the entire pipeline themselves, but preferred to have European partners. ..."
"... to Europe at the start of the 1980's, the US had just gone through the Oil Shock of 1978–79 . The US has not been a net exporter of oil for well over 75 years. It is only this year that this has changed through the extensive use of fracking. ..."
own goalnoun: (in soccer) a goal scored inadvertently when the ball is struck into the goal by a player on the defensive team.
Time and time again Washington has tightened Russian sanctions in an effort to crush the Russian economy. When virtually every
legal outlet had been sanctioned, Washington has turned to sanctioning third parties that cooperate with Russia.
So what is the
net effect of all of these sanctions?
The Russian stock market has reached record highs this year but still has room to climb further in coming months before paring
gains towards the end of 2020, a Reuters poll of market experts found... The rouble-based MOEX index has reached an all-time high of 3,009.1 in November, taking its year-to-date gain to over 25%, and
is seen finishing this year at 3,000.
That's not exactly what Washington had in mind.
However the real kicker is
this .
North American investors, led fully by Wall Street, account for over half of the foreign capital flowing into Russian stocks,
according to the Moscow Exchange. By comparison, Russia's next door neighbors in Europe account for only 26%.
So what is happening is that Washington is punishing Europe for cooperating with Russia, while turning a blind eye to when their
Wall Street donors cooperate with Russia.
As you may have guessed, this has created some hard feelings
.
Speaking on German TV, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said the sanctions were an infringement of sovereignty...
The US sanctions have also angered Russia and the European Union, which says it should be able to decide its own energy policies.
"As a matter of principle, the EU opposes the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business,"
a spokesman for the trading bloc told AFP news agency on Saturday.
Imagine that: countries making their own policy decisions that don't align with Washington's interests? What's the world coming
to?
Allseas, a Dutch-Swiss private company, is going to be significantly harmed by the newest sanctions, and it will delay the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline (but it will only delay it).
However, there is a
bright side
to all of this.
While it costs Moscow hundreds of millions in lost income and additional investments, the country is benefitting on a geostrategic
and political level.
For a mere $9.5 billion, NS2's price tag, Moscow has unintentionally managed to drive another wedge between key Western allies.
Berlin is furious about the sanctions and its already fraught relations with Washington are set to escalate even further. According
to German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, the American sanctions amount to "interference in autonomous decisions taken in Europe."
What is certain is that NS2 will be completed eventually. Most of the work on the 1,230 kilometer or 765 mile long pipeline has
already been finished. Also, the vast majority of the $9.5 billion in investments have already been spent.
Much like our GWOT, we've reached a point in sanctions where staying the course just makes things worse.
It isn't just Russia. The Muslim world is looking for an
alternative trading system to avoid sanctions that Washington hasn't even threatened yet.
Iran, Malaysia, Turkey and Qatar are considering trading among themselves in gold and through a barter system as a hedge against
any future economic sanctions on them, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Saturday.
..."I have suggested that we re-visit the idea of trading using the gold dinar and barter trade among us," Mahathir said, referring
to the Islamic medieval gold coin.
"We are seriously looking into this and we hope that we will be able to find a mechanism to put it into effect." The leaders agreed they needed do more business among themselves and trade in each other's currencies.
You know that you are using sanctions too much when other nations expect to be sanctioned by you before you even consider doing
it. As for the gold dinar, this is what was proposed by Libya's former leader Gaddafi, and also what got him eventually
killed .
The most recent batch of Clinton emails reveals perhaps the most bizarre morsel of Blumenthal-baked intelligence to date. An April
2, 2011 memo titled "France's client/Q's gold" quotes "knowledgeable individuals" with insider information about French President
Nicolas Sarkozy's motivation for bombing Libya. The military campaign, the anonymous sources say, was designed to quash plans
by Gaddafi to use $7 billion in secret gold and silver to prop up a new African currency. The French worried the move would undercut
the currency guaranteed by the French treasury, known as CFA franc, that's widely used in West Africa and acts as a strong link
between France and many of its former African colonies. After French intelligence officials got wind of this secret plan, the
Blumenthal memo reports, Sarkozy freaked out: "This was one of the factors that influenced [his] decision to commit France to
the attack on Libya."
Kruschev Many remember the quote "We will bury you". I think he was quoting someone else. Lenin?
But they forget the second sentence. "And the capitalists will sell us the shovel."
Greed is indeed a sickness, a mental illness. Not ordinary greed, but Scrooge McDuck greed. The need to have more more more,
when it cannot possibly make any difference in your life.
Not like the guys I worked with that volunteered for every Holiday, every overtime opportunity. The money did make a difference
there, although one can question whether it is worth it. But pursuing an extra billion when you already have tens of billions?
How much is enough? How high is up.
EDIT:
I'm reminded of the old sitcom "Mama's Family". Dim bulb son, Vinton, hears of a new larger lottery jackpot and says, "Wow! Imagine
how many lottery tickets you could buy with that much money!"
EDIT2:
Like an alcoholic that just drinks more and more until he passes out.
@entrepreneur
that capitalism selects for people with this mental illness. A person with a healthy view of life will never be selected as fortune
500 CEO.
excessive are the mountains of paper they accumulate are still stimulated by acquiring more. #1
And whether it be newspapers solidly packing every room in their homes to a depth of 6 feet, leaving barely a 12" crawl space
between the top of the stacks and the ceiling, or be it a pile of money, more than they and their extended family and descendants
can spend in 100 years, it is hoarding, a mental illness.
They have their own undersea pipe-laying equipment and experience. These sanctions will only delay the completion date for
a few more months. Russia under Putin is very patient, resolute and not prone to rash decisions. They play the long game and will
win out in the end.
Nord Stream 2 is financed by leading energy companies from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Austria,
ENGIE, OMV, Shell, Uniper and Wintershall Dea. A multi-billion Euro investment in European industry and services, the project
involves more than 200 companies from 17 countries worldwide.
Well, congratulations Congress and Trump. This will drive a wedge between the US and Europe. Can you just imagine how those
investing in NS2 feel about the US. The US is saying in effect - lose all of your investment because we have determined that the
project is against our geopolitical/economic interests. And to make matters worse the pipeline will be completed, probably only
2 months behind schedule. So the financial backers will get hit, but will eventually see returns due to Russian efforts. Russia
could have built the entire pipeline themselves, but preferred to have European partners.
At the end of WWII most of Europe used coal for energy. The US had a goal to convert Europe to oil, since the US was the major
world exporter of oil. One of the stated reasons was to make Europe dependent on US oil and give the US political leverage over
European countries. So this whole thing is about the US projecting their geopolitical dominance schemes to Russia. As it has turned
out, for more than 70 years Russia and previously the USSR has never done that as a policy. The reason being that once you do
that you lose trust as a trade partner. But this is even worse as the US is interfering in trading among European partners that
has nothing to do directly with the US.
to Europe at the start of the 1980's, the US had just gone through the
Oil Shock of 1978–79 . The US
has not been a net exporter of oil for well over 75 years. It is only this year that this has changed through the extensive use
of fracking.
The oil shortage of the 1970's brought about the end of power generation using oil. The US, a major exporter of coal, was pushing
the use of American coal for energy security in Europe
since WWII.
Trump Makes American Coal Great Again -- Overseas
U.S. coal exports have exploded. Can that continue?
April 4, 2018
...
The export boom is the one part of Trump's pledge to help the coal sector that is coming true.
Production ticked up a bit last year after a disastrous 2016 but is still at the lowest level since 1978. And despite plenty
of promises to bring back jobs to coal country, coal mining employment only grew by some 1,100 jobs last year; mining employment
is down about 40 percent since 2012. Meanwhile, closures of coal-fired power plants continue apace, with more than two dozen
plants shutting down early last year alone, which means less domestic demand for coal.
...
And the Trump administration's other policies don't look like they'll end up helping coal much either. The push to increase
exports of natural gas to Europe, Asia, and Latin America undermines the overseas market for U.S. coal, since both can be used
to generate electricity. And as U.S. coal is shipped abroad, its price at home tends to rise slightly -- making coal even less
attractive as a power source there.
"Unfortunately, most of the policies the Trump administration is pursuing inside and outside of energy do not help domestic
coal production," Book says.
If the British were the ones to organise an independence referendum in Crimea, they would
probably push as many people as possible into postal voting and reduce the number of polling
stations as part of this strategy.
It's official: "Freedom gas" is the Worst Phrase of the Year, according to the Plain
English Foundation. But where does the expression come from? EURACTIV did not have to look
far to get the answer
So where does the whole story come from?
On 1 May, EURACTIV's energy and climate reporter Frédéric Simon attended
a briefing with US energy secretary Rick Perry in Brussels. He recalls the events
below.
The four journalists in the room had spent about an hour asking Perry a basic question:
why would Europeans choose to pay for expensive LNG imported from the US when they have
access to cheap Russian gas?
"But my surprise soon turned to dismay when Perry suddenly took a grave face and
started talking about the Normandy landings during WWII for which commemorations were planned
days after."
Here's what Perry went on to say: Seventy-five years after liberating Europe from Nazi
Germany occupation, "the United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European
continent," the US energy secretary told reporters that day.
"And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it's in the form of liquefied
natural gas," he added. "So yes, I think you may be correct in your observation," he said in
reference to Fred's suggestion about 'Freedom gas' .
####
Quite instructive about the mindset (f/king nuts) they are over in the States. They really
do live in their own universe where no-one picks up their dogs' (and their own) crap. They
neither notice the smell nor link to the slipperyness underfoot to their own actions. They
don't care either.
They like to talk about the European "blood-debt" to the USA.
I don't know what they think a large number of unfortunate young men were doing on Gold,
Juno and Sword beaches in June, 1944, or indeed that there were such beaches. Even moreso,
they are apparently unaware of the over 22 million Soviet citizens who died 1941-1945 during
what is known as "The Great Patriotic War for the Fatherland, 1941-1945"..
Analysts have identified a way to increase the export of Gazprom to bypass the Ukraine The
Eugal pipeline built to deliver gas from "Nord Stream-2 " to end users, will be operating
in 2020, despite US sanctions. "Gazprom" will redirect gas to this pipeline from "Northern
stream-1", experts say
The capacity of the Eugal onshore gas pipeline, built specifically for delivering gas from
the Nord Stream-2 offshore gas pipeline to end users, may allow Gazprom to increase supplies to
Europe bypassing the Ukraine, despite the fact that the United States has imposed sanctions
against laying the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline. , said experts interviewed by RBC.
The Gascade Gastransport operator,
controlled by Gazprom and the German Wintershall Dea , will commission the first of two Eugal
pipelines with a capacity of 30.9 billion cubic metres per year from January 1, 2020 (total
pipe capacity should be 55 billion cubic metres), which will go from German Greifswald on the
Baltic Sea to the south to the border with the Czech Republic, the Eugal press service said on
December 20. And the next day it became known that the European pipe-laying company Allseas had
suspended the construction of Nord Stream-2 (which should pump 55 billion cubic meters per
year) in the Baltic Sea.
Eugal will lay another 36 billion cubic metre capacity OPAL landline, built to pump gas from the first
Baltic gas pipeline of Gazprom and partners, Nord Stream-1, which achieved at full capacity 55
billion cubic metres per year back in October 2012. Since 2013, Gazprom could only use 50% of
OPAL capacity because of restrictions, and in 2016, the company received permission to connect
to 90% of the pipeline capacity. However, in September 2019, Gazprom was forced to reduce gas
pumping through OPAL, and then through Nord Stream-1, because of a decision of the European
Court of Justice, which, in lawsuit filed by Poland, limited supply by almost half – from
90 to 50% of capacity , or up to 18 billion cubic metres per year.
"The launch of Eugal will ensure a full load of Nord Stream-1. About 20 billion cubic
metres of gas per year can be delivered via a new land gas pipeline, which volume was lost
because of restrictions imposed as a result of Poland's victory in court", said Mikhail
Korchemkin, director of East European Gas Analysis, to RBC. The remaining 17–20 billion
cubic metre Gazprom can pump through a second branch from the offshore gas pipeline
NEL , which runs only through
Germany to the west of Greifswald, so Poland could not achieve restrictions on its
capacity.
At the peak of capacity, OPAL pumped up to 103 million cubic metres of gas per day owing to
a decision of the European Court to decrease transit to 50 million cubic metre. Last week, it
fell to 12 million cubic metres per day. This is due to an increase of 115 million cubic metres
per day in supplies to the NEL gas pipeline, as well as an increase in transit to Europe
through the territory of the Ukraine, Korchemkin points out.
"Now most of the gas from Nord Stream-1, which continues to operate at its design capacity,
is sent to the markets of northwestern Europe through NEL, that is, the limitation of the use
of OPAL by the decision of the European Court has practically had no affect on the load of Nord
Stream", added Deputy General Director of the National Energy Policy Fund, Alexey Grivach.
According to him, after the introduction of Eugal, part of the gas can go to Central Europe
through a new onshore gas pipeline, depending on the current market needs and the optimization
of Gazprom's export portfolio.
Despite the impending U.S. sanctions, the possibility of using Eugal to pump Gazprom's gas
was recognized in November by Arno Bux, chief commercial officer of gas transmission operator
Fluxys, which is a minority shareholder in Gascade. According to him, since 2020, from 80 to
90% of the Eugal capacity has already been booked for 20 years at auctions. "Since the
transportation facilities are reserved on a ship-or-pay basis (" transport or pay "), the
potential delays of the Nord Stream-2 project do not affect Eugal's revenues", he told
Interfax, noting that the flows from the gas pipeline Nord Stream 1 can be routed through
Eugal.
"We cannot predict the volumes that will be transported through Eugal, because it
depends on requests from transport customers", Gascade spokesman Georg Wustner told RBC on
December 23, declining to specify whether gas supplies from Nord Stream-1 will begin on
January 1 through a new onshore pipeline. A representative of Gazprom Export declined to
comment; the press service of Nord Stream AG (operator of the Nord Stream-1 project) did not
respond to a request from RBC.
Lavrov on the 22nd appeared on what looks to be an interesting program on Russia's Channel
One--
"The Great Game Show" with a transcript at the link. Most of the questions deal with
Lavrov's recent trip to the Outlaw US Empire and his meetings with Trump and Pompeo. I found
Lavrov's remarks about Congress most revealing as they're very similar to what he says about
the tiny Russophobic nations other NATO nations seem to feel they can't break with the
overall consensus despite its being idiotic. His response is related to the illegal sanctions
laid against the construction of Nord Stream 2:
"They are threatening it. I said it will be built, no matter what, despite all these
threats. First, I am convinced that the Europeans understand their commercial interest.
Second, this implies an interest in the context of maintaining long-term energy security.
Third, they were, of course, humiliated. The statements were, nevertheless, made, including
those from Berlin which shows that our European partners still retain a sense of dignity.
"I am confident that, just like the TurkStream project, Nord Stream 2 will be implemented,
and TurkStream will start operating some two or three weeks from now.
"US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo want to expand trade, but
the US Congress continues to bombard our relations with sanctions. A situation that has now
shaped up in the United States shows that, in their striving to revise election results and
the will of the American people, these Congressmen are ready to do anything, including
absolutely reckless things that, I would say, are not worthy of serious politicians."
As you read the transcript, you'll realize that this is a very serious program where the
truth of the overall situation is being revealed and remarked upon in a manner that would be
unimaginable here within the Outlaw US Empire, and I presume the program is viewed by a
majority of Russians. It should certainly be read in relation to what Putin said at
his presser on
the topics covered and at the Informal CIS Summit .
Many are busy with their plans for the holidays, and the combined transcripts will take
4-6 hours to read, so perhaps bookmark them to read before New Year when more time's
available.
"... It would have been simpler and much cheaper to supply the gas through land pipelines via Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland. But the undersea pipelines had to be built because the Levantine dual nationals parachuted in by the State Department to rule over Ukraine and the Baltics on Washington's behalf have shown themselves to be totally unreliable economic partners. Ukraine refused to pay for gas that was supplied and stole gas intended for European countries. The rabid Levantines in the Baltics and Poland were equally hostile. They could have made billions in transit fees, but they always insisted on cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Bulgaria blocked South Stream on Washington's instructions and lost a reliable source of cheap gas and $400 million a year in transit fees. A lot of money and a lot of jobs for a poor country. US satellites pay a high price to kowtow to Uncle Sam. Russia developed its own port facilities in the Baltic and Riga is now a ghost town. ..."
"... Its surprising how history repeats itself. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon achieved dominance over continental Europe. Only Britain stood against him. Napoleon tried to bring Britain to heel through economic warfare, the Continental System, ordering European countries not to trade with his sole remaining enemy. His orders were ignored all the way from Spain to Russia, and this lucrative trade continued. The invasion of Russia and the debacle at Moscow were an attempt to enforce the Continental System. In a similar fashion, Washington's hubris and unbridled arrogance are now alienating even its most abject, cringing, servile satraps like Macron, Merkel, and Erdogan. With the same result. ..."
"... Uncle Sam sees Nord-2 as an energy superpower challenge to energy supremacy which equates to American supremacy & hegemonic supremacy writ large across the world. If the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation make inroads by unilaterally making massive energy deals with the entire EU we will see American interests clamoring for market inroads & market share so that the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation don't make a dime. ..."
"... Uncle Sam is in actuality a waning ex-superpower thug that is yesterday's man but can't stand being taken out of the limelight being the narcissist nation it is. ..."
"... Zackarova is bang on in that the USA is wholly incompetent to govern their own business interests let alone other sovereign interests. Nord-2 is necessary infrastructure that the USA wants to thwart for their own monetary benefit. ..."
"... Stepping aside from the geopolitics for a moment. In terms of economics the US is attempting to push Russia out of natural gas markets. ..."
"... Greenpeace is yet another "NGO" that is heavily influenced by the National Endowment for Democracy a CIA front that supports US Imperialism. ..."
"... One wonders if the invertebrates of the EU will ever tire of being bullied by the Global Bullying Thug in Chief? The clerico-fascists of priest-ridden Poland one can understand, and the phony 'greens' of Greenpeace the sell-out specialists, but the others are just like mongrel dogs-the more you kick them, the more they lick your boots. ..."
What would Dr Kampmark consider to be an ecologically cleaner alternative to Nordstream I and 2? The US proposal to supply LNG
via an endless conga line of tankers across the North Atlantic would be an ecological nightmare, to say nothing of the specialised
port facilities that need to be built to accommodate the tankers, the extra pipelines needed to pipe the gas to areas of Europe
away from the Atlantic and the potential for accidents and disasters during annual hurricane season. Europe needs the best energy
supply solution possible from a sustainability POV and other POVs and while Nordstream I and 2 may not be perfect, other solutions
are either worse, more expensive or less certain and stable in the long term.
Shale gas is also poop. Only someone totally corrupt or totally insane would buy such junk from the USA.
The collapse of an empire brings up such interesting stuff.
I am of course a Russian troll for stating the obvious, so a merry Christmas from the Kremlin.
Let nuclear bombers fly, baby. Who wants another Christmas. The majority of the present American government (including Trump) are evangelical Christians who believe in
the Rapture . You wouldn't put such people in charge of a
car park, let alone put them in charge of the biggest nuclear weapons arsenal on the planet.
I find this a bit of a strange piece, for reasons that many others have pointed out here in the comments.
With regard to the environmental angle, I should perhaps point out that by far the biggest polluter on the planet is the US
military.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The US Military pollutes everything under the sun far past Internet & the over 900 worldwide bases it occupies. Heck, the US MIC
pollutes all sports venues with their propagandistic parades of adherence to state & flag military shows.
In the USA they make you stand in honour of the military at sports events.
I'm glad I don't go down to the USA for the USA Grand National Drag Racing events just because of the MIC pollution at events.
Their propaganda pollution is all over the Internet and that is toxic waste that we all have to sift through on our way to real
news aside from institutional American killing of the third world.
GI-Joe turned out to be anything but a good hippie in my book.
MOU
ttshasta ,
The article mentions Rex Tillerson, yet fails to mention Qatar. Exxon Mobil & Exxon Mobil Qatar, that Tillerson worked for, want
to run an LP pipeline from the Norths Pars gas field, the worlds largest, and Qatar owns 2/3 of,through Saudi Arabia, through
Jordan, Syria, through Alleppo then through Turkey on to Europe. Thus Qatar, S.A. and Turkey have sponsored the foreign invasion
of Syria that the the dolts at NPR to this day call a civil war. The US's Al Udeid air base in Qatar is the largest in the region,
Cheney has been to Qatar many times as have Barack and Michele Obama, John Ashcroft was paid $2.5 million to defend Qatar from
post 911 terrorism charges.
Does it seem the article misses the elephant in the room? US Qatari investments must profit?
Never forget the Clintons, Qatar donates to Clinton Foundation, State Dpt. sells weapons to Qatar (diverted to Syria?), candidate
Clinton to declare no fly zone over Syria as POTUS.
In 2016 Thierry Messan's Voltairenet dot org translated an article from Petra the official Jordanian press paper that S.A. financed
20% of Clinton's campaign, which is illegal under US law. Subsequently, and conveniently, Saudi Prince M.B.S. declared Petra had
been hacked and the report was false. I rely on Thierry's translations, and his voluminous site.
Excellent comment. As always, one should follow the money trail.
paul ,
I've never understood the argument that buying Russian gas is a threat to the security of European countries. Russia doesn't supply
the gas out of altruism, it does so because it wants their money. They are dependent on Russian gas. Russia is dependent on their
money. Mutual dependence, mutual gain.
During the Cold War, Russia always supplied every last gallon of oil and every cubic foot of gas that contracts obliged it
to deliver. It did so, again because it wanted their money. Simple as that.
It would have been simpler and much cheaper to supply the gas through land pipelines via Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland. But
the undersea pipelines had to be built because the Levantine dual nationals parachuted in by the State Department to rule over
Ukraine and the Baltics on Washington's behalf have shown themselves to be totally unreliable economic partners. Ukraine refused
to pay for gas that was supplied and stole gas intended for European countries. The rabid Levantines in the Baltics and Poland
were equally hostile. They could have made billions in transit fees, but they always insisted on cutting off their noses to spite
their faces. Bulgaria blocked South Stream on Washington's instructions and lost a reliable source of cheap gas and $400 million
a year in transit fees. A lot of money and a lot of jobs for a poor country. US satellites pay a high price to kowtow to Uncle
Sam. Russia developed its own port facilities in the Baltic and Riga is now a ghost town.
Uncle Sam is now waging economic warfare and imposing sanctions on its previously most loyal and obedient satellites, Canada,
Mexico, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Turkey.
Its surprising how history repeats itself. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon achieved dominance over
continental Europe. Only Britain stood against him. Napoleon tried to bring Britain to heel through economic warfare, the Continental
System, ordering European countries not to trade with his sole remaining enemy. His orders were ignored all the way from Spain
to Russia, and this lucrative trade continued. The invasion of Russia and the debacle at Moscow were an attempt to enforce the
Continental System. In a similar fashion, Washington's hubris and unbridled arrogance are now alienating even its most abject,
cringing, servile satraps like Macron, Merkel, and Erdogan. With the same result.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Uncle Sam sees Nord-2 as an energy superpower challenge to energy supremacy which equates to American supremacy & hegemonic supremacy
writ large across the world. If the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation make inroads by unilaterally making massive
energy deals with the entire EU we will see American interests clamoring for market inroads & market share so that the pinko commie
bastards in the Russian Federation don't make a dime.
Uncle Sam is in actuality a waning ex-superpower thug that is yesterday's man but can't stand being taken out of the limelight
being the narcissist nation it is.
Can you imagine being dependent on the usa for anything never mind fracked gas at twice the price.no doubt brave new worlder boris
will go for it.gb inc looks over and done with.
Guy ,
"Can you imagine being dependent on the usa for anything"
Yes I can .I live in Canada and they basically own our country, for all intent and purposes .
They did not conquer us militarily but they so corporately.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Zackarova is bang on in that the USA is wholly incompetent to govern their own business interests let alone other sovereign interests.
Nord-2 is necessary infrastructure that the USA wants to thwart for their own monetary benefit.
The USA is anachronism, insolvent, and lacks common sense as well as entrepreneurial spirit & business acumen.
MOU
padre ,
How very concerned about environment we are, when somebody else is "destroying" it!
paul ,
The US certainly showed how concerned it was about the environment with the North Dakota pipeline.
Francis Lee ,
Stepping aside from the geopolitics for a moment. In terms of economics the US is attempting to push Russia out of natural gas
markets. If a company did this it would be attempting to construct a monopoly and be subject to anti-competitive laws. If the
US becomes the sole supplier in Europe then it has a stranglehold, both economic and political, on Europe. That's the strategy,
and it seems blatantly obvious.
But the construction being put on this sordid little play by the Anglo-American MSM is that the
US frackers – who never make a profit – are doing Europe a really big favour by enabling them not to become dependent on Russian
gas. The Europeans should there for be grateful for US LNG since it will enable to diversify away from Russian gas.
The reality is, however, that once you become dependent on a single overseas crucial energy source you have been unceremoniously
grabbed by the short and curlies.
Antonym ,
Simply connect more European harbors to the existing gas pipeline network and choose the LNG supplier you want.
Not rocket science but Dutch PM Rutte was sold on abolishing natural gas because of CO2, while trees from North America for burning
in power plants was fine.
Neighbour PM Merkel Germany wants gas but not nuclear (a scientist!). France wants nuclear but rely on a new unproven expensive
design.
Political inmates are running the EU madhouse.
John Deehan ,
In this article, it misses the whole point of why the USA wants to impose sanctions, rather late in the day, on companies involved
in its construction. Namely, the continued attempts by it to isolate The Russian Federation and its its long term strategy of
preparations for war. Moreover, the omission of the reasons why Russia built the gas pipeline could not be more striking. The
coup in the Ukraine made the transit of Russian gas to western Europe via its territory open to pressure from the USA. Hence why
the Russians built the pipeline in the first place. It's the same reasons why the USA is attempting to prevent other Russian gas/oil
pipelines in other parts of the world.
Francis Lee ,
If anything illustrates the reality of the EU-NATO 'alliance' it is this. The US to Germany – and by extension the rest of the
EU – 'You will take expensive US LNG gas and like it' Me Tarzan you Jane. This brazen realpolitik illustrates the true nature
of the vassalised EU. And of course Poland, Romania – please station your inter-mediate range missiles here – and the Baltic uber-Petainist
elites come chiming in 'America the Beautiful.' More than anything this explodes the idea of the EU as a third geopolitical bloc.
It is an occupied region always has been and is composed of countries which can't actually defend their own interests whilst privileging
the US.
Gutless and spineless!
George Cornell ,
Indeed. And as reluctant as I am to entertain it, the Brutish ( spellcheck wants it to be British, no irony there) US is forcing
any vertebrate in the EU to crave armed forces.
Why poor EU countries buy the bollocks that is the relentless pressure or requirement from NATO to buy American and Israeli arms
is beyond me. They should be much more frightened of the Americans than the imaginary bogeymen to the East.
You mean like the Azov Battalion, Right Sector and C-14?
Those bogeymen Tim? Some of whom are now in Hong Kong helping Joseph Wong and his mates fight for 'freedom and democracy' with
some help from people in, er, Langley Virginia. Oh, and Nancy Pelosi.
Well, I support the right of all peoples to self-determination as a universal right and oppose imperialism/neo-imperialism regardless
of who does it, so your false dichotomy does not apply to me.
I thought you were referring to the neo nazi thugs in Ukraine that sprung up like weeds after rain following the overthrow of
Yanukovych by you know who. No, it wasn't Putin. And no, I'm not a fan either.
All bullshit pushed by Mr Hopey Changey that has put the world in grave peril.
In fact the changes of nuclear war are greater than any time in history.
And what happened when the Berlin Wall came down Tim?
Bush solemnly promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch eastward.
And where are NATO now?
paul ,
Then no doubt you support the right of the Crimea and Donbas to self determination from the CIA installed Fascist Coup Regime.
George Cornell ,
Oh for Chrissake! And where were you about Gitmo? And Iraq, and Yemen, and Syria, and Libya? And the lithium in Afghanistan makes
it morally justified? Put the photo of Kissinger on a bearskin rug in your drawer and tell me about how the 95% of Crimeans who
wanted to be part of Russia invalidates what happened there.
Come back to me about the sandbars in the South China Sea. Now there's a place to increase your debt.!
lundiel ,
Russia isn't occupying any of Ukraine. There are Russian volunteers and Russia is giving them some weapons and no doubt finance
but the Russian army isn't at war with Ukraine.
Jay ,
If they were, the war would have been on Kiev's doorstep.
Francis Lee ,
The only people 'taking' seven percent of the Ukraine are those who already live in the Donbass and Crimea are the Russian-speaking
inhabitants who have lived there for generations and who are defending their homeland against the Ukie Army and its Waffen SS
look-alikes in the Azov Battalion and various other neo-nazi outfits like Praviy Sektor, and the Tornado Battalion and Dnipro1
and other charming little outfits such as 'Patriots of the Ukraine' – backed by right-wing fanatics in the Ukrainian Rada namely
Biletsky and Parubiy.
These people are the direct descendants of the scum of the murderous Banderist pro-Nazis who were responsible for mass extermination
of Russians, Jew, and above all, Poles in Volhynia in the far west of the Ukraine between 1943-45. The Ukrainian Insurgent army
(UPA – led by Shukeviych) was the military wing of Bandera's OUN-B (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). Unfortunately for
for Mr B, he had an unfortunate rendezvous with a KGB hit-man in Munich in 1955. RIP.
Long live the heroic resistance of the Peoples Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Frank Speaker ,
Exactly Francis.
Some of my family were massacred by these bastard who were their neighbours: a woman cut upon at the front, a woman with a
wooden stake driven through her head, two children thrown down a well. That NATO aided and abetted these same evil scum to overthrow a democratically elected government and re-start their murderous
ways – this time around upon the ethnic Russians in the wast of the country – I cannot forgive my political leaders who have done
this.
That our MSM completely ignore this situation, I cannot forgive them, and that's why I am here.If there's a place called hell, I hope there's a special place reserved for our leaders and media owners who have done this.
eddie ,
They are occupying Jacque Schitt, but their 93rd aid convoy to the Donbas in November, consisting of 45 trucks, was not imaginary.
Greenpeace is yet another "NGO" that is heavily influenced by the National Endowment for Democracy a CIA front that supports US
Imperialism.
I'm ambivalent on the issue of pipelines ( see Keystone XL Pipeline being driven through Indian Land in total violation of
the Laramie Treaty) since they are environmentally destructive but the fact is that this is all about politics and has nothing
to do with protecting the environment.
If "Russia's" Greenpeace was so concerned about the environment they'd worry about their backyard first such as the network
of pipelines being run through Siberia.
richard le sarc ,
One wonders if the invertebrates of the EU will ever tire of being bullied by the Global Bullying Thug in Chief? The clerico-fascists
of priest-ridden Poland one can understand, and the phony 'greens' of Greenpeace the sell-out specialists, but the others are
just like mongrel dogs-the more you kick them, the more they lick your boots.
Boats of LNG floating across the Atlantic to Poland is not energy security. Whatever the politics of Nord Stream 2 we may be assured
the US has not got our back in Europe on this.
We may also be in need of energy sooner than we think, as professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University suggests.
Unlike the Guardian her catastrophe theory goes in the other direction where in the next few years Earth will enter into a cooling
phase. That will set off a series of events leading to a mini ice age as happened with the Maunder Minimum of the 17th Century.
"Gazprom has purchased a pipe-laying ship which would allow the company to build undersea
pipelines despite sanctions. The new vessel may be used to build the Nord Stream-2 gas
pipeline to Europe."
Apparently the Russians think several steps ahead of the Americans.
This article has all one
needs to know about Russia/Gazprom's ability to finish the job abandoned by the Swiss
cowards, although their ships are apparently still on station. Yes, there'll be a delay, but
that won't matter much. Pissing off the Germans was the absolute wrong move!
@80 Jen It is much too late for the Danes to step in and stop Nord Stream 2.
Their permission was required because the pipe enters their economic zone, but once that
permission was given then the pipelaying started on the basis of "good faith". If the Danes
attempted to renege then I would imagine that it would be Russia and Germany who would tie up
Denmark in legal red-tape, not the other way around, and by the time this got to court the
pipeline would be completed and the gas would be flowing.
The USA's only hope now is that its sanctions scare off companies like Allseas, but that
hope relies on the western conceit that Russia is too technologically backward to be able to
take over and finish the job.
But the Russians are very capable, and extremely wily: if you look at my original post you
will see a link from 2016 where the Russians are already spelling out exactly what they
intend to do.
They acquired a suitable pipeline-laying ship at last three years. They admitted at the
time that they acquired it that it made no economic sense for them to acquire such a
ship.
Economics be damned. They bought it because they had to consider the possibility that the
USA is run by a bunch of duplicitous shits.
As I'm following the case closely, a few supplements.
The problem with the high tech Russian pipelaying vessel is that it is deployed in the Far
East and would need months to get to the scene. The Russian Fortuna lacks the technical
permission from the Danes to work in their waters, but it is suspiciously idling at the
German Coast. NorthStream 2 could ask Denmark to get a special allowance for the Fortuna to
work, and that is not so far-fetched as it seems because Denmark has a new government since
last June.
The Fortuna will at least finish the German part of the pipeline. A German court yesterday
has turned down a complaint by environmentalists who are worried about wintering birds.
The sanctions are a huge strategical blunder of the USA. Yes, the Germans are pissed off,
from the bosses of the chemical industry to the "ordinary people". You can almost hear the
tectonic subterranean crack that moves Germany away from the Anglosphere towards Russia.
In German politics, the Transatlanticians are now in the defensive. The most powerful
transatlantic institutions are IMO the various intelligence services, BND, BfV and so on.
They have certainly initiated the "scandal" about the murdered Georgian djihadist (you
remember, two Russian diplomats were expelled immediately) in order to sabotage the Normandy
talks and NordStream 2 and push Merkel to distance herself from Russia. This has failed,
obviously. Stupid white men.
An excellent show from last week. However still relevant with some reminders from the 80s
that are quintessential irony. Sanchez's journalistic delivery is impressive.
Rapoza's latest effort, for Forbes, is his review of the Russia/Ukraine gas deal that
everyone is talking about. His take, in summary, is that Russia did not really have to give
up very much, it would be to Ukraine's advantage to stop fucking around and concentrate now
on the issues, that Ukraine dropped a very large amount in claims in return for not very much
money (although he does not say how likely Ukraine would have been to win them in court, and
my personal opinion is not very), that Nord Stream II will be completed with not a
significant amount of delay, and that Russia can implement the same no-gas-through-Ukraine in
five years if it does not like the way things are going.
As usual, the range of interpretations of gas agreements is wide and full of water. Most of them have hidden recognition of
groundlessness, because even a simple reading of the document requires above average schooling.
Here is this document, where it is written in black and almost white that the parties agreed on such and such conditions:
All talk about a Ukrainian victory or a Russian victory should be left to politicians for domestic consumption, although,
to be fair, it is worth noting: Ukrainian functionaries immediately claimed it is a victory for Ukraine. This sounded against
the background of the absence of fanfare in Russia, which, in the face of the most difficult negotiations, would be extremely
inappropriate.
Why?
Because
Gazprom
is Gazprom, not Russia. Confusion in concepts is a very characteristic phenomenon for immature structures and
individuals on both sides. So talk of Russia allegedly forgiving Ukraine $3 billion in credit has nothing to do with the topic
at all. There is no word in the document about this, which is natural, because, I will repeat: Russia is not Gazprom.
However, the
Naftogaz
fanfare coming from Vitrenko's mouth is also understandable on the other hand: the board (8 people) will not have
to return millions of dollars already distributed to their pockets as part of the prize according to the results of the
Stockholm Arbitration
. Moreover, now, if Gazprom pays the claim amount, the premium will increase significantly.
As for the amount Gazprom has pledged to pay – about $3 billion – it is less than 1% of the assets of the Russian gas giant
(not to be confused with capitalisation). Few will notice this drop in the ocean. And for Naftogaz? In the absence of
up-to-date information about the assets of this structure, I believe that the figure is comparable to all assets, especially
since, according to the current reform, the Ukrainian gas transit system, the market value of which is no more than $1.5
billion (according to the Chairman of the Board
Kobolev
), leaves from under Naftogaz in general.
Conclusion: tactically Naftogaz and its board benefited from a contract with Gazprom. Strategically, as it seems, Gazprom
at least did not lose, firstly, significantly reducing the term of the contract and the volume of pumping on the gas transit
system of Ukraine, taking into account the forthcoming and inevitable implementation of "
Nord
Stream-2
" and, secondly, leaving itself the right to disagree with transit tariffs, which remain the subject of
negotiations:
Point 2.2.3 The organising company [Naftogaz] will contact LLC "Operator of gas transit system of Ukraine" for the
reservation of capacities of the gas transit system of Ukraine
Provided that at the time of reservation by NCSREPU [National Commission for State Regulation of Energy and Public
Utilities] a
competitive tariff
recognised by the Organising Company and corresponding to the level of gas
transportation tariffs applied in the countries of western and central Europe will be established.
Point 3.2 The Ukrainian side
will take all necessary measures
(create all necessary conditions) by
29.12.19:
for ensuring reliable legal protection of the interests of the client of services [Gazprom] on transit,
predictability, transparency, economic validity, and stability of tariff formation
;
What went on behind the scenes went almost unnoticed:
1. Ukraine's demand for imported gas, which is still falling due to the decline in production capacity, will be covered
from the volumes approved by the agreement (65 billion m3 in 2020 and 40 billion m3 in the following 4 years). The volume of
imports according to various estimates remains at about 20 billion m3 per year. Tariffs will not be applied on all the Russian
gas that Ukraine will consume from pumping on the gas transit system and will be implemented on the territory of Ukraine at
its own expense. The volume subject to a transit tariff will be determined by the difference between the entrance to the
Ukrainian gas transit system and the exit to Europe.
2. All preliminary talk about gas discounts for Ukraine was not included in the agreement. Thus, the price of gas remains
the subject of bargaining and is inevitably dependent on the transit tariff: the higher the price of transit – the higher the
price of gas and, accordingly, vice versa.
3. In fact, the issue of direct gas supplies to Ukraine is not worth discussing at all. I.e., in the event of a
non-agreement on the price, all gas will come to Europe, Ukraine will earn from transit, but these earnings will be offset by
the increased price of gas on the reverse. Thus, even in the event of pumping all gas to Europe, earnings from transit,
according to experts, will not even cover the cost of servicing the Ukrainian gas transit system.
Lastly, Gazprom – which is not Russia, but behind whose back Russia certainly stands, and was opposed by both Ukraine and
the European Union, represented by the European Commission, as well as the United States with its global interests – managed,
at a minimum, to minimise its tactical losses and preserve strategic Russian interests.
The gas war appears to have retreated, but the most interesting thing is yet to come.
I linked a Russian newspaper article above which analysed the deal and in which it was
pointed out that the $3 billion that Gazprom coughed up is 1% of the annual turnover of that
company. And another thing that the article pointed out was that the deal is between Gazprom
and Naftogaz notRussia and the Ukraine. In return for that $3 billion,
which will be pocketed by many Yukitard bastards, I am sure, Gazprom's never ending
altercations with the Yukie gas outfit over compensation and claims and counter-claims have
had a line drawn under them. I suppose that's really why the Porky bloc in the rada is taking
action against the deal: they fear that their nice little earner is being stifled, in that
penalties imposed by arbitration courts against Gazprom have seemingly ended.
All talk about a Ukrainian victory or a Russian victory should be left to politicians
for domestic consumption, although, to be fair, it is worth noting: Ukrainian functionaries
immediately claimed it is a victory for Ukraine. This sounded against the background of the
absence of fanfare in Russia, which, in the face of the most difficult negotiations, would be
extremely inappropriate.
Why?
Because Gazprom is Gazprom, not Russia. Confusion in concepts is a very characteristic
phenomenon for immature structures and individuals on both sides. So talk of Russia allegedly
forgiving Ukraine $3 billion in credit has nothing to do with the topic at all. There is no
word in the document about this, which is natural, because, I will repeat: Russia is not
Gazprom.
However, the Naftogaz fanfare coming from Vitrenko's mouth is also understandable on
the other hand: the [Naftogaz] board (8 people) will not have to return
millions of dollars already distributed to their pockets as part of the prize
according to the results of the Stockholm Arbitration. Moreover, now, if Gazprom pays the
claim amount, the premium will increase significantly.
As for the amount Gazprom has pledged to pay – about $3 billion – it is
less than 1% of the assets of the Russian gas giant (not to be confused with
capitalisation). Few will notice this drop in the ocean. And for Naftogaz? In the absence of
up-to-date information about the assets of this structure, I believe that the figure is
comparable to all assets, especially since, according to the current reform, the Ukrainian
gas transit system, the market value of which is no more than $1.5 billion (according to the
Chairman of the Board Kobolev), leaves from under Naftogaz in general.
Conclusion: tactically Naftogaz and its board benefited from a contract with Gazprom.
Strategically, as it seems, Gazprom at least did not lose, firstly, significantly reducing
the term of the contract and the volume of pumping on the gas transit system of Ukraine,
taking into account the forthcoming and inevitable implementation of "Nord Stream-2" and,
secondly, leaving itself the right to disagree with transit tariffs, which remain the subject
of negotiations
It's rare that I read something on the Washington Post that I don't find highly biased, even
repugnant. But with
their recent article on the Afghanistan Papers, they truly knocked the ball out of the
park.
The facts they shared should have every American protesting in the streets.
Trillions of dollars have been spent on a war that the Pentagon knew was unwinnable all
along. More than 2300 American soldiers died there and more than 20,000 have been injured. More
than 150,000 Afghanis were killed, many of them civilians, including women and children.
And they lied to us constantly.
Congress just proved that the truth doesn't matter, though. A mere 22 hours after the
release of this document, the new National Defense Authorization Act that breezed through the
House and Senate was signed by the President. That bill authorized
$738 billion in military spending for 2020 , actually increasing the budget by $22 billion
over previous years.
So, how is your representation in Washington, DC working out for you?
What are the
Afghanistan Papers?
The Afghanistan Papers are
a brilliant piece of investigative journalism published by the Washington Post and the
article is very much worth your time to read. I know, I know – WaPo. But believe me when
I tell you this is something all Americans need to see.
This was an article that took three years of legal battles to bring to light. WaPo acquired
the documents using the Freedom of Information Act and got more than 2000 pages of insider
interviews with "people who played a direct role in the war, from generals and diplomats to aid
workers and Afghan officials." These documents were originally part of a federal investigation
into the "root failures" of the longest conflict in US history – more than 18 years
now.
Three presidents, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, have been involved in this
ongoing war. It turns out that officials knew the entire time this war was "unwinnable" yet
they kept throwing American lives and American money at it.
Here's an excerpt from WaPo's report. Anything that is underlined is taken verbatim from the
papers themselves – you can click on them to read the documents.
In the interviews, more than 400 insiders offered unrestrained criticism of what went
wrong in Afghanistan and how the United States became mired in nearly two decades of
warfare.
With a bluntness rarely expressed in public, the interviews lay bare pent-up complaints,
frustrations and confessions, along with second-guessing and backbiting.
The important thing to note about these interviews is that the interviewees never expected
their words to become public. They weren't "blowing the whistle." They were answering questions
for a federal investigation. So they didn't hold back. These aren't "soundbites." It's what the
real witnesses are saying.
The U.S. government has not carried out a comprehensive accounting of how much it has
spent on the war in Afghanistan, but the costs are staggering.
Since 2001, the Defense Department, State Department and U.S. Agency for International
Development have spent or appropriated between $934 billion and $978 billion, according to an
inflation-adjusted estimate calculated by Neta Crawford, a political science professor and
co-director of the Costs of War Project at Brown University.
Those figures do not include money spent by other agencies such as the CIA and the
Department of Veterans Affairs, which is responsible for medical care for wounded
veterans.
"What did we get for this $1 trillion effort? Was it worth $1 trillion?" Jeffrey Eggers, a
retired Navy SEAL and White House staffer for Bush and Obama, told government interviewers.
He added, "After the killing of Osama bin Laden, I said that Osama was probably laughing in
his watery grave considering how much we have spent on Afghanistan." (
source )
The US government deliberately misled the American people.
What's more, if you officials, up to and including three presidents, knew they were throwing
money at something that could never be achieved. They did it anyway and they lied to our faces
about it.
The documents also contradict a long chorus of public statements from U.S. presidents,
military commanders and diplomats who assured Americans year after year that they were making
progress in Afghanistan and the war was worth fighting.
Several of those interviewed described explicit and sustained efforts by the U.S.
government to deliberately mislead the public. They said it was common at military
headquarters in Kabul -- and at the White House -- to distort statistics to make it appear
the United States was winning the war when that was not the case.
It's been an epic 18-year-long exercise in CYA. (Cover Your A$$). I don't see how anyone
could fail to be outraged by this. And what I've cited here is just the crap icing on the
maggot cupcake. It's a festering mess and I urge you, if you really want to know the truth, to
read this article on WaPo and click on these links.
How was all this money spent?
A lot of it went to building infrastructure in Afghanistan. It was flagrantly and
frivolously used there while we live in a place where people are going bankrupt at best and
dying at worst because they
can't afford medical care and there are places in our country without clean running
water or toilets.
The defense industry certainly reaped rewards and it's highly likely a lot of people who had
the power to allow it to go on made some "wise investments" that have paid off for them. But
for the rest of us, this conflict has done nothing except ensure that our tax dollars are not
here improving our infrastructure or helping Americans lead better and more productive
lives.
Dr. Ron Paul refers to this as the crime of the century.
It is not only members of the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations who are guilty of
this massive fraud. Falsely selling the Afghanistan war as a great success was a bipartisan
activity on Capitol Hill. In the dozens of hearings I attended in the House International
Relations Committee, I do not recall a single "expert" witness called who told us the truth.
Instead, both Republican and Democrat-controlled Congresses called a steady stream of neocon
war cheerleaders to lie to us about how wonderfully the war was going. Victory was just
around the corner, they all promised. Just a few more massive appropriations and we'd be
celebrating the end of the war.
Congress and especially Congressional leadership of both parties are all as guilty as the
three lying Administrations. They were part of the big lie, falsely presenting to the
American people as "expert" witnesses only those bought-and-paid-for Beltway neocon think
tankers.
What is even more shocking than the release of this "smoking gun" evidence that the US
government wasted two trillion dollars and killed more than three thousand Americans and more
than 150,000 Afghans while lying through its teeth about the war is that you could hear a pin
drop in the mainstream media about it. Aside from the initial publication in the Washington
Post, which has itself been a major cheerleader for the war in Afghanistan, the mainstream
media has shown literally no interest in what should be the story of the century. (
source )
And it's most likely that nobody will ever face punishment for this deception. If this is
not the very definition of the term "war crimes" I can hardly imagine what is. Dr. Paul
continues:
We've wasted at least half a year on the Donald Trump impeachment charade – a
conviction desperately in search of a crime. Meanwhile one of the greatest crimes in US
history will go unpunished. Not one of the liars in the "Afghanistan Papers" will ever be
brought to justice for their crimes. None of the three presidents involved will be brought to
trial for these actual high crimes. Rumsfeld and Lute and the others will never have to fear
justice. Because both parties are in on it. There is no justice . (
source )
The response? Silence and a budget increase.
The people in government don't care that we know about all this. Sure, it's mildly
inconvenient but "whatever."
How do I know this?
Simple. Less than a full day after the story broke, the new NDAA ended up on President
Trump's desk and was signed, authorizing an additional 22 billion dollars for next year's
defense spending. And all anyone can talk about is, "Oooohhhh Space Force!!!"
Government: "Merry Christmas. We're going to blow through more of your tax money and you
won't get a damned thing for it."
I couldn't make this up if I tried. In a notable, must-read op-ed ,
Darius Shahtahmasebi cited some horrific incidents and concluded:
We can't let this recent publication obscure itself into nothingness. The recent reaction
from Congress is a giant middle finger designed to tell you that (a) there will never be
anything you can do about it and (b) they simply don't care how you feel. Democracy at its
finest from the world's leading propagator of democratic values. ( source )
When is enough going to be enough? Why are we not enraged en masse? Why haven't we recalled
these treasonous bastards and taken our country and our budget back?
For a country that is ready to take up arms and waste countless hours "impeaching" Trump
over something he said on a phone call, it sure says a lot about those same people ignoring 18
years of treasonous behavior by three separate administrations.
Why isn't the media raising hell over this? Why aren't these lives important? Why isn't
sending trillions of our dollars to be frittered away an outrage?
People love to say "America First" and "impeach Trump for treason" and all that jazz. They
love to call anti-war people "un-American" and recommend a quick, one-way trip to Somalia if we
don't "support our troops." However, I think is far more evidence of supporting our troops to
want out of there, not risking their lives based on a castle of lies that further enriches
powerful and wealthy people who have nothing to lose.
Most people love to be outraged about frivolous matters. But when a report like this and its
following insult are met with resounding silence, it's pretty obvious that hardly anybody is
really paying attention.
So, cut funding for prisons; cut necessary levels, to insure safety, prison guard
staffing; watch as prison violence escalates; then print a story where the Union leader,
trying to protect his remaining too small workforce from the rising violence, sounds like an
inhuman bad guy in the story. Neolibs gotta love that angle.
I'm seeing the same thing in my US state over the past several years. The politicians'
answer is not to increase staffing of unionized prison guards or spend more on safety for
state prisons, but to outsource prisoner housing to the private sector. Neolibs love that
angle.
After this fraudulent news story received wide coverage, it was followed by "reports" from
the Washington-based Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders. This group receives most of its
funds from U.S. government grants, primarily from the CIA-linked National Endowment for
Democracy, a major source of funding for U.S. "regime change" operations around the world.
The Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders shares the same Washington address as Human
Rights Watch. The HRW has been a major source of attacks on governments targeted by the U.S.,
such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Syria and China. The network has long called for sanctions
against China.
The CHRD's sources include Radio Free Asia, a news agency funded for decades by the U.S.
government. The World Uighur Congress, another source of sensationalized reports, is also
funded by NED. The same U.S. government funding is behind the International Uyghur Human Rights
and Democracy Foundation and the Uyghur American Association.
The authors of the Grayzone article cite years of detailed IRS filing forms to back up their
claim. They list millions of dollars in generous government funding -- to generate false
reports.
This whole network of supposedly impartial civil society groups, nongovernmental
organizations, think tanks and news sources operates under the cover of "human rights" to
promote sanctions and war.
CIA-funded terror
Central Asia has experienced the worst forms of U.S. military power.
Beginning in 1979, the CIA, operating with the ISI Pakistani Intelligence Service and
Saudi money, funded and equipped reactionary Mujahedeen forces in Afghanistan to bring down a
revolutionary government there. The U.S. cultivated and promoted extreme religious fanaticism,
based in Saudi Arabia, against progressive secular regimes in the region. This reactionary
force was also weaponized against the Soviet Union and an anti-imperialist Islamic current
represented by the Iranian Revolution.
For four decades, the CIA and secret Pakistan ISI forces (Pakistan Military, Inter
Services Intelligence) in Afghanistan sought to recruit and train Uyghur mercenaries, planning
to use them as a future terror force in China. Chechnyans from Russia's Caucasus region were
recruited for the same reason. Both groups were funneled into Syria in the U.S. regime-change
operation there. These fanatical religious forces, along with other small ethnic groups, formed
the backbone of the Islamic State group (IS) and Al-Qaida.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, World Trade Center bombing, the very forces that U.S. secret
operations had helped to create became the enemy.
Uyghurs from Xinjiang were among the Al-Qaida prisoners captured in Afghanistan and held in
the U.S. prison at Guantanamo for years without charges. Legal appeals exposed that the Uyghur
prisoners were being held there under some of the worst conditions in solitary confinement.
U.S. wars dislocate region
The U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and the massive U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 created
shockwaves of dislocation. Social progress, education, health care and infrastructure were
destroyed. Sectarian and ethnic division was encouraged to divide opposition to U.S.
occupations. Despite promises of great progress, the U.S. occupations sowed only
destruction.
In this long war, U.S. prisons in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq were notorious. The CIA
used "enhanced interrogation" techniques -- torture -- and secret rendition to Guantanamo,
Bagram and the Salt Pit in Afghanistan. These secret prisons have since been the source of many
legal suits.
According to U.N. investigations, by 2010 the U.S. held more than 27,000 prisoners in over
100 secret facilities around the world. Searing images and reports of systematic torture and
prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Bagram airbase in Afghanistan surfaced.
Exposing coverup of war crimes
In July 2010 WikiLeaks published more than 75,000 classified U.S./NATO reports on the war in
Afghanistan.
In October of that year, a massive leak of 400,000 military videos, photos and documents
exposed, in harrowing detai,l torture, summary executions and other war crimes. Army
intelligence analyst former Private Chelsea Manning released this damning material to
WikiLeaks.
Based on the leaked documents, the U.N. chief investigator on torture, Manfred Nowak, called
on U.S. President Barack Obama to order a full investigation of these crimes, including abuse,
torture, rape and murder committed against the Iraqi people following the U.S. invasion and
occupation.
The leaked reports provided documentary proof of 109,000 deaths -- including 66,000
civilians. This is seldom mentioned in the media, in contrast to the highly publicized and
unsourced charges now raised against China.
Prosecuting whistle blowers
The CIA's National Endowment for Democracy pays handsomely for unsourced documents making
claims of torture against China, while those who provided documentary proof of U.S. torture
have been treated as criminals.
John Kiriakou, who worked for the CIA between 1990 and 2004 and confirmed widespread use of
systematic torture, was prosecuted by the Obama administration for revealing classified
information and sentenced to 30 months in prison.
Chelsea Manning's release of tens of thousands of government documents confirming torture
and abuse, in addition to horrific photos of mass killings, have led to her continued
incarceration. Julian Assange of WikiLeaks is imprisoned in Britain and faces deportation to
the U.S. for his role in disseminating these documents.
Rewriting history
How much of the coverage of Xinjiang is intended to deflect world attention from the
continuing crimes of U.S. wars -- from Afghanistan to Syria?
In 2014 a Senate CIA Torture Report confirmed that a torture program, called "Detention and
Interrogation Program," had been approved by top U.S. officials. Only a 525-page Executive
Summary of its 6,000 pages was released, but it was enough to confirm that the CIA program was
far more brutal and extensive than had previously been released.
Mercenaries flood into Syria
The U.S. regime-change effort to overturn the government of Syria funneled more than
100,000 foreign mercenaries and fanatical religious forces into the war. They were
well-equipped with advanced weapons, military gear, provisions and paychecks.
One-third of the Syrian population was uprooted in the war. Millions of refugees flooded
into Europe and neighboring countries.
Beginning in 2013, thousands of Uyghur fighters were smuggled into Syria to train with
the extremist Uyghur group known as the Turkistan Islamic Party. Fighting alongside Al-Qaida
and Al-Nusra terror units, these forces played key roles in several battles.
Reuters, Associated Press and Newsweek all reported that up to 5,000 Turkic-speaking Muslim
Uyghurs from Xinjiang were fighting in various "militant" groups in Syria.
According to Syrian media, a transplanted Uyghur colony transformed the city of al
Zanbaka (on the Turkish border) into an entrenched camp of 18,000 people. Many of the Uyghur
fighters were smuggled to the Turkish-Syrian border area with their families. Speaking Turkish,
rather than Chinese, they relied on the support of the Turkish secret services.
China follows a different path
China is determined to follow a different path in dealing with fanatical groups that are
weaponized by religious extremism. China's action comes after terror attacks and explosives
have killed hundreds of civilians in busy shopping areas and crowded train and bus stations
since the 1990s.
China has dealt with the problem of religious extremism by setting up large-scale vocational
education and training centers. Rather than creating worse underdevelopment through bombing
campaigns, it is seeking to engage the population in education, skill development and rapid
economic and infrastructure development.
Terrorist attacks in Xinjiang have stopped since the reeducation campaigns began in
2017.
Two worldviews of Xinjiang
In July of this year, 22 countries, most in Europe plus Canada, Japan, Australia and New
Zealand, sent a letter to the U.N. Human Rights Council criticizing China for mass arbitrary
detentions and other violations against Muslims in China's Xinjiang region. The statement did
not include a single signature from a Muslim-majority state.
Days later, a far larger group of 34 countries -- now expanded to 54 from Asia, Africa and
Latin America -- submitted a letter in defense of China's policies. These countries expressed
their firm support of China's counterterrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang.
More than a dozen member countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation at the U.N.
signed the statement.
A further statement on Oct. 31 to the Third Committee of the U.N. General Assembly explained
that a number of diplomats, international organizations, officials and journalists had traveled
to Xinjiang to witness the progress of the human rights cause and the outcomes of
counterterrorism and deradicalization.
"What they saw and heard in Xinjiang completely contradicted what was reported in the
[Western] media," said the statement.
The USA government acts as a gangster and should expect that other power will behave equally
bad toward the USA. That's a very bad, disastrous calculation, even in view of the current USA
technological superiority (which might shrink in the future)
Pride goeth before a fall. Washington is proud of itself, but a day will come when it will
count the cost, and mutter, "What the fuck was I thinking?" It was not ever going to actually
interrupt, and then seize for itself, Russia's share of the European gas market – that
was just another example of its addled belief in exceptionalism and its ability to overcome
any and all limiting factors, including distance and capacity.
What it HAS done is reveal itself as a petulant global child who will break anything that
does not please it, and therefore a dangerous and unpredictable business partner.
Thus spake the official Washington arsehole in Germany:
The American Ambassador in Berlin Richard Grenell, about whom it has already been
requested in Germany that he be recognized as persona non grata because of his
repeated attacks against the German leadership, has said that the sanctions imposed by
Washington against the pipeline "Nord Stream-2" had been introduced in the interests of the
EU and many countries of Europe are grateful for them.
"Seriously: from 15 European countries, the European Commission and the European
Parliament have all expressed their concerns about the project. We have long heard from our
European partners that the United States should support their efforts. Therefore, sanctions
represent a very Pro-European solution", said Grenell to the publication
Bild am Sonntag . [A German arsewipe publication of the first magnitude -- ME]
According to him, European diplomats have allegedly already repeatedly expressed their
gratitude for the measures taken by Washington.
Recall that the United States, which from time to time has opposed the emergence in
Europe of a strong competitor for its gas, imposed sanctions against the pipelines "Nord
Stream-2" and "Turkish Stream", requiring that the companies involved in their laying
immediately stop construction. In response, the German government has said it "rejects such
extraterritorial sanctions" directed "against German and European companies.
Just two events that occurred during Saturday night have turned into one of the main news
stories in recent months and years: Russia, the Ukraine and the European Commission signed a
trilateral agreement on the transit of gas over the coming years from Russia to the EU via
the Ukrainian GTS, and President Trump signed a law on the defence budget, in which US
parliamentarians have written separate clauses concerning sanctions against companies
involved in the construction of the pipeline "Nord stream – 2″
If anyone has forgotten, allow me to remind you that Vladimir Putin has never talked about
the categorical refusal as regards the transit to Europe via the Ukraine of Russian gas.
Always, he has only stressed that it is a question exclusively of a commercial nature,
without any political overtones, and that such transit be carried out on favourable terms.
Vice-Premier of the Russian government Dmitry Kozak has said about the new contract to be
signed before the New Year that he parties had agreed on favourable terms. In addition to
this, the Ukrainian side said that "Gazprom" had agreed to pay "Naftogaz" $3 billion,
according to the decision of the Stockholm arbitration. So, can the Ukraine celebrate a
"victory"?
So far, only Kiev has stated this figure of $3 billion. On the Russian side, there has
been no confirmation of this yet, but even if the Kiev figure is correct, I do not see much
reason to celebrate "victory", for if Russia has paid this money to the Ukraine ($2.6 billion
+ penalties), then the Ukraine is obliged to return $4.5 billion to Russia (3 billion
Eurobonds + penalties). The balance is not in favour of Kiev. In addition, the Ukraine has
pledged to stop all legal disputes on gas issues. Yes, in one case there is a dispute between
economic entities, and in a second case there is a dispute about sovereign debt. However,
since both Naftogaz and Gazprom are budget-forming state companies, to a certain extent this
difference in debt statuses is leveled.
Now on transit. There is no denying that for Russia it is not only important but necessary
to transit gas through the Ukraine at the moment, since under long-term contracts with
Europe, Gazprom is obliged to supply the volumes of gas stipulated in them, regardless of the
circumstances. Otherwise, the Russian company would have to pay heavy fines and penalties. By
concluding the contract, Gazprom has once again proved its reliability as a supplier, which,
by the way, was has already been emphasized by the European Commission following the
negotiations.
The only thing currently known about the transit contract is that it has been concluded
not for 10 years as Kiev had wanted, but for 5 years. Apparently, a longer term is not
relevant, chiefly because of complete uncertainty about the future of the Ukraine -- by the
way, in the next few days Kiev is likely to start an active struggle against the agreements
already reached, and if something threatens them at the moment, it is only Ukrainian
instability. According to data received from the Russian company, the volume of transit
through the Ukraine next year will be about 65 billion cubic metres. This is certainly a very
significant figure, but it is significantly less than the 90 billion cubic metres pumped
through the Ukrainian GTS in 2017. In 2021-2024, the annual transit volume will drop to 40
billion cubic metres. This volume allows the Ukrainian GTS to operate at a plus rather than a
minus, but Kiev will not receive any significant financial gain through it.
By the way, a certain demand for Ukrainian transit will remain after the Nord Stream-2 gas
pipeline has reached its design capacity, as European gas demand grows annually and a number
of fields operated in the EU countries are decommissioned in the coming years. As for NS-2
itself, by the time the sanctions are imposed, less than 50 kilometres will have been left on
one pipeline and about 70 kilometres on the other. Even if the Swiss company gathers up its
belongings, Russian pipe-laying ships will finish the job, and even though they lay pipes 3
times slower, they have absolute immunity from American sanctions. One of them is now located
in the area of Indonesia, and the second pipe-laying ship, "Fortuna", which, by the way, has
already participated in the implementation of "NS-2", is in a German port and is ready to
start working within a few days. [My stress! See that Finnish troll? -- ME]
So, by and large, the question is only one of time. But in any case "SP-2" will be
completed in terms of installation, testing and commissioning, and can be put into operation,
at most, at the end of the first half of 2020.
I really really doubt that the US military will attack overtly or covertly. The US already
announced that it will sanction other Russian energy projects if North Stream is placed in
operation.
I don't imagine that will be necessary. Be pretty hard to argue then that they were not
acting solely in their own interests, wouldn't it? It would make a hell of a thriller novel,
though – the pipeline is on the seabed, so any American efforts to tamper with it would
probably have to be from underwater. A submarine has no business being there, so its mission
would have to be super-secret and plausibly deniable. And in that scenario, if it simply
disappeared, the Americans would have to just proceed as if it never existed. There you go,
Karl; a great book idea, you should write it. But I want 20%; 30% if I have to proofread it
before publication to take out all the rhapsodizing about freedom and democracy, and rewrite
the ending where the Americans blow up the pipeline and miraculously escape, sailing home to
a ticker-tape parade and leaving Putin with angry tears running down his face.
Bulgaria is an instructive example here. Remember when it stopped South Stream in its
tracks, and was the hero of America and the EU? And Bulgaria strutted and swaggered, and was
pretty proud of itself while it waited for the rewards of its bravery. And then the USA built
them a Middle School or a new fence or something, I forget, and there were lots of 'well
done, old chap!' compliments, and and then that was it. Bulgaria did not become everyone's
preferred business partner and the destination of enormous foreign investment. And then,
gradually, everybody stopped talking about what a great and brave thing Bulgaria did, and it
just sort of sat there with its mouth half-open, trying to take in how skillfully it had been
creampied, and evidently all for nothing.
And eventually, Bulgaria repented, and went back to Russia and Putin, cap in hand. And
Russia received it warmly, like a brother who fell in with a bad crowd but was not really, at
heart, bad himself. It did not say that Bulgaria must prove itself by repudiating its former
friends. It seemed willing to let bygones be just that.
It is not even too much of a stretch to imagine that might one day be Ukraine as well,
although it certainly could not be under the current conditions. The nationalists would have
to be purged, hard. And there would have to be a completely new political administration. But
there's time, and lots of it. The west is not going to make a prosperous paradise of Ukraine,
it is only interested in stripping it of anything of value, and in the meantime it will go
down and down, because nobody wants to put any money into it. Except, ahem; Russia.
Party Poroshenko initiates sanctions against the supply of gas from Russia
The faction of "European solidarity" in the Ukrainian Parliament initiates sanctions
against the Russian gas supplies directly, reports RIA "Novosti".
As stated by the ex-President and leader of the faction of Petro Poroshenko, the
political force will require the convening of the national security Council on this issue,
and "implementation of sanctions" against the gas supplies from Russia
The people who elected Zelensky expected him to put Porky behind bars. But, surprise
surprise, Zel is a wimp who couldn't bring himself to buck his American overlords.
Said Overlords like Porky and want to keep him around, as the new leader of the Opps, with
hope he gets back into power some day.
Porky is the Ukrainian version of Saakashvili, there is simply no getting rid of him!
What if Germany, angered by American high-handedness, decided to move away from the US
dollar. Could that happen?
It could. Analysts caution that it would be unwise for Washington to laugh at efforts by
nations to make themselves less dependent on the dollar, because it also makes those nations
less susceptible to American sanctions. The world outside America is getting fed up with the
USA's sanctions-happy punishments, which have mushroomed from 5 targeted countries at the
start of the George W. Bush administration to 22 targeted countries at the end of 2018.
One of the ways Russia has hardened its economy against American tampering is in
increasing its use and accumulation of gold as a hedge, which is immune to 'freezing' by the
USA, so long as the gold is held in Russian vaults. That's the key, and momentum is slowly
gathering in other countries. Hungary repatriated all its gold from the Bank of England in
October of this year, and increased its holdings tenfold as well. Romania has submitted a
bill to parliament which mandates that only 5% of the country's gold can be stored abroad.
Currently about 60% of its 103 tonnes is stored at the Bank of England. In 2017 Germany
repatriated around $31 Billion worth of gold which had been stored in New York and Paris.
This week, Poland and Slovakia called for a return of their gold, which is being held by, you
guessed it, the Bank of England. The lesson of Venezuela's stolen gold was not lost on
anyone, and the less foreign gold the Bank of England has in its vaults, the less useful it
is to Washington and its 'freeze' orders.
Germany was chafing at US bullying back in 2018, and talking up policies to pull away from
the US dollar. Would this latest example of American meddling make them more, or less
inclined to pursue financial policies which did not include the United States as a partner,
do you think?
"According to S&P Global Platts Analytics, Nord Stream 2 would have to seek
alternative vessels and contractors to complete the remaining section of pipe in Danish
waters if the sanctions are enacted.
"While the most challenging parts of Nord Stream 2 have been laid in water depths of
around 200 meters, the remaining section in Danish waters at 90 meters depth remains
complicated," it said.
Russian companies operate capable offshore pipe-lay vessels, which have completed projects
in challenging Arctic conditions, including the MRTS Defender, which worked on the offshore
stretch of the Bovanenkovo-Ukhta pipeline.
Platts Analytics believes MRTS Fortuna could be used to complete Nord Stream 2, but is
capable of laying just 1 km/d.
A further obstacle, according to Platts Analytics, is that the Danish permit application
states that it is assumed that the vessels used to complete the Danish section will have
dynamic positioning capabilities (such as those of the Allseas vessels) which are not present
on MRTS Fortuna.
A Russian pipelaying vessel that already has dynamic positioning capabilities, Akademik
Cherskiy, could be used, but it would take up to two months to arrive to Danish waters as it
is currently stationed in Russia's Far East."
It is surprising that the Gazprom management didn't prepare for this situation! If this
article is correct the only Russian vessel that can be used to finish the project is
currently stationed in Vladivostok, and it will take about two months for it to arrive to
Danish waters.
The sanction threat has been looming for months, but it seems that Gazprom did not prepare
for it in any meaningful way.
I would be pleasantly surprised if this project is finished in 2020.
Karl, this is no attitude for the Christmas season – don't be so dour and pessimistic.
It takes two years to build a specialized ship, at a minimum, and that's just a regular
design like an LNG tanker – should Gazprom have built two or three, only to have the
Americans laugh and not impose sanctions? Then you would have chuckled ruefully over how
foolish Gazprom was to waste its money; there's no pleasing you. Only two days ago you were
moaning over how the entirety of the funds spent so far would be wasted; the pipeline could
not be completed, America is just too strong. You can go back and look. Now it looks as if it
can be completed, just the remainder will be done at about a third the speed it could have
been. But the money which would have gone to Allseas will be saved, and really there's no
hurry now; they have 5 years if they need it. In 2 months the worst of the winter weather
should be over, and any further slowdowns between now and completion can be blamed on the
Americans, whose fault of course it is. It would have been done now but for American pressure
on Denmark to hold out.
I wouldn't say it couldn't have turned out better, but all things considered the results
are not that bad for Russia and not very good for the USA, which has incurred a lot of
resentment and ill-will in exchange for really nothing. It is not going to stop the pipeline
from completing, but it has made a lot of enemies, and even the Poles have stopped yapping
and do not appear to be celebrating too loudly, lest they anger other Europeans.
""While the most challenging parts of Nord Stream 2 have been laid in water depths of around
200 meters, the remaining section in Danish waters at 90 meters depth remains complicated,"
it said."
Norwegian divers welded pipelines at 900 meters depth (And, yes they had some
problems).
Let me guess – the United States has threatened to confiscate the assets in the USA of
any company which sells dynamic-positioning systems to the Soviets (oops! I mean the
Russians!), and so now they will have to develop the technology themselves. Why not just
threaten to slap sanctions on anyone giving 'aid and comfort' to the Russians? I mean,
they're the enemy, right? Right?? So nobody sell them boots or warm clothes, or anything. See
how they like laying pipe in their skivvies, barefoot.
Say, I'll bet that attitude is good for market share for the remaining American businesses
still operating in Russia. And speaking of that, here's another example – gosh, there
are so many – of America's love affair with sanctions; CAATSA, the Countering America's
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. According to an analyst at the Foreign Policy Research
Institute,
it's a failure , because it did not prevent Turkey from buying the S-400 system from
Russia when they were supposed to buy the Patriot from the USA, or
prevent Egypt from buying the Sukhoi S-35 from Russia when they were meant to buy the
F-35. Oh, but they were frustrated in that because Israel did not want them to have it.
Washington never misses an opportunity to show Israel it still loves it despite all the
actions Israel makes it take against its own best interests.
"Egypt turned to Moscow for the Su-35 aircraft after being frustrated in repeated
attempts to get a foothold in the F-35 program, a move closely watched in Israel, which
remains the only country in the region to receive the fifth-generation aircraft."
America threatened Egypt with – you guessed it – sanctions if it continued
with plans to buy Russian fighters worth $2 Billion in sales, but Egypt basically ignored
them, only not laughing because it would be impolite to laugh.
"The Egyptian leadership views the US threats as not credible, based on a long history
of Egyptian/US relations where the US has made threats and even withheld assistance, but in
the end has always capitulated," said Andrew Miller, who was director for Egypt and Israel
military issues in the Obama administration's National Security Council."
Egypt also bought the two MISTRAL class light assault carriers that Washington made France
cancel the sale of when Russia had already paid a security deposit, which had to be returned.
Egypt quickly purchased helicopters from Russia to outfit its new ships.
In fact, America seems to be losing its grip on the Middle East and Africa. And its
newly-discovered and somewhat childlike faith in sanctions as a cure-all is ruining its
traditional alliances and eroding its global reach. Much less-powerful countries now
routinely ignore its threats to impose sanctions and more sanctions. The fewer foreign
businesses interested in locating significant assets in the United States – so as to
prevent their being seized in a fit of pique – the less influence Washington can bring
to bear through sanctions. Its most loyal toady, the UK, will soon no longer be a part of the
EU, while nations jostle one another in eagerness to get their gold back from the Bank of
England where the United States cannot slap a 'hold' order on it through its devoted
proxies.
Russian dolts just don't have the technology, isn't that right ?
From the Finnish naysayer:
In retrospect the biggest mistake Russia did was to start the Nord Stream 2 project
without possessing the technology to complete the project and relying on the Western
technology. This made Nord Stream 2 and Russia vulnerable for the sanctions and this
vulnerability was exploited.
Will Russia learn and not start any major project in the future without having the
means to complete the project itself without relying on the West? I doubt it.
As mentioned earlier, commercial contracts normally include provisions for frustration
– supervening illegality can prevent performance of obligations contracted under
different circumstances and no one would expect a company to commit suicide. It's just a
business problem. But a business problem which, as Mark states, leaves the instigator –
the USA – diminished by its own actions.
Every contract has Force Majeure provisions to address factors beyond the control of the
supplier. The list includes of acts of God (weather, for example), civil unrest, labor
disputes, etc. "US sanctions" need to be added.
According to ME they were within 50 kilometers of landfall. According to Karl the replacement
vessel can lay pipe at a 1km/day rate. The resulting calculation isn't rocket science
mathematics. Ribbons will be cut and valves will be turned on in a few months to the clink of
vodka and champagne glasses.
Peskov did not say a fuckin' thing about "hope" that the pipeline will be completed. He
stated that the sanctions will NOT work to bring about substantial delay.
Two pipelines are being laid in parallel. One line , if I rightly recall, has 50 kms left to
be laid, the other 75 kms. The Russian pipelayers, again if I rightly recall, lay at one
third of the speed as did the Allseas vessel. The Russians are also aware of the
geopositioning requirement that the Danes may impose. Only one Russian pipelayer, the one at
present in the Far East, has this capability. from here
"Pioneering Spirit" and" Solitaire" crossed the border of Swedish and Danish waters on
27 and 28 November, respectively, since which time the former has covered 89 km, the latter
-- a little less than 70 km, i.e. they move at a speed of 3.5–4.5 km per day. This
means that they should be able to complete the construction within a month. But maintaining
this momentum depends on the weather conditions.
There was only 1 month's worth of laying left when Allseas fucked off.
The Russians are seemingly, from the troll's point of view, faced with such insurmountable
odds that he is coming in his pants. They'll never finish the job.
Like when they said they would never finish that bridge, across the petersburg-Simferopol
train crosses for the first time this coming Christmas Day?
From same source as above, namely Moskovskiy Komsomolets :
According to a representative of one of the contractors involved in the creation of the
offshore section of "Nord Stream – 2", Gazprom began to insure against sanctions
against companies involved in laying the pipeline in October. The Fortuna pipe-laying barge,
built in 2010 at a Russian shipyard and later upgraded at Chinese shipyards, has been used.
This vessel has been based for about two months in the German port of Mukran, where the pipes
required for the gas pipeline construction are shipped.
According to an MK interlocutor who wished to remain anonymous, despite the fact that
Fortuna is the most powerful domestic vessel in its class, it is unlikely that it can fully
replace Allseas pipelayers. "Fortuna" is able to do such works, but the speed of the project
will be slowed down. "Fortuna specializes in laying infield and linear pipelines on land,
while Gazprom charters vessels with foreign registration for offshore sections.
At the same time, Fortuna has experience working in deep water areas. As part of the
Sakhalin-3 project, the barge was deploying an underwater production facility in the
Kirinskoye field at a depth of 100 meters. The depth of the sea in the Danish section of the
NS-2, which remains to be completed by Gazprom, does not exceed this mark, while Fortuna has
a depth limit of 200 meters", explains the MK interlocutor.
Yeah, according to the Troll:
it is surprising that the Gazprom management didn't prepare for this situation! If this
article is correct the only Russian vessel that can be used to finish the project is
currently stationed in Vladivostok, and it will take about two months for it to arrive to
Danish waters.
The sanction threat has been looming for months, but it seems that Gazprom did not
prepare for it in any meaningful way.
I would be pleasantly surprised if this project is finished in 2020.
For "pleasantly surprised" above, read: "bitterly disappointed".
The United States is less concerned with matters green. Nord Stream 2 poses a security
threat.
Trump's former secretary of state, Rex Tillerson,
saw it as "undermining Europe's overall energy security and stability."
US energy secretary Rick Perry
argues that "Russian gas has strings attached." The claim is that Germany will be come too
reliant and Ukraine further weakened. Ukraine had been the premier gatekeeper for Russian gas
supply, with 40 percent of Europe's total amount transiting through Ukrainian soil. A
slump in gross domestic product occasioned by an end to transit fees is considered
imminent.
Other European states have been crankily concerned about the prospect of Gazprom's deepening
involvement in the continent's energy market. Poland's anti-monopoly body UOKiK showed a
measure of that opposition
by fining France's Engie Energy (ENGIE.PA) 40 million euros in proceedings against
Gazprom.
In February, EU ambassadors agreed that the project be subjected to greater scrutiny. A
Franco-German compromise was struck : Nord Stream 2 would be placed
"under European control".
The Trump administration's actions against Gazprom and Russia's energy influence, found in a
provision of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), can hardly be seen as noble
endeavours.
The provision threatens
sanctions and the freezing of assets against entities laying down the pipeline unless their
activities cease "immediately". The United States has its own energy interests in Europe, and
wishes to frustrate the effort. Market share is at stake.
The suspension of laying activities on the part of Allseas, a Swiss company, suggests that
Trump's announcement is already biting.
"In anticipation of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),"
went a
company statement , "Allseas has suspended its Nord Stream 2 pipelay activities." The
company would "proceed, consistent with the legislation's wind down provision and expect
guidance comprising the necessary regulatory, technical and environmental clarifications from
the relevant US authority."
The angle taken by the European Union, Germany and Russia can hardly surprise. Themes of
energy security are reiterated. The Nord Stream 2 consortium makes the claim that, "Completing the
project is essential for European supply security." Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman
Maria Zakharova spikily condemned the
sanctions measure. "A state with a $22 trillion national debt prohibits creditworthy countries
to develop the real sector of their economies!"
For a EU spokesman, this
constituted "the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate
business." A German government spokesman suggested that such actions "affect German and other
European businesses, and we see the move as meddling in our internal affairs." Finance Minister
Olaf Scholz has sees
it as an infringement of sovereignty. "It is up to the companies involved in the
construction of the pipeline to take the next decisions."
Nothing is quite so simple. Gas pipeline politics has always been contentious. One state's
sovereign promise is another's weakening. Concessions made to corporate monopolies are risky,
capable of fostering insecurity as much as reassurance. Those who control the tap control a
country's future.
But the imposition of any sanctions regime signals another bout of economic violence. In
the international market, where governments operate as ready gangsters for corporate interests,
prompted by such motivations as seeking more natural resources, tools of state become
handmaidens of economic self-interest...
"... Currently the United States is assisting Ukraine against Russia by providing some non-lethal military equipment as well as limited training for Kiev's army. It has balked at getting more involved in the conflict, rightly so. ..."
"... The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now. They inevitably produced the Hitler analogy, citing the example of 1938 and Munich as well as the subsequent partition of Poland in 1939 to make their case. When I asked what the United States would gain by intervening they responded that in return for military assistance, Washington will have a good and democratic friend in Ukraine which will serve as a bulwark against further Russian expansion. ..."
"... But Obama chose to stay home as punishment for Putin, which I think was a bad choice suggesting that he is being strongly influenced by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the other neocons who seem to have retained considerable power in his administration. ..."
"... Obama told a crowd gathered outside the Nike footwear company in Oregon that the deal is necessary because "if we don't write the rules, China will " ..."
"... Obama takes as a given that he will be able to "write the rules." This is American hubris writ large and I am certain that many who are thereby designated to follow Washington's lead are as offended by it as I am. Bad move Barack. ..."
Currently the United States is assisting Ukraine against Russia by providing some non-lethal military equipment as well as
limited training for Kiev's army. It has balked at getting more involved in the conflict, rightly so. With that in mind,
I had a meeting with a delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians and government officials a couple of weeks ago. I tried to explain
to them why many Americans are wary of helping them by providing lethal, potentially game changing military assistance in what Kiev
sees as a struggle to regain control of Crimea and other parts of their country from militias that are clearly linked to Moscow.
I argued that while Washington should be sympathetic to Ukraine's aspirations it has no actual horse in the race, that the imperative
for bilateral relations with Russia, which is the only nation on earth that can attack and destroy the United States, is that they
be stable and that all channels for communication remain open.
I also observed that the negative perception of Washington-driven
democracy promotion around the world has been in part shaped by the actual record on interventions since 2001, which has not been
positive. Each exercise of the military option has wound up creating new problems, like the mistaken policies in Libya, Iraq and
Syria, all of which have produced instability and a surge in terrorism. I noted that the U.S. does not need to bring about a new
Cold War by trying to impose democratic norms in Eastern Europe but should instead be doing all in its power to encourage a reasonable
rapprochement between Moscow and Kiev. Providing weapons or other military support to Ukraine would only cause the situation to escalate,
leading to a new war by proxies in Eastern Europe that could rapidly spread to other regions.
The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will
inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now. They inevitably produced
the Hitler analogy, citing the example of 1938 and Munich as well as the subsequent partition of Poland in 1939 to make their case.
When I asked what the United States would gain by intervening they responded that in return for military assistance, Washington will
have a good and democratic friend in Ukraine which will serve as a bulwark against further Russian expansion.
I explained that Russia does not have the economic or military resources to dominate Eastern Europe and its ambitions appear to
be limited to establishing a sphere of influence that includes "protection" for some adjacent areas that are traditionally Russian
and inhabited by ethnic Russians. Crimea is, unfortunately, one such region that was actually directly governed by Moscow between
1783 and 1954 and it is also militarily vitally important to Moscow as it is the home of the Black Sea Fleet. I did not point that
out to excuse Russian behavior but only to suggest that Moscow does have an argument to make, particularly as the United States has
been meddling in Eastern Europe, including Ukraine where it has "invested" $5 billion, since the Clinton Administration.
I argued that if resurgent Russian nationalism actually endangered the United States there would be a case to be made for constricting
Moscow by creating an alliance of neighbors that would be able to help contain any expansion, but even the hawks in the U.S. Congress
are neither prepared nor able to demonstrate a genuine threat. Fear of the expansionistic Soviet Union after 1945 was indeed the
original motivation for creating NATO. But the reality is that Russia is only dangerous if the U.S. succeeds in backing it into a
corner where it will begin to consider the kind of disruption that was the norm during the Cold War or even some kind of nuclear
response or demonstration. If one is focused on U.S. interests globally Russia has actually been a responsible player, helping in
the Middle East and also against international terrorism.
So there was little to agree on apart from the fact that the Ukrainians have a right to have a government they choose for themselves
and also to defend themselves. And we Americans have in the Ukrainians yet another potential client state that wants our help. In
return we would have yet another dependency whose concerns have to be regarded when formulating our foreign policy. One can sympathize
with the plight of the Ukrainians but it is not up to Washington to fix the world or to go around promoting democracy as a potential
solution to pervasive regional political instability.
Obviously a discussion based on what are essentially conflicting interests will ultimately go nowhere and so it did in this case,
but it did raise the issue of why Washington's relationship with Moscow is so troubled, particularly as it need not be so. Regarding
Ukraine and associated issues, Washington's approach has been stick-and-carrot with the emphasis on the stick through the imposition
of painful sanctions and meaningless though demeaning travel bans. I would think that reversing that formulation to emphasize rewards
would actually work better as today's Russia is actually a relatively new nation in terms of its institutions and suffers from insecurity
about its place in the world and the respect that it believes it is entitled to receive.
Russia
recently celebrated the 70 th anniversary of the end of World War Two in Europe. The celebration was boycotted by
the United States and by many Western European nations in protest over Russian interference in Ukraine. I don't know to what extent
Obama has any knowledge of recent history, but the Russians were the ones who were most instrumental in the defeat of Nazi Germany,
losing 27 million citizens in the process. It would have been respectful for President Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry to
travel to Moscow for the commemoration and it would likely have produced a positive result both for Ukraine and also to mitigate
the concern that a new Cold War might be developing. But Obama chose to stay home as punishment for Putin, which I think was
a bad choice suggesting that he is being strongly influenced by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the other neocons
who seem to have retained considerable power in his administration.
And I also would note a couple of other bad choices made during the past several weeks. The Trans-Pacific multilateral trade agreement
that is currently working its way through Congress and is being aggressively promoted by the White House might be great for business
though it may or may not be good for the American worker, which, based on previous agreements, is a reasonable concern. But what
really disturbs me is the Obama explanation of why the pact is important. Obama
told a crowd gathered outside the Nike footwear company in Oregon that the deal is necessary because "if we don't write the rules,
China will "
Fear of the Yellow Peril might indeed be legitimate but it would be difficult to make the case that an internally troubled China
is seeking to dominate the Pacific. If it attempts to do so, it would face strong resistance from the Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos
and Koreans among others. But what is bothersome to me and probably also to many in the Asian audience is that Obama takes as
a given that he will be able to "write the rules." This is American hubris writ large and I am certain that many who are thereby
designated to follow Washington's lead are as offended by it as I am. Bad move Barack.
And finally there is Iran as an alleged state sponsor of terrorism. President Obama claims that he is working hard to achieve
a peaceful settlement of the alleged threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. But if that is so why does he throw obstacles irrelevant
to an agreement out to make the Iranian government more uncomfortable and therefore unwilling or unable to compromise? In an
interview with Arabic
newspaper Asharq al-Awsat Obama called Tehran a terrorism supporter, stating that "it [Iran] props up the Assad regime in
Syria. It supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It aids the Houthi rebels in Yemen so countries in the region
are rights to be deeply concerned " I understand that the interview was designed to reassure America's friends in the Gulf that the
United States shares their concerns and will continue to support them but the timing would appear to be particularly unfortunate.
The handling of Russia, China and Iran all exemplify the essential dysfunction in American foreign policy. The United States should
have a mutually respectful relationship with Russia, ought to accept that China is an adversary but not necessarily an enemy unless
we make it so and it should also finally realize that an agreement with Iran is within its grasp as long as Washington does not overreach.
It is not clear that any of that is well understood and one has to wonder precisely what kind of advice Obama is receiving when fails
to understand the importance of Russia, insists on "writing the rules" for Asia, and persists in throwing around the terrorist label.
If the past fifteen years have taught us anything it is that the "Washington as the international arbiter model" is not working.
Obama should wake up to that reality before Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush arrives on the scene to make everything worse.
Tom Welsh, May 19, 2015 at 7:02 am GMT • 100 Words
All of this misses the point, IMHO. There is really no need to explain that Russia has no plans to conquer Europe, China has
no plans to take over the Pacific, etc. Anyone with a little historical knowledge and some common sense can see that plainly.
What is happening is that the USA has overweening aspirations to control (and then suck dry) the entire world – and Europe, Russia
and China are next on its hit list.
So it naturally accuses those nations of aspiring to what it plans to do. Standard operating procedure.
The Priss Factor, May 19, 2015 at 7:19 am GMT • 100 Words
"The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will
inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now."
I can understand Ukrainian animus against Russia due to history and ethnic tensions.
But that is ridiculous. They can't possibly believe it. I think they're repeating Neocon talking points to persuade American
that the fate of the world is at stake.
It's really just a local affair.
And Crimea would still belong to Ukraine if the crazies in Ukraine hadn't conspired with Neocons like Nuland to subvert and
overthrow the regime.
"... Some, such as General David Petraeus , seem to sincerely believe that the U.S. was on the right track and could have made progress if only those pesky civilians in the Beltway hadn't pulled the rug out from under them by announcing a premature withdrawal. ..."
When Will the Afghan War Architects Be Held Accountable?
Even after the release of the Afghanistan Papers, our elites are still determined to escape
without blame. CERNOBBIO, ITALY - SEPTEMBER 06: Chairman of the KKR Global Institute David
Howell Petraeus attends the Ambrosetti International Economic Forum 2019 "Lo scenario
dell'Economia e della Finanza" on September 6, 2019 in Cernobbio, Italy. (Photo by Pier Marco
Tacca/Getty Images)
Almost two weeks after the Washington Post 's Craig Whitlock published his six-part
series on the trials, tribulations, and blunders of Washington's 19-year-long social science
experiment in Afghanistan, those involved in the war effort are desperately pointing fingers as
to who is to blame. An alternative narrative has emerged among this crop of elite policymakers,
military officers, and advisers that while American policy in Afghanistan has been horrible,
the people responsible for it really did believe it would all work out in the end. Call it the
"we were stupid" defense.
There were no lies or myths propagated by senior U.S. officials, we are told, just honest
assessments that later proved to be wrong. Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, who
has advised U.S. commanders on Afghanistan war policy, wrote that "no, there has not been a
campaign of disinformation, intentional or subliminal." Former defense secretary Jim Mattis,
who led CENTCOM during part of the war effort, called the Post 's reporting "not really
news" and was mystified that the unpublished interviews from the U.S. special inspector general
were generating such shock. Others have faulted the Post for publishing the material to
begin with, claiming that public disclosure would scare future witnesses from cooperating and
threaten other fact-finding inquiries (the fact that the newspaper was legally permitted to
publish the transcripts after winning a court case against the government is apparently
irrelevant in the minds of those making this argument).
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
All of these claims and counter-claims should be seen for what they truly are: the flailings
of a policymaking class so arrogant and unaccountable that it can't see straight. That they're
blaming the outrage engendered by the Afghanistan Papers on anything other than themselves is
Exhibit A that our narcissistic policy elite is cocooned in their own reality.
Analysts have been pouring over the Afghanistan interview transcripts for over a week in
order to determine how the war went wrong. Some of the main lessons learned have long been
evident. The decision to impose a top-down democratic political order on a country that
operated on a system of patronage and tribal systems from the bottom-up was bound to be
problematic. Throwing tens of billions of dollars of reconstruction assistance into a nation
that had no experience managing that kind of money -- or spending it properly -- helped fuel
the very nationwide corruption Washington would come to regret. Paying off warlords to fight
the Taliban and keep order while pressuring those very same warlords into following the rules
was contradictory. The mistakes go on and on and on: as Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said,
"We didn't have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking."
One of the most salient findings about this ghastly two-decade-long misadventure surfaced
after the Afghanistan Papers were released: the commentariat will stop at nothing to absolve
themselves of the slightest responsibility for the disaster they supported. The outright
refusal of the pundit class to own up to its errors is as disturbing as it is infuriating. And
even when they do acknowledge that errors were committed, they tend to minimize their own role
in those mistakes, explaining them away as unfortunate consequences of fixed withdrawal
deadlines, inter-agency tussling, Afghanistan's poor foundational state, or the inability of
the Afghans to capitalize on the opportunities Washington provided them. Some,
such as General David Petraeus , seem to sincerely believe that the U.S. was on the right
track and could have made progress if only those pesky civilians in the Beltway hadn't pulled
the rug out from under them by announcing a premature withdrawal.
It's always somebody else's fault.
Whether out of arrogance, ego, or fear of not being taken seriously in Washington's foreign
policy discussions, the architects of the war refuse to admit even the most obvious mistakes.
Instead they duck and weave like a quarterback escaping a full-on defensive rush, attempting
yet again to fool the American public.
But the public has nothing to apologize for. It is those who are making excuses who have
exercised disastrous judgment on Afghanistan. And they owe the country an apology.
Daniel R. DePetris is a columnist for the Washington Examiner and a contributor
to The American Conservative.
Trump is expected to sign into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2020
which mandates the imposition of sanctions on companies involved in Nord Stream II's
construction, but while this crafty move isn't expected to seriously impede the project since
it's already in its final stages, its importance derives in the fact that it signals extremely
strong support for the interests of the US-backed "Three Seas Initiative" whose Polish leader
has objected to this game-changing pipeline on geopolitical grounds.
***
The US Senate's
approval of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2020 means that Trump will likely
sign it into law very soon, which is troublesome for Trans-Atlantic relations because it
mandates among its many sometimes unrelated provisions the imposition of sanctions on companies
involved in Nord Stream II's construction. This crafty move isn't expected to seriously impede
the project since it's already in its final stages after Russia
secured Denmark's permission back in October to construct a crucial segment of this
pipeline through its maritime territory, which will facilitate the project's completion and
thus strengthen Russia's strategic partnership with EU-leader Germany. That outcome will likely
accelerate the ongoing rapprochement between Russia and the bloc's Western European members
that became obvious to all after Macron's successful visit
to Moscow in late August, but which is in turn compelling the US to double down on its
commitment to the Polish-led " Three
Seas Initiative " (TSI) that it envisages functioning as its wedge for retaining influence
in the strategic Central European space between those two.
The impending NDAA 2020-connected sanctions should therefore be seen as an extremely strong
signal of support for this trans-regional integration structure because they satisfy the
demands of its Polish leader for the US to impose costs upon Germany for its reinvigorated
strategic partnership with Russia. Barely reported on at the time, it's significant to mention
that a bipartisan
resolution was submitted to the House of Representatives at the end of October shortly
after Russia secured Denmark's support for Nord Stream II mandating that Congress prioritize
its support for the TSI in the aftermath of that development, with a specific focus on energy
and physical connectivity projects. The grand strategic goal that the US is aiming to achieve
is to create a so-called "cordon sanitaire" that would serve to divide Russia from Western
Europe by exploiting the preexisting animosity that the many states between them have towards
Moscow, and it will likely end up being one of the main drivers of American foreign policy
towards the continent for the foreseeable future.
In pursuit of that objective, the US is also making strategic outreaches to
Belarus , knowing very well that its wily leader Lukashenko is more than willing to
"balance" between the West and Russia in a risky attempt to extract more (mostly economic)
"concessions" from each of them. It goes without saying that this policy will probably ramp up
now that Nord Stream II is a fait accompli and the "cordon sanitaire" is more significant than
ever in the current context. That former Soviet Republic, however, is unlikely to engage in a
decisive "pivot" against Russia, though from a zero-sum standpoint, the gradual moves that it's
making towards the West can indeed be interpreted as being "mildly" against Russia's long-term
interests. Still, there isn't much that Russia can do since it must avoid the perception that
it's putting overwhelming pressure on Belarus or even plausibly considering doing so since that
notion would only accelerate the very same trend that Moscow wants to reverse. Minsk, it must
be said, recognizes how geostrategic its position is for both the Russian-led Eurasian Union
(EAU) and the Polish-led TSI, so it'll try to play them off against the other, all with the US'
passive support.
The US isn't the only Great Power spreading its influence through the TSI, as China is also
rapidly on the ascent there too. The Balkans are becoming more important of a destination for
Chinese foreign direct investment than ever through the Belt & Road
Initiative (BRI), most visibly manifesting itself in Beijing's plans to construct a
high-speed railway from the Hungarian capital of Budapest to the Greek port of Pireaus (the
"Balkan Silk Road"). It also holds yearly meetings with the leaders of the TSI countries and
others in this region through the 17+1
format that was recently expanded to include Greece (having been the 16+1 previously). In
addition, Belarus is a key node on the Eurasian Land Bridge, with China investing in the "
Great Stone " industrial
park that it envisages becoming a major export center along that route. None of this is to
imply whatsoever that China is "teaming up" with the US to "contain" Russia in Central &
Eastern Europe, but just to point out that China's infrastructure investments will greatly help
to connect the region along the north-south axis, after which the US will likely exploit these
apolitical and purely economic projects for its strategic ends vis-a-vis Russia.
Even so, while the TSI space is certainly geostrategic, its economic importance pales in
comparison to Western Europe's. The German economy alone is larger than all of those states'
combined, so Russia isn't exactly losing out in the economic sense as a result of the US' TSI
plans. It is, however, at risk of this "cordon sanitaire" being used as its rival's
trans-regional platform for putting military pressure upon it, which has already been happening
ever since most of its states joined NATO and then doubled down on their commitment to it after
the onset of the New
Cold War in 2014 following Crimea's reunification with Russia in response to the US-backed
coup in Ukraine. Poland and increasingly Greece
bookend this pro-American military structure, while Ukraine and possibly soon even Belarus
could ultimately become its eastern-most appendages by proxy. Russia still has instruments of
influence that it can leverage in an attempt to keep this trend under control, though it's
seemingly on the defensive in recent years and appears unable to gain any successes on this
front, instead choosing to concentrate on Western Europe through Nord Stream II and other
measures.
Looking forward, the rise of the TSI as the US' preferred continental proxy is all but
assured, though it's unclear whether or not it'll succeed with its fundamental purpose of
keeping Russia and Western Europe apart. Classical geopolitical thought suggesting that it
would doesn't take into consideration the much more complex nature of contemporary
International Relations whereby a conventional military clash between the TSI states and Russia
is unlikely for reasons of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) stemming from many of the
former's memberships in NATO, and their other memberships in the EU mean that a successful
EU-Russian detente would force them to facilitate trade between Western Europe and Russia if
even a single state vetoes the continuation of sanctions in the future. Altogether, it can
therefore be said that Russia's successful completion of Nord Stream II would flip the
strategic dynamics by once again returning Moscow to a position of strength whereas Washington
would then be the Great Power on the defensive instead. Still, the TSI's potential shouldn't be
underestimated either since it might lead to some surprises for both Western Europe and Russia
if its American patron has a few tricks up its sleeve that it's wiling to teach its regional
partners.
"... Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown on
the "Nazis"? ..."
"... I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the term
"Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic. ..."
"... What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia.
They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing? ..."
"... I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't
give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain a slow-burning
conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue to avoid the Ukraine.
..."
The recent Paris summit and the few days following the summit have brought a lot of clarity about the future of the Minsk Agreements.
Short version: Kiev has officially rejected them (by rejecting both the sequence of steps and several crucial steps). For those interested,
let's look a little further.
First, what just happened
First, here are the key excerpts from the Paris Conference and from statements made by "Ze" and his superior, Arsen Avakov right
after their return to Kiev:
The Minsk agreements (Minsk Protocol of 5 September 2014, Minsk Memorandum of 19 September 2014 and the Minsk Package of Measures
of 12 February 2015) continue to be the basis of the work of the Normandy format whose member states are committed to their
full implementation ( ) The sides express interest in agreeing within the Normandy format (N4) and the Trilateral Contact
Group on all the legal aspects of the Special Order of Local Self-Government – special status – of Certain Areas of the Donetsk
and Luhansk Regions – as outlined in the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements from 2015 – in order
to ensure its functioning on a permanent basis .They consider it necessary to incorporate the "Steinmeier formula" into the Ukrainian
legislation, in accordance with the version agreed upon within the N4 and the Trilateral Contact Group.
President 'Ze' statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation) source
" The most difficult question is the question of the transfer of the border control to Ukraine. It's very funny, because
its our border and the transfer of the control to us. But, it's a weak sport, the Achilles' heel of the Minsk Agreement." "It's
what was signed by us, unfortunately. We can discuss this for a very long time. Possibly, the conditions were as such." "But we
signed that we will get the control over our border only after the elections on the temporarily occupied territories." "We dedicated
a very long time to this question, we discussed it in details, we have a very different positions with the president of
Russia ." "But this is the Minsk position, we have to understand this. I only like one thing, that we started talking about
this. We agreed that we will continue talking about this in details and with the different variations during our next meeting."
"This is also a victory, because we will have a meeting in four months."
Q. What do you think, is it possible to change the Minsk Agreement? source
" This will be very difficult to do, but we have to do it. We have to change it . First, we have to understand
that it's been over four years since the Minsk Agreement was signed. Everything changes in our life. We have to understand that
it wasn't my team that signed the Minsk Agreement, but we as a power have to fulfill the conditions that our power at the time
agreed back then. But? I am sure that some things we will be able to change. We will be changing them." "Because the transfer
of the Ukraine's border after our control only after the elections, – it's not our position. I said about this don't know how
many times, but this is the final decision ."
Arsen Avakov's statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation):
" The philosophy of the border control the part of the border that we don't have control over is 408 kilometers. It's not that
easy to take it over, to equip it, even to get there across the enemy territories. It's a procedure. As a compromise, we offered
the following scheme: we will start taking the border under our control stating with the New Year, little by little, reducing the
length of the border that is not controlled by us, and a day before the local election we will close the border, we will close this
bottleneck. And this way will get the control over the border. Why isn't this a good compromise? Considering, that at the same time
according to the Steinmeier Formula, they have to disarm all the illegal armed formations of this pseudo-state DNR. This is how we
see the compromise."
In other words, both the official President and real President of the Ukraine agree: the Ukraine will not implement the Minsk
Agreements as written, made law by the UNSC and clarified by the so-called Steinmeier Formula.
Ukrainian propagandists on Russian TV (yes, Urkonazi and hardline nationalist propagandists do get air time on Russian TV on a
daily basis – for an explanation why, see here and here ) went into damage
control mode and explained it all away by saying " these are only words, what matters is what Zelenskii signed in Paris ".
They are wrong. First of all, statements made in their official capacity by the President or the Minister of Internal Affairs do
represent OFFICIAL policy statements. Second, this explanation completely overlooks the reason why Ze and Avakov said these things.
That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Urkonazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did, in
spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all we see
is Poroshenko 2.0.
So in the behind-the-scenes (but very real) struggle between the Zionist camp (Kolomoiskii and Zelenskii) and the Urkonazi camp
(Avakov and Poroshenko), the latter have successfully taken control of the former and now the chances for saving a unitary Ukraine
are down to, maybe not quite zero, but to something like 0.0000001% (I leave that one under the heading "never say never" and because
I have been wrong in the past).
So what happens next?
That is the interesting question. In theory, the Normandy Four will meet again in 4 months. But that assumes that some progress
was made. Well, it is possible that in a few sections of the line of contact there will be an OSCE supervised withdrawal of forces.
But, let's be honest here, the people have seen many, many such promised withdrawals, and they all turned out to be fake. Either
the Ukronazis return to the neutral zone (claiming huge victories over the (sic) "Russian armed force"), or they resume bombing civilians,
or they never even bother to change position. Any withdrawal is a good thing if it can save a single life! But no amount of withdrawals
will settle anything in this conflict.
Second, there are A LOT of Ukrainian politicians who now say that the citizens of the LDNR have to "return" to Russia if they
don't like the Urkonazi coup or its ideology. They either don't realize, or don't care, that there are very few Russian volunteers
in Novorussia and that the vast majority of the men and women who compose the LDNR forces are locals. These locals, by the way, get
the Ukie message loud and clear: you better get away while you can, because when we show up you will all be prosecuted for terrorism
and aiding terrorists, that is ALSO something the Urkonazis like to repeat day after day. By the way, while in Banderastan all Russian
TV channels are censored, and while they also try to censor the Russian language Internet, in Novorussia all the Ukrainian (and Russian)
TV stations are freely available. So as soon as some Nazi freak comes out and says something crazy like "we will create filtration
camps" (aka concentration camps) this news is instantly repeated all over Novorussia, which only strengthens the resolve of the people
of the LDNR to fight to their death rather than accept a Nazi occupation..
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not have
the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested. Whatever the case may be, it's now over, we are back
to square one.
The most likely scenario is a "slow freezing" of the conflict meaning now that Kiev has officially and overtly rejected the Minsk
Agreements, there will be some minor, pretend-negotiations, maybe, but that fundamentally the conflict will be frozen.
That will be the last nail in the coffin of the pro-EU, pro-NATO so-called "Independent Ukraine", since the most important condition
to try to salvage the Ukrainian economy, namely peace, is now gone. Furthermore, the political climate in the Ukraine will further
deteriorate (the hated Nazi minority + an even worse economic crisis are a perfect recipe for disaster).
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement. That
means that the LDNR will separate from the rump-Ukraine and, on time, rejoin Russia. Good bye Banderites and Urkonazis!
The rump-Ukraine will eventually break-up further: Crimea truly was the "jewel of the Black Sea" and its future appears to be
extremely bright while the Donbass was the biggest source of raw materials, energy, industry, high-tech, etc. etc. etc.). What is
left of the Ukraine is either poor and under-developed (the West) or needs to reopen economic ties with Russia (the South).
Besides, Zelenskii and his party are now trying to rush a new law through the Rada which will allow the sale of Ukrainian land
to private interests (aka foreign interests + a local frontman). As a result, there is now a new "maidan" brewing, pitting Iulia
Timoshenko and other nationalist leaders against Zelenskii and his party. This could become a major crisis very fast, especially
now that is appears that Zelenskii will also renege on this promise to call for a national referendum on the issue of the sale/privatization
of land .
As for the Russians, they already realize that Ze is a joke, unsurprisingly so since he is a comic by trade, and that the Ukrainians
are "not agreement capable". They will treat him like they did Poroshenko in the last years: completely ignore him and not even take
his telephone calls. Right now, there is just a tiny bit of good will left in Moscow, but it is drying up so fast that it will soon
totally disappear. Besides, the Russians really don't care that much anymore: the sanctions turned out to be a blessing, time is
on Russia's side, the Ukronazis are destroying their own state and, finally, the important stuff for Russia is happening in Asia,
not the West.
The Europeans will take a long time to come to terms with two simple facts:
Russia was never a party to this conflict (if she had, it would have been over long ago). The Ukronazis are the ones who won't implement
the Minsk Agreements
This means that the politicians who were behind the EU's backing of the Euromaidan (Merkel) will have to go before their successors
can say that, oops, we got our colors confused, and white is actually black and black turned out to be white. That's okay, politicians
are pretty good at that. The honeymoon between Kiev and Warsaw on the one hand and Berlin on the other will soon end as bad times
are ahead.
Macron looks much better, and he will probably pursue his efforts to restore semi-normal relations with Russia, for France's sake
first, but also eventually the rest of the EU. The Poles and the Balts will accuse him of "treason" and he will just ignore them.
As for Trump, he will most likely make small steps towards Russia, but most of his energy will be directed either inwards (impeachment)
or outwards (Israel), but not towards the Ukrainian conflict. Good.
Conclusion
It's over. Crimea and the Donbass are gone forever, the first is de jure , the latter merely de facto . The rump-Ukraine
is completely unconformable (barring some kind of coup followed by a government of national unity supported Moscow – I consider this
hypothesis as highly unlikely).
If you live in the West, don't expect your national media to report on any of this. They will be the LAST ones to actually admit
it (journos have a longer shelf life than politicians, it is harder for them to make a 180).
PS: to get a feeling for the kind of silly stunts the "Ze team" is now busying itself with, just check this one: they actually
tried to falsify the Ukrainian version of the Paris Communique. For details, see Scott's report here: https://thesaker.is/kiev-attempted-to-change-the-letter-and-meaning-of-paris-summit-communique/
. If the Ukraine was a Kindergarten, then "Ze" would be a perfect classroom teacher or visiting entertainer. But for a country
fighting for its survival, such stunts are a very, very bad sign indeed!
(*rump-Ukraine: In broad terms, a "rump" state is what remains of a state when a portion is carved away. Expanding on the "butcher"
metaphor, the rump is what is left when the higher-value cuts such as rib roast and loin have been removed.)
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not
have the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested.
Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown
on the "Nazis"?
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement.
So what is the Ukrainian thinking here -- that they are better off simply cutting bait on the east and letting Russia deal
with the headache of the Donbass's antiquated infrastructure? And that a truncated Ukraine would at least be mostly free of internal
pro-Russian sentiment?
I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the
term "Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic.
What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia.
They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing?
I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't
give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain
a slow-burning conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue
to avoid the Ukraine.
"That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Ukronazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did,
in spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all
we see is Poroshenko 2.0."
This is interesting. It implies z actually meant what he said in order to gain votes to get elected. In fact, he is very similar
to trump in this respect. Lied about desiring an end to the conflict (conflicts in the case of trump), but once in office continued
the aggressive policies (and expanded them in the case of trump). Actually, if one considers poroshenko as the ukraine version
of obama/clinton and zelinsky as trump, it looks like the ukrainian regime is following in the footsteps of the american regime.
It's not just Minsk that has been abandoned by the Kiev junta. Kiev itself has been abandoned by the EU, which now looks to Nordstream-2
for its energy supplies from Russia, thus bypassing the thieves in Ukraine. Even sanctions from the Supreme Sanctioner in DC is
not going to persuade the Germans to shiver in the winter.
"Nord Stream 2: Trump approves sanctions on Russia gas pipeline"
The Russians will probably finish that last segment themselves but the German reaction
will be the one to watch out for – if there is one. Without Nord Stream 2, Germany will
have to accept having a smaller economy because of insufficient energy to power it which will
have knock-on effects in taxation, revenue raising & allocation, etc.
This will make them less competitive against the US and other economies and if they are
forced to buy US gas shipments, it will play hell with their budget due to the excessive
cost. Having a US Ambassador that thinks of himself as a Proconsul of Germany has not
lessened any tensions either. So we will see if there is any German reaction.
When Russia finishes the pipeline, which is not really sure since the swiss special ships
might finish in time or might be actually needed to finish the pipeline, then why would a
reaction from Germany be needed?
If/when the pipeline is done, Germany will take the gas from it for e.g. its chemical
industry. From what I understand, the US hasn't sanctioned users of russian gas in general,
"only" companies who actively build on the pipeline, like the owner of the special ships
used.
If the US however doubles down and sanctions users of russian pipeline gas, then it will
probably have a big fight on its hand. Then not only Germany is affected but almost all EU
countries, except Poland and the Baltics of course.
Frankly, I just don't get the logic behind this move by Trump. Is he saying that he thinks
that Germany is a colony of the US and that the US gets to determine where they get their
resources? That is pretty high-handed, even for the US.
I think that's exactly what these sanctions are about. "The US considers the project a
security risk to Europe" certainly sounds colonialist, and "The Trump administration fears
the pipeline will tighten Russia's grip over Europe's energy supply and reduce its own share
of the lucrative European market for American liquefied natural gas" sounds like the USA
wants to tell Europe what to buy and where.
I'm not sure about pinning it all on Trump though: " Congress voted through the
measures as part of a defence bill last week and the legislation, which described the
pipeline as a "tool of coercion", was signed off by Mr Trump on Friday."
(Quotes from the BBC article)
Why have NATO. Do you need a military against a country that you buy gas from. You give
them enormous amounts of money and they can shut the switch at any time. Maybe we should
bring Russia into NATO to defend against aliens.
Russia asked to join NATO, but were rejected. NATO needs a bogey man enemy to justify
forcing all its members to spend 2% of GDP on US military equipment. The first thing American
arms salespersons did when the Berlin Wall fell was to head to Eastern Europe to sell
arms.
It might be high-handed, but it's not new. Variations of this game have gone on since the
80s, when the first gas exports from Russia were starting. This is an upswing in aggression,
but it's mostly a continuation of standard US policy.
I am not even sure that the increased aggression comes from Trump. It's more that gas
producers in the US are now more powerful than a decade ago (and somewhat desperate due to
low gas prices in the US), so their interests add to the old-school geopolitics.
Well Germany and EU are sure behaving as if they are colonies. Zero fight for what is good
for EU. Think Russia sanctions. Hurt only EU, not US and a little bit Russia, which now have
moved to produce themselves the stuff EU was selling to Russia. EU has screwed itself on the
long-term by order from the US. US is not Europe's friend, but is making sure that it gets
weaker and cannot offer an alternative, economical, social or military.
If you want to amuse yourself you can see the ships here :
They appear to be returning to port. Were last working just to the SSE of Bornholm (the
Danish island).
Here is a gazprom map of the route as of Oct .
Most of the remaining route, the segment in German EEZ waters going in the southwest directon
from Bornholm, is shallow water.
I keep wondering when Europe will decide to throw off the shackles. A complicating factor
may be history: they'd rather an American master, mostly far away, than a German one.
Didn't we interfere with Japanese oil supplies once? For large values of happy, I can say
I'm happy with synopsizing the result of World War 2 as being about 'Who had the most oil?' I
feel like we are now vaporizing so many kinds of capital to maintain energy dominance. Can
the US please stop fighting WWII sometime before WWIII
"... The American people and most of the world bought into the lies and half-truths because they wanted to believe the fiction they were being spoon fed by the White House, but is there a whole lot of difference between what the US government did against Iraq in 2003 and what Hitler's government did in 1939 when it falsely claimed that Polish troops had attacked Germany? Was subsequent torture by the Gestapo any different than torture by a contractor working for Washington? ..."
"... A friend of mine recently commented that honest men who were formerly part of the United States government do not subsequently get hired by lobbying firms or obtain television contracts and "teaching" positions at prestigious universities. ..."
"... If the marketplace is anything to go by Feith and Tenet are running neck-and-neck on secondary book exchanges as George also can be had for $.01. ..."
"... The historian Livy summed up the significance of his act, writing "It is worthwhile for those who disdain all human things for money, and who suppose that there is no room either for great honor or virtue, except where wealth is found, to listen to his story." ..."
"... "Power is always dangerous. Power attracts the worst and corrupts the best." ..."
"... senior government officials and politicians routinely expect to be generously rewarded for their service and never held accountable for their failures and misdeeds ..."
"... One thing for sure about the Washington elite, you never have to say you're sorry. ..."
The United States already has by far the per capita largest prison population of any developed country but I am probably one of
the few Americans who on this Independence Day would like to see a lot more people in prison, mostly drawn from politicians and senior
bureaucrats who have long believed that their status makes them untouchable, giving them license to steal and even to kill. The sad
fact is that while whistleblowers have been imprisoned for revealing government criminality, no one in the federal bureaucracy has
ever actually been punished for the crimes of torture, kidnapping and assassination committed during the George W. Bush and Barack
H. Obama presidencies.
Why is accountability important? After the Second World War, the victorious allies believed it was important to establish responsibility
for the crimes that had been committed by officials of the Axis powers. The judges at the Nuremberg Trials called the initiation
of a war of aggression the ultimate war crime because it inevitably unleashed so many other evils. Ten leading Nazis were executed
at Nuremberg and ninety-three Japanese officials at similar trials staged in Asia, including several guilty of waterboarding. Those
who were not executed for being complicit in the actual launching of war were tried for torture of both military personnel and civilians
and crimes against humanity, including the mass killing of civilians as well as of soldiers who had surrendered or been captured.
No matter how one tries to avoid making comparisons between 1939 and 2015, the American invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression,
precisely the type of conflict that the framework of accountability provided by Nuremberg was supposed to prevent in the years after
1946. High level US government officials knew that Iraq represented no threat to the United States but they nevertheless described
an imminent danger posed by Saddam Hussein in the most graphic terms, replete with weapons of mass destruction, armed drones flying
across the Atlantic, terrorists being unleashed against the homeland, and mushroom clouds on the horizon. The precedent of Iraq,
even though it was an abject failure, has led to further military action against Libya and Syria to bring about "regime change" as
well as a continuing conflict in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, the US has been waging a largely secret "long war" against terrorists employing torture and secret prisons. The
American people and most of the world bought into the lies and half-truths because they wanted to believe the fiction they were being
spoon fed by the White House, but is there a whole lot of difference between what the US government did against Iraq in 2003 and
what Hitler's government did in 1939 when it falsely claimed that Polish troops had attacked Germany? Was subsequent torture by the
Gestapo any different than torture by a contractor working for Washington?
Many Americans would now consider the leading figures in the Bush Administration aided and abetted by many enablers in congress
from both political parties to be unindicted war criminals. Together they ignited a global conflict that is still running strong
fourteen years later with a tally of more than 7,000 dead Americans and a minimum of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, Afghans,
Libyans, Somalis and Syrians.
War breeds more war, due largely to the fact that guilty parties in Washington who piggyback on the prevailing narrative move
onward and upward, rewarded in this life even if not necessarily so in the hereafter. A friend of mine recently commented that
honest men who were formerly part of the United States government do not subsequently get hired by lobbying firms or obtain television
contracts and "teaching" positions at prestigious universities. Though not 100% accurate as I know at least a couple of honorable
former senior officials who wound up teaching, it would seem to be a generalization that has considerable validity. The implication
is that many senior government officials ascend to their positions based on being accommodating and "political" rather than being
honest and they continue to do the same when they switch over to corporate America or the equally corrupted world of academia.
I thought of my friend's comment when I turned on the television a week ago to be confronted by the serious, somewhat intense
gaze of Michael Morell,
warning about the danger that ISIS will strike the US over the Fourth of July weekend. Morell, a former senior CIA official,
is in the terror business. He had no evidence whatsoever that terrorists were planning an attack and should have realized that maneuvering
the United States into constantly going on alert based on empty threats is precisely what militant groups tend to do.
When not fronting as a handsomely paid national security consultant for the CBS television network Morell is employed by Beacon
Global Strategies as a Senior Counselor, presumably warning well-heeled clients to watch out for terrorists. His lifestyle and substantial
emoluments depend on people being afraid of terrorism so they will turn to an expert like him and ask serious questions that he will
answer in a serious way suggesting that Islamic militants could potentially bring about some kind of global apocalypse.
Morell, a torture apologist, also has a book out that he wants to sell, positing somewhat ridiculously that he and his former
employer had been fighting The Great War of Our Time against Islamic terrorists, something comparable to the World Wars of the past
century, hence the title. Morell needs to take some valium and relax. He would also benefit from a little introspection regarding
the bad guys versus good guys narrative that he is peddling. His credentials as a warrior are somewhat suspect in any event as he
never did any military service and his combat in the world of intelligence consisted largely of sitting behind a desk in Washington
and providing briefings to George W. Bush and Barack Obama in which he presumably told them what they wanted to hear.
Morell is one of a host of pundits who are successful in selling the military-industrial-lobbyist-congressional-intelligence community
line of BS on the war on terror. Throw in the neocons as the in-your-face agents provocateurs who provide instant intellectual and
media credibility for developments and you have large groups of engaged individuals with good access who are on the receiving end
of the seemingly unending cash pipeline that began with 9/11. Frances Townsend, who was the Bush Homeland Security adviser and who
is now a consultant with CNN, is another such creature as is Michael Chertoff, formerly Director of the Department of Homeland Security,
who has successfully marketed his
defective airport
scanners to his former employer.
But the guys and gals who are out feathering their own nests are at least comprehensible given our predatory capitalist system
of government. More to the point, the gang that ordered or carried out torture and assassination are the ones who should be doing
some hard time in the slammer but instead they too are riding the gravy train and cashing in. To name only a few of those who knew
about the torture and ordered it carried out I would cite George Tenet, James Pavitt, Cofer Black and Jose Rodriguez from the intelligence
community. The assassination program meanwhile is accredited to John Brennan, currently CIA Director, during his tenure as Obama's
Deputy National Security Advisor. And then there are Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon together with John Yoo at Justice
and Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, and Condi Rice at the White House, all of whom outright lied, dissimulated and conspired their way
to bring about a war of aggression against Iraq.
There are plenty of nameless others who were "only carrying out orders" and who should be included in any reckoning of America's
crimes over the past fifteen years, particularly if one also considers the illegal NSA spying program headed by Michael Hayden, who
defended the practice and has also
referred to those who oppose enhanced interrogation torture as "interrogation deniers." And then there are Presidents Bush and
Obama who certainly knew what was going on in the name of the American people as well as John Brennan, who was involved in both the
torture and renditions programs as well as the more recent assassinations by drone.
So where are they now? Living in obscurity ashamed of what they did? Hardly. Not only have they not been vilified or marginalized,
they have, in most cases, been rewarded. George W. Bush lives in Dallas near his Presidential Library and eponymous Think (sic) Tank.
Cheney lives in semi-retirement in McLean Virginia with a multi-million dollar waterfront weekend retreat in St. Michaels Maryland,
not too far from Donald Rumsfeld's similar digs.
George Tenet, the CIA Director notorious for his "slam-dunk" comment, a man who cooked the intelligence to make the Iraq war possible
to curry favor with the White House, has generously remunerated positions on the boards of Allen & Company merchant bank, QinetiQ,
and L-1 Identity Solutions. He sold his memoir At the Center of the Storm, which has been
described
as a "self-justifying apologia," in 2007 for a reported advance of $4 million. His book, ironically, admits that the US invaded
Iraq for no good reason.
James Pavitt, who was the point man responsible for the "enhanced interrogation" program as Tenet's Deputy Director for Operations,
is currently a principal with The Scowcroft Group and also serves on several boards. Cofer Black, who headed the Counter-Terrorism
Center, which actually carried out renditions and "enhanced interrogations," was vice chairman of Blackwater Worldwide (now called
Xe) and chairman of Total Intelligence Solutions, a Blackwater spin-off. He is now vice president of Blackbird Technologies, a defense
and intelligence contractor. Rodriguez, who succeeded Black and in 2005 illegally destroyed video tapes made of Agency interrogations
to avoid possible repercussions, is a senior vice president with Edge Consulting, a defense contractor currently owned by IBM that
is located in Virginia.
John Yoo is a Professor of Law at the University of California Berkeley while Condoleezza Rice, who spoke of mushroom clouds and
is widely regarded as the worst National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in history, has returned to Stanford University.
She is a professor at the Graduate School
of Business and a director of its Global Center for Business and the Economy as well as a fellow at the Hoover Institution. She
is occasionally spoken of as either a possible GOP presidential candidate or as a future Commissioner of the National Football League.
Her interaction with students is limited, but when challenged on her record she has responded that it was a difficult situation post
9/11, something that everyone understands, though few would have come to her conclusion that attacking Iraq might be a good way to
destroy al-Qaeda.
Paul Wolfowitz, the Bush Deputy Secretary of Defense, is seen by many as the "intellectual" driving force behind the invasion
of Iraq. He is currently a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and advises Jeb Bush on foreign policy. A bid to
reward Wolfie for his zeal by giving him a huge golden parachute as President of the World Bank at a salary of $391,000 tax free
failed when, after 23 months in the position, he was ousted over promoting a subordinate with whom he was having an affair. His chief
deputy at the Pentagon Doug Feith left the Defense Department to take up a visiting professorship at the school of Foreign Service
at Georgetown University, which was subsequently not renewed. He is reported to be again practicing law and thinking deep thoughts
about his hero Edmund Burke, who no doubt would have been appalled to make Feith's acquaintance. Feith is a senior fellow at the
neoconservative Hudson Institute and the Director of the Center for National Security Strategies. His memoir War and Decision did
not make the best seller list and is now available used on Amazon for $.01 plus shipping. If the marketplace is anything to go
by Feith and Tenet are running neck-and-neck on secondary book exchanges as George also can be had for $.01.
The over-rewarding of former officials who have in reality done great harm to the United States and its interests might well seem
inexplicable, but it is all part of a style of bureaucracy that cannot admit failure and truly believes that all its actions are
ipso facto legitimate because the executive and its minions can do no wrong. It is also a symptom of the classic American character
flaw that all things are of necessity measured by money. Does anyone remember the ancient Roman symbol of republican virtue Lucius
Quinctius Cincinnatus, who left his farm after being named Dictator in order to defeat Rome's enemies? He then handed power back
to the Senate before returning to his plowing after the job was done. The historian Livy summed up the significance of his act,
writing "It is worthwhile for those who disdain all human things for money, and who suppose that there is no room either for great
honor or virtue, except where wealth is found, to listen to his story." George Washington was America's Cincinnatus and it is
not a coincidence that officers of the continental army founded the Cincinnati Society, the nation's oldest patriotic organization,
in 1783. It is also reported that Edward Snowden used the alias "Cincinnatus."
Lord Acton once observed that "Power tends
to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." More recently essayist Edward Abbey
put it in an American context, noting
"Power is always dangerous. Power attracts the worst and corrupts the best." That senior government officials and politicians
routinely expect to be generously rewarded for their service and never held accountable for their failures and misdeeds is a
fault that is perhaps not unique to the United States but it is nevertheless unacceptable. Handing out a couple of exemplary prison
sentences for the caste that believes itself untouchable would be a good place to start. An opportunity was missed with David Petraeus,
who was fined and avoided jail time, and it will be interesting to see how the Dennis Hastert case develops. Hastert will no doubt
be slapped on the wrist for the crime of moving around his own money while the corruption that was the source of that money, both
as a legislator and lobbyist, will be ignored. As will his molestation of at least one and possibly several young boys. One thing
for sure about the Washington elite, you never have to say you're sorry.
"... oligarchic greed; a military dedicated to protecting the wealth of oligarchs; and, wars over resources. Granted Bill Clinton began the current charade about 'humanitarian wars' but it was Bush II and Obama who turned our focus into resource wars and the hegemons (Malignant Overlords) who decided it was time to take it all. ..."
Long ago (1968) after returning from Vietnam with a bullet hole in my leg (my 90 wonder, post-ROTC officer shot me when he
panicked) I wondered off to a down-at-the-heel cow college. There I took a class and C Wright Mills 'The Power Elite' was required
reading.
I had just finished 'War is a fraud' and read an article by Paul Ehrlich an then 'The Population Bomb' shortly thereafter.
The three books created an interesting fusion in my mind:
More or less after the year 2000 the world would be plagued by resource wars;
The primary role of the military is to enforce what capitalists want; and
Behind the alleged scenes of our form of government hovered oligarchs who would demand more and more.
I recently found a paper I had written long ago. It wasn't very well written, but even then the handwriting was on the wall:
oligarchic greed; a military dedicated to protecting the wealth of oligarchs; and, wars over resources. Granted Bill Clinton
began the current charade about 'humanitarian wars' but it was Bush II and Obama who turned our focus into resource wars and the
hegemons (Malignant Overlords) who decided it was time to take it all.
I guess the point of all of this is (except for the details) Ehrlich, Mills and Butler warned us. As did Huxley and Orwell
... we were just too damned dumb (or distracted) to see it.
Maybe with the Queen of Chaos, the above will result in either annihilation or in a severe reduction in the numbers of people
... (hopefully including all of the oligarchic class) and the chance to start over?
Nah ... we'll just fuck it up again ... as a species we refuse to learn. Sigh ...
On Thursday, police in Hong Kong announced the arrests of several individuals whom they
described as leaders of the Hong Kong protests movement. But these individuals (their
identities have not been released) were not simply collared out in the street.
Instead, police described the four as leaders of Spark Alliance, a mysterious organization
that has been one of the main financiers of the protest movement, including by bailing
protesters out of jail and helping to defray their legal fees.
Police seized HK$70 million ($9 million) in bank deposits and personal insurance products
from Spark, claiming that the group broke laws about money laundering.
In a response posted to its FB group, Spark blasted the police, accusing them of
deliberately trying to cut off one of the most important avenues of financing in the protest
movement.
On Thursday evening, police announced the arrests of four people connected with Spark
Alliance for suspected money laundering, the first cases brought over financing the
demonstrations after six months of protests against China's tightening grip over Hong Kong.
Authorities froze HK$70 million of bank deposits and personal insurance products linked to
the fund, while also seizing HK$130,000 in cash.
"The police attempted, through false statements, to distort the work of Spark Alliance as
money laundering for malicious uses," the group said in a statement on Facebook. " Spark
Alliance condemns this kind of defamatory action."
The arrests and seizures, as
Bloomberg explains, shed light on the innerworkings of the Hong Kong protest movement.
Millions of Americans who have read the news reports about the protests have probably been left
wondering how the protesters became so organized.
Well, this is how: Since the beginning of the movement, wealthy working HKers have observed
their duty to help those battling it out on the front lines in any way possible. Mostly, they
do it through donations to groups that purport to help bail out protesters after they've been
arrested, or groups that simply provide food and shelter for the demonstrators, many of whom
are teenagers, or in their early 20s.
This division of responsibilities is part of what's allowed the movement to continue on for
as long as it has.
But by cracking down on the money, HK police are essentially pulling the rug out from under
Hong Kongers facing criminal charges for protest-related activities.
Because Spark Alliance and another, more transparent, fund called the 612 Humanitarian Fund
are responsible for financing the protest movement: According to BBG, the two funds account for
70% of the money raised by the protest movement.
The impact of this crackdown is two-fold: not only will protesters counting on these funds
to pay their legal fees be left out in the cold, but the renewed police scrutiny could deter
some working Hong Kongers who have been supporting the movement with donations.
The crackdown deals a major blow to demonstrators as they face ever-mounting legal bills,
with more than 6,000 people arrested since June. Spark Alliance, one of the largest
crowd-funding campaigns supporting the protests, plays a crucial behind-the-scenes role -
often sending anonymous representatives to bail protesters out of jail in the middle of the
night.
The latest arrests risk deterring Hong Kong's professional class from giving more cash,
potentially curbing a substantial source of funds that have helped sustain the protests
longer than anyone had expected. They also show the limits of the leaderless movement's
ability to manage tens of millions of dollars with little oversight outside of a formal
financial system.
Funds bankrolling the protests have collectively raised at least HK$254 million ($33
million) since June, with 70% coming from just two groups, Spark Alliance and the 612
Humanitarian Fund, according to a tally based on disclosures from the groups and an analysis
of publicly available documents. That figure doesn't reflect all the money raised related to
the protests, only the funds Bloomberg News could verify.
Before the arrests, most Hong Kongers didn't know the identities of anyone behind Spark
Alliance. Its website and bank accounts (before they were shut down) all forwarded to a Pest
Control company.
But Spark proved its reliability early on by helping bail protesters out of jail. But the
group has been under scrutiny even before the police got involved. Last month, HSBC shut down
the group's account, saying they had detected activity that differed from the stated purpose of
the account.
"Spark is probably less transparent but people tend to believe them," said Jason, a
protester in his 30s who asked to be identified by his English name. He said he memorized the
group's phone number and called the group after he was arrested in August. Seven hours later,
two lawyers helped arrange HK$4,000 in bail money.
"Everyone knows the cost to fight for this movement and not everyone can afford lawyer
fees," he said. "We need protection."
Over the past few months he's raised half a million dollars for Spark Alliance and other
charities through the sale of Hong Kong-themed figurines, including a miniature Carrie Lam
and a masked protester. Asked on Thursday night if he would still give the money to Spark
Alliance, Jason said he wanted more information on the arrests.
The shadowy nature of some of these organizations has helped the Chinese government portray
the protests as having been financed by foreign powers like the US. Of course, these
accusations aren't entirely without merit. Beijing threatened sanctions this month against the
National Endowment for Democracy, a US-based group which donated $686,000 to various Hong Kong
nonprofits in 2019.
Meanwhile, the June 12 fund has already spent roughly a quarter of the money it has raised
since June, mostly on legal expenses and bail.
For many of the thousands of protesters who have been arrested, the criminal penalties that
they could face without adequate legal representation could land them in prison for years.
Without having the support of knowing their bail will be paid in the event of an arrest,
many demonstrators wouldn't be so eager to fight their way past police barricades and take
other risks like that.
But many members of the protest movement believe the 612 fund is too stodgy in how it
operates. Most see organizations like Spark Alliance as being closer to the true ideals of the
movement.
The 612 fund has been chided in online forums for deploying only 24% of the money it
raised while asking protesters to first apply for legal aid from the city. Other critics see
the 612 fund as part of an older political establishment in Hong Kong that has failed the
younger generation of democracy advocates, and they believe Spark Alliance is closer to
protesters in the trenches.
"The younger generation doesn't trust in any institutions, not even those that advocate
for democracy," said Patrick Poon, a researcher at Amnesty International in Hong Kong. "It's
an irrational decision to trust in a group believed to be closer to the people on the ground
even if they don't know who is behind the fund."
Ng, a 612 fund trustee, said the group is supported by "members of the public that are
incensed by what is being done by police and government."
"The movement is ongoing and we are using the funds for the stated purpose of humanitarian
aid," she said. "We don't have any obligation to spend all the money immediately."
Now that police have set their sights on Spark, we imagine a new group will need to come
forward and take up the mantle of the protest movement, or risk allowing it to fizzle out.
I keep wondering why ZH seems to be supporting the HK protestors when that 'color
revolution' too seems to be supported by the same elements promoting promoting the overthrow
of Trump and the overthrow of the elected government in Bolivia.
"Now that police have set their sights on Spark, we imagine a new group will need to come
forward and take up the mantle of the protest movement, or risk allowing it to fizzle
out."
Aww too bad. Looks like the CIA got their funds seized. No worries Soros will just add
more funding
In the six months riots and terrorisms, Hong Kong police did not kill anyone but gathering
information and evidence to dismantle foreign meddling in the city. During 7 days of protests
against religious discrimination in India the police already killed more than 20 people. IQ
does matter.
Wonder how many Muslims died in the past one year as victims of ZioNazi and Evil Empire
terrorism and mass murder.
100,000s? Yes, it's true, nobody in the world is as violent, evil, malicious and
belligerent as the ZioNazis and Evil Empire. Nobody is remotely close. Certainly not
China.
Chim Choms are BRUTAL so far 21 CIA clowns have gone MISSING and never HEARD or SEEN.. At
least Russia keeps these SPYS and do SWAPS Your agent for mine. TRADE OFF.. Not with CHIM
CHOMS God only KNOWS where CIA spys go I can IMAGINE Naturally they are ORGAN donors. Chim
choms don't **** around
The arrests and seizures, as
Bloomberg explains, shed light on the innerworkings of the Hong Kong protest movement.
Millions of Americans who have read the news reports about the protests have probably been
left wondering how the protesters became so organized.
Well, this is how: Since the beginning of the movement, wealthy working HKers have
observed their duty to help those battling it out on the front lines in any way possible.
Mostly, they do it through donations to groups that purport to help bail out protesters
after they've been arrested, or groups that simply provide food and shelter for the
demonstrators, many of whom are teenagers, or in their early 20s.
Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g.,
political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it
originates from and is supported by grassroots participants.
merican money is made from nothing... this allows for use in other nations to do evil
works... best to ban merican dollars others than individuals holding small amounts of it...
do not take it for exchange
There will be NO DEAL. China is not going to surrender their financial sovereignty to
the zionist bankers again after the communist party kicked them and their puppet (the
Nationalist KMT currently settled in Taiwan, China) out in 1949 :)
Told ya :) Still don't get it? Good :)
China is just being nice to Trump and let him save face and give him a ladder to
climb down :)
China already started cleaning up operation in Hong Kong by freezing the Zionist terrorist
slush fund :P When the funding stop no mercenaries will work for free to destroy Hong Kong.
Operation Yellowbird 2 just begins and you'll see them roaming in USA and Taiwan, then appear
on CNN, Fox News and all Zionist media as eyewitness to Hong Kong police brutality and how
communist China violates human rights :)
A man who fired a live round at officers in Tai Po on Friday night was involved in another
case centred on the seizure of bombs and firearms linked to anti-government protests, a
police source has said, adding that more suspects could be at large.
The force also warned that an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle seized in a follow-up flat raid
was the same model used in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting which
killed 58 people, adding that the weapon could cause severe casualties as it had a range of
up to 800 metres.
(Bloomberg) -- Glancing at bags of cash stuffed to the brim earlier this month, Gary Fan
simply wanted someone to remove them from an office in Hong Kong used by his political
party.
The former pro-democracy lawmaker had collected HK$2.7 million ($345,000) during an
anti-government protest the day before, and was waiting for someone to pick it up from a
mysterious group known as Spark Alliance that helps bail protesters out of jail. The next day,
a person whom he knew and trusted came to collect the cash, even though Fan says he doesn't
know who exactly is behind the group or where the money ends up.
"We just work by an honor system now, trusting them with a good cause," Fan said in a Dec.
11 interview, adding that Spark Alliance has "earned credibility with real work" like getting
legal assistance for protesters. Still, he said, "I absolutely agree there should be more
disclosure, transparency and accountability when you take money from the public."
On Thursday evening, police announced the arrests of four people connected with Spark
Alliance for suspected money laundering, the first cases brought over financing the
demonstrations after six months of protests against China's tightening grip over Hong Kong.
Authorities froze HK$70 million of bank deposits and personal insurance products linked to the
fund, while also seizing HK$130,000 in cash.
"The police attempted, through false statements, to distort the work of Spark Alliance as
money laundering for malicious uses," the group said in a statement on Facebook. "Spark
Alliance condemns this kind of defamatory action."
The crackdown deals a major blow to demonstrators as they face ever-mounting legal
bills, with more than 6,000 people arrested since June. Spark Alliance, one of the largest
crowd-funding campaigns supporting the protests, plays a crucial behind-the-scenes role --
often sending anonymous representatives to bail protesters out of jail in the middle of the
night.
The latest arrests risk deterring Hong Kong's professional class from giving more cash,
potentially curbing a substantial source of funds that have helped sustain the protests longer
than anyone had expected. They also show the limits of the leaderless movement's ability to
manage tens of millions of dollars with little oversight outside of a formal financial
system.
Funds bankrolling the protests have collectively raised at least HK$254 million ($33
million) since June, with 70% coming from just two groups, Spark Alliance and the 612
Humanitarian Fund, according to a tally based on disclosures from the groups and an analysis of
publicly available documents. That figure doesn't reflect all the money raised related to the
protests, only the funds Bloomberg News could verify.
The $33 million alone amounts to a third of the money the city has spent in overtime pay to
11,000 police officers since June, and would be able to purchase some 300,000 gas masks. But
the largest costs faced by protesters are legal fees that may stretch out for years.
Nearly 1,000 people have been charged for offenses like rioting, which carries a jail
sentence of as much as a decade, according to police. The 612 Fund says it can cost up to
HK$1.8 million per person for a 60-day legal defense, and many trials last far longer. Some
proceedings related to Hong Kong's 2014 Occupy protests are still ongoing.
Among dozens of groups, Spark Alliance is one of the most secretive: Even some donors and
lawyers who assist the group say they don't know who runs it, while the bank account listed on
its website belongs to a firm that owns a pest control company. A person who picked up Spark
Alliance's hotline last week said the number was only for protester requests. The group didn't
respond to requests for comment via Facebook, Whatsapp or Telegram.
'We Need Protection'
"Spark is probably less transparent but people tend to believe them," said Jason, a
protester in his 30s who asked to be identified by his English name. He said he memorized the
group's phone number and called the group after he was arrested in August. Seven hours later,
two lawyers helped arrange HK$4,000 in bail money.
"Everyone knows the cost to fight for this movement and not everyone can afford lawyer
fees," he said. "We need protection."
The new US defense bill, agreed on by both parties, includes sanctions on executives of companies involved in the completion
of Nordstream 2. This is companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around
the arrival point.
This could include arrest of the executives of those companies, who might travel to the United States. One of the companies
is Royal Dutch Shell, who have 80,000 employees in the United States.
Some people believe 'the market' for crude oil is a fair and effective arbiter of the industry supply and demand.
But if we step back an inch or two, we all can see it has been a severely broken mechanism during this up phase in oil.
For example, there has been long lags between market signals of shortage or surplus.
Disruptive policies and mechanisms such as tariffs, embargo's, and sanctions, trade bloc quotas, military coups and popular revolutions,
socialist agendas, industry lobbying, multinational corporate McCarthyism, and massively obese debt financing, are all examples
of forces that have trumped an efficient and transparent oil market.
And yet, the problems with the oil market during this time of upslope will look placid in retrospect, as we enter the time beyond
peak.
I see no reason why it won't turn into a mad chaotic scramble.
We had a small hint of what this can look like in the last mid-century. The USA responded to military expansionism of Japan by
enacting an oil embargo against them. The response was Pearl Harbor. This is just one example of many.
How long before Iran lashes out in response to their restricted access to the market?
People generally don't respond very calmly to involuntary restriction on food, or energy, or access to the markets for these things.
President Trump is expected to sign legislation into law
AllSeas Group SA
said it would halt operations on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany on
expectations the U.S. Congress will pass legislation to sanction companies working on the
project, which critics say will bind Europe more tightly to Moscow.
The contractor said in a two-line statement it would suspend work "in anticipation of the
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act."
... ... ...
Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, the main Senate sponsor of the sanctions,
wrote a letter with Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson to AllSeas Chief Executive Officer Edward
Heerema Wednesday warning the company that it would face "crushing and potentially fatal"
sanctions if it continued work on the pipeline.
"The consequences of your company continuing to do the work -- for even a single day after
the President signs the sanctions legislation -- would expose your company to crushing and
potentially fatal legal and economic sanctions," they wrote.
"... Yes. "War is a force that gives us meaning," as Chris Hedges wrote. It provides (false) meaning and purpose. It's an amazingly powerful force, which is one reason why only Congress should declare war. And the last time that happened in the USA was December of 1941. ..."
I just read your article in TD. In my opinion you buried the reason for never ending wars.
You mention exceptionalism. I call that concept preeminence. With it is one of the few ways
we try to fill the void, or as you said in fewer words, try to give meaning to life. There
can be no doubt our lives are becoming increasingly meaningless so we double down and double
down again with what we know despite the self-destruction. https://thelastwhy.ca/poems/2015/6/25/life-a-reaction-to-the-void
Yes. "War is a force that gives us meaning," as Chris Hedges wrote. It provides (false)
meaning and purpose. It's an amazingly powerful force, which is one reason why only Congress
should declare war.
And the last time that happened in the USA was December of 1941.
Doug Barr–It appears to me you are trying to blur some lines, or perhaps you are
confused about, what one might call general human psychology and the official policies of a
specific government, that of the USA. [As a student of Anthropology, I point out that though
our primate ancestors are prone to outbursts of violence, there is no evidence that making
war, especially in the contemporary phase of human society, fulfills an innate "need."] Yes,
the US seeks to be "pre-eminent"–or to be blunter, DOMINANT–over the rest of the
globe. Where "exceptionalism"–which I have designated the American Disease–enters
the picture is the attempt to justify military aggression by suggesting (some are less subtle
and openly assert) that the US somehow has been granted a "right" to do this by "a higher
power." (Apparently God Himself revealed to George W. Bush that he was born to be "a war
president" and the genius Rick Perry asserted recently that Donald Trump was put in the
presidency by direct Divine action.) A "right" to send assassin drones anywhere, anytime, to
target anyone who's been designated a Bad Guy. This is absurd, if not insane, on the face of
it. (In olden times, Rudyard Kipling called it "the white man's burden" to bring civilization
to less "enlightened" peoples.) If there was an international court that had some teeth, the
US would be vigorously swatted down, ordered to cease and desist. But one of the greatest
tragedies of our time is that there is no power on Earth that could stand up to this Monster
(as John Kay and his band Steppenwolf rightly identified the US 50 years ago) even if it
could find the backbone to make the attempt.
After more than 17 years of the United States pouring blood and treasure into the effort
to build an Afghan army and government, why is it that the Kabul government continues to lose
ground against the Taliban? Further, why were we unsuccessful creating an Iraqi army that
could stand on its own against the Islamic State?
Before that, of course, came Vietnam.
Nor was that the start of the failure of American-backed armies. I was a teenager in 1949
when Chiang Kai-shek's American-backed Nationalist army lost to the Communist forces of Mao
Zedong in China. The American secretary of state, Dean Acheson, having conducted a study on
why our side lost, declared: "The Nationalist armies did not have to be defeated; they
disintegrated. History has proved again and again that a regime without faith in itself, and
an army without morale, cannot survive the test of battle."
Forty-four years ago, the American-trained and American-supplied army of South Vietnam
simply melted away before the less-well-equipped but better-motivated army of North Vietnam.
In 1975, I watched South Vietnamese soldiers taking off their uniforms and running away in
their underwear as the North Vietnamese closed in on Saigon.
Five years ago, the world watched another American-trained and American-equipped Iraqi
army bolt and run when the better motivated Islamic State forces overran Mosul in Northern
Iraq.
Why, over and over again, does the side America has backed in these civil wars end up
defeated? Four threads connect these lost wars of the last 70 years: corruption, patriotic
nationalism, a misplaced belief in American exceptionalism, and self-deception.
I saw corruption on a grand scale in Saigon. Generals and government officials were
funneling America's tax dollars into bank accounts abroad, fielding ghost armies in which
there were fewer soldiers on the ground than on the official payrolls. In Baghdad during the
American occupation, I learned that billions of American taxpayer dollars were bleeding out
to the Persian Gulf and Jordan, causing a laundered money real estate boom in the Jordanian
capital. In Afghanistan I learned that Afghan officers and soldiers routinely robbed the
villages they were sent to protect. Corruption sapped the people's belief in their US-backed
government in all four wars. Soldiers saw no reason to die for corrupt officials.
A second thread is that our side always appeared to be fighting on the side of foreigners,
while the Communists in China and Vietnam, as well as the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan,
always had a better grip on patriotic nationalism and resistance to foreigners. The
anti-colonial struggle was more important than the threat of Communism in most of the
post-World War II world, and the Islamist insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan knew how to
exploit the traditional resistance to foreign rule. The Taliban could appeal to patriotism
while trying to expel the infidel forces of the United States, just as their fathers,
grandfathers, and great grandfathers had resisted the Russians and the British before that in
the name of jihad.
A third thread is a curiously American trait of willfully ignoring other people's history
and cultures. I remember asking an American officer in Vietnam if he had read anything of the
French experience in Vietnam. His answer: "No, why should I? They lost, didn't they?" Robert
McNamara, defense secretary and an architect of our Vietnam War, said in later life that
Americans had never understood the Vietnamese. There were plenty of people who could have
helped him understand, but he wasn't interested. We were Americans -- exceptional, and
therefore not susceptible to the same forces that thwarted other efforts.
I met Americans in the Green Zone in Baghdad who knew nothing about the great schism
between Sunnis and Shia Muslims that was tearing the country apart. American-style democracy
was the answer to all ills, they felt. In Afghanistan I met Americans who thought purple ink
on the fingers of Afghans who had voted was the answer to a thousand years of tribal and
ethnic rivalries.
The fourth thread is self-deception. In Saigon, in Baghdad, and in Kabul I attended
briefings in which progress was always being made, the trend lines were always favorable, and
we were always winning wars we were actually losing. Wishful thinking is no substitute for
reality. Americans can train and assist the armies of those whom we want to support in the
civil wars of others, but we cannot supply the motivation and morale that is necessary to
survive the test of battle.
As we observe another anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack that shattered American
life 18 years ago, its full impact is still unfolding. Those who planned it succeeded beyond
their wildest dreams. The airborne assaults that took nearly 3,000 lives on that day may now
be seen as the most diabolically successful terror attack in history. That attack not only
wreaked carnage at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in rural Pennsylvania.
It wound up dragging the United States into an endless state of war that has drained our
treasury, poisoned our politics, created waves of new terrorism, and made us the enemy of
millions around the world.
The apparent chief perpetrator of the 9/11 attack, Osama bin Laden, presumably cackled
with joy when he heard news of his success on that stunning day. He lived for another 10
years, long enough to cackle with even greater glee at Washington's self-defeating response
to the attack. Using the 9/11 attack as a pretext, the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.
Bin Laden died knowing that he had lured us into the greatest foreign policy disaster in
American history.
It is a truism that our lives are shaped not by what happens to us, but by how we react to
what happens to us. The same applies to nations. Devastating as the death toll was on Sept.
11, 2001, it turned out to be only a taste of what was to come. The United States has been at
war ever since. Thousands of Americans have died. So have hundreds of thousands of civilians
in the Middle East and beyond. This nearly two-decade-long spasm of attacking, bombing, and
occupying countries has decisively shaped the United States and its image in the world. Every
day that our "forever war" continues is a triumph for bin Laden. So is every wounded veteran
who returns home, every newly minted terrorist infuriated by an American attack, every
citizen of the world who recoils at what US forces are being sent to do. We did not simply
fall into bin Laden's trap, we raced in at full speed. Even now, we show little will to
extricate ourselves.
America's determination to strike back with devastating force after 9/11 was
understandable given our shared sense of ravaged innocence. We might have launched a
concentrated strike against the gang of several hundred criminals whose leaders attacked the
United States, and then come home. Instead we have used the 9/11 attack to justify wars and
military deployments around the world.
On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress passed an "authorization for the use of military force"
against the perpetrators of that week's attack and against their "associated forces." Three
presidents have used that authorization to deploy troops across the Middle East and in
countries from Kenya to Georgia to the Philippines. Every call for US withdrawal from
Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria is met by warnings that ending wars could produce "another
9/11." This has become the paralyzing mantra that prevents us from halting the hydra-headed
military campaign we have been waging for 18 years. We also use it to justify atrocities at
prisons like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Bin Laden has succeeded even in colonizing our
minds.
Soon after passing its highly elastic authorization for military action against
"associated forces," Congress approved another, even more sweeping law: the Patriot Act. It
gave the government broad new power to monitor people and businesses, and has become a
foundation stone of our emerging "surveillance state." The 9/11 attack led us to distort not
only our approach to the world, but also the balance between freedom and security at
home.
Another pernicious aftereffect of the terror attack has been the deepening of our national
us-against-them narrative. This began with President George W. Bush's assertion that every
country in the world had to be "either with us or against us." Crusader rhetoric posits the
United States as the indispensable guardian of civilization, entitled to act as it chooses in
order to fend off a threatening tide of barbarism. Now this approach has leaked back into the
United States. Racist attacks that tear at our social fabric are the domestic reflection of
foreign policies that see the rest of the world as a hostile "other" bent on destroying our
way of life.
Last month it was announced that the five surviving alleged plotters of the 9/11 attack
will finally be brought to trial in 2021. If they are aware of what is happening in the
world, they will arrive in court with a deep sense of satisfaction. Their great triumph was
not the attack. It was the damage the United States has since inflicted upon itself.
Acheson is parroting Napoleon: "In war the moral is to the material as 3 is to 1."
He is wrong in the matter of "faith", unless the Chiang's army lost faith in Chiang's
moral poverty, what he stood for.
A better quote about Chiang losing is written by George C. Marshall, who went over and
came back sure Chiang was done for.
He said: "The US would not be dragged through the mud by those reactionaries". Meaning
Chiang was not the moral power in China.
Same for Vietnam US puppets were not and had no moral power/authority.
In Afghanistan same!
Iraq is split in moral authority, the areas populated by Shi'a are okay as long as the
central government does not pander to the Sunni 1/3 (Baathists were suppressing Shi'a).
I do not agree with quoting Acheson when there is plenty of professional soldier writings
that say it more clearly.
After Korea the professional soldiers were no longer expressive when it cme to propping
thugs, with no moral power in their own borders (granted many of the borders surround
fictional counties).
US has stood with thugs for most of its quagmire experience.......
This week US is looking for a way to start a new quagmire with Iran for royal murderers'
sharing their oil company!
Regarding your last sentence: this is the great truth that Washington's world hegemonists would have you forget. Taking into
account the untapped vast resources of Canada and Alaska and its expansive offshore economic zones extending deep into the Atlantic,
the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic Ocean, the North American anglosphere could be entirely self-sufficient and do
quite nicely on its own for hundreds of years to come, it just wouldn't be the sole tyrannical state presumably ruling the entire
planet.
Why, it might even entertain the idea of actually cooperating with other regional powers like Russia, China, the EU, India,
Iran, Turkey, the Middle East, greater central Asia, Latin America and even Africa to everyone's benefit, rather than bullying
them all because god ordained us to be the boss of all humans.
America's major malfunction is its lack of historical roots compared to the other societies mentioned. All those places had
thousands of years to refine their sundry cultures and international relationships, certainly through trial and error and many
horrible setbacks, most notably wars, famines, pestilence, genocide and human bondage which people did not have the foresight
to nip in the bud. They learned by their mistakes and some, like the great world wars, were doozies.
The United States, and some of its closest homologues like Canada, Australia, Brazil and Argentina, were thrown together very
rapidly as part of developing colonial empires. It was created through the brute actions of a handful of megalomaniacal oligarchs
of their day. What worked to suppress vast tracts of aboriginal homelands, often through genocide and virtual extinction of the
native populations, was so effective that it was institutionalized in the form of slavery and reckless exploitation of the local
environment. These "great leaders," "pioneers" and "founding fathers" were not about to give up a set of principles -- no matter
how sick and immoral -- which they knew to "work" and accrued to them great power and riches. They preferred to label it "American
exceptionalism" and force it upon the whole rest of the world, including long established regional powers -- cultures going back
to antiquity -- and not just conveniently sketched "burdens of the white man."
No, ancient cultures like China, India, Persia and so forth could obviously be improved for all concerned merely by allowing
a handful of Western Europeans to own all their property and run all their affairs. That grand plan fell apart for most of the
European powers in the aftermath of World War Two, but Washington has held tough and never given up its designs of micromanaging
and exploiting the whole planet. It too is soon to learn its lesson and lose its empire. Either that or it will take the world
down in flames as it tries to cling to all that it never really owned or deserved. The most tragic (or maybe just amusing) part
is that Washington still had most of the world believing its bullshit about exceptionalism and indispensability until it decided
it had to emulate every tyrannical empire that ever collapsed before it.
Realist , April 30, 2019 at 02:08
"ex·tor·tion /ik?stôrSH(?)n/ noun The practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats."
"Racketeering refers to crimes committed through extortion or coercion. A racketeer attempts to obtain money or property from
another person, usually through intimidation or force. The term is typically associated with organized crime."
I see. So, American foreign policy, as applied to both its alleged enemies and presumed allies, essentially amounts to an exercise
in organised crime. So much for due process, free trade, peaceful co-existence, magical rainbows and other such hypocritical platitudes
dispensed for domestic consumption in place of the heavy-handed threats routinely delivered to Washington's targets.
That's quite in keeping with the employment of war crimes as standard "tactics, techniques and procedures" on the battlefield
which was recently admitted to us by Senator Jim Molan on the "60 Minutes" news show facsimile and discussed in one of yesterday's
forums on this blog.
Afghanistan was promised a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs as incentive to bend to our will (and that of Unocal which,
unlike Nordstream, was a pipeline Washington wanted built). Iraq was promised and delivered "shock and awe" after a secretary
of state had declared the mass starvation of that country's children as well worth the effort. They still can't find all the pieces
left of the Libyan state. Syria was told it would be stiffed on any American contribution to its rebuilding for the effrontery
of actually beating back the American-recruited, trained and financed ISIS terrorist brigades. Now it's being deliberately starved
of both its energy and food requirements by American embargoes on its own resources! North Korea was promised utter annihilation
by Yankee nukes before Kim's summit with our great leader unless it submitted totally to his will, or more likely that of Pompous
Pompeo, the man who pulls his strings. Venezuela is treated to cyber-hacked power outages and shortages of food, medicines, its
own gold bullion, income from its own international petroleum sales and, probably because someone in Washington thinks it's funny,
even toilet paper. All they have to do to get relief is kick out the president they elected and replace him with Washington's
chosen puppet! Yep, freedom and democracy blah, blah, blah. And don't even ask what the kids in Yemen got for Christmas from Uncle
Sam this year. (He probably stole their socks.) A real American patriot will laughingly take Iran to task for ever believing in
the first place that Washington could be negotiated with in good faith. All they had to do was ask the Native Americans (or the
Russians) how the Yanks keep their word and honor their treaties. It was their own fault they were taken for suckers.
"... Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious. It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest of the wealthy. ..."
"... America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla. ..."
"... Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators; it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending your kids to die. Never. ..."
Idealistic Realist , Apr 27, 2019 1:24:45 PM |
link
Best analysis by a candidate for POTUS ever:
American foreign policy is not a failure. To comfort themselves, observers often say that our leaders -- presidents, advisors,
generals -- don't know what they're doing. They do know. Their agenda just isn't what we like to imagine it is.
To quote Michael Parenti: "US policy is not filled with contradictions and inconsistencies. It has performed brilliantly
and steadily in the service of those who own most of the world and who want to own all of it."
The vision of our leaders as bunglers, while more accurate than the image of them as valiant public servants, is less accurate
and more rose-tinted than the closest approximation of the truth, which is that they are servants of their class interest.
That is why we go to war.
Those who buy the elite class's foreign policy BS, about the Emmanuel Goldsteins they conjure up every three years, are
fools. Obviously Hussein and Milošević were bad; but "government bad" does not mean we must invade. Wars occur for economic,
not humanitarian, reasons.
Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the president of Equatorial Guinea, is a kleptocrat, murderer, and alleged cannibal. This is
him and his wife with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, was said to have boiled political prisoners to death, massacred hundreds
of prisoners, and made torture an institution. This is him with John Kerry.
Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda, has been involved in the assassination of political opponents, perpetrated obvious
election fraud, and had his term extended until 2034. This is him with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious.
It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest
of the wealthy.
America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian
reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support
Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla.
Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators;
it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending
your kids to die. Never.
"... Every US military action and ultimatum to a foreign state has been aggressively pushed by the losing Democrats and particularly 'liberal' mainstream media, any dissent met with smears, censorship or worse. I would argue that today similarities with events leading up to previous global conflicts are too striking and numerous to ignore. ..."
"... Israel and its US relationship – I think Syria is where global conflict is still likely to start. As Syria has been winning, the involvement of Turkey and Saudi Arabia appears to receding. More recently Israel have taken their place and is relentless and unyielding and has its own wider, destructive plans for the Middle East. Israeli influence in the US is now so great that the US has more or less ceded its foreign policy in the Middle East to Israel. In 1914 Austro-Hungary pursued a series of impossible demands against Serbia managing to drag its close and more powerful ally Germany (led by someone equally as obstinate and militaristic as the US leadership) into World War I. Incidentally, some readers may have noticed the similarity between the 1914 diktats and modern-day US bullying towards Venezuala and other states – and perhaps most striking, by Saudi Arabia in its dispute with Qatar not long ago ..."
"... Ideology, paranoia and unstable leaders – history tells us that ideology, paranoia and power are not a good mix and this is in abundance in western elites and media. These establishments are rabidly hostile to Iran and Russia. ..."
"... Media deception and propaganda – The media have been responsible for getting us to where we are today. Without them, the public would have woken up long ago. Much of the deception has been about the presentation of the narrative and the leaders. And it's been a campaign of distraction on our news where the daily genocide in Yemen gives way to sensationalised non-events and celebrity trivia. ..."
"... Appeasement – because of its relative weakness and not wanting a war, Russia has to some extent appeased Western and Israeli aggression in Syria and beyond. To be fair, given the aggression it faces I don't think Russia has had much choice than playing for time. However at some point soon, with the West pushing more and more, something will have to give. Likewise, in the 1930s a militarily unprepared UK and France appeased Germany's expansion. The more they backed off the more Germany pushed until war was the only way. ..."
"... False flags – for those watching events in Syria know that the majority of the 'chemical attacks' have been carried out by Western supported opposition. The timing and nature of these suggest co-ordination at the highest levels. Intelligence Services of the UK and other agencies are believed to co-ordinate these fabrications to provoke a western response aimed at the Syrian Army. On more than one occasion these incidents have nearly escalated to a direct conflict with Russia showing the dangerous game being played by those involved and those pushing the false narrative in the media ..."
As a history student years ago I remember our teacher explaining how past events are linked to what happens in the future. He
told us human behaviour always dictates that events will repeat in a similar way as before. I remember we studied 20th century history
and discussed World War I and the links to World War II. At this time, we were in the middle of the Cold War and in unchartered waters
and I couldn't really link past events to what was likely to happen next. Back then I guess like many I considered US presidents
more as statesman. They talked tough on the Soviet Union but they talked peace too. So, the threat to humanity was very different
then to now. Dangerous but perhaps a stable kind of dangerous. After the break up of the Soviet Union we then went through a phase
of disorderly change in the world. In the early 1990s the war in the Former Yugoslavia erupted and spread from republic to republic.
Up until the mid-to-late nineties I didn't necessarily sense that NATO and the West were the new threat to humanity. While there
was a clear bias to events in Yugoslavia there was still some even-handedness or fairness. Or so I thought. This all changed in 1999
with the war in Kosovo. For the first time I witnessed shocking images of civilian targets being bombed, TV stations, trains, bridges
and so on. But my wake-up call was the daily NATO briefings on the war. The NATO spokesman boasted of hundreds of Serbian tanks being
destroyed. There was something new and disturbing about his manner, language and tone, something I'd not encountered from coverage
of previous conflicts. For the first time I found myself not believing one word of the narrative.
When the peace agreement was reached, out of 300 Serbian tanks which had entered Kosovo at the start of the conflict, over 285
were counted going back into Serbia proper which was
confirmation he had been
lying .
From this conflict onwards I started to see clear parallels with events of the past and some striking similarities with the lead
up to previous world wars. This all hit home when observing events in Syria and more recently Venezuala. But looking around seeing
people absorbed in their phones you wouldn't think the world is on the brink of war. For most of us with little time to watch world
events there are distractions which have obscured the picture historians and geopolitical experts see more clearly.
Recent and current
western leaders haven't been short people in military uniform shouting. That would be far too obvious. It's still military conflict
and mass murder but in smart suits with liberal sound-bites and high-fives. Then the uncool, uncouth conservative Trump came along
and muddied the waters.
Briefly it seemed there might be hope that these wars would stop. But there can be little doubt he's been
put under pressure to comply with the regime change culture embedded in the Deep State. Today, through their incendiary language
we see US leaders morphing into the open style dictators of the past. The only thing missing are the military uniforms and hats.
Every US military action and ultimatum to a foreign state has been aggressively pushed by the losing Democrats and particularly 'liberal'
mainstream media, any dissent met with smears, censorship or worse. I would argue that today similarities with events leading up
to previous global conflicts are too striking and numerous to ignore.
Let's look at some of these:
1) Military build up, alliances and proxy wars – for all the chaos and mass murder pursued by the Obama Administration he did
achieve limited successes in signing agreements with Iran and Cuba. But rather than reverse the endless wars as promised Trump cancels
the agreements leaving the grand sum of zilch foreign policy achievements. NATO has been around for 70 years, but in the last 20
or so has become obsessed with military build up. Nowadays it has hundreds of bases around the world but keeps destablising non-aligned
states, partly to isolate Russia and China. And Syria sums up the dangers of the regime change model used today. With over a dozen
states involved in the proxy war there is a still high risk of conflict breaking out between US and Russia. The motives for military
build up are many. First there are powerful people in the arms industry and media who benefit financially from perpetual war. The
US while powerful in military terms are a declining power which will continue, new powers emerging. The only return on their money
they can see is through military build up. Also there are many in government, intelligence services and media who can see that if
the current order continues to crumble they are likely to be prosecuted for various crimes. All this explains the threatening language
and the doubling-down on those who challenge them. In 1914, Europe had two backward thinking military alliance blocks and Sarajevo
showed how one event could trigger an unstoppable escalation dragging in many states. And empires such as Austro-Hungary were crumbling
from within as they are now. So a similar mentality prevails today where the powerful in these empires under threat favour conflict
to peace. For these individuals it's a last throw of the dice and a gamble with all our lives.
2) Israel and its US relationship – I think Syria is where global conflict is still likely to start. As Syria has been winning,
the involvement of Turkey and Saudi Arabia appears to receding. More recently Israel have taken their place and is relentless and
unyielding and has its own wider, destructive plans for the Middle East. Israeli influence in the US is now so great that the US
has more or less ceded its foreign policy in the Middle East to Israel. In 1914 Austro-Hungary pursued a
series of impossible
demands against Serbia managing to drag its close and more powerful ally Germany (led by someone equally as obstinate and militaristic
as the US leadership) into World War I. Incidentally, some readers may have noticed the similarity between the 1914 diktats and modern-day
US bullying towards Venezuala and other states – and perhaps most striking, by Saudi Arabia in its dispute with
Qatar not long ago.
3) Ideology, paranoia and unstable leaders – history tells us that ideology, paranoia and power are not a good mix and this is
in abundance in western elites and media. These establishments are rabidly hostile to Iran and Russia. In addition we face a situation
of highly unpredictable, ideological regional leaders in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Most worrying of all, the language, threats
and actions of Trump, Pompeo and Bolton suggests there are psychopathic tendencies in play. Behind this is a Deep State and Democrat
Party pushing even harder for conflict. The level of paranoia is discouraging any notion of peace. 30 years ago Russia and US would
sit down at a summit and reach a consensus. Today a US leader or diplomat seen talking to a Russian official is accused of collusion.
When there are limited channels to talk in a crisis, you know we are in trouble. In Germany in the 1930s, ideology, propaganda and
creating enemies were key in getting the population on side for war. The leaders within the Nazi clique, Hitler, Goring and Himmler
look disturbingly similar to the Trump, Pompeo, Bolton line up.
4) Media deception and propaganda – The media have been responsible for getting us to where we are today. Without them, the public
would have woken up long ago. Much of the deception has been about the presentation of the narrative and the leaders. And it's been
a campaign of distraction on our news where the daily genocide in Yemen gives way to sensationalised non-events and celebrity trivia.
The terms and words; regime change, mass murder and terrorist have all been substituted by the media with 'humanitarian intervention',
'limited airstrikes' and 'moderate rebels' to fool a distracted public that the victims of the aggression are the bad guys. Western
funded 'fact checking' sites such as Bellingcat have appeared pushing the misdirections to a surreal new level. Obama was portayed
in the media as a cool guy and a little 'soft' on foreign policy. This despite the carnage in Libya, Syria and his drones. Sentiments
of equal rights and diversity fill the home affairs sections in the liberal press, while callous indifference and ethno-centrism
towards the Middle East and Russia dominate foreign affairs pages. In the press generally, BREXIT, non-existent anti-Semitism and
nonsense about the 'ISIS bride' continues unabated. This media circus seeks to distract from important matters, using these topics
to create pointless divisions, causing hostility towards Muslims and Jews in the process. The majority of a distracted public have
still not twigged largely because the propaganda is more subtle nowadays and presented under a false humanitarian cloak. A small
but vocal group of experts and journalists challenging these narratives are regularly smeared as
Putin
or Assad "apologists" . UK journalists are regularly caught out lying and some long standing hoaxes such as Russiagate exposed.
Following this and Iraq WMDs more people are starting to see a pattern here. Yet each time the media in the belief they've bamboozled
enough move on to the next big lie. This a sign of a controlled media which has reached the point of being unaccountable and untouchable,
deeply embedded within the establishment apparatus. In the lead up to World War II the Nazis ran an effective media propaganda campaign
which indoctrinated the population. The media in Germany also reached the point their blindingly obvious lies were rarely questioned.
The classic tactic was to blame others for the problems in Germany and the world and project their crimes on to their victims. There
are some differences as things have evolved. The Nazis created the media and state apparatus to pursue war. Nowadays this is the
opposite way around. Instead the state apparatus is already in place so whoever is leader whether they describe themself as liberal
or conservative, is merely a figurehead required to continue the same pro-war policies. Put a fresh-looking president in a shiny
suit and intoduce him to the Queen and you wouldn't think he's the biggest mass murderer since Hitler. Although there are some differences
in the propaganda techniques, all the signs are that today's media are on a similar war-footing as Germany's was just prior to the
outbreak of World War II.
5) Appeasement – because of its relative weakness and not wanting a war, Russia has to some extent appeased Western and Israeli
aggression in Syria and beyond. To be fair, given the aggression it faces I don't think Russia has had much choice than playing for
time. However at some point soon, with the West pushing more and more, something will have to give. Likewise, in the 1930s a militarily
unprepared UK and France appeased Germany's expansion. The more they backed off the more Germany pushed until war was the only way.
6) False flags – for those watching events in Syria know that the majority of the 'chemical attacks' have been carried out by
Western supported opposition. The timing and nature of these suggest co-ordination at the highest levels. Intelligence Services of
the UK and other agencies are believed to co-ordinate these fabrications to provoke a western response aimed at the Syrian Army.
On more than one occasion these incidents have nearly escalated to a direct conflict with Russia showing the dangerous game being
played by those involved and those pushing the false narrative in the media. The next flashpoint in Syria is Idlib, where it's highly
likely a new chemical fabrication will be attempted this Spring. In the 1930s the Nazis were believed to use false flags with increasing
frequency to discredit and close down internal opposition. Summary – We now live in a society where exposing warmongering is a more
serious crime than committing it. Prisons hold many people who have bravely exposed war crimes – yet most criminals continue to walk
free and hold positions of power. And when the media is pushing for Julian Assange to be extradicted you know this is beyond simple
envy of a man who has almost single-handedly done the job they've collectively failed to do. They are equally complicit in warmongering
hence why they see Assange and others as a threat. For those not fooled by the smart suits, liberal platitudes and media distraction
techniques, the parallels with Germany in the 1930s in particular are now fairly obvious. The blundering military alliances of 1914
and the pure evil of 1939 – with the ignorance, indifference and narcissism described above make for a destructive mix. Unless something
changes soon our days on this planet are likely be numbered. Depressing but one encouraging thing is that the indisputable truth
is now in plain sight for anyone with internet access to see and false narratives have collapsed before. It's still conceivable that
something may create a whole chain of events which sweep these dangerous parasites from power. So anything can happen. In the meantime
we should keep positive and continue to spread the message.
Kevin Smith is a British citizen living and working in London. He researches and writes down his thoughts on the foreign wars
promoted by Western governments and media. In the highly controlled and dumbed down UK media environment, he's keen on exploring
ways of discouraging ideology and tribalism in favour of free thinking.
2- 'Israel and its US relationship'. The 'hands off' policy of the Western powers, guarantees that Syria cannot even be a trigger
to any 'global conflict', supposing that a 'global conflict' was on the cards, especially when Russia is just a crumbling shadow
of the USSR and China a giant with feet of clay, heavily dependent on Western oligarchic goodwill, to maintain its economy and
its technological progress.
In 1914, the Serbian crisis was just trigger of WWI and not a true cause. It is not even clear if it was Germany that dragged
Austria-Hungary into the war or Russia. Although there was a possibility (only a possibility), that a swift and 'illegal' attack
by Austria-Hungary (without an ultimatum), would have localised and contained the conflict.
There is no similarity whatsoever between the 1914 'diktats' and modern US policy, as the US is the sole Superpower and its
acts are not opposed by a balancing and corresponding alliance. Save in the Chinese colony of North Korea, where the US is restrained
by a tacit alliance of the North Eastern Asiatic powers: China, Russia, Japan and South Korea, that oppose any military action
and so promote and protect North Korean bullying. Qatar, on the other hand, is one of the most radical supporters of the Syrian
opposition and terrorist groups around the muslim world, even more than Saudi Arabia and there are powerful reasons for the confrontation
of the Gulf rivals.
You should go back in Time and STUDY what really happened .. that means going back to the Creation of the socalled British Empire
..the Bank of England , the British East Indian Company , the Opium Wars and the Opium Trafficing , the Boer Wars for Gold and
Diamonds , the US Civil War and its aftermath , the manipulations of Gold and Silver by socalled british Financial Interests ,
The US Spanish Wars , the Japanese Russian War , the failed Coup against Czar Russia 1905 , the Young Turk Coup against the Ottoman
Empire 1908, the Armenian Genocide , the Creation of the Federal Reserve 1913 , the Multitude of Assinations and other Terror
Attacks in the period from 1900 and upwards , WHO were the perpetraders ? , , WW 1 and its originators , the Bolshevik Coup 1917
, the Treaty of Versailles and the Actors in that Treaty ,the Plunder of Germany , the dissolution of Austria Hungary , the Bolshevik
Coup attempts all over Europe , and then the run up to WW 2 , the Actions of Poland agianst Germans and Czechs .. Hitler , Musolini
and finally WW 2 .the post war period , the Nuernberg Trials , the Holocaust Mythology , the Creation of Israel , Gladio , the
Fall of the Sovjet Empire and the Warshav Pact , the Wars in the Middle East , the endless Terror Actions , the murder of Kennedy
and a mass of False Flag Terrorist Attacks since then , the destruction of the Balkans and the Middle east THERE IS PLENTY of
EXCELLENT LITERATURE and ANALYSIS on all subjects .
It was your Obama that 'persecuted' Mr Assange !!!
Syria demonstrates that there has NOT been a Western strategy for regime change (specially after the 'defeats' in Iraq and
Afghanistan), let alone a proxy war, but, on the contrary, an effort to keep the tyranny of Assad in power, in a weaker state,
to avoid any strong, 'revolutionary' rival near Israel. Russia has been given a free hand in Syria, otherwise, if the West had
properly armed the resistance groups, it would have been a catastrophe for the Russian forces, like it was in Afghanistan during
the Soviet intervention.
Trump's policy of 'equal' (proportional) contributions for all members of NATO and other allies, gives the lie to the US military
return 'argument' and should be understood as part of his war on unfair competition by other powers.
The 'military' and diplomatic alliances of 1914 were FORWARD thinking, so much so that they 'repeated' themselves during WWII,
with slight changes. But it is very doubtful that the Empires, like the Austro-Hungarian o the Russian ones, would have 'crumbled'
without the outbreak of WWI. They were never under threat, as their military power during the war showed. Only a World War of
cataclysmic character could destroy them. A war, triggered, but not created, by the 'conflict seeking mentality' of the powerful
in the small countries of the Balkans.
Generally attributed to Senator Hiram Warren Johnson in 1918 that 'when war comes the first casualty is truth' is as much a truism
now as it was then.
I'm more inclined to support hauptmanngurski's proposition that the members of the armed forces, from both sides, who return
from conflicts with life-changing injuries or even in flag-draped caskets defended only the freedom of multinational enterprises
and conglomerates to make and continue to make vast profits for the privileged few at the population's expense.
As Kevin Smith makes abundantly clear we are all subject to the downright lies and truth-stretching from our government aided
and abetted by a compliant main stream media as exemplified in the Skripal poisoning affair, which goes far beyond the counting
of Serbian tanks supposedly destroyed during the Balkans conflict. The Skripals' are now God knows where either as willing participants
or as detainees and our government shows no signs of clarifying the matter, so who would believe what it put out anyway in view
of its track record of misinformation ? The nation doesn't know what to believe.
Sadly, I believe this has always been the way of things and I cannot even speculate on how long it will be before this nation
will realise it is being deliberately mis-led.
New book by David NorthA Quarter Century of War: The US Drive for Global Hegemony 1990–2016
Notable quotes:
"... "Landler informs his readers that Obama "went for a walk among the tombstones at Arlington National Cemetery before giving the order to send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan." He recalls a passage from Obama's 2009 speech accepting the Nobel Prize, in which the president wearily lamented that humanity needed to reconcile "two seemingly irreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly." ..."
"... Typical American philosophy... "War is peace!"... ..."
We publish here the preface to A Quarter Century of War: The US Drive for Global Hegemony, 1990-2016 by David North.
The book will be published on August 10, and is available for preorder today at Mehring Books in both
softcover
and hardcover
.
***
"In the period of crisis the hegemony of the United States will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than
in the period of boom."
-- Leon Trotsky, 1928
"U.S. capitalism is up against the same problems that pushed Germany in 1914 on the path of war. The world is divided? It must
be redivided. For Germany it was a question of 'organizing Europe.' The United States must 'organize' the world. History is bringing
mankind face to face with the volcanic eruption of American imperialism."
-- Leon Trotsky, 1934
This volume consists of political reports, public lectures, party statements, essays, and polemics that document the response
of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) to the quarter century of US-led wars that began in 1990–91. The
analyses of events presented here, although written as they were unfolding, stand the test of time. The International Committee does
not possess a crystal ball. But its work is informed by a Marxist understanding of the contradictions of American and world imperialism.
Moreover, the Marxist method of analysis examines events not as a sequence of isolated episodes, but as moments in the unfolding
of a broader historical process. This historically oriented approach serves as a safeguard against an impressionistic response to
the latest political developments. It recognizes that the essential cause of an event is rarely apparent at the moment of
its occurrence.
Much of what passes for analysis in the bourgeois press consists of nothing more than equating an impressionistic description
of a given event with its deeper cause. This sort of political analysis legitimizes US wars as necessary responses to one or another
personification of evil, such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the "warlord" Farah Aideed in Somalia, Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, Osama
bin Laden of Al Qaeda, the Mullah Omar in Afghanistan, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya; and, most recently, Bashar al Assad in Syria, Kim
Jong Un in Korea, and Vladimir Putin in Russia. New names are continually added to the United States' infinitely expandable list
of monsters requiring destruction.
The material in this volume is the record of a very different and far more substantial approach to the examination of the foreign
policy of the United States.
First, and most important, the International Committee interpreted the collapse of the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe in
1989–90, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, as an existential crisis of the entire global nation-state system, as it
emerged from the ashes of World War II. Second, the ICFI anticipated that the breakdown of the established postwar equilibrium would
lead rapidly to a resurgence of imperialist militarism. As far back as August 1990 -- twenty-six years ago -- it was able to foresee
the long-term implications of the Bush administration's war against Iraq:
It marks the beginning of a new imperialist redivision of the world. The end of the postwar era means the end of the
postcolonial era. As it proclaims the "failure of socialism," the imperialist bourgeoisie, in deeds if not yet in words, proclaims
the failure of independence. The deepening crisis confronting all the major imperialist powers compels them to secure control
over strategic resources and markets. Former colonies, which had achieved a degree of political independence, must be resubjugated.
In its brutal assault against Iraq, imperialism is giving notice that it intends to restore the type of unrestrained domination
of the backward countries that existed prior to World War II. [
1 ]
This historically grounded analysis provided the essential framework for an understanding, not only of the 1990–91 Gulf War, but
also of the wars that were launched later in the decade, as well as the post-9/11 "War on Terror."
In a recently published front-page article, the New York Times called attention to a significant milestone in the presidency
of Barack Obama: "He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president." But with several months remaining
in his term in office, he is on target to set yet another record. The Times wrote:
If the United States remains in combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria until the end of Mr. Obama's term -- a near-certainty
given the president's recent announcement that he will send 250 additional Special Operations forces to Syria -- he will leave
behind an improbable legacy as the only president in American history to serve two complete terms with the nation at war. [
2 ]
On the way to setting his record, Mr. Obama has overseen lethal military actions in a total of seven countries: Iraq, Afghanistan,
Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. The number of countries is growing, as the United States escalates its military operations
in Africa. The efforts to suppress the Boko Haram insurgency involve a buildup of US forces in Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger, and Chad.
Without any sense of irony, Mark Landler, author of the Times article, notes Obama's status as a Nobel Peace Prize winner
in 2009. He portrays the president as "trying to fulfill the promises he made as an antiwar candidate. . . ." Obama "has wrestled
with this immutable reality [of war] from his first year in the White House . . ."
Landler informs his readers that Obama "went for a walk among the tombstones at Arlington National Cemetery before giving the
order to send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan." He recalls a passage from Obama's 2009 speech accepting the Nobel Prize,
in which the president wearily lamented that humanity needed to reconcile "two seemingly irreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes
necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly."
During the Obama years, folly has clearly held the upper hand. But there is nothing that Landler's hero can do. Obama has found
his wars "maddeningly hard to end."
The Times ' portrayal of Obama lacks the essential element required by genuine tragedy: the identification of objective
forces, beyond his control, that frustrated and overwhelmed the lofty ideals and humanitarian aspirations of the president. If Mr.
Landler wants his readers to shed a tear for this peace-loving man who, upon becoming president, made drone killings his personal
specialty, and turned into something akin to a moral monster, the Times correspondent should have attempted to identify the
historical circumstances that determined Obama's "tragic" fate.
But this is a challenge the Times avoids. It fails to relate Obama's war-making record to the entire course of American
foreign policy over the past quarter century. Even before Obama entered office in 2009, the United States had been at war on an almost
continuous basis since the first US-Iraq War of 1990–91.
The pretext for the Gulf War was Iraq's annexation of Kuwait in August 1990. But the violent US reaction to Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein's dispute with the emir of Kuwait was determined by broader global conditions and considerations. The historical context
of the US military operation was the imminent dissolution of the Soviet Union, which was finally carried out in December 1991. The
first President Bush declared the beginning of a "New World Order." [
3 ] What Bush meant by this phrase was
that the United States was now free to restructure the world in the interests of the American capitalist class, unencumbered by either
the reality of the countervailing military power of the Soviet Union or the specter of socialist revolution. The dissolution of the
USSR, hailed by Francis Fukuyama as the "End of History," signified for the strategists of American imperialism the end of military
restraint.
It is one of the great ironies of history that the definitive emergence of the United States as the dominant imperialist power,
amid the catastrophe of World War I, coincided with the outbreak of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which culminated in the establishment
of the first socialist workers state in history, under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party. On April 3, 1917, President Woodrow
Wilson delivered his war message to the US Congress and led the United States into the global imperialist conflict. Two weeks later,
V.I. Lenin returned to Russia, which was in the throes of revolution, and reoriented the Bolshevik Party toward the fight to overthrow
the bourgeois Provisional Government.
Lenin and his principal political ally, Leon Trotsky, insisted that the struggle for socialism was indissolubly linked to the
struggle against war. As the historian R. Craig Nation has argued:
For Lenin there was no doubt that the revolution was the result of a crisis of imperialism and that the dilemmas which it posed
could only be resolved on the international level. The campaign for proletarian hegemony in Russia, the fight against the war,
and the international struggle against imperialism were now one and the same. [
4 ]
Just as the United States was striving to establish its position as the arbiter of the world's destiny, it faced a challenge,
in the form of the Bolshevik Revolution, not only to the authority of American imperialism, but also to the economic, political,
and even moral legitimacy of the entire capitalist world order. "The rhetoric and actions of the Bolsheviks," historian Melvyn P.
Leffler has written, "ignited fear, revulsion and uncertainty in Washington." [
5 ]
Another perceptive historian of US foreign policy explained:
The great majority of American leaders were so deeply concerned with the Bolshevik Revolution because they were so uneasy about
what President Wilson called the "general feeling of revolt" against the existing order, and about the increasing intensity of
that dissatisfaction. The Bolshevik Revolution became in their minds the symbol of all the revolutions that grew out of that discontent.
And that is perhaps the crucial insight into the tragedy of American diplomacy. [
6 ]
In a desperate effort to destroy the new revolutionary regime, Wilson sent an expeditionary force to Russia in 1918, in support
of counterrevolutionary forces in the brutal civil war. The intervention was an ignominious failure.
It was not until 1933 that the United States finally granted diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. The diplomatic rapprochement
was facilitated in part by the fact that the Soviet regime, now under Stalin's bureaucratic dictatorship, was in the process of repudiating
the revolutionary internationalism that had inspired the Bolsheviks in 1917. It was abandoning the perspective of world revolution
in favor of alliances with imperialist states on the basis of "collective security." Unable to secure such an alliance with Britain
and France, Stalin signed the notorious Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler in August 1939. Following Hitler's invasion of the Soviet
Union in June 1941, and the entry of the United States into World War II in December 1941, the exigencies of the struggle against
Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan required that the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt forge a military alliance
with the Soviet Union. But once Germany and Japan were defeated, relations between the United States and the Soviet Union rapidly
deteriorated. The Truman administration, opposing the extension of Soviet influence into Eastern Europe, and frightened by the growth
of Communist parties in Western Europe, launched the Marshall Plan in 1948 and triggered the onset of the Cold War.
The Kremlin regime pursued nationalistic policies, based on the Stalinist program of "socialism in one country," and betrayed
working class and anti-imperialist movements all over the world. But the very existence of a regime that arose out of a socialist
revolution had a politically radicalizing impact throughout the world. William Appleman Williams was certainly correct in his view
that "American leaders were for many, many years more afraid of the implicit and indirect challenge of the revolution than they were
of the actual power of the Soviet Union." [
7 ]
In the decades that followed World War II, the United States was unable to ignore the existence of the Soviet Union. To the extent
that the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, which was established in 1949, provided limited political and material
support to anti-imperialist movements in the "Third World," they denied the US ruling class a free hand in the pursuit of its own
interests. These limitations were demonstrated -- to cite the most notable examples -- by the US defeats in Korea and Vietnam, the
compromise settlement of the Cuban missile crisis, and the acceptance of Soviet domination of the Baltic region and Eastern Europe.
The existence of the Soviet Union and an anticapitalist regime in China deprived the United States of the possibility of unrestricted
access to and exploitation of the human labor, raw materials, and potential markets of a large portion of the globe, especially the
Eurasian land mass. It compelled the United States to compromise, to a greater degree than it would have preferred, in negotiations
over economic and strategic issues with its major allies in Europe and Asia, as well as with smaller countries that exploited the
tactical opportunities provided by the US-Soviet Cold War.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, combined with the restoration of capitalism in China following the Tiananmen
Square massacre of June 1989, was seen by the American ruling class as an opportunity to repudiate the compromises of the post-World
War II era, and to carry out a restructuring of global geopolitics, with the aim of establishing the hegemony of the United States.
There was no small element of self-delusion in the grandiose American response to the breakup of the Soviet Union. The bombastic
claims that the United States had won the Cold War were based far more on myth than reality. In fact, the sudden dissolution of the
Soviet Union took the entire Washington foreign policy establishment by surprise. In February 1987, the Council on Foreign Relations
published an assessment of US-Soviet relations, authored by two of its most eminent Sovietologists, Strobe Talbott and Michael Mandelbaum.
Analyzing the discussions between Reagan and Gorbachev at meetings in Geneva and Reykjavik in 1986, the two experts concluded:
No matter how Gorbachev comes to define perestroika in practice and no matter how he modifies the official definition
of security, the Soviet Union will resist pressure for change, whether it comes from without or within, from the top or the bottom.
The fundamental conditions of Soviet-American relations are therefore likely to persist. This, in turn, means that the ritual
of Soviet-American summitry is likely to have a long run. . . . [
8 ]
The "long run," Talbott and Mandelbaum predicted, would continue not only during the reign of "Gorbachev's successor," but also
his "successor's successor." No substantial changes in relations between the United States and the Soviet Union were to be expected.
The two prophets from the Council on Foreign Relations concluded:
Whoever they are, and whatever changes have occurred in the meantime, the American and Soviet leaders of the next century will
be wrestling with the same great issue -- how to manage their rivalry so as to avoid nuclear catastrophe -- that has engaged the
energies, in the latter half of the 1980s, of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. [
9 ]
In contrast to the Washington experts, who foresaw nothing, the International Committee recognized that the Gorbachev regime marked
a climactic stage in the crisis of Stalinism. "The crisis of Gorbachev," it declared in a statement dated March 23, 1987, "has emerged
as every section of world Stalinism confronts economic convulsions and upheavals by the masses. In every case -- from Beijing to
Belgrade -- the response of the Stalinist bureaucrats has been to turn ever more openly toward capitalist restorationism." [
10 ]
The Cold War victory narrative encouraged, within the ruling elite, a disastrous overestimation of the power and potential of
American capitalism. The drive for hegemony assumed the ability of the US to contain the economic and political centrifugal forces
unleashed by the operation of global capitalism. Even at the height of its power, such an immense project was well beyond the capacities
of the United States. But amid the euphoria generated by the end of the Soviet Union, the ruling class chose to ignore the deep-rooted
and protracted crisis of American society. An objective observer, examining the conditions of both the United States and the Soviet
Union between 1960 and 1990, might well have wondered which regime was in greater crisis. During the three decades that preceded
the dissolution of the USSR, the United States exhibited high levels of political, social, and economic instability.
Consider the fate of the presidential administrations in power during those three decades: (1) The Kennedy administration ended
tragically in November 1963 with a political assassination, in the midst of escalating social tensions and international crises;
(2) Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy's successor, was unable to seek reelection in 1968, as a result of urban riots and mass opposition
to the US invasion of Vietnam; (3) Richard Nixon was compelled to resign from office in August 1974, after the House of Representatives'
Judiciary Committee voted for his impeachment on charges related to his criminal subversion of the Constitution; (4) Gerald Ford,
who became president upon Nixon's resignation, was defeated in the November 1976 election amid popular revulsion over Nixon's crimes
and the US military debacle in Vietnam; (5) Jimmy Carter's one term in office was dominated by an inflationary crisis that sent the
federal prime interest rate to 20 percent, a bitter three month national coal miners strike, and the aftershocks generated by the
Iranian Revolution; and (6) Ronald Reagan's years in office, despite all the ballyhoo about "morning in America," were characterized
by recession, bitter social tension, and a series of foreign policy disasters in the Middle East and Central America. The exposure
of an illegal scheme to finance paramilitary operations in Nicaragua (the Iran-Contra crisis) brought Reagan to the very brink of
impeachment. His administration was saved by the leadership of the Democratic Party, which had no desire to remove from office a
president who was politically weakened and already exhibiting signs of dementia.
The one persistent factor that confronted all these administrations, from Kennedy to Reagan, was the erosion in the global economic
position of the United States. The unquestioned dominance of American finance and industry at the end of World War II provided the
economic underpinnings of the Bretton Woods system of dollar-gold convertibility that formed the basis of global capitalist growth
and stability. By the late 1950s, the system was coming under increasing strain. It was during the Kennedy administration that unfavorable
tendencies in the US balance of trade first began to arouse significant concern. On August 15, 1971, Nixon suddenly ended the Bretton
Woods system of fixed international exchange rates, pegged to a US dollar convertible at the rate of $35 per ounce of gold. During
the 1970s and 1980s, the decline in the exchange rate of the dollar mirrored the deterioration of the American economy.
The belligerent response of the United States to the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union reflected the weakness, not the strength,
of American capitalism. The overwhelming support within the ruling elite for a highly aggressive foreign policy arose from the delusion
that the United States could reverse the protracted erosion of its global economic position through the deployment of its immense
military power.
The Defense Planning Guidance, drafted by the Department of Defense in February 1992, unambiguously asserted the hegemonic ambitions
of US imperialism:
There are other potential nations or coalitions that could, in the further future, develop strategic aims and a defense posture
of region-wide or global domination. Our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global
competitor. [ 11 ]
The 1990s saw a persistent use of US military power, most notably in the first Gulf War, followed by its campaign to break up
Yugoslavia. The brutal restructuring of the Balkan states, which provoked a fratricidal civil war, culminated in the US-led 1999
bombing campaign to compel Serbia to accept the secession of the province of Kosovo. Other major military operations during that
decade included the intervention in Somalia, which ended in disaster, the military occupation of Haiti, the bombing of Sudan and
Afghanistan, and repeated bombing attacks on Iraq.
The events of September 11, 2001 provided the opportunity to launch the "War on Terror," a propaganda slogan that provided an
all-purpose justification for military operations throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and, with increasing frequency, Africa.
They furnished the Bush administration with a pretext to institutionalize war as a legitimate and normal instrument of American foreign
policy.
The administration of the second President Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan in the autumn of 2001. In speeches that followed
9/11, Bush used the phrase "wars of the twenty-first century." In this case, the normally inarticulate president spoke with precision.
The "War on Terror" was, from the beginning, conceived as an unending series of military operations all over the globe. One war would
necessarily lead to another. Afghanistan proved to be a dress rehearsal for the invasion of Iraq.
The military strategy of the United States was revised in line with the new doctrine of "preventive warfare," adopted by the US
in 2002. This doctrine, which violated existing international law, decreed that the United States could attack any country in the
world judged to pose a potential threat -- not only of a military, but also of an economic character -- to American interests.
In a verbal sleight of hand, the Bush administration justified the invasion of Iraq as a preemptive war, undertaken in
response to the imminent threat posed by the country's "weapons of mass destruction" to the national security of the United States.
Of course, the threat was as non-existent as were Saddam Hussein's WMDs. In any event, the Bush administration rendered the distinction
between preemptive and preventive war meaningless, by asserting the right of the United States to attack any country, regardless
of the existence or non-existence of an imminent threat to American national security. Whatever the terminology employed for propaganda
purposes by American presidents, the United States adheres to the illegal doctrine of preventive war.
The scope of military operations continuously widened. New wars were started while the old ones continued. The cynical invocation
of human rights was used to wage war against Libya and overthrow the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. The same hypocritical pretext
was employed to organize a proxy war in Syria. The consequences of these crimes, in terms of human lives and suffering, are incalculable.
The last quarter century of US-instigated wars must be studied as a chain of interconnected events. The strategic logic of the
US drive for global hegemony extends beyond the neocolonial operations in the Middle East and Africa. The ongoing regional wars are
component elements of the rapidly escalating confrontation of the United States with Russia and China.
It is through the prism of America's efforts to assert control of the strategically critical Eurasian landmass, that the essential
significance of the events of 1990–91 is being revealed. But this latest stage in the ongoing struggle for world hegemony, which
lies at the heart of the conflict with Russia and China, is bringing to the forefront latent and potentially explosive tensions between
the United States and its present-day imperialist allies, including -- to name the most significant potential adversary -- Germany.
The two world wars of the twentieth century were not the product of misunderstandings. The past is prologue. As the International
Committee foresaw in 1990–91, the American bid for global hegemony has rekindled interimperialist rivalries simmering beneath the
surface of world politics. Within Europe, dissatisfaction with the US role as the final arbiter of world affairs is being openly
voiced. In a provocative essay, published in Foreign Affairs , the journal of the authoritative US Council on Foreign Relations,
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has bluntly challenged Washington's presumption of US global dominance:
As the United States reeled from the effects of the Iraq war and the EU struggled through a series of crises, Germany held
its ground. . . .
Today both the United States and Europe are struggling to provide global leadership. The 2003 invasion of Iraq damaged the
United States' standing in the world. After the ouster of Saddam Hussein, sectarian violence ripped Iraq apart, and U.S. power
in the region began to weaken. Not only did the George W. Bush administration fail to reorder the region through force, but the
political, economic, and soft-power costs of this adventure undermined the United States' overall position. The illusion of a
unipolar world faded. [ 12 ]
In a rebuke to the United States, Steinmeier writes: "Our historical experience has destroyed any belief in national exceptionalism
-- for any nation." [ 13 ]
The journalists and academics, who work within the framework of the official narrative of the defense of human rights and the
"War on Terror," cannot explain the progression of conflicts, from the 1990–91 Gulf War, to the current expansion of NATO eight hundred
miles eastward, and the American "pivot to Asia." On a regular basis, the United States and its allies stage war games in Eastern
Europe, in close proximity to the borders of Russia, and in strategically critical waters off the coast of China. It is not difficult
to conceive of a situation in which events -- either as a result of deliberate calculation or of reckless miscalculation -- erupt
into a clash between nuclear-armed powers. In 2014, as the centenary of World War I approached, a growing number of scholarly papers
called attention to the similarities between the conditions that precipitated the disaster of August 1914 and present-day tensions.
One parallel between today and 1914 is the growing sense among political and military strategists that war between the United
States and China and/or Russia may be inevitable. As this fatalistic premise increasingly informs the judgments and actions of the
key decision makers at the highest level of the state, it becomes a dynamic factor that makes the actual outbreak of war more likely.
A specialist in international geopolitics has recently written:
Once war is assumed to be unavoidable, the calculations of leaders and militaries change. The question is no longer whether
there will or should be a war, but when the war can be fought most advantageously. Even those neither eager for nor optimistic
about war may opt to fight when operating in the framework of inevitability. [
14 ]
Not since the end of World War II has there existed so great a danger of world war. The danger is heightened by the fact that
the level of popular awareness of the threat remains very limited. What percentage of the American population, one must ask, realizes
that President Barack Obama has formally committed the United States to go to war in defense of Estonia, in the event of a conflict
between the small Baltic country and Russia? The media has politely refrained from asking the president to state how many human beings
would die in the event of a nuclear war between the United States and either Russia or China, or both at the same time.
On the eve of World War II, Leon Trotsky warned that a catastrophe threatened the entire culture of mankind. He was proven correct.
Within less than a decade, the Second World War claimed the lives of more than fifty million people. The alarm must once again be
sounded. The working class and youth within the United States and throughout the world must be told the truth.
The progressive development of a globally integrated world economy is incompatible with capitalism and the nation-state system.
If war is to be stopped and a global catastrophe averted, a new and powerful mass international movement, based on a socialist program,
and strategically guided by the principles of revolutionary class struggle, must be built. In opposition to imperialist geopolitics,
in which national states fight brutally for regional and global dominance, the International Committee counterposes the strategy
of world socialist revolution. As Trotsky advised, we "follow not the war map but the map of the class struggle. . . ." [
15 ]
In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there were mass protests against the war policies of the United States and
its allies. Millions took to the streets. But after the war began, public opposition virtually disappeared. The absence of popular
protest did not signify support for the war. Rather, it reflected the repudiation, by the old middle-class protest movement, of its
former Vietnam-era opposition to imperialism.
There are mounting signs of political radicalization among significant sections of the working class and youth. It is only a matter
of time before this radicalization gives rise to conscious opposition to war. It is the aim of this volume to impart to the new antiwar
movement a revolutionary socialist and internationalist perspective and program.
The quotes from Trotsky are glaring. These and others were used to argue against socialism in the post war decades, but all that
was needed was time and the working of the forces of capitalism itself. History never ended, it is right on schedule
"Landler informs his readers that Obama "went for a walk among the tombstones at Arlington National Cemetery before giving
the order to send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan." He recalls a passage from Obama's 2009 speech accepting the Nobel
Prize, in which the president wearily lamented that humanity needed to reconcile "two seemingly irreconcilable truths -- that
war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly."
VI lenin crushed the Krondstadt rebellion that was the true 'soviet union' model and instituted a hard right revolutionary regime
of ruthless dictatorial control from smolny, not a workers state. The US borgeouis (and french and english) intervened to keep
russia in the war and 160 german divisions from leaving the eastern front. The threat of a workers state was not the concern of
the victors. The failure of revolutionary russia to represent what this article is propping it up to be (some kind of genuine
workers state) leaves me deeply suspect about the other conclusions he's bent history to. Anyone who's read "2 years in russia"
by emma goldman, and "the victors dilemma" - john silverlight and any number of books on the russian civil war, it is clear that
the intervention was for military tactical reasons and that the nascient state was in no ways a workers state but a totalitarian
military dictatorship. Emma Goldman's disillusionment is not her falling out of love with her ideals, but her coming to terms
with the reality vs the PR of Russia. Which is why this website (Wsws) advertised a book repudiating the rejection of socialism
with the faiure of the soviet union as a false narrative a year or few ago.
The historical memoir is clear, diaries, memos, news articles, and the Western soldier revolts, time to smash the revolution.
Kronstadt was a tragedy, but the regime was under threat. history is messy.
I can imagine that
the leadership of imperialist countries was underestimating the bolsheviks in 1917, but once the Russian revolution had given
enough confidence to the German masses to make the war stop one year later, once the French black sea fleet had rebelled in 1919,
etc... they were all very conscious of the risks (potential risks, not immediate threats).
The evidence in favour of what Trotsky wrote about Kronstadt is simply overwhelming. A cmd above gave some basic evidence. Trotsky
was absolutely right and absolutely honest on what he wrote later on ("hue and cry over Kronstadt")
The working class has been the victim of betrayal after betrayal by pseudo-left forces in the 20th century, which led to two catastrophic
world wars and all the other conflicts that have created needless bloodshed around the world. The great task will be, when the
new mass working class anti-war movement arises, to give the working class the political knowledge it needs to not fall for the
traps that dissipated anti-war movements in the past. It must be made clear to the workers of the world that for us, it's do or
die time - literally, as the obscene levels of social inequality and the prospect of nuclear confrontation prove.
I understand this very well, having seen what happened to what I thought at the time was a powerful antiwar movement in the 1960s
against the war in Vietnam. I was quite politically naive at the time and became so disillusioned with politics in general and
what I then thought to be the "left" in particular, that I went off politics completely and started reading Ayn Rand.
After being turned off by Rand's misanthropy and hatred of the working class (even though I admired her atheism), I became
more or less apolitical until 1998, when I first read the World Socialist Web Site and found what I had been looking for.
for this affirming comment. Me too, having all but given up on politics and following a last ditch
search of the web I was rewarded with a political program and party that was more than compatible with my world view and personal
values. Something I had not thought possible, thank you ICFI/SEP.
There are times when even we as Marxists find ourselves scouring the past for a word that befits the character and luminosity
of a moment in human understanding. In this respect David North has given new meaning to the word 'Biblical'.
As a word, its essence is transcendent. For whoever defines an epoch in the clearest and most profoundest way as this, is elevated
to the realms of Greatness.
As the bourgeoisie now scrabbles, in fights, and drowns in the last dregs of its alchemy, a Phoenix arises out of their chaos
lest the bourgeoisie commits all to the Fires of Hell ....
Most excellent words comrade David ...a most excellent call to class struggle .
This is a remarkably panoramic account, grounded in both history and economics, of the unfolding of U.S. militarism and imperialist
warfare over the past 30 or so years. It is without peer in anything else I have seen in terms of showing that events and tendencies
- which we may have been separately aware of - were in fact part of a historical continuum growing out of economic developments
and the perceived interests of the U.S. ruling class.
Always interesting to read cmd. North. ''First, and most important, the International Committee interpreted the collapse of the
Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989–90, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, as an existential crisis of the
entire global nation-state system, as it emerged from the ashes of World War II. Second, the ICFI anticipated that the breakdown
of the established postwar equilibrium would lead rapidly to a resurgence of imperialist militarism''. This is great but we also
have German militarism on the rise and we should not underestimate. The working class must be prepared for economic and even actual
wars in Europe and elsewhere. The redivision of markets and resources is evident with Germany and China on the table.
March 12, 2019 at 5:25
pm GMT • 200 Words @AnonFromTN
Superfluously impossible, AnonfromTN said: "It is simple, really. The US needs a law
prohibiting anyone with dual citizenship to hold public office."
Hi AnonfromTN.
Hard to comprehend how you persist to deny how the "US law" is Zionized. (Zigh) Israeli
"dual citizenship and holding "Homeland" public office is an irretractable endowment lawlessly
given to US Jews by ruling international Jewry.
They barged into our Constitution like a cancer and feast upon The Bill of Rights.
What's worse now is how livin' the "American dream" has reversed, and at present, President
t-Rump demands huge increases in war funding.
No one gets informed that future wars converge with Israel's will.
Please consider looking at the Wikileaks video linked below? It illustrates a barbaric type
of war crime-free & unaccountability to "international law," including a lawless US
military Rules of Engagement modus operandi, which governed the serial killing activity of an
Apache attack chopper crew in the Baghdad sky. Look close at the posed threat!
Tell me AnonfromTN? As you likely know, Bradley Chelsea Manning is, and under "Homeland"
law, in-the-klink for exposing the war crimes to America. Is their one (1) US Congressman
raising objection to the imprisonment? Fyi, you can look at the brave writing of Kathy Kelly on
the Manning case, and which appears at Counterpunch.org.
@ChuckOrloski I
can only agree. The patient (the US political system) is too far gone to hope for recovery.
As comment #69 rightly points out, our political system is based on bribery. Lobbyism and
donations to political campaigns and PACs are perfectly legal in the US, while all of these
should be criminal offenses punished by jail time, like in most countries. Naturally,
desperate Empires losing their dominant position resort to any war crimes imaginable, and
severely punish those who expose these crimes.
I can add only one thing: you are right that greedy Jews are evil, but greedy people of
any nationality are just as evil as greedy Jews. Not all greedy globalists and MIC thieves
are Jews, but they are all scum. I watch with dismay the US Empire heading to its crash.
Lemmings running to the cliff are about as rational as our degenerate elites. Israel
influence is toxic, but that's not the only poison the Empire will die from.
Information from local sources said that US army helicopters have already transported the gold bullions under cover of darkness
on Sunday [February 24th], before transporting them to the United States.
The sources said that tens of tons that Daesh had been keeping in their last hotbed in al-Baghouz area in Deir Ezzor countryside
have been handed to the Americans, adding up to other tons of gold that Americans have found in other hideouts for Daesh, making
the total amount of gold taken by the Americans to the US around 50 tons, leaving only scraps for the SDF [Kurdish] militias that
serve them [the US operation].
Recently, sources said that the area where Daesh leaders and members have barricaded themselves in, contains around 40 tons
of gold and tens of millions of dollars.
Allegedly, "US occupation forces in the Syrian al-Jazeera area made a deal with Daesh terrorists, by which Washington gets tens
of tons of gold that the terror organization had stolen, in exchange for providing safe passage for the terrorists and their leaders
from the areas in Deir Ezzor where they are located."
ISIS was financing its operations largely by the theft of oil from the oil wells in the Deir Ezzor area, Syria's oil-producing
region, and they transported and sold this stolen oil via their allied forces, through Turkey, which was one of those US allies trying
to overthrow Syria's secular Government
and install a Sunni fundamentalist regime that would be ruled from Riyadh (i.e., controlled by the Saud family) . This gold is
the property of the Syrian Government, which owns all that oil and the oil wells, which ISIS had captured (stolen), and then sold.
Thus, this gold is from sale of that stolen black-market oil, which was Syria's property.
The US Government evidently thinks that the public are fools, idiots. America's allies seem to be constantly amazed at how successful
that approach turns out to be.
Jihadists were recruited from throughout the world to fight against Syria's secular Government. Whereas ISIS was funded mainly
by black-market sales of oil from conquered areas, the Al-Qaeda-led groups were mainly funded by the Sauds and other Arab royal families
and their retinues, the rest of their aristocracy. On 13 December 2013, BBC headlined
"Guide to the Syrian rebels" and opened "There are
believed to be as many as 1,000 armed opposition groups in Syria, commanding an estimated 100,000 fighters." Except in the Kurdish
areas in Syria's northeast, almost all of those fighters were being led by Al Qaeda's Syrian Branch, al-Nusra. Britain's Center on
Religion & Politics headlined on 21 December 2015,
"Ideology
and Objectives of the Syrian Rebellion" and reported: "If ISIS is defeated, there are at least 65,000 fighters belonging to other
Salafi-jihadi groups ready to take its place." Almost all of those 65,000 were trained and are led by Syria's Al Qaeda (Nusra), which
was protected by
the US
In September 2016 a UK official
"FINAL REPORT OF THE TASK
FORCE ON COMBATING TERRORIST AND FOREIGN FIGHTER TRAVEL" asserted that, "Over 25,000 foreign fighters have traveled to the battlefield
to enlist with Islamist terrorist groups, including at least 4,500 Westerners. More than 250 individuals from the United States have
also joined." Even just 25,000 (that official lowest estimate) was a sizable US proxy-army of religious fanatics to overthrow Syria's
Government.
On 26 November 2015, the first of Russia's videos of Russia's bombing ISIS oil trucks headed into Turkey was bannered at a US
military website
"Russia Airstrike on ISIS Oil Tankers" , and exactly a month later, on 26 December 2015, Britain's Daily Express headlined
"WATCH: Russian fighter jets smash ISIS oil tankers after spotting 12,000 at Turkish border" . This article, reporting around
twelve thousand ISIS oil-tanker trucks heading into Turkey, opened: "The latest video, released by the Russian defence ministry,
shows the tankers bunched together as they make their way along the road. They are then blasted by the fighter jet." The US military
had nothing comparable to offer to its 'news'-media. Britain's Financial Times headlined on 14 October 2015,
"Isis Inc: how oil fuels the jihadi terrorists" . Only America's allies were
involved in this commerce with ISIS -- no nation that supported Syria's Government was participating in this black market of stolen
Syrian goods. So, it's now clear that a lot of that stolen oil was sold for gold as Syria's enemy-nations' means of buying that oil
from ISIS. They'd purchase it from ISIS, but not from Syria's Government, the actual owner.
An estimated 20,000-40,000 barrels of oil are produced daily in ISIS controlled territory generating $1-1.5 million daily profit
for the terrorist organization. The oil is extracted from Dir A-Zur in Syria and two fields in Iraq and transported to the Kurdish
city of Zakhu in a triangle of land near the borders of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Israeli and Turkish mediators come to the city
and when prices are agreed, the oil is smuggled to the Turkish city of Silop marked as originating from Kurdish regions of Iraq
and sold for $15-18 per barrel (WTI and Brent Crude currently sell for $41 and $45 per barrel) to the Israeli mediator, a man
in his 50s with dual Greek-Israeli citizenship known as Dr. Farid. He transports the oil via several Turkish ports and then onto
other ports, with Israel among the main destinations.
The US had done the same thing when it took over Ukraine by
a brutal coup in February 2014
: It grabbed the gold. Iskra News in Russian
reported, on 7 March 2014 , that "At 2 a.m. this morning ... an unmarked transport plane was on the runway at Borosipol Airport"
near Kiev in the west, and that, "According to airport staff, before the plane came to the airport, four trucks and two Volkswagen
minibuses arrived, all the truck license plates missing." This was as translated by Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research headlining
on 14 March,
"Ukraine's Gold Reserves Secretly Flown Out and Confiscated by the New York Federal Reserve?" in which he noted that, when asked,
"A spokesman for the New York Fed said simply, 'Any inquiry regarding gold accounts should be directed to the account holder.'" The
load was said to be "more than 40 heavy boxes." Chossudovsky noted that, "The National Bank of Ukraine (Central Bank) estimated Ukraine's
gold reserves in February to be worth $1.8 billion dollars." It was allegedly 36 tons. The US, according to Victoria Nuland (
Obama's detail-person
overseeing the coup ) had invested around $5 billion in the coup. Was her installed Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
cleaning out the nation's gold reserves in order to strip the nation so that the nation's steep indebtedness for Russian gas would
never be repaid to Russia's oligarchs? Or was he doing it as a payoff for Nuland's having installed him? Or both? In any case: Russia
was being squeezed by this fascist
Ukrainian-American ploy.
The Syria operation was about oil, gold, and guns. However, most of America's support was to Al-Qaeda-led jihadists, not to ISIS-jihadists.
As the great independent investigative journalist Dilyana
Gaytandzhieva reported on 2 July 2017 :
"In December of last year while reporting on the battle of Aleppo as a correspondent for Bulgarian media I found and filmed
9 underground warehouses full of heavy weapons with Bulgaria as their country of origin. They were used by Al Nusra Front (Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria designated as a terrorist organization by the UN)."
Furthermore, On
8 March 2013, Richard Spenser of Britain's Telegraph reported that Croatia's Jutarnji List newspaper had reported that "3,000
tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via
Jordan since November. The airlift of dated but effective Yugoslav-made weapons meets key concerns of the West, and especially Turkey
and the United States, who want the rebels to be better armed to drive out the Assad regime."
Also, a September 2014 study by Conflict Armaments Research (CAR), titled
"Islamic State Weapons
in Iraq and Syria" , reported that not only east-European, but even US-made, weapons were being "captured from Islamic State
forces" by Kurds who were working for the Americans, and that this was very puzzling and disturbing to those Kurds, who were risking
their lives to fight against those jihadists.
In December 2017, CAR headlined
"Weapons of the Islamic State"
and reported that "this materiel was rapidly captured by IS forces, only to be deployed by the group against international coalition
forces." The assumption made there was that the transfer of weapons to ISIS was all unintentional.
That report ignored contrary evidence, which I summed up on 2 September 2017 headlining
"Russian TV
Reports US Secretly Backing ISIS in Syria" , and reporting there also from the Turkish Government an admission that the US was
working with Turkey to funnel surviving members of Iraq's ISIS into the Deir Ezzor part of Syria to help defeat Syria's Government
in that crucial oil-producing region. Moreover, at least one member of the 'rebels' that the US was training at Al Tanf on Syria's
Jordanian border had quit because his American trainers were secretly diverting some of their weapons to ISIS. Furthermore: why hadn't
the US bombed Syrian ISIS before Russia entered the Syrian war on 30 September 2015? America talked lots about its supposed effort
against ISIS, but why did US wait till 16 November 2015 before taking action,
"'Get Out Of Your Trucks And Run Away': US Gives ISIS 45 Minute Warning On Oil Tanker Strikes" ?
So, regardless of whether the US Government uses jihadists as its proxy-forces, or uses fascists as its proxy-forces, it grabs
the gold -- and grabs the oil, and takes whatever else it can.
This is today's form of imperialism.
Grab what you can, and run. And call it 'fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption'. And the
imperial regime's allies watch in amazement, as they take their respective cuts of the loot. That's the deal, and they call it 'fighting
for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption around the world'. That's the way it works. International gangland.
That's the reality, while most of the public think it's instead really "fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against
corruption around the world." For example, as
RT reported on Sunday , March 3rd,
about John Bolton's effort at regime-change in Venezuela, Bolton said: "I'd like to see as broad a coalition as we can put together
to replace Maduro, to replace the whole corrupt regime,' Bolton told CNN's Jake Tapper." Trump's regime wants to bring clean and
democratic government to the poor Venezuelans, just like Bush's did to the Iraqis, and Obama's did to the Libyans and to the Syrians
and to the Ukrainians. And Trump, who pretends to oppose Obama's regime-change policies, alternately expands them and shrinks them.
Though he's slightly different from Obama on domestic policies, he never, as the US President, condemns any of his predecessors'
many coups and invasions, all of which were disasters for everybody except America's and allies' billionaires. They're all in on
the take.
The American public were suckered into destroying Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, Syria in 2011-now, and so many other countries,
and still haven't learned anything, other than to keep trusting the allegations of this lying and psychopathically vicious and super-aggressive
Government and of its stenographic 'news'-media. When is enough finally enough ? Never? If not never, then when ? Or do most people
never learn? Or maybe they don't really care. Perhaps that's the problem.
Back on 21 December 2018, one of the US regime's top 'news'-media, the Washington Post, had headlined
"Retreating ISIS army smuggled a fortune in cash and gold out of Iraq and Syria" and reported that "the Islamic State is sitting
on a mountain of stolen cash and gold that its leaders stashed away to finance terrorist operations." So, it's not as if there hadn't
been prior reason to believe that some day some of the gold would be found after America's defeat in Syria. Maybe they just hadn't
expected this to happen quite so soon. But the regime will find ways to hoodwink its public, in the future, just as it has in the
past. Unless the public wises-up (if that's even possible).
The USA 'lost' in Syria, the opposing coalition incl. Iran and Russia couldn't be faced off successfully.
Destroying Afgh., Iraq, Lybia, - all 'failures' in the sense of not garnering 'advantage' for the USA as a territory, a Federated
Nation, its citizens, its trade, boosting hopeful expansion, etc. One aim rarely mentioned is keeping allies on board, e.g. Sarkozy's
France, to invade Lybia. In France many say it was Sark I who did DE-ss-troy! Lybia.
The word *failure* is based on the acceptance of a stated aim reminiscent of old-style-colonialism: grab resources, exploit
super-cheap labor, control the natives, mine, exploit, shunt the goods / profits to home base.
If the aim is to stop rivals breathing, blast them back to the Stone Age, the success is good but relative. (see Iraq.) Private
GloboCorps (e.g. Glencore.. ) are in charge behind the curtain, many Gvmts are just stooges for them in the sense of unawoved
partnerships, the one feeding into the other, in a kind of desperado death spiral.
I have always been struck by the fact that Oil Projects / Management in Iraq, even wiki gives lists that shows major movers
and profiteers are not USA oil cos. / interests, but China, Malaysia, many others.
In any case withdrawal from Syria was a surprising and bold move on the Part of the Trump. You can criticizes Trump for not doing
more but before that he bahvaves as a typical neocon, or a typical Republican presidents (which are the same things). And he started
on this path just two month after inauguration bombing Syria under false pretences. So this is something
I think the reason of change is that Trump intuitively realized the voters are abandoning him in droves and the sizable faction
of his voters who voted for him because of his promises to end foreign wars iether already defected or is ready to defect. So this is
a move designed to keep them.
Notable quotes:
"... "America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. ..."
President Trump's big announcement to pull US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan is now emerging less as a peace move, and more
a rationalization of American military power in the Middle East. In a surprise visit to US forces in Iraq this week, Trump
said he had no intention of withdrawing the troops in that country, who have been there for nearly 15 years since GW Bush invaded
back in 2003.
Hinting at private discussions with commanders in Iraq, Trump boasted that US forces would in the future launch attacks from there
into Syria if and when needed. Presumably that rapid force deployment would apply to other countries in the region, including Afghanistan.
In other words, in typical business-style transactional thinking, Trump sees the pullout from Syria and Afghanistan as a cost-cutting
exercise for US imperialism. Regarding Syria, he has bragged about Turkey being assigned, purportedly, to "finish off" terror
groups. That's Trump subcontracting out US interests.
Critics and supporters of Trump are confounded. After his Syria and Afghanistan pullout call, domestic critics and NATO allies
have accused him of walking from the alleged "fight against terrorism" and of ceding strategic ground to US adversaries Russia
and Iran.
Meanwhile, Trump's supporters have viewed his decision in more benign light, cheering the president for "sticking it to"
the deep state and military establishment, assuming he's delivering on electoral promises to end overseas wars.
However, neither view gets what is going on. Trump is not scaling back US military power; he is rationalizing it like a cost-benefit
analysis, as perhaps only a real-estate-wheeler-dealer-turned president would appreciate. Trump is not snubbing US militarism or
NATO allies, nor is he letting loose an inner peace spirit. He is as committed to projecting American military as ruthlessly and
as recklessly as any other past occupant of the White House. The difference is Trump wants to do it on the cheap.
Here's what he said to reporters on Air Force One before touching down in Iraq:
"The United States cannot continue to be the policeman of the world. It's not fair when the burden is all on us, the United
States We are spread out all over the world. We are in countries most people haven't even heard about. Frankly, it's ridiculous."
He added: "We're no longer the suckers, folks."
Laughably, Trump's griping about US forces "spread all over the world" unwittingly demonstrates the insatiable, monstrous
nature of American militarism. But Trump paints this vice as a virtue, which, he complains, Washington gets no thanks for from the
150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in.
As US troops greeted him in Iraq, the president made explicit how the new American militarism would henceforth operate.
"America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want
us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said.
This reiterates a big bugbear for this president in which he views US allies and client regimes as "not pulling their weight"
in terms of military deployment. Trump has been browbeating European NATO members to cough up more on military budgets, and he has
berated the Saudis
and other Gulf Arab regimes to pay more for American interventions.
Notably, however, Trump has never questioned the largesse that US taxpayers fork out every year to Israel in the form of nearly
$4 billion in military aid. To be sure, that money is not a gift because much of it goes back to the Pentagon from sales of fighter
jets and missile systems.
The long-held notion that the US has served as the "world's policeman" is, of course, a travesty.
Since WWII, all presidents and the Washington establishment have constantly harped on, with self-righteousness, about America's
mythical role as guarantor of global security.
Dozens of illegal wars on almost every continent and millions of civilian deaths attest to the real, heinous conduct of American
militarism as a weapon to secure US corporate capitalism.
But with US economic power in historic decline amid a national debt now over $22 trillion, Washington can no longer afford its
imperialist conduct in the traditional mode of direct US military invasions and occupations.
Perhaps, it takes a cost-cutting, raw-toothed capitalist like Trump to best understand the historic predicament, even if only
superficially.
This gives away the real calculation behind his troop pullout from Syria and Afghanistan. Iraq is going to serve as a new regional
hub for force projection on a demand-and-supply basis. In addition, more of the dirty work can be contracted out to Washington's
clients like Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who will be buying even more US weaponry to prop the military-industrial complex.
This would explain why Trump made his hurried, unexpected visit to Iraq this week. Significantly, he
said
: "A lot of people are going to come around to my way of thinking", regarding his decision on withdrawing forces from Syria
and Afghanistan.
Since his troop pullout plan announced on December 19, there has been serious pushback from senior Pentagon figures, hawkish Republicans
and Democrats, and the anti-Trump media. The atmosphere is almost seditious against the president. Trump flying off to Iraq on Christmas
night was
reportedly his first visit to troops in an overseas combat zone since becoming president two years ago.
What Trump seemed to be doing was reassuring the Pentagon and corporate America that he is not going all soft and dovish. Not
at all. He is letting them know that he is aiming for a leaner, meaner US military power, which can save money on the number of foreign
bases by using rapid reaction forces out of places like Iraq, as well as by subcontracting operations out to regional clients.
Thus, Trump is not coming clean out of any supposed principle when he cuts back US forces overseas. He is merely applying his
knack for screwing down costs and doing things on the cheap as a capitalist tycoon overseeing US militarism.
During past decades when American capitalism was relatively robust, US politicians and media could indulge in the fantasy of their
military forces going around the world in large-scale formations to selflessly "defend freedom and democracy."
Today, US capitalism is broke. It simply can't sustain its global military empire. Enter Donald Trump with his "business solutions."
But in doing so, this president, with his cheap utilitarianism and transactional exploitative mindset, lets the cat out of the
bag. As he says, the US cannot be the world's policeman. Countries are henceforth going to have to pay for "our protection."
Inadvertently, Trump is showing up US power for what it really is: a global thug running a protection racket.
It's always been the case. Except now it's in your face. Trump is no Smedley Butler, the former Marine general who in the 1930s
condemned US militarism as a Mafia operation. This president is stupidly revealing the racket, while still thinking it is something
virtuous.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages.
Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor
for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked
as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist
based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
dnm1136
Once again, Cunningham has hit the nail on the head. Trump mistakenly conflates fear with respect. In reality, around the world,
the US is feared but generally not respected.
My guess is that the same was true about Trump as a businessman, i.e., he was not respected, only feared due to his willingness
to pursue his "deals" by any means that "worked" for him, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, seemingly gracious or mean-spirited.
William Smith
Complaining how the US gets no thanks for its foreign intervention. Kind of like a rapist claiming he should be thanked for
"pleasuring" his victim. Precisely the same sentiment expressed by those who believe the American Indians should thank the Whites
for "civilising" them.
Phoebe S,
"Washington gets no thanks for from the 150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in."
That might mean they don't want you there. Just saying.
ProRussiaPole
None of these wars are working out for the US strategically. All they do is sow chaos. They seem to not be gaining anything,
and are just preventing others from gaining anything as well.
Ernie For -> ProRussiaPole
i am a huge Putin fan, so is big Don. Please change your source of info Jerome, Trump is one man against Billions of people
and dollars in corruption. He has achieved more in the USA in 2 years than all 5 previous parasites together.
Truthbetold69
It could be a change for a better direction. Time will tell. 'If you do what you've always been doing, you'll get what you've
always been getting.'
"... The US strategy is based on two core principles: (1) Maintain – extend hegemony over whole world. (Resources, military etc etc) (2) Act as Israel's Golom. ..."
"... Of course this (very abbreviated) view of US "strategy" is open to the criticisms that it's both dumb & evil. As if US establishment cares. Compared to cost of traditional "war" it's pretty cheap ..."
In truth, infinite war is a strategic abomination, an admission of professional military
bankruptcy. Erster General-Quartiermeister Ludendorff might have endorsed the term,
but Ludendorff was a military fanatic.
Check that. Infinite war is a strategic abomination except for arms merchants, so-called
defense contractors, and the " emergency
men " (and women) devoted to climbing the greasy pole of what we choose to call the
national security establishment. In other words, candor obliges us to acknowledge that, in some
quarters, infinite war is a pure positive, carrying with it a promise of yet more profits,
promotions, and opportunities to come. War keeps the gravy train rolling. And, of course,
that's part of the problem.
Who should we hold accountable for this abomination? Not the generals, in my view. If they
come across as a dutiful yet unimaginative lot, remember that a lifetime of military service
rarely nurtures imagination or creativity. And let us at least credit our generals with this:
in their efforts to liberate or democratize or pacify or dominate the Greater Middle East they
have tried every military tactic and technique imaginable. Short of nuclear annihilation,
they've played just about every card in the Pentagon's deck -- without coming up with a winning
hand. So they come and go at regular intervals, each new commander promising success and
departing after a couple years to
make way for someone else to give it a try.
... ... ...
Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election
already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to
declare: "Enough! Stop this madness!" Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white,
that person will deserve the nation's gratitude and the support of the electorate.
Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.
No doubt Saudi and Israeli leaders will cheer, Europeans who remember their Great War will
scratch their heads in wonder, and the Chinese will laugh themselves silly. Meanwhile, issues
of genuinely strategic importance -- climate change offers one obvious example -- will continue
to be treated like an afterthought. As for the gravy train, it will roll on.
1. WW1 had total casualties (civilian and military) of around 40M. WW2 had total
casualties of 60M. So yes WW2 was more deadly but "pales in comparison" is hardly justified,
especially relative to population.
2. Marshal Foch, 28 June, 1919: "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20
years."
WW1 inevitably led to WW2.
The only politician with a modest national stage to have said that (and meant it) in the
last 50 years was Ron Paul, who was booed and mocked as crazy. Trump made noises in that
direction, but almost as soon as the last words of his oath echoed off into the brisk January
afternoon, he seemed to change his tune. Whether he never meant it, or decided to avoid the
JFK treatment, who knows.
No, as I believe Will Rogers said, democracy is that form of government where the people
get what they want, good and hard.
I supported Ron Paul in 2012. But after his candidacy was crookedly subverted by the
Establishment (cf., Trump's) I vowed never to vote again for anyone that I believe unworthy
of the power wielded through the public office. I haven't voted since, and don't expect to
until the Empire collapses.
Kirk Douglas starred in a great film about fighting in World War I: "Paths of Glory." I
highly recommend the film for its accuracy, best described in Wiki by the reaction of
governments:
Controversy
On its release, the film's anti-military tone was subject to criticism and censorship.
In France, both active and retired personnel from the French military vehemently
criticized the film -- and its portrayal of the French Army -- after it was released in
Belgium. The French government placed enormous pressure on United Artists, (the European
distributor) to not release the film in France. The film was eventually shown in France in
1975 when social attitudes had changed.[17]
In Germany, the film was withdrawn from the Berlin Film Festival to avoid straining
relations with France;[18] it was not shown for two years until after its release.
In Spain, Spain's right-wing government of Francisco Franco objected to the film. It was
first shown in 1986, 11 years after Franco's death.
In Switzerland, the film was censored, at the request of the Swiss Army, until
1970.[18]
At American bases in Europe, the American military banned it from being shown.[18]
No, it's not the generals who have let us down, but the politicians to whom they
supposedly report and from whom they nominally take their orders.
I'd say both. The generals have greatly assisted in stringing along the trusting public,
always promising that victory is just around the corner, provided the public supports this or
that final effort. Petraeus in particular willingly played his part in misleading the public
about both Iraq and Afghanistan. His career would be a great case study for illuminating what
is wrong with the U.S. today.
As to the apparent failure of the Afghanistan war – one must be careful to separate
stated goals from real ones. What kind of "lasting success" can the U.S. possibly hope for
there? If they managed to defeat the Taliban, pacify the country, install a puppet regime to
govern it, and then leave, what would that achieve? The puppet regime would find itself
surrounded by powers antagonistic to the U.S., and the puppets would either cooperate with
them or be overthrown in no time. The U.S. are not interested in winning and leaving –
they want to continue disrupting the peaceful integration of East, West, and South Asia.
Afghanistan is ideally placed for this purpose, and so the U.S. are quite content with
dragging out that war, as a pretext for their continued presence in the region.
I would disagree on one point though: "Today, Washington need not even bother to
propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are
indifferent to its very existence."
This is an error. A majority of the American public think that wasting trillions of
dollars on endless pointless foreign wars is a stupid idea, and they think that we would be
better off spending that money on ourselves. It's just that we don't live in a democracy, and
the corporate press constantly ignores the issue. But just because the press doesn't mention
something, doesn't mean that it does not exist.
So during the last presidential election Donald Trump echoed this view, why are we
throwing away all this money on stupid wars when we need that money at home? For this he was
attacked as a fascist and "literally Hitler" (really! It's jaw-dropping when you think about
it). Despite massive propaganda attacking Trump, and a personal style that could charitably
be called a jackass, Trump won the election in large part because indeed most American don't
like the status quo.
After the election, Trump started to deliver on his promises – and he was quickly
beaten down, his pragmatist nationalist advisors purged and replaced with defense-industry
chickenhawks, and now we are back to the old status quo. The public be damned.
No, the American people are not being propagandized into supporting these wars. They are
simply being ignored.
When are you going to stop insulting our intelligence with this Boy's State civics crap?
You're calling on political leaders to stop war, like they don't remember what CIA did to
JFK, RFK, Daschle, or Leahy. Or Paul Wellstone.
Your national command structure, CIA, has impunity for universal jurisdiction crime. They
can kill or torture anyone they want and get away with it. That is what put them in charge.
CIA kills anybody who gets in their way. You fail to comprehend Lenin's lesson: first destroy
the regime, then you can refrain from use of force. Until you're ready to take on CIA, your
bold phrases are silent and odorless farts of feckless self-absorption. Sack up and imprison
CIA SIS or GTFO.
Since Spain was smart enough to stay out of both World Wars (as was Switzerland, of
course), I wonder what Franco was thinking when he banned the film. Anyway, the final scene
may be the best final scene in the history of movies.
This writer, a retired military officer whose son died in service to the yankee imperium
seems to have as good a grasp as any if not a better grasp than any about the nature of the
yankee system of permanent war.
While I agree the slave-American is ignored, I think the elected, salaried members of the
elected government are also ignored.. The persons in charge are Pharaohs and massively
powerful global in scope corporations.
Abe Lincoln, McKinnley, Kennedy discovered that fact in their fate.
Organized Zionism was copted by the London bankers and their corporations 1897, since then
a string of events have emerged.. that like a Submarine, seeking a far off target, it must
divert to avoid being discovered, but soon, Red October returns to its intended path. here
the path is to take the oil from the Arabs.. and the people driving that submarine are
extremely wealthy Pharaohs and very well known major corporations.
I suggest to quit talking about the nation states and their leaders as if either could
beat their way out of a wet paper sack. instead starting talking about the corporations and
Pharaohs because they are global.
The yawning silence accompanying the centennial of the Great War is baffling to me. It was
the pivotal event of the 20th century. It was the beginning of the unmanning, the
demoralization of Western Civilization. It was the calamity that created the World we inhabit
today.
I've heard nary a peep about it in the U.S. over the last four years. It's as if it were
as remote in people's consciousness as the Punic Wars.
The World Wars (I and II) can be seen as an increasingly desperate attempt of a fading
British Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, with the material, human,
and moral cost of the wars actually accelerating the empire's demise.
Likewise, the current endless "War on Terra" can be seen as an increasingly desperate
attempt of a fading American Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, again
with the material, human, and moral cost of this war actually accelerating its demise.
But in the meantime, in both examples, the Bankers and the MIC just keep reaping their
profits, even at the expense of the empires they purportedly support and defend.
In a traditional sense the author is right. Strategy is the attainment of political goals,
within existing constraints. (diplomatic, political, resources etc)
"Goals" traditionally means "victories". (WWI is a great example of the sometimes dubious
idea of victory)
Has the US ceased to have a strategy ? No. (Their strategy is myopic & self destructive
– ie it's not a "good" strategy)
The US strategy is based on two core principles: (1) Maintain – extend hegemony
over whole world. (Resources, military etc etc) (2) Act as Israel's Golom. Afghanistan,
at (relatively) minimal cost, US controls key land mass (& with possible future access to
fantastic resources). Threaten, mess up Russian – Chinese ambitions in this area. Iraq:
Israeli enemy, strategic location, resource extraction. Syria: Israeli enemy, strategic
location, key location for resource transfer to markets (EU esp). Deny Russia an ally. Libya:
who cares ? Gaddafi was a pain in the arse. Iran: Israeli enemy, fantastic resources, hate
them regardless.
Of course this (very abbreviated) view of US "strategy" is open to the criticisms that
it's both dumb & evil. As if US establishment cares. Compared to cost of traditional
"war" it's pretty cheap ( which is funny, because it's such a yummy gravy train for the
1% sorry, actually, forgot the FIRST core principle of US strategy: enrich all the "right"
people)
'There has never been a just [war], never an honorable one–on the part of the
instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so
many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful–as usual–will shout for
the war. The pulpit will– warily and cautiously–object–at first; the great,
big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be
a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is
no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side
will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing
and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently
the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity.
Before long you will see this
curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of
furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers–as
earlier– but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation–pulpit and
all– will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who
ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen
will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man
will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and
refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that
the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of
grotesque self-deception'.
- Satan, in Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" (1908)
European politicians, the war on terror, and the triumph of Bankers United: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/06/12/europe-brainwashed-normalize-relations-russia/
"Europe has not had an independent existence for 75 years. European countries do not know
what it means to be a sovereign state. Without Washington European politicians feel lost, so
they are likely to stick with Washington .
Russian hopes to unite with the West in a war against terrorism overlook that terrorism is
the West's weapon for destabilizing independent countries that do not accept a unipolar
world."
The world is ripe for barter exchange. Screw the money changers.
On January 8, 2018, former government advisor Edward Luttwak wrote an opinion piece for
Foreign Policy titled "It's Time to Bomb North Korea."
Luttwak's thesis is relatively straightforward. There is a government out there that may
very soon acquire nuclear-weapons capabilities, and this country cannot be trusted to
responsibly handle such a stockpile. The responsibility to protect the world from a rogue
nation cannot be argued with, and we understandably have a duty to ensure the future of
humanity.
However, there is one rogue nation that continues to hold the world ransom with its nuclear
weapons supply. It is decimating non-compliant states left, right, and center. This country
must be stopped dead in its tracks before anyone turns to the issue of North Korea.
In August of 1945, this rogue nation dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets, not
military targets, completely obliterating between 135,000 and
300,000 Japanese civilians in just these two acts alone. Prior to this event, this country
killed even more civilians in the infamous
firebombing of Tokyo and other areas of Japan, dropping close to 500,000 cylinders of
napalm and petroleum jelly on some of Japan's most densely populated areas.
Recently, historians have become more open to the possibility that dropping the atomic bombs
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not actually necessary to end World War II. This has also been
confirmed by those who actually took part in it. As the Nation
explained:
Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public
address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that 'the atomic bomb played
no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan ' Adm. William
"Bull" Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that 'the first
atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . It was a mistake to ever drop it . [the
scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it
A few months' prior, this rogue country's
invasion of the Japanese island of Okinawa also claimed at least one quarter of Okinawa's
population. The Okinawan people have been protesting this country's military presence ever
since. The most recent ongoing protest
has lasted well over 5,000 days in a row.
This nation's bloodlust continued well after the end of World War II. Barely half a decade
later, this country bombed North Korea into complete oblivion, destroying over 8,700 factories,
5,000 schools, 1,000 hospitals, 600,000 homes, and
eventually killing off as much as 20 percent of the country's population. As the Asia
Pacific Journal has noted, the assaulting country dropped so many bombs that they eventually
ran out of targets to hit, turning to bomb the irrigation systems, instead:
By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every
significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed. In the
spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the
North Korean rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more food aid to
the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands of acres of farmland, inundating
whole towns and laying waste to the essential food source for millions of North Koreans."
This was just the beginning. Having successfully destroyed the future North Korean
state, this country moved on to the rest of East Asia and Indo-China, too. As Rolling Stone's
Matt Taibbi
has explained :
We [this loose cannon of a nation] dumped 20 million gallons of toxic herbicide on Vietnam
from the air, just to make the shooting easier without all those trees, an insane plan to win
'hearts and minds' that has left about a million still disabled from defects and disease
– including about 100,000 children, even decades later, little kids with misshapen
heads, webbed hands and fused eyelids writhing on cots, our real American legacy, well out of
view, of course.
This mass murder led to the deaths of between 1.5 million and 3.8 million people,
according to the Washington Post. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were unleashed
during the entire
conflict in World War II . While this was going on, this same country was also
secretly bombing Laos and Cambodia, too, where there are over 80 million
unexploded bombs still killing people to this day.
This country also decided to bomb Yugoslavia ,
Panama
, and
Grenada before invading Iraq in the early 1990s. Having successfully bombed Iraqi
infrastructure, this country then punished Iraq's entire civilian population with brutal
sanctions. At the time, the U.N.
estimated that approximately 1.7 million Iraqis had died as a result, including
500,000 to 600,000 children . Some years later, a prominent medical journal attempted
to absolve the cause of this infamous history by refuting the statistics involved despite
the fact that, when interviewed during the sanctions-era, Bill Clinton's secretary of state,
Madeleine Albright, intimated that to this rogue government, the
deaths of half a million children were "worth it" as the "price" Iraq needed to pay. In other
words, whether half a million children died or not was irrelevant to this bloodthirsty nation,
which barely blinked while carrying out this murderous policy.
This almighty superpower then invaded Iraq again in 2003 and plunged the entire region
into chaos . At the end of May 2017, the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)
released a study
concluding that the death toll from this violent nation's 2003 invasion of Iraq had led to over
one million deaths and that at least one-third of them were caused directly by the invading
force.
Not to mention this country also invaded Afghanistan prior to the invasion of Iraq (even
though the militants plaguing Afghanistan were
originally trained and financed by this warmongering nation). It then
went on to bomb Yemen, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and the
Philippines .
Libya famously
had one of the highest standards of living in the region. It had state-assisted healthcare,
education, transport, and affordable housing. It is now a lawless war-zone
rife with extremism where slaves are openly traded like commodities
amid the power vacuum created as a direct result of the 2011 invasion.
In 2017, the commander-in-chief of this violent nation took the monumental death and
destruction to a new a level by removing
the restrictions on delivering airstrikes, which resulted in thousands upon
thousands of civilian deaths. Before that, in the first six months of 2017, this country
dropped
over 20,650 bombs , a monumental increase from the year that preceded it.
Despite these statistics, all of the above conquests are mere child's play to this nation.
The real prize lies in some of the more defiant and more powerful states, which this country
has already unleashed a containment strategy upon. This country has deployed its own troops all
across the border
with Russia even though it promised in the early 1990s it
would do no such thing. It also has a specific policy of
containing Russia's close ally, China, all the while threatening China's borders with talks
of direct strikes on North Korea (again, remember it already did so in the 1950s).
This country also elected a president who not only believes it is okay to embrace this rampantly violent
militarism but who openly calls other
countries "shitholes" – the very same term that aptly describes the way this country
has treated the rest of the world for decades on end. This same president also reportedly once
asked three times in a meeting
, "If we have nuclear weapons, why don't we use them?" and shortly after proposed a policy to
remove the constraints protecting the world from his dangerous supply of advanced nuclear
weaponry.
If we have any empathy for humanity, it is clear that this country must be stopped. It
cannot continue to act like this to the detriment of the rest of the planet and the safety and
security of the rest of us. This country
openly talks about using its nuclear weapons, has used them before, and has continued to
use all manner of weapons unabated in the years since while threatening to expand the use of
these weapons to other countries.
Seriously, if North Korea seems like a threat, imagine how the rest of the world feels while
watching one country violently take on the rest of the planet single-handedly, leaving nothing
but destruction in its wake and promising nothing less than a nuclear holocaust in the years to
come.
There is only one country that has done and that continues to do the very things North Korea
is being accused of doing.
Take as much time as you need for that to resonate.
1 The Korean War ends (1953
2 President Kennedy invades South Vietnam (1962)
3 The US overthrows Allende in Chile (1973)
4 The West installs Iranian dictator the Shah (1953)
5 The US-led Iraq invasion (2003)
Many honorable mentions including:
– NATO bombing of Serbia
– Libya
– Afghanistan
– Syria (support of ISIS and its predecessors and spinoffs)
The US body count is simply staggering – many millions killed, millions more wounded
or poisoned (Vietnam – agent orange and other chemical agents) and tens of millions of
lives forever damaged.
USA! USA! USA! (its elites that rule us of course!)
"... In a society often bereft of historical memory and in thrall to the propaganda of its "exceptionalism", Burns' "entirely new" Vietnam war is presented as "epic, historic work". Its lavish advertising campaign promotes its biggest backer, Bank of America, which in 1971 was burned down by students in Santa Barbara, California, as a symbol of the hated war in Vietnam. ..."
"... The cynical fabrication of "false flags" that led to the invasion of Vietnam is a matter of record – the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" in 1964, which Burns promotes as true, was just one. The lies litter a multitude of official documents, notably the Pentagon Papers ..."
"... Today, according to secret Nato documents obtained by the German newspaper, Suddeutsche Zetung, this vital treaty is likely to be abandoned as "nuclear targeting planning is increased". The German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel has warned against "repeating the worst mistakes of the Cold War All the good treaties on disarmament and arms control from Gorbachev and Reagan are in acute peril. Europe is threatened again with becoming a military training ground for nuclear weapons. We must raise our voice against this." ..."
"... Barack Obama provided the apotheosis, with seven simultaneous wars, a presidential record, including the destruction of Libya as a modern state. Obama's overthrow of Ukraine's elected government has had the desired effect: the massing of American-led Nato forces on Russia's western borderland through which the Nazis invaded in 1941. ..."
In a society often bereft of historical memory and in thrall to the propaganda of its
"exceptionalism", Burns' "entirely new" Vietnam war is presented as "epic, historic work". Its
lavish advertising campaign promotes its biggest backer, Bank of America, which in 1971 was
burned down by students in Santa Barbara, California, as a symbol of the hated war in
Vietnam.
Burns says he is grateful to "the entire Bank of America family" which "has long supported
our country's veterans". Bank of America was a corporate prop to an invasion that killed
perhaps as many as four million Vietnamese and ravaged and poisoned a once bountiful land. More
than 58,000 American soldiers were killed, and around the same number are estimated to have
taken their own lives.
I watched the first episode in New York. It leaves you in no doubt of its intentions right
from the start. The narrator says the war "was begun in good faith by decent people out of
fateful misunderstandings, American overconfidence and Cold War misunderstandings".
The dishonesty of this statement is not surprising. The cynical fabrication of "false flags"
that led to the invasion of Vietnam is a matter of record – the Gulf of Tonkin "incident"
in 1964, which Burns promotes as true, was just one. The lies litter a multitude of official
documents, notably the Pentagon Papers , which the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg
released in 1971.
There was no good faith. The faith was rotten and cancerous. For me – as it must be
for many Americans ! it is difficult to watch the film's jumble of "red peril" maps,
unexplained interviewees, ineptly cut archive and maudlin American battlefield sequences.
... ... ...
The sheer energy and moral persistence of these great movements largely succeeded; by 1987
Reagan had negotiated with Mikhail Gorbachev an Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF)
that effectively ended the Cold War.
Today, according to secret Nato documents obtained by the German newspaper, Suddeutsche
Zetung, this vital treaty is likely to be abandoned as "nuclear targeting planning is
increased". The German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel has warned against "repeating the worst
mistakes of the Cold War All the good treaties on disarmament and arms control from Gorbachev
and Reagan are in acute peril. Europe is threatened again with becoming a military training
ground for nuclear weapons. We must raise our voice against this."
But not in America. The thousands who turned out for Senator Bernie Sanders' "revolution" in
last year's presidential campaign are collectively mute on these dangers. That most of
America's violence across the world has been perpetrated not by Republicans, or mutants like
Trump, but by liberal Democrats, remains a taboo.
Barack Obama provided the apotheosis, with seven simultaneous wars, a presidential record,
including the destruction of Libya as a modern state. Obama's overthrow of Ukraine's elected
government has had the desired effect: the massing of American-led Nato forces on Russia's
western borderland through which the Nazis invaded in 1941.
"... While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and liberation". ..."
"... Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia? Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining ground btw. Ask yourself why ? ..."
"... Sphere of influence, the same reason why Cuba and Venezuela will pay for their insolence against the hegemon. The world is never a fair place. ..."
While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and
liberation".
I hate how America exploit the weak. president moon should offer an olive branch to fatty Kim by sending back the
thaad to America and pulling out American base and troops. he should convince fatty Kim that should he really like to proliferate
his nuclear missile development as deterrence, aim it only to America and America only. there is no need for Koreans to kill fellow
Koreans.
Very good idea, after having pushed Ukraine and Georgia to a war lost in advance, lets hope US will abandon South Korea and
Japan because they were helpless in demilitarizing one of the poorest countries in the world....
Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia?
Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life
isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say
farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining
ground btw. Ask yourself why ?
In this person's opinion, the article raises a good point with regards to US defense subsidies. However, its examples are dissimilar.
Japan spends approximately 1% of its GDP on defense; South Korea spends roughly 2.5% of its GDP defense.
In fact, it seems to this person that a better example of US Defense Welfare would be direct subsidies granted to the state
of Israel.
"... Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies professor from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team created an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014. ..."
"... " Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions. ..."
Tyler Durden
Aug 26, 2017 9:15 PM 0
SHARES
US has had a military presence across the world
, from almost day one of its independence.
For those who have ever wanted a clearer picture of the true reach of the United States
military - both historically and currently - but shied away due to the sheer volume of research
required to find an answer,
The Anti Media points out
that
a crew at the
Independent
just made things a whole lot simpler.
Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies
professor
from Evergreen State College in
Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team
created
an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from
Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014.
To avoid confusion, indy100 laid out its prerequisites for what constitutes an invasion:
" Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US
intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military
support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions.
But indy100 didn't stop there.
To put all that history into context, using
data
from the Department
of Defense (DOD), the team also put together a map to display all the countries in which nearly
200,000 active members of the U.S. military are now stationed.
"... As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits? ..."
As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the
end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?
You start by assuming that the absence of war is the ultimate good, but none can say what a world without war would be like,
or how long it would last.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/wars-john-gray-conflict-peace
Has the world seen moral progress? The answer should not depend on whether one has a sunny or a morose temperament. Everyone
agrees that life is better than death, health better than sickness, prosperity better than privation, freedom better than tyranny,
peace better than war. All of these can be measured, and the results plotted over time. If they go up, that's progress.
For John Gray, this is a big problem. As a part of his campaign against reason, science and Enlightenment humanism, he insists
that the strivings of humanity over the centuries have left us no better off. This dyspepsia was hard enough to sustain when
Gray first expressed it in the teeth of obvious counterexamples such as the abolition of human sacrifice, chattel slavery and
public torture-executions. But as scholars have increasingly measured human flourishing, they have found that Gray is not just
wrong but howlingly, flat-earth, couldn't-be-more-wrong wrong. The numbers show that after millennia of near-universal poverty
and despotism, a steadily growing proportion of humankind is surviving infancy and childbirth, going to school, voting in democracies,
living free of disease, enjoying the necessities of modern life and surviving to old age.
And more people are living in peace. In the 1980s several military scholars noticed to their astonishment that the most
destructive form of armed conflict – wars among great powers and developed states – had effectively ceased to exist. At the
time this "long peace" could have been dismissed as a random lull, but it has held firm for an additional three decades.
In my opinion Gray, though wrong that violence is not decreasing, is onto something about the future being bleak because of
the rise of meliorist assumptions, because perpetual peace will be humanity's tomb.
While many suggest a danger for our world along the lines of
Brian Cox's explanation for the Fermi Paradox (ie intelligent life forms cross grainedly bring on self-annihilation through
unlimited war) I take a different view.
Given that Pinker appears substantially correct that serious war (ie wars among great powers and developed states) have effectively
ceased to exist, the trend is for peace and cooperation. Martin Nowak in his book The Supercoperators shows cooperation, not fighting,
to be the defining human trait (and indeed the most cooperative groups won their wars in history, whereby nation states
such the US are the result of not just individuals but familial tribal regional , and virtually continental groupings coming together
for mutual advantage and defence .
The future is going to be global integration pursuit of economic objectives, and I think this exponential moral progress bill
begat technological advances beyond imagining.. An escape from the war trap is almost complete and the Singularity becomes. The
most likely culprit in the paradox is a technological black hole event horizon created by unlimited peace and progress.
Cross-grained though it may be to say that the good war hallows every cause, I think it not so bad in comparison with the alternative.
"... Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor and messianic in its language. ..."
"... At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem," yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways. ..."
"... Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory is built. ..."
"... Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet. ..."
"... I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department. ..."
"... I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization, which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed. ..."
"... "Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened. ..."
"... Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire, ..."
"... We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or .... ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'. ..."
"... "If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but a Global Empire only posing as your former country." ..."
Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are
part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from
the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but
can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and
he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and
integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy
of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor
and messianic in its language.
The foundation upon which Barnett builds his binary view of the world is heavily dependant upon the continued advancement of
globalization - almost exclusively so. However, advancing globalization is not pre-ordained. Barnett himself makes the case that
globalization is a fragile undertaking similar to an interconnected chain in which any broken link destroys the whole. Globalization
could indeed be like the biblical statue whose feet are made of clay. Globalization, and therefore the integration of the Gap,
may even stop or recede - just as the globalization of the early 20th century ended abruptly with the onset of WW I and a global
depression. Moreover, Barnett's contention that the United States has an exceptional duty and moral responsibility for "remaking
the world in America's image" might be seen by many as misguided and perhaps even dangerous.
The divide between the `Functioning Core' and the `Non-Integrating Gap' differs from the gulf between rich and poor in a subtle
yet direct way. State governments make a conscious decision to become connected vs. disconnected to advancing globalization. States
and their leaders can provide the infrastructure and the opening of large global markets to their citizens in ways that individuals
cannot. An example can serve to illustrate the point: You can be rich and disconnected in Nigeria or poor and disconnected in
North Korea. In each case the country you live in has decided to be disconnected. Citizens in this case have a limited likelihood
of staying rich and unlimited prospects of staying poor. But by becoming part of the functioning Core, the enlightened state allows
all citizens a running start at becoming part of a worldwide economic system and thus provide prospects for a better future because
global jobs and markets are opened up to them. A connected economy such as India's, for example, enables citizens who once had
no prospects for a better life to find well-paying jobs, such as computer-related employment. Prospects for a better Indian life
are directly the result of the Indian government's conscious decision to become connected to the world economy, a.k.a. embracing
globalization.
After placing his theory of the Core/Gap and preemptive war strategy firmly into the church of globalization, Barnett next
places his theory squarely upon the alter of rule sets. Few would argue that the world is an anarchic place and Barnett tells
us that rule sets are needed to define `good' and `evil' behavior of actors in this chaotic international system. An example of
such a rule set is the desire of the Core to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorist organizations. Other examples are the promulgation
of human rights and the need to stop genocide. Barnett also uses rule sets to define `system' rules that govern and shape the
actions, and even the psychology, of international actors. An example that Barnett gives of a system-wide rule set is the creation
of the `rule' defined by the United States during the Cold War called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Barnett claims that this
rule set effectively ended the possibility of war for all time amongst nuclear-capable great powers. Barnett states that the U.S.
now should export a brand new rule set called `preemptive war,' which aims to fight actors in the lawless Gap in order to end
international terrorism for all time. Barnett makes it clear that the Core's enemy is neither a religion (Islam) nor a place (Middle
East), but a condition (disconnectedness).
Next, Barnett points out that system-wide competition has moved into the economic arena and that military conflict, when it
occurs, has moved away from the system-wide (Cold War), to inter-state war, ending up today with primarily state conflict vs.
individuals (Core vs. bin Laden, Core vs. Kim, etc.). In other words, "we are moving progressively away from warfare against states
or even blocs of states and toward a new era of warfare against individuals." Rephrased, we've moved from confrontations with
evil empires, to evil states, to evil leaders. An example of this phenomenon is the fact that China dropped off the radar of many
government hawks after 9/11 only to be replaced by terrorist groups and other dangerous NGOs "with global reach."
Barnett also points out that the idea of `connectivity' is central to the success of globalization. Without it, everything
else fails. Connectivity is the glue that holds states together and helps prevent war between states. For example, the US is not
likely to start a war with `connected' France, but America could more likely instigate a war with `disconnected' North Korea,
Syria or Iran.
Barnett then examines the dangers associated with his definition of `disconnectedness.' He cleverly describes globalization
as a condition defined by mutually assured dependence (MAD) and advises us that `Big Men', royal families, raw materials, theocracies
and just bad luck can conspire to impede connectedness in the world. This is one of few places in his book that Barnett briefly
discusses impediments to globalization - however, this short list looks at existing roadblocks to connectedness but not to future,
system-wide dangers to globalization.
At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore
never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited
some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by
claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard
wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem,"
yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion
that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways.
Barnett then takes us on a pilgrimage to the Ten Commandments of globalization. Tellingly, this list is set up to be more like
links in a chain than commandments. Each item in the list is connected to the next - meaning that each step is dependent upon
its predecessor. If any of the links are broken or incomplete, the whole is destroyed. For example, Barnett warns us that if there
is no security in the Gap, there can be no rules in the Gap. Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand
strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory
is built.
What else could kill globalization? Barnett himself tells us: "Labor, energy, money and security all need to flow as freely
as possible from those places in the world where they are plentiful to those regions where they are scarce." Here he is implying
that an interruption of any or all of these basic necessities can doom globalization. Barnett states clearly: "...(these are)
the four massive flows I believe are essential to protect if Globalization III is going to advance." Simply put, any combination
of American isolationism or closing of borders to immigration, a global energy crisis, a global financial crisis or rampant global
insecurity could adversely affect "connectedness," a.k.a. globalization. These plausible future events, unnerving as they are,
leave the inexorable advancement of globalization in doubt and we haven't yet explored other problems with Barnett's reliance
on globalization to make the world peaceful, free and safe for democracy.
Barnett goes on to tell us that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "overt attempt to create a "System Perturbation" centered in
the Persian Gulf to trigger a Big Bang." His definition of a Big Bang in the Middle East is the democratization of the many totalitarian
states in the region. He also claims that the Big Bang has targeted Iran's "sullen majority."
Barnett claims that our problem with shrinking the Gap is not our "motive or our means, but our inability to describe the enemies
worth killing, the battles worth winning, and the future worth creating." Managing the global campaign to democratize the world
is no easy task. Barnett admits that in a worst-case scenario we may be stuck in the "mother of all intifadas" in Iraq. Critics
claim this is something that we should have planned for - that the insurgency should not have been a surprise, and that it should
have been part of the "peacemaking" planning. Barnett blithely states that things will get better "...when America internationalizes
the occupation." Barnett should not engage in wishful thinking here, as he also does when he predicted that Iraqis would be put
in charge of their own country 18 months after the fall of Baghdad. It would be more accurate if he claimed this would happen
18 months after the cessation of hostilities. Some critics claim that Iraq is an example that we are an "empire in a hurry" (Michael
Ignatieff), which then results in: 1) allocating insufficient resources to non-military aspects of the project and 2) attempting
economic and political transformation in an unrealistically short time frame.
The final basic premise of Barnett's theory of the Core and the Gap is the concept of what he calls the "global transaction
strategy." Barnett explains it best: "America's essential transaction with the outside world is one of our exporting security
in return for the world's financing a lifestyle we could far more readily afford without all that defense spending." Barnett claims
that America pays the most for global stability because we enjoy it the most. But what about the other 80 countries in the Core?
Why is America, like Atlas, bearing the weight of the world's security and stabilization on its shoulders?
Barnett claims that historical analogies are useless today and point us in the wrong direction. I disagree. James Madison cautioned
us not to go abroad to seek monsters to destroy. We can learn from his simple and profound statement that there are simply too
many state (and individual) monsters in today's world for the U.S. to destroy unilaterally or preemptively. We must also avoid
overstretching our resources and power. Thucydides reminds us that the great democracy of Athens was brought to its knees by the
ill-advised Sicilian expedition - which resulted in the destruction of everything the Athenians held dear. Do not ignore history
as Barnett councils; heed it.
Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet.
Therefore, America needs to stay engaged in the affairs of the world, but Barnett has not offered conclusive evidence that the
U.S. needs to become the world's single Leviathan that must extinguish all global hot wars. Barnett also has not proved that America
needs to be, as he writes, "the one willing to rush in when everyone else is running away." People like Barnett in academia and
leaders in government may proclaim and ordain the U.S. to be a global Leviathan, but it is a conscious choice that should be thoroughly
debated by the American people. After all, it is upon the backs of the American people that such a global Leviathan must ride.
Where is the debate? The American people, upon reflection, may decide upon other courses of action.
I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend
it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the
military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department.
It seems to be well researched - having 35 pages of notes. Many of Barnett's citations come from the Washington Post and the
New York Times, which some may see as a liberal bias, but I see the sources as simply newspapers of record.
I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization,
which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely.
Neither is guaranteed.
I don't think poorly of Thomas Barnett himself. He's very bright and, I think, good hearted, BUT his well thought-out, well
argued pride and joy (and positive intellectual pursuit) is being badly distorted ---- which happens to all 'tools' that Empire
gets its hands on.
For those who like predictions, I would predict that Barnett will wind up going through an epiphany much like Francis Fukuyama
(but a decade later) and for much the same reason, that his life's work gets misused and abused so greatly that he works to reverse
and correct its misuse. Fukuyama, also brilliant, wrote "The End of History" in 1992 (which was misused by the neocons to engender
war), and now he's working just as hard to reverse a misuse that he may feel some guilt of his work supporting, and is writing
"The Future of History" as a force for good --- and I suspect (and hope) that Barnett will, in even less time, be counter-thinking
and developing the strategy and book to reverse the misuse of his 2004 book before the Global Empire pulls down the curtain.
"Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate
name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened.
Best luck and love to the fast expanding 'Occupy the Empire' educational and revolutionary movement against this deceitful,
guileful, disguised EMPIRE, which can't so easily be identified as wearing Red Coats, Red Stars, nor funny looking Nazi helmets
---- quite yet!
Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding
wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem,
or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or ....
ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'.
"If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but
a Global Empire only posing as your former country."
"... Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003. ..."
"... If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents. ..."
People who seem to think that Trump's generals will somehow go along and support his original vision are sadly mistaken.
Since 2003, Israel has had an increasingly strong hand in the vetting who gets promoted to upper positions in the American
armed forces. All of the generals Trump has at his side went through a vetting procedure which definitely involved a very close
look at their opinions about Israel.
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened
in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003.
Officers who openly oppose the dictates of the Israel Lobby will see their prospects for advancement simply vanish like a whiff
of smoke.. Those who support Israel's machinations are rewarded with promotions, the more fervent the support the more rapid the
promotion especially if this knowledge is made known to their congressman or senator..
Generals who support Israel already know that this support will be heavily rewarded after their retirements by being given
lucrative six figure positions on company boards of directors or positions in equally lucrative think tanks like the American
Enterprise Institution or the Hoover Institute. They will receive hefty speaking fees. as well. They learned early that their
retirements could be truly glorious if they only "went" along with The Lobby. They will be able to then live the good life in
expensive places like Washington, New York or San Francisco, often invited to glitzy parties with unlimited amount of free prawns
"the size of your hand".
On the other hand, upper officers who somehow get then get "bad" reputations for their negative views about Israel ( like Karen
U. Kwiatkowski for instance) will end up, once retired, having to depend on just their often scanty pensions This requires getting
an often demeaning second jobs to get by in some place where "their dollar goes further". No bright lights in big cities for them.
No speaking fees, no college jobs. Once their fate becomes known, their still active duty contemporaries suddenly decide to "go
along".
If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years
ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents.
Face it, we live in a country under occupation by a hostile power that we willingly pay large amounts monetary tribute to.
Our government does whatever benefits Israel regardless of how negatively this effects the USA. We are increasing troop strength
in Afghanistan because, somehow, this benefits Israel. If our presence in Afghanistan (or the Mideast in general) didn't benefit
Israel, our troops would simply not be there.
Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about the "peasants" they trample. They
are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem.
At the center of that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and thereby the media
and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.
"... There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris. ..."
The Russians were there in Yugoslavia but they were not following NATO's script. There was an incident where Russian forces
took control of a key airport to the total surprise of NATO. The US overall commander ordered the UK to go in and kick the Russians
out. The UK ground commander wisely said he was not prepared to start WW III over Russian control of an airfield.
There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion
of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was
removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess
this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris.
According to some commenters at MoA the US neocons can be viewed as a flavor of political psychopaths: "Linear thinking is precisely
how Washington psychopaths think and execute once they have identified a targeted population for subservience and eventual exploitation.
It's a laser-like focus on control using the tools psychopaths understand: money, guns and butter. U.S. leaders use linear thinking
because, as psychopaths, they do not have the ability to think otherwise. Linear thinking give leaders control over how their subordinates
think and execute. A culture of psychopathy means subordinates and supporters will offer slavish devotion to such a linear path. Anyone
straying from the path is not insightful or innovative, they are rebels that sow confusion and weaken leaders. They must be silenced
and banished from the Washington tribe."
and " the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda. Even the psychopath
manages to fake plausibility - although he has no empathy for the victim and takes a thrill out of hurting them, he can still know enough
about them to predict how they will react and to fake empathy himself. This ability seems to be missing in the folk who send the troops
in. Here there seems to be the genuine but unquestioning belief in one's own infallibility - that there is one right way of doing things
to which all others must and will yield if enough pressure is applied. The line by one of GWB's staff was, supposedly, that "we create
our own reality". It is this creation of a reality utterly divorced from the real world that seems to lead to disaster every single
time. "
Notable quotes:
"... Provided the gross flaws of the intelligence, one has to wonder about the quality of the education in politics provided by Harvard and other expensive universities.. What they seem to learn very well there is lying. ..."
"... Barack CIA 0bama. ..."
"... It seems the, "Mission Possible" of the alphabet agencies is not intelligence, but chaos. ..."
"... Did the U.S. enter the First World War to save the world and democracy, or was it a game of waiting until the sides were exhausted enough that victory would be a walkover, the prize a seat at the center of power and the result that the U.S. could now take advantage of a superior position over the now exhausted former superpowers, having sat out the worst of the fighting and sold to both sides at a healthy profit? ..."
"... Invading Afghanistan and Iraq gives the U.S. a dominant role in the center of the Asian continent, the position coveted by Britain, Russia, France and the Ottoman Empire during the Great Power rivalry leading up to the Great War. It can be seen as partial success in a policy of encirclement of Russia and China. Redefining the Afghanistan and Iraq wars along these lines make them look more successful, not less, however odious we may thing these objectives might be from moral and international law perspectives. ..."
"... you mean non-conforming realities like the rule of law, and possible future contingencies like war crimes tribunals? ..."
"... it seems to me that trying to write some kind of rational analysis of a US foreign policy without mentioning the glaring fact that it's all absolutely illegal strikes me as an exercise in confusion. ..."
"... the author's focus on successful implementation of policy is misguided. That the Iraq War was based on a lie, the Libyan bombing Campaign was illegal, and the Syrian conflict was an illegal proxy war does not trouble him. And the strategic reasons for US long-term occupation of Afghanistan escapes him. ..."
"... Although he laments the failure to plan for contingencies, the words "accountable" and "accountability" never appear in this essay. Nor does the word "neocon" - despite their being the malignant driving force in US FP. ..."
"... There have been many lessons for the Russians since Afghanistan, two that Russia was directly involved with were the 90's break-up of Yugoslavia in the 90's (and the diplomatic invention of R2P) and the Chechen turmoil of the last decade. ..."
"... My only gripe with his work is that he always describes multiple aspects of psychopathy in his observations of U.S. foreign policy and the Washington ruling elite, but never goes as far as to conclude the root of all our problems are psychopathic individuals and institutions, or a culture of psychopathy infesting larger groups of the same, e.g., Washington elite, "The Borg", etc. ..."
"... Linear thinking is precisely how Washington psychopaths think and execute once they have identified a targeted population for subservience and eventual exploitation. It's a laser-like focus on control using the tools psychopaths understand: money, guns and butter. U.S. leaders use linear thinking because, as psychopaths, they do not have the ability to think otherwise. Linear thinking give leaders control over how their subordinates think and execute. A culture of psychopathy means subordinates and supporters will offer slavish devotion to such a linear path. Anyone straying from the path is not insightful or innovative, they are rebels that sow confusion and weaken leaders. They must be silenced and banished from the Washington tribe. ..."
"... the military was told "Go to Iraq, overthrow Saddam, everything will work out once we get our contractors and corporations in after you." Paul Bremer's CPA and his "100 Orders" were supposed to fix everything. But the Iraqis objected strenuously to the oil privatization selloff (and the rest of it) and the insurgency was launched. Okay, the military was told, break the insurgency. In comes the CIA, Special Forces, mass surveillance - what comes out? Abu Ghraib torture photos. The insurgency gets even stronger. Iran ends up winning the strategic game, hands down, and has far more influence in Iraq than it could ever dream of during the Saddam era. The whole objective, turning Iraq into a client state of the U.S. neoliberal order, utterly failed. ..."
"... Here's the point I think you're missing: the Washington strategists behind all this are batshit crazy and divorced from reality. Their objectives have to be rewritten every few years, because they're hopeless pipe dreams. They live and work and breathe in these Washington military-industrial think tanks, neocons and neoliberals both, that are largely financed by arms manufacturers and associated private equity firms. As far as the defense contractors go, one war is as good as another, they can keep selling arms to all regardless. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria - cash cows is all they are. So, they finance the PR monkeys to keep pushing "strategic geopolitical initiatives" that are really nonsensical and have no hope of working in the long run - but who cares, the cash keeps flowing. ..."
"... It's all nonsense, there's no FSA just Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates, plus the Kurdish proxy force is a long-term dead end - but it keeps the war going. A more rational approach - work with Russia to defeat ISIS, don't worry about economic cooperation between Syria and Iran, tell the Saudis and Israelis that Iran won't invade them (it won't), pull back militarily and focus instead on domestic problems in the USA - the think tanks, defense contractors, Saudi and Israeli lobbyists, they don't like that. ..."
"... Brenner is trying to mislead us with bombastic terminology like "The Linear Mindset". The root cause of America's problems is what Michael Scheuer calls Imperial Hubris: The idea that they are Masters of the Universe and so they have omnipotent power to turn every country into a vassal. But when this hubris meets reality, they get confused and don't know what to do. In such a case, they resort to three standard actions: sanctions, regime change or chaos. If these three don't work, they repeat them! ..."
"... Politicians are mere puppets. Their real owners are the 1% who use the Deep State to direct policy. Among this 1% there are zionists who have enormous influence on US Middle Eastern policy and they use the neocons as their attack dogs to direct such policy. This hubris has caused so much pain, destruction and death all over the world and it has also caused America so much economic damage. ..."
"... America is waning as a global power but instead of self-introspection and returning to realism, they are doubling down on neocon policy stupidity. Putin, China and Iran are trying to save them from their stupidity but they seem to be hell-bent on committing suicide. But I hope the policy sophistication of Russia, China and Iran, as well as their military capabilities that raise the stakes high for US military intervention will force the Masters of the Universe to see sense and reverse their road to destruction. ..."
"... the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda. Even the psychopath manages to fake plausibility - although he has no empathy for the victim and takes a thrill out of hurting them, he can still know enough about them to predict how they will react and to fake empathy himself. This ability seems to be missing in the folk who send the troops in. Here there seems to be the genuine but unquestioning belief in one's own infallibility - that there is one right way of doing things to which all others must and will yield if enough pressure is applied. The line by one of GWB's staff was, supposedly, that "we create our own reality". It is this creation of a reality utterly divorced from the real world that seems to lead to disaster every single time. ..."
"... The propaganda part is inventing, manufacturing and embellishing some embodiment of evil that must be defeated to liberate their victims and save humanity. That's the cover story, not the underlying purpose of U.S. aggression. ..."
"... Neocons do not believe that exclusively as a goal in itself - it merely dovetails rather nicely with their ultimate obsession with control, and it's and easy sell against any less-than-perfect targeted foreign leader or government. Irrational demonization is the embodiment of that propaganda. ..."
"... The methods of ultimately controlling the liberated people and their nation's resources are cloaked in the guise of 'bringing Western democracy'. Methods for corrupting the resulting government and usurping their laws and voting are hidden or ignored. The propaganda then turns to either praising the resulting utopia or identifying/creating a new evil that now must also be eliminated. The utopia thing hasn't worked out so well in Libya, Iraq or Ukraine, so they stuck with the 'defeat evil' story. ..."
"... Apart from psychopathy in US leadership, the US has no understanding, nor respect of, other cultures. This is not just in US leadership, but in the exceptional people in general. It shows up from time to time in comments at blogs like this, and is often quite noticeable in comments at SST. ..."
"... The essence of imperial hubris is the belief that one's country is omnipotent; that the country can shape and create reality. The country's main aspiration is to create clients, dependencies and as the Godfather Zbigniew Bzrezinski candidly put it, "vassals".Such a mindset does not just appreciate the reality of contingency; it also does not appreciate the nature of complex systems. The country's elites believe that both soft and hard power should be able to ensure the desired outcomes. But resistance to imperial designs and blowback from the imperial power's activities induce cognitive dissonance. Instead of such cognitive crises leading to a return to reality, they lead to denial amongst this elite. This elite lives in a bubble. Their discourse is intellectually incestuous and anybody that threatens this bubble is ostracized. Limits are set to what can be debated. That is why realists like John Mearsheimer, Steve Walt, Michael Scheuer and Stephen Cohen are ignored by this elite even though their ideas are very germane. If other countries don't bow down to their dictates, they have only a combination of the following responses: sanctions, regime change and chaos. The paradox is that the more they double down with their delusions the more the country's power continues to decline. My only hope is that this doubling down will not take the world down with it. ..."
"linear"?, I would say amateurish and often stupid! It seems that the USA cannot see far enough as it's submitted to regime changes
every 5 years and decisions are finally left to powerful lobbies that have a better continuity.
Provided the gross flaws
of the intelligence, one has to wonder about the quality of the education in politics provided by Harvard and other expensive
universities.. What they seem to learn very well there is lying.
"Linear" and all that is the mushy feel-good stuff on top of your arrogance. Kleptocracy only NOW putting down its roots? Come
on. Let's get back to the 90's where it started. Vengeance for 9/11? Cover?
It seems the, "Mission Possible" of the alphabet agencies is not intelligence, but chaos. All's well in the world with
them as long as the USSA is grinding away on some near helpless ME country. Drugs and other natural resources flow from and death
and destruction flow to the unsuspecting Muslim targets.
With America, you're our friend, (or at least we tolerate you) until you're not (or we don't), then God help you and your innocent
hoards.
The organized and well scripted chaos has been just one act in the larger play of destroying western civilization with throngs
of Muslims now flooding western Europe and to a lesser degree, USA. Of course, the Deep State had felt confident in allowing Latinos
to destroy America...Trump has put a large crimp in the pipeline--one of the reasons he is hated so badly by the destructive PTB.
Your analysis of linearity is interesting. However, you make what I believe is a critical error. You assume you know the objective
and the path to follow and base your critique accordingly.
It is entirely possible that the underlying objective of, for instance, invading Iraq was to win a war and bring democracy.
Subsequent behaviour in Iraq (and Afghanistan) indicates that there might be (likely is) a hidden but central other objective.
I do not want to state that I know what that is because I am not "in the know". However, much that you attribute to failure from
linear thinking just as easily can be explained by the complexity of realizing a "hidden agenda".
Perhaps we can learn from history. Did the U.S. enter the First World War to save the world and democracy, or was it a
game of waiting until the sides were exhausted enough that victory would be a walkover, the prize a seat at the center of power
and the result that the U.S. could now take advantage of a superior position over the now exhausted former superpowers, having
sat out the worst of the fighting and sold to both sides at a healthy profit?
Invading Afghanistan and Iraq gives the U.S. a dominant role in the center of the Asian continent, the position coveted
by Britain, Russia, France and the Ottoman Empire during the Great Power rivalry leading up to the Great War. It can be seen as
partial success in a policy of encirclement of Russia and China. Redefining the Afghanistan and Iraq wars along these lines make
them look more successful, not less, however odious we may thing these objectives might be from moral and international law perspectives.
Russia learnt a huge lesson from their experience in Afghanistan. There they retreated in the face of a violent Wahabist insurgency
and paid the price. The Soviet union collapsed and became vulnerable to western free-market gangsterism as well as suffering the
blowback of terrorism in Chechnya, where they decided to play it very differently. A bit more like how Assad senior dealt with
the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1980's.
Russia knew that if ISIS and friends were allowed to destroy Syria like the Mujahadeen
had done in Afghanistan, then it would only be a matter of time before blowback would come again to Russia.
Russia's involvement is entirely rational and in their national interest. It should never have come as a surprise to the US,
and the US should shake off their cold war propaganda and be grateful that people are willing to put their lives on the line to
defeat Wahabist terrorism. Russia has played a focused line with integrity. Many Syrians love them for this, and many more in
the Middle East will likewise adopt a similar line.
In other words, the linear mindset blocks out all non-conforming realities in the present and those contingent elements
which might arise in the future
you mean non-conforming realities like the rule of law, and possible future contingencies like war crimes tribunals?
i kinda skimmed this piece, but it seems to me that trying to write some kind of rational analysis of a US foreign policy
without mentioning the glaring fact that it's all absolutely illegal strikes me as an exercise in confusion.
Brenner: Washington never really had a plan in Syria.
Really? Firstly, the author's focus on successful implementation of policy is misguided. That the Iraq War was based on
a lie, the Libyan bombing Campaign was illegal, and the Syrian conflict was an illegal proxy war does not trouble him. And the
strategic reasons for US long-term occupation of Afghanistan escapes him.
Although he laments the failure to plan for contingencies, the words "accountable" and "accountability" never appear in
this essay. Nor does the word "neocon" - despite their being the malignant driving force in US FP.
The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities
has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic
to Al Qaeda.
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January [2007], Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said
that there is "a new strategic alignment in the Middle East," separating "reformers" and "extremists"; she pointed to the Sunni
states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were "on the other side of that divide."
Lastly, Brenner's complaint that Obama has been "scape-goated" as having created ISIS conveniently ignores Obama's allowing ISIS
to grow by down-playing the threat that it represented. Obama's called ISIS al Queda's "JV team" and senior intelligence analysts
dutifully distorted intelligence to down-play the threat (see below). This was one of many deceptions that Obama took part in
- if not orchestrated (others: "moderate rebels", Benghazi, the "Fiscal Cliff", bank bailouts).
After months of investigation, this much is very clear: from the middle of 2014 to the middle of 2015, the United States
Central Command's most senior intelligence leaders manipulated the command's intelligence products to downplay the threat from
ISIS in Iraq" . . .
The Joint Task Force can find no justifiable reason why operational reporting was repeatedly used as a rationale to change
the analytic product, particularly when the changes only appeared to be made in a more optimistic direction . . .
There have been many lessons for the Russians since Afghanistan, two that Russia was directly involved with were the 90's
break-up of Yugoslavia in the 90's (and the diplomatic invention of R2P) and the Chechen turmoil of the last decade.
Russia has also benefited through the non-linear analysis of US diplomacy failures of the last two decades. Russia has created
a coalition backing up their military entry into the Middle East that allows achievement of tangible objectives at a sustainable
cost.
But b's article is about the US's dismal diplomacy that is exacerbating its rapid empire decline and it does very well to help
explain the rigid lack of thought that hastens the deterioration of US influence.
This article makes a lot of good points, but I didn't really grasp exactly what "linear" thinking is. OK. Venezuela very well
may be turning into a situation. What is the "linear" approach? What, instead, would be the "non-linear" approach? This article
cites many "linear" failures. It would be helpful also to learn of some non-linear successes. If not by the United States then
by somebody else.
Let me clarify my prior posting. This article seems to be asserting that the United States has attempted to pound the square peg
of its policy objectives into the round hole of the Middle East. I pretty much agree with that idea. But how is this "linear,"
as opposed to "bull-headed"? How does being "non-linear" help with the pounding? Would not adapting our policies to pound a round
peg instead be just as "linear" but more clever?
Thanks for posting these great observations by Michael Brenner, b.
The link to his bio on University of Pitsburg site is broken and the page is gone, but it still exists for now in Google's
cache from Aug. 1st
here . His bio can also be found under this ">https://www.theglobalist.com/united-states-common-man-forgotten-by-elites/">this
article from The Globalist
Everything I've read of Dr. Brenner that I've stumbled across is brilliant. My only gripe with his work is that he always
describes multiple aspects of psychopathy in his observations of U.S. foreign policy and the Washington ruling elite, but never
goes as far as to conclude the root of all our problems are psychopathic individuals and institutions, or a culture of psychopathy
infesting larger groups of the same, e.g., Washington elite, "The Borg", etc.
While he is quite accurate in describing the symptoms, one is left with the impression that they are the things to be
fixed. Linear thinking in a U.S. foreign policy of aggression? Absolutely, but it's pointless to 'fix' that without understanding
the cause.
Linear thinking is precisely how Washington psychopaths think and execute once they have identified a targeted population
for subservience and eventual exploitation. It's a laser-like focus on control using the tools psychopaths understand: money,
guns and butter. U.S. leaders use linear thinking because, as psychopaths, they do not have the ability to think otherwise. Linear
thinking give leaders control over how their subordinates think and execute. A culture of psychopathy means subordinates and supporters
will offer slavish devotion to such a linear path. Anyone straying from the path is not insightful or innovative, they are rebels
that sow confusion and weaken leaders. They must be silenced and banished from the Washington tribe.
Does anyone in Washington REALLY want to 'save' the Persians and 'rebuild' Iran as they imagine America did post WWII to German
and Japan? Or is the more overriding intent to punish and destroy a leadership that will not submit to the political and commercial
interests in the US? Of course the U.S. fails to deliver any benefits to the 'little people' after destroying their country and
government - they are incapable of understanding what the 'little people' want (same goes for domestic issues in the U.S.).
The U.S. government and leadership do not need lessons to modify their techniques or 'thinking' - they are incapable of doing
so. You can't 'talk a psychopath into having empathy' any more than you can talk them out of having smallpox. 'The law' and voting
were intentionally broken in the U.S. to make them all but useless to fix Washington, yet a zombified American public will continue
to use the religiously (or sit back and watch others use them religiously) with little result. Because we're a democracy and a
nation of laws - the government will fix anything broken with those tools.
In a certain sense, I'm glad Brennan does NOT go on about psychopathy in his articles. He would sound as tedious and nutty
as I do here and would never be allowed near Washington. I'll just be grateful for his thorough illustration of the symptoms for
now.
Your analysis of linearity is interesting. However, you make what I believe is a critical error. You assume you know the objective
and the path to follow and base your critique accordingly.
First, this is more an analysis of military failure to "do the job" that Washington "strategic thinkers" tell them to do, and
the reasons why it's such a futile game. In our system of government, the military does tactics, not strategy. And the above article,
which should be passed out to every politician in this country, isn't really about "the objective".
For example, the military was told "Go to Iraq, overthrow Saddam, everything will work out once we get our contractors
and corporations in after you." Paul Bremer's CPA and his "100 Orders" were supposed to fix everything. But the Iraqis objected
strenuously to the oil privatization selloff (and the rest of it) and the insurgency was launched. Okay, the military was told,
break the insurgency. In comes the CIA, Special Forces, mass surveillance - what comes out? Abu Ghraib torture photos. The insurgency
gets even stronger. Iran ends up winning the strategic game, hands down, and has far more influence in Iraq than it could ever
dream of during the Saddam era. The whole objective, turning Iraq into a client state of the U.S. neoliberal order, utterly failed.
Here's the point I think you're missing: the Washington strategists behind all this are batshit crazy and divorced from
reality. Their objectives have to be rewritten every few years, because they're hopeless pipe dreams. They live and work and
breathe in these Washington military-industrial think tanks, neocons and neoliberals both, that are largely financed by arms manufacturers
and associated private equity firms. As far as the defense contractors go, one war is as good as another, they can keep selling
arms to all regardless. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria - cash cows is all they are. So, they finance the PR monkeys to
keep pushing "strategic geopolitical initiatives" that are really nonsensical and have no hope of working in the long run - but
who cares, the cash keeps flowing.
And if you want to know why the Borg State got firmly behind Hillary Clinton, it's because they could see her supporting this
agenda wholeheartedly, especially after Libya. Here's a comment she wrote to Podesta on 2014-08-19, a long 'strategy piece' ending
with this note:
Note: It is important to keep in mind that as a result of this policy there probably will be concern in the Sunni regions of
Iraq and the Central Government regarding the possible expansion of KRG controlled territory. With advisors in the Peshmerga
command we can reassure the concerned parties that, in return for increase autonomy, the KRG will not exclude the Iraqi Government
from participation in the management of the oil fields around Kirkuk, and the Mosel Dam hydroelectric facility. At the same
time we will be able to work with the Peshmerga as they pursue ISIL into disputed areas of Eastern Syria, coordinating with
FSA troops who can move against ISIL from the North. This will make certain Basher al Assad does not gain an advantage from
these operations. Finally, as it now appears the U.S. is considering a plan to offer contractors as advisors to the Iraqi Ministry
of Defense, we will be in a position to coordinate more effectively between the Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army.
It's all nonsense, there's no FSA just Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates, plus the Kurdish proxy force is a long-term dead end
- but it keeps the war going. A more rational approach - work with Russia to defeat ISIS, don't worry about economic cooperation
between Syria and Iran, tell the Saudis and Israelis that Iran won't invade them (it won't), pull back militarily and focus instead
on domestic problems in the USA - the think tanks, defense contractors, Saudi and Israeli lobbyists, they don't like that.
Regardless, it looks like end times for the American empire, very similar to how the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1980s, and
the last days of the French and British empires in the 1950s. And good riddance, it's become a dead weight dragging down the standard
of living for most American citizens who aren't on that gravy train.
Brenner is trying to mislead us with bombastic terminology like "The Linear Mindset". The root cause of America's problems
is what Michael Scheuer calls Imperial Hubris: The idea that they are Masters of the Universe and so they have omnipotent power
to turn every country into a vassal. But when this hubris meets reality, they get confused and don't know what to do. In such
a case, they resort to three standard actions: sanctions, regime change or chaos. If these three don't work, they repeat them!
Politicians are mere puppets. Their real owners are the 1% who use the Deep State to direct policy. Among this 1% there
are zionists who have enormous influence on US Middle Eastern policy and they use the neocons as their attack dogs to direct such
policy. This hubris has caused so much pain, destruction and death all over the world and it has also caused America so much economic
damage.
America is waning as a global power but instead of self-introspection and returning to realism, they are doubling down
on neocon policy stupidity. Putin, China and Iran are trying to save them from their stupidity but they seem to be hell-bent on
committing suicide. But I hope the policy sophistication of Russia, China and Iran, as well as their military capabilities that
raise the stakes high for US military intervention will force the Masters of the Universe to see sense and reverse their road
to destruction.
There's a lot in both this piece and the comments. In a sense, I wonder if the core issue behind the Neocon/Imperial mindset isn't
a complete inability to see the other side's point of view. Psychopathy, short-termism (a common fault in businesspeople), divorce
from reality and hubris are likely a good part of it, as somebody, Paveway IV, Makutwa and nonsense factory put it, but the
Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda. Even the psychopath manages to
fake plausibility - although he has no empathy for the victim and takes a thrill out of hurting them, he can still know enough
about them to predict how they will react and to fake empathy himself. This ability seems to be missing in the folk who send the
troops in. Here there seems to be the genuine but unquestioning belief in one's own infallibility - that there is one right way
of doing things to which all others must and will yield if enough pressure is applied. The line by one of GWB's staff was, supposedly,
that "we create our own reality". It is this creation of a reality utterly divorced from the real world that seems to lead to
disaster every single time.
I would paraphrase critics of b that he (she?) has fallen into linearity trap: one point is the resources spent by USA on wars
of 21-st century (a lot), the second points are positive results (hardly any), and an intellectual charge proceeds from A to B.
However between A and B there can be diversity of problems. We can stock enough gasoline, run out of potable water. And indeed,
you can encounter pesky terrain. I recall a family vacation trip where we visited Natural Bridges National Monument and we proceeded
to Arizona on an extremely straight highway through pretty flat plateau. Then the pavement end, and the acrophobic designated
driver has to negotiate several 180* hairpins to get down on a cliff flanking Monument Valley. After second inspection, the map
had tiny letters "switchbacks" and a tiny fragment of the road not marked with the pavement. Still better than discovering "bridge
out" annotation on your map only when you gaze at the water flowing between two bridge heads. (If I recall, during late 20-th
century Balkan intervention, US military needed a lot of time to cross Danube river that unexpectedly had no functioning bridge
where they wanted to operate. Landscape changes during a war.)
That said, military usually has an appreciation for terrain. But there are also humans. On domestic side, the number of experts
on those distant societies is small, and qualified experts, minuscule. Because the qualified ones were disproportionally naysayers,
the mere whiff if expertise was treated as treason, and we had a purge of "Arabists". And it was of course worse in the lands
to charm and conquer. Effective rule requires local hands to follow our wishes, people who can be trusted. And, preferably, not
intensely hated by the locals they are supposed to administer. And like with gasoline, water, food, etc. on a vacation trip (who
forgot mosquito repellent!), the list of needed traits is surprisingly long. Like viewing collaboration with Israel supporting
infidels as a mortal sin that can be perpetrated to spare the family from starvation (you can recruit them, success!), but it
has to be atoned through backstabbing (local cadres are disappointing).
Great analysis! This is an excellent example for why I read MOA at least once a day and most of the comments! There's something
of a sad irony that Trump has made at least some kind of effort to thwart the neocons and their relentless rush toward armageddon,
seeing as how lacking in any real intellectual capcity they all seem and with Trump at the helm?
Mostly tptb, our political class, and the pundits for the masses, seem all to exhibit an astonishingly dull witted lack of
true concern or humanity for anybody anywhere, and in my years on earth so far, at least in America, they have inculcated in the
population very dubious ethical chioces, which you would think were tragic, and decisions, which you would believe were doomed,
from the wars being waged, to the lifestyles of the citizenry especially toward the top of the economic ladder, and I don't know
about others here but I for one have been confronting and dealing with these problems both in family and aquaintances for my entire
adult life! Like the battle at Kurushetra. At least they say they "have a plan," scoffingly.
Where is chipnik to weigh in on this with his poetic observations, or I think long ago it was "slthrop" who may have been bannned
for foul language as he or she raged on at the absurdities that keep heaping up exponentially? I do miss them!
Oh well, life is relatively short and we will all be gone at some point and our presense here will be one and all less than
an iota. An awareness of this one fact and its implications you would think would pierce the consciousness of every human being
well before drawing their final breath, but I guess every McCain fails to realize until too late that the jig is up?
Justin Glyn@20 "but the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda."
The propaganda part is inventing, manufacturing and embellishing some embodiment of evil that must be defeated to liberate
their victims and save humanity. That's the cover story, not the underlying purpose of U.S. aggression.
Neocons do not believe that exclusively as a goal in itself - it merely dovetails rather nicely with their ultimate obsession
with control, and it's and easy sell against any less-than-perfect targeted foreign leader or government. Irrational demonization
is the embodiment of that propaganda.
The methods of ultimately controlling the liberated people and their nation's resources are cloaked in the guise of 'bringing
Western democracy'. Methods for corrupting the resulting government and usurping their laws and voting are hidden or ignored.
The propaganda then turns to either praising the resulting utopia or identifying/creating a new evil that now must also be eliminated.
The utopia thing hasn't worked out so well in Libya, Iraq or Ukraine, so they stuck with the 'defeat evil' story.
Apart from psychopathy in US leadership, the US has no understanding, nor respect of, other cultures. This is not just in
US leadership, but in the exceptional people in general. It shows up from time to time in comments at blogs like this, and is
often quite noticeable in comments at SST.
That it why the US in its arrogance has failed in Syria, and Russia with its tiny force has been so successful.
The essence of imperial hubris is the belief that one's country is omnipotent; that the country can shape and create reality.
The country's main aspiration is to create clients, dependencies and as the Godfather Zbigniew Bzrezinski candidly put it, "vassals".Such
a mindset does not just appreciate the reality of contingency; it also does not appreciate the nature of complex systems. The
country's elites believe that both soft and hard power should be able to ensure the desired outcomes. But resistance to imperial
designs and blowback from the imperial power's activities induce cognitive dissonance. Instead of such cognitive crises leading
to a return to reality, they lead to denial amongst this elite. This elite lives in a bubble. Their discourse is intellectually
incestuous and anybody that threatens this bubble is ostracized. Limits are set to what can be debated. That is why realists like
John Mearsheimer, Steve Walt, Michael Scheuer and Stephen Cohen are ignored by this elite even though their ideas are very germane.
If other countries don't bow down to their dictates, they have only a combination of the following responses: sanctions, regime
change and chaos. The paradox is that the more they double down with their delusions the more the country's power continues to
decline. My only hope is that this doubling down will not take the world down with it.
"... A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating, if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature, is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it; of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it. ..."
"... My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us. ..."
"... Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again. ..."
Consider this article a work of speculation; a jumble of ideas thrown at a blank canvas.
A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating,
if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature,
is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to
teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it;
of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it.
For example, America's overseas wars today are both abstractions and distractions. They're also somewhat surreal to most Americans,
living as we do in comparative safety and material luxury (when compared to most other peoples of the world). Abstraction and surrealism:
two art styles that may say something vital about America's wars.
If some aspects of America's wars are surreal and others abstract, if reports of those wars are often impressionistic and often
blurred beyond recognition, this points to, I think, the highly stylized representations of war that are submitted for our consideration.
What we don't get very often is realism. Recall how the Bush/Cheney administration forbade photos of flag-draped coffins returning
from Iraq and Afghanistan. Think of all the war reporting you've seen on U.S. TV and Cable networks, and ask how many times you saw
severed American limbs and dead bodies on a battlefield. (On occasion, dead bodies of the enemy are shown, usually briefly and abstractly,
with no human backstory.)
Of course, there's no "real" way to showcase the brutal reality of war, short of bringing a person to the front and having them
face fire in combat -- a level of "participatory" art that sane people would likely seek to avoid. What we get, as spectators (which
is what we're told to remain in America), is an impression of combat. Here and there, a surreal report. An abstract news clip. Blown
up buildings become exercises in neo-Cubism; melted buildings and weapons become Daliesque displays. Severed limbs (of the enemy)
are exercises in the grotesque. For the vast majority of Americans, what's lacking is raw immediacy and gut-wrenching reality.
Again, we are spectators, not participants. And our responses are often as stylized and limited as the representations are. As
Rebecca Gordon put it from a different angle at
TomDispatch.com , when it comes to America's wars, are we participating in reality or merely watching reality TV? And why are
so many so prone to confuse or conflate the two?
Art, of course, isn't the only lens through which we can see and interpret America's wars. Advertising, especially hyperbole,
is also quite revealing. Thus the US military has been sold, whether by George W. Bush or Barack Obama, as "the world's finest military
in history" or WFMH, an acronym I just made up, and which should perhaps come with a copyright or trademark symbol after it. It's
classic advertising hyperbole. It's salesmanship in place of reality.
So, when other peoples beat our WFMH, we should do what Americans do best: sue them for copyright infringement. Our legions of
lawyers will most certainly beat their cadres of counsels. After all, under Bush/Cheney, our lawyers tortured logic and the law to
support torture itself. Talk about surrealism!
My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least
in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the
ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us.
As I said, this is me throwing ideas at the canvas of my computer screen. Do they make any sense to you? Feel free to pick up
your own brush and compose away in the comments section.
P.S. Danger, Will Robinson. I've never taken an art theory class or studied advertising closely.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools
and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at
[email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing
Views with the author's permission.
Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a
Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again.
"... It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. ..."
"JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon has two big pronouncements as the Trump administration starts reshaping
the government: "The United States of America is truly an exceptional country," and "it is clear that something is wrong."
Dimon, leader of world's most valuable bank and a counselor to the new president, used his 45-page annual letter to shareholders
on Tuesday to list ways America is stronger than ever -- before jumping into a much longer list of self-inflicted problems that
he said was "upsetting" to write.
Here's the start: Since the turn of the century, the U.S. has dumped trillions of dollars into wars, piled huge debt onto students,
forced legions of foreigners to leave after getting advanced degrees, driven millions of Americans out of the workplace with felonies
for sometimes minor offenses and hobbled the housing market with hastily crafted layers of rules.
Dimon, who sits on Donald Trump's business forum aimed at boosting job growth, is renowned for his optimism and has been voicing
support this year for parts of the president's business agenda. In February, Dimon predicted the U.S. would have a bright economic
future if the new administration carries out plans to overhaul taxes, rein in rules and boost infrastructure investment. In an
interview last month, he credited Trump with boosting consumer and business confidence in growth, and reawakening "animal spirits."
But on Tuesday, reasons for concern kept coming. Labor market participation is low, Dimon wrote. Inner-city schools are failing
poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure planning and spending
is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous it's driving capital
and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive.
" It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and
governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free
enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. "...
"Inner-city schools are failing poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure
planning and spending is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous
it's driving capital and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive."
Let's unpack his list. The 4th (last) sentence is his hope that his bank can back to the unregulated regime that brought us
the Great Recession. His 3rd sentence is a call for more tax cuts for the rich.
We may like his first 2 sentences here but who is going to pay for this? Not Jamie Dimon. See sentence #3.
Why would you object to government creating more demand for labor? Over time, wages will rise and higher wages will fund more
demand for labor produced goods.
"... As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice. ..."
Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- for not being George W. Bush. This seemed unseemly at the time, but not outrageous.
Seven years later, it seems grotesque.
As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror"
into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice.
ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY
(Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is
In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the
Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy)
at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to
Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics
of Illusion (AK Press).
"... The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya. ..."
"... Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course, his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed. ..."
"... Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. ..."
"... We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact. ..."
The start of current decade revealed the most ruthless face of a global neo-colonialism. From Syria and Libya to Europe and Latin
America, the old colonial powers of the West tried to rebound against an oncoming rival bloc led by Russia and China, which starts
to threaten their global domination.
Inside a multi-polar, complex terrain of geopolitical games, the big players start to abandon the old-fashioned, inefficient direct
wars. They use today other, various methods like
brutal proxy
wars , economic wars, financial and constitutional coups, provocative operations, 'color revolutions', etc. In this highly
complex and unstable situation, when even traditional allies turn against each other as the global balances change rapidly, the forces
unleashed are absolutely destructive. Inevitably, the results are more than evident.
Proxy Wars - Syria/Libya
After the US invasion in Iraq, the gates of hell had opened in the Middle East. Obama continued the Bush legacy of US endless
interventions, but he had to change tactics because a direct war would be inefficient, costly and extremely unpopular to the American
people and the rest of the world.
The result, however, appeared to be equally (if not more) devastating with the failed US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US
had lost total control of the armed groups directly linked with the ISIS terrorists, failed to topple Assad, and, moreover, instead
of eliminating the Russian and Iranian influence in the region, actually managed to increase it. As a result, the US and its allies
failed to secure their geopolitical interests around the various pipeline games.
In addition, the US sees Turkey, one of its most important ally, changing direction dangerously, away from the Western bloc. Probably
the strongest indication for this, is that Turkey, Iran and Russia decided very recently to proceed in an agreement on Syria without
the presence of the US.
Yet, the list of US failures does not end here. The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have
proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have
witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya.
Evidence from
WikiLeaks has shown that the old colonial powers have started a new round of ruthless competition on Libya's resources.
The usual story propagated by the Western media, about another tyrant who had to be removed, has now completely collapsed. They don't
care neither to topple an 'authoritarian' regime, nor to spread Democracy. All they care about is to secure each country's resources
for their big companies.
The Gaddafi case is quite interesting because it shows that
the Western
hypocrites were using him according to their interests .
Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they
had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order
to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course,
his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed.
Economic Wars, Financial Coups – Greece/Eurozone
It would be unthinkable for the neo-colonialists to conduct proxy wars inside European soil, especially against countries which
belong to Western institutions like NATO, EU, eurozone, etc. The wave of the US-made major economic crisis hit Greece and Europe
at the start of the decade, almost simultaneously with the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutionary wave and the subsequent disaster
in Middle East and Libya.
Greece was the easy victim for the global neoliberal dictatorship to impose catastrophic measures in favor of the plutocracy.
The Greek experiment enters its seventh year and the plan is to be used as a model for the whole eurozone. Greece has become also
the model for the looting of public property, as happened in the past with the East Germany and the
Treuhand Operation
after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
While Greece was the major victim of an economic war, Germany used its economic power and control of the European Central Bank
to impose unprecedented austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction through silent financial coups in
Ireland ,
Italy and
Cyprus . The Greek political establishment collapsed with the rise of SYRIZA in power, and the ECB was forced to proceed
in an open financial coup against
Greece when the current PM, Alexis Tsipras, decided to conduct a referendum on the catastrophic measures imposed by the ECB, IMF
and the European Commission, through which the Greek people clearly rejected these measures, despite the propaganda of terror inside
and outside Greece. Due to the direct threat from Mario Draghi and the ECB, who actually threatened to cut liquidity sinking Greece
into a financial chaos, Tsipras finally forced to retreat, signing another catastrophic memorandum.
Through similar financial and political pressure, the Brussels bureaufascists and the German sado-monetarists along with the IMF
economic hitmen, imposed neoliberal disaster to other eurozone countries like Portugal, Spain etc. It is remarkable that even the
second eurozone economy, France,
rushed to
impose anti-labor measures midst terrorist attacks, succumbing to a - pre-designed by the elites - neo-Feudalism, under
the 'Socialist' François Hollande, despite the intense protests in many French cities.
Germany would never let the United States to lead the neo-colonization in Europe, as it tries (again) to become a major power
with its own sphere of influence, expanding throughout eurozone and beyond. As the situation in Europe becomes more and more critical
with the ongoing economic and refugee crisis and the rise of the Far-Right and the nationalists, the economic war mostly between
the US and the German big capital, creates an even more complicated situation.
The decline of the US-German relations has been exposed initially with the
NSA interceptions
scandal , yet, progressively, the big picture came on surface, revealing a
transatlantic
economic war between banking and corporate giants. In times of huge multilevel crises, the big capital always intensifies
its efforts to eliminate competitors too. As a consequence, the US has seen another key ally, Germany, trying to gain a certain degree
of independence in order to form its own agenda, separate from the US interests.
Note that, both Germany and Turkey are medium powers that, historically, always trying to expand and create their own spheres
of influence, seeking independence from the traditional big powers.
A wave of neoliberal onslaught shakes currently Latin America. While in Argentina, Mauricio Macri allegedly took the power normally,
the constitutional
coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, as well as, the
usual actions
of the Right opposition in Venezuela against Nicolás Maduro with the help of the US finger, are far more obvious.
The special weight of these three countries in Latin America is extremely important for the US imperialism to regain ground in the
global geopolitical arena. Especially the last ten to fifteen years, each of them developed increasingly autonomous policies away
from the US close custody, under Leftist governments, and this was something that alarmed the US imperialism components.
Brazil appears to be the most important among the three, not only due to its size, but also as a member of the BRICS, the team
of fast growing economies who threaten the US and generally the Western global dominance. The constitutional coup against Rousseff
was rather a sloppy action and reveals the anxiety of the US establishment to regain control through puppet regimes. This is a well-known
situation from the past through which the establishment attempts to secure absolute dominance in the US backyard.
The importance of Venezuela due to its oil reserves is also significant. When Maduro tried to approach Russia in order to strengthen
the economic cooperation between the two countries, he must had set the alarm for the neocons in the US. Venezuela could find an
alternative in Russia and BRICS, in order to breathe from the multiple economic war that was set off by the US. It is characteristic
that the economic war against Russia by the US and the Saudis, by keeping the oil prices in historically low levels, had significant
impact on the Venezuelan economy too. It is also known that the US organizations are funding the opposition since Chávez era, in
order to proceed in provocative operations that could overthrow the Leftist governments.
The case of Venezuela is really interesting. The US imperialists were fiercely trying to overthrow the Leftist governments since
Chávez administration. They found now a weaker president, Nicolás Maduro - who certainly does not have the strength and personality
of Hugo Chávez - to achieve their goal.
The Western media mouthpieces are doing their job, which is propaganda as usual. The recipe is known. You present the half truth,
with a big overdose of exaggeration.
The establishment
parrots are demonizing Socialism , but they won't ever tell you about the money that the US is spending, feeding the
Right-Wing groups and opposition to proceed in provocative operations, in order to create instability. They won't tell you about
the financial war conducted through the oil prices, manipulated by the Saudis, the close US ally.
Regarding Argentina, former president, Cristina Kirchner, had also made some important moves towards the stronger cooperation
with Russia, which was something unacceptable for Washington's hawks. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because Argentina
could escape from the vulture funds that sucking its blood since its default. This would give the country an alternative to the neoliberal
monopoly of destruction. The US big banks and corporations would never accept such a perspective because the debt-enslaved Argentina
is a golden opportunity for a new round of huge profits. It's
happening right
now in eurozone's debt colony, Greece.
'Color Revolutions' - Ukraine
The events in Ukraine have shown that, the big capital has no hesitation to ally even with the neo-nazis, in order to impose the
new world order. This is not something new of course. The connection of Hitler with the German economic oligarchs, but also with
other major Western companies, before and during the WWII, is well known.
The most terrifying of all however, is not that the West has silenced in front of the decrees of the new Ukrainian leadership,
through which is targeting the minorities, but the fact that the West allied with the neo-nazis, while according to some information
has also funded their actions as well as other extreme nationalist groups during the riots in Kiev.
Plenty of indications show that US organizations have 'put their finger' on Ukraine. A
video , for
example, concerning the situation in Ukraine has been directed by Ben Moses (creator of the movie "Good Morning, Vietnam"), who is
connected with American government executives and organizations like National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the US Congress.
This video shows a beautiful young female Ukrainian who characterizes the government of the country as "dictatorship" and praise
some protesters with the neo-nazi symbols of the fascist Ukranian party Svoboda on them.
The same organizations are behind 'color revolutions' elsewhere, as well as, provocative operations against Leftist governments
in Venezuela and other countries.
Ukraine is the perfect place to provoke Putin and tight the noose around Russia. Of course the huge hypocrisy of the West can
also be identified in the case of Crimea. While in other cases, the Western officials were 'screaming' for the right of self-determination
(like Kosovo, for example), after they destroyed Yugoslavia in a bloodbath, they can't recognize the will of the majority of Crimeans
to join Russia.
The war will become wilder
The Western neo-colonial powers are trying to counterattack against the geopolitical upgrade of Russia and the Chinese economic
expansionism.
Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine
in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. Besides, Trump has already shown his hostile feelings against China, despite
his friendly approach to Russia and Putin.
We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation
in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that
they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian
borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact.
The USA state of continuous war has been a bipartisan phenomenon starting with Truman in Korea and proceeding with Vietnam, Lebanon,Somalia,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and now Syria. It doesn't take a genius to realize that these limited, never ending wars are expensive
was to enrich MIC and Wall Street banksters
The one thing your accurate analysis leaves out is that the goal of US wars is never what the media spouts for its Wall Street
masters. The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives,
create more enemies to be fought in future wars, and to provide a rationalization for the continued primacy of the military class
in US politics and culture.
Occasionally a country may be sitting on a bunch of oil, and also be threatening to move away from the petrodollar or talking
about allowing an "adversary" to build a pipeline across their land.
Otherwise war is a racket unto itself. "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable,
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. "
― George Orwell
Also we've always been at war with Oceania .or whatever that quote said.
Your basic question seems to be: What holds a country together? Especially, a large
country--- such as France/Germany/the UK/the USA/the USSR/China---that comprises many
disparate regions and ethnicities? What differentiates such a country from an empire?
So in the USSR seems like a case can be or is being made that the Party is what held the
union together, as an overarching organization that incorporated leaders into its structure.
Perhaps I am wrong in that inference as to what you or someone else is saying.
Seems like the queen's speech shows her effort to point out why it might be better for the
UK to stick together: ability to deliver better outcomes to all members of the
country/society.
The queen does seem to draw a certain line in her speech as to newcomers to the society
who wish to become part of it. Only those with specific skills to contribute to those already
here will be welcome. She doesn't specify that others are not welcome, but she certainly
seems to imply it. And, quite rightly, IMO.
"... Although the bill has not said which specific Russians, the nature of the bill means that there will be inevitable sanctions against Russia as it is a top weapon exporter to Syria, which will unlikely change despite of the new sanctions. Those in the eventual sanction list will face an American blacklist, which means a ban on entry, freezing of assets in the United States, a ban on doing business with this person for American citizens or companies. At the same time, the bill allows that the US President can consider each case separately and refuse to impose sanctions. ..."
"... Washington is frustrated that European energy policy is decided in Europe, not in the U.S., which calls into question the cooperation between the U.S. and Europe. It is a very risky measure and Europe would need to have a blunt attitude of rejection of these measures imposed by the U.S., because its own economy is at risk. ..."
"... Effectively, the "Promoting American National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act," which strangely targets Russia who had a greater role than the U.S. in defeating ISIS terrorists, is just another way for Washington to warn other countries not to buy the S-400 or Russian military equipment or engage in energy diplomacy with Moscow. It is unlikely that this will deter states from conducting arms and energy deals with Russia as Moscow has been pioneering anti-sanction measures to protect financial transactions without punishment, and rather it demonstrates a Washington that is becoming increasingly desperate in the Era of Multipolarity. ..."
Washington's Proposed New Sanctions Against Turkey also Aimed Against Russia
December 18, 2019 A Opinion Leave a commentWith the world fixated on Turkish actions
against Syria, Greece and Libya at the moment, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Senate
of the United States Congress approved a bill, "Promoting American National Security and
Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act," spearheaded and thoroughly promoted by staunch
anti-Syria/Venezuela/Iran/Russia Democratic Senator Robert Menendez who celebrated the bills
passing
on his Twitter . The Republican-led Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 18-4 to send
the bill for a vote in the full Senate.
The approval of the bill was widely reported in the mainstream media as an "anti-Turkey
bill." Senator Jim Risch, the panel's Republican chairman, a fellow endorser of the bill with
Menendez, said that the approval of this bill is because of the "drift by this country, Turkey,
to go in an entirely different direction than what they have in the past. They've thumbed their
nose at us, and they've thumbed their nose at their other NATO allies."
According to
the draft bill , the Turkish acquisition of the powerful S-400 missile defense system gives
grounds to impose sanctions against this country, under the Countering America's Adversaries
Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). In particular, the document restricts the sale of U.S. weapons
to Turkey and imposes sanctions on Turkish officials responsible for supplying weapons towards
their
illegal military operation in Syria.
Turkey signed in December 2017 the first contract with Russia for the purchase of the S-400
for a value of $2.5 billion, which caused tension in relations between Ankara and Washington.
The U.S. demanded that Ankara renounce that transaction and buy U.S. Patriot systems, and
threatened to delay or cancel the sale of the F-35 fighters to Turkey. Ankara refused to make
concessions and assured that its purpose of acquiring Russian systems remains firm.
What was missed, perhaps intentionally by the majority of the mainstream media is that this
bill has a heavy anti-Russian/Syrian component to it. Although not as detailed and expansive as
the Turkish section of the bill, it claims that "the Russian Federation and Iran continue to
exploit a security vacuum in Syria and continue to pose a threat to vital United States
national security interests," without explaining what these security interests are, exactly as
we have become accustomed to.
According to the bill, there will be a
"list of each Russian person that, on or after such date of enactment, knowingly exports,
transfers, or otherwise provides to Syria significant financial, material, or technological
support that contributes materially to the ability of the Government of Syria to acquire
defense articles, defense services, and related information."
Although the bill has not said which specific Russians, the nature of the bill means that
there will be inevitable sanctions against Russia as it is a top weapon exporter to Syria,
which will unlikely change despite of the new sanctions. Those in the eventual sanction list
will face an American blacklist, which means a ban on entry, freezing of assets in the United
States, a ban on doing business with this person for American citizens or companies. At the
same time, the bill allows that the US President can consider each case separately and refuse
to impose sanctions.
These proposed new sanctions that will have to pass the House of Representatives, which
passed its own anti-Turkish sanctions bill by an overwhelming 403-16 vote in October, is part
of a wider effort for the U.S. to keep pressurizing Russia's economy. On December 9, the
committees of both chambers of the U.S. Congress previously agreed on the military budget for
2020, which includes restrictions against the Nord Stream 2 and Turk Stream pipelines to bring
Russian energy to Europe, infrastructures designed to raise Europe's energy security. The U.S.
bill that provides sanctions against companies participating in the laying of the Nord Stream 2
gas pipeline aims to obtain unilateral advantages in the gas area to the detriment of the
interests of the countries of Europe. This prompted the chairman of the Board of Directors of
the Russian-German Foreign Chamber of Commerce, Matthias Schepp, to explain that the new
measures against Nord Stream 2 affect not only Russia, but, above all, European companies and
Germany's energy interests.
Washington is frustrated that European energy policy is decided in Europe, not in the U.S.,
which calls into question the cooperation between the U.S. and Europe. It is a very risky
measure and Europe would need to have a blunt attitude of rejection of these measures imposed
by the U.S., because its own economy is at risk.
Effectively, the "Promoting American National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS
Act," which strangely targets Russia who had a greater role than the U.S. in defeating ISIS
terrorists, is just another way for Washington to warn other countries not to buy the S-400 or
Russian military equipment or engage in energy diplomacy with Moscow. It is unlikely that this
will deter states from conducting arms and energy deals with Russia as Moscow has been
pioneering anti-sanction
measures to protect financial transactions without punishment, and rather it demonstrates a
Washington that is becoming increasingly desperate in the Era of Multipolarity.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that Moscow planned to keep gas transit
via Ukraine irrespective of a number of gas pipelines Moscow currently builds to bypass its
ex-Soviet neighbor.
...
"This is a very difficult, sensitive topic. We would like to solve this problem," Putin said
at his annual press conference in Moscow.
"We will look for a solution that is acceptable for all parties, including Ukraine. That's
despite the construction of infrastructure such as Nord Stream 1, Nord Stream 2, TurkStream.
We will preserve gas transit through Ukraine."
...
Putin said on Thursday that Russia would be ready to give Ukraine a discount of 20-25% for
gas purchases. "I am confident we will reach an agreement ... We have no desire to exacerbate
the situation ... or use this to influence the situation in Ukraine itself."
...
This gives Ukraine three options:
keep buying Russian gas from Europe
swallow their pride and buy discounted gas direct from Russia
Yes it was corrupt before the violent coup, but at least people could live nicely and be
warm during winter. People have frozen during the winters since and many of them had to go
back to work because of the damn IMF loans that hurt big time.
Congress said that they had to put sanctions on Nordstream because of Russia aggression.
One article listed all of the aggressions they have done.
Invaded Iraq.
Supported the Honduran coup.
Invaded Libya
Invaded Syria....well you get the drift. Sorta like how Iran has destabilized the Middle East
as pompous Pompeo is saying. It's the effing hypocrisy!
"... One of the most revealing and absurd responses to rejections of forever war is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries: ..."
"... The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare. ..."
"... The routinization and normalization of endless, unauthorized war is one of the most harmful legacies of the Obama administration. ..."
"... When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something else. ..."
One of the most revealing and absurd responses to
rejections of forever war
is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries:
Just like @POTUS , who put a limited op of NE
#Syria under heading of "endless
war," this op-ed has "drone strikes & Special Ops raids" in indictment of US-at-war. In fact, those actions are antidote to war.
Their misguided critique is insult to real war. https://t.co/DCLS9IDKSw
War has become so normalized over the last twenty years that the constant use of military force gets discounted as something other
than "real war." We have seen this war denialism on display several times in the last year. As more presidential candidates and analysts
have started rejecting endless war, the war's
defenders have often
chosen to
pretend
that the U.S. isn't at war at all. The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is
a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and
Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare.
Because Obama is relatively less aggressive and reckless than his hawkish opponents (a very low bar to clear), he is frequently
given a pass on these issues, and we are treated to misleading stories about his supposed "realism" and "restraint." Insofar as
he has been a president who normalized and routinized open-ended and unnecessary foreign wars, he has shown that neither of those
terms should be used to describe his foreign policy. Even though I know all too well that the president that follows him will
be even worse, the next president will have a freer hand to conduct a more aggressive and dangerous foreign policy in part because
of illegal wars Obama has waged during his time in office.
The attempt to define war so that it never includes what the U.S. military happens to be doing when it uses force abroad has been
going on for quite a while. When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they
came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the
Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't
engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for
redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't
engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that
gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment
of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something
else.
It isn't just physical war that results in active service body bags but our aggression has alreay cost lives on the home front
and there is every reason to believe it will do so again.
We were not isolationists prior to 9/11/2001, Al Qaeda had already attacked but we were distracted bombing Serbia, expanding
NATO, and trying to connect Al Qaeda attacks to Iran. We were just attacked by a Saudi officer we were training on our soil to
use the Saudis against Iran.
It remains to be seen what our economic warfare against Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, and our continued use of Afghanistan
as a bombing platform will cost us. We think we are being clever by using our Treasury Dept and low intensity warfare to minimize
direct immediate casualties but how long can that last.
This article confirms what the last Real Commander-in-Chief, General/President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about when he retired
58 years ago.
His wise Council based on his Supreme Military-Political experience has been ignored.
The MSM, Propagandists for the Military-Industrial Complex, won't remind the American People.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could,
with time and as required, make swords as well.
But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions.
Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on
military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the
very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for
granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military
machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The psychological contortionism required to deny that we are at war amazes me. US military forces are killing people in other
countries – but it's not war? Because we can manufacture comforting euphemisms like "police action" or "preventive action" or
"drone strike," it's not war? Because it's smaller scale than a "real" war like WWII?
Cancer is cancer. A small cancer is still a cancer. Arguing that it's not cancer because it's not metastatic stage IV is, well,
the most polite term is sophistry. More accurate terms aren't printable.
Jewish financists are no longer Jewish, much like a socialist who became minister is no
longer a socialist minister. Unregulated finance promotes a set of destructive behaviors which
has nothing to do with nationality or ethnicity.
Of course that Joyce is peddling his own obsessions, but I have to admit that Singer &
comp. are detestable. I know that what they're doing is not illegal, but it should be (in my
opinion), and those who are involved in such affairs are somehow odious. The same goes for Icahn,
Soros etc. Still Ethnic angle is evident, too: how come Singer works exclusively with his
co-ethnics in this multi-ethnic USA? Non-Jewish & most Jewish entrepreneurs don't behave that
way.
It was very gratifying to see Tucker Carlson's
recent attack on the activities of Paul Singer's vulture fund, Elliot Associates, a group I
first
profiled four years ago. In many respects, it is truly remarkable that vulture funds like
Singer's escaped major media attention prior to this, especially when one considers how
extraordinarily harmful and exploitative they are. Many countries are now in very significant
debt to groups like Elliot Associates and, as Tucker's segment very starkly illustrated, their
reach has now extended into the very heart of small-town America. Shining a spotlight on the
spread of this virus is definitely welcome. I strongly believe, however, that the problem
presented by these cabals of exploitative financiers will only be solved if their true nature
is fully discerned. Thus far, the descriptive terminology employed in discussing their
activities has revolved only around the scavenging and parasitic nature of their activities.
Elliot Associates have therefore been described as a quintessential example of a "vulture fund"
practicing "vulture capitalism." But these funds aren't run by carrion birds. They are operated
almost exclusively by Jews. In the following essay, I want us to examine the largest and most
influential "vulture funds," to assess their leadership, ethos, financial practices, and how
they disseminate their dubiously acquired wealth. I want us to set aside colorful metaphors. I
want us to strike through the mask.
It is commonly agreed that the most significant global vulture funds are Elliot Management,
Cerberus, FG Hemisphere, Autonomy Capital, Baupost Group, Canyon Capital Advisors, Monarch
Alternative Capital, GoldenTree Asset Management, Aurelius Capital Management, OakTree Capital,
Fundamental Advisors, and Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP. The names of these groups are
very interesting, being either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or
rural/pastoral origins (note the prevalence of oak, trees, parks, canyons, monarchs, or the use
of names like Aurelius and Elliot). This is the same tactic employed by the Jew Jordan Belfort,
the "Wolf of Wall Street," who operated multiple major frauds under the business name Stratton
Oakmont.
These names are masks. They are designed to cultivate trust and obscure the real background
of the various groupings of financiers. None of these groups have Anglo-Saxon or venerable
origins. None are based in rural idylls. All of the vulture funds named above were founded by,
and continue to be operated by, ethnocentric, globalist, urban-dwelling Jews. A quick review of
each of their websites reveals their founders and central figures to be:
Elliot Management
-- Paul Singer, Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel
Cerberus -- Stephen Feinberg, Lee Millstein, Jeffrey Lomasky, Seth Plattus, Joshua Weintraub,
Daniel Wolf, David Teitelbaum FG Hemisphere -- Peter Grossman Autonomy Capital -- Derek Goodman
Baupost Group -- Seth Klarman, Jordan Baruch, Isaac Auerbach Canyon Capital Advisors -- Joshua
Friedman, Mitchell Julis Monarch Alternative Capital -- Andrew Herenstein, Michael Weinstock
GoldenTree Asset Management -- Steven Tananbaum, Steven Shapiro Aurelius Capital Management --
Mark Brodsky, Samuel Rubin, Eleazer Klein, Jason Kaplan OakTree Capital -- Howard Marks, Bruce
Karsh, Jay Wintrob, John Frank, Sheldon Stone Fundamental Advisors -- Laurence Gottlieb,
Jonathan Stern Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP -- Josh Birnbaum, Sam Alcoff
The fact that all of these vulture funds, widely acknowledged as the most influential and
predatory, are owned and operated by Jews is remarkable in itself, especially in a contemporary
context in which we are constantly bombarded with the suggestion that Jews don't have a special
relationship with money or usury, and that any such idea is an example of ignorant prejudice.
Equally remarkable, however, is the fact that Jewish representation saturates the board level
of these companies also, suggesting that their beginnings and methods of internal promotion and
operation rely heavily on ethnic-communal origins, and religious and social cohesion more
generally. As such, these Jewish funds provide an excellent opportunity to examine their
financial and political activities as expressions of Jewishness, and can thus be placed in the
broader framework of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy and the long historical trajectory
of Jewish-European relations.
How They Feed
In May 2018, Puerto Rico declared a form of municipal bankruptcy after falling into more
than
$74.8 billion in debt, of which more than $34 billion is interest and fees. The debt was
owed to
all of the Jewish capitalists named above, with the exception of Stephen Feinberg's
Cerberus group. In order to commence payments, the government had instituted a policy of fiscal
austerity, closing schools and raising utility bills, but when Hurricane Maria hit the island
in September 2017, Puerto Rico was forced to stop transfers to their Jewish creditors. This
provoked an aggressive attempt by the Jewish funds to seize assets from an island suffering
from an 80% power outage, with the addition of further interest and fees. Protests broke out in
several US cities calling for the debt to be forgiven. After a quick stop in Puerto Rico in
late 2018, Donald Trump pandered to this sentiment when he told Fox News, "They owe a lot of
money to your friends on Wall Street, and we're going to have to wipe that out." But Trump's
statement, like all of Trump's statements, had no substance. The following day, the director of
the White House budget office, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters: "I think what you heard the
president say is that Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to solve its debt
problem." In other words, Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to pay its Jews.
Trump's reversal is hardly surprising, given that the President is considered extremely
friendly to Jewish financial power. When he referred to "your friends on Wall Street" he really
meant his friends on Wall Street. One of his closest allies is Stephen Feinberg, founder
and CEO of Cerberus, a war-profiteering vulture fund that has now accumulated
more than $1.5 billion in Irish debt , leaving the country prone to a "
wave of home repossessions " on a scale not seen since the Jewish mortgage traders behind
Quicken Loans (Daniel Gilbert) and Ameriquest (Roland Arnall)
made thousands of Americans homeless . Feinberg has also been associated with mass
evictions in Spain, causing a collective of Barcelona anarchists to
label him a "Jewish mega parasite" in charge of the "world's vilest vulture fund." In May
2018, Trump made Feinberg
chair of his Intelligence Advisory Board , and one of the reasons for Trump's sluggish
retreat from Afghanistan has been the fact Feinberg's DynCorp has enjoyed years of lucrative government
defense contracts training Afghan police and providing ancillary services to the military.
But Trump's association with Jewish vultures goes far beyond Feinberg. A recent piece
in the New York Post declared "Orthodox Jews are opening up their wallets for Trump in
2020." This is a predictable outcome of the period 2016 to 2020, an era that could be neatly
characterised as How Jews learned to stop worrying and love the Don. Jewish financiers
are opening their wallets for Trump because it is now clear he utterly failed to fulfil
promises on mass immigration to White America, while pledging his commitment to Zionism and to
socially destructive Jewish side projects like the promotion of homosexuality. These actions,
coupled with his commuting
of Hasidic meatpacking boss Sholom Rubashkin 's 27-year-sentence for bank fraud and money
laundering in 2017, have sent a message to Jewish finance that Trump is someone they can do
business with. Since these globalist exploiters are essentially politically amorphous, knowing
no loyalty but that to their own tribe and its interests, there is significant drift of Jewish
mega-money between the Democratic and Republican parties. The New York Post reports, for
example, that when Trump attended a $25,000-per-couple luncheon in November at a Midtown hotel,
where 400 moneyed Jews raised at least $4 million for the America First [!] SuperPAC, the
luncheon organiser Kelly Sadler, told reporters, "We screened all of the people in attendance,
and we were surprised to see how many have given before to Democrats, but never a Republican.
People were standing up on their chairs chanting eight more years." The reality, of course, is
that these people are not Democrats or Republicans, but Jews, willing to push their money in
whatever direction the wind of Jewish interests is blowing.
The collapse of Puerto Rico under Jewish debt and elite courting of Jewish financial
predators is certainly nothing new. Congo , Zambia , Liberia ,
Argentina , Peru ,
Panama , Ecuador ,
Vietnam , Poland , and
Ireland are just some of the countries that have slipped fatefully into the hands of the
Jews listed above, and these same people are now closely watching
Greece and
India . The methodology used to acquire such leverage is as simple as it is ruthless. On
its most basic level, "vulture capitalism" is really just a combination of the
continued intense relationship between Jews and usury and Jewish involvement in medieval
tax farming. On the older practice, Salo Baron writes in Economic History of the Jews
that Jewish speculators would pay a lump sum to the treasury before mercilessly turning on the
peasantry to obtain "considerable surpluses if need be, by ruthless methods." [1] S. Baron
(ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7. The activities of the
Jewish vulture funds are essentially the same speculation in debt, except here the trade in
usury is carried out on a global scale with the feudal peasants of old now replaced with entire
nations. Wealthy Jews pool resources, purchase debts, add astronomical fees and interests, and
when the inevitable default occurs they engage in aggressive legal activity to seize assets,
bringing waves of jobs losses and home repossessions.
This type of predation is so pernicious and morally perverse that both the
Belgian and
UK governments have taken steps to ban these Jewish firms from using their court systems to
sue for distressed debt owed by poor nations. Tucker Carlson, commenting on Paul Singer's
predation and the ruin of the town of Sidney, Nebraska, has said:
It couldn't be uglier or more destructive. So why is it still allowed in the United
States? The short answer: Because people like Paul Singer have tremendous influence over our
political process. Singer himself was the second largest donor to the Republican Party in
2016. He's given millions to a super-PAC that supports Republican senators. You may never
have heard of Paul Singer -- which tells you a lot in itself -- but in Washington, he's
rock-star famous. And that is why he is almost certainly paying a lower effective tax rate
than your average fireman, just in case you were still wondering if our system is rigged. Oh
yeah, it is.
Aside from direct political donations, these Jewish financiers also escape scrutiny by
hiding behind a mask of simplistic anti-socialist rhetoric that is common in the American
Right, especially the older, Christian, and pro-Zionist demographic. Rod Dreher, in a
commentary on Carlson's
piece at the American Conservative , points out that Singer gave a speech in May
2019 attacking the "rising threat of socialism within the Democratic Party." Singer continued,
"They call it socialism, but it is more accurately described as left-wing statism lubricated by
showers of free stuff promised by politicians who believe that money comes from a printing
press rather than the productive efforts of businesspeople and workers." Dreher comments: "The
productive efforts of businesspeople and workers"? The gall of that man, after what he did to
the people of Sidney."
What Singer and the other Jewish vultures engage in is not productive, and isn't even any
recognisable form of work or business. It is greed-motivated parasitism carried out on a
perversely extravagant and highly nepotistic scale. In truth, it is Singer and his co-ethnics
who believe that money can be printed on the backs of productive workers, and who ultimately
believe they have a right to be "showered by free stuff promised by politicians." Singer places
himself in an infantile paradigm meant to entertain the goyim, that of Free Enterprise vs
Socialism, but, as Carlson points out, "this is not the free enterprise that we all learned
about." That's because it's Jewish enterprise -- exploitative, inorganic, and attached to
socio-political goals that have nothing to do with individual freedom and private property.
This might not be the free enterprise Carlson learned about, but it's clearly the free
enterprise Jews learn about -- as illustrated in their extraordinary
over-representation in all forms of financial exploitation and white collar crime. The
Talmud, whether actively studied or culturally absorbed, is their code of ethics and their
curriculum in regards to fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, embezzlement, usury, and financial
exploitation. Vulture capitalism is Jewish capitalism.
Whom They Feed
Singer's duplicity is a perfect example of the way in which Jewish finance postures as
conservative while conserving nothing. Indeed, Jewish capitalism may be regarded as the root
cause of the rise of Conservative Inc., a form or shadow of right wing politics reduced solely
to fiscal concerns that are ultimately, in themselves, harmful to the interests of the majority
of those who stupidly support them. The spirit of Jewish capitalism, ultimately, can be
discerned not in insincere bleating about socialism and business, intended merely to entertain
semi-educated Zio-patriots, but in the manner in which the Jewish vulture funds disseminate the
proceeds of their parasitism. Real vultures are weak, so will gorge at a carcass and
regurgitate food to feed their young. So then, who sits in the nests of the vulture funds,
awaiting the regurgitated remains of troubled nations?
Boston-based Seth Klarman (net worth $1.5 billion), who like Paul Singer has
declared "free enterprise has been good for me," is a rapacious debt exploiter who was
integral to the financial collapse of Puerto Rico, where he hid much of activities behind a
series of shell companies. Investigative journalists eventually discovered that Klarman's
Baupost group was behind much of the aggressive legal action intended to squeeze the decimated
island for bond payments. It's clear that the Jews involved in these companies are very much
aware that what they are doing is wrong, and they are careful to avoid too much reputational
damage, whether to themselves individually or to their ethnic group. Puerto Rican journalists,
investigating the debt trail to Klarman, recall trying to follow one of the shell companies
(Decagon) to Baupost via a shell company lawyer (and yet another Jew) named Jeffrey Katz:
Returning to the Ropes & Gray thread, we identified several attorneys who had worked
with the Baupost Group, and one, Jeffrey Katz, who -- in addition to having worked directly
with Baupost -- seemed to describe a particularly close and longstanding relationship with a
firm fitting Baupost's profile on his experience page. I called
Katz and he picked up, to my surprise. I identified myself, as well as my affiliation with
the Public Accountability Initiative, and asked if he was the right person to talk to about
Decagon Holdings and Baupost. He paused, started to respond, and then evidently thought
better of it and said that he was actually in a meeting, and that I would need to call back
(apparently, this high-powered lawyer picks up calls from strange numbers when he is in
important meetings). As he was telling me to call back, I asked him again if he was the right
person to talk to about Decagon, and that I wouldn't call back if he wasn't, and he seemed to
get even more flustered. At that point he started talking too much, about how he was a lawyer
and has clients, how I must think I'm onto some kind of big scoop, and how there was a person
standing right in front of him -- literally, standing right in front of him -- while I rudely
insisted on keeping him on the line.
One of the reasons for such secrecy is the intensive Jewish philanthropy engaged in by
Klarman under his Klarman Family
Foundation . While Puerto Rican schools are being closed, and pensions and health
provisions slashed, Klarman is regurgitating the proceeds of massive debt speculation to his "
areas of
focus " which prominently includes " Supporting the global Jewish community
and Israel ." While plundering the treasuries of the crippled nations of the goyim, Klarman
and his co-ethnic associates have committed themselves to "improving the quality of life and
access to opportunities for all Israeli citizens so that they may benefit from the country's
prosperity." Among those in Klarman's nest, their beaks agape for Puerto Rican debt interest,
are the American Jewish Committee, Boston's Combined Jewish Philanthropies, the Holocaust
Memorial Museum, the Honeymoon Israel Foundation, Israel-America Academic Exchange, and the
Israel Project. Klarman, like Singer, has also been an enthusiastic proponent of liberalising
attitudes to homosexuality, donating $1 million to a Republican super PAC aimed at supporting
pro-gay marriage GOP candidates in 2014 (Singer donated $1.75 million). Klarman, who also
contributes to candidates
who support immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants,
has said "The right to gay marriage is the largest remaining civil rights issue of our time. I
work one-on-one with individual Republicans to try to get them to realize they are being
Neanderthals on this issue."
Steven Tananbaum's GoldenTree Asset Management has also fed well on Puerto Rico, owning $2.5
billion of the island's debt. The Centre for Economic and Policy Research has
commented :
Steven Tananbaum, GoldenTree's chief investment officer, told a business conference in
September (after Hurricane Irma, but before Hurricane Maria) that he continued to view Puerto
Rican bonds as an attractive investment. GoldenTree is spearheading a group of COFINA
bondholders that collectively holds about $3.3 billion in bonds. But with Puerto Rico facing
an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, and lacking enough funds to even begin to pay back its
massive debt load, these vulture funds are relying on their ability to convince politicians
and the courts to make them whole. The COFINA bondholder group has spent
$610,000 to lobby Congress over the last two years, while GoldenTree itself
made $64,000 in political contributions to federal candidates in the 2016 cycle. For
vulture funds like GoldenTree, the destruction of Puerto Rico is yet another opportunity for
exorbitant profits.
Whom does Tananbaum feed with these profits? A brief glance at the spending of the
Lisa and Steven Tananbaum Charitable Trust reveals a relatively short list of beneficiaries
including United Jewish Appeal Foundation, American Friends of Israel Museum, Jewish Community
Center, to be among the most generously funded, with sizeable donations also going to museums
specialising in the display of degenerate and demoralising art.
Following the collapse in Irish asset values in 2008, Jewish vulture funds including OakTree
Capital swooped on mortgagee debt to seize tens of thousands of Irish homes, shopping malls,
and utilities (Steve Feinberg's Cerberus took control of public waste disposal). In 2011,
Ireland emerged as a hotspot for distressed property assets, after its bad banks began selling
loans that had once been held by struggling financial institutions. These loans were quickly
purchased at knockdown prices by Jewish fund managers, who then aggressively sought the
eviction of residents in order to sell them for a fast profit. Michael Byrne, a researcher at
the School of Social Policy at University College Dublin, Ireland's largest university,
comments : "The
aggressive strategies used by vulture funds lead to human tragedies." One homeowner, Anna Flynn
recalls how her mortgage fell into the hands of Mars Capital, an affiliate of Oaktree Capital,
owned and operated by the Los Angeles-based Jews Howard Marks and Bruce Karsh. They were "very,
very difficult to deal with," said Flynn, a mother of four. "All [Mars] wanted was for me to
leave the house; they didn't want a solution [to ensure I could retain my home]."
When Bruce Karsh isn't making Irish people homeless, whom does he feed with his profits? A
brief glance at the spending of the
Karsh Family Foundation reveals millions of dollars of donations to the Jewish Federation,
Jewish Community Center, and the United Jewish Fund.
Paul Singer, his son Gordin, and their Elliot Associates colleagues Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn,
Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel, have a foothold in almost every country, and
have a stake in every company you're likely to be familiar with, from book stores to dollar
stores. With the profits of exploitation, they
fund campaigns for homosexuality and mass migration , boost Zionist politics,
invest millions in security for Jews , and promote wars for Israel. Singer is a Republican,
and is on the Board of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He is a former board member of the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, has funded neoconservative research groups like
the Middle East Media Research Institute and the Center for Security Policy, and is among the
largest funders of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He was also
connected to the pro-Iraq War advocacy group Freedom's Watch. Another key Singer project was
the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group that was founded in
2009 by several high-profile Jewish neoconservative figures to promote militaristic U.S.
policies in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and which received its seed money from
Singer.
Although Singer was initially anti-Trump, and although Trump once
attacked Singer for his pro-immigration politics ("Paul Singer represents amnesty and he
represents illegal immigration pouring into the country"), Trump is now essentially funded by
three Jews -- Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Sheldon Adelson, together accounting for over $250
million in pro-Trump political money . In return, they want war with Iran. Employees of
Elliott Management were one of the main sources of funding for the 2014 candidacy of the
Senate's most outspoken Iran hawk, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who urged Trump to conduct a
"retaliatory strike" against Iran for purportedly attacking two commercial tankers. These
exploitative Jewish financiers have been clear that they expect a war with Iran, and they are
lobbying hard and preparing to call in their pound of flesh. As one political commentator put
it, "These donors have made their policy preferences on Iran plainly known. They surely expect
a return on their investment in Trump's GOP."
The same pattern is witnessed again and again, illustrating the stark reality that the
prosperity and influence of Zionist globalism rests to an overwhelming degree on the predations
of the most successful and ruthless Jewish financial parasites. This is not conjecture,
exaggeration, or hyperbole. This is simply a matter of striking through the mask, looking at
the heads of the world's most predatory financial funds, and following the direction of
regurgitated profits.
Make no mistake, these cabals are everywhere and growing. They could be ignored when they
preyed on distant small nations, but their intention was always to come for you too. They are
now on your doorstep. The working people of Sidney, Nebraska probably had no idea what a
vulture fund was until their factories closed and their homes were taken. These funds will move
onto the next town. And the next. And another after that. They won't be stopped through blunt
support of "free enterprise," and they won't be stopped by simply calling them "vulture
capitalists."
Strike through the mask!
Notes
[1] S.
Baron (ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7.
To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being a
result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while
maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit?
An application of "chutzpah" to business, if you will -- the gall to break social
conventions to get what you want, while making other people feel uncomfortable; to wheedle
your way in at the joints of social norms and conventions -- not illegal, but selfish and
rude.
Krav Maga applies the same concept to the martial arts: You're taught to go after the
things that every other martial art forbids you to target: the eyes, the testicles, etc. In
other sports this is considered "low" and "cheap." In Krav Maga, as perhaps a metaphor for
Jewish behavior in general, nothing is too low because it's all about winning .
There's a rather good article on the New Yorker discussing the Sacklers and the
Oxycontin epidemic. It focusses on the dichotomy between the family's ruthless promotion of
the drug and their lavish philanthropy. 'Leave the world a better place for your presence'
and similar pieties and Oxycontin.
The article lightly touches on the extent of their giving to Hebrew University of
Jerusalem -- but in general, treads lightly when it comes to their Judaism.
understandably. The New Yorker isn't exactly alt-right country, after all. But can
Joyce or anyone else provide a more exact breakdown on the Sacklers' giving? Are they genuine
philanthropists, or is it mostly for the Cause?
@anon'To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being
a result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while
maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit? '
It's important not to get carried away with this. Figures such as Andrew Carnegie, while
impeccably gentile, were hardly paragons of scrupulous ethics and disinterested virtue.
I won't defend high finance because I don't like it either. But this is a retarded and highly
uninformed attack on it.
1. The article bounces back and forth between two completely different fields: private
equity and distressed debt funds. The latter is completely defensible. A lot of bondholders,
probably the majority, cannot hold distressed or defaulted debt. Insurance companies often
can't by law. Bond mutual funds set out in their prospectuses they don't invest in anything
rated lower than A, AA, or whatever. Even those allowed to hold distressed debt don't want
the extra costs involved with doing so, such as carefully following bankruptcy proceedings
and dealing with delayed and irregular payments.
As a result, it is natural that normal investors sell off such debt at a discount to funds
that specialize in it.
2. Joyce defends large borrowers that default on their debt. Maybe the laws protecting
bankrupts and insolvents should be stronger. But you do that, and lenders become more
conservative, investment declines, and worthy businesses can't get investments. I think
myself the laws in the US are too favorable to lenders, but there's definitely a tradeoff,
and the question is where the happy middle ground is. In Florida a creditor can't force the
sale of a primary residence, even if it is worth $20 million. That's going too far in the
other direction.
3. " either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or rural/pastoral
origins "
More retardation. Cerberus is a greek dog monster guarding the gates of hell. Aurelius is
from the Latin word for gold. "Hemisphere" isn't an Anglosaxon word nor does in invoke rural
origins.
Besides being retardedly wrong, the broader point is likewise retarded: when
English-speaking Jews name their businesses they shouldn't use English words. Naming a
company "Oaktree" should be limited to those of purely English blood! Jews must name their
companies "Cosmopolitan Capital" or RosenMoses Chutzpah Advisors."
4. The final and most general point: it's trivially easy to attack particular excesses of
capitalism. Fixing the excesses without creating bigger problem is the hard part. Two ideas I
favor are usury laws and Tobin taxes.
Jewishness aside, maximizing shareholder is the holy grail of all capitalist enterprises. The
capitalist rush to abandon the American working class when tariff barriers evaporated is just
another case of vulturism. Tax corporations based on the domestic content of their products
and ban usury and vulturism will evaporate.
Someone with the username kikz posted a link to this article in the occidental observer. I
read it and thought it was a great article. I'm glad it's featured here.
The article goes straight for the jugular and pulls no punches. It hits hard. I like
that:
1. It shines a light on the some of the scummiest of the scummiest Wall Street
players.
2. It names names. From the actual vulture funds to the rollcall of Jewish actors running
each. It's astounding how ethnically uniform it is.
3. It proves Trump's ties with the most successful Vulture kingpin, Singer.
4. It shows how money flows from the fund owners to Zionist and Jewish causes.
This thing reads like a court indictment. It puts real world examples to many of the
theories that are represents on this site. Excellent article.
Elliott Management is perhaps most notorious for its 15-year battle with the government
of Argentina, whose bonds were owned by the hedge fund. When Argentine president Cristina
Kirchner attempted to restructure the debt, Elliott -- unlike most of the bonds' owners --
refused to accept a large loss on its investment. It successfully sued in US courts, and in
pursuit of Argentine assets, convinced a court in Ghana to detain an Argentine naval
training vessel, then docked outside Accra with a crew of 22o. After a change of its
government, Argentina eventually settled and Singer's fund received $2.4 billion, almost
four times its initial investment. Kirchner, meanwhile, has been indicted for
corruption.
@Lot
You give partial information which seem misleading and use arguments which are also weak and
not enlightening.
1- Even if its natural that unsafe bonds are sold, this doesn't justify the practices and
methods of those vulture fonds which buy those fonds which are socially damaging. I'm not
certain of the details because it's an old case and people should seek more information. Very
broadly, in the case of Argentina most funds accepted to make an agreement with the country
and reduce their demands. Investors have to accept risks and losses. Paul Singer bought some
financial papers for nothing at that time and forced Argentina to pay the whole price. For
years Argentina refused to pay, but with the help of New York courts and the new Argentinian
president they were forced to pay Singer. This was not conservative capitalism but
imperialism. You can only act like Singer if you have the backing of courts, of a government
which you control and of an army like the US army. A fast internet search for titles of
articles: "Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer's ruthless strategies include bullying CEOs,
suing governments and seizing their navy's ships". "How one hedge fund made $2 billion from
Argentina's economic colapse".
Andrew Sayer, professor in an English university, says in his book "Why we can't afford
the rich" that finances as they are practiced now may cost more than bring any value to a
society. It's a problem if some sectors of finances make outsized profits and use methods
which are more than questionable.
2- You say that if borrowers become more protected "lenders become more conservative,
investment declines, and worthy businesses can't get investments." I doubt this is true. In
the first place, risk investments by vulture fonds probably don't create any social value.
The original lenders who sold their bonds to such vulture fonds have anyway big or near total
losses in some cases and in spite of that they keep doing business. Why should we support
vulture fonds, what for? What positive function they play in society? In Germany, capitalism
was much more social in old days before a neoliberal wave forced Germany to change Rhine
capitalism. Local banks lended money to local business which they knew and which they had an
interest that they prosper. Larger banks lended money to big firms. Speculation like in
neoliberal capitalism wasn't needed.
3- The point which you didn't grasp is that there is a component of those business which
isn't publicly clear, the fact that they funcion along ethnic lines.
4- It would be easy to fix excesses of capitalism. The problem is that the people who
profit the most from the system also have the power to prevent any change.
@Robjil
This is an example of what I was saying. Less Euro whites in the world is not going to be a
good world for Big Js. Non-Euros believe in freedom of speech.
Jewish Bigwigs can't get control of businesses in East Asia. They have been trying. Paul
Singer tried and failed. In Argentina he got lots of "success". Why? Lots of descendants of
Europeans there went along with "decisions" laid out by New York Jews.
Little Paulie tried to get control of Samsung. No such luck for him in Korea. In Korea
there are many family monopolies, chaebols. A Korean chaebol stopped him. Jewish Daniel Loeb
tried to get a board seat on Sony. He was rebuffed.
I was moved to reflect on the universality of this theme recently when surveying media
coverage on Korean and Argentinian responses to the activities of Paul Singer and his
co-ethnic shareholders at Elliott Associates, an arm of Singer's Elliott Management hedge
fund. The Korean story has its origins in the efforts of Samsung's holding company, Cheil
Industries, to buy Samsung C&T, the engineering and construction arm of the wider
Samsung family of businesses. The move can be seen as part of an effort to reinforce
control of the conglomerate by the founding Lee family and its heir apparent, Lee Jae-yong.
Trouble emerged when Singer's company, which holds a 7.12% stake in Samsung C&T and is
itself attempting to expand its influence and control over Far East tech companies,
objected to the move. The story is fairly typical of Jewish difficulties in penetrating
business cultures in the Far East, where impenetrable family monopolies, known in Korea as
chaebols, are common. This new story reminded me very strongly of last year's efforts by
Jewish financier Daniel Loeb to obtain a board seat at Sony. Loeb was repeatedly rebuffed
by COO Kazuo Hirai, eventually selling his stake in Sony Corp. in frustration.
Here is how the Koreans fought off Paul Singer.
The predominantly Jewish-owned and operated Elliott Associates has a wealth of
self-interest in preventing the Lee family from consolidating its control over the Samsung
conglomerate. As racial outsiders, however, Singer's firm were forced into several tactical
measures in their 52-day attempt to thwart the merger. First came lawsuits. When those
failed, Singer and his associates then postured themselves as defending Korean interests,
starting a Korean-language website and arguing that their position was really just in aid
of helping domestic Korean shareholders. This variation on the familiar theme of Jewish
crypsis was quite unsuccessful. The Lee family went on the offensive immediately and,
unlike many Westerners, were not shy in drawing attention to the Jewish nature of Singer's
interference and the sordid and intensely parasitic nature of his fund's other
ventures.
Cartoons were drawn of Singer being a vulture.
Other cartoons appearing at the same time represented Elliott, literally, as humanoid
vultures, with captions referring to the well-known history of the fund. In the above
cartoon, the vulture offers assistance to a needy and destitute figure, but conceals an axe
with which to later bludgeon the unsuspecting pauper.
ADL got all worked about this. The Koreans did not care. It is reality. Freedom of speech
works on these vultures. The west should try some real freedom of speech.
After the cartoons appeared, Singer and other influential Jews, including Abraham
Foxman, cried anti-Semitism. This was despite the fact the cartoons contain no reference
whatsoever to Judaism – unless of course one defines savage economic predation as a
Jewish trait. Samsung denied the cartoons were anti-Semitic and took them off the website,
but the uproar over the cartoons only seemed to spur on even more discussion about Jewish
influence in South Korea than was previously the case. In a piece published a fortnight
ago, Media Pen columnist Kim Ji-ho claimed "Jewish money has long been known to be ruthless
and merciless." Last week, the former South Korean ambassador to Morocco, Park Jae-seon,
expressed his concern about the influence of Jews in finance when he said, "The scary thing
about Jews is they are grabbing the currency markets and financial investment companies.
Their network is tight-knit beyond one's imagination." The next day, cable news channel YTN
aired similar comments by local journalist Park Seong-ho, who stated on air that "it is a
fact that Jews use financial networks and have influence wherever they are born." It goes
without saying that comments like these are unambiguously similar to complaints about
Jewish economic practices in Europe over the course of centuries. The only common
denominator between the context of fourteenth-century France and the context of
twenty-first-century South Korea is, you guessed it, Jewish economic practices.
The Koreans won. Paulie lost. Good win for humanity. The Argentines were not so lucky.
They don't have freedom speech like the Koreans and East Asians have.
In the end, the Lee strategy, based on drawing attention to the alien and exploitative
nature of Elliott Associates, was overwhelmingly effective. Before a crucial shareholder
vote on the Lee's planned merger, Samsung Securities CEO Yoon Yong-am said: "We should
score a victory by a big margin in the first battle, in order to take the upper hand in a
looming war against Elliott, and keep other speculative hedge funds from taking short-term
gains in the domestic market." When the vote finally took place a few days ago, a
conclusive 69.5% of Samsung shareholders voted in favor of the Lee proposal, leaving
Elliott licking its wounds and complaining about the "patriotic marketing" of those behind
the merger.
What our Jewish friends have done to Argentina, through maneuvering the elections, killing
dissidents, and marking territory, is a cautionary tale to anybody woke enough to see with
their own eyes.
Zion had the opportunity to go to Uganda and Ugandans were willing, but NO Zion had to
have Palestine, and they got it through war, deception, and murder. It was funded by usury,
as stolen purchasing power from the Goyim.
The fake country of Israel, is not the biblical Israel, and it came into being by
maneuverings of satanic men determined to get their way no matter what, and is supported by
continuous deception. Even today's Hebrew is resurrected from a dead language, and is fake.
Many fake Jews (who have no blood lineage to Abraham), a fake country, and fake language.
These fakers, usurers, and thieves do indeed have their eyes set on Patagonia, what they call
the practical country.
@Anon
"If debts can simply be repudiated at will, capitalism cannot function."
Is this children's capitalist theory class time? throwing around some simple slogans for a
susceptible congregation of future believers?
Should be quite obvious that people, groups of people, if not whole nations , can be
forced and or seduced into depths by means of certain practices. There are a thousand ways of
such trickery and thievery, these are not in the theory books though. In these books things
all match and work out wonderfully rationally
Then capitalism cannot function? Unfortunately it has become already dysfunctional, if not
a big rotten cancer.
Lobelog ran some articles in Singer, Argentina, Iran Israel and the attorney from Argentina
who died mysteriously . Singer is a loan shark. Argentinian paid dearly .
Google search –
NYT's Argentina Op-Ed Fails to Disclose Authors – LobeLog
https://lobelog.com/tag/paul-singer/
Paul Singer NYT's Argentina Op-Ed Fails to Disclose Authors' Financial Conflict of Interest
by Eli Clifton On Tuesday, Mark Dubowitz and Toby Dershowitz, two executives at the hawkish
Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), took
The Right-Wing Americans Who Made a Doc About Argentina
https://lobelog.com/the-right-wing-americans-who-made-a-doc-about-argentina/
Oct 7, 2015 One might wonder why a movie about Argentina, in Spanish and . of Nisman's and
thought highly of the prosecutor's work, told LobeLog, FDD, for its part, has been an
outspoken critic of Kirchner but has From 2008 to 2011, Paul Singer was the group's
second-largest donor, contributing $3.6 million.
NYT Failed to Note Op-Ed Authors' Funder Has $2 Billion
What our Jewish friends have done to Argentina, through maneuvering the elections,
killing dissidents, and marking territory, is a cautionary tale to anybody woke enough to
see with their own eyes.
Jimmy1969 says: December
19, 2019 at 2:12 pm GMT 200 Words Golden Tree Asset Management bought up Post Media in
Canada at a fire sale years ago from the bankrupt Asper family. Post Media is a conglomerate
that controls dozens and dozens of media outlets in all of Canada including 95% of all the
major Newspapers in every large city. Therefore Canadian news is de facto controlled by an
American New York Jewish hedge fund. That fact has been known for years and is joked about on
all of the bar stools in Canada where reporters hang out .but not in the Press. No one writes
about it none of the Nationalistic Professors, Journalists, Members of Parliament no one. One
fact is certain you will never ever see a single bad word in any of their papers critical of
Israel, or any actions of Israelis. Any comment critical of Israel or Zionist power, no matter
how objective or moderate is immediately deleted. And sadly this is no joke. The world should
take note of how Canada is strangled. Read More Replies: @bike-anarkist
Replies: @the
grand wazoo , @eah
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
@silviosilver
Paying what you owe is perfectly fine and moral. Paying double of what you owe on account of
inflated fees and interest is blood sucking. Doing this to developing nations is downright
cruel.
Let's say Congo owes $10 billion. A finance firm buys that debt for $8 billion, collects
the full $10 billion (which already includes interest) and make a $2 billion profit. That's
not too terrible.
But to buy the debt for $8 billion and then force Congo to pay $60 billion is Jewish.
Playing the victim while accusing Congo of financial mismanagement and forcing them to close
their schools and hospitals – very Jewish. Evading the ethical implications of one's
actions and seeking cover behind legalism like a coward –> Jew level –
Godlike
Jews see themselves as the ingroup, and the "goyim" as the outgroup. Since Whites are the
"outgroup" it's not just acceptable, but praiseworthy, to exploit them. To "beat" them at
war.
The problem is that Whites wrongly do not see Jews as an outgroup – something that
Jews themselves take great pains to discourage via their various front groups like the
ADL.
There is no "technical" fix, there is no objective "system" that can change this dynamic.
There is no "level playing field."
Whites need to ostracize Jews at all levels. Boycott, Divest and Sanction – not just
their apartheid regime of Jew bigotry in Zionist-occupied Palestine, but at every level of
society, business, civil institutions, etc.
Jews are destroying the world. Everywhere they go, they leave behind nations in ruins.
Look at Europe, Africa and the Americas, Jews have left their ugly footprints. Corruption,
prostitution, drugs and human trafficking are their trade.
Reading the (obvious) Jews commenting here on their various financial swindle-systems is a
lot like reading zionists defending Israel. The basic tactics are always the same:
1.) Focus on some small aspects or most recent events and make a comparison to Gentiles or
other events with similar micro-narratives. "See? Everyone else does it! Why single out us
poor, persecuted Jews?"
2.) Use these minute distractions to drown out the overall issues, underlying concepts,
long history or guiding ideology in noise and minutiae.
3.) Never start at the beginning of the story and follow the trajectory though; always
start in the middle and focus on some trivial detail, use it to defend the (never stated)
sicko ideology that started the problem in the first place. Completely ignore any timelines
or larger perspectives.
David Icke calls it (or used to call it -- - back when his backbone was healthy) the
Reptilian Brain. The ability to manipulate trivial minutiae while never addressing underlying
concepts or timelines.
It is hard to feel sorry for WASPs, they struck a deal with the Jews centuries ago
Catholic political powers have been "striking deals with Jews" for two thousand years.
There is a synagogue in Rome right next to the Vatican which has been legally privileged
since the days of Christ. As E. Michael Jones detailed in his book, Jewish Revolutionary
Spirit , the Catholic Church itself defended Jews from the angry mobs time and time again
throughout their history, to the point bishops and priests would harbor Jews in the
cathedrals and lock the doors before the peasants could arrest them.
Indeed, the infighting among Whites promoted by the likes of Jones is yet again another
assist from Catholic powers to their partners, the Jews.
The popular "neo-reactionary/NRx" movement, started by the Ashkenazi Curtis Yarvin, is yet
another "right-wing" fad that blames Calvinists for all the problems in the world.
Jews are blameless, yet again another White ethnicity/religion is at fault.
No wonder Jews get away with what they do. Whites are too busy infighting over false
history demonizing various rival cults.
So, the "vultures" flew out to the West after devouring the Russian empire and now with the
help of the likes of the homeboy or more like a two bit whore, Ben Sasse, they've descended
on America and have started gutting it out.
Where will they fly next? White Christians don't want them and black/brown Muslims can't
stand them but perhaps China is their next destination being that they have shipped most of
the jobs out there and the whole lot of them are marrying "Chinese-American" women in droves
for good measure.
In the coming battle of the titans, the one who's name can't be pronounced, viz. Yahweh,
hopefully has better guns than Jehovah and Allah, for it sure is gonna need it when the
latter two gang up on it maybe Buddha will give it a helping hand being that they're
practically in-laws now!
My question is how do entities like Puerto Rico get so far in debt in the first
place?
For the same reason individuals get into debt, financial incompetence and sometimes a bit
of bad luck.
I've personally never understood how people can take out loans from companies like Wonga
or QuickQuid (both Jewish owned incidentally) seeing as they quite clearly advertise their
exorbitant interest rates.
Look up income by ethnic group in the UK and US, you will find that Indians and Chinese
(South Asians) are the richest in both countries (except for Jews of course).
What I have found is that these two groups come from a debt-averse culture, their kids
actually live with their parents until they have saved enough money for a house and other
such things required to start a family.
Whites meanwhile are WAY to trusting of these faceless financial institutions, they get
into debt very easily and thus become slaves, if you have kids, the first thing you should
educate them about is finance and debt, don't throw them out to the dogs either, it's tragic
to see some getting into debt and then having other problems like drugs and alcohol
addictions.
I came out of that book with the utmost admiration for Bill Browder.
You don't seem to be serious, if I understood what you want to say. Even Der Spiegel has
published a critical article in English about Browder, Browder is the one who pushed for
sanctions against Russia because of the case Magnitsky:
Questions Cloud Story Behind U.S. Sanctions
The story of Sergei Magnitsky has come to symbolize the brutal persecution of
whistleblowers in Russia. Ten years after his death, inconsistencies in Magnitsky's story
suggest he may not have been the hero many people -- and Western governments -- believed him
to be.
@Anonymous
Sure, but you're talking utopia. The reality is that public entities issue bonds to finance
special projects or even their operations. Somebody then buys the bonds and expects to be
paid back.
@Realist
There is something especially deficient with Whites when it comes to money matter, how can
such a large number of Whites take short-term loans from companies like Wonga and QuickQuid,
when the nature of their business (usury) is very clearly advertised. I was around 10 years
old when I was astounded at the 5000% APR loans advertised on TV, and wondered if I
understood interest right.
Parents, especially White ones, really need to educate their children on personal finance
and debt, it seems a lot of Whites these days do not actually own anything and all their
flashy gadgets and whatnot are being loaned out (buying Iphone on contract for example),
these people are the hardest hit as they can't scrape together even a couple of hundred
pounds/dollars/euros when hard times come. Its farcical albeit tragic.
Wow what a confused mess. Here's a summary: Vulture capitalism is bad for no particular
reason but only an evil anti-Semite (like you) would dare criticize capitalism.
And they want the island of Puerto Rico for themselves, save a few thousand able bodies to
serve as maids and gardeners. But what about the triple-raced residents of the island itself?
Well, that's easy! Dump them in states like Florida and New York and let the suckers pay for
it. After all, it's not like they are going to vote for the other side we get to eat the cake
and keep it too!
An article that appeared in Goebbels newspaper, Der Angriff (The Attack) titled
"The Jew", a short excerpt that is relevant to your comment;
The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite,
swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and
you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back:
"I've been found out."
I think the term "vulture capitalism" is calumnious to vultures, who, as carrion birds,
perform a useful and purifying function in nature.
The Jews as a collective, i.e., the Jews who identify as such, concur in the death
sentence of Christ handed down by their Sanhedrin and espouse the Talmudic mitzvah of killing
the best of the gentiles (which naturally implies elevating the worst of the gentiles to
power and prominence) are more to be likened to plague bearing rodents. Unlike vultures, rats
feast on corruption and putrescence, spread disease and also kill the living.
We embrace the finance capitalist worldview at our peril. In its essence, it is nothing
but the worship of money making and profiteering as the supreme aspiration of life,
irregardless of its horrible effects on our compatriots and fellow humans. In doing so, we
become Jews at heart.
There is nothing wrong with industry and the profit motive per se. Predatory finance
contributes nothing to the well being of a nation and the needs of the physical economy- it
is supremely toxic and corrosive of both. It must be expunged and its champions expropriated
and exiled. People like the odious Peter Singer have no place in a moral world; they ought to
be first expropriated, then exiled as far away from their host societies as possible.
I was personally wounded by the anti gay rhetoric peppered across this article. I can't help
making the association that Paul singer's son came out as gay and that this must be the
source of the author's animus against him and the others. Shakespeare, who was also
homosexual, described this state of mind as "a green eyed monster," i.e. jealousy. I'm
mortified that other members of the commentariat have not taken issue with this. Maybe we
would be more compassionate to the denizens of middle America if they allowed our most basic
civil rights.
@J
Adelman Oh those kind jews have always been for the working class? But there is a white
working class and jews want them extinct from the face of the earth. Read 'Abolishing
whiteness has never been more urgent.' By Mark Levine
@silviosilver
You make several good points but you don't address the issue of capitalists manipulating the
politicians with campaign contributions. If a fund gets paid off by public money due to
politicians putting the fund owners ahead of the taxpayers, that's corrupt. What happened to
the 'creative destruction' principle by which large IBs like Goldman would have been allowed
to collapse and their principals carried off in leg-irons in 2008? Oh -- they are "too big to
fail and too big to jail." So much for the free market myth.
Moreover, most Jews support endless free money for "victim groups" to be forcibly
extracted from the middle-class. Never mind if Mr. Jones has a lengthy criminal record, let's
pay for him to go to college, let's pay his rent, let's pay his medical bills, etc. Why then
take such a hard line on people who foolishly get into debt?
Moreover, the economic downturn that caused many mortgagors to default was CAUSED BY the
big Wall Street firms' irresponsible behavior.
Also, most people do tend to temper economic contracts with a degree of compassion.
Gentile capitalism does not exist in a vacuum.
I recall reading about a young female environmentalist who was refusing to leave a
venerable redwood tree that was scheduled to be cut down. The WASP businessman who owned the
tree was extremely patient with the girl, tried to win her over, threw her food and drinks,
and so on. The land with the tree was then sold to some Jewish firm. At that point the
article left off. The tree was cut down with no further negotiation.
The greatest jewish vulture fund is the zionist privately owned feral reserve aka the FED ,
is creates money out of thin air and feeds this money to the otherwise bankrupt zionist banks
and not just here in the ZUS but in Europe, and the BIS is the vulture fund of vulture funds
owned by the zionists, the biggest scam in the history of the world.
By the way, Tucker Carlson said that 911 truthers were nuts, that says it all about
him.
Mass immigration for cheap labor, the weaponization of the grievance industry against
white majority/European nations and the use for the production of anti-white race baiting
media.
Much great work!! Very impressed. Would recommend to Moses himself.
@Colin
Wright I remember seeing a clip where Jared Taylor was on some talk show. He was calmly
citing statistics on how blacks are over represented among violent criminals. A sassy black
women broken in with "Jeffrey Dahmer Ted Bundy they were all white!" Not her exact words but
something to that effect. Naxalt, in other words.
I don't think Joyce is suggesting that all unscrupulous capitalists are Jews, or vice
versa. It is true that gentiles can be scumbags (the Enron boys.)
Now most Muslims are not terrorists, and many terrorists are not Muslims.
And yet it seems like there are many people who will notice patterns among other groups,
rightfully roll their eyes when they hear PC arguments in favor of those groups, and then
pull out the naxalt and what-about-isms when you notice patterns in Jewish behavior.
@Dutch
Boy Your statement: "maximizing shareholder is the holy grail of all capitalist
enterprises" statement is spot on.
I've been saying that for decades.
Labor is never given value, but is a commodity-a "necessary evil" according to the Wall
Street types and is to be minimized and marginalized at all costs.
Adolph Hitler's Germany monetized labor and gave it value. THAT is the reason that the
jews went after Germany. Post WW1 Germany was successful in its economy due to throwing off
the shackles (and shekels) of the internationalist banksters.
Henry Ford CREATED a market which had not existed when he paid his employees $5.00 per day
when the average wage of the day was around $1.25 per day. His premise was not entirely
altruistic as assembly line work was monotonous; a way had to be found to retain employees as
well.
Of course, the wall street types and the banksters howled that Ford's wage rates would
destroy capitalism (as they knew it-those at the top reap all of the benefits while the
proles are forced to live on a bare subsistence wage, due to the machinations of those at the
top).
Guess what??
The OPPOSITE happened. Henry Ford knew one of the basic tenets of a truly free,
capitalistic society, that a well-paid work force would be able to participate and contribute
to a strong economy, unlike what is taught in business schools today-that wages must be kept
to a bare minimum and that the stockholder is king.
Our "free trade" politicians have assisted the greedy wall street types and banksters in
depressing wages on the promise of cheap foreign labor and products.
A good example of this is the negative criticism that Costco receives for paying its
employees well above market wages. These same wall street types praise Wal-Mart for paying
its employees barely subsistence wages while assisting them in filling out their public
assistance (welfare) forms.
Any sane person KNOWS that in order for capitalism to work, employees need to make an
adequate wage. Unfortunately, this premise does not exist in today's business climate.
Henry Ford openly criticized those of the "tribe" for manipulating wall street and
banksters to their own advantage, and was roundly (and unjustly) criticized for pointing out
the TRUTH.
Catholic priest, Father Coughlin did the same thing and was punished by the Catholic
church, despite his popularity and exposing the TRUTH of the American economy and the
outsider internationalists that ran it . . . and STILL run it.
Our race to the bottom will not be without consequences. A great realignment is necessary
(and is coming) . .
@lavoisier
I'm not sure I'd put Buffett in that category. For example, in one of the companies he
bought, he kept a factory with declining profits open as long as he could to avoid throwing a
large chunk of people out of work overnight. He has mostly made his money by avoiding dopey
fads and a disciplined buy-and-hold approach to stocks.
@J
Adelman' Jewish people have always stood against tyranny against the working class,
the poor and other people of color." '
Right. I'd say Jews actually collaborated extensively in the imposition of tyranny
on the working class in Eastern Europe from 1917 to 1991. That'd be one counter-example.
Should we explore others? The role of Jews in the medieval slave trade? After all,
somebody had to castrate all those Christian boys who were to serve as harem
guards.
No reason to dredge up ancient history -- except here you are, making a blatantly false
claim about it. 'Always stood against ', my ass.
They are gunning for India now who do you think that brought in the Turks who ruled as the
Moguls to exploit the Hindu wealth and later on who did in the Muslims?
Disraeli and his ilk always knew that India was poor but their temples were rich with gold
and it's that they are after one can't build one's own "Third Temple" without it.
Why are the black cohens being promoted (South Brahmins the most pliable ones) at Google,
Microsoft and Pepsi etc.? Because the waterboys, and girls, will help rope in what's left of
the Indian carcass for thirty pieces of silver!
@secondElijah
You are probably the most antisemitic troll I have ever met online.
So, when did Epstein and Weinstein become the standard bearers of the Jewish community?
It is your jealousy of the Jewish people that makes you spew such vile hatred here.
Smug, obnoxious white people like you who have always considered this country their private
preserve are an endangered species. The demographic trends cannot be denied.
In less than 25 years white folks will become a minority in this country. So enjoy it while
you can, Bubba, your days of driving the bus are numbered.
You and other whites here are like the bad guys in every horror movie ever made, who gets
shot five times, or stabbed ten, or blown up twice, and who will eventually pass -- even if
it takes four sequels to make it happen -- but who in the meantime keeps coming back around,
grabbing at our ankles as we walk by, we having been mistakenly convinced that you were
finally dead this time. Fair enough, and have at it. But remember how this movie ends. Our
ankles survive.
YOU DO NOT.
@Saguaro
The soup has boiled over, the horse has bolted and the barn has burnt down and yet you
Yankees haven't woken up.Your politicians are whores who cannot function without funding from
the jews. And Jeffery got them all for Mossad. Enjoy
@Vaterland
The "standing up for People of Color" schtick is particularly disingenous, as all the Jews
have really done isuse their disproportionate control of the media to peddle false narratives
and distort history. One good example of this is the case of then president of the Atlanda
chapter of B'nai B'rith, Leo Frank. Frank had raped and murdered 13 year-old Mary Phagan and
when he was found out, he used his connection with New York Jews to get lots of money and
hire the best defence lawyers, his lawyer then launched vicious racial attacks on a Black
semi-literate janitor who worked in the factory that Frank was in charge of (and where Phagan
worked) to try and convict him of the horrible crime.
Jews will be friends of POC when it suits them. The funny thing about the Frank case is
that the Jewish media has made it out that Frank was innocent and wrongly lynched (only after
his death sentence had been commuted by a judge who was suspected to have been bribed by
powerful New York Jews), and that the Black janitor was the guilty one. This is absurd seeing
as the racist Southern jury would never favour a "White" man over a Black man (anti-semtism
wasn't that big in the South, and especially so considering this was before the Bolsheviks
took control of Russia), and that if Frank had truly been White, this case would be a
landmark case in which the evil rich White man was tried and the Black man was given
justice.
"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States.
I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of
the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the
profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I
take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families.
That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin
fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I
have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I
will rout you out!"
Islam stands in their way of usury-ripping of mankind of their
resources and defrauding mankind via bank thefts.
Bring on the Shariah Law. I would much rather live under Shariah, God's Constitution than
under Euoropean/Western diabolic, satanic, fraudulent monies, homosexual, thievery, false
flag hoaxes, WMD's, bogus wars, Unprovoked oppression, tel-LIE-vision, Santa Claus lies,
Disney hocus pocus , hollywood, illuminati, free mason, monarchy, oligarchy, millitary
industrial complex, life time congressman/senators, upto the eye balls taxation, IRS
thievery, Fraudulent federal reserve, Rothchild/Rockerfeller/Queens and Kings city of London
satanic cabal, opec petro$$$ thievery, ISISraHELL's, al-CIA-da hoaxes, Communist, Atheist,
Idol worshippers, Fear Monger's, Drugged and Drunken's oxy crystal coccaine meth psychopath,
child pedeophilia, gambler's, Pathological and diabolical liars, Hypocrites, sodomites ..I
can't think of any right now, because my mind is exploding with rage because of these
troubling central banker's satanic hegemony!
Quran Chapter 30
39. The usury you practice, seeking thereby to multiply people's wealth, will not multiply
with God. But what you give in charity, desiring God's approval -- these are the
multipliers.
40. God is He who created you, then provides for you, then makes you die, then brings you
back to life. Can any of your idols do any of that? Glorified is He, and Exalted above what
they associate.
41. Corruption has appeared on land and sea, because of what people's hands have earned, in
order to make them taste some of what they have done, so that they might return.
@Really
No Shit Jews are doing to White countries what Whites and Jews did to India, no honour
amongst thieves, the ones with the higher verbal IQ wins.
Also it is important to note that the reason India came under the sway of Anglo-Zionist
banking cartels so easily was because how divided it was, I reckon that is why they are
promoting mass immigration. Import lots of different groups, then run lots of race-baiting
stories to distract the plebs from their financial machinations.
This is why Jews are well represented in non-antisemitic White Nationalist organisations
like Jared Taylor's AmRen, they are great at playing both sides.
And he funded the building of the Peace Palace ("Vredespaleis") in The Hague, presently
the seat of the International Court of Justice, an institution not held in high esteem in
the home country of the generous donor.
@Wally
You can act confused all you want, you know exactly what I am talking about, the fact of the
matter is Whites like you and Joyce would be laughing it up at countries/territories like
Puerto Rico, Congo, Vietnam etc etc being carved up and financially enslaved if Whites were
also allowed a piece of the pie along with Jews (as was the case in the days of the British
Empire when WASP's and Jews worked together), but now that the low-IQ countries have been
looted, the Jews have turned on the Whites and the latter are now crying that their criminal
comrades have now betrayed them.
You quite clearly have a clue, you are just terrified and trying to divert because I am
right, the Jews will do to the White nations what the White nations and Jews did to the
non-White nations. All I can say is that you WASPs should have kept to youselves like Eastern
Europeans and Eastern Asians, they didn't really engage in lofty ambitons to dominate the
world and as such are intact at the moment and seem like they will remain that way for a long
time, they are the true conservatives, WASPs have always had a Jewish streak within their
corrupt souls and are now paying the price for engaging with a criminal race.
Why do you think Epstein has all these Gentiles in his pocket? You think do-gooding
gentiles just randomly decided to get into bed with Epstein and Co.? How many East Asians and
Eastern Euros do you see terrified of being outed as paedophiles.
Don't deceive yourselves, all debts are paid in the end, especially when the creditors are
Jews.
@Adrian
They are a function of Empire in Hague, who protect empire criminals, and assume a non
existent legitimacy and jurisdiction as a private entity to take down empire opponents.
It is the very same kangaroo court as the IMT or Tokio show trials.
In the book "Heaven is for real" a 4 year old boy who supposedly is dead for a short period,
but actually visits heaven; when he returns, is asked : what is the meaning, the purpose of
life on earth?
His response is so simple, that it could only be true. And it could only come from
knowing
Don't deceive yourselves, all debts are paid in the end, especially when the creditors
are Jews.
It is a mathematical impossibility due to interest. The FED probably goes negative
interest like ECB mafia.
Chances are higher they do a reset and start anew with an electronic ponzi scheme.
No one seriously plans to pay these "debts", they can't be paid, and are actually a nothing
burger, pure fiction.
" it is truly remarkable that vulture funds like Singer's escaped major media attention prior
to this ."
Not really. The Jew's grip is starting to slip now, though. More and more people are
becoming aware that they are virulent parasites and always have been.
@Mulegino1
Real capitalism is the competition of ideas, innovation, efficient manufacturing and quality
products made and produced by honest companies. That competition can, in theory at least,
make people (and companies) "try harder". But only when a company's success is determined by
the strength of its products, not by the "deals" it cuts with Jewish financial, advertising,
"marketing" and swindling rackets, designed to line the pockets of the Jew while destroying
honest competition by Gentiles who struggle to play fair and innovate.
Jewish vulture "capitalism" contributes NOTHING of value to any company or any culture. It
never has and never will.
You and other whites here are like the bad guys in every horror movie ever made, who
gets shot five times, or stabbed ten, or blown up twice, and who will eventually pass --
even if it takes four sequels to make it happen -- but who in the meantime keeps coming
back around, grabbing at our ankles as we walk by, we having been mistakenly convinced that
you were finally dead this time. Fair enough, and have at it. But remember how this movie
ends. Our ankles survive.
YOU DO NOT.
Talk about deflection. Any nation, empire, culture or civilization wherein the Jewish
collective gains critical mass and ultimately absolute power turns into a real horror,
not a movie. The Jews may be said to be the true prototype of the "bad guys in every horror
movie", since they can only be gotten rid of by very rigorous means taken in the healthiest
and most vigorous cultures and societies. Indeed, antisemitism itself is the healthy
immunological reaction of a flourishing culture, and its lack thereof the pathology of a
moribund one.
Woke Christians of European provenance have nothing to envy the Jew (the archetypal Jew)
over. We realize that the true measure of success is not primarily monetary or the
fulfillment of cheap ambitions, but a spiritual and cultural one. On the contrary, the Jewish
hatred against Christian Europe and the civilization that it constructed is engendered out of
sheer envy and malice, because Jewry understands that is would never be capable of
constructing anything similar, and never has. In all of the arts, Jewry has produced nothing
of note.
This is not to say that individual Jews have not made contributions to the arts and sciences,
but they have done so only by participation in gentile culture, not qua Jews. Jewry only
tears down and deconstructs; it is not creative in the sense of high art, and can thrive only
in the swamp of gentile decadence and moral putrefaction. Whatever Jewry touches, it turns to
merde.
European Jewish IQ has only gone 1/2 a standard deviation above the white norm in the last
100 years. Interesting to know why, but the belief Jews have always been more intelligent is
just lack of data.
bias for co-operation
Nazis did this too – they worked reaaally well with each other. The issue was how
they thought of and treated others.
That aside, I think we daily meet plenty of individuals who'd sell their mothers, and
maybe kill lives, for pennies. They are like machines not even conscious of what they are
doing.
Your 1 data point aside, are you saying all humans act in identical ways, regardless of
how the ideologies they embrace ask them to act?
Take the ideology of Islam – it does not allow for aggressive war, surprise attacks,
the killing of women or children (unless they take up arms)..
Judaism allows for aggressive war, surprise attack, and demands the killing of all
when a state of war is declared.
Do you believe these declarations lead to identical actions by their practitioners? (in
other words – people act how they would wish to act, and don't really engage in any
belief systems beyond what pulls their own selves?)
So, it's the usual with Joyce (and not only Joyce of course). You take something that is
human, talk of Jews, point to that something in Jews, and pretend, trusting that your
readers will pretend the same, that it's a Jewish-specific something.
Yes, correct – no ideology is perfect at taming human action, and corruption is a
human action, not a Jewish action. But we could still engage in comparative ideology, and
this is what Joyce (and not only Joyce, of course) engage in.
Saying 'well, all peoples engage in force and deceit, so is there any actual difference
between them and their beliefs?' is absurdism. In such a world, I will build a nation of
priests, fashioned along the lines of the Aztek priesthood. Give me your children so I can
rip out their hearts and make it rain – after all 'we are all the same'!!
The argument is that, for the proportion of the population, the fraction of monopoly power
in Western economies that is taken up by Jewish power is much disproportional to other
nations/belief systems.
It is fair to ask whether people who engage in other belief systems have the same level of
desire for monopoly, just less skill to get it due to their belief systems.. I would say yes,
they have the same level of desire (we are all human after all (not that if you read chapter
1 of the Tanya, you will be offered that point of view)) – but that their belief
systems specifically push them away from materialism and desire for money and power, even at
the expense of others. That is the exact point of religion (self-improvement) btw, so
the next question is – is the Jewish religion effective?
At which point, the Jewish ideology becomes the wolf in the hen house – because it
fails to tame the human away from such materialistic desire (as it btw claims it does
best).
Should the hens be allowed to point out what they see as a wolf? Yes.
That the supposed wolf then obfuscates and justifies their actions by pointing to others,
mostly, betrays that it is, in fact, a wolf.
I have become totally disenchanted with the SEC. Stupid, Evil, Crazy! It would not surprise
me if they are the ones that have been terrorizing me, with stupid, evil, crazy chants
through appliances after illegallly implaced RFIDs, microchips, or sensors illegally
implanted in my ears and nose that started after my first phone was hacked in 2017! Can't
expect stupid people not to be stupid, evil people not to be evil, and crazy people not to be
crazy! They were just born that way!
@J
Adleman brookings.edu : "The US will become minority white in 2045 Census projects "
:
"During that year [2045] whites will comprise 49.7 per cent of the population in contrast to
24.6 per cent for Hispanics , 13.1 per cent for Blacks , 7.9 per cent for Asians and 3.8 per
cent for multi-racial populations " Are these projections good or bad for the "Jewish people
" ?
Nov 22, 2013 Thomas DiLorenzo – The Revolution Of 1913
From the Tom Woods show Loyola economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo discusses three events
from 1913 that greatly escalated the transmogrification of America from the founder's vision
(limited government) to its current state (unlimited government).
@silviosilver
Yes, and just because you can doesn't mean you should. And if there's a predilection among
jewish men to engage in predatory lending and collecting tactics that is disproportionate to
their of the population, there's something about their genes or their culture that shapes
them to be this way.
Also, notice how you left out the part where they jack up the interest rates and debtor's
fees to grossly inflate their income. Is there a reason to do this other than as a quick way
to make money off already impoverished people? It's kind of like opening up a rent to own
place in a low income place. The people who do that shit know exactly why they should set up
among poor people; low wealth and bad decision making abound.
And yes, it does seem to be particularly jewish given how many jews are involved in its
practice and given that it used to be frowned upon in Christian Europe. Hell, God himself (as
Jesus) went and beat the shit out of a bunch of jews for their money lending in the temple.
That's the best part of the Bible, frankly. God gets so sick of the his own chosen people
that he sends himself to chastise and whip them for their greed and hubris. No lesson was
learned.
And then they killed him. And they lost their homeland for 2000 years. And then were
kicked out of a hundred plus kingdoms, cities and countries. And then a miserable liberal
shows how vile and stupid their children are:
You know, maybe instead of making excuses, you can just acknowledge the wrongdoing and
acknowledge that some jews are particularly malicious. Cuz eventually, people are
gonna get sick of the shit jews pull and see jewish (or gentile zionist) people defending
their obvious misdeeds and get pissed at them as well. Remember, the well is open to
everyone.
Besides being retardedly wrong, the broader point is likewise retarded: when
English-speaking Jews name their businesses they shouldn't use English words. Naming a
company "Oaktree" should be limited to those of purely English blood! Jews must name their
companies "Cosmopolitan Capital" or RosenMoses Chutzpah Advisors."
Telling that you go with hyperbole here: the only two options must be Albion
Whyteman Capital or Foreskin-Chewing Pornographers Incorporated!
There are two interesting things about the onomastics of the prepuce-free business world.
One is that far fewer sons of Abraham name their businesses after themselves (I'm sure this
will insincerely be attributed to some fear of native kulaks' repressed urge-to-pogrom, even
in Finland or Japan.) The other is an observation made by an associate of a famous Austrian
landscapist: even merely remarking on their origins causes these guys mental distress.
Here in the melting pot, the difference couldn't be any starker. You can make small talk
with any flavor of goy based on it: that's a Polish name, isn't it? Yeah, how did you
know! Try this one with Levy or Nussbaum down at The Smith Group or The Jones Foundation
and watch them plotz.
Jews have always weaponized usury. Long before Christianity, Jews operated the East/West
mechanism on donkey caravan trade routes. Silver would drain from the West, and Gold would
drain from the east, while Jewish caravaneers would take usury on exchange rate differences.
This operated for thousands of years.
Haibaru donkey bones have been discovered outside of Sumer. The Aiparu/Haibaru (Hebrew)
tribes were formed as merchants operating between city states. In those days, psychopaths and
criminals would be excommunicated from civilized city states, and would take up with the
wandering merchant tribe.
Why do you think the Jew is always interested in owing the money power? Why do you think
the Jew perpetually stands outside the walls of the city state, plotting its destruction?
History tells us things, and we had better listen. That is – real history, not what
you learned in (((public skool))). There are two ways to deal with the Jew: 1) Remove him
from your country. 2) Limit him.
Limiting was done by Byzantium under Justinian. The Jew was limited FROM money
counting/banking; limited from participation in government; limited from access to pervert
young minds – especially as school teachers and professors.
It takes a King or Tsar who cares about his population, and is willing to eject or filter
out toxins from the body politic. (((Democracy))) is a failed form of government, whereby
monied Oligarchs control the polity by compromat and pulling strings.
You are not going to be able to vote your way out of the Jew problem.
@Colin
Wright Echoing words once supposedly used by Hermann Goering: whenever I here the word
'philanthropist' these days, I instinctively reach for my revolver!
Take the ideology of Islam – it does not allow for aggressive war, surprise
attacks, the killing of women or children (unless they take up arms)..
Ilya,
There is deception in Islam. Sorry. You cannot make claims about Islam not allowing for
aggressive war and surprise attacks.
These concepts even have names and doctrine that support them. Wahabbi/Salafist Islam is
exactly in alignment with Islamic teachings, especially when using abrogation techniques.
Taqiyya is lying with intent to deceive. The analog in Judaism is the Kol-Niedre, which
allows one pre-forgiveness for lying, cheating, even murder of Goyim.
Hudnas is are used to lay in wait, build up strength, to then attack the enemy.
Islam has derogatory terms to demean e.g. Kaffirs, which is similar to Goyim.
There is also deception in Christianity, but this deception is OUT OF ALIGNMENT WITH
DOCTRINE. The doctrine of super-session means the old testament is superseded, completed, a
historical record.
In Islam the doctrine of Abrogation means that the more pacific Meccan verses are
abrogated (made less relevant) that post Medina. Ergo, Wahabbi Islam and the Takfiri's are
doctrinaly correct, while Judaizer Christians (those that worship the old testament) are out
of alignment and heretics.
Judaism is actually a new religion that came into being after 73 AD, when the verbal
tradition (Caballa) became written down into Talmud.
Our Jewish friends have always been practicing usury, going back to since forever.
Our Jewish friends, I count as worse that Islamics. However two wrongs don't make a right.
Islam badly needs reform or to be expunged. Talmudic Judaism is by far the worst religion on
the planet, and its adherents must malfunction by definition.
o ..kill all the Jewish, er, "vulture capitalists" , right? Or should we go "easy" on
them all and merely ship them all off to special "re-education" camps? Or am I missing
something here ?
You are missing something because you are unwilling to adapt and learn with new
information. This makes you an ideologue.
Lolbertarianism IS A JEWISH CONSTRUCT.
There are no such things as free markets. Money's true nature is law, not gold. Money
didn't come into being with barter and other nonsense lolbertarians believe.
Most of the luminaries that came up with "libertarian" economics are Jews, and it is a
doctrine of deception. The idea is to confuse the goyim with thoughts and ideas that make
them easy pickings.
A determined in-group of predators operating in unison, will take down an "individual"
every-time.
Don't expect anything to improve with Jay Clayton as SEC Chair, and his wife and her father
Gretchen Butler Clayton who was CEO of CSC and mysterious WMB Holdings which share the same
address in addition to many Goldman Sachs divisions. Gretchen was employed by Goldman Sachs
as an attorney from 1999-2017. Many companies affiliated with the Panama Papers share the
same address as well.
Jewish people have treated me better than my own White Euro family.
Jews are tribal, gee what a surprise after 1000's of years of people trying to wipe them
out . and so their charity is within the tribe, but there is no charity within the tribe
among Whites.
Jews, along with Asians and at least some Africans, believe in not just climbing the
ladder, but in actually helping others – at least family – up it also. Whites
believe in climbing the ladder and then pulling it up after them.
I was explaining to a friend recently: My (relative) has proven that if I showed up at
their door, starving, they'd not give me a cheese sandwich, while in my experience, strangers
have been overall a fairly kind lot and a stranger, 50/50, might. Therefore, while I find the
idea of robbing or burning down the house of a stranger abhorrent, I don't mind the idea so
much when it involves a person who's proven to be cold and evil.
For more on this, see the book Angela's Ashes. The Irish family could have stayed in New
York where they were being befriended by a Jewish family. There was a ray of hope. The Irish
kids, at least, would have been fed, steered into decent schooling, etc. But foolishly they
went back to Ireland, to be treated like utter dogshit by their fellow White family and
"people".
Most of the predation going on in the US and worldwide is being done by WASPS who are
using Jews as a convenient scapegoat.
@tono
bungay Feel free to offer us some counter-examples, tono. How many such funds to you know
of that aren't disproportionately Jewish? We're all ears!
@Robjil
This is an example of what I was saying. Less Euro whites in the world is not going to be a
good world for Big Js. Non-Euros believe in freedom of speech.
Jewish Bigwigs can't get control of businesses in East Asia. They have been trying. Paul
Singer tried and failed. In Argentina he got lots of "success". Why? Lots of descendants of
Europeans there went along with "decisions" laid out by New York Jews.
Little Paulie tried to get control of Samsung. No such luck for him in Korea. In Korea
there are many family monopolies, chaebols. A Korean chaebol stopped him. Jewish Daniel Loeb
tried to get a board seat on Sony. He was rebuffed.
I was moved to reflect on the universality of this theme recently when surveying media
coverage on Korean and Argentinian responses to the activities of Paul Singer and his
co-ethnic shareholders at Elliott Associates, an arm of Singer's Elliott Management hedge
fund. The Korean story has its origins in the efforts of Samsung's holding company, Cheil
Industries, to buy Samsung C&T, the engineering and construction arm of the wider
Samsung family of businesses. The move can be seen as part of an effort to reinforce
control of the conglomerate by the founding Lee family and its heir apparent, Lee Jae-yong.
Trouble emerged when Singer's company, which holds a 7.12% stake in Samsung C&T and is
itself attempting to expand its influence and control over Far East tech companies,
objected to the move. The story is fairly typical of Jewish difficulties in penetrating
business cultures in the Far East, where impenetrable family monopolies, known in Korea as
chaebols, are common. This new story reminded me very strongly of last year's efforts by
Jewish financier Daniel Loeb to obtain a board seat at Sony. Loeb was repeatedly rebuffed
by COO Kazuo Hirai, eventually selling his stake in Sony Corp. in frustration.
Here is how the Koreans fought off Paul Singer.
The predominantly Jewish-owned and operated Elliott Associates has a wealth of
self-interest in preventing the Lee family from consolidating its control over the Samsung
conglomerate. As racial outsiders, however, Singer's firm were forced into several tactical
measures in their 52-day attempt to thwart the merger. First came lawsuits. When those
failed, Singer and his associates then postured themselves as defending Korean interests,
starting a Korean-language website and arguing that their position was really just in aid
of helping domestic Korean shareholders. This variation on the familiar theme of Jewish
crypsis was quite unsuccessful. The Lee family went on the offensive immediately and,
unlike many Westerners, were not shy in drawing attention to the Jewish nature of Singer's
interference and the sordid and intensely parasitic nature of his fund's other
ventures.
Cartoons were drawn of Singer being a vulture.
Other cartoons appearing at the same time represented Elliott, literally, as humanoid
vultures, with captions referring to the well-known history of the fund. In the above
cartoon, the vulture offers assistance to a needy and destitute figure, but conceals an axe
with which to later bludgeon the unsuspecting pauper.
ADL got all worked about this. The Koreans did not care. It is reality. Freedom of speech
works on these vultures. The west should try some real freedom of speech.
After the cartoons appeared, Singer and other influential Jews, including Abraham
Foxman, cried anti-Semitism. This was despite the fact the cartoons contain no reference
whatsoever to Judaism – unless of course one defines savage economic predation as a
Jewish trait. Samsung denied the cartoons were anti-Semitic and took them off the website,
but the uproar over the cartoons only seemed to spur on even more discussion about Jewish
influence in South Korea than was previously the case. In a piece published a fortnight
ago, Media Pen columnist Kim Ji-ho claimed "Jewish money has long been known to be ruthless
and merciless." Last week, the former South Korean ambassador to Morocco, Park Jae-seon,
expressed his concern about the influence of Jews in finance when he said, "The scary thing
about Jews is they are grabbing the currency markets and financial investment companies.
Their network is tight-knit beyond one's imagination." The next day, cable news channel YTN
aired similar comments by local journalist Park Seong-ho, who stated on air that "it is a
fact that Jews use financial networks and have influence wherever they are born." It goes
without saying that comments like these are unambiguously similar to complaints about
Jewish economic practices in Europe over the course of centuries. The only common
denominator between the context of fourteenth-century France and the context of
twenty-first-century South Korea is, you guessed it, Jewish economic practices.
The Koreans won. Paulie lost. Good win for humanity. The Argentines were not so lucky.
They don't have freedom speech like the Koreans and East Asians have.
In the end, the Lee strategy, based on drawing attention to the alien and exploitative
nature of Elliott Associates, was overwhelmingly effective. Before a crucial shareholder
vote on the Lee's planned merger, Samsung Securities CEO Yoon Yong-am said: "We should
score a victory by a big margin in the first battle, in order to take the upper hand in a
looming war against Elliott, and keep other speculative hedge funds from taking short-term
gains in the domestic market." When the vote finally took place a few days ago, a
conclusive 69.5% of Samsung shareholders voted in favor of the Lee proposal, leaving
Elliott licking its wounds and complaining about the "patriotic marketing" of those behind
the merger.
@jack
daniels Now that I think about it, it was unfair to make an anecdotal judgment that
Jewish lenders are less forgiving. There are plenty of examples, I'm sure, of compassionate
Jews and flinty gentiles.
Finally! An intelligent criticism of Trump for a change. So tired of the brainless
Democrat/MSM impeachment circus. They make me feel like a reflexive MAGAtard just for
defending the constitution, logic, etc., from their never-ending stream of inanities.
Meanwhile, the real problem with Trump is not that he's Hitler; it's that he's not Hitler
enough!
I am also so tired of Zionist-loving cucks bleeting on about the evils of the CRA without
ever considering the role played by the (((profiteers))) who lobbied such policies into law
in the first place. Realize that what Paul Singer does for a living used to be illegal in
this country up until recently. That's right: US bankruptcy law used to forbid investors from
buying up debt second-hand at a discount and then trying to reclaim the entire face
value from the debtor. But I see all kinds of people even on this thread blaming the victim
instead -- 'Damn goyishe deadbeats!' Whatever
What Singer and the other Jewish vultures engage in is not productive, and isn't even
any recognisable form of work or business. It is greed-motivated parasitism carried out on
a perversely extravagant and highly nepotistic scale. In truth, it is Singer and his
co-ethnics who believe that money can be printed on the backs of productive workers, and
who ultimately believe they have a right to be "showered by free stuff promised by
politicians."
To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being
a result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while
maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit?
The last Gentleman on WS was not a Jew. Bring back the WASP. You can maintain your honor,
and manners and still succeed. Jews take the easy low road of deception and cheating. WASP
take the higher road of harder work and ethical business practice.
[MORE]
The courtly Mr. Jenrette, who has been dubbed "the last gentleman on Wall Street" earned this
sobriquet largely for his reputation of being particularly sensitive to the human dimension
in an industry where such matters often get sidestepped. Nonetheless, despite Mr. Jenrette's
modest demeanor, he's risen to the top in an often cutthroat business. He remained with
Donaldson Lufkin through good times and bad, guiding it after its two other founding partners
departed for other ventures and, next month, he will step down as the chairman of the
Securities Industry Association, the brokerage trade group.
"Dick has been the one who carried the firm from its original promise through to closure,"
said Samuel Hayes 3d, an investment banking professor at the Harvard Business School.
"Dick's more in tune with human values and that's not frequently found on Wall Street."
Richard Jenrette, 89, Wall Street power, Raleigh native, dies https://www.wral.com ›
richard-jenrette-89-wall-street-power-and-preserva
Apr 23, 2018 – A courtly, soft-spoken North Carolina native whom The New York Times
once called the "last gentleman on Wall Street," Jenrette (pronounced
Wall Street's 'last gentleman' left behind these 24 lessons about life and success: At the
time of his death late last month due to complications from lymphoma, these couple dozen
rules to live by were left on his desk.
Stay in the game. That's often all you need to do -- don't quit. Stick around! Don't be a
quitter!
•Don't burn bridges (behind you)
•Remember -- Life has no blessing like a good friend!
•You can't get enough of them
•Don't leave old friends behind -- you may need them
•Try to be nice and say "thank you" a lot!
•Stay informed/KEEP LEARNING!
•Study -- Stay Educated. Do Your Home Work!! Keep learning!
•Cultivate friends of all ages -- especially younger
•Run Scared -- over-prepare
•Be proud -- no Uriah Heep for you! But not conceited. Know your own worth.
•Plan ahead but be prepared to allow when opportunity presents itself.
•Turn Problems into Opportunities. Very often it can be done. Problems create
opportunities for change -- people willing to consider change when there are problems.
•Present yourself well. Clean, clean-shaven, dress "classically" to age. Beware style,
trends. Look for charm. Good grammar. Don't swear so much -- it's not cute.
•But be open to change -- don't be stuck in mud. Be willing to consider what's new but
don't blindly follow it. USE YOUR HEAD -- COMMON SENSE.
•Have some fun -- but not all the time!
•Be on the side of the Angels. Wear the White Hat.
•Have a fall-back position. Heir and the spare. Don't leave all your money in one
place.
•Learn a foreign language.
•Travel a lot -- around the world, if possible.
•Don't criticize someone in front of others.
•Don't forget to praise a job well done (but don't praise a poor job)
•I don't like to lose -- but don't be a poor loser if you do.
•It helps to have someone to love who loves you (not just sex).
•Keep your standards high in all you do.
•Look for the big picture but don't forget the small details.
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I" care not who makes its laws"
That is what Mayer Amschel Rothchild said in the 1750s. Now, is it a stretch of my
imagination to believe the Central Banks of the West, all Jewish controlled, would unfairly
favor their 'own' when issueing or disbursing the money they are permitted to create.
We are not allowed to audit the Federal Reserve, so we know not what they do with it beyond
what they tell us. In 2016 it was discovered that between the year 1999 and 2016 well over
$23 trillions had been stolen from just 2 departments of our government, the DoD and HUD.
(Someone should look at NASA). Is it possible the seed money, for not only Venture
capitalists schemes but also buying governments and law makers, has been diverted, shoveled
out of the back door of these corrupt central banks and into the hands of their fellow
jews?
Anyway, the more exposure articles like this get the closer we get to ending their reign.
As I noted in my previous examination of contemporary Jewish usury, Jews have been at
the forefront of innovation in debt for many centuries, and remain its most adroit auteurs.
Although obviously rooted in centuries of Jewish financial practice, Singer and his
co-ethnics (all four equity partners of Elliott are Jewish, and its COO is the
charmingly-named Zion Shohet) pioneered the finer points of the vulture-fund concept. The
firm was born in 1977 when Singer pooled $1.3 million from family and friends,
His firm's first big "win" was the pillage of Panama in 1995.
but it only really took off in October 1995, when Elliott Associates L.P. purchased
$28.7 million of Panamanian sovereign debt for the discounted price of $17.5 million. The
banks holding those bonds, a group that included heavy hitters like Citi and Credit Suisse,
had given up on repayment from Panama. To cut their losses, they sold their holdings to
Elliott which, like a medieval tax farmer, went in with a heavy hand. When Panama's
government asked for a restructuring of its foreign debt in 1995, the vast majority of its
bondholders agreed – apart from Elliott. In July 1996, Elliott Associates,
represented by one of the world's most high-profile securities law firms, filed a lawsuit
against Panama in a New York district court, seeking full repayment of the original $28.7
million – plus interest and fees. The case made its way from a district court in
Manhattan to the New York State Supreme Court, which sided with Elliott. In the end,
Panama's government had to pay the Jewish group over $57 million, with an additional $14
million going to other creditors. Overnight, Singer's group made $40 million, and the
people of Panama found their original sovereign debt had more than doubled.
@Mefobills
If you could point to a verse in the Quran that allows for aggressive war, it would help me
learn – when I read it I saw an explosive self defence at any infringment on the Ummah,
but not much beyond that.
Of course the origination story of the faith is one of fighting, and without any wise men
to guide the laypeople, the faith has an issue in that it is easy for people to not follow
what it teaches.
Islam has been assaulted for a millennium, and so the self defence aspect of its faith has
become more active than the rest.. it needs reform I agree (and not in the direction the
Salafists have taken it), but more so there is a need for the Ummah to have a few generations
of non-aggression from the outside world.. without it the pressure will only be towards
violence – for any nation or faith!
Judaism has monopolized for millennia though, and still acts as a victim. Different kettle
of fish.
Also, you can debate the positives and negatives of Islam with a Muslim (not as a rabid
ignoramus of course – you must be polite, and have learnt something, as well as be open
to learning more). Almost every debate with a Jew about Judaism has started with, continued
with, and ended with name calling for me however.
Judaism fails as a religion because it does not encourage the practitioner to look at
themselves when confronted with error, Islam still does imo.
Does anyone here remember how John Leibowitz aka John Stewart spent months ripping Mitt
Romney to shreds? Remember? Evil white man vulture capitalism at Bain? Remember? Romney was
Adolf Hitler, and look he put his golden retriever on the roof once?
Say. How come that Mr Leibowitz never talked about the Jews who basically destroyed yes
the entire Rust belt by acquisition and outsource?
That Mr Johnny Leibovitz sure did hate the goy a lot and all. He never talked about his
own people. What a fair fellow Mr Johnny Leibovitz was. He even changed his name. Why change
the name?
Remember. Bain Capital and that kind of merger pump and dumps is all done by Mormons
goyim.
@Colin
Wright Your statement: "Jews actually collaborated extensively in the imposition of
tyranny on the working class in Eastern Europe from 1917 to 1991" not only applies to Europe,
but the united States of America as well.
It's the JEWS it's always the JEWS
[MORE]
Our present situation and the devolving into the morass of "multiculturalism" and "diversity"
is no accident. The jewish talmud and that jewish invention-communism has "rules" for the
debasement of (white) civil society.
The following statements are a result of personal experiences–your mileage may
vary
I came of age during the first so-called "civil-rights" movement and saw for myself the
underhanded dealings, the demonization of decent, law-abiding whites, and in general, the
deterioration of civil society.
Almost all of the "civil-rights" workers and demonstration "handlers" were of one
persuasion–New York based leftist communist jews. They cared not one wit about true
"civil rights", but were there to create hate and discontent among their black charges (who
were too stupid or naive to see that they were being used to suborn and destroy legitimate
government and society–a favorite communist tactic).
These New York-based "carpetbaggers" fomented their hate and discontent, only to become
future "civil-rights" attorneys, race-hustlers, and America-hating leftist communists and the
ADL and $PLC being invented.
Those of us whites who were in the middle of this "civil-rights" revolution had a saying:
" Behind every negro, there is a jew ". No truer words were spoken.
Let's not forget their infestation of the nation's education and entertainment systems,
(which continues to the present day), in which they can spread their jewish supremacist
poison.
The so-called "non-violent civil-rights demonstrations" were anything but "non-violent".
Robberies, rapes, and other criminal acts were common, but never reported, as even the
"mainstream media" was "in on the game" and conveniently turned off their cameras during the
acts of violence. You see, even then,"creating crises" was a part of the agenda.
The "beginning of the end" of America was the use of federal troops against white
Americans, which, in itself was a violation of "posse comitatus"–the prohibition on the
use of federal troops for domestic "law enforcement" purposes. As most whites were (and still
are) law-abiding, they (we) were "steamrollered" by the use of federal troops to crush honest
dissent. We never recovered from those unconstitutional actions. It was all downhill from
there
The next step may be "civil-war" in which us whites will have to take back our birthright
by force.
"Foreign Policy described the court's decision as "a groundbreaking moment in the modern
history of finance." By taking the case to a New York district court, Elliott broke with
long-standing international law and custom, according to which sovereign governments are not
sued in regular courts meant to deal with questions internal to a nation state. Further, the
presiding judge accepted the case – another break with custom. It set the stage for two
decades of similar parasitism on struggling countries by Elliott Associates, a practice that
has reaped billions for Jewish financiers. "
A year later after the ground breaking decision. Paulie tries this scam on another nation,
Peru.
Just one year after the Panama decision, Singer spent about $11 million on
government-backed Peruvian bank debt in 1996. After Singer took Peru to court in the U.S.,
U.K., Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany, and Canada, the struggling nation finally agreed in
2000 to pay him $58 million. That meant he got better than a 400 percent return.
In 2001, the victim was Argentina.
In 2001, Elliott Associates purchased an Argentinian default for $48 million; the face
value of that debt today is $630 million. The fund wants repayment for the full value of
the debt to all of Argentina's creditors, as it did in 1995 with Panama. This amounts to
$1.5 billion, which could rise to $3 billion including, again, that all-important interest
and fees.
Another victim was the Congo in 2002-03.
..specific activities of Elliott Associates in Congo, where it originally bought $32.6
million in sovereign debt incurred by that country for the knockdown price of under $20
million. In 2002 and 2003, a British court (tactically chosen) forced the Congolese
government to settle for an estimated $90 million, which included that all-important
interest and fees. Elliott Associates rapidly became known as the quintessential "vulture
fund."
1. Re Sidney, Nebraska: Maybe I'm missing something but wasn't it Cabela's owners, for
example co-founder and chairman Jim Cabela, who sold Cabela, not Elliot Management (Singer et
al)? I gather Elliot Management owned only 11% of the company. Was that enough to force them
to sell?
2. The article confuses honest straightforward loans with tax farming and government
corruption. Loans can be very useful, e.g. for a car to get to a job, or for a house so you
build up equity instead of paying rent.
@Hapalong
Cassidy Bain's not much of an exception to Joyce's pattern: although Mitt, like the other
three founders, was a goy, there were plenty of Chosen Ones associated with the company right
from the start:
In addition to the three founding partners, the early team included Fraser Bullock,
Robert F. White, Joshua Bekenstein, Adam Kirsch, and Geoffrey S. Rehnert Early investors
included Boston real estate mogul Mortimer Zuckerman and Robert Kraft, the owner of the New
England Patriots football team.
@BannedHipster
According to the Talmud, we goyim are not the descendants of Adam and Eve, like the
Jews. No, we are the bastard progeny of Adam's first wife, Lilleth, who eloped with the demon
Samael. So we goyim are really all half-demons and therefore we are an abomination in the
sight of Jew-hova, and we get what we deserve at the hands of his 'chosen people'.
improving the quality of life and access to opportunities for all Israeli citizens so that
they may benefit from the country's prosperity
Read 'all Jewish Israeli citizens'. I doubt they're going to do any life-enhancing
or make opportunities available to any of the grunting subhuman goyim .
It's important not to get carried away with this. Figures such as Andrew Carnegie, while
impeccably gentile, were hardly paragons of scrupulous ethics and disinterested virtue.
Andrew Carnegie built something that made life better for people. Making steel is a
beneficial thing.
These evil vulture Jews build nothing – they make people poorer. They suck the
wealth out of people who have little. They know 100% what they are doing.
Jesus expressed anger against the money changers on the temple steps.
It is OK for you to have natural human feelings and be angry at these Jew bastards.
@Anon
Romney is a Mormon, one of the church officials. The Mormons are closer to the Jews pattern
of worshiping money and using charity donation for business investments.
Mormons arent considered Protestants .
"Although the church has not released church-wide financial statements since 1959, in
1997, Time magazine called it one of the world's wealthiest churches per capita.[147] In a
June 2011 cover story, Newsweek stated that the LDS Church "resembles a sanctified
multinational corporation -- the General Electric of American religion, with global ambitions
and an estimated net worth of $30 billion." A whistle blower within the church reported them
to the IRS for using their status as a non taxable religious groups to invest in business
ventures instead of charities.
@anon
Maybe I can answer your question.
I studied and befriended many jews as a student (Imperial College, London etc) – none
were above average intelligent, and although they were very geeky, they only got average
grades.
When I moved to LA – most of my friends were jews and again, none were very bright
(even though a few were famous). Most of these LA jewish friends were probably psychopaths
– thinking back – very manipulative, exploitative and they lied a lot.
I think it's mostly through their cultural nepotism – they work on their own unity
(they help promote each other) while at the same time they work on destroying unity in their
host and everyone else.
Many have changed their Eastern European names.
And they go out of the way to help other jews (only) – a Serbian friend in Toronto
looks very jewish (but is not religious) told me several times here in Toronto, other Jews
(his boss etc) just offered to help him for no reason ("Is there anything I can do for you?"
etc). He did not understand why they did that – then I realized he actually looks like
a Jewish stereotype (as does his twin brother). So he thought he was helping his own
tribe.
When I went to Cuba with a Jewish 'friend' from LA – he was actively looking for
anything jewish (and nothign else – he did not want to see anything famous like a
beautiful cemetery in Havana etc) – only synagogs etc – where he gave some money
to jews he never even met. I was there with him and saw it. He was even angry if I suggested
we see something nice , historical and not-jewish. We met a NY jew there and we gave his a
ride in the car we rented – they immediately teamed up against me – for no reason
– I regretted going with him on this trip. It was an awful experience –
consistent with all the books I read on psychopaths and also that book Jewish History, Jewish
Religion, the weight of 3000 years
Another very wealthy American mother of a friend asked her South African friends (also jews)
to help her book trips in South Africa (and they of course recommended only their Jewish
friends) – it's their son who told me this.
So a lot of backstabbing, cultural nepotism and actively (but in a hidden way as most
psychopaths like to do) they do at wakening and isolating their host. That's their only
advantage – not intelligence (at least in my experience )
I recently learned that from about 1790 to 1967 the USState department refused to issue US
passports to people who held foreign passports. State also didn't hire any dual citizens for
any job from cafeteria dishwasher to ambassador.
Then in the mid sixties, an Israeli immigrant who became a US citizen applied for a US
passport. State refused to issue the US passport. So the Israeli immigrant practiced lawfare.
In 1967 the Supreme Court issued one of its usual detrimental and dangerous rulings. State
was ordered to start issuing US passports to dual citizens.
Soon there were numerous applications to State depot jobs from Israeli citizens residing
in the US. Knowing lawsuits loomed, State caved.
And that children is how and why State, commerce, DOJ CIA treasury, top security civilian
departments in the Pentagon and other federal agencies became flooded with dual American
Israeli citizens who divert money to Israel. Plus they work for Israel instead of the US.
Mysterious how the only Whites who manage to make it past affirmative action barriers are
jews.
Maybe there's a special affirmative action quota for Israelis residing in America.
@J
Adelman Adelman, be careful what you wish for, as in a debate you will be drowned.
Being labeled an ANTISEMITE is the new badge of honor and courage.
Central banks and their fiat fractional reserve banking system is slowly collapsing, as more
and more nations avoid using the BIS. Joyce's article fully explains why Russia is being
promoted as some type of arch-enemy.
@DaveE
I don't even know what capitalism means anymore. It doesn't seem like it's an actual free
market system. Seems like it is slavery for the little guy, and parasitism for the rich.
Maybe we should ditch the word capitalism for usuryism.
"'It was very gratifying to see Tucker Carlson's recent attack on the activities of Paul
Singer's vulture fund, Elliot Associates '"
I am going to avoid the Jew is bad mantra here. I read that article. But it was not an
expose' of hedgefunds, at least not at the level i was expecting. They merged two companies
and sold off or closed that which was least profitable.
In that article there was no clear discussion – about what could have prevented the
closure. So it was hard to respond positively in favor of not closing. I am advocate of
keeping work in the US, but I don't think it is unreasonable that companies be sustainable. I
would have liked that exposure, that the hedge had no intention of exploring possible profit
making alternatives.
And that is where Mr. Carlson lost me. He did not link the companies as you have. Nor
provide the examples you bring to the fore.
What distresses me about Islam is that the pacific practitioners, e.g. Suffi's, many Shias
and Sunnis are out of alignment, and hence are subject to violence from their coreligionists.
I happen to believe there are many wonderful people within the religion what I am saying is
that there is an elephant in the room, and it has a name: abrogation.
I'm going to use a smoke there is fire analogy using data.
If a religion launches repeated attacks against civilizations, then there is something
"in" the religion that is used for justification of said aggression. I'm of the opinion that
data matters, and you have to adjust your position to come into accord with real world
data.
Between 632 and 1922, Islam launched 548 offensive battles against classical
civilization
These attacks were often brutal, especially with rapes being used to "convert women"
rapidly.
In Islam (as in other religions as well) the Imam can turn knobs and get an output. This
means that abrogation is used to pick and choose verses depending on situation, to maneuver
the sheeple in the direction Imam's or political authority want them to go – including
offensive war. I used the term political authority on purpose, because Islam is more than
just a religion, it is a political-theocratic construct that is all-encompassing.
There may not be a specific verse allowing aggressive violence, but there is something
going on based on the data. (I admit to being a lay-man and not an expert on minutia of
Islam. I don't want to go there based on what I already know to be true.)
In Christianity, if there are calls for aggressive violence it is OUT OF ALIGNMENT because
of super-session. Christian adherents who do this are Judaizers, and have to use the old
testament for justification.
@Digital
Samizdat Who the heck is Lillith? Where did she come from? Adam's apple? At least Samael
is a step up from a talking snake. Talk about rewrite. Almost on par to the silly ones on the
daytime soaps. Oh wait . probably same writers.
@Rebel0007
"This won't end well."
-- They cannot help themselves. Two components make it impossible for the tribe to behave in
a preservation mode:
1. the victimhood complex, despite all the recently displayed data about Jewish murderous
ways in the host countries
2. the disproportionate number of psychopaths who are approved by tribal epos and mentality
Perhaps the only solution is to make the aggressive Jews become confined to their Jewish
country. Like an infectious disease that needs to be quarantined. Otherwise, the Jewish
psychopaths will continue leaching and destroying.
Not only the vulture bankers but a complete set of ziocons-infested stink-tanks should be
relocated (with their immediate families) to the Jewish State and prohibited from crossing
the Jewish State borders. Plus the limitations on their involvement in international commerce
and banking. Let the Jews be finally in Jerusalem today, not "next year." Let them enjoy the
company of other Jews.
Jew billionaire globalizer money-grubber Paul Singer has bought and paid for politician
puppet whore Marco Rubio.
JEWS ORGANIZED GLOBALLY(JOG) -- of which Paul Singer is a shady participant -- have plans
for after Trump and they involve the US Senators Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton
and others.
Paul Singer pushes mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration. Paul Singer wants
to continue to use mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration as demographic weapons
to attack and destroy the historic American nation.
Paul Singer wants to continue to use the US military as muscle to fight endless wars on
behalf of Israel.
I wrote this in February of 2019:
I just got reminded that Marco Rubio won a lot of the GOP billionaire Jew donor money away
from Jebby Bush in the 2016 GOP presidential primary because the Jew billionaires -- Paul
Singer in particular -- were not too thrilled with Jebby Bush's connection to James Baker.
James Baker was a factor in the Jew billionaire decision to back Marco Rubio.
George W Bush had dragged the American Empire into a war in Iraq on behalf of Israel and
the GOP Jew billionaire donors were still not convinced of Jebby Bush's slavish devotion to
Israel.
Marco Rubio signalled his willing whoredom to the ISRAEL FIRST foreign policy of endless
war on behalf of Israel in a way that left nothing to chance for the GOP Jew billionaire
donors.
Marco Rubio is nothing more than a filthy politician whore for the GOP Jew billionaire
donors who want to continue to use the US military as muscle to fight wars on behalf of
Israel.
New York Times article:
Mr. Rubio has aggressively embraced the cause of wealthy pro-Israel donors like Mr.
[Sheldon] Adelson, whom the senator is said to call frequently, and Mr. Singer, who both
serve on the board of the Republican Jewish Coalition, an umbrella group for Republican
Jewish donors and officials. Mr. Bush has been less attentive, in the view of some of these
donors: Last spring, he refused to freeze out his longtime family friend James A. Baker
III, the former secretary of state, after Mr. Baker spoke at the conference of a liberal
Jewish group.
The lobbying of Mr. Singer intensified in recent weeks as Mr. Bush's debate stumbles and
declining poll numbers drove many donors to consider Mr. Rubio anew. Last week, Mr. Bush's
campaign manager, Danny Diaz, and senior adviser, Sally Bradshaw, flew to New York to make
personal appeals on Mr. Bush's behalf, in the hopes of heading off an endorsement of Mr.
Rubio, according to two people close to the former governor's campaign.
This is a timely article for me as I have been pondering the relationship between Jews and
neoliberalism for some time now.
At university I studied under a brilliant Neo-Marxist professor who showed me some theory
and arguments that went a long way towards explaining how to make sense of the global power
structure. (Just a quick not for those who recoil at the mere mention of Neo-Marxist: the
academics that use a marxist lens as a tool to criticize the powerful are not all the cuckold
communist SJW types – some of these individuals are extremely intelligent and they make
very powerful arguments backed by loads of data.) One of the theories I was introduced to was
the notion of the Transnational Capitalist Class in this article called Towards A Global
Ruling Class? Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class:
http://media.library.ku.edu.tr/reserve/respring18/Intl313_ZOnis/3_Historical_Structuralism.pdf
The authors write the following:
Sklair's work goes the furthest in conceiving of the capitalist class as no longer
tied to territoriality
Inherent in the international concept is a system of nation-states that mediates relations
between classes and groups, including the notion of national capitals and national
bourgeoisi. Transnational, by contrast, denotes economic and related social, political, and
cultural processes – including class formation that supersede nation-states
What distinguishes the TCC from national or local capitalists is that it is involved
in globalized production and manages globalized circuits of accumulation that give it an
objective class existence and identity spatially and politically in the global system above
any local territories and polities.
Since reading your (Dr Joyce) work on the JQ I began to see the connection between age old
complaints of Jews, and what Ford referred to as "The International Jew". In fact, replace
the term "transnational capitalist class" from my passages quoted above (and many others) and
what you have is perfect mirror image of the argument.
This question has come up often lately, synchronistically (or maybe not). I'm somewhat new
to the JQ, having consumed many hours of work (including much of your own) after being sent
down the rabbit hole by the ongoing Epstein case. I was pondering that perhaps, Jews take the
blame for what the predatory capitalists are doing. Not even a week later you addressed this
precise question in your piece about Slavoj Ziszek and now with "vulture capitalism" it is
coming up yet again in Carlson's segment followed by the article right here. It also came up
on the "other side" in the blog I follow of a professor of globalization in this article:
https://zeroanthropology.net/2019/11/27/global-giants-american-empire-and-transnational-capital/
The link above is a review of the book Giants: The Global Power Elite . The review
provides a summary of the book which once again could be a text about Jews if one were to
replace the term "transnational capitalist class" with "Jews". Why I mention it, though, is
the following: "Chapter 2, "The Global Financial Giants: The Central Core of Global
Capitalism," identifies the 17 global financial giants -- money management firms that control
more than one trillion dollars in capital. As these firms invest in each other, and many
smaller firms, the interlocked capital that they manage surpasses $41 trillion (which amounts
to about 16% of the world's total wealth). The 17 global financial giants are led by 199
directors. This chapter details how these financial giants have pushed for global
privatization of virtually everything, in order to stimulate growth to absorb excess capital.
The financial giants are supported by a wide array of institutions: "governments,
intelligence services, policymakers, universities, police forces, militaries, and corporate
media all work in support of their vital interests" (p. 60).
Chapter 3, "Managers: The Global Power Elite of the Financial Giants," largely consists of
the detailed profiles of the 199 financial managers just mentioned.
This caught my eye because I immediately wondered how many of those 199 directors are
Jewish. It also pertains directly to this exact article because I am confident that the
vulture capitalists you targeted here are profiled in the book, probably with many
others.
Now, I am not in the business of writing about the JQ, so I wanted to suggest to anyone
out there that is that if they were to obtain a copy of this book and determine how many of
the 199 directors are jews. What this could accomplish is a marriage of the major two
theories of the "anti-semites" (for lack of a better word) and the "Neo-Marxists". I would
argue that perhaps both sides would learn they are coming at the same thing from two
different angles. Most would ignore it, but maybe a few leftist thinkers would receive a much
needed electric shock if they were to see the JQ framed in marxist terms. Perhaps some
alliances could be forged across the cultural divide in this struggle. Personally I believe
that both angles are perfectly valid, and that understanding one without the other will
leaves far too much to be desired when studying the powerful.
@the
grand wazoo Reagan relaxed the laws on takeovers and as a result what Galbraith called the technostructure (modern
corporation in which the business was run by not with an eye on shareholder value but in the
interests of everyone involved) was ripped apart.
However the technostructure had come about in the 30s when the Depression led to mass lay
offs, which had began to cause social unrest. The Chinese are have already cutting a swath
through Western productive capacity, and now they are coming for the rest to the extent that
the European Union is tightening the limits of foreign direct investment and takeovers. Trump
is calling for negative interest rates, which were not adopted even during the 1930s when
one-quarter of the labor force was idle.
Prospects for severe economic pain being imposed on ordinary working people and the
consequent (eventual) establishment of a new technostructure are excellent. I hate to sound
like an accelerationist, but Jews like Singer are bringing that day closer.
@Ghali
'Everywhere they go, they leave behind nations in ruins. "
-- They always find the willing local collaborators ready to make a big profit. Who can
forget Dick Cheney, the Enemy of Humanity? The same kind of unrestricted criminality and
amorality lives on in Tony Blair the Pious. The fact that this Catholic weasel and major
criminal Tony Blair is still not excommunicated tells all we need to know about the
Vatican.
Assange is rotting in a prison, while Tony Blair and Ghislaine Maxwell are roaming free. The
Jewish connections pay off.
I know some Torah Jews who are angry that Mischlings have no right of return to Israel,
and apparently now aren't part of the ruling American Jewish nation, or American, or have
anywhere to go now. They're also angry at what they see as a repeat of the cycle of
international Jewish action and inevitable reaction they will have to bear the brunt of.
They referred me to this website: The Institute for Historical Review where they
apparently contribute.
" Although Jews make up no more than three or four percent of Russia's population, they
wield enormous economic and political power in that vast and troubled country. "At least half
of the powerful 'oligarchs' who control a significant percentage of the economy are Jewish,"
the Los Angeles Times has cautiously noted. (See also: D. Michaels, "Capitalism in the New
Russia," May-June 1997 Journal, pp. 21-27. )"
So that was the context of who owned capital in Russia, what was the effect?
" According to Harvard University scholar Graham Allison, who is also a former US
assistant Secretary of Defense, ordinary Russians have experienced, on average, a 75 percent
plunge in living standards since 1991 -- almost twice the decline in Americans' income during
the Great Depression of the 1930s. But in the midst of this widespread economic misery, a
small minority has grown fabulously wealthy since the end of the Soviet era ."
But how is that possible? Swashbuckling international capitalists like Bill Browder were
bringing their Ivy League MBA's to more efficiently manage all those assets. And he said how
much he wanted to save the Polish Train-yards.
What happened? A Putin arose. He took the capital from the Jews, and the Jews were
dispatched to the United States. Putin also aligned himself with a different Jewish faction
less virulently dismissive of the needs of the people they ruled.
What do they do in the United States? Something similar as the economy careens towards
another financial crisis and living standards, mortality rates, and the middle class
plummet.
"Jewish power in Russia, Galushin continues, has resulted in millions of homeless
children, widespread tuberculosis and cholera, a shortage of medicines, cheating retirees of
their pensions, suicide in the armed forces, and the death of science. What do the Gusinskys,
the Berezovskys, the Chubais, the Nemtsovs, the Kiriyenkos, the Smolenskys, the Livshits, and
the Gaidars say about this? Millions of Russians have perished under their rule. Are the
Russian people ready to judge these scoundrels for their crimes, Galushin ask",
Robert Maxwell was a Chezch Jew – he also robbed hundreds of millions worth of
pensions. How is it possible that all these Jewish capitalists can be linked to readily to
Jeffrey Epstein?
How did Robert Maxwell get his seed money?
Here is a letter sent to Boris Berezovsky nee Abramovich.
"In sharp contrast to the intense feelings expressed by such Russian writers over the
catastrophic situation in their country today is the seeming indifference of American and
German taxpayers who have unwittingly channeled billions of dollars and marks to the
oligarchs -- who in turn have transferred this largesse to secret Swiss accounts. Who
monitors the distribution of these billions through the World Bank, the IMF, the financial
houses, and various banks? Who is responsible for this terrible injustice?"
That's really strange, because isn't that what the Russians accused Browder of doing? They
say that he channelled billions of dollars out of Russia into the United States. Then we had
the great Russian menace that is still ongoing in the media, and failing.
But Browder said that the Russian collusion story that was created by Fusion GPS, and then
the FISA court warrants issued on the basis of the fabricated Steele 'pissgate' dossier and
media stories was 100% true.
And Steele worked for the Russia desk of British Intelligence, and was being paid by the
Democrats.
Even the proto-Shabbos goys at the National Review had to distance themselves from it.
They showed that the date the FBI and Justice said it was verified it couldn't possibly have
been verified.
So why did so many Jewish capitalists like Browder support it?
And why aren't the Russians being permitted to trace Russian monies into Cyprus if Bill
Browder and now Jewish captialist ever has every done a thing that is wrong?
Because literally to the letter what is said about Donald Trump, the Democrats were
actually doing.
"" It got almost no attention, but in May [2018], CNN reported that Sens. Robert
Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to
Ukraine's prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four
investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that
their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as "strong
advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine," the Democratic senators
declared, "We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some
in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President
Trump," before demanding Lutsenko "reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation
with this important investigation ."
And yet Trump pulls the Jews ever closer. A ruling race of ubermenschen now.
'No reason'.
Can you imagine what American Blacks and savage Hispanics let alone whites are going to do
if the US economy craters like the Russian economy, and everything is transferred to the
banks?
@Old
and grumpy Yeah . fine idea. I've always maintained there are two uses of the word
"capitalism" industrial capitalism or competition of ideas vs. financial capitalism, the
Darwinian struggle for the most ruthless bankster to rig the "markets" most efficiently.
Whether we give it new terminology I don't care much . but I sure wish people would
understand the difference, one way of another !
Trump and the Republican Party puppets are nothing more than nasty politician whores for
billionaire Jews such as Seth Klarman and Paul Singer and Shelly Adelson and Les Wexner and
Bernie Marcus and many other money-grubber Jew donors.
The Republican Party Jew donors want to continue to flood the USA with mass legal
immigration and mass illegal immigration and the Jew donors want to continue to use the US
military as muscle to fight unnecessary wars and endless wars on behalf of Israel.
The Republican Party Jew donors also want to have all their shady money-grubber scams
protected by the Republican Party politician whores.
I wrote this in October of 2017 about Seth Klarman and Puerto Rican government debt:
Puerto Rico must be allowed to go belly up. The bond owners who own Puerto Rican debt must
go tits up. The US government must not bail out the investors who purchased Puerto Rican
government debt, or any debt whatsoever connected to Puerto Rico. Seth Klarman has been
revealed as a person who has bought Puerto Rican bonds in hopes of cashing out big.
SETH KLARMAN must be given a salt shaker to sprinkle salt on his worthless Puerto Rican
bonds before he eats them. Klarman must lose 100 cents on the dollar for his greedy purchase
of Puerto Rican debt. Klarman has loads of loot, and the Puerto Rican government debt was
purchased for one of his funds. I am sure his investors won't mind getting soaked by Seth for
a bit of money -- it is not even a whole billion dollars, only close to it.
David Dayen says:
Klarman, who has been described as the Oracle of Boston, has a history of buying
unpopular or distressed assets on the cheap in hopes of a payday. Baupost manages over $30
billion in assets. He is known as the top campaign contributor in New England and has been
a major donor in Republican politics in Massachusetts, including largely secret support for
2016's Question 2, an ultimately unsuccessful effort to lift a state cap on charter
schools. Klarman supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, calling Donald Trump "completely
unqualified for the highest office in the land."
Klarman's involvement in Puerto Rican debt will surely come as a surprise to activists
in Massachusetts and Puerto Rico, who have never mentioned him among the "vultures" who are
causing undue pain for the island's U.S. citizens.
Jewish people have treated me better than my own White Euro family.
White Euro people are/were evolved for small tribes. They were hunter gatherers, and
evolved concurrently with dogs. In my opinion the pathological altrusim of whites has to do
with the close relations to dogs, pets and later livestock. The whole "good shepherd" is more
of a Western Construct of Cro-Magnon white people, than the insular goat-herding types of the
middle east.
For example, in Scandinavia and most white countries, a 'baby sitter' can be a neighbor,
while in middle eastern cultures, a baby sitter can only be from a family member.
In other words, white people extend trust to one another, while middle-eastern ethos is
more familal then tribal. Ice age evolution, especially the fourth ice ages, selected for
pathological altruism is whites; which is why whites extend their grace to foreigners, brown
people, and are easily duped by Jews.
All you can do is try to rise above your own families failings. White people have to think
it through intellectually, as it does not come naturally.
Jews are tribal, gee what a surprise after 1000's of years of people trying to wipe them
out . and so their charity is within the tribe, but there is no charity within the tribe
among Whites.
Yes, but what is being debated here is how Jews use their ethnocentrism and in-group
methods to practice usury against out-groups. Euro-whites are a perfect host for the
parasite. The parasitical methods EVOLVED over millenia to operate the usury mechanism, to
take rents and unearned income. This is why they have been kicked out of 109 countries,
because what they do is seen as immoral and against the common good. (Euro whites eventually
smarten up and it always takes a King to eject the Jews.)
For more on this, see the book Angela's Ashes. The Irish family could have stayed in New
York where they were being befriended by a Jewish family.
Let's not get cause and effect reversed. The potato famine in Ireland was devastating
because high-value crops were being exported to England to pay for wait for it . usury on
debts the Irish owed the English. The English in turn were operating the state sponsored
usury system of the Bank of England, which came into being in 1694. The BOE in turn was
JEWISH in construct, being maneuvered into place by Sephardic Jews from Amsterdam.
The Irish, being trusting souls, fell into the usury trap and could not keep up with the
exponential debts.
A general statement: White people can build high trust civilizations that benefit all of
their people, but are easily subverted when the wrong type of predators infiltrate. If your
family was extended, and had aunts and uncles and cousins, who lived in the general area for
centuries, then there would be a network to fall back on.
See slaughter of the cities by Jones:
And yes, the FIRE sector and impetus behind the destruction of your extended family was
JEWISH. The breakdown of neighborhoods and ethnics was on purpose.
The Jew is anti-logos, and whatever he touches he destroys. (There are exceptions of
course – but these people no longer possess a negative Jewish spirit.)
Sorry your family was destroyed. When whites become un-moored they don't know how to
act.
@J
Adleman Quite bizarre post. First,he makes a half ass defense of Jew
character.(Weinstein,Epstein don't represent jews! Well,they kind of do. Any jew who is
called to accounts for his crimes automatically does not represent jews!
You are a used condom. Do you represent the jews? Id day yes.)
Your diatribe sounds like an alt righter's view of jews. Are you real?
if you think it's wrong to buy or try to collect on defaulted debt, what is the
alternative set of laws and behavior you are recommending? If debts can simply be
repudiated at will, capitalism cannot function.
Capitalism includes money. You can't separate the risks in lending from other risks. Bad
investors should be punished and good investors rewarded. Resources should be well allocated.
Otherwise it's not capitalism.
These insane Boomers seem to think that there is a Jewish coup underway to remove Trump
because of all the things that Jews are saying in Jewish publications and every single person
involved being Jewish and stuff.
@Germanicus
About the Carnegie donated "Peace Palace" in The Hague, presently the seat of the In
ternational Court of Justice:
Germanicus claims:
They are a function of Empire in Hague, who protect empire criminals, and assume a non
existent legitimacy and jurisdiction as a private entity to take down empire opponents.
Such as this ruling for instance:
Guardian 3 Oct.2018:
International court of justice orders US to lift new Iran sanctions
Mike Pompeo indicates US will ignore ruling, after judges in The Hague find unanimously in
favour of Iran
@silviosilver
"What Joyce regards as a defect of "vulture" funds, others might regard as an benefit. "
-- Of course. I hope you did not miss the fact that the Jewish vulture funds -- ruthless,
unethical, and leaching on goyim -- contribute to the Jewish Holocaust Museum.
Is not it touching that the same bloody destroyers of nations demand from the same nations a
very special reverence -- out of ethical considerations, of course -- towards the Jewish
victims of WWII? But only Jewish victims. All others were not victims but casualties. See
Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Ukraine. See the unlimited hatred of ziocons towards Russia.
@Anonymous" but maybe a few leftist thinkers would receive a much needed electric shock if they were
to see the JQ framed in marxist terms " – I would not count on the effect of the
electric shock on the leftist thinkers. The role of Jewish Bolsheviks in the Cheka, NKVD,
GULAGs, genocides by famine has been known from the very beginning and yet it left no impact
on the leftist thinkers.
"According to Harvard University scholar Graham Allison, who is also a former US
assistant Secretary of Defense, ordinary Russians have experienced, on average, a 75 percent
plunge in living standards since 1991 -- almost twice the decline in Americans' income during
the Great Depression of the 1930s. But in the midst of this widespread economic misery, a
small minority has grown fabulously wealthy since the end of the Soviet era."
"Although Jews make up no more than three or four percent of Russia's population, they
wield enormous economic and political power in that vast and troubled country. "At least half
of the powerful 'oligarchs' who control a significant percentage of the economy are Jewish,"
the Los Angeles Times has cautiously noted. (See also: D. Michaels, "Capitalism in the New
Russia," May-June 1997 Journal, pp. 21-27.)"
It's interesting how the appeal of Eduard Topol to Jews in Russia is now starting to echo
Jewish calls in the United States for Jews to stop the path they are currently on.
Here is the complete text of Topol's extraordinary "Open Letter to Berezovksy,
Gusinsky, Smolensky, Khodorkovsky and other Oligarchs," translated for the Journal by Daniel
Michaels from the text published in the respected Moscow paper Argumenty i Fakty ("Arguments
and Facts"), No. 38, September 1998:
Magnitsky and Bill Browder is also really interesting.
It turns out that a large measure of the Russiagate story arose because Russian lawyer
Natalia Veselnitskaya, who traveled to America to challenge Browder's account, arranged a
meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump campaign advisers in June 2016 to present this
other side of the story.
Then we had Democrats actually literally word for word doing what they accuse Trump of
doing in Ukraine.
"It got almost no attention, but in May [2018], CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez
(D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine's
prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations
they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support
for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as "strong advocates for a
robust and close relationship with Ukraine," the Democratic senators declared, "We have
supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to
have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump," before
demanding Lutsenko "reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this
important investigation."
What's the first rule of Communist and Satanist Saul Alinsky? Always accuse your opponents
of what you are doing.
Imagine having a Grandfather as the literal Chairman of the American Communist Party, and
all the amazing lessons you would learn about political maneuvering and ideology.
And it's amazing.
Browder's story is that Russian officials stole his companies seals and then fraudulently
formulated a tax avoidance scheme with a complete paper trail that they fabricated against
him in totem. Precisely matching the amount of money he was trying to remove from their
country, like those other Jewish Oligarchs who imposed conditions that were multiples worse
then even the American depression.
When under oath it turns out that Magnitsky wasn't even a lawyer at all, and didn't go to
law school. Why did the media owned by Mormons of course keep saying that Magnitsky was
Browder's lawyer?
Why did the Russians fraudulently fabricate a paper-trail for another Jewish Oligarch to
steal money out of Russia? Just like they colluded with Trump when a Russian lawyer sought to
explain what happened. Because that totally happened.
Maybe the problem isn't Capitalism. Maybe, when even the ur-Shabbos goys at National
Review are shaking their head and washing their hands like Pilate, maybe it's a different
problem.
Yet Trump holds these people ever close to his beating heart.
And then there are all these connections to Jeffrey Epstein that are like an explosion
linking all these people.
Poor old Russia. Even Putin isn't worse then what came before.
The link above is a review of the book Giants: The Global Power Elite. The review
provides a summary of the book which once again could be a text about Jews if one were to
replace the term "transnational capitalist class" with "Jews". Why I mention it, though, is
the following: "Chapter 2, "The Global Financial Giants: The Central Core of Global
Capitalism," identifies the 17 global financial giants -- money management firms that
control more than one trillion dollars in capital.
From the review .
"Robinson's claim that nation-states have become, "little more than population containment
zones," while "the real power lies with the decision makers who control global capital" (p.
26). Both propositions are unconvincing: first, populations are clearly not being
contained; second, if states matter so little, and the real decision-makers are global
capitalists, then why do the latter need states
That is such stupid reasoning it blows the mind. He is trying to shift the global problem
to institutions .. instead of the people who head those institutions
Institutions, agencies , financial firms, etc .are ALL run by PEOPLE .who make the
policies,laws, take the actions.
Why does the 'transnational capitalist class' need states? well duh because
people/labor/consumers are indeed "contained' in states subject to the states laws and
system. The transnational capitalist class created the institutions he speaks of 'from
within' those states thru their control of its system and their same goal partners who do the
same from within their respective states.
That the capitalist class is not tied to any territory has been observable since 1960.
I don't have time now to look up how many of 199 directors are Jews . but I know enough of
the economic history of various countries to know that Jews were the first business and
finance globe trotters,,,,.from Spain to Amsterdam, France to Africa , etc.etc. Jew were
first hired as reps and facilitators by the gentile business owners especially because of
their breather tribal contacts in many countries ..that was their stepping stone to becoming
transnational capitalist themselves.
Understanding our global capitalist ruling elite and who they are is not rocket
science
Buy your loans from another lender,
change the terms (add fees, penalties, underhanded stuff),
reposses your collatteral.
Outta be illegal.
White Gentiles, you must infiltrate and take over big business and big finance to help
protect your people from predation .and to give all peoples principled, fair financial
services. To help our society, and even others. Paul Singer doesnt seem to care about most of
his fellow men. We could do better, and help the world be a better place.
Yet more evidence is piling up that Donald J Trump is the Great Betrayer.
A man who had the biggest mandate in post war history to clean up the Swamp that is D.C.,
reform Immigration to save America and reform the economy for American workers.
He has squandered all of it while pandering to Jews.
When the Donald is revealed as the Great Betrayer where will Jews run? Yes, they have
several back up plans. Patagonia, Ukraine and Israel.
Imagine that. They have their own country and 2 back up plans. It is really tough being a
hated, oppressed minority.
@Anonymous
Thanks for your comment. You've come to the right place. Unz is an ideal hangout for
left/right fusionists who don't fit in perfectly with either side, but are interested in
hearing from both. In addition, if you're looking for other good right-wing sites that aren't
libertarian, Zionist or overly Christian, I can also heartily recommend Dr. Kevin MacDonald's
Occidental Observer ,
where Dr. Joyce himself usually posts.
What this could accomplish is a marriage of the major two theories of the "anti-semites"
(for lack of a better word) and the "Neo-Marxists". I would argue that perhaps both sides
would learn they are coming at the same thing from two different angles. Most would ignore
it, but maybe a few leftist thinkers would receive a much needed electric shock if they
were to see the JQ framed in marxist terms.
Or, more correctly, it would be a re -marriage of anti-Semitism and Marxism. If you
have a background in Marxism yourself, maybe you recall reading or hearing about Karl Marx's
pre-Kapital classic, On the Jewish Question , where he basically identifies
finance-capitalism as a Jewish phenomenon in essence and origin. Money quote
:
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew but the everyday
Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the
secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical
need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his
worldly God? Money. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may
exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities . The
bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange .
The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of
money in general.[ ] The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because
he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him,
money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical
spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the
Christians have become Jews. [ ] In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the
emancipation of mankind from Judaism."
Marx himself, of course, came from a family of rich conversos, so he knew whereof he
spoke.
Perhaps some alliances could be forged across the cultural divide in this struggle.
Personally I believe that both angles are perfectly valid, and that understanding one
without the other will leaves far too much to be desired when studying the powerful.
As a third-way national socialist, I hope so, too. Libertarianism/capitalism and mainline
socialism are dead-ends, having both been thoroughly co-opted (founded?) by the Jews. Both
fail to address the pink elephant in the corner; both put some hopelessly abstract ideology
before the welfare of my people–while benefiting another. And so, as the original NS
used to say: 'Neither godless Bolshevism nor soulless capitalism!'
Reality: Contrary to popular mythology, not all serial killers are white. Serial killers
span all racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. The racial diversity of serial killers
generally mirrors that of the overall U.S. population. There are well documented cases of
African-American, Latino and Asian-American serial killers. African-Americans comprise the
largest racial minority group among serial killers, representing approximately 20 percent of
the total. Significantly, however, only white, and normally male, serial killers such as
Ted Bundy become popular culture icons.
@Lot
Your defense of bond holders do not hold water. They agreed to take the risk at the given
price. If the debtor can't pay back, they have the eat the losses, period. Usury law needs to
be put in place to outlaw these vulture funds. Then the bond funds will adjust by demanding
better terms that truly reflects the risk from the get go, and the debtors will adjust by
being much more cautious in their borrowing since the borrowing cost is so high.
Instead, this current arrangement basically uses bond funds to put up a false front,
telling a debtor they can borrow at 2% when the real rate should be at 20% given the known
risks, then the debtor goes crazy borrowing because it's so cheap to borrow, and when they
can't pay back, the bond gets sold to the vultures who come collecting at 20% or they seize
assets. This is no different than the subprime mortgage crap, except now that is regulated so
they go after sovereign debt and corporate debt instead. These vultures need to go die
period.
Trump is now essentially funded by three Jews -- Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Sheldon
Adelson, together accounting for over $250 million in pro-Trump political money. In return,
they want war with Iran.
Hmm -- The day after Trump in inaugurated for his second term -- will Iran be in his
crosshairs?
@Jimmy1969
This is a great, concise overview of Canadian media influence by the "silent" Jewish
overlords via Golden Tree.
I tried copy/paste of your comment on CBC, but it did NOT last 2minutes before being
suspended!!
I am sorry to have used your comment without your permission, but I am going to "misspell"
some words to defeat the algorithm to get your message across.
@Lot
For points 1 and 2, I think that you would learn a lot from reading his previous article (
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/08/01/paul-singer-and-universality-of-anti-semitism/
) on vulture capitalism. It is not just that they are recovering assets from defaults. These
vulture groups will use the courts to increase the size of the debts and sue for extra "fees"
on top, even when all other lenders are against it. They typically manage to get US courts in
NYC to try these cases, which also is apparently abnormal (apparently it would be more normal
to use international courts). This is what Joyce refers to here:
"This type of predation is so pernicious and morally perverse that both the Belgian and UK
governments have taken steps to ban these Jewish firms from using their court systems to sue
for distressed debt owed by poor nations. "
These funds do not do something that normal investors do, especially not to the bonds of
governments of struggling third-world countries.
As for 3, you are misunderstanding. Joyce never demanded that they name their charities
anything in particular, but it is obviously the case that your typical normie thinks that
"white males," presumably golf-playing Episcopalians or something, are the ones running
finance, and these golfy-sounding names (Elliot, Monarch, GoldTree, OakTree, Canyon, Tilden
Park) fit the perception. We whites receive the society's hate for the wealth disparities
created by high finance.
4. No, it is not difficult to do finance differently. Every other investor has higher
patience for poor countries in Central America and Africa, and they all look at Elliot with
confused scorn.
And, things would probably run fine without hyper-aggressive multi-billionaires in pushing
the courts to f- over those who default on debts they owe to the maximum degree. Japan and
Norway do quite fine with businesses that are run by gentle and humble goys who feel ashamed
at the thought of getting "too rich."
@J
Adleman You will be thrown out.
You will have to choose between Israel, Ukraine and Patagonia. No one else will take you.
You have destroyed our politics, media and economy.
You are not respected.
You buy compliance with money.
You have bankrupted the U.S. dollar with debt pursuing Israel's enemies.
Do any of you goys remember when the Jewish funded Democrats through the US State
department gave Russia one third of the US strategic uranium reserve and also funnelled
military tech to Russia's Skolkovo Valley? At a time when they were working on the Hypersonic
ballistic missile engine?
It's almost like there was this plan for people to move back into Russia, just like China,
but for some reason the Russians and Chinese didn't cooperate.
Remember when David Spengler wrote about this a few years back hence?
Do you think disloyal Jews had anything to do with 18 American CIA assets getting captured
and murdered by the Chinese Intelligence services through 2010 to 2012?
Could it be that there were loyal Americans who were interfering with Chinese pay for play
with the Jewish nation in the United States? Or might have come upon it?
Imagine being an American military service member knowing that your Jewish commanders and
Jewish senior officers have got your back.
It's amazing isn't it.
Clinton was receiving tens of millions of dollars from Skolkovo Valley Syndicate owners in
Russia, and in exchange all she gave them were military secrets that may have given Russia
for example it's lead in hypersonic military technology.
And then we're told China had a duplicate version of her emails in China, in exchange for
what?
US Taxpayer money funded the Russian weapons program.
How much China tech was also funded by US taxpayers?
And then these people accused Trump of collusion with Russia, because the Russians were
telling the Trump family that the Magnitsky Act was unjust because the Russians were trying
to secure their assets against the kind of predatory practices that lowered Russian mortality
to where it's headed in the Midwest. Right now. For the same reasons.
Yeah – this trend is absolutely going to be permitted to continue.
The American nation forewarned and forearmed is simply going to allow itself to go the way
of the Russian Slav under a century of Jewish and proto-Jewish (the man who was made to call
himself Stalin) leadership.
Maybe, just maybe, an American President might consider a Magnitsky Act the subjects of
which were different. Maybe Trump is the last civic-nationalist President, maybe.
Look at how loyal the ruling nation in the United States is to their fellow Americans.
There aren't enough hours in the day to trace the labyrinthine set of Jewish betrayals and
asset transferrals – remember the Panama Papers? Remember the Samson Option?
Why won't Browder let the Russians investigate Cyprus?
Maybe good old fashioned local corruption with noblesse oblige is preferable to this
international corruption.
The Jews got out-leveraged by the Russians, and now, finally, the Empire might be able to
take back Korriban from the Jewdi.
Of course that's impossible. You have to trade one for the other. Just one set for the
other set.
If you want to find a list of these capitalists – you just look at who attends the
World Jewish Congress Galas.
" Ira Rennert (net worth $3 billion, previously, $6 billion, investor, known as a "junk
bond billionaire," found guilty of corruption in 2015, placed a mill in Baltimore's outer
harbor into bankruptcy, causing more than 2,000 workers to lose their jobs, owes Baltimore $8
million in unpaid city water bills, allegedly used money he looted from his business to build
a 29-room mansion & compound – a garage holds 100 cars)
Dick Parsons (former Time Warner CEO, CBS chair, & Citibank chair; in 2012 shareholders
filed a lawsuit against Parsons and some other executives for "stuffing their pockets while
running the bank into the ground")
Ben Ashkenazy (net worth $4 billion, Israeli American real estate tycoon, a benefactor of the
2015 AIPAC Real Estate Luncheon at New York's Grand Hyatt Hotel)
Jack Chehebar (real estate mogul, sued for alleged breach of contract, accused of beating his
son)
Ray Kelly (longest serving commissioner in the history of the New York City Police
Department, for a period was an Interpol vice president, charged by Muslim groups of
discrimination: "The commissioner oversaw a spying program that targeted Muslims based solely
on their religion, showed poor judgment by participating in a virulently anti-Islamic film,
and approved a report on terrorism that equated innocuous behavior such as quitting smoking
with signs of radicalization."
What did God say once?
In Genesis 18:32 He said he would spare Sodom and Gamorrah if Abraham could find just 10
honourable men. He couldn't find them. Only the family of Lot.
There isn't much time left. It might simply be the case that the rot goes too deep and too
dark.
Valhalla is a worthy place. I think there might be some Russians there, along with the
souls of those 18 Americans who were tortured and murdered in China for reasons unknown.
Capitalism includes money. You can't separate the risks in lending from other risks. Bad
investors should be punished and good investors rewarded. Resources should be well
allocated. Otherwise it's not capitalism.
There are different kinds of capitalism. It is part of today's hypnotism that people don't
know the different types.
For example, there is finance capitalism, industrial capitalism, and what Andrew Joyce
calls vulture capitalism.
Vulture capitalism is a subset of finance capitalism.
Industrial capitalism was invented in the American colonies, especially Massachusetts bay.
The American system of economy (industrial capitalism with mixed economy and sovereign money)
has since been lost to America, as it imported Jewish/British finance capitalism as the
operating construct after 1913.
You can separate risks in lending. That is more hypnosis that you have been imbibing on.
The entire corpus of Classical economics goes about trying to separate unearned from earned
income, how to tax properly, what is site value, and it also is able to separate risk
types.
The fact that you do not know these things is not surprising, as most of western man is
living inside of a Jewish inverted reality bubble. The agents of mammon won, and classical
economics is not even taught in university.
Homosexuality is present in our society, but doesn't register much in demographics and as
such, I am happy to call gays as homosexuals. Tackling animus towards homosexuals requires
NOT trying to enforce new nomenclature of gender etc., otherwise an unexpected nasty backlash
can occur. Within your "ingroup", you can say what you like, but do not try and force ingroup
dynamics on the majority that are not interested.
Otherwise, you are behaving by identity politics, just like the Jews force their identity
upon the majority.
@sally
" Time after time I have asked my Jewish friends are you are Zionist, and most say they do
not really know what Zionism is? "
Zionism is a name which is more well known as an identifier by the critical (among the
Goy), carrying by now negative connotations. Broadly it is not an ism which is well known to
the man in the street. It could well be that among Jews, the name Zionism is only handled by
certain groups.
The question should have been rephrased asking what position these Jewish friends take with
regard to Israel. It comes down roughly to the same thing.
To not know of Zionism might be strategically a good thing, it refers to convergent
interests, actually a power block, you don't want to throw around such things, it could make
people aware Keep it diluted, diversity, obfuscation.
Ben Franklin and the American revolution was almost put in a similar pinch by the Amsterdam
banker Jean DeNeufville. In a letter to John Adams, 14 December 1781*, Franklin explained
that DeNeufville wanted as security for a loan "all the lands, cities, territories, and
possessions of the said Thirteen States, which they may have or possess at present, and which
they may have or possess in the future, with all their income, revenue, and produce, until
the entire payment of this loan and the interests due thereon."
Franklin considered that "extravagant" but Newhouse rejoined, "this was usual in all loans
and that the money could not otherwise be obtained". Franklin retold in this lengthy letter,
"Besides this, I was led to understand that it would be very agreeable to these gentlemen if,
in acknowledgment of their zeal for our cause and great services in procuring this loan, they
would be made by some law of Congress the general consignee of America, to receive and sell
upon commission, by themselves and correspondents in the different ports and nations, all the
produce of America that should be sent by our merchants to Europe."
Talk about shooting the moon
While Wikipedia says DeNeufville was Mennonite, Franklin concluded with this colorful --
and bitter -- remark , "By this time, I fancy, your Excellency is satisfied that I was wrong
in supposing John de Neufville as much a Jew as any in Jerusalem, since Jacob was not content
with any per cents, but took the whole of his brother Esau's birthright, and his posterity
did the same by the Canaanites, and cut their throats into the bargain; which, in my
conscience, I do not think Mr. John de Neufville has the least inclination to do by us while
he can get any thing by our being alive. I am, with the greatest esteem, etc., ✪ B.
Franklin."
Perhaps it was just an expression based on an earlier stereotype?
*Bigelow, 1904. The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. 9 Letters and Misc. Writings
What our Jewish friends have done to Argentina, through maneuvering the elections, killing
dissidents, and marking territory, is a cautionary tale to anybody woke enough to see with
their own eyes.
Zion had the opportunity to go to Uganda and Ugandans were willing, but NO Zion had to
have Palestine, and they got it through war, deception, and murder. It was funded by usury,
as stolen purchasing power from the Goyim.
The fake country of Israel, is not the biblical Israel, and it came into being by
maneuverings of satanic men determined to get their way no matter what, and is supported by
continuous deception. Even today's Hebrew is resurrected from a dead language, and is fake.
Many fake Jews (who have no blood lineage to Abraham), a fake country, and fake language.
These fakers, usurers, and thieves do indeed have their eyes set on Patagonia, what they call
the practical country.
Unz is an ideal hangout for left/right fusionists who don't fit in perfectly with either
side, but are interested in hearing from both
You just described me to a tee. I defy categorization, especially ideological ones
(although I half jokingly refer to myself as a free-thinkist), and I feel this makes me
weird.
I've been to TOO. However I can't bring myself to start commenting on a white nationalist
website. I will admit I am unable to articulate this discomfort presently.
As to your point about Marx – I actually forgot about his work on the JQ. The Saker,
who is a columnist on this site, referenced Marx's essay on the JQ some time ago. I must have
not read the whole thing or I'd have remembered it. I didn't know that Marxism originated
with anti-Semitism, but that is fascinating. I have encountered some Marxists in my time and
they focus exclusively (predictably) on the cis-white-male patriarchy, or whatever occupies
their brainwashed minds after an Introduction to Gender Studies class.
@Anon
"If debts can simply be repudiated at will, capitalism cannot function."
Is this children's capitalist theory class time? throwing around some simple slogans for a
susceptible congregation of future believers?
Should be quite obvious that people, groups of people, if not whole nations , can be
forced and or seduced into depths by means of certain practices. There are a thousand ways of
such trickery and thievery, these are not in the theory books though. In these books things
all match and work out wonderfully rationally
Then capitalism cannot function? Unfortunately it has become already dysfunctional, if not
a big rotten cancer.
Isaiah 1:4 4 Alas, sinful nation, A people laden with iniquity, A brood of evildoers,
Children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, They have provoked to anger The
Holy One of Israel, They have turned away backward.
Ezekiel 21:25 25 'Now to you, O profane, wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose
iniquity shall end
Jeremiah 5:9 Shall I not punish them for these things?" says the LORD. "And shall I not
avenge Myself on such a nation as this?
As Jesus said which of the prophets have you not killed or persecuted? The truth hurts. As
for me I do not hate Jews ..I feel terribly sad for a people that are capable of greatness
and squandered the gifts given to them by God. Are you a holy nation? Don't make me laugh.
Repent. Your time is coming. No more running and hiding. Deception will no longer save you
only acceptance of the Messiah.
Hey! Don't mention anything a Jew ever did, especially usury, or else the entire cult will go
up in a holocaustal mushroom cloud of emo nasal whining. In Judaism you've got a fanatical
sect that systematically selects and brainwashes its members to inculcate extreme values of
two Big Five personality axes: high neuroticism and low intellect (where intellect means
open-mindedness.) Note the existential crisis triggered by a straightforward lecture from The
Society for the Study of Unbelievably Obvious Shit.
Of course Israel is holocausting the Palestinians. This is what happens when the founding
myth of a nation is, We wiped em all out and then they wiped us almost all out so now we
gotta wipe em all out etc., etc., etc.
Well, the only difference between a narcissist and a psychopath is that the former need
people to like them whereas psychopaths genuinely could not care less (although they learn
early that acting as if they do can be very helpful , as can always trying to elicit sympathy
etc).
As I noticed while reading a few books on psychopathy (I was inspired to after reading Steve
Job's biography) – their whole 'culture' is structured as a (collective )
PSYCHOPATH.
It seems that (collectively) they cannot care about others even if they wanted to. Due to
their sickness
I am not saying they are all that way – but overall their 'culture' seems to be that
way
@Digital
Samizdat Indeed I cannot agree more. I quote from a 1923 interview of Hitler:
"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party
programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of
dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The
Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from
the Socialists.
"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain
lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to
disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private
property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is
patriotic.
@Colin
Wright The Sacklers occupy a hoity-toity rung in the philanthropy universe, as they have
given enough $$$ to Harvard for H to paste their name on its museum housing I believe its
whole Asian art collection. Students have now protested Harvard's high-profile gift of
probity and cultural status to the Sacklers via, literally, an "Aushangerschild" on a major
university museum. Harvard protests back: Jeez, if we don't take the Sacklers' dough we might
be obliged to stop taking the dough from Exxon, etc.
@Anon
you are right about repaying the loan
but Banksters have managed over decades I think starting with Clinton to remove protection
laws (which were stating how much interest was the maximum a bankster could charge his pray
etc). They also removed the rules of how much was the maximum they could lend (according to
how much their victim makes a year etc).
So even though you are right that loans should be repaid – it is immoral to allow a
well connected mafia to change all the laws and remove protections while pushing up prices of
everything because it suits the lender (who has a licence to print).
They basically lend money that does not exist and get interest for that. So the more sheeple
are tricked into borrowing the better for them, but the worse for everyone else
They should not be allowed to bribe politicians to remove all the protection that was there
since 1920s I think.
It's a marriage from hell: easy to bribe Anglosheep meets the masters of predatory bribing
who own the printing press
That stupid cuck Trump just got impeached by the House. Thats a good lesson to everybody
how much good Jew-ass kissing does for you .you get stabbed in the back anyway lol
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving and treacherous scumbag!
But he should have been impeached for his treachery to the constitution and to the
American people for his slavish devotion to all things Jewish!
@Digital
Samizdat True, but irrelevant. The Jews that matter don't read the Talmud or believe in
"Adam and Eve."
It's 2020. The Jewish religion is "The Holocaust" and we're all "Nazis."
Frankly, it's these traditional religious notions of "anti-semitism" that get in the way
of understanding what is, at the core, an ethnic issue. It's Sheldon Adelson, the Zionist
entity in Palestine, and the ADL that are the problem, not some looney-tunes rabbi living in
Brooklyn.
The other side of the expalnation is the laking of reaction of the victim,the american
people.
The least that the people that loot the world trough and with the USA power should do, is ,at
least ,let us,the american people, a free ride.
Not illegal in the Talmud either but most certainly illegal in all of the countries that
DynCorp was caught profiting from this type of business. For some reason they never seem to
suffer for their exposure suggesting that they may be wielding the same influence that
Epstein had over our elected officials.
We dont have to get back to the Singer of this world but to our own politicians ,that allowed
them to do this to us,and to the world.In this kind of abusive realtionship the 2 sides are
to blame.
@Just
passing through "Look up income by ethnic group in the UK and US, you will find that
Indians and Chinese (South Asians) are the richest in both countries (except for Jews of
course)."
And why is that? Think about it. These are members of the Indian and Chinese elite who the
multinational corporations are doing business with.
In order to do business in China, the Chinese stipulated that the western corporations had
to give one of the members of the Chinese elite half ownership in the company. They were also
required to turn over the western technology to the China-based company. Western technology,
western money, cheap Chinese slave labor, ability to pollute to your heart's content. For
both sides, it was a win-win. The Chinese elite got filthy rich and then moved over to the
West with their newfound gains, buying up properties, forcing prices up for the natives. The
western corporations not only wanted cheap products to export back to the U.S., but they were
also developing a whole new market – Chinese consumers who would buy their products as
well. Double plus good!
And once in the West, the Chinese and the Indians stick to their groups. They hire their
own, promote their own, do business together. A lot of corruption, money laundering,
cheating, taking advantage of and bending laws. Rule of law? Code of ethics? Morals? Do unto
others? They never learned it. Opportunistic dual citizens.
I would not count on the effect of the electric shock on the leftist thinkers. The role
of Jewish Bolsheviks in the Cheka, NKVD, GULAGs, genocides by famine has been known from
the very beginning and yet it left no impact on the leftist thinkers.
It unfortunately has not had much of an effect on a lot of people in the West, who remain
ignorant or in denial of the role played by Jewish Bolsheviks in historic mass murders and
totalitarian repression.
Waiting for the Hollywood movie to tell the story.
This is an expensive, weighty, and important book, which will take some time to
digest.
Classical economists re-learn the science of money, starting with Prodhoun and even Marx
in Das Kapital volume 3. (Leftists are often correct about money, but wrong on social
issues.)
The jew Marx does do some deception in volume 3 with a sneaky equation that does not
compound interest, but otherwise he is pretty accurate. Marx was probably beholden to his
finance masters.
This is why you need to start with Zarlinga, as there is no BS to lead you astray. Hudson
tends to drill the bulls-eye too. There is so much deception in the field of money and
economy, that it is easy to get caught up in false narratives, like one-born free
libertarianism. Usury flows fund the deception, even to the point of leaving out critical
passages in translations, such as in Aristotle's works. Or, important works are bought up and
burned.
Michael Hudson is the leading economist resurrecting Classical Economics. Reading all of
Hudson and Zarlinga will take some time and effort, but it is good to take a first step.
@Anon
I respectfully disagree that "Kenya was given up [by Great Britain] before there was even an
anti-colonial movement in Kenya ."
According to Wikipedia : " The armed rebellion of the Mau Mau was the culminating response to
Colonial rule . Although there had been previous instances of violent resistance to
colonialism , the Mau Mau revolt was the most prolonged and violent anti-colonial warfare in
the British Colonial colony. From the start the land was the primary British interest in
Kenya ."
Just as the Kenyans suffered the consequences of British colonialism , the "Palestinians will
suffer
the consequences of Zionist colonialism until Israel's original sin is boldly confronted and
justly remedied " foreignpolicyjournal.com
@anon
A particular distinction of Jewish investors versus gentile investors – on average, of
course – is their use of bribery to get the force of government behind them. Rather
than taking a bet about some group being able to pay back some bonds and letting the chips
fall where they may, Jews start bribing or influencing politicians to force that group to pay
back the bonds.
Buy some bonds, charge outrageous fees, bribe officials in some form or other, get govt to
force the payment of bonds and outrageous fees. Rinse and repeat. Jews have been doing this
in some form aor another for 1500 years. It's why the peasants get a tad angry at both the
Jews and their bribed politicians/nobility.
@lavoisier
"But he should have been impeached for his treachery to the constitution and to the American
people for his slavish devotion to all things Jewish!"
A purely political impeachment, right down party lines. I hear Schiff has got his hands
full of Ukrainian-Jewish oligarchic money. Dear me, wait until that comes out.
Trump is in league with the Jews? Yeah, who isn't? Obama's lips are still sore from
kissing Jewish Wall Street bankers' asses (notice that none of them went to jail). Same with
the Clinton's.
You can get politicians to pass all sorts of laws in your favor if you've got enough dirt
on them. After all, your side owns the media, Hollywood, academia, the courts, the banks.
If dirt doesn't work, you can always threaten to impeach them in order to get what you
want.
But Trump is also revealing every last dirty one of them (accidentally or on purpose).
People see them now.
@J
Adelman J Adelman comes out swinging. He's such a tough guy. But does he make sense? Does
he care if he makes sense? The writer is talking about those Jews who are vulture
capitalists. He's not talking about every Jew. Isn't it a little odd that nearly all of these
funds are run by Jews? Can your corrupt mind accept that fact and address the question? Or
are you going to bore us with your religion and by that I mean your obsession with
anti-semitism, which is your religion.
@PCA
Stop splitting hairs. Is this the best you can do? Are you one of Lot's cronies? I don't
normally address petty matters of this kind but Joyce is describing a multitude of sins and
misconduct orchestrated by various Jewish financiers around the globe. It is not merely one
phenomenon; thus, 'phenomena' fits. Go troll someone else.
Lobelog ran some articles in Singer, Argentina, Iran Israel and the attorney from Argentina
who died mysteriously . Singer is a loan shark. Argentinian paid dearly .
Google search –
NYT's Argentina Op-Ed Fails to Disclose Authors – LobeLog
https://lobelog.com/tag/paul-singer/
Paul Singer NYT's Argentina Op-Ed Fails to Disclose Authors' Financial Conflict of Interest
by Eli Clifton On Tuesday, Mark Dubowitz and Toby Dershowitz, two executives at the hawkish
Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), took
The Right-Wing Americans Who Made a Doc About Argentina
https://lobelog.com/the-right-wing-americans-who-made-a-doc-about-argentina/
Oct 7, 2015 One might wonder why a movie about Argentina, in Spanish and . of Nisman's and
thought highly of the prosecutor's work, told LobeLog, FDD, for its part, has been an
outspoken critic of Kirchner but has From 2008 to 2011, Paul Singer was the group's
second-largest donor, contributing $3.6 million.
NYT Failed to Note Op-Ed Authors' Funder Has $2 Billion
@mark
green Mark green the queen of self rightousness.
There are many non jews runny vulture funds worldwide with at least 100 in china
alone.
The list joyce provided is selective and politically motivated.There are many more non
jews who are guilty of financial crimes.The jails are full of them.
The vulture funds are a product of a system that punishes failure.Do not blame the
funds,blame the system.
This story and like many that appear here is designed to pressure israel to change
politically.Israels future lies in the hands of God not some mutt with a serious case of
mutters.
@Lot
venture capital funds are only made necessary because we have a federal reserve.. which is a
private bank and private banks want to earn interest.
consider the difference between when a private lender makes loans to the USA
(treasury)
on the books of the feds is the following
due from the USA $11,000
new cash printed and given to dumb clucks at the USA $10,000
profit on the loan $ 1,000
what happened here is the fed printed $10,000 in new bills.
Assume the loan made at 10% interest and it is due in 1 year.
Ok so what is the loan on the USA books
cash $10,000
amount payable to the Federal Reserve $11,000
loss on the deal $ 1,000
this loan becomes the loan on the local bank books
the government gives the bank its loan and its obligation to repay the principal plus
interest
If there were no interest (that is the government printed its own money and made
venture loans to entrepreneurs at 0% interest the entries would look like this )
Amount due in one year from venture borrower $10,000
new cash printed and loaned to venture $10,000
so if the venture guy spent the $10,000 and then went broke the treasury would still gets
its money back in taxes from those who earned profit the money the venture paid.. no one has
to beat somebody to pay the interest (the economy does not have the extra $1000 dollars in
interest so somebody has to lose)
When interest must be paid its like musical chairs.. each time the music stops there are
not enough chairs to go around, someone is left standing ( its like that in money lending,
the debtors dance until the music stops, but because the private bank only put the principal
amount $10,000 in circulation the guy needs $11,000 to pay the loan back where does he get
the extra $1,000? <=If ten $10,000 loans are made, and 1 guy goes broke, there will be
enough cash in the system for the 9 others to pay the interest they each owe and enough for
the local private bank and lawyers to get paid for handling the bankruptcy. . <= we
started with 10 loans, one loan went broke the 9 remaining borrowers each pay $11,000 to
retire the debt , there are 9 loans "$99,000 to repay them and $1000 to pay debt service
costs and legal fees.
if there were no interest on the loans, the bankruptcy would not matter.
What makes the venture capitalist have a business at all is the Federal reserve is a
private profit making bank. Lending printed money from the Federal reserve requires interest
to be paid, and that requirement of interest makes the economy horde its capital and the
economic players playing king of the mountain to get the extra money they need to pay the
interest . ..
Zionism brought private banking to the USA and the USA wrote a tax law to collect the
money from the Americans it governs to pay the interest on the debt.
this is a really simplistic description of what is happening to our economy so don't rely
on it but instead use its simplistic idea to model the impact of having interest on the
national debt is having each year. If our government reversed what it privatized to the
Federal Reserve, we could make the economy run more or less as we please. \we could eliminate
the national debt and with it income tax es.
Typical Jew baiting article. Mitt Romney isn't a "Jew" Ashish Masih isn't. Many more examples
of gentiles taking advantage of their brothers. May as well consider the Walton family of
Wal-Mart to be vultures as well since they benefit the most from this system, they're so
called Christians, not Jews. The problem is capitalism. Author seems to suggest that a moral
economic system has been corrupted. The system was designed in an era of widespread slavery
folks. Its an immoral system that requires theft, slavery, war, immigration, all the things
you hate, to survive. The system is working exactly as it is designed to work. Exploit
workers, the environment and resources, shift all the profits from workers to the owners of
capital, period. Welcome to the late stage, it eats and destroys itself
From the days of the colonists slaughtering the Injuns and stealing their land. The days
of importing African slaves, and indentured servants. The days of child labor and factory
owners hiring Pinkertons to gun down workers who protested shitty wages and working
conditions. The good ol days of the gilded age. Now the age of offshoring to China or some
other lower wage nation. Overthrowing leaders not willing to let their resources and people
be plundered and enslaved, driving refugees to our borders fleeing violence and poverty.
Importing H1B workers to drive down wages. It was always a corrupt system of
exploitation/theft/slavery. This is nothing new and doesn't require "Jews" to be immoral.
And all these so called "Christians" like Pastor Pence approve. Usury and capitalism run
amok. I'm sure Jesus is smiling down on all these Bible toting demons who allow their fellow
man to be exploited by the parasites. Sad!
Good for Tucker. He has his moments I'd watch his show if he wasn't a partisan hack. But
that will never happen working for Fox or any other corporate media.
@Colin
Wright I doubt Trump promised to go to war with Iran before he was elected. In his
Inauguration Speech, Trump said he wanted to bring the troops home and stop the wars. He
didn't have to say these things, he had already won the election, but he said them anyway.
One of the few times the media has laid off Trump was when he sent some missiles into
Syria (after he gave them hours of warning ahead of time that the missiles were coming). If
Hillary had been elected, Syria would have been leveled by now and flying an Israeli
flag.
Obama brought us the destruction of Libya and the murder of Gaddafi, the coup in Ukraine,
and through ISIS, which the U.S. armed, trained and paid for, tried to destroy Syria.
I don't really blame Obama or Bush Jr. or Clinton. They were all puppets who did as they
were told. If they hadn't, in the words of Chuckie Schemer, there would have been "six ways
from Sunday of getting back at them".
If you don't do what they want, you're impeached, some of your dirty laundry is aired, or
they purposely crash the stock market on you. If you still don't get the message, maybe
you're just assassinated.
Trump loves his daughter and she is married to a Jew. If they're not getting their way, I
could see them telling Trump: "Sad what happened at the Pittsburgh synagogue, isn't it? Sure
hope nothing like that happens to your daughter."
I don't envy Trump. He not only is up against the Democrats, but he is also fighting the
globalist neocons in his own party. Both parties want open borders and more war, something
Trump does not believe in. As far as I can see, he's throwing them bones in order to shut
them up. If he gets elected again, which I think he will, we might see a different Trump. Who
knows.
@Jimmy1969
I think this deal has already taken place. Israel has given away to China for 99 years the
hall commercial incomming This deal has taken place 2 or 3 years ago
Don't blame it on the Talmud. These Jews act in accordance to their Torah: "If Yahweh your
God blesses you as he has promised, you will be creditors to many nations but debtors to
none; you will rule over many nations, and be ruled by none" (Deuteronomy 15:6). "feeding on
the wealth of the nations" (Isaiah 61:5) is Israel's destiny according to Yahweh.
@mcohen
I took a squint at both your own and Mark Green's comment history. Your comment history
cannot even begin to compare in value, but I should have already guessed that from the
name-calling in the first line of your comment. Just weak, extremely weak.
Rather amusing to read our resident Jewish apologists carrying on about the absolute sanctity
of the necessity of collecting debts to the functioning of the capitalistic system. These
nations and corporate entities that are now in thrall of the Wall Street Jews , were herded
into debt by that other faction of the capitalist system, the dealers in easy money.
Snookering the rubes into lifelong debt, telling them that money is on the tap, promoting
unsustainable spending habits and then let the guillotine come down, for the vultures to feed
on. They are two sides of the same coin.
Its damned funny that the rich Jews nowadays are absolutely addicted to usury, rentier
activities, and debt collection, when the Bible itself condemns such activities. But they are
our elder brothers in faith according to some.
@Colin
Wright Carnegie was a Protestant. The Protestant cancer serves it's Jewish masters. Read
'The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit' by E. Michael Jones. There is definitely a revolutionary
nature to the international Jew just as there is to their Protestant dupes. Jewish nature is
to subvert the natural order and the west was built by the guidance of LOGOS. The Catholic
Faith created by God guided the creation of the west. These Jewish exploits are a result of
the Wests rejection of its nature and its enslavement
1. rich or poor, creditor or debtor, in the final analysis, ultimately, all will become equal
in the grave. the filthy rich might decide to lay their corpses in coffins made of gold, but
it will be in vain. the sorrows and the joys of this fleeting world shall quickly pass like
the shadow.
2. talmudics feel the need to accumulate money in order to have sense of security since they
were stateless for two millennia. paradoxically, amount of wealth is indirectly proportional
to a sense of security, provoking backlash from aggrieved host people.
3. establishment of State of Israel did not reduce the need for the accumulation but has only
heightened it since now talmudics feel the need to support it so that she could maintain
military superiority over neighbouring threats.
4. as long as Palestinians are not free and Israel does not make peace, talmudics will
continue to meddle in American politics. if you don't want to save the Palestinians for the
sake of humanity and truth or justice, at least you should do it for your own sake.
5. loan sharking, vulture whatever, etc., is the ugliness of big capitalism with capital C,
what is beyond sickening is the promotion of sodomy. if one becomes poor or homeless, it's a
pity. to go against nature is an abomination.
6. by using such words as "homosexual" you have accepted the paradigm of the social engineers
and corruptors, and are therefore collaborating with them. words have consequences since that
is how we convey ideas unless you own Hollywood and can produce your own moving pictures
too.
7. talmudics is a better word than as a great American scholar says, since people who promote
sodomy are absolutely opposed to the Torah (O.T.). those who still struggle to follow it
couldn't care less what happens to benighted goyim, only becoming reinforced in pride of
their own purity as opposed to disgraced nations. thus, practically, they too are talmudics,
alien to the spirit of the ancient holy fathers and prophets of Israel. the word "Orthodox"
has been stolen and now has lost all meaning or it means the exact opposite of what it
originally meant.
8. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5
@Colin
Wright Well there's nothing wrong in principle about specialists in valuing distressed
debt and managing it nuying such debt and using the previously established mechanisms for
getting value out of their investment. So the problem is how they go about enforcing their
rights and the lack of regulation to mitigate hardship in hard cases.
Still it is notable that it should, overwhelmingly be a Jewish business and such a
powerful medium for enriching Jewish causes and communities at the expense of poor
Americans.
While Whites theoretically still have the numbers to affect/determine the outcome of
elections, a majority of Whites usually stay home because they are tired of the 'evil of two
lessers' choice they are offered -- even voting for Trump got them little/nothing.
@Colin
Wright George Bush needed Tony Blair's support to attack Iraq , Donald Trump now has the
support of Boris Johnson to attack Iran : "Boris Johnson refuses to rule out military
intervention on Iran ." metro.co.uk
It is said that the "deep state " removed Theresa May from office as she was "too soft" on
Iran . As you suggest the attack will not happen until Trump's second term unless, in the
meantime , there is a false flag attack like 9/11 which can be blamed on the Iranians .
East Asians have freedom of speech. That is all that is needed to end Jewish Mafia vulture
capitalism. If it was Italian Mafia vulture capitalism, the west would end it a few seconds.
When one is in a "no see, no say, no hear" tribal group one can get away with everything.
East Asians don't believe in hiding reality.
Here is more on how Samsung fought back against little Paulie.
Samsung published controversial sketches in response to row over merger
Jewish U.S. hedge fund boss Paul Singer was trying to stop a Samsung business deal
In response the firm released cartoons on its website depicting Singer as a vulture
A row has broken out in South Korea with media there describing Jews as 'ruthless' with
money
Merger between Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries was approved today
This is how Paulie's row with Samsung started.
These are the extraordinary cartoons Samsung posted on its website which reportedly
depict a Jewish hedge fund boss as a money-grabbing vulture.
The row between Samsung and one of its major shareholders, Paul Singer, has sparked an
anti-Semitism row in South Korea.
Harvard-educated Mr Singer, 70, whose hedge fund Elliott Management owns a seven per
cent stake in Samsung C&T fell out with the company after he objected to a merger
deal.
Cartoons shown what Paul's company did to the Congo, just one of many nations he
pillaged.
In response Samsung posted a number of inflammatory cartoons on its website showing Mr
Singer as a long-beaked vulture, which have since been taken down.
In one of the sketches a poor-looking man goes, cap in hand, to the vulture who has an
axe hidden behind his back.
The caption reads: 'Elliott Management's representative method of earning money is,
first of all, to buy the national debt of a struggling country cheaply, then insist on
taking control as an investor and start a legal suit'
In another people appear to be dying in the desert from dehydration. Underneath is the
caption: 'Because of it, Congo suffered even more hardship'.
This is believed to refer to Elliott Management's business dealings in the Congo.
Samsung wanted to keep their company in the Lee family. They did not want a Jewish Mafia
tribal group take over.
The bitter fall out came because Samsung Group's founding family wanted to complete a
merger with its holding company Cheil Industries and Samsung C&T to shore up its
control of the firm as its chairman, Lee Kun-hee's health is in decline.
In the End, Samsung won. Paul lost.
The Lee family, who control Samsung, owns 43 per cent of Cheil Industries. The
controversial merger was finally approved today.
South Koreans are not shy to express reality as it is. The west has to learn the value of
freedom of speech before it too late for the west.
But the row has sparked an outpouring of anti-Semitism in South Korea.
One columnist described Jewish money as 'ruthless and merciless'.
And on Tuesday the former South Korean ambassador to Morocco Park Jae-seon expressed his
concern about the influence of Jews in finance.
In an extraordianry outburst he said: 'The scary thing about Jews is they are grabbing
the currency markets and financial investment companies.
'Their network is tight-knit beyond one's imagination,' Park added.
The next day, cable news channel YTN aired similar comments by local journalist Park
Seong-ho.
'It is a fact that Jews use financial networks and have influence wherever they are
born,' he said.
Neither Park Jae-seon and Park Seong-ho were available for comment.
In a piece published a fortnight ago, Media Pen columnist Kim Ji-ho claimed 'Jewish
money has long been known to be ruthless and merciless'.
While Whites theoretically still have the numbers to affect/determine the outcome of
elections, a majority of Whites usually stay home because they are tired of the 'evil of
two lessers' choice they are offered -- even voting for Trump got them little/nothing.
I said nothing of an electoral solution to America's problems the problems will not be
solved that way.
@Art
That scary thought has crossed my mind, too, Art. I've even started wondering if this whole
impeachment circus is really part of an elaborate plot to guarantee Trump's re-election. I
mean, would Pelosi's insane actions make the slightest sense otherwise? And everyone has
noted how this is such a 'Jew coup,' haven't they? It all looks so suspicious
What our Jewish friends have done to Argentina, through maneuvering the elections,
killing dissidents, and marking territory, is a cautionary tale to anybody woke enough to
see with their own eyes.
True, but irrelevant. The Jews that matter don't read the Talmud or believe in "Adam and
Eve."
Whether they believe it or not, they act as though they do. That shows it is an ancient
and essential part of their ethnic subculture. Who knows? Maybe Kevin MacDonald is right and
it's actually genetic .
It's 2020. The Jewish religion is "The Holocaust" and we're all "Nazis."
The holo-hoax is just their modern version of 'chosenness'. Pretending to be the
biggest victims evah! is just another way of making themselves appear collectively as
morally superior to the rest of mankind–even the darkies:
But whether it's being wielded by the Zionists or the lefty Social Jewish Warriors, it's
really just a power play down deep. It's really just another way of reminding us
goyim–white and colored–that we are all just half-demons (so to speak) compared
to The Chosen.
@Wally
It is rather entertaining watching you kvetch, Jewish colonialism over WASP nations will be
glorious.
Vietnam & Congo can choose as they wish, it is they who vote for their leaders.
In fact, Congo was better off with colonialism.
America voted for Zion Don, he is now receving hundreds of millions of dollars from Jews
to do their bidding. It is hilarious that you can't see the irony of your comments.
In fact, it is even more funny what the Jews will do to WASP nations, enjoy your future of
transexualism and fast food, WASPs totally deserve everything that is coming at them.
Then you change the subject to Epstein. Pathetic.
If you had an IQ above room temperature, you would realise my segue into the Epstein
affair was a response to your question of "What deal was supposedly struck".
You killed Lumumba," she roared at the Belgian officials on the platform, before being
escorted away by the police. The music and speeches resumed.
She was right: they did. Belgium was heavily implicated in the 1961 killing of the
radical, first prime minister of an independent Congo, now the war-torn Democratic Republic
of Congo. In 1975 a US inquiry also pointed conclusively to CIA involvement in the
execution carried out by a Katangan police unit under a Belgian officer.
Paul Singer, a Jewish Mafia vulture capitalist did some "work" on the Congo too.
He also bought some of Congo's debt for $10m and sued for $127m. The Congolese
government was found to be corrupt and under US racketeering law, Singer may be able to
claim triple damages, reaping as much as $400m.
On March 9, 2016, Department of Justice (DOJ) oversight personnel learned that the FBI
had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was
completed.
This information was disclosed in a 99-page FISA court ruling on April 26, 2017, that was
declassified by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.
That wasn't an isolated incident and the improper access granted to outside contractors
"seems to have been the result of deliberate decisionmaking" (footnote – page 87).
The FISA court noted the "FBI's apparent disregard of minimization rules" and questioned
"whether the FBI may be engaging in similar disclosures of raw Section 702 information that
have not been reported."
"This is bigger than Watergate + 9/11 + the Bay of Pigs + almost every other conspiracy
theory you can name combined. It is also why you're seeing definite signs of panic and
desperation everywhere from the House of Representatives to the mainstream media to the
boardrooms of the Fortune 500. This reaches from the heart of the Swamp in Washington DC to
Silicon Valley and Seattle, Washington. In East Germany, it came out after the Wall fell that
one-fifth of the population was involved in the surveillance of the other four-fifths of the
population; now keep in mind that due to the mathematical reach of the FISA warrants, the 825
million surveillance orders issued actually exceeds the 320 million population of the
USA.
Now we know how and why Google and Amazon and Facebook got so big, so fast. They were the
corporate arm of the surveillance state."
You disloyal Jews used government resources and private contractors to surveil the entire
country.
I wonder what's going to happen next?
Also why haven't you responded to any of the comments about what the Jews did in
Russia?
@RealistI said nothing of an electoral solution to America's problems
And I said nothing about an "electoral solution", or any other kind of "solution", to
"America's problems" -- I said/implied that blaming Whites, or the way they vote, more or
less exclusively, as you did, for the way things are, was not exactly a genius take -- there
is literally no one for a race conscious white person, eg a WN, to vote (affirmatively)
for at the moment -- and it is hard to imagine anyone emerging in the near future.
For the record: I (also) do not think just voting, especially in the current
one two party system with the usual 'evil of two lessers' choices offered,
will do anything for Whites.
What We abrogate (of) a sign or [We] cause it to be forgotten, We bring better than it
or similar (to) it. Do not you know that Allah over every thing (is) All-Powerful?
2:106
The verses on abrogation read as to only allow Allah to abrogate, so any human action on
this is stepping over the line imo.. maybe other than when 100% of the Ummah agree on
something, I read that could remove a surah of the Quran, like a voice of God. That rhymes
nicely imo.
Of course how to judge which ruling to use? I agree, it brings in a casuistry into the
faith that generally helps to confuse.. I don't know much about it though yet.
I think Islam preaches a decent message, but the average practitioner is open to
misinterpret it quite a bit. This is a failing of the teaching.. but I think Mohammed's
message was corrupted like Christ's message pretty much straight after his death. Gospel of
Thomas and Tolstoy's rewrites all the way for something closer imo.
venture capital funds are only made necessary because we have a federal reserve.. which
is a private bank and private banks want to earn interest.
Sentiments are correct and you are hovering over the target, but some details are
needed.
The federal reserve is the tail on the dog, not the dog. The Fed was created as a part of
the corporate banking money trust. Before Fed the reserve loops of banks were not tied
together, and they had to use treasuries (T bills or Lincoln Green-backs) to balance their
ledgers.
Banksters wanted to extend their money power beyond their region. In the days before
federal reserve bank money power would fall off the further you got away from the bank. Banks
hypothecate new bank credit, and the credit has to swim home to the debt instrument. This
"swimming home" is done easily when the ledgers are all connected through reserve loops (also
called the overnight market).
After Federal Reserve (1913) and before Wright Pattman, the Federal Reserve was recycling
its profits made on public debt back to its stock owners and member banks. The member banks
especially, were guaranteed profits no matter how the economy did. After Wright Pattman (mid
60's) Fed has to rebate to treasury they couldn't face up to the allegations they were
stealing from the commons, which they were.
Today, the FED rebates interest on TBills and public debt back to Treasury. The private
banks within the system continue to hypothecate new money at interest, as that is their
business model. This business model does not include morality, nor does it work in the public
interest. It works to enrich finance at the expense of the working/laboring economy.
So, central banks are not profit centers, but instead they ensure profit lower down
– within the private banking system. Central banks are backstops to prevent instability
within the already unstable debt money system.
Recent Example: The Repo Crises, whereby FED is monetizing repurchase agreements. Non bank
actors such as hedge funds, REIT's and others have been given access to the overnight market
(where reserves are supposed to be traded). The FED now swaps new keyboard dollars for
various finance paper to keep the non bank actors in the repo market liquid.
This action is artificial and props up the finance sector at the expense of the normal
working economy, and hence it is usurious.
Usury is a word that has been normed out of our language. Why? Because our (((friends)))
are agents of mammon, and they cannot help themselves. It may be genetic.
Usury is a power relation, where you steal from others because you can. Laws are changed
to enable the thefts.
In the case of the FED it was taking 6 percent from the people on public debts. Public
debts were funded by taxpayers. This money was then funneling backwards from FED into their
crony banks and paid off sycophants.
We don't know what the FED is doing today because the bad guys won't allow an audit. The
general statement is that private corporate banking is usurious, and was born in iniquity,
and that is where your eye should gaze, not necessarily at the FED or any central bank.
The debt money system and finance capitalism is state sponsored usury, and is a Jewish
construct.
Vulture capitalism is simply vultures buying up or creating distressed assets and then
changing the law, or using force to then collect face value of the debt instrument or other
so called asset. Vultures will use hook or crook to force down what they are buying, and hook
or crook to force up what they are selling. God's special people can do this because when
they look in the mirror, they are god, and are sanctioned to do so.
Maybe the vulture should replace the bald eagle as America's favorite bird since our dear
shabbos goy President Trump and cohorts are undermining the First Amendment and trying to
make it a crime to criticize Jews and/or Israel. Oh and don't think I am promoting the other
Zionist and their shabbos goy on the demshevik side. The Jew CONTROLS both sides and "our"
two party system has become Jew vs. Jew, not republican vs. democrat. Lenin said that the
best way to control the opposition was to lead it and (((they))) are at it AGAIN.
I think Islam preaches a decent message, but the average practitioner is open to
misinterpret it quite a bit. This is a failing of the teaching.. but I think Mohammed's
message was corrupted like Christ's message pretty much straight after his death. Gospel of
Thomas and Tolstoy's rewrites all the way for something closer imo.
The line of good and evil runs down the middle of each person's heart, and they have to
decide.
My line of attack on Judaism, Islam, Christianity, or whatever, has to answer the
question: "Is it good narrative for high civilization." Does the narrative make people
malfunction?
There are branches of Islam that are good narrative – where people choose the better
side of Islam.
The point is that these good branches, say the Suffi's, have to keep the crazy aunt in the
basement.
Abrogation allows what comes later, to gain power over what comes earlier. And what comes
earlier is the best part of Islam.
Christianity has the same problem, it does not do a good job of policing its crazies, who
twist scripture. Judaism, especially Talmudic Judaism is Kabala and utterances of the sages,
and it morphs and changes over time. For example, after Sabatai Sevi, the Kol-Neidre was
weaponized, and this construct is used by today's Zionists to wreak havoc. Before Sabatai,
there was Hillel, who weaponized usury.
Yes, I agree about Christianity changing quite a bit. In the first 300 years it was much
different than today, especially after the Arien controversy was settled by Constantine's
maneuvering of Bishops at council of Nicea. For example, before; reincarnation was part of
Christian doctrine, and after; reincarnation was excluded.
Trump should be impeached and convicted. But not for the reasons in the two Articles passes
by the House.
He should be for
Violating the Symington and Glenn amended 1961 Foreign Assistance Act to ban any aid to
clandestine nuclear powers that were not NPT signatories. Trump increased aid to Israel.
Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem in violation of numerous UN Security Council and
General Assembly resolutions.
The abuse of Office via Nepotism in having totally unqualified Jared and Ivanka Kushner
serve as US Government respresentatives.
Executive Order classifying Jews as a Nationality protected from Free Speech criticism of
them, in violation of the First Amendment.
Of course those in Congress, that facilitated and cheered on the Israeli centric Trump
acts, should all be voted out forever.
I have long maintained that libertarianism/capitalism is really like a kind of Calvinism
for atheists. Calvinists used to assume that, since whatever happened was God's will and
God's will was invariable good, then whatever happened was good. Likewise, many modern cucks
seem to have just substituted The Market for God. Morally speaking, it all lets man off the
hook for anything that results–especially when those men happen to be Jewish
financiers!
No, boys and girls, The Market is not inherently good. It requires that a moral system be
superimposed on top of it in order to make it moral.
@Anon
After reading the book of this MI6 asset (and potential killer) who tried to fleece Russia,
you probably can benefit from watching a movie by Nekrasov about him. See references in:
It looks like it was Browder who killed Magnitsky, so that he can't spill the beans. And
then in an act of ultimate chutzpah played the victim and promoted Magnitsky act.
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY? Since this deceptively simple question first came into my mind, I haven't
been able to shake it. We think we understand the word, but what are we really referring to
when we talk about a system in which the people rule themselves?
The word democracy is all around us, invoked in almost every
conceivable context: government, business, technology, education, and media. At the same time,
its meaning, taken as self-evident, is rarely given much serious consideration. Though the
headlines tell us democracy is in "crisis," we don't have a clear conception of what it is that
is at risk. The significance of the democratic ideal, as well as its practical substance, is
surprisingly elusive.
For most of my life, the word democracy didn't hold much appeal. I
was of course never against democracy per se, but words such as justice
, equality , freedom , solidarity , socialism , and revolution resonated more deeply. Democracy struck me as
mealy-mouthed, even debased. That idealistic anarchists and authoritarian leaders are equally
inclined to claim "democracy" as their own only demonstrated its lack of depth. North Korea
does, after all, call itself a "Democratic People's Republic," and Iraq was invaded by the U.S.
Army in the name of bringing democracy to the Middle East. But today I no longer see the
opportunistic use of the word as a sign of the idea's vapidity. Those powers co-opt the concept
of democracy because they realize that it represents a profound threat to the established
order, a threat they desperately hope to contain.
After making a documentary film, What Is Democracy? , I now
understand the concept's disorienting vagueness and protean character as a source of strength;
I have come to accept, and even appreciate, that there is no single definition I can stand
behind that feels unconditionally conclusive. Though the practice has extensive global roots,
the word democracy comes to us from ancient Greece, and it conveys a
seemingly simple idea: the people ( demos ) rule or hold power (
kratos ). Democracy is the promise of the people ruling, but a promise
that can never be wholly fulfilled because its implications and scope keep changing. Over
centuries our conceptions of democracy have expanded and evolved, with democracy becoming more
inclusive and robust in many ways, yet who counts as the people, how they rule, and where they
do so remain eternally up for debate. Democracy destabilizes its own legitimacy and purpose by
design, subjecting its core components to continual examination and scrutiny.
Perfect democracy, I've come to believe, may not in fact exist and never will, but that
doesn't mean we can't make progress toward it, or that what there is of it can't disappear. For
this reason, I am more convinced than ever that the questions of what democracy is -- and, more
important, what it could be -- are ones we must perpetually ask.
Right now, many who question democracy do so out of disillusionment, fear, and outrage.
Democracy may not exist, yet it still manages to disappoint. Political gridlock, corruption,
unaccountable representatives, and the lack of meaningful alternatives incense people across
the ideological spectrum; their anger simmers at dehumanizing bureaucracy, blatant hypocrisy,
and lack of voice. Leaders are not accountable and voters rightly feel their choices are
limited, all while the rich keep getting richer and regular people scramble to survive. In
advanced democracies around the world, a growing number of people aren't even bothering to vote
-- a right many people fought and died for fairly recently. Most Americans will say that they
live in a democracy, but few will say that they trust the government, while the state generally
inspires negative reactions, ranging from frustration to contempt and suspicion. The situation
calls to mind Jean-Jacques Rousseau's observation from The Social
Contract : "In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies; under a bad
government no one cares to stir a step to get to them. As soon as any man says of the State
What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost."
1
A cauldron of causes generates an atmosphere of corrosive cynicism, social fragmentation,
and unease, with blame too often directed downward at the most vulnerable populations. And it's
not just in the United States. Consider the United Kingdom vote to leave the European Union,
the decision known as Brexit; the resurgence of right-wing populism across Europe; coups and
reactionary electoral victories in Brazil; and the rise of fascism in India. Plato's warning
about democracy devolving into tyranny rings chillingly prophetic. The promise of self-rule
risks becoming not a promise but a curse, a self-destructive motor pushing toward destinations
more volatile, divided, despotic, and mean.
But this book isn't about the pitfalls of popular sovereignty, though it certainly has its
perils. Nor is it about the shortcomings of current liberal democratic political systems or the
ways they have been corrupted by money and power -- though they have been. That's a story that
has been told before, and while it will be the backdrop to my inquiry it is not the focus. This
book, instead, is an invitation to think about the word democracy from
various angles, looking back through history and reflecting on the philosophy and practice of
self-rule in hopes that a more contemplative view will shed useful light on our present
predicament. My goal is not to negate the sense of alarm nor deter people from action but to
remind us that we are part of a long, complex, and still-unfolding chronicle, whatever the
day's headlines might be or whoever governs the country.
Taking a more theoretical approach to democracy's winding, thorny path and inherently
paradoxical nature can also provide solace and reassurance. Ruling ourselves has never been
straightforward and never will be. Ever vexing and unpredictable, democracy is a process that
involves endless reassessment and renewal, not an endpoint we reach before taking a rest
(leaving us with a finished system to tweak at the margins). As such, this book is my
admittedly unorthodox, idiosyncratic call to democratize society from the bottom to the top. It
is also an expression of my belief that we cannot re think democracy if
we haven't really thought about it in the first place.
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY? Since this deceptively simple question first came into my mind, I haven't
been able to shake it. We think we understand the word, but what are we really referring to
when we talk about a system in which the people rule themselves?
The word democracy is all around us, invoked in almost every
conceivable context: government, business, technology, education, and media. At the same time,
its meaning, taken as self-evident, is rarely given much serious consideration. Though the
headlines tell us democracy is in "crisis," we don't have a clear conception of what it is that
is at risk. The significance of the democratic ideal, as well as its practical substance, is
surprisingly elusive.
For most of my life, the word democracy didn't hold much appeal. I
was of course never against democracy per se, but words such as justice
, equality , freedom , solidarity , socialism , and revolution resonated more deeply. Democracy struck me as
mealy-mouthed, even debased. That idealistic anarchists and authoritarian leaders are equally
inclined to claim "democracy" as their own only demonstrated its lack of depth. North Korea
does, after all, call itself a "Democratic People's Republic," and Iraq was invaded by the U.S.
Army in the name of bringing democracy to the Middle East. But today I no longer see the
opportunistic use of the word as a sign of the idea's vapidity. Those powers co-opt the concept
of democracy because they realize that it represents a profound threat to the established
order, a threat they desperately hope to contain.
After making a documentary film, What Is Democracy? , I now
understand the concept's disorienting vagueness and protean character as a source of strength;
I have come to accept, and even appreciate, that there is no single definition I can stand
behind that feels unconditionally conclusive. Though the practice has extensive global roots,
the word democracy comes to us from ancient Greece, and it conveys a
seemingly simple idea: the people ( demos ) rule or hold power (
kratos ). Democracy is the promise of the people ruling, but a promise
that can never be wholly fulfilled because its implications and scope keep changing. Over
centuries our conceptions of democracy have expanded and evolved, with democracy becoming more
inclusive and robust in many ways, yet who counts as the people, how they rule, and where they
do so remain eternally up for debate. Democracy destabilizes its own legitimacy and purpose by
design, subjecting its core components to continual examination and scrutiny.
Perfect democracy, I've come to believe, may not in fact exist and never will, but that
doesn't mean we can't make progress toward it, or that what there is of it can't disappear. For
this reason, I am more convinced than ever that the questions of what democracy is -- and, more
important, what it could be -- are ones we must perpetually ask.
Right now, many who question democracy do so out of disillusionment, fear, and outrage.
Democracy may not exist, yet it still manages to disappoint. Political gridlock, corruption,
unaccountable representatives, and the lack of meaningful alternatives incense people across
the ideological spectrum; their anger simmers at dehumanizing bureaucracy, blatant hypocrisy,
and lack of voice. Leaders are not accountable and voters rightly feel their choices are
limited, all while the rich keep getting richer and regular people scramble to survive. In
advanced democracies around the world, a growing number of people aren't even bothering to vote
-- a right many people fought and died for fairly recently. Most Americans will say that they
live in a democracy, but few will say that they trust the government, while the state generally
inspires negative reactions, ranging from frustration to contempt and suspicion. The situation
calls to mind Jean-Jacques Rousseau's observation from The Social
Contract : "In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies; under a bad
government no one cares to stir a step to get to them. As soon as any man says of the State
What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost."
1
A cauldron of causes generates an atmosphere of corrosive cynicism, social fragmentation,
and unease, with blame too often directed downward at the most vulnerable populations. And it's
not just in the United States. Consider the United Kingdom vote to leave the European Union,
the decision known as Brexit; the resurgence of right-wing populism across Europe; coups and
reactionary electoral victories in Brazil; and the rise of fascism in India. Plato's warning
about democracy devolving into tyranny rings chillingly prophetic. The promise of self-rule
risks becoming not a promise but a curse, a self-destructive motor pushing toward destinations
more volatile, divided, despotic, and mean.
But this book isn't about the pitfalls of popular sovereignty, though it certainly has its
perils. Nor is it about the shortcomings of current liberal democratic political systems or the
ways they have been corrupted by money and power -- though they have been. That's a story that
has been told before, and while it will be the backdrop to my inquiry it is not the focus. This
book, instead, is an invitation to think about the word democracy from
various angles, looking back through history and reflecting on the philosophy and practice of
self-rule in hopes that a more contemplative view will shed useful light on our present
predicament. My goal is not to negate the sense of alarm nor deter people from action but to
remind us that we are part of a long, complex, and still-unfolding chronicle, whatever the
day's headlines might be or whoever governs the country.
Taking a more theoretical approach to democracy's winding, thorny path and inherently
paradoxical nature can also provide solace and reassurance. Ruling ourselves has never been
straightforward and never will be. Ever vexing and unpredictable, democracy is a process that
involves endless reassessment and renewal, not an endpoint we reach before taking a rest
(leaving us with a finished system to tweak at the margins). As such, this book is my
admittedly unorthodox, idiosyncratic call to democratize society from the bottom to the top. It
is also an expression of my belief that we cannot re think democracy if
we haven't really thought about it in the first place.
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY? Since this deceptively simple question first came into my mind, I haven't
been able to shake it. We think we understand the word, but what are we really referring to
when we talk about a system in which the people rule themselves?
The word democracy is all around us, invoked in almost every
conceivable context: government, business, technology, education, and media. At the same time,
its meaning, taken as self-evident, is rarely given much serious consideration. Though the
headlines tell us democracy is in "crisis," we don't have a clear conception of what it is that
is at risk. The significance of the democratic ideal, as well as its practical substance, is
surprisingly elusive.
For most of my life, the word democracy didn't hold much appeal. I
was of course never against democracy per se, but words such as justice
, equality , freedom , solidarity , socialism , and revolution resonated more deeply. Democracy struck me as
mealy-mouthed, even debased. That idealistic anarchists and authoritarian leaders are equally
inclined to claim "democracy" as their own only demonstrated its lack of depth. North Korea
does, after all, call itself a "Democratic People's Republic," and Iraq was invaded by the U.S.
Army in the name of bringing democracy to the Middle East. But today I no longer see the
opportunistic use of the word as a sign of the idea's vapidity. Those powers co-opt the concept
of democracy because they realize that it represents a profound threat to the established
order, a threat they desperately hope to contain.
After making a documentary film, What Is Democracy? , I now
understand the concept's disorienting vagueness and protean character as a source of strength;
I have come to accept, and even appreciate, that there is no single definition I can stand
behind that feels unconditionally conclusive. Though the practice has extensive global roots,
the word democracy comes to us from ancient Greece, and it conveys a
seemingly simple idea: the people ( demos ) rule or hold power (
kratos ). Democracy is the promise of the people ruling, but a promise
that can never be wholly fulfilled because its implications and scope keep changing. Over
centuries our conceptions of democracy have expanded and evolved, with democracy becoming more
inclusive and robust in many ways, yet who counts as the people, how they rule, and where they
do so remain eternally up for debate. Democracy destabilizes its own legitimacy and purpose by
design, subjecting its core components to continual examination and scrutiny.
Perfect democracy, I've come to believe, may not in fact exist and never will, but that
doesn't mean we can't make progress toward it, or that what there is of it can't disappear. For
this reason, I am more convinced than ever that the questions of what democracy is -- and, more
important, what it could be -- are ones we must perpetually ask.
Right now, many who question democracy do so out of disillusionment, fear, and outrage.
Democracy may not exist, yet it still manages to disappoint. Political gridlock, corruption,
unaccountable representatives, and the lack of meaningful alternatives incense people across
the ideological spectrum; their anger simmers at dehumanizing bureaucracy, blatant hypocrisy,
and lack of voice. Leaders are not accountable and voters rightly feel their choices are
limited, all while the rich keep getting richer and regular people scramble to survive. In
advanced democracies around the world, a growing number of people aren't even bothering to vote
-- a right many people fought and died for fairly recently. Most Americans will say that they
live in a democracy, but few will say that they trust the government, while the state generally
inspires negative reactions, ranging from frustration to contempt and suspicion. The situation
calls to mind Jean-Jacques Rousseau's observation from The Social
Contract : "In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies; under a bad
government no one cares to stir a step to get to them. As soon as any man says of the State
What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost."
1
A cauldron of causes generates an atmosphere of corrosive cynicism, social fragmentation,
and unease, with blame too often directed downward at the most vulnerable populations. And it's
not just in the United States. Consider the United Kingdom vote to leave the European Union,
the decision known as Brexit; the resurgence of right-wing populism across Europe; coups and
reactionary electoral victories in Brazil; and the rise of fascism in India. Plato's warning
about democracy devolving into tyranny rings chillingly prophetic. The promise of self-rule
risks becoming not a promise but a curse, a self-destructive motor pushing toward destinations
more volatile, divided, despotic, and mean.
But this book isn't about the pitfalls of popular sovereignty, though it certainly has its
perils. Nor is it about the shortcomings of current liberal democratic political systems or the
ways they have been corrupted by money and power -- though they have been. That's a story that
has been told before, and while it will be the backdrop to my inquiry it is not the focus. This
book, instead, is an invitation to think about the word democracy from
various angles, looking back through history and reflecting on the philosophy and practice of
self-rule in hopes that a more contemplative view will shed useful light on our present
predicament. My goal is not to negate the sense of alarm nor deter people from action but to
remind us that we are part of a long, complex, and still-unfolding chronicle, whatever the
day's headlines might be or whoever governs the country.
Taking a more theoretical approach to democracy's winding, thorny path and inherently
paradoxical nature can also provide solace and reassurance. Ruling ourselves has never been
straightforward and never will be. Ever vexing and unpredictable, democracy is a process that
involves endless reassessment and renewal, not an endpoint we reach before taking a rest
(leaving us with a finished system to tweak at the margins). As such, this book is my
admittedly unorthodox, idiosyncratic call to democratize society from the bottom to the top. It
is also an expression of my belief that we cannot re think democracy if
we haven't really thought about it in the first place.
Democracy May Not Exist, but We'll Miss It When It's Gone is one of those books you
might want to get in its physical form so you can shove it full of bookmarks, highlight
sentences, write notes, stick little sticky arrows to note something special, and generally
leave it in unfit condition for anyone but you, but that will be okay because you will be
going back to it again and again whenever you want to argue about something. Yes, it's that
good.
Astra Taylor does the difficult job examining democracy, something we talk about a lot
without ever completely understanding its full implications. To do this, she examines eight
tensions that pull democracies in different directions and are critical to balance or at
least understand when understanding democracy. These tensions are interrogated in separate
chapters, looking at history, research, and political experience that impinge on them. The
vast research involved in these explorations is astonishing.
In the first chapter she examines the tension between freedom and equality and notes
that once upon a time we thought they went hand in hand, but that they have become
oppositional thanks to political movements that serve the powerful who define freedom in
terms of making money and avoidance of regulation rather than freedom from want, hunger, or
fear. Equality has become, to American eyes, the enemy of freedom. The second chapter looks
at decision-making, the tension of conflict and consensus. This includes the understanding
of loyal opposition, something that seems to be lost with a president who calls his
political opponents traitors. I appreciated her taking on how consensus can become
anti-democratic and stultifying.
The third chapter looks at the tension of inclusion and exclusion, who is the demos, to
whom is the democracy accountable. In the fourth, the balance between choice and coercion
is explored. Pro-corporate theorists talk about government coercion and attacks on liberty
when they are not allowed to poison our drinking water and make government the enemy of the
people. She also explores how we seem to think freedom is the be all, end all except at
work. Chapter Five looks at spontaneity versus structure. This has an important analysis of
organizing versus activism and how the focus on youth movements has weakened social justice
movements overall as the energy dissipates after college without the labor and community
organizations to foster movement energy. Chapter Six explores the balance between mass
opinion and expertise and how meritocracy works against democracy. This chapter looks at
how education functions to keep the powerful powerful from generation to generation, "the
paradoxical, deeply contradictory role of education under capitalism , which facilitates
the ascension of some while preparing a great many more for lowly positions of
servitude."
Chapter Seven looks at the geography of democracy, not just in terms of federalism and
the federal, state, and local levels of participating in democracy but also the
supranational entities like the World Trade Organization and how they undercut democracy
and the integrity of the state. Chapter Eight considers what we inherit from the past, the
traditions and norms of democracy and what we owe the future, including our obligations to
pass on a livable planet.
Needless to say, this is all very discouraging in its totality, but the final chapter
encourages us to balance pessimism with optimism just as democracy must balance all those
other tensions.
It took me forever to read Democracy May Not Exist, but We'll Miss It When It's Gone.
That is because after I read a chapter I needed to think about it before I moved on to the
next. I took sixteen pages of notes while reading it. I hate taking notes, but I did not
want to lose the ideas.
This is also a book you might want to read with some other people, perhaps discussing a
chapter at a time. I do not think it is a book you can read passively, without stopping to
talk to someone, tweet, or reread. It's that good.
That does not mean I agree with every word of the book, but then the author does an
excellent job of interrogating her own ideas. She might seem to be asserting an opinion,
and then offer a counter-example because she is rigorous like that. She perhaps places too
much faith in Marxist theory from time to time, but then that may be because like
democracy, it has never really existed except in conceptual form.
Taylor does not offer a simple answer because there are no simple answers. She does not
pretend to know how to, or even if we can, fix democracy. She gives us the questions, the
problems, and some ideas, but as someone who truly believes in government by the people,
she asks us to take up the challenge.
I received an e-galley of Democracy May Not Exist, but We'll Miss It When It's Gone from
the publisher through NetGalley.
"The CIA was the central protagonist in Russiagate. The origins of the New Cold War are found
in Bill Clinton's first term, when administration neo-cons looted, plundered and moved NATO
against a prostrate Russia in
contradiction to explicit guarantees not to do so made by the George H.W. Bush
administration. Vladimir Putin's apparent crime was to oust the Clintonites from Russia and
restore Russian sovereignty." CounterPunch.org
"Russiagate was a declaration of war by the 'intelligence community' against a duly elected
President. As argued below, the CIA's motive is to move its own foreign policy agenda forward
without even the illusion of democratic consent." CounterPunch.org
Notable quotes:
"... Actions in the Washington cesspool never surprise -- by members of both right wing of the US war party. They represent the greatest threat to world peace and ordinary people everywhere at home and abroad. Pro-war, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, anti-progressive Speaker Pelosi is part of the problem, never part of the solution. ..."
Actions in the Washington cesspool never surprise -- by members of both right wing of the US
war party. They represent the greatest threat to world peace and ordinary people everywhere at home and
abroad. Pro-war, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, anti-progressive Speaker Pelosi is part of the
problem, never part of the solution.
Her long disturbing congressional record shows she exclusively serves wealth and power
interests at the expense of the vast majority of Americans she disdains, proving it time and
again.
Her deplorable voting record speaks for itself, backing:
the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Blily Act repeal of Glass-Steagall, permitting some of the most
egregious financial abuses in the modern era;
the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), permitting endless
wars of aggression in multiple theaters, raging endlessly;
annual National Defense Authorization Acts and US wars of aggression;
Obama's neoliberal harshness, continuing under Trump, along with tax cuts for the rich,
benefitting her and her husband enormously, without admitting it;
increasingly unaffordable marketplace medicine, ripping off consumers for profit, leaving
millions uninsured, most Americans way underinsured;
the USA Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Act and other police state law;
the 9/11 whitewash Commission Recommendation Act;
the FISA Amendments Act -- permitting warrantless spying post-9/11, Big Brother watching
everyone;
NAFTA and other anti-consumer/corporate coup d'etat trade bills;
the repressive US gulag prison system, the world's largest by far; incarcerating
millions by federal, state, and local authorities, it includes global torture prisons;
unapologetic support for Israeli apartheid viciousness;
fierce opposition to Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, and other
nonbelligerent sovereign states threatening no one;
the Russiagate witch hunt and Ukrainegate scams.
Calling exploitive/predatory "free market (capitalism) our greatest asset" shows her
contempt for equity and justice.
Her support for the military, industrial, security, media complex is all about backing
endless wars of aggression against invented enemies. No real ones exist.
Pelosi represents what belligerent, plutocratic, oligarchic, increasingly totalitarian rule
is all about, notably contemptuous of nations on the US target list for regime change --
Russia, China and Iran topping the list.
On Friday, she falsely accused Russia of involvement in Ukrainegate, a failed Russiagate
scam spinoff with no legitimacy, supported by undemocratic Dems and their echo-chamber
media.
Repeating the long ago debunked Russian US election meddling Big Lie that won't die, she
falsely accused Moscow of "ha(ving) a hand in this."
Referring to the Ukrainegate scam, she offered no evidence backing her accusation because
none exists.
During a Friday press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York,
Sergey Lavrov slammed Pelosi's Big Lie, saying:
"Russia's been accused of all the deadly sins, and then some. It's paranoia, and I think
it's obvious to everyone."
It's unacceptable anti-Russia hate-mongering, what goes on endlessly, Cold War 2.0
raging.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the following on her facebook
page:
"Speaker of the lower house of Congress Nancy Pelosi believes that Russia is involved in the
scandal over July telephone conversation between us and Ukraine Presidents Donald Trump and
Vladimir Zelensky."
"This (baseless) assumption was made on Friday Pelosi (not) explaining what it means, and
without providing evidence of her words."
"Considering that it was Nancy Pelosi who caused the 'Scandal around the telephone
conversation between the presidents of the United States and Ukraine,' then, according to the
speaker's logic, Russia attached the hand to her."
What's going on is continuation of the most shameful political chapter in US history,
ongoing since Trump took office, along with railroading Richard Nixon.
Both episodes represent McCarthyism on steroids – supported by establishment media,
furious about Trump's triumph over Hillary, targeting him largely for the wrong reasons,
ignoring plenty of right ones.
Mueller's probe ended with a whimper, not the bang Dems wanted, Ukrainegate their second
bite of the apple to try discrediting Trump for political advantage ahead of November 2020
elections.
That's what Russiagate and Ukrainegate are all about.
These actions by undemocratic Dems and their media press agents are further clear proof that
Washington's deeply corrupted political system to its rotten core is far too debauched to
fix.
Afghan war demonstrated that the USA got into the trap, the Catch 22 situation: it can't
stop following an expensive and self-destructive positive feedback loop of threat inflation
and larger and large expenditures on MIC, because there is no countervailing force for the
MIC since WWII ended. Financial oligarchy is aligned with MIC.
This is the same suicidal grip of MIC on the country that was one of the key factors
in the collapse of the USSR means that in this key area the USA does not have two party
system, It is a Uniparty: a singe War party with two superficially different factions.
Feeding and care MIC is No.1 task for both. Ordinary Americans wellbeing does matter much
for either party. New generation of Americans is punished with crushing debt and low paying
jobs. They do not care that people over 50 who lost their jobs are essentially thrown out
like a garbage.
"41 Million people in the US suffer from hunger and lack of food security"–US Dept.
of Agriculture. FDR addressed the needs of this faction of the population when he delivered
his One-Third of a Nation speech for his 2nd Inaugural. About four years later, FDR expanded
on that issue in his Four Freedoms speech: 1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship;
3.Freedom from want; 4.Freedom from fear.
Items 3 and 4 are probably unachievable under neoliberalism. And fear is artificially
instilled to unite the nation against the external scapegoat much like in Orwell 1984.
Currently this is Russia, later probably will be China. With regular minutes of hate replaced
by Rachel Maddow show ;-)
Derailing Tulsi had shown that in the USA any politician, who try to challenge MIC, will
be instantly attacked by MIC lapdogs in MSM and neutered in no time.
One interesting tidbit from Fiona Hill testimony is that neocons who dominate the USA
foreign policy establishment make their living off threat inflation. They literally are
bought by MIC, which indirectly finance Brookings institution, Atlantic Council and similar
think tanks. And this isn't cheap cynicism. It is simply a fact. Rephrasing Samuel Johnson's
famous quote, we can say, "MIC lobbyism (which often is presented as patriotism) is the last
refuge of scoundrels."
The Washington Post, through documents released through the Freedom of Information Act, has
published a long investigation into Afghanistan. Journalists have collected over 400
testimonies from American diplomats, NATO generals and other NATO personnel, that show that
reports about Afghanistan were falsified to deceive the public about the real situation on the
ground.
After the tampering with and falsification of the report of the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), we are witnessing another event that will certainly
discomfit those who have hitherto relied on the official reports of the Pentagon, the US State
Department and international organizations like the OPCW for the last word.
There are very deliberate reasons for such disinformation campaigns. In the case of the
OPCW, as I wrote some time back, the aim was to paint the Syrian government as the fiend and
the al-Qaeda- and Daesh-linked "moderate rebels" as the innocent souls, thereby likely
justifying a responsibility-to-protect armed intervention by the likes of the US, the UK and
France. In such circumstances, the standing and status of the reporting organization (like the
OPCW) is commandeered to validate Western propaganda that is duly disseminated through the
corporate-controlled mainstream media.
In this particular case, various Western capitals colluded with the OPCW to lay the
groundwork for the removal of Assad and his replacement with the al-Nusra Front as well as the
very same al-Qaeda- and Daesh-linked armed opposition officially responsible for the 9/11
attacks.
As if the massaging of the OPCW reports were not enough in themselves to provoke
international outrage, this dossier serves to give aid and comfort to jihadi groups supported
by the Pentagon who are known to be responsible for the worst human-rights abuses, as seen in
Syria and Iraq in the last 6 years.
False or carefully manipulated reports paint a picture vastly different from the reality on
the ground. The United States has never really declared war on Islamic terrorism, its
proclamations of a "War on Terror" notwithstanding. In reality, it has simply used this
justification to occupy or destabilize strategically important areas of the world in the
interests of maintaining US hegemony, intending in so doing to hobble the energy policies and
national security of rival countries like China, Iran and the Russian Federation.
The Post investigation lays bare how the US strategy had failed since its inception, the
data doctored to represent a reality very different from that on the ground. The inability of
the United States to clean up Afghanistan is blamed by the Post on incorrect military planning
and incorrect political choices. While this could certainly be the case, the Post's real
purpose in its investigation is to harm Trump, even as it reveals the Pentagon's efforts to
continue its regional presence for grand geopolitical goals by hiding inconvenient truths.
The real issue lies in the built-in mendacity of the bureaucratic and military apparatus of
the United States. No general has ever gone on TV to say that the US presence in Iraq is needed
to support any war against Iran; or that Afghanistan is a great point of entry for the
destabilization of Eurasia, because this very heart of the Heartland is crucial to the
Sino-Russian transcontinental integration projects like the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and
the Belt and Road Initiative. In the same vein, the overthrow of the Syrian government would
have ensured Israel a greater capacity to expand its interests in the Middle East, as well as
to weaken Iran's main regional ally.
The Post investigation lays bare the hypocrisy of the military-industrial complex as well as
the prevailing political establishments of Europe and the United States. These parties are not
interested in human rights, the wellbeing of civilians or justice in general. Their only goal
is to try and maintain their global hegemony indefinitely by preventing any other powers from
being able to realize their potential and thereby pose a threat to Atlanticist preeminence.
The war in Iraq was launched to destabilize the Middle East, China's energy-supply basin
crucial to fueling her future growth. The war in Syria served the purpose of further
dismantling the Middle East to favor Saudi Arabia and Israel, the West's main strategic allies
in the Persian Gulf. The war in Afghanistan was to slow down the Eurasian integration of China
and Russia. And the war in Ukraine was for the purposes of generating chaos and destruction on
Russia's border, with the initial hope of wresting the very strategically area of Crimea from
Russia.
The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry, and this has been on full display in
recent times. Almost all of Washington's recent strategic objectives have ended up producing
results worse than the status quo ante. In Iraq there is the type of strong cooperation between
Baghdad and Tehran reminiscent of the time prior to 1979. Through Hezbollah, Iran has
strengthened its position in Syria in defense of Damascus. Moscow has found itself playing the
role of crucial decider in the Middle East (and soon in North Africa), until only a few years
ago the sole prerogative of Washington. Turkey's problems with NATO, coupled with Tel Aviv's
open relation with Moscow are both a prime example of Washington's diminishing influence in the
region and Moscow's corresponding increase in influence.
The situation in Afghanistan is not very different, with a general recognition that peace is
the only option for the region being reflected in the talks between the Afghans, the Taliban,
the Russians, Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis. Beijing and Moscow have well known for over a
decade the real intent behind Washington's presence in the country, endeavoring to blunt its
impact.
The Post investigation only further increases the public's war weariness, the war in
Afghanistan now having lasted 18 years, the longest war in US history. Jeff Bezos, the owner of
the Post, is a bitter opponent of Trump and wants the president to come clean on the
Afghanistan debacle by admitting that the troops cannot be withdrawn. Needless to say,
admitting such would not help Trump's strategy for the 2020 election. Trump cannot afford to
humiliate the US military, given that it, along with the US dollar, is his main weapon of
"diplomacy". Were it to be revealed that some illiterate peasants holed up in caves and armed
with AK-47s some 40 years ago are responsible for successfully keeping the most powerful army
in history at bay, all of Washington's propaganda, disseminated by a compliant media, will
cease to be of any effect. Such a revelation would also humiliate military personnel, an
otherwise dependable demographic Trump cannot afford to alienate.
The Washington Post performed a service to the country by shedding light on the
disinformation used to sustain endless war. But the Post's intentions are also political,
seeking to undermine Trump's electoral chances by damaging Trump's military credentials as well
as his standing amongst military personnel. What Washington's elite and the Post do not know,
or perhaps prefer to ignore, is that such media investigations directed against political
opponents actually end up doing irreparable damage to the political and military prestige of
the United States.
In other words, when journalist do their job, the military industrial complex finds it
difficult to lie its way through wars and failures, but when a country relies on Hollywood to
sustain its make-believe world, as well as on journalists on the CIA payroll, on compliant
publishers and on censored news, then any such revelations of forbidden truths threaten to
bring the whole facade crashing down.
Philip Giraldi Ph.D., Executive Director of the
Council for the National Interest
The House impeachment is driven by several factors:
After Russiagate, when Trump began to investigate its fraudulent origins, the Dems feared the exposure of Obama-era
corruption if not high crimes. Hence Ukrainegate is preemptive political tactics.
The investigation into Russiagate led right to Ukraine, and thus to Biden. In the context of Sanders' campaign,
Ukrainegate became an imperative for the factions of the capitalist class that dominates the DNC. If Biden falls on Ukraine
issues, then Sanders is inevitable; an anathema to Wall Street and Big Tech DNC donors.
3. While 1 and 2 dominate DNC machinations, foreign policy is also a factor. The foreign policy establishment is absolutely
against any hesitation with respect to confronting Russia as part of a regional and global strategy for primacy. Trump's limited
prevarications on Russia might threaten the long established strategy to expand Nato to Ukraine and thereby to encircle Russia
and maintain US dominance over Europe. So, even though Trump names great power rivalry as the name of the game today, his inclination
for making nice with Putin threatens to weaken the US hold over Europe, which Trump wants to label as an economic competitor.
It is with these points that the strategic differences become apparent: Trump is raising a realist, neo-mercantalist strategy
against ALL potential competitors; the DNC and the deep state hold a strategy of liberal hegemony: globalization and US primacy
through dominating regional alliances, and impregnating US hegemony INSIDE the vassal States of the empire.
All of this, however, is bound to fail for the DNC, and down the road for Trump himself.
The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones.
"... The FFM was headed by Malik Ellahi , who served as head of the OPCW's government relations and political affairs branch. The appointment of someone lacking both technical and operational experience suggests that Ellahi's primary role was political. Under his leadership, the FFM established a close working relationship with the anti-Assad Syrian opposition, including the White Helmets and SAMS. ..."
"... Once the FFM wrapped up its investigation in Douma, however, it became apparent to Fairweather that it had a problem. There were serious questions about whether chlorine had, in fact, been used as a weapon. The solution, brokered by Fairweather, was to release an interim report that ruled out sarin altogether, but left the door open regarding chlorine. ..."
"... Braha did this by dispatching OPCW inspectors to Turkey in September 2018 to interview new witnesses identified by the White Helmets, and by commissioning new engineering studies that better explained the presence of the two chlorine cannisters found in Douma. By March, Braha had assembled enough information to enable the technical directorate to issue its final report. Almost immediately, dissent appeared in the ranks of the OPCW. An engineering report that contradicted the findings published by Braha was leaked , setting off a firestorm of controversy derived from its conclusion that the chlorine cannisters found in Douma had most likely been staged by the White Helmets. ..."
"... The OPCW, while eventually acknowledging that the leaked report was genuine, explained its exclusion from the final report on the grounds that it attributed blame, something the FFM was not mandated to do. According to the OPCW , the engineering report in question had been submitted to the investigation and identification team, a newly created body within the OPCW mandated to make such determinations. Moreover, Director General Arias stood by the report's conclusion that it had "reasonable grounds" to believe "that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon has taken place on 7 April 2018." ..."
"... The OPCW's credibility as an investigative body has been brought into question through these leaks, as has its independent character. If an organization like the OPCW can be used at will by the U.S., the United Kingdom and France to trigger military attacks intended to support regime-change activities in member states, then it no longer serves a useful purpose to the international community it ostensibly serves. ..."
A spate of leaks from within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (
OPCW ), the international inspectorate
created for the purpose of implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention, has raised serious
questions about the institution's integrity, objectivity and credibility. The leaks address
issues pertaining to the OPCW investigation into allegations that the Syrian government used
chemical weapons to attack civilians in the Damascus suburb of Douma on April 7, 2018. These
allegations, which originated from such anti-Assad organizations as the Syrian Civil Defense
(the so-called White Helmets )
and the Syrian American Medical Society ( SAMS ), were immediately embraced as credible by the OPCW, and
were used by the United States, France and the United Kingdom
to justify punitive military strikes against facilities inside Syria assessed by these
nations as having been involved in chemical weapons-related activities before the OPCW
initiated any on-site investigation.
The Douma incident was initially described by the White Helmets, SAMS and the U.S., U.K. and
French governments as involving both sarin nerve agent and chlorine gas. However, this
narrative was altered when OPCW inspectors released, on July 6, 2018, interim
findings of their investigation that found no evidence of the use of sarin. The focus of
the investigation quickly shifted to a pair of chlorine cylinders claimed by the White Helmets
to have been dropped onto apartment buildings in Douma by the Syrian Air Force, resulting in
the release of a cloud of chlorine gas that killed dozens of Syrian civilians. In March, the
OPCW released its final report on
the Douma incident , noting that it had "reasonable grounds" to believe "that the use of a
toxic chemical as a weapon has taken place on 7 April 2018," that "this toxic chemical
contained reactive chlorine" and that "the toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine."
Much has been written about the OPCW inspection process in Syria, and particularly the
methodology used by the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), an inspection body created by the OPCW in
2014 "to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly
chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic." The FFM was created under the
direction of Ahmet
Üzümcü , a career Turkish diplomat with extensive experience in
multinational organizations, including service as Turkey's ambassador to NATO.
Üzümcü was the OPCW's third director general, having been selected from a field
of seven candidates by its executive council to replace Argentine diplomat Rogelio Pfirter.
Pfirter had held the position since being nominated to replace the OPCW's first director
general, José Maurício Bustani. Bustani's tenure was marred by controversy that
saw the OPCW transition away from its intended role as an independent implementor of the
Chemical Weapons Convention to that of a tool of unilateral U.S. policy, a role that continues
to mar the OPCW's work in Syria today, especially when it comes to its investigation of the
alleged use by the Syrian government of chemical weapons against civilians in Douma in April
2018.
Bustani was removed from his position in 2002, following an
unprecedented campaign led by John Bolton, who at the time was serving as the
undersecretary of state for Arms Control and International Security Affairs in the U.S. State
Department. What was Bustani's crime? In 2001, he had dared to enter negotiations with the
government of Iraq to secure that nation's entry into the OPCW, thereby setting the stage for
OPCW inspectors to visit Iraq and bring its chemical weapons capability under OPCW control. As
director general, there was nothing untoward about Bustani's action. But Iraq circa 2001 was
not a typical recruitment target. In the aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991, the U.N. Security
Council had passed a resolution under Chapter VII requiring Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
(WMD), including its chemical weapons capability, to be "removed, destroyed or rendered
harmless" under the supervision of inspectors working on behalf of the United Nations Special
Commission, or UNSCOM.
The pursuit of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction led to a series of confrontations with Iraq
that culminated in inspectors being ordered out of the country by the U.S. in 1998, prior to a
72-hour aerial attack -- Operation Desert Fox. Iraq refused to allow UNSCOM inspectors to
return, rightfully claiming that the U.S. had infiltrated the ranks of the inspectors and was
using the inspection process to spy on Iraqi leadership for the purposes of facilitating regime
change. The lack of inspectors in Iraq allowed the U.S. and others to engage in wild
speculation regarding Iraqi rearmament activities, including in the field of chemical weapons.
This speculation was used to fuel a call for military action against Iraq, citing the threat of
a reconstituted WMD capability as the justification. Bustani sought to defuse this situation by
bringing Iraq into the OPCW, an act that, if completed, would have derailed the U.S. case for
military intervention in Iraq. Bolton's intervention
included threats to Bustani and his family, as well as threats to withhold U.S. dues to the OPCW accounting
for some 22% of that organization's budget; had the latter threat been implemented, it would
have resulted in OPCW's disbandment.
Bustani's departure marked the end of the OPCW as an independent organization. Pfirter,
Bolton's hand-picked replacement, vowed to keep the OPCW out of Iraq. In an
interview with U.S. media shortly after his appointment, Pfirter noted that while all
nations should be encouraged to join the OPCW, "We should be very aware that there are United
Nations resolutions in effect" that precluded Iraqi membership "at the expense" of its
obligations to the Security Council. Under the threat of military action, Iraq allowed UNMOVIC
inspectors to return in 2002; by February 2003, no WMD had been found , a result that did
not meet with U.S. satisfaction. In March 2003, UNMOVIC inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq
under orders of the U.S., paving the way for the subsequent invasion and occupation of that
nation that same month (the CIA later concluded that
Iraq had been disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction by the summer of 1991).
Under Pfirter's leadership, the OPCW became a compliant tool of U.S. foreign policy
objectives. By completely subordinating OPCW operations through the constant threat of fiscal
ruin, the U.S. engaged in a continuous quid pro quo arrangement, trading the financial solvency
of an ostensible multilateral organization for complicity in operating as a de facto extension
of American unilateral policy. Bolton's actions in 2002 put the OPCW and its employees on
notice: Cross the U.S., and you will pay a terminal price.
When Üzümcü took over the OPCW's reins in 2010, the organization was very
much the model of multinational consensus, which, in the case of any multilateral organization
in which the U.S. plays a critical role, meant that nothing transpired without the express
approval of the U.S. and its European NATO allies, in particular the United Kingdom and France.
Shortly after he took office, Üzümcü was joined by Robert Fairweather , a
career British diplomat who served as Üzümcü's chief of Cabinet. (While
Üzümcü was the ostensible head of the OPCW, the daily task of managing the
functioning of the OPCW was that of the chief of Cabinet. In short, nothing transpired within
the OPCW without Fairweather's knowledge and concurrence.)
Üzümcü and Fairweather's tenure at the OPCW was dominated by Syria, where,
since 2011, the government of President Bashar Assad had been engaged in a full-scale conflict
with a foreign-funded and -equipped insurgency whose purpose was regime change. By 2013,
allegations emerged from both the Syrian government and rebel forces concerning the use of
chemical weapons by the other side. In August 2013, the OPCW dispatched an inspection team into
Syria as part of a U.N.-led effort, which included specialists from the World Health
Organization (WHO) and the U.N. itself, to investigate allegations that sarin had been used in
attack on civilians in the town of Ghouta. While the mission found conclusive evidence that sarin nerve agent had been
used , it did not assign blame for the attack.
Despite the lack of causality, the U.S. and its NATO allies quickly assigned blame for the
sarin attacks on the Syrian government. To forestall U.S. military action against Syria, the
Russian
government helped broker a deal whereby the U.S. agreed to refrain from undertaking
military action if the Syrian government joined the OPCW and subjected the totality of its
chemical weapons stockpile to elimination. In October 2013, the OPCW-U.N. Joint Mission , created
under the authority of U.N. Security Council resolution 2118 (2103), began the process of
identifying, cataloging, removing and destroying Syria's chemical weapons. This process was
completed in September 2014 (in December 2013, the OPCW was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its
disarmament work in Syria).
If the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons was an example of the OPCW at its best, what
followed was a case study of just the opposite. In May 2014, the OPCW created the Fact-Finding Mission, or FFM ,
charged with establishing "facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals,
reportedly chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic." The FFM was headed
by Malik Ellahi ,
who served as head of the OPCW's government relations and political affairs branch. The
appointment of someone lacking both technical and operational experience suggests that Ellahi's
primary role was political. Under his leadership, the FFM established a close working
relationship with the anti-Assad Syrian opposition, including the White Helmets and
SAMS.
In 2015, responsibility for coordinating the work of the FFM with the anti-Assad opposition
was transferred to a British inspector named Len Phillips (another element of the FFM, led by a
different inspector, was responsible for coordinating with the Syrian government). Phillips
developed a close working relationship with the White Helmets and SAMS and played a key role in
OPCW's investigation of the April 2017 chemical incident in Khan Shaykhun. By April 2018, the
FFM had undergone a leadership transition, with Phillips
replaced by a Tunisian inspector named Sami Barrek . It was Barrek who led the FFM into
Syria in April 2018 to investigate allegations of chemical weapons use at Douma. Like Phillips,
Barrek maintained a close working relationship with the White Helmets and SAMS.
Once the FFM wrapped up its investigation in Douma, however, it became apparent to
Fairweather that it had a problem. There were serious questions about whether chlorine had, in
fact, been used as a weapon. The solution, brokered by Fairweather, was to release an interim
report that ruled out sarin altogether, but left the door open regarding chlorine. This
report was released on July 6, 2018. Later that month, both Üzümcü and
Fairweather were gone, replaced by a Spaniard named Fernando
Arias and a French diplomat named Sébastien
Braha . It would be up to them to clean up the Douma situation.
The situation Braha inherited from Fairweather was unenviable.
According to an unnamed OPCW official who spoke with the media after the fact, two days
prior to the publication of the interim report, on July 4, 2018, Fairweather had been paid a
visit by a trio of U.S. officials, who indicated to Fairweather and the members of the FFM
responsible for writing the report that it was the U.S. position that the chlorine cannisters
in question had been used to dispense chlorine gas at Douma, an assertion that could not be
backed up by the evidence. Despite this, the message that Fairweather left with the OPCW
personnel was that there had to be a "smoking gun." It was now Braha's job to manufacture
one.
Braha did this by dispatching OPCW inspectors to Turkey in September 2018 to interview
new witnesses identified by the White Helmets, and by commissioning new engineering studies
that better explained the presence of the two chlorine cannisters found in Douma. By March,
Braha had assembled enough information to enable the technical directorate to issue its final
report. Almost immediately, dissent appeared in the ranks of the OPCW. An engineering report
that contradicted the findings published by Braha
was leaked , setting off a firestorm of controversy derived from its conclusion that the
chlorine cannisters found in Douma had most likely been staged by the White Helmets.
The OPCW, while eventually acknowledging that the leaked report was genuine, explained
its exclusion from the final report on the grounds that it attributed blame, something the FFM
was not mandated to do.
According to the OPCW , the engineering report in question had been submitted to the
investigation and identification team, a newly created body within the OPCW mandated to make
such determinations. Moreover, Director General Arias stood by the report's conclusion that it
had "reasonable grounds" to believe "that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon has taken
place on 7 April 2018."
Arias' explanation came under attack in November, when WikiLeaks published an email sent
by a member of the FFM team that had participated in the Douma investigation. In this email,
which was sent on June 22, 2018, and addressed to Robert Fairweather, the author noted that,
when it came to the Douma incident, "[p]urposely singling out chlorine gas as one of the
possibilities is disingenuous." The author of the email, who had participated in drafting the
original interim report, noted that the original text had emphasized that there was
insufficient evidence to support this conclusion, and that the new text represented "a major
deviation from the original report." Moreover, the author took umbrage at the new report's
conclusions, which claimed to be "based on the high levels of various chlorinated organic
derivatives detected in environmental samples." According to email's author "They were, in most
cases, present only in parts per billion range, as low as 1-2 ppb, which is essentially trace
quantities." In short, the OPCW had cooked the books, manufacturing evidence from thin air that
it then used to draw conclusions that sustained the U.S. position that chlorine gas had been
used by the Syrian government at Douma.
Arias, while not addressing the specifics of the allegations set forth in the leaked email,
recently declared that it is "the nature of any thorough inquiry for individuals in a team
to express subjective views," noting that "I stand by the independent, professional conclusion"
presented by the OPCW about the Douma incident. This explanation, however, does not fly in the
face of the evidence.
The OPCW's credibility as an investigative body has been brought into question through
these leaks, as has its independent character. If an organization like the OPCW can be used at
will by the U.S., the United Kingdom and France to trigger military attacks intended to support
regime-change activities in member states, then it no longer serves a useful purpose to the
international community it ostensibly serves.
To survive as a credible entity, the OPCW must open itself to a full-scale audit of its
activities in Syria by an independent authority with inspector general-like investigatory
powers. Anything short of this leaves the OPCW, an organization that was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize for its contributions to world peace, permanently stained by the reality that it is
little more than a lap dog of the United States, used to promote the very conflicts it was
designed to prevent.
The anti-Russian insanity that dominates the politics of America is dangerous, stupid and
detached from facts. Two news items from Wednesday (December 18th) should scare the hell out of
you.
The first concerns Russia's Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline, which is nearing completion
and will deliver gas to Europe.
According to Reuters :
The U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed legislation to slap sanctions on companies building a
massive underwater pipeline to bring Russian natural gas to Germany, but it was uncertain
whether the measures would slow completion of the project.
Senator Jim Risch, a Republican and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
said the sanctions will prevent the project's completion and are an "important tool to counter
Russia's malign influence and to protect the integrity of Europe's energy sector."
Nord Stream 2, led by state-owned Gazprom, would allow Russia to bypass Poland and Ukraine
to deliver gas under the Baltic Sea to Germany. U.S. lawmakers say Ukraine could lose billions
of dollars in transit fees if it is built.
This is not the fault of the Democrats. This is being driven by Republicans, with Senator
Ted Cruz
leading the charge .
The Trump administration should use sanctions to halt the construction of a pipeline that
would allow Russia to transport natural gas directly to Europe, potentially generating cash to
fuel President Vladimir Putin's military aggression, says Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline "would make Europe even more dependent on Russian energy," Cruz
told FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo on Wednesday. "And that makes Europe susceptible to economic
blackmail, because Putin has already demonstrated he's perfectly willing to cut off the gas in
the dead of winter to try to force people to do what he wants."
Russia's "military aggression?" Did Russia invade Iraq twice in the last 29 years? Did
Russia launch a war in Libya? Did Russia arm and train insurgents in Syria? I think Ted Cruz
has not been paying attention to world events over the last thirty years. The number one
country engaged in foreign military aggression is the United States. Hands down.
Here are the actual military facts about Russia:
Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion, which is just 8% of America's total GDP of $21.5
trillion.
Russia's annual manufacturing value added is currently about $200 billion compared
to $2.2 trillion for the US economy.
Russia's working age population of about 85 million is already just a fraction of the US
working age population of 255 million.
Russia's $61 billion of military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32
days of Washington's current $750 billion of expenditures for defense.
During the Cold War Russia armed itself to the teeth via a forced-draft and allocated
upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to the military. Today the Russian defense
budget amounts to less than 4% of the country's anemic economy.
The US has eleven such carrier strike groups. Russia has zero modern
carrier strike groups and one beat-up, smoky old (diesel) aircraft carrier. A carrier based
strike group is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, at least one cruiser, a squadron of
destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft.
The United States dwarfs Russia's ability to project force via air power-- the US has
6,100 helicopters to Russia's 1,200 and 6,000 fixed wing fighter and attack aircraft versus
Russia's 2,100. More importantly, the US has 5,700 transport and airlift aircraft compared to
just 1,100 for Russia.
The only military category where Russia enjoys a decisive edge is tanks -- 22,710 versus
8750 for the United States. This is a legacy of WW II, where Russian tanks played the
critical role in pushing the Nazis back to Germany.
As recently as 2017, the Russian fleet operated 61 submarines. "Historically the backbone
of the Russian navy, 75 percent of the 61 operational submarines are over 20 years old and
are slowly being replaced." The United States has 75 and is building two new ones each year
at a cost of $5 billion.
So why is this pipeline now a redline in the sand that Russia dare not cross? Apparently
because it will give Russia a way to make more money to finance its massive military buildup
(hopefully you understand sarcasm) and, more importantly, will cost Ukraine lost income. Can't
afford to have Ukrainian oligarchs running out of money that they are sending to Democrat and
Republican consulting firms and candidates.
While it is unlikely that the sanctions will prevent the pipeline from being completed,
largely because they come too little, too late, this is not going to
hinder efforts to punish Russia :
A new Bloomberg headline reads "U.S. Concedes Defeat on Gas Pipeline It Sees as Russian
Threat" just following new sanctions included in the House and Senate passed 2020 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) this week.
But two administration officials tell Bloomberg it's too little too late, despite Trump's
heightened rhetoric of calling Germany "a captive to Russia" and charging Berlin with
essentially giving "billions" of dollars to Russia:
Senior U.S. administration officials, who asked not to be identified discussing the
administration's take on the project, said sanctions that passed Congress on Tuesday as part of
a defense bill are too late to have any effect. The U.S. instead will try to impose costs on
other Russian energy projects, one of the officials added.
Seriously, that United States has no right to threaten Russia in this way. It is reminiscent
of the sanctions that the United States imposed on Japan prior to World War II that blocked
Japan's access to critical oil and rubber supplies. That was a precipitating factor in Japan's
decision to attack us on December 7, 1941.
NATO exercises near the border with Russia reflect the alliance's preparations for a
large-scale military conflict, Russia's chief military officer said in remarks published
Wednesday.
The chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, said at
Tuesday's meeting with foreign military attaches that NATO's activities have heightened
tensions and reduced security along the Russian border.
Asked if the Russian military sees a potential threat of war, Gerasimov said that Moscow
doesn't see "any preconditions for a large-scale war."
He added, however, that Western pressure on Russia could trigger "crisis situations" that
may spin out of control and provoke a military conflict.
The anti-Russia hysteria in the United States is tying the hands of Donald Trump to act
responsibly to protect America. If he vetoes the bill put forward by the Congress he will be
accused, as he has been for more than two years, of catering to Putin.
The fanatics and frauds waving the Russian threat ignore the fact that the United States and
Russia work closely and productively on the Space Station. Our astronauts and their cosmonauts
co-exist peacefully in space and we rely on the Russians to haul our folks to and from the
Space Station. In Syria, the Combined Air Operations Center (i.e., CAOC) communicates daily
with Russian counterparts to ensure that their respective air assets do not fire on each other
or inadvertently wander into a combat space. This has been going on for more than three
years.
Russia still has nuclear weapons. It is their ultimate deterrent against another invasion.
The memory of losing more than 12 million soldiers in World War II remains vivid and painful.
The U.S. public can barely remember that we lost less than 500,000 soldiers, marines and
sailors in World War II. Our inability to remember coupled with unjustified belligerence is
pushing us towards a war with Russia that would be beyond catastrophic.
''The Trump administration should use sanctions to halt the construction of a pipeline that
would allow Russia to transport natural gas directly to Europe, potentially generating cash
to fuel President Vladimir Putin's military aggression, says Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas''
I don't know how many times I have ..Who do these politicians think they are !!??
They were not elected to 'run the world'. WE must get rid of them.
The Col told me awhile ago that the CIA doesn't do 'accidental deaths' ....too bad.
At least, these sanctions are not only directed against Russia, but also against Western
Europe.
First,the sanctions directly affect not only Gasprom, but also Western European companies
that are involved in building the pipelines (since only a small part of the work remains to
be done, Nordstream 2 can probably be finished without some of them, but if everything
continues as before, some Western European companies involved in building the pipelines would
clearly be affected by US sanctions, among them a specialized Swiss company).
Second, the purpose of the pipelines clearly is not only to help Russia selling gas, but also
to help Germany buying Russian gas.
The sanctions are not anti-Russian sanctions, but sanctions against Europe, including Russia,
Germany, and other European countries.
Especially in Germany, there is absolutely no tolerance for such sanctions with which the US
wants to force Europeans to buy uncompetitive expensive US fracking gas. There are talks
about European countersanctions against the US. The US may hope to exploit disagreements
among EU countries. After all some EU countries like Poland are against Nordstream. But the
US should not rely on this - such blatant interference in European matters is clearly not
tolerated by the EU. An appropriate countermeasure might be punitive Tarifs on US fracking
gas exports - there is not much demand for it, anyway, but it would make sense to prevent any
significant amounts of US fracking gas from being bought in Europe as long as the US wants to
force Europeans to buy it.
In any case, these anti-European sanctions show once more that the US has become a pariah
nation that has isolated itself and has no real allies any more (except perhaps Saudi Arabia
and Israel).
I would not call these sanctions only anti-Russian sanctions. They are just as well directed
against Western Europe.
First, it is not only Gasprom which is involved in building the pipeline (although it is
the owner), but also European companies (among them a Swiss one). Since Nordstream II is
almost finished, the services of some of these companies may not be necessary any more, but
if they continued normally, also some Western European companies would be sanctioned.
Second, obviously, the purpose of the pipelines is not only to help Russia selling gas,
but also to help Germany (and other Western European countries that will receive it via
Germany) buying Russian gas.
In Germany, there is very little tolerance for such sanctions, and people talk about
counter-sanctions against the US. An appropriate measure could be punitive tariffs on US
fracking gas. There is little demand for US fracking gas in Europe, anyway, since it is more
expensive, but it may make sense to make sure than no significant amounts of US gas are sold
in Europe as long as the US wants to force Europeans to buy it.
The US may hope to exploit disagreements about Nordstream within the EU. After all, some
countries like Poland are against it. But the US should not rely on this tactic working. Such
blatant interference in European energy supplies with sanction will hardly be tolerated by
the EU.
In any case, these anti-European sanctions show one more how much the US has become a
pariah country that has isolated itself and hardly has allies any more (except perhaps Saudi
Arabia and Israel).
I agree that one of the motives for these anti-European sanctions is anti-Russian insanity
in the US. But another important motive is disrespect of the US for Western Europe, which it
seems to regard as a kind of colonies or vassal states it can tell what to do.
In Europe, there is still a certain gap - while polls show that the US is very unpopular,
among European elites, pro-US forces still have a certain influence. But probably, it won't
take very long until European countries will adapt their policies towards the US in the
direction a majority of their citizens wants. Another such example of US folly is the idea
that Germany should pay more for the presence of US troops. According to polls, about half of
the German population wanted US troops to leave, anyway, even before the question of
increased payments was raised, and if the US is serious about this demand, the consequence
that it will lose its military bases is obvious.
I credit you with possessing the good sense, seemingly rare, to not wish to enter into a
direct military conflict with Russia, particularly out of some hyper inflated sense of
threat, owing (no less) to their aggression. Kudos to you for acknowledging which country is
the number one threat of military aggression in the world.
The sarcasm of referring to a mounting Russian threat is merited insofar as their military
budget is actually falling as a proportion of output.
I would suggest, however, when assessing the strength of the enemy you rightly argue that
it is stupid to provoke, that you do not limit yourself to the prevailing think-tank
approaches to assessing that threat. It's pretty obvious to most people that comparing an
Su-35 to an F-35 in dollar terms makes the F-35 3 or 4 times the military threat of the
Sukhoi. Ditto with an Su-57 to F-22 comparison.
But it would be better to listen to actual military experts with technical training in the
STEM disciplines needed to provide the analysis. I would suggest you look at the work of A.
Martyanov's work, a retired Russian naval officer writing occasionally US Naval institute
Blog. Or visit his blog, Reminiscence of the Future, through which you could get more
background on his books, including the latest, The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs.
His concern is that (while some of us use these CIA factbook-type analysis to cool off the
hysterical claims of threat) Russia hawk politicians and think-tank military pseudo-experts
are using these to seriously downplay Russia's capacity to counter American aggression. Would
welcome your thoughts on his work.
Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion, which is just 8% of America's total GDP of $21.5
trillion.
Larry, it is patently and, actually, grossly untrue on both counts. Nor comparison of
military budgets is legitimate tool. In fact, all this is in the foundation of the United
States failing, time after time, having a good grasp of the military balance.
Last winter LNG from the Russian Yamal gas field was delivered to the United States. Perhaps
Washington should deal with its own dependence on Russian energy before it starts pressuring
Europe.
The goal is to overturn the government of Russia, just like the goal has been to overturn the
government of Bolivia (Mission Accomplished), Venezuela, Cuba, China, Russia, North Korea,
Libya, Lebanon, Iran, Syria... This is imperialism. It's history is long and has been
successfully practiced by far by the British and Americans. And it's goal is the theft of the
resources, human and natural, of the countries targeted. It is old news. Nothing has changed
for two hundred years. My God, the original Crimean War was fought for exactly the same
reasons as the current Crimean War although the actual fighting is of a different scale and
different style. Permit me to include in the litany above Native Americans who were
slaughtered for their territory. It is astonishing that President Trump seems to be less than
enthusiastic about this program, but it certainly recommends him highly if he is. And today,
we may ask who is behind this program. It is certainly not the American people.
A new Bloomberg headline
reads "U.S. Concedes Defeat on Gas Pipeline It Sees as Russian Threat" just following new
sanctions included in the House and Senate passed 2020 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) this week.
But two administration officials tell Bloomberg it's too little too late , despite Trump's
heightened rhetoric of calling Germany "a captive to Russia" and charging Berlin with
essentially giving "billions" of
dollars to Russia :
Senior U.S. administration officials, who asked not to be identified discussing the
administration's take on the project, said sanctions that passed Congress on Tuesday as part
of a defense bill are too late to have any effect . The U.S. instead will try to impose costs
on other Russian energy projects, one of the officials added.
The admission is a rare concession on what had been a top foreign-policy priority for the
Trump administration and highlights how European allies such as Germany have been impervious
to American pressure to abandon the pipeline. It also shows how the U.S. has struggled to
deter Russia from flexing its muscles on issues ranging from energy to Ukraine to election
interference.
The resolution contained in the defense spending bill, expected to be immediately signed
into law by Trump, are measures which specifically target companies assembling the pipeline --
a last ditch US effort to block the controversial 760-mile, $10.2BN project that would allow
Russia to export natural gas directly to Germany, depriving Ukraine of badly needed gas transit
fees along the current route for Russian supplies.
Washington's position has long been that it weakens European energy security, while Merkel's
Germany has rejected Trump's
"meddling" in European energy affairs, which the Europeans have lately sought to
diversify.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a February visit to Poland said Nord Stream 2
ultimately "funnels money to Russians in ways that undermine European national
security."
It's expected to double Russian gas shipments to the EU's biggest economy Germany, while
others fear --
including dissenters within Merkel's own ruling coalition -- it will give Moscow
significant geopolitical leverage over Europe while also punishing Ukraine.
The new US sanctions measures will target executives of companies operating vessels laying
the pipeline , and will further seek to hinder those companies' ability to operate on the
project. It's been spearheaded by Russian giant Gazprom and five European energy companies,
including French electricity and gas firm Engie SA and Royal Dutch, and the Swiss company
Allseas Group SA, among others, and is nearing completion, expected soon this coming year.
Bloomberg
reports further, "Trump has indicated that he'll sign the legislation passed Tuesday. The
penalties on companies building the project, led by Russian energy company Gazprom PJSC, would
be effective immediately, according to a Senate Republican aide."
In total, continues Bloomberg, "Some 350 companies are involved in building the undersea
link, most notably the Swiss company Allseas Group SA, whose ships are laying the last section
of pipe in Danish waters."
Regardless, Gazprom head Alexei Miller has for months said it's "past the point of no
return" and that nothing would derail it. "We are working from the idea that Nord Stream 2 will
be realized strictly in accordance with the planned timetable," he
previously told shareholders.
THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION needs to keep its nose out of European energy policy! In
fact, it needs to keep its nose out of everybody else's business.
My apologies if this has been posted before, but here is a news conference broadcast by
Interfax a few days ago detailing a joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a
huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and
Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton
Foundation.
The link is short enough to not require re-formatting:
Of course. I have said this repeatedly. I say this with confidence because I have read a
book that is solely about Gazprom and all aspects of gas production, distribution, payment
etc. etc. within and outside Russia. Which of course includes the major special problem of
Ukraine. You cannot understand any Ukraine politics and scams (and Uk-RF politics and
conflicts) without understanding the role of gas, and of Ukraine as a bottleneck for a LOT of
the gas flowing between Russia and the EU. The Ukrainians have always been fiddling the
Russians and their gas. And then the EU got into the picture and caused more trouble for
Russia. Anyhow, it is fitting that the scam described in the video runs on GAS.
"Trump was simply asking new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky -- in a July phone
call -- to investigate crimes at the "highest levels" of both Kiev and Washington," Rudy
Giuliani, a personal attorney for President Trump, told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham
Angle."
"So, he is being impeached for doing the right thing as president of the United States,"
he said.
Giuliani told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham Angle" that he helped forced out Yovanovitch
because she was corrupt and obstructing the investigation into Ukraine and the Bidens.
Dem's impeachment for innocent conduct is intended to obstruct the below investigations of
Obama-era corruption:
- Billions of laundered $
- Billions, mostly US $, widely misused
- Extortion
- Bribery
- DNC collusion w/ Ukraine to destroy candidate Trump
He told Ingraham that he needed her out of the way because she was corrupt. Giuliani said he
was not the first person to go to the president with concerns about the diplomat.
In more tweets Tuesday, Giuliani elaborated:
Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to
Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine. She was
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at minimum enabled
Ukrainian collusion.
" Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to
Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine.
She was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at
minimum enabled Ukrainian collusion."
Marie Yovanovitch was dismissed in March after Trump's allies said she was blocking the
probe of Joe Biden and bad-mouthing the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko said that she
gave him a "do not prosecute list", that included Ukraine MPs and the exact same Sorosfunded
NGO president.
Nov 19, 2019Several sources claim former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch,
instructed Ukraine officials to keep their hands off investigating the NGO in Ukraine founded
by George Soros. Why?"
Any questions? As Putin warned the US: "ask about the 5th floor of the State Department."
(where Soros held court!). No wonder the US Commies hate Putin.
What the Shiffhead Impeachment hearings demonstrated with the appearances of Ms.
Yankonitbitch, Bowtie George, and the other "Dindunuffin/Donnonuffin Clowns" is just how much
American Taxpayers' money is being wasted employing a bunch of sanctimonious drones who do
nothing but get in the way of progress. Successful Corporations remove dead wood like that
with downsizing and shakeups. But the Federal Government seems immune to efficiency because
our elected officials NEVER DO THEIR JOBS BY USING ZERO BASE BUDGETING TO JUSTIFY EVERY
******* DOLLAR. And so, we now hear of yet another Omnibus Budget being foisted onto American
Taxpayers and more wasteful spending that never, never, never, gets reduced. We need a
Taxpayer's Revolution in this Country to stop the corrupt theft.
And one more thing: What the Ukrainian Matter reveals is how Foreign Aid is dispensed,
handed out by the foreign recipient, and the funds are laundered and kicked back to the
corrupt politicians and Deep State Operatives like the Bidens. If $400 Million in palletized
untraceable cash can be delivered via a clandestine unmarked airplane at night to Iran
supposedly for ransom as the Socialist Media Complex would have us believe in a way that is
not consistent with long practiced methods for funds transfer, can we imagine all the
billions that have quietly been stolen from us to enrich scum like Barack Obola, Quid Pro
Joe, The Clintons, and so many others? IN THE MEANTIME, PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN'T GET A DIME TO
SPEND ON BUILDING A WALL TO STOP THE ILLEGAL ALIEN COCKROACH INVASION.
Yovanovitch pulled the "poor me federal" employee act. I worked for the Feds for 31 years
most as a manger and Yovanovitch victim act is what all federal employees pull when they get
in trouble. Blah Blah my 30 years of service, my awards, my appraisals blah blah. She said
that she had no concern about Hunter Biden while being hailed as a corruption fighter. Blah
blah.
It's a crime that State Department people and ambassadors can have the same ethnic origin
as the countries they serve in. It's a recipe for personal/family agendas, corruption and not
representing the best interests of the United States. Of course if you're a DemoRat, you're
always corrupt, as they have proven it is a given.
Rudy Giuliani: Yovanovitch Was Part Of The Cover-Up, She Had To Be Ousted.
"Ousted"? I thought the penalty for high treason was hanging. What are they waiting for?
Hang the lot and in a public square near Congress so that all the traitors who reside in
Congress and the highest levels of government and banking get a sense of what awaits
them.
"At the end of the month, almost all criminals arrested for state crimes in New York,
including sex crimes , will be released without posting bail. It is a suicidal policy,
but it is nonetheless the state’s prerogative to engage in such suicide. What is
not its prerogative is the New York law that took effect this week granting
driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and blocking ICE access to criminal enforcement
information. We have a national union with a federal government controlling immigration for a
reason, and it’s time for the Trump administration to show state officials who has the
final say over this issue.
Beginning this week, the NY state government
is inviting any and all illegal aliens , with or without criminal records, to apply for
driver’s licenses. As documentation
, they can offer consular ID cards, which are fraught with fraud, expired work permits, or
foreign birth certificates. They can even offer Border Crossing Cards, which are only valid
for 72 hours and for a stay in the country near the border area! The state law further
prohibits state and county officials from disclosing any information to ICE and bars ICE and
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from accessing N.Y. Department of Motor Vehicles (NYDMV)
records and information.
It’s truly hard to overstate the enormity of the public safety crisis this law,
dubbed “the green light law,” will spawn. There are
currently 3.3 million aliens in the ICE non-detained docket who remain at large in this
country. Just in one year, ICE put detainers on aliens criminally charged with 2,500
homicides. Given
that New York has the fourth largest illegal alien population in the country, it is
virtually certain that a large number of criminal aliens reside in the state and will now be
offered legal resident documents to shield them from removal.
Some might suggest that this is the problem of New York’s residents and that it is
their job and their responsibility alone to overturn these laws. But the difference between
this law and their general pro-criminal laws is that when it comes to immigration, they
simply lack the power to enact such a policy. Rather than the DHS and DOJ bemoaning these
laws, it’s time for the Trump administration to actually stop them in their tracks.
Otherwise the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is nothing but ink on parchment.
A violation of federal law and the Constitution
8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes a felon of anyone who “knowing or in reckless disregard
of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation
of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or
shield from detection, such alien in any place.” That statute also makes a criminal of
anyone who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United
States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence
is or will be in violation of law” or anyone who “engages in any conspiracy to
commit any of the preceding acts, or aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding
acts.” Some form of this law has been on the books since 1891.
NY’s new law not only harbors illegal aliens but actually calls on the DMV to notify
illegal aliens of any ICE interest in their files. There is only one purpose of this law: to
tip off criminal alien fugitives that ICE is looking for them, the most literal violation of
the law against shielding them from detection. Would we allow state officials to block
information to the FBI, ATF, or DEA?
Moreover, New York’s Green Light law violates the entire purpose of the infamous
1986 amnesty bill, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which was “to combat
the employment of illegal aliens.” The law specifically makes it “illegal for
employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ unauthorized
workers.” Yet the rationale for the Green Light Law, according to supporters , was
“getting to work” and “ensure that our industries have the labor they need
to keep our economy moving.” That directly conflicts with federal law.
Finally, 8 U.S.C. 1373 prohibits state and local government from “in any way
restrict[ing]
, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status,
lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” The entire purpose of this bill is to restrict
all New York government entities from sending information on citizenship status to ICE.
Whether one disagrees with immigration laws or not, nobody can argue that the federal
government lacks the power to enforce them. Immigration law is one of the core jobs of the
federal government. People are free to go to any state once they are in the country, which is
why the Founders transferred
immigration policy from the states under the Articles of Confederation to the federal
government under the Constitution.
This is why James Madison in Federalist #42 bemoaned that, under
the Articles of Confederation, there was a “very serious embarrassment” whereby
“an alien therefore legally incapacitated for certain rights in the [one state], may by
previous residence only in [another state], elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one
State, be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of
the other.” He feared that without the Constitution’s new idea of giving the
federal Congress power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”
“certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious” would
choose states with weak immigration laws as entry points into the union and then move to any
other state as legal residents or citizens.
As for immigration without naturalization, because of the issue of the slave trade, the
first clause of Article I, Section 9 bars Congress from prohibiting “the Migration or
Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
admit” until the year 1808. Well, Congress has long exercised that power to exclude
over the past 200 years. New York has lacked the ability to maintain its own separate
immigration scheme for quite some time.
When did the federal government become weak in the face of state rebellion?"
The diplomatic service made a big mistake when they abandoned the practice of preventing
people from serving in countries where they have an ethnic connection
jovanivic is part of a rabid Ukrainian diaspora, chased out of the country by the Red Army
for collaboration with the Nazis.
these people have a vicious, insatiable desire for revenge ...and the US does not need
these kind of biases mucking things up
"With impeachment imminent, Kushner has pushed out his enemies, installed allies, and
taken control of the campaign and large swaths of policy -- only Kellyanne Conway is still
pushing back.
Inside the West Wing, Kushner has both eliminated opponents and installed acquiescent
officials. "Jared was very frustrated with [Reince] Priebus and John Kelly," a Republican
close to the White House, said. Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney "was Jared's pick," the
source said, and has allowed Kushner to function as de facto chief of staff. "Mick has
decided not to be in control," a former West Wing official said. "Jared treats Mick like the
help. There's no pushback," a prominent Republican said. John Bolton, who recently mocked
Kushner in a private speech, has been replaced by Robert O'Brien, a Kushner ally. Sources say
that Vice President Mike Pence and his advisers don't challenge Kushner after a string of
leaks that Kushner wanted to replace Pence on the ticket with Nikki Haley. "Pence people look
at Jared apprehensively. Pence treats Jared as a peer," said former Trump aide Sam Nunberg.
(The White House did not respond to a request for comment.)"
Jared the Jew Prince is the number one reason not to reelect Trump.
This doesn't seem very complicated to me.
Turkey is emboldened by Turkstream (and by the Ukraine/Georgia stalemate) - Erdogan clearly
believes he can monopolize gas transit between Central Asia/Middle East/Eastern Mediterranean
and Europe. This would be a huge geopolitical and economic benefit for Turkey - far above and
beyond any religion based "leadership" Turkey could benefit from the Muslim world.
Russia doesn't really care as it already has a pole position regarding natural gas to Europe
- Erdogan's actions will only serve to slow down any buildout of competing supply from
Central Asia/Middle East. Erdogan is likely being financially backed by Qatar as well - they
also stand to benefit if Turkey can carve out a pipeline domination in the Eastern Med.
"Follow the money..." If I recall correctly, Haftar got a nice pile of money from Russia in
the form of Libyan banknotes that he ordered, and the status of those banknotes was unclear,
but in LNA zone they are as good as the central bank notes. Legally, payments for Libyan oil
have to go to that bank, and the operations, location and loyalty of that bank deserve an
investigative article.
Erdogan has too little money to succeed, IMHO. If he were flushed, he would place nice
weapon orders in UK, France, Germany and USA, as KSA + UAE did, and as we know from Yemen,
that secures NATO blessings, either verbal or quiet. His military is probably in a better
shape than Egyptian, if vulnerable to attacks by mysterious submarines. The coastal highway
from Egypt is surely good enough for military vehicles, but it is vulnerable to attacks from
air.
Putin's priority number 2 in the region is South Stream, so he will probably not supply
mysterious submarines, Greece could being irate over maritime claims, and Egypt would have
the most obvious motif. My conclusion is that the sultan's dog's barks a lot, and sometimes
bites, but with some caution. Libyan expedition has the smell of Sicilian Expedition, a
notable event during the Peloponessian war.
Egypt will not tolerate a Muslim Brotherhood led Libya as its neighbor. Before the Turkish
support allows the GNA government to defeat Haftar Egypt will intervene. The situation can
thereby soon develop into an intense war during which Turkish troops fight on Libyan grounds
against the Egyptian military.
<=I think if Egypt intervenes in Libya it will strengthen the brotherhood in Egypt and
Libya and may terminate brother Sisi's rule.
i agree with Psychohistorian's Mezran quote.. a Russian Turkey agreement will foreclose
USA and British access to oil from Libya, Egypt and Turkey( new OPEC will form).
Now the GNA is a UN construct so Turkey supporting it should not be a big deal politically
for the west. As for the CIA fellow, if he is working as closely as he appears to be with
Russia, I think Turkey stepping in is just as suggested:
"...from the karlof1 link:
""Mezran suggested. "If the Turks become the major supporter of the GNA, not the Europeans or
the Americans, and the Russians are the ones who are the major supporter of Haftar, then all
it would take is an agreement between Moscow and Ankara to solve the Libyan problem, causing
much damage to American and European power.""Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 17 2019 20:25
utc | 11.
I particularly like the strategy cutting out the Central Bank by the General and Russia,
looks to me like there is a master plan being rolled out and it is moving quickly. Perhaps
Peace is breaking out:)
b said; "After the NATO war destroyed Africa's richest country Libya is still split."
Another "mission accomplished" by the evil empire. They couldn't stand for any leader to
share the wealth of the nation with it's people, so a lesson was given, and is still in
effect.
@ Posted by: ben | Dec 17 2019 22:58 utc | 20 who wrote
"
b said; "After the NATO war destroyed Africa's richest country Libya is still split."
Another "mission accomplished" by the evil empire. They couldn't stand for any leader to
share the wealth of the nation with it's people, so a lesson was given, and is still in
effect.
"
Thanks for that perspective. That is THE reason that I continue to call out Hillary "We
came, we saw, he died" Clinton as the war criminal I hope she is prosecuted for in her
lifetime.
Does anyone have an idea of both the size and combat readiness of Egyptian forces?
Would Sisi be in a position to send in a force of, say, 50,000 or 100,000 troops with
armour and air cover? If so, he could end both the Muslim Brotherhood/Al-Quaeda problem in
Libya as well as nip one of Erdogan's meddlesome adventures in the bud.
I want what Libyans want, but it seems nobody can be arsed to find that out. I strongly
suspect Libyans' preference would be for neither of these two foreign funded options since
both of these grubby groups are committed to maintaining the repeal of the petroleum act
which has protected Libyans from rapacious foreign corporations and foreign-state owned
enterprises who put sweet FA into any of their hosts' economies while meddling unceasingly in
host politics to ensure everyone but them gets screwed.
IMO the amerikan interest is less about oil & other Libyan resources than ensuring
that Libya can never again support North African nations who the empire is determined to
annex and form into a vast super-national state where governments have no control, but
corporations do.
AFAIK, both cliques in Libya are proponents of Arab nationalism which intend to pretend
the black african and berber populations are all foreigners despite both groups having a
longer history of living in the region than arabs do.
Arabs entered this region, the Magreb, about 647 AD fighting to take control off the
indigenous population of the Magreb which up until then comprised myriad african ethnicities
& language groups until around 709 when Arabs united under the banner of Islam had
complete control.
There really hasn't been a demographic based census in Libya, most likely because the role
of black africans or as the imperialists like to refer to them 'sub-saharan' (which of course
implies they are outsiders) has always been contentious among some Libyans who consider
themselves to be 'Arabs' or as they like to claim, the ruling class.
Generally the bulk of lighter skinned Libyans class themselves as Berber-Arabs, while other
Libyans (eg Muamar Ghaddaffi -may he rest in peace) consider themselves to be Berber.
The iFUKUS intervention promoted a mob claiming to be solely Arab and therefore the
legitimate rulers of the nation. They also reckoned all black africans in Libya were
foreigners. A genocidal campaign of terror and good old amerikan style lynching of black
folks followed. We rightly see the sociopath in H Clinton at this time, but what about
Oblamblam, WTF was he thinking?
Eventually some bright spark saw that killing was wasteful, so those black Libyans
remaining were rounded up and sold into slavery - to 'owners' primarily in Saudi Arabia and
the UAE.
Who knows if Libya can ever find another leader as enlightened as the Colonel? All we do
know is that there is no chance of such a leader emanating from either Haftar's gang or the
'UN-recognised' gang.
Libyans don't deserve either of these agglomerations of arseholes which is why they are
copping them. A big message from the big states that any nation which indulges in such caring
and sharing of neighbours & friends as Libya did, must be severely punished so no other
decent society will dare try that on.
"<=I think if Egypt intervenes in Libya it will strengthen the brotherhood in Egypt and
Libya and may terminate brother Sisi's rule."
I think Snake is on to something here. The power balance in Egypt is fairly evenly divided
with only a slight advantage to Sisi over Muslim Brotherhood forces.
What Turkey is seeking is fair treatment and recognition of rights it feels that it has in
the Mediterranean Sea. What a group of nations (Israel, Egypt, Greece and the US –
hereafter referred to as The Group) is attempting to do is deny Turkey any rights at all.
Those that disagree with Turkish claims have the following position:
1. Greek "owned" islands, which in some cases (e.g. Kastellorizo) go really close to the
Turkish coast, exclude Turkey from any significant rights to the Mediterranean.
2. Turkey has no claim to the area around Cyprus.
3. Cyprus is partnered with Israel, Egypt, Greece and the US for energy exploration in the
Mediterranean Sea and Turkey is not included.
4. In January 2019, the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum was convened as a means for
Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Jordan, Israel, Italy and the Palestinian Authority to develop a
regional natural gas market. Turkey was excluded from this forum and was very upset. (A month
later ExxonMobil announced a new gas discovery in Cypriot waters.)
In other words it is a melange of denying rights, legal assertions and exclusion
tactics.
Now look at a map of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and then tell me - Is it reasonable
that Turkey should have practically no rights at all? Any fair-minded person would recognise
that Turkey does and all reasonable people would recognise that all the countries bordering
the area of exploration have rights and should cooperate and work together and none should be
excluded. What is happening is that The Group wants it all.
It is a very big mistake to believe that Turkey is in the wrong and also that it will back
down on this.
In addition to Turkey, the countries that are excluded appear to be Syria, Lebanon, and
Libya. It is right that The Group is seeking to exclude all these other countries?
It doesn't matter whether the oil and gas are viable (it may or may not be) what is
happening is that Turkey is not being allowed any recognition and they are choosing to assert
(take) their rights (because there is no other option available to them). If Turkey did not
do so then they would lose any future rights to the Mediterranean at all.
Syrian, Lebanon and Libya are obviously too weak to assert their rights. Although the
Palestinian Authority participated in Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum I don't really expect
Palestine to benefit much and it should be noted the Palestinian Authority is are far too
weak to do anything – I'm afraid they are just being used.
Greece and Cyprus are being used as pawns by the US (why else would US Ambassador Pyatt be
based in Greece? This kind of disruption is his speciality) and Greece is being set to
confront Turkey.
Now look at a map of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and then tell me - Is it reasonable
that Turkey should have practically no rights at all? Any fair-minded person would recognise
that Turkey does and all reasonable people would recognise that all the countries bordering
the area of exploration have rights and should cooperate and work together and none should be
excluded. What is happening is that The Group wants it all.
The reason why Turkey does not want the Libyan GNA to fall is because they fear that
Haftar will fall into line with The Group and further strengthen Turkey's exclusion from the
Mediterranean energy exploration. So it is in Turkey's great national interest to secure
Libya as an ally. Also, the GNA are still recognised as the legitimate government of Libya by
the UN so in legal terms Turkey is not doing anything wrong in recognising and supporting the
Libyan GNA.
As regards the Turkey/Libyan Maritime Zone - What is happening is that Turkey and Libya
are showing The Group that it to can carve out areas and claim to areas of the Mediterranean
Seas just as much as they can.
It was widely believed that the 2015-17 Cyprus reunification talks where positive and the
closet ever to reaching a settlement. Who should be blamed for the collapse? Many believe
that is was the Greek Cypriot side that was a fault. The big sticking point was that the
Turkish Cypriot side wanted some 40,000 Turkish troops to remain based in the North of the
Island because of fears over security. At the time the Greek Cypriot side said it was
impossible to accept the continued presence of Turkish troops. This was a big mistake, Cyprus
would have been federally united and in 10 years time the Turkish troops could well have been
greatly reduced. When the talks collapsed the talk was of inevitable partition.
And what do we see in 2019? Anastasiades, the Greek Cypriot President, wants to reopen
talks "exactly where they left off" - A belated recognition that it was the Greek Cypriots
that threw away what would have been a fantastic settlement and a fairly blatant attempt to
peel away Turkish Cypriots from Turkey (Anastasiades call for a resumption of talks seems to
have come with some unnecessary hostile remarks directed at Turkey), and hasty desire (now
that there has been a gas discovery off the coast of Cyprus) to rescue the agreement because
The Group now they can use this agreement to further marginalise Turkey.
I like Frances's take on this...ie smells like a master plan between Russia and Turkey...
Why not...?...the Sultan and VVP deciding to carve up some territory, as in the old
colonial days...?
Russia and Turkey are getting closer all the time...Helmer's take about the 'Stavka' not
being fully on board with this notwithstanding...
The very useful clue is from that Atlantic Council article...the rule to apply here is to
just be for everything they are against...and be against whatever they are for...
In this case they are agitating for the West to step up to the plate and arm the
GNA...even a fly zone for farg's sakes...
Yeah...everything but let Turkey and Russia divide the spoils among themselves
right...?...throw a wrench into the spokes at any cost...?
But the thing is that Trump is not interested in any new wars or proxy wars...and I think
a Libya 2.0 is going to be an extremely hard sell anywhere, with the disaster of Killary's
2011 adventure still fresh in everyone's minds...
So nobody is stepping in...there is a vacuum there and I think that there may be some
grand bargain cooking behind the scenes with VVP and the Sultan...who knows how far
this thing could go...?
It's already causing HUGE headaches in Sodom on the Potomac...as is clear from the shrieks
of agony from the likes of the Atlantic Council and many others...
Turkey may not be the best militarily; they are slow and ponderous but they are strong
enough to move forward, occupy and hold space and take a significant amount of attrition
while doing so. Turkey is strong enough to be able to assert "facts on the ground" even if
they have to absorb several hard blows - they have been learning a lot from Russia on
this.
With regards to Libya, Turkey cannot be prevented from moving forward, occupying space,
supplying the Libyan GNA, providing military equipment and troops, etc. UNLESS their lines of
supply are cut and this means that The Group would have to attack first and sink a Turkish
ship.
And this would mean that Greece (the obvious party that might be set-up for this role)
would attack Turkey and sink a Turkish ship? This would be an act of war against Turkey and
Turkey would, as a result of such action, be fully (and legally) entitled to respond. So,
commonsense tells you that Greece and The Group can't really do this.
If The Group enables Haftar to sink a Turkish ship then Turkey will be able to claim an
attack against them, and retaliate and occupy Libya and expect NATO support whilst doing so.
The effect of such an act by Haftar's forces would inevitably result in victory for Erdogan
(counter-intuitive though that may seem).
While Turkey and Erdogan's association with the Muslim Brotherhood can be seen as a vector
that ensures Egypt's hostility towards Turkey's presence in Libya can this really express
itself militarily?
The Muslim Brotherhood is a strong movement in Egypt which has been around for a very long
time. Effectively this excludes Egypt from joining any direct attack on Turkey because they
will fear the unintended consequences that will arise within Egypt.
I'm afraid The Group, in seeking to exclude a major country like Turkey (with an obvious
major interest in the Mediterranean), is taking the first step towards war. Sinking a Turkish
ship would be another step towards war. Turkey will win any conflict as long as they are
prepared to accept some hard blows (and they will be). The Group will lose any conflict
because they are only able to strike small (sink a ship at most) or strike huge
(annihilation); they have no middle game – Turkey will be able to absorb small blows
and China & Russia will not allow Turkey to be destroyed.
At present, Turkey has nothing to lose (as far as the Mediterranean Sea energy exploration
goes) - it follows that in any military conflict that Turkey will gain. Military conflicts
have to be settled by negotiation - it is only a western delusion that wars are fought to
unconditional surrender or absolute destruction. It is The Group and, in particular, Greece
that will lose (Greece has a lot to lose in any conflict - no matter how well it goes for
Greece - they will have to give up something, even if they think they have won, because that
will be price of ending any conflict (because it always is unless you can annihilate your
adversary).
It is not Turkey that is over-reaching- it is The Group (Israel, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and
the US) that have overplayed their hand and have most to lose.
The only thing that makes any sense in terms of a strategic plan is that it nothing more
than machinations by the US seeking to bring chaos closer to the heart of Europe. From the
outset, The Group knew what they were doing to Turkey and they knew how Turkey would feel
about it and how Turkey was likely to react.
div> On paper, Erdogan may have easy superiority in Libya, but he may get
into troubles for two reasons:
1) Libyans, currently quite fractured, actually both major coalitions are riven by internal
lack of cohesion. To compare, Assad government had no business surviving, but the opposition
was split into moderates, i.e. small time gangsters and bandits having difficulties making
units of more than 100 people, and jihadists who had some abstruse reasons to hate each other.
And Turkey did not make such a good job in Idlib, Afrin and north Aleppo.
2) Egypt. Forget about ground troops, they would probably focus on air supremacy. This is an
Achilles heel of an expeditionary force. If they are intelligent (a risk that has to be
consider), they may hit the moment Turkey attempts to expand its foothold. Just letting it
slide would be a considerable loss of face for al-Sisi
Posted by: Piotr Berman , Dec 18 2019 2:19 utc |
36
On paper, Erdogan may have easy superiority in Libya, but he may get into troubles for two
reasons:
1) Libyans, currently quite fractured, actually both major coalitions are riven by internal
lack of cohesion. To compare, Assad government had no business surviving, but the opposition
was split into moderates, i.e. small time gangsters and bandits having difficulties making
units of more than 100 people, and jihadists who had some abstruse reasons to hate each
other. And Turkey did not make such a good job in Idlib, Afrin and north Aleppo.
2) Egypt. Forget about ground troops, they would probably focus on air supremacy. This is an
Achilles heel of an expeditionary force. If they are intelligent (a risk that has to be
consider), they may hit the moment Turkey attempts to expand its foothold. Just letting it
slide would be a considerable loss of face for al-Sisi
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 18 2019 2:19 utc |
36
Kastellorizo – A Greek Island off the Turkish Coast
Greece "owns" Kastelorizo, an island which is only about 2 kilometres off the coast of
Turkey. "Ownership" of islands such as Kastellorizo is meant to "give" Greece the "right" to
exclude Turkey from the Mediterranean Sea? I'm afraid that this is an absolutist, simplistic
and unrealistic position.
The "ownership" of Kastellorizo has changed many times throughout history and has been
"owned" by Turkey (the Ottomans) on a number of occasions. If you look at the maps you can
see that Kastellorizo is part of the same geological formation as the nearby Turkish coast.
It's akin to claiming "ownership" of my doorstop and then claiming that you "own" everything
outside the walls of my house (including my garden, car, garage, dog, cat, etc. and then
telling me I can't even use my doorstep or leave my house. If you did that to me, I would
push you aside and that is what Turkey is doing to Greece.
I know that many, many Greeks fundamentally disagree but they are just being partisan,
unfair and realistic and are allowing themselves to getting carried away with hostility
towards Turkey.
Kastellorizo could have been assigned to Turkey at the end of the WWII as part of the
Paris Peace Treaties of 1947 but instead, the "ownership" of Kastellorizo was removed from
Italy and given to Greece.
In any military conflict between Turkey and Greece (like, for instance) sinking a Turkish
Ship, then islands Kastellorizo will be immediately taken into "ownership" by Turkey and it
will be a long time, if ever, that Greece can think about re-"owning" Kastellorizo.
Essentially, the issue of Kastellorizo and its "ownership" would be settled and there would
be very little Greece could do about it.
When Greece asserts is rights to the Mediterranean Sea based on "ownership" of islands
such as Kastellorizo and uses such "ownership" to deny Turkey rights to the Mediterranean Sea
it is just being provocative and unreasonable and inducing Turkey.
Turkey is wrong if it thinks something in international law allows it to annul the freedom of
the seas and block pipelines. I will repost what
I wrote on October 31:
MARITIME LAW EXPLAINED
The United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) from 1958 guarantees to all countries the right to lay
cables and pipes in international waters. This is part of the freedom of the seas. Laying
cables and pipes is not "economic" activity as defined in the 1982 treaty that gave
countries the right to a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone
(EEZ).
Pipe laying is affected only by the little-known
Espoo Convention from 1991 that obliges the parties to carry out an environmental
impact assessment of certain activities at an early stage of planning. Nowhere in the
treaty does it say that it can be used to stop the freedom of navigation or other freedoms
of the seas.
Turkey does not need and doesn't intend to conquer Libya.
All Turkey has to do is maintain the Libyan GNA which is the government legally recognised
by the UN.
Only the Security Council can remove recognition of the Libyan GNA and this would be a
fairly cynical move by the West if attempted (and, I imagine, would be vetoed by more than
just Russia and China).
Military aircraft are vulnerable when ground troops have access to modern surface to air
missiles and are trained in their use. Expect Libyan GNA forces to have copious supplies of
the ground and shoulder-launched versions of these weapons. What good did aircraft do for
Saudi Arabia in Yemen? There is no winner here, only stalemate and that's more than good
enough for Turkey.
The only way to prevent Turkey from achieving its aims is to sink it's supply ships. This
would be a rash and extremely inadvisable act.
I would advise policymakers and Governments (particularly, The Group) to see where this is
all heading and not go down this path.
The coming debacle may present few heroes for our consideration. The weakest states are
probably headed for the smash-and-grab treatment at the end of the day. How is one to believe
that Erdogan gives a damn about the government in Libya?--any government? Hafter and the GNA
are both pretenders who have only marginal support in that country. These are but stick
figures in a land that's been thrown into a howling anarchy, thanks to the military operation
that Obama green-lighted. Since Erdogan is dealing with virtual nonentities, this aggression
is his aggression. And this illegal sea lane is his insult to international law and prior
agreements that recognize the rights of regional nations. It looks a lot like an act of war
or at least a pretty serious provocation.
Greece, for one, ought to be worried about this development, as some of the resources it
counts on as its territorial right is threatened here.
I don't believe that any of the Mediterranean Sea is "international waters" it's all been
carved up into Exclusive Economic Zone's (EEZ)- there's nothing left! The Group are carving
everything up for themselves and left Turkey (and a number of other countries e.g. Syria)
with very little.
Any person thinking rationally would be able to see that Turkey has been treated unfairly
and will see Turkey has been left with no effective (peaceful) way to get any redress.
All Greece and the rest of the Mediterranean nations need to do is get together, cooperate
and share.
The actions of The Group (Israel, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and the US) are the ones that are
causing all the difficulties because they have tried to grab everything for themselves and
exclude everyone else.
Greece and the rest of The Group need to include Turkey, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and
Palestine (and remove the US).
When Greece asserts is rights to the Mediterranean Sea based on "ownership" of islands
such as Kastellorizo and uses such "ownership" to deny Turkey rights to the Mediterranean Sea
it is just being provocative and unreasonable and inducing Turkey to consider military
options.
Turkey controls the Dardanelles (the entrance to the Black Sea) by treaty. Turkey has been
treated as it deserves. The Aegean Sea is recognized as Greek waters; and that probably
includes the seabed beneath it. When Greece was at its most vulnerable after the recent
financial collapse, Turkish air force ramped up overflights of Greek territory, some of it
pretty aggressive, just to rub salt in the wound. It wasn't very neighborly. It looks like
Erdogan's new sea lane trespasses the Greek island of Rhodes and several others.
What Andrew Korkblko suggests is that the pipeline, that Turkey is obstructing with the
"Turkey/Libyan Maritime Zone", is not really about Cypriot gas (which b. believes will be too
small and uneconomic to justify a pipeline) but about Israeli gas which is intended to be
piped under the Mediterranean Sea into Europe as a competitor to Russian gas. Maybe the whole
thing about Cypriot gas is just a smokescreen to disguise the true origins (Israel) of the
gas.
What, I suppose, Israel is trying to achieve is to minimise the number of nations that
have a say about (and, I guess, a cut of) the pipeline. So, the attempt to cut Turkey and
other weaker countries out of share (gas transit fees) has forced Turkey to move on its
long-held grievance about being treated unfairly in the Mediterranean Sea.
Are we about to see a war in the Mediterranean between Greece and Turkey caused by US and
Israeli machinations?
I am not talking about rights that are legally justified by "ownership" - what I am saying
is that the whole of the Mediterranean Sea and its resources should be shared fairly and
reasonably by all nations of the Mediterranean.
The proposed gas pipeline is just an example where a small group of nations (Israel,
Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and the US - The Group) have got together to grab what they can for
themselves and exclude others.
Your argument is essentially we have the legal right, we are recognised under
international law, therefore we can do what we like, we can have it all, and you, who have
been excluded, you will have nothing. But, anyone can see that this is unreasonable and the
path to disaster.
But in some ways all this is now moot. The pipeline appears to be really about Israeli gas
and the lack of wisdom in trying to exclude Turkey. If The Group has any sense they will
share the booty with Turkey. If not, they will get Greece to sink a Turkish ship - the
outcome won't be good for Greece.
Neocons lie should properly be called "threat inflation"
The underlying critical
point-at-issue is credibility as I noted in my comment on b's 2017 article. I've since
linked to tweets and other items by that trio; the one major change seems to have been the
epiphany by them that they needed to go to where the action is and report it from there to
regain their credibility.
The fact remains that used car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking
credibility sans a confession as to why they feel the need to lie to sell cars.
Their actions belie the guilt they feel for their choices, but a confession works much
better at assuaging the soul while helping convince the audience that the change in heart's
genuine. And that's the point as b notes--genuineness, whose first predicate is
credibility.
USSR, Yugoslavia, US, EU, and the Indian Union are predicated on the ideas of the
Enlightenment Tradition. So far, USSR and FRY have disintegrated. If EU fails, could US and
EU be too far behind. In US, we have the political ascendancy of foolish Protestantism, in
India that of Hindu masses.
Can any states, predicated on secularism of the Enlightenment Tradition survive the rise
of religious politics?
The interesting info here is that the article states Haftar's "eastern-based Libyan
National Army (LNA), backed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, France, Russia and
Turkey".
The NATO rift between Turkey and its other members has escalated with the Evil Outlaw US
Empire's Senate voting to recognize the Armenian Genocide and Greece to help the LNA (Bengazi
gov't) defend against Turkish shipments of militia/terrorists and weapons to the besieged GNA
in Tripoli. This
site is very helpful and up-to-date regarding what's occurring. And
this PDF Briefing Paper is very good and quite detailed.
All of the above's added to the tense situation around Cyprus, Turkey's threat to close
Incirlik, and Greek offers to house those NATO facilities. It increasingly looks like the
Turkish S-400s are aimed at Greece and NATO.
/div>
Viking guy at 40
"Today we are not members of the EU, but all the "regulations" are forced upon us anyway. The
EU is a non-democratic nightmare that must be demolished."
Absolutely. The EU is the 2nd biggest imperialist asshole on the block, benefitting from the
fact that 1st place is taken by the USA, which is far more blatant, in-your-face and
universally obnoxious when at it, and doing it even to the EU. The EU not being the ultimate
superpower, it can't bully the US or China and only does it when dealing with lesser powers.
That's why it's practically impossible for anyone living inside a major EU-member to actually
notice and be aware of the typical EU behaviour: to crush any lesser country and to force it to
abide by its very own rules, whether independent countries want it or not.
That the EU is that bad should have been clear and obvious to all during the Greek crisis, but
most Europhiles prefer to think this was just an accident, due to some bad apples, and that "If
only the Czar knew", this wouldn't happen. Well, UK is going to get hit badly with the future
deal, because an imperalist neo-liberal power like the EU - just like the US, but most of the
time without the military part of it - can only crush any opposition and make an example out of
it.
If the EU were a truly democratic endeavour, they would allow at least popular referendum at
EU-wide level, and possibly even initiatives, for starter. The way it works, the people have no
checks on it. Not a bit surprise though, most of its core members function this un-democratic
way.
Viking guy at 40
"Today we are not members of the EU, but all the "regulations" are forced upon us anyway. The
EU is a non-democratic nightmare that must be demolished."
Absolutely. The EU is the 2nd biggest imperialist asshole on the block, benefitting from the
fact that 1st place is taken by the USA, which is far more blatant, in-your-face and
universally obnoxious when at it, and doing it even to the EU. The EU not being the ultimate
superpower, it can't bully the US or China and only does it when dealing with lesser powers.
That's why it's practically impossible for anyone living inside a major EU-member to actually
notice and be aware of the typical EU behaviour: to crush any lesser country and to force it
to abide by its very own rules, whether independent countries want it or not.
That the EU is that bad should have been clear and obvious to all during the Greek crisis,
but most Europhiles prefer to think this was just an accident, due to some bad apples, and
that "If only the Czar knew", this wouldn't happen. Well, UK is going to get hit badly with
the future deal, because an imperalist neo-liberal power like the EU - just like the US, but
most of the time without the military part of it - can only crush any opposition and make an
example out of it.
If the EU were a truly democratic endeavour, they would allow at least popular referendum at
EU-wide level, and possibly even initiatives, for starter. The way it works, the people have
no checks on it. Not a bit surprise though, most of its core members function this
un-democratic way.
The infinity war We say we're a peaceful nation. Why do our leaders always keep us at war? The infinity war We say
we're a peaceful nation. Why do our leaders always keep us at war? Sam Ward (For The Washington Post) By Samuel Moyn
and Stephen Wertheim December 13, 2019
Add to list On my list
Now we know, thanks to
The
Afghanistan Papers published in The Washington Post this past week, that U.S. policymakers doubted almost from the start that
the two-decade-long Afghanistan war could ever succeed. Officials didn't know who the enemy was and had little sense of what an achievable
"victory" might look like. "We didn't have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking," said Douglas Lute, the Army three-star
general who oversaw the conflict from the White House during the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
And yet the war ground on, as if on autopilot. Obama inherited a conflict of which Bush had grown weary, and victory drew no closer
after Obama's troop "surge" than when Bush pursued a small-footprint conflict. But while the Pentagon Papers, published in 1971 during
the Vietnam War, led a generation to appreciate the perils of warmaking, a new generation may
squander this opportunity
to set things right. There is a reason the quagmire in Afghanistan, despite costing thousands of lives and
$2 trillion
, has failed to shock Americans into action: The United States for decades has made peace look unimaginable or unobtainable.
We have normalized war.
President Trump sometimes disrupts the pattern by
vowing to end America's "endless
wars." But he has
extended and escalated them at every turn, offering nakedly punitive and exploitative rationales. In September, on the cusp of
a peace deal with the Taliban, he discarded an agreement negotiated by his administration and
pummeled
Afghanistan harder than ever (now he's back to wanting to talk). In Syria, his promised military withdrawal has morphed into
a grotesque redeployment to
"secure" the country's
oil .
It is clearer than ever that the problem of American military intervention goes well beyond the proclivities of the current president,
or the previous one, or the next. The United States has slowly slid away from any plausible claim of standing for peace in the world.
The ideal of peace was one that America long promoted, enshrining it in law and institutions, and the end of the Cold War offered
an unparalleled opportunity to advance the cause. But U.S. leaders from both parties chose another path. War -- from drone strikes
and Special Operations raids to protracted occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- has come to seem inevitable and eternal, in practice
and even in aspiration.
Given World War II, Korea, Vietnam and many smaller conflicts throughout the Western Hemisphere, no one has ever mistaken the
United States for Switzerland. Still, the pursuit of peace is an authentic American tradition that has shaped U.S. conduct and the
international order. At its founding, the United States resolved to steer clear of the system of war in Europe and build a "new world"
free of violent rivalry, as Alexander Hamilton put it
.
Indeed, Americans shrank from playing a fully global role until 1941 in part because they saw themselves as emissaries of peace
(even as the United States conquered Native American land, policed its hemisphere and took Pacific colonies). U.S. leaders sought
either to remake international politics along peaceful lines -- as Woodrow Wilson proposed after World War I -- or to avoid getting
entangled in the squabbles of a fallen world. And when America embraced global leadership after World War II, it felt compelled to
establish the United Nations to halt the "scourge of war," as
the U.N. Charter says right at the
start. At America's urging, the organization outlawed the use of force, except where authorized by its Security Council or used in
self-defense.
Even when the United States dishonored that ideal in the years that followed, peace remained potent as a guiding principle. Vietnam
provoked a broad-based antiwar movement. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (WPR) to tame the imperial presidency. Such opposition
to war is scarcely to be found today. (The Iraq War inspired massive protests, but they are a distant memory.) Consider that the
United States has undertaken more armed interventions since the end of the Cold War than during it. According to the Congressional
Research Service, more than 80 percent of all of the country's
adventures abroad since 1946 came after 1989. Congress, whether under Democratic or Republican control, has allowed commanders in
chief to claim the right to begin wars and continue them in perpetuity.
Legal constraints on U.S. warmaking -- including international obligations, domestic statutes and constitutional duties -- ought
to have returned to the fore after the Cold War, the rationale for America's vast mobilization in the second half of the 20th century.
Instead, they have eroded to dust. At the outset of the 1990s, as President George H.W. Bush promised a
"peace dividend" for Americans and a "peaceful international
order" for all, the United States did rely more faithfully than before on Security Council approval for military operations.
The Persian Gulf War, blessed by the United Nations to repel Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, was legal under international law. But
enthralled by its exorbitant primacy in world affairs, the United States turned away from international prohibitions on war, finding
the rules too restricting.
The next two presidents, attracted to liberal internationalist and neoconservative creeds that embraced armed force, treated international
law cavalierly. Bill Clinton abused U.N. resolutions meant to control Saddam Hussein's weaponry to justify new attacks, including
the bombing of Iraq in December 1998. The next year, the U.S.-led NATO operations in Kosovo suggested that America would unleash
its military for ostensibly noble causes -- in this case to prevent heart-rending atrocity -- even without the pretense of legality.
Despite failing to obtain U.N. approval, the Clinton administration said the intervention should not be treated as a precedent (though
it became one). Others excused it as "illegal but legitimate," with self-professed moral intentions permissibly trumping law. "For
the purpose of stopping genocide," commented
the New Republic's Leon Wieseltier, "the use of force is not a last resort; it is a first resort."
Once such arguments gained currency, their authors lost control of them. Conservative hawks found that a law-optional approach
suited their agenda as well, and their liberal counterparts, if they disagreed at all, did so mostly as a matter of tactics, not
principle. George W. Bush benefited from this permissive context when he launched the Iraq War, whose
illegality was
flagrant and catalytic, since it was unauthorized by the United Nations and
relied on the administration's dangerous claim that "anticipatory
self-defense" justifies invasion. The world took notice. Russia, in particular, seized on the new U.S. position as a
spectacular excuse to make incursions of its own in
Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014.
Obama won election in part because he ran against the Iraq War. In office, however, he cemented more than reversed America's disregard
of international constraints on warmaking. While failing to end the war in Afghanistan, his administration
exceeded the Security Council's authorization
by working to overthrow Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, converting a permission slip to avert atrocity into a blank check for regime
change. Then, to punish the Islamic State, Obama bombed Syria on a contrived
rationale
-- one that allowed attacks against nations unwilling or unable to control terrorists on their territory. When he nearly struck
again in response to Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons, Obama
laid the legal
foundation for Trump to strike the Syrian government, again without a U.N. sign-off. Once highly valued, then defied only with
controversy, international law now scarcely figures in U.S. decisions of war and peace.
Like international law, U.S. domestic law enshrines an expectation of peace, setting a high bar for the resort to war. If war
is to be waged, the Constitution requires Congress to declare it -- a purposeful grant of authority to the branch of government that
best reflects the diverse interests of the people and therefore should be harder to rouse to conflict than one commander in chief.
Yet the nation has drifted from that tradition, too. After defaulting on its constitutional obligation during the Cold War (partly
on the grounds that the speed of a potential nuclear strike required a president who could respond quickly), Congress declined to
reassert its authority after the Soviet threat passed.
In the 1990s, Congress might at least have kept faith with the WPR, which it passed in 1973 to rein in future presidents. The
resolution calls for Congress to authorize "hostilities" within 60 days of their start; otherwise U.S. forces must withdraw. Throughout
the 1980s and 1990s, members of the House of Representatives
brought presidents to
court for taking military action in violation
of the statute -- in El Salvador
, the Persian Gulf War and
Kosovo , for example. But advocates of the strategy
all but gave up, and Congress itself increasingly deferred to presidential wars in the age of terrorism. By the time Obama intervened
in Libya, the WPR lay in tatters. In a final indignity during the Libya operation, one administration lawyer
explained that "hostilities" was an "
ambiguous term of art
" that might exclude aerial bombardment, so Congress did not need to approve a war that toppled a regime.
This deference has proved costly, allowing Trump to pose as an antiwar candidate against the mainstream of two political parties,
a somnolent Congress and inactive courts. Once in power, this wildly unpredictable chief executive finally clarified the danger of
entrusting the world's mightiest military to one man's whims. Congress has begun to stir. In voting this year to end U.S. involvement
in Yemen's civil war, it invoked the WPR for the first time while forces were active in battle.
President Trump speaks to U.S. troops at Bagram air base in Afghanistan last month.
though he has pledged to end America's "endless wars,"
Trump, like past presidents, has instead extended them. (Tom Brenner/Reuters)
Ultimately, elevating peace as a priority will require not merely changing legal norms but overturning the militarized concept
of America's world role that permeates Washington. Somehow, despite waging near-perpetual war, the leaders of the most powerful country
on Earth have convinced themselves that America is always on the brink of turning "isolationist," a peril against which
every president since Ronald
Reagan has warned as their terms wound down. Trump is likely to deviate from that rhetorical tradition, but the rest of the establishment
carries on and doubles down. Today, it is military withdrawals, not destructive deployments, that freak out pundits and spur Cabinet
members to resign, as Jim Mattis
did last year over Trump's vow to pull troops from Syria. Abandoning the Kurds there this fall was Trump's "
great betrayal ," lamented Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass, who did not appear to lose sleep over our past
military incursions.
Under Trump, who applies "maximum pressure" to all foes foreign and domestic,
American militarism is more perilous than ever. It is also more undeniable. That is one reason the current moment is surprisingly
hopeful. The call to
end
"endless war" continues to rise on the flanks of both parties, even as it is flouted by leaders of each. More and more Americans
insist that, whatever interests are served by endless war, their own are not. More than
twice as many Americans prefer
to lower than raise military spending, according to a 2019 Eurasia Group Foundation survey.
Veterans support
Trump's pledge to bring Middle East wars to a close: A
majority of vets deem the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria not to have been worth fighting. The Afghanistan Papers ought to
strengthen the consensus. Americans deserve a president who will act accordingly.
The United States would find partners far and wide, in nations great and small, if it put peace first. It could make clear that
while spreading democracy or human rights remains worthwhile, values cannot come at the point of a gun or serve as a pretext for
war -- and that international peace is, in fact, a condition for human flourishing. Every time Washington searches for a monster
to destroy, it shows the world's despots how to abuse the rules and hands demagogues a phantom to inflate. The alternative is not
"isolationism" but something closer to the opposite: peaceful, lawful international cooperation against the major threats to humanity,
including climate change, pandemic disease and widespread deprivation. Those are the enemies worth fighting, and bombs and bullets
will not defeat them.
Samuel Moyn is Henry R. Luce professor of jurisprudence and professor of history at Yale University and a fellow of the
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and Stephen Wertheim is deputy director of research and policy at the Quincy Institute
for Responsible Statecraft. He is also a research scholar at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University
Follow @samuelmoyn and @stephenwertheim
With the Hong Kong protests showing no sign of letting up, a new narrative has emerged; that
anti-government activists are "
sliding into terrorism with home-made bombs" designed to inflict mass casualties.
On Sunday, Hong Kong police reported that they foiled a second bomb plot in under a week -
arresting three men who were allegedly testing home-made devices and chemicals in a secluded
area, according to
SCMP .
"If this keeps up, China will be virtually forced to shut down the protests - all in the
name of fighting terrorism."
well, I had argued all along that the strategy of the incremental escalation of violence,
the destruction of public infrastructure, both well documented regime change strategies, were
designed to ignite a civil war and force Mainland intervention.
This could then be used as an excuse for the usual embargo tactics. The construction of a
remote detonated bomb is highly complex and as you will recall from Islamic terrorism, bomb
makers are highly skilled.
For this skill to suddenly materialise in HK suggests intelligence agents at work. Hong
Kong has real problems, all economic, but their 5 demands don't call for economic remedies,
indeed they call for things that will never happen.
The leaders of the protests, Josh Wong, Deniese Ho and others are trained by NED and other
agencies to sow discord in what was otherwise a peaceful community.
There was a BBC documentary on utube about HK activists being trained at the NED/Soros
Oslo Freedom forum 2014 but it seems to have been memoryholed in the last few days.
"If this keeps up, China will be virtually forced to shut down the protests..."
Total nonsense. At this point if people in HK started blowing themselves up, the only thing
to pop in Beijing will be some champagne bottles. If Hong Kong slowly destroys itself,
Beijing will just contentedly watch from the sidelines as all that banking business goes to
Shanghai, Macao or across the river to Shenzhen.
It's a bit like calling 9/11 an intelligence failure. First, identify the actual measure
of success against which this outcome should really be judged...
An excerpt:
"Here's the real "secret history" of the Afganistan war: It wasn't a failure, it was a
success. In every facet, on every front, Afghanistan is exactly what America needed it to be.
They dripfeed in the blood of young Americans, they destroy 100,000s of Afghan lives, and
they reap the rewards they always intended to reap:
The permanent slow-simmer conflict gives them an excuse to keep thousands of US military
personnel in a country which borders Iran, Pakistan AND China. (Not to mention a host of
ex-Soviet states).
It keeps military expenditure nice and high, so Congressman, ex-generals and everyone else
on the boards of Boeing or Lockheed Martin get great big bonuses every year.
They have sole access to the rare-Earth elements and other vital metals in the Afghan
mountains. Lithium, most importantly of all.
They have control of the world's opium industry. A vital cog in the relations of the US
intelligence agencies, and organised crime. It's essentially reverse money-laundering –
turning tax-payer funds into dark money that can be spent hiring mercenaries, organising
assassinations, arranging coups or simply be stolen.
They have access to all the "radicalised" young men they could ever want. A little Jihadi
farm, where "terrorists" can be named, trained and sent off to fight proxy wars in Syria, or
spread fear and chaos in the West."
"... Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Lula, recently freed from prison after his trial and conviction were deemed by the Supreme Court to have been a right-wing ruse, is vowing to challenge neo-Nazi president Jair Bolsonaro in the next presidential election. ..."
Trump's reinvigoration of the 19 th century imperialist Monroe Doctrine, which
Washington uses as a political lever to prevent the Western Hemisphere from adopting its own
foreign and domestic policies, has, once again, cast the United States in the light of an
oppressive overlord over the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean.
The Trump regime has returned to a Cold War playbook of color-coding Western Hemisphere
nations with red or pink for "socialist" and "communist." Falling into the "red" category are
Venezuela, which is suffering from crippling US-led economic, diplomatic, and trade sanctions,
and Nicaragua and Cuba, which are also subject to sanctions. Color-coded "pink" are Mexico and
Argentina, led by progressive presidents and which have shifted from their heretofore pro-US
stances. Argentina elected progressive leftist Alberto Fernández as president and, as
vice president, former president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. The Peronista left ticket
defeated incumbent right-wing president Mauricio Macri, a one-time real estate business crony
of Trump and someone who had abused the nation's security services in a failed attempt to dig
up dirt to target former President Kirchner in a bogus corruption court case. The same
CIA-backed "lawfare" operation was used to impeach and remove from office Brazilian leftist
president Dilma Rousseff and imprison her predecessor, the wildly popular Luiz
Inácio Lula da Silva. Lula, recently freed from prison after his trial and conviction
were deemed by the Supreme Court to have been a right-wing ruse, is vowing to challenge
neo-Nazi president Jair Bolsonaro in the next presidential election.
Trump and his Central Intelligence Agency's aggressive stance toward progressive hemispheric
governments have seen more transitions from the "red/pink" bloc to the fascistic and pro-US
bloc than the other direction. Ecuador has moved from the red/pink bloc to the blue as a result
of the pro-US policies of President Lenin Moreno, who served as vice president under the
leftist president Rafael Correa from 2007 to 2013. Moreno's threats against his predecessor
forced Correa to flee to political exile in Belgium. The recent right-wing coup in Bolivia was
supported by fascist leaders of Brazil and Colombia. Bolivia's democratically-elected president
Evo Morales was forced to flee to Mexico, which granted him political asylum.
The revanchist imperialism of the Trump administration has witnessed Moreno and Morales
being forced to flee the fascist "thugocracy" policies of their respective nations, which rely
on abusing the legal system to stifle dissent and imprison opposition politicians. The
governments of Chile and Peru have also firmly lined up with Washington and have engaged in
anti-opposition policies that, in the case of Chile, has led to bloodshed in the streets as a
result of brutal police actions.
A recent addition to the blue bloc from the pink/red coalition is Uruguay. After fifteen
years of rule by the left-wing Broad Front, the right-wing National Party's presidential
candidate, Luis Lacalle Pou, declared a razor-thin victory over Broad Front candidate Daniel
Martinez. One of Lacalle Pou's first decisions was to recognize the opposition Venezuelan
regime of the CIA puppet, Juan Guaido. Lacalle Pou also decided to align Uruguay with the Lima
Group, a bloc of US lackey regimes dedicated to overthrowing the Maduro government of
Venezuela. Lacalle Pou has also signaled his willingness to develop closer ties with the
Bolsonaro regime in Brazil and distance Uruguay from the Fernandez- Kirchner government of
Argentina. It is not secret that Argentina's Alberto Fernández supported the Broad
Front's Daniel Martinez for president.
Of special concern to progressive Uruguayans is the role that Lacalle Pou's coalition
partner, the Cabildo Abierto party of far-right winger Guido Manini Ríos, will play in
his government. If the CIA's lawfare operations in Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, and Bolivia are
any indication, the Cabildo Abierto elements in Lacalle Pou's government, all supporters of the
former military junta's war against leftists in the 1970s, may seek the arrest of former
leftist presidents Jose Mujica, a leader of the leftist Tupamaro guerrillas in the 1970s, and
Tabaré Vázquez. The Latin American fascist acolytes of Trump, from Bolsonaro and
Bolivian politician Luis Fernando Camacho – known as the "Bolivian Bolsonaro" – to
Manini Ríos and Colombian President Ivan Duque, all share in common a desire to imprison
and even torture and execute the leftist opposition of their respective nations.
If the fascistic foreign policy power levers of the Trump White House, CIA, and State
Department have their way, another leftist leader in South America will face prison or worse.
Suriname's leftist president Desi Bouterse was recently convicted by a military court of the
extrajudicial executions of 15 political opponents in 1982, while he served as the military
leader of the former Dutch colony.
The death of the 15 opposition leaders may have been the work of the CIA, which launched a
coup attempt against Bouterse in 1982. In December 1982, the CIA worked closely with Dutch
intelligence to establish contacts with Bouterse's opposition in Suriname, including
politicians, businessmen, and journalists. The Dutch provided assistance to former President
Henck Chin a Sen and his Amsterdam-based opposition forces. The CIA plan included landing
Surinamese rebels in Paramaribo, the Suriname capital, and seize power. There were also reports
that the CIA planned to assassinate Bouterse during the coup, a direct violation of a White
House executive order banning assassinations of foreign leaders. The CIA's chief in-country
liaison for the coup was US ambassador to Suriname Robert Duemling.
A CIA dispatch from Suriname, dated March 12, 1982, describes the CIA's hands-on involvement
in the coup against Bouterse: "Dissident military officers opposing the leftist trend of the
military leadership launched a coup yesterday, but forces loyal to the government are still
resisting. The group, calling itself the Army of National Liberation, is led by two officers
who have been associated with conservative elements of the Surinamese society . . . Although
the rebels have control of the Army's main barracks and ammunition depot in Paramaribo,
government strongman Army Commander Bouterse and troops loyal to him apparently have taken up a
defensive position in the capital's police camp some 6 kilometers away. Fighting subsided
somewhat last night, with both sides claiming to be in control and appealing for support from
military troops and citizenry. A large number of rank-and-file military, who had objected to
Bouterse's leftist policies several months ago, probably will join the dissidents if Bouterse's
position weakens further." If anyone is responsible for the deaths of the opposition figures in
1982, one does not need to look beyond CIA headquarters in Langley and its interlocutors with
the Ford Foundation in New York.
Suriname's third largest ethnic group is Javanese, people who originally were settled by the
Dutch colonizers from Indonesia. In 1982, Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who spoke
fluent Javanese, was already well-entrenched with CIA programs in Java through her employment
with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Ford Foundation. Dunham, who
used her Indonesian last name, re-spelled Sutoro from Soetoro, was a valuable asset for the
CIA's program to destabilize Suriname through its business-oriented and very anti-Bouterse
Javanese minority. Curiously, Ann Sutoro's employment contract with the Ford Foundation ended
in December 1982, the same month that the CIA attempted to oust Bouterse. During her 1981-1982
contract with the Ford Foundation, Dunham Sutoro spent much of her time liaising with the Ford
Foundation's headquarters in New York, a city that was also a base for the CIA-backed
Surinamese opposition.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Bouterse was on a state visit to China when the court delivered
its guilty verdict, along with a 20-year prison sentence. Bouterse seized power in 1980 during
an era that saw leftist leaders like Daniel Ortega and his Sandinistas, Panamanian President
Omar Torrijos, Ecuadorian President Jaime Roldos, Bolivian President Hernán Siles Zuazo,
Jamaican Prime Minister Michael Manley, and Grenadian Prime Minister Maurice Bishop all buck
Washington's influence in the hemisphere. Bouterse became a destabilization target of the
Ronald Reagan-George H. W. Bush administration. After stepping down from power in 1987,
Bouterse and his National Democratic Party returned to power when Bouterse was elected
president in 2010 and re-elected in 2015. In 2012, the National Assembly passed a bill that
granted Bouterse immunity from prosecution. It was later overturned by a court in another
blatant display of Washington-orchestrated lawfare. In 1999, the Dutch weighed in against
Bouterse by being convicted by a Netherlands court of drug-trafficking. Bouterse denies all the
claims against him and remains popular among the primarily Afro-Surinamese population.
The legal action against Bouterse appears to be part of the Trump administration's program
to curb China's international "Belt and Road Initiative," particularly in Latin America. Trump
has countered with his own contrivance, called the "Growth in the Americas" program. Peru has
signaled that it will join Argentina, Chile, Jamaica, and Panama in supporting the American
anti-Chinese bloc. It is clear that if Washington is able to depose Bouterse from power in
Suriname, it can prevent China from establishing a foothold in the country.
The Trump regime is attempting to move its chess pieces around on the Western hemisphere's
political chessboard. Increasingly, it will be up to exiled progressives like Correa and
Morales, as well as the recently-liberated Lula, to counter the march to fascist rule from
Tierra del Fuego to the Rio Grande.
The recent shootings of three U.S. soldiers in Florida at the hands of a Saudi citizen raises a standard question in the U.S.
government's perpetual "war on terrorism": "Why do they hate us?"
Soon after the 9/11 attacks, the official mantra began being issued: The terrorists just hate us for our "freedom and values."
No other explanation for motive was to be considered. If anyone suggested an alternative motive -- such as "They are retaliating
for U.S. governmental killings over there" -- U.S. officials and interventionists would immediately go on the attack, heaping a mountain
of calumny on that person, accusing him of treason, hating America, loving the terrorists, and justifying their attacks.
It happened to me and other libertarians who dared to challenge the official motive behind the 9/11 attacks. Shortly after the
attacks, I spoke at a freedom conference in Arizona consisting of both libertarians and conservatives. When I pointed out that the
attacks were the predictable consequence of a foreign policy that kills people over there, another of the speakers was filled with
anger and rage over such an "unpatriotic" suggestion. Then, a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, FFF published an article by me entitled,
" Is This the Wrong Time
to Question Foreign Policy? " in which I pointed out the role that U.S. interventionism had played in the attacks. FFF was hit
with the most nasty and angry attacks I have ever seen.
Eighteen years later, the evidence is virtually conclusive that the reason that the United States has been suffering a constant,
never-ending threat of terrorism is because U.S. military and CIA forces have been killing people in the Middle East and Afghanistan
since at least the end of the Cold War, and even before.
After all, if the terrorists hate us for our "freedom and values," why haven't they been attacking the Swiss? They have pretty
much the same freedom and values that Americans have. And they are much closer geographically to Middle East terrorists than the
United States is. Why haven't the terrorists been attacking them?
The answer is simple: the Swiss government, unlike the U.S. government, hasn't been killing, maiming, and injuring people and
hasn't been bombing and destroying countries in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
A long history of U.S. interventionism
U.S. interventions in the Middle East began, of course, long before the 9/11 attacks. There was the 1953 CIA coup that destroyed
Iran's experiment with democracy with a coup that replaced the democratically elected prime minister of the country with a tyrannical
pro-U.S. dictator. Not surprisingly, that produced the violent Iranian revolution almost 25 years later. The Iranian revolutionaries
didn't hate America for its "freedom and values." They hated America for the U.S. government's installation, training, and support
of the tyrannical regime against which they revolted.
In the 1980s, there was the sending of U.S. troops into Lebanon as interventionist "peacekeepers." The terrorists ended up blowing
up a Marine barracks, killing 241 U.S. soldiers. The terrorists didn't hate America for its "freedom and values." They hated America
for the federal government's interventionism into Lebanon. As soon as all U.S. troops were withdrawn from Lebanon, which was the
right thing to do, there were obviously no more deaths of U.S. soldiers in that country.
It was after the Pentagon and the CIA lost their official Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia), that they proceeded
headlong into the Middle East and began killing multitudes of people. There was the Persian Gulf War, waged without the constitutionally
required congressional declaration of war, where thousands of Iraqis were killed or injured. That was followed by a decade of brutal
sanctions against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.
Thus, when Ramzi Yousef, one of the terrorists who tried to bring down the World Trade Center with a bomb in 1993, appeared before
a federal judge for sentencing, he angrily told the judge that it was U.S. officials who were the butchers, for killing multitudes
of innocent children in Iraq.
As those Iraqi children were dying, there were retaliatory terrorist strikes on the USS Cole and the U.S. embassies in East Africa.
Once again, however, U.S. officials continued to steadfastly maintain that was all about hatred for America's "freedom and values"
and had nothing to do with the deadly and destructive U.S. interventionism in the Middle East.
Then came Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States, in which he expressly cited U.S. interventionism in
the Middle East as his motivating factor. That was followed by the 9/11 attacks, along with other terrorist attacks both here and
abroad. Through it all, U.S. officials and interventionists have blindly maintained that the terrorists hate us for our "freedom
and values," not because the U.S. government kills, maims, injures, and destroys people over there.
The recent Florida killings
And now we have the latest killing spree, this one at the hands of a Saudi citizen in Florida. According to
a story in yesterday's Washington Post about the killing of three U.S. soldiers, the killer, Ahmed Mohammed al-Shamrani
was described as "strange" and "angry." "He looked like he was angry at the world," said one person who knew him. Another said that
he looked at people in an "angry, challenging" way.
The article says that "the FBI has not yet determined a motive for the mass shooting."
Well, of course it hasn't. That's undoubtedly because the FBI hasn't yet found any statements in which the killer states that
he hates America for its "freedom and values."
But the Post article does point out something quite interesting. The article states: "The gunman, who was shot dead by
a sheriff's deputy responding to the shooting, is thought to have written a 'will' that was posted to the account a few hours before
the rampage. In it, he blasts U.S. policies in Muslim countries."
Well, isn't that interesting! Unfortunately, the Post didn't provide a verbatim transcript of the killer's "will" in which
he "blasts U.S. policies in the Muslim countries." The Post does point out though that "the writer says he does not dislike
Americans per se -- 'I don't hate you because of your freedoms,' he begins -- but that he hates U.S. policies that he views as anti-Muslim
and 'evil.'"
I n an article at antiwar.com entitled, " Pensacola: Blowback Terrorism ," Scott Horton provides a verbatim transcript of the
killer's "will," in which the killer states in part:
I'm not against you for just being American, I don't hate you for your freedom, I hate you because every day you supporting,
funding, and committing crimes not only against Muslims but also humanity. I am against evil, and America as a whole has turned
into a nation of evil. What I see from America is the supporting of Israel which is invasion of Muslim countrie, I see invasion
of many countries by it's troops, I see Guantanamo Bay. I see cruise missiles, cluster bombs and UAV.
Now, if one goes back to Ramzi Yousef's sentencing hearing in 1995 -- some 24 years ago -- one will see that Yousef angrily said
much the same thing to the federal judge who was getting ready to sentence him to jail for his 1993 terrorist attack on the World
Trade Center.
Americans have a choice:
One, continue the U.S. government's decades-long killing spree in the Middle East, in which case America will continue to experience
never-ending terrorist retaliation, the perpetual "war on terrorism, and the ongoing destruction of our liberty and privacy at the
hands of our government, which is purportedly protecting us from the terrorist threats that it produces with its foreign interventionism.
Or, two, stop U.S. forces from killing any more people, bring them all home and discharge them, which would help get America back
on the right track, one toward liberty, peace, prosperity, morality, normality, and harmony with the world.
This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received
his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for
twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987,
Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced
freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren
shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show Freedom Watch . View these interviews at
LewRockwell.com and from
Full Context
. Send him email .
Spotlight on defense authorization bill: Saudi Arabia wins big with assist from
Kushner
The White House secured a major reprieve for Saudi Arabia this week by convincing
Congress to drop several provisions from its annual defense bill before the House passed it
on Wednesday. The Senate is expected to vote on the bill next week. Gone are sanctions on
key Saudi officials for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and restrictions on US
support for Riyadh's campaign in Yemen. The New York Times reports that President Donald
Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner – who reportedly maintains a
direct WhatsApp line with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman – played a key role in the
negotiations.
The United Arab Emirates also came out ahead as the final bill removes language
taking aim at the $8 billion in emergency arms sales to Gulf countries that Trump
authorized in May citing the threat of Iran. The UAE had lobbied against these provisions
and also opposed calls for a report detailing the "military activities" of the UAE, Saudi
Arabia and other international actors in Libya. . The final bill no longer singles out
specific countries but still requires "a detailed description of the military activities of
external actors" in the country.
We always stick by our friends, through thick and thin and murder, and war crimes, and
terrorism, and well, all of it. After all, what are friends for?
"I wish that people would realize that to interfere, in any way shape or form in wars that
occur in Islamic States is pissing into the wind.
We simply cannot and do not understand the religious/tribal and feudal component of these
societies.
It is better that we just let them go at each other. Sooner or later one despot will end
up being top dog - so be it."
Hmm. Do you know the history of colonialism in MENA? I did not think so.
My guess is that your 'knowledge' of Afghanistan and its history is based on your obvious
xenophobia aka Islamophobia and lofty Western superiority complex. Don't feel alone, that's
what folks use to make themselves feel better and able to sleep at night. Check this out:
"Despite close relations to the Axis powers, Zahir Shah refused to take sides during World
War II and Afghanistan remained one of the few countries in the world to remain neutral. In
1944 and 1945, Afghanistan experienced a series of revolts by various tribes.[13] After the
end of the Second World War, Zahir Shah recognised the need for the modernisation of
Afghanistan and recruited a number of foreign advisers to assist with the process.[14] During
this period Afghanistan's first modern university was founded.[14] During his reign a number
of potential advances and reforms were derailed as a result of factionalism and political
infighting.[15] He also requested financial aid from both the United States and the Soviet
Union, and Afghanistan was one of few countries in the world to receive aid from both the
Cold War enemies.[16] In a 1969 interview, Zahir Shah said that he is "not a capitalist. But
I also don't want socialism. I don't want socialism that would bring about the kind of
situation [that exists] in Czechoslovakia. I don't want us to become the servants of Russia
or China or the servant of any other place."[17]
Zahir Shah was able to govern on his own during 1963[9] and despite the factionalism and
political infighting a new constitution was introduced during 1964 which made Afghanistan a
modern democratic state by introducing free elections, a parliament, civil rights, women's
rights and universal suffrage.[14]"
"... The Pentagon’s entire budget operates in much the same way: unprecedented amounts in unnecessary appropriations resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse. Yet Congress continues to throw more and more money at the defense department every year without ever requiring it to account for how it spends the money. In fact, the war in Afghanistan is small potatoes by comparison. ..."
The easy answer is that there’s a long tradition in Washington, particularly among the foreign policy establishment, that self-reflection,
taking responsibility and admitting failure is a big no-no. Heck, you can get convicted of lying to Congress about illegal arms sales,
and cover up brutal atrocities and
still
get a job at the state department. Did you torture anyone?
No problem.
While DC’s culture of no culpability certainly plays a role in this case, the more compelling answer lies somewhere near the fact
that once the American war machine kicks into gear, no amount of facts undermining its very existence is going to get in the way.
Indeed, the United States has so far doled out nearly one trillion dollars for the war in Afghanistan (the true cost of the war
will be trillions more) and everyone’s on the take: from defense industry executives, lobbyists and US political campaign coffers
to Afghan government officials and poppy farmers to anyone and anything in between.
What’s more is that this
military-industrial-congressional complex is largely insulated from public accountability, so what’s the incentive to change
course? The Pentagon’s entire budget operates in much the same way: unprecedented amounts in unnecessary appropriations resulting
in hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse. Yet Congress continues to throw more and more money at the defense
department every year without ever requiring it to account for how it spends the money. In fact, the war in Afghanistan is small
potatoes by comparison.
The bottom line is that the Afghanistan Papers clearly show that a lot of people were killed, injured and subject to years, if
not lifetimes, of psychological trauma and financial hardship because a bunch of men – yes, mostly men – in Washington didn’t want
to admit publicly what they knew privately all along. If we don’t start holding these people to account –
and it’s not just
about Afghanistan – the DC foreign policy establishment will continue to act with impunity, meaning that it’s probably more likely
than not that in 50 years there’ll be another batch of “papers” revealing once again that we’ve failed to learn obvious lessons from
the past.
This war is 18 years old. It's no longer a minor in the eyes of the law. It's old enough to
think for itself, to vote, to move out of the house and get it's own place. Afghanistan will
figure it out. Once we withdraw to allow Afghanistan to return to self-governance.
The US lied about the Gulf of Tonkin in order to justify attacking North Vietnam, it then
proceeded to lie about the conduct of the war and the terrible genocide it was committing. No
lesson learned because in a heartbeat the US was lying about Chile, Brazil, Argentina,
Colombia, Nicaragua and El Salvador, committing a wide range of atrocities in each.
Add Somalia, Libya, proxy wars in Angola and Yemen, efforts to destabilize Cuba, Venezuela
and Iran, illegal wars in the Lebanon and Syria, the annihilation of Afghanistan in
retaliation for what was actually a Saudi terrorist act, the destruction of modern Iraq and
her people using trumped up claims, to say nothing of Clinton's cheery disregard for the
welfare of Balkan residents when the US rained (illegal) uranium bombs down on the hapless
inhabitants.
And now the WP and Congress are worked up over spending a trillion dollars when plainly
they could care less about the Afghan casualties and American war crimes. Heck this goes back
to Theodore Roosevelt seizing Cuba claiming he was saving it from the ravages of Spain or
even further back to government backed settler land grabs "saving their white women from the
savages". Savages, indeed. Zero accountability and Britain still playing faithful lap
dog.
My take on this is that the American Department of Defense war machine remained in a state of
perpetual excitement after their successes in WW11.. almost as if they had to continuously
invent an enemy in order to maintain their war time budget.. (and therefore demonstrate their
ongoing prowess etc etc) in a cycle of wars starting with Korea and bringing us up to date
with Afghanistan.. so that's nearly 70 years worth of international hubris on display.
All on the excuse of spreading their version of democracy.. is money talks!!
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential
for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the
weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take
nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper
meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods
and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
That both the Afghan war and the invasion of Iraq could happen at all tells us that the UN
Security Council is not fit for purpose. These wars also told us that British pretense at
being the voice of reason or the steadying hand that prevents US foreign policy being
subsumed by the visceral and synthesised reactions of a US public is no more than empty cant.
If the US is unable to prevent foreign and defence policy being captured by money
interests and remains inclined to deliver revenge to its public on demand howsoever it might
be misdirected then the US should not be on the UN Security Council at all. They are fast
becoming the number one major rogue state. And the outlook suggests this is more likely to
get worse than improve. Whatever happens to Trump One more (and likely smarter) Trumps are
coming down the track. More Dick Cheneys too. More Bushes, more Rumsfelds, more Nixons,
Boltons, Kissingers, Johnsons and a host of others we'd all much rather were one offs. The US
is the biggest extant threat to world peace. It is too powerful and far too easily played by
warmongers and terrorists of every stripe and every persuasion. And by those seeking to
profit from war.
To call war profiteering and murder a geopolitical "mistake" is to EXCUSE criminal activity.
Anyone responding to this latest revelation of military dishonest as a "mistake" is
actually part of the crime. They are aiding the abettors. Everyone in Congress knows what
everyone in this comments section knows: our military and its global actions are, first and
foremost, a financial fraud.
But not American oil companies which were basically shut out outside of a few minor service
and procurement contracts. Looks like all the "Blood for Oil" poster were BS.
The Iraq War was only partly, however, about big profits for Anglo-American oil
conglomerates - that would be a bonus (one which in the end has failed to materialise - not
for want of trying though).
Yes, and it made no conclusion as to whether the war was legal or not.
" The inquiry did not reach a view on the legality of the war , saying this
could only be assessed by a "properly constituted and internationally recognised court", but
did make a damning assessment of how the decision was made."
Just think - the USA spends more on its military then the combined amount of the next 10
nations in the list (incl. China/Russia/India). That is a major major spend commitment. A
small percentage of that could be used for US citizens to fund their healthcare - but I
suppose they prefer to spend it to threaten and bomb other nations to their will.
Just to think - a similar report was produced post Vietnam and in the 50's even Eisenhower
was worried about the US military backed by private companies becoming a perpetual spending
machine.
But there's one big question the Post report raises but does not address: why? Why did
so many people – from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to
state department and National Security Council officials – feel the need to lie about
how the war in Afghanistan was going?
Because "how the war is going" is not the operating question. Because it does not matter
if the war is just or unjust, whether it's winnable or not winnable, nor whether it's
supported in the "homeland" or not. No, the operating principle is that there is a war. By
its existence, the war creates funding and jobs and profits for the people that matter, the
people the author mentions, from the Security/Military complex corporations all the way to
careerists in the Pentagon and State.
So, it is NOT a waste of $1 trillion dollars ... it is just as it was supposed to be. That
is why the war president (W), the peace president (Obama), and the swamp drainer (Trump) have
all supported it. The war is doing what it's supposed to do.
In time, the US national debt will force them to rein in their military spending. By lowering
taxes while continuing to spend like drunken sailors on military adventures the national debt
is ballooning. US government debt is currently rated AA whereas Canada is AAA. US debt to GDP
is significantly higher than Canada's. (and that's just Canada vs the US). Trump is trying to
create a mafia style protection racket to force other countries to subsidize reckless US
military spending. "Pay up or who knows what might happen?" It is high time US taxpayers ask
why the US can't lower its' out of control military spending rather than pressuring others to
match their profligate ways? Some US citizens say they pay low taxes but it seems they get
nothing in return; no health care, no equal access to education, decaying public
infrastructure, etc. The rest feel overtaxed when they realize they get nothing in return but
don't question the elephant in the room. If other countries maintain responsible levels of
military spending the US will dig itself deeper into debt until the debt markets force them
to see sense.
Military spending is a fine way to transfer wealth from the general population to the rich.
War has always been a fabulous business opportunity, but what has never been so very clear is
how, even for the winning side, it represents a major defeat as wealth is transferred from
the common good into the hands of the rich.
In such matters always consider 'Who will prosper'.
Follow the money...
Considering the United States has been involved in one war or another, directly or
indirectly, for all but about 20 years of its existence, this latest revelation shouldn't
shock anyone. We're a violent country with a violent history and never more so than now, with
our built-on-conflict empire losing steam. We point fingers ("It's the Russians!" "It's the
Chinese!" It's the Iranians!") to deceive ourselves and others, but we're the real threat to
peace. Us. The United States.
Every time I see a person on the street nobly collecting 50ps or the odd fiver for a good
cause like Cancer Research or some other charity, I wonder why they have to do this when the
US has spent over a USD$1 trillion on the Afghan war and other militaries continue to soak up
massive amounts of funding. How much more could we have achieved by now for the real good of
humanity if these funds were focused on research and real human need?
Te US military has been practicing genocide around the world since WW2, millions have been
murdered and still are. But hey, they are the leaders of the free world, the corruption in
the US government, corporations, and military has no bounds. Their own poorer members of this
society are dying in their thousands for lack of medical care, innocent black people are
murdered by police, yet the greed must go on nothing else matters. The only question now
being, which country will they invade next, which government will they plot to overthrow. How
many will be murdered in the process, not that it matters, greed cannot be measured in dead
people.
World peace and the safety of the American public has never been a priority. Entirely the
opposite. Standard procedure: foment fear to wage immoral, endless, profitable war.
This isn't conjecture or "conspiracy theory"; it's as obvious as the sun rising. Anyone
casting this in any other way is either behind the curve or dangerously soft pedaling -- or
lying to stave off actual accountability.
Please stop pretending that our "leaders" are mistaken. They aren't They're doing the jobs
for which they were paid.
It's worse even than a crime... it's insanity to keep excusing a failed 18 year strategy
costing a trillion dollars, resulting in the death of more than 100,000, and the country
ending up worse than when they started. The military, politicians and the media are all to
blame. The military for being too frightened and too stupid to admit they were losing and had
no idea how to correct it.. the politicians for being too frightened to call out their
beloved but incompetent military, and for not "getting it" after more than a trillion dollars
had already been spent; the press and media for being embedded (sometimes literally) with the
military and acting as no more than unquestioning cheerleaders for a self-evidently failed
strategy. It is a terrible indictment of the US on so many levels... where were the public
anti-war protests or activists? Couldn't they see or didn't they care? Either way it's
pathetic.
Almost every year US generals stood before the media and politicians, jutting jaws and
feeble minds, to say that this year was going to be decisive against the Taliban. The fact
is, after Al Qaeda was scattered in 2001, the US picked on the Taliban pointlessly. They
stayed pretending they were engaged in countering the return of al Qaeda (that was never
going to happen) but actually made a new enemy of the Taliban by picking the wrong side in
what was a civil war. The US never understood what it was trying to do so it lied and lied
out of fear of being found out. I find it sickening that this country -the US - pretends it
is a force for good in the world when they are quite prepared to keep killing innocent people
in order to mask the generals' cowardice about facing the truth of their own
incompetence.
A terrible but interesting dichotomy. You have Governments and a broad part of the public
fiercely opposed to public spending and any kind of redistribution. It is all about the
individual.
Yet they sport and actually worship an institution where the individual counts for naught.
In the military it always is about the collective. They throw huge swaths of money to the
military. Which is the only place in the US where dreaded universal healthcare, pensions and
free education exists. Not only that, even the army shops sell goods as subsidised prices,
something unthinkable outside the barracks.
Entirely intentional according the PNAC document Rebuilding America's Defences, Orwellian for
we're going to make a lot of pointless weapons with huge mark-ups for profit by bombing the
shit out of foreigners.
I was listening to NPR about how Veterans turned against the Vietnam war. The people of south
Vietnam would collect shells and explosives that did not detonate and gave to US troops for a
small financial reward. In one such case - the shell exploded killing few kids and injuring a
girl. That girl was refused treatment from US medics because she was one of them. That
soldier involved later joined the anti war movement.
All the veterans were surprised with the image that soldiers coming back from war were spat
at and disrespected by the anti war protesters - this could not have been further from truth.
Back in Vietnam you were taught how to destroy a village, poison drinking water sources
etc. And understandably many GIs fought back.
There are similar stories out of Afghanistan - the naked prisoners with soldiers acting as
if they are engaging in a sexual act and many such shameless incidents. These soldiers were
acquitted which is another way of saying - An Afghan and his life and honor are below us. It
has de-stabilized the region for many decades.
There is a bright side to Donny and his conmen - maybe there will be less intervention and
more introspection - which can only be good for the World.
I think it should have been seen as a thirty year campaign and the same with Iraq and Libya.
The northern Ireland campaign took 30 years and many people are as bitter as they ever were
much of it secondhand from younger people who weren't even alive during the conflict. The
idea of a quick war is a very big mistake I think and flawed short-term thinking.
The West and the USA in particular have always taken the stand that their ideology is the
only right one. That they have a right to interfere in the interns, affairs of other
countries but their own internal affairs are sacrosanct.
So - USA, with UK support decided that Saddam Hussein had to be removed. They moved in to
do so - they killed Saddam but had no plan to return the country to a functioning nation.
Instead they facilitated the unleashing of internal wars and have now left the citizens of
that country in utter turmoil.
& then went and repeated the exercise n Libya.
Decades ago, Britain decided that Palestinians could be thrown out of their homes to make
way for the creation of Israel and laid the foundation for the Middle-East turmoil that has
caused untold misery and suffering. They followed that up with throwing out the Chagosians
out of their homes and making them homeless. Invited Caribbean's to the 'Mother Country' to
serve their erstwhile lords, ladies, masters and mistresses only to then drive to despair the
children and grandchildren of the invitees who had contributed to the 'Mother Country' for
decades.
We are 18 years into an illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. We are the invaders,
the terrorists. The Taliban are fighting for their country, they may use brutal methods but
so did the French, Dutch, Russian freedom fighters during the Nazi invasions. America's
puppet regime in Afghanistan is reminiscent of the Quislings of WW2. And to use drones to
kill Afghans and to say it is progress that there is more transparency is the height of
hubris. All it does is show the corrosive effect of unfettered power in America and it's
military. Why do we tolerate this inhuman action on another country's society? America is by
far the greatest contributor to the rise in terrorism in the world and if not somehow stopped
the greatest threat to world peace. It keeps on invading country after country with it's MSM
propaganda machine claiming it is spreading Democracy throughout the globe. Thank you America
!
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove
from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
I have just finished reading William
Shirer's
Berlin Diary
. (This may not fascinate you, but I am coming to something.) I first
encountered it in high school. It is of course Shirer's account as a correspondent in Germany of the rise of
the Nazis. Most of it is well known to the educated. The Nazis, who had control over the domestic press,
convinced the German population that the Poles were threatening Germany, as plausible as Guatemala
threatening the United States. The Poles were said to be committing atrocities against Germans.
Then the Reich, with no justification
whatever, having absolute air superiority, attacked Poland, bombing undefended cities and killing huge
numbers of people. It was a German pattern several times repeated. Many reporters told of the smell of
rotting bodies, of refugees dying of hunger and thirst. Today the Reich is endlessly remembered as a paragon
of evil. It was.
How did Nazi Germany differ from the
United States today? There is the same lying. Washington insisted that Iraq was about to get nuclear
weapons, biological agents, that it had poisonous gas. None of this was true. The government, unimpeded by
the media, persuaded over half of the American population that Iraq was responsible for Nine-Eleven. Now it
says that Iran works to get nuclear weapons, and of course that the Russians are coming. The American press,
informally but strictly controlled, carefully doesn't challenge any of this.
Having prepped the American public as the
Nazis prepped theirs, Washington unleashed a savage attack against Iraq, deliberately destroying
infrastructure, leaving the country without power or purified water. The slaughter was godawful. But, said
America, the war was to rid the Iraqi people of an evil dictator, to bring them democracy, freedom, and
human rights. (The oil was entirely incidental. The oil is always incidental.)
Fallujah, Iraq, after the American military brought it democracy, human rights, and freedom.
Guernica, after the visit of the Kondor Legion. For the historically challenged, this was the Spanish
city bombed during the Spánish Civil War by the Germans in support of the Falangists.
Washington never sleeps in its campaigns to improve the lives of people
whose most fervent wish is that America stop improving their lives. To give the Afghans democracy, human
rights, and American values, the US has for eighteen years been bombing, bombing, bombing a largely
illiterate population in a nation where America has no business. It is a coward's war with warplanes
butchering peasants who have no defenses. The pilots and drone operators who do this deserve contempt, as
does the country that sends them. How many more years? For what purpose? And how were the German Nazis
different?
The German Gestapo perpetrated sickening
torture in hidden basements. America does the same, mainltaining torture prisons around the world. In these,
men, and no doubt women, are hung by their wrists for days, naked in very cold rooms, kept awake and
periodically beaten (exactly as described by survivors of Soviet torture. Nazis, whether American, Russian,
or German, are Nazis.)
Photos of Iraqis at the American torture
operation at Abu Ghraib showed prisoners, almost naked, lying in pools of blood. Tell me, please, how this
differs from what was done by the Reich? (The bloodier photos are no longer online. Many that remain seem to
have been edited.)
Abu Ghraib.
A happy American girl soldier. Note rubber gloves. The US military used many
female soldiers for this duty. They apparently were kinky, as they seemed to get a kick out of it. A
female general ran the operation.
Gina Haspel, head of the CIA, is a sadist
who tortured Moslem prisoners, reminiscent of Ilse Koch, the notorious Nazi torturess, who also worked in
prisons. It is easy to find victims there, I suppose.
An Abu Ghraib pic apparently no longer online. I found it on an ancient memory stick. Are we having
fun yet?
President Trump has just
pardoned
several American war criminals, saying he wanted to give US soldiers the "confidence to
fight." This amounts to blanket permission to commit atrocities. A purpose of military training being to
extirpate human decency and mercifulness, the obscene barbarism is not surprising. Atrocities are what
soldiers do, and will do as long as the wars go on, being furiously denied by the government. (When I
covered Force Recon, the Marine Corps Special Forces, the motto on the wall was "Crush Their Skulls and Eat
Their Faces.")
Perhaps the best known example of
implied approval was Nixon's pardon of Lt. Calley, who ordered the murder of Vietnamese villagers, for which
he received three years of house arrest.
The Germans wanted empire,
lebensraum,
and resources, in particular oil. Americans want empire and oil, control of which allows
control of the world They go about getting them by invasion and intimidation. Thus America wants to bring
democracy and human rights to Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and Nigeria, which have
lots
of oil, while it
has occupation troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and elsewhere in the Mideast. What part of Syria is Trump
occupying? Surprise, surprise! The part with the oil. Oil for the Americans, land for the Germans.
As Shirer points out, the German public
was not enthusiastic about the war, at least not through 1940, as neither is the American public today.
Neither public showed any concern about the hideousness its government inflicted around the world. What is
the difference?
The parallels with the Reich are not
complete. Washington does not essay genocide against Jews or blacks or any other internal population, being
content with killing whoever its bombs fall upon. Trump cannot reasonably be likened to Hitler. He lacks the
vision, the backbone, and apparently the viciousness. Hitler was a very smart, very evil man who knew
exactly what he was doing, at least politically. This cannot be said of Trump. However, Hitler was, and
Trump is, surrounded by freak-show curiosities of great bellicosity. Adolf had Goering, Goebbels, Himler,
Rheinhardt Heydrich, Julius Streicher, Eichman. Trump has John Bolton, as amoral and pathologically
aggressive as any in the Fuehrer's entourage, or under a log. Pompeo, a bloated toad of a man, bears an
uncanny resemblance to Goering. Both he and Pence are Christian heretics, Evangelicals, who believe they are
connected to God on broadband. O'Brien sounds like Bolton. All want war with Iran and perhaps with China and
Russia. Sieg heil, and run like hell.
My Lai, after Lt. Calley of the SS Totenkopf Div excuse me, the Americal Division, I meant to say,
brought human rights, freedom, and the American way.
Wikipedia:
"Between 347 and 504 unarmed people were killed by U.S. Army soldiers Victims
included men, women, children, and infants. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies mutilated as
were children as young as 12.")
For this Calley got three years house
arrest, less than the sentence for a bag of methamphetamine, until pardoned by Nixon. Many Americans said,
and many still say, that he should not have been punished at all, that we needed to take the gloves off, let
the troops fight. Again, this is what Trump said.
The German Nazis worshiped Blood and
Soil, the land of Germany and the Teutonic race, which they believed to be genetically superior to all
others. Americans can't easily worship race. Instead they think themselves Exceptional, Indispensable, a
Shining City on a Hill, the greatest civilization the world has known. Same narcissism and arrogance,
slightly different foundation.
Nazi Germany was, like Nazi America,
intensely militaristic. The US has hundreds of bases around the world (China has one overseas base, in
Djibouti), spends appallingly on the military despite the lack of a credible military enemy. It currently
buys new missile submarines (the Columbia class), aircraft carriers (the Ford class), intercontinental
nuclear bombers (the B21), and fighter planes (the F-35).
Nazi Germany attacked Poland, Norway,
Belgium, France, Russia, America, and England. America? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, supports a
brutal proxy war against Yemen (Yemen is a grave threat to America), threatens Venezuela, China, and Iran
with attack, embargoes Cuba. These are recent. Going back a bit, we have Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam,
Yugoslavia, the intervention in Panama, on and on. Millions and millions killed.
The Third Reich was, and America is, the
chief threat to peace on the planet, a truly rogue state.
Is this something to be proud of?
Other stuff
La FIL,
Feria Internacional
de Libros
, International Book Fair, Guadalajara, an annual event. I post the photo with the joyous sense
of mischief of an eleven-year-old poking a nest of wasps. It will infuriate the Dissident Right, or Alt
Right, or Race Realists. Their leaders excepted, most of these are ill-tempered naifs who insist, and seem
to hope desperately, that Latin Americans are illiterate. I occasionally have conservative friends down and
they are astonished to find that Guadalajara, a large international city, has the sorts of bookstores had by
large international cities. Duh. (If interested,
here
are a couple of dozen.)
Another and cherished conceit of the
Dissident Right is that Latin Americans who can read must be white. Well, I guess. Why, you could easily
mistake the crowd above for Norwegians. Their ancestors probably arrived with Leif Erikson.
Merry Christmas to all! Happy "Winter
Holidays" to none.
Write Fred at
[email protected].
Put the letters "pdq" anywhere in the subject line to avoid autodeletion. All read, reply not guaranteed due
to volume.
This meritorious and beneficial column
will go into hibernation until after New Year, after which it will likely return.
It's almost a century since Smedley Butler wrote his incisive pamphlet War is a Racket.
If you've never read it, it takes about 15-20 minutes to do so. It will astound, anger and
depress you that the only thing that's changed is the number or zeroes on the eye waterering
profits. Oh, and the players. What is it exactly that makes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
untouchable? (Answers on a postcard C/O Beelzebub.)
Smedley Butler knew of what he lectured about, being the most decorated officer in the
history of the Marine Corps.
A brief insight into this insightful all American action man man Hollywood seems to have
overlooked:
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this
country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks
from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time
being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In
short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I
helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues
in.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall
Street.
"The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for
American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its
way unmolested.
"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket.
Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could
do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
There's been a century of endless war and profits since then with this century shaping up
nicely for the racketeers, whose finest day might well have been September 11th, 2001.
Anyway, here's a link to a pdf file of War is a Racket if you're interested.
Any particular American war has no purpose, but the USA waging it does. The main points of
what war does:
1. Transfers wealth from social services to the military industrial complex. Americans
don't have education, infrastructure, or healthcare, but they do have a generation of
soldiers with PTSD, national debt, worldwide hatred, and an ever increasing sense of
exceptionalism.
2. Traps Americans in a cycle of fear and persecution. Americans don't need a bogeyman,
but our corporate overlords do, its how they monetize the populace. Find some disparate
population of brown people who want self autonomy, send in the CIA to fuck them up, and when
they retaliate tell Americans that people who live in a 3rd world land locked country several
thousands of miles away are a threat to their very existence and way of life because they
don't like God and Walmart.
Sadly the US uses the MIC to keep a large chunk of its population under control, as well as
providing a convenient coverup of the actual numbers of people who are unemployable or would
be unemployed if it were'nt for the taxpayer funding humungous spending in the so-called
defence sector, which needs a a constant supply of conflict to keep going. The frankly
moronic 'thank you for your service' soundbite drives me insane but it shows how much the
American public has been brainwashed.
For years my home state of Washington had a New Deal Democrat Senator named Henry Jackson,
AKA the Senator from Boeing.
He did good things for the state & was hugely popular here. One reason being that because
he brought the Federal pork back home.
IMO the things Gen. Butler wrote about in the 1920s are still the modus operandi of US
foreign policy.
If the Afghanistan war ends, the USA will go to war with someone else. You cannot spend so
much on military & not be at war. America must have an enemy. And, don’t forget,
they always have “God on our side!”
The neocons in power during 2001 were hell bent on taking out Saddam Hussein. When 9/11
happened, they were looking for avenues to blame Iraq so that they could launch the war on
that nation. Since things could not be put together, and all evidence pointed to Afghanistan,
they took a detour in their war plan with a half hearted approach.
In fact Afghanistan was never the problem - It was Pakistan that held Afghanistan on the
string and managed all terror related activities. Everything related to 9/11 and beyond
pointed directly at Pakistan. Whatever threat Bush and his cronies projected about Iraq was
true in the case of Pakistan. The war was lost when they made Pakistan an ally on the war on
terror. It is like allying with Al Capone to crack down on the mafia.
Pakistan bilked the gullible American war planners, protected its assets and deflected all
the rage on to the barren lands of Afghanistan. They hid all key Al Qaeda operatives and
handed off the ones that did not align with their strategic interests to the US, while
getting reward for it. War in Iraq happened in a hurry because the Bush family had scores to
settle in Iraq. Pressure was lifted on Afghanistan. This is when the war reached a dead
end.
The Taliban knew time was on their hands and waited it out. Obama did understand the
situation and tried to put Af-Pak together and tightened the grip on Pakistan. He got the
troops out of Iraq. Pakistan is almost bankrupt now for its deep investment on terror
infrastructure. The US has drained billions of dollars and lives in Afghanistan due to
misdirected goals. I am surprised Bush and Cheney have not been sent to jail on lies to
launch the Iraq war and botching the real war on terror.
he American people have known that the war in Afghanistan was a lost cause for quite some
time. According to the Pew Research Center, Americans' views of the war
started to go south right around the end of 2011, until eventually a majority started
seeing the writing on the wall about two years later.
That's why the Washington Post
report this week on the so-called "Afghanistan Papers", detailing how US officials
"deliberately mislead the public" on the war's progress, is almost sort of unremarkable. If the
piece took away any shred of innocence left from this ghastly enterprise, it's that perhaps
some of us thought our leaders, while failing miserably at building a nation thousands of miles
away, were at least acting in good faith.
At the same time, the Post report is rage inducing, not just because of the sheer stupidity
of American leaders continuing to fight a war they knew they could not win, but also how their
unwillingness to take responsibility for a failed policy caused so much death, destruction and
heartbreak, particularly among those American families who have admirably dedicated their lives
to serving their country, and the countless number of Afghan civilians trapped in a cycle of
endless war they have nothing to do with.
Of course, the "Afghanistan Papers" immediately recalled memories of the Pentagon variety
leaked to the New York Times nearly a half century ago because they too were government
documents outlining how numerous American administrations had lied to the public about Vietnam
– another long, costly and unnecessary war with no military solution.
But there's one major difference: the war in Afghanistan doesn't have as direct an impact on
the lives of everyday Americans as the Vietnam war did, when the military draft meant that
everyone had to deal with the cold war proxy conflict in south-east Asia
one way or another . Therefore, it's entirely possible, likely even, that this major and
important report from the Post will drift into the wilderness just like the dozens of Trump-era
stories that would have,
for example , taken down any other US president in "normal times".
But there's one big question the Post report raises but does not address: why? Why did so
many people – from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to state
department and National Security Council officials – feel the need to lie about how the
war in Afghanistan
was going?
The easy answer is that there's a long tradition in Washington, particularly among the
foreign policy establishment, that self-reflection, taking responsibility and admitting failure
is a big no-no. Heck, you can get convicted of lying to Congress about illegal arms sales, and
cover up brutal atrocities and still get a job at the
state department . Did you torture anyone? No problem .
While DC's culture of no culpability certainly plays a role in this case, the more
compelling answer lies somewhere near the fact that once the American war machine kicks into
gear, no amount of facts undermining its very existence is going to get in the way.
Indeed, the United States has so far doled out nearly one trillion dollars for the war in
Afghanistan (the true cost of the war
will be trillions more ) and everyone's on the take: from defense industry executives,
lobbyists and US political campaign coffers to Afghan government officials and poppy farmers to
anyone and anything in between.
What's more is that this
military-industrial-congressional complex is largely insulated from public accountability,
so what's the incentive to change course? The Pentagon's entire budget operates in much the
same way: unprecedented amounts in unnecessary appropriations resulting in hundreds of billions
of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse. Yet Congress continues to throw more and more money at
the defense department every year without ever requiring it to account for how it spends the
money. In fact, the war in Afghanistan is small potatoes by comparison.
The bottom line is that the Afghanistan Papers clearly show that a lot of people were
killed, injured and subject to years, if not lifetimes, of psychological trauma and financial
hardship because a bunch of men – yes, mostly men – in Washington didn't want to
admit publicly what they knew privately all along. If we don't start holding these people to
account – and it's not just about Afghanistan
– the DC foreign policy establishment will continue to act with impunity, meaning that
it's probably more likely than not that in 50 years there'll be another batch of "papers"
revealing once again that we've failed to learn obvious lessons from the past.
This war is 18 years old. It's no longer a minor in the eyes of the law. It's old enough to
think for itself, to vote, to move out of the house and get it's own place. Afghanistan will
figure it out. Once we withdraw to allow Afghanistan to return to self-governance.
Why did so many people -- from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to
state department and National Security Council officials -- feel the need to lie about how
the war in Afghanistan was going?
This is because it's easy cash cow for the old boys club by sending working class kids
to be killed in a far off land.
The pentagon with the full cooperation of MSM will sell it as we are defending our ways of
life by fighting a country 10,000 kms away. This show the poor literacy, poor analytical
thinking of US population constantly brain washed by MSM, holy men, clergy, other neo con
organisations like National rifle club etc.
I never knew USA dropped 2.7 millions tons of bombs and now so many left unexploded and
its same in Vietnam, Cambodia as neutral,
but i met so many injured kids etc from the bombs,.
the total MADNESS OF USA IS NAZI SM AT ITS BEST,.NO SHAME OR COMPASSION FOR THE
VICTIMS.
I cannot comprehend the money it cost USA,. AN ALSO PROFITS FOR SOME,.
With the exceptions of two attacks on American soil-Pearl Harbor and 911- the American people
and for the most part their legislative representatives in Congress- will always remain
cluless what the United States Government does overseas.
This country runs on its own drum beats. The ordinary man on the street needs to take care
of his economic needs. The Big Boys always take care of themselves. That includes the
military establishment, that is always entitled to an absurd amounts of monies, fueled by an
empire building machinery, pushed by the elites that control the fate of economic might, and
political orchestra that feeds its ego and prestige.
Time and again, our American sociopaths in power have a strangle hold on us, regardless of
the destruction and animosity they heap on distant peoples and lands the world over in the
name of national security and the democratic spiel, as they like to tell us ....
Richard Nixon, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson- Vietnam and the South East Asian countries of
Laos , Cambodia, are an example .
Years later, the establishment manufactures blatant cover-ups with lies upon lies to accuse
on record, as general Powell eloquently presented at the United Nations: That Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction and needs to be held accountable.And now, this report on
Afghanistan with all this pathological violence.
Is it reasonable to conclude that our democracy and its pathological actors in government
and big business will always purchase it by demagoguery and self vested interest, because the
ordinary man whose vote should count will never have the ultimate say when it comes to war
and destruction!
One of things which concerns me most about this site and most others inhabited by
contrarian blokes of a certain age is the way that topics discussed are most often the same
topics as those fed to the mugs via corporate media.
Sure the opinions are vastly different, but the subjects are not. So much energy and
time wasted on pointless topics like the amerikan prez when we all know that it really
doesn't matter who jags that gig nothing meaningful will alter for amerikans or the people
outside amerika oppressed by empire.
Now the prez thing is a bit of a troll since so many amerikans have been intensely
indoctrinated right through their lives to believe that all the prezdency guff is
meaningful when it so obviously isn't. That in reality the odds of any amerikan suddenly
having an epiphany about the pointlessness of DC kibuki from reading this, or something
similar written by someone else, are negligible.
So we have to accept, to a degree, that Washington Housewives and Days of Our Lives DC
will continue to feature at MoA.
But what happens when the corporate media chooses not to consider much larger, more
pernicious forms of imperialism than is currently occurring in the ME because that
imperialism is nascent, awful things are being done to humans western populations who have
not been sufficiently propagandised against, so may not greet the tales of murder and
mayhem generated by the actions of french foreign legionaires, english SAS or amerikan
special forces with sufficient approval?
Easy, we just don't talk about it except when told to or where there is no choice
because some action by the imperial thugs for hire has attracted too much attention. In
that case the barest of details make it into the news and we will be told that whoever it
was who had their families butchered belonged to an organisation which 'western
intelligence' said was 'associated with ISIS'. No specificity, not details at all apart
from the one unsubstantiated claim, which lets face it says any village of humans anywhere
that contains a single resident which western intelligence believes is somehow associated
with ISIS, is worthy of being genocided out of existence.
I reckon one of the best indicators of imperial violence is displaced persons. We saw in
the ME that various forms of ethnic cleansing were practised to persuade people to move off
their traditional lands in order to either exploit the natural resources in the area (see
Saudi Amerika driving tribes from the newly discovered hydrocarbon prospects in North
Yemen), or to create lebensraum for another group of humans currently held in favour by the
empire (see the shifting of arabs and Turkamen from North Syria to give ready made villages
to Kurds which only lasted for as long as the Kurds were needed by empire).
So many people were displaced in the ME during the first half of the teens that shock,
horror some european countries felt obliged to allow a few of those whose lives had been
destroyed into their communities.
That was then, yet we still all talk about the ME as though it is where the empire is
committing its most egregious harm, but that is no longer the case.
If you check
this Pew Center article you will see
The total number of people living in
sub-Saharan Africa who were forced to leave their homes due to conflict reached a new high
of 18.4 million in 2017, up sharply from 14.1 million in 2016 -- the largest regional
increase of forcibly displaced people in the world" .
If one checks the chart Pew has provided we can see that the numbers of decent humans in
the ME who have been displaced from their land is alleged to currently be 21.5 million
while the number of persons displaced in sub-Sahara Africa is about 3 million less at 18.4
million.
See so more action in the ME still. No, firstly the ME curve has flattened right out
over the years since 2016 meaning that new displacements are relatively low unless of
course it is your whanau that has been displaced in which case it wouldn't feel
nearly as benign. Secondly if you look at the fine-print on that chart you will see the 21.5 million line is
labelled "Middle East-North Africa".
Libya is an African state which happens to have a proportion of arabic speaking people
in its population, it also contains Berbers (e.g. Muammar Ghadaffi) and what the chart
calls "sub-Saharan Africans when they want say negro but the unfortunate connotations
associated with that term (99% the result of horrific whitefella behaviour) means that
negro is no longer a la mode in whitefella land.
Not enough to rape, steal & steal from black Africans, now we also remove the means
to identify them as a distinct group.
The Libya africa/ME issue matters a great deal because prior to the fukusi rape of
Libya, that nation acted as a bulwark for all the supra-saharan nations, some Saharan eg
Niger and that was just as likely a reason for amerika to destroy Libya setting loose the
ethno-centrists of Misratah to kill black africans, standover Berbers & Turks to ensure
that only Arab speaking semites can get control. This is the deal the empire struck. Not to
enable italy to get some of that sweet sweet crude at the sort of bargain basement prices
Italy hadn't enjoyed since Mussolini invaded Libya - that was purely a minor side benefit,
now the good colonel was no more, fukus became the only game in town. There was no longer any white knight determined to protect his/her neigbours from the
outright theft, extortion, bribery, rape & murder which are the empire's stock in
trade.
It is foolish and counterproductive to ignore the horrors that a US-led fukus mission
which runs across the entire African continent has created in the name of more billions to
the already rich. Do it if you want, but all you are really achieving is enabling the arseholes.
There is a scarcity of relevant links for the usual reasons. Not only are you more
likely to put faith in info from sources you already know & trust, getting there will
help you comprehend this crime far better than something easily digestible from a user, and
most importantly the final paras were done long after the sun rose over the yardarm
here.
@ A User 72
All very true. I would place the de jure war onslaughts within the overall context of
globalization and in particular the imperialistic assault of corporate industrial agriculture
upon Africa, the last great semi-frontier which wasn't fully assimilated by the first "Green
Revolution" onslaught. A main goal as the global empire faces decline or collapse is to seize
control of all land and drive the people OUT.
Globalization acts to destroy all local production and distribution. It destroys this
outright or seizes control of it in order to force it into the global commodity framework. It
seizes control of indigenous land and resources. It dumps subsidized Western goods. It
destroys any functional politics and democracy. It imposes the control of multinational
corporations over every part of life it can. It does this purely in the power interests of
Western elites. Any benefits it lets trickle down to locals are purely calculated payouts to
accomplices. Much of the global South has been crushed under the corporate boot this way, and
Africa has already been subject to the IMF and World Bank’s debt indenture shock
treatment (“structural adjustment”).
All this has been accompanied by the systematic ravaging of African ecosystems,
culminating in the rising climate chaos driven by the patterns of energy consumption, waste,
and ecological destruction practiced and imposed by Western industrialized productionism and
consumerism. Climate change is caused by these actions. Since corporate state elites and
their supporters have long known this and in spite of lots of lip service have refused to do
anything to avert the worst of it, it’s long been true that climate change is an
intentional campaign of aggression against the Earth and all vulnerable peoples. Thus climate
change takes its place as the most extreme and far-reaching of the corporate campaigns
designed to cause disaster, destruction, and chaos. According to this pattern of disaster
capitalism the corporations then proceed to use the crises they intentionally generate as
further opportunities for aggression and profit. All corporate sectors practice this, and
corporate agriculture is the most aggressive and destructive practitioner of all. Today
Africa is its primary new target.
Corporate control of agriculture and food has always been at the core of the globalization
onslaught. In accordance with its food weapon the US government systematically has waged
economic, political, chemical, biological (both of the former in the form of poison-based
agriculture and other pretexts for systemic and systematic environmental poisoning), and
often literal shooting warfare. Throughout this history of war and sublimated war, corporate
agriculture has been a constant weapon and battleground as well as its aggrandizement being a
constant goal.
The documents also contradict a long chorus of public statements from U.S. presidents, military commanders and diplomats who
assured Americans year after year that they were making progress in Afghanistan and the war was worth fighting.
Look at this:
Several of those interviewed described explicit and sustained efforts by the U.S. government to deliberately mislead the public.
They said it was common at military headquarters in Kabul -- and at the White House -- to distort statistics to make it appear
the United States was winning the war when that was not the case.
As commanders in chief, Bush, Obama and Trump all promised the public the same thing. They would avoid falling into the trap
of "nation-building" in Afghanistan.
On that score, the presidents failed miserably. The United States has allocated more than $133 billion to build up Afghanistan
-- more than it spent, adjusted for inflation, to revive the whole of Western Europe with the Marshall Plan after World War II.
The Lessons Learned interviews show the grandiose nation-building project was marred from the start.
If you can get through it all, good for you. I got so mad that I had to quit reading not long after the paragraph above. We have
lost about 2,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, and sustained about 21,000 casualties of war. (Not to mention all the dead innocent Afghan
civilians, and the dead and wounded troops of our NATO allies.) We have spent altogether almost $1 trillion on that country. The
Afghan officials stole a fortune from us. We never knew what to do there. And every one of our leaders lied about it. Lied! All those
brave American soldiers, dead or maimed for life, for a war that our leaders knew that we could not win, but in defense of which
they lied.
It's the Pentagon Papers all over again. You know this, right.
Trump is negotiating now with the Taliban over the possibility of US withdrawal. The story says US officials fought the Post
in court over these documents, and have said most recently that publishing them would undermine the administration's negotiating
position. I don't care. Tell the truth, for once. Let's cut our losses and go before more Americans die in this lost cause. Poor
Afghanistan is going to fall under the tyrannical rule of the mullahs. But if, after 18 years, a trillion dollars, and all those
dead and wounded Americans, we couldn't establish a stable and decent Afghan regime, it's not going to happen.
If any of my children want to join the US military, I'm going to go to the mat to talk them out of it. I do not want them, or
anybody's sons or daughters, sent overseas to die in hopeless countries in wars that we cannot win, and shouldn't have fought, but
kept doing because of bipartisan Establishment foreign policy delusions. To be clear, we should have bombed the hell out of Afghanistan
after 9/11. The Taliban government gave shelter to Al Qaeda, and brought retribution upon itself. But the Bush Administration's nation-building
insanity was never going to work. Eight years of Obama did not fix this. Nor, so far, has three years of Trump, though maybe he will
be the one to stop the bleeding. If he does withdraw, I hope he blasts the hell out of his two predecessors and the military leadership
for what they've done here.
I've been writing lately in this space, and in the book I'm working on, about the parallels between late-imperial Russia and our
own time and place. And I've been writing about what Hannah Arendt had to say about the origins of totalitarianism. Arendt says that
one precursor of totalitarianism is a widespread loss of faith in a society's and a government's institutions.
According to a 2019 Gallup poll, the
US military is one of the few institutions that enjoys broad confidence. How can anybody possibly believe them after this? How can
we believe our Commanders-in-Chief? According to the secret documents, the men in the field have been were their commanders for a
long time that this Afghan thing was not working, and wasn't ever going to work. But they kept sending them back in.
Why? Pride? Too full of themselves to admit that it was a failure? As soldier John Kerry turned antiwar activist said back in
the 1970s, about Vietnam, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" No more American dying in and for Afghanistan.
Bring the troops home. They did not fail. Their superiors did.
How do you convince young people to join an institution whose leadership -- civilian as well as military -- is prepared to sacrifice
them for a lost cause, and then lie, and lie, and lie about it? How do you convince mothers and fathers to send their sons and daughters
with confidence to that military? How do you convince taxpayers to support throwing more money into the sh*thole that is the Pentagon's
budget?
The questions that are going to come up sooner than most of us think, and, in some version, from both the Left and the Right:
just what kind of order do we have in America anyway? Why do I owe it my loyalty? What does it mean to be a patriot when you cannot
trust the nation's leaders and institutions?
These are the kinds of questions that, depending on how they are answered, can lead to the unraveling, and even the overthrow,
of a regime. It has been said that the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan was a prime mover in the ascension of Mikhail Gorbachev and the
collapse of the Soviet system. We are not the Soviet Union -- but I wouldn't be so quick to take comfort in that, if I were a political
or military leader.
We learned nothing from Vietnam, did we? Not a damn thing. It is beyond infuriating. It is beyond demoralizing. And you know,
the only thing more infuriating and more demoralizing than this will be if there are no consequences for it, or if people fall back
into partisan positions. The report makes clear that this is a disaster that was launched by a Republican administration, continued
under a Democratic administration, and has been overseen by another Republican administration.
One of the reasons Donald Trump is president today, and not some other Republican, is he was the one Republican primary candidate
who denounced the wars. If he can't get us out of Afghanistan, what good is he?
UPDATE: I was just thinking about something a military friend told me almost 15 years ago, based on his direct personal knowledge
of the situation: that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was lying to the nation about how the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were
going. And if Rumsfeld was lying, so was the administration. My friend was deeply discouraged. Rumsfeld left office in 2006 -- but
the habit remained with our leadership.
The only thing that surprised me in the WaPo article was that it was published in the CIA's house organ.
EDIT: I should have added that the squandering of blood and treasure, fighting a pointless war that benefits nobody but the
financiers, contractors, arms manufacturers and generals, all while the politicians and generals proclaim that victory is just
at hand, we can't turn back now, - all this reminds me of nothing so much as a smaller scale WWI.
Trump wants us out of Afghanistan, but Iran is a different story. He's sending more troupes to Saudi Arabia to defend the Saudi's
from Iran, how is that disentangling from the ME. I think the Saudi's Wahhabism, basically the same as ISIS practices, is the
most dangerous religion in the word today and they are busy exporting it to the rest of the world. I really think Trump is a false
prophet, a lying prophet, who serves first himself.
Didn't vote for Trump - but: He has attempted to stand up to the elite establishment intelligence-military-arms manufacturing
complex and start cutting back the forever wars. Everyone attacks him for this--establishment Republicans, Democrats, State Department,
Military, Intelligence, Media--everybody. The attacks are immediate and intense. He is almost always forced to pull back. He seems
determined to keep trying, but, as is evident, they will do anything it takes to stop him.
"A botched assassination attempt against Ukrainian politician and businessman Vyacheslav
Sobolev has resulted in the death of his three-year-old son, Alexander.
"While Sobolev and his wife were leaving his high-end restaurant "Mario" in Kiev this past
Sunday, right-wing thugs opened fire on Sobolev's Range Rover, missing him but hitting his
son who was seated in the back of the vehicle. The three-year-old died on the way to the
hospital.
"Police later apprehended two men who had fled the scene in a black Lexus sedan, Oleksiy
Semenov, 19, and Andrei Lavrega, 20. Both are veterans of the war in Donbass in eastern
Ukraine where they served as members of the fascist Right Sector's paramilitary formation
until June of this year.
"The Right Sector was instrumental in the US- and EU-backed, fascist-led coup in February
2014 that toppled the Yanukovitch government and replaced it with a pro-Western and
anti-Russian regime. Since then, the Right Sector has been among the far-right forces that
have been heavily involved in the war against Russian-backed separatists in East Ukraine.
"As is usual when members of neo-Nazi groups carry out political attacks, the Right Sector
and their former battalion commander fraudulently attempted to distance themselves from
Lavrega and Semenov, claiming they had lost contact with them since they left Ukraine's armed
forces in June. These claims are not credible.
"Lavrega, who has been identified as the principal shooter in the killing, has been a
member of the Right Sector for at least half a decade. He had participated in the Maidan
movement of 2014 as a member of the Right Sector and perfected his shooting skills as a
sniper killing separatist soldiers in eastern Ukraine. According to his Right Sector
battalion commander, Andrei Herhert, Lavrega -- also known as "Quiet" -- was "one of the best
snipers in the war" and "very ideological."
"As a thanks for his service to the right-wing Kiev government, Lavrega received a
military decoration from former President Petro Poroshenko for "courage" just last year, in
October of 2018." ..........
"Whoever is ultimately responsible for ordering this political assassination and the
murder of the three-year-old boy, it is clear that the same far-right forces that were
instrumental in the coup in February 2014 and the civil war are now being employed to carry
out political assassinations by the Ukrainian oligarchy.
"Since the 2014 coup, the number of targeted political assassinations by right-wing
neo-Nazi groups like C14 and the Right Sector has skyrocketed. At least 15 people have been
murdered in such hit jobs by the far right since 2014. Among them was the well-known
Belarusian journalist Pavel Sheremet and the politician Kateryna Handziuk, who was killed in
a horrific acid attack by right-wing thugs last year.
"In virtually all these cases, the perpetrators have been protected from serious legal
prosecution. One of the murderers of Handziuk received a barely three-year prison sentence. A
critical role in shielding the neo-Nazis is played by Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs'
Arsen Avakov, who controls the country's police force and possesses well-known ties to
Ukraine's most notorious fascist militia, the Azov Battalion.
"Avakov is one of the few members of the previous Poroshenko government that have remained
in the current Cabinet of Ministers under President Volodmyr Zelensky. He was recently
praised by former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch while testifying before the
House of Representatives regarding the Trump impeachment investigation (see also: "The
impeachment crisis and American imperialism").
"President Zelensky, who was elected in April this year on the basis of promises that he
would bring an end to the widely despised civil war in eastern Ukraine that has claimed the
lives of over 13,000 people, has maintained a conspicuous silence on this latest political
assassination attempt by the far right. Instead, the day after the murder, he posted a
message on Facebook to honor two Ukrainian soldiers who were killed while fighting in eastern
Ukraine this past weekend."
The rest of the story can be found at the WSWS https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/07/ukra-d06.html
The Right Sector links with the former US Ambassador-Democratic heroine- are topical.
Thank you for that insight. I cannot see how Zelensky will manage the Nazi Ukrainians
short of a virtual civil war against one western district. The USA will foment a major
insurrection to destroy him if he does a deal with Gazprom. Your suggestion as to where those
issues are discussed would be welcome.
A User #72
Thank you and well said. The eurocentric kabuki does mesmerise the information providers.
I too seek escape from that dominance and spent a good time today researching the Power of
Siberia implications and issues of South America. The global assault on all things African is
a matter of deep despair for me and I feel totally powerless to reverse the relentless
assault on their world.
Days before Britain's historic election, the UK's military-intelligence apparatus is
turning to the corporate media and US government-funded NATO cut-outs to smear Labour leader Jeremy
Corbyn with evidence-free Russiagate allegations.
Ben NORTON, Max BLUMENTHAL
The popular socialist leader of Britain's Labour Party,
Jeremy
Corbyn
, could be on the verge of becoming prime minister of the
United
Kingdom
. And the mere possibility is terrifying British intelligence services and the US
government.
Since Corbyn was elected to the head of the Labour Party in 2015, in a landslide victory after
running on a staunch leftist and anti-war platform, the
corporate
media has waged a relentless campaign
to demonize and delegitimize him.
With just days remaining before UK's national election on December 12, British intelligence
agencies and US government-backed organizations have escalated their
attacks
on Corbyn
, borrowing tactics from America's
Russiagate
hysteria
and going to great efforts to portray him -- without any substantive evidence -- as a supposed puppet of
the dastardly Kremlin.
These government-sponsored attacks on Corbyn, a lifelong anti-imperialist and former chair of the
Stop
the War Coalition
, are far from new. In December, The Grayzone reported on the
Integrity
Initiative
, a
UK
government-funded secret network
of spies, journalists, and think tanks that rehabilitated Cold
War-era information warfare to demonize Corbyn and smear anti-war leftists as Vladimir Putin's
unwitting foot soldiers.
But as polls show more and more popular enthusiasm for Labour and its socialist program on the eve
of the vote, and as the prospects of a Corbyn-led government become increasingly plausible, Western
government spooks have rapidly laundered avalanches of disinformation through the press, desperately
trying to undermine the party's electoral efforts.
Dozens of misleading hit pieces are circulating in the press that treat PSYOP specialists and
regime-change lobby groups funded to the hilt by Washington, NATO, and the weapons industry as
trustworthy and impartial.
British journalist Matt Kennard has documented at least 34 major media stories that rely on
officials from the UK military and intelligence agencies in order to
depict
Corbyn as a threat to national security
.
A powerful trans-Atlantic disinformation network sponsored by NATO-related entities and dedicated
to spreading fear about Russian meddling has set its sights on the leftist Labour leader.
Western intelligence cut-outs blame Corbyn's exposure of NHS
scandal on Russia
On November 27, the Jeremy Corbyn campaign revealed a
451-page
dossier
containing details of secret negotiations between the UK's Conservative government and the
US to privatize Britain's National Health Service (NHS) as part of the Brexit deal. The explosive
revelation put the lie to Prime Minister Boris Johnson's promise that the NHS was not up for
negotiation.
Less than a week later, a peculiar story dropped in the British media. A December 2
headline
in
the pro-Tory Telegraph blared that the NHS dossier deployed by Corbyn "points to Russia." The liberal
Guardian published a
similar
report
asserting that the leaked papers had been "put online by posters using Russian methods."
And the story
gravitated
across the Atlantic
thanks to the neoconservative Daily Beast tabloid.
In every case, the media relied on a single source to link the NHS dossier – and Corbyn himself –
to Russian interference: a supposed data consulting firm called Graphika, and its director, supposed
"information expert" Ben Nimmo.
Assuring the public that the leak of the documents "closely resembles a known Russian operation,"
Nimmo simultaneously conceded that "we do not have all the data that allows us to make a final
determination in this case."
Ben Nimmo at the DFRLab's 2018 Digital Sherlocks conference in Berlin, Germany
Not one outlet covering story bothered to inform readers who Nimmo was, or offered any detail on
the powerful state forces behind Graphika.
In fact, Nimmo is not a data expert or a journalist, but a former NATO press officer who previously
consulted for the covert Integrity Initiative propaganda farm, which was funded by the UK Foreign
Office and dedicated to spawning conflict with Russia.
Nimmo put his lack of journalistic precision on display when he launched a bungled 2018 witch-hunt
against Twitter users whose postings diverged from the NATO line, branding several real live humans as
Russian bots.
His victims included
Mariam
Susli
, a well-known Syrian-Australian social media personality, the famed Ukrainian concert
pianist
Valentina
Lisitsa
, and a British pensioner named Ian Shilling.
This April, Nimmo was hired as Director of Investigations by Graphika. Humbly
describing
itself
as "the best in the world at analyzing how online social networks form, evolve, and are
manipulated," Graphika's
partners
include
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon's Minerva Initiative, the Senate
Select Intelligence Committee, and the Syria Campaign – the billionaire-funded
public
relations arm of the Syrian White Helmets
.
Nimmo also
works
as a senior fellow
at the Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) at the Atlantic Council, NATO's
unofficial think tank in Washington.
Its DFRLab was enlisted by Facebook to "identify, expose, and explain disinformation during
elections around the world," and subsequently received $1 million from Mark Zuckerberg's social media
empire to carry out its work.
Last October, with guidance from Nimmo and the Atlantic Council's DFRLab, Facebook and Twitter
deleted
the accounts of hundreds of users
, including many alternative media outlets maintained by American
citizens.
Among those targeted in the coordinated purge were popular alternative news sites that scrutinized
police brutality and militarism, along with the pages of professional
journalists
.
Now, in the UK, the Atlantic Council is injecting itself into a national election campaign,
exploiting an atmosphere of Russia hysteria that its self-styled "information experts" have helped to
stoke.
On December 6,
Reddit
announced
that its platform had been used by "suspected" Russian actors to publish the scandalous
NHS dossier that become a centerpiece of Corbyn's campaign against Johnson. As usual, the primary
source for Reddit's claim was the Atlantic Council, which it credited with "provid[ing] us with
important attribution."
Reddit's Director of Policy, Jessica Ashooh, is the Atlantic Council's former Middle East Strategy
Task Force Deputy Director, and an ex-official of the government of the United Arab Emirates. She was
hired by the social media giant in 2017, at around the same time that Senate Select Intelligence
Committee co-chair Sen. Mark Warner was
demanding
more government control
over Reddit on the grounds that it was a potential vehicle for Russian
influence.
In a 2016
column
for
Foreign Policy, Ashooh likened Donald Trump to self-proclaimed ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and
appeared to lament that "drone strikes on Trump Tower are probably not coming any time soon."
She complained that Trump was "giving voice to troubling narratives of marginalization and
disenchantment with the status quo," and chided the "elite class" for underestimating him.
Those same elite grievances have animated the campaign to destroy Corbyn, a left-wing populist
whose political views are alternately opposed to Trump's. And the same cynical tactics honed in the
paranoid passion play of Russiagate have been redeployed against the Labour leader.
In the most recent intelligence-backed assault on Corbyn, corporate media outlets have even relied
on Nazis and neo-fascist blogs as sources.
Using literal Nazi blog posts to smear Corbyn as a terrorist
sympathizer
One of the most shockingly dishonest smears of Jeremy Corbyn was published in the British tabloid
The Sun on December 7.
The story, hyperbolically titled "'
HIJACKED
LABOUR
' Ex-British intelligence officers say Jeremy Corbyn is at the centre of a hard-left
extremist network," claimed the "Labour leader's spider's web of extensive contacts stretch from
Marxist intellectuals to militant groups and illegal terror organisations."
The piece uncritically echoes the opinions of a right-wing lobby group called Hijacked Labour,
which was founded by former military intelligence officers with the express goal of ousting Corbyn and
purging the Labour Party's anti-imperialist faction.
In lieu of any actual evidence, the report relied on a graphical web created by these conservative
disgruntled ex-spies, which attempts to link Corbyn to terrorism through many degrees of separation --
and cites neo-Nazis to do so.
The conspiratorial web does not show any tangible ties between these figures, and impugns Corbyn
with vague far-right buzzwords like "global Marxism" and "postmodern neo-Marxism." The latter term is
a non-existent and paradoxical concoction of ultra-conservative pundit
Jordan
Peterson
, based on the fascist anti-Semitic myth of "
Cultural
Marxism
," which is itself rooted in Nazi Germany's propaganda on "
Cultural
Bolshevism
."
In fact, the Hijacked Labour website directly references the right-wing pundit, recommending a
Jordan Peterson lecture titled "
Postmodernism
and Cultural Marxism
." The Peterson screed was published by
The
Epoch Times
, a right-wing media outfit run by the
fascist
Chinese cult Falun Gong
, which maintains that science and race-mixing are demonic and insists
Donald Trump was sent by God to destroy the Communist Party of China.
The anti-Corbyn group of British spooks also implored readers to watch a video by Thomas DiLorenzo,
a right-wing neoliberal economist at the libertarian Mises Institute, which Hijacked Labour claims
"works against the deconstructive and destructive effects of Cultural Marxism."
Given the conspiratorial web's reliance on far-right terminology, it might not have been a surprise
that it also cited literal Nazis as a source.
Critics on Twitter quickly pointed out that the Hijacked Labour website used by the British media
to attack Corbyn cited a neo-Nazi website called Aryan Unity.
Together with this white supremacist page, the former British military intelligence officers cited
a critique of antifascists published by the far-right website The Millennium Report. This blog has run
blatantly anti-Semitic posts with titles like, "
Why
are the Jews so reviled worldwide
? Have they brought this judgment on themselves?", "
New
World Order Pledged To Jews
," and "
This
is how the 'Court Jews'
have been strategically placed into power families over millennia."
After facing backlash on social media, The Sun article was removed from the website.
And the
new
URL
for the post includes the term "legal-removal," suggesting that the publication
may have been threatened with legal action for publishing the absurd story.
But this was far from the only corporate media attack on Corbyn that relied on military
intelligence apparatus as a source.
British journalist Mark Curtis has expanded his colleague Matt Kennard's tally and shown that some
40 media stories have been published in major corporate media outlets smearing Jeremy Corbyn with the
unsubstantiated claims of British spies.
The UK's military intelligence apparatus has demonstrated a striking ability to influence
the mainstream media, stirring pseudo-scandals almost every week. Desperate to prevent the
election of the first authentically left-wing British prime minister, it is no longer
disguising its role in the assault on Corbyn.
But there is one weapon Corbyn boasts that this unelected, opaque element can only hope for: the
hearts and minds of masses of British people. And this December 12, the people get to decide.
thegrayzone.com
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
Tags:
Jeremy Corbyn
Mass Media
United Kingdom
United States
Print this article
December 9, 2019 |
Editor's Сhoice
US and UK Military-Intelligence Apparatus Campaigns to Destroy Jeremy Corbyn
Days before Britain's historic election, the UK's military-intelligence apparatus is
turning to the corporate media and US government-funded NATO cut-outs to smear Labour leader
Jeremy Corbyn with evidence-free Russiagate allegations.
Ben NORTON, Max
BLUMENTHAL
The popular socialist leader of Britain's Labour Party,
Jeremy
Corbyn
, could be on the verge of becoming prime minister of the
United
Kingdom
. And the mere possibility is terrifying British intelligence services and the US
government.
Since Corbyn was elected to the head of the Labour Party in 2015, in a landslide victory
after running on a staunch leftist and anti-war platform, the
corporate
media has waged a relentless campaign
to demonize and delegitimize him.
With just days remaining before UK's national election on December 12, British intelligence
agencies and US government-backed organizations have escalated their
attacks
on Corbyn
, borrowing tactics from America's
Russiagate
hysteria
and going to great efforts to portray him -- without any substantive evidence -- as a supposed
puppet of the dastardly Kremlin.
These government-sponsored attacks on Corbyn, a lifelong anti-imperialist and former chair of
the
Stop the War Coalition
,
are far from new. In December, The Grayzone reported on the
Integrity
Initiative
, a
UK
government-funded secret network
of spies, journalists, and think tanks that rehabilitated
Cold War-era information warfare to demonize Corbyn and smear anti-war leftists as Vladimir
Putin's unwitting foot soldiers.
But as polls show more and more popular enthusiasm for Labour and its socialist program on
the eve of the vote, and as the prospects of a Corbyn-led government become increasingly
plausible, Western government spooks have rapidly laundered avalanches of disinformation through
the press, desperately trying to undermine the party's electoral efforts.
Dozens of misleading hit pieces are circulating in the press that treat PSYOP specialists and
regime-change lobby groups funded to the hilt by Washington, NATO, and the weapons industry as
trustworthy and impartial.
British journalist Matt Kennard has documented at least 34 major media stories that rely on
officials from the UK military and intelligence agencies in order to
depict
Corbyn as a threat to national security
.
A powerful trans-Atlantic disinformation network sponsored by NATO-related entities and
dedicated to spreading fear about Russian meddling has set its sights on the leftist Labour
leader.
Western intelligence cut-outs blame Corbyn's exposure of
NHS scandal on Russia
On November 27, the Jeremy Corbyn campaign revealed a
451-page
dossier
containing details of secret negotiations between the UK's Conservative government
and the US to privatize Britain's National Health Service (NHS) as part of the Brexit deal. The
explosive revelation put the lie to Prime Minister Boris Johnson's promise that the NHS was not
up for negotiation.
Less than a week later, a peculiar story dropped in the British media. A December 2
headline
in
the pro-Tory Telegraph blared that the NHS dossier deployed by Corbyn "points to Russia." The
liberal Guardian published a
similar
report
asserting that the leaked papers had been "put online by posters using Russian
methods." And the story
gravitated
across the Atlantic
thanks to the neoconservative Daily Beast tabloid.
In every case, the media relied on a single source to link the NHS dossier – and Corbyn
himself – to Russian interference: a supposed data consulting firm called Graphika, and its
director, supposed "information expert" Ben Nimmo.
Assuring the public that the leak of the documents "closely resembles a known Russian
operation," Nimmo simultaneously conceded that "we do not have all the data that allows us to
make a final determination in this case."
Ben Nimmo at the DFRLab's 2018 Digital Sherlocks conference in Berlin, Germany
Not one outlet covering story bothered to inform readers who Nimmo was, or offered any detail
on the powerful state forces behind Graphika.
In fact, Nimmo is not a data expert or a journalist, but a former NATO press officer who
previously consulted for the covert Integrity Initiative propaganda farm, which was funded by
the UK Foreign Office and dedicated to spawning conflict with Russia.
Nimmo put his lack of journalistic precision on display when he launched a bungled 2018
witch-hunt against Twitter users whose postings diverged from the NATO line, branding several
real live humans as Russian bots.
His victims included
Mariam
Susli
, a well-known Syrian-Australian social media personality, the famed Ukrainian concert
pianist
Valentina
Lisitsa
, and a British pensioner named Ian Shilling.
This April, Nimmo was hired as Director of Investigations by Graphika. Humbly
describing
itself
as "the best in the world at analyzing how online social networks form, evolve, and
are manipulated," Graphika's
partners
include
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon's Minerva Initiative, the
Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and the Syria Campaign – the billionaire-funded
public
relations arm of the Syrian White Helmets
.
Nimmo also
works
as a senior fellow
at the Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) at the Atlantic Council,
NATO's unofficial think tank in Washington.
Its DFRLab was enlisted by Facebook to "identify, expose, and explain disinformation during
elections around the world," and subsequently received $1 million from Mark Zuckerberg's social
media empire to carry out its work.
Last October, with guidance from Nimmo and the Atlantic Council's DFRLab, Facebook and
Twitter
deleted
the accounts of hundreds of users
, including many alternative media outlets maintained by
American citizens.
Among those targeted in the coordinated purge were popular alternative news sites that
scrutinized police brutality and militarism, along with the pages of professional
journalists
.
Now, in the UK, the Atlantic Council is injecting itself into a national election campaign,
exploiting an atmosphere of Russia hysteria that its self-styled "information experts" have
helped to stoke.
On December 6,
Reddit
announced
that its platform had been used by "suspected" Russian actors to publish the
scandalous NHS dossier that become a centerpiece of Corbyn's campaign against Johnson. As usual,
the primary source for Reddit's claim was the Atlantic Council, which it credited with
"provid[ing] us with important attribution."
Reddit's Director of Policy, Jessica Ashooh, is the Atlantic Council's former Middle East
Strategy Task Force Deputy Director, and an ex-official of the government of the United Arab
Emirates. She was hired by the social media giant in 2017, at around the same time that Senate
Select Intelligence Committee co-chair Sen. Mark Warner was
demanding
more government control
over Reddit on the grounds that it was a potential vehicle for
Russian influence.
In a 2016
column
for
Foreign Policy, Ashooh likened Donald Trump to self-proclaimed ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
and appeared to lament that "drone strikes on Trump Tower are probably not coming any time
soon."
She complained that Trump was "giving voice to troubling narratives of marginalization and
disenchantment with the status quo," and chided the "elite class" for underestimating him.
Those same elite grievances have animated the campaign to destroy Corbyn, a left-wing
populist whose political views are alternately opposed to Trump's. And the same cynical tactics
honed in the paranoid passion play of Russiagate have been redeployed against the Labour leader.
In the most recent intelligence-backed assault on Corbyn, corporate media outlets have even
relied on Nazis and neo-fascist blogs as sources.
Using literal Nazi blog posts to smear Corbyn as a
terrorist sympathizer
One of the most shockingly dishonest smears of Jeremy Corbyn was published in the British
tabloid The Sun on December 7.
The story, hyperbolically titled "'
HIJACKED
LABOUR
' Ex-British intelligence officers say Jeremy Corbyn is at the centre of a hard-left
extremist network," claimed the "Labour leader's spider's web of extensive contacts stretch from
Marxist intellectuals to militant groups and illegal terror organisations."
The piece uncritically echoes the opinions of a right-wing lobby group called Hijacked
Labour, which was founded by former military intelligence officers with the express goal of
ousting Corbyn and purging the Labour Party's anti-imperialist faction.
In lieu of any actual evidence, the report relied on a graphical web created by these
conservative disgruntled ex-spies, which attempts to link Corbyn to terrorism through many
degrees of separation -- and cites neo-Nazis to do so.
The conspiratorial web does not show any tangible ties between these figures, and impugns
Corbyn with vague far-right buzzwords like "global Marxism" and "postmodern neo-Marxism." The
latter term is a non-existent and paradoxical concoction of ultra-conservative pundit
Jordan
Peterson
, based on the fascist anti-Semitic myth of "
Cultural
Marxism
," which is itself rooted in Nazi Germany's propaganda on "
Cultural
Bolshevism
."
In fact, the Hijacked Labour website directly references the right-wing pundit, recommending
a Jordan Peterson lecture titled "
Postmodernism
and Cultural Marxism
." The Peterson screed was published by
The
Epoch Times
, a right-wing media outfit run by the
fascist
Chinese cult Falun Gong
, which maintains that science and race-mixing are demonic and
insists Donald Trump was sent by God to destroy the Communist Party of China.
The anti-Corbyn group of British spooks also implored readers to watch a video by Thomas
DiLorenzo, a right-wing neoliberal economist at the libertarian Mises Institute, which Hijacked
Labour claims "works against the deconstructive and destructive effects of Cultural Marxism."
Given the conspiratorial web's reliance on far-right terminology, it might not have been a
surprise that it also cited literal Nazis as a source.
Critics on Twitter quickly pointed out that the Hijacked Labour website used by the British
media to attack Corbyn cited a neo-Nazi website called Aryan Unity.
Together with this white supremacist page, the former British military intelligence officers
cited a critique of antifascists published by the far-right website The Millennium Report. This
blog has run blatantly anti-Semitic posts with titles like, "
Why
are the Jews so reviled worldwide
? Have they brought this judgment on themselves?", "
New
World Order Pledged To Jews
," and "
This
is how the 'Court Jews'
have been strategically placed into power families over millennia."
After facing backlash on social media, The Sun article was removed from the
website. And the
new
URL
for the post includes the term "legal-removal," suggesting that the
publication may have been threatened with legal action for publishing the absurd
story.
But this was far from the only corporate media attack on Corbyn that relied on
military intelligence apparatus as a source.
British journalist Mark Curtis has expanded his colleague Matt Kennard's tally and shown that
some 40 media stories have been published in major corporate media outlets smearing Jeremy
Corbyn with the unsubstantiated claims of British spies.
The UK's military intelligence apparatus has demonstrated a striking ability to
influence the mainstream media, stirring pseudo-scandals almost every week.
Desperate to prevent the election of the first authentically left-wing British prime
minister, it is no longer disguising its role in the assault on Corbyn.
But there is one weapon Corbyn boasts that this unelected, opaque element can only hope for:
the hearts and minds of masses of British people. And this December 12, the people get to
decide.
Speaking of Shane Gustafson: this is an excellent book:
Crisis amid Plenty: The Politics of Soviet Energy under Brezhnev and Gorbachev
(Princeton Legacy Library) Paperback – February 1, 1991
Although the Soviet Union has the most abundant energy reserves of any country, energy
policy has been the single most disruptive factor in its industry since the mid-1970s. This
major case study treats the paradox of the energy crisis as an essential part of larger
economic problems of the Soviet Union and as a key issue in determining the fate of the
Gorbachev reforms.
One of the theses of the book is that the Soviet industry had a "silo" structure: the
various components (exploration, drilling, production, transport, export) didn't coordinate
with one another and depended on the glue of communist party apparatchiks to keep the system
functioning. Gorbachev is said to have eliminated that glue and chaos ensued.
Schmoe@ 36
Re: "Due to an EU ruling related to foreign-affiliated pipelines (or some variation of
that), it will likely be forced to operate at 50% of capacity."
"... The sanctions against Russia are not that broad but they have impacted Russian energy E&P efforts in difficult to reach environments. ..."
"... That is just common sense...large Euro energy companies are partners in Nordstream and have invested billions...do you think they are just going to throw up their hands and say 'Ok we give up'...? ..."
"... And supposedly the owners of those ships [there is actually only one company in the world, Swiss-based Allseas, that operates these deep sea pipe-laying ships] are going to drop Nordstream because they don't want to lose potential US business in the Gulf of Mexico... ..."
"... That is bullshit...what pipelines are being planned for the Gulf...?...Zero... ..."
We shall see how strong. I'd put money on the Germans doing business with their natural
Eastern partners. Business is business, suzerain occupation since 75 years
notwithstanding.
Actually I harbor doubts about the strength of imperial ability, as the natural reaction
every time they use dollarweapon, is the weakening of the weapon...
That Good Man V Putin, I'm sure we all recall, recently spoke to this matter...signing off
with "they (or the dollar) will collapse soon."
zerohedge > "The Dollar Enjoyed Great Trust Around The World. But For Some Reason It Is
Being Used As A Political Weapon, Imposing Restrictions. Many Countries Are Now Turning Away
From The Dollar As A Reserve Currency. US Dollar Will Collapse Soon."
We will see on Nordstream 2 sanctions' effectiveness. Generally, US sanctions, when
aggressively enforced, are extremely effective (and lethal in many cases). The sanctions
against Russia are not that broad but they have impacted Russian energy E&P efforts in
difficult to reach environments.
I would also add that:
a) LNG prices are currently at incredibly low levels and if they hold at these levels
importation of LNG could minimize Germany's hit, and Qatar last week announced it will expands
its LNG export capabilities;
b) Russia / Gazprom did not finance Nordstream 2's construction; initially I believe Gazprom
did so but a consortium of 4 Netherlands (including Royal Dutch Shell), Austrian and German
companies later assumed the financing obligation;
c) Due to an EU ruling related to foreign-affiliated pipelines (or some variation of that),
it will likely be forced to operate at 50% of capacity.
Based on a) - c) there is much less than meets to eye for Nordstream 2.
A more likely outcome than violation of US sanction IMO is an asymmetric response from
Germany; perhaps the EU aviation authorities will deny whatever Band Aid Boeing puts our for
the 737 Max's MCAS system. Or Germany approves Huawei's 5g equipment.
I'm not sure how I missed those Nov 16 posts so thanks for forwarding. This quote will be
interesting:
"With some 85% of the pipeline already laid, new congressional sanctions aimed at
companies participating in the pipeline's construction will not stop it.
Instead, they will become a new bone of contention between the United States and
Europe.
That is just common sense...large Euro energy companies are partners in Nordstream and
have invested billions...do you think they are just going to throw up their hands and say 'Ok
we give up'...?
Even a child can see this Spiegel diarrhea for what it is...
And supposedly the owners of those ships [there is actually only one company in the world,
Swiss-based Allseas, that operates these deep sea pipe-laying ships] are going to drop
Nordstream because they don't want to lose potential US business in the Gulf of Mexico...
That is bullshit...what pipelines are being planned for the Gulf...?...Zero...
Yet the Russians are the world's gas and pipeline superpower and have more pipeline
projects in the works...
As if Allseas is going to risk their biggest customer for some bullshit US
sanctions...[they are also laying the Turkstream pipeline..."
Any company whose operations are all international will unfortunately have to think long
and hard about losing accessing to dollars. Open violations of US Sanctions are still almost
unheard of - Rosneft in Venezuala, Reliance Industries might now be buying Venezuelan oil -
so I would not be pollyanish about their power. Note that European companies will not use
Instinex out of fear of losing access to dollars.
Your questions are absolutely justified. The original story was written by Georg Mascolo,
the German Dana Milbank, i.e. the chief mouth piece of the intelligence services. This is an
obvious attempt to put pressure on Merkel to hamper relations with "Evil Russia" just prior
to a possible breakthrough in the Normandy talks. The German services, especially the BND,
are the last strongholds of Transatlanticism here, and they try to brace themselves against
any rapprochment between Russia and Germany. But this will be in vain. It's simply that the
geopolitical imperative is too strong: the two countries fit together perfectly in terms of
their respective needs and abilities.
"... Primacists use the security threats that are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't stop, or in fact increase, the use of force. ..."
"... These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example, veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all parties involved. ..."
"... September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and denying this space wouldn't have prevented it. ..."
"... For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the Pacific." ..."
"... The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and importance. ..."
"... This article originally appeared on LobeLog.com . ..."
The unrivaled and unchallenged exertion of American military power around the world, or
what's known as "primacy," has been the basis for U.S. Grand Strategy over the past 70 years
and has faced few intellectual and political challenges. The result has been stagnant ideas,
poor logic, and an ineffective foreign policy. As global security challenges have evolved, our
foreign policy debate has remained in favor of primacy, repeatedly relying on a select few,
poorly conceived ideas and arguments. Primacy's greatest hits arguments are played on repeat
throughout the policy and journalism worlds and its latest presentation is in a recent
article in
the Wall Street Journal, written by its chief foreign policy correspondent, titled,
"America Can't Escape the Middle East." The piece provides a case study in how stagnant these
ideas have become, and how different actors throughout the system present them without serious
thought or contemplation.
Hyping the threat of withdrawal
The WSJ piece trotted out one of the most well-worn cases for unending American military
deployments in the region. "The 2003 invasion of Iraq proved to be a debacle," it rightly
notes. However, there's always a "but":[B]ut subsequent attempts to pivot away from the region
or ignore it altogether have contributed to humanitarian catastrophes, terrorist outrages and
geopolitical setbacks, further eroding America's standing in the world."
Primacists often warn of the dire security threats that will result from leaving Middle East
conflict zones. The reality is that the threats they cite are actually caused by the
unnecessary use of force by the United States in the first place. For example, the U.S. sends
military assets to deter Iran, only to have Iran increase attacks or provocations in response.
The U.S. then beefs up its military presence
to protect the forces that are already there. Primacists use the security threats that
are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't
stop, or in fact increase, the use of force.
These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently
ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example,
veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at
unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even
draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't
induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the
Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and
don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all
parties involved.
Terrorism safe havens
And how many times have we heard that we must defend some undefined geographical space to
prevent extremists from plotting attacks? "In the past, jihadists used havens in Afghanistan,
Yemen, Syria and Iraq to plot more ambitious and deadly attacks, including 9/11," the WSJ piece
says. "Though Islamic State's self-styled 'caliphate' has been dismantled, the extremist
movement still hasn't been eliminated -- and can bounce back."
The myth of the terrorism safe havens enabling transnational attacks on the United States
has
persisted despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and significant scholarly research
that contradicts it. The myth persists because it provides a simple and comforting narrative
that's easy to understand. September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the
ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and
denying this space wouldn't have prevented it.
Terrorists don't need safe havens to operate, and only gain marginal increases in
capabilities by having access to them. Organizations engage in terrorism because they have such
weak capabilities in the first place. These movements are designed to operate underground with
the constant threat of arrest and execution. The Weatherman Underground in the United States
successfully carried out bombings while operating within the United States itself. The Earth
Liberation Front did the same by organizing into cells where no cell knew anything about the
other cells to prevent the identification of other members if members of one cell were
arrested. Organizations that engage in terrorism can operate with or without safe havens.
Although safe havens don't add significantly to a terrorist groups' capabilities, governing
your own territory is something completely different. ISIS is a commonly used, and misused,
example for why wars should be fought to deny safe havens. A safe haven is a country or region
in which a terrorist group is free from harassment or persecution. This is different from what
ISIS created in 2014. What ISIS had when it swept across Syria and Iraq in 2014 was a
proto-state. This gave them access to a tax base, oil revenues, and governing resources. Safe
havens don't provide any of this, at least not at substantial levels. The Islamic State's
construction of a proto-state in Syria and Iraq did give them operational capabilities they
wouldn't have had otherwise, but this isn't the same as the possible safe havens that would be
gained from a military withdrawal from Middle Eastern conflicts. The conditions of ISIS's rise
in 2014 don't exist today and the fears of an ISIS resurgence like their initial rise are
unfounded .
Credibility doesn't work how you think it works
For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always
be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America
withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea
and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the
Pacific."
Most commentators have made this claim without recognition of their own contradictions that
abandoning the Kurds in Syria would damage American credibility. They then list all the other
times we've abandoned the Kurds. Each of these betrayals didn't stop them from working with the
United States again, and this latest iteration will be the same. People don't work with the
United States because they trust or respect us, they do it because we have a common interest
and the United States has the capability to get things done. As we were abandoning the Kurds
this time to be attacked by the Turks, Kurdish officials were continuing to
share intelligence with U.S. officials to facilitate the raid on ISIS leader Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi because both the United States and the Kurds wanted Baghdadi eliminated and only
the United States had the capability to get it done.
Similarly, the idea that pulling out militarily in one region results in a direct chain of
events where our adversaries move into countries or areas in a completely different region is
quite a stretch of the imagination. Russia moved into Crimea because it's a strategic asset and
it was taking advantage of what it saw as an opportunity: instability and chaos in Kiev. Even
if we left troops in every conflict country we've ever been in, Russia would have correctly
assessed that Ukraine just wasn't important enough to spark a U.S. invasion. When the Soviets
withdrew from Afghanistan, did the United States invade Cuba? What alliance did the Soviets or
Chinese abandon before the United States entered the Korean War?
Assessments of credibility , especially in times of crisis (like that in Ukraine), are made
based on what leaders think the other country's interests are and the capabilities they have to
pursue those interests. There is no evidence to support -- in fact there is a lot of evidence
that contradicts -- the idea that withdrawing militarily from one region or ending an alliance
has any impact on assessments of a country's reliability or credibility.
Not all interests are created equal
Threat inflation isn't just common from those who promote a primacy-based foreign policy,
it's necessary. Indeed, as the WSJ piece claimed, "There is no avoiding the fact that the
Middle East still matters a great deal to U.S. interests."
The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need
to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists
couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve
all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and
importance. Vital interests are those that directly impact the survival of the United
States. The only thing that can threaten the survival of the United States is another powerful
state consolidating complete control of either Europe or East Asia. This would give them the
capabilities and freedom to strike directly at the territorial United States. This is why the
United States stayed in Europe after WWII, to prevent the consolidation of Europe by the
Soviets. Addressing the rise of China -- which will require some combination of cooperation and
competition -- is America's vital interest today and keeping troops in Afghanistan to prevent a
terrorism safe haven barely registers as a peripheral interest. There are U.S. interests in the
Middle East, but these interests are not important enough to sacrifice American soldiers for
and can't easily be secured through military force anyway.
Consequences
Most of these myths and arguments can be summarized by the claim that any disengagement of
any kind by the United States from the Middle East comes with consequences. This isn't entirely
wrong, but it isn't really relevant either unless compared with the consequences of continuing
engagement at current levels. We currently have 67,000 troops in the
Middle East and Afghanistan and those troops are targets of adversaries, contribute to
instability, empower hardliners in Iran, and provide continuing legitimacy to insurgent and
terrorist organizations fighting against a foreign occupation. One
article in The Atlantic argued that the problem with a progressive foreign policy
is that restraint comes with costs, almost ironically ignoring the fact that the U.S.'s current
foreign policy also comes with, arguably greater, costs. A military withdrawal, or even
drawdown, from the Middle East does come with consequences, but it's only believable that these
costs are higher than staying through the perpetuation of myths and misconceptions that inflate
such risks and costs. No wonder then that these myths have become the greatest hits of a
foreign policy that's stuck in the past.
Power of Siberia is here. It's finished. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese
Premier Xi Jinping christened the pipeline to begin the month. Next month Putin will travel to
Turkey to join President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to open the first of four potential trains of the
Turkstream pipeline.
It is only Nordstream 2 that continues to lag behind because of insane levels of pressure
from the United States that is dead set against this pipeline coming online.
And the reason for that is the last of the major energy issues surrounding Gazprom needing
resolution this month, the gas transit contract between it and Ukraine's Naftogaz.
The two gas companies have been locked in legal disputes for years, some of which center on
Crimea's decision to break away from Ukraine and rejoin Russia in 2014. Most of them, however,
involve disputes over costs incurred during the previous and expiring gas transit contract.
The particulars today are ultimately irrelevant as these lawsuits have been used as nothing
more than blackmail to keep a new contract from getting signed. Ukraine has sued Gazprom in
courts, like in Sweden, that rule not by the tenets of contract law but rather through the lens
of social justice.
These have been political decisions that allowed Naftogaz to seize Gazprom's European
assets, further complicating any resolution to the conflict. These policies were pursued
aggressively by former Ukrainian President and long-time US State Department asset Petro
Poroshenko and they have done nothing to help Ukraine.
All they have done is strip-mine the country of its assets while keeping a war to prevent
the secession of the Donbass alive.
This dovetails with the external pressure applied to EU member states, like Denmark, to
delay if not outright thwart completion of Nordstream 2.
Opposition to Nordstream 2 in the US is all about leveraging influence in Ukraine and turn
it into a client state hostile to Russia sharing a border with Russia. If there's no gas
transit contract and there's no Nordstream 2 then US LNG suppliers can sell gas there and
deprive Russia of the revenues and the business.
It's truly that simple. But that strategy has morphed over the years into a convoluted chess
match of move/countermove in the vain hope of achieving something that looks like a victory.
But this isn't a game of real chess but rather a timed match.
Because the end of 2019 was always coming. And Ukraine would eventually have to decide as to
which direction it wanted to go. Moreover, that same choice was put in front of the EU who have
clearly, in the end, realized that the US under President Trump is not a long-term reliable
partner, but rather a bully which seeks its goals through threat and intimidation.
Stay with the US or green light Nordstream 2. The choice in Europe was clear. Nordstream 2
gets finished, as Denmark finally granted the final environmental permit for its construction
in October.
That delay moves the completion date out into 2020. And that now gives the US Senate one
last chance to stop the completion of the pipeline because everything else to this point has
failed, including the EU changing the rules on its gas pipeline rules to force Gazprom to
'unbundle' the pipeline from the gas flowing through it.
Germany amended that directive to allow Nordstream 2 to be regulated at the German federal
level and not at the EU level. This was as much of a win as could have been hoped for.
"The reason for the push is that this window is closing. A lot of Nord Stream is done
already. It will cost them dearly. I think if those sanctions pass [the companies] will shut
down, and I think the Russians will have to look for another way to do this if they can do
this," Risch said.
In reality the window has closed.
At the end of the day even if this legislation passes there will be no way to stop the
pipeline from being completed or the gas to flow through it. With so little of the pipeline
left to complete there is no practical way to stop it from happening. Risch and other US
senators are hoping to strand Nordstream 2 as an unfinished boondoggle but that's folly.
The German government wants this pipeline, therefore the German government will put up the
funds to ensure the contractors are paid and the pipeline completed.
There is a limit to the extent which sanctions can block commerce and once completed the US
will have no ability to sanction the gas flowing through the pipeline. It's a sad and pathetic
state of affairs that so much time, manpower and capital was wasted to stop a pipeline that is
necessary for Germany's future.
It also highlights the hypocrisy of US policy since there isn't a peep out of the US on
Turkstream, which will stitch NATO ally Turkey to Russia via 15.75 cm of natural gas every
year. Eventually it will replace the lost South Stream pipeline as the other trains are built
and contracted for.
All of the countries in eastern Europe are hungry for a piece of Turkstream's future. Serbia
Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy and Greece are all potential customers.
And all of these countries that currently get their gas from Ukraine are at risk if nothing
gets resolved between it and Russia. This is why the meeting between Putin and Ukrainian
President Zelensky is so important. It has the opportunity to begin reversing the damage done
to the basic fabric of Ukraine and Europe by agreeing to a path to ending the war in the
Donbass and coming to an agreement on gas transit.
There are more than $12 billion in lawsuits outstanding that Naftogaz has pending against
Gazprom. With Nordstream 2 a fait accompli that is all the leverage Zelensky has at that
meeting.
This game is a microcosm of the way the US foreign policy establishment uses Europe as the
battleground in the war against Russia. And given the way the political winds are shifting,
Europeans are getting very tired of it.
This is why gas storage facilities in Europe are full, there is real fear that Gazprom will
walk away from the talks with Ukraine and will wait out the completion of Nordstream 2. Gazprom
offered an extension of the current contract on the condition that Ukraine drop the
lawsuits.
Naftogaz said no. We'll see if Zelensky is smart enough to say yes.
This is the net result of Clinton policies and neocon dominance in the USA foreign policy.
And it is not a pretty picture. It might difficult to win Russia back as an ally after those
Russiagate nonsense. They feel really offended by it and might overreact as is evident from the
test below.
I'll just say again that imbecilization is a completely normal historical phenomenon in declining empires, Empires also tend to have a very
flexible conception of truth, that is, they believe they can
fabricate reality for the simple reason they are geopolitically dominant.
The fact that the MSM have become mouthpieces for the CIA/deep state has
played a huge role in the brainwashing of academia and the rise of neoliberalism. The false
narratives these "trusted sources" of information have been serving up create a very real
Matrix, a false reality that is ingrained into those who rely upon them for their daily
"news".
It feels like the world has gone crazy. They push someone's wallet in our pocket, and then
shout "catch the thief!". We try to debunt this false flag, show surveillance footage, which
clearly shows the setup. But the continue shout in chorus - " thief, thief, thief!".
Acquaintances turn away, hide their eyes. Those "Western partners" iare numerous and they
silence our weak attempts to protest. We were driven into a corner... They try to strangulate
us with sanctions.
Unfortunately, this is our new reality. For the next decade. The question is "Why?" Because
we are a force in international arena again. We're ruining their racketeering business. We are
a vivid example that it is possible to escape the system of the global racket of which they
feed, That there is an alternative.
So now there is a player who does not wan to pay the racketeers, And he is still alive. This
means that others may not pay either. They hate such a situation, because other players may
refuse to pay, and that also means that sooner or later they might be force to live within this
own meanss. It has been a long time since they live within their means, and they completely
lost the habit of doing so. So they want to "solve" the problem with us now ones and forever,
while others are still afraid of them.
Plus they have a new gang leader. Like all newbies, he wants to be the toughest. And raises
the stakes.
Let's face the truth. They won't let us go easily. It's pointless to explain. We will be
hunted, subjected to the array of false flags, persecuted and sanctioned to death. And if they
feel the slack – they will beta us to the death, much more thoroughly then they did in
1990th. The question of whether this can be avoided is no longer worth asking. Today we have
one question – how to survive the next two decades?
We need finally exhale and turn on the brain... The key to victory, as Sun Tzu wrote –
is in knowing the enemy and knowing yourself.
What is their strength?
First, there are many. And they have money. They can buy everything, including witnesses and
judges. We'll be blamed for for anything; they will attack and we will be framed as the
attacker.
Second, they scream loudly. In chorus. That control world mass communications. And their
propaganda works. It is useless to argue otherwise. All our arguments are useless. They will
fall of death ear and will be ignored. Nobody will question their validity -- they will be
simply swipe under the carpet. No matter how ridiculous is their "version of events" is
(Skripals, Russiagate, Ukrainegate) the label "the guilty party" is already put on us like a
yellow patch on the Jews in Nazi Germany. Before any investigation or God forbid judicial
process. And most people on the planet still take their word for it.
What is their weakness?
As opponents these guys, I mean their neoliberal elites are the second grade; they belong to
the "grey zone", the zone of mediocrity. Too greedy, too arrogant, and too lazy. Sometime
semi-senile. Their previous generation was much stronger. They respected us. And we them.
We do not respect this new neoliberal elite and they feel that. And we don't respect them
because such mediocrities do not deserve our respect, and are not trustworthily partner. They
generally can be classified as "Unable to adhere to any legal treaties" (Nedogovorosposobnie")
. And that scares us, almost to death, because you need to deal with completely unpredictable,
bizarre partner for whom treaties and agreements are not worth the paper they were printed on.
But they will avoid open fight, unless the success guaranteed. We need to ensure that such
situation never occur.
Their nervousness, their fidgeting, their second-rateness now is staring to be felt by other countries who would
prefer to hedge their bet and join only a sure winner. They see that the outcome of the USA quest for Full Spectrum Dominance is not yet
decided.
In addition, our opponents are now engaged in brutal showdown with each other. Western
Europe recovered and became competitor of the USA. They also are openly laughing over their new chief. Half of the major
Europium countries leadership probably hates him. For how long he can stay in
power is completely unclear. But this is a new and unexpected development. .
And those in the second row, the stooges, are generally ready to escape from this virtual
battlefield. It became too expensive to catch hot potatoes for Uncle Sam as the amount of loot
for partners shrunk dramatically. And problems with neoliberalism at home mounted. Neoliberal
chickens start coming to roost. They were promised money and a share of loot, not a beating in a real fight
with a strong determined opponent.
What is our strength?
First of all we no longer have any illusions about the the USA or West in general, illusions
that cost us so dearly in 1990th. They are predators who want to colonize, fleece and dismember
our nation. An having no illusions means that they can't repeat economic rape they committed in
1990th. Now we know what awaits us if we give up. They'll devour us completely. Those gangsters
will kick the lying opponent with feet until he is dead. They won't let us survive a second
time.
We also have a grenade as the last resort. They know it, and they're terrified we'll pull
the pin.
They don't understand how we can be defeated, so they try new ways to make us surrender
without a fight. Looking for a weak spot.
What is our weakness?
Our first problem is that we are alone. We are a big and clumsy country with a lot of
internal problems and convoluted history. Which refuse to became the USA vassal. We were a difficult neighbor in the past. Some
people are afraid of us because or our past.
Our second and main problem is the lack of money for economic reconstruction. We don't have enough money for the restoration of the
economy and the standard of living of our people after 1990th rape to the level we deserve as
the major European country. Say the level the Germany managed to achieve, despite being
defeated in WWII. And nobody is going to help us, at least on acceptable conditions. They will
try to slow down our economic development by all mean possible. that's why they already imposed
sanctions under bogus pretext. They will impose more to slow down the process. They will
manipulate oil prices and engage us in "gas wars." If we can solve this problem and restore the
economy and the standard of living of people after 1990 collapse other problems will be easier
to take on.
Also a nice thing about having money is that you instantly have a lot of fiends ;-) At
once.
Now some panoramic view on the situation like in oil painting.
First of all out willingness to fight back is a guarantee that they will not get into a real
fight. We need to hold out for the next ten-twenty years or so. I think this is what we can
expect for neoliberalism to last before the collapse.
But that doesn't solve all our problems. We need that they stop punching us with new
sanctions. Better forever but, at least for the next twenty years. Until their racket finally
falls apart.
So the second goal is to earn to earn money need to reconstruction of the economy and
creating first class infrastructure. Which will allow us to grow. and we need to do this while
there is time. That probably means that invest our money in growth and stop saving "for a rainy
day" in US treasures and Western banks. Otherwise, this rainy day may come in a very unexpected
fashion and way too soon: money will simply be confiscated as long as they can do it with
impunity.
Andrey Bezrukov is the associate Professor of the chair of applied analysis of
international problems, MGIMO
Never in the history of America, probably never in the history of any country, had there
been such open and direct control of governmental activities by the very rich. So long as a
handful of men in Wall Street control the credit and industrial processes of the country, they
will continue to control the press, the government, and, by deception, the people. They will
not only compel the public to work for them in peace, but to fight for them in war. -- John
Turner, 1922
Still it is true that Morales clings to power for too long... Generally the problem of the successor is almost an
irresolvable problem for left wing LA governments.
Economists' and statisticians' sign-on letter regarding the Bolivian elections
We the undersigned call for Bolivia's democratic institutions and processes to be
respected.
The Trump administration has openly and strongly supported the military coup of November
10 that overthrew the government of President Evo Morales. Everyone agrees that Morales was
democratically elected in 2014, and that his term does not end until January 22; yet many
outside of the Trump administration seem to accept the Trump-supported military coup.
Many people who supported the coup have claimed that Morales stole the election. This
story of fraud was given a very big boost by a statement issued by the Organization of
American States the day after the October 20 election, which it subsequently repeated in
similar forms. The statement, from the OAS Electoral Observation Mission for Bolivia,
announced "deep concern and surprise at the drastic and hard-to-explain change in the trend
of the preliminary results after the closing of the polls." No evidence in support of this
statement was included. However, it was widely interpreted as an allegation of fraud, and
such allegations became common in the largest media since the election.
In fact, it is easy to show with election data, which is publicly available, that the
change in Morales' lead was neither "drastic" nor "hard to explain." There was a pause in the
"quick count" of the vote results -- when 84 percent of the votes were counted -- and
Morales' lead was at 7.9 percentage points. At 95 percent, his margin had increased to just
over 10 percent, which allowed Morales to win in the first round, without a runoff. By the
end, the official count showed a lead of 10.6 percent.[1]
It is not uncommon for election results to be skewed by location, which means that results
can change depending on when different areas' votes get counted. No one argued that there was
fraud in Louisiana's November 16 gubernatorial election, when the Democratic candidate John
Bel Edwards, pulled out a 2.6 percentage point victory, after being behind all night, because
he won 90 percent of the vote in Orleans County, which came in at the end of the count.
And the change in Morales' lead was not "drastic" at all; it was part of a steady,
continuous increase in Morales' lead for hours before the interruption.
This graph shows that the lead held by President Evo Morales (light blue dots) and by his
party in parliamentary elections (dark blue dots) rose at a steady rate for most of the vote
counting. There was no sudden surge at the end to put him over the 10 percent threshold.
The explanation for the increase in Morales' margin was therefore quite simple: the
later-reporting areas were more pro-Morales than earlier-reporting areas.
In fact, the final result was quite predictable on the basis of the first 84 percent of
votes reported. This has been shown through statistical analysis and also by even simpler
analysis of the differences in political preferences between later and earlier-reporting
areas.
We call upon the OAS to retract its misleading statements about the election, which have
contributed to the political conflict and served as one of the most-used "justifications" for
the military coup. We ask the Congress of the United States to investigate this behavior of
the OAS, and to oppose the military coup, the Trump administration's continuing support for
it, and the continuing violence and human rights violations of the de facto government.
Media outlets and journalists also have a responsibility to seek independent experts who
are at least familiar with the election data and can offer an independent analysis of what
happened, rather than simply take the word of OAS officials who have now repeatedly shown to
be wrong about this election.
Many lives may depend on getting this story straight.
China suspends Hong Kong visits by U.S. military ships, aircraft, sanctions U.S. NGOs
BEIJING -- The Chinese government has decided to suspend reviewing applications to visit
Hong Kong by U.S. military ships and aircraft starting Monday, foreign ministry spokesperson
Hua Chunying said.
China will also take sanctions against some U.S. non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for
their role in the disturbances in Hong Kong, Hua said at a press conference.
The NGOs include the National Endowment for Democracy, National Democratic Institute for
International Affairs, International Republican Institute, Human Rights Watch and Freedom
House.
A lot of facts and evidence have shown that the aforementioned NGOs supported anti-China
rioters in Hong Kong in various ways, abetted their extreme and violent criminal behavior and
incited separatist activities for "Hong Kong independence", Hua said, adding that these
organizations bear major responsibilities for Hong Kong's chaotic situation and should be
sanctioned and pay their price.
The spokesperson said the United States has seriously violated the international law and
basic norms governing international relations, and interfered in China's internal affairs by
signing the so-called Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 into law despite
China's firm opposition.
"China urges the U.S. to correct its mistake and stop meddling in Hong Kong affairs or
interfering in China's other internal affairs by any word and act," Hua said.
China will take further necessary actions in accordance with the development of the
situation to firmly defend the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong and safeguard national
sovereignty, security and development interests, she said.
China-Russia east-route natural gas pipeline in operation
HARBIN -- The China-Russia east-route natural gas pipeline was put into operation on
Monday.
At the gas-distributing and compressing station in the city of Heihe, northeast China's
Heilongjiang Province, the data screen was switched on, indicating parameter variations of
the gas passage. The station is the first stop after the Russia-supplied natural gas enters
China.
The pipeline is scheduled to provide China with 5 billion cubic meters of Russian gas in
2020 and the amount is expected to increase to 38 billion cubic meters annually from 2024,
under a 30-year contract worth 400 billion U.S. dollars signed between the China National
Petroleum Corp (CNPC) and Russian gas giant Gazprom in May 2014.
The cross-border gas pipeline has a 3,000-km section in Russia and a 5,111-km stretch in
China.
Shao Hua, general manager of Heihe City Natural Gas Development Co., Ltd. of China Gas,
said that the border city of Heihe still largely relies on coal for heat. With the
Sino-Russian natural gas pipeline's operation, the city now has access to a stable supply of
clean energy.
Heihe has registered 30,000 households for switching to natural gas for heating. It will
take one year to complete full coverage of the gas network in the city, according to the
company.
China's natural gas consumption reached 280.3 billion cubic meters in 2018. The country's
demand for natural gas will continue to soar toward 2040, outstripping domestic output by
around 43 percent, according to an International Energy Agency report.
China aims to raise the use of natural gas to 10 percent of the country's energy mix by
2020 and 15 percent by 2030, said the National Development and Reform Commission.
How Russia-China Gas Pipeline Changes Energy Calculus
By Olga Tanas, Anna Shiryaevskaya and Dan Murtaugh - Bloomberg
Russia is pivoting its energy business to the east. The world's largest exporter of
natural gas has built an enormous pipeline running from Siberia to the Chinese border to feed
China's insatiable energy appetite. The new conduit, called the Power of Siberia, is part of
a plan by Russian President Vladimir Putin to reduce his country's dependence on gas markets
in Europe and tap into the fast-growing economies of Asia. For China, whose domestic energy
production can't keep up with demand, the pipeline offers a vital new source of
supply....
As the Chicago revolution took hold, Bork's views crept into the judiciary. Eventually in a
fit of activism, the courts did away with the prohibition on predatory pricing. In its 1993
decision in Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation , the United
States Supreme Court completely re-imagined the Robinson-Patman Act.
The case originally involved the tobacco oligopoly controlled by six firms. Liggett had
introduced a cheap generic cigarette and gained market share. When Brown & Williamson saw
that generics were undercutting their shares, it undercut Liggett and sold cigarettes at a
loss. Liggett sued, alleging that the predatory behavior was designed to pressure it to raise
prices on its generics, thus enabling Brown & Williamson to maintain high profits on
branded cigarettes.
In its decision, the Court held that in order for there to be a violation of the Clayton Act
and the Robinson-Patman Act, a plaintiff must show not only that the alleged predator priced
the product below the cost of its production but also that the predator would be likely to
recoup the losses in the future. The recoupment test dealt a death blow to predatory pricing
lawsuits because it is, of course, impossible to prove a future event.
The Supreme Court parroted Bork, noting that "predatory pricing
schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful ." The Court also argued that it was
best not to pursue predatory pricing cases because doing so would "chill the very conduct the
antitrust laws are designed to protect."
The result has been severe. After 1993, no plaintiff alleging predatory pricing has
prevailed at the federal level, and most cases are thrown out in summary judgement. The DOJ and
FTC have completely ignored the law and ceased enforcing it.
Through judicial activism and executive neglect, the laws regarding antitrust and predatory
pricing have become odd relics, like those on greased pigs and cannibalism.
Predatory pricing is symptomatic of the broader problems when it comes to antitrust. Today,
except in extreme circumstances such as outright monopoly, courts are unlikely to block mergers
over an increase in market concentration. The Supreme Court has now tilted so far the other way
that it prefers to allow too much concentration rather than too little. It made this clear in
its Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP decision, where
it stated its preference for minimizing incorrect merger challenges rather than preventing
excessive concentration.
In the Trinko case, for example, Justice Scalia suggested that those who enforce
antitrust laws ought to be deferential to firms with monopoly power, which are "an important
element of a free market system."
Scalia continued: "Against the slight benefits of antitrust intervention here, we must weigh
a realistic assessment of its costs ." The opportunity to acquire monopoly power and charge
monopoly prices is "what attracts 'business acumen' in the first place," he said, and "induces
risk taking that produces innovation and economic growth." He wrote that the "mere possession
of monopoly power, and the concomitant charging of monopoly prices, is not only not unlawful;
it is an important element of the free-market system."
The result of all this has been an increase of monopolies. Professor John Kwoka reviewed
decades of merger cases and concluded that "recent merger control has not been sufficiently
aggressive in challenging mergers." The overall effect has been "approval of significantly more
mergers that prove to be anticompetitive."
The Sherman Act and the Robinson-Patman Act may be deeply misguided; perhaps they should
even be repealed. But they haven't been. Passing new legislation is the proper way to change
laws one disagrees with. Getting rid of them in practice via judicial activism or an an
unwilling executive is not democratic.
The death of antitrust and predatory pricing reflects not only a failure of jurisprudence
but of economics. For all the claims of up-to-the-minute economic sophistication that activist
judges have used in the field of antitrust, the scholarship on predatory pricing is wildly out
of date. Brooke made Robinson-Patman irrelevant by citing "modern" economic
scholarship, yet the research the Supreme Court relied on goes back to studies by John McGee
and Roland Koller, published in 1958 and 1969 respectively.
Predatory pricing has only become more rational in a world where winner-take-all platforms
are happy to sustain short-term losses for the sake of long-term market share gains. What they
lose on one side with free shipping or below cost products, they make up for in other parts of
their business.
The rationality of predatory pricing is not some new economic finding. Almost 20 years ago,
Patrick
Bolton , a professor at Columbia Business School, wrote that "several sophisticated
empirical case studies have confirmed the use of predatory pricing strategies. But the courts
have failed to incorporate the modern writing into judicial decisions, relying instead on
earlier theory no longer generally accepted."
According to Bork, predatory pricing didn't work in theory, but does it work in practice?
Antitrust experts remember the Brooke case, but none seem to recall what actually
happened to the companies involved in the lawsuit.
After the Supreme Court decision left it without any legal remedy, Liggett succumbed to
pressure from Brown & Williamson and raised its prices. The entire industry raised prices
too. In the end, Liggett was not able to attract enough market share and ended up selling most
of its brands to Phillip Morris a few years later. Ever since, the tobacco oligopoly has raised
prices in lockstep twice a year with no competition. No company is foolish enough to lower
prices for fear of predatory pricing.
The losers from the judicial activism of Brooke are consumers and the rule of law.
The winners are the oligopolies and monopolies who protect their markets.
When it comes to enforcing antitrust, it's worth remembering the words of Robert Bork. As he
wrote in 1971 in his seminal piece " Neutral
Principles and Some First Amendment Problems ," "If the judiciary really is supreme, able
to rule when and as it sees fit, the society is not democratic."
The Supremes have been the Federal legislature since 1803. Recommending restraint is the
same thing as ordering one party in a legislature to surrender to the opposite party
regardless of majorities.
Monopolization is the core of Free Market economics. Free, literally, means free to become
a monopoly, free to practice vulture capitalism, free to use superior capitalization to
destroy competition, free to move your factory to China.
Free Market is a buzz phrase among bankers and other well-to-do to increase their income
at your expense instead of through superior production, design, and advertising methods. If
you want to know why we live in such a dysfunctional economy, its because we've abandoned
competitive capitalism for a free market economy.
Adam Smith (yes, that Adam Smith) noted in Wealth of Nations that if you put
two competing businessmen in a room together, not only do they get along just fine, their
conversation quickly turns to the subject of how they can work work together to rig markets
and screw the consumer for moar profitt.
Adam Smith was a much more interesting and sophisticated thinker than the B-school
Cliffs Notes version.
I think we could us more purist views of capitalism in conversations about capitalism. The
kinds of behaviors engaged designed to put others out of business described in the article
is not exemplary of capitalism.
The purpose of capitalism is not explicated with models of destroying competition. And
it certainly does not have mechanisms in which the government acts as an arm of business.
The notion that the business of "America" (the US) is business is misleading. Because when
it comes the government of the US her role is to ensure fair play. And power dynamics used
to destroy the ability of another to tap into the available market share is not a
capitalist principle. When one reads about the level and kinds of antics that corporate
boards and CEO's play to damage competition, to include the use of campaign funds to "buy"
or influence unique favors at cost to consumers - then we are talking about kind of faux
"law of the jungle". Bailing out business but not the defrauded customers of those same
businesses -- mercantilism not capitalism.
And it is these types of behaviors guised as capitalism, that fuels liberal demands for
a system of governance that is more akin to communism and socialism. They note the abuses,
but apply the wrong remedy.
I would agree that predatory pricing actually undercuts better pricing, improved
products or innovation (product creativity).
Conservatives are outraged, still, that Democrats refused to confirm Bork to the Supreme
Court.
Never mind the fact the Democrats were fully within their rights not to confirm, advise
and consent does not mean rubber stamp, Bork was the guy who actually carried out Nixon's
Saturday Night Massacre. Why would conservatives want a corrupt and unethical person like
this in the Supreme Court in the first place?
Conservatives' outraged is very ironic considering Reagan still got to nominate another
candidate, which the Dems confirmed. Meanwhile in a completely unprecedented and vindictive
move, Republicans denied a Democratic president outright his right to a Supreme Court
appointment. There is no comparison between these two episodes.
From the utopian "Yankeedom" to the conservative "Greater Appalachia" and liberal "Left Coast," looking at these
cultures sheds an interesting light on America's political and cultural divides.
"The country has been arguing about a lot of fundamental things lately including state roles and individual liberty,"
Woodard, a Maine native who won the
2012 George Polk Award
for investigative reporting, told Business Insider. "[But] in order to have any productive
conversation on these issues," he added, "you need to know where you come from."
Woodard also believes the nation is likely to become more polarized, even though America is becoming a more diverse
place every day. He says this is because people are "self-sorting."
"People choose to move to places where they identify with the values," Woodard says. "Red minorities go south and blue
minorities go north to be in the majority. This is why blue states are getting bluer and red states are getting redder and
the middle is getting smaller."
Here's how Woodard describes each nation:
Matthew Speiser contributed to a previous version of this article.
Yankeedom values education, and members are comfortable with government
regulation.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/59b2be5c45e2381d008b5876?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
debra
millet/Shutterstock
>
Encompassing the entire Northeast north of New York City and spreading through Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Minnesota, Yankeedom values education, intellectual achievement, communal empowerment, and citizen
participation in government as a shield against tyranny. Yankees are comfortable with government regulation.
Woodard notes that Yankees have a "Utopian streak." The area was settled by radical Calvinists.
New Netherland in the New York area has a "materialistic" culture.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de800e9fd9db247a976a267?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Ryan
DeBerardinis/Shutterstock
>
A highly commercial culture, New Netherland is "materialistic, with a profound tolerance for ethnic and
religious diversity and an unflinching commitment to the freedom of inquiry and conscience," according to
Woodard. It is a natural ally with Yankeedom and encompasses New York City and northern New Jersey. The area
was settled by the Dutch.
The Midlands, largely located in the Midwest, opposes government regulation.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80a7ffd9db23e5a1dd0f7?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Matt Rourke / AP
>
Settled by English Quakers, The Midlands are a welcoming middle-class society that spawned the culture of
the "American Heartland." Political opinion is moderate, and government regulation is frowned upon. Woodard
calls the ethnically diverse Midlands "America's great swing region." Within the Midlands are parts of New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska.
Tidewater started as a feudal society that embraced slavery.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5d60177b00ef2b6aa56bf1e1?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Shutterstock
>
Tidewater was built by the young English gentry in the area around the Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina.
Starting as a feudal society that embraced slavery, the region places a high value on respect for authority and
tradition. Woodard notes that Tidewater is in decline, partly because "it has been eaten away by the expanding
federal halos around D.C. and Norfolk."
Greater Appalachia encompasses parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, and
Texas.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80db9fd9db252bf4b2083?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Michael Hickey/Getty
Images
>
Colonized by settlers from the war-ravaged borderlands of Northern Ireland, northern England, and the
Scottish lowlands, Greater Appalachia is stereotyped as the land of hillbillies and rednecks. Woodard says
Appalachia values personal sovereignty and individual liberty and is "intensely suspicious of lowland
aristocrats and Yankee social engineers alike." It sides with the Deep South to counter the influence of
federal government. Within Greater Appalachia are parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Arkansas,
Missouri, Oklahoma, Indiana, Illinois, and Texas.
Deep South adopts a rigid social structure and opposition to government
regulation.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80dfcfd9db2413c3a5eea?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Dave Martin/Getty
Images
>
The Deep South was established by English slave lords from Barbados and was styled as a West Indies-style
slave society, Woodard notes. It has a very rigid social structure and fights against government regulation
that threatens individual liberty. Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina are all
part of the Deep South.
El Norte has a dominant Hispanic culture.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80748fd9db24dc40f4fe2?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
David McNew/Reuters
>
Composed of the borderlands of the Spanish-American empire, El Norte is "a place apart" from the rest of
America, according to Woodard. Hispanic culture dominates in the area, and the region values independence,
self-sufficiency, and hard work above all else. Parts of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California are in El
Norte.
The Left Coast, located in coastal California, is a lot like Yankeedom and
Greater Appalachia.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de8079efd9db239ec1a8f34?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
California has permanently moved up its presidential primary from June to March.
Mario Anzuoni/Reuters
>
Colonized by New Englanders and Appalachian Midwesterners, the Left Coast is a hybrid of "Yankee utopianism
and Appalachian self-expression and exploration," Woodard says, adding that it is the staunchest ally of
Yankeedom. Coastal California, Oregon, and Washington are in the Left Coast.
The Far West spans states in the central US including Montana, Wyoming, and
Utah.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80e54fd9db2417a02be09?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Scott Olson/Getty
Images
>
The conservative west. Developed through large investment in industry, yet where inhabitants continue to
"resent" the Eastern interests that initially controlled that investment. The Far West spans several states,
including Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Nebraska, Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Washington, Oregon, and California.
New France inhabitants are comfortable with government involvement in the
economy.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de8086cfd9db24eb80e8128?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Max Becherer/AP
>
A pocket of liberalism nestled in the Deep South, its people are consensus driven, tolerant, and comfortable
with government involvement in the economy. Woodard says New France is among the most liberal places in North
America. New France is focused around New Orleans in Louisiana as well as the Canadian province of Quebec.
First Nation, most of whose people live in the northern part of the country, is
made up of Native Americans.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de808bdfd9db23afd1df6e8?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Protesters demonstrate against the Energy Transfer Partners' Dakota Access oil pipeline near the Standing
Rock Sioux reservation in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, U.S. September 9, 2016.
REUTERS/Andrew Cullen
>
Prominent Ukrainian neo-Nazi figures have been spotted in the Hong Kong protests just weeks
after hosting an "academy of street protest" in Kiev. Leaders of far-right Ukrainian groups
that rose to prominence in the 2014 coup d'etat they helped orchestrate, including the
Azov
Battalion and Right Sektor , have recently traveled
to Hong Kong to participate in the anti-Beijing protests there. It's unclear why the groups,
sporting the apparel of a far-right hooligan group called "Honor" or "Gonor," have gone to Hong
Kong, but the fact that both the 2014 Ukrainian coup and the present protests in Hong Kong have
enjoyed extensive support from the CIA-spawned National Endowment
for Democracy may give a clue.
"Hong Kong welcomed us as relatives," Serhii Filimonov wrote on Facebook Saturday, sharing a
video of himself and other Ukrainian far-right figures in the semi-autonomous Chinese city.
Filimonov once headed the Kiev branch of the Azov Civilian Corps, a support group for the
ultra-nationalist Azov Battalion that's thinly veiled as a civilian NGO.
https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fserhii.filimonov.98%2Fvideos%2F160773771798497%2F&show_text=1&width=560
photos posted the
following day include Ihor Maliar, an Azov Battalion veteran who sports a "victory or
Valhalla" tattoo across his neck, and Serhii Sternenko, who headed the Odessa section of Right
Sektor when it torched the Trade Unions House on May 2, 2014, killing 42 people and injuring
hundreds in the street violence before and after. Sternenko also helped found the "People's
Lustration" fascist gang, which harassed, beat up and humiliated former officials of the
Ukrainian government in the months following the 2014 Euromaidan coup. Sputnik Screenshot
Screenshot of a Facebook post by Serhii Filimonov showing "Gonor" members in Hong Kong
Several of the men wear paraphernalia of the far-right "Honor" or "Gonor" so-called youth
group founded by Filimonov in 2015, sporting a stylized version of the "trident," a symbol with
ancient meaning in Ukraine adopted by ultra-nationalists, as three daggers. Several also have
neo-Nazi tattoos, such as swastikas.
Actual swastika tattoos, just in case you were left in any doubt these are actual
neo-nazis. pic.twitter.com/z2HqMWNXuO
The men also posed in front of the
wrecked Hong Kong Polytechnic University , where an intense two-week showdown between
police and protesters saw more than 1,000 students detained and thousands of weapons seized,
including petrol bombs and explosives.
Sputnik Screenshot
Serhii Filimonov post showing Ukrainian far-right figures posing in front of Hong Kong
Polytechnic University
Early last month, Filimonov, Sternenko and Maliar spoke at an "academy of street protest" in
Kiev, the posters of which featured a molotov
cocktail emblazoned with the "Gonor" logo.
Sputnik Screenshot Poster
for an "academy of street protest" featuring lectures by several Ukrainian far-right figures
A Ukrainian Facebook page that came to the defense of the Gonor crew and their trip Monday
afternoon seems to bridge the gap between the two movements. Calling itself the "Free Hong Kong
Center," the page posts about the supposed strong links between the Hong Kong and 2014 Ukraine
protests, complete with the words "umbrella" and "dignity" on their banner, referencing what
demonstrators in Hong Kong called their 2014 protests, seen as a precursor to the present
unrest, and by far-right Ukrainians to the 2014 coup.
"They assured us they are really against nazism and another kind of alt-right ideology,"
they posted, dismissing the neo-Nazi imagery as traditional Ukrainian symbols.
Sputnik Screenshot Facebook post by "Free Hong Kong Center" defending "Gonor" members'
visit to Hong Kong
It's not clear exactly what these "simple activists" were doing in Hong Kong. However, it's
worth noting the extensive groundwork laid for both the 2014 uprising in Ukraine and the 2019
protests in Hong Kong via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
In the three years before the 2014 coup, the CIA-backed NED sunk $14 million into regime
change efforts in Ukraine, and the NED
has been
cultivating anti-Beijing attitudes in Hong Kong since the mid-1990s, before the territory
was returned to Chinese rule by the British Empire.
Whether Filimonov and associates are there at the NED's behest or as simply a bit of protest
tourism is anybody's guess.
This has no small strategic significance: previously, for foreign sales, Russia was
dependent on customers in Europe who are all, to a greater or lesser extent, subject to
pressure from the war party.
Added to which transport was affected by Kiev's whims. Turkstream (scheduled to start next month) and
the two pipelines to Germany help with the second problem and this one with the first. Sooner
or later, Russia-China pipelines would have appeared but I think Ishchenko's
argument that the Western war on Russia speeded up the process is credible.
(Come to think of it, now that Putin's hand is imagined everywhere, maybe it's time to
consider that he's the American war party's real backer; after all, everything it's touched has
turned to dust: from the forever wars, to Iran's increased influence, to the Russia-China
alliance and now the furore in the USA over Ukraine – itself another disastrous
project.)
After presiding over a far-right coup in Bolivia, the US dubbed Nicaragua a "national
security threat" and announced new sanctions, while Trump designated drug cartels in Mexico as
"terrorists" and refused to rule out military intervention.
One successful coup against a democratically elected socialist president is not enough, it
seems.
Washington dubbed Nicaragua a threat to US national security, and announced that it will be
expanding its suffocating sanctions on the tiny Central American nation.
Trump is also turning up the heat on Mexico, baselessly linking the country to terrorism and
even hinting at potential military intervention. The moves come as the country's left-leaning
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador warns of right-wing attempts at a coup.
As Washington's rightist allies in Colombia, Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador are desperately
beating back massive grassroots uprisings against neoliberal austerity policies and yawning
inequality gaps, the United States is ramping up its aggression against the region's few
remaining progressive governments.
These moves have led left-wing forces in Latin America to warn of a 21st-century revival of
Operation Condor, the Cold War era campaign of violent subterfuge and US support for right-wing
dictatorships across the region.
Trump admin declares Nicaragua a 'national security
threat'
A day after the US-backed far-right coup in Bolivia, the White House released a statement
applauding the military putsch and making it clear that two countries were next on Washington's
target list: "These events send a strong signal to the illegitimate regimes in
Venezuela and Nicaragua ," Trump declared.
On November 25, the Trump White House then quietly issued a statement characterizing
Nicaragua as an "unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."
This prolonged for an additional year an executive order Trump had signed in 2018 declaring
a state of "national emergency" on the Central American country.
Trump's 2018 declaration came after a failed violent right-wing
coup attempt in Nicaragua . The US government has funded and supported many of
the opposition groups that sought to topple elected Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, and
cheered them on as they sought to overthrow him.
The 2018 national security threat designation was quickly followed by economic warfare. In
December the US Congress approved
the NICA Act without any opposition. This legislation gave Trump the authority to impose
sanctions on Nicaragua, and prevents international financial institutions from doing business
with Managua.
Trump's new 2019 statement spewed outlandish propaganda against Nicaragua, referring to its
democratically elected government -- which for decades has been targeted for overthrow by
Washington -- as a supposedly violent and corrupt "regime."
This executive order is similar to one made by President Barack Obama in 2015, which
designated Venezuela as a threat to US national security.
Both orders were used to justify the unilateral imposition of suffocating economic
sanctions. And Trump's renewal of the order paves the way for an escalated economic attack on
Nicaragua.
The extension received negligible coverage in mainstream English-language corporate media,
but right-wing Spanish-language outlets in Latin America heavily amplified it.
And opposition activists are gleefully cheering on the intensification of Washington's
hybrid warfare against Managua.
More aggressive US sanctions against Nicaragua
Voice of America (VOA), the US government's main foreign broadcasting service, noted that
the extension of the executive order will be followed with more economic attacks.
Washington's ambassador to the Organization
of American States (OAS), Carlos Trujillo, told VOA, "The pressure against Nicaragua is
going to continue."
The OAS representative added that Trump will be announcing new sanctions against the
Nicaraguan government in the coming weeks.
VOA stated clearly that "Nicaragua, along with Cuba and Venezuela, is one of the Latin
American countries whose government Trump has made a priority to put diplomatic and economic
pressure on to bring about regime change."
This is not just rhetoric. The US Department of the Treasury updated the Nicaragua-related
sanctions section of its website as recently as November 8.
And in September, the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control announced a " more
comprehensive set of regulations ," strengthening the existing sanctions on Nicaragua.
Voice of America's report quoted several right-wing Nicaraguans who openly called for more
US pressure against their country.
Bianca Jagger, a celebrity opposition activist formerly married to Rolling Stones frontman
Mick Jagger, called on the US to impose sanctions on Nicaragua's military in particular.
"The Nicaraguan military has not been touched because they [US officials] are hoping that
the military will like act the military in Bolivia," Jagger said, referring to the military
officials who violently overthrew Bolivia's democratically elected president.
Many of these military leaders had been
trained at the US government's School of the Americas , a notorious base of subversion
dating back to Operation Condor. Latin American media has been filled in recent days with
reports that Bolivian soldiers were paid $50,000 and generals were paid up to $1 million to
carry out the putsch.
VOA added that "in the case of the Central American government [of Nicaragua], the effect
that sanctions can have can be greater because it is a more economically vulnerable
country."
VOA quoted Roberto Courtney, a prominent exiled right-wing activist and executive director
of the opposition group Ethics and Transparency, which monitors elections in Nicaragua and is
supported by the US
government's
regime-change arm , the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Courtney, who claims to be a human rights activist, salivated over the prospects of US
economic war on his country, telling VOA, "There is a bit of a difference [between Nicaragua
and Bolivia] the economic vulnerability makes it more likely that the sanctions will have an
effect."
Courtney, who was described by VOA as an "expert on the electoral process," added, "If there
is a stick, there must also be a carrot." He said the OAS could help apply diplomatic and
political pressure against Nicaragua's government.
These unilateral American sanctions are illegal under international law, and considered an
act of war. Iran's foreign minister,
Javad Zarif , has characterized US economic warfare "financial terrorism," explaining that
it disproportionately targets civilians in order to turn them against their government.
Top right-wing Nicaraguan opposition groups applauded Trump for extending the executive
order and for pledging new sanctions against their country.
The Nicaraguan Civic Alliance for Justice and Democracy, an opposition front group that
brings together numerous opposition groups , several of which are
also
funded by the US government's NED , welcomed the order.
Trump dubs drug cartels in
Mexico "terrorists," refuses to rule out drone strikes
While the US targeting of Nicaragua and Venezuela's governments is nothing new, Donald Trump
is setting his sights on a longtime US ally in Mexico.
In 2018, Mexican voters made history when they elected Andrés Manuel López
Obrador as president in a landslide. López Obrador, who is often referred to by his
initials AMLO, is Mexico's first left-wing president in more than five decades. He ran on a
progressive campaign pledging to boost social spending, cut poverty, combat corruption, and
even decriminalize drugs.
AMLO is wildly popular in Mexico. In February, he had a record-breaking
86 percent approval rating . And he has earned this widespread support by pledging to
combat neoliberal capitalist orthodoxy.
"The neoliberal economic model has
been a disaster, a calamity for the public life of the country," AMLO has declared. "The child
of neoliberalism is corruption."
When he unveiled his multibillion-dollar National Development Plan, López Obrador
announced the end to "the long night of neoliberalism."
AMLO's left-wing policies have caused shockwaves in Washington, which has long relied on
neoliberal Mexican leaders ensuring a steady cheap exploitable labor base and maintaining a
reliable market for US goods and open borders for US capital and corporations.
On November 27 -- a day after declaring Nicaragua a "national security threat" -- Trump
announced that the US government will be designating Mexican drug cartels as "
terrorist organizations ."
Such a designation could pave the way for direct US military intervention in Mexico.
Trump revealed this new policy in an interview with right-wing Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.
"Are you going to designate those cartels in Mexico as terror groups and start hitting them
with drones and things like that?" O'Reilly asked.
The US president refused to rule out drone strikes or other military action against drug
cartels in Mexico.
Trump's announcement seemed to surprise the Mexican government, which immediately called for
a meeting with the US State Department.
The designation was particularly ironic considering some top drug cartel leaders in Mexico
have long-standing ties to the US government. The leaders of the notoriously brutal cartel the
Zetas, for instance, were originally trained in
counter-insurgency tactics by the US military.
Throughout the Cold War, the US government armed, trained, and funded right-wing
death squads throughout Latin America, many of which were involved in drug trafficking. The
CIA also used drug money to fund far-right counter-insurgency paramilitary groups in Central
America.
These tactics were also employed in the Middle East and South Asia. The United States armed,
trained, and funded far-right Islamist
extremists in Afghanistan in the 1980s in order to fight the Soviet Union. These same
US-backed Salafi-jihadists then founded al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
This strategy was later repeated in the US wars on Libya and Syria. ISIS commander
Omar al-Shishani
, to take one example, had been trained by the US military and enjoyed direct support from
Washington when he was fighting against Russia.
The Barack Obama administration also oversaw a campaign called Project Gunrunne r
and Operation Fast and Furious, in which the US government helped send thousands of guns to
cartels in Mexico.
Mexican journalist Alina Duarte explained that, with the Trump administration's designation
of cartels as terrorists, "They are creating the idea that Mexico represents a threat to their
national security ."
"Should we start talking about the possibility of a coup against Lopez Obrador in
Mexico?" Duarte asked.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
She noted that the US corporate media has embarked on an increasingly ferocious campaign to
demonize
AMLO , portraying the democratically elected president as a power-hungry aspiring dictator
who is supposedly wrecking Mexico's economy.
Duarte discussed the issue of US interference in Mexican politics in an interview with The
Grayzone's Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton, on their podcast Moderate
Rebels:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/7OJyCHjxCEs
Now, a whisper campaign over fears that the right-wing opposition may try to overthrow
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is spreading across Mexico.
AMLO himself has publicly addressed the rumors, making it clear that he will not tolerate
any discussion of coups.
"How wrong the conservatives and their hawks are," López Obrador tweeted on November
2. Referencing the 1913 assassination of progressive President Francisco Madero, who had been a
leader of the Mexican Revolution, AMLO wrote, "Now is different."
"Another coup d'état will now be allowed," he declared.
In recent months, as fears of a coup intensify, López Obrador has swung even further
to the left, directly challenging the US government and asserting an independent foreign policy
that contrasts starkly to the subservience of his predecessors.
AMLO's government has rejected US efforts to delegitimize Venezuela's leftist government,
throwing a wrench in Washington's efforts to impose right-wing activist
Juan Guaidó as coup leader.
AMLO has welcomed Ecuador's ousted socialist leader Rafael Correa and hosted Argentina's
left-leaning Alberto Fernández for his first foreign trip after winning the
presidency.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/D4T0zbASfbA
In October, López Obrador even welcomed Cuban President Díaz-Canel to Mexico
for a historic visit.
Trump's Operation Condor 2.0
For Washington, an independent and left-wing Mexico is intolerable.
In a speech for right-wing, MAGA hat-wearing
Venezuelans in Miami , Florida in February, Trump ranted against socialism for nearly an
hour, threatened the remaining leftist countries in Latin America with regime change.
"The days of socialism and communism are numbered not only in Venezuela, but in Nicaragua
and in Cuba as well," he declared, adding that socialism would never be allowed to take root in
heart of capitalism in the United States.
While Trump has claimed he seeks to withdraw from wars in the Middle East (when he is not
occupying its oil fields
), he has ramped up aggressive US intervention in Latin America.
During the height of the Cold War, Operation Condor thousands of dissidents were murdered,
and hundreds of thousands more were disappeared, tortured, or imprisoned with the assistance of
the US intelligence apparatus.
Today, as Latin America is increasingly viewed through the lens of a new Cold War, Operation
Condor is being reignited with new mechanisms of sabotage and subversion in play. The mayhem
has only begun.
"... The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. ..."
"... I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out. ..."
Stephen Kinzer
comments on the creation of a new think tank, The Quincy Institute, committed to promoting a foreign policy of restraint and
non-interventionism:
Since peaceful foreign policy was a founding principle of the United States, it's appropriate that the name of this think tank
harken back to history. It will be called the Quincy Institute, an homage to John Quincy Adams, who in a seminal speech on Independence
Day in 1821 declared that the United States "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom
and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." The Quincy Institute will promote a foreign policy
based on that live-and-let-live principle.
The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats,
sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and
this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. The lack of institutional support has put advocates of peace and restraint
at a disadvantage for a very long time, so it is encouraging to see that there is an effort underway to change that. The Quincy Institute
represents another example of how antiwar progressives and conservatives can and should work together to change U.S. foreign policy
for the better. The coalition opposed to the war on Yemen showed what Americans opposed to illegal and unnecessary war can do when
they work towards a shared goal of peace and non-intervention, and this institute promises to be an important part of such efforts
in the future. Considering how long the U.S. has been
waging war without end
, there couldn't be a better time for this.
TAC readers and especially readers of this blog will be familiar with the people involved in creating the think tank:
The institute plans to open its doors in September and hold an official inauguration later in the autumn. Its founding donors
-- Soros's Open Society Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation -- have each contributed half a million dollars to fund its
takeoff. A handful of individual donors have joined to add another $800,000. By next year the institute hopes to have a $3.5 million
budget and a staff of policy experts who will churn out material for use in Congress and in public debates. Hiring is underway.
Among Parsi's co-founders are several well-known critics of American foreign policy, including Suzanne DiMaggio, who has spent
decades promoting negotiated alternatives to conflict with China, Iran and North Korea; the historian and essayist Stephen Wertheim;
and the anti-militarist author and retired Army colonel Andrew Bacevich.
"The Quincy Institute will invite both progressives and anti-interventionist conservatives to consider a new, less militarized
approach to policy," Bacevich said, when asked why he signed up. "We oppose endless, counterproductive war. We want to restore
the pursuit of peace to the nation's foreign policy agenda."
Trita Parsi and Andrew Bacevich are both TAC contributors and have participated in our foreign policy conferences in recent
years. Parsi and I were on the same panel last fall at our most recent conference. I have also cited and learned from arguments made
by Suzanne DiMaggio and Stephen Wertheim in my
posts here . Their involvement is a
very good sign, and it shows both the political breadth and intellectual depth of this new institution. I look forward to seeing
what they do, and I wish them luck.
Good luck. I hope you will be invited on cable shows. I am tired of seeing the beard from the Foundation of the Defense of Democracies
and his clones.
Once in a while the hosts mess up and they interview someone who doesn't give the correct answer about the M.E., or somewhere
else and I see the blank look on their face as they thank the guess as since it is obvious they cannot process the information.
I generally do not see those guests ever again.
The guidelines are, the world is divided into those who crave U.S. leadership and the evildoers who are constantly testing
our leadership. We must always be vigilant against the latter. It is inconceivable that anyone merely act in their own interest.
It is all about us.
I also am looking forward to reading their thoughts and ideas about a foreign policy that doesn't include the US invading yet
another country under the ridiculous notion that we are somehow being threatened by them. We have the largest military on earth.
It's also telling that we pick on and invade countries that can't actually hurt us. That makes us all the more the bully on the
block. It's to our shame that we even consider these shameful actions.
Exciting news. An early endeavor , if not already accomplished, should be consideration of relevant theoretical models for understanding
competition and cooperation. Since the Cold War and to the present day, variants of the Prisoners Dilemma serve this function.
Prior to that, misconceptions of survival of the fittest led to the disasters of eugenics and WW2. Maybe the new think tank will
outline or draw inspiration from a new theory.
Re: "I look forward to seeing what they do, and I wish them luck."
So do I. Very much so. However, the most prominent realist Washington Think Tank is the Cato Institute. It has well spoken
advocates of realism and restraint including Christopher Preble, Doug Bandow and Ted Galen Carpenter. Unfortunately, the thoughtful
Cato scribes get very little exposure on the MSM compared to the atrocious Heritage, AEI and Brookings nests of go along to get
along Neocon / Neoliberal lackeys. It's not clear to me how and why the Quincy Institute will generate any more leverage.
I've argued many times before that the linchpin of the busted U.S. Global Cop foreign policy model is the Pentagon. As long
as the Pentagon hacks are considered the paragons of Olympian insight and wisdom by the political class and the MSM, nothing will
change.
Related to that though, there actually was a hopeful article in the Atlantic about the newest Pentagon Big Mouth, CENTCOM Commander
General General Kenneth McKenzie:
Hopefully, that is a crack in the wall of Military Exceptionalism. The sooner others start taking a 2x4 to the sanctified occupants
of the 5-Sided Pleasure Palace, knocking them off of their pedestals, the better.
BTW, the new Acting Defense Secretary and MIC Parasite Mark Esper is no friend of the taxpayers. Expect that failed Pentagon
audit that was deep-sixed by Mad Dog Mattis to stay deep-sixed with Esper in the Big Seat.
I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out.
Jeez, who can believe this amongst the "think" tanks: "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than
threats, sanctions, and bombing"
Ukrainegate has definite signs of Soros funded operation
Notable quotes:
"... America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers. ..."
"... Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team. ..."
"... There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions. ..."
"... Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. ..."
"... PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle. ..."
"... HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED... ..."
"... Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil. ..."
"... Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly... ..."
"... We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... ..."
"... JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world. ..."
"... If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him) ..."
"... Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen. ..."
"... AMERICAN SPRING: She practiced overseas in Tunisia, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Libya, Egypt... Now it's time to apply the knowledge in her own country! ..."
"... Really good chance these subversive operations will continue. Soros has plenty of money ..."
Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning
after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband,
former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned
in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent
the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete
ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon
George Soros.
The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros,
were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump
administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution
will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.
It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of
Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation
faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the
Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide
Huma Abedin
. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.
America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national
security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because
there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.
Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being
mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary
of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.
There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries
of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump
supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic,
and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.
Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit
them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have
read as follows:
"Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms
as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect
Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle
East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted
off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War.
Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".
President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his
administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies
but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.
Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with
the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution
No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities
to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed
at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and
the other, ten years later, in 2014.
As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org
and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle,
Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.
The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great
Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump
presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans
to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street
protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.
President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former
Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff,
and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign
policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the
Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against
Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump
newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.
One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair
Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible
for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets
of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as
"anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's
son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics
not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George
Soros, including his Purple Revolution.
"It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation
of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when
the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care."
None of those "pressing issues" involve the DOJ or the FBI.
Investigate, prosecute and jail Hillary Clinton and her crew.
Trump is going to need a hostage or two to deal with these fucks.
News for the Clintons, The R's and D's already united to vote against Hillary.
I do not understand why they think street protests will bring down a POTUS? And that would be acceptable in a major nation.
Why isn't the government cracking down the separatists in Oregon, California, and elsewhere? They are not accepting the legal
outcome of an election. They are calling for illegal secession. (Funny in 1861 this was a cause for the federal government to
attack the joint and seveal states of the union.) If a group of whites had protested Obama's election in 2008?
The people living in Kalispell are reviled and ridiculed for their separatist views. Randy Weaver and family for not accepting
politically correct views. And so on.
This is getting out of hand. There will be no walking this back.
"Yes. And who are the neocons really? Progressives. Neocon is a label successfully used by criminal progressives to shield their
brand."
Well let's go a little bit deeper in examing the 'who' thing:
"The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right, is, in
reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary , a media arm of the American
Jewish Committee , which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward , the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote
in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: " If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can
lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it.... "
The idea of arresting the Clinton Crime, Fraud and Crime Family would be welcomed. BUT, who is going to arrest them? Loretta Lynch,
James Comey, WHO? The problem here is that our so called "authorities" are all in the same bed. The tentacles of the Eastern Elite
Establishment are everywhere in high office, academia, the media, Big Business, etc. The swamp is thoroughly infested with this
elite scum of those in the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Chatham House, Club of Rome,
Committee of 300, Jason Society and numerous other private clubs of the rich, powerful and influential. The Illuminati has been
exposed, however they aren't going down lightly. They still have massive amounts of money, they own the media and the banking
houses. Some have described it as MIMAC, the Military Industrial Media Academic Complex. A few months ago here at Zero Hedge,
there was an article which showed a massive flow chart of the elites and their organization
They could IF and WHEN Trump gets to Washington after 20 Jan 2017, simply implode the economy and blame t it on Trump. Sort
of what happened to Herbert Hoover in the late 1920's. Unfortunately the situation in the US will continue to deteriorate. George
Soros, a major financial backer of Hillary will see to that. Soros is a Globalist and advocate of one world government. People
comment that Soros should be arrested. I agree, BUT who is going to do that?
Agree. I think Trump will yank all the "aid" to Israel as well as "aid" to the Islamic murderers of the Palitrashian human garbage
infesting the area. This "aid" money is simply a bribe to keep both from killing each other. F**k all of them. None of our business
what they do.
We got progressives ( lots and lots of Jews in that group) who are the enemy of mankind and then we got Islam who are also
the enemy of mankind. Why help either of them? Makes no sense.
Soros is hated in Israel and has never set foot there but his foundations have done such harm that a bill was recently passed
to ban foreign funding of non profit political organizations
The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the man puts America first, really says
it all.
The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to act? There should be no question
about the CIA's future in the US.
Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long,
that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes
Against The American People.
There are entirely way too many Intelligence Agencies. Plus the Contractors, some of who shouldn't have high level clearance to
begin with which the US sub contracts the Intel / work out to.
For Fucks sake, Government is so incompetent it can't even handle it own Intel.
Something along the lines of Eurpoe's Five Eyes would be highly effective.
Fuck those Pure Evil Psychopaths at the CIA They're nothing more than a bunch of Scum Fuck murdering, drug running, money laundering
Global Crime Syndicate.
The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation, Trump needs to encourage that through backdoor channels. Soro's needs to
be investigated, he has been tied to a conspiracy to incite violence, this needs to be documented and dealt with. Trump can not
ignore this guy. If any of these investigations come back with a recommendation to indict then that process needs to be started.
Take the fight to them, they are vulnerable!
Make a National APB Warrent for the apprehension & arrest of George Sooros for inciting violence, endsrgerimg the public & calling
for the murder of our Nations Police through funding of the BLM Group.
Have every Law Informent Agency in the Nation on alert. Also, issue a Bounty in the Sum of $5,000,000 for his immediate apprehension.
Trump needs to replace FBI chickenshits & sellouts with loyal people then get the FBI counter-terrorism to investigate and shut
down Soros & the various agencies instigating the riots. It's really simple when you quit over-thinking a problem. It's domestic
terrorism. It's the FBI's job to stop it.
I read what Paul said this morning and thought, despite Paul's hostility to Trump during the primaries most likely due to his
son, Rand's loss, that Paul gave good advice to Trump.
Let's face it Donald Trump is a STOP GAP measure. And demographic change over the next 4 years makes his re-election very, very
UNLIKELY. If he keeps his campaign promises he will be a GREAT president. However as ZH reported earlier he appears to be balking
from repealing Obamacare, I stress the word APPEARS.
Let us give him a chance. This is all speculation. His enemies are DEADLY as they were once they got total control in Russia,
they killed according to Solzhenitsyn SIXTY-SIX MILLION Russian Christians. The descendants of those Bolsheviks are VERY powerful
in the USSA. They control the Fed, Hollyweird, Wall Street, the universities...
Much of the media and advertising exist by pushing buttons that trigger appropriate financially lucrative reflexes in their
audiences, from pornography to romantic movies to team sports. Media profits are driven by competition over how best to push
those buttons. But the effort to produce politically and racially cuckolded Whites adds a layer of complexity: What buttons
do you push to make Whites complicit in their own racial and cultural demise?
Actually, there are a whole lot of them, which shouldn't be surprising. This is a very sophisticated onslaught, enabled
by control over all the moral, intellectual, and political high ground by the left. With all that high ground, there are a
lot of buttons you can push.
Our enemies see this as a pathetic last gasp of a moribund civilization and it is quite true for our civilization is dying.
Identity Christians describe this phase as Jacob's Troubles and what the secular Guillaume Faye would, I think, describe as the
catastrophe required to get people motivated. The future has yet to be written, however I cannot help but think that God's people,
the White people, are stirring from their slumber.
"PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William
Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle.
JINSA, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. "explaining the link between U.S. national security and Israel's
security" Served on JINSA's Advisory Board: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Perle."
If Trump has probable cause on the Soros crimes, have his DoJ request a warrant for all of Soros's communications via the NSA,
empanel a grand jury, indict the bastard, and throw his raggedy ass in prison. It would be hard for him to run his retarded purple
revolution when he's getting ass-raped by his cell mate.
I agree. Thing is, I think as president he can simply order the NSA to cough up whatever they have, just like Obama could have
done at any point. The NSA is part of the Defense Department, right? What am I missing here?
But in respect to Soro's money and the Dalas shooting or other incited events, there should be a grand jury empanelled and
then charges brought against him. I think nothing short of him hiding in an embassy with all his money blocked by Swift is justice
for the violence that he funded.
It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation
of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when
the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on
Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be
distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.
And so it begins; I really hope that this is just some misinformation/disinformation, because HE PROMISED he would appoint
a special prosecutor, PROMISED...
The likes of Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg get to catch up on their Torah for the forseeable future but the likes
of Lloyd Blankfein will probably get to entertain the court since they have probably crossed paths doing business in NYC. The
"real conservative" deeply introspective, examine-my-conscience crowd screwed themselves to the wall, god love them.
Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because
that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through
501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a
massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil.
We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an
advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... (just in case you confused him with Mother Theresa)..
But then again JFK took office with a set of initiatives that were far more bellicose and provocative (like putting huge Jupiter
missile launchers on the USSR border in Turkey)... once he saw he light and fired the pro Nazi Dulles Gang , JFK was gunned
down in front of the whole world.
If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will
unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him)
I'm guessing though that deep down Trump is quite comfortable with a neoCon cabinet... hell he already offered Jamie Diamon
the office of Treasry Secretary... no doubt a calculated gesture to signal compliance with the Deep State.
The Clintons do not do things by accident. Coordination of colors at the concession speech was meant for something. Perhaps the
purple revolution or maybe they want to be seen as royals. It doesn't really matter why they did it; the fact is they are up to
something. They will not agree to go away and even if they offered to just disappear with their wealth we know they are dishonest.
They will come back... that is what they do.
They must be stripped of power and wealth. This act must be performed publicly.
In order to succeed Mr. Trump I suggest you task a group to accomplish this result. Your efforts to make America great again
may disintegrate just like Obamacare if you allow the Clintons and Co. to languish in the background.
The protestors are groups of individuals who may seek association for any number of reasons. One major reason might be the loss
of hope for a meaningful and prosperous life. We should seek out and listen to the individuals within these groups. If they are
truly desirous of being heard they will communicate what they want without use of violence. Perhaps individuals join these protest
groups because they do not have a voice.
Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction
and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen.
The articles reporting that Mr. Trump has changed his response to the protestors is a good effort to discover the protestors'
complaints and channel their energy into beneficial political activity. Something must be done quickly though, before the protests
get out of hand, for if that happens the protestors will be criminals and no one will want to work with them.
In order to make America great again we need input from all of America. Mr. Trump you can harness the energy of these protestors
and let them know they are a part of your movement.
Classical economists are experts on today's capitalism, it is 18th and 19th Century capitalism, it's how it all started.
Adam Smith would think we are on the road to ruin.
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society.
On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going
fastest to ruin."
Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalizing itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services.
Got that wrong as well.
Adam Smith wouldn't like today's lobbyists.
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great
precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous,
but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of
the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions,
both deceived and oppressed it."
First five minutes of Alex Jones' video today is clips of people saying "Donald Trump will never be president". Full Show - Soros-Funded Goons Deployed to Overthrow America - 11/11/2016
AMERICAN SPRING: She practiced overseas in Tunisia, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Libya, Egypt... Now it's time to apply the knowledge
in her own country!
lakecity55 -> CoCosAB •Nov 12, 2016 7:53 AM
Really good chance these subversive operations will continue. Soros has plenty of money. Trump will have to do some rough stuff,
but he needs to, it's what we hired him for.
"... Authored by Peter Hitchens via The Mail On Sunday blog, ..."
"... I stood outside the safe house, in a road I cannot name, in a major European city I cannot identify, not sure what I might find inside. I had no way of being sure. ..."
"... In decades of journalism I have received quite a few leaks ..."
"... But I've never seen one like this. It scared me. ..."
"... If bodies such as the OPCW cannot be trusted, then World War Three could one day be started by a falsehood. ..."
I stood outside the safe house, in a road I cannot name, in a major European city I cannot
identify, not sure what I might find inside. I had no way of being sure.
I had travelled a long distance by train to an address I had been given over an encrypted email.
I was nervous that the meeting might be some sort of trap.
Leaks from inside arms
verification organisations are very sensitive matters. Powerful people mind about them.
I wasn't sure whether to be afraid of being followed, or to be worried about who might be waiting behind
the anonymous door on a dark afternoon, far from home. I took all the amateurish precautions that I could
think of.
As it happened, it was not a trap. Now, on carefully selected neutral ground, I was to meet a person
who would confirm suspicions that had been growing in my mind over several years – that there is something
rotten in the way that chemical weapons inspections are being conducted and reported. And that the world
could be hurried into war on the basis of such inspections.
Inside the safe house, I was greeted by a serious, patient expert, a non-political scientist
whose priority had until now always been to do the hard, gritty work of verification
– travelling
to the scenes of alleged horrors, sifting and searching for hard evidence of what had really happened.
But this entirely honourable occupation had slowly turned sour.
The whiff of political interference had begun as a faint unpleasant smell in the air and grown
until it was an intolerable stench.
Formerly easy-going superiors had turned into tricky bureaucrats.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had become so important that it could
no longer be allowed to do its job properly.
Too many of the big powers that sponsor and finance it were breathing down its neck, wanting certain
results, whether the facts justified them or not.
My source calmly showed me various pieces of evidence that they were who they said they were,
and knew what they claimed to know, making it clear that they worked for the OPCW and knew its inner workings.
They then revealed a document to me.
This was the email of protest, sent to senior OPCW officials, saying that a report on the alleged Syrian
poison gas attack in Douma, in April 2018, had been savagely censored so as to alter its meaning.
In decades of journalism I have received quite a few leaks
:
leaks
over luxurious, expensive lunches with Cabinet Ministers, anonymous leaks that just turned up in envelopes,
leaks from union officials and employers, diplomats and academics.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read
stories.
Please enter a valid email
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again.
But I've never seen one like this. It scared me.
If it was true, then
something hugely dishonest and dangerous was going on, in a place where absolute integrity was vital.
If bodies such as the OPCW cannot be trusted, then World War Three could one day be
started by a falsehood.
Last week I reported on the first episode in this story. Within days the OPCW had confirmed that the
email I leaked was authentic.
Nobody followed me home or threatened me. A few silly people on social media told blatant lies about
me, insinuating that I was somehow a Russian patsy or a defender of the disgusting Syrian regime that
I have been attacking in print for nearly 20 years. That was what I had expected.
But there is much more to come.
And, as it grows harder for everyone to ignore this
enormous, dangerous story,
I suspect I shall be looking over my shoulder rather more than usual.
" That anonymous author (a German intelligence analyst) documented the evilness of the overthrow of Evo Morales in Bolivia,
and the threat now clearly posed to the world by the US regime -- a spreading cancer of expansionist fascism, led from Washington.
But, even more than this, he indicated that unless the individuals who are responsible for the advancing fascism are executed,
there won't be any real hope for democracy anywhere in the world. Either this impunity will stop, or else the spread of the US
international dictatorship -- not only by CIA coups such as this, but by illegal international invasions such as of Iraq 2003,
Libya 2011, Syria 2012-, and Yemen 2015-, -- will continue and will engulf in misery ultimately the entire world . He makes
clear the complicity of US 'news'-media in the lies that 'justify' this coup (and 'justified' those invasions)." [My Emphasis]
IMO, that's a very broad interpretation of b's summation, but I cannot argue against the section I bolded--as some may have
noticed, my appellation for the USA has evolved to better reflect its nature: the Evil Outlaw US Empire. There are numerous reasons
that prompted me to do so, one I mentioned in my reply @14 to S--tact is no longer employed in diplomacy by the Evil Outlaw US
Empire, and that's a very bad sign, IMO. Zuesse continues on calling out the crimes of BigLie Media, echoing my accusation that
the writers and editors are all committing the crimes of Goebbels and ought to mimic his actions when his end was nigh.
Zueese ends his very authentic rant with the following prescription which was clearly needed prior to 911:
"Unfortunately, the only global solution would be a second American Revolution, but, this time, the news-media are far less
honest, and so almost no support exists amongst the US population for doing that. Consequently, the outlook for the future, worldwide,
is grim. If the warning (hidden by the media as it is), this time from Bolivia, is not heeded, how can this cancer ever be stopped
from engulfing the entire world?"
It's curious that an impending Civil War within the Evil Outlaw US Empire is posited but seldom a 2nd Revolution, although
the latter's been discussed at the bar by myself and others off and on over the past several years. I wrote the following in a
reply to psychohistorian on the previous open thread:
"I appears that the prerequisite to obtaining freedom and democracy is public ownership of the vast majority of financial levers.
Without public capture of that essential domain, only some form of penury is possible for the vast majority of commonfolk, leaving
only a select hierarchy free, democracy reserved only for their use. Pretty well sums up the current situation within the Evil
Outlaw US Empire I'd say."
The Civil Arm of the coup: one of the best-funded NGOs in Bolivia during 2017 and 2018 was the International Republican Institute
(IRI). http://bit.ly/37HYnit
The destabilization of Ukraine and Tunisia are the main achievements of this American organization.
"... Despite knowing that it was a failing investment, Qatar leaned on Brookfield to buy 666 Fifth Avenue from Kushner, to write off his debts ..."
"... Jared Kushner approached the government of Qatar for a bailout of 666 Fifth Avenue?" Castenda clarified. "Correct. That's what they told me. ... And they did it. ..."
"... the Qataris said Kushner told them: 'Choose one of two. You pay what I tell you to pay, or I unleash my dogs.'" "The dogs being who?" she asked. "Saudi Arabia and the UAE," Bender replied. ..."
"... American officials are the cheapest to recruit. "British officials, they demand millions to be recruited. American politicians, some of them accept $50,000." ..."
"We recruited both, Republicans and Democrats, but that's not good enough. We want to
rule the White House," the Qataris allegedly said. E
... ... ...
"Everything [Alan Bender] said in the deposition about me has happened," Imam Tawhidi told
The Post . "I believe in the deposition and await an investigation. All I want is to be
treated fairly," he added. However, Omar was not the only prominent American named in the
Bender testimony.
"They [the Qataris] said: 'We recruited both, Republicans and Democrats, but
that's not good enough. We want to rule the White House.' So they will," he told the court.
Indeed, if Bender's testimony is accurate, they are already close. Explaining that Qatar uses
western companies to effectively launder the money they paid to American citizens, Bender cited
a $1.4 billion payment which he claims was passed to Jared Kushner from Qatar, via a Canadian
company named Brookfield, which he says they have invested heavily in.
Despite knowing that it
was a failing investment, Qatar leaned on Brookfield to buy 666 Fifth Avenue from Kushner, to
write off his debts. "Why didn't they pay Kusher directly?" the lawyer for the plaintiffs, Ms.
Castenda, asked. "Too risky," Bender replied. "Jared Kushner approached the government of Qatar
for a bailout of 666 Fifth Avenue?" Castenda clarified. "Correct. That's what they told me. ...
And they did it.
And Kushner is happy with them because, according to them, I don't know
Kushner personally, but the Qataris said Kushner told them: 'Choose one of two. You pay what I
tell you to pay, or I unleash my dogs.'" "The dogs being who?" she asked. "Saudi Arabia and the UAE," Bender replied.
The Qataris were aware that as an investment the pay-off was a write-off,
but told Bender, "'We just paid it to pay off his debt. And as long as he's in the White House,
we have to do what he wants until we control the White House.' We as in Qatar," Bender
clarified. The Jerusalem Post has reached out to Mr Kushner's office for a response.
However, no comment has been received as of yet.
Among other claims made by Mr. Bender were
that: - The real power in Qatar is Mohammed Al-Masnad, known as 'the CEO.' "After a couple of
hours, I was convinced that the Emir of Qatar does not run the show and Mohammed Al-Masnad is
in charge of everything. He is also the Emir's uncle. [...] And the Emir's mother is the real
king of Qatar." - The second most powerful man in Qatar is a Palestinian, Azmi Bishara. - That
Jamal Khashoggi was set up by Qatar to be killed by the Saudis after he was found to have been
"playing both sides." "Jamal Khashoggi and Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal were very close friends,"
Bender said. "[Khashoggi] would receive sensitive secrets ... and he leaks them to the Qataris.
The Qataris would leak them to media outlets ... and he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
I got that confirmation from the Qatari officials." - that "they [Qatar] finance almost 99
percent of Saudi dissidents in the US and the UK. They pay them."
Bender named Ghanem
al-Dosari, a well known YouTuber, as one such individual. - Three Italians, known as 'the
engineers' were paid by Qatar to hack the accounts of Saudi Arabian and the United Arab
Emirates's citizens. "E-mails, text messages, regular phone calls, laptops. Anything you can
think of. They hacked into all that."
American officials are the cheapest to recruit.
"British officials, they demand millions to be recruited. American politicians, some of them
accept $50,000." - The Qataris refer to Trump as "the orange man," and to Kushner as the
"descendant of pigs and apes," because he is Jewish.
"And they refer to other American Senators
and Congressmen who are Christians as 'Crusaders'."
US Empire's Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell gets irked that more nations are joining the INSTEX mechanism for commerce with Iran as
shown by his Tweet:
"cc: @TreasurySpox @USTreasury sounds to me like all these people and groups should be added
to the US Sanctions list. We should ensure that they don't get to work in the US market.
Iran or the US -- they decide. But not both ." [My Emphasis]
The nations saying we're not with you are Finland, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway,
and Sweden--what might be termed the more enlightened Europeans.
And here we have Germany's CDU acting in a manner reflecting the Bush Doctrine as it debated
Germany's 5G
rollout :
"The moderates, represented by Merkel, believe that Germany should not rule out any company
over political issues, but focus more on objective factors such as whether its technological
security and standards meet German requirements. However, some hard-liners make it an
ideological issue and believe Huawei should be excluded. The reason they provided is ' no
Chinese company is an independent company,' adding that Huawei's involvement is principally "an
imminent question of national security .
"After decades of following the US, Germany has somewhat lost the ability to independently
decide its development and destiny. But in recent years, the US has been pursuing
unilateralism. The export-oriented German economy is affected by not only China-US trade
conflicts, but also US threat of imposing tariffs on German products. Thus, it is time for
Berlin to stop its fear of threats from Washington and make choices that are in line with its
own interests." [My Emphasis]
Every Evil Outlaw US Empire chartered corporation in the tech realm is not an "independent
company" since they work hand in glove with CIA, NSA, FBI, other government organizations, and
are also funded by the government. The same is likely true of every Western tech company. A
double standard excuse in service of continuing the Bush Doctrine.
To paraphrase Grenell, Now is most certainly the time to declare your independence and
reclaim your sovereignty and cease acting in the service of another nation.
MOSCOW, November 28. /TASS/. Russian-Ukrainian gas consultations with the participation of
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak, the Minister of Energy and Environmental Protection of
Ukraine Alexey Orzhel, Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller, the heads of Naftogaz of Ukraine and LLC Gas
Transmission System of Ukraine were held in Vienna on Thursday.
This is according to statements by the Russian Energy Ministry and Gazprom. Read also
GECF believes Russia and Ukraine
will manage to agree on gas transit to EU this year "The parties discussed
Russian-Ukrainian cooperation in the gas sector -- settlement of mutual claims for the
implementation of contracts, the terms for the transit of Russian gas to Europe from 2020, the
prospects for direct purchase of Russian gas for Ukrainian consumers," the statement said.
Russia, the European Commission and Ukraine have been holding consultations on gas transit
after 2020. The dialogue is complicated by the ongoing legal disputes between Russia's Gazprom
and Naftogaz of Ukraine. Moscow offers a "package solution" that includes a settlement
agreement on legal disputes and direct gas purchases at reduced prices. As a fallback, Russia
is ready to extend the current transit agreement for the whole year of 2020.
Ukraine considers the settlement agreement on legal disputes and the signing of a
short-term contract to be unacceptable. Earlier this month, Naftogaz' executive director, Yury
Vitrenko, announced that Ukraine would pump Russian transit gas to its underground storage
facilities (UGS), if this gas entered the country without an appropriate contract starting from
January 1, 2020.
The next round of trilateral consultations on the transit of Russian gas to Europe through
Ukraine from 2020 is scheduled for the first week of December.
The existing contracts for the supply and transit of Russian gas through Ukraine expire on
December 31.
At a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on November 27, a gas price for the
population was fixed at 8 hryvnias per cubic meter. KIEV, November 30. /TASS/. The gas price
for Ukrainians may increase to 12,000 hryvnias (about $500) per 1,000 cubic meters in the event
of the termination of transit from Russia from January 1, 2020, Minister of Energy and
Environment of Ukraine Alexey Orzhel said on Friday.
"The price of 12,000 hryvnia is possible in the absence of transit," he said speaking on the
national television.
Orzhel also recalled that the government had offered Ukrainians the so-called guaranteed
price of gas in the amount of 8,000 hryvnias (about $333) per 1,000 cubic meters in case the
gas transit is halted from the new year and the cost of gas increases significantly.
At a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on November 27, a gas price for the
population was fixed at 8 hryvnias per cubic meter.
Gazprom began construction of the offshore section of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline in May
2017. The pipeline with a length of 930 km runs along the bottom of the Black Sea to the coast
of Turkey. Further, a land section will stretch for 180 km to the border of Turkey with
neighboring countries.
Gazprom began construction of the offshore section of the Turkish Stream in May 2017,
managed by South Stream Transport B.V. (100% subsidiary of Gazprom). The offshore section of
the pipeline runs along the bottom of the Black Sea to the coast of Turkey. Its length is 930
km. The pipeline will be continues by a 180-km land transit line to the border of Turkey with
neighboring countries. The first line will be designed for the Turkish market, the second - for
gas supply to the countries of South and Southeast Europe. The capacity of each line is 15.75
billion cubic meters of gas per year. The first deliveries are scheduled for the end of 2019.
Gazprom announced the completion of deep-sea laying of the offshore section of the first
Turkish Stream in April 2018. Turkey is Gazprom's second largest export market. Currently,
Russian energy is supplied to this country through the Blue Stream pipeline and the
Trans-Balkan gas pipeline. In 2017, Gazprom exported a record volume of gas to the Turkish
market - 29 billion cubic meters, which is 17.3% more than in 2016, and 1.7 billion cubic
meters (6.2%) more than in 2014 when the previous maximum was set (27.3 billion cubic meters).
At the end of May, Gazprom and the Turkish government signed a protocol on the land section of
the Turkish Stream pipeline transit line to supply Russian gas to European consumers. Gazprom
and the Turkish company Botas concluded an agreement on the basic conditions and parameters for
the construction of the section. Joint venture TurkAkim Gaz Tasima A. S. will carry out
construction of the land section.
Earlier, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Directors of Gazprom Alexander Medvedev said that
in the near future the company would finally determine the route of the second line of the
Turkish Stream for gas supply to countries in Southern and Southeast Europe. According to him,
two main options are being discussed in accordance with the procedures in the European Union
and the European Commission. Medvedev cited Greece, Italy, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Hungary as
potential markets.
Gazprom's investments in the construction of the Turkish Stream for 2018 are planned at the
level of 182.4 bln rubles ($2.76 bln) against almost 93 bln rubles ($1.4 bln) in 2017. The
company estimates the cost of laying the pipeline at 7 bln euro.
The Ukies imagine they are so clever! They will waive a claim they have pretty much no chance
of ever being awarded, in return for a lesser amount of guaranteed cold, hard cash plus a
transit deal which will commit Russia to giving them at least another $20 Billion in transit
fees over 10 years. Russia should pretend to consider it, just to wind them up, and run out
the clock on the signing of a new contract. Then say, "I've decided not to after all, old
chap".
"... Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies. ..."
"... No informed American can afford to not know the names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. > ..."
"... Hersh hoped that future historians would document the fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved the takeover. ..."
"... The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket. ..."
"... In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent. ..."
"... That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book. Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters. ..."
"... Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state. However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and often place American interests second to that of the lobby. ..."
Although it is generally understood that American neoconservatives pushed hard for the war
in Iraq, this book forcefully argues that the neocons' goal was not the spread of democracy,
but the protection of Israel's interests in the Middle East. Showing that the neocon movement
has always identified closely with the interests of Israel's Likudnik right wing, the
discussion contends that neocon advice on Iraq was the exact opposite of conventional United
States foreign policy, which has always sought to maintain stability in the region to promote
the flow of oil. Various players in the rush to war are assessed according to their motives,
including President Bush, Ariel Sharon, members of the foreign-policy establishment, and the
American people, who are seen not as having been dragged into war against their will, but as
ready after 9/11 for retaliation
Every American should read this superb book about the intimate connection between the
state of Israel and the Americans who planned and promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003
(and who still influence U.S. policy in the Middle East). This very well-researched and
well-argued book will enlighten Americans who want to understand how the Jewish State of
Israel powerfully shapes U.S. Middle East policy.
Stephen Sniegowski provides a detailed look at the network of die-hard pro-Israel
Neoconservatives who have worked in the U.S. government, in think tanks, and in the news
media to shape American foreign policy to serve the needs of Israel at the expense of the
U.S. From media baron Rupert Murdoch, whose 175 newspapers around the world ALL editorialized
in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, to
Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and later Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, to
Vice President Dick Cheney, to the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle, the
neoconservatives successfully persuaded President George W. Bush to invade Iraq to promote
Israel's foreign policy interests.
Sniegowski describes how the Neocons promoted lies about Saddam Hussein's supposed Weapons
of Mass Destruction and his supposed ties to al-Qaeda terrorists from a network of think
tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Middle East Media Research Institute,
Hudson Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Center for Security Policy, and the
Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
He also traces the influence of Israeli Zionist Oded Yinon on the American
Neoconservatives. Yinon wrote an article in 1982 entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the
1980s" that called for Israel to bring about the dissolution of many of the Arab states and
their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian groupings. This is basically what
is happening to Iraq and Syria today. He also called for Israelis to accelerate the
emigration of Palestinians from Israel, whose border he believed should extend to the Jordan
River and beyond it.
Yinon's article influenced a paper written for the Israeli Likud government of Benjamin
Netanyahu in 1996 by American neoconservatives Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David
Wurmser entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". This paper stated
that Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel's
claim to the West Bank and Gaza. Like Yinon's article, it also called for the removal of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the weakening of Syria to promote Israel's interests. It was
written five years BEFORE the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. These same three
men - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser - who advised Netanyahu's Israeli
government on issues of national security would later advise President George W. Bush to
pursue virtually the same policies regarding the Middle East.
If you want to understand how and why powerful pro-Israel neoconservatives in the U.S.
misled Americans and convinced President George W. Bush to order the U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003, and how they persuaded the U.S. Congress to give Bush the authority to order the
invasion, read this outstanding book.
Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper
entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think
tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to
foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies.
The policy was adopted by the Israeli pro-settler right wing and Jewish activists in and
around the Clinton and Bush administrations such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David
Wurmser (who all helped produce the original document). They identified as targets Iraq,
Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia and were handed a golden opportunity after the 9/11 attack on
the World Trade Centre. Iraq was falsely presented as an Al Qaeda base and the media planted
with stories about an imminent attack on the United States using WMD. Despite the CIA knowing
all along that the WMD didn't exist, the US still invaded Iraq and the story was quietly and
unbelievably changed to "building democracy".
As Sniegoski points out, the war has exceeded the cost of Vietnam and the same activists,
now working through Hillary Clinton are looking for "incidents" in Iraq to trigger the next
phase of the plan which is a US attack on Iran.
UPDATE October 2014:
And it gets worse: The 911 story itself keeps morphing. Google "Building 7", YouTube "911
Missing Links" or check the article at http://911speakout.org/7TOCPJ.pdf. >
Important book for those trying understand the chaos that
is currently reigning in the Middle East. From the lies based NEOCON attack on Iraq trumpeted
by the mainstream USA media as a fight to save Western Civilization, to the rise of ISIL.
This books will make those connections clear. No informed American can afford to not know the
names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. >
On January 27, 2005, [...] posted the remarks of Seymour Hersh (The New Yorker
contributor) at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York that a neoconservative cult had
taken over the American government.
Hersh hoped that future historians would document the
fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to
overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The
Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved
the takeover.
Other books have stressed how the neoconservative ideology is contrary to traditional
American values: Reclaiming the American Right (Justin Raimondo), America the Virtuous (Claes
Ryn), Where the Right Went Wrong (Patrick Buchanan).
"Memoirs of a Trotskyist" in Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (Irving Kristol)
provided a neoconservative account of the origins of neo-conservatism. Sniegoski noted
correctly that the term neoconservative originated with leftists critical of their former
comrades for attempting to infiltrate the Democratic and Republican parties. Thanks to
leftists who call neoconservatives the ultra-right and to conservative dupes who think that
anyone using a conservative label is a conservative, the neoconservative cancer has spread
through the fragile American political body.
The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group
attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a
detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to
overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket.
Unlike earlier secret plots to take over the American government, Sniegoski explained how it
was possible for the neoconservatives to operate as a relatively transparent cabal. However,
he observed that the neoconservatives used a Trojan horse technique to take over the American
conservative movement. The goal of the neoconservatives is to promote endless wars regardless
of whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power.
The neoconservatives do not represent a popular mass movement in America. Instead, the
neoconservatives rely upon the co-operation of other groups. Sniegoski provided extensive
documentation of which groups enabled the neoconservatives. For example, the Christian
Zionists duped their followers into sacrificing money and soldiers. Zionism originated with
the writings of Moses Hess (who helped Karl Marx write The Communist Manifesto, was nicknamed
the Communist Rabbi, and who is buried in Israel). In 1862, Moses Hess published Rome and
Jerusalem. Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism (Shlomo Avineri) provided a detailed
explanation of the relationship between Communism and Zionism.
The reason for the fragility of American democracy is the failure of many Americans to
understand the most basic aspects of the American political system and of their
religions.
The Transparent Cabal is an important starting point for understanding how a neoconservative
cult opposed to traditional American political and religious values is able to destroy
America with endless wars.
_The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, And the
National Interest of Israel_, published in 2008 by Enigma Editions of IHS Press, by scholar
Stephen J. Sniegoski is a thorough examination of the role of the neoconservatives in pushing
for war in the Middle East (beginning with the war in Iraq and pushing onwards towards Iran)
in order to protect the national interests of Israel. Sniegoski makes the claim that the
neoconservatives have been the fundamental force behind the war efforts of the United States
and have played a particularly prominent role in the Bush administration. While these claims
have now become common knowledge, Sniegoski makes an important contribution by tracing the
history of the neoconservative movement and its links to prominent pro-Jewish and pro-Israel
groups. In particular, Sniegoski claims that neoconservativism is a tool of Zionism and the
Likudniks of Israel. Sniegoski traces out how following the attacks of September 11, the
neoconservative war hawks had a profound influence on the thinking of President Bush and
offered him a ready made solution to his foreign policy agenda. In this book, Sniegoski also
considers and refutes other theories as to the root causes behind America's intervention in
Iraq (such as the role of oil and war profiteering) but explains how these theories lack the
validity of that which lays the blame on the neoconservatives and their goals for Israeli
dominance in the Middle East.
In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at
the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked
charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the
United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book
echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the
small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains
that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a
tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent.
This book begins with a Foreword by Congressman Paul Findley (famous author of _They Dare
to Speak Out_ and longtime opponent of the Israeli Lobby) in which he explains the importance
of Sniegoski's book and deflects the spurious charge of anti-Semitism. Following this,
appears an Introduction by noted paleoconservative Paul Gottfried who explains his admiration
for Sniegoski's book, offers some comparisons between Sniegoski's claims and those of other
individuals, and contrasts the old non-interventionist limited government form of
conservativism with that of the neoconservatives.
The first chapter of Sniegoski's book is entitled "The Transparent Cabal" and notes the
disastrous consequences that have followed upon the Iraq war spurred on by the
neoconservatives. The author explains what he means in calling the neoconservatives a
"transparent cabal" and notes the importance of their Middle East, pro-Israeli agenda. The
author explains how following the events of September 11, they came to take on a prominent
role in influencing the thinking of the president (who had previously shown little interest
in the Middle East).
The second chapter is entitled "The "Neocon-Israel" Claim: Bits and
Pieces" and exposes the role of Israel's Likudnik party behind the neoconservatives. The
author deflects claims of "anti-Semitism" which are frequently hurled at those who make these
charges by showing that even many prominent Jews agree with this. Following this appears a
chapter entitled "Who are the Neocons?" which shows how the neocons emigrated from their
original home in the Democratic party of the McGovernite left into the Republican party as
the New Left began to voice criticisms of Israel. The author shows that many of the neocons
are actually socialists and Trotskyites parading under the label of "conservative". Further,
the author shows the role of various intellectuals centering around New York City in creating
the neoconservative movement.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "The Israeli Origins of the
Middle East War Agenda" which shows how the goal of Middle East war to further the interests
of Israel has been supported extensively by hawkish groups in Israel. The author explains how
these groups came to have such a prominent role in influencing the policy of the United
States and in suppressing the native population of Palestinians in Israel. Following, appears
a chapter entitled "Stability and the Gulf War of 1991: Prefigurement and Prelude to the 2003
Iraq War" in which the author explains the importance of the first Gulf War of Bush I in
prefiguring the Iraq War of Bush II. After this, appears a chapter entitled "During the
Clinton Years" in which the author shows the continuing role of the neocons during the
Clinton years.
Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Serbian Interlude and the 2000
Elections" in which the author explains how the war in Yugoslavia paved the way for the
coming Iraq War of President Bush. This also explains the split that occurred among
conservatives between those traditional conservatives who opposed the war and the neocons who
firmly supported it. Following this appears a chapter entitled "George W. Bush
Administration: The Beginning" in which the author explains the role that the neocons came to
take in the Bush administration mentioning in particular the role of such figures as
Wolfowitz and Cheney and the role of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Following
this appears a chapter entitled "September 11", showing how the events of Sept. 11 allowed
the neocon agenda to gain prominence in the mind of President Bush.
Next, appears a chapter
entitled "Move to War" explaining how the neocons pushed for war against Sadaam Hussein
presenting their case to the American people by claiming that Hussein was in possession of
WMDs which could be used against America. Following this appears a chapter entitled "World
War IV" explaining how the conflict in the Middle East came to be dubbed World War IV by
certain intellectuals among the neocons.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "Democracy for the
Middle East" showing the role of the neocons in foisting "democracy" onto various nations and
their goal of global democratic revolution. The author also explains the role of the thinking
of political philosopher Leo Strauss behind many of the neocons and his profoundly
anti-democratic philosophy. Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Neocons'
Post-Invasion Difficulties" showing how the invasion of Iraq turned out to be more serious
and difficult than originally anticipated by the neocons. Next, appears a chapter entitled
"Beginning of the Second Administration" showing the continuing role of the neocons under the
second Bush administration.
Then, appears a chapter entitled "Israel, Lebanon, and the 2006
Election" showing the role of Lebanon and Syria in relationship to Israel and that of the
2006 election.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "2007: On to Iran" showing how the neocons
continued to press for further wars in particular against Iran by alleging among other things
that Ahmedinejad was a mad man with possible access to nuclear weapons. Following, appears a
chapter entitled "The Supporting Cast for War" noting the role of Christian Zionists (which
includes the beliefs of President Bush, although not his father), former Cold Warriors, and
even prominent establishment liberals in supporting the Iraq war. The author notes however
that the traditional foreign policy establishment elites and many in the intelligence
agencies did not support the war, but were disregarded to further the neocon agenda. The
author also contrasts the difference between the liberal elites who frequently were pro-war
and the popular anti-war movement which had very little power.
Following this, the author
turns to a chapter entitled "Oil and Other Arguments" in which the author considers the
claims that the war was fought to obtain access to oil or for the interests of war profiteers
and shows that while both groups certainly benefited they are not the real reason for the
war. The book ends with a "Conclusion" in which the author expounds upon the continuing role
of the neocons in influencing American foreign policy and a "Postscript" in which the author
notes that no matter who wins the 2008 election that the neocon agenda will likely continue
and is not likely to go away anytime soon.
This book offers a fascinating history and account of the role of the neoconservatives in
pushing the United States into war. The author makes clear the influence of the Israeli
Likudnik party behind the neocons and their goal of strengthening the position of Israel in
the Middle East. It is important to understand the fundamental nature of the foreign policy
elites who have been pushing us into war against Iraq and now with eyes towards Iran.
That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book.
Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed
by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters.
Let's put aside these negative and nasty characterizations and look at the facts.
Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state.
However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and
often place American interests second to that of the lobby.
To suggest that there is such a
lobby and that it is powerful is hardly anti-semitic. Nor is the author. He is simply stating
verifible facts which any student of politics is free to do. He may be mistaken in his
conclusions but that hardly makes him anti-semitic. And he may not be mistaken at all. He is
not the first to suggest that our leaders are fearful of the Israeli lobby and do its bidding
and often to the detriment of American interests .
Stephen Sniegoski, a diplomatic historian, is uniquely qualified to write about the
neoconservatives' involvement in the prolonged Iraq War originating in 2003. He accurately
predicted their activities and allegiance in this entanglement in 1998, three years before
the acts of 9-11 and two additional years before a traumatized nation yielded to a nescient,
misdirected President, his Vice President/administration, and an ostensibly compliant
bi-partisan House and Senate.
The author presents a tight outline which he cogently expands in intelligible detail,
maintaining that the origins of the American war on Iraq revolve around the adoption of a war
agenda whose basic structure was conceived in Israel to advance Israel's interests. The
pro-Israel neoconservatives and a powerful Israel lobby in the United States fervently pushed
its agenda. Ironically, he extracts his most persuasive evidence from an extensive
neoconservative paper trail that's been clearly recognized by a discreet cadre of vigilant
Americans for years. Thus the title, "The Transparent Cabal."
Dr. Sniegoski asks the appropriate question: "Who are the neoconservatives?" He provides
insightful answers on their pertinent activities since 1972, those who shaped and mentored
them, their immediate family/interconnected family networks, their prominent periodical
publications, their past and present leadership, non-Jewish minority members, their
persistent rise to positions of political influence and authority, their embrace of Christian
Zionists, and their close ties to the extremely conservative Likud Party in Israel. He
reveals their tactical affiliations with key, heavily endowed influential think tanks, and a
vast number of powerful Israel-centric lobbying organizations that reactively finance and
nurture their continued success.
Many readers will recognize his references to writers of previous books, articles and
columns -- many of Jewish heritage -- who bravely fight against well financed, mainstream
media-dominant opponents and their psychological surrogates active on the Internet. These
opponents perniciously engage in personal attacks and retribution, indiscriminately applying
irrelevant anti-semitic labels. They persist at attempting to sway public discourse by
spreading misinformation, disinformation, and mostly NO RELEVANT INFORMATION to the
public.
In various places throughout the book, the author notes curious relationships with current
and former elected and appointed officials. He writes about the ongoing 2008 presidential
campaign in a postscript, citing past and existing direct influences on specific candidates
by the neoconservatives, the Israel Lobby and its supporters.
The book concludes with a summary of the paucity of benefits compared to the predictable
losses of the American people over recent years. These are the real consequences of the
Israel-inspired plan to "drain the swamp" (a euphemism for destabilizing perceived enemies
then establishing precarious nominal democracies) that began with our misadventure in Iraq
and was to proceed with subsequent U.S. military interventions in Iran and Syria. The few
meager benefits and the enormous losses to the United States are compared to the strategic
advantages that the State of Israel derives directly from our five-year induced military
involvement in Iraq and our concomitant departure from past, longstanding policies of
diplomacy and stability in the Middle East.
Sniegoski counsels, "it is hardly controversial to propose that elites, rather than the
people as a whole, determine government policies, even in democracies."
Yet this war has a supporting cast of middle Americans. Many of them were traumatized by
the events of 9-11 and reactively saw an act of patriotism in supporting retaliation against
a falsely perceived enemy in Iraq. It's time to reconsider false arguments preceding the Iraq
War that have only been cosmetically modified until the present day. It's time to dismiss
incongruous ideas formed in the cauldron of confusion after 9-11.
Given today's realities, it DOES take patriotism and courage to insist on formally
normalizing an entangled, unreciprocated military alliance with an Israeli government that
burdens the taxpayers of the United States, promotes angst among its people, and imperils its
military forces worldwide.
Know and embrace Thomas Jefferson's ideal of 'eternal vigilance' as citizens of the United
States.
.
.
Facts in this book are reinforced in adjacent paragraphs and referenced in nearly 50 pages of
notes. Readers are encouraged to read:
World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global
Instability by Amy Chua -- "Israeli Surveillance of the Future Hijackers and FBI Suspects
in the September 11 Attacks and Their Failure to Give Us Adequate Warning: The Need for a
Public Inquiry" **a 166 PAGE LEAKED REPORT** documenting foreign espionage activities
surrounding 9-11, available on the Internet (although rarely in COMPLETE UNEDITED FORM **WITH
5 EXHIBITS AND 4 MAPS**). .
Stephen J. Sniegoski has a doctorate from the University of Maryland and studied American
diplomatic history. My review here will refer to him as "S," for short.
This book is about the American neoconservative movement. S goes from its founding through
its influential role in getting the U.S. into the Iraq War, then he discusses the War's
aftermath. S's argument is that the neoconservative agenda regarding the Middle East is
designed to serve the interests of the state of Israel, as those interests are articulated by
the right-wing Likud party there. This agenda supports weakening Arab nations surrounding
Israel so that they cannot pose a threat to her. According to S, the neoconservatives
supported such an agenda since their beginning as a movement, but 9/11 created an opportunity
for this agenda to become the foreign policy of the United States during much of the
Presidency of George W. Bush.
Here are some thoughts:
A. Looking broadly at the book itself, it is a standard narration of the events
surrounding and including the Iraq War. Like a lot of people, I lived through that, so the
sweeping narrative of the book was not particularly new to me. The story is essentially that
the U.S. went into Iraq expecting to find weapons of mass destruction after 9/11, bombed the
country and found that were no WMDs, and traveled the difficult road of trying to rebuild the
country, amidst ethnic division, turmoil, and opposition from Iraqis.
B. That said, there were some things that I learned from this book. First, while
neoconservatism is said to believe in spreading democracy in the Middle East, it is not
necessarily committed to democracy, per se. Initially, it supported a new government of Iraq
that would be led by the traditional, pre-Saddam tribal authorities, who were not democratic.
Second, S seems to imply that even the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan was
unnecessary, since the Taliban initially appeared cooperative in offering to help the U.S. to
bring al-Qaeda to justice. Third, there are neoconservatives who have supported undermining
even America's allies in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia. The different groups in Saudi
Arabia was also interesting, for, as S notes, Shiites hold a significant amount of control
over Saudi oil, even though the political establishment is Sunni. Fourth, S argues rigorously
against the idea that the U.S. launched the Iraq War to get more oil. Saddam was offering
U.S. oil companies opportunities to drill in Iraq, plus oil companies did not want the oil
infrastructure of the country to be disrupted or shattered by war.
C. There were also things in the book that I was interested to learn more about, even
though I had a rudimentary understanding of them before. For one, S chronicles George W.
Bush's changing views on foreign policy, as he went from rejecting nation-building, while
retaining a tough stance, to embracing nation building. In the early days of the Bush II
Administration, long before the Iraq War, Condi Rice even explained on news shows why regime
change in Iraq would be a mistake at that point. Second, S discusses the coalition that
emerged to support the war in Iraq. The neocons wanted to protect Israel, but Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld embraced the Iraq War as a way to showcase the effectiveness of a
lean military. Meanwhile, many Americans, frightened after 9/11, supported the Iraq War as a
way to keep the U.S. safe. And Christian conservatives embraced the good vs. evil, pro-Israel
stance of neoconservative policy. Third, S strategically evaluates moves that the U.S. made;
for S, for example, the surge did not actually work, but more stability emerged in Iraq as
different ethnic factions became separated from each other.
D. According to S, the Iraq War was a disaster. It stretched America's military, taking
away resources that could have been used to find Osama bin-Laden. Yet, Israel got something
that it wanted as a result: disarray among her Arab neighbors. An argument that S did not
really engage, as far as I can recall, is that the Iraq War placed Israel even more in peril,
since it increased the power of Iran by allowing Iraq to serve as a proxy for Iranian
interests.
E. For S, neoconservatism is concerned about the security of Israel. Even its staunch Cold
War policy is rooted in that concern, since the U.S.S.R. tended to support Arabs over the
Israelis. S acknowledges, though, that there is more to neoconservatism that that.
Neoconservatives supported a strong U.S. military intervention in the former Yugoslavia
during the Clinton Administration, and neoconservatism also maintains stances on domestic
issues, such as welfare.
F. S is sensitive to any charges of anti-Semitism that may be launched against his book.
He emphatically denies that he is saying there was a Jewish conspiracy to get the U.S. into
Iraq, for he observes that many Jews opposed the Iraq War. Moreover, S does not exactly
present the U.S. government as a Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG), for the neoconservatives
were long on the margins prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush. Even under Bush II, the
traditional national security and intelligence apparatus was critical of the Iraq War,
preferring more multilateralism and a focus on stability in the Middle East. The Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR), long a bogeyman of right-wing conspiracy theorists, also had
reservations about the Iraq War.
G. S largely depicts the Likud party in Israel, and neoconservatives, as supporting
Israel's security as a nation, her protection, if you will. At the same time, S argues that
Israel in 2006 was acting aggressively rather than defensively in its invasion of Lebanon,
for Lebanon had coveted water-supplies.
H. Near the end of the Iraq War, S demonstrates, neoconservatives were calling on the U.S.
to take an aggressive stance against Iran, going so far as to bomb the country. That, of
course, is an issue that remains relevant today. S probably regards such a move as a mistake.
At the same time, he can understand why Israel would be apprehensive about a nuclear-armed
Iran. He thinks that Ahmadinejad has been incorrectly understood to say that Israel should be
wiped off the map, but S still acknowledges that a powerful Iran could provide more support
to the Palestinians, which would trouble Israel. Although S understands this, he seems to
scorn the idea that Israel should get everything she wants and have hegemony.
I. S is open to the possibility that neoconservatives believe that their support for
Israel is perfectly consistent with America's well-being. As S observes, the U.S. government
since its founding has had people who believe that partisanship towards a certain nation --
-Britain or France -- -is not only good for its own sake but serves the interests of the
United States. S disputes, however, that neoconservative policy is the only way to help the
U.S. Could not one argue, after all, that the U.S. would want to be on the Arabs' good side,
with all the oil the Arabs have? This analysis may be a little dated, since the U.S. now has
some alternative sources of energy (fracking), but S makes this point in evaluating the
historical stance of neoconservatism.
I was interested to see the reviews of this book. Usually if any book suggests that Israel
is less than perfect a group of Zionist fanatics surface with several reviews telling us that
there nothing wrong Israel or American support of it.
Remarkably there is only one negative review of this book which has to be seen to be
believed. This reviewer "yoda" from Israel charges in all seriousness that Sniegoski does not
provide evidence that the neoconservatives are "predominantly Jewish " and are " strongly
aligned with Israel". Asking the author to provide evidence for such
assertions is like asking him to give evidence that the sun will
rise in the east tomorrow .
This is I believe the real reason that that there are relatively few attacks on this book.The
author does not engage in shrill denunciations of Israel or of the neoconservatives . What he
does do is quote at length what neocoservstives say and provide careful documentation for any
factual claims. For the most part the reader is allowed to
draw his own conclusions. Should the US continue to finance
Israeli repression of Palestinians and perhaps go to war against Iran or anyone else who
might object to Israeli policie?
Instead of denouncing Sniegoski "Yoda" should consider
the sane Israelis in his own country . For example former
Mossad chief Meir Dagan who said that a war with Iran was
the "stupidest idea he had ever heard of." Also moviemaker
Emmanuel Dror who interviewed virtually all the former directors of the Shin Bett ( Israel's
internal security service )
who all called for disengaging from the occupied territories .
perhaps we all would be better off listening to these Isaelis rather than follow the
neoconservatives into another disastrous war on the other side of the world.
This is going to be a very strange review coming from me. You see, I wrote a novel called
"Other Nations" and well, people that liked it a lot, liked it, but then those that really
disliked it disliked it because my "aliens among humans" were nice people, likeable people,
even charismatic people, everyday suburban types even, living that kind of life. Among us.
Next door, in the next city over. They wanted instead to see the aliens among us portrayed as
well, pick your favorite genocidal maniac or mind-controlling dictator or creature so
dementedly alien that no sense can be made of it. Well!
There are many types of true horror. The kind that passes itself off as my aliens among us
are portrayed, well, I guess some people GET IT - and they liked it.
But I'm not here to push my book. I'm here to push THIS BOOK - because my god, this is
REAL, not fantasy, it's REAL, not science fiction. And yes, they are among us with well -
BUY THIS BOOK. If you are too broke to buy it, get it from the library - and by all means
- READ IT.
Just hope to whatever god you choose that neocons are removed from governmental influence
and that their Amen corner is ignored. Hope to god, because if they suceed in doing the
INSANITY they want to do - America will be FINISHED - if it's not finished already due to
what these Fifth Columnists have done during the 8 years of Twilight Zone (GWB Rule).
And for those Jewish critics on here that might want to compare these neocon FACTS and the
other FACTS openly available to all (which is WHY the book is called the TRANSPARENT cabal) -
compare it to the Protocols - they better think twice about that. Becauase, you see, what's
in here is real, real facts, provably real facts - and if Jews themselves compare this to the
Procols? Some folks might get the idea that maybe that is real too. Perhaps George Soros (who
is Jewish) needs to speak LOUDER against the neocons. They are, indeed, crazies, as Colin
Powell called them. Crazies.
If you want to have an eye opener then read and see who were those Jewish players working
and influencing everything in the Bush Admin.promoting war with Iraq, then this is your book
of truth. The cabal of Jewish players come out of the woodwork in Stephen Sniegoski's great
work. When step by step the plan was a clear war map laid out for the U.S. in detail and
after you realize just who was working for whom in this criminal cabal of the American
government.
When you have Jewish control of the main stream media and Jewish control in Washington, D.C.,
don't wonder why the facts were omitted to make all the right connections for the public to
see in this lead up to a war from lies.
"... November in Ukraine has been marked by the adoption of the so called 'land reform', in accordance of the demands made by the IMF amongst other international financial organizations. The reform opens the way for the mass privatization of Ukraine's agricultural lands. The IMF has been making these demands for many years but assorted Ukrainian presidents have tried to postpone such an unpopular decision. Recent polls show that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians of all political persuasions are opposed to land privatization, from far-right to far-left. ..."
"... After an intensive period of deindustrialization, which has taken place in recent years, agricultural land remain the only asset with any value in Ukraine but even so, it may be bought for very little. A remarkable fact is that one of the deputies from the ruling party 'Servant of the people,' Nikita Poturayev , while pressing his colleagues at the Parliament to vote for the bill on land reform, claimed [1] that this would be 'settling scores with maniac V. Lenin', i.e. the purpose of the bill was to abolish the land nationalization carried out following the October revolution. ..."
"... Ukrainian political expert Ruslan Bortnik says that the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and his team came to power under an obligation to sell out the agricultural land of Ukraine to foreign companies. Those who buy these lands, according to Bortnik, will only be thinking about making the quickest possible buck. "Foreign companies are already operating on Ukrainian soil [renting land]," said Bortnik, ..."
"... "But they are competing with large Ukrainian agricultural holdings. They do not dominate. If the adopted land market model is launched, then only large foreign companies will remain in our market Let's be honest – we are not a sovereign country. At least our government is under external control. And this is a part of the obligations of this government. This is the condition under which they came to power. They are paying the debts through privatization." [2] ..."
"... Ukrainian farmers who still are landowners, formally at least – they just can't sell it – are the same people who are unable to pay their gas and electricity bills, especially after the recent raising of energy prices – another IMF demand. ..."
"... For the most part, it was in the region of $7.4 billion of stolen Ukraine's public money, from which only a "small share" was used to bribe Western politicians, like Hunter Biden. The deputies have stressed that, according to the investigation of Ukraine's general prosecution, the withdrawn and laundered money was then invested back into Ukraine. In particular through the Franklin Templeton Investments, the money was used to buy domestic government bonds (DGB), issued by Kiev at high interest rate. ..."
"... Ukrainian prosecutor Konstantin Kulik recently stated [4] in an interview that Ukraine takes IMF loans to pay out on these debt obligations (DGB). As deputy Aleksandr Dubinsky stressed at the press conference, 40% of the current public budget goes towards the payment of the public debt of Ukraine, including the repayment of DGB at inflated interest rates. ..."
November in Ukraine has been marked by the adoption of the so called 'land reform', in accordance of the demands made by the
IMF amongst other international financial organizations. The reform opens the way for the mass privatization of Ukraine's agricultural
lands. The IMF has been making these demands for many years but assorted Ukrainian presidents have tried to postpone such an unpopular
decision. Recent polls show that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians of all political persuasions are opposed to land privatization,
from far-right to far-left.
After an intensive period of deindustrialization, which has taken place in recent years, agricultural land remain the only
asset with any value in Ukraine but even so, it may be bought for very little. A remarkable fact is that one of the deputies from
the ruling party 'Servant of the people,' Nikita Poturayev , while pressing his colleagues at the Parliament to vote for the bill
on land reform, claimed [1] that this would be 'settling scores with maniac V. Lenin', i.e. the purpose of the bill was to abolish
the land nationalization carried out following the October revolution.
Ukraine's fertile soil up for grabs
It has long been known that Ukraine's soil is very fertile. Indeed, during WW2 the invading Nazis made a point of appropriating
quantities of it; forcing POWs to collect the top soil and load it onto trains en route to Germany. Now these same lands could fall
into the hands of international agro-holdings.
Ukrainian political expert Ruslan Bortnik says that the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and his team came to power
under an obligation to sell out the agricultural land of Ukraine to foreign companies. Those who buy these lands, according to Bortnik,
will only be thinking about making the quickest possible buck. "Foreign companies are already operating on Ukrainian soil [renting
land]," said Bortnik,
"But they are competing with large Ukrainian agricultural holdings. They do not dominate. If the adopted land market model
is launched, then only large foreign companies will remain in our market Let's be honest – we are not a sovereign country. At
least our government is under external control. And this is a part of the obligations of this government. This is the condition
under which they came to power. They are paying the debts through privatization." [2]
Ukrainian farmers who still are landowners, formally at least – they just can't sell it – are the same people who are unable
to pay their gas and electricity bills, especially after the recent raising of energy prices – another IMF demand. Obviously,
their financial desperation will mean that many will have to sell their land at a low price, certainly well below the market value.
Meanwhile, Ukraine remains the poorest country on the continent of Europe and Ukrainian agricultural land remains the cheapest. Moreover,
the lands may be bought up as repaying large loans collected by the Kiev government following the Euromaidan coup in 2014.
This scheme of buying up Ukraine's land is connected with the ongoing corruption scandal in the US: the one related to Joe Biden
and the gas company 'Burisma'. At the end of November, Ukrainian MPs (non-factional people's deputy Andrey Derkach; a deputy from
the Batkivshchyna Party Aleksey Kucherenko; and a deputy from the ruling Servant of the People party, Aleksandr Dubinsky) revealed
it at the press-conference [3].
The point here is that the former Minister of Ecology of Ukraine Nikolay Zlochevsky , an owner of "Burisma" gas company, in 2014
introduced a number of Western politicians to the board of directors of his company, which helped him to avoid accusations of corruption.
Hunter Biden , son of former US Vice President Joe Biden , received monthly large payments for his "consultancy services". As a result
Ukraine's General prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the corruption schemes of the company, was forced – under
pressure – to resign by Joe Biden, who even boasted about it in the US media.
Ukrainian MPs have now claimed at a press-conference that the money used to bribe the son of the former Vice President of the
United States was in fact stolen. "Biden received money, the source of which is not the successful activity of Burisma, brilliant
business moves, or recommendations. It is the money of the citizens of Ukraine. It was obtained by criminal means," said the MP Andrey
Derkach. The ultimate goal of all this fraud, in which the Bidens were deeply involved, will be the bankruptcy of Ukraine in 2020-2021,
through the formation of a pyramid of public debt.
Laundering scheme to withdraw money from Ukraine
According to Ukrainian deputies, this was a part of a bigger laundering scheme to withdraw money from Ukraine via Latvian banks
and the fund 'Franklin Templeton Investments,' which is close to the United States Democratic Party. The founder of the foundation,
John Templeton Jr., was one of the main sponsors of the campaign of former US President Barack Obama.
For the most part, it was in the region of $7.4 billion of stolen Ukraine's public money, from which only a "small share"
was used to bribe Western politicians, like Hunter Biden. The deputies have stressed that, according to the investigation of Ukraine's
general prosecution, the withdrawn and laundered money was then invested back into Ukraine. In particular through the Franklin Templeton
Investments, the money was used to buy domestic government bonds (DGB), issued by Kiev at high interest rate.
The principle of this scheme is that with the assistance of American funds, the laundered money was legalised and invested in
government bonds at 6-8% in dollars and 15-17% in Ukrainian currency (hryvnia). This is leading to enormous growth in the Ukrainian
public debt and eventually the bankruptcy of the country's economy.
Eventual bankruptcy of the economy
Ukrainian prosecutor Konstantin Kulik recently stated [4] in an interview that Ukraine takes IMF loans to pay out on these
debt obligations (DGB). As deputy Aleksandr Dubinsky stressed at the press conference, 40% of the current public budget goes towards
the payment of the public debt of Ukraine, including the repayment of DGB at inflated interest rates.
According to him, bankruptcy on the debts could happen by the end of 2020 or 2021.
And this scheme is connected with land privatization, as adopted by Kiev in November in accordance with the IMF demand. "DGBs
are a financial instrument by which the state owes all its property when paying off the DGB. And if the land market is opened, the
state will have no other valuable property, with the exception of land," said Dubinsky, demanding the suspension of debt payments
to international creditors.
As a result of this unpopular land reform and the widespread violations of labour rights, Ukraine's trade-unions called a general
strike [5] for November 14 and began preparations. For the first time in the history of independent Ukraine, a strike committee was
formed at the all-national level. This committee was joined by trade unions, individual entrepreneurs, small businesses, agricultural
producers and farmers.
Management fires workers, pays themselves millions in bonuses
On November 14, Ukrainian railroad workers protested [6] in front of the Presidential office in Kiev against the announced plans
to fire some 50% of railroad personnel. The workers demanded the railroad management should resign instead. The deputy head of the
railroad trade-union, Alexander Mushenok, recently said [7] that currently "only 20 workers are employed where 60 workers are needed."
At the same time the workers claim that the top-level management of the company are paying themselves millions in bonuses. One of
the IMF demands requires that the Kiev authorities privatize the railroad system as well. In practice, this means that the few profitable
routes will be privatized by western companies, while the majority of non-profitable routes – to poorly developed provinces – will
remain state-owned, making the railway transport even less profitable.
The entire course of privatization, as promoted by the IMF, can be summarized by the principle 'privatization of profits, nationalization
of losses." And the new Kiev government is far too dependent to protest against the imposition of this policy; however, this will
effectively mean that this government will lose its credibility and trustworthiness among the people.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog
site, internet forums. etc.
Any left wing leader clinging to power long enough (for EVo Morales it was 12 years) creates
a real opportunities for a color revolution, which would decimate the whole movement. Looks like
at this point Evo Moralis was doomed and the coup was just a matter of time.
Any protests in governments that oppose Washing neoliberal empire are hijacked by Washington and turned into the anti-government
coupe d'état.
Notable quotes:
"... by 2019, Morales had been in office for 12 years, and his popularity had ebbed. As Christine Mathias writes in Dissent, even some on the left, including former indigenous supporters, had begun to question his leadership ..."
"... They raised concerns about Morales's desire to remain in office indefinitely, alleged corruption in his inner circle, his administration's response to recent fires in the Amazon, and especially its extractivist development model. Aymara leader Felipe Quispe presented some of the most damning critiques, describing [Morales' Movimiento al Socialismo] as "neoliberalism with an Indian face." ..."
"... Now, I've seen a lot of mockery directed at the Bolivian court for this decision, which said that barring Morales from running violated his "human rights." It is seen as a transparent power-grab by Morales, and a sign that his rule was undemocratic and illegitimate, because he simply had "cronies" rewrite the law. ..."
"... Article 23. Right to Participate in Government ..."
"... 1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: ..."
"... a. to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; ..."
"... b. to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will of the voters; and ..."
"... c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country. ..."
"... 2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings. ..."
"... This is important, because now that Morales has been forced out of power by an illegitimate leader, every effort is being made to paint him as having been illegitimate himself. ..."
"... We know that, as protests escalated after the election, Morales lost the support of members of the Bolivian police and that the military "encouraged him" to resign. Morales fled to Mexico; ..."
"... "We want to be a democratic tool of inclusion and unity," said the 52-year-old religious conservative, sitting at a table bearing a huge open Bible and crucifix. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Several MAS officials have been detained, fled the country or have sought refuge in foreign embassies. Meanwhile, debate has brewed over whether the party, which still enjoys wide support, should even be allowed to exist due to the alleged electoral manipulation. ..."
"... The Journal quotes a Morales critic saying: "MAS is dead We have a saying here: When the dog dies, so do the fleas." ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... she was doing the power grab. ..."
"... But Morales was elected! ..."
"... Order Restored Amid Unrest, Government Says ..."
"... A Dozen Unarmed Protesters Murdered In Cold Blood. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... debate has brewed over whether the party, which still enjoys wide support, should even be allowed to exist due to the alleged electoral manipulation. ..."
In Bolivia, within the course of a month,
one of the most successful contemporary governments to call itself "socialist" has been
replaced by an
unelected right-wing leadership that has killed protesters, promised to restore the rule of
Christianity, and demanded the jailing of former president Evo Morales as a "
terrorist. " What went wrong?
Let us review the most uncontroversial facts of what happened in Bolivia. Evo Morales, the
country's first indigenous leader, had been praised for his sound management of the country's
economy,
which "experienced a spectacular run of economic growth and poverty reduction." Even
harshly critical media assessments mentioned "the
country's growing economy and shrinking inequality," and the New York Times
noted that "tiny, impoverished Bolivia, once a perennial economic basket case, has suddenly
become a different kind of exception -- this time in a good way," as the country became South
America's fastest-growing
economy . As with China, the heavily state-led economic program of Bolivia -- which
included successful
nationalization of certain parts of industry -- threatens free market orthodoxies about the
inevitable catastrophe of socialism and state "intervention in the economy." (According to the
Center for Economic and Policy Research, "the importance of the government's nationalization of
hydrocarbons to Bolivia's economic progress over the past 13 years cannot be
overemphasized.")
But by 2019, Morales had been in office for 12 years, and his popularity had ebbed. As
Christine Mathias writes in Dissent, even some on the left, including former indigenous
supporters, had begun to question
his leadership :
They raised concerns about Morales's desire to remain in office indefinitely, alleged
corruption in his inner circle, his administration's response to recent fires in the Amazon,
and especially its extractivist development model. Aymara leader Felipe Quispe presented some
of the most damning critiques, describing [Morales' Movimiento al Socialismo] as
"neoliberalism with an Indian face."
Morales ran for a fourth term this year. Previously, the new Bolivian constitution that
Morales had introduced imposed term limits. There was a referendum on whether to scrap term
limits in 2016, and Morales lost narrowly. Bolivia's Supreme Court then overturned the results
of the referendum, allowing Morales to run again.
Now, I've seen a lot of mockery directed at the Bolivian court for this decision, which
said that barring Morales from running violated his "human rights." It is seen as a transparent
power-grab by Morales, and a sign that his rule was undemocratic and illegitimate, because he
simply had "cronies" rewrite the law.
A few bits of context are important, though. First, the president actually has less direct
control over the makeup of the Bolivian court than the United States president has over the
composition of our Supreme Court. And second, the ruling was not actually as crazy as it is
being made to sound. The ruling was based on the American
Convention of Human Rights , which Bolivia is a signatory to. The relevant section reads as
follows:
Article 23. Right to Participate in Government
1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities:
a. to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen
representatives;
b. to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, which shall be by
universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the
will of the voters; and
c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his
country.
2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in
the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language,
education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal
proceedings.
As you can see, every citizen is guaranteed the right to be elected in periodic
elections, and that right can be regulated only on the basis of a number of very
particular grounds. "Having served in office previously" is not one of those grounds. Now, your
instinct here may be to say "Oh, but that's silly , of course term limits are
permitted, it would be ridiculous to say that term limits are a violation of human rights." The
entire argument made by legal textualists like Antonin Scalia, however, is that it doesn't
matter what you might have meant , it matters what the law says. If the
drafters of a law believe that you should be able to restrict people from running for office
based on their previous service in office, they need to put that in the rights convention,
otherwise that exception won't be valid.
I am not saying that I am anti-term limits, or that I share Scalia's theory of
jurisprudence, although it's worth remembering that term limits do prevent people from
choosing the candidate that they might want the most and are a restriction on democracy (after
all, Obama would probably still be president if we adopted the democratic principle that "the
candidate the most people would want to vote for should win the election"). I am saying that
it's not obvious that the Supreme Court was simply mindlessly throwing out the rule of law, and
that the reactions after the Court's decision (some called the decision itself a "coup") was
not justified.
This is important, because now that Morales has been forced out of power by an
illegitimate leader, every effort is being made to paint him as having been illegitimate
himself. (The New York Times , using the language preferred
by the right-wing government , calls him a "strongman.") And if these arguments are
correct, it undermines critics of the anti-Morales coup. After all, if he was an autocrat who
himself had no democratic mandate and disrespected institutions, it was less bad for his
successors to seize power, even if they did so without being elected. The present Bolivian
"leadership" has made a very strong effort to portray themselves as "restoring" a democracy
that Morales had "undermined" (with the new self-declared president saying that "the coup
d'état was by Evo Morales") even as they behave undemocratically themselves, so it's
important to actually scrutinize the facts and remember what happened.
I find Morales' decision to keep running indefinitely to be frustrating, and a sign that he
was relying more on his personality than a political movement, but I do not think that he
disrespected the law any more than Michael Bloomberg did when he had the New York City
Council get rid of term limits. I would not have called Bloomberg an "illegitimate" mayor or a
"dictator," nor would I say that he was not the "real" mayor of New York and could justly be
overthrown by the NYPD. So I think Morales was within his rights to run again, and since his
term has not expired, and he was forced out by threats of violence, he should still be
considered the president of Bolivia.
What of the election itself? American media has reported on the election as if it was
self-evident that Morales stole it or committed election fraud. The central allegations here,
however, do not appear to hold up. Read the analyses from
Kevin Cashman in Jacobin and
Mark Weisbrot in MarketWatch , who both provide careful explanations of how the
Bolivian election actually worked, as opposed to vague innuendos.
She vowed to be a
mere caretaker until new elections could be held, "[telling] reporters that her only aim was to
unite the country and restore it to the path to democracy," and
saying that her mission in office was "to call for clean and transparent elections with all
the qualified political actors as soon as possible." Of course, that word "qualified" should
have been the tip-off from the beginning that Añez would soon unilaterally declare
Morales ineligible to run .
But it was very evident that she was lying about her intentions, which were not to preside
over a "caretaker" government but to re-establish right-wing rule after a decade of successful
socialism. She acted like "
anything but a caretaker ," and has "been putting her own ideological stamp on South
America's poorest nation as she pursues the opposition's long-held dream of undoing nearly
14 years of socialist rule under former president Evo Morales." She "replaced Bolivia's top
military brass, cabinet ministers and the heads of major state-owned companies with appointees
of her own." She immediately moved to reshape the county's foreign policy, reinstall Catholic
rituals, and gave soldiers immunity from prosecutor for murdering protesters. Sure enough,
"within hours, a confrontation between soldiers and Morales supporters near Cochabamba left
nine dead." (It is ironic that Áñez had previously "denied that Morales had been
the victim of a coup," saying "a coup d'etat is when there are soldiers in the streets.")
Añez's government barely pretended to care about equality. She brought a giant Bible
to her swearing-in, and said "the Bible has returned to the government palace." As the press
noted, this was "a pointed attack on Morales, since the constitution he passed in 2009 placed
Christianity on equal footing with indigenous spiritual traditions." Añez's open
Christian supremacist ideology was evident even when she was making half-hearted gestures
toward inclusiveness:
"We want to be a democratic tool of inclusion and unity," said the 52-year-old
religious conservative, sitting at a table bearing a huge open Bible and crucifix.
Añez was not just repudiating Morales, socialism, and secular pluralism, but the
indigeneous population more broadly. She had
previously "published provocative posts on Twitter
mocking Indigenous people's culture, branding their
religious rites 'satanic' and calling Mr. Morales a
'poor Indian. '"
She "quickly set up a transition cabinet with almost no indigenous people, but full of
business elites who oppose Morales." At a public rally by a close Añez ally, a speaker
cried: "We have tied all the demons of the witchery and thrust them into the abyss. Satans, get
out of Bolivia now." As one analyst noted, her government seems to be " thinking
that what Bolivia needs right now is a purge. "
And the purge is underway. The interim interior minister threatened
"to arrest lawmakers loyal to ousted President Evo Morales for alleged acts of subversion and
sedition," even though Morales' MAS party still technically held a legislative majority. He "
announced the creation of a 'special apparatus of the Prosecutor's Office' that will crack
down on elected officials from Morales' Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party, which controls
about two-thirds of the legislature," and "said he would be publishing a 'list' of legislators
he claims are guilty of 'subversion' and that those individuals will be blocked from continuing
their duties as representatives and will be subject to arrest starting Monday." He "began by
promising to hunt down Mr. Morales's top former minister, Juan Ramón Quintana, who has
gone into hiding," saying "We're going to go hunting for Juan Ramón Quintana because he
is an animal that feeds on the blood of the people."
Several MAS officials have been detained, fled the country or have sought refuge in
foreign embassies. Meanwhile, debate has brewed over whether the party, which still enjoys
wide support, should even be allowed to exist due to the alleged electoral
manipulation.
The Journal quotes a Morales critic saying: "MAS is dead We have a saying here: When the
dog dies, so do the fleas."
* * * *
Surely, some things are clear here. The new right-wing government is not actually interested
in democracy, but in destroying socialism and indigenous power. They're literally threatening
to "hunt down" socialist legislators. They don't want fair elections. They want elections that
have socialists either excluded from running or intimidated by force. Why is Evo Morales in
Mexico? He's not there because he wants to be in Mexico. He's there because if he had stayed in
Bolivia he might have been jailed as a "terrorist" or killed. I do not know why there is "
debate "
over whether what happened in Bolivia was a "coup." The elected president fled the country at
the direction of the military and has been branded a criminal by an unelected leadership that
has murdered protesters and explicitly vowed to destroy socialism and restore Christian
rule.
Yet now we enter the topsy-turvy world of the U.S. media, whose response to the Bolivian
coup has been a case study in Chomsky and Herman's theory of "manufacturing consent."
The Wall Street Journal , unsurprisingly, has heralded the ousting of Morales as
a victory for
democracy . "No one should shed a tear" for Morales, its editorial board said. Bolivia's
"people have suffered enormously" under Morales, it said, citing no evidence. (Hard to know
what to cite when what the people have suffered from its record
growth and diminishing poverty .) The Journal said that "Bolivian law forbids a
candidate caught in fraud from running again," though it did not cite which Bolivian law allows
unconfirmed allegations to override court precedents. Another editorial, " Morales Made
Bolivia A Narco State ," essentially repeated the word "narco" over and over, emphasizing
that Morales started as the head of the coca grower's union, to convince readers to think of
him as nothing but a drug trafficking dictator. (The editorial had the audacity to center
criticism of Morales around his violations of indigenous people's rights, said the military
"suggested" he step down, and suggested that he simply ran illegally, failing to mention the
court decision that allowed him to participate and the justifications given by the court.)
One expects this stuff from a fascist-sympathizing
Murdoch paper, of course. But the New York Times has been just as bad, full of
sentences like: "Morales's grip on power unraveled after he tried bending electoral rules to
stay in power for a fourth term in October, flouting constitutional term limits he himself had
set." (Again, a Supreme Court decision allowed him to run under the terms of a treaty.) "
How an Unknown Female Senator Came to Replace the Bolivian Strongman Evo Morales " is an
incredible article. It does not quote any socialist legislators, but quotes plenty of figures
from the conservative opposition, including heavy quotation from a "cement magnate." It
discusses the "transition talks," and says that Añez was brought to the capital to
"pre-empt any power grab," without noting that she was doing the power grab. The
article treats the conservatives as pragmatic and patriotic restorers of order who were
concerned with preventing a slide into chaos and wanted to maintain the constitutional order.
"We knew that she was the only constitutional thread we had." Calling Morales a "strongman" is
bad enough. He is a democratically elected president, and the Times did the
opposition's work for it by printing a word that suggested Morales was an illegitimate tyrant.
(Even if you believe this year's elections were fraudulent, Morales' term does not expire until
January!) Perhaps because of public outcry about this use of a loaded, and arguably racist,
term, the Times later stealth-edited "strongman" out of
the headline and replaced it with "president," without offering a correction or
apology.
The Times editorial board published an incredible editorial blaming Morales for
what happened, saying that "the
country's growing economy and shrinking inequality propped him up for years. But its democracy
and its institutions suffered, and that's what brought him down." (The idea of being "propped
up" by a growing economy is funny.) "Predictably," the Times editors said, stodgy old
leftists were denouncing the "coup," but "what brought Mr. Morales down was not his ideology or
foreign meddling, as he claimed, but the arrogance of the
populist , evident in so many other parts of the world -- the claim to be the ultimate
arbiter of the will of the people, entitled to crush any institution that stands in his way."
The Times editorial is an interesting example of how institutions in other countries
are spoken of differently than they would be in our own. It says Morales had the country's
Supreme Court "by now stuffed with his loyalists, rule that limiting his time in office somehow
violated his human rights." Our Supreme Court, of course, is not "stuffed with
loyalists," even though it too is a nakedly
political institution . Of Añez, all it said was that she was "offering to lead the
country to new elections," and that Morales "would do well to call on his backers to clear the
way."
Witness, too, this Times op-ed
, written in sorrow and lament , about how Bolivia offers "lessons on how to
fix semi-democracies," saying that the coup was "a reminder that the process of stopping
semi-democratic leaders is likely to be semi-democratic as well." But Morales was
elected! The op-ed pretends there is no difference between Morales's democratic election
and Añez's seizure of power without an election. "Blaming the coup is to blame the
symptoms and ignore the overall shock on the system caused by the preceding democratic
backsliding . Fixing a semi-democracy will not always follow strict democratic playbooks The
best that can be hoped for is that the military sides with moderate civilians, democratic
norms, and constitutional rule."
Here, we would do well to remind ourselves that anything can be cloaked under euphemisms:
mass murder can be "restoring order," overthrowing an elected government can be "preserving
democratic rule." And the most dangerous political actors are going to have a very strong
incentive to use these kinds of euphemisms, which is why it's important for ordinary people to
be extremely skeptical, and why newspapers shouldn't quote powerful people's words as if they
are facts. ( Order Restored Amid Unrest, Government Says is a headline that could
easily mean A Dozen Unarmed Protesters Murdered In Cold Blood. )
When you are reading about Bolivia in the U.S. press, make sure to ask critical questions:
Whose voices are being quoted here, and whose voices don't I hear? What is taken as being
self-evident that should actually require some proof? How are words being shaded in ways that
could disguise what is actually going on? Is one action being described two different ways when
done by two different people? (When X does it, they're a "strongman" or "caudillo" and when Y
does it they are a "caretaker" or "interim leader.") Propaganda
often looks very reasonable, on the surface, especially to those of us who don't have access to
the facts on the ground. Every word needs to be read carefully to see how our perceptions of
reality are being manipulated.
One interesting thing about propaganda, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, is that you can
often find the truth buried within it. U.S. newspapers often do report all the facts you need
to know in order to understand what is going on, but the analysis and framing buries those
facts. (I've previously
written about how the Holocaust, far from being unknown, was reported in the pages of the
New York Times as something trivial not worth caring about.) You need to notice the
small stuff. For example, when someone is quoted talking about how "when a dog dies, the fleas
do too," that sounds an awful lot like they're probably going to try to destroy the socialist
movement. Amid all the Wall Street Journal 's discussions about whether or not to call
the "transition" a "coup," you will find little sentences like: " debate has brewed over
whether the party, which still enjoys wide support, should even be allowed to exist due to the
alleged electoral manipulation. " Um, there is debate over whether a movement with wide
support should be allowed to exist? Who is "brewing" this debate?
When Añez announced that Morales couldn't run in a new election, Current
Affairspredicted that the next thing
that would happen was a new election which wouldn't be legitimate, but which would quickly be
declared legitimate. Sure enough, MAS legislators are being persecuted and threatened, and Evo
Morales is being told that if he comes back to the country he will be tried as a terrorist.
No election held under these conditions can be legitimate, and it will inevitably be
worse than the "fraud-marred" original election. But when the right wins, they will
declare democracy restored. In fact, fake elections are historically a powerful tool of the
right.
The 1933 German election was
not a real election, because the Nazis' opponents were systematically persecuted and
threatened. But they used it to claim they had a democratic mandate. This is also what happened
in Brazil: The most popular Workers Party candidate, Lula, was barred from running, and cleared
the way for the far-right Jair Bolsonaro to take power.
This is what the Bolivian right needs now: an "election" in which the most popular
opposition candidate is barred from standing, and the majority party is threatened and
intimidated. Then, when the right narrowly wins the election (as Bolsonaro and Hitler did) they
will demand recognition for the "people's will." If you do not notice what is happening, you
need to read some more history! This is a very old story and has been told many times.
"... The worst of these massacres happened in Ghouta in August 2013 when 2000 civilian hostages (rebel claim) were gassed to death by rebels and their pre-White Helmets "civil defence". The OPCW was there to cover up the crime and to fabricate evidence to assign blame to Syria. ..."
Manufacturing a pretext for the U.S.
missile strike on Syria in April 2018 is nowhere near the biggest of OPCW's crimes. The
OPCW is an accessory , both before and after the fact to the crime of
mass murder.
It should now be clear to everyone that Syrian "rebels" gassed thousands of hostages in
cellars, most likely with chlorine gas, and then paraded the victims in White Helmets
snuff videos. OPCW conspired in this crime in both encouraging the terrorists to more murder
and by protecting them afterward by assigning blame to Assad and the Syrian government.
The worst of these massacres happened in Ghouta in August
2013 when 2000 civilian hostages (rebel claim) were gassed to death by rebels and their
pre-White Helmets "civil defence". The OPCW was there to cover up the crime and to fabricate
evidence to assign blame to Syria.
We have been documenting
these crimes and hoaxes at A Closer Look On Syria from December 2012. OPCW was used
from the beginning to manufacture consent for war. See for example:
Of course, the OPCW is already there! I highly suggest Caitlin Johnstone's article b
linked be read, which can be
found here .
We should expand on Petri's number of people involved in this crime to include all the
paid disinformation artists noted in Caitlin's essay at minimum. What becomes very clear in
all this is the total collusion with OPCW upper level management--those whom the
whistleblowers and their allies within OPCW petitioned--in these crimes as Petri contends.
Until they are visibly replaced, nothing issued by OPCW has any credence.
OPCW has shown to be a pure political entity, used at will by few regimes in the UN to
promote their agenda, b has done a tremendous job to humanity to bring the truth to the
public worldwide. Syrians have paid the price for UN leaders support to global terrorism for
too long. It must stop now.
White supremacy is an incredibly insincere distraction that tries to erase the histories of
White, Black, and Red peoples.
"Many White people seem to have forgotten what happened to them."
Some say the white supremacy ideology comes from pride. Some say it comes from a belief that
one's culture is superior. Some say it comes from hatred. I never believed these things are the
primary reason because I always sensed a deep loss in the heart of countless white people, some
deep emptiness and fear. Though, admitting to this emptiness is another matter.
James Baldwin wrote about American racism beyond the lines designed to separate us, saying
of white supremacy: "The root of the white man's hatred is terror. A bottomless and nameless
terror..."
It's said that anger is a secondary emotion. Hatred is anger. Racism is hatred. Hatred is
anger. Anger is a secondary emotion, beneath it lies something else.
After talking with many White American friends about the real origins of white supremacy, I
found there was always a certain limit beyond which they refused to go. This had nothing to do
with any hatred toward "the other" and everything to do with a chasm of pain they could not
bear to speak of -- not even for a few minutes could they speak of what has been seeping out of
the wound for so long. It is hard to speak of buried trauma. One wonders what might get stirred
up in that uncovering. Beyond wondering, there is healing, and the certainty that the truth
will set you free. We can be free in this life, you in your body, me in mine, together. To heal
the history we carry, let's allow the past and future to benefit from the courage of the
present.
There were Massacres, But No One Ever Says Their Names
The massacres in Europe lasted at least 500 years. Public tortures. Inquisitions. Generation
after generation of entire communities forced to watch their family, friends, and neighbors
terrorized and killed in front of them.
The ideology of white supremacy as we know it came at the end of this specific period of
history during which immense traumas occurred simultaneously: the mass killing and public
torture of women, the brutal assault against common people, the 'thought-police' Inquisition
committees, the terror from which one could almost not escape, and the enslavement of White
people throughout the region. This all happened in the centuries before the transatlantic slave
trade.
When you get to that part of the origin of white supremacy, and the deal that was
subsequently made with one's oppressor -- that deal being the ridiculous 'white supremacy' idea
and the target of the terror shifting to others -- the conversation often drops dead. Silence,
a few words here and there. Change the topic. Avoid that pain. This is the point beyond which
few have been willing to go.
The Details of the Time
Many have wondered how White people came up with the brutal tortures they imposed on Native
and African people in 'the Americas.' A look into history shows that many of the same tactics
were used on White people during the genocide against them.
The Inquistioners also targeted hair in Europe, especially towards women, which was used
against Native and African people in the Americas. The crimes they committed in this regard are
barely utterable.
The amount of whipping in Europe begs to be mentioned because of its relevance to American
history.
White people were intimately familiar with being enchained themselves, necks in iron,
shackled in rows together, taken on ships here and there, sold in markets -- for centuries.
They were also enslaved throughout the region during the same period as African people, likely
side by side, during the Arabic and Viking slave trades that preceded the transatlantic
one.
In Europe those days, the people who escaped slavery were certainly not free. They were
lynched, burned in public executions, tortured at length in public, and hunted down – by
the millions.
Many White people seem to have no memory of this history.
"Whites were enslaved during the Arabic and Viking slave trades that preceded the
transatlantic one."
The kind of torture documented in a book in 1860 by Pressel of a woman in Prossneck, Germany
is a small glimpse into the genocide. Anyone is advised to skip the following quoted list
describing the torture. It is reprinted simply to acknowledge what was going on and to whom, by
whom, and the lies upholding it, etc.
"Verbatim report of the first days of torture of a woman accused of witchcraft at
Prossneck, Germany, in 1629.
1. The hangman bound the hands, cut her hair, and placed her on the ladder. He threw alcohol
over her head and set fire to it so as to burn her hair to the roots.
2. He placed strips of sulphur under her arms and around her back and set fire to them.
3. He tied her hands behind her back and pulled her up to the ceiling.
4. He left her hanging there from three to four hours, while the torturer went to
breakfast.
5. On his return, he threw alcohol on her back and set fire to it.
6. He attached very heavy weights on her body and drew her up again to the ceiling. After
that he put her back on the ladder and placed a very rough plank full of sharp points against
her body.
7. Then he squeezed her thumbs and big toe in the vise, and he trussed her arms with a stick,
and in this position kept her hanging about a quarter of an hour, until she would faint away
several times.
8. Then he squeezed the calves and the legs in the vise, always alternating the torture with
questioning.
9. Then he whipped her with a rawhide whip to cause blood to flow out over her shift.
10. Once again, he placed her thumbs and big toes in the vise, and left her in this agony on
the torture stool from 10:00 a.m. till 1:00 p.m., while the hangman and the court officials
went out to get a bite to eat. In the afternoon a functionary came who disapproved this
pitiless procedure. But then they whipped her again in a frightful manner. This concluded the
first day of torture. The next day they start all over again, but without pushing things
quite as far as the day before.
-Wilhelm Pressel, Hexen and Hexenmeister (1860)"
Historian and scholar, Silvia Federici, says of the historical amnesia regarding this
period:
"That the victims, in Europe, were mostly peasant women may account for the historians'
past indifference towards this genocide, an indifference that has bordered on complicity,
since the elimination of the witches from the pages of history has contributed to
trivializing their physical elimination at the stake, suggesting that it was a phenomenon of
minor significance, if not a matter of folklore."
She also explores the emergence of Capitalism during the genocide against these women.
Supremacy Was Never The Question. It's Just a Mask
The lie that Black people are somehow inferior was a distraction that masked -- and nearly
erased -- the reality that 'white supremacy' ideology as we know it came at the end of this
brutal period in Europe. But it wasn't "about color" in Europe. There they were given a
different reason. In Europe they were killed for heresy, "any belief or theory that is strongly
at variance with established beliefs or customs." The Inquisition of that age has been
described as a court and the tormenters focused on getting 'confessions.' Their barbarity is
astounding.
The lie that Black people are somehow inferior was also another layer of the brutality that
grew as it moved on from Europe to Africa and the Americas. Psychological warfare, aimed at
distraction and destruction.
If it wasn't "about color" in Europe, then it was never about color at all. 'White
supremacy' is an incredibly insincere distraction that tries to erase the histories of White,
Black, and Red peoples. As a result, many White people seem to have forgotten what happened to
them, while many African and Native people have had to fight within their hearts regarding
their own inherent value. Who benefits from this?
Who was it that concocted this very strange 'white supremacist' idea: the White people who
had been brutalized for so long, or the powers-that-be(making the terror)? Who was it calling
People of Color savages, too natural, strangely spiritual and they should all be studying
Christianity? Who wrote that script to be repeated? It's obvious who wrote it. And it's obvious
who accepted this new ideology under duress.
Some White people tout white supremacy, and the clear truth is – they are more than
encouraged to. But to speak of these massacres and the deal one subsequently made with one's
oppressor? Well, there's a deep-seated fear there, few people will speak of it. That's not
healing. That's an imposed silence.
Who imposed that silence? When did it start?
What Kind of Deal, What Kind of Battle?
If the people living in the ghettos and reservations of America, who have been so long
mistreated, were today offered a deal that some "less than" people had just arrived and would
be put on the lowest rung, and they were offered a deal – free land and houses, a bunch
of free money, honey flattery, a much easier life, a few steps up the rung, a permanent raise,
and silence as to any mistreatment of these new "less thans" – who among the people would
take that deal? And who would not?
This, to me, is pointing to the heart of the battle. It's not skin tone, it's the battle of
the heart.
Race Conversations
James Baldwin spoke passionately about race in America, searing images unto a nation trying
to plaster itself in tv imagery that avoided the questions almost altogether. Baldwin never
tried currying favors from the class oppressing the people. He spoke searing words to the heart
of corrupted authority out of the desire for profound change.
Profound change. Not – you stay in your corner and gripe, and I'll stay in my corner
and gripe, and we'll yell at each other from our abysses when our own people ain't even doing
that well, and Those are not positive racial relations. They are not positive human
relations.
There are so many different people acting within a People. Those who hate, those who blame,
those ashamed, those who raise children to be healthy adults, those striving trying to find a
way, those who hold fast to the medicine they are here to protect. There are many people acting
within a People.
We are not really so different as we seem, our different cultures like different clothing on
the body of our lives. Do you judge me for mine? Right or wrong, good or evil, from a glance
even? We are not really so different, but America draws lines so dense between our communities
that we often conjecture about each other from afar. Why do we accept these terms of
engagement?
In many pockets of America, race conversations have moved into a state of mutual enrichment,
merging worlds even if only for a moment. The possibilities are endless for what could happen
in the healing of race in America.
No Disrespect
This is not written as any kind of acceptance of the idea of white supremacy, which is
blatantly ridiculous and untrue. It is not written as any excuse about the violence and
degradation that flows from this philosophy. It is written to look more closely at the
ideology's true origins and authors.
We now understand how trauma affects communities, and how it can manifest in future
generations if it isn't addressed. How do we work together to heal the pain we've all been
forced to endure by these powers-that-be-making(the terror)? How do we heal when some of us
turned into perpetrators in our own communities and beyond? How do we change our circumstances
when a brutal system tries to erase all our histories and replaces them with lies?
The cycles of pain unleashed on each other within our communities and between them "is
enough to make prophets and angels weep," as Baldwin said. Where does the pain end and the
beauty begin?
We can heal through changing and challenging ourselves one by one and then giving to each
other. We can heal through respect. We can heal through understanding each other's worth and
striving to lessen each other's pain. We can battle to unify beyond all arbitrary borders and
change the reality of this nation ourselves. We can heal through becoming clear about the
future we want with each other and letting nothing dissuade us from attaining it, no matter
what happens on the journey to get there.
Who will write the future story of race on this planet? Who will educate us about who we are
and our potential? The-powers-that-be(making the terror)? Or will we ourselves write a
different story?
Chelli Stanley is an independent journalist, environmentalist, Buddhist, common
person, of African, Japanese, and European descent born in Mexico. Has traveled widely, doesn't
watch tv, wants freedom. Can be contacted at [email protected]
white supremacy
Trending
Elizabeth Warren Wants Green Bombs, not a Green New Deal
Parallels Between Black and Palestinian Struggles
Cory Booker Hates Public Schools
Bill Cosby Should Have Been Denounced by Black America Long Ago
The Black Wall Around Barack Obama: Who Does It Protect Him Against?
How Complacency, Complicity of Black Misleadership Class Led to Supreme Court Evisceration
of the Voting Rights Act
Related Stories
Marker Now Calls 1898 Violence in Wilmington a "Coup," Not a "Race Riot"
Martha Waggoner
Marker Now Calls 1898 Violence in Wilmington a "Coup," Not a "Race Riot"
20 November 2019
White Democrats burned and killed their way to power in what's viewed as the only successful
coup d'etat in American history.
On Death and Dying as a Black Studies Professor at Portland State University
Ethan Johnson
On Death and Dying as a Black Studies Professor at Portland State University
13 November 2019
In celebration of Black Study's 50th year in existence at Portland State, we also get to
watch its death.
Liberalism Will Get Us Killed
Erica Caines
Liberalism Will Get Us Killed
06 November 2019
Much of the internet chatter over low- hanging fruit issues fails to address our material
realities within a settler colony.
Racial Violence in Black and White
Benjamin Balthaser
Racial Violence in Black and White
18 September 2019
From photos of lynchers to videos of brutal cops, there is a radical heritage of using
images of violence as instruments of critique.
White Supremacy Tried to Kill Jazz. An Interview with Gerald Horne
Anton Woronczuk
White Supremacy Tried to Kill Jazz. An Interview with Gerald Horne
11 September 2019
Viewing musicians as exploited workers and as beleaguered contractors helps contribute to a
better understanding of their art form and art more gen
Dershbag / STOP /being so stubborn!
Raymond Nat Turner, BAR poet-in-residence
Dershbag / STOP /being so stubborn!
21 August 2019
I know you're a Harvard Professor of law -- legal legend,renown,celebrated, decorated,Dream
Team alum
Black People in America Cannot Be Racist (As Much As They Might Like To Be)
Rohn Kenyatta
Black People in America Cannot Be Racist (As Much As They Might Like To Be)
21 August 2019
Black people in the US may not like white people, for good reason, but lack the power to
construct an anti-white racism.
Distinguished Black Scholar Writes Biography of Jefferson for the Age of Trump
Matthew Quest
Distinguished Black Scholar Writes Biography of Jefferson for the Age of Trump
14 August 2019
In the Age of Trump, it could be said that all interpreters of Jefferson and US History have
their own "alternative facts."
American Exceptionalism = Mass Murder
Glen Ford , BAR executive editor
American Exceptionalism = Mass Murder
08 August 2019
U.S. police agencies, including the FBI, are incapable of mounting an effective offensive
against their soul mates in the armed white right.
Trump's Disavowal of White Supremacy Makes a Mockery of Antiracism -- But So Does the Rest
of the Political Establishment
Crystal M. Fleming, Ph.D.
Trump's Disavowal of White Supremacy Makes a Mockery of Antiracism -- But So Does the Rest
of the Political Establishment
07 August 2019
The partisan condemnation of white supremacy that has taken shape during the Trump era has
reduced anti-racist critique to political theater.
More Stories
A (Re)Born National "Black and Left-Led" Organization Fights for Community Control of
Police
Glen Ford , BAR executive editor
A (Re)Born National "Black and Left-Led" Organization Fights for Community Control of
Police
28 Nov 2019
On the momentum of Chicago's vibrant anti-police movement – the most advanced in the
nation – the city's Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression has gone national
after a highly successful
Freedom Rider: Say No to Bloomberg
Margaret Kimberley , BAR editor and senior columnist
Freedom Rider: Say No to Bloomberg
27 Nov 2019
Bloomberg says he wants to stop Donald Trump but he's really running to stop Bernie
Sanders.
Barack Obama and the Ruling Class Target the Black Vote to Smother Sanders
Danny Haiphong , BAR contributor
Barack Obama and the Ruling Class Target the Black Vote to Smother Sanders
27 Nov 2019
Obama's principle task is to ensure sure that Black Americans do not vote in the direction
of single-payer healthcare and housing for all.
count ALL votes
BAR Poet-in-Residence Raymond Nat Turner
count ALL votes
27 Nov 2019
POW POW POW POW My leaders were voted out of office with hot lead ballots: red runoffs in
driveways, beds, ballroom floors, on balconies,
Bolivia Coup: Hatred of the Indian
Álvaro García Linera
Bolivia Coup: Hatred of the Indian
27 Nov 2019
How did the traditional middle class incubate so much hatred and resentment towards the
people, leading them to embrace racialized fascism centered on the Indian as the enemy?
"... The Empire has started something it cannot win. I have other thoughts on this but I just dropped by to post this and get back to my entertaining chores, me being the chef and all that. ..."
Just enough time to share this Global Times editorial
regarding the gross interference in China's affairs by the Evil Outlaw US Empire's
Congress--to cooperate with the Empire is to commit treason :
"In the meantime, the law also threatens to sanction Hongkongers who do not cooperate
with the US. This will suppress neutral space for people with different ideas and further
tear the city apart. The only way to maintain the solidarity of Hong Kong is to resist US
provocation and prevent more people from joining hands with the opposition for fear of US
sanctions. Efforts to fight the forces colluding with the US should be stepped up, and the
corresponding laws need to be improved. There is no way to allow traitors to prevail and
patriots to suffer .
"'One country, two systems' is China's independent constitutional arrangement and US
intervention damages its external environment. Hong Kong society should be vigilant. To
maintain "one country, two systems," the Chinese mainland and the HKSAR need to work
together. Anyone who colludes with external forces to undermine 'one country, two
systems' must pay a heavy price ."
"To sum up, Trump has signed another evil law that intervenes in China's domestic
affairs and violates the country's sovereignty by using Hong Kong as a stick. However,
in deciding how to use the stick and whether it will take the US where it wishes,
Washington has to think carefully because the move would probably backfire ." [All
Emphasis Mine]
The Empire has started something it cannot win. I have other thoughts on this but I just
dropped by to post this and get back to my entertaining chores, me being the chef and all
that.
Happy T-Day, and may Peace at some point finally prevail and come to Rule this and all
other days.
After initiation of Operation Condor 2.0, which debuted with massacres in Bolivia following fascist coup d´etat against majority
of pueblos originarios , as preparations in other countries of CARICOM are in the making, starting with Grenadine....
"... The aim of Washington – and I am sure it has people on the ground in Bolivia to 'advise' the coup government – will be to stabilize the situation and keep things quiet while Anez gets settled in and selects a cabinet and forms her organization. After that, it'll just be the new reality, and everyone will have to get used to it. ..."
"... Frankly, it's almost a pity there wasn't a mercenary army for hire by victims of western-sponsored coups such as Ukraine and Bolivia. The military has remained mostly loyal to Maduro in Venezuela, so I did not include it. ..."
Inside Bolivia's murderous post-coup regime – with Wyatt Reed
25 Nov 2019
Moderate Rebels
Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton speak with journalist Wyatt Reed, who is reporting on the
ground in Bolivia after a US-backed far-right military coup against democratically elected
leftist President Evo Morales. He describes the bloody repression of Indigenous protesters
and the state of resistance.
The aim of Washington – and I am sure it has people on the ground in Bolivia to
'advise' the coup government – will be to stabilize the situation and keep things quiet
while Anez gets settled in and selects a cabinet and forms her organization. After that,
it'll just be the new reality, and everyone will have to get used to it.
Frankly, it's almost a pity there wasn't a mercenary army for hire by victims of
western-sponsored coups such as Ukraine and Bolivia. The military has remained mostly loyal
to Maduro in Venezuela, so I did not include it.
This army could be used to fight the
disloyal police and military and restore order. But that'd be the wrong way to go, because it
would quickly escalate and you can be sure the hired peacekeepers would be referred to as
invaders rather than 'moderate rebels', so Washington would consider itself invited in
militarily to 'protect democracy'.
Once again, the United States is complicit in an illegal coup d'état in Latin America,
this time in Bolivia. On November 10, a right-wing, anti-Indigenous group seized power after
the Bolivian military's removal of President Evo Morales, who had declared victory in the
October 20 presidential election.
The United States' fingerprints are all over the coup. Advisers from the U.S. Southern
Command have been stationed on Bolivia's border with Argentina, Ivanka Trump made a
surprising visit to an Argentine province near the Bolivian border in September, the pro-U.S.
Organization of American States (OAS) cast unfounded doubt on Morales's election victory, and
the U.S.'s National Endowment for Democracy provided suspicious grants to Bolivia.
At least 32
people have been killed and hundreds injured since the coup began. Sacha Llorenti,
Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations,
toldDemocracy Now!, "We are going through not just a coup d'état, but a
violent one." Indeed, it has resulted in "the rise of a far-right regime of terror,"
professor Gabriel Hetland
wrote in TheWashington Post.
Morales -- Bolivia's first Indigenous leader in a country where 65 percent of the people
are Indigenous -- received 10 percent more votes than Carlos Mesa, the second-place candidate
who has close ties to the U.S. government. Mesa was in regular communication with U.S.
officials who were trying to destabilize Morales, U.S. government cables published by WikiLeaks
reveal.
The day after the election, the U.S.-funded OAS sought to delegitimize the election
results. "The OAS Mission expresses its deep concern and surprise at the drastic and
hard-to-explain change in the trend of the preliminary results revealed after the closing of
the polls,"
it stated .
But the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) published a
comprehensive statistical analysis on November 8 that found no evidence of fraud or
irregularities in the election and determined that the results reflected highly similar
patterns from past elections. Other research
conducted by CELAG (Centro Estratégico Latinoamericano de Geopolítica)
confirmed CEPR's findings and identified insufficient evidence to support the assertions in
the OAS statement.
CEPR co-director Mark Weisbrot
noted in an op-ed for Market Watch , "The OAS isn't all that independent at the
moment, with the Trump administration actively promoting this military coup, and Washington
having more right-wing allies in the OAS than they did just a few years ago."
U.S.
complicity in the coup in Bolivia is illegal under both U.S. and international law.
The OAS was
established during the Cold War to prevent the proliferation of leftist governments.
USAID considers OAS a critical tool in "promot[ing] US interests in the Western
hemisphere by countering the influence of anti-US countries" such as Bolivia.
The November 10 military coup led to the forced resignation of Morales, who received
asylum in Mexico. Right-wing politician Jeanine Añez declared herself interim
president, and Donald Trump immediately recognized her illegitimate claim to the presidency.
Añez then issued a decree
immunizing the military from criminal liability "for carrying out necessary actions in their
legitimate defense while performing their constitutional duties." Morales supporters accused
Añez of giving soldiers "carte blanche" to shoot demonstrators. Bolivia's human rights
ombudsman and reporters
have documented widespread injuries and fatalities from gunshots.
U.S. Involvement
in the Coup
During Morales's nearly 14 years in office, his Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) party
reduced
poverty by 42 percent and extreme poverty by 60 percent. It cut unemployment by 50
percent and nearly
tripled the per-capita G.D.P. "It's indisputable that Bolivians are healthier, wealthier,
better educated, living longer and more equal than at any time in this South American
nation's history," Anthony Faiola
wrote in TheWashington Post .
There was
discontent about Morales seeking a fourth term among some sectors in Bolivia, who thought
there should be space for new leadership. But Morales had a
strong record of establishing policies to help the people of Bolivia, which angered the
U.S. government, Western corporations and the corporate media, "who function as ideological
shock troops against leftist governments in Latin America," Alan MacLeod wrote
at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
The U.S. and Argentine governments helped to engineer the Bolivian coup, Stella Calloni
reported in Resumen: Latinoamerico . She cited the presence of advisers from the
U.S. Southern Command on the Argentine border with Bolivia.
Calloni also documented "the surprising trip of Ivanka Trump" to the Argentine province of
Jujuy near the Bolivian border on September 4-5. Accompanied by 2,500 U.S. agents and
Undersecretary of State John Sullivan, Ivanka Trump was ostensibly there to "visit" a small
NGO dedicated to furthering women's rights, and she delivered an "aid" package of $400
million for "road works." Alicia Canqui Condori, national representative of MAS, said that,
"in Jujuy Donald Trump's daughter had met with Gov. Gerardo Morales to plan what happened in
Bolivia."
Moreover, according to Calloni, Bolivian Gen. Williams Kaliman, who "suggested" that
Morales resign after the election, traveled to the United States 72 hours after the coup
began and he
received $1 million from the U.S. embassy in Bolivia. Like many Latin American strongmen
over the years,
at least six of the top military leaders involved in the coup, including Kaliman, were
trained at the notorious U.S. Army School of the Americas (now
called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) in Fort Benning,
Georgia.
Months before the coup, Bolivia concluded a
$2.3 billion deal with a Chinese consortium to mine lithium. Bolivia has 70
percent of the world's supply of lithium, which is used in car batteries, electronic
devices and weapons systems. "The idea that there might be a new social compact for the
lithium was unacceptable to the main transnational mining companies," Vijay Prashad
wrote . U.S. and Canadian companies sought to make a lithium agreement with Bolivia but
they could not meet Morales's conditions. "Morales himself was a direct impediment to the
takeover of the lithium fields by the non-Chinese transnational firms," according to Prashad.
"He had to go."
Sordid History of U.S. Meddling in Latin America
U.S. complicity in the Bolivian coup follows in a sordid tradition of meddling in the
political and economic affairs of Latin American countries. "For many years, the US
government has provided overt financial support to opposition political parties and civic
groups, including to many of the groups that have been engaged in violent insurrections and
coup plotting since at least 2008," Thomas Field wrote in
Jacobin.
This is the time to urge senators and Congress members to end all U.S.
support for the illegitimate regime.
One key vehicle that the U.S. government uses as a cover for its imperialist policies is
the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). After disturbing revelations of covert CIA
operations in the second half of the 1970s, NED was established under Ronald Reagan. "The
idea was that the NED would do somewhat overtly what the CIA had been doing covertly for
decades, and thus, hopefully, eliminate the stigma associated with CIA covert activities,"
William Blum
wrote in 2005. NED co-founder Allen Weinstein concurred,
stating in 1991, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA."
Although ostensibly a private, nonprofit organization, NED is largely funded by the United
States. "In effect," Blum noted, "the CIA has been laundering money through NED."
Peter Haberfeld, a retired lawyer and labor organizer who has studied the "Pink Tide"
governments in Latin America, documented NED grants in Bolivia. He told Truthout that
"between 2016 and 2019, NED gave grants to over 30 organizations for 'democracy promotion' in
Bolivia. The grants total $3,209,887."
Haberfeld said the grants were officially earmarked for "lofty objectives such as
expanding participation by women, youth, media and entrepreneurs in a vibrant political
process, particularly in connection with elections," but cautioned "it is wise to be
suspicious." Haberfeld cited author Neil A. Burron, who wrote in The New Democracy Wars:
The Politics of North American Democracy Promotion in the Americas, that "democracy
promotion is typically formulated to advance commercial, geopolitical and security objectives
that conflict with a genuine commitment to democracy development." Burron noted, "For the US,
the political manipulation of democracy promotion in support of a North American-led regional
order is a continuation of long-standing forms of intervention [that have been] used as a
license to meddle in the domestic affairs of others."
NED
was complicit in the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, manipulated the 1990 Nicaraguan
elections, heavily funded the 2002 failed coup attempt against socialist President Hugo
Chavez in Venezuela, and supported the opposition to progressive President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide in Haiti in the 1990s. Between 1990 and 1992, NED donated a quarter-million dollars
to the Cuban-American National Foundation, the violent anti-Castro group based in Miami.
In 2018, under the guise of "democracy," "human rights" and "entrepreneurship," NED
funneled
more than $23 million to opposition groups in Latin American countries, including
Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Bolivia.
Former National Security Adviser John Bolton called Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua the
"Troika of Tyranny" in November 2018. A few months later, in April 2019, the U.S. government
orchestrated
another unsuccessful
coup in Venezuela. Juan Guaidó, Washington's chosen puppet to seize power from
President Nicolás Maduro, was funded by NED.
Trump not only took aim at the progress Barack Obama had made toward normalization
of relations with Cuba, he has escalated the U.S. economic war on Cuba and unleashed
untold numbers of lawsuits that
threaten to destroy the fragile Cuban economy.
The Obama administration, led by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
supported the 2009 coup in Honduras. The fraudulent election following the coup was
financed by NED and the State Department, ushering in a repressive and militarized regime.
Conditions deteriorated, leading to the exodus of thousands of Honduran children fleeing
north.
U.S. Complicity in the Coup in Bolivia Is Illegal
U.S. complicity in the coup in Bolivia is illegal under both U.S. and international law.
The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of or threat to use force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of another nation. The International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to self-determination.
The Charter of the Organization of American States, to which the U.S. is a party, forbids
any country from intervening in the internal or external affairs of another country. The OAS
charter declares
that, "Every State has the right to choose, without external interference, its political,
economic, and social system and to organize itself in the way best suited to it, and has the
duty to abstain from intervening in the affairs of another State."
The Foreign
Assistance Act forbids the United States from assisting a country "whose duly elected
head of government is deposed by military coup or decree."
There has been global condemnation of the coup. Sixty-four organizations of jurists,
lawyers, NGOs, social movements and trade unions from around the world, including the
International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the National
Lawyers Guild , sent a
letter to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, urging her to
strongly condemn the human rights violations resulting from the coup.
Fourteen members of the House of Representatives sent a
letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying they were "deeply concerned" about the
contribution of the Trump administration to the "escalating political and human rights
crisis" in Bolivia.
Over 800 scholars, activists and public figures published an open
letter demanding that the United States and the international community halt all support
to the right-wing, anti-Indigenous regime that took power after the military coup.
Veterans For Peace
condemned the racist coup in Bolivia and demanded an end to U.S. intervention in Latin
America:
Veterans For Peace stands in solidarity with the Indigenous majority in Bolivia who are
resisting the racist, right-wing takeover of their democracy. We demand that the coup be
stopped and democracy restored in Bolivia. As military veterans who have been used and
abused in too many unjust wars, we demand an end to 200 years of U.S. intervention in Latin
America.
The situation in Bolivia is volatile and there is danger it could devolve into civil war . This is
the time to urge senators and Congress members to end all U.S. support for the illegitimate
regime, demand free and fair elections with all political parties represented, and insist
that fundamental human rights of all Bolivians are protected.
@ jayc # 34 who wrote
"
The effective elements of the blunt stick the HKHRDA represents will inevitably weaken if not
destroy HK's position as a financial hub, a fact which the protest leaders seem not to have
gamed out. Or maybe they have.
"
Exactly! I think destroy is closer to the truth. China does not want profit forced in the
middle of their financial dealings with the outside world and there is little or no value
that HK can add to the equation.
As jared adds in comment #40 above
"
The financial industry is generally a con game built on managing perception and after all its
all about the money when we strip away the facade.
"
The lie that private finance masturbation for profit adds anything to the GDP of the world is
getting closer to being obvious to many. If anything it can be shown that profit subtracts
value that could/should be provided as a public utility by government.
Kushner's Apparent
Extortion of Qatar is an interesting gem. If you remember Rex Tillerson quitting, Saudi
Arabia and the UAE almost going to war with Qatar and then Brookstone Partners, financed by
Qatar paying, 1.4 billion for Kushers failed 666 building in NY where they were hemorrhaging
money.
Indeed, if Bender's testimony is accurate, they are already close.
Explaining that Qatar uses western companies to effectively launder the money they paid
to American citizens, Bender cited a $1.4 billion payment which he claims was passed to Jared
Kushner from Qatar, via a Canadian company named Brookfield, which he says they have invested
heavily in.
Despite knowing that it was a failing investment, Qatar leaned on Brookfield to buy 666
Fifth Avenue from Kushner, to write off his debts.
"Why didn't they pay Kusher directly?" the lawyer for the plaintiffs, Ms. Castenda,
asked.
"Too risky," Bender replied.
"Jared Kushner approached the government of Qatar for a bailout of 666 Fifth Avenue?"
Castenda clarified.
"Correct. That's what they told me. ... And they did it. And Kushner is happy with them
because, according to them, I don't know Kushner personally, but the Qataris said Kushner
told them: 'Choose one of two. You pay what I tell you to pay, or I unleash my dogs.'"
"The dogs being who?" she asked.
"Saudi Arabia and the UAE," Bender replied.
The Qataris were aware that as an investment the pay-off was a write-off, but told
Bender, "'We just paid it to pay off his debt. And as long as he's in the White House, we
have to do what he wants until we control the White House.' We as in Qatar," Bender
clarified.
"... the United States' high-handedness is taking it dangerously close to making an enemy of Europe. ..."
"... There is nothing remotely fair about carving out markets for your product by eliminating all other choices. I realize Washington will say it is only trying to stop Nord Stream II so that Russia will be forced to transit gas across Ukraine and pay it exorbitant transit fees, and that it is doing Ukraine a favour while not restricting Europe from getting pipeline gas. ..."
"... American strategy is always all about getting everyone else by the balls so that they have no choice but to accept American control and orders. That's called American Global Leadership, which they figure is good for the world because it's certainly good for American investors. ..."
In the U.S. Senate, they have spoken about how to block "Nord stream -- 2"
06:37 24.11.2019 (updated: 06:54 24.11.2019)
MOSCOW, 24 Nov – RIA Novosti. The U.S. Congress intends to include sanctions
against the Russian gas pipeline "Nord stream -- 2" in the 2020 defence budget, says Jim
Risch, head of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, in the latest edition of "Defense
News".
Sanctions against companies involved in the construction of the pipeline have been
included in a draft law "On National Defense for 2020", said Rish. "The reason for this step
is that the window of opportunity is closings. Most of "Nord stream" has already been
constructed", said the Senator. However, he expressed the opinion that the sanctions "will
convince" the construction company to stop work on the project because the American
restrictions "will cost them dearly".
If sanctions are included in the US defence budget, companies involved in the
construction of Nord Stream 2 will close, and Russia will, supposedly, have to look for other
contractors, says Riesch.
However, he noted that the House of Representatives and the Senate have not yet reached a
final agreement on the bill as a whole.
The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in late July to pass a bill on
sanctions against Nord Stream 2. It was prepared by Republican Senator Ted Cruise and
Democrat Gene Shahin, and, in particular, involves a ban on the entry into the United States
and the freezing of US assets under the jurisdiction of persons involved in the "sale, lease,
provision or assistance in providing" ships for laying at sea Russian pipelines at a depth of
30 metres.
For the bill to enter into force, it must be approved by the House of Representatives
and the US Senate, as well as US President Donald Trump.
Let the Liberty Bell ring out loud! -- albeit that it is cracked and was never rung on 4th
July, 1776, but, as usual, bullshit baffles brains!
And that'd be Jean Shaheen; the translation managed to get both her name and her gender
wrong.
As I have said before now, the United States' high-handedness is taking it dangerously
close to making an enemy of Europe. It has made it clear it is trying to restrict Europe's
energy choices to American LNG or American LNG.
There is nothing remotely fair about carving
out markets for your product by eliminating all other choices. I realize Washington will say
it is only trying to stop Nord Stream II so that Russia will be forced to transit gas across
Ukraine and pay it exorbitant transit fees, and that it is doing Ukraine a favour while not
restricting Europe from getting pipeline gas.
But Washington still aims to control Ukraine
and use it as a bastion against Russia, and if it can arrange things so that Russian gas must
pass across Ukraine under American control, why, it can conjure stoppages and interruptions
of service at its pleasure, as well as helping Ukraine to jack up transit fees so that Russia
must either raise its gas prices until American LNG is competitive, or sell at a loss.
American strategy is always all about getting everyone else by the balls so that they have no
choice but to accept American control and orders. That's called American Global Leadership,
which they figure is good for the world because it's certainly good for American
investors.
Except when he says "we all", he is talking about less than ten thousand people in a country
of 147 million. Yes, few Russians get to breathe the rarefied air of true mental clarity.
So far as I am aware, the latest offer on the table is still for a one-year extension of
the current contract, although Russia did agree to drop legal claims and counter-claims
between itself and Ukraine, in which Russia claimed Ukraine underpaid/did not pay at all for
gas it received. Ukraine has thus far not replied.
Moscow has made some concessions, but there has been no movement at all toward a long-term
contract that I have seen. I maintain that a cold winter of frozen bums in Europe would offer
a salutary effect. Russia is actually better-placed to deliver LNG by vessel than the USA, as
well, as it is much closer.
There must be a limit to European loyalty to the USA in the face of conditions so markedly
against its interests, a limit to how much shit it will smear on its own face to keep its
partner happy and amused.
Apparently U-ropean gas storage networks are full, not to mention that there has been heavy
investment in the Austrian Baumgarten storage network, Germany, France, infact just about
everywhere except the UK (coz the French will store it for them and sell the gas back at a
nice mark up)
Ukraine has already stated publicly that although its own gas storage bunkers are full, that
amount will not likely carry it through the winter if there is an interruption owing to
non-renewal of the gas contract, and if the winter is cold and harsh as usual. I imagine
Europe is the same; storage facilities are not so extensive that they could take the entire
region through a cold winter.
Not surprising that Navalny and his ilk oppose Nord Stream. They oppose anything that is good
for Russia. They don't seem to be interested in developing russia into a better place, but
tear it apart and ruin it from within. It is rather odd that Russia has these types of people
as "opposition politicians". People who hate their own country and don't even pretend to hide
their hatred.
I don't see them that dangerous though because they seem to lack wider support and Russia is
not currently facing any troubles that would turn people against the current rulers.
And I'm not saying that Russia is ruled by a very competent government currently. The economy
should be growing a lot faster than it has been growing for the past ten years. But the
current government is still 100x better than Navalny would be. He would probably bring down
Russia even worse than Yeltsin did.
"Naftogaz" has promised turn off the gas valve
03:01 28.11.2019 (updated: 10:45 28.11.2019)
KIEV, November 28 – RIA Novosti. The Ukraine does not intend to shut off the gas
valve, even if Russia fails to sign a new contract on gas transportation, Executive Director
of "Naftogaz of the Ukraine", Yuriy Vitrenko, has said in an interview with Deutsche Welle.
In his opinion, the valve will be turned off by Gazprom, not Naftogaz.
"But I remind you, that in a letter sent by Gazprom to Naftogaz, in black and white
[it states] that on January 1st at 10 am Moscow time Gazprom has no reason to keep the gas
flowing in the direction of the Ukraine", he said.
So you Russia is going to hold Europe to ransom, not the Ukraine, right?
What happened to all the leverage Ukraine gained by its blinding victory in Swiss
arbitration? They should be able to lead Moscow around by the nose now.
"... Gazprom sent about 200 BcM to Europe last year, of which 70 BcM went via Ukraine. If Ukraine is completely cut out now, Gazprom could manage about 195 BcM, with every other available pipeline to Europe straining at the rivets. But you need a 'technical reserve' capability, which would take Russia's requirement to 230 BcM. Obviously, the intent is that they should commit to sending this amount through Ukraine, forever. ..."
"... The other interesting figure is included in the claim that 'Ukraine's economy is growing nicely, but loss of transit income would shave 4% off of GDP.' When the initial threat that eventually transit would be stopped was floated, Ukraine squealed that it would bilk it of 2% of GDP. But now somehow that loss would be double but the economy is 'growing nicely'? Ummm .how do you figure? ..."
The appeal court in Sweden has refused to satisfy the appeal of "Gazprom" in a dispute
with the Ukrainian concern "Naftogaz", according to Tass. Executive Director of "Naftogaz of
Ukraine" Yuriy Vitrenko on "Facebook" called the decision a "complete victory".
"Complete victory, Ukraine wins again! We won the appeal at the first complaint of
"Gazprom" the decision of the Stockholm arbitration!" said his statement.
It is anticipated that decisions in two other cases in court between the same parties
will be taken in 2020.
The Stockholm arbitration court in December 2017 and February 2018 issued decisions on
disputes between Gazprom and Naftogaz in respect of contracts for supply and transit of gas,
obliging as a result, Russian the Ukrainian company to pay more than $ 2.5 billion. Gazprom
appealed against the decision in March 2018, and in May demanded the complete abolition of
the "transient" solution.
Ukraine allegedly offered to do a deal in which they would not drop their claim of being
owed $2.5 Billion by Gazprom, but would take it in free gas. They say they have not had a
reply yet. The same article suggests Russia would be perfectly happy to just run out the
clock. Even happier now, I would think.
A few interesting figures are included in the article. For one, the author claims that in
order to completely circumvent Ukraine for gas delivery to Europe, it would need pipeline
capacity of 230 BcM. Here's how it breaks down – Gazprom sent about 200 BcM to
Europe last year, of which 70 BcM went via Ukraine. If Ukraine is completely cut out now,
Gazprom could manage about 195 BcM, with every other available pipeline to Europe straining
at the rivets. But you need a 'technical reserve' capability, which would take Russia's
requirement to 230 BcM. Obviously, the intent is that they should commit to sending this
amount through Ukraine, forever.
The other interesting figure is included in the claim that 'Ukraine's economy is
growing nicely, but loss of transit income would shave 4% off of GDP.' When the initial
threat that eventually transit would be stopped was floated, Ukraine squealed that it would
bilk it of 2% of GDP. But now somehow that loss would be double but the economy is 'growing
nicely'? Ummm .how do you figure?
The way I see it, Russia has a couple of options; it can just let the clock run out, carry
on with Nord Stream II, and pump everything it can right to capacity, without any going
through Ukraine. That would leave it about 5 BcM short, obviously with no reserve capability.
The USA could be invited to make that shortfall up with its Molecules of Freedom. But that
relies on Merkel not suddenly deciding to slap more restrictions on Nord Stream II so that it
could not pump to its full capacity – she has apparently said all along that Nord
Stream II will not be allowed unless some gas continues to go through Ukraine – the
obvious clash of wills is that Russia is trying to ensure that amount is as small as
possible, while the west and Ukraine are trying to ensure that amount is as large as
possible.
Another option is for Russia to speed up and intensify its own LNG-export capability, and
perhaps it can make up the shortfall with its own LNG carriers. Either way, it is plain the
Ukies think they have Russia by the balls, and can dictate terms as they like – perhaps
they will even add the return of Crimea to their demands for a gas deal, they seem to feel so
confident. Let's see how it plays out; only a couple of weeks remain to get a deal done, and
it's everyone against Russia.
The look on Vitrenko's face will be priceless if the Russians just close up their
briefcases and go home. Not to mention the look on Sefcovic's face. Not to mention the jump
in gas prices in Europe.
So in due course the trade war was replaced by the full scale cold war.
Notable quotes:
"... Needless to say, no differences will be "settled amicably" and now China will have no choice but to retaliate, aggressively straining relations with the US, and further complicating Trump's effort to wind down his nearly two-year old trade war with Beijing. ..."
"... The legislation, S. 1838, which was passed virtually unanimously in both chambers, requires annual reviews of Hong Kong's special trade status under American law and will allow Washington to suspend said status in case the city does not retain a sufficient degree of autonomy under the "one country, two systems" framework. The bill also sanctions any officials deemed responsible for human rights abuses or undermining the city's autonomy. ..."
"... The House cleared the bill 417-1 on Nov. 20 after the Senate passed it without opposition, veto-proof majorities that left Trump with little choice but to acquiesce, or else suffer bruising fallout from his own party. the GOP. ..."
"... In accordance with the law, the Commerce Department will have 180 days to produce a report examining whether the Chinese government has tried use Hong Kong's special trading status to import advanced "dual use" technologies in violation of US export control laws. Dual use technologies are those that can have commercial and military applications. ..."
"... The new law directs the US secretary of state to "clearly inform the government of the People's Republic of China that the use of media outlets to spread disinformation or to intimidate and threaten its perceived enemies in Hong Kong or in other countries is unacceptable." ..."
"... The state department should take any such activity "into consideration when granting visas for travel and work in the United States to journalists from the People's Republic of China who are affiliated with any such media organizations", the law says. ..."
"... Yes I think getting the western financial institutions out of HK is the plan. I'm sure they appreciate the US doing this for them, but of course they could never admit that. ..."
Less than an hour after Trump once again paraded with yet another all-time high in the
S&P...
... and on day 510 of the trade war, it appears the president was confident enough that a
collapse in trade talks won't drag stocks too far lower, and moments after futures reopened at
6pm, the White House said that Trump had signed the Hong Kong bill backing pro-democracy
protesters, defying China and making sure that every trader's Thanksgiving holiday was just
ruined.
In a late Wednesday statement from the White House, Trump said that:
I signed these bills out of respect for President Xi, China, and the people of Hong Kong.
They are being enacted in the hope that Leaders and Representatives of China and Hong Kong
will be able to amicably settle their differences leading to long term peace and prosperity
for all.
Needless to say, no differences will be "settled amicably" and now China will have no
choice but to retaliate, aggressively straining relations with the US, and further complicating
Trump's effort to wind down his nearly two-year old trade war with Beijing.
Trump's signing of the bill comes during a period of unprecedented unrest in Hong Kong,
where anti-government protests sparked by a now-shelved extradition bill proposal have
ballooned into broader calls for democratic reform and police accountability.
"The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act reaffirms and amends the United States-Hong
Kong Policy Act of 1992, specifies United States policy towards Hong Kong and directs
assessment of the political developments in Hong Kong," the White House said in a statement.
"Certain provisions of the act would interfere with the exercise of the president's
constitutional authority to state the foreign policy of the United States."
The legislation, S. 1838, which was passed virtually unanimously in both chambers,
requires annual reviews of Hong Kong's special trade status under American law and will allow
Washington to suspend said status in case the city does not retain a sufficient degree of
autonomy under the "one country, two systems" framework. The bill also sanctions any officials
deemed responsible for human rights abuses or undermining the city's autonomy.
The House cleared the bill 417-1 on Nov. 20 after the Senate passed it without
opposition, veto-proof majorities that left Trump with little choice but to acquiesce, or else
suffer bruising fallout from his own party. the GOP.
Trump also signed into law the PROTECT Hong Kong act, which will prohibit the sale of
US-made munitions such as tear gas and rubber bullets to the city's authorities.
While many members of Congress in both parties have voiced strong support for protesters
demanding more autonomy for the city, Trump had stayed largely silent, even as the
demonstrations have been met by rising police violence.
Until now.
The bill's author, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, said that with the legislation's
enactment, the US now had "new and meaningful tools to deter further influence and interference
from Beijing into Hong Kong's internal affairs."
In accordance with the law, the Commerce Department will have 180 days to produce a
report examining whether the Chinese government has tried use Hong Kong's special trading
status to import advanced "dual use" technologies in violation of US export control laws. Dual
use technologies are those that can have commercial and military applications.
One other less discussed but notable provision of the Hong Kong Human Rights Act targets
media outlets affiliated with China's government. The new law directs the US secretary of
state to "clearly inform the government of the People's Republic of China that the use of media
outlets to spread disinformation or to intimidate and threaten its perceived enemies in Hong
Kong or in other countries is unacceptable."
The state department should take any such activity "into consideration when granting
visas for travel and work in the United States to journalists from the People's Republic of
China who are affiliated with any such media organizations", the law says.
* * *
In the days leading up to Trump's signature, China's foreign ministry had urged Trump to
prevent the legislation from becoming law, warning the Americans not to underestimate China's
determination to defend its "sovereignty, security and development interests."
"If the U.S. insists on going down this wrong path, China will take strong countermeasures,
" said China's foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang at a briefing Thursday in Beijing. On
Monday, China's Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang summoned the U.S. ambassador, Terry
Branstad to express "strong opposition" to what the country's government considers American
interference in the protests, including the legislation, according to statement. The new U.S.
law comes just as Washington and Beijing showed signs of working toward "phase-one" of deal to
ease the trade war. Trump would like the agreement finished in order to ease economic
uncertainty for his re-election campaign in 2020, and has floated the possibility of signing
the deal in a farm state as an acknowledgment of the constituency that's borne the brunt of
retaliatory Chinese tariffs.
Last week China's Vice Premier and chief trade negotiator Liu He said before a speech at the
Bloomberg New Economy Forum in Beijing, that he was "cautiously optimistic" about reaching the
phase one accord. He will now have no choice but to amend his statement.
In anticipation of a stern Chinese rebuke, US equity futures tumbled, wiping out most of the
previous day's gains... Still, the generally modest pullback - the S&P was around 2,940
when Trump announced the Phase 1 deal on Oct 11 - suggests that despite Trump's signature,
markets expect a Chinese deal to still come through. That may be an aggressive and overly
"hopeful" assumption, especially now that China now longer has a carte blanche to do whatever
it wants in Hong Kong, especially in the aftermath of this weekend's
landslide victory for the pro-Democracy camp which won in 17 of the city's 18
districts.
"Following last weekend's historic elections in Hong Kong that included record turnout, this
new law could not be more timely in showing strong US support for Hongkongers' long-cherished
freedoms," said Rubio
This is another attempt by the US to stop BRICS. They care NOTHING about HK, only its
usefulness in the US war on Chinas growing importance in world trade.
but no no no... trading with communists brings jobs to sell cheap crap. oh what was I
thinking.... cheap crap, jobs, and the richest of the rich get richer... my bad.
it ain’t like the commies are going to use the money to build up their military..
Of course the obvious solution is to just let people choose whatever or whomever they want
to associate with and be respected and left alone for their choice.
But no. We all have to live and abide by the wishes of other people bcuz of "unity" and
****.
Eh guys, you still do not understand that all this (not only China and Hong Kong) is a
very big "elite" performance for ordinary people to keep you (the rest of the boobies) in
subjection. It's like in boxing - contractual fights. Do you think world "elites" benefit
from peace and order? You are mistaken - these guys have the world as death (the death of
their Power and their Control). An example from the history of Europe - in the 18-19 and
early 20th century, Europe only did what it fought. But the funny thing is that the monarchs
(the real owners of Europe) were relatives among themselves. The First World War was
popularly called “The War of Three Cousins” (English monarch, German Kaiser and
Russian emperor). But the Europeans paid for the dismantling of relatives. Now the "monarchs"
are bankers and your position has not changed, you changed only the owners after 1918.
Problem with Hong Kong is, it is dependent on China to survive. That is not only true for
the most basic neccessities, but also as a port for international trade. However, in the last
25 years, Shenzhen and Guangzhou have built up their own trade hubs, which has pulled trade
away from being concentrated in Hong Kong, and consequently more dependent on China. Our
ideas of Hong Kong remaining an independent island nation isn't going to work for three
reasons:
1. Without being a doorway to China, there is no other reason for its existence.
2. Hong Kong is indeed Chinese sovereign territory, that was taken away from it to be made
into a trade colony by the British in 1841, under the Treaty of Nanking. The British gave up
Hong Kong in 1997, under the 1984 signed Sino-British Joint Declaration, in which Britain
agreed to return not only the New Territories but also Kowloon and Hong Kong itself. China
promised to implement a "One Country, Two Systems" regime, under which for fifty years Hong
Kong citizens could continue to practice capitalism and political freedoms forbidden on the
mainland. So, when the year 2047 comes around, Hong Kong will be fully absorbed and
integrated in a One Country, One system Chinese regime. In otherwords, Hong Kong's fate was
already sealed in 1984, and there is nothing America can legally do about it.
3. Hong Kong still needs the basic neccessities from China to survive. Don't count on
either the British or the Americans to provide it.
Yes I think getting the western financial institutions out of HK is the plan. I'm sure
they appreciate the US doing this for them, but of course they could never admit
that.
According to the US Census there are 3031 counties in the US.
If we redirected the $3.8 billion plus the 500,000,000 for missile defense that we give
Israel to US counties budgets each county would receive about
$ 1.3 million.
If we included the $1.2 billion each we give to Egypt and Jordon for signing the Carter
peace treaty with Israel that figure increases to $2.3 million for each county.
While $2.3 million may be a small figure for counties with metro cities, it would be a
large amount for the majority of counties across the nation.
Since aid to Israel alone accounts for 50% of US foreign aid who would oppose this re
direct of taxpayers money...besides the politicians...and how would the politicians explain
their opposition to the districts they supposedly represent?
"... Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins. ..."
"... Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within the American administration. I couldn't remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the more hawkish elements in US politics ..."
"... "The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown member of George W's administration. It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose to dubious fame after the 9/11 attacks. ..."
"... Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff, described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe" to top executives in the White House with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was henceforth called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East -- and in D.C. -- certainly looked like a distant but distinct reminder of that period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the policy agenda on questions that would require adult supervision." ..."
"... Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to positions of influence in the respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the crazy banner. ..."
"... To a great degree American foreign policy no longer operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the obsessions inherited from Old Europe. ..."
Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins.
Could it be my Russian paranoia. Nah, I am being unreasonable -- those people never had a bad feeling towards Trump's attempts to
boost Russian-American relations with Michael Flynn spearheading this effort.
Jokes aside, however, I can only imagine how SVR
and GRU are enjoying the spectacle. I can only imagine how many "free" promotions and awards can be attach to this thing as a
free ride.
Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within the American administration. I couldn't
remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the more hawkish elements in US politics. I thought it
had been an American Admiral. I had no luck finding a reference so I googled it. Still no joy with the American admiral, but the
list thrown up had near the top of it this informative quote from Patrick Bahzad.
"The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown member of George W's administration.
It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose
to dubious fame after the 9/11 attacks.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff, described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe"
to top executives in the White House with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was henceforth
called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East -- and in D.C. -- certainly looked like a distant
but distinct reminder of that period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the policy
agenda on questions that would require adult supervision."
Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to positions of influence in the
respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the
crazy banner. Or, to put it more soberly, form part of the neocon wing of those administrations. Though I, as an outside
observer, might be prejudiced here because I happen not to get on very well with Brzezinski and his copious output.
Allowing for that prejudice, which I confess runs very deep, I still think that to an extent American foreign policy has been
hijacked by Eastern European emigres who themselves retain some of the prejudices and mindset of another age and place.
Looking at it from afar, the influence of some Eastern European emigres on American foreign policy has been uniformly deleterious.
And that from a long way back and no matter whether those emigres are in Washington or Tel Aviv.
It cannot but help be distorting, that influence. It's not merely that unexamined Russophobia is embedded in the DNA of many
Eastern Europeans. There's a narrow minded focus on aggressive Machtpolitik, bred from centuries of violent territorial disputes
with neighbors.
That, transferred to the world stage as it must be when it infects the foreign policy of the United States - because that is
a country that cannot but help be at the centre of the world stage - distorts US foreign policy. To a great degree American
foreign policy no longer operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the obsessions
inherited from Old Europe.
In the most famous of his speeches Churchill spoke of the time when, as he hoped, "the New World, with all its power and might,
steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
Let the historians dispute as they will, that is what happened. And continued to happen for half a century and more. But there
was a price few noticed. The New World might have stepped forward to rescue the old, but it carried back from that old world a
most destructive freight.
Very well put. No better example, apart from being utter academic failure, expected from "white board" theorists with zero understanding
of power, exists of this than late Zbig. Only blind or sublime to the point of sheer idiocy could fail to see that Brzezinski's
loyalties were not with American people, but with Poland and old Polish, both legitimate and false, anti-Russian grievances. He
dedicated his life to settling whatever scores he had with historic Russia using the United States merely as a vehicle. So do
many, as you correctly stated, Eastern European immigrants to the United States. They bring with them passions, of which Founding
Fathers warned, and then infuse them into the American political discourse. It finally reached it peak of absurdity and, as I
argue constantly, utter destruction of the remnants of the Republic.
I wrote what follows before reading Andrei's response to EO, but do not see much reason to change what I had written.
When in 1988 I ended up working at BBC Radio 'Analysis' programme because it was impossible to interest any of my old television
colleagues in the idea that one might go to Moscow and talk to some of the people involved in the Gorbachev 'new thinking', my
editor, Caroline Anstey, was an erstwhile aide to Jim Callaghan, the former Labour Prime Minister.
As a result of his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, she had a fascinating anecdote about what one of his fellow
members, the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, said about another, Zbigniew Brzezinski: that he could never work out which
of his country's two traditional enemies his Polish colleague hated most.
Almost a generation after hearing her say this, in December 2013, I read an article Brzezinski published in the 'Financial
Times, headlined 'Russia, like Ukraine, will become a real democracy.'
Unfortunately, it is behind a subscription wall, but it clearly expresses its author's fundamental belief that after all those
years of giving Russia the 'spinach' treatment -- to use Victoria Nuland's term -- it would finally 'knuckle under', and become
a quiescent satellite of the West.
An ironic sidelight on this is provided in a recent article by a lady called Anna Mahjar-Barducci on the 'MEMRI' site -- which
actually has some very useful material on matters to do with Russia for those of us with no knowledge of the language -- headlined
'Contemporary Russian Thinkers Series -- Part I -- Renowned Russian Academic Sergey Karaganov On Russia And Democracy.'
Its subject, who I remember well from the days when he was very much one of the 'new thinkers', linked to it on his own website,
clearly pleased at what he saw as an accurate and informed discussion of his ideas.
There is an obvious risk of succumbing to facetiousness, but sometimes what one thinks are essential features of an argument
can be best brought out at the risk of caricaturing it.
It seems to me that some of the central themes of Karaganov's writing over the past few years -- doubly interesting, because
his attacks on conventional Western orthodoxies are very far from silly, and because he is a kind of 'panjandrum' of a significant
section of the Russian foreign policy élite -- may be illuminated in this way.
So, attempting to link his Russian concerns to British and American ones, some central contentions of his writings might be
put as follows:
'"Government of the people, by the people, for the people' looked a lovely idea, back in 1989. But if in practice "by the people"
means a choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn, how can it be "for the people?"
'Moreover, it turned out that our "deplorables" were always right, against us 'intellectuals', in grasping that, with "Russophobes"
running Western policy, a "real democracy" would simply guarantee that we remained as impotent and humiliated as people like Brzezinski
clearly always wanted us to be.
'Our past, and our future, both in terms of alliances and appropriate social and political systems, are actually "Eurasian":
a 'hybrid' state, whose potential greatest advantage actually should be seen as successfully synthesising different inheritances.
'As the need for this kind of synthesis is a normal condition, with which most peoples have to reckon, this gives us a very
real potential advantage over people in the West, who, like the communists against whom I rebelled, believe that there is one
path along which all of humanity must -- and can -- go.'
At the risk of over-interpreting, I might add the following conclusion:
'Of course, precisely what this analysis does not mean is that we are anti-European -- simply that we cannot simply come to
Europe, Europe come some way to meet us.
'Given time, Helmut Schmidt's fellow countrymen, as also de Gaulle's, may very well realise that their future does not lie
in an alliance with a coalition of people like Brzezinski and traditional "Russophobes" from the "Anglosphere".
'And likewise, it does not lie with the kind of messianic universalist "liberalism" -- and, in relation to some of the SJC
and LGBT obsessions, one might say "liberalism gone bonkers" -- which Putin criticized in his interview with the "Financial Times"
back in June.
An obvious possibility implicit in the argument is that, if indeed the continental Europeans see sense, then the coalition
of traditional 'Anglophobes' and the 'insulted and injured' or the 'borderlands' may find itself marginalized, and indeed, on
the 'dustbin of history' to which Trotsky once referred.
Of course, I have no claims to be a Russianist, and my reading of Karaganov may be quite wrong.
But I do strongly believe that very superficial readings of what was happening when I was working in the 'Analysis' office,
back in 1988-9, have done an immense disservice alike to Britain and the United States.
Very well put. No better example, apart from being utter academic failure, expected from "white board" theorists with zero understanding
of power, exists of this than late Zbig. Only blind or sublime to the point of sheer idiocy could fail to see that Brzezinski's
loyalties were not with American people, but with Poland and old Polish, both legitimate and false, anti-Russian grievances. He
dedicated his life to settling whatever scores he had with historic Russia using the United States merely as a vehicle. So do
many, as you correctly stated, Eastern European immigrants to the United States. They bring with them passions, of which Founding
Fathers warned, and then infuse them into the American political discourse. It finally reached it peak of absurdity and, as I
argue constantly, utter destruction of the remnants of the Republic.
David, Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. But the events of two days ago with Putin and Lavrov being personally
present at the unveiling of the monument to Evgenii Primakov in a front of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs speaks, in fact
screams, volumes. You know of Primakov's Doctrine. It is being fully implemented as I type this and it means that the West "lost"
(quotation marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose) Russia and it can be "thankful" for that to a so called Russia
Studies field in the West which was primarily shaped and then turned into the wasteland, in large part thanks to influx of East
European "scholars" and some "Russian" dissidents which achieved their objectives by drawing a caricature. They succeeded and
Russia had it with the West.
DH, appreciate your comment. Haven't read the MEMRI paper yet. Scanned the first page though.
Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. ... You know of Primakov's Doctrine. It is being fully implemented as
I type this and it means that the West "lost" (quotation marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose)
Well, two things sticked out for me during Tumps reelection campain.
1) on the surface he stated, he wanted closer relations to Russia. Looked at more closely, as should be expected, maybe. They
were ambigous. If I may paraphrase it colloguially: I meet them and, believe me, if I don't get that beautiful deal, i'll be out
of the door the next second.
2) he promised to be enigmatic, compared to earlier American administrations. In other words, hard to read or to predict. Guess
one better is as dealmaker. But in the larger intelligence field? Enigmatic may well be a commonplace. No?
Otherwise, Andrei, I would appreciate your further elaboration on Karaganov as opportunist.
Andrei: Strzok and Pientka come from Galicia -- the westernmost portion of what is now Ukraine -- that was acquired by Empress
Maria Theresa in the mid - 18th century.
I have been curious about precisely where both Srzok and Pientka came from, but have not had time to do any serious searches.
What is the actual evidence that they have Galician origins?
And, if they do, what are these?
I would of course automatically tend to assume that Polish names mean that their origins are Polish.
But then, if this is so, why are they enthusiastically collaborating with 'Banderista' Ukrainians?
It has long been a belief of mine that one of Stalin's great mistakes was to attempt to incorporate Galicia into the empire
he was creating.
Had he returned it to Poland, the architects of the Volhynia massacres of Poles -- as also of the massacres of Jews in Lviv/Lvov/Lemberg
-- could have gone back to their old habits of assassinating Polish policemen.
I first picked up the Galician connection in an article by Scott Humor: " North America is a land run by Galician zombies "
-- published by The Saker on July 4, 2018. It seems that Galicians, especially those that arrived after WWII, migrate into security
positions such as ICE / FBI / NSA etc. It may have to do with a family history of work in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Regrettably, I am not from Eastern Europe and cannot help you further about the Bortnicks, the Gathkes, Buchtas, and so on.
Since its creation in 1948, the modern state of Israel has steadily stolen Palestinian land
and driven Palestinians from their homes, cities and villages.
Nothing has been done to halt Israel's steady march to tighten its absolute control of the
Palestinian people with the obvious goal of ethnic cleansing, an historic fact well documented
by Israeli scholar
Ilan Pappe .
Under the protection of a security-obsessed military occupation, fully supported and
underwritten by U.S. tax payers, Israel denies it has broken any laws. Israel makes its own
self-preservation laws. It listens to no higher authority.
Israel has destroyed olive tree orchards and smothered stolen farmlands and pastures with
modern malls where U.S. firms like Ace Hardware and Burger King enrich stock holders who don't
know, or don't care, that they are taking part in the ugly crime of ethnic cleansing.
(The first time I saw an Ace Hardware store in a Ma'ale Adumim mall, I started my own
personal boycott of Ace, an action unfair to employees of my local Ace outlet, but one that has
increased the receipts of my small neighborhood hardware store.)
The narrative of Israeli governments heeding no call but their own, has been with us all
along, but U.S. media readers/viewers have avoided having to think about it, or do anything
about it.
They live comfortably within their bubble of ignorance which is created and sustained for
them by their newspapers, news magazines, television outlets, radio broadcasts, government
leaders and, alas, their religious leaders.
It does not have to be this way. During the last decade, the narrative of settlements like
Ma'ale Adumim has been available on the internet in reports like this one from Electronic Intafada , which begins
:
It is only a fifteen minute bus ride from Jerusalem to the Ma'ale Adumim settlement. After
entering through guarded gates, one's first impression is of a Miami-style suburb. The town
at noon seems almost abandoned because the major part of Ma'ale Adumim residents head off to
work in Jerusalem during the day. . . .
As soon as Barack Obama demanded from Israel the simple act of "freezing" its settlement expansion , Israel trotted out Public
Relations Plan A for distribution to the media: Have a heart, settlement residents need room
for their families to grow.
Israel operates on the logic of the man found guilty of killing his parents. The guilty man
begged for mercy on the grounds that he was now an orphan.
To tell you about the Israeli settlers' plea for mercy, the Los Angeles Times (July 6) delivered its version of the
orphan story: "Israel's settlements in West Bank present a major hurdle."
The opening paragraphs of the Times story set the tone for the plea with weasel words
(Lobby talking points) used by writer Edmund Sanders:
Reporting from Ma'ale Adumim, West Bank -- This sprawling, well-manicured Israeli
settlement -- with its rows of red-tile roofs, palm trees and air-conditioned shopping mall
-- could almost pass for Orange County. Except the guards in this gated community sometimes
pack automatic weapons.
Settlements such as the city-sized Ma'ale Adumim, about four miles east of Jerusalem in
the West Bank, are viewed by much of the world as illegal because they are built on land
seized by Israel during the 1967 Middle East War. Many Israelis see Ma'ale Adumim as part of
their country.
Now let us review the weasel words.
The reference to the illegality of Ma'ale Adumim is softened by the qualifying rhetorical
device, "viewed by much of the world as illegal". The phase "viewed by" suggests that the issue
at hand is open to debate among reasonable people.
Reasonable, as, for example, as a story that might have appeared in a Birmingham, Alabama,
newspaper, circa 1939, reporting that "segregation is viewed by many in the South as as a way
to maintain harmony between the races and preserve our Southern Way of Life."
Should such an analysis have been open to debate? No, certainly not in the minds of a small
number of courageous Southern liberals, and an increasingly impatient black population.
It required two more decades of U.S. racial oppression for that "debate"–for and
against segregation–to reach a definitive conclusion with "all deliberate speed".
Now we have a 21st century debate. The Times' Monday story includes the phrase: "many
Israelis see Ma'ale Adumim as part of their country." Do they, indeed? How many Israelis?
Most polls suggest that sentiment is largely confined to the pro-settler community, while
"security-minded" government leaders continue to demand the inclusion of Ma'ale Adumimin a
future Israeli state
To other more fair-minded Israelis the phrase "many Israelis see Ma'ale Adumim as part of
their country", unpleasantly evokes the case of the parent-killer who begs for mercy because he
is an orphan.
The Time s story continues:
Now the long-simmering dispute over this and other fast-growing settlements has become a
major obstacle to restarting peace talks.
Settlement building is not a long-simmering dispute. It is part of decades of immoral and
illegal actions by Israel and is much more than a "major obstacle" to peace talks. It is an
indisputable violation of international law, which, if allowed to stand, will block any
successful peace talks.
The parent-killer should mourn his Mom and Dad from his jail cell, not while sitting in the
sun in his well-watered grass covered private backyard, shaded from the hot summer sun by a
picnic umbrella purchased from a nearby Ace Hardware.
The LA Times reserves most of its early sympathy for the illegal settlers of an
illegal city with these touching "facts":
"Why is President Obama interfering with our lives, telling us how many children we can
have and whether we can get married?" asked Benny Kashriel, longtime mayor of Ma'ale Adumim.
. . .
Talk about a possible freeze has many here worried.
"You can't freeze a city," Kashriel said. "If you freeze, you go backwards. Every month we
are not building and people are not coming, it affects the economic situation of the city. .
. . It's punishing."
A freeze, officials say, would threaten the opening of four new synagogues and seven
sorely needed schools. Class sizes are already near the legal limit of 40 students per
room.
An additional 400 units of housing in various stages of construction might also be shut
down, leaving homeowners -- many of whom have already taken out mortgages up to $300,000 --
with monthly payments and no place to live.
The Times knew American readers would identify with those folks holding mortgages of
up to $300,000 with monthly payments and no place to live. And those same readers can also
identify with parents whose children are in schools "near the legal limit of 40 students per
room".
Further down in the story, the Times reports on the Arab village of Aziriyeh, (in
biblical times, the village of Bethany), where Lazarus was called from his grave by Jesus. (Or
as the Times writes, carefully avoiding any validation of a religious belief, "where the
biblical Lazarus is said to have risen from the dead").
The comparison of Aziriyeh (Bethany) with Ma'ale Adumim is fact-filled. The comparison also
strains for a "balance" that is impossible to achieve between occupiers and the occupied.
Since 1967, the story reports, the village of Aziriyeh has had three-fourths of its land
stolen to enlarge Ma'ale Adumim. Its mayor, Issam Faroun, makes a comparison between his
citizens and those of the illegal citizens of Ma'ale Adumim. The facts are presented fairly.
The comparative use of water is an example.
Mayor Faroun said:
. . . that as Ma'ale Adumim frets about the fate of its landscaped grounds or swimming
pools, Azariyah residents receive water only once a week. The town gateway has turned into a
junkyard of trash, scrap metal and old appliances. Schools have 45 students per class and
unemployment is 50%, in part because the barrier prevents workers from reaching
Jerusalem.
With no room to expand horizontally, families are adding second and third stories to their
homes as children grow up and marry. Bassem abu Roomy, 31, still lives in his parents' house,
sharing two rooms with his pregnant wife and two children. His younger brothers are not so
lucky.
"We can't add any more stories because the foundation of the house can't support it," he
said. "So they can't get married."
When did the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis in Aziriyeh (Bethany) and Ma'ale
Adumim go wrong? When that first brick was laid in Maale Adumim soon after 1967? When Ma'ale
Adumim gobbled up three fourths of Aziriyeh's farmland for its own use? Name your own moment in
recent memory.
The LA Times wants us to look back no further than two decades when the biblical
village of Lazarus and the modern Israeli city of Ma'ale Adumim had, as the Times
describes it, their harmonious relations "strained".
A decade ago, the two communities lived somewhat harmoniously. Israelis shopped in
Azariyah [Bethany] and Palestinians worked on housing projects in the settlement. But during
the last Palestinian uprising, in 2000, two settlers were shot in the village and relations
have been strained since.
The competing needs of these two communities have become part of the international
debate.
So there you have it. Everything was fine until two Israeli settlers were shot. This is a
case study on why the Israeli Lobby and the U.S. Congress are so grateful for news stories like
this one that appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
For Sanders and the Times , the Arab village of Azariyah and the modern illegal city
of Maale Adumim are merely playing a role in an "international debate".
No wonder that parent-killer failed to get any respect with his request for mercy because he
was now an orphan. He did not have the support of his own personal lobby making a case for
orphans who have killed their parents.
The picture above is of a barrier in the Arab village of Azariyah (Bethany). The break
in the barrier has been covered by barbed wire. The wire is removed and replaced on a regular
basis by Israeli authorities, who built the barrier in the first place. This photo is from
the website of the World Council of Churches' Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and
Israel.
"The difficulty here is that Trump thinks he's defending the military, when he's not"
No, this is not about Trump defending the military. What this is about is how Trump thinks war should be fought, "tough" in
his words. What he means by this is troops should be utterly ruthless. They should murder and kill civilians, as this strikes
fear into the enemy and shows them how "tough" we are. Plus of course Trump likes vengeance. No one should be surprised by this
as Trump has voiced strong support for war crimes, he wants "strong" torture, he wants the families of terrorists, women, children,
elderly murdered to punish the terrorists. Sad thing is, I've heard lots of support for this kind of warfighting among conservatives.
Trump has the mentality of an authoritarian dictator, thankfully he's not that smart.
Army Col. Keven Benson suggests Trump may have overplayed his hand, considering all the wreckage he wrought playing to his base
at the possible cost of his legitimacy among those in uniform. Benson charges, too, that the president's decision to reverse the
directives of senior Navy officers in disciplining one of their own might lose him support not only among senior officers, but
among the rank and file -- a constituency that voted overwhelmingly to put him in the White House.
"You know, these guys, these three knuckleheads -- Lorance, Golsteyn and Gallagher -- might be welcome on Fox News," Benson
says, "but they wouldn't be welcome in my platoon."
Damn.
If it is all the same to everyone, I think we shouldn't indulge in the kind of permissiveness that makes incidents like the
My Lai Massacre or the Abu Graib prisoner abuse scandal possible.
I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam (31 May 1967 - 31 May 1968). That is to be blunt, I served as an enlisted man which
is equivalent to a working class peon in civilian life or an Indentured servant who didn't have the money to pay his passage to
the American colony but promised to serve an extended period of apprenticeship to pay it off. In American society at that time
an indentured servant was one rung above being a slave. So I am no fan of the brass. And I have never been a big fan of our Commander-in-Chief
"Bone Spurs" given what I saw during my tour of duty in Vietnam.
But on his decision to deny the brass javing their way and giving them the fickle finger of fate, i.e. the middle finger if
you don't get my drift, I support President Trump wholeheartedly. Anyone who can piss off the brass and make them whine like melting
snowflakes must be doing something right. Also does Mr. Perry remember when President Richard Nixon pardoned Lt. William Calley
after being convicted for the infamous My Lai Massacre?
The American people overwhelmingly supported Nixon's pardon.They will again support President Trump's decision. They do not
read the TAC. Nor do they read any other high-falutin' journal of political opinion. But they are still patriots in their minds.
But being populists they are not necessarily patriots when it comes to the brass who in their thinking are the equivalent of the
1% in civilian life.
It's historical class warfare that fuels populism even though these populists have probably never read Karl Marx. So the brass
can disagree vehemently with Trump, They can also resign like Richard Spencer did and join the private sector. But they may be
in for a rude awakening when they try to give an order to average civilians and are instead given fickle fingers of fate. And
besides, let's be real about this latest crisis du jour, there are plenty more brass where these whiners came from. I bet you
at the Pentagon the brass are literally bumping into each other just walking down the halls.
But they swore allegiance to our Constitution. The president gives orders to them as commander-in-chief. Not the other way
around. Mr. Perry doesn't get how our country has changed since Trump won the election. I assume reading this essay, and if I
am wrong I apologize here, he probably has never broken bread with the great unwashed given how he identifies with military authority.
Trump was elected president surfing on a wave of populism. He played his populist cards in this tempest in a teapot. He gets it.
He is playing to his base. He wants to get re-elected.
But I have one question for Mr. Perry. Why didn't the brass resign en masse against the Iraq War or all these useless Forever
Wars we have been fighting?
These same people stood by and watched our military be socially engineered and gender normed to the point of incompetence. These
are Obama sycophants pure and simple.
A "crisis" in Special Ops is good. Anything that weakens Deepstate is good. Trump didn't make his decision on this basis; he only
needed to assuage his ego; but nevertheless he accidentally did the right thing.
I don't much care about this since I consider most all US military to be war criminals. I suppose I just note the cosmic justice
which punishes many of them with PTSD, drug addiction, and suicide. Now... let's get on with privatizing the VA.
The desk jockey keyboard warrior officers in the Pentagon want to make examples even if they have to use prosecutorial misconduct
to do it and that will help morale and discipline?
Trump should get rid of all the swamp Generals and Admirals. I'm sure they
will enjoy retirement making millions at Lockheed and Raytheon. Trump supports the Troops, not the Bureaucrats.
One gets the impression that the "Rules of Engagement" seem to have been the issue in the case discussed here but they were forgotten
in the bureaucratic squabble between the military and the White House.
People like Pete Hegseth call Chief Gallagher's service exemplary and repeat that he was acquitted of 'alleged war crimes'.
He was acquitted because a medic testified that after he and Gallagher stabilized a wounded, sedated prisoner after 20 minutes,
Gallagher inexplicably stabbed him (non-fatally) below the collar bone, stormed off, and then the medic suffocated him before
Iraqi security forces could torture him. Later Gallagher posed with his corpse.
This is not the sign of a well man or one who was making a snap, life or death decision. I'm not interested in punishing Gallagher
but this hero worship of our military and failure to acknowledge that these long deployments are breaking down our military is
self-deception. But I won't be surprised if I see a trifecta of Trump, Hegseth, and Gallagher at a campaign stop.
If we are being honest, I bet the IRGC has a better reputation than us in the M.E.
Julius Caesar was able to march on Rome because the soldiers gave their fealty to him over Rome. I find Trump's pardoning of soldiers
accused of war crimes deeply disturbing.
The first and foremost principle that must be maintained is that the President has complete authority over the military. Its one
of the central constructs of our republic. The most egregious offence was for Spencer to defy Trump's order. Regardless of what
one's opinion on the state of the special forces is, we can't go down that road. To say that Trump is destroying the commanders
authorities is bass ackwards. The US military, like it or not, MUST have civilians over and above them.
Having said that, I completely agree that there is something very bad wrong with the special forces and especially the Navy
Seals. My experience with Green Berets in the Vietnam era is that they were very effective in working with indigenous populations,
to include recruiting fighters to our side, spoke their language, were highly competent, tough as nails, and very humble. Out
of uniform, one would not even know they were Green Berets. Likewise almost all Army Rangers are equally humble. Green Berets
are recruited from the Rangers.
I never had any personal experiences with Navy Seals, but over the last decade or so at least, its obvious that a large percent
of them are a bunch of braggadocios chest thumpers. There is something seriously wrong with the Navy Seal recruitment program
or training or both. They have a very bad reputation of making their missions public, making jokes out of their security clearances
and never seem to be held accountable for such violations.
The regular military has always distrusted the SOF for the very reasons cited in this article. The Pentagon forbade the beret
until JFK overruled the brass in 1963.
The Founding CO of that vaunted Tier 1 unit Seal team 6 was convicted of federal crimes and spent time in prison in the 1980s.
The Green Beret affair in 1965 resulted in the murder of a allied civilian in Vietnam. The military grew these units beyond
reasonable levels and has misused and overused them since 9/11,
One is left to wonder whether the president has really overplayed his hand or these naval officers are simply Trump-haters as
is all too often the case these days. I'd have to go with let the Navy be the Navy and handle it's own business. But one has to
question whether these officers would've objected as strongly had it been Obama giving the orders?
What a disgrace... I'm a dovish, pacifist peacenik, but even I understand maintaining organizational order, respect for authority,
chain-of-command... (and have respect for many in the military for their desire and attempts to play by international rules and
by-the-book procedures.)
Trump & Gallagher (who strikes me as a sadist) are a disgrace and Fox News is especially beyond the pale, giving Gallagher
a platform to impugn his commanding officer! in public! Where has anyone ever gotten away with that before?... unbelievable.
I guess you could hope for some silver lining that this might undermine the DoD's global empire tendencies... but I'm not sure
this is a good way to get that done (ie leaving or promoting arrogant, cruel men like Gallagher, with the stench of by-gone barbarism
clinging to him, in the services:)
If I were one of this president's advisers, I would make one thing clear.
Don't tweet instructs to any department or department member because it is neither a proper channel for official communique's
nor is it conducive to to effectively, management and more times than not creates more trouble that it solves.
After listing the reasons why "twitter" is an inappropriate forum. i would of course be fired. But I am deeply concerned that
the president is conducting official business in open forums such as twitter.
The official in question was certainly being reasonable to request the order either direct communique or in riding. Given the
nature of twitter, it was a reasonable expectation.
Laugh: I think there are plenty of issues with the military justice system. But that is another matter best left out of twitter
feeds.
Why didn't anyone mention what the effect of these democracy wars are having on our soldiers considering they aren't actually
protecting the country but helping the Muslims move over to it, not just here but to Europe as well.
Most of the terrorist fighters are coming and going from other countries and travel freely oh and besides in Syria we're really
not fighting terrorists but over-throwing a government.
To top it all off these actions are helping to bankrupt our nation. I wonder how this plays for morale of our soldiers? I'm
sure many don't care, the majority of people indluding those just coming in ro the country seem to hate the country anyway so
why would anyone want to fight for them and then maybe there is another side who sees it all and cares, cares that they are losing
their nation. What about the "fight them over there but love them and bow down to their diverstity"? What happens when you realize
that you're not the savior you thought you would be and no one is greatful to have you around, they are fighting you endlessly
and ruthlessly while you're ttying to be a gentle invader, not fighting to win but to install democracy and can't figure out why
no one wants your gift of gentrification.
I'm not so sure I could take his rank from him either, maybe just give him a break from the war on the ground and the two sides
of the war in his head.
On the other hand we increasingly see an unwillingness by the military and Deep State to be ruled over by civilian government,
and instead of a commander in chief, to make of elected Presidents mere puppets for their consensus.
I disagree with Lt.Col Milburns (Ret.) The UCMJ is military law and military law is part of federal law. The president has the
right to pardon anyone convicted under the UCMJ but his authority stops where the law is concerned. The president isn't above
the law, he can countermand the conviction but he can't force the military to withdraw the A@D given by the individual services.
That remains the prerogative of the commanders. Discipline must be maintained and the commanders are responsible and accountable
for that discipline.
CIC is a title conferred on a civilian president, he states that they are responsible for the strategic decisions used to justify
the use of our military forces, the Presidents actions with regard to anything other than the pardon does not meet the criteria
of a strategic decision.
And if water isn't involved in the mission then there really isn't need for SEALS to be there. Mission creep on the part of
the Navy to increase Spec Ops budgets.
Rank has their privilege and as far as I know, PDJT is the CiC. So either you - the un-elected bureaucrat, shut up and follow
the order or put up and resign your commission.
"... 38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another 31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night. Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to scale back U.S. involvement overall. ..."
"... The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more support for negotiations and non-intervention: ..."
"... With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons ..."
"... There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they want. It is long past time that Washington started listening. ..."
he Eurasia Group Foundation's new survey of public
opinion on U.S. foreign policy finds that support for greater restraint continues to rise:
Americans favor a less aggressive foreign policy. The findings are consistent across a
number of foreign policy issues, and across generations and party lines.
The 2019 survey results show that most Americans support a more restrained foreign policy,
and it also shows an increase in that support since last year. There is very little support for
continuing the war in Afghanistan indefinitely, there is virtually no appetite for war with
Iran, and there is a decline in support for a hawkish sort of American exceptionalism. There is
still very little support for unilateral U.S. intervention for ostensibly humanitarian reasons,
and support for non-intervention has increased slightly:
In 2018, 45 percent of Americans chose restraint as their first choice. In 2019, that has
increased to 47 percent. Only 19 percent opt for a U.S.-led military response and 34 percent
favor a multilateral, UN-led approach to stop humanitarian abuses overseas.
38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another
31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of
Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that
there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night.
Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to
scale back U.S. involvement overall.
The report's working definition of American exceptionalism is a useful one: "American
exceptionalism is the belief that the foreign policy of the United States should be
unconstrained by the parochial interests or international rules which govern other countries."
This is not the only definition one might use, but it gets at the heart of what a lot of hawks
really mean when they use this phrase. While most Americans still say they subscribe to
American exceptionalism either because of what the U.S. represents or what it has done, there
is less support for these views than before. Among the youngest respondents (age 18-29), there
is now a clear majority that rejects this idea.
The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with
its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran
has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been
nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to
elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this
year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more
support for negotiations and non-intervention:
A strong majority of both Republicans and Democrats continue to seek a diplomatic
resolution involving either sanctions or the resumption of nuclear negotiations. This year,
there was an increase in the number of respondents across party lines who would want
negotiations to resume even if Iran is a nuclear power in the short term, and a bipartisan
increase in those who believe outright that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons to
defend itself. So while Republicans might be more likely than Democrats to believe Iran
threatens peace in the Middle East, voters in neither party are eager to take a belligerent
stand against it.
With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against
Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons, and it
isn't doing that. It may be that the failure of the "maximum pressure" campaign has also
weakened support for sanctions. Support for the sanctions option dropped by almost 10 points
overall and plunged by more than 20 points among Republicans. In 2018, respondents were evenly
split between war and sanctions on one side or negotiations and non-intervention on the other.
This year, support for diplomacy and non-intervention in response to this imaginary nuclear
weapons program has grown to make up almost 60% of the total. If most Americans favor diplomacy
and non-intervention in this improbable scenario, it is safe to assume that there is even more
support for those options with the real Iranian government that isn't pursuing nuclear
weapons.
There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and
avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant
constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right
now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they
want. It is long past time that Washington started listening.
"... this is why the US went into Afghanistan, to get in between China & Iran ..."
"... The implication of what you just said is that the United States will never leave Afghanistan as in ever. Even if the Taliban take the whole country leaving only Kabul and its surroundings, the US will still opt to stay to have bases to launch drones and aircraft from to dominate the region. ..."
From the moment that the U.S. re-imposed sanctions in earnest on Iran late last year,
Pakistan has been looking at ways to resuscitate a deal that had been agreed in principle
before the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) last
May. This deal involved moving as much gas as Pakistan needs from Iran's Asalouyeh into
Pakistan's Gwadar and then on to Nawabshah for further transit if required. At the same time,
China has been in long-running discussions with Pakistan over the specific projects that
Beijing wanted to place in Pakistan as part of its 'One Belt, One Road' (OBOR) programme. All
the while, the U.S. has been
trying to stymie any such arrangement but OilPrice.com understands that the
Iran-China-Pakistan deal is now back on, and with a vengeance.
China's covert strategic deals are virtually always buried in interminably long anodyne
statements that belie the true laser-focused intentions of Beijing and this time is no
different. Joint statements just over a week ago from both Pakistan and China sides laid out
four projects that are part of a 'broader co-operation' between China and Pakistan. They all
sound relatively run-of-the-mill affairs, although still major undertakings, and are: the
upgrading of the Pakistan Refinery Karachi, the building out of a coal to liquid engineering
plant based on Thar coal at Thar Sindh, the utilisation of Thar Block VI for coal gasification
and fertiliser projects, and the finalisation of the feasibility study on South-North Gas
Pipeline Project that traverses Pakistan.
The fact that they are much more significant to the global geopolitical balance was
evidenced by the U.S.'s furious warnings to Pakistan, based on the fact that all of these
projects are in reality a key part of Beijing's planned China-Pakistan Economic Corridor
(CPEC), which, in turn, is a cornerstone of the OBOR initiative. Even as it was, U.S. South
Asia diplomat, Alice Wells, warned that CPEC – which, vitally, includes heavy financing
from Beijing and, therefore, a massive debt obligation to China by the host country over time
– will only profit Beijing. As it stands, the cost of just the first round of CPEC
projects has risen from an initial costing of US$48 billion to at least US$62 billion right
now. "It's clear, or it needs to be clear, that CPEC is not about aid," said Wells. "[The CPEC]
corridor is going to take a growing toll on the Pakistan economy, especially when the bulk of
payments start to come due in the next four to six years," she added. "Even if loan payments
are deferred, they are going to continue to hang over Pakistan's economic development
potential, hamstringing Prime Minister [Imran] Khan's reform agenda," she underlined.
The U.S.'s fury would have been much worse if it knew that, in fact, the 'finalisation of
the feasibility study on South-North Gas Pipeline Project' whilst true, is just proverbially
the tip of the iceberg. "The actual plan is to resuscitate the Iran-Pakistan oil and gas
pipelines over time, beginning with the gas pipeline, moving unlimited amounts of Iranian gas
to Pakistan, and then into China and the rest of Asia should it be needed," a senior source who
works closely with Iran's Petroleum Ministry told OilPrice.com last week. "It is being done in
conjunction with Russia, with the twin aims of firstly ensuring that China's 'One Belt, one
Road' initiative continues to run smoothly from the East through Pakistan and then Westwards
into Iran and onwards into Europe," he said. "And, secondly, to ensure for Russia that Iran's
gas does not start flowing freely into Europe as and when the U.S. sanctions are lifted, as
this would undermine Russia's power over Europe, which is founded on supplying over a third of
Europe's gas," he added.
For China, the new pipeline – integral to its plan of making Iran and Pakistan its
client states over time – has the added benefit of putting the U.S. on the backfoot in
the ongoing trade war. For Iran, the incentives of closer ties with China and Russia are
principally financial but also relate to China being just one of five Permanent Members on the
U.N. Security Council (the others being Russia, the U.S., the U.K., and France). For Pakistan
as well there is the added incentive that it is tired of being lambasted by the U.S. for its
duplicity in dealing with international terrorism. Not that long ago, the U.S. accused Pakistan
of supporting the Taliban (correct but it was catalysed by the U.S.'s key Middle Eastern
'ally', Saudi Arabia), Al Qaeda (correct but catalysed, funded and logistically supported by
the Saudis), the Haqqani network (correct but also funded and logistically supported by the
Saudis), and Islamic State (sort of correct but that was also mainly, of course, the Saudis)
against U.S. forces, despite taking hundreds of billions of dollars in aid payments.
Islamabad has also been an outspoken critic of renewed U.S.
sanctions against Iran. Just after the first wave of the new sanctions were rolled out on 7
August last year, Pakistan's Foreign Office spokesman Muhammad Faisal said that: "We are
examining the implications of the U.S.'s re-imposed sanctions on Iran, however, Pakistan, being
a sovereign state, reserves the right to pursue legitimate economic and commercial interests
while respecting the international legal regime." Later, in his inaugural speech as Pakistan's
then-new Prime Minister, Imran Khan, called for improving ties with the country's immediate
neighbours, including Iran, from whose President, Hassan Rouhani, he also accepted an
invitation for an early state visit to Tehran. Bubbling back at that time to the top of the
list of practical initiatives that could be advanced quickly was the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline
(IPP), which, according to the Iran source: "[Imran] Khan personally backs and has made a
priority project."
In practical terms, Pakistan certainly needs all the sustainable energy sources it can get.
As it stands, the country has seen domestic natural gas production stagnate at around 4 billion
cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) against demand of more than 6 Bcf/d, which has led to repeated load
shedding in many major cities of up to 15 hours a day. Moreover, the supply and demand
disparity is set to become even worse very soon, as industry estimates project that Pakistan's
domestic gas production is set to fall to nearer 2 Bcf/d by 2020, due to aging infrastructure,
whilst demand will rise to around 8 Bcf/d by the same time, driven by rising demand from the
power, industry, and domestic sectors as the economy continues to grow by around 5% per year.
According to Pakistan's Ministry of Energy (MoE), the planned 0.75 Bcf/d of gas (for five
years, in the first instance) that would flow from Iran's supergiant South Pars natural gas
field would add around 4,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity into the Pakistan grid, via a direct
Iran-Pakistan pipeline.
The original agreement for the IPP, signed between Iran and Pakistan in 1995, was predicated
on the pipeline running from Iran's supergiant South Pars non-associated natural gas field into
Karachi but the most recent iteration of the route involves the gas running from Iran's
Asalouyeh and into Pakistan's Gwadar and then on to Nawabshah. The latest projection of the
cost of the pipeline is around US$3.5 billion, according to industry sources, although US$2.5
billion of this has already been invested in the 900 kilometre stretch on Iran's side that has
already been completed. Pakistan's 780 kilometre stretch has yet to be started.
Given the geopolitical importance of both Iran and Pakistan to Russia and China, though, as
analysed in greater depth in my
new book on the global oil markets , finding the money for the remainder of the project
will not be a problem at all For China, there is a threefold motivation. First, its plans to
integrate the IPP into the CPEC project means that Gwadar is earmarked to be a key logistical
node in China's 'One Belt, One Road' initiative. Second, it wants to keep Iran as one of its
key suppliers of oil and gas in the future. And third, it regards supporting those who the U.S.
opposes as being a central plank of its foreign policy, even over and above the short-term
tactic of wrong-footing the U.S. in the ongoing trade war. "One immediate reaction [of China to
the burgeoning trade war with the US], will be to seek to expand and broaden economic links by
offering improved market access to non-U.S. companies, by strengthening supply chain links and
by replacing American commodities with imports from emerging market nations," according to
Jonathan Fenby, China research chairman at TS Lombard, in London.
"There is a tectonic shift going on that goes well beyond the tariff war, as China
seeks to assert itself regionally and tries to establish a wider global role for itself while
the U.S. moves from the 'constructive engagement' of the Clinton, Bush and Obama
administrations to regarding China as a 'strategic competitor'," he added. The U.S. clearly
sees it the same way, not just based on the latest comments by Wells but also on the fact that
as long ago as January 2010, the U.S. formally requested that Pakistan abandon the project in
return for which it would receive assistance from Washington for the construction of a
liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal and for the importing of electricity from Tajikistan
through Afghanistan's Wakhan Corridor.
The implication of what you just said is that the United States will never leave
Afghanistan as in ever. Even if the Taliban take the whole country leaving only Kabul and its
surroundings, the US will still opt to stay to have bases to launch drones and aircraft from
to dominate the region.
So in twenty years time we might see a story how some young soldier has just arrived
in-country to Afghanistan who will be proud that his grandfather took part in the original
invasion and that he is now following in his grandfather's and father's footsteps.
China, the new world-engineers, has gotta be looking at Pakistan as an industrial water
source. They're probably already building several dams to catch the runoff. Perhaps mining
too – same mountains as Afghanistan, just the other side, no?
China has the money and
manpower. Iran the energy. In fact, we could be thinking the same thing.
Ambassador Wells' warning "..is going to take a growing toll on the Pakistan economy,
especially when the bulk of payments start to come due.." indicates the lack of a mirror in
the State Dept or a copy of the text of the 13th IMF 'bailout' signed last July.
In 2001 and in 2002 Congress passed authorizations for war. While not declarations of war,
these mandates, each titled an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) provided the
legal framework for attacks against al-Qaeda in 2001 and in 2002 for the Iraq War. Both AUMFs
are still in effect today. As Congress considers its annual authorization to fund the Pentagon
our current members of Congress, both in the House and the Senate, are in positions of
responsibility and ability to repeal these AUMFs.
The effect of the AUMFs :
Based on FBI and
journalist
investigations, al Qaeda had between 200-400 members worldwide in September of 2001. Al Qaeda
now has affiliates in every corner of the world, their
strength measures in the tens of thousands of members, and they control territory in Yemen,
Syria and parts of Africa. In Afghanistan, the Taliban now control as much as 60 percent of the
territory and, with regards to international terrorism, where there was one international
terror group in Afghanistan in 2001, the Pentagon now
reports twenty such groups .
ISIS was formerly al Qaeda in Iraq, an organization that came into existence solely due to
the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the United States. US military
,
intelligence agencies, journalists
and other
international organizations continually report that the reason people join such groups is
not out of ideology or religious devotion, but out of resistance to invasion and occupation,
and in response to the killing of family, friends and neighbors by foreign and government
forces. It is clear the AUMFs have worsened terrorism, not defeated it.
The cost of the AUMFs :
More
than 7,000 US service members have been killed and more than 50,000 wounded in the wars
since 9/11. Of the 2.5 million troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan as many as 20% percent are
afflicted with PTSD, while 20 percent
more may have traumatic brain injury. The Veterans Administration reports Afghan and Iraq
veterans have rates of suicide
4-10 times higher than their civilian peers. This means almost two Afghan and Iraq veterans
are die by suicide every day. Do the math and it is clear more Afghan and Iraq veterans are
dying by suicide than by combat. The cost to the people overseas to whom we have brought these
wars is hard to grasp.
Between one and four million people have been killed, directly and indirectly, by these
wars, while tens of millions more have been wounded or psychologically traumatized, and tens of
millions more made homeless – the cause of the worst refugee crisis since WWII.
Financially, the cost of these wars is immense, at least $6 trillion. Of a vast many statistics that
compose this incomprehensible figure of $6 trillion, is that nearly $1 trillion of it is simply
just interest and debt payments. For any American, Democrat, Republican or independent, these
interest and debt payments alone should cause them to reconsider these wars.
The AUMFs have allowed for wars to be waged without end by the executive branch, wars the
American people, including veterans, say
have not been worth fighting . Congress has the ability and responsibility to help bring
about an end to these wars by ensuring the repeal of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs. Join the debate
on Facebook More articles by: Matthew Hoh
Matthew Hoh is a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For Peace and
World Beyond War. In 2009 he resigned his position with the State Department in Afghanistan in
protest of the escalation of the Afghan War by the Obama Administration. He previously had been
in Iraq with a State Department team and with the U.S. Marines. He is a Senior Fellow with the
Center for International Policy.
"... America was feared by many intellectuals, both in the United States and Britain of the 1940s and 1950s, and their fears were not unwarranted. ..."
"... Big, brawny America – its power establishment – very much was inclined towards dominating the world after WWII. The whole tone of the American press and speeches of major political figures in the period was actually quite frightening. Any highly intelligent, sensitive type would be concerned by it. ..."
"... America wanted a monopoly on nuclear weapons, so that it would be in an unassailable position as it built its imperial apparatus after WWII, the time effectively it "took over" as world imperial power with so many potential competitors flattened. ..."
"... Later, the Pentagon actually planned things like an all-out first strike on the Soviets – it did that more once as well as doing so later for China – so there were indeed plenty of dark intentions in Washington. ..."
"... Spies and ex-spies often put disinformation into their books. Sometimes officials even insist they do so. ..."
The motives for so many Western spies serving the Soviet Union – and in the 1940s and
1950s the Soviets had the best "humint" on earth – were rather idealistic. This was
largely true for the Cambridge Circle in Britain. They were concerned that America was going
to "lord it over" the Russians and everyone else.
America was feared by many intellectuals, both in the United States and Britain of the
1940s and 1950s, and their fears were not unwarranted.
Big, brawny America – its power establishment – very much was inclined
towards dominating the world after WWII. The whole tone of the American press and speeches of
major political figures in the period was actually quite frightening. Any highly intelligent,
sensitive type would be concerned by it.
You certainly did not have to be a communist to feel that way, but being one assisted with
access to important Soviet contacts. They sought you out.
America wanted a monopoly on nuclear weapons, so that it would be in an unassailable
position as it built its imperial apparatus after WWII, the time effectively it "took over"
as world imperial power with so many potential competitors flattened.
It made little secret of its desire to keep such a monopoly, so brilliant people like
Oppenheimer would be well aware of something they might well regard as ominous.
Later, the Pentagon actually planned things like an all-out first strike on the
Soviets – it did that more once as well as doing so later for China – so there
were indeed plenty of dark intentions in Washington.
A hugely important general like MacArthur was unblinkingly ready in 1950 to use atomic
weapons in the Korean War to destroy North Korea's connections with China.
I read several major biographies of Oppenheimer, and there is little to nothing concerning
Soviet intelligence work. When I came across the Sudoplatov book with its straightforward
declaration of Oppenheimer's assistance, it was difficult to know how to weigh the claim.
Spies and ex-spies often put disinformation into their books. Sometimes officials even
insist they do so.
Judging by what is suggested here, if Oppenheimer did help, it was in subtle ways like
letting Klaus Fuchs, a fellow scientist and a rather distinguished one (but a Soviet spy),
look at certain papers. But the scientific community always has some considerable tendency to
share information, a tendency having nothing to do with spying.
In general, it should be understood, that Oppenheimer, despite all his brilliance, was a
rather disturbed man all his life. Quite early on, as just one example, he attempted to
poison someone he did not like. Only pure luck prevented the man's eating a lethally-laced
apple. There were other disturbing behaviors too.
Later they believed that equality of superpower status for the Soviet Union would
contribute to world peace.
How dumb were these "scientists". Everyone knows that once Soviet Union fell, peace and
freedom and democracy are flowering all over the world and United States are not waging any
wars anymore.
"... The "marginal violence" campaign of the "pro-democratic" students has failed to win more support for them. Regular Hongkongers are increasingly willing to take a stand against further provocations: ..."
"... Ten days ago the core of the black clad rioters began to paralyze Hong Kong's traffic during regular workdays. They ransacked nearly every metro stations and barricaded large thoroughfares and tunnels. Schools were closed, businesses and workers were severely harmed. ..."
"... One 70 year old street cleaner was killed when he was hit by a stone thrown by the rioters against civilians who tried to remove a barricade. A 57 year old man was drenched with gasoline and set alight after he verbally disagreed with the rioter's ransacking of a metro station. A policeman was shot with an arrow. ..."
"... Last Sunday the police surrounded the PolyU and let no one leave. Those who wanted out were either arrested or, when under 18, identified and handed to their parents. There were several violent battles when the rioters attempted to break through the police cordon but only a few escaped. ..."
"... Today there are still some 30 rioter holed up in a PolyU building. The police are waiting them out. They said that they had made more than a thousand arrests. The university is ransacked and there was significant battle damage . The rioters again left thousands of Molotov cocktails and other weapons behind. ..."
"... Had China moved troops to Hong Kong, or allowed more force to be used against the protesters, the U.S. would have used that to press its allies to put strong sanctions on China. The protesters' violence was designed to achieve that outcome. The plan was part of the larger U.S. strategy of decoupling from China . ..."
"... Here's a handy piece of advice for non-American nations around the world: Whenever some American starts running its mouth about crusading for Freedom, Democracy, Human Rights, or similar propaganda slogans, get ready to defend your nation. These slogans are merely the American version of the White Man's Burden and Western Civilizing Mission. ..."
"... The U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan have cost American taxpayers $6.4 trillion since they began in 2001. That total is $2 trillion more than all federal government spending during the recently completed fiscal year. The report, from Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University, also finds that more than 801,000 people have died as a direct result of fighting. ..."
"... The Grayzone piece linked above misses the real man behind the lobbying. Andrew Duncan who is a main sponsor of Senator Marco Rubio who is the main promoter on the hill for "activist" and U.S. darling Joshua Wong. Duncan is also one of the producers (financiers) of a film about Wong. ..."
"... In Hong Kong, it looks like university students were enthused to join in. ..."
"... The cognitive dissonance has been overwhelming these past months. "Pro-democracy protesters" who use black bloc tactics of arson and vandalism ..."
"... . Add a dollop of uninformed virtue-signalling from the usual clueless western cheerleaders, and it has been a festival of delusion which somehow ends with the image of a petrol-bomb-wielding black bloc protester as the new face of "freedom" (as seen on twitter). ..."
"... Recall that early media reports said there were 1.7 million protesters "according to the organiser's estimates". Once you remember that, then every time you hear millions is a hint to look up the Police estimate (150k) and estimates of maximum numbers in space available - also 150k or thereabouts. ..."
"... People whose ultimate goal is a comfortable life in a the USA which best meets their needs without necessarily concerning themselves with the needs of everybody else, are incredibly vulnerable once arrested. ..."
"... Usually it takes a few years before a resistance movement becomes too infiltrated to fulfill its objectives (eg the IRA), if the PRC has managed to do this to a movement which initially had so much popular support, within the space of a couple of months, this a massive win. ..."
"... I can only try to imagine what the Chinese police do to the Filipino mercenaries who make up the core of the US sponsored "protesters" with Molotovs when they catch them. ..."
"... The Chinese are not really as smart as we thought, are they, or such riots would have never happened (where were the parents of all these kids used by the US organizers?). But credit goes to the smart Chinese leadership for sitting out all the violence of the US-sponsored "peaceful protests" and thus preventing the organizers from involving the rest of the West in the war on China. The organizers will not give up, will try another day another way. ..."
"... Many young Chinese rioters burned their own jobs with their Molotovs , the typical achievement of the professional ideologues - getting the young people to do damaging things to themselves. ..."
"... Considering the now ridiculously low, and increasingly lower, share of Hong Kong in China's economy, wrecking Hong Kong economy like it just happened was a Pyrrhic move from the protesters. Hurting HK's economy doesn't hurt China much, actually, it might just boost a little bit more mainland China and weaken the independent-minded HK a bit more. ..."
"... It's funny, in a silly kind of way, that the US Congress has decided to "own" the Hong Kong riots by recognising them as 'legitimate'. The protesters shot themselves in the foot when they rejected Carrie Lam's offer to convene a summit at which protest reps and HK Govt reps could negotiate their differences - without pre-conditions. ..."
"... hong kong is just a small piece of the puzzle, a tiny bit of the apple in the big strudel which is the US hurry hurry rush, particularly since obama and clinton, to 'pivot to Asia' and try to 'contain' once again a rising superpower, China. ..."
The U.S. sponsored riots in Hong Kong are mostly over. They were sustained much longer than
we had expected .
The "marginal violence" campaign of the "pro-democratic" students has
failed to win more support for them. Regular Hongkongers are increasingly willing to
take a stand against further provocations:
Demonstrators gathered at about 12.30pm on a bridge outside Exchange Square, which houses
Hong Kong's stock exchange in the city's financial heartland, in another round of lunchtime
protests that have been staged most days over the past two weeks.
Scuffles broke out after a pro-police group of about 50 people showed up about an hour
later, but police arrived soon after to clear the area.
During at least two altercations between some members of each group, an anti-government
contingent yelled "go back to China" at their adversaries, and one of their number kicked a
woman walking towards the smaller group.
Ten days ago the core of the black clad rioters began to paralyze Hong Kong's traffic during
regular workdays. They ransacked nearly every metro stations and barricaded large thoroughfares
and tunnels. Schools were closed, businesses and workers were severely harmed.
One 70 year old street cleaner was killed when he was hit by a stone thrown by the rioters
against civilians who tried to remove a barricade. A 57 year old man was drenched with gasoline
and set alight after he verbally disagreed with the rioter's ransacking of a metro station. A
policeman was shot with an arrow.
The rioters occupied the Chinese University and the Polytechnic University (PolyU) which are
next to large streets and the important Cross-Harbor-Tunnel. Using the universities as logistic
bases and fortifications they managed to keep many roads closed throughout day and night. After
some negotiations with the president of the Chinese University the rioters evacuated from there
while
leaving some 8,000 petrol bombs behind . They concentrated in the PolyU next to the
Cross-Harbor-Tunnel.
Last Sunday the police surrounded the PolyU and let no one leave. Those who wanted out were
either arrested or, when under 18, identified and handed to their parents. There were several
violent battles when the rioters attempted to break through the police cordon but only a few
escaped.
After a few days most of those inside PolyU surrendered to the police.
Today there are still
some 30 rioter holed up in a PolyU building. The police are waiting them out. They said
that they had made more than a thousand arrests. The university is ransacked and there was
significant
battle damage . The rioters again left thousands of Molotov cocktails and other weapons
behind.
The blockage of the city traffic and the increasing damage caused by rioter vandalism has
alienated even those who earlier supported them. As the police now have most of the core
rioters under arrest there is little chance that such violent protests will continue.
On Sunday there will be citywide district council elections in Hong Kong. China had pushed
for the elections to go forward under all circumstances. Riot police will guard all polling
stations.
Weeks ago the "pro-dem" candidates, who supported the rioters, were still poised to win more
seats than they had held before the protests. But they now fear that the general public will
punish them for the mayhem they have caused and will
choose establishment candidates :
Chinese University political scientist Ivan Choy Chi-keung said while the turnout could set
another record, the overall situation was more unpredictable than before.
"The pan-democrats could have won a landslide victory if the elections had been held in
the summer, when the protests erupted," Choy said. "But after the recent clashes at two
universities, undecided voters may be worried about public order and be discouraged from
voting.
He was referring to fiery battles protesters fought with police outside Chinese University
on November 12, followed by more confrontations outside Polytechnic University last week.
"It will be difficult for the camp to win more than half of the seats, as some originally
envisaged," Choy said.
The Hong Kong government has conceded none of the protesters' "five demands". The only thing
that the protesters have won is the passing of
legislation by the U.S. Congress :
The House of Representatives on Wednesday followed the lead of the Senate in overwhelmingly
approving two pieces of legislation: The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which
requires the president to annually review the favourable trading status that the US gives to
Hong Kong, threatening to revoke it and impose penalties against officials if freedoms are
determined to have been quashed; and the Protect Hong Kong Act, which will block the sale of
tear gas and other policing items.
The former, although largely symbolic, could alter Washington's relationship with Hong
Kong and Beijing.
US President Donald Trump has a straightforward choice on legislation passed on to him by
the United States Congress supporting the protests that have engulfed Hong Kong –
approve or veto. Coming amid tough bargaining on his trade war with China, he may be tempted
to make his decision part of the negotiations.
...
But Beijing sees such measures as striking at the heart of Chinese sovereignty. Radical
protesters could be spurred to greater violence. Unspecified countermeasures are promised
should Trump give his approval.
...
But the trade war, violence and legislation have damaged business sentiment in Hong Kong.
Approval or not, pessimism and uncertainty have already been deepened. There can be no
winners.
Trump wants the trade deal with China and will therefore likely
veto the bill :
Speaking on the "Fox & Friends" morning program, the president said that he was balancing
competing priorities in the U.S.-China relationship.
"We have to stand with Hong Kong, but I'm also standing with President Xi [Jinping], he's
a friend of mine. He's an incredible guy, but we have to stand I'd like to see them work it
out, okay?" the president said. "I stand with freedom, I stand with all of the things that I
want to do, but we are also in the process of making one of the largest trade deals in
history. And if we could do that, it would be great."
A veto would only have a temporary impact as the law has passed the House and Senate by veto
proof majorities.
The idea behind the protests and the rioters In Hong Kong was all along to provoke another
Tian An Men incident . This has been quite obvious since the start of the protest. It now
gets publicly acknowledged:
"Some of the protesters seem to have an objective to provoke a military confrontation with
China. They seem to want a Tiananmen Square outcome as success."
Fmr Foreign Sec @Jeremy_Hunt says he is "concerned with the tactics" with some of
#HongKong's protesters
Had China moved troops to Hong Kong, or allowed more force to be used against the
protesters, the U.S. would have used that to press its allies to put strong sanctions on China.
The protesters' violence was designed to achieve that outcome. The plan was part of the larger
U.S. strategy of
decoupling from China .
The plan failed because China was too smart to give the U.S. what it wanted. Now it is Trump
who is under pressure. He needs the trade deal with China because the current trade war is
doing harm to the U.S. economy and endangers his reelection.
Which is probably the real reason why the protests have died down.
Posted by b on November 22, 2019 at 19:02 UTC | Permalink
Here's a handy piece of advice for non-American nations around the world:
Whenever some American starts running its mouth about crusading for Freedom, Democracy,
Human Rights, or similar propaganda slogans, get ready to defend your nation. These slogans are merely the American version of the White Man's Burden and Western
Civilizing Mission.
They are a clear and present threat that the American predator is slouching towards
you.
Interesting that in The Atlantic magazine article B links to (at "That was a mistake"), the
writer Suzanne Sataline followed a rioter all the way through PolyU without saying why she
had to do so. Had she been found by police, she would surely have been arrested and charged
with assisting in terrorist-styled activities.
Next time The Atlantic sends her on an overseas assignment, perhaps somewhere in the
Middle East, Africa or Latin America, she might not be so lucky. Somehow the fate of Marie
Colvin in Syria or Lebanon comes to mind. I would not be surprised though if Sataline has
never heard of Colvin.
The U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan have cost American taxpayers $6.4
trillion since they began in 2001.
That total is $2 trillion more than all federal government spending during the recently
completed fiscal year. The report, from Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University,
also finds that more than 801,000 people have died as a direct result of fighting.
"I think China needs to stop interfering in the internal affairs of the United States because
our treatment of Hong Kong is an internal matter," says @MarcoRubio.
While claiming to fight for "self-determination," Hong Kong opposition leaders are
collaborating with regime-change neoconservatives in Washington to "preserve the US's own
political and economic interests." A new DC lobbying front has become their base of
operations.
The Grayzone piece linked above misses the real man behind the lobbying. Andrew Duncan who
is a main sponsor of Senator Marco Rubio who is the main promoter on the hill for "activist"
and U.S. darling Joshua Wong. Duncan is also
one of the producers (financiers) of a film about Wong.
An election watchdog organization filed a complaint Friday with the Federal Election
Commission over a $500,000 donation to a super political action committee aiding Marco
Rubio from a mystery firm headed by a New York investor.
...
The complaint from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, seeks
an investigation into IGX LLC for masking the donation and to determine whether the
Conservative Solutions PAC was aware of the origins of the contribution. The actual donor,
Andrew Duncan, of Brooklyn, New York, acknowledged to the Associated Press earlier this
month that he had routed his contribution through IGX, a business entity registered last
year in Delaware.
If the violence in the demonstrations is being pushed by the US, as suggested by b (and I
agree), it doesn't matter very much how popular the demos are. Apart from the need not to
look absurdly out of tune.
This is not the first time that I've compared the Hong Kong demos to the Gilets Jaunes in
France. The model is identical. Groups separate from the popular demonstrations commit
violence; no-one knows who they are. Black-masked unknown individuals.
In Hong Kong, it looks like university students were enthused to join in.
In Paris we had it again last Saturday, but it won't last, as most of the Gilets Jaunes
are against the violence. We ran into a group that night; they didn't seem very violent, more
like copycats. Their more violent fellows had just destroyed a war monument.
The French always deny that it could be a foreign intervention, but it's so similar to
what has happened in Hong Kong.
The cognitive dissonance has been overwhelming these past months. "Pro-democracy protesters"
who use black bloc tactics of arson and vandalism.
"Students yearning for freedom" who
organize Molotov cocktail factories. Complaints of excessive "police brutality" when by
objective international standards the police were remarkably constrained. "Hong Kong is a
repressive police state" says Joshua Wong, and yet it is consistently near the top of the
list in the Cato Institute world freedom index.
The protesters are "fighting for democracy"
even though Hong Kong is democratic, and demand a "universal suffrage" that in practice very
few jurisdictions, least of all their beloved US/UK, enjoy. Add a dollop of uninformed
virtue-signalling from the usual clueless western cheerleaders, and it has been a festival of
delusion which somehow ends with the image of a petrol-bomb-wielding black bloc protester as
the new face of "freedom" (as seen on twitter).
I disagree. Gillets Jaunes protest are throughout the country. And GJ are not trying to maintain any
sort of special status like HK protesters. GJ have not been violent. Its those that are trying to discredit the GJ that are
violent.!!
The author (b) writes: "Had China moved troops to Hong Kong, or allowed more force to be used
against the protesters, the U.S. would have used that to press its allies to put strong
sanctions on China."
Ironically, China already moved its troops to the street of Hong Kong this week - to help
to clean the street and repair the damages done by the rioters! I know it is anti-climax, and a big let down for all the Chinese haters like Marco Rubio,
Nancy Pelosi, Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon and many others.
The funny thing is that a little bit of effort and the whole thing becomes apparent even
through the traditional media reports. Recall that early media reports said there were 1.7
million protesters "according to the organiser's estimates". Once you remember that, then
every time you hear millions is a hint to look up the Police estimate (150k) and estimates of
maximum numbers in space available - also 150k or thereabouts.
More stories hint of high protester numbers but don't mention numbers -- so check the
accompanying pictures and videos - we a few thousand (ie well down on ever factual early
numbers) and more recently just a few hundred. Police violence - yet every picture or video
show large numbers of police acting very very peaceably (compare Paris). HK democracy - yet
all the pictures recently have been exclusively of masked blackshirts and if you dig deep
most of the violence has been blackshirt on passers by.
There must be picture editors who are stunned by the reports they run. And obviously the story they are all looking for is the China overreaction that was never
going to happen.
The whole thing runs in parallel with the obvious Ujghur 1 million in prison lie (it would
be equivalent to every male aged 16-29) where the only witnesses to speak to western
journalists have been fed to the press in Istanbul. We all know that Chinese muslims in
Istanbul are going to or already in ISIS. James Le Mesurier doing a little extra press
feeding in his spare time.
in 1997, the year Great Britain consumed her concession of Hong Kong, the colony, now
mainland proper, was counting for 40% of China´s GDP. today hardly 2%. a major factor
of the unrest.
"They seem to want a Tiananmen Square outcome as success."
The Tiananmen Square outcome was–media accounts to the contrary –- that the kids
all left the square safely by 7:20 am, just as all the HK demonstrators are unharmed.
There was a riot led by professional thugs elsewhere in Beijing, in Chang'An
Avenue, but that was a different matter entirely and one with an interesting sequel. The
leader of that riot was exfiltrated to the UK by MI6 and subsequently convicted of robbing
and murdering an elderly Londoner. Sweet.
The decision to crowd hundreds of members of the hard core into a siege situation at PolyU is
more than a mistake it will be catastrophic for a movement which is largely peopled by
members of the bourgeoisie. Although if it follows the form of many other similar resistance efforts it is likely that any
proletariat members participating found themselves on the front lines during confrontation
because they had the balls to be there once push came to a crack on the melon with a baton.
People whose ultimate goal is a comfortable life in a the USA which best meets their needs
without necessarily concerning themselves with the needs of everybody else, are incredibly
vulnerable once arrested.
The best outcome for PRC will be a situation where they have intelligence of what moves
resistance may be planning in the future, combined with some ability to control the
resistance.
Now that the most violent of the protesters have stuffed themselves into one spot in a way
that makes being arrested as they leave the scene they vandalised a reasonable act by police
in the eyes of Hongkong citizens and, for that matter, the world, we can be certain many of
the arrestees will be 'turned' by the police and intelligence services.
As for that essential ingredient of any resistance movement, solidarity, the atlantic
article b linked to denigrates many of those still stuck inside PolyU as "well-meaning,
unlucky naifs who didn't know the geography and didn't have the guile or foresight to
negotiate, bargain, lie, or sneak their way out." that elitist summation of the
courageous is likely to have been engendered in the writer by her sources (prolly introduced
by amerikan 'friends') who did escape.
Smart proletarian fighters abandoned inside PolyU and desperate bourgeois resisters now
facing the disappointment of their families caused by the realisation that their actions have
made their future prospects a lot grimmer will cause many to rationalise that they were
betrayed & led up the garden path by a selfish leadership. In those circs helping the
police is less a betrayal than a reasonable reaction to movement indifference towards them,
they will decide.
Perhaps this was a definite police strategy from the start, utilizing some of the vandals
already arrested at earlier riots. That would mean that some of the escapees were not solely
agents of usuk, some were permitted to escape by the police so they wouldn't have to explain
away yet another arrest to their comrades.
Usually it takes a few years before a resistance movement becomes too infiltrated to
fulfill its objectives (eg the IRA), if the PRC has managed to do this to a movement which
initially had so much popular support, within the space of a couple of months, this a massive
win.
I can only try to imagine what the Chinese police do to the Filipino mercenaries who make up
the core of the US sponsored "protesters" with Molotovs when they catch them. I can certainly
understand why they are desperately trying to escape through the sewer pipes of the
University etc. Even the dumbest Hong-Kongers have finally cottoned it that they are the big
losers of this "democratic revolution".
The Chinese are not really as smart as we thought, are they, or such riots would have
never happened (where were the parents of all these kids used by the US organizers?). But
credit goes to the smart Chinese leadership for sitting out all the violence of the
US-sponsored "peaceful protests" and thus preventing the organizers from involving the rest
of the West in the war on China. The organizers will not give up, will try another day
another way.
But the Chinese authorities must study the Russian experience with
prevention , to avoid the huge economic losses. This is a big but Pyrrhic Chinese victory
over US. The Return on Investment to the riot organizers was not too bad, for couple tens of
million dollars they set back the Hong Kong economy by billions and 5-10 years.
Many young
Chinese rioters burned their own jobs with their Molotovs , the typical achievement of
the professional ideologues - getting the young people to do damaging things to
themselves.
@ Kiza in #39 who wrote
"
This is a big but Pyrrhic Chinese victory over US. The Return on Investment to the riot
organizers was not too bad, for couple tens of million dollars they set back the Hong Kong
economy by billions and 5-10 years. Many young Chinese rioters burned their own jobs with
their Molotovs, the typical achievement of the professional ideologues - getting the young
people to do damaging things to themselves.
"
Thanks for your thoughts.
China has won in two ways, IMO
1. It will speed the reintegration of HK into the China political economy because it further
destroyed the HK of British rule.
2. It is a wake up call to Taiwan about their reliance on and fealty to the West....what
benefits are there and at what cost?
I agree with Psychohistorian. Considering the now ridiculously low, and increasingly lower,
share of Hong Kong in China's economy, wrecking Hong Kong economy like it just happened was a
Pyrrhic move from the protesters. Hurting HK's economy doesn't hurt China much, actually, it
might just boost a little bit more mainland China and weaken the independent-minded HK a bit
more.
As long as the situation ends up returning to normal and things stay quiet afterwards,
I would nearly wonder if some Chinese agents didn't help create that mess in Hong Kong,
because Beijing surely doesn't need a booming HK with special status anymore.
I think your reasoning is far too complex, and I here in Australia, (a Serial Email-er to the
National Broadcaster "The ABC") emailed some months ago my impression the Government in
Beijing would sit on its hands and watch the show across the moat from Shenzhen 35 Klms away,
which it sees as the replacement for Hong Kong?
I don't think the Chinese have forgotten the Opium Wars and the arrogance of the Poms which
occupied Hong Kong from 1841 to 1997 with a short intermission in which the Japs took
residence. So I believe they just watched Hong Kong destroy itself, and didn't care who was
behind it and as a result would be in a far more powerful position when they expose the
British and the US for their part in this exercise.
There never was going to be a Tienanmen event as I predicted several months ago about which
the idiots in the ABC salivated and all sorts of stuff was written about the impending
"Invasion" of the "Democratic" Island where these over indulged brats had their
Hissy-Fit.
Hong Kong never in its History has ever had "Democracy" as it was a servile "Stateless
Outpost" dictated by Buckingham Palace via the "Foreign Office" and the Resident
Governor!
<<<<<<<<<<<< So suck it up!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I feel these terms "pro-dem" and "pan-democratic" in HK politics should not be allowed to
stand uncontested. Sure, the government in mainland China is not democratic (refreshingly, at
least it doesn't pretend to be).
But the Beijing-friendly parties in Hong Kong contest the
local elections under exactly the same (flawed) rules as every other party; so it seems to me
they're all equally democratic. Rather, the pan-dem (pandemic?!) bloc in Hong Kong is
pro-American -- that's the real difference.
It's already long, long ago that I noticed the same sleight of hand in Serbia, where MSM
conflated "democratic" with "pro-EU".
It's funny, in a silly kind of way, that the US Congress has decided to "own" the Hong Kong
riots by recognising them as 'legitimate'. The protesters shot themselves in the foot when
they rejected Carrie Lam's offer to convene a summit at which protest reps and HK Govt reps
could negotiate their differences - without pre-conditions.
She subsequently sounded the plot's death knell the day she announced that her government
won't recognise ANY of the protesters' infantile supplementary demands and declared violent
masked protesters to be illegal and illegitimate.
...
A week or so ago ABC.net.au's reporter in Hong Kong said that the protests were confined to a
very small area representing Hong Kong's "financial heartland." He stated that two blocks
from the Media Circus/protests it's business-as-usual in the rest of Hong Kong.
I haven't heard this claim made by any other MSM 'news' source...
Earlier I thought China was too soft on the rioters but they have played it well. Like Russia
separated moderate rebels from jihadis in Syria, China separated the regime change rioters
from the genuine protestors in Hong Kong.
"Hong Kong is a repressive police state" says Joshua Wong, and yet it is consistently near
the top of the list in the Cato Institute world freedom index.
Posted by: jayc | Nov 22 2019 21:14 utc | 19
In the past, I thought that Hong Kong was dominated by a narrow rich oligarchy with rules
that kept the input from hoi-polloi to the minimum, which meant low taxes for business and
the rich etc. From the point of view of Cato Institute it is the definition of paradise, but
the life in paradise may have its discontent.
Compare with Chile that has exemplary record of
"property rights" since Pinochet era with a constitution that makes it very hard to change,
and yet, the locals are not happy and neither Russian nor Bolivarian agitators were identfied.
Or Colombia, another shiny bastion of democracy, allowing very wide spectrum of
relationship between bosses and workers (assassinations of uppity organizers included). I
would be curious if systematic and widespread murder in the defense of freedom merits
downgrading in Cato Institute world freedom index.
I agree completely with what many other commenters have written, the whole rigmarole was just
an US attempt to instigate a "Colour Revolution".
Modus Operandi fits perfectly with what has been done in many other places.
It is about time the US tastes its own soup....And we dont even have to supply them weapons, they have got plenty
As long as the situation ends up returning to normal and things stay quiet afterwards, I
would nearly wonder if some Chinese agents didn't help create that mess in Hong Kong,
because Beijing surely doesn't need a booming HK with special status anymore.
Yep, and I would think that the Chinese leadership took exactly that calculated risk to
neutralise the HK status and snuff out some fifth column saboteurs. Beats disappearing them
and all that untidy stuff.
As for any comparison with the Gillet Jaunes by other contributors, I do not see that at
all. I agree people are in the streets but the GJ are in solidarity with their fellow
citizens whereas the HK rioters are murderous thugs pissing on their fellows. The role of the
police forces are entirely opposite with the HK police exercising phenomenal constraint. The
HK rioters could learn something if they followed the Maoist history of struggle or even the
history of the west. Losers and creatures of the USUK private finance fascisti.
I wonder if this PolyU seige was meant to be some sort of Odessa style Tienanmen event. I
mean, what can you do with 8000 molotov cocktails without getting roasted in the process?
Common sense prevailed on both sides.
Rioters who left the scene and surrendered just
chickened out. They love a good riot but did not sign up to get themselves identified by
their dental records. It would not even surprise me if there were any snipers out there
waiting to shoot protesters running for their lives fleeing a burning building. MSM would
have a field day.
Peterau@ Posted by: Peter AU1 | Nov 23 2019 7:34 utc | 67
Fair enough chap; I rarely click on linked nyms because they tend to reveal blatant
agendas which are most often a disappointment.
Without getting into a serious debate about it, I have come to the conclusion that when Xi
runs the Zhou Enlai 'completely uninterested in intervention' line which he has been sticking
to since the kick-off off the latest attempt by usuk to take advantage of the people of
Hongkong (despite anyone who can think, asking themselves that if the englanders really cared
that much about their Honkers subjects, WTF didn't they give 'em all brit passports when they
were asked to), he seems least credible.
This is a bloke who runs a line much closer to the old school, 'rich do what rich do',
line that his parents promulgated, than he ever has to either Zhou's or Mao's unapologetic
socialism stance - (although it must be emphasized that there is a vast difference in both
means and goals between the act which wealthy Chinese merchants in China pulled and the
sociopathic, anti-humanist line that modern usury based capitalism spruiks) unfortunately
neither advocate for the humanist, everybody deserves a fair shake of the stick mantra, which
is the only line that can possibly lead to the continuing existence of human beings.
hong kong is just a small piece of the puzzle, a tiny bit of the apple in the big strudel
which is the US hurry hurry rush, particularly since obama and clinton, to 'pivot to Asia'
and try to 'contain' once again a rising superpower, China.
china is pretty clearly the new next up and coming world empire, (anyone really see any
other competition against the US? and don't count on europe to offer much resistance to much
of anything that the US wants/demands either, though there are notable exceptions, like Nord
Stream)
peter lee/chinahand tells me something I didn't yet know, about the china chicken hawks:
"....donnie came into office w/ aspirations as a china dealmaker/korea peacemaker. but his
political weakness forced him to pivot to milsec his best base of support. & the China
hawks took over literally every lever of policy. From Schriver at the Pentagon to Pottinger
at the NSC to the purge of Thornton at State. Now that China hawks run the policy apparatus,
China threat is entrenched as the Beltway consensus and the indispensable political accessory
for Dems & GOP alike, Donnie's outlived his usefulness...."
so while the US has wasted at least $6 trillion since 2001 on a futile and endless series
of north african/middle eastern wars of aggression (and blowing lots of things up, just like
in those hollywood movies), China and built and built and invested its trillions in
productivity. Hong kong is important in the chess game, but really just as a sideshow and
irritant
The problem for the US has been that unlike previous trade competitors, Japan, Korea and
Germany, there is no standing UIS army in China, so they don't have to do as they are told.
Now even though HK has shrunk from 25% of Chinese GDP at handover to less than 3% now, it
remains strategically important, especially as China builds out its capital markets.
As such,
threatening the separate economic status of HK is a pretty powerful stick which the Neo cons
have just given themselves. In my opinion it is no coincidence that what began as a peaceful
protest over the extradition treaty (whipped up by the tycoons and the triads who have most
to lose) turned into an antifa style textbook color revolution immediately after Rubio et al
had launched the bill in the summer. Given that prior to two weeks ago most members of the
House would have struggled to find Hong Kong on a map it was mightily helpful that the
protesters decided to 'spontaneously" switch to telegenic firebombs and tactics to ensure
24/7 news coverage on C(IA)NN in the days leading up to the vote.
The WP and NYT as well as
the FT and Economist all did their bit of course, as did all the breathless 'embedded
reporters'. Result, the US has just awarded itself the right to meddle in the political
affairs of Hong Kong including specifically setting a timetable for universal suffrage on the LegCo. This is technically not a big deal as the people of HK were supposed to get that in
2015, but, (and get this) the so called pro democracy purists refused to accept it unless
they also got the right to both nominate and select the chief executive as well, something
that was not being offered. Bottom line, tycoons have what they want, the State Department
has what it wants and while the Taiwanese would like to keep the pot boiling for their
elections in January, most of the vested interests are done now so the propaganda machine can
move on.
Here are some interesting takes on the origins of the HK protests:
This has an unfortunate title. It has nothing to do with Africans. It is referring to the
fact that there are always locals that benefit from being part of a colony.
http://www.unz.com/ishamir/house-niggers-mutiny/ These are focused on the very human response to a loss in status, as well as the problems
of living in a economic entity controlled by oligarchs.
The spirit of the "One country, two systems" deal is that HK should remain capitalist
until 2047. It is possible for a capitalist society to also be a dictatorship (Fascist Italy,
Third Reich, the military dictatorships of Latin America of the 1950s-1980s, Thailand etc.
etc.), so, even if Beijing deprives the people of HK (which is a city, not a country) of
directly choosing its leadership, the 1C2S social contract remains intact.
Capitalism doesn't equal democracy.
--//--
Posted by: Ts'yew T'aw-Loh | Nov 23 2019 14:01 utc | 80
Well, if that's the brilliant conclusion this "Zhōu Shùrén" came after
carefully analysing 3,000+ years of Chinese History, then he's wrong.
Lu Xun grew up (and died) during the "Century of Shame". That period was exceptional, not
the rule, in Chinese history. In that context, I understand his stance. But that's definitely
not what China is today.
Sure you could teach his works to the people of HK, but they could as easily interpret his
opus on the reverse: that the HK are the new "Chinese", and thus must liberate themselves
from the "other" -- Beijing. So, I don't know what lessons, beyond the specific historical
period the writer lived in, you could take in modern geopolitics.
If you want not only to understand the social world, but to change it in a scientific,
rational way, Marxism is the only way to go nowadays.
..As for any comparison with the Gillet Jaunes by other contributors, I do not see that at
all. I agree people are in the streets but the GJ are in solidarity with their fellow
citizens whereas the HK rioters are murderous thugs pissing on their fellows. The role of the
police forces are entirely opposite with the HK police exercising phenomenal constraint.
Uncle Tungsten @67
I agree there aren't many who view the GJ in that way, but one of them, a regular visitor
with good info from the Middle East, is so invested with Macron, and always has been, that he
refuses to see that the GJ are exactly what they seem to be- a genuine grassroots provincial
movement with conservative attitudes. By which I mean that they want to conserve the welfare
state features that have made France a relatively civilised society. Macron, on the other
hand, is a gung ho market reformer who can't wait to smash the unions, privatise the
railways, restore the profit motive to the healthcare system and generally make the rich
happy. Macron is a groupy of and an eager collaborator with the oligarchs. In fact he is, as
the behaviour of his police forces and the relentless force used against demonstrators
confirms, an authoritarian in the French tradition which gave rise to fascism and a conscious
inheritor of the mantle of Petain and those who collaborated with the Nazis to preserve
'order and hierarchy.' The last French election was a contest between two schools of fascist
and Macron won.
claims UAW
and Israel behind Iraq protests Humm Is there a central "start a protest, riot or
invasion task group somewhere .. Where are these fake or overtaken protest and coup-de-riot
plots planned? Where is the play book? Who funds them and why? Is it possible these RIPOFFs
are private interest planned, state funded and private contractor executed? Who writes the
reports about them..
Who studies them (what schools what people in those schools teaches this kind of stuff). How
can copies of reports about riots, protests and invasions that were planned by outsider third
parties be obtained.. ??
Studying reported results by those who planned the protest or the riot, invasion or
whatever would or could reveal the methods and give strong indicators about the true source
of each new riot, invasion, protest or false flag [RIPOFF]
Where do they start.. (seems like the young people mostly..) but I do not know
How long does it take to get a riot or protest organized ?
How much money does it take to get a riot or protest organized?
How many experts does it take to get the riot or protest organized?
did the same people that planned the riots in Hong Kong also plan the riots or protests in
Iraq and Lebanon/
More about China calling out the US for meddling from Reuters this morning
"
BEIJING (Reuters) - The United States is the world's biggest source of instability and its
politicians are going around the world baselessly smearing China, the Chinese government's
top diplomat said on Saturday in a stinging attack at a G20 meeting in Japan.
Meeting Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Blok on the sidelines of a G20 foreign ministers
meeting in the Japanese city of Nagoya, Chinese State Councillor Wang Yi did not hold back in
his criticism of the United States.
"The United States is broadly engaged in unilateralism and protectionism, and is damaging
multilateralism and the multilateral trading system. It has already become the world's
biggest destabilizing factor," China's Foreign Ministry cited Wang as saying.
The United States has, for political purposes, used the machine of state to suppress
legitimate Chinese businesses and has groundlessly laid charges against them, which is an act
of bullying, he added.
"Certain U.S. politicians have smeared China everywhere in the world, but have not
produced any evidence."
The United States has also used its domestic law to "crudely interfere" in China's
internal affairs, trying to damage "one country, two systems" and Hong Kong's stability and
prosperity, he added.
"It Was A Coup. Period": Tulsi Gabbard Slams US 'Interference' In Bolivia
Democratic Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has come out swinging on Bolivia, following an initial period of being silent
and reflection on the issue after leftist President Evo Morales was forced to step down on November 10 over growing anger at election
irregularities, whereupon he was given political asylum in Mexico.
"What happened in Bolivia is a coup. Period," Gabbard wrote on Twitter in the early hours of Friday while warning against any
US interference.
"The United States and other countries should not be interfering in the Bolivian people's pursuit of self-determination and right
to choose their own government, " she argued.
Washington had been quick to endorse and recognize opposition senator Jeanine Anez as 'interim president' after she controversially
declared herself such without a senatorial quorum or public vote, and as Morales' Movement for Socialism was said to be barred from
the senate building when it happened.
Gabbard's statement, which again sets her far apart from a large field of establishment and centrist candidates on foreign policy
issues , comes a few days after Bernie Sanders was the first to condemn the events which led to Evo's ouster as a military coup.
"When the military intervened and asked President Evo Morales to leave, in my view, that's called a coup," Sanders tweeted Monday,
while linking to a video showing Bolivian security forces dispersing an indigenous pro-Morales protest using a volley of tear gas
canisters.
Meanwhile, in a new interview with Russian media this week, Evo Morales said the right-leaning Organization of American States
(OAS), which had initially cited "clear manipulations" in the voting surrounding his controversial re-election to a fourth term,
played a prime role in deposing him, and that ultimately Bolivia's huge reserves of lithium were being eyed by the United States
and its right-wing Latin American allies .
"The OAS made a decision and its report is not based on a technical report, but on a political decision,"
Evo told RT in the interview from Mexico.
Addressing his country's most valued natural resource, he said, "In Bolivia we could define the price of lithium for the world...Now
I have realized that some industrialized countries do not want competition" -- while implying Washington had helped engineer his
downfall.
Most estimates put the impoverished country's Lithium supply at about 60% of the world's known reserves .
The White House in the days after Evo's ouster
had called it a "significant moment for democracy in the Western Hemisphere"; however, the now exiled former president described
it as "the sneakiest, most nefarious coup in history."
* * *
Watch key moments of the translated RT interview below:
From the point of view of election promise of detente with Russia, Trump clearly betrayed them. He was a neocon puppet
from the beginning to the end, His policy was not that different from hypothetical policy of Hillary administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact, she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with zero resistance from either party. ..."
"... It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony, and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is neither ..."
"... Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so spectacularly is beyond depressing. ..."
"... The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise "Orwellian" media environment. ..."
"... The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a puppet. ..."
"... The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from the US. ..."
"... Failing impeachment, from the attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment. ..."
"... Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later. ..."
Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact,
she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with
zero resistance from either party.
CNN has published a fascinatingly manipulative and falsehood-laden article titled "
25 times Trump
was soft on Russia ," in which a lot of strained effort is poured into building the case
that the U.S. president is suspiciously loyal to the nation against which he has spent his
administration escalating dangerous new cold war aggressions.
The items within the CNN article consist mostly of times in which Trump said some words or
failed to say other words; "Trump has repeatedly praised Putin," "Trump refused to say Putin is
a killer," "Trump denied that Russia interfered in 2016," "Trump made light of Russian
hacking," etc. It also includes the
completely false but oft-repeated narrative
that "Trump's team softened the GOP platform on Ukraine", as well as the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly
invalidated claim that "Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has
focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS."
CNN's 25 items are made up almost entirely of narrative and words; Trump said a nice thing
about Putin, Trump said offending things to NATO allies, Trump thought about visiting Putin in
Russia, etc. In contrast, the 25 items which I am about to list do not consist of narrative at
all, but rather the actual movement of actual concrete objects which can easily lead to an
altercation from which there may be no re-emerging. These items show that when you ignore the
words and narrative spin and look at what this administration has actually been doing ,
it's clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that, far from being "soft" on
Russia, Trump has actually been consistently reckless in the one area where a US president must
absolutely always maintain a steady hand. And he's been doing so with zero resistance from
either party.
It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with
Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that
neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in
the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony,
and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is
neither. Observe:
1. Implementing a Nuclear Posture Review with a more aggressive stance
toward Russia
Last year Trump's Department of Defense rolled out a Nuclear Posture Review which
CNN itself called "its toughest line yet against Russia's resurgent nuclear forces."
"In its newly released Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department has focused much of
its multibillion nuclear effort on an updated nuclear deterrence focused on Russia," CNN
reported last year.
This revision of nuclear policy includes the new implementation of
"low-yield" nuclear weapons , which, because they are designed to be more "usable" than
conventional nuclear ordinances,
have been called "the most dangerous weapon ever" by critics of this insane policy. These
weapons, which can remove some of the inhibitions that mutually assured destruction would
normally give military commanders, have already been rolled off the assembly line.
2.
Arming Ukraine
Lost in the gibberish about Trump temporarily withholding military aide to supposedly
pressure a Ukrainian government who was never even aware of being
pressured is the fact that arming Ukraine against Russia is an entirely new policy that was
introduced by
the Trump administration in the first place. Even the Obama administration, which was
plenty hawkish toward Russia in its own right, refused to implement this extremely provocative escalation
against Moscow. It was not until Obama was replaced with the worst Putin puppet of all time
that this policy was put in place.
3. Bombing Syria
Another escalation Trump took against Russia which Obama wasn't hawkish enough to also do
was bombing the Syrian government, a longtime ally of Moscow. These airstrikes in April 2017 and
April 2018 were perpetrated in retaliation for chemical weapons use allegations that there
is
no legitimate reason to trust at this point.
4. Staging coup attempts in
Venezuela
Venezuela, another Russian ally, has been the subject of relentless coup attempts
from the Trump administration which persist unsuccessfully to this very day .
Trump's attempts to topple the Venezuelan government have been so violent and aggressive that
the starvation sanctions which he has implemented are believed to have
killed tens of thousands of Venezuelan civilians .
"Signals coming from certain capitals indicating the possibility of external military
interference look particularly disquieting," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. "We warn
against such reckless actions, which threaten catastrophic consequences."
5. Withdrawing
from the INF treaty
For a president who's "soft" on Russia, Trump has sure been eager to keep postures between
the two nations extremely aggressive in nature. This administration has withdrawn from the 1987
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, prompting UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to
declare that
"the world lost an invaluable brake on nuclear war." It appears entirely possible that Trump
will continue to adhere to the John Bolton school of nuclear weapons treaties until they all
lie in tatters, with the administration strongly criticizing the crucial New START
Treaty which expires in early 2021.
Some particularly demented Russiagaters try to argue that Trump withdrawing from these
treaties benefits Russia in some way. These people either (A) believe that treaties only go one
way, (B) believe that a nation with an economy the size of South
Korea can compete with the U.S. in an arms race, (C) believe that Russians are immune to
nuclear radiation, or (D) all of the above. Withdrawing from these treaties benefits no one but
the military-industrial complex.
6. Ending the Open Skies Treaty
"The Trump administration has taken steps toward leaving a nearly three-decade-old agreement
designed to reduce the risk of war between Russia and the West by allowing both sides to
conduct reconnaissance flights over one another's territories," The Wall Street Journalreported last month , adding that the
administration has alleged that "Russia has interfered with American monitoring flights while
using its missions to gather intelligence in the US."
Again, if you subscribe to the bizarre belief that withdrawing from this treaty benefits
Russia, please think harder. Or ask the Russians themselves how they feel about it:
"US plans to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty lower the threshold for the use of nuclear
weapons and multiply the risks for the whole world, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai
Patrushev said," Sputnik
reports .
"All this negatively affects the predictability of the military-strategic situation and
lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, which drastically increases the risks for
the whole humanity," Patrushev said.
"In general, it is becoming apparent that Washington intends to use its technological
leadership in order to maintain strategic dominance in the information space by actually
pursuing a policy of imposing its conditions on states that are lagging behind in digital
development," he added.
7. Selling Patriot missiles to Poland
"Poland signed the largest arms procurement deal in its history on Wednesday, agreeing with
the United States to buy Raytheon Co's Patriot missile defense system for $4.75 billion in a
major step to modernize its forces against a bolder Russia," Reuters
reported last year .
8. Occupying Syrian oil fields
The Trump administration has been open about
the fact that it is not only maintaining a military presence in Syria to control the
nation's oil, but that it is doing so in order to deprive the
nation's government of that financial resource. Syria's ally Russia strongly opposes this,
accusing the Trump administration of nothing short of "international state banditry".
"In a statement, Russia's defense ministry said Washington had no mandate under
international or US law to increase its military presence in Syria and said its plan was not
motivated by genuine security concerns in the region," Reutersreported last
month.
"Therefore Washington's current actions – capturing and maintaining military control
over oil fields in eastern Syria – is, simply put, international state banditry,"
Russia's defense ministry said.
9. Killing Russians in Syria
Reports have placed Russian casualties anywhere between a handful and
hundreds , but whatever the exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian
citizens as part of the Trump administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last
year.
exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian citizens as part of the Trump
administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last year.
10. Tanks in
Estonia
Within weeks of taking office,
Trump was already sending Abrams battle tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and other
military hardware right up to Russia's border as part of a NATO operation.
"Atlantic Resolve is a demonstration of continued US commitment to collective security
through a series of actions designed to reassure NATO allies and partners of America's
dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in light of the Russian intervention
in Ukraine," the Defense Department said in a statement.
11. War ships in the Black
Sea
12. Sanctions
Trump approved new sanctions against Russia on August 2017. CNN reports the following:
"US President Donald Trump approved fresh sanctions on Russia Wednesday after Congress
showed overwhelming bipartisan support for the new measures," CNN reported at
the time . "Congress passed the bill last week in response to Russia's interference in the
2016 US election, as well as its human rights violations, annexation of Crimea and military
operations in eastern Ukraine. The bill's passage drew ire from Moscow -- which responded by
stripping 755 staff members and two properties from US missions in the country -- all but
crushing any hope for the reset in US-Russian relations that Trump and Russian President
Vladimir Putin had called for."
"A full-fledged trade war has been declared on Russia," said Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in
response.
13. More sanctions
"The United States imposed sanctions on five Russian individuals on Wednesday, including the
leader of the Republic of Chechnya, for alleged human rights abuses and involvement in criminal
conspiracies, a sign that the Trump administration is ratcheting up pressure on Russia," The
New York Timesreported in December
2017 .
14. Still more sanctions
"Trump just hit Russian oligarchs with the most aggressive sanctions yet," reads
a Vice headline from April of last year.
"The sanctions target seven oligarchs and 12 companies under their ownership or control, 17
senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its
subsidiary, a Russian bank," Vice reports. "While the move is aimed, in part, at Russia's role
in the U.S. 2016 election, senior U.S. government officials also stressed that the new measures
seek to penalize Russia's recent bout of international troublemaking more broadly, including
its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and military activity in eastern
Ukraine."
"The Trump administration on Thursday imposed new sanctions on a dozen individuals and
entities in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea," The Hill
reported in November of last year. "The group includes a company linked to Bank Rossiya and
Russian businessman Yuri Kovalchuk and others accused of operating in Crimea, which the U.S.
says Russia seized illegally in 2014."
17. Oh hey, more sanctions
"Today, the United States continues to take action in response to Russian attempts to
influence US democratic processes by imposing sanctions on four entities and seven individuals
associated with the Internet Research Agency and its financier, Yevgeniy Prigozhin. This action
increases pressure on Prigozhin by targeting his luxury assets, including three aircraft and a
vessel," reads
a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from September of this year.
18.
Secondary sanctions
Secondary
sanctions are economic sanctions in which a third party is punished for breaching the
primary sanctions of the sanctioning body. The U.S. has leveled sanctions against both
China and
Turkey for
purchasing Russian S-400 air defense missiles, and it is
threatening to do so to India as well.
19. Forcing Russian media to register as
foreign agents
Both RT and
Sputnik have been forced to register as "foreign agents" by the Trump administration. This
classification forced the outlets to post a disclaimer on content, to report their activities
and funding sources to the Department of Justice twice a year, and could arguably place an unrealistic
burden on all their social media activities as it submits to DOJ micromanagement.
20.
Throwing out Russian diplomats
The Trump administration joined some 20 other nations in casting out scores of
Russian diplomats as an immediate response to the Skripal poisoning incident in the
U.K.
21. Training Polish and Latvian fighters "to resist Russian aggression"
"US Army Special Forces soldiers completed the first irregular and unconventional warfare
training iteration for members of the Polish Territorial Defense Forces and Latvian
Zemmessardze as a part of the Ridge Runner program in West Virginia, according to service
officials," Army Times
reported this past July.
"U.S. special operations forces have been training more with allies from the Baltic states
and other Eastern European nations in the wake of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian
Federation in 2014," Army Times writes. "A low-level conflict continues to simmer in
eastern Ukraine's Donbas region between Russian-backed separatists and government forces to
this day. The conflict spurred the Baltics into action, as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia
embraced the concepts of total defense and unconventional warfare, combining active-duty,
national guard and reserve-styled forces to each take on different missions to resist Russian
aggression and even occupation."
22. Refusal to recognize Crimea as part of the Russian
Federation
Key point: Trump agreed to send more forces to Poland to defend it against Russia.
What Happened: U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to deploy approximately 1,000 additional
U.S. troops to Poland during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda on the sidelines of
the U.N. General Assembly in New York City, Reuters reported Sept. 23.
Why It Matters: The deal, which formalizes the United States' commitment to protecting
Poland from Russia, provides a diplomatic victory to Duda and his governing Law and Justice
ahead of November elections. The additional U.S. troops will likely prompt a reactive
military buildup from Moscow in places like neighboring Kaliningrad and, potentially,
Belarus.
24. Withdrawing from the Iran deal
Russia has been consistently opposed to Trump's destruction of the JCPOA. In a statement
after Trump killed the deal, the Russian Foreign Ministry said
it was "deeply disappointed by the decision of US President Donald Trump to unilaterally refuse
to carry out commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action", adding that this
administration's actions were "trampling on the norms of international law".
25.
Attacking Russian gas interests
Trump has been threatening Germany with sanctions and troop withdrawal if it continues to
support a gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2.
"Echoing previous threats about German support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump said
he's looking at sanctions to block the project he's warned would leave Berlin 'captive' to
Moscow," Bloomberg
reports . "The US also hopes to export its own liquefied natural gas to Germany."
"We're protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of
dollars in money from Germany" for its gas, Trump told the press.
I could have kept going, but that's my 25. The only reason anyone still believes Trump is
anything other than insanely hawkish toward Russia is because it doesn't benefit anyone's
partisanship or profit margins to call it like it really is. The facts are right here as plain
as can be, but there's a difference between facts and narrative. If they wanted to, the
political/media class could very easily use the facts I just laid out to weave the narrative
that this president is imperiling us all with dangerous new cold war provocations, but that's
how different narrative is from fact; there's almost no connection. Instead they use a light
sprinkling of fact to weave a narrative that has very little to do with reality. And meanwhile
the insane escalations continue.
In a cold war, it only takes one miscommunication or one defective piece of equipment to set
off a chain of events that can obliterate all life on earth. The more things escalate, the
greater the probability of that happening. We're rolling the dice on Armageddon every single
day, and with every escalation the number we need to beat gets a bit harder.
We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the U.S. and Russia
should stop and establish detente immediately. The fact that outlets like CNN would rather
diddle made-up Russiagate narratives than point to this obvious fact with truthful reporting is
in and of itself sufficient to discredit them all forever.
Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's, in which millions of Ukrainians were shot, raped, beaten and starved out, while
"ethnic Russians" moved in and took over. Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away, he simply
transferred the administration thereof to the Soviet Republic of "the" Ukraine (a term
Ukranians have always decried as a way to make it seem as if Ukraine had always been a part
of the USSR). The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put
them there. That argument is the same one Hitler used as his excuse to annex Poland, and Polk
used to annex Texas. It's true Russia's self-interest (and well-founded fears of foreign
betrayal) have been largely ignored, but it's also disingenuous to ignore their murderous
20th-century imperialism. Just because we're not the good guys doesn't mean they are
either.
anon4d2 , November 20, 2019 at 18:12
Perhaps you forgot that the USSR actions in eastern Europe after WWII were in direct
response to the murder of 20 million Russians in WWII by the Nazi forces, attacking through E
Europe just as Napoleon had done. All US casualties in all its wars are less than five
percent of that, and 95 percent of Nazi division-months were spent in the USSR. On that front
they had nearly all of the casualties and did nearly all of the fighting. No wonder they were
a bit uncomfortable afterward with leaving open the favorite attack route of the west. What
would the US have done if a hundred times its WWII casualties were caused by two invasions
through (for example) Mexico? Would we have left the door open? Such circumstances cannot be
ignored. Starting one's version of history after the world's greatest provocation cannot be
said to clarify the history.
Toby McCrossin , November 21, 2019 at 02:56
"Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's"
Nice alternative facts. Ukraine was one of the original constituent republics of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922!
" Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away"
Huh? Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783. You know you can check this stuff yourself
using Google, right?
"The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put them
there."
Right, so the Soviets put the Russians in Crimea in 1783, 139 years before it was in
existence. I guess the Soviets mastered time travel.
I know reading's hard and all but you might wanna try it some time.
Jon Anderholm , November 20, 2019 at 02:22
An essential article by Caitlin .. Thanks so much .
Sam F , November 19, 2019 at 22:56
Another excellent article by Caitlin Johnstone.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 19:59
Given the laws of cause and effect, our nuclear missiles might as well be considered to be
pointed straight at ourselves. Like shooting at one's image in a mirror or joining in a
mutual suicide pact. Sheer insanity.
ranney , November 19, 2019 at 17:26
WONDERFUL article, Caitlin. You are so right! I agree with Alan Ross, you deserve an award
for this, and I hope this gets passed around for a wide readership.
Antonio Costa , November 19, 2019 at 15:14
When elected POTUS you are elected, no matter the campaign rhetoric, to take the reins of
the imperial empire.
Trump did that willingly, in fact to a fault given his "big mouth". He's no more nor less
dangerous than his predecessors. And like them, his is a mass of rhetorical contradictions.
Policy is all that should really matters. It is our only means of identifying some truth.
Trump knows what most here know regarding US invasions and assassinations. What he thinks
about any leader is anyone's guess (including his). For him it's all deal making as if it's
his private Trump Towers Enterprises. But in the end he's playing the chief gangsta role of
his like. (If you've ever listened to Sinatra at the Sands (the full concert), you'll hear
how Trump has mimicked the popular gangsta singer to the last "love ya baby ").
The media is not free. It is an arm of the national security state, with occasional
outages of truth telling, all the more to tell the big lies. It's purpose is to pacify and
repress any rebellions. Since the end of Vietnam it has succeeded. And here we are, never
knowing truth from lie. (I think of Obama as deceitful to the max, while Trump just tells
transparent lies so you don't know when he's actually telling a profound truth.)
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State."
-- Joseph Goebbels (was a German Nazi politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi
Germany from 1933 to 1945)
Mark Thomason , November 19, 2019 at 14:22
We can go one step further than to say that Trump was reckless toward Russia, "with zero
resistance from either party."
Both parties demanded it. They approved it as "Presidential" whenever he did it, and
attacked him for any effort to be less reckless. They'd done the same to Obama, but Trump
proved weaker and more malleable.
Jeff Harrison , November 19, 2019 at 14:14
Verra nice peroration. I have two objections. One, I doubt that the people of the Donbass
are Russian backed in the same sense that the "moderate" rebel scum in Syria is US backed
with weapons, intelligence, and training but the people of the Donbass are ethnic Russians.
With a steady stream of anti-Russian legislation coming out of Kiev, I imagine they're
looking for an out. Putin is trying to get it for them without starting a war with Ukraine.
The real question that Washington has yet to address is what are they going to do if the
people of Ukraine notice that since they signed on to the neo-liberal dictates of Washington
and Brussels they've become the poorest nation in Europe. I know that there are a number of
Ukrainians who think wistfully of the days when they were part of Mother Russia. But you
never know, the CIA is notorious for its subversion and the Ukrainians might prove to be
spectacularly stupid. After all, they weren't doing badly until they let the US and EU foment
a coup for them.
And, two, "We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the
U.S. and Russia should stop and establish detente immediately." While I agree with the
sentiment, don't bring Russia into this. Everything that Russia has done has been a reaction
to what is usually an American violation of international law. Putin has been very clear that
he wants to back off this cold war but he has also been very clear that we started it and
we're going to have to be the ones to start backing off.
David Hamilton , November 20, 2019 at 02:11
I absolutely agree with your number two reaction to Caitlin's suggestion that Russia and
the U.S. should stop it and establish detente immediately. Everything Russia's leadership is
doing is a reaction to American imperial dares to defy their law violations. They exhibit
extreme and principled restraint to the Orwellian madness emanating from this place.
I think it is important that this be understood. Russians have been used and abused once
before by American largesse in the form of Clinton's puppet's assistance in the rape of the
former Soviet Union by the Harvard-sponsored project. That was the one during the nineties
that privatized national industries and created a dozen neoliberal oligarchs. The cost was a
huge increase in death rate that lowered life expectancy into the 50's from 70 years I think.
Cynical foreign policy, isn't it?
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:16
Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official
control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so
spectacularly is beyond depressing.
Many thanks to Caitlin Johnstone, Consortium News and all the others pushing back against
this system of perception management. I keep repeating it because it rings true. It's like
waking up in the Twilight Zone.
John Neal Spangler , November 19, 2019 at 12:44
She is right. CNN. MSNBC, NYT, and Wapo totally irresponsible. Fox not much better. So
many anti-Russian bigots in US
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:37
Thank you Caitlin. The neoliberals and neocons both desperately want a greatly intensified
cold war with Russia, but want it started by Trump ( because he is personally an
outsider).
This gives the Democrat and Republican donors contracts for the war machine. Ever since
Clinton administration moved NATO to the Russian border, the process has worked for the
oligarchs who control all US policies, foreign and domestic.
The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and
Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise
"Orwellian" media environment.
For anyone who has been waiting for the publication of reporter Udo Ulfkotte's best
selling book (in Germany), a book based on his experience as a well respected journalist
whose reporting was completely compromised by Western intelligence services and business
interests, it is finally available in an English language edition. The English language
edition has been quite obviously suppressed for the last several years and the book was
published in 9 languages BEFORE this English edition became available. It is a book that is
well worth reading to better understand why literally NOTHING written by MSM should be
believed at face value, ever:
See:
I would urge anyone interested in buying this book to get it directly from the publisher-
Progressive Press. Amazon and other mega monopolies are a big part of our problems. Take the
time to make a few extra clicks and boycott Jeff Bezos.
Noah Way , November 19, 2019 at 10:58
The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which
includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a
puppet. Nobel Peace Prize winner oBOMBa bombed 7 countries, overthrew Ukraine's democratic
government, invaded Syria, armed terrorists as proxy armies, authorized drone assassinations,
and bombed a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
The last president to resist the military complex? JFK
Caitlin Johnstone's list points to growing tensions with Russia. Failure of the political
and media establishment to see this makes the task of avoiding world war three all the more
difficult. In the West the end of the Cold War was seen as the dawn of peace. But the Cold
War was the peace, a post-world war environment: we are now in a pre-world war
environment.
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:45
The Democratic Party members have not " missed" anything that Trump has done. They will
not impeach him on those grounds, because they too are guilty of complicity in those war
crimes.
As Pelosi said regarding impeaching GWB for the torture program or invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan " it's off the table". Because she was complicit.
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:23
Russia did not illegally annex Crimea. A referendum was held and 90% of the voters voted
to rejoin Russia. Most people in Crimea are ethnic Russians and speak Russian. They were
understandably scared to death of what their fate would be under the rule of the fascists the
US installed in Ukraine.
And frankly, Russia had every right to protect its only warm water port in Sevastopol that
would have been taken over by NATO if Crimea had remained part of Ukraine. Too many Americans
have been indoctrinated in the belief that Russia has no legitimate self interest to
defend.
michael , November 19, 2019 at 18:22
In addition to what Lois Gagnon points out, you have to realize that the re-patriation of
Crimea to Russia in March 2014 was the direct result of Obama, Biden, Nuland et al
overthrowing the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, in the Maidan coup
in February, 2014, and replacing him with a neoNAZI regime. Russian speech was outlawed,
which has been the language of the majority of Crimea since Catherine the Great.
The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the
Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita
median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from
the US.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 20:25
Crimeans have an absolute right of self-determination as a fundamental human right under
established international law, just as the Kosovars did when we were supporting the breakup
of Serbia when Clinton was president. Ethnic Russians voted in an overwhelming majority in a
free and fair plebiscite to rejoin Russia, which they had been part of for centuries, because
the neo-Nazi US coup government allied with Azov battalions in Kyiv terrified them and they
wanted nothing further to do with them. Crimea had every right to decide. Russia did nothing
to interfere, not a bullet was fired. Russia's troops were already stationed in Crimea by
treaty and did not invade. Russia warned NATO against the Kosovo precedent that it would come
back to bite them someday, and it was ignored. NATO is unhappy because it was denied an
illegitimate geostrategic advantage they thought they would gain. Crimea is happy, so what's
the problem?
DH Fabian , November 19, 2019 at 21:08
"We," who? Regardless, the issues you raise can't be understood outside of their
historical context, and Americans never try to understand the world within that historical
context.
anon , November 19, 2019 at 22:54
Crimea was part of Russia for roughly 200 years before the USSR premier (Kruschev?) gave
it to Ukraine, although its inhabitants were nearly all of Russian heritage and language,
like E Ukraine. So not surprising that they wanted to go back to being part of Russia.
dean 1000 , November 20, 2019 at 19:26
Couldn't agree more Lois Gagnon. Washington did an illegal coup. Russia did a legal
annexation.
btw – The Autonomous Republic of Sevastopol on SW Crimea is no longer the only
ice-free port of the Russian Navy. Kaliningrad (on the Baltic sea) has been part of Russia
since 1945. Its deep ice-free harbor is the home port of Russia's Baltic fleet according to
the 2012 world book DVD.
Good one Caitlin. Again
jdd , November 19, 2019 at 09:51
This article properly puts to rest the absurd notion that President Trump is a "tool of
Putin, " and correctly notes that it has created a potentially disastrous situation.
However,
let's put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the Anglo/American led forces arrayed
against Trump from the moment he announced his intention to run on a platform of "getting
along" with Russia and joining with Putin to defeat ISIS.
Failing impeachment, from the
attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of
Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort
to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of
the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the
current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish
testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment.
Nick , November 19, 2019 at 16:50
Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until
after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later.
Alan Ross , November 19, 2019 at 09:47
This article alone deserves an award for public service. And in a more sensibly run world
Caitlin Johnstone would have gotten at least fifty such awards for past articles.
Never has the world seen so many simultaneous outbreaks of mass protests against various
governments and regimes.
Currently there is public unrest simmering in Chile, Bolivia, Colombia, Hong Kong, France,
Lebanon, Iraq and Iran.
But which ones are authentic grassroots movements , and which ones have been hijacked by
outside powers or are being co-opted by the United States Department of Regime Change?
The following segment explores some of the dynamics at play, and what signs to look out for
in various global uprisings...
"... Is it not possible to have an article on Ukraine without all the N@ZI references? Might have been a non-biased article, but many of us will never know... ..."
"... They certainly aren't National Socialists, and arguably not nationalists. Nationalists are open to what is best for "the nation" regardless of where it lies on the political spectrum. Since they don't consider the people in Donbas to be part of "the nation", that means, if anything, they are useful idiots of Zionism. ..."
In my July 25th article " Zelenskii's dilemma " I pointed
out the fundamental asymmetry of the Ukrainian power configuration following Zelenskii's crushing victory over Poroshenko: while
a vast majority of the Ukrainian people clearly voted to stop the war and restore some kind of peace to the Ukraine, the real levers
of power in the post-Maidan Banderastan are all held by all sorts of very powerful, if also small, minority groups including:
The various "oligarchs" (Kolomoiskii, Akhmetov, etc.) and/or mobsters Arsen Avakov's internal security forces including some "legalized"
Nazi death squads The various non-official Nazi deathsquads (Parubii) The various western intelligence agencies who run various groups
inside the Ukraine The various western financial/political sponsors who run various groups inside the Ukraine The so-called "Sorosites"
(соросята) i.e. Soros and Soros-like sponsored political figures The many folks who want to milk the Ukraine down to the last drop
of Ukrainian blood and then run
These various groups all acted in unison, at least originally, during and after the Euromaidan. This has now dramatically changed
and these groups are now all fighting each other. This is what always happens when things begin to turn south and the remaining loot
shrinks with every passing day,
Whether Zelenskii ever had a chance to use the strong mandate he received from the people to take the real power back from these
groups or not is now a moot point: It did not happen and the first weeks of Zelenskii's presidency clearly showed that Zelenskii
was, indeed, in " free fall ": instead of becoming
a "Ukrainian Putin" Zelenskii became a "Ukrainian Trump" – a weak and, frankly, clueless leader, completely outside his normal element,
whose only "policy" towards all the various extremist minorities was to try to appease them, then appease them some more, and then
even more than that. As a result, a lot of Ukrainians are already speaking about "Ze" being little more than a "Poroshenko 2.0".
More importantly, pretty much everybody is frustrated and even angry at Zelenskii whose popularity is steadily declining.
... ... ...
Another major problem for Zelenskii are two competing narratives: the Ukronazi one and, shall we say, the "Russian" one. I have
outlined the Ukronazi one just above and now I will mention the competing Russian one which goes something like this:
The Euromaidan was a completely illegal violent coup against the democratically elected President of the Ukraine, whose legitimacy
nobody contested, least of all the countries which served as mediators between Poroshenko and the rioters and who betrayed their
word in less than 24 hours (a kind of a record for western politicians and promises of support!).
... ... ...
Some of the threats made by these Ukronazis are dead serious and the only person who, as of now, kinda can keep the Ukrainian
version of the Rwandan " Interahamwe " under control would probably be Arsen Avakov, but since he himself is a hardcore
Nazi nutcase, his attitude is ambiguous and unpredictable. He probably has more firepower than anybody else, but he was a pure "
Porokhobot " (Poroshenko-robot) who, in many ways, controlled Poroshenko more than Poroshenko controlled him. The best move
for Zelenskii would be to arrest the whole lot of them overnight (Poroshenko himself, but also Avakov, Parubii, Iarosh, Farion, Liashko,
Tiagnibok, etc.) and place a man he totally trusts as Minister of the Interior. Next, Zelenskii should either travel to Donetsk or,
at least, meet with the leaders of the LDNR and work with them to implement the Minsk Agreements. That would alienate the Ukronazis
for sure, but it would give Zelenskii a lot of popular support.
Needless to say, that is not going to happen. While Zelenskii's puppet master Kolomoiskii would love to stick this entire gang
in jail and replace them with his own men, it is an open secret that powerful interest groups in the US have told Zelenskii "don't
you dare touch them". Which is fine, except that this also means "don't you dare change their political course either".
...are going through the famous Kübler-Ross stages of griefs: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance: currently,
most of them are zig-zagging between bargaining and depression; acceptance is still far beyond their – very near – horizon. Except
that Zelenskii has nothing left to bargain with.
Thank you for a rational article about Ukraine. The sad thing is that it might take years to reach the "acceptance" phase.
It would take someone like Hitler to clean out the stables. Arrest is not a viable option as they will bribe their way out.
These people need to be put down like rabid dogs. That is the only way to put an end to their mischief and it would be a deterrent
to their replacements.
Personally, I suspect that the Ukraine is being deliberately depopulated to make way for waves of "refugees" from Israel. Another
country that is still in the "denial" phase. Its military and political leaders know full-well that their strategic aims have
all failed. The boot is now firmly on the other foot.
I suspect that Crimea was their preferred destination and hence the massive non-stop propaganda against Russia on that score.
To give you an idea of how ridiculous it has all become, the UK no longer accepts medical degrees awarded by universities in Crimea.
Is it not possible to have an article on Ukraine without all the N@ZI references? Might have been a non-biased article, but
many of us will never know...
I suspect that the Ukraine is being deliberately depopulated to make way for waves of "refugees" from Israel.
You got that right – what it's all about is building a New Khazaria. But they're neither giving up on their Greater Israel
project between the two rivers, and hence more wars, conflict and chaos to drive out the native Arabs from the Middle East.
I suspect that Crimea was their preferred destination and hence the massive non-stop propaganda against Russia on that score.
@AWMThey certainly aren't National Socialists, and arguably not nationalists. Nationalists are open to what is best for
"the nation" regardless of where it lies on the political spectrum. Since they don't consider the people in Donbas to be part
of "the nation", that means, if anything, they are useful idiots of Zionism.
@bob sykes Kolomoiskii is the real hidden owner/controller of the company that bribed the Bidens. He has a finger in lots
of pies. His pretense to leaning towards Russia is his way to try to get the Americans to stop attempts to get at the many millions
that he stole from his own Ukrainians bank – fake loans to his companies.
Of course, the Russians understand all of that. This theater is aimed at the Americans – not at the Russians.
For the Ukrainian state to break up, there need to be some forces interested in a break-up. You won't find such forces inside
the Ukraine.
What is Ukrainian South-East? In pure political terms, "South-East" is a bunch of oligarchs, who are all integrated into Ukrainian
system, and have no reason to seek independence from Kiev, especially if it means getting slapped with Western sanctions.
Even the Kremlin doesn't show much interest in breaking up the Ukraine, so why the hell would it break up?
It's worth pointing out that the so-called "Novorossia movement" started out as Akhmetov's project to win concessions from
new Kiev regime. It was then quickly hijacked by Strelkov, a man who actually wanted to break up the Ukraine, and it is because
of Strelkov, that Donetsk and Lugansk are now de-facto independent. Without similar figures to lead secessionist movements elsewhere
in the Ukraine, this break-up that Saker keeps talking about will never happen.
His ratings must be sky-high, because otherwise I cannot imagine why Fox would allow him to continue to use their network as
a medium to broadcast common sense.
Of course the Dems are making it so easy.
Schiff, Kent, Taylor, Yanovitch -- what a pathetic, nauseating crew.
@Alfred I had the same thoughts. Zelenskii should show a similar coffin with the text
"This one is still empty" and then start rounding up the terrorists. He finally has a good
excuse.
Thank you Saker and Unz for the very interesting article .
I wonder what has been the role of Germany in the Ukrainian disaster . ...I have the
feeling , just the suspicion , that they contributed to the ucranian disaster out of their
genetic Drang nach Osten Nordic greed , is that right ?
Anyway since the Ukrainian disaster the cohesion of the EU is going going down . Germany
which was gifted with the german reunification , is less and less trusted spetially in south
Europe , and even less in the EU far west , in England which is going out of the EU .
Most of the people in the EU would like to keep collaborating with the US , of course ,
but also with Russia and with the rest of the world . Most of the people in the UE are scared
of the dark forces operating in Ukraine trying to provoke a war with Russia .
The stupid name-calling like the term "ukronazi" makes this article look like a rant like
North Korean communiques or the ravings of some Arab despot's propagandist. It is not better
than calling "The Saker" a "Moskal", "Sovok" or "Putler's stooge" etc. He should keep this
lingo to directly "debating" "Ukronazis" on twitter or youtube commentst etc. not for an
article that is supposed to be a serious analysis.
I understand that it is hard for a Russian nationalist to accept that the majority of
Ukrainians don't want to belong to their dream Russkiy Mir, they were seduced by the West,
which is more attractive with all its failings, because mostly of simple materialistic
reasons. Ukrainians happily go to EU countries that now allow them in as guest workers. The
fact, like it or not that majority of them chose the West over Russkiy Mir despite being very
close to Russians in culture, language, history etc. He is still in the first stage of grief
it seems.
All in all, Ukrainians are probably way above average in most human characteristics. The
area of Ukraine is by planetary standards one of the best available: arable land, great
rivers, Black see, pleasant and liveable.
But it is 2019 and life in Ukraine is barely better than it was 25-50 years ago,
population has actually dropped from its peak in early 1990's. Millions of Ukrainians live
abroad (I know some of them) and have – to be polite – at best an ambivalent
attitude towards their homeland. Almost all of them prefer to be somewhere else, even to
become someone else.
Now why is that? A normal society would have enough introspection to discuss this, to look
for answers. Throwing a temper-tantrum on a big square in Kiev every few years is not looking
for a solution. That is escapism, Orange-this, Maidan-that, 'Russians bad', 'we are going
West', 'golden toilets', and always 'Stalin did it'.
I don't agree with the facile name-calling that sees Nazis everywhere and exaggerates
throw-away symbolism. But Ukraine has not been functioning and it can't go like this much
longer. Not because it will collapse, it won't, but because during an era of general
prosperity Ukraine can't be a unstable exception (oh, I get it, they are better than Moldova,
good for them.)
Rebellions against geography are doomed. Projecting one's personal frustrations on
external enemies (Kremlin!) has never worked. Ukraine needs rationality – accepting
that they will not be in EU, that attempting to join Nato would destroy Ukraine, and that
they can't beat Russia in a war. And following advise of half-mad and half-ignorant
well-wishers from Washington or Brussels is a road to ruin. Nulands, Bidens and Tusks will
never live in Ukraine, they really deeply don't care about it. They have no skin in that
game, it is just entertainment for them.
Or alternatively you can pray that Russia collapses – good luck waiting for
that.
There is not much 'drang' left in Germany, so I think this is mostly fingers on the map
post dinner empty talk.
in 1945 the jewery asked Stalin to give Crimea to the jews , Stalin refused
Crimea is a jewel, but has one big problem: not enough water. But that's also true about
Izrael, maybe there is a deep genetic memory of coming out of a desert environment.
During WWII, Germany actually established settlements in Crimea. Think about it: there is
a massive war, you have like 1-2 years, short on transport and resources, and you start
sending settlers to Crimea – that's how much drang-nach-osten types wanted it.
And the Turks, etc This must be driving them absolutely nuts.
The mexicans are able to make fun of themselves , that`s a good thing . They have a joke
which aplies also to Ukraina ( and other countries )
The mexicans say : when God created Mexico He gave Mexico everything ; land , mountains ,
plains , tropical forests , deserts , two oceans , agriculture , gold , silver , oil . then
God saw how beautiful and perfect Mexico was and He though that He should also give something
bad to the country to prevent the sin of pride , and then he populated Mexico with pure
pendejos ,( idiots ) .
@AWM "Is it not possible to have an article on Ukraine without all the N@ZI references?
If you want a decent analysis of current events in the Ukraine, which is what The Saker
provides, I guess you'll just have to put up with his terminology.
The world won't miss a thing if Curmudgeon or AWM goes off in a huff, to sit on his toilet
and read the "one joke per dump" volume lodged on the tank and stops reading The Saker's very
thorough analysis as a protest action!
@Anon My experience is that Ukrainians individually are far from being pendejos .
But they are unable to act as a group or as a nation. (Well, they 'act', but it mostly
somehow fails.)
Maybe it is the relative shallow and heterogenous history of Ukraine. Or – and this
is what I have observed – a fundamental inner disloyalty to the Ukraine as a homeland.
When one observes the assorted Porkys, Timoshenkas, Yanuks, the oligarchs, but also the
crowds on Maidan, I get a sense that they are all about to leave Ukraine or are thinking
about leaving. Societies can't be built with one foot always at the airport, or in an old car
in a 5-km column waiting on the border of Poland. Or Russia.
Another good article – thanks – Yep, the US/EU NWO is not going to let their
"West Ukraine Isis" battalions and intel gang lose their funding , arms trafficking ops, or
terrorist reputation. This is a no win situation in Ukraine and the West knows it –
Even if NovoRossiya gets some independence, the Ukraine Isis will/can reek havoc and murder
for a long time along the border. The modern Cheka { Ukraine Isis } has been modified for the
security of the new Farmland owners – Monsanto, Cargill, DuPont and the rest of the
Globalist Corporations and their ports close to Odessa.
One point of contention since it wasn't made clear in this article – Novorussia
consists of Luhansk and Donetsk, but not Kharkov. While Kharkov has more Russians than most
other provinces of Ukraine do, it does not have a plurality like Donetsk and Luhansk.
All of Ukraine's doomsayers have been crying about Ukraine's demise for the lat 25
years, yet the fact is that it' s getting stronger and stronger every year,
USA diaspora keeps on delivering.
Shoutout to quarter/half Poles USA citizens LARPing as Ukrainian patriots in the
comments.
@Felix KeverichEven the Kremlin doesn't show much interest in breaking up the
Ukraine, so why the hell would it break up?
Follow the money my friend!
Some provinces send much more money to Kiev then they get back in "services". So long as
more loans from the EU, The USA and the IMF were forthcoming, that situation was not too bad.
Now, the spigot is being closed. Hence the sad face of Mr Z when he met Trump in
Washington.
This means that the provinces that are losing most from this internal transfer are going
to be strongly motivated to stop sending money to Kiev. Kiev will lose control and that will
fragment the country.
The Donbass was a big contributor to Kiev and got little in return – that was a
major reason for their dissatisfaction. Everyone there could see that Kiev sent the money
west and kept much for itself.
If the French provinces were to stop sending money to Paris, the Yellow movement would be
totally unnecessary.
@awry About 2.5 million Ukrainians have "emigrated" (you could also say "fled") to the RF
since 2014.
Per Bloomberg most of the outflow not to Russia has been to countries of Eastern Europe, esp.
Poland.
@AP "Ukraine was historically a marsh of Poland for centuries before it was a historical
marsh of Russia"
That was mostly Galicia and Volhynia. It is a tiny part of today's the Ukraine. In these
areas, the Poles were landowners, the Jews their rent/tax collectors and the peasants were
Ukrainian-speaking Slavs. Now, they are planning to sell the best farmland to "foreigners"
(i.e. Jews) and the Slavs will become serfs once again.
@Mr. Hack The problem with your argument is that the 'war' in the east was entirely
predicable. So was Crimea leaving and joining Russia. The people in charge in Kiev –
presumably with 3-digit IQ – would think about it, plan for it, etc They obviously
didn't. Instead they provided a needed catalyst to make it worse by voting in February 2014
to ban Russian language in official use, and the idiotic attacks on Russian speakers like in
Odessa, that were neither prevented nor punished. The other side – in this case Russia
and Russian speakers living in Donbas and Crimea – rationally took care of their own
interests. Post-Maidan Kiev handed them all they could on a silver platter while busying
themselves with silly slogans and videos of golden saunas.
Russia is actually one of the least susceptible countries to an economic collapse in the
world – it is largely self-sufficient, has enormous resources that others will always
buy, and has a very minimal percentage of its economy that deals with foreign trade. What
they are susceptible to is the loss of value for their currency – and that has already
largely happened since 2014. When it comes to energy, the countries that are low-cost
producers are least impacted – who you should worry about are the numerous higher-cost
producers like US shale, coal miners, or LNG gas that have huge upfront fixed costs and
built-in high transportation costs. Russia and Saudis will be fine.
Back to the drawing board, what exactly is the plan in Kiev? If they know that having a
war costs them investments, how do they end that war? It is highly unlikely that it would end
with a victorious Kiev army conquering Donetsk (or Crimea). So what's the plan?
It's amazing how spectacularly inept all these interventions over the last decades have been.
Iraq, Lybia, Syria, Yemen, the coup in Turkey but also Ukraine.
And I know that in the ME, the Isrseli policy, as iterated by Michael Orin is to let all
sides bleed each other to death, and that part has been relatively successful until
recently.
But in Ukraine, they were going to consolidate their control over the country from Kiev
and force-march the Russians out of Sevastopol. And that part didn't work at all, except as
leverage to impose sanctions on Russia; but the long term goal of using Ukraine to overthrow
Putin is now stuck in the Donbas.
My point being that it is the great fortune of the world that these criminal nitwits and
fools in the State (War) Department and their helpers in the "intelligence" community are so
arrogant and incompetent.
@Anon Merkel (who herself was studying in Donetsk for few months) definitely has a hand
in ze EuroUkrainian mess.
Afterall she met with Right Sector representatives one dayt before the final, bloody part
of the coup started. And that meeting of "reporting on delivering at our commitments and
asking Merkel about her delivery of her commitments" both with the next day start of "offence
at the government" was announced by Right Sector yet another day before, 16 February
2014.
However i have reservations about Merkel representing German peoples, especially some
alleged "genetical" trend of them to invade eastwards.
It was public, that Merkel's everything including public phone is spied upon by USA
"intelligence community", and Merkel considered it normal and proper.
So it is clearly stated what she considers her allegiance and whom she considers her
employees. Not citizens of Germany.
"Each of these countries is as inorganic and disunited as Ukraine, or worse, made up as they
are of various racial and ethnic groups who don't identify with each other."
I am dubious about this suggestion. But more importantly, Ukraine or the Ukraine has had a
violent revolution about every ten years. You simply cannot develop a stable government,
economy or safe social system if you you overturn the the government via violence every ten
tears.
That is the key differences and essential to any successful government, and more so for a
democracy that holds as innate belief, a tolerance for difference even competing ideas held
by its population. It is as if the only the only we are exporting is revolution as solution
to differences.
@Mr. Hack > Russia has never been able to lead with a carrot, but only with a stick.
Russia offered dozen billions of loans and years ahead orders for Ukrainian industries.
Those that Yatzenyuk begged to be re-started when he destroyed democratic government of
Ukraine.
EuroMaidan tried to stole the carrot from Ukraine, and while it succeeded in stealing what
Ukraine already picked, about 10%, the rest was kept safe of usurpers' reach, and so they
started looting Ukrainian economy instead. Hrivna fallen 3-fold – more than ruble.
> Positive outside influence into Ukraine's internal development in the form of
investments and economic development
EuroMaidan usurpers stopped real and ongoing investments from China and Russia by looting
what investments arrived into Ukraine already. But at least they got $5 billions of
investments from Nulland.
I like how "economic development" is listed as "outside influence". I thought that any
state or nation would claim being capable of their own economic development, but for
EuroMaidania it is quoted as some miracle that can only be given from outside.
> foreign investments being delayed until the war in the east is resolved
And that was why EuroMaidan usurpers invaded Donbass and started the war. To preclude
investments from the West after they stopped investments form China and Russia.
> create a chaotic situations
EuroMaidan proponent blaming chaotic situations. Precious. "Bees against honey"
movement.
> Since the West changed the dynamics of the energy game around the world
Did it? how exactly? By making Ukrainian pipelines liability no one wants to touch with a
pole?
> It's learned to better feed itself, and that's about it
But that is exactly what Ukraine knew how to do, and what EuroMaidania can not do.
While Russia is gaining this experience – EuroMaidania was and is destroying it, for
the sake of being "not like Russia". Way to go!
> One more jolt like in 2014
You mean the one when rouble fallen two-fold and hrivna three-fold?
Guess if the West could do it again – they would. But they can't.
> where are Russia's automobiles, televisions, medical equipment, computers,
pharmaceuticals etc; within the world markeplace?
Russia is not packaging consumer goods. Russia is sending technologies, which others pack
as consumer goods.
Ukraine could become one of those salesmen, packing Russian technologies into pretty wraps
and selling around.
EuroMaidan usurpers feared that and prevented that.
EuroMaidan even destroyed Antonov company, which was one of just 4 companies in the world
capable of building large airframes. Ensuring AirBus+Boeing+Tupolev/Ilyushin would have one
competitor less. And as Antonov was el-cheapo vendor with strategy based on dumping –
it was especially dangerous for Russian company, of the three. Thank you, guys, for removing
this riddance out of Russian pathway. You did great service!
@Hapalong Cassidy Beckow> the crowds on Maidan, I get a sense that they are all about
to leave Ukraine or are thinking about leaving.
You do not need to "have a feeling"
The promise of "visa-less living and working in EU" was exactly what EuroMaidan crowd
paraded as their aim and treasure, somehow magically warranted by the "Deep Association" that
Yatzenyuk and Poroshenko later dragged feet for months, trying to delay signing of this
economy suicide pact.
They were very public and honest about it. They claimed Yanukovich was somehow putting
ball and chain on them all by giving the second thought to orders from Brussels. Aid in
leaving Ukraine was the price they sold Ukrainian economy for. Ther were never shy in 2014 to
speak about it.
Hapalong Cassidy> While Kharkov has more Russians than most other provinces of Ukraine
do, it does not have a plurality like Donetsk and Luhansk.
There is a point. Kharkov in North-East and Odessa in South-West were trading cities,
routing the official and smuggled goods streams and hosting the largest foreign goods
markets. This clearly had impact upon mindsets of citizens and even more of cities
elites.
People in Kharkov went to the streets right after the coup commited and without support
they were at least equally numerous to all-Ukraine sponsored gathering of EuroMaidan #2.
But their leaders did not seek for independence, Kharkov city mayor Kernes openly shook hands
with Andrey "White Fuhrer" Byletsky and expressed his care about his (not Kharkov citizens)
safety in the night of Rymarskaya street murders, 2014 March 14th AFAIR.
People in Kharkov went against nazi from westernmost Ukraine regions (and even policemen)
and stormed those out of their district government building. Who else did then?
They had a huge impulse, but they also focused the most efforts from usurpers to deflect
and dissipate it. And little free resources the usurpers had back then.
Month later, in April, Kharkov was exhausted and pacified. But other regions of Ukraine were
overlooked those two months.
However, it was that first month which gave people in Donetsk and Lugansk both time and
examples to understand what is really going on (it was almost unbelievable that something
like that can actually happen in XXI century in Europe, wasn't it?) and learn their Ukrainian
elites are prostituting them, and then find some other leaders which would have enough skin
in the game to not sell them out.
You may rightly say Kharkov citizens did not resist for long. But have to admit the
resistance of Donbass and Lugansk was in significant part based upon time Kharkov bought them
in March and April 2014, and upon self-exposing that Kharkov's fleeting but furious
resistance forced EuroMaidan usurpers into.
"All, repeat, ALL the steps taken to sever crucial economic and cultural links between Russia
and the Ukraine were decided upon by Ukrainian leaders, never by Russia who only replied
symmetrically when needed.
Even with international sanctions directed at her, Russia successfully survived both the
severance of ties with the Ukraine and the AngloZionist attempts at hurting the Russian
economy. In contrast, severing economic ties with Russia was a death-sentence for the
Ukrainian economy which has now become completely deindustrialized."
No wonder saker deletes posts to his website containing info like these:
The top trade partner of *the* Ukraine is Russia. So his thesis is a little 'shoddy math'
ish. The links have not been severed as he pretends.
" the severance of ties with Russia " The Ukraine is more tied to Russia than any other
country, by recent trade volumes (as well as in traditional culture). Saker doesn't like
these facts to muddy up his thesis.
This means that the provinces that are losing most from this internal transfer are going
to be strongly motivated to stop sending money to Kiev.
You don't get it. Ukraine's South-Eastern provinces are inanimate objects . They
have no consciousness, no self-interest or free will. They don't decide anything.
Donbass never decided to break away from the Ukraine. That choice was made for it by
Strelkov, when he and his men occupied Slovyansk and began an armed confrontation.
@Anon The Ukraine used to export something like $20 billion worth of goods to Russia
annually. It's now closer to $5 billion, and Ukrainians are a lot poorer as a result.
@Felix Keverich The point is saker maintains it is completely de-industrialized. It is
'dead'. Total trade of >40 B all partners, isn't dead by a long shot. See what he says?
'Death sentence'. Far from it. A decrease isn't death. No doubt there has been a plunge. But
saker is over stating it. Russia is still a center of gravity for the Ukraine.
I am so sick and tired of hearing the term nazi this and nazi that when referring to the
situation in the Ukraine. The term nazi died in 1945 and should be left dead and buried. It
was a stupid word created by the British during the war because of their inability to
pronounce the German name for the NSDAP. The British and American media have a fetish for the
word and will call any "right-wing" movement "nazi" if given any opportunity. This shows
their total lack of creativity to come up with anything new and their deep obsession with
anything to do with Hitler which borders on religious worship. I say get rid of the usage of
the word on this site unless one is referring to the actual NSDAP party that existed until
1945.
@AWM You are an absurd cretin. Of course referring to current Ukraine as being controlled
by Nazi's is 100% accurate.
Ukronazis and Hitler Nazi's have many alignments with eachother:
1. Bizarre, fundamentally paganist usage of ahistoric/religious images from a millenia ago
as national symbols that should have had no connection to national identity of either state
in the 1930's or now ( swastika and Tryzub) even the UPA flag has more sense about it to any
"Ukrainian " state
2. Mass arrests and persecution of political opponents I'm fairly sure that Ukronazi's
have arrested ( and maybe even killed) far more people in their first 5 years, that the
Nazi's ever did in their 6 year, pre-war time in charge
3. Mass killing and torture of the people of the Donbass- now take on board this is with
Russia fighting the war of fighting the war that they are not even there and Russia/DNR/LNR
basically conducting huge talks with west/Banderastan and making huge concessions every time
they have been in a a hugely advantageous position or made a big breakthrough in the war.
Even Nazi's wouldn't have used such a lousy pretext for instigating war against the people of
Donbass – although at least the Nazi's could govern their state ukrops can't govern f
** k all without it descending into farce
4. Above average representation of freaks and/or highly camp idiots Goebbels, Goering and
Ribbentrop versus Avakov, "Yats" the yid, Poroshenko, Turchynov and many more – a
lamentable contest
5. Neither would have got off the ground without Anglo-American funding
Just because the Nazi's in the 30's and 40's were more competent does not take away the
similarities
Structural bottlenecks and slow reform progress lead to anemic growth in Ukraine
The rate of economic growth in Ukraine remains too low to reduce poverty and reach income
levels of neighboring European countries. Following the 16 percent cumulative contraction of
the economy in 2014-15, economic growth has recovered to 2.4 percent in 2016-17 and 3.3
percent in 2018. Faster economic growth for a sustained period of time is needed to reduce
poverty which remains above pre-crisis levels. More needs to be done if Ukraine's aspiration
is to become a high-income country and to close the income gap with advanced economies. Today
Ukraine is far from that goal. In terms of GDP-per-capita, Ukraine remains one of the poorest
countries in the region -- at levels of Moldova, Armenia and Georgia. Ukraine's GDP per
capita in purchasing power parity terms is about three times lower than in Poland, despite
having similar income levels in 1990.
At the growth rate of recent years, it will take Ukraine more than 50 years to reach income
levels of today's Poland. If Ukraine's productivity growth and investment rate remains at the
low levels observed in recent years, overt the medium-term the growth rate will converge to
almost zero per annum -- productivity growth is offset by declining contribution of labor as
Ukraine undergoes the demographic transition. Boosting total factor productivity growth to 3
percent per year and investment to 30 percent of GDP would result in sustained growth of
about 4 percent per year over the medium- to long-term. Given declining total population this
translates to GDP per capita growth of about 4.5 percent per year. These trends will not
improve on their own, they can happen only through the implementation of appropriate policies
that boost productivity and increase the returns on factors of production.
1. It does not split trade to industries. Hi-tech big added value and lo-tech slim added
value – falls into the same "total"
2. It only shows one snapshot, not YoY dynamics.
3. The column "Export Product" shows exactly the same value – literally, 100% –
for ALL the countries, all the rows. I wonder what we should deduce from it
2012 – $19,8B
2013 – $17,6B – the start of the coup
2014 – $15B – the coup won power but did not entrenched yet and did not had time
yet to enforce its ideals
2015 – $9.8B – the work started
2016 – $4.8B – 80% of 2012 exports are cut off, EuroMaidan means business
2017 – $3.6B – 82% of 2013 exports are cut off, coming to plateau ?
2018 – $3,9B – a slight rebound, plateau reached
@bob sykes I'd dismiss this, as Putin is apparently doing. Kolomoisky is looking who else
would provide money that he can steal. He, Porky, and others of their ilk stole Western loans
so blatantly, that even US-controlled IMF is balking at giving Ukraine more money. So,
Kolomoisky hopes that Russia will, so that he has more to steal. I hope that his hopes are in
vain.
The entire Ukraine farce can be explained as a simple project
Khazaria 2.0.
I met a Jew (American) in Ukraine over 20 years ago.
He told me the plan Jews were returning to historically Jewish cities in Ukraine by the
hundreds buying up for kopecki on the Gryvnia anything they could.
Media outlets, banks, factories, beachfront land, farmland, apartments, etc.
The idea? Make Ukraine the next EU Country, and benefit from the huge potential of
Ukraine.
I agreed with him at the time, that Ukraine had huge potential, I was there as an engineer
working for German companies but his lust for what could be 'looted' disgusted me.
This is a standard CIA scenario, used in Sarajevo and Deraa before Kiev. So, Ukrainians
bought an old stale show, swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
But the Georgian snipers brought in 2014 to Kiev by Saakashvili started dying in
suspicious circumstances, so those who are still alive rushed to Belarus and started deposing
their testimony. They implicated a lot of Ukies, including former speaker Parubii, former MP
Pashinsky, etc. It was well known (to those who did not keep their eyes wide shut for
political reasons) that the sniper fire in 2014 on Maidan was from the building controlled by
the coup leaders, who later tried to blame Yanuk for it. That's why post-coup Ukrainian
authorities got rid of the trees on Maidan: bullet holes in those trees indicated where the
fire was coming from. But this recent testimony implicated particular people, who (surprise,
surprise!) happened to be among the coup leaders.
@Truth3 The truth is that you are absolutely right. 'Ukrainians' boasted that they are
the 'Khazars' since Mazeppa and Orlyk of the 'Constitution of Bendery' fame, while parading a
distaste for 'the adherents of deceitful Judaism' and noisy adherence to Orthodoxy.
Look at this entry of the http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com and see if
anything changed:
"After Mazepa's death, on 16 April 1710, Orlyk was elected hetman, with the backing of
Charles XII of Sweden, in Bendery. The chief author of the Constitution of Bendery, he
pursued policies aimed at liberating Ukraine from Russian rule. He gained the support of the
Zaporozhian Host, concluded a treaty with Charles XII* in May 1710, and sought to make the
Ukrainian question a matter of international concern by continuing Mazepa's attempts at
establishing an anti-Russian coalition ** . Orlyk signed a treaty with the Crimean khan
Devlet-Girei in February 1711, negotiated with the Ottoman Porte, which formally recognized
his authority over Right-Bank Ukraine and the Zaporizhia in 1712, conducted talks with the
Don Cossack participants in Kondratii Bulavin's revolt who had fled to the Kuban, and even
contacted the Kazan Tatars and the Bashkirs. In 1711–14 he led Cossack campaigns
against the Russians in Right-Bank Ukraine. Despite initial victories they ultimately failed,
because of Turkish vacillation and because the pillaging, raping, and taking of many civilian
captives by Orlyk's Crimean Tatar allies resulted in the loss of public and military support
on the Right Bank".
Nowhere does the 'first "European" constitution' speak about 'ukrainians', but of 'Exercitu
Zaporoviensi genteque Rossiaca" (Zaporozhian Host and the Ruthenian people) living in
"Parva Rossia"/Little Russia.
* putting Ukraine under the protection of the King of Sweden.
** an plot of 'European' and Islamic powers with an intense 'Masonic-Kabbalistic' coloring
(and Jewish financial support) against Russian 'Tsardom' and 'Patriarchal' Church. 'Ukraine'
was an anti-Russian project from the get go. Brzezinski's quip: "Ukraine, a new and important
space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an
independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a
Eurasian empire" reflects only the revival of the old plan in new circumstances.
@Seraphim " Brzezinski's quip: "Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian
chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot "
Old Zbieg was as lunatic as Pole can be and as cunning as Jew can be (was he?).
The Poles were so desiring to became Slavic superpower, and on the height of their might
in 15th century – they could become. They occupied Russian lands – oh, that
mythical Kievan Rus oppressed by Moscow for centuries. And they even occupied Moscow for few
months – more than unified Europe managed to do under both Napoleon and Hitler
combined! Polska was really stronk then.
.well, they ate themselves from inside and sold their statehood to all the foreign bidders
while boasting about Polish pride. Like ukropeans do today. They lost their strength, they
lost their eastern colony, and for a while they even lost Poland itself.
They could never move over it.
Zbieg – coming from Galicia, the last shrink of Poland-occupied lands – had
this specifically Polish resentment burning in him. And he managed to make USA fight Polish
fights. Managed to use American incompetence in history and geography to sell them that idea
that the Ukraine – the borderlands between Poland and Russia have "geopolitical"
importance. For USA, no less. Wow!
Okay, USA invested at very least $5B into buying Ukrainian warchiefs, and we don't know
how much more was added by EU and Germany. They now have this "geopolitical asset" as Zbieg
urged them to do. What are they gonna do with it now? How do they gonna make Ukrainians pay
back the money they spent? Old Zbieg preached about the world "paid by Russia to fight
against Russia". This is that very "Russia, occupy the Ukraine finally, we are tired of
fruitless waiting!" whining they repeat again and again. But if this won't work, just like it
did not work yet, how do they think to make Ukrainians pay for it? Or whom else? I wonder
@Arioch "> My point is the ukraine isn't dead. It isn't dying.
In which quality? As a swath of land inhabited by few peasants here and there – it
surely will remain.
As an economically vibrant country, one of UN founders, with economy larger than German and
closing on France – what it used to be – it is dead.
As a laws-bound polity it is dead since 2014, though was dying even before.
As STEM engineering and education stronghold it was in USSR – it is dead.
As one in just four in the whole world producers of really large airplanes – it is
dead.
As one of the few ICBM producers – it is dead, know-how sold to Saudi.
As one of the few turbojet engines producers – it is dead, know-how sold to China.
As one of the reliable and well known tanks and APCs producer – it is dead, even
USA-occupied Iraq does not buy this trash.
As the country, living from the geographic rent, just providing roads and hotels for cargo
traffic, it is almost dead. Bridges are collapsing, roads – neither for cars nor
railways – are not maintained."
Bravado, anyone can see.
Dead countries don't produce electricity. Real economists look at things like this. Not
just at industrial reorganization. That is the only point you have. Industrial
reorganization. Not death of industry.
@Anon BTW, most *live* countries of the world do not produce ICBMs, nor jet engines, nor
APCs etc, nor super heavy aircraft. The military industrial complex remnants from the SU are
not industries that most of the planet's countries have. Specialties. Those can not be
measures of whether a country is living or dead. Use some real measures.
@Anon Actually a good point. Mass cargo logistics and energy generation. Indeed.
The thing here is, that as of now the Ukraine is enjoying its privileged position from
times Ukrainians ruled USSR (IOW, after Stalin died in 1953 and of few coup leaders Khruschev
became top dog in 1956). The Ukraine is reeking with then top-tech nuclear power plants, that
very few of other USSR republics had (one in Ignalina in Baltics, one in Armenia, and dozen
in Russia, that is all. Ukraine was #2 with huge gap).
There is a switch, though. What do you do with electricity you produced?
And, what kind of electricity you produce?
The second question is tangential to "green energy" fad.
The generation is split to "base" generation, which covers required minimum and should be
steadily generating around the clock, and "maneuvering" generation which can be turned on and
off in a matter of few minutes, to accommodate with daytime traits, like "people awoke in
between 7-8am, took shower, cooked breakfast and departed to school/work".
In general, base generation is predictable, thus does not need big reserves, can use economy
of scales and cut costs. Maneuvering one has to increase costs, dealing with unpredictable
mode changes and extra wearing it puts on the equipment and employees.
The first question, as you can not pour electricity into a tank and keep it for months
there, can be roughly split to
1) use at home, for things like washing, cleaning, entertaining (TV, computers), air
conditioning in summer and heating in winter.
2) use in industries, this is perhaps what "real economists" look for. Those should had less
daily spikes, they might even have near constant consumption around the clock.
3) export to the countries, who need it, but does not want to build their own power
plants
The export is significant thing. There is so called Byrshtyn Island, a constellation of
power plants in Western Ukraine, that was cut off from Ukrainian grid and plugged to Polish
grid, to act as maneuvering damper for Polish citizens' daylight cycles.
You chart shows that between 2014 and 2015 there was strong (about 2000 GWH) decrease in
production, which remained more or less stable after that. It also shows huge seasonal
variation.
It probably means Ukrainian industries and households enjoy a lot of winter-time heating, but
very little of summer-time AC. Just like it was built during USSR times.
Ukrainian electricity export seems rising. Were there new power plants put to service? I
did not heard. Then it means that domestic consumption shrunk.
There was also a streak of Nuclear Power Plants accidents in the news of 2017-2019.
This can stem from two factors:
1) increased reliance on NPP as other power plants go belly-up, especially forcing those
giant NPPs into maneuvering modes, which they were not designed for. You can find news
sources that Ukrainian NPPs were being tested to 105% of normative capacity and to
maneuvering modes, the modes that just do not make sense when together.
2) decreased maintenance
Anyway, those NPPs are of old Soviet design of 1980-s, they are closing to end of life.
We'll see if new ones will be built. Or if they will just be used regardless of aging until
some hard failure, "run to the ground". And what will come after.
Of course, as long as they operate – no mater how harmful to locals – EU will
buy cheap energy.
And since EuroMaidan government is living on debts, it will have no choice than to sell. Even
if domestic power consumption will get zero, the EU will buy the power.
But I do not think EU would invest into building new power plants there when Soviet ones
finally crack.
@Anon Indeed, only Airbus and Boeing can produce super-heavy aircrafts.
China and Russia are contenders. Ukraine used to be, but stepped out.
Does it mean, USA and France are hell-bent over their military industrial complex?
Maybe.
Does it make them run worse?
Bombardier and EmBraer factories are bought by Airbus and Boeing, not vice versa.
Avro of Canada once used to be a pillar, now is memory.
And all the other countries have to kiss up to political powers that allow them purchasing
Boeing and Airbus jets and maintenance as a privilege for their lapdogging.
Iran wanted to buy Airbus badly, how did it work out?
So, yeah, specialties. Those specialties that can not be replaced – for master
races.
And those that can easily – for lapdogs.
New Zealand can produce good beef. But so can Brazil and Argentina. And Ukraine too.
But Brazil can not produce irreplaceable large cargo aircrafts. And even mid-size they can
not produce independently.
All nations are completely artificial along with the gods, ideologies, fiat money & all
the rest if the human fictions. If humans went extinct overnight would the US, Russia et al
still exist? No, nor would their thousands of gods.
That little trick with the maps can be done with many countries. The US is a fine example.
1st map = 13 colonies – keep adding new maps for every new state they added after
France paid for & won US independence & include the theft/conquest of Mexican
territory & Hawaii.
The Ukraine is a huge basket case made much worse by the US, but your (Orlov too) Rabid
Russian nationalism blinds you. IOW, like the empires propagandists, you too are spinning a
narrative, albeit more truthful than empires, but a narrative (emotional) nonetheless.
@Dr Scanlon Maybe we just compare real Ukraine with what it was promised to become?
Michael Saakashvili, 2014-08-26, "Exactly one year from today Ukraine would send
humanitarian aid to Russia. Mark my words.". I am still trying to find that aid around me, no
luck
There also was a much more extended timetable, year by year, how Ukraine would rocket to
the future and how Russia would fall down to middle ages. Wanted to re-read it but could not
find.
@Anon Or yea, sure. Even Ukrainian statistics (which in terms of reliability might be
somewhat better than Nostradamus, at least sometimes) report 53 births for 100 deaths, with
the population shrinking due to this differential alone by more than 200,000 per year. If you
count in emigration, the picture becomes very bleak. Millions work in Russia, Poland, and
elsewhere. Mind you, temporary emigration for work easily becomes permanent. For example, I
have a cousin who used to live in Lvov. He worked in Russia for 20+ years, and since 2014
never visited Ukraine. I guess he is still counted, as he remains a Ukrainian citizen.
@Mr. Hack OK, let's go to the original of the constitution 'ratified' by "His Majesty the
King of Sweden" (cum consensu S-ae R-ae Maiestatis Sueciae, Protectoris Nostri/with the
consent of His Majesty the King of Sweden, our protector):
"It is no secret that Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky of glorious memory, with the
Zaporozhian Host, took up arms and began a just war against the Polish Commonwealth for no
other reason (apart from rights and liberties) except their Orthodox faith, which had been
forced as a result of various encumbrances placed on it by the Polish authorities into union
with the Roman church. Similarly, after the alien new Roman religion had been eradicated
from our fatherland, he with the said Zaporozhian Host and Ruthenian [Rossiaca] people,
sought and submitted himself to the protection of the Muscovite tsardom for no other
reason than "that it shared the same Orthodox religion". Therefore, if God our Lord, strong
and mighty in battle, should assist the victorious armies of His Royal Majesty the King of
Sweden to liberate our fatherland from the Muscovite yoke of slavery, the present newly
elected Hetman will be bound by duty and put under obligation to take special care that no
alien religion is introduced into our Ruthenian [Rossiacam] fatherland. Should one, however,
appear anywhere, either secretly or openly, he will be bound to extirpate it through his
authority, not allow it to be preached or disseminated, and not permit any dissenters,
MOST OF ALL THE ADHERENTS OF DECEITFUL JUDAISM, to live in Ukraine, and will be bound to make
every possible effort that only the Orthodox faith of the Eastern confession, under
obedience to the Holy Apostolic See of Constantinople, be established firmly for ever
and be allowed to expand and to flourish, like a rose among thorns, among the neighbouring
countries following alien religions, for the greater glory of God, the building of churches,
and the instruction of Ruthenian [Rossiacis] sons in the liberal arts. And for the greater
authority of the Kievan metropolitan see, which is foremost in Little Russia [Parva Rossia],
and for a more efficient administration of spiritual matters, His Grace the Hetman should,
after the liberation of our fatherland from the Muscovite yoke, obtain from the Apostolic See
of Constantinople the original power of an exarch in order thereby to renew relationship with
and filial obedience to the aforementioned Apostolic See of Constantinople, from which
it , was privileged to have been enlightened in the holy Catholic faith by the preaching of
the Gospel".
"neque ignotum est, gloriosae memoriae Ducem Theodatum Chmielniccium cum Exercitu
Zaporoviensi non ob aliam causam praeter iura libertatis commotum fuisse iustaque contra
Rempublicam Polonam arma arripuisse, solum pro Fide sua Orthodoxa, quae variorum
gravaminum compulsu a potestate Polonorum coacta fuerat ad unionem cum Ecclesia Romana;
post extirpatam quoque e patria Neoromanam exoticam Religionem, non alio motivo cum eodem
Exercitu Zaporoviensi genteque Rossiaca protectione Imperii Moscovitici dedisse et libere se
subdidisse, solum ob Religionis Orthodoxae unionem. Igitur modernus neoelectus lllustrissimus
Dux, quando Dominus Deus fortis et potens in praeliis iuvabit felicia sacrae S-ae R-ae
Maiestatis Sueciae arma ad vindicandam patriam nostram de servitutis iugo Moscovitico
tenebitur et debito iure obstringetur singularem volvere curam fortiterque obstare, ut nulla
exotica Religio in patriam nostram Rossiacam introducatur, quae si alicubi clamve , palamve
apparuerit, tune activitatem suam extirpandae ipsi debebit, praedicari ampliarique non
permittet, asseclis eiusdem, PRAESERTIM VERO PRAESTIGIOSO IUDAISMO cohabitationem in Ucraina
non concedet et omni virium conatu sollicitam impendet curam, ut sola et una Orthodoxa Fides
Orientalis Confessionis sub obedienta S-tae Apostoiicae sedis Constantinopolitanae in
perpetuum sit firmanda, atque cum amplianda gloria Divina, erigendis ecclesiis exercendisque
in artibus liberalibus filiis Rossiacis dilatetur, ac tanquam rosa inter spinas, inter vicina
exoticae Religionis Dominia virescat et florescat. Propter vero majorem authoritatem
primariae in Parva Rossia sedis Metropolitanae Kiiovensis faciliorique in Spiritualibus
regimine, impositam sibi idem Illustrissimus Dux vindicata patria nostra de iugo Moscovitico
geret provinciam circa procurandam et impertiendam a sede Apostolica Constantinopolitana
Exarchicam primitivam potestatem, ut hoc actu renovetur relatio et filialis patriae nostrae
obedientia ad praefatam Apostolicam sedem Constantinopolitanam, cuius praedicatione Evangelii
in Fide Sancta Catholica illuminari firmarique dignata est".
ТHЕ PYLYP ORLYK CONSTITUTION,
1710@http://www.lucorg.com/block.php/block_id/26
@Anon > Also, check construction spending – click on 10 year
.now how can i account there for the fact, that UAH in 2013 costed three times more than
UAH in 2015 ?
> Farming is an industry.
Grain industry – is low added value one, it is highly competitive market because
grain from any country on Earth is just grain.
USSR used to buy grain, as it sponsored bread production and peasants all around were
buying bead to feed their hens, goats, pigs, etc. Official meat production was large too.
It is definitely better to export at least something than nothing. But it also is better
to export high added value goods.
Before WW1 a minister of Russian Empire said "Let our peasants starve but we will export
all the grains we contracted" – few years later Russian Empire ceased to exist.
In 1931 and 1932 Stalin tenfold decreased then banned grains export breaking the
contracts. 15 years later USSR won WW2.
Franlky, it is just weird that Ukraine and Russia together produce most world's traded
grain, like there is no other fertile soil on Earth. Also Russia and Ukraine are both to the
north from USA, so USA should be able to produce more grains in its warmer climate. Why isn't
USA world #1 grains exporter?
and EU just whimsically bans Ukrainian meat beyond some arbitrary quota.
EU will easily find where to buy meet.
Can Ukraine reciprocate by banning Airbus or Boeing purchases? I wonder
EU can pressure Ukrainian government, and Ukraine can do little in defense.
When they passed the "Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019" by unanimous
consent, the U.S. Senate essentially doused our relationship with China with kerosene and set
it on fire. The following comes from Zero Hedge
In a widely anticipated move, just after 6pm ET on Tuesday, the Senate unanimously passed a
bipartisan bill, S.1838, showing support for pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong by
requiring an annual review of whether the city is sufficiently autonomous from Beijing to
justify its special trading status. In doing so, the Senate has delivered a warning to China
against a violent suppression of the demonstrations, a stark contrast to President Donald
Trump's near-silence on the issue, the result of a behind the scenes agreement whereby China
would allow the S&P to rise indefinitely as long as Trump kept his mouth shut.
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=/ As Bloomberg notes, the House unanimously passed a similar bill last month, but slight
differences mean both chambers still have to pass the same version before sending it to the
president. /=
Sending it to the president, huh?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //
[My own comment]
15 hours ago [near midnight last night] I said:
I think there is some possibility that the Chinese government will announce something
rather drastic in about seven hours. All cargo ships and planes will turn around 180 and head
back to China. Wal-Mart will close. Amazon will go dark.
It's possible.
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So... When the congressional fools send this unanimous bill(!) to Trump, will he sign it.
If he does, does the US economy collapse instantly? If he doesn't do they impeach him?
Or... Does he not sign it, then they immediately override, then the economy collapses
utterly while they are busy trying to impeach him?
Re the unanimous vote by US Senate - "Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of
2019".
As you noted this seems to put Trump into a real bind re ongoing trade agreement soap
opera with China. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
The American political establishment has made any trade deal with China more unlikely.
Which probably removes a trade deal with China from Trump's list of accomplishments in the
2020 elections.
Thus the "Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019" would seem to be directed against
Trump.
But how really desperate is Trump for a trade deal with China? In trying to
re-industrialize the United States, maybe not so much.
And now he can blame the political establishment for American economic problems related to
the lack of a China trade deal.
I don't think this would work as Trump would reject the trade. He would love to see the
Democrats' slime and corruption trotted out in public. Meanwhile he is basically immunized
from anything that may come out of a Senate trial as he has already been trashed to a
saturation point.
And, since after three years of this BS they still haven't come up with any real evidence
against Trump, he would have little to worry about.
The Democrats have far more to lose than Trump; his attitude towards a Senate trial would
likely be: "Bring it on. Make my day, assholes."
The idealization of Trump that pictures him as some kind of silver bullet that could
penetrate the heart of corruption is a bizaare fantasy. It stands at odds with the reality of
the man. A crook he is at the very least. But it is what the two Parties agree upon, the
criminality in which they find common cause, that is the most horrifying thing.
From truthdig :
House Democrats Hand Trump 'Authoritarian' Surveillance Powers . And RT reports that this
includes a couple of remarkable dems, the idealistic newcomers we hear so much about. It will
be a long time before we are rid of the succubus of blanket surveillance. The grotesque
empire is to be held together at all cost.
snake @95 argues "the deep state does not exist" with circular logic that is massively off
target.
The deep state is individuals INSIDE the government that do the bidding of the banksters,
the military-industrial complex, the globalists and other nefarious interests. None of those
interests have the ability to make policy and implement regime changes without the deep
state. Yes, outside interests drive the actions of the deep state, but no, those outside
interests have no ability to accomplish anything without their deep state operatives.
If the US federal government bureaucracy was a) much less powerful, b) much more
transparent, and c) more responsive to elected leaders, then none of the bad things would
happen. A pipe dream? Yes - but it is erroneous to make a simple declaration "the deep state
doesn't exist" without any rational arguments to refute my points in @72.
Thank you for your post. You say that there is a deep state, but you then go on to tell us
it is not as deep as we imagine. So, I posit we should call it "the shallow state". It is the
foam on the edge of the sea as it begins to recede from a high tide of corrupt practices,
delicate and lacy at the edges and so mesmerizing and attractive to some. But it is receding.
And out there as it departs the Deep People are waiting. They are the depths of an ocean that
never disappears. At low tide they are still there, and they will feed the incoming tide. At
the turn.
And I also say, you may not care what the future brings, but I do. I have a little
granson, born on my birthday, gazing at me with twinkling eyes from his photograph across the
room. Family is also something we can call Deep and be truthful about that. It runs in both
directions, past and future. The Deep People have Deep Families.
And yes, I know, other grandsons have met untimely deaths this century and are counted as
'collateral damage' by the shallow state. Still they are with us as the past is always with
us; they deepen our persons in unaccountable but irreversible ways. They strengthen our
family commitments. They are always here, in our memories and in our strengths. They are not
collateral; they are the fabric of our determinations, our life blood.
The Deep People do care what happens. The twinkle in their grandsons' eyes burns in
their hearts. It is a fire, a consuming force. It never dies.
"deep state", "deep people", "the swamp" .. a rose by any other name would smell just as
rancid.
"deep people" implies a small, isolated group. IMO, it's more like an iceberg than
seashore foam. 90% of it is hidden from view.
My point was that snake's blame of the oligarchs misses the target. I look at them the way
I look at any other predator - if the opportunity exists, they will take it. The deep state
is THE necessary ingredient for the evil that the US government does.
I too have grandchildren. I am convinced that their lives will be less free, less
prosperous, with less opportunity than what the seven generations of Wills family before me
have experienced in the US for the last 275 years. So what can I do about it? Typing on my
keyboard certainly won't make one whit of difference...
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Semyon Vindman (né Aleksandr Semyonovich Vindman) and his
identical twin brother, Yevgeny, were born to a Jewish family in the Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic, Soviet Union. After the death of their mother, the three-year-old twins
and their older brother, Leonid, were brought to New York in December 1979 by their father,
Semyon (Simon). They grew up in Brooklyn's 'Little-Odessa' neighborhood. The twins appear
briefly with their maternal grandmother in the Ken Burns documentary The Statue of Liberty.
Vindman speaks fluent Russian, Ukrainian (& probably Hebrew).
I will posit that Vindman holds citizenship in: Ukraine, USA, & Israel. Dual-Citizens
violate US Law, to wit the 1940s Nationality Act. I will NOT delve into the tangled
loyalties, ambitions and/or 'greatness' expectations of Colonel Vindman in this post.
Beginning in 2008, Vindman became a Foreign Area Officer specializing in Eurasia. In this
capacity he served in the U.S. embassies in Kiev, Ukraine, and Moscow, Russia. Returning to
Washington, D.C. he was then a politico-military affairs officer focused on Russia for the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Vindman served on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon from
September 2015 to July 2018.
The Honorable Gordon David Sondland, United States Ambassador to the European Union, is
probably ending his stint, today.
Ambassador Sondland was born to a Jewish family in Seattle, Washington, the son of Frieda
(Piepsch) and Gunther Sondland. His mother fled Europe before the Second World War to
Uruguay, where after the war she reunited with his father, who had served in the French
Foreign Legion. In 1953, the Sondlands relocated to Seattle where they opened a dry-cleaning
business. Sondland has a sister 18 years his senior. He attended the University of Washington
but dropped out and became a commercial real estate salesman.
Does Ambassador Sondland hold dual-citizenship? Dual citizenship violates the 1940
Nationalities Act.
@Arioch Germans will likely be fleeing Germany in fairly large numbers as the Islamic /
African takeover picks up steam. Same for Swedes from Sweden (soonest), French from France,
English from England.
Ukraine is emptying out and has cheap land and space for new housing to be built, or old
houses to be replaced or thoroughly renovated. The Western Europeans need somewhere safer and
more civilized to run now that they have invited hostile invaders into their countries. It
could be a match made in heaven.
Ukraine could offer only permanent residency, not citizenship, and it could require that
white euro refugees pay in advance for a year or two years of good private medical and dental
insurance so that they don't burden the already-broke Ukrainian treasury.
Let the Germans and other euro reinvigorate the Ukrainian economy -- possibly for a steady
two decades or more -- by buying supplies and hiring workers and machinery to build or
renovate several million houses. They have savings and pensions and can afford a lot in
Ukraine. The Ukrainian treasury would take in massive receipts in VAT and other taxes paid by
the euro permanent residents and by newly employed Ukrainians working on the refugees' new
homes.
Ukrainian hospitals and dental offices could upgrade their equipment, staff, training, and
capabilities enormously with the ongoing infusion of western euro refugee funds.
The euro refugees needn't change the demographic and cultural composition of Ukraine much
longer-term, because they will, at least at first, mostly be people age 55-60 and up who can
afford to retire and give up their careers in their home countries to flee East. They'll be
beyond their childbearing/raising years. And, if the Ukrainians are wise, the western euros
will never be eligible for citizenship (I.e. they will never be able to vote the same suicide
for Ukraine as many of them allowed in their home countries).
Far, far better for Ukrainians to (1) have their own children and (2) stop antagonizing
russia and work out favorable energy and other trade deals. But since neither of those is
happening or seems likely in the near future, Ukraine should seek a steady infusion of
peaceful, reasonably intelligent, culturally compatible white Europeans to help occupy the
territory (instead of hostile aliens, the alternative) and spend billions of Euros from
Ukrainian businesses and shops.
Odious debt, also known as illegitimate debt, is when a country's government
misappropriates money it has borrowed from another country. A nation's debt is considered
odious debt when government leaders use borrowed funds in ways that do not benefit its
citizens, and to the contrary, often oppress them. Many believe individuals or countries
doing the lending must have known, or should have known, of the oppressive conditions upon
offering the credit.
@RadicalCenter Putin would be too old in ten years. What Russia needs is a decent
successor, as intelligent and far-sighted as Putin, who would be interested in the country
more than in his pocket, like Putin. While traitorous scum like Gorby or Yeltsin has no
chance, the greatest danger is that someone nationalistic but not particularly smart rises to
the top.
Putin understands the key thing: Russia does not need to do anything about the Empire or
its EU vassals, they are their own worst enemy. As the saying goes, when you see your enemy
committing suicide, do not interfere.
As far as Baltic vaudeville states are concerned, to the best of my knowledge (which might
be faulty: I only visited Russia three times in the last 28 years, spending less than two
months total there), most Russian residents are not interested in the Baltics.
Now that the port at Ust-Luga works at almost full capacity, Baltics aren't even useful
economically: Russian exports mostly bypass them. Besides, placing NATO troops into these
"countries" creates a significant financial and military burden on NATO, which is in the best
Russian interests.
So, from Russian perspective, the same rule applies to Baltics and Ukraine (whatever
remains of it in 5-10 years): "you broke it – you own it". So, the West would have to
do something about those territories. Considering current policies of the EU, they will be
populated by Muslims and Africans. Russian attitudes changed a lot in the last decades
regarding Baltics and in the last five years regarding Ukraine: a lot of Russians believe
that even Muslims and Africans are smarter than aborigines of those wannabe countries, so
would make more sensible neighbors.
@Malacaay "Ukrainian Republic" in 1914 ??? With presidents, parliaments, elections, sure,
sure.
And having western borders in 1914 exactly by the line draw by Georgian dictator
Jugashvili-Stalin 25 years later?
With Lwow being in 1914 city not of Poland (independent Poland in 1914 is yet another gem)
but of the said Ukrainian Republic? And Transcarpatian Ruthenia too?
Wow, so in 1939 Jugashvili-Stalin just restored well known internationally borderlines of
the glorious 1914 Ukrainian Republic, right?
@Arioch You consider Ukraine to be irrelevant, so why spend so much time on it??? Odd
isn't it. Methinks you protesteth too much. You haven't proven Ukrainians can't do science,
that they don't have a technical culture, and you haven't shown that grain production is
irrelevant. You're just insulting farmers, and basic industry. Insult your own stomach. Don't
eat bread. Food is power. All industrial economies are based on agriculture. You dismissing
it is just sour grapes.
Pretend the Ukraine is dead. That's your business. Ukraine hasn't lost the ability to do
science, engineering, etc. What do you think they do in universities there? Is there no
higher education there? I'm not going to believe that. You're just spinning. Spin away. It's
obvious you're just dismissing real activity there.
The finality with which you dismiss the logistics possibilities of the Ukraine is odd. It
is a valuable resource. The country can take up the logistics possibilities in the future.
They haven't disappeared. And that is what your argument is based on. Pretending that
something can never ever be operational again ever, for any reason, even when the
possibilities are obviously still there. Germany bounced back after the war. Russia bounced
back after the 90s. But Ukraine? According to you, Ukrainians can't ever have any future
possibilities. You dismiss the real activity that is there, and you dismiss future
possibilities. So you can read the future? Do you also pretend to have super human ability to
know the future? You don't like facts, just theatrics. Lots of arm waving and shouting and
gesticulating. No proofs. If it is dead in your books, why are you wasting so much effort to
prove it, without actually giving any proof? You really do protest too much.
@Mr. Hack Why would I be disappointed in seeing your puppet master Kolomoisky, the
'Zhidobandera', and his puppet playing the presidents, Zelenski admitting (grudgingly) that
"They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations"?
K: "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And you [the U.S.] are
forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it."
And begging for money from Russia?
@Anon First, participation or results of International Mathematical Olympiad that both of
your links deal with do not necessarily reflect the state of science in the country. First,
math is only one of the real sciences (others include physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).
Second, the results of kids reflect the potential of young people, not the state of
scientific research in the country. Remaining scientists in Ukraine (there aren't many of
them left, unless you count bullshitters like Vyatrovich as scientists) bitterly complain
that the government does not fund science at the level that can help it survive.
BTW, many branches of Russian science (e.g., biochemistry and cell biology that I know
best) do not perform at the level that would put them on the map. There are very few
world-class biochemical or cell biological labs in Russia today, even fewer than in Soviet
times. In Ukraine today there are none, zero, zilch, nada. There used to be some decent labs
in Ukraine before 1991, but they either died out or the quality of their research went way
down. Those who awarded PhD to the girl I mentioned above are not scientists, at least not
the honest ones. They are qualified to sweep floors in college, at best.
@AnonFromTN More protesteth too much. More slurs, insults, hearsay, flailing away with no
data of any kind.
Those kids have real capabilities. Not simply 'potential of young people'. dismissing them
won't make them go away. 'Out damn'd spot'. Too bad the facts won't go away. To have kids
with strong math ability means you have to have institutions and teachers with strong
education capability. They don't learn to cut it in math by playing in the streets. Obviously
they will have no difficulty doing engineering calculations, and doing computer science and
physical sciences.
Making comparisons to the former SU is not valid for me. Comparison to other similar sized
economies makes more sense. Ukraine population is similar to Colombia, Spain, Argentina,
Uganda, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq. Looking at those countries, the capabilities of Ukraine don't
look too bad. Certainly not looking like Ukraine is dead.
Why would any one think that Ukraine must be compared to much larger economies??? The
other guy was doing that too. saker is way off to make such comparisons.
Comparing Ukraine to US, China, Russia, or prior SU or UkrainianSSR for me is not a valid
comparison. The economics are too different.
It's obvious what is going on is simply a political, prejudicial smear and dismissal of the
Ukraine and Ukrainians rather than any kind of balanced assessment of capabilities and
reality
@Anon Yes, those kids certainly had good teachers. It is quite likely that their math
teachers were educated in the Ukrainian SSR. I hear from a lot of people in Russia that the
quality of the teachers who graduated in Soviet times tends to be better than of those who
graduated later. I got my school education in Ukrainian SSR and can't complain about it.
Today Lugansk, where I went to school, is in Lugansk People's Republic, and judging by recent
polling of the population, its chances or returning to Ukraine are about as great as my
chances of living 500 years. Ukrainian bomb hit the school I went to, and Ukrainian shell hit
the library where I used to borrow books when I went to school. Luckily, a few years ago
Ukrainian troops were pushed by freedom fighters far enough from Lugansk, so they can't shell
it any more.
Comparing Ukraine to US, China, Russia, or prior SU or UkrainianSSR for me is not a
valid comparison.
Sorry, but Ukraine started by Ukrainian SSR becoming independent. It had what it had, and
lost what it lost, including a big chunk of the population and economy.
You are welcome to believe anything you want. People have a long history of believing the
most preposterous things. However, even fervent beliefs don't change the reality. That's why
all societies have lunatic asylums.
Sputnik is reporting that the US has spent $6.4 Trillion fighting wars that have killed
800,000 since Sept 11/01, that number is unbelievable, at least 1,500,000 dead in Iraq,
250,000 in Afghanistan, 750,000 in Syria.
The US military budget alone has averaged about 650 billion since then, plus the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan were funded separately (around 200 million a year), plus CIA/ blackbook
projects - 7 or 8 trillion is a more likely number.
When things get blown up, no one really knows what was actually bought and existed and
what was just a phantom piece of equipment War has always been the ideal cover for
corruption
"... "In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to Ukraine. ..."
"... But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such? ..."
"... And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay. ..."
"... The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col. Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is the duly elected president who does that. ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia. ..."
"... "They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for it." ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets. ..."
"... Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He predicted that the trauma of war will pass. ..."
"... Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received nearly 73% of all votes. ..."
"... Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They are joined in this with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup: ..."
"... Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25% of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won 5.8%. ..."
"... on Yovanovitch, She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States." ..."
"... She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. . .Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is injured in the knee ..."
NBC News
is not impressed by the first day of the Democrats' impeachment circus. But it fails to
note what the conflict is really about:
It was substantive, but it wasn't dramatic.
In the reserved manner of veteran diplomats with Harvard degrees, Bill Taylor and George
Kent opened the public phase of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on
Wednesday by bearing witness to a scheme they described as not only wildly unorthodox but
also in direct contravention of U.S. interests.
"It is clearly in our national interest to deter further Russian aggression," Taylor, the
acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said in explaining why
Trump's decision to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to the most immediate target of
Russian expansionism didn't align with U.S. policy.
But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor
of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall or
backfire, the first round felt more like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act play than
the opening night of a hit Broadway musical.
"In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the
permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to
Ukraine.
But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such?
President Obama was against giving weapons to Ukraine and never transferred any to Ukraine
despite pressure from certain circles. Was Obama's decision against U.S. national interest?
Where are the Democrats or deep state members accusing him of that?
Which brings us to the really critical point of the whole issue. Who defines what is in the
"national interest" with regards to foreign policy? Here is a point where for once I agree with
the right-wingers at the National Review where Andrew McCarthy writes :
[O]n the critical matter of America's interests in the Russia/Ukraine dynamic, I think the
policy community is right, and President Trump is wrong. If I were president, while I would
resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly associate myself with the delusion that
stable friendship is possible (or, frankly, desirable) with Putin's anti-American
dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia family and is acting on its revanchist
ambitions.
But you see, much like the policy community, I am not president. Donald Trump is.
And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the
bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National
Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their
assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a
constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay.
The U.S.
constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly
negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the
administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col.
Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is
the duly elected president who does that.
The president does not like how the 'American policy' on Russia was built. He rightly
believes that he was elected to change it. He had stated his opinion on Russia during his
campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to have good
relations with Russia. It is his own conviction and legitimized by the voters.
...
[I]t is the president who sets the policies. The drones around him who serve "at his
pleasure" are there to implement them.
There is another point that has to be made about the NBC's assertions. It is not in
the interest of Ukraine to be a proxy for U.S. deep state antagonism towards Russia. Robber
baron Igor Kolomoisky, who after the Maidan coup
had financed the west-Ukrainian fascists who fought against east-Ukraine, says so directly in
his
recent NYT interview :
Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his
role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a
remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn
back toward Russia.
"They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's
power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And
you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for
it."
... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed
Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets.
Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its
geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties
with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He
predicted that the trauma of war will pass.
...
Mr. Kolomoisky said he was feverishly working out how to end the war, but he refused to
divulge details because the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way."
Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to
pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received
nearly 73% of all votes.
Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess
it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They
are joined in this
with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup:
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern
Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians
opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but
prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in
light of this domestic opposition.
...
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary
factions, European Solidarity and Voice, whose supporters are predominantly located in
western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary groups
composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25%
of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won
5.8%.
By pursuing further conflict with Russia the deep state of the United States wants to ignore
the wishes not only of the U.S. voters but also those of the Ukrainian electorate. That
undemocratic mindset is another point that unites them with the Ukrainian fascists.
Zelensky should ignore the warmongers in the U.S. embassy in Kiev and sue for immediate
peace with Russia. (He should also investigate
Biden's undue influence .) Reengaging with Russia is also the easiest and most efficient
step the Ukraine can take to lift its desolate economy.
It is in the national interest of both, the Ukraine and the United States.
Posted by b on November 14, 2019 at 18:23 UTC |
Permalink
next page " agree with mccarthy about who conducts foreign policy, disagree about who
the aggressor is; it's the USA, trying to weaken Russia, which is the aggressor.
thanks b... typo - immediate piece with Russia - 'peace' is the spelling here...
the comments from Kolomoisky in the recent nyt interview are very telling.. aside from
being a first rate kleptomaniac who will willingly play both sides if he can profit from it,
he is also speaking a moment of truth..for him Ukraine is available to the highest bidder...
he could give a rats ass about Ukraine or the people... but still, it is refreshing that the
NYT published his comments in this regard..
the quote "the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way." is very true... it was true
before kolomisky picked a side too.. this guy is very shrewd.. i wonder if his own country is
able to see thru him?
national interest.... yes, trump gets to decide and he won on the idea of having closer
relations with russia, but the cia-msm has been lambasting him and anyone else associated
with him since before the election over the clinton e mails... they have painted a scenario
that it is all russias fault and have been relentless in this portrayal... hoping trump is
going to turn this around is like hoping someone is going to turn the titanic around from
hitting a giant iceberg... the usa is too far gone and will be hitting the iceberg.. they are
in fact...
From NYT about Kolomo???? (spelling in English is highly variable)
George D. Kent, a senior State Department official, said he had told Mr. Zelensky that his
willingness to break with Mr. Kolomoisky -- "somebody who had such a bad reputation" -- would
be a litmus test for his independence. [If is good to be independent, i.e. to do what we
want.]
And William Taylor, the acting ambassador in Kiev, said he had warned Mr. Zelensky: "He,
Mr. Kolomoisky, is increasing his influence in your government, which could cause you to
fail." [La Paz is a fresh reminder for Kiev?]
Well the thing about Zelensky is he's still there, and he is making changes in Donbass.
Kolomoisky was interested in the fracked gas in Donbass, the completion of NordStream II
has made a mess of that idea. It is good that he has seen the light, as it means Zelensky
will have support in his attempts to adapt to reality. But Kolomoisky is still a crook no
doubt.
My immediate reaction was that Kolomoisky realises he has to act - the Ukrainian oligarchs
have got too close to America. I agree with James that he is a extremely clever man.
Ukraine's traditional business is playing both ends against the middle and sending the
proceeds to Switzerland (or the Caribbean in Porosyonok's case). Since 1990 a few of these
robber barons have made a very good business winding up the west against Russia, it could go
on ever - why spoil it by lifting the rock and seeing all the insects scurrying around in the
light?
Another rock that has been lifted is in Washington, where the khokhol diaspora are
desperately trying to get Uncle Sam to right the wrongs of a century ago.
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners oif the world and they run the world they
own.
... @ b -- "Only some 20% of the Ukrainians favor to continue the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports."
The are not 'separatists', but rather Ukrainians who want to stay in a federated Ukraine
as 'provinces' with powers to pass their regional laws, similar to those in Canada.
The segment of empire in the US that are against Russia act so because it was Russia that
stymied them in Syria and continues to be in their way of expanding the control from that
part of empire...the US segment.
I still believe that the global private finance core segment of empire is behind Trump and
throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The cult of global
private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role in the new
multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyones heads to make it ongoing.
I don't believe that strategy will work but as long as they can be fronted by a MAD player
of some sort (Occupied Palestine comes to mind) they can be bully players in international
matters.
As the world economies grind to a "halt" there will be lots of pressure everywhere and
very little clarity about the key civilization war over public/private finance, IMO
For a military dictatorship, diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means. The US has
been at war with Russia since the right-wing coup at the Democratic convention of 1944. All
presidents have been servants of the military, which includes the police/intel/security
apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead role were "dealt with."
Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state bureaucrats are shocked
and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US foreign policy for 75
years!
Wow! The depth of delusion on display is as breathtaking as its complete projection of the
intentions and actions of the Evil Outlaw US Empire! Oh so many saying I'm displaying four
fingers instead of two. Too bad there isn't a padded cell big enough to contain all the
lunatics. I recall the pre- and post-coup discussions from 2014--that Russia was going to
make NATO own Ukraine until it was forced to concede it has no business being there; that
Russia would teach the would-be leaders of Ukraine a serious lesson in where their national
interests lay. NATO is ready to cede and the lesson's been learned.
IMO, two referendums must be held. The first within Russia: Will you accept portions of
Ukraine wanting to merge with Russia: Yes/No? Second to be given within Ukraine provided Yes
wins in #1: Do you wish to join Russia or remain in Ukraine? IMO, this is a very longstanding
unresolved issue of consequence for the people involved. The political leaders of Russia and
Ukraine might both be against such a vote, but IMO that merely kicks the can further down the
road and opens the door for more mischief making by the Evil Outlaw US Empire. Assuming a Yes
from Russia and some from Ukraine, a strategic threat to Russia and Europe would be
mitigated. Additional questions about those parts of Ukraine not wanting to join Russia could
be solved via additional referenda in the Ukraine and neighboring nations that might prove
willing to absorb the remnants and their people. Such action would of course negate the Minsk
Agreements.
Given the ideological passions of those living in Western and Northern Ukraine, I don't
see any hope for the continuation of the Ukrainian state as currently arranged, thus the
proposed referenda. However, if Russia says Nyet, then Minsk must be implemented.
"Democracy" is not about letting the people as a whole have a say in how the country is
governed. That would be fascist, and racist, and populist, and LITERALLY HITLER. Letting the
people decide on things like foreign policy, is literally anti-democratic.
No, "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The elites get
to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take responsibility when things go wrong.
Because you see, we are a "Democracy."
Breaking off long established economic and cultural ties with a large neighbouring country,
virtually overnight, is a rash act, and certain to create dislocation and hardship. The
craziness of the idea was only achievable through the traumatizing psy-op of the sniper
event, leading directly to the coup and the state of war. The EU and the US were clearly
malevolent in orchestrating the Association agreement with its ridiculous terms and the
corresponding Maidan pressures.
The fools in Hong Kong, after protester-sponsored screenings of the World On Fire
documentary, were actually quoted as presuming the Maidan protests had "won" and expressed
their hopes that they too could "win". Good luck to them.
Kolomoisky and Zelensky know what needs to be done, but they fear the blood that will flow
with Nazi-Banderist scum! Zelinski's balls are not that big, and has no options left after
compromising his position from day one. Who will make the first move, I fear not him? Russia
has time, and patience, which is sorely lacking in the west who feel they have to push the
envelope.
The Minsk II protocol was agreed to on 12 February 2015 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany, It included provisions for a halt in the fighting, the withdrawal of
foreign forces, new constitution to allow special status for Donbass, and election in Donbass
for local self governance. Control of the present border of Ukraine would be restored to the
Ukraine government. Donbass would continue to be in Ukraine with some autonomy here (scroll down).
There are many such autonomous zones in the world, and in Europe, seen here .
The problem in Ukraine is that the neo-Nazi factions promoted by the US don't want to see a
resolution, and will fight it with US support.
Kolomoysky is obviously a master thief and general scumbag...but he is no fool...
I think the writing on the wall became obvious with the Nordstream 2 finalization, where,
it is noted, Denmark came in just under the wire in terms of not disrupting the
timetable...
Obviously the interests of German business have prevailed...and rightly so in this
case...
And what of the famous EU line about 'protecting' Ukraine as a gas transit
corridor...?
LOLOLOL...that is in the same category of nothingburger as the EU noises about 'alternate
payment' mechanisms for trade with Iran...
As soon as the Denmark story broke, Gazprom and Russian energy analysts talked openly
about the tiny volumes that Ukraine could expect to see transiting its territory...as part of
a new agreement to replace the one that has expired...
It works out to a small fraction of the several billion dollars in transit fees the
Ukraine was getting...
Also considering that the IMF appears to be finally shutting off the tap of loans to this
failed gangster state...and that the promises from the EU in 2013 were just so much fairy
tales...hard-nosed operators like Kolomoysky are recalculating...
The chaos and national ruin has really cost these gangster capitalists nothing [in fact
they have profited wildly]...so it is easy for them to reverse course and come begging back
to Russia...
Bryan MacDonald has a good piece about this today in RT...
So, here we are, almost six years since the first "EuroMaidan" protests in Kiev, and
Ukraine's most prominent oligarch has finally voiced the unmentionable: the project has
failed.
As for Kolomoysky...like Trump, there is something to like about dirtballs who speak their
minds openly...LOL
Quite a turnaround by Kolomoisky. Wasn't he once caught on a tapped phone call admitting
while chuckling about Ukrainian complicity in shooting down MH-17? i.e. NOT Donbas rebels and
NOT Russia.
@12 karlof1... a referendum... as if the usa would agree to that, lol.... look how they
processed the one in crimea...
@18 flankerbandit... last line is true, but it pales in relation to the ugliness these 2
exhibit 99% of the time, although the 1% when they don't it's refreshing! ukraine will
continue to be used as a tool by the west..
forget about any referendum.. that makes too much sense and won't be allowed..
Nordstream 2 will come online in less than 2 months and the Ukrainian gas exports at that
time will cease (I.e. no oil for the Oligarchs to steal), no matter what the US says they
can't replace the Russian oil exports in terms of money & support to Ukraine, so the
Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in order for the Russians to keep
even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets
It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot.
But now the Ukrainian thieves are beginning to realize that the Western thieves are going
to steal the very ground from under their feet, so there will be no more Ukraine to steal
from. That's not a very good business model. Plus they're no doubt seeing how the US treats
its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere, and realize they could easily find themselves
the next meal for the US beast. Pretty easy to see why the smarter ones are getting
nervous.
they need to make peace with Russia or they will be left out in the cold, literally. They
seemed to have previously bought into some insane lie that they'd be a part of the EU and
NATO if theyd do Washington's bidding. The Deep state vastly underestimated Putin's resolve
when it became clear to the Russians that Washington may try and turn Crimea into a NATO port
one day. The game is over. Ukraine needs to find a way forward now for itself or it will be a
failed state in the near future. It's clear Merkel and Europe want no part of this headache
I don't think Russians want to 'own' any part of Ukraine...at least that is the nearly
unanimous opinion of my own contacts and colleagues in Russia...so I don't think any
referenda will be on the table...
What I do think is possible is what Yanukovich and Russia agreed to in terms of a trade
and economic deal...which was a lot more practical [not to mention generous] than the EU
'either or' nonsense...
Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they are selling vast tracts of
agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally dispossessing themselves of
their own food security...
At the time of the Soviet dissolution, Ukraine had the highest living standards and some
of the world's prime industry and technology...including for instance the Yuzhnoye design
bureau [rocket engines and spacecraft] and many more such cutting edge aerospace
concerns...
For years these crucial enterprises were able to keep going due to the Russian
market...that all ended in 2014 [and in fact was tapering off even before due to the massive
corruption]...
Now the Chinese are looking to scoop up these gems at firesale prices...
It is really quite unbelievable that the nutcases in the Ukraine would be willing to cut
off their own arm just to bleed on Russia's shirt...
Why did the Ukraine never recover from the gangster capitalism like Russia did...because
no Putin ever came along to reign in the oligarchy...[It could be argued Putin hasn't done
nearly enough in this regard].
The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own future...as the
unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to extract maximal
wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on the verge of
toppling...
Kolomoisky is talking his book and helping USA to make the case that Nordstream is a NATO
security issue. To pretend that he's serious about a rapproachment with Russia just plays
into that effort.
And b ignores my comment on the prior thread that he references (about Trump being
Constitutionally charged with foreign policy). Repeating: the "Imperial Presidency" has flung
off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing the need to get Congressional
approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and
black budgets.
While for practical reasons the Executive Branch of USA government has the power to
negotiate treaties and manage foreign relations, Constitutionally he does so for the
sovereign (the American people) and his efforts are subject to review and approval of the
people's representatives via the power of the purse.
Ignoring how the "Imperial Presidency" has usurped power leads to faulty analysis that
supports that power grab.
Ukrainegate IS a farce, but for other reasons. Chief among them being the inherent fakery
of 'managed democracy' which manifests as kayfabe.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners of the world and they run the world they
own.
Nicely put:- that is the reality. Thanks b for your intrepid reports.
Paul Craig Roberts has a deeply aggrieved rant at zero hedge if barflies want a chuckle.
What a shitshow.
Crimea?
It has been part of Russia about as long as the USA has been a country.
9 out of 10 residents are of Russian origin, and Russian is the spoken language.
I guess it could be returned to the 10%-- but out of fairness, we must turn the USA over to
its original occupants.
If you live in the USA, get your ass ready to leave.
One of the problems that the anti-nazis face in Ukraine is that there are occupying armies in
the country. Armies which cannot be trusted to obey instructions which are not agreed upon by
NATO warmongers.
One such army is Canadian, commanded I believe by a descendant of the Ukrainian SS refugees
and reporting to the Foreign Minister in Ottawa, a Russophobe with a family background of
nazi collaboration.
The actual political situation is much more delicate than media reports suggest: what are
called elections feature, in the Washington approved fashion, the banning of socialist and
communist candidates. Bans which are enforced by a combination of fascist commanded police
forces and, even less responsible, private nazi militias. Opponents of the Maidan regime are
driven into exile, jailed or murdered.
Those who wonder as Jackrabbit, in a rare essay into rationality, does above, about the
nature of the US Constitution after decades of the erosion of checks and balances thanks to
the Imperial Presidency, will recognise that a dialectic is at work here. Washington's
support for fascism abroad has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the
installation of fascist regimes abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US
intervenes it leaves a fascist regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind
it.
And what this means is that, among other things, the ability of the population to effect
political change is cancelled: there is no way that the people of Ukraine can decide what
they want because the decisions have been taken for them, in weird cult like gatherings of SS
worshiping Bandera supporters in Toronto and Chicago. It is no accident that most of the
'Ukrainians' being wheeled out by the Democrats to testify against Trump are actually greedy
expatriates who have never really lived in Ukraine.
There was a moment, not long ago, when it looked as if the Minsk accords promised a path to
peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately the plain people of Ukraine, the poorest in Europe
though living in one of the richest countries, Washington, Ottawa and NATO didn't like the
sound of Minsk. Nor did the fascists in the Baltic states and Poland, for whom, for
centuries, Ukraine has been a cow to milk, its people slaves to be exploited and its rich
resources too tempting to ignore.
As Thomas Jefferson explained the President's role in foreign affairs in 1790, and the lack
of advisors' policy making decisions: ''as the President was the only channel of
communication between the United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that
foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation';
that whatever he communicated as such, they had a right and were bound to consider 'as the
expression of the nation'; and that no foreign agent could be 'allowed to question it,' or
'to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either's
transgressing their functions.' Mr. Jefferson therefore declined to enter into any discussion
of the question as to whether it belonged to the President under the Constitution to admit or
exclude foreign agents. 'I inform you of the fact,' he said, 'by authority from the
President.'
Might also be worth yesterdays hero's asking if dear Mr Kolomoisky, joint Uki/Israeli
national, took a part in authorising the shoot down of MH17 as a news cover for Operation
Protective Edge. Heave ho zionist USA ....et al.
1.The decisions to with hold and release aid have nothing to do with the President making
foreign policy but with his campaign. Saying it was about foreign policy is a damned lie.
2.Trump as president is supposed to lead foreign policy, which means actually setting a
policy. Military aid to Ukraine, yes, except no, except yes, personal handling without asking
anybody with experience how to achieve the national goal desired, national agenda kept secret
from the people who have to carry it out, abuse of officials, demands for dubiously legal
actions without rationale...Saying it was about the president's executive role is a damned
lie.
3.Trump has not made even a tweet that questions US support for fascists. That not even a
issue for Trump. Saying this is about support for fascism is a damned lie.
4.Kolomoyskiy is a bankroller of fascists. It is not impossible even a billionaire might get
frightened by the genie he's let out of the bottle, even if he's Jewish and rich enough to
run away. But actually undoing the fascist regime means taming the paramilitaries and this is
not even on the horizon. Given the rivalry between Poroshenko and Kolomoyskiy it's not even
certain it's a real change of heart or just soothing words for the non-fascist people. Nor is
it even clear the Zelensky will follow even the Steinmeier formula. If he does, good, but
until something actually happens? Saying it's about the antifascist turn is a damned lie.
The only thing that isn't a lie is that Trump was not committing treasons, "merely" a
campaign violation. But then, Clinton never did either. The crybabies who dished it out but
can't take it deserve zero respect, and zero time.
Curious to know how Kolomoisky is working "feverishly" to end the war in the Donbass region.
Wonder if he is planning to come clean on what he knows of the Malaysia Airlines MH17
shootdown and crash in an area not far from Slavyansk and near where his Privat Group's
subsidiary company Burisma Holdings holds a licence to drill for oil and natural gas. What
does he know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control personnel's direction to MH17
to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000 metres above as the flight crew
had requested? He had been governor of Dnepropetrovsk region at the time.
Somewhere I read it alleged that the actual owner of Burisma was or is Kolomoiski.
Anything to this?
And via John Helmer (via Checkpointasia and dances with bears) comes the perspective that
it's not so much Kolomoiski floating trial balloons (though that may also be true) but that K
is being given space in the NYT to build his credentials as the new Borg villain, thereby
making it still harder for Zelensky to reconcile with Russia.
fb @ 25 said;"The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own
future...as the unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to
extract maximal wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on
the verge of toppling..."
Yup, aided and abetted by our current regime, while pretending not to...
@23
"It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot."
This is it in a nutshell. The Russians were fed up with Ukraine stealing gas. Hence, Nord
Stream 2. That was always the plan. Whether the Yanks truly grasped the rationale here
---Russia is cutting off gas to Ukraine, simple---has never been clear to me. Although it is
a fairly simple plot. The Russians had decades of shenanigans with the Ukes and said Basta.
By not overreacting to the Ukrainian-USA freakout and keeping their eyes on the prize (Nord
Stream and disengaging, gas-wise, from Uk), they have managed to reach their goal of getting
Nord Stream 2 online.
Kolomoiski is the bankroller and commander of the Azov Battalion. Has close arrangements with
other paramilitaries. And is the current principal of Burisma. And is Privatbank, the only
bank left in Ukraine. He gets a cut of all the action.
When Trump queries Zelensky, all that Zelensky is thinking is this guy does not know the
score. This guy does not know who's on first. He wants me to investigate the boss? Let him
talk to the boss. And who does Z talk to in D.C.? Pointless getting into detail with
Trump.
Trump has no team. No one in D.C. is on his side. He's unable to finish anything.
1) Say the fantasy happens and the US/Russia become BFFs like US/UK...
- Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss?
- Tough to answer, many unknowns- Russia may act different once its on top, actors may
derail schemes, Deep State temper tantrum, etc...
In general, governments are the order-providing solution for chaos and problems that only
first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over others.
Kolomoiski is a U.S. asset. His interview with the NYTimes proves it.
His threats are meant to mobilize NATO and Russia haters in general; because Trump and
most of his cadre care nothing for Ukraine.
Does anyone think Russia will give Kolomoiski 100 million dollars? Why was he given an
opportunity to threaten the USA? For no reason? Something else is afoot but Russia still
won't take the bait because they are winning.
Russia is quite happy with the status quo. The war in Ukraine keeps the war against Russia
on a level which is easy to manipulate and therefore geostrategically beneficial. Kolomoiski
will get nothing.
Thank you, b, for that snippet from NY Interview with Kolomoisky . I had glanced the headline
on RT but didn't read it because of RT's usual clumsy writing.
Kolomoiski is taunting the empire: investigate my crimes and
ukraine will seek reconciliation and alliance with russia.
Russia won't fall for it. They want kolomoiski's scalp even
more than the empire. From the statements putin has made, maybe
the only concession russia would accept is the dissolution of
ukraine as a sovereign entity and reintegration with russia, minus galicia.
Putin has remarked that they are not one people but one state. Ukraine
already knows that its domestic industry is only viable in competition
with the eu industrial powerhouses if it is integrated with russia.
What does [Kolomoysky] know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control
personnel's direction to MH17 to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000
metres above as the flight crew had requested?
Okay..so an interesting can of worms here...
First is the fact that Kolomoysky was the governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast at the
time...
Now as to the flight and Dnipro Radar [the regional air traffic control facility that
controls a very big chunk of airspace over eastern Ukraine]...
First the issue of the airplane cruising altitude...the crew had filed their flight plan
to climb from flight level 330 [33,000 ft] to FL350 after passing a certain waypoint in
eastern Ukraine...
Now the controllers did instruct the crew to go ahead and climb to their planned altitude,
but the crew declined the clearance and opted to stay at FL330...this was done very
likely because the atmospheric conditions at that height were better for fuel economy...
[To be even more specific...the Boeing manual gave an optimum flight altitude of 33,800
ft, but flying eastward you only have odd numbered flight levels to choose from, so the crew
figured they would be better off staying at 33 than climbing to 35...]
BUT...there are a couple of very curious things here...
First is the fact that Dnipro controllers deviated the airplane from its flight
plan just before it went down...ostensibly due to other traffic...
We can see this in the following map, which is what's called a high altitude en route
chart, which is used by pilots to plan and execute their flight...
You will note a couple of things here...the airplane is flying on the L980 airway
[basically a highway in the sky] when it is turned south by controllers to the RND waypoint,
which is in Russian territory...
This is NOT the route filed by the crew...which can be seen here...
They were supposed to continue flying on L980 right to the TAMAK waypoint, which is
visible on the previous chart and is right on the border with Russia...
They would have continued on the A87 airway to their next waypoint in Russia which is
TIKNA...
Now here is the thing...right after they were turned south, they got shot down...
According to the radio transcripts, the crew acknowledged the course change, but did not
object...however, usually these kinds of course changes aren't appreciated on the flight deck
because the crew is trying to minimize wasted time and wasted fuel on course
deviations...
Most times you will just not bother to complain to controllers...but for sure there will
always be chatter between the captain and copilot about being yanked around like that...
No mention is made in the Dutch Safety Board report about such chatter from the cockpit
voice recorder, which I find very odd...
Also odd is the fact that Dnipro ATC primary radar was down, and only the so-called
'secondary' was working which uses the transponder signals from the airplane...
This is very busy airspace because a lot of flights from western Europe to South Asia
traverse this territory...the plan is always to fly what's called a 'great circle route'
which is basically a straight line, if you flattened out the globe...
Plus considering that you have a war going on underneath...it's very unusual to have your
PRIMARY radar inoperable...
This is significant also because military aircraft will not be using transponders and so
will not be visible to the secondary surveillance...
The Russian primary radar did pick up two other aircraft very nearby MH17...but the Dutch
have made some kind of excuse about that data not being in 'raw' form and thus not
usable...
So we see some very suspicious anomalies here...
The Ukrainian authorities did have a NOTAM [notice to airmen] in effect up to FL320
[32,000 ft] so commercial traffic could not fly under that height...but clearly they should
have closed the airspace over the hot conflict area...
They didn't do that...and Kolomoysky was in charge...
The Deep State's view on the members' God given right to make foreign policy decisions (it
must be the God who has give it to them, because the people certainly have not) just reminds
the of the general attitude of the Government's bureaucracy. Give any fartbag a position in
the government and he/she becomes "a prince/princes over the people", give him or her a
monopoly over violence and you got yourself a king/queen. All these police and military kings
& queens milling around and lording over us. "Deep State" is such a totally natural
consequence of the government bureaucracy corrupted by power that it appropriated.
Pillaging taxes from the sheeple (and taking young maidens like Sheriff of
Nottingham/Epstein) could have never ever been enough. Did you seriously think that the Deep
Staters would constrain themselves to only stealing your money, taking your children for
their pleasure and to die in their wars of conquest, and putting you into a totally unsafe
airplanes to die for their profit? Constrain themselves when there is a whole globe out there
to be lorded over, like Bidens over Ukraine? It is the poor people of Ukraine who just have
too much money, thus had to give it through the gas monopoly to the Biden gang, which
selflessly brought them "democracy" at $5B in US taxpayers' expense. Therefore, it is the
Deep State which has been chosen by God, or someone just like that, to make the decisions
about the imperialist/globalist foreign policy and have billions of dollars thrown by the
grateful natives into their own pockets, as consulting fees:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-bank-records-confirm-burisma-biden-payments-morgan-stanley-account
So far the only clear-cut globalization is that one of crime, which has become
global.
What is the US National Interest b asks? Who defines it as such?
Ome magazine that might know is none other than The National Interest. Hopefully I won't
get attacked for quoting from what seems like a fairly sane article to me....
"The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to. Ukraine is a debt-ridden state
and only five years beyond an extralegal revolution. Should the government collapse again,
then American weapons could end up in the possession of any number of dubious paramilitary
groups.
It wouldn't be the first time. In the 2000s, CIA operatives were forced to repurchase
Stinger missiles that had fallen into the hands of Afghani warlords -- at a markup.
Originally offered to the Mujahideen in the 1980s, the Stingers came to threaten American
forces in the region. Similarly, many weapons provided with US authorization to Libyan rebels
in 2011 ended up in the possession of jihadists."
It's difficult to find clean information on happenings within Ukraine and those involving
Russia. The Ministry of Foreign affairs has this page
dedicated to the "Situation Around Ukraine." Of the three most recent listings,
this one --"Comment by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the NATO
Council's visit to Ukraine"--from 1 November is quite important as it deals with the reality
on the ground versus the circus happening thousands of miles away, although it's clear the
delusions in Washington and Brussels are the same and "continue to be guided by the Cold War
logic of exaggerating the nonexistent 'threat from the East' rather than the interests of
pan-European security."
In the
second most recent listing --"Remarks by Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian
Federation to the OSCE Vladimir Zheglov at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the
situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, October 31,
2019"--the following was noted:
"There's more to it. The odious site Myrotvorets continues to function using servers
located in the United States. The UN has repeatedly stated that this violates the presumption
of innocence and the right to privacy. Recently, Deputy Head of the UN Human Rights
Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Benjamin Moreau, reiterated the recommendation to shut down
this website. A similar demand was made by other representatives of the international
community, including the German government. The problem was brought to the attention of the
European Court of Human Rights. The other day, the representative of Ukraine at the ECHR was
made aware of the groundlessness of the Ukrainian government's excuses saying that it
allegedly 'has no influence' on the above website.
"In closing, recent opinion polls in Ukraine indicate that its residents are expecting the
government to do more to bring peace to Donbas. The path to a settlement is well known, that
is, the full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, that was
approved by the UN Security Council."
Clearly, Zelensky's government is much like Poroschenko's when it comes to listening to
those who empowered it, the above citation is one of several from the overall report.
The latest report deals with an ongoing case at the International Court of Justice at The
Hague that reveals some of the anti-Russian bias there. It has no bearing on this discussion,
although it does provide evidence of the contextual background against which the entire
affair, including the circus in Washington, operates.
MoA consensus is Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords they continue to oppose
to implement despite their promise to do so. Clearly an excellent example of not being
agreement capable that hasn't changed since 2015.
If the Republicans had any brains, they'd turn the Ukrainian aspect of the hearings into
an indictment against Obama/Biden for illegally overthrowing Kiev and trying to obtain their
piece-of-the-action, but then that would be the logical thing to do and thus isn't an option.
The prospect of each day providing similar spectacle is mind numbing as it airs the sordid,
unwashed underwear if the Evil Outlaw US Empire.
I normally do not reply to trolls, but I make an exception for you. Pedo-dollar? Do you have
any more such crap to dilute the valid points discussed here?
i liked what @ 32 tod said - "he's just doing the old Jewish threatening/begging
dance!
"And you are forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it." Wink!
Wink!"
stating the obvious is one remedy for any possible confusion here..
@54 karlof1... i don't believe trump is allowed to shine any light on the usas illegal
actions as that would be sacrilege to all the americans who see their country in such a
great, exceptional-ist light... how would trumps MAGA concept swallow that? it wouldn't, so
it won't happen...
You are a bit off on that story. NS2 pipeline will increase the capacity not transitioning
via Ukraine and reduce the price banditry by the Ukrainian & US gangs, but it will not
make gas transit via Ukraine unnecessary. The planned switch off of the German nuclear and
coal power plants will gradually increase the German demand for gas, that is the Russian gas
by so much that NS1 and NS2 will not be enough. Primarily, NS2 is a signal to the Ukrainian
& US Democrat gangs that if they try excessive transit fees and stealing of gas again,
that they will be circumvented within a few years by NS 3,4,5 ...
BTW, the globalized pillaging of the population is clearly not an invention of the DNC
crime gang only. For example, the 737Max is a product of primarily Republican activity on
deregulating what should have never been deregulated and subjugation to the Wall Street (aka
financialization). The pillaging of the World is strictly bipartisan, just differently
packaged:
1) R - packaging the deregulation to steal & kill as "freedom" or
2) D - packaging the regime change as responsibility to protect R2P (such regime change and
stuffing of own pockets later).
karlof1 @54 - "Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords"
Yes. As you well know, and as we have well discussed, Minsk was in its very essence the
surrender terms dictated to the US by NAF and Russia in return for letting the NATO
contractors go free and secretly out of the Debaltsevo cauldron. Either actually or
poetically, this was the basis. The US lost against NAF. The only way to prevent Donbass
incursion into the rest of Ukraine was to freeze the situation. The US had no choice, and
surrendered.
Out of the heat and fog of warfare came a simple document made of words which, even so,
illustrated perfectly just how elegantly the Kremlin had the entire situation both war-gamed
and peace-gamed. Minsk from that day until forever has locked the Ukraine play into a lost
war of attrition for the US sponsors, with zero gain - except for thieves.
To attempt to parse Ukraine in terms of statecraft is to miss the point that Ukraine can
only be parsed in terms of thievery. This is not cynicism, simply truth.
Now they sell their land because this is all there is left to sell. Kolomoisky proposes
selling the entire country to Russia for $100 billion but not only will Russia not bite, the
country isn't worth even a fraction of that - because of Minsk, it can cause zero harm to
Russia. But this ploy raises the perceived value (Kolomoisky hopes) in the eyes of the west,
and starts the bidding.
In Russia the people see all this very clearly, including on their TV. Yakov Kedmi in this
Vesti News clip of
Vladimir Soloviev's hugely popular talk show, discusses the situation. He baits Soloviev by
saying that the Ukrainian thieves are only doing what the Russian thieves did in the 1990's -
and one must filter through this badinage to take out the nuggets he supplies. Here are
three:
1. Zelensky has no security apparatus that follows his command, therefore how can he be
considered the leader of the country?
2. There is no power in Ukraine, only forces that contend over the scraps of plunder.
3. These forces are creating the only law there is, which is the sacred nature of private
property for the rich - the only thing the US holds sacred.
Therefore sell the very soil.
~~
The Minsk agreement is a sheer wall of ice reaching to the sky. No force imaginable can
scale it or break it. Against that ultimate, immovable wall the US pounds futilely, with
Ukraine caught in the middle, while Russia waits for Ukraine to devolve into whatever it
can.
And the Russian people and government regard the people of the Ukraine as brothers and
sisters. But until the west has worn itself down, and either gone away or changed the
equation through a weakening of its own position in some significant way, nothing can be done
by Russia except to wait.
What Tod @32 described is spot-on, "the old Jewish threatening/begging dance". It is not that
the Russians do not know this about Kolomoyskyi. They will play along not expecting anything
from the Zelo-on-a-String and his master. The Russians like to let those scumbags (Erdo comes
to mind) huff & puff and embarrass themselves by flips. They know - it could always be
worse if those did something intelligent. Kolomoyskyi is vile but he ain't no genius, not any
more than Erdo.
Sure Cheeza...everybody's a 'bit off' except you...
Gazprom is talking about 10 bcm a year through Ukraine for the new 10 year deal, as
opposed to the 60 bcm [billion cubic meters] that Ukraine is hoping for...
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction/)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government. Babyl-on @ 8
? before I begin , how do you measure the political and economic power of money
as opposed to the political and economic power of the intentions and needs of the masses.
Does $1 control a 100 people? A million dollars control 100,000,000 people? How do we measure
the comparative values between money power and people power? I think the divisions of
economics and the binaries of politics established by the nation state system means that the
measurement function (political and economic values) varies as a function of the total wealth
vs the total population in each nation state. If true, become obvious how it is that: foreign
investments displaces the existing homeostatis in any particular nation state, the smaller
the poorer the nation state, the more impact foreign wealth can have; in other words outside
wealth can completely destroy the homeostatis of an existing nation state. I think it is this
fact which makes globalization so attractive to the ruling interest (RI) and so damning to
the poorest of the poor.
Change by amendment is impossible There is one and only one Western Empire but
there is also an Eastern Empire, a southern empire, and a Northern Empire and I believe the
ruling interest (faction) manipulate all nations through these empires. In fact, they can do
this in any nation they wish. The world has been divided into containers of humans and
propaganda and culture have highly polarized the humans in one container against the humans
in other containers. <=divide, polarize, then exploit: its like pry the window, and gain
access to the residence, then exploit. It is obvious that the strength of the resistance to
ruling class exploitation is a function of common cause among the masses. But money allows to
control both the division of power and the polarization of the masses. The persons who have
the powers described in Article II of the US Constitution since Lincoln was murdered can be
controlled (Epstein, MSM directed propaganda, impeachment, assassination, to accomplish the
objects of the ruling interest (faction). Article II of the USA constitution removes foreign
activity of the USA from domestic view of the governed at home Americans. Article II makes it
possible for the POTUS to use American assets and resources to assist his/her feudal lords in
exploiting foreign nations almost at will and there is no way governed Americans can control
who the ruling interest place in the Article II position.
A little History Immigration to NYC from Eastern (the poor) and Western (the
rich) Europe transitioned NYC and other cities from Irish majority to a Jewish majority; and
the wealthy interest used the Jewish majorities in key cities to take control over both
Article I and Article II constitutional powers by electing field effect controlled
politicians (political puppets are elected that can be reprogrammed while they are in office
to suit the ruling interest. The source code is called rule of law, and money buys the
programmers who write the code. So the ruling interest can reprogram in field effect fashion,
any POTUS they wish. Out of sight use of the resources of America in foreign lands is nothing
new, it was established when the constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787 and
ratified in 1788.
Propaganda targeted to the Jewish Immigrants allowed the wealthy interest to
control the outcome of the 1912 election. That election allowed to destroy Article I,
Section 9, paragraph 4 " No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid unless in
Proportion to the Census of enumeration herein before directed to be taken". and to enact a
law which privatized the USA monopoly on money into the hands of private bankers (the federal
reserve act of 1913)
What was the grand design Highly competitive, independent too strong economic
Germany was interfering with Western hegemony and the oil was in the lands controlled by the
Ottomans. It took two wars, but Germany was destroyed, and the Ottoman empire (basically the
entire Middle East) became the war gained property of the British (Palestine), the French
(Syria) and the USA (Israel). Since then, the ruling interest have used their (field effect
devices to align governments so the wealthy could pillage victim societies the world over.
Field effect programming allows wealth interest to use the leaders of governments to use such
governments to enable pillage in foreign places. The global rich and powerful, and their
corporations are the ruling interest.
psychohistorian says it well "..the global private finance core segment of empire is
behind Trump and throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The
cult of global private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role
in the new multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyone's heads to make it
ongoing..." by psychochistorian @ 10
NOBITs @ 11 says it also "All presidents have been servants of the military, which includes
the police/intel/security apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead
role were "dealt with." Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state
bureaucrats are shocked and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US
foreign policy for 75 years!" by: NOBTS @ 11
According to TG @ 13 "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing
responsibility. The elites get to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take
responsibility when things go wrong. Because you see, we are a "Democracy."by: TG @ 13 <=
absolutely not.. the constitution isolates governed Americans from the USA, because the USA
is a republic and republics are about privatizing power and socializing responsibility;
worse, there ain't nothing you can do about it.
Vonu @ 19 says "According to Kevin Shipp, the National Security Council really runs the
executive branch, not the president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=XHbrOg092GA"
by: Vonu @ 19 <=but it is by the authority of Ariicle II that the NSC has the power to run
the executive branch?
KAdath @ 22 says "the Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in
order for the Russians to keep even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets by: Kadath @
22" <=exactly.. but really its not abandoning the USA, its abandoning the oligarchs local
to the pillaged nation..
J Swift @ 23 says "the US treats its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere,"
[poorly] but its not the USA per say, because only one person has the power to deal in
foreign places. Its that the POTUS, or those who control the Article II powers vested in the
POTUS, have or has been reprogrammed.. J. Switft @23>>
flankerbandit @ 25 says " Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they
are selling vast tracts of agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally
dispossessing themselves of their own food security..." flankerbandit @ 25 <=Not really
the wealthy (investor interest) have pushed the pillage at will button.. since there is no
resistance remaining, the wealthy will take it all for a song..
Jackrabbit @ 26 says "Trump [is].. Constitutionally charged with foreign policy. Repeating:
the "Imperial Presidency" has flung off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing
the need to get Congressional approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by
Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and black budgets.by Jackrabbit @ 26 <== Trumps orders
military to take 4 million day from Syria in oil?
your observation that the money has circumvented Article I of the COUS explains why the
democraps are so upset.. the wealthy democrap interest has been left to rot? Your comment
suggest s mafia is in charge?
Tod @ 32 says "As soon as some money goes his way, he'll discover democracy again.
Sorry to burst you bubbles." by: Tod @ 32" <==understatement of the day.. thanks.
Bevin @ 32 says "a dialectic is at work here. Washington's support for fascism abroad
has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the installation of fascist regimes
abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US intervenes it leaves a fascist
regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind it. this means.. the ability of
the population to effect political change is cancelled" by bevin @ 33 <= yes but there is
really no difference in a republic and its rule of law, and a fascist government and its
military police both rule without any influential input from the governed.
michael @ 34 reaffirms "The President was the only channel of communication between the
United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that foreign nations or their
agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation'" michael @ 34 well known to
barflies, the design of national constitutions is at the heart of the global problem. Until
constitutional powers are placed in control of the governed there will never be a change in
how the constitutional powers ( in case of the USA Article II powers) are used and
abused.
OutofThinAir @45 says "In general, governments are the order-providing solution for
chaos and problems that only first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over
others.by: OutOfThinAir @ 45" <+governments are the tools of wealth interest and the
governors their hired hands.
by: War is Peace @48 " Trump is a moron, groomed by Jewish parents ( Mother was Jewish,
Father buried at biggest Jewish cementary in NYC ) to be a non-Jew worked for the mob under
Cohen ( lawyer for 1950's McCarthy ); Became the 'Goyim Fool" real estate developer as a
cover for laundering mob money. So that it didn't appear that it was Jewish Mafia Money, so
they could work with the Italian Mafia. Trump went on for his greatest role ever to be the
"fool in Chief" of the USA for AIPAC. What better way to murder people, than send out a fool,
it causes people to drop their guard. by War is Peace @48 <= yes this is my take, What
does it mean. com suggest the global wealth interest may be planning to reprogram Trump to
better protect the interest of the global wealthy.
Kiza @ 51 the reason for globalization is explained see above=> response to Babyl-on @
8
dh @ 53 says ""The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to." by dh @53 <
the USA cannot consider anything, if its foreign the POTUS (Article II) makes all decisions
because Art II gives the POTUS a monopoly on talking to, and dealing with, foreign
governments.
Deagel @ 56 says "The American people don't care, they're all drugged out, and shitting
on the side-walks all over the USA, and sleeping in their own shit. This is the best time in
USA history for the Zionists to do anything they wish." by: Deagel @ 56 <= I think you
under estimate the value Americans place on democracy and human rights, until recently
governed Americans believed the third party privately produced MSM delivered propaganda that
nearly all overseas operations by the USA were to separate the people in those places from
their despotic leaders, and to help those displaced people install Democracy.. many Americans
have come to understand such is far from the case.. the situation in the Ukraine has been an
eye opener for many Americans. thoughts are sizzling, talk is happening, and people are
trying to shut google out of their lives. that is why i think Trump is about to be
reprogrammed from elected leader to .. God in charge
I watched that Soloviev segment with Kedmi the other day...always interesting to say the
least...
Btw...I'm not really up to speed on that whole Debaltsevo cauldron thing...I've heard
snippets here and there...[there is a guy, Auslander, who comments on the Saker blog that
seems to have excellent first hand info, but I've only caught snippets here and there]...
I hadn't heard this part of the story before about Nato contractors as bargaining
chips...if you care to shed a bit more light I will be grateful...
I suggest going to The Saker Blog and
enter Debaltsevo Cauldron into the site's search box and click Submit where you'll be greeted
with numerous results.
Grieved @62--
Thanks for your reply and excellent recap. As I recall, Putin wants Donbass to remain in
Ukraine and Ukraine to remain a whole state, although I haven't read his thoughts on the
matter for quite some months as everything has revolved around implementing Minsk. The items
at the Foreign Ministry I linked to are also concerned with Minsk.
The circus act in DC is trying to avoid any mention of Minsk, the coup or anything
material to the gross imperial meddling done there to enrich the criminal elite, which
includes Biden, Clinton, other DNC members--a whole suite of actors that omits Trump in this
case, although they're trying to pin something on him. The issue being studiously ignored is
Obama/Biden needed to be busted for their actions at the time, but in time-honored fashion
weren't. And the huge rotted sewer of corruption related to that action and ALL that came
before is the real problem at issue.
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person as evidenced by The New Yorker 737Max article
in the previous thread. This good article could only be measured by how much it agrees with
your own opinion that MCAS was put in to mimic the pilots' usual fly-stick feel. If anyone
does his home work, such as the journalist of this article, then he must agree with you,
right? With experts such as you out there, why would anyone dare apply common sense and say
that it would be an unimaginably stupid idea to put in ANY AUTOMATED SYSTEM which pushes
the plane's nose down during ascent (the most risky phase of a civilian flight, when almost
desperately trying to get up and up and up) for any DUMBLY POSSIBLE REASON !? What could
ever go wrong with such an absolutely dumbly initiated system relying on one sensor? Maybe it
was a similar idea to putting a cigarette lighter right next to the car's gas tank because it
lights up cigarettes better when there are gasoline vapors around. Or maybe an idea of
testing the self-driving lithium battery (exploding & flammable) cars near kindergartens
(of some other people's children)!?
An intelligent person would have said - whatever the reason was to put in MCAS it was a
terribly dumb idea, instead of congratulating himself on understanding the "true reason".
"If I were president, while I would resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly
associate myself with the delusion that stable friendship is possible (or, frankly,
desirable) with Putin's anti-American dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia
family and is acting on its revanchist ambitions."
Really?
From what have gleaned from the alternative media available on the internet ,of which MOA is
an important part. Putin and Lavrov are the two most moral and diplomatic statesmen on the
world stage today Compared to Trump, Johnson, Macron, Merkel, Stoltenberg, Pompeo, Bolton and
whoever else blights the international scene these days these two are colossi.
To describe
them as like a Mafia family seems to me to be 180 degrees wrong. Maybe Putin overreacted, in
his early days in power, to the Chechen conflict but look at the situation today.
Look at how
Gorbachev and Yeltsin were played by the west. I appreciate you did not write the words
quoted above but you said you agree with them and I find that startling given I am usually
very admiring of your insight and knowledge of geopolitical events.
According to the Impeachniks, it is Schiff's staff who decides how Schiff votes and his
policies. It would be illegal for Schiff to make decisions. But Schiff's recommendation will
make or break the careers of his staff, so elected Schiff has some influence. That's not true
for elected Trump, because those in his service already have made careers and/or a host of
outsiders looking to place them.
Although, he didn't get impeached for it Obama did get criticized for not sending the aid to
Ukraine. He was also criticized when he did intervene, but not fast enough for the deep
state. Remember "leading from behind" in response to Libya. Obama was much more popular and
circumspect than Trump, which protected him from possible impeachment when he went off the
deep state's script.
Discussion of the USC and the responsibilities assigned therein is probably a foolish and
merely moot exercise, as law is, ultimately simply custom over time, and since '45 or so the
custom has become dissociated from the documents' provisions, particularly with regard to
war-making and the "licensed" import and sale of dangerous drugs, dope. The custom in place
is essentially ukase - rule by decree. Many decree are secret.
I do not object, simply pointing to the obvious.
This is a public secret anybody can know. Inter alia see The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia (McCoy)
...........
Custom includes also permitted theft, blackmail, trafficking children and so forth.
...........
zerohedge put up some documents tying TGM Hunter B to the money from Ukraine...
................
I would not worry about the name of the person called president. The real sitrep is more
like watching rape and murder from the dirty windows of a runaway train.
Upon the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine was left with the fifth-largest nuclear arsenal in
the world. In exchange for financial assistance in the costs of removing all the nukes, the
West guaranteed to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In the meantime, Russia has annexed the Crimea and rebels have taken control of parts of
Eastern Ukraine. The West has not provided any direct military assistance to restore those
territorial infringements.
Since the West has reneged on its end of the deal, would it not only be fair to return
Ukraine's nukes so it can defend itself like the Big Boys do, namely with threat of nuclear
annihilation?
I hate this trope. The Russian Fed. is not launching offensive operations to capture
Kharkov or Kiev. Western Ukraine is shelling ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. What would
U.S. Congressman say if these were Jews? (I would condemn that as well).
The next time someone pontificates, 'Ukrainians are dying because Trump held up aid' ask
them how many. The number is ZERO. Javelins are not being used on the front line.
Mr. Kolomoisky is spot on, i.e. when he says that the Americans will only use Ukrainians as
their little bitches to fight and die for America's gain against Russia. Just like the
Americans fucked over the Kurds in Syria, using them as proxy fighters to do USA/Israel's
dirty work. Wherever the USA shows up and starts interfering, everything turns into shit:
Iraq...Afghanistan...Venezuela...Bolivia...Ukraine...Libya...Yemen...Nicaragua...Ecuador...the
list is quite long. It remains to be seen if Mr. Kolomoisky can bring about rapprochement
with Russia. He'd better watch his back.
"Wow. My opinion of Kolomoisky has just improved ... somewhat." --Seamus Padraig @73
Yes, Kolomoisky has moved up a notch in my estimation as well; from the low of
"monstrously inhuman spawn of satan" all the way up to "rabid dog" . That's
quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
I am very glad to see you back, Grieved, and your 'wall of ice' metaphor is indeed accurate.
To me, the promising signs in Ukraine were even as here in the US when voters fought back
against what b calls Deep State, which I am sure in my heart was even more of an overwhelming
surge than registered - the best the corrupters of the system could do was make it close
enough to be a barely legitimate win for their side, and they didn't succeed. Maybe somewhere
along their line of shenanigans a small cog in the wheel got religion and didn't do their
'job'. An unsung hero who will sing when it's safe.
I hope, dearly hope, it gets safe in Ukraine very soon. They are us only further down the
line than we are, but we will get there if we can't totally remove the cancer in our midst.
That's our job; I wish Ukraine all the best in removing theirs.
Jen...I should have made clear that the two aircraft picked up by Russian PRIMARY RADAR were
unidentified...
The two commercial flights you mention were in the area and were known to both Russian and
Ukrainian controllers by means of the SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR, which picks up the
aircraft transponder signals...
However, secondary WILL NOT pick up military craft that have their transponders
off...which is normal operating procedure for military craft...
So the airspace situation was this...you can see this from one of the illustrations I
provided from the DSB prelim report...
You had MH17...you had that other flight coming from the opposite direction [flying
west]...and you had that airplane that overtook the MH17 from behind [they were in a hurry
and were going faster, so when MH17 decided to stay at FL330, they were cleared to climb to
FL350 so they could safely overtake with the necessary vertical separation...]
Those three aircraft were all picked up on the Ukrainian SECONDARY [transponder]
surveillance...as well as the Russians...on both their PRIMARY AND SECONDARY...
But what the Russians picked up were two craft ONLY ON THEIR PRIMARY...those would have
been military aircraft flying with their transponders off [they're allowed to do that and do
that most of the time in fact]...
That's why those two DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE SECONDARY DATA HANDED OVER TO THE INVESTIGATORS
BY THE UKRAINIANS...
Only primary radar would pick those up...and, very conveniently, the Dnipro primary was
inop at the time...[so the data handed to investigators by the Ukrainians would have no trace
of any military aircraft nearby]...
But with the Russian primary radar data, there is in fact evidence that there were
military aircraft in the air at the time...just that the Dutch investigators simply decided
to exclude the very vital Russian radar data on some stupid technicality...
[Really this is a very poorly done report, both prelim and final, and I've read many over
the years...]
The other thing I should have emphasized more clearly is about that course deviation that
controllers steered MH17 to, just seconds before it was hit...
The known traffic was those three commercial aircraft, as shown on the chart...here it is
again...
Those three commercial flights are clearly labeled...and the big question is... why was
MH17 DIVERTED SOUTH...OFF ITS PLANNED ROUTE...?
We can see the deviation track by the dotted red line...
Clearly there was no 'other traffic' that required MH17 to be vectored south by the
controllers...
In fact we see that there was a FOURTH commercial flight [another B777] that was flying
south exactly to that same waypoint that MH17 was diverted to...we see this airplane is
flying west on the M70 airway and is heading to the RND waypoint...
This does not make sense...why would you divert MH17 from going to TAMAK as flight
planned...in order to go south toward RND where another airplane is heading...
If nothing else this is very bad controller practice right there...yet again, the DSB
[Dutch Safety Board] does not even raise this question...
Like I said, leaving aside any guesswork, these are the simple facts and they raise
serious questions...both about the competence of the Dutch report, and the way the
controllers handled that flight...
Ukrainian think tank Ukrainian Institute of the Future and Ukrainian media outlet Zerkalo
Nedeli (both anti-Russian, but slightly more intellectual than typical Ukrainian outlets)
have contracted a Kharkov-based pollster to conduct a poll among DNR/LNR residents from
October 7 to October 31 (method: face-to-face interviews at the homes of the respondents,
sample size: 806 respondents in DNR and 800 respondents in LNR, margin of error: 3.2%) and
published its results in an article: Тест
на сумісність
[Compatibility Test] (in Ukrainian).
It's a long and rambling article, interspersed with
Ukrainian propagandistic clichés (perhaps to placate Ukrainian nationalists), but the
numbers look solid, so I've extracted the numbers I consider important and put them in a
table format. Here they are:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Gender 46.5% male 53.5% female
Age 8.3% <25 years old 91.7% ≥25 years old
Education 31.5% no vocational training or higher education 45.2% vocational training 23.3% higher education
Religion 57% marry and baptize their children in Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) 31% believe in God, but do not go to any church 12% other churches, other religions, atheists
Political activity 3% are members of parties 97% are not members of parties
Language 90% speak Russian at home 10% speak other languages at home
Nationality 55.4% consider themselves Ukrainians 44.6% do not consider themselves Ukrainians
ECONOMY
Opinion about the labor market 24.3% there are almost no jobs 39.3% high unemployment, but it's possible to find a job 15.7% there are jobs, even if temporary 17.1% key enterprises are working, those who want to work can find a job 2.9% there are not enough employees
Personal financial situation 4.9% are saving on food 36.4% enough money to buy food, but have to save money to buy clothing 43.6% enough money to buy food and clothing, but have to save money to buy a suit, a mobile
phone, or a vacuum cleaner 12% enough money to buy food, clothing, and other goods, but have to save money to buy
expensive goods (e.g. consumer electronics) 2.7% enough money to buy food, clothing, and expensive goods, but have to save money to buy a
car or an apartment 0.4% enough money to buy anything
Personal financial situation compared to the previous year 28.4% worsened 57.3% stayed the same 14.2% improved
Personal financial situation expectations for the next year 21% will worsen 58.6% will stay the same 18.7% will improve
Opinion on the Ukraine's (sans DNR/LNR) economic situation compared to the previous
year 50.3% worsened 41.4% stayed the same 6.3% improved
CITIZENSHIP
Consider themselves citizens of 57.8% the Ukraine 34.8% DNR/LNR 6.8% Russia
Russian citizenship 42.9% never thought about obtaining it 15.5% don't want to obtain it 34.2% would like to obtain it 7.4% already obtained it
Considered leaving DNR/LNR for 5.2% the Ukraine 11.1% Russia 2.9% other country 80.8% never considered leaving
Visits to the Ukraine over the past year 35.1% across the DNR/LNR–Ukraine border (overwhelming majority of them -- 32.2% of all
respondents -- are pensioners who visit the Ukraine to receive their pensions) 2.6% across the Russia–Ukraine border 62.3% have not visited the Ukraine
WAR
Is the war in Donbass an internal Ukrainian conflict? 35.6% completely agree 40.5% tend to agree 14.1% tend to disagree 9.3% completely disagree
Was the war started by Moscow and pro-Russian groups? 3.1% completely agree 6.4% tend to agree 45.1% tend to disagree 44.9% completely disagree
Who must pay to rebuild DNR/LNR? (multiple answers) 63.6% the Ukraine 29.3% Ukrainian oligarchs 18.5% DNR/LNR themselves 17% the U.S. 16.5% the EU 16% Russia 13% all of the above
ZELENSKIY
Opinion about Zelenskiy 1.9% very positive 17.2% positive 49.6% negative 29.3% very negative
Has your opinion about Zelenskiy changed over the past months? 2.7% significantly improved 7.9% somewhat improved 44.8% stayed the same 22.9% somewhat worsened 20.5% significantly worsened
Will Zelenskiy be able to improve the Ukraine's economy? 1.4% highly likely 13.3% likely 55.3% unlikely 30% highly unlikely
Will Zelenskiy be able to bring peace to the region? 1.7% highly likely 12.5% likely 59% unlikely 26.5% highly unlikely
MEDIA
Where do you get your information on politics? (multiple answers) 84.3% TV 60.6% social networks 50.9% relatives, friends 45.9% websites 17.4% co-workers 10% radio 7.4% newspapers and magazines
What social networks do you use? (multiple answers) 70.7% YouTube 61% VK 52.3% Odnoklassniki 49.8% Viber 27.1% Facebook 21.4% Instagram 12.4% Twitter 11.1% Telegram
FUTURE
Desired status of DNR/LNR 5.1% part of the Ukraine 13.4% part of the Ukraine with a special status 16.2% independent state 13.4% part of Russia with a special status 50.9% part of Russia
Desired status of entire Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts 8.4% part of the Ukraine 10.8% part of the Ukraine with a special status 14.4% independent state 13.3% part of Russia with a special status 49.6% part of Russia
Just listening to a bit of the testimony of the ex-ambassador to Ukraine.
It is all BS hearsay!
Also, this lady doesn't seem to grasp that as an employee of the State Department, she
answers to Trump. Trump is her boss.
The questioning is full of leading questions that contains allegations and unproved
premises built into them. I can't imagine that such questioning would be allowed in a normal
court of justice in the USA.
Sure, Trump is a boor. But he is still the boss and he gets to pull out ambassadors if he
wants to.
This is total grandstanding.
Also, a lot of emotional stuff like "I was devastated. I was shocked. Color drained from
my face as I read the telephone transcript . . . "
This is BS!
IIRC the Russian radar showed that the two mystery planes in questions were flying in
MH17's blindspot . That's way too close to be half an hour away. Also, the fact that
the two planes were flying over a war zone with their transponders turned off (which is why
they couldn't be conclusively identified) strongly suggests that they were military.
@ Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 15 2019 11:24 utc | 71
When the US launched a coup in Kiev, wasn't that a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty
too?
@ Posted by: Christian J Chuba | Nov 15 2019 12:36 utc | 72
You know the real reason why they have yet to deliver the javelins to Ukraine? It's
because they're afraid that they'll be sold on the black market and end up in the ME
somewhere targeting US tanks. That's why.
@ Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 15 2019 13:30 utc | 75
That's quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
on Yovanovitch,
She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to
safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States."
She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security
interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. .
.Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is
injured in the knee
Cheeza decides to launch a personal attack...also completely off topic...
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person [sic]...With experts such as you out there,
why would anyone dare apply common sense...an intelligent person would have said...blah
blah blah...
Look man...I'm not going to take up a lot of space on this thread because it's not about
the MAX...
BUT...I need to set the record straight because you are accusing me here of somehow
muddying the waters on the MAX issue...
That is a complete inversion of the truth...I have been very explicit in my [professional]
comments about the MAX...and it is the exact opposite of what you are trying to tar me with
here...
Yes, it is important to understand these things...which is why I have made the effort to
explain the issue more clearly for the layman audience...
Your pathetic attack here shows you have no shame, nor self-respect...
Let's rewind the tape here...I said that Gazprom is looking to cut supplies to Ukraine in
the new 10 year deal that comes up for negotiation in January...and that they are going to be
pumping much less gas through Ukraine because NS2 now allows to bypass Ukraine...
You took a run at this comment, calling it wrong, and putting up a bunch of your own
hypothesizing...
I responded by linking to the
Russian news report quoting officials saying exactly that...that gas to Ukraine will be
greatly reduced...
Instead of responding to that by admitting you were full of shit...you decide to attack me
on the MAX issue...everybody here knows my [professional] position on the MAX...and that I
have said repeatedly THAT IT CANNOT BE FIXED...[which is also why I have offered detailed
technical explanations...]
I'm not going to let you screw with my integrity here...everything you attributed to me
on the MAX is completely FALSE and in fact turning the truth on its head...
As Kiza #55 noted - Nordstream 1 and 2, combined, only equal half of Ukraine's transit
capacity.
The primary impact is that Ukraine can't hold far Western European customer gas hostage
anymore with its gas transit "negotiations" as Nordstream allows Russia to sell directly to
Germany.
There can still be Russian gas sold via Ukraine, but this will be mostly to near-Ukraine
neighbors: Romania, Slovakia, Austria, Czech as well as Ukraine itself.
Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania can transit from Turk Stream, but there are potential Turk (and
Bulgarian) issues.
Poland is already committing to LNG in order to not be dependent on Russian gas transiting
Ukraine - a double whammy.
The ultimate effect is to remove Ukraine's stranglehold position over Russian gas exports,
which in turn severely undercuts Ukraine's ability to both get really cheap Russian gas and
additional transit fees - a major blow to their economy.
Therefore, the continuation of gas transit via Ukraine in volumes greater than the 26 bcm/y
suggested above will depend on the European Commission and European gas importers, and
their insistence that gas transit via Ukraine continues.
Otherwise, gas transit via Ukraine will be reduced to delivering limited volumes for
European storage re-fills in the 'off-peak' summer months...
This prospect will undoubtedly complicate any negotiations between Gazprom and its
Ukrainian counterparty over a new contract to govern the transit of Russian gas via
Ukraine, once the existing contract expires at the end of December 2019.
...Gazprom may be willing to commit to only limited annual transit volumes...
European gas importers don't give a shit about Ukraine...and they have the final
word...they care only about getting the gas they need from Russia in a reliable way and at a
good price...
The news report I linked to makes it perfectly clear that the Europeans are demanding that
the Ukranians get their act together on the gas issue, or they will be dropped
altogether...
You know...FOOL...it really makes me wonder how fools like you decide to make statements
here with a very authoritative tone...when it is quite clear you are talking out your rear
end...
Nobody needs that kind of bullshit here...if you don't know a subject sufficiently well,
then maybe you should keep quiet...or when making a statement, phrase it as your own OPINION
and nothing more...
The problem with import substitution is that the factories that used to make these goods were
largely moved to China. China isn't going to give them back.
So in order to attempt to substitute US made for the China imports, the factories have to
be built first.
Secondly, China heavily subsidizes the early parts of the supply chains: raw materials and
what not. This wouldn't hold true to American factories.
So while the goal and the theory are good, the problem is the execution.
Russia is doing it because they're forced to: sanctions actually accelerates the process
because Russian internal investors know there will be a reasonably long term market for
Russian goods so long as the sanctions hold true, and the sanctions also lock in Russian
capital (that which was repatriated) to some extent.
Brilliant! Acting Ambassador Bill Taylor's testimony today was unabashed and explicit: the
real issue is how best to bring Ukraine into the Western orbit–a bipartisan 30-year
effort.
For a follow-up, dig deeper into Burisma Holdings and its strange set of directors: Hunter
Biden, Devon Archer, Cofer Black, Alan Apter, and the former president of Poland, among
others. Then Google "Burisma and LNG," as in liquified natural gas.
That will lead to the
business press: Forbes 9/30/2019, Reuters 8/30/2019, and Petroleum Economist 8/8/2017.
The
apparent plan, still in process, is to ship U.S. LNG to Ukraine via a port on the Baltic
coast of Poland, thereby weaning Ukraine away from Russian natural gas and hurting Russia's
export-dependent economy. Cold War II stuff. Check it out.
"... So the Ukrainians traded their corrupt Ukrainian elected President, mostly accumulating stuff in Ukraine, for corrupt neocon/ neolib Democrat bureaucrats and Ukrainian/ Americans, who now cannot be denied their pound of flesh (which will quickly exit Ukraine, taking much of that country's value with it). ..."
"... Even the anti-corruption agencies are corrupt! So American policy now is set by such bureaucrats, who not only play military adventurism games (to justify all that money in loans, grants, and weapons), but even pass the corruption level of the Native Ukrainians in skimming that incoming money and getting rich, and of course steal whatever isn't nailed down (American policy as previewed in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"). ..."
"to a one they are turf-conscious careerists who think they set U.S. foreign policy and
resent the president for intruding upon them. It is increasingly evident that Trump's true
offense is proposing to renovate a foreign policy framework that has been more or less
untouched for 75 years (and is in dire need of renovation)."
This may be even worse than Lawrence depicts. It is clear that Vindman in his opening
remarks made it clear that the consensus policy of experts (like John Bolton) had been
following an agenda from the Obama administration (or before, but implemented under Obama,
Biden and Nuland) and it is verboten to change anything, despite constitutionally these
people at best only having advisory roles to the President (and constitutionally the
President can ask for their opinions in writing; CYA even back then!) The Ukrainian Americans
involved in the coup (national security from Vindman's perspective) are deeply committed
since 2014, and they expect to reap the benefits with no interference from Trump. And the
Democrats/ Ukraine-Americans "running the show" are probably much more corrupt than
Ukrainians governing their country before 2014.
I have started Oliver Bullough's "Money Land" and was aghast at the luxury items
Yanukovich had stolen through corruption and accumulated at his many properties. Surely with
so much money going to corrupt Yanukovich and his henchmen, the coup would have been a
blessing for the Ukrainian people! Right? I was shocked to find that after the overthrow of
Yanukovich in 2014, the median per capita household income in Ukraine, which had risen
steadily from $2032 in 2010 to $2601 in 2013, had dropped over 50% to $1110 to $1135 in 2015
and 2016, and has only risen to $1694 in 2018 (ceicdata.com).
So the Ukrainians traded their
corrupt Ukrainian elected President, mostly accumulating stuff in Ukraine, for corrupt
neocon/ neolib Democrat bureaucrats and Ukrainian/ Americans, who now cannot be denied their
pound of flesh (which will quickly exit Ukraine, taking much of that country's value with
it).
Even the anti-corruption agencies are corrupt! So American policy now is set by such
bureaucrats, who not only play military adventurism games (to justify all that money in
loans, grants, and weapons), but even pass the corruption level of the Native Ukrainians in
skimming that incoming money and getting rich, and of course steal whatever isn't nailed down
(American policy as previewed in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman").
Are we starting to witness some state cinture in Spain?
After yesterday warning, is the socialist government of Sánchez turning, at least a
bit, if only in form, socialist?
( after the advance of the "devotes of Trump´s night worship" in yesterday elections
and probably progession of Spanish policy investigation on Barcelona riots, two events that
reinforced each other? )
Spain criticizes the role of the Bolivian Army and Police in the resignation of President
Evo Morales, after protests against his re-election.
Spain joins the avalanche of international comdenations before the proceeding of the
Bolivian Army and Police at the juncture that the Latin American country is going through,
since, according to a statement issued on Monday by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
in this regard, that proceeding reminds past times in Latin American history, even more
when President Evo Morales opted for a new call for elections.
"Spain condemns that the process opened yesterday towards a new electoral call has been
distorted by the intervention of the Armed Forces and the Police, suggesting to Evo Morales
to submit his resignation", the note said.
Likewise, the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs calls "all actors to avoid resorting
to violence" and "to guarantee the security of all Bolivians (...) including former
President Morales himself, his relatives and members of his administration".
For his part, the general secretary of the Spanish Unidas Podemos party, Pablo
Iglesias, has written on his Twitter account that "Coup d'etat in Bolivia. Shameful that
there are media that say the army makes the president resign. In the last 14 years Bolivia
has improved all its social and economic indicators. All our support to the Bolivian people
and Evo Morales".
The style of scaring the people is a total imitation from post-Maidan Ukraine, where
communists and other opposed factions in Rada were beaten, covered in paint and thrown in
waste containers...until they left the country...
Then Myrotvorets was launched and the first killings on those who dared to quition
Euromaydan events... Recall Alex Buzina... Any compromised intellectual will suffer the same
fate in Bolivia...
Guess who is behind this coup at the letter of the book...
Don't get me wrong Sasha, I don't think Evo's team objective, 2 weeks after they've win them,
was to repeat elections so soon. This is likely their best approach right now, for the sake
of Bolivians and their supporters. Not mentioning possible reaction a la Caracas.
#InfoMV Evo Morales denounced that his security personnel were offered 50 thousand dollars
for him to be delivered to violent opposition groups. He held Fernando Camacho and Carlos
Mesa responsible for what would happen to him or García Linera.
@Posted by: Vasco da Gama | Nov 10 2019 23:43 utc | 53
You seem to be unaware of the developments of events to this time, Evo called for
elections BEFORE he was oblied to resign by police and military rebels, and made leave the
country...
Elections now with every Evo´s supporter under menace of death would only throw a fake
result favourable to the opposition who did not manage to win elections democratically...
This is the same scenario than in the Ukraine, where representatives of the working people
were never more able to concur to elections and had to leave the country, remaining to be
elected only those puppets of oligarchs or the US...
Pasquinades posted by coupist opposition before Efvo´s resignation what ccan illustrate
why the government has resigned so fast...
Pure fascism....
What I told you? Here you have the Bolivian Myrotvorets .....
Traitor Tracking The population is asked to register all the social network publications of
the "Cyber llunkus". Take screenshots and copy the links of the publications and profiles
of the "Cyber Llunkus".
The M.A.S. ( Evo´s party ) is a criminal organization.
Once Evo Morales falls, a rake will be made to identify the traitorous of the people "Cyber
Llunkus" and imprison them through the location of their mobile devices.
Fake profiles will not save them.
#Civil Resistance Bolivia
Now that the US tells us the tale of democratic elections in Bolivia now...
A people's Counter-revolution that sweeps the Reactionaries down the drain once and for
all.
Chavez was keen to the CIA's modus and thus reformed the military in numerous respects,
particularly by making it impervious to corruption--AND--instituting the uniquely structured
Bolivarian Constitution. Evo's problems stem from the lack of extensive public support as
proven by the election results that kept him from instituting the sort of reforms Chavez
accomplished; and the same goes for all other Latin American nations. In a nutshell, the
Bolivian people squabbled too much amongst themselves and never constructed the type of
Revolutionary constitution and social system required to be resilient to outside
manipulation. Yes, Venezuela was very much a Bottom->Up remaking of society to the point
where the Comprador upper 10% didn't matter, which is why Chavez then Maduro left them to
their own devices. But elsewhere, the popular masses never generated the required solidarity
to prevent losing their hard won freedoms. Sure, it's possible to regain power through the
ballot box, but it can be just as easily lost as is happening now in Bolivia if preventative
measures aren't taken beforehand.
Nations must have constitutions that don't allow for rich minorities to gain control or to
allow them to begin in control as in the USA's case. But to institute such an instrument, the
popular masses must act as one and cast their factionalisms aside until this primary aspect
of consolidating power in their hands becomes the law of their land. Plus, they must again
drop their in-fighting when confronted by any reactionary threat and remember what the main
task is at all times--Maintenance of Freedom.
We all see what seems to be the demise of empire but facts on the ground tell a different
story today in Bolivia. I am sorry for the pain and suffering for many caused by my country
under the control of the global private finance cult. I continue to try and spread the word
about the perfidy of Western empire and will keep trying but am limited in my abilities.
I hope to live to see the demise of private finance led empire all over the world.
Humanity deserves a better future.
We all see what seems to be the demise of empire but facts on the ground tell a different
story today in Bolivia. I am sorry for the pain and suffering for many caused by my country
under the control of the global private finance cult. I continue to try and spread the word
about the perfidy of Western empire and will keep trying but am limited in my abilities.
I hope to live to see the demise of private finance led empire all over the world.
Humanity deserves a better future.
What saved Venezuela was the huge investing in education started with Chavez, in that they
counted with the help and advice of people from the Spanish left ...
Bolivian people, of the poor class, are mostly poorly educated people...and so easy to buy
and fool...as this images show...
Look that this people ransacking Evo´s home, they are not white patricios ...but
those who they have payed to do the dirty work...indigenous people poorly
dressed...collaborating in ovrthrowing the legitimate democratically elected from their
own...
Yeah..this time is no different from others, they always go straight to the throat of the
weak and poor...Totally depsicable...
To their own, earning points in the view of the world...
@ Sasha who wrote
"
What saved Venezuela was the huge investing in education started with Chavez, in that they
counted with the help and advice of people from the Spanish left ...
Bolivian people, of the poor class, are mostly poorly educated people...and so easy to buy
and fool...as this images show...
"
I agree, thank you for your commenting and want to add my perspective to that.
If you read many who come and comment at MoA that supposedly are "educated" you will
notice that they continue to think and write in terms of the conflict being between socialism
and capitalism in spite of myself, karlof1 and others that continually point out that China
is 80% capitalistic as are other "socialistic" countries but what matters is what part of the
social economy is socialism versus capitalism. That is why I continue to beat my drum about
the evil of global private finance that is the core problem with the social contract of the
West. Look at how many in the West are brainwashed to not understand the difference between
public/private finance and its effects on the whole culture and aggressive nature of the
society under that meme.
That, IMO, is the core education that all those in the West and all striving to throw off
the chains/economic jackboot of the West must learn and take to heart.
Very disappointing to hear about Evo...but this is just one round in a very long fight...
In Argentina we have a new government for the people...in Mexico also...Lula is out of
jail now in Brazil so eventually that will turn also...
The empire is rotting but is very dangerous right now because they are lashing out
everywhere...we see in Lebanon and Iraq they are not succeeding...
This is desperation we see folks...they are losing control quickly and are trying
to forestall the inevitable collapse of their global fascist dictatorship...
I think the end will come much sooner than they expect...the house of cards is teetering
badly...
Maidán script all the way....They do not have enough with hi resigning, they need
to wipe out such honest leader form the face of Earth, at least while the "new fake
elections" to maskerade the take over by the opposition are developed...as happened with
Lula....
Here, US Lawyer sees all the signature of the US around the place...as happens to
me...
A significant factor is that the anti-Morales opposition is based mainly in Santa Cruz
department in eastern Bolivia. This is the largest department (in territory and population)
in Bolivia and has significant natural gas reserves. The indigenous people living in that
department have virtually nothing in common with the highland indigenous people (Aymara and
Quechua speakers) who formed Morales' base.
Morales did not have a military background as Chavez did and we can presume he was never
able to cultivate a network of militias among the urban and rural working class that could
support and defend his government. Significantly it was the armed forces who asked Morales to
resign.
@Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 11 2019 1:34 utc | 72
Sorry...but the conflict is between socialism and capitalism...between the rich and the
working masses, especially those who work and still they remain poor....as has always
been....who says otherwise is only trying to fool the masses...
Of course, you people in this forum who live over the average peer, I do not try that you
understand...
You live in your world, looking your belly button, and the furthest you are willing to go is
complain here about the Outlaw US Empire...
Why do you not damn go tomorrow in the streets to protest this new coup by your fascist
administration?
Do not tell me, that would risk your privileged pensions...and all those expensive things
you do to your bodies...
Excuse me, but today, reading the same stupid things of always make me feel like throwing
up...
Fully support the findings of the @OAS_official report recommending new elections in
#Bolivia to ensure a truly democratic process representative of the people's will. The
credibility of the electoral system must be restored.
Will he still support new elections in the morning?
Meanwhile the protesters are calling MAS a criminal
organization so no doubt it'll be excluded from the new elections as happened to the
Party Of The Regions in Ukraine. The wonders of American "democracy".
Why was Evo Morales overthrown? He was nationalizing the highly profitable lithium
industry and planning to deal directly on the international market rather than exporting the
commodity at bargain prices to Western corporations"
"Bolivia has %43 of World's Lithium mines. Batteries from smartphones to Electric cars are
all made with Lithium. Evo Morales was investing in facilities to produce Lithium as a high
end export material rather than just exporting the mine itself."
Somewhere on his blog "Sic Semper Tyrannis", maybe earlier this year, Pat relates the tale
of how when working for the US Gov. in Bolivia he gave medical help to someone and was
rewarded with information which led to the capture of Che Guevara. This may be what Sasha is
referring to.
"The Hydrocarbons law (Law 3058, May 2005) and a subsequent Supreme Decree (May 2006)
require that companies sell all production to YPFB and that domestic market demand be met
before exporting hydrocarbons. Furthermore, these laws transfer the entire transport and
sales chain over to state control. After the law was enacted, hydrocarbon companies were
required to sign new contracts with YPFB, agreeing to pay 50 percent of gross production in
taxes and royalties."
"Prepared by our U.S. Embassies abroad. With its network of 108 offices across the United
States and in more than 75 countries, the U.S. Commercial Service of the U.S. Department of
Commerce utilizes its global presence and international marketing expertise to help U.S.
companies sell their products and services worldwide. Locate the U.S. Commercial Service
trade specialist in the U.S. nearest you by visiting http://export.gov/usoffices."
I usually try to read all the comments before making my first of the day, but I have yet to
do so, although I looked to see if anyone had linked to Escobar's
report on Lula and Brazil , which is an extremely important article for events within
Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, and the rest of the world that's resisting the
Outlaw US Empire and its Neoliberal/Neofascist attack dogs.
The information Pepe provides is very important as it jibes with what Assad averred in
his RT
interview , for which I'm still looking for a transcript. Here's Pepe's warning about the
likely future course of events, which has CIA scrawled over every act:
"With the military betting on a strategy of chaos, augmented by Lula's immense social base
all over Brazil fuming about his return to prison and the financial bubble finally burst,
rendering the middle classes even poorer, the stage would be set for the ultimate toxic
cocktail: social 'commotion' allied with 'terrorism' associated with 'organized crime.'
"That's all the military needs to launch an extensive operation to restore "order" and
finally force Congress to approve the Brazilian version of the Patriot Act (five separate
bills are already making their way in Congress).
" This is no conspiracy theory. This is a measure of how incendiary Brazil is at the
moment, and Western mainstream media will make no effort whatsoever to explain the nasty,
convoluted plot for a global audience ." [My Emphasis]
Bolivia coup was orchestrated with direct assist of OAS analysis/report which identified
alleged voting fraud. OAS report focuses on a vote-counting system called TREP, which was
adopted by Bolivia and others in the region on direct advice of OAS. The TREP system is meant
to provide/ publicize initial results, but it is not "official". The official results come
from a slower and more thorough vote count process. The OAS claim of irregularities in the
TREP count is largely irrelevant, as it was never intended to be "official" or legally
reflect official results. There were no irregularities in the official count, won by Morales,
and the so-called "delay" was in fact the natural process of the slower moving count to
produce the official result.
While Trump denounced Morales, the US State Department stepped in to sanitize Washington's
position, with a senior official telling Reuters that the US has "no preference" among
opposition candidates. The spokesperson did say, however, that anyone who tried to
"distort" last month's vote should not be allowed to participate .
That's MAS banned from the election by the cunts in the fucking State Department. Imagine
if the Russian MFA announced that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties could field
presidential candidates in 2020. Trump is an idiot but the State Department, DoJ, and
Treasury are the real bastards. Forget the CIA, that's just a bunch of senile tossers who
have wet dreams about Cold War 2.0.
b mentioned lithium with reference to Bolivia in his 139 above
Nov 11, 2019 -- Bolivian Coup Comes Less Than a Week After Morales Stopped Multinational
Firm's Lithium Deal
"Bolivia's lithium belongs to the Bolivian people. Not to multinational corporate
cabals."
The Morales move on Nov. 4 to cancel the December 2018 agreement with Germany's ACI Systems
Alemania (ACISA) came after weeks of protests from residents of the Potosí area. The
region has 50% to 70% of the world's lithium reserves in the Salar de Uyuni salt flats.
Among other clients, ACISA provides batteries to Tesla; Tesla's stock rose Monday after the
weekend.
As Bloomberg News noted in 2018, that has set the country up to be incredibly important in
the next decade:
Demand for lithium is expected to more than double by 2025. The soft, light mineral is
mined mainly in Australia, Chile, and Argentina. Bolivia has plenty -- 9 million tons that
have never been mined commercially, the second-largest amount in the world -- but until now
there's been no practical way to mine and sell it. . .
here
But Teslas catch fire....from ZPower--
Actually, lithium may be in trouble for vehicle batteries.
Just as lithium-ion (Li-ion) replaced nickel metal hydride (NiMH) before it and nickel
cadmium (NiCd) before that, silver zinc (AgZn) batteries are on track to replace Li-ion too,
according to a McGraw-Hill forecast as far back as 2010. Since then silver zinc has been
perfected and are on the market for rechargeable hearing-aid "button" batteries by ZPower LL
(Camarillo, Calif.) They are nonflammable and could provide up to 40 percent more run time
than lithium-ion batteries. . . here
Credit where its due: both Corbyn and Sanders have issued statements against the coup in
Bolivia.
On the other hand the recently re-elected, appalling government of Canada has backed it to
the hilt. Was probably involved in financing it. See yves engler https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/11/canada-backs-coup-against-bolivias-president/
The State Department which rarely misses a chance to discredit the democracy that it so
hates, is accusing Morales of 'distorting' the election result. Nobody is suggesting that he
didn't win the election, at most it is being claimed that his margin of victory, more than
10%, was exaggerated.
A similar, equally spurious claim was used to justify the coup against Aristide. There it was
not disputed that Lavelan candidates had won their senatorial elections but that their
victories were merely pluralities not majorities.
For this offence Canada, the US and (let it be recalled) Brazil occupied the country,
kidnapped Aristide and banned his party from running in future elections.
On November 7, 2019, the National Court of Justice of Ecuador ratified the preventive
detention of former president Rafael Correa , along with a number of his former officials.
Immediately after the court rendered its decision for pretrial detention, Correa rejected
accusations of bribery, illicit association and contributions to his political campaign between
2012 and 2016, while he was the leader of Alianza Patria Altiva i Soberana (PAIS). Correa
founded Alianza PAIS in 2006, as a democratic socialist political party with an objective to
achieve economic and political sovereignty, and foment a social and economic revolution in the
nation, which came to be known as The Citizens' Revolution (La Revolución
Ciudadana).
During his presidency, which lasted from January 15, 2007 to May 24, 2017, Correa
introduced a brand of 21 st century socialism to Ecuador, with a focus on improving
the living standards of the poorest and most vulnerable segments of the population. His
presidency was part of 'the revolutionary wave' in Latin America, referred to as 'Pink tide',
where a number of left-wing and socialist governments swept into power throughout the continent
during the 2000s, including Cristina Néstor Kirchner and Fernández de Kirchner in
Argentina, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil, Manuel Zelaya in
Honduras, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, and Hugo Chávez in
Venezuela. All of these governments were opposed to neo-liberal economic policies and American
imperialism.
While he was president, Correa raised taxes on the rich and cut down on tax evasion, and
increased public investment on infrastructure and public services, including publicly-funded
pensions, housing, free health care and education. His government ended up building many
schools in different parts of the nation, particularly the countryside, and provided students
with nearly all of the materials needed to further their studies. President Correa also more
than doubled the minimum wage, which contributed to significantly reducing socioeconomic
inequality. In 2018, a World Bank report explained that:
Ecuador has made notable improvements in reducing poverty over the last decade. Income
poverty decreased from 36.7 percent in 2007 to 21.5 percent in 2017. In addition, the share
of the population living in extreme poverty fell by more than half, from 16.5 percent in 2007
to 7.9 percent in 2017, representing an average annual drop of 0.9 percentage points. In
absolute numbers, these changes represent a total of 1.6 million individuals exiting poverty,
and about one million exiting extreme poverty over the last decade.[i]
Furthermore, the unemployment rate fell from an 'all time high of 11.86 percent in the first
quarter of 2004' to 'a record low of 4.54 percent in the fourth quarter of 2014'[ii]. The World
Bank also reported that Ecuador posted annual economic growth of '4.5 percent during 2001-2014,
well above the average for the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region of 3.3 percent.
During this period, real GDP doubled and real GDP per capita increased by 50 percent.'[iii]
On October 1, 2016, Correa announced the nomination of Lenín Boltaire Moreno
Garcés , who served as his vice president from 2007 to 2013, as his party's candidate
for the 2017 presidential election at the conference of Alianza PAIS. Moreno was elected
president, and it was expected that he would continue and build on Correa's left-wing economic
policies. However, within a few months of winning the election, president Moreno began to
dismantle many of the social, economic and political reforms enacted by Correa during his
decade as president. Contrary to Correa's government, many of the domestic policies pursued by
president Moreno included reducing public spending, weakening worker rights, and providing
significant tax cuts to the rich and large corporations. In other words, president Moreno has
gradually shifted Ecuador's left-wing policies to the political centre-right.
Moreno's presidency also shifted Ecuador's foreign policy stance, giving it a more
neo-liberal and pro-American orientation. When Correa's socialist government was in power,
Ecuador enjoyed close diplomatic and economic relations with Venezuela, and was more
independent of American hegemony. For example, president Correa closed a US military base in
Manta, Ecuador when Washington's lease expired in 2009. Prior to that, in 2007, Correa
stated:
We'll renew the [Manta air] base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami --
an Ecuadorean base if there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely,
they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States.[iv]
Subsequently, on September 18, 2009, he also said:
As long as I am president, I will not allow foreign bases in our homeland, I will not
allow interference in our affairs, I will not negotiate our sovereignty and I will not accept
guardians of our democracy.
Contrary to Correa, the US-Ecuador military relationship has expanded under the Moreno
government 'through training, assistance, and the reestablishment of an Office of Security
Cooperation at the U.S. Embassy in Quito.'[v]Ecuador and the US have also signed deals for the
purchase of weapons and other military equipment, and agreed to cooperate more closely in the
areas of security, intelligence, and counter-narcotics.
In 2011, president Correa expelled US ambassador Heather Hodges from Quito. Subsequently, in
2014, his government expelled the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
from the country, where it had been operating since 1961 as part of John F. Kennedy's Alliance
for Progress (AFP)[vi]. USAID regularly exercises 'soft power' in Latin American nations in
order to help the US establish itself as an 'international police power'[vii]. In May 2019,
Moreno's government announced that USAID would return to Ecuador.
President Correa also became renowned for providing Wikileaks founder Julian Assange with
political asylum in Ecuador's London embassy in 2012 to prevent his arrest and possible
extradition to the US. However, shortly after his election, there were indications that Moreno
might be willing to hand him over to authorities in the UK. In addition to calling Assange an
'inherited problem,' a 'spoiled brat' and a 'miserable hacker', Moreno accused him of
repeatedly violating his asylum conditions and of trying to use the embassy as a 'centre for
spying'[viii]. Then, on April 11, Assange's political asylum was revoked, which allowed him to
be forcibly removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy by British police.In response, Correa called
Moreno 'the greatest traitor in Ecuadorian and Latin American history' for committing 'a crime
humanity will never forget'[ix].
President Correa's government supported the integration of South America countries into a
single economic and political bloc. However, since Moreno came to power, Ecuador has distanced
itself from the Venezuelan government, and withdrew from the Bolivarian Alternative for the
Americas[x](ALBA) in August 2018, as well as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) in
September 2019. UNASUR was established by 12 South American countries in 2008to address
important issues in the region without the presence of the United States. Currently, only five
members remain: Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela. The other seven members,
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Paraguay, agreed to create the Forum for
the Progress of South America (PROSUR) in March 2019. The goal of this alternative organization
is to achieve the right-wing agenda in Latin America, as its members support neo-liberal
austerity measures and closer ties with Washington. It could be said that PROSUR aligns well
with the goals and objectives of the Monroe Doctrine.
Another major shift in president Moreno's political stance pertains to lawsuits brought
against Texaco/Chevron by the Correa government to obtain compensation for environmental
damages caused when the operations of Texaco (acquired by Chevron in 2001) dumped 16 billion
gallons of toxic wastewater in the Amazon region of Ecuador between 1964 and 1992, affecting
more than 30,000 Indigenous people and Campesinos in the area. 'Chevron left 880 pits full of
crude oil which are still there, the rivers are still full of hydrocarbon sediment and polluted
by the crude oil spills in Amazonia, which is one of the most biodiversity rich regions in the
world'[xi], and 'the damage has been left unrepaired for more than 40 years'[xii]. To raise
public awareness about this environmental disaster, president Correa's government established
an international campaign called the 'Dirty Hand of Chevron'. In 2011, the Ecuadorian
Constitutional Court ordered Chevron to pay $9.5 billion in compensation for social and
environmental damages it caused.
In September 2018, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), an agency of the United Nations
based in the Hague, Netherlands, ruled that the Ecuadorian court decision against Chevron was
illegal, because it was an outcome of fraud, bribery, and corruption. The PCA 'also ruled that
Ecuador will have to pay economic compensation'[xiii]to Chevron. 'The amount has not been
established yet, but Chevron requested that Ecuador assume the US$9.5 billion' awarded to
affected communities by the Ecuadorean court.[xiv]Following the PCA decision, the government of
president Moreno announced that:
the state will sue former President Rafael Correa and his government officials if Ecuador
lost the international arbitration process.[xv]
In this matter, president Moreno also accused Correa of 'failing to defend the country's
interests correctly and spending money on "The Dirty Hand of Chevron" campaign, which according
to the government sought to "manipulate national and international public opinion."'[xvi] In
reality, president Moreno supports the PCA decision, thereby prioritizing the interest of
Texaco/Chevron over those of his own citizens . In fact, his government has been attempting
to nullify the Constitutional Court ruling against Chevron. In response, former president
Correa has accused the Moreno government of 'doing homework ordered by (the United States Vice
President Mike) Pence'. Even some of Moreno's own cabinet ministers condemned the PCA ruling
and expressed their support for Ecuador's Constitutional Court for defending of the country's
nationals interest and the rights of the people of the Amazon.
Correa exhibited a hostile attitude towards the Bretton Woods Institutions during his
presidency. He sought to renegotiate Ecuador's external debt of US$10.2 billion, which he
called 'illegitimate' because 'it was accrued during autocratic and corrupt regimes of the
past. Correa threatened to default on Ecuador's foreign debt, and ordered the expulsion of the
World Bank's country manager'[xvii], which was carried out on April 26, 2007. His government
also opposed the signing of any agreements that would permit the IMF to monitor Ecuador's
economic plan. As a result of such actions on the part of Correa's government, 'Ecuador was
able to renegotiate its debt with its creditors and redirect public funds towards social
investments.'[xviii]
To the contrary, Moreno has enthusiastically embraced the IMF during his short time as
president. On March 1, 2019, Ecuador's central bank manager, Verónica Artola
Jarrín, and economy and finance minister, Richard Martínez Alvarado,submitted a
letter of intent to the IMF requesting a three-year $4.2 billion Extended Fund Facility (EFF)
agreement. An EFF allows the IMF to assist countries that are facing 'serious medium-term
balance of payments problems.' More precisely, EFF is designed to:
to provide assistance to countries: (i) experiencing serious payments imbalances because
of structural impediments; or (ii) characterized by slow growth and an inherently weak
balance of payments position. The EFF provides assistance in support of comprehensive
programs that include policies of the scope and character required to correct structural
imbalances over an extended period.[xix]
The IMF agreement signed in March allowed Ecuador to borrow $4.2 billion. However, as is
always the case, the IMF agreement was not without conditionalities, as it required the
Ecuadorian government to implement a series of neo-liberal economic reforms. According to IMF
statements, these reforms aim to transform Ecuador's fiscal deficit into a surplus, reduce the
country's debt-to-GDP ratio, and increase foreign investment. On March 11, 2019, Christine
Lagarde, former Managing Director of the IMF, claimed that:
The Ecuadorian authorities are implementing a comprehensive reform program aimed at
modernizing the economy and paving the way for strong, sustained, and equitable
growth.[xx]
On March 11, 2019, Christine Lagarde also explained that:
Achieving a robust fiscal position is at the core of the authorities' program, which will
be supported by a three-year extended arrangement from the IMF. The aim is to reduce
debt-to-GDP ratio through a combination of a wage bill realignment, a careful and gradual
optimization of fuel subsidies, a reprioritization of capital and goods and services
spending, and a tax reform. The savings generated by these measures will allow for an
increase in social assistance spending over the course of the program. The authorities will
continue their efforts to strengthen the medium-term fiscal policy framework, and more
rigorous fiscal controls and better public financial management will help to enhance the
effectiveness of fiscal policy.[xxi]
Protecting the poor and most vulnerable segments in society is a key objective of the
authorities' program. In this context, the authorities plan to extend the coverage of, and
increase the nominal level of benefits under the existing social protection programs. Work is
also underway to improve the targeting of social programs.[xxii]
Ecuador's participation in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
represents another point of contention between Correa and the Moreno government. Ecuador was a
member of OPEC from 1973 and 1992. After a period of absence, it rejoined the organization in
2007 after Correa became president of the country. However, on October 1 st ,
president Moreno announced that Ecuador would once again end its membership in OPEC effective
January 1, 2020. Given Moreno's penchant for implementing neo-liberal economic policies, this
decision was likely based on the notion that freeing the country from the burden of having to
abide by quotas would bring fiscal sustainability to Ecuador. This is evidenced by the fact
that Ecuador contacted OPEC to request permission to produce above its quota in February 2019,
though it was never confirmed whether a response was received[xxiii]. While increasing
production in its Amazonian oil fields would likely bring more foreign investment to Ecuador
and open up new markets, it would also lead to serious conflicts between the Moreno government
and the indigenous people living in the area, who are strongly opposed to oil extraction.
In addition to announcing Ecuador's departure from OPEC, president Moreno also selected
October 1 st as the date to introduce Decree 883, a series of economic measures that
included ending longstanding subsidies for fuel, the removal of some import tariffs, and cuts
to the benefits and wages of public employees. In particular, the elimination of fuel
subsidies, which had been in place for 40 years, was instituted in order to meet IMF
requirements to keep the $4.2 billion programme on track, and to satisfy international
investors. The EFF agreement between the IMF and the Ecuadorean government also called for
thousands of public employees to be laid off, the privatization of public assets, the
separation of the central bank from the government, cutting public expenditures, and raising
taxes over the next three years. IMF representatives claim that these types of reforms bring
more foreign direct investment into the economy.
In fact, a close examination of the neo-liberal economic reforms recommended by the IMF in
many countries reveals that they are almost identical, meaning that they do not take the
diverse needs and realities of each country into account; rather, they are driven by the
interests of the countries and other stakeholders that provide the funds. Generally, the IMF's
recommendations[xxiv]consist of cutting deficits, liberalizing trade, privatizing state-owned
enterprises, reforming the banking and financial systems, increasing taxes, raising interest
rates, and reforming key sectors. However, countless studies have revealed that these types of
reforms, have raised the unemployment rate, created poverty, and have often preceded
recessions. On October 2, 2019, the IMF issued a press release on Ecuador stating that:
The reforms announced yesterday by President Lenin Moreno aim to improve the resilience
and sustainability of Ecuador's economy and foster strong, and inclusive growth. The
announcement included important measures to protect the poor and most vulnerable, as well as
to generate jobs in a more competitive economy.
The authorities are also working on important reforms aimed at supporting Ecuador's
dollarization, including the reform of the central bank and the organic code of budget and
planning.
IMF staff will continue to work closely with the authorities to improve the prospects for
all Ecuadorians. The second review is expected to be submitted to the Executive Board in the
coming weeks.[xxv]
President Moreno's decision to end the subsidies on fuel led to the prices of diesel and
petroleum increasing by 100% and 30%, respectively, overnight, which directly contributed to
significantly raising the costs of public transportation. In response, protests erupted against
Moreno's austerity measures on October 3 rd , featuring students, unions and
indigenous organizations. They declared an indefinite general strike until the government
reversed its neo-liberal adjustment package. Moreno's initial response was to reject the
ultimatum and state that he would 'not negotiate with criminals.'
The following day, on October 4, 2019, president Moreno declared a state of emergency under
the pretext of ensuring the security of citizens and to 'avoid chaos.' Nonetheless, the
protests continued and intensified to the point that the government was forced to relocate to
city of Guayaquil because Quito had been overrun by anti-government protestors. However, this
attempt to escape the protestors proved ineffective as taxi, bus and truck drivers blocked
roads and bridges in Guayaquil, as well as in Quito, which disrupted transportation
nationwide.
In the following days, thousands of demonstrators continued to demand the reversal of
austerity measures, as well as the resignation of the president. However, Moreno remained
defiant, refusing both demands under all circumstances. Subsequently, Ecuador's main oil
pipeline ceased operations after it was seized by indigenous protesters. Petro-Ecuador was
concerned that production losses could reach 165,000 barrels a day. Indigenous protesters also
occupied two water treatment plants in the city of Ambato. Meanwhile, violent clashes between
protesters and police resulted in seven deaths , about 2,000 injuries, and over 1,000
arrests. Eventually, Moreno's government was forced to back down and make concession with the
well -organised protesters.
On October 13, president Moreno agreed to withdraw Decree 883 and replace the IMF-backed
plan with a new proposal, involving negotiations with the Confederation of Indigenous
Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) and other social groups. The following day, president Moreno
signed Decree 894, which reinstated the cancelled fuel subsidies. However, on October 23,
CONAIE released a statement informing the public that 'it paused talks with President Lenin
Moreno because of the government's "persecution" of the group's leaders [Jaime Vargas] since a
halt to violent anti-austerity protests.'[xxvi]
It is unlikely that president Moreno would be willing to give up on his austerity policies
or start the process of cancelling the IMF loan, given his apparent commitment to helping the
US realize the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. Many of the reforms and policies that his
government has introduced will help keep Ecuador firmly entrenched in America's backyard for
years to come.
This is not a new development, as history has revealed that, for more than a century
, 'in Latin America there are more than enough of the kind of rulers who are ready to use
Yankee troops against their own people when they find themselves in crisis' (Fidel Castro,
Havana 1962). However, the eruption of protests in response to Moreno's neo-liberal reforms
suggests that he faces an uphill battle, as his fellow Ecuadorians do not appear to share his
enthusiasm for selling his country to external creditors and foreign influences. Although
Moreno has managed to successfully drive Rafael Correa out of Ecuador, the former president's
opposition to capitalism and imperialism remain strong among the population.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Global Research contributor Dr. Birsen Filip holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the
University of Ottawa.
@Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 11 2019 21:30 utc | 152
But, with that explanation, it is like you are whithewashing fascism as a merely opposing political view, which is precisley
the position and pretension of the Trumpers, when it is not. Fascism is incompatible with democracy and human rights...as the
recent ( just overnight the coup...) declarations by The Donald on the events in Bolivia come to confirm...
You forget a main characteristic of fascists, that is that they aspire ( and when the circumstances allow it, always try...)
to wipe out their political adversaries from the face of Earth, as the case in Bolivia is so flagrantry illustrating. Along with
their political adversaries, who are always those who position themselves in the side or as representives of the people, they
always try to wipe out also all those subgroups of human beings they consider utermenschen ...In this cathegory they will
include many, slavs, latinos, jews, gypsies, black people...
Then, once in power, they will use terror to keep the citizenry ( who otherwise will rebel once the real "program" of the nazis
unveiled ) in control...
That the US system is as a whole fascist falls plainly in the faces of all its deluded and anestesized citizens when you see today
that neither Pelosi, nor Schumaker, nor Clinton, nor Biden have said a word agsint what happened yesterday in Bolivia or against
the words of the POTUS who "allegedly" they try to overthrow...a representation described by Trump himself, in the heights of
stone face, as coup d´etat...
I stated that fascism has no ideology. It cannot be a "political view" .
The fascists in Rwanda are Black. The fascists in Israel are Jewish. The fascists in Ukraine are Slavs. The fascists in Colombia
are Latinos.
Fascism isn't about one ethnicity or another. Ethnic prejudice is just one (of many) handle that the capitalists elites use
to get some parts of society to attack other parts. The people who fall under that control by the capitalist elites are fascists.
"... The truth is that for the Clintonite-Bushite elite almost all Americans are 'deplorable'. What is fun for them is to play geopolitics – the elite version of corporate travel perks – just look at how shocked they are that Trump is not playing along. ..."
Recent class history of US is quite simple: the elite class first tried to shift the burden
of supporting the lower classes on the middle class with taxation. But as the lower class
became demographically distinct, partially via mass immigration, the elites decided to ally
with the ' underpriviledged ' via identity posturing and squeeze no longer needed
middle class out of existence.
What's left are government employees, a few corporate sinecures, NGO parasitic sector, and
old people. The rest will be melded into a few mutually antagonistic tribal groups providing
ever cheaper service labor. With an occasional lottery winner to showcase mobility. Actually
very similar to what happened in Latin America in the past few centuries.
The truth is that for the Clintonite-Bushite elite almost all Americans are
'deplorable'. What is fun for them is to play geopolitics – the elite version of
corporate travel perks – just look at how shocked they are that Trump is not playing
along.
Unlike the USA (under Neocon stewardship) China has not squandered twenty trillion dollars
of its national solvency bombing countries which never attacked it post 9-11.
China's leaders (unlike our own) never LIED its people into launching obscenely expensive,
illegal wars of aggression across the middle east. (WMD's, Mushroom clouds, Yellow Cake,
etc.)
China has used its wealth and resources to build up its infrastructure, build out its
capital markets, and turbo charge its high tech sectors. As a consequence, it has lifted
nearly half a billion people out of poverty. There has been an explosion in the growth of the
"middle class" in China. Hundreds of millions of Chinese are now living comfortable "upwardly
mobile" lives.
The USA, on the other hand, having been defrauded by its "ruling elites" into launching
and fighting endless illegal wars, is now 23 trillion dollars in catastrophic debt.
NOT ONE PENNY of this heinous "overspending" has been dedicated to building up OUR
infrastructure, or BUILDING OUT our middle class.
It has all gone into BLOWING UP countries which never (even) attacked us on 9-11.
As a consequence , the USA is fast becoming a failed nation, a nation where all its wealth
is being siphoned into the hands of its one percent "war pilfer-teers".
It is so sad to have grown up in such an amazing country , with such immense resources and
possibilities, and having to bear witness to it going down the tubes.
To watch all our sovereign wealth being vaporized by our "lie us into endless illegal war"
ruling elites is truly heartbreaking.
The white middle class is the only group that might effectively resist Globohomo's designs on
total power.
Blacks? Too dumb. Will be disposed of once Globohomo is finished the job.
Hispanics? Used to corrupt one party systems. Give them cerveza and Netflix and they're
good.
East Asians? Perfectly fine with living like bug people.
South Asians? Cowardly; will go with the flow.
The middle class is almost completely unique to white people.
Racial aliens cannot wrap their minds around being middle class. They think I'm crazy for
appreciating my 2009 Honda Accord. They literally cannot understand why somebody would want
to live a frugal and mundane life. They are desperate to be like Drake but most end up broke.
It will be very easy for GloboHomo to control a bucket of poor brown slop.
There IS a black middle class, but a big chunk of that works for governments of all
shapes and sizes.
Strictly speaking, there is no more "middle class" in the sense of the classical
economists: a person with just enough capital to live off the income if he works the capital
himself or herself. By this definition professionals (lawyers, dentists, physicians, small
store owners, even spinsters [1] and hand loom operators in a sense) were middle class. Upper
class had enough property to turn it over to managers, lower class had little or no property
and worked for others (servants and farm workers, for example). Paupers didn't earn enough
income per year to feed themselves and didn't live all that long, usually.
What we have is "middle income" people, almost all of whom work as an employee of some
organization -- people who would be considered "lower class" by the classical economists
because they don't have freedom of action and make no independent decisions about how the
capital of their organizations is spent. Today they are considered "intelligentsia", educated
government workers, or, by analogy, educated corporate workers. IMHO, intelligentsia is a
suicide job, and is responsible for the depressed fertility rate, but that's just me.
Back in the AD 1800s and pre-AD 1930 there were many black middle class people. usually
concentrating on selling to black clientele. Now there are effectively none outside of
criminal activities, usually petty criminal. And so it goes.
Of course, back then there were many white middle class people also, usually concentrating
on selling to white clientele. Now there are effectively none, except in some rural areas.
And so it goes.
Counterinsurgency
1] Cottagers who made their living spinning wool skeins into wool threads.
@unit472 A
lot of the middle class are Democrats but not particularly liberal. Many of them vote
Democrat only when they personally benefit. For example, my parents were suburban public
school teachers. They voted for Democrats at the state level because the Democrats supported
better pay and benefits for teachers but voted for Republicans like Goldwater and Reagan at
the national level because Republicans would keep their federal taxes lower. They had no
political philosophy. It was all about what left them financially better off. My parents also
got on well with their suburban neighbors. Suburbanites generally like their local school
system and its teachers and the suburban school systems are usually careful not to engage in
teaching anything controversial. A lot of the government employed white middle class would be
like my parents. Except in situations where specific Republicans talk about major cuts to
their pay and pensions they are perfectly willing to consider voting Republican. They are
generally social moderates, like the status quo, are fairly traditionalist and don't want any
radical changes. Since the Democrats seem be trending in a radical direction, this would put
off a lot of them. Trump would be more appealing as the status quo candidate. When running
the last time, he carefully avoided talking about any major cuts in government spending and
he's governed that way too. At the same time, his talk of cutting immigration, his lack of
enthusiasm for nonwhite affirmative action, and his more traditional views on social issues
is appealing to the white middle class.
The term middle class is used in the U.S. to mean middle income. It has nothing to do with
class. Why not just say what you mean? Most of the middle class that we say is disappearing
is really that rarest of phenomenons. A prosperous working class. The prosperous American
working class is no longer prosperous due to the Neoliberal agenda. Free trade, open borders
and the financialization of everything.
Americans know nothing of class dynamics. Not even the so called socialists. They don't
even see the economy. All they see is people with infinite need and government with infinite
wealth. In their world all of Central America can come to the U.S. and the government (if it
only wants to) can give them all homes, health care and education.
Lets stop saying class when we mean income. Not using the word class would be better than
abusing it.
Anyway. Yes. Middle Class denotes white people. The coalition of the fringes is neither
working, middle nor ruling class. They are black or brown. They are perverts or feminists. If
the workers among them identified as working class they would find common ground with the
Deplorables. We can't have that now can we.
Are we to the point where we've collectively resigned ourselves to the death of the
middle class?
In the neoliberal worldview, the middle class is illegitimate, existing only as a
consequence of artificial trade and immigration barriers. Anytime Americans are spied out
making a good living, there is a "shortage" that must be addressed with more visas. Or else
there is an "inefficiency" where other countries could provide said service or produce said
product for less because they have a "comparative advantage."
Anyway. Yes. Middle Class denotes white people. The coalition of the fringes is neither
working, middle nor ruling class. They are black or brown. They are perverts or feminists.
If the workers among them identified as working class they would find common ground with
the Deplorables. We can't have that now can we.
I don't know about that anymore. Increasingly, "middle class" means Asian, with Whiteness
being associated with the lower middle class (or perhaps "working class"). Sometimes the
media uses the term " noncollege Whites," which I think is actually very apt. They are the
ones who identify with Whiteness the most.
Are we starting to witness some state cinture in Spain?
After yesterday warning, is the socialist government of Sánchez turning, at least a
bit, if only in form, socialist?
( after the advance of the "devotes of Trump´s night worship" in yesterday elections
and probably progession of Spanish policy investigation on Barcelona riots, two events that
reinforced each other? )
Spain criticizes the role of the Bolivian Army and Police in the resignation of President
Evo Morales, after protests against his re-election.
Spain joins the avalanche of international comdenations before the proceeding of the
Bolivian Army and Police at the juncture that the Latin American country is going through,
since, according to a statement issued on Monday by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
in this regard, that proceeding reminds past times in Latin American history, even more
when President Evo Morales opted for a new call for elections.
"Spain condemns that the process opened yesterday towards a new electoral call has been
distorted by the intervention of the Armed Forces and the Police, suggesting to Evo Morales
to submit his resignation", the note said.
Likewise, the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs calls "all actors to avoid resorting
to violence" and "to guarantee the security of all Bolivians (...) including former
President Morales himself, his relatives and members of his administration".
For his part, the general secretary of the Spanish Unidas Podemos party, Pablo
Iglesias, has written on his Twitter account that "Coup d'etat in Bolivia. Shameful that
there are media that say the army makes the president resign. In the last 14 years Bolivia
has improved all its social and economic indicators. All our support to the Bolivian people
and Evo Morales".
The style of scaring the people is a total imitation from post-Maidan Ukraine, where
communists and other opposed factions in Rada were beaten, covered in paint and thrown in
waste containers...until they left the country...
Then Myrotvorets was launched and the first killings on those who dared to quition
Euromaydan events... Recall Alex Buzina... Any compromised intellectual will suffer the same
fate in Bolivia...
Guess who is behind this coup at the letter of the book...
Don't get me wrong Sasha, I don't think Evo's team objective, 2 weeks after they've win them,
was to repeat elections so soon. This is likely their best approach right now, for the sake
of Bolivians and their supporters. Not mentioning possible reaction a la Caracas.
#InfoMV Evo Morales denounced that his security personnel were offered 50 thousand dollars
for him to be delivered to violent opposition groups. He held Fernando Camacho and Carlos
Mesa responsible for what would happen to him or García Linera.
@Posted by: Vasco da Gama | Nov 10 2019 23:43 utc | 53
You seem to be unaware of the developments of events to this time, Evo called for
elections BEFORE he was oblied to resign by police and military rebels, and made leave the
country...
Elections now with every Evo´s supporter under menace of death would only throw a fake
result favourable to the opposition who did not manage to win elections democratically...
This is the same scenario than in the Ukraine, where representatives of the working people
were never more able to concur to elections and had to leave the country, remaining to be
elected only those puppets of oligarchs or the US...
Pasquinades posted by coupist opposition before Efvo´s resignation what ccan illustrate
why the government has resigned so fast...
Pure fascism....
What I told you? Here you have the Bolivian Myrotvorets .....
Traitor Tracking The population is asked to register all the social network publications of
the "Cyber llunkus". Take screenshots and copy the links of the publications and profiles
of the "Cyber Llunkus".
The M.A.S. ( Evo´s party ) is a criminal organization.
Once Evo Morales falls, a rake will be made to identify the traitorous of the people "Cyber
Llunkus" and imprison them through the location of their mobile devices.
Fake profiles will not save them.
#Civil Resistance Bolivia
Now that the US tells us the tale of democratic elections in Bolivia now...
A people's Counter-revolution that sweeps the Reactionaries down the drain once and for
all.
Chavez was keen to the CIA's modus and thus reformed the military in numerous respects,
particularly by making it impervious to corruption--AND--instituting the uniquely structured
Bolivarian Constitution. Evo's problems stem from the lack of extensive public support as
proven by the election results that kept him from instituting the sort of reforms Chavez
accomplished; and the same goes for all other Latin American nations. In a nutshell, the
Bolivian people squabbled too much amongst themselves and never constructed the type of
Revolutionary constitution and social system required to be resilient to outside
manipulation. Yes, Venezuela was very much a Bottom->Up remaking of society to the point
where the Comprador upper 10% didn't matter, which is why Chavez then Maduro left them to
their own devices. But elsewhere, the popular masses never generated the required solidarity
to prevent losing their hard won freedoms. Sure, it's possible to regain power through the
ballot box, but it can be just as easily lost as is happening now in Bolivia if preventative
measures aren't taken beforehand.
Nations must have constitutions that don't allow for rich minorities to gain control or to
allow them to begin in control as in the USA's case. But to institute such an instrument, the
popular masses must act as one and cast their factionalisms aside until this primary aspect
of consolidating power in their hands becomes the law of their land. Plus, they must again
drop their in-fighting when confronted by any reactionary threat and remember what the main
task is at all times--Maintenance of Freedom.
We all see what seems to be the demise of empire but facts on the ground tell a different
story today in Bolivia. I am sorry for the pain and suffering for many caused by my country
under the control of the global private finance cult. I continue to try and spread the word
about the perfidy of Western empire and will keep trying but am limited in my abilities.
I hope to live to see the demise of private finance led empire all over the world.
Humanity deserves a better future.
We all see what seems to be the demise of empire but facts on the ground tell a different
story today in Bolivia. I am sorry for the pain and suffering for many caused by my country
under the control of the global private finance cult. I continue to try and spread the word
about the perfidy of Western empire and will keep trying but am limited in my abilities.
I hope to live to see the demise of private finance led empire all over the world.
Humanity deserves a better future.
What saved Venezuela was the huge investing in education started with Chavez, in that they
counted with the help and advice of people from the Spanish left ...
Bolivian people, of the poor class, are mostly poorly educated people...and so easy to buy
and fool...as this images show...
Look that this people ransacking Evo´s home, they are not white patricios ...but
those who they have payed to do the dirty work...indigenous people poorly
dressed...collaborating in ovrthrowing the legitimate democratically elected from their
own...
Yeah..this time is no different from others, they always go straight to the throat of the
weak and poor...Totally depsicable...
To their own, earning points in the view of the world...
@ Sasha who wrote
"
What saved Venezuela was the huge investing in education started with Chavez, in that they
counted with the help and advice of people from the Spanish left ...
Bolivian people, of the poor class, are mostly poorly educated people...and so easy to buy
and fool...as this images show...
"
I agree, thank you for your commenting and want to add my perspective to that.
If you read many who come and comment at MoA that supposedly are "educated" you will
notice that they continue to think and write in terms of the conflict being between socialism
and capitalism in spite of myself, karlof1 and others that continually point out that China
is 80% capitalistic as are other "socialistic" countries but what matters is what part of the
social economy is socialism versus capitalism. That is why I continue to beat my drum about
the evil of global private finance that is the core problem with the social contract of the
West. Look at how many in the West are brainwashed to not understand the difference between
public/private finance and its effects on the whole culture and aggressive nature of the
society under that meme.
That, IMO, is the core education that all those in the West and all striving to throw off
the chains/economic jackboot of the West must learn and take to heart.
Very disappointing to hear about Evo...but this is just one round in a very long fight...
In Argentina we have a new government for the people...in Mexico also...Lula is out of
jail now in Brazil so eventually that will turn also...
The empire is rotting but is very dangerous right now because they are lashing out
everywhere...we see in Lebanon and Iraq they are not succeeding...
This is desperation we see folks...they are losing control quickly and are trying
to forestall the inevitable collapse of their global fascist dictatorship...
I think the end will come much sooner than they expect...the house of cards is teetering
badly...
Maidán script all the way....They do not have enough with hi resigning, they need
to wipe out such honest leader form the face of Earth, at least while the "new fake
elections" to maskerade the take over by the opposition are developed...as happened with
Lula....
Here, US Lawyer sees all the signature of the US around the place...as happens to
me...
A significant factor is that the anti-Morales opposition is based mainly in Santa Cruz
department in eastern Bolivia. This is the largest department (in territory and population)
in Bolivia and has significant natural gas reserves. The indigenous people living in that
department have virtually nothing in common with the highland indigenous people (Aymara and
Quechua speakers) who formed Morales' base.
Morales did not have a military background as Chavez did and we can presume he was never
able to cultivate a network of militias among the urban and rural working class that could
support and defend his government. Significantly it was the armed forces who asked Morales to
resign.
@Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 11 2019 1:34 utc | 72
Sorry...but the conflict is between socialism and capitalism...between the rich and the
working masses, especially those who work and still they remain poor....as has always
been....who says otherwise is only trying to fool the masses...
Of course, you people in this forum who live over the average peer, I do not try that you
understand...
You live in your world, looking your belly button, and the furthest you are willing to go is
complain here about the Outlaw US Empire...
Why do you not damn go tomorrow in the streets to protest this new coup by your fascist
administration?
Do not tell me, that would risk your privileged pensions...and all those expensive things
you do to your bodies...
Excuse me, but today, reading the same stupid things of always make me feel like throwing
up...
Fully support the findings of the @OAS_official report recommending new elections in
#Bolivia to ensure a truly democratic process representative of the people's will. The
credibility of the electoral system must be restored.
Will he still support new elections in the morning?
Meanwhile the protesters are calling MAS a criminal
organization so no doubt it'll be excluded from the new elections as happened to the
Party Of The Regions in Ukraine. The wonders of American "democracy".
Why was Evo Morales overthrown? He was nationalizing the highly profitable lithium
industry and planning to deal directly on the international market rather than exporting the
commodity at bargain prices to Western corporations"
"Bolivia has %43 of World's Lithium mines. Batteries from smartphones to Electric cars are
all made with Lithium. Evo Morales was investing in facilities to produce Lithium as a high
end export material rather than just exporting the mine itself."
Somewhere on his blog "Sic Semper Tyrannis", maybe earlier this year, Pat relates the tale
of how when working for the US Gov. in Bolivia he gave medical help to someone and was
rewarded with information which led to the capture of Che Guevara. This may be what Sasha is
referring to.
"The Hydrocarbons law (Law 3058, May 2005) and a subsequent Supreme Decree (May 2006)
require that companies sell all production to YPFB and that domestic market demand be met
before exporting hydrocarbons. Furthermore, these laws transfer the entire transport and
sales chain over to state control. After the law was enacted, hydrocarbon companies were
required to sign new contracts with YPFB, agreeing to pay 50 percent of gross production in
taxes and royalties."
"Prepared by our U.S. Embassies abroad. With its network of 108 offices across the United
States and in more than 75 countries, the U.S. Commercial Service of the U.S. Department of
Commerce utilizes its global presence and international marketing expertise to help U.S.
companies sell their products and services worldwide. Locate the U.S. Commercial Service
trade specialist in the U.S. nearest you by visiting http://export.gov/usoffices."
I usually try to read all the comments before making my first of the day, but I have yet to
do so, although I looked to see if anyone had linked to Escobar's
report on Lula and Brazil , which is an extremely important article for events within
Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, and the rest of the world that's resisting the
Outlaw US Empire and its Neoliberal/Neofascist attack dogs.
The information Pepe provides is very important as it jibes with what Assad averred in
his RT
interview , for which I'm still looking for a transcript. Here's Pepe's warning about the
likely future course of events, which has CIA scrawled over every act:
"With the military betting on a strategy of chaos, augmented by Lula's immense social base
all over Brazil fuming about his return to prison and the financial bubble finally burst,
rendering the middle classes even poorer, the stage would be set for the ultimate toxic
cocktail: social 'commotion' allied with 'terrorism' associated with 'organized crime.'
"That's all the military needs to launch an extensive operation to restore "order" and
finally force Congress to approve the Brazilian version of the Patriot Act (five separate
bills are already making their way in Congress).
" This is no conspiracy theory. This is a measure of how incendiary Brazil is at the
moment, and Western mainstream media will make no effort whatsoever to explain the nasty,
convoluted plot for a global audience ." [My Emphasis]
Bolivia coup was orchestrated with direct assist of OAS analysis/report which identified
alleged voting fraud. OAS report focuses on a vote-counting system called TREP, which was
adopted by Bolivia and others in the region on direct advice of OAS. The TREP system is meant
to provide/ publicize initial results, but it is not "official". The official results come
from a slower and more thorough vote count process. The OAS claim of irregularities in the
TREP count is largely irrelevant, as it was never intended to be "official" or legally
reflect official results. There were no irregularities in the official count, won by Morales,
and the so-called "delay" was in fact the natural process of the slower moving count to
produce the official result.
While Trump denounced Morales, the US State Department stepped in to sanitize Washington's
position, with a senior official telling Reuters that the US has "no preference" among
opposition candidates. The spokesperson did say, however, that anyone who tried to
"distort" last month's vote should not be allowed to participate .
That's MAS banned from the election by the cunts in the fucking State Department. Imagine
if the Russian MFA announced that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties could field
presidential candidates in 2020. Trump is an idiot but the State Department, DoJ, and
Treasury are the real bastards. Forget the CIA, that's just a bunch of senile tossers who
have wet dreams about Cold War 2.0.
b mentioned lithium with reference to Bolivia in his 139 above
Nov 11, 2019 -- Bolivian Coup Comes Less Than a Week After Morales Stopped Multinational
Firm's Lithium Deal
"Bolivia's lithium belongs to the Bolivian people. Not to multinational corporate
cabals."
The Morales move on Nov. 4 to cancel the December 2018 agreement with Germany's ACI Systems
Alemania (ACISA) came after weeks of protests from residents of the Potosí area. The
region has 50% to 70% of the world's lithium reserves in the Salar de Uyuni salt flats.
Among other clients, ACISA provides batteries to Tesla; Tesla's stock rose Monday after the
weekend.
As Bloomberg News noted in 2018, that has set the country up to be incredibly important in
the next decade:
Demand for lithium is expected to more than double by 2025. The soft, light mineral is
mined mainly in Australia, Chile, and Argentina. Bolivia has plenty -- 9 million tons that
have never been mined commercially, the second-largest amount in the world -- but until now
there's been no practical way to mine and sell it. . .
here
But Teslas catch fire....from ZPower--
Actually, lithium may be in trouble for vehicle batteries.
Just as lithium-ion (Li-ion) replaced nickel metal hydride (NiMH) before it and nickel
cadmium (NiCd) before that, silver zinc (AgZn) batteries are on track to replace Li-ion too,
according to a McGraw-Hill forecast as far back as 2010. Since then silver zinc has been
perfected and are on the market for rechargeable hearing-aid "button" batteries by ZPower LL
(Camarillo, Calif.) They are nonflammable and could provide up to 40 percent more run time
than lithium-ion batteries. . . here
stephen t johnson #77: "Whatever military assistance Russia gives the rebels is
about making sure they don't go too the left in fighting the fascists and making sure there are
no embarrassing wave of Russian-speaking refugees from Ukrainian fascism."
Putin is really afraid of leftism among Russian Ukrainians, and the "embarrassment" of an
exodus into Russia? Your whole paragraph stirs propagandistic bits of excuse-mongering into an
illogical mash. Look, Ukraine is a long complicated discussion but a simple overview is that
most of the country wants to ally with the EU and the eastern portion wants to ally with
Russia. Yes, there is a lot of corruption. Yes, Euromaidan (pro-EU) was probably 1/3 far right.
Yes, there are fascist parties. But the majority of the people want democracy and not fascism.
Instead these poor people got Zelensky being extorted by yet another thug.
(Vindman is correct, this is another disaster by Trump with longterm consequences for US
foreign policy. While the US Republicans have also gone thug, saying it's no big deal.)
If the Steinmeier formula holds and there are free elections in Donbass and the majority
votes for kicking out Putin, do you think Putin going to withdraw his Russian Army regulars?
Accompanying the annexation of Crimea was Putin's long letter to the international community
justifying his action because there were "nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes, and
anti-Semites" who are committing "pogroms and terror". This now appears to be mostly fiction
(perhaps enhanced by Putin's agent provocateurs).
stephen
t johnson #77: "Whatever military assistance Russia gives the rebels is about making sure they
don't go too the left in fighting the fascists and making sure there are no embarrassing wave
of Russian-speaking refugees from Ukrainian fascism."
Putin is really afraid of leftism among Russian Ukrainians, and the "embarrassment" of an
exodus into Russia? Your whole paragraph stirs propagandistic bits of excuse-mongering into an
illogical mash. Look, Ukraine is a long complicated discussion but a simple overview is that
most of the country wants to ally with the EU and the eastern portion wants to ally with
Russia.
Yes, there is a lot of corruption. Yes, Euromaidan (pro-EU) was probably 1/3 far right.
Yes, there are fascist parties. But the majority of the people want democracy and not fascism.
Instead these poor people got Zelensky being extorted by yet another thug. (Vindman is correct,
this is another disaster by Trump with long term consequences for US foreign policy.
While the
US Republicans have also gone thug, saying it's no big deal.) If the Steinmeier formula holds
and there are free elections in Donbass and the majority votes for kicking out Putin, do you
think Putin going to withdraw his Russian Army regulars? Accompanying the annexation of Crimea
was Putin's long letter to the international community justifying his action because there were
"nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes, and anti-Semites" who are committing "pogroms and
terror".
Lee Arnold@80 "Putin is really afraid of leftism among Russian Ukrainians, and the
"embarrassment" of an exodus into Russia? "
Yes, Putin does not want wholesale expropriation of oligarchs, as he does not stand for
that in Russia (selective prosecution sufficient to appear to be a defender of the people and
serve as a stick -- accompanied by carrots -- to negotiate oligarch support. Also, Putin
doesn't even want to pay pensions, he certainly doesn't want the embarrassment of refugees
neglected, or worse, costing.
This point rests on the premise Putin isn't a right-winger, which is absurd.
"If the Steinmeier formula holds and there are free elections in Donbass and the majority
votes for kicking out Putin, do you think Putin going to withdraw his Russian Army regulars?"
https://www.rferl.org/a/what-is-the-steinmeier-formula-and-did-zelenskiy-just-capitulate-to-moscow-/30195593.html
This source may not be right-wing enough for your tastes, of course. But for the rest of us,
it suggests that an if centered on the Steinmeier formula is disingenuous in itself.
It's not even clear that Zelensky hasn't rejected the Steinmeier formula! The problem with
re-unifying the country is the fascist regime is quite hostile to what it sees as unUkrainian
elements, namely Russian speakers. National purity are favorite fascist principles but none
of the rest of us are required to accept them. Your belief that an election supervised by the
fascist regime is free and fair is wrong, no matter what you imply. And frankly, the notion
the OSCE is surely neutral is dubious too.
There was never any reliable evidence of any significant numbers of regulars moving into
Donetsk and Lugansk, because no, media reports are not reliable when addressing official
enemies. It is almost certain there are advisors and mercenaries, copying the US model, but
they are not what is generally meant by an invasion. They have not stakes out a separate
territory as the US territory did in Syria. There are military reasons for setting up a
perimeter, for mission security if nothing else. In short, there is in fact quite simple
reasons for thinking, yes, Putin would stop spending money on Donetsk and Lugansk, and save
on weapons and withdraw his advisers.
Further, the casualties in the Russian Army's officer corps by the way would end up being
known to the Russian Army, and eventually everyone else concerned. But they're not. Equally,
the large numbers of regulars alleged would have been in the recent prisoner exchange, but
they weren't. Some of those as I recall had been arrested merely for subversion, not taken
prisoner of war. Casualties of course are not the only costs to Putin, there also being the
money and weapons. The thing is of course, these are all excellent reasons for Putin to
withdraw. You are tacitly presuming the conclusion, that Putin is a crazed warmonger unable
even to calculate self-interest. Substituting scorn for analysis is not becoming.
"Yes, there are fascist parties." This is entirely misleading. There are fascist armed
formations incorporated into the Ukrainian army, financed privately.
I can't actually read the article as it's paywalled but it's conservative enough to carry
weight here.
There's the bit about Haaretz, which is like the anti-socialists ginning up anti-semitism
smears against Corbyn. I say the stylized swastika on the stage with the PM of Ukraine shows
us more than an old letter. I have no idea how you can say the people murdered when a
building was set on fire and democratic mob drove people back in, don't somehow count as
"pogroms and terror."
But you missed a trick in pointing out "Jewish" opposition to "Putin." (The people in
Donestsk and Lugansk are no one? Except maybe pre-corpses?) Ihor Kolomoyskiy, the primary
funder/founder of the Azov battalion, definitely wants no part of "Putin."
Most of this discussion is rarely about the left, but here arises a major marker
distinguishing the left, which is anti-fascism. You're pro-fascist.
nastywoman@79 was so stung the comment was actually intelligible. Unfortunately, asserting
something which isn't nonsense -- unlike nastywoman's usual incoherence -- without a shred of
argument is naked hostility, not an argument. The gored ox bellows loud!
"... There is no strong evidence of a positive impact of TSR plans on firm performance ..."
"... "Despite the fact that just under 50% of S&P 500 firms have this pay metric as part of their executive compensation plans and that this pay metric is designed to align the interest of shareholders and executives," Enayati told Yahoo Finance, "we find that there's no relationship between the pay metric and top-line business outcomes like 1-, 3-, or 5-year total shareholder return, return on equity, earnings per share growth, or revenue growth." ..."
The analysis, done in conjunction with consultants Pearl Meyer & Partners, examined a decade's
worth of data from every company in the S&P 500 (^GSPC). It compared companies that offer their
top brass a total shareholder return (TSR) plan to those that don't and found the increasingly
popular pay plans haven't significantly boosted any of a number of key metrics.
Total shareholder return is how well an investment in a company has done over a given period.
It's a combination of the stock's price change and dividends paid. With TSR plans, managers are
rewarded with shares, options, or even cash to give them a stake in how well the stock does.
For a growing number of corporate heads, big bonuses based on stock performance is a large
part of their pay.
In 2004, just 17% of S&P 500 companies gave CEOs and top executives some form of a TSR plan. A
decade later, nearly half of the companies in the index offered it.
As for those S&P 500 CEOs that have TSR plans, it represents on average some 29% of their
total direct compensation, though that percentage is a decline from 38% a decade ago. That's
because as more companies adopt TSR plans, they are doing so with less weight than companies who
took on these kinds of bonuses earlier.
The average CEO of an S&P 500 company made $13.8 million – or 204 times their average employee
– in 2014, according to job website Glassdoor.com.
Get the Latest Market Data and News with the Yahoo Finance App
Nonetheless, giving CEOs more for total shareholder return doesn't make a difference,
according to the Cornell study.
"There is no strong evidence of a positive impact of TSR plans on firm performance,"
wrote Hassan Enayati, Kevin Hallock, and Linda Barrington of Cornell University's Institute for
Compensation Studies.
"Despite the fact that just under 50% of S&P 500 firms have this pay metric as part of
their executive compensation plans and that this pay metric is designed to align the interest of
shareholders and executives," Enayati told Yahoo Finance, "we find that there's no relationship
between the pay metric and top-line business outcomes like 1-, 3-, or 5-year total shareholder
return, return on equity, earnings per share growth, or revenue growth."
Interestingly, the researchers discovered that while the number of companies paying top
executives for shareholder return incentives is increasing, the size of those bonuses relative to
total compensation is on the decline.
According to Enayati, part of that has to do with companies decreasing the weight of total
shareholder return compensation plans. "But then also the new adopters are coming in at lower
weights, perhaps just to test the water," he explained.
But Enayati doesn't rule out other performance bonuses. "While there's no evidence that this tool
hits the mark, that isn't to say that other metrics shouldn't be pursued as a solid way to align
those incentives," he said.
The analysis, done in conjunction with consultants Pearl Meyer & Partners, examined a decade's
worth of data from every company in the S&P 500. It compared companies that offer their top brass
a total shareholder return (TSR) plan to those that don't and found the increasingly popular pay
plans haven't significantly boosted any of a number of key metrics. ...
likbez said...
Looks to me like a generic problem of any neoliberal regime that became more acute as secular
stagnation of economics became a "new normal".
High compensation (which is just a part of generic redistribution of wealth up -- the goal
on neoliberalism) drives up ruthless sociopaths making short term stock performance the priority
and displaces engineers who are capable drive the firm into the future.
Short termism and financial machinations to boost the stock price are probably among key reasons
of decline of IBM and HP.
Paradoxically Icahn recently provided us with some interesting insights into bizarre world
of stock buybacks. See video on http://carlicahn.com/
FILE PHOTO: Judges at the UN's highest court are seen during a hearing in a case launched
by Ukraine which alleges Moscow is funding pro-Russian separatist groups in Ukraine, in
The Hague, Netherlands June 3, 2019. REUTERS/Eva Plevier
Reading a summary of the ruling, Presiding Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf said conditions had been met
for the case to be heard in full, with the 16-judge panel rejecting Russian objections by a large
majority.
The International Court of Justice found that on the basis of anti-terrorism and
anti-discrimination treaties signed by both countries it has jurisdiction to hear the case over
Russia's alleged support for separatists in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
At a hearing in June, Moscow had asked judges to dismiss the suit, saying Kiev was using it as
pretext for a ruling on the legality of Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea.
Addressing that point, Yusuf said Ukraine had not asked the court to rule "on the status of
Crimea or on violations of the rules of international law" other than those contained in the United
Nations anti-discrimination and anti-terrorism treaties.
Kiev says Russia's support for separatist forces violated a U.N. convention banning the
funding of terrorist groups.
The EU sees US leadership failing while the Russian beast to its east are getting stronger. The lessons of Russia wielding power
over Ukraine by cutting off energy supplies have been noted: energy security is a long-term threat to the EU and Russia is on the
verge of controlling Middle Eastern supplies as well. Furthermore, the lessons of China's economic successes through non-democratic
government control will also have been noted as something for European statists to emulate.
The EU's response to the energy threat from Russia has been to adopt a radical green agenda without reservation. Despite about
98% of transport and logistics being delivered by diesel and gasoline, some member states in the EU are banning the sales of internal
combustion engines as motive power from as soon as 2030 . This accelerated path to zero emissions will require massive investment.
Clearly this is being viewed as economically stimulative at a time of declining optimism over the general economic outlook.
These views are articulated in UNCTAD's Trade and Development Report 2019, Financing a Global Green Deal [iii]. The authors argue
that internationally coordinated action between governments pursuing reflationary monetary and fiscal policies, while restricting
international capital flows, will generate the economic growth and capture the resources to finance the investment. The charts below
are indicative of their thinking, and are copied from Page 56 of the report.
Excellent laying out of the situation but little in the way of digestible solutions. Demonizing Russia as "the Beast" is both
unhelpful and shows a prejudice of the author shared by the genuinely evil powers of the world. Russia has a huge interest in
keeping Europe as an energy trading partner. The troubles with Ukraine were due to the US / Globalist efforts in that country
to destabilize a competitor (Russia) in their global hegemonic bid.
Russia is well led and debt free. The gold backed crypto is well underway in that country but was not mentioned in this otherwise
breathy article. Crypto is a bridge too far at the moment for general consumption. I am betting on a return to a fractional gold
tie down. The mis-leaders and the bankers will not enjoy having their print-fest party spoiled but it is the only practical solution
and carries the much desired mechanism of tying their dirty hands.
Debt is the noose which will hang the central banks and this hanging needs to be done in public whether 5% or 50% of the people
understand it. Some people will only understand how the system works when Starbucks declines their cattle card.
Again pathetic assholes making plans against Russia.
It is a terrible shame: only two countries at the UN opposed Russia's resolution on the fight against Nazism.
The third committee of the UN General Assembly on social and humanitarian issues by a majority vote adopted a draft Russian
resolution to combat the glorification of Nazism. Thanks to this initiative, radical groups can have big problems.
Representatives of 121 countries supported the idea of Russian diplomats. As expected, only two countries voted against -
the United States and Ukraine. Another 55 countries abstained from voting.
No wonder. Americans are behind any Nazism. Hitler's fascism in particular, they grew up in the hope of inciting Hitler to the
USSR. Well, Ukro-Nazis today are the favorite Nazi whores of Americans. Therefore, such results: the owner and his whore.
As Nikita Khrushchev said, we did not finish you off near Stalingrad, but we will finish you off!
From the Medium article "John Bolton's Old Rivals Say Trump Should Be Very, Very
Worried"
"I don't think dirt-digging would offend Bolton. What would offend Bolton is interrupting
military supplies to a country in a deadly battle with Russia. Doing something that for
whatever reason appeases Putin," Thielmann said."
The country referred to is Ukraine. I guess I've missed all the msm articles detailing all
those deadly clashes between Russian & Ukrainian military units along with casualty
figures and all that. I suppose I need to pay closer attention (or something).
UN says 12,800–13,000 killed since April 2014. So Congress bought a pile of Javelin
AT munitions, the ones with a top attack flight profile that will place a high explosive
shape-charge of molten copper through tops of young Russian tank commanders' heads, who are
sons of Putin's base, if there was a mechanized push further into Ukraine. [The political
tolerance window for which is narrowing.]
Our benevolent leader said, "Hold-on. You gotta first get your FBI to clear my campaign
and come up with some trumped-up charges against my political opponent. My FBI won't do it."
Congressional impoundment, solicitation of a bribe for personal gain, and abuse of power. In
any case, Ukraine's getting a smaller pile of missiles until next year, so, gross incompetent
moves, both domestic and abroad.
You recall that the Obama administration opposed giving Ukraine any lethal assistance?
Congress has just come up with an excellent method of giving the Russians a lot of free
Javelins if there were a serious fight. Which there continues to be no sign of.
The great bulk of (pro-government) Ukrainian casualties occurred in the course of
ill-advised and poorly conducted offensives against the breakaway republics. When it only
defends, the Ukrainian side doesn't suffer casualties. Because nobody attacks it.
"... This period is when Clinton IMHO sent NATO in a wrong direction from being strictly defensive/political to getting involved in Yugoslavia which certainly irritated Russia. ..."
"... Then good old Obama and another Clinton deciding to overthrow Gaddafi and his whole Arab Spring foreign policy to include getting involved in Syria. These were disastrous decisions that the current POTUS inherited and is trying to change except the "deep state" is fighting him tooth and nail. ..."
"... Getting out of Ukraine would be a huge trust maker for Russia and it would be followed by sanctions being lifted allowing for a level playing field to begin working on the issues that need fixing. NATO isn't going away however the forward deployed forces in the Baltic's and Poland could over time in an agreed to reciprocal move say removing Iskander missiles from Kaliningrad could be accomplished. ..."
You are 100% correct that trust is the number one point in coming to any agreement and
currently there is very little trust on either side for varying reasons. One important fact
that is overlooked by most people is the leadership of President George H. W. Bush and PM
Margaret Thatcher during the transition from the Soviet Union/Warsaw pact to independent
sovereign nations. The Bush was a WW II pilot and Thatcher earned the name Iron Lady for her
decisive action in the Falklands War, both understood the world as it was in 1990. This
statement highlights the view that prevailed from Bush at the time: "Not once, but three
times, Baker tried out the "not one inch eastward" formula with Gorbachev in the February 9,
1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev's statement in response to the assurances that "NATO
expansion is unacceptable." Baker assured Gorbachev that "neither the President nor I intend
to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place," and that the
Americans understood that "not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as
well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in
Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO's present military jurisdiction
will spread in an eastern direction." (See Document 6)"
These were complicated issues that involved a multitude of parties being negotiated by
just a few i.e. US, UK, France and West Germany a holdover from the WW II model. The Poles,
Czechs and others were not consulted and IMHO had they been the situation would have become
untenable. It must be remembered that Poland and Czechoslovakia suffered heavily due to
"large important nations" giving them away pre and post WW II. There was no written agreement
nor official treaty between the west and the Soviet Union soon to be Russian Federation and I
believe that was intentional for the reason I give above. George H. W. Bush was not reelected
in 1992 and Bill Clinton became POTUS and he pursued a foreign policy that was entirely
different. Some of his ideas used Thatchers earlier idea of a more political NATO with less
emphasis on the original military mission which brought in the Partnerships for Peace
program. That program was IMHO quite good as it stabilized countries that were wobbly in the
1990's after the breakup occurred. The Clinton White House had Madeline Albright an immigrant
from Czechoslovakia as secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski a former secretary of State
and an academic that influenced his policies which were pro eastern European anti Russian. It
was during this time that NATO expanded. The US is a country of immigrants and there is a
large Polish population as well as other eastern Europeans and political considerations are
always come into play.
This period is when Clinton IMHO sent NATO in a wrong direction from being strictly
defensive/political to getting involved in Yugoslavia which certainly irritated Russia.
G.W. Bush basically continued the trend with regard to NATO but was preoccupied with 9/11
more than anything else. Bush thought that he understood Putin and even invited him to his
ranch in Crawford, Texas which Putin accepted and they did seem to get along.
However 2008
and the Georgia War began the slide in relations between the two countries. Then good old
Obama and another Clinton deciding to overthrow Gaddafi and his whole Arab Spring foreign
policy to include getting involved in Syria. These were disastrous decisions that the current
POTUS inherited and is trying to change except the "deep state" is fighting him tooth and
nail.
Getting out of Ukraine would be a huge trust maker for Russia and it would be followed by
sanctions being lifted allowing for a level playing field to begin working on the issues that
need fixing. NATO isn't going away however the forward deployed forces in the Baltic's and
Poland could over time in an agreed to reciprocal move say removing Iskander missiles from
Kaliningrad could be accomplished.
Many have tried, usually ended up in those infamous endless Russian fields, in long boxes.
See Pushkin, for the exact quote. But historical trivialities aside, there should be a way to
satisfy Imperial hubris without 'salting the grounds'. Hannibal's elephants did not carry
nukes in their trunks. Trying for the sixth time in the last 4 centuries to get Moscow
grounds salted might end badly for the entire planet.
Trust was not breached by Russia, military buildup, hostile threatening military, NATO
expansion and refusal to negotiate on these issues did not originate from Russia. Russia has
tried to negotiate, concede and de-escalate before. The West did not respond to those moves.
Even US sanctions placed on Soviet Union were not removed from Russia, despite there being no
reason for them to remain in place. This and other recent events (libya, iran deal etc) tells
Russia and other global players that de-escalating with the West doesn't work.
Even now, West seems to be interested to trade with Russia at least in some areas. And
Europe is increasingly frustrated with the United States. There is reportedly a number of EU
initiatives aimed at gradually limiting US economic levers created during the Cold War.
Rising economies will gradually offer more opportunities outside of the Western world.
Multipolar wolrd was a slogan in the 00s, in the 2040es it might be a reality.
We know NATO will not maintain ABM and CFE, and it is apparently not interested in INF and
Open Skies, and even START is in question now. NATO will withdraw troops if only Russia does
something? Please, you don't really believe that. With INF gone, Iskander is outdated, it was
a treaty-limited weapon. Moving it a few hundred klicks will not make NATO concede anything
now.
A huge trust maker would be for all NATO members to publically admit on their web page
that pledges to Russia were broken and at least some NATO officials feel responsibility for
that. They've spent 27 years denying any verbal assurances, now that those assurances are
declassified, they build other narratives about how those pledges did not matter. For there
to be trust, there needs to be an admission that trust was there, and was broken, and not by
Russia. No troop movements necessary even.
Biden isn't going to win the next election Trump will be reelected in 2020. The current
strain in relations with Russia has been inherited by Trump and even before he was elected
the DNC and Hillary Clinton cooked up the "Russia colusion" story which after $46 million and
2 1/2 years no Russia collision. Of course now we have the Dems trying to impeach Trump which
will not go anywhere in the Senate more waste of time and money. However there is the Justice
Department I.G. report soon to be released and many of the people who brought you the Russia
colusion hoax will be named. The Justice Department has an ongoing criminal investigation
into the key players and will undoubtedly result in indictments and prosecutions.
The real reason all of this is going on is because the establishment both Dem's & Repub's
along with the deep state look at Trump as an outsider who is tipping over their apple cart
i.e. he is changing the foreign policy direction and they don't like it one bit so they
create fake issues to try and stop him.
After his reelection I predict that more normal relations with Russia will resume.
Nowadays the actual attacks are manifested as 'hybrid warfare'. Of course Russia took the
US intervention and financing of Chechen rebels as an attack back in the 2000 ties. She took
fermenting and financing of the Georgian rose revolution as a hybrid attack, same as promises
made to pres. Saakashvili to support him militarily and politically after his attack on
Tskhinvali were taken as a hybrid attack. Same goes for both of the first color revolution in
Ukraine, and then the Revolution of dignity of 2014 that pushed ultra-right government to
power in Ukraine. In fact the NATO promise to both Georgia and Ukraine to take them in as
members in 2008 right after Putin's warning in 2007 was the first move in the 'hybrid war'.
The West had been warned, yet it decided to bulldoze its way across Eurasia and triggered the
confrontation. The placings of Aegises ashore in Poland and Romania was the cherry on top.
There can be be no meaningful compromise until the West backs off on the NATO enlargement.
That 2008 conference was what had reanimated the image of the collective West as adversary
for Russia.
What both sides should strive for though is at the very least to diminish the degree of
danger to the planet. Russia would not back off because she finds it easy enough to corner
individual EU states into minimal economic cooperation - Germany is already in recession and
there is no way they are going to continue damaging their economy for the sake of US
politics. And then there is China. When the Russians cannot buy goods from Germans they go
for made in China, which in turn gets China secure oil and gas from Russia. Which make the
repeat of pre-WW II situation with blockade on Japan pretty much impossible. Get realistic,
the West is loosing this one and should count her chickens already.
Well, then the sanctions will continue, as will the policy of keeping Russian in check in
the EU gas market.
What's interesting is that NATO never attacked Russia or threatened to attack Russia. Seems
to me that Putin is simply using the expansion as a pretext for military aggression against
the neighboring states. It's what the USSR did in 1939 against Finland. According the Soviet
side, the war started after Finland attacked the Soviet Union...
Russia *needs* the sanctions for at least another 5 years. Her milk and beef production is
still lagging compared to the deceased USSR and the only way her greedy oligarchs will
heavily invest in cow herd rearing is to continue to block the Eastern European milk products
to enter Russia. Chicken, eggs, pork and veggies are already up to speed, wheat production is
exploding, the salmon breeding programme have started so the Norway is not getting her market
back, bu the cow herds take longer to rear.
The Power of Siberia pipeline is being certified and filled right now - China would receive
her first delivery of piped Russian gas in 2020, so it is good that EU is prepping or the
squeeze - they are not going to continue getting unlimited cheap Russian gas, because Power
of Siberia II is in the works.
Every individual NATO member had attacked Russia in the past 4 centuries ( including small
but meaningful US contingent in the 1918), and some non-member allies had stomped those
fields as well. So the Russians are not taking any chances with the buffer zone. All of
Russia expansions to the West have always started with West invading first - then being
rolled back league by league. But seriously - ? Russians can live with Europe staying where
she is - if in turn Europe can learn to respect her civilization borders. The move on Ukraine
and Georgia was not a wise one.
Obama Bin Biden and the crooked clan need to get back in the game somehow so they can rip
off another 3 billion in US tax payer loans. What were they up to 44 Billion in fraudulent
loans to Ukraine?
Interesting how they want to Impeach Trump over Ukraine, don't you think?
Oleg, you followed Biden story from its very inception. Biden is not the only Dem
politician involved in the Ukrainian corruption schemes, is he?
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his
partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the
US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised
transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of
the Ukraine; the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit
of a few corruptioners, American and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its
dependence on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural gas,
sufficient for domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low;
and the Ukrainians got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to
produce that the Ukraine could provide all its households with free gas for heating and
cooking, just like Libya did. Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma)
had very high profits and very little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to
European levels, and the new president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went
sky-high. The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and heating;
and huge profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering
prices, President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his
projects. He said that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be considered a
partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually
its founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners
into the company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He
had brought in Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it
didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney
General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin
immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand
dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the
Ukrainian tax code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six
hours to close the case against his son. Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US
taxpayers' funds won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner,
paid Biden well for this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars,
according to different sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and
installed Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma,
but he also could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could not keep
his trap shut: by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself.
Meanwhile Mr Shokin gave evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and
now it was confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers in connection with another
case, Firtash case.
"... As for the rest of Ukraine, even though they lost something, they get something valuable in return: it's called neutral status between east and west. A subdued, federalized Ukraine led by Zelensky, in many ways, makes Ukraine "Finlandized." That is good for the Ukrainian people. It means they retain their independence, but peacefully accept that Russia controls their foreign policy. That position benefited Finland between 1945 and 1991. Finland is now a peaceful and prosperous country, and it is no longer living under influence of Russia or the Soviets. If "Finlandization" led to happiness for the Finns, it can do the same for Ukraine. ..."
"... Finland did not fight against Swedish language and peacefully uses it, while it is "legacy of Swedish occupation" and less than 10% of Finnish people can speak it. Ukrainian Nazis are deprived of wisdom, they are fighting with Russian language and own people. So, if you haven't brain, nothing will help you. ..."
"... after Maidan, Nuland directly stated that the United States spent 5 billion on "building democracy in Ukraine." The United States invested 5 billion in a coup, but is Poland to blame? why? if Poland had really done that, then western Ukraine would have become part of Poland immediately after the Maidan, but this did not happen. After the Maidan, Biden was photographed in a pride chair, but not the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland;) ..."
When Russia is led by truly capable leaders, it can beat any foreign power in war or geostrategic conflict. Today Russia is
led by a great man who is starting to look more and more like another Suvorov.
And everyone knows who Suvorov was.
Just read today's headlines concerning Syria. Russia ordered Turkey to stand down its offensive. Russian troops are now functioning
as peacekeepers in-between the Turkish and Syrian armies. The Kurds have signed allied themselves with Russia and Assad.
..while Americans of all stripes scratch their heads wondering what went wrong, and then check CNN and their FB feeds in a
hopeless bid to understand what's going down. Just.... hilarious....
What disturbs me the most is that Americans are being misled into believing that they "lost" something in Syria. In reality,
America "lost" nothing in Syria. That's because the US was never established in Syria to begin with. America has long been established
in Syria's neighbors, Israel, SA, Turkey, and to a lesser degree Iraq. But not Syria.
Basically, America got involved in Syria for aggressive, illegitimate, and unnecessary reasons. We were there to further the
over-ambitious geopolitical ambitions of our ME allies. That's why America launched a minor invasion of eastern Syria, and armed
and funded rebels, jihadis to try to violently overthrow Assad. And when that didn't work, the US POTUS justifiably pulled out
US troops and stopped supporting the rebels.
So, America didn't ever have anything to gain or to lose in Syria. Nothing at all.
Meanwhile, all the hawkish American newspapers -- which includes much of MSM -- are now complaining that Trump allowed Russia
to "take" Syria, and to "humiliate" and "drive out" America from that country. What hogwash! What propaganda and lies!
Russia has been in Syria for nearly 50 years. That means Russia's the chief ally of Syria, and as such, is a guarantor peace
and stability in the country. Also, Russia definitely has something to lose in Syria if Assad gets overthrown. So, in the end,
Russia wasn't trying to "take over Syria," as lying US media suggests. Russia was just protecting itself, protecting Assad, and
trying to impose peace on the region.
Check out Newsweek's totally dishonest story on this is subject. The article was published today. It's a shame so many
naive Americans believe these lies about America's alleged "role" in Syria.
Sir, we got involved in Syria because of Assad, who is a monster to his own people. If you're talking about Butinterests in
terms of money, no -- we don't have any. But in terms of principles, yes, we were justified in entering that area of the country.
And we made a difference. Or else the Russians wouldn't be rushing in to take the place we left. We were getting a lot out
of very little engagement.
Russia has never been a guarantee for peace and stability anywhere; it has always been a guarantee of more support for Russia.
Whenever necessary, instabillity was sown, and inconvenient parties, whether or not former allies, were abandoned.
Plus, there is the nagging issue of the Kurds having helped us in the fight against ISIS. Letting this out of the picture is
as dishonest as you try to make parts of the MSM be.
But hey -- have your own opinions. Write a book about them while you're at it.
Sir, we got involved in Syria because of Assad, who is a monster to his own people. If you're talking about Butinterests in
terms of money, no -- we don't have any. But in terms of principles, yes, we were justified in entering that area of the country.
sorry what???
In fact, Assad is the legitimate, democratically elected president of Syria. have you decided in the USA that you have the
right to decide who is bad and who is good?
The United States has worked hard to overthrow legitimate power in Syria. for 7 years of NATO's joint operation in Syria, ISIS
captured 70% of the territory of this country. Of course, with the active support of the United States, it supplied weapons to
everyone who was ready to fight against the Syrian army. but the "evil" Russia came and ruined everything. for 5 years of military
operations in Syria, ISIS were defeated and switched to guerrilla warfare. solved the problem between the Kurds, Turks and Syrians.
US plans have completely collapsed. or not?
Congress is currently making a decision to bring tanks into Syria to protect oil fields from terrorists. Really??? it looks
like American democracy is black and actually called oil! all these hundreds of thousands of murdered women and children in Syria
just so that the United States could continue to steal oil from Syria!
"the greatest power in the world" turns out to be an ordinary thief! do not you disgust?
Sir, we got involved in Syria because of Assad, who is a monster to his own people.
Define what you mean by "monster to his own people." And explain to me why 30% of Syrians -- a huge chunk of whole -- have
always been solidly behind Assad.
If you're talking about the Assad regime's barrel bombing, yes, that's monstrous. But Assad didn't start doing that until the
civil war was fulling raging. That war, mind you, didn't broaden and deepen until America stepped in to fund and arm Assad's enemies.
Had America had stayed out of Syria and allowed Assad to stamp out the initial protests and acts of rebellion, then there would
have been no civil war. Therefore, America's involved escalated Syria's civil disorder all the way up to the level of a full fledged
war, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I really don't understand how American Triumphalists and messianic spreaders of American democracy can justify what they did
in Syria. Essentially, America consciously took a chance in Syria, choosing to support the rebels on the off chance that they
might topple Assad. America knew that the price of failure in this reckless gambit would be the deaths of hundreds of thousands
of Syrians.
Why did America do this? America's action in Syria were driven by the desire to turn the country into a strategic asset. America
chose to pursue this goal on behalf of its regional allies (all Syrian enemies), Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. That's
all. Never mind "principles." We're talking geopolitical ambitions here. Blind ambitions.
It's a mysterious to me as to why you blame the war on Russia. After all, Russia's been in Syria for nearly 50 years. During
that time, Syria was stable, and experienced no civil war. But as soon as America began meddling in Syria, war broke out. Russia
worked with Assad to try to stomp out that war. America worked with the rebels to expand it.
Ukraine power captured it's country in own trap. They can't stop civil war in Donbass because then they will need to explain
somehow why they killed Donbass people (Ukraine Nazis power hate Donbassians, but at the same time pretends to call them their
own citizens) for so many years. Admit truth means acknowledge own crimes. So, the only way they have is continuing lying about
"liberation" (means genociding) of Donbass.
But rest assured: Ukraine is beaten and the Ukrainians know it. They can feel it. That's why they elected Zelensky, who
may be a sensible guy.
Implementation of the peace plan in Donbass will turn the region into a virtually independent part of Ukraine. Russia will
be able to influence Ukrainian politics through its connections in Donbass. That means Russia will have gained exactly what it
fought for: veto power over Ukraine's attempts to join the EU and NATO.
As for the rest of Ukraine, even though they lost something, they get something valuable in return: it's called neutral
status between east and west. A subdued, federalized Ukraine led by Zelensky, in many ways, makes Ukraine "Finlandized." That
is good for the Ukrainian people. It means they retain their independence, but peacefully accept that Russia controls their foreign
policy. That position benefited Finland between 1945 and 1991. Finland is now a peaceful and prosperous country, and it is no
longer living under influence of Russia or the Soviets. If "Finlandization" led to happiness for the Finns, it can do the same
for Ukraine.
Finland did not fight against Swedish language and peacefully uses it, while it is "legacy of Swedish occupation" and less
than 10% of Finnish people can speak it. Ukrainian Nazis are deprived of wisdom, they are fighting with Russian language and own
people. So, if you haven't brain, nothing will help you.
But rest assured: Ukraine is beaten and the Ukrainians know it. They can feel it. That's why they elected Zelensky, who may
be a sensible guy.
your optimism is due to ignorance of the peculiarities of Ukrainian political life;) Let's start with a short introduction
to Ukrainian political life. Who is Zelensky? this is a representative of the oligarch Kolomoisky. exactly the same oligarch as
Parashenko has ruled Ukraine for the past 5 years. For 5 years, Parashenko has robbed banks and enterprises of other oligarchs
in Ukraine, now Kolomoisky will do the same through his representative Zelensky.
Now about the peace process in the Donbas ... The armed coup in 2014 was carried out by the forces of Ukrainian Nazis and over
the past 5 years, the Ukrainian Nazis have firmly established themselves in the Verkhovna Rada and, most importantly, in the army
and law enforcement agencies. these structures are controlled by Avakov, not Zelensky. Zelensky cannot withdraw troops, and even
more so "Ukrainian volunteers" from punitive battalions Aidar, Azov, etc. Zelensky does not control these formations and has no
leverage over them. all he can do is put forward an additional requirement of 7 days without shelling. Naturally, the shelling
is not embellished and no one withdraws the troops. Even if Zelensky really wanted to end the war, there simply isn't any opportunity
for this. all that he can do is populism and tell that he will return Crimea :))))
Mr Gvosdev sounds like one of those Eastern European svidomites . They combine this unwavering faith in the power of
Washington on top of a deep, irrational hostility to Russia.
How is "collapse of Russian economy" going to happen exactly? Judging by the casual manner in which Gvosdev talks about it,
I think he imagines president Biden flipping some switch in his cabinet, and the economy of vast country shutting down in an instant.
How does a Western economic war on Russia can help its proxies seize power? It didn't work like this in Iran or Venezuela,
it's even less likely to happen in Russia. If anything the opposite is likely to happen: pro-Western 5th column in Russia will
be eradicated.
You know that the Ukraine is doomed when your "optimistic scenario" requires Russia to drop dead essentially.
Russia's economy is functioning very close to autarky. That means Russia could survive expulsion from SWIFT.
As for for your reference to China, your point is anything but clear. China is forming a strategic alliance with Russia pointed
directly at the US. If you don't realize this, you haven't been reading the news. It would behoove you to know that China and
the US have long been drifting in the direction of a conflict for supremacy in Pan-Pacific affairs. The US has lots of weapons
systems set up in South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. Beijing is determined to make the US withdraw those military assets from China's
borders. China is also wary of the US's messianic impulse to spread democracy anywhere it can. China blames America for the Hong
Kong disturbances, which Beijing thinks of as America's latest attempt at a "color revolution."
Meanwhile, Russia poses no such threat to China. If anything, Russia makes an ideal junior ally for China in the latter's growing
tendency to constantly subvert the US as the world's superpower. So, I am confused as to what kind of threat you think China poses
to Russia?
Perhaps you believe that China wants to take Siberia from Russia. Do you really believe China has the ability to do so? If
that's what you're thinking, you are willfully blind to the fact that Russia remains a nuclear weapons superpower. If war broke
out between China and Russia (which is very unlikely), which country would do more damage to the other? Think about it: Russia
is a massive open land mass that is not densely populated, and it is full of nuclear missile launch sites. China is a population
dense nation consisting of far less territory than Russia. Who would suffer more in an exchange of nuclear missiles? I think the
answer is clear. For this reason, Beijing is not thinking about war with Russia, or making Russia "collapse," as you say.
Wow, I can write comments here. I am russian, so I can tell the Mordor's version. The article is generally objective, but the
author was cunning in a few points
1) The principal reason why Yanukovich refused to sign the agreement with Europe was the duty free zone with Russia. Russians
sad: ok, You will sign the agreement with Europe, but we have high customs duties with europeneans, so we will break our free
trade zone agreement. Russia was the biggest export market for Ukraine and ukranians understood that they will lose a lot of money.
But Maidan decided differently.
2) Today the Russian primary strategy for Ukraine is do nothing and wait, we have no any influence in this country. We understand
that Europe and USA will not feed this country a lot of time. Internal contradictions will ruin this country before our intervention
3) But we support new government of Zelensky because he has an opportunity to implement Minsk agreements (may be). It will
be enough to close this deal and move on
But we support new goverment of Zelensky because he has an oportunity to implement Minsk aggreements (may be). It will be enough
to close this deal and move on
I do not agree with this. how Zelensky can end the war when the security forces and the army are controlled by Avakov and the
punitive battalions do not even know who controls?
the support of any government in Ukraine is due to the fact that our countries still have a fairly large turnover. while we trade
with ukraine will cooperate ..
But now Poland and other Central European states were similarly interested in changing their position -- from being Euro-Atlantic
frontline states to shifting that line further east
I believe that this is a big reason why Maidan occured. It is also a big reason for the war in Ukraine today. The Poles have
had a hand in this issue from the very beginning. Poland is literally an aggressor state at this point, stoking trouble in Ukraine.
America's greatest sin in all of this has been to allow itself to be influenced by Poland and the Baltic states. Just like
America allowed itself to be led by the nose by its "allies" in the Syrian War. We're talking about two conflicts that have very
little to do with America's best interests, and which could result in disaster (nuclear exchange with Russia) if something goes
wrong.
It's absolutely nuts for anyone to think that nuclear equipped Russia would allow Poland and America to have their way in Ukraine,
which is virtually Russia's front porch. By supporting our Polish "ally," the US has come close to creating a Cuban Missile Crisis
in reverse. In 1963 the Russians provoked America. Since 2014, America has been provoking Russia. It could get much worse.
I believe that this is a big reason why Maidan occured. It is also a big reason for the war in Ukraine today. The Poles have
had a hand in this issue from the very beginning. Poland is literally an aggressor state at this point, stoking trouble in
Ukraine.
but after Maidan, Nuland directly stated that the United States spent 5 billion on "building democracy in Ukraine." The
United States invested 5 billion in a coup, but is Poland to blame? why? if Poland had really done that, then western Ukraine
would have become part of Poland immediately after the Maidan, but this did not happen. After the Maidan, Biden was photographed
in a pride chair, but not the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland;)
Okay, I can see where you're coming from. But still, the Russians were readying to station missiles in Cuba, just miles from
America's borders. That means the Russians must have known -- or should have known -- that they were risking war with the US.
That's my point.
Now America's doing the same thing as the USSR did in 1963. America is setting the stage to establish bases, radars, and missiles
in Ukraine. That's what preparing Ukraine for NATO membership is all about. Therefore, America must know -- or should know --
that it is risking war with Russia. In a major way.
Agree with the thrust of your agrument. The US knows it is stoking conflict with their actions (ie Donbass), but since they
are not directly in the firing line (barring major escalations) they simply don't care. They want to discomfort and undermine
Russia, drive a wedge between Russia and Germany/France, and force the Eurotrash into compliance with US diktat as a demonstration
of US power over its minions.
Re the Cuban Missile Crisis, on the balance it wasn't really a climb-down by the Soviets, but it is usually interpreted that
way, especially as anti-Krushchev factions in the USSR were succesful in portraying it that way as part of their palace coup.
The US remoived its misiles from Turkey, promised not to update them with new ones, and undertook not to repeat any more "Bay
of Pigs" attempts at overthrowing Castro by force of arms. All the Soviets needed to do was halt their mobilisation and similarly
agree not to base missiles. On the balance, the Soviets played brinkmanship well and won real concessions in exchange for very
little. Krushchevs problem was really that he marketted the ploy very poorly and was able to be portrayed as a loser by his political
enemies, and Westeners have happily repeated the narratives ever since.
And what? US placed their missiles in every corner of the Globe, including Soviet/Russian borders. Why USSR can't place it's
missiles in Cuba?
BTW, what Gary Powers did in his U-2 in the sky above Ekaterinburg 01.05.1960?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
My point is that each power is expected to respect the other's buffer zones. That's how the powers have gotten along historically.
If and when one side disrespects the other's buffer zone, major trouble is right around the corner.
Generally, in these confrontations between the nuclear superpowers, the side with the less to lose is the first to back down.
That side is always the one that has overreached. In 1963 it was the Soviets who overreached. It's looking increasingly clear
that since 2014, it's the US that's overreached.
The US will find a graceful way to end the Ukraine-NATO expansion issue, something amounting to a face-saving American retreat
from the region. Putin will likely make it easy for America to pull out without loss of prestige.
In general, you are right, but in 60's it was not Soviets, who overreached. It was US planes intervened in Soviet airspace,
not vice versa. It was US, who firstly placed missiles in Turkey in 1961, not USSR in Cuba in 1963.
Ukraine is not going anywhere, because of 115 Mrd. outstanding Debt. Ukraine lost 85% of their Industrial Base in the last
5 Years. Most of them working for Russian Companies. Those Companies get Advanced Payments from Russia till 2014 worth about 10
Mrd. for Material and Salaries. That Money is not coming again. Russian Companies replace 90% of all Ukraine deliveries during
the last 5 Years - more modern and especially with far better time frames. Ukraine has a minor Cash Reserve of 7 Billion USD.
Whatever happens to Ukraine we can be sure of one thing, through our contributions via the World Bank, the IMF and Obama's
loan guarantees, the one million dollars a day paid by U.S taxpayers directly into the pockets of Ukrainian Oligarchs will continue
in perpetuity.
I doubt Putin is in any hurry to relieve us of that 'honor' the man is a master of playing the U.S for a sucker.
You are correct on most counts. However, I think that Putin wants the US to scale down its Ukraine involvement ASAP. That's
because Russia's nightmare is NATO expansion into Ukraine. Therefore, the sooner the US backs away, the less likely Russia will
have to fight a future war in order to keep NATO off of its front yard. Nobody, including Putin, wants war.
Ukraine needs internal stability, this means peace treaty with rebels and some kind of minimal agreement with Russia. Country
needs to buy time, it is too much to expect to fight war, to do reforms and fight corruption and to develop all at the same time.
NATO expansion to East proved to be big destabilizing factor for Ukraine, its geopolitical situation is difficult. It will
always need to balance and make concessions between Eastern and Western interests.
New president looks very promising, hopefully he will be able to bring country back to stability and push it more toward faster
economical development and national reconciliation.
You make some good points regarding stability within the country. The amount now spent on fighting the war in Donbas will not
go down as Ukraine will need to continue to rebuild their military to include new fighters and new ships for the navy however
the killing will stop. Any agreement made with Putin should be made with eyes wide open as Russia has no honor so agreements are
worthless only a potent enough military will guarantee Ukraine's peace.
Peace at any cost is not acceptable and any plan that allows complete autonomy should be a no go, it would be better to just
build a wall along the existing line and rid the country of a fifth columnist element. If the plan allows for local elections,
local use of Russian, local police forces not military but police that is acceptable. These elections must allow for all residents
who resided in the area prior to the war to vote and for all Ukrainian political parties to participate.
Zelenskiy has made corruption a key to his election and it is imperative that he takes some bold action(s) soon to set the
tone. I am a little concerned that he has selected some less than pure individuals to be part of his presidential team, apparently
he hasn't picked up on how bad the optics are by having a lawyer that worked for Kolomosky as your chief of staff?
Cracking down on the oligarchs would allow Ukraine to have a standard of living like Poland within a very few years and many of
the Ukrainians that now work in Poland could come home an make as much money.
The presidential vote proved that at least 73% of Ukrainians agreed that a new beginning was needed hence Zelnskiy being elected.
The reason IMHO that "national reconciliation" hasn't been achieved is the continued Russian interference/influence in Ukraine.
It hasn't been long enough for Ukraine as an independent nation to come to terms with the past history. This part of the world
has seen millions killed over the past 100+ years, the country hasn't come to grips with that there is still finger pointing and
until that is dealt with the reconciliation will be difficult.
The desire to join NATO is all on Russia and it's continuous interference in Ukraine. In all reality NATO is a long way off
as Ukraine needs to do a lot to bring the country up to NATO standards including in the corruption realm.
This part of the world has seen millions killed over the past 100+ years
Ukraine has been used an invasion route by Western aggressors who want to conquer Russia. That's resulted in Russia suffering
millions killed in the 20th century, and hundreds of thousands more killed in earlier wars.
You keep failing to see matters from Russia's perspective. You only think about Ukraine's most selfish national interests.
You've got to understand that any security arrangement in that part of the world will have to be a shared security plan. It will
have to consider and respect Russia's concerns. NATO is not the answer here. Militarization of a Ukraine led by far-right wing
nationalists is not the answer either.
Ukraine's only path to peace and security is to accept the status of Finlandization.
If the plan allows for local elections, local use of Russian, local police forces not military but police that
is acceptable.
It's too late for that. Remember, the Ukrainian ATO invaded Donbass and killed many thousands of innocent local people. For
this reason, Donbass will never allow the Ukrainian military onto its soil.
Yes, I read what you said. That's why I highlighted "military" in my quote. You are saying that Donbass Russians are expected
to allow themselves to be occupied by the Ukrainian military, as if they are conquered, humiliated people. I am saying that Russia
and Donbass will never let that happen.
Let's not overlook that it appears very much like the war is ending now, with Ukraine submitting to the terms set by Donbass
and Russia. That means Zelensky will have to drink his poison soup and allow the Donbass militia to have exclusive and unrestricted
military rights within Donbass, and along the region's borders. That's unavoidable.
Even if you go by Minsk II which plainly does not allow for a Separatist Military there is zero chance that Ukraine will agree
to anything resembling a "military". This territory will be under Ukrainian sovereignty and the border will be under Ukrainian
sovereignty. The autonomy will be for language, education, elections of local councils, cultural endeavors etc...
It is the thugs in charge who are supported by the Kremlin are the ones that envision some quasi country within Ukraine. If
you were to go out into the villages the average person wants the war to end and life to go back to as close to what it was before
this all started. The thugs in charge know that their power and authority will go away if truly free and fair elections are to
be held without Russian and mercenary gun toting thugs walking the streets. They are the ones that are worried as their world
will come to an end if real peace comes to past.
If you were to go out into the villages the average person wants the war to end and life to go back to as close to what
it was before this all started. The thugs in charge know that their power and authority will go away if truly free and fair elections
are to be held...
You are in denial of the facts. Respected international polling agencies have taken polls inside the rebel held portion of
Donbass. The results confirm that the people there want nothing to do with the Ukrainian government, and that they identify themselves
as an extension of Russia.
The only open question among the Donbass people is whether they want to be annexed by Russia (many do), or whether they want
to remain in Ukraine as a completely autonomous region, running all of their own affairs (many like this idea too).
But under no circumstances do the Donbass people want the Ukrainian army to enter their territory, establish bases or outposts,
and then garrison the border with Russia. Why would the Donbass people have fought for five hard, victorious years only to accept
this ignominious outcome? It makes no sense. Donbass and Russia won. Ukraine lost. The winners will not let the losers take military
control of their homeland. No possible way.
From the way your posts read, it's obvious you are way, way oversold on anti-Russian propaganda.
Who says that the Ukrainian Army is going to go into this area of Donbas? Th border will be secured by Ukrainian Border personnel
as it is on every other part of the border. Ukraine is currently decentralizing services and responsibility in the rest of the
country withheld control coming from Kyiv. A modified version of that for occupied Donbas to include local elections, language,
education and local law enforcement is what they should expect. In exchange Kyiv promises to rebuild destroyed infrastructure
and provide economic assistance to the area.
If that isn't good enough then as I said build a wall and cut them lose and let Putin take on the burden which he doesn't want.
Money coming form Russia to rebuild will be a long time in coming and what they have now is pretty much what they can expect for
the future. Of course the educate and most of the young have left the area an only the poor pensioners who had no where to go
are left.
Even if you go by Minsk II which plainly does not allow for a Separatist Military there is zero chance that Ukraine will
agree to anything resembling a "military"
You're living in a dream world if you think this. The reality is that Ukraine has lost the war. Zelensky wouldn't dare to implement
Minsk II unless he were leading a defeated nation, a nation that was throwing in the towel. We're talking about a complete capitulation.
That's what Minsk II means.
I am certain that Zelensky fully expects that once Minsk II is implemented, Ukraine will be somehow be maneuvered into accepting
that the Donbass military is in charge of Donbass and the abutting section of the Russian-Ukraine frontier.
Most likely, after Donbass holds internationally ratified elections per Minsk II, the newly elected officials will claim that
they are officially part of Ukraine's government. From there, they will claim that the Donbass rebel militia, therefore, is officially
an extension of Ukraine's national army. Then, finally, the Donbass leaders and Russia will say that "returning control of the
border to Ukraine" means, in reality, putting the border under the control of the Donbass militia.
Possibly the Donbass militia will wear Ukrainian army uniforms, just for show. But believe me: there's no way the victors in
this war are going to settle for surrendering military control of their territory to a despised, alien military force (i.e., the
Ukrainian army).
There's no possible way that Putin, Russia, or the Donbass rebels would have pushed the Minsk II Accords on Ukraine unless
it one of the treaty's unstated implications is that the Ukrainian military is ejected from the region permanently. That's what
Russia and Donbass fought to achieve. It's unthinkable that they would settle for anything less.
I'm certain that Zelensky and everyone else understands this.
It will not happen Minsk II will not be implemented. Th eUkrainian foreign minister already stated what will be the approach
in the Normandy talks an edit isn't Minsk II.
"The thugs in charge know that their power and authority will go away if truly free and fair elections are to be held without
Russian and mercenary gun toting thugs walking the streets."
What nonsense. You really think that voters in Donetsk & Lugansk would to reward Kiev authorities with their support in light
of the atrocities the "volunteer" battalions have dished out to civilians over the last 5 years???
You can cry about "thugs" or "mercenaries" all you like (in a futile attempt to de-legitimise the views of the seperatists)
but your bias is clear when you whitewash the crimes of Banderites and Neo-Nazis. Or maybe you would prefer to adopt the US MSM
ploy and simply pretend that these factions don't exist, or that no warcrimes have been committed?
You really think that voters in Donetsk & Lugansk would to reward Kiev authorities...
You make a valid point. I'd add also that the rebel controlled areas are the parts of Donetsk and Lugansk where the ethnic
Russian demographic majorities are heaviest. That means there's virtually zero chance that any elections held in that zone will
favor Kiev.
...as Ukraine will need to continue to rebuild their military to include new fighters and new ships for the navy...
Impossible. That's because there aren't enough Ukrainians who feel nationalistic enough to be willing to lay down their lives
in war for Ukraine. The reason for this problem is that a huge minority of Ukrainians are ethnic Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians
who won't fight Russia. Many other Ukrainian people are ambivalent about national identity, and will not honor their military
obligations.
In some ways, Ukraine's military problem today is akin to that suffered by the Austro-Hungarian Empire in WW1. The Austro-Hungarian
state was multi-national, and much of its population did not share the political and national values of the rulers in Vienna and
Budapest.
Multi-national countries always have trouble fielding political reliable militaries. Even the Soviet Union, a superpower, had
a bottom one-third of military recruits (most from Cental Asia) that simply weren't politically reliable.
Ukraine's military future looks very grim. Only if Kiev grants independence to the non-Ukrainian regions will the country finally
have a population of people who share the same national and political values. That will have to precede Ukraine building any kind
of competent army.
The presidential vote proved that at least 73% of Ukrainians agreed that a new beginning was needed hence Zelnskiy being
elected.
That Ukrainian majority is exhausted and demoralized by the Donbass War. They want peace at any cost, even if that means granting
virtual independence to Donbass. Even if that means allowing Russia to use Donbass as an agent through which it can influence
Ukraine's domestic political situation. That's the "new beginning" that Ukrainians have in mind.
There's no way Zelensky can be in power while simultaneously continuing the Donbass War. Ukrainians elected him to get the
country out of that agony.
My wife is Ukrainian and they will not accept Russia running things through a Fifth column in Donbas. They might as well just
wall it off and be done with it makes zero sense to allow your rendition.
Gosh, the Taliban wiped out poppy production in 2000. The Twin Towers were destroyed in 2001.
Bush (son of CIA Bush) invaded Afghanistan to... well, to do what? To defeat the Taliban?
Why? To restore poppy production? To find bin Laden? Didn't really do that. After all he was
in Pakistan. And what has happened to poppy farming since we invaded? Booming. For 17 years.
Those farming families are doing really well under the protection of U.S. troops. Just like
the oil families in Syria that are protected by U.S. troops. Now, Trump seems to be throwing
a spanner in all this. Of course, "We came, we saw, he died [giggle, giggle]" Clinton would
have never committed Trump's crimes. Trump's just a loose cannon.
Angleton, quoting Jesus, said "In my Father's house are many mansions."
I guess we know which mansion Brennan inhabits.
May 20, 2001
The first American narcotics experts to go to Afghanistan under Taliban rule have concluded
that the movement's ban on opium-poppy cultivation appears to have wiped out the world's
largest crop in less than a year, officials said today.
The American findings confirm earlier reports from the United Nations drug control program
that Afghanistan, which supplied about three-quarters of the world's opium and most of the
heroin reaching Europe, had ended poppy planting in one season.
But the eradication of poppies has come at a terrible cost to farming families, [A
TERRIBLE COST TO FARMING FAMILIES, OH, THOSE POOR FARMING FAMILIES]and experts say it will
not be known until the fall planting season begins whether the Taliban can continue to
enforce it.
''It appears that the ban has taken effect,'' said Steven Casteel, assistant administrator
for intelligence at the Drug Enforcement Administration in Washington.
The findings came in part from a Pakistan-based agent of the administration who was one of
the two Americans on the team just returned from eight days in the poppy-growing areas of
Afghanistan.
Tue 11 Sep 2001: 9/11
Tue 25 Sep 2001:
In a dramatic and little-noticed reversal of policy, the Taliban have told farmers in
Afghanistan that they are free to start planting poppy seeds again if the Americans decide to
launch a military attack.
Drug enforcement agencies last night confirmed that they expect to see a massive resumption
of opium cultivation inside Afghanistan, previously the world's biggest supplier of heroin,
in the next few weeks.
The Taliban virtually eradicated Afghanistan's opium crop last season after an edict by
Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban leader.
In July last year he said that growing opium was "un-Islamic" and warned that anyone
caught planting seeds would be severely punished.
Taliban soldiers enforced the ruling two summers ago and made thousands of villagers
across Afghanistan plough up their fields. Earlier this year UN observers agreed that
Afghanistan's opium crop had been completely wiped out.
"... At a first approximation, democracy is the alliance of the city dwellers for the power of the city, ignoring tribes and rural aristocrats, carefully contained so the landowners keep their land, and the slaves are kept under control. Or, to update it, the class collaboration of the wealthy (nowadays some sort of capitalist,) the middling strata and the common people for the power of the nation, carefully arranged so the people with great property make the decisions about the economy. ..."
"... As an example, it's only in the last few years I've wakened up to the extraordinary tendency to people to ignore either the progressive content of bourgeois revolutions, such as in pretending that destroying a national secular state in Iraq or Syria and replacing it with a cantonal confederation is a step backward. Or in surreptitiously pretending that democracy has nothing to do with the democratic state needing fighters against other states. Like most people on the internet, i do tend to get a little trendy, and repetitive. But apparently I'm too socially backward to get the memo on the correct trendy, and repetitive. ..."
"... The classic model of course was the Roman Republic. By coincidence I was reading Livy's first five books and the relationship between rights for the plebs and the need for them in war, stands out. Macchiavelli's Discourses on Livy makes this even plainer. In the US much of this was conveyed to the Americans via Algernon Sidney's Discourses on Government as refracted through Cato's Letters. (I hope to live long enough to read Discourses on Davila by John Adams, solely because of the title.) ..."
"... It would seem to me that the answer to the question "what is democracy" is best answered by another question: who gets (and doesn't get) the franchise? ..."
I went to see occasional Timberite Astra Taylor's remarkable film What is
Democracy? last night. It takes us from Siena, Italy to Florida to Athens and from Ancient
Athenian democracy through the renaissance and the beginning of capitalism to the Greek debt
crisis, occupy and the limbo life of people who have fled Syria and now find themselves stuck.
It combines the voices of Plato and Rousseau with those of ordinary voters from left and right,
Greek nationalists and cosmopolitans, ex-prisoners, with trauma surgeons in Miami, Guatemalan
migrants in the US, with lawmakers and academics, and with refugees from Syria and Afghanistan.
All the while it poses the questions of whether democracy is compatible with inequality and
global financial systems and the boundaries of inclusion.
steven t johnson 10.23.19 at 3:05 pm (no link)
At a first approximation, democracy is the alliance of the city dwellers for the power of the
city, ignoring tribes and rural aristocrats, carefully contained so the landowners keep their
land, and the slaves are kept under control. Or, to update it, the class collaboration of the
wealthy (nowadays some sort of capitalist,) the middling strata and the common people for the
power of the nation, carefully arranged so the people with great property make the decisions
about the economy.
It doesn't sound like this is very informative or useful, so I will wait until I have a
cheaper way to see it.
In my opinion, democracy as an actually existing property of a society is only imperfectly
described in terms of institutional arrangements, philosophical constructs, political system
or (as steven t johnson would have it) power relations between social groups. In addition to
all that, but probably prior to all that, democracy relies on principles which are
anthropological in nature, that pertains to the particular way human beings relate to
each other on a given territory.
This means that I absolutely believe in the necessity of a "we" to underlie democracy but
I doubt that this "we" needs to be (or indeed is ever) constitutive, it exists primarily if
not exclusively as a matter of human relations not as a constitutive abstraction. This also
means that I'm not surprised by the general absence of convergence in democratic forms around
the world (much to the bemusement of English-speaking political philosophers, or in the last
20 years, German and Flemish politicians) and that I believe that global citizenship is under
present circumstances a meaningless concept with respect to democracy. Some people understand
this to be arguing for a national, ethnic or cultural definition of democracy, in which only
people with a specific national identity, or a particular ethnicity, or specific cultural
practices or (in the contemporary American libertarian version) specific personality traits
may participate, as a matter of normative or positive judgment, depending on various
proponents of this theory. This seems to me to be a rather ironic analytical error: if indeed
a core property of democracy is rooted in the characteristic ways people relate to each
other, it is highly implausible that this could change under the influence of even a
substantial minority (in one direction or the other).
Incidentally, the idea that democracy is originally native to North-America is somewhat
classical (Voltaire championed it, but as usual with him, it is hard to vouch for his
seriousness). Since then it has resurfaced periodically for instance in William James Sidis
(disturbed) book The Tribes and the States or in the works of Bruce Johansen. Serious
discussions of this question lead, I believe, to the seemingly paradoxical observation that
English and Dutch settlers came to adopt the democratic principles of the Haudenosaunee
because they were themselves rather primitive (temporally speaking), and hence
democratic, in their anthropological values. Suc discussion would also lead to the far more
pessimistic conclusion that beyond their political models, native people in North-America
facilitated the establishment of a political democracy by providing a large neighboring group
to exclude out of humanity.
LFC@10 uses a reason for waiting as an excuse for a rhetorical question meant as a taunt. The
reason I might see it, if it's cheap enough, is because new facts and the (rare) new
perspective, if any, would seep into my thinking. The idea that my thinking doesn't change is
unfounded. It changes, it just doesn't change by conversion experience. The cogent arguments
of the wise on the internet are like Jesus on the road to Damascus, not quite able to be
described consistently, but still irrefutable.
But, try as I may, continual reworking of old ideas by new -- to me -- information
inevitably leads to the change. The process usually goes A Is that really true? B My old
ideas get a parenthesis added. C The parenthesis gets worked into the rest of the paragraph
so that I'm more consisten. D I've always believed that. The step where I abjectly plead for
forgiveness for being a moron is never there, any more than actually being consistent.
As an example, it's only in the last few years I've wakened up to the extraordinary
tendency to people to ignore either the progressive content of bourgeois revolutions, such as
in pretending that destroying a national secular state in Iraq or Syria and replacing it with
a cantonal confederation is a step backward. Or in surreptitiously pretending that democracy
has nothing to do with the democratic state needing fighters against other states. Like most
people on the internet, i do tend to get a little trendy, and repetitive. But apparently I'm
too socially backward to get the memo on the correct trendy, and repetitive.
For a less contentious example, as part of the process I've realized that ancient Sparta
was on the democratic spectrum, not least because of two kings which is definitely not twice
the monarchy. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it is still true, despite authority. But a
true expert who actually cared could revise the elementary insight into a much more
sophisticated, much superior way that might not even seem controversial. It might even seem
just like the answer to the questions: Why did Sparta ever ally with Athens in the first
place? Why did both Athens and Sparta ally (at different times) with Persia?
I will admit to a general prejudice against every historical discovery that a particular
place etc. was the birth of virtue.
steven t johnson 10.24.19 at 3:20 pm (no link)
Re the Haudenosaunee as exemplars of democracy, this is as I recall long known to be true of
Benjamin Franklin, one of the disreputable founders, nearly as disgraced as Tom Paine.
(Indeed, the notion that the revolutionaries weren't the founders, but Philadelphia lawyers'
convention was, is remarkable, though unremarked on.) But, what did Franklin admire about the
Iroquois League? I think it was the power through unity of different "tribes." The league
essentially genocided the Hurons to control the fur trade; launched long distance military
expeditions to drive away many other peoples from large areas in the Ohio valley to free up
hunting grounds; when it was convenient, they sold their rights, lands, there to the US. (The
treaty of Fort Stanwix) was later repudiated, verbally at least, by other.
The classic model of course was the Roman Republic. By coincidence I was reading Livy's
first five books and the relationship between rights for the plebs and the need for them in
war, stands out. Macchiavelli's Discourses on Livy makes this even plainer. In the US much of
this was conveyed to the Americans via Algernon Sidney's Discourses on Government as
refracted through Cato's Letters. (I hope to live long enough to read Discourses on Davila by
John Adams, solely because of the title.)
It would seem to me that the answer to the question "what is democracy" is best answered by
another question: who gets (and doesn't get) the franchise?
http://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-saker-interviews-michael-hudson/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
Introduction: I recently spoke to a
relative of mine who, due to her constant and voluntary exposure to the legacy AngloZionist media, sincerely
believed that the three Baltic states and Poland had undergone some kind of wonderful and quasi-miraculous
economic and cultural renaissance thanks to their resolute break with the putatively horrible Soviet past
and their total submission to the Empire since. Listening to her, I figured that this kind of delusion was
probably common amongst those who still pay attention and even believe the official propaganda. So I asked
Michael Hudson, whom I consider to be the best US economists and who studied the Baltics in great detail, to
reply to a few very basic questions, which he very kindly did in spite of being very pressed on time. Once
again, I want to sincerely thank him for his kind time, support and expertise.
* * *
The Saker:
The US
propaganda often claims that the three Baltic states are a true success, just like Poland is also supposed
to be. Does this notion have a factual basis? Initially it did appear that these states were experiencing
growth, but was that not mostly/entirely due to EU/IMF/US subsidies? Looking specifically at the three
Baltic states, and especially Latvia, these were the "showcase" Soviet republics, with a high standard of
living (at least compared to the other Soviet republics) and a lot of high-tech industries (including
defense contracts). Could you please outline for us what truly happened to these economies following
independence? How did they "reform" their economies going from an ex-Soviet one to the modern "liberal" one?
Michael Hudson:
This is
a trick question, because it all depends on what you mean by "success."
The post-Soviet neoliberalism has been a
great success for kleptocrats at the top. They gave themselves the public domain, from key industries to
prime real estate. But the Balts largely let their Soviet industries collapse, making no effort to salvage
or reorganize them.
Much of the problem, of course, was that all the linkages to Soviet-era
industry were torn apart as the Soviet Union was disbanded. With their supplier and final markets closed
down from Russia to Central Asia, the Baltic economies had to start afresh – with a very right-wing tax
policy and no government help whatsoever, as the government itself had become privatized in the hands of
former officials and grabitizers.
Lithuania was marginally better in having some industrial policy. EU and
NATO accession in 2004, along with easy credit, kicked off property bubbles in the Baltics, largely inflated
by Swedish banks that made a bonanza off these countries that lacked their own banks or public credit
creation. The resulting 2008 crashes were the largest in the world as a percent of GDP, with Latvia
suffering the world's biggest contraction.
The neoliberal western advisors who took
control of these economies – as if this was the only alternative to Soviet bureaucracy – imposed crushing
austerity programs to restore macroeconomic "stability" meaning security of their land and infrastructure
grabs. This was applauded by Europe's bankers, who thought the Balts had discovered a workable recipe
allowing austerity governments to retain power in a seeming democracy. These policies would have collapsed
governments anywhere else, but the ability to emigrate, plus ethnic divisions against Russian speakers,
allowed these governments to survive.
It's a historically specific situation,
but Europe's bankers promote it as a generalized model. George Soros's INET and his associated front
institutions have been leaders in subsidizing this financialization-cum-grabitization. The result has been a
massive exodus of prime working age people from Lithuania and Latvia. (Estonians simply commute to Finland.)
Meanwhile, their economies are buoyed by foreign bank lending, which sends profits back to home countries
and can be reversed at any time.
Politically, the neoliberal revolution also has been a success for U.S.
Cold Warriors, who sent over native Balts from Georgetown and other universities to impose "free market"
doctrine – that is, a market "free" of domestic regulation against theft of the public domain, against
monopolies, against land taxes and other income taxes. The Baltic states, like most of the rest of the
former Soviet Union, became the Wild East.
What was left to the Baltic countries
was land and real estate. Their forests are being cut down to sell wood abroad. I describe all this in my
book
Killing the Host
.
The Saker:
After
independence, the Baltic states had tried to cut as many ties with Russia as possible. This included
building (rather silly looking) fences, to forcing the Russians to develop their ports on the Baltic, to
shutting down large (or selling to foreign interests which then shut them down) and profitable factories
(including a large nuclear plant I believe), etc. What has been the impact of this policy of "economic
de-Sovietization" on the local economies?
Michael Hudson:
Dissolution of the Soviet Union meant
that Baltic countries lost their traditional markets, and had to shift their focus to Western Europe and, to
some extent, Asia.
Latvia and Estonia had been assigned computer and information technology,
and they have found this to be much in demand. When I was in Japan, for instance, CEOs told me that they
were looking to Latvia above all to outsource computer work.
Banking also was a surviving sector.
Gregory Lautchansky, former vice-rector at the University of Riga had been a major player already in the
1980s for moving out Russian oil and KGB money. (His company, Nordex, was sold to Mark Rich.) Many banks
continued to shepherd Russian flight capital via offshore banking centers into the United States, Britain
and other countries. Cyprus of course was another big player in this.
The Saker:
Russians are still considered "non-citizens"
in the Baltic republics; what has been the economic impact of this policy, if any, of anti-Russian
discrimination in the Baltic states?
ORDER IT NOW
Michael Hudson:
Russian-speakers, who do not acquire citizenship (which requires passing local language and history tests),
are blocked from political office and administrative work. While most Russian speakers below retirement age
have now acquired that citizenship, the means by which citizenship must be acquired has caused divisions.
Early on in independence, many Russians
were blocked from government, and they went into business, which was avoided by many native Balts during the
Soviet era because it was not as remunerative as going into government and profiting from corruption. For
instance, real estate was a burden to administer. Russian-speakers, especially Jewish ones, have wisely
focused on real estate.
The largest political party is Harmony
Center, whose members and leadership are mainly Russian-speaking. But the various neoliberal and nationalist
parties have jointed to block its ability to influence law in Parliament.
Since Russian speakers are only able to
"vote with their feet," many have joined in the vast outflow of emigration, either back to Russia or to
other EU countries. Moreover, the poor quality of social benefits has led to few children being born.
The Saker:
I often hear that a huge number of locals
(including non-Russians) have emigrated from the Baltic states. What has caused this and what has been the
impact of this emigration for the Baltic states?
Michael Hudson:
The Baltic states, especially Latvia,
have lost about 30 percent of their population since the 1990s, especially those of working age. In Latvia,
about 10 percent of the loss were Russians who exited shortly after independence. The other 20 percent have
subsequently emigrated.
The European Commission forecasts that Latvia's working-age population
will decline by 1.6% annually for the next 20 years, while the birth rate remains as stagnant as it was in
the late 1980s. The retired population (over age 65) will rise to half a million people by 2030, more than a
quarter of today's population, and perhaps about a third of what remains. This is not a domestic market that
will attract foreign or local investment.
And in any case, the European Union has
viewed the post-Soviet economies simply as markets for their own industrial and agricultural exports, not as
economies to be built up by public subsidy as the European countries themselves, the U.S. and Chinee
economies have done. The European motto is, "Give a man a fish, and he will be fed all day with your surplus
fish and consumer goods – but give him a fishing rod and we will lose a customer."
Readers who are interested might want to
look at the following books and articles. I think the leading work has been done by Jeffrey Sommers and
Charles Woolfson.
The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Baltic Model
(London:
Routledge Press, 2014). Editors, J. Sommers & C. Woolfson. Foreword, J. Galbraith. ISBN:
978-0-415-82003-5.
Jeffrey Sommers, "No People, Big Problem': Democracy And Its Discontents In Latvia's National
Elections,"
Social Europe,
October 17, 2018.
Jeffrey Sommers, "Decline of the Demos: Latvia, the Face of New Europe and Austerity's Return," in F.
Jaitner, T. Olteanu and T. Spöri, eds.,
Crises in the Post-Soviet Space: From the dissolution of the
Soviet Union to the conflict in Ukraine
(Routledge Press, 2018) pp. 195-209. ISBN 9780815377245.
Jeffrey Sommers,
"
Austerity as a global prescription and lessons from the neoliberal
Baltic experiment."
Economic & Labour Relations Review.
Keynote article, 25:3 (fall 2014) pp.
1-20. DOI 10.1177/1035304614544091. Co-authored with C. Woolfson and A. Juskaa.
The Saker:
Finally,
what do you believe is the most likely future for these states? Will the succeed in becoming a "tiny
anti-Russia" on Russia's doorstep? The Russians appear to have been very successful in their
import-substitution program, at least when trying to replace the Baltic states: does that mean that the
economic ties between Russia and these states is now gone forever? Is it now too late, or are there still
measures these countries could take to reverse the current trends?
Michael Hudson:
Trump's
trade sanctions against Russia hurt the Baltic countries especially. One of their strong sectors was
agriculture. Lithuania, for instance, was known for its cheese, even in Latvia. The sanctions led Russian
dairy farming to develop their own cheese-making, and agriculture has become one of Russia's strongest
performing sectors.
This is a market that looks like it will
be permanently lost to the Baltic states. In effect, Trump is helping Russia follow precisely the policy
that made American agriculture rich: agricultural isolation has forced domestic replacement for hitherto
foreign food. I expect that this will lead to consumer goods and other products as well.
I am in Tallinn, Estonia right now. Just how good an economy is performing is often hard to determine by
talking to people, because like economists, many people have different perceptions. I was just talking to a
Russian-Estonian who was telling me how much better Lithuanians and Latvians are then Estonians at doing
things and how much cheaper things are there. It is true that things are much cheaper in the other Baltic
countries because Estonia (a tiny country of just over 1 million people) has taken off. Since the 2008
econmic collapse housing prices have shot up and in Tallinn there is building going on all over the city.
But, my acquaintance is wrong about other things. Estonians do things very well and Tallinn is a very nice
city, with beautiful cafes, clean and well kept streets and crime is very low. It is a very good city,
except it is now very expensive, especially considering how much people make here. The weather is not nice,
except for in the summer and there are friendly Estonians but they don't have a reputation for being
particularly friendly, even among themselves. I have not been back to Latvia yet, but when I was in Riga
years ago, it was a gorgeous city, bigger than Tallinn too. I think they do things very well there too. The
Russians I speak to here are often friendly and based on what I have been told, relations between Russians
and Estonians are much better than when I was here in the early 2000's.
No offense is intended to
Russians, but the Baltic countries had large German populations that played a key role in the development of
the cultures and peoples of these countries. There were also many Jews here prior to WW II. By the time WW
II had begun the German populations were much smaller than they had been and at the end of the war the
Jewish populations were much smaller. Jews were targeted in Latvia and Lithuania and many Latvians,
Lithuanians and Estonians were shipped off to far off places in the USSR during the war. I believe the Jews
were largely pro communist and welcomed the Soviet takeover of these countries in 1940, while the Latvian
and Estonian peoples were pro German, thus explaining the hard feelings between Balts and Jews.. They wanted
independence and formed legions to fight alongside the German army during WW II.
These countries were very advanced before WW II, having engineering industries and the Russian Empire's
first auto company was formed in Riga before WW I. While engineering may have been restarted after WW II,
these countries populations were decimated and they never returned to their former heights. Perhaps they
still can.
I'm assuming that these 3 East European countries are being bombarded with the same propaganda as the Ukies
are, so Russian speakers and those intelligent enough to see the game being played will be belittled and
isolated. But the Russian folks living in Russia have a birds eye view of what is going on in the west and
their puppet countries. Russia TV and debate programs, just have to show the delinquencies that are daily
happenings in the States, and Europe, in order to make the Ru people say – No Thanks to that way of life. As
far as the new Russian cheeses that are now in the markets -lol – they make a lightly smoked gouda that is
really good and is about 120-140 roubles a kilo. And, they are making more cheddar that is a white medium
taste as well. No scarcity of good natural food in Russia and No POlice state. Spacibo Unz Rev.
The trade volume between Russia and the Baltic states has actually risen, despite the sanctions. The Baltics
send food products and booze to Russia (and another 150 countries, food exports to Russia actually grew in
2016-2018). As well as chemical products and pharmaceuticals. Meldonium, btw, is made in Latvia and is still
being sent to Russia (as well as 20 other countries), not for athletes, but for regular folks. Work is being
carried out on a new generation Meldonium pill (the biggest market will be Russia).
Growth in the Baltic states has been 3-4% in the last few years. GDP per capita, as well as HDI, is
higher than in Russia. Foreign investment, including from Russia, has been growing (Russia was the second
largest investor in Latvia in 2018). Savings rates are growing, too. After a relative quiet period after
2010, the number of Russian (and other tourists) has grown again.
Estonia's population stopped shrinking in 2016 and is now growing in fact. They've seen immigration from
Finland, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, as well as returning Estonians.
Emigration is a problem, of course, but this is partly because the Baltic states are the only former USSR
republics whose citizens were even given work permits in the West, imagine what would happen if these
permits were given to Russians from the regions.
Neo-liberal policies are of course bad and certain types of investment should be controlled, but to say
that there are no social services in the Baltic states is complete nonsense. Due to generous parental
payments, birthrates have risen significantly since the 1990s – in fact, birthrates in the Baltics are now
slightly higher than the EU average. Life expectancy is also growing. Latvia covers IVF treatments in full.
There are free school lunches.
Yes, it is true that some of the Soviet era factories should've been salvaged but the problem was they
were not competitive globally at that time (and there was no capital to remodel them). The Soviet market was
a closed one. However, some businesses were salvaged. There is local manufacturing (electronics,
pharmaceuticals, etc).
Not everything is ideal, but it is also not the kind of gloom and doom as you paint.
Saker says:
"Initially it did appear that these states were experiencing growth, but was that not
mostly/entirely due to EU/IMF/US subsidies?"
"Foreign Aid Makes Corrupt Countries More Corrupt":
"Any time a government hands out money, not just foreign aid, it breeds corruption And there are few
better examples than Ukraine – just don't tell the House impeachment hearings. Counting on foreign aid to
reduce corruption is like expecting whiskey to cure alcoholism .If U.S. aid was effective, Ukraine would
have become a rule of law paradise long ago . The surest way to reduce foreign corruption is to end
foreign aid."
@onebornfree
The EU gives every year about 2,500 million euros to the 3 Baltic countries ( 6 million people the three of
them ) , and 9000 million euros to Poland ( 38 million people ) , plus more billions to other eastern
members .
Older members of the EU , spetially the UK which is going out , Greece witch was tortured ( again )
economically by Germany , and south Europe in general are not very happy about admitting so many ex-soviets
countries en the EU and subsidizing them .
Recovery and self-sufficiency since Yeltsin show the brilliance of the Russian people
It's not so much brilliance as sheer necessity to survive under sanctions. But some results were better
than anyone expected. Say, food before sanctions used to be so-so in the provinces and downright bad in
Moscow because of abundance of imported crap. Now the food is exclusively domestic, fresh and tasty. Russia
never had traditions of making fancy cheeses. Now, to bypass sanctions, quite a few Italian and French
cheese-makers started production in Russia, so in the last 2-3 years domestically made excellent fancy
cheeses appeared in supermarkets. Arguably, Russian agriculture benefited by sanctions more than any other
sector, but there are success stories virtually in every industry. Sanctions and Ukrainian stupidity served
as a timely wake up call for Russian elites, who earlier wanted to sell oil and natural gas and buy
everything else. Replacing imports after the sanctions were imposed had a significant cost in the short run,
but in the long run it made Russia much stronger, economically and militarily. Speak of unintended
consequences.
My mom is from Lithuania and I've been there several times. We have second cousins our age.
Her father was
a surveyor for the Republic in the 20s and 30s, charged with breaking up the manors and estates and the
state distributing the land to the peasantry. It was near-feudalism. There was very little
industrialization; that which existed were in a few urban centers. One interesting comment from her was that
the "Jews were communists". From what I've read they were the urban working class, but perhaps part of the
socialist/Jewish Bund?
There is no doubt that the Soviet period unleashed considerable industrialization and modernization.
Lithuania had some of the best infrastructure in the USSR. Its traditional culture was really celebrated.
When I first visited, not long after the fall of the USSR, there were enormous, vacant industrial plants.
The collective farms were in the process of being sold off the western European agribusiness firms. One
relative through marriage was from the Ukraine, with a PhD in Physics and had been employed in the military
industries -- she was cleaning houses thereafter.
Any usable industrial enterprises were quickly sold off. The utilities are all foreign owned. Part of EU
mandates are "open" electricity "markets", which resulting in DC interconnections costing hundreds of
millions with the west to import very high priced electricity. The EU has paid for "Via Baltica", a highway
running from Poland to Estonia; it is choked with trucks carrying imports and there are huge distribution
and fulfillment centers along the highway. Such progress, huh?
There had been good public transport in the earlier years of independence, but that has been replaced
with personal automobiles -- usually western European used cars that pollute a lot. Trakai is a commuter town
to Vilnius with a medieval castle (restored in Soviet times). First time I went it was very pleasant. Second
time in 2018 the place was choked with cars and not very nice at all.
The impact of emigration cannot be over-stated. College educated young people leave by the hundreds of
thousands. Those that remain are paid very low wages (e.g., 1000 euros for a veterinarian or dentist), but
pay west European prices for many essentials. Housing is cheaper than the west.
Last time in Kazlu Ruda there were huge NATO exercises in progress and even bigger ones planned for 2020.
German units were billeted at an airbase nearby, rumored to have been a CIA black site. How fitting, as the
Germans with the Lithuanian Riflemens Union exterminated a quarter of a million Jews in a matter of months
(see Jager Report on Wikipedia). There is a Red Army graveyard in the town that has the remains of perhaps
350 soldiers killed in the area driving out the Nazis. I was frankly surprised it was still there.
Lithuania hasn't been independent since the days of the Pagans and Vytautas. It surely isn't independent
today.
Anecdotal -- yes. But based on personal observation.
Foreign Aid Makes Corrupt Countries More Corrupt
by
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/03/2019 - 07:00
0
SHARES
Authored by James Bovard at
jimbovard.com
,
Any time a government hands out money, not just foreign aid, it breeds corruption...
And there are few better examples than Ukraine - just don't tell the House impeachment
hearings.
Barricade with the protesters at Hrushevskogo street on January 26, 2014 in Kiev,
Ukraine.Sasha Maksymenko / cc
Counting on foreign aid to reduce corruption is like expecting whiskey to cure
alcoholism.
After closed House of Representatives impeachment hearings heard testimony on
President Trump's role in delaying U.S. aid to Ukraine, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer
declared:
"
Numbers
don't lie
. It's even more clear now that President Trump is not the anti-corruption crusader
he claims to be."
Most of the press coverage has tacitly assumed that American assistance is vital to
fighting corruption in Ukraine.
But that ignores foreign aid's toxic record and Ukraine's
post-Soviet history.
A
2002 American
Economic Review analysis
concluded that
"increases in [foreign] aid are associated
with contemporaneous increases in corruption,"
and that "corruption is positively
correlated with aid received from the United States."
That was the year President George W. Bush launched a new foreign aid program, the
Millennium Challenge Account (MCA).
Bush declared, "I
think
it makes no sense to give aid
, money, to countries that are corrupt." But the Bush
administration continued delivering billions of dollars in handouts to many of the world's most
corrupt regimes. By 2004, the State Department had codified what amounted to backtracking: "
The
MCA is an incentive-based supplement to other U.S. aid programs."
The Bush team found excuses
to give MCA aid to some of the world's most corrupt governments as well, including Georgia.
In 2010, President Barack Obama proclaimed at the United Nations that America was "
leading
a global effort to combat corruption
."
Obama's "aides said the United States in the
past has often seemed
to
just throw money at problems
," the
Los Angeles Times
reported. But the reform charade
was exposed the following year when the Obama administration fiercely resisted congressional
efforts to curb wasteful aid. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that restricting handouts
to nations that fail anti-corruption tests "has
the
potential to affect a staggering number
of needy aid recipients."
The Obama administration continued pouring tens of billions of American tax dollars into
sinkholes such as Afghanistan, which even its president, Ashraf Ghani, admitted in 2016 was "one of
the
most
corrupt countries on earth
."
And the deluge of aid the Afghan government received only
worsened the corruption. As John Sopko, the heroic Special Inspector General for Afghan
Reconstruction (SIGAR), observed, "
We
need to understand how
US policies and practices unintentionally aided and abetted corruption.
We must recognize the danger of dealing with characters or networks of unsavory repute, tolerating
contracting abuses, accepting shoddy performance and delivering unsustainable projects."
The closed House impeachment hearings last week heard from acting U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine
William B. Taylor Jr., who testified that he "
had
authority over the bulk
of the U.S. effort to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion and
to help it defeat corruption."
The
Washington Post
lauded Taylor as someone who "
spent
much of the 1990s telling
Ukrainian politicians that nothing was more critical to their
long-term prosperity than rooting out corruption and bolstering the rule of law
, in his
role as the head of U.S. development assistance for post-Soviet countries."
Transparency International, which publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions Index, shows that
corruption
surged in Ukraine during the late 1990s
and remains at obscene levels
(though recent
years have shown slight improvements). Taylor was ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009, when
corruption sharply worsened despite
hundreds
of millions of dollars in U.S. aid
. Ukraine is now ranked as the
120th
least
corrupt
nation in the world
-- lower than Egypt and Pakistan, two other major U.S. aid recipients. What
Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder is to the NFL, Taylor appears to be to the anti-corruption
cause.
Bribing foreign politicians to encourage honest government makes as much sense as
distributing free condoms to encourage abstinence.
Rather than encouraging good governance
practices, foreign aid is more likely to produce kleptocracies, or governments of thieves. As a
Brookings Institution analysis observed, "The history of
U.S.
assistance is littered
with tales of corrupt foreign officials using aid to line their own
pockets, support military buildups, and pursue vanity projects."
And both American
politicians and bureaucrats are want to continue the aid gravy train, regardless of how foreign
regimes waste the money or use it to repress their own citizens.
If U.S. aid was effective, Ukraine would have become a rule of law paradise long ago. The
country's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, may be sincere in his efforts to root out corruption.
But it is an insult to both him and his nation to pretend that Ukraine cannot clean up its act
without help from Donald Trump.
The surest way to reduce foreign corruption is to end
foreign aid.
by John Quiggin on October 13, 2019 On Facebook, my frined
Timothy Scriven pointed to an opinion piece by classics professor Ian Morris headlined
In the long run, wars make us safer and richer It's pushing a book with the clickbaity
title War! What is it Good For? Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to
Robots .". Timothy correctly guessed that I wouldn't like it.
Based on the headline, I was expecting a claim along the lines "wars stimulate technological
progress" which I refuted (to my own satisfaction at any rate) in Economics in Two
Lessons" . But the argument is much stranger than this. The claim is that war, despite its
brutality created big states, like the Roman empire, which then delivered peace and
prosperity.
For the classical world at 100 CE or so, the era on which Morris is an expert, that argument
seemed pretty convincing. As the famous Life of Brian sketch suggests, Roman rule delivered a
lot of benefits to its conquered provinces.
The next 1900 years or so present a bit of a problem, though. There have been countless wars
in that time, and no trend towards bigger states. On the contrary two or three dozen states
(depending on how you count them) now occupy the territory of the former Roman Empire.
You could cut the number down a bit by treating the European Union as a new empire, but then
you have an even bigger problem. The EU was not formed through war, but through a determination
to avoid it. Whatever you think about the EU in other respects, this goal has been
achieved.
Morris avoids the problem by a "no true Scotsman" argument. He admits in passing that the
1000 years of war following the high point of Rome had the effect of breaking down larger,
safer societies into smaller, more dangerous ones, but returns with relief to the era of true
wars, in which big states always win. That story works, roughly, until 1914, when the empires
he admires destroyed themselves, killing millions in the process.
After that, the argument descends into Pinker-style nonsense. While repeating the usual
stats about the decline in violent deaths, Morris mentions in passing that a nuclear war could
cause billions of deaths. He doesn't consider the obvious anthropic fallacy problem – if
such a war had happened, there would not be any op-eds in the Washington Post discussing the
implications for life expectancy.
I haven't read the book, and don't intend to. If someone can't present a 700 word summary of
their argument without looking silly, they shouldn't write opinion pieces. But, for what its
worth, FB friends who have read it agree that it's not very good.
William Meyer 10.13.19 at 12:31 pm (no link)
I have not read the book in question, so I don't know if the author made this point: "Since
violence or implicit violence is how we overcome essentially all collective action problems
as humans, war probably does belong in the human toolkit." Obviously it would be better if we
could find more and better alternatives to war, and remove the obvious glitches in the
alternatives (e.g., representative democracy, single-party states, etc.) we have tried in the
past. So I find it odd as I get old that so little energy/research/academic effort is devoted
by the human race to finding better means of collective decision making. Clearly our current
abilities in this field are completely inadequate. I ponder if this is because we are
incapable of doing better by some inherent flaw in our makeup or if it is because, as in some
many areas of life, the wicked work tirelessly to maintain the systems that enrich and
empower them. I suspect I'll never find out.
Omega Centauri 10.13.19 at 4:33 pm (no link)
There might be a case to be made for empire building conquest advancing human society. I
think it was primarily by forcing the mixing of cultures which otherwise would have been
relatively isolated from each other. Also empires tended to create safe internal trade
routes, the Silk Road was made possible by the Mongol empire.
At least the authors of books about such empires like to state that over a timespan of
centuries that empire creation was a net positive.
Orange Watch 10.13.19 at 7:07 pm (no link)
Tim Worstall and Dipper's suggestion that the EU is borne of war is mostly just a failure to
take Morris's claim on its unsophisticated face and instead assume it contains subtle
complexity that is obviously missing if you read the article itself:
This happened because about 10,000 years ago, the winners of wars began incorporating
the losers into larger societies. The victors found that the only way to make these larger
societies work was by developing stronger governments; and one of the first things these
governments had to do, if they wanted to stay in power, was suppress violence among their
subjects.
For the EU to have been a result of war in the sense that Morris means, it would have to
have been forcibly formed in 1945 by the US/UK/Russia forcibly incorporating Europe into it.
When Morris states "wars make us stronger and richer" he very simply means wars of conquest
are long-term net positives. He doesn't mean something subtle about nations banding together
to forestall further war; he bluntly means conquerors gluing together their conquests into
empires and then liberally applying boot leather to necks.
Mark Brady 10.13.19 at 7:56 pm (no link)
John Quiggin is, of course, well aware of this quotation, but some of you may not.
"Though some of them would disdain to say that there are net benefits in small acts of
destruction, they see almost endless benefits in enormous acts of destruction. They tell us
how much better off economically we all are in war than in peace. They see "miracles of
production" which it requires a war to achieve. And they see a postwar world made certainly
prosperous by an enormous "accumulated" or "backed up" demand. In Europe they joyously count
the houses, the whole cities that have been leveled to the ground and that "will have to be
replaced." In America they count the houses that could not be built during the war, the nylon
stockings that could not be supplied, the worn-out automobiles and tires, the obsolescent
radios and refrigerators. They bring together formidable totals.
"It is merely our old friend, the broken-window fallacy, in new clothing, and grown fat
beyond recognition. This time it is supported by a whole bundle of related fallacies. It
confuses need with demand."
Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, Chapter 3, "The Blessings of Destruction."
Alex SL 10.13.19 at 8:37 pm (no link)
On one side, AFAIK the last few centuries of war in Europe have indeed seen a reduction of
the number of states. Yes, the trend was partly reversed since 1914, but never to the degree
of splintering that existed in the middle ages.
On the other side, even the widely accepted cases of supposedly 'beneficial' empires such
as the Romans bringing the Pax Romana and the Mongols allowing far-reaching trade and travel
need to be seen against the devastation they caused to make their victories possible. The
Romans, for example, committed genocide in Gaul and Carthage, and they enslaved millions.
Best case argument in my eyes is that a very successful war is beneficial because it stops
continuous smaller wars, which is still not exactly the same as a general "war is
beneficial". Why not just create institutional arrangements that avoid wars between small
nations in the first place?
fran6 10.13.19 at 9:26 pm (no link)
Here's another personality who's also unfazed by the evils of war (although, she does wish
more folks were "kind" to each other):
Stephen @11 Say what? Are you suggesting that the Soviet bloc was part of the EU? As both
your comment and Tim Worstall's unwittingly illustrate, the fact that the EU has been
entirely peaceful since its creation (by contrast with non-EU Europe) is not because
Europeans suddenly became pacifists.
Sorry if I have a hard time getting Morris' argument, but: towards the end, be seems to be
saying the world requires a "Globocop" like the US to ensure its prosperity. But how does
that relate to his wider point about the benefits of war? Does Morris believe the hegemon
owes it to itself, and to the rest of the world, to wage permanent war?
Morris sold out. This was evident in his book comparing the progress of China and Europe,
though that book made excellent points in between the fluff and is well worth reading. But he
is well versed enough in Chinese history to be aware of the ultimate example of armies
conquering and bringing peace to a large area, which happens repeatedly in Chinese history.
Actually, Chinese history itself shows that the opposite argument has more support, that
instead of war being valuable because one powerful country will conquer a large area and
bring peace to it, its valuable because competition between states who are worried about
other states getting a jump on them turns out to be valuable to progress. Large continental
empires, including the Roman one as well, tended to stagnate in terms of culture and
technology and become correct.
MFB 10.15.19 at 7:18 am (no link)
Well, the opinion-piece was published on Jeff Bezos' blog. Oligarchs are naturally in favour
of centralised power and therefore of empires (so long as they are at the apex thereof, which
they usually are). The best way to build an empire is through war.
Of course, the author has to say "despite Hitler, Stalin and Mao", for ideological
reasons. Actually, Hitler built his empire largely through the threat of war rather than
through war itself; once he had actually started the war, he antagonised three more powerful
empires than his own and his empire was then crushed. As for Stalin, he actually did various
double-back-somersaults to avoid getting into wars, and the "empire" which he built in
Eastern Europe as a result of winning a war he didn't want did not sustain itself. And of
course Mao didn't start any wars at all -- his name just had to be thrown in for reactionary
reasons.
It is true that the Spanish, Portuguese, French and British empires were built upon war.
But where are they now? The United States fought a lot of wars against its indigenous people,
but frankly it would still have been a global superpower if it had simply sidestepped most of
them, at least from about 1865 onward.
An interesting question: can it be that a professor of Classics doesn't actually have to
understand the concept of evidence-based argument in any case, because everything has already
been said on the subject and all you have to do is cherry-pick other people's statements?
Because that seems to be how that silly article reads.
And yes, the whole thing reeks of the better angels propaganda. Let's not forget, by the
way, that various members of the EU -- Britain, France, Italy et al -- have launched brutally
murderous wars elsewhere, and the fact that they don't fight among themselves doesn't make
them peaceful or moral entities.
@TheSophist #25: that was mentioned as a joke rather than self-publicity, but if you're
really interested: The Roman Empire: roots of imperialism (Pluto Press, 2020). Obviously
books about the Roman Empire are ten a penny; my main claim for this one, besides its being
less apologetic and/or gung-ho than most, is that I try to integrate the historical reality
with its reception, i.e. how people have subsequently deployed Rome as an example or model.
Maybe the Roman Empire delivered on peace, but prosperity is a bit more complicated. Some
years ago David Hays wrote a book on the history of technology. One of the things he did was
make a back-of-the-envelope estimate of material welfare at different levels of development.
He concluded that, while civilization has always been a good deal for the elite, it's been
rather iffy for peasants and workers. It's only during the Industrial Evolution that the
standard of living at the lower end of society rose above that of hunter-gatherers. So, the
prosperity delivered by the Roman Empire went mostly to the elite, not the peasantry.
Peter Erwin@43 wanted the Nazis to roll right up to the eastern border of Poland, etc. etc.
So did Hitler. And although I'm quite reluctant to read minds, especially dead one, I will
nevertheless guarantee the move into the Baltics was seen as a blow to his plans, even if
accepted for temporary advantage. You must always see who hates Stalin for beating Hitler,
and those rare few who object to his real crimes.
And, Erwin thinks Chinese troops being in Korea with permission is an aggression, while US
troops closing on Chinese borders is not. The US still isn't out of Korea, but China is, but
he can't figure out who the aggressor is.
Really, Peter Erwin really says it all. The maddest ant-Communist propaganda is now
official.
MFB 10.17.19 at 9:02 am (no link)
I don't want to unnecessarily dump on Peter Erwin, because I don't believe in kicking
disadvantaged children, but if he reads the original post he will notice that it was talking
about international wars, not civil wars. I'll admit the invasion of Finland (and of the
Baltic states and Poland) but those were fairly obviously ways of strengthening the USSR's
position in order to discourage a German invasion, and all took place within the boundaries
of the former Russian Empire which Stalin undoubtedly saw as the default position.
As to Mao, he didn't start the Korean war (as Erwin unwillingly admits) and all the other
wars except for the invasion of Vietnam were civil wars since they entailed moving into
Chinese-controlled territory which had broken away during the main civil war. I'll admit that
Vietnam was a problem, but then, since Mao had been dead for some time by then, it's would be
hard for Erwin to blame him except for the fact that Erwin clearly lives on Planet
Bizarro.
@John Quiggin The claim is that war, despite its brutality created big states, like the
Roman empire, which then delivered peace and prosperity
I don't think this is an intellectually generous summary of the arguments, as presented in
the article.
The author himself summarizes it as "war made states, and states made peace", and if it is
indeed true that the author often speaks of "larger, more organized societies" there is a
strong implication that for a society to be "large" in the sense discussed in the article, it
is not really necessary that it be territorially very wide (the most clear cut indication of
that is that the author refers to the European states of the 1600s as "big, settled states"
while they all were geographically tiny at the time). So the point of the author, if
interpreted with intellectual honesty, seems to me to be twofold: 1) that war has been a
crucial factor in the formation of complex, organized states and societies and 2) that these
complex, organized states and societies brought with them so many positive things that the
wars required to form them were worth it.
The second point is pure Pinker. I consider it logically meaningless, myself (it
ultimately relies on the concept that History proceeds like an individual who is choosing a
pair of shoes) and morally repugnant (it is not hard to see who will be pleased to have a
rhetorical tool that can justify any atrocity by the long term gains it will provide humanity
– indeed, it is instructive in that respect to read SS internal papers on when and why
children should be executed with their parents, and how to select people for that task:
contrary to what could be guessed, the manual recommends the soldiers who appear to have a
strong sense of empathy and morality, with the idea that they will those who will most
strongly endorse the "by doing this abominable act, we are sacrificing ourselves on behalf of
future generations" thesis).
The first point, however, appears to me to be broadly correct descriptively. Extracting an
interesting thesis out of it requires much more work than is indicated by the article,
however (I consider Ertman's Birth of the Levianthan an example of that kind of extra
work done successfully).
@John Quiggin Lots of people predicted, along the lines of your post, that with the
external threat of the USSR gone, and the US pulling back, the old warlike Europe would
reassert itself.
I think what we may call the "wide military context thesis" runs rather like this: because
of the experience of WWII and the Cold War, modern industrial states have amassed enormous
military power while at the same time knowing that they can experience total destruction if
they enter into a military conflict with a state of comparable military might. As a
consequence, peace dominates between them. So France is not at war with the United Kingdom or
Germany, certainly in part because they are all (for now) members of the EU but also in part
for the same reason Japan is not at war with South Korea and Russia not at war with
China.
Personally, I think it would be absurd to claim that the EU has played no role in the
pacification of Western Europe in the second half of the twentieth century, but I think it
would be equally absurd to deny the role of other factors that plainly play a major role in
the equally remarkable pacification of other regional areas in the absence of an economical
and political unification process (rise in prosperity, rise in education, aging populations,
increased military power ).
@7, Omega
Not really wanting to get into the "do empires benefit civilization by promoting trade"
argument, but having just read Lost Enlightenment, nothing in that lengthy tome suggests the
Silk Road city states gain any special advantage from the Mongol invasion. In fact, quite the
opposite. After the Mongols (in part for reasons preceeding the conquest), Central Asia never
regained its pre-eminence (it had actually not just been a facilitator of trade but also a
center of manufacture, culture, scientific progress). Maybe the trade routes hobbled along as
trade routes but the civilization that was both built by and facilitated trade did not
rebound. Most empires seem to get that there is wealth to be had from involvement in trade,
they don't always know how to keep the gold goose alive.
LFC 10.20.19 at 9:10 pm (no link)
"War made states and states made peace" is a riff on Charles Tilly's line "war made the state
and the state made war."
"... In excess of 13,000 people, mostly Ukrainians, are known to have died in this war, and some two million have been forced from their homes. The economy of eastern Ukraine has collapsed. Ukraine has suffered through painful economic dislocation and political division. Meanwhile, several hundred Russians are believed to have been killed fighting in the Donbass. Western sanctions have damaged Russia's weak economy. And although the majority of Crimeans probably wanted to join Russia, opposition activists and journalists have been abducted, brutalized, and/or imprisoned. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been closed and Tartars have been persecuted. ..."
"... Even though the overall idea of ending the sponsoring of the conflict by Washington is plausible there are a number of shortcomings in the article to put it mildly. I realize though that the author has to make Washington look innocent and Russia look bad to escape the danger of being stigmatized as a pro-Russian traitor. ..."
"... I understand why you want to thread the needle. After the invasions, having to add more failure or at the very least recognition of dysfunction to our foreign policy choices and consequences is a bitter pill. But as you note had the US and the EU seriously had the desire to add the Ukraine into the western European sphere of influence, they could have offered a better deal on oil - they didn't. ..."
"... I think we have got to stop accusing the then existing government of corruption. As your own article states, the history of unstable governance with accompanying "corruption" seems a staple and nonunique. ..."
"... And as is the case in developing countries, what we call corruption is a cultural staple of how business and affairs are conducted. Whatever the issues, the Ukrainian public was not overly beset by the results so as to spontaneously riot. ..."
"... How the civil unrest spun out of control the second time in ten years, can be linked directly to US and EU involvement. ..."
Recently Ukraine has been thrown into the spotlight as Democrats gear up to impeach President Donald Trump. More important, though,
is its role in damaging America's relations with Russia, which has resulted in a mini-Cold War that the U.S. needs to end.
Ukraine is in a bad neighborhood. During the 17th century, the country was divided between Poland and Russia, and eventually ended
up as part of the Russian Empire. Kiev then enjoyed only the briefest of liberations after the 1917 Russian Revolution, before being
reabsorbed by the Soviet Union. It later suffered from a devastating famine as Moscow confiscated food and collectivized agriculture.
Ukraine was ravaged during Germany's World War II invasion, and guerrilla resistance to renewed Soviet control continued for years
afterwards.
In 1991, the collapse of the U.S.S.R. gave Ukraine another, more enduring chance for independence. However, the new nation's development
was fraught: GDP dropped by 60 percent and corruption burgeoned. Ukraine suffered under a succession of corrupt, self-serving, and
ineffective leaders, as the U.S., Europe, and Russia battled for influence.
In 2014, Washington and European governments backed a street putsch against the elected, though highly corrupt, pro-Russian president,
Viktor Yanukovych. The Putin government responded by annexing Crimea and backing separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine's Donbass region.
Washington and Brussels imposed economic sanctions on Russia and provided military aid to Kiev.
The West versus Russia quickly became a "frozen" conflict. Moscow reincorporated Crimea into Russia, from which it had been detached
in 1954 as part of internal Soviet politics. In the Donbass, more than a score of ceasefires came and went. Both Ukraine and Russia
failed to fulfill the 2016 Minsk agreements, which sought to end the conflict.
In excess of 13,000 people, mostly Ukrainians, are known to have died in this war, and some two million have been forced from
their homes. The economy of eastern Ukraine has collapsed. Ukraine has suffered through painful economic dislocation and political
division. Meanwhile, several hundred Russians are believed to have been killed fighting in the Donbass. Western sanctions have damaged
Russia's weak economy. And although the majority of Crimeans probably wanted to join Russia, opposition activists and journalists
have been abducted, brutalized, and/or imprisoned. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been closed and Tartars have been persecuted.
The most important geopolitical impact has been to poison Russia's relations with the West. Moscow's aggressions against Ukraine
cannot be justified, but the U.S. and Europe did much to create the underlying suspicion and hostility. Recently declassified documents
reveal the degree to which Western officials misled Moscow about their intention to expand NATO. Allied support for adding Georgia
and Ukraine, which would have greatly expanded Russian vulnerability, generated a particularly strong reaction in Moscow. The dismemberment
of Serbia with no consideration of Russia's interests was another irritant, along with Western support for "color revolutions" elsewhere,
including in Tbilisi. The ouster of Yanukovych finally triggered Putin's brutal response.
Washington and Brussels apparently did not view their policies as threatening to Russia. However, had Moscow ousted an elected
Mexican president friendly to America, while inviting the new government to join the Warsaw Pact, and worked with a coalition of
Central American states to divert Mexican trade from the U.S., officials in Washington would not have been pleased. They certainly
wouldn't have been overly concerned about juridical niceties in responding.
This explains (though does not justify) Russia's hostile response. Subsequent allied policies then turned the breach in relations
into a gulf. The U.S. and European Union imposed a series of economic sanctions. Moreover, Washington edged closer to military confrontation
with its provision of security assistance to Kiev. Moscow responded by challenging America from Syria to Venezuela.
It also began moving towards China. The two nations' differences are many and their relationship is unstable. However, as long
as their antagonism towards Washington exceeds their discomfort with each other, they will cooperate to block what they see as America's
pursuit of global hegemony.
Why is the U.S. entangled in the Ukrainian imbroglio? During the Cold War, Ukraine was one of the fabled "captive nations," backed
by vigorous advocacy from Ukrainian Americans. After the Soviet Union collapsed, they joined other groups lobbying on behalf of ethnic
brethren to speed NATO's expansion eastward. Security policy turned into a matter of ethnic solidarity, to be pursued irrespective
of cost and risk.
To more traditional hawks who are always seeking an enemy, the issue is less pro-Ukraine than anti-Russia. Mitt Romney, the Republican
Party's 2012 presidential nominee, improbably attacked Russia as America's most dangerous adversary. Hence the GOP's counterproductive
determination to bring Kiev into NATO. Originally Washington saw the transatlantic alliance as a means to confront the Soviet menace;
now it views the pact as a form of charity.
After the Soviet collapse, the U.S. pushed NATO eastward into nations that neither mattered strategically nor could be easily
protected, most notably in the Balkans and Baltics. Even worse were Georgia and Ukraine, security black holes that would bring with
them ongoing conflicts with Russia, possibly triggering a larger war between NATO and Moscow.
Ukraine never had been a matter of U.S. security. For most of America's history, the territory was controlled by either the Russian
Empire or the Soviet Union. Washington's Cold War sympathies represented fraternal concerns, not security essentials. Today, without
Kiev's aid, the U.S. and Europe would still have overwhelming conventional forces to be brought into any conflict with Moscow. However,
adding Ukraine to NATO would increase the risk of a confrontation with a nuclear armed power. Russia's limitations when it comes
to its conventional military would make a resort to nuclear weapons more likely in any conflict.
Nevertheless, George W. Bush's aggressively neoconservative administration won backing for Georgian and Ukrainian membership in
NATO and considered intervening militarily in the Russo-Georgian war. However, European nations that feared conflict with Moscow
blocked plans for NATO expansion, which went into cold storage. Although alliance officials still officially backed membership for
Ukraine, it remains unattainable so long as conflict burns hot with Russia.
In the meantime, Washington has treated Ukraine as a de facto military ally, offering economic and security assistance. The U.S.
has provided $1.5 billion for Ukrainian training and weapons, including anti-tank Javelin missiles. Explained Obama administration
defense secretary Ashton Carter: "Ukraine would never be where it is without that support from the United States."
Equally important, the perception of U.S. backing made the Kiev government, headed by President Petro Poroshenko, less willing
to pursue a diplomatic settlement with Russia. Thus did Ukraine, no less than Russia, almost immediately violate the internationally
backed Minsk accord.
Kiev's role as a political football highlights the need for Washington to pursue an enduring political settlement with Russia.
European governments are growing restless; France has taken the lead in seeking better relations with Moscow. Germany is unhappy
with U.S. attempts to block the planned Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky has campaigned
to end the conflict.
Negotiators for Russia, Ukraine, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe recently met in Minsk to revive the
agreement previously reached in the Belarus capital. They set an election schedule in the contested east, to be followed by passage
of Ukrainian legislation to grant the region greater autonomy and separatists legal immunity. Despite strong opposition from nationalists,
passage is likely since Zelensky's party holds a solid legislative majority.
Many challenges remain, but the West could aid this process by respecting Russian security concerns. The U.S. and its allies should
formally foreclose Ukraine's membership in the transatlantic alliance and end lethal military aid. After receiving those assurances,
Moscow would be expected to resolve the Donbass conflict, presumably along the lines of Minsk: Ukraine protects local autonomy while
Russia exits the fight. Sanctions against Russia would be lifted. Ukrainians would be left to choose their economic orientation,
since the country would likely be split between east and west for some time to come. The West would accept Russia's control of Crimea
while refusing to formally recognize the conquest -- absent a genuinely independent referendum with independent monitors.
Such a compromise would be controversial. Washington's permanent war lobby would object. Hyper-nationalistic Ukrainians would
double down on calling Zelensky a traitor. Eastern Europeans would complain about appeasing Russia. However, such a compromise would
certainly be better than endless conflict.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author
of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.
I credit Mr. Bandow for his largely fair and accurate description of the events in Ukraine of five years ago, and for his ultimate
policy proposal for the US to extricate itself from its close involvement in the area. However, I'm a little confused by what
exactly the author means by "Moscow's aggressions against Ukraine" and "Putin's brutal response" (aside from the treatment of
dissidents and journalists as he specifically mentioned) to the Maidan Revolution.
Was it aggressive and brutal for Russia to support separatists in the Donbass who were facing the prospect of legal discrimination
and violence by a criminal, neo-fascist government in Kiev, not to mention de-industrialization, the gutting of the agriculture
sector and the forced economic migration of an enormous number of its young workers (assuming that Ukraine's economic deal with
the EU followed the script of every other Easter European's country's deal with the EU)? If Yanukovych had fled to the Donbass
and proclaimed himself still the freely elected (though certainly corrupt) President of the nation, Russia's support for the region
would have even had a shiny brass legal fig leaf, wouldn't it?
As for the supposed "conquest" of Crimea, that's a rather strong word to use considering that all of two members of the Ukrainian
military were killed, and 60-80 of them detained, while 15,000 defected to Russia. Compared to the violence in Kiev and Odessa,
what happened in Crimea almost qualifies as a bloodless coup. But then Mr. Bandow shies away from using the word "hegemony" to
describe the foreign policy of the United States, figuratively putting the word in the mouths of those bad men (which they are)
in Moscow and Beijing. It's a pity that Mr. Bandow felt the need to make linguistic concessions to the foreign policy establishment
in what was otherwise a useful and balanced piece.
Even though the overall idea of ending the sponsoring of the conflict by Washington is plausible there are a number of shortcomings
in the article to put it mildly. I realize though that the author has to make Washington look innocent and Russia look bad to
escape the danger of being stigmatized as a pro-Russian traitor.
I understand why you want to thread the needle. After the invasions, having to add more failure or at the very least recognition
of dysfunction to our foreign policy choices and consequences is a bitter pill. But as you note had the US and the EU seriously
had the desire to add the Ukraine into the western European sphere of influence, they could have offered a better deal on oil
- they didn't.
I think we have got to stop accusing the then existing government of corruption. As your own article states, the history
of unstable governance with accompanying "corruption" seems a staple and nonunique.
And as is the case in developing countries, what we call corruption is a cultural staple of how business and affairs are
conducted. Whatever the issues, the Ukrainian public was not overly beset by the results so as to spontaneously riot.
How the civil unrest spun out of control the second time in ten years, can be linked directly to US and EU involvement.
It is a deeply held belief that democracy is a system that by definition a generally acceptable path forward. That belief is
false as democracy is still comprised of human beings. And democracy in their hands is no "cure all". It can be a turbulent and
jerky bureaucratic maze process that pleases no one and works over time.
The US didn't accomplish it without violence until after more than 130 years, when the native populations were finally subdued.
And as for a system that embodied equal treatment to similar circumstance -- we are still at it. But a violent revolution every
ten years certainly isn't the most effective road to take.
-----------------
Why we insistent on restarting the cold war is unclear to me save that it served to create a kind of strategic global clarity
Though what that means would troublesome because Russia's ole would now be as a developing democratic state as opposed to a communist
monolith. And that means unfettered from her satellites and empowered by more capital markets her role as adversary would be more
adroit. As time after time, Ores Putin has appeared the premier diplomat for peace and stability in situations in which the US
was engaged or encouraging violence.(the Ukraine). I certainly don't think that our relations with Russia or China are a to be
kumbaya love fests, there is still global competition and there's no reason to pretend it would be without tensions. But seriously,
as a democratic/capital market player -- there really was no way to contain Russia.
----------------------
Given what we experienced during 2007 --- corruption comes in a mryiad of guises.
The Ukraine situation is complex to be certain, but ending military aid and letting Russia clean up seems like a bad idea.
This week we saw Russian forces occupy US bases abandoned when Trump ordered our troops to withdraw from the Turkish border.
And now the author is arguing we should do something similar in the Ukraine.
When did Russian appeasement become so important to conservative foreign policy?
Mate, Russians were in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government. US troops are there illegally (no Congress mandate, no
international mandate, no invitation). US is an occupying, destabilizing, terrorist protecting force in Syria and Americans should
look beyond their self esteem before commenting on this "shameful" retreat. US does not have the right to put its troops wherever
it fancies.
This win or loose mentality will be the death of you. Who do you think is threatening the US, when it has the biggest moats
protecting its shores? The only thing that is happening is that the hegemonic role, that of controlling everyone's economy for
its own elites benefit is being denied.
This is what you are complaining mate, the the rich Americans cannot get richer? Do you think they will share with you, or
that, like the good English boys of the past, you will not be able to land a job with East India Co. and despoil the natives for
a while?
If the US were smart then they would lead some sort of negotiation where eastern Europe and Ukraine and Russia were allowed only
mutually agreed defensive weapons systems. A demilitarization of say 200 miles on each side of the Russia border. The strategy
should be to encourage trade between Eastern Europe and Russia where Russia has influence but is not threatening. It may be slow
to build that trust but the real question is whether the US and Europe and NATO want peace with Russia or whether they are using
fear of Russia to keep eastern Europe united with the US and Europe. This may be the case but the future will have China as a
greater threat than Russia (China will even be a threat to Russia). Any shift in Russian relations will take decades of building
trust on both sides.
Good article and excellent history of facts. If I recall during the last Bush administration W hosted a Putin and his then spouse,
at a visit at his ranch. Putin informed W," the Ukraine belongs to Russia. end of sentence.
The author forgot the critical role of Sevastopol in the Crimea. It is Russia's only warm water port and there was no way that
it was going to allow this area to become a NATO naval base. Secretary of State Clinton and her sidekick for Ukraine, Victoria
Nuland should have known this before they started supporting the overthrow of the pro-Russia government in Kiev.
If you look at a historical atlas, you won't find an independent country called Ukraine before 1991. When my parents were born,
near what is now called Lviv, the area was called Galicia and Lemberg was its provincial capital. A gold medal issued in 1916
in honor of Franz Josef's 85th birthday noted that he was the Kaiser of Austria, Hungary, Galicia and Lodomeria.
When the old Soviet Union agreed to allow East and West Germany to reunify, it was with the understanding that NATO would not
extend membership to former Soviet block countries and that there would be no NATO bases in these areas either. NATO and the US
broke their oral commitment to Russia a few years later.
The US should get out of the business of trying to spread democracy in third world countries and interfering in the affairs
of foreign governments. We can't afford to be the policeman of the world. We don't even have the ability to make many of our own
central cities safe for Americans. Think Baltimore, St. Louis, New Orleans and Detroit, all four of which appear on Wikipedia's
list of the 50 murder capitals of the world (per thousand population).
Perry is another neocon in Trump administration and it looks like he pushed Trump under the train.
Notable quotes:
"... In November, Perry touted a shipment of Pennsylvania coal to Ukraine as "just one example of America's readiness and commitment to help diversify Europe's energy markets." ..."
"... Another major priority for Perry is opposing the construction of Nord Stream 2, a proposed gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany that many nations, including the United States, fear will increase the European Union's reliance on Russia for its energy needs. While in Ukraine in May, Perry promised that Trump would back a bill sanctioning companies involved in the project. ..."
Congressional Democrats want to know more about Rick Perry's travels to Ukraine and
conversations with officials there, signaling that the mild-mannered energy secretary won't
escape the intense of heat of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
In a memo released Wednesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.)
said he plans to issue a subpoena for White House documents by the end of the week centered on
Trump's requests to the Ukrainian government to open an investigation into one of his chief
political rivals, former vice president Joe Biden.
Among the records his committee is seeking are any related to Perry's attendance of
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's inauguration on May 20 as well as a White House
meeting Perry attended three days later.
Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
similarly sent a letter to Perry on Tuesday asking him what instructions Trump gave him when
the Cabinet official flew to Ukraine in May, as well as who asked Perry to go there in the
first place. And three House committees on Monday issued a sweeping subpoena to Trump's
personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, in part seeking documents related to Perry.
The multiple congressional inquiries have put a spotlight on Perry, who has distinguished
himself during his time in the job for avoiding controversy. Though the energy secretary is not
accused of wrongdoing and has not been directly subpoenaed, Perry and his Energy Department
spent Wednesday reassuring congressional Democrats they will cooperate with the impeachment
probe.
"We're going to work with Congress and answer all their questions," Perry told reporters
Wednesday at a departmental event in Chicago on artificial intelligence.
Leading a department he once called to eliminate when running for president in 2012, Perry
has kept his head down and avoided the scandals that embroiled some of Trump's original energy
and environmental policy team members, including former Environmental Protection Agency chief
Scott Pruitt and ex-Interior Department secretary Ryan Zinke, who were both ousted amid ethics
investigations. Perry's easygoing demeanor has let him develop productive relationships with
members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
"Regardless of subject, the Department is always willing to work with Congress in response
to requests that follow proper procedures," Energy Department spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes wrote
by email.
An explosive whistleblower complaint from an anonymous U.S. intelligence official alleged
Trump did not want to meet with Zelensky until he saw how the new Ukrainian leader "chose to
act" in office. In May, Perry led the American delegation to Zelensky's inauguration in lieu of
Vice President Pence after Pence canceled his planned trip, according to the complaint.
Two months later, on July 25, Trump repeatedly urged Zelensky in a phone call to investigate
Biden, offering to enlist Attorney General William P. Barr in that effort while dangling the
possibility of a White House meeting, according to a rough transcript of the call the White
House released.
On Wednesday, Perry declined to say to reporters whether he was on the July phone call. He
joked that he was asked to fill in for Pence in Ukraine in May because he is "just such a darn
good Cabinet member."
As energy secretary, Perry has regularly traveled to Eastern Europe to promote the sale of
U.S.-produced natural gas and coal. "I've had the opportunity to go into so many different
countries to represent the United States, our energy opportunities," Perry said Wednesday.
"Ukraine is one of those."
It is not unusual for energy secretaries to have a hand in foreign policy. Ernest Moniz, a
nuclear physicist who served as President Barack Obama's energy secretary, played a central
role in brokering the Iran nuclear deal in 2015.
Energy secretaries "do get involved from time to time on diplomatic issues," said Susan
Tierney, a former assistant secretary for policy at the Energy Department under Obama.
Curbing Eastern and Central European countries' dependence on Russia for electricity and
heating fuel was "very early on a priority" for the Trump administration, according to George
David Banks, a former Trump White House energy policy adviser. Given Perry's happy-go-lucky
charm -- and the fact that former secretary of state Rex Tillerson was recused from dealing
with several energy issues because of his previous job as ExxonMobil's chief executive -- it
made sense for Perry to work on Ukraine, Banks said.
"He's a natural-born diplomat," Banks said.
Ukraine, rich with its own natural gas reserves, does not import gas from the United States,
unlike some Eastern European nations such as Poland and Lithuania. But it does take in and burn
American coal -- about 4.8 million tons of it in 2018, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Most of that U.S.-to-Ukraine-bound coal is of a special grade often used in
manufacturing steel, a major industry in Ukraine. The United States is only one of a few
coal-exporting countries that has that type of coal.
The country has its own coal reserves, but much of them are located in contested territory
in eastern Ukraine. Facing costly imports from Russia, Ukraine has begun getting coal supplies
from the United States, Australia, Kazakhstan, and others places in recent years, according to
EIA.
In November, Perry touted a shipment of Pennsylvania coal to Ukraine as "just one example of
America's readiness and commitment to help diversify Europe's energy markets."
Another major priority for Perry is opposing the construction of Nord Stream 2, a proposed
gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany that many nations, including the
United States, fear will increase the European Union's reliance on Russia for its energy needs.
While in Ukraine in May, Perry promised that Trump would back a bill sanctioning companies
involved in the project.
The only mistake Merry makes is his erroneous statement that Trump held up aid to Ukraine to
pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate the Ukrainian firm that made $1,750,000
payments to the corrupt Biden and his corrupt son. The transcript of the telephone call between
Trump and the Ukrainian president shows no Quid Pro Quo, and the Ukrainian president says there
was none. The Quid Pro Quo was entirely on Biden's part when he told the president of Ukraine
to fire the prosecutor investigating the firm that was paying him and his son seven figures in
protection money or forfeit $1 billion in US aid. You can watch it here:
https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html
Moreover, even it Trump did threaten to withhold aid from a country that was covering up
corruption by a US vice president and his son, that is the US president's right. There is no
reason whatsoever that a president should permit US taxpayers' money to be given to a
government that covers up corruption by a vice president of the United States.
Biden's son has admitted that he used poor judgment taking money from a firm in order to
protect it from prosecution.
Even if Trump did what the Democrats allege, which he did not, there is nothing illegal or
unethical about it whatsoever. Compared to the tactics US prosecutors use to convict the
innocent, Trump's conversation with the president of Ukraine is far above the highest ethics
known to US prosecutors.
Why aren't the Democrats complaining about the criminally illegal treatment of Julian
Assange and Manning? The reason is that the Democrats, the most utterly corrupt political
organization on the face of the Earth, are bought and paid for by the Deep State. The Democrats
are dog excrement to the core. They are traitors to America and to our Constitutional order.
The entire party should be arrested and put on trial for sedition to overthrow the government
of the United States.
Just prior to the R-Party Nominating Convention at Cleveland in July 2016, Pepe
wrote :
"Some powerful, well-connected business interests supporting Trump from New York to the
Midwest have outlined their reasons to me, off the record. The fact that their reasons run
completely opposite to the Beltway consensus speaks volumes."
Yes, I remember this article quite well as should other barflies. As I wrote at the time,
those Pepe cited had their own perverted twist on history and thus incorrect reasons as to
the why of America's decline as this paragraph details:
"Why Russia? ' Because Russia does not rig their currency against us to destroy our
industries, and is therefore a natural ally rather then Germany and Japan, who still rig
their currencies against the United States and have destroyed much of our industrial
power .'" [Italics Original]
The bolded text above is what the businessmen were wrong about, and in a big way. But
Trump's isn't the first time policy was based on misconceptions and incorrect history. Pepe
provides further citations that I'll omit here, although they are important, and just provide
his summation followed by one a bit too important to omit here:
"For these business interests, illegal immigration, rigged currencies, and the
'unnecessary war' against Russia are the biggest issues of the presidential campaign....
"This business crowd is distinctly anti-war: ' When Mr. Trump talks about war having to
have rational profit and loss expectation, he is sounding as a logical businessman .'
They also stress that, ' the war against Russia is also destroying our oil industry
as the US ordered the Gulf States to dump their shut-in oil production capacity on the oil
market to bankrupt Russia .'" [Bolded text my emphasis]
But 3 years later, oil price has yet to really recover to the point where Frackers can
make a profit and their Ponzi Scheme seems about to go bust, which is why we're seeing
something that looks like a shift in Trump's initial plan regarding Syria. And there's still
more that can be gleaned from the article that goes against what was then current policy and
its direction. I think it's now fairly easy to see the reasoning behind Trump's UNGA tirade
aimed at the Globalists while contradicting himself about patriots as he's fighting against
one of the most noted--and demonized--of the planet's patriots--Bashar Hafez al-Assad.
U.S. efforts to derail Nordstream 2 have failed. Hehehe. All those sanctions were bypassed;
the partnerships of Nordstream 2 - Wintershall, Austria's OMV, France's Engie, and the
Netherlands' Royal Dutch Shell - were converted to loans and Gazprom owns it all.
COPENHAGEN/BUDAPEST (Reuters) - Denmark on Wednesday gave the go-ahead to the Nord Stream 2
gas pipeline, removing the last major hurdle to completion of the Russian-led project that
has divided opinion in the European Union.[.]
For the past three years the U.S. has fought the construction of the Nordstream 2
pipeline from Russia to Germany every inch of the way.
The battle came down to the last few miles, literally, as Denmark has been withholding the
final environmental permit on Nordstream 2 for months.
The U.S., especially under Trump, have committed themselves to a 'whole of government
approach' to stop the 55 bcm natural gas pipeline from making landfall in Germany.[.]
In a sense, this pipeline is Germany's declaration of independence from seventy-plus years
of U.S. policy setting. Never forget that Germany is occupied territory with more than
50,000 U.S. troops stationed there.
So it is supremely rich of President Trump call Nordstream 2 something that could make
Germany a "hostage of Russia" when it's been a hostage of the U.S. since 1945.
Then again, history isn't one of Trump's strong suits.[.]
How is that song again? do not know much about geography or geology.
@23 Thanks for the Nordstream 2 news. The Danish objections were critical to completing the
pipeline. Apparently the problem was more environmental than political as far as the Danes
were concerned.
@23 Likklemore.
Northstream II is a gift from Trump. Remember how he insulted the Danes by suggesting to buy
Greenland and then again insulted the Queen by
cancelling his trip to the country because she refused to discuss the offer? It was that
moment back in August when I thought "Thank you Trump, you just gave us Northstream II". This
is how Trump defeats the Borg so now and then.
@ Likklemore 23
There's also UNCLOS as a factor on the Denmark decision for Nordstream 2:
In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject
to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87
["freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines"] of navigation and overflight and of the
laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea
related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft
and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this
Convention. . . here
@30 The Danes had geographic and economic reasons for sure. I like joost's theory too.
Offering to buy Greenland and insulting the Queen was no way to get the Danes to block the
pipeline.....if that's what Trump really wanted. That would be sheer genius on Trump's part.
But I don't think the Danes will say that was the reason. I'm guessing they'll say they
had environmental concerns.
Nordstream II follows Nordstream I closely near Bornholm, which makes one wonder what the
environmentally based objections were to the second pipeline's route. The pipeline can be
laid down in three to four weeks so construction issues would not appear to be a major
problem.
Posted by: Breadonwater | Oct 31 2019 20:05 utc | 45
Why is Denmark's approval needed for Nordstream 2? Is it due to the Danish island of
Bornholm?
MARITIME LAW EXPLAINED
The United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) from 1958 guarantees to all countries the right to lay
cables and pipes in international waters. This is part of the freedom of the seas. Laying
cables and pipes is not "economic" activity as defined in the 1982 treaty that gave countries
the right to a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone
(EEZ).
Pipe laying is affected only by the little-known
Espoo Convention from 1991 that obliges the parties to carry out an environmental impact
assessment of certain activities at an early stage of planning. Nowhere in the treaty does it
say that it can be used to stop the freedom of navigation or other freedoms of the seas.
NordStream 2 will NOT pass through Danish territorial waters, as Russian and Western media
often falsely impliy.
Denmark was instructed to delay the European/Russian Nordstream2 approval. The delay
forced the consortium to redirect the pipeline to avoid Danish waters and so now whatever
they decide is completely moot and irrelevant. They are only trying to save face because they
recently approved a pipeline to Poland for expensive US freedom gas. This is how it works,
small countries like Denmark and Poland have no say of their own when the US wants
something.
In addition to the fired Shokin's claim that President Poroshenko warned him not to
investigate Burisma because it was not in the Bidens' interest, the notes say, the prosecutor
also said he "was warned to stop" by the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt .
The State Department declined to explain this assertion about Pyatt, who was ambassador to
Ukraine from 2013 to 2016 and now is Ambassador to Greece. The Biden presidential campaign did
not respond to a request for comment.
Recounting Shokin's version of events, the notes say he "was called into Mr. Poroshenko's
office and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter
Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to
Ukraine." Poroshenko later told Shokin that "he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was
being withheld by Joe Biden," the Giuliani interview notes say.
Trump has claimed that Vice
President Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin because he was investigating
his son's employer.
"I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really
unfair," the president said, referring to Shokin in his July 25 phone call with Ukraine's
president, Volodymyr Zelensky. That call triggered the current impeachment crisis after a CIA
whistleblower alleged that Trump had pressured the Ukrainian leader to investigate Biden in
return for military aid.
A Politico
investigation in 2017 found that officials in Poroshenko's government helped Hillary
Clinton allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, notably Paul Manafort,
who before joining the Trump campaign was a political consultant for ousted Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych.
Poroshenko's administration insisted at the time that Ukraine stayed neutral in the
race.
Following a short artillery and air engagement with Syria over raids by exiled Palestinian
guerillas, Egypt mobilized against her nemesis in 1967. President Nasser sent six divisions to
the Sinai, removed the UN peacekeeping force, and closed the Straits of Tiran south of Israel.
Israel struck first, fearing annihilation.
As Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld states in
The Transformation of War , "for six glorious days war was Israel and Israel was war."
The result was a smashing victory for the Israelis
, who lost around 800 soldiers, as opposed to 20,000 for Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. The Sinai
peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights were added to
Israel's territory.
Compare this short war with another conflict that played out in 2006. For 34 days, Israel
battled Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in response to the Shia terrorist group's killing and
capturing of several Israeli soldiers in cross-border raids. Israel launched a massive air and
artillery campaign, followed by a ground invasion in late July. When the ceasefire was signed
on August 14, both sides claimed victory, but as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt noted in
The Israel Lobbyand U.S. Foreign
Policy , "it was clear to most independent experts" that "Hezbollah had come out ahead
in the fight." The IDF chief of staff resigned, and an Israeli government investigation rebuked
the planning and handling of the campaign, stating that the military had "pursued goals that
were not clear and could not be achieved."
Worse still, the air, artillery, and naval campaign killed an estimated 1,183 Lebanese (a
third of them children) and devastated the country's infrastructure. These actions drew strong
condemnation from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for causing "destruction on a
catastrophic scale." During the last three days of the war, the IDF fired over one million
cluster bombs into southern Lebanon, "saturating the area." The leader of an IDF rocket unit called these actions
"insane and monstrous."
War can still be won by being nasty and short, as shown in the first Gulf War, but time is
not on the side of the powerful. Escalation by a powerful state against a poorly equipped
adversary almost always works to the advantage of the weaker side. Van Creveld compares this
situation to an adult who "administers a prolonged, violent beating to a child in a public
place." Observers will sympathize with the child and intervene, regardless of its prior
behavior.
With the Palestinians, the position of weakness is even more extreme. Israel dominates the
lives of 3.8 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, controlling air, land, and sea
access, in a situation that's been compared to "living in a cage" by Swedish foreign minister
Jan Eliasson. Despite numerous American attempts to secure Palestinian statehood and resolve
the conflict, the present situation seems worse than ever.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, has made it clear that Israel will be supported
through thick and thin. And the world has slowly but surely begun to take notice. The
BDS movement (Boycott, Divest, Sanction), initially confined to college campuses and
Palestine, spilled into the national news when Democratic lawmakers Ilhan Omar and Rashida
Talib spearheaded a movement opposing bills aimed at criminalizing support of BDS. Some
Republicans, namely Senator Rand Paul, have opposed those bills, too, on
free speech grounds.
Recently, after the congresswomen were denied entry to Israel because of their support of
BDS, liberal Jewish journalist Peter Beinart defended their stance. Speaking on a CNN panel , he openly
sympathized with the plight of the Palestinians, claiming their treatment by Israel constitutes
an "indefensible denial of basic human rights." Fellow panelists attempted to tie support for
Palestine to terrorism, a common tactic. But terrorism in that part of the world is nothing
new. Israel's defenders tend to forget or are ignorant of the fact that beginning in 1937, the
militant Zionist group Irgun
was responsible for placing bombs in buses and large crowds. One of its leaders during Israel's
war for independence, future prime minister Menachem Begin, was referred to by Prime Minister
Levi Eshkol simply as "the terrorist."
Modern Israel is no longer a weak state in danger of annihilation. The IDF is highly
motivated, trained, and funded. Emboldened by the financial and moral backing of the United
States and powerful lobbying groups, its treatment of Palestinians and other enemies has become
steadily more severe.
With recent
elections still contested , it remains to be seen whether these policies will continue. But
militarily, Israel's position is not tenable. You can win at the tactical level and rack up a
higher body count, but still lose the war. As frequent TAC contributor and military historian
William S. Lind notes, "in the 3,000 years that the story of David and Goliath has been told,
how many listeners have identified with Goliath?"
Israel will last as long as Wash. extorts money from our wages and supports it. Without the
US taxpayer, Israel wouldn't exist, both from its beginning to right now.
I think the lack of sympathy for Israel is not that it s the "Goliath" of this story but
that it is allowing settlers to live in the Occupied Territories.
So TAC is standing with the Palestinians now I see. Will it stand with those other Davids,
the intersectional allies of the BDS crowd too? namely Black Lives Matter, illegal Latino
migrants, the LGBTQ+ community, and other assorted SJW types?
We are now in the end times; when it comes to Israel, all is in the hands of the Lord. As
the nations of the earth seek to attack and destroy Israel, they fall into ruin: look at
the entire Muslim world; look at what's happening to Europe. Most of all, look at the
astonishing rise and continued power of Donald Trump, the man who recognized Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel. Pick your side and accept your fate accordingly.
"Escalation by a powerful state against a poorly equipped adversary almost always
works to the advantage of the weaker side."
I don't always buy this. For me this only works if the powerful state is in the wrong.
And sadly, in this situation, Israel is deeply in the wrong.
But what does happen is over time, the weak becomes slowly stronger. Because they are
always studying their enemies. They are learning their tactics and how to defeat them. This
may take decades, but eventually the weak become the strong.
This is why it is always best to quickly offer a hand of friendship to a vanquished
enemy. If you don't, you'll eventually trade places.
"Most of the press coverage has tacitly assumed that American assistance is vital to
fighting corruption in Ukraine."
Then I must have missed most of the press coverage. First of all, most of the reporting
I've seen has been about Trump's attempts to convince Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump's
political opponents. The purpose of the aid package is a minor part of the story, but when it
has been discussed the reporting I've seen has indicated that the purpose of the aid package
that Trump held up was to help the Ukrainian military, not to fight corruption. So I can't
help wondering: where does James Bovard gets his news?
Then you've missed the point of this article. It's neither about the purpose of that aid.
It's about the aid as such leading to corruption. Do you really think Ukrainians will have
any troubles with selling those weapons out to some Middle Eastern or African caudillos? Or
maybe you think that a single penny from the sums obtained as a result of that sellout will
end up in the hands of their average citizens, and not in those of local mobsters and
oligarchs?
I believe I am reading this right: That providing foreign aid is always going to lead to
corruption. That what Trump did with Ukraine is basically drinking the same sauce others have
in the past and anyone else will do in the future. That then suggests that the solution is to
close the tap and end using foreign aid because, whatever the initial motive, it's too
corrupting an influence.
In that... honestly that's the best argument I've heard against foreign aid. Typically I
hear arguments from economic standpoints, which seemed silly when many of the targetted
examples are in the millions-pennies by US standards.
But putting it from a control standpoint: that leadership, present or future, will either
use foreign aid as a cover for corrupt means or take an active use of foreign aid as a wedge
against a foreign country.
I can hear a counterargument that "we are a superpower. We should be helping others." And
the response I hear in my head is "given our inability to truly help others without such
corruption and how we abuse the status, maybe we really do need to let that title go." It
means giving it up to Russia or China, but we aren't doing a good job holding them back, even
if we should be doing so.
Ignoring the world really isn't an option. But our priority should probably be to focus on
home as we can and better ourselves rather than ruining yourselves while ruining everyone who
brushes with us.
So yeah. I can see the idea behind pulling back from these foreign aid elements.
The "just don't tell the House impeachment hearings." did seem rather clickbaity. It
suggests this is an argument against the impeachment hearings as if their mistaken believe in
supporting foreign aid is a mark against the hearings themselves. The article itself doesn't
seem to go that route. "just don't tell congress" would've done far better. But that's a
nitpick combined with all of this impeachment discussion leaving me rather kneejerky.
Not only Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe, it's also the poorest on the
continent. It became such after all American aid and after all, much, much bigger IMF loans.
Which makes one kind of suggest that the known level of corruption there is only a tip of the
iceberg.
But, getting back home, I just love those "closed impeachment hearings". Paraphrasing the
famous quotation, why so closed? Afraid that, being it open, any half-literate first-year law
college student (not to mention Rudy and the DoJ) would tear the so-called "evidence"
asunder?
It became such after all American aid and after all, much, much bigger IMF loans
I feel like you're glossing over some other major events that have happened in the South
and East of the country which have contributed to the sluggish economic development and
hampered the corruption fight...
The open hearings will come, Alex. They're closed because those are the rules Republicans
abided by with the Benghazi hearings. However it's going to take a lot more than Rudy and the
DoJ to combat testimony from Trump-appointed ambassadors who've been plucked from retirement
to help with Ukraine and say that there was a quid pro quo.
So what's the point here, foreign aid to corrupt governments is standard American policy,
so Presidential corruption in distributing that aid is no big deal.
"The surest way to reduce foreign corruption is to end foreign aid."
This is a point that can and has been argued. I remember having just that debate in
relation to aid to Africia in the '80s.
However, the House is investigating Presidential coruption in the distribution of that aid
and that would seem to be a different matter.
If you think Trump cares about corruption in Ukraine, I have a Trump U course to sell
you.
Trump tried to extort a foreign leader to help him win an election, this is beyond dispute
to anyone who isn't ignoring the facts. He wanted the president of Ukraine to make a public
announcement that he was investigating Hunter Biden. Whether the investigation would turn up
anything was irrelevant, Trump knew an appearance of Biden corruption could work wonders for
him.
Oh yes... The purported presence of the "evidence" of the said "extortion" is precisely
why the House hearings are closed. And, of course, Trump's most vital necessity was kicking
the weakest of his opponents out of the race, so that Democrats could pick someone with
better chances, instead of the continuation of the DNC's idiotic course aimed at nominating
that one at all costs, which persists even now.
Just like the corrupt aid we have been giving to dictatorships since WW II ended. The
difference is the president in previous decades did not use the aid as a bribe to foreign
leaders to conduct nefarious investigations on US citizens. I can only imagine the columns
TAC would write if Obama called the Saudi Crown Prince in 2010 and told him that military aid
is contingent on information about their business dealings with the Bush family because Jeb
might run in 2012.
Then where's the evidence of that "bribe" having even happened? As of yet we have only a
clownery called "closed hearings" and the idea that Trump would be interested in getting rid
of the weakest of his possible opponents which defies the mere principles of logic.
Hogwash. Tell us how "Russian interference" has forced the Ukrainian junta to be as
corrupt, brutal and incompetent as it has been since it became a full-fledged US puppet?
A better use of our hard-earned tax dollars would be for the US government to put its own
house in order before addressing problems of "corruption" abroad.
Corruption is incidental to the political control that foreign aid provides to the US. In
other words, it's a feature and not a bug. The exception to this rule is Israel, where US
foreign aid is turned around to exert influence on American politicians. Again, a feature and
not a bug.
Don't hold your breath waiting for this situation to change.
Charitable (non-government) aid typically nurtures corruption, too
Arm's-length dealing is the cure and the preventive, and it's the only one.
I know - sounds cruel, doesn't it?
I usually do - just ask my children
U.S. Aid Makes Corrupt Countries More Corrupt
Our 'democracy building' assistance to certain countries--including Ukraine--has produced kleptocracies, or
worse.
By
James Bovard
•
October 30, 2019
Barricade with the protesters at Hrushevskogo street on January 26, 2014 in Kiev, Ukraine.
Sasha
Maksymenko
/
cc
Counting on foreign aid to reduce corruption is like expecting whiskey to cure
alcoholism. After closed House of Representatives impeachment hearings heard testimony on President Trump's role in
delaying U.S. aid to Ukraine, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared: "
Numbers
don't lie
. It's even more clear now that President Trump is not the
anti-corruption crusader he claims to be."
Most of the press coverage has tacitly assumed that American assistance is vital to fighting corruption in Ukraine. But
that ignores foreign aid's toxic record and Ukraine's post-Soviet history.
A
2002 American Economic Review analysis
concluded that "increases in [foreign] aid are associated with contemporaneous increases in corruption," and that
"corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United States."
That was the year President George W. Bush launched a new foreign aid program, the
Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). Bush declared, "I
think it makes no sense to give aid
, money, to
countries that are corrupt." But the Bush administration continued delivering billions of dollars in handouts to many of
the world's most corrupt regimes. By 2004, the State Department had codified what amounted to backtracking: "
The
MCA is an incentive-based supplement to other U.S. aid programs."
The Bush
team found excuses to give MCA aid to some of the world's most corrupt governments as well, including Georgia.
In 2010, President Barack Obama proclaimed at the United Nations that America was "
leading
a global effort to combat corruption
." Obama's "aides said the United States
in the past has often seemed
to just throw money at problems
," the
Los Angeles Times
reported. But the reform
charade was exposed the following year when the Obama administration fiercely resisted congressional efforts to curb
wasteful aid. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that restricting handouts to nations that fail anti-corruption
tests "has
the potential to affect a staggering number
of
needy aid recipients."
The Obama administration continued pouring tens of billions of American tax dollars
into sinkholes such as Afghanistan, which even its president, Ashraf Ghani, admitted in 2016 was "one of the
most corrupt countries on earth
." And the
deluge of aid the Afghan government received only worsened the corruption. As John Sopko, the heroic Special Inspector
General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR), observed, "
We
need to understand how
US policies and practices unintentionally aided and
abetted corruption. We must recognize the danger of dealing with characters or networks of unsavory repute, tolerating
contracting abuses, accepting shoddy performance and delivering unsustainable projects."
The closed House impeachment hearings last week heard from acting U.S. ambassador to
the Ukraine William B. Taylor Jr., who testified that he "
had
authority over the bulk
of the U.S. effort to support Ukraine against the
Russian invasion and to help it defeat corruption." The
Washington Post
lauded Taylor as someone who "
spent
much of the 1990s telling
Ukrainian politicians that nothing was more critical
to their long-term prosperity than rooting out corruption and bolstering the rule of law, in his role as the head of
U.S. development assistance for post-Soviet countries."
Transparency International, which publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions Index, shows that
corruption surged in
Ukraine during the late 1990s
and remains at obscene levels (though recent
years have shown slight improvements). Taylor was ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009, when corruption sharply
worsened despite
hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid
.
Ukraine is now ranked as the
120th
least
corrupt nation in the world
-- lower
than Egypt and Pakistan, two other major U.S. aid recipients. What Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder is to the NFL,
Taylor appears to be to the anti-corruption cause.
Bribing foreign politicians to encourage honest government makes as much sense as
distributing free condoms to encourage abstinence. Rather than encouraging good governance practices, foreign aid is
more likely to produce kleptocracies, or governments of thieves. As a Brookings Institution analysis observed, "The
history of
U.S. assistance is littered
with tales of
corrupt foreign officials using aid to line their own pockets, support military buildups, and pursue vanity projects."
And both American politicians and bureaucrats are want to continue the aid gravy train, regardless of how foreign
regimes waste the money or use it to repress their own citizens.
If U.S. aid was effective, Ukraine would have become a rule of law paradise long ago. The country's new president,
Volodymyr Zelensky, may be sincere in his efforts to root out corruption. But it is an insult to both him and his nation
to pretend that Ukraine cannot clean up its act without help from Donald Trump. The surest way to reduce foreign
corruption is to end foreign aid.
"... The brother of the current Chilean president, scions of one of the richest families in Chile, became famous for introducing, as Minister of Labor and Social Security under Pinochet, a funded system of pensions where employees make compulsory contributions from their wages into one of several pension funds, and after retirement receive pensions based on investment performance of such funds. Old-age pensions thus became a part of roulette capitalism. But In the process, the pension funds, charging often exorbitant fees, and their managers became rich. ..."
"... José Piñera had tried to "sell" this model to Yeltsin's Russia and to George Bush's United States, but, despite the strong (and quite understandable) support of the financial communities in both countries, he failed. Nowadays, most Chilean pensioners receive $200-$300 per month in a country whose price level (according to International Comparison Project, a worldwide UN- and World Bank-led project to compare price levels around the world) is about 80% of that of the United States. ..."
"... the combined wealth of Chilean billionaires' (there were twelve of them) was equal to 25% of Chilean GDP. The next Latin American countries with highest wealth concentrations are Mexico and Peru where the wealth share of billionaires is about half (13 percent of GDP) of Chile's. But even better: Chile is the country where billionaires' share, in terms of GDP, is the highest in the world (if we exclude countries like Lebanon and Cyprus) where many foreign billionaires simply "park" their wealth for tax reasons. The wealth of Chile's billionaires, compared to their country's GDP, exceeds even that of Russians. [Graph] ..."
"... Such extraordinary inequality of wealth and income, combined with full marketization of many social services (water, electricity etc.), and pensions that depend on the vagaries of the stock market has long been "hidden" from foreign observers by Chile's success in raising its GDP per capita. ..."
"... if there Is no social justice and minimum of social cohesion, the effects of growth will dissolve in grief, demonstrations, and yes, in the shooting of people. ..."
Chile: The poster boy of neoliberalism who fell from grace
It is not common for an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development county to
shoot and kill 16 people in two days of socially motivated riots. (Perhaps only Turkey, in
its unending wars against the Kurdish guerrilla, comes close to that level of violence.) This
is however what Chilean government, the poster child of neoliberalism and transition to
democracy, did last week in the beginning of protests that do not show the signs of subsiding
despite cosmetic reforms proposed by President Sebastian Piñera.
The fall from grace of Chile is symptomatic of worldwide trends that reveal the damages
causes by neoliberal policies over the past thirty years, from privatizations in Eastern
Europe and Russia to the global financial crisis to the Euro-related austerity. Chile was
held, not the least thanks to favorable press that it enjoyed, as a exemplar of success.
Harsh policies introduced after the overthrow of Salvador Allende in 1973, and the murderous
spree that ensued afterwards, have been softened by the transition to democracy but their
essential features were preserved. Chile indeed had a remarkably good record of growth, and
while in the 1960-70s it was in the middle of the Latin American league by GDP per capita, it
is now the richest Latin American country. It was of course helped too by high prices for its
main export commodity, copper, but the success in growth is incontestable. Chile was
"rewarded" by the membership in the OECD, a club of the rich nations, the first South
American country to accede to it.
Where the country failed is in its social policies which somewhat bizarrely were
considered by many to have been successful too. In the 1980s-90s, the World Bank hailed
Chilean "flexible" labor policies which consisted of breaking up the unions and imposing a
model of branch-level negotiations between employers and workers rather than allowing an
overall umbrella union organization to negotiate for all workers. It was even more bizarrely
used by the World Bank as a model of transparency and good governance, something that the
transition countries in Eastern Europe should have presumably copied from Chile. The
brother of the current Chilean president, scions of one of the richest families in Chile,
became famous for introducing, as Minister of Labor and Social Security under Pinochet, a
funded system of pensions where employees make compulsory contributions from their wages into
one of several pension funds, and after retirement receive pensions based on investment
performance of such funds. Old-age pensions thus became a part of roulette capitalism. But In
the process, the pension funds, charging often exorbitant fees, and their managers became
rich.
José Piñera had tried to "sell" this model to Yeltsin's Russia and to
George Bush's United States, but, despite the strong (and quite understandable) support of
the financial communities in both countries, he failed. Nowadays, most Chilean pensioners
receive $200-$300 per month in a country whose price level (according to International
Comparison Project, a worldwide UN- and World Bank-led project to compare price levels around
the world) is about 80% of that of the United States.
While Chile leads Latin America in GDP per capita, it also leads it terms of inequality.
In 2015, its level of income inequality was higher than in any other Latin American country
except for Colombia and Honduras. It exceeded even Brazil's proverbially high inequality. The
bottom 5% of the Chilean population have an income level that is about the same as that of
the bottom 5% in Mongolia. The top 2% enjoy the income level equivalent to that of the top 2%
in Germany. Dortmund and poor suburbs of Ulan Bataar were thus brought together.
Chilean income distribution is extremely unequal. But even more so is its wealth
distribution. There, Chile is an outlier even compared to the rest of Latin America.
According to the Forbes' 2014 data on world billionaires, the combined wealth of Chilean
billionaires' (there were twelve of them) was equal to 25% of Chilean GDP. The next Latin
American countries with highest wealth concentrations are Mexico and Peru where the wealth
share of billionaires is about half (13 percent of GDP) of Chile's. But even better: Chile is
the country where billionaires' share, in terms of GDP, is the highest in the world (if we
exclude countries like Lebanon and Cyprus) where many foreign billionaires simply "park"
their wealth for tax reasons. The wealth of Chile's billionaires, compared to their country's
GDP, exceeds even that of Russians.
[Graph]
Such extraordinary inequality of wealth and income, combined with full marketization of
many social services (water, electricity etc.), and pensions that depend on the vagaries of
the stock market has long been "hidden" from foreign observers by Chile's success in raising
its GDP per capita.
But the recent protests show that the latter is not enough. Growth is
indispensable for economic success and reduction in poverty. But it is not enough: if there
Is no social justice and minimum of social cohesion, the effects of growth will dissolve in
grief, demonstrations, and yes, in the shooting of people.
MOSCOW, October 26, 2019 – RIA Novosti – The Russian Ministry of Defense has
published satellite intelligence images , showing American oil smuggling from Syria.
Image 1: Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic as of October 26, 2019.
According to the ministry, the photos confirm that "Syrian oil, both before and after the
routing defeat of the Islamic State terrorists in land beyond the Euphrates river , under the
reliable protection by US military servicemen, oil was actively being extracted and then the
fuel trucks were massively being sent for processing outside of Syria."
Image 2: Daman oil gathering station, Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 42 km east of Deir
ez-Zor, August 23, 2019.
Here, in a picture of the Daman oil gathering station (42 kilometers east of the Deir-ez-Zor
province), taken on August 23, a large amount of trucks were spotted. "There were 90 automotive
vehicles, including 23 fuel trucks," the caption to the image said.
In addition, on September 5, there were 25 vehicles in the Al-Hasakah province, including 22
fuel trucks. Three days later, on September 8, in the vicinity of Der Ez-Zor, 36 more vehicles
were recorded (32 of them were fuel trucks). On the same day, 41 vehicles, including 34 fuel
trucks, were in the Mayadin onshore area.
Image 3: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Al-Hasakah province, 8 km west of Al-Shaddadi,
September 5, 2019.
As the official representative of the Defense Ministry Igor Konashenkov noted, the Americans
are extracting oil in Syria with the help of equipment, bypassing their own sanctions.
Igor Konashenkov:
"Under the protection of American military servicemen and employees of American PMCs, fuel
trucks from the oil fields of Eastern Syria are smuggling to other states. In the event of
any attack on such a caravan, special operations forces and US military aircraft are
immediately called in to protect it," he said.
According to Konashenkov, the US-controlled company Sadcab , established under the so-called
Autonomous Administration of Eastern Syria , is engaged in the export of oil, and the income of
smuggling goes to the personal accounts of US PMCs and special forces.
The Major General added that as of right now, a barrel of smuggled Syrian oil is valued at
$38, therefore the monthly revenue of US governmental agencies exceeds $30 million.
Image 4: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 10 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
"For such a continuous financial flow, free from control and taxes of the American
government, the leadership of the Pentagon and Langley will be ready to guard and defend oil
fields in Syria from the mythical 'hidden IS cells' endlessly," he said.
According to Konashenkov, Washington, by holding oil fields in eastern Syria, is engaged in
international state banditry.
Image 5: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 14 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
The reason for this activity, he believes, "lies far from the ideals of freedom proclaimed
by Washington and their slogans on the fight against terrorism."
Igor Konashenkov:
"Neither in international law, nor in American legislation itself – there is not and
cannot be a single legal task for the American troops to protect and defend the hydrocarbon
deposits of Syria from Syria itself and its own people, " the representative of the Defense
Ministry concluded.
A day earlier, the Pentagon's head, Mark Esper declared that the United States is studying
the situation in the Deir ez-Zor region and intends to strengthen its positions there in the
near future "to ensure the safety of oil fields."
The Ruskies are mad - Trump is stopping them from taking the oil, it belongs to the Kurds
for their revenue and if US wants to help them have it so what....US is staying to secure
those oilfields against ISIS taking it again!
If everyone listened to the President when he talks there wouldn't be any spin that anyone
could get away with.
The oil is on Kurdish land. This part of Syria is just a small sector of Kurdish territory
that has been stolen from them by dividing it between four "countries", each of which has
oil. This is why the territory was stolen and why the Kurds have become the world's best
fighters.
Putin brokered a deal to stop Turkey wiping the Kurds by having their fighting force
assimilate with the Syrian military and required Russian observers access to ensure the Turks
keep their word and not invade to wipe all the Kurd civilians in order to also take their
Syrian oil.
So the corrupt US generals get caught in the act. Their senators and reps on the payroll
are going to need some more of that fairy tale PR for POTUS to read to us at bedtime.
If we are to believe that this is to protect the oil fields then the oil revenue should be
going to Syria, even though the Kurds are on the land. Follow the money to find the truth
because there is no one you can trust on this stage.
MSM are simply not covering this story. Or the other story about the supposed gas attack
at Douma where evidence was adulterated and/or ignored completely under US pressure.
Expect the same from MH17.
WTF is going on with our leaders and corporate MSM....can no one in a leadership position
distinguish between lies and the truth? Or fantasy and reality? Where are the 'journalists'
who will stand up and tell the truth in MSM? They no longer exist.
18 wheel fuel trucks around here hold 10K gal. 50 truck loads 500K of un processed oil if
it's true? I though they just got there. but no telling who might steal under those
conditions.
That was August. this is now. The Russians must have really wanted that oil to finance
their occupation. Trump is preventing ISIS from using the oil as their piggy bank.
Wasn't Erdogan doing the same not too long ago? Shortly after Erdogan became close friends
with Putin. Does this mean Trump and Putin will become close friends as well? Or is this
simply a common practice between two people who undeservingly place relatives in government
positions? First Turkey hands over Al Baghdadi (he received medical treatment in Southern
Turkey in a private clinic owned by Erdogan's daughter guarded by MIT agents) so that they
can continue to commit genocide against Kurds in Turkey and Syria... and now the US is
stealing Syrian oil like how the Turks initially were doing. What a mess and a
disappointment. Hopefully Erdogan visits DC and unleashes his security guards beating any
person freely walking the streets while Trump smiles and describes him as a great leader.
Watch in coming weeks as the tanker convoys are proven to be rogue operations from an out
of control CIA / Cabal network. Trump removed the troops, and now Russia is shining a light
on it.
No coincidence another article on ZH brung attention to the Ukrainian wareehouse arsos..12
in 2 yrs..2017-2018 where stored munition were carted away...not to fight rebels n Donbass
but sold to Islamic groups in Syria..it was one of Bidens pals..one keeps the wars going
while the others steal siphon of resources..whatever isn't nailed down..I've never seen
anything like this..Democrats are truly CRIME INC
w/o that oil..Syria can never reconstruct itself..Usually in a War or ,after that is, the
victors help rebuild..what we see is pillaging and salting the earth and walk away.. as the
Romans did to enemies like Carthage..it will resemble Libya ...a shambles
So the smuggling is protected by air cover and special forces? Light up the fields using
some scud missiles. I'm sure Iran or Iraq have a few they could lend Syria. Can't sell it if
its burning.
Brits and Americans have pillaged, as any other empire, wherever they conquered.
After WW1 the 'Allies' robbed Germany of all foreign currency and its entire gold. This
triggering hyperinflation and mega crisis.
During WW2 central bank gold was pillaged from countries that were 'liberated' across
Europe.
In more recent history, the gold of Iraq, Ukraine and Libya was flown to Fort Knox.
All well documented.
This is common practice by empires. Just please stop pretending you were the good
guys , spreading freedom and democracy, because that's really a mockery and the
disgusting part of your invasions.
During WW2 central bank gold was pillaged from countries that were 'liberated'.
Exactly, that's where the US got its 8,000 tons of gold. Before WWII, the US had 2000 tons
of gold, after WWII it had 8,000 tons. Even today the US always steals the gold of the
countries it "liberates"
Help me understand why the USA would want to smuggle oil from Syria. When the USA has more
oil than all of the middleast.
Now I can see why Russia would blame the USA if smuggling Oil from Syria. Russia needs
that oil really bad. So to get the USA away from the Syrian oil fields they would of course
create a reason for the rest of the world that the USA is Dishonerable and must not be
trusted with Syrian oil. It is just too obvious to me, what Russia is trying to
accomplish.
Huh? The US is stealing the oil to deprive the Syrian people energy they need to rebuild
the country we destroyed. This is collective punishment of Syrians because they won't
overthrow Assad.
Collective punishment is a crime against humanity according to international law. There's
your impeachable offense. But don't worry, that kind of crime is ok with Shifty Schiff and
the rest of the Israel ***-kissers in Congress.
The US is NOT stealing the oil - the American Military have become PIRATES - no different
than Somali Red Sea Pirates or looters in Newark stealing diapers and TV's
This is nothing new. We've been stealing oil from dozens of countries for the past 75
years since WWII. The only difference is that Trump is being blatant about it which in a way
is weirdly refreshing.
Last week, Thierry Meyssan posted an excellent paper ( https://www.voltairenet.org/article208007.html),
in which he states that the recent events in Syria, in which 'a quarter of the country was
freed in a week' is not only a victory for Assad, but the defeat of the 'military strategy to
establish the supremacy of financial capitalism'. These events mark the overturning of the
world order that has been in place since the end of WWII.
What I find remarkable is how quickly the old order has been overturned. The old order was
initially a bi-polar world, which evolved, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, into a
Uni-Polar World Order under the control of 'financial capitalism' (i.e. the 'Globalists',
also referred to as 'international financial elites', 'Anglo-Zionists', the 'Davos Crowd',
etc.). Arguably the Uni-Pole's power peaked in the early 2000s after the creation of the EU
and the eastern expansion of NATO. The first cracks in the Uni-Pole's hegemonic power
appeared in 2003 with the fiasco in Iraq, and in 2008 with the Global Financial Crisis. But
even as late as 2015, when Obama dismissed Russia's entry into Syria as nothing but Russia
stepping into a quagmire, the 'Globalists' could foresee no opposing force that would prevent
them from consolidating their Uni-Polar World Order into an enduring world-wide system of
'Global Governance' through a 'Rules-based International Order' under the 'Globalists'
control and enforced by the U.S. and NATO. But now, as Meyssan suggests, only four years
later, the Uni-Polar World Order has been toppled.
In its place a 'Multi-Polar World' order is emerging. I would like to suggest that the
outlines of this emerging order are as follows:
1. The dominant pole of this Multi-polar World is that led by the alliance of Russia and
China. Spanning Eurasia from the Pacific to the Mediterranean, this pole includes the
countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Eurasian Economic Union, and
includes Iran, Iraq, Syria, and possibly, in the future, Turkey.
2. The second pole will be the remnants of the 'Globalist' empire, stripped, however, of
Europe (ex. U.K.) and any Asian representation, i.e. the U.S., U.K., Israel and likely
Canada.
3. A third group consists of countries that are currently either occupied militarily by
the U.S. or are part of NATO, but are either economically dependent on China or are in
economic competition with the U.S. This includes most of Europe, Japan, South Korea,
Australia, New Zealand, and the GCC countries (KSA, UAE, etc.). These countries cannot be
considered as poles by themselves, for while some of them may have the economic weight to be
considered a pole, such as Germany and Japan, they lack the geo-political weight. These
countries are likely to try to escape from their status as American ('Globalist') vassals and
become independent nations dealing equitably with all the poles of the new Multi-Polar World.
In my view, it is unlikely that the EU will survive the birth of this new-world order in its
current form. At best it is likely to revert back to a European free trade area, in which
each country will recapture its sovereignty and its own currency.
4. A fourth group consists of countries that, while not being a part of the Russia/China
pole will be under its wing, with Russia providing military, political and geo-political
support, and China providing economic support. This group includes countries which are
currently either under threat from the 'Globalists' (ie. Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia,
etc.), are in turmoil due to exploitation by the 'Globalists' (ie. Chile, Argentina, Brazil,
etc.) or are outright failed states (most of Africa). Under the protection of Russia and
China, they will once again have a chance to overcome the anarchy of the past 20 or so years
and to return to peaceful development.
5. A fifth group consists of what will likely end up as secondary poles of the Multi-Polar
World. These are countries that today are both independent and have the geo-political and
economic weight to continue to function independently. This group includes the likes of India
and the ASEAN countries.
Uncertain is the time that it will take for this emerging order to stabilize. In my view,
this depends to a great extent on whether Trump survives impeachment and wins in 2020. If he
does then the emergence of the Multi-Polar World Order could be quite quick and painless, as
it is aligned with the policies that Trump has been espousing from the beginning of his
presidential campaign in 2015. To 'Make America Great Again' requires that the U.S. recover
its sovereignty and redevelop its industrial power. After all, a countries wealth, and thus
its power, is what it produces, and a country that doesn't produce as much as it consumes
will, in the end, consume itself. To redevelop its industrial power the U.S. needs to isolate
itself, as Trump is attempting to do behind a wall of tariff barriers and a devalued
currency. The Multi-Polar World Order will allow the U.S. the opportunity it needs isolate,
and then rebuild, itself. One must remember that it was the isolation of the U.S. in the 19th
and early 20th centuries that enabled the U.S. to become so powerful in the first place.
If, on the other hand, Trump is either overthrown by the 'Globalists' or defeated in 2020
then the emergence of the Multi-Polar World Order will be fraught with conflict. The
'Globalists' will fight it every step of the way, using all tools at their disposal, and
particularly the military muscle of the U.S. and NATO. For the 'Globalists' the Multi-Polar
World Order means the dispossession of their power and wealth. However, I believe that will
simply be a case of the losers continuing to fight long after the war has been lost. It is
only a question of how much time that it will take, and death and destruction that will
occur, before the U.S. and NATO are exhausted.
The emergence of the Multi-Polar World Order, once it stabilizes, is likely to usher in a
new era of peace and human development, similar to that which the world experienced in the
decades following WWII.
I agree with dh-mtl that we are entering a multi-polar world but that is happening because of
the deep corruption and divisions within the Washington Deep State. Still, the imperial
forces are formidable and should any faction get full control of them an expansion of current
wars is very possible. Trump is trying to fashion and has been trying to fashion a coalition
but he's failed and is failing. Media narratives, in the USA, always represent the interests
of the factions in power and they are all against Trump. This election is critical to world
history. Will we get a restoration with Biden (or Buttigieg) or Pence or will we start moving
in a new direction with Warren or Sanders? If the latter then the Deep State may move in a
new direction and begin to negotiated with Russia/China. If Trump then more chaos.
Sorry John, the quote that you posted was not taken from Thierry Meyssan, but is my
original work. I only quoted from Meyssan in the first paragraph.
The decades after WW2 may have spawned the CIA and their dirty tricks, but in spite of
this, the stand off between the U.S. and Russia, the bi-polar world, ensured a level of peace
and stability that lasted until the fall of the Soviet Union. These decades were undoubtedly
on of the greatest eras of human development that mankind has experienced.
I think those 5 categories are pretty much spot on. They also appear to be in sync with
Russia's envisioned relation with the main elements of those categories, as they develop in
practice. China's positioning looks more obscure though, but that must be due to lack of
information on my part more than anything else. What Russia initiates, China consolidates in
its broad strokes, but i am missing how coherent the details where the space of action
actually overlaps between the two.
The switch between the first and second category members from the previous status quo
appears to be settled along with tolerable levels of conflict. Circe won't like to hear it,
but in my opinion, we have Trump to thank for that, not because he intended for the switch,
but because he stresses on the US economical system the main effective capitalist
contradiction: productive vs financial capital. The tumultuous social and psychological state
of the US, attest to that contradiction despite emerging as very heated but apparently
distant themes (immigration, gender issues, the personality and conduct of the president,
etc..), Circe would have us believe it is all kabuki. I believe it is real, commonly
misanalysed but very very real.
What I have yet to see though is the multi-polar trend to take root. Obvious signs would
be Germany and Europe in general of course, but at best as a block of sovereigns, and for
that, Frankfurt will have to surrender before the remaining capitals. That may actually come
about as production takes the main stage, and this could be very sudden.
This is obvious positive thinking. An anecdote:
Once I super glued the tip of my finger. I had a box cutter nearby and I just thought - I
simply must use it as a razor blade to scrap the glue out, movements perpendicular to the
blade, and I'll be fine - whatever I do just don't move along the .... zaaaat - here's the
scar. The point being: as soon as the wrong thought crossed my mind, my hand simply ignored
the "don't do" part of the thinking and obeyed the rest.
"... The below analysis is provided by " Ehsani " -- a Middle East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst who visits the region frequently and writes for the influential geopolitical analysis blog, Syria Comment . ..."
"... An M1 Abrams tank at the Udairi Range Complex in Kuwait, via Army National Guard/Military Times. ..."
Here's
Why Trump's "Secure Syria's Oil" Plan Will Prove Practically Impossible
by
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2019 - 23:30
0
SHARES
The below analysis is provided by "
Ehsani
" -- a Middle
East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst who visits the region frequently and writes
for the influential geopolitical analysis blog,
Syria Comment
.
Much has been debated since President Trump tweeted that
"The U.S has secured the oil"
in Syria. Is this feasible? Does it make any sense? The below will
explain how and why
the answer is a resounding
NO
.
Al-Omar and Conoco fields are already secured by Kurdish-led SDF and U.S forces. Some of the oil
from these fields was being sold through third parties to Syria's government by giving it in crude
form and taking back half the quantity as refined product
(the government owns the
refineries).
Syria's government now has access to oil fields inside the 32km zone
(established
by the Turkish military incursion and subsequent withdrawal of Kurdish forces). Such fields can produce
up to 100K barrels a day and will already go a long way in terms of meeting the country's immediate
demand.
So the importance of accessing oil in SDF/U.S hands is not as pressing any longer.
SDF/U.S forces can of course decide to sell the oil to Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)
but Syria's government now has control over the border area connecting Syria to KRG territory through
both Yaaroubia and Al-Mallkiya.
The Syrian government also now has control over supply of electricity. This was made possible by
taking control of the Tishreen and Furat dams.
Operating those fields needs electric power
supply and the state is now the provider.
Securing and operating these fields also entails paying salaries to those operating the fields.
International companies would be very reluctant to get involved without legal backing to operate
the fields.
"Securing the oil" therefore
can only mean preventing the Syrian state from accessing al-Omar/Conoco
only (not oil in the north)
. It's unlikely anything can be sold or transported.
And let's not forget "securing" this oil would need
ready air cover, and all for what?
SDF composition included Arab fighters and tribes who accepted Kurds in leadership since they had
American support and key cities in north. Many of those Arabs are already switching and joining the
Syrian Army.
"Securing" oil for benefit of the Kurds is likely to antagonize the Arab fighters
and tribes in the region.
Preventing rise of ISIS is likely to entail securing support of the region's Arabs and tribes more
than that of the Kurds. This Kurd/Arab issue is yet another reason why President Trump's idea of
"securing" the oil for the benefit of the Kurds just doesn't make sense nearly on every level
.
The psychopaths destroyed the last secular country in the ME. Same
with Lybia. Now all we get are extremists on all sides. Mossad doing
what it knows best, bringing chaos for the psychopaths.
By withdrawing from Northern Kurdistan and by making an exception
for the oil fields, Genius President Trump just told the world a number
of things:
To trust the U.S.A. as an ally is sheer stupidity
The "alternative media" theory that it is all about oil (and
possible gas) has been proven true
The U.S.A. is being ruled by a hobbyist who has no strategic
plans, replacing them with a "random walk" concept
Of course, the European allies (except Turkey) are still refusing
to learn from this experience. "Duck and cover until November 2020"
is their current tactics. Not sure if this is a good idea.
Turkey has learned to go their own ways, but I don't think it is
a good idea to create ever more enemies at one's borders. Greece,
Armenia, the Kurdish regions, Syria, Cyprus, not sure how their stance
is towards Iran. Reminds me of Germany before both World Wars. Won't
end well.
"America/The US", a label, is
actually just a location on a map and is not a reference to the actual
identities of those who start wars for profit.
Also it is hilarious to use that label as if an area of the planet
is or has attacked another area. Land can not attack itself, ever,
just as guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Trump is not claiming posession of oil in syria by leaving some
troops behind. Just as he did not declare war, nor start any EVER.
Every conflct on earth has it's roots with very specific individuals,
none of whom are even related to Trump.
Syria was a conflicting mess before he took office and he is dutifully
attempting to pull US soldiers out of a powder keg of nonsense he
wants no part of. Nor does any sane American want more conflict in
battles we can't afford, in countries we'll never even visit.
Like I said before, Trump can't just abruptly yank all our troops.
It's simply not that simple. And for those pretending he is doing
syria a disservice, I dare any one of you to go there yourselves and
see if you bunch of complete dipshits can do better. Who knows, maybe
you'll find the love of your life, ******* idiots.
First, the US invades Syria in violation of the Geneva Convention
on War making it an international criminal. Then it funds and equips
the most vile terrorists on the planet which leads to the killing
of thousands of innocent Syrians. And now it has decided to stay and
steal oil from Syria. The US is now the Evil American Empire owned
and run by crooks, gangsters and mass murderers. The Republic is dead
along with morality, justice and freedom.
Let's limit the culprits to: The Obama regime... and
not all the US. This is why these devils need to be brought
to trial and their wealth clawed out of their hiding places to
pay reparations to some of the victims.
The US has been an Evil American Empire for a long time, since
at least the Wilson administration, and Republican or Democrat...it
make little difference. World wars, the Fed, IRS, New Deal,
Korea, Vietnam, War OF Terror, assassinations, coups, sanctions,
Big Pharma, Seeds of Death and Big Agri...and the list goes
on and on. Please understand that America is not great and one
day all Americans will have to account for what their country
did in their name. If you believe in the Divine, then know that
their will be a reckoning.
The Obama regime was merely a continuation of the Chimpy Bush
regime, which was merely a continuation of the Clinton regime,
which was merely a continuation of the Pappy Bush regime, which
was merely a continuation... etc.
More chinks in the petrodollar armor will be the outcome of this. The credibility of murica is withering
away as every day passes. Iraqi pressure upon foreign troops there
to leave and/or drawdown further will also make this venture even
more difficult to manage.
The Kurds
may not be the smartest with regards to picking allies, but even they
may by now have learned that sticking to murica any longer will destroy
any semblance of hope for any autonomy status whatsoever once the
occupants have left. Likewise, the Sunni tribes around this area don't
want to become another Pariah group once things revert to normal.
Assad will eventually retake all his territory and
this is speeding up the process of eventual reconciliation in Syria.
They've spent far more on these wars than they've made back by stealing
other countries' resources. Trillions wasted in exchange for mere
billions in profit, to say nothing of the massive loss of life and
destruction incurred.
'The below analysis is provided by "
Ehsani
"
-- a Middle East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst
who visits the region frequently and writes for the influential geopolitical
analysis blog,
Syria Comment
.'
this quote was my first red flag.
so POTUS outsmarts Erdongan, takes out ISIS leader BAGHDADI along
with Erdongan MIT agents meeting with him. sorry, Ehsani, i think
your full of sh*t.
CIA & MOSSAD LLC
friends ISIS is just the excuse the american
an israeli terrorists used and use in order to keep trying to remove
Assad from the Government.
They just can't accept defeat and absolute failure. What's worse
than an american/israeli terrorist destroyed ego?!
All info needs verification. US sources are not trustworthy including
anyone where money originates from the usual fake info instigators/
players.
POTUS is so misled by the deep state MIC /CIA/ FBI et al and their
willing fake media cohorts that he agreed to give the White Helmets
more public money for more fake movies, as has been properly proven
and widely reported.
Either they have taken control of his mind with a chip insert or
they have got his balls to the knife.
The false flags have been discredited systematically and only a
very brainwashed or a very frightened person would believe anything
from the same source until after a thorough scourge is proven successfully
undertaken.
It is evident that even the last hope department has been got at
by the money-power.
If they can do 9/11 and get away with it, as they have, then they
will stop at nothing to remain entrenched.
90% of oil is traded in U.S. dollars if that stops living standards
will drop in the U.S.. We dropped from 97% look how bad its now
with 7% imagine going down to 50% life would be unlivable
here.
...meanwhile, both according to
russia today
as well as the
(otherwise lying rag of a newspaper)
guardian
, the russian
government seems to take a different position to the views expressed
here by "a middle east expert".
russian state media is reporting that US troops are in the process
of taking control of syrian oil fields in the deir el-zour region
and have described such actions as "banditry". the crux of the matter
is this: if the US were not actually illegally taking control of Syrian
oil, then Russia would not be reporting this. Contrary to western
mainstream media, Russian sources have repeatedly shown themselves
to be factual.
Shame the "withdrawl" from Syria is tainted with "securing the oil".
US doesnt need that oil at all. So Orwellian! Unless the Kurds somehow
get rights to it.
Preventing rise of ISIS is likely to entail securing support of the region's Arabs and tribes more than that of the Kurds. This Kurd/Arab issue is yet another reason why President Trump's idea of
"securing" the oil for the benefit of the Kurds just doesn't make sense nearly on every level
.
Trump
is
securing
the
oil
not
for
the
Kurds
or
anything
in
the
middle
east-
his
doing
it
as
a response
to
the
media
backlash
he
received
when
he
announced
he's
abandoning
the
Kurds.
this is nonsense. thinking of the kurds and their interests is the absolutely last thing on trump`s mind: what counts for trump is how he is viewed by his voter base, no more, no less.
"... Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He had brought in Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him. ..."
"... Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure. ..."
"... These [neoliberal] politicians are the absolute dregs of our society. Human cesspits. They make the pirates of old look like kindergarten. And they mass murder to get the loot. ..."
"... Author does not mention approx 40 tons of gold transferred to US at night, covered lorries, darkened airfield. Coincidentally just a few hours before MH370 went missing ..."
"... Implementation of Western values and democracy cost Libia more than 134 ton of gold. Not including shares and valuable papers..How democracy working in Libya? ..."
"... Regarding the Ukraine, about 12 oligarch holding of 60% of the wealth.Today the Ukrainian oligarch have to pay USA democrats oligarch for protection. Whatever who is Ukraine President-they must to pay to USA.Ukraine today is like banana republic :Honduras or Guatemala with 60% of population living below poverty line. Just do the homework all of you readers. ..."
"... All Democrats and RINO's who are currently participating in the impeachment hoax in order to keep themselves from being indicted, prosecuted, and imprisoned for their parts in this corruption are automatically guilty of obstruction of justice, because that's exactly what they're doing. ..."
"... She was never supposed to lose. ..."
"... DNC types always show up at these poor countries to plunder them. Haiti: Clinton Foundation. Ukraine: Clinton Foundation. Ukraine: Biden Family foundation. ..."
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one.
During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised
transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine; the money was stolen,
and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit of a few corruptioners, American and
Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its dependence on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural
gas, sufficient for domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the Ukrainians got used to pay
pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine could provide all its households with free gas for
heating and cooking, just like Libya did. Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma) had very high profits and
very little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to European levels, and the new president
Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went sky-high. The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and
heating; and huge profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices, President Poroshenko
demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his projects. He said that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be
considered a partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its founder and owner Mr Nicolai
Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's
appetites. He had brought in Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney General Shokin to investigate Burisma
trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and
150 thousand dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax code; it can't
be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six hours to close the case against his son.
Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US taxpayers' funds won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner,
paid Biden well for this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars, according to different sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and installed Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko
was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma, but he also could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could
not keep his trap shut: by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself. Meanwhile Mr Shokin gave
evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and now it was confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers
in connection with another case, Firtash case.
... ... ...
This is not the only case of US-connected corruption in Ukraine. There is
Amos J. Hochstein, a protege of former VP Joe Biden, who has served
in the Barack Obama administration as the Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources. He still hangs on the Ukraine.
Together with an American citizen Andrew Favorov, the Deputy Director
of Naftogas he organised very expensive "reverse gas import" into Ukraine. In this scheme, the Russian gas is bought by
Europeans and afterwards sold to Ukraine with a wonderful margin. In reality, gas comes from Russia directly, but payments go
via Hochstein. It is much more costly than to buy directly from Russia; Ukrainian people pay, while the margin is collected
by Hochstein and Favorov. Now they plan to import liquefied gas from the United States, at even higher price. Again, the price
will be paid by the Ukrainians, while profits will go to Hochstein and Favorov.
In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the Democratic Party.
A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of Directors of Velta,
producing Ukrainian titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the
Project for the New American Century (PNAC),
pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian
ore deposits.
One of the best Ukrainian corruption stories is connected with
Audrius Butkevicius, the former Minister of Defence (1996
to 2000) and a Member of the Seimas (Parliament) of post-Soviet Lithuania. Mr AB is supposedly working for MI6, and now
is a member of the notorious Institute for Statecraft, a UK
deep state propaganda outfit involved in disinformation operations, subversion of the democratic process and promoting
Russophobia and the idea of a new cold war. In 1991 he commanded snipers that shoot Lithuanian protesters. The kills were ascribed
to the Soviet armed forces, and the last Soviet President Mr Gorbachev ordered speedy withdrawal of his troops from Lithuania.
Mr AB became the Minister of Defence of his independent nation. In 1997 the Honourable Minister of Defence "had requested 300,000
USD from a senior executive of a troubled oil company for his assistance in obtaining the discontinuance of criminal proceedings
concerning the company's vast debts", in the language of the court judgement. He was arrested on receipt of the bribe, had been
sentenced to five years of jail, but a man with such qualifications was not left to rot in a prison.
In 2005 he commanded the snipers who killed protesters in Kyrgyzstan, in Georgia he repeated the feat in 2003 during the Rose
Revolution. In 2014 he did it again in Kiev, where his snipers killed around a hundred men, protesters and police. He was brought
to Kiev by Mr Turchinov, who called himself the "acting President" and who countersigned Joe Biden's billion dollars' grant.
In October 2018 the name of Mr AB came up again. Military warehouses of Chernigov had caught fire; allegedly
thousands of shells stored for fighting the separatists had been destroyed by fire. And it was not the first fire of this kind:
the previous one, equally huge, torched Ukrainian army warehouses in Vinnitsa in 2017. Altogether, there were 12 huge army arsenal
fires for the last few years. Just for 2018, the damage was over $2 billion.
When Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine Anatoly Matios
investigated the fires, he discovered that 80% of weapons and shells in the warehouses were missing. They weren't destroyed
by fire, they weren't there in the first place. Instead of being used to kill the Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Donetsk, the
hardware had been shipped from the port of Nikolaev to Syria, to the Islamic rebels and to ISIS. And the man who organised this
enormous operation was our Mr AB, the old fighter for democracy on behalf of MI6, acting in cahoots with the Minister of Defence
Poltorak and Mr Turchinov, the friend of Mr Biden. (They say Mr Matios
was given $10 million for his silence).
The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep State, which is probably
just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and politicians.
The Plundering Of Ukraine By Corrupt American Democrats. Whats new. The plundering of Syria - the Golan. Genie oil - Every
leading democrat name is on that Shareholder's list. Plundering of Serbia. Kosovo, its Gold mines and Minerals. Speciality per
Madeleine Albright . Wesley Clark and the Clintons. Sniff around where the Libyan gold went....not Fort Knox
These [neoliberal] politicians are the absolute dregs of our society. Human cesspits. They make the pirates of old look
like kindergarten. And they mass murder to get the loot.
Author does not mention approx 40 tons of gold transferred to US at night, covered lorries, darkened airfield. Coincidentally
just a few hours before MH370 went missing .
Implementation of Western values and democracy cost Libia more than 134 ton of gold. Not including shares and valuable
papers..How democracy working in Libya?
Fantastic article. Thanks for Israel. Thanks God, whatever you believe or not, majority of the World citizens are good and
friendly. Were did not nuke each other despite 1% of our corrupted elites. They hold about 90% of media, can give Hollywood Oscar
Price or Nobel Price to my lovely dog. If I paid them.
Regarding the Ukraine, about 12 oligarch holding of 60% of the wealth.Today
the Ukrainian oligarch have to pay USA democrats oligarch for protection. Whatever who is Ukraine President-they must to pay
to USA.Ukraine today is like banana republic :Honduras or Guatemala with 60% of population living below poverty line. Just do
the homework all of you readers.
You will NOT see once micron of this on the lame stream Media.....nor out of the mouths of Dems anywhere.....THIS info if true
should ensure the Dem corrupt Party is dissolved and a new one using pro-USA model is erected.
That we have seen little of this story in the Wall Street Journal nor Fox News shows just who controls those networks for sure.....This
story MUST become a part of the Congressional record....ASAP.....and ALL these folks no matter which Party MUST be held accountable
for lost US Funds...OUR TAX DOLLARS. Imagine what could be done with 3 BILLION for OUR Vets or the homeless......yet you see little
exposure of this corruption any where in US papers or even conservative outfits...????
All Democrats and RINO's who are currently participating in the impeachment hoax in order to keep themselves from being
indicted, prosecuted, and imprisoned for their parts in this corruption are automatically guilty of obstruction of justice, because
that's exactly what they're doing.
DNC types always show up at these poor countries to plunder them. Haiti: Clinton Foundation. Ukraine: Clinton Foundation.
Ukraine: Biden Family foundation.
Corrupt American Democrats AND Corrupt American Republicans . . . who gave Standing Ovations in Washington, District of Columbia,
United States Capitol for the Murders and Burning Humans Alive. United States President Trump never received 5 minute Standing
Ovations in Washington, District of Columbia, United States Capitol by the Capitalist Political Party composed of two factions:
Corrupt American Republicans AND Corrupt American Democrats.
So Shamir says that Tsarev is claiming Daniluk is the "whistleblower"? A foreigner can be a whistleblower?
And " Daniluk was supposed to accompany President Zelensky on his visit to Washington; but he was informed that there is an
order for his arrest. He remained in Kiev." ?? An order to arrest Daniluk in Washington, is that the claim? Why and who would
arrest him in Washington?
We would all be better off, including the Ukrainians, if they had stayed with Russia, where they were.
Oct 25, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Curiously, this reticence doesn’t extend to voting on resolutions that seek to
preserve America’s military presence in the Middle East. Legislators are more interested in stopping troop withdrawals from
unauthorized conflicts than authorizing those conflicts in the first place.
Ask Congress to engage in an honest, open, and
transparent national conversation before launching the first cruise missile and they run for the hills like villagers from a
flash flood.
But ask them to spend an hour on the floor blasting the president for losing his “resolve” or upending American “leadership”
(those favorite Beltway buzzwords), and they arrive with speeches in hand. It would all be hilarious if it wasn’t so depressing.
It's way too late to be saying "the longer this continues". Undeclared wars have been
standard practice from the start. WW1 and WW2 were extremely unusual exceptions to the
normal rule.
It also begs the question who exactly is war supposed to be declared on here? Syria,
Turkey, Iran or Russia, and for what reason are they going to declare this war for?
Sorry, but the only one who's moaning here is you. While the article tells hard facts by
saying that there would be nothing to hold Trump to account for regarding foreign policy,
since he wouldn't have inherited any war, had the parliament done its job and denied Bush
II and Obama the authorization of the said wars. Now, it doesn't mean that those wars
wouldn't have happened, since the MIC, oil companies, pharmaceutical industry et al. could
have easily staged a coup to get rid of such an inconvenient parliament, but in such a case
the said (former) parliament could, at least, speak from a morally high ground. While now
their complaints sound like laments about a streak of assassinations from those who
prepared sniper nests for hitmen every single time.
The mistake the president made was to extend an olive branch to his opponents by hiring
them in the first place.
Whatever one thinks of Mr Bannon. He came out with a clear understanding . . . whatever
agenda or intent was had to reduce our use of force to regime change --
"fo ged aboud it . . . "
And while, I think he may have overstated the matter. It's clear that agenda was not
aided by those appointments to is cabinate.
Goodwill to policy goodbye.
It is farcical and painful to watch.
Note:
one aspect of my opposition to the conflict was the strategy chosen. And it that
strategy unfortunately did not include "pulling out all the stops."
BTW. the author states: "Most lawmakers accepted the administration's arguments with barely
a blink, which enabled one of the gravest U.S. foreign policy blunders (the second Iraq
War) in modern history."
Most of the Democrats were opposed, but remembering how they were raked over the coals
for opposing the first Iraq War, voted in favor of a war to cover their butts.
It doesn't matter why Team D voted the way they did - it's not like a whole hearted vote
in favor of aggressive war counts double, or the kids on the other end of the drone don't
really die if you feel sad when you push the "yes" button.
For that matter, it's not as if Team D are engaged in a wholesale mea culpa after
they claimed to have been rooked.
If our military members refuse to uphold their oath to constitution it's time to disband
the standing army as it has become nothing more than the tool of foreign occupiers who have
purchased our government. Revoke all their benifit packages, no more free college, no more
subsidized loans for housing. If these people are nothing but mercenaries then stop paying
them for violating the contract.
Money quote: “Top Dems are involved in the plundering of the Ukraine: new names, mind-boggling accounts."
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine; the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils. ..."
"... Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016; one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment, discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen. ..."
"... The money was allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk assessment, no audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a substantial package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed personally by the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive. ..."
"... Poroshenko was aware of that; he gave orders to declare Sam Kislin persona non grata. Once the old man (he is over 80) flew into Kiev airport and he was not allowed to come in; he spent the night in detention and was flown back to the US next day. Poroshenko had been totally allied with Clinton camp. ..."
"... In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the Democratic Party. A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of Directors of Velta , producing Ukrainian titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian ore deposits. ..."
"... The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep State, which is probably just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and politicians. ..."
"... The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich. ..."
"... If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War childhood out of my head long enough to laugh. ..."
A talk with Oleg Tsarev reveals the alleged identity of the "Trump/Ukraine Whistleblower"
Israel Shamir October
25, 2019 2,400 Words 6 Comments Reply
Top Dems are involved in the plundering of the Ukraine: new names, mind-boggling accounts.
The mysterious 'whistleblower' whose report had unleashed the impeachment is named in the
exclusive interview given to the Unz Review by a prominent Ukrainian politician, an
ex-Member of Parliament of four terms, a candidate for Ukraine's presidency, Oleg Tsarev.
Mr Tsarev, a tall, agile and graceful man, a good speaker and a prolific writer, had been a
leading and popular Ukrainian politician before the 2014 putsch; he stayed in the Ukraine after
President Yanukovych's flight; ran for the Presidency against Mr Poroshenko, and eventually had
to go to exile due to multiple threats to his life. During the failed attempt to secede, he was
elected the speaker of the Parliament of Novorossia (South-Eastern Ukraine). I spoke to him in
Crimea, where he lives in the pleasant seaside town of Yalta. Tsarev still has many supporters
in the Ukraine, and is a leader of the opposition to the Kiev regime.
Oleg, you followed Biden story from its very inception. Biden is not the only Dem
politician involved in the Ukrainian corruption schemes, is he?
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his
partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US
proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised transfer
of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine;
the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit of a
few corruptioners, American and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its dependence
on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural gas, sufficient for
domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the Ukrainians
got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine
could provide all its households with free gas for heating and cooking, just like Libya did.
Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma) had very high profits and very
little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to
European levels, and the new president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went sky-high.
The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and heating; and huge
profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices,
President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his projects. He said
that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be considered a partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its
founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the
company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He had brought in
Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney
General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin
immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand dollar
per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax
code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six hours
to close the case against his son. Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US taxpayers' funds
won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner, paid Biden well for
this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars, according to different
sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and installed
Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma, but he also
could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could not keep his trap shut:
by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself. Meanwhile Mr
Shokin gave evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and now it was
confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers in connection with another case, Firtash
case.
What is Firtash Case?
The Democrats wanted to get another Ukrainian oligarch, Mr Firtash, to the US and make him
to confess that he illegally supported Trump's campaign for the sake of Russia. Firtash had
been arrested in Vienna, Austria; there he fought extradition to the US. His lawyers claimed it
is purely political case, and they used Mr Shokin's deposition to substantiate their claim. For
this reason, the evidence supplied by Shokin is not easily reversible, even if Shokin were
willing, and he is not. He also stated under oath that the Democrats pressurised him to help
and extradite Firtash to the US, though he had no standing in this purely American issue. It
seems that Mrs Clinton believes that Firtash's funds helped Trump to win elections, an
extremely unlikely thing [says Mr Tsarev].
Talking about Burisma and Biden; what is this billion dollars of aid that Biden could
give or withhold?
It is USAID money, the main channel of the US aid for "support of democracy". First billion
dollars of USAID came to the Ukraine in 2014. This was authorised by Joe Biden, while for
Ukraine, the papers were signed by Mr Turchinov, the "acting President". The Ukrainian
constitution does not know of such a position, and Turchinov, "the acting President" had no
right to sign neither a legal nor financial document. Thus, all the documents that were signed
by him, in fact, had no legal force. However, Biden countersigned the papers signed by
Turchynov and allocated money for Ukraine. And the money was stolen – by the Democrats
and their Ukrainian counterparts.
Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to
investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016;
one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the
money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment,
discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen.
As a result, in October 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a criminal case for
"Abuse of power and embezzlement of American taxpayers' money". Among the accused there are two
consecutive Finance Ministers of the Ukraine, Mrs Natalie Ann Jaresko who served 2014-2016 and
Mr Alexander Daniluk who served 2016-2018, and three US banks. The investigation caused the
USAID to cease issuing grants since August 2019. As Trump said, now the US does not give away
money and does not impose democracy.
The money was allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk
assessment, no audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a
substantial package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without
documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed personally by
the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive.
Sam Kislin was involved in this investigation. He is a good friend and associate of
Giuliani, Trump's lawyer and an ex-mayor of New York. Kislin is well known in Kiev, and I have
many friends who are Sam's friends [said Tsarev]. I learned of his progress, because some of my
friends were detained in the United States, or interrogated in Ukraine. They briefed me about
this. It appears that Burisma is just the tip of the scandal, the tip of the iceberg. If Trump
will carry on, and use what was already initiated and investigated, the whole headquarters of
the Democratic party will come down. They will not be able to hold elections. I have no right
to name names, but believe me, leading functionaries of the Democratic party are involved.
Poroshenko was aware of that; he gave orders to declare Sam Kislin persona non grata. Once
the old man (he is over 80) flew into Kiev airport and he was not allowed to come in; he spent
the night in detention and was flown back to the US next day. Poroshenko had been totally
allied with Clinton camp.
And President Zelensky? Is he free from Clintonite Democrats' influence?
If he were, there would not be the scandal of Trump phone call. How the Democrats learned of
this call and its alleged content? The official version says there was a CIA man, a
whistle-blower, who reported to the Democrats. What the version does not clarify, where this
whistle-blower was located during the call. I tell you, he was located in Kiev, and he was
present at the conversation, at the Ukrainian President Zelensky's side. This man was (perhaps)
a CIA asset, but he also was a close associate of George Soros, and a Ukrainian high-ranking
official. His name is Mr Alexander Daniluk . He is also the man
the investigation of Sam Kislin and of the DoJ had led to, the Finance Minister of Ukraine at
the time, the man who was responsible for the embezzlement of three billion US taxpayer's best
dollars. The DoJ issued an order for his arrest. Naturally he is devoted to Biden personally,
and to the Dems in general. I would not trust his version of the phone call at all.
Daniluk was supposed to accompany President Zelensky on his visit to Washington; but he was
informed that there is an order for his arrest. He remained in Kiev. And soon afterwards, the
hell of the alleged leaked phone call broke out. Zelensky administration investigated and
concluded that the leak was done by Mr Alexander Daniluk, who is known for his close relations
with George Soros and with Mr Biden. Alexander Daniluk had been fired. (However, he did not
admit his guilt and said the leak was done by his sworn enemy, the head of president's
administration office, Mr Andrey Bogdan , who allegedly framed
Daniluk.)
This is not the only case of US-connected corruption in Ukraine. There is Amos J. Hochstein , a protege of former
VP Joe Biden, who has served in the Barack Obama administration as the Assistant Secretary of
State for Energy Resources. He still hangs on the Ukraine. Together with an American citizen
Andrew Favorov
, the Deputy Director of Naftogas he organised very expensive "reverse gas import" into
Ukraine. In this scheme, the Russian gas is bought by Europeans and afterwards sold to Ukraine
with a wonderful margin. In reality, gas comes from Russia directly, but payments go via
Hochstein. It is much more costly than to buy directly from Russia; Ukrainian people pay, while
the margin is collected by Hochstein and Favorov. Now they plan to import liquefied gas from
the United States, at even higher price. Again, the price will be paid by the Ukrainians, while
profits will go to Hochstein and Favorov.
In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the
Democratic Party. A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of
Directors of Velta , producing Ukrainian
titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq
war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian ore deposits.
One of the best Ukrainian corruption stories is connected with Audrius Butkevicius , the former
Minister of Defence (1996 to 2000) and a Member of the Seimas (Parliament) of post-Soviet
Lithuania. Mr AB is supposedly working for MI6, and now is a member of the notorious Institute for
Statecraft , a UK deep state propaganda outfit involved in disinformation operations,
subversion of the democratic process and promoting Russophobia and the idea of a new cold war.
In 1991 he commanded snipers that shoot Lithuanian protesters. The kills were ascribed to the
Soviet armed forces, and the last Soviet President Mr Gorbachev ordered speedy withdrawal of
his troops from Lithuania. Mr AB became the Minister of Defence of his independent nation. In
1997 the Honourable Minister of Defence "had requested 300,000 USD from a senior executive of a
troubled oil company for his assistance in obtaining the discontinuance of criminal proceedings
concerning the company's vast debts", in the language of the court judgement. He was arrested
on receipt of the bribe, had been sentenced to five years of jail, but a man with such
qualifications was not left to rot in a prison.
In 2005 he commanded the snipers who killed protesters in Kyrgyzstan, in Georgia he repeated
the feat in 2003 during the Rose Revolution. In 2014 he did it again in Kiev, where his snipers
killed around a hundred men, protesters and police. He was brought to Kiev by Mr Turchinov, who
called himself the "acting President" and who countersigned Joe Biden's billion dollars'
grant.
In October 2018 the name of Mr AB came up again. Military warehouses of Chernigov had caught
fire; allegedly thousands of shells stored for fighting the separatists had been destroyed by
fire. And it was not the first fire of this kind: the previous one, equally huge, torched
Ukrainian army warehouses in Vinnitsa in 2017. Altogether, there were 12 huge army arsenal
fires for the last few years. Just for 2018, the damage was over $2 billion.
When Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine Anatoly Matios investigated the fires, he
discovered that 80% of weapons and shells in the warehouses were missing. They weren't
destroyed by fire, they weren't there in the first place. Instead of being used to kill the
Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Donetsk, the hardware had been shipped from the port of Nikolaev
to Syria, to the Islamic rebels and to ISIS. And the man who organised this enormous operation
was our Mr AB, the old fighter for democracy on behalf of MI6, acting in cahoots with the
Minister of Defence Poltorak and Mr Turchinov, the friend of Mr
Biden. (They say Mr Matios was given $10 million for his silence).
The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep
State, which is probably just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and
politicians.
The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're
bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured
incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal
murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich. The cozy proximity of recently-murdered Epstein
himself to crypto-converso AG Barr's family only makes me more certain that they will get
away with this heist like they've done with dozens of other billion-dollar swindles.
If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same
grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty
hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine
Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War
childhood out of my head long enough to laugh.
Who will hold then responsible? The country appears to have been entirely taken over by
crookish spooks and politicians.
The US is now confirmed as a cleptocracy.
Ukraine is corrupted by outsiders (those who are not Ukrainian/Russian). In past centuries
there was a simple but effective answer to foreigners corrupting their country. The Cossacks
would sharpen up their sabres. saddle up their horses and have a slaughter. It was effective
then and would be effective today. Get rid of those who are not Slavic.
Conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch have published formerly classified
documents from the U.S. Department of Defence which reveals the agencies earlier views on
ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they
should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
Levantreport.com reports:
Astoundingly, the newly declassified report states that for "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND
TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A
DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS
IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN
REGIME ".
The DIA report, formerly classified "SECRET//NOFORN" and dated August 12, 2012, was
circulated widely among various government agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS,
NGA, State Dept., and many others.
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the
group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified
documents from the U.S. Department of Defense and the State Department.
The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit, revealed the agencies earlier views on
ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they
should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms suspicions that the United States and
some of its coalition allies had actually facilitated the rise of the ISIS in Syria –
as a counterweight to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad- but also that ISIS
members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency
at facilities in Jordan in 2012.
[MORE]
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Since publication, this story has been corrected to clarify that the fighters
trained in Jordan became members of the ISIS after their training.]
JERUSALEM – Syrian rebels who would later join the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan,
according to informed Jordanian officials.
The officials said dozens of future ISIS members were trained at the time as part of
covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in
Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future campaign in
Iraq.
The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria
were first vetted for any links to extremist groups like al-Qaida.
In February 2012, WND was first to report the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a
training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country's northern
desert region.
That report has since been corroborated by numerous other media accounts.
Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in
Jordan.
Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it
was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but
the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms. The training in Jordan reportedly focused on
use of anti-tank weaponry.
The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three
months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps
in the south and the east of Jordan.
Britain's Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding
Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.
Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on
the German magazine's report. The French foreign ministry and Britain's foreign and defense
ministries also would not comment to Reuters.
The USA is a real leader in technology and arm production. This is the country that created
PC, Internet and smartphones, which changed the world. So technical supremacy paves the way to
imperial behaviour.
CIA is one of the most powerful tools of the empire, the force that is instrumental in
peeking the USA on globalist path now (looks at Russiagate) .
The path of U.S.-Israeli arrogance and domination, with its various dimensions, and with
its direct and indirect extensions and alliances, which is witnessing military defeats and
political failures, reflected successive defeats for the American strategies and plans, one
after the other. All this has led [the U.S.] to a state of indecision, retreat, and inability
to control the progress of events in our Arab and Islamic world. There is a broader
international context for this – a context that, in its turn, helps to expose the
American crisis, and the decline of the [U.S.] unipolar hegemony, in the face of pluralism,
the characteristics of which are yet to be stabilized.
"The crisis of the arrogant world order is deepened by the collapse of U.S. and
international stock markets, and by the confusion and powerlessness of the American economy.
This reflects the height of the structural crisis of the model of capitalist arrogance.
Therefore, it can be said that we are in the midst of historic transformations that foretell
the retreat of the USA as a hegemonic power, the disintegration of the unipolar hegemonic
order, and the beginning of the accelerated historic decline of the Zionist entity.
After World War II, the U.S. has adopted the leading, central hegemonic project. At its
hands, this project has witnessed great development of the means of control and unprecedented
subjugation. It has benefited from an accumulation of multi-faceted accomplishments in
science, culture, technology, knowledge, economy, and the military, which was supported by an
economic political plan that views the world as nothing but open markets subject to the laws
of [the U.S.].
"The most dangerous aspect of Western logic of hegemony in general, and the American logic
of hegemony in particular, is their basic belief that they own the world, and have the right
to hegemony due to their supremacy in several fields. Thus, the Western, and especially
American, expansionist strategy, when coupled with the enterprise of capitalist economy, has
become a strategy of a global nature, whose covetous desires and appetite know no bounds.
The barbaric capitalism has turned globalism into a means to spread disintegration, to sow
discord, to destroy identities, and to impose the most dangerous form of cultural, economic,
and social plunder. Globalization reached its most dangerous phase, when it was transformed
into military globalization by the owners of the Western hegemony enterprise, the greatest
manifestation of which was evident in the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Iraq, to
Palestine, and to Lebanon.
There is no doubt that American terrorism is the source of all terrorism in the world. The
Bush administration has turned the U.S. into a danger threatening the whole world, on all
levels. If a global opinion poll were held today, the United States would emerge as the most
hated country in the world.
The most important goal of American arrogance is to take control of the peoples
politically, economically, and culturally, and to plunder their resources.
Hundreds of Islamic State fighters, both Syrian and foreign, were covertly evacuated by US,
UK and Kurdish forces from the besieged city of Raqqa last month and freed to "spread out far
and wide across Syria and beyond".
Although reports on the convoy surfaced at the time, BBC journalists Quentin Sommerville
and Riam Dalati have revealed the details in their documentary Raqqa's Dirty Secret.
Their investigation describes how the convoy carrying 250 fighters, 3,500 family members,
and lorry loads of arms and possessions, was arranged for October 12th by local officials in
meetings attended by a western officer.
During a visit to Syria in mid-October, The Irish Times was told not only about the
evacuation but also that senior Islamic State commanders and their families, 45 people in
all, had been airlifted out of Raqqa by a US helicopter and flown to the Kurdish region in
northern Iraq.
Fighters escaping Raqqa were said to have been given passage across the desert to join
comrades battling the Syrian army and its allies in Deir al-Zor.
Among the people the BBC team interviewed for the exposé were drivers paid by the
Islamic State to drive the buses and trucks carrying the evacuees. According to driver Abu
Fawzi, men, women and children wore suicide vests and the trucks had been booby-trapped in
case "something went wrong".
The convoy contained 50 trucks, 13 buses, and more than 100 of the fighters' own vehicles.
Although it had been agreed they would take only personal weapons, they filled 10 trucks with
arms and ammunition.
Three-day convoy
It had also been stipulated that no foreigners would leave, but drivers told the BBC that
French, Turkish, Azerbaijani, Pakistani, Yemeni, Saudi, Chinese, Tunisian and Egyptians had
joined the exodus. The only restriction observed was a ban against flags and banners.
Whenever it passed through a village or hamlet, fighters warned frightened bystanders they
would return, a villager called Muhanad told the BBC, "running a finger across their
throats".
Two Humvees led the convoy into the desert where the going was rough. Coalition aircraft
and drones hovered above, dropping flares after dark to light the way. When the motorcade
reached Islamic State-held territory, fighters and civilians departed with their arms and
possessions and drivers returned home.
The BBC investigation compelled Col Ryan Dillon, spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve,
to admit to the deal. He told the team: "We didn't want anyone to leave. But this goes to the
heart of our strategy 'by, with and through' local leaders on the ground.
His statement on foreign fighters contradicted information given to the BBC by drivers and
people along the route as well as a statement about strategy made by US defence secretary
James Mattis in May.
@wendy
davis that takes them out. However, for the oligarchs and right wing politicians of
those countries, they pay off. Lots of income from corruption, privatization, etc.
they backfire, indeed. but just now in the global IMF austerity resets, the citizenries
are raising such a ruckus against them that some oligarchical leaders are having to rescind
the 'austeries' put on them. time will tell how it plays out even for ecuador, but for now
the indigenous seem to be winning. wish i had a link at hand.
but this is the brilliant bruce cockburn's ode to the IMF ; ):
a US-made color revolution seems to be afoot in Bolivia
wendy davis on Thu, 10/24/2019 - 11:50am The pink tide needs to be stemmed for good,
as with VZ, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, and so on; nor can the sole Indigenous President (and a
peasant to boot!) on the planet be allowed to win this election. Note: this a$$hat's threats
came on Oct. 21 , with only a portion of the votes announced! Yeah, we know what the US and its
client states will do; it's all part of the CIA handbook, isn't it? Criminalize the pinko's
'regime', sanction/sanction/sanction and eventually back the West's preferred leader.
The United States threatens "serious consequences" for Bolivia's government before vote
counting has even completed, offering a deceptive and inaccurate version of events
surrounding the Bolivian election.
The " Civic Committee " of Santa Cruz issues an ultimatum to the Election Commission to open
a second round of voting, otherwise they'll " proclaim " their own president. Also order Evo
Morales and his VP to vacate the presidential palace
@ MarkWeisbrot 'The OAS
should either provide evidence in support of its statements questioning the election results,
or publicly retract these statements.'
@ AndeanInfoNet
'President Evo Morales affirms that there should be an audit of the election results to address
fraud accusations in # Bolivia 's national elections. He
asked the opposition to provide evidence of these claims.'
Presidential elections were held on Sunday, Oct. 20. Telesur english described the two
front-runner candidates on
Oct. 17, 2019 :
"A look at Bolivia's opposition candidates provide insight into that question, so too does
examining the current fates of countries like Ecuador and Argentina that threw out progressive
governments to elect neoliberals, which is what Bolivia's right-wing is offering today.
Carlos Mesa , a former head of state himself who presided during the country's neoliberal
past, invited in the United States military to establish bases in Bolivia during his term.
Carlos Mesa's previous term (2003-2005) gives some idea of what lies in store for Bolivians if
he wins. During his watch, poverty and extreme poverty was twice as high as the current rates
-- over two thirds of the population were impoverished. His presidency, which he didn't
complete, came to represent one of the moments at which the country most beholden to the U.S.
government and its institutions.
During his time in power he attempted to push through
a bill that would grant legal immunity to U.S. officials operating in Bolivia , most of
whom were overseeing coca eradication and quelling Campesino protests against the practice.
Mesa's two-year tenure saw not only 'security' affairs outsourced to the U.S., but economic
policies. International institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) directed
economic affairs, exemplified by having their
office inside the building where Bolivia's Central Bank is also housed.
In his infamous resignation speech Mesa railed against
Morales saying his proposal to nationalize natural gas was 'unviable' because the U.S. and the
World Bank "have told us so." [long snip]
"The stakes are incredibly high in this election. One only has to look to Argentina and
Ecuador to see the speed at which progressive social pacts can disintegrate. After opting for
President Mauricio Macri, Argentina is now beholden to the tune of billions of dollars in IMF
loans and all the austerity conditions attached to it. Macri and his IMF pact have produced
runaway inflation, unemployment and poverty, as well as police excessive use of force against
demonstrators who are constantly protesting the effects of the IMF measures. Ecuador, too, is
just now emerging from 12 days of massive police violence and military curfews imposed on
protesters who were forced to the streets to stand against IMF-imposed austerity after
President Lenin Moreno invited the fund back to the Andean nation after a nearly 20-year
absence. Both Macri and Moreno have used remarkably similar rhetoric being employed by the
Bolivian opposition . Both railed against the leftist governments that preceded them,
characterizing them as 'populist' and calling for a reorientation of foreign policy towards the
U.S. and it's institutions and allies.
Ecuador in particular has accelerated attacks on the progressive regional integration
championed by former Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. Barely completing half a term in power,
Moreno has already triggered the disintegration of UNASUR, the most important Latin American
forum that didn't include the U.S. Add to that the handing over of Julian Assange to British
authorities last April and establishing a U.S. military base in the Galapagos Islands, current
president Moreno, whose approval rating has sunk to 17 percent, seems determined to do away
with the progressive policies of the previous administrations, opting for austerity and U.S.
approval.
Bolivia's extraordinary achievements in lifting the regions poorest country out of
underdevelopment have been achieved only after rejecting neoliberalism and taking back control
of the country's natural resources. One study
illustrates how Bolivia would have lost US $74 billion in revenue were it not for Morales'
widespread nationalization initiatives.
"A coup is underway, carried out by the right-wing with foreign support what are the methods
of this coup attempt?"
Bolivia's leftist President Evo Morales gave a press conference early Wednesday morning in
which he warned that a right-wing coup attempt is being carried out so as to stop the full
counting of votes , and annul the result of Sunday's elections if it gives Morales a
first-round victory.
"A coup is underway, carried out by the right-wing with foreign support what are the methods
of this coup attempt? They're not recognizing or waiting for election results, they're burning
down electoral courts , they want to proclaim the second-place candidate as the winner",
Morales told journalists assembled.
Morales pointed to the fact he is in the first place and reiterated his victory. However, he
also stated that "we are just
waiting for the electoral court to report the results, I'm nearly certain that with the vote of
the rural areas that we will win in the first round, even though the preliminary results show
that we've won, but we are respectful and will wait for the official results from the electoral
court. I say to the international press, our triumphs have always been with the rural
vote."
"Anti-government right-wing protests turned violent Monday with numerous violent attacks
took place across the country as preliminary results indicated that leftist President Evo
Morales is on course for a first-round victory. Attacks included the burning down of vote
counting centers and assaulting Indigenous supporters of Morales.
The first such action was in the city of Sucre, an opposition stronghold, where rioters set
fire to the regional electoral authority . Elsewhere in the country, government buildings were
attacked in Tarija, Oruro, the campaign headquarters of Morales' party were vandalized.
In Cochabamba, where Morales is leading the vote, protesters attempted to seize control
of the Campo Ferial, which is the hall in which the votes were being counted .
The president stressed that a key tactic of the right-wing who are plotting a coup is to not
recognize the Indigenous vote, which largely favors Morales." [snip]
To defeat the coup, Morales echoed the call from social movements of the
CONALCAM who yesterday declared a state of emergency and peaceful mobilization to defend
democracy from right-wing violence."
The Guardian's spin on the protests on
Oct. 21, 2019 : Bolivia braces for fresh protests as officials say Evo Morales close to
victory; Protesters set fire to electoral offices in three cities across the country late on
Monday amid fury over allegations of vote-rigging
Supporters of the Bolivian opposition candidate Carlos Mesa of Comunidad Ciudadana party
prepare to burn ballots during a protest in La Paz, Bolivia, on Monday.
"... All that changed with the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state and with the adoption of a pro-empire, pro-intervention foreign policy. When that happened, the U.S. government assumed the duty to fix the wrongs of the world. ..."
"... That's when U.S. officials began thinking in terms of empire and using empire-speak. Foreign regimes became "allies," "partners," and "friends." Others became "opponents," "rivals," or "enemies." Events thousands of miles away became threats to "national security." ..."
"... The results of U.S. imperialism and interventionism have always been perverse, not only for foreigners but also for Americans. That's how Americans have ended up with out-of-control federal spending and debt that have left much of the middle class high and dry, unable to support themselves in their senior years, unable to save a nest egg for financial emergencies, and living paycheck to paycheck. Empire and interventionism do not come cheap. ..."
"... There is but one solution to all this chaos and mayhem -- the dismantling, not the reform, of the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, the vast empire of foreign and domestic military bases, and the NSA, along with an immediate end to all foreign interventionism. A free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society necessarily entails the restoration of a limited-government republic and a non-interventionist foreign policy to our land. ..."
The chaos arising from U.S. interventionism in Syria provides an excellent opportunity to explore the interventionist mind.
Consider the terminology being employed by interventionists: President Trump's actions in Syria have left a "power vacuum," one
that Russia and Iran are now filling. The United States will no longer have "influence" in the region. "Allies" will no longer be
able to trust the U.S. to come to their assistance. Trump's actions have threatened "national security." It is now possible that
ISIS will reformulate and threaten to take over lands and even regimes in the Middle East.
This verbiage is classic empire-speak. It is the language of the interventionist and the imperialist.
Amidst all the interventionist chaos in the Middle East, it is important to keep in mind one critically important fact: None of
it will mean a violent takeover of the U.S. government or an invasion and conquest of the United States. The federal government will
go on. American life will go on. There will be no army of Muslims, terrorists, Syrians, ISISians, Russians, Chinese, drug dealers,
or illegal immigrants coming to get us and take over the reins of the IRS.
Why is that an important point? Because it shows that no matter what happens in Syria or the rest of the Middle East, life will
continue here in the United States. Even if Russia gets to continue controlling Syria, that's not going to result in a conquest of
the United States. The same holds true if ISIS, say, takes over Iraq. Or if Turkey ends up killing lots of Kurds. Or if Syria ends
up protecting the Kurds. Or if Iran continues to be controlled by a theocratic state. Or if the Russians retake control over Ukraine.
It was no different than when North Vietnam ended up winning the Vietnamese civil war. The dominoes did not fall onto the United
States and make America Red. It also makes no difference if Egypt continues to be controlled by a brutal military dictatorship. Or
that Cuba, North Korea, and China are controlled by communist regimes. Or that Russia is controlled by an authoritarian regime. Or
that Myanmar (Burma) is controlled by a totalitarian military regime. America and the federal government will continue standing.
America was founded as a limited government republic, one that did not send its military forces around the world to slay monsters.
That's not to say that bad things didn't happen around the world. Bad things have always happened around the world. Dictatorships.
Famines. Wars. Civil wars. Revolutions. Empires. Torture. Extra-judicial executions. Tyranny. Oppression. The policy of the United
States was that it would not go abroad to fix or clear up those types of things.
All that changed with the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state and with the adoption of a pro-empire,
pro-intervention foreign policy. When that happened, the U.S. government assumed the duty to fix the wrongs of the world.
That's when U.S. officials began thinking in terms of empire and using empire-speak. Foreign regimes became "allies," "partners,"
and "friends." Others became "opponents," "rivals," or "enemies." Events thousands of miles away became threats to "national security."
That's when U.S. forces began invading and occupying other countries, waging wars of aggression against them, intervening in foreign
wars, revolutions, and civil wars, initiating coups, destroying democratic regimes, establishing an empire of domestic and foreign
military bases, and bombing, shooting, killing, assassinating, spying on, maiming, torturing, kidnapping, injuring, and destroying
people in countries all over the world.
The results of U.S. imperialism and interventionism have always been perverse, not only for foreigners but also for Americans.
That's how Americans have ended up with out-of-control federal spending and debt that have left much of the middle class high and
dry, unable to support themselves in their senior years, unable to save a nest egg for financial emergencies, and living paycheck
to paycheck. Empire and interventionism do not come cheap.
The shift toward empire and interventionism has brought about the destruction of American liberty and privacy here at home. That's
what the assassinations, secret surveillance, torture, and indefinite detentions of American citizens are all about -- to supposedly
protect us from the dangers produced by U.S. imperialism and interventionism abroad. One might call it waging perpetual war for freedom
and peace, both here and abroad.
There is but one solution to all this chaos and mayhem -- the dismantling, not the reform, of the Pentagon, the military-industrial
complex, the vast empire of foreign and domestic military bases, and the NSA, along with an immediate end to all foreign interventionism.
A free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society necessarily entails the restoration of a limited-government republic and a non-interventionist
foreign policy to our land.
"... Whilst the are absorbing that part of their country the battle of Iblib will restart. After that they can move their attention south and southeast, al-Tanf and the oilfields. I can't see how the US will be able to stop them but at least they will have time to plan their exit. ..."
"... At the moment the Syrian Government has enough oil, it is getting it from Iran via a steady stream of SUEZMAX tankers. The cost, either in terms of money or quid pro quo, is unknown. ..."
"... For those who have wondered as to why the DC FedRegime would fight over the tiny relative-to-FUKUS's-needs amount of oil in the Syrian oilfields. It is clearly to keep the SAR hobbled, crippled and too impoverished to retake all its territory or even to restore social, civic and economic functionality to the parts it retains. FUKUS is still committed to the policy of FUKUSing Syria. ..."
"... This President appears at times to recognize the reality of nation states and the meaning of national sovereignty. He needs to understand that on principle, not merely on gut instinct. President Trump's press conference today focused in one section on a simple fact -- saving the lives of Americans. Gen. Jack Keane, Sen. Lindsay Graham, and other gamers who think they are running an imperial chessboard where they can use living soldiers as American pawns, are a menace. Thanks Col. Lang for calling out these lunatics. ..."
"... During the 2016 election, Jack Keane and John Bolton were the two people Trump mentioned when asked who he listens to on foreign affairs/military policy. ..."
"... The crumbling apart is apparent. I don't know in what delusional world can conceive that 200 soldiers in the middle of the desert can deny Syria possession of their oil fields or keep the road between Bagdad and Damascus cut. All the West's Decision Makers can do is threaten to blow up the world. ..."
"... Corporate Overlords imposed austerity, outsourced industry and cut taxes to get richer, but the one thing for certain is that they can't keep their wealth without laws, the police and the military to protect them. ..."
"... Latin America is burning too - although the elites here have plundered and imposed structural plunder for too long. No matter where you are it .. Chile poster of the right, or Ecuador, Peru, etc ..."
"... Did you notice the Middle East Monitor article on October 21 reporting that the UAE has released to Iran $700 million in previously frozen funds? ..."
"... Yet in early September, Sigal Mandelker, a senior US Treasury official, was in the UAE pressing CEOs there to tighten the financial screws on Iran. The visit was deemed a success. During this visit she was quoted as saying that the Treasury has issued over 30 rounds of curbs targeting Iran-related entities. That would include targeting shipping companies and banks. ..."
"... It depends on who will be the democratic ticket .. will it mobilize the basis? I think the compromise candidate is Warren, but she looks to me a lot like John Kerry, Al Gore.. representing the professional, college educated segment of society, and that doesn't cut it. ..."
"... Trump is far from consistent. This is the man who attacked Syria twice on the basis of lies so transparent that my youngest housecat would have seen through them, and who tried and failed to leave Syria twice, then said he was "100%" for the continued occupation of Syria. ..."
"... He could have given the order to leave Syria this month, but Trump did not. Instead, he simply ordered withdrawal to a smaller zone of occupation, and that under duress. ..."
"... The Great Trumpian Mystery. I don't pretend to understand but I'm intrigued by his inconsistent inconsistencies. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/03/17/trump-mysteries-inconsistent-inconsistencies/ ..."
"... It probably should come as no surprise to us that Trump is having small, but not no, success in getting the ship to alter course - too many deeply entrenched interests with no incentive to recognize their failures and every incentive to stay the course by removing, or at least handicapping the President who was elected on a platform of change. ..."
"... Whether the country elected the right man for the job remains to be seen. At times he appears to be his own worst enemy and his appointments are frequently topsy-- turvy to the platform he ran on but he does have his moments of success. He called off the dumb plan to go to war with Iran, albeit at 20 minutes to mid night and he is trying hard against the full might of the Borg to withdraw from Syria in accord with our actual interests. Trumps, alas, assumed office with no political friends, only enemies with varying degrees of Trump hate depending on how they define their political interests. ..."
"... Keane manipulated Trump by aggravating his animosity towards Iran, more specifically, his animosity towards Obama's JCPOA. I doubt Trump can see beyond his personal animus towards Obama and his legacy. He doesn't care about Iran, the Shia Crescent, the oil or even the jihadis any more than he cares about ditching the Kurds. This administration doesn't need a national security advisor, it needs a psychiatrist. ..."
"... IMO Trump cares about what Sheldon Adelson wants and Adelson wants to destroy Iran: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sCW4IasWXc Note the audience applause ..."
"... The difference between the reality that we perceive and the way it is portrayed in the media is so stark that sometimes I am not sure whether it is me who is insane or the world - the MSM and the cool-aid drinking libtards whose animosity against Trump won't let them distinguish black from white. Not that they were ever able to understand the real state of affairs. Discussions with them have always been about them regurgitating the MSM talking points without understanding any of it. ..."
"... "This administration doesn't need a national security advisor, it needs a psychiatrist." I think TTG speaks the truth. ..."
"... On Monday, 21 October, president Trump "authorized $4.5 million in direct support to the Syria Civil Defense (SCD)", a/k/a the White Helmets, who have been discussed here on SST before-- https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-89/ ..."
"... TTG IMO you and the other NEVER Trumpers are confused about the presence in both the permanent and appointed government of people who while they are not loyal to him nevertheless covet access to power. A lot of neocons and Zionists are among them. ..."
"... ANDREW BACEVICH: First of all, I think we should avoid taking anything that he says at any particular moment too seriously. Clearly, he is all over the map on almost any issue that you can name. I found his comment about taking the oil in that part of Syria, as if we are going to decide how to dispose of it, to be striking. And yet of course it sort of harkens back to his campaign statement about the Iraq war, that we ought to have taken Iraq's oil is a way of paying for that war. So I just caution against taking anything he says that seriously. ..."
"... That said, clearly a recurring theme to which he returns over and over and over again, is his determination to end what he calls endless wars. He clearly has no particular strategy or plan for how to do that, but he does seem to be insistent on pursuing that objective. And here I think we begin to get to the real significance of the controversy over Syria in our abandonment of the Kurds ..."
"... the controversy has gotten as big as it is in part because members of the foreign policy establishment in both parties are concerned about what an effort to end endless wars would mean for the larger architecture of U.S. national security policy, which has been based on keeping U.S. troops in hundreds of bases around the world, maintaining the huge military budget, a pattern of interventionism. Trump seems to think that that has been a mistake, particularly in the Middle East. I happen to agree with that critique. And I think that it is a fear that he could somehow engineer a fundamental change in U.S. policy is what really has the foreign policy establishment nervous. ..."
"... we created the problems that exist today through our reckless use of American military power. ..."
"... He let them roll him, just like Obama and so many others. Just a different set of rollers. ..."
"Joltin" Jack Keane, General (ret.), Fox Business Senior Strategery Analyst, Chairman of the
Board of the Kagan run neocon "Institute for the Study of War" (ISW) and Graduate
Extraordinaire of Fordham University, was on with Lou Dobbs last night. Dobbs appears to have
developed a deep suspicion of this paladin. He stood up to Keane remarkably well. This was
refreshing in light of the fawning deference paid to Keane by all the rest of the Fox crew.
In the course of this dialogue Keane let slip the slightly disguised truth that he and the
other warmongers want to keep something like 200 US soldiers and airmen in Syria east of the
Euphrates so that they can keep Iran or any other "Iranian proxy forces" from crossing the
Euphrates from SAG controlled territory to take control of Syrian sovereign territory and the
oil and gas deposits that are rightly the property of the Syrian people and their government
owned oil company. The map above shows how many of these resources are east of the Euphrates.
Pilgrims! It is not a lot of oil and gas judged by global needs and markets, but to Syria and
its prospects for reconstruction it is a hell of a lot!
Keane was clear that what he means by "Iranian proxy forces" is the Syrian Arab Army, the
national army of that country. If they dare cross the river, to rest in the shade of their own
palm trees, then in his opinion the air forces of FUKUS should attack them and any 3rd party
air forces (Russia) who support them
This morning, on said Fox Business News with Charles Payne, Keane was even clearer and
stated specifically that if "Syria" tries to cross the river they must be fought.
IMO he and Lindsey Graham are raving lunatics brainwashed for years with the Iran obsession
and they are a danger to us all. pl
If only General Keane was as willing to defend America and America's oil on the Texas-Mexico
border. Or hasn't anyone noticed that Mexico just a lost a battle with the Sinaloa drug
cartel?
I view them as selling their Soul for a dollar. Keane comes across as dense enough to believe
his bile but Graham comes across as an opportunist without any real ideology except power.
Its probably one step at a time for the Syrians, although the sudden move over the past
couple of weeks must have been a bit of a God given opportunity for them.
Whilst the are absorbing that part of their country the battle of Iblib will restart.
After that they can move their attention south and southeast, al-Tanf and the oilfields. I
can't see how the US will be able to stop them but at least they will have time to plan their
exit.
As I posted in the other thread, the Syrian Government is the only real customer for their
oil and the Kurds already have a profit share agreement in place, so the US, if they allow
any oil out, will effectively be protecting the fields on behalf of Assad. Surely not what
Congress wants?
At the moment the Syrian Government has enough oil, it is getting it from Iran via a
steady stream of SUEZMAX tankers. The cost, either in terms of money or quid pro quo, is
unknown.
I think this might be President Putin's next problem to solve. As far as I know, there is no
legal reason for us to be there, not humanitarian, not strategic not even tactical. We simply
are playing dog-in-the-manger.
My guess is that we will receive an offer to good to refuse from Putin.
For those who have wondered as to why the DC FedRegime would fight over the tiny
relative-to-FUKUS's-needs amount of oil in the Syrian oilfields. It is clearly to keep the
SAR hobbled, crippled and too impoverished to retake all its territory or even to restore
social, civic and economic functionality to the parts it retains. FUKUS is still committed to
the policy of FUKUSing Syria.
Why is the Champs Elise' Regime still committed to putting the F in UKUS?
(I can understand why UKUS would want to keep France involved. Without France, certain nasty
people might re-brand UKUS as USUK. And that would be very not nice.)
Because France wants to be on the good side of the United States, and as you indicate, the
United States is in Syria to turn that country into a failed state and for no other reason.
A good antidote for Joltin' Jack Keane's madness would be for Lou Dobbs and other mainstream
media (MSM) to have Col Pat Lang as the commentator for analysis of the Syrian situation.
Readers of this blog are undoubtedly aware that Col. Lang's knowledge of the peoples of the
region and their customs is a national treasure.
This President appears at times to recognize the reality of nation states and the meaning
of national sovereignty. He needs to understand that on principle, not merely on gut
instinct. President Trump's press conference today focused in one section on a simple fact --
saving the lives of Americans. Gen. Jack Keane,
Sen. Lindsay Graham, and other gamers who think they are running an imperial chessboard where
they can use living soldiers as American pawns, are a menace. Thanks Col. Lang for calling out these lunatics.
In WWI millions of soldiers died fighting for imperial designs. They did not know it. They
thought they were fighting for democracy, or to stop the spread of evil, or save their
country. They were not. Secret treaties signed before the war started stated explicitly what
the war was about.
Now "representatives" of the military, up to and including the Commander in Chief say it's
about conquest, oil. The cards of the elite are on the table. How do you account for this?
During the 2016 election, Jack Keane and John Bolton were the two people Trump mentioned when
asked who he listens to on foreign affairs/military policy.
The crumbling apart is apparent. I don't know in what delusional world can conceive that
200 soldiers in the middle of the desert can deny Syria possession of their oil fields or
keep the road between Bagdad and Damascus cut. All the West's Decision Makers can do is
threaten to blow up the world.
Justin Trudeau was elected Monday in Canada with a minority in Parliament joining the
United Kingdom and Israel with governments without a majority's mandate. Donald Trump's
impeachment escalates. MbS is nearing a meat hook in Saudi Arabia. This is not a coincidence.
The Elites' flushing government down the drain succeeded.
Corporate Overlords imposed austerity, outsourced industry and cut taxes to get richer,
but the one thing for certain is that they can't keep their wealth without laws, the police
and the military to protect them. Already California electricity is being cut off for a
second time due to wildfires and PG&E's corporate looting. The Sinaloa shootout reminds
me of the firefight in the first season of "True Detectives" when the outgunned LA cops tried
to go after the Cartel. The writing is on the wall, California is next. Who will the lawmen
serve and protect? Their people or the rich? Without the law, justice and order, there is
chaos.
Latin America is burning too - although the elites here have plundered and imposed structural
plunder for too long. No matter where you are it .. Chile poster of the right, or Ecuador,
Peru, etc
No doubt that Keane and his ilk want endless war and view Trump as a growing obstacle. Trump
is consistent: He wanted out of JCPOA, and after being stalled by his national security
advisors, he finally reached the boiling point and left. The advisors who counseled against
this are all gone. With Pompeo, Enders and O'Brien as the new key security advisors, I doubt
Trump got as much push back. He wanted out of Syria in December 2018 and was slow-walked.
Didn't anyone think he'd come back at some point and revive the order to pull out? The talk
with Erdogan, the continuing Trump view that Russia, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia
should bear the burden of sorting out what is left of the Syria war, so long as ISIS does not
see a revival, all have been clear for a long time.
My concern is with Lindsey Graham, who is smarter and nastier than Jack Keane. He is also
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and may hold some blackmail leverage over the
President. If the House votes up impeachment articles, Graham will be overseeing the Senate
trial. A break from Trump by Graham could lead to a GOP Senate stampede for conviction. No
one will say this openly, as I am, but it cannot be ignored as a factor for "controlling"
Trump and keeping as much of the permanent war machine running as possible.
Trump has committed the United States to a long war against the Shia Crescent. He has ceded
to Turkey on Syrian Kurds, but has continued with his operations against SAR. US needs
Turkey, Erdogan knows that. Likewise in regards to Russia, EU, and Iran. Turkey, as is said
in Persian, has grown a tail.
Did you notice the Middle East Monitor article on October 21 reporting that the UAE has
released to Iran $700 million in previously frozen funds?
Yet in early September, Sigal Mandelker, a senior US Treasury official, was in the UAE
pressing CEOs there to tighten the financial screws on Iran. The visit was deemed a success.
During this visit she was quoted as saying that the Treasury has issued over 30 rounds of
curbs targeting Iran-related entities. That would include targeting shipping companies and
banks.
It was also reported in September that in Dubai that recent US Treasury sanctions were
beginning to have a devastating effect. Iranian businessmen were being squeezed out. Even
leaving the Emirates. Yet only a few days ago--a month later-- there are now reports that
Iranian exchange bureaus have suddenly reopened in Dubai after a long period of closure.
Also, billions of dollars in contracts were signed between Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE
during Putin's recent visit to the region. It seems to me that this is real news. Something
big seems to be happening. It looks to me as if there could be a serious confrontation
between the Trump administration and MBZ in the offing.
Do you have an opinion on the Iranian situation in Dubai at the moment?
I have my doubt that Sen. Graham will lead any revolt, but if it starts to look like Trump
will lose big next year, there will be a stampede looking like the Nile getting through a
cataract.
They will not want to go down the tube with Trump. I still maintain that there is a good
reason for him to resign before he loses an election or an impeachment. It will come down to
the price.
Lose big to whom in the next election? Biden got 300 people to show up for his rally in his hometown of Scranton and he is
supposedly the front runner. Bernie got 20,000 to show up at his rally in NY when he was
endorsed by The Squad and Michael Moore. Do you think the Dem establishment will allow him to
be the nominee?
Trump in contrast routinely can fill up stadiums with 30,000 people. That was the
indicator in the last election, not the polls. Recall the NY Times forecasting Hillary with a
95% probability of winning the day before the election.
As Rep. Al Green noted , the only way the Democrats can stop him is for the Senate to
convict him in an impeachment trial. Who do you believe are the 20 Republican senators that
will vote to convict?
Trump barely won the last time and while he currently has wide support in the GOP, it is not
nearly as deep as his cultists believe. When half the country, and growing, want him removed,
there is trouble ahead. Republicans are largely herd animals and if spooked, will create a
stampede.
You can tell that there are problems when his congressional enablers are not defending him
on facts and just using gripes about processes that they themselves have used in the past. In
addition to circus acts.
I realize that many do not want to admit that they made a mistake by voting for him. I am
not so sure they want to repeat that mistake.
It depends on who will be the democratic ticket .. will it mobilize the basis? I think the
compromise candidate is Warren, but she looks to me a lot like John Kerry, Al Gore..
representing the professional, college educated segment of society, and that doesn't cut it.
It's not a question if he barely won. The fact is he competed with many other Republican
candidates including governors and senators and even one with the name Bush. He was 1% in the
polls in the summer of 2016 and went on to win the Republican nomination despite the intense
opposition of the Republican establishment. He then goes on to win the general election
defeating a well funded Hillary with all her credentials and the full backing of the vast
majority of the media. That is an amazing achievement for someone running for public office
for the first time. Like him or hate him, you have to give credit where it's due. Winning an
election for the presidency is no small feat.
There only two ways to defeat him. First, the Senate convicts him in an impeachment trial
which will require at least 20 Republican senators. Who are they? Second, a Democrat in the
general election. Who? I can see Bernie with a possibility since he has enthusiastic
supporters. But will the Democrat establishment allow him to win the nomination?
We're no longer having to listen to Yosemite Sam Bolton. His BFF Graham is left to fight on
his own. I don't think Trump feels the need to pay that much attention to Graham. He didn't
worry about him during the primary when Graham always seemed to be on the verge of crying
when he was asked questions.
Trump is far from consistent. This is the man who attacked Syria twice on the basis of lies
so transparent that my youngest housecat would have seen through them, and who tried and
failed to leave Syria twice, then said he was "100%" for the continued occupation of Syria.
He could have given the order to leave Syria this month, but Trump did not. Instead, he
simply ordered withdrawal to a smaller zone of occupation, and that under duress.
What the Colonel calls the Borg is akin to an aircraft carrier that has been steaming at near
flank speed for many years too long, gathering mass and momentum since the end of Cold War I.
With the exception of Gulf War I, none of our interventions have gone well, and even the
putative peace at the end of GUlf War I wasn't managed well because it eventuated in Gulf War
Ii which has been worst than a disaster because the disaster taught the Borg nothing and
became midwife to additional disasters.
It probably should come as no surprise to us that
Trump is having small, but not no, success in getting the ship to alter course - too many
deeply entrenched interests with no incentive to recognize their failures and every incentive
to stay the course by removing, or at least handicapping the President who was elected on a
platform of change.
Whether the country elected the right man for the job remains to be seen.
At times he appears to be his own worst enemy and his appointments are frequently topsy--
turvy to the platform he ran on but he does have his moments of success. He called off the
dumb plan to go to war with Iran, albeit at 20 minutes to mid night and he is trying hard
against the full might of the Borg to withdraw from Syria in accord with our actual
interests. Trumps, alas, assumed office with no political friends, only enemies with varying
degrees of Trump hate depending on how they define their political interests.
With that said, I doubt very much whether the Republicans in the Senate will abandon Trump in
an impeachment trial. Trump's argument that the process is a political coup is arguably
completely true, or certainly true enough that his political base in the electorate will not
tolerate his abandonment by Republican politicians inside the Beltway. I think there is even
some chance that Trump, were he to be removed from office by what could be credibly portrayed
as a political coup, would consider running in 2020 as an independent. The damage that would
cause to the Republican Party would be severe, pervasive, and possibly fatal to the Party as
such. I doubt Beltway pols would be willing to take that chance.
I don't think Keane or Trump are focused on the oil. Keane just used that as a lens to focus
Trump on Iran. That's the true sickness. Keane manipulated Trump by aggravating his animosity
towards Iran, more specifically, his animosity towards Obama's JCPOA. I doubt Trump can see
beyond his personal animus towards Obama and his legacy. He doesn't care about Iran, the Shia
Crescent, the oil or even the jihadis any more than he cares about ditching the Kurds. This
administration doesn't need a national security advisor, it needs a psychiatrist.
And in response, Russia killed and captured hundreds of US Special forces and PMC's alongside
SAS in East Ghouta . It is said that the abrupt russian op on East Ghouta was a response to
the Battle of Khasham.
The difference between the reality that we perceive and the way it is portrayed in the media
is so stark that sometimes I am not sure whether it is me who is insane or the world - the
MSM and the cool-aid drinking libtards whose animosity against Trump won't let them
distinguish black from white. Not that they were ever able to understand the real state of
affairs. Discussions with them have always been about them regurgitating the MSM talking
points without understanding any of it.
While it will always be mystifying to me why so many people on the street blindly support
America fighting and dying in the middle east, the support of the MSM and the paid hacks for
eternal war is no surprise. I hope they get to send their children and grandchildren to these
wars. More than that, I hope we get out of these wars. Trump might be able to put an end to
it, and not just in Syria, if he wins a second term, which he will if he is allowed to
contest the next election. There is however a chance that the borg will pull the rug from
under him and bar him from the elections. Hope that doesn't come to pass.
No, they just have to sit there and be an excuse to fly Coalition CAPs that would effectively
prevent SAA from crossing the Euphrates in strength. Feasible until the SAA finishes with
Idlib and moves some of its new Russian anti-aircraft toys down to Deir Ezzor.
TTG IMO you and the other NEVER Trumpers are confused about the presence in both the
permanent and appointed government of people who while they are not loyal to him nevertheless
covet access to power. A lot of neocons and Zionists are among them.
Colonel Lang, I am well aware of the power seekers who gravitate towards Trump or whoever
holds power not out of loyalty, but because they covet access to power. The neocons and
Zionists flock to Trump because they can manipulate him to do their bidding. That fact
certainly doesn't make me feel any better about Trump as President. The man needs help.
you are an experienced clan case officer. You do not know that most people are more than a
little mad? Hillary is more than a little nuts. Obama was so desperately neurotically in need
of White approval that he let the WP COIN generals talk him into a COIN war in Afghanistan. I
was part of that discussion. All that mattered to him was their approval. FDR could not be
trusted with SIGINT product and so Marshall never gave him any, etc., George Bush 41 told me
that he deliberately mis-pronounced Saddam's name to hurt his feelings. Georgie Junior let
the lunatic neocons invade a country that had not attacked us. Trump is no worse than many of
our politicians, or politicians anywhere. Britain? The Brexit disaster speaks for itself, And
then there is the British monarchy in which a princeling devastated by the sure DNA proof
that he is illegitimate is acting like a fool. The list is endless.
CK, the people surrounding Trump are largely appointees. Keane doesn't have to be let into
the WH. His problem is that those who would appeal to his non-neocon tendencies are not
people he wants to have around him. Gabbard, for instance, would be perfect for helping Trump
get ourselves out of the ME, is a progressive. Non-interventionists are hard to come by.
Those who he does surround himself with are using him for their own ideologies, mostly neocon
and Zionist.
Bacevich interview:
> Andrew Bacevich, can you respond to President Trump pulling the U.S. troops away from
this area of northern Syria, though saying he will keep them to guard oil fields?
> ANDREW BACEVICH: First of all, I think we should avoid taking anything that he says at
any particular moment too seriously. Clearly, he is all over the map on almost any issue that
you can name. I found his comment about taking the oil in that part of Syria, as if we are
going to decide how to dispose of it, to be striking. And yet of course it sort of harkens
back to his campaign statement about the Iraq war, that we ought to have taken Iraq's oil is
a way of paying for that war. So I just caution against taking anything he says that
seriously.
> That said, clearly a recurring theme to which he returns over and over and over again,
is his determination to end what he calls endless wars. He clearly has no particular strategy
or plan for how to do that, but he does seem to be insistent on pursuing that objective. And
here I think we begin to get to the real significance of the controversy over Syria in our
abandonment of the Kurds.
> Let's stipulate. U.S. abandonment of the Kurds was wrong, it was callous, it was
immoral. It was not the first betrayal by the United States in our history, but the fact that
there were others certainly doesn't excuse this one. But apart from those concerned about the
humanitarian aspect of this crisis -- and not for a second do I question the sincerity of
people who are worried about the Kurds -- it seems to me that the controversy has gotten as
big as it is in part because members of the foreign policy establishment in both parties are
concerned about what an effort to end endless wars would mean for the larger architecture of
U.S. national security policy, which has been based on keeping U.S. troops in hundreds of
bases around the world, maintaining the huge military budget, a pattern of interventionism.
Trump seems to think that that has been a mistake, particularly in the Middle East. I happen
to agree with that critique. And I think that it is a fear that he could somehow engineer a
fundamental change in U.S. policy is what really has the foreign policy establishment
nervous.
> NERMEEN SHAIKH: As you mentioned, Professor Bacevich, Trump has come under bipartisan
criticism for this decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria. Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell was one of the many Republicans to criticize Trump for his decision. In an
opinion piece in The Washington Post McConnell writes, quote, "We saw humanitarian disaster
and a terrorist free-for-all after we abandoned Afghanistan in the 1990s, laying the
groundwork for 9/11. We saw the Islamic State flourish in Iraq after President Barack Obama's
retreat. We will see these things anew in Syria and Afghanistan if we abandon our partners
and retreat from these conflicts before they are won." He also writes, quote, "As
neo-isolationism rears its head on both the left and the right, we can expect to hear more
talk of 'endless wars.' But rhetoric cannot change the fact that wars do not just end; wars
are won or lost." So Professor Bacevich, could you respond to that, and how accurate you
think an assessment of that is? Both what he says about Afghanistan and what is likely to
happen now with U.S. withdrawal.
> ANDREW BACEVICH: I think in any discussion of our wars, ongoing wars, it is important to
set them in some broader historical context than Senator McConnell will probably entertain. I
mean, to a very great extent -- not entirely, but to a very great extent -- we created the
problems that exist today through our reckless use of American military power.
> People like McConnell, and I think other members of the political establishment, even
members of the mainstream media -- _The New York Times_, The Washington Post -- have yet to
reckon with the catastrophic consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq back in 2003. And if
you focus your attention at that start point -- you could choose another start point, but if
you focus your attention at that start point, then it seems to me that leads you to a
different conclusion about the crisis that we are dealing with right now. That is to say,
people like McConnell want to stay the course. They want to maintain the U.S. presence in
Syria. U.S. military presence. But if we look at what the U.S. military presence in that
region, not simply Syria, has produced over the course of almost two decades, then you have
to ask yourself, how is it that we think that simply staying the course is going to produce
any more positive results?
> It is appalling what Turkey has done to Syrian Kurds and the casualties they have
inflicted and the number of people that have been displaced. But guess what? The casualties
that we inflicted and the number of people that we displaced far outnumbers what Turkey has
done over the last week or so. So I think that we need to push back against this tendency to
oversimplify the circumstance, because oversimplifying the circumstance doesn't help us fully
appreciate the causes of this mess that we're in.
In addition to oil from Iran, Assad also gets oil from the SDF and the Kurds. Supposedly a
profit sharing arrangement as commented on by JohninMK in a previous post.
This oil sharing deal was also mentioned by Global Research and Southfront back in June of
2018:
Colonel Lang, the only way to "overthrow" Trump is through impeachment in the House and
conviction in the Senate. That is a Constitutional process, not a coup. The process is
intentionally difficult. Was the impeachment of Clinton an attempted coup?
In the first place isn't the dissolution of Ukraine and Syria and Iraq and Libya and Yemen
exactly what we have wished to achieve, and wouldn't an intelligent observer, such as
Vladimir Putin, want to do exactly the same thing to us, and hasn't he come very close to
witnessing the achievement of this aim whether he is personally involved or not? What goes
around comes around?
But that is relatively unimportant compared to the question whether dissolution of the
Union is a bad thing or a good thing. Preserving it cost 600,000 lives the first time. One
additional life would be one additional life too many. Ukraine is an excellent example.
Western Ukraine has a long history support for Nazi's. Eastern Ukraine is Russian. Must a war
be fought to bring them together? Or should they be permitted to go their separate ways?
As Hector said of Helen of Troy, "She is not worth what she doth cost the keeping."
After hanging up from a call to Putin, thanking him for Russia's help with the Turks, YPG
leader Mazloum Kobane returned to the Senate hearings in which he alternately reminded his
flecless American allies of their failure, not only to protect Rojava from the Turks, but
didn't even give them a heads up about what was about to happen and begged an already angry
[at Trump] Senate about their urgent need for a continued American presence in the territory.
It seems that some in the USG do not understand that all the land on the east bank of the
Euphrates is "Rojava" or somehow is the mandate of the Kurds to continue to control. For a
long time, now, the mainly Arab population of that region have been chafing under what is
actually Kurdish rule. This could be a a trigger for ISIS or some other jihadis to launch
another insurgency, or at the least, low level attacks, especially in Rojava to the
north.
To remind, the USG is not using military personnel, but also contracts, about 200 troops in
one field and 400 contractors in the other.
There is video of the SAA escorting the Americans to the Iraqi border. PM Abdel Hadi has
reiterated that the US cannot keep these troops in Iraq, as they go beyond the agreed upon
number. It is quite likely that the anti-Iranian aspect of the border region is NOT something
they wish to see.
"Iranian proxies" refers to Hezbollah, the various Shia militia groups from Pakistan and
Afghanistan, and of course, others, not the SAA.
"... The argument the Bolivian right-wing is using is exactly the same the Brazilian one used after the 2014 results: election fraud. The vice-president of the Bolivian Supreme Electoral Court has already renounced in protest after the institution caved in to the pressure and suspended the publication of the results: ..."
"... Evo Morales is much more fragile than Nicolás Maduro -- even though Bolivia's economy has been much better. The key here is that, in Latin America, every period of economic growth is destined to be followed by a period of economic crisis because it's impelled to follow the neoliberal model of development by the USA. The left-wing presidents are then forced to overcome this through straight up government spending in order to at least alleviate extreme poverty that ravages the subcontinent. ..."
"... But the hardest challenge for the socialists in Latin America are its armed forces: after the 1950s, they were turned into American subsidiaries, each one with a military doctrine that focuses on fighting the "internal enemy" (i.e. the socialists). No Latin American military is able to fight a single conventional war, they are essentially glorified militarized police forces. Maduro has the FANB; Morales doesn't have the Bolivian Armed Forces on his side. ..."
"... Meanwhile, neoliberalism rots. Bolsonaro already know his fate: ..."
"... It must be hard to realize, after years of hallucination and messianic complex, that you were just a disposable puppet of the Americans. ..."
"... A Brazilian prefers to suffer in silence than having to risk his life for a greater cause and, since the 1960s, has an inexplicable fascination with the USA and everything American (Bolsonaro ran his campaign openly as the "Brazilian Trump"). ..."
The argument the Bolivian right-wing is using is exactly the same the Brazilian one used after the 2014 results: election
fraud. The vice-president of the Bolivian Supreme Electoral Court has already renounced in protest after the institution caved
in to the pressure and suspended the publication of the results:
Evo Morales is much more fragile than Nicolás Maduro -- even though Bolivia's economy has been much better. The key here
is that, in Latin America, every period of economic growth is destined to be followed by a period of economic crisis because it's
impelled to follow the neoliberal model of development by the USA. The left-wing presidents are then forced to overcome this through
straight up government spending in order to at least alleviate extreme poverty that ravages the subcontinent.
But the hardest challenge for the socialists in Latin America are its armed forces: after the 1950s, they were turned into
American subsidiaries, each one with a military doctrine that focuses on fighting the "internal enemy" (i.e. the socialists).
No Latin American military is able to fight a single conventional war, they are essentially glorified militarized police forces.
Maduro has the FANB; Morales doesn't have the Bolivian Armed Forces on his side.
Let's wait and see how it evolves.
--//--
Meanwhile, neoliberalism rots. Bolsonaro already know his fate:
It must be hard to realize, after years of hallucination and messianic complex, that you were just a disposable puppet
of the Americans.
However, things are not so simple in Brazil: the majority of the Left is reactionary and pacifist; the Brazilian people has
a high tolerance for misery, is very docile and doesn't have a curriculum of violent uprisings or revolutions.
A Brazilian prefers to suffer in silence than having to risk his life for a greater cause and, since the 1960s, has an
inexplicable fascination with the USA and everything American (Bolsonaro ran his campaign openly as the "Brazilian Trump").
Neocons are lobbyists for MIC, the it is MIC that is the center of this this cult. People like Kriston, Kagan and Max Boot are
just well paid prostituttes on MIC, which includes intelligence agencies as a very important part -- the bridge to Wall Street so to
speak.
Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan member or a child
molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us. ..."
Glenn Greenwald has just published a very important
article in The Intercept that I would have everyone in America read if I could. Titled "With New D.C. Policy Group,
Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons", Greenwald's excellent piece details the frustratingly under-reported
way that the leaders of the neoconservative death cult have been realigning with the Democratic party.
This pivot back to the party of neoconservatism's origin is one of the most significant political events of the new millennium,
but aside from a handful of sharp political analysts like Greenwald it's been going largely undiscussed. This is weird, and we need
to start talking about it. A lot. Their willful alignment with neoconservatism should be the very first thing anyone ever talks about
when discussing the Democratic party.
When you hear someone complaining that the Democratic party has no platform besides being anti-Trump, your response should be,
"Yeah it does. Their platform is the omnicidal death cult of neoconservatism."
It's absolutely insane that neoconservatism is still a thing, let alone still a thing that mainstream America tends to regard
as a perfectly legitimate set of opinions for a human being to have. As what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts rightly
calls "the most dangerous ideology that has ever
existed," neoconservatism has used its nonpartisan bloodlust to work with the Democratic party for the purpose of escalating tensions
with Russia on multiple fronts, bringing our species to the brink of what could very well end up being a
world war with a nuclear superpower and its allies.
This is not okay. Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan
member or a child molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Check out leading neoconservative Bill Kristol's response to the aforementioned Intercept article:
... ... ...
Okay, leaving aside the fact that this bloodthirsty psychopath is saying neocons "won" a Cold War that neocons have deliberately
reignited by fanning the flames of the Russia hysteria and
pushing for more escalations , how insane is it that we live in a society where a public figure can just be like, "Yeah, I'm
a neocon, I advocate for using military aggression to maintain US hegemony and I think it's great," and have that be okay? These
people kill children. Neoconservatism means piles upon piles of child corpses. It means devoting the resources of a nation that won't
even provide its citizens with a real healthcare system to widespread warfare and all the death, destruction, chaos, terrorism, rape
and suffering that necessarily comes with war. The only way that you can possibly regard neoconservatism as just one more set of
political opinions is if you completely compartmentalize away from the reality of everything that it is.
This should not happen. The tensions with Russia that these monsters have worked so hard to escalate could blow up at any moment;
there are too many moving parts, too many things that could go wrong. The last Cold War brought our species
within a hair's
breadth of total annihilation due to our inability to foresee all possible complications which can arise from such a contest,
and these depraved death cultists are trying to drag us back into another one. Nothing is worth that. Nothing is worth risking the
life of every organism on earth, but they're risking it all for geopolitical influence.
... ... ...
I've had a very interesting last 24 hours. My
article about Senator John
McCain (which I titled "Please Just Fucking Die Already" because the title I really wanted to use seemed a bit crass) has received
an amount of attention that I'm not accustomed to, from
CNN to
USA Today to the
Washington Post . I watched Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar
talking about me on The View . They called me a "Bernie
Sanders person." It was a trip. Apparently some very low-level Republican with a few hundred Twitter followers went and retweeted
my article with an approving caption, and that sort of thing is worthy of coast-to-coast mainstream coverage in today's America.
This has of course brought in a deluge of angry comments, mostly from people whose social media pages are full of Russiagate
nonsense , showing
where McCain's current support base comes from. Some call him a war hero, some talk about him like he's a perfectly fine politician,
some defend him as just a normal person whose politics I happen to disagree with.
This is insane. This man has actively and enthusiastically pushed for every single act of military aggression that America has
engaged in, and some that
it hasn't , throughout his entire career. He makes Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton look like a dove. When you look
at John McCain, the very first thing you see should not be a former presidential candidate, a former POW or an Arizona Senator; the
first thing you see should be the piles of human corpses that he has helped to create. This is not a normal kind of person, and I
still do sincerely hope that he dies of natural causes before he can do any more harm.
Can we change this about ourselves, please? None of us should have to live in a world where pushing for more bombing campaigns
at every opportunity is an acceptable agenda for a public figure to have. Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless
hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are
traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any
kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are
whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around
what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us.
-- -- --
I'm a 100 percent reader-funded journalist so if you enjoyed this, please consider helping me out by sharing it around, liking
me on Facebook , following me on
Twitter , or throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon .
I do not think that Ukraine demand are all that bad if other conditions such as grating the region special status and the level
of autonomy similar to Crimea in the past are fulfilled. With Russian language restored in status as a regional language. Plus total
unconditional amnesty. All three are prerequisite for successful reintegration and in those condition t make sense: (1) the
LNR/DNR dissolve themselves, (2) that they have to leave the Ruble zone and switch back to the Grivna, (3) that the local military
forces have to be disbanded and, finally, (4) that Kiev wants the total control of the LDNR/Russian border. But also should be
a strict prohibition of any member of paramilitary battalions to enter the autonomous region under the penalty to prison
sentence for several years to prevent revenge killings.
The problems with Ukrainian economy are structural and the absence of economic detente with Russia alone can be undoing of
Zelensky government. Further accumulation of IMF credits is the only way forward. Add to this almost total breakdown of economic
ties with Russia because of EuroMaydan and subsequent Western Ukraine nationalist coup d'état, and you have Catch 22 situation for
him. Add to the pressure from the USA and the impression is the there is no way of this situation . BTW Poroshenko despite all
his rhetoric somehow managed to preserve his chocolate factory in Russia ;-)
...First, Trump, Macron and Merkel apparently told Zelenskii that he had to sign the so-called Steinmeier formula, which
basically spells out the sequence of confidence-building and de-escalation measures foreseen by the Minsk Agreements.
Now, you would be excused for thinking that this is a no-brainer. After all, the Minsk Agreements were ratified by the
UNSC (which makes them mandatory, no "if" or "buts" about this!) and it was Poroshenko who agreed to the Steinmeier
formula.
Heck, in 2016 he sure did not have a problem with it, but in 2019 he now calls the self-same formula a Russian
invention and that there is no such thing as a Steinmeier formula, see for yourself (in Ukrainian only):
Zelenskii's problem can be summed up in a simple sentence: the non-existing Nazis. Well, at least in the past all the
Neo-Nazis
cum
Jew-haters were constantly trying to convince us that there are no Nazis in the Ukraine;
apparently, my use of the term Ukronazi really set them off. Then came the election in which an absolute majority of
Ukrainians rejected Poroshenko's drive for war and voted for Zelenskii. If the Ukrainian people voted en masse to elect
an anti-war/pro-peace Jew, surely the Ukronazis were just a small minority of fringe individuals, right?
Wrong! Very very wrong!
And if those who were whitewashing the Ukrainian Nazis (obviously to obfuscate their real ideology and power) had
paid closer attention they would have seen signs of real Nazi power all over this election.
First, there was the remarkable change in tone in Zelenskii's rhetoric. Just like so many politicians (including
Trump!), he radically changed his tune and clearly tried to say one thing when speaking to the general Ukrainian public
and quite another when meeting with the Nazis or nationalist exiles in the USA.
You could say that there is a "Nazi deep state" in the Ukraine which, just like the other deep states out there,
can weather any elected president and quickly reassert its control over whomever the people elected.
You don't believe me when I say that he actually hosted the Ukronazis "fringe minority"? Fine, see for yourself:
In the photo above, Zelenskii is sitting with your typical gang of Ukronazi skinheads, including members of the infamous
Azov death-squad, and he is trying really hard to charm them while they, very publicly, have threatened him with a new
Maidan.
And this is not an isolated case or a fluke.
Zelenskii's prime minister went to a concert for an openly Nazi "Scream" music group called Sekira Peruna and thanked
the crowd of veterans of the "anti terrorist operation" (i.e. thugs from the Ukronazi deathsquads) for being there and
for saving the Ukraine. I did not find any English language translation of the typical lyrics of Sekira Peruna, but I
assure you that they contain all the obligatory nonsense which the Nazi ideology is built upon (see
here
for a
very good article with more details on this event and the Nazis involved).
Check out what their concert posters look like (shown here on the right) or, even better, check out the website of
this group:
http://sokyraperuna.com/
'Nuff said, I think.
So what is going on here?
Basically, exactly what I predicted as soon as Zelenskii was elected in my article "
Zelenskii's
dilemma
" in which I wrote: (emphasis added)
The Nazi-occupied Ukraine is not a democracy, but a plutocracy combined with an ochlocracy
.
The oligarchs are still there, as are the neo-Nazis mobs and death squads. And that creates an immense problem for
Zelenskii: this new Rada might well represent the views of a majority of the Ukrainian people, but
the real
power in the country is not concentrated in the Rada at all: it is in the streets
( ) The people of the
Ukraine desperately want peace. For the time being, the Rada reflects this overwhelmingly important fact. I say "for
the time being" because what will happen next is that the various forces and individuals who currently support
Zelenskii have done so just to gain power. They do not, however, have a common ideological platform or even a common
program. As soon as things go south (which they will inevitably do) many (most?) of these folks will turn against
Zelenskii and side with whoever can muster the biggest crowds and mete out the most violence. Now that he got
elected, Zelenskii quasi-instantly switched to the exact same rhetoric as what got Poroshenko so severely defeated.
Why? Because Zelenskiii is afraid that the neo-Nazi mobs and death squads will be unleashed against him at the very
first opportunity. In fact, the neo-Nazis have already begun promising a new Maidan. The truth is that
Zelenskii has to choose between acting on the will of the people and face the wrath of the neo-Nazis or do the will
of the neo-Nazis and face the wrath of the people
: tertium non datur! So far, Zelenskii has apparently
decided that talking is all he is going to do simply because his triumphant electoral victories have landed him in
the middle of an immense minefield, and
any steps he takes from now on could cost him very dearly
.
Right now, in the short term, the neo-Nazi mobs represent a much bigger danger to Zelenskii than the (disorganized,
demoralized and generally apathetic) people. But this will inevitably change as the economic and political situation
gets worse
.
We see exactly that scenario unfolding before our eyes. Zelenskii took not one, but three very real, if small, steps.
First, he ordered a pullback of some regular Ukrainian armed forces from a few important segments of the line of
contact, then he agreed to a relatively minor prisoner exchange and, finally, he ordered the Ukrainian delegation to
sign the Steinmeier formula. The prisoner exchange went okay for both sides. The Ukronazis soon categorically rejected
any withdrawal and they publicly promised to immediately re-occupy any village vacated by the regular army and they
rejected what they call the "Russian" or "Putin" formula. So far there were a few attempts to block the thugs of the
Azov battalion, but after a few minor clashes, the Azov people passed the police line. And now, the Nazi organized mass
protests in 300 Ukrainian cities. I could post lots of videos here, but that would take a lot of space. If you want to
get a feel for what took place today, go to YouTube and copy-paste the following search query "протесты в украине" into
the search bar, and then use the filter option and chose "this week": you will easily get many hours of video and you
don't even need to understand a word of Ukrainian to immediately get it.
There is another very important factor which you will almost never see on these videos or on any public statements
and that is that there are a number of civil and even criminal cases currently being brought to trial in the Ukraine
against a host of officials of the
ancient régime
including even against Poroshenko (11-14 separate
investigations just for him already!) These men (Poroshenko, Parubii, Turchinov, etc.) now have absolutely no choice but
to try to overthrow Zelenskii.
Just like the US Dems need a coup against Trump (in the form of an impeachment or something else) because the
Clinton-Biden gang now risks real, hard, jail time, so do the former Ukronazi leaders now need a coup against Zelenskii
or they go to jail.
Initially, it appeared that Trump had given Poroshenko some personal security guarantees, but everybody knows how
much the US President's security "guarantees" are worth (just ask the Kurds!). So Poroshenko did not flee the country.
It now appears that some of the people behind Zelenskii (aka Kolomoiskii) are out to get the "Poroshenko clan &
Associates" – Poroshenko has to either topple Zelenskii or run away abroad. There are also rumors that the US "deep
state" (as opposed to the Trump Administration) is now putting pressure on Zelenskii to stop these investigations. Thus,
the current battle between Trump and the Neocons and their "deep state" has now spilled over into the Ukraine and it
appears that various US interest groups are now creating local Ukrainian surrogates whom they will use in their struggle
against each other.
Furthermore, a real possibility opened up now that all sorts of previously buried issues will be investigated by
the Ukrainian prosecutors including:
An official and true investigation to find out who opened fired on the police and demonstrators during the
Euromaidan
MH-17
Ukronazi atrocities in the Donbass
Human rights violations in the Ukraine (where over 1000 political prisoners are still being held) starting with
innumerable cases of horrible torture of detainees (in secret torture camps,
ŕ la
CIA, including an
especially infamous one in Mariupol).
Poroshenko's role in the "Crimea Bridge provocation"
All the many murders of journalists and opponents to the Nazis beginning with the murder of Oles Buzina
A quasi infinite list of war profiteering, corruption, fraud, etc. etc. etc.
Simply put: there is no way that the Ukronazis will just stand by and let those investigations proceed. And while
it is true that numerically the Ukronazis are a small minority in the Ukraine, there is plenty enough of them to terrify
Zelenskii and his handlers, especially considering that they are 1) well armed 2) many have frontline combat experience
and 3) that they are willing not only to engage in "regular" violence, but also to commit atrocities and engage in
terrorism (they did plenty of both in the Donbass).
Zelenskii does have a number of things going for him: first, the mandate of the people (though his popularity is
already down from 73% to 66% – which is still very big), his legal prerogatives as the President and Commander in Chief
and the support of Kolomoiskii's strong network of international connections, especially in Israel.
But that is all rather theoretical so far.
All Zelenskii has done, besides hosting the skinheads in his office, was to make a 14 hour long interview with a
group of reporters. Yes, fourteen hours. Alas, all he achieved was to show that he is a much better actor than
politician. In fact, most experts seem to agree that in his role as President Zelenskii is a total failure who speaks a
lot, says a lot of silly things when he does, and seems to be absolutely unable to take any real action.
At the time of writing (Wed 16th) the leader of the Ukronazis has given Zelenskii 10 days to yield to all the
demands of the opposition. If not, he has promised to trigger a new Maidan and bring millions of people to the streets.
Yup. The "tiny" "fringe" and otherwise "non-existing" Nazis have now given Zelenskii an ultimatum.
Zelenskii is in free fall: Trump, Macron and Merkel are demanding that he abide by the decisions of the UNSC, the
Minsk Agreements and the Steinmeier formula. The Russians have clearly indicated that unless tangible and real progress
is made in the implementation of this formula, there will be nothing else to discuss. The Ukraine is basically bankrupt
and desperately needs both Novorussian coal and Russian gas
. Furthermore, only a removal of the self-defeating
barriers and boycotts imposed by the former regime against any trade or even communications with Russia could begin to
kick-start the economy of what is now clearly a failed state.
Yet the Nazis will oppose any and all such measures, with violence if needed. As for Zelenskii, he appears to be in a
no win situation: no matter what he does next, things will only get worse. Thus the most likely outcome of all these
processes will be, in the short term, further futile attempts by Zelenskii to appease the Nazis (thereby alienating the
general population), in the middle term a violent confrontation, followed in the long term by (the probably inevitable)
break-up of the Ukraine into separately much more viable parts.
UPDATE
: I just heard that the Ukraine is now demanding that 1) the LNR/DNR dissolve themselves,
2) that they have to leave the Ruble zone and switch back to the Hrivna, 3) that the local military forces have to be
disbanded and, finally, 4) that Kiev wants the total control of the LDNR/Russian border.
Well, good luck with that, folks! I hope they are not holding their breath (they aren't – they are just trying to
find a pretext to renege on their legal and political obligations )
"... How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook expansion.. NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the target area. ..."
"... Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials. ..."
"... Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to mind. ..."
"... A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion? ..."
"... As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians. ..."
"... The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly acquired ones. ..."
"... Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor Cohen ascribes to the US. ..."
"... We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU, or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay. ..."
"... Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an individual example with AP, but they all seem like that. ..."
Thanks for your sharing you views about Prof Cohen, a most interesting and principled
man.
Only after reading the article did I realize that the UR (that's you) also provided the
Batchelor Show podcast. Thanks.
I've been listening to these broadcasts over their entirety, now going on for six or so
years. What's always struck me is Cohen's level-headeness and equanimity. I've also detected
affection for Kentucky, his native state. Not something to be expected from a Princeton / NYU
academic nor an Upper West Side resident.
And once again expressing appreciation for the UR!
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt
politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the
target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials. Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of
the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to
mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump said
to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is the
exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can
be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other
plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with
inevitable impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally elected president Viktor
Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment -- none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) -- how fucking hypocritical is it to
presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? -- none of it would
have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
According to a recent govt study, only 12% of Americans can read above a 9th grade level.
This effectively mean (((whoever))) controls the MSM controls the world. NOTHING will change
for the better while the (((enemy))) owns our money supply.
There was NO "annexation" of Crimea by Russia. Crimea WAS annexed, but by Ukraine.
Russia and Crimea re-unified. Crimea has been part of Russia for long than America has
existed – since it was taken from the Ottoman Empire over 350 yrs ago. The vast
majority of the people identify as Russian, and speak only Russian.
To annex, the verb, means to use armed force to seize sovereign territory and put it under
the control of the invading forces government. Pretty much as the early Americans did to
Northern Mexico, Hawaii, etc. Russia used no force, the Governors of Crimea applied for
re-unification with Russia, Russia advised a referendum, which was held, and with a 96%
turnout, 97% voted for re-unification. This was done formally and legally, conforming with
all the international mandates.
It is very damaging for anyone to say that Russia "annexed" Crimea, because when people
read, quickly moving past the world, they subliminally match the word to their held
perception of the concept and move on. Thus they match the word "annex" to their conception
of the use of Armed Force against a resistant population, without checking.
All Cohen is doing here is reinforcing the pushed, lying Empire narrative, that Russia
invaded and used force, when the exact opposite is true!!
@Carlton
Meyer One wonders if Mr. Putin, as he puts his head on the pillow at night, fancies that
he should have rolled the Russian tanks into Kiev, right after the 2014 US-financed coup of
Ukraine's elected president, which was accomplished while he was pre-occupied with the Sochi
Olympics, and been done with it. He had every justification to do so, but perhaps feared
Western blowback. Well, the blowback happened anyway, so maybe Putin was too cautious.
The new Trump Admin threw him under the bus when it installed the idiot Nikki Haley as UN
Ambassador, whose first words were that Russia must give Crimea back. With its only major
warm water port located at Sevastopol, that wasn't about to happen, and the US Deep State
knew it.
Given how he has been so unfairly treated by the media, and never given a chance to enact
his Russian agenda, anyone who thinks that Trump was 'selected' by the deep state has rocks
for brains. The other night, on Rick Sanchez's RT America show, former US diplomat, and
frequent guest Jim Jatras said that he would not be too surprised if 20 GOP Senators flipped
and voted to convict Trump if the House votes to impeach.
The deep state can't abide four more years of the bombastic, Twitter-obsessed Trump, hence
this Special Ops Ukraine false flag, designed to fool a majority of the people. The smooth
talking, more warlike Pence is one of them. The night of the long knives is approaching.
The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US
always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly
acquired ones.
The "logic" of the Dem party is remarkable. Dems don't even deny that Biden is corrupt,
that he blatantly abused the office of Vice-President for personal gain. What's more, he was
dumb enough to boast about it publicly. Therefore, let's impeach Trump.
These people don't give a hoot about the interests of the US as a country, or even as an
Empire. Their insatiable greed for money and power blinds them to everything. By rights,
those who orchestrated totally fake Russiagate and now push for impeachment, when Russiagate
flopped miserably, should be hanged on lampposts for high treason. Unfortunately, justice
won't be served. So, we have to be satisfied with an almost assured prospect of this
impeachment thing to flop, just like Russiagate before it. But in the process incalculable
damage will be done to our country and its institutions.
Those who support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia without Serbian consent cannot
argue against separation of Crimea from Ukraine without the consent of Kiev regime.
On the other hand, those who believe that post-WWII borders are sacrosanct have to
acknowledge that Crimea belongs to Russia (illegally even by loose Soviet standards
transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1956), Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Soviet Union
should be restored, and Germany should be re-divided.
At least now I know why Ukraine is so essential to American national security. It's so even
more of my and my families' taxes can pay for a massive expansion of Nato, which means
American military bases in Ukraine. Greenland to the borders of China.
We're encircling the earth, like those old cartoons about bankers.
@Ron
Unz I had to stop listening after the 10th min. where the good professor (without any
push-back from the interviewer) says:
Victor Yanukovich was overthrown by a street coup . at that moment, the United States
and not only the United States but the Western European Governments had to make a decision
would they acknowledge the overthrow of Yannukovic as having been legitimate, and therefore
accept whatever government emerged, and that was a fateful moment within 24hours, the
governments, including the government of president Obama endorsed what was essentially a
coup d'etat against Yanukovich.
Has the good Professor so quickly forgotten about Victoria Nuland distributing cookies
with John McCain in the Maidan as the coup was still unfolding? Her claim at the think tank
in DC where she discusses having spent $30million (if I remember correctly) for foisting the
Ukraine coup ?
Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next
president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week
later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor
Cohen ascribes to the US.
These are not simple omissions but willful acts of misleading of fools. The good
professor's little discussed career as a resource for the secret services has reemerged after
seemingly having been left out in the cold during the 1st attempted coup against Trump.
No, the real story is more than just a little NATO expansion as the professor does
suggest, but more directly, the attempted coup that the US is still trying to stage in Russia
itself, in order to regain control of Russia's vast energy resources which Putin forced the
oligarchs to disgorge. The US desperately wants to achieve this in order to be able to
ultimately also control China's access to those resources as well.
In the way that Iraq was supposed to be a staging post for an attack on Iran, Ukraine is
the staging post for an attack on Russia.
The great Russian expert stirred miles very clear of even hinting at such scenarios, even
though anyone who's thought about US world policies will easily arrive at this logical
conclusion.
What about the theft of Ukraine's farmland and the enserfing of its rural population? Isn't
this theft and enserfing of Ukrainians at least one major reason the US government got
involved, overseeing the transfer of this land into the hands of the transnational banking
crime syndicate? The Ukraine, with its rich, black soil, used to be called the breadbasket of
Europe.
Consider the fanatical intervention on the part of Victoria Nuland and the Kagans under
the guise of working for the State Dept to facilitate the theft. In a similar fashion,
according to Wayne Madsen, the State Dept. has a Dept of Foreign Asset Management, or some
similar name, that exists to protect the Chabad stranglehold on the world diamond trade, and,
according to Madsen, the language spoken and posters around the offices are in Hebrew, which
as a practical matter might as well be the case at the State Dept itself.
According to an article a few years ago at Oakland Institute, George Rohr's NCH Capital,
which latter organization has funded over 100 Chabad Houses on US campuses, owns over 1
million acres of Ukraine farmland. Other ownership interests of similarly vast tracts of
Ukraine farmland show a similar pattern of predation. At one point, it was suggested that the
Yinon Plan should be understood to include the Ukraine as the newly acquired breadbasket of
Eretz Israel. It may also be worth pointing out that now kosher Ivy League schools'
endowments are among the worst pillagers of native farmland and enserfers of the indigenous
populations they claim to protect.
@Mikhail
Well, if we really go into it, things become complicated. What Khmelnitsky united with Russia
was maybe 1/6th or 1/8th of current Ukraine. Huge (4-5 times greater) areas in the North and
West were added by Russian Tsars, almost as great areas in the South and East taken by Tsars
from Turkey and affiliated Crimean Khanate were added by Lenin, a big chunk in the West was
added by Stalin, and then in 1956 moron Khrushchev "gifted" Crimea (which he had no right to
do even by Soviet law). So, about 4/6th of "Ukraine" is Southern Russia, 1/6th is Eastern
Poland, some chunks are Hungary and Romania, and the remaining little stub is Ukraine proper.
@anon
American view always was: "yes, he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". That
historically applied to many obnoxious regimes, now fully applies to Ukraine. In that Dems
and Reps always were essentially identical, revealing that they are two different puppets run
by the same puppet master.
Trump is hardly very intelligent, but he has some street smarts that degenerate elites
have lost. Hence their hatred of him. It is particularly galling for the elites that Trump
won in 2016, and has every chance of winning again in 2020 (unless they decide to murder him,
like JFK; but that would be a real giveaway, even the dumbest sheeple would smell the
rat).
@follyofwar
The only reason I can imagine that Putin/Russia would want to "take over" Ukraine and have
this political problem child back in the family might be because of Ukraine's black soil.
But it is probably not worth the aggravation.
Russia is building up its agricultural sector via major greenhouse installations and other
innovations.
@AP
Well, you are a true simpleton who repeats shallow conventional views. You don't ever seem to
think deeper about what you write, e.g. if Yanukovitch could beat anyone in a 1-on-1 election
than he obviously wasn't that unpopular and that makes Maidan illegal by any standard. You
say he could beat Tiahnybok, who was one of the leaders of Maidan, how was then Maidan
democratic? Or you don't care for democracy if people vote against your preferences?
Trade with Russia is way down and it is not coming back. That is my point – there
was definitely a way to do this better. It wasn't a choice of 'one or the other' –
actually EU was under the impression that Ukraine would help open up the Russian market. Your
either-or wasn't the plan, so did Kiev lie to EU? No wonder Ukraine has a snowball chance in
hell of joining EU.
@Skeptikal
Russia moved to the first place in the world in wheat exports, while greatly increasing its
production of meat, fowl, and fish. Those who supplied these commodities lost Russian market
for good. In fact, with sanctions, food in Russia got a lot better, and food in Moscow got
immeasurably better: now it's local staff instead of crap shipped from half-a-world away.
Funny thing is, Russian production of really good fancy cheeses has soared (partially with
the help of French and Italian producers who moved in to avoid any stupid sanctions).
So, there is no reason for Russia to take Ukraine on any conditions, especially
considering Ukraine's exorbitant external debt. If one calculates European demand for
transplantation kidneys and prostitutes, two of the most successful Ukrainian exports,
Ukraine will pay off its debt – never. Besides, the majority of Russians learned to
despise Ukraine due to its subservient vassalage to the US (confirmed yet again by the
transcript of the conversation between Trump and Ze), so the emotional factor is also
virtually gone. Now the EU and the US face the standard rule of retail: you broke it, you own
it. That infuriates Americans and EU bureaucrats more than anything.
@Sergey
Krieger "Demography statistic won't support fairy tales by solzhenicin and his kind."
-- What's your point? Your post reads like an attempt at saying that Kaganovitch was white
like snow and that it does not matter what crimes were committed in the Soviet Union because
of the "demography statistic" and because you, Sergey Krieger, are a grander person next to
Solzhenitsyn and "his kind." By the way, had not A. I. S. returned to Russia, away from the
coziness of western life?
S.K.: "You should start research onto mass dying of population after 1991 and subsequent
and ongoing demographic catastroph in Russia under current not as "brutal " as soviet
regime."
@AP
Maidan was an illegal coup that violated Ukrainian constitution (I should say all of them,
there were too many) and lots of other laws. And that's not the worst part of it. But it
already happened, there is no going back for Ukraine. It's a "yes or no" thing, you can't be
a little bit pregnant. We can either commiserate with Ukraine or gloat, but it committed
suicide. Some say this project was doomed from the start. I think Ukraine had a chance and
blew it.
@AnonFromTN
I usually refrain from labelling off-cycle changes in government as revolutions or coups
– it clearly depends on one's views and can't be determined.
In general, when violence or military is involved, it is more likely it was a coup. If a
country has a reasonably open election process, violently overthrowing the current government
would also seem like a coup, since it is unnecessary. Ukraine had both violence and a coming
election that was democratic. If Yanukovitch would prevent or manipulate the elections, one
could make a case that at that point – after the election – the population could
stage a ' revolution '.
AP is a simpleton who repeats badly thought out slogans and desperately tries to save some
face for the Maidan fiasco – so we will not change his mind, his mind is done with
changes, it is all about avoiding regrets even if it means living in a lie. One can almost
feel sorry for him, if he wasn't so obnoxious.
Ukraine has destroyed its own future gradually after 1991, all the elites there failed,
Yanukovitch was just the last in a long line of failures, the guy before him (Yushenko?) left
office with a 5% approval. Why wasn't there a revolution against him? Maidan put a cherry on
that rotting cake – a desperate scream of pain by people who had lost all hope and so
blindly fell for cheap promises by the new-old hustlers.
We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU,
or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part
of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay.
Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete
disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an
individual example with AP, but they all seem like that.
@AP
You intentionally omitted the second part of what I wrote: 'a reasonably democratic
elections', neither 18th century American colonies, nor Russia in 1917 or Romania in 1989,
had them. Ukraine in 2014 did.
So all your belly-aching is for nothing. The talk about 'subverting' and doing a
preventive 'revolution' on Maidan to prevent 'subversion' has a very Stalinist ring to it. If
you start revolutionary violence because you claim to anticipate that something bad might
happen, well, the sky is the limit and you have no rules.
You are desperately trying to justify a stupid and unworkable act. As we watch the
unfolding disaster and millions leaving Ukraine, this "Maidan was great!!!" mantra will sound
even more silly. But enjoy it, it is not Somalia, wow, I guess as long as a country is not
Somalia it is ok. Ukraine is by far the poorest large country in Europe. How is that a
success?
@Beckow
True believers are called that because they willfully ignore facts and logic. AP is a true
believer Ukie. Ukie faith is their main undoing. Unfortunately, they are ruining the country
with their insane dreams. But that cannot be helped now. The position of a large fraction of
Ukrainian population is best described by a cruel American saying: fool me once, shame on
you, fool me twice, shame on me.
@AnonFromTN
You are right, it can't be helped. Another saying is that it takes two to lie: one who lies,
and one to lie to. The receiver of lies is also responsible.
What happened in Ukraine was: Nuland&Co. went to Ukraine and lied to them about '
EU, 'Marshall plan', aid, 'you will be Western ', etc,,,'. Maidanistas swallowed it
because they wanted to believe – it is easy to lie to desperate people. Making promises
is very easy. US soft power is all based on making promises.
What Nuland&Co. really wanted was to create a deep Ukraine-Russia hostility and to
grab Crimea, so they could get Russian Navy out and move Nato in. It didn't work very well,
all we have is useless hostility, and a dysfunctional state. But as long as they serve
espresso in Lviv, AP will scream that it was all worth it, 'no Somalia', it is 'all normal',
almost as good as 2013 . Right.
@AP
I don't disagree with what you said, but my point was different:
lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians
Without the unnecessary hostility and the break in business relations with Russia the
living standards in Ukraine would be higher. That, I think, noone would dispute. One can
trace that directly to the so-far failed attempt to get Ukraine into Nato and Russia out of
its Crimea bases. There has been a high cost for that policy, so it is appropriate to ask:
why? did the authors of that policy think it through?
@AP
I don't give a flying f k about Yanukovitch and your projections about what 'would be growth'
under him. He was history by 2014 in any case.
One simple point that you don't seem to grasp: it was Yanuk who negotiated the association
treaty with EU that inevitably meant Ukraine in Nato and Russia bases out of Crimea (after a
decent interval). For anyone to call Yanuk a 'pro-Russian' is idiotic – what we see
today are the results of Yanukovitch's policies. By the way, the first custom restrictions on
Ukraine's exports to Russia happened in summer 2013 under Y.
If you still think that Yanukovitch was in spite of all of that somehow a 'Russian
puppet', you must have a very low opinion of Kremlin skills in puppetry. He was not, he was
fully onboard with the EU-Nato-Crimea policy – he implemented it until he got
outflanked by even more radical forces on Maidan.
@Beckow
Well, exactly like all Ukrainian presidents before and after him, Yanuk was a thief. He might
have been a more intelligent and/or more cautious thief that Porky, but a thief he was.
Anyway, there is no point in crying over spilled milk: history has no subjunctive mood.
Ukraine has dug a hole for itself, and it still keeps digging, albeit slower, after a clown
in whole socks replaced a clown in socks with holes. By now this new clown is also a
murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although so far he has committed fewer crimes
than Porky.
There is no turning back. Regardless of Ukrainian policies, many things it used to sell
Russia won't be bought any more: Russia developed its own shipbuilding (subcontracted some to
South Korea), is making its own helicopter and ship engines, all stages of space rockets,
etc. Russia won't return any military or high-tech production to Ukraine, ever. What's more,
most Russians are now disgusted with Ukraine, which would impede improving relations even if
Ukraine gets a sane government (which is extremely unlikely in the next 5 years).
Ukraine's situation is best described by Russian black humor saying: "what we fought for
has befallen us". End of story.
@Peter
Akuleyev How many millions? It is same story. Ukraine claims more and more millions dead
from so called Hilodomor when in Russia liberals have been screaming about 100 million deaths
in russia from bolsheviks. Both are fairy tales. Now you better answer what is current
population of ukraine. The last soviet time 1992 level was 52 million. I doubt you got even
40 million now. Under soviet power both ukraine and russia population were steadily growing.
Now, under whose music you are dancing along with those in Russia that share your views when
die off very real one is going right under your nose.
By now this new clown is also a murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although
so far he has committed fewer crimes than Porky.
Have you noticed that the Republicans, while seeming to defend Trump, never challenge the
specious assertion that delaying arms to Ukraine was a threat to US security? At first I
thought this was oversight. Silly me. Keeping the New Cold War smoldering is more important
to those hawks.
Tulsi Gabbard flipping to support the impeachment enquiry was especially disappointing.
I'm guessing she was under lots of pressure, because she can't possibly believe that arming
the Ukies is good for our security. If I could get to one of her events, I'd ask her direct,
what's up with that. Obama didn't give them arms at all, even made some remarks about not
inflaming the situation. (A small token, after his people managed the coup, spent 8 years
demonizing Putin, and presided over origins of Russiagate to make Trump's [stated] goal of
better relations impossible.)
Not really. Ukies are wonnabe Nazis, but they fall way short of their ideal. The original
German Nazis were organized, capable, brave, sober, and mostly honest. Ukie scum is
disorganized, ham-handed, cowardly, drunk (or under drugs), and corrupt to the core. They are
heroes only against unarmed civilians, good only for theft, torture, and rape. When it comes
to the real fight with armed opponents, they run away under various pretexts or surrender.
Nazis should sue these impostors for defamation.
Yanukovych signed an internationally brokered power sharing agreement with his main
rivals, who then violated it. Yanukovych up to that point was the democratically elected
president of Ukraine.
Since his being violently overthrown, people have been unjustly jailed, beaten and killed
for politically motivated reasons having to do with a stated opposition to the
Euromaidan.
Yanukovych refrained from using from using considerably greater force, when compared to
others if put in the same situation, against a mob element that included property damage and
the deaths of law enforcement personnel.
In the technical legal sense, there was a legit basis to jail the likes of Tymoshenko. If
I correctly recall Yushchenko offered testimony against Tymoshenko. Rather laughable that
Poroshenko appointed the non-lawyer Lutsenko into a key legal position.
@Beckow
The undemocratic aspect involving Yanukovych's overthrow included the disproportionate number
of Svoboda members appointed to key cabinet positions. At the time, Svoboda was on record for
favoring the dissolution of Crimea's autonomous status
@AP
Grest comment #159 by Beckow. Really, I'm more concerned with the coup against POTUS that's
happening right now, since before he took office. The Ukraine is pivotal, from the Kiev
putschists collaborating with the DNC, to the CIA [pretend] whistleblowers who now subvert
Trump's investigation of those crimes.
Tragic and pitiful, the Ukrainians jumped from a rock to a hard place. Used and abandoned
by the Clinton-Soros gang, they appeal to the next abusive Sugar-Daddy. Isn't this FRANCE 24
report fairly objective?
Revisited: Five years on, what has Ukraine's Maidan Revolution achieved?
@AP
This from BBC is less current. (That magnificent bridge -the one the Ukies tried to sabotage-
is now in operation, of course.) I'm just trying to use sources that might not trigger you.
@AP
"Whenever people ask me how to figure out the truth about Ukraine, I always recommend they
watch the film Ukraine on Fire by director @lopatonok and executive produced by
@TheOliverStone. The sequel Revealing Ukraine will be out soon proud to be in it."
– Lee Sranahan (Follow @stranahan for Ukrainegate in depth.)
" .what has really changed in the life of Ukrainians?"
@Malacaay
Baltics, Ukrainians and Poles were part of the Polish Kingdom from 1025-1569 and the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569-1764.
This probably explains their differences with Russia.
Russia had this area in the Russian Empire from 1764-1917. Russia called this area the
Pale of Settlement. Why? This Polish Kingdom since 1025 welcomed 25000 Jews in, who later
grew to millions by the 19th century. They are the Ashkenazis who are all over the world
these days. The name Pale was for Ashkenazis to stay in that area and not immigrate to the
rest of Russia.
The reasoning for this was not religious prejudice but the way the Ashkenazis treated the
peasants of the Pale. It was to protect the Russian peasants. This did not help after 1917. A
huge invasion of Ashkenazis descended all over Russia to take up positions all over the
Soviet Union.
Ukraine US is like the Pale again. It has a Jewish President and a Jewish Prime
Minister.
Ukraine and Poland were both controlled by Tartars too. Ukraine longer than Russia. Russia
ended the Tartar rule of Crimea in 1783. The Crimean Tartars lived off raiding Ukraine,
Poland, and parts of Russia for Slav slaves. Russia ended this Slav slave trade in 1783.
But its not just the US that is a war machine. Bourne's statement equally applies to _all_
states everywhere, past present and future.
If any state appears to not be making war on other countries at any particular time,
its only because it is too busy making war on its own citizens [ eg taxes, drug laws,
weapons/gun laws, religion laws, speech laws, environmental laws etc.etc. etc.], and has not
yet created enough fake money via its central bank to enable it to debt-fund consistent
overseas aggressions against others.
Wars by the US will never end because arms manufactures own Trump. Almost one half of the
US budget goes for the security of the state, domestic and abroad. New weapon development
would come to a halt if the US was not threatened. Fake news about China and Russia planning
to attack the US keeps the arms industry humming. Over a million national security workers
and their families would be devastated if Trump stopped fighting fake wars. God bless
imagined threat of wars.
This has strengthened the possibility of the revival of the Islamic State in Iraq and
the Levant (ISIL or ISIS). There are around 10,000 such ISIS fighters currently lodged in
prisons run by the SDF.
And with this, "the war on terror" is guaranteed to go on, and on, and on..
Just in case you hadn't heard the good news, the last man from the president's foreign
policy "team" still standing, Trump whisperer Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, recently left
National Security Advisor John Bolton in the dust.
June 27, 2018 Harvard Research Scholar Explains How America Created Al-Qaeda & The
ISIS Terror Group
It's truly amazing how much the consciousness of the planet has changed within the past 5
years alone, and it's not just happening within one topic, but in several different areas
ranging from health to geopolitics and everything in-between.
What Trump wants to do and what he can do are two very different things. The MIC/Zionist rot
in DC is way too deep and entrenched for any one man to tackle.
Trump could make all his Schiffty problems go away by bombing Iran. Overnight, the man
would be lauded as the president we need and that aging hack Pelosi would suddenly drop that
phony impeachment hearing.
Trump is finding out that when making foreign policy, the safest route to take is to first
ask, "Is this good for Israel?"
I have always contended that the best way to use Trump is to support his ego. Let's
inundate him with praise for withdrawing from the Kurdish/Turkish quagmire. Sure, he hasn't
vacated Syria yet, however, he has no choice but to vacate or be evacuated. His ego will
opt for the former
@DESERT
FOX Exactly, with thousands of ISIS,ISIL(American/Israeli proxy forces)types now being
freed due to Turkey's incursions into Syria, these "rebels" will be free to re-group and
fight another day. Hence the need for American forces to STAY deployed in the Area. This is
nothing more than a distraction move by Trump, which will result in the opposite "intended"
actions of American forces being withdrawn from Syria. This will also guarantee the "need"
for a strong Soviet presence in Syria.
America/Israel/Russia have always wanted the partitioning of Syria, the only point of
contention between America/Israel and Russia was whether Assad was to be forced from power or
would be allowed to remain President as a puppet of Putin and the Russians. Syria was to
never remain a sovereign nation.
The US still hasn't acknowledged the Armenian Massacre by the Turks. Why should it care
about Kurds. US is the nation that said killing 500,000 kids in Iraq was worth it.
Syria, Iraq, Libya are now less of a threat to Israel than ever before so that is a kind
of peace.
Not really. All are still standing and not under US control. Iraq now leans even more
toward Iran and Syria toward Russia ..and that outcome in these countries has made Israel's
goal of destroying Iran much harder and less likely .
The curtailment of the Kurds, Israel's long time friends and proxy , is another blow to
Israel's plot.
It appears to me that Putin's idea is to force everyone back into their own countries and
borders .he may have shared that plan with Trump and that may have resulted in turning Turkey
loose to do that job.
@WJ
Right. But as Giraldi always points out, Trump almost attacked Venezuela. He said mean
words and rattled sabres! As opposed to Obama, who said no mean words ('cause he upheld the
"dignity of the office") but sent the fighter jets into Libya and turned that country from a
stable, secular regime into a human trafficking warzone. And also got an ambassador killed.
Here are some of Giraldi's gems from April 2011:
Libya is a humanitarian mission
it [the invasion] has no clearly stated objective except to protect Libyan
civilians
it is now clear that the rebels do not have any military organization to speak of and
Gaddafi has the whip hand
Nice analysis there, Mr. CIA lifer and Obama lickspittle. I can only assume Giraldi was
part of the crack CIA team of Sovietologists who were utterly blindsided when the Soviet
Union broke up. It's amazing how much slack he's given around here for his anti-Israel stuff.
It's like Teflon for him.
@Priss
Factor Agree, and the ZUS has killed millions in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and
Syria, for their zionist masters, the only lives the ZUS cares about is zionists.
@NoseytheDuke
The only question you failed to address is what was the true motives of Putin's intervention
into the whole mess. A few good points:
As in Ukraine, Putin will stay in Syria until it no longer suits him. He has no
long-term strategic goals beyond creating chaos and weakening the alliances of the free
world wherever possible. This allows him to play the big man on the international stage, an
essential element of his domestic appeal. 24/7 propaganda and Soviet nostalgia have turned
Putin's invasion into a domestic hit in Russia. In contrast, Russians have no interest in
Syria or Assad, but who cares what they want? Unlike the leaders of Europe, the U.S., and
other democratic countries, Putin doesn't have to worry about how popular his foreign
adventures are at home. There are no checks and balances in the Russian government, no free
media to criticize him, and no popularity polls that matter more than ranks of well-armed
riot police.
Licks for Giraldi: Giraldi has been careless but not where he lists Trumps lies about ending
'silly' wars. from what Trump has actually done compared to what he says about ending
America's wars he is a liar of clear and complete proportions
"the military the only real source of pride the only thing Americans feel they excel at"
An insightful point. Politicians support the military and its deployments for economic
reasons, but the support of the public might derive from "what else is there?" Examples of
institutional and private-sector failure abound in the news over recent years, and every day.
The Boeing Max. The hotel collapse. 250,000 deaths per year from medical negligence. Power
shutoffs. Useless college. The dive boat. A relaxed performance standard. The demise of
meritocracy and rationality. During Katrina, every agency except the Coast Guard went into
gridlock. There are remaining islands of expertise, but the unraveling is contagious.
The dirty, filthy hand of the Jew is all over America's Mideast policy. Israel backs ISIS in
Syria with weapons. The Israeli-Occupied Government in Washington D.C. has even protected
ISIS in Syria at times. The Jew-owned media gives no credit to Iran and Russia for defeating
Jew and American-supported terrorists inside Syria. Now the Jew-owned government is aching
for war with Iran, which is not a threat to Gentile America.
The goal was to topple Assad. Remember Obama? Assad must go? Assad and the Assad regime
are still there. The losers are the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Replacing Assad was an Globalist goal, heavily pushed by Erdogan. We also remember the
failed presidency of Barak Hussein that never represented the citizens of the U.S. So it
would be more precise to say that:
-- George Soros, Erdogan, Obama, Wahhabism, and the Globalists are losing.
-- Putin, Trump, Assad, and Populism are winning.
The real test will be Putin getting all other foreign troops & proxies to leave. The
Globalist agenda is to keep the fight between Iran (Shia) and Turkey (Sunni) going, when they
both leave combatants in Syria. Hopefully, Putin will be able to fully rout the Globalists
and move out both Turkish and Iranian agitators.
@Johnny
Walker Read Maybe you don't know who the author of that article is .Garry Kasparov
Kasparov might be great at chess but in Russia he was big fail as a politician .couldn't
get any votes on his campaign to make Russia like America. He went into a self-imposed exile
in the West. claiming Putin ruined his political campaigning.
Now everything Putin does infuses all Kasparov's punditry
Kasparow's love for Bolton should clue you to what he is about.
Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) · Twitter
As I said about Bolton entering the Trump admin nearly 3 years ago, you may not agree with
his views as much as I generally do, but he puts US interests first, not Trump's. Can't say
same about Pompeo & the rest.
31 mins ago
The short story on Syria, Turkey, USAISRAEL, Russia –
Turkey-Syria offensive: Russia vows to prevent clashes with Assad forces
BBC
Takeaways
THEN .
"When the US decided to equip and train Syrian Kurds, as well as some Arabs, to fight IS,
they were aware of a potential problem, that their would-be Kurdish allies were regarded as
terrorists by their Nato ally, Turkey. Washington turned a blind eye to a problem that could
be kicked into the future. Now the future is here, and it has blown up."
NOW .
"On Sunday the Kurds announced a deal with the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
agreeing that its troops could advance into the zone that had not been controlled by Damascus
since 2012, right up to the border with Turkey. That is a big victory for the regime. The
troops moved quickly out of bases they maintained in the north-east. Assad loyalists dug out
regime flags.
It was a disastrous day for American Middle East policy. The alliance with the Kurds, and the
security guarantee safeguarding their self-governing slice of Syria, gave the Americans a
stake in the war's endgame. It was also a way of pushing against the backers of the Assad
regime: Russia and Iran. The departure of the Americans, and the advance of the Syrian army,
are victories for them too.
European governments, rattled in the way that happens when the problems of the Middle East
come knocking at their doors, are calling on Turkey to stop the offensive. Some Nato members
can see a nightmare scenario unfolding, with Syria, backed by Russian power, potentially
facing off against Turkey, a fellow Nato member. The Russians say they are in regular contact
with Turkey. But in a fluid, violent theatre of war. the chances for misperception, mistakes
and escalation are always present.
Perhaps what has happened in the last week simplifies the endgame of the Syrian war. Two
major players, the Americans and the Kurds, look to be out of the picture. And President
Assad, along with his allies from Russia and Iran, continue to solidify their victory in
Syria's catastrophic war."
WHAT IS BEING LEFT OUT OF THE CURRENT COMBING THRU THE ASHES OF THE SYRIAN WAR IS THE FACT
SAUDI STARTED THE WHOLE FUCKING SYRIAN WAR.
The discussion, if one might even call it that, regarding the apparent President Donald
Trump decision to withdraw at least some American soldiers from Syria has predictably
developed along partisan, ideologically fueled lines.
Not too sure where this partisan line is, Dr. G.
It looks like they're screeching from both sides of the isle.
Both powerful Republican Liz Cheney and Hillary called the pull out "sickening".
While Republican Senator Rand Paul applauds the decision, Tulsi Gabbard condemns it.
As for 'ideological', we all know that ideologically, the vast majority of all
congress-critters (99+%) from both sides of the isle, are motivated by the ideology of
doing "what's good for the Jew$"
NATO agreement stipulates that if an alliance member is threatened, other members must
support it in its defense. Turkey has not made that claim, but it is completely
plausible that it should do so .
Are you joking, Dr. G?
Hasn't Turkey been engaged in waging an aggressive war on Syria these last few years?
Wouldn't Turkey demanding military aid from NATO, (for a "threat" from the Kurds or
Syria), amount to the US demanding NATO aid for a "threat" from Iran?
IOW, it's Turkey that has been the murderous aggressor, and the Kurds and Syrians their
victims. Not to mention that Turkey's military could make mince-meat out of the Kurdish
"threat" in a New York minute.
So it seems to me that the only thing holding Turkey back, is orders from the ZUSA and
Russia. Russia is certainly a large part of this equation, IMHO.
did not understand the Turkish mindset regarding the Kurdish threat, which they regard
as existential.
'Existential'?
Would a limited autonomy Kurdish state on Turkey's southern border, perhaps incorporating
a small swath of Turkey, be the end of Turkey's existence?
When Nazi Germany invaded Poland, the world demanded that Germany sacrifice some of its
territory as recompense for its aggressive military imperialism.
If I were in a position to do so, I'd hand Syria a slice of Israel's and Saudi Arabia's
and Turkey's territory – as a punishment for their depraved attacks on an innocent and
unthreatening Syria.
Definitely the Hatay province, which arguably belongs to Syria anyways.
I'm sure Turkey would call that an existential! calamity, but I'd tell them 'karma's a
bitch'.
Finally, there is one other important issue that should be observed. Donald Trump's
actual record on ending useless wars is not consistent with his actions. He has sent more
soldiers to no good purpose in support of America's longest war in Afghanistan, has special
ops forces in numerous countries in Asia and Africa, has threatened regime change in
Venezuela, continues to support Saudi Arabia and Israel's bloody attacks on their neighbors
and has exited to from treaties and agreements with Russia and Iran that made armed
conflict less likely. And he has five thousand American soldiers sitting as hostages in
Iraq, a country that the United States basically destroyed as a cohesive political entity
and which is now experiencing a wave of rioting that has reportedly killed hundreds. Trump
is also assassinating more foreigners using drones based mostly on profile targeting than
all of his predecessors. These are not the actions of a president who seriously wants to
end wars
I remain you most loyal fan, Dr. G. But I confess this sounds to me like you think the
situation above started on the day of Trump's inauguration.
He inherited those things by the former ZUS regimes.
He has tried over and over again to disengage, only to be dragged back by the screeching
from the members of his own party. Not to mention the ((media)).
There are a lot of reasons to condemn the actions of Trump. The Golan Heights, for
instance. But it seem glaringly obvious to me at least, that Trump is not ideologically
committed to Eternal Wars.
As you put it, he threatened regime change in Venezuela.
He wanted to have talks with the Taliban, (and the whole deepstate and their ((media))
screeched)
He "continues to support Saudi Arabia" but as Pat Buchannan points out.. "The Saudis
got the message when the U.S., in response to a missile and drone strike from Iran or
Iranian-backed militias, which shut down half of Riyadh's oil production, did
nothing.
Said Washington, this is between Saudi Arabia and Iran."
And he has five thousand American soldiers sitting as hostages in Iraq, a country that
the United States basically destroyed as a cohesive political entity and which is now
experiencing a wave of rioting that has reportedly killed hundreds
You really do make it sound like all that is his fault.
I love your work Dr. G. And consider you one of the very best, most honorable and most
courageous writers out there.
But I confess, (like so many others!), it seems like to me that you have an irrational,
personal hatred for Donald Trump that colors your perspective.
IMHO.
I didn't have time to write this response well, have to go. Hope it's not too off
base..
@animalogicMore information on Trump & drone attacks would be useful & welcome.
There is a gigantic problem in America. It makes us dysfunctional. Certain news cannot get
to the American people.
Everyone in the know gets it – do not go to the NY Times with anti-Israel news. Do
NOT buck the AIPAC agenda – period. The darkest element of the ADL will be at your door
within minutes. The US government will soon follow.
It is obvious – when it comes to Jew matters, US government employees fear for their
jobs, if not their lives. Same for the MSM.
US President Donald Trump has lambasted American broadcaster ABC News for airing a video from
Knob Creek Gun Range in the town of West Point, Kentucky, claiming that the network used
footage from the facility to depict a Turkish attack on Kurdish civilians in northern Syria.
Trump called the mistake "a big scandal" and "a real disgrace".
"A big scandal at @ABC News. They got caught using really gruesome FAKE footage of the
Turks bombing in Syria. A real disgrace", the president wrote on Twitter early Tuesday
morning.
@renfro
The Crimean Peninsula was annexed by the Russian Federation in February–March 2014.
Despite all the protests about Crimea, the Donbass invasion using asymmetric tactics with
Putin out outright denying responsability, Ukraine is a vital interest for Putin, and he
would have been willing to confront America and Nato there because it is his home ground and
advantage. But Russia is powerful enough to; Putin only went into Syria after Obama decided
not to overthrow Assad. No one particularly cares about Syria and neither do they care about
the Kurds (despite them having as good a case as the Palestinians to be given a state) and
that is why jumped up Turkey can get away with invading Syria and attacking Kurds, just like
they INVADED Cyprus.
This whole thing is probably a a storm in a teacup, but if Turkey gets into trouble they
know, because they were already told very clearly over Cyprus, that if they play Lone Ranger,
Nato does not have their back. Doing something Israel is not happy about and Turkey
threatening to get their own nuclear weapons because Israel has them is not very good
diplomacy from Turkey's point of view. It is begining to experience delusions of its own
importance.
@renfroIt appears to me that Putin's idea is to force everyone back into their own countries and
borders .he may have shared that plan with Trump and that may have resulted in turning Turkey
loose to do that job.
Here is a very good video – Putin being interviewed. They asked him hard questions.
He came across as being very rational.
@steinbergfeldwitzcohen
People! The internet is there for you to verify/debunk any statement you question. Running a
website is a lot of work, why don't you guys collect the information you demand from Mr. Unz,
and share with us?
Or are you looking at others to supply you with ready-made opinions?
@onebornfree
Thanks for the link about Mr.Bourne and you correct about his statement applying to ALL
states.
They are more like progressive, merciful and humanitarian slave owners.
Be free
I wonder why the "high IQ" westerners have never deemed it fit to study their undeniable mass
psychopathy.
If they were indeed as smart as claimed, they would begin to admit it, and given the claim
to their innate highly civilised humanitarian inclinations *cough* , they would come to the
conclusion that this world needs less of their cursed kind.
Since that is not going to happen, I guess nature has its way
@Rev.
Spooner The point he makes is extremely vague. No specificity. None. Yet 10's of
thousands are dead. Ok, how about some evidence.
Why don't you go back to kindergarten, Rev?
@SafeNow
The support of the public for the military derives from constant and pervasive propaganda
particularly through movies and TV shows , David Sirota calls it the "Military
Entertainment
Complex".
Zero Hedge : " Documents expose how Hollywood promotes war on behalf of the Pentagon , CIA
& NSA ".
@Johnny
Walker Read I was making a rhetorical point. I don't think the U.S. can decouple from the
Middle East.
I do, however, think that Trump wants value for blood and treasure.
Long-term, America simply lacks the financial strength to continue to project power. The
MIC costs the U.S. a tremendous amount of money. Budget to the MIC will continue to be
slashed over time. The Deep State in the U.S. will contract simply due to financial
realities.
Israel will be less and less of a priority.
The next financial crisis is already beginning. The U.S. has a massive debt ratio relative to
the Money Supply. It is now 5:1. Good luck with that. It will be needed.
@Whitewolf
Yes, lack of talent and totall inane radical left wing proposals whiped up by the AOC wing
and swallowed by all the candidates 'hook, line and stinker '.
@OscarWildeLoveChild
After JFK's assassination, every successive president is/was shown a film clip of JFK's head
exploding from an angle nobody's ever seen.
It doesn't matter what party they're from; they'll tow TPTB's line. All of them.
US Foreign Policy = Occupied Palestine Foreign Policy.
That's all that's wrong with US foreign policies in a nutshell.
@Bragadocious
Whether he or his father served is irrelevant. Carter was in the Naval Academy, Reagan and
Bush 43 were in the reserves. Clinton had none and neither did Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge,
Harding, or Wilson.
What is telling, is the "alleged bone spurs", and "Trump's surname was changed from the
original German Drumpf".
An allegation is an unproven accusation. What Giraldi is stating, is that Trump's physician
falsified records. You think old man Trump sent Donnie for a megadollar military academy
education so he could avoid the military?
As for Drumpf, I was acquainted with a couple of Schmidts who became Smith, a Bryjolfson who
became Byron, a Pachkowski who became Berry and, no one says Roosevelt's name was changed
from Rosenfeld. The snide commentary doesn't help.
I have said all along, that there is a lot not to like about Trump, but let's keep it in the
realm of reality. Whether he wants to end the stupid wars or not, he will never be allowed
to, as long as Giraldi's old employer is in business and making up non-existent bullshit
"threats to American interests", whatever they are.
@Sean
"Doing something Israel is not happy about and Turkey threatening to get their own nuclear
weapons because Israel has them is not very good diplomacy from Turkey's point of view"
Israel is known to puff and bluff . It is grandiose polemic or rabid canine barking. It
was not exposed by the west . But the west now knows it ,thanks to Hizbullah
@anon
Getting women to work had nothing to do with their 'liberation.'
Even though my mom had her own [private] school, my dad's salary was enough to provide for
all 5 of us, go on annual holidays abroad and put three kids through college, loan-free.
To TPTB, it's better to tax 2 people instead of 1.
To them it's just a number game, like the 'Torches of Freedom' gambit, all spiel, smoke
and mirrors, to fool us gullible idiots into believing we do have a say
We should really start to use our guns and rifles to free the country and rid it of the
rot that's smothering it.
Oh, look, another Cartra$$hian selfie butt shot on Instagram!!!!!!
It's very old habit.Very much ingrained . It is also generational . Increasingly and suddenly
religious also as the feckless toothless Evangelicals are rooting for 1 second fame .
But here is a short chronology–
1 Plans for mayhem in Syria have been on the imperial table since the 1950s (Operation
Straggle).
2 US general Wesley Clark gave the game away years ago when he revealed US intentions in
the Middle East after 9/11: seven countries were to be invaded
3 Seymour Hersh gave the game away too in his 2007 New Yorker article: "The Redirection".
In this piece he revealed how the US were hooking up once again with the Saudi/Sunni
fundamentalists in and around Syria.
4 France's ex-foreign minister Roland Dumas also gave the game away when he revealed that the
British State (a definite CIA asset) was preparing for a war on Syria two years before the
start of the Syrian Holocaust in 2011.
"This operation [in Syria]," said the former French foreign minister Roland Dumas in June,
"goes way back. It was prepared, pre-conceived and planned."
As we recently learned from former French Foreign Minister Dumas, it was also about that
time, that actors in the United Kingdom began planning the subversion of Syria with the help
of "rebels"' (Christof Lehmann, Interview with Route Magazine)
Between 2006 to 2010, the US spent 12 million dollars in order to support and instigate
demonstrations and propaganda against the Syrian government. 6,3 million dollars was funneled
to the Movement for Justice and Development, a Syrian dissident organization based in London.
The Movement operated the Barada satellite channel
@Johnny
Walker Read Quote: "America/Israel/Russia have always wanted the partitioning of Syria "
Reply: Kindly allow me to correct your statement.
"America/Israel have always wanted the partitioning of Syria "
Russia has a wet entrance into the Med via Syria.
Perhaps you've dozed off a bit over the past few years, but Russia has been destroying and
killing the FUKZUIS 'war' machine goons in Syria [aka the takfiri terrorist].
They're assisting in getting the country back [on its feet] as a whole again.
@anon
I'll keep it short. You can find the beginnings back in the 2012 coverage.
In 2012 Saudi sent Saudi Prince Bandar to Syria to be in charge of helping Syrian rebels
bring down Assad, an ally of Riyadh's biggest regional rival Iran.
They were originally created, set up and armed and financed by Saudi.
The Saudis were then joined by Israel and Qatari and finally by the US under Obama.
A new twist appeared in the Saudi rebels war with Assad when ISI appeared and joined the
fight.
This scared Saudi shitless as they thought this ISI version of ALQ might be a threat to them
and lead to an invasion of Saudi as ALQ always saw it as a' westernerized' Saudi.
Everyone doubled down on both fighting Assad and fighting ISI ..which was a FUBAR if there
ever was one.
Then enter the proxies, the Kurds, the PPK terrorist group all fighting for their own
agendas within and under cover of the original war on Assad.
What could possibility go wrong in all this? LOL
Then enter Russia. Which gave some pause to the US in how far they wanted to go to throw
Assad out for Saudi and Israel and open a gateway to get Iran.
So now we are headed to the ending of the Saud and others Syrian adventure which is probably
best expressed by the fable of the fox and his shadow.
"A fox arose in the morning and saw his large shadow cast in the morning sun and said " I
will have a camel for lunch today'. The fox hunted all day for the camel without success. As
he paused in the afternoon setting sun he saw his shadow was much smaller and said "A mouse
will do after all."
In 1992, Alexandra Zapruder began to collect diaries written by children during
the Holocaust. These diaries speak eloquently of both hope and despair.
[Alexandra said:] "Anne Frank's diary was the first diary that was published. And her
voice was so powerful that it captured the voices of all the children and all the people
who had been killed. That's the way it's framed. And that by reading her diary and sort of
taking her into our hearts, we could redeem her life. . . ." [US Holocaust Memorial Museum
https://www.ushmm.org/confront-antisemitism/antisemitism-podcast/alexandra-zapruder
]
Alexandra Zapruder is the author of Twenty-Six Seconds: A Personal History of the
Zapruder Film.
Her grandfather was Abraham Zapruder, who took a twenty-six second home movie of President
John F. Kennedy's assassination[1] -- now known as the Zapruder film.( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Zapruder
]
From a strategic point of view it is very noteworthy to observe that Kurdish troops are
fully positioned east of the Euphrates River. The Kurds are allies of Israel and a vital
proxy implemented to fracture Syria along the lines envisioned for Greater Israel (Oded Yinon
Plan).
It is perceived that Russia is an ally of Syria. However, Putin has not prevented Kurdish
troops from establishing themselves firmly within Syrian territory.
Israel along with their diaspora will never relent until their abomination of "Eretz
Yisrael" is achieved. It's not an accident that the ISIS flag is marked "All Jew."
@NoseytheDuke
Washingtonsblog : " Balkanizing the Middle East – The real goal of America and Israel :
shatter Iraq and Syria into many small pieces "
Thomas Harrington : " One of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine
conflict in the territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet "
Sanchez : " Plan B is to Balkanize Israel is endorsing its plan B for Syria just when its
enemies are making it clear that its plan A (Assad must go) is not happening anytime soon ."
Pro-Israel America launched Tuesday endorsing 27 candidates -- 14 Democrats and 13
Republicans. All have long histories of working with the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee to advance the brand of pro-Israel legislation it favors. Its endorsements on its
website praise the named lawmakers for their actions favoring the legislative agenda closely
identified with the lobby: funding for Israel's defense, sanctions on Iran and its regional
proxies, and bills that seek to counter the boycott Israel movement.
They include Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Chris Coons, D-Del.; Rep. Steny Hoyer,
D-Md., the majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Rep. Kevin McCarthy,
R-Calif., the minority leader; Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, and Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, that committee's ranking Republican.
here are all of them listed .make sure you don't vote for one:
@barr
Blaming Saudi or Turkey or UAE has possibly some validity but as far as far the effect of the
independent move by any of them is concerned , it has less than zero effect on Syria on its
own.
It is like a hypothetical scenario where Florida and Alabama are independent countries .
Rest of America is splintered into 50 different states and Canada is trying to get rid of
Cuban regime for 50 years and only in last 5 years Florida and Alabama have joined the scheme
under dubious circumstances of pressure bribery and blackmail.
@NoseytheDuke
Israel was more powerful and also more favorite of the west across ideological drive until
2003
It is not a normal country . Somewhere that guilt and remorse of stealing and killing have
left a mark on its psyche . It doesn't know how to settle and be normal
It doesn't know the meaning of the power, advantage or gain . The paranoia drives to more
dangerous world of fear and insecurity . It can't rest . Even if it is left alone, he talks
to itself and bangs it head against wall . Recent election is the manifestation of more
madness . It's begging jaunt to Russia and screaming through US media show how badly weakened
the country is.
The countries that bow to Israel – UK, USA, Egypt, Saudi are finding themselves also
badly weakened ,
A seed was planted in 2006 in Lebanon . That tree is growing taller and establishing roots
, Israel will be a shrub hiding in the shadow of that tree in a few years time.
Soviet and Russia were both almost destroyed by Jews . Now they look for the Russian shadow
to hide .
@renfro
A pack of lions can bring down an adult elephant at night when they have the advantage, but
they are careful not to choose a really big strong one. Russia is fighting in the Ukraine its
traditional heartland and what H. Mackinder called the Heartland of the World Island. A
victory in Syria that only came because Obama chose to not crush Assad with a couple of days
of air raids is hardly evidence of the Empire falling.
The real meaning of Trump is the facing of the threat from China, and if the neocons want
to play games in the Middle East so what? There is a fight coming with China and it is a
match for the West led by giant Bull Elephant America, Backward ME shitholes all together
could not take down America in a thousand years.
And what were the Kurds in Iraq called?
Didn't Saddam use some type of gas on them and that's why we were siding with them? Who told
about the incubator babies, maybe some other terrorist group?
@renfro
Mmmm, okay, you must have meant something like 'organized shooting' when you said, "SAUDI
STARTED THE WHOLE FUCKING SYRIAN WAR." Sorry I bit on false advertising.
As you see from 'barr' at #119 above, your starting point is months, years, even decades
too late. For a fact (I've met some of the Syrians who met with Robert Ford in Damascus, now
here and still lobbying for regime-change), the US was meddling, encouraging, prompting the
anti-Assadists well before the 2011 demonstrations.
@Daniel
Rich Putin is not the nice guy we have been told he is. He is in Syria for a reason, and
that is not simply because he wants Syria returned to al-Assad. Syria is only one cog in the
wheel. World wide Communism marches on, if you hadn't noticed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=19&v=4sKxkY0Tz5s
LOL. My favourite rapid US evacuation was the CIA flying off the roof of the Saigon
Embassy while the Viet Kong were busting in through the door and running up the stairs.
who benefits from these wars – isn't it just one small but powerful segment of
America – AIPAC. Isn't it time to call these wars by the honest truthful term –
"AIPAC Wars?"
Except the main beneficiary of these wars is George Soros and his anti-Semitic Globalist
movement.
Soros intentionally orchestrated the ultra-weak, time limited JCPOA treaty to create a
nuclear arms race among Iran, SA, Turkey, and possibly other MENA nations. That way he and
his buddies with MIC investments could profit by selling weapons to all sides.
So let's put in everyone's face with a factual term
Trump confuses tweeting with taking action. How many times has he mentioned 'birthright
citizenship' and then done nothing about it?
A: Every time.
If Trump drives too hard, too early and the case arrives at the Supreme Court while it is
split 5-4 in favor of 'birthright citizenship' Is that a win? Or, a loss?
There is a huge difference between 'failed action' and 'successful action'.
Given the proven hostility of the deep state establishment, it makes a great deal of sense
to lay groundwork now (via tweets), but only launch the correct constitutional action once
the courts are prepared to support it.
With class, Philip Giraldi amused me by his article's mere title, "Trump wants to end the
"Stupid Wars?"
Oh yea! Thanks, Phil , & please continue with offering dashes of intelligent,
dissident, & unflappable humor. Haha. For example, "Trump's surname was changed from the
original German Drumpf and if there were any Drumpfs at Normandy, they were undoubtedly on
the German side."
(Zigh) The insatiable global tag team, M.I.C. and The Land of Bilk & Money , want "Big
Time" and more stupidly unnecessary & immoral wars. (Zigh) One sure path to a 2nd term
for President Bonespur is for him to get off the "low energy" Turkey/Syria skirmish, &
get on with real war against Iran , for Israel.
Thanks, Phil! Fyi, I think Senator Lindsey Graham wants to get Bolton back in The Blue
& White House, and sanction Camp Mar a Lago.
P.S.: For all commenters assembled here, linked below is Stephen Colbert's satiric
covering of President Drumpf's having followed Israel's yonder (fallen) , and establishing a
US Space Force Command! To that, Colbert quipped, "Trump can not join it because of his
galactic bonespur."
@9/11
Inside job Seven Nations to Destroy for the nine eleven false flag. Wesley Clark
mentioned the seven – Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.
Seven Nations to Destroy for Yahweh's Israel – Deut. 7:1-2 –
Tanakh/OT.
Iraq 2003 invaded Purim – shattered in pieces
Libya 2011 invaded Purim – shattered in pieces
How four other nations on the list that were destroyed.
Somalia –
Since 2006 it has been a mess with Israel/US Al-Qaeda running the show.
Bizarre article about US/Israel terrorists "worried" about the environment.
Somalia-based militant group Al-Shabab has reportedly announced a ban on the use of
single-use plastic bags in territories under its control.
The Al-Qaeda-affiliated organization, which has been blamed for thousands of deaths
since its inception in 2006, dubbed plastic a "serious threat to the well-being of both
humans and animals," the BBC reported, citing Al-Shabab's radio station Radio Andalus.
It even mentions that Osama Bin Laden, the puppet of Israel/US, was "worried" about the
environment too. It makes one wonder if this Climate Change thing and Imperialism terror are
connected.
Bin Laden wrote that Americans needed to save Obama from corporate and other nefarious
influences to empower him to "save humanity from the harmful gases that threaten its
destiny."
He added that the world would be better off fighting climate change than waging what he
claimed was a war against Islam.
Sudan
Divided in two in 2011. Israel/US is pushing for more divisions.
Asked about his demand for protection during his meeting with Putin, al-Bashir said we
wanted to highlight "the big U.S. pressure and conspiracy" on Sudan in Darfur crisis and
the huge pressure exerted on his government to separate the South Sudan.
"Now we have information that the American quest is to divide the Sudan into five
countries If we do not find protection and security. America took the world leadership and
devastated the Arab world. (See) what happened in Afghanistan, what happened in Iraq, what
happened in Syria, what happened in Yemen and what happened in Sudan," said al-Bashir.
Lebanon
Invaded by Israel in the summer of 2006. It made a mess out of Lebanon. Israel had a lot
of trouble fighting off Hezbollah. This is the reason that Israel fears going into Lebanon
again. After this adventure, Golems like US and its friends are the go to for Israel's war
adventures.
Initially, both Israel and Hezbollah claimed victory in the war, with Nasrallah
declaring that Hezbollah had achieved a "divine, historic and strategic victory". Some
international observers saw the fact that Hezbollah had survived the Israeli assault,
despite the asymmetrical power balance, as a PR victory for the group. According to
Reuters, the Lebanese government estimated direct war damage at $2.8 billion, and lost
output and income for 2006 at $2.2 billion. The economy also shrank five per cent, with
tourism effectively halted.
Six of the seven were messed up, destroyed. It leaves only Iran left. Iran is in the
"news" everyday for this reason.
Trump is flawed, ok then, but we had Clinton as the alternative. She would have been ten
times worse so what choice did the American people have? He's rolling up the Obama-Clinton
project in Syria which was a huge atrocity. Can you imagine the bloodbath that would have
ensued had the US backed jihadi cannon fodder actually succeeded in overthrowing Assad? It's
not a one man show and Trump has to go along with much of what has been taking place. Much of
this has been imposed upon the American people as well as on Trump.
The brave Turks have been fighting a thirty year war against the "terrorist" Kurdish PKK. Why
so long? Maybe the Turks oppress them? There has to be a reason the Kurds have been resisting
for so long. But yet the mighty Turks are going to defeat the Kurds of Syria even as they
can't defeat the ones living in their own country? Perhaps they'll take on the inferior
Syrian army at the same time. After all, they're a big NATO ally with lots of weapons to dump
on lightly armed foes. Reality is they haven't fought anyone in a hundred years so who knows
how well they'd do.
Quit calling Afghanistan a "war". It's an occupation with anti-guerilla operations going on.
Apparently they don't like being occupied so they fight on.
Trump's name is Trump, not Drumpf. Or do we now refer to people by the family name used a
hundred years ago, or why not five hundred years ago?
Excerpt from
"Trump Mistake: Allowing Turkish Invasion of Northern Syria"
by Joel Skousen (there is no direct link to it but it is/was on his website World Affairs Brief ):
This week in a telephone conversation with Turkish dictator Recep Erdogan he [President
Trump] assented to Erdogan's demand from over a year ago to let them enter Turkey and
establish a buffer zone where Turkey can resettle the hundreds of thousands of Syrian
refugees that have burdened Turkey since the beginning of the US-created terror attacks on
Syria. But as part of that strategy, and without emphasizing that to Trump, Erdogan intends
to drive out or destroy the Syrian Kurds which occupy northern Syria. Erdogan calls them
terrorists because the US-backed YPG Kurds are affiliated with the homegrown Kurdistan
Workers Party (PKK) which represents about 20% of the Turkish population, and which has
been fighting for independence from Turkey. So while the Turkish Foreign Minister plays lip
service to Syrian sovereignty, Turkey has already begun the invasion and occupation of
northern Syria. While Trump claims he is fulfilling a campaign promise to remove troops
from Syria, this isn't really a pullout at all since only two observation posts in the path
of the Turkish invasion are pulling out. There are thousands of other US troops elsewhere
in Syria protecting US-backed terrorist rebels.
@Johnny
Walker Read H.E. Mr. Putin has clearly stated it's up to the Syrian population to choose
who leads them, not him.
Tartus has a port Russia needs and uses.
Khmeimim Air Base is also needed and used by the Russian AF.
These are military strategic assets and used to counter balance the FUKZUS 'war' machine's
bases dotted around the ME region. Of course, those you don't mention.
No president actually controls the government, least of all Trump. The Deep State controls
the government. Trump is a an interloper. Why does one have to remind the author of this
elementary fact? The threat to destroy the economy of Turkey was made by Stephen Israel
Mnuchin. Trump had to make noises as if it was his "decision" when in fact he had nothing to
do with it. What Trump wants to do, and what he can do, are entirely different things. And
anyone who has anything to do with Americans knows what happened to all the previous allies.
Mnuchin has clued in those Turks who may have had illusions.
@renfro
very bad US is indeed . It continues to sabotage ,cast evil eye,try to strangle ,and continue
to punish Cuba . That long history is really long punctuated by half hearted Obama attempt
.
Once empire decided a project,it becomes , NASA , Present Danger , PNAC or NED . The project
goes on losing the aim . The project goes on because the vested interest
,employees,pensioner,glory seeking men, arm merchant, politicians and expatriate find means
to rake up profit and launder dishonest living into honest lifestyle . Name is changed when
it suits the project . Aim is not lost. It becomes the final destination . It never stops
energegizing the dishonest, looter,profit seekers, and opportunists . Often the brains that
gather under the flag are not that intelligent or ideologically certain.
Money and corruption drive them.
It's truly amazing how much the consciousness of the planet has changed within the past
5 years alone, and it's not just happening within one topic, but in several different areas
ranging from health to geopolitics and everything in-between.
Going broke happens slowly at first, then quickly. The Western cities are going broke, as
are those in the Third World. Nothing else changes peoples minds like having their basic
income reduced or eliminated.
All the promises (including self-governmement and freedom and equality) have turned out to
be lies, smoke. Computers, which were supposed to be a seamless adjunct to human existence, a
source of education and information, and a liberation from the bad parts of part of reality,
have turned into (poor but cheap) entertainment, gossip, a drug substitute, and a propaganda
source. The result is shock and horror, sometimes followed by violent psychosis [1] (e.g.
antifa).
Once again, I recommend "Marat/Sade"
(1967). It gives you a feel for what a revolution is like once the revolution gets going.
Note the movie's final scene, which almost breaks the "fourth wall" convention. It was made
during our last revolution, and the director wanted to record the spirit of what he had
seen.
@Art I
like it, very catchy, original, Art said: "AIPAC Wars."
Oh yea, Art, thanks, and a "spade is a spade" when one manages to get the hell out of the
AIPAC shade.
Unfortunately tonight, millions of process estranged Amerikan Democrat & GOP voters
are now "beamed up" to an AIPAC-approved strange & hostile telescreen's DebateLand.
(Zigh) Across aisle, including a possible Beaming Bloomberg entry, , "winnable" 2020
presidential nomination contestants shall pick & choose, finagle & sell, an either/or
USrael foreign policy posture, as regrettably follows:
1.) The Zio-Democrat War to end the deplorable Trump's stupid call to end all Amerika's
endless Wars just for the paltry good of gradually achieving Greater Israel's unending
endgame. or,
2.) The Zio-GOP's War to end all Democrat Party hopefuls' stupid call to end all US endless
wars just because a lefty AIPAC-Branch put an Israel Labor Party "bug in their ear" about
having lowly dead-ender 'Merikan workers fucking pay for it.
Thanks again, Art, and "Good night America."*
* Phil Giraldi inhabits Sinatra's City That Never Sleeps.
The next financial crisis is already beginning. The U.S. has a massive debt ratio
relative to the Money Supply. It is now 5:1. Good luck with that. It will be needed.
Agree.
And the financial debt must be augmented by degradation of physical infrastructure
(especially in cities and city support infrastructure) and the degradation of human capital
by importation of low IQ populations and effective destruction of education. And the capital
misallocation that continues today.
The world will be surprised at what happens when the US power projection ends, as global
trade will end with it.
The brave Turks have been fighting a thirty year war against the "terrorist" Kurdish
PKK. Why so long? Maybe the Turks oppress them? There has to be a reason the Kurds have
been resisting for so long.
Turkish birth rate low (lower in cities than in hinterlands), Kurdish birth rate high.
Kurds replace Turks in a few decades. Kurds don't follow Turkish cultural norms, nor Turks
follow Kurdish. Kurds don't want to wait a few decades, want power _now_ (c.f. Black Power
and Whiteness in USA). Kurds use destructive commando raides ("terrorism") to get power now.
Turks don't like that, respond with same.
Long term: demography wins barring very large change.
Please correct parts of this that are wrong. I'm not following this conflict closely.
Latest TruNews godcast, E. Michael Jones: The Deception Facing the Church by Christian
Zionism
YT Description:
Today on TruNews, Dr. E. Michael Jones joins us to talk about the influence of modern
Christian Zionism upon the American Church, and how that has led to a dramatic
radicalization of US foreign policy in favor of one nation, Israel.
Prof. Jones takes the deluded xian Zionists to task, calling them "useful idiots." My
favourite passage starts @ 18:58:
.. which means you got a lot of Christians who don't understand the gospel. Because
there are plenty of Christians out there who are Christian Zionists. It's a simple fact of
life. I think it can be traced to Jewish influence in our culture Jewish influence over the
publishing industry, for example. How did the Scofield Bible end up being published by
Oxford University Press? Because it's a great scholarly work? No! Because of people like
Mr. Untermeyer pulled strings. This is the way this happened. It's the biggest issue facing
American politics, right now. The role that Zionism is playing right now, in corrupting the
government of the United States, in diverting American resources into a quagmire in the
Middle East, which doesn't serve the interests of the American people at all and is all
done in the name of Israel.
@Counterinsurgency
I'm kind of having a mental barrier with this now.
There is a guy in Vancouver who predicted the 2008 financial crisis, Jensen I believe (he
wrote to the Bank of Canada and a list of people in 2006). He argues that the fundamentals
are even worse now due to the failure to finance these foreign adventures and other factors
(expenditures on domestic expenses not matching tax income, etc.).
I haven't even taken the time to consider the knock on effects. Mentally, I've been more
focused on having to sit through the screaming match that is going to occur over who is to
blame and the lying that will go on with respect to needing to move to a sound money system
but having bankers et al try to argue for a rollover into a new currency. It is going to be
ugly, I can feel it. It will provide an opportunity for some serious structural change and
constitutional amendments. A whole host of reforms are open when you have a debt induced
currency collapse. I just know it could be really ugly and I've been dreading thinking
through how this will play out. I keep thinking that I never expected to live in a time like
this; I think back to being a teenager during the Reagan years and, despite the Cold
War-nuclear war scenario hanging over our heads, it seemed a much more optimistic time.
I am not optimistic. I'm very worried.
@Robjil
Somalia under a failing Siad Barre regime was going to the dogs with various warlords
cannibalising each other. Then the Americans were told in the flush of victory in the Gulf in
1991, that they should just kick the door in to save the dumb Muslims. It is not the fault of
the late senior Bush that Somalia is compounded of that specimen of humanity that emerges
like clockwork when African tribalism is married to Islamic fanaticism (but is there any
other kind?) . The Americans were minding their own business, but were told that it was the
humanitarian thing (and furthermore quite cheap to boot) to do at little cost to themselves
to save Muslim chillun'.
Afghanistan was no better : The idiot, the younger George Bush instead of bombing the the
hell out of Al-Queda and leaving was instead misled by mystagogues of various hues, including
his own self into sinking lives and treasure in a vain attempt to civilise the Afghans.
The truth is the further you keep away from Muslims, the better it is for your health and
sanity, notwithstanding the parallel machinations of various neocohens, for Islam is a
pernicious religion that breeds insanity, intolerance and bloodshed all by itself.
E. Michael Jones: a very wise man. He believes in free speech and is hated by Jews who, of
course, label him an 'anti-semite'. I would argue they are 'truth averse' fanatical
maniacs.
He makes a good case that 'Christian Zionism' is a heresy. I don't believe he uses that term
BUT I do.
It's just another bubbling that is bursting.
What will they do besides scream and throw tantrums? Is it time for another false flag 911
type event?
What the media never really exposed was how Syria, and every Middle East country that has
been attacked by the DeepStateZio monster, has seen the oldest Christian communities on the
planet under attack. Strange pattern. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism, initiated by the
British alliance with the Wahabi's and the Saud Family and furthered by the CIA/Mossad in
Afghanistan, has corresponded with the destruction and diasporas of the world's oldest
Christian communites.
Somehow, Europe has ended up with a bunch of Muslims when these Christians would have fit
into their societies much better.
I think that none of this just 'happened'. I strongly suspect that if we were to kick over
some rocks we would find the usual suspects: the Khazar/Black Nobility Alliance.
@renfro
How?????????????????????????????????????????
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I do think it was Mc Cain.
Concerning historically lazy Saudis I am entirely confident that they were only taking care
of payroll.
( I am not entirely confident but there is a possibility that CIA did channel some profits
from Afghanistan poppy fields for this noble cause.
@Counterinsurgency
Quote: "The world will be surprised at what happens when the US power projection ends, as
global trade will end with it."
Reply: Given the vast sums of money set aside to implement China's 1 belt 1 road project,
[IMO] the global dollar trade will turn into a trickle over time, but the global trade will
not nosedive along with it.
Too much a stake for the multinationals [not necessary a good thing, but alas].
Damascus had supported U.S. intelligence operations after 9/11 and it was Washington
that soured the relationship beginning with the Syria Accountability Act of 2003, which
later was followed by the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2015, both of which were,
at least to a certain extent, driven by the interests of Israel.
It's very challenging to come up with any foreign policy initiatives that do not serve
Zionist Israel's interests, first and foremost. Israeli interests have defined American
foreign policy objectives in the ME for much of the post-WWII era. Not at Israel's behest,
but on Israel's instructions and demands via pro-Zionist lobbies and the infestation of the
Administration with Israel First officials, Israeli citizens and spies. Add to that the
Israel First MSM.
@ivan
Is it methamphetamine instead of regular fentanyl ? Anyway, this logic and perverted emotion
make sense to you. Unfortunately it will reinforce your decision to switch . Business will
sure be coming back from China to rural America.
@A123 I
respectfully disagree on this particular matter. There is no US law bestowing birthright
citizenship. All that would change is recognition of what the law really says.
Trump waiting to win another 4 (still a gamble) AND for RBG's animatronics to fizzle out
AND for her replacement to not be another skunk like Roberts is foolish.
There is no underwater 38th-dimensional quantum chess being played here, and we still have
no wall.
Oops, I posted this under another writer. (Small wonder I got no answer.) Since then, someone
else remarked that at the end of WWI this land (northern Syria) was taken from Turkey. So
this is a long grievance, with deep sense of entitlement.
Rurik wrote, " .the Americans (Obama regime), created ISIS- with the intention that they
use Libya's stolen arms caches to hack and slaughter their way across Syria "
Yes, and that's why I'm skeptical of dumping of Erdogan. How eager was he for this
conflict? Did the Obama CIA promise him N. Syria for his complicity? Doubtless assuring that
Assad would fall quickly! Or maybe they dangled EU membership, if he joined the team.
Maybe Phil can enlighten us:
We know that Robert Ford, US Embassador to Syria, was meeting privately with Syrian "civil
society" activists before the 2011 demonstrations.
-- Was Erdogan/Turkey also involved in infiltrating, inflaming those anti-Assad
elements?
-- How did Turkey involvement begin?
-- Was the CIA actively involved in Syria before the fall of Libya?
C'mon guys.
Using prior military service as some sort of litmus test to the right to critique involvement
and opinion sharing today plays to an audience mentality that encourages blind
patriotism.
There really are no necessary wars these days as they are all being fought for the banker
elite which holds no loyalty to country though it plays on ppl's ignorance to use such
loyalties for propaganda purposes.
There is no justification for US troops to be all over the world as a banker mercenary force
and this site acknowledges 911 was an Israeli- internationalist false flag which removes all
justifications for the meddling in Israeli neighbor's internal affairs.
Tolerating this to get air time with magazines that lie for power is encouraging this
negative behavior for personal advantage in a country and world striving to control the most
minute areas of our lives.
Going along to get along only brings the eternal boot down of the forehead forever@!
The fact that none of these bickering forces are targeting Israel who always was the
catalyst for the divisions there, is a huge clue that we and Israel are the problem causers
primarily. Of course we need false flags to excite the population to support the fake war on
terror within the US and Europe (as well as justify the reverse colonialism going on). Jews
for hundreds of years have counted on stupid goyim to do the fighting but now that Israel is
a supposed stand alone nation, that should be harder to accomplish but apparently total
corporate media control keeps the truth hidden from 85% of the public.
Reply: Given the vast sums of money set aside to implement China's 1 belt 1 road
project, [IMO] the global dollar trade will turn into a trickle over time, but the global
trade will not nosedive along with it.
I actually hadn't thought of that. Now that you point it out, of course the dollar trade
will decrease. Negative interest rates are, in a way, saying that nobody wants US Dollars
anymore, and trades that are not in US Dollars are being actively sought. The decrease will
happen a bit before the USN becomes ineffective. And that will be hard on the
multi-nationals, but I can't say I have much sympathy. They were firmly behind the move of
Western manufacturing to East Asia – what did they think would happen?
But I do disagree over the assertion that global trade will remain about as it is.
The New Silk Road. Interesting topic.
Well, first of all it's a reasonable thing for the PRC to do. Historically, the Silk
Road has paid off for China, at least in terms of precious metals, and being dependent on a
single transportation mode for one's raw materials is strategically undesirable. It's a
good move. It's also an attempt to realize McKinder's proposed making the World Island into
a unified state[1].
But a couple of points:
a) New Silk Road is much more expensive than sea transport [2]. If sea lanes are cut
off, China's raw materials costs increase by several times.
b) New Silk Road recapitulates the interaction of European empires of the 1800s through
1900s with ethnicities along the Silk Road. The Europeans were resented and eventually
ejected. The Chinese are having similar problems.
China has loaned money to various nations which have then spent that money on immediate
consumption and are attempting to repudiate the debt. The Chinese (who have no compunctions
about debt repudiation through currency devaluation) are apparently taking over completion
of the Silk Road facilities for which the natives can no longer pay (having spent the money
on other things). Local rulers are saying that this makes the Chinese foreign invaders (on
a very low level so far). Just like the Europeans.
Chinese society also does not mix well with either Islamic or African tribal society, yet
the Silk Road crosses both cultural territories.
So far as I know, the Chinese takeover of the Panama Canal since the US evacuation has gone
well. Last I heard, a few years back, Panama had started teaching Chinese in its public
schools. Chinese operations in South and Meso America are increasing, however, and I know
little about how they are going.
The nice thing about policed sea lanes is that shippers don't have to worry much about
the natives. Piracy is and has been a problem, but so far not a serious one. New Silk Road
goes overland, and that has (historically) always led to security problems with the locals,
whoever the locals may be.
So: Let's suppose that the USN were to become ineffective. Only the part of the Silk
Road guarded by the Russian Federation would remain secure. The rest would be subject to
local raids and extortion from the local government. Note that raw materials costs would
increase drastically for everybody (because of less shipping), so local governments and
bandits would have motives for confiscating goods.
This would be especially the case in Africa, which is largely dependent on food imports.
That conflict could become severe, as China is increasingly dependent on Africa for raw
materials (as is the rest of the world).
In other words, sole reliance on the New Silk Road (should that ever be necessary) would
be expensive in terms of shipping and in terms of security / warfare costs. China's
bellicose policy is, IMHO, counterproductive. China should be positioning itself to police
the sea lanes cooperatively but reluctantly with a declining USN, gradually assuming the
mantle of worldwide protection of the sea lanes that China needs so badly. Current efforts
to be able to interdict the sea lanes are not in the PRC's interest, as the PRC needs these
sea lanes open. It's sort of like developing a hyperbomb to make the Sun go nova. Under
what circumstances would you use such a device? Under what circumstances would China want
to cease shipping by sea?
So, what's likely to happen? The USN will decline because it needs recapitalization due
to age and a changing threat, and the US is instead devoting its income to debt repayment
and immediate social stability expenditures. The PRC, which has never been a naval power,
will still attempt to keep global trade alive. When that fails, the PRC will trade more
with the Russian Federation It will also take what sea and land it has, make an
expeditionary force out of it, and deploy it in some trading zones (possibly in countries
that have resources China needs) rather than see its population starve and itself
overthrown. That's the standard response from any H. Sap. political organization. Things
will get very messy.
And please remember that I'm like the weatherman: I report, I don't cause.
@Stan
Israel is a shitty little country but its treatment of the Palestinians is side issue for the
West, just as the way the Kurds are treated is unfortunate but hardly our responsibility. A
confrontation with burgeoning China beckons, and America needs to be united. Going off on
tangents to play Santa to peoples who lost the geopolitical game and are without a state
would weaken the West,
@Daniel
Rich What part of BOTH the US and Russia are only there to serve their own
interest don't people understand. My only point is Russia is not there out of the goodness of
their hearts. People who claim Russia is fighting the globalist juggernaut and is only in
Syria to "fight ISIS/ISL" and to make Syria "safe for Democracy" aren't seeing the big
picture. Russia is working hand in hand with China to make sure America is reduced to a
second rate global power. Assad has become nothing more than Putin's puppet on a string.
Syria will need money for re-construction, thanks to Russia destroying much of their
infrastructure, that money more than likely will come from China(China's version of "Economic
Hit Men"). All the while, lurking in the back ground, that little shit stain known as Israel.
This report will present the reality of Russia's Syrian campaign. Russia launched air
strikes on hospitals, water treatment plants, and mosques. Russia used cluster bombs.
Russia almost exclusively targeted non-ISIS targets. These are the truths that Russia will
not admit, and the truths that must be understood when negotiating with Russia as a
potential partner.
It's all about the "Belt and Road Initiative". There are no good guy's in this mess, and
the real losers in this conflict are the citizens of Syria. Russia is a main partner in
"Globalization".
One of the main problems of the People's Republic is to connect the "Belt" with the
"Road". For China it is crucial to be able to bypass the choke points represented by the
straits that separate the South China Sea from the Indian Ocean (Malacca, Sunda and Lombok)
that, being controlled by the US, prevent the Chinese maritime power to fully develop. A
first important asset in this sense is represented by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor,
which connects by land Eastern China to the port of Gwadar in Pakistan, in turn connected
to the String of Pearls.
Why Syria?
In this perspective, Syria becomes a crucial junction within the BRI: a possible
development of its transport and port infrastructures, properly connected with each other
and with the Belt and Road Initiative, would allow China a further maritime outlet for its
land trade and a formidable trade post in the Mediterranean. A further advantage is
represented by the increased quantity of goods that China could deliver into the
Mediterranean, overcoming the further bottleneck of the Suez Canal.
Syria also has at least two important factors that represent opportunities to be
exploited by Beijing: the country's urgent need to obtain funds to be allocated to
reconstruction and development and the simultaneous disengagement of the United States from
the Middle East, an empty space not filled by the EU. Syria is therefore an extremely
interested and receptive partner to the proposals of the Chinese government, which finds
itself at the same time freed from any diplomatic controversy that could slow down its
action.
@Counterinsurgency
Chinese seem very naive in their willingness to deal with and trust black Africans and other
third worlders to honour deals and not be corrupt, etc. I suspect it will all turn sour for
them eventually.
@Abdul
Alhazred Thank you for that video. I've never been so proud of a U.S. president in my
life, as I was watching that video. He may have been cynically pandering to people like me,
but I don't care. Even if he was pandering, he said what he said.
More on Trump by Shamir's recent article:
What is much worse for Israel, is Trump's intent to leave the region. There is a good
chance you haven't seen relevant tweets of the President, for the MSM doomed to surround it
by the wall of silence. That is what the President said while ordering withdrawal:
"Fighting between various groups that has been going on for hundreds of years. USA
should never have been in Middle East. The stupid endless wars, for us, are ending! The
United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East.
Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have
died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE IN THE
HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! Now we are slowly & carefully bringing our great soldiers
& military home. Our focus is on the BIG PICTURE!"
Just for this recognition "GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE IN
THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY" and for this promise "The stupid endless wars, for us, are
ending!" Trump deserves to be re-elected and remembered as the most courageous and
independent US President since Richard Nixon.
His efforts on withdrawing from the Middle East remind of Nixon's hard struggle to leave
Vietnam and to make peace with Russia and China. If he succeeds in this endeavour, he will
be rewarded by the American people in 2020..
If he succeeds, then he sure will have my support!
One of the main instigators of the Syrian imbroglio – Saudi Arabia – had
been beaten in Yemen and is no longer eager for battle; ditto Qatar and UAE. Europe is less
keen on removing "bloody dictators" than it was. CIA, Jewish Lobby and Clintonite Democrats
would keep Syria boiling, but mercifully they are not in full command in Washington. .
@A123
What is allegedly being built is the same worthless fence. The wall prototypes couldn't
legally be used per a clause in one of the terrible spending bills hastily signed by "Master
Negotiator" Trump.
Better than cacklin' cankles? Yes, but so is my last bowel movement.
Even if we got a real wall, Orangemeister wants legal gimmegrants in record numbers. We
just can't effing win.
Don't you think Trump was a tad premature in announcing "Only I can fix," to all these
problems?
Chinese seem very naive in their willingness to deal with and trust black Africans and
other third worlders to honour deals and not be corrupt, etc. I suspect it will all turn
sour for them eventually.
Every high value PRC project in Africa seems to come with as suspiciously large number of
military age, ethnic Han Chinese staff.
The PRC colonization effort is informed by the lessons of former Euro colonies. They have
built-in measures to make them very hard to displace. And, should they eventually be forced
out, the locals will get nothing but destroyed and poisoned lands.
@geokat62
Know more News with Adam News covers the Christian Zionist story. He is still on you
tube.
Jones was banned from that platform recently. He can still be heard on bitchute as well as
his own website, Culturewars.com
the Americans (Obama regime), created ISIS- with the intention that they use Libya's
stolen arms caches to hack and slaughter their way across Syria "
Yes, and that's why I'm skeptical of dumping of Erdogan. How eager was he for this
conflict? Did the Obama CIA promise him N. Syria for his complicity? Doubtless assuring
that Assad would fall quickly! Or maybe they dangled EU membership, if he joined the
team.
I have a metric that I use.
If a person or action is in anyway aligned with Israel, then that person or action is
suspect, at best.
Insofar as Erdogan has been aligned with Israel and its interests and agendas (the
destruction and carving up of Syria)- is the degree to which he has been a malefactor on the
world's stage.
/
Vs. the degree to which he's opposed to Israel's nefarious agendas;
– he's demonstrated actual statesmanship.
So that's my metric. That's why generally I don't have to pour over the minutia of every
action or issue with a fine tooth comb, rather I just ask, 'is this person or action aligned
with Israel's agenda.. (genocide, theft, murder, hegemony, strife ), and the question always
seems to answer itself!
Just consider the Obama regime. When I approved of what Obama was doing- peace with Iran-
it was when he was in Israel's crosshairs.
When I disapproved of Obama's treasons, it was when his actions were perfectly aligned
with Israel – destruction of Libya, destruction of Syria and so forth.
It really is a near perfect, if not perfect metric.
When Trump is betraying America and Americans, is when he's serving Israel – open
borders, drones, sanctions on Iran and Russia and others..
When he's acting like an actual American president, in the service of this nation, is when
he's in direct opposition to Israel's agenda – ending the Eternal Wars, making videos
about dead American soldiers, firing Bolton, talking about nationalism at the UN..
I'm really sort of waiting for this test to ever fail, it's been so reliably perfect for
so long.
So if you want to know if Erdogan is acting in good faith, just check to see if what he's
doing pleases Israel, and you'll know all you need to know!
Is a Kurdish state a good thing?
Well, what does the 'metric' say?
Is Turkey's incursion into Syria a good thing?
Here, a mouthpiece of Zion posits 'no'.
The Turkish government is no longer interested in helping Syrians liberate themselves
from Assad's murderous regime.
The video is very powerful, and this video linked in this link features Trump's speaking
with attendant images of the families of the soldiers and what they have to go through
.because of the lies of the warmongers.
@Rurik
As Commander in Chief tRump wanted to kill Syria President Basher Assad for having gassed his
own people & having to be restrained by his Generals, Amerikans now see another side to
their president which Rurik observed on video & gushed: "I've never been so proud of a
U.S. president in my life, as I was watching that video. He may have been cynically pandering
to people like me, but I don't care. Even if he was pandering, he said what he said Thank
God. Peace."
Am sincerely glad you're "happy," Rurik, that Trumpstein moved to shed some of his
Adelson/Netantahu skin implants. Nonetheless, & I don't want to be a GOP Likud-Party
pooper, but am sticking with Philip Giraldi's advisory to, "Let's see what he actually
does."
At any rate, linked below (& fyr in ), is Brother Nathanael's latest video. In order
to stave off our nation's descent into Greater Sodom & Gomorrah, it's understandable to
me how Bro Nat prefers "The Chosen One" to continue as ZUS president over his uber-liberal
& decadent Zio-Democrat opponents.
Thanks Rurik, and enjoy the good times of tRump's proclamation of an end to endless wars
for Greater Israel while it lasts!
"Israel is a shitty little country but its treatment of the Palestinians is side issue
for the West . . . A confrontation with burgeoning China beckons"
Israel's overall shiftiness IS not at all a "side issue" to USA, it is at the heart of US
FP dysfunction.
According to the video below, Israel is firmly on board and participating in China's
rise.
The wonderful context is, it's not up to Trump. It's not up to the US government. The world
will squeeze the CIA regime out of Syria. Russian doctrine of coercion to peace works equally
well on degenerate great powers, with the minor filip of face-saving subterfuge for routed US
functionaries.
Lindsay Graham gets to shake his tiny fist ineffectually at a sneering NATO ally instead
of shaking his tiny fist ineffectually at a nuclear power with overwhelming hypersonic
nonballistic missile capability. Much safer.
@Wally
The only way to change this cast of filthy charACTORs we have running this country is to have
a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" box located prominently at the bottom of every ballot. One I
would take the time and effort needed to check.
@Cloak And
Dagger Trump's problem is that he has very little support for his MAGA agenda in his own
party. People like Lindsey Graham who support him here and there will not hesitate to turn on
him if he takes positions that offend Sheldon Adelson. Trump's none-too-sophisticated,
none-too-affluent base is opposed by the media, academe, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the FBI
and CIA, and the Rainbow Coalition assemblage of minority voices. Even Fox News (apart from
Tucker) opposes Trump's agenda even as it defends Trump against spurious charges of colluding
with the Russians. For example, Hannity regularly charges the Democrats with being in league
with Putin, in effect conceding that the Russians are evil enemies. Yet Trump's MAGA proposal
was detente and friendly cooperation with (now-Christian) Russia.
At the end of the day, the 4D Chess view seems more right than wrong. While Trump's
commitment to the right is both shallow and wavery, in the present setting he cannot do more
than hold the enemy at bay and wait for reinforcements to show up. That means it's up to US,
his supporters, to find ways to weigh in on his side. As the fascists used to say, a bundle
of sticks can be strong even if the individual sticks are weak.
@Sean
My question to you is: a confrontation between who or what and China? To the extent that
America collapses into a post-Christian, post-European congeries of plutocrats and their
commercial interests, such a confrontation has no clear shape. The evolving character of
American society has been put on the table by the Trump/populist revolution, and the role of
Jews in our cultural evolution is part of that even if it is taboo to discuss it. The issue
over the Palestinians is the only way to challenge the successful assumption of moral carte
blanche by the secular Jewish community, which Jewish thought leaders have parlayed into an
effective assault on freedom of speech and assembly (particularly in Europe but also here),
and a campaign to stigmatize whiteness, Christianity, and the nuclear family.
Conclusion: The issue of Palestine is a proxy for the larger issue of whether secular
Judaism deserves its current status as moral hegemon. It is the only way to raise this issue
that is not instantly dismissed as neo-Nazism.
@SolontoCroesus
SolontoCroesus wrote: "Israel's overall shiftiness IS not at all a "side issue" to USA, it is
at the heart of US FP dysfunction.
According to the video below, Israel is firmly on board and participating in China's rise."
To All commenters,
Above, when SolontoCroesus speaks, I listen & learn.
When President Bonespur speaks, it pains to listen, & I can potentially become
deceived.
Will likely get friendly fire from Rurik, but I truly wish he reads your comment &
astutely watches the very informative linked Talpiot video. Hurts when I see good men (like
him) gush while listening to "The Chosen One's" tear jerking words.
Thanks for your patriotic servus, S2C!
P.S.: Behind D.C.'s Blue & White House curtain, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin licks his
choppers in anticipation of effectual ZUS sanctions, & the Chinese communist government's
finally granting Goldman Sachs Group permission to do "untethered" investment business" in
the mainland; the largest consumer market on the planet.
@Sean'Israel is a shitty little country but its treatment of the Palestinians is side issue for
the West, just as the way the Kurds are treated is unfortunate but hardly our responsibility.
A confrontation with burgeoning China beckons, and America needs to be united. Going off on
tangents to play Santa to peoples who lost the geopolitical game and are without a state
would weaken the West,'
As usual you've being dishonest. You agree Israel is a 'shitty little country' -- but
manage to insinuate we should continue to support it.
After all, we don't have to spend a penny to 'play Santa' to the Palestinians (as if we
had nothing to do with their expulsion.). It's the Israelis we subsidize and protect, not the
Palestinians.
In fact, we can help the Palestinians and save money too! Yank Israel off our tit and we
get to have our cake and eat it too. The Palestinians get their home back, and we save
billions every year. All we have to do is to stop funding their tormentors,
If a person or action is in anyway aligned with Israel, then that person or action is
suspect, at best.'
It is always wrong to support Israel.
In 2008, I voted for McCain instead of Obama. I told myself they'd both be equally
supportive of Israel, but I knew deep down inside that was a lie.
I voted for McCain because he wasn't black. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is
that I allowed some other consideration to seduce me into supporting Israel -- however
trivially and as it turned out ineffectually.
If you establish 911 was a fraud then subsequent war on terror is a fraud. The West will
exhaust themselves waging war against Islam and the Muslims despite killing millions of
people. They will dig their own graves and cast themselves in hell fire for eternal damnation
for subscribing to Santa Claus lies and Jesus died for their evils by supporting the money
changer's ideology for greater Israel project to usher in their Anti-Christ as their Messiah.
Anti-Christ Dajjal will take them for a ride to hell. He will play them "By way of Deception"
just as they are playing the rest of the world "By way of Deception wage wars." So how many
of us are willing to sell our souls in exchange for the worldly gains and pay a penalty for
eternal damnation?
gush while listening to "The Chosen One's" tear jerking words.
"I've never been so proud of a U.S. president in my life, as I was watching that video.
"
Gushing?
Perhaps, I suppose, depending on your definition.
But when's the last time you heard a Z.U.S. president speak of the war dead with
compassion and pathos? Hell, when's the last time you heard them speak of these tragic
victims of American f0lly (treason and war crimes), and their families- at all?
He was saying 'enough of this madness!'
And from what I understand, American troops are indeed vacating Syrian bases.
BTW, leaving for a few days, so keep up the good fight, Brother Chuck!
@Wally
Wally likes to cheap shot P.G., haha, and once again futilely asked him: "Has Giraldi ever
stated which current candidate is his preference vs. Trump?"
Get on the ball, wailing Wall! (zzZigh) Likely, even some knowledgeable CODAH associates
will inform that YOU'LL get what Supremacist Jews give you.
Haha. The Zionized D.N.C. is presently fretting over which Jewish Lobby-approved
presidential 2020 candidate they should give to their "base" voters. Haha. Liberal tribe
chieftains are confident that even Mayor Pete Buttigieg will make incumbent, Trumpstein,
Tweet-out "endless" sweat on election night.
Nonetheless, had Amerika a real choice, , Ron Paul would be my #1 "anti-Chosen One"
alternative. Refer to his article below, wailing Wall?
Yet Trump's MAGA proposal was detente and friendly cooperation with (now-Christian)
Russia.
That's why the NeoCohens hate Putin so much, for re-establishing Russian Christian
Orthodoxy as the 'national' religion. Trump, on the other hand, admires Putin for his
nationalism and wants white Christian Russia to be friends with nominally Christian
America. Unfortunately he must bow down to the Satanic anti Christ power brokers, the Cabal,
that keeps him in power and checks his nationalist leanings. Hopefully he will overcome this
in a second term but I've been saying that about presidents for years!
@ChuckOrloski
Thanks ChuckOrloski.
Undeserved, tho -- I was just being a shepherd guiding the flock to other people's good work,
a practice I learned from your comment style.
I don't want to be in the business of educating you on un-American actions undertaken by
"Z.U.S. presidents." You really know better, but since Jacques Sheete, peace be upon him, is
M.I.A., I will now do my best.
No doubt, Trumpstein is different. Please pause momentarily and consider how he very
recently wanted to sell/provide nuclear weapons systems to Saudi Arabia. Fyi, and lucky for
the entire Middle East's general population, Trump's lack of "compassion" was overuled by
those higher in the ZUS's Blue & White House Lowerarchy. (Note: He ain't "The Decider,"
he is the ever useful & divisive Zion Tweet-Chord)
So given the U.R. Moderator sword is not activated, linked down below, is a joint radio
show, hosted by Dr. David Duke & Ryan Dawson. Ideally, this action will take the job of
trying to educate YOU from off my shoulders, Rurik. No reading needed, & just carefully
listen!
Fyi, Dr. Duke and Mr. Dawson will provide the means by which an anti-Zionist &
patriotic American can resist the evil sway dished-out daily by our "Homeland's" Zionist
Corporate Media. These largely demonized gentlemen/scholars explain how Zionized Republicans
& Democrats are curiously "on the same page" when it comes to humanely protecting the
Kurds.
But when it comes to supporting & defending The Land of Bilk & Money, they unite.
Yippie! On other hand, and when it comes to actually helping the restless & sorry lot of
dumb goyim working Amerikans, they fight like , er, "Tom and Jerry." (Zigh) Why Trumpstein
even moved to kill the underachieving & oft unaffordable "Affordable Care Act," a.k.a.,
Obamacare.
Enjoy your time off, my Brother Rurik, and I suggest, at minimum, partial evacuation from
the dug-in Jewish Corporate Media "bases."
@Rurik'That's a very honest act of self-reflection, Colin.
I voted for Ron Paul, (If I recall, I wrote in his name).
I would have preferred the racist commie to the war mongering scumbag, but only because by
then I understood the nature of McCain all too well '
Now you're reminding me of 2012. Of course, I was going to vote for Obama over Israel's
man-in-the-White House-to-be. An unpleasant choice, but there it was
So my wife and I were down in Alameda at a winery. Somewhat incongruously, the server was
right-wing, and started praising Romney. I stayed tactful, as I didn't want to kill my buzz,
but my wife -- who is easily influenced -- came out of there going 'Romney number one.
Yeah -- I'm going to vote for him!'
In an unusual display of wisdom, I bit my tongue. We'll see how this plays out
You need to understand my wife comes from a poor background. If you want to meet 'the
working poor,' go see her relatives.
So the very next day, Romney comes out with his '49%' remark. It was classic.
@Johnny
Walker Read Right. This happens every so often. I am not recommending de Sade or any of
his works.
I'm recommending the movie:
"The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the
Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade ", play 1963, movie 1967 [1].
The movie has very little to do with the writings of the original Marquis de Sade [2], but it
does do a good job of showing the spirit of revolutions.
de Sade had a good reputation with the revolutionaries. He was elected a delegate to the
French National Convention, but fell during the Reign of Terror [3]. He really did direct
publicly presented plays at Charenton starting in 1803, but was eventually arrested and
denied paper and pen in 1809. Died 1815, and several large manuscripts were subsequently
burned by his son, who apparently thought that de Sade had done quite enough harm
already.
Insofar as tje video has anything to do with the real de Sade, it is that the director
(fictional de Sade) manages to stage a small revolution himself in the final scene, _after_
demonstrating that the audience is little more sane than de Sade is ("15 glorious years"
scene). As in the link given by Read [4], de Sade acts as the philosophical godfather of
revolution and revolt as an end in itself.
The really pathetic attempt by ABC to pass off Kentucky gun range footage as a Syrian
conflict zone is a good example of the consequences of Congress' horrible 2013 decision
(that you may not have heard of) to totally legalize domestic propaganda. @_whitneywebb
In the age of legal, weaponized propaganda directed against the American people, false
narratives have become so commonplace in the mainstream media that they have essentially
become normalized, leading to the era of "fake news" and "alternative facts."
The bad and ugly shepherds persistently hit vulnerable & trusting Unzers with their
"best shot." For one example, the currently M.I.A. commenter, Maven Sam Shama.
Subsequently, I see no valid reason why intelligent & good men -- like you! -- should
not give their "best shot" and attempt to support & rescue lost sheeple who regularly
appear here.*
* Some lost sheep simply like it that way, and therefore, bad shepherds, for one example,
the featherweight commenter "Sean," get lots of practice at misguiding the flock.
@steinbergfeldwitzcohen
Right, what to do is the question now that everybody has been taken by surprise.
I'd say that the advice "get out of debt, get out of the major cities" is fairly good, and
fairly obvious, and has been so for some time. As to income, I just don't know. You might try
linking up to some group (non-Left) that seems to be cohesive and has _some_ plan of action
that isn't too weird. Under stress, cohesive groups can survive better than individuals.
You might also remember the rule of thumb that prophets can predict either what or when,
but not both. It's obvious that the US in general and cities in particular are in severe
decline, but _when_ the current system will cast off much of the population it now supports
is simply not known. Abandon it too soon and you end up extremely poor, so a sharp break is
extremely risky. I'd say that retiring debt, hardening your house against home invasion, and
finding some group as above, would be about all that would be justified right now. If your
neighborhood is deteriorating, it might be a good idea to go to another one that isn't, since
the deterioration is unlikely to reverse itself. If you're in with an ethnic group that
doesn't like your ethnic group, it might be a good idea to displace, if only to avoid the
unpleasantness.
@jack
daniels The current US system / world order will end within the next decade no matter
what Trump does. Trump is trying to shut it down with minimal casualties and replace it with
something viable, which is a good thing to do, but if Trump were to vanish tomorrow the
current US system / world order would still end within the next decade, maybe two decades if
things went very badly wrong.
Trump has the wind at his back, he's trying to do things that would do themselves (although
not as well) and that's why the appearance of 4D Chess. But, as you point out, Trump leads a
very small force of government officials, and would lose without the strength given by his
supporters. Continued support, in word and in deed, should reduce casualties (to include
Trump and his family) during the current transition.
MEANWHILE, Millions Hungry and Food Insecure in the US
"According to the US Department of Agriculture in 2018, food insecurity affects 37 million
Americans, including over 11 million children -- the numbers likely way understated."
"Around 40 million Americans experience hunger annually."
"At least 15 million US households endure food insecurity."
"Hunger is caused by poverty and inadequate financial resources, a nationwide
problem."
"Around 45 million Americans rely on food stamps, an eroding program providing inadequate
help."
"1 in 6 American children may not know where their next meal is coming from."
"22 million children in America rely on the free or reduced-price lunch they receive at
school, but as many as 3 million children still aren't getting the breakfast they need."
@Rurik
I applaud the sentiment too.
I'm hearing rumours that Trump has put a thousand troops into Saudi Arabia and claimed they
are paying for it.
Is it now America's lot to be not just Israel's but SA's mercenaries?
2020 can't come fast enough. I'd love to see a Trump super majority and some serious
reform.
It's pretty clear the Evangelical Zionist's are Israelis' b@tches.
America, it seems, must not only reclaim itself but also it's religion. EV is a heresy and
the leaders are on their knees f@llating Israel. It is disgusting to watch.
Yes, I agree, having trucks and trains go overland and via various countries comes with
the risk of conflicts erupting between 2 or more states participating in Chinese projects.
China burnt itself badly in Libya, where Hillary " We Came, We Saw, He Died! Haw, haw,
haw " Rotham Clingon ran amok.
China is actively setting up routes via the attic as well, so I think China carefully
weighs all its options, but doing business comes with certain risks, those are
unavoidable.
When I was in Africa [The Gambia and there about], I noticed a lot of Chinese merchandise
being sold all over the place. I heard stories of some Chinese being attacked and/or murdered
elsewhere in Africa, but haven't dealt with any Chinese businessman myself or heard their
stories in person.
Having been on that vast continent doesn't make me an expert whatsoever, but I see Africa
become a huge anchor around the world's neck. Can't use a single brush to paint entire
nations, I know, but what I saw didn't look good.
side note : I didn't live in a hotel with armed guards, I lived in a compound with
Africans, so it's not that I have no up close experience. Furthermore, I was always treated
with kindness, respect and warmth.
"... Just to remind you: the charge against Trump is that he tried to expose a massive rip off of the people of Ukraine, made practical thanks to the US replacing an elected President with a bunch of neo-nazis in uniforms, for political advantage. ..."
"... And that is to put aside the obvious point that nothing could be more advantageous to any Presidential candidate than to have to run against Joe Biden, supported by Hillary Clinton. ..."
"Will he be convicted in the Senate? Who cares so long as he slowly roasts in the court of
public opinion."
Do you not see how unlikely it is that a story which demonstrates the utter corruption,
personally, of Joe Biden and, institutionally, of the Obama regime will, as it unwinds, turn
the people against Trump?
Just to remind you: the charge against Trump is that he tried to expose a massive rip off
of the people of Ukraine, made practical thanks to the US replacing an elected President with
a bunch of neo-nazis in uniforms, for political advantage.
And that is to put aside the obvious point that nothing could be more advantageous to any
Presidential candidate than to have to run against Joe Biden, supported by Hillary
Clinton.
"... "Over 18 years, the United States has spent $4.9 trillion on wars, with only more intractable violence in the Middle East and beyond to show for it," she added. "That's nearly the $300 billion per year over the current system that is estimated to cover Medicare for All (though estimates vary)." ..."
"... cancellation of current plans to develop more nuclear weapons, saving $20 billion a total nuclear weapons ban, saving $43 billion ending military partnerships with private contractors, saving $364 billion production cuts for the F-35 -- a military plane with 900 performance deficiencies, according to the Government Accountability Office -- saving $17.7 billion a shift of $33 billion per year, currently used to provide medical care to veterans, servicemembers, and their families, to Medicare for All's annual budget. ..."
"... "The public rejects the predominant, fear-based framing and policies; instead, they want to see a revamped, demilitarized American foreign policy focused on international cooperation, human rights, and peacebuilding," wrote Data for Progress. ..."
Yves here. For those of you who have friends and colleagues who would go on tilt if you tried educating them about MMT, a simpler
approach to persuade them that Medicare for All is affordable is to sell them on another worthy goal, cutting the military-surveillance
state down to size.
Even then, I still encourage you to set them up for a later conversation about MMT: "Even if you accept the idea that taxes pay
for spending, which actually isn't true for the Federal government, we can still get the money for Medicare for All by ."
Note also that the Pentagon has various black budgets, an "official" one and covert ones.
By Julia Conley, staff writer for Common Dreams. Originally published at
Common Dreams
The Institute for Policy Studies on Thursday shared the results of extensive research into how the $750 billion U.S. military
budget could be significantly slashed, freeing up annual funding to cover the cost of Medicare for All -- calling into question the
notion that the program needs to create any tax burden whatsoever for working families.
Lindsay Koshgarian, director of the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), took aim in a
New York Times op-ed at a "chorus of scolds" from both sides of the aisle who say that raising middle class taxes is the
only way to pay for Medicare for All. The pervasive claim was a primary focus of Tuesday night's debate, while Medicare for All proponents
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) attempted to focus on the dire need for a universal healthcare program.
At the Democratic presidential primary debate on CNN Tuesday night, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was
criticized
by some opponents for saying that "costs will go down for hardworking, middle-class families" under Medicare for All, without using
the word "taxes." Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), on the other hand, clearly stated that taxes may go up for some middle class families
but pointed out that the increase would be more than offset by the fact that they'll no longer have to pay monthly premiums, deductibles,
and other medical costs.
"All these ambitious policies of course will come with a hefty price tag," wrote Koshgarian. "Proposals to fund Medicare for All
have focused on raising taxes. But what if we could imagine another way entirely?"
"Over 18 years, the United States has spent $4.9 trillion on wars, with only more intractable violence in the Middle East and
beyond to show for it," she added. "That's nearly the $300 billion per year over the current system that is estimated to cover Medicare
for All (though estimates vary)."
"While we can't un-spend that $4.9 trillion," Koshgarian continued, "imagine if we could make different choices for the next 20
years."
Koshgarian outlined a multitude of areas in which the U.S. government could shift more than $300 billion per year, currently used
for military spending, to pay for a government-run healthcare program. Closing just half of U.S. military bases, for example, would
immediately free up $90 billion.
"What are we doing with that base in Aruba, anyway?" Koshgarian asked.
Other areas where IPS identified savings include:
cancellation of current plans to develop more nuclear weapons, saving $20 billion a total nuclear weapons ban, saving $43 billion
ending military partnerships with private contractors, saving $364 billion production cuts for the F-35 -- a military plane with
900 performance deficiencies, according to the Government Accountability Office -- saving $17.7 billion a shift of $33 billion
per year, currently used to provide medical care to veterans, servicemembers, and their families, to Medicare for All's annual
budget.
"This item takes us well past our goal of saving $300 billion," Koshgarian wrote of the last item.
As Koshgarian published her op-ed in the Times , progressive think tank Data for Progress released
its own report showing that a majority
of Americans support a "progressive foreign policy" far less focused on decades-long on-the-ground wars, establishing military bases
around the world, drone strikes, and arms sales.
"The public rejects the predominant, fear-based framing and policies; instead, they want to see a revamped, demilitarized American
foreign policy focused on international cooperation, human rights, and peacebuilding," wrote Data for Progress.
"Voters want to see U.S. funding go to domestic needs such as healthcare, or to other national security tools like diplomacy,
instead of to the Pentagon and more endless war," according to the report.
Polling more than 1,000 ppl with YouGov, Data for Progress found that 73 percent of Democratic primary voters ranked numerous
issues -- including economic challenges and the climate -- as more important to them than national security and military funding.
Progressive national security proposals proved popular with respondents, including closing Guantanamo Bay, ending arms sales to
Saudi Arabia, and leveraging military aid to Israel to force it to adopt better human rights policies toward Palestinians.
"There is a clear appetite for progressive reforms to U.S. foreign policy," wrote Data for Progress.
In her op-ed, Koshgarian acknowledged that remaking the U.S. military as a truly "defense-based institution, rather than a war
machine and A.T.M. for private contractors, will require major changes."
But, she wrote, "that's no excuse for continuing to spend hundreds of billions in ways that make our world more dangerous and
deny us the ability to seriously invest in things like jobs, healthcare, education, and all that makes our lives better."
I would love to see it, but I strongly doubt this would happen in my lifetime. The Pentagon budget seems to be one of those
political "third rail" issues like Social Security.
Many people are so paranoid that I think it constitutes a mass hysteria; others are propagandized into 24×7 jingoism. I'm not
talking concepts here, I deal with pro-military people almost daily. Its the glorifying and fetishizing of the military that bothers
me.
Most if not all pro-military types are also deeply conservative; bring up *any* social program and they will wonder how to
pay for it.
I don't know, how many "third rail" type taboos has Trump danced on and become more popular because he did? I think the average
voter would be *extremely* receptive to a well-crafted message promoting the redirection of resources away from forever foreign
wars and bases to concrete material benefits for Americans. I don't even think it'd be a hard sell, once the pearls had been gathered
up.
What's so maddening about this question is the fact that we know that the military budget is probably much more than 750 billion
per year, but we can never know how much more, because the government is expressly allowed to hide and even fake spending totals.
What matters is whether the goods and services are there for them to buy with that money, and this is where real wealth lies.
Governments can create all the money they want, but if they create too much you will get inflation, or hyper-inflation if they
type in too many zero's when creating money.
Money has no intrinsic value; its value comes from what it can buy.
Banks create money from loans and that's easy too, just type the numbers in.
They can dash wildly into the latest fad, like the dot.com boom, and finance it with money they create out of nothing.
What could possibly go wrong?
Bankers do need to ensure the vast majority of that money gets paid back, and this is where they keep falling flat on their
faces.
Banking requires prudent lending, that is all there is to it.
If someone can't repay a loan, they need to repossess that asset and sell it to recoup that money. If they use bank loans to
inflate asset prices they get into a world of trouble when those asset prices collapse.
"It's nearly $14 trillion pyramid of super leveraged toxic assets was built on the back of $1.4 trillion of US sub-prime
loans, and dispersed throughout the world" All the Presidents Bankers, Nomi Prins.
When this little lot lost almost all its value overnight, the Western banking system became insolvent. Wall Street can turn
a normal asset price bubble into something that will take out the global economy using leverage.
Bankers create money out of nothing and the monetary system requires that nearly all that money they loaned out gets paid back.
Bank credit is a claim on future prosperity, and when you realise all that debt can't be paid back, a financial black hole
opens up, as it did in 2008.
When governments create too much money you tend to see it in consumer price inflation.
When banks create too much money you tend to see it in asset price inflation.
We see inflation in asset prices as good and consumer price inflation as bad.
The asset price boom will crash the economy, but no one realises while it's happening.
They believed in the markets and neoclassical economics in the 1920s and after 1929 they had to reassess everything. They had
placed their faith in the markets and this had proved to be a catastrophic mistake.
This is why they stopped using the markets to judge the performance of the economy and came up with the GDP measure instead.
In the 1930s, they pondered over where all that wealth had gone to in 1929 and realised inflating asset prices doesn't create
real wealth, they came up with the GDP measure to track real wealth creation in the economy.
The transfer of existing assets, like stocks and real estate, doesn't create real wealth and therefore does not add to GDP.
The real wealth creation in the economy is measured by GDP.
Inflated asset prices aren't real wealth, and this can disappear almost over-night, as it did in 1929 and 2008.
Real wealth creation involves real work, producing new goods and services in the economy.
Banking requires prudent lending, that is all there is to it. Sound of the Suburbs
100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors means we (the general public) wouldn't have to give a flip if banks lent
prudently or not since we would have an additional but risk-free payment system consisting of debit/checking accounts for all
who want one at the Central Bank (or Treasury) itself.
Moreover without government privileges and without captive depositors and unable to hold the economy hostage via a SINGLE payment
system that must work through them, you can rest assured that banks WOULD lend prudently or go under, like they should, if they
don't.
So what is required is 100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors and that situation has NEVER before existed in history
so it cannot be said to have failed.
When governments create too much money you tend to see it in consumer price inflation. Sound of the Suburbs
Because the DEMAND for fiat is suppressed in that only depository institutions may use it in the private sector.
Fix that injustice and eliminate all other privileges for banks and then government should be able to create much MORE fiat
for the general welfare since banks would be much LESS able to create deposits for the private welfare of themselves and for the
so-called "worthy" of what is, currently, the public's credit but for private gain.
if they [governments] create too much you will get inflation
Is this true, or is it an economist's assumption? Here's the other thought:
Capitalism embraces borrowing for investment. Real estate development is an example. Borrowing involves an assumption of paying
back more than was borrowed, but at a future date. When that future date arrives, it is in the borrower's best interest if the
face value dollars are wroth less in spending power that the face value of the loan. You stated that, but the link to inflation
is fuzzy. Bank credit is a claim on future prosperity
Rather than the government's causality, and a nebulous prosperity, it may be the borrower's CFO who then decides to raise consumer
prices to keep up with expenses. The borrowed dollars came from a banker-created asset, but the inflation is tied to a direct
result similar to the so-called "wage-price spiral." In this case, the "interest-price spiral" that is not visibly tied to the
supply of money.
I've got a new disconnect. I understand and appreciate how MMT works. It is the only way, imo, for a sovereign country to pay
for the social costs of a good society. And, of course, the government does not charge itself interest, does not expect to be
"paid back" at all. The tradeoff for the government is the betterment of society. So if your neighbor loans you $500 and you tell
him you'll pay him back as soon as your check comes in and with some interest that seems fair bec. you're dealing with two private
budgets. But when a licensed bank loans you money for a new house under the terms that you pay it back over 30 years with interests
that amounts to triple the original cost of the house – then you are not dealing as one private person to another. You are then
dealing with usury. Made legal by the private financial industry. This private industry does not use its own money – it uses the
government's money by a computer click. And the government then lets it profiteer on this tiny transaction of apples and oranges
to the degree that over time the money "earned" by the private bank accumulates and topples the steady state of the economy. At
that point there's no place left to invest that "private" profit and the whole financial system goes haywire in a panic not to
"lose" money. Money that should never have been given to them in the first place. It's an oxymoron – demanding that money be paid
back with interest when it's not your money in the first place and you do nothing to stabilize your profligate profiteering. Nothing.
Just a thought.
Zimbabwe found it all too easy to create so much money they caused hyper-inflation.
Yes, after destroying their Ag Industry, and having no Ag products to export, because Mugabe and his party assumed all the
white farmers just sat around drinking beer while the dark farm workers did all the work.
After Mugabe took the land, there was no collateral for the farmers to get loans for the next planting season.
Who knew that managing the farm was so much work? /s
Inflation in Zimbabwe first came from shortages, especially food, as things looted rhe country of 4x and mismanaged the economy,
like farm price controls under cost of production.
Historically shortages cause high inflation.
"In her op-ed, Koshgarian acknowledged that remaking the U.S. military as a truly 'defense-based institution, rather than a
war machine and A.T.M. for private contractors, will require major changes.'"
Interesting. Beyond cost cutting, what exactly would it take to remake the military into a true defense-based institution ?
How would assets be deployed? What weapons systems would be prioritized and ultimately receive funding? What doctrines would need
to change to flip from an offensive mindset to a defensive mindset? What alliances would we maintain and what alliances would
we discard?
I see that the article offers some examples, but I think crafting a progressive foreign policy would entail answering these
kinds of more fundamental military questions. Cost cutting is a laudable goal but it strikes me that there's much more to it if
real transformation is desired.
As a civil servant working for the Department of Defense, I can tell you that this would be a difficult shift in priorities
for Congress to accept. It all comes down to the defense industry political donations they receive year after year, and the jobs
the defense industry provides their constituents (no matter how meager or sub-optimal). Since defense spending is basically this
nation's sole industrial policy, I think that finding employment for displaced workers (whether defense civil servants or contractors)
is the biggest hurdle to address; a green new deal would solve the problem. We'd also need political campaign reform to force
Congress off of the teet of defense industry political contributions.
Finding employment for displaced defense civil servants or contractors? We've done that before . . . we tell them to train
for the jobs of the future as we did for manufacturing workers and leave it at that. The same goes for the parasites working in
health insurance companies, pharmacy benefit management and healtcare administration when M4A becomes a reality.
I have no sympathy for those people nor care for their well being as they deliberately, and with malice aforethought, make
life meaner for us all.
I remember when the defense/aerospace industry collapsed in Southern California in the early 1970's as the Vietnam war was
winding down.
Tech jobs were scarce.
The political sphere is well aware of potential job loss due to defense cutbacks.
I have mentioned before, the relatively liberal CA Senator Barbara Boxer fought to preserve Mare Island Naval Shipyard, in
Vallejo, CA, when it was slated to be shut down in the 1990's.
One could suggest that Vallejo has not fully recovered.
It is a tragedy of immense proportions, as I believe a future historian will remark that the USA, a nation that in its 200
+ year history had only one large deadly war on its soil (the internal Civil War), re-titled its WWII "War Department" as "Defense
Department" and then consumed tremendous resources in its purported defense for the next 70+ years.
A recent discussion with someone, that I regard as a "Northern California Liberal", about Trump's pullout of Syria further
re-enforced that the resistance to ANY change in the MIC in the USA is formidable.
He was sure that Trump would be deservedly impeached because he was pulling out of Syria and abandoning our allies, the Kurds.
And he is old enough to remember Vietnam.
The USA news media and entertainment industries (big sports/Hollywood) are fully on board with the righteous USA "war is good"
meme.
Given how the USA economy has restructured much employment and lifelihoods in costly sectors (finance, education, medicine,
military) it is difficult for me to see how there would be political will to downsize the military to any extent as "good paying"
jobs of politically powerful people would be lost.
Many of the manufacturing jobs have been moved overseas.
There is some hope for policy redirection in the Administration's recent Turkey-Syria-Kurd action. If there really is a shift
away from foreign nation building and away from endless wars over endless enmities, then that could lead to redirection and reduction
of military budgets. Watching the defenders of those engagements fall all over themselves recently has reconfirmed my notion that
they are not acting in the best interests of their constituents. Meanwhile, the sun rose today.
The current defense spending and growth of national debt
more or less "prove" the validity of MMT. This has supported the channeling of resources and energy into military activity (and
profits for enterprizes). Something similar is happening with healthcare; maybe it's inelastic
demand. (The similar something is ever-increasing costs.)
Healthcare at the moment seems to be outside of
the scope of current uses of MMT. But there are major
cost-control issues with it nonethess.
In what direction will things head if healthcare is
swept under the government MMT umbrella in the form of medicare for all? Will the government negotiate prices
with providers (hospitals, staff, pharma)? Certainly military procurement is no leading light.
While cutting the bloated Pentagon's budget is a very good idea, why is no one talking about the fringe benefit that is employer
provided healthcare? I do believe a sizable fraction of folks on private insurance (maybe 40%?) get their health coverage through
a fringe benefit from their employer. If that coverage is no longer necessary under universal coverage, it seems contractually
that the money spent on the fringe benefit should go to the employees. That money is enough to pay for their insurance under universal
coverage, so the employer pays it to the employee, the government taxes part of that to pay for the universal healthcare and everyone
is better off. The employee, due to savings in the system, ends up with more money in pocket. The employer is out from under the
ever increasing costs of the fringe benefit (plus can now claim to be paying higher salaries), and, well, the insurance companies
are left behind to pick up "expanded coverage" for those wanting to pay for it.
This and "defense" spending cuts could pay for the whole system easily, no?
The relative value of small business based jobs would increase with a functional health care system. There would be an outflow
of employees from jobs with healthcare benefits.
With single payer, looking for a less stressful job becomes an alternative. Big employers know this.
It also means people may retire earlier if they don't need their employer-provided health insurance.
Health insurance becomes a minor consideration in selecting which employer to work for.
Companies and state/local governments that provide health care coverage in retirement should see their liabilities for that
plummet as healthcare costs drop and public insurance improves.
COULD employers give the surplus to employees?
Technically, yes.
WOULD employers give the surplus to employees?
Not in this age of activist stockholders seeking new sources of "revenue." Everywhere. Benefits are simply a "cost." Human Resources
is a "cost center." Defined benefits that averaged out the risk among many have segued to defined contribution that is no more
than a tax-abated savings account. Risk has monetary value, but risk invisibly is shifting more and more to the individual.
After the last Democratic debate, it is safe say anti-war Progressivism is dead. Everyone was frothing at the mouth to prove
how much they care for the Kurds, and our nation's honor, and that we should stay in the ME. Except Tulsi, but her response fell
flat with the audience, and judging by my Left friends/family on Facebook, fell flat with them too. Having the same position as
Trump is a death sentence. My faith in my fellow citizens is at quite a low ebb.
Cheer up. No matter what you used to think of Lindsay Graham, he is setting the pace for a representative to think for him/herself.
Commentators reported surprise that he was "formerly in Trump's corner." Think about how easily we accept that the future is secured
by a majority in either house. The outrageous president is inspiring elected Republicans to analyze issues (imagine!). Even if
it is cold and calculated to influence their own voters, let's begin to applaud and encourage those who seem to think for them/ourselves.
We don't suffer from a lack of ideas in this area; no, we lack the ability (political will) to accomplish it. Thus, another
exercise in mental masturbation.
we lack the ability (political will) to accomplish it. Carl
A Citizen's Dividend would be the camel's nose under the tent since the less wasted by government, the more that could be distributed
to citizens to counter price deflation.
And it's only justice that all fiat creation, beyond that created for government to spend for the general welfare, be in the
form of an equal Citizen's Dividend.
Funny you should mention Europe since an equal Citizen's Dividend for all Euro zone citizens would be a way to eliminate austerity
that even Germany might not object to since Germans would receive it too.
For example, Italy gives the unemployed 500 euros per month and tries to find them any sort of job. I think you're a little
behind. But by all means, keep tilting at windmills.
i was just thinking about that this am while finishing my fence like in alaska.
i figger that after 40+ years of declining or stagnant wages, a majority of us are owed some frelling back-pay.
but "dividend" works just as well.
a majority of us are owed some frelling back-pay. Amfortas the hippie
The Citizen's Dividend would vary as required to counter price deflation but during the period when the banks are progressively
de-privileged, it would have to be quite high to provide for the conversion of bank deposits to fiat deposits at the Central Bank
– with the banks, by necessity, having to borrow the needed fiat from citizens.
Its still the wrong set of arguments. The problem in the US is not that Medicare-for-All would require new taxes that need
funding. The problem is that the US spends twice per capita on healthcare what the average OECD country spends. The US spends
more public tax money on healthcare per capita than Canada does, and Canada insures the entire population.
We can pay for our entire military budget as it exists if we simply drop our per capita healthcare spending to less than what
Switzerland pays. Name one other thing that costs more in the US than in Switzerland.
Americans simply cannot comprehend how exorbitantly expensive and unequal the US healthcare system is compared to the rest
of the developed world.
While I gladly accept the results of these surveys, I question the reasons they seem to have garnered from the public. To most
citizens, lower taxes mean much more than non-aggresive foreign policy and peaceful diplomacy. If the question was phrased in
such a way that respondents were replying to the lower cost AND the concomitant peace-oriented habits that should (would?) come
from it, then it is an issue whether they agreed with both statements. Further, this reorientation of spending would have to be
bully-pulpited quite strongly to educate the US as to its long-term benefits since most of us have been prepped to be anxious
about foreign nations and the paranoia of saving us from the evil dictator "X". Oh, yes, peace should come, but compare the Syria
brou-ha-ha to what would descend upon us when peace broke out. The elites won't disappear.
Bizarre. The question is: How can we afford something that's half as expensive as what we're already paying? I wouldn't expect
that level of insanity from someone in a straitjacket yet it's a commonplace in these discussions.
Even worse: the argument that government is financially constrained. It's not "tax & spend," it can't be. Where would taxpayers
get dollars to pay those taxes if government didn't spend them first?
So it must be "spend first & then ask for some back in taxes." This is how reality works. And what do we call the dollar financial
assets left in the economy, not retrieved by taxes? a) The dollar financial assets of the citizens, i.e. their savings or (same
thing) b) National 'Debt'
National 'Debt' is completely unlike household debt. It's like bank debt. If you have a bank account, that's your asset, but
to the bank, it's a liability. It's the money they owe you. It's their debt.
Now imagine a mob of depositors marching down to the bank to demand it reduce the size of its debt (i.e. make their accounts
smaller) Crazy? Yes, but that's the austerian line of talk.
Finally, the inflationistas: "If you just print money, you'll have [gasp][hyper-]inflation!" This is the finest quality bullshit,
and people spout it practically without prompting. The truth: The Fed extended $16 – $29 trillion in credit to cure the frauds
of the financial sector in 2007-8. I defy anyone to find a measurement of inflation that says there was any then.
Was there central-bank-run-amok inflation in the classical cases (Weimar, Zimbabwe). Nope. Not even there. Yes they did print
lots of Deutchmarks and Zimbabwe currency, but only after a shortage of good occurred that actually caused the inflation.
Just printing money, especially if there's spare capacity, does not cause inflation. You need a bidding war for some commodity
that's become scarce (like oil in the '70s). So Weimar had the burden of war reparations, a balance of payments problem, and when
they delayed sending some telephone poles to France, the French military shut down the German equivalent of Ohio (the Ruhr). Shortages
led to the hyperinflation. Similarly, the Rhodesian colonists left Zimbabwe, which had previously fed itself, and food shortages
led to the hyperinflation.
The Cato study of 56 hyperinflationary episodes in human history also validates the above. In *no* case did a central bank
"run amok" and print too much to kick off the hyperinflation. Always the cost push of a shortage of goods drove it.
Gosh, it's all so simple. We just need to take on the military industrial complex, the medical industrial complex, and our
corrupt political system all at the same time.
Researchers Detail How Slashing the Social Security and Medicare Budgets Could Pay for More Pointless Wars While Creating the
Progressive Wall Street Bailouts Americans Want.
Looks like our stable genius" pushed Putin against Erdogan and sided with Erdogan in the
process.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. has seven NATO allies on the Med -- Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, Albania, Greece and Turkey, and two on the Black Sea, Romania and Bulgaria. We have U.S. forces and bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Djibouti. Russia has no such panoply of bases in the Middle East or Persian Gulf. ..."
"... There is first President Erdogan, who is demanding a 20-mile deep strip of Syrian borderland to keep the Syrian Kurds from uniting with the Turkish Kurds of the PKK. Erdogan wants the corridor to extend 280 miles, from Manbij, east of the Euphrates, all across Syria, to Iraq. ..."
"... Then there is Bashar Assad, victorious in his horrific eight-year civil war, who is unlikely to cede 5,000 square miles of Syrian territory to a permanent occupation by Turkish troops. ..."
"... The Syria of which Putin is now supposedly king contains Hezbollah, al-Qaida, ISIS, Iranians, Kurds, Turks on its northern border and Israelis on its Golan Heights. Five hundred thousand Syrians are dead from the civil war. Half the pre-war population has been uprooted, and millions are in exile in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Europe. ..."
"... Our foreign policy elites have used Trump's decision to bash him and parade their Churchillian credentials. But those same elites appear to lack the confidence to rally the nation to vote for a war to defend what they contend are vital American interests and defining American values. ..."
"... Endless demonization of Putin by the elitist press is pure idiocy. Putin's aim is no different from any decent leader. Do the best for your countrymen and countrywomen; yet without harming others. ..."
"... The answer lies in the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). Sadly, today's USA revenue to large extent dependent on militaristic revenue; even though most of that revenue ends up in the coffers of the MIC, supported by the media that is sustained by the MIC. Yet, I still believe that with a bit of pain Americans can turn around this horrid situation. ..."
"... The war in Syria and the growth of ISIS was entirely the result of actions by the Obama administration - and it is an outrage that no one in a position of power, not even Donald Trump, has called the Democrats out on this. ..."
"... Oh yeah, Name you seem to have forgotten Obama authorizing CIA training the moderate rebels (AKA Al qaida or moderate head choppers). By the way we handed the ME at least to Iran when Bush invaded Iraq under the false pretenses. Saintly Obama wanted to look forward but not backward on the false pretenses and he in turn engaged on the same BS as Bush. When history is written in a few years all this will come out. ..."
"... ISIS formed in the chaos that was the Iraq War, neat how you guys never accept blame for anything. ..."
"... The people who are obsessed w/staying in Syria, just for the sake of denying Russia a 'victory', at admitting that they just want to be a spoiler. They want to keep Syria partitioned into two weak states and not allow it to reform into a single state and heal. ..."
"... Our imperialists must have misread Tacitus, because it seems they aspire to making peaceful deserts. ..."
"... Putin is trusted in the middle east (and in most of the rest of the world) because he is an intelligent, consistent and respected world leader. Now compare this to the clown show of US politicians (Republican and Democrat). ..."
"... No serious person can say that US politicians are better than Putin, which is also the reason Putin is so demonized by the US political elite. ..."
"Russia Assumes Mantle of Supreme Power Broker in the Middle East," proclaimed Britain's
Telegraph .
The article began:
"Russia's status as the undisputed power-broker in the Middle East was cemented as Vladimir
Putin continued a triumphant tour of capitals traditionally allied to the U.S."
"Donald Trump Has Handed Putin the Middle East on a Plate" was the title of yet another
Telegraph column. "Putin Seizes on Trump's Syria Retreat to Cement Middle East Role,"
declared the Financial Times .
The U.S. press parroted the British: Putin is now the new master of the Mideast. And woe is
us.
Before concluding that Trump's pullout of the last 1,000 U.S. troops in Syria is America's
Dunkirk, some reflection is needed.
Yes, Putin has played his hand skillfully. Diplomatically, as the Brits say, the Russian
president is "punching above his weight."
He gets on with everyone. He is welcomed in Iran by the Ayatollah, meets regularly with Bibi
Netanyahu, is a cherished ally of Syria's Bashar Assad, and this week was being hosted by the
King of Saudi Arabia and the royal rulers of the UAE. October 2019 has been a triumphal
month.
Yet, consider what Putin has inherited and what his capabilities are for playing power
broker of the Middle East.
He has a single naval base on the Med, Tartus, in Syria, which dates to the 1970s, and a new
air base, Khmeimim, also in Syria.
The U.S. has seven NATO allies on the Med -- Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, Albania,
Greece and Turkey, and two on the Black Sea, Romania and Bulgaria. We have U.S. forces and
bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Djibouti. Russia has no such
panoply of bases in the Middle East or Persian Gulf.
We have the world's largest economy. Russia's economy is smaller than Italy's, and not a
tenth the size of ours.
And now that we are out of Syria's civil war and the Kurds have cut their deal with
Damascus, consider what we have just dumped into Vladimir Putin's lap. He is now the man in the
middle between Turkey and Syria.
He must bring together dictators who detest each other. There is first President
Erdogan, who is demanding a 20-mile deep strip of Syrian borderland to keep the Syrian Kurds
from uniting with the Turkish Kurds of the PKK. Erdogan wants the corridor to extend 280 miles,
from Manbij, east of the Euphrates, all across Syria, to Iraq.
Then there is Bashar Assad, victorious in his horrific eight-year civil war, who is
unlikely to cede 5,000 square miles of Syrian territory to a permanent occupation by Turkish
troops.
Reconciling these seemingly irreconcilable Syrian and Turkish demands is now Putin's
problem. If he can work this out, he ought to get the Nobel Prize.
"Putin is the New King of Syria," ran the op-ed headline in Thursday's Wall Street
Journal.
The Syria of which Putin is now supposedly king contains Hezbollah, al-Qaida, ISIS,
Iranians, Kurds, Turks on its northern border and Israelis on its Golan Heights. Five hundred
thousand Syrians are dead from the civil war. Half the pre-war population has been uprooted,
and millions are in exile in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Europe.
If Putin wants to be king of this, and it is OK with Assad, how does that imperil the United
States of America, 6,000 miles away?
Wednesday, two-thirds of the House Republicans joined Nancy Pelosi's Democrats to denounce
Trump's decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria and dissolve our alliance with the Kurds. And
Republican rage over the sudden abandonment of the Kurds is understandable.
But how long does the GOP believe we should keep troops in Syria and control the
northeastern quadrant of that country? If the Syrian army sought to push us out, under what
authority would we wage war against a Syrian army inside Syria?
And if the Turks are determined to secure their border, should we wage war on that NATO ally
to stop them? Would U.S. planes fly out of Turkey's Incirlik air base to attack Turkish
soldiers fighting in Syria?
If Congress believes we have interests in Syria so vital we should be willing to go to war
for them -- against Syria, Turkey, Russia or Iran -- why does Congress not declare those
interests and authorize war to secure them?
Our foreign policy elites have used Trump's decision to bash him and parade their
Churchillian credentials. But those same elites appear to lack the confidence to rally the
nation to vote for a war to defend what they contend are vital American interests and defining
American values.
If Putin is king of Syria, it is because he was willing to pay the price in blood and
treasure to keep his Russia's toehold on the Med and save his ally Bashar Assad, who would have
gone under without him.
Who dares wins. Now let's see how Putin likes his prize.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
Endless demonization of Putin by the elitist press is pure idiocy. Putin's aim is no
different from any decent leader. Do the best for your countrymen and countrywomen; yet
without harming others. At a recent interview with Arabic media a UAE journalist tried to
drive a wedge between Russia and Iran in favor of Saudi Kingdom by challenging Putin to
condemn Iran for alleged attacks on Saudi oil installations by Iran.
To which Putin
skillfully replied: "Russia will never be friends 'with one country against another' in the
Middle East". Nor would Putin condemn Iran unless he was presented with clear evidence - not
just accusations - of Iran's guilt. Point in case: Putin does it better than others; sure,
but why is that bad?
Oh of course envy and fear of one being exposed for inept leadership.
Time long overdue to shake hands with Putin and Russia.
https://www.rt.com/russia/o...
I haven't a concern for Russia in the middle east.
Russia is doing the US the biggest unasked favor proving where our friends and allies
loyalties in the middle east lay by forcing them to make choices in the face of shifting
alliances that they wouldn't reveal if the US continued its presence.
Russia is depopulating and it has choke points with China, with Central Asia, with the
middle east and Europe. Russia will eventually not have the population to defend all these
choke points and will eventually withdraw and focus on its own national security. At that
time, I think its possible to see Russia shift its relationship in eastern Europe while
distancing itself from Chinese expansionism that might one day want its old north pacific
territories back (like what is today Vladivostok and Sakhalin).
Depopulating? Where did you get that from? Population decrease in Russia stopped. By the
latest stats it is just about breaking even (death rates = birth rates). Moreover, population
is growing albeit very slowly. Sorry but Russkies won't die out like extinct species. As far
as its own national security; well, the old notion of "Russia is, more or less, a giant gas
station pretending to be a real country." is as dead as Senator McCain, who pretended to know
something about Russia; alas he was sadly and dangerously uninformed.
https://www.forbes.com/site...
The US has troops and a base or more in Syria?
I don't see any Syrian army bases in the US...
And, the US is telling/demanding where the Syrian army come and goes in...Syria?
What the hell is wrong with this picture?
You know!?
Oh, now hypocrite neo-con enabler Pelosi and some of the freaky other politicians are
concerned with human lives in Syria? Ha ha
But...not about the lives of children dying in Yemen and Afghanistan and Gaza?
How come?
And, the US is telling Turkey what it had better do with it's border? Also, friends and enemies o' mine,just which entity, nation and group is not a US ally?
Ally? What does that mean?
As if the American people know the hell that words means anymore and as if there's even a
meaning to that. And the American people do not watch the news, read magazines (news) as they
did before.
They don't know what is going on in the world, they gave up.
People under 50 automatically tune world news out, thanks mostly to the phonies at CNN and
the major, basically neo-con supporting networks confusing the public, purposely so that they
don't see the misery that is in the nations of the MId-East thanks to US invasions and
bombings. Just look at cnn-they spend all day talking about what Trump or some politician
said, no coverage of battles overseas, unless it benefits the continuing spinning of the news
for intervention and so on.
The US won't get a grip and stop threatening nation after nation
(while Russia does not) and so, people all over the world are thinking,
you now what, look at how dumb Americans are that they allow people from Obama, Hillary,
Schumer, Pelosi, Graham and more to conduct foreign policy that makes enemies for America
daily. And don't forget Cheney and that group, too from before. These people are actually an
insult to America.
Compare how the leaders of Russia and America talk and conduct themselves.
Russia has Lavrov, the gentleman diplomat, the US has Pompeo and the likes of Bolton and
Kushner, the Israeli lobbyist and the Presidents son in law.
How does a so-called Republic allow the President to have his daughter and Kushner, her
husband, to be security/foreign policy advisers. You're really losing it, America.
"But those same elites appear to lack the
confidence to rally the nation to vote for a war to defend what they
contend are vital American interests and defining American values."
No, they don't lack "confidence". They've got all the confidence in the world. What they
lack is competence, integrity, and credibility with the American people and the rest of the
world. They have dragged America through the mud in the Middle East for nearly two decades.
They transformed the once proud American military and diplomatic corps into a customer
service operation for Israel and Saudi Arabia.
We don't need more lectures and directives about "our interests" and "Western values" that
always turn out to be Israeli and Saudi Arabian interests and values. We need new foreign
policy elites, free of the current elite's miserable record of failure, corruption, and
subordination to foreign interests. Above all, we need to get out of the Mideast swamps that
the younger Bush and Obama pushed us into, bring our troops back to America, start defending
America and American interests again.
How simple and true what U've said. Sounds like a sound position and logical too. So why is
this not happening? The answer lies in the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). Sadly, today's
USA revenue to large extent dependent on militaristic revenue; even though most of that
revenue ends up in the coffers of the MIC, supported by the media that is sustained by the
MIC. Yet, I still believe that with a bit of pain Americans can turn around this horrid
situation.
The war in Syria and the growth of ISIS was entirely the result of actions by the Obama
administration - and it is an outrage that no one in a position of power, not even Donald
Trump, has called the Democrats out on this.
Oh yeah, Name you seem to have forgotten Obama authorizing CIA training the moderate rebels
(AKA Al qaida or moderate head choppers). By the way we handed the ME at least to Iran when
Bush invaded Iraq under the false pretenses. Saintly Obama wanted to look forward but not
backward on the false pretenses and he in turn engaged on the same BS as Bush. When history
is written in a few years all this will come out.
The people who are obsessed w/staying in Syria, just for the sake of denying Russia a
'victory', at admitting that they just want to be a spoiler. They want to keep Syria
partitioned into two weak states and not allow it to reform into a single state and heal.
Trump is indeed our Dorian Gray, he is just outwardly reflecting our narcissism, 'if we
don't get to do it then no one else can'.
Obvious Pat we have no consistent foreign policy in the region since we inherited the mantle
from the Brit Empire post WW 2. Oil and Israel were a marketable justification for our wars
and changing partners ( regime change ), for a long time. Now neither is relevant. We have
all the fossil fuels we need, and Israel is all powerful.. Long term I doubt the Russians
will make a difference, in the Muslim quest to resurrect the Ottoman Empire. We have lost too
many of our sons and daughters. get out.
Trump is a genius.
At the moment, Syria is a poisoned chalice to anyone accepting responsibility for it.
Russia is only there because they cannot get a naval base in any other Mediterranean
country.
When, or if peace is achieved in Syria, it will be the US that swoops in to market the
brands the Arabs love. The Syrians won't be buying Russian products.
Name an American brand the "Arabs love": Toyota, Lexis, Rollex, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic,
Samsung, iPhone (made in China)? Which one(s). While their infrastructure and basic
technology are and will continue to be Russian.
Putin is trusted in the middle east (and in most of the rest of the world) because he is an
intelligent, consistent and respected world leader. Now compare this to the clown show of US
politicians (Republican and Democrat).
No serious person can say that US politicians are better than Putin, which is also the
reason Putin is so demonized by the US political elite.
The Middle East is home to oil, terrorism, access points for maritime transportation (The Red
Sea, The Bosphorus, Suez Canal, Persian Gulf). It is strategically important. It was a
mistake for Obama to leave Iraq before there was a stable situation and it is a mistake for
Trump to leave before there is a stable situation.
To say, "Just let them all fight it out" is foolhardy and likely just a rationalization
for your mistake to support the narcissistic fool in the White House.
I don't think Putin is going to be unhappy about it. The various powers of the ME will now go
to him for favors, and he will get favors in return. I doubt US interests will be among them.
Putin said, I've got your no fly zone right here. After Russian deployment of the SA400's,
america had no choice but to begin withdrawal.
And kind of missing from Buchanan's list of
putin friends, is erdogan himself.
So, it will be interesting to see what happens now. Putin
holds all the cards and is in the best position of anybody on the planet to broker a deal
between assad and erdogan. Part of that deal will likely be very bad for those who threw
their lot in with the US.
Turkey is not a small country and has an enormous military.
Buchanan himself said that we should stay out of Syria and let the Turks deal with ISIS.
But
they were too smart for that, and had their own coup to worry about. I have always thought
that the US should have brokered a homeland for the kurds. It would have been hard, but now
it is impossible.
Turkey is now a client state of Russia much more than a member of NATO. At
least in appearance. They now buy SA400's and SU-57's from mother russia.
Who supplies and
maintains your best weapon systems indicates who your real allies are. What has the US lost?
I would say we lost anybody across the globe that we ever hoped would ally with us against
the new sino-russian superpower. Russia has unlimited space and resources. China has
unlimited people and no limits on its technical growth and markets. The US? We are the
biggest debtor third world nation that has ever existed. But hey, we have the most stable
genius as our president, and the sky is the limit for what he will accomplish other than
permanent tax cuts for corporations. Right? The right again.
Except for 2 wrongs, they
wouldn't even exist. Can faith overcome inconvenient truth? Real faith probably could by
accepting inconvenient truth. But real faith is mostly dead. It was replaced with tax free
religiosity and assault weaponry sponsored by corporate fascist government. I watched it
happen. And his story is being rewritten in days or weeks instead of years and decades.
It's not often that I would agree with Pat B. Essentially never.
But on this point, yes. If Putin wants the Middle East, by all means proceed.
That region has been messing up our politics for literally my whole life - It is most
decidedly not a Promised Land for the United States. Let the Saudis and the
Iranians and the Russians and the Turks fight it out. It should be lovely. The Israelis call
sell weapons to all of them.
Thank you for this small bit of obvious wisdom, Mr. Buchanan. Your insights are very common
sensical here, and thus, most valuable. Too bad they will mostly fall on the deaf ears of our
moronic "Elites".
I believe Obama said that Putin would be overwhelmed in Syria. However, Putin has overseen an
excellent strategy of picking an area of insurgents, militarily pounding them, then offering
them free passage to a safe area (Idlib). After doing this across Syria, he and Assad now
have all of the jihadist groups in one place where they can pound them senseless or just sit
back and wait for them to start shooting each other.
Trump did not screw up the Kurds' clearing of ISIS above the Euphrates. Now he has given
Putin and Assad the results of that. I expect the PA team will stabilize that area in short
order.
So, Idlib and NW Syria will be a cauldron for a while. Now Al Tanf is the only insurgent
holdout. Be interesting to see how that unfolds.
Lest Trumpland forget, there is a reason we got involved in the region. Jihadists can and
will use neglect to later come after us.
Putin shows us how its done. 3 billion or so, find good Muslims (anyone other than Sunni
islamists) and help them blow up, conquer, and occasionally repress the bad Muslims.
We spent several TRILLION ourselves and thousands of American lives for nothing. We never
had a single achievable objective in any of these conflicts.
Donald is a moron for selling out the Kurds, who it cost nothing to back, to Turkey but
the DC elites made this inevitable by refusing to cut a deal with Assad for the Kurds. He's
been the only realistic option for a long time now.
"... As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians. ..."
"... The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly acquired ones. ..."
"... Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor Cohen ascribes to the US. ..."
"... We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU, or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay. ..."
"... Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an individual example with AP, but they all seem like that. ..."
Thanks for your sharing you views about Prof Cohen, a most interesting and principled
man.
Only after reading the article did I realize that the UR (that's you) also provided the
Batchelor Show podcast. Thanks.
I've been listening to these broadcasts over their entirety, now going on for six or so
years. What's always struck me is Cohen's level-headeness and equanimity. I've also detected
affection for Kentucky, his native state. Not something to be expected from a Princeton / NYU
academic nor an Upper West Side resident.
And once again expressing appreciation for the UR!
Read More • Replies: @Mikhail
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt
politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the
target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials.
Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of
the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to
mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump said
to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is the
exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can
be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other
plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with
inevitable impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally elected president Viktor
Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment -- none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) -- how fucking hypocritical is it to
presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? -- none of it would
have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
According to a recent govt study, only 12% of Americans can read above a 9th grade level.
This effectively mean (((whoever))) controls the MSM controls the world. NOTHING will change
for the better while the (((enemy))) owns our money supply.
There was NO "annexation" of Crimea by Russia. Crimea WAS annexed, but by Ukraine.
Russia and Crimea re-unified. Crimea has been part of Russia for long than America has
existed – since it was taken from the Ottoman Empire over 350 yrs ago. The vast
majority of the people identify as Russian, and speak only Russian.
To annex, the verb, means to use armed force to seize sovereign territory and put it under
the control of the invading forces government. Pretty much as the early Americans did to
Northern Mexico, Hawaii, etc. Russia used no force, the Governors of Crimea applied for
re-unification with Russia, Russia advised a referendum, which was held, and with a 96%
turnout, 97% voted for re-unification. This was done formally and legally, conforming with
all the international mandates.
It is very damaging for anyone to say that Russia "annexed" Crimea, because when people
read, quickly moving past the world, they subliminally match the word to their held
perception of the concept and move on. Thus they match the word "annex" to their conception
of the use of Armed Force against a resistant population, without checking.
All Cohen is doing here is reinforcing the pushed, lying Empire narrative, that Russia
invaded and used force, when the exact opposite is true!!
@Carlton
Meyer One wonders if Mr. Putin, as he puts his head on the pillow at night, fancies that
he should have rolled the Russian tanks into Kiev, right after the 2014 US-financed coup of
Ukraine's elected president, which was accomplished while he was pre-occupied with the Sochi
Olympics, and been done with it. He had every justification to do so, but perhaps feared
Western blowback. Well, the blowback happened anyway, so maybe Putin was too cautious.
The new Trump Admin threw him under the bus when it installed the idiot Nikki Haley as UN
Ambassador, whose first words were that Russia must give Crimea back. With its only major
warm water port located at Sevastopol, that wasn't about to happen, and the US Deep State
knew it.
Given how he has been so unfairly treated by the media, and never given a chance to enact
his Russian agenda, anyone who thinks that Trump was 'selected' by the deep state has rocks
for brains. The other night, on Rick Sanchez's RT America show, former US diplomat, and
frequent guest Jim Jatras said that he would not be too surprised if 20 GOP Senators flipped
and voted to convict Trump if the House votes to impeach.
The deep state can't abide four more years of the bombastic, Twitter-obsessed Trump, hence
this Special Ops Ukraine false flag, designed to fool a majority of the people. The smooth
talking, more warlike Pence is one of them. The night of the long knives is approaching.
The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US
always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly
acquired ones.
The "logic" of the Dem party is remarkable. Dems don't even deny that Biden is corrupt,
that he blatantly abused the office of Vice-President for personal gain. What's more, he was
dumb enough to boast about it publicly. Therefore, let's impeach Trump.
These people don't give a hoot about the interests of the US as a country, or even as an
Empire. Their insatiable greed for money and power blinds them to everything. By rights,
those who orchestrated totally fake Russiagate and now push for impeachment, when Russiagate
flopped miserably, should be hanged on lampposts for high treason. Unfortunately, justice
won't be served. So, we have to be satisfied with an almost assured prospect of this
impeachment thing to flop, just like Russiagate before it. But in the process incalculable
damage will be done to our country and its institutions.
Those who support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia without Serbian consent cannot
argue against separation of Crimea from Ukraine without the consent of Kiev regime.
On the other hand, those who believe that post-WWII borders are sacrosanct have to
acknowledge that Crimea belongs to Russia (illegally even by loose Soviet standards
transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1956), Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Soviet Union
should be restored, and Germany should be re-divided.
At least now I know why Ukraine is so essential to American national security. It's so even
more of my and my families' taxes can pay for a massive expansion of Nato, which means
American military bases in Ukraine. Greenland to the borders of China.
We're encircling the earth, like those old cartoons about bankers.
@Ron
Unz I had to stop listening after the 10th min. where the good professor (without any
push-back from the interviewer) says:
Victor Yanukovich was overthrown by a street coup . at that moment, the United States
and not only the United States but the Western European Governments had to make a decision
would they acknowledge the overthrow of Yannukovic as having been legitimate, and therefore
accept whatever government emerged, and that was a fateful moment within 24hours, the
governments, including the government of president Obama endorsed what was essentially a
coup d'etat against Yanukovich.
Has the good Professor so quickly forgotten about Victoria Nuland distributing cookies
with John McCain in the Maidan as the coup was still unfolding? Her claim at the think tank
in DC where she discusses having spent $30million (if I remember correctly) for foisting the
Ukraine coup ?
Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next
president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week
later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor
Cohen ascribes to the US.
These are not simple omissions but willful acts of misleading of fools. The good
professor's little discussed career as a resource for the secret services has reemerged after
seemingly having been left out in the cold during the 1st attempted coup against Trump.
No, the real story is more than just a little NATO expansion as the professor does
suggest, but more directly, the attempted coup that the US is still trying to stage in Russia
itself, in order to regain control of Russia's vast energy resources which Putin forced the
oligarchs to disgorge. The US desperately wants to achieve this in order to be able to
ultimately also control China's access to those resources as well.
In the way that Iraq was supposed to be a staging post for an attack on Iran, Ukraine is
the staging post for an attack on Russia.
The great Russian expert stirred miles very clear of even hinting at such scenarios, even
though anyone who's thought about US world policies will easily arrive at this logical
conclusion.
What about the theft of Ukraine's farmland and the enserfing of its rural population? Isn't
this theft and enserfing of Ukrainians at least one major reason the US government got
involved, overseeing the transfer of this land into the hands of the transnational banking
crime syndicate? The Ukraine, with its rich, black soil, used to be called the breadbasket of
Europe.
Consider the fanatical intervention on the part of Victoria Nuland and the Kagans under
the guise of working for the State Dept to facilitate the theft. In a similar fashion,
according to Wayne Madsen, the State Dept. has a Dept of Foreign Asset Management, or some
similar name, that exists to protect the Chabad stranglehold on the world diamond trade, and,
according to Madsen, the language spoken and posters around the offices are in Hebrew, which
as a practical matter might as well be the case at the State Dept itself.
According to an article a few years ago at Oakland Institute, George Rohr's NCH Capital,
which latter organization has funded over 100 Chabad Houses on US campuses, owns over 1
million acres of Ukraine farmland. Other ownership interests of similarly vast tracts of
Ukraine farmland show a similar pattern of predation. At one point, it was suggested that the
Yinon Plan should be understood to include the Ukraine as the newly acquired breadbasket of
Eretz Israel. It may also be worth pointing out that now kosher Ivy League schools'
endowments are among the worst pillagers of native farmland and enserfers of the indigenous
populations they claim to protect.
@Mikhail
Well, if we really go into it, things become complicated. What Khmelnitsky united with Russia
was maybe 1/6th or 1/8th of current Ukraine. Huge (4-5 times greater) areas in the North and
West were added by Russian Tsars, almost as great areas in the South and East taken by Tsars
from Turkey and affiliated Crimean Khanate were added by Lenin, a big chunk in the West was
added by Stalin, and then in 1956 moron Khrushchev "gifted" Crimea (which he had no right to
do even by Soviet law). So, about 4/6th of "Ukraine" is Southern Russia, 1/6th is Eastern
Poland, some chunks are Hungary and Romania, and the remaining little stub is Ukraine proper.
@anon
American view always was: "yes, he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". That
historically applied to many obnoxious regimes, now fully applies to Ukraine. In that Dems
and Reps always were essentially identical, revealing that they are two different puppets run
by the same puppet master.
Trump is hardly very intelligent, but he has some street smarts that degenerate elites
have lost. Hence their hatred of him. It is particularly galling for the elites that Trump
won in 2016, and has every chance of winning again in 2020 (unless they decide to murder him,
like JFK; but that would be a real giveaway, even the dumbest sheeple would smell the
rat).
@follyofwar
The only reason I can imagine that Putin/Russia would want to "take over" Ukraine and have
this political problem child back in the family might be because of Ukraine's black soil.
But it is probably not worth the aggravation.
Russia is building up its agricultural sector via major greenhouse installations and other
innovations.
@AP
Well, you are a true simpleton who repeats shallow conventional views. You don't ever seem to
think deeper about what you write, e.g. if Yanukovitch could beat anyone in a 1-on-1 election
than he obviously wasn't that unpopular and that makes Maidan illegal by any standard. You
say he could beat Tiahnybok, who was one of the leaders of Maidan, how was then Maidan
democratic? Or you don't care for democracy if people vote against your preferences?
Trade with Russia is way down and it is not coming back. That is my point – there
was definitely a way to do this better. It wasn't a choice of 'one or the other' –
actually EU was under the impression that Ukraine would help open up the Russian market. Your
either-or wasn't the plan, so did Kiev lie to EU? No wonder Ukraine has a snowball chance in
hell of joining EU.
@Skeptikal
Russia moved to the first place in the world in wheat exports, while greatly increasing its
production of meat, fowl, and fish. Those who supplied these commodities lost Russian market
for good. In fact, with sanctions, food in Russia got a lot better, and food in Moscow got
immeasurably better: now it's local staff instead of crap shipped from half-a-world away.
Funny thing is, Russian production of really good fancy cheeses has soared (partially with
the help of French and Italian producers who moved in to avoid any stupid sanctions).
So, there is no reason for Russia to take Ukraine on any conditions, especially
considering Ukraine's exorbitant external debt. If one calculates European demand for
transplantation kidneys and prostitutes, two of the most successful Ukrainian exports,
Ukraine will pay off its debt – never. Besides, the majority of Russians learned to
despise Ukraine due to its subservient vassalage to the US (confirmed yet again by the
transcript of the conversation between Trump and Ze), so the emotional factor is also
virtually gone. Now the EU and the US face the standard rule of retail: you broke it, you own
it. That infuriates Americans and EU bureaucrats more than anything.
@Sergey
Krieger "Demography statistic won't support fairy tales by solzhenicin and his kind."
-- What's your point? Your post reads like an attempt at saying that Kaganovitch was white
like snow and that it does not matter what crimes were committed in the Soviet Union because
of the "demography statistic" and because you, Sergey Krieger, are a grander person next to
Solzhenitsyn and "his kind." By the way, had not A. I. S. returned to Russia, away from the
coziness of western life?
S.K.: "You should start research onto mass dying of population after 1991 and subsequent
and ongoing demographic catastroph in Russia under current not as "brutal " as soviet
regime."
@AP
Maidan was an illegal coup that violated Ukrainian constitution (I should say all of them,
there were too many) and lots of other laws. And that's not the worst part of it. But it
already happened, there is no going back for Ukraine. It's a "yes or no" thing, you can't be
a little bit pregnant. We can either commiserate with Ukraine or gloat, but it committed
suicide. Some say this project was doomed from the start. I think Ukraine had a chance and
blew it.
@AnonFromTN
I usually refrain from labelling off-cycle changes in government as revolutions or coups
– it clearly depends on one's views and can't be determined.
In general, when violence or military is involved, it is more likely it was a coup. If a
country has a reasonably open election process, violently overthrowing the current government
would also seem like a coup, since it is unnecessary. Ukraine had both violence and a coming
election that was democratic. If Yanukovitch would prevent or manipulate the elections, one
could make a case that at that point – after the election – the population could
stage a ' revolution '.
AP is a simpleton who repeats badly thought out slogans and desperately tries to save some
face for the Maidan fiasco – so we will not change his mind, his mind is done with
changes, it is all about avoiding regrets even if it means living in a lie. One can almost
feel sorry for him, if he wasn't so obnoxious.
Ukraine has destroyed its own future gradually after 1991, all the elites there failed,
Yanukovitch was just the last in a long line of failures, the guy before him (Yushenko?) left
office with a 5% approval. Why wasn't there a revolution against him? Maidan put a cherry on
that rotting cake – a desperate scream of pain by people who had lost all hope and so
blindly fell for cheap promises by the new-old hustlers.
We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU,
or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part
of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay.
Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete
disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an
individual example with AP, but they all seem like that.
@AP
You intentionally omitted the second part of what I wrote: 'a reasonably democratic
elections', neither 18th century American colonies, nor Russia in 1917 or Romania in 1989,
had them. Ukraine in 2014 did.
So all your belly-aching is for nothing. The talk about 'subverting' and doing a
preventive 'revolution' on Maidan to prevent 'subversion' has a very Stalinist ring to it. If
you start revolutionary violence because you claim to anticipate that something bad might
happen, well, the sky is the limit and you have no rules.
You are desperately trying to justify a stupid and unworkable act. As we watch the
unfolding disaster and millions leaving Ukraine, this "Maidan was great!!!" mantra will sound
even more silly. But enjoy it, it is not Somalia, wow, I guess as long as a country is not
Somalia it is ok. Ukraine is by far the poorest large country in Europe. How is that a
success?
@Beckow
True believers are called that because they willfully ignore facts and logic. AP is a true
believer Ukie. Ukie faith is their main undoing. Unfortunately, they are ruining the country
with their insane dreams. But that cannot be helped now. The position of a large fraction of
Ukrainian population is best described by a cruel American saying: fool me once, shame on
you, fool me twice, shame on me.
@AnonFromTN
You are right, it can't be helped. Another saying is that it takes two to lie: one who lies,
and one to lie to. The receiver of lies is also responsible.
What happened in Ukraine was: Nuland&Co. went to Ukraine and lied to them about '
EU, 'Marshall plan', aid, 'you will be Western ', etc,,,'. Maidanistas swallowed it
because they wanted to believe – it is easy to lie to desperate people. Making promises
is very easy. US soft power is all based on making promises.
What Nuland&Co. really wanted was to create a deep Ukraine-Russia hostility and to
grab Crimea, so they could get Russian Navy out and move Nato in. It didn't work very well,
all we have is useless hostility, and a dysfunctional state. But as long as they serve
espresso in Lviv, AP will scream that it was all worth it, 'no Somalia', it is 'all normal',
almost as good as 2013 . Right.
@AP
I don't disagree with what you said, but my point was different:
lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians
Without the unnecessary hostility and the break in business relations with Russia the
living standards in Ukraine would be higher. That, I think, noone would dispute. One can
trace that directly to the so-far failed attempt to get Ukraine into Nato and Russia out of
its Crimea bases. There has been a high cost for that policy, so it is appropriate to ask:
why? did the authors of that policy think it through?
@AP
I don't give a flying f k about Yanukovitch and your projections about what 'would be growth'
under him. He was history by 2014 in any case.
One simple point that you don't seem to grasp: it was Yanuk who negotiated the association
treaty with EU that inevitably meant Ukraine in Nato and Russia bases out of Crimea (after a
decent interval). For anyone to call Yanuk a 'pro-Russian' is idiotic – what we see
today are the results of Yanukovitch's policies. By the way, the first custom restrictions on
Ukraine's exports to Russia happened in summer 2013 under Y.
If you still think that Yanukovitch was in spite of all of that somehow a 'Russian
puppet', you must have a very low opinion of Kremlin skills in puppetry. He was not, he was
fully onboard with the EU-Nato-Crimea policy – he implemented it until he got
outflanked by even more radical forces on Maidan.
@Beckow
Well, exactly like all Ukrainian presidents before and after him, Yanuk was a thief. He might
have been a more intelligent and/or more cautious thief that Porky, but a thief he was.
Anyway, there is no point in crying over spilled milk: history has no subjunctive mood.
Ukraine has dug a hole for itself, and it still keeps digging, albeit slower, after a clown
in whole socks replaced a clown in socks with holes. By now this new clown is also a
murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although so far he has committed fewer crimes
than Porky.
There is no turning back. Regardless of Ukrainian policies, many things it used to sell
Russia won't be bought any more: Russia developed its own shipbuilding (subcontracted some to
South Korea), is making its own helicopter and ship engines, all stages of space rockets,
etc. Russia won't return any military or high-tech production to Ukraine, ever. What's more,
most Russians are now disgusted with Ukraine, which would impede improving relations even if
Ukraine gets a sane government (which is extremely unlikely in the next 5 years).
Ukraine's situation is best described by Russian black humor saying: "what we fought for
has befallen us". End of story.
@Peter
Akuleyev How many millions? It is same story. Ukraine claims more and more millions dead
from so called Hilodomor when in Russia liberals have been screaming about 100 million deaths
in russia from bolsheviks. Both are fairy tales. Now you better answer what is current
population of ukraine. The last soviet time 1992 level was 52 million. I doubt you got even
40 million now. Under soviet power both ukraine and russia population were steadily growing.
Now, under whose music you are dancing along with those in Russia that share your views when
die off very real one is going right under your nose.
By now this new clown is also a murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although
so far he has committed fewer crimes than Porky.
Have you noticed that the Republicans, while seeming to defend Trump, never challenge the
specious assertion that delaying arms to Ukraine was a threat to US security? At first I
thought this was oversight. Silly me. Keeping the New Cold War smoldering is more important
to those hawks.
Tulsi Gabbard flipping to support the impeachment enquiry was especially disappointing.
I'm guessing she was under lots of pressure, because she can't possibly believe that arming
the Ukies is good for our security. If I could get to one of her events, I'd ask her direct,
what's up with that. Obama didn't give them arms at all, even made some remarks about not
inflaming the situation. (A small token, after his people managed the coup, spent 8 years
demonizing Putin, and presided over origins of Russiagate to make Trump's [stated] goal of
better relations impossible.)
Not really. Ukies are wonnabe Nazis, but they fall way short of their ideal. The original
German Nazis were organized, capable, brave, sober, and mostly honest. Ukie scum is
disorganized, ham-handed, cowardly, drunk (or under drugs), and corrupt to the core. They are
heroes only against unarmed civilians, good only for theft, torture, and rape. When it comes
to the real fight with armed opponents, they run away under various pretexts or surrender.
Nazis should sue these impostors for defamation.
Yanukovych signed an internationally brokered power sharing agreement with his main
rivals, who then violated it. Yanukovych up to that point was the democratically elected
president of Ukraine.
Since his being violently overthrown, people have been unjustly jailed, beaten and killed
for politically motivated reasons having to do with a stated opposition to the
Euromaidan.
Yanukovych refrained from using from using considerably greater force, when compared to
others if put in the same situation, against a mob element that included property damage and
the deaths of law enforcement personnel.
In the technical legal sense, there was a legit basis to jail the likes of Tymoshenko. If
I correctly recall Yushchenko offered testimony against Tymoshenko. Rather laughable that
Poroshenko appointed the non-lawyer Lutsenko into a key legal position.
@Beckow
The undemocratic aspect involving Yanukovych's overthrow included the disproportionate number
of Svoboda members appointed to key cabinet positions. At the time, Svoboda was on record for
favoring the dissolution of Crimea's autonomous status
@AP
Grest comment #159 by Beckow. Really, I'm more concerned with the coup against POTUS that's
happening right now, since before he took office. The Ukraine is pivotal, from the Kiev
putschists collaborating with the DNC, to the CIA [pretend] whistleblowers who now subvert
Trump's investigation of those crimes.
Tragic and pitiful, the Ukrainians jumped from a rock to a hard place. Used and abandoned
by the Clinton-Soros gang, they appeal to the next abusive Sugar-Daddy. Isn't this FRANCE 24
report fairly objective?
Revisited: Five years on, what has Ukraine's Maidan Revolution achieved?
@AP
This from BBC is less current. (That magnificent bridge -the one the Ukies tried to sabotage-
is now in operation, of course.) I'm just trying to use sources that might not trigger you.
@AP
"Whenever people ask me how to figure out the truth about Ukraine, I always recommend they
watch the film Ukraine on Fire by director @lopatonok and executive produced by
@TheOliverStone. The sequel Revealing Ukraine will be out soon proud to be in it."
– Lee Sranahan (Follow @stranahan for Ukrainegate in depth.)
" .what has really changed in the life of Ukrainians?"
@Malacaay
Baltics, Ukrainians and Poles were part of the Polish Kingdom from 1025-1569 and the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569-1764.
This probably explains their differences with Russia.
Russia had this area in the Russian Empire from 1764-1917. Russia called this area the
Pale of Settlement. Why? This Polish Kingdom since 1025 welcomed 25000 Jews in, who later
grew to millions by the 19th century. They are the Ashkenazis who are all over the world
these days. The name Pale was for Ashkenazis to stay in that area and not immigrate to the
rest of Russia.
The reasoning for this was not religious prejudice but the way the Ashkenazis treated the
peasants of the Pale. It was to protect the Russian peasants. This did not help after 1917. A
huge invasion of Ashkenazis descended all over Russia to take up positions all over the
Soviet Union.
Ukraine US is like the Pale again. It has a Jewish President and a Jewish Prime
Minister.
Ukraine and Poland were both controlled by Tartars too. Ukraine longer than Russia. Russia
ended the Tartar rule of Crimea in 1783. The Crimean Tartars lived off raiding Ukraine,
Poland, and parts of Russia for Slav slaves. Russia ended this Slav slave trade in 1783.
"... I suspect that Gabbard has very little chance of beating Trump because he is also campaigning - quite successfully - against 'endless wars', and Gabbard is too radical for most Americans. ..."
"... This sparks some interesting questions, such as, exactly who are party members, and how do they become members? The actual structure and functioning of political parties in the US is seldom discussed, and I wonder why that is. "Opaque" seems to be a good description ..."
"... The primary voting system is a huge financial subsidy to the two officially approved parties, which are, of course, merely two branches of the Business Party. ..."
"... Good for Tulsi. I love the way she punches. She not only decked Clinton in one, but she got a lot of other important points across at the same time. ..."
"... Whenever she tries to curve her stance close to the establishment, she comes off as someone who is running for Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense; as someone with her eyes on a high status job in the establishement. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton can't be thrown out of the Dem party because she in a sense IS the Dem party as it stands now, a long way from its roots. The Dem party now has been fully integrated into the bureaucracy, the intelligence services and the corporate media similar to how Tony Blair in the UK took the Labour Party to be deeply embedded in the UK establishment. ..."
"... Hillary is still around because she literally owns the Democrat party. Follow the funding: in 2016, almost all of it flowed through HRC. Not just the presidential, but the state and significant part of the local. ..."
Hillary Clinton appeared to suggest that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is the "favorite of the Russians" to win the 2020 presidential
election and is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party candidate against the eventual Democratic nominee.
...
The Russians already have their "eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party
candidate," she said, in an apparent reference to Gabbard.
"She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her, so far," Clinton
told David Plouffe, the podcast's host and the campaign manager for former President Obama's 2008 campaign.
"And that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton added, referring
to the 2016 Green Party presidential candidate.
The responses were appropriate:
Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard - 22:20 UTC
· Oct 18, 2019
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that
has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy,
there has been a ...
... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through
your proxies and ...
... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.
It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
The Streisand effect of Clinton's shoddy remark will help Tulsi Gabbard with regards to name recognition. It will increase her
poll results. With Joe Biden faltering and Elizabeth Warren increasingly exposed as a phony Clinton copy, Bernie Sanders could become
the Democrats leading candidate. Then the “favorite of the Russians” smear will be applied to him.
Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party for damaging it's chances to regain the White House. But the Democratic
establishment would rather sabotage the election than to let one of the more progressive candidates take the lead.
Voters do not like such internal squabble and shenanigans. The phony Ukrainegate 'impeachment inquiry' is already
a gift for Trump. Messing with the candidate field on top
of that will inevitably end with another Trump presidency.
and Suspend her from what? a lamp post? That's a little bit harsh.
Hillary is actually doing something constructive for the first time in her career - by giving a boost to Tulsi Gabbard who
is the only candidate who challenges the military industrial complex, which has probably caused more death and destruction than
anyone else in history.
I suspect that Gabbard has very little chance of beating Trump because he is also campaigning - quite successfully - against
'endless wars', and Gabbard is too radical for most Americans.
But none of the other Democratic candidates stand a chance of beating Trump either. The two front-runners are medically unfit
for any important challenging job - Biden (senility) and Sanders (recent heart attack/stroke?).
Tulsi is urging Hillary to "enter the race" !! Hillary is foaming at the mouth with desire to enter the 2020 race. Is Tulsi
working for Hillary?
Behind the scenes it was decided to make HunterBidenGate the pretext for a Trump impeachment. This, it
was thought, would damage Trump AND Biden and make way for the resurrection of Hillary Clinton. There were so many other pretexts
available but they chose this one.
"Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party"
This sparks some interesting questions, such as, exactly who are party members, and how do they become members? The actual
structure and functioning of political parties in the US is seldom discussed, and I wonder why that is. "Opaque" seems to be a
good description. Even a quick review of the Wikipedia entry reveals little.
As best I can tell, a person is a party member by checking the box on the voter registration form. The few times I have registered,
I did not check a box for any party. It is none of the state's business who I associate with or vote for.
It is also not the state's business to supervise and fund the selection of party candidates. But that is what happens in the
US. The primary voting system is a huge financial subsidy to the two officially approved parties, which are, of course, merely
two branches of the Business Party.
"It didn't come much clearer nor more explicit than when Gabbard fired up the Democratic TV debate this week. It was billed
as the biggest televised presidential debate ever, and the Hawaii Representative told some prime-time home-truths to the nation:
"Donald Trump has blood of the Kurds on his hands, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have
supported this ongoing regime-change war in Syria that started in 2011 along with many in the mainstream media who have been championing
and cheer-leading this regime-change war."
The 38-year-old military veteran went on to denounce how the US has sponsored Al Qaeda terrorists for its objective of overthrowing
the government in Damascus."
Good for Tulsi. I love the way she punches. She not only decked Clinton in one, but she got a lot of other important points
across at the same time. The way she tries to finesse her stances on Iran, India and Israel is disturbing though.
Whenever she tries to curve her stance close to the establishment, she comes off as someone who is running for Secretary
of State or Secretary of Defense; as someone with her eyes on a high status job in the establishement.
When she's forthright, punches hard and says the things that many people are thinking but few dare say - as she did in her
statement on Syria, but didn't in her statement on Iran - she comes off as the first real candidate for President that I've seen
in my lifetime (I don't count the likes of Dennis Kucinich, who never seemed to actually want to win).
If Tulsi is serious about doing the world good, this is the path she needs to take. Speak the truths no one else is willing
to say; punch hard; stick with it. Yeah and be willing to die for it. If they can't stop you, which I don't think they can, they'll
come gunning for you...
Finally, at last, foreign affairs (i.e wars) has made it into a presidential campaign, and by a veteran, with veterans currently
being sanctified in the U.S. The women (Tulsi, Jill and Hillary) are getting down and dirty, too, which is always a good thing
and a feature of politics in time past, as in the Truman era. President Harry Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of
the kitchen. If you cannot handle the pressure, you should not remain in a position where you have to deal with it."
Let's hope that they get into the details of Hillary's failures, including Libya, Somalia, and especially Syria. Let's get
it on! In the last election she never was forced to answer for her specific failures. Now's the time.
Hillary Clinton can't be thrown out of the Dem party because she in a sense IS the Dem party as it stands now, a long way
from its roots. The Dem party now has been fully integrated into the bureaucracy, the intelligence services and the corporate
media similar to how Tony Blair in the UK took the Labour Party to be deeply embedded in the UK establishment.
What Trump has successfully done from the right that Sanders/Gabbard (like Corbyn in the UK) are struggling to do from the
left is to attack the establishment that's in a permanent state of warfare abroad and at home against its "enemies" and unfettered
capitalism at home For a brief moment it was hoped by progressives that Obama - who defeated the faces of the establishment, Clinton
and McCain in 2008 - would really fight the establishment but he ended up becoming more of a celebrity politician like Trudeau
who talked a good game but was unable to effect real change on the ground which of course led to a large number or African Americans
not voting in 2016 and a lot of white blue collar Obama 2008 voters going for Trump.
The corporate media which has been totally corrupted and infiltrated by intelligence agencies - quote openly versus covertly
as in the past - is going to make every effort to shut down not just Gabbard but Sanders and ensure that Warren - a wannabe feel-gooder
like Obama - be completely neutered to effect real change.
Hillary is still around because she literally owns the Democrat party. Follow the funding: in 2016, almost all of it flowed
through HRC. Not just the presidential, but the state and significant part of the local.
Negotiators for Russia, Ukraine, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe recently met in Minsk to revive the
agreement previously reached in the Belarus capital. They set an election schedule in the contested east, to be followed by passage
of Ukrainian legislation to grant the region greater autonomy and separatists legal immunity. Despite strong opposition from nationalists,
passage is likely since Zelensky's party holds a solid legislative majority.
Many challenges remain, but the West could aid this process by respecting Russian security concerns. The U.S. and its allies should
formally foreclose Ukraine's membership in the transatlantic alliance and end lethal military aid. After receiving those assurances,
Moscow would be expected to resolve the Donbass conflict, presumably along the lines of Minsk: Ukraine protects local autonomy while
Russia exits the fight. Sanctions against Russia would be lifted. Ukrainians would be left to choose their economic orientation,
since the country would likely be split between east and west for some time to come. The West would accept Russia's control of Crimea
while refusing to formally recognize the conquest -- absent a genuinely independent referendum with independent monitors.
Such a compromise would be controversial. Washington's permanent war lobby would object. Hyper-nationalistic Ukrainians would
double down on calling Zelensky a traitor. Eastern Europeans would complain about appeasing Russia. However, such a compromise would
certainly be better than endless conflict.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the
author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.
I understand why you want to thread the needle. After the invasions, having to add more failure or at the very least recognition
of dysfunction to our foreign policy choices and consequences is a bitter pill. But as you note had the US and the EU seriously
had the desire to add the Ukraine into the western European sphere of influence, they could have offered a better deal on oil
- they didn't.
I think we have got to stop accusing the then existing government of corruption. As your own article states, the history of
unstable governance with accompanying "corruption" seems a staple and nonunique. And as is the case in developing countries, what
we call corruption is a cultural staple of how business and affairs are conducted. Whatever the issues, the Ukrainian public was
not overly beset by the results so as to spontaneously riot. How the civil unrest spun out of control the second in ten years,
can be linked directly to US and EU involvement.
It is a deeply held belief that democracy is a system that by definition a generally acceptable path forward. That belief is
false as democracy is still comprised of human beings. And democracy in their hands is no "cure all". It can be a turbulent and
jerky bureaucratic maze process that pleases no one and works over time.
The US didn't accomplish it without violence until after more than 130 years, when the native populations were finally subdued.
And as for a system that embodied equal treatment to similar circumstance -- we are still at it. But a violent revolution every
ten years certainly isn't the most effective road to take.
-----------------
Why we insistent on restarting the cold war is unclear to me save that it served to create a kind of strategic global clarity
Though what that means would troublesome because Russia's ole would now be as a developing democratic state as opposed to a communist
monolith. And that means unfettered from her satellites and empowered by more capital markets her role as adversary would be more
adroit. As time after time, Ores Putin has appeared the premier diplomat for peace and stability in situations in which the US
was engaged or encouraging violence.(the Ukraine). I certainly don't think that our relations with Russia or China are a to be
kumbaya love fests, there is still global competition and there's no reason to pretend it would be without tensions. But seriously,
as a democratic/capital market player -- there really was no way to contain Russia.
----------------------
Given what we experienced during 2007 --- corruption comes in a mryiad of guises.
All so very true. The crux of the matter is the word competition. US doesn't like that, as a monopolist entity (the world would
be hegemonic power). So you get Cold War 2.0 in overdrive now. Just think Great Britain, Russia, and Germany, at the end of 19th
century beginning of 20th. All three monarchies, with cousins in power, with more or less parliamentarian structures in place,
competing for a place under sun. And UK fretting that will loose its place...
"... For those who don't speak fluent neoconservative, "isolationist" here means taking even one small step in any direction other than continued military expansionism into every square inch of planet Earth, and "We are becoming isolationist" here means "We have hundreds of military bases circling the globe, our annual military budget is steadily climbing toward the trillion-dollar mark, and we are engaged in countless undeclared wars and regime change interventions all around the world." ..."
"... a war criminal with a blood-soaked legacy of mass murder, torture and military expansionism telling Trump that he is endangering peace with his "isolationism" ..."
"... Nobody actually believes that US foreign policy is under any threat of anything remotely resembling isolationism. The real purpose of this buzzword is to normalize the forever war and drag the Overton window so far in the direction of ghoulish hawkishness that the opposite of "war" is no longer "peace", but "isolationism". By pulling this neat little trick, the propagandists of the political/media class have successfully made endless war seem like a perfectly normal thing to be happening and any small attempt to scale it back look weird and freakish, when the truth is the exact opposite. War is weird, freakish and horrific, and peace is of course normal. This is the only healthy way to see things. ..."
Humanity was treated to an important lecture on peace at a recent event for the NIR School of the Heart by none other than Ellen
Degeneres BFF and world-renowned peace expert George W Bush.
"I don't think the Iranians believe a peaceful Middle East is in their national interest," said the former president according
to The Washington Post 's Josh Rogin, whose
brief Twitter thread on the subject appears
to be the only record of Bush's speech anywhere online.
"An isolationist United States is destabilizing around the world," Bush said during the speech in what according to Rogin was
a shot at the sitting president.
"We are becoming isolationist and that's dangerous for the sake of peace."
For those who don't speak fluent neoconservative, "isolationist" here means taking even one small step in any direction other
than continued military expansionism into every square inch of planet Earth, and "We are becoming isolationist" here means "We have
hundreds of military bases circling the globe, our annual military budget is steadily climbing toward the trillion-dollar mark, and
we are engaged in countless undeclared wars and regime change interventions all around the world."
It is unclear why Bush is choosing to present himself as a more peaceful president than Trump given that by this point in his
first term Bush had launched not one but two full-scale ground invasion wars whose effects continue to ravage the Middle East to
this very day, especially given the way both presidents appear to be in furious agreement on foreign policy matters like Iran. But
here we are.
From a certain point of view it's hard to say which is stranger:
(A) a war criminal with a blood-soaked legacy of mass murder, torture and military expansionism telling Trump that he is
endangering peace with his "isolationism", or
(B) the claim that Trump is "isolationist" at all.
But these bogus warnings about a dangerous, nonexistent threat of isolationism are nothing new for Dubya. In
his farewell address to the nation , Bush said the following:
"In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism
and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity
at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
As we discussed
recently , use of the pro-war buzzword "isolationism" has been re-emerging from its post-Bush hibernation as a popular one-word
debunk of any opposition to continued US military expansionism in all directions, and it is deceitful in at least three distinct
ways. Firstly, the way it is used consistently conflates isolationism with non-interventionism, which
are two wildly
different things . Secondly, none of the mainstream political figures who are consistently tarred with the "isolationist" pejorative
are isolationists by any stretch of the imagination, or even proper non-interventionists; they all support many interventionist positions
which actual non-interventionists object to. Thirdly, calling someone who opposes endless warmongering an "isolationist" makes as
much sense as calling someone who opposes rape a man-hating prude; opposing an intrinsically evil act is not the same as withdrawing
from the world.
Nobody actually believes that US foreign policy is under any threat of anything remotely resembling isolationism. The real
purpose of this buzzword is to normalize the forever war and drag the Overton window so far in the direction of ghoulish hawkishness
that the opposite of "war" is no longer "peace", but "isolationism". By pulling this neat little trick, the propagandists of the
political/media class have successfully made endless war seem like a perfectly normal thing to be happening and any small attempt
to scale it back look weird and freakish, when the truth is the exact opposite. War is weird, freakish and horrific, and peace is
of course normal. This is the only healthy way to see things.
It would actually be great if George W Bush could shut the fuck up forever, ideally in a locked cell following a public war tribunal.
Failing that, at the very least people should stop looking at him as a cuddly wuddly teddy bear with whom it's fun to
share a sporting arena suite or a
piece of hard candy or to
hang award medals on for his treatment of veterans. This mass murdering monster has been
growing more and more popular with
Democrats lately just because he offers mild criticisms of Trump sometimes, as have war pigs like
Bill Kristol and Max Boot and even John
Bolton for the same reason, and it needs to stop. And in the name of a million dead Iraqis, please don't start consulting this
man on matters of peace.
"... Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire. ..."
Negotiators for Russia, Ukraine, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
recently met in Minsk to revive the agreement previously reached in the Belarus capital. They
set an election schedule in the contested east, to be followed by passage of Ukrainian
legislation to grant the region greater autonomy and separatists legal immunity. Despite strong
opposition from nationalists, passage is likely since Zelensky's party holds a solid
legislative majority.
Many challenges remain, but the West could aid this process by respecting Russian security
concerns. The U.S. and its allies should formally foreclose Ukraine's membership in the
transatlantic alliance and end lethal military aid. After receiving those assurances, Moscow
would be expected to resolve the Donbass conflict, presumably along the lines of Minsk: Ukraine
protects local autonomy while Russia exits the fight. Sanctions against Russia would be lifted.
Ukrainians would be left to choose their economic orientation, since the country would likely
be split between east and west for some time to come. The West would accept Russia's control of
Crimea while refusing to formally recognize the conquest -- absent a genuinely independent
referendum with independent monitors.
Such a compromise would be controversial. Washington's permanent war lobby would object.
Hyper-nationalistic Ukrainians would double down on calling Zelensky a traitor. Eastern
Europeans would complain about appeasing Russia. However, such a compromise would certainly be
better than endless conflict.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global
Empire.
"... As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians. ..."
"... The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly acquired ones. ..."
"... Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor Cohen ascribes to the US. ..."
"... We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU, or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay. ..."
"... Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an individual example with AP, but they all seem like that. ..."
Thanks for your sharing you views about Prof Cohen, a most interesting and principled
man.
Only after reading the article did I realize that the UR (that's you) also provided the
Batchelor Show podcast. Thanks.
I've been listening to these broadcasts over their entirety, now going on for six or so
years. What's always struck me is Cohen's level-headeness and equanimity. I've also detected
affection for Kentucky, his native state. Not something to be expected from a Princeton / NYU
academic nor an Upper West Side resident.
And once again expressing appreciation for the UR!
Read More • Replies: @Mikhail
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt
politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the
target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials.
Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of
the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to
mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump said
to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is the
exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can
be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other
plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with
inevitable impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally elected president Viktor
Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment -- none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) -- how fucking hypocritical is it to
presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? -- none of it would
have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
According to a recent govt study, only 12% of Americans can read above a 9th grade level.
This effectively mean (((whoever))) controls the MSM controls the world. NOTHING will change
for the better while the (((enemy))) owns our money supply.
There was NO "annexation" of Crimea by Russia. Crimea WAS annexed, but by Ukraine.
Russia and Crimea re-unified. Crimea has been part of Russia for long than America has
existed – since it was taken from the Ottoman Empire over 350 yrs ago. The vast
majority of the people identify as Russian, and speak only Russian.
To annex, the verb, means to use armed force to seize sovereign territory and put it under
the control of the invading forces government. Pretty much as the early Americans did to
Northern Mexico, Hawaii, etc. Russia used no force, the Governors of Crimea applied for
re-unification with Russia, Russia advised a referendum, which was held, and with a 96%
turnout, 97% voted for re-unification. This was done formally and legally, conforming with
all the international mandates.
It is very damaging for anyone to say that Russia "annexed" Crimea, because when people
read, quickly moving past the world, they subliminally match the word to their held
perception of the concept and move on. Thus they match the word "annex" to their conception
of the use of Armed Force against a resistant population, without checking.
All Cohen is doing here is reinforcing the pushed, lying Empire narrative, that Russia
invaded and used force, when the exact opposite is true!!
@Carlton
Meyer One wonders if Mr. Putin, as he puts his head on the pillow at night, fancies that
he should have rolled the Russian tanks into Kiev, right after the 2014 US-financed coup of
Ukraine's elected president, which was accomplished while he was pre-occupied with the Sochi
Olympics, and been done with it. He had every justification to do so, but perhaps feared
Western blowback. Well, the blowback happened anyway, so maybe Putin was too cautious.
The new Trump Admin threw him under the bus when it installed the idiot Nikki Haley as UN
Ambassador, whose first words were that Russia must give Crimea back. With its only major
warm water port located at Sevastopol, that wasn't about to happen, and the US Deep State
knew it.
Given how he has been so unfairly treated by the media, and never given a chance to enact
his Russian agenda, anyone who thinks that Trump was 'selected' by the deep state has rocks
for brains. The other night, on Rick Sanchez's RT America show, former US diplomat, and
frequent guest Jim Jatras said that he would not be too surprised if 20 GOP Senators flipped
and voted to convict Trump if the House votes to impeach.
The deep state can't abide four more years of the bombastic, Twitter-obsessed Trump, hence
this Special Ops Ukraine false flag, designed to fool a majority of the people. The smooth
talking, more warlike Pence is one of them. The night of the long knives is approaching.
The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US
always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly
acquired ones.
The "logic" of the Dem party is remarkable. Dems don't even deny that Biden is corrupt,
that he blatantly abused the office of Vice-President for personal gain. What's more, he was
dumb enough to boast about it publicly. Therefore, let's impeach Trump.
These people don't give a hoot about the interests of the US as a country, or even as an
Empire. Their insatiable greed for money and power blinds them to everything. By rights,
those who orchestrated totally fake Russiagate and now push for impeachment, when Russiagate
flopped miserably, should be hanged on lampposts for high treason. Unfortunately, justice
won't be served. So, we have to be satisfied with an almost assured prospect of this
impeachment thing to flop, just like Russiagate before it. But in the process incalculable
damage will be done to our country and its institutions.
Those who support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia without Serbian consent cannot
argue against separation of Crimea from Ukraine without the consent of Kiev regime.
On the other hand, those who believe that post-WWII borders are sacrosanct have to
acknowledge that Crimea belongs to Russia (illegally even by loose Soviet standards
transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1956), Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Soviet Union
should be restored, and Germany should be re-divided.
At least now I know why Ukraine is so essential to American national security. It's so even
more of my and my families' taxes can pay for a massive expansion of Nato, which means
American military bases in Ukraine. Greenland to the borders of China.
We're encircling the earth, like those old cartoons about bankers.
@Ron
Unz I had to stop listening after the 10th min. where the good professor (without any
push-back from the interviewer) says:
Victor Yanukovich was overthrown by a street coup . at that moment, the United States
and not only the United States but the Western European Governments had to make a decision
would they acknowledge the overthrow of Yannukovic as having been legitimate, and therefore
accept whatever government emerged, and that was a fateful moment within 24hours, the
governments, including the government of president Obama endorsed what was essentially a
coup d'etat against Yanukovich.
Has the good Professor so quickly forgotten about Victoria Nuland distributing cookies
with John McCain in the Maidan as the coup was still unfolding? Her claim at the think tank
in DC where she discusses having spent $30million (if I remember correctly) for foisting the
Ukraine coup ?
Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next
president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week
later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor
Cohen ascribes to the US.
These are not simple omissions but willful acts of misleading of fools. The good
professor's little discussed career as a resource for the secret services has reemerged after
seemingly having been left out in the cold during the 1st attempted coup against Trump.
No, the real story is more than just a little NATO expansion as the professor does
suggest, but more directly, the attempted coup that the US is still trying to stage in Russia
itself, in order to regain control of Russia's vast energy resources which Putin forced the
oligarchs to disgorge. The US desperately wants to achieve this in order to be able to
ultimately also control China's access to those resources as well.
In the way that Iraq was supposed to be a staging post for an attack on Iran, Ukraine is
the staging post for an attack on Russia.
The great Russian expert stirred miles very clear of even hinting at such scenarios, even
though anyone who's thought about US world policies will easily arrive at this logical
conclusion.
What about the theft of Ukraine's farmland and the enserfing of its rural population? Isn't
this theft and enserfing of Ukrainians at least one major reason the US government got
involved, overseeing the transfer of this land into the hands of the transnational banking
crime syndicate? The Ukraine, with its rich, black soil, used to be called the breadbasket of
Europe.
Consider the fanatical intervention on the part of Victoria Nuland and the Kagans under
the guise of working for the State Dept to facilitate the theft. In a similar fashion,
according to Wayne Madsen, the State Dept. has a Dept of Foreign Asset Management, or some
similar name, that exists to protect the Chabad stranglehold on the world diamond trade, and,
according to Madsen, the language spoken and posters around the offices are in Hebrew, which
as a practical matter might as well be the case at the State Dept itself.
According to an article a few years ago at Oakland Institute, George Rohr's NCH Capital,
which latter organization has funded over 100 Chabad Houses on US campuses, owns over 1
million acres of Ukraine farmland. Other ownership interests of similarly vast tracts of
Ukraine farmland show a similar pattern of predation. At one point, it was suggested that the
Yinon Plan should be understood to include the Ukraine as the newly acquired breadbasket of
Eretz Israel. It may also be worth pointing out that now kosher Ivy League schools'
endowments are among the worst pillagers of native farmland and enserfers of the indigenous
populations they claim to protect.
@Mikhail
Well, if we really go into it, things become complicated. What Khmelnitsky united with Russia
was maybe 1/6th or 1/8th of current Ukraine. Huge (4-5 times greater) areas in the North and
West were added by Russian Tsars, almost as great areas in the South and East taken by Tsars
from Turkey and affiliated Crimean Khanate were added by Lenin, a big chunk in the West was
added by Stalin, and then in 1956 moron Khrushchev "gifted" Crimea (which he had no right to
do even by Soviet law). So, about 4/6th of "Ukraine" is Southern Russia, 1/6th is Eastern
Poland, some chunks are Hungary and Romania, and the remaining little stub is Ukraine proper.
@anon
American view always was: "yes, he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". That
historically applied to many obnoxious regimes, now fully applies to Ukraine. In that Dems
and Reps always were essentially identical, revealing that they are two different puppets run
by the same puppet master.
Trump is hardly very intelligent, but he has some street smarts that degenerate elites
have lost. Hence their hatred of him. It is particularly galling for the elites that Trump
won in 2016, and has every chance of winning again in 2020 (unless they decide to murder him,
like JFK; but that would be a real giveaway, even the dumbest sheeple would smell the
rat).
@follyofwar
The only reason I can imagine that Putin/Russia would want to "take over" Ukraine and have
this political problem child back in the family might be because of Ukraine's black soil.
But it is probably not worth the aggravation.
Russia is building up its agricultural sector via major greenhouse installations and other
innovations.
@AP
Well, you are a true simpleton who repeats shallow conventional views. You don't ever seem to
think deeper about what you write, e.g. if Yanukovitch could beat anyone in a 1-on-1 election
than he obviously wasn't that unpopular and that makes Maidan illegal by any standard. You
say he could beat Tiahnybok, who was one of the leaders of Maidan, how was then Maidan
democratic? Or you don't care for democracy if people vote against your preferences?
Trade with Russia is way down and it is not coming back. That is my point – there
was definitely a way to do this better. It wasn't a choice of 'one or the other' –
actually EU was under the impression that Ukraine would help open up the Russian market. Your
either-or wasn't the plan, so did Kiev lie to EU? No wonder Ukraine has a snowball chance in
hell of joining EU.
@Skeptikal
Russia moved to the first place in the world in wheat exports, while greatly increasing its
production of meat, fowl, and fish. Those who supplied these commodities lost Russian market
for good. In fact, with sanctions, food in Russia got a lot better, and food in Moscow got
immeasurably better: now it's local staff instead of crap shipped from half-a-world away.
Funny thing is, Russian production of really good fancy cheeses has soared (partially with
the help of French and Italian producers who moved in to avoid any stupid sanctions).
So, there is no reason for Russia to take Ukraine on any conditions, especially
considering Ukraine's exorbitant external debt. If one calculates European demand for
transplantation kidneys and prostitutes, two of the most successful Ukrainian exports,
Ukraine will pay off its debt – never. Besides, the majority of Russians learned to
despise Ukraine due to its subservient vassalage to the US (confirmed yet again by the
transcript of the conversation between Trump and Ze), so the emotional factor is also
virtually gone. Now the EU and the US face the standard rule of retail: you broke it, you own
it. That infuriates Americans and EU bureaucrats more than anything.
@Sergey
Krieger "Demography statistic won't support fairy tales by solzhenicin and his kind."
-- What's your point? Your post reads like an attempt at saying that Kaganovitch was white
like snow and that it does not matter what crimes were committed in the Soviet Union because
of the "demography statistic" and because you, Sergey Krieger, are a grander person next to
Solzhenitsyn and "his kind." By the way, had not A. I. S. returned to Russia, away from the
coziness of western life?
S.K.: "You should start research onto mass dying of population after 1991 and subsequent
and ongoing demographic catastroph in Russia under current not as "brutal " as soviet
regime."
@AP
Maidan was an illegal coup that violated Ukrainian constitution (I should say all of them,
there were too many) and lots of other laws. And that's not the worst part of it. But it
already happened, there is no going back for Ukraine. It's a "yes or no" thing, you can't be
a little bit pregnant. We can either commiserate with Ukraine or gloat, but it committed
suicide. Some say this project was doomed from the start. I think Ukraine had a chance and
blew it.
@AnonFromTN
I usually refrain from labelling off-cycle changes in government as revolutions or coups
– it clearly depends on one's views and can't be determined.
In general, when violence or military is involved, it is more likely it was a coup. If a
country has a reasonably open election process, violently overthrowing the current government
would also seem like a coup, since it is unnecessary. Ukraine had both violence and a coming
election that was democratic. If Yanukovitch would prevent or manipulate the elections, one
could make a case that at that point – after the election – the population could
stage a ' revolution '.
AP is a simpleton who repeats badly thought out slogans and desperately tries to save some
face for the Maidan fiasco – so we will not change his mind, his mind is done with
changes, it is all about avoiding regrets even if it means living in a lie. One can almost
feel sorry for him, if he wasn't so obnoxious.
Ukraine has destroyed its own future gradually after 1991, all the elites there failed,
Yanukovitch was just the last in a long line of failures, the guy before him (Yushenko?) left
office with a 5% approval. Why wasn't there a revolution against him? Maidan put a cherry on
that rotting cake – a desperate scream of pain by people who had lost all hope and so
blindly fell for cheap promises by the new-old hustlers.
We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU,
or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part
of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay.
Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete
disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an
individual example with AP, but they all seem like that.
@AP
You intentionally omitted the second part of what I wrote: 'a reasonably democratic
elections', neither 18th century American colonies, nor Russia in 1917 or Romania in 1989,
had them. Ukraine in 2014 did.
So all your belly-aching is for nothing. The talk about 'subverting' and doing a
preventive 'revolution' on Maidan to prevent 'subversion' has a very Stalinist ring to it. If
you start revolutionary violence because you claim to anticipate that something bad might
happen, well, the sky is the limit and you have no rules.
You are desperately trying to justify a stupid and unworkable act. As we watch the
unfolding disaster and millions leaving Ukraine, this "Maidan was great!!!" mantra will sound
even more silly. But enjoy it, it is not Somalia, wow, I guess as long as a country is not
Somalia it is ok. Ukraine is by far the poorest large country in Europe. How is that a
success?
@Beckow
True believers are called that because they willfully ignore facts and logic. AP is a true
believer Ukie. Ukie faith is their main undoing. Unfortunately, they are ruining the country
with their insane dreams. But that cannot be helped now. The position of a large fraction of
Ukrainian population is best described by a cruel American saying: fool me once, shame on
you, fool me twice, shame on me.
@AnonFromTN
You are right, it can't be helped. Another saying is that it takes two to lie: one who lies,
and one to lie to. The receiver of lies is also responsible.
What happened in Ukraine was: Nuland&Co. went to Ukraine and lied to them about '
EU, 'Marshall plan', aid, 'you will be Western ', etc,,,'. Maidanistas swallowed it
because they wanted to believe – it is easy to lie to desperate people. Making promises
is very easy. US soft power is all based on making promises.
What Nuland&Co. really wanted was to create a deep Ukraine-Russia hostility and to
grab Crimea, so they could get Russian Navy out and move Nato in. It didn't work very well,
all we have is useless hostility, and a dysfunctional state. But as long as they serve
espresso in Lviv, AP will scream that it was all worth it, 'no Somalia', it is 'all normal',
almost as good as 2013 . Right.
@AP
I don't disagree with what you said, but my point was different:
lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians
Without the unnecessary hostility and the break in business relations with Russia the
living standards in Ukraine would be higher. That, I think, noone would dispute. One can
trace that directly to the so-far failed attempt to get Ukraine into Nato and Russia out of
its Crimea bases. There has been a high cost for that policy, so it is appropriate to ask:
why? did the authors of that policy think it through?
@AP
I don't give a flying f k about Yanukovitch and your projections about what 'would be growth'
under him. He was history by 2014 in any case.
One simple point that you don't seem to grasp: it was Yanuk who negotiated the association
treaty with EU that inevitably meant Ukraine in Nato and Russia bases out of Crimea (after a
decent interval). For anyone to call Yanuk a 'pro-Russian' is idiotic – what we see
today are the results of Yanukovitch's policies. By the way, the first custom restrictions on
Ukraine's exports to Russia happened in summer 2013 under Y.
If you still think that Yanukovitch was in spite of all of that somehow a 'Russian
puppet', you must have a very low opinion of Kremlin skills in puppetry. He was not, he was
fully onboard with the EU-Nato-Crimea policy – he implemented it until he got
outflanked by even more radical forces on Maidan.
@Beckow
Well, exactly like all Ukrainian presidents before and after him, Yanuk was a thief. He might
have been a more intelligent and/or more cautious thief that Porky, but a thief he was.
Anyway, there is no point in crying over spilled milk: history has no subjunctive mood.
Ukraine has dug a hole for itself, and it still keeps digging, albeit slower, after a clown
in whole socks replaced a clown in socks with holes. By now this new clown is also a
murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although so far he has committed fewer crimes
than Porky.
There is no turning back. Regardless of Ukrainian policies, many things it used to sell
Russia won't be bought any more: Russia developed its own shipbuilding (subcontracted some to
South Korea), is making its own helicopter and ship engines, all stages of space rockets,
etc. Russia won't return any military or high-tech production to Ukraine, ever. What's more,
most Russians are now disgusted with Ukraine, which would impede improving relations even if
Ukraine gets a sane government (which is extremely unlikely in the next 5 years).
Ukraine's situation is best described by Russian black humor saying: "what we fought for
has befallen us". End of story.
@Peter
Akuleyev How many millions? It is same story. Ukraine claims more and more millions dead
from so called Hilodomor when in Russia liberals have been screaming about 100 million deaths
in russia from bolsheviks. Both are fairy tales. Now you better answer what is current
population of ukraine. The last soviet time 1992 level was 52 million. I doubt you got even
40 million now. Under soviet power both ukraine and russia population were steadily growing.
Now, under whose music you are dancing along with those in Russia that share your views when
die off very real one is going right under your nose.
By now this new clown is also a murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although
so far he has committed fewer crimes than Porky.
Have you noticed that the Republicans, while seeming to defend Trump, never challenge the
specious assertion that delaying arms to Ukraine was a threat to US security? At first I
thought this was oversight. Silly me. Keeping the New Cold War smoldering is more important
to those hawks.
Tulsi Gabbard flipping to support the impeachment enquiry was especially disappointing.
I'm guessing she was under lots of pressure, because she can't possibly believe that arming
the Ukies is good for our security. If I could get to one of her events, I'd ask her direct,
what's up with that. Obama didn't give them arms at all, even made some remarks about not
inflaming the situation. (A small token, after his people managed the coup, spent 8 years
demonizing Putin, and presided over origins of Russiagate to make Trump's [stated] goal of
better relations impossible.)
Not really. Ukies are wonnabe Nazis, but they fall way short of their ideal. The original
German Nazis were organized, capable, brave, sober, and mostly honest. Ukie scum is
disorganized, ham-handed, cowardly, drunk (or under drugs), and corrupt to the core. They are
heroes only against unarmed civilians, good only for theft, torture, and rape. When it comes
to the real fight with armed opponents, they run away under various pretexts or surrender.
Nazis should sue these impostors for defamation.
Yanukovych signed an internationally brokered power sharing agreement with his main
rivals, who then violated it. Yanukovych up to that point was the democratically elected
president of Ukraine.
Since his being violently overthrown, people have been unjustly jailed, beaten and killed
for politically motivated reasons having to do with a stated opposition to the
Euromaidan.
Yanukovych refrained from using from using considerably greater force, when compared to
others if put in the same situation, against a mob element that included property damage and
the deaths of law enforcement personnel.
In the technical legal sense, there was a legit basis to jail the likes of Tymoshenko. If
I correctly recall Yushchenko offered testimony against Tymoshenko. Rather laughable that
Poroshenko appointed the non-lawyer Lutsenko into a key legal position.
@Beckow
The undemocratic aspect involving Yanukovych's overthrow included the disproportionate number
of Svoboda members appointed to key cabinet positions. At the time, Svoboda was on record for
favoring the dissolution of Crimea's autonomous status
@AP
Grest comment #159 by Beckow. Really, I'm more concerned with the coup against POTUS that's
happening right now, since before he took office. The Ukraine is pivotal, from the Kiev
putschists collaborating with the DNC, to the CIA [pretend] whistleblowers who now subvert
Trump's investigation of those crimes.
Tragic and pitiful, the Ukrainians jumped from a rock to a hard place. Used and abandoned
by the Clinton-Soros gang, they appeal to the next abusive Sugar-Daddy. Isn't this FRANCE 24
report fairly objective?
Revisited: Five years on, what has Ukraine's Maidan Revolution achieved?
@AP
This from BBC is less current. (That magnificent bridge -the one the Ukies tried to sabotage-
is now in operation, of course.) I'm just trying to use sources that might not trigger you.
@AP
"Whenever people ask me how to figure out the truth about Ukraine, I always recommend they
watch the film Ukraine on Fire by director @lopatonok and executive produced by
@TheOliverStone. The sequel Revealing Ukraine will be out soon proud to be in it."
– Lee Sranahan (Follow @stranahan for Ukrainegate in depth.)
" .what has really changed in the life of Ukrainians?"
@Malacaay
Baltics, Ukrainians and Poles were part of the Polish Kingdom from 1025-1569 and the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569-1764.
This probably explains their differences with Russia.
Russia had this area in the Russian Empire from 1764-1917. Russia called this area the
Pale of Settlement. Why? This Polish Kingdom since 1025 welcomed 25000 Jews in, who later
grew to millions by the 19th century. They are the Ashkenazis who are all over the world
these days. The name Pale was for Ashkenazis to stay in that area and not immigrate to the
rest of Russia.
The reasoning for this was not religious prejudice but the way the Ashkenazis treated the
peasants of the Pale. It was to protect the Russian peasants. This did not help after 1917. A
huge invasion of Ashkenazis descended all over Russia to take up positions all over the
Soviet Union.
Ukraine US is like the Pale again. It has a Jewish President and a Jewish Prime
Minister.
Ukraine and Poland were both controlled by Tartars too. Ukraine longer than Russia. Russia
ended the Tartar rule of Crimea in 1783. The Crimean Tartars lived off raiding Ukraine,
Poland, and parts of Russia for Slav slaves. Russia ended this Slav slave trade in 1783.
Our neocon policies have proven to be an existential threat to the solvency , well being,
and future of the United States.
We have squandered tens of trillions of dollars on stupid wasteful wars when we could have
been using those exact same resources to build out our infrastructure, education and
technological advantages.
Our pentagon should be producing best and first technologies ACROSS THE BOARD, not
spending all its time trying to hide from the taxpayer how many billions the neocons pilfered
last quarter.
We need to replace our policy of "perpetual war fraud" with a policy of empowering and
igniting creativity and human excellence.
Precious! After all those years Ukraine tried to force Gazprom to prolong transportation
contracts, including in western Courts, now it is EUROCOMMISSION that plays their 3rd Energy
Package card, but how!
After Zelensky so daringly kissed up to Trump and talk dirt about Merkel and Macron
– EC says the prolongation of Gazprom-NaftaGaz contract is "not legally possible" and
that Ukraine has to kill and "unbundle" NaftaGaz, and when they done – only then the
new pipes-only company would be free to try negotiate a new unrelated contract for gas
transportation.
The Holy Grail of Ukrainian foreign economics is dead, backstabbed by EU.
What a fine present to President Ze :-DDDD
"... Even though the overall idea of ending the sponsoring of the conflict by Washington is plausible there are a number of shortcomings in the article to put it mildly. I realize though that the author has to make Washington look innocent and Russia look bad to escape the danger of being stigmatized as a pro-Russian traitor. ..."
"... I understand why you want to thread the needle. After the invasions, having to add more failure or at the very least recognition of dysfunction to our foreign policy choices and consequences is a bitter pill. But as you note had the US and the EU seriously had the desire to add the Ukraine into the western European sphere of influence, they could have offered a better deal on oil - they didn't. ..."
"... I think we have got to stop accusing the then existing government of corruption. As your own article states, the history of unstable governance with accompanying "corruption" seems a staple and nonunique. ..."
"... And as is the case in developing countries, what we call corruption is a cultural staple of how business and affairs are conducted. Whatever the issues, the Ukrainian public was not overly beset by the results so as to spontaneously riot. ..."
"... How the civil unrest spun out of control the second time in ten years, can be linked directly to US and EU involvement. ..."
Time to Extricate From Ukraine Kiev has become a drag on Trump, but if we don't watch out, it could turn into a geopolitical
threat to everyone. By Doug Bandow •
October 17, 2019
Recently Ukraine has been thrown into the spotlight as Democrats gear up to impeach President Donald Trump. More important, though,
is its role in damaging America's relations with Russia, which has resulted in a mini-Cold War that the U.S. needs to end.
Ukraine is in a bad neighborhood. During the 17th century, the country was divided between Poland and Russia, and eventually ended
up as part of the Russian Empire. Kiev then enjoyed only the briefest of liberations after the 1917 Russian Revolution, before being
reabsorbed by the Soviet Union. It later suffered from a devastating famine as Moscow confiscated food and collectivized agriculture.
Ukraine was ravaged during Germany's World War II invasion, and guerrilla resistance to renewed Soviet control continued for years
afterwards.
In 1991, the collapse of the U.S.S.R. gave Ukraine another, more enduring chance for independence. However, the new nation's development
was fraught: GDP dropped by 60 percent and corruption burgeoned. Ukraine suffered under a succession of corrupt, self-serving, and
ineffective leaders, as the U.S., Europe, and Russia battled for influence.
In 2014, Washington and European governments backed a street putsch against the elected, though highly corrupt, pro-Russian president,
Viktor Yanukovych. The Putin government responded by annexing Crimea and backing separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine's Donbass region.
Washington and Brussels imposed economic sanctions on Russia and provided military aid to Kiev.
Advertisement
The West versus Russia quickly became a "frozen" conflict. Moscow reincorporated Crimea into Russia, from which it had been detached
in 1954 as part of internal Soviet politics. In the Donbass, more than a score of ceasefires came and went. Both Ukraine and Russia
failed to fulfill the 2016 Minsk agreements, which sought to end the conflict.
In excess of 13,000 people, mostly Ukrainians, are known to have died in this war, and some two million have been forced from
their homes. The economy of eastern Ukraine has collapsed. Ukraine has suffered through painful economic dislocation and political
division. Meanwhile, several hundred Russians are believed to have been killed fighting in the Donbass. Western sanctions have damaged
Russia's weak economy. And although the majority of Crimeans probably wanted to join Russia, opposition activists and journalists
have been abducted, brutalized, and/or imprisoned. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been closed and Tartars have been persecuted.
The most important geopolitical impact has been to poison Russia's relations with the West. Moscow's aggressions against Ukraine
cannot be justified, but the U.S. and Europe did much to create the underlying suspicion and hostility. Recently declassified documents
reveal the degree to which Western officials misled Moscow about their intention to expand NATO. Allied support for adding Georgia
and Ukraine, which would have greatly expanded Russian vulnerability, generated a particularly strong reaction in Moscow. The dismemberment
of Serbia with no consideration of Russia's interests was another irritant, along with Western support for "color revolutions" elsewhere,
including in Tbilisi. The ouster of Yanukovych finally triggered Putin's brutal response.
Washington and Brussels apparently did not view their policies as threatening to Russia. However, had Moscow ousted an elected
Mexican president friendly to America, while inviting the new government to join the Warsaw Pact, and worked with a coalition of
Central American states to divert Mexican trade from the U.S., officials in Washington would not have been pleased. They certainly
wouldn't have been overly concerned about juridical niceties in responding.
This explains (though does not justify) Russia's hostile response. Subsequent allied policies then turned the breach in relations
into a gulf. The U.S. and European Union imposed a series of economic sanctions. Moreover, Washington edged closer to military confrontation
with its provision of security assistance to Kiev. Moscow responded by challenging America from Syria to Venezuela.
It also began moving towards China. The two nations' differences are many and their relationship is unstable. However, as long
as their antagonism towards Washington exceeds their discomfort with each other, they will cooperate to block what they see as America's
pursuit of global hegemony.
Why is the U.S. entangled in the Ukrainian imbroglio? During the Cold War, Ukraine was one of the fabled "captive nations," backed
by vigorous advocacy from Ukrainian Americans. After the Soviet Union collapsed, they joined other groups lobbying on behalf of ethnic
brethren to speed NATO's expansion eastward. Security policy turned into a matter of ethnic solidarity, to be pursued irrespective
of cost and risk.
To more traditional hawks who are always seeking an enemy, the issue is less pro-Ukraine than anti-Russia. Mitt Romney, the Republican
Party's 2012 presidential nominee, improbably attacked Russia as America's most dangerous adversary. Hence the GOP's counterproductive
determination to bring Kiev into NATO. Originally Washington saw the transatlantic alliance as a means to confront the Soviet menace;
now it views the pact as a form of charity.
After the Soviet collapse, the U.S. pushed NATO eastward into nations that neither mattered strategically nor could be easily
protected, most notably in the Balkans and Baltics. Even worse were Georgia and Ukraine, security black holes that would bring with
them ongoing conflicts with Russia, possibly triggering a larger war between NATO and Moscow.
Ukraine never had been a matter of U.S. security. For most of America's history, the territory was controlled by either the Russian
Empire or the Soviet Union. Washington's Cold War sympathies represented fraternal concerns, not security essentials. Today, without
Kiev's aid, the U.S. and Europe would still have overwhelming conventional forces to be brought into any conflict with Moscow. However,
adding Ukraine to NATO would increase the risk of a confrontation with a nuclear armed power. Russia's limitations when it comes
to its conventional military would make a resort to nuclear weapons more likely in any conflict.
Nevertheless, George W. Bush's aggressively neoconservative administration won backing for Georgian and Ukrainian membership in
NATO and considered intervening militarily in the Russo-Georgian war. However, European nations that feared conflict with Moscow
blocked plans for NATO expansion, which went into cold storage. Although alliance officials still officially backed membership for
Ukraine, it remains unattainable so long as conflict burns hot with Russia.
In the meantime, Washington has treated Ukraine as a de facto military ally, offering economic and security assistance. The U.S.
has provided $1.5 billion for Ukrainian training and weapons, including anti-tank Javelin missiles. Explained Obama administration
defense secretary Ashton Carter: "Ukraine would never be where it is without that support from the United States."
Equally important, the perception of U.S. backing made the Kiev government, headed by President Petro Poroshenko, less willing
to pursue a diplomatic settlement with Russia. Thus did Ukraine, no less than Russia, almost immediately violate the internationally
backed Minsk accord.
Kiev's role as a political football highlights the need for Washington to pursue an enduring political settlement with Russia.
European governments are growing restless; France has taken the lead in seeking better relations with Moscow. Germany is unhappy
with U.S. attempts to block the planned Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky has campaigned
to end the conflict.
Negotiators for Russia, Ukraine, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe recently met in Minsk to revive the
agreement previously reached in the Belarus capital. They set an election schedule in the contested east, to be followed by passage
of Ukrainian legislation to grant the region greater autonomy and separatists legal immunity. Despite strong opposition from nationalists,
passage is likely since Zelensky's party holds a solid legislative majority.
Many challenges remain, but the West could aid this process by respecting Russian security concerns. The U.S. and its allies should
formally foreclose Ukraine's membership in the transatlantic alliance and end lethal military aid. After receiving those assurances,
Moscow would be expected to resolve the Donbass conflict, presumably along the lines of Minsk: Ukraine protects local autonomy while
Russia exits the fight. Sanctions against Russia would be lifted. Ukrainians would be left to choose their economic orientation,
since the country would likely be split between east and west for some time to come. The West would accept Russia's control of Crimea
while refusing to formally recognize the conquest -- absent a genuinely independent referendum with independent monitors.
Such a compromise would be controversial. Washington's permanent war lobby would object. Hyper-nationalistic Ukrainians would
double down on calling Zelensky a traitor. Eastern Europeans would complain about appeasing Russia. However, such a compromise would
certainly be better than endless conflict.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author
of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.
I credit Mr. Bandow for his largely fair and accurate description of the events in Ukraine of five years ago, and for his ultimate
policy proposal for the US to extricate itself from its close involvement in the area. However, I'm a little confused by what
exactly the author means by "Moscow's aggressions against Ukraine" and "Putin's brutal response" (aside from the treatment
of dissidents and journalists as he specifically mentioned) to the Maidan Revolution.
Was it aggressive and brutal for Russia to support separatists in the Donbass who were facing the prospect of legal discrimination
and violence by a criminal, neo-fascist government in Kiev, not to mention de-industrialization, the gutting of the agriculture
sector and the forced economic migration of an enormous number of its young workers (assuming that Ukraine's economic deal
with the EU followed the script of every other Easter European's country's deal with the EU)? If Yanukovych had fled to the
Donbass and proclaimed himself still the freely elected (though certainly corrupt) President of the nation, Russia's support
for the region would have even had a shiny brass legal fig leaf, wouldn't it?
As for the supposed "conquest" of Crimea, that's a rather strong word to use considering that all of two members of the
Ukrainian military were killed, and 60-80 of them detained, while 15,000 defected to Russia. Compared to the violence in Kiev
and Odessa, what happened in Crimea almost qualifies as a bloodless coup. But then Mr. Bandow shies away from using the word
"hegemony" to describe the foreign policy of the United States, figuratively putting the word in the mouths of those bad men
(which they are) in Moscow and Beijing. It's a pity that Mr. Bandow felt the need to make linguistic concessions to the foreign
policy establishment in what was otherwise a useful and balanced piece.
Even though the overall idea of ending the sponsoring of the conflict by Washington is plausible there are a number of shortcomings
in the article to put it mildly. I realize though that the author has to make Washington look innocent and Russia look bad
to escape the danger of being stigmatized as a pro-Russian traitor.
I understand why you want to thread the needle. After the invasions, having to add more failure or at the very least recognition
of dysfunction to our foreign policy choices and consequences is a bitter pill. But as you note had the US and the EU seriously
had the desire to add the Ukraine into the western European sphere of influence, they could have offered a better deal on oil
- they didn't.
I think we have got to stop accusing the then existing government of corruption. As your own article states, the history
of unstable governance with accompanying "corruption" seems a staple and nonunique.
And as is the case in developing countries,
what we call corruption is a cultural staple of how business and affairs are conducted. Whatever the issues, the Ukrainian
public was not overly beset by the results so as to spontaneously riot.
How the civil unrest spun out of control the second
time in ten years, can be linked directly to US and EU involvement.
It is a deeply held belief that democracy is a system that by definition a generally acceptable path forward. That belief
is false as democracy is still comprised of human beings. And democracy in their hands is no "cure all". It can be a turbulent
and jerky bureaucratic maze process that pleases no one and works over time.
The US didn't accomplish it without violence until after more than 130 years, when the native populations were finally subdued.
And as for a system that embodied equal treatment to similar circumstance -- we are still at it. But a violent revolution every
ten years certainly isn't the most effective road to take.
-----------------
Why we insistent on restarting the cold war is unclear to me save that it served to create a kind of strategic global clarity
Though what that means would troublesome because Russia's ole would now be as a developing democratic state as opposed to a
communist monolith. And that means unfettered from her satellites and empowered by more capital markets her role as adversary
would be more adroit. As time after time, Ores Putin has appeared the premier diplomat for peace and stability in situations
in which the US was engaged or encouraging violence.(the Ukraine). I certainly don't think that our relations with Russia or
China are a to be kumbaya love fests, there is still global competition and there's no reason to pretend it would be without
tensions. But seriously, as a democratic/capital market player -- there really was no way to contain Russia.
----------------------
Given what we experienced during 2007 --- corruption comes in a mryiad of guises.
The Ukraine situation is complex to be certain, but ending military aid and letting Russia clean up seems like a bad idea.
This week we saw Russian forces occupy US bases abandoned when Trump ordered our troops to withdraw from the Turkish border.
And now the author is arguing we should do something similar in the Ukraine.
When did Russian appeasement become so important to conservative foreign policy?
Mate, Russians were in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government. US troops are there illegally (no Congress mandate,
no international mandate, no invitation). US is an occupying, destabilizing, terrorist protecting force in Syria and Americans
should look beyond their self esteem before commenting on this "shameful" retreat. US does not have the right to put its troops
wherever it fancies.
This win or loose mentality will be the death of you. Who do you think is threatening the US, when it has the biggest moats
protecting its shores? The only thing that is happening is that the hegemonic role, that of controlling everyone's economy
for its own elites benefit is being denied.
This is what you are complaining mate, the the rich Americans cannot get richer? Do you think they will share with you,
or that, like the good English boys of the past, you will not be able to land a job with East India Co. and despoil the natives
for a while?
If the US were smart then they would lead some sort of negotiation where eastern Europe and Ukraine and Russia were allowed
only mutually agreed defensive weapons systems. A demilitarization of say 200 miles on each side of the Russia border. The
strategy should be to encourage trade between Eastern Europe and Russia where Russia has influence but is not threatening.
It may be slow to build that trust but the real question is whether the US and Europe and NATO want peace with Russia or whether
they are using fear of Russia to keep eastern Europe united with the US and Europe. This may be the case but the future will
have China as a greater threat than Russia (China will even be a threat to Russia). Any shift in Russian relations will take
decades of building trust on both sides.
Good article and excellent history of facts. If I recall during the last Bush administration W hosted a Putin and his then
spouse, at a visit at his ranch. Putin informed W," the Ukraine belongs to Russia. end of sentence.
The author forgot the critical role of Sevastopol in the Crimea. It is Russia's only warm water port and there was no way that
it was going to allow this area to become a NATO naval base. Secretary of State Clinton and her sidekick for Ukraine, Victoria
Nuland should have known this before they started supporting the overthrow of the pro-Russia government in Kiev.
If you look at a historical atlas, you won't find an independent country called Ukraine before 1991. When my parents were
born, near what is now called Lviv, the area was called Galicia and Lemberg was its provincial capital. A gold medal issued
in 1916 in honor of Franz Josef's 85th birthday noted that he was the Kaiser of Austria, Hungary, Galicia and Lodomeria.
When the old Soviet Union agreed to allow East and West Germany to reunify, it was with the understanding that NATO would
not extend membership to former Soviet block countries and that there would be no NATO bases in these areas either. NATO and
the US broke their oral commitment to Russia a few years later.
The US should get out of the business of trying to spread democracy in third world countries and interfering in the affairs
of foreign governments. We can't afford to be the policeman of the world. We don't even have the ability to make many of our
own central cities safe for Americans. Think Baltimore, St. Louis, New Orleans and Detroit, all four of which appear on Wikipedia's
list of the 50 murder capitals of the world (per thousand population).
"... George W. Bush's presidency wasn't just morally bankrupt. In a superior reality, the Hague would be sorting out whether he is guilty of war crimes. Since our international institutions have failed to punish, or even censure him, surely the only moral response from civil society should be to shun him. But here is Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with him at a Cowboys game: ..."
"... This is what we say to children who don't want to sit next to the class misfit at lunch. It is not -- or at least it should not -- be the way we talk about a man who used his immense power to illegally invade another country where we still have troops 16 years later. His feet should bleed wherever he walks and Iraqis should get to throw shoes at him until the end of his days. ..."
"... DeGeneres isn't a role model for civility. Her friendship with Bush simply embodies the grossest form of class solidarity. From a lofty enough vantage point, perhaps Bush's misdeeds really look like minor partisan differences. Perhaps Iraq seems very far away, and so do the poor of New Orleans, when the stage of your show is the closest you get to anyone without power." ..."
"... There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect. ..."
"Comedian Ellen DeGeneres loves to tell everyone to be kind. It's a loose word, kindness; on her show, DeGeneres customarily
uses it to mean a generic sort of niceness. Don't bully. Befriend people! It's a charming thought, though it has its limits
as a moral ethic. There are people in the world, after all, whom it is better not to befriend. Consider, for example, the person
of George W. Bush. Tens of thousands of people are dead because his administration lied to the American public about the presence
of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and then, based on that lie, launched a war that's now in its 16th year. After Hurricane
Katrina struck and hundreds of people drowned in New Orleans, Bush twiddled his thumbs for days. Rather than fire the officials
responsible for the government's life-threateningly lackluster response to the crisis, he praised them, before flying over
the scene in Air Force One. He opposed basic human rights for LGBT people, and reproductive rights for women, and did more
to empower the American Christian right than any president since Reagan.
George W. Bush's presidency wasn't just morally bankrupt. In a superior reality, the Hague would be sorting out whether
he is guilty of war crimes. Since our international institutions have failed to punish, or even censure him, surely the only
moral response from civil society should be to shun him. But here is Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with him at a Cowboys game:
And here is Ellen DeGeneres explaining why it's good and normal to share laughs, small talk, and nachos with a man who has
many deaths on his conscience:
Here's the money quote from her apologia:
"We're all different. And I think that we've forgotten that that's okay that we're all different," she told her studio
audience. "When I say be kind to one another, I don't mean be kind to the people who think the same way you do. I mean be
kind to everyone."
This is what we say to children who don't want to sit next to the class misfit at lunch. It is not -- or at least it
should not -- be the way we talk about a man who used his immense power to illegally invade another country where we still
have troops 16 years later. His feet should bleed wherever he walks and Iraqis should get to throw shoes at him until the end
of his days.
Nevertheless, many celebrities and politicians have hailed DeGeneres for her radical civility:
There's almost no point to rebutting anything that Chris Cillizza writes. Whatever he says is inevitably dumb and wrong,
and then I get angry while I think about how much money he gets to be dumb and wrong on a professional basis. But on this occasion,
I'll make an exception. The notion that DeGeneres's friendship with Bush is antithetical to Trumpism fundamentally misconstrues
the force that makes Trump possible. Trump isn't a simple playground bully, he's the president. Americans grant our commanders-in-chief
extraordinary deference once they leave office. They become celebrities, members of an apolitical royal class. This tendency
to separate former presidents from the actions of their office, as if they were merely actors in a stage play, or retired athletes
from a rival team, contributes to the atmosphere of impunity that enabled Trump. If Trump's critics want to make sure that
his cruelties are sins the public and political class alike never tolerate again, our reflexive reverence for the presidency
has to die.
DeGeneres isn't a role model for civility. Her friendship with Bush simply embodies the grossest form of class solidarity.
From a lofty enough vantage point, perhaps Bush's misdeeds really look like minor partisan differences. Perhaps Iraq seems
very far away, and so do the poor of New Orleans, when the stage of your show is the closest you get to anyone without power."
...I am all in favor of Tulsi Gabbard's anti-war stance, but this comment shows me she is too childish to hold any power.
Tulsi Gabbard
Verified account @TulsiGabbard
22h22 hours ago
.@TheEllenShow msg of being kind to ALL is so needed right now. Enough with the divisiveness. We can't let politics tear
us apart. There are things we will disagree on strongly, and things we agree on -- let's treat each other with respect, aloha,
& work together for the people.
There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect.
"... "The app displays police locations and we have verified with the Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau that the app has been used to target and ambush police, threaten public safety, and criminals have used it to victimize residents in areas where they know there is no law enforcement," the company said in a statement. ..."
The maker of the iPhone has removed an app that allowed rioters in Hong Kong track where police are located after reports that
it was used to ambush officers and vandalize communities where law enforcement was not present. Following the suit of other companies
taking sides in ongoing tensions in China's autonomous city, Apple allowed HKmap.live to appear in its app store. The 'noble' goal
of helping rioters praised in the media has brought the opposite result.
"The app displays police locations and we have verified with the Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau that
the app has been used to target and ambush police, threaten public safety, and criminals have used it to victimize residents in areas
where they know there is no law enforcement," the company said in a statement.
"... "Is Apple guiding Hong Kong thugs?" the Chinese People's Daily newspaper wondered in an op-ed published on Wednesday. Beijing tore into the trillion-dollar company for offering HKmap.live, a map app that allows users to report and track police activity, warning the app "facilitates illegal behavior" and that Apple is hurting its reputation among Chinese consumers by "mixing business with politics and commercial activity with illegal activities." " ..."
"... This recklessness will cause much trouble for Apple ," the People's Daily declared, advising the tech firm to " think deeply ." ..."
"... Hong Kong's cheerleaders are rapidly finding out they may have bitten off more than they can chew. It's rarely a good idea, as a global business, to alienate 1.4 billion people living in the world's second-largest economy. ..."
"... More importantly, most Americans don't want a side of politics when they buy a smartphone or go to a basketball game. ..."
Beijing is angry at Apple for allowing a police-tracking map used by Hong Kong protesters in its App Store. Pressure grows on
US companies doing business in China to take a side, as virtue-signaling clashes with serving customers. "Is Apple guiding Hong
Kong thugs?" the Chinese People's Daily newspaper wondered in an op-ed published on Wednesday. Beijing tore into the trillion-dollar
company for offering HKmap.live, a map app that allows users to report and track police activity, warning the app "facilitates
illegal behavior" and that Apple is hurting its reputation among Chinese consumers by "mixing business with politics and commercial
activity with illegal activities." "
This recklessness will cause much trouble for Apple ," the People's Daily declared,
advising the tech firm to " think deeply ."
The majority of Apple's products are manufactured in China, and those that aren't are assembled in Texas from Chinese parts. China
is the second-largest market for Apple products, and CEO Tim Cook expects it will soon overtake the US as number one.
According to HKmap.live's developers, Apple initially rejected the app during a reviewing process, but reconsidered following
an appeal. It allows users to report not only the locations and movement of police, but also the use of tear gas and other protester-specific
features. The protests, which began in May over a now-shelved extradition bill, have grown quite violent, with some rioters turning
on ordinary citizens who merely express solidarity with the mainland.
It's not as if Apple has a track record of defying China's wishes – the company does not include the Taiwan flag emoji on its
Chinese devices, and this week has gone further by hiding the flag from users in Hong Kong and Macau. China does not recognize Taiwan
as a separate country.
Nor do people look to Apple as their moral guiding light. The Foxconn factories used by the company in China have become infamous
after a wave of worker suicides, so much that Apple had "suicide nets" installed to stop the employees from jumping to their
deaths.
So where did this sudden urge to stand up for rioters that have become the darlings of the West come from? Apple joins a lengthening
list of American corporate entities – including the makers of adult cartoon 'South Park', the manager of NBA team the Houston Rockets,
and Vans shoes – who've piled on China following the outbreak of the protests during the summer.
Virtue-signaling is almost expected of American companies in the Trump era. Celebrities who don't speak out against the president
are assumed to be secretly harboring pro-Trump sympathies, for example. China probably seems like an easier target than the president
– Beijing is halfway around the world and currently embroiled in a trade war with the US.
Hong Kong's cheerleaders are rapidly
finding out they may have bitten off more than they can chew. It's rarely a good idea, as a global business, to alienate 1.4 billion
people living in the world's second-largest economy. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, who initially spoke up for Rockets manager Daryl
Morey's "freedom of expression" after he tweeted in support of the protests, has modified his statement to include understanding
that there are "consequences" to such freedoms and is scrambling to reach an understanding with China after the nation's largest
state-run TV station dropped NBA games in retaliation.
Look for Apple to do something similar if the government controlling its manufacturing and its second-largest market decides to
punish its insolence.
More importantly, most Americans don't want a side of politics when they buy a smartphone or go to a basketball game. The vast
majority of consumers – those who aren't on Twitter shrieking over the latest revelation that a CEO attended a Trump fundraiser –
are not interested in a company's ability to virtue signal. They want a product that works, not one that tells them what to think.
China’s embassy in France has slammed the country’s reaction to protests in Hong Kong, calling it hypocritical and arguing France
should show empathy as China did when Paris was trying to cope with Yellow Vests.
The diplomatic mission was commenting on a statement issued by the European Union, and swiftly repeated by the French Foreign
Ministry last week, after Hong Kong police used live ammunition against a protester in self-defense for the first time in four months
of demonstrations.
"... "Sorry, until George W. Bush is brought to justice for the crimes of the Iraq War, (including American-lead torture, Iraqi deaths & displacement, and the deep scars -- emotional & otherwise -- inflicted on our military that served his folly), we can't even begin to talk about kindness," the actor of Incredible Hulk fame tweeted. ..."
"... While some online were appreciative of the anti-Bush sentiment, many wondered aloud why similar treatment was rarely afforded to Bush's successor, Barack Obama, who is largely given a pass despite pursuing – in some cases escalating – many of the same policies for which Bush is condemned today. ..."
"... From a massive escalation of the Afghan war in 2009, ramping up drone bombings on Pakistan, establishing a secret presidential "kill list" that included American citizens, leading a NATO operation that left Libya in ruin, or arming violent Islamist militants in Syria – Obama still has much to answer for, but is rarely asked to do so. Despite bragging that he'd already bombed seven countries by 2015, liberal celebrities like Ruffalo have had few harsh words for the Nobel Peace Prize winner. ..."
"... *Nobel Peace Drones™ ..."
"... "Mark Ruffalo (correctly) calling out George Bush for being a war criminal, responsible for the displacement and death of millions," ..."
Actor Mark Ruffalo was shredded for double standards after he posted a "callout" tweet
assailing George Bush for the sins of the Iraq War, with many netizens noting his aversion to
slamming Barack Obama's military adventures. Weighing into a controversy kicked off by TV
personality Ellen Degeneres, who came under fire for schmoozing it up with former President
George W. Bush at a football game last weekend, Ruffalo insisted no quarter or kindness should
be offered to perpetrators of heinous war crimes until they face consequences, including
Bush.
"Sorry, until George W. Bush is brought to justice for the crimes of the Iraq War,
(including American-lead torture, Iraqi deaths & displacement, and the deep scars --
emotional & otherwise -- inflicted on our military that served his folly), we can't even
begin to talk about kindness," the actor of Incredible Hulk fame tweeted.
Sorry, until George W. Bush is brought to justice for the crimes of the Iraq War,
(including American-lead torture, Iraqi deaths & displacement, and the deep scars --
emotional & otherwise -- inflicted on our military that served his folly), we can't even
begin to talk about kindness. https://t.co/dpMwfck6su
While some online were appreciative of the anti-Bush sentiment, many wondered aloud why
similar treatment was rarely afforded to Bush's successor, Barack Obama, who is largely given a
pass despite pursuing – in some cases escalating – many of the same policies for
which Bush is condemned today.
Claiming Bush is some monster while worshipping Obama even though they did the same things
abroad🤔
From a massive escalation of the Afghan war in 2009, ramping up drone bombings on Pakistan,
establishing a secret presidential "kill list" that included American citizens, leading
a NATO operation that left Libya in ruin, or arming violent Islamist militants in Syria –
Obama still has much to answer for, but is rarely asked to do so. Despite bragging that he'd
already bombed seven countries by 2015, liberal celebrities like Ruffalo have had few harsh
words for the Nobel Peace Prize winner.
"Woke Twitter, [including] Mark Ruffalo, are selective about call outs," one user
observed, noting the several occasions former first lady Michelle Obama posed affectionately
with Bush without facing a similar wave of outrage from figures like Ruffalo.
People ripping Jameela Jamil and the celebs in these screenshots but it was tumbleweed 101
when Michelle Obama was getting regular sweeties fixes from George W. Bush & going above
and beyond duty in friendly optics. Woke Twitter, incl Mark Ruffalo, are selective about call
outs. pic.twitter.com/snNYZEbAWM
It's funny how Mark Ruffalo can criticize Ellen, who was an actual person affected by
Bush's ignorance, but not a peep about Michelle Obama who admits to having a special
FRIENDSHIP with GW. https://t.co/9UM1BP8GpY
Another commenter seconded Ruffalo's views on Bush, but encouraged the actor to take his
criticism further, applying the same humanitarian standard evenly, regardless of the party in
power.
"Mark Ruffalo (correctly) calling out George Bush for being a war criminal, responsible
for the displacement and death of millions," the user said.
The same is true for Obama. He started 5 wars and displaced even more people than Bush.
However, Obama is a media darling who Mark gushes over.
Mark Ruffalo (correctly) calling out George Bush for being a war criminal, responsible for
the displacement and death of millions
The same is true for Obama. He started 5 wars and displaced even more people than Bush
However, Obama is a media darling who Mark gushes over
100% on Bush. You forgot to add Obama & Clinton though. No reason to root for justice
against one war criminal, while giving a free pass to others. It makes it partisan, rather
than ethical.
I did not vote for Trump, or for Hillary, but I firmly agree with analysis of Bacevich here:
> Honest people may differ on whether to attribute the Iraq War to outright lies or monumental hubris. When it comes to tallying
up the consequences, however, the intentions of those who sold the war don't particularly matter. The results include thousands
of Americans killed; tens of thousands wounded, many grievously, or left to struggle with the effects of PTSD; hundreds of thousands
of non-Americans killed or injured; millions displaced; trillions of dollars expended; radical groups like ISIS empowered (and
in its case even formed inside a US prison in Iraq); and the Persian Gulf region plunged into turmoil from which it has yet to
recover. How do Trump's crimes stack up against these?
> The Great Recession stemmed directly from economic policies implemented during the administration of President Bill Clinton
and continued by his successor. Deregulating the banking sector was projected to produce a bonanza in which all would share. Yet,
as a direct result of the ensuing chicanery, nearly 9 million Americans lost their jobs, while overall unemployment shot up to
10 percent. Roughly 4 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure. The stock market cratered and millions saw their life
savings evaporate. Again, the question must be asked: How do these results compare to Trump's dubious dealings with Ukraine?
Hong Kong police have seized weapons, armor and materials used to create Molotov cocktails,
which they said belonged to radical groups among the protesters labeled 'pro-democracy' by
western media. According to the police, on Monday and Tuesday they targeted 48 locations
throughout the city that they suspected were connected with violent protesters, who have been
waging street battles against the police force for several months.
The police arrested 51 people, including seven women, who were aged between 15 and 44, and
charged them with various crimes related to the rioting.
... ... ...
The authorities published
photos of the items they discovered during the raid, which include several suits of body armor,
various melee weapons as well as chemicals and glass bottles used in the manufacturing of
petrol bombs – a weapon routinely deployed by the protesters to cause chaos in Hong
Kong.
... ... ...
Mass anti-government protests first gripped the Chinese city in March, when thousands took
to the streets to protest an extradition bill that they deemed an attack on Hong Kong's
autonomy under the so-called "one country, two systems" arrangement. The bill has since been
revoked, but the protest movement's demands have continued to grow and it has become more
violent in its approach.
... ... ...
Peaceful protest demonstrations in Hong Kong, which have been the prime focus for Western
media coverage, take place against the backdrop of vandalism, harassment of businesses deemed
loyal to the central government and outright rioting.
Some interesting estimates of the numbers of foreign fighters that participated in the Donbass War
from 2014-2019 from a report [PDF]
by the Soufan Center. (h/t
Kholmogorov)
Kiev-controlled Ukraine served as a destination for would-be murderers seeking impunity for
years. However, inviting foreign scum will help it about as much as it helped ISIS. Maybe
even less: some foreign and domestic ISIS bandits had ideology beyond raping and looting,
Ukrainian bandits in Donbass do not. "True believer" Ukies are in Canada, the US, or far away
from the front in Ukraine itself and studiously avoid getting into real fighting, where they
can be maimed or killed.
In contrast, many volunteers on the side of Donbass freedom fighters do have honest
beliefs and are not cowards avoiding combat. Not all, though: some just look for an
adventure, on the battlefield and in bed.
@Korenchkin If
you go by quintessence of Nazi ideology "my tribe is better than your tribe", every nation
has its Nazis, including Russia.
To its credit, tribal nationalists never got more than ~7% electoral support in
Russia.
After Ukrainian experience showed that any country can be quickly ruined by primeval
tribal nationalism, their support in Russia dropped to below 2%. But it still isn't zero.
Then again, ~1% of any population are schizophrenics, 2-3% are gays/lesbians, etc., so single
digit representation of any kind of deviation is not threatening country's survival.
@Mr. Hack I
asked the questions first, but I'll be generous and explain this to you on the fingers.
1. I used the term "Banderists" in the context of Ukraine's volunteer battalions –
that is, where foreigners have the most realistic chance of getting accepted.
2. Polls show Ukrainians to generally be 50/50 on Bandera, but obviously, that number will be
much higher amongst the rather self-selected sample that are volunteer battalion members. At
least 80%, if not 90%.
3. Poles obviously couldn't care less for Bandera. Polish *nationalists* – even less
so.
4. Nationalists are the likeliest foreigners to participate in the Donbass.
5. Do you now see why this would be a pertinent point to mention in the specific context of
why 10x fewer Poles fight for the Ukraine relative to Georgians, despite having 10x the
population?
I'm not sure if 14 fighters is a big enough sample size to justify lumping Canada into the
dreaded "Russophobe" category. But the 10 pro-Ukrainians to 4 pro-Russians ratio closely
mirrors that of self-declared ethnic Ukrainians (1,359,655) to Russians (622,445) in Canada.
Though many, possibly even a majority of those "Russians" are actually Jews. The Ukrainian
lobby has been disturbingly powerful in Canada for a long time (multiculturalism was their
bright idea), while the Russian lobby is seemingly invisible.
There are signs and symbols of Ukrainian nationalism everywhere (banks, festivals, flags,
bumper stickers etc), while similar Russian symbols are basically non-existent. The Uke to
Russkie ratio may be only 10-4, but it feels more like 10-1, or even 100-1.
I expected more Russians from the Baltics. Apparently, they and Serbs were early arrivals in
Girkin's group. Perhaps the ethnic Russians were counted as Russian?
Quite a few White Russians emigrated to France. The Whites were well supported by ethnic
Russians in the Donbass during the Civil War.
Many Irish Nationalist commentators supported Russia (enemy's enemy) but the table shows
Ireland Pro Ukraine (anti-imperialist a stronger driver?). The Russian settlers in the
Donbass are such an obvious parallel to the Orangemen.
1. Chechens would be the obvious answer. I recall reading there were 2x as many Chechens
fighting for Ukrainians than for Russians.
2. Svidomy Ukrainians in Russia.
3. And, as mentioned, Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists (~60%-70% on Ukraine's side, at
least initially). The other brands of Russian nationalists were overwhelmingly
pro-Russian.
@AnonFromTN
More foreign "scum" on Donbas side than Ukrainian side. As one would expect. It's not all bad
however, Donbas should be kept apart from Ukraine.
"True believer" Ukies are in Canada, the US, or far away from the front in Ukraine
itself and studiously avoid getting into real fighting, where they can be maimed or
killed.
Ukrainian-American Paslawsky fought and died in the war.
A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and the only American known to have fought
alongside Ukrainian forces against pro-Russian separatists has been killed in eastern
Ukraine.
Mark Gregory Paslawsky, 55, died while fighting with the volunteer Donbas Battalion.
Paslawsky, who fought under the nom de guerre "Franko," was killed on August 19 during
fighting in the town of Ilovaysk, near the Ukrainian city of Donetsk, according to a Facebook
post by Ukrainian Interior Ministry adviser Anton Herashchenko.
Paslawsky was born in 1959 in New York and grew up in a tight-knit Ukrainian-American
family in New Jersey. He moved to Ukraine around two decades ago and informed his family
earlier this year that he planned to volunteer for the Ukrainian Army, according to his
brother, Nestor Paslawsky.
::::::::::::::
The American fighting for Donbas, "Cowb0y", meanwhile was some sort of petty criminal in
the USA. Like Motorola in Russia, of course.
@Philip Owen
Well the Serbs played a major role in the defence of the territory that is today the Donbas
(not particularly well known among modern Russians). So Serbian nationalists have an extra
cause in regards to the Donbas
Slavo-Serbia or Slaveno-Serbia, was a territory of Imperial Russia between 1753-64. It was
located by the right bank of the Donets River between the Bakhmutka River
(Бахмут) and Luhan
(Лугань) rivers. This area today constitutes the
territories of present-day Luhansk Oblast and Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine. The
administrative centre of Slavo-Serbia was Bakhmut (Bahmut).
In contrast, many volunteers on the side of Donbass freedom fighters do have honest
beliefs and are not cowards avoiding combat. Not all, though: some just look for an
adventure
Not mutually exclusive. If you feel that you're leading a meaningless life and you are
looking for adventure, something radically different from a cubicle job or whatever, might as
well do something like join a war where you get to defend innocent people.
Considering ex ISIS fighters are often left to go free and claim benefits it was interesting
to see the fate of the fella who went to the Donbass and didn't even fight.
@anonymous
coward So was South Africa but didn't stop there being close ties between loyalists and
the apartheid government, a few Ulstermen were in the the government and there was the shared
settler Calvinist outlook. The IRA had quite close links to Croats, don't know if loyalists
had the same with Serbs. MP Ian Paisley junior is somewhat of a Russophile.
@SveVid This is
all true, but all those people are completely and utterly assimilated into Ukrainians /
Russians and have been for much longer than living memory. Most people in Serbia (except
history nerds etc) have no idea about this history. A much more plausible explanation for
Serbs going to fight in the Donbass would make some reference to Russian (and also Greek btw)
volunteer units fighting with the Serbs in the 1990s and contacts established during that
time.
@Anatoly Karlin
Mazepa is way up there and he joined the early 17th century Swedish invasion of Russia that
ended with the defeat at Poltava. That effectively ended Sweden as a great power. Seems like
Ukrainians have a thing for worshipping losers allied with anyone west of them, so there is
some hope for Porky's eventual rehabilitation.
Carl Bildt's ancestors were there in high stockings among the vanquished at Poltava
– the Bildts never forgave the humiliation, those Swedes can be sneaky. That explains
the persistent anti-Russian attitudes among the Nordics. Swedes also tend to be
simple-minded, nobody swallows the current globo-homo propaganda as eagerly or looks for
Russian submarines hiding behind every whale.
By and large Austria and Croatia are the only surprises – here, the history of the last
century is a bit complicated. "Altösterreicher" is a popular euphemism for "Galician
Jew" i.e. the current Kiew regime. The Croats are more probably channeling their recent
hatred for the Serbs. [Not really] funny what the separation of East and West Rome is still
doing to a people.
"... The lawsuit also aggressively contests Boeing's spin that competent pilots could have prevented the Lion Air and Ethiopian Air crashes: ..."
"... When asked why Boeing did not alert pilots to the existence of the MCAS, Boeing responded that the company decided against disclosing more details due to concerns about "inundate[ing] average pilots with too much information -- and significantly more technical data -- than [they] needed or could realistically digest." ..."
"... The filing has a detailed explanation of why the addition of heavier, bigger LEAP1-B engines to the 737 airframe made the plane less stable, changed how it handled, and increased the risk of catastrophic stall. It also describes at length how Boeing ignored warning signs during the design and development process, and misrepresented the 737 Max as essentially the same as older 737s to the FAA, potential buyers, and pilots. It also has juicy bits presented in earlier media accounts but bear repeating, like: ..."
"... Then, on November 7, 2018, the FAA issued an "Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51," warning that an unsafe condition likely could exist or develop on 737 MAX aircraft. ..."
"... Moreover, unlike runaway stabilizer, MCAS disables the control column response that 737 pilots have grown accustomed to and relied upon in earlier generations of 737 aircraft. ..."
"... And making the point that to turn off MCAS all you had to do was flip two switches behind everything else on the center condole. Not exactly true, normally those switches were there to shut off power to electrically assisted trim. Ah, it one thing to shut off MCAS it's a whole other thing to shut off power to the planes trim, especially in high speed ✓ and the plane noise up ✓, and not much altitude ✓. ..."
"... Classic addiction behavior. Boeing has a major behavioral problem, the repetitive need for and irrational insistence on profit above safety all else , that is glaringly obvious to everyone except Boeing. ..."
"... In fact, Boeing 737 Chief Technical Pilot, Mark Forkner asked the FAA to delete any mention of MCAS from the pilot manual so as to further hide its existence from the public and pilots " ..."
"... This "MCAS" was always hidden from pilots? The military implemented checks on MCAS to maintain a level of pilot control. The commercial airlines did not. Commercial airlines were in thrall of every little feature that they felt would eliminate the need for pilots at all. Fell right into the automation crapification of everything. ..."
At first blush, the suit filed in Dallas by the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SwAPA) against Boeing may seem like a family
feud. SWAPA is seeking an estimated $115 million for lost pilots' pay as a result of the grounding of the 34 Boeing 737 Max planes
that Southwest owns and the additional 20 that Southwest had planned to add to its fleet by year end 2019. Recall that Southwest
was the largest buyer of the 737 Max, followed by American Airlines. However, the damning accusations made by the pilots' union,
meaning, erm, pilots, is likely to cause Boeing not just more public relations headaches, but will also give grist to suits by crash
victims.
However, one reason that the Max is a sore point with the union was that it was a key leverage point in 2016 contract negotiations:
And Boeing's assurances that the 737 Max was for all practical purposes just a newer 737 factored into the pilots' bargaining
stance. Accordingly, one of the causes of action is tortious interference, that Boeing interfered in the contract negotiations to
the benefit of Southwest. The filing describes at length how Boeing and Southwest were highly motivated not to have the contract
dispute drag on and set back the launch of the 737 Max at Southwest, its showcase buyer. The big point that the suit makes is the
plane was unsafe and the pilots never would have agreed to fly it had they known what they know now.
We've embedded the compliant at the end of the post. It's colorful and does a fine job of recapping the sorry history of the development
of the airplane. It has damning passages like:
Boeing concealed the fact that the 737 MAX aircraft was not airworthy because, inter alia, it incorporated a single-point failure
condition -- a software/flight control logic called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System ("MCAS") -- that,if fed
erroneous data from a single angle-of-attack sensor, would command the aircraft nose-down and into an unrecoverable dive without
pilot input or knowledge.
The lawsuit also aggressively contests Boeing's spin that competent pilots could have prevented the Lion Air and Ethiopian Air
crashes:
Had SWAPA known the truth about the 737 MAX aircraft in 2016, it never would have approved the inclusion of the 737 MAX aircraft
as a term in its CBA [collective bargaining agreement], and agreed to operate the aircraft for Southwest. Worse still, had SWAPA
known the truth about the 737 MAX aircraft, it would have demanded that Boeing rectify the aircraft's fatal flaws before agreeing
to include the aircraft in its CBA, and to provide its pilots, and all pilots, with the necessary information and training needed
to respond to the circumstances that the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 pilots encountered nearly three
years later.
And (boldface original):
Boeing Set SWAPA Pilots Up to Fail
As SWAPA President Jon Weaks, publicly stated, SWAPA pilots "were kept in the dark" by Boeing.
Boeing did not tell SWAPA pilots that MCAS existed and there was no description or mention of MCAS in the Boeing Flight Crew
Operations Manual.
There was therefore no way for commercial airline pilots, including SWAPA pilots, to know that MCAS would work in the background
to override pilot inputs.
There was no way for them to know that MCAS drew on only one of two angle of attack sensors on the aircraft.
And there was no way for them to know of the terrifying consequences that would follow from a malfunction.
When asked why Boeing did not alert pilots to the existence of the MCAS, Boeing responded that the company decided against
disclosing more details due to concerns about "inundate[ing] average pilots with too much information -- and significantly more
technical data -- than [they] needed or could realistically digest."
SWAPA's pilots, like their counterparts all over the world, were set up for failure
The filing has a detailed explanation of why the addition of heavier, bigger LEAP1-B engines to the 737 airframe made the plane
less stable, changed how it handled, and increased the risk of catastrophic stall. It also describes at length how Boeing ignored
warning signs during the design and development process, and misrepresented the 737 Max as essentially the same as older 737s to
the FAA, potential buyers, and pilots. It also has juicy bits presented in earlier media accounts but bear repeating, like:
By March 2016, Boeing settled on a revision of the MCAS flight control logic.
However, Boeing chose to omit key safeguards that had previously been included in earlier iterations of MCAS used on the Boeing
KC-46A Pegasus, a military tanker derivative of the Boeing 767 aircraft.
The engineers who created MCAS for the military tanker designed the system to rely on inputs from multiple sensors and with
limited power to move the tanker's nose. These deliberate checks sought to ensure that the system could not act erroneously or
cause a pilot to lose control. Those familiar with the tanker's design explained that these checks were incorporated because "[y]ou
don't want the solution to be worse than the initial problem."
The 737 MAX version of MCAS abandoned the safeguards previously relied upon. As discussed below, the 737 MAX MCAS had greater
control authority than its predecessor, activated repeatedly upon activation, and relied on input from just one of the plane's
two sensors that measure the angle of the plane's nose.
In other words, Boeing can't credibly say that it didn't know better.
Here is one of the sections describing Boeing's cover-ups:
Yet Boeing's website, press releases, annual reports, public statements and statements to operators and customers, submissions
to the FAA and other civil aviation authorities, and 737 MAX flight manuals made no mention of the increased stall hazard or MCAS
itself.
In fact, Boeing 737 Chief Technical Pilot, Mark Forkner asked the FAA to delete any mention of MCAS from the pilot manual so
as to further hide its existence from the public and pilots.
We urge you to read the complaint in full, since it contains juicy insider details, like the significance of Southwest being Boeing's
737 Max "launch partner" and what that entailed in practice, plus recounting dates and names of Boeing personnel who met with SWAPA
pilots and made misrepresentations about the aircraft.
Even though Southwest Airlines is negotiating a settlement with Boeing over losses resulting from the grounding of the 737 Max
and the airline has promised to compensate the pilots, the pilots' union at a minimum apparently feels the need to put the heat on
Boeing directly. After all, the union could withdraw the complaint if Southwest were to offer satisfactory compensation for the pilots'
lost income. And pilots have incentives not to raise safety concerns about the planes they fly. Don't want to spook the horses, after
all.
But Southwest pilots are not only the ones most harmed by Boeing's debacle but they are arguably less exposed to the downside
of bad press about the 737 Max. It's business fliers who are most sensitive to the risks of the 737 Max, due to seeing the story
regularly covered in the business press plus due to often being road warriors. Even though corporate customers account for only 12%
of airline customers, they represent an estimated 75% of profits.
Southwest customers don't pay up for front of the bus seats. And many of them presumably value the combination of cheap travel,
point to point routes between cities underserved by the majors, and close-in airports, which cut travel times. In other words, that
combination of features will make it hard for business travelers who use Southwest regularly to give the airline up, even if the
737 Max gives them the willies. By contrast, premium seat passengers on American or United might find it not all that costly, in
terms of convenience and ticket cost (if they are budget sensitive), to fly 737-Max-free Delta until those passengers regain confidence
in the grounded plane.
Note that American Airlines' pilot union, when asked about the Southwest claim, said that it also believes its pilots deserve
to be compensated for lost flying time, but they plan to obtain it through American Airlines.
If Boeing were smart, it would settle this suit quickly, but so far, Boeing has relied on bluster and denial. So your guess is
as good as mine as to how long the legal arm-wrestling goes on.
Update 5:30 AM EDT : One important point that I neglected to include is that the filing also recounts, in gory detail, how Boeing
went into "Blame the pilots" mode after the Lion Air crash, insisting the cause was pilot error and would therefore not happen again.
Boeing made that claim on a call to all operators, including SWAPA, and then three days later in a meeting with SWAPA.
However, Boeing's actions were inconsistent with this claim. From the filing:
Then, on November 7, 2018, the FAA issued an "Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51," warning that an unsafe condition
likely could exist or develop on 737 MAX aircraft.
Relying on Boeing's description of the problem, the AD directed that in the event of un-commanded nose-down stabilizer trim
such as what happened during the Lion Air crash, the flight crew should comply with the Runaway Stabilizer procedure in the Operating
Procedures of the 737 MAX manual.
But the AD did not provide a complete description of MCAS or the problem in 737 MAX aircraft that led to the Lion Air crash,
and would lead to another crash and the 737 MAX's grounding just months later.
An MCAS failure is not like a runaway stabilizer. A runaway stabilizer has continuous un-commanded movement of the tail, whereas
MCAS is not continuous and pilots (theoretically) can counter the nose-down movement, after which MCAS would move the aircraft
tail down again.
Moreover, unlike runaway stabilizer, MCAS disables the control column response that 737 pilots have grown accustomed to and
relied upon in earlier generations of 737 aircraft.
Even after the Lion Air crash, Boeing's description of MCAS was still insufficient to put correct its lack of disclosure as
demonstrated by a second MCAS-caused crash.
We hoisted this detail because insiders were spouting in our comments section, presumably based on Boeing's patter, that the Lion
Air pilots were clearly incompetent, had they only executed the well-known "runaway stabilizer," all would have been fine. Needless
to say, this assertion has been shown to be incorrect.
Excellent, by any standard. Which does remind of of the NYT zine story (William Langewiesche
Published Sept. 18, 2019) making the claim that basically the pilots who crashed their planes weren't real "Airman".
And making
the point that to turn off MCAS all you had to do was flip two switches behind everything else on the center condole. Not exactly
true, normally those switches were there to shut off power to electrically assisted trim. Ah, it one thing to shut off MCAS it's
a whole other thing to shut off power to the planes trim, especially in high speed ✓ and the plane noise up ✓, and not much altitude
✓.
And especially if you as a pilot didn't know MCAS was there in the first place. This sort of engineering by Boeing is criminal.
And the lying. To everyone. Oh, least we all forget the processing power of the in flight computer is that of a intel 286. There
are times I just want to be beamed back to the home planet. Where we care for each other.
One should also point out that Langewiesche said that Boeing made disastrous mistakes with the MCAS and that the very future
of the Max is cloudy. His article was useful both for greater detail about what happened and for offering some pushback to the
idea that the pilots had nothing to do with the accidents.
As for the above, it was obvious from the first Seattle Times stories that these two events and the grounding were going to
be a lawsuit magnet. But some of us think Boeing deserves at least a little bit of a defense because their side has been totally
silent–either for legal reasons or CYA reasons on the part of their board and bad management.
Classic addiction behavior. Boeing has a major behavioral problem, the repetitive need for and irrational insistence on profit
above safety all else , that is glaringly obvious to everyone except Boeing.
"The engineers who created MCAS for the military tanker designed the system to rely on inputs from multiple sensors and with
limited power to move the tanker's nose. These deliberate checks sought to ensure that the system could not act erroneously or
cause a pilot to lose control "
"Yet Boeing's website, press releases, annual reports, public statements and statements to operators and customers, submissions
to the FAA and other civil aviation authorities, and 737 MAX flight manuals made no mention of the increased stall hazard or MCAS
itself.
In fact, Boeing 737 Chief Technical Pilot, Mark Forkner asked the FAA to delete any mention of MCAS from the pilot manual
so as to further hide its existence from the public and pilots "
This "MCAS" was always hidden from pilots? The military implemented checks on MCAS to maintain a level of pilot control. The commercial airlines did not. Commercial
airlines were in thrall of every little feature that they felt would eliminate the need for pilots at all. Fell right into the
automation crapification of everything.
"In our modern age, the continuation of racially based violent extremism, particularly
violent white supremacy, is an abhorrent affront to the nation," said Kevin McAleenan, the
acting director of homeland security.
Homeland Security Dept. Affirms Threat of White Supremacy
After Years of Prodding https://nyti.ms/2oTNJmQ
NYT - Zolan Kanno-Youngs - October 1
WASHINGTON -- The Department of Homeland Security is beginning to address white
supremacist terrorism as a primary security threat, breaking with a decade of flagging
attention after bigoted mass shooters from New Zealand to Texas took the lives of nearly 100
people in the last six months.
In a little-noticed strategy document (*) published last month to guide law enforcement on
emerging threats and in recent public appearances by Kevin K. McAleenan, the acting secretary
of homeland security, the department is trying to project a new vigilance about violent white
nationalism, beating back criticism that the agency has spent a decade playing down the
issue.
"I would like to take this opportunity to be direct and unambiguous in addressing a major
issue of our time. In our modern age, the continuation of racially based violent extremism,
particularly violent white supremacy, is an abhorrent affront to the nation," Mr. McAleenan
said during an address last month, describing white nationalism as one of the most dangerous
threats to the United States.
The department's new stance contrasts that of President Trump, who has repeatedly
dismissed white supremacy as an insignificant fringe movement. But beyond words and
documents, many officials trying to combat the threat throughout the country remain skeptical
that the full weight of federal law enforcement is finally being used to give bigoted
domestic terrorism the attention it deserves. ...
* (Could be this.)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
FOR COUNTERING TERRORISM AND TARGETED VIOLENCE
A Secretive Committee of Wall Street Insiders Is the Least of the New York Fed's Concerns.
In July 17, Mary Callahan Erdoes, head of JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s $2.2 trillion asset and wealth management division, walked into
the wood-paneled tenth-floor conference room at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to address some fellow Wall Street luminaries
-- Bridgewater Associates' Ray Dalio, Dawn Fitzpatrick of Soros Fund Management, short-seller Jim Chanos, and LBO kingpin David Rubenstein
among them.
All are members of the Investor Advisory Committee on Financial Markets (IACFM) -- a forum to provide financial insight to the
New York Fed. Chairing the meeting was New York Fed president John C. Williams, vice chair of the powerful, rate-setting Federal
Open Market Committee, who was a year into his tenure.
Erdoes held forth at the meeting, which included a buffet lunch.
---
And so on.
This is us, we have a unexhaustable desire for these secret meetings to meet, so we vote, every year to convene them. If these
secret meeting did not occur then we could never do a deal with the super wealthy and our precious will not be insured. Reply Saturday,
October 05, 2019 at 06:04 PM
..according to two Chinese scholars who have connections to regime insiders and who
requested anonymity to discuss the thinking of policymakers in Beijing, China's response has
been rooted not in anxiety but in confidence.
Beijing is convinced that Hong Kong's elites and a substantial part of the public do not
support the demonstrators and that what truly ails the territory are economic problems rather
than political ones -- in particular, a combination of stagnant incomes and rising rents.
Beijing also believes that, despite the appearance of disorder, its grip on Hong Kong society
remains firm. The Chinese Communist Party has long cultivated the territory's business elites
(the so-called tycoons) by offering them favorable economic access to the mainland. The party
also maintains a long-standing loyal cadre of underground members in the territory. And China
has forged ties with the Hong Kong labor movement and some sections of its criminal
underground. Finally, Beijing believes that many ordinary citizens are fearful of change and
tired of the disruption caused by the demonstrations.
Beijing therefore thinks that its local allies will stand firm and that the demonstrations
will gradually lose public support and eventually die out. As the demonstrations shrink, some
frustrated activists will engage in further violence, and that in turn will accelerate the
movement's decline. Meanwhile, Beijing is turning its attention to economic development
projects that it believes will address some of the underlying grievances that led many people
to take to the streets in the first place.
This view of the situation is held by those at the very top of the regime in Beijing, as
evidenced by recent remarks made by Chinese President Xi Jinping, some of which have not been
previously reported. In a speech Xi delivered in early September to a new class of rising
political stars at the Central Party School in Beijing, he rejected the suggestion of some
officials that China should declare a state of emergency in Hong Kong and send in the
People's Liberation Army. "That would be going down a political road of no return," Xi said.
"The central government will exercise the most patience and restraint and allow the [regional
government] and the local police force to resolve the crisis." In separate remarks that Xi
made around the same time, he spelled out what he sees as the proper way to proceed:
"Economic development is the only golden key to resolving all sorts of problems facing Hong
Kong today."
ONE COUNTRY, TWO SYSTEMS, MANY QUESTIONS
Chinese decision-makers are hardly surprised that Hong Kong is chafing under their rule.
Beijing believes it has treated Hong Kong with a light hand and has supported the territory's
economy in many ways, especially by granting it special access to the mainland's stocks and
currency markets, exempting it from the taxes and fees that other Chinese provinces and
municipalities pay the central government, and guaranteeing a reliable supply of water,
electricity, gas, and food. Even so, Beijing considers disaffection among Hong Kong's
residents a natural outgrowth of the territory's colonial British past and also a result of
the continuing influence of Western values. Indeed, during the 1984 negotiations between
China and the United Kingdom over Hong Kong's future, the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping
suggested following the approach of "one country, two systems" for 50 years precisely to give
people in Hong Kong plenty of time to get used to the Chinese political system.
But "one country, two systems" was never intended to result in Hong Kong spinning out of
China's control. Under the Basic Law that China crafted as Hong Kong's "mini-constitution,"
Beijing retained the right to prevent any challenge to what it considered its core security
interests. The law empowered Beijing to determine if and when Hong Kongers could directly
elect the territory's leadership, allowed Beijing to veto laws passed by the Hong Kong
Legislative Council, and granted China the right to make final interpretations of the Basic
Law. And there would be no question about who had a monopoly of force. During the
negotiations with the United Kingdom, Deng publicly rebuked a top Chinese defense official --
General Geng Biao, who at the time was a patron of a rising young official named Xi Jinping
-- for suggesting that there might not be any need to put troops in Hong Kong. Deng insisted
that a Chinese garrison was necessary to symbolize Chinese sovereignty.
Statements made by U.S. politicians in support of the recent demonstrations only confirm
Beijing's belief that Washington seeks to inflame radical sentiments in Hong Kong.
At first, Hong Kongers seemed to accept their new role as citizens of a rising China. In
1997, in a tracking poll of Hong Kong residents regularly conducted by researchers at the
University of Hong Kong, 47 percent of respondents identified themselves as "proud" citizens
of China. But things went downhill from there. In 2012, the Hong Kong government tried to
introduce "patriotic education" in elementary and middle schools, but the proposed curriculum
ran into a storm of local opposition and had to be withdrawn. In 2014, the 79-day Umbrella
Movement brought hundreds of thousands of citizens into the streets to protest Beijing's
refusal to allow direct elections for the chief executive. And as authoritarianism has
intensified under Xi's rule, events such as the 2015 kidnapping of five Hong Kong–based
publishers to stand trial in the mainland further soured Hong Kong opinion. By this past
June, only 27 percent of respondents to the tracking poll described themselves as "proud" to
be citizens of China. This year's demonstrations started as a protest against a proposed law
that would have allowed Hong Kongers suspected of criminal wrongdoing to be extradited to the
mainland but then developed into a broad-based expression of discontent over the lack of
democratic accountability, police brutality, and, most fundamentally, what was perceived as a
mainland assault on Hong Kong's unique identity.
Still, Chinese leaders do not blame themselves for these shifts in public opinion. Rather,
they believe that Western powers, especially the United States, have sought to drive a wedge
between Hong Kong and the mainland. Statements made by U.S. politicians in support of the
recent demonstrations only confirm Beijing's belief that Washington seeks to inflame radical
sentiments in Hong Kong. As Xi explained in his speech in September:
---
The Communist party conveniently discovered truth when Xi cam to power.
I doubt it, I think a thousand year history of this stuff is playing out and it has
nothing to do with East vs West. I think Xi faces this stuff in many provinces, though not as
bad. Xi is deliberately playing the 'This time is different', and old Commie trick.
"... After the Cold War and the defeat of Soviet Communism, where one would expect a reduction if not elimination of such a global secret warfare organization, the CIA only ramped up its operations overseas. Today the CIA is merely one arm in a multi-faceted US "regime change" apparatus that includes the US State Department, USAID, and, very importantly, US government-funded "non-governmental" organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and its sub-grantees. This "regime change apparatus" uses CIA methods developed during the Cold War (by "experts" like Gene Sharp and others) such as mobilization, training, subterfuge, agitation, and propaganda. We saw this apparatus at work in events like the "Arab Spring" and before it in the overthrow of the Milosevic government in Yugoslavia. We saw it in the Ukraine coup of 2014 and we see it in Venezuela and in Hong Kong today. ..."
"... There is plenty of evidence of US government involvement in the Hong Kong protests. That does not mean that every single body out in the street is in the pay of the CIA. That is the red herring argument of those who are determined that we never see the US government hand in unrest overseas. Or to ridicule as "conspiracy theorists" those who point out obvious US government involvement. ..."
"... It is undeniable that the US government has been involved in grooming, training, and funding the anti-Beijing movement in Hong Kong for years. ..."
"... Imagine a movement dedicated to overthrowing the US political order that was funded by the Chinese, whose activists regularly went to Beijing for training in organization and mobilization, and whose leaders met with leading members of the Chinese Communist Party. How would such a movement in the United States be viewed by the US government? How would it be portrayed by the US mainstream media? ..."
"... The US has ceased being a republic and has become a national security state. The US national security state enriches its elites – be they in the military-industrial complex, the think tanks, or the media – at the expense of middle class and working-class America. It does this by promoting an "enemy scenario" whereby the American people are made to believe that if they ever challenge the US military budget – larger than the next seven military budgets combined – they are not only putting themselves and their families at risk, but they are deeply unpatriotic and anti-American. The US national security state fought an 18-year "war on terror" which only seemed to generate more terrorists! Intervention in Iraq and Libya and Syria to "fight terrorism" resulted in more, not less, al-Qaeda and ISIS. It was not until Russia and Iran stood up in 2015 and began fighting these US-backed groups that there was a reduction in their power. ..."
"... The Trump Presidency thus far has been an enormous disappointment. The president had the opportunity to name a top-notch foreign policy and national security team that would reflect and carry out his stated policies as a candidate – getting along with Russia, NATO skepticism, opposition to endless war, etc – but once in power he has again and again drawn from that same neoconservative cesspool that no matter who is elected always find its way to positions of power and influence. ..."
Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Your Twitter account has just been closed. Why?
Daniel McAdams: In August I was watching a segment of the Sean Hannity program while at a friend's house and noticed that despite
an hour of Hannity ranting against the "deep state" in the US, he was wearing a lapel pin bearing the seal of the US Central Intelligence
agency, which most would agree is either the center or at least an important hub of the US "deep state" itself. I tweeted about
this strange anomaly and as a comment to my own Tweet on it I happened to say that Hannity is "retarded." Twitter informed me
that I had committed "hateful conduct" for "promoting violence against or directly attacking or threatening other people on the
basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability,
or disease." It is clear on its face that I did none of these. I used a non-politically correct term to ridicule Hannity for attacking
the "deep state" while wearing the symbols of the deep state on his very lapel.
It is clear that Twitter is deeply biased against any voices outside the mainstream, pro-empire perspective. As a leading Tweeter
in opposition to interventionist US foreign policy, I had long been targeted by those who enable and enforce Twitter's political
biases. Look at who Twitter partners with and you will understand why I was banned for a transparently false reason: the US government-funded
Atlantic Council and other similar organizations are working with Twitter to eliminate any voices challenging US global military
empire.
In your opinion, what exactly is the role of the CIA in the regime changes of some countries around the world?
From its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency carried the dual role of analyzing
intelligence for its customers in the Executive Branch of the US government and conducting covert actions and operations in pursuit
of (claimed) US foreign policy goals. The history of CIA action in post-war Europe is extensive and includes founding front organizations
to prop up socialist and far-left publications and institutions as a challenge to Soviet communism as well as backing far-right
groups and political parties and even violent terror organizations to directly confront communism and overturn elections where
communists made gains.
After the Cold War and the defeat of Soviet Communism, where one would expect a reduction if not elimination of such a
global secret warfare organization, the CIA only ramped up its operations overseas. Today the CIA is merely one arm in a multi-faceted
US "regime change" apparatus that includes the US State Department, USAID, and, very importantly, US government-funded "non-governmental"
organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and its sub-grantees. This "regime change apparatus" uses CIA methods
developed during the Cold War (by "experts" like Gene Sharp and others) such as mobilization, training, subterfuge, agitation,
and propaganda. We saw this apparatus at work in events like the "Arab Spring" and before it in the overthrow of the Milosevic
government in Yugoslavia. We saw it in the Ukraine coup of 2014 and we see it in Venezuela and in Hong Kong today.
The practical value to the United States of such operations is less than zero, the costs to the American taxpayer are enormous,
and the immorality of manipulating the globe toward an outcome preferred by Washington's elites is self-evident.
When we see the generalized NSA surveillance, do you think we live in a democracy or a tenebrous fascist regime?
Americans have been manipulated by the elites in government and its allies in state propaganda (otherwise known as the "mainstream
media") to accept, particularly post-9/11, the deeply anti-American proposition that we must yield our privacy and Constitutionally-guaranteed
civil liberties to a government that promises it will not abuse its increased power over us but will only use it to keep us safe.
These promises have been over and over again proven to be lies. Government is not targeting terrorism or terrorists: they are
targeting average American citizens.
Americans were told that only terrorists' phone calls would be intercepted, but then Edward Snowden revealed that all of our
phone calls are intercepted. Americans were mad for a few weeks but then Washington promised "reform" of the PATRIOT Act in the
form of the FREEDOM Act and everybody calmed down. Even though the FREEDOM Act is actually worse than the PATRIOT Act because
it legalized all of the illegal activities that were taking place under the PATRIOT Act. "Reform" in Washington means obfuscation
and perception manipulation.
Likewise, Americans seeking to travel within their own country have been forced to allow strangers to invade and touch the
most private areas of their bodies – and their children's bodies! American sheep just bow to the authorities and keep watching
their freedoms stolen from them, murmuring to themselves as they are raped by the authorities, "well I have nothing to hide "
You mentioned one time Operation Mockingbird, where the CIA manipulated journalists in the 1950s. In your opinion, does the CIA
continue to use these same practices today?
I have no doubt that the CIA continues to maintain a close relationship with both mainstream and independent journalists. This
is critical to establishing and controlling the narrative in each foreign "crisis." It is no accident that each mainstream media
outlet – regardless whether left-wing or right-wing or any wing - has the exact same perspective on events like the Ukraine coup
or the Venezuela attempted coup, or Hong Kong protests. Part of this is the US "deep state" or "national security state" and part
of it is the increasing integration of US corporate entities into the US government. Major media outlets are owned by US corporations
that also own weapons manufacturing companies and cannot be trusted to report on events objectively. Similarly, virtually every
US mainstream media outlet employs "former" members of the US intelligence community to "explain" foreign events to their viewers.
When is the last time a credible non-interventionist or pro-peace analyst has been featured in any mainstream media outlet?
As in Soviet times, any view at odds with Washington's "party line" is simply disappeared. When independent media outlets begin
gaining traction and challenging the narrative, they are "de-platformed" on social media and even from their Internet service
providers under the recommendations of US government-funded NGOs like the Atlantic Council or the German Marshal Fund.
Is not what is currently happening in Hong Kong a CIA manipulation targeting China in the context of the Trump administration's
economic war?
There is plenty of evidence of US government involvement in the Hong Kong protests. That does not mean that every single
body out in the street is in the pay of the CIA. That is the red herring argument of those who are determined that we never see
the US government hand in unrest overseas. Or to ridicule as "conspiracy theorists" those who point out obvious US government
involvement.
It is undeniable that the US government has been involved in grooming, training, and funding the anti-Beijing movement
in Hong Kong for years. They don't even hide it: you can easily find on USAID and National Endowment for Democracy website
the level of funding the US government provides these organizations and political parties. And when these party leaders come to
Washington, they are received by the US Vice President, Secretary of State, Speaker of the House, and other high-ranking US government
officials. Which foreign opposition movements that Washington does not support are given such treatment?
Imagine a movement dedicated to overthrowing the US political order that was funded by the Chinese, whose activists regularly
went to Beijing for training in organization and mobilization, and whose leaders met with leading members of the Chinese Communist
Party. How would such a movement in the United States be viewed by the US government? How would it be portrayed by the US mainstream
media?
You mentioned a US-supported coup when you talked about Venezuela. In your opinion, does the US administration continue the same
interventionist policy to destabilize Latin American countries?
Any Latin American government not in Washington's constellation has been and is targeted for destabilization and overthrow.
We saw this with the 2009 coup in Honduras, whose architect was then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We see it in Cuba. We
see it in Venezuela. We saw it with Ecuador, where a government wary of US persecution of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was
"changed" in favor of a regime that handed Assange over to the authorities in exchange for a few billion dollars from the IMF.
Do what Washington says and get paid; oppose Washington and get overthrown. That is the foreign policy of the US empire. And like
the Soviet empire that preceded it, it is a policy doomed to failure.
Why in your opinion does the United States always need an enemy? Is not there a danger of world war when we see the multitude
of US imperialist interventions around the world?
The US has ceased being a republic and has become a national security state. The US national security state enriches its
elites – be they in the military-industrial complex, the think tanks, or the media – at the expense of middle class and working-class
America. It does this by promoting an "enemy scenario" whereby the American people are made to believe that if they ever challenge
the US military budget – larger than the next seven military budgets combined – they are not only putting themselves and their
families at risk, but they are deeply unpatriotic and anti-American. The US national security state fought an 18-year "war on
terror" which only seemed to generate more terrorists! Intervention in Iraq and Libya and Syria to "fight terrorism" resulted
in more, not less, al-Qaeda and ISIS. It was not until Russia and Iran stood up in 2015 and began fighting these US-backed groups
that there was a reduction in their power.
After the Russian and Iranian success in beating back the jihadist threat in Syria, the 2017 US national security strategy
did an Orwellian about-face and abandoned the "war on terror" in favor of a declaration that our new enemies were again our old
enemies: China and Russia. It is literally Orwell's 1984: "we are at war with Eastasia. We had always been at war with Eastasia."
What do you think about the North Korean and Iranian case, where the Trump administration lacks a clear vision and where some
neoconservatives are pushing for a war?
There are few consistencies in President Trump's foreign policy. One emerging consistency, however, is that he seems genuinely
reluctant to take the country into a bona fide war. He's happy with sending a few dozen Tomahawk missiles into the Syrian countryside,
but when faced with an actual robust response to any US strike, he to this point has chosen de-escalation. This may be a function
of his keen eye for politics rather than any philosophical or moral concerns, but it to this point seems thematic. The problem
is that by surrounding himself with neoconservatives – and make no mistake his replacement for Bolton is at least as much a neocon
as the Mustached One himself – the president is isolating himself from any inputs advising military constraint when facing crises
overseas. That is why many of us were so much hoping that Bolton would be replaced with a Realist like Col. Douglas Macgregor.
There is a big danger that the president will be cornered by a lack of non-war options to the next crisis simply because he gives
no quarter to non-war voices in his administration.
When we consider the plight of activists and whistleblowers, such as Assange, Snowden, etc. can we still talk about freedom of
speech and human rights? Shouldn't we mobilize more to support these activists and others around the world?
The plight of Snowden and Assange and all of the persecuted whistleblowers and truth-tellers is the plight of what is life
of our liberty, freedom, and even Western civilization. When all dissent is quashed, imprisoned, tortured, we are left with only
the Total State. The Total State, as we know from history, brooks no dissent because it can only maintain power by continuing
the illusion that it alone is the source of truth. Thus any voice challenging the Total State, as the embodiment of truth, must
on its face be a lie. Why would truth allow lies to undermine it? Why would any sane person oppose "the people" as represented
in their Soviet government? Surely such a person would be insane and need of treatment rather than a citizen raising a legitimate
question or differing opinion.
This is what we are facing in the US today. A Total State, where opposing views are de-platformed and disappeared. Where truth-tellers
are jailed and tortured – pour servir d'avertissement aux autres (to serve as a warning to others).
What is your assessment of the Trump Presidency and what do you think of its foreign policy?
The Trump Presidency thus far has been an enormous disappointment. The president had the opportunity to name a top-notch
foreign policy and national security team that would reflect and carry out his stated policies as a candidate – getting along
with Russia, NATO skepticism, opposition to endless war, etc – but once in power he has again and again drawn from that same neoconservative
cesspool that no matter who is elected always find its way to positions of power and influence. He did not chart a wise course
in building a solid administration of professionals who agree with him – and there are plenty to choose from – and instead he
actually hired an entire team of people who not only disagree with his stated positions, but they actually publicly ridicule them
and work against them. It is unprecedented in my memory to see those who serve the president publicly undermining his stated positions,
yet Bolton and Pompeo never hesitated or hesitate to do just that. This is an enormous missed opportunity for President Trump
and for the United States.
You have been an advisor to Congressman Ron Paul and you are doing an excellent job as Director of the Ron Paul Institute for
Peace and Prosperity. Can you explain to our readers what the missions of this institute are?
Our mission as a non-profit educational institution is to make the case for a non-interventionist foreign policy and the restoration
of our civil liberties at home. We are the continuation of the Ron Paul liberty movement. To that end, we publish thousands of
articles making the case for non-interventionism on our website, we broadcast a daily Ron Paul Liberty Report, and we hold conferences
throughout the country bringing together a broad coalition of Americans – and non-Americans – to learn and promote peace and prosperity!
* * *
Daniel McAdams is executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and co-host of the "Ron Paul Liberty
Report," a daily live broadcast. He served for 12 years on Capitol Hill as foreign affairs and national security advisor to former
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former
communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer.
Millions of people are
uniting
in demonstrations worldwide
against our civilization's ecocidal march toward extinction, which
makes me so happy to see. It's really encouraging to see so many young people burning with love for
their planet and a hunger to reverse the damage that has been done to our ecosystem by the refusal
of previous generations to turn away from our path of devastation. This must continue if we are to
survive as a species.
The challenge now is the same perennial challenge which comes up every single time there is a
massive and enthusiastic push from the public in a direction that is healthy: such movements
always, without exception, become targeted for manipulation by establishment interests.
I
write all the time
about how this has happened with the intrinsically healthy impulse of
feminism; I just finished
watching
an MSNBC pundit
proclaim that anyone who still supports Bernie Sanders over Elizabeth Warren is
a sexist.
This corralling of healthy energy into the advancement of corrupt establishment
interests happens with feminism, it happens with the healthy fight against racism and antisemitism,
and
of course
it happens with environmentalism.
Of
course
it does. People get very emotional when you say this, even if you fully
support environmentalism and don't have any objections to the overall scientific consensus about
what's happening to our environment, but environmentalism is not destined to be the one and only
popular movement which establishment interests don't move mountains to co-opt.
We know that our oligarchic empire will do literally anything, up to and including
murdering a million Iraqis, to secure control over energy resources. We know this with absolute
certainty.
Therefore we can also know with certainty that they are working to ensure that
when new energy systems are put in place, they are put in place in a way which allows the oligarchs
to retain their power, and ideally to expand it, without losing their thrones to rival plutocrats,
to governments, or (worst case scenario) to the rank-and-file public gaining control over their own
energy. This agenda is on the table. It is happening.
The ruling elites have many advantages over us, but one of the greatest is the fact that
they know exactly what they want and exactly where they're trying to push things, whereas we the
general public, on average, do not.
If we only had one positive anti-establishment
direction to push in there'd be no stopping us, and as soon as we find one the oligarchs will be
done. But in general and on average what we have is a few clear ideas about what we
don't
want
and a great many vague, frequently contradictory ideas about what we
do
want. This lack of
clarity in direction always leaves us highly susceptible to the influence of any well-funded
narrative manager who steps forward to say "Oh yeah I know exactly where we're going! It's this
way, follow me!"
Luckily for us, there's a very clear demand we can add into the mix in this new push for
environmentalist reforms which runs directly counter to the interests of the empire that is trying
to manipulate our healthy impulses: de-fund the Pentagon.
There is no single, unified entity that is a larger polluter than America's dishonestly
labeled "Department of Defense".
Its yearly carbon output alone
dwarfs
that of entire first-world nations like Sweden and Portugal
; if the US military were its own
country it
would
rank 47th
among emitters of greenhouse gasses, meaning it's a worse polluter than over 140
entire nations. That's completely separate from the pollution already produced by the US itself.
None of the sociopathic corporations whose environmental impact is being rightly criticized
today come anywhere remotely close to that of the Pentagon.
They are going under the
radar.
And that's just greenhouse gas emissions, which the Pentagon's poisonous effects on our
environment are in no way limited to. As journalist Whitney Webb highlighted in
an
excellent article for
Mintpress News
about the wildly neglected subject of the US
military's ecological toxicity:
"Producing more hazardous waste than the five largest US chemical companies
combined, the US Department of Defense has left its toxic legacy throughout the world in the
form of depleted uranium, oil, jet fuel, pesticides, defoliants like Agent Orange and lead,
among others."
Webb documents how the US "has conducted more nuclear weapons tests than all other nations
combined", how US military interventionism in Iraq "has resulted in the
desertification
of 90 percent of Iraqi territory
, crippling the country's agricultural industry and forcing it
to import more than 80 percent of its food," and how
"US military bases, both domestic
and foreign, consistently rank among some of the most polluted places in the world."
"While the US military's past environmental record suggests that its current policies are not
sustainable, this has by no means dissuaded the US military from openly planning future
contamination of the environment through misguided waste disposal efforts," Webb writes.
This is all a massive environmental burden to take on for a branch of the government which
provides no other service to anyone beyond
bullying
the rest of the world into obedience
, wouldn't you agree? So get rid of it.
Surely with all this talk about the huge, sweeping changes that are required to avert climate
catastrophe we're not going to overlook the world's single worst polluter just because a few think
tankers and their plutocratic sponsors believe it's important for the US-centralized power alliance
to retain total global hegemony? If we're making huge, sweeping changes, the completely needless
globe-spanning US war machine would be the obvious place to start.
That's something we can inject into the mainstream dialogue as this environmental movement
grows, and the cool thing about it is that the establishment manipulators can't reject it or
they'll expose themselves. It's something we can demand that they can't legitimately say no to. We
can surf this clear, concrete, exciting and utterly indisputable idea on the surging momentum of
these climate demonstrations, and the same healthy impulse to save our planet that these budding
activists are now embodying will lift it right up and carry it to the top of mainstream awareness.
No sane person will reject this, so if anyone pushes back against it to say "No, not that," they'll
immediately spotlight the insane agendas they serve.
The US does not need any more military power than what other normal nations have:
enough to defend its own easily defended shores from unprovoked attack.
Anything beyond
that, and certainly the hundreds of environmentally toxic military bases circling our planet,
exists solely for the benefit of murderous dominating imperialists and sociopathic war profiteers.
Demanding a reversal of US military expansionism as a part of the environmental movement is sane on
its face and will benefit everyone, and it will also help highlight all unwholesome elements of
empire loyalism.
Foreign new coverage in modern western societies is controlled by intelligence agencies. There are no exceptions.
Notable quotes:
"... At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is simply too brain-washed and not too smart for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for any cure". ..."
"... For example, Nathan Rich's recent video shows how media biased reporting of Hong Kong compare with Ukraine riots. The contrast can't be anymore stark: ..."
"... All these so-called anti communist slant against countries, I suspect, have its origins in the Vatican. People seem to forget that they should bear false witness https://www.youtube.com/embed/yUGPIeE9kMc?feature=oembed ..."
@d
dan " ..media biased Hong Kong reporting ."
How would American cops react to punks tossing Molotov Cocktails at them? Arson is a felony
but there would be no need for a trial just a coroner.
@Godfree Roberts "The
weird result of this enormous, expensive effort is that, while we were busy lying to
ourselves about China "
At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is
simply too brain-washed and not too smart for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for
any cure".
For example, Nathan Rich's recent video shows how media biased reporting of Hong Kong
compare with Ukraine riots. The contrast can't be anymore stark:
@Godfree Roberts Here
is a good analysis of how the main stream media (MSM) gang up to give propaganda, and how I
wish they have objective comments about China or any country they do not like.
All these so-called anti communist slant against countries, I suspect, have its origins in
the Vatican. People seem to forget that they should bear false witness
"... The conservative movement's unwholesome obsession with Israel is not an entirely organic obsession to be sure. There is a whole lot of dark kosher oligarch money lurking behind the neoconservative cause, Christian Zionism, and the Reagan/Zioboomer battalion ..."
"... there is something awfully peculiar, almost disturbing about the old guard's infatuation with Israel. I mean, why are American boomers so concerned about the Jewish state and its survival? How exactly does a tiny apartheidesque ethnostate half-way around the world affect their everyday lives? Are they simply mind-slaves to a mainstream media dominated by powerful Jews and powerful Jewish interest groups? Is this all really about scripture as Christian radio likes to contend? Or is there something else afoot here? Well, in short, there is. ..."
"... White Westerners, white Americans in particular, are a thoroughly vassalized, deracinated people. We aren't allowed to celebrate our own race's host of historic accomplishments anymore. That would be racist. We aren't allowed to put our own people first either, as all other peoples do. That would likewise be racist. White Western peoples aren't even allowed to have nations of our own any longer, nations which exist to advance our interests, and which are populated by and overseen by people like us, who share our interests and our attitudes. That also would be, you guessed it, racist. Our very existence is increasingly little more than an unfortunate, racist obstacle to a brighter, more diverse future, in the eyes of the Cultural Marxist sociopaths who rule the Western World. Needless to say, most white Americans would rather be dead than racist, and so we are naturally, quite literally dying as a result. ..."
"... The white American psyche has been tamed, broken as it were. Ziocucking is a symptom of that psychic injury. ..."
"... White Americans can not, they must not, stake claim to an identity or a future of their own, so they have essentially committed themselves to another people's identity and future instead of their own. ..."
"... Actually, Donald Trump's electoral victory is at least partially attributable to a very similar psychological phenomenon. White Americans, who have largely lost the self-confidence to stand behind their traditions and convictions, still had the gumption to vote for a man who possesses in oodles and cringy oodles, the self-same self-confidence they lack. White Americans are thus engaged in an almost unstated, indirect, vicarious defiance of Cultural Marxism via Trump/Trumpism, a tangible, albeit somewhat incoherent, symbol of open revolt against Western elites. The repressed group will of whites is longing for an authentic medium of civilizational expression, but can only find two-bit demagoguery and Israel worship. The weather is not fair in the white, Western mind. ..."
"... After all, the birthrates of Jews in Israel are at well above replacement level . Israelis are optimistic about the future. As whites in the West fall on their proverbial sword to atone for their racist past, Jews in Israel are thriving. ..."
"... that unwholesome obsession will not dissipate until whites reclaim their own history, rediscover their roots, learn to take their own side, and demand a place in the planet's future (yes, I said demand , ..."
"... Until whites have a story and a spirit of their own, they will only, and can only, live through the identities and triumphs of other races. And perhaps most critically, they will continue to be a ghost people on the march to extinction. ..."
The conservative movement's unwholesome obsession with Israel is not an entirely organic
obsession to be sure. There is a whole lot of dark kosher oligarch money lurking behind the
neoconservative cause, Christian Zionism, and the Reagan/Zioboomer battalion. Nevertheless,
whether organic or not, the boomer generation's excessive regard for Israel is today authentic
and undeniable. A strong fealty to Israel is deeply entrenched amongst boomer-generation
conservatives. Indeed, when it comes to defending Israel and its conduct, many of these types
are like samurais on meth. They don't seem to care at all if their entire state or city should
devolve into a semi-anarchic New Somalia, but god forbid some Somali congresswoman should
lambaste the sacred Jewish state. That simply can't be countenanced here in the land of the
free!
Mind you, this article is not meant to constitute a polemic against Israel, or Jewish
ethnopolitics for that matter. The BDS movement is just as wrongheaded as Ziocuckoldry, in my
humble opinion. Although there is much wrong with Israel, there is plenty right with it as
well. Despite what the modern left may believe, there is nothing inherently illegitimate about
a state like Israel, one rooted in history, in genes, in religion, and in race. States built
around a shared ethnicity or a shared religion (or, as in Israel's case, an ample helping of
both) are generally more stable and successful than diverse societies erected upon propositions
most people and peoples don't really accept, or leftist values that have ideological quicksand
for their foundations.
With that said, there is something awfully peculiar, almost disturbing about the old guard's infatuation with Israel. I
mean, why are American boomers so concerned about the Jewish state and its survival? How exactly does a tiny apartheidesque ethnostate half-way around the world
affect their everyday lives? Are they simply mind-slaves to a mainstream media dominated by
powerful Jews and powerful Jewish interest groups? Is this all really about scripture as
Christian radio likes to contend? Or is there something else afoot here? Well, in short, there
is.
White Westerners, white Americans in particular, are a thoroughly vassalized, deracinated
people. We aren't allowed to celebrate our own race's host of historic accomplishments anymore.
That would be racist. We aren't allowed to put our own people first either, as all other
peoples do. That would likewise be racist. White Western peoples aren't even allowed to have
nations of our own any longer, nations which exist to advance our interests, and which are
populated by and overseen by people like us, who share our interests and our attitudes. That
also would be, you guessed it, racist. Our very existence is increasingly little more than an
unfortunate, racist obstacle to a brighter, more diverse future, in the eyes of the Cultural
Marxist sociopaths who rule the Western World. Needless to say, most white Americans would
rather be dead than racist, and so we are naturally, quite literally dying as a result.
The white American psyche has been tamed, broken as it were. Ziocucking is a symptom of that
psychic injury. Because white boomers possess no group/tribal identity any longer, or
collective will, or sense of race pride, or civilizational prospects, because they have been enserfed by a viciously anti-white Cultural Marxist overclass, they have opted to live
vicariously through another race. White Americans can not, they must not, stake claim to an
identity or a future of their own, so they have essentially committed themselves to another
people's identity and future instead of their own. Indeed, just as the cuckold doesn't
merely permit another man to penetrate his wife, but actually takes a kind of perverse pleasure
in the pleasure of that other man, in large measure by fetishizing his dominance and sexual
prowess, the Ziocuck likewise doesn't merely allow his civilization to be debased, he takes an
equally perverse pleasure in the triumphs of other peoples and nations, and by so doing
imagines, mistakenly of course, that America itself is still as free and proud a nation as
those foreign nations he fetishizes.
Actually, Donald Trump's electoral victory is at least partially attributable to a very
similar psychological phenomenon. White Americans, who have largely lost the self-confidence to
stand behind their traditions and convictions, still had the gumption to vote for a man who
possesses in oodles and cringy oodles, the self-same self-confidence they lack. White Americans
are thus engaged in an almost unstated, indirect, vicarious defiance of Cultural Marxism via
Trump/Trumpism, a tangible, albeit somewhat incoherent, symbol of open revolt against Western
elites. The repressed group will of whites is longing for an authentic medium of civilizational
expression, but can only find two-bit demagoguery and Israel worship. The weather is not fair
in the white, Western mind.
Through this sordid, vicarious identitarianism, threats to Jewish lives become threats to
their own white lives. Jewish interests become tantamount to their own interests. It is a sad
sight to behold anyhow, a people with no sense of dignity or shame, too cowed by political
correctness to stand up for their own group interests, too brainwashed to love themselves, too
reprogrammed to be themselves, idolizing alien peoples. Nevertheless, the need for belonging in
place, time, and history, and for collective purpose, doesn't just go away because Western
elites say being white signifies nothing but "hate". As white civilization aborts and hedonizes
itself into extinction, as whites practice suicidal altruism and absolute racial denialism,
atomized white individuals seek out other histories, other stories, other peoples to attach
themselves to and project themselves onto.
White Americans have thus foolishly come to see their own destiny as inseparable from the
destiny of a people whose destiny they don't really share.
After all, the birthrates of Jews in Israel are at well above replacement level .
Israelis are optimistic
about the future. As whites in the West fall on their proverbial sword to atone for their
racist past, Jews in Israel are thriving.
As whites in America suffer from various epidemics of despair , their fellow white
Americans seem more interested in the imaginary plight of Israelis who can't stop winning
military skirmishes, embarrassing their Arab enemies, and unlawfully acquiring land and
resources in the Levant. The actual, visceral plight of their own people seems almost an
afterthought to most white Americans. The whole affair is frankly bizarre and shameful.
This peculiar psychological phenomenon of vicarious identitarianism is at least partially
responsible for the Zioboomer's undying devotion to Israel. Furthermore, that unwholesome
obsession will not dissipate until whites reclaim their own history, rediscover their roots,
learn to take their own side, and demand a place in the planet's future (yes, I said
demand , since the white race's many enemies have no intention of saving a place for
them or willingly handing them a say in that future). Until whites have a story and a spirit of
their own, they will only, and can only, live through the identities and triumphs of other
races. And perhaps most critically, they will continue to be a ghost people on the march to
extinction.
A related phenomenon is Russia-cucking. White American conservatives who have seen through
Jewish bullshit often seem to conclude that the racial predicament in America is hopeless, so
they switch to Russia-cucking. Being pro-Russia is obviously more sensible than being
pro-Israel, but it's nationalism by proxy all the same.
A presentation and reading by Hamilton Gregory, author of "McNamara's Folly: The Use of
Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam." Because so many college students were avoiding military service
during the Vietnam War, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara lowered mental standards to induct
354,000 low-IQ men. they were known as McNamara's "Moron Corps." Their death toll in combat was
appalling. Gregory indicates at the end of his talk that the situation didn't really change.
The same practice is taking place nowadays.
England patriot says:
September
24, 2019 at 5:27 pm GMT 100 Words A lot of people mistake low IQ brutishness for genuine
bravery and strength, which is why blacks are considered by many whites to be the toughest race
and probably why they are favoured by the military.
A big weakness of the US and UK militaries is the assumption that street thugs make the most
effective and capable troops, in reality such people are often the most useless and cowardly in
an actual war zone. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All
Comments
The story is definitely true. Not only were there low moron troops but even the so called
West Point graduates with no experience in war were complete idiots. It was a two fold fiasco
because these graduates couldn't read coordinates on maps and the morons couldn't find them
and thus they often bombed our own troops.
There were a lot "friendly fire" deaths that were never reported. The carnage of Vietnam
was a disgrace from poor military strategies to morons and incompetents running them. We were
not prepared for the "Jungle Type Gorilla War" our leaders got us into and the results are
told forever on the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. What did they die for? Another
"Communist" are taking over Domino Policy when the true Communist Jews were running the stuff
in the USA and destroying us.
Two destroyers were recently collided into by slow-moving merchant ships. Someone said that
this is like a Chevy Corvette being struck by a bulldozer on the Bonneville Salt Flats while
a team of trained experts had the job of keeping the Corvette from being hit.
@A123
Any civilization that sends their Best and Brightest to the front lines is taking huge risks.
Cannon fodder troops generally come (and should come) from the lower tiers of society. This
promotes a nation's long-term health and vitality.
There is no starvation–only fasting–during Ramadan. Fasting occurs each day
from sunrise to sundown. On the other hand, Israel's high fertility rates among Orthodox and
Sephardic Jews has dysgenics written all over it. This explains why Israel's average IQ
average remains below 100. Highly religious and less-intelligent Jews are producing a
disproportionate number of the births inside Israel.
It's a lesson the US could've learned back in World War II. The US deployed black troops in
France, and instead of proving that the blacks were just as capable fighters as the whites,
the blacks engaged in typical black behavior of rape and thievery. It got so bad in areas
like Cherbourg that the local population preferred the Germans over their supposed
'liberators'.
The same thing happened earlier in the war when the Allies deployed Moroccan mercenaries
in Italy.
After the battle of Monte Cassino, these savages could rape Italian women with impunity, they
wouldn't be stopped by the French, the British or indeed the Americans, and as a result more
than 30.000 Italian women became victims of these vicious assaults.
But I bet it was all in good faith of course, after all the US was making Europe safe for
stali I mean, 'democracy'
Politicians did not want the war to become an issue among the affluent. It was the old adage
about wars: "Rich men start them; poor men fight them." There were plenty of chicken hawks
around.
The article and comments, so far, are interesting.
A military is a tool of the ruling class/caste/layer/whatever. What is moronic, or not, is
for them to decide. The only principle: is the tool good for the job?
There are several very good reasons to have "low-level IQ" troops in the military, a
modern war/combat in particular.
In an infantry company of, say, 160 men, a smart O.C. would love to have 10-20 of those
types. Plenty of jobs/assignments for them and definitely attributing to combat efficiency of
the unit.
Even better in logistics, especially in higher units/rear areas. Comparison:
warehouse/storage facilities employees in civvy street.
BTW, those guys, if/when properly treated (LEADERSHIP) can be utterly loyal and
dependable. For "experts" around, there are plenty of miserable, mind-numbing jobs/tasks in
the military, plus quite dangerous, which those guys shall do when others won't. If .treated
properly
And, one more element, especially in contemporary wars: certain moral attitude, "relaxed"
approach to human life and limb etc. Ability to commit acs of war other, more, say, smart,
"sensitive" troops, are reluctant to do.
Israel. IDF as the state tool to keep Palestinians under control.
Occupation forces of The Empire in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And one more thing: for suppressing possible internal unrest in a Western country ..For
that job you really don't want very intelligent/sensitive people.
Etc.
Big topic but, of course, not for this thread, for obvious reasons. Program.
Sorry for the interruption, guys. Feel free to resume the "bashing".
Infantry in Vietnam was known to be awful. Everyone in the military knew to avoid it. It was
openly used as a threat for non-compliance to troops elsewhere.
There were certainly exceptions. Some Marines, people wanting or needing to get their
ticket punched, etc. But before anything, Vietnam Infantry was getting the dregs. Not that I
doubt McNamera leaned into it as an opportunity.
Why in the world did they want or need all these troops? Westmorland kept asking for more
and more. After 500,000, per the pentagon papers, the JCS mood Westmorland that given US
presence in Europe, Japan, Korea, etc., there were no more extra troops.
Too bad that the US military has made a cottage industry out of revisionist accounts
regarding how it could have been "won". Showing a remarkable lack of insight into what it
means to win.
@A123
Interesting to see how a conniving Jew takes a piece about Vietnam and uses it to further his
objective of trying (quite unsuccessfully, one infers) to generate sympathy for the
Judenreich. He then doubles down with a further tangent leading somehow to Ramadan (!) It's
almost comical how transparent Jew scheming has become. It makes one wonder if the Hasbara
brigades have had to go low-IQ at this point?
Both in terms of IQ and class background, infantry in Vietnam were generally
representative of the general population. As one author assessed, "If they [soldiers in
combat units] were not the social and intellectual cream of American youth, neither were they
its dregs or castoffs."
nI saw the author of the book give at talk. I believe it was at a Tennessee Unversity. What
he described he saw as an enlisted man if I remember correctly. He was sent to OCS later and
sounded a very decent man. The conditions were awful for these guys. They were treated as
expendable by peers and officers alike.
I wonder how the IDF works this issue out. The Israelis are masters of the universe at
everything don't you know. They are utter geniuses.
"... Citing a "political and humanitarian crisis" committed by Caracas, the White House Office of the Press Secretary issued a "suspension of entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants of persons who threaten Venezuela's democratic institutions." ..."
"... The move comes as the latest effort from the Trump administration to oust Venezuela's president. ' ..."
'US President Donald Trump has moved to suspend Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's
senior officials, relatives, and others who receive financial benefits from entering into
the US in Wednesday press release from the White House.
Citing a "political and humanitarian crisis" committed by Caracas, the White House
Office of the Press Secretary issued a "suspension of entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants
of persons who threaten Venezuela's democratic institutions."
The move comes as the latest effort from the Trump administration to oust Venezuela's
president. '
Netanyahu's coalition was given the nod because they have 55 seats to the other side's
54.
There's still some question about whether Netanyahu can form a governing coalition.
But
Netanyahu now has 42 days to convince his former Defense Minister(!) Lieberman
(who heads the Yisrael Beiteinu Party) to join the coalition led by Likud.
"The US served as a benevolent hegemon,
administering the occasional rap on the knuckles
to those acting in bad faith"
". Meanwhile, the system's multilateral institutions,
especially the International Monetary Fund,
helped countries in dire need of funds,
provided they followed the rules."
Behind the escalating global conflict over trade and technology is a larger breakdown of the
postwar rules-based order, which was based on a belief that any country's growth benefits
all. Now that China is threatening to compete directly with the United States, support for
the system that made that possible has disappeared.
By RAGHURAM G. RAJAN
CHICAGO – Another day, another attack on trade. Why is it that every dispute –
whether over intellectual property (IP), immigration, environmental damage, or war
reparations – now produces new threats to trade?
For much of the last century, the United States managed and protected the rules-based
trading system it created at the end of World War II. That system required a fundamental
break from the pre-war environment of mutual suspicion between competing powers. The US urged
everyone to see that growth and development for one country could benefit all countries
through increased trade and investment.
Under the new dispensation, rules were enacted to constrain selfish behavior and coercive
threats by the economically powerful. The US served as a benevolent hegemon, administering
the occasional rap on the knuckles to those acting in bad faith. Meanwhile, the system's
multilateral institutions, especially the International Monetary Fund, helped countries in
dire need of funds, provided they followed the rules....
"The US served as a benevolent hegemon, administering the occasional rap on the knuckles to
those acting in bad faith"
USA foreign policy since 70th was controlled by neocons who as a typical Trotskyites
(neoliberalism is actually Trotskyism for the rich) were/are hell-bent of world domination
and practice gangster capitalism in foreign policy. Bolton attitude to UN is very symptomatic
for the neocons as a whole.
Madeline "not so bright" Allbright was the first swan. As well as Clinton attempts to
bankrupt and subdue Russia and criminal (in a sense of no permission from the UN) attack on
Yugoslavia. Both backfired: Russia became permanently hostile. The fact he and his coterie
were not yet tried by something like Nuremberg tribunal is only due to the USA dominance at
this stage of history.
The truth is that the dissolution of the USSR the USA foreign policy became completely
unhinged. And inside the country the elite became cannibalistic, as there was no external
threat to its dominance in the form of the USSR.
The USA stated to behave like a typical Imperial state (New Rome, or, more correctly,
London) accepting no rules/laws that are not written by themselves (and when it is convenient
to obey them) with the only difference from the classic imperial states that the hegemony it
not based on the military presence/occupation ( like was the case with British empire)
Although this is not completely true as there are 761 US Military Bases across the planet
and only 46 Countries with no US military presence. Of them, seven countries with 13 New
Military Bases were added since 09/11/2001. In 2001 the US had a quarter million troops
posted abroad.
Still as an imperial state that is the center of neoliberal empire the USA relies more on
financial instruments and neoliberal comprador elite inside the country.
With the collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008 the USA centered neoliberal empire
experiences first cracks. Brexit and election of Trump widened the cracks in a sense of
further legitimizing the ruling neoliberal elite (big middle finger for Hillary was addressed
to the elite as whole)
If oil price exceed $100 per barrel there will yet another crack or even repetition of the
2008 Great Recession on a new level (although we may argue that the Great Recession never
ended and just entered in Summers terms "permanent stagnation" phase)
Although currently with unhinged Trump at the helm the USA empire still going strong in
forcing vassals and competitors to reconsider their desire to challenge the USA. Trump
currently is trying to neutralize the treat from China by rejecting classic neoliberal
globalization mechanism as well as signed treaties like WTO. He might be successful in the
short run.
In the long run the future does not look too bright as crimes committed by the USA during
triumphal period of neoliberalism hangs like albatross around the USA neck.
EU now definitely wants to play its own game as Macron recently stated and which Merkel
tacitly supports. If EU allies with Russia it will became No.1 force in the world with the
USA No. 2. With severe consequences for the USA.
If Russia allied with China the USA No.1 position will hinge of keeping EU vassals in
check and NATO in place. Without them it will became No.2 with fatal consequences for the
dollar as world reserve currency and sudden change of the USA financial position due to the
level of external debt and required devaluation of the dollar.
Looks like 75 year after WWII the world started to self-organize a countervailing force
trying to tame the USA with some interest expressed by such players as EU, Russia, China,
India, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia. As well as ( in the past; and possibly
in the future as neoliberal counterrevolutions in both countries probably will end badly) by
Brazil and Argentina.
Only Canada, Australia and probably UK can be counted as the reliable parts of the USA
empire. That's not much.
"If Russia allied with China the USA No.1 position "........
Think Italy moving into the Axis in 1937? Or the Soviet German Non Aggression Pact.
Nuclear weapons removes the incentive for large "rearmaments" or not?
Would the Britain to France 1938 relationship describe the US to EU? Thinking in 1939
(1914?) terms Europe is less stitched together than in 1936.
This is a standard play in any color revolution. Possibility of emigrate is hanging like a
carrot to make protest more numerous and more violent. Kind of the reward for foot solves (who
are often students and have illusions as for their ability to move up the food chain after the
emigration) for their participation in the in color revolution.
The role of Taiwanese security agencies in riots still needs to be investigated... Hong Cong
protest changes the result of presidential elections in Taiwan and that probably was their main
role, as attempt to undermine sovereignty of China over Hong Cong in the long run are doomed to
be a failure. Taiwan now has renewed geopolitical importance for the USA and efforts to distance
it from China will multiply. So the main price might be the result of Taiwan presidential
elections.
In this case protesters were just pawns in a larger game.
Notable quotes:
"... the United States is waging a campaign to force China into a corner and inflict major geopolitical defeats. ..."
"... The United States already is entangled in the dispute over Taiwan’s political status. Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, Washington made a commitment to provide Taipei with “defensive” weaponry and to regard any coercive moves by Beijing as a threat to the peace of East Asia. Under the Trump administration, U.S. policy has become even more supportive of Taiwan’s de facto independence. American officials complained about the decision of the Solomon Islands to recognize Beijing instead of Taipei and threatened to reconsider aid to that country. ..."
"... Even more significant, for the first time since Washington severed formal diplomatic ties with Taipei and switched them to Beijing in 1979, high-level U.S. security officials, including former national security adviser John Bolton, have met with their Taiwanese counterparts . The Trump administration has also approved an $8 billion arms sale that includes F-16 fighters . Beijing protests all U.S. weapons sales to Taipei, but the reaction this time seems especially angry. ..."
"... o doubt that swaying the upcoming Taiwan election was one of the goals of the "protest" apparatus and its backers. Tsai was looking weak until the "protests." ... ..."
"... sub-title: and especially avoid any manifestations of meddling. Not sure how that can be accomplished, my understanding is that NED et al are up to their eyeballs in meddling, taxpayer funded, and Chinese govt is well aware of that. ..."
"... "Chinese leaders also suspect that the United States is fomenting much of the trouble in Hong Kong. It is tempting to dismiss such accusations as nothing more than typical propaganda and scapegoating on the part of a beleaguered communist regime." ..."
"... Well, thank goodness one of the articles Mr. Carpenter linked to mentioned the U.S. government's National Endowment for Democracy, which distributed over $400,000 to three groups in Hong Kong last year. ..."
“We hope that before Communist China’s
National Day on Oct. 1, our friends in Taiwan can express their support for Hong Kong through
street protests,” Wong
said at a news conference on September 3. "A lot of people in the past have said 'today
Hong Kong and tomorrow Taiwan.' But I think the most ideal thing we'd say is 'Taiwan today,
tomorrow Hong Kong.' Hong Kong can be like Taiwan, a place for freedom and democracy."
Advertisement
Such sentiments by themselves are enough to enrage Beijing. But Wong also urged Taiwan's
government to let Hong Kong protesters seek political asylum. Worse from Beijing's standpoint,
he made those statements not in Hong Kong or some neutral location, but in Taipei following
meetings with Taiwan's governing, pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Communist Chinese leaders are likely to interpret such a venue as further evidence of a Hong
Kong-Taiwanese political alliance against the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Beijing’s persistent attempts to undermine Hong Kong’s political autonomy under
its “one county, two systems” arrangement has caused Taiwanese attitudes to turn
emphatically against such a formula for their island. Most Taiwanese were never enthusiastic
about that proposal, but the proposed Hong Kong extradition law (just now withdrawn) that would
have enabled Chinese authorities to try Hong Kong-based political dissidents in mainland courts
has soured Taiwanese public opinion even more. A poll that Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs
Council published in late July
found that 88.7 percent of respondents rejected one country, two systems, up from 75.4 per
cent in a January survey.
The Hong Kong democracy campaign is strengthening hardline, anti-PRC factions in Taiwan.
Incumbent President Tsai appeared to be in deep political trouble earlier this year.
Taiwan’s continuing
economic malaise had undermined her presidency, and the DPP suffered huge losses in
November 2018 local elections. Indeed, the losses were so severe that Tsai had to
quit her post as party chair. She also faced a strong primary challenge for the DPP’s
presidential nomination from her onetime prime minister, James Lai.
But Tsai has shrewdly exploited public anger at Beijing’s crude attempts to undermine
Hong Kong’s autonomy to rebuild her domestic political support. “As long as I am
here, I will stand firm to defend Taiwan’s sovereignty,”
Tsai pledged in July. “As long as I am here, you would not have to fear, because we
will not become another Hong Kong.” That message resonated with voters, and not only did
she defeat Lai, but her fortunes against the opposition Kuomintang Party in the upcoming
general election appear far more favorable than they did a few months ago.
The Hong Kong developments have created a political nightmare for the Kuomintang. The
party’s nominee, Han Kuo-yu, the maverick populist mayor of Kaohsiung, had long advocated
closer relations with the mainland. To that end, he sought to resume the policy that the last
Kuomintang president, Ma Jing-jeou, pursued from 2008 to 2016. Earlier this year, Han visited
China and had cordial meetings with Communist Party officials. He has always seemed highly
favorable to the PRC’s one country, two systems arrangement for Taiwan as well as Hong
Kong. Both the Chinese government and pro-Beijing media outlets in Taiwan (the so-called red
media) were decidedly enthusiastic about
Han’s candidacy against more moderate opponents in the Kuomintang Party’s
primary election this summer.
But the popularity of the Hong Kong pro-democracy demonstrations among Taiwanese voters has
thrown Han on the defensive, and he is beating a very fast retreat from his previous position.
In a desperate attempt to rebut allegations that he would embrace an appeasement policy toward
Beijing, Han even
asserted that, if he is elected president, Taiwan would only accept China’s one
country, two systems proposal “over my dead body.” It is not clear how credible his
eleventh-hour political transformation is with Taiwanese voters.
Chinese leaders also suspect
that the United States is fomenting
much of the trouble in Hong Kong.
... ... ...
As much as Americans are understandably pleased with the democratic factions in Hong Kong
and Taiwan, Washington must temper its enthusiasm—and especially avoid any manifestations
of meddling. We must not give PRC leaders reason to believe that the United States is
waging a campaign to force China into a corner and inflict major geopolitical defeats.
Caution in both capitals is imperative. The next few months, perhaps even the next few weeks,
may determine whether East Asia remains at peace.
The United States already is entangled in the dispute over Taiwan’s political
status. Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, Washington made a commitment to provide Taipei
with “defensive” weaponry and to regard any coercive moves by Beijing as a threat
to the peace of East Asia. Under the Trump administration, U.S. policy has become even more
supportive of Taiwan’s de facto independence. American officials complained about the
decision of the Solomon Islands to recognize Beijing instead of Taipei and
threatened to reconsider aid to that country.
Even more significant, for the first time since Washington severed formal diplomatic
ties with Taipei and switched them to Beijing in 1979, high-level U.S. security officials,
including former national security adviser John Bolton, have met with their Taiwanese counterparts . The Trump
administration has also approved an $8 billion arms sale that includes
F-16 fighters . Beijing protests all U.S. weapons sales to Taipei, but the reaction this
time seems especially angry.
US foreign policy has never been our strong suit. We change government every 4 years or 8,
meaning the State Department has a lot of turnover and is politically influenced to the
political doctrine in vogue, for any elected party. My personal best current day example is
North Korea. NK fears if they sign on with the US, their leaders fate will follow that of
Saddam and Gaddafi. Friends one day , next we turn on them. Even invade.
Reality is we have zero influence with Beijing, or Moscow. China has their hands full for
sure consuming Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
Wow---so Ted Galen Carpenter is going full propagandist now. N o doubt that swaying the
upcoming Taiwan election was one of the goals of the "protest" apparatus and its backers.
Tsai was looking weak until the "protests." ...
sub-title: and especially avoid any manifestations of meddling. Not sure how that can be
accomplished, my understanding is that NED et al are up to their eyeballs in meddling,
taxpayer funded, and Chinese govt is well aware of that.
The mainland Chinese government expects acquiescence to its one China policy. Too bad Hong
Kong's Chinese people and the Taiwanese already have their own identities. Not.
"Chinese leaders also suspect that the United States is fomenting much of the trouble in
Hong Kong. It is tempting to dismiss such accusations as nothing more than typical propaganda
and scapegoating on the part of a beleaguered communist regime."
Well, thank goodness one of the articles Mr. Carpenter linked to mentioned the U.S.
government's National Endowment for Democracy, which distributed over $400,000 to three
groups in Hong Kong last year. Said agency was the subject of an article here at TAC
only a year or so ago, which can be found at
https://www.theamericancons... .
Readers of this report might find it of worth, and might consider the other countries in
which the NED "promotes" "democracy."
Interesting and new to me as well. I do recall reading several articles that the Mig 15 was a
huge leap in military technology and the Mig 17 was the best subsonic fighter ever fielded.
The MiG Alley battles produced many fighter aces. The top aces were Russian. Nikolay
Sutyagin claimed 21 kills, including nine F-86s, one F-84 and one Gloster Meteor in less than
seven months. His first kill was the F-86A of Robert H. Laier on 19 June 1951 (listed by the
Americans as missing in action), and his last was on 11 January 1952, when he shot down and
killed Thiel M. Reeves, who was flying an F-86E (Reeves is also listed as MIA). Other famous
Soviet aces include Yevgeni G. Pepelyayev, who was credited with 19 kills, and Lev Kirilovich
Shchukin, who was credited with 17 kills, despite being shot down twice himself.
During the Korean War, NATO Allies wanted so badly to examine a MiG at close quarters
that they offered a US$100,000 reward for any pilot who would defect and bring his MiG-15
with him. When a North Korean pilot, Lt. Ro Kun Suk, did defect in September of 1953, he was
not aware of the reward, but was given it anyway.
I had heard that the Mig 17 was deliberately kept out of the war as it would have decimated
the US Air Force forcing them to do something really stupid like drop a nuke. Could be an
urban legend.
"The Israeli military is armed with the latest fast jets and precision weaponry, yet it has
turned to its fleet of drones to hit targets in Iraq. Deniability has played a big factor
– the ability of drones to elude radar and therefore keep targets guessing about who
actually bombed them is playing well for Israeli leaders who are trying to prevent an
increasingly lethal shadow war with Iran from developing into an open conflict."
Right! If you get into the cui bono game, the list is pretty long including US shale oil
companies.
Russia, too. I'm surprised that the 'Russia dun it crowd' (Team Pelosi) hasn't blamed it
all on Putin. I mean, isn't everything bad that happened since Nov. 2016 Putin's fault.
But now it would appear that Iran is the villain du jour. Maybe they'll even get blamed
for Trump's reelection next year!
In terms of cui bono, you can group Wall Street investors and banksters in with shale oil
companies they desperately need the shale oil companies to finally start generating some
profits. What better way than to knock out shal oil's biggest competitor?
But, as I said, Iran has become the villain du jour, even though they have the deterrent
capability of closing the Strait of Hormuz and taking most ME oil off line. To hear the
neocons, even that deterrence is not enough to dissuade them from a war on Israel's behalf.
To them war is certainly preferable to trying to make room for Iranian sovereignty and assure
the flow of ME oil to world markets.
Could this be the sort of false-flag
op where explosives are planted by
non-foreign operators to make a lot of
smoke and minimal real damage, and make
it look like the work of 'enemy missiles',
sort of like the 'Wag The Dog' plot. It
might be well worth it to Certain Parties
to even do a modest amount of real damage.
Iran's Foreign Minister Vows 'All-Out War'
if US or Saudis Strike https://nyti.ms/2AxMgFi
NYT - Richard Pérez-Peña - September 19
A military strike against Iran by the United States or Saudi Arabia would result in "an
all-out war," Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said on Thursday, repeating his
government's denial of responsibility for an attack last week that damaged Saudi oil
facilities.
The Houthi rebel faction in Yemen -- supported by Iran in its fight against a Saudi-led
coalition -- claimed responsibility for the Saturday attack. But Saudi and American officials
blamed Iran, raising the threat of military retaliation. But so far it is not clear how they
will react.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran of carrying out an "act of war" with the
aerial attacks, but President Trump has appeared reluctant to order a military strike.
...
----
Trump's National Security Aides to Meet on
Possible Iran Options https://nyti.ms/2QgO2pa
NYT - Eric Schmitt - September 19
WASHINGTON -- Senior national security officials from across the government are scheduled
to meet Thursday to refine a list of potential targets to strike in Iran, should President
Trump order a military retaliation for missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabian oil fields
last weekend, officials said.
Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, are to present the updated options to Mr. Trump at a National Security
Council meeting scheduled for Friday, a senior American official said.
In advance of being presented with the newest set of options, Mr. Trump has sent different
signals on his intentions. He has threatened to order "the ultimate option" of a strike on
Iran to punish the nation for its behavior, but also has made clear his continued opposition
to ordering the United States into another war in the Middle East.
The Pentagon is advocating military strikes that one senior official described as at the
lower end of options. The official said that any retaliation could focus on more clandestine
operations -- actions that military planners predict would not prompt an escalation by Iran.
...
"The Russian Foreign Ministry issued an immediate response to the new US measures
denouncing them as "illegitimate."
"This will not affect our approaches to Iran," said Zamir Kabulov, the director of the
Russian Foreign Ministry Second Asian Department. "As we planned, we will continue to
cooperate with Iran in the banking sector. This will have no effect [on Moscow's position]
"
While Beijing, which counts Saudi Arabia as its second-largest source of oil imports, was
somewhat more circumspect, it is highly unlikely that any new measures will affect its own
ties to Iran. China accounts for half of Iran's sharply reduced oil exports, and Beijing and
Tehran this month signed $400 billion worth of deals connected to Beijing's Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI) of which Iran is a key component.
The sanctions imposed by the Trump administration after ripping up the nuclear agreement
in May 2018 amount to an economic blockade, tantamount to a state of war. They have led to
shortages of food and medicines, leaving cancer patients to die."
"Tehran has vehemently denied these accusations. The Houthi rebels, who control the
bulk of Yemen, claimed responsibility, declaring the attacks an act of self-defense against
the murderous US-backed war that the Saudi monarchy has waged against Yemen for nearly
four-and-a-half years, killing nearly 100,000 Yemenis and driving 8 million more to the brink
of starvation."
"The cost of the Patriot missile defense systems run into the billions while the price of
each missile that they fire is estimated at $5 million. This massively expensive weaponry
proved useless in countering drones costing a few thousand dollars that devastated the
world's largest oil refining facility."
The comments
"Authoritarian Western governments like the US, the UK, and Sweden preach an enlightened,
exalted rhetorical reverence for "the rule of law" and absolute dedication to "justice",
civil rights and due process. Meanwhile, whenever it serves their interests, their actions
are heinously and ruthlessly tyrannical, brutal, hypocritical, and capricious.
As we have seen over and over with Julian Assange, governments and their ministers of
(ostensible) justice will simply run roughshod over any technicalities and niceties that
ordinarily compel the release of incarcerated persons."
Pepe Escoabar (via Saker) has an interesting take on the Houthis capabilities and potential.
He suggests that they could destabilize Saudi Arabia via a lightning grab of Mecca and an
uprising of Shia in the eastern provinces. The recent successful drone attacks certainly must
have brought a smile to the Shia in that region and shown the ineptness of the Saudi military
and their US backers.
It is amusing to watch the US squirm over the failure of its radars and missile systems to
detect the attack. Also, if there any doubt, it was clearly the Houthis's handiwork likely
with help from Hezbollah. There was a good story on the drone's technical capabilities which
IIRC, carries a 100 pound warhead, flies at about 120 miles per hour and has a 1,000 mile
range approximately. Presumably, it uses GPS for guidance. Here is the link to the Escobar
story:
Mecca and the Red Sea port city of Jeddah are well within the range of drone and missile
strikes by the Houthis. They are not much farther away from the Yemeni border than Abqaiq is.
The Abqaiq attack serves as a warning to Riyadh of how vulnerable Mecca and Jeddah are, and
that warning could even have been the original intention of the attack.
I notice that Andrei Martyanov says that the Patriot systems have blind zones since they are
restricted to operate 7 degrees above the horizontal. According to Martyanov, this is in
contrast to the Russian S-series AD systems where missiles are launched vertically and then
take "a ride on the beam" towards the target. (This seems to explain the launch pattern of
these missiles where they are "popped" out vertically, whence their engines ignite sending
the missile off, (often) very low and flat towards their targets. http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2019/09/why-would-you-ask.html
From what Martyanov writes, it would seem that the US stuff has very serious design flaws.
Thanks for posting, I LOVED this episode of Crosstalk, because it was so contentious.
That delicious catfight between the "Arab" and the "Persian".
Arab guy clearly a vicious moron.
Persian guy seemed rational and logical compared to Arab guy, and then he goes on that
delicious rant about "What we will do to you, fucking Saudis, if you attack us!"
And not only Saudi Arabia will descend into Dante's hell, but AmeriKKKa too!
In complete fairness, though, Peter does simply talk over panelists he doesn't like until
they have to stop talking, because listeners can't make sense of two people talking loudly at
the same time. CrossTalk has its own politics, and the Arab was never going to get equal time
or have his viewpoints uncritically aired. He should have been allowed the same courtesy
everyone else was. I disagree strongly with what he was saying, but the immediate rejection
of his views and shouting him down did absolutely nothing to make the Kingdom look like the
party in the wrong.
Washington now claims cruise missiles were involved as well as drones. What bullshit. (a) An
enemy who was able to strike the Saudi oil fields with cruise missiles sent over drones as
well? (b) The Saudis had 50% of their damaged capacity back online in only a day, driving the
oil price spike back down? After a cruise-missile strike? Did they carry a warhead the size
of an orange? The Saudi oil fields are defenseless against a cruise-missile attack?
It's hard to say because some stuff is clearly being held back from public scrutiny. We don't
even know which weapons were fired at what targets.
My only thoughts about the domes is that they only need to be punctured by a high speed
delayed incendiary. If it is a weight trade off for range fuel v. warhead, then range wins if
popping a hole and igniting the gas is the aim. I don't know enough about the other
targets.
As others have pointed out, what is the intent behind these attacks? Is it an 'act
of war', a 'warning shot' or other? There are games within games and bluffs within bluffs
being played here.
You know who I feel sorry for in Saudi Arabia right now? The Air Defense Forces officer
in charge of the short range air defenses at the Abqaiq oil facility. He'll be lucky to get
out of this with his life.
On the one hand, elements within the USA want war with Iran really, really badly. Of slightly
greater value, though, is the opportunity to portray Trump as weak and dithering because he
hesitates to commit to it. But usually if Washington claims to have 'evidence it cannot
reveal publicly' , that's because it is making it up. When it makes up evidence which it
claims clearly demonstrates this or that, it always has a reason. I'm not sure yet what it
is, but the USA is very serious about putting Iran in the frame for it. They may have had
something to do with it, but like the so-convenient 'chemical attacks' in Syria. Iran would
have been beyond foolish to do something like that right now, while their attitude suggests
if they had done it, they'd be quite happy to own it.
It was a mystery to me how cruise missiles, drones or whatever could have evaded detection,
much less engagement, by US-supplied air defense systems. Per MOA, it was easy – US
systems such as the Patriot stare in one direction.
The PAC-2 and PAC-3 systems are sector defenses as their radars do not rotate. They can
only see an arc of 120°. In the case of the Saudis those radars only look towards the
east to Iran whcih is the most likely axis of attack. That left the crude oil processing
plant in Abqaiq completely unprotected against attacks from any other direction. Neither
Saudi Arabia nor the U.S. know from where the attack really came.
The foregoing explains why the US is unsure where the missiles originated despite the
knee-jerk braying by Pompeo. Moreover, it be be assumed that US Navy ships in the Gulf
certainly were scanning the skies yet apparently detected nothing from Iran. So it really
does look like the missiles originated from Yemen way.
I'd be careful about blaming Iran, in view of the allegation that the US-supplied air
defenses are focused in that direction and apparently did not even see the attack coming. It
also casts doubt on American bellowing that they have loads of new evidence that Iran was
responsible. If they had, why didn't they try to stop it?
What I find really amazing in that paragraph quoted from MoA is that these radars have such a
limited capability in surveying the skies. A 120° arc is about the same as the vision
span / field of view of one human eye. Two eyes working together increase the span to
210° or just over. How is it that current US radar defence technology development can't
produce a system of radars so that each can rotate at least 180° and can be paired with
another radar to provide a full 360° range of surveillance?
MOA suggests that the US has become stuck in the mindset that it will be always on the
offense thus has no need for a real defensive capability. That sort of worked with Iraq and
Grenada but against a country that can hit back, not so much. That profoundly inept piece of
junk Patriot missile system is proof positive.
I am not sure that stupidity is ever amazing- after all, it is very easy to do stupid things.
(Think Singapore, 1941) In all this, what took me a long time to accept is how
technologically advanced the Russian missile technology is- for example, it seems that
frequent swarm attacks by drones on the Russian air base at all been destroyed. Many decades
of research have clearly gone into the development of this technology. I suspect that the key
to this development was the strategic decision made by the Soviets back in the 70's to
develop missiles to destroy US carrier groups. Over a long period of time their missiles
became supersonic, and eventually the manoeuvrable hypersonic missiles that they have today.
Putin seems very confident that it will take many years for the US to catch up. He might be
right: "even 9 women cannot produce a baby within a month".
Kalen • 16 hours ago
There is no doubt that growing global tensions provocative rhetoric, erratic reckless
behavior of leadership , irrationality in global diplomatic , political or economic relations
permeating official propaganda narratives serve overall purpose of stoking nationalism as
counteroffensive to exploding class struggle worldwide.
In case of Saudis though it is all about destabilization of outdated medieval regime by US
and Israel via enticing trained in cruelty MbS to unnecessary useless and most of all
un-winnable Yemen war that in fact presents existential threat to the very existence of Saudi
puppet regime itself.
It is likely that Saudis regime will be at some point swept from power in the name of
progressive .. nationalism in fact fascism one way or another via sort of Arab color
revolution, as this medieval circus of flaccid clowns is too easy target for socialist
revolution.
In fact Saudi Arabia is ironically the prime place with required conditions for socialist
revolution to erupt not only because class division is so sharp and visible even embedded
into state law but also because working class there is truly international from Philippines,
Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia and entire MENA and level of their exploitation is horrific
practically amounts to slavery.
The fragility of Saudi regime was clearly shown by this attack on practically unprotected
critical oil infrastructure from low intensity warfare threat Saudi are engaged in fact by
proxy in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere, while spending $billions on useless junk that
in fact does not work at all as Houti ballistic missile attacks proved as while Soviet era
shor range ballistic missile missed the targets most of damage was done by falling patriot II
missiles falling down after missing their targets.
And hence Saudis and Turkey long wanted to buy Russian air defense systems already bought
by China, India and others triggering US sanctions against companies and individuals
involved.
US Empire is already a technical and scientific failure founded on fraud in military area
as well.
The question if quite primitive Houti forces were possibly able to pull of such attack of
about twenty armed drones (claimed by Houties 1500 km range) must be answered yes, with
recent technical support of Iranians (after reimposition of embargo) and local
spotters/controllers on the ground.
The similar swarm drone attacks was pulled by AQ terrorist affiliated forces (with US
training) several times against Russian Air and Navy base in Syria all unsuccessfully mostly
due to Russia electronic warfare capability and Panzir 2 system purposefully designed to
defend from drone swarm attacks.
The rather meek and balanced response of markets and politicians so far to this on its
face conditions imminent regional war involving nuclear powers tells me that there is no real
intention so far to start a war not because of better angel of ruling elites nature but
because they do not yet feel directly threatened by socialist revolution.
For them much valuable counterrevolutionary tool is inspiring nationalism simple threat of
war rather than war itself as it always unleashing law of unforeseen consequences and fuels
real political instability potentially threatening their own empires of domination.
Best way to prevent war is not defending national elites but engaging in international
socialist revolution.
jplotinus Kalen • 12 hours ago
In my view, the fact that Saudi Arabia's air defense system was unable to thwart an attack on
major oil infrastructure is quite damning and worthy of being the leading element of this
incident. However, as the Saudis have bought and paid for the very expensive but apparently
ineffective Patriot air defense system means that as little coverage as possible of this
aspect of the story will likely ensue in mainstream media.
I've noticed Putin has publicly offered to sell Saudi Arabia Russia's S-300 and S-400 air
defense systems. Hmmm
There will be no major war against Iran. The US will continue to try to strangle Iran but
success is becoming increasingly unlikely.
If there were to be a serious attack on Iran and Iran responded with its full capacity,
KSA could kiss its ass goodby. Desalination facilities would be targeted, oil infrastructure
would be destroyed including pipelines and loading facilities and power plants knocked out
all by missiles, US warships in the Gulf would be in dire straits as well. Yes, a social
revolution could then take place. I do wonder about the UAE. I hear that they are distancing
themselves from the Saudis lately.
The article and the comments..Absolute must read!!! (IMO)
e.g.
"Whatever the exact circumstances of the attacks on the Saudi oil facilities, they are being
exploited for the purpose of dragging the American people and all of humanity into a war that
can rapidly escalate into a regionwide and even global conflagration.
US strikes against Iran carried out under the pretext of retaliation for the attacks on
Saudi Arabia can trigger Iranian counterstrikes, sending US warships to the bottom of the
Persian Gulf and wreaking havoc on American military bases throughout the region.
The prospect of thousands of US soldiers and sailors dying as a result of Washington's
conspiracies and aggression carries with it the threat of the US government assuming
emergency powers and implementing police-state measures in the US itself in the name of
"national security."
This would, by no means, be an unintended consequence. The buildup to war is driven in
large measure by the escalation of social tensions and class struggle within the United
States itself, which has found fresh expression in the strike by 46,000 autoworkers against
General Motors. "
OR
"Charlotte Ruse • 12 hours ago
"If there is, as Washington claims, "no evidence' that the attacks were launched from Yemen,
one could, with equal if not greater justification, observe that there is likewise "no
evidence' that they were not launched by the US itself, or by its principal regional ally,
Israel.
If one proceeds from the age-old detective maxim of Cui bono? or Who benefits? Tehran is
the least likely suspect. There is clearly more to Washington's rush to judgment than meets
the eye."
Yes, Cui bono–who benefited most by this attack–all the usual neoconservative
warmongers who've been biting at the chomp for decades to go to War with Iran–the
"non-interventionist buffoon" may grant them their wish.
And undoubtedly, the usual Wall Street scum secured a financial "killing" as "Oil prices
rose 10 percent on Monday.
I think Tulsi Gabbard's tweet perfectly sums up who's in-charge of US foreign policy:
"Trump awaits instructions from his Saudi masters. Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's
bitch is not "America First." https://twitter.com/realDon
Iran having carried out the attack on the Abqaiq facilities from a southwest direction (when
it is to the northeast of the area of the attack) was a stunning achievement. How could Saudi
defences, aided by US satellites – and Israeli defences for that matter – have
possibly missed the Iranian drones or missiles as they circled around the entire Middle
Eastern region without being shot down before hitting those oil storage tanks?
"The barbaric war waged by Saudi Arabia on Yemen, with US military assistance, has been all
but omitted from the media coverage of the drone strikes. Since 2015, Saudi-led air strikes
on towns and cities in Houthi-held areas have killed tens of thousands of civilians, while
leaving 80 percent of the population in need of food aid and several million on the brink of
starvation.
Saudi war planes, armed with US and British bombs and provided with targeting information by
US officers based in Saudi Arabia, have carried out repeated attacks on civilian targets,
including schools, hospitals, residential areas, mosques and markets. Up to the end of last
year, the US also provided mid-air refueling for the Saudi-led onslaught.
Saudi Arabia has a huge military budget. Last year it ranked as the world's third highest
spender on military equipment, splurging for an estimated $67.6 billion. The ability of the
Houthi rebels to penetrate Saudi defences and strike crucial oil infrastructure has
heightened fears of further attacks."
(comment)
"Ric Size
The Trump administration & entire US political establishment must line-up behind the
narrative that Iran is responsible for this devastating drone strike. As noted in this
excellent article, Saudi Arabia now spends ~$68 billion annually on its military, and most of
this comes in the form of sophisticated weaponry from the US. But these expensive
instruments-of-death were unable to stop a coordinated drone attack from Yemeni rebels. This
calls into question the usefulness of Saudi Arabia-US alliance, and the sustainability of the
global petrodollar market.
A scapegoat is needed, and quickly. Look for an all-out war drive in the media, against Iran,
as a cover-up to this disaster. Gasoline prices will rise by at least a dollar a gallon
within a month, which is another embarrassment for political leaders during an election
cycle, and an added expense for workers who commute by vehicle."
"... The head of the White House, Donald Trump, declared that American policy towards the Ukraine was senseless of and added that Moscow should be a friend of Washington, and that no one cared about the Ukrainians. The day before, Estonian President Kersti Kaljulaid said that the European Union was experiencing fatigue from the Ukraine. ..."
The head of the White House, Donald Trump, declared that American policy towards the
Ukraine was senseless of and added that Moscow should be a friend of Washington, and that no
one cared about the Ukrainians. The day before, Estonian President Kersti Kaljulaid said that
the European Union was experiencing fatigue from the Ukraine.
US President Donald Trump considers US actions in the Ukraine senseless, which actions
at the same time aggravate relations with Russia, The Washington Post reports, citing a
former senior White House official.
According to the newspaper interlocutor, the president takes the position that
"Russians should be our friends".
"What we do in the Ukraine is pointless and annoying Russia", he said, describing the
president's opinion.
Earlier, former US Vice President Joe Biden called on Trump to publish a transcript of
a telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky.
"... Ukraine have never kept to the ceasefire and have been destroying settlements -- once they get control of the border – Donbass is finished. ..."
"... You mention the killing in Mariupol. The assassinations will continue and the people of Donbass will be made to pay. ..."
"... Five years has shown that real hatred has been unleashed – this is not going to go away. ..."
"... the Steinmeir formula is a con to hasten the end of Donbass. This was the guy who signed the agreement with Yanukovich on early elections etc and then stood back when he was overthrown. ..."
"... I also agree. This is a trap. No treaty should be signed unless DPR/LPR are guaranteed to control the border with Russia. ..."
"... The best defense against that would be the vote, which must take place first and under OSCE supervision, without Ukrainian meddling or coercion. If the vote indicated that a majority wants to return to Kiev's control, then that's what should happen. But I don't see it going that way. ..."
Major issue with this formula is "The transfer of the border"
Ukraine have never kept to the ceasefire and have been destroying settlements -- once they
get control of the border – Donbass is finished.
You mention the killing in Mariupol. The assassinations will continue and the people of Donbass will be made to pay.
Five years has shown that real hatred has been unleashed – this is not going to go
away.
Germany in my view plays a double game – they want this to happen – the Steinmeir formula is a con to hasten the end of Donbass. This was the guy who signed the
agreement with Yanukovich on early elections etc and then stood back when he was
overthrown.
We'll see. According to the Minsk Agreement, the elections and the autonomous status were
supposed to be settled before the border was returned to Ukrainian control. That has always
been an issue for Kuh-yiv. It wants to be trusted to have control over the Donbas before the
other elements are fulfilled. But as His Nibs Shaun Of The Dead Walker has pointed out before
now, 'the border' in that region is largely an illusion, and checkpoints are for those who
have to travel by road. Military units, especially heavy armor, do not.
I think what is most likely to happen is little troublesome uprisings across a broad
front, initiated by Azov Battalion and other Ukie militias and making use of 'loyal'
Ukrainians in Donbas and Lugansk.
This would create a governance problem for the regions, and
be portrayed in the western press as an earnest desire among the inhabitants to return to
Ukraine, 'now that the Russians have gone'.
The best defense against that would be the vote,
which must take place first and under OSCE supervision, without Ukrainian meddling or
coercion. If the vote indicated that a majority wants to return to Kiev's control, then
that's what should happen. But I don't see it going that way.
But what of the Russian army that has supposedly been entrenched in the Donbass these past
few years?
Surely, the Russian Army will not allow this ethnic cleansing to happen, for that surely
is what will happen, albeit "ethnic" is not the right word, even though the brain-dead Nazi
"true Slavs" from the West believe it is.
"Our actions have to become offensive and have the disintegration of the Russian
Federation as a conscious ultimate goal. This is the only effective long-term solution that
the vast majority of countries will benefit from.
attempts to pacify Russia lead only to the growth of its arrogance, as was was the case
with the return of the Russian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe.
Attempts to reach an agreement in a civilised way with the Russian Federation are also
doomed to fail, "since such a decision contradicts the main expansionist thinking of the
Kremlin regime".
"The Russian Federation, in its present borders and with its present resources, is never
capable of becoming a normal civilised state", said the diplomat.
Aleksandrovich emphasises that "ways of disintegrating the Russian Federation don't demand
conducting military operations".
The ambassador lists a number of tools via which it is possible to "pacify Russia":
1. personal sanctions against bosses with the freezing of assets and a ban on
entrance;
2. tight restrictions for energy, bank, and financial-military and technical sectors;
3. a ban on the sale of modern technologies;
4 .a collapse in oil prices.
"There comes a time when the last evil empire has to fall," summarized the Ukrainian
diplomat.
In his recent interview, Oleksandr Oleksandrovych claimed Russia 'uses Serbia to
destabilize situation in Western Balkans and thereby destroy Europe'
09:15, 3 November 2017
Ukrainian ambassador's views on Russia-Serbia relations and Russia's role in
continental security, all the more expressed publicly, are unacceptable. Ivica Tonchev, the
State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia said this as quoted by
Frontnews International, commenting on the statement recently made by the Ukrainian
diplomat.
'The main role of ambassadors is to do everything to improve bilateral relations,
primarily political and economic, as well as all other forms of cooperation. The Ambassador
of Ukraine to Serbia, Oleksandr Oleksandrovych, seems to be constantly forgetting this, since
all his activities are reduced to fruitless attempts to break relations between the Republic
of Serbia and the Russian Federation. In the latest series of scandalous interviews he gave,
he said that the Republic of Serbia does not pursue an independent foreign policy, that is,
it is in the hands of Russia, thus destabilizing the entire region of the Western Balkans,
thereby 'destroying Europe,' Tonchev said.
He also called on the Ukrainian government to take action on the Ambassador and his
unacceptable behavior so that Serbia 'was not forced to make the usual steps in such
situations.'
In recent interviews with Serbian media, Ukraine's Ambassador to Serbia Alexander
Alexandrovich said that Russia is using Serbia to destabilize the situation in the region, in
particular, encouraging separatism in Bosnia and trying to influence Macedonia. The
ambassador also mentioned the Serbian mercenaries fighting on the side of the Russian armed
formations in Donbas.
Oleksandr Oleksandrovych: he might be better suited to playing Count Dracula in horror
movies.
In fact, the ambassador stepped so much out of line in November 2017 that even
Rumpleklimkin, then Banderastan Foreign Minister, was forced to call him to hold
consultations in Kiev because of his statements to the Serbian media.
At the same time, Ivica Toncev, the State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Serbia, stated that the Ukrainian Ambassador Oleksandr Oleksandrovych's statements concerning
Russian influence on Serbia were unacceptable and threatened him with possible consequences
in accordance with the Vienna Convention.
Novosad is a graduate of the humanitarian lyceum in Kiev, and in 2011 she ended a
bachelor degree at the National University "Kiyevo-Mogilyansky Academy" as a "political
scientist". Two years later she received a master's degree in the Dutch Maastricht. She
studied in Spain and the Czech Republic, and was a scholar of the Soros fund. In addition, as Novosad wrote on Facebook, she took part in the Ukrainian-Canadian administrative program,
within the framework of which she attended a special course ran by the Canadian
authorities.
I.e., as we see, Anna Novosad is the classical representative of the new "Ukrainian
elite", which was raised and brought up abroad and which already is almost not connected to
Ukraine even at the mental level. And the reset of the Ukrainian authorities in the form of
"Zelensky's victory" was started to a large extent for the mass invasion of such artificially
grown mankurts that are supposed to completely remove people with a Soviet past and any ties
(family, friendly, business) with Russia from the country's governance structures.
And they absolutely do not need either knowledge of Ukrainian, knowledge of national
history, or understanding of what's admissible. Even intellectual qualities aren't especially
required from them, because their task is relaying the will of their masters and to control
their implementation.
And Farion doesn't like her because she can't talk the shitkicker Slav dialect as good as
she can. In fact, it's debatable whether Novosad can talk Yukie with any competence at
all.
Yes, what's the matter with her? Real Ukrainians ride sturdy ponies and wear their hair in
the khokol style. Government superiors are referred to as 'Hetman'. And there's a lot of
kneeling. The age of machines is an utter betrayal of Kievan ideals.
Seeing that both the Canadian ambassador to Banderastan and his boss the Canadian Foreign
Minister having family histories rooted in western Ukraine / Banderastan Ground Zero –
Waschuk's father and Freeland's maternal grandmother both from Ivano-Frankivsk – what
thoughts are we expected to have on Waschuk's participation and Freeland's approval for him
to attend other than that cliche: "Birds of a feather flock together?"
Ivano-Frankivsk; formerly Stanyslaviv, Stanislau, or Stanisławów. Became part of
the UkSSR within the USSR as per the shifting of the pre-WWII Eastern Polish frontier (set by
the Treaty of Versailles, 1919, but ignored by Poland) westwards and the transference of the
Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire's Kronland of Galitsia, capital Krakow and
administrative language Polish and not German as in other Kronländer , with the
exception of Hungarian in the Hungarian part of the dual Hapsburg Empire.
Religion: Roman Catholic or Greek Uniate, depending whether you are a Polish Pan or a
Ruthenian peasant shitkicker.
Built in the mid-17th century as a fortress of the Polish Potocki family,
Stanisławów was annexed to the Habsburg Empire during the First Partition of
Poland in 1772, after which it became the property of the State within the Austrian
Empire.
The fortress was slowly transformed into one of the most prominent cities at the foothills
of the Carpathian Mountains. After World War I, for several months, it served as a temporary
capital of the West Ukrainian People's Republic.
Galitsia, as Porky Poroshenko said, is the essence of Banderastan the Ukraine.
"Higher Justice is always done Once again, using humanistic principles, I address the
enemies of the Ukraine: 'Surrender to Ukrainian law enforcement! Voluntarily go to Ukrainian
prisons and don't leave them! Because God's punishment will inevitably come! Glory to the
nation! Death to enemies!'" -- Dmitry Yarosh, commenting on his Facebook page on the
murder of a DPR militiaman in Mariupol.
What can be said about this? A day has already passed since this extremist statement
was made, but no human rights organisation or international observer has reacted. The murder
of a DPR militiaman in Mariupol is obviously on the hands of nationalist battalions, but this
case, like many others, will be registered as unsolved or fabricated. The fact of the
exemplary punishment of people who supported the creation of the People's Republics testifies
to the true attitude of Kiev towards the residents of Donbass. That is why Zelensky is
against amnesty and wants elections after the People's Militia lays down their arms. As soon
as the UAF come here, objectionable persons will be simply slashed and killed, and Yarosh
only confirms this
I'll say it again, the world's great democracies don't have a problem with little
nazis and extremists. After all, they can be put back in their boxes when time is due,
just as they did with Adolf Hitler and just as they did with ISIS in Syria.
You wonder how many times these countries go around this bush of backing 'small groups'
that they then 'lose control of' leading to a much larger conflagration.
Accidental? Unintended? Repetitive? You won't have the great and good democratic
institutions or the representatives of the great free press publicizing cause and
effect much at all. What a bunch of Britneys!
As I understand it if a scope equipped assault automatic weapon can be targeted at point A to
point B, its versatility enables it to operate the other way 'round..from B to A.
And as regards the "crimes" in the Ukraine that he mentions, I should not imagine that
amongst those he includes the very recent and public murder of a Mariupol "Vatnik" and the
praise for which crime the murderer/s has/have very publicly received in Banderastan.
The clipped paragraph in Boyes' Times article above reads:
Now we're at it again. Thirty-five Ukrainians, including a film director and two dozen
hapless sailors, were this month traded for some hardnut separatists including Vladimir
Tsemakh, the commander of a Russian-backed unit in Donetsk which shot down the civilian MH17
airliner in 2014.
Plenty of Dutch and Australian relatives of the victims of that Malaysian Airlines
flight are unhappy that Tsemakh is
Perhaps it seems to Trump that Putin is the lever that will raise his moral weight and
authority. Perhaps he seems to him to be a useful partner in times of extreme global
confusion and volatility. It is possible that, in the opinion of the American president, a
rapprochement with Putin will strengthen his reputation in the world, and will by no means
will look like a fatal retreat. However, the principle should be that relations with Russia
cannot return to normal, as long as it keeps the Crimea, cynically taken away from the
Ukraine five years ago.
The Kremlin will try to fool the new and inexperienced president of the Ukraine, hoping
that Western leaders will put pressure on him and forget a lot. However, the country where
Sergey Skripal and his daughter were poisoned right before everyone's eyes should not
silently watch this rehabilitation.
[back translation from the Russian]
Hear him, hear him, I say!
Let's hear it again for Great Britain!!!!
Those British are no fools and know full well what those damned Russkies are up to!
"... Margolis also says the KSA's US made air defences "failed" to protect their oil installations. This maybe so. But apart from the fact that their air defences are orientated away from Yemen there's a good chance the defences were turned OFF -- apparently this is common practice in the KSA, esp on weekends. I don't believe that Margolis's "mystery" is anywhere as deep as he suggests. The Houthis have received weapons & training from Iran/Hezbollah & have demonstrated an ability to hit KSA targets with unmanned aerial weapons. ..."
"... Until better evidence appears, I'm willing to give it to the Houthis -- if for no other reason than that they deserve to get in some good licks against that vile "Kingdom" (I'd suggest they next hit the water purification plants that serve Riyadh with all its water – apparently, the city has about 3 days of water stored. Evacuating 6 million from the Capital, the Sauds would be exposed as the corrupt, negligent, incompetent, stupid, vicious frauds we all know they are. ..."
"... These Hawks are under delusional assumption that an American led war against Iran would be a "Cakewalk" ..."
"... What they do know for sure is that the military industrial complex will increase its budget during and after such a war. Follow the money! ..."
Who Launched That Mystery Attack? Eric Margolis September 21, 2019 700 Words
14 CommentsReply Email This
Page to Someone
Remember My Information
=>
◄►◄►▲▼
Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New
Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public
Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to
recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information'
checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow
Commenter Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲▼ Search
Text Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search Clear Cancel
List of
Bookmarks
The Mideast has its own variety of crazy humor. The Saudis have been blasting and bombing
wretched Yemen, one of this world's poorest nations, since 2015.
These US-supported attacks and a naval blockade of Yemen imposed by Saudi Arabia and its
sidekick ally, the United Arab Emirates, have caused mass starvation. No one knows how many
Yemenis have died or are currently starving. Estimates run from 250,000 to one million.
The black humor? The Saudis just claimed they were victims of Iranian `aggression' this past
week after the kingdom's leading oil treatment facility at Abqaiq was hit by a flight of armed
drones or cruise missiles. The usual American militarists, now led by State Secretary Mike
Pompeo after the demented warmonger, John Bolton, was finally fired, are calling for military
retaliation against Iran even though the attack was claimed by Yemen's Shia Houthi
movement.
This drama came at roughly the same time that Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, a
close ally of US president Donald Trump, vowed to annex Palestine's entire Jordan Valley if
elected. Not a peep of protest came from the US, which recently blessed Netanyahu's annexation
of Syria's Golan Heights while scourging Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, for annexing Crimea
– a Russian possession for over 300 years.
I studied US photos of the damaged Saudi oil installations. Its oil tanks appear to be
precisely hit at the same place. After the attack, the Saudis claimed half of their oil
production was knocked out; but a day later, they vowed production would be resumed within a
week. Parts of so-called drones were shown that appeared way beyond the technological
capabilities of Yemen or even Iran. The missiles may have been supplied by Ukraine.
The Saudis, like their patron in Washington, have a poor record for truthfulness. Remember
the Saudi denials about the murder of journalist and Saudi critic Jamal Khashoggi? More
important, we have been waiting for more false flag attacks in the Gulf designed to justify a
US attack on Iran.
The pattern of so-called drone attacks against the Saudi oil installations is just too neat
and symmetrical. The Israelis have a strong interest in promoting a US-Saudi War. The attacks
in Saudi came ironically right after the anniversary of 9/11 that plunged the US into war
against large parts of the Muslim world.
As a long-time military observer, I find it very hard to believe that drones could be guided
over such long distances and so accurately without aircraft or satellites to guide them. In
Yemen, which is just creeping into the 12th century, changing a flat tire is a major
technological achievement. To date, Iran's missile arsenal has poor reliability and major
guidance problems.
Adding to the questions, the Saudis have spent billions on US-made air defense systems. They
failed to protect the oil installations. The Saudis would have been better off buying air
defenses from the Russians, at a quarter of the US selling price.
ORDER IT NOW
Trump at least showed some wisdom by so far rejecting demands from the neocons that surround
him to launch major attacks on Iran. Blasting Iran would not serve much purpose and would
expose US forces in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Somalia, and Syria to Iranian guerrilla
attacks. Saudi oil installations – after what we saw last week – are
vulnerable.
Attacking Iran, even if just from the air, risks a much wider Mideast war just as the Trump
administration – which originally campaigned against 'stupid' Mideast wars – faces
next year's elections. But the administration is under intense pressure from its pro-Israel
base to go after Iran.
Bombing Iran's oil infrastructure would be relatively easy and has been intensively planned
since early 2002. But what next? So-called 'regime change' (Washington's favorite euphemism for
overthrowing disobedient foreign governments) rarely works as planned and can get the US into
horribly messy situations. The CIA overthrew Iran's democratic government in 1953 and look
where we are today.
Perhaps the attacks on Abqaiq may cause the reckless Saudi leaders to stop devastating Yemen
and throttle back on their proxy war against Iran which has gone on since 1979. But don't count
on it.
The so called "Zionist Hawks" in Israel and Washington, who want to start a war between
the USA and Iran.
These Hawks are under delusional assumption that an American led war against Iran would be
a "Cakewalk", and that Iranians have no means to defend themselves, will capitulate –
these are of course delusional assumptions – only found in disturbed minds of a bunch
of Go-Getter Zionist Think-Tanks in Washington, DC who are eager to serve their own tribal
interests at the US expense.
The US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003, both are still ongoing –
have long proven how delusional are these ridiculous assumptions – Iran will be at
least 10 times harder nut to crack than Iraq was under Saddam Hussein – at least not
without serious consequences to the security of Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and the
US itself, along with serious ramification to the post WWII international order under the
USA; established since 1945.
By now, president Trump knows too well that he is being poorly served by these so called
"Zionist Hawks" – who have instigated the US unilateral withdrawal from the Iranian
Nuclear Agreement – but thanks to Trump's own instinct, and his close relationship with
Emmanuel Macron; Shinzo Abe; and of course Vladimir Putin – so far, Trump has resisted
the temptation of going to all out war against Iranians.
President Trump should ban these" Go-Getter Zionist Hawks" from the White House; they are
"Disloyal Jews" – who are eager to serve their own tribal interests at the US
expense.
Trump at least showed some wisdom by so far rejecting demands from the neocons that
surround him to launch major attacks on Iran.
He doesn't want to get involved in another Iraq (or worse) which makes excellent sense for
the US and himself on many levels.
However, if the US Deep State (with the Israelis) could set up 9/11 without President Bush
in the loop, then they could also arrange a False Flag attack on these oil installations,
without Trump's knowledge.
The CIA looks very much like an independent international criminal enterprise, and they're
used to working with their Israeli and Saudi friends.
This is a seriously flawed analysis of Yemen's and Iran's actual capabilities. We've already
seen Iran's precision strike capability in Iran and Syria and we've seen Yemen's homemade
drones and missiles do similar to this at slightly lesser differences. The parts shown by SA
are matches to Yemeni made missiles and drones such as Iran has been sharing around with
their allies. The reason they avoided the US defences was that they came from a direction
these do not cover, being pointed as they are at Iran. I'd say this was a Houthis attack and
as they say, more will be coming if the aggression from SA against Yemen does not stop. One
thing this attack has done is cool the heels of US, Saudi and Zionist warmongers. The damage
done here by relatively small attack and cheap means gives some inkling of what things might
look like after an attack on Iran. This was doubtless supported by Iran and as such a
masterstroke. We enter a new paradigm.
Saudi Arabian oil pipelines have always been vulnerable to attack. They are not well guarded
at all. This is well known by Security Experts worldwide but not well known, it would seem,
by hack 'journalists'.
Saudi Arabia is attacking Yemen as part of a long term plan to reroute it's oil pipelines
to the other side of it's country, the Red Sea side, so that it is no longer vulnerable at
the Strait of Hormuz 'choke point'. In order to get rid of the Iranian threat to it's oil as
it leaves port in the Persian Gulf, the Saudi's must sustain huge costs and PR losses to
"stabilize" Yemen by a brutal war and then transit it's oil via the Red Sea. This is also
well known by Security Experts but not 'hack journalist'.
Trump rejected neocon demands for a war with Iran as he saw his chances for re-election
vanish in the smoke of an US-Iran war. If Trump is reelected Americans will have to worry
every day about a US-Iran war.
I love this comment by Margolis, that the KSA & US have a "poor record for truthfulness"
Priceless. Apparently Genghis Khan had a poor record for brushing his feet on the mat
before entering a town for a bit of light shopping.
Margolis also says the KSA's US made air defences "failed" to protect their oil
installations. This maybe so. But apart from the fact that their air defences are orientated
away from Yemen there's a good chance the defences were turned OFF -- apparently this is
common practice in the KSA, esp on weekends.
I don't believe that Margolis's "mystery" is anywhere as deep as he suggests. The Houthis
have received weapons & training from Iran/Hezbollah & have demonstrated an ability
to hit KSA targets with unmanned aerial weapons.
Until better evidence appears, I'm willing to give it to the Houthis -- if for no other
reason than that they deserve to get in some good licks against that vile "Kingdom" (I'd
suggest they next hit the water purification plants that serve Riyadh with all its water
– apparently, the city has about 3 days of water stored. Evacuating 6 million from the
Capital, the Sauds would be exposed as the corrupt, negligent, incompetent, stupid, vicious
frauds we all know they are.
I think the EU may have just fucked Nord Stream II. An EU General Court overturned the 2016
EU Commission decision to allow Gazprom to use more than 50% of the Opal pipeline, a critical
choke point for both legs of Nord Stream II to get gas to the hub. If that decision can't be
reversed again, a reasonable argument will be made that Nord stream II is not necessary, as
Nord Stream alone can easily supply 50% capacity. The kicker is they do not have any other
exporter who could make up the other 50% to use the pipeline to capacity. But this is a very
shrewd move, as the Opal pipeline was always the weak link.
Ukraine, of course, will be dancing in the streets with delight. But I wouldn't be too
quick to do that. Russia might still decline to renew the contract with Ukraine, and just let
Europe go short, to teach it a lesson. Past time, in my opinion. Of course Uncle Sam will see
that as the opportunity long looked for, and offer to step up with LNG imports. And that
might be good, too, for a couple of years – let the Yurrupeans pay extortionate gas
prices, and learn to be wary of America's temper tantrums translated to supply 'problems'
which can only be resolved by making political concessions. Russia has always pretty much let
Europe do its thing without pressuring it much, despite the hysterics you see in the media
about weaponization of energy.
It is absolutely typical of Europe to wait until the pipeline is almost complete to
offload that bomb. I suppose they figure Russia will have to agree to anything they say so as
not to waste all that work and money. It also showcases Europe's complete unreliability in
any business relationship, exactly in lock-step with American unreliability.
I saw that news too. But then remember the original Nord Stream had a cap that was then
lifted. If the EU insists on paying top $$$ for imported LNG from the US rather than lifting
any sort of cap, I'd be interested to see how they justify that to EU citizen consumers.
I think the point is, again, not to react immediately to whatever outrage Brussels or its
friends pick out of their ass. I could well imagine that NSII partners may well sue Brussels
about this, actually file the papers. Brussels would argue 'But it's not us, it's the court',
to which the lawyers would say 'We specifically asked you, and you came up with nothing in
law'.
I think we will find the general court has taken a certain 'interpretation' of competition
law that was 'advised' by Brussles. How NSII could get this far after all of these years and
have a court come out with such a ruling. Expect egg on face and 'It's not me!'. I don't see
how this 'ruling' can stand.
"The Europeans apply antitrust legislation, which is designed to develop the competition.
Why it is necessary to free up 50% of the gas pipeline's capacity? According to the idea of
the legislators, it has to allow competition to arise. But when nobody can physically come to
the start point of the OPAL gas pipeline, alternative suppliers have nowhere to come from.
There physically isn't and can't be another supplier in OPAL!!! It's like banning water from
being carried in full buckets!"
The very inspiration of competition is the introduction of anti-monopoly procedures to
establish a lowest price by pitting the competitors against one another. I am pretty
confident that Russia has always had the lowest prices, and can usually be induced to do a
deal for lower prices yet in exchange for other considerations. When other countries do it,
it's what dealing's all about – when Russia does it, it's weaponizing energy.
If you have a reliable supplier who has access to years of reserves and who consistently
sells to you at a reasonable price, why do you have to impose a raft of new rules to bring in
competitors who cannot match its prices and do not have access to plentiful supplies? Once
again, for Yurrupeans who do not get it, competition is to arrive at a low price. If you
start from a low price, it is stupid to mandate room for competitors who cannot get under
it.
I suspect the Poles are behind this latest charade. But why is Germany going along with
it? Opal lies entirely within Germany, and anything that risks constraining available supply
risks Germany's status as a gas hub.
Anyway, as I suggested earlier, it would do Europe a world of good for Russia to short
them gas for a little while and let them pay prices for outside supplies that would have
their hair on fire. A period of throwing money away when you know there is a cheaper supply
to which you cannot get access can be extremely educational. Uncle Sam would jump at the
chance to sell Europe LNG and, at least in the beginning, would cut prices to the bone in
order to establish market share. But it would still insist on making a profit, and it can't
do that and match Russian prices, while its lengthy logistic chain depends on a lot of
factors. If it became confident that its market share was both secure and relied upon,
Europeans would quickly see how it was leveraged against them to American advantage.
Helping the Ukraine in it's gas talks fit in my opinion. This 50% cap can be lifted,
reintroduced/whatever and whenever by Brussels. It's a gangsta move.
Well, actually, it can't. Be lifted and re-imposed willy-nilly, I mean. If it is, it would be
pointless to build the pipeline in the first place, as Opal would merely take the place of
Ukraine. The western tacticians want to keep Ukraine in the mix because they can use it to
introduce complications and problems in gas delivery from Russia, which can at the same time
be used to paint Russia as an unreliable partner. If Opal can't be relied upon to supply the
opportunity to transit major volumes, Russia will have to make a deal with Ukraine so as to
preserve a Plan B option. It would have been better to not build the pipeline, and still
cease transit through Ukraine, labeling it instead as the unreliable part of the logistics
chain, and Europe would just have to be satisfied with what it could get out of existing
pipelines – minus Ukraine – running flat-out. After all, Europe maintained that a
twin line for Nord Stream was not needed; mind you, when they said that, they were
envisioning continued transit through Ukraine, complete with the prima donna antics Ukraine
exhibits when it believes it has leverage.
The price of gas would go through the roof, and Russia would probably make just as much
money, while the Europeans were weeping and tearing out their hair.
Ukraine's offer for the gas talks is 60 Billion Cubic Meters transit annually for 10
years. Russia will tell them to go fuck themselves. They're basically asking for a contract
to transit the same amount they're transiting now, when there is no alternative, for ten more
years.
I wish I could be so sure. Brussels likes to think it is kleva (sic 'field pipes'/TAP
exemptions). I've looked for more details, and it is appealable (is that a word)?
For several years, Russia could use only 50% of the pipeline's capacity, as prescribed
in the EU's Third Energy Package. Gazprom asked for permission to use OPAL's 100%
capacity,
.In the summer of 2017, the Dusseldorf Higher Regional Court decided to remove interim
measures on Gazprom's use of Opal's facilities imposed by the lawsuit. Poland finds that now
the decision of the European Court of Justice will not allow Gazprom to abandon gas transit
through the territory of Ukraine.
On September 10, on considering Poland's lawsuit, the EU Court of Justice overturned
the European Commission's decision of 2016, according to which Gazprom could fully use the
capacities of the OPAL gas pipeline. The Russian company reserves the right to use 50% of
OPAL's capacity, but it will no longer be able to participate in auctions for the remaining
40%.
####
So it is a continuation of previous legal ding-dongs.
The ruling is also important because of the reasoning behind it. The justices said the
main reason for their decision was not to preserve third-party access to pipelines that run
through Europe but to maintain the EU's energy-solidarity policy. This opens the door to
future litigation based on such policy
####
WTF? So it's not about allowing 3rd party access after all. The Court is ruling on
a completely different aspect! So this is about a different rule of the EU's Third Energy
Package that a) post dates the original Nord Stream; b) ignores that NSII follows the
same route and is not substantially different to NS1. The Third Energy Package entered in to
legislation in September 2009.* Excuse me, but 10 years late?
So it looks to me that the multipronged offensive against NSII though it has failed to
stymie off-shore NSII because it is almost completely outside the EU (well, we'll see what
happend with Denmark), it's temporarily struck gold with OPAL because it is on-shore EU.
Buuut, in leverageing against Russia to the benefit of Ukraine, it will directly impact
Russia-EU-Ukraine talks:
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak "I think that, in terms of negotiations, this
situation will be taken into account," **
Yet: Šefčovič said the decision was still very fresh, that his
services were still studying it, and that it underlined how important the principle of energy
solidarity is for Europe.
The ECJ ruled that the 2016 decision is "in breach of the principle of energy
solidarity" because it failed to properly assess how to balance Germany's interests against
the negative impacts on other EU member states .
Šefčovič avoided a direct answer, but insisted in the need of
long-term contracts with Gazprom .
He explained that the Ukrainian side was willing to apply European law, saying this
would bring clarity, transparency and efficiency. The letters sent by the Commission to both
parties also stressed the importance of long-term contracts, he said . ***
Cake and eat it, Brussels? Kiev complying with 'European Law' when even EU member states
do not? Ha ha ha! It all rather looks like vague horseshit to me. Open to creative
interpretation a la Marcel Marceau.
When I said, "Actually, it can't", I didn't mean Europe can't do it, I meant that the
uncertainty it introduces will not likely prove satisfactory for Russia to play the game,
since Brussels could arbitrarily decide to apply the cap any time it wishes Russia to transit
more gas through Ukraine, and pay it more money. The only real solution for Russia is to make
it crystal clear to Brussels that it is not going to sign a big fat transit contract with
Ukraine, and then business as usual, with Ukraine getting up to its monkeyshines and
demanding cheaper gas against the possibility of restricting exports to Europe. Ukraine has
demonstrated that it is just like the United States in the sense that if it has any leverage
over you, it will use it for its own ends. The west has made it clear it approves of these
tactics, even when they cause a temporary shutdown of gas exports to Europe.
Brussels thinks it is being cute, and that Russia will now have to do as Brussels wants it
to. Russia has little choice but to play hardball, and let it be known that it has no
intention of signing a long-term agreement with Ukraine to transit the same volumes of gas it
always did – what the fuck was Nord Stream II all about? If Europe – and
especially those perfidious krauts – want to cap the amount going through the Opal line
at 50% of capacity, so be it. Europe will just have to adjust to 60 BcM less supply; maybe
Uncle Sugar can send a fleet of LNG tankers to make up the difference, at double the cost.
But if Russia signs on to transit 60 BcM annually through Ukraine, it is right back where it
started, and built an expensive pipeline for nothing. Stand firm, Russia. Europe does not
have an alternative gas supplier, and nothing would teach it that lesson like a year or so of
scraping to find enough gas, and paying through the nose for it. It's always chunnering about
alternative suppliers – go and find them!
Absolutely insane. The EU/Anglo/US fascists are making their last stand and forcing Russia
into a corner with the only way out to continue transit through Ukraine. Oh, the humiliation
will be so sweet!
I think the Russian reaction will be a big Fuck You. Its all about LNG and the need to
save the US gas frackers and their debt. Oh, and to drive a wedge to further separate Russia
from Europe. Perfect, Russia can now focus on its future and forget that rotting corpse of
Western civilization.
Oh, I think Nord Stream II will still go through anyway, in the end. But a great deal depends
on Russia not signing another 10-year gas deal with Ukraine for 60 BcM annually. If it does
that, then there really is no difference from today, and Nord Stream II would just be an
extra line for use in emergencies. I can't believe any of the partners want that, as there
would be little opportunity for them to profit, which is why I wonder why Germany is being so
passive. Have they been persuaded to take one for Team Ukraine? Again, I find that hard to
believe. It is essentially a question of Ukraine being Europe's gas hub, or Germany. And it
should be more than plain to Europe by now that Ukraine will happily toss a wrench in the
transit works any time Washington tells it to.
Europe needs Russian gas. But it wants it on entirely its own terms, with Brussels in
control. Apparently it is not obvious that Europe is already in control – it is the
buyer. If it doesn't want gas, it doesn't need to buy it. But it does want it. It just wants
to wave the rule-book around every time it makes a purchase. Which would be obvious to it, if
ever there came a time when it wanted it and couldn't get it.
"... Under international law, a state is accountable for the unlawful actions of a proxy only if an organ of the state ordered the proxy to commit the act. It is not sufficient simply to have provided material support or even encouraged the unlawful act. For example, in the 1980s, the International Court of Justice found the United States not liable for Contra violations of international humanitarian law, even after concluding that the United States had "financed, organized, trained, supplied, equipped and armed" the Contras, even to the point of providing training materials that discussed "shoot civilians attempting to leave a town, neutralize local judges and officials, hire professional criminals to carry out 'jobs,' and provoke violence at mass demonstrations to create 'martyrs'." ..."
It's become standard procedure for the US and its MSM to consider that Iran is totally
responsible for all anti-US events in the Middle East because of actions by Iran's "proxy
forces" in other countries. While these events usually have more diverse objectives, it's
often Iran did this and Iran did that. But there's no legal basis for that.
Here's some words on proxy relationships from DefenseOne: (excerpts)
Iran's proxy relationships have given it an extraordinary ability to impose costs on its
adversaries while obscuring its role. Doing so allows it to manage its risks while
politically constraining its adversaries' response. It might seem intuitive to simply
declare Iran responsible, and satisfying to retaliate against it directly. But
international law sets a high bar for holding a proxy's benefactor responsible for the
actions of its proxy, making it difficult to build the kind of international consensus
necessary to the legitimacy for any retaliation.
Under international law, a state is accountable for the unlawful actions of a proxy
only if an organ of the state ordered the proxy to commit the act. It is not sufficient
simply to have provided material support or even encouraged the unlawful act. For example,
in the 1980s, the International Court of Justice found the United States not liable for
Contra violations of international humanitarian law, even after concluding that the United
States had "financed, organized, trained, supplied, equipped and armed" the Contras, even
to the point of providing training materials that discussed "shoot civilians attempting to
leave a town, neutralize local judges and officials, hire professional criminals to carry
out 'jobs,' and provoke violence at mass demonstrations to create 'martyrs'."
Setting the bar so high establishes perverse incentives. A state that employs proxies is
discouraged from moderating their behavior, since any attempt at moderation could imply
effective control, and even from acknowledging the proxy relationships. So without proof
that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which typically manages Iran's proxy
relationships, ordered or participated in the attacks, there is little for which Saudi
Arabia or the United States can hold Iran legally accountable.. .
here
In 2001, drones were just a distant dream. It also involves a chain of once in a lifetime
of human errors by at least three governmental institutions (CIA, FBI and Pentagon).
What the Houthi did in 2019 is not that far fetched. Drones are a much more developed and
cheap technology, and Saudi Arabia is a basket case of a country. Surprise is how much soft
power they did enjoy in the West, since many commenters here still insist Saudi Arabia is
some kind of fascist utopia that couldn't be tricked by a bunch of stone age cave dwellers
(which the Houthi aren't any way). Looks like the USA's aura of invincibility is
contagious.
Jackrabbit #16. Perhaps increased tensions are enough to get Nuttyahoo elected (which I think
fits with the supposition that this attack is false flag). However My guess is that the
Houthis will prosecute this war to the very doorsteps of the holy mosques in KSA and exact
immense retribution if they can. They are responding to 5 years of geocidal assault and
cannot but fight to the death.
Trump and his immaculate surrounds of holy zionists and pentecostal towel boys are in
thrall. Mesmerised by their inspired service to the holy writ. No doubt they consult daily
with their personal rabbi who talks through his fedora as O would have it. But they are
beholden to something evil and beneath the dignity of humankind.
Perhaps war will be avoided by dithering and too elaborate plotting but I still consider
that justice might manifest in a meteor strike on their heads.
"... Yet in spite of all this American sacrifice, the Taliban controls more territory than at any time since 2001. ..."
"... After all, President Trump hasn't even signed off on Khalilzad's draft deal, and even if he does, he could always change his mind. The ability of the Blob to swallow presidents is not to be underestimated -- and Trump is a case in point. For decades, reaching back to his career as a businessman, Trump had been a skeptic of foreign military engagements, and he explicitly campaigned against "endless wars" in 2016. ..."
"... Yet since then, the Blob has been extending pseudopods of keep-the-status-quo cajolery deep within his administration. Trump has thus been persuaded to keep the U.S. engaged, or, if one prefers, quagmired ..."
"... The Taliban are not an invading military force. The struggle as it is has been one of internal forces and players sharing the land and never having been but various communities that fought, lived and negotiated agreements all nearly all of the countries history, unlike Vietnam which has almost entire history had a North/South division. ..."
"... Quit calling the Kabul regime a "client". It's a puppet. The minute US forces leave Afghanistan, the puppet government in Kabul will fall. Don't be surprised if it collapses before the last US transport has its landing gear all the way up. Notwithstanding 2., yes, it's over. Time to pack up and move on. However, Trump can't do that. ..."
"... If Trump had really wanted to leave Afghanistan, the time to do it was when he first entered office. Blame his predecessors and wash his hands of the situation while the political price was at its lowest. But Trump is weak, stupid and easily manipulated. He listened to the generals, and the price of leaving has only risen and will only keep rising. ..."
"... They aren't much good for anything but staging, but Trump wants those Afghan outposts for the war on Iran that his Saudi owners and Israeli masters so crave. ..."
"... All the Democrats should be on the bandwagon for withdrawal yesterday because Trump's October Surprise could be announcing peace in our time and getting the hell out. It is a promise he can actually keep. It is not like he is getting his wall. ..."
"... Trump has become, himself, part of "the Blob." By hiring Pompeo and Bolton to head his foreign policy team he has abandoned any pretense of being an anti-war pro-restraint president. He's gone full neo-con and it's long past time conservatives stop pretending he hasn't. ..."
Needless to say, the news from Afghanistan is always murky, and the U.S. is far from gone.
Still, the BBC headline from September 3 tells us a lot:
"Afghanistan war: US-Taliban deal would see 5,400 troops withdraw." U.S. negotiator Zalmay
Khalilzad has hammered out an agreement, "in principle," with the Taliban.
He has now shared some of the details with the Afghan government -- which, revealingly,
hasn't been involved in the negotiations -- and with the world as well. In other words, the
U.S. has been bypassing its Kabul client regime in pursuit of a deal with the Taliban.
Obviously, the fact that our Afghan ally has been left out of the negotiations is not a good
sign for its relevance -- or its viability.
To be sure, even if those 5,400 American troops leave, another 8,600 would remain, plus an
unknown number of contractors and operatives. Yet it's obvious that if the U.S. couldn't pacify
Afghanistan with
100,000 troops at the beginning of this decade, it's not going to do much with a tiny
fraction thereof. In fact, our current dealings with the Taliban recall our dealings with North
Vietnam in the early '70s.
Back then, President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser Henry Kissinger were
looking to negotiate with North Vietnam to find a way out. Their hope was for "peace with
honor." Yet the appearance of "peace with honor" is not necessarily the same thing as
the reality . Behind the scenes, it was grubbier. Nixon and Kissinger understood that
the South Vietnamese government was deathly afraid of a U.S. deal with North Vietnam because
Saigon understood that any such agreement would leave it in the lurch, unable to defend itself.
North Vietnam, after all, was supported by both the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of
China. And so Nixon and Kissinger simply pushed South Vietnam out of the loop. Indeed, South
Vietnamese fears would have been fully confirmed had they heard Kissinger speaking to Nixon
inside the White House in October 1972, as recorded by the notorious secret taping system.
As Kissinger put it, the U.S. should be hoping for a
"decent interval" between the American departure and the inevitable fall of the Saigon
government. And that's what happened: the Paris Peace Accords were signed on January 27, 1973,
and barely more than two years later, on April 30, 1975, Saigon fell. Understandably, millions
of South Vietnamese sought to flee the communists, and that, again, is how D.C. -- and the U.S.
as a whole -- gained so many new restaurants. All that history is familiar to the policymakers
and pundits of today. And so inside the Beltway, the debate over the future of Afghanistan --
more precisely, U.S. involvement in the conflict -- is far from over.
As TAC contributor
Doug Bandow noted on August 29, the foreign policy establishment, a.k.a. "the
Blob," is perpetually in favor of staying in Afghanistan, because, well, establishments are
always perpetually in favor of doing everything that they're doing, perpetually. After all, who
wants to admit a mistake? Especially when establishmentarians can snugly oversee the war from
their armchairs in a Massachusetts Avenue think-tank? In the meantime, American losses continue
to mount. On August 29, another G.I. was killed in Afghanistan; that would be Army Sergeant
First Class
Dustin B. Ard of Idaho Falls, Idaho. He leaves behind his pregnant wife Mary and daughter
Reagan. Ard's death was the 15th this year, bringing the total of American military deaths in
Afghanistan to nearly 2,400
.
Yet in spite of all this American sacrifice, the Taliban controls more territory than at
any time since 2001. Indeed, the Taliban has proven its ability to strike anywhere,
including inside Kabul; just on September 3, suicide bombers struck an international compound,
killing at least 19. Tellingly, local Afghans now want the international residents out of their
neighborhood, because they know the presence of foreigners is a magnet for Taliban killers --
whom nobody seems able to stop.
We can pause to observe that such popular fatalism dooms a regime. It makes people --
especially those with links to the West -- likely to flee. To be sure, there's no telling
exactly when the Kabul government will crumble, as well as how, exactly, it will crumble.
After all, President Trump hasn't even signed off on Khalilzad's draft deal, and even if
he does, he could always change his mind. The ability of the Blob to swallow presidents is not
to be underestimated -- and Trump is a case in point. For decades, reaching back to his career
as a businessman, Trump had been a skeptic of foreign military engagements, and he explicitly
campaigned against "endless wars" in 2016.
Yet since then, the Blob has been extending pseudopods of keep-the-status-quo cajolery
deep within his administration. Trump has thus been persuaded to keep the U.S. engaged, or, if
one prefers, quagmired .
Remarkably, in August 2017, Trump even delivered a primetime speech on Afghanistan in which
he pledged
"victory." Even if Trump doesn't talk up victory anymore, nobody can say what exactly he
will do. Does he want to get credit for extricating the U.S., finally, from an unpopular
war?
Or does he not want to see a foreign capital fall on his watch? Whatever the case, it seems
evident that the remaining sand is running out of the Afghan hourglass.
In the two years since that go-get-'em speech, Trump has expended zero rhetorical effort in
support of the Afghan mission; instead he and his administration have shifted their focus to
China. (And yes, there's also that fascination with Iran, although there again, because Trump
is Trump, it's hard to know what will come of it. It could be anything from an armed conflict
to a Kim Jong-un-ish summit.) In the meantime, the Democrats, too, have moved on. It wasn't
that long ago that Barack Obama was referring to Afghanistan as the "good war," while surging
American troops; Obama, too, was pseudopod-ed by the Blob. And while the 44th president soon
enough realized that the new doctrine of counter-insurgency wasn't working any better than the
old doctrine of counter-terrorism, he chose not to get cross-wise with the Blob -- and so
American troops stayed. Yet today, nobody in the 2020 Democratic presidential field -- not even
Obama alum Joe Biden -- has any enthusiasm for the Afghan mission. So whether it's a re-elected
Trump or a newly elected Democrat in the White House in 2021, the U.S. is going to be looking
for that fig-leafy "decent interval." It could come in the form of a bilateral agreement, or
perhaps an international conference, complete with the promise of U.N. peacekeepers (although
unless they're Pakistani or Chinese "peacekeepers," any foreign force will likely wilt in the
face of the Taliban, which is nothing if not good at killing). Yes, it's intriguing to note
that Afghanistan has trillions of dollars' worth of natural
resources waiting to be mined. And so if a stable regime could ever be established in that
war-crossed land, great wealth could spring forth. But that's a manifest
destiny for someone else, not Uncle Sam. What we're going to get stateside when this
misadventure finally comes to an end is a lot of new refugees -- and a lot of new
restaurants.
James P. Pinkerton is an author and contributing editor at . He served as a White
House policy aide to both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
IMHO, we should have left Afghanistan years ago. I'll settle for yesterday. To hell with the
Rare Earth and our warmongers running/ruining foreign affairs!
Too late. The "decent interval" ended well over fifteen years ago.
I'm actually surprised that Trump isn't getting us out of there. He's told a lot of lies
and broken a lot of promises, but that's one that would have been easy to keep, and he didn't
do it. No spine.
This all depends on one simple factor. The integrity of the Taliban verses the integrity of
the communists in North Vietnam.
And trying to hedge a "we lost in Vietnam" slip and slide assail has no more veracity
here than it had in 1975.
The Taliban are not an invading military force. The struggle as it is has been one of
internal forces and players sharing the land and never having been but various communities
that fought, lived and negotiated agreements all nearly all of the countries history, unlike
Vietnam which has almost entire history had a North/South division.
We are going to have foreign restaurants regardless, but interventions just invite more of
them.
Quit calling the Kabul regime a "client". It's a puppet. The minute US forces leave
Afghanistan, the puppet government in Kabul will fall. Don't be surprised if it collapses
before the last US transport has its landing gear all the way up. Notwithstanding 2., yes,
it's over. Time to pack up and move on. However, Trump can't do that.
a. If Trump were to order a withdrawal from Afghanistan, his political opponents would
pounce. Expect lots of cries of "Putin puppet", angry denunciations of "Who lost
Afghanistan?" and heart-rending images depicting the fates of suffering girls. Not to mention
the grisly fates those persons so foolish as to cooperate with the United States.
Let us not kid ourselves - some of these images will in fact be genuine.
Also, Sunni Islamicists will be emboldened. It took some 18 years, but in the end, they
sent the Americans home packing.
No matter how you spin it, they won and we lost. Yes, the much hyped and much bloated
United States military was unable to defeat some medieval farmers in flip flops, who cannot
boast so much as a Piper Cub to their name, much less a drone or a cluster bomb.
If Trump had really wanted to leave Afghanistan, the time to do it was when he first
entered office. Blame his predecessors and wash his hands of the situation while the
political price was at its lowest. But Trump is weak, stupid and easily manipulated. He
listened to the generals, and the price of leaving has only risen and will only keep
rising.
b. They aren't much good for anything but staging, but Trump wants those Afghan outposts
for the war on Iran that his Saudi owners and Israeli masters so crave.
Of course, eighteen odd years and countless dollars, only to be defeated by peasants
without a single fighter jet or drone is not exactly great PR for the folks trying to
convince us that they really can win this time, why, Iran will be a walk in the park!
Trump is an imbecile, of course, but he is doing about the only thing he can do in
Afghanistan, which is, to try and maintain a semblance of control over major population
centers and pretend we're not losing.
All the Democrats should be on the bandwagon for withdrawal yesterday because Trump's October
Surprise could be announcing peace in our time and getting the hell out. It is a promise he
can actually keep. It is not like he is getting his wall.
'Does he want to get credit for extricating the U.S., finally, from an unpopular war? Or does
he not want to see a foreign capital fall on his watch?'
Any politician with sense knows that the American public could not care less about the
fall of Kabul (what's a kabul?). That's the American people. Campaign contributions from the
MIC is a different matter.
Trump has become, himself, part of "the Blob." By hiring Pompeo and Bolton to head his
foreign policy team he has abandoned any pretense of being an anti-war pro-restraint
president. He's gone full neo-con and it's long past time conservatives stop pretending he
hasn't.
Who gets to decide how many "refugees" the US will get from Afghanistan? Some of us would
gladly forgo all these wonderful new restaurants to protect our communities from yet another
"refugee" surge.
"... One problem with these sanctions is that they are largely after-the-fact when it comes to laying underwater pipe. Turkstream is already done. Nord Stream is about 75% done, but Congress still believes they can stop it . ..."
"... That gas for chicken deal can't be right. Russia produces twice as much chicken meat as the world average. In fact, they're overproducing so much they've started slowing down production. ..."
"... The energy sector is down to 10% of the economy. However all three new pipelines will turn on by the end of the year generating huge cash streams. Russia has solid trading partnerships with nations representing the vast majority of the people and trade on the planet. Food in Russia is great, and I mean really great. It's also very eclectic with cuisine from all over the world and produced to extremely high standards. GMO is illegal. No weird proteins in your cereal in the morning. American fast food tastes better in Russia because it's made with locally grown produce. ..."
"... My impression is that Russia is a continuing work in process in construction and reconstruction, everywhere. The stuff that is done is above Western standards, it amazes in gigantic scope and innovativeness. ..."
"... Some day soon we will need Russia as a friend. At that point we will have to deal with the incredibly bad karma that we created, out of irrational pure hatred and meaness. ..."
"... So the xenophobes claim that Nord Stream 2 would allow Russia to manipulate Europe's gas supply for political and other devious purposes. I searched and could not find any example in the past. But I was using Google which has become increasingly useless when searching on a number of topics. I did find articles about the Ukraine stealing the gas. Russia needs the money. I highly doubt they will screw over their investment. ..."
gjohnsit on Mon, 09/16/2019 - 6:22pm Congress is looking to impose
new sanctions on
Russia and any company that works with Russia.
Two bills in the House and the Senate, instead of penalizing the major gas companies involved, would target a perceived weak link:
the specialized pipe-laying companies working on Nord Stream 2 (and on the Russian state-controlled gas company Gazprom's TurkStream
project, which will bring Russian gas across the Black Sea to Turkey and eventually to Europe). The bills would sanction pipe-laying
companies involved in the project, freezing their U.S. assets and prohibiting them from doing U.S. business.
One problem with these sanctions is that they are largely after-the-fact when it comes to laying underwater pipe. Turkstream
is already done. Nord Stream is about 75% done, but Congress still believes they
can stop
it .
President Donald Trump has recommended Germany buy U.S. liquefied natural gas. That would benefit Cruz's home state of Texas,
the country's largest producer of natural gas.
A second problem is that Germany doesn't want us dictating their foreign policy. According to a recent survey, only 19 percent
of Germans considered the United States a trustworthy partner (well behind Russia).
Pluto's Republic on Mon, 09/16/2019 - 6:42pm snoopydawg on Mon, 09/16/2019 - 7:27pm
Oleg D.....something had a part in the Russia Gate saga and so his aluminum factory was punished. But then Trump relaxed them
after Oleg sold his part. Now McConnell is allowing Oleg to build a huge aluminum plant in Kentucky so off course he too is under
Vlad's thumb. I recently found out that Oleg has had ties to Mueller and others in our intelligence agencies. I don't think there
is one supposed Russian bad man involved in Russia Gate that doesn't have connections to Mueller and his goons. Misfud, Halpern
(?), and too many other people who played "the spy who loved me" game. Most of them tried to entrap someone in Trump's campaign.
If Europe wants to spend more money importing our gas and make their citizens pay higher prices then they need to be voted
out. Do their citizens even know about this? Do the people in Ukraine know why they are expected to freeze this winter or pay
higher prices for gas? Russia does seem to be made of teflon. Nothing seems to stick to them.
Oleg D.....something had a part in the Russia Gate saga and so his aluminum factory was punished. But then Trump relaxed
them after Oleg sold his part. Now McConnell is allowing Oleg to build a huge aluminum plant in Kentucky so off course he too
is under Vlad's thumb. I recently found out that Oleg has had ties to Mueller and others in our intelligence agencies. I don't
think there is one supposed Russian bad man involved in Russia Gate that doesn't have connections to Mueller and his goons.
Misfud, Halpern (?), and too many other people who played "the spy who loved me" game. Most of them tried to entrap someone
in Trump's campaign.
If Europe wants to spend more money importing our gas and make their citizens pay higher prices then they need to be voted
out. Do their citizens even know about this? Do the people in Ukraine know why they are expected to freeze this winter or pay
higher prices for gas? Russia does seem to be made of teflon. Nothing seems to stick to them.
I remember TOP making a big point about the aluminium saying it was Trump really kowtowing to Putin as sanctions were lifted.
Turns about that the majority of production was in Western Europe in particular Ireland. Something like upwards of 30K people
would end up losing their jobs.
around the web that Russia has become self-sufficient in food following a push by government. Food, btw that has no GMOs by
law. I think even their food exports have grown greatly. If true, even when Europe shakes off the leash, EU farmers won't have
the Russian market anymore.
What I know for a fact is that conscious enemy moles hell-bent on destroying the US could all retire; comforted that job is
being done by swiftly and completely by our rulers (both visible and not).
between Russia and China. Russian oil and gas in exchange for Chinese chickens. At the time I wondered at a nuclear power that
can't raise chickens as any peasant in America (and China) can.
around the web that Russia has become self-sufficient in food following a push by government. Food, btw that has no GMOs
by law. I think even their food exports have grown greatly.
If true, even when Europe shakes off the leash, EU farmers won't have the Russian market anymore.
What I know for a fact is that conscious enemy moles hell-bent on destroying the US could all retire; comforted that job
is being done by swiftly and completely by our rulers (both visible and not).
That gas for chicken deal can't be right. Russia produces twice as much chicken meat as the world average. In fact, they're
overproducing so much they've started slowing down production.
As of early 2019, Russia was manufacturing 33.7 kg of poultry per capita, the fourth-highest rate in the world, said Elena
Stepanova, deputy director of Rosptitsesoyuz, speaking at the Russian Meat and Feed Industry conference in Moscow.
The world's 2019 average rate is 16.2 kg per capita, and current production in Russia was already equal to domestic demand,
Stepanova said.
"In 2019, we forecast some increase in production, but this growth will be attributed primarily to exports. We consider
the balance on the domestic poultry market as fully built," Stepanova said, adding that overall poultry production in Russia
in 2019 was expected to grow by 2.7% compared to the previous year, to 5.11 million tons.
@jim
p Russia really played the long game when Putin put a halt to all EU food imports. Besides the food ban, the Russian government
began an investment program to bolster domestic production of its own food replacements. Russian cheese anybody? And the programs
just did not go to Russia's version of Big Agriculture factory farms--it went to small farmers also.
around the web that Russia has become self-sufficient in food following a push by government. Food, btw that has no GMOs
by law. I think even their food exports have grown greatly.
If true, even when Europe shakes off the leash, EU farmers won't have the Russian market anymore.
What I know for a fact is that conscious enemy moles hell-bent on destroying the US could all retire; comforted that job
is being done by swiftly and completely by our rulers (both visible and not).
Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested Saudi Arabia should buy Russian air defense systems to protect its oil facilities
from drone attacks, pointing to Iran and Turkey, who operate S-300 and S-400 missiles, respectively.
"Saudi Arabia needs to make a smart decision, as Iran did by buying our S-300, and as Mr. Erdogan did by deciding to buy
the most advanced S-400 Triumph air defense systems from Russia," Putin told reporters in Ankara on Monday. "These kinds of
systems are capable of defending any kind of infrastructure in Saudi Arabia from any kind of attack."
Putin was answering a question about the recent drone attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, which Washington has blamed
on Iran, though Yemen's Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility. A coalition led by Saudi Arabia invaded Yemen in 2015 and
has fought the Houthis there since.
the most advanced S-400 Triumph air defense systems
According to some, these are the advanced Trump air defense systems. Guaranteed to put out lots of hot air with stench of aftereffect.
He who dealt it.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested Saudi Arabia should buy Russian air defense systems to protect its oil
facilities from drone attacks, pointing to Iran and Turkey, who operate S-300 and S-400 missiles, respectively.
"Saudi Arabia needs to make a smart decision, as Iran did by buying our S-300, and as Mr. Erdogan did by deciding to
buy the most advanced S-400 Triumph air defense systems from Russia," Putin told reporters in Ankara on Monday. "These kinds
of systems are capable of defending any kind of infrastructure in Saudi Arabia from any kind of attack."
Putin was answering a question about the recent drone attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, which Washington has blamed
on Iran, though Yemen's Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility. A coalition led by Saudi Arabia invaded Yemen in 2015
and has fought the Houthis there since.
... CLEAN ENERGY THAT OBSOLETIZES FOSSIL FUELS, ASSHOLES!!!
WE COULD LITERALLY SAVE THE WORLD, BE EVERYONE'S HEROES AGAIN, RESURRECT OUR ECONOMY, END OUR WARS, AND PULL THE FLOOR RIGHT
OUT FROM UNDERNEATH RUSSIA AND ALL THOSE GOSHAWFUL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS!
... CLEAN ENERGY THAT OBSOLETIZES FOSSIL FUELS, ASSHOLES!!!
WE COULD LITERALLY SAVE THE WORLD, BE EVERYONE'S HEROES AGAIN, RESURRECT OUR ECONOMY, END OUR WARS, AND PULL THE FLOOR RIGHT
OUT FROM UNDERNEATH RUSSIA AND ALL THOSE GOSHAWFUL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS!
@The
Liberal Moonbat to stop Islamist terrorists, we fund them to keep the forever wars going. I realize you know that, I just
could not help myself there. Whenever I hear we must "fight terrorism" my brain automatically goes back to all the things I have
read showing how we not only actively created those terrorists to fight our enemies who will not accept our American interests
dominating the world, but how many more we make every day we are there destroying their countries.
... CLEAN ENERGY THAT OBSOLETIZES FOSSIL FUELS, ASSHOLES!!!
WE COULD LITERALLY SAVE THE WORLD, BE EVERYONE'S HEROES AGAIN, RESURRECT OUR ECONOMY, END OUR WARS, AND PULL THE FLOOR RIGHT
OUT FROM UNDERNEATH RUSSIA AND ALL THOSE GOSHAWFUL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS!
The Russian economy is arguably the healthiest in the world. It's national debt barely shows as a blip on a bar graph with
other nations. She has enough cash to pay it off all her debt today. She sold almost all of her US government bonds.
Elvira Nabuillina, head of the Russian Bank, is perhaps the most competent national economic manager in the world. The
feeling in Russia is that she is too conservative and high interest rates are the major factor in slower economic growth.
Russia is the largest grower and exporter of wheat in the world, passing the US by a factor of two.
The energy sector is down to 10% of the economy. However all three new pipelines will turn on by the end of the year generating
huge cash streams. Russia has solid trading partnerships with nations representing the vast majority of the people and trade on
the planet. Food in Russia is great, and I mean really great. It's also very eclectic with cuisine from all over the world and
produced to extremely high standards. GMO is illegal. No weird proteins in your cereal in the morning. American fast food tastes
better in Russia because it's made with locally grown produce.
My impression is that Russia is a continuing work in process in construction and reconstruction, everywhere. The stuff
that is done is above Western standards, it amazes in gigantic scope and innovativeness.
I just visited the new aquarium in Vladivostok. It towers above the ones in Boston and LA, maybe by an order of magnitude.
The tallest building in Europe is in St. Petersburg, the next 5 tallest in Moscow City Center.
The longest bridge in Europe is in Russia. My impression is that Russia is a dynamic fast growing country and in contrast the
US can't do anything new. The US must have that gigantic defense budget, ten times that of Russia, to protect it from what? (hmmm).
There is nothing, I repeat nothing, that the US congress can do to slow down Russia today.
Some day soon we will need Russia as a friend. At that point we will have to deal with the incredibly bad karma that we
created, out of irrational pure hatred and meaness.
So the xenophobes claim that Nord Stream 2 would allow Russia to manipulate Europe's gas supply for political and other
devious purposes. I searched and could not find any example in the past. But I was using Google which has become increasingly
useless when searching on a number of topics. I did find articles about the Ukraine stealing the gas. Russia needs the money.
I highly doubt they will screw over their investment.
But to the Europeans I say, go fer it. You want to see manipulation of your energy: start up a heavy reliance on American LNG.
If this not of the Biden run, I do not know what can be. He now has an albatross abound his neck in the form of interference
in Ukrainian criminal investigation to save his corrupt to the core narcoaddict son. Only the raw power of neoliberal MSM
to suppress any information that does not fit their agenda is keeping him in the race.
But a more important fact that he was criminally involved in EuroMaydan (at the cost to the USA taxpayers around five billions) is swiped under the carpet. And will never be discussed
along with criminality of Obama and Nuland.
As somebody put it "with considerable forethought [neoliberal MSM] are attempting to create a nation of morons who will
faithfully go out and buy this or that product, vote for this or that candidate and faithfully work for their employers for as low a
wage as possible."
For days we've been treated to MSM insinuations that President Trump may have betrayed the United States after a whistleblower
lodged an 'urgent' complaint about something Trump promised another world leader - the details of which the White House has refused
to share.
Here's the scandal; It appears that Trump, may have made promises to newly minted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky - very
likely involving an effort to convince Ukraine to reopen its investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter, after Biden strongarmed
Ukraine's prior government into firing its top prosecutor - something Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani have pursued for months
. There are also unsupported rumors that Trump threatened to withhold $250 million in aid to help Ukraine fight Russian-backed separatists.
And while the MSM and Congressional Democrats are starting to focus on the sitting US president having a political opponent investigated,
The New
York Times admits that nothing Trump did would have been illegal , as "while Mr. Trump may have discussed intelligence activities
with the foreign leader, he enjoys broad power as president to declassify intelligence secrets, order the intelligence community
to act and otherwise direct the conduct of foreign policy as he sees fit."
Moreover, here's why Trump and Giuliani are going to dig their heels in; last year Biden openly bragged about threatening to hurl
Ukraine into bankruptcy as Vice President if they didn't fire their top prosecutor , Viktor Shokin - who was leading a wide-ranging
corruption investigation into a natural gas firm whose board Hunter Biden sat on.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling,
Biden described
how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in
U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General
Viktor Shokin. -
The Hill
"I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them
and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the
conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired . And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council on
Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat.
In short, there's both smoke and fire here - and what's left of Biden's 2020 bid for president may be the largest casualty of
the entire whistleblower scandal.
And by the transitive properties of the Obama administration 'vetting' Trump by sending spies into his campaign, Trump can simply
say he was protecting America from someone who may have used his position of power to directly benefit his own family at the expense
of justice.
Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, are acting as if they've found the holy grail of taking Trump down. On Thursday, the House
Intelligence Committee chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) interviewed inspector general Michael Atkinson, with whom the whistleblower
lodged their complaint - however despite three hours of testimony, he repeatedly declined to discuss the content of the complaint
.
Following the session, Schiff gave an angry speech - demanding that acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire share
the complaint , and calling the decision to withhold it "unprecedented."
"We cannot get an answer to the question about whether the White House is also involved in preventing this information from coming
to Congress," said Schiff, adding "We're determined to do everything we can to determine what this urgent concern is to make sure
that the national security is protected."
According to Schiff, someone "is trying to manipulate the system to keep information about an urgent matter from the Congress
There certainly are a lot of indications that it was someone at a higher pay grade than the director of national intelligence," according
to the
Washington Post .
On thursday, Trump denied doing anything improper - tweeting " Virtually anytime I speak on the phone to a foreign leader, I understand
that there may be many people listening from various U.S. agencies, not to mention those from the other country itself. "
"Knowing all of this, is anybody dumb enough to believe that I would say something inappropriate with a foreign leader while on
such a potentially 'heavily populated' call. "
Giuliani, meanwhile, went on CNN with Chris Cuomo Thursday to defend his discussions with Ukraine about investigating alleged election
interference in the 2016 election to the benefit of Hillary Clinton conducted by Ukraine's previous government. According to Giuliani,
Biden's dealings in Ukraine were 'tangential' to the 2016 election interference question - in which a Ukrainian court ruled that
government officials meddled
for Hillary in 2016 by releasing details of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort's 'Black Book' to Clinton campaign staffer Alexandra
Chalupa.
And so - what the MSM doesn't appear to understand is that President Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden over something
with legitimate underpinnings.
Which - of course, may lead to the Bidens'
adventures in China , which Giuliani referred to in his CNN interview. And just like his
Ukraine scandal
, it involves actions which may have helped his son Hunter - who was making hand over fist in both countries.
Journalist Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now
Secret Empires discovered
that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's
Journalist Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now
Secret Empires discovered
that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's
firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which expanded to $1.5
billion
Meanwhile, speculation is rampant over what this hornet's nest means for all involved...
The latest intell hit on Trump tells me that the deep-state swamp rats are in a panic over the Ukrainian/Obama admin collusion
about to be outed in the IG report. They're also freaked out over Biden's shady Ukrainian deals with his kid.
Hunter's firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which
expanded to $1.5 billion
Lets clarify this a bit. The 1 billion came from the RED CHINESE ARMY, lets call spade a spade here. And why? To buy into (invest
in ) DARPA related contractors. The RED CHINESE NAVY was so impressed with little sonny's performance (meaning daddy's help),
that they handed over an additions 500,000.
Without daddy's influence as VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and that FREE PLANE RIDE on Air Force TWO with daddy holding
sonny's little hand, little sonny never would have gotten past the ticket booth.
"House Democrats are also looking into whether Giuliani flew to Ukraine to 'encourage' them to investigate Hunter Biden and
his involvement with Burisma."
LOL looking into someone looking into a crime that may have been committed by a Democrat... they're some big brained individuals
these dummycrats.
Putting him in the hot seat would be to ask why he sponsored a coup and backed a neo Nazi party. When he starts to lie, put
up images of the party he back wearing inverted Das Reich arm bands and flying flags. Now that would be real journalism.
The Bidens show precisely that power corrupts. They both need to be investigated and then jailed. To the countries of the world
that depend on the USA for any kind of help, they had to deal with Joe 'what's in-it-for-me' Biden? What a disgrace for America.
I think every sitting President, Vice President, senator, and representative needs a yearly lie-detector test that asks but
one question: "did you do anything in your official duties that personally benefited you or your family?"
Didn't you ever wonder how so many senators and representatives end up multi-millionaires after a couple terms in office?
Why the fuuk do we have have to put up with this jackass. All the talk on cable, etc, is all ********. Trump is a fuuking crook,
and Barr is his bag man,. He has surrounded hinmself with toadies, cowards , incompetents and a trash family. Rise up, call your
representatives, March on DC get this crook out of office.
Call anyone you can think of, challenge them to overcome their cowardice, including members of congress, cabinet, your governor
Same could be said for the Democrats and all their Russian collusion lies and Beto wants to FORCE people to sell their weapons
to the government, right.......
" ...The complaint <against the president> involved communications with a foreign leader and a "promise" that Trump made, which
was so alarming that a U.S. intelligence official <who monitored Trumps call> who had worked at the White House went to the inspector
general of the intelligence community, two former U.S. officials said. ..."
What this tells:
1. If president Trump is monitored this way our spooks know the number of hairs in our crotches...
2. If we convicted on promises most in congress would be hung by the neck til dead for treason for not following the constitution...
Anybody that thinks that Trump, having had Roy Cohn as his mentor, and working in cut-throat NY real estate for years, AND
having dealt with political snakes for many years..would allow himself to be taped saying something on a call that he KNOWS the
Intel Community is listening in, is not paying attention.
This will backfire on the Dems and the media. Trump set them all up again..
My guess is the Dems will be hounding the IC for the complaint, will call Barr and the DNI in an investigation ran live on
CNN and MSNBC..that will show how corrupt Biden was. Everytime you hear Alexandra Chalupa's name come up, look for the MSM to
go ballistic..she is the tell in this one also. It cannot be allowed for the plebes to find out how Manafort was setup, Ukraine
assisted the DNC in the fake Russian election interference farce..hey, guess what, guess who is an ardent Ukraininan nationalist?
The head of Crowdstrike. Chalupa and Alparovich, the names that will bring down more dirty Dems than anyone in history.
For days we've been treated to MSM insinuations that President Trump may have betrayed the United States
Trump is a traitor, but he does not work for either Ukraine nor Russia but instead he works for Israel first and foremost!
He even admits it himself. Lol he doesn't even give a shite when Israel taps his phone :)
House Democrats are also looking into whether Giuliani flew to Ukraine to 'encourage' them to investigate Hunter Biden and
his involvement with Burisma.
This bunch of filthy swine should be looking up each others asses for answers. Actually the Ukrainians have been screaming
for over a year at the DOJ and FBI to take the evidence they have. But the rotten to the core Democrat socialist lefties wanted
to block it.
The Egyptians had pyramids. The Romans had roads, aqueducts, and coliseums. The medieval
Europeans had castles and cathedrals. These days, America's pyramids, aqueducts, and cathedrals
are those warplanes, among other deadly weapons programs , including a
$1.7 trillion one to "modernize" the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
... ... ...
As ephemeral as the F-35 stealth fighter may prove in historical terms, it's already a
classic symbol of America's ever more fruitless forever wars .
Like them , the F-35 program has proven staggeringly expensive, incredibly wasteful, and
impossible to stop, no matter the
woeful results . It has come to symbolize the too-big-to-fail, too-sacrosanct-to-reject
part of America's militarized
culture of technological violence.
... ... ...
Harper's Andrew Cockburn recently used it to illustrate what he termed "the
Pentagon
Syndrome ," the practice of expending enormous sums on weapons of marginal utility.
"... American war-making will persist so long as the United States continues to seek military dominance across the globe. ..."
"... A government that imagines that it has both the right and responsibility to police the entire planet will find an excuse to mire itself in one or more conflicts on a regular basis, and if there isn't one available to join it will start some ..."
"... U.S. military dominance should have at least guaranteed that we remained at peace once our major adversary had collapsed at the end of the Cold War, but the dissolution of the USSR encouraged the U.S. to become much more aggressive and much more eager to use force whenever and wherever it wanted. Wertheim provides an answer for why this is: ..."
"... Why have interventions proliferated as challengers have shrunk? The basic cause is America's infatuation with military force. Its political class imagines that force will advance any aim, limiting debate to what that aim should be. ..."
"... Using force appeals to many American leaders and policymakers because they imagine that frequent military action cows and intimidates adversaries, but in practice it creates more enemies and wastes American lives and resources on fruitless conflicts. ..."
"... The constant warfare of the last two decades in particular has corroded our political system and inured the public to the idea that it is normal that American soldiers and Marines are always fighting and dying in some foreign country in pursuit of nebulous goals, but nothing could be more abnormal and wrong than this. ..."
"... Our establishment would rather give up their skin. They don't call it hegemony, they call it the post ww2 order, leadership, resisting isolationism or some other such nonsense. ..."
"... any country that attempts to gain enough power to assert its own sovereignty is considered a threat that must be crushed and we roll out all of the tools at our disposal to do it. ..."
"... Al Qaeda's attack on us was due to us using them as a tool to stop Russia's push into Afghanistan. ..."
"... Good luck with that. We are ruled by people who are functionally indistinguishable from sociopaths, and sociopaths learn only from reward and punishment. ..."
"... I do not see a politically feasible way to end our global empire without destabilizing that same globe that has come to rely on our military power. ..."
"... Empires have a sort of inertia, and few in history voluntarily give up dominion. ..."
"... What is unsustainable is the current rate of government spending. The current rate of military spending is driving up our debt and making it impossible to reinvest in desperately needed infrastructure. ..."
"... We have been coasting on the infrastructure investments of the 50's and 60's but if we don't start cutting military spending and redirecting that money elsewhere we are going to be bankrupt. ..."
"... I agree that it is almost impossible to conceive of any scenario whereby this "ideology" of so-called world order and/ hegemony would change in the US and in its puppets. ..."
"... The deck is so totally stacked in favor of this ideology, the totally controlled MSM, the MIC, the corrupt and controlled congress, and the presidential admin structure itself, would never allow this mantra to be challenged. ..."
"... It is all about greed and power-the psychopaths pursuing and defending this 'ideology' would never ever go quietly. The money and power is too corrupting. ..."
"... I'm not sure that most of the citizens in those European countries we occupy actually support our permanent military presence in their countries. ..."
"... The new paradigm is that private militarism dominates government, turning it to its preferred priorities of moneymaking warmaking. ..."
Stephen Wertheim explains
what is required to bring an end to unnecessary and open-ended U.S. wars overseas:
American war-making will persist so long as the United States continues to seek military dominance across the globe.
Dominance, assumed to ensure peace, in fact guarantees war. To get serious about stopping endless war, American leaders must do
what they most resist: end America's commitment to armed supremacy and embrace a world of pluralism and peace.
Any government that presumes to be the world's hegemon will be fighting somewhere almost all of the time, because its political
leaders will see everything around the world as their business and it will see every manageable threat as a challenge to their "leadership."
A government that imagines that it has both the right and responsibility to police the entire planet will find an excuse to mire
itself in one or more conflicts on a regular basis, and if there isn't one available to join it will start some.
U.S. military dominance should have at least guaranteed that we remained at peace once our major adversary had collapsed at
the end of the Cold War, but the dissolution of the USSR encouraged the U.S. to become much more aggressive and much more eager to
use force whenever and wherever it wanted. Wertheim provides an answer for why this is:
Why have interventions proliferated as challengers have shrunk? The basic cause is America's infatuation with military
force. Its political class imagines that force will advance any aim, limiting debate to what that aim should be.
Using force appeals to many American leaders and policymakers because they imagine that frequent military action cows and
intimidates adversaries, but in practice it creates more enemies and wastes American lives and resources on fruitless conflicts.
Our government's frenetic interventionism and meddling for the last thirty years hasn't made our country the slightest bit more secure,
but it has sown chaos and instability across at least two continents. Wertheim continues:
Continued gains by the Taliban, 18 years after the United States initially toppled it, suggest a different principle: The profligate
deployment of force creates new and unnecessary objectives more than it realizes existing and worthy ones.
The constant warfare of the last two decades in particular has corroded our political system and inured the public to the
idea that it is normal that American soldiers and Marines are always fighting and dying in some foreign country in pursuit of nebulous
goals, but nothing could be more abnormal and wrong than this. Constant warfare achieves nothing except to provide an excuse
for more of the same. The longer that a war drags on, one would think that it should become easier to bring it to an end, but we
have seen that it becomes harder for both political and military leaders to give up on an unwinnable conflict when it has become
an almost permanent part of our foreign policy. For many policymakers and pundits, what matters is that the U.S. not be perceived
as losing, and so our military keeps fighting without an end in sight for the sake of this "not losing."
Wertheim adds:
Despite Mr. Trump's rhetoric about ending endless wars, the president insists that "our military dominance must be unquestioned"
-- even though no one believes he has a strategy to use power or a theory to bring peace. Armed domination has become an end in
itself.
Seeking to maintain this dominance is ultimately unsustainable, and as it becomes more expensive and less popular it will also
become increasingly dangerous as we find ourselves confronted with even more capable adversaries. For the last thirty years, the
U.S. has been fortunate to be secure and prosperous enough that it could indulge in decades of fruitless militarism, but that luck
won't hold forever. It is far better if the U.S. give up on hegemony and the militarism that goes with it on our terms.
Our establishment would rather give up their skin. They don't call it hegemony, they call it the post ww2 order, leadership,
resisting isolationism or some other such nonsense.
Truth be told, as your article states, any country that attempts to gain enough power to assert its own sovereignty is
considered a threat that must be crushed and we roll out all of the tools at our disposal to do it.
It makes us less safe. Isolationism did not cause 9/11. In the 90's when we were being attacked by Al Qaeda we were too distracted
dancing on Russia's bones to pay any attention to them. While Al Qaeda was attacking our troops and blowing up our buildings we
were bombing Serbia, expanding NATO and reelecting Yeltsin and sticking it to Iran.
It goes beyond that. Al Qaeda's attack on us was due to us using them as a tool to stop Russia's push into Afghanistan.
We later abandoned them when the job was done: a pack hound we trained, pushed to fight, then left in the forest abandoned and
starved. Then we wonder why it came back growling.
Isolationism may not be the most effective solution to things, but I'll admit a LOT of pain, on ourselves and others, would've
never happened if we took that policy.
Good luck with that. We are ruled by people who are functionally indistinguishable from sociopaths, and sociopaths learn only
from reward and punishment.
So far, they only have been rewarded for their crimes.
While I think the economic basis of the Soviet Union was faulty, and it had lost the popular support it might have had in early
days, the USSR's military aggression, particularly in Afghanistan, was a major precipitating factor in its downfall. It would
have eventually crumbled, I believe, anyway, but had they taken a less aggressive stance I think they would have lasted several
decades longer.
Is it really in our hands to actually disengage though? Is this politically feasible?
How does this work? The US gets up one day and says "We're pulling all of our troops out of Saudi and SK. No more funding for
Israel! No bolstering the pencil-thin government of Afghanistan. All naval bases abroad will be shut down. Longstanding alliances
and interests be damned!"
I sympathize very strongly with the notion that we must use military force wisely and with restraint, and perhaps even that
the post-WW2 expansion abroad was a mistake, but I do not see a politically feasible way to end our global empire without
destabilizing that same globe that has come to rely on our military power.
This is the world we live in, whether we like it or not, and barring some military or economic disaster that forces a strategic
realignment or retreat (like WW2 did for the old European powers) I don't know how you practically pull back. Empires have
a sort of inertia, and few in history voluntarily give up dominion.
What is unsustainable is the current rate of government spending. The current rate of military spending is driving up our
debt and making it impossible to reinvest in desperately needed infrastructure.
We have been coasting on the infrastructure investments of the 50's and 60's but if we don't start cutting military spending
and redirecting that money elsewhere we are going to be bankrupt.
Sure. That doesn't mean American withdrawal would create less instability in toto. Maybe it would. Who knows? We mortals can only
take counterfactuals so far.
I agree that it is almost impossible to conceive of any scenario whereby this "ideology" of so-called world order and/
hegemony would change in the US and in its puppets.
The deck is so totally stacked in favor of this ideology, the totally controlled MSM, the MIC, the corrupt and controlled
congress, and the presidential admin structure itself, would never allow this mantra to be challenged.
It is all about greed and power-the psychopaths pursuing and defending this 'ideology' would never ever go quietly. The
money and power is too corrupting.
Maybe, just maybe, however, as we are at $22 trillion in debt and counting (just saw a total tab for F-35 of $1.5 trillion)
that the money will run out, and zero interest rate financing is not all that awesome, this unsustainable mindlessness will be
curtailed or even better, changed.
It's not really hegemony. Old-fashioned empires took over territory in order to gain resources and labor. We haven't done that
since 1920. Especially since 1990 we've been making war purely to destroy and obliterate. When our war is done there's nothing
left to dominate or own.
Domestically we've been using politics and media and controlled culture to do the same thing. Create "terrorists" and "extremists"
on "two" "sides", set them loose, enjoy the resulting chaos. Chaos is the declared goal, and it's been working beautifully for
70 years.
China is expanding empire in Africa and Asia the old-fashioned way, improving farms and factories in order to have exclusive
purchase of their output.
Could not have said it better. "On our terms" would mean that Europe is forced to take matters of military security in it's own
hands, I hope. But chanches are slim, history shows empires must fall hard and break a leg or so first before anything changes.
Iran, Saudi-arabia, the greater ME, China, the trade wars and the world economy are coming together for a perfect storm it seems.
The problem with US hegemony is Israel. Look around the world. Neither Japan nor South Korea nor Vietnam nor Philippines nor India
nor Indonesia nor Australia (the same can be said for South and Central America, Mexico, Canada and Europe) require a significant
US presence.
None of them are asking for a greater presence in their country (except Poland) while being perfectly happy with
our alliance, joint defense, trade, intelligence and technology sharing.
It is only Israel and Saudi Arabia which are constantly pushing the US into middle eastern wars and quagmires that we have
no national interest. Trump sees the plain truth that the US is in jeopardy of losing its manufacturing and its technological
lead to China. If we (US) dont start to rebuild our infrastructure, our defense, our cities, our communities, our manufacturing,
our educational system then our nation is going to follow California into a 3rd world totalitarian state dominated by democratic
voting immigrants whose only affiliation to our country and our constitutional republic is a welfare check, free govt programs
and incestuous govt contracts which funnel govt dollars into the re-election PACs of democratic / liberal elected officials.
The new paradigm is that private militarism dominates government, turning it to its preferred priorities of moneymaking warmaking.
Defeat is now when war's income streams end. The only wars that are lost, are those that end, defeating the winning of war profits.
War, as a financial success story, has become an end in itself, and an empire that looks for more to wage means some mighty big
wages with more profit opportunities. Victory is to be avoided - red ink being spilled through peace detestable - and blood spilled
profitably to be encouraged.
"... The United States also cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials seemingly can't even decide which faction it wants to back. Washington's official policy continues to support the GNA, which the United Nations recognizes as the country's legitimate government -- even though its writ extends to little territory beyond the Tripoli metropolitan area. President Donald Trump, however, had an extremely cordial, lengthy telephone conversation in April with Haftar and appeared impressed with Haftar's professed determination to combat terrorist groups and bring order and unity to Libya. Neither Libyan faction now seems certain about Washington's stance. ..."
"... One poster child for such continuing arrogance is Samantha Power, an influential national security council staffer in 2011 and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In her new book, The Education of an Idealist , Power takes no responsibility whatever for the Libya debacle. Indeed, flippant might be too generous a term for her treatment of the episode. "We could hardly expect to have a crystal ball when it came to accurately predicting outcomes in places where the culture was not our own," she contends. American Conservative analyst Daniel Larison correctly excoriates her argument as "a pathetic attempt by Power to deny responsibility for the effects of a war she backed by shrugging her shoulders and pleading ignorance. If Libyan culture was so opaque and hard for the Obama administration to understand, they should never have taken sides in an internal conflict there. If the 'culture was not our own' and they couldn't anticipate what was going to happen because of that, then how arrogant must the policymakers who argued in favor of intervention have been?" ..."
"... Obama and company not only destroyed Libya, they also helped to unleash a wave of jihadis who are terrorizing vast swaths of west Africa, especially Mali and Burkina Faso. Their stupidity and lack of foresight is mind-boggling! ..."
"... I understand the role which the Obama administration played in getting the Libyan intervention started. However the major destruction of Libya's fragile structure of governance under Qaddafi was done by the French, Brits, and Italians. ..."
The United States cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials can't seem to
decide which faction they want to back.
The Western-created disaster in Libya continues to grow worse. Fighting between Field
Marshal Khalifa Haftar's so-called Libyan National Army (LNA) and the even more misnamed
Government of National Accord (GNA) has intensified in and around Tripoli. The LNA boasted on
September 11 that its forces had routed troops of the Sarraj militia, a GNA ally, killing
about two hundred of them. That total may be exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the
situation has become increasingly violent and
chaotic in Tripoli and other portions of Libya, with innocent civilians bearing the brunt
of the suffering.
An article in Bloomberg News provides a
succinct account of the poisonous fruits of the U.S.-led "humanitarian" military
intervention in 2011. "Libya is enduring its worst violence since the 2011 NATO-backed ouster
of Muammar el-Qaddafi, which ushered in years of instability that allowed Islamist radicals to
thrive and turned the country into a hub for migrants destined to Europe. Haftar had launched
the war as the United Nations was laying the ground for a political conference to unite the
country. It is now more divided than ever." The country has become the plaything not only of
rival domestic factions but major
Middle East powers , including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and the United Arab
Emirates. Those regimes are waging a ruthless geopolitical competition, providing arms and in
some cases even launching airstrikes on behalf of their preferred clients.
The United States also cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials seemingly
can't even decide which faction it wants to back. Washington's official policy continues to
support the GNA, which the United Nations recognizes as the country's legitimate government
-- even though its writ extends to little territory beyond the Tripoli metropolitan area.
President Donald Trump, however, had an extremely cordial, lengthy telephone conversation in
April with Haftar and
appeared impressed with Haftar's professed determination to combat terrorist groups and
bring order and unity to Libya. Neither Libyan faction now seems certain about Washington's
stance.
Given the appalling aftermath of the original U.S.-led intervention, one might hope that
advocates of an activist policy would be chastened and back away from further meddling in that
unfortunate country. Yet, that is not the case. Neither the Trump administration nor the
humanitarian crusaders in Barack Obama's administration who caused the calamity in the first
place seem inclined to advocate a more cautious, restrained U.S. policy.
One poster child for such continuing arrogance is Samantha Power, an influential
national security council staffer in 2011 and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In
her new book, The Education of an
Idealist , Power takes no responsibility whatever for the Libya debacle. Indeed,
flippant might be too generous a term for her treatment of the episode. "We could hardly expect
to have a crystal ball when it came to accurately predicting outcomes in places where the
culture was not our own," she contends. American Conservative analyst Daniel Larison
correctly
excoriates her argument as "a pathetic attempt by Power to deny responsibility for the
effects of a war she backed by shrugging her shoulders and pleading ignorance. If Libyan
culture was so opaque and hard for the Obama administration to understand, they should never
have taken sides in an internal conflict there. If the 'culture was not our own' and they
couldn't anticipate what was going to happen because of that, then how arrogant must the
policymakers who argued in favor of intervention have been?"
The answer to Larison's rhetorical question is "extraordinarily arrogant." It is not as
though prudent foreign-policy experts didn't warn Power and her colleagues about the probable
consequences of intervening in a volatile, fragile country like Libya. Indeed, as Robert Gates,
Obama's secretary of defense, confirms in his memoir, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War , the Obama
administration itself was deeply divided about the advisability of intervention. The Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Vice President Joe Biden, and Gates were opposed. Among the most outspoken
proponents of action were Power and her mentor, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Gates notes
further that Obama was deeply torn, later telling his secretary of defense that the decision
was a "51 to 49" call.
The existence of a sharp internal division is sufficient evidence by itself that Power's
attempt to absolve herself and other humanitarian crusaders of responsibility for the
subsequent tragedy is without merit. Indeed, it has even less credibility than Pontius Pilate's
infamous effort to evade guilt. They were warned of the probable outcome, yet they chose to
disregard those warnings.
Power, Clinton, Obama and other proponents of ousting Qaddafi turned Libya into a chaotic
Somalia on the Mediterranean, and the blood of innocents shed since 2011 is on their hands.
Given the stark split within the president's national security team, the Libya intervention was
especially reckless and unjustified. The default option in such a case should have been against
intervention, not plunging ahead.
The Trump administration should learn from the blunders of its predecessor and resist any
temptation to meddle further. America does not have a dog in the ongoing fight between Haftar
and the GNA, and we should simply accept whatever outcome emerges. Washington's arrogant
interference has caused enough suffering in Libya already.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a
contributing editor at the National Interest , is the author of thirteen books and more than
eight hundred articles on international affairs. His latest book is NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur .
The outcome in Libya is what the intent was - chaos, per the Yinon plan. The side effect
of mass immigration to Europe was warned by Gaddafi! All was known, yet the destabilization
war continued.
Obama and company not only destroyed Libya, they also helped to unleash a wave of jihadis
who are terrorizing vast swaths of west Africa, especially Mali and Burkina Faso. Their
stupidity and lack of foresight is mind-boggling!
Libya was and still is the case of a civil war into which foreign powers have intervened.
The major parties of that war have always been the Tripolitanian West and the Cyrenaican
East. Whoever is on top considers the others to be the rebels. That is how the demise of
Qaddafi began. For him Benghazi was the rebel's nest which needed some cleaning. Nothing has
changed. Haftar is the new Qaddafi.
I understand the role which the Obama administration played in getting the Libyan
intervention started. However the major destruction of Libya's fragile structure of
governance under Qaddafi was done by the French, Brits, and Italians.
You can always make things worse. It is one thing that Trump and friends are good at.
They don't consider that a criticism either, since they want what the rest of us consider
worse -- more war, more enemies, more inequality in outcomes at home, more desperation at
home giving more power to the haves over the have-nots.
Mortimer Adler's "How to Read a Book" is a timeless classic that still applies to articles
produced for electronic consumption. One of Adler's primary admonitions was to consider the
author's expertise, credibility, and potential biases. With regard to this article, scrolling
down to the end reveals the author's association with the Koch Brother financed Cato
Institute. The Koch Brothers and their money have done more to destroy American democracy
than any foreign tyrant or Presidential folly.
And oh, by the way, what did the Neocons and the Vulcans of the W Administration do to the
entire Middle East other than create a contiguous geographic belt of Iranian Shiite influence
from Tehran to Beirut?
@b - "Iran has thereby plausible deniability when attacks like the recent one on Abquiq
happen. That Iran supplied drones with 1,500 kilometer reach to its allies in Yemen means
that its allies in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq and elsewhere have access to similar means."
I read the Tyler Rogoway WarZone article you linked to, and it was the first time I'd seen
the concept that Iran "has built a plausible deniability environment" for itself, but I think
Rogoway is missing a serious point. If Iran has such deniability, I don't think this exists
by contrivance. I think the truth of the situation has created such plausible deniability, if
in fact such a thing even exists, or if such a thing is even desired by Iran or any of its
allies.
I would like to offer a more nuanced view of the relationship between Iran and its allies.
Specifically regarding your view that Iran's allies are "willing to act on Iran's behalf
should the need arise."
I get the impression that it's more a case that all these allies see themselves in the
same existential position, and have developed, and are continuing to refine, an "all for one
and one for all" approach to the regional security of all the sovereign allies.
Sharmine Narwani explained this very thing in her recent interview with Ross Ashcroft,
where she said that if one of the allies is attacked by the US or Israel, all of the allies
will join in immediately and without reservation, because for each of them it is the same
existential threat: What's the real plan
with Iran?
And the interview you link to by Nader Talebzadeh with IRGC General Amir Ali Hajizadeh
concludes with the general's statement that "...in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen;
now Muslims are all a coalition standing next to each other". How likely is the
possibility of a military conflict between Iran and the US?
~~
I'm not trying to split hairs here, but it strikes me as important to note that these
countries have moved on from being isolated, and are in fact in a coalition, albeit still
coalescing. Their militaries have trained together and established joint command centers in
recent times.
As the general explained, when the threat of attack by the US seemed imminent - at the
time Iran downed the drone - Iran was fully prepared to attack and destroy several US bases.
One hopes that the Pentagon can understand that any attack on one of these members of the
coalition will be met with a coordinated and unreserved response by all allies.
Given such a geopolitical situation now throughout the region, the concept of Iran's
having "plausible deniability" for other countries to act on its behalf seems too narrow a
view. And this is why all the fevered discussion about who "owns" the Houthi strike is
missing the main strategic point that the whole region "owns" it - and why it is sufficient
that the Houthi did in fact act alone, but not alone, because none of these forces is now
alone. It is, one gathers, a brotherly coalition that has formed and is becoming yet
stronger
So it need not be the case that everything flows from Iran, or revolves around Iran. The
whole region is now the steel trap not to step on.
Iran has incentives to increase the chance of a Democrat administration, bearing in mind the
great deal they got from the last one and the lack of anything they can expect from Trump Term
Two.
You have several thousand soldiers in Iraq and Syria. These countries have large proxy
forces of Iran's allies in the form of Shia militias in Iraq and actual Iranian Quds Force
troops in Syria. These forces will be used to attack and kill our soldiers.
The Iranians have significant numbers of ballistic missiles which they have already said
will be used against our forces
The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC
Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed. In that
process the US Navy will loose men and ships.
In direct air attacks on Iran we are bound to lose aircraft and air crew.
The IRGC and its Quds Force will carry out terrorist attacks across the world.
Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge? Don't let the neocons like Pompeo sell you on war.
Make the intelligence people show you the evidence in detail. Make your own judgments.
pl
Vegetius,
re " Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people "
Are you sure? I am not.
Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump.
He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4
pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in
your face in an hour, Sir ".
A good number of the so called grownups who gave such advice were (gameshow style) fired,
sometimes by twitter.
Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on
the military (which likely will obey).
These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even
after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper.
Israel could, if politically just a tad more insane, bomb Iran and thus invite the
inevitable retaliation. When that happens they'll cry for US aid, weapons and money because
they alone ~~~
(a) cannot defeat Iran (short of going nuclear) and ...
(b) Holocaust! We want weapons and money from Germany, too! ...
(c) they know that ...
(d) which does not lead in any way to Netanyahu showing signgs of self restraint or
reason.
Netanyahu just - it is (tight) election time - announced, in his sldedge hammer style
subtlety, that (he) Israel will annect the palestinian west jordan territory, making the
Plaestines an object in his election campaign.
IMO that idea is simply insane and invites more "troubles". But then, I didn't hear
anything like, say, Trump gvt protests against that (and why expect that from the dudes who
moved the US embassy to Jerusalem).
Vegetius,
as for Trump and Netanyahu ... policy debate ... I had that here in mind, which pretty speaks
for itself. And I thought Trumo is just running for office in the US. Alas, it is a Netanyaho
campaign poster from the current election:
I generously assume that things like that only happen because of the hard and hard
ly work of Kushner on his somewhat elusive but of course GIGANTIC and
INCREDIBLE Middle East peace plan.
Kushner is probably getting hard and hard ly supported by Ivanka who just said that
she inherited her moral compass from her father. Well ... congatulations ... I assume.
I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has
cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate
nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have?
The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our
military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force
us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking.
Need I trot out Goering's statement regarding selling a war once more?
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a
farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back
to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor
in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the
matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are
intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy
does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we
could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies.
If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL
The 'ivestigations are a formality. The Saudis (with U.S. backing) are already saying that
the missiles were Iranian made and according to them, this proves that Iran fired them. The
Saudis are using the more judicious phrase 'behind the attack' but Pompeo is running with the
fired from Iran narrative.
How can we tell the difference between an actual Iranian manufactured missile vs one that
was manufactured in Yemen based on Iranian designs? We only have a few pictures Iranian
missiles unlike us, the Iranians don't toss them all over the place so we don't have any
physical pieces to compare them to.
Perhaps honest investigators could make a determination but even if they do exist they
will keep quiet while the bible thumping Pompeo brays and shamelessly lies as he is prone to
do.
These kinds of munition will leave hundreds of bits scattered all over their targets. I'm
waiting for the press conference with the best bits laid out on the tables.
I doubt that there will be any stencils saying 'Product of Iran', unless the paint smells
fresh.
1. I am still waiting to read some informed discussion concerning the *accuracy* of the
projectiles hitting their targets with uncanny precision from hundreds of miles away. What
does this say about the achievement of those pesky Eye-rainians? https://www.moonofalabama.org/images9/saudihit2.jpg
2. "The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the
IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed.:
Ahem, Which forces are utterly destroyed? With respect colonel, you are not thinking
straight. An army with supersonic land to sea missiles that are highly accurate will make
minced meat of any fool's ship that dare attack it. The lesson of the last few months is that
Iran is deadly serious about its position that if they cannot sell their oil, no one else
will be able to either. And if the likes of the relatively broadminded colonel have not yet
learned that lesson, then this can only mean that the escalation ladder will continue to be
climbed, rung by rung. Next rung: deep sea port of Yanbu, or, less likely, Ra's Tanura.
That's when the price of oil will really go through the roof and the Chinese (and possibly
one or two of the Europoodles) will start crying Uncle Scam. Nuff Sed.
It sounds like you are getting a little "help" with this. You statement about the result
of a naval confrontation in the Gulf reflects the 19th Century conception that "ships can't
fight forts." that has been many times exploded. You have never seen the amount of firepower
that would be unleashed on Iran from the air and sea. Would the US take casualties? Yes, but
you will be destroyed.
We will have to agree to disagree. But unless I am quite mistaken, the majority view if not
the consensus of informed up to date opinion holds that the surest sign that the US is
getting ready to attack Iran is that it is withdrawing all of its naval power out of the
Persian Gulf, where they would be sitting ducks.
Besides, I don't think it will ever come to that. Not to repeat myself, but taking out
either deep sea ports of Ra's Tanura and/ or Yanbu (on the Red Sea side) will render Saudi
oil exports null and void for the next six months. The havoc that will play with the price of
oil and consequently on oil futures and derivatives will be enough for any president and army
to have to worry about. But if the US would still be foolhardy enough to continue to want to
wage war (i.e. continue its strangulation of Iran, which it has been doing more or less for
the past 40 years), then the Yemeni siege would be broken and there would be a two-pronged
attack from the south and the north, whereby al-Qatif, the Shi'a region of Saudi Arabia where
all the oil and gas is located, will be liberated from their barbaric treatment at the hands
of the takfiri Saudi scum, which of course is completely enabled and only made possible by
the War Criminal Uncle Sam.
AFAIK the only "US naval power" currently is the Abraham Lincoln CSG and I haven't seen any
public info that it was in the Persian Gulf. Aside from the actual straits, I'm not sure of
your "sitting ducks" assertion. First they wouldn't be sitting, and second you have the
problem of a large volume of grey shipping that would complicate the targeting problem. Of
course with a reduced time-of-flight, that also reduces target position uncertainty.
Forts are stationary.
Nothing I have read implies that Iran has a lot of investment in stationary forts.
Millennium Challenge 2002, only the game cannot be restarted once the enemy does not behave
as one hopes. Unlike in scripted war simulations, Opfor can win.
I remember the amount of devastation that was unleashed on another "backwards nation"
Linebackers 1 - 20, battleship salvos chemical defoliants, the Phoenix program, napalm for
dessert.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but that benighted nation was oriental; Iran is a
Caucasian nation full of Caucasian type peoples.
Nothing about this situation is of any benefit to the USA.
We do not need Saudi oil, we do not need Israel to come to the defense of the USA here in
North America, we do not need to stick our dick into the hornet's nest and then wonder why
they sting and it hurts. How many times does Dumb have to win?
3. Also, I can't imagine this event as being a very welcome one for Israeli military
observers, the significance of which is not lost on them, unlike their US counterparts. If
Yemen/ Iran can put the Abqaiq processing plant out of commission for a few weeks, then
obviusly Hezbollah can do the same for the giant petrochemical complex at Haifa, as well as
Dimona, and the control tower at Ben Gurion Airport. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/239251
It was late at night when I wrote this. Yeah, Right. the Iranians could send their massive
ground force into Syria where it would be chewed up by US and Israeli air. Alternatively they
could invade Saudi arabia.
Thank you for the reply but actually I was thinking that an invasion of Afghanistan would be
the more sensible ploy.
To my mind if the Iranian Army sits on its backside then the USAF and IAF will ignore it
to roam the length and breadth of Iran destroying whatever ground targets are on their
long-planned target-list.
Or that Iranian Army can launch itself into Afghanistan, at which point all of the USA
plans for a methodical aerial pummelling of Iran's infrastructure goes out the window as the
USAF scrambles to save the American forces in Afghanistan from being overrun.
Isn't that correct?
So what incentive is there for that Iranian Army to sit around doing nothing?
Iran will do what the USAF isn't expecting it to do, if for no other reason that it upsets
the USA's own game-plan.
There seems to be a bit of a hiatus in proceedings - not in these columns but on the ground
in the ME.
Everyone seems to be waiting for something.
Could this "something" be the decisive word fron our commander in chief Binyamin
Netanyahu?
The thing is he has just pretty much lost an election. Likud might form part of the next
government of Israel but most likely not with him at its head.
Does anyone have any ideas on what the future policy of Israel is likely to be under Gantz
or whoever? Will it be the same, worse or better?
The correct US move would be to ignore an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan and continue
leaving the place. The Iranian Shia can then fight the Sunni jihadi tribesmen.
Oh, I completely agree that if the Iranians launch an invasion of Afghanistan then the only
sensible strategy would be for the US troops to pack up and get out as fast as possible.
But that is "cut and run", which many in Washington would view as a humiliation.
Do you really see the beltway warriors agreeing to that?
A flaw in your otherwise sound argument is that the US military has not been seriously
engaged for several years and has been reconstituting itself with the money Trump has given
them.
Re-positioning of forces does not indicate that a presidential decision for war has been
made. The navy will not want to fight you in the narrow, shallow waters of the Gulf.
I would think that Mr. Trump would have a hard time sell a war with Iran over an attack on
Saudi Arabia. The good question about how would that war end will soon be raised and I doubt
there are many good answers.
The US should have gotten out of that part of the world a long time ago, just as they
should have paid more attention to the warnings in President Eisenhower's farewell
address.
The Perfumed Fops in the DOD restarted Millennium Challenge 2002,because Gen Van Riper had
used 19th and early 20th century tactics and shore based firepower to sink the Blue Teams
carrier forces. There was a script, Van Riper did some adlibbing. Does the US DOD think that
Iran will follow the US script? In a unipolar world maybe the USA could enforce a script,
that world was severely wounded in 1975, took a sucking chest wound during operation Cakewalk
in 2003 and died in Syria in 2015. Too many poles too many powers not enough diplomacy. It
will not end well.
We would crush Iran at some cost to ourselves but the political cost to the anti-globalist
coalition would catastrophic. BTW Trump's "base" isn't big enough to elect him so he cannot
afford to alienate independents.
Even if Rouhani and the Iranian Parliament personally designed, assembled, targeted and
launched the missiles (scarier sounding version of "drones"), then they should be
congratulated, for the Saudi tyrant deserves every bad thing that he gets.
prawnik (Sid) in this particular situation goering's glittering generalization does not
apply. Trump needs a lot of doubting suburbanites to win and a war will not incline them to
vote for him.
Looks like President Trump is walking it back, tweet: I have just instructed the Secretary of
the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!
I doubt there will be armed conflict of any kind.
Everything Trump does from now (including sacking the Bolton millstone) will be directed at
winning 2020, and that will not be aided by entering into some inconclusive low intensity
attrition war.
Iran, on the other hand, will be doing everything it can to increase the chance of a Democrat
administration, bearing in mind the great deal they got from the last one and the lack of
anything they can expect from Trump Term Two.
This may be a useful tool for determining their next move, but the limit of their actions
would be when some Democrats begin making the electorally damaging mistake of critising Trump
for not retaliating against Iranian provocations.
Should the warrior who currently inhabits the position of Secretary of State use his
influence to persuade Donald Trump to enter what would likely be a very lengthy war of
attrition in Iran, it may prove to be a very costly move for the Republican Party in November
of 2020 given the level of support for such actions among Main Street Americans.
"... The aim of the panel, called the Joint Authorities Technical Review, was to expedite getting the 737 Max into the air by creating a vehicle for achieve consensus among foreign regulators who had grounded the 737 Max before the FAA had. But these very regulators had also made clear they needed to be satisfied before they'd let it fly in their airspace. ..."
"... The FAA hopes to give the 737 Max the green light in November, while the other regulators all have said they have issues that are unlikely to be resolved by then. The agency is now in the awkward position of having a body it set up to be authoritative turn on the agency's own procedures. ..."
"... the FAA had moved further and further down the path of relying on aircraft manufactures for critical elements of certification. Not all of this was the result of capture; with the evolution of technology, even the sharpest and best intended engineer in government employ would become stale on the state of the art in a few years. ..."
"... Although all stories paint a broadly similar picture, .the most damning is a detailed piece at the Seattle Times, Engineers say Boeing pushed to limit safety testing in race to certify planes, including 737 MAX ..The article gives an incriminating account of how Boeing got the FAA to delegate more and more certification authority to the airline, and then pressured and abused employees who refused to back down on safety issues . ..."
"... In 2004, the FAA changed its system for front-line supervision of airline certification from having the FAA select airline certification employees who reported directly to the FAA to having airline employees responsible for FAA certification report to airline management and have their reports filtered through them (the FAA attempted to maintain that the certification employees could provide their recommendations directly to the agency, but the Seattle Times obtained policy manuals that stated otherwise). ..."
"... On Monday, the Post and Courier reported about the South Carolina plant that produced 787s found with tools rattling inside that Boeing SC lets mechanics inspect their own work, leading to repeated mistakes, workers say. These mechanic certifications would never have been kosher if the FAA were vigilant. Similarly, Reuters described how Boeing weakened another safety check, that of pilot input. ..."
"... As part of roughly a dozen findings, these government and industry officials said, the task force is poised to call out the Federal Aviation Administration for what it describes as a lack of clarity and transparency in the way the FAA delegated authority to the plane maker to assess the safety of certain flight-control features. The upshot, according to some of these people, is that essential design changes didn't receive adequate FAA attention. ..."
"... But the report could influence changes to traditional engineering principles determining the safety of new aircraft models. Certification of software controlling increasingly interconnected and automated onboard systems "is a whole new ballgame requiring new approaches," according to a senior industry safety expert who has discussed the report with regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. ..."
"... For instance, the Journal reports that Canadian authorities expect to require additional simulator training for 737 Max pilots. Recall that Boeing's biggest 737 Max customer, Southwest Airlines, was so resistant to the cost of additional simulator training that it put a penalty clause into its contract if wound up being necessary. ..."
"... Patrick Ky, head of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, told the European Parliament earlier this month, "It's very likely that international authorities will want a second opinion" on any FAA decision to lift the grounding. ..."
"... Most prominently, EASA has proposed to eventually add to the MAX a third fully functional angle-of-attack sensor -- which effectively measures how far the plane's nose is pointed up or down -- underscoring the controversy expected to swirl around the plane for the foreseeable future. ..."
"... It's hard to see how Boeing hasn't gotten itself in the position of being at a major competitive disadvantage by virtue of having compromised the FAA so severely as to have undercut safety. ..."
"... has Boeing developed a plan to correct the trim wheel issue on the 787max? i haven't seen a single statement from them on how they plan to fix this problem. is it possible they think they can get the faa to re-certify without addressing it? ..."
"... Don't forget that the smaller trim wheels are in the NG as well. any change to fix the wheels ripples across more planes than just the Max ..."
"... The self-inflicted wound caused by systematic greed and arrogance – corruption, in other words. Boeing is reaping the wages of taking 100% of their profits to support the stock price through stock buybacks and deliberately under-investing in their business. Their brains have been taken over by a parasitic financial system that profits by wrecking healthy businesses. ..."
"... Shareholder Value is indeed the worst idea in the world. That Boeing's biggest stockholder, Vanguard, is unable to cleanup Boeing's operations makes perfect sense. I mean vanguards expertise is making money, not building anything. Those skills are completely different. ..."
"... One maxim we see illustrated here and elsewhere is this: Trust takes years to earn, but can be lost overnight. ..."
The FAA evidently lacked
perspective on how much trouble it was in after the two international headline-grabbing crashes
of the Boeing 737 Max. It established a "multiagency panel" meaning one that included
representatives from foreign aviation regulators, last April. A new Wall Street Journal article
reports that the findings of this panel, to be released in a few weeks, are expected to
lambaste the FAA 737 Max approval process and urge a major redo of how automated aircraft
systems get certified .
The aim of the panel, called the Joint Authorities Technical Review, was to expedite getting
the 737 Max into the air by creating a vehicle for achieve consensus among foreign regulators
who had grounded the 737 Max before the FAA had. But these very regulators had also made clear
they needed to be satisfied before they'd let it fly in their airspace.
The JATR gave them a venue for reaching a consensus, but it wasn't the consensus the FAA
sought. The foreign regulators, despite being given a forum in which to hash things out with
the FAA, are not following the FAA's timetable. The FAA hopes to give the 737 Max the green
light in November, while the other regulators all have said they have issues that are unlikely
to be resolved by then. The agency is now in the awkward position of having a body it set up to
be authoritative turn on the agency's own procedures.
The Seattle Times, which has broken many important on the Boeing debacle, reported on how
the FAA had moved further and further down the path of relying on aircraft manufactures for
critical elements of certification. Not all of this was the result of capture; with the
evolution of technology, even the sharpest and best intended engineer in government employ
would become stale on the state of the art in a few years.
However, one of the critical decisions the FAA took was to change the reporting lines of the
manufacturer employees who were assigned to FAA certification.
From a May post :
Although all stories paint a broadly similar picture, .the most damning is a detailed
piece at the Seattle Times,
Engineers say Boeing pushed to limit safety testing in race to certify planes, including 737
MAX ..The article gives an incriminating account of how Boeing got the FAA to delegate
more and more certification authority to the airline, and then pressured and abused employees
who refused to back down on safety issues .
As the Seattle Times described, the problems extended beyond the 737 Max MCAS software
shortcomings; indeed, none of the incidents in the story relate to it.
In 2004, the FAA changed its system for front-line supervision of airline certification
from having the FAA select airline certification employees who reported directly to the FAA
to having airline employees responsible for FAA certification report to airline management
and have their reports filtered through them (the FAA attempted to maintain that the
certification employees could provide their recommendations directly to the agency, but the
Seattle Times obtained policy manuals that stated otherwise).
Mind you, the Seattle Times was not alone in depicting the FAA as captured by Boeing. On
Monday, the Post and Courier reported about the South Carolina plant that produced 787s found
with tools rattling inside that
Boeing SC lets mechanics inspect their own work, leading to repeated mistakes, workers say.
These mechanic certifications would never have been kosher if the FAA were vigilant. Similarly,
Reuters described how Boeing weakened another safety check, that of pilot input.
One of the objectives for creating this panel was to restore confidence in Boeing and the
FAA, but that was always going to be a tall order, particularly after more bad news about
various 737 Max systems and Boeing being less than forthcoming with its customers and
regulators emerged.
From the Wall Street Journal :
As part of roughly a dozen findings, these government and industry officials said, the
task force is poised to call out the Federal Aviation Administration for what it describes as
a lack of clarity and transparency in the way the FAA delegated authority to the plane maker
to assess the safety of certain flight-control features. The upshot, according to some of
these people, is that essential design changes didn't receive adequate FAA attention.
The report, these officials said, also is expected to fault the agency for what it
describes as inadequate data sharing with foreign authorities during its original
certification of the MAX two years ago, along with relying on mistaken industrywide
assumptions about how average pilots would react to certain flight-control emergencies .
The FAA has stressed that the advisory group doesn't have veto power over modifications to
MCAS.
But the report could influence changes to traditional engineering principles determining
the safety of new aircraft models. Certification of software controlling increasingly
interconnected and automated onboard systems "is a whole new ballgame requiring new
approaches," according to a senior industry safety expert who has discussed the report with
regulators on both sides of the Atlantic.
If the FAA thinks it can keep this genie the bottle, it is naive. The foreign regulators
represented on the task force, including from China and the EU, have ready access to the
international business press. And there will also be an embarrassing fact on the ground, that
the FAA, which was last to ground the 737 Max, will be the first to let it fly again, and
potentially by not requiring safety protections that other regulators will insist on. For
instance, the Journal reports that Canadian authorities expect to require additional simulator
training for 737 Max pilots. Recall that Boeing's biggest 737 Max customer, Southwest Airlines,
was so resistant to the cost of additional simulator training that it put a penalty clause into
its contract if wound up being necessary.
It's a given that the FAA will be unable to regain its former stature and that all of its
certifications of major aircraft will now be second guessed subject to further
review by major foreign regulators. That in turn will impose costs on Boeing, of changing its
certification process from needing to placate only the FAA to having to appease potentially
multiple parties. For instance, the EU regulator is poised to raise the bar on the 737 Max:
Patrick Ky, head of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, told the European
Parliament earlier this month, "It's very likely that international authorities will want a
second opinion" on any FAA decision to lift the grounding.
Even after EASA gives the green light, agency officials are expected to push for
significant additional safety enhancements to the fleet. Most prominently, EASA has proposed
to eventually add to the MAX a third fully functional angle-of-attack sensor -- which
effectively measures how far the plane's nose is pointed up or down -- underscoring the
controversy expected to swirl around the plane for the foreseeable future.
A monopoly is a precious thing to have. Too bad Boeing failed to appreciate that in its zeal
for profits. If the manufacturer winds up facing different demands in different regulatory
markets, it will have created more complexity for itself. Can it afford not to manufacture to
the highest common denominator, say by making an FAA-only approved bird for Southwest and
trying to talk American into buying FAA-only approved versions for domestic use only? It's hard
to see how Boeing hasn't gotten itself in the position of being at a major competitive
disadvantage by virtue of having compromised the FAA so severely as to have undercut
safety.
Even if Boeing finds solutions that international regulators can finally accept, their
implementation will take additional months. The AoA sensor and trim wheel issues will
likely require hardware changes to the 600 or so existing MAX airplanes. The demand for
simulator training will further delay the ungrounding of the plane. There are only some two
dozen 737 MAX simulators in this world and thousands of pilots who will need to pass
through them.
has Boeing developed a plan to correct the trim wheel issue on the 787max? i haven't seen
a single statement from them on how they plan to fix this problem. is it possible they think
they can get the faa to re-certify without addressing it?
The self-inflicted wound caused by systematic greed and arrogance – corruption, in
other words. Boeing is reaping the wages of taking 100% of their profits to support the stock
price through stock buybacks and deliberately under-investing in their business. Their brains
have been taken over by a parasitic financial system that profits by wrecking healthy
businesses.
It's not only Boeing – the rot is general and it is terrible to see the destruction
of American productive capacity by a parasitic finance sector.
Shareholder Value is indeed the worst idea in the world. That Boeing's biggest
stockholder, Vanguard, is unable to cleanup Boeing's operations makes perfect sense. I mean
vanguards expertise is making money, not building anything. Those skills are
completely different.
Shareholder value does what it intended to do, which is to maximise stock value in the
short term, even if it significantly cuts value in the long term.
By that measure allowing Boeing to take over the FAA and self-certify the 737-MAX was a
big success, because of short term maximization of stock value that resulted. It is now
someone else's problem regarding any long term harm.
Having worked at Boeing and the FAA, this report is very welcome. One thing: federal
hiring practices in a way lock out good people from working there. Very often the fed
managing some project has only a tenuous grasp is what is going on.
But has the job bc they
were hired in young and cheap, which is what agencies do with reduced budgets. That and job
postings very often stating that they are open only to current feds says it all.
So deferring
to the airline to "self-certify" would be a welcome relief to feds in many cases. At this
point, I doubt the number of their "sharpest and best intended" engineers is very high.
If
you want better oversight, then increase the number and quality of feds by making it easier
to hire, and decrease the number of contractors.
I deal with federal and state regulators (not airplane) all the time. Very well meaning
people, but in many cases are utterly unqualified to do the technical work. So it works well
when they stick to the policy issues and stay out of the technical details.
However, we have
Professional Engineers and other licensed professionals signing off on the engineering
documents per state law. You can look at the design documents and the construction
certification and there is a name and stamp of the responsible individual.
The licensing laws clearly state that the purpose of licensing is to hold public health
and safety paramount. This is completely missing in the American industrial sector due to the
industrial exemptions in the professional engineering licensing laws. Ultimately, there is
nobody technically responsible for a plane or a car who has to certify that they are making
the public safe and healthy.
Instead, the FAA and others do that. Federal agencies and the
insurance institute test cars and give safety ratings. Lawyers sue companies for defects
which also helps enforce safety.
One maxim we see illustrated here and elsewhere is this: Trust takes years to earn, but
can be lost overnight.
Boeing management and the FAA, having lost the trust of most people in the world through
their actions lately, seem to nevertheless think it will be a simple matter to return to the
former status quo. It seems as likely, or perhaps more likely, that they will never be
able to return to the former status quo. They have been revealed as poseurs and imposters,
cheerfully risking (and sometimes losing) their customers' lives so they can buy back more
stock.
This image will be (rightfully) hard for them to shake.
So people are going to quit their jobs rather than fly on Boeing planes? Joe and Marge
Six-Pack are going to choose flights not based on what they can afford but based on what make
of plane they are flying on? As if the airlines will even tell them in advance?
There are close to zero consequences to Boeing and FAA management. Click on the link to
the Purdue Sacklers debacle. The biggest inconvenience will be paying the lawyers.
From 1992 to 1999 I worked for the FAA running one of their labs in OKC. My role, among
other things, was to provide data to the Administrator on employee attitudes, business
practice changes, and policy impact on morale and safety. Back then, likely as now, it was a
common complaint heard from FAA execs about the conflict of interest of having to be both an
aviation safety regulatory agency and having to promote aviation. Congress seemed fine with
that – apparently still is. There is FAA pork in nearly every Congressional district
(think airports for example). Boeing is the latest example of how mission conflict is not
serving the aviation industry or public safety. With its headquarters within walking distance
of Capitol Hill, aviation lobbyists do not even get much exercise shuttling.
The 1996 Valuejet crash into the Florida swamps shows how far back the mission conflict
problem has persisted. Valuejet was a startup airline that was touted as more profitable than
all the others. It achieved that notoriety by flying through every FAA maintenance loophole
they could find to cut maintenance costs. When FAA started clamping down, Senate Majority
Leader Daschle scolded FAA for not being on the cutting edge of industry innovation. The
message was clear – leave Valuejet alone. That was a hard message to ignore given that
Daschle's wife Linda was serving as Deputy FAA Administrator (the #2 position) – a
clear conflict of interest with the role of her spouse – a fact not lost on
Administrator Hinson (the #1 position). Rather than use the disaster as an opportunity to
revisit FAA mission conflict, Clinton tossed Administrator Hinson into the volcano of public
outcry and put Daschle in charge. Nothing happened then, and it looks like Boeing might
follow Valuejet into the aviation graveyard.
Nothin' like regulatory capture. Along with financialized manufacturing, the cheap &
profitable will outdo the costly careful every time. Few businesses are run today with the
moral outlook of some early industrialists (not enough of them, but still present) who,
through zany Protestant guilt, cared for their reputations enough to not make murderous
product, knowing how the results would play both here and in Heaven. Today we have PR and
government propaganda to smear the doubters, free the toxic, and let loose toxins.
From food to clothing, drugs to hospitals, self-propelled skateboards to aircraft,
pesticides to pollution, even services as day care & education, it is time to call the
minions of manufactured madness to account. Dare we say "Free government from Murder
Inc."?
This is an excellent summary of the untenable situation that Boeing and the Federal
Government have gotten themselves into. In their rush to get richer the Elite ignored the
fact that monopolies and regulatory capture are always dangerously corrupt. This is not an
isolated case. FDA allows importation of uninspected stock pharmaceutical chemicals from
China. Insulin is unaffordable for the lower classes. Diseases are spreading through homeless
encampments. EPA approved new uses of environmentally toxic nicotinoid insecticide,
sulfoxaflor. DOD sold hundreds of billions of dollars of armaments to Saudi Arabia that were
useless to protect the oil supply.
The Powers-that-be thought that they would be a hegemon forever. But, Joe Biden's green
light for the Ukraine Army's attack against breakaway Donbass region on Russia's border
restarted the Cold War allying Russia with China and Iran. This is a multi-polar world again.
Brexit and Donald Trump's Presidency are the Empire's death throes.
NC readers know what the problem is as two comments above indicate clearly. Isn't the FAA
ashamed to keep conniving with the money and permitting dangerous planes to fly?
Boeing just got a WTO ruling against Airbus. It seems that one rogue produces others. Time
to clean the stable and remove the money addiction from safety regulation
I think that I can see an interesting situation developing next year. So people will be
boarding a plane, say with Southwest Airlines, when they will hear the following announcement
over the speakers-
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. On behalf of myself and the
entire crew, welcome aboard Southwest Airlines flight WN 861, non-stop service from Houston
to New York. Our flight time will be of 4 hours and 30 minutes. We will be flying at an
altitude of 35,000 feet at a ground speed of approximately 590 miles per hour.
We are pleased to announce that you have now boarded the first Boeing 737 MAX that has
been cleared to once again fly by the FAA as being completely safe. For those passengers
flying on to any other country, we regret to announce that you will have to change planes at
New York as no other country in the world has cleared this plane as being safe to fly in
their airspace and insurance companies there are unwilling to issue insurance cover for them
in any case.
So please sit back and enjoy your trip with us. Cabin Crew, please bolt the cabin doors
and prepare for gate departure."
Bacevich is wrong: it is all about the control of oil producing nations in the Middle East and the preservation "oil for
dollars only" regime (with the help of Israel as the forward base of the US imperialism in the Middle East)
Notable quotes:
"... In this piece, I want to draw attention to the systemic problem of "Iran expertise" in Washington, which is neither new nor limited to the hawkish political factions now running this country's foreign policy. ..."
"... I assert that the US foreign policy establishment[i] has collectively created a culture of expert impunity when it comes to Iran, which has contributed in no small part to the unstable and dangerous policy conditions we see under Trump today. ..."
"... Supporting Iraq in its foolhardy war with Iran in the 1980s proved to be strategically shortsighted in the extreme. It yielded vastly more problems than it solved. It set in train a series of costly wars that have produced negligible benefits. Supporting Saudi Arabia today in its misbegotten war in Yemen is no less shortsighted. ..."
"... Power confers choice, and the United States should exercise it. We can begin to do so by recognizing that Saudi Arabia's folly need not be our problem." ..."
"... Iran has a much longer history of managing pawns and vassal states than the USA. So too has Russia. Now replace 'Iran' with 'Israel' and you can recognise the belligerent initiator/opponent of the conflict. Trouble is that Trump is captive of the Israelis (and his petty ego) while being tormented and impoverished by all those countries that the USA invaded at the Israeli's behest. ..."
"... The dumb oafish response of the USA giant with its five eyes as it stomps about the planet enthralled by prospect of egomaniacle rapture is what endagers humanity. Leave the middle east and everyone else to their own conflict resolution I say. ..."
In this piece, I want to draw attention to the systemic problem of "Iran expertise" in
Washington, which is neither new nor limited to the hawkish political factions now running
this country's foreign policy.
I assert that the US foreign policy establishment[i] has
collectively created a culture of expert impunity when it comes to Iran, which has
contributed in no small part to the unstable and dangerous policy conditions we see under
Trump today.
"I am not suggesting that Washington is supporting the wrong side in Yemen. I am
suggesting, however, that neither side deserves support. Iran may well qualify as America's
"enemy." But Saudi Arabia is not a "friend," regardless of how many billions Riyadh spends
purchasing American-manufactured weaponry and how much effort Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman invests in courting President Trump and members of his family.
The conviction, apparently widespread in American policy circles, that in the Persian Gulf
(and elsewhere) the United States is compelled to take sides, has been a source of recurring
mischief. No doubt the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran poses a danger of
further destabilizing the gulf. But the United States is under no obligation to underwrite
the folly of one side or the other.
Supporting Iraq in its foolhardy war with Iran in the 1980s proved to be strategically
shortsighted in the extreme. It yielded vastly more problems than it solved. It set in train
a series of costly wars that have produced negligible benefits. Supporting Saudi Arabia today
in its misbegotten war in Yemen is no less shortsighted.
Power confers choice, and the United States should exercise it. We can begin to do so
by recognizing that Saudi Arabia's folly need not be our problem."
Iran has a much longer history of managing
pawns and vassal states than the USA. So too has Russia. Now replace 'Iran' with 'Israel' and
you can recognise the belligerent initiator/opponent of the conflict. Trouble is that Trump is
captive of the Israelis (and his petty ego) while being tormented and impoverished by all
those countries that the USA invaded at the Israeli's behest.
The dumb oafish response of the USA giant with its five eyes as it stomps about the planet
enthralled by prospect of egomaniacle rapture is what endagers humanity. Leave the middle
east and everyone else to their own conflict resolution I say.
Yeah, I'm reminded--again--of Milo Mindbender's racket in Catch-22 , which was 100%
greed driven. But we mustn't forget the vaunted Vietnam Syndrome assorted POTUS have set out
to quell. Trump just played on that theme today in a portion of his speech I cited. As
psychohistorian reported on the open thread, the next round of QE has commenced in an effort
to bolster Trump's electability--lots of that money just went to shorting oil. Tomorrow will
surely bring forth new revelations, accusations, and denials.
For any barflies in the vicinity, Iran opens "an exhibition of
hunted/captured drones in #Tehran from September 22 to October 7" that will draw more than
the curious. I'm sure pics will get tweeted.
https://english.almasirah.net/details.php?es_id=8810&cat_id=1
"Air Force of the Yemeni Army and Popular Committees, Saturday morning carried out a
large-scale operation with 10 drones, targeting Abqaiq and Khurais refineries east of Saudi
Arabia. The operation is called the 2nd Operation of Balanced Deterrence."
"... Someone should tell Mike that our credibility as a nation is further damaged with claims that are in need of supporting evidence. ..."
"... Did Fat Mike rub the head camel jockey's glowing orb? ..."
"... America is a bomb-happy empire - we kill illiterate peasants and destroy mud-walled villages. We are really good at it. ..."
"... Mike, it may be an "act of war" for Saudi Arabia but it's not an act of war for the United States. We weren't attacked, they were. Let them unfuck the situation. ..."
"... No more wars Mr. Trump, no more wars. Plus, we need to prepare to defend our Constitution on our own shores. ..."
Mike, it may be an "act of war" for Saudi Arabia but it's not an act of war for the United
States. We weren't attacked, they were. Let them unfuck the situation.
I am pro military and I have many friends who have served or currently serve. And I have
kids. I'm not sending my kids to kill Iranians for the Saudi's, for Israel or for any other
fucked-up nation in the Middle East. And I don't want 18-year-old American kids getting
killed or wounded for those ungrateful ***** either.
No more wars Mr. Trump, no more wars. Plus, we need to prepare to defend our Constitution
on our own shores.
Sep 16, 2019 Welcome
to the world where things don't add up. For instance, some people did some things to
the Saudi Arabian oil refinery at Abqaiq over the weekend. Like, sent over a salvo of cruise
missiles and armed drone aircraft to blow it up. They did a pretty good job of disabling the
works. It is Saudi Arabia's largest oil processing facility, and for now, perhaps months, a
fair amount of the world's oil supply will be cut off. President Trump said "[we] are waiting
to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what
terms we would proceed!" Exclamation mark his.
How many times the past few years has our government declared that "we have the finest
intelligence services in the world." Very well, then, why are we waiting for the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia to tell us who fired all that stuff into Abqaiq? Whoever did it, it was
unquestionably an act of war. And, of course, what are we going to do about it? (And what will
some people do about it?)
Let's face it: the USA has had a hard-on for Iran for forty years, ever since they overthrew
their shah, invaded the US embassy in Tehran, and took fifty-two American diplomats and staff
hostage for 444 days. On the other hand, the Arabians and Iranians have had a mutual hard-on
for centuries, long before the Saud family was in charge of things, and back when Iran was
known as Persia, a land of genies, fragrant spices, and a glorious antiquity (while Arabia was
a wasteland of sand populated by nomads and their camels). The beef was formerly just about
which brand of Islam would prevail, Sunni or Shia. Lately (the past fifty years) it has been
more about the politics of oil and hegemony over the Middle East. Since the US invaded Iraq and
busted up the joint, the threat has existed that Iran would take over Iraq, with its majority
Shia population, especially the oil-rich Basra region at the head of the Persian Gulf. The
presence of Israel greatly complicates things, since Iran has a hard-on for that nation, too,
and for Jews especially, often expressed in the most belligerent and opprobrious terms, such as
"wiping Israel off the map." No ambiguity there. The catch being that Israel has the capability
of turning Iran into an ashtray.
The world has been waiting for a major war in the Middle east for decades, and it might have
one by close of business today. Or perhaps some people will do nothing . The
Iran-backed Houthi rebels of Yemen supposedly claimed responsibility for the attack. That's
rich. As if that rag-tag outfit has a whole bunch of million-dollar missiles and the knowledge
and capacity to launch them successfully, not to mention the satellite guidance mojo. A
correspondent suggests that the missiles were fired from a pro-Iranian military base in Iraq,
with the Houthis brought in on flying carpets to push the launch buttons.
President Trump is trumpeting America's "energy independence," meaning whatever happens over
there won't affect us. Well, none of that is true. We still import millions of barrels of oil a
day, though much less from Saudi Arabia than before 2008. The shale oil "miracle" is hitting
the skids these days. Shale oil production has gone flat, the rig-count is down, companies are
going bankrupt, and financing for the debt-dependent operations is dwindling since the
producers have demonstrated that they can't make a profit at it. They're trapped in the
quandary of diminishing returns, frontloading production, while failing to overcome steep
decline curves in wells that only produce for a couple of years.
It's also the case that shale oil is ultra-light crude, containing little heavier
distillates such as diesel and aviation fuel (basically kerosene). Alas, American refineries
were all built before shale oil came along. They were designed to crack heavier oil and can't
handle the lighter shale. The "majors" don't want to invest their remaining capital in new
refineries, and the many smaller companies don't have the ability. So, this makes necessary a
high volume of oil swapping around the world. Without diesel and aviation fuel, US trucking and
commercial aviation has a big problem, meaning the US economy has a big problem.
With the new crisis in the Middle East, benchmark West Texas Intermediate oil is up from
around $55-a-barrel to just over $60 at the market open (European Brent crude is just above
$70). That's a pop, but not a spectacular one, considering that a whole lot more damage might
ensue in the days ahead. China, Korea, and Japan stand to lose bigly if the players in the
Middle East really go at it and bust up each other's assets. If that happens, the world will
never be the same. You can kiss the global economy goodbye for good. Let's hope some people
don't do something.
Not just the Saudi's. The Houthis support Palestine, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
They also control the Straits of Mandeb where most of Israel's oil transits to Asia.
Hence the war in Yemen an the problems in the Sudan. So its no wonder its not just
the Saudi's who are fighting the Houthis. The Houthis are fighting against the U.K.,
Germany, the U.S., Israel and the UAE, who are all supporting the Saudi's. Yemen, one
of the worlds oldest civilizations
Iran never said "wiping Israel off the map."It was Ahmadinejad that said "..wipe
the Zionist entity off the map".
This author should know better than to repeat Zionist lies.
Kunstler has some huge holes in his game. He seems to take many of the US MSM
talking points as good coin. Like, exhibit A, the "wipe Israel off the map" quote
which has long since been shown to be a mis-translation. Often his bigotry also slips
like when he dismisses Houthi capabilities and gets wrong what actually hit the
refineries. These were DRONES not missiles. That is why they were able to evade the
Saudi air defenses. But Houthis are to uncouth to pull of such an operation and
moreover how dare they defend themselves or accept assistance from Iran even if it
were true they are supplying the Houthis with weapons and intelligence. Of course, he
also fails to explain, following like a dog on a leash the US media, why Iran would
launch such an attack considering it may provoke the Israelis or the US. Sure they
may hate the Saudis but they certainly do not want a war where, though they would not
technically lose, would see their society destroyed. Again Cui Bono.
Kunstlers's roots are definitely showing here. His usual barbed wit has simply
disappeared and he seems to have bitten off and swallowed whole the officialbullshit , very unwise at this stage.
"A correspondent suggests" just doesn't cut it. Correspondents have suggested all
sorts of things and he should learn to ignore these voices and rely on facts
instead.
He forgets the fact that Saudi Arabia has been waging war on Yemen since 2015 and
that the damage inflicted upon the Saudi oil installations is only a tiny fraction of
the retribution that the Saudis deserve.
Kunstler predictably forgets the fact that Israel has been illegally attacking
Iranian interests in Syria for several years and that as a result many Iranians have
been killed by Israel in recent times. The fact is that these illegal forays are also
acts of war, which of course Kunstler forgets to tell us.
One other fact pertains to his boasting that Israel could wipe Iran off the map,
which is not just bad taste, but ignores the fact that Iran has enough conventional
power to do the same to its postage stamp sized and bellicose neighbour.
We now know that when the chips are down, Kunstler will simply revert to type and
tow the crooked official zio line. We don't need Kunstler for that, we all ready have
a zionist media, a craven Congress and Trump's government of crazies, very important
facts.
If the Yemenis are being assisted by Iran I say that's a good thing. The Saudi
beasts are being assisted by our jew rulers. If I was a Yemeni blowing up that oil
infrastructure would have been on top of my list. And Israel is the country that
would be turned into an ashtray. The US is gone, over run invaded, already lost.
"Let's face it:" says Kunstler. Iran started it forty years ago, "ever since they
overthrew their shah ..." Bad Iranians attacking the USA.
But if we go back a few decades further, we find USUKisrael smashing the elected
government of Iran and installing The Shah! So Kunstler is lying when he says "their
shah"; he should say OUR shah. I think he probably knows this. He's not accidentally
mixing things up.
Catastrophic or not the neocons are itching for a big confrontation and Iran fits
the bill.
Keep in mind that most collateral damage will be suffered by the Saudis.
The US is now the biggest producer of oil, just imagine the boost that the US shale
investors will get in an industry that was about to have its bubble burst.
No longer will it struggle to break even, no it will make a good profit, more
importantly the bubble will not hit the financial sector hard.
Now KSA will suffer a blow, but that will only serve the US - new loans and new
contracts will reverse the money stream and tie the Saudi regime even more to
Washington.
As a bonus it will please the Israelis when finally Iran will be taken out and
Hezbollah isolated.
Wild cards - how hard can Iran retaliate beyond KSA, is it able and willing to
strike against Israel? How hard can it strike US targets in the region? And finally
will they go full on against the Arabian energy infrastructure. If a couple of Houthi
cruise missiles in a single strike can drop total oil production by 5% and raise
prices by 20%, imagine what kind of havoc a real Iranian campaign can cause (again
ignoring the oil bonanza the US oil industry will score).
I really believe there is now a 50/50% that Washington will gamble a full blown
war against Iran, its perceived benefits outweighing the dangers.
If anything Israel will be the deciding factor, if Tel Aviv does not fear Iranian
retribution and gives the go ahead, we'll have a war on our hands,
The US is certainly stretched thin defending the national and security interest
across the globe - aka defending and expanding the empire.
However there is enough fire power to defeat the Iranian military as an organized
force and Teheran as a government, it all depends on the US rules of engagement and
how far they are willing to push this war.
But afterwards it will be no better than Iraq or Afghanistan.
That may actually be the excuse to do what some strategists have been itching to
do since the Korean war, that is to use a couple of tactical nukes - the ultimate
terror weapon of state.
The current NPR is a strong sign in favor of nuclear weapons in conflict as it
greatly reduces the threshold. Iran's perceived threat to global oil production could
be used to set an example.
In what condition will Saudi Arabia be in, after Iran has been subdued? Also the
plethora of US bases in the area will also be fat juicy targets for Iranian
missiles.
Did the condition of South East Asia other than the ubiquitous Domino Theory,
worry many when they went to war in Viet Nam, what about Iraq?
Oil and Israel are key.
Oil prices and Israel's safety.
They want to take out Iran, but this small attack shows how vulnerable the
regional energy infrastructure really is. That can be a temporary advantage, in
boosting US oil income, but that can be easily off set by the impact of rising oil
prices on all other sectors and the public.
That's why I think it is 50/50 at best, and slowly leaning to less likely we'll
see a major escalation.
Otoh, if I were the Houthis, I'd launch a couple of additional strikes to press
the message.
Saudi Arabia supplies oil to China, so to believe Iran was behind the drone attack
on Saudi oil is a bit of a stretch. The question is was it the U.S. and Israel
coordinating that attack? Israel's influence on the U.S. in the middle east is what
is getting America running in circles
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said recent drone attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure were
a proportionate Yemeni response to years of daily bombings carried out by a Saudi-led
coalition.
Speaking to reporters in Ankara following three-way talks between the presidents
of Turkey, Russia and Iran, Rouhani suggested the drone attacks were a legitimate act of
self-defense.
"On a daily basis Yemen is being bombarded and innocent civilians are dying so they have
to retaliate," Rouhani explained.
Yemeni people are exercising their legitimate right of defense the attacks were a
reciprocal response to aggression against Yemen for years.
Rouhani added his hope that the conflict in Yemen would be resolved through diplomacy, and
said that such a process might even mirror Syria's Astana talks.
Addressing the same question, Turkish President Recep Erdogan also pointed out that it was
Saudi Arabia who'd started the cycle of attacks. He said the international community should
inquire into the causes of Yemen's crisis, noting the country had been "basically
destroyed" during its four-year conflict, and called on other world powers to consider how
to rebuild Yemen "from scratch" and "put it back on its feet."
While Russia's President Vladimir Putin said the drone attacks had not been discussed at
Monday's meeting, he noted the "humanitarian catastrophe" in the country and urged a
diplomatic solution to the conflict.
The war in Yemen began in earnest in March 2015, when a coalition of states, led by Saudi
Arabia and backed by the US and Britain, launched a bombing campaign in an attempt to defeat
the rebel Houthi movement and restore the rule of President Mansour Hadi, who'd been ousted in
2014. In addition to tens of thousands killed in the fighting, the conflict has sparked one of
the world's worst humanitarian crises, leaving millions without food, water or healthcare, and
dependent on international aid.
Pat Lang won't let me post on his site, so I'll have to point this out here instead.
He has just posted an open letter to Trump regarding a war with Iran, and he points out
(correctly) that:
1) Iran can set its proxy forces in Syria and Iraq loose on US troops in those countries
2) Iran will fire every missile in its arsenal at any US troops within range
3) Iran will fire its AA missiles at any and all USAF planes
4) Iran will keep attacking the 5th fleet until they run out of boats
All true, and all well and good as far as it goes.
But Pat seems to have the same blind spot as all other US pundits, in that they apparently
have forgotten all about the Iranian Army.
They do have an Army, and can muster half a million fighting men.
Which, indeed, is probably ten times as many ground troops that CENTCOM possesses.
Seems to me that the Iranians can think of several good uses for such an army.
For one thing, they can launch an invasion of Afghanistan with the intention of killing each
and every GI who has the misfortune of being in-theatre.
They'll have at least a 10-to-1 advantage of men.
Not so much a fight as a slaughter.
Bernhard, excellent article, as usual, thank you. The recent situation in KSA is just a small
example of the collapse on classic warfare, we have seen it closely in Vietnam, Lebanon 2006,
then Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and for 2,500 years in Afghanistan, time and time again. The
supposed richer countries trying to impose their will and military power when facing
organized societies with, purpose and means to defend, do exactly that, they fend off the
aggressors.
In the case of Yemen, which has not been conquered due to the terrain and its people
(similar to Afghanistan), they, as few other cases, had friends that supplied means of
defense and attack, this is why Yemen/Houthis, after 5 years of war of aggression against
them, they can hit back, in a way that KSA is not able to defend, small drones, flying low
and hard to be spotted with a long range, this is the perfect weapon to demoralize arrogant
regimes, it creates terror and damages in highly explosive places. Yemen will not back down
until KSA leaves its aggressive policy and pay reparations, or Yemen will continue to inflict
damages, slowly bleeding KSA and demoralizing its corrupt leadership.
I my view a decision to remove the current royalty from KSA was already taken, I mean, The
Resistance will pursue it, slowly, will create situations for an internal coup, internal
revolts and so on, KSA's security is mostly done by foreigners, many from Pakistan, Sudan
etc...these people are treated as slaves, very badly, a time bomb when an opportunity arises,
and KSA is approaching that dangerous zone, few more well placed strikes that put KSA on its
knees and expose wide open its vulnerability will be the sign for the large & oppressed
Shia population to revolt, with it goes Bahrain as well.
Lets remember that Qatar is a mortal enemy for KSA, and has its own ambitions to expand
territory beyond its tiny area, KSA is playing with fire by bending to the US,Uk and Israel,
it is risking being retaliated in pieces.
Grieved @80 noted that "...these countries... are in fact in a coalition..."
The response to that from imperial loyalists is not unexpected: "Nooo! Primitive sand
people cannot put aside the identity politics differences that our empire cultivates in them
and unite against us!"
The imperial loyalists, despite considering themselves to be "woke" and
"inclusive" and unbigoted and moral, find it inconceivable that any peoples other than
those of northern European and anglo descent could unite in the face of an existential
threat. To be certain, these empire loyalists cannot even see themselves as being the
existential threat that is uniting peoples, despite having literally slaughtered millions of
innocents over the last half century or so. Their sense of moral and cultural superiority is
an axiom that must remain beyond question lest their all-important identities be
exposed as cheap narcissism, so they pour into the forum to promote conspiracy theories about
how the stunning successes of the coalition that Grieved notes above are actually convoluted
and inscrutably super-sophisticated moves on a Grand Chessboard . To maintain this
fiction they must overlook the fact that their empire's best strategists reached the limits
of their geostrategic talent playing the board game Risk . Consider that the imperial
mass media has begun to refer to pompous Pompeo as "the next Kissinger" , and recall
that even the former Kissinger was never really that bright but was just ruthless and totally
lacking a conscience.
Face reality, imperial loyalists: The Houthis, whom you cannot even credit with being
human, have just successfully wounded your lackeys in the Middle East. The Houthis
accomplished this with skill, intelligence, and determination.
"... And President Trump himself said Wednesday from the White House that it looks like Iran did it but that he still hopes to avoid war . He announced via a statement on Twitter that, "I have just instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!" -- ..."
"... Pompeo is in Jedda where he's expected to meet with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to evaluate a possible response, where the are expected to "coordinate efforts to counter Iranian aggression in the region," according to a State Department statement . ..."
"... Wednesday's Saudi Def. Ministry press briefing showcasing missile and drone debris alleged "evidence" the Iranians were behind attack. ..."
"... The fact that Johnson's statement included the word "diplomatic" - along with Trump's emphasis on extending stronger sanctions - is a good sign however, that the White House is not prepping for war. ..."
What's the end game here? Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has just arrived in Jeddah for talks with Saudi leaders over a response
to the weekend attacks on two of the kingdom's major oil facilities.
After a prior press conference by the Saudi Defense Ministry
where it for the first time assigned public blame on Iran for the attacks which initially knocked out half of the kingdom's daily
oil output, saying the air attacks "unquestionably" had Iranian state sponsorship, Pompeo
has announced the Aramco attacks constitute
an "act of war" by Iran .
And President Trump himself said Wednesday from the White House that it looks like Iran did it but that he still hopes to avoid
war . He announced via a statement on Twitter that, "I have just instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to substantially increase
Sanctions on the country of Iran!" -- in what appears an alternative to launching a military response.
"I'm not looking to get into new conflict, but sometimes you have to," Trump told reporters Wednesday.
Pompeo's new "act of war" declaration indeed takes the potential for escalation right back to boiling point.
Pompeo is in Jedda where he's expected to meet with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to evaluate a possible response, where
the are expected to "coordinate efforts to counter Iranian aggression in the region," according to
a State Department
statement .
Meanwhile, if the 'military option' is being considered, it appears we could be in the beginning phases of an international coalition
response. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced he and Trump held a phone call to discuss the need for a "united diplomatic response
from international partners" after the Aramco attacks.
The fact that Johnson's statement included the word "diplomatic" - along with Trump's emphasis on extending stronger sanctions
- is a good sign however, that the White House is not prepping for war.
"... the attack dented the image of invincibility of Aramco's infrastructure ..."
"... Saudi Military stated the Aramco facilites were attacked with 18 missiles and 7 drones. They state cruise missiles were used. However, now they state the attack was simply "backed" by Iran. The weapons were all Iranian design. ..."
"... That Iran is backing the Houthis we already knew and nobody doubts. But those drones and missiles didn't come from Iranian territory nor were they operated by Iranian personel. It's a free market world, and everybody can buy weapons from anybody. ..."
"... The GOAL of exaggerating the attack could be to simply increase oil prices or to justify war with Iran. Tensions with Iran will be elevated for weeks, if not months. That will mean higher oil prices than otherwise. ..."
"... The timing is also suspicious because it comes just before the Israeli election and just after John Bolton was dismissed. ..."
"... Russian oil experts say 3 to 6 months to repair damage from strike as components must come from Europe according to TASS. As the remains of the uavs have been recovered their effective range can be determined. I suspect they were launched from within Saudi territory. ..."
"... It is embarrassing to the Saudis because they scarcely bother to unpack the weapons the US sends them-at premium prices - and dare not allow any of their countrymen to learn how to use them. And it is embarrassing to the Americans because they understand all this and ship over arms that don't work simply to ensure that those petrodollars circulate. ..."
"... Hence the current campaign to convince us that Iran was responsible. Mind you, that propaganda is only effective so long as the American people don't really believe it because, if they did, they might demand war (you can imagine Pelosi, Schumer and Biden insisting on it) and Washington doesn't want that. Jingoism isn't about fighting it's about threatening. ..."
1) USA: that would only help if Trump was decided to go to a hot war against Iran. By his
declarations since yesterday, we already know that isn't going to happen. He didn't even jump
to the "Iran did it!" bandwagon right away. He said he increased sanctions against Iran --
but Iran is already sanctioned to the maximum by the USA, so that's empty rhetoric.
2) Israel: wars in Israel only work as an election boost to the incumbent Prime Minister when Israel emerges with a clear
victory. ...
3) Saudi Arabia: it has a 188 billion barrel reserve to cover up for the losses for a
couple of days, so they benefited a little bit from the 20% price rise. But so did everybody
else -- including enemies of the USA, such as Russia and Venezuela. Besides, the attack
dented the image of invincibility of Aramco's infrastructure, and Saudi Arabia's image as a
neofascist ideal State.
4) Iran: Iran can block the Hormuz Strait -- a much more benign and cheap way to stop
Saudi oil from being exported. If Iran attacks its neighbors' oil infrastructure, then it
kind of states it's fair game for its neighbors to attack theirs. This is bad move for Iran
from a purely game theory standpoint, let alone from the geopolitical one.
5) Masters of the Universe: yes, the oil price went up 20% in one day. But let's remember
that even a USD 100.00 a barrel isn't that impressive from a historical standpoint: when the
Iraq invasion happened, the barrel reached USD 300.00. Yes, a selected elite benefited a lot
from this, but the USA didn't become a capitalist utopia because of that. We must not
overestimate the effects of oil prices on capitalism and, specially, on the USA: the West is
in terminal decline for a myriad of factors, not because of one silver bullet. Higher oil
prices won't save the West.
My hypothesis is this: the USA/Saudi Arabia are too embarassed to admit their
anti-aircraft weapons and systems are useless against puny drones and created a big,
subterranean enemy in the form of Iran in order to avoid public embarassment.
The Houthis are telling the truth, and they will do more attacks if the Saudis don't stop
with theirs and settle for peace.
The headline calls that the Saudi Military stated the Aramco facilites were attacked with
18 missiles and 7 drones. They state cruise missiles were used. However, now they state the
attack was simply "backed" by Iran. The weapons were all Iranian design.
That Iran is backing the Houthis we already knew and nobody doubts. But those drones and
missiles didn't come from Iranian territory nor were they operated by Iranian personel. It's
a free market world, and everybody can buy weapons from anybody.
US and Saudis say that over 20 missiles and drones were used in the attack. They say that
this showed that Iran did the attack or participated in the attack because the Houthi only
claim to have used 10 drones.
Peter AU 1 and I have said that it's possible to account for the excess damage as an
attempt to exaggerate damage caused by the Houthi attack.
The GOAL of exaggerating the attack could be to simply increase oil prices or to justify
war with Iran. Tensions with Iran will be elevated for weeks, if not months. That will mean
higher oil prices than otherwise.
The timing is also suspicious because it comes just before the Israeli election and
just after John Bolton was dismissed.
And despite Trump's backing away from his asinine "locked and loaded" comment, war with
Iran is still very possible. The Iraq War started 18 months after 9-11.
Russian oil experts say 3 to 6 months to repair damage from strike as components must come
from Europe according to TASS. As the remains of the uavs have been recovered their effective
range can be determined. I suspect they were launched from within Saudi territory.
Their main argument is that the attacks came "from the north".
If that's true, then the question remains: why didn't the Saudi radars detect it? Either b
is lying, or the Saudi military is lying.
It's really hilarious at this point: the attack caught the West so low-guarded and stunned
them so much that they can't even come up with a unified official narrative.
Houthi Armed Forces Spokesman
is at this moment tweeting a series of statements explaining how the last attack was done
that includes drone capabilities and types of munitions used!!!!!!!!!!! An example:
"Drones have fission heads carrying four precision bombs."
Given that the entire relationship between the USA and the KSA is an elaborate protection
racket the failure of all those high priced systems to protect the oil fields against
Ansrullah drones is particularly embarrassing.
It is embarrassing to the Saudis because they scarcely bother to unpack the weapons the
US sends them-at premium prices - and dare not allow any of their countrymen to learn how to
use them. And it is embarrassing to the Americans because they understand all this and ship
over arms that don't work simply to ensure that those petrodollars circulate.
Hence the current campaign to convince us that Iran was responsible. Mind you, that
propaganda is only effective so long as the American people don't really believe it because,
if they did, they might demand war (you can imagine Pelosi, Schumer and Biden insisting on
it) and Washington doesn't want that.
Jingoism isn't about fighting it's about threatening.
And, now that 57 varieties of Israeli Fascism are squabbling about whether the Prime
Minister goes to jail for theft, even that distraction is no longer useful.
Statement from the Iranians "Saudi press conference shows they are clueless about how attack
was executed and know nothing about the military capabilities of their adversary".
Seems about right. Statement by bevin is on target.
The recent attacks on Saudi oil facilities by Yemeni Houthi forces demonstrate once again
that an aggressive foreign policy often brings unintended consequences and can result in
blowback. In 2015 Saudi Arabia attacked its neighbor, Yemen, because a coup in that country
ousted the Saudi-backed dictator. Four years later Yemen is in ruins, with nearly 100,000
Yemenis killed and millions more facing death by starvation. It has been rightly called the
worst humanitarian catastrophe on the planet.
But rich and powerful Saudi Arabia did not defeat Yemen. In fact, the Saudis last month
asked the Trump Administration to help facilitate talks with the Houthis in hopes that the war,
which has cost Saudi Arabia tens of billions of dollars, could finally end without Saudi crown
prince Mohammad bin Salman losing too much face. Washington admitted earlier this month that
those talks had begun.
The surprise Houthi attack on Saturday disrupted half of Saudi Arabia's oil and gas
production and shocked Washington. Predictably, however, the neocons are using the attack to
call for war with Iran!
Sen. Lindsay Graham, one of the few people in Washington who makes John Bolton look like a
dove, Tweeted yesterday that, "It is now time for the US to put on the table an attack on
Iranian oil refineries " Graham is the perfect embodiment of the saying, "when all you have is
a hammer, everything looks like a nail." No matter what the problem, for Graham the solution is
war.
Likewise, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – who is supposed to represent US diplomacy
– jumped to blame Iran for the attack on Saudi Arabia, Tweeting that, "Iran has now
launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply." Of course, he provided no
evidence even as the Houthis themselves took responsibility for the bombing.
What is remarkable is that all of Washington's warmongers are ready for war over what is
actually a retaliatory strike by a country that is the victim of Saudi aggression, not the
aggressor itself. Yemen did not attack Saudi Arabia in 2015. It was the other way around. If
you start a war and the other country fights back, you should not be entitled to complain about
how unfair the whole thing is.
The establishment reaction to the Yemeni oilfield strike reminds me of a hearing in the
House Foreign Affairs Committee just before the US launched the 2003 Iraq war. As I was arguing
against the authorization for that war, I pointed out that Iraq had never attacked the United
States. One of my colleagues stopped me in mid-sentence, saying, "let me remind the gentleman
that the Iraqis have been shooting at our planes for years." True, but those planes were
bombing Iraq!
The neocons want a US war on Iran at any cost. They may feel temporarily at a disadvantage
with the departure of their ally in the Trump Administration, John Bolton. However, the sad
truth is that there are plenty more John Boltons in the Administration. And they have allies in
the Lindsay Grahams in Congress.
Yemen has demonstrated that it can fight back against Saudi aggression. The only sensible
way forward is for a rapid end to this four-year travesty, and the Saudis would be wise to wake
up to the mess they've created for themselves. Whatever the case, US participation in Saudi
Arabia's war on Yemen must end immediately and neocon lies about Iran's role in the war must be
refuted and resisted.
"... Committee members Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Vir.) explicitly announced their opposition to war with Iran. And prominent war powers critic Sen. Jeff Markley (D-Ore.) quipped that, "[b]ack when Presidents used to follow the Constitution, they sought consent for military action from Congress, not foreign governments that murder reporters," referring to the assassination of Saudi-American journalist Jamal Khashoggi. ..."
"... "Diplomacy by Twitter has not worked so far and it surely is not working with Iran. The president needs to stop threatening military strikes via social media," said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Mary.) in response to a question from the National Interest . "The attack on Saudi Arabia is troubling whether it was perpetrated by Houthi rebels or Iran. The U.S. should regain its leadership by working with our allies to isolate Iran for its belligerent actions in the region." ..."
"... "The U.S. should not be looking for any opportunity to start a dangerous and costly war with Iran. Congress has not authorized war against Iran and we've made it crystal clear that Saudi Arabia needs to withdraw from Yemen," he continued. ..."
"... Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has long been a critic of Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, proposing a successful bill to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi-led war effort. (He did not have enough votes to override the veto.) After the attacks, he wrote a long Twitter thread explaining how "the Saudis sowed the seeds of this mess" in Yemen. ..."
"... "It's simply amazing how the Saudis call all our shots these days. We don't have a mutual defense alliance with KSA, for good reason. We shouldn't pretend we do," Murphy added. "And frankly, no matter where this latest drone strike was launched from, there is no short or long term upside to the U.S. military getting more deeply involved in the growing regional contest between the Saudis and Iranians." ..."
"... "Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not 'America First,'" said Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, invoking a popular Trump slogan. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.), who had invoked Trump's antiwar message in a public feud with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) over the weekend, took to CNN to warn against striking Iran. ..."
"... "This is a regional conflict, that there's no reason the superpower of the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran. It would be a needless escalation of this," he told journalist Jake Tapper. "Those who loved the Iraq War, the Cheneys, the Boltons, the Kristols, they all are clamoring and champing at the bit for another war in Iran. But it's not a walk in the park." ..."
"... "In order to have clean ships by the first of January next year, all the world's shipping fleet from about now until the end of the year are busy emptying their tanks of heavy sulphur fuel oil and filling their tanks with low sulphur fuel oil, which is the new standard," Latham explained, claiming that the attack could have taken up to 20 percent of the world's desulphurization capacity out of commission. ..."
"... "This little accident was designed to be maximally disruptive to the world's oil market. It could not have happened at a worse time." "But what is really interesting is in Amsterdam this morning, I saw that for fuel oil -- the sulphurous stuff -- the price went down," Latham continued, speculating that international powers might delay the new environmental regulations by months and inadvertently drive down the price of oil in the long run. ..."
"... On Sunday, Trump tapped into emergency U.S. oil reserves, in order to stabilize prices. It's not clear, however, that the United States has enough oil to cope with wider attacks on energy infrastructure. "If the Iranians did this, they have shown they have pretty immense capabilities clearly," Parsi told the National Interest . "In the case of a full-scale war, imagine what this will do for the global economy. It's not that difficult to imagine what that will do to Trump's re-election prospects. I think that is something Trump understands." ..."
Retired Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis pointed out that the puncture marks do not actually show
the origin of the attack. "Missiles can fly from almost anywhere. They have the ability to
maneuver! And certainly drones can, too," the Defense Priorities senior fellow told the
National Interest . "There hasn't been the time to do an actual analysis on the
ground, so let's wait and see."
Mark Latham, managing partner at the London-based analysis firm Commodities Intelligence,
told the National Interest that the puncture marks pointed to a cruise missile with no
explosive warhead. Removing the payload would allow the missile to carry more fuel and launch
from farther away from its target.
... ... ...
"Mr. X is a sophisticated fellow. He's sourced some Iranian cruise missiles.
He's removed the explosive payload. He's replaced the explosive payload with fuel," he said.
"So this isn't your twenty dollar Amazon drone. This is a sophisticated military operation."
"The culprit behind the Abqaiq attack is most definitely the Islamic Republic, either
directly or through one of its proxies," argued Varsha Koduvayur, a senior research analyst at
the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
"The attack fits the pattern of Iran signaling to the Gulf states that if it can't get its
oil out, it will cause their oil exports to become collateral damage," Koduvayur told the National Interest . "It's because of how strong our coercive financial tools are that
Iran is resorting to attacks like this: it's lashing out."
Violating an Obama-era agreement to regulate Iran's nuclear research program, the Trump
administration imposed massive sanctions on Iran's oil industry beginning in May 2018. The goal
of this "maximum pressure" campaign was to force Iran to accept a "better" deal. Since then,
Iranian forces have captured a British oil tanker and allegedly sabotaged tankers from other
countries.
There were some signals that Trump was planning to use the ongoing United Nations General
Assembly in New York to open a new
diplomatic channel with Iran, especially after the
firing of hawkish National Security Advisor John Bolton. But the weekend attack sent Trump
into reverse.
"Remember when Iran shot down a drone, saying knowingly that it was in their 'airspace'
when, in fact, it was nowhere close. They stuck strongly to that story knowing that it was a
very big lie," he said in a Monday morning Twitter post, referring to a June incident
when Iranian and American forces almost went to war. "Now they say that they had nothing to do
with the attack on Saudi Arabia. We'll see?"
He also hinted at a violent U.S. response.
"There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on
verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of
this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!" Trump wrote on Sunday.
"Saudi Arabia is not a formal treaty ally of ours, so there are no international agreements
that obligate us to come to their defense," John Glaser, director of foreign-policy studies at
the CATO Institute, stated. "This does not amount to a clear and present danger to the United
States, so no self-defense justification is relevant. He would therefore need authorization
from Congress."
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had mixed reactions to the attack.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) proposed putting "on the table an attack on Iranian oil
refineries" in order to "break the regime's back." His press office did not respond to a
follow-up question from the National Interest asking whether the president would have
the authority to do so.
Amy Grappone, spokeswoman for Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), told the National Interest
that the Senator "will support an appropriate and proportionate response" after "studying the
latest intelligence pertaining to Iran's malign activities, including these recent attacks in
Saudi Arabia."
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, condemned the attack with
a backhanded insult towards Saudi Arabia. "Despite some ongoing policy differences with the
kingdom, no nation should be subjected to these kinds of attacks on it soil and against its
people," he wrote on Twitter, declining to name Iran as the culprit.
Committee members Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Vir.) explicitly announced
their opposition to war with Iran. And prominent war powers critic Sen.
Jeff Markley (D-Ore.) quipped that, "[b]ack when Presidents used to follow the Constitution,
they sought consent for military action from Congress, not foreign governments that murder
reporters," referring to the assassination of Saudi-American journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"Diplomacy by Twitter has not worked so far and it surely is not working with Iran. The
president needs to stop threatening military strikes via social media," said Sen. Ben Cardin
(D-Mary.) in response to a question from the National Interest . "The attack on Saudi
Arabia is troubling whether it was perpetrated by Houthi rebels or Iran. The U.S. should regain
its leadership by working with our allies to isolate Iran for its belligerent actions in the
region."
"The U.S. should not be looking for any opportunity to start a dangerous and costly war with
Iran. Congress has not authorized war against Iran and we've made it crystal clear that Saudi
Arabia needs to withdraw from Yemen," he continued.
Asked how he would vote on a declaration of war, the senator told the National
Interest : "Let's hope it does not come to that. Congress has not authorized war against
Iran. The majority voted to engage them diplomatically to slow their nuclear ambitions. The
international community is ready to work with the U.S. again to ease economic pressure on Iran
in exchange for their restraint. We are at a dangerous precipice."
In a statement emailed to the National Interest and posted to Twitter, Sen. Tim
Kaine (D-Va.) was even more direct: "The US should never go to war to protect Saudi oil."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has long been a critic of Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, proposing
a successful bill
to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi-led war effort. (He did not have enough votes to override
the veto.) After the attacks, he wrote a long Twitter thread
explaining how "the Saudis sowed the seeds of this mess" in Yemen.
"It's simply amazing how the Saudis call all our shots these days. We don't have a mutual
defense alliance with KSA, for good reason. We shouldn't pretend we do," Murphy added. "And
frankly, no matter where this latest drone strike was launched from, there is no short or long
term upside to the U.S. military getting more deeply involved in the growing regional contest
between the Saudis and Iranians."
But the reaction did not fall neatly along party lines.
"Iran is one of the most dangerous state sponsors of terrorism. This may well be the thing
that calls for military action against Iran, if that's what the intelligence supports," said
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) in a Monday interview with Fox News. Others pointed out that
attacking Iran would contradict Trump's own principles.
"Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not 'America First,'" said Democratic
presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, invoking a popular Trump slogan. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.),
who had invoked Trump's antiwar message in a public feud
with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) over the weekend, took to CNN to warn against striking Iran.
"This is a regional conflict, that there's no reason the superpower of the United States
needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran. It would be a needless escalation of this," he
told journalist Jake Tapper. "Those who loved the Iraq War, the Cheneys, the Boltons, the
Kristols, they all are clamoring and champing at the bit for another war in Iran. But it's not
a walk in the park."
Davis agreed with Paul's assessment. "There's too many people who have lost touch with
understanding what war is all about. They think it's easy," he told the National
Interest . "Just imagine this. What we go ahead and do this, and Iran makes good on their
threats, and American warships get sunk in the Gulf?" "This is not America's fight," he
concluded. "The American armed forces are not on loan as a Saudi defense force."
"There's another claim that the impact on oil markets is sufficient to impact the vital U.S.
interest in the free flow of energy coming out of that region, but that argument quickly
descends into absurdity when we remember that the Trump administration has been trying to
zero-out Iranian oil exports, for a host of spurious reasons," Glaser told the National
Interest . "Washington is also aggressively sanctioning Venezuela, making it harder for
Caracas to bring oil to market, too. If we really cared about the supply of oil, we wouldn't be
doing this."
In any case, the attack may not have affected oil markets in such a straightforward way.
Latham says that the attack struck an oil desulphurization facility. At the moment,
desulphurized fuel is in high demand from the shipping industry, which is rushing to comply
with new international environmental regulations.
"In order to have clean ships by the first of January next year, all the world's shipping
fleet from about now until the end of the year are busy emptying their tanks of heavy sulphur
fuel oil and filling their tanks with low sulphur fuel oil, which is the new standard," Latham
explained, claiming that the attack could have taken up to 20 percent of the world's
desulphurization capacity out of commission.
"This little accident was designed to be maximally
disruptive to the world's oil market. It could not have happened at a worse time." "But what is
really interesting is in Amsterdam this morning, I saw that for fuel oil -- the sulphurous
stuff -- the price went down," Latham continued, speculating that international powers might
delay the new environmental regulations by months and inadvertently drive down the price of oil
in the long run.
On Sunday, Trump tapped into emergency U.S. oil reserves, in order to stabilize prices. It's
not clear, however, that the United States has enough oil to cope with wider attacks on energy
infrastructure. "If the Iranians did this, they have shown they have pretty immense
capabilities clearly," Parsi told the National Interest . "In the case of a full-scale
war, imagine what this will do for the global economy. It's not that difficult to imagine what
that will do to Trump's re-election prospects. I think that is something Trump
understands."
Matthew Petti is a national security reporter at the National Interest.
The dangerous disease that inflict the USA neoliberal elite can be called "supremacism
delirium"
As for quality of arms produced, when profit is the main motivation, the quality of design
suffer. Still despite recent setbacks the USA remain the leader in new arm technologies.
B's posting is further proof that the US of A (and it's flunky allies) are indeed led by the
stupid, corrupt, and ignorant.
While Russia and Iran are taking rational routes to protect themselves, the US and it's
allies are pouring billions, if not trillions, of dollars (and thousands of lives) into a
foreign policy that can only be described as the foreign policy of God, for it passes all
human understanding.
Thanks b! One way looking radar is so Pre-Second World War! The Patriot's MPQ-53 radar has a
search sector of 90° and track capability of 120°--an amazingly inferior capability I
wasn't aware of, nor is the vast majority of the public, which is why that twitter gif I
linked to on the previous thread is humorous. In that comment, it was said that the radar's
were reoriented to aim at Houthiland which is the given excuse as to why the Iranian attack
wasn't detected. I don't buy that for an instant.
Houthi media's gone silent for now as it awaits a response from Saudis before launching
there next attack in under 48 hours--yes, they did place an actual time, but were very
general about the types of targets, although the top threat remains hydrocarbon
infrastructure. RT reports :
"Saudi Arabia's energy minister said that its oil supplies had resumed and that its oil
market would be 'fully back online' by the end of September following attacks which
Washington blames on Iran while Riyadh is still probing.
"Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman told the media that oil production in October would
reach 9.89 million barrels per day and 12 million bpd by the end of November."
We shall see if the output equals the boast, particularly if Houthis continue their
attacks. No questions about providing better defenses reminds me of the Death Star
Commandeer's famous last words about his weapon's invincibility.
Meanwhile, Nuttyahoo's coalition's narrowly losing the election.
I love how the warmongers on FOX / CNN make Iran / Russia sound nefarious that they call
their strategy A2D2 or asymmetric warfare (aka actual defense of their country instead of
power projection). How is using short / medium range missiles or a green water navy
'asymmetric'?
If we do go to war w/Iran the only way we win is by committing war crimes by bombing
population centers until they surrender, we can't beat them in a straight up fight. I'm not a
military wonk but I can see the relative competence levels. We can't even get a decent photo
of a boat with a bomb on it after it's been sitting in broad daylight for 10hrs.
The Egyptians had pyramids. The Romans had roads, aqueducts, and coliseums. The medieval
Europeans had castles and cathedrals. These days, America's pyramids, aqueducts, and cathedrals
are those warplanes, among other deadly weapons programs , including a
$1.7 trillion one to "modernize" the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
... ... ...
As ephemeral as the F-35 stealth fighter may prove in historical terms, it's already a
classic symbol of America's ever more fruitless forever wars .
Like them , the F-35 program has proven staggeringly expensive, incredibly wasteful, and
impossible to stop, no matter the
woeful results . It has come to symbolize the too-big-to-fail, too-sacrosanct-to-reject
part of America's militarized
culture of technological violence.
... ... ...
Harper's Andrew Cockburn recently used it to illustrate what he termed "the
Pentagon
Syndrome ," the practice of expending enormous sums on weapons of marginal utility.
( Tony
Cartalucci - NEO ) - The US continues to deny any involvement in ongoing unrest in China's special administrative region of Hong
Kong.
However, even a casual look at US headlines or comments made by US politicians makes it clear the unrest not only suits US interests,
but is spurred on almost exclusively by them.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said it is "ludicrous" for China to claim the United States is behind the escalating
protests in Hong Kong.
Pompeo rebuked Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying, who had claimed violent clashes in the city prompted by opposition
to the Hong Kong government's controversial extradition bill were "the work of the US".
However, even US policymakers have all but admitted that the US is funnelling millions of dollars into Hong Kong specifically
to support "programs" there. The Hudson Institute in an article titled, "
China Tries to Blame
US for Hong Kong Protests ," would admit:
A Chinese state-run newspaper's claim that the United States is helping pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong is only partially
inaccurate, a top foreign policy expert said Monday.
Michael Pillsbury, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, told Fox News National Security Analyst KT McFarland the U.S.
holds some influence over political matters in the region.
The article would then quote Pillsbury as saying:
We have a large consulate there that's in charge of taking care of the Hong Kong Policy Act passed by Congress to insure democracy
in Hong Kong, and we have also funded millions of dollars of programs through the National Endowment for Democracy [NED] so in
that sense the Chinese accusation is not totally false.
A visit to the NED's website reveals an entire section
of declared funding for Hong Kong specifically.
The wording for program titles and their descriptions is intentionally ambiguous to give those like US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
plausible deniability.
However, deeper research reveals NED recipients are literally leading the protests.
Johnson Yeung Ching-yin, from the Civil Human Rights Front, was among 49 people arrested during Sunday's protest – deemed illegal
as it had not received police approval – in Central and Western district on Hong Kong Island.
As S
Brian Wilson put it: "There was a moment in Viet Nam when I questioned whether everything I
had been taught about "America" was one big fabricated lie – a huge pretend. "
Well, I still think the failure to anticipate a Houthi attack is suspicious.
Another "failure of imagination" like 9-11 that conveniently allowed the attack to
happen.
Even if the radar only points one way, they could've set up radars that pointed in other
directions. After all, the Houthi had already demonstrated their ability to strike targets
far from Yemen.
And the damage done is also suspicious. 17 targets hit by 10 long-range drones/cruise
missiles? And the high precision? USA+Saudis are saying the ONLY explanation is that Iran
participated in the attack. But there's another explanation: sabotage (or photoshop) that
increased the damage so that oil prices would go higher and fears of war with Iran would
distract everyone from the possibility that its really all about oil prices and Netanyahu's
election.
Self-inflicted damage after a major attack? That too was something we saw in 9-11 when
WTC7 was brought down.
PS Like many, my initial reaction was that this attack would be the justification for
war with Iran. But increased TENSIONS are probably enough for TPTB to achieve some very
desireable ojectives:
1. Election of Netanyahu
TINA!
2. Funding Trump's "Deal of the Century" for Palestinians Saudis will pay them to leave with the increased revenue from higher oil
prices
3. USA financial bailout Financial firms have tens of billions invested in fracking which is not profitable at
low oil prices
A retired Australian diplomat who served in Moscow dissects the emergence of the new Cold
War and its dire consequences.
I n 2014, we saw violent U.S.-supported regime change and civil war in Ukraine. In February,
after months of increasing tension from the anti-Russian protest movement's sitdown strike in
Kiev's Maidan Square, there was a murderous clash between protesters and Ukrainian police,
sparked off by hidden shooters (we now know that were expert Georgian snipers) , aiming at
police. The elected government collapsed and President Yanukevich fled to Russia, pursued by
murder squads.
The new Poroshenko government pledged harsh anti-Russian language laws. Rebels in two
Russophone regions in Eastern Ukraine took local control, and appealed for Russian military
help. In March, a referendum took place in Russian-speaking Crimea on leaving Ukraine, under
Russian military protection. Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, a request promptly
granted by the Russian Parliament and President. Crimea's border with Ukraine was secured
against saboteurs. Crimea is prospering under its pro-Russian government, with the economy
kick-started by Russian transport infrastructure investment.
In April, Poroshenko ordered full military attack on the separatist provinces of Donetsk and
Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine. A brutal civil war ensued, with aerial and artillery bombardment
bringing massive civilian death and destruction to the separatist region. There was major
refugee outflow into Russia and other parts of Ukraine. The shootdown of MH17 took place in
July 2014.
Poroshenko: Ordered military attack.
By August 2015, according to UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
estimates, 13,000 people had been killed and 30,000 wounded. 1.4 million Ukrainians had been
internally displaced, and 925,000 had fled to neighbouring countries, mostly Russia and to a
lesser extent Poland.
There is now a military stalemate, under the stalled Minsk peace process. But random fatal
clashes continue, with the Ukrainian Army mostly blamed by UN observers. The UN reported last
month that the ongoing war has affected 5.2 million people, leaving 3.5 million of them in need
of relief, including 500,000 children. Most Russians blame the West for fomenting Ukrainian
enmity towards Russia. This war brings back for older Russians horrible memories of the Nazi
invasion in 1941. The Russia-Ukraine border is only 550 kilometres from Moscow.
Flashpoint Syria
Russian forces joined the civil war in Syria in September 2015, at the request of the Syrian
Government, faltering under the attacks of Islamist extremist rebel forces reinforced by
foreign fighters and advanced weapons. With Russian air and ground support, the tide of war
turned. Palmyra and Aleppo were recaptured in 2016. An alleged Syrian Government chemical
attack at Khan Shaykhun in April 2017 resulted in a token U.S. missile attack on a Syrian
Government airbase: an early decision by President Trump.
NATO, Strategic Balance, Sanctions
An F-15C Eagle from the 493rd Fighter Squadron takes off from Royal Air Force Lakenheath,
England, March 6, 2014. The 48th Fighter Wing sent an additional six aircraft and more than 50
personnel to support NATO's air policing mission in Lithuania, at the request of U.S. allies in
the Baltics. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Emerson Nunez/Released)
Tensions have risen in the Baltic as NATO moves ground forces and battlefield missiles up to
the Baltic states' borders with Russia. Both sides' naval and air forces play dangerous
brinksmanship games in the Baltic. U.S. short-range, non-nuclear-armed anti-ballistic missiles
were stationed in Poland and Romania, allegedly against threat of Iranian attack. They are
easily convertible to nuclear-armed missiles aimed at nearby Russia.
Nuclear arms control talks have stalled. The INF intermediate nuclear forces treaty expired
in 2019, after both sides accused the other of cheating. In March 2018, Putin announced that
Russia has developed new types of intercontinental nuclear missiles using technologies that
render U.S. defence systems useless. The West has pretended to ignore this announcement, but we
can be sure Western defence ministries have noted it. Nuclear second-strike deterrence has
returned, though most people in the West have forgotten what this means. Russians know exactly
what it means.
Western economic sanctions against Russia continue to tighten after the 2014 events in
Ukraine. The U.S. is still trying to block the nearly completed Nordstream Baltic Sea
underwater gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. Sanctions are accelerating the division of the
world into two trade and payments systems: the old NATO-led world, and the rest of the world
led by China, with full Russian support and increasing interest from India, Japan, ROK and
ASEAN.
Return to Moscow
In 2013, my children gave me an Ipad. I began to spend several hours a day reading well
beyond traditional mainstream Western sources: British and American dissident sites, writers
like Craig Murray in UK and in the U.S. Stephen Cohen, and some Russian sites – rt.com,
Sputnik, TASS, and the official Foreign Ministry site mid.ru. in English.
In late 2015 I decided to visit Russia independently to write Return to Moscow , a
literary travel memoir. I planned to compare my impressions of the Soviet Union, where I had
lived and worked as an Australian diplomat in 1969-71, with Russia today. I knew there had been
huge changes. I wanted to experience 'Putin's Russia' for myself, to see how it felt to be
there as an anonymous visitor in the quiet winter season. I wanted to break out of the familiar
one-dimensional hostile political view of Russia that Western mainstream media offer: to take
my readers with me on a cultural pilgrimage through the tragedy and grandeur and inspiration of
Russian history. As with my earlier book on Spain 'Walking the Camino' , this was not
intended to be a political book, and yet somehow it became one.
I was still uncommitted on contemporary Russian politics before going to Russia in January
2016. Using the metaphor of a seesaw, I was still sitting somewhere around the middle.
My book was written in late 2015 – early 2016, expertly edited by UWA Publishing. It
was launched in March 2017. By this time my political opinions had moved decisively to the
Russian end of the seesaw, on the basis of what I had seen in Russia, and what I had read and
thought during the year.
I have been back again twice, in winter 2018 and 2019. My 2018 visit included Crimea, and I
happened to see a Navalny-led Sunday demonstration in Moscow. I thoroughly enjoyed all three
independent visits: in my opinion, they give my judgements on Russia some depth and
authenticity.
Russophobia Becomes Entrenched
Russia was a big talking point in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the initially
unlikely Republican candidate Donald Trump's chances improved, anti-Putin and anti-Russian
positions hardened in the outgoing Obama administration and in the Democratic Party
establishment which backed candidate Hillary Clinton.
Russia and Putin became caught up in the Democratic Party's increasingly obsessive rage and
hatred against the victorious Trump. Russophobia became entrenched in Washington and London
U.S. and UK political and strategic elites, especially in intelligence circles: think of
Pompeo, Brennan, Comey and Clapper. All sense of international protocol and diplomatic
propriety towards Russia and its President was abandoned, as this appalling Economist
cover from October 2016 shows.
My experience of undeclared political censorship in Australia since four months after
publication of 'Return to Moscow' supports the thesis that:
We are now in the thick of a ruthless but mostly covert Anglo-American alliance
information war against Russia. In this war, individuals who speak up publicly in the cause of
detente with Russia will be discouraged from public discourse.
In the Thick of Information War
When I spoke to you two years ago, I had no idea how far-reaching and ruthless this
information war is becoming. I knew that a false negative image of Russia was taking hold in
the West, even as Russia was becoming a more admirable and self-confident civil society, moving
forward towards greater democracy and higher living standards, while maintaining essential
national security. I did not then know why, or how.
I had just had time to add a few final paragraphs in my book about the possible consequences
for Russia-West relations of Trump's surprise election victory in November 2016. I was right to
be cautious, because since Trump's inauguration we have seen the step-by-step elimination of
any serious pro-detente voices in Washington, and the reassertion of control over this
haphazard president by the bipartisan imperial U.S. deep state, as personified from April 2018
by Secretary of State Pompeo and National Security Adviser Bolton. Bolton has now been thrown
from the sleigh as decoy for the wolves: under the smooth-talking Pompeo, the imperial policies
remain.
Truth, Trust and False Narratives
Let me now turn to some theory about political reality and perception, and how national
communities are persuaded to accept false narratives. Let me acknowledge my debt to the
fearless and brilliant Australian independent online journalist, Caitlin Johnstone.
Behavioural scientists have worked in the field of what used to be called propaganda since
WW1. England has always excelled in this field. Modern wars are won or lost not just on the
battlefield, but in people's minds. Propaganda, or as we now call it information warfare, is as
much about influencing people's beliefs within your own national community as it is
about trying to demoralise and subvert the enemy population.
The IT revolution of the past few years has exponentially magnified the effectiveness of
information warfare. Already in the 1940s, George Orwell understood how easily governments are
able to control and shape public perceptions of reality and to suppress dissent. His brilliant
books 1984 and Animal Farm are still instruction manuals in principles of
information warfare. Their plots tell of the creation by the state of false narratives, with
which to control their gullible populations.
The disillusioned Orwell wrote from his experience of real politics. As a volunteer fighter
in the Spanish Civil War, he saw how both Spanish sides used false news and propaganda
narratives to demonise the enemy. He also saw how the Nazi and Stalinist systems in Germany and
Russia used propaganda to support show trials and purges, the concentration camps and the
Gulag, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, German master race and Stalinist class enemy
ideologies; and hows dissident thought was suppressed in these controlled societies. Orwell
tried to warn his readers: all this could happen here too, in our familiar old England. But
because the good guys won the war against fascism, his warnings were ignored.
We are now in Britain, U.S. and Australia actually living in an information warfare world
that has disturbing echoes of the world that Orwell wrote about. The essence of information
control is the effective state management of two elements, trust and fear , to
generate and uphold a particular view of truth. Truth, trust and fear : these are the
three key elements, now as 100 years ago in WWI Britain.
People who work or have worked close to government – in departments, politics, the
armed forces, or top universities – mostly accept whatever they understand at the time to
be 'the government view' of truth. Whether for reasons of organisational loyalty, career
prudence or intellectual inertia, it is usually this way around governments. It is why moral
issues like the Vietnam War and the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq were so distressing for
people of conscience working in or close to government and military jobs in Canberra. They were
expected to engage in 'doublethink' as Orwell had described it:
Even in Winston's nightmare world, there were still choices – to retreat into the
non-political world of the proles, or to think forbidden thoughts and read forbidden books.
These choices involved large risks and punishments. It was easier and safer for most people to
acquiesce in the fake news they were fed by state-controlled media.
'Trust, Truth and False Narratives'
Fairfax journalist Andrew Clark, in the Australian Financial Review , in an essay
optimistically titled "Not fake news: Why truth and trust are still in good shape in
Australia", (AFR Dec. 22, 2018), cited Professor William Davies thus:
"Most of the time, the edifice that we refer to as "truth" is really an investment of
trust in our structures of politics and public life' 'When trust sinks below a certain point,
many people come to view the entire spectacle of politics and public life as a sham."
Here is my main point: Effective information warfare requires the creation of enough
public trust to make the public believe that state-supported lies are true.
The key tools are repetition of messages, and diversification of trusted
voices. Once a critical mass is created of people believing a false narrative, the lie locks
in: its dissemination becomes self-sustaining.
" Power is being able to control what happens. Absolute power is being able
to control what people think about what happens. If you can control what happens,
you can have power until the public gets sick of your BS and tosses you out on your ass. If
you can control what people think about what happens, you can have power forever. As
long as you can control how people are interpreting circumstances and events, there's no
limit to the evils you can get away with."
The Internet has made propaganda campaigns that used to take weeks or months a matter of
hours or even minutes to accomplish. It is about getting in quickly, using large enough
clusters of trusted and diverse sources, in order to cement lies in place, to make the
lies seem true, to magnify them through social messaging: in other words, to create credible
false narratives that will quickly get into the public's bloodstream.
Over the past two years, I have seen this work many times: on issues like framing Russia for
the MH17 tragedy; with false allegations of Assad mounting poison gas attacks in Syria; with
false allegations of Russian agents using lethal Novichok to try to kill the Skripals in
Salisbury; and with the multiple lies of Russiagate.
It is the mind-numbing effect of constant repetition of disinformation by many eminent
people and agencies, in hitherto trusted channels like the BBC or ABC or liberal Anglophone
print media that gives the system its power to persuade the credulous. For if so many diverse
and reputable people repeatedly report such negative news and express such negative judgements
about Russia or China or Iran or Syria, surely they must be right?
We have become used to reading in our quality newspapers and hearing on the BBC and ABC and
SBS gross assaults on truth, calmly presented as accepted facts. There is no real public debate
on important facts in contention any more. There are no venues for dissent outside contrarian
social media sites.
Sometimes, false narratives inter-connect. Often a disinformation narrative in one area is
used to influence perceptions in other areas. For example, the false Skripals poisoning story
was launched by British intelligence in March 2018, just in time to frame Syrian President
Assad as the guilty party in a faked chemical weapons attack in Douma the following month.
The Skripals Gambit
The Skripals gambit was also a failed British attempt to blight the Russia –hosted
Football World Cup in June 2018. In the event, hundreds of thousands of Western sports fans
returned home with the warmest memories of Russian good sportsmanship and hospitality.
How do I know the British Skripals narrative is false? For a start, it is illogical,
incoherent, and constantly changes. Allegedly, two visiting Russian FSB agents in March 2018
sprayed or smeared Novichok, a deadly toxin instantly lethal in the most microscopic
quantities, on the Skripals' house front doorknob. There is no video footage of the Skripals at
their front door on the day. We are told they were found slumped on a park bench, and that is
maybe where they had been sprayed with nerve gas? Shortly afterwards, Britain's Head of Army
Nursing who happened to be passing by found them, and supervised their hospitalisation and
emergency treatment.
Allegedly, much of Salisbury was contaminated by Novichok, and one unfortunate woman
mysteriously died weeks later, yet the Skripals somehow did not die, as we are told. But where
are they now? We saw a healthy Yulia in a carefully scripted video interview released in May
2018, after an alleged 'one in a million' recovery. We were assured her father had recovered
too, but nobody has seen him at all. The Skripals have simply disappeared from sight since 16
months ago. Are they now alive or dead? Are they in voluntary or involuntary British
custody?
A month after the poisoning, the UK Government sent biological samples from the Skripals to
the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons , for testing. The OPCW sent the
samples to a trusted OPCW laboratory in Spiez, Switzerland.
Lavrov Spiez BZ claims, April 2018
A few days later, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov dramatically announced in Moscow
that the Spiez lab had found in the samples a temporary-effect nerve agent BZ, used by U.S. and
UK but not by Russia, that would have disabled the Skripals for a few days without killing
them. He also revealed the Spiez lab had found that the Skripal samples had been twice tampered
with while still in UK custody: first soon after the poisoning, and again shortly before
passing them to the OPCW. He said the Spiez lab had found a high concentration of Novichok,
which he called A- 234, in its original form. This was extremely suspicious as A-234 has high
volatility and could not have retained its purity over a two weeks period. The dosage the Spiez
lab found in the samples would have surely killed the Skripals. The OPCW under British pressure
rejected Lavrov's claim, and suppressed the Spiez lab report.
Let's look finally at the alleged assassins.
'Boshirov and Petrov'
These two FSB operatives who visited Salisbury under the false identities of 'Boshirov' and
'Petrov' did not look or behave like credible assassins. It is more likely that they were sent
to negotiate with Sergey Skripal about his rumoured interest in returning to Russia. They
needed to apply for UK visas a month in advance of travel: ample time for the British agencies
to identify them as FSB operatives, and to construct a false attempted assassination narrative
around their visit. This false narrative repeatedly trips over its own lies and contradictions.
British social media are full of alternative theories and rebuttals. Russians find the whole
British Government Skripal narrative laughable. They have invented comedy skits and video games
based on it. Yet it had major impact on Russia-West relations.
The Douma False Narrative
I turn now to the claimed Assad chemical weapons attack in Douma in April 2018.This falsely
alleged attack triggered a major NATO air attack on Syrian targets, ordered by Trump. We came
close to WWIII in these dangerous days. Thanks to the restraint of the then Secretary of
Defence James Mattis and his Russian counterparts, the risk was contained.
The allegation that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used outlawed chemical weapons
against his own people was based solely on the evidence of faked video images of child victims,
made by the discredited White Helmets, a UK-sponsored rebel-linked 'humanitarian' propaganda
organisation with much blood on its hands. Founded in 2013 by a British private security
specialist of intelligence background, James Le Mesurier, the White Helmets specialised in
making fake videos of alleged Assad regime war crimes against Syrian civilians. It is by now a
thoroughly discredited organisation that was prepared to kill its prisoners and then film their
bodies as alleged victims of government chemical attacks.
White Helmets
As the town of Douma was about to fall to advancing Syrian Government forces, the White
Helmets filled a room with stacked corpses of murdered prisoners, and photographed them as
alleged victims of aerial gas attack. They also made a video alleging child victims of this
attack being hosed down by White Helmets. A video of a child named Hassan Diab went viral all
over the Western world.
Hassan Diab later testified publicly in The Hague that he had been dragged terrified from
his family by force, smeared with some sort of grease, and hosed down with water as part of a
fake video. He went from hero to zero overnight, as Western governments and media rejected his
testimony as Russian and Syrian propaganda.
In a late development, there is proof that the OPCW suppressed its own engineers' report
from Douma that the alleged poison gas cylinders could not have possibly been dropped from the
air through the roof of the house where one was found, resting on a bed under a convenient hole
in the roof.
I could go on discussing the detail of such false narratives all day. No matter how often
they are exposed by critics, our politicians and mainstream media go on referencing them as if
they are true. Once people have come to believe false narratives, it is hard to refute
them.
So it is with the false narrative that Russian internet interference enabled Trump to win
the 2016 U.S. presidential elections: a thesis for which no evidence was found by [Special
Counsel Robert] Mueller, yet continues to be cited by many U.S. liberal Democratic media as if
it were true. So, even, with MH17.
Managing Mass Opinion
This mounting climate of Western Russophobia is not accidental: it is strategically
directed, and it is nourished with regular maintenance doses of fresh lies. Each round of lies
provides a credible platform for the next round somewhere else. The common thread is a claimed
malign Russian origin for whatever goes wrong.
So where is all this disinformation originating? Information technology firms in Washington
and London that are closely networked into government elites, often through attending the same
establishment schools or colleges like Eton and Yale, have closely studied and tested the
science of influencing crowd opinions through mainstream media and online. They know, in a way
that Orwell or Goebbels could hardly have dreamt, how to put out and repeat desired media
messages. They know what sizes of 'internet attraction nodes' need to be established online, in
order to create diverse critical masses of credible Russophobic messaging, which then attracts
enough credulous and loyal followers to become self-propagating.
Firms like the SCL Group (formerly Strategic Communication Laboratories) and the now defunct
Cambridge Analytica pioneered such work in the UK. There are many similar firms in Washington,
all in the business of monitoring, generating and managing mass opinion. It is big business,
and it works closely with the national security state.
Starting in November 2018, an enterprising group of unknown hackers in the UK , who go by
the name 'Anonymous', opened a remarkable window into this secret world. Over a few weeks, they
hacked and dumped online a huge volume of original documents issued by and detailing the
activities of the Institute for Statecraft (IfS) and the Integrity initiative
(II). Here is the first page of one of their dumps, exposing propaganda against Jeremy
Corbyn.
We know from this material that the IfS and II are two secret British disinformation
networks operating at arms' length from but funded by the UK security services and broader UK
government establishment. They bring together high-ranking military and intelligence personnel,
often nominally retired, journalists and academics, to produce and disseminate propaganda that
serves the agendas of the UK and its allies.
Stung by these massive leaks, Chris Donnelly, a key figure in IfS and II and a former
British Army intelligence officer, made a now famous seven-minute YouTube video in December
2018, artfully filmed in a London kitchen, defending their work.
He argued – quite unconvincingly in my opinion – that IfS and II are simply
defending Western societies against disinformation and malign influence, primarily from Russia.
He boasted how they have set up in numerous targeted European countries, claimed to be under
attack from Russian disinformation, what he called 'clusters of influence' , to
'educate' public opinion and decision-makers in pro-NATO and anti-Russian directions.
Donnelly spoke frankly on how the West is already at war with Russia, a 'new kind of
warfare', in which he said 'everything becomes a weapon'. He said that 'disinformation is the
issue which unites all the other weapons in this conflict and gives them a third
dimension'.
He said the West has to fight back, if it is to defend itself and to prevail.
We can confirm from the Anonymous leaked files the names of many people in Europe being
recruited into these clusters of influence. They tend to be significant people in journalism,
publishing, universities and foreign policy think-tanks: opinion-shapers. The leaked documents
suggest how ideologically suitable candidates are identified: approached for initial screening
interviews; and, if invited to join a cluster of influence, sworn to secrecy.
Remarkably, neither the Anonymous disclosures nor the Donnelly response have ever been
reported in Australian media. Even in Britain – where evidence that the Integrity
Initiative was mounting a campaign against [Labour leader] Jeremy Corbyn provoked brief media
interest. The story quickly disappeared from mainstream media and the BBC. A British
under-foreign secretary admitted in Parliamentary Estimates that the UK Foreign Office
subsidises the Institute of Statecraft to the tune of nearly 3 million pounds per year. It also
gives various other kinds of non-monetary assistance, e.g. providing personnel and office
support in Britain's overseas embassies.
This is not about traditional spying or seeking agents of influence close to governments. It
is about generating mass disinformation, in order to create mass climates of belief.
In my opinion, such British and American disinformation efforts, using undeclared clusters
of influence, through Five Eyes intelligence-sharing, and possibly with the help of British and
American diplomatic missions, may have been in operation in Australia for many years.
Such networks may have been used against me since around mid-2017, to limit the commercial
outreach of my book and the impact of its dangerous ideas on the need for East-West detente;
and efficiently to suppress my voice in Australian public discourse about Russia and the West.
Do I have evidence for this? Yes.
It is not coincidence that the Melbourne Writers Festival in August 2017 somehow lost all my
sign-and-sell books from my sold-out scheduled speaking event; that a major debate with
[Australian writer and foreign policy analyst] Bobo Lo at the Wheeler Centre in Melbourne was
cancelled by his Australian sponsor, the Lowy institute, two weeks before the advertised date;
that my last invitation to any writers festival was 15 months ago, in May 2018; that Return
to Moscow was not shortlisted for any Australian book prize, though I entered it in all of
them ; that since my book's early promotion ended around August 2017, I have not been invited
to join any ABC discussion panels, or to give any talks on Russia in any universities or
institutes, apart from the admirable Australian Institute of International Affairs and the
ISAA.
My articles and shorter opinion commentaries on Russia and the West have not been published
in mainstream media or in reputable online journals like Eureka Street, The Conversation,
Inside Story or Australian Book Review . Despite being an ANU Emeritus Fellow, I
have not been invited to give a public talk or join any panel in ANU (Australian National
University) or any Canberra think tank. In early 2018, I was invited to give a private briefing
to a group of senior students travelling on an immersion course to Russia. I was not invited
back in 2019, after high-level private advice within ANU that I was regarded as too
pro-Putin.
In all these ways – none overt or acknowledged – my voice as an open-minded
writer and speaker on Russia-West relations seems to have been quietly but effectively
suppressed in Australia. I would like to be proved wrong on this, but the evidence is
there.
This may be about "velvet-glove deterrence" of my Russia-sympathetic voice and pen, in order
to discourage others, especially those working in or close to government. Nobody is going to
put me in jail, unless I am stupid enough to violate Australia's now strict foreign influence
laws. This deterrence is about generating fear of consequences for people still in their
careers, paying their mortgages, putting kids through school. Nobody wants to miss their next
promotion.
There are other indications that Australian national security elite opinion has been
indoctrinated prudently to fear and avoid any kind of public discussion of positive engagement
with Russia (or indeed, with China).
There are only two kinds of news about Russia now permitted in our mainstream media,
including the ABC and SBS: negative news and comment, or silence. Unless a story can be given
an anti-Russian sting, it will not be carried at all. Important stories are simply spiked, like
last week's Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivistok, chaired by President Putin and attended by
Prime Ministers Abe, Mahathir and Modi, among 8500 participants from 65 countries.
The ABC idea of a balanced panel to discuss any Russian political topic was exemplified
in an ABC Sunday Extra Roundtable panel chaired by Eleanor Hall on July, 22 2018, soon after
the Trump-Putin Summit in Helsinki. The panel – a former ONA Russia analyst, a professor
of Soviet and Russian History at Melbourne University, and a Russian émigré
dissident journalist introduced as the 'Washington correspondent for Echo of Moscow radio'
spent most of their time sneering at Putin and Trump. There were no other views.
A powerful anti-Russian news narrative is now firmly in place in Australia, on every topic
in contention: Ukraine, MH17, Crimea, Syria, the Skripals, Navalny and public protest in
Russia. There is ill-informed criticism of Russia, or silence, on the crucial issues of arms
control and Russia-China strategic and economic relations as they affect Australia's national
security or economy. There is no analysis of the negative impact on Australia of economic
sanctions against Russia. There is almost no discussion of how improved relations with China
and Russia might contribute to Australia's national security and economic welfare, as American
influence in the world and our region declines, and as American reliability as an ally comes
more into question. Silence on inconvenient truths is an important part of the disinformation
tool kit.
I see two overall conflicting narratives – the prevailing Anglo-American false
narrative; and valiant efforts by small groups of dissenters, drawing on sources outside the
Anglo-American official narrative, to present another narrative much closer to truth. And this
is how most Russians now see it too.
The Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki in July 2018 was damaged by the Skripal and Syria
fabrications. Trump left that summit friendless, frightened and humiliated. He soon surrendered
to the power of the U.S. imperial state as then represented by [Mike] Pompeo and [John] Bolton,
who had both been appointed as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser in April 2018
and who really got into their stride after the Helsinki Summit. Pompeo now smoothly dominates
Trump's foreign policy.
Self-Inflicted Wounds
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (Gage Skidmore)
Finally, let me review the American political casualties over the past two years –
self-inflicted wounds – arising from this secret information war against Russia. Let me
list them without prejudging guilt or innocence. Slide 20 – Self-inflicted wounds:
casualties of anti-Russian information warfare.
Trump's first National Security Adviser, the highly decorated Michael Flynn lost his job
after only three weeks, and soon went to jail. His successor H R McMaster lasted 13 months
until replaced by John Bolton. Trump's first Secretary of State Rex Tillerson lasted just 14
months until his replacement by Trump's appointed CIA chief (in January 2017) Mike Pompeo.
Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon lasted only seven months. Trump's former campaign
chairman Paul Manafort is now in jail.
Defence Secretary James Mattis lasted nearly two years as Secretary of Defence, and was an
invaluable source of strategic stability. He resigned in December 2018. The highly capable
Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman lasted just two years: he is resigning next month. John Kelly
lasted 18 months as White House Chief of Staff. Less senior figures like George Papadopoulos
and Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen both served jail time. The pattern I see here is that
people who may have been trying responsibly as senior U.S. officials to advance Trump's initial
wish to explore possibilities for detente with Russia – policies that he had advocated as
a candidate – were progressively purged, one after another . The anti-Russian U.S.
bipartisan imperial state is now firmly back in control. Trump is safely contained as far as
Russia is concerned .
Russians do not believe that any serious detente or arms control negotiations can get under
way while cold warriors like Pompeo continue effectively to control Trump. There have been
other casualties over the past two years of tightening American Russophobia. Julian Assange and
Chelsea Manning come to mind. The naive Maria Butina is a pathetic victim of American judicial
rigidity and deep state vindictiveness.
False anti-Russian Government narratives emanating from London and Washington may be laughed
at in Moscow , but they are unquestioningly accepted in Canberra. We are the most gullible of
audiences. There is no critical review. Important contrary factual information and analysis
from and about Russia just does not reach Australian news reporting and commentary, nor –
I fear – Australian intelligence assessment. We are prisoners of the false narratives fed
to us by our senior Five Eyes partners U.S. and UK.
To conclude: Some people may find what I am saying today difficult to accept. I understand
this. I now work off open-source information about Russia with which many people here are
unfamiliar, because they prefer not to read the diverse online information sources that I
choose to read. The seesaw has tilted for me: I have clearly moved a long way from mainstream
Western perceptions on Russia-West relations.
Under Trump and Pompeo, as the Syria and Iran crises show, the present risk of global
nuclear war by accident or incompetent Western decision-making is as high as it ever was in the
Cold War. The West needs to learn again how to dialogue usefully and in mutually respectful
ways with Russia and China. This expert knowledge is dying with our older and wiser former
public servants and ex-military chiefs.
These remarks were delivered by Tony Kevin at the Independent Scholars Association of
Australia in Canberra, Australia on Wednesday.
Watch Tony Kevin interviewed Friday night on CN Live!
Tony Kevin is a retired Australian diplomat who was posted to Moscow from 1969 to 1971,
and was later Australia's ambassador to Poland and Cambodia. His latest book is Return to
Moscow, published by UWA Publishing.
Bruce , September 17, 2019 at 08:58
Excellent article. It's very interesting to see how the state and its media lackey set the
narrative.
Most of this comment relates to the Skripals but also applies to other matters (the
Skripals writing was some of Craig Murray's finest work in my opinion). One of the hallmarks
of a hoax is a constantly evolving storyline. I think governments have learned from past
"mistakes" with their hoaxes/deception where they've given a description of events and then
scientists/engineers/chemists etc have come in and criticised their version of events with
details and scientific arguments. Nowadays, governments are very reluctant to commit to a
version of events, and instead rely on the media (their propaganda assets) to provide a
scattergun set of information to muddy the waters and thoroughly confuse the population. The
government is then insulated from some of the more bizarre allegations (the headlines of
which are absorbed nonetheless), and can blame it on the media (who would use an anonymous
government source naturally). Together with classifying just about everything on national
security grounds, they can stonewall for as long as they want.
The British are masters of propaganda. They maintained a global empire for a very long
time, and the prevailing view (in the west at least) was probably one of tea-drinking cricket
playing colonials/gentlemen. But you don't maintain an empire without being absolutely
ruthless and brutal. They've been doing this for a very long time.
When we hear something from the BBC or ABC, we should think "State Media".
That's probably why its got a nice folksy nickname of "aunty" .build up the trust.
Society is suffering the extreme paradox; there is the potential for everyone to have a
voice, but the last vestiges of free speech have been whittled away. Fake news is universal,
assisted by the fake "left". It is impossible to get published any challenge to even the most
outlandish versions of identity politics. As the experience of Tony Kevin exemplifies, all
avenues for dissent against hegemonic orthodoxies are closed off.
Disinformation is now an essential weapon in waging hot and cold wars. Cold War historians
are well informed on false flags, "black ops", and other organised dirty tactics. I do not
know what happened to the Skripals, and while it is legitimate to bear in mind KGB
assassinations, despite the enormous resources at its disposal, the English security state
has been unable to construct a credible case. Surely scepticism is provoked by the leading
role being played by the notorious Bellingcat outfit.
Zenobia van Dongen , September 17, 2019 at 00:29
Here is part of an eyewitness account:
"After the Orange Revolution which began in Kiev, the country was divided literally into two
parts -- the supporters of integration with Russia and the supporters of an independent
Ukraine. For almost 100 years belonging to the Soviet Union, the propaganda about the
assistance and care from our "big brother" Russia, in Ukraine as a whole and the Donbass in
particular has borne fruit. At the end of February 2014, some cities of the Southeast part
were boiling with mass social and political protest against the new Ukrainian government in
defense of the status of the Russian language, voicing separatist and pro-Russian slogans.
The division took place in our city of Sloviansk too. Some people stood for separation from
Ukraine, while Ukrainian patriots stood for the unity of our country.
On April 12, 2014 our city of Sloviansk in the Donetsk region was seized by Russian
mercenaries and local volunteers. From that moment onward, armed assaults on state
institutions began. The city police department, the Sloviansk City Hall, the building of the
Ukraine Security Service was occupied. Armed militants seized state institutions and
confiscated private property. They threatened and beat people, and those who refused to obey
were taken away to an unknown destination and people started disappearing. The persecution
and abduction of patriotic citizens began."
Michael McNulty , September 16, 2019 at 11:36
Watching Vietnam news coverage as a kid in the '60s I noticed the planes carpet-bombing
South East Asia were American, not Russian. And as I only watched the footage and never
listened to the commentary (I was waiting for the kids programs that followed) the BS they
came out with to explain it all never reached me. I saw with my own eyes what the US really
was and is, and always believed growing up they were the belligerent side not Russia. Once
the USSR fell it was clear there were no longer any constraints on US excesses.
dean 1000 , September 15, 2019 at 18:17
Doublethink, not to mention doublespeak, is so apt to describe what is happening. If
Orwell was writing today it would have to be classified as non-fiction.
Free speech is impossible unless every election district has a radio/TV station where
candidates, constituents, and others can debate, discuss and speak to the issues without
bending a knee to large campaign contributors or the controllers of corporate or government
media. It may start with low-power pirate radio/TV broadcasts. No, the pirate speakers will
not have to climb a cell tower to broadcast an opinion to the neighborhood or precinct.
If genuine free speech is going to exist it will start as something unauthorized and
unlawful. If it sticks to the facts it will quickly prove its value.
Excellent article. The only exhibit missing was reference to Bill Browder's lies.
Browder's rubbish has been exposed by intrepid journalists and documentary makers such as
Andrei Nekrasov, Sasha Krainer and Lucy Komisar but to read or listen to our media, you'd
think BB was some sort of human rights hero. That's because BB's fairy tale fits nicely into
the MSM's hatred of Putin and Russia. Debunk Browder and a major pillar of anti-Russia
prejudice collapses. Therefore, Browder will never face any serious questions by the MSM.
John A , September 16, 2019 at 09:18
judges of the European Court of Human Rights published a judgement a fortnight ago which
utterly exploded the version of events promulgated by Western governments and media in the
case of the late Mr Magnitskiy. Yet I can find no truthful report of the judgement in the
mainstream media at all. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/09/the-magnitskiy-myth-exploded/
MSM propaganda by omission. Anything that doesn't fit the government narrative gets zero
publicity.
I have stopped following australian mainstream media including the darlings of the 'left'
ABC/SBS over a decade ago, completely. My disgust with their 'coverage' of the 2008 GFC was
more than enough. Since 2008-9 things have deteriorated drastically into conspiracy theory
propaganda by omission la-la land *it seems*, given I don't tune in at all.
The author has a well supported view. I find it a little naive in him thinking that the
MSM has that much power over shaping public opinion in australia.
People who want to be informed do so. The half intelligent conformists on hamster wheel of
lifetime mortgage debt have 'careers' to hold onto, so parroting the group think or living in
ignorance is much easier. The massive portion of australian racists, inbred bogans and idiots
that make up the large LNP, One Nation etc. voting block are completely beyond salvation or
ability to process, and critically evaluate any information. The smarter ones drool on about
the 'UN Agenda 21' conspiracy at best. Utterly hopeless.
I don't expect things to change as the australian economy is slowly hollowed out by the
rich, and the education system (that has always been about conforming, wearing school uniform
and regurgitating what the teacher/lecturer says at best) is gutted completely. Welcome to
australistan.
Fran Macadam , September 14, 2019 at 19:21
Note that the prohibition against false propaganda to indoctrinate the domestic population
by the American government was lifted by President Obama at the tail end of his
administration. The Executive Order legalizes all the deceptive behavior Tony itemizes in his
article.
Josep , September 17, 2019 at 04:10
I thought it was Reagan who did that by abolishing the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. At least
in terms of television and radio (?) broadcasts.
Thank you Tony for your thoughtful talk (and interview on CN Live! too).
What's encouraging is this cohort of what might be called 'millennial journalists' coming
through willing to do 'shoe-leather' journalism and stand up to smears and flack for
revealing uncomfortable facts and truth. They're the online 5th estate holding the 4th to
account (to steal Ray McGovern's apt view), and they're congealing against the onslaught.
Some include Max Blumenthal and Rania Kahlek (both now being pilloried by MSM and others
for visiting Syrian government held areas and reporting that life isn't hellish as MSM would
have everyone believe heaven forbid); Vanessa Bealey who's exposed a lot of White Helmet
horrors and false-flag attacks in Syria (and being attacked by all and sundry for exposing
the White Helmets in particular); Abby Martin whose Empire Files are excellent and always
edifying; Dan Cohen who has written the best expose of the actors behind the Hong Kong
rioting and co-authored the best expose of the background of Guaido et al.; Whitney Webb of
Mint Press whose series on Epstein is overwhelming and likely a ticking timebomb; Caitlin
Johnstone of course; and Aaron 'Buzzsaw' Mate who made his first mark with a wonderful
takedown interview of Russiaphobe MI6 shill Luke Harding. Others too of course, with most
appearing or having written pieces on CN. John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Greg Palast, et al. won't
drop off their twigs disappointed.
This, along with the fact that MSM -- that cowed and compromised fourth estate --
increasingly is held in such laughable contempt by most people under about 50 yr, is highly
encouraging indeed. Truth is the new black.
nwwoods , September 15, 2019 at 11:49
The Blogmire is an excellent resource for detailed analysis of the Skripal hoax. The
author happens to be a long-time resident of Salisbury, and is intimately familiar with the
topography, public services, etc., and a very thorough investigator.
John Wright , September 14, 2019 at 18:35
I'm not surprised that Mr. Kevin is being isolated and shunned by the Australian
establishment. Truth and truth tellers are always the first casualties of war. I do hope that
his experience will encourage him to increase his resistance to the corrosiveness of
mendacious propaganda and those who promulgate it.
Truth is the single best weapon when fighting for a peaceful future.
If Australia is to flourish in the 21st century, it really needs to understand Russia and
China, how they relate to each other, and how this key alliance will interface with the rest
of the world. Australia and Australians simply cannot afford to get sucked down further by
facilitating the machinations of the collapsing Anglo-American Empire. They have served the
empire ably and faithfully, but now need to take a cold hard look at reality and realign
their long-term interests with the coming global power shift. If not, they could literally
find themselves in the middle of an unwinnable and devastating war.
* * *
The first Anglo-American Russian cold war began with the Russian revolution and was only
briefly suspended when the West needed the Soviet people to throw themselves in front of the
Nazi blitzkrieg in order to save Western Europe. Following their catastrophically costly
contribution to the victory on the Continent, the Russians were greeted with an American
nuclear salute on their eastern periphery, signalling their return to the diplomatic and
economic deep freeze.
While the Anglo-American Empire solidified and extended its hold on the globe, the
enlarged but war-ravaged and isolated Soviet Union hunkered down and survived on scraps and
sheer will until its collapse in 1989. Declaring the cold war over, and with promises to help
their new Russian friends build a prosperous future, the duplicitous West then ransacked
their neighbors resources and sold them into debt peonage. The Russians cried foul, the West
shrugged and Putin pushed back. Unable to declaw the bear, the west closed the cage door
again and the second cold war commenced.
* * *
The first cold war was essentially an offensive war disguised as a defensive war. It
enabled the Anglo-American Empire to leverage its post-war advantage and establish near total
dominance around the globe through naked violence and monetary hegemony.
Today, with its dominance rapidly slipping away, the Anglo-American Empire is waging a
truly defensive cold war. On the home front, they fight to convince their subjects of their
eternal exceptionalism with ever more absurd and vile propaganda denigrating their
adversaries . Abroad, they disrupt and defraud in a desperate attempt to delay the demise of
the PetroDollar ponzi.
The Russians and the Chinese, having both been brutally burned by the Western elites, will
not be fooled into abandoning their natural geographic partnership. They are no longer
content to sit quietly at the kids' table taking notes. While they may not demand to sit at
the head of the table, it is clear that they will insist on a round table, and one that is
large enough to include their growing list of friends.
If the Americans don't smash the table, it could be the first of many peaceful pot
lucks.
John Read , September 15, 2019 at 02:11
Well said. Great comments. Thanks to Tony Kevin.
Mia , September 14, 2019 at 18:33
Thank you Tony for continuing to shine light on the pathetic propaganda information bubble
Australians have been immersed in .. you demonstrate great courage and you are not alone
??
Peter Loeb , September 14, 2019 at 12:58
WITH THANKS TO TONY KEVIN
An excellent article.
There is a lack of comments from some of the common writers upon whose views I often
rely.
Personally, I often avoid the very individual responses from websites as I have no way
of checking out previous ideas of theirs. Who funds them? With which organizations are
they
affiliated? And so forth and so on.
Peter Loeb, Boston, Massachusetts
Peter Sapo , September 14, 2019 at 10:24
As a fellow Australian, everything Tony Kevin said makes perfect sense. Our mainstream
media landscape is designed to distribute propaganda to folk accross the political spectrum.
Have you noticed that the ABC regurgitates stories from the BBC? The BBC has a long history
(at least since WW2) of supporting government propaganda initiatives. Based on this fact, it
is hard to see how ABC and SBS don't do the same when called upon by their minders.
Francis Lee , September 14, 2019 at 09:48
I just wonder where the Anglo-Zionist empire thinks it is going. It should be obvious that
any NATO war against Russia involving a nuclear exchange is unwinnable. It seems equally
likely the even a conventional war will not necessarily bring the result expected by the
assorted 'experts' – nincompoops living in their own fantasy world. The idea that the
US can fight a war without the US homeland becoming very much involved basically ended when
Putin announced the creation of Russia's set of advanced hypersonic missile system. But this
was apparently ignored by the 'defence' establishment. It was not true, it could not possibly
be true, or so we were told.
Moreover the cost of such wars involving hundreds of thousands of troops and military
hardware are massively expensive and would occasion a massive resistance from the populations
affected. It was the wests wars in Korea, and Indo-China that bankrupted the US and led to
the US$ being removed from the gold standard. The American military is rapidly consuming the
American economy, or at least what is left of it. From a realist foreign policy perspective
this is simply madness. Great powers end wars, they don't start them. Great powers are
creditor nations, not debtor nations. Such is the realist foreign policy view. But foreign
policy realists are few and far between in the Washington Beltway and MIC/NSA Pentagon and
US/UK/AUSTRALIAN MSM.
Thus the neo-hubris of the English speaking world is such that if it is followed to its
logical conclusion then total annihilation would be the logical outcome. A sad example of not
very bright people who face no domestic opposition, believing in their own bullshit:
"American elites proved themselves to be master manipulators of propaganda constructs But
the real danger from such manipulations arises not when those manipulations are done out of
knowledge of reality, which is distorted for propaganda purposes, but when those who
manipulation begin to sincerely believe in their own falsifications and when they buy into
their own narrative. They stop being manipulators and they become believers in a narrative.
They become manipulated themselves." (Losing Military Supremacy – Andrei,
Martyanov)
Or maybe just the whole thing is a bluff. Those policy elites maybe just want to loot the
US Treasury for more cash to be put their way.
John Wright , September 15, 2019 at 19:15
The self-serving Israeli Zionists know that the American cow is running dry and their days
of freely milking it are coming to an end. They have an historic relationship with Russia
and, leveraging their nuclear arsenal, know they can make a deal with the emerging
China-Russia-centric global paradigm to extort enough protection to maintain their armed
enclave for the foreseeable future. Their no so hidden alliance with the equally sociopathic
Saudis will become even more obvious for all to see.
Israel, like China and Russia, knows how to play a long game. Thus, Israel will
consolidate its land grab with the just announced expansion into the Jordan Valley and
quietly continue as much ethnic cleansing as possible while the rest of the world is
preoccupied with the incipient global power shift (True victims of history, the Palestinians
have no real friends). While they will bemoan the loss of their muscular American stooge,
Israel enjoyed a very lucrative 70 year run and will part with a pile of useful and deadly
toys. They're also fully aware that no one else will ever let them take advantage to the
degree they've been able to with the U.S.A. (Unlimited Stupidity of Arrogance?)
Eventually, the social schizophrenia that is the state of Israel will catch up with them
and they will implode. Let's hope that breakdown doesn't involve the use of their nuclear
arsenal.
Yes, the U.S. Treasury will continue to be looted until the last teller turns the lights
out or the electricity is shut off, whichever comes first.
The Western transnational financial elites will accept their losses, regroup and make
deals with the new bosses where they can; but their days of running the game unopposed are
over.
Today is a good day to learn Mandarin (or Russian, if you prefer to live in Europe).
Bill , September 16, 2019 at 03:36
Very well said and I agree with a lot of what you say.
Tiu , September 14, 2019 at 06:01
Won't be too long before writing articles like this will get you busted for "hate-speech"
(e.g. anything that is contrary to the official version prescribed by the "democratically
elected" government) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/uk-tony-blair-think-tank-proposes-end-free-speech
Personally I always encourage people to read George Orwell, especially 1984. We're there, and
have been for a long time.
geeyp , September 14, 2019 at 01:15
Tony Kevin – Nice rundown of what ails society. You have a fine writing style that
gets the point across to the reader. Kudos and cheers.
Michael , September 13, 2019 at 22:34
The 'modernization' of the Smith Mundt Act in 2013 "to authorize the domestic
dissemination of information and material [PROPAGANDA] about the United States intended
primarily for foreign audiences" was a major nail in the Democracy coffin, consolidating the
blatant ruling of the US Police State by our 17 Intelligence Agencies (our betters). The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 lead to ownership of (>80%) of our media (the MSM by a
handful of owners, all disseminating the same narratives from above (CIA, State Department,
FBI etc) and squelching any dissenting views, particularly related to foreign policies.
Tony's article sadly just confirms the depth and breadth of our Global Stasi, with improved,
innovative and (mostly) subtle surveillance, and the controlling constant interference with
alternate viewpoints and discussions, the real basis for free societies. It is bad enough to
be ruled by neoliberal psychopathic hyenas and jackals, soon we won't be able to even bitch
about what they are doing.
Tom Kath , September 13, 2019 at 21:42
The most impressive article I have read in a very long time. I congratulate and thank
Tony.
I have myself recently addressed the issue of whether it is a virtue to have an "open mind".
– The ability to be converted or have your mind changed, or is it the ability to change
your own mind ?
Tony Kevin clearly illustrates the difference.
Litchfield , September 13, 2019 at 16:11
Great article.
Please keep writing.
Do start a website, a la Craig Murray.
There are people who are proactively looking for alternative viewpoints and informed
analysis.
How about starting a website and publishing some excerpts of your book there?
Or, sell chapters separately by download from your website?
You could also have a discussion blog/forum there.
John Zimmermann , September 13, 2019 at 16:02
Excellent essay. Thanks Mr. Kevin.
rosemerry , September 13, 2019 at 15:37
At least Tony Kevin was an Australian ambassador, not like Mike Morrell and the chosen
russop?obes the USA assumes are needed as diplomats!! Now he is treated as Stephen Cohen is-
a true expert called "controversial" as he dares to go by real facts and evidence, not
prejudice.
If instead of enemies, the West could consider getting to understand those they are wary
of, and give them a chance to explain their point of view and actually listen and reflect on
it.
(Dmitri Peskov valiantly explained the Russian official response as soon as the "Skripal
poisoning" story broke, but it was fully ignored by UK/US media, while all of Theresa May's
fanciful imaginings were respectfully relayed to the public).
geeyp , September 14, 2019 at 23:26
As you usually are with your comments, you are spot on again, rosemerry.
Martin - Swedish citizen , September 13, 2019 at 14:46
Excellent article!
I find the mechanics of how the propaganda is spread and the illusion upheld the most
important part of this article, since this knowledge is required to counter it.
When (not if) the fraud becomes more common knowledge, our societies are likely to
tumble.
Pablo Diablo , September 13, 2019 at 14:45
Whoever controls the media, controls the dialogue.
Whoever controls the dialogue, controls the agenda.
' The present risk of global nuclear war is as high as it ever was in the Cold War.' And
possibly higher. The Cold War, though dangerous, was the peace. The world has experienced
periods of peace (or relative peace) throughout history. The Thirty Years Peace between the
two Peloponnesian Wars, Pax Romana, Europe in the 19th century after the Congress of Vienna,
to name a few. The Congress System finally collapsed in 1914 with the start of World War One.
That conflict was followed by the League of Nations. It did not stop World War Two. That was
followed by the United Nations and other post-war institutions. But all the indications are
they will not prevent a third world war. The powers that are leading us towards conflagration
see this as a re-run of the first Cold War. They are dangerously mistaken. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Guy , September 13, 2019 at 13:21
With so many believing the lies ,how will this mess ever come to light . I don't reside in
Australia but anywhere in the Western world the shakedown is the same .In my own house ,the
discussion on world politics descends into absolute stupidity . As one can't get past the
constant programming that has settled in the minds of the comfortable with the status quo of
lies by our media. There are intelligent sources of news sources but none get past the
absolutely complete control of MSM.So the bottom line is ,for now ,the lies and liars are
winning the propaganda war.
He speaks the truth. Liars and dissemblers have won over the minds and hearts of so many
lazy shameful citizens who will not accept the truth Tony Kevin wants to share with the
world.
Washington resumes military assistance to Kyiv. According to American lawmakers, Ukraine
is fighting one of the main enemies. "Contain Russia": what the US pays for Ukraine
Anyone or article who spells Kiev as Kyiv can be safely ignored as western anti-Russia
propaganda. It's a true tell.
Robert Edwards , September 13, 2019 at 12:53
The Cold war is totally manufacture to keep the dollars flowing into the MIC – what
a sham . and a disgrace to humanity.
Cavaleiro Marginal , September 13, 2019 at 12:52
"The key tools are repetition of messages, and diversification of trusted voices. Once a
critical mass is created of people believing a false narrative, the lie locks in: its
dissemination becomes self-sustaining."
This had occurred in Brazil since the very first day of Lula's presidency. Eleven years
late, 2013, a color revolution began. Nobody (and I mean REALLY nobody) could realize a color
revolution was happening at that time. In 2016, Dilma Rousseff was kicked from power
throughout a ridiculous and illegal coup perpetrated by the parliament. In 2018 Lula was
imprisoned in an Orwellian process; illegal, unconstitutional, with nothing (REALLY nothing)
proved against him. Then a liar clown was elected to suppress democracy
I knew on the news that in Canada and Australia the police politely (how civilized ) went
to some journalist's homes to have a chat this year. Canadians and Aussies, be aware. The
fascism's dog is a policial state very well informed by the propaganda they call news.
Robert Fearn , September 13, 2019 at 12:48
As a Canadian author who wrote a book about various tragic American government actions,
like Vietnam, I can relate to the difficulties Tony has had with his book. I would mail my
book, Amoral America, from Canada to other countries, like the US, and it would never arrive.
Book stores would not handle it, etc. etc.
Josep , September 17, 2019 at 05:21
Not to disagree, but some years ago I read about anecdotes of anti-Americanism in Canada,
coming from both USians and Canadians, whether it be playful banter or legitimate criticism.
I believe it is more concentrated among the people than among the governmental elites (with
the exception of the Iraq War era when both the people and the government were against it).
And considering what you describe in your book and the difficulty you've faced in
distributing it abroad, maybe the said people are on to something.
Stephen , September 13, 2019 at 11:44
This interview by Abby Martin with Mark Ames is a little dated but is a fairly accurate
history. I post it to try and counter the nonsense.
Outstanding article and analysis. Thank you Sir! Jeremy Kuzmarov
Jeff Harrison , September 13, 2019 at 10:17
Thank you, sir. A far better peroration than I could have produced but what I have
concluded nonetheless.
Skip Scott , September 13, 2019 at 10:10
Fantastic article. Left unmentioned is the origin of the west's anti-Russia narrative.
Russia was being pillaged by the west under Yeltsin, and Russia was to become our newest
vassal. Life expectancy dropped a full decade for the average Russian under Yeltsin. The
average standard of living dropped dramatically as well. Putin reversed all that, and enjoys
massive popular support as a result. The Empire will never tolerate a national leader who
works for the benefit of the average citizen. It must be full-on rape, pillage and plunder-
OR ELSE. Keep that in mind as we watch the latest theatrical performances by our DNC
controlled "Commander in Chief" wannabes.
Realist , September 17, 2019 at 05:48
?The ongoing success of the "Great Lie" (that Washington is protecting the entire world
from
anarchy perpetrated by a few bad actors on the global stage) and all of its false narrative
subtexts
(including but far from limited to the Maidan, Crimea, Donbass, MH-17, the Skripals,
gassing
"one's own people," piracy on the high Mediterranean, etc) just underscores how successful
was
the false flag operation known as 9-11, even as the truth of that travesty is slowly
being
unraveled by relentless truth-seekers applying logic and the scientific method to the
problem.
Most Americans today would gladly concur, if queried, that Osama bin Laden was most
certainly
a perfidious tool of Russia and its diabolical leader, Mr. Putin (be sure to call him "Vlad,"
to
conjure up images of Dracula for effect). The Winston Smith's are rare birds in America or
in
any of its reliable vassal states. Never mind that the spooks from Langley (and the late
"chessmaster") concocted and orchestrated all these tales from the crypt.
Lily , September 13, 2019 at 07:54
Great summary of the developement of a new cold war. The narrative of the Mainstream Media
is dangerous as well as laughable. I am glad to hear the Russian reaction to this bullshit
propaganda. As often the people are so much wiser than their government – at least in
the West.
During the Football WM a famous broadcaster of the German State TV channel ARD, who is a
giftet propagandist, regrettet publicly the difficulty to convince the stubborn Germans to
look at Russia as an enemy because they have started to look at Russia as a friend long
ago.
Contrary to the people and the big firms who are completely against the sanctions against
Russia and 100 % pro Northstream the German government with Chancelor Merkel is one of the
top US vassalles. Even the Green Party which started as an environmental and peace party are
now against North Stream and in favour of the filthy US fracking gas thanks to NATO
propaganda although Russia has never let them down. Most of "Die Grünen" party have been
turned into fervent friends of our American occupants which is very sad.
Thank you Tony Kevin. It has been great to read your article. I cant wait to read your
book 'Return to Moscow' and to watch your interview on CN Live.
Godfree Roberts , September 13, 2019 at 07:37
Good summary of the status quo. From my experience of writing similarly about China,
precisely the same policies and forces are at work.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced the end of the war in Syria and the
country's return to a state of peace. "Syria is returning to normal life": Lavrov announced
the end of the war
You hit several nails squarely on the head with your excellent article Tony. Thank you for
the truth of how the media is in Australia. It is indeed chilling where all this is leading.
The blatant lies just spewed out as fact by both ABC and SBS. They, in my opinion are nothing
but stenographers for the Empire, of which Australia is a fully subservient vassal state,
with no independence.
I try to boycott all Australian presstitutes . Oops, I mean 'media' now. Occasionally, I do
slip up and watch SBS or The Drum or News on ABC.
Virtually all my news comes from independent news sites like this one.
I have been accused of being a 'Putin lover', a Russian troll, a conspiracy theorist, while
people I know have claimed that "Putin is a monster whose murdered millions of people".
On and on this crap goes. And the end result? Ask Stephen Cohen. Things are very surreal now.
Sadly, you've been made an Unperson Tony.
Robyn , September 13, 2019 at 04:08
Bravo, Tony, great article. I enjoyed your book and recommend it to CN readers who haven't
yet read it.
The world looks entirely different when one stops reading/watching the MSM and turns to
CN, Caitlin Johnstone and many others who are doing a sterling job.
Cascadian , September 13, 2019 at 03:52
I don't know which is worse, to not know what you are (reliably uninformed) and be happy,
or to become what you've always wanted to be (reliably informed) and feel alone.
Realist , September 14, 2019 at 00:19
Knowing the truth has always seemed paramount to me, even if it means realising that the
entire world and all in it are damned, and deliberately by our own actions. Hope is always
the last part of our essence to die, or so they say: maybe we will somehow be redeemed
through our own self-immolation as a species.
Deb , September 13, 2019 at 02:54
As an Australian I have no difficulty accepting what Tony Kevin has said here. He should
do what Craig Murray has done start a website.
Pompeo is just MIC lobbyst who got position of the Secretary of State due to Trump
incompetence of pressure from donors like Adelson. Nothing good can come from this strange choice
of warmonger and neocon hawk, not that different from Hillary Clinton.
Notable quotes:
"... It may be that U.S. military assets in the Persian Gulf region have gone from being an intimidating tool of American coercion to a strategic vulnerability. ..."
"... The first priority was to deny the Iranian leadership resources. Previous administration taken a different approach. It said olly olly oxen free, here's all the money you can possibly stand to build out your terror campaign, to build your nuclear weapons system, to take nuclear physicists, all of the things that money can deliver – terror against Israel out of Hizballah and from Syria. Our – the first proposition for our campaign was to deny wealth and resources for the Iranian leadership, and it has been enormously successful in doing so. You can see it. Hizballah is passing the tin cup. ..."
It may be that U.S. military assets in the Persian Gulf region have gone from being an
intimidating tool of American coercion to a strategic vulnerability.
For hawks like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, American power, as the Bolshevik adage goes,
cannot fail, it can only be failed. For many of his ilk, the superiority of American power
means the willingness to project it is the only thing needed to earn the capitulation of foes
and the only way America loses is if it chooses to relent. Donald Trump, however, watched
George W. Bush's presidency burn in the Iraq war and is unlikely to embrace the chaos of war
heading into an election year. President Trump would be wise to heed the lessons of the most
recent volatile security episode in the Persian Gulf region, especially as it pertains to his
administration's campaign against Tehran.
... ... ...
Without the basic ability to guard against even crude air assets, any notion of the United
States empowering its regional network to dictate terms to Iranian allies with military action
seems impractical. The credibility of U.S. anti-missile capabilities were
already in question . For Saudi Arabia and hawks inside the U.S. government, the notion
that a tribal force like the Houthis could reach into their territory and engage in this kind
of tactical action is militarily embarrassing and practically discrediting from a policy
standpoint.
...If it is conceivable that Iranian cruise missiles -- the newest and least tested section
of Iran's missile fleet -- flew across the militarized Persian Gulf and evaded both Saudi and
American sensors and air-defenses to hit an oil facility, then how much safer are U.S. forces
in the region?
...Add to this the survivability and precision that Pompeo is now attributing to Iranian
missiles and the conclusion very well may be that U.S. military assets in the Persian Gulf
region have gone from being an intimidating tool of American coercion to a strategic
vulnerability.
... ... ...
Pompeo has been on a months-long media campaign promoting, among other
things, what he describes as the success of the "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran. But
Pompeo's primary argument for the success of the anti-Iran efforts centers on the narrative
that U.S. sanctions have severely damaged Iran's alliance network in the region. Consider the
way he framed
the issue to a right-wing talk show host in July:
The first priority was to deny the Iranian leadership resources. Previous administration
taken a different approach. It said olly olly oxen free, here's all the money you can possibly
stand to build out your terror campaign, to build your nuclear weapons system, to take nuclear
physicists, all of the things that money can deliver – terror against Israel out of
Hizballah and from Syria. Our – the first proposition for our campaign was to deny wealth
and resources for the Iranian leadership, and it has been enormously successful in doing so.
You can see it. Hizballah is passing the tin cup.
...The attack on the Saudi refiner disrupted Pompeo's public victory lap in a particularly
bright and striking way.
... ... ...
Simply put, Washington's hopes to stop Iran from supporting its allies by pressing the
Iranian economy is unlikely to work. Iran's support for its alliance network is largely
dismissed in Washington as a frivolous imperial project that Iran can simply choose to abandon.
But for Iran, its non-state allies are a core national-security issue and will, therefore, be
prioritized in budgetary considerations especially when tensions are high. Iran's support for
non-state actors, like Hezbollah, are also not financially intensive and therefore can continue
under sanctions.
Alireza Ahmadi is a researcher and analyst focused on U.S. foreign policy towards the
Middle East. His work has been published by the National
Interest ,
The
Hill and Al-Monitor
. Follow him on Twitter @AliAhmadi_Iran.
Casting itself once again as the world's judge, jury and executioner, US imperialism is
recklessly hurtling toward yet another war in the Middle East, with catastrophic
implications. This time, Washington has seized upon Saturday's attacks on Saudi installations
as its pretext for war against Iran.
The reaction of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to these attacks, which have cut the
kingdom's oil production by almost half and slashed global daily output by 6 percent, was as
noteworthy for its haste as for its peculiar wording.
"Iran has now launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply," Pompeo
tweeted late Saturday, adding, "There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen."
This
image provided on Sunday, Sept. 15, 2019, by the U.S. government and DigitalGlobe and
annotated by the source, shows damage to the infrastructure at Saudi Aramco's Abaqaiq oil
processing facility in Buqyaq, Saudi Arabia. (U.S. government/Digital Globe via AP)
The indictment of Iran for attacks that set off a series of fires which devastated two oil
facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia came without a shred of supporting evidence, outside of
the bald assertion that there was "no evidence" that they were launched from Yemen.
Yemen had to be discounted, according to the secretary of state's predatory logic, because
the Houthi rebels, who control most of the country, had claimed responsibility for the
attacks and had a clear motive -- given the kingdom's near-genocidal war against Yemen's
civilian population -- for carrying them out. The US mass media has by and large echoed
Pompeo's allegations as absolute truth. On Monday night, television news broadcasts quoted
unnamed intelligence sources, citing unspecified evidence, claiming Iranian responsibility
for the attacks. No doubt this "evidence" will prove just as compelling as that of the Gulf
of Tonkin in Vietnam and "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. These same media outlets have
made virtually no mention of Saudi crimes in Yemen.
For the last four and a half years, Saudi Arabia has waged a near-genocidal war against
Yemen, the Middle East's poorest country. The violence has claimed the lives of nearly
100,000 Yemenis outright -- the greatest share through a relentless bombing campaign against
civilian targets -- while pushing some 8 million more to the brink of starvation.
Washington is a direct accomplice in this bloodbath, providing the warplanes, bombs and
missiles used to carry it out, along with logistical support and, until the end of last year,
mid-air refueling that allowed Saudi bombers to carry out uninterrupted carnage. Meanwhile,
the US Navy has helped enforce a blockade that has starved Yemen of food and medicine.
If what the Yemeni Houthis say is true, that they sent a swarm of 10 weaponized drones to
attack the Saudi facilities, then the action was clearly an act of self-defense, far less
than proportionate to the slaughter inflicted by the Saudi regime against Yemen.
Meanwhile, Washington's new ambassador to the United Nations, Kelly Craft, repeated the
charges against Iran on Monday before a United Nations Security Council meeting on Yemen.
Providing no more proof than Pompeo did two days earlier, merely repeating the formulation
that "there is no evidence that the attacks came from Yemen," she described the damage to the
Saudi oil installations as "deeply troubling."
Like the government she represents, the UN ambassador -- the wife of billionaire Kentucky
coal baron Joe Craft and a top Republican donor -- clearly finds the spilt oil of the Saudi
monarchy far more upsetting than the spilt blood of tens of thousands of Yemeni men, women
and children.
On Saturday night, President Donald Trump made a call to Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman,
the kingdom's de facto ruler, offering his condolences and unqualified support to a man
exposed as a cold-blooded murderer. Bin Salman is responsible not only for the grisly
assassination and dismemberment of the Washington-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the
Saudi consulate in Istanbul nearly a year ago, but also the beheadings of at least 134 people
in just the first half of this year, 34 of them political activists slaughtered en masse on
April 23.
Trump subsequently announced that the US was "locked and loaded" to avenge Saudi oil with
military force. (This was a variation on his assertion in June that the Pentagon had been
"cocked and loaded" when he came, by his own account, within 10 minutes of launching
devastating attacks on Iran after it shot down an unmanned US spy drone over its
territory.)
If there is, as Washington claims, "no evidence" that the attacks were launched from
Yemen, one could, with equal if not greater justification, observe that there is likewise "no
evidence" that they were not launched by the US itself, or by its principal regional ally,
Israel.
If one proceeds from the age-old detective maxim of Cui bono? or "Who benefits?",
Tehran is the least likely suspect. There is clearly more to Washington's rush to judgment
than meets the eye.
The attack on the Saudi oil facilities provides a casus belli desired by a major
section of the US ruling oligarchy and its military and intelligence apparatus, which is
determined to prosecute a war for regime change in Iran. Such a war would be the latest
installment in Washington's protracted drive to reverse by military means the decline of US
imperialism's global hegemony, in particular by claiming unfettered US control over the
world's energy reserves and the power to deny them to its rivals.
The thinking within these layers was expressed in an editorial published Monday by the
Wall Street Journal, the mouthpiece of US finance capital. The Journal
warned that Iran was "probing Mr. Trump as much as the Saudis." It continued, "They are
testing his resolve to carry out his 'maximum pressure' campaign, and they sense weakness."
It pointed disapprovingly to Trump's failure to launch airstrikes in June following the
downing of the US drone.
The Journal approvingly cited calls by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham for
bombing Iranian oil refineries in order to "break the regime's back" and suggested that Trump
"apologize to John Bolton, who warned repeatedly that Iran would take advantage of perceived
weakness in the White House." Bolton, a long-time advocate of bombing Iran, resigned as
Trump's national security adviser last week, reportedly over differences on policy toward
Tehran.
The attack on the Saudi oil facilities also provides leverage for Washington in corralling
the Western European powers -- the UK, France and Germany -- behind US war aims. Signatories
to the Iranian nuclear accord that the Trump administration renounced, they have made feeble
gestures toward countering Washington's "maximum pressure" sanctions regime in an attempt to
salvage their own imperialist interests. While thus far failing to endorse US charges of
Iranian responsibility, they could, by means of the attack on Saudi Arabia, be swung behind
the US drive to war.
Israel and its beleaguered Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also have ample motive to
stage a military action aimed at provoking war with Iran. On the eve of Tuesday's Israeli
election, the threat of a major war with Iran serves the political interests of Netanyahu,
whose political fortunes are inextricably tied to the escalation of military conflict in the
Middle East. The Israeli state, moreover, had become increasingly concerned over an apparent
cooling of the appetite of the ruling monarchies in both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates for a confrontation with Iran.
Recent drone strikes against Shia militias in Iraq that had allegedly received Iranian
weapons were, according to a report by the web site Middle East Eye, staged by Israeli drones
operating out of bases controlled by the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the main
US proxy force in Syria. A similar covert US-Israeli collaboration could easily have produced
the attacks on the Saudi oil installations.
Whatever the exact circumstances of the attacks on the Saudi oil facilities, they are
being exploited for the purpose of dragging the American people and all of humanity into a
war that can rapidly escalate into a regionwide and even global conflagration.
US strikes against Iran carried out under the pretext of retaliation for the attacks on
Saudi Arabia can trigger Iranian counterstrikes, sending US warships to the bottom of the
Persian Gulf and wreaking havoc on American military bases throughout the region.
The prospect of thousands of US soldiers and sailors dying as a result of Washington's
conspiracies and aggression carries with it the threat of the US government assuming
emergency powers and implementing police-state measures in the US itself in the name of
"national security."
This would, by no means, be an unintended consequence. The buildup to war is driven in
large measure by the escalation of social tensions and class struggle within the United
States itself, which has found fresh expression in the strike by 46,000 autoworkers against
General Motors. There is a powerful incentive for the US ruling class to direct these
tensions outward in the eruption of military conflict, while creating the pretext for mass
repression.
The threat of a US assault on Iran paving the way to a third world war must be answered
through a politically conscious and independent intervention of the working class to put an
end to imperialism and reorganize society on socialist foundations.
gjohnsit on Tue, 09/17/2019 - 3:10pm Remember in 2002 when the neocons in Washington
told us that we had to attack Iraq because of 9/11, eventhough Iraq had nothing to do with
it?
So now Iran is being blamed for the attack on Saudi oil fields, and
anonymous warmongers claim that they have proof.
The United States has identified the exact locations in Iran from which a combination of more
than 20 drones and cruise missiles were launched against Saudi oil facilities over the
weekend, a senior U.S. official told CBS News national security correspondent David Martin on
Tuesday. The official said the locations are in southern Iran, at the northern end of the
Persian Gulf.
What a coincidence! That also happens to be around Iran's major oil fields.
What's more, the Saudi air defenses would have stopped it if it came from Yemen.
Saudi Arabia's air defenses have been aimed south for months, to protect against missile
attacks launched by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, so they were useless against the
missiles and drones coming in from the north, the official told Martin.
Let's put a pin in that for now.
Washington immediately dismissed the Houthi's claim of responsibility for the attack. Why?
Because the Houthis don't have the
knowledge or the means to carry it out.
But U.S. officials have cast doubt on the Houthis’ claim, arguing that the
sophisticated nature of the attack suggested that it was beyond the capabilities of the rebel
group.
Analysts say this is what the Houthis appear to have used to hit the Abha International
Airport in southern Saudi Arabia a few months ago. But the Quds 1 lacks the range to get from
northern Yemen to the oil installations in Saudi Arabia.
The range, scale and precision of the latest attack — including the successful
penetration of Saudi air defenses and the avoidance of obstacles like power lines and
communication towers — far exceeds anything the Houthis have ever done.
So it's all wrapped up. The Houthis aren't capable of doing it, and we have proof that Iran
did it. We just can't show it to you.
It makes a good story if you have no long-term memory.
Because
this happened less than a month ago.
A drone attack launched by Yemen’s Houthi group on an oilfield in eastern Saudi Arabia
on Saturday caused a fire at a gas plant but had no impact on oil production, state-run oil
company Saudi Aramco said.
A Houthi military spokesman said earlier that the group had targeted the Shaybah oilfield
with 10 drones, in what he said was the “biggest attack in the depths” of the
kingdom, the world’s top oil exporter, by the Iran-aligned group.
Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih described Shaybah as a “vital
facility”.
That oilfield is 900 kilometres away from Yemen.
Literally everything about this Houthi attack is the same as Saturday's attack, except for
fewer explosions. So what the fuck is the NY Times talking about?
To make this even more interesting, I happened upon
this report by the UAE following the Houthi attack from last month.
The report also reveals critical Saudi defence weaknesses to the weaponised drones used by
the Houthis.
It reports that from January to May there were 155 such attacks against Saudi targets in
Yemen and throughout the Gulf, a much higher figure than previously admitted.
“The attack on the Lahj Military Base demonstrates a weakness in Saudi air defences
and the lack of capacity in electronic war if we take into account that these drones are
basic and are not launched on tarmac,” the report says.
“Air defences such as the Patriot are not capable of spotting these drones because
the systems are designed to intercept long and medium range Scud missiles.”
Najran airport has been hit repeatedly by Houthi drones despite being protected by a
Patriot battery, the report reveals.
155 drone attacks? U.S. Patriot missiles unable to detect and stop them?
Why that sounds a lot different than what we are being told.
Recall that the Houthis had brought
down a U.S. drone just a few weeks ago. That was the second U.S. drone they shot down just
this summer.
Recall that the Houthis have been
hitting Riyadh with missiles for over a year.
All the evidence points to the Houthis being more than capable of not just being responsible
for this attack, but for repeating this attack in a matter of weeks Mark F. McCarty
and probably most of the UN, they are going to have a harder time getting anyone on board
the Pompeo Holy War train. We are going to have to show our allies totally verifiable
evidence that Iran lobbed those drones, and it looks like we can't do that.
Probably because they didn't do it! And once that starts looking clear to the world, the
last remnants of US credibility will fly away for good.
We are going to have to show our allies totally verifiable evidence that Iran lobbed those
drones, and it looks like we can't do that.
If we had proof it was Iran we would have shown it to someone by now.
Aren't we monitoring the airspace around Iran?
And what is Iran's motivation?
It's not worth the risk for Iran if they were caught.
OTOH, if Iran gives the weapons to the Houthis...that makes a Hell of a lot more
sense.
and probably most of the UN, they are going to have a harder time getting anyone on
board the Pompeo Holy War train. We are going to have to show our allies totally
verifiable evidence that Iran lobbed those drones, and it looks like we can't do
that.
Probably because they didn't do it! And once that starts looking clear to the world,
the last remnants of US credibility will fly away for good.
With the U.S, Russia, and China all jostling for position in Iraq's oil and gas industry both
north and south, Iraq's oil ministry last week reiterated its desire to have one or more foreign
partners in the Mansuriya gas field.
Situated in Diyala province, close to the Iran border,
Mansuriya is estimated to hold around 4.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, with plateau
production projected at about 325 million standard cubic feet per day
.
For the U.S., encouraging Iraq to optimise its gas flows so that it reduces its
dependency
for
power from Iran is the key consideration.
For Russia, Rosneft essentially bought control of the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan in
northern Iraq in November 2017, so power in southern Iraq figuratively will complete the set.
Securing oil and gas contracts across all of Iraq will allow Russia to establish an
unassailable political sway across the entire Shia crescent of power in the Middle East, stretching
from Syria through Lebanon (by dint of Iran), Jordan, Iraq (also helped by Iran), Iran itself, and
Yemen (via Iran).
From this base, it can effectively challenge the U.S.'s vital oil, gas,
and political ally in the region – Saudi Arabia. China, in the meantime, is operating to its own
agenda in South Pars Phase 11 and its West Karoun holdings.
Iraq, like Turkey, is still – nominally at least – not committing to either the Russia
or the U.S.,
preferring to play each off against the other for whatever they can get, and
the same applies in microcosm to the field of Mansuriya. Turkey itself was a key player in this gas
field through its national oil company Turkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortakligi (TPAO) until the middle
of last year – holding a 37.5 per cent stake – along with the Oil Exploration Company (25 per
cent), Kuwait Energy (22.5 per cent), and South Korea's KOGAS (15 per cent).
TPAO had signed the original development deal for Mansuriya back in 2011, promising Iraq's oil
ministry that it could be trusted to reach plateau production within 10 years at most, a senior
figure in the ministry told
OilPrice.com
last week. This was not an unreasonable schedule,
for which TPAO would be remunerated US$7.00-7.50 per barrel of oil equivalent, a relatively
generous amount compared to many of the previous awards from the ministry. TPAO agreed that the
first phase would mean production of at least 100 million cubic feet a day within 12 months from
the signing date.
Iran Rejects US Accusation It Is Behind
Saudi Attacks https://nyti.ms/30iNte7
NYT - Michael Wolgelenter - September 15
Iran on Sunday forcefully rejected charges by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that it was
responsible for drone attacks that caused serious damage to two crucial Saudi Arabian oil
installations, with the foreign minister dismissing the remarks as "max deceit."
The attacks on Saturday, which hold the potential to disrupt global oil supplies, were
claimed by Houthi rebels in Yemen. Mr. Pompeo said that Iran had launched "an unprecedented
attack on the world's oil supply," although he did not offer any evidence and stopped short
of saying that Iran had carried out the missile strikes.
The Houthis are part of a complex regional dynamic in the Middle East, receiving support
from Iran while the Saudis, Tehran's chief rival for supremacy in the region and the leader
of a coalition that is fighting the Houthis in Yemen, are aligned with the United States.
Seyed Abbas Mousavi, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, castigated the Saudis
for their role in the war in Yemen, where the Saudis have directed airstrikes that have
caused heavy civilian casualties and exacerbated a humanitarian crisis. He also ridiculed Mr.
Pompeo's comments.
The semiofficial Fars news agency reported on its English-language website that Mr.
Mousavi described Mr. Pompeo's allegations as "blind and fruitless remarks" that were
"meaningless" in a diplomatic context.
Saudi Arabia has yet to publicly accuse Iran of involvement in the attack. On Sunday, its
Foreign Ministry urged international action to preserve the world oil supply in response to
the attack, but it said nothing about assigning blame or striking back.
The developments come at a moment of rising tensions between Iran and the United States,
which have mounted since President Trump pulled out of the 2015 accord in which Iran agreed
with the West to restrict its nuclear program. Since the American withdrawal, Iran has
gradually pulled away from its some obligations under the agreement. ...
... "US & its clients are stuck in Yemen because of illusion that weapon superiority will
lead to military victory," Mr. Zarif wrote on Twitter. "Blaming Iran won't end disaster.
Accepting our April '15 proposal to end war & begin talks may.
The attack on Saturday, which the Houthis said involved 10 drones, represented the rebels'
most serious strike since Saudi Arabia inserted itself into the conflict in Yemen four years
ago. That the rebels could cause such extensive damage to such a crucial part of the global
economy astonished some observers. ...
It's Monday September 16th, 2019 and the weeks starts off like this:
GM's UAW Strike
Yemeni Houti Rebels Drones wipe out 50% of Saudi Arabia's oil production
Trump tweets in response is "locked and loaded" implying a new US war in the ME
One of Trump's White House flunky's declared "it is better if Trump does not study an
issue" before making decisions (oh yea,"Stupid is what Stupid does")
Biden and S. Warren tied in the DEM race for 2020
Piketty's new Economics tome is out
PM Netanyahu is losing his re-election bid in Israel, to be determined by tomorrow's
Election
We live in interesting times...
...the question I pose for the times is 'Are the People are better lead by businessmen,
politicians, academics, or intellectuals?
"... Then the question arose whether drones had been used at all, or whether the attack might in fact have been a missile strike ..."
"... But regardless, the game has escalated up one more rung up the ladder. How many more will it take for the world to put its interests ahead of Israel's? ..."
"... Next escalation rung: a loading dock for supertankers: either the port of Yanbu or Ra's Tanura. Followed by desalination facilities, if Western politicians still pretend to turn a blind eye and prefer to follow the dictates of their Israeli masters. Nuff Sed. ..."
"... In asking the question, qui bono, you do have to include Netanyahu, who is up for reelection tomorrow. There's nothing like striking fear into the heart of the electorate on the eve of an election for firming up support for a proven incumbent. And if the US attacks Iran before tomorrow, so much the better for Netanyahu. ..."
"... That said, I don't think that Netanyahu's buddies in Riyadh would be amused if this were proven. However, poking a friend in the eye never seemed to stop Israel before think USS Liberty. ..."
"... Israel has the means, plus the motive (Bib's reelection), and might have taken the opportunity to attribute the attack to Iran and force Trump's hand. ..."
"... I am assuming, myself, personally, this action was taken to prevent a meeting in NYC between Trump and the President of Iran. That is my guess. ..."
"... There was never going to be a meeting between Rouhani and Trump. I expect to be dead of old age before there would be any substantive meetings between Iran and the United States. ..."
"... Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei has said there will be no meeting until the U.S.ends sanctions. ..."
"... I do not for a moment believe Bolton would have stood for it, and even though he's gone, neither will Pompeo or Pence. Both appear to be fanatically devoted to Israel. There may be meetings between low level functionaries, and Trump seems to want one very much, but Rouhani has said there is no way to trust America, so no point to talking. The situation may change if Netanyahu loses the election, although I have no reason to believe Avigdor will be any better. ..."
"... However, if Trump DOES cut a deal, he will not try and fluff it off as an "Executive Agreement"....if Trump cuts a deal he knows he will have to bring it to Congress. Thee Lobby may kill it there...or not. We'll see. ..."
"... It's not just Yemen. People forget there is an oppressed Shiite minority near the Aramco HQ (dispossessed of the oil fields, located in their ancestral area & treated like sub-sub-citizens); they get periodically beheaded" ..."
"... The Al Saud gang, under the Clown Prince Muhammad Bone Saw, can not count on those Shiite inhabitants of the oil rich region, not necessarily because of the latter's sympathy for Iran but because they were brutalized for almost a century. ..."
"... One to benefit from it that I see so far is Saudi's Aramco IPO which is critical to Saudi . According to WSJ they were considering delaying it because of low oil prices, they needed oil to reach $80 barrel to make it viable. The attack sent prices up but now market is talking about risk if there are 'on going attacks'. What could we deduce if there are no on going attacks and the IPO proceeds? ..."
"... We know Yemen has the Quds-1 and has surprised us before with their technical capability. Combine that with the video of Yahya Sari claiming full responsibility for the attack and I'm not sure there is any reason to speculate about conspiracies involving other actors. ..."
"... In addition, the specificity of the targets hit suggests good intel. I would suspect that Houthi's have linked with disaffected groups in SA (lots!) and improved their Humint. It seems highly unlikely that Iran would do something like this AND leave their fingerprints behind - at least based on recent events. ..."
"... Never underestimate the feckless laziness of the Saudis. In my experience they turn off all ATC and air defense systems that require manning or watch keeping when they find them inconvenient as on the weekend. IMO if Ansarallah did this they will do something similar soon to prove they are responsible. ..."
"... israel gets a lot of press and speculation on this board as well as everywhere else for all their conspiracies and supposed omnipotent power and control but in this writers opinion THEY have been punching way above their actual weight for years and current reality has exposed how feckless and puny they really are in the scheme of things. ..."
"... ''i suspect the whole 'jew' thing regarding israel is what animates people so much. if israel were all zoroastrians i doubt the world would credit them with all the machinations israel is viewed as responsible for.'' A Cult is a Cult regardless of it members makeup. And Israel is looking more like a Jim Jones farm every day. ..."
"... And Iran has demonstrated that they can cause months worth of damage on the KSA, the UAE, and Kuwait. I can't believe the number of Congressman who simultaneously believe that Iran was able to glide over U.S. made air defenses without detection and also believe that we can simply carpet bomb their refineries without any repercussion. How can one believe both things at the same time? That Iran is responsible for a sophisticated ghost attack and that they are incapable of retaliating in a target rich environment. ..."
"... Not only did Graham say this but the loon from Maryland repeated it. These people are insane but MSM hosts encourage it, just saw Cavuto snear at Ron Paul because he actually made sense. We are so messed up. ..."
"... Everyone keeps misunderestimating the Yemenis. The Houthis are fighting as part of a coalition that includes a large part of the Yemeni military and intelligence services. This coalition is carrying out a war under guerrilla conditions, but that war is led by professional military men. ..."
"... It is the benefit of being a perfumed prince or fop or neo-con that history has no meaning because history ended sometime in the 90's. Somehow I hear the voice of a Rove lecturing: ..."
"... "That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." ..."
"... Yes indeed. Dave deserves hearty congratulations though we might add a caveat. The said "valves" could have been blown out in advance via software or person throwing a switch (humint or cyber component to one attack vector). ..."
"... It cries out "sure, it's bad, but it is reversible." ..."
"... Houthis have every reason to utilize their advanced weapons systems against Saudi targets to bring the war to an end. As for Iran, seems they have been on a semi-successful diplomatic campaign to counter US maximum pressure with their own maximum pressure on Europeans, Russia and China to deliver on the economic benefits that are as important in JCPOA as the curtailing of Iran's nuclear program. ..."
"... Trump talking about meeting Rouhani in New York, Zarif in China getting at least $50-100 billion in pledged economic support, Russia suggesting $10 billion investment in the Iranian energy sector: Why would Iran at this moment make a direct move to turn the world fully against them? Perhaps a rogue faction of IRGC out to stop any diplomatic action, but even that would have to come with OK from Khamenei--or there would be strong action against the rogues. ..."
"... Pressure on Trump to maintain the hardline against Iran following Bolton ouster? Pompeo has been leading the diplomatic back channels and repeating Trump's goal of forcing Iran to the table. Even the Saudis are for the moment hesitant to blame Iran, actually calling for a UN investigation into the source of the attacks. ..."
"... "The Iran did it" narrative as an attempt to keep on undermining the pro-Syrian government coalition. ..."
What made this attack different from other recorded Houthi drone attacks was not only the
unprecedented amount of material damage caused but also lingering doubt about the nature and
the attribution of the attack. First,
a video allegedly showing flying objects entering Kuwaiti airspace led to speculation that
like a
previous "Houthi" drone attack this strike might actually have originated in Iraq or even
Iran. While the video remains unverified, the fact that the Kuwaiti government
launched a probe into the issue lends some credence to the idea that something might have
happened over Kuwait that day. Speculation about the origins of the attack was further fueled
by a tweet
by Mike Pompeo in which he claimed that there was no evidence the attacks came from
Yemen.
Then the question arose whether drones had been used at all, or whether the attack might in
fact have been a missile strike. Previous Houthi drone strikes against oil facilities tended to
result in quite limited damage which could be an indication that a different weapons system was
used this time. Indeed, Aramco
came to the conclusion that its facilities were attacked by missiles. Even more curious,
several pictures began to emerge on social media purportedly showing the wreckage of a missile
in the Saudi desert. While the images appear real, neither the date the photos were taken nor
their location can be verified.
Social media users quickly claimed the images showed a crashed
Iranian-made Soumar cruise missile. The Soumar and its updated version, the Hoveyzeh, are
Iran's attempts at reverse-engineering the Soviet-designed KH-55 cruise missile, several of
which the country
illegally imported from Ukraine in the early 2000s . Others claimed it was the Quds 1, a
recently unveiled Houthi cruise missile often claimed to be a rebranded Soumar."
armscontrolwonl
---------------
TTG raised the issue of whether or not this wave of strikes was done by UAVs or cruise
missiles. IMO this cruise missile could be built in Yemen with Iranian assistance. I am very
interested in the question of what the actual vector of the attacks was in this case. pl
The accuracy of the strikes in the spherical pressurized gas storage containers all being in
the same place relative to each target is the place to start for those who, unlike me, are
capable of analyzing these things.
But regardless, the game has escalated up one more rung up the ladder. How many more will
it take for the world to put its interests ahead of Israel's?
Next escalation rung: a loading dock for supertankers: either the port of Yanbu or Ra's
Tanura. Followed by desalination facilities, if Western politicians still pretend to turn a
blind eye and prefer to follow the dictates of their Israeli masters. Nuff Sed.
In asking the question, qui bono, you do have to include Netanyahu, who is up for reelection
tomorrow. There's nothing like striking fear into the heart of the electorate on the eve of
an election for firming up support for a proven incumbent. And if the US attacks Iran before
tomorrow, so much the better for Netanyahu.
That said, I don't think that Netanyahu's buddies in Riyadh would be amused if this were
proven. However, poking a friend in the eye never seemed to stop Israel before think USS
Liberty.
"The Israeli military is armed with the latest fast jets and precision weaponry, yet it has
turned to its fleet of drones to hit targets in Iraq. Deniability has played a big factor
– the ability of drones to elude radar and therefore keep targets guessing about who
actually bombed them is playing well for Israeli leaders who are trying to prevent an
increasingly lethal shadow war with Iran from developing into an open conflict."
The Samad 3 is laden with explosives that allow it to detonate a shaped charge which
explodes downwards towards its target. Footage provided to MintPress by Yemen's Operations
Command Center shows the Samad landing on an asphalt runway, confirming that the drone is
now capable of conducting operations and then returning to base.
There is a huge sea water desalination plant not far away that provides all the treated water
via pipeline for injection into the oil reservoirs to improve recovery of oil. Target that
and not only have you already impacted the processing of the oil produced but would then
impact the total volume of oil available for processing.
I can see no happy ending short of
negotiation between interested parties. MBZ looks to have already reached that conclusion in
respect of the UAE. what will be the self preservation response for the House of Saud
Could the Committee speculate on possible 'steps of retaliation' operating, for theoretical
purposes, at the moment, on the assumption that regardless of where the 'bullets' were fired
from, or from what 'gun' they were fired, Iran paid for deed. What steps are open for action?
I am assuming, myself, personally, this action was taken to prevent a meeting in NYC between
Trump and the President of Iran. That is my guess.
There was never going to be a meeting between Rouhani and Trump. I expect to be dead of old age before there would be any substantive meetings between Iran
and the United States.
Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei has said there will be no meeting until the U.S.ends sanctions.
I
do not for a moment believe Bolton would have stood for it, and even though he's gone,
neither will Pompeo or Pence. Both appear to be fanatically devoted to Israel. There may be
meetings between low level functionaries, and Trump seems to want one very much, but Rouhani
has said there is no way to trust America, so no point to talking. The situation may change
if Netanyahu loses the election, although I have no reason to believe Avigdor will be any
better.
With all due respect, I think one of us fails to grasp the true nature of Trump. If he puts
his mind to it, and thinks it will benefit him, nobody, not Bolton, not Pompeo, not the whole
Neocon cabal, Israeli govt, the present one or the next one, will stop him if he is President
and alive. He will do what is best for Trump.
And trust has nothing to do with this. Why in the hell should I trust Iran? Hell, why
should I trust the UK? I trust that people and nations have interests. That's all I trust.
But that does mean I could not reach a deal with them. Now, as to whether that deals
holds...that is another question. However, if Trump DOES cut a deal, he will not try and
fluff it off as an "Executive Agreement"....if Trump cuts a deal he knows he will have to
bring it to Congress. Thee Lobby may kill it there...or not. We'll see.
Babak, I value your input here. However, I hope you are wrong and that a meeting or meetings
(substantive or not) will start as soon as the dealbreaker is out of office, and the
sanctions are called off. But I would never wish you an early death. May you live a hundred years.
Thank you very kindly.
I would like to ask the following questions:
Will the United States restore sovereign immunity to Iran?
Will the United States Congress rescind all the laws against Iran that form the basis of
economic war against Iran?
Will the United States rescind the sanctions against Ayatollah Khamenei, Dr. Zarif,
General Soleimani, etc., etc. etc.?
Will the Protestant Christians in the United States ever tire of their unrequited love for
all things Old Testament?
In my opinion, the answer to all of these are "no". Unfortunately, even if a man with the caliber of an FDR or a Nixon is elected to the US
Presidency, he will not be able to accomplish much because of the difficulty, nay the
impossibility, of untangling the rules and regulations that US has woven against Iran.
In my opinion, all of that was predicated on the strategic defeat of Iran and her
surrender.
If I WERE ANSWERING. I got some demands of my own..but we can put them aside for the moment.
In general, I would be inclined to respond: Yes, to the "sovereign immunity" question.
Certainly. Regarding "economic warfare", you would have to give me your legal definition of
such a broad phrase, but in principle, yes. Whole heartedly yes. Sanctions against Iran, and
it individuals officers? Yes, absolutely. Sick of sanctions, in general. It is not in my
power to answer the "unrequited love" issue, but I do solemnly state that I would agree to
stop laughing--in public, anyway, at the question. Wanna meet?
Nassim Nicolaas Taleb, author of "Black Swan":
"SAUDI FIELDS It's not just Yemen. People forget there is an oppressed Shiite minority near the Aramco HQ
(dispossessed of the oil fields, located in their ancestral area & treated like
sub-sub-citizens); they get periodically beheaded"
The Al Saud gang, under the Clown Prince Muhammad Bone Saw, can not count on those Shiite
inhabitants of the oil rich region, not necessarily because of the latter's sympathy for Iran
but because they were brutalized for almost a century.
Why would Iran have done it? Just to show they can or to provoke a attack on Iran?
One to benefit from it that I see so far is Saudi's Aramco IPO which is critical to Saudi
. According to WSJ they were considering delaying it because of low oil prices, they needed
oil to reach $80 barrel to make it viable. The attack sent prices up but now market is
talking about risk if there are 'on going attacks'. What could we deduce if there are no on
going attacks and the IPO proceeds?
Only other beneficiary would be Israel if the attack actually does and likely has killed
any Trump-Iran meeting.
Yemenis claimed credit for it, Iran and Iraq said they didn't do it. First word out of US
mouth is Iran did it. The mouth I am least likely to believe is the US. I remember Iraq has
WMDs propaganda....and those it came from.
Oh well, if Iran says they did not do it.......the US govt lies. The Iranian govt lies, the
Saudis surely lie. This is not about innocents. That search is for children and mighty young
ones at that.
The Quds-1 cruise missile is a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle). The remotely piloted aerial
vehicles, which are more commonly referred to as drones are also UAVs. The difference is in
the degree of autonomy in flight control. On board autonomous flight control negates the need
for LOS radio or satellite communications with the cruise missile. Cruise missiles, with
their autonomous control, were always characterized by their high degree of accuracy.
I've
started looking a little closer at the Arduino/RasberryPi and model aircraft hobbyist groups.
With the availability of affordable microcontrollers and sensors, along with the massive
library of open source software, I am convinced a hobbyist could put together a guidance
system in his garage workshop capable of doing what the Quds-1 just did in SA. I also agree
with Colonel Lang that an airframe like the Quds-1 could easily be built in war-torn Yemen. A
cave would make an outstanding workshop.
Even if Iran exported dual use components or even blue prints; it should be counted as part
of the unfortunate world weapons market & wouldn't be illegal.
Your point TTG was nicely illustrated in b's video of the Russian guy building in his
workshopa turbofan engine that flew . Providing there is a set of plans it can be constructed
and it only has to have a one time reliability.
Evidence for what delivered the strike will be found within the complex and there will be a
lot of skills on the ground looking for those answers. The projectiles that struck the
spheres looked to have had penetrating qualities rather than high explosive, putting a hole
in a pressure vessel is sufficient to destroy its usefulness. I would be interested to know
if the projectiles that struck the train were explosive to maximise damage there. Do we need
to be considering what could deliver multiple targeted projectiles or were there simply
multiple independent units or some combination as there were more strikes logged over two
target complexes than the ten delivery platforms mentioned in the Al Ansar press release. Was
there a flight controller and if so where were they located also comes to mind.
There is also the TJ200 built bij Polaris from Brazil with the following description::
"Turbine TJ200:
TJ200 was specially designed to be used in either small cruise missiles or small high
performance UAVs. The most important advantage of TJ200 engine is small diameter and a
relatively low SFC (Specific Fuel Consumption) when compared to other engines of the same
thrust, what makes TJ200 perfect to be used in long range small missiles."
http://www.polaristec.com.br/products.html
That's a pretty specific description. So there are a number of COTS engines out there.
I'd have more confidence in the reporting if I could match it up better with what I can see
in Google Maps/Earth.
The only two satellite pictures I've seen of "burning oil plants" disticntly show a large
plume of black smoke centered a little ways away from the actual refinery area, in some kind
of rectangular area outside the actual "plant". Are those wellheads burning? or adjacent
underground storage? or what?
And the pictured of a burning plant labeled "Haradh Gas Plant" is actually (according to
Google Maps & my eyeballs) the Hawiyah Gas Plant, about 60 miles NNE of Haradh.
In Google Maps/Earth, the Abqaiq facility is on the East side of the city/town of Buquaiq,
and the details match the recent pix. The plume lines up with an empty square patch of desert
at the end of a pipeline running SSE out of the plant.
I've looked all around Khurais, and haven't found anything which could possibly be the
"Oil/Gas Infrastructure at Khurais", as the pictures of the damaged facility there are
labeled.
Elkern, I was referring to the pictures of the cruise missile parts in the sand. Seems to me
they are old from previous attacks.
As far as I can tell the pics of damage at Buqaiq and Khurais are valid. With the
exception of the eleven spherical tanks, which I believe were NOT hit. But I've been wrong
before and am no expert on imagery analysis.
We know Yemen has the Quds-1 and has surprised us before with their technical capability.
Combine that with the video of Yahya Sari claiming full responsibility for the attack and I'm
not sure there is any reason to speculate about conspiracies involving other actors.
The Houthis are not an Iranian "proxy" and I highly doubt they would accept responsibility
for something they didn't do.
Moon of Alabama links some photos and has discussion that suggests very high precision
5-10 m. That is not easily achievable with commercial GPS absent a lot of additional
correction hardware. On the other hand, drones can easily do so. Further, it would be
negligent for SA not to have GPS jamming around such facilities.
In addition, the specificity of the targets hit suggests good intel. I would suspect that
Houthi's have linked with disaffected groups in SA (lots!) and improved their Humint. It
seems highly unlikely that Iran would do something like this AND leave their fingerprints
behind - at least based on recent events.
Never underestimate the feckless laziness of the Saudis. In my experience they turn off
all ATC and air defense systems that require manning or watch keeping when they find them
inconvenient as on the weekend. IMO if Ansarallah did this they will do something similar
soon to prove they are responsible.
imo, the saudi's and washington are going to have to take one for the team. the team being
the global oil based world economy and all the notional value FOR THE present ONLY oil
derivatives and interest rate derivatives burdening the western banking system.... think the
insolvent deutsche bank et al.
a war on iran will do every bit as much damage or MORE to the west as it does to iran
which both russia and china can not.. will not allow to die.
israel gets a lot of press and speculation on this board as well as everywhere else for
all their conspiracies and supposed omnipotent power and control but in this writers opinion
THEY have been punching way above their actual weight for years and current reality has
exposed how feckless and puny they really are in the scheme of things.
i suspect the whole 'jew' thing regarding israel is what animates people so much. if
israel were all zoroastrians i doubt the world would credit them with all the machinations
israel is viewed as responsible for.
''i suspect the whole 'jew' thing regarding israel is what animates people so much. if israel
were all zoroastrians i doubt the world would credit them with all the machinations israel is
viewed as responsible for.'' A Cult is a Cult regardless of it members makeup.
And Israel is looking more like a Jim Jones farm every day.
Only one tank appears to have minor sooting or scorching. As though they were emptied after
an initial strike then targeted in a second strike, but no reports of a second strike.
In the sat pic showing targets in red boxes, top square, the target appears to be smaller
spheres which do look darkened.
Several correspondents here, including Adrestia and b, seem to lack faith in an autonomous
navigation and terminal guidance system for these cruise missiles. They do not need a radio
or cell phone communication link. This could have been even without a GPS signal. Given that
the strikes appear to come from the west, the smartest route would be to fly north to the
pipelines and then east to the targets. Once the missiles are close to the target either a
visual terminal guidance system could take over or the targets are marked and the missiles'
terminal guidance systems just home in on the marked targets. The marks could be laser
illumination, small IR strobes or offset targeting devices. These offset targeting devices
are emplaced with the exact azimuth and distance to the desired target programmed into the
missiles' terminal guidance system. As I said before, we did this in the early 80s. In the
90s, I used the IR strobes. These were tiny lights snapped to the top of a 9V battery. You
could carry a dozen in your pocket. I personally like the idea of emplacing small IR strobes
on target or a set distance and azimuth from the target. The missiles could home on a spot
say due east and 100 meters from the strobe. I'm sure there are other methods I haven't
thought of yet. My educated guess is that this strike was well thought out with both
intelligence and operational support on and near the target site. Anyone who thinks the
Houthi and their Yemeni allies are incapable of planning and executing this is magnificently
ignorant.
GPS is not accurate enough for the last 10-30 feet. Another possiblity that doesn't need
any human terminal guidance could be a creative use of sensors.
Using CARVER select suitable targets. Pick something that is hot, big or fumes gas.
Then use a combination of gas-sensing, parking-sensors, heat-sensing sensors for the last
few feet.
I'm reading the manual for an FY41AP autopilot right now. About $250, made in china.
As for optical guidance, the attacks happened about 0400 - night or dawn?
This autopilot has a video link as well as autonomous and ground based control modes I think.
If the Yemenis had a guy with a transceiver near abqaiq, then maybe they could send these
things over from yemen using gps and a guy with transceiver provided terminal guidance. If
that were to happen the drones would need to be launched at set intervals.
Your last sentence is true enough as far as it goes, but also, if Israel were all
Zoroastrians (or any other group) the world would have dealt with their paranoid and
psychopathic behavior decades ago. The only reason they get away with everything is because
they are Jewish.
Bacevich in NYT op ed. Behind a paywall, here is a copy. Please do not post if it is too long or off topic
Iran Might Be America's Enemy, but Saudi Arabia Is No Friend
After last week's refinery attack, Trump should be careful about throwing America's weight
behind an unreliable "ally."
By Andrew J. Bacevich
Mr. Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Sept. 16, 2019
Image The American frigate Stark, which was hit by two missiles fired from an Iraqi fighter
plane during the Iran-Iraq war in 1987. The American frigate Stark, which was hit by two missiles fired from an Iraqi fighter
plane during the Iran-Iraq war in 1987.
In 1987, an Iraqi warplane attacked an American Navy frigate, the Stark, on patrol in the
Persian Gulf. Accepting Saddam Hussein's explanation that the attack, which killed 37
sailors, had been an accident, American officials promptly used the incident, which came at
the height of the Iran-Iraq war, to ratchet up pressure on Tehran. The incident provided the
impetus for what became a brief, and all but forgotten, maritime war between the United
States and Iran.
Last week, someone -- precisely who remains to be determined -- attacked two oil
refineries in Saudi Arabia. American authorities have been quick to blame Iran, and the
possibility of a violent confrontation between the two countries is once again growing.
Before making a decision on whether to pull the trigger, President Trump would do well to
reflect on that 1987 episode and its legacy.
Back then, the United States had become involved in the very bloody and seemingly
interminable Iran-Iraq war, which Hussein had instigated in 1980 by invading Iran. As that
war turned into a brutal stalemate, President Ronald Reagan and his advisers persuaded
themselves that it was in America's interests to come to Iraq's aid. Iran was the "enemy" so
Iraq became America's "friend."
After the Stark episode, American and Iranian naval forces in the Gulf began jousting, an
uneven contest that culminated in April 1988 with the virtual destruction of the Iranian
Navy.
Yet the United States gained little from this tidy victory. The principal beneficiary was
Hussein, who wasted no time in repaying Washington by invading and annexing Kuwait soon after
his war with Iran ground to a halt. Thus did America's "friend" become America's "enemy."
The encounter with Iran became a precedent-setting event and a font of illusions. Since
then, a series of administrations have indulged the fantasy that the direct or indirect
application of military power can somehow restore stability to the Gulf.
In fact, just the reverse has occurred. Instability has become chronic, with the
relationship between military policy and actual American interests in the region becoming
ever more difficult to discern.
In 2019, this now well-established penchant for armed intervention finds the United States
once more involved in a proxy conflict, this time a civil war that has ravaged Yemen since
2015. Saudi Arabia supports one side in this bloody and interminable conflict, and Iran the
other.
Under President Barack Obama and now President Trump, the United States has thrown in its
lot with Saudi Arabia, providing support comparable to what the Reagan administration gave
Saddam Hussein back in the 1980s. But American-assisted Saudi forces have exhibited no more
competence today than did American-assisted Iraqi forces back then. So the war in Yemen drags
on.
ImageSmoke billowing from one of the oil facilities hit by drone attacks on two Saudi Aramco
oil facilities in Abqaiq, in Saudi Arabia's eastern province, on Saturday.
Smoke billowing from one of the oil facilities hit by drone attacks on two Saudi Aramco oil
facilities in Abqaiq, in Saudi Arabia's eastern province, on Saturday.CreditAgence
France-Presse -- Getty Images
Concrete American interests in this conflict, which has already claimed an estimated
70,000 lives while confronting as many as 18 million with the prospect of starvation, are
negligible. Once more, as in the 1980s, the demonization of Iran has contributed to a policy
that is ill advised and arguably immoral.
I am not suggesting that Washington is supporting the wrong side in Yemen. I am
suggesting, however, that neither side deserves support. Iran may well qualify as America's
"enemy." But Saudi Arabia is not a "friend," regardless of how many billions Riyadh spends
purchasing American-manufactured weaponry and how much effort Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman invests in courting President Trump and members of his family.
The conviction, apparently widespread in American policy circles, that in the Persian Gulf
(and elsewhere) the United States is compelled to take sides, has been a source of recurring
mischief. No doubt the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran poses a danger of
further destabilizing the Gulf. But the United States is under no obligation to underwrite
the folly of one side or the other.
Supporting Iraq in its foolhardy war with Iran in the 1980s proved to be strategically
shortsighted in the extreme. It yielded vastly more problems than it solved. It set in train
a series of costly wars that have produced negligible benefits. Supporting Saudi Arabia today
in its misbegotten war in Yemen is no less shortsighted.
Power confers choice, and the United States should exercise it. We can begin to do so by
recognizing that Saudi Arabia's folly need not be our problem.
Andrew J. Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the
author of the forthcoming "The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War
Victory."
"a war on iran will do every bit as much damage or MORE to the west as it does to iran"
And Iran has demonstrated that they can cause months worth of damage on the KSA, the UAE,
and Kuwait. I can't believe the number of Congressman who simultaneously believe that Iran
was able to glide over U.S. made air defenses without detection and also believe that we can
simply carpet bomb their refineries without any repercussion. How can one believe both things
at the same time? That Iran is responsible for a sophisticated ghost attack and that they are
incapable of retaliating in a target rich environment.
Not only did Graham say this but the loon from Maryland repeated it. These people are
insane but MSM hosts encourage it, just saw Cavuto snear at Ron Paul because he actually made
sense. We are so messed up.
use the pic released by USG of the damage to get an idea of the orientation of the incoming
projectiles, I used that rectangularish pond behind as an aid,
Everyone keeps misunderestimating the Yemenis. The Houthis are fighting as part of a coalition that includes a large part of the Yemeni
military and intelligence services. This coalition is carrying out a war under guerrilla
conditions, but that war is led by professional military men. Yemen had a serious air force
consisting mostly of missile systems before the war. Much of it was destroyed by the bombing
campaign carried out for Saudi Arabia, but the military organization survived. They have now
reconstituted the Yemeni air forces under fire and in the midst of famine, blockade and
invasion.
Stock up on popcorn, the show has only just begun.
Using my CAD and graphic tools and Google Earth along with the photo showing the four
perforated pressure tanks, I have estimated the four vectors as:
E1 280W. E2 279W, E3 281W and E4 273W. I have numbered the tanks from the most eastwards (the
furthermost away in the photo). Angles from true north (0/360 deg). This averages as 278N
with a STDEV of 3 degrees. Its almost due west. Must be very difficult for autopilots (or
real pilots) could perform more than one group-turning maneuver and still maintain final-run
accuracy to what was achieved.
p.s. I'm not specialist in this field apart from terrestrial navigation and drafting
experience.
RobW
The Czech company which produces the TJ100 does have strong links with Iran.
"2005 TPP Iranshahr Iran, the largest project in the company's history, a turnkey project
- four power plant units." But then again. Creating a crash site in the desert with some COTS components in it is
also easy to do. I would be surprised if Iran is launching missiles now. That would be pretty
stupid to do.
I know. I was attempting a comparison between the way most Americans perceive the desert
peoples and the way most Americans fail to extrapolate from their beliefs of one groups
capabilities and motivations and another group closer to home. The perfumed fops in Ryadh and
the Perfumed Princes in DC are very similar under the perfume.
I remember in the mid sixties how the "benighted" Vietnamese and VC were on their last legs,
unable to do anything militarily significant, that the war would be over in 67. This was that
generations perfumed princes attitude towards a people who had been fighting against invaders
since the 1850s. I remember 68 and the most unexpectedly successful operational and strategic
level victory by the NVA and the VC that was TET.
From an infotainment/Cronkite perspective
the important thing was that the Saigon embassy was broached. From and operational
perspective a "defeated" enemy launched several hundred simultaneous attacks all over South
Vietnam while holding down as a diversion the Dien Bien Phu look alike that was Khe San. 51
years 2 and 1/2 generations and today we make the exact same mistakes in evaluating the
current situation.
It is the benefit of being a perfumed prince or fop or neo-con that history has no meaning
because history ended sometime in the 90's. Somehow I hear the voice of a Rove lecturing:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and
when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality --
judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can
study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you,
will be left to just study what we do."
I have seen articles over the last month or so (sorry, no links) saying that because they are
not able to send large amounts of material aid through the Saudi and U.S. Navy blockade of
Yemen, the Iranians sent blueprints and a few engineers and the Ansar Allah have been
building them in Yemen.
What looks like missile hits at identical positions on those spherical tanks are not.
They are the locations of pressure relief valvaes that blew when the towers hit, venting gas
up out and away.
I am in full agreement with your assessment Dave. I don't see any penetrations on those 11
spherical tanks. Look at the complete devastation on the three smaller spherical pressure
tanks.
Unless we get higher resolution pics that definitely show those tanks were pierced there
is no way I am going to believe those tiny scorch marks are UAV or missile hits. Much too
symmetrical! No amount of geometrical explaining of drone tracks will account for that
symmetry.
Yes indeed. Dave deserves hearty congratulations though we might add a caveat. The said
"valves" could have been blown out in advance via software or person throwing a switch
(humint or cyber component to one attack vector). Yes, tremors or shakes triggering sensor
which blows valve is possible, I suppose. But the thing that had me up at night was the
nagging sense that this was a prearranged message of sorts.
It cries out "sure, it's bad, but
it is reversible." So I had been wondering about invitation for pow-wows given UN upcoming
meeting in NY. I'm tending to lean toward an advance blowout rather than blowout in reaction
to stress. Why damage such delicate, custom equipment as those beautiful tanks? As you say,
it has to be something intrinsic/internal to the construction of the tanks. So - before or
after remains to be discussed. Assuming the pics are legitimate. But that's why I thought
especially there was a subtle message sent. If they are legit - see above. If not legit -
then it is howling reversibility or caution at the very least.
The processor trains are a linear series of stabilizer columns that help separate the sour
hydrogen sulfide gas from the crude oil. They are at the heart of the process and probably
the highest value target. They are to the left of the 11 pressure tanks in the pictures
shown, or perhaps just NNW of those tanks.
I buy the idea of HUMINT assets having collected target informatoin but the idea of
mini-strobes, etc. seems to me to be too difficult to do given the separation of the missile
force and the HUMINT assets. Very hard to coordinate.
Houthis have every reason to utilize their advanced weapons systems against Saudi targets to
bring the war to an end. As for Iran, seems they have been on a semi-successful diplomatic
campaign to counter US maximum pressure with their own maximum pressure on Europeans, Russia
and China to deliver on the economic benefits that are as important in JCPOA as the
curtailing of Iran's nuclear program.
Trump talking about meeting Rouhani in New York, Zarif
in China getting at least $50-100 billion in pledged economic support, Russia suggesting $10
billion investment in the Iranian energy sector: Why would Iran at this moment make a direct
move to turn the world fully against them? Perhaps a rogue faction of IRGC out to stop any
diplomatic action, but even that would have to come with OK from Khamenei--or there would be
strong action against the rogues.
Pressure on Trump to maintain the hardline against Iran following Bolton ouster? Pompeo
has been leading the diplomatic back channels and repeating Trump's goal of forcing Iran to
the table. Even the Saudis are for the moment hesitant to blame Iran, actually calling for a
UN investigation into the source of the attacks.
2) a general redirection of attention is achieved from 2 points:
- from Syria
In the issue of National Geographic Bulgaria of 04.2019, April 2019 number 4 (162),on p.29
there is a map of the migratory route of a bird - Ethiopia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
Turkey, Bulgaria. BUT the name of Syria is missing, just an empty space within its current
borders.
Maybe, I sincerely hope not, it was just a part of a campaign of mass indoctrination - the
"former Syria" to be divided between neighbors with a US military base here and there or to
turn onto a No Man's land of lawlessness right there, flanking the EU, Russia's Muslim areas,
China's silk road etc
"The Iran did it" narrative as an attempt to keep on undermining the pro-Syrian government
coalition.
- from the temptation to mix with West's "rivals" internal issues
A strange coincidence that there was such a recent burst of "opposition" activity first in
Russia, then in China. The velvet revolution recipe of the Arabian spring, Ukraine, etc (if
it was such) didn't quite work however.
And the "empires strike back" - subtly and not so subtly. China offers for the London
stock exchange (let's not forget that the Chinese take-over of the London metal exchange went
without a fuss). Saudi Arabia next.
Maybe the message is "Just stay out of your ex-colonies"
Richard Gill, managing director of the UK company Drone Defence:
"But [drone defence is] military-grade technology and it's massively expensive. To install a
defensive system is extremely complex and the threat is evolving at such a rate that it's
very hard to keep up to date, because the adversaries change the type of technology they use
in a way that almost renders the defence moot."
The strikes, which unidentified U.S. officials have said involved at least 20 drones and
several cruise missiles, forced Saudi Arabia to shut down half its oil production capacity, or
5.7 million barrels per day of crude -- 5% of the world's global daily oil production.
The images, first obtained by The Associated Press, show that at least 19 strikes were
launched and 17 actually hit targets." CNBC
------------ --
I get a big kick out of those of you who think someone faked this attack for, what; An excuse to go to war with Iran?
An opening gambit to get the Iranians to talk to Trump at the UN? If so, that did not work.
Khamenei has said unequivocally that they are not going to talk to the US.
Mikey Pompeo is now going to travel to Saudi Arabia to see if he can jawbone the Saudis into
saying that it was undoubtedly the Iranians who done it. Would that be going on if the Saudis
had been in the plot?
So, some of you think that the Saudis blew up their own processing plant for some nefarious
reason.
Or, maybe the Izzies blew it up to start a war?Will wonders never cease? I mean you, not the attack. pl
"Iran has launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply,"
declared Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Putting America's credibility on the line, Pompeo accused Iran of carrying out the devastating
attack on Saudi oil facilities that halted half of the kingdom's oil production, 5.7 million
barrels a day.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump did not identify Iran as the attacking nation, but did appear,
in a tweet, to back up the secretary of state:
"There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on
verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia) as to who they believe
was the cause of this attack and under what terms we would proceed!"
Yemen's Houthi rebels, who have been fighting Saudi Arabia for four years and have used drones
to strike Saudi airport and oil facilities, claim they fired 10 drones from 500 kilometers away to
carry out the strikes in retaliation for Saudi air and missile attacks.
Pompeo dismissed their claim,
"There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen."
But while the Houthis claim credit,
Iran denies all responsibility.
Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif says of Pompeo's charge, that
the U.S. has simply
replaced a policy of "maximum pressure" with a policy of "maximum deceit." Tehran is calling us
liars.
And, indeed, a direct assault on Saudi Arabia by Iran, a Pearl Harbor-type surprise attack on
the Saudis' crucial oil production facility, would be an act of war requiring Saudi retaliation,
leading to a Persian Gulf war in which the United States could be forced to participate.
Tehran being behind Saturday's strike would contradict Iranian policy since the U.S. pulled out
of the nuclear deal. That policy has been to avoid a military clash with the United States and
pursue a measured response to tightening American sanctions.
U.S. and Saudi officials are investigating the sites of the attacks, the oil production facility
at Abqaiq and the Khurais oil field.
According to U.S. sources, 17 missiles or drones were fired, not the 10 the Houthis
claim, and cruise missiles may have been used. Some targets were hit on the west-northwest facing
sides, which suggests they were fired from the north, from Iran or Iraq.
But according to The New York Times, some targets were hit on the west side, pointing away from
Iraq or Iraq as the source. But as some projectiles did not explode and fragments of those that did
explode are identifiable, establishing the likely source of the attacks should be only a matter of
time. It is here that the rubber meets the road.
Given Pompeo's public accusation that Iran was behind the attack, a Trump meeting with Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani at the U.N. General Assembly's annual gathering next week may be a dead
letter.
The real question now is what do the Americans do when the source of the attack is known and the
call for a commensurate response is put directly to our "locked-and-loaded" president.
If the perpetrators were the Houthis, how would Trump respond?
For the Houthis, who are native to Yemen and whose country has been attacked by the Saudis for
four years, would, under the rules of war, seem to be entitled to launch attacks on the country
attacking them.
Indeed, Congress has repeatedly sought to have Trump terminate U.S. support of the Saudi
war in Yemen.
If the attack on the Saudi oil field and oil facility at Abqaiq proves to be the work of Shiite
militia from inside Iraq, would the United States attack that militia whose numbers in Iraq have
been estimated as high as 150,000 fighters, as compared with our 5,000 troops in-country?
What about Iran itself?
If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired
on Saturday -- shutting down about 6% of world oil production -- imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war
would do to the world economy.
In recent decades, the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military
equipment. Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the
kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors?
Before Trump orders any strike on Iran, would he go to Congress for authorization for his act of
war?
Sen. Lindsey Graham is already urging an attack on Iran's oil refineries to "break the
regime's back,"
while Sen. Rand Paul contends that "there's no reason the superpower of
the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran."
Divided again:
The War Party is giddy with excitement over the prospect of war
with Iran, while the nation does not want another war.
How we avoid it, however, is becoming difficult to see.
John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing, but his soul is marching on.
Trump speaks at Washington rally against the Iran deal back in September 2015. Credit:
Olivier Douliery/Sipa USA/Newscom Paul Pillar comments
on the attack on the Saudi oil facility at Abqaiq, and he connects it to the administration's
dangerous, failing "maximum pressure" campaign:
Iranian leaders have been explicit in warning that if Iran could not export its oil, then
other Persian Gulf producers would not be able to either. Was anyone in the Trump
administration listening?
To borrow another formulation from Pompeo's tweet, there is no evidence that in the
absence of the administration's economic warfare against Iran, Iran would do anything like
attack the Abqaiq facility or have any incentive to conduct such an attack. If Iran did do
the attack, then it was a direct and unsurprising result of the administration's policy of
unrelenting hostility and of inflicting economic pain with no apparent end.
The Trump administration's economic war on Iran has not achieved anything except to
destabilize the region further and impoverish the Iranian people. It is the cause of the
current crisis with Iran, and were it not for this economic war we can reasonably assume that
there would have been no attacks on tankers, pipelines, and possibly oil facilities in the last
few months. As Pillar notes, the administration has shown Iran unrelenting hostility, and they
have continued to apply one set of sanctions after another, and then the administration
pretends that its own actions have not created the present mess. A smart administration would
start lifting sanctions, but then a smart administration would never have imposed them in the
first place.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. increase its involvement in Yemen and do more to
devastate that country, as
this former admiral has suggested that we do in an interview with Foreign Policy .
The U.S. should have ended our involvement in the war on Yemen long ago. It is an ongoing
disgrace that the administration continues to support and arm the governments that have been
destroying and starving Yemen. Our involvement in the war is already unauthorized and illegal,
and directly launching attacks alongside the Saudi coalition would make things even worse.
Deescalating tensions with Iran is the only sane way forward, so of course the only thing
being seriously considered right now in Washington is a possible attack on Iran. It can't be
stressed enough that the U.S. has no justification, legal or otherwise, to launch an attack on
Iran. Not only is the U.S. not obliged to come to the defense of Saudi Arabia, but our
government is bound by the U.N. Charter that prohibits using force against another state except
in self-defense. No one can seriously claim that a U.S. strike on Iran right now would be
anything other than an illegal attack in clear violation of international law.
The only sane thing MBS can do is to declare defeat and withdraw from Yemen, tout
suite .
The problem is that there is no way for him to do so without humiliation. Shame and
honor are paramount in Saudi society, and MBS has just gotten a very nasty and very public
punch in the nose. Anything less than brutal escalation, and his honor and prestige will be
seriously damaged.
The Saudi tyrants are stuck in Yemen so deep, that they have little choice but to keep
doubling down.
"... USA has been doing nearly everything in the Yemen war except pilot the planes. That Yemen can sneak some drones into sensitive Saudi areas would seem to raise some questions... ..."
"... Strategically what this means is that after wantonly bombing and attacking woefully poor Yemen for years, rich Saudi Arabia is not capable of protecting almost the entire source of its wealth. ..."
It's Monday September 16th, 2019 and the weeks starts off like this:
GM's UAW Strike
Yemeni Houti Rebels Drones wipe out 50% of Saudi Arabia's oil production
Trump tweets in response is "locked and loaded" implying a new US war in the ME
One of Trump's White House flunky's declared "it is better if Trump does not study an
issue" before making decisions (oh yea,"Stupid is what Stupid does")
Biden and S. Warren tied in the DEM race for 2020
Piketty's new Economics tome is out
PM Netanyahu is losing his re-election bid in Israel, to be determined by tomorrow's
Election
We live in interesting times...
...the question I pose for the times is 'Are the People are better lead by businessmen,
politicians, academics, or intellectuals?
Personally, I choose to be lead by people that do the right thing long term for the People,
not the most politically expedient or the one that makes the most money in the short run or
the smartest, etc.
USA has been doing nearly everything in the Yemen war except pilot the planes. That Yemen can
sneak some drones into sensitive Saudi areas would seem to raise some questions about USA
capability. Have not yet seen any press questions in that direction.
USA has been doing nearly everything in the Yemen war except pilot the planes. That Yemen can
sneak some drones into sensitive Saudi areas would seem to raise some questions...
Strategically what this means is that after wantonly bombing and attacking woefully poor
Yemen for years, rich Saudi Arabia is not capable of protecting almost the entire source of
its wealth.
The U.S. thought it was cleverly choking the regime, but now it's clear that 'maximum
pressure' goes both ways.
• The Saturday attack on Saudi oil facilities, which
took 5.7 million barrels of oil per day offline, is the escalation that wasn't supposed to
happen. Now that it has happened, we enter perilous new terrain.
America has blamed Iran and
hinted at some sort of retaliation . Iran has denied responsibility, while the Houthis
gladly take it. There are conflicting reports of where the missiles or drones were launched
from, which we will learn more about in the coming days.
In the meantime, Trump is in a tight spot of his own making, with neither escalation nor
retrenchment looking to be attractive options.
It is still uncertain when Saudi Aramco can get everything back on line. The attack showed
sophistication. Critical nodes were hit. If the facilities are quickly repaired, that lessens
the gravity of this event. The Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s showed the resiliency of oil
installations, as Iraqi bombers pounded Kharg Island, where Iran exported much of its oil, yet
the Iranians managed to keep the exports flowing. This suggests that a war of attrition today
would be possible without major disruptions, though the impact of new technologies of attack
and resistance makes any guess hazardous.
Advertisement
If past crises are any indication, a sustained loss of 5.7 million barrels per day, over
five percent of world oil consumption, would likely quadruple oil prices. Strategic petroleum
reserves can cover this to a certain extent: the U.S. system can pump 4.4 million barrels per
day. But it would exhaust its reserves in 150 days at that pace. We do not know whether more
strikes will be forthcoming or whether such efforts can be successfully suppressed with
airpower or invigorated defenses. All we can say is that the great game has advanced to a new
stage.
From the beginning, escalation has seemed the likely consequence of the Trump
administration's decision to asphyxiate the Iranian regime by cutting off its ability to export
oil. This was a declaration of economic war. That is the polite term, as it is an action every
international lawyer on the planet, back in the day when these things mattered, would have
called an act of war without any precious qualifiers.
It turns out that there may be some street cred to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's
assertion that if Iran isn't allowed to export oil, others will face obstacles too. Tit for
tat. Got a quid? Here's a quo. The funny thing is that any significant threat to Saudi capacity
creates a pressing need to get Iran's spare capacity onto the world market. As to which side
now has more leverage, in a position to squeeze harder, that's a tough question. Putting it
nicely, the Iranians can, if their will is stout, impose huge costs on the United States and
the world economy. They would only consider that if pressed extremely hard, yet the United
States has been pressing them extremely hard for over a year now.
Remember that the purpose of America's economic war on Iran was to force Iran to submit to
12 demands issued by Pharaoh Mike Pompeo
in his edict delivered on May 21, 2018. It was really disappointing that Pompeo didn't
raise the obvious thirteenth demand and insist that the embargo would not be lifted until an
American regent was appointed in Tehran, taking the Islamic Revolution under neoliberal
guidance until circumstances changed, after which Iranian democracy would be restored to its
former lack of glory. That was implied, to be sure, but we didn't get much straight talk from
Mr. Pompeo on that point.
This ultimatum was reminiscent of the demands that the Austro-Hungarians made on the Serbs
on a certain date in 1914. Make them as extreme as you can, said the inspired diplomatists
looking for war. World reaction was then unfavorable. Winston Churchill, in charge of Britain's
navy, called it "the most insolent document of its kind ever devised." The resemblance to
Pompeo's ultimatums hardly shows the imminence of a 1914-like crisis today, but there is a
certain arrogance to both the U.S. warmongers and Austro-Hungarians. The Austrians got the war
they were looking for; the neocons may yet get theirs.
Trump's renunciation of the Iran nuclear deal is mostly about Israel and its perceived
security requirements. Not only must Iran not have a single nuclear weapon, it must not have
the theoretical capability to produce a weapon, were the Iranians to break from their pledges
under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the JCPOA. This imposes a requirement on the Islamic
Republic that no other medium-sized power has had to endure. That the Iranians are bearers of
an ancient civilization makes the humiliation all the more painful. Those 12 demands were not
designed to produce a settlement; they were designed to produce a crisis, as they now have
done. Regime change lies back of them -- that or simply the immiseration of another Muslim
country.
American policy toward Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, has recently been mostly about arms
sales. People say all the time that the oil companies are the heavyweights in this drama. In
fact, they are secondary. What has driven events in the recent past is the military-industrial
complex salivating over the sales of high-priced and high-tech U.S. armaments to sheikdoms with
money to burn. The MIC plunderers, like the Hollywood moguls, understand that you simply must
have the foreign market to make the big profits. Politicians see such sales as a way of making
our own arms purchases remotely affordable and thereby politically palatable. For these
reasons, foreign arms sales to reprehensible characters is Washington's go-to move, a win-win
for the plutocrats and the praetorians.
The United States acted under no prompting of national interest in so aiding and abetting
the Saudi war in Yemen, but its hankering after all those lucrative contracts was just too much
temptation. When the flesh is weak, as it seems to be in Washington, burning flesh is not a
problem. Trump saw it as a great business deal and had no compunctions about the human fallout
in Yemen. The Democrats -- a certain Democrat, especially -- did what was once said of Austrian
Queen Maria Theresa after the Partition of Poland in 1772: "She wept, but she took."
The president may have outsmarted himself this time. He got rid of National Security Adviser
John Bolton because he didn't like Bolton's across-the-board hawkish recommendations, but he
signed on to the very big change in U.S. policy towards Iran that Bolton had recommended. Trump
thought he was in control of the escalation. But when you declare your intention to asphyxiate
another country, you've committed an act of war. Retaliation from the other side usually
follows in some form or fashion. You can then advance to your ruin or retreat in ignominy.
Trump has threatened retaliation, but he surely does not want a big war with Iran. His
supporters definitely do not want a war with Iran. Americans in general are opposed to a war
with Iran. Mysteriously, however, the U.S. declaration of war on Iran in fact -- though not, of
course, in name, heaven forbid -- escaped notice by the commentariat this past year. The
swamp's seismograph doesn't record a reading when we violate the rules, but when the other guy
does, it's 7.8 on the Richter Scale.
The whole drama, in a nutshell, is just the old-fashioned hubris of the imperial power,
issuing its edicts, and genuinely surprised when it encounters resistance, even though such
resistance confirms for the wunderkinds their view of the enemy's malevolence.
Is Trump trapped? That is the question of the hour. He faces strong pressure to do something
in retaliation, but that something may aggravate the oil shock and imperil his re-election. As
he dwells on that possibility, he will probably look for ways to back down. He will try to get
out of the trap set by the U.S. economic war on Iran without abandoning the economic war on
Iran. But that probably won't work; that was Iran's message over the weekend. Were he to
abandon the economic war, however, he would get a ton of flak from both sides of the aisle in
Congress. The commentators would scream "appeasement!" In Washington lobby-land, we'd be back
to 1938 in a flash.
Does the president have the gumption to resist that tired line? I hope so.
David Hendrickson teaches history at Colorado College and is the author of Republic
in Peril: American Empire and the Liberal Tradition.
Bibi is desperate for war with Iran to avoid election defeat and prison and Bolton is
fired/resigns only to predict "Iranian deception" on the way out the door.
Today, Brent climbed as much as 12% towards $70 per barrel and the US crude oil rose 10%
to nearly $61. Historically, Brent crude oil reached an all time high of 147.50 in July of
2008. Remember what happened next?
Qui Bono?
KSA, UAE, Qatar
Russia
US Oil Majors, State of Texas
OPEC
UK
Norway
Who suffers?
China
Japan
India
Transportation costs and cost of goods
Commuters costs
Heating costs going into winter
Airlines and air travel
Iraq, Libya, Venezuela and Iran are a mess and cannot produce to make a difference.
This will be the catalyst for the economic downturn.
SCMP Hong Kong @SCMPHongKong - 13:47 UTC · Sep 15,
2019
A video going viral online shows a middle-aged man being beaten up by protesters this
afternoon. He was later found lying injured at Gloucester Road. Paramedics treated him; he
was conscious vid
There were several such incidents today. These
rightwing 'protesters' are extremely aggressive. The true utility of the HK protests was
articulated by former US envoy to HK and Taiwan Stephen Young in the Asia TImes this week,
declaring that the "one country, two systems" framework was now "dead" since "Beijing has
reneged on its pledges to introduce local autonomy and democracy to Hong Kong." He claims it
is already too late for HK - "But the lesson for Taiwan's 23 million citizens is different.
Build your defences, solidify your relations with your essential security partner, America,
and make it clear you will fight for your freedom."
This is an incorrect and self-serving analysis. China has not reneged on any pledges or
undermined the Basic Law, despite claims to the contrary. Much like "Russian aggression"
became a key narrative thread in Ukraine despite little actual evidence of such aggression,
the alleged "brutal authoritarian" activity on behalf of the Chinese government will continue
as "the" story in Hong Kong even if it hasn't actually happened.
A big provocation has been promised by the protesters to spoil the October 1 celebration
of 70 years of PRC. Then focus will switch to Taiwan and its election in January. The
Americans hope the nationalist anti-PRC forces win, helped by the hysteria generated over HK,
and then the program of militarizing the island to serve as a fount of tension in the region
will begin in earnest with an explicit rejection of Taiwan's status as a part of China.
IMO the Honk Kong thing is backfiring a bit on the empire.
These very loud calls for Trump and England to come to their aid and liberate them is not
what the evil empire had in mind.
The Americans have gotten themselves in a real bind with their maximum pressure campaign on Iran. This latest attack on Saudi
Arabia's oil production looks like an escalation of the previous attacks on shipping and the spy drone. It is not evident how
the Americans can respond to this latest attack.
As I see it their options are:
1. To let KSA respond to the Houthi attack and continue with their campaign to shut down Iranian oil production, without any
direct U.S. response to the attack. However this will achieve nothing, as next month Iran will up pressure again with another
attack on Middle-East oil assets, and we'll be back to the same place.
2. To bomb Iran's oil industry, as Pompeo and Graham suggest. However this risks blowing up the whole Middle East, as well
as the World's oil market and their own (Western) economies.
3. Forget about Iran and move the fight to maintain U.S. global hegemony to another front: back to Venezuela? Serbia? Hong
Kong? Taiwan? However the end result of such a move would more than likely be another humuliating defeat for the U.S.
4. Do as Stephen Wertheim / New York Times suggest and sue for peace. This will end the dream of U.S. World dominance, Globalization
and the current western based financial system. The U.S. will become no more than a heavily indebted regional power in a 'Multi-polar
World Order' led by China and Russia.
As I see it, the U.S. is out of options to continue their war for global dominance. #4 is the only viable option. But, as one
author argued in a recent paper (I don't have the reference), wars continue long after the victor is clear, because the loser
can't admit defeat (at heavy additional costs to the loser). I think that this is the position that the U.S. finds itself in now.
What the attack on Saudi oil infrastructure shows us, is that now Iran has united her proxys into one united front.
While they were cautious to not leave evidence of their involvment with the Houtis before, they now are putting their support
more and more into the open.
The attack seemed to have involved not only Houti drones (already build with help from Iran), but also Iranian backed forces
in Iraq, AND pro Iranian forces in Saudi Arabia itself. And maybe even other actors.
This is a major new development. Not only for the war on Yemen, but also in the context of Iran providing a credile detterence
against US+Saudi aggression.
They excalated with increasing levels, and one wonders, what could top this last attack off.
And i am pretty sure, we will find out sooner rather than later.
@ 27
WaPo: Abqaiq . .damaged on the west-northwest sides
That's it! It was Hezbollah for sure. (not)
Actually there were two targets, the Buqaiq (Abqaiq) oil processing plant and the Khurais oil field, both in the Eastern Province.
These attacks are not the first -- from longwarjournal:
Last month, the Houthis claimed another drone operation against Saudi's Shaybah oil field near the United Arab Emirates. At
more than 1,000 miles away from it's Yemen territory, that strike marked one of the Houthis farthest claimed attacks.
The Houthis also claimed a drone strike on the Abu Dhabi airport last year, but that has been denied by Emirati officials.
Additionally, a drone strike on Saudi's East-West oil pipeline near Riyadh earlier this year, which the Houthis claimed responsibility,
was allegedly conducted by Iranian-backed Iraqi militants. If accurate, that means the Houthi claim of responsibility acted
as a type of diplomatic cover for the Iraqi militants.
Since beginning its drone program last year, the Houthis have launched at least 103 drone strikes in Yemen and Saudi Arabia
according to data compiled by FDD's Long War Journal. . .
here . . .and more
here .
Really appreciated the write up on the Houthis attack.
Sounds like the attack left substantial damage. Another bigger issue underlying all of this, aside from Saudi inability to get
what it wants now from it's IPO, is the fact that the US Patriots did not detect this attack.
The Saudis spent billions last year on this defense system. Sounds like the clown Prince better give Russians a call about their
S-400.
But the US wouldn't appreciate that much, would they?
An Iranian parliamentary faction has come up with the idea of establishing a club of
sanctioned countries for concerted action against the US economic terrorism.
The chairman of the Parliament's faction on countering sanctions, Poormokhtar, gave a report
on the formation of the faction and its activities, as well as the ongoing efforts to establish
the club of sanctioned countries. Iran's FM, Zaraf, said this would be enhancing the already
existing alliance of Russia, China, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela against US economic
terrorism.
PressTV: Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela are among the nations that have
come out against the United States' use of sanctions to enforce its foreign policy around the
world. In what ways can they fight these US sanctions as a group?
Peter Koenig: Brilliant idea! Solidarity makes stronger and eventually will attract other
countries who are sick and tired of the US sanction regime, and since they have the backing of
Russia and China, that's a very strong alliance, especially an economic alliance. The sanction
regime can only be broken through economics, meaning decoupling from the western monetary
system. I said this before and say it again, at the risk of repeating myself.
After all, China is the world's largest and strongest economy in Purchasing Power GDP
measures which is the only comparison that really counts. I believe this solidarity alliance
against US sanctions is certainly worth a trial.
And personally, I think it will be a successful trial, as more countries will join, possibly
even non-sanctioned ones, out of solidarity against a common tyrant.
The countries in solidarity against sanctions, in addition to ignoring them -- and the more
they ignore them, the more other countries will follow-suit -- that's logical as fear
disappears and solidarity grows.
For example, Iran and Venezuela, oil exporting countries, could accompany their tankers by
war ships. Yes, it's an extra cost, but think of it as temporary and as a long-term gain. Would
"Grace I" have been accompanied by an Iranian war ship the Brits would not have dared
confiscating it. That's for sure.
PressTV: Many of the US sanctions have led to death of civilians in those particular
countries. At the same time, sanctions have also led to the improvement of these countries to
the point where domestic production in various fields advanced. Don't sanctions become
country-productive to US aims?'
PK: Of course, the sanctions are counter-productive. They have helped Russia to become
food-self-sufficient, for example. That was not Washington's intention and less so the
intention of the EU, who followed Washington's dictate like puppets.
Sanctions are like a last effort before the fall of the empire, to cause as much human
damage as possible, to pull other nations down with the dying beast. It has always been like
that starting with the Romans through the Ottoman's. They realize their time has come but can't
see a world living in peace. So they must plant as much unrest and misery as possible before
they disappear
That's precisely what's happening with the US.
Intimidation, building more and more military bases, all with fake money, as we know the
dollar is worth nothing – FIAT money – that the world still accepts but less
and less so, therefore military bases, deadly sanctions, and trade wars. Trump knows that a
trade war against China is a lost cause. Still, he can intimidate other countries by insisting
on a trade war with China or that's what he thinks.
PressTV: The more countries US sanctions, illegally, more people turn against the US:
doesn't that defeat the US so-called fight against terrorism and violence?
PK: Well, US sanction and the entire scheme of US aggression has nothing to do with fighting
terrorism, as you know. It's nothing but expanding US hegemony over the world, and if needed,
and more often than not, the US finances terrorism to fight proxy wars against their so-called
enemies, meaning anybody not conforming to their wishes and not wanting to submit to their
orders and not letting them exploit – or rather steal – their natural
resources.
Syria is a case in point. ISIL is funded and armed by the Pentagon, who buys Serbian
produced weapon to channel them through the Mid-East allies to Syrian terrorists, the ISIL or
similar kinds with different names -- just to confuse.
Venezuela too – the opposition consist basically of US trained, financed and armed
opposition "leaders" – who do not want to participate in totally democratic elections
– order of the US – boycott them. But as we have seen as of this day, the various
coup attempts by the US against their legitimate and democratically elected President,
Nicolás Maduro, have failed bitterly, and this despite the most severe sanctions regime
South American has known, except for Cuba, against whom the US crime has been perpetuated for
60 years.
So, nobody should have the illusion that Washington's wars are against terrorism. Washington
is THE terrorist regime that fights for world hegemony.
The collapse of neoliberalism naturally lead to the collapse of the US influence over the globe. and to the treats to the dollar
as the world reserve currency. That's why the US foreign policy became so aggressive and violent. Neocons want to fight for the
world hegemony to the last American.
Notable quotes:
"... US foreign policy is ever more unstable and confrontational ..."
"... Bolton's brutal defenestration has raised hopes that Trump, who worries that voters may view him as a warmonger, may begin to moderate some of his more confrontational international policies. As the 2020 election looms, he is desperate for a big foreign policy peace-making success. And, in Trump world, winning matters more than ideology, principles or personnel. ..."
"... Since taking office in January 2017, Trump has not merely broken with diplomatic and geopolitical convention. He has taken a wrecking ball to venerated alliances, multilateral cooperation and the postwar international rules-based order. ..."
"... The resulting new world disorder – to adapt George HW Bush's famous 1991 phrase – will be hard to put right. Like its creator, Trump world is unstable, unpredictable and threatening. Trump has been called America's first rogue president. Whether or not he wins a second term, this Trumpian era of epic disruption, the very worst form of American exceptionalism, is already deeply entrenched. ..."
"... driven by a chronic desire for re-election, Trump's behaviour could become more, not less, confrontational during his remaining time in office, suggested Eliot Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins university. ..."
"... "The president has proved himself to be what many critics have long accused him of being: belligerent, bullying, impatient, irresponsible, intellectually lazy, short-tempered and self-obsessed," Cohen wrote in Foreign Affairs journal . "Remarkably, however, those shortcomings have not yet translated into obvious disaster. But [that] should not distract from a building crisis of US foreign policy." ..."
"... This pending crisis stems from Trump's crudely Manichaean division of the world into two camps: adversaries/competitors and supporters/customers. A man with few close confidants, Trump has real trouble distinguishing between allies and enemies, friends and foes, and often confuses the two. In Trump world, old rules don't apply. Alliances are optional. Loyalty is weakness. And trust is fungible. ..."
"... The crunch came last weekend when a bizarre, secret summit with Taliban chiefs at Camp David was cancelled . It was classic Trump. He wanted quick 'n' easy, primetime credit for a dramatic peace deal, pushed ahead blindly, then changed his mind at the last minute. Furious over a debacle of his own making, he turned his wrath on others, notably Bolton – who, ironically, had opposed the summit all along. ..."
"... With Trump's blessing, Israel is enmeshed in escalating, multi-fronted armed confrontation with Iran and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. Add to this recent violence in the Gulf, the disastrous Trump-backed, Saudi-led war in Yemen, mayhem in Syria's Idlib province, border friction with Turkey, and Islamic State resurgence in northern Iraq, and a region-wide explosion looks ever more likely. ..."
"... "the bipartisan consensus forged in the 1990s – in which the US towered over the world and, at low cost, sought to remake it in America's image – has failed and cannot be revived", ..."
With John Bolton dismissed, Taliban peace talks a fiasco and
a trade war with China, US foreign policy is ever more unstable and confrontational
It was by all accounts, a furious row.
Donald Trump was talking about relaxing sanctions on
Iran and holding a summit with its president, Hassan Rouhani, at this month's UN general assembly in New York. John Bolton, his hawkish
national security adviser, was dead against it and forcefully rejected Trump's ideas during a tense meeting in the Oval Office on
Monday.
...Bolton's brutal defenestration has raised hopes that Trump, who worries that voters may view him as a warmonger, may begin
to moderate some of his more confrontational international policies. As the 2020 election looms, he is desperate for a big foreign
policy peace-making success. And, in Trump world, winning matters more than ideology, principles or personnel.
The US president is now saying he is also open to a repeat meeting with North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, to reboot stalled nuclear
disarmament talks. On another front, he has offered an olive branch to China, delaying a planned tariff increase on $250bn of Chinese
goods pending renewed trade negotiations next month. Meanwhile, he says, new tariffs on European car imports could be dropped, too.
Is a genuine dove-ish shift under way? It seems improbable. Since taking office in January 2017, Trump has not merely broken with
diplomatic and geopolitical convention. He has taken a wrecking ball to venerated alliances, multilateral cooperation and the postwar
international rules-based order. He has cosied up to autocrats, attacked old friends and blundered into sensitive conflicts he does
not fully comprehend.
The resulting new world disorder – to adapt George HW Bush's famous 1991 phrase – will be hard to put right. Like its creator,
Trump world is unstable, unpredictable and threatening. Trump has been called America's first rogue president. Whether or not he
wins a second term, this Trumpian era of epic disruption, the very worst form of American exceptionalism, is already deeply entrenched.
The suggestion that Trump will make nice and back off as election time nears thus elicits considerable scepticism. US analysts
and commentators say the president's erratic, impulsive and egotistic personality means any shift towards conciliation may be short-lived
and could quickly be reversed, Bolton or no Bolton.
Trump wanted quick 'n' easy, primetime credit for a dramatic peace deal in Afghanistan with the Taliban, pushed ahead blindly,
then changed his mind at the last minute
Trump is notorious for blowing hot and cold, performing policy zigzags and suddenly changing his mind. "Regardless of who has
advised Mr Trump on foreign affairs all have proved powerless before [his] zest for chaos," the
New York Times noted last week
.
Lacking experienced diplomatic and military advisers (he has sacked most of the good ones), surrounded by an inner circle of cynical
sycophants such as secretary of state Mike Pompeo, and driven by a chronic desire for re-election, Trump's behaviour could become
more, not less, confrontational during his remaining time in office, suggested Eliot Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns
Hopkins university.
"The president has proved himself to be what many critics have long accused him of being: belligerent, bullying, impatient, irresponsible,
intellectually lazy, short-tempered and self-obsessed," Cohen wrote
in Foreign
Affairs journal . "Remarkably, however, those shortcomings have not yet translated into obvious disaster. But [that] should
not distract from a building crisis of US foreign policy."
This pending crisis stems from Trump's crudely Manichaean division of the world into two camps: adversaries/competitors and supporters/customers.
A man with few close confidants, Trump has real trouble distinguishing between allies and enemies, friends and foes, and often confuses
the two. In Trump world, old rules don't apply. Alliances are optional. Loyalty is weakness. And trust is fungible.
As a result, the US today finds itself at odds with much of the world to an unprecedented and dangerous degree. America, the postwar
global saviour, has been widely recast as villain. Nor is this a passing phase. Trump seems to have permanently changed the way the
US views the world and vice versa. Whatever follows, it will never be quite the same again.
Clues as to what he does next may be found in what he has done so far. His is a truly calamitous record, as exemplified by Afghanistan.
Having vowed in 2016 to end America's longest war, he began with a troop surge, lost interest and sued for peace. A withdrawal deal
proved elusive. Meanwhile, US-led forces
inflicted record civilian casualties .
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest The US and Israeli flags are projected on the walls of Jerusalem's Old City in May, marking the anniversary of
the US embassy transfer from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Photograph: Ahmad Gharabli/Getty
The crunch came last weekend when a bizarre, secret
summit with Taliban chiefs at Camp David was cancelled . It was classic Trump. He wanted quick 'n' easy, primetime credit for
a dramatic peace deal, pushed ahead blindly, then changed his mind at the last minute. Furious over a debacle of his own making,
he turned his wrath on others, notably Bolton – who, ironically, had opposed the summit all along.
All sides are now vowing to step up the violence, with the insurgents aiming to disrupt this month's presidential election in
Afghanistan. In short, Trump's self-glorifying Afghan reality show, of which he was the Nobel-winning star, has made matters worse.
Much the same is true of his North Korea summitry, where expectations were raised, then dashed when he got
cold feet
in Hanoi , provoking a backlash from Pyongyang.
The current crisis over Iran's nuclear programme is almost entirely of Trump's making, sparked by his decision last year to renege
on the 2015 UN-endorsed deal with Tehran. His subsequent "maximum pressure" campaign of punitive sanctions has
failed to cow
Iranians while alienating European allies. And it has led Iran to resume banned nuclear activities – a seriously counterproductive,
entirely predictable outcome.
Trump's unconditional, unthinking support for Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's aggressively rightwing prime minister – including tacit
US backing for his proposed annexation of swathes of the occupied territories – is pushing the Palestinians back to the brink, energising
Hamas and Hezbollah, and
raising tensions across the region .
With Trump's blessing, Israel is enmeshed in escalating, multi-fronted armed confrontation with Iran and its allies in Iraq,
Lebanon and Syria. Add to this recent violence in the Gulf, the disastrous Trump-backed, Saudi-led war in Yemen, mayhem in Syria's
Idlib province, border friction with Turkey, and Islamic State resurgence in northern Iraq, and a region-wide explosion looks ever
more likely.
The bipartisan consensus forged in the 1990s – in which the US towered over the world and, at low cost, sought to remake it
in America's image – has failed and cannot be revived
Stephen Wertheim, historian
Yet Trump, oblivious to the point of recklessness, remains determined to unveil his absurdly unbalanced Israel-Palestine "deal
of the century" after Tuesday's Israeli elections. He and his gormless son-in-law, Jared Kushner, may be the only people who don't
realise their plan has a shorter life expectancy than a snowball on a hot day in Gaza.
... ... ...
...he is consistently out of line, out on his own – and out of control. This, broadly, is Trump world as it has come to exist
since January 2017. And this, in a nutshell, is the intensifying foreign policy crisis of which Professor Cohen warned. The days
when responsible, trustworthy, principled US international leadership could be taken for granted are gone. No vague change of tone
on North Korea or Iran will by itself halt the Trump-led slide into expanding global conflict and division.
Historians such as Stephen Wertheim say change had to come. US politicians of left and right mostly agreed that "the bipartisan
consensus forged in the 1990s – in which the US towered over the world and, at low cost, sought to remake it in America's image –
has failed and cannot be revived",Wertheim wrote earlier this year
. "But agreement ends there " he continued: "One camp holds that the US erred by coddling China and Russia, and urges a new competition
against these great power rivals. The other camp, which says the US has been too belligerent and ambitious around the world, counsels
restraint, not another crusade against grand enemies."
This debate among grownups over America's future place in the world will form part of next year's election contest. But before
any fundamental change of direction can occur, the international community – and the US itself – must first survive another 16 months
of Trump world and the wayward child-president's poll-fixated, ego-driven destructive tendencies.
Survival is not guaranteed. The immediate choice facing US friends and foes alike is stark and urgent: ignore, bypass and marginalise
Trump – or actively, openly, resist him.
Here are some of the key flashpoints around the globe
United Nations
Trump is deeply hostile to the UN. It embodies the multilateralist, globalist policy approaches he most abhors – because they
supposedly infringe America's sovereignty and inhibit its freedom of action. Under him, self-interested US behaviour has undermined
the authority of the UN security council's authority. The US has rejected a series of international treaties and agreements, including
the Paris climate change accord and the Iran nuclear deal. The UN-backed international criminal court is beyond the pale. Trump's
attitude fits with his "America First" isolationism, which questions traditional ideas about America's essential global leadership
role.
Germany
Trump rarely misses a chance to bash Germany, perhaps because it is Europe's most successful economy and represents the EU, which
he detests. He is obsessed by German car imports, on which protectionist US tariffs will be levied this autumn. He accuses Berlin
– and Europe– of piggy-backing on America by failing to pay its fair share of Nato defence costs. Special venom is reserved for Germany's
chancellor, Angela Merkel, most likely because she is
a woman who stands up to him . Trump recently insulted another female European leader, Denmark's
Mette Frederiksen, after she refused to sell him Greenland .
Israel
Trump has made a great show of unconditional friendship towards Israel and its rightwing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who
has skilfully maximised his White House influence. But by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, officially condoning Israel's annexation
of the Golan Heights, and withdrawing funding and other support from the Palestinians, the president has abandoned the long-standing
US policy of playing honest broker in the peace process. Trump has also tried to exploit antisemitism for political advantage, accusing
US Democrat Jews who oppose Netanyahu's policies of "disloyalty" to Israel.
"... Trade wars and sanctions are economic weapons against rival regimes, and like actual military warfare, often lead to unanticipated and sometimes devastating blowback from the targeted regimes. ..."
"... At the same time, western companies were forced to withdraw from Russian mega-deals because of sanctions. The best-known example was Exxon, forced by sanctions to walk away from an Arctic joint venture with Russia's state-owned oil giant, Rosneft, where it had invested $3.2 billion. In their very first effort, the partners successfully drilled oil wells containing 750 million barrels. ..."
"... The trade war with China that has led to tariffs on billions of dollars in Chinese exports to the US, and as a result, Russia and China have moved even closer. It remains an absolute mystery why no one in the west had foreseen the blowback from economic warfare leading to an alliance between two of its most powerful adversaries. ..."
"... The US acts as if it has been blind-sided by the Russian/China moves, even though years before it undertook economic warfare against them, China, the world's largest energy importer, agreed to finance oil and gas multi-billion-dollar pipelines in neighboring Russia. Now Russia has become China's largest energy supplier, equaling or perhaps even surpassing its energy supplies to Europe. ..."
"... As stated by Global Village Space (GBS) , China and Russia rushed to aid Iran, with China replacing Total, in a 25-year deal estimated to be worth some $400 billions. With that, China inherits a bonanza, providing much needed finance and technology to a country that was and could again become one of the world's leading energy producers. China is looking to finance $280 billion to develop Iran's gas, oil and petrochemicals industries, along with $120 billion to improve transport and manufacturing, making it a key partner in China's Road and Belt program. ..."
"... The deal also gives China the right to buy any or all Iranian oil, gas, and petrochemicals products at a minimum guaranteed 12% discount to global benchmarks, plus an additional discount of 6-8% for risk adjusted compensation. Financing will proceed using local currencies, avoiding the costs of converting to a hard currency like the US dollar or the Euro, giving the Beijing yet another 10% cost advantage. ..."
"... In direct defiance of US sanctions against Iran, China has stepped into the breach, increasing its oil purchases from Iran while becoming Iran's major energy trade and finance partner. Like Russia, it seems that Iran is moving towards a military alliance with China. If the west worries about China's expansive moves in the South China Sea, along China's own borders, what to make then of China moving in on Hormuz, where some 30% of world oil is transited each day? ..."
"... It is well known that the US has been in secret meetings with Iran representatives, much to the dismay of the Saudi Arabia and Israel. As Bloomberg reports, after the G7 meeting, Trump publicly and repeatedly stated he was ready to meet with Iran's President, Hassan Rouhani. Bloomberg also reported that in a meeting with his Cabinet, Trump announced that he was ready to ease sanctions as a possible way to open negotiations between the two countries. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin agreed with the President, while National Security Advisor Bolton voiced strong opposition, that only one day later, led to his firing. Secretary of State Pompeo stated that Trump may meet on the sidelines of the upcoming UN meeting with Iran's President. ..."
"... The EU defence industry initiative, the ECB's money transfer service, the EU army (or defence collaboration :) are all longer term policies aimed at reducing the EU's reliance on systems that are controlled by the USA. ..."
"... Sanctions are the modern equivalent of siege warfare, only the target is a nation, not a city. ..."
"... John Bolton is clueless. He's a throwback to ruthless American competition and cowboy capitalism. And he appears to be an idiot. ..."
"... Consumer spending is going to struggle the rest of the year as it rebalances and manufacturing is heading to a full blown recession by December as auto companies try and get their balance sheets under control. ..."
Yves here. Even though most
readers know the general point very well, that US trade and financial sanctions haven't brought
targets to their knees, and had instead pushed them to find allies, but it's useful to have
detail to flesh out the story. There are some bits one can quibble with, like the "annexation
of Crimea" bit, and the US objectives for its sanctions against Russia. At least under the
Obama Administration, the belief was that they would damage the economy severely and force a
regime change.
By Robert Berke, an energy financial analyst with experience as a government consultant
to the State of Alaska. Originally published at
OilPrice
Trade wars and sanctions are economic weapons against rival regimes, and like actual
military warfare, often lead to unanticipated and sometimes devastating blowback from the
targeted regimes.
A prime example was President Obama sanctioning Russia over its annexation of Crimea. The
sanctions were designed to block Russia from any access to western financing, aimed at causing
a dire financial and economic crisis in Russia that would force it to relinquish Crimea and end
support for Ukraine's breakaway territories.
In fact, the sanctions did cause Russia to enter a short-lived recession. But it also had
other, much more drastic results for the West. It forced Russia to move closer to China, and
Moscow saw Beijing as a great alternative to western financing for Russian industries.
At the same time, western companies were forced to withdraw from Russian mega-deals because
of sanctions. The best-known example was Exxon, forced by sanctions to walk away from an Arctic
joint venture with Russia's state-owned oil giant, Rosneft, where it had invested $3.2 billion.
In their very first effort, the partners successfully drilled oil wells containing 750 million
barrels.
As noted by Reuters, the withdrawal was costly:
Exxon will post an after-tax loss of $200 million as a result of pulling out of the
Rosneft deal, but the true costs for the company run much deeper. Exploring and developing
giant offshore fields in Russia was supposed to provide long-term growth for the company,
and, in recent years, has seen falling reserves.
But the opportunity losses are likely to be far higher for Exxon, the company that famously
missed the US shale revolution. The long-term deal with Rosneft, expected to continue for
decades, included exploration for oil in the Black Sea, enormous shale resources in Western
Siberia, and the development of three large blocks in the Arctic (Kara Sea).
The trade war with China that has led to tariffs on billions of dollars in Chinese exports
to the US, and as a result, Russia and China have moved even closer. It remains an absolute
mystery why no one in the west had foreseen the blowback from economic warfare leading to an
alliance between two of its most powerful adversaries.
China's major state-owned oil companies and its Silk Road fund each became 10% partners in
Russia's first major Arctic LNG (liquified natural gas), project in the Yamal Peninsula,
undertaken with Novatek, Russia's largest independent gas producer. The project offers great
prospects for enormous expansion.
The US acts as if it has been blind-sided by the Russian/China moves, even though years
before it undertook economic warfare against them, China, the world's largest energy importer,
agreed to finance oil and gas multi-billion-dollar pipelines in neighboring Russia. Now Russia
has become China's largest energy supplier, equaling or perhaps even surpassing its energy
supplies to Europe.
A similar scenario is taking place in the Persian Gulf where the US has withdrawn from the
Iran nuclear deal, while imposing economic sanctions on Iranian oil exports. The French energy
giant, Total, that in recent years has been a leading international oil company in that
country, was forced to withdraw because of sanctions, just like Exxon in Russia's Arctic, it
left billions of dollars on the table.
This may also answer the question as to why French Prime Minister Macron was so intent on
inviting the Iranian Foreign Secretary to the recent G7 meeting in France. It's also no secret
that French carmakers Peugeot and Renault are the main suppliers to Iran's auto assembly
plants.
As stated by
Global Village Space (GBS) , China and Russia rushed to aid Iran, with China replacing
Total, in a 25-year deal estimated to be worth some $400 billions. With that, China inherits a
bonanza, providing much needed finance and technology to a country that was and could again
become one of the world's leading energy producers. China is looking to finance $280 billion to
develop Iran's gas, oil and petrochemicals industries, along with $120 billion to improve
transport and manufacturing, making it a key partner in China's Road and Belt program.
The deal also gives China the right to buy any or all Iranian oil, gas, and
petrochemicals products at a minimum guaranteed 12% discount to global benchmarks, plus
an additional discount of 6-8% for risk adjusted compensation. Financing will proceed using
local currencies, avoiding the costs of converting to a hard currency like the US dollar or the
Euro, giving the Beijing yet another 10% cost advantage.
GBS further reports that the security for these projects will include up to 5,000 Chinese
security personnel on the ground in Iran to protects Chinese projects and to safeguard the
transit of energy products from Iran to China, including security for the very strategic Hormuz
Straits.
In direct defiance of US sanctions against Iran, China has stepped into the breach,
increasing its oil purchases from Iran while becoming Iran's major energy trade and finance
partner. Like Russia, it seems that Iran is moving towards a military alliance with China. If
the west worries about China's expansive moves in the South China Sea, along China's own
borders, what to make then of China moving in on Hormuz, where some 30% of world oil is
transited each day?
If these are considered winning policies for the West, one has to ask what failure looks
like.
The West is already slowly becoming aware of the blowback this disastrous policy has caused.
Evidence for this can be found in Macron's efforts to persuade Trump towards a peaceful
resolution with Iran.
It is well known that the US has been in secret meetings with Iran representatives, much to
the dismay of the Saudi Arabia and Israel. As Bloomberg reports, after the G7 meeting, Trump
publicly and
repeatedly stated he was ready to meet with Iran's President, Hassan Rouhani. Bloomberg
also reported that in a meeting with his Cabinet, Trump announced that he was ready to ease
sanctions as a possible way to open negotiations between the two countries. Treasury Secretary
Mnuchin agreed with the President, while National Security Advisor Bolton voiced strong
opposition, that only one day later, led to his firing. Secretary of State Pompeo stated that
Trump may meet on the sidelines of the upcoming UN meeting with Iran's President.
The firing of Bolton was
immediately followed by a fall in the price of oil and gold. Allowing Iran to continue to
increase supplies into already well supplied oil markets will add downward pressure on oil
prices. For the Trump administration, this is not necessarily a bad thing unhappy consumers at
the gas pump make for unhappy voters.
Similarly, the Trump Administration badly needs to move towards ending the trade war with
China in order to calm global markets. The recent announcement of the resumption of trade talks
between the US and China in October may provide an opportunity for a similar easing of tariffs
and a path towards further resolution.
Although these actions could help to quell global tensions, it may be too late to reverse
some of the serious damage caused by US-led economic warfare. Once China positions itself in
Iran, it will not likely be interested in withdrawing from its new strategic position in the
Middle East, that it gained as a result of US near sighted foreign policy.
Prior to the election, we may see a breakthroughs in the trade war, and the alleviation of
sanctions with Russia, Iran, China, and perhaps even North Korea, but the US will almost
certainly see the negative consequences from adversaries it helped to expand and
strengthen.
Can't speak much about the effects of the Chinese sanctions but I know a little bit about
the Russian ones. These Russian sanctions are biting hard but not the way they were intended
and it is not only the big oil companies that are losing big. Since they kicked in Russia has
lost about $50 billion in trade with the European Union which kinda stings. But in the same
time frame, the European Union has lost about $240 billion.
Considering that fact that these
sanctions were never for their benefit but for solidarity with the US, that is a very
expensive price tag. The US lost only about $17 billion but I remember reading that after the
sanctions kicked in, trade between the U and Russia actually increased. Europe is a big loser
here, particularly with agriculture. When the EU sanctioned Russian products to the EU, the
Russians did the same to them a few weeks later which came as a shock. Since then Russia has
made huge investments into growing their own food crops and those markets will never come
back again for the EU. As an example, Russia is once more a world leader in the production of
wheat second only to the US and has learned the value of autarky.
You see these results in all sorts of areas as the country started phasing out imports and
replacing them with domestically made products. They even started making marine engines out
of necessity as they were denied purchase of foreign ones. People might remember how Russia
was going to buy two specially built ships from France but France reneged under pressure from
Washington.
France not only had to give back all the money the Russians paid but also had to
compensate Russia for all related costs that the Russians made. In the end France paid Russia
over a billion dollars which was triple what the Russians initially paid. And now the
Russians are constructing their own ships of this class in the Crimea using the knowledge
acquired from France. Perhaps it is things like this that has cause Macron to open up
contacts with Russia once more in spite of what Washington demands.
Add in the purchase of gold stocks, developing financial systems in case the US cuts
Russia off from the SWIFT clearance systems, the development of weaponry that makes the
deployment of nuclear missile systems in Europe futile, you realise that Washington has
massively underestimated the response of counties like Russia, China and Iran and depended on
unicorn wishes instead.
But in the same time frame, the European Union has lost about $240 billion. Considering
that fact that these sanctions were never for their benefit but for solidarity with the US,
that is a very expensive price tag.
Well, Looks like Donald Trump let "The Swamp(tm)" run loose and they went and over-torqued
the screws!
Some decision makers in within the EU have begun to see the US sanctions against
everything and everyone as having the true goals of ablating EU's influence on the world
while hampering EU-based businesses. There are initiatives and polices that hints at "cutting
the cord" are quietly being introduced.
The EU defence industry initiative, the ECB's money transfer service, the EU army (or
defence collaboration :) are all longer term policies aimed at reducing the EU's reliance on
systems that are controlled by the USA.
The 'North Stream' pipeline and keeping the Iran deal kinda alive are more immediate and
direct challenges, as was the total unwillingness to join in any of the planned military
adventures involving Syria and Iran.
France is being rather open about about it. Possibly to test out on behalf of the EU what
the USA is actually willing to do to exact revenge and enforce compliance, possibly also
because opposing the USA in France remains a reliable way to win votes.
It's not just Trump. Our Congress is totally at the beck of special pleaders such as LNG
exporters and arms companies. All seek to use the US economic weapon to further their own
interests.
Plus, Russia is determinedly GMO free. The more the US goes down the GMO route, the less
likely the food trade with the EU – the European dogs wont eat GMO dogfood.
Post Brexit perhaps, Britain will accept US foods, all the more reason to insist on a proper
border if NI remains part of the 'UK'.
It's not just GMO, but the level and quality of technocratic oversight. US government
agencies are incapable of regulating anything in the private sector. While the EU is still
greatly influenced by private money, it has not completely sold out.
What is ignored by media is the harm sanctions inflict on the people living in these
countries. I think it should be considered a crime against humanity and our leaders should be
prosecuted. Sanctions are a weapon that is just as harmful as weapons to kill. We only seem
to look at the economic effects and ignore the social effects.
Sanctions are the modern equivalent of siege warfare, only the target is a nation, not a
city.
I've known in a vague intuitive way that US sanctions would alienate nations and isolate
the US, it's useful seeing how exactly these sanctions are backfiring with more nuance!
What is the next step after you have sanctioned everything and everyone and the reaction
is a shrug and a work around? Sanctions do have their bite, but they are, or are becoming, a
more effective tool for global economic and political realignment than a means to accomplish
their stated purpose.
Good question. I am wondering the same thing. There is a vague pattern here with Russia,
the most resource-rich oil producer. We don't want Russia to take off too fast. What can be
left in the ground should be left in the ground. And maybe that was the existential threat
posed by Exxon – a private, profit seeking US corporation geared to do everything fast
in order to make their profits.
Just thinking about slamming the breaks on manufacturing and
consumption and how this can make a mess of the oil industry if it is going for profits
– race to the bottom (currently). Rather, anyone thinking straight would want to
conserve oil, control it's production and marketing. John Bolton is clueless. He's a
throwback to ruthless American competition and cowboy capitalism. And he appears to be an
idiot.
There was a discussion of China's role in manufacturing drugs for Big Pharma on the news
last night, truly frightening.
They've already been found to be selling us contaminated drugs, what happens when they
refuse to deliver anything other than fentanyl?
I find it hard to understand how we're going to recover from the damage done by the
short-sighted, wholesale outsourcing of our manufacturing to China.
Given the centrality of drugs to American life, we should categorize them as sensitive
items of national security and declare a war on foreign drugs. That would brilliantly combine
the failed policies of the past with the failed policies of the present. We could make
exceptions for most-favored nations like Colombia or Afghanistan.
As in military conflicts, the fog of geoeconomic war together with partisan lens and poor
leadership can prevent adversaries from developing an accurate assessment of reality. The
writer has raised some examples that support his view pertaining to pushback, and he could be
right as The Rev Kev so eloquently pointed out here WRT Russia. However, whether his article
provides an accurate overview of the current state of play remains an open question IMO.
Setting aside deeply troubling questions about our national values and whether sanctions
should ever be employed due to their very damaging effects on domestic populations, together
with their evident past failure to realize policy goals, there are credible accounts that
China is now confronting a U.S. dollar shortage; that China has significant issues in its
financial system and economy; and that the people of China are seeing sharply rising food
prices as a result of decreased supplies of pork and soybeans. These issues are being
perceived as sufficient to cause China's leaders to be receptive to negotiating resolution of
the current tariffs, trade, intellectual property, and investment impasse on terms favorable
to the U.S. Whether this will be so remains to be seen, of course.
A multi-polar world became a uni-polar world with the fall of the Berlin Wall and Francis
Fukuyama said it was the end of history. It was all going so well, until the neoliberals got to work. The US created an open, globalised world with the Washington Consensus. China went from almost nothing to become a global super power.
That wasn't supposed to happen, let's get the rocket scientists onto it. Maximising profit is all about reducing costs. China had coal fired power stations to provide cheap energy.
China had lax regulations reducing environmental and health and safety costs.
China had a low cost of living so employers could pay low wages.
China had low taxes and a minimal welfare state.
China had all the advantages in an open globalised world. "The Washington Consensus was always going to work better for China than the US"
the rocket scientists.
If the US left this running it would be China first and America second. PANIC!
It seems since about the Vietnam war era, US FP has been run by hubristic idiots with
delusions of grandeur. Its foreign policy 101 that you never, never, set policy to drive your
2 largest rivals to alliance.
Yet these morons did exactly that. Since Trump, there have been many retirements form the
State Dept.
And maybe that's not such a bad thing. They show no evidence of competence.
Russia is leasing out old collective farm lands that was abandoned in the eastern part of
the country to Asian countries to farm and grow the export food products needed. It seems the
collective farms were abandoned and now the Russian government is re-purposing the vast
amounts of land available.
"Russia is now considering requests from Asian firms to farm another 1 million hectares
(2.5 million acres) -- an area roughly the size of Jamaica, according to the head of a
government agency."
It may be said that Trump's tariffs are the best things that could have happened to China
and Russia.
Frankly, I think it has pushed up consumer spending and that is about it. In other words,
this economy has overcapacity problems in the auto sector and its relation to junk corporate
debt, is not good.
Consumer spending is going to struggle the rest of the year as it rebalances and
manufacturing is heading to a full blown recession by December as auto companies try and get
their balance sheets under control.
As for the gory details of CIA involvement in the Chilean coup d'état of 1973,
Costa-Gavras' film "Missing" (Universal Pictures, 1982) staring Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek
exposes the surreptitious U.S. involvement via CIA operatives, supportive of Pinochet's
cold-bloodied massacre of students and other innocent bystanders. Not surprisingly, the film
was removed from the U.S. market following a lawsuit against the director and Universal
Pictures by former ambassador Nathaniel Davis for defamation of character. When Davis lost his
lawsuit, the film was re-released by Universal in 2006.
The face of neoliberalism in Chile today is disheartened, reflecting deep losses for the
wealthy class as the people of the country reject Milton Friedman's neoliberal policies,
including clever tax evasion techniques by the business class. Could this be the start of a
worldwide movement against neoliberalism?
After all, Chile is the country that neoliberal advocates crowned their "newborn" in the
battle against big government, "get government off our backs," according to Milton Friedman
(and, Reagan picked up on the adage.) But, au contraire, according to the film "Missing,"
fascism took control over Chile. Is it possible that Friedman and Kissinger secretly cherished
a fascist empire, where control would be complete, disguised as "the land of individual
economic freedom?" Whatever their motives, that's what they got, and they never hesitated to
revere Chile's remarkable economic achievements, fascism and all, which is powerfully expressed
in the film "Missing," from end to end the heavy hand of fascism is ever-present.
Today is a new day as the people of Chile abandon decades of rotting neoliberal policies.
They've had enough of Milton Freidman. The people have decided that the "state" is a beneficial
partner for achievement of life's dreams. The "state" is not the menacing force of evil
preached by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
The people of Chile are embracing an anti-neoliberalistic nation/state for the first time in
over four decades. Will the world follow in their footsteps similar to the world adopting the
principles of the "Miracle of Chile" these past four decades?
As for the new way forward, it's all about student debt. Yes, student debt was the catalyst
behind Chile's repudiation of neoliberalism. In 2011 students in Chile made headlines by
launching nationwide strikes over high tuition costs that drove their families into debt (sound
familiar?) The strike lasted for eight months.
Over time, the student marches gained recognition by other like-minded organizations like
trade unions and protests of environmental degradation. According to Tasha Fairfield, an
assistant professor for the London School of Economics' Department of International
Development, the strikes were pivotal: "The student movement played a critical role in creating
political space," according to Fairfield, it "dramatically changed the political context in
Chile and helped to place the issues of Chile's extreme inequalities centrally on the national
agenda," Sebastian Rosemont, Chilean Activists Change the Rules of the Game, Foreign Policy In
Focus, Dec. 2, 2014.
Subsequently, the national election of 2013 swept the left wing into power with a huge wave
of public support, gaining strong majorities in both houses of the National Congress as well as
electing Michelle Bachelet president. The big leftward sweep came as over two thirds of the
population grew to support student demands for free university tuition.
Ever since the 2013 election, neoliberal policies have crumbled like a decrepit equestrian
statue of Pinochet, who carried the stigma of brutal criminality to, and beyond, the grave.
In stark contrast to 40 years ago, today, when students, armed with only stones clashed with
police equipped with full regalia of riot gear, tear gas, and armored vehicles, the harsh
police activity drew heavy international criticism. That, combined with more than two-thirds of
the population in support of the student movement, led to a new politics, Nueva Mayoria (New
Majority), a center-left coalition made up of Bachelet's Socialist Party, the Christian
Democratic Party, and the Party for Democracy.
Whereupon, Nueva Mayoria, turning up its nose to neoliberalism, raised corporate taxes from
20 percent to 25 percent and closed tax loopholes for companies and wealthy business owners.
Those changes added $8.3 billion annually to government coffers, thus, serving as a source of
funds to provide free education to all Chileans by 2020, as well as improved health care, and
including a roll back of the for-profit schools that emerged under Pinochet's dictatorship,
which is another neoliberal fascination, witness the U.S. for-profit schools listed on the New
York Stock Exchange honestly, what's with that? In order to achieve success, the new Chilean
politics astutely employed a key tactical move by applying the corporate tax hikes to only the
largest corporations. As a result, nearly 95% of businesses are not be affected by higher
taxation. This, in fact, served to secure a broad base of support for the new politics by
having those who can afford to pay Pay.
Along those same lines, the new government removed a tax dodge employed by large business
owners that allowed them to mostly escape taxes on $270 billion of profits (similar to the U.S.
15% "carried interest" for private equity entities, e.g., Mitt Romney's 15% tax rate).
Thus, it's little wonder that public backlash is challenging neoliberalism, especially
considering the conditions throughout the Pinochet regime, as described in the meticulously
structured documentary film, "The Pinochet Case," (Icarus Films, 2002), which opens with scenes
of ordinary Chileans scouring the desert for the remains of family members who were tortured
and killed decades previous.
Chile, "The Babe of Neoliberalism," came to life as an experiment for the "Chicago School"
of economic thought. It worked. Today neoliberal theory rules the world, laissez-faire
capitalism as practiced from China to the United States, privatization, open markets, slash
government, and deregulation, in short, "whatever works best for profits works best for
society." But, does it?
Forty years of neoliberal thought and practice has changed the world's socio-economic
landscape, but it only really, truly works for the same class of people today as it did 800
years ago for the nobility of the Middle Ages.
Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at [email protected] .
Ukraine is mainly the result of attempt of the USA to encircle Russia well as EU design for economic
Drang nach Osten -- attempt to displace Russia in xUSSR
republics.
So they pushed Ukraine into the pat that Baltic republic were already known for.
Notable quotes:
"... Ukraine's newly elected comedian president Volodymyr Zelensky called the prisoner exchange a "first step" in ending the war in Eastern Ukraine, which has killed an estimated 13,000 civilians. ..."
"... In a subsequent referendum, 89% in Donetsk and 96% in Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine voted for independence, which the new government of Petro Poroshenko government did not accept. ..."
"... She told U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt in a telephone conversation that was tapped and later leaked that Arseniy Yatsenyuk, neoliberal head of the "Fatherland" Party, should be Prime Minister as he was thought to have the "economic" and "governing experience." ..."
"... Nuland further revealed that the U.S. had invested over $5 billion in "democracy promotion" in Ukraine since 1991 through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was carrying on the kind of work previously undertaken by the CIA during the Cold War. ..."
"... NED president Carl Gershman called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step towards toppling [Russian President Vladimir] Putin who "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." ..."
"... To help achieve this end, the Obama administration pledged $1 billion in loan guarantees to the post-coup government in Ukraine, which Putin considered as the "ideological heirs of [Stephen] Bandera, Hitler's accomplice in World War II." ..."
"... Swayed by a slick lobbying campaign backed by supporters of the Afghan mujahidin in the 1980s looking for a new cause and by the Senate's Ukraine Caucus, the Obama administration further provided nearly $600 million in security assistance to the Ukrainian military. ..."
"... American military advisers embedded in the Ukrainian Defense Ministry provided rocket propelled grenades, carried out training exercises and planned military operations including with members of the fascist Azov battalion, which had Nazi-inspired Wolfsangel patches emblazoned on their sleeves. ..."
On Saturday September 7, Russia and Ukraine agreed to a prisoner swap which has brought
hope of improved relations between the two countries and an end to the 5-year long conflict in
Eastern Ukraine.
A peace accord is being planned for later this month in Normandy involving Ukraine, Russia,
France and Germany.
Ukraine's newly elected comedian president Volodymyr Zelensky called the prisoner exchange a
"first step" in ending the war in Eastern Ukraine, which has killed an estimated 13,000
civilians.
The Ukraine War remains largely unknown to the American public even though the United States
has had a great stake in it.
The war started after a coup d'états in Ukraine in February 2014, which overthrew the
democratically elected pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovuch.
In a subsequent referendum, 89% in Donetsk and 96% in Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine voted for
independence, which the new government of Petro Poroshenko government did not accept.
The United States was a heavy backer of the coup and dirty war that unfolded in the
East.
Victoria Nuland, the head of the State Department's European desk, traveled to Ukraine three
times during the protests that triggered the coup, handing out cookies to demonstrators.
She told U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt in a telephone conversation that was tapped and
later leaked that Arseniy Yatsenyuk, neoliberal head of the "Fatherland" Party, should be Prime
Minister as he was thought to have the "economic" and "governing experience."
Nuland further revealed that the U.S. had invested over $5 billion in "democracy promotion"
in Ukraine since 1991 through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was carrying on
the kind of work previously undertaken by the CIA during the Cold War.
Ukraine has long been considered an important bridge between Eastern and Western Europe and
holds lucrative oil and gas deposits.
NED president Carl Gershman called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step
towards toppling [Russian President Vladimir] Putin who "may find himself on the losing end not
just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."
To help achieve this end, the Obama administration pledged $1 billion in loan guarantees to
the post-coup government in Ukraine, which Putin considered as the "ideological heirs of
[Stephen] Bandera, Hitler's accomplice in World War II."
Swayed by a slick lobbying campaign backed by supporters of the Afghan mujahidin in the
1980s looking for a new cause and by the Senate's Ukraine Caucus, the Obama administration
further provided nearly $600 million in security assistance to the Ukrainian military.
It was supplied with counter-artillery radars, anti-tank systems, armored vehicles and
drones in a policy expanded upon by Trump.
Before and after the Ukrainian military's campaign began, Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA
Director John Brennan, and Vice President Joe Biden visited Kiev, followed by a flow of senior
Pentagon officials.
A back-door arms pipeline was set up through the United Arab Emirates and Blackwater
mercenaries were allegedly deployed.
American military advisers embedded in the Ukrainian Defense Ministry provided rocket
propelled grenades, carried out training exercises and planned military operations including
with members of the fascist Azov battalion, which had Nazi-inspired Wolfsangel patches
emblazoned on their sleeves.
Obama's National Security adviser, Samantha Power, claimed that the [Ukrainian] governments
"response [to alleged provocations by eastern rebels] [was] reasonable, it is proportional, and
frankly it is what any of our countries would have done."
The Ukrainian military and allied warlord and neo-Nazi militias were not acting reasonably
or proportionally, however, when they carried out artillery and air attacks on cities and
struck residential buildings, shopping malls, parks, schools, hospitals and orphanages in
Eastern Ukraine, and tortured and executed POWs in what amounted to clear war crimes.
NYU Professor Stephen Cohen notes that even TheNew York Times , which mainly
deleted atrocities from its coverage, described survivors in Slovyansk living "as if in the
Middle Ages."
That the American public knows nothing of these events is a sad reflection of the
superficiality of our media and decline in the quality of international news coverage.
It is also a testament to the failing of the political left, which has embraced the cause of
immigrant and Palestinian rights and fighting climate change, legitimately, but neglected the
plight of the Eastern Ukrainian people. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Jeremy Kuzmarov
"... After he became vice president in 1940, as Roosevelt was increasingly ill, Wallace promoted a new vision for America's role in the world that suggested that rather than playing catch up with the imperial powers, the United States should work with partners to establish a new world order that eliminated militarism, colonialism and imperialism. ..."
"... In diplomacy, Wallace imagined a multi-polar world founded on the United Nations Charter with a focus on peaceful cooperation. In contrast, in 1941 Henry Luce, publisher of Time Magazine, had called for an 'American century,' suggesting that victory in war would allow the United States to "exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit." ..."
"... Foreign aid for Wallace was not a tool to foster economic dominance as it was to become, but rather "economic assistance without political conditions to further the independent economic development of the Latin American and Caribbean countries." He held high "the principle of self-determination for the peoples of Africa, Asia, the West Indies, and other colonial areas." He saw the key policy for the United States to be based on "the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations and acceptance of the right of peoples to choose their own form of government and economic system." ..."
"... The United States should be emulating China, its Belt and Road Initiative and Community of Common Destiny, as a means of revitalizing its political culture and kicking its addiction to a neo-colonial concept of economic development and growth. Rather than relying on militarization and its attendant wars to spark the economy, progressives should demand that the US work in conjunction with nations such as China and Russia in building a sustainable future rather than creating one failed state after another. ..."
This is as good a time as any to point to an alternative vision of foreign policy. One based on the principle of non-interference,
respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and, above all, international law. One based on peaceful coexistence and mutual
cooperation. A vision of the world at peace and undivided by arbitrary distinctions. Such a world is possible and even though
there are currently players around the world who are striving in that direction we need look no further than our own history for
inspiration. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you one Henry A. Wallace, for your consideration.
(The following excerpts from an article by Dr. Dennis Etler. Link to the full article provided below.) --
The highest profile figure who articulated an alternative vision for American foreign policy was the politician Henry Wallace,
who served as vice president under Franklin D. Roosevelt from 1940-1944 and ran for president in 1948 as the candidate of the
Progressive Party.
After he became vice president in 1940, as Roosevelt was increasingly ill, Wallace promoted a new vision for America's
role in the world that suggested that rather than playing catch up with the imperial powers, the United States should work with
partners to establish a new world order that eliminated militarism, colonialism and imperialism.
Wallace gave a speech in 1942 that declared a "Century of the Common Man." He described a post-war world that offered "freedom
from want," a new order in which ordinary citizens, rather than the rich and powerful, would play a decisive role in politics.
That speech made direct analogy between the Second World War and the Civil War, suggesting that the Second World War was being
fought to end economic slavery and to create a more equal society. Wallace demanded that the imperialist powers like Britain and
France give up their colonies at the end of the war.
In diplomacy, Wallace imagined a multi-polar world founded on the United Nations Charter with a focus on peaceful cooperation.
In contrast, in 1941 Henry Luce, publisher of Time Magazine, had called for an 'American century,' suggesting that victory in
war would allow the United States to "exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and
by such means as we see fit."
Wallace responded to Luce with a demand to create a world in which "no nation will have the God-given right to exploit other
nations. Older nations will have the privilege to help younger nations get started on the path to industrialization, but there
must be neither military nor economic imperialism." Wallace took the New Deal global. His foreign policy was to be based on non-interference
in the internal affairs of other countries and mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Sadly, since then, despite occasional efforts to head in a new direction, the core constituency for US foreign policy has been
corporations, rather than the "common man" either in the United States, or the other nations of the world, and United States foreign
relations have been dominated by interference in the political affairs of other nations. As a result the military was transformed
from an "arsenal for democracy" during the Second World War into a defender of privilege at home and abroad afterwards.
-- - Foreign aid for Wallace was not a tool to foster economic dominance as it was to become, but rather "economic assistance without
political conditions to further the independent economic development of the Latin American and Caribbean countries." He held high
"the principle of self-determination for the peoples of Africa, Asia, the West Indies, and other colonial areas." He saw the key
policy for the United States to be based on "the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations and acceptance
of the right of peoples to choose their own form of government and economic system."
--
Wallace's legacy suggests that it is possible to put forth a vision of an honest internationalism in US foreign policy that
is in essence American. His approach was proactive not reactive. It would go far beyond anything Democrats propose today, who
can only suggest that the United States should not start an unprovoked war with Iran or North Korea, but who embrace sanctions
and propagandist reports that demonize those countries.
Rather than ridiculing Trump's overtures to North Korea, they should go further to reduce tensions between the North and the
South by pushing for the eventual withdrawal of troops from South Korea and Japan (a position fully in line with Wallace and many
other politicians of that age).
Rather than demonizing and isolating Russia (as a means to score political points against Trump), progressives should call for
a real détente, that recognizes Russia's core interests, proposes that NATO withdraw troops from Russia's borders, ends sanctions
and reintegrates Russia into the greater European economy. They could even call for an end to NATO and the perpetuation of the
dangerous global rift between East and West that it perpetuates.
Rather than attempt to thwart China's rise, and attack Trump for not punishing it enough, progressives should seek to create new
synergies between China and the US economically, politically and socioculturally.
-- -
In contrast to the US policy of perpetual war and "destroying nations in order to save them," China's BRI proposes an open plan
for development that is not grounded in the models of French and British imperialism. It has proposed global infrastructure and
science projects that include participants from nations in Africa, Asia, South and Central America previously ignored by American
and European elites -- much as Wallace proposed an equal engagement with Latin America. When offering developmental aid and investment
China does not demand that free market principles be adopted or that the public sector be privatized and opened up for global
investment banks to ravish.
-- The United States should be emulating China, its Belt and Road Initiative and Community of Common Destiny, as a means of revitalizing
its political culture and kicking its addiction to a neo-colonial concept of economic development and growth. Rather than relying
on militarization and its attendant wars to spark the economy, progressives should demand that the US work in conjunction with
nations such as China and Russia in building a sustainable future rather than creating one failed state after another.
"Support and attend the People's Mobilization to Stop the US War Machine and Save the
Planet, September 20 through 23, in New York City. Christian liberationist intellectual
Cornel West and Omali Yeshitela, chairman of the Black Is Back Coalition for Social Justice,
Peace and Reparations will speak, and much of the Black Agenda Report team are
participating.
Usually a forum for anodyne statements about international cooperation and proper
environmental stewardship, the lid was blown off the latest Arctic Council meeting in May when
Pompeo delivered an unabashedly martial and provocative speech that deserves far more attention
than it got at the time. So let's take a little tour of what may prove a historic proclamation
(in the grimmest sense possible) of a new Washington doctrine for the Far North.
"In its first two decades, the Arctic Council has had the luxury of focusing almost
exclusively on scientific collaboration, on cultural matters, on environmental research," the
secretary of state began mildly. These
were, he said, "all important themes, very important, and we should continue to do those. But
no longer do we have that luxury. We're entering a new age of strategic engagement in the
Arctic, complete with new threats to the Arctic and its real estate, and to all of our
interests in that region."
In what turned out to be an ultra-hardline address, Pompeo claimed that we were now in a new
era in the Arctic. Because climate change -- a phrase Pompeo, of course, never actually uttered
-- is now making it ever more possible to exploit the region's vast resource riches, a scramble
to gain control of them is now officially underway. That competition for resources has
instantly become enmeshed in a growing geopolitical confrontation between the U.S., Russia, and
China, generating new risks of conflict.
On the matter of resource exploitation, Pompeo could hardly contain his enthusiasm.
Referring to the derision that greeted William Seward's purchase of Alaska in 1857, he
declared:
"Far from the barren backcountry that many thought it to be in Seward's time, the
Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity and abundance. It houses 13% of the world's
undiscovered oil, 30% of its undiscovered gas, and an abundance of uranium, rare earth
minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources."
Of equal attraction, he noted, was the possibility of vastly increasing maritime commerce
through newly de-iced trans-Arctic trade routes that will link the Euro-Atlantic region with
Asia. "Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for
trade," he enthused. "This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and
the West by as much as 20 days Arctic sea lanes could come [to be] the 21st century's Suez and
Panama Canals." That such "steady reductions in sea ice" are the sole consequence of climate
change went unmentioned, but so did another reality of our warming world. If the Arctic one day
truly becomes the northern equivalent of a tropical passageway like the Suez or Panama canals,
that will likely mean that parts of those southerly areas will have become the equivalents of
uninhabitable deserts.
As such new trade and drilling opportunities arise, Pompeo affirmed, the United States
intends to be out front in capitalizing on them. He then began bragging about what the Trump
administration had already accomplished, including promoting expanded oil and gas drilling in
offshore waters and also freeing up "energy exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ," a pristine stretch
of northern Alaska
prized by environmentalists as a sanctuary for migrating caribou and other at-risk species.
Additional efforts to exploit the region's vital resources, he promised, are scheduled for the
years ahead.
A New Arena for Competition (and Worse)
Ideally, Pompeo noted placidly, competition for the Arctic's resources will be conducted in
an orderly, peaceful manner. The United States, he assured his listeners, believes in "free and
fair competition, open, by the rule of law." But other countries, he added ominously,
especially China and Russia, won't play by that rulebook much of the time and so must be
subject to careful oversight and, if need be, punitive action.
China, he pointed out, is already developing trade
routes in the Arctic, and establishing economic ties with key nations there. Unlike the United
States (which already has multiple military bases in the Arctic, including one at Thule in
Greenland, and so has a well-established presence there), Pompeo claimed that Beijing is
surreptitiously using such supposedly economic activities for military purposes, including,
heinously enough, spying on U.S. ballistic missile submarines operating in the region, while
intimidating its local partners into acquiescence.
He then cited events in the distant South China Sea, where the Chinese have indeed
militarized a
number of tiny uninhabited islands (outfitting them with airstrips, missile batteries, and the
like) and the U.S. has responded by
sending its warships into adjacent waters. He did so to warn of similar future military
stand-offs and potential clashes in the Arctic. "Let's just ask ourselves, do we want the
Arctic Ocean to transform into a new South China Sea, fraught with militarization and competing
territorial claims?" The answer, he assured his listeners, is "pretty clear." (And I'm sure you
can guess what it is.)
The secretary of state then wielded even stronger language in describing "aggressive Russian
behavior in the Arctic." In recent years, he claimed, the Russians have built hundreds of new
bases in the region, along with new ports and air-defense capabilities. "Russia is already
leaving snow prints in the form of army boots" there, a threat that cannot be ignored. "Just
because the Arctic is a place of wilderness does not mean it should become a place of
lawlessness. It need not be the case. And we stand ready to ensure that it does not become
so."
And here we get to the heart of Pompeo's message: the United States will, of course,
"respond" by enhancing its own military presence in the Arctic to better protect U.S.
interests, while countering Chinese and Russian inroads in the region:
"Under President Trump, we are fortifying America's security and diplomatic presence in the
area. On the security side, partly in response to Russia's destabilizing activities, we are
hosting military exercises, strengthening our force presence, rebuilding our icebreaker fleet,
expanding Coast Guard funding, and creating a new senior military post for Arctic Affairs
inside of our own military."
To emphasize the administration's sincerity, Pompeo touted the largest NATO and U.S. Arctic
military maneuvers since the Cold War era, the recently completed " Trident Juncture " exercise (which he
incorrectly referred to as "Trident Structure"), involving some 50,000 troops. Although the
official scenario
for Trident Juncture spoke of an unidentified "aggressor" force, few observers had any doubt
that the allied team was assembled to repel a hypothetical Russian invasion of Norway, where
the simulated combat took place.
Implementing the Doctrine
And so you have the broad outlines of the new Pompeo Doctrine, centered on the Trump
administration's truly forbidden topic: the climate crisis. In the most pugnacious manner
imaginable, that doctrine posits a future of endless competition and conflict in the Arctic,
growing ever more intense as the planet warms and the ice cap melts. The notion of the U.S.
going nose-to-nose with the Russians and Chinese in the Far North, while exploiting the
region's natural resources, has clearly been circulating in Washington. By August, it had
obviously already become enough of a commonplace in the White House (not to speak of the
National Security Council and the Pentagon), for the president to offer to buy Greenland.
And when it comes to resources and future military conflicts, it wasn't such a zany idea.
After all, Greenland does have abundant natural resources and also houses that U.S. base in
Thule. A relic of the Cold War, the Thule facility, mainly a radar base, is already being
modernized , at a cost of some $300 million, to better track Russian missile launches.
Clearly, key officials in Washington view Greenland as a valuable piece of real estate in the
emerging geopolitical struggle Pompeo laid out, an assessment that clearly wormed its way into
President Trump's consciousness as well.
Iceland and Norway also play key roles in Pompeo's and the Pentagon's new strategic
calculus. Another former Cold War facility, a base at Keflavik in Iceland has been reoccupied
by the Navy and is now being used in antisubmarine warfare missions. Meanwhile, the Marine
Corps has
stationed several hundred combat troops at bases near Trondheim, Norway, the first
permanent deployment of foreign soldiers on Norwegian soil since World War II. In 2018, the
Pentagon even
reactivated the Navy's defunct Second Fleet, investing it with responsibility for
protecting the North Atlantic as well as the Arctic's maritime approaches, including those
abutting Greenland, Iceland, and Norway. Consider these signs of heating-up times.
And all of this is clearly just the beginning of a major buildup in and regular testing of
the ability of the U.S. military to operate in the Far North. As part of Exercise Trident
Juncture, for example, the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman and its flotilla of
support ships were sent into the Norwegian Sea, the first time a U.S. carrier battle group had
sailed above the Arctic Circle since the Soviet Union imploded in 1991. Similarly,
Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer recently announced
plans to send surface warships on trans-Arctic missions, another new military move. (U.S.
nuclear submarines make such journeys regularly, sailing beneath the sea ice.) This article first appeared on TomDispatch. More articles by:Michael T. Klare
Iran sanction and the threat of war has nothing to do with its nuclear program. It is about
the USA and by extension Israel dominance in the region. and defencing interesting of MIC, against the interest of general public.
Which is the main task of neocons, as lobbyists for MIC (please understand that MIC includes intelligence agencies and large
part of Wall Street) .
That's why Israel lobby ( and Bloomberg is a part of it ) supports strangulation Iran economy, Iran war and pushes Trump administration into it.
the demand " Rather than push for an extended sunset, Trump should hold out for a complete termination of Iran's nuclear
activities and an end to its other threatening behavior -- such as its ballistic-missile program and its support for terrorist
groups across the Middle East -- in exchange for readmission into the world economy" is as close to Netanyahu position as we can
get.
Notable quotes:
"... The Bloomberg editors urge Trump not to give up on brain-dead maximalism with Iran ..."
"... As always, hard-liners ignore the agency and interests of the other government, and they assume that it is simply a matter of willpower to force them to yield. ..."
"... They have not left the Non-Proliferation Treaty. On the contrary, they have agreed to abide by the Additional Protocol that has even stricter standards. They are not enriching uranium to levels needed to make nuclear weapons. They certainly haven't built or tested any weapons. ..."
"... Iran has jumped through numerous hoops to demonstrate that their nuclear program is and will continue to be peaceful, and their compliance has been verified more than a dozen times, but fanatics here and in Israel refuse to take yes for an answer. That is because hard-liners aren't really concerned about proliferation risk, but seek to use the nuclear issue as fodder to justify punitive measures against Iran without end ..."
The
Bloomberg editors
urge Trump not to give up on brain-dead maximalism with Iran:
Rather than push for an extended sunset, Trump should hold out for a complete termination
of Iran's nuclear activities and an end to its other threatening behavior -- such as its
ballistic-missile program and its support for terrorist groups across the Middle East -- in
exchange for readmission into the world economy.
This chance may never come again.
Bloomberg's latest advice to Trump on Iran is terrible as usual, but it is a useful window
into how anti-Iran hard-liners see things. They see the next year as their best chance to push
for their maximalist demands, and they fear the possibility that Trump might settle for
something short of their absurd wish list. If Trump does what they want and "holds out" until
Iran capitulates, he will be waiting a long time. He has nothing to show for his policy except
increased tensions and impoverished and dying Iranians, and this would guarantee more of the
same. The funny thing is that the "extended sunset" they deride is already an unrealistic goal,
and they insist that the president pursue a much more ambitious set of goals that have
absolutely no chance of being reached. As always, hard-liners ignore the agency and interests
of the other government, and they assume that it is simply a matter of willpower to force them
to yield.
The Bloomberg editorial is ridiculous in many ways, but just one more example will suffice.
At one point it says, "Nor is there any doubt that Iran wants nuclear weapons." Perhaps
ideologues and fanatics have no doubt about this, but it isn't true. If Iran wanted nuclear
weapons, they could have pursued and acquired them by now. They gave up that pursuit and agreed
to the most stringent nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated to prove that they wouldn't
seek these weapons, but the Trump administration chose to punish them for their cooperation.
Iran has not done any of the things that actual rogue nuclear weapons states have done. They
have not left the Non-Proliferation Treaty. On the contrary, they have agreed to abide by the
Additional Protocol that has even stricter standards. They are not enriching uranium to levels
needed to make nuclear weapons. They certainly haven't built or tested any weapons.
Iran has jumped through numerous hoops to demonstrate that their nuclear program is and will
continue to be peaceful, and their compliance has been verified more than a dozen times, but
fanatics here and in Israel refuse to take yes for an answer. That is because hard-liners
aren't really concerned about proliferation risk, but seek to use the nuclear issue as fodder
to justify punitive measures against Iran without end.
They don't want to resolve the crisis
with Iran, but rather hope to make it permanent by setting goals that can't possibly be reached
and insisting that sanctions remain in place forever.
This is all false. The goal was establish military bases in former soviet republics to encircle Russia and this goal was
achieved. Putin was probably not so wise giving 100% support to Bush invasion, which was a typical false flag invasion.
Taliban was the creation of the USA to fight Soviets, like political Islam in general so any complains are just pure
hypocity.
Notable quotes:
"... Afghanistan borders China. For that reason alone, we are never leaving whatever the cost in blood or treasure. The country is a very forward, strategic military base that can be used to launch air attacks on Chinese assets and impede China's Belt and Road initiative. ..."
"... Despite his bluster, Trump is very weak and knows the Taliban is winning and fears they will try to drive us out before the election, ushering in his defeat. Most of his time is spent cowering in his golf resorts, ranting and raving on a tiny little cellphone. ..."
"... The Blob will not allow any of his fears to shake the resolve of the Deep State to make Afghanistan a colony for a thousand years. ..."
"... American's negotiating position in every instances with rival nations is to dictate the terms for surrender regardless of the circumstances on the ground. It's an untenable position and guarantees perpetual war and occupation which is precisely the point. ..."
"... It seems to me that if one parsed reports from the Special Inspector General Afghanistan Reconstruction along with the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime's "Afghanistan Opium Survey", any illusions as to what the reasons for the West's intervention in that country were, should dissipate rather speedily. ..."
"... we invaded Afghanistan so that we could steal the foreign aid money that we would give them and could sponsor the opium trade. ..."
"... Gramsci and his like stand vindicated. Capture the academies and the rest of us follow, often willingly. ..."
"... And just a few, of those in the public eye, standing up true and declaring "This emperor has no clothes!" ..."
Where we are now in Afghanistan- Editorial Opinion by PL
(Lt. Hamilton VC at Kabul where he commanded Sir Louis Cavangnari's escort)
A year or so after the US intervention in Afghanistan began in 2001 I perceived that there
was a danger that US public and government opinion might begin to favor the idea of "nation
building" in Afghanistan. From long experience in and study of the area of Islamicate
civilization and its history it seemed clear to me that such an effort would be doomed to
failure at any price that one should be willing to pay in; expended effort over time, money and
blood shed on all sides.
The basic problem with Afghanistan is that there "is no there there." Afghanistan is really
a geographical expression rather than a country in the sense understood of the word in the
post-Westphalian system of independent states.
Across the Islamicate world from Mauritania to BanglaDesh and beyond to Oceania there is a
pronounced tendency to atomization in group perception of identity. Arabs do not identify with
Berbers, etc., Tribes and clans within these groups regard all others as rivals and often
enemies unless they are needed as temporary allies.
The Islamic religion which holds unity to be an ideal is often thought to be a unifier
against the atomizing tendency in these cultures, but in fact there are many, many varieties of
Islam, each one believing that it is uniquely favored by God. This often cancels out whatever
unifying effect Islam, as religion, can have.
Afghanistan, created as a buffer between imperial Russia and British India, is an extreme
case of atomization among the inhabitants of a state which has recognition in the world
political system including membership in the UN. In spite of that status , a status that might
deceive one into believing that there is such a thing as "the Afghan People,"the population of
Afghanistan is actually made up of a number of different ethnic nations; Pushtuns, Hazzara,
Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turcomans, Arabs, etc. These different peoples all speak mutually
unintelligible languages which often have such extreme separation in dialect that this amounts
to uninteligibility as well. Some of these groups are Sunni and others Shia. This is yet
another factor in the separation of the segments of the population.
The country has little substantial physical infrastructure. What there is was largely
constructed in the 50s and 60s as part of Cold War competition between the USSR and the US.
There is very little legal or governmental infrastructure. A commercial company investing its
own or borrowed money in Afghanistan is taking a great risk of never being able to recover its
investment from the local "pirates." Government is generally predatory in its attitude toward
foreign investment funds. I tried to find a safe haven in Afghanistan for some of my company's
funds and could find none. Senior Afghan government people would typically respond to questions
about legal infrastructure with exhortations to "bring your project, all will be well."
Needless to say ...
US intervention in this place was inevitable after 9/11, but what was not necessary or wise
were repeated US decisions for a COIN nation building campaign. As this tendency began to be
evident I argued for a much more limited goal in which the US would keep about 20K troops in
country to maintain a government controlled enclave around Kabul and Bagram. This would enable
pursuit of located international terrorist groups through raiding operations from that base
area. The basis for this strategy was my conclusion that the US could never "pacify" all of the
territory of Afghanistan and that we would "break our teeth" trying.
I pressed this belief in various fora and with various individuals within the Obama
Administration even as Obama endlessly contemplated the entreaties of the COINista generals,
Petraeus, Mattis, McChrystal etc. for a country wide nation building COIN campaign. The most
interesting of these encounters was at an IQ2 debate at NYU in 2009 where I (and teammates)
argued that "The US can never win in Afghanistan." My side lost on points but the leader of the
other team recently told me that he knows now that we were completely correct. Obama gave in to
the generals, and gave them the COIN war that they wanted. I suppose that for "Barry" it was
immensely flattering to have them "butter him up."
It is clear now that the COIN strategy has failed miserable and totally. Afghanistan is not
one bit more united or modernized than it has ever been. The US has spent a sea of money there
and many brave people have perished or been wrecked in chasing the idea of Afghanistan as a
Central Asian Switzerland.
Trump has allowed Zalmai Khalilzad to attempt to achieve a negotiated peace with the
Taliban, the former salafi takfiri, Pushtun rulers of Afghanistan, in the apparent belief that
they could be "talked down out of the tree" just as his business competitors could always be
talked down to meet at a "closing" table where his supposed "closing genius' would bring a
DEAL.
Unfortunately this belief in his closing talent goes unrewarded in Palestine, Syria,
Turkey,Yemen, Iran, China (not yet), North Korea and Afghanistan. IMO his difficulty in finding
solutions lies in his entrapment within his own New York City business model, a model in which
everything is for sale if the deal is structured skillfully to advantage the stronger party
while all the while claiming that the party you are screwing is your friend.
Sadly for The Donald all those "stupid" foreigners do not understand that "everything is for
sale." Among them, the Taliban, an army and religio-political movement are notable for a lack
of belief in the commercial possibilities of selling out to Donald Trump for a "mess of
pottage" or thirty pieces of silver whichever reference you prefer. They want to win, and they
want to be seen to have driven the "crusaders" from Afghanistan and in the process to have
humiliated the US as the leading infidel state. To that end they lie, prevaricate and await the
day when they can crush the puny forces of "modernism" after the American departure. Zalmai
Khalilzad is an Afghan pushtun Sunni by birth and rearing. Did he not know that they could not
be trusted in dealings with the US? I do not blame the Taliban for being what they are. I blame
all the American and NATO fools for believing that they could make the Taliban either go away
or become "happy campers." They were never going to do either of those things. We should have
known that. Some of us did, but Americans are addicted to all the melting pot, right side of
history foolishness so common in "levelled" America,
What should the US do now that the scales have fallen from Trump's eyes and the time of
"good faith" negotiation with the Taliban is "dead?" The first thing to do is to fire
Khalilzad.
Last night, Col. (ret.) Douglas Macgregor told Tucker Carlson that the US should simply
leave, and should have never intervened. IOW we should get the hell out totally and forever.
This is a tempting thought. I have wrestled with the attractiveness of the idea but there are
certain problems with it.
1. We should not want to give the jihadi movements proof of our feckless defeatability. IMO
if we leave suddenly the Afghan government and armed forces will soon collapse. The country
will then further disintegrate into a welter of jihadi factions and regional tribal strongmen,
the strongest of which will be the Taliban.
2. We have encouraged modernist Afghan men, women and girls to emerge from the shadows.
Shall we leave them to their fates under the rule of the jihadis.
3. What about all the translators, base workers and other people who have cast their lots
with us. The Taliban and other jihadis will simply kill them as apostates. We abandoned a lot
of such people in Iraq. Will we do it again?
On balance I would say Macgregor is right that we must leave. The time for a small remaining
presence is past. The forces in the field are too strong for a small force to maintain itself
even with massive long range air support. Think of Sir Louis Cavangnari. No, we should leave,
but we should leave on a schedule that will enable us to control the timing of our going and to
protect the departure of those who wish to leave with us. pl
BTW, SWMBO says that no mutually understood languages = no country.
"We should not want to give the jihadi movements proof of our feckless defeatability."
Gee, like admit to reality?
My view: Acknowledge the U.S. is not omnipotent, and has very limited ability to
influence, let alone, control, other parts of the world other than those to which it has
extremely close ties, most especially the Five Eyes and other parts of what was once called
Western Civilization.
I just want to mention that about once a year I dig the IQ2 debate out and watch it again
in full. Call it a sanity check I suppose. It is clear that you were trying to be substantive
throughout, which was somewhat hampered by the amorphous premise of "success" undergirding
the debate question. The other side (Nagle in particular) was trying to "win" the debate by
defining success so broadly as to exclude questions over the "how," and they used that as an
excuse to dodge your indictment of COIN. But it is very clear who had the right of it, and it
is at least somewhat gratifying to hear that same admission was made to you.
I suspect that we will retain our forces in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. To
understand why you've got to consider the politics rather than the pragmatics.
No president wants to be the one who "lost Afghanistan" (as though it were ours to lose)
or, worse yet, be the president who removed forces from a country from which an attack on the
U. S. would emanate afterwards or be staged from or planned from.
The greatest likelihood of our removing our forces from Afghanistan would be towards the
end of a president's second term, especially if that president were a Democrat and could
expect to take less heat from the media. In other words Obama should have removed our forces
from Afghanistan and if he wouldn't Trump won't, especially not before being re-elected.
These kind of wars seem to take 3 presidents to end. Trump is this war's Nixon and was
elected on a platform which included 'losing' Afghanistan. The media will howl once the
Taliban take over, but it will swiftly pass as they realize Americans have no interest in a
place where their countrymen are no longer dying.
No matter what the US government does or does not do, wouldn't Afghanistan revert to its
natural state as you have described it?
It seems Trump's "negotiated" deal with the Taliban would have been a good approach to
getting out but that's now no longer a possibility. Would supporting the Tajiks through
Russia and India as a counter-balance to the Taliban work to keep them from completely
dominating? Russia and India likely have an interest in preventing jihadis from using Taliban
dominated territory to infiltrate. Is it even worth any effort on the part of the US
government? It would seem Pakistan and China would continue working to influence events
there.
My longstanding belief is that Afghanistan to be 'tamed' requires the type of Steel that only
existed long ago.
The Modern World has modernized beyond the brutal realities that taming it likely
requires, and as such may lose a fraction of the Lives and Treasure as past - but cannot
sustain it politically or socially.
The next Question - If Afghanistan is simply a construct, why not forsake most of it and
develop the regions of Afghanistan that ARE more amiable and Homogenous?
A lot of the Tadzhiks and Uzbeks (varied Turkmen) I suspect could be far more easily
propped up and supported in their own Lands, which back to back with the Central Asian FSU
States is a more viable 'Nation Building' Exercise.
What ultimately tamed the 'Wilds'? The Development of strong local States, Force of Arms
and ultimately - Demographics. If you will not do it yourself, pick a unified Team and back them in doing it. Ironically the means to inflict harm on occupying Militaries seems to go down as those
Armies means to stomach it does also.
The next obvious Question. Is it worth considering (not necessarily for the US and Western
States - who will appear as desperate Losers the idea that Afghanistan if allowed to run as
strong Armed Islamic State, albeit modernized - might actually one day develop into one more
approachable to further modernization?
I agree we should unilaterally withdraw all our forces from Afghanistan. The military can
surely plan and carry out a unilateral withdrawal. Just do it. The Taliban are not al Qaeda
or the Islamic State. Their desires don't extend beyond the mountains of Afghanistan. Hell,
they're fighting IS. Let them do so and don't give them reason to go over to them.
The rub will be all those Afghanis who tied their futures to us. We should resettle them
here or somewhere more familiar to them as part of that withdrawal. The chance of that
happening under the Trump administration is nil.
That is the exact same argument I heard in 72 and again in 75. By early 76 no one cared.
There are in every country and in every involvement Quislings and main chancers who find the
short term gelt available to be worth the future risk of making the wrong and visible
choice.
In the case of most of these Afghanis the tie was a slip knot at best.
A "long, long, time ago" in "a land far away", Najibullah was deposed. Pat, you'll recall
that I was then serving as the chair of the Inter-agency Task Force on Afghanistan. Well, we
had our regular meeting at which a couple of the folks opined that this was a wonderful
development for the country and the folks would now all join hands, dance around the
campfire, and sign Kumbaya. To bring the group back to reality, I asked for someone to
identify the national sport of Afghanistan. One of the group said that, obviously, it was
buzkhasi. So I then asked for someone else to clarify how such a game unfolds and another
stalwart did so. This dialogue quickly brought everyone back to reality. For those unfamiliar
with the sport, buzkhasi consists of two nominal "teams" on horseback trying to get a
headless goat carcass across the opponent's goal line. All goes well at first, but ultimately
the teams disintegrate until it's every man for himself in mass mayhem. Thus, IMHO will go
Afghanistan.
Sadly enough this old quote seems especially true in the case of the "Afghan War" or whatever
it is. Our experts' obdurate insistence on pursuing "peace with honor" or some outcome we can
get our heads around and feel good about has become a receding horizon...
The only way we could "win" would be by waging a war of extermination with the goal of
totally depopulating the entire territory and building an impenetrable barrier around it. But
of course that would be a hard sell for a country with a good guy reputation to protect. And
then what would we do with the land? After all, we still haven't been able to settle most of
Nevada and Wyoming!
"History is an account, mostly false, of events, mostly unimportant, which are brought about
by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools."
I said at the beginning of this mess that the one sure thing was that we would end up with
chains of Iraqi and afghan restaurants begun by the refugees who had to leave their countries
with us when we left. I just hope we have progressed from leaving behind card indexes of our
in-country supporters for the Taliban to discover, as allegedly happened in Vietnam.
I enjoyed the IQ2 debate you reference, particularly your coining of the word "Vermontize".
Incredible to think this conversation about an 8 year old war was 10 years ago - and we are
still having it. Here is the link for anyone interested:
I really enjoy these type of situational overview and analysis posts, thanks!
Although I see your point about Trump's crass business approach, let's face it... the
military and various US gov't orgs have had any many years to try various approaches to
"solving" (cough, cough) Afghanistan. After all the US has been in Afghanistan since 2001. We
had been in Afghanistan for 15 years before Trump was elected. After all those years of failure
by the Borg I have no problem whatsoever with Trump taking a shot at the situation in his own
way. Trump tried a certain tactic and it didn't work. Oh well, but lessons learned. He'll
regroup, get more advice and try something else. He's making more of an effort to resolve
things than previous presidents, and willing to think outside of the Borg box.
No, all Trump was doing was looking for a re-election publicity stunt and a shot at that
elusive Nobel like Obama got....he's done this kind of thing for the last 40 years - he isn't
going to change his personality now...
If the US leaves and I believe it should it doesn't have to mean the end of days. China,
Russia, Iran, India and Pakistan have all expressed interest in clearing the area of
terrorists. They have all been blocked by the US presence. Preferably the US would work a
deal with those players who are far better connected and prepared to clean up the
neighbourhood than the US is from the other side of the world. Russia was willing to act as
guarantor for the collapsed deal. Work a deal for one or more of them to move in as the US
moves out.
My concern is that with all the big players wanting a piece of the pie that it evolves into
an even worse proxy war. But China, Pakistan, Russia and Iran are all rowing in more or less
the same direction these days and India has bitten off all it can chew in Kashmir so this may
be the perfect time. Americans just have to get over that indispensable nation nonsense.
Thank you for thinking of the women and girls....and perhaps their little boys.
I've lived through the abandonment of Vietnam and the influx of refugees from that part of
the world, the mess after the Iraq War that included bringing to our country many who had
tied their fortunes to us. We can not this time decide to abandon any who have tied their
hopes to us after we came in and caused so much turmoil in their country.
I always thought it was hubris on our part to think we could do what the Soviets failed to
do.
If we bring these people here, my hope is that we examine how our bringing in Somalis has,
in many places, not been a successful effort in regard to integrating them into our society.
(Do not many of us, including Nancy Pelosi, regret the bringing in of at least one Somali
woman?) We need to prepare for their entry into our country in some way that will not mean
just dropping them somewhere and letting them fend for themselves.
I know the government has some sort of protocol for finding them places to live. Often,
however, the people seem to be dropped in and left in some ways to depend on themselves "as
strangers in a strange land." This should be our last time. Stop the "nation-building"
efforts.
I feel that most Americans are welcoming and friendly people, but they often just do not
understand how difficult it is for some to adapt to a very different way of life.
Afghanistan borders China. For that reason alone, we are never leaving whatever the cost in
blood or treasure. The country is a very forward, strategic military base that can be used to
launch air attacks on Chinese assets and impede China's Belt and Road initiative.
Despite his bluster, Trump is very weak and knows the Taliban is winning and fears they
will try to drive us out before the election, ushering in his defeat. Most of his time is
spent cowering in his golf resorts, ranting and raving on a tiny little cellphone.
The Blob will not allow any of his fears to shake the resolve of the Deep State to make
Afghanistan a colony for a thousand years.
They have been successful in implanting in the psyche of every American the incorrect
notion that the Taliban launched 9/11. That notion alone means there is no support for any
truce or treaty with our bete noir.
These lines from Rudyard Kipling immediately came to my mind:
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!"
We are never going to change Afghanistan so getting out and taking those who supported us
is appealing to me.
Maybe that's why Mr. Prince wanted Trump to make him the viceroy of Afghanistan.
What a career that would be - a former SEAL lieutenant, then mercenary, promoted to
something like a field marshal, bringing fabulous quarter numbers, strategy or something like
that, peace and freedom to the place by privatizing the war and fighting it more cost
effective for himself .
It is not a base. It is a sinkhole--A distinction without a difference.
Confusedponderer
Your reference to Mr. Prince was spot on. He understood what the long-term plans for
Afghanistan were and still are. A viceroy is the designated ruling representative of a
colonial power.
American's negotiating position in every instances with rival nations is to dictate the
terms for surrender regardless of the circumstances on the ground. It's an untenable position
and guarantees perpetual war and occupation which is precisely the point.
It seems to me that if one parsed reports from the Special Inspector General Afghanistan
Reconstruction along with the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime's "Afghanistan Opium
Survey", any illusions as to what the reasons for the West's intervention in that country
were, should dissipate rather speedily.
so, your belief is that we invaded Afghanistan so that we could steal the foreign aid money that we would give them and
could sponsor the opium trade. Funny! A joke right?
IMO Trump has no clarity of anyhthing in foreign policy. He is just trying to make a deal
in accordance with his experience of deal making and is not doing well. It will be
interesting to see if he and Trudeau can sell the USMCA to Pelosi. this is clearly a
gooddeal. Let's see how hard he pushes for it. With regard to the ME, have reached the
conclusion that his basic attitudes are formed in the culture of New York City Jewry. A
Christian Brother who had two PH.D.s in STEM and was a New York City guy once told me that I
had to understand that everyone in NY City is to some extent Jewish, even the cardinal
archbishop.
I spent several years in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2014. I was there, with a front row
seat, when the shift to nation-building began. The best days of my life were in Afghanistan,
spent amongst the finest men and women from many nations...including Afghanistan.
We lost the war a long time ago. By 2006, I could see we were losing. By 2008, I knew it
was lost. How many Afghans have hitched their horses to our wagon? More than enough. How many others
chose to live as free men and women because we were there? A significant part of the
population. They face a reckoning for living that hope out loud, in public.
The Afghan people are amazing, and a lot of them believed in us, and in a future where
women could be more than a piece of property. I can see why some would say we should walk
away, and, it's hard to argue against that.
I'll carry what we did in Afghanistan to my grave. DOL,
Colonel ...I agree with your Opinion on this matter of Withdrawal. I have read a Year by Year
timeline of The Millions spent. for the Training Of Afghanistan Military and Security
Forces and Like in Viet Nam..they will fail. Fail to defend themselves..
Their hearts wont be in it..and like Vietnam..It Just made The Communist North Vietnamese the Third Most Powerful
Conventional Weapons stockpile in the World..with all the Equipment we Left
behind...The..billions spent to keep our military presence there..
The millions Spent for VA
Resources to care for our wounded. Many with traumatic head injuries...The loss of Our People
there..Overt and Covert...The loss of Seal Team 6 in the Aftermath of Finally Getting Osama
Bin Laden...It will Never End...
There will always be those willing to die for JiHad..Forever..Over a Trillion Dollars..Plus all The Money we sent to
Pakistan. Which has
been Most of Our Foreign Aid..Its been a Tragic Blunder and there has never been such a
thing as "Mission Accomplished"..
This has been the second most Costly War since WWII.
..Bring Them Home.. ...
9/11/2001,,,,9/11/2019.A War of the Politicians..By The Politicians
For The Politicians.and the Military..Industrial Complex....and Their Egos..and Bank
accounts..Period...Thomas Jefferson Knew This was coming.
I know nothing about Doug Macgregor but he sounds really sane in this interview with
Tucker. If Trump does what he suggests it would be a welcome approach and drive the Borg
insane.
I agreed with sending SOF in to kill AQ being harbored by the Taliban. I said at the time,
"Go in, kill the people who need killing & get the hell out."
There is only one thing that can unify Afgan tribes, that's the presence of foreigners. A
very long history has resulted in the reference to "the graveyard of empires." I don't
believe that the Taliban is a threat to the US outside of Afghanistan. They are a threat to
any American in Afghanistan. Nation building in Afghanistan is domed to failure. The only
issue is what is to be the fate of the Afghani's who assisted us or bought into the idea of
westernization. Our recent history is to abandon these people.
Eventually we will join the list of Afghan invaders from Cyrus, to Alexander, to the
Brits. The only question is how we depart & how much more blood & treasure we
spend.
In my experience, nothing can unify Afghan tribes, or even the sub-tribes. There is a saying
amongst the Pashtun: "Me against my brothers, my brothers and I against my cousins, my
cousins and I against the world." The real Taliban (meaning the political entity, exiled to
the east, also known as "The Quetta Shura," have never been able to get "Taliban" factions in
Afghanistan to unite against anything. COL Lang is spot-on, there is no collective "Afghan"
identity.
Afghanistan is still run by warlords. The vast majority of folks referred to as "Taliban"
are really just warlords (and the warlords' minions) wrapping themselves in the Taliban flag,
as it suits them now. If the Taliban were to come back to controlling power in Afghanistan,
many of the warlords would switch to fighting the Taliban. True territorial gains in
Afghanistan are generally made when warlords switch sides. Afghan warlords are the most loyal
people money can buy...well, rent, anyway.
The IQ2 debate was significant for me personally when I first saw it. The arguments for
staying in Afghanistan were set out coherently and for perhaps the first time I caught a
glimpse of the immense intellectual effort, in the think tanks and the academies, that goes
into justifying the neocon position. That neocon position working through almost by osmosis
to the heavyweight newspapers and media outlets, and providing the narrative framework within
which the Intelligence Initiatives of this world right down to the little propaganda sites
work. Such varied figures as Charles Lister or Peter Tatchell have backup, and how.
It's an intellectual fortress, the whole, and for many of us in the general public
it confirms us comfortably in the neocon rationale. It gives us the arguments, and the
excuses, and as long as one declines to notice that those arguments and excuses do shift
around, we pay our taxes for this or that crazy neocon venture without complaint and often
gladly. Gramsci and his like stand vindicated. Capture the academies and the rest of us
follow, often willingly.
And just a few, of those in the public eye, standing up true and declaring "This emperor
has no clothes!"
Which happened, as I saw several years later when I got to view it, in that IQ2 debate.
Around that time I came across Major Stueber's documentary which had rather more than seven
minutes to lay out how hopeless it was for Western armies to fight alongside local forces,
when those local forces were so hopelessly factional, corrupt, and therefore ineffectual.
And a footnote just recently. I head a Swedish aid worker relating just how impossible it
was for him too to function in Afghanistan. Money put through to local groups swallowed up in
false invoicing, ghost workers whose salaries went to swell the pay packet of their
superiors, slush funds because that was the only way to get things done.
It was never a doable venture, Afghanistan. That was clear to a few in that debate ten
years ago and it's clear to more now. I hope it's possible to get out without leaving the
urban Westernised Afghans too much at the mercy of the rest.
And perhaps, also reflecting that the Rovean narratives that the academies and think tanks
conjure up for us, at such expense and at such effort, all crumble eventually when reality,
as it must finally, breaks through.
"Saudi jets, armed with US and UK bombs and provided with targeting information by US
military intelligence officers stationed in Saudi Arabia, have continued to carry out
repeated attacks on civilian targets, including schools, hospitals, residential
neighborhoods, mosques, funerals and markets. The US had provided coalition jets with mid-air
refueling until the end of last year, ensuring maximum carnage."
"It will be well worth while": the state Duma has praised the willingness of the American
Ambassador to come and have a talk following his interview "Komsomolskaya Pravda"
Okhotny Ryad [address of State Duma -- ME] is now waiting for the Ambassador of
the USA to Russia, following his interview with "Komsomolskaya Pravda". We shall remind you,
that Jon huntsman, who, following his resignation, is leaving in October, has stressed that
he is ready to discuss allegations of interference (here he was talking about the publication
on Twitter by his Embassy of the announcement of the rally and a map of its route, together
with a request that these places be avoided these), but there has yet been no invitation made
that he do so.
I would be very happy to discuss this with anyone, but nobody has invited me and I
think I have not been invited because people know the truth, and it consists of the fact that
on the eve of the demonstrations, the Embassy should publish a consular alert and warn its
citizens to stay away from the places where they are to take place. My first responsibility
is to ensure the safety of American citizens.
And if I do not tell people, I would thereby have demonstrated neglect of my duty,
and my official duties. So I did what I did in all other cases – what I was doing in
China and what to do in Singapore when I was Ambassador there: we took documents already in
the public domain, and warned U.S. citizens that they should stay away from specific
locations, and published a map of where these places were marked.
That is what all this is really about, and I am very surprised that the standard
function of the Embassy has been presented as something unusual", said the
Ambassador."
(above) 02.20 2011, Beijing: Huntsman staying away from a specific place that the US
Embassy to China considered as being potentially dangerous to US citizens.
"... A kreakl is a Russian liberal, often the child or grandchild of Soviet-era intellectuals who believed they knew better than anyone else how the country should be run. ..."
"... "Continuing street protests in Hong Kong and Moscow have no doubt spooked the authoritarian duo of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Moscow protests, the largest in many years, must be keeping Mr. Putin up at night, or they wouldn't be dispersed with such unabated brutality." ..."
"... "This loss of nuclear competence is being cited by nuclear and national security experts in both the U.S. and in Europe's nuclear weapons states as a threat to their military nuclear programs. The White House cited this nuclear nexus in a May memo instructing Rick Perry, the Secretary of Energy, to force utilities to buy power from unprofitable nuclear and coal plants. The memo states that the "entire US nuclear enterprise" including nuclear weapons and naval propulsion, "depends on a robust civilian nuclear industry." ..."
Nina Khrushcheva is a kreakl. We use that word here a lot, and perhaps not all the readers
know what it means. It is a portmanteau of "Creative Class", but makes use of the letter 'k',
because the letter 'c' in Russian has a soft 's' sound, so we use the hard 'k'. The Creative
Class, or so they styled themselves, were the intelligentsia of Soviet times; the free-thinking
liberals who were convinced Russia's best course lay in accommodating the west no matter its
demands, in hope that it would then bless Russia with its secrets for prosperity and all the
fruits of the American Dream.
A kreakl is a Russian liberal, often the child or grandchild of Soviet-era intellectuals
who believed they knew better than anyone else how the country should be run. They express
their disapproval of the current government in the most contemptuous way, interpret its defense
of family values as homophobia, and consider its leadership – uniformly described by the
west as 'authoritarian' – to be stifling their freedom. My position is that their often
privileged upbringing insulates them from appreciating the value of hard work, and lets them
sneer at patriotism, as they often consider themselves global citizens with a worldly grasp of
foreign affairs far greater that of their groveling, sweaty countrymen. Their university
educations allow them to rub shoulders with other pampered scions of post-Soviet affluence, and
even worse are those who are sent abroad to attend western universities, where they internalize
the notion that everyone in America and the UK lives like Skip and Buffy and their other
college friends.
Not everyone who attends university or college turns out a snobbish brat, of course, and in
Russia, at least, not everyone who gets the benefit of a superior education comes from wealth.
A significant number are on scholarships, as both my nieces were. Some western students are in
university or college on scholarships as well, and there are a good many in both places who are
higher-education students because it was their parents dream that they would be, and they saved
all their lives to make it happen.
But many of the Russian loudmouths are those who learned at their daddy's knee that he
coulda been a contendah, if only the money-grubbing, soulless monsters in the government hadn't
kept him down – could have been wealthy if it were not for the money pit of communism,
could have taken a leadership role which would have moved the country forward had the leader
who usurped power not filled all the seats with his cronies and sycophants.
Khrushcheva is somewhat an exception to the rule there, because her grandpa actually was the
leader of the Soviet Union – First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
Nikita Khrushchev. It was he who oversaw the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954,
the same year the Soviet Union
applied to join NATO . Some references consider Khrushchev her grandfather, and some her
great-grandfather; it's complicated. Julia – Khrushcheva's mother – was the
daughter of Leonid, who was a fighter pilot in World War II and the son of Khrushchev. When he
was shot down in the war and did not return, Khrushchev adopted Julia. Nina Khrushcheva is
therefore his biological great-granddaughter, but his adoptive granddaughter.
Now, she's Professor of International Affairs at The New School, New York, USA, and a Senior
Fellow of the World Policy Institute, New York. As you might imagine, The New School is a
hotbed of liberal intellectualism; as its Wiki entry announces, " dedicated to academic freedom
and intellectual inquiry and a home for progressive thinkers". So let's see what a liberal and
progressive thinker thinks about the current state of affairs vis-a-vis Russia and China, and
their western opponents.
You sort of get an early feel for it from the title: "
Putin and Xi are Gambling with their Countries' Futures ". I sort of suspected, even before
I read it, that it was not going to be a story about what a great job Putin and Xi are doing as
leaders of their respective countries.
Just before we get into that a little deeper – what is the purpose of an 'Opinion'
section in a newspaper? If it was 'Facts', then it would be news, because the reporter could
substantiate it. As I best understand it, people read newspapers to learn about news –
things that happened, to who, and where, when and why, documented by someone who either saw
them happen, interviewed someone who did, or otherwise has researched the issue. 'Opinion'
sections, then, allow partisans for various philosophies to present their conclusions as if
they were facts, or to introduce disputed incidents from a standpoint which implies they are
resolved and that the author's view represents fact.
Well, hey; here's an example, in the first paragraph – "Continuing street protests
in Hong Kong and Moscow have no doubt spooked the authoritarian duo of Chinese President Xi
Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Moscow protests, the largest in many years,
must be keeping Mr. Putin up at night, or they wouldn't be dispersed with such unabated
brutality."
I suppose they have their fingers on the world's pulse at The New School, but I haven't seen
any indication at all, anywhere, that either Mr. Putin or Mr. Xi are 'spooked' about anything.
The protests in Hong Kong appear to be instigated at the urging of the USA – as usual
– with reports that the protesters are
receiving western funding , and photographs showing protest leaders apparently
meeting with the US Consul-General . Nonetheless, despite the aggressive violence displayed
by the protesters, who are certainly not peaceful, the issue seems to be mostly confined to
Hong Kong, and there have been no indications I have seen that Beijing is 'spooked' about it at
all. In fact, the position of the Chinese government seems fairly reasonable – it does
not want to see Chinese criminals escape justice by fleeing to Hong Kong.
As to whether either protests are representative of a large number of people, it is
difficult to say: organizers of the Hong Kong protests claim almost 2 million, while the police
– responsible for crowd control – say there were no more than a tenth of that
number. And if the Moscow protests really were the largest in years, those hoping to see Putin
overthrown might want to keep quiet about that; organizers claim about 50,000 people, and
organizers usually overestimate the crowd for their own reasons. Moscow is a city of over 13
million just within the city limits. So the massive crowd represents less than half of one
percent of the city's population. Polling of the protest crowd suggested more than half of them
were from outside Moscow, where who is on the city council is no concern of theirs, since they
cannot vote. And in an echo of the iconic Tahrir Square protests, an element of the 'Arab
Spring' – probably the first mass demonstrations managed by social media – the
Moscow protests appear to be
managed and directed via social media links, where it is possible to exercise
disproportionate influence on a targeted crowd of restless youth who have little or no personal
investment in the country, and just want to be part of what's cool.
Let's move on. According to Khrushcheva, the protests are 'being dispersed with unabated
brutality'. That so? Show me. Bear in mind that all these protests are unauthorized, and those
participating in them are breaking the law and in breach of the public peace. Flash violence is
an objective of the demonstrations, because otherwise their numbers are insignificant, and if
they play it by the book nobody pays them any mind. I've seen loads of pictures of the
protesters in Moscow being hauled away to the paddywagons, and nobody is bloody or has their
clothing ripped. Here are some examples (thanks, Moscow Exile).
None of those adolescents looks old enough to vote. A video clip of a Chinese policeman
using his beanbag gun to disperse protesters has been edited to omit the part where he was
swarmed by protesters who were punching him. No citizens who are in high dudgeon at what they
are being told is 'unabated brutality' would tolerate unauthorized protests by young hooligans
in their own towns for a second, and would scorn any suggestion that they are pursuing noble
goals such as freedom and democracy. Fellow demonstrators in these photos seem far more
interested in capturing every bit of the action on their phones than in assisting their
captured co-demonstrators.
By way of contrast, check out this clip of US police officers in New Jersey arresting a young woman on the
beach because there was alcohol – apparently unopened – on the same beach
blanket, which she claimed belonged to her aunt. A pretty small-potatoes issue, you would
think, compared with the fearless defense of freedom and democracy. Yet the police officers,
viewed here on their own body cameras, throw her to the ground and punch her in front of her
child although she is obviously not drunk and their breathalyzer test does not register any
alcohol on her breath. Bystanders gratuitously and repeatedly advise her, "Stop resisting".
People who complain about the way the girl is being handled are told, "Back off, or you'll be
locked up, too". For what? Which of these looks like a police state, to you? Nina Lvovna? I'm
talking to you.
The demonstrations, we are told, are a poignant sign of Putin's declining popularity. Yes,
poor old chap. In fact, Putin's approval
rating in 2019 was 64%; it was 70% in 2000, nearly 20 years ago. Just for info, Donald
Trump, the Leader Of The Free World, had an approval rating with his own voters of 44% in 2018,
and Macron was even worse at 26%. I guess a little Macron goes a long way – his
current approval rating is only 28%. His fortunes have not improved much, you might say.
Boris Johnson has not yet even properly taken the reins in the UK, but his people do not appear
optimistic; about 35% speculate
he is or will be a capable leader , while only 23% rate him more honest than most
politicians. Enjoy those, BoJo; they represent a zenith born of unreasonable hope –
The Economist describes these ratings as 'surprisingly high'. In 2018, the
Netherlands' Mark Rutte
had only 10% approval – and that was the highest of the ministers – while 34%
disapproved. Apparently about half just didn't care.
Look; Khrushcheva is talking out her ass. There just is no way to sugar-coat it. In 2015,
Vladimir Putin was
the most popular leader in the world with national voters. I daresay he is now, as well;
with the state of the world, I find it hard to imagine any other leader has an approval rating
higher than 64%. But feel free to look. Polling agencies carefully parse their questions so as
to push the results in the direction they'd like to see, but when the question is reduced to a
basic "Do you trust Putin? Yes or No?", his approval rating goes higher than it is right now.
Please note, that's the reference supplied by Khrushcheva to substantiate her statement that
fewer and fewer Russians now conflate their nation with its leader.
I don't personally recall Putin ever saying he hoped Trump would improve relations with
Russia, although it would not be an unreasonable wish had he said it. I think he was probably
glad Hillary Clinton did not win, considering her shrill Russophobic rhetoric and fondness for
military solutions to all problems, but Khrushcheva makes him sound like a doddering old fool
who barely knows what century he is living in. I think Russia always hoped for better relations
with America, because when any country's relations with America are very bad, that country
would be wise to prepare for war. Because that's how America solves its problems with other
countries. Washington already had a go at strangling Russia economically, and it failed
spectacularly, and we're getting down to the bottom of the toolbox.
Next, Khrushcheva informs us that Russia is in as weak a position to defeat the USA in a
nuclear war as it was when it was the USSR. That's true, in a roundabout way. For one, there
would be no victors or defeated in a nuclear war. It would quickly escalate to a full-on
exchange, and much of the planet would become uninhabitable. For another, Russia was always in
a pretty good position to wax America's ass in a nuclear exchange and it still is. Russia
still has about
6,800 nuclear weapons to the USA's 6,500 , and has continued to modernize and update its
nuclear arsenal through the years. A Russian strike would be concentrated on a country about a
third its size. If I were a betting man, I wouldn't like those odds. Mind you, if I were a
free-thinking liberal professor who did not have a clue what I was talking about, I would laugh
at the odds – ignorance seasoned with a superiority complex tends to make you act that
way. Just as well that betting men mostly run the world, and not jackhole liberal
professors.
The recent explosion at what was believed to be development of a new nuclear weapon in
Russia is assessed by Khrushcheva to be a clear sign of incompetence, which is quite a
diagnosis considering no investigation has even started yet. Somehow she missed the dramatic explosion of
Elon Musk's SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, together with its multi-million-dollar satellite payload,
back in 2016. Oh, never mind – Musk quickly explained that it was 'an anomaly'. Well,
that clears it all up. Must have; the US government has continued to throw money at Musk as if
he were embarrassingly naked or something, and nobody seems prepared to suggest it was
incompetent. While we're on that subject, the whole reason SpaceX even exists is because the
USA continues to use Russian RD-180 rockets developed in the 1960s to launch its satellites and
space packages into orbit, because it doesn't have anything better. I'd be careful where I
tossed that 'incompetent' word around. Cheer up, though the news isn't all bad: just a bit more
than a year ago, the most advanced commercial reactor designs from Europe and the United States
just delivered their first megawatt-hours of electricity within one day of each other. Oh,
wait. It is bad news. Because
that took place in China . You know, that place where Xi in his unabated brutality is
trampling upon the fair face of democracy. In fact, according to nuclear energy consultant
Mycle Schneider, principal author of the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report, "The
Chinese have a very large workforce that they move from one project to another, so their skills
are actually getting better, whereas European and North American companies haven't completed
reactors in decades".
Is that bad? Gee; it might be. "This loss of nuclear competence is being cited by
nuclear and national security experts in both the U.S. and in Europe's nuclear weapons states
as a threat to their military nuclear programs. The White House cited this nuclear nexus in a
May memo instructing Rick Perry, the Secretary of Energy, to force utilities to buy power from
unprofitable nuclear and coal plants. The memo states that the "entire US nuclear enterprise"
including nuclear weapons and naval propulsion, "depends on a robust civilian nuclear
industry." You see, Ninushka, competence in nuclear weapons is directly related to
competence in nuclear engineering as a whole.
I hope she knows more about Russia than she does about China – in a single paragraph
she has the Chinese government threatening to send in the army to crush protests, and standing
aside while thugs beat up protesters – and both are bad. And of course, this threatened
action/inaction had to have been sanctioned by Xi's government. Why? Well, because everyone in
Hong Kong knows it. Much of the rest of her reasoning – free thinking, I guess I should
call it – on China is what Xi 'might be contemplating' or 'could be considering'.
Supported by nothing, apparently, except the liberal free-thinker's gift of clairvoyance.
Hong Kong was always Chinese. The Qing dynasty ceded it to the British Empire in the Treaty
of Nanjing, and it became a British Crown Colony. Britain was back for Kowloon in 1860, and
leased what came to be known as The New Territories for 99 years, ending in 1997. Time's up.
The people of Hong Kong are Chinese; it's not like they are some different and precious race
that China aims to extinguish. I was there a decade after it returned to Chinese control, and
it was largely independent; it had its own flag, the British street names were retained, and
you can probably still stop on Gloucester Road and buy a Jaguar, if you have that kind of
money. To a very large degree, China left it alone and minded its own business, but like I
said; it's Chinese. These ridiculous western attempts to split it off and make an independent
nation of it are only making trouble for the people of Hong Kong and, as usual, appeal mostly
to students who have never run anything much bigger than a bake sale, and 'free-thinking
liberals'.
China is not 'isolated diplomatically'. Beijing is host city to 167
foreign embassies . There are only 10 more in Washington, which considers itself the Center
of the Universe. Lately China has been spreading itself a little,
muscling into Latin America , right in Uncle Sam's backyard. Foreign Direct Investment into
China increased3.6 percent
year-on-year to $78.8 billion USD in January-July 2019, and has increased steadily since
that time, when it fell dramatically owing to Trump's trade war. That has proved far more
disastrous to the USA than to China, which is rapidly sourcing its imports from other suppliers
and establishing new trading relationships which exclude the United States, probably for the
long term. "China is isolated diplomatically" is precisely the sort of inane bibble-babble
liberal free-thinkers tell each other because they want to believe it is true. It is not.
Similarly – and, I would have thought, obviously – China is also not 'increasingly
regarded as an international pariah'. That's another place she's thinking
of.
There is nothing Russia or China could do to please the United States and its increasingly
lunatic governing administration, short of plucking out its eye and offering it for a bauble,
like Benton Wolf in The Age of Miracles. The type of 'reforms' demanded by the US State
Department suggest its current state is delusion, since they are patently designed to weaken
the government and empower dissident groups – is that the essence of democracy? It sure
as fuck is not. You can kind of tell by the way Washington pounces on its own dissident groups
like Mike Pompeo on a jelly roll; the FBI investigated
the Occupy Wall Street movement as a terrorist threat. Russia got a prescient preview of
the kind of treatment it could expect from the west when it applied to join NATO, as I
mentioned at the beginning of this post. The acceptance of the Soviet Union "would be
incompatible with its democratic and defensive aims."
So as most ordinary thinkers could have told you would happen, America's
hold-my-beer-and-watch-this hillbilly moves to split Russia and China apart have succeeded in
driving them closer together; the world's manufacturing and commercial giant and a major energy
producer – a great mix, unless you are the enemy. The rest of the world is kind of
watching America with its pants around its ankles, wondering what it will do next. It failed to
wreck the Russian economy, failed to depose and replace Bashar al-Assad in Syria, failed to
depose and replace Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, and it will fail to prevent a Sino-Russian axis
which will reshape global trade to its own advantage at the expense of America. Because
whenever it has an opportunity to seize upon a lucid moment, to turn away from its destructive
course, it chooses instead to bullshit itself some more. To whisper what it wishes were true
into its own ear.
HK article gets at the nascent conflicting conflagrations wrt objectives .what is to be cast
into the fire and what is to be taken as a new HK socioeconomic script.
The comments are **well worth** reading ,some of which mirror comments on HK by Stooges. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/09/09/pers-s09.html
If Carrie Lam had half a brain, she could always threaten to bring back the extradition bill
with a new provision that people who damage essential infrastructure like railway lines and
roads, and who target police with rocks, laser beams and grenades shot from portable grenade
launchers will be extradited to Beijing to stand trial for their misdeeds, if the protesters
keep changing and ramping up their demands.
Carrie Lam chose to play it like Yanukovych, and to give the protesters what they asked for.
That resulted in Yanukovych running for his life, and Lam might well find herself in the same
situation if the police don't get a handle on the hoodlums that are smashing the place up and
hurling stones and Molotov cocktails. Appeasing protesters only makes them feel empowered,
and that empowerment causes them to wonder why they should be satisfied with only what they
originally demanded. That's a natural effect, and this is not a natural protest, but a
destabilization effort instigated and nurtured by foreign interests. So the protesters'
demands are just going to grow and grow, because the goal is either a violent clash with the
police or complete government capitulation. China is not going to let the latter happen.
Lam has said already that there will be no negotiation with groups that destroy public
property, but protesters have vowed not to give an inch. The ball is in Lam's court, and if
she does not harden up and present a credible defense, she will be removed either by China or
by the protesters. Hong Kong is not going to become a democratic independent country –
China is not going to let it be snatched away under their noses. Firm action right now might
be able to get the situation under control with a minimum of violence, but if it goes on much
longer, people are going to be killed And there is zero the west could do to stop it, as it
is a domestic Chinese matter, so their continued egging on of the protesters shows how little
it cares for their lives.
WSWS,org's reporting on the Hong Kong protests has been dismal and ideologically biased. To
my knowledge, the protesters' demands have never covered working conditions, housing
conditions and the tremendous social inequalities (said to be the highest in the world). They
have never covered the state of a tax haven economy used and abused by billionaires in
mainland China to minimise their tax obligations to Beijing or to send money to other
overseas tax havens through registering their offspring or other people as Hong Kong
residents, resulting in money being poured into property speculation which itself has led to
sky-high property prices and the inability of ordinary people to afford to buy or rent homes
of a suitable space at reasonable prices.
The protesters' initial demands were to withdraw the extradition bill, to force Carrie Lam
to resign as Chief Executive and to force her government to investigate what they claimed was
police violence – in spite of the fact that most of the violence and sabotage (which
has now extended to fighting with commuters and throwing things at them, vandalising MTR
stations and throwing rocks and objects onto train lines) has been committed by protesters
themselves – and (as if as a last thought) demanding universal suffrage.
Full 10-minute video of middle-aged and elderly commuters fighting with protesters, the
incident that led to the Prince Edward MTR station staff calling in police over the August /
September weekend to subdue and arrest protesters, some of whom attempted to evade arrest by
changing clothes:
Yes You are correct in that wsws appears to be not on its game in its analysis of the HK
situation,as was noted in some of the comments to the article. Addressing fundamental
economic disparities in HK does not seem to feature in the agenda of the protesters.
Can't wait to see the Chinese headline: "Safe in Hong Kong, Chinese Accused Murderer Wei Tu
Lukky says, 'Thanks for the Democracy, Students!" Of course you'll never see it, because no
western paper would ever print it. As far as the west is concerned, it really is all about
freedom and democracy. Like no such things as extradition treaties exist between democracies.
Canada and the United States have an extradition treaty – aren't they democracies?
Aren't they free?
What it boils down to is that westerners like Bill Browder do not want to be snatched when
they are passing through Hong Kong International Airport, and extradited to China. Westerners
do not particularly care otherwise about the rule of law in China, but the usual
troublemakers sense an opportunity to destabilize and create a problem for China. If China
soft-pedals it, as they have done, it quickly gets out of hand to the point where they are
dealing with rioters rather than protesters, smashing and destroying in an orgy of violence.
Had they cracked down hard in the beginning and kicked out all western journalists reporting
on the issue, the 'protests' would have been strangled in the cradle, and while the west
would have gotten a little mileage out of the brutal Chinese authoritarianism, it would have
been nowhere near as bad as it is now.
The 'student leaders' of the 'protests', Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow, are 22. I suppose
there might be a place somewhere in which 22-year-olds don't feel like they know everything,
but I've never heard of it. With political unit chief of the US Consulate Julie Eadeh
stroking them and telling them she's never seen anyone so brave, they can barely keep the
grins off their faces and fancy they really are somebody important. Lam did indeed flip on
the extradition issue, but it's too late for that now. She is going to learn the Yanukovych
lesson all over again – appeasing protesters, especially when it is part of a
destabilization program, only leads to more demands and more protests.
The Chinese government perhaps thought to go slow and not give the western media any money
shots to make a big issue of. That might have worked, if this was a genuine one-issue
protest. But it isn't – as i just pointed out, extradition treaties have nothing to do
with democracy and freedom, and if a bunch of students think they are going to have their own
country to play Independence Doctor in, they have a big surprise coming. Remember when
Poroshenko was justified in doing whatever he wanted, including taking students right out of
the university parking lot and putting them on a bus to Army training, because he was
'protecting his country'? Well, the Chinese government sees itself as having the same rights
where a small group of students is causing a major problem, and is blatantly violating public
order in an attempt to win western approbation; it is plainly not legal to throw stones and
gas bombs at the police and smash up public infrastructure.
You can't give people whatever they want when they are acting like hooligans – it
only makes them think of more things they want. And that's just what is happening here. If
they are not very careful, the entire Lam government is going to be replaced overnight with
hardliners, and then heads will roll.
Withdrawing the extradition bill is an easy move because Lam can always reintroduce it later
(perhaps in a changed form) though perhaps when that happens, the guy who killed his pregnant
girlfriend in Taiwan on St Valentine's Day in 2018, and used all her bank cards to clear his
own debts will have already gone free and for all we know have left Hong Kong.
Also by withdrawing the bill, Lam takes some of the wind out of the sails of the protest
movement. If the protesters are not happy over the withdrawal and ratchet up their demands
that Lam and her entire government resign, then Beijing knows this is a Color Revolution
protest movement and might start to press Hong Kong to expel British and American consular
staff stationed in the territory and shut down British and American NGOs and think-tanks
using whatever the laws of Hong Kong permit Lam to use against them. Lam may not be able to
stop the protests from escalating but she can slow them down by cutting off their funding,
advice and support.
Yes, it's curious that western governments are justified in using whatever force they feel is
necessary to put down anti-government protests, or just to keep order in general –
reports abound of ordinary people not doing anything wrong meeting up with a mean cop who
decides to slam them around a little in the process of establishing their identity, and the
aversion of the American police to bystanders filming them is well-known. But in certain
countries – and sometimes just certain governments in those countries – dispersal
of protesters or those posing as peaceful protesters is always 'brutal'. So it is in Hong
Kong, where 'pro-democracy protesters' – which is a label used to justify pretty much
any behavior – throw stones and gas bombs at police and destroy public property
(rioting by another, more palatable name). Nothing Saakashvili did to put down protests was
ever described by western media as 'brutal' in my recollection.
Ukraine appears not to have noticed that its backing for the United States to persuade Europe
to reject Nord Stream II is supporting American pressure for Europe to buy American LNG
instead. Would they be transiting that to Europe through Ukraine? Hardly.
President Trump has repeatedly criticized the project, saying it would make Germany
"captive" to Russian interests, and urging the Europeans to buy fuel from the U.S. instead.
During their talks in Kyiv this week, Danilyuk discussed this issue at length with Bolton,
and he urged the U.S. government to block the project by imposing economic sanctions against
it. "Bolton was very supportive," Danilyuk says. "He understands that Nord Stream 2 is bad
for the United States."
If – extremely unlikely – that initiative were ever successful, and the EU
blew off Nord stream II in favour of American imported LNG the Ukies would still be out $3
Billion a year in transit fees. The USA wants to replace Russian gas supplies to Europe, not
supplement them.
As usual, Ukraine is so eager to hurt Russia that it does not care if it hurts itself in
doing it. Just the sort of ally the USA loves.
"... Footage from the city also documented flagrant acts of vandalism targeting the infrastructure and public transportation. In one video, a staircase was spray-painted with an inspiring message, "fight for freedom," accompanied by a swastika. ..."
"... The protesters – many of them masked and armed with metal rods and clubs – also erected street barricades, which were then set ablaze. Police used tear gas to disperse the unruly crowds. ..."
"... Videos – not always publicized by the mainstream media – also show aftermath of vandalism as anti-government unrest enters its 14th week. ..."
"... Beijing has repeatedly accused Washington of fueling the political turmoil, a claim that became more difficult to refute after a senior American diplomat was seen meeting with protest leaders. ..."
"... With their direct appeal to Trump, it appears that many of the protesters are not interested in negotiating directly with the government. Hong Kong had already officially withdrawn the controversial extradition bill with China that sparked the unrest. ..."
Hong Kong protesters rallied in their thousands and clashed with police in fresh unrest.
They even called on Washington to "liberate" them from Chinese rule, suggesting some may now
view the US as their patron. Thousands of demonstrators marched to the US Consulate in Hong
Kong on Sunday, in what they said was an appeal to President Donald Trump to intervene in the
weeks-long political turmoil. Videos of the rally show protesters waving American flags as they
sing the US national anthem and play 'The Star Spangled Banner' through the speakers on their
phones.
People also carried banners, urging Trump to "liberate" Hong Kong. American lawmakers
are currently mulling the so-called 'Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act'. The legislation
would require Washington to annually assess Hong Kong's level of autonomy from Beijing and
react with economic countermeasures if self-rule is compromised.
Some signs of protest used to drum up support for the cause have raised questions about the
factual accuracy of the messaging. According to the Global Times, a banner attached to an
overpass erroneously claimed that "China owes America $1 trillion."
#HK radical protesters
fail to get the facts right on a banner which states that "China owes US$1 trillion." Here is
a free lesson: As of May, the US owes China about $1.11 trillion, not the other way round.
#香港pic.twitter.com/hky6WCDJqA
Footage from the city also documented flagrant acts of vandalism targeting the
infrastructure and public transportation. In one video, a staircase was spray-painted with an
inspiring message, "fight for freedom," accompanied by a swastika.
The protesters – many of them masked and armed with metal rods and clubs – also
erected street barricades, which were then set ablaze. Police used tear gas to disperse the
unruly crowds.
Beijing has repeatedly accused Washington of fueling the political turmoil, a claim that
became more difficult to refute after a senior American diplomat was seen meeting with protest
leaders.
With their direct appeal to Trump, it appears that many of the protesters are not interested
in negotiating directly with the government. Hong Kong had already officially withdrawn the
controversial extradition bill with China that sparked the unrest.
Hong Kong protest figurehead Joshua Wong, who has been rocking up to 'pro-democracy'
meetings with various Western officials in recent weeks, has been spotted hanging out with the
chairman of the White Helmets in Berlin. Wong attended the 'Bild 100' summer party in Berlin
this week, where he seems to have bumped into White Helmets boss Raed Al Saleh. That's a tad
awkward, since the Syrian first-responders group operates solely in areas controlled by
anti-government fighters and has been heavily suspected of
links to Al Qaeda and US-sponsored jihadist militias – a fact that did not go
unnoticed on Twitter.
There was another familiar face in the snaps, too: Mayor of Kiev Vitaly Klitschko, who was,
for a time, himself a Western favorite when Ukraine was in Washington's regime-change
crosshairs.
But Wong has had some questionable high-level meetings, too. He also met German Foreign
Minister Heiko Maas at the event – with that tete-a-tete quickly slammed by Beijing.
These meetings come on the heels of photos showing Wong speaking to
Julie Eadeh, an official from the US consulate general in Hong Kong, which raised more
suspicions that Washington had a hand in the recent violent anti-China protests
"... Watch for persons disguised as Red Chinese troops attacking the local Hong Kong radio station. ..."
"... A lot of countries are getting involved. Last Sunday there were many protesters who didn't even speak Cantonese! They were Mandarin speakers from Taiwan and when the crowd shouted to "Run away" (from the approaching police) they just stood and looked confused. Obviously the western MSM hasn't bothered to mention the point. They want you to think it is still HK students. BS!! ..."
"... German government is actually working for US and CIA. Nevermind the fact that German elites are supporting EU breaking away from USA and detest Trump. ..."
"... Your dislike of China blinds you to simple facts like Germany is a vassal of usa that is still under ww2 military occupation . Small domestic differences are allowed in all politics to give the illusion of choice. But tyranny gets a vote everytime. Democracy is a buzzword that died a long time ago in all countries. ..."
"... German government is actually working for US and CIA ..."
A lot of countries are getting involved. Last Sunday there were many protesters who didn't
even speak Cantonese! They were Mandarin speakers from Taiwan and when the crowd shouted to
"Run away" (from the approaching police) they just stood and looked confused. Obviously the
western MSM hasn't bothered to mention the point. They want you to think it is still HK
students. BS!!
All one needs to do is look at the fake protesters, the signs, the violent behaviors, the
top leaders' contacts in the US consulate, the White Hats, and elsewhere, and it is clear and
obvious who leads, funds and directs the destructive rioting scum bags.
The PRC needs to close the US and all EU consulates, terminate the HK-SAR, bring in a
hundred thousand tough well-disciplined PLA soldiers who will in an hour put a stop to this
US-directed garbage.
China insisted that Hong Kong be removed from the UN's list of territories that needed to
be decolonised prior to hand-over by the UK. Now China along with Russia, Cuba, Syria and
Iran are members of the UN decolonisation committee that is meant to assist territories to
decolonise. How strange democracy is.
The militant, unconstitutional and ineffective committee.
So according to the irrational narrative of the China Media now, German government is
actually working for US and CIA. Nevermind the fact that German elites are supporting EU
breaking away from USA and detest Trump.
The Chinese Journalists must have received detailed fake news training from CNN and
NBC
Your dislike of China blinds you to simple facts like Germany is a vassal of usa that is
still under ww2 military occupation . Small domestic differences are allowed in all politics
to give the illusion of choice. But tyranny gets a vote everytime. Democracy is a buzzword
that died a long time ago in all countries.
Your love of China blinds you to the facts that EU and US are bastions of freedom, and not
every single incident is a ******* conspiracy of the US and EU.
Also, I think you need to look up the word 'vassal'. Wrong time period & context.
What democracy they are talking about? Democracy for whom? This Harvard political prostitutes are talking about democracy for oligarchs
which was the nest result of EuroMaydan and the ability of Western companies to buy assets for pennies on the dollar without the control
of national government like happen in xUSSR space after dissolution of the USSR, which in retrospect can be classified as a color revolution
too, supported by financial injection, logistical support and propaganda campaign in major Western MSM.
What Harvard honchos probably does not understand or does not wish to understand is that neoliberalism as a social system lost its
attraction and is in irreversible decline. The ideology of neoliberalism collapsed much like Bolsheviks' ideology. As Politician like
Joe Boden which still preach neoliberalism are widely viewed as corrupt or senile (or both) hypocrites.
The "Collective West" still demonstrates formidable intelligence agencies skills (especially the USA and GB), but the key question
is: "What they are fighting for?"
They are fighting for neoliberalism which is a lost case. Which looks like KGB successes after WWIII. They won many battles and
lost the Cold war.
Not that Bolsheviks in the USSR was healthy or vibrant. Economics was a deep stagnation, alcoholism among working class was rampant,
the standard of living of the majority of population slides each year, much like is the case with neoliberalism after, say, 1991. Hidden
unemployment in the USSR was high -- at least in high teens if not higher. Like in the USA now good jobs were almost impossible to obtain
without "extra help". Medical services while free were dismal, especially dental -- which were horrible. Hospitals were poor as church
rats as most money went to MIC. Actually, like in the USA now, MIC helped to strangulate the economy and contributed to the collapse.
It was co a corrupt and decaying , led by completely degenerated leadership. To put the person of the level of Gorbachov level of political
talent lead such a huge and complex country was an obvious suicide.
But the facts speak for themselves: what people usually get as the result of any color revolution is the typical for any county
which lost the war: dramatic drop of the standard of living due to economic rape of the country.
While far form being perfect the Chinese regime at least managed to lift the standard of living of the majority of the population
and provide employment. After regime change China will experience the same economic rape as the USSR under Yeltsin regime. So in no
way Hong Cong revolution can be viewed a progressive phenomenon despite all the warts of neoliberalism with Chenese characteristics
in mainland China (actually this is a variant of NEP that Gorbachov tried to implement in the USSR, but was to politically incompetent
to succeed)
CHENOWETH: I think it really boils down to four different things. The first is a large and diverse participation that's
sustained.
The second thing is that [the movement] needs to elicit loyalty shifts among security forces in particular, but also other
elites. Security forces are important because they ultimately are the agents of repression, and their actions largely decide
how violent the confrontation with -- and reaction to -- the nonviolent campaign is going to be in the end. But there are other
security elites, economic and business elites, state media. There are lots of different pillars that support the status quo,
and if they can be disrupted or coerced into noncooperation, then that's a decisive factor.
The third thing is that the campaigns need to be able to have more than just protests; there needs to be a lot of variation
in the methods they use.
The fourth thing is that when campaigns are repressed -- which is basically inevitable for those calling for major changes
-- they don't either descend into chaos or opt for using violence themselves. If campaigns allow their repression to throw
the movement into total disarray or they use it as a pretext to militarize their campaign, then they're essentially co-signing
what the regime wants -- for the resisters to play on its own playing field. And they're probably going to get totally crushed.
Wai Sing-Rin @waisingrin • Aug 27
Replying to @ChrisFraser_HKU @edennnnnn_ and 2 others
Anyone who watched the lone frontliner (w translator) sees the frontliners are headed for disaster. They're fighting just
to fight with no plans nor objectives.
They see themselves as heroes protecting the HK they love. No doubt their sincerity, but there are 300 of them left.
"... The old adage that the 'sea is always the sea' holds true for US foreign policy. And Iran repeating the same old routines, whilst expecting different outcomes is, of course, one definition of madness. A new US Administration will inherit the same genes as the last. ..."
"... And in any case, the US is institutionally incapable of making a substantive deal with Iran. A US President – any President – cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran. The American multitudinous sanctions on Iran have become a decades' long knot of interpenetrating legislation: a vast rhizome of tangled, root-legislation that not even Alexander the Great might disentangle: that is why the JCPOA was constructed around a core of US Presidential 'waivers' needing to be renewed each six months. Whatever might be agreed in the future, the sanctions – 'waived' or not – are, as it were, 'forever'. ..."
"... "[So] decoupling is already in motion. Like the shift of tectonic plates, the move towards a new tech alignment with China increases the potential for sudden, destabilizing convulsions in the global economy and supply chains. To defend America's technology leadership, policymakers must upgrade their toolkit to ensure that US technology leadership can withstand the aftershocks. ..."
"... "The key driver of this shift has not been the President's tariffs, but a changing consensus among rank-and-file policymakers about what constitutes national security. This expansive new conception of national security is sensitive to a broad array of potential threats, including to the economic livelihood of the United States, the integrity of its citizens personal data, and the country's technological advantage". ..."
"... A Quinnipiac University survey last week found for the first time in Trump's presidency, more voters now say the economy is getting worse rather than better, by a 37-31 percent margin – and by 41-37 percent, voters say the president's policies are hurting the economy. ..."
"... This is hugely significant. If Trump is experiencing a crisis of public confidence in respect to his assertive policies towards China, the last thing that he needs in the run-up to an election is an oil crisis, on top of a tariff/tech war crisis with China. A wrong move with Iran, and global oil supplies easily can go awry. Markets would not be happy. (So Trump's China 'bind' can also be Iran's opportunity ). ..."
There is consensus amongst the Washington foreign policy élite that all factions in
Iran understand that – ultimately – a deal with Washington on the nuclear issue
must ensue. It somehow is inevitable. They view Iran simply as 'playing out the clock', until
the advent of a new Administration makes a 'deal' possible again. And then Iran surely will be
back at the table, they affirm.
Maybe. But maybe that is entirely wrong. Maybe the Iranian leadership no longer believes in
'deals' with Washington. Maybe they simply have had enough of western regime change antics
(from the 1953 coup to the Iraq war waged on Iran at the western behest, to the present attempt
at Iran's economic strangulation). They are
quitting that failed paradigm for something new, something different.
The pages to that chapter have been shut. This does not imply some rabid anti-Americanism,
but simply the experience that that path is pointless. If there is a 'clock being played out',
it is that of the tic-toc of western political and economic hegemony in the Middle East is
running down, and not the 'clock' of US domestic politics. The old adage that the 'sea is
always the sea' holds true for US foreign policy. And Iran repeating the same old routines,
whilst expecting different outcomes is, of course, one definition of madness. A new US
Administration will inherit the same genes as the last.
And in any case, the US is institutionally incapable of making a substantive deal with
Iran. A US President – any President – cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran.
The American multitudinous sanctions on Iran have become a decades' long knot of
interpenetrating legislation: a vast rhizome of tangled, root-legislation that not even
Alexander the Great might disentangle: that is why the JCPOA was constructed around a core of
US Presidential 'waivers' needing to be renewed each six months. Whatever might be agreed in
the future, the sanctions – 'waived' or not – are, as it were, 'forever'.
If recent history has taught the Iranians anything, it is that such flimsy 'process' in the
hands of a mercurial US President can simply be blown away like old dead leaves. Yes, the US
has a systemic problem: US sanctions are a one-way valve: so easy to flow out, but once poured
forth, there is no return inlet (beyond uncertain waivers issued at the pleasure of an
incumbent President).
But more than just a long chapter reaching its inevitable end, Iran is seeing another path
opening out. Trump is in a 'China bind': a trade deal with China now looks "tough to
improbable", according to White House officials, in the context of the fast deteriorating
environment of security tensions between Washington and Beijing. Defense One spells it out:
"It came without a breaking news alert or presidential tweet, but the technological
competition with China entered a new phase last month. Several developments quietly heralded
this shift: Cross-border investments between the United States and China plunged to their
lowest levels since 2014, with the tech sector suffering the most precipitous drop. US chip
giants Intel and AMD abruptly ended
or declined to extend important partnerships with Chinese entities. The Department of Commerce
halved the number of
licenses that let US companies assign Chinese nationals to sensitive technology and engineering
projects.
"[So] decoupling is already in motion. Like the shift of tectonic plates, the move
towards a new tech alignment with China increases the potential for sudden, destabilizing
convulsions in the global economy and supply chains. To defend America's technology leadership,
policymakers must upgrade their toolkit to ensure that US technology leadership can withstand
the aftershocks.
"The key driver of this shift has not been the President's tariffs, but a changing
consensus among rank-and-file policymakers about what constitutes national security. This
expansive new conception of national security is sensitive to a broad array of potential
threats, including to the economic livelihood of the United States, the integrity of its
citizens personal data, and the country's technological advantage".
Trump's China 'bind' is this: A trade deal with China has long been viewed by the White
House as a major tool for 'goosing' the US stock market upwards, during the crucial
pre-election period. But as that is now said to be "tough to improbable" – and as US
national security consensus metamorphoses, the consequent de-coupling, combined with tariffs,
is beginning to bite. The effects are eating away at President Trump's prime political asset:
the public confidence in his handling of the economy: A Quinnipiac University
survey last week
found for the first time in Trump's presidency, more voters now say the economy is getting
worse rather than better, by a 37-31 percent margin – and by 41-37 percent, voters say
the president's policies are hurting the economy.
This is hugely significant. If Trump is experiencing a crisis of public confidence in
respect to his assertive policies towards China, the last thing that he needs in the run-up to
an election is an oil crisis, on top of a tariff/tech war crisis with China. A wrong move with
Iran, and global oil supplies easily can go awry. Markets would not be happy. (So Trump's China
'bind' can also be Iran's opportunity ).
No wonder Pompeo acted with such alacrity to put a tourniquet on the brewing 'war' in the
Middle East, sparked by Israel's simultaneous air attacks last month in Iraq, inside Beirut,
and in Syria (killing two Hizbullah soldiers). It is pretty clear that Washington did not want
this 'war', at least not now. America, as Defense One
noted , is becoming acutely sensitive to any risks to the global financial system from
"sudden, destabilizing convulsions in the global economy".
The recent Israeli military operations coincided with Iranian FM Zarif's sudden summons to
Biarritz (during the G7), exacerbating fears
within the Israeli Security Cabinet that Trump might meet with President Rouhani in NY at
the UN General Assembly – thus threatening Netanyahu's anti-Iran,
political 'identity' . The fear was that Trump could begin a 'bromance' with the Iranian
President (on the Kim Jong Un lines). And hence the Israeli provocations intended to stir some
Iranian (over)-reaction (which never came). Subsequently it became clear to Israel that Iran's
leadership had absolutely no intention to meet with Trump – and the whole episode
subsided.
Trump's Iran 'bind' therefore is somehow similar to his China 'bind': With China, he
initially wanted an easy trade achievement, but it has proved to be 'anything but'. With Iran,
Trump wanted a razzmatazz meeting with Rohani – even if that did not lead to a new 'deal'
(much as the Trump – Kim Jung Un TV spectaculars that caught the American imagination so
vividly, he may have hoped for a similar response to a Rohani handshake, or he may have even
aspired to an Oval Office spectacular).
Trump simply cannot understand why the Iranians won't do this, and he is peeved by the snub.
Iran is unfathomable to Team Trump.
Well, maybe the Iranians just don't want to do it. Firstly, they don't need to: the Iranian
Rial has been recovering steadily over the last four months and manufacturing output has
steadied. China's General Administration of Customs (GAC) detailing the country's oil imports
data shows that China has not cut its Iranian supply after the US waiver program ended on 2
May, but rather, it has
steadily increased Iranian crude imports since the official end of the waiver extension, up
from May and June levels. The new GAC data shows China imported over 900,000 barrels per day
(bpd) of crude oil from Iran in July, which is up 4.7% from the month before.
And a new path is opening in front of Iran. After Biarritz, Zarif flew directly to Beijing
where he discussed a huge, multi-hundred
billion (according to
one report ), twenty-five-year oil and gas investment, (and a separate) 'Road and Belt'
transport plan. Though the details are not disclosed, it is plain that China – unlike
America – sees Iran as a key future strategic partner, and China seems perfectly able to
fathom out the Iranians, too.
But here is the really substantive US shift taking place. It is that which is termed
"a new normal" now
taking a hold in Washington:
"To defend America's technology leadership, policymakers [are] upgrading their toolkit to
ensure that US technology leadership can withstand the aftershocks Unlike the President's trade
war, support for this new, expansive definition of national security and technology is largely
bipartisan, and likely here to stay.
with many of the president's top advisers viewing China first and foremost as a national
security threat, rather than as an economic partner – it's poised to affect huge parts of
American life, from the cost of many consumer goods to the nature of this country's
relationship with the government of Taiwan.
"Trump himself still views China primarily through an economic prism. But the angrier he
gets with Beijing, the more receptive he is to his advisers' hawkish stances toward China that
go well beyond trade."
"The angrier he gets with Beijing" Well, here is the key point: Washington seems to have
lost the ability to summon the resources to try to fathom either China, or the Iranian 'closed
book', let alone a 'Byzantine' Russia. It is a colossal attenuation of consciousness in
Washington; a loss of conscious 'vitality' to the grip of some 'irrefutable logic' that allows
no empathy, no outreach, to 'otherness'. Washington (and some European élites) have
retreated into their 'niche' consciousness, their mental enclave, gated and protected, from
having to understand – or engage – with wider human experience.
To compensate for these lacunae, Washington looks rather, to an engineering and
technological solution: If we cannot summon empathy, or understand Xi or the Iranian Supreme
Leader, we can muster artificial intelligence to substitute – a 'toolkit' in which the US
intends to be global leader.
This type of solution – from the US perspective – maybe works for China, but not
so much for Iran; and Trump is not keen on a full war with Iran in the lead up to elections. Is
this why Trump seems to be losing interest in the Middle East? He doesn't understand it; he
hasn't the interest or the means to fathom it; and he doesn't want to bomb it. And the China
'bind' is going to be all absorbing for him, for the meantime.
"... A UN report published last week explicitly held the US, Britain and France liable for complicity in massive war crimes from their unstinting supply of warplanes, munitions and logistics to the Saudi and Emirati warplanes that have indiscriminately bombed civilians and public infrastructure. ..."
"... The infernal humanitarian conditions and complicity in war crimes can no longer be concealed by Washington's mendacity about allegedly combating "Iran subversion" in Yemen. The southern Arabian Peninsula country is an unmitigated PR disaster for official American pretensions of being a world leader in democratic and law-abiding virtue. ..."
"... After four years of relentless air strikes, which has become financially ruinous for the Saudi monarchy and its precocious Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who conceived the war, the Houthis still remain in control of the capital Sanaa and large swathes of the country. Barbaric bombardment and siege-starvation imposed on Yemen has not dislodged the rebels. ..."
"... The defeat is further complicated by the open conflict which has broken out over recent weeks between rival militants sponsored by the Saudis and Emiratis in the southern port city of Aden. There are reports of UAE warplanes attacking Saudi-backed militants and of Saudi force build-up. A war of words has erupted between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. There is strong possibility that the rival factions could blow up into a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, supposed coalition allies. ..."
"... When the US starts to talk about "ending the war" with a spin about concern for "mutual peace", then you know the sordid game is finally up. ..."
The war was launched by the US-backed Saudi coalition, including the United Arab Emirates,
in March 2015, without any provocation from Yemen. The precipitating factor was that the
Houthis, a mainly Shia rebel group aligned with Iran, had kicked out a corrupt Saudi-backed
dictator at the end of 2014. When he tucked tail and fled to exile in Saudi capital Riyadh,
that's when the Saudis launched their aerial bombing campaign on Yemen.
The slaughter in Yemen over the past four years has been nothing short of a calamity for the
population of nearly 28 million people. The UN estimates that nearly 80 per cent of the nation
is teetering on hunger and disease.
A UN report
published last week explicitly held the US, Britain and France liable for complicity in massive
war crimes from their unstinting supply of warplanes, munitions and logistics to the Saudi and
Emirati warplanes that have indiscriminately bombed civilians and public infrastructure. The UN
report also blamed the Houthis for committing atrocities. That may be so, but the preponderance
of deaths and destruction in Yemen is due to American, British and French military support to
the Saudi-led coalition. Up to 100,ooo civilians may have been killed from the Western-backed
blitzkrieg, while the Western media keep quoting a figure of "10,000", which magically never
seems to increase over the past four years.
Several factors are pressing the Trump administration to wind down the Yemen war.
The infernal humanitarian conditions and complicity in war crimes can no longer be concealed
by Washington's mendacity about allegedly combating "Iran subversion" in Yemen. The southern
Arabian Peninsula country is an unmitigated PR disaster for official American pretensions of
being a world leader in democratic and law-abiding virtue.
When the American Congress is united in calling for a ban on US arms to Saudi Arabia because
of the atrocities in Yemen, then we should know that the PR war has been lost. President Trump
over-ruled Congress earlier this year to continue arming the Saudis in Yemen. But even Trump
must at last be realizing his government's culpability for aiding and abetting genocide is no
longer excusable, even for the most credulous consumers of American propaganda.
After four years of relentless air strikes, which has become financially ruinous for the
Saudi monarchy and its precocious Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who conceived the war, the
Houthis still remain in control of the capital Sanaa and large swathes of the country. Barbaric
bombardment and siege-starvation imposed on Yemen has not dislodged the rebels.
Not only that but the Houthis have begun to take the war into the heart of Saudi Arabia.
Over the past year, the rebels have mounted increasingly sophisticated long-range drone and
ballistic missile attacks on Saudi military bases and the capital Riyadh. From where the
Houthis are receiving their more lethal weaponry is not clear. Maybe from Lebanon's Hezbollah
or from Iran. In any case, such supply if confirmed could be argued as legitimate support for a
country facing aggression.
No doubt the Houthis striking deep into Saudi territory has given the pampered monarchs in
Riyadh serious pause for thought.
When the UAE – the other main coalition partner – announced a month ago that it
was scaling back its involvement in Yemen that must have rattled Washington and Riyadh that the
war was indeed futile.
The defeat is further complicated by the open conflict
which has broken out over recent weeks between rival militants sponsored by the Saudis and
Emiratis in the southern port city of Aden. There are reports of
UAE warplanes attacking Saudi-backed militants and of Saudi force build-up. A war of words has
erupted between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. There is strong possibility that the rival factions could
blow up into a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, supposed coalition allies.
Washington has doubtless taken note of the unstoppable disaster in Yemen and how its
position is indefensible and infeasible.
Like so many other obscene American wars down through the decades, Washington is facing yet another ignominious defeat in
Yemen. When the US starts to talk about "ending the war" with a spin about concern for "mutual peace", then you know the
sordid game is finally up.
We have been in Afghanistan for how long? 16 years? It is our longest war. How much progress
have we actually made?
1. The government that we have tried so long to nurture controls a shrinking percentage of
both territory and population.
2. How much money have we poured into the pockets of crooks of all nationalities? In spite
of that the country is severely lacking in physical, social, legal, and business
infrastructure.
3. The country's armed forces have been expanded under NATO tutelage to such a size that the
small GDP will never be able to pay for them on its own. In spite of that they are unable even
to defend their own installations.
4. The country is still racked by tribal, ethnic and jihadi wars. It has always been thus
with the exception of a golden age when the last Afghan king ruled in the 50s and 60s. How did
he do that? He did it by careful inter-ethnic diplomacy and a minimum effort to "unify" his
realm.
5. Attacks on NATO personnel by Afghan soldiers and police continue.
6. The capital, Kabul, is not secured and is regularly attacked.
7. The much vaunted COIN doctrine has failed there as it has failed in so many places in the
world.
In spite of this the generals and the COIN nuts persist in trying to reverse Obama's policy
of withdrawal from the "country" (a geographical expression really). President Trump, who knows
nothing of things military or geo-political is about to begin the process of re-introducing US
combat and training forces into this blank space on the map, a space filled with hostile
tribesmen and religious fanatics. This blank space was given the dubious status of a state in
the international system of states because the Russians and the British wanted to establish a
buffer entity between the Tsar's empire and the Raj.
President Trump should be told that there is nothing there of real importance to the US,
nothing worth more vast quantities of our money and more rivers of our blood. Let the Afghans,
Chinese, Pakistanis, Iranians and Russians deal with the chaos. pl
"... The reaction to what's going on in Hong Kong that I've seen, amongst the educated Taiwanese classes, is that most are horrified by it, perceiving it as a spasm of nihilist, ignorant Hong Kong youth manipulated by cynical outside forces. ..."
"... If the US intelligence agencies believe that Taiwan will throw in support for Hong Kong following a protest like this, it should think again. People in Taiwan have become far more skeptical of the US-Taiwan relationship, since the Sunflower Movement. ..."
"... In Hong Kong the U.S. is making the usual mistake of betting on the extreme rightwing, libertarians and fascists. ..."
"... The rioting students have already lost much of the wider support they had at the beginning of this operations. They will soon be seen as the nihilist idiots who only care about themselves that they truly are. The people of Hong Kong who care about Hong Kong will fight them down. ..."
"... I disagree with your characterization of the rioting students as nihilist idiots. Many probably believe (with justification) that the liberties they currently enjoy are at stake if HK's system of self-governance is eroded away to nothing. However, you raise a good point about the Chinese leadership being provoked into another Tiananmen. The PNAC crowd must be frustrated with the widespread public perception of China as *just* a manipulative trade competitor/pseudo adversary. A very public bloodbath in HK is just what they need to promote China to Axis of Evil status. ..."
"... Most Chinese, I expect, just want to get on with their lives rather than agitate about the CCP. ..."
The reaction to what's going on in Hong Kong that I've seen, amongst the educated Taiwanese
classes, is that most are horrified by it, perceiving it as a spasm of nihilist, ignorant
Hong Kong youth manipulated by cynical outside forces.
Remember that support for Tsai Yingwen & her coalition remains somewhere in the 20 to
30% range--that is, very much near the same range that Chen Shuibian was afflicted with,
before he was prosecuted and sent off to prison for corruption.
If the US intelligence agencies believe that Taiwan will throw in support for Hong Kong
following a protest like this, it should think again. People in Taiwan have become far more
skeptical of the US-Taiwan relationship, since the Sunflower Movement.
Yes--there will be a period of chaos, as the majority slowly explains to the unruly
outliers that no, their ideas are not useful. Yes, as in Hong Kong, that period may last a
period that US/uk authorities may find untenable.
But no: none of this will result in a China-NATO war. None of this will result in a hard,
black line running between the Koreas, Taiwan, and Japan. None of this will stop the
Philippines from continuing their gravitation westward ("Eastward", for you Euroyanks.)
Taiwan, I predict, will be the second-to-last stalwart holdout against US hegemony in East
Asia--with Japan being the last.
I get a different perspective from Taiwanese business people who I speak with regularly. They
are uniform in their disgust and fear of CCP. What they seem most concerned about is that the
US will abandon them when push comes to shove.
They are watching what's happening in HK with
much interest and are privately very sympathetic to the aims of the people of HK to be
independent of CCP rule.
I will guess that you are living in Taiwan, otherwise how would you be able to see the
reaction among the educated Taiwanese classes?
I would have to read up on the names of the people and movements you have given us before
I could know anything about them.
I had not heard, way back here in Great Lakestan, that US intelligence agencies were
thinking about whether Taiwan would "support" Hong Kong or not, though I suppose the US
intelligence agencies try to think about every possible thing. It seems more likely to me
that the agencies would be thinking about how Taiwan does or does not plan to welcome the
ChiCom regime when it looks their way and says " okay, you're next".
So, the "majority" will explain to the unruly outliers how useless their ideas are? In
what sense is a pack of ChiCom Regime-Lords a "majority"? A "majority" of what or whom?
I hope you are correct that there will be no China-NATO war. American hegemony is fading
and I hope the slow fade-out leaves America intact as a free country. I hope America can
break free from the International Forcey-Free-TradeRape system.
Yes, as one hegemony fades away . . . another rises. Since Taiwan is largely Han-majority,
I believe, I suppose Taiwan will fare better under Great Han Lebensraumist ChiCom rule than
Tibet or Sinjiang or Inner Mongolia or or or . . .
And maybe Taiwan will find Chinese hegemony more enjoyable than the American kind. And aren't
you the lucky lad? You may get to find out within your own lifetime.
As Angel-Eyes said to the Colonel with gangrene: " I wish you luck."
You predicted the immediate introduction of Chinese troops in Hong Kong how many month
back? Where are they?
China does not care about Hong Kong. It will not be provoked into another NED/CIA arranged
Tianamen.
In Hong Kong the U.S. is making the usual mistake of betting on the extreme rightwing,
libertarians and fascists.
The rioting students have already lost much of the wider support they had at the beginning
of this operations. They will soon be seen as the nihilist idiots who only care about
themselves that they truly are. The people of Hong Kong who care about Hong Kong will fight
them down.
There is alas a consistency in our ruling elite's modus operandi: just look at DC's support
for Taliban, liver-eating Al Nusra (Al Qaeda) in Syria, slave-trader Jihadists in Libya &
above all, genocidal Salafists in Yemen, Boston-marathon-bombing Chechens & above all
Saudi terror-financing Clown Prince ⚙️Mohammad Bone Saw⚙️: it is
telling that you are more concerned about a dead ideology as opposed to an expanding current
dangerous movement.
I disagree with your characterization of the rioting students as nihilist idiots. Many
probably believe (with justification) that the liberties they currently enjoy are at stake if
HK's system of self-governance is eroded away to nothing. However, you raise a good point
about the Chinese leadership being provoked into another Tiananmen. The PNAC crowd must be
frustrated with the widespread public perception of China as *just* a manipulative trade
competitor/pseudo adversary. A very public bloodbath in HK is just what they need to promote
China to Axis of Evil status.
Mr Wong and his comrades would be well advised to treat support from an American
administration still full of neocons with a great deal of suspicion. I don't doubt that
people like Bolton would willingly goad them into escalating the confrontation until the PLA
is forced to crush them. They may do so anyway. But if the risk of contagion is low an
example can be made of HK without violence. If major disruption continues businesses will be
forced to relocate. HK could simply be allowed to rot as this happens, pour encourager les
autres.
I did not. Chinese troops were massing on the HK border in August. There was a general
strike and that was a possible flash point. I predicted that China would inevitably crush the
rebellion in Hong Kong. I stand by that. Your anti-Americanism is showing again,
Obviously they do care. As the quoted article noted, they are the ones who provoked this
situation. Students (and others) did not just rush out into the streets on a whim. They have
not endured police state violence and arrests in pursuit of being "nihilist idiots".
Their chances seem slim. The question that I don't see asked or answered is "Why hasn't
this been put down already?" That seems the only plausible end to it. The Chinese government
certainly has the capability.
Holding back is not an effect of any strictness about rules or
morals. Not having done it can only mean that they see costs or dangers that they are not
(yet) willing to face.
Personally I think that the (the government) and powerful people with
China derive a LOT of money and power from the perception of Hong Kong as a rule-of-law
environment. But I have seen very little discussion of the motives for holding off. The costs
of holding off are obvious. The reasons for doing so must be massive.
There are indications elsewhere on the web that China will try and quarantine HK and let it
slowly die. Provided this can be achieved there is no need for military action. As for
overseas chinese attitudes, I didn't see any support for HK when I was in Singapore last
month and demonstrations by Chinese students in Australia seem to be neatly divided into pro
and anti HK camps. Most Chinese, I expect, just want to get on with their lives rather than
agitate about the CCP.
G W Bush was responsible for North Korea developing nuclear weapons, the North Koreans did a
deal whereby the US would supply several light water reactors and 500,000 tons of oil per
year in exchange for NK not pursuing its nuclear program, the US accused the Koreans of
cheating [with no proof] and cancelled the agreement, thinking that sanctions and military
pressure would force Korea to capitulate. North Korea then decided to go nuclear. That same
US mistake is happening again with Iran, US hubris is on full display,but this time Iran has
the 'arc of resistance. on its side plus Russia and China. Trump will not go back to the
JCPOA it is not in his nature, the only thing we can hope for is a Trump defeat at the next
election, and hope an adult wins.
Harry Law #15. Harry, have you seen the people running for the Democratic nomination? Hope is
not a word I would use. Gabbard at least wants peace, but she will not be allowed to win the
nomination (she is too young in any case). And if by some miracle she were to be nominated
and win, she would not be allowed to carry out her own goals for peace. She would be defeated
or failing that, killed. As would anyone who really went up against the most powerful
political party in America, the War Party.
"... Rickards had previously worked for the CIA (possibly still does – who knows?) but now seems to be a free-wheeling business executive, writer and strategic analyst. He tends to circulate outside of the usual middle-ranking semi-elite circles preferring to consort with the less observable, higher-ranking coteries of the inner-party. Moreover, he has nothing but disdain for the run-of-the-mill talking heads to be found (in abundance) in the media and academia – the outer-party. ..."
"... History is the first casualty of media micro-second attention span. An army of pseudo-savants saturate the airways to explain that tariffs are bad, trade wars hurt growth and mercantilism are a throwback to the 17th century. These sentiments come from mainstream liberals and conservatives and tag-along journalists trained in the orthodoxy of so-called free-trade and the false if comforting belief that trade deficits are the flipside of capital surpluses. So, what is the problem? The problem is that perpetual trade deficits have put the United States on a path to a crisis of the US$."[ 1 ] ..."
"... Obama, both Bushes, and Bill Clinton were globalists, defined as those willing to trade-off or compromise US interests for the sake of a stronger global community even conservative hawks like Reagan and JFK were firmly in the globalist camp, as they relied on NATO, the UN and the IMF to pursue their cold war goals. ..."
"... LBJ's administration contrived to conduct the Vietnam War as well as an expensive social programme, simultaneously. A guns plus butter economy. (The original version of the Guns versus butter argument was given in a speech on January 17, 1936, in Nazi Germany. The then Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels stated: "We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without arms." ) ..."
"... Globally, the leading manufacturer of auto-vehicles is Volkswagen followed by Toyota. GM are 4th and Ford are 8th of ten. Hardly market leaders anymore, but Rickards apportions the blame to 'unfair practices' by foreign manufacturers and argues instead for tariffs. The same goes for other trade partners. Fact that the United States has to a large extent been deindustrialised was a political choice of its own making. ..."
"... There were a number of advantages which accrued to the dollar contingent on the ending of gold convertibility which Eichengreen listed these in his book. But the principle one was making the surplus nations of the world pay for America's wars with an unconvertible currency. Instead of being paid for in gold, or at least a gold-backed currency the world produced goods and services for a piece of green paper backed by nothing. ..."
"... This was to be expected quite simply because at bottom Rickards is a sophist much in the tradition of Protagoras, Gorgias and Thrasymachus "I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" [ 12 ] ..."
"... A view which Rickards would certainly endorse. Beneath the Upper Manhattan, polished chic, there resides a ruthless Cold Warrior. The further one digs into the book, the more this becomes apparent. ..."
"... Many of us are aware of the problems of the USD but few are able to so succinctly explain why and connect the dots to expose the true picture. The bottom line is that the lifespan of the USD as king is almost over ..."
"... The US has been exposed, and so well said, as a predator nation .There must be a reason why China and Russia are buying up as much gold as their economy will permit .The exchange medium used for trade since time immemorial . ..."
"... The Wall Street ethos has always been 'kill or be killed' where bears eat, and bulls eat, but pigs get slaughtered! The problem with today's market & stock valuations is that they are as hyperinflated as Real Estate Commercial & Residential sectors are which leaves no wiggle room for price discovery until there is a system wide crash that mean reverts the valuations back to a realistic price. ..."
"... All that is happening now is that Trump is trying to solve his country's intractable economic and financial problems by looting the rest of the planet. This is not a new development, but Trump is at least refreshingly honest in his public pronouncements. ..."
"... The Nazi Empire imposed tribute on its conquests in identical fashion. Send us your industrial output, agricultural produce and raw materials. In return we'll give you a big credit balance at the Reichsbank. ..."
"... The current (real) military budget is $1,134 billion, around 60% higher than the fictitious figure that is normally touted. ..."
"... Gold could form some kind of basis for exchange in a collapse setting. Other desirable barter items would be alcohol, cigarettes, basic drugs like aspirin and paracetamol, electrical batteries, fuel and similar goods. Maybe ammunition as well. Goods were priced in cigarettes in postwar Germany. ..."
"... Bismarck is normally credited with the choice between Guns and Butter. Goebbels was suggesting that Guns will bring Butter. ..."
"... The crime in all this is in the pursuit of money -- ultimately a wholly artificial concept -- we're wasting immense amounts of resources and human potential, spreading misery and despoliation all over the planet and generally behaving like really awful global citizens. We can and must do better. ..."
"... American exceptionalism, for example, takes it for granted that we in the West are good, and therefore the East must become more like us. But we are logically, and morally, obliged to look at this from the opposite perspective too: What if the Chinese take it for granted that they are good, and therefore the West must become more like them? ..."
"... American parasitism writ large over the last half century has amply signified to the entire world that 'manifest destiny' was merely a ruse to foist American hegemony onto all sovereign nations at the behest of an out-of-control American Oligopoly that was power-tripping post WW2 & drunk on the souls of the poor sots all over the entire world with their power hungry warmongering Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... Its not "American". We just happen to be the chosen host for this part of history. Before us it was the British Empire that was top dog. ..."
"... You have made the common mistake of asserting that it is America, instead of those who govern (the USA and its pundits) that have engineered the problems you point out. ..."
"... To condense this lengthy essay: This ship is sinking. ..."
"Aftermath" is the latest addition to three previous publications by Rickards, Currency Wars (2011), The Death of Money (2014),
The Road to Ruin (2016). Together, with the present offering (Aftermath, 2019), the author uses the analogy of the Four Horsemen
of the Apocalypse to illustrate the themes of his four books. The latest book is thematic in its approach to the events which have
taken place in the world in general and the United States in particular during this period.
HIGH SOCIETY
Rickards had previously worked for the CIA (possibly still does – who knows?) but now seems to be a free-wheeling business executive,
writer and strategic analyst. He tends to circulate outside of the usual middle-ranking semi-elite circles preferring to consort
with the less observable, higher-ranking coteries of the inner-party. Moreover, he has nothing but disdain for the run-of-the-mill
talking heads to be found (in abundance) in the media and academia – the outer-party.
His observations of this social stratum are unapologetic and caustic:
History is the first casualty of media micro-second attention span. An army of pseudo-savants saturate the airways to explain
that tariffs are bad, trade wars hurt growth and mercantilism are a throwback to the 17th century. These sentiments come from
mainstream liberals and conservatives and tag-along journalists trained in the orthodoxy of so-called free-trade and the false
if comforting belief that trade deficits are the flipside of capital surpluses. So, what is the problem? The problem is that perpetual
trade deficits have put the United States on a path to a crisis of the US$."[
1 ]
As is apparent, his contempt is palpable.
It should be said that much of his writing and theorising is at times occasioned by a high level of sophistication, alas sadly
lacking in most of his contemporaries. But for all his refinement and eloquence that doesn't stop him being, from Off Guardian's
perspective (and mine), on the other side – the side of the Anglo-Zionist empire.
THE GREAT BETRAYAL
Throughout this book and previous books there runs a familiar leitmotif; a sense of betrayal by the present dominant section of
the US elite. This is not by any means an unusual political phenomenon and bears comparison with the stab-in-the-back myth – a notion
doing the rounds in Germany circa 1918.
It held that the German Army did not lose World War I on the battlefield but it was 'traitors' on the home front, especially the
traitorous republicans who overthrew the Hohenzollern monarchy in the German Revolution of 1918–19.
This precedent loosely corresponds to Rickards' belief in the perfidy of the current leadership of the US and his vitriol is directed
against this globalist faction who are firmly ensconced in both Democrat and Republican parties and whom, he argues, have sold the
pass in terms of America's strategic interests. He writes:
Obama, both Bushes, and Bill Clinton were globalists, defined as those willing to trade-off or compromise US interests for
the sake of a stronger global community even conservative hawks like Reagan and JFK were firmly in the globalist camp, as they
relied on NATO, the UN and the IMF to pursue their cold war goals.
However, all was not lost. As a result of
the Presidential election of 2016 when Donald Trump was sworn in on 17 January 2017 as the strongest nationalist since Theodore
Roosevelt. For the first time in 100 years a committed nationalist was sitting in the Oval Office." [
2 ]
The event was obviously political grist to Rickards' mill.
However, precisely how this liberation of the US from the domestic globalists' stranglehold was to be brought about wasn't made
clear, and in fact is barely touched upon by Rickards.
Trump, for all his bombast and promises to Make America Great Again (MAGA), and pursue a radical foreign policy of withdrawal
from globalist wars of choice and military adventurism, has been conspicuous by its absence.
Moreover, from the outset he has been beset by the ancien regime of neo-conservatives and neo-liberals – Bolton, Pompeo and Pence
– entrenched in key US institutions, as well as various think-tanks and media who are still doggedly set upon the realization of
neo-con foreign policy goals.
It seems odd that Rickards doesn't see fit to comment on this important development given that Trumps' campaign promises have
disappeared almost without trace since he entered the Oval Office.
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID
Rickards is on firmer ground, however, when dissecting the 8th wonder of the world – US economic policy. The US sovereign debt
(i.e., the debt of the Federal Government) to GDP is now at a record, this is unprecedented for a peacetime administration.
In addition, it is also worth noting the magnitude of US private debt and unfunded future liabilities, pensions, Medicaid, social
security and so forth.
This would include household debt, student debt, financial debt, corporate debt, and municipal debt. Add this to sovereign debt
and you get a figure roughly 5 times US sovereign debt, and even this is regarded as being a conservative figure according to many
– see David Stockman, John Mauldin et al).
According to Rickards, the present situation has been largely the result of excess spending by both Democratic and Republican
administrations. The spending has either been on 'Defence' – a Republican favourite – or social like L.B. Johnson's 'Great Society'
programme – a Democratic favourite.
LBJ's administration contrived to conduct the Vietnam War as well as an expensive social programme, simultaneously. A guns plus
butter economy. (The original version of the Guns versus butter argument was given in a speech on January 17, 1936, in Nazi Germany.
The then Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels stated: "We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without
arms." )
LBJ's guns-and-butter policies were enacted in the late sixties at the height of the Vietnam war and the Tet Offensive. The utopian
attempt to have the best of both worlds brought LBJ's administration to an end; more importantly, perhaps it was also the beginning
of the process which brought down the curtain on the post WW2 economic world order established at the Bretton Woods conference in
1944.
Because the costs of the Vietnam war were superimposed on the economy not far effectively from full employment, the US domestic
sector was severely destabilised.
Instead of taxing the nation to pay for the war, the government engaged in the more acceptable practice of deficit financing
Vietnam showed that neither the United States nor any other democratic nation can ever again afford the foreign exchange costs
of conventional warfare, although the periphery was still kept in line by American military initiatives most recently in Yugoslavia
and Afghanistan.
The lesson in the long term is that peace will be maintained only by governments refusing to finance the military and other
excesses of the increasingly indebted imperial power." [
3 ]
The figure for the US sovereign debt – began to rise relentlessly from the 1980s onwards approaching wartime levels by the time
of the 2008 blowout.
It has been estimated by some economic theorists that any sovereign Debt-to-GDP figure greater than 60% represents a tripwire
whereby governments should act to rein in government expenditures.
The EU Maastricht criteria, for example, stipulated that EU Debt-to-GDP should not go over 60% except in certain circumstances
and an annual budgetary deficit should not be more than 3%.
That is a pretty tight monetary and fiscal policy EU style, but not to be outdone the spendthrift US was to go on a wild binge
in both fiscal and monetary terms the result of which is a now an unpayable mountain of debt. This gives an indication of how far
US economic policymaking has drifted away from any viable economic strategy.
Rickards fulminates:
To see how America came to this pretty pass we, one needs to review almost 40 years of fiscal policy under Presidents Reagan,
Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama and Trump from the period 1981-2019." [
4 ]
Under Reagan in 1981 US Debt-to-GDP ratio was 32.5%. The President was gung-ho for tax cuts and big spending increases, particularly
'defence' spending. This trend was continued under the tutelage of the Bushes and Clinton, and Debt-to-GDP ratio rose to 56.4% when
Bush Jr, took office and had risen to 82% by the time he left.
The Obama years saw the Debt-to-GDP rise to 100%. The diagram below 2009 debt-to-GDP was 82.3% This figure has risen inexorably
to over 100% in 2018. Yep, here we have the dreaded law of Diminishing returns. Every new dollar of input gives you 90 cents of output.
The above diagram illustrates the growth of debt vis-ŕ-vis National Income (GDP) since the 2008 blowout. Debt has been growing
progressively faster than National Income.
The US economy, like the US shale oil industry, has become a Ponzi scheme in all but name. The Fed's issuance of new debt to pay
off existing debt signals the key moment of the Minsky crisis.[
5 ]
There doesn't appear to be any viable way out this predicament short of a straight default. But Rickards argues that 'the United
States will never default on its debt because the Fed can simply print the money and to pay it off.' This will involve an engineered
inflation to wipe out the debt. But in fact, inflation is the default, a default by the back door. Getting paid in worthless currency
is in essence no different than not getting paid at all.
NO EXIT
As for solutions to a crisis which has seemingly reached the point of no return, all that Rickards can offer is a Japanese scenario
of low or zero growth punctuated by recession for the United States and by implication for the rest of the world. The United States
had its first long decade from 2007 to 2017 and is now into its second decade.
This growth pattern will persist absent of inflationary breakout which the Fed seems powerless to ignite in the short run;
a war; or severe depression perhaps caused by a new financial crisis.[
6 ]
Not much of a prospect for the average family then. But Rickards does give some useful advice to his more opulent readers on how
they should diversify their assets.
There are apparently "luxury bombproof bunkers built in former missile silos and expansive estates in New Zealand loaded with
rations and good wines."
Really? At this point one wonders if Mr Rickards is being serious or just smug.
SOCIAL IMMOBILITY AND THE RISE OF OLIGARCHY
The social and economic impact on levels of inequality in both the US and globally have been extremely deleterious and seem set
to continue. Inequality in income and wealth – a phenomenon identified and outlined by Thomas Piketty – is resulting in societies
which more and more resemble feudal economic and social structures rather than textbook capitalism. Social class is hardening into
social caste and rates of social mobility are decelerating at an alarming rate.
The liberal notion that the individual is the author of his/her own destiny has become a very dubious proposition when the drawbridges
of advantage, birth and preferment are drawn up. Moreover, high levels of income/wealth are not conducive to growth since the new
aristocracy owns most of the wealth/income which is hoarded rather than spent on investment and/or consumption. Stagnation, idled
capital and rent extraction becomes the economic norm.
Inequality is common in college admissions where the wealthy and connected continue to send their sons and daughters to elite schools
while the middle-class are restrained by sky-high tuitions and the burden of student loans.
It's true in the housing market where the rich picked up mansions on the cheap in foreclosure sales whilst the middle-class were
frozen in mortgage negative equity.
It's true in health care, where the rich could afford all the insurance they needed while the middle class were handicapped by
unemployment and the loss of job-related benefits. These disparities also affected the adult children of the middle-class. There
are no gold-plated benefits packages in the gig society
Research shows that fewer than 50% of all children aged 30 today earn more than their parents did at the same age. This 50% figure
compares with 60% who earned more in 1971, and 80% who earned more in 1950.
The American dream of each generation earning more than the prior generation is collapsing before our eyes The middle class is
getting poorer on a relative basis and lagging further behind the rich whose incomes absorb an increasing share of total GDP The
manner in which the rich become rich is variable.
It could be due to a number of unrelated factors Problems arise in the way that the rich stay rich become richer and pass on wealth
to their children and grandchildren." [
7 ]
It is a matter of common knowledge that the traditional techniques of preserving and creating wealth have been long established
in law, customs, education and socialization; these traditional methods being practised over decades, if not centuries, have produced
a system of elite self-recruitment, one moreover which endures through time.
Many of the richest US citizens – e.g., Buffet, Bezos, Zuckerberg – pay minimal tax demands. Much of the wealth of the richest
Americans is never taxed because they hold onto real estate and stocks and pass them onto their beneficiaries tax-free. This is one
of a perfectly legal method of avoiding tax; there are many more too numerous to cite which include various other examples of tax
avoidance/evasion.
Levels of income and wealth inequality within states are usually measured by what is called the Gini Co-efficient. This measure
is a commonly used measure of income inequality that condenses the entire income distribution for a country into a single number
between 0 and 1 or 0% to 100%: the higher the number, the greater the degree of inequality. A rough estimate of inequality is a figure
above 40%.
The United States and China are in the low forties, surrounded by underdeveloped and developing states such as The Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Burundi and El Salvador. At the other end of the spectrum are Sweden, Norway and Iceland.
In this connection the by now well-known study carried out by two American academics at Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens
and North western University Prof Benjamin Page argue that the US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial
independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent
influence."
In plain English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public
policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest
groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association
and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations
and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to be a democratic society are seriously threatened."
In summation, both gentlemen concluded that in essence the US was an oligarchy not a properly functioning democracy. All very
true but somewhat self-evident.
Rickards regards the present situation as being irreversible. He does not present any alternative to this trend other than some
vague hopes that the 'nationalist' President in the Oval Office will turn things around – MAGA in fact.
The golden age of post WW2 capitalism ended when Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard in August 1971, which was in effect
a default by the US. Holders of surplus dollars in Europe who were no longer able to swap these dollars for gold but were merely
presented with other US$s with which they had to purchase US Treasurys (Bonds) debts which were never going to be repaid. In the
age of fiat currencies Europe and various other holders of US Treasuries were in fact subsidizing the United States.
POOR LITTLE AMERICA
At this point the book becomes one long whinge about how hard done-by America has been and how the rest of the world has taken
advantage of this benign gentle giant. This rather bizarre belief calls for further analysis. The US pays some of the bill for NATO
whilst European nations pay insufficient amounts for the 'defence' of their countries.
It should be pointed out, however, that in terms of military hardware the NATO alliance is standardized to American specifications.
This means large-scale purchasing of US war materiel which is a gift bonus to the US armaments industry.
Then Germany has the nerve to buy Russian gas transported to Europe via Nordstream 2 which is cheaper and more reliable than US
Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), when in fact they should be buying more expensive and less reliable US LNG. Apparently, Germany ought
really to be subsidising the US shale oil Ponzi racket. Bad, ungrateful Germany.
Then comes the incessant carping regarding trade policy and trade deals. The US in its speed to become a cool, post-modern, financialised
economy apparently forgot about the importance of production. In the automobile industry the once dominant US triad of General Motors,
Ford and Chrysler are no longer in the vanguard and Japan, with South Korea catching up, is now the leading country in the export
of auto vehicles, a position which the US once held. It was the Japanese auto industry which pioneered production methods including
just-in-time deliveries and lean production (Toyota). Was anyone stopping the Americans from innovating?
In rank order. Figures quoted in Global Shift – Peter Dicken.
Globally, the leading manufacturer of auto-vehicles is Volkswagen followed by Toyota. GM are 4th and Ford are 8th of ten.
Hardly market leaders anymore, but Rickards apportions the blame to 'unfair practices' by foreign manufacturers and argues instead
for tariffs. The same goes for other trade partners. Fact that the United States has to a large extent been deindustrialised was
a political choice of its own making.
If the US has lost ground in the competition for trade on world markets that is because of its own insular provincialism and hubris,
not foreign competitive malpractice. Moreover, much of its productive industry which remains has been outsourced to low cost venues
such as China. The US more than anyone should know that its competitors are simply using the same policies that it itself used during
the 19th century to break British trade hegemony.
It has been the same story with agriculture. Trade liberalization (this must rank as the greatest misnomer of trade theory) and
trade treaties have been an example of the blatant unfairness of such agreements. During the Uruguay round of 'talks' (1982-2000):
the United States pushed other countries to open up their markets to areas of 'our' (i.e. the US's) strength, but resisted, successfully
so, to efforts to make us reciprocate.
Construction and maritime services, the areas of advantage of many developing countries were not included in the new agreement.
Worse still, financial services liberalization was arguably even harmful to some developing countries: as large international (read
American) banks squelched local competitors denying them the funds they garnered would be channelled to the international firms with
which they felt comfortable, not the small and medium-sized local firms
As foreign banks took over the banking systems of like Argentina and Mexico worries about small and medium sized firms within
these countries being starved of funds have been repeatedly voiced.
Whether these concerns are valid or not, whether they are exaggerated or not, is not the issue: the issue is that countries should
have the right to make these decisions themselves, as the United States did in its own country during its formative years; but under
the new international rules that America had pushed, countries were being deprived of that right.
Suffice it to say that agriculture has always been a flagrant example of the double standards inherent in the US trade liberalization
agenda. Although we insisted that other countries reduce their barriers to our products and eliminate the subsidies for which those
products competed against ours, the United States kept barriers for the goods produced by the developing countries, and the US continued
massive subsidies to its own produce. [
8 ] EXORBITANT PRIVILEGE
Oh, I almost forgot: the imperial tribute that the world pays to the hegemon; aka the reserve status of the dollar. The role of
the US dollar in the world's political economy gives it advantages which the rest of the dollar surplus-states are dragooned into
accepting. In the late sixties early seventies, the US was on the verge of technical bankruptcy due to its spending profligacy at
home and military adventurism in Indochina. It had three choices of how to deal with this acute problem.
[The] 3 courses open to the US government on the collapse of the Gold Pool in London in 1968 were: immediately pull out of
the war in South-East Asia and cut back overseas and domestic military expenditure to allow the dollar to firm again on world
markets; to continue the war paying for its foreign exchange costs with further outflows of Fort Knox gold; or to induce the Europeans
and other payments surplus areas to continue to accumulate surplus dollars and dollar equivalents (US Treasuries) not convertible
into gold." [ 9 ]
Of course, it was option three that appealed and Nixon in his television broadcast was to announce a 'temporary' suspension of
gold sales by the US to its overseas 'partners'.
The date in question, 15 August 1971, marked the end of one epoch and the beginning of another. The temporary suspension soon
morphed into a permanent one and a global fiat currency regime based on the dollar came into being. This represented a culmination
of a situation in which the US manipulation of the dollar was termed the 'Exorbitant Privilege' by the senior French politician Valery
Giscard d'Estaing. And privilege it was.
The central political fact is that the dollar standard places the direction of the world monetary policy in the hands of a
single country which thereby acquires great influence over the economic destiny of others. It is one thing to sacrifice sovereignty
in the interests of interdependence; it is quite another when the relationship is one-way.
The difference is that between the EEC(EU) and a colonial empire. The brute fact is that the acceptance of a dollar standard
necessarily implies a degree of asymmetry in power which, although it actually existed in the early post-war years, had vanished
by the time that the world sliding into a reluctant dollar standard." [
10 ]
There were a number of advantages which accrued to the dollar contingent on the ending of gold convertibility which Eichengreen
listed these in his book. But the principle one was making the surplus nations of the world pay for America's wars with an unconvertible
currency. Instead of being paid for in gold, or at least a gold-backed currency the world produced goods and services for a piece
of green paper backed by nothing.
Quite a clever little racket when you think about it.
Better still is the way that the two biggest surplus nations, Japan and China, have been the US's main creditors, bankrolling
the US by buying its Treasuries. This had another intended, or perhaps unintended effect: long term interest rates on US bonds came
down (since bond prices and bond interest rates move in opposite directions) and enabled the property bubble to expand until the
inevitable blow-out in 2008.
In mafia terms the US dollar has been a 'made' currency enjoying a set of privileges and protection which it did not earn but
foisted upon others. This is a unique dispensation which is enjoyed by the US to which the rest of the world is excluded.
However, it is in the nature of things that privileges will ultimately get abused. In pushing its luck to the point of abuse the
US should be aware that initial signs are that the world is sloughing off the US dollar. As it proceeds in that direction, the US
currency will lose its position as the global reserve asset. Holders of trillions of dollar-denominated assets will become sellers
eventuating in a collapse of the currency.
The US economy lives like a parasite off its partners in the global system, with virtually no savings of its own. The World
produces whilst North America consumes. The advantage of the US is that of a predator whose advantage is covered, by what others
agree, or are forced, to contribute.
Washington uses various means to make up for its deficiencies: for example, repeated violations of the principles of liberalism,
arms exports, and the hunting-down of oil super-profits (which involves the periodic felling of producers; one of the real motives
behind the wars in Iraq and Central Asia).
But the fact is that the bulk of the American deficit is covered by capital inputs from Europe and Japan, China and the South,
rich oil-producing countries and comprador classes from all regions, including the poorest, in the third world, to which should
be added the debt-service levy that is imposed on nearly every country in the periphery of the global system. The US superpower
depends from day to day on the flow of capital which sustains its economy and society. The vulnerability of the United States
represents a serious danger to Washington's project." [
11 ]
In light of the above we may conclude that – in spite of the irritating name-dropping – Rickards' books are interesting well written
and well-argued; per contra they are very light on facts which have been left deliberately unexamined as well as counter-narratives
which have also been ignored.
This was to be expected quite simply because at bottom Rickards is a sophist much in the tradition of Protagoras, Gorgias
and Thrasymachus "I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" [
12 ]
A view which Rickards would certainly endorse. Beneath the Upper Manhattan, polished chic, there resides a ruthless Cold Warrior.
The further one digs into the book, the more this becomes apparent.
NOTES:-
[1] Rickards – Aftermath – page.21
[2] Ibid., – page.65
[3] Michael Hudson – Super Imperialism – pp.298/99, 32.
[4] Rickards – Ibid. – page.66
[5] Hyman Minsky's theories about debt accumulation received revived attention in the media during the subprime mortgage crisis
of the late 2000s. The New Yorker has labelled it "the Minsky Moment". Minsky argued that a key mechanism that pushes an economy
towards a crisis is the accumulation of debt by the non-government sector. He identified three types of borrowers that contribute
to the accumulation of insolvent debt: hedge borrowers, speculative borrowers, and Ponzi borrowers.
The "hedge borrower" can make debt payments (covering interest and principal) from current cash flows from investments. For
the "speculative borrower", the cash flow from investments can service the debt, i.e., cover the interest due, but the borrower
must regularly roll over, or re-borrow, the principal. The "Ponzi borrower" (named for Charles Ponzi, see also Ponzi scheme) borrows
based on the belief that the appreciation of the value of the asset will be sufficient to refinance the debt but could not make
sufficient payments on interest or principal with the cash flow from investments; only the appreciating asset value can keep the
Ponzi borrower afloat.
[6] Rickards – Ibid., page.85
[7] Rickards – Ibid., page.239
[8] Joseph Stiglitz – The Roaring 90s – pp.206/207
[9] Gold Pool 1968. The price of one troy ounce of gold was pegged to US$35. The larger the gap, known as the gold window,
between free market gold price and the foreign exchange rate, the more tempting it was for nations to deal with internal economic
crises by buying gold at the Bretton Woods price and selling it in the gold markets. It couldn't last and it didn't.
[10] Michael Hudson – Ibid. – p.309
[11] Barry Eichengreen – Exorbitant Privilege – passim.
Frank Lee left school at age 15 without any qualifications,
but gained degrees from both New College Oxford and the London School of Economics (it's a long story). He spent many years as a
lecturer in politics and economics, and in the Civil Service, before retirement. He lives in Sutton with his wife and little dog.
Guy
Excellent article by Frank Lee. Many of us are aware of the problems of the USD but few are able to so succinctly explain
why and connect the dots to expose the true picture. The bottom line is that the lifespan of the USD as king is almost over
.There will not be any rabbit pulled out of the hat to make America great again.That is a feel good cliché used to further
induce the population to go back to sleep.
The US has been exposed, and so well said, as a predator nation .There must be a reason why China and Russia are buying
up as much gold as their economy will permit .The exchange medium used for trade since time immemorial .
FoodBowl
Measuring 'National Debt as a Portion of the US Economy' is for economics classes and for newspapers to publish. The Criminal
Elites look at things differently. They measure the National Debt as a Portion of the 'FEROCIOUS BOMBING POWER the US Possess'.
Also, 'Spreading Chaos Capabilities' is added to the Bombing Power.
From this point of view, they see enormous assets, and the debts becomes less worrying as they see less urgency to deal with
this ever growing liabilities.
Fair dinkum
No analysis required because it's always been the same. The few exploit the many. This has fed the cancers of psychopathy, messiah
complexes and endless wars.
We are rushing towards the midnight sun.
MASTER OF UNIVE
The Wall Street ethos has always been 'kill or be killed' where bears eat, and bulls eat, but pigs get slaughtered! The problem
with today's market & stock valuations is that they are as hyperinflated as Real Estate Commercial & Residential sectors are which
leaves no wiggle room for price discovery until there is a system wide crash that mean reverts the valuations back to a realistic
price.
Warren Buffett is currently sitting on $55 billion in cash so that he does not get destroyed on the upcoming systemic wide
crash. Buffett has never pulled this kind of bread from the table in his lifetime whilst waiting for a systemic crash & the inevitable
fat tail blowout that is poised to rip the face off of the USA & EU as their eyeballs get ripped out too.
Ripping a face off & ripping eyeballs out is day trader speak for kicking counterparties in the groin for the deal. The French
Revolution was all about teaching the financial elite predator class of monetary control freaks who the boss really is when the
gravy train slows during Financial Winter.
And if they can't take the heat they should get out of the kitchen!
RW
mark
All that is happening now is that Trump is trying to solve his country's intractable economic and financial problems by looting
the rest of the planet. This is not a new development, but Trump is at least refreshingly honest in his public pronouncements.
It has always been thus.
The Roman Empire imposed tribute on its subjects. You have to send us so much grain, cattle, so many slaves, so much timber
for shipbuilding, so much precious metal and base metal, so many wild beasts for our circuses. In return we won't kill you.
The Nazi Empire imposed tribute on its conquests in identical fashion. Send us your industrial output, agricultural
produce and raw materials. In return we'll give you a big credit balance at the Reichsbank.
Uncle Sugar says send me your BMWs, fine wines, electronic gadgets, oil and minerals. In return I'll give you some worthless
little pieces of green paper you can exchange for worthless IOUs called Treasury Bills.
The current (real) military budget is $1,134 billion, around 60% higher than the fictitious figure that is normally touted.
The trade deficit is $900 billion. The budget deficit $1,175 billion, over 20% of the overall budget.
America is borrowing around $4 billion a day from the rest of the world. Uncle Sam is the biggest scrounger, parasite, leech,
bludger, and panhandler in the history of the planet.
The official national debt of $22.5 trillion understates the true position by a factor of over ten. Every US man, woman, child,
and babe in arms is in hock to the tune of over $700,000.
The global economy is about to crash, yet again (because it's never really recovered from the 2008 crash)'. Answers on a postcard,
please (and one that doesn't involve giving the banksters eye-watering amounts of money).
Frank Lodge
Without reading the book in question, this seems like an thoroughly sound and incisive review. Just one thing, "cometh" takes
a singular subject.
BigB
Rickards attitude is famously: "Buy gold" to which he creates a fear porn scenario around the coming recession. His solution:
"Buy gold". Not, lets look at the conditions that are causing the underlying boom and bust business cycles and find a solution
that works for humanity. His solution: "Buy gold" which the likes of he and the others who are driving the business cyclical waves
of mutilation have already done to hedge their portfolios. Fuck Ricards. I have no time for those who wish to profit from the
overfinancial immiseration of humanity. And you know where you can stick your gold.
Good luck to anyone who produces gold in an actual collapse scenario. So you need to buy guns and bodyguards for self-protection
if you buy gold...
mark
Gold could form some kind of basis for exchange in a collapse setting. Other desirable barter items would be alcohol, cigarettes,
basic drugs like aspirin and paracetamol, electrical batteries, fuel and similar goods. Maybe ammunition as well. Goods were priced
in cigarettes in postwar Germany.
Gold would probably be of use. Gemstones, jewellery, would not. 99.9% of people are unable to distinguish a real diamond from
a piece of glass.
bevin
"he original version of the Guns versus butter argument was given in a speech on January 17, 1936, in Nazi Germany." Not for the
first time Wikipedia is wrong here. Bismarck is normally credited with the choice between Guns and Butter. Goebbels was suggesting
that Guns will bring Butter.
Martin Usher
Its nice to see this in a book but its really common knowledge. The only thing I'd dispute is this notion of an 'elite', there
is no such thing, its just greed holding the reins -- its like a mass FOMO, nobody's willing to take the long view because it
might mean they'll miss out on what they can grab right now.
The danger we face from this is that if a large enough economic bloc runs by more rational rules then its going to eventually
cream us economically. This forces us to destroy it. This is what's at the bottom of our problems with China. The USSR wasn't
strong or well organized enough to pose a real threat to us so it could be taken down primarily by economic means. The Chinese
learned their lesson from the Russian experience and 'played nice' which they built their country up -- we all heard the commentariat
from a few years ago about them 'not really being communists any more'. Now they're in a position to look us in the eye so we've
got to confront them, to take them down. (You'll notice that one of the conditions that will end the trade war is the 'liberalizing
of capital markets' -- that is, we need to take over their banking system and currency.) If -- when -- this fails then the only
recourse would be actual war.
The crime in all this is in the pursuit of money -- ultimately a wholly artificial concept -- we're wasting immense amounts
of resources and human potential, spreading misery and despoliation all over the planet and generally behaving like really awful
global citizens. We can and must do better.
wardropper
And we certainly must stop talking about "taking down" the Chinese, and instead actually try to understand where they come from,
with their roots in a far more ancient civilized society than ours.
American exceptionalism, for example, takes it for granted that we in the West are good, and therefore the East must become
more like us. But we are logically, and morally, obliged to look at this from the opposite perspective too: What if the Chinese
take it for granted that they are good, and therefore the West must become more like them?
I have been to China, and found the people there to consist of the same mixtures of honest, good, nondescript, sinister and
deplorable as we have here at home.
They also share exactly the same fundamental problem as we do: Their politicians and their people, like ours, are two entirely
separate things. Of course the origins of Chinese, or Russian, society are different from ours, but that is no reason to despise
them. Our origins are often pretty despicable too.
Antonym
The Chinese people are as materialistic or spiritual as any; it is the local deep state (CPC) totalitarian culture that needs
to change.
Robbobbobin
"The crime in all this is in the pursuit of money -- [w]e can and must do better."
Three thousand years?
He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase: this is also vanity.
–Ecclesiastes 5:10
Two thousand years?
For the love of money is the root of all evil –1 Timothy 6:10
Surely the Anti Deceased Equine Distress Society has lobbied some sort of statute of limitations onto the books by now?
MASTER OF UNIVE
American parasitism writ large over the last half century has amply signified to the entire world that 'manifest destiny'
was merely a ruse to foist American hegemony onto all sovereign nations at the behest of an out-of-control American Oligopoly
that was power-tripping post WW2 & drunk on the souls of the poor sots all over the entire world with their power hungry warmongering
Military Industrial Complex.
Proof of their combined ignorance with respect to Cybernetics & Systems Theory was their willingness to follow the likes of
the Vietnam War architects that assumed incorrectly that they could impose a closed-looped cybernetic control system over world
finance & mercantilism throughout the entire world at the behest of academic failures like Macnamera who would not know a 'closed-looped
cybernetic' from an open-looped cybernetic if his life & legacy depended on it.
Simply put, American printing presses at the privately owned Federal Reserve cannot even remotely help or assist in anymore
financial profligacy for the Neoconservative or Neoliberal camps of the cerebrally sclerotic & Early Onset Dementia riddled, &
uneducated, financial buffoons that emanated out of the now defunct Chicago School headed up by Strauss et al. in the 60s & 70s.
All the macroeconomic indicators over the last two decades have clearly indicated that the Greenspan era of asset inflation
was nothing more than the undoing of Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker's hard won success during his tenure pre-Greenspan 'Maestro'
halcyon days of animal spirits run amok.
In brief, the United States of America can eat my shorts as it is solely responsible for manufacturing a finance control system
& requisite money pump fraud that is nothing more than a worldwide Ponzi scheme to defraud the entire world of disposable income
& discretionary income gain so that all gains accrue to the rentier class of speculative investors like Warren Buffett & Bob Paulson.
Bottom line is that Warren Buffett will have to purchase all the new automobiles, trucks, houses, mansions, cottages, farms,
cites, towns, railroads, roads, & precious metals as the emerging markets & first world markets all decouple just as Professor
Emeritus Benoit Mandelbrot hypothesized they would just before he died.
Go ahead, America, print the fake fiat greenbacks to infinity in vain hope of extricating yourselves from the intractable financial
muck & mire you are most assuredly going to find yourselves in this approaching October 2019.
Go ahead, Punk, make my day!
Are you feeling lucky, Punk?
RW
Martin Usher
Its not "American". We just happen to be the chosen host for this part of history. Before us it was the British Empire that
was top dog.
Money has no particular loyalty to a country. In pre-WW1 Europe the bourgeois were all intermarried, connected primarily by
wealth and power regardless of their nominal nationality, our present equivalent are similarly connected. Just like WW1 when the
chips are down we -- the ordinary people -- will be sacrificed on the alter of patriotism while they'll survive and prosper.
MASTER OF UNIVE
March 10th 2008 around 11:00am Bear Stearns time New York shitty was the virtual end of American hegemony worldwide forever more
into the obvious future of Macroeconomics & Macroprudential Policy as an ongoing concern. Debt-to-GDP of all sovereign Western
imperialist nations is intractably North of any semblance of sustainability vis-a-vis Finance worldwide or within Emerging Economies
or First World Developed Economies.
Intractable debt limits were broached when Nixon declared the bankruptcy of the Bretton Woods infrastructure of gold backed
USA Reserve Currency Status and then opted in ignorance for the petro-dollar bait & switch fiat USD Finance capture worldwide
which has now come home to roost across the rust belt of the heartland USA, and in places that were once bastions of manufacturing
for the middle class USA blue collar worker such as Detroit or Chicago. Today the business model of the USA is transnationalist
whereby places across the USA are not even remotely financed into that transnationalist Wall Street model of Finance that is wholly
parasitic to the point of crashing mainstreet USA across all sectors of the Service Sector Industries that were supposed to be
replacing the long lost USA Manufacturing Base that was offshored to the Third World sovereigns that would temporarly increase
profit margins for the transnationalist class of corporate parasites run amok to collectively destroy all life on Planet Earth
for centuries to come if we are lucky.
RW
martin
You have made the common mistake of asserting that it is America, instead of those who govern (the USA and its pundits)
that have engineered the problems you point out.
Why would the two parties in congress (Article II followers) and the two fellows with the Article II power, continue to [expand
the debt in fake, made up and useless expenses], unless they were controlled by external forces?
Maybe bankers and their high powered corporations are finding they can no longer easily dupe Americans into delivering their
resources into the pockets of the wealthy. Maybe the American people have drawn the line, no more, will they produce for the IMF,
world bank?
Maybe Americans have decided to refuse the tax burdens imposed to retire the fed debt? Maybe foreign nations have denied the
banks and their corporations access to their resources as a means to pay the USA debt? Maybe script has been recognized as a false
capital in-capable of ruling the world? Maybe organized criminals have taken up positions in the western governments and used
those positions to force on the governed many things? Maybe burdening the USA with debt is part of the plan to bankrupt America?
<==but why should the banks bankrupt America, why has access to education been limited, why has the USA spied on Americans? Why
have the governed Americans been denied access to the USA? Has the USA retired Americans from productive jobs, in order to accelerate
the demise of America? The USA has made Americans into debtors obligated to pay bankers in the form of taxes to be collected by
the USA and remitted to the bankers. <= just as is now occurring in Britain, Greece, France, and other places. Privatization,
monopolization and conversion from public to private franchising and ownership have served as the transforming agents that have
made the elite so wealthy.
Economic Zionism. as opposed to government regulated capitalism, condones no competition, allows no prisoners and either
takes or destroys all likely competitive elements (persons, corporations, or nations) Economic Zionism demands the government
that governs (as in USA governance over Americans) assist in rendering Americans broke. Is it because until Americans are broke,
the EZ bandits are hampered? Is scooping resources into private, monopoly powered, already wealthy hands, the goodies to be had
the goal? Maybe the USA is a privatizing agent instead of a benefactor serving Americans?
In USA governed America, there is much very-productive farm land, millions of tons of minerals, many productive seaports, and
tons and tons of money making monopolies (patents, copyrights, royalties, government franchised goodies, lucrative government
contracts, and plenty of government services and resources) to be privatized for profit. The goodies are located in thousands
of acres of rich farmland, the major ports and services attached thereto, and embedded within little domestic American companies
which the USA debt will eventually burden into bankruptcy. After all "scalping a bankruptcy" is historically a speciality of economic
zionism.
MASTER OF UNIVE
In 1994 JPMorgan management & traders went on a little holiday in Miami to concoct the Global Ponzi of debt & risk associated
with loans into what is known today as the Financialization Process whereby bank risk would be shuffled off of investment bank
balance sheets and onto those speculators that wanted to purchase all that risk involved in the bank portfolios en masse because
they knew how to offload that risk to unsuspecting greater fools that were always certain to come knocking in a climate of upward
growth and yield curve convexity. But the chink in their financial alchemy was obviously debt limits and the ability to track
the risk to the system as a whole given that all transactions in the derivatives world are dark & unregulated due to the helmsmen
like the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson who previous to being nominated as Treasury Secretary was in fact the top man at Goldman
Sachs where he raked in approximately a smooth billion before traversing the revolving door between the Whore House & Goldman
Sachs New York shitty offices.
Casino Banking morphed into Late Stage Ponzi Capitalism when Bob Paulson wanted more Residential Mortgage Backed Security issuance
and pressured Goldman Sachs into providing more issuance via NINJA loans & Liar Loans after 05 when the Wall Street speculators
had to go bottom feeding for loan issuance in order to meet investor demand & apatite for their unhinged Gordon Gecko greed.
'Maestro' Greenspan emphasized his 'flaw' in his macroeconomic model of the world when the investor greed broached fat tails
on the order of a 10% crash of the power laws of distributions of loan issuance. Greenspan never assumed that the Financialization
Process would exceed a default scenario greater than 5-7% of no-performing loans in the subprime issuance tranche.
American exceptionalism via Henry Paulson USA Treasury Secretary 08 is what rendered American Late Stage Ponzi Capitalism wholly
defunct going forward into 2020 & beyond with a permanent lower bound CB Interest Rate Regime & specter of WW3 hot conflagration.
My money is on the pinko Commie bastards this time round the sovereign insolvency loop of domestic misery USA.
WELCOME to the New World Disorder!
RW
nottheonly1
To condense this lengthy essay: This ship is sinking.
This would include household debt, student debt, financial debt, corporate debt, and municipal debt. Add this to sovereign
debt and you get a figure roughly 5 times US sovereign debt, and even this is regarded as being a conservative figure according
to many
One – at least on this side of the screen – cannot but think that all this is by design. The cart is driven intentionally off
the cliff. To start off with a clean slate? Where the wealthy still have their wealth, but the suckers are depending on hand-outs?
An old proverb alledges that: To borrow brings sorrow.
To which only those who make loads of money from lending will disagree. Where are the solutions? No solutions, just listicles
as to how bad it all is? Sure, the West is reminiscent of the HMS Titanic – with the slight difference of the hole made by the
iceberg (debt) extending over the whole length of the ship. It is listing beyond dancing.
Well, I am willing to tell a secret (that isn't one anymore for quite some time):
Outlaw/prohibit Interest .
Prohibit capital gains . Or tax them with 99%.
Prevent under all circumstances a continuation of Performanceless Profits .
Make them punishable with prison time of no less than half of the age at which they were perpetrated. You're 30? You're going
in for 15. You're 65? Easy math.
Fact is, that there are solutions galore to save our souls. Problem is, those whose lives are depending on them, don't demand
them to be implemented. And why would the wealthy tax non-payers like Bezos et al want to change their 'winning team'? That is
a well known no-no. The only solution the masses of the little people can hope for is 'Force Majeur' that works to their benefit.
Shall we wait for that to happen?
PATRICK
COCKBURN: I'm a bit doubtful about it. They have done a certain amount, this offer of a $15
billion credit line, to make up for the loss of Iranian oil revenue It was a French idea
originally, but they are asking Iran to step right back into the old nuclear deal, but the
Iranians are not likely to do that while they're subject to US sanctions. US sanctions and the
sanctioning of European companies or banks that deal with Iran, basically means that Iran is
facing an economic siege.
So these are maneuvers. The Iranians want to show they're being kind of moderate. They want
to preserve this deal as they do. At the same time, they don't want to look as though they're
pushovers, that sanctions are squeezing them to death, and they've got no alternative but to
give up. This would be to surrender to what Trump calls the policy of maximum pressure. I think
we're a long way from any real agreement on this. It's still escalating. GREG WILPERT: Iran
also just recently announced that it is releasing seven of the 23 crew members it is holding of
a Swedish-owned, but British-registered tanker that Iran had seized last July. Iran's
Revolutionary Guard seized that tanker in retaliation for the British seizing an Iranian tanker
near Gibraltar in early July, but the Iranian tanker has now been released. Now, how do you see
the situation of these tankers evolving? Could such seizures of oil tankers eventually lead to
an escalation and to even war?
PATRICK COCKBURN: Yes, they could. This is sort of a game of chicken. As you said, it
started off on the 4th of July when the British rather melodramatically dropped 30 Royal Marine
commandos on the deck of this vessel saying, "It was heading for Syria. This had nothing to do
with sanctions on Iran, but was a breach of sanctions on Syria imposed by the EU." This never
sounded right because it's a peculiar moment for Britain to suddenly put such energy into
enforcing EU sanctions, when we all know that Britain is trying to leave the EU at the moment.
There's a great political crisis here in Britain about this. This looked as though it was on
the initiative of Washington. Then, as was inevitable, the Iranians retaliated against
British-flagged vessels in the Gulf. There was an escalation that seems to have died down at
the moment.
As I see it, the Iranian policy is to maintain pressure by sort of pinprick attacks. There
were some small mines placed on oil tankers of the United Arab Emirates. Then when we had the
shooting down of the American drone, a whole series of events to show that they're not
frightened, that they can retaliate, but not bring it up to the level of war. That's sort of
the way the Iranians often react to this sort of thing, with some covert military measures and
to create an atmosphere of crisis, but not bring a war about.
Of course, once you start doing this, it could slip over the edge of the cliff at any
moment. The Iranians did a sort of mirror image of the British takeover of their tanker when
they took over the British tanker crew, which are just being released, as you mentioned. They
dropped 30 commandos on the deck. There was a British Naval vessel not so far away, not far
enough to stop this, but let's say that Naval vessel had been closer. Would they have opened
fire on a helicopter dropping these 30 Iranian commandos on the boat? That would have brought
us – would have been a war, and could have very rapidly escalated. We're always on, as I
said, the edge of the cliff in the Gulf with each side sort of daring the other to go further.
PATRICK COCKBURN: Well, it's falling apart by inches, but there's still quite a long way to go
on that. I think the one thing that has emerged is that the US, Trump and Iran, don't want war.
At one time, the US was calling on – some of its senior officials were calling for a
regime change. How far do they really believe this? When Trump decided not to retaliate for the
drone being shot down, that shows that he wants to rely on sanctions on this sort of very
intense economic siege of Iran, but I don't think the Iranians are going to come running. Once
they know there isn't going to be an all-out war, they'll try to sustain these sanctions, and
the situation isn't quite as desperate as it looks. Obviously, they're suffering a lot. On the
other hand, they're not isolated. China and Russia give them a measure of support.
The EU, rather pathetically, says it's trying to maintain the nuclear deal of 2015, but it's
rather underlining the political and military weakness of the EU that they haven't been able to
do much about it. Big companies are too frightened of US sanctions against them if they have
any relations with Iran. So the Europeans aren't coming well out of it. Obviously, their
relations with Trump are pretty frosty. They also probably don't think it's worth a really big
crisis between the EU, the European states, and America on this issue, but they are looking
pretty feeble at the moment.
There's one thing that continues to puzzle me about the sanctions.
My understanding of these sanctions is that they are designed to prevent the Iranians from
importing certain goods from Western countries, and prevent export of and payments for
Iranian goods to Western countries.
Why are these sanctions effective?
Iran has demonstrated that they can manufacture. They have open trading relations with
Russian and China, which gives them access to materials and manufactures they might not be
able to source within Iran.
They can trade oil for goods, and that oil can readily be absorbed by China or re-packaged
and sold by Russia if it chose to. Both Russia and China are highly motivated to bypass the
SWIFT payments system.
Both Russia and China have a roughly analagous situation re: trade with the West, and they
have been coping with it for over a decade in the case of Russia, somewhat less for
China.
Why isn't Iran re-directing external purchasing toward domestic sources, and using that
pressure as a means to build their internal economic capacity?
My two cents worth.
Alas, this is now a sort of, kind of, globalized economic system. Even prior to the
'Neo-Liberal Dispensation,' the world had international trade in raw materials and some
manufactured goods. As a side effect of this, internal national development of all sorts of
materials and merchandise languished. Why build an expensive factory or mine to get something
when you could buy it cheaper overseas? Where your idea has merit is in 'national security'
goods production. The things that make a country 'safe' should be sourced, if at all
possible, at home, where supply can be protected and controlled.
The second point I'd like to stress is how that oil is paid for and delivered. If I read
aright, most Persian oil is shipped to the end user. Thus, control of the seaways and vessles
plying same is crucial. That's why these somewhat symbolic oil tanker 'grabs' are important.
This demonstrates to the world at large one's ability to control the trans-shipment of oil,
from anywhere, to anywhere. The seizure of the oil transit ships was a message to the entire
oil using world: "We can shut down your economy whenever we want." As Lambert sometimes
quotes from Frank Herbert: "The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over
it."
The replacement of the SWIFT system would free the world from American economic thuggery.
When oil is finally priced, in significant amounts anyway, in something other than American
dollars, then will the world economy begin to regain equitability.
Of course if the option of trade is available, it's in everyone's interest to trade, under
the "caparative advantage" principle which underlies the dogma of free trade.
However, there isn't free trade for Iran, China, Russia, N. Korea, etc. So, they have to
improvise. Some countries, like China, are re-directing trade inwards. If Google won't
license the Android OS to Huawei, for example, Huawei makes their own smart phone OS.
So the question becomes "why hasn't Iran instituted a crash program to build Iran-based
companies to enable Iran to substitute Iran-manufactured/sourced products for ones formerly
obtained abroad?
Russia and China have both done this very successfully, and there are many economic as
well as "security" reasons to do it.
With respect to the "selling oil to end-users .vs. to brokers" the end-user would probably
prefer to buy direct from the source, to cut out the middle-man's fee. I don't see how that
presents an obstacle to buying Iran's oil.
Lastly, if it's a question of whether or not the oil can be delivered, the rest of the
world won't side with the U.S. if we seize cargoes on the high seas. That's what the fiasco
with the Grace 1 demonstrated. Furthermore, the sales contract could simply specify that the
goods are to be picked up dockside @ Iran, transferring the transport risk to the buyer (e.g.
China, for ex). Nobody is going to hijack a Chinese oil freighter.
Another farthings worth of comment.
For the last point, I see two possibilities. First, the Neocons in Washington may not care
what the rest of the world thinks, under the (fallacious) assumption that America IS the
world. Second, the 'disruptions' of oil sea transport can be carried out by "arms length"
third parties, viz. the recent spate of tanker 'minings' in the Persian Gulf being 'sourced'
to dissident elements within the Arab world. So, some "Somali Pirates" would be the obvious
choice for 'hijackings' of Chinese flagged tankers, or "Yemeni Pirates," or "Baluch Pirates,"
etc. etc.
In reference to other points you raise, there is a lag time in the implementation of
industrial policy. During WW2, America already had heavy industry available for war
production. The lag time was determined by the length of time needed for retooling of those
extant factories. When there is no extant heavy industry plant available, the lag time
becomes much longer. Having worked in commercial construction during my life, I attest that
planning, preparing for, and building industrial capacity, takes years. Iran could well be in
the middle of an industrial building phase right now. Add to the usual worries attendant to
industrial construction the worry of some outside hostile actor coming over and bombing your
shiny new factory back to rubble and you have added a new layer of complexity to the
endeavour. Air defense for industrial base has not usually been part of an average country's
economic planning regime.
One reason I can think of as to why Russia and China have embarked on an "internalization"
program way in advance of, say, Iran's is that the two former State Socialist countries have
weathered nearly a centuries worth of hostility, both rhetorical and military, emanating from
the West. Their latest 'internalization' programs could be the result of several generations
worth of institutional memory residing within the nomenklaturas of the two states.
Iran, on the other hand, has had an up and down relationship with the West.
At one time, a client state of the West, at another, in a fiercely nationalistic
confrontation with the West, in both regimes, a trading partner with the West as far as oil
goes.
The promise of present day Iran for the world in general is that it is finally trying to
forge an independent self-identity. Someone in power in the West must realize that, if Iran
slips the leash of the West, then other countries will follow. Nothing less than Western
Hegemony is at stake.
Or if oil is progressively transcended and deleted from more and more of the world's
energy portfolio.
That would give those who "don't need oil anymore" some new post-petro freedom of action.
One area where oil will be needed for the foreseeable future is in the lubrication of
moving parts. I have yet to see a true "Buckey Ball" lubricant on the market.
Good question. No answers here, but another observation and question:
While I don't endorse it, what about the legitimacy of Nation-states to pursue their best
interest, and the implied hubris/ arrogance that counters with actions and policy precluding
that autonomy? The Great Game ™?
Cuba blockades. They have done pretty well, despite nearly 70 years of very harsh
blockade. Look how much the US has punished the least amongst the Cuban human beings, some
for their entire life
Venezuela?
North Korea and Iran aspire to have the ultimate WMD. Why does the US get to have the say?
My measuring stick senses that the US hardly holds the moral high ground.
Then, the counter-point that we have never tried in the recent history of man–global
cooperation and no more war. The image of our earth floating in space, the big blue marble,
akin to a Star Trek enterprise ship, with all of the war-ing beyond-memory enemies all on
board. Give every deck and wing some nukes. Avail them with the information on how to
conserve and create renewable energy, to grow and put food by, to access clean drinking
water, modest but efficient shelter, and access to books, education, and the arts. Awareness
of ecology, full life cycle of plants, animals, and man-made products. The experiment that we
must ever allow. Sharing.
The big question in my mind is, why does the rest of the world allow that sort of
bullying, or more to the point, allow themselves to be vulnerable to it? Somebody's been
careless. We now see both Russia and China taking steps to be more autarkic, and even the EU
waking up to the danger. It may be they just haven't had time to develop new
institutions.
The rest-of-the-world could straight-up GIVE Iran the survival-critical things that Iran
would otherwise have to import. The rest of the world could do that in return for Iran
staying in the agreement till the next American election. This would give everyone time to
see if America would elect a pro-deal-ante Democrat to the Presidency.
( This would require the rest of the world to actually be willing to give Iran that kind
of c"cold-war-support" aid till the American election. It would also require the IranGov to
be willing to stay in the agreement until the American election results shake out. It would
need a lot of people to be willing to take a lot of slow long-term chances. Would everyone
involved be willing to do that in a harmonized way?)
The EU LeaderLords have no bravery and no taste for conflict with the TrumpAdmin. Not only
will they not lift a fear-quivering finger to save the accords, they will not even buy and
donate to Iran the goods and services Iran would need to survive until the next American
election.
It is too bad that Rouhani ( and his boss the Supreme Leader Khamenei) cannot have a
remote long-distance Vulcan mind-meld with the DemParty nominee-wannabes in this country.
Because if they could have such a remote long-distance Vulcan mind-meld, here is what they
might well decide. Every DemParty nominee-wannabe would PROMise ( and MEAN IT) to take
America right back into the JCPOA if elected, and to rescind every re-sanction that the
TrumpAdmin imposed. And Rouhani ( at Supreme Leaders's direction) would agree to keep Iran
"in" the JCPOA till the winner of the American Presidential election were announced. Maybe
such a remote mind-meld agreement openly and overtly stated might raise the chances of a
DemParty victory and lower the chances of an Iran-America war.
I think the Car Wash conspiracy against Lula is a bombshell, and Pepe Escobar's prison
interviews with Lula provide insight to the larger global Borgist conspiracy. Check out what
Lula had to say about the JCPOA. Be sure to read partsI I and II as well.
"... Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong rearrested based on bail violations, which supporters claim represents political persecution. After being released on bail last week, Wong published an op-ed in the New York Times declaring the protests as the "front line" in a hybrid war vs the PRC, and travelled to Taiwan where he urged the government there to join forces with HK activists in open conflict against Beijing. In both forums, Wong hinted a major provocation was in the works to disrupt the October 1st celebration of the PRC's 70th anniversary. ..."
"... That is, just as the Maidan protesters, knowingly or not, demanded that the IMF impose an austerity program on them, the Hong Kong protesters demand sanctions and the withdrawal of preferential trading deals. The Maidan protests have been deliberately seeded as a correlating event to the HK protests, with numerous public screenings in HK of the contentious "Winter On Fire" documentary. This comparison first appeared in online journals such as Quartz many weeks ago, and appears to be one of the originating "memes" promoted by the PR people working behind the scenes. ..."
"... Wow those hongkong protesters are not even shy about their call for regime change by Trump against China/Hongkong ..."
The sooner the 50 states secede from that cesspool in Maryland and try something different, the better.
I agree, b; the panic amongst US military planners is indeed setting in; all the resources wasted in developing dubious-quality
weapons systems has been made plain for all the world to see with the rapid (and highly cost-effective) counter-measures both
Russia and China (and now Iran) have been able to put into serial production
(pretty
sure this ain't an RC video)
Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong rearrested based on bail violations, which supporters claim represents political persecution.
After being released on bail last week, Wong published an op-ed in the New York Times declaring the protests as the "front line"
in a hybrid war vs the PRC, and travelled to Taiwan where he urged the government there to join forces with HK activists in open
conflict against Beijing. In both forums, Wong hinted a major provocation was in the works to disrupt the October 1st celebration
of the PRC's 70th anniversary.
Meanwhile, "thousands of people converged at a park in central Hong Kong, chanting 'Resist Beijing, Liberate Hong Kong.' Many
of them, clad in black shirts and wearing masks, waved American flags and carried posters that read 'President Trump, please liberate
Hong Kong Protesters urged Washington to pass a bill, known as the Hong Kong Democratic and Human Rights Act, to support their
cause. The bill proposes sanctions against Hong Kong and Chinese officials found to suppress democracy and human rights in the
city, and could also affect Hong Kong's preferential trade status with the U.S." https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hong-kong-protests-us-embassy-1.5275142
That is, just as the Maidan protesters, knowingly or not, demanded that the IMF impose an austerity program on them, the Hong
Kong protesters demand sanctions and the withdrawal of preferential trading deals. The Maidan protests have been deliberately
seeded as a correlating event to the HK protests, with numerous public screenings in HK of the contentious "Winter On Fire" documentary.
This comparison first appeared in online journals such as Quartz many weeks ago, and appears to be one of the originating "memes"
promoted by the PR people working behind the scenes.
AuGold , Sep 8 2019 21:01 utc |
46Zanon , Sep 8 2019 21:04 utc |
47
Wow those hongkong protesters are not even shy about their call for regime change by Trump against China/Hongkong:
"... Twice in the same sentence we get told what that assumption is: "America's technology leadership" which so clearly no longer exists in weaponry, electronics, nuclear engineering, rocketry, high speed rail and mass transportation, low energy building techniques, and a host of other realms. This same sort of thinking pervades every defense doctrine paper produced during Trump's administration--the planners have eaten and all too well digested their own propaganda about the backwardness of Russia, China and Iran. ..."
"... This does not imply some rabid anti-Americanism, but simply the experience that that path is pointless. If there is a 'clock being played out', it is that of the tic-toc of western political and economic hegemony in the Middle East is running down ..."
"... [with] Iran repeating the same old routines, whilst expecting different outcomes is, of course, one definition of madness. A new US Administration will inherit the same genes as the last. ..."
"... "And in any case, the US is institutionally incapable of making a substantive deal with Iran. A US President – any President – cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran. The American multitudinous sanctions on Iran have become a decades' long knot of interpenetrating legislation: a vast rhizome of tangled, root-legislation that not even Alexander the Great might disentangle: that is why the JCPOA was constructed around a core of US Presidential 'waivers' needing to be renewed each six months. Whatever might be agreed in the future, the sanctions – 'waived' or not – are, as it were, 'forever'. ..."
"... "If recent history has taught the Iranians anything, it is that such flimsy 'process' in the hands of a mercurial US President can simply be blown away like old dead leaves. Yes, the US has a systemic problem: US sanctions are a one-way valve: so easy to flow out, but once poured forth, there is no return inlet (beyond uncertain waivers issued at the pleasure of an incumbent President)." ..."
Speculation's abounded about the political loyalty of the head of Russia's central bank
Elvira Nabullina. Luongo simply explains:
"Nabullina has always been a controversial figure because she is western trained and because
the banking system in Russia is still staffed by those who operate along IMF prescriptions on
how to deal with crises.
"But those IMF rules are there to protect the IMF making the loans to the troubled nation,
not to assist the troubled nation actually recover....
"The fundamental problem is a miseducation about what interest rates are, and how they
interact with inflation and capital flow. Because of this, the medicine for saving an economy
in trouble is, more often than not, worse than the disease itself.
"If Argentina's fourth default in twenty years doesn't prove that to you, nothing will."
It sounds like he's been reading Hudson's J is for Junk Economics !
The real rescue is Putin's aggressive de-dollarization policy that's finally rid Russia of
"dollar-dependency":
"She [Nabullina] keeps jumping at the shadows of a dollar-induced crisis. But the Russian
economy of 2019 is not the Russian economy of 2015. Dollar lending has all but evaporated and
the major source of demand for dollars domestically are legacy corporate loans not converted to
rubles or euros."
The key for me is to weave the content emphasis of Putin's Eastern Economic Conference speech with
his increasing pressure on Nabullina for the bank to support this very important development
policy direction and show China and other nations that Russia's extremely serious about the
direction being taken. Just Putin's language about mortgage rate reductions as an attracter
ought to be a huge message for Nabullina to respond properly. And a further kick in the pants
was provided by the massive deal announced between China and Iran. Luongo briefly alludes to
foreign policy in his article, its regional economic aspects, while omitting aspects hidden by
the US-China Trade War, specifically Russia's now very clear technological supremacy to the
Outlaw US Empire.
This brings us to Crooke's article in which he inadvertently tells us the #1 false
assumption in Trump's Trade War policy with China:
"To defend America's technology leadership , policymakers must upgrade their toolkit
to ensure that US technology leadership can withstand the aftershocks." [My
Emphasis]
Twice in the same sentence we get told what that assumption is: "America's technology
leadership" which so clearly no longer exists in weaponry, electronics, nuclear engineering,
rocketry, high speed rail and mass transportation, low energy building techniques, and a host
of other realms. This same sort of thinking pervades every defense doctrine paper produced
during Trump's administration--the planners have eaten and all too well digested their own
propaganda about the backwardness of Russia, China and Iran.
I could write further about the supposed handcuffing of POTUS by the unconstitutional and
illegal sanction regime "imposed" by the US Congress. Crooke mentions as a significant
hindrance--but if it was indeed a hindrance, any POTUS could break it by suing to prove its
unconstitutional, illegal standing, yet no effort is put into that, begging the question Why?
Crooke spends lots of space about this but fails to see the above solution:
"The pages to that chapter have been shut. This does not imply some rabid
anti-Americanism, but simply the experience that that path is pointless. If there is a 'clock
being played out', it is that of the tic-toc of western political and economic hegemony in the
Middle East is running down , and not the 'clock' of US domestic politics. The old adage
that the 'sea is always the sea' holds true for US foreign policy.
And [with] Iran repeating the same old routines, whilst expecting different outcomes is,
of course, one definition of madness. A new US Administration will inherit the same genes as
the last.
"And in any case, the US is institutionally incapable of making a substantive deal with
Iran. A US President – any President – cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran.
The American multitudinous sanctions on Iran have become a decades' long knot of
interpenetrating legislation: a vast rhizome of tangled, root-legislation that not even
Alexander the Great might disentangle: that is why the JCPOA was constructed around a core of
US Presidential 'waivers' needing to be renewed each six months. Whatever might be agreed in
the future, the sanctions – 'waived' or not – are, as it were, 'forever'.
"If recent history has taught the Iranians anything, it is that such flimsy 'process' in
the hands of a mercurial US President can simply be blown away like old dead leaves. Yes, the
US has a systemic problem: US sanctions are a one-way valve: so easy to flow out, but once
poured forth, there is no return inlet (beyond uncertain waivers issued at the pleasure of an
incumbent President)."
Being British, we should excuse Crooke for not knowing about the crucial Supremacy Clause
within the US Constitution, but that doesn't absolve any POTUS if that person is really intent
on talking with Iran--or any other sanctioned nation. IMO, the Iranians know what I know and
have finally decided the Outlaw US Empire's marriage to Occupied Palestine won't suffer a
divorce anytime soon. The result is the recent very active change in policy direction aimed at
solidifying the Arc of Resistance and establishing a Persian Gulf Collective Security Pact that
will end in check mating the Empire's King thus causing further economic problems for the
Empire.
Crooke does a good job of summarizing my comment and many more made over the year regarding
the reasons for the utter failure of Outlaw US Empire policy:
"Well, here is the key point: Washington seems to have lost the ability to summon the
resources to try to fathom either China, or the Iranian 'closed book', let alone a 'Byzantine'
Russia. It is a colossal attenuation of consciousness in Washington; a loss of conscious
'vitality' to the grip of some 'irrefutable logic' that allows no empathy, no outreach, to
'otherness'. Washington (and some European élites) have retreated into their 'niche'
consciousness, their mental enclave, gated and protected, from having to understand – or
engage – with wider human experience."
The only real way for the Outlaw US Empire to regain its competitive "niche" with the rest
of the world is to mount a massive program of internal reform verging on a revolution in its
outcome. It's patently obvious that more of the same will yield more of the same--FAILURE--and
the chorus of inane caterwauling by BigLie Media over where to place the blame.
Behind Hong Kong's chaos lie deep-seated social problems
"Seclusion brings no development opportunity for Hong Kong," said economist Lau Pui-King.
"Some youngsters don't understand that Hong Kong would be even worse if it is secluded from
the Chinese mainland."
"To come out of the current economic difficulty, Hong Kong needs to be linked with the
Chinese mainland much closer and more effectively," she said.
HONG KONG -- Kwong loves the pure adrenaline rush he gets when he takes his motorcycle out
on the weekends to light up his lackluster life.
The 35-year-old lives with his parents in an old and cramped apartment in the New
Territories of Hong Kong. He has a girlfriend but is hesitant to get married and start a
family.
"The rent is so high, and there is no way I can afford an apartment," said Kwong, who
earns 15,000 HK dollars (1,950 U.S. dollars) a month. Renting a 30-square meter one-bedroom
apartment would cost him about two-thirds of his salary.
"Future? I don't think much about it, just passing each day as it is," he said.
Kwong's words reflect the grievances among many people in Hong Kong, particularly the
young. Many vented their discontent in prolonged streets protests that have rocked Hong Kong
since June.
The demonstrations, which started over two planned amendments to Hong Kong's ordinances
concerning fugitive offenders, widened and turned violent over the past months.
"After more than two months of social unrest, it is obvious to many that discontentment
extends far beyond the bill," said Carrie Lam, chief executive of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region (HKSAR), referring to the now-withdrawn amendments.
To Lam, the discontent covers political, economic and social issues, including the
often-mentioned problems relating to housing and land supply, income distribution, social
justice and mobility and opportunities, for the public to be fully engaged in the HKSAR
government's decision-making.
"We can discuss all these issues in our new dialogue platform," she said.
UNAFFORDABLE HOUSES
For nine straight years, housing in Hong Kong has been ranked as the least affordable in
the world. Homes in the city got further out of reach for most residents, according to
Demographia, an urban planning policy consultancy. The city's median property price climbed
to 7.16 million HK dollars in 2019, or 20.9 times the median household income in 2018, up
from 19.4 times from a year earlier.
In the latest case of house transaction, an apartment of 353 square feet (about 33 square
meters) at Mong Kok in central Kowloon was sold at 5.2 million HK dollars in September,
according to the registered data from Centaline Property Agency Limited.
For those fortunate enough to have bought an apartment, many have to spend a large part of
their monthly income on a mortgage. For those who have not bought any property yet, it is
common to spend more than 10,000 HK dollars in rent, while saving every penny up for a
multi-million HK dollar down payment.
From 2004 to 2018, the property price increased by 4.4 fold, while income stagnated,
statistics show. From 2008 to 2017, average real wage growth in Hong Kong was merely 0.1
percent, according to a global wage report by the International Labor Organization.
Homeownership dropped from 53 percent to 48.9 percent from 2003 to 2018.
Efforts of the HKSAR government to increase land supply to stem home prices from soaring
also went futile amid endless quarrels. Of Hong Kong's total 1,100 square kilometers of land
area, only 24.3 percent has been developed, with land for residential use accounting for a
mere 6.9 percent, according to data from the HKSAR government.
Social worker Jack Wong, 29, lives in an apartment bought by his parents. "I'm lucky. Most
of my friends still have to share apartments with their parents. My cousin has been married
for seven years, but he is still saving for his down payment, so he has to live at his
parents' house," he said.
"The older generation changed from having nothing to having something. We, the younger
generation, thought we had something, but it turns out we have nothing," he said.
MIDDLE CLASS' ANXIETY
While young people complain about having few opportunities for upward mobility, Hong
Kong's middle class, which should have long been stalwarts of the society, are under great
economic pressure and in fear of falling behind.
It is not easy to be middle class in Hong Kong, one of the world's most expensive cities.
To join the rank, a household needs to earn at least 55,000 HK dollars, or 7,000 U.S.
dollars, a month, according to Paul Yip Siu-fai, a senior lecturer at the University of Hong
Kong. About 10 percent of the households in the city are up to the rank.
Earning that much can be counted as rich in many parts of the world. But in Hong Kong, the
money is still tight if you have a child to raise and elderly to support.
Housing is the biggest burden for the average middle-class resident. The cost of having a
child is another headache in Hong Kong, where pricey extra-curricular activities and private
tutoring are considered necessary to win in the fierce competition.
Fears of descending to the low-income group are real for the middle class. Many think they
belong to the middle class only in education and cultural identity, but their living
conditions are not much better than the impoverished, said Anthony Cheung Bing-leung, former
secretary for transport and housing of the HKSAR government.
Civil servants and teachers, who earn much more than the average income, are traditionally
considered middle class. But Cheung found out in a survey that many of them could not afford
to have their own apartment, with some even living in the narrow rooms of partitioned
apartments.
"We don't belong to the low-income group, but we could just rent an apartment now," said
Lee, a teacher at a secondary school in Hong Kong.
Lee and her husband earned nearly 1.3 million HK dollars a year, but a 50-square meter
apartment is the best they could rent now for a five-member family. She preferred not to give
her full name as she feels her situation is embarrassing.
"We want to save more money to buy a house near prestigious elementary schools for our
kids," Lee said. "If our kids can't go to a good school, it'll be very tough in the
future."
CHANGING ECONOMIC STRUCTURE
In the 1970s, nearly half of Hong Kong's labor force were industrial workers when
manufacturing thrived in Hong Kong. During the 1980s, Hong Kong's finance, shipping, trade
and logistics and service industries started to boom.
Since then, the economic landscape began to change amid subsequent industrial
upgrading.
Due to the hollowing out of the manufacturing industry, the wealth gap in Hong Kong
widened and the class division worsened. Despite the prosperity of finance, trade and tourism
in recent years, more than 1.37 million people are living below the poverty line in Hong
Kong, home to more than 7 million.
Working career options are now limited, leaving little hope for the youngsters to move up
the social ranks.
As a result, Hong Kong's social class has largely been solidified in the 21st century,
with the richest people dominated by property developers and their families.
The Gini coefficient, which measures the inequality of income distribution, reached a
new high of 0.539 in 2016, far above the warning level of 0.4, according to data by the HKSAR
government's Census and Statistics Department. The greater the number toward one, the more
unequal in income distribution.
Though the HKSAR government tried to narrow the wealth gap, many people in Hong Kong said
they are not sharing the fruits of economic prosperity, the young and those low-income groups
in particular.
STAGNATING POLITICAL BARRIERS
What makes the deep-seated problems in Hong Kong such a hard nut to crack? The reason is
complicated, according to observers, partly due to the containment in the current political
structure that leads to governance difficulty, partly due to a doctrinaire implementation of
the principle of "small government, big market," or laissez faire, and most importantly due
to the opposition's "say no for none's sake" that stirs political confrontation and sends
Hong Kong into a dilemma of discussions without decisions, or making decisions without
execution.
Over the past 22 years, the successive HKSAR governments have tried many times to tackle
these problems by rolling out affordable housing programs and narrowing the rich-poor
gap.
For example, to make houses more affordable, Tung Chee-hwa, the first HKSAR chief
executive, proposed in 1997 to build at least 85,000 flats every year in the public and
private sectors, raise the homeownership rate to 70 percent in 10 years and reduce the
average waiting time for public rental housing to three years.
Such plans, however, went aborted as home prices plunged in Hong Kong amid the Asian
financial crisis in 1998.
"Since Hong Kong's return, many economic and livelihood issues would not be as politicized
as they are now, should the HKSAR government have introduced more policies and better social
security arrangements to address those problems," said Tian Feilong, a law expert of the "one
country, two systems" center with the Beijing-based Beihang University.
To carry out major policies or push forward major bills, the HKSAR government needs to
garner the support of two-thirds majority at the Legislative Council (LegCo).
The HKSAR government's previous motions, be it economic policies or fiscal appropriations,
were impeded by the opposition time and again at the LegCo, regardless of the interests of
the majority of Hong Kong residents and the long-term development of the society.
The HKSAR government sought in 2012 to establish the Innovation and Technology Bureau to
ride the global wave of innovative startups, diversify its economic structure and bring more
opportunities for young people. Such efforts, however, were obstructed by the opposition at
the LegCo in defiance of repeated calls by the public. After three years, the proposal to
create the bureau was finally passed by the LegCo.
In another case, a Hong Kong resident, incited by the opposition, appealed in 2010 for a
judicial review of the construction plan of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Though the
HKSAR government won the lawsuit after more than a year of court proceedings, 6.5 billion HK
dollars of taxpayers' money had been wasted in the increased construction costs of the
bridge's Hong Kong section due to the delay.
As time passed, problems remained unsolved, so did public discontent.
Repeated political bickering stalled Hong Kong's social progress amid the sparring, and
the opposition created a false target and blamed the Chinese mainland for those deep-seated
problems.
Lau Pui-King, an economist in Hong Kong, snubbed the opposition's resistance of or even
antagonism to the Chinese mainland, saying such thinking of secluding Hong Kong from the
entire country could end nowhere but push the city down an abyss.
"Seclusion brings no development opportunity for Hong Kong," Lau said. "Some youngsters
don't understand that Hong Kong would be even worse if it is secluded from the Chinese
mainland."
"To come out of the current economic difficulty, Hong Kong needs to be linked with the
Chinese mainland much closer and more effectively," she said.
"... First, Fu Guohao , a reporter for the Chinese mainland newspaper, Global Times , was attacked, bound and beaten by protesters during their takeover of the Hong Kong International Airport. When police and rescuers tried to free him, the protesters blocked them and also attempted to block the ambulance that eventually bore him off to the hospital. The photos and videos of this ugly sequence were seen by netizens across the globe even though given scant attention in Western media. Where were the stalwart defenders of the press in the US as this happened? As one example, DemocracyNow! (DN!) was completely silent as was the rest of the U.S. mainstream media. ..."
"... And that photo with the protest leaders is just a snap shot of the ample evidence of the hand of the U.S. government and its subsidiaries in the Hong Kong events. Perhaps the best documentation of the U.S. "black hand" is to be found in Dan Cohen's superb article of August 17 in The Greyzone entitled, "Behind a made-for-TV Hong Kong protest narrative, Washington is backing nativism and mob violence." ..."
"... On both sides anti-interventionism takes an especially hard hit when it comes to major competitors of the US, powers that could actually stand in the way of US global hegemony, like Russia or China. In fact on its August 12 program, DN! managed a story taking a swipe at Russia right next to the one on Hong Kong – and DN! was in the forefront of advancing the now debunked and disgraced Russiagate Conspiracy Theory. ..."
Through the summer the world has watched as protests shook Hong Kong. As early as April they began as peaceful demonstrations
which peaked in early June, with hundreds of thousands, in protest of an extradition bill. That bill would have allowed Hong Kong,
a Special Administrative Region of China, to return criminals to Taiwan, mainland China or Macau for crimes committed there – after
approval by multiple layers of the Hong Kong judiciary. In the wake of those enormous nonviolent demonstrations, Carrie Lam, CEO
of Hong Kong, "suspended" consideration of the extradition bill, a face-saving ploy. To make sure she was understood, she declared
it "dead." The large rallies, an undeniable expression of the peaceful will of a large segment of the Hong Kong population had won
an impressive victory. The unpopular extradition bill was slain.
But that was not the end of the story. A smaller segment continued the protests. (The Hong Kong police at one point estimated
4,000 hard core protesters.) They pressed on with other demands, beginning with a demand that the bill be "withdrawn," not simply
"suspended." To this writer death by "suspension" is every bit as terminal as death by "withdrawal." As this piece is sent to press,
news comes that Corrie Lam has now
formally withdrawn the bill .
As the summer passed, two iconic photos presented us with two human faces that captured two crucial features of the ongoing protests;
they were not shown widely in the West.
First,
Fu Guohao , a reporter for the Chinese mainland newspaper, Global Times , was attacked, bound and beaten by protesters
during their takeover of the Hong Kong International Airport. When police and rescuers tried to free him, the protesters blocked
them and also attempted to block the ambulance that eventually bore him off to the hospital. The photos and videos of this ugly sequence
were seen by netizens across the globe even though given scant attention in Western media. Where were the stalwart defenders of the
press in the US as this happened? As one example, DemocracyNow! (DN!) was completely silent as was the rest of the U.S. mainstream
media.
Fu's beating came after many weeks when the protesters threw up barriers to stop traffic; blocked closure of subway doors, in
defiance of commuters and police, to shut down mass transit; sacked and vandalized the HK legislature building; assaulted bystanders
who disagreed with them; attacked the police with Molotov cocktails; and stormed and defaced police stations. Fu's ordeal and all
these actions shown in
photos on Hong Kong's South China Morning Post, a paper leaning to the side of protesters, gave the lie to the image of these
"democracy activists" as young Ghandis of East Asia. (The South China Morning Post is based in Hong Kong and its readership is concentrated
there so it has to have some reasonable fidelity in reporting events; otherwise it loses credibility – and circulation. Similarly,
much as the New York Times abhorred Occupy Wall Street, it could not fail to report on it.)
Which brings us to the second photo, much more important to U.S. citizens, that of a "Political Counselor" at the U.S. Consulate
General in Hong Kong who in August was pictured meeting with, Joshua Long and Nathan Law, at a hotel there. The official was formerly
a State Dept functionary in the Middle East – in Jerusalem, Riyadh, Beirut, Baghdad and Doha, certainly not an area lacking in imperial
intrigues and regime change ops. That photo graphically contradicted the contention that there is no US "black hand," as China calls
it, in the Hong Kong riots. In fact, here the "black hand" was caught red-handed, leading Chen Weihua, a very perceptive China Daily
columnist, to tweet the picture with the comment: "This is very very embarrassing. a US diplomat in Hong Kong, was caught meeting
HK protest leaders. It would be hard to imagine the US reaction if a Chinese diplomat were meeting leaders of Occupy Wall Street,
Black Lives Matter or Never Trump protesters."
And that photo with the protest leaders is just a snap shot of the ample evidence of the hand of the U.S. government and its
subsidiaries in the Hong Kong events. Perhaps the best documentation of the U.S. "black hand" is to be found in Dan Cohen's
superb article
of August 17 in The Greyzone entitled, "Behind a made-for-TV Hong Kong protest narrative, Washington is backing nativism and mob
violence." The article by Cohen deserves careful reading; it leaves little doubt that there is a very deep involvement of the
US in the Hong Kong riots. Of special interest is the detailed
role and funding , amounting
to over $1.3 million, in Hong Kong alone in recent years, of the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED), ever on the prowl for
new regime change opportunities.
Perhaps most important, the leaders of the "leaderless" protests have met with major US political figures such as John Bolton,
Vice President Pence, Secretary Pompeo, Senator Marco Rubio, Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel, Nancy Pelosi and others, all of whom have
heartily endorsed their efforts. This is not to deny that the protests were home grown at the outset in response to what was widely
perceived as a legitimate grievance. But it would be equally absurd to deny that the U.S. is fishing in troubled Hong Kong waters
to advance its anti-China crusade and regime change ambitions.
That said, where is the U.S. peace movement on the question of Hong Kong?
Let us be clear. One can sympathize with the demand of many citizens of Hong Kong to end the extradition bill or even the other
four demands: an inquiry into police handling of their protests; the retraction of a government characterization of the demonstrations
as riots; an amnesty for arrested protesters; and universal suffrage. (The first three all grow out of violence of the protests,
be it noted.) But that is the business of the citizens of Hong Kong and all the rest of China. It is not the business of the U.S.
government. Peace activists in the US should be hard at work documenting and denouncing the US government's meddling in Hong Kong,
which could set us on the road to war with China, potentially a nuclear war. And that is a mission for which we in the U.S. are uniquely
suited since, at least in theory, we have some control over our government.
So, we should expect to hear the cry, "US Government, Hands Off Hong Kong"? Sadly, with a few principled exceptions it is nowhere
to be heard on either the left or right.
Let's take DemocracyNow! (DN!) as one example, a prominent one on the "progressive" end of the spectrum. From April through August
28, there have been 25 brief accounts ("headlines" as DN! calls them, each amounting to a few paragraphs) of the events in Hong Kong
and 4 features, longer supposedly analytic pieces, on the same topic. Transcripts of the four features are
here ,
here ,
here and
here . There is not a single
mention of possible US involvement or the meetings of the various leaders of the protest movement with Pompeo, Bolton, Pence, or
the "Political Counselor" of the US Hong Kong consulate.
And this silence on US meddling is true not only of most progressive commentators but also most conservatives.
On the Left when someone cries "Democracy," many forget all their pro-peace sentiment. And similarly on the Right when someone
cries "Communism," anti-interventionism too often goes down the tubes. Forgotten is John Quincy Adams's 1823 dictum, endlessly quoted
but little honored, "We do not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." Where does this lapse on the part of activists come from?
Is it a deep-seated loyalty to Empire, the result of endless indoctrination? Is it U.S. Exceptionalism, ingrained to the point of
unconsciousness? Or is it at bottom a question of who the paymasters are?
On both sides anti-interventionism takes an especially hard hit when it comes to major competitors of the US, powers that
could actually stand in the way of US global hegemony, like Russia or China. In fact on its August 12 program, DN! managed a story
taking a swipe at Russia right
next to the one on Hong Kong – and DN! was in the forefront of advancing the now debunked and disgraced Russiagate Conspiracy Theory.
In contrast, the anti-interventionist movement is front and center when it comes to weaker nations, for example Venezuela – and quite
properly so. But when one puts this advocacy for weaker nations together with the New Cold War stance on China and Russia, one must
ask what is going on here. Does it betoken a sort of imperial paternalism on the part of DN and like-minded outlets? It certainly
gains DN!, and others like it, considerable credibility among anti-interventionists which can help win them to a position in favor
of DN!'s New Cold War stance. And the masters of Empire certainly understand how valuable such credibility can be at crucial moments
when support for their adventures is needed from every quarter.
Fortunately, there are a handful of exceptions to this New Cold War attitude. For example, on the left
Popular Resistance has provided a
view
of the events in Hong Kong and a superb
interview with
K.J. Noh that go beyond the line of the State Department, the mainstream media and DN! And on the libertarian Right there is
the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and the
work of its Executive Director Dan McAdams.
We would all do well to follow the example of these organizations in rejecting a New Cold War mentality which is extremely dangerous,
perhaps fatally so. A good beginning for us in the U.S. is to demand of our government, "Hands Off Hong Kong."
"... Hong Kong while having a high per capita income level is highly inequitable in income with economic tensions accentuated by a British-country-style property system. ..."
"... The parallels in Hong Kong property prices, with those of Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are striking. Singapore has a completely different and relatively equitable property system, so too does neighboring Shenzhen. ..."
"... "The Gini coefficient, which measures the inequality of income distribution, reached a new high of 0.539 in 2016, far above the warning level of 0.4" Pot meet kettle. ..."
"... "China's Gini Coefficient data was reported at 0.467 NA in Dec 2017. This records an increase from the previous number of 0.465 NA for Dec 2016. China's Gini Coefficient data is updated yearly, averaging 0.477 NA from Dec 2003 to 2017, with 15 observations." ..."
"... With a GINI co-efficient of about 0.4, the US has nothing to cheer about. But why not demonize China instead of addressing our own problems first? ..."
Hong Kong is essentially self-governing, administered in much the same way as during the
later period of British colonial control. Hong Kong is part of China but completely unlike a
Beijing or Shanghai or Shenzhen in terms of governance. Hong Kong while having a high per
capita income level is highly inequitable in income with economic tensions accentuated by a
British-country-style property system.
The parallels in Hong Kong property prices, with those of Britain, Canada, Australia and
New Zealand are striking. Singapore has a completely different and relatively equitable
property system, so too does neighboring Shenzhen.
Chinese Communist Party propaganda from the usual source. Yep, Hong Kong has its problems.
Control by the CCP will not help them one bit.
"The Gini coefficient, which measures the inequality of income distribution, reached a new
high of 0.539 in 2016, far above the warning level of 0.4" Pot meet kettle.
"China's Gini Coefficient data was reported at 0.467 NA in Dec 2017. This records an
increase from the previous number of 0.465 NA for Dec 2016. China's Gini Coefficient data is
updated yearly, averaging 0.477 NA from Dec 2003 to 2017, with 15 observations."
US Sanctions Are Designed to Kill
By Kevin Cashman and Cavan Kharrazian
Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif recently visited the Group of Seven (G7) at
the invitation of French president Emmanuel Macron, in what was seen as an overture to the
Trump administration to negotiate over sanctions that have plagued the Iranian economy. Back
in 2018, after months of increasingly hostile rhetoric, the US government withdrew from the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or "Iran Deal," and imposed a "maximum pressure" campaign
that included unilateral, economy-wide sanctions. The Iran Deal was an agreement that
provided Iran relief from existing sanctions in exchange for limits on its enrichment of
uranium, among other concessions. These sanctions hampered trade between the European Union,
whose leaders have sought to salvage the Iran Deal.
When President Trump reimposed sanctions in November 2018, it cut off Iran's oil exports
and access to the international financial system. At the time, he announced that Iran could
comply with new US demands or face "economic isolation." Additional US sanctions issued since
then have specifically targeted a thousand individuals and entities with the goal of reducing
Iran's oil revenues to "zero." More recently, Trump said that although "[Iran's] economy is
crashing...it's very easy to straighten [it] out or it's very easy for us to make it a lot
worse."
And so, according to Trump himself, the United States has the power to solve -- or
exacerbate -- Iran's current economic problems. What is left unsaid, including by much of the
media, is that sanctions that "crash" the economy are an attack on the country's civilian
population and create widespread human misery. Indeed, they appear to be contributing to
widespread shortages of medicine and medical equipment, particularly affecting cancer
patients. In Venezuela, which is under a similar US sanctions regime, there have been similar
effects, with more than 40,000 people estimated to have died from 2017 to 2018 due to the
"collective punishment" inflicted on them.
Yet other statements from US administration officials often contend that sanctions have
negligible economic or social effects on the general population of Iran. For example, the US
State Department's special representative for Iran, Brian Hook, recently denied that US
sanctions on Iran affect the availability of medicine and agricultural products. In this
argument, Hook divorces the connection between the economic damage caused by sanctions in
Iran and the lack of basic necessities like medicine and food, preferring to instead lay
blame on the Iranian government, not what the Trump administration calls "targeted"
sanctions.
Are the sanctions causing Iran's economic problems, or simply a way to punish individual
actors? Answering this question requires an examination of the impact sanctions have on
Iran's economy and the mechanisms by which sanctions work -- two important areas of inquiry
that seldom receive attention in the US press.
Sanctions are severely impacting Iran's oil production
Looking at Iran's oil sector, which has been directly targeted by the sanctions regime, is
a good way to get a sense of how the sanctions have affected the country's economy, which
remains dependent on the production and export of oil, according to a number of indicators.
For example, around 70 percent of Iran's merchandise exports consists of fuel. Although this
dependence on oil production has decreased over the last decade, in large part due to
government efforts to diversify the economy, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported
in March 2018 (before the announcement of the resumption of US sanctions) that oil revenues
accounted for nearly 40 percent of government revenues in fiscal year 2016–17, and
projected a similar number for fiscal year 2017–18 (assuming, then, that there would be
no new sanctions). Clearly, a large reduction in Iran's oil production would pose significant
challenges to its ability to provide services to its people, as well as maintain essential
imports including some foreign-produced medicines and other healthcare and life-saving
goods.
Unsurprisingly, Iran's oil production moves very much in tandem with the enactment and
repeal of broad sanctions over time (see the figure below). US sanctions in 2010 affected
investment in Iran's oil infrastructure and prohibited some international transactions. Then,
in early 2012, the United States and the European Union banned oil imports from Iran and
froze its central bank assets. Shortly thereafter, oil production plummeted and reached its
nadir in late 2012. After the Iran Deal was enacted in early 2016 and US and EU sanctions
were repealed, Iran's oil production rapidly recovered to 2007 levels. This level of
production was maintained until the announcement by the Trump administration in May 2018 that
the United States was withdrawing from the Iran Deal. Since May 2018, Iran's oil production
has fallen precipitously; it is down by over 40 percent over the last year. Waivers the
United States issued to purchasers of Iranian oil have expired over the last few months,
eliminating one of the remaining factors that put upward pressure on production.
[Graph]
To get a sense of the size of these impacts, it's useful to compare what they would look
like in the US economy. If applied to the United States, they would be comparable to a budget
reduction of $521 billion or 16 percent in 2018. However, this would also represent about 85
percent of nonmilitary discretionary spending. While the United States would be able to
borrow or create money to fill this deficit, Iran has much less capacity to do either without
triggering more economic difficulties.
Broader economic impacts are also visible. The IMF lowered growth projections for Iran due
to the "crippling effect of tighter US sanctions" in its July update. Based on this
projection, it is estimated that the economy will contract by 9.3 percent in 2019. This is a
downward revision from a previous projection in April of a decline of 6.0 percent. (Before
the sanctions, the economy was projected to grow by 4.0 percent.) Other indicators also
worsened after the reimposition of sanctions: the unemployment rate is estimated to be 25
percent; inflation has risen to 80 percent; and the currency has lost over half its
value.
Sanctions are exacerbating social problems
The main mechanism by which oil production has fallen is the same mechanism that prevents
Iran from importing food and medicine: Iran cannot find buyers for its oil on the open
market, just like it cannot buy food or medicine on the open market. In effect, it is cut off
from the US-dominated international financial system.
Uniquely, the United States exerts broad control over international banking transactions.
One way is via the SWIFT and CHIPS systems, which handle the vast majority of those
transactions. The SWIFT system, which provides a common communication system for banks, is
controlled by US banks, which own the majority of the system and have officials on its board.
On top of that, despite not being located in the United States, SWIFT makes all of the
system's data available to the US government, even if those transactions do not involve the
United States. The CHIPS system, which provides communication as well as settlement
functions, is governed by US law, has many US banks as owners, and is directly overseen by US
authorities. These systems rely on a network of correspondent banks -- which link banks that
might not have relationships with one another -- to complete transactions. The apex of the
correspondent system is the New York Federal Reserve Bank, under the control of US banking
authorities, which also serves as a lender of last resort to other central banks.
A system designed in this way ensures that banks with no relationship with each other
still can transact in a common currency (dollars) via a common bank (the New York Fed) in an
agreed-upon framework (SWIFT and CHIPS). However, it also means that the United States has
disproportionate power over transactions. Formally, the United States government, via the
Office of Foreign Assets Control, can prohibit transactions involving Iran to pass through
systems and banks in which it has jurisdiction. More informally, the US government can
pressure SWIFT, other central banks, correspondent banks, and even specific firms to adopt
policies of refusing to do business with Iran. Since these players fear retribution from US
authorities (e.g., being sanctioned themselves), they are usually unwilling to take the risk
of doing business with Iran unless they have no other business that might involve the United
States or financial entities that can be pressured by the United States.
Because the international banking system is designed in this way, US sanctions on the
Iranian economy effectively mean that not only can Iran not easily sell oil on the open
market, it cannot easily buy food or medicine either, even if the latter are nominally
exempt, as Hook says. This is because sanctioned Iranian banks and officials are ultimately
involved in these transactions in the same way that they are with oil, often by virtue of the
position they hold in the Iranian banking system. It is telling that hours after an October
2018 ruling by the International Court of Justice ordering the United States to "remove any
impediments" that affect the importation of medicine, food, and civil aviation products
(including impediments to payments and other transfers of funds related to these products),
the US withdrew from the treaty that formed the basis of the ruling, instead of complying
with it. Unsurprisingly, efforts at importing food and medicine via the technical exemptions
that do exist often fail. It appears that the technical exemptions are used more to deflect
criticism of sanctions overall than to actually permit the importation of food and
medicine.
But on top of these issues, even if food and medicine were, in reality, exempt from the
sanctions regime, the "crippling effect" on Iran's economy would impact the Iranians'
financial ability to acquire food and medicine anyway. Iran would have fewer resources to
devote to domestic food and medicine production, and many fewer resources to import the same
products.
Adapting to US sanctions
It is surprisingly difficult to bypass this financial system because it is so entrenched,
although it is not impossible. For example, countries might set up a bilateral or
multilateral system to carry out transactions in their own currencies and settle accounts in
a currency other than the dollar. Iran could negotiate bilateral trades with India: in
exchange for oil, Iran would accept rupees, and then use those rupees to purchase Indian
products. The downsides are that mechanisms would be needed to support these transactions
(i.e., establishing parallel payment and banking functions). In addition, Iran would need to
find a use for the rupees it received in exchange for oil, usually by buying Indian goods
(this is because it would be difficult to exchange rupees for other currencies on the open
market due to the sanctions).
One promising new multilateral mechanism, dubbed INSTEX, would allow trade between EU
countries and Iran without relying on direct transfer of funds or the use of the US-dominated
financial system. While in its beginning stage it will only deal with humanitarian trade,
INSTEX's model could potentially create a new path to buy Iranian oil. It is telling,
however, that EU countries set up an entirely different financial mechanism to use for
humanitarian trade, rather than risk drawing the ire of the United States by using
established channels.
Yet these alternative mechanisms are not immune from US influence either. In recent cases
where countries have announced intentions to develop alternative trade arrangements, the
United States has applied political pressure to nip them in the bud. This involves overt
economic threats as well as rhetoric urging countries like India to refrain from using a
"narrow bilateral lens" in economic trade.
In the meantime, Iran is able to sell some oil to countries such as China, Russia, and
India; either to pay back debt or because some banks in these countries do not have a
significant business that can be impacted by US retaliation. It also has had some success in
covertly transferring oil to buyers, but this does not always escape US control. Similarly,
Iran is able to maintain imports of some items, like bananas, outside of the established
financial system primarily due to the experience and ingenuity of importers, although usually
at lower volumes.
It should be clear that the US is uniquely positioned to choke off imports and exports
from a targeted country using sanctions, with deep, negative consequences for that country's
economy as well as severe constraints on its government's ability to address economic
problems.
In Iran's case, US sanctions mean that production of oil -- a vital export -- is in free
fall, unemployment is on the rise, and record inflation due to scarce imports has made it
harder for everyday Iranians to buy basic goods and access life-saving medicine. Recent
reports have detailed harrowing stories of hospitals running out of crucial cancer medicines
and patients struggling to afford or even find their prescriptions. As in Venezuela and other
targeted countries, US sanctions undoubtedly have a human toll associated with them, which
will only grow as time goes on. This human impact is one of the main reasons that experts in
international law argue unilateral sanctions are illegal under the United Nations Charter and
international human rights law.
While Iran has been exploring alternative ways of exporting and importing goods, it's
unclear what more it could do absent relief from sanctions. Even so, US officials will
typically place responsibility for the social and economic problems resulting from the
sanctions on the Iranian government, as Hook does. But Trump's comments are more revealing.
Sanctions only work because they cause suffering in the first place. In effect, the United
States is risking -- and sometimes ending -- the lives of thousands of Iranians with the hope
that the Iranian government acquiesces to its demands or is replaced by a more compliant
government. That the United States could carry out such a strategy in the first place should
raise serious questions among concerned US citizens and within the international community,
especially among those who respect international law.
Beyond the question of Jared's omnipresence is his apparent knack for political survival.
Although Trump tends to go through officials as rapidly as he tweets, Jared has managed thus
far to ride out the storm. Of course, firing Jared – husband of Trump's daughter, Ivanka
– would be more than your average political decision, which is probably why Trump should
never have dabbled in nepotism to begin with. Or perhaps Jared Kushner remains in his top-level
position not because he is the son-in-law of Donald Trump, or because he is so politically
astute (thus far it would seem he is not), but precisely because the Deep State wants him
there.
Whatever the case may be, it is notable that while Trump's main allies – guys like
Mike Flynn, Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus (all of whom were loathed by the Deep State,
incidentally) – fell to the wayside one after another, Kushner alone remains from the
original Trump lineup. And his popularity among the establishment elite remains high.
Reminiscent of the day when Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize without ever
negotiating a single peace deal, Time magazine just named Jared Kushner among its '100 Most
Influential People'. And it was none other than Henry Kissinger, 93, the fiercely criticized
former US statesman, who penned the blurb that accompanied Jared's honorable mention.
Kissinger, expert practitioner of the "strategic lie", says he first met Kushner "about 18
months ago, when he introduced himself after a foreign policy lecture I had given." The very
next line strongly suggests that Kissinger
is lurking in the shadows of the Trump administration. "We have sporadically exchanged views
since."
Really? That short sentence should have set alarms ringing. What exactly does Kissinger mean
by "sporadically," and what is it that he and Jared discuss? Somehow I doubt the weather. And
is Trump aware of the content of these "sporadic" conversations, or is he content to get the
Cliff Notes courtesy of Kushner?
Considering Henry Kissinger's extremely checkered past – for starters, he convinced
Nixon to bomb Cambodia and Laos, and replace the democratically elected government of Chile
with a brutal military dictatorship – these are no idle questions. And as it turns out,
there is already some whiff of mischief in the air that directly involves Jared Kushner, and,
indirectly or otherwise, Henry Kissinger.
The Art of The Dumb
To date, President Trump has made two critical decisions that, for many analysts, defied
logic and even common sense and were, in short, disastrous. The first involved the firing of
Michael Flynn less than a month after he was named national security adviser. The stated reason
for that decision was due to conversations Flynn had with former Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak a month before Trump formally took office. However, Flynn was doing nothing more
'subversive' than attempting to tamp down Russia's understandable fury at being treated so
brusquely by the Obama administration.
In the tidal wave of Russophobia that swept through Washington following Hillary Clinton's
dramatic defeat, Barack Obama – after originally acknowledging the election to have been
fair – suddenly changed his tune. Apparently somebody had a talk with him, and on
December 29, based on the groundless claims of Russian tampering the elections, Obama expelled
35 Russian embassy staff, as well as imposing sanctions – all just days before the New
Year.
It was in the course of this dramatic diplomatic meltdown between the world's two nuclear
powers that Flynn and Kislyak spoke on the telephone on several occasions in an effort to
repair the damage (It should be noted that Jared Kushner also participated in an earlier
meeting at Trump Tower with Michael Flynn and Sergey Kislyak. The purpose of that meeting was
to "establish a line of communication" between the soon-to-be Trump administration and the
Kremlin, the White House told the New York Times). All things considered, it was the honorable
thing to do. Others, of course, saw things differently. Yet Flynn got the sack, while Kushner
continues in his post relatively unscathed.
When the wolves in the Democratic Party came a knocking, Trump probably thought he could
satisfy the Deep State, obviously hell-bent on sabotaging US-Russia relations, by sacrificing
Flynn like an easily disposable pawn. The maverick of Manhattan gambled wrong. Trump now
reportedly "
regrets " firing Flynn, who he says got a "very bad deal" from the media.
The second even more mysterious event involved the firing of James Comey, the FBI Director
who was in the process of investigating claims of collusion between Trump and Russia in the
course of the 2016 presidential election. It did not take a political genius to understand that
firing Comey while he was investigating claims of "Russian collusion" would only serve to
fortify that very myth – and worse, appear as an attempt at a Trump cover-up. The US
president, understandably at wits end over the ongoing witch-hunt, now seemed guilty of
attempting to 'disappear' the nosy Comey. What he got instead was just more barbarians at the
gate.
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, yet another dedicated Trump loyalist who
got served a pink slip,
told Charlie Rose in an interview that President Trump's decision to fire James Comey was
"the biggest mistake in modern political history."
So who gave Trump such horrible advice? Some reports point to Kushner.
According to a Vanity Fair
report , "Trump blamed Jared Kushner for his role in decisions, specifically the firings of
Mike Flynn and James Comey, that led to Mueller's appointment." That comment was allegedly
based on a phone call between Bannon and Trump. In another conversation, political analyst
Roger Stone supposedly told Trump that Kushner was giving him bad political advice, and Trump
agreed.
"Jared is the worst political adviser in the White House in modern history," former Trump
campaign aide Sam Nunberg told the magazine. "I'm only saying publicly what everyone says
behind the scenes at Fox News, in conservative media, and the Senate and Congress."
However, Nunberg's judgment is only true if we assume that Kushner is really dedicated to
faithfully serving Donald Trump, but is just awful at his job. Or, alternatively, if he is
instead accepting the demands and advice being given to him from people like Henry Kissinger,
representatives of the Deep State. In that case, it could be argued he is doing a remarkable
job.
Welcome back, Henry Kissinger
Keeping in mind Mark Twain's observation that "history does not repeat itself, but it does
rhyme," it was impossible to miss the historical coincidence of Kissinger appearing next to
Donald Trump in May shortly after the latter unceremoniously canned Comey. Why was it a
coincidence?
Because decades earlier, Henry Kissinger, while serving under Richard Nixon as National
Security Adviser and Secretary of State, played a major role in the so-called 'Saturday Night
Massacre,' which saw Nixon fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox, who was attempting
to retrieve telephone recordings connected to the case.
What followed from that disastrous decision was Nixon being eventually forced to resign in
disgrace, a political calamity that some experts say could eventually happen to Trump if
'Russiagate' gets any more out of control.
"The unexpected firing of a high-profile investigator looking into potential political
malfeasance connected to the White House, followed by a visit by Henry Kissinger to the Oval
Office. No, this is not October 1973," began an ABC News
report detailing Kissinger's strangely timed invitation to the White House.
Trump said the meeting with Kissinger, now 93, focused on Russia, Syria and "various other
matters," calling Kissinger a "friend for a long time."
Coincidence or otherwise, Kissinger was one of Nixon's closest confidants and also met with
him after the Saturday Night Massacre.
"I don't think we can read too much into that, but it would be interesting if they were
consulting him on troubleshooting, in which case, Kissinger wouldn't be the first person I
would turn to," David Greenberg, a professor of history and journalism and media studies at
Rutgers University in New Jersey, told ABC News.
In any case, if it really was Jared Kushner who advised Trump to dump both Flynn and Comey,
as many analysts suggest, then the sudden appearance of geopolitical guru Kissinger in the
White House shortly afterwards is peculiar to say the least.
1001 Arabian arrests
Just this month, we may have witnessed, albeit from second-hand accounts, Jared Kushner
taking his first steps as a Kissinger geopolitical protégé.
On November 3rd, Saudi Arabia placed a call to Lebanon's then Prime Minister Saad Hariri,
demanding that he pay a visit to Riyadh. Hariri wasted no time at all, reportedly flying to
Saudi Arabia without his regular staff. The next day, Hariri did something completely out of
the ordinary: In a televised appearance, from the Saudi capital, he announced that he was
resigning from his post as prime minister.
Western media greatly played down the fact that Hariri made his announcement on foreign
soil, not least of all Saudi soil, while giving extra attention to Hariri's explanation for his
sudden retirement: Iran and Hezbollah, which just helped Syria liberate itself from ISIS
terrorists.
"Wherever Iran settles, it sows discord, devastation and destruction, proven by its
interference in the internal affairs of Arab countries," he said in his prepared statement. He
also said he feared for his life.
That evening, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman arrested 11 Saudi princes, 4 government
officials and dozens of businessmen, while also claiming that Saudi Arabia had intercepted a
ballistic missile launched by Houthi rebels in Yemen. The blame for that unconfirmed event
naturally went to Iran as well.
Iran's Foreign Ministry said Hariri's resignation was a ploy to "create tension in Lebanon
and the region."
"Hariri's resignation was done with planning by Donald Trump, the president of America, and
Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), the crown prince of Saudi Arabia,"
said Hussein Sheikh al-Islam, adviser to Iran's supreme leader.
However, Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif took the blame game one step further,
pointing to Jared Kushner as the cause of the spectacle.
"Visits by Kushner & Lebanese PM led to [Saad] Hariri's bizarre resignation while
abroad," Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted
. "Of course, Iran is accused of interference."
Indeed, Kushner paid a visit to Saudi Arabia in October as part of a four-day trip that also
included stops in Israel, Jordan and Egypt.
The Washington Post
provided some scant details on Kushner's secretive meeting with MbS: "MBS is emboldened by
strong support from President Trump and his inner circle It was probably no accident that last
month, Jared Kushner, Trump's senior adviser and son-in-law, made a personal visit to Riyadh.
The two princes are said to have stayed up until nearly 4 a.m. several nights, swapping stories
and planning strategy."
Meanwhile, Israel's interest in what transpires between Saudi Arabia and Lebanon is also of
no small concern, given its wariness of Iranian moves in the region,
as noted by The Spectator : "The Jewish state is hardly a natural ally for Saudi Arabia,
but they have long shared a common enemy: Iran. Both fear the latter is exploiting the opening
created by the fall of Isis, and the triumph of the Assad regime in Syria, to dominate the
region "
The question, however, comes down to what role Jared Kushner has been playing in all of
this, and to what end? Is he loyally and dutifully serving the interests of Donald Trump, while
being groomed as the next Henry Kissinger, possibly eventually moving seamlessly between
consecutive administrations, as Kissinger did when he survived the downfall of Nixon and went
on to serve under Gerald Ford?
Or is Jared Kushner, despite being the son-in-law and top adviser of Donald Trump, heeding
the demands of a different master?
"... The man was remarkable at one specific thing: pleasing his bosses and single-minded self-promotion. Sure he lacked anything resembling empathy, saw his troops as little more than tools for personal advancement, and his overall personality disturbingly matched the clinical definition of sociopathy. Details, details ..."
It has taken me years to tell these stories. The emotional and moral wounds of the
Afghan War have just felt too recent, too raw.
After all, I could hardly write a thing
down about my Iraq War experience for nearly ten years, when, by accident, I churned out a
book
on
the subject. Now, as the American war in Afghanistan – hopefully – winds to something approaching a
close, it's finally time to impart some tales of the madness. In this new, recurring, semi-regular
series, the reader won't find many worn out sagas of heroism, brotherhood, and love of country. Not
that this author doesn't have such stories, of course. But one can find those sorts of tales in
countless books and numerous trite, platitudinal Hollywood yarns.
With that in mind, I propose to tell a number of very different sorts of stories –
profiles, so to speak, in absurdity.
That's what war is, at root, an exercise in
absurdity, and America's hopeless post-9/11 wars are stranger than most. My own 18-year long quest
to find some meaning in all the combat, to protect my troops from danger, push back against the
madness, and dissent from within the army proved Kafkaesque in the extreme.
Consider what
follows just a survey of that hopeless journey...
The man was remarkable at one specific thing: pleasing his bosses and single-minded
self-promotion.
Sure he lacked anything resembling empathy, saw his troops as little more
than tools for personal advancement, and his overall personality disturbingly matched the clinical
definition of sociopathy. Details, details
Still, you (almost) had to admire his drive, devotion, and dedication to the cause of
promotion, of rising through the military ranks.
Had he managed to channel that
astonishing energy, obsession even, to the pursuit of some good, the world might markedly have
improved. Which is, actually, a dirty little secret about the military, especially ground combat
units; that it tends to attract (and mold) a disturbing number of proud owners of such personality
disorders. The army then positively reinforces such toxic behavior by promoting these sorts of
individuals – who excel at mind-melding (brown-nosing, that is) with superiors – at
disproportionate rates. Such is life.
Only there are
real
consequences,
real
soldiers,
(to say nothing of local civilians) who suffer under their commanders' tyranny.
Back in 2011-12, the man served as my commander, a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army.
As such, he led – and partly
controlled the destinies of – some 500 odd soldiers
.
Then a lowly captain, I commanded about one-fifth of those men and answered directly to the
colonel.
I didn't much like the guy; hardly any of his officers did.
And he didn't
trust my aspirational intellectualism, proclivity to ask "why," or, well,
me
in general.
Still, he mostly found this author an effective middle manager. As such, I was a means to an end
for him – that being self-advancement and some positive measurable statistics for his annual
officer evaluation report (OER) from his own boss. Nonetheless, it was the army and you sure don't
choose your bosses.
So it was, early in my yearlong tour in the scrublands of rural Kandahar province, that
the colonel treated me to one his dog-and-pony-show visits.
Only this time he had some
unhappy news for me. The next day he, and the baker's dozen tag-alongs in his ubiquitous entourage,
wanted to walk the few treacherous miles to the most dangerous strongpoint in the entire
sub-district. It was occupied, needlessly, by one of my platoons in perpetuity and suffered under
constant siege by the local Taliban, too small to contest the area and too big to fly under the
radar, this – at one point the most attacked outpost in Afghanistan – base just provided an
American flag-toting target. I'd communicated as much to command early on, but to no avail. Can-do
US colonels with aspirations for general officer rank hardly
ever
give up territory to the
enemy – even if that's the strategically sound course.
Walking to the platoon strongpoint was dicey on even the best of days. The route between
our main outpost and the Alamo-like strongpoint was flooded with Taliban insurgents and provided
precious little cover or concealment for out patrols.
On my first jaunt to the outpost, I
(foolishly, it must be said) walked my unit into an ambush and was thrown over a small rock wall by
the blast of a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) with my apparent name on it. Since then, it was
standard for our patrols to the strongpoint to suffer multiple ambushes during the roundtrip
rotation. Sometimes our kids got wounded or killed; sometimes they were lucky. Mercifully, at
least, my intelligence section – led by my
friend
and
rebranded artillery lieutenant – did their homework and figured out that the chronically lazy local
Taliban didn't like to fight at night or wake up early, so patrols to the strongpoint that stepped
off before dawn had a fighting chance of avoiding the worst of ambush alley.
I hadn't wanted to take my colonel on a patrol to the outpost. His entourage was
needlessly large and, when added to my rotational platoon, presented an unwieldy and inviting
target for Taliban ambush.
Still I knew better than to argue the point with my
disturbingly confident and single-minded colonel. So I hedged. Yes, sir, we can take you along,
with one caveat:
we have to leave before dawn!
I proceeded to explain why, replete with
historical stats and examples, we could only (somewhat) safely avoid ambush if we did so.
That's when things went south.
The colonel insisted we leave at nine,
maybe even ten, in the morning, the absolute
peak
window for Taliban attack. This prima
donna reminded me that he couldn't possibly leave any earlier.
He had a "battle rhythm,"
after all, which included working out in the gym at his large, safe,
distant-from-the-roar-of-battle base each morning.
How could I expect him to alter that
predictable schedule over something as minor as protecting the lives and limbs of his own troopers?
He had "to set an example," he reminded me, by letting his soldiers on the base "see him in the
gym" each and every morning. Back then, silly me, I was actually surprised by the colonel's absurd
refusal; so much so that I pushed back, balked, tried to rationally press my point. To no avail.
What the man said next has haunted me ever since.
We would leave no
earlier than nine AM, according to his preference. My emotional pleas – begging really – was not
only for naught but insulted the colonel. Why? Because, as he imparted to me, for my own growth and
development he thought,
"Remember: lower caters to higher, Danny!"
That, he reminded me, was the way of the military world, the key to success and advancement. The
man even thought he was being helpful, advising me on how to achieve the success he'd achieved.
My heart sank forever, and never recovered.
The next day he was late. We didn't step off until nearly ten AM. The ambush, a massive
mix of RPG and machine gun fire, kicked off – as predicted – within sight of the main base. The
rest was history, and certainly could've been worse.
On other, less lucky, days it was.
But I remember this one profound moment. When the first rocket exploded above us, both the colonel
and I dove for limited cover behind a mound of rocks. I was terrified and exasperated. Just then we
locked eyes and I gazed into his proverbial soul. The man was incapable of fear. He wasn't scared,
or disturbed; he didn't care a bit about what was happening. That revelation was more terrifying
than the ongoing ambush and would alter my view of the world irreparably.
Which brings us to some of the discomfiting morals – if such things exist – of this
story.
American soldiers fight and die at the whims of career-obsessed officers as much they do
so at the behest of king and country.
Sometimes its their own leaders – as much as the
ostensible "enemy" – that tries to get them killed. The plentiful sociopaths running these wars at
the upper and even middle-management levels are often far less concerned with long-term, meaningful
"victory" in places like Afghanistan, than in crafting – on the backs of their soldiers sacrifices
– the
illusion
of progress, just enough measurable "success" in their one year tour to
warrant a stellar evaluation and, thus, the next promotion. Not all leaders are like this. I, for
one, once worked for a man for whom I – and all my peers – would run through walls for, a (then)
colonel that loved his hundreds of soldiers like they were his own children. But he was the
exception that proved the rule.
The madness, irrationality, and absurdity of my colonel was nothing less than a
microcosm of America's entire hopeless adventure in Afghanistan.
The war was never
rational, winnable, or meaningful. It was from the first, and will end as, an exercise in futility.
It was, and is, one grand patrol to my own unnecessary outpost, undertaken at the wrong time and
place. It was a collection of sociopaths and imbeciles – both Afghan and American – tilting at
windmills and ultimately dying for nothing at all. Yet the young men in the proverbial trenches
never flinched, never refused. They did their absurd duty because they were acculturated to the
military system, and because they were embarrassed not to.
The Major totally failed to mention
the Patriot Act and the removal of
US Constitutional rights from
Americans based on a false flag
attack that cold bloodily murdered
3,000 people and cost the taxpayers
over 10 trillion dollars.
Just to put it in perspective, the US has been in Afghanistan
for 18 years and has lost less than 3000 troops and just over
20000 wounded. The US was in Vietnam 20 years and loss nearly
60000 troops and 150000 wounded. This not to diminish the
misery of those that served in either war, but not really
comparable in scope.
You did what you had to do, Major. You were a good shabbos goy
for world financial oligarchy but now they don't need you any more
so go shoot heroin up your veins or jump off a ******* building,
but you dare not even so much as ask for a "thank you" from the
financial oligarchy!
"... It is what all people of knowledge and conscience must prioritize accomplishing over any and all other concerns with the exception of the environment. ..."
"... literal medical necessity ..."
"... @humphrey ..."
"... My own take is that "America" is meaningless; world capital calls the shots. The US functions as a mercenary hiring hall for the owners, ever since Iraq I. You think the owners will let anybody mess with their mercs? ..."
Imagine if America had to answer for its war crimes
gjohnsit on Thu, 09/05/2019 - 5:25pm Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demonstrated what the term "ugly American" meant the
other day when he
bragged about his defeat of the International Criminal Court.
"Americanism means taking care of our own," said Pompeo.
"We stopped international courts from prosecuting our service members," Pompeo continued, adding that the potential probe "was
an outrage."
...
Pompeo confirmed earlier this year that the administration would revoke or deny visas for ICC personnel who try to investigate
or prosecute U.S. officials or key allies for potential war crimes. A month later, in April, the administration followed through
and revoked prosecutor Bensouda's visa for entry into the U.S.
Just because you defeated justice doesn't mean the crimes go away.
However, it does mean that there is no incentive to stop committing war crimes.
That brings us to today's news from Yemen .
The UK, US, France and Iran may be complicit in possible war crimes in Yemen over their support for parties to the conflict there,
UN experts say.
A new report warns the countries they could be held responsible for aiding or assisting the commission of violations.
The Western powers provide weapons and logistical support to the Saudi-led coalition backing Yemen's government, while Iran backs
the Houthi rebels.
...
The UN says the four-year conflict has claimed the lives of at least 7,290 civilians and left 80% of the population - 24 million
people - in need of humanitarian assistance or protection, including 10 million who rely on food aid to survive.
Yemen has gotten a significant amount of much needed attention in recent years, but just across the Gulf of Aden another
humanitarian disaster of gigantic size is happening in
near total silence and obscurity.
"In the absence of humanitarian assistance, up to 2.1 million people across Somalia face severe hunger through December," the
UN warned, citing the 2019 Post-Gu report's conclusion that this would bring the total number of Somalis expected to be food insecure,
to 6.3 million by year's end.
1 million children are expected to be malnourished in Somalia by year's end.
The United States may have committed war crimes as it bombed al-Shabab militants in Somalia, a new report Amnesty International
alleges...
They found that the airstrikes killed farmers, women and an eight-year-old girl, whom the group assessed had no ties to al-Shabab.
"Due to the nature of the attacks, the U.S. government is violating international humanitarian law and these violations may
amount to war crimes," Hassan said.
While the United States has been bombing Somalia for more than a decade, the Trump administration has accelerated the attacks.
The insurgency there is fueled by
Somali rage over now decades-long American interference in their country.
Why Americans cannot bring themselves to care about Somalia is something I will never understand.
Meanwhile in Libya things have gone from
bad to worse .
"Unless action is taken in the near term, it is highly likely that the current conflict will escalate into full civil war," Guterres
said on Thursday in his latest report on the UN Support Mission in Libya.
AFRICOM says that a civil war would "give existing terrorist elements in Libya oxygen."
The leading instigator of the fighting is General Khalifa Haftar.
Haftar, after the defeat of the Libyan troops he was commanding in 1987, he offered his services to
the CIA
, which backed him for years as he awaited the opportunity to topple Muammar Gaddafi.
Is it really any surprise that
Trump loves him
?
An airstrike by Khalifa Haftar's forces hit a migrant detention center east of Tripoli yesterday and killed at least 44 people
and wounded up to 130. Haftar and his forces are mainly backed by the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and this airstrike is part
of the assault on the Libyan capital that Trump reportedly endorsed when it began. The Trump administration is now shielding Haftar
from condemnation by the Security Council by blocking the statement promoted by the U.K.
The
ICC plans to investigate these war crimes, but since the Trump Administration won't even allow a condemnation, and considering
how much Washington hates the ICC, i wouldn't count on this investigation going very far.
The idea that POMPEO is "outraged" is...well, he's a Nazi. So is anybody who thinks that way (lookin' at you, Dubya & Friends).
THEY ARE DETERMINED TO OBLITERATE THE ENTIRE 20TH CENTURY, THE CENTURY THAT MADE AMERICA GREAT PRECISELY BECAUSE, FOR A BRIEF
MOMENT IN TIME, IT CAST OFF AND STOOD AGAINST THAT VERY MENTALITY.
Men like him belong in their own torture-camps...or a short distance under them.
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
NUREMBERG II: JUDGMENT DAY.
It is what they most dread.
It is the least they deserve.
It is what the entire world - the American people most of all - NEEDS NOW. It is what all people of knowledge and conscience must prioritize accomplishing over any and all other concerns with the exception
of the environment.
FIAT JUSTICIA, RUUAT CAELUM: "Let there be Justice, though the Heavens may fall".
I believe that Justice (REAL Justice, not just the way it's been redefined by some as "goodies for my clique"), delivered in
a timely, precise, and reliable manner, is nothing short of a literal medical necessity - and the truth is, Caelum IS
Ruuating PRECISELY BECAUSE there has been no Justicia.
Our war crimes go way back and they continue to today.
Unfortunately, the US is the 800 lb gorilla on the world stage and no one is willing or courageous enough to challenge that
gorilla.
thank you. i look forward to reading it more carefully later, especially your link on somalia. i remember bill clinton's hypocritical
R2P only too well.. which precious Somalian mineral was the hegemon really after?
In the book The Ugly American, the ugly guy was actually the good guy who understood and respected local culture; he was just
ugly and unsmooth. The "pretty" Americans were the villains. IIRC, it's been over 50 years. Might be worth re-reading.
Are we surprised? This is the Pax (or Bellus?) Americana. Since the USSR folded, the UN is toothless and GodGun$Gut$ dominates
the world with endless war -- or thinks it does; after all, one in six humans is Chinese.
My own take is that "America" is meaningless; world capital calls the shots. The US functions as a mercenary hiring hall
for the owners, ever since Iraq I. You think the owners will let anybody mess with their mercs?
"Do you really think they spend $400 on a hammer?"
That line comes straight out
of a movie . Didn't I tell you American get their reality from their Plato's Cave
screens?
I briefly worked in a machine shop that did DoD contract work. We would buy washers by the
pound from the hardware store down the street, heat seal them individually into little
plastic baggies with the part number printed on them, and then sell them to the Navy for $50
each .
Yeah, the military pays $400 each, if not a good deal more, for their hammers.
I actually had read that news report in Tass about Putin's offer to Trump and I didn't regard
it as trolling until I saw b's article. Putin's logic was that Russia had already invested
the money and could make some back, and meanwhile the US could save some money and move
towards a strategic parity - which I believe Russia would actually prefer over a superiority,
since a stable balance is far less frantic than an arms race.
So it all made sense to me.
This has been a fun thread but it's all a nonsense here tonight of course. Pity. I liked
what I was reading from Putin:
Putin told the plenary session of the fifth Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) on Thursday that
at the last meeting with his American partners in Osaka, Japan "the issue was raised as to
how and in what way it would be possible to count Russian modern weapons, including the
hypersonic missile systems, into the common agreements, considering that so far not a
single country in the world possesses these weapons, not even the US."
"I told Donald the following: "if you want, we can sell you some and this way we will
balance everything out. But truth be told, they are saying that they will soon produce it
themselves.
Perhaps they will, but why waste money when we already have spent some and can get
something back, and at the same time not harm our security but rather create a situation
where there is a balance," Putin elaborated.
In reading this excellent brief analysis, I would suggest that followers read the also
excellent books, Losing Military Supremacy "The Myopia of American Strategic Planning" by
Andrei Martyanov and In the Shadows of the American Century "The Rise and Decline of US
Global Power," by Alfred w. McCoy, to get an understanding of the minds of the Military
Industrial Complex. The book by Mr. Martyanov provides examples of why the American military
can't win battles against 2nd and 3rd peer adversaries (Vietnam (The American War as the
Vietnamese call it), Korean War (The UN Police Action), Afghanistan War, and their future
inability to win any future wars against a 1st peer adversary (Russia, China). The American
military tells itself it is a great fighting force without peer but it also believes it's own
press that the US military brought the German Werhmarcht to their knees, when we know the
Russians won War World II. McCoy's book, which is well researched, also states the same
premise but from an american perspective.
The MIC will be the downfall of the US and it the deepest of the Deep State. The 1
TRILLION dollar yearly military budget (minus the unknown Black budget) will bankrupt this
country. It is also unfortunate that the noble peace prize winner Obama, authorized a
Trillion dollar upgrade to the US nuclear arsenal, when he could have halved the number of
warheads and still had plenty to destroy the planet a hundred times over. So much for the
prince of peace.
We would also do well to stop giving other countries billions in military aid (israhell,
saudi barbaria, UAE, etc) to drop bombs and snipe poor people attempting to live free.
Hopefully the end is near.
PS: If you want to read a near term fictional book on the demise of the MIC and changes to
the culture in America, the book "Twilight's Last Gleaming" by John Michael Greer is
spellbinding and a great read. Interestingly enough, he has written over thirty books and
writes about post industrial collapse and their outcomes.
Carriers are floating air bases for attacking weaker nations with miniscule inexperienced air
forces and skimpy ground air defense. They are for force projection in wars of aggression,
not general wars in defense of the nation. The only sense in which they are weaknesses is
that high losses for the master race that expects easy victory are doubly shocking.
Stealth aircraft are equally first strike weapons aimed at knocking out radar, hitting
enemy planes on the ground and sowing confusion. As they are not tactical aircraft such flaws
as rain shadow, etc. that render them unfit combat aircraft against an enemy in the air may
be irrelevant.
Missile defenses have a lousy record against missiles in flight, but the radar targeting
makes them very adaptable as first strike weapons against enemy launch sites. All
"antimissile" missile defense systems should be regarded as being an effort in that
direction. Air defense systems that concentrate on electronic warfare, confusing the air with
flak, taking down manned aircraft, camouflage, etc. are something else, unromantic but
vital.
Nobody can effectively use mass drone attacks or cruise missile attacks for strategic
victory, because strategic bombing does not actually work without ground attacks interdicting
supplies and/or actively preventing rebuilding/reorganization. Thus it is not a meaningful
failure for US air defenses to fail against Houthi air attacks. The Houthi air attacks are
also not going to win the war. The inability of the Saudis to win ground loses it for them,
meaning endless war is financially debilitating, plus, again, self-sacrifice is not something
the Saudi monarchy can call upon.
Lastly, the Russians do no have hypersonic weapons. Even if they did, the notion that
weapon systems largely useful in first strikes indicates a horrible misreading of Russia's
military situation. There is no reasonable strategy for them that involves a first
strike.
WASHINGTON: Yesterday, the Army awarded two key contracts to catch up to Russia and China
in the race to field battle-ready hypersonic missiles. After years of one-off
experimental prototypes, the US plans to produce and field actual weapons.
The race for hypersonic missiles heated up last week when the US Army awarded two key
contracts to catch up to Russia and China. After a decade of experimental prototypes, the
Army is expected to get its hands on hypersonic missiles that will be fielded in the next
four years, reported Breaking Defense.
"Carriers are today, at least for Russia, India and China, not threats but large and juicy
targets".
Gary Brecher 'the war nerd' said years ago that carriers were obsolete this article both
informative and witty is a must read...
"The Chinese military has developed a ballistic missile, Dong Feng 21, specifically
designed to kill US aircraft carriers: "Because the missile employs a complex guidance
system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable,
the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is
estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in
less than 12 minutes." That's the US Naval Institute talking, remember. They're
understating the case when they say that, with speed, satellite guidance and
maneuverability like that, "the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target
are increased."
You know why that's an understatement? Because of a short little sentence I found farther
on in the article -- and before you read that sentence, I want all you trusting Pentagon
groupies to promise me that you'll think hard about what it implies. Here's the sentence:
"Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack." http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/
This discussion avoids comparing society in the mid-19th century and today. It really isn't that long ago. I've lived through
almost half of it. Except for officers most of the soldiers I served with were conscripted or enlisted because of the draft. In
a war your choices are limited. If they were in the march, driving wagons, armed to the teeth, they were soldiers; no matter how
they got there.
Today's volunteer Army most of the soldiers and contractors are there because they couldn't get a better job unless they are
adrenaline junkies or psychopaths. The current neoliberal economy purposefully exploits people and the environment to make a profit.
Today's soldiers aren't too different than the slave legions of ancient Rome. Perhaps, "warriors" isn't that much of a misnomer.
"... But what happens when those "standards of excellence" lead to 20 years of fighting unwinnable wars on the peripheries of the planet? When do habits and practices turn into mental stagnation? ..."
"... You know when it comes to generals, whether they're Marines, whether they're Army, whether they're Mattis who's supposedly this "warrior monk," these guys talk tactics and then claim it's strategy. What they consider to be strategic thinking really is just tactical thinking on a broad scale . I think the biggest problem with all the four-star generals are they're "how" thinkers not "if" thinkers. ..."
"... This inability of America's elites (including its generals) to grapple with strategic concepts is a result of the United States' post-Cold War unipolar moment. When there's only one superpower, geopolitics and the need for international balancing fall by the wayside. ..."
"... Mattis, like virtually all of his four-star peers, is a reactionary, fighting every day against the forces of change in modern warfare ..."
"... "[W]hen you shave it all down, his problem with being the epitome of establishment Washington is that he sees the alliance as the end, not as a means to an end," says Davis. "The means should be to the end of improving American security and supporting our interests." ..."
"... "By clinging to unsustainable military solutions from the distant past, he has condemned future generations of soldiers and marines to repeat disasters like Pickett's Charge," says Macgregor. ..."
Last week, The Wall Street Journal published a lengthy
op-ed written by former secretary of defense James Mattis, his first public statement since
his resignation in December. The article is adopted from his forthcoming book, Call Sign
Chaos: Learning to Lead , out this week.
The former Pentagon chief opens a window into his decision making process, explaining that
accepting President Trump's nomination was part of his lifelong devotion to public service:
"When the president asks you to do something, you don't play Hamlet on the wall, wringing your
hands. So long as you are prepared, you say yes." Mattis's two years at DoD capped off 44 years
in the Marine Corps, where he gained a popular following as a tough and scholarly leader.
Mattis received widespread praise from the foreign policy establishment when he resigned in
protest over President Trump's directive for a full U.S. military withdrawal from Syria and a
partial withdrawal from Afghanistan. "When my concrete solutions and strategic advice,
especially keeping faith with our allies, no longer resonated, it was time to resign, despite
the limitless joy I felt serving alongside our troops in defense of our Constitution," he
writes.
But did Mattis really offer "concrete solutions and strategic advice" regarding America's
two decades of endless war? spoke with four military experts, all veterans, who painted a very
different picture of the man called "Mad Dog."
"I think over time, in General Mattis's case a little over 40 years, if you spend that many
years in an institution, it is extremely hard not to get institutionalized," says Gil
Barndollar, military fellow-in-residence at the Catholic University of America's Center for the
Study of Statesmanship. Barndollar served as an infantry officer in the Marine Corps and
deployed twice to Afghanistan. "In my experiences, there are not too many iconoclasts or really
outside-the-box people in the higher ranks of the U.S. military."
It's just that sort of institutionalized thinking that makes the political establishment
love Mattis. "[A] person with an institutional mind-set has a deep reverence for the
organization he has joined and how it was built by those who came before. He understands that
institutions pass down certain habits, practices and standards of excellence," wrote David
Brooks in a hagiographic New York Timescolumn .
But what happens when those "standards of excellence" lead to 20 years of fighting
unwinnable wars on the peripheries of the planet? When do habits and practices turn into mental
stagnation?
"The problem is, from at least the one-star the whole way through, for the last two decades,
you've seen them do nothing but just repeat the status quo over and over," observes Lieutenant
Colonel Daniel L. Davis, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, who served 21 years in the U.S.
Army and deployed four times to Iraq and Afghanistan. "I mean every single general that was in
charge of Afghanistan said almost the same boilerplate thing every time they came in (which was
nearly one a year). You see the same results, nothing changed."
"And if those guys took someone from a major to a two-star general, we'd probably have a lot
of better outcomes," he adds.
Major Danny Sjursen, who served tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, agrees:
You know when it comes to generals, whether they're Marines, whether they're Army, whether
they're Mattis who's supposedly this "warrior monk," these guys talk tactics and then claim
it's strategy. What they consider to be strategic thinking really is just tactical thinking
on a broad scale . I think the biggest problem with all the four-star generals are they're
"how" thinkers not "if" thinkers.
Barndollar says: "The vast majority of military leaders, up to and including generals at the
three-, four-star level, are not operating at the strategic level, in terms of what that word
means in military doctrine. They're not operating at the level of massive nation-state
resources and alliances and things like that. They're at the operational level or often even at
the tactical level."
This inability of America's elites (including its generals) to grapple with strategic
concepts is a result of the United States' post-Cold War unipolar moment. When there's only one
superpower, geopolitics and the need for international balancing fall by the wayside.
The only component of national security policy Mattis discusses in his op-ed is America's
system of alliances, which he believes is the key to our preeminence on the world stage.
"Returning to a strategic stance that includes the interests of as many nations as we can make
common cause with, we can better deal with this imperfect world we occupy together," he
writes.
"Mattis, like virtually all of his four-star peers, is a reactionary, fighting every day
against the forces of change in modern warfare," counters Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who served
28 years in the U.S. Army. "He lives in denial of the technological breakthroughs that make the
World War II force structure (that he as SecDef insisted on funding) an expensive tribute to
the past."
Mattis muses that the Department of Defense "budget [is] larger than the GDPs of all but two
dozen countries." Yet having acknowledged that disparity, how can such underpowered foreign
nations possibly contribute to American security?
"He has that line in there about bringing as many guns as possible to a gun fight. What are
those guns?" asked Barndollar. For example, the British Royal Navy is the United States' most
significant allied naval force. But the United Kingdom has
only seven vessels stationed in the Persian Gulf and they're "stretched to the absolute
limit to do that."
"Our problem has been double-edged," says Davis of America's reliance on others. "On the one
hand, we try to bludgeon a lot of our allies to do what we want irrespective of their interests
as an asset. And then simultaneously, especially in previous administrations, we've almost gone
too far [in] the other direction: 'we'll subordinate our interests for yours.'"
"[W]hen you shave it all down, his problem with being the epitome of establishment
Washington is that he sees the alliance as the end, not as a means to an end," says Davis. "The
means should be to the end of improving American security and supporting our interests."
Sjursen says:
Mattis's view is the old Einstein adage: "doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting a different result is the definition of insanity." Well that's all he's proposed.
He has no new or creative solutions. For him, it's stay the course, more of the same, stay in
place, fight the terrorists, maintain the illegitimate and corrupt governments that we back.
That's what he's been talking about for 18 years. It's all the same interventionist dogma
that's failed us over and over again since September 12, 2001.
"In the two years he was in office, what did he do that changed anything? He was a caretaker
of the status quo. That's the bottom line," says Davis, adding, "you need somebody in that job
especially that is willing to take some chances and some risk and is willing to honestly look
at 18 consecutive years of failure and say, 'We're not doing that anymore. We're going to do
something different.' And that just never happened."
Barndollar is more generous in his estimation of Mattis: "He needs to be lauded for standing
for his principles, ultimately walking away when he decided he could no longer execute U.S.
national security policy. I give him all the credit for that, for doing it I think in a
relatively good manner, and for trying to do his best to stay above the fray and refuse to be
dragged in at a partisan level to this point."
Mattis ends his Wall Street Journal op-ed by recounting a vignette from the 2010
Battle of Marjah, where he spoke with two soldiers on the front lines and in good cheer. But
his story didn't sit well with Sjursen, who says it encapsulates Mattis' inability to ask the
bigger questions: "He never talks about how those charming soldiers with the can-do attitude
maybe shouldn't have been there at all. Maybe the mission that they were asked to do was
ill-informed, ill-advised, and potentially unwinnable."
All this suggests that a fair evaluation of Mattis is as a soldier who is intelligent but
unoriginal. A homegrown patriot, but one who'd like to plant the Stars and Stripes in Central
Asia forever. A public servant, but one who would rather resign than serve the cause of
restraint.
"By clinging to unsustainable military solutions from the distant past, he has condemned
future generations of soldiers and marines to repeat disasters like Pickett's Charge," says
Macgregor.
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter for The National Interest .Follow him on
Twitter@HunterDeRensis
.
Libya war was a pure oil grab. Pretexts always can be found.
Notable quotes:
"... Is intervention likely to impel more violence in the long term? Do policymakers actually know enough about the situation on the ground to make the "right" decisions? Is the American public willing to commit itself to years-long reconstruction efforts? Honest answers here may not sit well with idealism. In many instances, the most moral act is not to act at all. ..."
"... The most telling part of Power's career in government was that she served as ambassador to the U.N. at a time when the U.S. was enabling and supporting the Saudi coalition war on Yemen, and as part of the administration she had nothing to say about the crimes being committed against Yemeni civilians by coalition forces with U.S. military assistance and weapons. ..."
"... As Bessner notes, she doesn't have much to say about the abuses of U.S. clients in her book. She has been eager to advocate for using force against hostile or pariah regimes when they commit atrocities, but when client states use American weapons to commit the same atrocities while enjoying full U.S. backing Power didn't so much as utter a protest. After she left government and Trump became president, Power criticized U.S. support for the war, but when she was in a position to challenge a monstrous policy from inside the administration she apparently said nothing. ..."
"... And no one with enough intellectual honesty to mention that she was among the greatest enablers of Yemenis' suffering yet before the said "Tyrant" (who might be a tyrant to anyone but her social class) entered the office. Profiles in cowardice, all of them. ..."
Daniel Bessner has written a very interesting
review of Sar's memoir, The Education of an Idealist . Here he focuses on her narrow thinking about "humanitarian" intervention:
If you accept Power's premises, then humanitarian intervention boils down to a purely philosophical inquiry: Is it right to
save lives if one has the capacity to do so? The answer, of course, is yes. The problem, though, is that intervention is not a
thought experiment; it takes place in a world of brutal realities. In particular, humanitarian forces confront radical uncertainty.
Is intervention likely to impel more violence in the long term? Do policymakers actually know enough about the situation on the
ground to make the "right" decisions? Is the American public willing to commit itself to years-long reconstruction efforts? Honest
answers here may not sit well with idealism. In many instances, the most moral act is not to act at all.
Can military intervention ever be humanitarian? It may be possible in theory, but as Bessner notes it doesn't work that way in
practice. "Humanitarian" interventionists want the wars they support to be judged by their intentions to save lives and not by the
results of ensuing chaos, instability, and violence. Taking sides in foreign conflicts inevitably means deciding that our government
should end the lives of some people that have done nothing to us because we have concluded that it is the right thing to do. That
takes for granted that our government has the right to act as judge and executioner in other people's wars simply because we have
the power to affect the outcome. When we think about "humanitarian" intervention this way, we can see that it is driven by the worst
kind of arrogant presumption. The first question we should ask is this: what gives us the authority to interfere in another country's
internal conflict? We should also ask ourselves what gives us the right to cast aside international law whenever we deem it necessary.
Isn't "humanitarian" intervention in practice little more than international armed vigilantism?
The Libyan war is one example of just such a "good" intervention that pretty clearly caused more harm than it prevented. It also
violated most of the requirements of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine that was invoked to justify it. Like more than a few
other die-hard Libyan war supporters, Power remains convinced that it was the right decision, because she doesn't ask the questions
that would force her to confront the harm that the intervention did to Libya and the surrounding region. Bessner comments:
Power never really asked these questions, because ultimately, as the historian Stephen Wertheim has argued, she considers humanitarian
intervention a categorical imperative (as long as it doesn't involve U.S. allies, of course).
That last qualification is an important one, and it gets at the heart of what is wrong with "humanitarian" interventionism in
the U.S. and the West. If a government is considered to be on "our" side, it can commit war crimes with impunity, devastate whole
countries, and starve tens of millions of people, and the most vocal "humanitarian" interventionists will usually have nothing to
say about it. I have remarked on several occasions that "humanitarian" interventionists just ignored the catastrophe in Yemen despite
the fact that it was the world's worst man-made humanitarian disaster, and it has only been in the last year or two that any of them
have spoken up about it now that it is Trump's policy.
The most telling part of Power's career in government was that she served as ambassador to the U.N. at a time when the U.S. was
enabling and supporting the Saudi coalition war on Yemen, and as part of the administration she had nothing to say about the crimes
being committed against Yemeni civilians by coalition forces with U.S. military assistance and weapons.
As Bessner notes, she doesn't
have much to say about the abuses of U.S. clients in her book. She has been eager to advocate for using force against hostile or
pariah regimes when they commit atrocities, but when client states use American weapons to commit the same atrocities while enjoying
full U.S. backing Power didn't so much as utter a protest. After she left government and Trump became president, Power criticized
U.S. support for the war, but when she was in a position to challenge a monstrous policy from inside the administration she apparently
said nothing.
Bessner observes that railing against hostile and pariah states while letting clients off the hook makes no sense if the goal
is to minimize the harm to civilians:
Her approach does not make much sense from a pragmatic perspective either: U.S. officials have the highest likelihood of ending
human rights abuses in countries that depend on us; there is little point in spending political capital in a mostly quixotic attempt
to transform antagonists like North Korea.
Of course, it is much safer politically to denounce the states with which our government has no ties or influence, and it is much
easier to remain silent about the crimes of client states that have significant clout in Washington. The point here is not just that
Power failed her own test when she served in government, but that the impulse to intervene on "humanitarian" grounds amounts to agitating
for war against certain governments while giving U.S. clients a free pass to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity with our
government's blessing.
There's yet one more reason to why she wasn't saying anything about Yemen when in office beside the one that it were her guys
who directed that war then. Perhaps less phony, but, I'd rather say, more tragic. It's much easier to criticize someone for neglecting
his duties than not to neglect those duties when you've got them yourself.
I almost see those lemmings on her Twitter chirping:
'Oh, you're so brave, you're standing up to the Terrible Orange Tyrant.' (Not that the "Tyrant" was even aware that she's standing
up to him).
And no one with enough intellectual honesty to mention that she was among the greatest enablers of Yemenis' suffering
yet before the said "Tyrant" (who might be a tyrant to anyone but her social class) entered the office. Profiles in cowardice,
all of them.
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
Pat Buchanan continues to be one of the few publicly visible political analysts currently
active who dares to tell it like it is when it comes to Israel's power in America. His
article
last week "Will Israel's War Become America's War" as always gets to the heart of the
problem, i.e. that the completely contrived "special relationship" with Israel could easily
lead the United States into another totally unnecessary war or even a series of wars in the
Middle East.
Pat starts with "President Donald Trump, who canceled a missile strike on Iran after the
shoot-down of a U.S. Predator drone to avoid killing Iranians, may not want a war. But the same
cannot be said of Bibi Netanyahu." He observes that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is facing
re-election on September 17 th , and though most polls indicate that he will win,
the opposition to him is strong based on his personal corruption and his pandering to the
country's most extreme right-wing parties. So Bibi is concerned that he might lose and even go
to jail and there is nothing like a little war to make a leader look strong and righteous, so
he is lashing out at all his neighbors in hopes that one or more of them will be drawn into
what would be for Israel, given its massive military superiority, a manageable
confrontation.
Buchanan sums up Netanyahu's recent escalation, writing that on "Saturday, Israel launched a
night attack on a village south of Damascus to abort what Israel claims was a plot by Iran's
Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force Sunday, two Israeli drones crashed outside the media offices
of Hezbollah in Beirut. Israel then attacked a base camp of the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine-General Command in north Lebanon. Monday, Israel admitted to a strike
on Iranian-backed militias of the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq. And Israel does not deny
responsibility for last month's attacks on munitions dumps and bases of pro-Iran militias
[also] in Iraq. Israel has also confirmed that, during Syria's civil war, it conducted hundreds
of strikes against pro-Iranian militias and ammunition depots to prevent the transfer of
missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon."
So, Israel has staged literally hundreds of attacks against targets in Lebanon, Syria and
now Iraq while it is also at the same time shooting scores of unarmed demonstrators inside Gaza
every Friday. Netanyahu has also threatened both perennial foe Iran and the Houthi rebels in
Yemen. As the Jewish state is not at war with any of those countries it is engaging in war
crimes. Both Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Force are vowing
revenge.
Pat Buchanan goes on to make the case that Netanyahu is willy-nilly pulling the United
States into a situation from which there is no exit. Indeed, one might well conclude that the
trap has already been sprung as the Trump Administration is reflexively blaming Israel's
actions on Iran. The Jewish state's escalation produced a telephone call to Bibi by American
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo promising that the United States would unconditionally support
Israel. Vice President Mike Pence
also joined in , boasting of a "great conversation" with Netanyahu and tweeting that "The
United State fully supports Israel's right to defend itself from imminent threats. Under
President @realDonaldTrump, America will always stand with Israel!"
So, if a war in the Middle East does begin one can count on a number of developments in
Washington, all of which favor Netanyahu. As Pompeo and Pence have made clear, the Trump
Administration already accepts that whatever Israel does is fully justified and there are even
reports that the White House will endorse Israeli
annexation of all the illegal settlements on the West Bank at some point either before
or
immediately after the upcoming Knesset election to help Bibi. And don't look for any
dissent from even the most extreme views developing inside the White House or the State
Department. The president has completely surrendered to the Israel Lobby while National
Security Adviser John Bolton, Pence and Pompeo are all outspoken supporters of war with Iran.
And nearly all the important government posts dealing with the Middle East are staffed by
Jewish Zionists, to include the president's son-in-law and two Donald Trump lawyers. The most
recent addition to that sorry line-up is Peter Berkowitz, who has been appointed head of the
Policy Planning Staff at State. Berkowitz studied at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and is
co-founder and director of
the "Israel Program on Constitutional Government."
And Congress would also be singing the "amen" chorus in support of U.S. intervention to help
the country it has ridiculously but nevertheless repeatedly described as America's "best friend
and closest ally." The occupied mainstream media would echo that line, as would the millions of
Christian Zionists and every one of the more than 600 American Jewish organizations that in one
way, shape or form support Israel.
Buchanan warns that the U.S. could find itself in real trouble, particularly given the
attacks on Iraq, where Washington still has 5,000 troops, hugely outnumbered by the local
pro-Iranian militias. And American aircraft carriers could find themselves vulnerable if they
dare to enter the Straits of Hormuz or Persian Gulf, where they would be in range of the
Iranian batteries of anti-ship missiles. He concludes that a war for Israel that goes badly
could cost Trump the election in 2020, asking " have we ceded to Netanyahu something no nation
should ever cede to another, even an ally: the right to take our country into a war of their
choosing but not of ours?"
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
The president has completely surrendered to the Israel Lobby while National Security
Adviser John Bolton
To be fair, Trump never promised to curb Israeli aggression during his campaign. He promised
to back them and that's what he's doing. So this suggestion that "he's letting us all down"
is just silly. Now, on other stuff, yeah, you can make a case. And let's be real, if Jeb Bush
or Bernie Sanders or Hillary were in office they'd be backing "our ally in the Middle East"
too.
@Lot Iran was invited by
Syrian legit gov. Lebanon was prevented from total rout by Hezbollah from the actions of the
evil Zionist .Hezbollah sought and received help to confront evil Zionist. Who ever asked the
Jews to show up in ME anywhere in the ME? Who? Yemen is a war that ahs been fought by Houthis
. Houthis has been there for centuries They are fighting a war instigated by Israeli vassal
Saudi . Iraq has been turned into dust by Jew run USA attack It is slowly coming to life.
Now don't read the script from the middle Start from the beginning . Start from the
beginning ad be ready for the end . End will not be written by devious Jewish country .
"'But there is an even more important reason to give two cheers for Israel and to think of
it, despite its excesses, as exemplary: Israel is nationalist."'
Maybe McConnell is paid to praise Israel or maybe he just your typical simple minded
tunnel vision conservative. I gotta say my kind of conservative values, or maybe they should
be called traditional values will likely stay the same but what wont stay the same is my
voting for any of these conservative stupids.
I'm a registered Independent voter independent because I believed Americans should be
independent of 'political parties' and not follow them like sheep, but vote for the closest
thing they can get to a candidate of good character, some brains and a sense of fairness for
the people. I voted for the actual America first GOP presidents, the elder Bush I and Nixon,
otoh I also voted for the Dem America first presidents Kennedy and Carter.
Independent voters like myself make up 37% of registered voters in the US .that makes both
the dems and repubs 'minority parties' ..neither of them can win without us.
Independent voters got to be independent because they paid more attention to the big picture
and issues in politics overall than the followers of the parties .most of them are more
'traditional', including objecting to US entanglement with foreign nations. .the exact
opposite of current GOP conservatism.
So it is absolute nitwittery to try and attract traditional voters by championing Israel as a
model for US nationalism. Israel gives nationalism a bad name. It is asking us to step in a
pile of steaming cow shit to pattern the US after Israel.
A lot of these Israeli provocations are, as noted, Netanyahu electioneering. Hence, they are
likely to stop or be diminished (the Gaza border massacres excepted) if Bibi either wins the
election and can form a new government or loses and is driven from power with the opposition
forming a new government. Worst case scenario is a continuation of the present situation with
Bibi unable to form a government and having to fight yet another election. This would result
in still further Israeli escalation until finally Iran or Hezbollah retaliates and the US is
dragged in. Or he might just formally annex the West Bank and drive out the Palestinians to
the applause of Trump and his supporters.
There are other dangers as well, especially the collapse of Saudi Arabia and the UAE as a
result of their defeat in Yemen. The US is sending 5,000 troops to SA just in time to defend
the House of Saud from a possible overthrow or to fight on behalf of one part of that
sociopathic family against another part.
"President Donald Trump, who canceled a missile strike on Iran after the shoot-down of a
U.S. Predator drone to avoid killing Iranians, may not want a war. But the same cannot be
said of Bibi Netanyahu." He observes that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is facing
re-election on September 17th, and though most polls indicate that he will win, the
opposition to him is strong based on his personal corruption and his pandering to the
country's most extreme right-wing parties. So Bibi is concerned that he might lose and even
go to jail and there is nothing like a little war to make a leader look strong and
righteous, so he is lashing out at all his neighbors in hopes that one or more of them will
be drawn into what would be for Israel, given its massive military superiority, a
manageable confrontation.
It's a good analysis, but a little different to the subjugation of US interests to Israeli
ones that is normally talked about inasmuch Netanyahu personal advantage is the key factor. I
don't think many people in Israel would approve of Netanyahu doing something so obvious as
getting Israel into an inconclusive war just before an election. Especially as the war is one
that might bring the US in but would be unlikely to motive the US to destroy the Iranian
regime, wiche had time to make their facilities (nuclear) too duplicated and dispersed for
airstrikes to work.
The Palestinians are the ones Israelis are happy to get tough with, even the supposedly
leftist Ehud Barak has said the Palestinians of Gaza must be deterred more. Talk of war with
Iran is just that, it really is, unless they do something stupid.
For Israel, getting the US to totally crush Iran would be great, but that will require
America to be provoked by Iran, which is something they are loath to do. Iran is not going to
fight a war they cannot possibly hope to win if they can help it, and they have said there
will not be one. I don't think Bolton is any influence on Trump, and Pompeo is a
never-Trumper turned Trump boot licker rather that a force in the administration in his own
right.
He concludes that a war for Israel that goes badly could cost Trump the election in
2020, asking " have we ceded to Netanyahu something no nation should ever cede to another,
even an ally: the right to take our country into a war of their choosing but not of
ours?"
Trump never loses sight of his own self interest. A war before the Israeli election is not
going to help Trump win reelection, and he did say recently he was open to talks with Iran,
which left a distraught Netanyahu unsuccessfully trying to get through to Trump and gave Ehud
Barack one of his few opportunities to criticise the utility for Israel of Netanyahu's
relationship with Trump.
"... As for the Israelis, they don't want the man who thinks he might be "King of Israel" talking to the Hitlerite Persians. They suddenly sprayed Iran's local Middle East proxies with drone-fired rockets – in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – just in case the wretched, financially broken and inflation-doomed Iranians were tempted to chat to the crackpot in the White House. But the Israelis wasted their ammunition. Rouhani is not mad. America has to drop its sanctions against Iran if Trump wants to talk, he said. ..."
"... And when Rouhani made it clear that he was not interested in "photo-ops" – an obvious allusion to the pictures of Trump and Little Rocket Man – what did the po-faced Washington Post ..."
"... Indeed, had Ahmadinejad's further political ambitions not been firmly crushed by his country's "supreme leader", Ayatollah Khamenei, we might just have witnessed a meeting between two of the world's leading political nutcases. Ahmadinejad, it may be recalled, was the Iranian who claimed that a holy cloud was suspended over his head for 20 minutes when he addressed the United Nations in New York. Now that is a phenomenon which Trump may also have experienced – although at least he had the good sense not to tell us of it. ..."
"... In the first eight months after Rouhani became president in 2013, the Iranian state hanged at least 537 people. In January of 2014, he had, according to a report in the Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat ..."
"... When the shah of Iran wanted to acquire nuclear technology in 1974, according to documents in the US National Security Archive, he said that Iran had an "inalienable right" to the nuclear cycle and that it would not accept obligations "dictated by the nuclear-have nations". ..."
"... In theory, what Macron is trying to do, if Le Monde ..."
"... But what Macron is really doing – which is what almost every EU leader is doing – is trying to preserve the peace of the Middle East long enough for the Americans to elect a serious, intelligent, boring and moderately honest political leader to replace the mentally unbalanced and very dangerous current holder of the highest office in the US. ..."
"... Robert Fisk writes for the Independent , where this column originally appeared. ..."
History in the Middle East is unkind to us westerners. Just when we thought we were the good
guys and the Iranians were the bad guys, here comes the ghostly, hopeless possibility of a
Trump-Rouhani summit to remind us that the apparent lunatic is the US president and the
rational, sane leader who is supposed to talk to him is the president of the Islamic Republic
of Iran . All these
shenanigans are fantasy, of course – like the "imminent" war between America and Iran
– of which more later.
As for the Israelis, they don't want the man who thinks he might be "King of Israel"
talking to the Hitlerite Persians. They suddenly sprayed Iran's local Middle East proxies with
drone-fired rockets – in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – just in case the wretched,
financially broken and inflation-doomed Iranians were tempted to chat to the crackpot in the
White House. But the Israelis wasted their ammunition. Rouhani is not mad. America has to drop
its sanctions against Iran if Trump wants to talk, he said.
It still amazes me that we have to take all this stuff at face value. No sooner had Trump
waffled on about Rouhani being "the great negotiator" than we saw all the White House
correspondents dutifully taking this nonsense down in their notebooks – as if the
American president was presidential, as if the old dream-bag was real, as if what he was saying
had the slightest bearing on reality.
And when Rouhani made it clear that he was not interested in "photo-ops" – an
obvious allusion to the pictures of Trump and Little Rocket Man – what did the po-faced
Washington Post tell us in its subsequent report? Why, that Rouhani had "dashed hopes
of a potential meeting with his US counterpart". Ye Gods! What "hopes" do they still have in
their homegrown crackpot president after these two and a half years of his threats and lies and
racism? Have they learned nothing?
It's as if – for the American media – Trump is unhinged in Washington but a
Kissinger the moment he lands in Biarritz (or London or Riyadh or Panmunjom or a Scottish golf
course, or perhaps, one day, Greenland). And Rouhani – who may be a "great negotiator"
but is also a very ruthless man – is therefore supposed to play the role of Iran's
previous president, the raving, crazed, Holocaust-denying Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Indeed, had Ahmadinejad's further political ambitions not been firmly crushed by his
country's "supreme leader", Ayatollah Khamenei, we might just have witnessed a meeting between
two of the world's leading political nutcases. Ahmadinejad, it may be recalled, was the Iranian
who claimed that a holy cloud was suspended over his head for 20 minutes when he addressed the
United Nations in New York. Now that is a phenomenon which Trump may also have experienced
– although at least he had the good sense not to tell us of it.
Ahmadinejad, you may also remember, was the president whose claim to have won the 2009
presidential elections brought millions of protestors onto the streets of Iranian cities until
they were brutalised and imprisoned into submission. His cheeky smile, chipmunk eyes and
Spanish armada beard could not persuade Iranians that the "alternative facts" of his
presidential victory were real.
Everyone knew that Ahmadinejad would never be given a finger on any nuclear button –
many doubted if he knew the difference between nuclear physics and electricity – but he
provided at the time a hate figure to rival Gaddafi or any other of the ravers of the Middle
East.
But now Trump wears Ahmadinejad's international mantle of insanity and the Iranian
presidential seat is today held by a far more pragmatic individual. For let's not be romantic
about Hassan
Rouhani . Back in 1999, when he was a humble deputy chief of Iran's Supreme National
Security Council, Rouhani condemned pro-democracy demonstrators as " muhareb " and "
mofsad " (corrupt on earth) – opponents of the Islamic Republic, whose
punishment would be death.
In the first eight months after Rouhani became president in 2013, the Iranian state
hanged at least 537 people. In January of 2014, he had, according to a report in the Arabic
daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat , visited Ahwaz to deal with "a number of sensitive files"
left untouched by Ahmadinejad. These included Hashem Shaabani and Hadi Rashedi – both
human rights activists in the minority Arab community in southwest Iran – who had been
condemned to death for "waging war on God", "spreading corruption on earth" and "questioning
the principle of velayat-e faqih" (guardianship of the jurist).
Shaabani's poetry, in both Persian and Arabic, was famous; he was a founder of an institute
which encouraged Arabic literature and culture among Iranians. Rouhani signed off on the
executions; Shaabani and Rashedi were hanged in a still-unidentified prison.
But it is Rouhani's negotiating skill which has apparently impressed Trump, who also has
little time for minorities. And when you recall that one of Trump's Republican predecessors in
the White House, Ronald Reagan, arranged for the Israelis to deliver missiles to Iran in 1985
in return for the release of US hostages in Beirut, you can see why Trump might think it
strange that Rouhani would turn down a meeting with him. After all, during the Iran-Contra
affair the then Iranian speaker of parliament, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, was deeply involved in
the enterprise.
But even if Rouhani was fool enough to flirt with Trump's offer – which he was not
– his fate would have been similar to the poet Shaabani's if he had dared to talk to the
US president without the full restoration of the nuclear treaty.
It doesn't take much spreading of "corruption on earth" in Iran – let alone disavowing
the views of the Supreme Leader Khamanei – to catapult a learned cleric into prison.
Having learned from his foreign minister in Biarritz what the American deal was supposed to be,
Rouhani wisely did not touch it. The US had broken the nuclear treaty and reimposed sanctions
– so Trump would have to rejoin the treaty signatories and lift sanctions for any hope of
a meeting with the president of the Islamic Republic.
Of course, the Iranians will no more go to war with America than America will go to war with
Iran. We all know that – except for those who blast us all with "brink-of-war" scenarios
in the Gulf. We've been through Iranian ship-minings in 1987 without declarations of war.
Besides, what's so new about an Iran insisting on its "sovereign" right to peaceful nuclear
power?
When the shah of Iran wanted to acquire nuclear technology in 1974, according to
documents in the US National Security Archive, he said that Iran had an "inalienable right" to
the nuclear cycle and that it would not accept obligations "dictated by the nuclear-have
nations".
Which is pretty much what Iran did accept in the nuclear agreement which Trump tore
up on behalf of the United States. And I still have a clipping from The Times of
November 1972, in which my then colleague David Housego was reporting from Tehran that the shah
had declared that Iran's defensive frontiers extended beyond the Persian Gulf into the Indian
Ocean!
In five years, the shah calculated, his arms build-up would make Iran the largest military
power in the Middle East. The shah ruled with torture and executions, was crazed about the
dangers of communism, and power-mad to the extent of celebrating his empire's rule in 1971 with
what he called "the biggest party on earth" in the ruins of Persepolis. How Trump would love to
have been there.
Well, Macron may be able to turn himself into the "Great G7 Intermediary", although all
others who have tangled with Iran have been brought low by the experience. Think poor old Jimmy
Carter, destroyed by the hostage-takers at the US embassy in Tehran. Think Reagan, almost
brought low by Irangate. Think Colonel Oliver North. Or envoy Robert McFarlane. Or Terry Waite.
Or Barack Obama, for that matter, his Iranian policy torn up by Trump.
In theory, what Macron is trying to do, if Le Monde has got it right, is
persuade Trump to allow Iran's principal petroleum importers to continue buying oil from the
Islamic Republic. This includes Turkey, China, Japan, India and South Korea. In return, Iran
would itself return to the original nuclear agreement. That's the message Macron sent back to
Tehran with Iran's foreign minister, who airbussed into Biarritz for his briefest of meetings
with the French president.
But what Macron is really doing – which is what almost every EU leader is doing
– is trying to preserve the peace of the Middle East long enough for the Americans to
elect a serious, intelligent, boring and moderately honest political leader to replace the
mentally unbalanced and very dangerous current holder of the highest office in the US.
Well, good luck to the Americans. For at present, they are confronting not the lunatic rogue
state which Messers Bolton and Pompeo have nightmared up for Trump, but a nation governed by
bravely defiant, ruthless, and – yes – devious men. For Iranians understand America
far better than Americans will ever understand Iran.
The USA centered global neoliberal empire falls from grace at alarming speed.
Just the discussion of this possibility would be unthinkable in 90th -- the period of triumphal advance of neoliberalism all over
the globe. So thinks did change although it is unclear what is that direction of the social change -- neo-fascism or some kind of return
to the New Del Capitalism (if so who will replace previous, forged by Great Depression political alignment between trade unions and
management against the financial oligarchy, which financial oligarchy managed to broke using neoliberalism as the Trojan horse and bribing
CEOs)
Om a was original fascist movements were also a protest against the rule of financial oligarchy. Even anti-Semitism in Germany was
a kind of perverted protest against financial oligarchy as well. They were quickly subverted and in Germany anti-Semitism degenerated
into irrational hatred and genocide, , but the fact remains. Just looks at
NSDAP program of 1920 . Now we have somewhat
similar sentiments with Wexner and Meta group in the USA. To say that they do not invoke any sympathy is an understatement.
The problem with empires that they do not only rob the "other people". They rob their own people as well, and rob them hard. The
USSR people were really robbed by Soviet military industrial complex and Soviet globalist -- to the far greater extent then the USA
people now. People were really as poor as church rats. Epidemic of alcoholism in the USA resembles the epidemic of narcoaddtion in the
USA --- both are signs of desire then there is no jobs and now chances.
Like the collapse of the USSR was the result of the collapse of bolshevism, the collapse of the USA can be the result of the collapse
of neoliberalism. Whether it will take 10 or 50 years is unclear, but the general tendency is down.
The competitors has grown much strong now and they want their place under then sub. That means squeezing the USA. Trump did agrat
job in alientaing the US and that was probably the most important step is dismantling the USA empire that was taken. Add to that trade
war with China and we have the situation that is not favorable to the USA politically in two important parts of the globe.
Add to this Brexit and we have clear tendency of states to reassert their sovereignty, which start hurting the USA based multinationals.
The only things that work in favor of the USA is that currently there is no clear alternative to neoliberalism other then some kind
of restoration of the New Deal capitalism or neo-fasist dictatorship.
Notable quotes:
"... Self-discipline, self sacrifice and self restraint are the prices which must be paid for a civilization to survive, much less flourish, and Americans are increasingly unwilling to pay up. The America of a generation or two down the road will have the social cohesion of El Salvador. ..."
"... Being that history is always written by the tyrant of the time (which in our case was definitely behind the two last empires and a big player in Rome as and Spain as well) people are also led to believe that empire is a desireable state of cicumstance. It never was. Its the ambitions and conquistador actions of the collective psychopath. They feed on the strength of civilizations and utilize it for megalomaniac ambitions over power of others and power over everything. ..."
"... Those of you hoping for the end of American Empire need to think about what would replace it. ..."
"... You are completely delusional. The world is not better off under American stewardship. We don't need and shouldn't want anything to replace it. We don't need and shouldn't want any empire ruling the world. We would be better off without any state at all, so we could finally be free people. ..."
"... And no it probably wouldn't be better off under the Chinese. Although if the world stopped respecting American IP law, that would be a huge positive step forward. ..."
Years ago, Doug Casey mentioned in a correspondence to me, "Empires fall from grace with alarming speed."
Every now and then, you receive a comment that, although it may have been stated casually, has a lasting effect, as it offers
uncommon insight. For me, this was one of those and it's one that I've kept handy at my desk since that time, as a reminder.
I'm from a British family, one that left the UK just as the British Empire was about to begin its decline. They expatriated to
the "New World" to seek promise for the future.
As I've spent most of my life centred in a British colony – the Cayman Islands – I've had the opportunity to observe many British
contract professionals who left the UK seeking advancement, which they almost invariably find in Cayman. Curiously, though, most
returned to the UK after a contract or two, in the belief that the UK would bounce back from its decline, and they wanted to be on
board when Britain "came back."
This, of course, never happened. The US replaced the UK as the world's foremost empire, and although the UK has had its ups and
downs over the ensuing decades, it hasn't returned to its former glory.
And it never will.
If we observe the empires of the world that have existed over the millennia, we see a consistent history of collapse without renewal.
Whether we're looking at the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Spanish Empire, or any other that's existed at one time, history
is remarkably consistent: The decline and fall of any empire never reverses itself; nor does the empire return, once it's fallen.
But of what importance is this to us today?
Well, today, the US is the world's undisputed leading empire and most Americans would agree that, whilst it's going through a
bad patch, it will bounce back and might even be better than ever.
Not so, I'm afraid. All empires follow the same cycle. They begin with a population that has a strong work ethic and is self-reliant.
Those people organize to form a nation of great strength, based upon high productivity.
This leads to expansion, generally based upon world trade. At some point, this gives rise to leaders who seek, not to work in
partnership with other nations, but to dominate them, and of course, this is when a great nation becomes an empire. The US began
this stage under the flamboyant and aggressive Teddy Roosevelt.
The twentieth century was the American century and the US went from victory to victory, expanding its power.
But the decline began in the 1960s, when the US started to pursue unwinnable wars, began the destruction of its currency and began
to expand its government into an all-powerful body.
Still, this process tends to be protracted and the overall decline often takes decades.
So, how does that square with the quote, "Empires fall from grace with alarming speed"?
Well, the preparation for the fall can often be seen for a generation or more, but the actual fall tends to occur quite rapidly.
What happens is very similar to what happens with a schoolyard bully.
The bully has a slow rise, based upon his strength and aggressive tendency. After a number of successful fights, he becomes
first revered, then feared. He then takes on several toadies who lack his abilities but want some of the spoils, so they do his
bidding, acting in a threatening manner to other schoolboys.
The bully then becomes hated. No one tells him so, but the other kids secretly dream of his defeat, hopefully in a shameful
manner.
Then, at some point, some boy who has a measure of strength and the requisite determination has had enough and takes on the
bully.
If he defeats him, a curious thing happens. The toadies suddenly realise that the jig is up and they head for the hills, knowing
that their source of power is gone.
Also, once the defeated bully is down, all the anger, fear and hatred that his schoolmates felt for him come out, and they
take great pleasure in his defeat.
And this, in a nutshell, is what happens with empires.
A nation that comes to the rescue in times of genuine need (such as the two World Wars) is revered. But once that nation morphs
into a bully that uses any excuse to invade countries such as Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and Syria, its allies may continue to bow
to it but secretly fear it and wish that it could be taken down a peg.
When the empire then starts looking around for other nations to bully, such as Iran and Venezuela, its allies again say nothing
but react with fear when they see the John Boltons and Mike Pompeos beating the war drums and making reckless comments.
At present, the US is focusing primarily on economic warfare, but if this fails to get the world to bend to its dominance, the
US has repeatedly warned, regarding possible military aggression, that "no option is off the table."
The US has reached the classic stage when it has become a reckless bully, and its support structure of allies has begun to de-couple
as a result.
At the same time that allies begin to pull back and make other plans for their future, those citizens within the empire who tend
to be the creators of prosperity also begin to seek greener pastures.
History has seen this happen countless times. The "brain drain" occurs, in which the best and most productive begin to look elsewhere
for their future. Just as the most productive Europeans crossed the Pond to colonise the US when it was a new, promising country,
their present-day counterparts have begun moving offshore.
The US is presently in a state of suspended animation. It still appears to be a major force, but its buttresses are quietly disappearing.
At some point in the near future, it's likely that the US government will overplay its hand and aggress against a foe that either
is stronger or has alliances that, collectively, make it stronger.
The greatest (so called) threats to America- the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, ISIS, ( fill in the blank for
the latest overseas bogeyman-of-the-week ) pale into a wisp beside the ongoing disintegration of American traditional family life.
Self-discipline, self sacrifice and self restraint are the prices which must be paid for a civilization to survive, much less
flourish, and Americans are increasingly unwilling to pay up. The America of a generation or two down the road will have the social
cohesion of El Salvador.
You also cant warn people about the collapse of empire either. People notoriously go into denial about it and it shocks the
**** out of everybody. Since empires bluff and bluster at the end its all to easy for people want to believe.
Being that history is always written by the tyrant of the time (which in our case was definitely behind the two last empires
and a big player in Rome as and Spain as well) people are also led to believe that empire is a desireable state of cicumstance.
It never was. Its the ambitions and conquistador actions of the collective psychopath. They feed on the strength of civilizations
and utilize it for megalomaniac ambitions over power of others and power over everything.
Those of you hoping for the end of American Empire need to think about what would replace it. if you think that the world would
enter the age of Aquarius and peace will rule the planet you are extremely naive and stupid. If you think that the Chinese would
be more benign rulers you are mistaken. The only reason China doesn't use its military to dominate other countries is because
it is kept in check by the US.
You are completely delusional. The world is not better off under American stewardship. We don't need and shouldn't want anything
to replace it. We don't need and shouldn't want any empire ruling the world. We would be better off without any state at
all, so we could finally be free people.
And no it probably wouldn't be better off under the Chinese. Although if the world stopped respecting American IP law, that
would be a huge positive step forward.
In the real world, Chinese terrorists are just as bad as American terrorists. Despite the most popular hypnosis gripping the
American psyche, you can't have liberty or justice as long as either one is in charge. Whether the Chinese would be worse is debatable.
It's not like America has some great track record to compete against. Their reign has been a complete disaster for human rights.
If China became the new empire we wouldnt live under it. It would be at least 100 years out. This empire will screw everybody
epically first, plus we have decline weather patterns with super solar grand minimum. Also those people's who may see that next
empire will deal with whatever circumstances present themselves and they wont give one **** what we think about it.
Basically power has kept moving west. Nobody will forget the depravity of this one. If written about accurately this one will
be remembered most for the medical tyranny and intentional damage it did to human beings through injections and modified good
supply, as well as moral depravity and proxy sadistic terrorism. Remember empire backed terrorist groups trafficked children and
harvested organs. You can miss it if you want, few will.
I do not _hope_ for an end of the American Empire, and I dread what is going to replace it. Howsoever, no empire lasts forever,
and our empire is near its end. The Chinese are relentlessly cruel, and that's in their genotype. I probably won't live to see
them take over the scraps and bits and pieces of our former empire. Those who are alive and in the prime of their lives when that
happens will suffer unimaginably while they live, and their blood will cry out from the grave after they die. It makes me so heart-sick
I can't bear to think about it for long, but our progeny will be forced to live it without let or hindrance.
Lets find out the whole details of what they have done to our biology and our children's first before we say how cruel China
might be. For starters look at what US and British did in Africa compared to China and Russia's involvement there. They are doing
deals and not killing anybody, same with Venezuela.
Where else you going to go? What nation ISN'T broke? Europe is going to hell. So is South America. Africa has always been hell.
Asia? Look what's going down in Hong Kong. China's broke. Make no mistake, the USA is in decline. But so is the rest of the world...
regardless of what is printed China is not falling, they have a plan and have only advanced it. The debt side will not hurt
them because they have been poor before and they have a route to success. They do not have resources but the industrial side is
needed everywhere in the world. We are talking about a nation that literally prospered off of our garbage and resells it back
to us! Think about it we use something up and pay them to take it away, they recycle it and resell it to us again and moved a
nation 4x our population forward!
You really think debt will hurt them, especially the way the US determines debt! A huge portion of it is in the infrastructucture
in China and along the BRI which will have returns over time, just as if we in the states rebuilt all our infrastructure by living
wage employment rather than MIC investment!
Yes, all are broke. Assisted suicides of countries all over the world. Emphasise on "assisted".
Nations have been demoralized (the US most certainly, check Yuri Bezmenov) we are in destabilization phase already, collapse
has to be next, it is unavoidable now. This will not end well, ignore at your own risk!
I am not talking about countries, just some Life Hedge Regions left in the world. People with brains and resources, you don
need a Life Hedge Property! Away from Northern Hemisphere, away from Ring of Fire, etc... Get in touch. lifehedge(at)
protonmail.com
What got America into trouble was when Americans who thought of themselves as being "exceptional" became exceptionally stupid.
The best and the brightest have already left America. Any wonder why we now depend on Russia to send our astronauts up on their
rockets into space, or depend on China, South Korea, and Japan for our electronic products, or why better health care is found
in other places outside the U.S., why our educational system has become poorer than what it was 60 years ago, etc.,?
When we decided to financialize everything and make nothing but investments we crippled our advancement.
When we decided to take the brightest minds in the world and recruit them into the US and then rather than advance the world
with true science, we offer them lucrative money to enter financial markets to use their knowledge in that field.
We take the ones with morals and principles that choose to actually remain in science and then corrupt them over time with
money/fame to regurgetate whatever their contractor chooses or lose funding for their projects.
We have corrupted every aspect of advancement and now just use our fake printed money to force the desperate to bend to our
will.
Good read on the subject of empires Sir John Glubb - The fate of empires and Search for survival.
We are probably near the end of the American Empire. And a fascinating by product of the HK protests is that we may well be near the end of Chinese Communism.
Nothing moves forward in a straight line. They move up and down. Empires are no exception. The Romans had their ups and downs
throughout the course of their empire. You never know when a down cycle is the end but people who want it to end will always write
articles like this.
American dominance might be drawing to an end....or it might be gearing up to go another 200 years. Nobody knows so it's a
waste of time to speculate.
Hong Kong and the Audacity of the U.S. Part of a "Destabilization War" with China By
Peter Koenig
Global Research, August 26, 2019 Region: Asia Theme: Intelligence
People often ask and hint at the similarities between the Hong Kong protests and the
French Yellow Vests. The former started on 31 March and are approaching their 19 th
week – the Yellow Vests (YV) have celebrated last weekend their 40 th week of
protests. As of recently some voices of Macron-infiltrates into the YV movement – or
Fifth Columnists – have suggested that the YVs may support the Hong Kong protesters in
solidarity for freedom .
Well, that didn't go down well with the highly educated and well informed YV. Many of them
actually felt insulted by the Macronites – ' for whom does this guy [Macron] take
us? ' – And right they are. There is not a shred of comparison between the two
movements, except that they are protests – but for widely different reasons, and serving
widely different agendas. The YV can in no way be associated with the Hong Kong "protests"
– which are equal to US funded Color Revolutions.
We, the YV leaders said, are fighting against an ever more totalitarian French government
that is ever more stealing our legitimate income in the form of all sorts of taxes and keeps a
minimum wage on which ever-more French families cannot survive. Life is unaffordable on a
regular workers pension. The Macron Government is creating poverty, by shifting the financial
resources – the few that are left, from the bottom to the top. – That's what we are
fighting and protesting against. We want a fundamental change in the French economic structure
and the French leadership. You see, all of this has nothing to do with the Washington funded
Hong Protests that are directed on Washington's behalf by Hong Kongers against the Government
of Mainland China.
It couldn't be clearer. The French Yellow Vests know what they are fighting for. The Hong
Kong protesters, most of them, follow a few leaders under false pretenses against their
country, against Beijing. Granted, many of the protesters are pro-westerners, they sing the US
National Anthem, and wave the British flag – the flag of their former colonialists.
Actually, funding to destabilize Hong Kong in the future has already started at the latest
in 1994, 3 years before the official Handover of Hong Kong by the UK to the Beijing Government.
Way before the official date of returning Hong Kong in 1997 to the Peoples Republic of China
(PRC), the US built up a network of Fifth Columnists in Hong Kong.
Washington pours millions into creating unrest in Hong Kong, similarly as in Ukraine, when
the US State Department financed the preparation of the 2014 coup at least 5 years ahead at the
tune of US$ 5 billion, according to Victoria Nuland's, Deputy Secretary of State, own
admission, directly and through NED, the National Endowment for Democracy, an "NGO" which it
isn't. It is rather the extended or soft arm of the CIA, receiving hundreds of millions of
dollars from the State Department for their 'regime changing' activities around the globe.
In 1991, The Washington Post quoted a NED founder, Allen Weinstein , as saying
"a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA" .
Couldn't have been said better. We see the results all over the world.
Precisely this has happened in Hong Kong and is going on until this day – and probably
way beyond. The US will not let go. Especially now that most people who have at least a limited
understanding on how these western manipulations work, comprehend and see for themselves who is
sowing the unrests. Take the 22-year-old student and western hero of the 2014 Umbrella
Revolution, Joshua Wong , trained programmed and funded by the US State Department / NED / CIA.
He is again a main player in the current protest movement. Wong is the on-the-ground boy for
the local media tycoon, Jimmy Lai , who has spent millions of his own money in the 2014 "Occupy
Central" protests (Umbrella Revolution).
The oligarch uses his funds widely to finance protest leaders and protest groups. He also
created his own National Party, with significant xenophobic connotations. Yet Mr. Lai is very
close to the Trump Administration and met, along with many of his protest leaders, with the US
envoy in Hong Kong, as well as with National Security Advisor John Bolton – and other US
officials. On July 8, Mr. Jimmy Lai met US Vice President Mike Pence at the White
House.
Lai has full support of the US Government to fire-on and promote these protest groups. Yet,
if asked, the protesters have no precise plan or strategy of what they want. The island is
largely divided. By far not all protesters want to separate from the mainland. They feel
Chinese and express their disgust with Jimmy Lai's radical anti-Beijing propaganda. They call
him a traitor.
Mr. Lai was born in 1948 in mainland China, in an impoverished family in Canton. He was
educated to fifth grade level and smuggled to Hong Kong in a small boat at age 13. In HK he
worked as a child laborer in a garment factory at about the equivalent of US$ 8 per month. In
1975 he bought a bankrupt garment factory for a pittance and created Giordano, producing
sweaters and other clothing for mostly US clients, like J.C. Penny, Montgomery Ward and others.
Mr. Lai today is openly criticized even by his own people as a conspirator behind the violence
of the HK riots, or protests, as he prefers to call them.
The protests started with a 'controversial' extradition law – which, by the way,
exists between most States in the United States, as well as between nations in Europe and to a
large extent internationally. Therefore, this is nothing unusual. Yet, its importance was blown
out of proportion by the western media and by Mr. Lai's own local media to distort the picture.
A minority, of course, would like their full independence from China which is totally against
the agreement signed between the UK and Beijing at the so-called 1997 Handover.
A few days ago, the US sent a couple of war ships into China waters at Hong Kong. They had
the audacity to ask Beijing to grant them the right to dock at Hong Kong harbor. Beijing, of
course, refused and warned Washington – do not meddle in our internal affairs. Of course,
Washington has no intention to heed China's advice – they never do. They have been
inoculated with the view that the exceptional nation calls the shots. Always. Nobody else
should even dare to contradict them. Period.
On July 3, The China Daily pointedly reported
"The ideologues in Western governments never cease in their efforts to engineer unrest
against governments that are not to their liking, even though their actions have caused
misery and chaos in country after country in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
Now they are trying the same trick in China."
The US tactics in Hong Kong, may be combined with Trump's trade war, with the Pentagon's
greater presence – mainly new military bases and navy presence in the Indo-Pacific region
– Obama's (in)famous Pivot to Asia which prompted Obama to order 60% of the US Navy fleet
to the South China Sea.
All of this and more are part of a destabilization war with China. Washington is afraid of
China's rising economic power in the world, of China's monetary system, that is based on
economic output and on gold, not fiat money like the US Dollar and the Euro and other
currencies following the western turbo-capitalist system; and Washington is afraid of losing
its dollar hegemony, as the Chinese yuan is gradually taking over the dollar's role as world
reserve currency.
Hong Kong was basically stolen by the Brits in 1842 at the heights of the Opium Wars. Under
pressure of the British military might, China ceded Hong Kong under the Treaty of Nanking,
signed on 29 August 1842. Hong Kong became, thus, a Crown Colony of the British Empire. In
1898, Hong Kong's Governor Chris Patten and Prince Charles agreed on a 99-year lease and
pledged to return Hong Kong to China in 1997.
After 155 years of British colonial oppression of the people of Hong Kong, it was time to
normalize the status of Hong Kong as what it always should have been, namely an integral
territory of China. The "One Country, Two Systems" agreement of 1997, returned Hong Kong to the
People's Republic of China, but the parties agreed to leave the capitalist system in place for
50 years. The agreement also stipulated that all intervention and colonial claims on Hong Kong
were supposed to end. Full sovereignty was to return to China. What's happening now –
US-UK fomented riots to seek independence of the island, is in total disregard of the 1997
Handover Treaty.
The US inspired and funded protests are destined to challenge the HK-China sovereignty
clause, by mobilizing public opinion that wants full "freedom" – i.e. independence from
China.
The 50 years of the usual abusive capitalist continuation, would allow the imperialist US
and UK to maintain economic control over Hong Kong and thereby exert economic influence over
the PRC. How wrong they were! – In 1997 Hong Kong's GDP constituted 27% of the PRC's GDP
– today that proportion shrunk to a mere 3%. China's rapidly growing level of
development, especially the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which the west chose to literally
ignore until about a year ago, has become a vital threat to the US corporate world.
What the US and UK – and the rest of the West – is particularly interested in is
HK's special banking position in the world. Through Singapore and Hong Kong, Wall Street and
key European banks, in cohorts with their not so 'ethically-clean' and often fraudulent HSBC
partner, pretend to control and influence Asian economics – and especially attempt to
prevent China to take over the Asian financial markets. Hong Kong has the most liberal banking
laws, possibly worldwide, where illegal money transactions, money laundering, shady investments
in the billions can be carried out and nobody watches. Maintaining HK as long as possible with
this special nation status and wielding influence and control over PRC's financial markets is
one of the western goals.
But little does the West understand that China and other eastern countries, plus Russia,
India, Pakistan, have already largely detached, or are in the process of detaching from the
dollar economy and are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Let's face it,
the SCO comprises about half of the world's population and controls about one third of the
globe's economic output.
Therefore, the SCO members do no longer depend on the western financial markets and monetary
manipulations. In fact, Shanghai has in the last decades grown to become China's financial hub
with way more importance for China than Hong Kong. So, it is very unlikely that China will
crack down on Hong Kong for the protests. There is too much political capital to be lost by
interfering. The West and Hong Kong protesters may as well riot themselves into rot.
But if China gets tired of these incessant western provocations and really wants to put an
end to them, the PRC could take over Hong Kong in less than 48 hours, abridge the 50 years of
western capitalism and make HK a full-fledged province of China, no privileges, no special
status, just a part of sovereign China. End of story.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and
environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health
Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at
universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH;
RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21 st Century; TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern
Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of
Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate
Greed– fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around
the globe. He is also a co-author ofThe World
Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research
Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
"We also explained in detail to the US lawmakers the kind of massive arrests and excessive
use of force by our police force, which resulted in the apprehension of a large number of
innocent civilians and left quite a number of protesters severely injured.
We also talked about the inhumane treatment to which some of the arrested protesters were
allegedly subjected and the "white terror" imposed by the central government on certain
business corporations such as Cathay Pacific Airways, where a number of employees, including
pilots and a flight attendant, were sacked over incidents related to the anti-extradition bill
protests.
Both Republican and Democratic members of the US Congress are pushing for the Hong Kong
Human Rights and Democracy Act.
One of the most important provisions of the bill is that HKSAR government officials who are
found suppressing Hong Kong's democracy, human rights or citizens' freedoms could have their
assets in the US frozen and be denied entry to the US.
We agree that the passage of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act through the US
Congress will help in our citizens' fight for democracy and in defending our human rights and
freedoms." Dennis Kwok
--------------
"Give me liberty or give me death?" This sounds like that sentiment.
Would such an Act do anything material for Hong Kong? Probably not. Trump says that he hopes
the CCP will settle the HK matter in a "humane way." IOW he doesn't intend to do anything
except use the HK crisis as leverage in his extended bargaining with China.
OTOH, this Act would do a lot for the conscience of the people of the US. We need to do
something that is actually selfless since we seem to have lost the knack for standing up for
the "little people" in places like Yemen and Palestine against Communist tyranny.
If such an Act were passed (probably over Trump's opposition) or maybe not since he claims
to not give a damn about trade with China, then Canada should follow our lead in this. British
Columbia is packed full of mainland Chinese who have stashed their wealth there and who look
forward to taking refuge in Victoria and/or Vancouver.
Palmerston, that mean old bastard, said that countries do not have friends. They merely have
interests. Well, maybe so, but I would say that such an Act would be in our long term spiritual
interest. pl
Thanks for posting the link to the text, it is an interesting piece of legislation.
"an assessment of whether sensitive dual-use items subject to the export control laws of
the United States are being --
(A) transshipped through Hong Kong; and (B) used to develop -- (i) the Sharp Eyes, Skynet,
Integrated Joint Operations Platform, or other systems of mass surveillance and predictive
policing"
As a related topic shouldn't the Congress also look into which US Tech companies are
aiding China in the development of systems of "mass surveillance and predictive
policing"?
What is the ultimate goal of US policy of Containing China? I fail to see anything in here
except opposition to another hyperpower. In my opinion, Democracy and Freedom in China is
centuries into the future, if at all. There could a revival of the ideas of Legalists in a
few decades but barring that, Democratic China is a pipedream, both for Containment
Strategists as well as for Chinese political activists and reformers and thinkers. A very sad
case of the Persistence of a rather brutal past. (And I no longer see protection of US jobs
as its core purpose.)
I consider CPC as the Red Emperor: no ideology there just organized power structure to run
that country, whose economy is supported by 300 million pigs – only an Act of Divine
Intervention, a Miracle, could cause the Chinese to become Muslims, let alone Shia.
If I am correct in my surmise, then the most productive way forward would be to learn to
live with an un-free, un-just, and un-democratic, and cunning China for many more decades.
But then that would be just like living with Saudi Arabia and her friends in Southern Persian
Gulf. No country or combinations of countries, in the West, can hope to dominate China at
acceptable costs. That is why Kwak's ideas are stupid.
But Yemen is supposedly an existential threat to the USA's good friend KSA, surely the KSA is
not communist? ( not all that much of a friend either unless one considers parasites to be
friends )
And Palestine is supposedly an existential threat to the USA's great friend Israel. Israel is
surely not a communist nation. ( also not that much of a friend unless one considers the
Johnathan Pollard types to be friends.)
Russia stopped being communist the instant that most successful agent in place Gorbachev
handed over control to Yeltsin, and The PRC has most successfully become a rapacious
capitalist nation once Mao and Mrs. departed this mortal coil.
And even DPRNK is easing away from communism thanks to the great admiration the leader there
has for the leader here.
I do not see an interest for the USA in sticking its nose into yet another nations family
disagreement. But then I haven't seen much value accruing to the USA in its continual
intrusion into other folks' affairs since 1881.
I agree. Though what Trump is going to do is unpredictable. It would sure be the right
thing for the Republic to make such a gesture. It won't hurt him either politically nor in
his trade negotiations with China.
Maybe the democratically-elected U.S.government should concern itself more with the
long-term, or even short-term, material interests of its own people, many of whom are
apparently sinking beneath the waves of debt, ill health, addiction and general decline in
life expectancy and life chances.
While any U.S. denunciation of the Chinese government over events in Hong Kong is unlikely
to affect outcomes there, it will no doubt worsen US-China relations. But that is a feature,
not a bug.
Of course, as you say, such a denunciation could be an important distraction to cheer up
Americans and to reinforce the Enlightenment myth that Anglo-American values are universal
despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
British Columbia is packed full of mainland Chinese who have stashed their wealth there and
who look forward to taking refuge in Victoria and/or Vancouver.
Indeed, and it causes a lot of resentment towards Chinese that is similar to
that towards the mainlanders in Hong Kong. The wealth-parking and haven-seeking in both
places has driven asset inflation that has affected the locals badly, with the exception of a
fortunate few. This has happened at the same time that HK has lost one of its engines of true
economic growth, its formerly indispensable role as a trade and financial portal for China.
The HK protests seem driven mainly by unfocused resentment of all things mainland and lacking
in coherent goals. HK's lack of an extradition treaty with the mainland is one incentive for
wealthy mainlanders, especially those who might have been shady in acquiring their wealth, to
seek a haven in HK.
IMO, CCP is going to crackdown violently on the people of HK who are the modern equivalent
of Patrick Henry. This is an example of their resolve. Volunteer drivers rescuing trapped
protestors.
The US Congress needs to stand with the good people of HK in their hour of need. There
should be consequences for CCP violence. Sanctions on the CCP politburo who have much of
their wealth stashed in the west should be an immediate response. The other should be ending
US investment in CCP linked entities and preventing the listing of Chinese companies on US
exchanges unless they fully comply with accounting and transparency standards that are
required of US companies. The US Congress should also recognize Taiwan as an independent
country as CCP has reneged on "One Country Two Systems". There can be no "deal" with CCP any
longer as they have time and again thumbed their noses before the ink has even dried in their
previous agreements including their inclusion in WTO. The time has come to destroy the
authoritarian CCP and enable the Chinese people to determine their own destiny.
Former communist countries get the nature of the CCP. IMO, this time the global response
to CCP violence will not be benign. CCP cash will not be able to easily buy public opinion
this time despite the propaganda of the fifth column.
Trump must know that a strong dollar is the worst situation for CCP with trillions in
dollar liabilities. There are reports that some Chinese cities are now rationing meat as pork
prices rocket up.
When my grandkids say they are scrutinizing all products they purchase to make sure
they're not Made in China, I know that sentiment is changing at the margin.
"the long-term, or even short-term, material interests of its own people, many of whom are
apparently sinking beneath the waves of debt, ill health, addiction and general decline in
life expectancy and life chances." marxist agitprop. You should move to the peoples' paradise
and then you can stand in line at COSTCO stores.
I can understand why you don't care about TROM. Humans have no inalienable rights in Iran.
Onle god has thr Right and it is for men to obey the Khawza to seek salvation.
What an anti-colonial snob you are! Try not to be overcome by your post-colonial angst.
Tyranny is tyranny, whether it be that of Britain, the asshole salafists or the
communists.
The hybrid war, being conducted against China by the United States and its gaggle of
puppet states from the UK to Canada to Australia, has entered a new phase.
The first stage involved the massive shift of US air and naval forces to the Pacific and
constant provocations against China in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.
The second stage was the creation of disinformation about China's treatment of minority
groups, especially in Tibet and west China.
That this propaganda campaign has been carried out by nations such as the US, Canada and
Australia who have the worst human rights records in the world with respect to their indigenous
peoples, subjected to centuries of cultural and physical genocide by those governments, and who
refuse to protect their minority peoples from physical attacks and discrimination despite their
human rights laws, shocks the conscience of any objective observer.
But not content with that, the propaganda was extended to China's economic development, its
international trade, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, its Silk and Belt Road Initiative,
its development bank, and other facilities and trade initiatives, through which China is
accused of trying to control the world; an accusation made by the very nation that threatens
economic embargo or worse, nuclear annihilation, to anyone, friend or foe, who resists its
attempt to control the world.
The fourth phase is the US attempt to degrade the Chinese economy with punitive "tariffs,"
essentially an embargo on Chinese goods. That the objective is not better trade deals but to
bring China to its knees is the fact that the negative effect of these tariffs on American
consumers, farmers and manufacturers is considered secondary to the principal objective.
Last year it moved to a fifth phase, t he kidnapping and illegal detention of Meng Wanzhou,
the Chief Financial Officer of China's leading technology company Huawei, in synchronicity with
a massive campaign by the USA to force its puppets to drop any dealings with that company. Meng
Wanzhou is still held against her will in Canada on US orders. Chinese have been harassed in
the US, Australia and Canada.
The latest phase in this hybrid warfare is the insurrection being provoked by the US, UK,
Canada and the rest in Hong Kong, using tactics designed to provoke China into suppressing the
rioters with force to amplify the anti-Chinese propaganda, or pushing the "protestors" into
declaring Hong Kong independent of China and then using force to support them.
Mitch McConnell , an important US senator implicitly threatened just such a scenario in a
statement on August 12th stating that the US is warning China not to block the protests and
that if they are suppressed trouble will follow. In other words the US is claiming that it will
protect the thugs in black shirts, the shirts of fascists. This new phase is very dangerous, as
the Chinese government has time and again stated, and has to be handled with intelligence and
the strength of the Chinese people.
There is now abundant evidence that the UK and US are the black hand behind the events in
Hong Kong. When the Hong Kong Bar association joined in the protests the west claimed that even
the lawyers were supporting the protests in an attempt to bring justice to the people. But the
leaders of that association are all either UK lawyers or members of law firms based in London,
such as Jimmy Chan , head of the so-called Human Civil Rights Front, formed in 2002 with the
objective of breaking Honk Kong away from China, such as Kevin Lam , a partner in another
London based law firm, and Steve Kwok and Alvin Yeung , members of the anti-China Civic Party
who are going to meet with US officials next week.
Kwok has called for the independence of Hong Kong in other visits, some sponsored by the US
National Security Council and has called for the US to invoke its Hong Kong Policy Act, which,
among other things mandates the US president to issue an order suspending its treatment of Hong
Kong as a separate territory in trade matters. The effect of this would be to damage China's
overall trade since a lot of its revenue comes through Hong Kong. The president can invoke the
Act if it decides that Hong Kong "is not sufficiently autonomous to justify it being treated
separately from China."
In tandem with Kwok's call for the use of that Act, US Senator Ted Cruz has filed a Bill
titled the Hong Kong Revaluation Act requiring the president to report on "how China exploits
Hong Kong to circumvent the laws of the United States."
But it seems the anti-Chinese propaganda campaign is not having the effect they hoped. The
New York Times ran a piece on August 13 stating, "China is waging a disinformation war against
the protestors." Embarrassed by US consular officials being caught red-handed meeting with
protest leaders in a hotel in Hong Kong last week and blatant statements of support for the
protestors from the US, Canada and UK as well attempts to treat Hong Kong as an independent
state, the US intelligence services have now been forced to try to counter China's accounts of
the facts by declaring anything China says as disinformation.
The US and UK objectives are revealed in this statement from the article,
"Hong Kong, which Britain returned to Chinese rule in 1997, remains outside China's
firewall, and thus is sitting along one of the world's most profound online divides.
Preserving the city's freedom to live without the mainland's controls has become one of the
causes now motivating the protests."
This statement flies in the face of the Basic Law, expressing the agreement between the UK
and China when the UK finally agreed to leave Hong Kong. We need to be aware of what the Basic
Law says. Promulgated in April 4 1990 but put into effect on July 1, 1997, the date of the hand
over of the territory to China, the Preamble states:
"Hong Kong has been part of the territory of China since ancient times; it was occupied by
Britain after the Opium War in 1840. On 19 December 1984, the Chinese and British Governments
signed the Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, affirming that the Government of
the People's Republic of China will resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with
effect from 1 July 1997, thus fulfilling the long-cherished common aspiration of the Chinese
people for the recovery of Hong Kong.
Upholding national unity and territorial integrity, maintaining the prosperity and stability
of Hong Kong, and taking account of its history and realities, the People's Republic of China
has decided that upon China's resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, a Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region will be established in accordance with the provisions of
Article 31 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, and that under the principle
of "one country, two systems", the socialist system and policies will not be practised in Hong
Kong. The basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong have been
elaborated by the Chinese Government in the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
In accordance with the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the National People's
Congress hereby enacts the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the
People's Republic of China, prescribing the systems to be practised in the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, in order to ensure the implementation of the basic policies of the
People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong."
Hong Kong is a part of China. That is the essential fact set out in the Basic Law agreed to
by the UK as well as China. It is an administrative region of China. It is not an independent
state and never was when Britain seized it through force and occupied it.
So the claim that the protestors are trying to preserve something that never existed,
freedom from China's control, since Hong Kong is subject to China's control, is bogus. The fact
that China permitted Hong Kong to retain its capitalist system confirms this. The fact that
China can impose socialism 50 years after or sooner if certain conditions are met, also
confirms this.
The pretexts for the riots, the first being a proposed extradition law between the mainland
and Hong Kong which is similar to those that exist between provinces in Canada and states in
the USA, the second being the claim that China's insistence on its sovereignty over the
territory somehow overrides the limited autonomy granted Hong Kong and threatens that autonomy,
are without any foundation.
One could easily split Canada into pieces based on such bogus arguments or again split up
the USA, or even the UK as London sees its rule of Ireland, Wales and Scotland being challenged
by nationalist groups. And we know very well what violent protests will bring in swift
suppression of such forces if the central governments feel threatened, especially by the
violence we see used by the black shirts in Hong Kong. We saw what happened in Spain when the
Catalans attempted to split from Spain. The leaders of the movement are now in exile. We saw
what the US is capable of against demonstrators when it shot them down at Kent State when
students were demonstrating peacefully. These things are not forgotten. We know how the British
will react to renewed attempts for a united Ireland.
China is facing attacks on several fronts at once and it will require wisdom, endurance and
the strength of the Chinese people to defend their revolution and rid themselves of colonial
and imperialist domination, once and for all. T hose who carry British and American flags in
the protests in Hong Kong, reveal who they are. They are not the future of China. They are the
living embodiment of a dead history and dead ideas, zombies of the past.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a
number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel " Beneath the
Clouds . He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for
the online magazine "New Eastern
Outlook." He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
"... If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
"... Before commenting please read Robert Parry's ..."
"... . Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive language toward other commenters or our writers will be removed. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. ..."
Film 'Official Secrets' is the Tip of a Mammoth Iceberg August 29, 2019 •
37 Comments
A new film depicting the whistleblower Katherine Gun, who tried to stop the Iraq invasion,
is largely accurate, but the story is not over, says Sam Husseini.
T wo-time Oscar nominee Keira Knightley is known for being in "period pieces" such as "Pride
and Prejudice," so her playing the lead in the new film "Official Secrets," scheduled to be
released in the U.S. on Friday, may seem odd at first. That is until one considers that the
time span being depicted -- the early 2003 run-up to the invasion of Iraq -- is one of the most
dramatic and consequential periods of modern human history.
It is also one of the most poorly understood, in part because the story of Katharine Gun,
played by Knightley, is so little known. Having followed this story from the start, I find this
film to be, by Hollywood standards, a remarkably accurate account of what has happened to
date–"to date" because the wider story still isn't over.
Katharine Gun
worked as an analyst for Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British equivalent
of the secretive U.S. National Security Agency. She tried to stop the impending invasion of
Iraq in early 2003 by exposing the deceit of George W. Bush and Tony Blair in their claims
about that country. For doing that she was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act -- a
juiced up version of the U.S. Espionage Act, which in recent years has been used repeatedly by
the Obama administration against whistleblowers and now by the Trump administration against
WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.
Gun was charged for exposing -- around the time of
Colin Powell's infamous testimony to the UN about Iraq's alleged WMDs – a top secret
U.S. government memo showing it was mounting an illegal spying "surge" against other U.N.
Security Council delegations in an effort to manipulate them into voting for an Iraq invasion
resolution. The U.S. and Britain had successfully
forced through a trumped
up resolution, 1441 in November 2002. In early 2003, they were poised to threaten, bribe or
blackmail their way to get formal United Nations authorization for the invasion. [See
recent interview with Gun .]
Katherine Gun The leaked memo, published by the British Observer , was big news in
parts of the world, especially the targeted countries on the Security Council, and helped
prevent Bush and Blair from getting the second UN Security Council resolution they said they
wanted. Veto powers Russia, China and France were opposed as well as U.S. ally Germany.
'Most Courageous Leak' It was the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy,
where I work ( accuracy.org ), Norman
Solomon, as well as Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg who in the U.S. most
immediately saw the importance of what Gun had done. Ellsberg would later comment: "No one else
-- including myself -- has ever done what Katharine Gun did: Tell secret truths at personal
risk, before an imminent war, in time, possibly, to avert it. Hers was the most important --
and courageous -- leak I've ever seen, more timely and potentially more effective than the
Pentagon Papers."
Daniel Ellsberg on the cover of Time after leaking the Pentagon Papers
Gun said: "I went to the local bookshop, and I went into the political section. I found two
books, which had apparently been rushed into publication, one was by Norman Solomon and Reese
Erlich, and it was called Target Iraq . And the
other one was by Milan Rai. It was called War
Plan Iraq . And I bought both of them. And I read them cover to cover that weekend, and
it basically convinced me that there was no real evidence for this war. So I think from that
point onward, I was very critical and scrutinizing everything that was being said in the
media." Thus, we see Gun in "Official Secrets" shouting at the TV to Tony Blair that he's not
entitled to make up facts. The film may be jarring to some consumers of major media who might
think that Donald Trump invented lying in 2017. Gun's immediate action after reading critiques
of U.S. policy and media coverage makes a strong case for trying to reach government workers by
handing out fliers and books and putting up
billboards outside government offices to encourage them to be more critically minded.
Solomon and Ellsberg had debunked Bush administration propaganda in real time. But Gun's
revelation showed that the U.S. and British governments were not only lying to invade Iraq,
they were violating international law to blackmail whole nations to get in line.
Mainstream reviews of "Official Secrets" still seem to not fully grasp the importance of
what they just saw. The trendy AV
Club review leads : "Virtually everyone now agrees that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a
colossal mistake based on faulty (at best) or fabricated (at worst) intelligence." "Mistake" is
a serious understatement even with "colossal" attached to it when the movie details the
diabolical, illegal lengths to which the U.S. and British governments went to get other
governments to go along with it.
Gun's revelations showed before the invasion that people on the inside, whose livelihood
depends on following the party line, were willing to risk jail time to out the lies and
threats.
Portrayal of The Observer
Other than Gun herself, the film focuses on a dramatization of what happened at her work; as
well as her relationship with her husband, a Kurd from Turkey who the British government
attempted to have deported to get at Gun. The film also portrays the work of her lawyers who
helped get the Official Secrets charge against her dropped, as well as the drama at The
Observer , which published the NSA document after much internal debate.
Observer reporter Martin Bright, whose strong work on the original Gun story was
strangely followed by an ill-fated stint at the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, has recently noted
that very little
additional work has been done on Gun's case. We know virtually nothing about the apparent
author of the NSA document that she leaked -- one "Frank Koza." Other questions persist, such
is prevalent is this sort of U.S. blackmail of foreign governments to get UN votes or for other
purposes? How is it leveraged? Does it fit in with allegations made by former NSA analyst
Russ
Tice about the NSA having massive files on political people?
Observer reporter Ed Vulliamy is energetically depicted getting tips from former CIA
man Mel Goodman. There do seem to be subtle but potentially serious deviations from reality in
the film. Vulliamy is depicted as actually speaking with "Frank Koza," but that's not what he
originally
reported :
"The NSA main switchboard put The Observer through to extension 6727 at the agency
which was answered by an assistant, who confirmed it was Koza's office. However, when The
Observer asked to talk to Koza about the surveillance of diplomatic missions at the
United Nations, it was then told 'You have reached the wrong number'. On protesting that the
assistant had just said this was Koza's extension, the assistant repeated that it was an
erroneous extension, and hung up."
There must doubtlessly be many aspects of the film that have been simplified or altered
regarding Gun's personal experience. A compelling part of the film -- apparently fictitious or
exaggerated -- is a GCHQ apparatchik questioning Gun to see if she was the source.
Little is known about the reaction inside the governments of Security Council members that
the U.S. spied on. After the invasion, Mexican Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser spoke in blunt
terms about U.S. bullying -- saying it viewed Mexico as its patio trasero , or back yard
-- and was Zinser was compelled to resign by President Vicente Fox. He then,
in 2004 , gave details about some aspects of U.S. surveillance sabotaging the efforts of
the other members of the Security Council to hammer out a compromise to avert the invasion of
Iraq, saying the U.S. was "violating the U.N. headquarters covenant." In 2005, he tragically
died in a car crash
.
Documents
leaked by Edward Snowden and published by The Intercept in 2016 boasted of how the NSA
"during the wind-up to the Iraq War 'played a critical role' in the adoption of U.N. Security
Council resolutions. The work with that customer was a resounding success." The relevant
document specifically cites resolutions 1441 and 1472 and quotes John Negroponte ,
then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: "I can't imagine better intelligence support
for a diplomatic mission." (Notably, The Intercept has never published a word on "
Katharine Gun ." )
Nor were the UN Security Council members the only ones on the U.S. hit list to pave the way
for the Iraq invasion. Brazilian Jose Bustani, the director-general of the international
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. was ousted in an effective coup by John
Bolton in April of 2002 . Bolton is now national security adviser.
"Official Secrets" director Gavin Hood is perhaps more right than he realizes when he says
that his depiction of the Gun case is like the "tip of an iceberg," pointing to other deceits
surrounding the Iraq war. His record with political films has been uneven until now. Peace
activist David Swanson, for instance, derided his film on drones, " Eye in the Sky ." At a D.C. showing of "Official Secrets,"
Hood depicted those who backed the Iraq war as being discredited. But that's simply untrue.
Keira Knightley appears as Katherine Gun in Official Secrets (Courtesy of Sundance
Institute.)
Leading presidential candidate Joe Biden -- who not only voted for the Iraq invasion, but
presided over rigged
hearings on in 2002 – has recently falsified
his record repeatedly on Iraq
at presidential debates with hardly a murmur. Nor is he alone. Those refusing to be held
accountable for their Iraq war lies include not just Bush and Cheney, but John Kerry and
Nancy
Pelosi .
Biden has actually faulted Bush for not doing enough to get United Nations approval for the
Iraq invasion. But as the Gun case helps show, there was no legitimate case for invasion and
the Bush administration had done virtually everything, both legal and illegal, to get UN
authorization.
Many who supported the invasion try to distance themselves from it. But the repercussions of
that illegal act are enormous: It led directly or indirectly to the rise of ISIS, the civil war
in Iraq and the war in Syria. Journalists who pushed for the Iraq invasion are prosperous and
atop major news organizations, such as Washington Post editorial page editor
Fred Hiatt. The
editor who argued most strongly against publication of the NSA document at The
Observer , Kamal Ahmed, is now editorial director of BBC News.
After Gun's identity became known, the Institute for Public Accuracy brought on Jeff Cohen,
the founder of FAIR, to work with program director Hollie Ainbinder to get prominent
individuals to support
Gun . The film -- quite plausibly -- depicts the charges being dropped against Gun for the
simple reason that the British government feared that a high profile proceeding would
effectively put the war on trial, which to them would be have been a nightmare.
Sam Husseini is an independent journalist, senior analyst at the Institute for Public
Accuracy and founder of VotePact.org .
Follow him on twitter: @samhusseini .
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
Before commenting please read Robert Parry'sComment Policy.
Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks,
and abusive language toward other commenters or our writers will be removed. If your comment
does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed.
David G , August 31, 2019 at 19:49
Saw the film today. Solid work; recommended.
Did her ultimate court appearance really go down in such a dramatic fashion? I suppose I
shouldn't be surprised if it did: English courtroom proceedings may not deliver better
justice than U.S. ones, but they're definitely more entertaining.
William , August 31, 2019 at 19:06
U.S. Government officials should be indicted for war crimes. It is quite clear that U.S.
officials conspired to ensure that an invasion
of Iraq would take place. The U.S. and Britain -- George Bush and Tony Blair -- initiated a
war of aggression against Iraq, and under
international law should be tried for war crimes, just as numerous German officials were
tried and convicted of war crimes.
No U.S. politician has called for investigation, and the main stream media has not touched
this topic. It is unquestionably clear that
the U.S. congress is a collection of spineless, cowardly, corrupt, greedy men and women. They
have allowed the U.S. to become a rogue,
criminal nation.
Katherine Gun is awesome! I heard her speak as part of a panel of whistleblowers –
wish there were many more like her
michael , August 31, 2019 at 08:15
Inequality.org reports that the majority of our top 1% are corporate executives. Finance,
which reportedly accounted for 3% of our economy in 1980, now accounts for 30%. Many of the
US's 585 billionaires have monopolies in their business domain, no different from the Robber
Barons of the late 19th and early 20th century. "Stability is more important than democracy",
the market hates uncertainty, and our foreign policies, determined by think tanks staffed and
funded by our "allies" Israel and Saudi Arabia, will continue to push for the greed of our
Richest. "Democracy" is a just a hypocritical bon mot for stealing and destroying.
The Republicans have always supported these people. What is worrisome is that the Democrats
have come to the same place as the GOP, since donations– pay-to-play- lead to
re-elections. The Democrats have deserted the Poor and working class, since they have no
money for pay-to-play. Our 17 technologically advanced Stasis work in concert with Congress,
our entitled government bureaucrats, and their lapdog main stream media to "make things
happen" for our Richest. How long before people like Assange, Katherine Gunn, Chelsea
Manning, Edward Snowden, Binney, Kiriakou etc learn that it pays to keep their mouths shut?
Transparency and whistleblowing is punished. Maybe other approaches are needed?
Tony , August 31, 2019 at 07:26
Very interesting to see what inspired her to act the way that she did.
Of course, the supporters of the war had various motives.
But one motive behind President Bush's plan was revealed by Russ Baker in his book 'Family of
Secrets' page 423.
He recalls a conversation with Bush family friend and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. He
says that he told him:
"He (George W. Bush) was thinking about invading in 1999."
Bush apparently said:
"If I have a chance to invade if I had that much (political) capital, I'm not going to
waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed, and I'm going to have
a successful presidency."
So there we have it, he thought that a war would boost his presidency.
David G , August 31, 2019 at 05:16
"The editor who argued most strongly against publication of the NSA document at The
Observer, Kamal Ahmed, is now editorial director of BBC News."
That's a repulsive little nugget I would never have known otherwise.
Thanks to Sam Husseini for this account. The film is playing in my town, at least for this
coming week; I plan to get to it.
RomeoCharlie29 , August 30, 2019 at 19:24
This is a really interesting story and one I knew nothing about, although I was one who
opposed the Iraq war because to me it was obvious the whole WMD issue was bullshit. Now I
understand the perception that that war was an American/ Brit thing but you might recall that
America's deputy Sheriff in the Pacific, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, was Gung
ho for the war and committed Australian troops to the ill-fated endeavour with the result
that our country has subsequently become a target for ISIS inspired terrorism. Australia's
Opposition Leader at the time, Simon Crean led a vocal opposition to the war but "Little
Johnny" as we called him was not to be denied. Incidentally I don't think he has ever
admitted being wrong on this.
Xander Arena , August 30, 2019 at 18:15
Tip of an iceberg is right. Iraq was the second big lie of the 21st century. I wonder how
the world will react to the University of Alaska Fairbanks report which proves fraud at NIST,
and arguably reveals aiding and abetting of treason by the contractors who wrote NIST's
analysis of the WTC7 destruction. The UAF report drops Tuesday 9/3/19, and chisels away at
the big lie that preceded all the related Iraq deceit. BTW great article :)
Dan Anderson , August 30, 2019 at 16:49
I enjoyed the article and learned some things, but it does seem a bit of Hollywood
promotion at the same time.
If only Gun's sacrifice had stopped the invasion it would have been a sensation. As is,
the UN did not sanction the invasion, making that effort a bit moot, and since the reveal of
NSA bugging the world under Obama that dulls the sensibilities of those who might today have
otherwise been shocked, shocked like the Gary Powers U-2 spy plane downing over the USSR and
Ike being caught in a lie on TV.
But overall, knowing the downhill Gun's livelihood has taken over the 15 years makes the
story more of a warning for whistle blowers than inspiration. Maybe Gun will be well
compensated by the movie makers!
Neil E Mac , August 30, 2019 at 15:54
En fin!
bevin , August 30, 2019 at 14:13
One thing is certain: The Observer of 2019 would not publish a story like this. That is
one of the major changes since 2003: the capitalist media has tightened up. There are no
longer papers competing to attract readers at risk of cozy relations with the State. The
Observer/Guardian today – since the Snowden revelations- does what it is told.
Litchfield , August 30, 2019 at 13:16
"In 2005, he tragically died in a car crash."
Unfortunately -- or fortunately? -- this no longer seems to be credible when it comes to
those who have gone ouit on a limb to challenge the Deep State, or the US version of the Deep
State.
Can Bush and Blair be charged with crimes? In connection with the Third Reich there is
AFAIK no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity. Well, Iraq was also full of
'humanity." These guys belong in The Hague. Or in Iraq, doing community service.
In connection with Ellsberg's reviewing the evidence and concluding there was no
evidentiary justification for invading Iraq -- I wanna say, you didn't need to be Ellsberg or
any kind of expert to see clearly that there was no evidence that justified invading Iraq.
Millions of common folk could see this clearly. That is why over 14 million people worldwide
demonstrated against the planned illegal invasion. That is why people like me when to NYC, to
Washington, and also the front our local US Post Office in small towns all over the country
to protest the country's being lied into war. And were greeted mostly with thumbs-up from the
passers- and drivers-by.
The people knew it was all a pack of lies. It was the gullible PRESS that ginned up this
show. Remember Judith what's her name at the NYT? These people also should be indicted as war
criminals.
Dan Anderson , August 30, 2019 at 16:19
Judith Miller, the NYTimes reporter who did maybe the most to make the invasion of Iraq,
is the last name you were seeking.
SteveF , August 30, 2019 at 12:22
The timescales are interesting, we have the alleged US blackmail to get this illegal war
'approved' by the UN and in the same timescale we have the Jeffery Epstein story unfolding
and the corresponding allegations that he was a CIA/Mossad agent operating honey traps to
entangle the rich and famous.
The evil machinations of our governments are indeed breathtaking.
As we can see from so very many modern instances, it matters not at all that truth is on
your side, if what you are doing is attacking those with money and power.
And there's an entire American establishment dedicated to keeping it just that way.
America's history of the last half century, at least so far as foreign relations and
control of an empire, is almost entirely an artificial construct.
Absolutely no truth in everything from John Kennedy's assassination, which was intimately
concerned with America's relationship with Cuba, and the despicable Vietnam War to 9/11 and
the despicable Neocon Wars in the Middle East.
From hundreds of millions of printed newspapers and television broadcasts to speeches from
prominent American politicians, you have tissue of lies not unlike that that was constantly
being created by Oceania's Inner Party in 1984.
That's not even the slightest exaggeration, but, truly, are Americans in general the least
concerned or bothered?
We have no evidence of significant concern. None.
The Democratic Party just weeded out the only candidate it had, brave and informed enough
to speak to truth in some of these matters.
The ten left just represent varying degrees of hopelessness. On and on with weaving dreams
about this or that creative social program while the resources and close attention dedicated
to destruction in a dozen lands make them all impossible.
At the sae time, there is an almost complete lack of information and courage about
anything that is happening in Syria, in Iraq, in Libya, in Israel, and in such massively
important countries as China, Russia, and Iran.
Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning are brave contemporary examples of the American
establishment's methods for shutting down truth and punishing severely those who reveal it.
While they have followers and supporters, I am always amazed at how relatively small their
numbers are.
And we have remarkably few individuals like Manning or Assange, especially when you
consider the scale and scope of America's many dark works. Mostly, we see only "willing
helpers" carrying on with their sensitive, secretive careers in government.
In the Democratic nomination contest, the "star" liberals, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth
Warren, are virtually no different in these absolutely critical matters than a confirmed old
puke of a war criminal like Joe Biden, someone who probably deserves recognition as father of
Obama's industrial-scale extrajudicial killing project with drones and Hellfire missiles
making legally-innocent people in a dozen countries just disappear. Biden has a long record
of smarmy deeds and lack of courage and principles. He is, of course, most likely to get the
nomination too.
Act, from America's CIA, no different in principle and in law to those of the old
Argentine military junta's massive efforts at dragging people off the streets, drugging them,
and throwing them out of planes over the ocean, something they did to thousands. Oh, and
during that wonderful project there were no objections from America, only silence.
Aimee , August 30, 2019 at 22:31
Excellent post. Agree completely. Tulsi was our only hope and she never had a chance. We
are doomed.
Coleen Rowley , August 30, 2019 at 23:29
Here are some of the reasons for the ever lessening concern over US-NATO-Israel-Saudi's
(aka our current Empire's) wars: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/04/recipe-concocted-for-perpetual-war-is-a-bitter-one/
By the way my co-author and I tried unsuccessfully to get this published in about 15
different US papers before Robert Parry posted it on Consortiumnews.
Robert Edwards , August 30, 2019 at 11:17
It's time these liers and war criminals are brought to Justice – I know that's
wishful , but sometimes wishes come true America must get back to a country run on integrity
and honesty, otherwise all will be lost in the spiral of evil
Sorry, but, oh please, America is lost. Has been so for a very long time.
Only tremendous outside influences like depression or war and the growth of competing
states and the loss of the dollar's privileged status, are going to change the reality.
America's feeble democratic system is capable of changing almost nothing. After all, it
was constructed with just that in mind.
john wilson , August 31, 2019 at 05:07
I think think the real worry is that these days they don't even bother to lie anymore and
they just do what they want. Think Venezuela.
Guy , August 30, 2019 at 10:42
"Other questions persist, such is prevalent is this sort of U.S. blackmail of foreign
governments to get UN votes or for other purposes? How is it leveraged? Does it fit in with
allegations made by former NSA analyst Russ Tice about the NSA having massive files on
political people?"
This also stands out , as given what we now know is standard modus opendi of CIA / Mossad
operations ,due to the Epstein arrest and ensuing information , who knows what is used to
leverage other nations to follow along with US and in this case UK demands.Birds of a feather
fly together.
Very good report by Sam Husseini.
Litchfield , August 30, 2019 at 13:32
Absolutely. It is an obvious avenue now to investigate: How did the Epstein operation
impact on the decision to invade Iraq? How were teh votes wrung out for the war authorization
in October 2002?
Regarding Kerry, as a resident of Mass. I couldn't believe that Vietnam vet Kerry would
vote Yes on the war authorization act. I called his office a number of time to beg him to
vote no. Rumors emanated from within his office in Boston or wherever that phone calls from
constituents were running 180 to 1 urging him to vote NO. But he voted YES anyhow.
I simply believe that Yalie Kerry didn't see what was up with the obvious lying that drove
the runup to an illegal invasion. This is the kind of scenario where one now has to wonder --
and ask openly -- whether Kerry had been compromised in some way that made him vulnerable to
blackmail. Why the hell else would he vote so stupidly?
Recall that Scott Ritter ran afoul of some kind of sex trap and so he, one of the most
knowledgeable and outspoken critics of the fake WMD narrative, was effectively muzzled.
Did Kerry have a little skeleton in the closet somewhere?
The same could be asked of all the esp. Democratic legislators who voted YES. Because we
now understand which state in the EAstern Med wanted the war most and profited the most from
it. We now know how deep and how wide the tentacles of that state's intelligence service
intrude into our own national sphere, our Congress, our own intelligence services, our media,
and, most likely, our military. Epstein seems to been part f this web of pressure and
blackmail.
Epstein is gone, but Ghislaine Maxwell apparently still runs free.
Let's bring her in for questioning specifically about pressure applied on the Oct. 2002 vote.
(Although some speculate that she, too, is already dead.)
Guy , August 30, 2019 at 10:23
At a time when despair in political affairs is very depressing ,it is very refreshing to
see that the voices of reason are being vindicated.
I really want to see this film as this is the first time that I hear of the voice of
Katherine Gun .Bless her heart for standing up and her efforts to warn of deception . Does
the film make any mention of Dr.David Kelly's so-called suicide / murder ? Will have to wait
ans see.
Thank you CN for once again coming through for your excellent report.
Pablo , August 30, 2019 at 10:15
Lawrence Wilkerson (Powell's Chief of Staff?) told me that Collin knew Bush was
fabricating, but went to the U.N. as a "loyal foot soldier".
AnneR , August 30, 2019 at 08:25
Thank you, Sam Husseini, for this overview of the background – real story – to
the film Official Secrets.
To be frank, I'd not heard of Katherine Gun's revelations at the time – not
surprising because I don't think that the US MSM gave the leak any oxygen. They were all too
gung-ho for the war.
While the film undoubtedly soft-pedals some of the story and likely doesn't reveal or make
explicit as much as we'd all hope, I really do hope that it receives at least as much
publicity (good) and viewing as that execrable film Zero dark Thirty which basically
supported the CIA and its torturers. But somehow I doubt that.
TomR , August 31, 2019 at 06:19
Zero Dark Thirty is just about the worst bullshit fake narrative put out by the CIA that
I've ever seen. I watched it but cringed with the dramatized fake narrative that the CIA is
famous for – think the bullshit 9/11 US govt. narrative – if you or anyone else
believes that totally bunkum govt. narrative – well, I feel sorry for you.
Druid , August 31, 2019 at 17:28
Im a good- movie buff. I avoided Zero Dark Thirty. Not a farthing for those lies
Sylvia Bennet , August 30, 2019 at 07:51
I applaud Keira Knightley and all who were involved in bringing this story to the public.
It is vital that more people who have the eyes and ears of the public speak out on these
issues. Sadly, most of them keep their heads below the parapet. With the Main Stream Media
colluding with corrupt corporations and governments to lie or distort the truth, we need
decent people with influence to step up before it is too late.
Toxik , August 30, 2019 at 02:42
Looked at my local theaters and Official Secrets will not be shown.
jmg , August 29, 2019 at 18:39
Katharine Gun's case can also be very relevant for Julian Assange's defense:
"Within half an hour, the case was dropped because the prosecution declined to offer
evidence. . . . The day before the trial, Gun's defence team had asked the government for any
records of advice about the legality of the war that it had received during the run-up to the
war. A full trial might have exposed any such documents to public scrutiny as the defence
were expected to argue that trying to stop an illegal act (that of an illegal war of
aggression) trumped Gun's obligations under the Official Secrets Act 1989. . . . In 2019 The
Guardian stated the case was dropped 'when the prosecution realised that evidence would
emerge that even British government lawyers believed the invasion was unlawful.'"
So Katharine Gun, like Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, etc., by revealing corruption and
crimes, maybe didn't obey the code of silence of organized crime, government sector, but
that's not a law.
For example, the US Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information,
explicitly outlaws any classification that covers up crimes or embarrassing information.
This means that whistleblowers like Katharine Gun or Chelsea Manning, and investigative
journalists like Julian Assange are the ones defending the law here, while the US and UK
governments are the criminals.
lindaj , August 29, 2019 at 22:10
Hear, Hear!
Me Myself , August 30, 2019 at 12:11
The espionage act has and would protect those who were responsible for the war I
believe.
If we could Abrogate the espionage act it would make are representatives more
accountable.
I was unaware of Katherine Gun she is clearly a standout person and will join the ranks of
are most respected truthers.
WTF Burkie , August 31, 2019 at 14:05
Our not are.b.c. burkhart
evelync , August 30, 2019 at 13:34
And the secrecy, apparently, is required in the name of "national security" .that's what I
was told by a Harvard JFK School of Government associate when I emailed 200+ of 'em to
express my outrage over their withdrawal of Chelsea Manning's honorary degree when Pompeo and
Morrell bullied them. I responded with – that's INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE at Harvard
– as a "respected" educational institution you should be front and center critiquing
foreign policy instead of helping to bury the wrongdoing ..no wonder voters didn't trust the
establishment candidates in 2016 but the DNC was too much a part of it all to see or care
what was going on. Except for Tulsi Gabbard who resigned at DNC VP in protest for what was
being done to the Sanders campaign and to endorse Sanders instead of Clinton. The DNC knee
capped the campaign of the one person who had won peoples' trust for his honesty.
We have incompetent people with no moral fiber making terrible decisions and burying the
mistakes under secrecy, a fear based "code of silence", as you say.
Biden touts his being chosen by Obama for VP; therefore "he's qualified".
Since Clinton and Biden were the most dangerously ambitious critics of Obama, I think he may
have chosen to add them to his administration as VP and Sec of State to practice "keep your
friends close and your enemies closer" .but his decision was very costly to the lives of
people around the world including the Caribbean and South American countries whose wealth our
oligarchs coveted.
And as far as Honduras is concerned those political choices by Obama sadly explains refugees
fleeing from that violent country even now ..thanks to our failing to declare the 2009 Coup a
"military coup". One of Clinton's "hard choices". Obama and Biden went along with that of
course.
Daniel Immerwahr's "How to Hide an Empire" tells the sordid tale of how waterboarding was
used long before Bush II – used on the freedom fighters for their independence in the
Philippines after the Spanish American War and we took over as imperialists ..
Most people, I think, don't know all the gruesome details of our aggression but they now know
enough to be troubled by it. Few political candidates have the backbone to criticize
wrongheaded foreign policy.
I'm disappointed that Tulsi Gabbard won't be permitted to join Bernie Sanders at the
September 12 2019 "debate" as the only ones who speak out on how wrong for this country and
the world our foreign policies have been. This courageous woman should be heard.
When Bernie was challenged in the 2016 Miami debate on his enlightened views on Cuba and
other Caribbean and South American countries, Clinton used Cold War rhetoric to attack him.
She was shocked, I tell you, shocked that he would not grind his heel on the Cuban people. I
wondered at the time whether she really believed the crap she was selling or just put on a
good political show for the national security state.
We so need transparency if we want to be a real democracy.
Sam F , August 30, 2019 at 21:06
Very true that transparency is essential to democracy. That also requires lifelong
monitoring of officials and their relatives for paybacks and other influence. But (for
example) Florida has an Sunshine Act that merely moves the bribes into other channels, and
may be the most corrupt state. I am investigating extensive racketeering there involving
state officials stealing conservation funds. They can be quire careless because their party
runs the entire state including state and federal judiciary, and instantly approves whatever
their rich "donors" want to steal. But the FBI and DOJ refuse to take action when given the
evidence on a silver platter – no doubt because they are appointed by the same party.
Theft is their sacred right and duty, to protect their country from its people.
michael , August 31, 2019 at 07:30
Florida's Sunshine laws were on display at Epstein's only trial, much of it still sealed
from public view.
Where is Nuland when people need her? It is interesting that the USA neoliberals (with help of other Western neoliberal countries)
now poisons all protests against government and as such help to de-legitimize them completely and irrevocably by pointing them as CIA/NED
stooges.
As China government is to a large extent neoliberal too grievances are easy to amplify and exploit.
As soon as money start flowing to protesters from the US government, NGO and/or controlled oligarchs the protest stops to be a legitimate
and became part of the color revolution efforts.
That's a very sad situation.
Notable quotes:
"... Violent protesters continue to throw corrosives and petrol bombs on Central Government Complex, Legislative Council Complex and Police Headquarters," said the police in a statement. "Such acts pose a serious threat to everyone at the scene and breach public peace. ..."
"... Tens of thousands participated in an unauthorized demonstration - many of whom threw objects and gasoline bombs over barriers at the government's headquarters. After initially retreating in response to the crowd control measures, protesters returned to a nearby suburb and set fire to a wall on Hennessy Road in the city's Wan Chai district. this fire has gotten much bigger after 20 minutes. the street is full of dark smoke. ..."
"... Protesters asked US President Donald Trump to take action and help the activists, who originally took to the streets to protest a controversial extradition bill which would have allowed China to bring suspects to the mainland to face trial in PRC courts. ..."
"... It appears the protesters want the military to enter so they can play the martyrs for the cameras. Hong Kong was under colonial rule for years! I guess the Rothschild family wants it back if asking Trump (a Rothschild stooge) to get involved! ..."
"... Fighting against the state is great, in theory, but not if you just want to replace the current power structure with a democracy or some other government. There's no point then. You're just replacing one mafia with another. ..."
"... Yes, most "adults" are still children who believe in the silly fantasy that there is such a thing as a legitimate ruling class. Nothing changes until a critical mass drops the superstition. ..."
"... I wouldn't be surprised if intelligence assets were over there convincing some of these people that this was a possibility. They are always spreading discord around the world. If you're the big guy in the room and you want to instigate a fight, tell the angry little guy you've got his back. ..."
"... I will never understand the logic of venting anger on inanimate objects like walls and buildings. If you're going to do it, do it properly and bring the real masters to heel, it'll never work simply destroying someone's car and bending the odd lamppost. They're probably tucked up in their fortress laughing and waiting for it to cool down so they can return to business as usual. ..."
"... They are getting international news coverage and breaking the information blockade of media. Do you get it now? ..."
"... They want absolutely that China intervene, it's why It's getting heavier. ..."
"... And then what? What's the end game? There is only one-way this can play out that I can see. Violent suppression and mass arrests. It will all be done 'officially' under the facade of Hong Kong authority, so technically no 'foul' ..."
Tens of thousands participated in an unauthorized demonstration - many of whom threw objects and gasoline bombs over barriers
at the government's headquarters. After initially retreating in response to the crowd control measures, protesters returned to a
nearby suburb and set fire to a wall on Hennessy Road in the city's Wan Chai district.
While others marched back and forth elsewhere in the city, a large crowd wearing helmets and gas masks gathered outside
the city government building . Some approached barriers that had been set up to keep protesters away and appeared to throw
objects at the police on the other side. Others shone laser lights at the officers.
Police fired tear gas from the other side of the barriers, then brought out a water cannon truck that fired regular water
and then colored water at the protesters , staining them and nearby journalists and leaving blue puddles in the street. -
AP
Several people were arrested and tossed into police vans.
" Violent protesters continue to throw corrosives and petrol bombs on Central Government Complex, Legislative Council Complex
and Police Headquarters," said the police in a statement. "Such acts pose a serious threat to everyone at the scene and breach public
peace. " Protesters in Hong Kong returned to the streets in what Bloomberg has called "one of the city's most violent days in
its 13th weekend of social unrest," after several top organizers were arrested, including Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Andy Chan.
Hong Kong police fired tear gas and sprayed protesters with blue dye from pepper-spray filled water cannons, while charging other
protesters with shields and batons.
Water cannons fired blue dye pic.twitter.com/U8YAR1PsrQ -- Tiffany May (@nytmay) August 31, 2019
Tens of thousands participated in an unauthorized demonstration - many of whom threw objects and gasoline bombs over barriers
at the government's headquarters. After initially retreating in response to the crowd control measures, protesters returned to a
nearby suburb and set fire to a wall on Hennessy Road in the city's Wan Chai district. this fire has gotten much bigger after 20
minutes. the street is full of dark smoke.
#hongkongprotests#HongKong Clashes Escalate as Water Cannons, Firebombs Are Used
https://t.co/JtIZo9EhGJ @bpolitics pic.twitter.com/pxdhcV0iRc -- Fion Li (@fion_li)
... ... ...
Protesters asked US President Donald Trump to take action and help the activists, who originally took to the streets to protest
a controversial extradition bill which would have allowed China to bring suspects to the mainland to face trial in PRC courts.
It appears the protesters want the military to enter so they can play the martyrs for the cameras. Hong Kong was under
colonial rule for years! I guess the Rothschild family wants it back if asking Trump (a Rothschild stooge) to get involved!
Fighting against the state is great, in theory, but not if you just want to replace the current power structure with a
democracy or some other government. There's no point then. You're just replacing one mafia with another.
In practice, fighting the state is almost never useful because there are never enough people who believe in a free society.
The state always wins in the end. The prudent thing is to do nothing and live life the best you can.
Yes, most "adults" are still children who believe in the silly fantasy that there is such a thing as a legitimate ruling
class. Nothing changes until a critical mass drops the superstition.
I wouldn't be surprised if intelligence assets were over there convincing some of these people that this was a possibility.
They are always spreading discord around the world. If you're the big guy in the room and you want to instigate a fight, tell
the angry little guy you've got his back.
I was living in Moscow as the Soviet Union was collapsing. The military and the millitarized police went over to the side of
the protestors and rebels, and that was decisive. There was some violence and some people were killed, but not nearly as much
and as many as there might have been.
One technical note: Never approach armored vehicles with objects in your hands - not even bouquets of flowers. Tanker crews
look upon these objects with extreme suspicion. People in Moscow were shot and killed because they offered bouquets to tankers.
... and in mainland China pork prices are skyrocketing, subsidized food prices are rising, 30% of the water is undrinkable,
air in all major Chinese cities is unsafe to breathe even by 3rd world standards, and China has stopped reporting the number of
protest daily across the country now that it is over 1000 a day.
Hong Kong is the distraction of a dynasty that is quickly collapsing. And let's not forget the trade war, the loss of American
companies and the CCP's desperate attempt to keep their intelligence agency Huawei in control 5G. China is collapsing. It's a
great show to witness.
And those protest leaders that were arrested a couple of days ago are in China having their organs harvested，this is a FACT，because
I read it here in the comments section a few days ago. Just like I've now read YOUR post，so it must be FACT!
Oh....wait...
'after several top organizers were arrested and then released, including Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Andy Chan. '
I will never understand the logic of venting anger on inanimate objects like walls and buildings. If you're going to do it,
do it properly and bring the real masters to heel, it'll never work simply destroying someone's car and bending the odd lamppost.
They're probably tucked up in their fortress laughing and waiting for it to cool down so they can return to business as usual.
And then what? What's the end game? There is only one-way this can play out that I can see. Violent suppression and mass arrests.
It will all be done 'officially' under the facade of Hong Kong authority, so technically no 'foul'
<Protesters in Hong Kong returned to the streets in what
Bloomberg has called " one of the city's most violent days in its 13th weekend of social unrest," after several top organizers
were arrested and then released, including Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Andy Chan. >
A terrible blunder by Xi. If the Tsarist government in 1905 executed all arrested Bolshevik leaders (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
etc.,), there would not be any Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917 and the Russian civilization would be still alive today. The
world only understands strength and any weakness is not forgiven.
Donald Trump will be remembered as a humorous yet sad 4-year blip in the history of America, where the People regrettably admit
that this "entertainment age" was responsible for their lack of judgement in 2016, and they learned that they shouldn't play games
with something as important to our country's honor and integrity as the office of the Presidency. Fool me twice, shame on me.....
"... So, a well-meaning Westerner suggests Gene Sharp's well-known 198 Methods of Non-Violent Action to a HKer, who politely informs him that Sharp's work is already available in Chinese ..."
"... You don't have to wait for your CIA handler to vouchsafe The Sacred Texts. Very sophisticated and tested protest tactics are all available on the Internet, if you research the media coverage of Tahrir Square, los indignados in Spain, the state capital occupations in the United States, Occupy proper, the Carré Rouge in Quebec, and many, many other examples (including the Umbrella movement organic to Hong Kong). It's not all Maidan -- which is on the Internet too, and I don't regard it was useful to forcefit all protests into that model. ..."
"... If they have factories in China now, and they are the invisible hands, I think they (and their factories) would be in trouble already, as in 'now,' and they don't have to worry about being extradited in the future. ..."
"... Me neither. That's a concern. However, there is the idea that "you taught me" that non-violence doesn't work (in 2014), "you" being the Chinese government. There is also the idea that the Mainland is no more agreement-capable than the United States," since they have no intention of adhering to the Basic Law on matters like universal suffrage . If the attitude among a great mass of the protestors is that they have nothing to lose, some sort of Masada-like scenario seems likely. ..."
"... And exactly whose interests would that serve? The interests of the students? The interests of Hong Kong generally? Answering that question will begin to take you down the rabbit hole. ..."
"... Now, it is true that "color revolution" in strong form seems to have lost some credibility, and that, if I may characterize the discourse collectively, we see a strategic retreat to formulations like "I'm sure the protestors have legitimacy," but they're still "manipulated," because, by gawd, that's what the US does. ..."
"... And then we get NGOs (been around for years) and Jimmy Lai (been around for years). Constants, that is, where the protests are a variable (which is why the heavy-breathing GrayZone post about xenohobia doesn't impress me all that much). ..."
"... So will this protest end the way Occupy ended here in "democratic" USA? One has to suspect the secessionist aim that is one of the apparent motives will not be rewarded. ..."
"... US funding and influence was quite well-attested then, for those who were paying attention. Oddly, or not, there seems to be no Victoria Nuland-equivalent for HK. One could argue, of course, that there's an invisible Nuland, but Occam's Razor eliminates that. I never followed Ukraine closely, I admit, partly because Ukraine is fabulously corrupt, and partly because (like Syria) it seemed impossible to separate fact from fiction on the ground. (The only rooting interest I have in Ukraine is their wonderful enormous airplanes.) I think for HK we have a lot more well-attested information. That's what the post is about, in fact. ..."
"... There is video of HKers using 3-person surgical tubing catapults to return to sender tear gas cannisters. I've seen pranksters use these "slingshots" to lob water balloons into unsuspecting civilians, but they are much better suited to return cannisters to the police. ..."
"... I know enough about HK to be a little suspicious of the motives of *some* protestors, but I'm in awe of their inventiveness and raw courage. And believe me, to protest publicly in HK/China requires real physical courage that is not required anywhere in the west, anyone who thinks otherwise is entirely clueless about the nature of the Chinese government and what it is capable of. ..."
"... The fact that neo-con elements in the US are happy about the protests is entirely irrelevant, it really is. Its like saying that when RT had approving articles about Occupy or Black Lives Matter that this proves the Russians were behind it. It really is that stupid and US centric an opinion. ..."
"... But here's the rub. Can you imagine what would happen if this all happened in a western country? Imagine this happening in New York for example. Actually we don't. The authorities came down on the Occupy Wall Street movement like a ton of bricks so we had a taste of what would happen. ..."
"... I am not saying that the Chinese government is right but I can understand their position here. They give Hong Kong a 'special deal' and the rest of China will want their own special deals. ..."
"... Just like the Chinese elites, the U.S. elites don't want to deal with the citizenry, and protest is something that shocks them. ..."
"... What really makes most HK skeptics suspicious is the way the media and the political establishment in the West are constantly slathering the students there with pure, unadulturated praise, while lambasting us skeptics as 'conspiracy theorists'. So comparisons of HK to Maidan are indeed apt. And please contrast the media's treatment of this protest with their (non-)treatment of the gilets jaunes movement in France. On that rare occasion when the MSM did deign to mention the gilets jaunes , they always faithfully accused them of 'racism' and 'anti-semitism'. But note how the HK protesters get pass for using Pepe the Frog as their symbol! ..."
"... The idea of protest is to disrupt the system and generally gum up the works, raising the costs of the offending campaign, hopefully to the point where the material and reputational damage makes the whole thing no longer worth pursuing. This is the end game. ..."
"... To paraphrase Noam Chomsky: Elites want a smoothly-running system of oppression. There is no reason to give them this gift. ..."
"... In general, the techniques described here seem unreliable and dangerous if masking your identity from surveillance is vital. The idea that you are going to identify and precisely target every video camera that can see you, 100% of the time, esp. in a moving and rapidly changing environment, seems extremely naive. Video cameras are small, cheap, inconspicuous, and easy to disguise. All that's needed by the opponent is a single video frame that shows your face clearly. ..."
Let me start out with a sidebar on "add oil" (加油), which you see all over the
coverage of the Hong Kong protests: It originated, says the OED , as a
cheer at the Macau Grand Prix in the 1960s, meaning "step on the gas" (which is good to know,
because I thought that the underlying metaphor was adding cooking oil to a wok preparatory to
frying). It translates roughly to " go for it !" Here, an apartment block encourages
the protesters by chanting it:
Sidebar completed, this post will have a simple thesis: The people of Hong Kong have
considerable experience in running protests, and we don't need to multiply invisible
entities ("hidden hands") to give an account of what they're doing. For example, it's not
necessary to postulate that the participants in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill
protests consulted CIA handlers on tactics; their tactics are often available, in open
source , on the Internet; other tactics are based on Hong Kong material culture ,
things and situations that come readily to hand and can be adapted by creative people (which
the protesters clearly are).
I started thinking about this post when I read this tweet:
So, a well-meaning Westerner suggests Gene Sharp's well-known 198 Methods of
Non-Violent Action to a HKer, who politely informs him that Sharp's work is already
available in Chinese .
Clearly, #genesharptaughtme is alive and well! (In
fact, I remember Black Lives Matter using the same hashtag.)
I am well-aware of Gene
Sharp's equivocal role as a defense intellectual -- in strong form, the Godfather of "color
revolutions" -- but at this point Sharp's influence is attenuated. Out here in reality,
information on non-violent strategy and tactics has gone global, like everything else.
You don't have to wait for your CIA handler to vouchsafe The Sacred Texts. Very
sophisticated and tested protest tactics are all available on the Internet, if you research the
media coverage of Tahrir Square, los indignados in Spain, the state capital occupations
in the United States, Occupy proper, the Carré Rouge in Quebec, and many, many other
examples (including the Umbrella movement organic to Hong Kong). It's not all Maidan -- which
is on the Internet too, and I don't regard it was useful to forcefit all protests into that
model.
So, I'm going to go through a few of the tactics used in the 2019 Hong Kong protests:
Umbrellas, Laser Pointers, Lennon Walls, and a Human Chain. For each tactic, I will throw it
into the open source bucket, or the material culture bucket; in either case,
there need be no "hidden hand." Also, I find protest tactics fascinating in and of themselves;
I think a movement is healthy if its tactics are creative, and when they are so no longer, the
movement has not long to live. (For example, Black Lives Matter started to disintegrate as a
national movement when the college die-ins stopped (and when the liberal Democrats co-opted it
by elevating Deray.) To the tactics!
Umbrellas
Umbrellas were already a symbol of protest in Hong Kong, from the Umbrella Movement of
2014. Here we see umbrellas being used to shield protestors from surveillance cameras
(although they can also be used as shields against kinetic effects).
One can indeed see that Maidan protestors using literal shields:
However, I would classify umbrella tactics as deriving from Hong Kong's material
culture ; Hong
Kong is sub-tropical ; there are typhoons; there is rain, fog, drizzle; and there is also
the sun. Massed umbrellas scale easily from the tens to the hundreds; they create a splendid
visual effect en masse ; and they are available in any corner shop. So, it is not
necessary to postulate an entity translating Maidan's heavy medieval shields to Hong Kong
umbrellas; the protestors would have worked out the uses of umbrellas themselves, adapting
the tools that come to hand to the existing conditions.
Laser Pointers
Hong Kong, under Mainland influence, is increasingly a surveillance state; it makes sense
that HKers would give considerable thought to surveillance, and how to avoid it, in the
normal course of events. How much more so protestors:
I would classify the laser pointers tactic open source , since that's how I found out that yes,
laser poinerns can knock out surveillance cameras . Again, there's no need to postulate
that some unknown entity gave the protesters the idea; anybody with a little creativity and
some research skills could come up with it, given the proper incentives (like being arrested,
say).
The idea that one may "post" anything has been actualized with Post-It Notes, giving HK
walls a digital, pixelated look:
And the authorities have just begun to tear them down: Reminds me of the NYPD bulldozing
the Zucotti Park library, sadly.
I would classify Lennon Walls in both categories: They originated, conceptually, in Prague
(so open source ) but they are well adapted for massed protest in the material
culture of Hong Kong. (Like massed umbrellas, massed PostIt notes scale easily from the
tens to the thousands; they create a splendid visual effect en masse ; and they are
available in any corner shop.)
Human Chain
Here is a poster publicizing "the Hong Kong Way," a human chain across Hong Kong: Here is
the beautiful result:
I would classify "the Hong Kong Way" as open source , since the idea originated
from " the Baltic Way
," where some two million people joined hands to form a human chain across the three Baltic
states: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
Conclusion
Just to tweak the "It's a color revolution!" crowd, here's an image of HKers watching a
movie about Maidan:
I hope I have persuaded you that (a) this Maidan movie is open source "; knowledge of
Maidan as a worthy object of study, that (b) by Occam's Razor, it doesn't take a CIA handler to
tell this to HKers, and that (c) if the HKers end up building catapults , they will be
adapted to Hong Kong's material culture (i.e., probably not medieval in appearance or
structure).[1]
NOTES
[1] The HKers may also be sending a message to the authorities: If Maidan is what you want,
bring it!
Maciej Cegłowski has written a first-hand account that helped me understand some of
the tactics the protesters employ. I see he's written a follow-on piece, too. https://idlewords.com/2019/08/a_walk_in_hong_kong.htm
Another claim is that rich Hong Kongers are behind the protests, fearing extradition.
If they have factories in China now, and they are the invisible hands, I think they (and
their factories) would be in trouble already, as in 'now,' and they don't have to worry about
being extradited in the future.
Ok. I really did not want to post any more comments on Hong Kong, or China for that matter,
here at NC. But I am genuinely puzzled, and I have to say concerned, about the way this issue
has been framed here. One does not have to accept the argument that *either* (1) the protests
are completely spontaneous and genuine; *or* (2) the protests are mainly the product of CIA
manipulation of otherwise clueless dupes (a whole lot of them apparently!). This is a false
dichotomy. None of the critics of the mainstream Hong Kong narrative that I am familiar with
take a position any where close to (2). It is a straw-man position if applied to most reputable
"skeptics."
Rather, the argument I have seen most often among these skeptics (including some commenters
here) is that, while the protests *were* authentic and directed at real issues of concern to
protesters, there have also been efforts on the part of Western agents to manipulate this
situation. This included support of particular, strategically significant leaders and groups
and, of course, control of the Western media narrative. We have pictures and stories in even
the mainstream press of US officials and representatives of western NGOs meeting with such
individuals. Hell, we have US politicians bragging about it. These connections are pretty
clear, whether or not HKers can find Gene Sharp's work on the internet.
I have no doubt that many HKers are opposed to mainland rule, so China hands here need not
lecture me condescendingly on that issue. On the other hand, I have no doubt that Chinese
officials are justified in suspecting covert action by the CIA to stir things up even more
(though a lot of the activity is actually pretty overt). Looking at the postwar actions of the
US and its allies all over the world, including China in the past, they would have to be idiots
not to. And they are not idiots.
Good post. As usual, reality is far more complex and not reducible to simplistic either/or
narratives. Protest, rebellion, and unrest are endemic in Chinese (and world) history. In a
globalized and interconnected modern world, of course there is widespread awareness and cross
fertilization of movements. The "West" did not start this fire, though no doubt they are doing
some fanning of the flames.
What worries me is that I do not understand the endgame of the protesters. If you are facing
a power far greater than your own, guerilla tactics are in order, but you have to know when to
declare victory and back off for awhile. They seem to want to keep pushing and pushing until
another Tienanmen may become inevitable.
The HK protesters recognize that they have enough bodies to literally bring parts of the
city to a halt. Soon the authorities will realize that they don't have enough police to
maintain order and some sort of compromise will be in order.
Imagine if 200 cars stopped on an LA freeway. Traffic would be halted for hours before
enough tow trucks could be put in service. Bodies in the street (cars on the freeway) can be
enough to stop "business as usual".
> I do not understand the endgame of the protesters
Me neither. That's a concern. However, there is the idea that "you taught me" that
non-violence doesn't work (in 2014), "you" being the Chinese government. There is also the idea
that the Mainland is no more agreement-capable than the United States," since they have no
intention of adhering to the Basic Law on matters like universal suffrage
. If the attitude among a great mass of the protestors is that they have nothing to lose, some
sort of Masada-like scenario seems likely.
As for the rest of the comment, meh. It's simultaneously an initial withdrawal of the
debunked "color revolution" theory, and a mushy reformulation of same in different terms ("no
doubt that Chinese officials are justified in suspecting covert action by the CIA"). Either you
believe that the Hong Kong protests are organic in origin and execution, or you don't.
See my comment
here .
My sympathy for the HK protesters is somewhat impaired by their antipathy for mainlanders
and mainlander immigration to HK. Its worth reading Carl Zha on Tiananmen. I thought i knew
what happened in Tiananmen, but it turned out i didn't.
I'm a bit leery of Chongqing native Carl Zha and his sudden
elevation. Let's remember that the Mainland is just as sophisticated in its information
campaigns as the US. For example, a claim that he has revealed what really happened, as we say,
at Tien An Man, without an explanation what his views are is a red flag to me. (In the
worse case scenario, disinformation is infesting the NC comments section.) No, I'm not going to
"just listen to the YouTube" because I don't have time to devote to it, as opposed to reading a
transcript quickly.
I've just come across Zha once or twice and I certainly would not consider him a reliable
source. The 'official' narrative around Tiannanman in China (as taught to Chinese people) has
changed more than once, his seems to match the current version. This doesn't mean he is lying
or wrong, I'm just suspicious about anyone who claims to know the 'truth' about such a chaotic
and charged event, and some of the things he has written is simply not a reflection of what
Chinese people I know think about it.
Its worth pointing out of course that almost all the evidence suggests that the Chinese
intelligence penetration of the US has been far more competent than vice versa. The narrative
that somehow the CIA was behind Tiananmen (which even MoA has pushed) and the current protests
simply strains all credulity. There is no doubt they would provide any help they could to
anti-government movements within China, but there is no evidence that they've done anything
more than promote a few fringe dissidents.
Zha (to my recollection) did not suggest the CIA was behind Tiananmen. He did suggest that
the amount of violence and the cause of the violence was not as reported in the West. There was
little corroboration though. That said, he had quite an interesting take on the lone man with
shopping bag stopping tank column. Perhaps it is common knowledge but he suggested that event
took place on the day after Tiananmen, when the tanks were trying to head back to base. Just
cos he said that don't make it true of course. But it did make me ask how i know what i think i
know.
I apologize for not outlining his views. I thought it better to just suggest him as a
possible reference and allow people to come to their own conclusions. I came across him cos I
follow Mark Ames on twitter. I know of Ames cos I spent time in Moscow in the 90s. So I
considered it a good recommendation -- but hardly foolproof. Zha suggests that students in
Tienamin set a bus on fire in the square (of heavenly peace?) which unfortunately contained a
number of PLA soldiers who were burned alive. I have no way of knowing whether this account is
true. However he also suggested the iconic man in front of tank column took place on the
following day. Which was news to me, and seemed quite plausible when you consider the
interaction. But I have no reason to believe this anymore than I should believe the BBC or CNN.
Its just that where I have listened to the BBC on subjects I am personally familiar with, they
have occasionally been rather "economical" with inconvenient truths. Mr Zha has the advantage
of Ames recommendation, a clean slate, and an interesting but unproven assertion.
His take on HK protests is that they have become rather violent, with the aim being to
prompt a violent response from the Chinese authorities.
HKers appear to view themselves as distinct from mainlanders, and do not seem to welcome
mainland immigration. Fascinating to see british colonial flags brandished when telling
Mandarin speakers to "go home". But even here I am relying on the translations applied by the
makers of the videos. I dont speak Cantonese or Mandarin.
They seem to want to keep pushing and pushing until another Tienanmen may become
inevitable.
And exactly whose interests would that serve? The interests of the students? The
interests of Hong Kong generally? Answering that question will begin to take you down the
rabbit hole.
> But I am genuinely puzzled, and I have to say concerned, about the way this issue has
been framed here. One does not have to accept the argument that *either* (1) the protests are
completely spontaneous and genuine; *or* (2) the protests are mainly the product of CIA
manipulation of otherwise clueless dupes (a whole lot of them apparently!). This is a false
dichotomy. None of the critics of the mainstream Hong Kong narrative that I am familiar with
take a position any where close to (2). It is a straw-man position if applied to most reputable
"skeptics."
Nonsense. If you say that the HK protests were a "color revolution," which was the original
claim ( following Moon of
Alabama here , with the most frequent analogy being Ukraine, #2 ("clueless dupes") is
exactly what you're saying.
So, I'm not "straw manning" at all, but replying directly to a criticism expressed here.
Please follow the site more closely before you mischaracterize what I wrote.
Now, it is true that "color revolution" in strong form seems to have lost some
credibility, and that, if I may characterize the discourse collectively, we see a strategic
retreat to formulations like "I'm sure the protestors have legitimacy," but they're still
"manipulated," because, by gawd, that's what the US does.
And then we get NGOs (been around for years) and Jimmy Lai (been around for years).
Constants, that is, where the protests are a variable (which is why the heavy-breathing
GrayZone post about xenohobia doesn't impress me all that much).
The formulation employed in your comment is even weaker:
there have also been efforts on the part of Western agents to manipulate this situation.
This included support of particular, strategically significant leaders and groups and, of
course, control of the Western media narrative.
I don't know what "efforts by" even means. (I mean, there were "efforts by" various odd
Russians to meet with Trump, but no hotel was build, and so, so what?) Nor do I think that
editorials in the Times have the slightest influence either on the Hong Kong protestors or the
Mainland. I can't imagine why anybody would take them seriously.
What I am here to say is that the HK protests are organic to HK. They are organized and
directed by HKers, many of whom have a lot of experience protesting. There is no need to
multiply entities -- whether in strong form the CIA or in very weak form "the connections are
pretty clear" -- to give an account of them. Now, as I said here,
I'm sure Five Eyes are "sniffing around." Probably Taipei, Japan, Indonesia, even the French
and the Dutch; anyone with an interest in events in the South China Sea. But IMNSHO the
protestors have full agency . (It's also hard to avoid that there's a whiff of colonialism
here, too: How is it possible that mere Chinese people could achieve such things without
Western help?
And so, like clockwork -- I've noticed this in other comments that start out with the weak
form of "manipulation" and end up with the strong form of "control" -- we come right back to
that claim!
On the other hand, I have no doubt that Chinese officials are justified in suspecting
covert action by the CIA to stir things up even more (though a lot of the activity is
actually pretty overt)
(So "overt" that you can't even link to whatever the activity might be. Fine.) First,
we come back to the Mandy Rice-Davies rule: They would say that, wouldn't they? Second, so
I wasn't straw-manning at all, then, was I? Third, after I went to the trouble of applying
Occam's Razor to your claims, you just repeat them!
NOTE * "We have pictures and stories in even the mainstream press of US officials and
representatives of western NGOs meeting with such individuals." The picture is in a
hotel ffs. Pretty low level of operational security, if you ask me.
So will this protest end the way Occupy ended here in "democratic" USA? One has to
suspect the secessionist aim that is one of the apparent motives will not be rewarded.
I've often inveighed against YouTube links that don't summarize the content. In this case,
those interested in "connecting the dots" and following the money might be interested to know
that the videocaster, Sarah Flounders, is a member of the Secretariat of Workers World
Party :
The Workers World Party (WWP) is a revolutionary Marxist -- Leninist political party in
the United States founded in 1959 by a group led by Sam Marcy of the Socialist Workers Party
(SWP). Marcy and his followers split from the SWP in 1958 over a series of long-standing
differences, among them their support for Henry A. Wallace's Progressive Party in 1948, the
positive view they held of the Chinese Revolution led by Mao Zedong and their defense of the
1956 Soviet intervention in Hungary, all of which the SWP opposed.
Immediately before and during the Tienanmen Square days, China appeared to be in danger of
disintegrating into warlordism. This was overcome and the decentralizing process that
threatened to emerge was eliminated. That was a victory of socialism.
The question of how far the Chinese government can go with the capitalist reforms will
certainly be up for review, notwithstanding a constitutional provision meant to make the
reforms a permanent feature in Chinese society.
One fact has certainly emerged: the millions who left the rural areas for the great cities
of China and were absorbed into the proletariat have given the Chinese government and
Communist Party the opportunity to strengthen the socialist character of the state. The
growth of the proletariat is the objective factor most needed for the building of
socialism.
I don't think its surprising that Flounders and the WWP would retail the mainland line.
I guess that this comes about seeing what happened to all the young people who supported the
Ukrainian "revolution" for a free, just society. Twice! How did that work out for them? How is
the Ukraine going these days? What did they say when they found out that that so-called
"revolution" last time had a $5 billion 'Made-in-the-USA' sticker on it? Conspiracy theory at
the time. Recorded fact now.
> Conspiracy theory at the time. Recorded fact now.
Not so. US funding and influence was quite well-attested then, for those who were paying
attention. Oddly, or not, there seems to be no Victoria Nuland-equivalent for HK. One could
argue, of course, that there's an invisible Nuland, but Occam's Razor eliminates that. I never
followed Ukraine closely, I admit, partly because Ukraine is fabulously corrupt, and partly
because (like Syria) it seemed impossible to separate fact from fiction on the ground. (The
only rooting interest I have in Ukraine is their wonderful enormous airplanes.) I think for HK
we have a lot more well-attested information. That's what the post is about, in fact.
Re similarities or otherwise with Kiev, we will have to wait and see if there is any sniper
crowd killings in HK as with the 'Heavenly Hundred' in Kiev. At the time, the shootings were
blamed on the government, but compelling evidence since points to US backed snipers from
Georgia.
Compelling might be pushing a point. There is certainly evidence, and some of it is quite
persuasive. However I dont consider some Georgians snipers on Italian tv compelling
evidence.
There is video of HKers using 3-person surgical tubing catapults to return to sender
tear gas cannisters. I've seen pranksters use these "slingshots" to lob water balloons into
unsuspecting civilians, but they are much better suited to return cannisters to the
police.
I did a brief search on the Internet for some video but couldn't find it.
The Maidan catapult had its own Twitter account. Here's what it looked like:
I doubt very much that a catapult designed by HKers would look like this; it is not
constructed of materials that come readily to hand. (And perhaps massed slingshots would be
more effective anyhow.)
(I can't read any languages written in Cyrillic, so I defer to any readers who can on my
interpretation.)
Endless wars. Smoke filled skies. Hurricanes, drought, flooding. No purpose in life.
Incarceration, surveillance and insurmountable debt. Arrogant incompetence.
Change is coming. People need hope. A movement will be born.
"Bring it on" -- "Pa'lante" in Spanish.
Hurray For The Riff Raff -- Pa'lante
"And do my time, and be something
Well I just wanna prove my worth --
On the planet Earth, and be, something"
"To all who had to hide, I say, iPa'lante!
To all who lost their pride, I say, ¡Pa'lante!
To all who had to survive, I say, ¡Pa'lante!"
"To my brothers, and my sisters, I say, ¡Pa'lante!"
Para Alante. Pa'lante for forward/move forward/go forward/go to the front/continue/keep
pushing forward/don't stop
Different Spanish interpretations depending on which blend of the language your ears become
attuned to .mine flow from cuban, with a twist of Puerto Rican/Newrican, a dabble of dominican,
some mexican icing and a little Columbian sprinkles on top
Thank you for this Lambert. Perhaps its my perspective of coming from a small country, but I
find the anti-HK protestor comments I see here and elsewhere baffling coming from supposed
progressives. Sometimes, really, its not all about the US, or even US Imperialism.
I know enough about HK to be a little suspicious of the motives of *some* protestors,
but I'm in awe of their inventiveness and raw courage. And believe me, to protest publicly in
HK/China requires real physical courage that is not required anywhere in the west, anyone who
thinks otherwise is entirely clueless about the nature of the Chinese government and what it is
capable of.
The fact that neo-con elements in the US are happy about the protests is entirely
irrelevant, it really is. Its like saying that when RT had approving articles about Occupy or
Black Lives Matter that this proves the Russians were behind it. It really is that stupid and
US centric an opinion.
As to the questions about the endgame, I really don't know, and I suspect the protestors
don't know either. My own opinion is that this is as much a nationalist movement as a political
one. Many HKers see themselves as a nation with one foot in the east and one in the west and
want to preserve this status, but nobody has to my knowledge articulated how they can achieve
this. Many of them have a romantic notion of what western 'freedoms' mean, but not quite as
romantic as people think, as so many HKers have lived in the US or UK or elsewhere and are not
entirely politically naive. But they sure as hell know they do not want to live in an
autocratic State led by Beijing, and they are perfectly entitled to that view.
Your last part of your comment makes the protestors sound like the Brexiteers of the Far
Fast. People who want radical change but are uncertain how to go about it and with no clear aim
in mind. They may not want to live in an autocratic State led by Beijing but according to the
map that I use, Hong Kong is within the borders of China. They are not going to get
independence and they cannot go back to the way things were so they had better sort out what it
is they want their relationship to Beijing to be before it is decided for them.
No. But their five demands don't sound like a winning combination. It doesn't make them
sound even serious about full-fledged change-
1-The complete withdrawal of the proposed extradition bill
2-The government to withdraw the use of the word "riot" in relation to protests
3-The unconditional release of arrested protesters and charges against them dropped
4-An independent inquiry into police behaviour
5-Implementation of genuine universal suffrage
That's a demand that Mainland China adhere to the Basic Law that transferred Hong Kong from
British sovereignty to PRC sovereignty. What's unserious about that?
Agreed about that last demand but it is the outlier on that list. Demands 2, 3 and 4 sound
like they are trying to 'prepare the battlefield' for the next series of protests by
undermining the ability of the Hong Kong Police to do their work. Demand 1 is just fulfilling
the casus belli for this series of protests.
> 'prepare the battlefield' for the next series of protests by undermining the ability of
the Hong Kong Police to do their work
In what sense is that not serious? (I'll say again that I think the HKers want what they
think is liberal democracy as the US/UK may once be said to have had it this is not a
proletarian revolution. Hence, the presence of billionaire Lai is unproblematic, despite heavy
breathing at Grey Zone.)
In what sense is asking for one's first demand not serious? Is it more serious to write it
off?
I realize that this is not a popular line of thought but I believe that you do have to
consider all aspects of such a big event to be fair. I mean, even Paul Joseph Watson came out
with a video supporting the protests-
But here's the rub. Can you imagine what would happen if this all happened in a western
country? Imagine this happening in New York for example. Actually we don't. The authorities
came down on the Occupy Wall Street movement like a ton of bricks so we had a taste of what
would happen.
I am not saying that the Chinese government is right but I can understand their position
here. They give Hong Kong a 'special deal' and the rest of China will want their own special
deals.
Hong Kong already has its own special deal, 'one nation, two systems' is the official slogan
from Beijing. Its Beijing that is backing away from this, not the protestors.
That's right. A 50-year deal and China was not in much of a position to do a lot about it.
Times change and I guess that the Chinese feel that it is time to redress the wrongs of the
past according to their lights. I wonder if Macau has the same issues.
So if China is, as accused, reneging on the "two systems" then where are the protestors on
the "one nation"? To some of us it appears that these young people simply don't want to be a
part of China. If true then that's an aim that goes far beyond mere reform.
And the reason USG involvement matters is that some of us don't believe the US should be
meddling in other countries -- even ones as unfree as China. The protestors could reassure
about the purity of their aims by renouncing US support or the sanctions that some Republicans
in Congress are threatening rather than waving US and British flags.
A 50-year deal and China was not in much of a position to do a lot about it.
Where on earth did you get that idea? It was actually China's idea, promoted by Deng
Xiaoping -- part of their strategy to woo Taiwan and ease the concerns of their neighbours.
Plus, it made perfect sense for them economically.
> The fact that neo-con elements in the US are happy about the protests is entirely
irrelevant, it really is. Its like saying that when RT had approving articles about Occupy or
Black Lives Matter that this proves the Russians were behind it. It really is that stupid and
US centric an opinion.
PK: Thanks. You mention coming from a small country, and I think it would benefit all U.S.
peeps here to adjust their perspectives accordingly. Good advice.
Second is dispelling the typical "Don't know much about history" attitude in the U S of A. I
notice how Lambert Strether ties together several recent organic protest movements. (Should we
also throw in Iranian protests after the presidential election in 2009, Taksim protests in
Istanbul, and Greek protests against austerity? All of which were organic and fit these models
-- the chants from the apartment building remind me of the videos of call and response at night
in Iranian cities during those protests.)
Americans like to act as if every event is brand new. And the "don't know much about about
history" attitude means being "nonjudgmental" -- which means having no control to assess facts
and not much concern for critical thinking.
One question to be asked here would be: How can protest in the U S of A be raised to the HK
or Taksim level of disruption?
Just like the Chinese elites, the U.S. elites don't want to deal with the citizenry, and
protest is something that shocks them.
And the endgame? The endgame is protest. What comes next? We may be in an era where more
protest is needed. Time to study again the disruptions of 1848?
What really makes most HK skeptics suspicious is the way the media and the political
establishment in the West are constantly slathering the students there with pure, unadulturated
praise, while lambasting us skeptics as 'conspiracy theorists'. So comparisons of HK to Maidan
are indeed apt. And please contrast the media's treatment of this protest with their
(non-)treatment of the gilets jaunes movement in France. On that rare occasion when the
MSM did deign to mention the gilets jaunes , they always faithfully accused them of
'racism' and 'anti-semitism'. But note how the HK protesters get pass for using Pepe the Frog
as their symbol!
Whom the media cover and how they cover them will always tell you a lot about who is really
behind a protest movement and who really stands to benefit from it.
Let me start out with a sidebar on "add oil" (加油), which you see all over
the coverage of the Hong Kong protests: It originated, says the OED, as a cheer at the Macau
Grand Prix in the 1960s, meaning "step on the gas" (which is good to know, because I thought
that the underlying metaphor was adding cooking oil to a wok preparatory to frying). It
translates roughly to "go for it!"
I have noticed that Germans often the phrase Gas geben (to floor it, to accelerate)
with roughly the same colloquial meaning of 'to get a move on'.
I do not understand the endgame of the protesters.
The idea of protest is to disrupt the system and generally gum up the works, raising the
costs of the offending campaign, hopefully to the point where the material and reputational
damage makes the whole thing no longer worth pursuing. This is the end game.
To paraphrase Noam Chomsky: Elites want a smoothly-running system of oppression. There
is no reason to give them this gift.
XXYY: Yes. And there were a few essays recently about disobedience. The question isn't why
people disobey. The true question is: Why is the mass of citizens so obedient?
During the Occupy protests one continually heard this question: What do they want?!?!
Leaving aside the fact that a group of 5000 people carrying large signs generally makes
answering this question pretty easy, there seemed to be a limited ability to grasp the idea
that protest is in fact an end .
I think we have somehow been seduced or indoctrinated with the idea that if you do A, it
must be strictly in service of getting B. Often the motivations are just inchoate rage or
anger, and often the intention is just to call attention to something or just f*ck sh*t
up!
As we saw with Occupy, a major turning point in US history and society and the origin of
much that was to come, it's fine to just trust the universe to helpfully spin your actions in
ways your never could have predicted.
To what end? That doesn't boost the number of cops. China brings in the tanks? That maybe
ends hk usefulness to China as offshore financial center and certainly ends rapprochement with
Taiwan.
IMO China's instinct for heavy handed response has led them to a series of mistakes. Perhaps
the trade war has them on edge.
In general, the techniques described here seem unreliable and dangerous if masking your
identity from surveillance is vital. The idea that you are going to identify and precisely
target every video camera that can see you, 100% of the time, esp. in a moving and rapidly
changing environment, seems extremely naive. Video cameras are small, cheap, inconspicuous, and
easy to disguise. All that's needed by the opponent is a single video frame that shows your
face clearly.
A much better approach to work on seems like trying to obscure your own identifying
features. Obviously people are doing this with masks, hoods, goggles, hard hats, umbrellas, and
everything else.
One thing I haven't seen too much about is strategies specifically intended to defeat facial
recognition technology. AI-based recognizers seem to be extremely brittle; small and even
undetectable modifications to the source data seem to be able to throw them off completely
(e.g. https://mashable.com/2017/11/02/mit-researchers-fool-google-ai-program/
). One can imagine these approaches being deployed deliberately as camoflauge or a "disguise".
Obviously the problem would be finding robust techniques.
It is apparent that the caricature of the Soviet Union in both productions is really a stand-in for the present-day Russian government
under Vladimir Putin. As only American exceptionalism could permit, Hollywood did not hold the same disdain for his predecessor,
Boris Yeltsin, whose legacy of high inflation and national debt have since been eliminated. In fact, most have forgotten that the
same filmdom community outraged about Russia's supposed interference in the 2016 U.S. election made a celebratory movie back in 2003,
Spinning Boris , which practically boasted about the instrumental role the West played in Yeltsin's 1996 reelection in Russia.
The highly unpopular alcoholic politician benefited from a near universal media bias as virtually all the federation's news outlets
came under the control of the 'oligarchs' (in America known simply as billionaires) which his economic policies of mass privatization
of state industry enriched overnight.
Yeltsin initially polled at less than 10% and was far behind Communist Party candidate Gennady Zyuganov until he became the recipient
of billions from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) thanks to his corrupt campaign manager, Anatoly Chubais, now one of the most
hated men in all of Russia. After the purging of votes and rampant ballot-box stuffing, Yeltsin successfully closed the gap between
his opponent thanks to the overt U.S. meddling.
Spinning Boris was directed by Roger Spottiswoode, who previously helmed an installment in the James Bond series, Tomorrow
Never Dies . The 1997 entry in the franchise is one of thousands of Hollywood films and network television shows exposed by journalists
Matthew Alford and Tom Secker as having been influenced or directly assisted by the Pentagon and CIA in their must-read book National
Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood. Based on evidence from documents revealed in Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requests, their investigation divulges the previously unknown extent to which the national security complex
has gone in exerting control over content in the film industry. While it has always been known that the military held sway over movies
that required usage of its facilities and equipment to be produced, the level of impact on such films in the pre-production and editing
stages, as well as the control over non-military themed flicks one wouldn't suspect to be under supervision by Washington and Langley,
is exhaustively uncovered.
As expected, Hollywood and the military-industrial complex's intimate relationship during the Cold War is featured prominently
in Alford and Secker's investigative work. It is unclear whether HBO or Netflix sought US military assistance or were directly involved
with the national security state in their respective productions, but these are just two recent examples of many where the correlated
increase in geopolitical tensions with Moscow is reflected. The upcoming sequel to DC's Wonder Woman set to be released next
year , Wonder Woman 1984, featuring the female superhero " coming into conflict with the Soviet Union during the Cold War
in the 1980s ", is yet another. Reprising her role is Israeli actress and IDF veteran is Gal Gadot as the title character, ironically
starring in a blockbuster that will demonize the Eurasian state which saved her ethnicity from extinction. Given the Pentagon's involvement
in the debacle surounding 2014's The Interview which provoked very real tensions with North Korea, it is likely they are at
least closely examining any entertainment with content regarding Russia, if not directly pre-approving it for review.
Ultimately, the Western panic about its imperial decline is not limited to assigning blame to Moscow. Sinophobia has manifested
as well in recent films such as the 2016 sci-fi film Arrival where the extra-terrestrials who reach Earth seem more interested
in communicating with Beijing as the global superpower than the U.S. However, while the West forebodes the return of Russia and China
to greater standing, you can be certain its real fear lies elsewhere. The fact that Chernobyl and Stranger Things are
as preoccupied with portraying socialism in a bad light as they are in rendering Moscow nefarious shows the real underlying trepidation
of the ruling elite that concerns the resurgence of class consciousness. The West must learn its lesson that its state of perpetual
war has caused its own downfall or it could attempt a last line of defense that would inevitably conscript all of humanity to its
death as the ruling class nearly did to the world in 1914 and 1939.
"... Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani has long pushed for Kiev to investigate Vice President Joe Biden's attempt in 2016 to get the country's top prosecutor removed at a crucial moment during an ongoing investigation into Burisma Holdings -- the Ukrainian natural gas company advised at the time by Biden's son Hunter. ..."
"... As the The New York Times reported previously, during the final year of the Obama presidency, Vice President Joe Biden "threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine's leaders did not dismiss the country's top prosecutor" -- Viktor Shokin -- "who had been accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the political elite." ..."
Also interesting is that Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani has long pushed for
Kiev to investigate Vice President Joe Biden's attempt in 2016 to get the country's top
prosecutor removed at a crucial moment during an ongoing investigation into Burisma Holdings --
the Ukrainian natural gas company advised at the time by Biden's son Hunter.
As the The New York Times
reported previously, during the final year of the Obama presidency, Vice President Joe Biden
"threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine's leaders did
not dismiss the country's top prosecutor" -- Viktor Shokin -- "who had been accused of turning
a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the political elite."
Crucially last week Giuliani was reported to have again raised the issue with Ukrainian
officials , according to CNN
.
As CNN cynically put it in its
latest report , this suggests "the former New York mayor is making a renewed push for the
country to investigate Trump's political enemies."
But then again maybe it's as simple as the US not actually having a deep national security
interest in propping up Ukraine's military at a moment when international missile treaties with
Russian are unraveling and the war in Donbass is at a bloody stalemate.
The looming potential for a controversial cut in aid to Ukraine will make Trump's upcoming
meeting with still relatively new "political outsider" President Volodymyr Zelenskyy set for
next week all the more interesting. A final decision on the military aid is expect after this
crucial meeting.
More reason for Pappy Biden to pull out of race. Now he does not stand a chance to defeat
Trump because Hunter corruption in Ukraine and China will be center stage during election.
Obviously "lock them up " will be the battle cry. With China's latest backpedaling on tariff
retaliation, Trump can only be defeated from within Republican party by new impeachable
revelations.
Wait, so does the US still want to split China and Russia?
At G7 Macron and Trump both were talking up Putin and wanting to allow Russia back into
G8.
Then i read another interesting article about Macron inviting Putin to France:
"The dynamics of the New
Cold War might undergo a dramatic transformation if the geopolitical game-changer of a
“New Detente” between Russia and the West succeeds, which is becoming
increasingly possible as proven by recent events.
President Putin’s meeting earlier this week with his French counterpart in Paris
saw Macron repeatedly emphasizing Russia’s European
identity in a clear sign that this rapprochement is making visible progress. Macron is
motivated to play the role of mediator between the US and Russia for two main reasons, namely
that he wants to position France as a possible replacement to inevitably post-Merkel Germany
as the EU’s leading country and also to reach an accommodation with Moscow in Africa
after the completion of the country’s “
African Transversal ” earlier this summer
began to
threaten Paris’ interests in the continent. Putin responded extremely positively and reminded Macron of their
two Great Powers’ decades-long shared desire to forge “a common Europe from
Lisbon to Vladivostok”, reaffirming that Russia regards itself more as a European
country than a “Eurasian” or Asian one, which has important implications for
International Relations.
Both the Mainstream and Alternative Medias
had hitherto exaggerated the nature of the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership for their
own reasons, with the former wanting to portray it according to the paradigm of the so-called
“Russian threat” in order to justify a more muscular American military buildup
against them while the latter imagined that the two were “allies” jointly working
together without any disagreements whatsoever in order to accelerate the emerging Multipolar
World Order that would presumably be “anti-American”. The reality of their
relations is a lot less sexy and it’s that Russia was pushed into reorientating its
strategic focus as a result of the West’s anti-Russian sanctions following
Crimea’s reunification, which served as the catalyst for Moscow’s decision to
embrace Beijing. Russia probably wouldn’t have undertaken this move had it not been for
American pressure, but it felt compelled to since it didn’t want to remain a
“junior partner” in the US’ “New World Order”, instead
endeavoring to return to its historical role as a Great Power among equals.
In pursuit of this, it’s much easier for Russia to simply reintegrate into a
reformed “New World Order” than to build an entirely new one from scratch
alongside China, which is why the possibility of a “New Detente” is so enticing
to its leadership, though provided of course that the West is sincere in finally treating
Russia as an equal Great Power"
BASTARDS! If i had a DIME for every time Obama EXPLOITED vulnerable Americans for his road
and pony show I would be a rich woman.
I'll never forget Obama interview in prison with a few younger African American kids.
Talkin to then as if he knew what they were going through. His black *** raised WHITE and who
had ZERO clue what it was to live black and supporting the very oppressive system that jailed
them in the first place. All that after he bailed out banks and then QE under the Fed for his
wealthy CITI, Goldman and *** friends.
The poorest country in Asia – Afghanistan – has totally collapsed
under NATO occupation.
Complete BS! It is the continued Pakistani ISI influence in
Afghanistan presently though their Haqqani Taliban network plus ISIS that is terrorizing Afghanistan,
including intentional bombings of wedding parties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadahan_wedding_bombing
&
https://www.apnews.com
/b5ceb0cfb33d4d73aaaadf5eee19fe9d
The Pakistani army wants Afghanistan as "strategic depth" in case of a conflict with India.
Tony
Ah! So the US-led invasion, with it's endless stream of weak US-approved 'governments', has had
nothing to do with Afghanistan's continued instability then. Got it!!!
Pakistan is the only overland supply route available for the US military; roads via Iran and
Russia are politically out. All their fuel, ammo and food towards Afghanistan is under Pakistani
ISI control from 1978 till now, with the interruption of 2009 – 2015 .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_logistics_in_the_Afghan_War#History
mark
Afghanistan has been the victim and playground for Neocon intrigue for years.
A liberal, progressive left wing regime that furthered women's rights and social provision was
destroyed by Uncle Sam in its own interests to weaken Russia.
Bin Laden and his splendid chaps were put on the CIA payroll for the purpose.
The result was a long running bloodbath with 28,000 Russian and 1,4 million Afghan dead.
Followed by years of civil war, US invasion and the imposition of a narco warlord puppet government
on the country.
Tony
Hasn't Afghanistan gone from having hardly any opium production prior to the US-led invasion, to
currently being the source of something like 99% of the world's source for heroin?
mark
The Cocaine Import Agency runs the coke trade out of South America.
Might as well run the heroin trade out of Afghanistan as well.
Martin Usher
Have you considered that the Pakistan of 1980 may not be the same country with the same players as
the Pakistan of 2019? Also, when you get a weak/chaotic government then its quite likely that
different factions or forces within a country may pursue widely different goals?
that's not true. West stored in Ukraine, argentina and Bnrasil to name a few. and it managed to create troubles for China in
Hong Cong and paralyze Venezuela.
In addition the USA is hell-bent on regime change in Iran and Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... Why everyone on this site thinks the massive power vacuum created by the fall of the Imperial West will be filled by China and Russia filling the world with peaceful rainbows and unicorns. ..."
It used to be done regularly and it worked: The West identified a country as its enemy, unleashed its
professional propaganda against it, then administered a series of sanctions, starving and murdering children, the
elderly and other vulnerable groups. If the country did not collapse within months or just couple of years, the
bombing would begin.
And the nation, totally shaken, in pain, and in disarray, would collapse like a house of cards, once the first
NATO boots hit its ground.
Such scenarios were re-enacted, again and again, from Yugoslavia to Iraq.
But suddenly, something significant has happened. This horrific lawlessness, this chaos stopped; was deterred.
The West keeps using the same tactics, it tries to terrorize independent-minded countries, to frighten people into
submission, to overthrow what it defines as 'regimes', but its power, its monstrously destructive power has all of a
sudden become ineffective.
It hits, and the attacked nation shakes, screams, sheds blood, but keeps standing, keeps proudly erect.
*
What we are experiencing is a great moment in human history. Imperialism has not yet been defeated, but it is
losing its global grip on power.
Now we have to clearly understand 'Why?', so we can continue our struggle, with even greater determination, with
even greater effectiveness.
First of all, by now we know that the West cannot fight. It can spend trillions on 'defense', it can build nuclear
bombs, 'smart missiles' and strategic warplanes. But it is too cowardly, too spoiled to risk the lives of its
soldiers.
It either kills remotely, or by using regional mercenaries. Whenever it becomes clear that the presence of its
troops would be required, it backs up.
Secondly, it, the West, is totally horrified of the fact that there are now two super-powerful countries – China
and Russia – which are unwilling to abandon their allies. Washington and London do all they can to smear Russia and
to intimidate China.
Russia is being provoked continuously: by propaganda, by military bases, sanctions and by new and newer bizarre
mass media inventions that depict it as the villain in all imaginable circumstances.
China has been provoked practically and insanely, 'on all fronts' – from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet and the
so-called 'Uyghur Issue', to trade.
Any strategy that could weaken these two countries, is applied. Yet, Russia and China do not crumble. They do not
surrender. And they do not abandon their friends. Instead, they are building great railroads in Africa and Asia, they
educate people from almost all poor and desperate countries, and stand by those who are being terrorized by both
North America and Europe.
Thirdly, all the countries in the world are now clearly aware of what would happen to them, if they give up and
get 'liberated' by the Western empire. Iraq, Honduras, Indonesia, Libya and Afghanistan, are the 'best' examples.
Submitting themselves to the West, countries can only expect misery, absolute collapse and the ruthless extraction
of their resources. The poorest country in Asia – Afghanistan – has totally collapsed under NATO occupation.
The suffering and pain of the Afghan and Iraqi people is very well known to the citizens of Iran and Venezuela.
They are not giving up, because no matter how tough their life is under sanctions and the West-administered terror,
they are well-aware of the fact that things could get worse, much worse, if their countries were to be occupied and
governed by the Washington and London-injected maniacs.
And everyone knows the fate of the people living in Palestine or Gollan Heights, places which have been overrun by
the closest ally of the West in the Middle East, Israel.
*
Of course, there are other reasons why the West cannot get any of its adversaries to kneel.
One is – that the toughest ones are left. Russia, Cuba, China, North Korea (DPRK), Iran, Syria and Venezuela are
not going to run away from the battlefield. These are the most determined nations on earth. These are the countries
that have already lost thousands, millions, even tens of millions of their people, in the fight against Western
imperialism and colonialism.
If one is following the latest attacks of the West carefully, the scenario is pathetic, almost grotesque:
Washington and often the EU, too, are trying hard; they are hitting, they are spending billions of dollars, using the
local mercenaries (or call it 'local opposition'), and then they quickly withdraw after wretched but anticipated
defeat.
So far, Venezuela has survived. Syria survived. Iran survived. China is fighting horrible Western-backed
subversions, but it is proudly surviving. Russia is standing tall.
This is a tremendous moment in human history. For the first time, Western imperialism is being not only defeated,
but fully unveiled and humiliated. Many are now laughing at it, openly.
But we should not celebrate, yet. We should understand what and why this is happening, and then continue fighting.
There are many, many battles ahead us. But we are on the right track.
Let them try. We know how to fight. We know how to prevail. We have already fought fascism, in many of its forms.
We know what freedom is. Their 'freedom' is not our freedom. Their 'liberty' is not our liberty. What they call
'democracy' is not how we want our people to rule and to be ruled. Let them go away; we, our people, do not want
them!
They cannot overthrow our systems, because they are, precisely our systems! Systems that we want, that our people
want; systems we are ready to fight and die for!
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative
journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are
Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism
, a revolutionary novel
"Aurora"
and a bestselling work of political non-fiction:
"Exposing Lies Of The Empire"
. View his other books here. Watch
Rwanda Gambit
, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam
Chomsky
"On Western Terrorism"
. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to
work around the world. He can be reached through his
website
and his Twitter.
can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are
not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the
smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Jack Leon
Why everyone on this site thinks the massive power vacuum created by the fall of the Imperial West
will be filled by China and Russia filling the world with peaceful rainbows and unicorns.
... ... ...
BigB
I might add – following yesterdays comment getting the usual treatment for stating brute economic
realities – that the globalised economy being a dollarised one is not something you can have an
opinion about. It is a fact. That so many can hold a contrafactual opinion above fact can only be due
to economic illiteracy. Willfully held cherished opinion elevated despite the fact.
Which could be
more excusable if we had not had the ultimate in living proof of economic reality within recent living
memory. If the global economic system was not largely dollarised (to 60% of the global Reserve): then
a relatively minor mortgage crisis (or "savings glut") could not possibly have become global and
extending for over a decade to date. There is just no way that China and the rest of the world could
be pulled in a relatively small perturbation in the value of the dollar. It is proof positive of
interlinking – the fact that the global financial crisis was global.
There are no separate systems. It is an extreme failure of economic intelligence to predicate
otherwise. If not through economic illiteracy: then through false memory syndrome! FFS: it was only
twelve years ago that the system crashed. The interlinking is EVEN MORE integrated now. A loss of
confidence or 'moral contagion' will flash around the globe in close to real time. To posit
differential 'systems to fight and die for' in the face of economic and historical realism requires a
monumental feat of reality aversion and denial. Andre has lost his grip on economic reality. Don't
naively follow him.
vexarb
BigB, I think you are right to remind us that Love of Money is the Root of All Evil, but wrong
to criticize someone who rejoices when he sees that some branches of that Money Tree of Evil are
withering away. The end of Hitler's regime change plan for Europe was an occasion for rejoicing;
even though it did not mean the end of Capitalist resource wars, at least a relatively united
Europe enjoyed 40 years of relative peace and socialist prosperity. The end of NATZO's regime
change plan for socialist Syria and communist Iran may likewise herald a period of relative
unity, peace and socialist prosperity for the ME. That is one reason to cheer; two other reasons
are the re-emergence of China and Russia into a period of relative security and prosperity. So a
big three cheers are justified.
I remember, when socialist Syria began its resistance to AZC terrorism on Syrian soil, some
Trots complained that it was not correct to defend Syria on the ground because the real enemy
was global Capitalism up there in the sky.
Well, yeah: there is a relative geopolitical stability with the reshaping of a multipolar
world. But this is undermined by the underlying geoeconomic fragility and instability arising
from globalisation and a contracting global economy. So it is as a burning mirage shimmering
in a heat haze above the desert of humanities impoverishment.
We all like a story we can
rejoice in: a mythic tale of a kingdom of evil and a kingdom of good battling in a primordial
duel to the death. In the fantasy story light always overcomes the kingdom of evils dark
destruction: so we naturally align with the forces of good heroifying the mythic contenders
and denigrating the primal chaotic forces of evil. But for all the relevance this has: we
might as well cast Trump as Voldemort and turn to the Harry Potter novels for economic
literacy.
To coin a phrase you favour: meanwhile, back in the real world The dollar and the yuan
are inextricably and intentionally linked in value. They have been since 1994: 'hard pegged'
to 2005; and 'soft pegged' ever since. Do not believe the Chinese denials. The value is set
daily: and only a 2% fluctuation is allowed either way. This is economic reality. There are
no separate systems that are not underpinned by the value of the yuan: that is in turn
determined by the floating value of the dollar. It is a form of criminal negligence to not
know this basic fact: and concoct a poorly characterised quasi-mythological fantasy narrative
contrafactually.
In the most basic sense: if the dollar and yuan are relatively priced – there are no
separate systems. The value of the yuan follows the value of the dollar. Which has been a
weakening trend: culminating in the yuan being at its lowest rate since before the GFC.
Absolutely anyone can check out this fact: but they don't. When they encounter it: they
deny it. That's because the in stories we tell ourselves – it is the coherence of the
narrative construction that matters not the facts. The whole facts are sacred thing is also
contrafactual: the story is sacred. Because we identify with our inner story – facts like the
dollar/yuan peg are ignored. Andre is the JK Rowling of economic reality. Only his plotlines
and script are not nearly as inventive. In the real world – global capitalism is the dark
destructive force only, there is no alternative. This is Capitalist Realism. If we as a
humanity want to create an alternative: we need to face the hard economic reality. Fantasy
narratives are just a faery tale distraction from that. Myths that mean that the dark
destructivism carries on unresisted while we spin a good, if ultimately unbelievable, yarn.
vexarb
BigB, many thanks for your reply, and I always give you a plus for your clarity in
exposing a truth which invites rejection because it is both obscure and unpleasant. And I
by no means include you among those Soros-funded Trots who "attack from the Left". But I
am a simple minded person, and believe we have a right to rejoice in our little victories,
even if we do not slay Mammon himself. And there is the ROI to consider – the cumulative
Return on Investment. Perhaps Mammon will not be killed in some final Apocalyptic battle
between Powers and Principalities in the Heavens: perhaps Mammon will die the death of a
thousand cuts; perhaps the branches of the Evil Money Tree with bleed their sap and wither
away, one little victory at a time from the little people in Syria, Lebanon, Iran Russia
and China -- for whom already we have given 3 cheers.
Andre also mentions some little
victories in America: for example, Cuba and Venezuela. To which we might add back Brazil
and give a 4th cheer -- because Lula's back in town!
The bogeyman strategy only works if there is a clear a simple target to bang on on relentlessly. For a
while it was Russia, but now Washington can't make it's mind up whether it's North Korea, Syria,
Russia, Venezuela, Iran or China, and so it keeps flip-flopping it's focus. There's isn't even a
shared ideology that connects these rogue states, other than their very natural desire for
sovereignty. Even the public that buys into the mainstream media's framing of the narrowtive is
intuitively sensing a lack of conviction.
nwwoods
"Narrowtive" ..nice turn of phrase
Aiwl
".. these rogue states,"
You meant 'accused of being rogue' by fascist regimes (i.e. US/UK/KSA/Australia etc.. ), right?
Will Trump's intimations about meeting with Rouhani win the footrace? His competitor?
Israel's determination to get the Mideast theater of WW3 started in earnest. Racking up two
declarations of war in as many days (Lebanon and Iraq) ain't too shabby a head-start. The
game is to deprive Trump of the initiative. The Israelis are smelling capitulation and a
fresh outbreak of post-JCPOA yakking. The time is now. Trump had better get with the program.
He still has a chance to look like Presidential Instigator. Failing that, he'll just have to
be dragged in unceremoniously and then scramble post facto to look like Instigator. It's a PR
dilemma. His military's already there, poised for action. This may be the first war to launch
right over the head -and better judgement- of JCS Head Dunsford himself. False flag momentum
is a funny thing. The time couldn't be riper for war to get a jump on cooler heads.
After all, War has its own thoughts on the matter and will only let human beings dither
for so long before taking the helm and asserting its own predilections:
"Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation
survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."
--Lincoln Second Inagural
Magnier on Nuttyahoo's escalating provocations encapsulates the most recent series of
events, although he doesn't attempt to link the actions to the upcoming elections. Hezbollah
threatened direct retaliation against Occupied Palestine; Iraq chose to blame the Outlaw US
Empire; Syria remained silent; the G-7 said nothing. The recent proposal by Iran to refurbish
one pipeline and build another to Syria's coastline would certainly become a Zionist target.
So, for the project to have the proper security, Occupied Palestine needs to be liberated.
Nasrallah isn't known as a bluffer, while Nuttyahoo's prone to be too aggressive. Do the
Zionists see the current situation as possibly the final time they have some sort of an
advantage as Magnier seems to imply and attack since they know the Outlaw US Empire won't?
Iran for Multilateralism and Rule of Law, trusting themselves to abide by JCPOA, even if,
as defined as failing, an invitation to Europeans to decide not be tempted by the US to
remove themselves from their only future, and an appeal to the US to honour the
responsibility of their veto sit on the UNSC where the lengthiest document was signed.
I'm a visitor, but spending about 100 nights a year in Hong Kong in 2019. This includes some
time during the initial protests in June, some time in July, and all of August until now. I
think there's a big misconception about how much this affects daily life. To be honest, apart
from having a hotel shuttle bus that was stuck in traffic in mid June, I didn't really
experience any negative impacts of the protests. I walk around 10 miles a day, and it is very
rare to see any protesters. One of my friends lives two blocks from the Chinese liaison office,
and he's had tear gassing on three days since mid June. I walked through a couple of riot
police staging areas, but they're very friendly and left me alone. I also saw some graffiti.
But in day-to-day life, the impact of the protests is zero.
In fact, visiting Hong Kong is much more enjoyable than usual, because there are virtually
no mainland tourists. You can visit TST Promenade, which normally has dozens of buses spewing
out thousands of visitors, and right now, you're practically the only person there. Equally
important, hotels have crazy prices around 30 to 50% off the usual low season pricing. HK$1100
for Hyatt TST or HK$750 for the new Marriott Ocean Park. Insane deals!
Now, of course, if you for some reason get impacted by any airport closure and you have to
be at an important event, that truly sucks. So perhaps don't fly through Hong Kong if you're on
the way to interview for an amazing job offer. But for tourists, it's an ideal time to
visit.
As far as safety is concerned, if you're from the US or Europe, unless you live in the most
sheltered and safest environments, Hong Kong -even with the protests- will be much better than
what you're used to.
...
From a local's perspective, the protests force an occasional work-at-home day, but so far
everything has been business as usual. There seem to be less mainland tourists, so the crowded
areas tend to be more manageable now. The violence and tear gas tend to start flying off at
night, and there is usually a decent period of time before the raids come for tourists to
escape. Avoid hanging around police stations as they are the main target of protesters,
accusing the police for brutality and using excessive force.
I do think visiting one of these peaceful rallies/protests or reading through one of the
many Lennon Walls around the city would be an interesting highlight for a tourist.
Do leave some time for your flight out though, in light of increased security measures for
departures these days.
Slavery had some good aspects for those chaps who had it rather good. A colonial setup is
the next best thing to slavery, and it also holds its attraction for people who knew how to
place themselves just below the sahibs and above the run-of-the-mill natives. The Hong Kong
revolt is the mutiny of wannabe house niggers who feel that the gap between them and the
natives is rapidly vanishing. Once, a HK resident was head and shoulders above the miserable
mainland coolies; he spoke English, he had smart devices, he had his place in the tentacle
sucking wealth out of the mainland, and some of that wealth stuck to his sweaty hands. But now
he has no advantage compared to the people of Shanghai or Beijing. There is huge swelling of
wealth in the big cities of Red China. The Chinese dress well, travel abroad, and they do not
need HK mediation for dealing with the West. Beijing had offered HK a fair deal of [relative]
equality; nothing would be taken from them, but the shrinking gap is not only unavoidable, but
desirable, too.
However, HK had been the imperial bridgehead in China for too long. Its people were
complicit, nay, willing partners in every Western crime against China, beginning with dumping
opium and sucking out Chinese wealth. Millions of opium addicts, of ruined families and
households nearly destroyed the Middle Kingdom, and each of them added to HK prosperity. The
blood, sweat and labour of all China abundantly supplied the island. HK was the first of the
Treaty Ports, and the last to return home. Its populace was not thoroughly detoxed; they
weren't ideologically prepared for a new life as equals.
Chairman Mao harboured hard suspicions against comprador cities, the cities and the people
who prospered due to their collaboration with the imperialist enemy. He cleansed them with
communist and patriotic re-education; recalcitrant compradors were sent to help peasants in
far-away villages in order to reconnect with the people. Mao's successors had a strong if
misplaced belief in Chinese nationalism as a universal remedy; they thought the Chinese of HK,
Macau and Taiwan would join them the moment the colonial yoke failed. This was an
over-optimistic assessment. The imperialist forces didn't give up on their former house slaves,
and the moment they needed to activate them against independent China they knew where to
look.
Their time came as the trade conflict between the US and China warmed up. The secret
government of the West aka Deep State came to the conclusion that China is getting way too big
for its boots. It is not satisfied with making cheap gadgets for Walmart customers. It is
producing state-of-art devices that compete with American goods and, what's worse, their
devices are not accessible for NSA surveillance. The Chinese company Huawei came under attack;
sanctions and custom duties followed in train. When the Yuan eased under the strain, the
Chinese were accused of manipulating their currency. It is a strong charge: when Japan was
attacked by the West in the 1990s and the Yen had eased as expected, this claim forced Tokyo to
keep the Yen high and take Japan into a twenty-year-long slump. But China did not retreat.
Then the supreme power unleashed its well-practiced weapon: they turned to foment unrest in
China and gave it a lot of space in the media. At first, they played up the fate of the Uygur
Islamists, but it had little success. The Uygur are not numerous, they are not even a majority
in their traditional area; their influence in China is limited. Despite headlines in the
liberal Western media proclaiming that millions of Uygur are locked up in concentration camps,
the impact was nil. No important Muslim state took up this cause.
The anniversary of Tiananmen came (in beginning of June) and went without a hitch. For good
reason: the alleged 'massacre' is a myth, as the Chinese always knew and we know now for
certain thanks to publication of a relevant US Embassy cable by Wikileaks.
There were no thousands of students flattened by tanks. A very few died fighting the army, but
China had evaded the bitter fate of the USSR. In China proper the event had been almost
forgotten. A few participants retell of their experiences to Western audiences, but the desired
turmoil did not materialise.
And then came the time for HK. It is an autonomous part of China; it had not been
re-educated; there are enough people who remember the good days of colonial slavery. The actual
spark for the mutiny, the planned extradition treaty, was exceedingly weak. For the last
decade, HK became the chosen place of refuge for mainland criminals, for HK had extradition
treaties with the US and Britain, but not with the mainland. This had to be remedied.
[The extradition treaty had played an important role in the Snowden case. An ex-CIA spy
Edward Snowden decided to reveal to the world the extent of the NSA surveillance we all are
subjects of. He chose the Guardian newspaper for his revelations, probably because of
the Wikileaks precedent. When he gave an extended interview to the Guardian in HK, his
identity had been revealed. The arrival of the US extradition request was imminent. The Chinese
authorities told Snowden that they would have to send him to a US jail, to torture and death;
that the extradition treaty left them no option in his case. Only the fast footwork of Julian
Assange's brave assistant Sarah Harrison prevented this grim finale and delivered Snowden to
safe Moscow.]
ORDER IT NOW
While HK authorities were obliged to extradite Snowden, they weren't and couldn't extradite
numerous criminals from the mainland. This was an obvious wrong that had to be urgently
corrected, in the face of rising tension. And then the sleeping agents of the West woke up and
activated their networks. They had practically unlimited funds, not only from the West, but
also from the criminals who weren't particularly impecunious and were afraid of extradition.
After the demonstrations started, the Western media gave them maximum coverage, magnifying and
encouraging the mutineers.
Hundreds of articles, leading stories and editorials in important newspapers cheered and
encouraged the HK rebels. The People's War Is Coming in Hong Kong , editorialised the
New
York Times today. An amazing fact (that is if you are a fresh arrival from Mars): the same
newspaper and its numerous sisters paid no attention to the real People's War raging in France,
where the Gilets Jaunes have continued to fight for forty weeks against the austerity-imposing
Macron regime. 11 people were killed and 2,500 injured in France, but the Western media just
mumbled about the GJ antisemitism. Nothing new, indeed. The same media did not notice the
one-million-strong
demonstration against the US war on Iraq, paid little attention to Occupy Wall Street,
disregarded protests against US wars and interventions. One hundred thousand people marching in
New York would get no coverage if their purpose did not agree with the desires of the Real
Government; and alternatively, three thousand protesters in Moscow with its 12 million
population would be presented as the voice of the people challenging Vlad the Tyrant.
In its peculiar way, the media fulfills its purpose of keeping us informed. If mainstream
media reports on something, it usually lies; but if media keeps mum, you can bet it is
important and you are not encouraged to learn of it. It is especially true in case of popular
protests. How do you know they are lying? – Their lips are moving.
The biggest lie is calling the HK rebels marching under the Union Jack, "pro-democracy".
These guys wish to restore colonial rule, to be governed by their strict but fair round-eyed
overlords. It could be a bad or a good idea, but democracy it ain't. The second biggest lie is
the slogan Make Hong Kong Great Britain Again.
Hong Kong was never a part of Great Britain. This was never on offer, so it can't become
that again. Even the most adventure- and diversity-prone British politician won't make seven
million Chinese in a far-away territory British citizens with full rights, members of an
imperfect but real British democracy. HK was a colony; this is what the marchers aspire to, to
make HK colony again.
With all these differences taken into account, this is as true for Moscow demos as well.
Moscow protesters dream of a Russia occupied by NATO forces, not of democracy. They believe
that they, pro-Western, educated, entrepreneurial, would form the comprador class and prosper
at the expense of hoi polloi. Mercifully, they aren't plentiful: the Russians already tried to
live under benign Western occupation between 1991 and 2000, when the IMF directed their
finances and American advisers from Harvard ran the state machinery. Smart and ruthless Jews
like Bill Browder , Boris
Berezovsky, Roman Abramovich made their fortunes, but Russia was ruined and its people were
reduced to poverty.
Not many Russians would like to return to the Roaring Nineties, but some would. It is a
matter for the majority to prevent this aspiring minority to achieve its aspirations. Those who
can't take it will flee to Israel, as young Mr Yablonsky
who discovered his Jewish roots after two nights of police detention. He landed in jail for
violently fighting erection of a church in his town.
The Chinese will likewise sort out their HK affliction. It can be done if the government
does not promise to restrict its counteractions to painless and bloodless measures. Only the
real and imminent threat of painful and bloody suppression can make such measures unnecessary.
Likewise, only the imminent threat of no-deal Brexit could bring some sense into the stubborn
heads of the EU leaders. A state that is not ready to use force will necessarily fail, as did
the Ukrainian state under Mr Yanukowych in 2014. Blood will be shed and the state will be
ruined, if its rulers are too squeamish to stop the rebellion.
We can distinguish a real people's rising and foreign-inspired interventions on behalf of
the compradors. The first one will be silenced while the second will be glorified by the New
York Times. It is that simple.
I would not worry overmuch for China. The Chinese leaders knew how to deal with Tiananmen,
they knew how to deal with minority unrest, without unnecessary cruelty and without hesitation
and prevarication. They weren't dilly-dallying when the US tried to
send to HK its warships , but flatly denied them the pleasure. They will overcome.
China should do a 'Kashmir' on Hong Kong. Open it fully to all the Chinese. Let Chinese go
there and march against Hong Kong snobs and wanna-be-whites.
That said, let's cut the Anglos some slack. Brit empire did lots of bad things but also
lots of good things. While HK was set up as colonial outpost and cooperated in terrible opium
trade, it was also a center of innovation and change that introduced all of China to new
ideas. Also, the trajectory of Chinese history since the 80s shows that it had much to learn
from Hong Kong and Singapore. Maoism was a disaster, and it also spawned Khmer Rouge that was
worse than French imperialism(that wasn't so bad). Also, back then, it was obvious that the
West was indeed far freer and saner than communist China. HK and Singapore set the template
for big China to follow.
But that was then, this is now. West is free? UK imprisons people for tweets. The West is
sane? France and UK welcome African invaders while banning people like Jared Taylor who stand
for survival of the West. Also, the West, under Jewish power, has moved into neo-imperialist
mode against Russia, Iran, and Middle East. And US media are not free. It is controlled by
Zionist oligarchs who impose a certain narrative, even utterly bogus ones like Russia
Collusion while working with other monopoly capitalists to shut down alternative news
sites.
And when globo-homo-mania is the highest 'spiritual' expression of the current West, it is
now crazy land.
This is why China must now crush Hong Kong. Don't send in the tanks. Just open the gates
and send 10 million mainlanders to march down the streets accusing HK snobs of being
comprador a-holes. That will do the trick. Turn Hong Kong into No-Bull House.
And what happened to Taiwan under globo-homo regime? It has 'gay marriage'. Chinese need
to go there and use maximum force to wipe out the decadent scum.
Some in the West complain about China's social credit system, and I agree it's bad, but we
got the same shit here. Ask Laura Loomer and Jared Taylor. 1/4 of corporations will not hire
people based on their support of Trump. Also, Chinese term for people with bad social credit
is mild compared to what Jewish elites call dissident Americans: 'deplorables', 'white
supremacist scum', 'white trash', 'neo nazi', etc. It's all very ironic since globalist Jews
are the new nazis who spread wars for Israel to destroy millions of lives.
I saw Bannon on TV recently around the time of the Tiananmen anniversary. He said that 75,000
people were killed in the Tiananmen incident. This tells you something about his lack of
sophistication or credibility. I was a Visiting Professor at the Peking Union Medical College
in 1989 and I always assumed that the numbers of dead and injured were greatly exaggerated. I
asked many fellow Professors and students in Beijing for their opinions over the years. Many
of these were working in the local hospitals at the time. On average the response to me was
between 300-500 dead and injured. I have never had any reason to question this estimate. The
Wikileaks memo confirms this.
I saw Bannon on TV recently around the time of the Tiananmen anniversary. He said that
75,000 people were killed in the Tiananmen incident. This tells you something about his
lack of sophistication or credibility.
Actually, the dishonesty or incompetence of our MSM is *vastly* greater than you're making
it out to be.
Over twenty years ago, the Beijing bureau chief of the Washington Post published a long
piece in the Columbia Journalism Review publicly admitted that the supposed "Tiananmen Square
Massacre" was just a media hoax/error, and that the claims of the PRC government were
probably correct:
Under the circumstances, it's difficult to believe that most MSM journalists interested in
the subject aren't well aware of the truth, and I've noticed that they usually choose their
words very carefully to avoid outright lies, but still implying something that is totally
incorrect. I'd assume that these implied falsehoods are then wildly exaggerated by ignorant
demagogues such as Bannon.
It's really astonishing that our MSM still continues to promote this "Big Lie" more than
two decades after the CJR admission ran.
Everyone knows that large numbers of people, including some PRC soldiers, were killed or
injured in the violent urban riots elsewhere in Beijing. I think the official death toll
claimed by the PRC government at the time was something like 300 killed, which seems pretty
plausible to me.
So if I'm reading this article right–Communist China so gooooood– how about those
65,000,000 Mao and his "Leaders" er, basically sort of er, murdered? Lets hear what they have
to say about the great China "leaders"? Oh yeah, we can't they killed them . Is this the take
away quote from Mr. Shamir?: "I would not worry overmuch for China. The Chinese leaders knew
how to deal with Tiananmen, they knew how to deal with minority unrest, without unnecessary
cruelty and without hesitation and prevarication." Yes, they do know "how to deal with
minority unrest" historically–65,000, 000 corpses is some real "dealing" -- no
"unnecessary cruelty"? (I also read recently of the sexual torture of Falun Gong
practitioners–brutal gang rapes and with instruments of torture–this is recent
and well, happening now I read– Is this also how to deal with "minority
unrest"–Do we cheer on China for this too? No "unnecessary cruelty" at work here
either? I mean you could point out that yes, there is definitely some of the Colonial
backlash he cites as to Hong Kong at work without praising how great China is at "dealing
with minorites" I think, that would have played a bit better, to me anyway . https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/the-legacy-mao-zedong-mass-murder
https://www.theepochtimes.com/sexual-torture-of-detained-falun-dafa-adherents-rampant-rights-lawyer_2807772.html
Interviews of actual Hong Kongers suggest that their principal objection to extradition is
that residents of HK would then be subject to People's Courts rather than to the British
style courts of HK with all the legal trappings of the Foreign Devils (presumption of
innocence, rules of evidence, no hearsay, no secret trials, no anonymous accusers – all
that folderol).
@getaclue China's not
a communist country except in name. The Epoch Times is a Falun Gong mouthpiece that makes
stuff up. I don't support Mao but he is irrelevant today.
The reasons you list might motivate some of the protesters, but it can't be responsible for
this many of them. There IS a homegrown problem here and China would be foolish to ignore it.
The protester's motivations and their implications, as I see it:
1. Loss of prestige – Irrelevant, they'll get used to it
2. Colonial nostalgia – Dead end, open to mockery
3. Housing/economic issues – Manageable with subsidies and regulations, but
HK will have to give up some autonomy
4. Regional tribalism/xenophobia – Manageable, not unique to HK
5. US intervention – Dangerous but manageable with better PR & soft
power
6. Genuine belief in liberal democracy – Very dangerous, will cause national
decline similar to the West
@Brabantian They are
the ideal rat traps.
Even if Wikileaks wasn't a set-up, undoubtably they would be under close surveillance and/or
be infiltrated and compromised.
Snowden has been suspect in my mind when he purportedly left so much info to just one
journalist belonging to a sketchy outfit, and only a trickle of info came forth, while he's
celebrated all over. Many of us already knew about such program from good people like William
Binney.
As you say, there are real whisleblowers, and they are ignored, jailed or dead.
Goddamn Israel, this is an excellent piece of writing. You hit every nail on the head when it
comes to explaining why the troublemakers in Hong Kong are a bunch of useful idiots being
used by imperialist powers. These bastards really are house niggers, the kind of people who
would side with a distant foreign power over their own countrymen. Hats off to you good sir,
thank you for your clarity of thought.
@Commentator Mike
Exactly. The Chinese use the deep state to keep order and suppress crime; Washington uses it
to spread disorder (Antifa) and protect crime (BLM). There is a difference, you see!
I see no real difference between the English colonies and the previous Chinese colonies in
Asia this would be "the pot calling the kettle black", just the usual hypocrisy of state
actors.
The local HK people who live on the edge of these power structures are not the seeming
profiteers of any of this they exist in frameworks they can neither control nor escape escape
from so blaming them for being in a place not of their choosing is being disingenuous.
All I read is someone blaming children for the sins of the father.
On HK riots, there are some interesting writers giving some insight into US gov, CIA, UK gov,
MI6, Canada, Germany involvement in collabration with treason HKies.
The ZUS has started to purge & shut down pro-China-Russia Truth teller in FB,
tweeters, Google,
Those can read HKies Cantonese writing, here's one site where these HK rioters recruit,
organize & discuss where to meet, how to attack police, activities, and payment. https://lihkg.com/category/1?order=now
This is the truth of white shirt(local residents West called mobsters) vs black
shirt(rioters West called peaceful protestors). The residents of Yuan Lan district demanded
the rioters not to mess up their place. The black shirt challenge white shirt for fight by
spraying fire host and hurling vulgarity, ended get beaten up.
Any way, I was permanent banned from Quora, FB, even I am not related to China, just
because I exposed some of ZUS-India axis evils & lies with evidences in other topics.
Censorship is fully in placed.
HK was a colony; this is what the marchers aspire to, to make HK colony again.
I haven't followed this closely, but – why? Why would so many Chinese want that? I
understand a couple of tycoons, but why would ethnic Chinese want a foreign rule?
Perhaps they- just speculating – don't care about full democracy, but are scared of
China's Big Brother policy of complete surveillance & a zombie slavery society. No one
with a functioning mind- and the Chinese, whatever one thinks of their hyper-nationalism
& a streak of robotic- groupthink- conformist culture – wants to live in a chaos;
but also, no one wants to live in a dystopian nightmare which is the fundamental social
project of the new China.
The latest, apaprently, from The Mouth (Sauron .):
.Four police officers were filmed drawing their guns after demonstrators were seen
chasing them with metal pipes .
.senior police officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said this week that
officers had been targeted and exposed online even while there was temporary peace on the
streets. The police said officers' personal data, contact information, home addresses, and
more had been shared online, and accused protesters of threatening officers' families .
Is anyone there thinking that as soon as they "neutralize" the LOCAL police force
SOMETHING else will come into the fray?
Probably not. Feels good.
This time it won't be Communist era conscripts of the regular Army.
I'd say good luck to those protesters but really can't. Wouldn't make any sense.
A state that is not ready to use force will necessarily fail, as did the Ukrainian state
under Mr Yanukowych in 2014. Blood will be shed and the state will be ruined, if its rulers
are too squeamish to stop the rebellion.
Thank you, Me Shamir.
Your analogy of the house nigger is spot on and a accurate portrayal of the slave
mentality held by these protestors. It is the epitome of shamelessness and insanity to beg to
be enslaved. As a Hker, I am happy to say none of the people I associate with support the
protestors and these British house niggers are the filth of HK society.
You are absolutely right to point out a state that is not ready to use force will fail and
I think the situation have reached a critical point where some blood must be shed and some
examples to be made. There is a Chinese saying " People don't cry until they see the coffin."
Time to bring it on.
I never understood Mao and why he had to kill all those millions of people, I do now
The protests are also driven by personal autonomy desires.
Look at the micro level. My sister teaches English in Chengdu. Google, Gmail, You Tube,
What's App and Facebook are all blocked in China.
You have to download a VPN before you land to use any of these sites.
Everything online in China is done by WeChat. *Everything* . From video calls to pay your
utilities to banking. It's an open joke that WeChat is heavily monitored by the Party. It's
the meat of your social credit score- WeChat data.
However, in HK, there are servers where you can hop on FB, Google products and the
like.
HK has a more laisse faire vibe that huge enormous China. If you have never been, that
point can't be overstated. To make blanket statements about anything in China is
misleading.
Because China is another planet. HK was/ is a cosmopolitan outpost that had its own
identity- It does not want to be swallowed up by clodhopper spitting burping mainlanders
completely.
Most comments are idiotic (as is the article). True, Western players certainly have fomented
much of this; true, many (most?) protesters are violent & obnoxius; true, Chinese
national identity planners want to unify, step by step, all mainland (and not only them) Han
Chinese under one rule, fearing of some disintegration in the future.
But, having in mind what kind of society mainland China was & has become, Wittfogel's
remark on oriental despotism becomes pertinent .
The good citizens of classical Greece drew strength from the determination of two of their
countrymen, Sperthias and Bulis, to resist the lure of total power. On their way to Suza, the
Spartan envoys were met by Hydarnes, a high Persian official, who offered to make them mighty
in their homeland, if only they would attach themselves to the Great King, his despotic
master. To the benefit of Greece-and to the benefit of all free men-Herodotus has preserved
their answer. "Hydarnes," they said, "thou art a one-sided counselor. Thou hast experience of
half the matter; but the other half is beyond thy knowledge. A slave's life thou
understandest; but, never having tasted liberty, thou canst not tell whether it be sweet or
no. Ah! hadst thou known what freedom is, thou wouldst have bidden us fight for it, not with
the spear only. but with the battle-axe."
"Once, a HK resident was head and shoulders above the miserable mainland coolies; he spoke
English, he had smart devices, he had his place in the tentacle sucking wealth out of the
mainland, and some of that wealth stuck to his sweaty hands."
HK is having trouble competing with it's closest peer competitor Singapore. Some of the
reason for that is a legal framework that disadvantages HK. The basis of HK real estate
market attractiveness over other locations in China and the world is a legal framework
separate from China. While the extraction treaty seems reasonable at first, remember HK's
extradition treaties have to compete with Singaporean, Taiwanese, and Australian extradition
treaties. A curiosity of the extradition treaty is HK is already in China, so why the need to
extradite people to somewhere else in China?
China might or might not be able to industrialize its economy through central planning.
But one industry they have not been able to centrally plan is movies and entertainment. How
is it that in the past with nothing HK had a top tier movie industry, Bruce Lee, but now
seems to have nothing.
IMO, mainland Chinese authorities just don't understand the HK economy and are mostly
chosing policies they consider convenient.
"Smart and ruthless Jews like Bill Browder, Boris Berezovsky, Roman Abramovich made their
fortunes, but Russia was ruined and its people were reduced to poverty."
That is the way the WASP Empire, the Anglo-Zionist Empire, provides freedom.
Send your money to VDARE so it can call for more WASP Empire – which the WASP and
Jewish Elites will fill with as many non-whites as they can entice in order to smash the
white trash down forever, so that even more Jews become multi-billionaires. And we all can
delight in speaking English, the language of international Jewry since WW2.
@Wally "HK was taken
from China, China has the right to take it back."
Yes, but not until 2047, apparently:
"One country, two systems" is a constitutional principle formulated by Deng Xiaoping, the
Paramount Leader of the People's Republic of China (PRC), for the reunification of China
during the early 1980s. He suggested that there would be only one China, but distinct Chinese
regions such as Hong Kong and Macau could retain their own economic and administrative
systems, while the rest of the PRC (or "Mainland China") uses the socialism with Chinese
characteristics system. Under the principle, each of the two regions could continue to have
its own governmental system, legal, economic and financial affairs, including trade relations
with foreign countries, all of which are independent from those of the Mainland ."
" .Hong Kong was a colony of the United Kingdom, ruled by a governor appointed by the
monarchy of the United Kingdom, for 156 years from 1841 (except for four years of Japanese
occupation during WWII) until 1997, when it was returned to Chinese sovereignty. China agreed
to accept some conditions, as is stipulated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, such as
the drafting and adoption of Hong Kong's "mini-constitution" Basic Law before its return. The
Hong Kong Basic Law ensured that Hong Kong will retain its capitalist economic system and own
currency (the Hong Kong Dollar), legal system, legislative system, and people's rights and
freedom for fifty years, as a special administrative region (SAR) of China for 50 years.
Set to expire in 2047, the current arrangement has permitted Hong Kong to function as its
own entity under the name "Hong Kong, China" in many international settings ."
Its, "interesting" that[ unless I somehow missed it], this important detail was completely
omitted from this very poorly written article, and from [at least] the first 56 comments in
the thread.
From the comments so far, I notice that the usual Zionist, pro-Jewish, pro-Israeli crew
around here (PeterAUS, Corvinus, Bardon Kaldian, TKK) also all happen to be virulently
anti-China.
Quite an interesting correlation. It seems to suggest something
We can distinguish a real people's rising and foreign-inspired interventions on behalf
of the compradors. The first one will be silenced while the second will be glorified by the
New York Times. It is that simple.
Well put Sir.
And spot on true.
It is really the perfect metric for understanding the underlying motivations and relative
merit, (or lack there of) for any geopolitical event or movement.
Should the people of Crimea be able to determine their own destiny?
Just look to the NYT to understand the nuances of that region and conflict. If they say
Crimea is foundering under Russian tyranny, then you can be 100% certain the opposite is the
truth.
Did the US foment democracy in (Yats is the guy) Ukraine? Read the NYT, and it all gets
spelled out. Assad's chemical attacks, moderate rebels.. From MH17 to 'Russian aggression',
you can find 'all the truth that's fit to print'. Only inversed.
Hong Kong, Donbas, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Charlottesville, Yellow Vests, Gaza, Russian
hacking and collusion.. and on and on and on. It's an invaluable tool for understanding our
times and the motivations and principles (or lack there of) being brought to bear.
And as you mention, for the really salient things, (like serial aggressive wars
based on lies, treasonous atrocities writ large, and assorted war crimes, DNC corruption, GOP
corruption, et al ad nauseam), one must listen to the crickets, who speak thunderously
of these things, with their telling silence.
Rampant white supremacists shooting people right and left, are bull-horned by the
screeching -silence over every POC who's a mass-shooter'.
By carefully not reporting some things, and outright lies and distortions with others, the
NYT has become an invaluable tool for glimmering the ((moral abomination)) of our times.
We should all be very grateful for their solid and predictable efforts.
– That agreement does not give complete independence & sovereignty to HK.
– That agreement does not allow rioters to engage in destructive, disruptive, violent
actions.
– That agreement mandates that the HK administration maintain order, which heretofore
they have not.
– Therefore that agreement has been violated, invalidated by the HK administration.
China has the right & responsibility to maintain order in HK. HK is theirs, they are
rightfully taking it back.
Like in the case of EuroMaydan with enough money injected and support of local oligarchs militants can be trained and then used
as the street fighters in the color revolution.
The fact the NED and similar NGO was not prohibited in Hong Cong in retrospect might be crucial blunder of Chinese authorities.
In a way, Hong Cong serves as Western Ukraine in those events.
President Donald Trump
tweeted on August 13 that he "can't imagine why" the United States has been blamed for the chaotic protests that have gripped
Hong Kong.
Trump's befuddlement might be understandable considering the carefully managed narrative of the U.S. government and its unofficial
media apparatus, which have portrayed the protests as an organic "pro-democracy" expression of grassroots youth. However, a look
beneath the surface of this oversimplified, made-for-television script reveals that the ferociously anti-Chinese network behind the
demonstrations has been cultivated with the help of millions of dollars from the U.S. government, as well as a Washington-linked
local media tycoon.
Since March, raucous protests have gripped Hong Kong. In July and August, these demonstrations transformed into ugly displays
of xenophobia and mob violence.
The protests ostensibly began in opposition to a proposed amendment to the extradition law between Hong Kong, Taiwan, mainland
China, and Macau, which would have allowed Taiwanese authorities to prosecute a Hong Kong man for
murdering his pregnant girlfriend and dumping her body in the bushes during a vacation to Taiwan.
Highly organized networks of anti-China protesters quickly mobilized against the law, compelling Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie
Lam to withdraw the bill.
But the protests continued even after the extradition law was taken off the table -- and these demonstrations degenerated into
disturbing scenes. In recent days, hundreds of masked rioters have occupied the Hong Kong airport, forcing the cancellation of inbound
flights while harassing travelers and viciously
assaulting journalists and
police .
The protesters' stated goals remain vague. Joshua Wong, one of the most well known figures in the movement, has
put forward a call for the Chinese government
to "retract the proclamation that the protests were riots," and restated the consensus demand for universal suffrage.
Wong is a bespectacled 22-year-old who has been trumpeted in Western media as a "freedom campaigner," promoted to the English-speaking
world through his own Netflix documentary, and rewarded with the backing of the U.S. government.
But behind telegenic spokespeople like Wong are more extreme elements such as the Hong Kong National Party, whose members have
appeared at protests waving the Stars and Stripes and belting out cacophonous renditions of the Star-Spangled Banner. The leadership
of this officially banned party helped popularize the call for the full independence of Hong Kong, a radical goal that is music to
the ears of hardliners in Washington.
Xenophobic resentment has defined the sensibility of the protesters, who vow to "retake Hong Kong" from Chinese mainlanders they
depict as a horde of locusts. The demonstrators have even adopted one of the most widely recognized symbols of the alt-right, emblazoning
images of Pepe the Frog on their protest literature. While it's unclear that Hong Kong residents see Pepe the same way American white
nationalists do, members of the U.S. far-right have embraced the protest movement as their own, and even personally joined their
ranks.
Among the most central influencers of the demonstrations is a local tycoon named Jimmy Lai. The
self-described "head of opposition media," Lai is widely described
as the Rupert Murdoch of Asia. For the masses of protesters, Lai is a transcendent figure. They clamor for photos with him and applaud
the oligarch wildly when he walks by their encampments.
Lai established his credentials by pouring millions of dollars into the 2014 Occupy Central protest, which is known popularly
as the Umbrella Movement. He has since used his massive fortune to fund local anti-China political movers and shakers while injecting
the protests with a virulent brand of Sinophobia through his media empire.
Though Western media has depicted the Hong Kong protesters as the voice of an entire people yearning for freedom, the island is
deeply divided. This August, a group of protesters mobilized outside Jimmy Lai's house, denouncing him as a "running dog" of Washington
and accusing him of national betrayal by unleashing chaos on the island.
Days earlier, Lai was in Washington, coordinating with hardline members of Trump's national security team, including John Bolton.
His ties to Washington run deep -- and so do those of the front-line protest leaders.
Millions of dollars have flowed from U.S. regime-change outfits like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) into civil society
and political organizations that form the backbone of the anti-China mobilization. And Lai has supplemented it with his own fortune
while instructing protesters on tactics through his various media organs.
With Donald Trump in the White House, Lai is convinced that his moment may be on the horizon. Trump "understands the Chinese like
no president understood," the tycoon
toldThe Wall Street
Journal . "I think he's very good at dealing with gangsters."
Born to Wealthy Mainland Parents
Born in the mainland in 1948 to wealthy parents, whose fortune was expropriated by the Communist Party during the revolution the
following year, Jimmy Lai began working at 9 years old, carrying bags for train travelers during the hard years of the Great Chinese
Famine.
Inspired by the taste of a piece of chocolate gifted to him by a wealthy man, he decided to smuggle himself to Hong Kong to discover
a future of wealth and luxury. There, Lai worked his way up the ranks of the garment industry, growing enamored with the libertarian
theories of economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, the latter of whom
became his close friend.
Friedman is famous for developing the neoliberal shock therapy doctrine that the U.S. has imposed on numerous countries, resulting
in the excess deaths of millions. For his part, Hayek is the godfather of the Austrian economic school that forms the foundation
of libertarian political movements across the West.
Lai built his business empire on Giordano, a garment label that became one of Asia's most recognizable brands. In 1989, he threw
his weight behind the Tiananmen Square protests, hawking t-shirts on the streets of Beijing calling for Deng Xiaoping to "step down."
Lai's actions provoked the Chinese government to ban his company from operating on the mainland. A year later, he founded Next
Weekly magazine, initiating a process that would revolutionize the mediascape in Hong Kong with a blend of smutty tabloid-style journalism,
celebrity gossip and a heavy dose of anti-China spin.
The vociferously anti-communist baron soon became Hong Kong's media kingpin, worth a whopping $660 million in 2009.
Today, Lai is the founder and majority stakeholder of Next Digital, the largest listed media company in Hong Kong, which he uses
to agitate for the end of what he calls the Chinese "dictatorship."
His flagship outlet is the popular tabloid Apple Daily , employing the trademark mix of raunchy material with a heavy dose
of xenophobic, nativist propaganda.
In 2012, Apple Dailycarried a full page
advertisement depicting mainland Chinese citizens as invading locusts draining Hong Kong's resources. The
advertisement called
for a stop to the "unlimited invasion of mainland pregnant women in Hong Kong." (This was a crude reference to the Chinese citizens
who had flocked to the island while pregnant to ensure that their children could earn Hong Kong residency, and resembled the resentment
among the U.S. right-wing of immigrant "anchor babies.")
Ad in Lai's Apple Daily: "That's enough! Stop unlimited invasion of mainland pregnant women!"
The transformation of Hong Kong's economy has provided fertile soil for Lai's brand of demagoguery. As the country's manufacturing
base moved to mainland China after the golden years of the 1980s and '90s, the economy was rapidly financialized, enriching oligarchs
like Lai. Left with rising debt and dimming career prospects, Hong Kong's youth became easy prey to the demagogic politics of
nativism .
Many protesters have been seen waving British Union Jacks in recent weeks, expressing a yearning for an imaginary past under colonial
control which they never personally experienced.
In July, protesters vandalized the Hong Kong Liaison Office, spray-painting the word, "Shina" on its facade. This term is a xenophobic
slur some in Hong Kong and Taiwan use to refer to mainland China. The anti-Chinese phenomenon was
visible
during the 2014 Umbrella movement protests as well, with signs plastered around the city reading, "Hong Kong for Hong Kongers."
This month, protesters turned their fury
on the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, spray-painting "rioters" on its office. The attack represented resentment of the left-wing
group's role in a violent 1967 uprising against the British colonial authorities, who are now seen as heroes among many of the anti-Chinese
demonstrators.
Besides Lai, a large part of the credit for mobilizing latent xenophobia goes to the right-wing Hong Kong Indigenous party leader
Edward Leung. Under the direction of the 28-year-old Leung, his pro-independence party has brandished British colonial flags and
publicly harassed Chinese mainland tourists. In 2016, Leung was
exposed for meeting with U.S. diplomatic officials at a local restaurant.
Though he is currently in jail for leading a 2016 riot where police were bombarded with bricks and pavement – and where he
admitted to attacking an officer – Leung's rightist politics and his slogan, "Retake Hong Kong," have helped define the ongoing
protests.
A local legislator and protest leader
described Leung to The New York Times as "the Che Guevara of Hong Kong's revolution," referring without a hint of irony
to the Latin American communist revolutionary
killed in a CIA-backed operation
. According to the Times , Leung is "the closest thing Hong Kong's tumultuous and leaderless protest movement has to a guiding
light."
The xenophobic sensibility of the protesters has provided fertile soil for Hong Kong National Party to recruit. Founded by the
pro-independence activist Andy Chan, the officially banned party combines anti-Chinese resentment with calls for the U.S. to intervene.
Images and videos have surfaced of HKNP members waving the flags of the U.S. and U.K., singing the Star Spangled Banner, and carrying
flags emblazoned with
images of Pepe the Frog, the most recognizable
symbol of the U.S. alt-right.
While the party lacks a wide base of popular support, it is perhaps the most outspoken within the protest ranks, and has attracted
disproportionate international attention as a result. Chan has
called for Trump to escalate the trade war and accused China of carrying out a "national cleansing" against Hong Kong. "We were
once colonized by the Brits, and now we are by the Chinese," he declared.
Displays of pro-American jingoism in the streets of Hong Kong have been like catnip for the international far-right.
Patriot Prayer founder Joey Gibson recently
appeared at an anti-extradition protest in Hong Kong, livestreaming the event to his tens of thousands of followers. A month
earlier, Gibson was seen roughing up antifa activists alongside ranks of club wielding fascists. In Hong Kong, the alt-right organizer
marveled at the crowds.
"They love our flag here more than they do in America!" Gibson exclaimed as marchers passed by, flashing him a thumbs up sign
while he waved the Stars and Stripes.
Xenophobic PropagandaSuch xenophobic propaganda is consistent with the clash of civilizations theory that Jimmy Lai has
promulgated through his media empire.
"You have to understand the Hong Kong people – a very tiny 7 million or 0.5 percent of the Chinese population – are very different
from the rest of Chinese in China, because we grow up in the Western values, which was the legacy of the British colonial past, which
gave us the instinct to revolt once this extradition law was threatening our freedom," Lai told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo. "Even
America has to look at the world 20 years from now, whether you want the Chinese dictatorial values to dominate this world, or you
want the values that you treasure [to] continue."
During a panel discussion at the neoconservative Washington-based think tank, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Lai
told the pro-Israel lobbyist Jonathan Schanzer,
"We need to know that America is behind us. By backing us, America is also sowing to the will of their moral authority because
we are the only place in China, a tiny island in China, which is sharing your values, which is fighting the same war you have
with China."
While Lai makes no attempt to conceal his political agenda, his bankrolling of central figures in the 2014 Occupy Central, or
Umbrella movement protests, was not always public.
Leaked emails
revealed that Lai poured more than $1.2 million to anti-China political parties including $637,000 to the Democratic Party and
$382,000 to the Civic Party. Lai also gave $115,000 to the Hong Kong Civic Education Foundation and Hong Kong Democratic Development
Network, both of which were co-founded by Reverend Chu Yiu-ming. Lai also
spent $446,000 on Occupy Central's 2014 unofficial referendum.
Lai's U.S. consigliere is a former Navy intelligence analyst who interned with the CIA and leveraged his intelligence connections
to build his boss's business empire. Named
Mark Simon , the veteran spook arranged for former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin to meet with a group in
the anti-China camp during a 2009 visit to Hong Kong. Five years later, Lai
paid $75,000 to neoconservative Iraq war author and U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to organize a meeting with
top military figures in Myanmar.
This July, as the Hong Kong protests gathered steam, Lai was junketed to Washington, D.C., for
meetings with Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Republican
Senators Ted Cruz, Cory Gardner, and Rick Scott. Bloomberg News correspondent Nicholas Wadhams remarked on Lai's visit, "Very unusual
for a [non-government] visitor to get that kind of access."
One of Lai's closest allies, Martin Lee, was also granted an audience with Pompeo, and has held court with U.S. leaders including
Rep. Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President
Joseph Biden .
Among the most prominent figures in Hong Kong's pro-U.S. political parties, Lee began collaborating with Lai during the 1989 Tiananmen
Square protests. A recipient of the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy's "Democracy Award" in 1997, Lee is the founding
chairman of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, now considered part of the pro-U.S. camp's old guard.
While Martin Lee has long been highly visible on the pro-western Hong Kong scene, a younger generation of activists emerged during
the 2014 Occupy Central protests with a new brand of localized politics.
Joshua Wong meets with Sen. Marco Rubio in Washington on May 8, 2017.
Joshua Wong was just 17 years old when the Umbrella Movement took form in 2014. After emerging in the protest ranks as one of
the more charismatic voices, he was steadily groomed as the pro-West camp's teenage poster child. Wong received lavish praised in
Time magazine, Fortune , and Foreign Policy as a "freedom campaigner," and became the subject of an award-winning
Netflix documentary called "Joshua: Teenager vs. Superpower."
Unsurprisingly, these puff pieces have overlooked Wong's ties to the U.S. regime-change apparatus. For instance, National Endowment
for Democracy's National Democratic Institute (NDI) maintains a close
relationship with Demosisto, the political party Wong founded in 2016 with fellow Umbrella movement alumnus Nathan Law.
In August, a candid photo surfaced of Wong and Law meeting with Julie Eadeh, the political counselor at the U.S. Consulate General
in Hong Kong, raising questions about the content of the meeting and setting off a diplomatic showdown between Washington and Beijing.
The Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong submitted a formal complaint with the U.S. consulate
general, calling on the U.S. "to immediately make a clean break from anti-China forces who stir up trouble in Hong Kong, stop sending
out wrong signals to violent offenders, refrain from meddling with Hong Kong affairs and avoid going further down the wrong path."
The pro-Beijing Hong Kong newspaper Ta Kung Pao published personal details about Eadeh, including the names of her children
and her address. State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus lashed out, accusing the Chinese government of being behind the leak
but offering no evidence. "I don't think that leaking an American diplomat's private information, pictures, names of their children,
I don't think that is a formal protest, that is what a thuggish regime would do,"
she said at a State Department briefing.
But the photo underscored the close relationship between Hong Kong's pro-West movement and the U.S. government. Since the 2014
Occupy Central protests that vaulted Wong into prominence, he and his peers have been assiduously cultivated by the elite Washington
institutions to act as the faces and voices of Hong Kong's burgeoning anti-China movement.
In September 2015, Wong, Martin Lee, and University of Hong Kong law professor Benny Tai Lee were
honored by Freedom House, a right-wing soft-power organization that is heavily funded by the National Endowment for Democracy
and other arms of the U.S. government.
Just days after Trump's election as president in November 2016, Wong was back in Washington to appeal for more U.S. support. "Being
a businessman, I hope Donald Trump could know the dynamics in Hong Kong and know that to maintain the business sector benefits in
Hong Kong, it's necessary to fully support human rights in Hong Kong to maintain the judicial independence and the rule of law,"
he
said .
Wong's visit provided occasion for the Senate's two most aggressively neoconservative members, Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton, to
introduce the "Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy
Act," which would "identify those responsible for abduction, surveillance, detention and forced confessions, and the perpetrators
will have their U.S. assets, if any frozen and their entry to the country denied."
Wong was then taken on a junket of elite U.S. institutions including the right-wing
Heritage
Foundation think tank and the newsrooms of TheNew York Times and Financial
Times . He then held court with Rubio, Cotton, Pelosi, and Sen.
Ben
Sasse .
In September 2017, Rubio, Ben Cardin, Tom Cotton, Sherrod Brown, and Cory Gardner signed off on a
letter
to Wong, Law and fellow anti-China activist Alex Chow, praising them for their "efforts to build a genuinely autonomous Hong Kong."
The bipartisan cast of senators proclaimed that "the United States cannot stand idly by."
A year later, Rubio and his colleagues
nominated the trio of Wong, Law, and Chow for the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize.
Washington's support for the designated spokesmen of the "retake Hong Kong movement" was supplemented with untold sums of money
from U.S. regime-change outfits like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and subsidiaries like the National Democratic Institute
(NDI) to civil society, media and political groups.
As journalist Alex Rubinstein reported
, the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, a key member of the coalition that organized against the now-defunct extradition law, has received
more than $2 million in NED funds since 1995. And other groups in the coalition reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars from the
NED and NDI last year alone .
While U.S. lawmakers nominate Hong Kong protest leaders for peace prizes and pump their organizations with money to "promote democracy,"
the demonstrations have begun to spiral out of control.
Protests Become More Aggressive
After the extradition law was scrapped, the protests moved into a more aggressive phase, launching "hit and run attacks" against
government targets, erecting roadblocks, besieging police stations, and generally embracing the extreme modalities put on display
during U.S.-backed regime-change operations from Ukraine to Venezuela to Nicaragua.
The techniques clearly reflected the training many activists have received from Western soft-power outfits. But they also bore
the mark of Jimmy Lai's media operation.
In addition to the vast sums Lai spent on political parties directly involved in the protests, his media group created an animated
video "showing how to resist police in case force was used to disperse people in a mass protest."
While dumping money into the Hong Kong's pro-U.S. political camp in 2013, Lai traveled to Taiwan for a secret roundtable
consultation
with Shih Ming-teh, a key figure in Taiwan's social movement that forced then-president Chen Shui-bian to resign in 2008. Shih reportedly
instructed Lai on non-violent tactics to bring the government to heel, emphasizing the importance of a commitment to go to jail.
According to journalist
Peter Lee
, "Shih supposedly gave Lai advice on putting students, young girls, and mothers with children in the vanguard of the street protests,
in order to attract the support of the international community and press, and to sustain the movement with continual activities to
keep it dynamic and fresh." Lai reportedly turned off his recording device during multiple sections of Shih's tutorial.
One protester explained
to The New York Times how the movement attempted to embrace a strategy called, "Marginal Violence Theory:" By using "mild
force" to provoke security services into attacking the protesters, the protesters aimed to shift international sympathy away from
the state.
The charged atmosphere has provided a shot in the arm to Lai's media empire, which had been suffering heavy losses since the last
round of national protests in 2014. After the mass marches against the extradition bill on June 9, which Lai's Apple Daily
aggressively promoted, his Next Digital
doubled in value ,
according to Eji Insight.
Meanwhile, the protest leaders show no sign of backing down. Nathan Law, the youth activist celebrated in Washington and photographed
meeting with U.S. officials in Hong Kong, took to Twitter to
urge his peers to soldier on : "We have
to persist and keep the faith no matter how devastated the reality seems to be," he wrote.
Law was tweeting from New Haven, Connecticut, where he was
enrolled with a full scholarship at Yale
University. While the young activist basked in the adulation of his U.S. patrons thousands of miles from the chaos he helped spark,
a movement that defined itself as a "leaderless resistance" forged ahead back home.
Dan Cohen is a journalist and co-producer of the award-winning documentary, "Killing Gaza." He has produced widely distributed
video reports and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine, Latin America, the U.S.-Mexico border and Washington, D.C. Follow
him on Twitter at @ DanCohen3000 .
RW Nye , August 22, 2019 at 11:42
The author's use of the term "xenophobia" here is certainly inappropriate, as virtually all persons involved are Chinese–however
divided they may be on issues of politics. Those political issues are thorny ones, stemming from the different historical experiences
of the Chinese in Taiwan, Hong Kong and the mainland. Weak government doomed the imperial dynasty, so it is understandable that
the Chinese leadership should place a high premium on maintaining order and stability. Ordinary people also value order and stability,
but not necessarily as much as they treasure their personal liberties. The percentage of Hong Kong's population supporting the
protesters is difficult to determine from overseas, but available sources suggest it is substantial. Extradition procedures and
suffrage issues may be only the tip of the iceberg. I suspect the real concern is the increasingly repressive "social credit"
policies and universal surveillance of mainland society.
Nicholas Smith , August 23, 2019 at 16:22
I'm sorry, but the usage of locusts to refer to "outsiders" is classical xenophobic imagery, regardless of ethnic similarities.
By your logic the french considering the Germans "huns" wouldn't be xenophobic, because they're both Caucasian.
Maricata , August 21, 2019 at 18:26
""You have to understand the Hong Kong people – a very tiny 7 million or 0.5 percent of the Chinese population – are very different
from the rest of Chinese in China, because we grow up in the Western values, which was the legacy of the British colonial past,
which gave us the instinct to revolt once this extradition law was threatening our freedom," Lai told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo"
Right.
Western values of imperialism, class, racism, violence, misogyny and indignity.
This is where Trump comes in. Anyone who doesn't understand that Western civilization is crumbling just needs to look at Trump.
Funny,no mention of Soros. You know he is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.
Robert , August 21, 2019 at 14:10
US is pushing for a Chinese Maidan. Soon the escalation of false-flag violence will occur, pushing China to respond with force.
In the East, the CIA is fomenting separatism and extremism among Muslim Uighurs, pushing them to volunteer for ISIS and Al Qaeda
in the ME, and then blaming China for responding to their terrorism with re-training camps.
Maricata , August 21, 2019 at 18:27
That is how the CIA works.
John Patrick , August 21, 2019 at 05:28
I don't see any mention of the China's "re-education" camps for 1 million Muslims or of the brutal religious persecution (from
Christianity to Falun Gong) by the author or commenters. The list of atrocities could go on, but they might have something to
do with the huge number of people ("small streets" or not) in HK protesting against the possibility being sent across the boarder
to the totalitarian behemoth on their border. No, but they're all dupes of the US.
Yes, of course, the US is corrupt and its foreign policy evil, but the same for China. (Check in with the Dali Lama on that).
So here's a news flash for you idealogues: both countries suck. They are oppressive and ruthless.
And "xenophobic"? What SJW drivel. Fortunately, China and HK are both mostly Asian, otherwise the ever so woke author would be
playing enough race cards to fill the East China Sea.
Rad , August 21, 2019 at 20:34
"(Check in with the Dali Lama on that)." What makes you think the Delai Lama is objective? After all, his brother worked for
the CIA and also had skin in the game. Look up the article in the Chicago Tribune on CIA funding for the Tibetan warriors. The
writer managed to interview Tibetians involved in the failed uprising many many years later and they were willing to talk because
they realised they had sacrificed their lives for nothing.
Anonymot , August 20, 2019 at 19:18
One of the more interesting things about our trajectory of failed regime changes and installing ignorant quislings is that
they have happened from the Democratic administrations, like Truman with Korea, Cuba with Kennedy, Vietnam that started with Democrats
and ended with Republicans on to the inflaming of the Middle East under Bush and exploding with Libya, Afghanistan, Irak etc.
under Obama and the Ukraine and hate-Russia, ostensibly Democrat. under Hillary.
If you look at the overall rather than piecemeal it is perfectly clear that the sole consistency in all of it is the CIA AND
ITS BROTHER INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. They and the State Dept. were and are the sole filters and providers of foreign affairs policy
recommendations to Presidents and Congress, Republican and Democrat.
Considered beyond the surface level that clearly says that neither the Presidents nor Congress control anything we do overseas.
The options, the personnel, and their weights are all provided by our sole experts, via the CIA.
Our domestic issues may be argued until Kingdom Come, by Sanders, Warren, or Marion whatsername, but they don't say anything
of any significance about foreign affairs. (The sole exception being Tulsi Gabbard who's just been run off the rails by the Clinton
controlled DNC.)
You can rail until you're blue, vote for whoever you will. The mindset of the CIA is directed now and always has been by oil
and MIC interests. The reason they have all failed is a vision of failure representing semi-permanent chaos in those countries
as power. It's a variation of divide-and-conquer, because the divided are too weak to resist our advances.
One day we'll wahe up to the discovery that we don't need the expensive facade of elected official at any level. They only
make noise. The Harrises and O'Rourkes may argue over the best toothpaste or hypothesize over how to gussie up police uniforms,
but none of the billions they spend to become elected make any difference on what goes down the sewers in our foreign policies.
Democracy was a great idea. Too bad we never tried it.
I fear this is only Part One of the US plan. The expectation is that sooner or later China will have to crack down on this
movement, and the demonstrators will ensure the crackdown is harsh and brutal. It is what happens afterwards in Taiwan that will
matter. There a wave of sympathy for Hong Kong will lead to popular demands to declare independence. US agents will encourage
them. Taiwan independence for China means war, because if they allow it, Taiwan will become a massive US military base. The US
is already arming Taiwan to prepare for that war. They think that a largely naval and air war is winnable for them. They think
that the modest Chinese nuclear deterrent (max. 300 warheads) has been neutralized by the Thaad anti-missile system in South Korea.
The US war party is actually betting on winning a war with China to set it back 3o years. And they think this is the moment to
do it.
Realist , August 21, 2019 at 06:23
Your remarks about Taiwan are really food for thought. It seemed almost unthinkable to me that Washington would eagerly instigate
a war with China on its own turf. They undoubtedly assume that China cannot or will not strike at the American homeland in response.
Japan and South Korea, certainly at risk in such a war, are probably incapable of talking any sense into the Americans. They haven't
succeeded with respect to North Korea. Russia has plenty of nukes to spare, what makes Washington think that they would not be
for sale or gifting to the Chinese in the extreme scenario you picture. A conquered China would pretty much mean the quick end
of an independent Russia. Putin has to know that.
Maricata , August 21, 2019 at 18:28
Thank Steve Bannon for this. He consistently meets with Chinese 'dissidents' to create the subjective and material basis for
chaos and crisis.
If this writer can identify the leaders, ( collaboraters of the US and Brit Governmenst) why can`t the Chinese authorities
pick them up one at a time. If this were happening in the USA all of these leaders would be in maximum security lockups. Just
pick them up and disappear them for a while. You never fight a fire by dumping water into the centre of the fire you fight it
from around the edges. Cut off it`s oxygen supply.
I am sure China has a plan to end this rebellion , but so long as these people are running around free Hong Kong will be unmanageable.
Cut off the head of the snake. Go for the leaders. First step cancel the one country two systems treaty, the Brits and US are
doing their best to subvert the word and intent of the treaty so why should China be forced to live with it? Out law every NGO
in the country. close the US embassy there. Then clear the streets. Businesses that want to leave let them go. Those that want
to stay need to understand that they will stay out of politics and live under the rule of law.
lysias , August 20, 2019 at 14:45
The West wants an excuse to treat China as a pariah state. China should react with patience. Time is on its side.
The "Yellow Vest" are rendered essentially invisible by Western MSM, and if covered at all are roundly vilified even after
9 straight months of being on the streets all over France. Any resistance to our neoliberal military/police state paradise is
unacceptable and will be treated as such. One is hard pressed in examining MSM to find any critique of the brutality of the French
police in suppressing these protests.
However, Western MSM simply LOVES protests that can be used to paint our official enemies as "evil," or "totalitarian," or
"un-democratic," as if the word "democracy" has ANY meaning whatsoever in the Western lexicon other than "rule by oligarchy."
One need not be the proverbial "rocket scientist" to see the events unfolding in Hong Kong within the prism of the ever present
American and Western neocolonial soft power and propaganda operations. However, one does need to close one's eyes rather tightly
and to deny a great deal of well documented recent history from about the globe NOT TO SEE these connections.
– "citizen-consumers are daily less interested in whether something is a fact than in whether it is convenient that it should
be believed"- this quote from far back in 1962 – Alex Carey quoting Daniel Boorstin from Boorstin's book – "The Image: A Guide
to Pseudo-Events in America"
The following quote by Carey of Boorstin from the same book seems to sum up our current reality all to well:
"we are threatened by a new and peculiarly American menace . . . It is the menace of unreality . . . We risk being the first
people in history to have been able to make their illusions so vivid, so persuasive, so 'realistic' that they can live in them.
We are the most illusioned people on earth. Yet we dare not become disillusioned, because our illusions are the very house in
which we live, they are our news, our heroes . . . our very experience."
Ma Laoshi , August 20, 2019 at 10:41
There is one question which I can't seem to get answered; perhaps this means it is the right question. As far as I know, all
these CIA fronts NED, NDI, IRI, etc., violate HK's Basic Law when they operate in the territory. And I'm positive that foreign
affairs are explicitly excluded from HK's autonomy deal. So why on earth are these outfits still allowed to meddle in Hong Kong's,
and thus China's, politics, financially and otherwise? Part of me says that the weak HK Govt is only getting what it deserves
if they don't keep their own house in order.
Carroll Price , August 20, 2019 at 08:03
The planners of international chaos strike again. Does Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Ukraine, ring any bells?
Zhu , August 20, 2019 at 07:40
I find it hard to believe anyone in the US political elite really has good will for Chinese people. They've slaughtered yellpw
People by the million thrughout my lifetime. Probably Trump, Wolfowitz, et al. lust to turn China into another Itaq. :-(
t seems the anti-PRC forces are using the failure of Hong Government to provide a rising standard of living for ordinary people
as a reason for protesting against the PRC. The PRC has demonstrated the ability of its government to raise the standard of living
for hundreds of millions of people. Hong Kong has not.
I would guess the PRC will be patient and let the authorities in Hong Kong regain control of the island and aiding those who
see what is happening as another color revolution engineered by America. Private persons with personal fortunes who see the opportunity
to shape events can be very dangerous as we have seen in America.
Hong Kong appears to be a one percent city, where the elite shape events, and this needs to be addressed by the people of Hong
Kong with assistance from the PRC. Hong Kong is, after all, part of China.
Does anyone else see the constant use of the left wing right wing dichotomy as both tiresome and unproductive. And confusing.
Realist , August 20, 2019 at 05:11
The Diem brothers, Nguyen Van Thieu, Nguyen Cao Ky, Bill Browder, Porky Poroshenko, Yats, Juan Guaido, Ahmed Chalabi, Hamid
Karzai, Chung Kai-shek, and now Jimmie Lai, Martin Lee and Joshua Wong: all just Quislings to American hegemony. There are and
have been legions of others, some, like Marco Rubio and Clarence Thomas, even operate within the United States and against the
interests of most of its people. Though they purport to be champions to their community of origin, they are simply exploiting
their ethnicity to surreptitiously push dangerous far right agendas that are to no one's benefit but the richest oligarchs. That's
what all these names have in common; they were all spawned of wealth and privilege and adopted by the American aristocracy to
bring their own people under American vassalage.
What was the impetus for this latest color revolution propped up by Washington? That citizens of Hong Kong have the freedom
to kill their pregnant girl friend in another jurisdiction and not be extradited and prosecuted for the crime? Why is that "get
out of jail free" card not being played on behalf of Julian Assange, who committed only noble acts to expose high crimes by the
state against humanity only to better our dysfunctional society? He exposed deliberate murder, he did not commit it. It was done
systematically by powerful elements in society, not by a single deluded individual. An awful lot of gullible people in the Orient
are being misled to preserve privileges for a subset of their population, and it's not "white privilege" in this case. It's just
good old fashioned might makes right. Meanwhile, the white folks back in their own bailiwick are crucifying one of their own to
protect the rich and powerful rather than to hold them accountable for their atrocious behavior–all justified with the most erudite
hypocrisies conceived within the minds of men. (And I use that last word as it has been employed over the last thousand years
or so in this language. The alphabet community can keep their collective shirts on. You've all been included in these bad decisions,
if only for the optics by geniuses like Karl Rove, Rahm Emanuel, and John Bolton.)
Thanks to the authors for underscoring that "members of the U.S. far-right have embraced the protest movement as their own,
and even personally joined their ranks." That certainly elucidates why grizzled pols like Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Cardin and even
Sherrod Brown have embraced the coup plotters. They know how to maintain a grasp on power while not exerting the slightest effort
to uphold moral principles. The warmongering Dems have long been every bit as antagonistic to true freedom, democracy and the
American constitution as the GOPers, substituting instead this absurd charade, this bait and switch we see played out in the news
media every day. Certainly no surprise that right wing extremist and noted toady to plutocrats, Marco Rubio, would nominate that
lot for a Nobel Peace Prize. Considering the Zeitgeist, it would also not surprise me if they won, assuming Washington wanted
them to win. Norway (this Nobel is awarded from Oslo rather than Stockholm) has apparently had some kind of epiphany in this new
millennium and now shares Washington's every niggling paranoia which brings us full circle, because the original Quisling, who
acted as a puppet for the Third Reich, was from Norway.
Det McNulty , August 20, 2019 at 03:44
As an investigation of some of the reactionary forces that are operating amongst the HK protests, this offers points of interest
and concern, which warrant exploration and condemnation. However, I disagree with the framing; to see these elements as representative
of the protests as a whole is simply propaganda that supports the most right-wing elements inside the PRC that claim all the protestors
are rioters. When it comes to complex politics events, there will always be foreign interference at some levels and on all sides.
Yet the writing here is not balanced and does not recognise that the vast majority of the protestors are ordinary working people,
many of whom are non-aligned and simply want to protect the freedoms they are afforded in HK and not have the place be completely
absorbed into the opaque legal system of the PRC. The lack of empathy for the people of HK in some parts of the radical left is
quite revolting. The PRC has never been some haven of democratic socialism and doesn't support real workers' self management or
anything of the like. HK is being exploited by powerful forces, but our support should be with its people against state oppression
in all forms.
Thank you for your comments here and on Patrick Lawrence's recent column. Your perspective is refreshingly sensible. I find
the leftist orthodoxy (that word now seems to apply) where these protests are concerned disturbing. As a friend of mine who lived
in HK for a decade put it: the notion that these protests are being choreographed mainly by US interests is just another expression
of US-centrism. As if the people of HK couldn't possibly have their own worthy agenda.
Realist , August 22, 2019 at 06:07
Yet they wave a sea of American flags and sing the American national anthem at their protests. They may have an agenda but
they are telegraphing that it is an integral part of Washington's agenda with this symbolism. Or did you miss that?
Det_McNulty , August 22, 2019 at 16:40
Indeed, I find it rather ridiculous that people seem more concerned with 'exposing' what appears to be a relatively small element
of the protests and not actually addressing the legitimate concerns of those protesting and engaging with those involved in the
movement, i.e. interviewing ordinary people on the street and representatives from trade unions. Investigating the role of different
states and their intermediaries in fomenting and tactically supporting aspects of the movement is of course important, but reads
like propaganda when it doesn't account for the complexities of the situation and reduces the events to something along the lines
of orchestration by US imperial agents and neoconservative NGOs, rather than a popular movement. Also, if people are concerned
about such contradictions, why's there no focus on the role of the UK in selling arms to HK (I believe there's an HK delegation
at the upcoming September arms bazaar at the Excel Centre in London); such a point should be of interest to anyone concerned with
power and corruption.
Gui Lottine , August 20, 2019 at 02:48
What happened to god old fashioned "off with his/her head"? China needs to take out these servants of the anglo-zionist empire,
once and for all.
Zhu , August 20, 2019 at 07:25
You can be absolutely certain that no one in China gives 2 fen about Zionism, Anti-zionism, etc
Yes, the author is right. This represents just one more front of a new massive effort against China. For America's establishment,
China's rise and competition are just unacceptable.
American officials have a great deal of experience encouraging and supporting discontent abroad – in Ukraine, in Venezuela,
in half a dozen other Latin countries, and now in Hong Kong.
It is always possible in any country to find a fair number of discontented people.
There are literally millions of such people in the US for example.
So when some highly trained and organizers come into a place – as the US has very much done in Hong Kong – it is not hard to
create some trouble.
Here is some really interesting analysis of crowd sizes in Hong Kong.
This is science-based estimating.
The numbers coming out of it, which really cannot be terribly wrong, tell us the crowds are far less than much of the mainline
press claims.
With the city's narrow streets, photos can give quite a false impression.
8/20/19
Dear CN,
HERE'S ONE OF THE BETTER WESTERN COVERAGES ON THE HK UPHEAVAL, AND MORE.
(THERE'S 1 MORE VIDEO ON THIS TOPIC BY "The Duran" DATED AUG. 6, 2018) -- these guys are really good!
GO TO YOU TUBE, THEN LOOK FOR "The Duran" videos. I think you'll like many / most of their videos; they make mince meat of
western MSM. More in their own site. I'm sure Mr. Lauria knows them.
Thank you for publishing this. I have lived in Hong Kong all my life and I despaired of reading anything in the English-language
press that was vaguely fair about the riots here. All I see are Guardian style pejorative bias. Well done.
The IMF loan seems designed to get Macri past the election. It has been used to support
capital flight: to support the peso, the Central Bank sells dollars to "importers" that then
stash the money abroad. This is illegal according to IMF loan terms but the IMF is looking the
other way. It has been granted unprecedented authority to oversee and overrule the Central Bank,
so its failure to act is really suspicious, and reeks of political pressure to crush the left in
Latin America.
Notable quotes:
"... The government also wasted more than $16 billion in unsuccessful attempts to keep the peso from falling, and greatly increased the more problematic foreign component of the public debt. The result has been near-constant recession and high inflation, enormous interest rates, peso depreciation, financial instability, and the huge run-up in public debt. The debt increase is particularly noteworthy because Mr. Macri inherited a low level of public debt. ..."
"... Ironically, the IMF is well-known in Argentina for promoting similarly unworkable policies during the deep depression of 1998 to 2002 -- comparable to America's Great Depression of the 1930s. Yes, history is repeating itself, although in this case the IMF has a stronger partnership with the government than it had 20 years ago. ..."
"... Millions of Argentines remember the last depression and the role the IMF played. Many also remember the rapid improvement in people's lives over the ensuing decade. This collective memory and consciousness may now determine the outcome of this recurring debate over the economy, and with it, the October election, and possibly much of Argentina's future. ..."
"... The IMF loan seems designed to get Macri past the election. It has been used to support capital flight: to support the peso, the Central Bank sells dollars to "importers" that then stash the money abroad. This is illegal according to IMF loan terms but the IMF is looking the other way. It has been granted unprecedented authority to oversee and overrule the Central Bank, so its failure to act is really suspicious, and reeks of political pressure to crush the left in Latin America. ..."
Who is to Blame for Argentina's Economic Crisis?
By Mark Weisbrot - New York Times
What are we to make of Argentina's surprise election results on Monday, which jolted
pollsters and analysts alike, and roiled the country's financial markets? In the presidential
primary for the country's October election, the opposition ticket of Alberto Fernández
trounced the incumbent president Mauricio Macri by an unexpected margin of 47.7 to 32.1
percent.
The Fernández coalition attributes their victory to Mr. Macri's failed economic
policies, blaming him for the current economic crisis, recession, and high inflation. Mr.
Macri, by contrast, blames the fear of a future government of Kirchnerism -- his label for
the opposition -- for both the postelection financial turbulence and also the problems of the
economy since he took office more than three and a half years ago. He argues that both the
markets and the people have everything to fear from such an outcome.
This disagreement is not just an academic argument, nor one specific to Argentina. It is a
recurring, almost archetypical debate during economic crises that spill over into political
contests. In recent years -- in the UK, Spain, France, Greece, and other countries where
failed economic policies faced left-of-center challengers -- Macri's refrain was a frequent
line of attack by incumbents.
Financial markets can move for many reasons, which can be unclear or even based on
misperceptions of reality. In the case of this week's news, we have electoral losses by a
government whose economic policies have clearly failed; and gains by challengers who hail
from a period of strong and widely shared economic growth. This is not something that is
inherently bad for the economy.
With Kirchnerism, Mr. Macri refers to the policies, followers, and presidential
administrations of the Kirchner family, which held office from 2003 to 2015 -- first
Néstor Kirchner, and then Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. The latter is running
as vice-presidential candidate of Alberto Fernández, and is a prominent leader of the
opposition coalition -- although this coalition is much larger and broader than the
"kirchnerista" base.
From the point of view of an economist or social scientist, it's not clear why Kirchnerism
should inspire fear. Looking at the most important economic and social indicators, the
government of the Kirchner presidencies was one of the most successful in the Western
Hemisphere during this period.
Independent estimates show a decline of 71 percent in poverty, and an 81 percent decline
in extreme poverty. The government instituted one of the biggest conditional cash transfer
programs for the poor in Latin America. According to the International Monetary Fund, gross
domestic product per person grew by 42 percent, almost three times the rate of Mexico.
Unemployment fell by more than half, and inequality also fell considerably.
Although economic growth waned in the last few years, and the government made some
mistakes, the result of these two administrations delivered large increases in living
standards for the vast majority of Argentines, by any reasonable comparison.
Economic growth waned in the last few years of her presidency and her government was dealt
an external economic blow. A 2012 ruling of a federal appeals court in New York, widely
regarded dubious and political, took more than 90 percent of Argentina's creditors hostage in
order to force payment to a small group of "vulture funds," who refused to join the debt
restructuring of the early 2000s. The United States government blocked loans from
international lenders such as the Inter-American Development Bank, at a time when the economy
needed the foreign exchange.
By comparison, poverty has increased significantly, income per person has fallen, and
unemployment has increased during Mr. Macri's term, which began in December 2015. Short-term
interest rates, have shot up from 32 percent to 75 percent today; inflation has risen from 18
percent to 56 percent. The public debt has grown from 53 percent of GDP to more than 86
percent last year.
How much of this economic crisis and poor performance is his predecessor's fault?
In 2018 Mr. Macri signed an agreement for a $57 billion loan -- the largest bailout in
history. The loan agreement, along with the reviews since, spell out the government's
economic goals, strategy, and implementation. There is a lot of information publicly
available that details what went wrong.
The main strategy of the program was to restore investor confidence through tighter fiscal
and monetary policy. But, as has often happened, these measures slowed the economy and
undermined investor confidence. By October, the results were vastly worse than the IMF had
projected. The government and IMF doubled down by increasing both fiscal and monetary
tightening, but this did not help.
The government also wasted more than $16 billion in unsuccessful attempts to keep the peso
from falling, and greatly increased the more problematic foreign component of the public
debt. The result has been near-constant recession and high inflation, enormous interest
rates, peso depreciation, financial instability, and the huge run-up in public debt. The debt
increase is particularly noteworthy because Mr. Macri inherited a low level of public
debt.
Ironically, the IMF is well-known in Argentina for promoting similarly unworkable policies
during the deep depression of 1998 to 2002 -- comparable to America's Great Depression of the
1930s. Yes, history is repeating itself, although in this case the IMF has a stronger
partnership with the government than it had 20 years ago.
The Fernández candidates will have to outline how they would get out of this mess.
They can explain how Argentina exited from a much more severe economic crisis, with an
unemployment more than twice as high, and millions of previously middle class people having
fallen into poverty. They can assure creditors that there is no need for default on the
public debt today, as there was then, because it was completely unpayable. But, as in 2003,
the economy cannot recover under the conditions agreed upon with the IMF, and these will have
to be renegotiated.
Millions of Argentines remember the last depression and the role the IMF played. Many also
remember the rapid improvement in people's lives over the ensuing decade. This collective
memory and consciousness may now determine the outcome of this recurring debate over the
economy, and with it, the October election, and possibly much of Argentina's future.
The IMF has learned nothing since the Washington Consensus started being implemented in the
1980s but at least Argentines are quickly repudiating the neoliberals and their savage
policies, until they forget again in a generation.
The IMF loan seems designed to get Macri past the election. It has been used to support
capital flight: to support the peso, the Central Bank sells dollars to "importers" that then
stash the money abroad. This is illegal according to IMF loan terms but the IMF is looking
the other way. It has been granted unprecedented authority to oversee and overrule the
Central Bank, so its failure to act is really suspicious, and reeks of political pressure to
crush the left in Latin America.
Fernandez has already stated that under current terms the loan is unpayable and the terms
will have to be renegotiated.
The situation is similar to Greece and shows that, absent capital controls and decreased
dependency on imports, having your own currency is not enough protection against bondage to
multinational banks.
The situation is similar to Greece and shows that, absent capital controls and decreased
dependency on imports, having your own currency is not enough protection against bondage to
multinational banks....
[ This was the lesson taught and learned by a few countries in the wake of the Asian
currency crises that developed from 1996-1997. These were really Asian, Latin American
currency crises, but the lesson was indelibly learned in Asia.
There is a reason China and Japan and Korea increased foreign currency reserves from
1997-1998.
This week, Silicon Valley giant YouTube has taken a string out of China's bow by deplatforming some 210 channels for posting content
criticizing the recent Hong Kong protests, claiming that channels were somehow " sowing political discord " on behalf of the
Chinese government.
The Google subsidiary accused the channels of acting "in a coordinated manner." Their move was the most recent in a clear pattern
of censorship, along with social media giants Facebook and Twitter who recently censored pro-Chinese accounts in a move critics have
called 'arbitrary' censorship.
In a blog
post this past Thursday, Google threat analyst Shane Huntley said," Channels in this network behaved in a coordinated manner
while uploading videos related to the ongoing protests in Hong Kong. "
Huntley added that Google's supposed " discovery " was somehow "consistent with recent observations and actions related
to China announced by Facebook and Twitter."
The hypocrisy of the Silicon Valley firms is breathtaking nonetheless. Even the Washington Post was forced to point out that in
accusing China of disinformation, Twitter and Facebook take on
an authoritarian role they've always sought to reject:
"The move underscored the awkward and largely uncharted territory the companies have attempted to navigate in the aftermath of
the 2016 presidential election in the United States, where Facebook and Twitter faced furious public and political pressure to stem
the tide of disinformation on their platforms. Once vehemently opposed to being seen as "arbiters of truth," both have since built
major operations to detect and dismantle forms of online manipulation -- even if it means angering important global actors such as
the Chinese government."
Twitter and Facebook are also using the same tactics to selectively shut down established writers who use pen names, including
one of the most prolific bloggers specializing in foreign affairs over the last decade, Tony Cartalucci , who was deplatformed for
exposing US-backed unrest and 'color revolutions' in countries like Thailand, China, Syria and elsewhere. He
remarked after
the fact:
"Tony Cartalucci is my pen name and a form of anonyminity – it is not a "fictitious persona." I write in a country where
US-backed political agitators – referred to as "democracy activists" in the Reuters article – regularly use deadly violence against
their opponents. And if writing under a pen name or anonymously is grounds for expulsion from both Facebook and Twitter, what
is The Economist still doing on either platform? The Economist's articles are all
admittedly written anonymously ."
Regarding the Hong Kong controversy, Google claims that it knows the Chinese state was attempting to "influence" public opinion
against the protesters because of the " use of VPNs " as well as " other methods of disguise. " In actuality, nearly
all Chinese internet users who seek any outside news or international perspectives regularly use some form of VPN masking to bypass
various information firewalls. The same in the Middle East, and even in Europe, as US regulators continue to force a gradual balkanization
of the internet based on global regions.
The issue of US-based digital monopoly firms attempting to manage online discourse globally – is officially a global problem
now. As Chinese officials have rightly pointed out: there is no more ambiguity on the issue, as the US is using its overwhelming
ownership of internet platforms to fix marketplace of ideas in favor of is own policies – including regime change. Even
The Post spells it out clearly:
"There is no international consensus over what qualifies as permissible speech -- or permissible tactics in spreading that speech,
whether it comes from government operatives or anybody else."
The same sponsors (a mixture of foreign NGO and embassies and local disgruntled oligarchs), the same attempt to exploit
real population grievances, the same methods with militant protestors training probably by the same instructors or at least
the same books, just different people and difference sources for forming the fifth column. The role of students in Hong Cong
is more prominant. In EuroMaydant that most violent part of protestors were football hooligans and western Ukrainian militia
consisting mostly of neo-Nazi elements ready to commit crimes.
Notable quotes:
"... Joshua Wong, one of the U.S. coddled students, compares the situation with 2014 Maidan riots in Ukraine. He is right in more ways than he says. ..."
So is there any evidence that the Hong Kong protests are controlled or being directed by the
United States or its NGO community that has created so many color revolutions across the world?
The short answer is yes.
For instance, one of the recognized
leaders of the protest movement is Joshua Wong, who is a leader and secretary-general of
the "Demosisto" party. Wong has consistently denied any links to the United States and its NGO
apparatus. However, Wong actually
traveled to Washington DC in 2015, after the conclusion of the Hong Kong Umbrella
Revolution to receive an award given to him from Freedom House, a subsidiary of the National
Endowment for Democracy. Demosisto
has been linked with the National Endowment for Democracy as well.
For those that may be unaware, the NED is an arm of the US State Department designed to sow
discord in target countries resulting in the overthrow, replacement, or extraction of
concessions from governments of target countries.
Indeed, Jonathan Mowat adds to the recent historical understanding of the controlled-coup
and color revolutions in his article, "
The New Gladio In Action: 'Swarming Adolescents,' " also focusing on the players and the
methods of deployment. Mowat writes,
Much of the coup apparatus is the same that was used in the overthrow of President
Fernando Marcos of the Philippines in 1986, the Tiananmen Square destabilization in 1989, and
Vaclav Havel's "Velvet revolution" in Czechoslovakia in 1989. As in these early operations,
the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and its primary arms, the National Democratic
Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and International Republican Institute (IRI),
played a central role. The NED was established by the Reagan Administration in 1983, to do
overtly what the CIA had done covertly, in the words of one its legislative drafters, Allen
Weinstein. The Cold War propaganda and operations center, Freedom House, now chaired by
former CIA director James Woolsey, has also been involved, as were billionaire George Soros'
foundations, whose donations always dovetail those of the NED.
Nathan Law, another leader of the Hong Kong protests and rock star of the Umbrella
Revolution, is also closely connected to the National Endowment for Democracy. On the NED
website, "World Movement for Democracy," in a post entitled " Democracy
Courage Tribute Award Presentation, " where the organization mentions an award it presented
to Law. In the article, it states,
The Umbrella Movement's bold call in the fall of 2014 for a free and fair election process
to select the city's leaders brought thousands into the streets to demonstrate
peacefully. The images from these protests have motivated Chinese democracy activists on the
mainland and resulted in solidarity between longtime champions of democracy in Hong Kong and
a new generation of Hong Kong youth seeking to improve their city. The Hong Kong
democracy movement will face further obstacles in the years to come, and their idealism
and bravery will need to be supported as they work for democratic representation in Hong
Kong.
Interestingly enough, Joshua Wong has
shown up to express "solidarity" with other protest movements engineered by the United
States and its NGO apparatus, particularly in Thailand where
Western NGOs and the US State Department are controlling both the protest movement and the
former government.
For a short overview of how such operations work, watch the video below, a BBC report on the
Oslo Freedom Forum which shows some of the leaders of today's Hong Kong protests as well as
leaders of the Umbrella Revolution and other global "protest movements" being trained by the US
State Department/NGO apparatus in 2013.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/JIjVBUwpri8
Also see my previous articles on the topic linked below:
Notably, these protests are receiving heavy media coverage as well as the ever-present logo
(umbrellas), both hallmarks of color revolutions and social media giants Twitter and Facebook
have accused China of spreading disinformation via their accounts and have been
removing or blocking pro-China accounts indicating that someone in the halls of power in
the West would like to see the protests continue.
So Why Does The US Support The
Protests?
The United States State Department and its subsidiary color revolution apparatus does not
support protest movements because it supports right and freedom for people in other countries.
After all, the US government as a whole does not support rights and freedom for its own people.
So, in full knowledge that the US government does support the Hong Kong protesters, the
question then arises, "Why?"
There are at least three reasons why the US is supporting the Hong Kong protest movement,
none of which involve the rights of Hong Kongers. First, with China set to fully acquire Hong
Kong in 2047 and growing integration between Hong Kong and China over the next three decades,
the
United States does not want to see China grow any stronger as an economic, military, or
diplomatic powerhouse. The full return of Hong Kong to China would further Chinese growth in
all three of these areas.
Second, the United States benefits from a weaker Chinese government and one that is not able
to fully impose control on every citizen within its borders. This is why the US has funded
destabilization movements all across China, many with real concerns, as well as terrorist
attacks in areas where China is planning to develop in the third world.
Lastly, Hong Kong currently acts as a tax
haven for Western corporations and as a dumping ground for wealth that needs to avoid
taxation. Chinese control may very well threaten that wealth, particularly in light of the fact
that the Trump administration is moving forward on an apparent plan to put the United States on
a more fair footing with China in terms of international trade through tariffs and increased
worker protections.
Geopolitical Concerns
In short, by maintaining Hong Kong as-is, the United States would maintain an outpost
alongside China's borders. However, China not only views Hong Kong as physical territory and
financial wealth, it understands that, in a trade or real war with the United States, Hong Kong
can be used to not only physically position military forces but it can also be used to
economically loot the mainland.
While the United States may be funding and directing many of the protest leaders in Hong
Kong, the fact remains that the protesters themselves as well as the many people who support
them have legitimate reasons to be protesting. Indeed, in the case of Hong Kong, it appears
that the nefarious American desire to weaken China and protect its corporate tax haven have
intersected with the very real need of Hong Kongers to preserve what's left of the liberty they
have.
In order to understand this, it is necessary to understand that there is a plethora of
opinions on the Hong Kong issue within Hong Kong itself. First, it seems the dividing line of
opinions often centers around age, heritage, and geopolitics. From reading mainstream reports
and watching a number of videos, it is apparent that the majority of protesters are young, even
university-educated people who have lived their lives in Hong Kong while the counter protesters
seem to be older, with a stronger heritage link to China. This older generation should not be
conflated with oldest, however, as it appears that many are from the "baby boomer" era more-so
than the elderly generation before it. That being said, age is not a clear cut line of
difference, however, with a number of younger and older people choosing to support opposite
sides. Like any protest movement, the majority of the people of Hong Kong can be found going
about their everyday business, teetering on the edges of any engagement whatsoever.
One such reason that the oldest and the youngest protesters seem to intersect, however, is,
in the case of the oldest, a memory of what life was like in neighboring China before the
Cultural Revolution and the ability to watch that way of life change for the worst and
eventually horrific. The youngest members of the "anti-China" crowd may be viewing the issue
similarly for the completely opposite reason, precisely the fact that they grew up in a time
knowing nothing but freedoms their neighbors could scarcely dream of.
It is also important to point out the cultural difference in Hong Kong, which is essentially
Chinese culture at heart, but one that has embraced capitalism and has experienced rights that
mainland Chinese people can only dream of. Based on Common Law, this includes the right to
freedom of speech. As the Financial Times wrote
in 2018 ,
For more than two decades, citizens and residents in the former British colony of Hong
Kong have enjoyed a wide range of freedoms and legal protections unthinkable in any other
part of the People's Republic of China. These protections, guaranteed by the territory's
tradition of judicial independence, are the bedrock of the city's extraordinary success as a
regional entrepôt. It is precisely because of these legal safeguards that many
international companies, including most global media organisations, have chosen to base their
regional headquarters in Hong Kong.
As mentioned earlier, one reason the "lease" of Hong Kong was pushed back for so long a time
(to be fully realized in 2047) is because it would erase an entire generation of people who
remembered what such little freedom was like compared to the zero freedom afforded by China.
However, what was perhaps unintended was a birth of an entire generation of people who only
knew that freedom and are not as keen to give it away as others may have been. This is one
reason you can see young people in the streets with signs supporting freedom of speech and even
calling for the right to own and bear arms. In other words. you are able to see so many people
who have been denied rights Americans take for granted or are under threat of losing even more
of their rights desperately trying to gain or retain them, all while many Americans march in
the streets to have those same rights taken away. Clearly, it is true that freedom is treasured
the most when it is lost.
This threat of Chinese takeover is very real. With its brutal authoritarian methods of
control, social credit
systems , slave labor economy, and polluted food supply, many young Hong Kongers are
rightfully terrified of what "one country, one system" will mean for them. China is a communist
nightmare, no matter how much Western leftists would like to portray otherwise.
Nowhere is there more clear an example of "Western" arrogance than a widely-circulated video where an angry
Australian lectures young Hong Kong protesters on how much "better everything is gonna be" when
China takes over both Hong Kong and Taiwan. Coming from a country with virtually no rights and
doing business in another, it may be par for the course for him. But there is something
incredibly irritating to watch his denial of these protesters' legitimate concerns and his
lecturing on the part of the authoritarian regime that will soon be in power.
This (the threat of quickly descending into the clutches of Chinese authoritarians) is the
very real concern the Western NGOs have seized upon in order to foster social unrest in Hong
Kong.
Violence – Violent Counter Protests
There have been numerous videos depicting violence coming from both sides of the isle. On
one hand, violence on the Hong Kong side has been blamed on anarchists, often a typical method
of specific types of anarchists as well as police false flagging in order to justify a
crackdown. Other videos have surfaced showing protesters beating "journalists" and those who
disagree with them. The justification given by the protesters were that the individuals were
"Chinese agents," a claim that may or may not be true.
Likewise, we have seen numerous videos of counter-protesters also engaging in violence
against the Hong Kong protesters, many of whom being members of Hong Kong/Chinese organized
crime as mentioned earlier. The videos depicting police attacks against protesters have also
been widely circulated in the media.
Scale Of Protests VS Counter Protests
The Hong Kong protests have spread from Hong Kong itself to all across the world with the
immigrant community engaging in demonstrations in their adopted countries. Likewise,
counter-protests have expanded globally.
There is very little doubt that the protests against greater Chinese involvement in Hong
Kong have been much larger than those supporting it. One need only look at the numbers of the
protests that took place on August 17 where 1.7 million people showed up to
march.
What A Good Outcome Would Look Like
To claim that the protesters have a legitimate cause while, at the same time, pointing out
that the US is directing the leaders of their movement may seem contradictory but,
unfortunately, it is not. It should be possible to any unbiased observer to understand that the
protesters are justified in their fear of being taken over by a country that just finished
slaughtering 80 million people and that is currently oppressing each and every one of their
citizens. It should also be possible to understand that the Western NGOs have seized upon this
fear and desire for freedom for its own nefarious purposes. Only those who wish to promote an
ideology would refuse to mention both aspects of the protests, something both the mainstream
and alternative media outlets have unfortunately been guilty of.
So with all this in mind, what would a positive outcome be?
1.) First, the United States must cease using its NGO community or intelligence agencies
to direct and manipulate an uprising or unrest in Hong Kong. The future of Hong Kong is for
Hong Kongers to decide, not under the manipulation of Western NGOs. The US must immediately
cease fostering dissent in other nations. If the US wants to counter Chinese empire, it must
do so by offering economic and other incentives and not by threats, social unrest, or
violence.
2.) None of the protesters' demands thus far are unreasonable. There should be an
independent inquiry as to the techniques being used by police, police brutality, and the
connections these tactics have to the growing Chinese influence in Hong Kong. Protesters who
have been arrested for their political views (not those arrested for offensive violence,
rioting, or peddlers of foreign influence) should be released. While official categorizations
are no issue to fixate upon, the protests should be reclassified as what they are, protests.
Elections should be instituted and the people of Hong Kong should elect their Legislative
Council and Chief Executive directly. Withdraw the extradition bill completely from
consideration until a reasonable proposal can be drafted, discussed, and agreed upon. Carrie
Lam is widely known as a tool of Beijing and, for this reason, a gradual, orderly, and
democratic transition of power should take place.
In addition, while not official protest demands, the solidification of the rights to free
speech, expression, possession of weapons, and privacy should take place.
3.) Just as the United States should stop inserting itself into the domestic life of Hong
Kong, so should China immediately cease any and all attempts to control public opinion,
social discourse, and political life in Hong Kong. Because of China's lack of human rights
within its own borders, there is a legitimate reason for Hong Kong to desire complete
separation from the mainland. Thus, if China is not interested in becoming a free society,
the "One country, two systems" policy must be extended abandoned and Hong Kong should remain
independent.
Conclusion
By now, it should be relatively clear that many of the leaders of the Hong Kong protests are
controlled and directed via the network of United States intelligence agencies and NGO
apparatus for the purpose of protecting its corporate tax haven, keeping a friendly outpost on
the Chinese border, and sowing seeds of discord within China itself.
However, the protesters are absolutely right in their concern for what will happen if they
become part of China – i.e., another human tragedy that is the result of Communist
authoritarianism exhibited by the Chinese government.
Thus, both the official and the mentioned unofficial demands are entirely reasonable. The
people of Hong Kong must not be forced to live oppressed under authoritarian Chinese rule.
Because the US has its own interests that do not involve freedom or human rights, it would be
wise of the Hong Kong protests to abandon their Western-backed opposition leaders and find real
organic leaders that are not taking orders from the West.
They should, however, continue to press for the rights they have and the rights they
deserve.
The reason they protest makes no sense. Many countries have extradition laws. How is Hong
Kong exempt? Why would 2mm protest some criminals being sent for trial? Or if they're
separatists, and Beijing wants their organs why would that mobilize millions? Haven't they
got better battlea to pick?
The autonomy of Hong Kong was guaranteed in all areas apart from defence and foreign
affairs. Under it, Hong Kong's laws and "common law" legal system would remain in place.
The independence of its courts and their right to exercise the power of final adjudication
were assured.
In doing this, both the UK and Chinese Governments had accepted the "one country, two
systems" proposal based on the rule of law and which was to remain unaltered and in place
until 2047.
If my facts are real, the vast Chinese area surrounding Hong Kong speaks Mandarin, and the
(relatively) tiny city of Hong Kong speaks Cantonese, which is a different language. Somehow
this was set up by those jolly old Englishmen as their 'Green Zone', from which to control
the rest of China (largely with narcotics). Those Brits have quite a talent for creating
these utopias.
The Hong Kongers are very wealthy compared with their 'peasant' Chinese neighbors, so they
deserve very special treatment! So this was guaranteed to happen.
Inevitably the Langley Boys had to stick their fingers in it (it's all they know how to
do).
Imagine if Argentina is a great superpower, and California wants to break away, and the
Argentinians are only there to help. Great diplomatic move!
If they are demanding representative democracy they are either blind to its historic
effects across the world, or they are paid for by those for whom the representative system
works so well.
Let them ask for semi-direct democracy, direct access to reverse their representative's
decisions. See how fast the US and China proper coordinate to cut them off at the root.
Lastly, Hong Kong currently acts as a tax
haven for Western corporations and as a dumping ground for wealth that needs to avoid
taxation.
FYI, virtually all former British colonies that are defacto city-states or tiny islands
are acting as tax havens for the rich and corrupt. For example:
The Jersey and Guernsey islands, Cayman islands, Turks & Caicos, HK, Singapore. For
the former colonies and territories, where its rich and/or corrupt want to expatriate their
untaxed wealth, you can also add the Vancouver and Toronto RE, Dubai... and of course London
itself.
At this stage of the war between America and China it does not matter if the protests are
organic or supported by America. Beijing sees it as a covert operation by Trump aimed to
destabilize China and I do not blame Beijing for thinking that. We are in the process of
overturning the Venezuelan government and are actively engaged in the carnage in Yemen while
engaging in Colonial style tactics to buy Greenland
Under this light Beijing is going to treat these Protestors as agents of America.
It's a Rothschild funded color revolution in Hong Kong same as in Ukraine, Syria, Iran,
Egypt, .... Looks like many support his color revolution in Hong Kong.
Americans are too busy protesting those Communistos overseas who want to destroy our
beautiful and pure democracy such as Silicon Valley, banks and the free market democrats who
protect us from the ramparts of DC.
"... Miles Kwok aka Guo Wengui is a disgruntled Chinese oligarch. He is one of the men who finances the Hong Kong protests. Here he appears with Steve Bannon Miles Kwok & Mr Bannon: The 5 principles on Hong Kong's matter (vid). But the NYT ..."
"... One policeman fired a warning shot against the increasingly brutal mob. It is only of question of time until the first person gets killed. ..."
"... China churns out millions of consumer-grade quadcopters starting at $9-00 per unit all the way up to self-navigating programmable units with HQ video transmission. I'd be very surprised if the PLA hasn't got every potential Maidan rooftop and window covered from several angles. I haven't heard any whingeing about drones from the Disgusting Western MSM but drone surveillance/ oversight is already state of the art. ..."
"... might result in providing an adequate narrative for G7 to join the USA in concerted move to decouple China. That's my take away in watching the incremental escalations in both the severity and absurdity of the violence. How else to explain protesters wantonly targeting the tourist industry as the one to bear the blunt? Even 17, 18 years are old enough to know their Mom and Dads' jobs, and thus their own livelihood, depend on this economy and left to their own they would likely have chosen some other means to press their points, if not for having to obey or get paid by their instigators? ..."
"... I also agree with you that TPP was a China-decoupling Plan conceived under Obama. But I am not so sure the idea of China-decoupling dated back before Obama. If it did, the deep state would have ample time prior to now to start the building up of alternative supply chains and other logistics. ..."
"... It is apparent at this point that the deep state is caught off-guarded by China's intransigence and at loss of what to do next. It seems that in their zeal to contain China, they instead are accelerating their own decline. The ironies of real life! ..."
The black block in Hong Kong, which consists of just a few hundred youth, is now
back at rioting . Subway stations
get vandalized and people pushed off the trains that the
rioters use to ferry from one flash mob incident to the next one. Bricks and Molotov cocktails are
thrown at police lines. Some protesters use baseball bats against the
police, others have handguns . Today the
police, for the first time, deployed water cannon trucks . One
policeman fired a warning shot
against the increasingly brutal mob. It is only of question of time until the first person
gets killed.
Joshua Wong, one of the U.S. coddled students, compares the situation with
2014 Maidan riots in Ukraine. He is right in more waysthan
he says . H.K. One policeman fired a warning shot against the increasingly brutal mob. It is only of
question of time until the first person gets killed.
China churns out millions of consumer-grade quadcopters starting at $9-00 per unit all the
way up to self-navigating programmable units with HQ video transmission. I'd be very
surprised if the PLA hasn't got every potential Maidan rooftop and window covered from
several angles. I haven't heard any whingeing about drones from the Disgusting Western MSM
but drone surveillance/ oversight is already state of the art.
I agree with you the HK violent protests were designed to prompt China to over react and
send in troupes. The resulting carnage might result in providing an adequate narrative for
G7 to join the USA in concerted move to decouple China. That's my take away in watching the
incremental escalations in both the severity and absurdity of the violence. How else to
explain protesters wantonly targeting the tourist industry as the one to bear the blunt? Even
17, 18 years are old enough to know their Mom and Dads' jobs, and thus their own livelihood,
depend on this economy and left to their own they would likely have chosen some other means
to press their points, if not for having to obey or get paid by their instigators?
China thus far has not followed their antagonists' script and refused as yet to ramp
the confrontation up another notch. But the time will come! The time will come that mass
psychology in HK, and subsequently vast other parts of the world, would change into one that
demands stern actions be taken by China to stem the carnage and restore minimal order for the
sake of livelihood of 7.5 million people. That's when the broom will be lowered, and vassals
of the USA would have an excuse of not joining the decoupling if they don't want to.
I also agree with you that TPP was a China-decoupling Plan conceived under Obama. But I
am not so sure the idea of China-decoupling dated back before Obama. If it did, the deep
state would have ample time prior to now to start the building up of alternative supply
chains and other logistics.
It is apparent at this point that the deep state is caught
off-guarded by China's intransigence and at loss of what to do next. It seems that in their
zeal to contain China, they instead are accelerating their own decline. The ironies of real
life!
Soviet Union was a theocratic state. The fact that it was simultaneously military empire is only of secondary importance. When
Bolshevik's
ideology collapsed after the WWII (despite the fact that USSR emerged as the victor), the writing was on the wall as there was no force
able to which stand nationalism, fueled by West financial injections and support. nationalism turn the USSR apart. Attempt to colonize
the post Soviet state and convert it in a new Latin America by the USA and other western countries was only partially successful. Russia
despite huge losses due to drunk Yeltsin period when briefly it was a colony of the USA escaped the clutches and due to economic rape
experienced became a staunch opponent of the US imperialism. Which drives the US neoliberal elite crazy if we judge it by the level
of anti-Russian hysteria in the USA now (although there are some domestic motive to fuel anti-Russian hysteria -- it helps to unite the
fractured society using the fake threat from the "enemy" and thus to patch cracks in the neoliberal facede of the US society)
The USA now is experiencing the situation somewhat similar to the situation of the USSR in 70th or early 80th. Neoliberal idology
collapsed in 2008. That means that forces that keep the US global financial empire together with the network of treaties and US financial
dominance weakered and nationalism started to show its face prompting country after country engage in attempts to diminish the USA influence
and/or revoke vassal status.
The US neoliberal elite now is so de-generated that in comparison the level of degeneration of Soviet Politburo under Brezhnev looks
pretty mild. And that also speed up the demise of the US controlled global neoliberal empire. Trump launched trade war with China without
understanding possible consequences for the world economic order and the US empire and the situation might go out of control,
when the USA will be ostracized fist in "China friendly space" (which BTW is probably half of total global population and then
one by one among former vassals in EU and Latin America.
Neoliberals in Congress slowly by surely work on dismantling of the USA neoliberal empire not because they want such an
outcome but because
they do not understand what are the steps that might help to prevent it other then a switch to gangster capitalism. Add to this possible fracturing of the country (God knows
what will happen
when the dollar loses the reserve currency status)
In any case this is a slow process. It took the USSR 46 years to collapse after the victory in WWII. It might take even longer for
the USA empire to collapse. Much depends on the speed of oil depletion.
Notable quotes:
"... The Soviet Union – much as (the pre-Deng's) China itself – was far more of a classic continental military empire (overtly brutal; rigid, authoritative, anti-individual, apparent, secretive), while the US was more a financial-trading empire (covertly coercive; hierarchical, yet asocial, exploitive, pervasive, polarizing). ..."
"... However, the US imperium managed to survive and to outlive the Soviets. How? The United States, with its financial capital (or an outfoxing illusion of it), evolved into a debtor empire through the Wall Street guaranties. ..."
"... These two pillars of the US might from the East coast (the US Treasury/Wall Street and Pentagon) together with the two pillars of the West coast – both financed and amplified by the US dollar, and spread through the open sea-routs (Silicone Valley and Hollywood), are an essence of the US posture. ..."
"... This very nature of power explains why the Americans have missed to take the mankind into completely other direction; towards the non-confrontational, decarbonized, de-monetized/de-financialized and de-psychologized, the self-realizing and green humankind. ..."
"... Sadly enough, that was not the first missed opportunity for the US to soften and delay its forthcoming, imminent multidimensional imperial retreat. The very epilogue of the WWII meant a full security guaranty for the US: Geo-economically – 54% of anything manufactured in the world was carrying the Made in USA label, and geostrategically – the US had uninterruptedly enjoyed nearly a decade of the 'nuclear monopoly'. ..."
"... Look the map, at Russia or China and their packed surroundings. The US is blessed with its insular position, by neighboring oceans. All that should harbor tranquility, peace and prosperity, foresightedness. ..."
"... Indeed, no successful and enduring empire does merely rely on coercion, be it abroad or at home. The grand design of every empire in past rested on a skillful calibration between obedience and initiative – at home, and between bandwagoning and engagement – abroad. ..."
"... To sum up; After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans accelerated expansion while waiting for (real or imagined) adversaries to further decline, 'liberalize' and bandwagon behind the US. ..."
"... When the Soviets lost their own indigenous ideological matrix and maverick confrontational stance, and when the US dominated West missed to triumph although winning the Cold War, how to expect from the imitator to score the lasting moral, or even a momentary economic victory? ..."
"... The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is what the most attribute as an instrument of the Chinese planetary posture. Chinese leaders promised massive infrastructure projects all around by burning trillions of dollars. ..."
"... In 9 more days, high school begins in China, so many of the thrill-seekers will be in class, while the US-paid street criminals will be exposed and ridiculed.. Hopefully locked up for a very long time.. ..."
"... When communism collapsed in 1989, a whole class of smug self satisfied individuals like Fukuyama and the Neocons and Ziocons feeding off them patted themselves on the pack, assured of their complete moral superiority and unlimited virtue. They had won, and could now throw their weight around the planet however they pleased. ..."
"... People who were a little bit more far sighted subsequently concluded that communism collapsed FIRST. The prevailing system in the Anglozionist empire just took longer to collapse. Our system of crony capitalism, crapitalism, parasitic financial capitalism, looting kleptocracy, managed to endure for another 20 years before it collapsed in turn over 2007-8, never to recover. It has remained on life support ever since, sustaining its zombie existence through the printing of tens of trillions of toilet paper money backed by nothing but thin air, negative interest rates, and draconian austerity ravaging societies and entire countries. ..."
"... The world could have been re ordered for the better after 1989. Genuine cooperation between great powers. Wide ranging disarmament. A new security structure for all the countries of the planet. The dismantling of relics like NATO. The resolution of previously intractable conflicts. A much better deal for developing countries with new terms of trade. The needs of billions of people given the priority they deserved. This was all up for grabs. But the opportunity for a better world was thrown away and will never return. ..."
"... Instead, militarism and aggression were given their head. NATO expanded deep into the former Soviet Union in breach of all the undertakings that were given to the contrary. Russia was comprehensively looted and reduced to destitution and misery. One country after another was invaded and destroyed. Millions died and tens of millions immiserated. The whole planet was destabilised. Trillions were squandered that could have been devoted to productive purposes and real human needs. ..."
"... Successful use of propaganda as a means of social control requires a number of conditions: The will to use it, the skills to produce the propaganda, the means to deiiseminate it; and the use of significant symbols with real power over emotional reactions – ideally symbols of the sacred and satanic (Light vs DARK) ..."
"... Nice essay! Indeed, the US empire has survived [hopefully for not much longer] by swindling, and, fraudulent treaties. One critical aspect of the widespread of US influence is SPYING! Highly likely, most of what the US achieved would not have been possible without the spying apparatus that have infiltrated every corner of the world. Of course, spying did not start with the Internet, although now it is made 'natural'. ..."
"... Their education is first and foremost about recognizing the importance of the existing hierarchy and knowing their place in it. Any facts or ideas they learn after this are recognized, understood and acted upon within the context of performing that role. ..."
"... Most of the rewards and punishments of being a middle class professional are not related to being right or wrong, justified or not, honest or dishonest. They are to do with being obedient or not, disciplined or indisciplined, "normal" or eccentric. ..."
Does our history only appear overheated, while it is essentially calmly predetermined? Is it directional or conceivable, dialectic
and eclectic or cyclical, and therefore cynical? Surely, our history warns. Does it also provide for a hope? Hence, what is in front
of us: destiny or future?
Theory loves to teach us that extensive debates on what kind of economic system is most conductive to human wellbeing is what
consumed most of our civilizational vertical.
However, our history has a different say: It seems that the manipulation of the global political economy – far more than the introduction
of ideologies – is the dominant and arguably more durable way that human elites usually conspired to build or break civilizations,
as planned projects.
Somewhere down the process, it deceived us, becoming the self-entrapment. How?
*
One of the biggest (nearly schizophrenic) dilemmas of liberalism, ever since David Hume and Adam Smith, was an insight into reality:
Whether the world is essentially Hobbesian or Kantian. As postulated, the main task of any liberal state is to enable and maintain
wealth of its nation, which of course rests upon wealthy individuals inhabiting the particular state.
That imperative brought about another dilemma: if wealthy individual, the state will rob you, but in absence of it, the pauperized
masses will mob you.
The invisible hand of Smith's followers have found the satisfactory answer – sovereign debt. That 'invention' meant: relatively
strong central government of the state. Instead of popular control through the democratic checks-&-balance mechanism, such a state
should be rather heavily indebted. Debt – firstly to local merchants, than to foreigners – is a far more powerful deterrent, as it
resides outside the popular check domain.
With such a mixed blessing, no empire can easily demonetize its legitimacy, and abandon its hierarchical but invisible and unconstitutional
controls. This is how a debtor empire was born. A blessing or totalitarian curse?
Let us briefly examine it.
The Soviet Union – much as (the pre-Deng's) China itself – was far more of a classic continental military empire (overtly
brutal; rigid, authoritative, anti-individual, apparent, secretive), while the US was more a financial-trading empire (covertly coercive;
hierarchical, yet asocial, exploitive, pervasive, polarizing).
On opposite sides of the globe and cognition, to each other they remained enigmatic, mysterious and incalculable: Bear of
permafrost vs. Fish of the warm seas. Sparta vs. Athens. Rome vs. Phoenicia However, common for the both was a super-appetite for
omnipresence. Along with the price to pay for it.
Consequently, the Soviets went bankrupt by mid 1980s – they cracked under its own weight, imperially overstretched. So did the
Americans – the 'white man burden' fractured them already by the Vietnam war, with the Nixon shock only officializing it.
However, the US imperium managed to survive and to outlive the Soviets. How? The United States, with its financial capital
(or an outfoxing illusion of it), evolved into a debtor empire through the Wall Street guaranties.
Titanium-made Sputnik vs. gold mine of printed-paper
Nothing epitomizes this better than the words of the longest serving US Federal Reserve's boss, Alan Greenspan, who famously quoted
J.B. Connally to then French President Jacques Chirac: "True, the dollar is our currency, but your problem" .
Hegemony vs. hegemoney .
House of Cards
Conventional economic theory teaches us that money is a universal equivalent to all goods. Historically, currencies were a space
and time-related, to say locality-dependent. However, like no currency ever before, the US dollar became – past the WWII – the universal
equivalent to all other moneys of the world.
According to history of currencies, the core component of the non-precious metals' money is a so-called promissory note – intangible
belief that, by any given point in future, a particular shiny paper (self-styled as money) will be smoothly exchanged for real goods.
Thus, roughly speaking, money is nothing else but a civilizational construct about imagined/projected tomorrow – that the next
day (which nobody has ever seen in the history of humankind, but everybody operates with) definitely comes (i), and that this tomorrow
will certainly be a better day then our yesterday or even our today (ii).
This and similar types of collective constructs (horizontal and vertical) over our social contracts hold society together as much
as its economy keeps it alive and evolving. Hence, it is money that powers economy, but our blind faith in constructed (imagined)
tomorrows and its alleged certainty is what empowers money.
Clearly, the universal equivalent of all equivalents – the US dollar – follows the same pattern: Bold and widely accepted promise.
What does the US dollar promise when there is no gold cover attached to it ever since the time of Nixon shock of 1971?
Pentagon promises that the oceanic sea-lanes will remain opened (read: controlled by the US Navy), pathways unhindered, and that
the most traded world's commodity – oil, will be delivered.
So, it is not a crude or its delivery what is a cover to the US dollar – it is a promise that oil of tomorrow will be deliverable.
That is a real might of the US dollar, which in return finances Pentagon's massive expenditures and shoulders its supremacy.
Admired and feared, the Pentagon further fans our planetary belief in tomorrow's deliverability – if we only keep our faith in
dollar (and hydrocarbons' energized economy), and so on and on in perpetuated circle of mutual reinforcements.
These two pillars of the US might from the East coast (the US Treasury/Wall Street and Pentagon) together with the two pillars
of the West coast – both financed and amplified by the US dollar, and spread through the open sea-routs (Silicone Valley and Hollywood),
are an essence of the US posture.
This very nature of power explains why the Americans have missed to take the mankind into completely other direction; towards
the non-confrontational, decarbonized, de-monetized/de-financialized and de-psychologized, the self-realizing and green humankind.
In short, to turn history into a moral success story. They had such a chance when, past the Gorbachev's unconditional surrender
of the Soviet bloc, and the Deng's Copernicus-shift of China, the US – unconstrained as a lonely superpower – solely dictated terms
of reference; our common destiny and direction/s to our future/s.
Winner is rarely a game-changer
Sadly enough, that was not the first missed opportunity for the US to soften and delay its forthcoming, imminent multidimensional
imperial retreat. The very epilogue of the WWII meant a full security guaranty for the US: Geo-economically – 54% of anything manufactured
in the world was carrying the Made in USA label, and geostrategically – the US had uninterruptedly enjoyed nearly a decade of the
'nuclear monopoly'.
Up to this very day, the US scores the biggest number of N-tests conducted, the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry, and
it represents the only power ever deploying this 'ultimate weapon' on other nation. To complete the irony, Americans enjoy geographic
advantage like no other empire before. Save the US, as Ikenberry notes:
" every major power in the world lives in a crowded geopolitical neighborhood where shifts in power routinely provoke counterbalancing".
Look the map, at Russia or China and their packed surroundings. The US is blessed with its insular position, by neighboring
oceans. All that should harbor tranquility, peace and prosperity, foresightedness.
Why the lonely might, an empire by invitation did not evolve into empire of relaxation, a generator of harmony?
Why does it hold (extra-judicially) captive more political prisoners on Cuban soil than the badmouthed Cuban regime has ever
had? Why does it remain obsessed with armament for at home and abroad?
Why existential anxieties for at home and security challenges for abroad?
Whydid the fall of Berlin Wall 30 years ago mark a beginning of decades of stagnant or failing incomes in the US (and elsewhere
in the OECD world) coupled with alarming inequalities?
What are we talking about here; the inadequate intensity of our tireless confrontational push or about the false course of
our civilizational direction?
Indeed, no successful and enduring empire does merely rely on coercion, be it abroad or at home. The grand design of every
empire in past rested on a skillful calibration between obedience and initiative – at home, and between bandwagoning and engagement
– abroad.
In XXI century, one wins when one convinces not when one coerces. Hence, if unable to escape its inner logics and deeply-rooted
appeal of confrontational nostalgia, the prevailing archrival is only a winner, rarely a game-changer.
To sum up; After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans accelerated expansion while waiting for (real or imagined) adversaries
to further decline, 'liberalize' and bandwagon behind the US.
Expansion is the path to security dictatum only exacerbated the problems afflicting the Pax Americana. That is how the capability
of the US to maintain its order started to erode faster than the capacity of its opponents to challenge it. A classical imperial
self-entrapment!
The repeated failure to notice and recalibrate its imperial retreat brought the painful hangovers to Washington by the last presidential
elections. Inability to manage the rising costs of sustaining the imperial order only increased the domestic popular revolt and political
pressure to abandon its 'mission' altogether. Perfectly hitting the target to miss everything else
Hence, Americans are not fixing the world any more. They are only managing its decline. Look at their (winner) footprint in former
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria – to mention but a few.
*
When the Soviets lost their own indigenous ideological matrix and maverick confrontational stance, and when the US dominated
West missed to triumph although winning the Cold War, how to expect from the imitator to score the lasting moral, or even a momentary
economic victory?
Neither more confrontation and more carbons nor more weaponized trade and traded weapons will save our day. It failed in past,
it will fail again any given day.
Interestingly, China opposed the 1st World, left the 2nd in rift, and ever since Bandung of 1955 it neither won over nor (truly)
joined the 3rd Way.
Today, many see it as a main contestant. But, where is a lasting success?
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is what the most attribute as an instrument of the Chinese planetary posture. Chinese leaders
promised massive infrastructure projects all around by burning trillions of dollars.
Still, numbers are more moderate. As the recent The second BRI Summit has shown, so far, Chinese companies had invested $90 [billions]
worldwide. Seems, neither People's Republic is as rich as many (wish to) think nor it will be able to finance its promised projects
without seeking for a global private capital. Such a capital – if ever – will not flow without conditionalities.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS – or 'New Development' – Bank have some $150 billion at hand, and
the Silk Road Infrastructure Fund (SRIF) has up to $40 billion. Chinese state and semi-private companies can access – according to
the OECD estimates – just another $600 billion (much of it tight) from the home, state-controlled financial sector.
That means that China runs short on the BRI deliveries worldwide. Ergo, either bad news to the (BRI) world or the conditionalities'
constrained China.
Greening international relations along with a greening of economy – geopolitical and environmental understanding, de-acidification
and relaxation is the only way out.
That necessitates both at once: less confrontation over the art-of-day technology and their monopolies' redistribution (as preached
by the Sino-American high priests of globalization) as well as the resolute work on the so-called Tesla-ian implosive/fusion-holistic
systems (including free-energy technologies; carbon-sequestration; antigravity and self-navigational solutions; bioinformatics and
nanorobotics).
More of initiative than of obedience (including more public control over data hoovering). More effort to excellence (creation)
than struggle for preeminence (partition).
Finally, no global leader has ever in history emerged from a shaky and distrustful neighborhood, or by offering a little bit more
of the same in lieu of an innovative technological advancement. (Eg. many see the Chinese 5G as an illiberal innovation, which may
end up servicing authoritarianism, anywhere.
And indeed, the AI deep learning inspired by biological neurons (neural science) including its three methods: supervised, unsupervised
and reinforced learning can end up used for the digital authoritarianism, predictive policing and manufactured social governance
based on the bonus-malus behavioral social credits.)
Ergo, it all starts from within, from at home. Without support from a home base (including that of Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet),
there is no game changer. China's home is Asia. Its size and its centrality along with its impressive output is constraining it enough.
Hence, it is not only a new, non-imitative, turn of technology what is needed. Without truly and sincerely embracing mechanisms
such as the NaM, ASEAN and SAARC (eventually even the OSCE) and the main champions of multilateralism in Asia, those being India
Indonesia and Japan first of all, China has no future of what is planetary awaited – the third force, a game-changer, lasting visionary
and trusted global leader.
Post Scriptum: To varying degrees, but all throughout a premodern and modern history, nearly every world's major foreign
policy originator was dependent (and still depends) on what happens in, and to, Russia. It is not only a size, but also centrality
of Russia that matters. It is as much (if not even more), as it is an omnipresence of the US and as it is a hyperproduction of the
PR China.
Ergo, it is an uninterrupted flow of manufactured goods to the whole world, it is balancing of the oversized and centrally positioned
one, and it is the ability to controllably destruct the way in and insert itself of the peripheral one. The oscillatory interplay
of these three is what characterizes our days.
Professor Anis H. Bajrektarević is chairperson and professor in international law and global political studies, Vienna,
Austria. He has authored six books (for American and European publishers) and numerous articles on, mainly, geopolitics energy and
technology. His 7th book, From WWI to www. – Europe and the World 1918-2018 was to released in December.
Memo to author: try an analogy with Macau; China's other SAR (special administrative region); the 2nd wealthiest city in the world,
and the world leader in gambling profit.. From 05:30 until 23:00, Mainlanders flock into the City, 7 days a week; like an
entire country migrating daily.. No protests there, unlike their sinking cousins across the Bay in Hong Kong..
The author suggests that Xinjiang and Tibet be included as somehow vital to China's dynamic progress, when they are empty of
resources, and only need to be stabilized as a transit point for the BRI, which is progressing very well indeed.. People here
think of it as the New Silk Road, not BRI..
The author is welcome to visit next year, when the 600 k.p.h. Maglev (magnetic levitation) train enters operation, and compare
it to say, Amtrak in America, which is like a system from an 1860's cowboy and Indian film..
In 9 more days, high school begins in China, so many of the thrill-seekers will be in class, while the US-paid street criminals
will be exposed and ridiculed.. Hopefully locked up for a very long time..
Jack Leon
Hopefully locked up for a very long time..
Ahh the blessed joys of absolute power literally controlling every aspect of peoples thoughts and daily lives, can't wait to
move there. People in Macau cannot be black holed into a Chinese gulag that's exactly why it is so successful, no one with any
money goes to gamble and party in Beijing. Mainlanders flock there to escape the prison state that is modern China.
"Please move to the back of the Maglev or you will be punished. Discredited Entities are not welcome on this ride."
mark
When communism collapsed in 1989, a whole class of smug self satisfied individuals like Fukuyama and the Neocons and Ziocons
feeding off them patted themselves on the pack, assured of their complete moral superiority and unlimited virtue. They had won,
and could now throw their weight around the planet however they pleased.
People who were a little bit more far sighted subsequently concluded that communism collapsed FIRST. The prevailing system
in the Anglozionist empire just took longer to collapse. Our system of crony capitalism, crapitalism, parasitic financial capitalism,
looting kleptocracy, managed to endure for another 20 years before it collapsed in turn over 2007-8, never to recover. It has
remained on life support ever since, sustaining its zombie existence through the printing of tens of trillions of toilet paper
money backed by nothing but thin air, negative interest rates, and draconian austerity ravaging societies and entire countries.
The world could have been re ordered for the better after 1989. Genuine cooperation between great powers. Wide ranging
disarmament. A new security structure for all the countries of the planet. The dismantling of relics like NATO. The resolution
of previously intractable conflicts. A much better deal for developing countries with new terms of trade. The needs of billions
of people given the priority they deserved. This was all up for grabs. But the opportunity for a better world was thrown away
and will never return.
Instead, militarism and aggression were given their head. NATO expanded deep into the former Soviet Union in breach of
all the undertakings that were given to the contrary. Russia was comprehensively looted and reduced to destitution and misery.
One country after another was invaded and destroyed. Millions died and tens of millions immiserated. The whole planet was destabilised.
Trillions were squandered that could have been devoted to productive purposes and real human needs.
We now face disaster on multiple fronts. The very real possibility of war on a scale never seen before in human history, leading
to human extinction. Financial, economic and social collapse dwarfing the experience of 1929. Political chaos and upheaval. All
of this completely unnecessary.
mark
The US National Debt Clock is whizzing round at $25,000 a second. The current budget deficit is $1,175 billion. Trump is trying
to loot the rest of the planet to get himself out of the economic hole he is in.
Jack Leon
The world could have been re ordered for the better after 1989. Genuine cooperation between great powers. Wide ranging disarmament."
All very true and concise, but do you truly believe that had the USSR won the cold war and the USA gone bankrupt, they would
have even extended the olive branch the other way? Although impossible to definitively say, my guess is yeah right the Soviets
would make Perestroika look like a bargain. We'd be wearing shitty Communist clothes, eating Borscht and watching as the party
ravaged every resource for the Soviet oligarchs.
Capitalism is ths best system for economic growth, undeniably proven over and over, problem is, your right we live in a corporate
communist state, which destroyed the greatest economic system ever created. And I would also agree 2007 was the official end of
our great Republic although building for decades to that point.
vexarb
"the main champions of multilateralism in Asia, those being India Indonesia and Japan first of all"
Read that slowly and all will become crystal clear -- despite the author's Germanic gnomic English.
vexarb
Sorry, I was being pretty gnomic myself. The Herr Professor is saying that the Chief Champions of Multi-Lateralism are countries
which are either allied to the Empire (India) or have been crushed by the Empire (Indonesia) or both (Japan).
TheThinker
BigB – I wrote this over on the thread a couple of articles back in a reply to George. But, it seemed pertinent to what you say
above, perhaps even reinforces it. As I am double posting, Admin, feel free to delete if it is not useful to the discussion.
I've been reading a collection of essays by a Australian guy called Careys – on Democracy and propaganda, fully named, Taking
the Risk out of Democracy. He died unpublished but his papers were collated in a book after. Here some bits from my read that
were interesting.
In Jan 1994 David Hume reflecting on the consequences of the recent state terrorist projects that Washington had organised
and directed in its Central American domains, with the Church a prime target. They took special note of 'what weight' the culture
of terror has had in domestically the expectations of the majority vis-a-vis alternatives different for the powerful; the destruction
of hope, they recognised, is one of the greatest achievements of the free world doctrine of 'low intensity conflict' what is called
'terror' when conducted by official enemies. Noam Chomsky 1994
Propaganda is the management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbolism collective attitudes are
amenable to many modes of alteration . intimidation intimidation .economic coercion drill
But their arrangement and rearrangement occurs principally under the importers of significant symbolism and the technique of
using significant symbols for this purpose is propaganda. Lasswell, Bardson & Janowitz 1953
Successful use of propaganda as a means of social control requires a number of conditions: The will to use it, the skills
to produce the propaganda, the means to deiiseminate it; and the use of significant symbols with real power over emotional reactions
– ideally symbols of the sacred and satanic (Light vs DARK)
A society or culture which is disposed to view the world in Manichean terms will be more vulnerable to control by propaganda.
Conversely, a society where propaganda is extensively employed as a means of control, will tend to retain a Manichean world view,
a view dominated by symbols and visions of the sacred and satanic.
Manichean – an adherent of the dualistic systems (dual = 2) religious systems of Manes, a combination of Gnostic, Buddiasm,
Zoroastrianism and various other elements with a doctrine of a conflict between the Light and Dark, matter being regarded as dark
and light / good vs evil – love vs hate
The 'public mind' was recognised long ago by corporate leaders to be 'the only serious danger confronting' their enterprise
& major hazards facing industrialists along with the newly realised political power of the masses, which had to be beaten back.
Big Business in the US stated started the Americanise Movement ostensibly to Americanise worker, who was being perceived as
being under threat from subversive forces of the Industrial Workers of the world.
what started as a method of controlling the political opinion of immigrant workers quickly turned into a massive program for
the thinking of an entire population. One of the most startling examples of the escalation of the whole population in processes
of propaganda was how Americanisation Program ( a word which conjures up the 'thought police') came to be transformed into a National
Celebration Day for the 4th July, to many of us (Carey's words not mine) it comes as a shock to discover that American Independence
Day had it's beginning in a Business led program to control public opinion rather than as a direct expression of a Nation celebrating
its historical birth.
Gary Weglarz
("The Soviet Union – much as (the pre-Deng's) China itself – was far more of a classic continental military empire (overtly brutal;
rigid, authoritative, anti-individual, apparent, secretive), while the US was more a financial-trading empire (covertly coercive;
hierarchical, yet asocial, exploitive, pervasive, polarizing).").
– sorry, but this line left me laughing out loud and gasping for a little air. If the meaning of the term's "covertly coercive"
and "exploitive" actually are simply euphemisms to mean things like carpet bombing peasant societies into the 'stone age,' running,
training and arming death squads and torture operations decade upon decade, over-throwing democratic populist governments and
installing brutal dictators, and organizing and supporting mass murder and torture on an epic scale from Indonesia to Chile to
Vietnam to Guatemala, and of course endless others, then yes, I suppose we American's have been "covertly coercive" and "exploitive."
I wonder, however, why such routine U.S. mayhem fails to rise to the level of the former Soviet's "overtly brutal" designation?
As usual when I read the world as described by Western "academics" I am confused by the carefully coded language used to describe
the absolute amoral brutality of Western empire. But hey, perhaps describing the willful murder of a half-a-million Iraqi children
as "worth it," is simply an example of America's "asocial" tendencies rather than of actual barbarity.
wardropper
The worst of it all is that none of it NEEDS to have "meaning".
Another sex scandal, or a bank scandal of huge proportions is plastered all over the media, and, two days later, while people
are still trying to digest it with the most superficial thought processes they can muster, we suddenly find we are at war with
China, Russia – or Denmark, for that matter
"Oh, we seem to be at war again!", would seem to be the most likely response, while we eagerly await the next scandal
The owners of our media honestly deserve the same end that Goebbels faced , but we share guilt inasfar as we have all-too readily
allowed them to confuse our thinking until it isn't even thinking any more, but merely knee-jerk reaction to click-bait.
Russia's centrality? I wouldn't be fooled by the CIA's apparent obsession with Russia; the rest of the world knows that China
is now no. 2. The Chinese have caught up technologically by study and crook, and are financially and population wise much stronger
than Russia.
In fact Russian Siberia must look quite juicy for Beijing with all its space and minerals , were it not for those damn old
Russian MIRVs.
Note well
Nice essay! Indeed, the US empire has survived [hopefully for not much longer] by swindling, and, fraudulent treaties. One
critical aspect of the widespread of US influence is SPYING! Highly likely, most of what the US achieved would not have been possible
without the spying apparatus that have infiltrated every corner of the world. Of course, spying did not start with the Internet,
although now it is made 'natural'.
SPYING, and the ubiquitousness of it, should be stated every time US influence is mentioned.
Antonym
Why would only growing Indian or Chinese middle classes be cancer? Any greed is cancer, whether from a beggar or a billionaire.
be they be India, Chinese, American, British etc.
Fair dinkum
The Western middle class has pushed the planet to the precipice. The 400 million plus Chinese and Indian middle class will bury
the world at the bottom of it.
Roland Spansky
Oh give it a rest, Chicken Little. People such as yourself have been squawking about the planet being on the edge of a precipice
for – conservatively – the last sixty years. Open your eyes. It's a con. You've been had.
wardropper
It seems to have escaped your attention that the middle classes are the main victims of "austerity" these days. The aim is to
wipe them out, and have the 1% vs. the enslaved 99% as the new norm. It would be very uncomfortable to have a flourishing 55%
middle class against the 1%, which is why we have austerity in the first place.
As for "deadly cancers", well, we obviously have our own fair share of those, but it so happens that they are not the middle class.
Dominic Berry
Their education is first and foremost about recognizing the importance of the existing hierarchy and knowing their place in
it. Any facts or ideas they learn after this are recognized, understood and acted upon within the context of performing that role.
Implicitly anti hierarchical facts provoke a cognitive dissonance which prevents them being recognized, but even when it is
recognized as important, not accounted for by the existing procedures, critically important, (e.g., ecological collapse, nuclear
weapons, austerity economics,) even when we see that something has to be done, well, "What am I supposed to do?"
Most of the rewards and punishments of being a middle class professional are not related to being right or wrong, justified
or not, honest or dishonest. They are to do with being obedient or not, disciplined or indisciplined, "normal" or eccentric.
The level of "experts" is pretty dismal. While some quotes are apt, the general level is horrible for such an important
topic., Not a single one put Putin career in context of ascendance of neoliberalism from 1990 to 2007 and then crash and decline
with the USA economics entering the period of secular stagnation. not a single one.
Most of those are neocons or some king of imperialists who believe in God given right for the USA to dominate the globe. That's
another problem.
Notable quotes:
"... Henry Kissinger : Starting with American support for the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004, Putin has gradually convinced himself that the U.S. is structurally adversarial. By “structural,” I mean that he may very well believe that America defines its basic interest as weakening Russia, transforming us from a potential ally to another foreign country that he balances with China and others. ( The Atlantic, 11.10.16 ) ..."
"... Thomas Graham and Rajan Menon : In Moscow’s reading, the United States had masterminded the revolution [in Ukraine] to install a pro-Western figure as president over the candidate endorsed by Putin. Putin soon came to view the revolution in Ukraine as a dress rehearsal for regime change in Russia itself. ..."
"... In Putin’s view, the United States, the European Union and NATO have launched an economic and proxy war in Ukraine to weaken Russia and push it into a corner. As Valery Gerasimov, chief of staff of the Russian armed forces, has underscored, this is a hybrid, 21st-century conflict, in which financial sanctions, support for oppositional political movements and propaganda have all been transformed from diplomatic tools to instruments of war. Putin likely believes that any concession or compromise he makes will encourage the West to push further. ( The Washington Post, 02.05.15 ) ..."
Henry Kissinger : Starting with American support for the Orange Revolution in
Ukraine in 2004, Putin has gradually convinced himself that the U.S. is structurally
adversarial. By “structural,” I mean that he may very well believe that America
defines its basic interest as weakening Russia, transforming us from a potential ally to
another foreign country that he balances with China and others. (
The
Atlantic, 11.10.16 )
Thomas Graham and Rajan Menon : In Moscow’s reading, the United States had
masterminded the revolution [in Ukraine] to install a pro-Western figure as president over the
candidate endorsed by Putin. Putin soon came to view the revolution in Ukraine as a dress
rehearsal for regime change in Russia itself. Putin believed it was part of the United
States’ larger effort to construct a unipolar world based on its values and interests, a
world that it could dominate with little regard for other major powers. In response Putin began
working to fortify Russia against Western influence and interference. (
The Boston
Review , 09.12.17)
Steven Pifer : Putin sees Russians & Ukrainians as one people. Said so in
Kyiv in 2013. Does not understand he thereby denies Ukrainian history, culture. (
Twitter ,
05.26.17)
Roger McDermott and Stephen Cimbala : Putin’s actions in Crimea were not
entirely sui generis : They were preceded by a context of demands upon Russia from
its post-Cold War military and geostrategic setting, compared to that of the Soviet Union.
Putin’s policy is not the result of psychodrama. It is the product of his having lived
in strategic history and his (and our) understanding of that history. (
The Journal of Slavic
Military Studies , 10.14.16)
Anatol Lieven : Russia’s restraint in Ukraine shows that there is no
serious reason to fear that Mr. Putin is ready to create a new, worse international crisis by
attacking the Baltic states or Poland. (
New York Times ,
03.18.16)
Steven Pifer : A weak Ukrainian government incapable of meeting the challenges
before it ensures that the Maidan model will have little attraction for the Russian populace.
This consideration could mean that Mr. Putin wants a failed Ukrainian state. (
Testimony before U.S.
Senate , 03.04.15)
Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy : The logic of sending weapons to Ukraine seems
straightforward and is the same as the logic for economic sanctions: to change Vladimir
Putin’s “calculus.” … We strongly disagree [with calls on the West to
provide military support to Ukraine]. The evidence points in a different direction. If we
follow the recommendations of this report, the Ukrainians won’t be the only ones caught
in an escalating military conflict with Russia. (
The Washington Post, 02.05.15 )
Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy : Our problem is that we do not fully understand
Putin’s calculus, just as he does not understand ours. In Putin’s view, the United
States, the European Union and NATO have launched an economic and proxy war in Ukraine to
weaken Russia and push it into a corner. As Valery Gerasimov, chief of staff of the Russian
armed forces, has underscored, this is a hybrid, 21st-century conflict, in which financial
sanctions, support for oppositional political movements and propaganda have all been
transformed from diplomatic tools to instruments of war. Putin likely believes that any
concession or compromise he makes will encourage the West to push further. (
The Washington Post, 02.05.15 )
"... Reese Erlich's nationally distributed column, Foreign Correspondent, appears every two weeks. Follow him on Twitter , @ReeseErlich; friend him on Facebook ; and visit his webpage ..."
I first met Jason Lee when he was promoting jazz concerts in his hometown of Hong Kong. More recently, he has been sending
me Facebook messages about the Hong Kong protests. You would think that a relatively prosperous, 43-year-old Hong Konger would support
the demonstrations that have rocked that city since June. Well, you may be surprised by his views.
Lee, who spends time in both Hong Kong and mainland China, says protesters' attacks on police and government buildings "are going
too far." Referring to how they
recently closed the
Hong Kong airport, he asks, "Would the USA let JFK airport be occupied for one day?"
Protesters carrying British flags and spray painting anti-communist slogans on legislative offices don't understand the region's
colonial history when British troops brutally occupied Hong Kong, Lee tells me in a phone interview.
"I'm Chinese from Hong Kong," says Lee. "I love my country, China."
The protest movement began in opposition to a proposed extradition law, which demonstrators claimed would allow political dissidents
to be extradited to China. Hong Kong officials said the law wouldn't be used for
political repression but later withdrew
it.
Some Hong Kongers, Lee included, think the protesters' calls for "democracy" are really demands for independence from China, even
a return to British colonial rule .
"They want the movement to go on and on by raising new demands," Lee says. "And then they claim the government isn't responding."
Sharp class divisions
One major factor driving the protests is economic inequality. For many years, Hong Kong was a key financial and commercial outpost
for the People's Republic of China (PRC). But, as the PRC's economy expanded, it didn't need Hong Kong as a middle man and the territory's
economy declined relative to China's.
Meanwhile, Hong Kong billionaires made huge profits leading to one of the world's
highest rates
of income inequality.
Housing is now in short supply and Hong Kong rents are the
highest
in the world. Many young adults still live with their parents or crowd into small, subdivided apartments.
"My apartment is 350 square feet," Sean Starrs, a Hong Kong professor,
told the Real News Network. "My students say, well what do you do with all that space?"
And, as always, Washington is happy to take advantage of those complaints for its own odious purposes.
In the old days, the CIA would slip wads of cash to dissidents in order to promote anti-government riots and install pro-U.S.
regimes. That method worked for
Iran in 1953 and
Chile in 1973.
Nowadays, the United States uses the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to spread propaganda to accomplish the same goals.
The NED is supposed to build democracy but in reality promotes dissidents who favor U.S. style capitalism, and it
funds aspiring autocrats.
I don't think the CIA initiated the demonstrations, but the events bear a strong resemblance to other U.S.-manipulated "color"
revolutions.
Color revolutions vs. genuine uprisings
With the collapse of the USSR in 1991, several former Soviet republics faced a series of elections, mass demonstrations and coups.
In Georgia the uprising was called a "rose revolution." In Ukraine, it was orange. During the 2013 Maidan revolt in Ukraine, the
US role in manipulating the mass movement and selecting the country's new president was
revealed publicly.
On the other hand, popular, mass uprisings in 2011 overthrew dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt. So how do you tell the difference
between genuine uprisings and the color revolts?
The key questions are who is leading the protests and what would happen if they took power? Would the country go in a progressive
direction or join the reactionary camp led by the United States? While no one party or recognized coalition leads the Hong Kong protests,
there are identifiable political trends.
Political trends in Hong Kong
The pan-democratic forces call for universal suffrage and direct elections of Hong Kong officials. Critics say those calls for
democracy cover up their close alliance with US policy and their rejection of eventual unity with China. The pan-democrats suffered
surprising losses in last year's legislative council elections.
The umbrella protests of 2014 accelerated the rise of another trend, the localists, a
xenophobic rightwing movement that calls for "self determination" (independence) from Beijing.
"They think Hong Kongers are better than Chinese," says Elvin Ho, a retired business consultant living in Hong Kong. Native Hong
Kongers mostly speak Cantonese, he explains in a phone interview. "Localists will pick a fight with random targets during the riot,
who speak Mandarin, and bully them."
Imagine for a moment that the PRC ceased to exist. Would Hong Kong transform itself into a democratic society? I think some combination
of localists and pan-democratic forces would come to power and then violently repress those who supported the PRC and the previous
Hong Kong government.
Sound farfetched? That's what has happened when the pro-western forces came back to power in
Ukraine and
Hungary .
But the PRC does exist, and it's not about to allow Hong Kong independence. China has massed paramilitary police along the Hong
Kong border as a clear threat against the protesters. Many Hong Kongers are getting tired of the constant disruptions and violence
on both sides.
So far the Hong Kong government has bided its time, hoping the public will tire of the constant turmoil. We can only hope the
current crisis ends without further violence.
Reese Erlich's nationally distributed column, Foreign Correspondent, appears every two weeks. Follow him on
Twitter , @ReeseErlich; friend him on
Facebook ; and visit his
webpage.
Nice plan, except it's too late. I don't think Russia will agree to this proposal. The
West is very antagonized both in Russian elites and common people. Even if some high
ranking officials will be happy to struck a deal common people will still perceive USA
and the west as enemies. On the contrary China's reputation and karma is not as tainted
as America's in the eyes of the majority in Russia. At this point any concession given to
West will be met with disdain.
Correct. NATO has thousands of troops on the Russian border and surrounds Western
Russia by land and sea ... meanwhile the US preparing new cruise missile programs to be
stationed in the EU... Putin would be a fool to play nice in the face of such a military
buildup... in fact, he'd be deposed if he tried. No... the die is cast... the
Russia-China Alliance is tightly cemented.
Doug Bandow gives fair and reasoned arguments. The current trend appears to be towards
war. The question of enticing Moscow away from Beijing is a logical one. But does Russia
fear China as an enemy more than it fears America? Who would benefit from hostilities
between these two – America? That would not serve Russia's strategic interests.
The challenge in the 21st century is not repeating the mistakes of the twentieth.
History shows vital interests drive nations to war: but it is in nobody's interest to
fight a third world war.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
I don't think here in Russia we fear anyone. We live in an era of powerful
thermonuclear weapons. Russia has fully operational nuclear triad with thousands of
warheads. Any military scenario against us trigger a final judgement day for human
civilization. President Putin openly said that. At this point Russia is more or less
isolationist trying to sever itself from global production chains to be more independent.
The trade with US is minuscule, so basically US has the stick but lacks carrot. On the
other hand China lacks what Russia really needs, so it's more of an allie of convenience.
Basically all Russia needs is being left alone and being able to influence it's own
region. Vast natural resources and population can really provide this kind of
isolationism. But the US can't stop poking the bear, so enraged bear can really be pissed
and provide China a helping hand.
Isolated from US and vassals doesn't mean completelly isolated. As author mentioned G7
is only 1/10 of World's population. And France, Germany and Italy are eager to restore
pre-sanction relations. Also having China, power on the rise (contrary to declining West)
in your corner is a very good thing.
"However, Beijing's widespread, sometimes brutal crackdown at home, increasingly
threatening approach to both Hong Kong and Taiwan, and more aggressive stance toward
territorial disputes challenge common Western interests and values. "
What "brutal crackdown"? I presume he means HK but the response of the Chinese gov is
hardly brutal. On the contrary, the authorities there have been been far more passive and
restrained than the west would be. Try shutting down a major US airport with a
demonstration and see long it takes for US robo-cops to cover the tiled floors in
protester blood and fill jail cells with unconscious bodies. Consider the (mostly
unreported) brutality in France as M(i)cron orders his gendarmes to use force to suppress
growth of the Gilets Jaunes movement.
What "aggressive stance" to territorial disputes? Chinese aren't blockading any areas
of the SCS and are not preventing freedom of navigation. They have claimed a number of
SCS rocks and minor islands, but the fact remains that none of the largest 18 islands are
Chinese controlled yet no-one wants to level the same charges against Taiwan,
Philippines, Vietnam or Malaysia that control them. The Chinese maintain an active
military presence around their own bases in the SCS, but they don't act to stop other
traffic in the area, and no-one has any actual legitimate business with these isolated
rocks, either now or before the ChiComs claimed them.
Bandow is spinning a load of BS with these and other assertions of a fake reality. Its
just part of a superficial narrative intended to support the idea of a "benevolent and
democratic" US selflessly guarding the "free world" against an "authoritarian police
state" that is "challenging and undermining the global rules-based system". It a load of
baloney that well-expired but Bandow the organ-grinder keep turning the handle to make
the public monkies dance for the amusement and hidden agendas of Cato Institutes elites
paymasters.
"Kyiv would be left to forge whatever economic ties it desired east and west."
Really? When did the ruling elites of the US and EU change their policies? It was the
refusal of the Eurotrash to accept Ukraine accepting Russian cash and economic assistance
in 2014 that led to the Ultra-nationalist putsch with US/EU full support. Yanukovich
wanted a deal and the EU refused to give him one he could accept, then threw their weight
behind his forced removal and shut-out the possibility of Ukraine having economic
relations with its largest trading partner (Russia).
BTW in English we have always spelled the city as Kiev, not Kyiv. Bandow is clearly
pandering to the Ukropi nationalists and anti-Russia radicals.
"In return, Russia could abandon support for Donbas rebels in Ukraine, grant Kyiv full
navigational access in contested waters, and stop using natural gas as a weapon."
Russia isn't about to abandon Donbass while the Ukies show no regard for civilian
lives in their incessant shelling attacks and repeated violations of "truces". Kiev is
attacking Donbass and intent on advancing, not the other way around, so a cessation of
conflict is in their court, not Donetsk or Lugansk.
Kiev has full access to "contested waters" (presumably access to the Azov Sea) but
they need to follow protocols. It is their refusal to play by the rules (and the
deliberate provocations by the SBU) that is the crux of the problems.
Russia doesn't use natural gas as a weapon. She simply sells gas to willing customers
(who buy it from her due to good prices and a long established record as a reliable
supplier). Russia is understandably looking for alternative routes of transit to avoid
nations that are her traditional antagonists and who wish to use gas transit as leverage
over her. Why should Russia allow unfriendly nations to have the ability to shutdown her
gas exports? Ukraine was stealing gas for years which led to the cessation of gas
supplies while custody transfer violations were investigated and stopped. Why should
Russia maintain transit through unfriendly nations and allow them to gain transit fees?
If they cease their Russia-baiting BS things might change, but that is their decision to
make, and Russia will act in the meantime according to her interests.
Doug Bandow tries to play the moderate but he recycles the worst agitprop tropes about
Russia. To be expected from a minion of the Cato Institute I suppose...
I would highly recommend that Doug Bandow get a lecture in Russian Foreign Politics.
This is not just a market with a handful dollar. Bandow might be a visiting Student a
MGIMO for Russian Foreign Politics which is based on trust and reliability for years.
Besides, Peking is by far the largest economic Partner of Russia. President Putin is not
interested on G7 membership. It lacks results and is a further "bla, bla" Organisation
without any success. Economic sanctions are more an issue for western Europe. As example
Francs lost 50% of their Russian Trade about 12B USD.
US inferior Foreign Politics lacks all of it. It's an Ad-Hoc organised Ministry with
interference from the President.
Aren't these guys really stup!d? They are discussing should Russia be in G8 or not,
while Putin many times said that this organization is useless for Russia! :-)))
"... The trojan horse for the return of neoliberalism in Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, stated that he's going to borrow money from the IMF to fund his government, which would make all Venezuelans indebted to this predatory institution. Guaidó spends the money, the poor and working people work to pay taxes that pay off the principal and the interest. ..."
"... The IMF was created in New Hampshire in 1945 to internationalize and standardize capitalism and its rules in an increasingly globalized and U.S.-dominated world. ..."
"... Its primary function is acting as an international lender-of-last-resort to indebted countries. IMF member states decide which countries will receive loans, but the member states with the largest say are the ones that own the largest share of the IMF's funds, which have always been the United States and its allies. ..."
"... This is why the IMF's standard "structural adjustment program" is based on the so-called Washington Consensus, a set of 10 economic policies entirely concocted by U.S. think tanks, the IMF, the World Bank and the Treasury Department. The Washington Consensus is as follows: ..."
Think about who gets rich off of the Venezuela regime-change agenda. It's the same people
that said we had to invade Iraq in order to prevent nuclear apocalypse. It's the same people
who said the world would stop turning on its axis if we didn't carpet bomb Libya and
Syria.
Transcript -- This video was produced as part of a MintPress News and Grayzone collaboration -- Of all the reasons to
plot an elaborate and risky coup, there's one reason that always stands out: profit. Money
makes the world go around and in far more ways than we might think. Here are the top five
special interest groups and institutions that seek to benefit from the U.S. backed coup in
Venezuela.
Number 1: The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which wants to saddle the
Venezuelan people with enormous debt to the IMF
The trojan horse for the return of neoliberalism in Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, stated
that he's going to borrow money from the IMF to fund his government, which would make all
Venezuelans indebted to this predatory institution. Guaidó spends the money, the poor
and working people work to pay taxes that pay off the principal and the interest.
The IMF was created in New Hampshire in 1945 to internationalize and standardize capitalism
and its rules in an increasingly globalized and U.S.-dominated world.
Its primary function is acting as an international lender-of-last-resort to indebted
countries. IMF member states decide which countries will receive loans, but the member states
with the largest say are the ones that own the largest share of the IMF's funds, which have
always been the United States and its allies.
This is why the IMF's standard "structural adjustment program" is based on the so-called
Washington Consensus, a set of 10 economic policies entirely concocted by U.S. think tanks, the
IMF, the World Bank and the Treasury Department. The Washington Consensus is as follows:
In exchange for a loan, often with a high-interest rate that many would call predatory, the
IMF overhauls the protective and redistributive policies of a country for neoliberal policies,
making the target country ripe for finance capital investment and profit-making.
Number
2: The Oil Industry, out to control the oil reserves
There's little doubt that the oil industry is pushing the U.S. to overthrow the Maduro
government, especially when National Security Advisor John Bolton openly states this on
national television.
Bolton was himself once part of the oil industry, serving as the director of Diamond
Offshore Drilling, Inc. in 2007. He's no stranger to advocating for the interests of the
fossil-fuel industry.
Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves by far and Washington won't let that wealth
go unexploited, or worse, be shared among its enemies like the Maduro government, Russia,
China, or Iran.
And with so many politicians, Republican and Democratic, bought off by industry players --
companies like ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and Chevron -- it's impossible to imagine anyone in
Washington successfully advocating for Venezuela maintaining ownership over its own sovereign
natural resources.
Number 3: The Military-Industrial Complex, working to military
dominance and arm another U.S. puppet
One of the most bizarre things about America is that we've created one of the world's
largest private industries around arms dealing. And like any industry, whether it be JDAM bombs
or beef, private businesses often resort to lobbying Congress to squeeze political favors out
of the government in the form of subsidies -- or in the case of the military industrial
complex, a foreign policy of endless war, one based on elusive ideas like combating terrorism
or defending democracy.
You can see that wherever the U.S. goes, expensive construction projects follow. Behind
every multi-billion dollar base construction, some private contractor is there reaping the
profits.
Once our military presence is firmly established, the weapons sales begin. And we all know
no U.S. ally or puppet state is complete without a full fleet of Lockheed Martin F-16s -- then
they'll be able to fend off all of those pesky leftist rebels with freedom missiles.
With Venezuela's neighbors, Colombia and Brazil, growing closer to NATO and accepting U.S.
military presence in their countries, we can only assume Venezuela is Washington's next
target.
As the strategic approach of regime change evolves, new industries arise to meet these
needs.
After the massive anti-war protests following the invasion of Iraq, outright invasion and
occupation are no longer viable strategies, owing to negative public opinion. So Washington
sought to disguise war propaganda using humanitarian rhetoric.
Number 4: "Humanitarian"
NGOs to create and implement the alibi
Privately owned NGOs dedicated to human rights and promoting "American style" democracy have
played a much larger role in regime-change operations in recent years. They serve as soft-power
institutions that attempt to subtly sway a population against its own government through
propaganda laced with words like freedom, democracy, and human rights.
These NGOs are given the full blessing of the U.S. government and the two often work in
tandem. Don't believe me? Take it from former CIA case officer Phillip Agee.
The US Agency for International Development's (USAID) regime-change arm, the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), funded opposition groups in Nicaragua, Venezuela (during the
2002 coup), Haiti, Ukraine, and most recently China and North Korea. And whenever U.S. foreign
policy sets its sights on a certain target, private industries usually develop to help meet
that goal as well as make a quick buck along the way.
For example, Thor Halvorssen -- the first cousin of Leopoldo Lopez, the founder of Juan
Guaidó's party, Popular Will -- calls himself a human-rights activist. He founded the
notorious Human Rights Foundation (HRF) and makes a living giving speeches and TV appearances
talking about why the governments of Venezuela or North Korea are not legitimate and need to be
overthrown.
Unsurprisingly, HRF is funded by the conservative Sarah Scaife Foundation, which is itself
funded by think tanks like the top neoconservative think tank, the American Enterprise
Institute, as well as the Heritage Foundation. HRF is also funded by the Donors Capital Fund
and the Diana Davis Spencer Foundation, which are also funded by the American Enterprise
Institute. It's one big web of moving money that all leads back to the same cast of
characters.
The crisis in Venezuela has been a huge gift for people like Halvorssen, who use the U.S.'s
war on Venezuela to promote themselves and their organizations.
Number 5: Think Tanks
selling reports that tell the MIC what it wants to hear
Like NGOs, think tanks also play an important role in giving regime change a sense of
legitimacy -- in their case, intellectual legitimacy. Think tanks rely on donations to operate
and many find willing donors among the capitalist class. These fat cats pay for fancy looking
reports meant to justify their desired goal, the delegitimization of socialist governments and
the legitimization of coup governments that uphold the Washington Consensus.
The Cato Institute has been deeply involved in overthrowing the Venezuelan government. In
2008, Cato awarded Venezuelan opposition leader, Yon Goicoechea, the Milton Friedman Prize for
Advancing Liberty and $500,000 for his role in disrupting a constitutional referendum in
Venezuela. That money was used to finance the political rise of Juan Guaidó, and his
clique known as Generation 2007.
These seemingly independent research groups have intimate networks that they leverage to
amplify the message their donors have given them. Here's an article in the Washington
Post written by a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute saying the U.S.'s failure to
intervene in Venezuela has caused the Maduro government to destabilize the region.
Whether it was the bank bailouts following the 2008 crisis, or the lack of action on climate
disaster, in America it seems the government always puts the interests of the rich ahead of the
poor and working class, and the situation in Venezuela is no exception.
As the U.S. continues to attack the Maduro government, keep these special interests in mind.
Think about who gets rich off of the regime-change agenda. It's the same people that said we
had to invade Iraq in order to prevent nuclear apocalypse. It's the same people who said the
world would stop turning on its axis if we didn't carpet bomb Libya and Syria.
Now they're trying to get us to support war in Venezuela. You won't be any freer or more
prosperous after the Maduro government is toppled. It's just war propaganda.
Top photo | A worker counts Venezuelan bolivar notes at a parking lot in Caracas, Venezuela
May 29, 2018. Marco Bello | Reuters
Kei Pritsker is a journalist and activist located in Washington DC. Kei focuses on
international politics and economics. He previously worked as a producer at RT America.
The net result on Ukrainian independence was the dramatic rise of political influence of western Ukraine which was suppressed in
the USSR. under Yutchenko they came to power and they regained it after Yanukovich demise. And their interests and their
desire to colonize Eastern Ukraine do not correlate will with the desires of the Eastern Ukrainian population. So Ukraine
remains a divided country with the differences being patched by continuing war in Donbass. So in way continuation of the
war is in the best political interests of Western Ukrainian nationalists. Kind of insurance which simplify for them to stay in
power. While politically they lost in recent Presidential elections the presence of paramilitary formations ensure that they
still have considerable political power including the power of veto.
Whether hardship inflicted on population after EuroMaydan will eventually help to restore the balance and raise political
influence of Eastern Ukraine because Western Ukrainian nationalists are now completely politically discredited due to the dramatic
drop in the standard of living after EuroMaydan is difficult to say. In any case Ukraine now is a debt slave and vassal of the
USA with the USA embassy controlling way to much to consider Ukraine to be an independent country. Few countries manage to dig
themselves out of this hole.
For such countries rise of anti-colonial movement is a possibility, but paradoxically Western Ukrainian nationalists side
with colonial power representing in a way fifth column (and they did played the role of fifth column during EuroMaydan giving
power to rabid neoliberals like Yatsenyuk, who was essentially an agent of the USA, who wanted to privatize everything for
cents on the dollar as long as he and his circle get cramps from it, ordinary Ukrainians be damned ). Understanding that the USA is
the most dangerous partner to have, in many ways no less dangerous then Russia is still pending for the Ukrainian neoliberal elite,
part of which ( Kushma, Victor Pinchuk) clearly are plain-vanilla
compradors.
Notable quotes:
"... Three decades of Ukrainian independence have brought little in the way of economic development or other strong reasons to embrace a Ukrainian identity. At the same time, Russia has become a far more prosperous, orderly place that exudes confidence and power since Vladimir Putin came to power. Millions of eastern Ukrainians have gone to Russia as guest workers – and more recently as war refugees . Today, the Ukrainian diaspora in Russia is by far the world's largest. ..."
"... The western regions of Ukraine, on the other hand, were part of European states like Austria-Hungary and Poland until World War II, when they were annexed by the Soviet Union. Now, people overwhelmingly speak Ukrainian as their first language, take a suspicious (and historically grounded) view of Russia, and tend to look west for their inspiration ..."
"... Millions of Ukrainians go to Poland and beyond as guest workers, and their impressions help to fuel the certainty that Ukraine needs to seek a European future. ..."
"... Not coincidentally, the enthusiasm and conviction of western Ukrainians have disproportionately driven two pro-Western revolutions on the Maidan in Kyiv in the past 15 years, with little visible support from populations in the country's east. ..."
"... "People in the western Ukraine are different from us. It's not just language, or anything simple like that. They took power away from a president our votes elected, and they want to rip us out of our ways, abandon our values, and become part of their agenda," says Maxim Tkach, regional head of the Party of Life, the pro-Russian group that was the front-runner in parliamentary elections here in Mariupol. ..."
"... "When they started that Maidan revolution, they said it was about things we could support, like fighting corruption and ending oligarchic rule. But none of that happened. They betrayed every single principle they had shouted about. Instead, they want us to change the names of our streets and schools, honor 'heroes' like Stepan Bandera that our ancestors fought against. These are things we can't accept. ... ..."
"... "If there had been no Maidan, we would still have Crimea. There would have been no war. There would be no pressure on us to change our customs, our language, or our church . It was this aggressive revolution, by just part of the country, that caused these problems," he says. "Russia is Russia. It is acting in its own interests, but why do we need to antagonize it?" ..."
"... But while the two nearby separatist statelets, the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic, may be backed by Russia, they emerged from deep local roots. That is a clear observation from one of the most exhaustive studies of the war to date, Rebels Without a Cause , published last month by the International Crisis Group. ..."
"... The war has done great and possibly irreparable damage to Ukraine's economy , and the longer it continues, the harder it may be to ever reintegrate the former industrial heartland of Donbass with the rest of the country. ..."
"... Mr. Tkach, the regional party head, says the idea of victory is a dangerous chimera, and what most people around here want is peace and restoration of normal relations with Russia. ..."
"... "Of course we need to negotiate directly with" the rebel republics, he says. "These are our people. We understand them. Perhaps we need a step-by-step process, in which they are granted some special status. What would be wrong with that? They have also suffered, had their homes shelled by Ukrainian forces, lost their loved ones. Trust needs to be restored, and that might take some time." ..."
"... But he is adamant that those territories need to be recovered for Ukraine. "The task before us is to bring them back to Ukraine, and Ukraine to them. It must be accomplished through compromise and negotiation, because everyone is tired of war. Once we have done this, and have peace, then we can talk about Crimea." ..."
"... Mr. Tkach says so too. "We wish Zelenskiy well, but we really doubt that he can make peace happen. Our party has the connections and the right approach, and we think it will be necessary to bring us into the process." He's talking about dealing with the Russia that exists just across the Sea of Azov and a few miles down the road ..."
Almost every conversation in Ukraine these days will touch upon the grinding, seemingly endless war in the eastern region of Donbass.
People speak of overwhelming feelings of pain and weariness. And they express near-universal hopes that the new president, Volodymyr
Zelenskiy, will finally do something to end it.
Here in Mariupol, where the front line is a 10-minute drive from downtown, those conversations tend to be intense.
But depending on whom you talk to, the path to peace can look very different.
Much of the population around here speaks Russian, is used to having close relations with nearby Russia, and can't imagine any
peace that would impose permanent separation. Many people have family, friends, and former business associates living just a few
miles away on the other side of the border. More than half of voters in the Ukrainian-controlled part of Donetsk Region, of which
Mariupol is the largest city, expressed those instincts in July 21 parliamentary elections by voting for two "pro-Russian" political
parties. Both of them would like to forge a peace on Moscow's terms and return at least this part of Ukraine to its historical place
as part of the Russian sphere of influence.
But there are also many who espouse an emerging Ukrainian identity, who see the 2014 Maidan "Revolution of Dignity" as a breaking
point that gave Ukraine the chance to escape the grasp of autocratic Russia and embrace a European future. They want nothing to do
with Russian-authored peace plans, say there is no alternative to fighting on to victory in the Donbass war, and want to
quarantine Ukraine from its giant neighbor – at least until Russia changes its fundamental nature.
Despite the two groups' shared desire for peace, their starkly different visions for what that peace would entail could prove
a major obstacle for ending the war in eastern Ukraine.
Looking east, looking west
These divisions are rooted in Ukrainian history. The country's eastern regions have been part of Russian-run states for over 300
years. Three decades of Ukrainian independence have brought little in the way of economic development or other strong reasons to
embrace a Ukrainian identity. At the same time, Russia has become a far more prosperous, orderly place that exudes confidence and
power since Vladimir Putin came to power. Millions of eastern Ukrainians have gone to Russia as guest workers – and more recently
as
war refugees . Today, the Ukrainian diaspora in Russia is by far the world's largest.
The western regions of Ukraine, on the other hand, were part of European states like Austria-Hungary and Poland until World War
II, when they were annexed by the Soviet Union. Now, people overwhelmingly speak Ukrainian as their first language, take a suspicious
(and historically grounded) view of Russia, and tend to look west for their inspiration. In 1990, living standards in Ukraine and
Poland were about equal. Since Poland joined the European Union in 2004, its living standards have doubled and it has become a vibrant
European state. Millions of Ukrainians go to Poland and beyond as guest workers, and their impressions help to fuel the certainty
that Ukraine needs to seek a European future.
The Party of Life, of which local businessman Maxim Tkach is a regional head, argues that peace can be achieved in eastern
Ukraine only by following a Russia-favored plan for the region.
Not coincidentally, the enthusiasm and conviction of western Ukrainians have disproportionately driven two pro-Western revolutions
on the Maidan in Kyiv in the past 15 years, with little visible support from populations in the country's east.
"People in the western Ukraine are different from us. It's not just language, or anything simple like that. They took power away
from a president our votes elected, and they want to rip us out of our ways, abandon our values, and become part of their agenda,"
says Maxim Tkach, regional head of the Party of Life, the pro-Russian group that was the front-runner in parliamentary elections
here in Mariupol.
"When they started that Maidan revolution, they said it was about things we could support, like fighting corruption and ending
oligarchic rule. But none of that happened. They betrayed every single principle they had shouted about. Instead, they want us to
change the names of our streets and schools,
honor 'heroes' like Stepan Bandera that our ancestors fought against. These are things we can't accept. ...
"If there had been no Maidan, we would still have Crimea. There would have been no war. There would be no pressure on us to change
our customs, our language, or
our church . It was this aggressive revolution, by just part of the country, that caused these problems," he says. "Russia is
Russia. It is acting in its own interests, but why do we need to antagonize it?"
"The majority who want to be Ukrainian"
Maria Podibailo, a political scientist at Mariupol State University and head of New Mariupol, a civil society group founded to
support the Ukrainian army, offers a completely different narrative. She originally came from Ternopil in western Ukraine and has
made Mariupol her home since 1991.
She says there were no separatist feelings in Mariupol, or the Donbass, until after the Maidan revolution when Russian agitators
started traveling around eastern Ukraine, spreading lies and stirring up moods that had never existed before. Local pro-Russian oligarchs
wielded their economic power to support separatist groups, while passive police and security forces allowed Russian-led separatists
to seize public buildings and hold anti-Ukrainian protests in Mariupol. It wasn't until the arrival of the Ukrainian army – first
in the form of the volunteer Azov Battalion – that the separatists were driven out and the front line was pushed back from the city
limits in 2014, she says.
"That is why we support the army, and only trust the army," she says.
Ms. Podibailo's university-sponsored opinion surveys in 2014, after the rebellion began, found that a three-quarters majority
of local people supported a future as part of Ukraine, not Russia. That majority was subdivided into several visions of what kind
of Ukraine it should be, but only 12% wanted to join Russia, and 8% wanted Donbass to be an independent republic – a point often
overlooked in the simplistic pro-Russian versus pro-Western scheme in which these events are frequently portrayed.
"That's when we knew we were on the right track," she says. "We were not a beleaguered minority at all. We were part of the majority
who want to be Ukrainian."
But while the two nearby separatist statelets, the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic, may be backed
by Russia, they emerged from deep local roots. That is a clear observation from one of the most exhaustive studies of the war to
date,
Rebels Without a Cause , published last month by the International Crisis Group.
"We cannot talk to the leaders of these so-called republics. How could we possibly trust them?" says Ms. Podibailo. Her view is
that, after victory, the population of the republics should be sorted out into those who collaborated with the enemy and those who
were innocent victims, as happened after World War II.
"There is no way for this war to end other than in Ukrainian victory. I have never heard of a war that ends leaving things the
same way, or just through some talks. People say it might take a long time, and the threat will last forever because we have such
a neighbor.
"But we have the United States behind us, we have the West behind us, and they are attacking Russia from the other side with sanctions.
We will win," she says.
"These are our people"
Mr. Tkach, the regional party head, says the idea of victory is a dangerous chimera, and what most people around here want
is peace and restoration of normal relations with Russia.
"Of course we need to negotiate directly with" the rebel republics, he says. "These are our people. We understand them. Perhaps
we need a step-by-step process, in which they are granted some special status. What would be wrong with that? They have also suffered,
had their homes shelled by Ukrainian forces, lost their loved ones. Trust needs to be restored, and that might take some time."
But he is adamant that those territories need to be recovered for Ukraine. "The task before us is to bring them back to Ukraine,
and Ukraine to them. It must be accomplished through compromise and negotiation, because everyone is tired of war. Once we have done
this, and have peace, then we can talk about Crimea."
One of the leaders of the Party of Life – which came in a distant second in the national parliamentary elections – is Ukrainian
oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk, who has strong connections to the Kremlin and whose daughter has Mr. Putin as her godfather. Attending
the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum along with Mr. Putin this spring, Mr. Medvedchuk was introduced as "a representative
of the Ukraine that can make a deal."
Mr. Tkach says so too. "We wish Zelenskiy well, but we really doubt that he can make peace happen. Our party has the connections
and the right approach, and we think it will be necessary to bring us into the process." He's talking about dealing with the Russia
that exists just across the Sea of Azov and a few miles down the road.
"... Palestinians are:- "beasts walking on two legs" (Begin), "drugged cockroaches in a bottle" (Eitan), "hungry crocodiles" (Barak), who "must be crushed like grasshoppers" (Shamir). ..."
"... We have fringe racist groups in the UK and US and elsewhere. But the KKK in the US just get drunk and burn a few crosses now and again. They are totally irrelevant. If they supplied ALL the heads of state, Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Barak, Netanyahu, ALL the heads of the armed forces, ALL the religious leaders, and the media in the country, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have to acknowledge there is a difference. ..."
"... You can't criticise ANY of these people because it "offends" AIPAC, the Board of Deputies, the Friends of Israel, and "hurts their feelings." You are not allowed to call them out without incurring unprecedented draconian penalties unless you have first solved world hunger, global warming, criticised every other nation on the planet, and obtained a written permit from the Board of Deputies specifying exactly what terms and language you are authorised to use. ..."
"... Why obsess about Talmudistan? Because it is the tail that wags the dog. It exercises a complete stranglehold over the politics and foreign policy of the US and its satellites like the UK. It incites endless wars which those countries are expected to prosecute on its behalf. ..."
mark
I'll give you some "truly horrible expressions of bigotry." Palestinians are:- "beasts walking on two legs" (Begin), "drugged cockroaches in a bottle" (Eitan), "hungry crocodiles" (Barak),
who "must be crushed like grasshoppers" (Shamir).
Truly horrible racist stuff. 8 -4 Reply Aug 22, 2019 1:39 AM Reader
Mandy Miller
What is it with you Mark, that you keep just bringing up the same four or six quotes from the most bigoted Jews you can find who
are mostly dead? I am curious what you think it proves about anything?
Sure there are lunatics and there are racists and some of both are Jews, just as some are not Jews. Taking the words of the
racist Jews and using that to fire up your own racist hate of all Jews, even those like me who think Begin was a one-eyed
lunatic, is a waste of your life and breeds nothing but more hate. I hope God grants you peace in your heart, Mark.
mark
These are not four random annoying saloon bar bores blowing off steam after one too many. They are three successive prime ministers
and the head of the armed forces. Four typical political and military leaders. You could say the same about any other political
and military figures. Or religious figures like the Chief Rabbi. This is normal and routine. There is a great deal that is far
worse, like "Justice" Minister Shaked, who called for all Palestinian mothers to be murdered so that no Palestinian children could
be born. Or a national newspaper called The Times of Israel openly advocating the extermination of the Palestinian people at concentration
camps in the desert, "When Genocide Is Justified." Or two leading rabbis calling for the murder of all Palestinian children.
Imagine that Cameron, or May, or Johnson, called Jews cockroaches or grasshoppers, let alone calling for Jews to be murdered.
And every leading UK politician and military figure had done the same as a matter of routine for decades. Imagine the outrage.
Rightly so.
I would never call Jews cockroaches. But ALL these Zionist figures ROUTINELY speak of Palestinians in these terms. This is
completely normal. And nobody so much as raises an eyebrow. It is perfectly okay for the Chosen Folk to do this.
That is the point. It would be of benefit to the world if there was a little peace in the hearts of these people as well.
Mandy Miller
I didn't say they were insignificant I said they were regarded by most sensible Jews that I know as lunatics.
Begin did not speak for most Jews while he was alive and certainly doesn't now he's dead. I'm sure he liked to think he did,
but why believe that racist schmuck? Ditto for Binyamin, who is as stupid and racist as he is crazy.
Like I said you might as well quote Hitler or Goebbels as being representative of today's Germany or claim they speak for all
gentiles everywhere unless individuals specifically state otherwise. I was born a Jew, my kids were born Jews, we didn't volunteer
to join! We should not need to officially repudiate Zionism or the crazy ravings of our leaders past or present in order to be
assumed good people, any more than you, Mark, should have to repudiate Nazism or Mr Churchill's racism or mr Johnson's anti-Russian
schtick to be considered a good person.
I would like to see a good study of Zionism here, I support the Palestinians in their struggle as again do many many Jews of
my acquaintance (though, sadly not all I will admit). But do you not see how alienating and hurtful it is to see comments such
as "the chosen people did 9/11", or (as was talked about a short while back) "Hebrews have a tendency toward pedophilia"? Please!
Have a little respect is all. Talk about the evils of Zionism but don't conflate that with Judaism or with everyone lucky or unlucky
enough to be born a Jew!
And all that oy vey goy stuff you do feels quite hurtful also, I am just curious what you think it brings to the conversation
by way of enlightenment, communication and brotherly love, Mark? It just looks like you are hating on Jewishness in the same way
those Nazi images of guys with hook noses etcetera did. It feels nasty. What does it achieve? Would it be a nice and helpful gesture
to at least drop all that?
mark
We have fringe racist groups in the UK and US and elsewhere. But the KKK in the US just get drunk and burn a few crosses now
and again. They are totally irrelevant. If they supplied ALL the heads of state, Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Barak, Netanyahu, ALL
the heads of the armed forces, ALL the religious leaders, and the media in the country, anyone with two brain cells to rub together
would have to acknowledge there is a difference.
You can't criticise ANY of these people because it "offends" AIPAC, the Board of Deputies, the Friends of Israel, and "hurts
their feelings." You are not allowed to call them out without incurring unprecedented draconian penalties unless you have first
solved world hunger, global warming, criticised every other nation on the planet, and obtained a written permit from the Board
of Deputies specifying exactly what terms and language you are authorised to use.
Why obsess about Talmudistan? Because it is the tail that wags the dog. It exercises a complete stranglehold over the politics
and foreign policy of the US and its satellites like the UK. It incites endless wars which those countries are expected to prosecute
on its behalf. It destabilises the entire planet causing indescribable suffering and human misery. It expects and receives
a free pass to commit genocide and possess a huge illegal arsenal of WMD it constantly threatens to use. It extorts unimaginable
amounts of tribute from other countries. It commits terrorist atrocities like 9/11 with complete impunity. Its endless intrigues
and subversion poison the whole public space in entire countries. The smear campaign against Corbyn and the Epstein organisation
are just two fairly trivial recent examples. Politicians and ordinary people are not required to swear loyalty oaths to Botswana
or Bolivia on pain of instant dismissal. That is the difference.
A bit of kvetching about all the above seems a little bit justified under the circumstances.
Mandy Miller
Ok, Mark, I understand that you think Israel is a bigger racist problem than the UK and all the NATO non-democracies, and I can
agree with you about that. Israel is for me and many (not all) of my family and friends a place of terrible evil and shame. I
hate that the suffering of so many Jews under the Nazis has been turned into an excuse to impose more suffering on other innocent
people simply because of their race. So, let's agree Israel is indefensible in its treatment of the Palestinians and in its appalling
foreign policy. Just awful.
My question is, how helpful is it to express those facts in racial terms? Why do you use these words that only have the effect
of turning people away from you and closing down there receptiveness?
Ok, what I'm saying is, if you try to tell the average non-political nice well meaning Jewish person or liberal, of which my
sister is a good example (both) that Israel is the aggressor nation in so many instances and if you tell them about the terrible
plight of the Palestinian people it will be hard for you to get them to listen even if you don't use words that make you sound
like a racist. But as soon as you start throwing around words such as Talmudistan and "chosen folk" and mockery of Yiddish with
your "oy vey goy" routine, you are giving them a route to the exit door., which is what they want. You are giving them permission
to ignore you! They can say "oh what a racist", and just leave the building.
So, my question is, why use that language? What good is it doing you that makes it worthwhile to lose so much credibility among
people you could perhaps convert if you approached it differently?
I guess my question is, what does this aggressive use of offensive terms do for you that you hold on to it to the point of
undoing any good you could do? Why not just say "Israel"? Why terms such as goy and chosen folk and language that can sound soooo
racist and threatening?
I believe you Mark that you don't entertain real racist thoughts, but can you communicate with me why you use that language
that makes it sound as if you do? Maybe you don't realize it but to a Jew it feels like a slap across the face. It triggers centuries
of dormant fears of persecution. I have to try hard to put that aside and approach you without fear or anger. So I'm asking you,
as a gesture toward understanding, to please not use those terms in our conversation? And maybe you might find you don't need
that armour, or comfort blanket or whatever it is to you. Maybe you will find your message, which as put above is something I
can get on board with, gets across more clearly.
Can we take that step, Mark? I am asking with peace and love in my heart.
While this is a Russian site with specific audience, comments show that people reject the USA policy which might creates problems
for the USA in the future. Not the USA neoliberal/neocon elite cares.
This decisions just had shown to the whole would that Trump is a clown capable of twitting, not much more. Other people make key
decisions for the county.
The deep state that controls the US are lying criminal psychopaths. Any agreements and treaties negotiated with them aren't
worth the time or paper they are written on.
all.putin wants world peace but the Americans whats to tell everyone what to do and start wars what.they.sould buid a wall.around
america stop them getting out
le"> We can certainly expect Poland and Romania to be targeted with Nuclear munitions at the very least. There will likely
be an official Russian announcement of this fact as well. In the event of a breakout of hostilities with Nato then Russia will
target the military infrastructure in both countries and vaporise them immediately. Unfortunately a very large number of Polish
and Romanian civilians will be caught in the blasts. That will be tragic of course.
I live in the Netherlands and I am on the side of Russia. Europe is disgusting for not condemning the USA intentions. Eu will
regret it. When bombs fall on Europe because of these incompetent leaders we will not forget.
icle"> The Western public MUST, MUST become very familiar pronto with the few intellectuals, scholars, journalists, writers
and authors who have been at the forefront for global peace and world justice for decades! It's our only hope! Right now the only
sane voice on the national stage is Tulsi Gabbard. People must start reading: John Pilger, James Petras, Diana Johnstone, Stephen
Lendman, Ray McGovern, Finian Cunningham, Andre Vltchek, Michael Parenti, Stephen Cohen, The Saker, Caitlin Johnstone, Paul Craig
Roberts.
USA a decadent nation run by global mafia . Cannot trust what they say , is proven by their actions Sold their soul to the
devil for money and power. Yet they will fail God is in charge!
e"> The double standard in the West is breathtaking. It's as simple as the Golden Rule: merely try to imagine the reaction
in New York, London, Washington, Paris, Chicago, Boston if Russia or China were to do the exact same thing in southern Canada
or the Caribbean. The Washington military empire builders could possibly destroy humanity with their reckless and imperial behavior.
They simply cannot accept any sovereign nation-states that 1.) give the finger to Wall Street or the idea of the uni-polar world
Washington's intent on establishing, or 2.) gives diplomatic support to the Palestinians or is even a mild thorn in the side of
Israel. For further reading, see the following scholars, intellectuals, journalists and writers: James Petras, Diana Johnstone,
John Pilger, Stephen Lendman, Michael Parenti, Finian Cunningham, Andre Vltchek and a few others I'm forgetting at the moment.
e"> Under Trump the USA are rapidly steering towards an open dictatorship, something they've been doing for years but more
covertly. The USA have always been shouting the loudest about democracy and freedom but that's just a façade while they bully
the world and their own people into submission. The curtain is falling faster and faster now. Oh, and ask the American Natives
what the Americans do with treaties...
The US does not want friendship with Russia, it seeks to either control it or destroy it. Since the first option isn't going
to happen, it's obvious what's next and it'll start with more sanctions, expanding NATO into Georgia and Ukraine and placing nuclear
missiles on Russia's Eastern and Western border.
"comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> All it takes, is 1 single warhead fired from ex. Poland to reach Moscow. How many
launchers do USA have placed in these countries near Russia? Is Moscow more than 500 KM away from any NATO border? If the enemy
sets up catapults outside your city walls, isn't that a clear sign the enemy intend to fire those catapults against your walls?
So what do you do? Do you sit and wait? Or do you take out the catapults before they break down your walls? As far as any strategist
see this, it can be only one solution for survival.
omment-renderer-text-content expanded"> During FDR's 'Pearl Harbor' speech he said, "It will be recorded that the distance
of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago." There are echoes
of this speech in Putin's words (
02:18 ) and the
type of treachery referred to by Roosevelt applies to the American exit from the INF. America has become a nation holding "a big
stick" and loudly shouting about it (contrary to an earlier Roosevelt's advice). The White House acknowledged (and the NYT reported)
that we are involved in seven wars right now (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Niger). We have 38 "named" foreign
military bases as well as upwards of 600 overseas military installations of some sort including "lily pads," i.e., "cooperative
security locations" and an undisclosed number of "black" locations. Our military budget is pushing towards a trillion dollars
per year ($717 billion this year). We are threatening small countries such as Venezuela with military action (and yes, something
needs to be done for the good of the people there but that should not include an American military attack which President Trump,
our Secretary of State ("and his colleague") have said is "on the table." And now, we are dumping nuclear weapons treaties. We
have truly become a country which "lives by the sword." Good luck to us all.
Okay , so this is a broadcast of the President of Russia speaking to his security council right , this is official researched
factual intel ....has to be on that level ...right . Now to the few negative responses I have come across ,what intel do you have
and where did you get it...
Instead of addressing and trying to ameliorate this most dangerous development, let's instead focus on Trump's idiotic and
diversionary comments and tweets about buying Greenland or some such other nonsense.
"... Throughout, the militias reportedly have committed serious human rights abuses, including numerous extrajudicial killings of civilians. CIA sponsorship ensures that their operations are clouded in secrecy. There is virtually no public oversight of their activities or accountability for grave human rights abuses. " ..."
Been reading an interesting report from
Brown University's Watson Institute about "the CIA army and [it's] threat to human rights
and an obstacle to peace in Afghanistan."
"Afghan paramilitary forces working with the United States Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) have long been a staple in the US war on terrorism in Afghanistan and the
border region with Pakistan. The problems associated with these militias take on new
significance given the recent momentum in talks between the US government and the
Taliban about the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan. Whose interests do the
militias represent? How can they be integrated into a peace agreement – if at all?
Will
their use value for the US in future counterterrorist operations outweigh the case for
closing them down in the service of human rights and a sustainable peace?
The
militias
are at least nominally controlled by their CIA paymaster, but to what extent will the
operations of the CIA be monitored and streamlined with overall US policy towards
Afghanistan?
The CIA-supported militias are a particularly troublesome version of the
regionally based militias in Afghanistan that have developed over the years around
local
strongmen with external support. The present units originate in the 2001 invasion,
when US military forces and the CIA organized Afghan militias to fight Islamist
militants.
Almost two decades later, the CIA is still running local militias in operations against
the
Taliban and other Islamist militants.
Throughout, the militias reportedly have
committed serious human rights abuses, including numerous extrajudicial killings of
civilians. CIA sponsorship ensures that their operations are clouded in secrecy. There
is
virtually no public oversight of their activities or accountability for grave human
rights
abuses. "
[My emphasis]
Appears making peace with Afghanistan will be as elusive as any of the other American
regime's various 'wars' and invasions.
"Afghanistan seems doomed to suffer from factionalism long after all NATO/CIA forces are
removed as the longstanding goal for the Outlaw US Empire is to deter Eurasian unity, which
is why Afghanistan was invaded in the first place."
Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 22 2019 23:32 utc | 58
I would say it is more about the drugs and minerals.
During the 1980s, the CIA's secret war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan helped
transform the Afghani-Pakistani borderlands into a launchpad for the global heroin trade. "In
the tribal area," the US state department reported in 1986, "there is no police force. There
are no courts. There is no taxation. No weapon is illegal Hashish and opium are often on
display."
By then, the process of guerrilla mobilisation to fight the Soviet occupation was
long under way. Instead of forming its own coalition of resistance leaders, the CIA had
relied on Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) and its Afghan
clients, who soon became key players in the burgeoning cross-border opium traffic.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/09/how-the-heroin-trade-explains-the-us-uk-failure-in-afghanistan
Ahmed Wali Karzai was a drug trafficker on the CIA payroll who happens to be the half
brother of Hamid Karzai the US puppet to lead Afghanistan
The fact that Afghanistan sits on lucrative natural resources was recognized indirectly back
in 2010 when the Afghan ministry of mines rolled out a $1b (!) estimate of what the country
might have, and The New York Times quoted a source in the US Administration as saying that
Afghanistan's list of reserves included copper, gold, cobalt, and even lithium on which the
present-day industry is heavily dependent. A Pentagon memo actually described Afghanistan's
potential lithium holdings as big enough to make it the "Saudi Arabia of lithium". Somehow,
the news flew below the radars of most watchers worldwide.
Afghanistan war was more about TAPI pipeline and securing a friendly government to sign
the contracts and then protect UNOCAL´s investment throughout. Also,ENRON at the time
had their eyes on this and had bet the farm on it before they folded, among other reasons.
That´s why as soon as the Taliban fell out of favor for one reason or another, Hamid
Kharzai and Zalmay Khalilzad, UNOCAL agents were placed in charge of the country.
It didn't come to be of course, since the Taliban had other ideas. This was also ensured
with a little help from friends in Russia and China. The article below is from 2002 but sheds
a lot of light on the actual events of the day.
Now the focus has shifted to stopping BRI. But US empire will never lose sight of their
original investment, nor the reserves in Caspian.
I agree to a degree that US will continue with their divide and conquer policies long
after they pull out. However, if the Taliban who will eventually rule the country can be
shown a different way of life by China and Russia which would lead to new roads, hospitals,
schools and normal farming as oppose to death an destruction, opium and Tribalism, we might
actually see a major change in Afghanistan.
Too optimistic? Perhaps, but the air is ripe.
TAPI might eventually be built, but not for UNOCAL. Have no doubt the Chinese will offer a
much sweeter deal all around.
But analysts argued that the mainland will become even more attractive to foreign
investors, as business conditions are set to improve through reform and opening-up measures
and as other major economies, including in the US and Europe, are engulfed in their own
economic and political chaos.
The HK protesters are shooting themselves on the foot. They can't achieve a military
victory because, contrary to countries like Brazil and Ukraine, USA's infiltration in China
is very low (reduced to embassies and universities), which rules out unconventional warfare
as per the TC-18-01.
The only part that loses with this situation is the Hongkonger capitalist
(native) elite -- that's why Carrie Lam is desperate and almost cried in one recent speech.
But this is a problem for the protesters themselves, who are liberals and seek to establish a
perpetually capitalist HK. Hence
HSBC, Standard Chartered, Bank of East Asia speak up against violence, call for peace in
HK ; hence a op-ed from the SCMP fears this is the
end of HK as we know it . It can't come sooner.
"This is an issue I've broached a few times on The Corbett Report now, because I think it's a
trap that those of us watching the machinations of the American Empire can fall into. It
seems straightforward: If Washington is paying to stir things up in a given area, then the
protests are all fake and the freedom movement in that area is not a "real" freedom movement.
But this is too binary and simplistic. The people of Hong Kong have real and legitimate
grievances with the Chinese government and real worries about their future. The right of the
people to self-determination is a real and powerful motivating force there just as it is
anywhere else, and who are we to tell the people of Hong Kong that their wish for freedom is
illegitimate?
Something that should give pause for thought to those who would write off such protests as
nothing more than American deep state operations is that when you dehumanize the protesters
and disallow the legitimacy of their movement, you inevitably find yourself in the awkward
position of cheering on the jackbooted thugs of the police state who are there to quell the
protests.
Yes, as many in the independent media have pointed out, the protesters have engaged in
acts of violence during these protests, and that is despicable and should be condemned. But
the police (who, interestingly, are dressing themselves up as protesters and mingling in with
the crowds, Montebello-style), are also using brutal violence against protesters, and to
ignore or deny that reality is dishonest.
So that brings us to our next question: Where does all of this leave us, looking on at a
situation like this? The question itself is a trick. It presupposes that we have a role of
some sort to play in these protests. That non-Hong Kongers should be actively choosing sides,
rooting for, and even "aiding" one side or another in this conflict. But that's precisely the
problem, isn't it? If it's outside interference that is stirring all of this discontent up in
the first place, as some in the independent media would have you believe, then is more
outside interference really the answer here?
In fact, as usual, the violence and conflict taking place in Hong Kong right now is
playing directly into the hands of those who want to come in and impose "order" in the
region. The protests obviously give Beijing the excuse to line their army up at the border
and threaten to do away with the fig leaf of Hong Kong's quasi-sovereignty altogether. At the
same time, any such crackdown would be exactly the excuse that the US and its partners in
international crime would need to escalate their Clash of Civilizations 2.0 with the dreaded
Chinese bogeyman.
One thing is for certain: the fight for the future of Hong Kong is raging as we speak. But
the real question is: who is fighting that fight? The people of Hong Kong, or Beijing and
Washington? The answer to that question will determine whether Hong Kong ever achieves a
modicum of freedom, or whether it is destined to forever be a plaything in a proxy wars
between the great powers."
survey
shows that most Americans don't want war with Iran. Only 18% of all American adults favor
military action against Iran, and even among Republicans that number is just 25%. 78% favor
economic and diplomatic efforts. That's fine as far as it goes, and it shows that there is very
little support for a new war at this time. The framing of the question is the bigger problem
and makes the results from the poll much less useful.
The poll asks, "What do you think the United States should do to get Iran to shut down its
nuclear program -- take military action against Iran, or rely mainly on economic and diplomatic
efforts?" The question assumes that it is within our government's power to "get Iran to shut
down its nuclear program," when the experience of the last twenty years tells us that it is
not. The nuclear negotiations that produced the JCPOA show beyond any doubt that there are
limits to what Iran is willing to concede on this point. It is good that most Americans prefer
non-military options to pursue this fantastical goal, but the assumption that Iran will one day
"shut down" its nuclear program is completely unrealistic. On the contrary, the more pressure
that the U.S. puts on Iran in an attempt to force such a shutdown, the more inclined Iran's
government is to build up its program.
If Iran's nuclear program remains peaceful, there is no need for them to shut it down. The
long-term goal of the JCPOA has been to demonstrate to the satisfaction of all parties that
Iran's nuclear program is and will remain peaceful, and then at that point Iran will be treated
like any other member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The U.S. doesn't need to do
anything to "get" Iran to do this because the goal of shutting down the program is a foolish
and impossible one. Perceiving Iran's possession of a peaceful nuclear program as a problem to
be solved is one of the reasons why our debate over Iran policy is so warped and biased in
favor of coercive measures. The idea that Iran has to "shut down" a program that it is legally
entitled to have under the NPT is bizarre, but it is obviously a common view here in the
U.S.
The question is misleading in another way, since it suggests that military action could be
effective in forcing Iran to "shut down" the program. In reality, attacking Iran's nuclear
facilities would at most set back the program, but it would give the Iranian government a
strong incentive to develop and build a deterrent that would discourage the U.S. from launching
more attacks in the future. Attacking a country when it doesn't have nuclear weapons is a good
way to encourage them to acquire those weapons as quickly as possible.
That makes the results to the follow-up question all the more dispiriting. The poll also
asks, "Suppose U.S. economic and diplomatic efforts do not work. If that happens, do you think
the United States should -- or should not -- take military action against Iran?" Once again,
the question assumes that getting Iran to "shut down" its nuclear program is both a legitimate
and realistic goal. If non-military measures "do not work," there is additional support for
military action from a depressing 42% of those who initially favored "economic and diplomatic
efforts." Put them together with the initial supporters of military action, and you have a
narrow majority of all American adults that thinks the U.S. should take military action:
The 42% of those who favor military action if nonmilitary efforts fail translates to 35%
of all U.S. adults. Combining that group with the 18% who favor military action outright
means a slim majority of Americans, 53%, would support military action against Iran if
diplomatic and economic efforts are unsuccessful.
There is a disturbingly high level of support for launching an illegal attack on another
country for something it is legally permitted to have. The assumption that "economic and
diplomatic efforts" will be "unsuccessful" if they don't force Iran to abandon its nuclear
program helps to push respondents to give that answer, but they wouldn't endorse a military
option if they hadn't been led to think that Iran's nuclear program is an intolerable danger.
That is partly because of the bad framing of the questions, but it is also a product of decades
of relentless propagandizing about a supposed threat from Iran's nuclear program that is
completely divorced from reality. We need better poll questions on this subject, but we also
need better, more informed debate about Iran and we have to stamp out the threat inflation that
poisons and distorts the public's perceptions of threats from other states.
The White House policy of taking Iranian oil exports to "zero" still has a long way to go,
thanks in no small part to China ,
and also despite Pompeo
touting this week that US sanctions have removed nearly 2.7 million barrels of Iranian oil
from global markets.
US frustration was evident upon the release of the Adrian Darya 1, with Gibraltar resisting
Washington pressures to hand over the Iranian vessel, given as its en route to Greece, American
officials are now warning that they will sanction anyone
who touches the tanker .
Seizing on Washington's frustration as part of its own "counter-pressure" campaign of recent
weeks, Iran has again stated if it can't export its own oil, it will make waterways unsafe and
"unpredictable" for anyone else to to so .
China slammed Taiwan Monday for offering asylum to Hong Kong people facing prosecution for
involvement in anti-government protests, telling the island's leaders to "stop meddling" in the
territory's affairs.
Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen voiced support last month for granting asylum to some Hong
Kong protesters, with the semi-autonomous financial hub in the midst of an unprecedented
political crisis.
Ma Xiaoguang, a spokesperson for the Chinese cabinet's Taiwan Affairs Office, warned
Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party to "stop undermining the rule of law in the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region, stop meddling in Hong Kong affairs, and stop indulging
criminals in any way".
Taiwanese authorities "ignore the facts and reverse black and white, not only masking the
crimes of a small number of Hong Kong militants, but also fuelling their arrogance for
destroying Hong Kong", said Ma.
Last month after dozens of Hong Kong activists reportedly involved in an unprecedented
storming of the city's parliament fled to Taiwan, the Taipei said it would provide assistance
to those seeking sanctuary.
"They openly claim to provide (protesters) asylum, making Taiwan into a 'haven sheltering
criminals', where does this put the safety and welfare of the Taiwan people?" asked Ma.
Beijing regards Taiwan as a part of China awaiting reunification, but the island is a
self-ruled democracy.
The protest movement in Hong Kong was sparked by widespread opposition to a plan for
allowing extraditions to the Chinese mainland, but has since morphed into a broader call for
democratic rights.
Taiwan's history of providing sanctuary to Chinese dissidents has been mixed.
The island still does not recognise the legal concept of asylum but has, on occasions,
allowed dissidents to stay on long-term visas.
Ties with Beijing have soured since Tsai came to power in 2016 because her party refuses to
recognise the idea that Taiwan is part of "one China". lawrence
2 days ago
Taiwan is an independent country. Of cause it has the right and authority to grant any asylum
to the eligible asylum seeker. Respect Taiwan as an respected country ,equal to china, and
the world will put china in a better place. Loving freedom and democracy is a human basic
right realty and could not be altered by force...wake up china..
"... EU is the power, that took part in creating narco-haven in Kosovo, murdering children of Iraq, building sex slaves markets in Libya, destroying what was left of democracy in Ukraine. EU power is diminishing? Let it crash and burn if you ask me. ..."
> Further US sanctions on Russia. Russian gdp growth is very low now, forecasts are
about mere 1,2 % per anum, and thus Russia's share of world GDP is declining.
Posted by: Passer by | Aug 20 2019 13:15 utc
You think "harming Russia" is a good answer to question "how does it boost USA the
hegemon?". Well, let's suppose it...
Problem then is, Russia does not care that much about nominal GDP and even about PPP GDP.
It is "average temperature in hospital", where some patients are in 41C fever and others in
4C morgue, but on average they all have that healthy 36,6C.
However, even for those sanctions that did hit Russia and EU hard (and those were enacted
mostly in 2015), under the "China-Russia double helix" model, economic soft power is Chinese
responsibility, so targetting EU and Russia economically was perhaps a mis-aiming, like would
be targetting China militarily.
Also, take a single line - "congress obliges Trump to enlist Russian officials for
sanctions" and do the search in both pro-Clinton Google and in DDG. first page of Google has
zero relebvant results. DDG however starts with
Trump Administration Sends Congress List of Possible Russia ...
www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/us/politics/trump-russia-sanctions.html
Congress has tied Trump's hands on Russian sanctions - Vox
www.vox.com/2017/7/29/16061878/trump-russian-sanctions-sign
Congress Forces Trump to Sanction Russia - Fash the Nation
fashthenation.com/2018/03/congress-forces-trump-to-sanction-russia/
Trump Finally Imposes Russia Sanctions That Congress Ordered ...
www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/trump-finally-imposes-russia-sanctions-that-congress-ordered-months-ago/
Is 2017 so far ago that we already forgot it? Trump has no freedom of choice to sanction
Russia or not. It is not his authority to make this choice. Trump is ordered to sanction and
he would do. If he has any leeway, it is to how specifically sanction, but even that choice
is framed into UIS domestic politic fuel, as a vehicle to fry Trump over being "Putin's shil"
and looking "not enough" into evil Russians.
> China postponed for overtaking the US in gdp MER to 2032 from 2024.
Estimations are just that, estimations. Guesses into the future mixed with propaganda. If
you don't buy Trump's tweets about "China begging for deal" and Obama's about "Russian
economy in tatters" - why to buy these estimations?
> Indian growth downgraded - which taken together with China means slowing down Asia's
rise.
Pro-American Modi in power of India was a definite win for USA. But I do not think Trump
did it in 2016. Such events are grown for years and years of undercover works.
Same for the Brazil fiasco, which i perceive was much heavier blow upon BRICS than Modi.
But Brazilian coup was in preparation yet before Trump's oath. May 2016 was the FINAL act,
prepared months before:
nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/americas/brazil-dilma-rousseff-impeachment.html
> Iran in recession - long term growth is low - it means that Iran's share of the world
economy is now declining. This will lower Iranian influence in the long term.
Long term? like Trump is planning for long term? Would he, like Putin, still be American
president in 2016+18=2034 ?
Well, maybe. However does it boost much US the hegemon position today?
Also notice how this pushes Iran back to Russian bucket. Before JCPOA Iran was flirting
with "Lesser Satan" a lot, promising to buy russian airliners, promising to barter Iranian
goods (oil and others) for Russian goods, thus de facto letting Russia be quasi-monopolistic
seller of Iranian goods on world market for any margin Russia would manage to extract. All
those hints and kinda-plans were squashed instantly after JCPOA. Iran rushed to trade with EU
directly, to buy Boeing and Airbis jets.... But was shot into the leg before it started. I
think China would also find their way to be "big helping brother" to Iranian economy, on some
conditions of course.
> Venezueala in deep recession
True, and this is again fitting the isolationist bill, to a degree. If Team Trump ready to
exclude USA from global trade - it would have to secure oil supply. Enslaving a nearby
oil-containing nation would do.
Additionally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Venezuela_relations
lists 2014 as start of economic sanctions against Venezuela. So, Trump has inherited "office
of Venezuelan affairs" from Cinton/Obama. And... he brought it to light and headlines by
making that idiotic wannabe-coup. The sh*t that previously USA did silently pretending
whitegloved "shining beacon", Trump exposed.
Did it really made USA position better in 2018 than it was in 2014? I doubt. To me it
seemes more like T.T. accelerated things and "threw it all on the table" making Venezuela
"hit the rock bottom". Now Venezuela can adjust to the new brave world, while USA would
probably not be in position to tighten its grip - it already burned all the reserves and in
so clumsy way, that Bolton and Co became a laughing stock. If anything, it exposed that while
most gov't there would be paying lip service to USA, none would go with something material.
France invaded with USA Libya, Germany invaded with USA Serbia, but none enlisted to invade
Venezuela with USA.
> In Latin America most governments are now US puppet governments.
Brazil was indeed a huge blow into the BRICS dream. But i see it more of that indirect,
covert "soft power" that USA secret services prepared and rushed to implement before
Trump.
> Weakened the EU, via support for Brexit and other ways - it means that the euro will
not be a viable alternative for replacing the dollar
Basically turning EU elites against USA and splitting "Western Hegemony" into rivaling
factions.
From multipolar view circa 2010, would it be much difference for, say, Russia or China or
Iran, whether USD or EUR would be "reserve currency"?
After Alexander of Macedonia died his empire split to pieces, and some of those pieces
soon started warring. Did this enhance Greek hegemony or reduced it?
When COMECOM and Warsaw Pact disbanded did it enhanced Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe
or reduced it? But it slashed exports of those lands, Bulgaria is not more agriculture
super-power it used to be, "Ikarus" bus is still often meet in Moscow street but in the
"remnants of old times still able to run" kind, Poland is no more producing ocean-grade
ships. So, was it enhancing USSR share of world economy then?
Also, didn't he kind of forced EU elites into Chinese OBOR camp? That said, similarly
Russia was forced towards China in 2013-2014 by Western lunacy, so i would not say it was
Trump's novelty to push EU eastwards.
EU was in with US in looting Libya, EU was in with US in looting Serbia, now US calls for
EU to join in "patrolling" Persian Gulf and response is... like the one about invading
Venezuela. Hegemon became stronger?
> Trade wars seem to be hitting EU's export dependent economy pretty hard.
And i wish to see more of those wars not less. Won't you? EU is the power, that took
part in creating narco-haven in Kosovo, murdering children of Iraq, building sex slaves
markets in Libya, destroying what was left of democracy in Ukraine. EU power is diminishing?
Let it crash and burn if you ask me.
> Turkey has serious economic problems - partly due to the US again - which again means
slowing down multipolarity
Wasn't in 2012 Turkey part of Hegemon entourage neck-deep in bloody ISIS affair?
Wasn't Turkey for decades be knockign into closed EU membership doors?
Wasn't Turkey send their people into Germany to intertwine and cross-influence?
Turkey as part of multipolarity? Maybe. But exactly because it was prohibited from what
they see their place in global western world. However i am not very sure that would West
offer "larger piece" to Turkey in their crippling hegemony, turkey would not turn back yet
again. Goog thing, it would be hard to do as few believe western promises today, but again,
didn't Trump (but other western politicians too, and including many pre-Trump) invested into
making West glaringly "not agreement-capable" in but everyone's view?
Trump could smash Turkey and instate Kudistan.
Trump could smash Kurds and make amends with Erdo.
Instead Trump is breaking pots with both. Neither Kurds not Turks no trust "the shining
beacon".
> Overall situation - the US share in the world economy is declining at slower rates
than before
Won't this mean Trump's economic policy is if limited success?
> the retarding of growth of everyone else, which means defacto slowing down
multipolarity and the replacement of the US dollar
That may be what some faction of Team Trump counting upon. But i have reservations.
Uni-polarity is not about economic growth. It is about trading on One True Market, hegemon's
one.
And when everything goes down, another factors start to weigh in. Like elasticity of demand
and replacement with cheaper substitutes. Like, if i need a tooling for my house, i would
perhaps want to purchase Japanese Makita or German Bosh. Those are famous brands with decades
of well earned reputation. But if i only can salivate on them, then perhaps i can go with
some cheaper Chinese knock-off? Or perhaps to blow the dust from my grandpa's old tool and
purchase nothing at all? If i can buy genuine American Levi's it is a fad, but if i can, then
perhaps i will make it in Turkey-made or China-made or Philipinnes-made or even Syria-made
jeans? You know, their cut is not that fitting as European or American, but perhaps we can
deal with it for the price? If in Russia i can no more buy Czech or German beer as before
2014, then perhaps i can sooth myself with apple cidre from semi-eastern Altai region of
Russia? And then, will my gov't still had the same need for USD for those adjusted trade
transactions, as it used to?
>Problem then is, Russia does not care that much about nominal GDP and even about PPP
GDP
GDP does matter, lowering the GDP of certain country weakens the country. Other factors
matter too, such as demographics or landmass and natural resources.
>targetting EU and Russia economically was perhaps a mis-aiming
I would not call it misaiming, Europe has one of the largest economies in the world and
the Euro is the second most important currency in the World. As long as Russia and the EU
attack each other - it is a win for the US.
>Also, take a single line - "congress obliges Trump to enlist russian officials for
sanctions"
It is not simply Congress, the Trump Admin is hawkish on Russia by itself. Pompeo and
Bolton are anti-russian and were instrumental in the US leaving the INF. The pressure against
Nord Sream is greater than during the Obama Admin, Second Fleet was activated for containing
Russia, a russian consulate was captured in pretty brutal manner, etc. Recently, another set
of sanctions were enacted by the Trump Admin.
>Estimations are just that, estimations. Guesses into the future mixed with
propaganda.
I'm not dismissive of growth estimates and forecasts, this is the job of various
companies, organisations and universities. Overall things could be predicted roughly, for
example via demographics, median age of population, labour force growth, total factor
productivity. The OECD for example is an international organisation working on such
forecasts. They can get the rough shapes of growth patterns right - for example it is pretty
clear that India or China would be growing faster than, let say, Germany or the US. And this
is what their forecasts show. So these are not guestimates.
>Pro-American Modi in power of India was a definite win for USA. But i do not think
Trump did it in 2016. Such events are grown for years and years of undercover works.
This is not what i had in mind. While this is true, you did not take into account the
prefidy of the US Government, which is working to retard indian economic growth via tarrifs
and by trying to remove the WTO perks for developing countries. Even when Modi is frendly to
the US, this is still not enough, because the growth of Asia, including India, threatens the
dollar.
>Well, maybe. However does it boost much US the hegemon position today?
Iranian economy was booming after the JCPOA was signed. If the Plan remained, Iran would
be stronger than today. The whole point is to retard iranian economic growth, which would be
far stronger without the sanctions.
>Also notice how this pushes Iran back to Russian bucket
Even back in 2015, Iran did not stop being an israeli adversary, which means that the US
would have targeted it one way or another. Plus the US was not in position to gain much from
the iranian market, due to their still strained relations caused by the israeli lobby in the
US, which caused all types of sabotage in the Iran - US trade relations, the process of
removal of sanctions, etc. A big beneficiary from the JCPOA was the EU, and the main losses
from the sactions (outside from Iran) were for the EU again. Retarding the EU economy via
blocking its trade with Iran (or Russia) is a benefit for the US.
>Venezueala in deep recession. True, and this is again fitting the isolationist bill,
to a degree.True, and this is again fitting the isolationist bill, to a degree.
This isn't about isolationism, but about retarding the economy of the rest of the world,
and especially of still uncontrolled countries. The point is to preserve the share of
relative power the US has, or to slow down its decline as much as possible.
>Now Venezuela can adjust to the new brave world
The point is that Venezuela would be growing far faster without sanctions, thus the US is
weakening the independent multipolar world and slowing down its rise.
>Did it really made USA position better in 2018 than it was in 2014?
Obviously. Venezuela today, vis a vis the US, is weaker in relative power terms than in
2014. For the US its better to wreck Venezuela's economy than to allow it to flourish and
expand its influence.
>Basically turning EU elites against USA and splitting "Western Hegemony" into rivaling
factions.
They are not turning them against the US, that's the point. Europe is too much of a puppet
of the US. The US causes various conficts on Europe's perifery in order to turn it against
Russia and make it dependent on itself. Divide and Rule.
>would it be much difference for, say, Russia or China or Iran, whether USD or EUR
Yes, Europe is less hawkish than the US overall. If it was up to Europe JCPOA will still
be here and there would be no trade wars with China.
>Also, didn't he kind of forced EU elites into Chinese OBOR camp
Its more about economic weakness. Those in Europe with poor economy signed up for BRI -
such as eastern Europe and Italy. The big 3 - Germany, France and the UK refuse to join BRI
(which is different than AIIB) as of now. I do not see greater western european - China
cooperation today than before 5 years. The EU commission declared China a european rival.
>EU was in with US in looting Libya, EU was in with US in looting Serbia, now US calls
for EU to join in "patrolling" Persian Gulf and response is... like the one about invading
Venezuela. Hegemon became stronger?
The iranian issue has always been a red card for Europe as it fears a really big war in
the Gulf. There is nothing new in that. If you are going to talk about "now", the EU did join
the US against Syria, its sanctions against Syria still remain, and it does support removing
Maduro from power. It did put sanctions against Venezuela, although not at the same level as
the US. It is no friend of the Maduro Government.
>And i wish to see more of those wars not less. Won't you?
Currently the result of them is weakeing multipolarity by retarding growth in most of the
world. They have negative impact on the global economy.
>EU is the power, that took part in creating narco-haven in Kosovo, murdering children
of Iraq, building sex slaves markets in Libya, destroying what was left of democracy in
Ukraine. EU power is diminishing? Let it crash and burn if you ask me.
Yes, but the US does not want to crush and burn the EU, it simply wants to make it weak
and dependent on itself. A colony.
>Wasn't in 2012 Turkey part of Hegemon entourage neck-deep in bloody ISIS affair?
The more players around, the better. Strong Turkey will be more independent from the US,
the US understand that, this is why it want weak Turkey
>Trump could smash Turkey and instate Kudistan.
Trump can not directly smash Turkey, the moment an attempt like this is made is the moment
Turkey will invite Russia and China into the country. Rather, a hybrid war is being waged on
Turkey, with the aim of weakening Erdogan and replacing him with a reliable puppet.
> Overall situation - the US share in the world economy is declining at slower rates
than before Won't this mean Trump's economic policy is if limited success?
No. There is nothing better than this that could be done to stop the US relative decline,
it depends on the cards one has to play. Economic convergence process and technological
diffusion, driven by globalisation, means that it is impossible the fully stop the rise of
the developing world. But if the US did not react like it reacted, and just stayed on its
hands, i think its power would have been gone in 2 - 3 years.
>Uni-polarity is not about economic growth.
It is also about the economy and growth. You can't have unipolarity if you don't have the
largest economic, as well as military power. One needs to have the largest economy to rule
the world (among other things), or they will fail. You can't have it without the dollar
dominance as well.
While the USA run the show, EU was complicit in this war.
Notable quotes:
"... The American Conservative, ..."
"... In 2014, a European Union task force confirmed that the ruthless cabal that Clinton empowered by bombing Serbia committed atrocities that included murdering persons to extract and sell their kidneys, livers, and other body parts ..."
"... Clint Williamson, the chief prosecutor of a special European Union task force, declared in 2014 that senior members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) had engaged in "unlawful killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, illegal detentions in camps in Kosovo and Albania, sexual violence, forced displacements of individuals from their homes and communities, and desecration and destruction of churches and other religious sites." ..."
"... a Council of Europe investigative report tagged Thaci as an accomplice to the body-trafficking operation. ..."
In a 2011 review for The American Conservative, I scoffed, "After NATO planes
killed hundreds if not thousands of Serb and ethnic Albanian civilians, Bill Clinton could
pirouette as a savior. Once the bombing ended, many of the Serbs remaining in Kosovo were
slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground. NATO's 'peace' produced a quarter million
Serbian, Jewish, and Gypsy refugees."
In 2014, a European Union task force confirmed that the ruthless cabal that Clinton
empowered by bombing Serbia committed atrocities that included murdering persons to extract and
sell their kidneys, livers, and other body parts .
Clint Williamson, the chief prosecutor of a special European Union task force, declared
in 2014 that senior members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) had engaged in "unlawful
killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, illegal detentions in camps in Kosovo and
Albania, sexual violence, forced displacements of individuals from their homes and communities,
and desecration and destruction of churches and other religious sites."
The New York Times reported that the trials of Kosovo body snatchers may be stymied
by cover-ups and stonewalling: "Past investigations of reports of organ trafficking in Kosovo
have been undermined by witnesses' fears of testifying in a small country where clan ties run
deep and former members of the KLA are still feted as heroes. Former leaders of the KLA occupy
high posts in the government." American politicians almost entirely ignored the scandal. Vice
President Joe Biden hailed former KLA leader and Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci in 2010 as
"the George Washington of Kosovo." A few months later, a Council of Europe investigative
report tagged Thaci as an accomplice to the body-trafficking operation.
Clinton's war on Serbia opened a Pandora's box from which the world still suffers. Because
politicians and pundits portrayed that war as a moral triumph, it was easier for subsequent
presidents to portray U.S. bombing as the self-evident triumph of good over evil. Honest
assessments of wrongful killings remain few and far between in media coverage.
"... the Iranian economy is in a free fall with oil exports down as much as 90 percent from mid-2018 levels. As far as Iran is concerned, this means that it's already at war with the United States and has less and less to lose the longer the U.S. embargo goes on. ..."
"... MBS, as he's known, celebrated by launching an air war in neighboring Yemen two months later – and then disappearing on a week-long vacation in the Maldives – and by funneling hundreds of U.S.-made TOWs (anti-tank guided missiles) to Syrian rebels under the command of Al-Nusra, the local Al-Qaeda affiliate, for use in an offensive in that country's northwest province of Idlib. ..."
"... For the Saudis, it was a neo-medieval crusade whose goal was to topple two religio-political allies of Iran, the Alawite-dominated government in Damascus and Yemen's Houthis, who adhere to a non-Iranian form of Shi'ism that is no less anathema to the Sunni Wahhabist theocracy in Riyadh. ..."
"... Just two days after the start of the Saudi air assault in Yemen, Obama meanwhile telephoned Salman to assure him of U.S. support. When asked why America would back a war by one of the Middle East's richest countries against the very poorest, another anonymous U.S. official told The New York Times (April 2, 2015): ..."
"... "If you ask why we're backing this, beyond the fact that the Saudis are allies and have been allies for a long time, the answer you're going to get from most people – if they were being honest – is that we weren't going to be able to stop it." ..."
"... The Obama administration was so anxious to smooth ruffled Saudi feathers and tone down criticism of the impending Iranian accord that it felt it had no choice but say yes to Saudi aggression. ..."
"... The American empire was possibly so over-extended that it was at the mercy of its ostensible clients. Even while making peace with Iran, Obama thus green-lit Saudi wars that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in Syria and another 100,000 or so in Yemen while triggering a surge of international terrorism and the greatest refugee crisis since World War II. While reducing tensions in some respects, the 2015 nuclear negotiations, paradoxically, caused them to explode in others. ..."
"... Announcing his presidential bid in June 2015, he launched into a typical Trumpian rant against China, Japan, Mexico – and Obama's nuclear talks. "Take a look at the deal he's making with Iran," he said. "He makes that deal, Israel maybe won't exist very long." A month later, he tweeted that the agreement, just inked in Vienna, "poses a direct national security threat." Two months after that, he told a Tea Party rally in Washington: ..."
"... Trumpian isolationism was fleeting, if it ever existed at all. Under intense pressure from neoconservatives, the Zionist lobby, and pro-Israel Democrats such as Russiagate attack dog Rep. Adam Schiff demanding stepped-up opposition with Iran , Trump did an about-face. In May 2017, he flew to Riyadh, announced an unprecedented $110-billion arms deal, and proclaimed himself the kingdom's newest BFF – best friend forever. ..."
"... He echoed the Saudis by accusing Iran of funding "terrorists, militias, and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region" and backed a Saudi blockade of neighboring Qatar. When ISIS launched a bloody assault on central Tehran in early June that killed 12 people and injured 42, the only White House response was to declare that "states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote." ..."
"... It was Democrats who, in a typical attempt to outflank Trump on the right, introduced legislation in June 2017 by forcing him to impose penalties on Russia, North Korea, and Iran as well. But after repudiating the JCPOA (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known as the Iran nuclear deal) in May 2018, Trump upped sanctions even more in November – not only against the Iranian government but against some 700 individuals, entities, aircraft, and vessels. After Iran shot down a $130-million U.S. surveillance drone last month, Trump imposed sanctions on "supreme leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, his office, and his closest associates. Two weeks ago, he imposed penalties on Mohammad Javad Zarif , Iran's U.S.-educated foreign minister. ..."
"... It was a gesture of contempt for the very idea of diplomacy. So what happens next? The problem is that re-starting negotiations would not be enough. Instead, Iran has demanded that the U.S. remove all sanctions and apologize before agreeing to a new round of talks. Since this would be tantamount to re-authorizing the JCPOA, it's unlikely in the extreme. While Trump is known for changing his mind in a flash, a course correction of this magnitude is hard to imagine. ..."
"... The pro-Israel Lobby owns both Republican and Democrat Russiagate enthusiasts and is the source of near hysterical demands for opposition with Iran. ..."
"... But in June 1914, clearly there were multiple political and military leaders in Europe for whom war was far from inconceivable. War was simply a question of timing and so it would be better to have a war when the circumstances were most propitious. "I consider a war inevitable", declared senior German generals such as Helmuth von Moltke the Younger in 1912. "The sooner the better". ..."
"... such blatant and reprehensible behavior carries risks for everyone but mostly the targets of our barbaric behavior seems never to enter the President, his neocon handlers' and his rabid supporters' minds. ..."
"... "If you ask why we're backing this, beyond the fact that the Saudis are allies and have been allies for a long time, the answer you're going to get from most people – if they were being honest – is that we weren't going to be able to stop it." That is unmitigated nonsense. Why not be honest. We don't want to stop it. ..."
"... To "stop it", Uncle Sam would have to first cease being a part of it. The bombing of Yemen came courtesy of U.S. mid-air refueling efforts, targeting "intelligence", and "made in America" weaponry. The blockade (starvation) of Yemen is also a duel accompaniment. It's supposed to look like a Saudi "thing", but in actuality, it's just more Uncle Sam doing his thing. Obama called it "leading from behind". ..."
T raffic accidents normally take just a second or two. But the coming collision in the
Persian Gulf, the equivalent of a hundred-vehicle pile-up on a fog-bound interstate , has been in the
works for years. Much of it is President Donald Trump's fault, but not all. His contribution
has been to take an insane policy and make it even crazier.
The situation is explosive for two reasons. First, the Iranian economy is in a free fall with oil exports down
as much as 90 percent from mid-2018 levels. As far as Iran is concerned, this means that it's
already at war with the United States and has less and less to lose the longer the U.S. embargo
goes on.
Second, after Trump denounced the 2015 Iranian nuclear accord from the moment he began his
presidential run , it's all but impossible at this point for him to back down. The result
is a classic collision between the immovable and the unstoppable with no apparent way out.
How did the world bring itself to the brink of war? The answer, ironically, is by bidding
for peace.
The process began in early 2015 just as the nuclear talks were entering their final stages.
Despite last-minute
hand-wringing , it was clear that success was in sight simply because the participants
– China, France, Russia, Germany, Britain, the European Union, Iran and the U.S. –
all wanted it.
Saudi Proxy War
But other regional players felt differently, Saudi Arabia first and foremost. The kingdom's
survival strategy depends on its special relationship with America, its patron since the 1940s.
Hence, it was panic-stricken by anything smacking of a U.S. rapprochement with its
long-standing arch-enemy Iran. The upshot was a proxy war in which the Saudis set out to roll
back Iranian power by striking out at pro-Iranian forces.
The offensive began after a new Saudi monarch ascended the throne in January 2015. King
Salman, a doddering 79-year-old reportedly suffering from
Alzheimer's , immediately handed over the reins to his favorite son, 29-year-old Muhammad
bin Salman, whom he named deputy crown prince and minister of defense. MBS, as he's known,
celebrated by launching an air war in neighboring Yemen two months later – and then
disappearing on a week-long vacation in the Maldives
– and by funneling hundreds of U.S.-made TOWs (anti-tank guided missiles) to Syrian
rebels under the command of Al-Nusra, the local Al-Qaeda affiliate, for use in an offensive in
that country's northwest province of Idlib.
For the Saudis, it was a neo-medieval crusade whose goal was to topple two religio-political
allies of Iran, the Alawite-dominated government in Damascus and Yemen's Houthis, who adhere to
a non-Iranian form of Shi'ism that is no less anathema to the Sunni Wahhabist theocracy in
Riyadh.
President Barack Obama went along. With regard to Syria, an unidentified "senior
administration official"
toldTheWashington Post that while the White House was "concerned that Nusra
has taken the lead," all he would say in response to U.S.-made missiles winding up in Al-Qaeda
hands was that it was "not something we would refrain from raising with our partners." (See "
Climbing into Bed with
Al-Qaeda ," May 2, 2015.)
Just two days after the start of the Saudi air assault in Yemen, Obama meanwhile
telephoned Salman to assure him of U.S. support. When asked why America would back a war by
one of the Middle East's richest countries against the very poorest, another anonymous U.S.
official told The New York Times (April 2, 2015):
"If you ask why we're backing this, beyond the fact that the Saudis are allies and have been
allies for a long time, the answer you're going to get from most people – if they were
being honest – is that we weren't going to be able to stop it." But plainly the nuclear negotations were key. The Obama administration was so anxious to smooth ruffled Saudi feathers
and tone down criticism of the impending Iranian accord that it felt it had no choice but say
yes to Saudi aggression.
The upshot has been Saudi wars claiming hundreds of thousands of lives in Syria and another
100,000 or so in Yemen while triggering a surge of international terrorism and the greatest
refugee crisis since World War II. While reducing tensions in some respects, Obama's efforts to
reach a nuclear deal with Iran, paradoxically, caused them to explode in others.
Over-Extended Empire
President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama with King Salman bin Abdulaziz at Erga
Palace in Riyadh, Jan. 27, 2015. (White House/Pete Souza/Flickr)
The American empire was possibly so over-extended that it was at the mercy of its ostensible
clients. Even while making peace with Iran, Obama thus green-lit Saudi wars that claimed
hundreds of thousands of lives in
Syria and another
100,000 or so in Yemen while triggering a surge of international terrorism and the greatest
refugee crisis since World War II. While reducing tensions in some respects, the 2015 nuclear
negotiations, paradoxically, caused them to explode in others.
The results were so devastating in a region torn by war, sectarianism, and economic collapse
that Trump could not possibly make them any worse – except that he did.
Announcing his presidential bid in June 2015, he launched into a typical Trumpian rant
against China, Japan, Mexico – and Obama's nuclear talks. "Take a look at the deal he's
making with Iran," he said. "He makes that deal, Israel maybe won't exist very long." A month
later, he tweeted that the
agreement, just
inked in Vienna, "poses a direct national security threat." Two months after that, he
told a Tea Party
rally in Washington:
"Never, ever, ever in my life have I seen any transaction so incompetently negotiated as
our deal with Iran . They rip us off, they take our money, they make us look like fools, and
now they're back to being who they really are. They don't want Israel to survive, they will
not let Israel survive, [and] with incompetent leadership like we have right now, Israel will
not survive."
Iran's Landmark Concession
It was all nonsense. Rather than threatening the Jewish state, the treaty represented a
landmark concession on Iran's part, since Israel, with an estimated 80 to 90 nuclear warheads in its
arsenal and enough fissile material for a hundred more, would maintain its nuclear monopoly in
the Middle East indefinitely. As for "our money," the $150 billion in various foreign accounts
were actually Iranian assets that had been frozen for years – a sum, moreover, that was
closer to $56 billion once
Iran settled its foreign debts. Once sanctions were lifted, it was hardly unreasonable that
such assets be restored.
Still there was hope. While railing against Iran, Trump also taunted the Saudis for their
role in 9/11: "Who blew up the World Trade Center?" he told
Fox & Friends. "It wasn't the Iraqis, it was Saudi [Arabia]." He repeatedly assailed the
2003 invasion of Iraq – even if he exaggerated his own role
in opposing it – and criticized Obama for supporting Saudi-backed jihadis seeking to
topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
"Assad is bad," he said in an October 2015
interview . "Maybe these people could be worse."
Trumpian isolationism was fleeting, if it ever existed at all. Under intense pressure from
neoconservatives, the Zionist lobby, and pro-Israel Democrats such as Russiagate attack dog
Rep. Adam Schiff demanding
stepped-up opposition with Iran , Trump did an about-face. In May 2017, he flew to Riyadh,
announced an unprecedented $110-billion arms deal, and proclaimed himself the kingdom's newest
BFF – best friend forever.
He echoed the Saudis by
accusing Iran of funding "terrorists, militias, and other extremist groups that spread
destruction and chaos across the region" and backed a Saudi blockade of neighboring Qatar. When
ISIS launched a bloody assault on central Tehran in early June that killed 12 people and
injured 42, the only White House response was to declare
that "states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote."
But back in September 2003, some 60,000 Iranian soccer fans had observed a moment of silence
in honor of the victims of the World Trade Center while then-President Mohammad Khatami
declared on nationwide TV:
"My deep sympathy goes out to the American nation, particularly those who have suffered
from the attacks and also the families of the victims. Terrorism is doomed, and the
international community should stem it and take effective measures in a bid to eradicate
it."
Yet all the Trump administration could say was that Iran had it coming.
It was Democrats who, in a typical attempt to outflank Trump on the right, introduced
legislation in June 2017 by forcing him to impose penalties
on Russia, North Korea, and Iran as well. But after repudiating the JCPOA (the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, known as the Iran nuclear deal) in May 2018, Trump upped
sanctions even more in November – not only against the Iranian government but against
some 700
individuals, entities, aircraft, and vessels. After Iran shot down a $130-million U.S.
surveillance drone last month, Trump imposed sanctions on "supreme leader" Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, his office, and his closest associates. Two weeks ago, he imposed penalties on
Mohammad
Javad Zarif , Iran's U.S.-educated foreign minister.
Crowd at Tea Party rally listening to Donald Trump denounce the Iran Nuclear Agreement,
Sept. 9, 2015. (YouTube)
It was a gesture of contempt for the very idea of diplomacy. So what happens next? The
problem is that re-starting negotiations would not be enough. Instead, Iran has demanded that
the
U.S. remove all sanctions and apologize before agreeing to a new round of talks. Since this
would be tantamount to re-authorizing the JCPOA, it's unlikely in the extreme. While Trump is
known for changing his mind in a flash, a course correction of this magnitude is hard to
imagine.
Thus, the confrontation is set to continue. Iran may respond by seizing more oil tankers or
downing more drones, but the problem is that the U.S. will undoubtedly engage in tit-for-tat
escalation in response until, eventually, some kind of line is crossed.
If so, the consequences are unpredictable. U.S. firepower is overwhelming ,
but Iran is not without
resources of its own , among them anti-ship ballistic missiles, mobile short-range rockets
that can hit naval targets, plus heavily-armed high-speed boats, mini-subs, and even "
ekranoplans ," floating planes designed to skim the waves at
115 miles per hour. Such weaponry could prove highly effective in the 35-mile-wide Strait of
Hormuz. Iran also has allies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah, which has an estimated 130,000
missiles and rockets in its own arsenal, Assad's battle-hardened military in Syria, Yemen's
Houthis, and pro-Iranian forces in Shi'ite-majority Iraq.
The upshot could be a war drawing in half a dozen countries or more. A confrontation on that
scale may seem inconceivable. But, then, war seemed inconceivable in the wake of Archduke Franz
Ferdinand's assassination in June 1914.
Daniel Lazare is the author of "The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing
Democracy" (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a
wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique and blogs
about the Constitution and related matters at D aniellazare.com.
Jeff Davis , August 20, 2019 at 12:42
America is Israel's b*tch.
The American experiment is over. A variety of corporate/neoliberal interests and foreign
interests have hollowed it out, and soon, when every last bit of loot has been extracted, the
dried up husk of the Empire will collapse. There is no saving it because the looters are
still in control. Their control is unbreakable because buying Congress is such a minor and
manageable expense for them, and the Congressmen/women are simply incapable of setting aside
personal interest and personal ambition for the good of the country. Incapable, because if
they ever chose country over their own careers , the "owners" -- ie donors/looters -- would
find someone to replace them. There is no way out until it comes crashing down.
Don Bacon , August 20, 2019 at 11:33
Iran whipped the US in Syria, cementing the 'Shia crescent' from Tehran to Beirut, which
gives Iran the mantle of ME leadership. Washington had to respond to that fact because it
threatens the US and its Carter-Doctrine position as the predominate ME power. So don't blame
Israel.
Zhu , August 20, 2019 at 05:44
You forgot to mention pressure from Religious Right Republicans, eager for the Rapture,
the Return of Jesus, etv., etc. Christism Zionists in short.
Broompilot , August 20, 2019 at 01:19
I find it interesting that there is no mention of Netanyahu appearing before Congress or
the U.N. drawing silly looking pictures of bombs. Or Netanyahu claiming he had jacked some
new documents from Iran proving they had a nuclear weapons program. Or Netanyahu
disrespecting Obama with his appearance in Congress. Or Bibi's landing in L.A. with a
motorcade that screwed up traffic all over town to demonstrate who is really important in
this country. Reading this piece you would think this is 95% about Saudis and has very little
to do with Israel. There is no doubt that the gulf monarchies do not want successful
representative governments breaking out on their borders and giving their citizens ideas, but
I doubt they have anything resembling the Israeli lobbies and their influence operating in
the U.S. with the power to influence Iran policy.
AnneR , August 20, 2019 at 08:23
True, Broompilot. And I too awaited throughout the article for Mr Lazare to discuss the
really existing and marked part that Israel has played and is playing in all of the more
recent destruction in neighboring countries, and that illegitimate state's huge influence on
this country's politics, military actions (in the MENA countries when those actions might
benefit Israel), administration decisions (not to mention the cooperation among US and
Israeli secret services *and* electronic-internet companies which anyway themselves both
derive from the military and remain closely entwined with it).
Most US presidents – and seemingly all US Congresses – since WWII have aided
and abetted Israel and its appalling human rights record which never ends and continues with
impunity. But Trump is perhaps more so than most if only because his daughter, a convert to
Judaism, is married to an ardent Zionist, and buddy-buddy to Netanyahu. Lazare hints at
Trump's pro-Zionism (whatever its basis) but leaves it there.
Marko , August 19, 2019 at 22:50
"Trump's Persian-Gulf Car Crash"
When you view foreign policy as a Demolition Derby competition , as Trump and the neocons
do , this is called "Winning !"
Gregory Herr , August 19, 2019 at 20:44
The war of terrorism waged upon the people of Syria didn't come about because the U.S. was
"possibly so over-extended that it was at the mercy of its ostensible clients", or because
the "Obama administration was so anxious to smooth ruffled Saudi feathers and tone down
criticism of the impending Iranian accord that it felt it had no choice but say yes to Saudi
aggression."
Washington's Long War on Syria (Stephen Gowans) began well before Obama, Yahoo, Erdogan,
and Petraeus set up rat lines of weaponry and training for terrorists in Jordan and Turkey.
The current iteration of "topple thru terror" was in the offing, with or without Saudi
"impetus".
Syria stands in the way of Greater Israel and Wall Street/central bank dominance.
Obama "went along" alright. But it wasn't the Saudis he was "appeasing".
Obama should have normalised relations with Iran and disavowed all the b.s. rhetoric about
them. His "deal" had "made to be broken" written all over it because of his rhetoric. All
done in bad faith with the Path to Persia kept open.
Jeff Harrison , August 19, 2019 at 18:30
The big problem is that the US is convinced that it knows what it's doing when, in fact,
it is clueless. The US also is perpetually optimistic when it has nothing upon which to base
said optimism. It's not as if we've actually defeated anybody in the Middle East. Revoltin'
Bolton may think he's scaring people with aircraft carriers and B52s but you'll notice that
Iran snatched the British tanker and the Iraqi tanker after the US moved it's carrier and
bombers into the Gulf. They also shot down our drone in the same time frame.
We're playing a losing strategy.
Jeff Davis , August 20, 2019 at 12:11
We're playing a losing strategy because America is Israel's bitch.
The American experiment is over. A variety of corporate/neoliberal interests and foreign
interests have hollowed it out, and soon, when every last bit of loot has been extracted, the
dried up husk of the Empire will collapse. There is no saving it because the looters are
still in control. Their control is unbreakable because buying Congress is such a minor and
manageable expense for them, and the Congressmen/women are simply incapable of setting aside
personal interest and personal ambition for the good of the country. Incapable, because if
they ever chose country over their own careers , the "owners" -- ie donors/looters -- would
find someone to replace them. There is no way out until it comes crashing down.
Don Bacon , August 19, 2019 at 18:29
"It was all nonsense. Rather than threatening the Jewish state, the treaty represented a
landmark concession on Iran's part,. . ."
Calling the Obama agreement a treaty is nonsense, rather it was an agreement involving
only the executive branch and not the Senate as required by the Constitution for treaties.
Obama needed an achievement for his presidential library, so he waited until his term was
almost over to do what he could have done, with Brazil and Turkey, in 2010. Therefore Trump
had every right to overturn an agreement made by his hated predecessor, with the knowledge
that the Senate never would have approved it since they are all corrupted.
This is another example (Bush-43 on Iraq withdrawal was another) of what the US has come
to. This so-called "rules-based democracy" has become a stomping ground for the
"commander-in-chief" to display his executive privilege and do any damned thing he takes a
mind to, including war, with nary a peep from the so-called "checks and balance" folks who
are supposed to be looking after US democracy, but aren't.
"Trumpian isolationism was fleeting, if it ever existed at all."
It never existed.
A clueless Lazare has been repeatedly informed of the fact in the comments of his CN
articles.
Now he's feebly wondering "if".
"Under intense pressure from neoconservatives, the Zionist lobby, and pro-Israel Democrats
such as Russiagate attack dog Rep. Adam Schiff demanding stepped-up opposition with Iran,
Trump did an about-face."
The pro-Israel Lobby owns both Republican and Democrat Russiagate enthusiasts and is the
source of near hysterical demands for opposition with Iran.
Trump has never been under "intense pressure" and has not done "an about-face" because he
has always been avowedly "1000 percent" pro-Israel.
A worse than clueless Lazare has been repeatedly informed of the fact in the comments of
his CN articles.
Lazare apparently finds lots of things "hard to imagine", even "inconceivable".
But in June 1914, clearly there were multiple political and military leaders in Europe for
whom war was far from inconceivable. War was simply a question of timing and so it would be
better to have a war when the circumstances were most propitious. "I consider a war
inevitable", declared senior German generals such as Helmuth von Moltke the Younger in 1912.
"The sooner the better".
Current Israeli leadership holds such a view. The Trump administration foreign policy purchased by the pro-Israel Lobby reflects this
view.
But for the obviously very well informed but perpetually clueless Lazare, it all somehow
remains "inconceivable"
Trump has walked away from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and has
performed numerous other services, including threatening war on Iran, precisely because the
Israelis wanted them done.
Don't confuse Trump's servility to the pro-Israel Lobby for "isolationism".
The arrogant aggression of the Trump-Bolton-Pompeo troika is bought and paid for by
Israel.
Depressing. Having defended Trump because attacks were directed at the President of the
United States, any president, it is hard to support a man whose every move is a political
calculation. That such blatant and reprehensible behavior carries risks for everyone but
mostly the targets of our barbaric behavior seems never to enter the President, his neocon
handlers' and his rabid supporters' minds.
One comment in this depressing article caught my eye.
"If you ask why we're backing this, beyond the fact that the Saudis are allies and have
been allies for a long time, the answer you're going to get from most people – if they
were being honest – is that we weren't going to be able to stop it." That is unmitigated nonsense. Why not be honest. We don't want to stop it. The We, of
course, being our decision makers and a too large segment of our brainwashed electorate.
Gregory Herr , August 19, 2019 at 19:52
To "stop it", Uncle Sam would have to first cease being a part of it. The bombing of Yemen
came courtesy of U.S. mid-air refueling efforts, targeting "intelligence", and "made in
America" weaponry. The blockade (starvation) of Yemen is also a duel accompaniment. It's
supposed to look like a Saudi "thing", but in actuality, it's just more Uncle Sam doing his
thing. Obama called it "leading from behind".
Pat lost its touch with reality " Around the world, America is involved in quarrels, clashes
and confrontations with almost too many nations to count." That's what empires do. Why he can't
understand this simple fact?
Friday, President Donald Trump met in New Jersey with his national security advisers and
envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who is negotiating with the Taliban to bring about peace, and a U.S.
withdrawal from America's longest war.
U.S. troops have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001, in a war that has cost 2,400
American lives.
Following the meeting, Trump tweeted, "Many on the opposite sides of this 19 year war, and
us, are looking to make a deal -- if possible!"
Some, however, want no deal; they are fighting for absolute power.
Saturday, a wedding in Kabul with a thousand guests was hit by a suicide bomber who,
igniting his vest, massacred 63 people and wounded 200 in one of the greatest atrocities of the
war. ISIS claimed responsibility.
Monday, 10 bombs exploded in restaurants and public squares in the eastern city of
Jalalabad, wounding 66.
Trump is pressing Khalilzad to negotiate drawdowns of U.S. troop levels from the present
14,000, and to bring about a near-term end to U.S. involvement in a war that began after we
overthrew the old Taliban regime for giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden.
Is it too soon to ask: What have we gained from our longest war? Was all the blood and
treasure invested worth it? And what does the future hold?
If the Taliban could not be defeated by an Afghan army, built up by the U.S. for a decade
and backed by 100,000 U.S. troops in 2010-2011, then are the Taliban likely to give up the
struggle when the U.S. is drawing down the last 14,000 troops and heading home?
The Taliban control more of the country than they have at any time since being overthrown in
2001. And time now seems to be on their side.
Why have they persevered, and prevailed in parts of the country?
Motivated by a fanatic faith, tribalism and nationalism, they have shown a willingness to
die for a cause that seems more compelling to them than what the U.S.-backed Afghan government
has on offer.
They also have the guerrillas' advantage of being able to attack at times and places of
their own choosing, without the government's burden of having to defend towns and cities.
Will these Taliban, who have lost many battles but not the war, retire from the field and
abide by democratic elections once the Americans go home? Why should they?
The probability: When the Americans depart, the war breaks out anew, and the Taliban
ultimately prevail.
And Afghanistan is but one of the clashes and conflicts in which America is engaged.
Severe U.S. sanctions on Venezuela have failed to bring down the Nicholas Maduro regime in
Caracas but have contributed to the immiseration of that people, 10% of whom have left the
country. Trump now says he is considering a quarantine or blockade to force Maduro out.
Eight years after we helped to overthrow Col. Moammar Gadhafi, Libya is still mired in civil
war, with its capital, Tripoli, under siege.
Yemen, among the world's humanitarian disasters, has seen the UAE break with its Saudi
interventionist allies, and secessionists split off southern Yemen from the Houthi-dominated
north. Yet, still, Congress has been unable to force the Trump administration to end all
support of the Saudi war.
Two thousand U.S. troops remain in Syria. The northern unit is deployed between our Syrian
Kurd allies and the Turkish army. In the south, they are positioned to prevent Iran and
Iranian-backed militias from creating a secure land bridge from Tehran to Baghdad to Damascus
to Beirut.
In our confrontation with Iran, we have few allies.
The Brits released the Iranian tanker they seized at Gibraltar, which had been carrying oil
to Syria. But when the Americans sought to prevent its departure, a Gibraltar court ruled
against the United States.
Iran presents no clear or present danger to U.S. vital interests, but the Saudis and
Israelis see Iran as a mortal enemy, and want the U.S. military rid them of the menace.
Hong Kong protesters wave American flags and seek U.S. support of their demands for greater
autonomy and freedom in their clash with their Beijing-backed authorities. The Taiwanese want
us to support them and sell them the weapons to maintain their independence. The Philippines
wants us to take their side in the dispute with China over tiny islets in the South China
Sea.
We are still committed to go to war to defend South Korea. And the North has lately
test-fired a series of ballistic missiles, none of which could hit the USA, but all of which
could hit South Korea.
Around the world, America is involved in quarrels, clashes and confrontations with almost
too many nations to count.
In how many of these are U.S. vital interests imperiled? And in how many are we facing
potential wars on behalf of other nations, while they hold our coat and egg us on?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and
Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
"... Gabbard calls out the betrayers; Dems try to forget their heroes Mueller and Biden are among them. ..."
"... The gains of war in Iraq remain elusive, especially considering that the justifications for invasion -- weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's connection to al-Qaeda, the ambition to create a Western-style democracy at gunpoint -- remain "murky at best." That's a quote from the 9/11 Commission's conclusion on the so-called evidence linking Iraq to Osama bin Laden's group, which actually did carry out the worst terrorist attack in American history. ..."
"... As far as stupid and barbarous decisions are concerned, it is difficult to top the war in Iraq. It is also difficult to match its price tag, which, according to a recent Brown University study, amounts to $1.1 trillion. ..."
"... Gore Vidal once christened his country the "United States of Amnesia," explaining that Americans live in a perpetual state of a hangover: "Every morning we wake up having forgotten what happened the night before." ..."
"... The war in Iraq ended only nine years ago, but it might as well have never taken place, given the curious lack of acknowledgement in our press and political debates. As families mourn their children, babies are born with irreversible deformities, and veterans dread trying to sleep through the night, America's political class, many of whom sold the war to the public, have moved on. When they address Iraq at all, they act as though they have committed a minor error, as though large-scale death and destruction are the equivalent of a poor shot in golf when the course rules allow for mulligans. ..."
"... As the Robert Mueller fiasco smolders out, it is damning that the Democratic Party, in its zest and zeal to welcome any critical assessment of Trump's unethical behavior, has barely mentioned that Mueller, in his previous role as director of the FBI, played a small but significant role in convincing the country to go to war in Iraq. ..."
"... Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security." He also warned that Saddam could "supply terrorists with radiological material" for the purposes of devising a nuclear bomb. Leaving aside any speculation about Mueller's intentions and assuming he had only the best of motives, it is quite bizarre, even dangerous, to treat as oracular someone who was wrong on such a life-or-death question. ..."
"... The former vice president now claims that his "only mistake was trusting the Bush administration," implying he was tricked into supporting the war. This line is not as persuasive as he imagines. First, it raises the question -- can't we nominate someone who wasn't tricked? Second, its logic crumbles in the face of Biden's recent decision to hire Nicholas Burns, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, as his campaign's foreign policy advisor. Burns was also a vociferous supporter of the war. An enterprising reporter should ask Biden whether Burns was also tricked. Is the Biden campaign an assembly of rubes? ..."
"... Instead, the press is likelier to interrogate Biden over his holding hands and giving hugs to women at public events. Criticism of Biden's "inappropriate touching" has become so strident that the candidate had to record a video to explain his behavior. The moral standards of America's political culture seem to rate kissing a woman on the back of the head as a graver offense than catastrophic war. ..."
Gabbard calls out the betrayers; Dems try to forget their heroes Mueller and Biden are among them.
Estimates of the number of civilians who died during the war in Iraq range from 151,000 to 655,000. An additional 4,491 American
military personnel perished in the war. Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, toxicologist at the University of Michigan, has organized several
research expeditions to Iraq to measure the contamination and pollution still poisoning the air and water supply from the tons of
munitions dropped during the war. It does not require any expertise to assume what the studies confirm: disease is still widespread
and birth defects are gruesomely common. Back home, it is difficult to measure just how many struggle with critical injuries and
post-traumatic stress disorder.
The gains of war in Iraq remain elusive, especially considering that the justifications for invasion -- weapons of mass destruction,
Saddam Hussein's connection to al-Qaeda, the ambition to create a Western-style democracy at gunpoint -- remain "murky at best."
That's a quote from the 9/11 Commission's conclusion on the so-called evidence linking Iraq to Osama bin Laden's group, which actually
did carry out the worst terrorist attack in American history.
As far as stupid and barbarous decisions are concerned, it is difficult to top the war in Iraq. It is also difficult to match
its price tag, which, according to a recent Brown University study, amounts to $1.1 trillion.
Gore Vidal once christened his country the "United States of Amnesia," explaining that Americans live in a perpetual state
of a hangover: "Every morning we wake up having forgotten what happened the night before."
The war in Iraq ended only nine years ago, but it might as well have never taken place, given the curious lack of acknowledgement
in our press and political debates. As families mourn their children, babies are born with irreversible deformities, and veterans
dread trying to sleep through the night, America's political class, many of whom sold the war to the public, have moved on. When
they address Iraq at all, they act as though they have committed a minor error, as though large-scale death and destruction are the
equivalent of a poor shot in golf when the course rules allow for mulligans.
As the Robert Mueller fiasco smolders out, it is damning that the Democratic Party, in its zest and zeal to welcome any critical
assessment of Trump's unethical behavior, has barely mentioned that Mueller, in his previous role as director of the FBI, played
a small but significant role in convincing the country to go to war in Iraq.
Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security."
He also warned that Saddam could "supply terrorists with radiological material" for the purposes of devising a nuclear bomb. Leaving
aside any speculation about Mueller's intentions and assuming he had only the best of motives, it is quite bizarre, even dangerous,
to treat as oracular someone who was wrong on such a life-or-death question.
Far worse than the worship of Mueller is the refusal to scrutinize the abysmal foreign policy record of Joe Biden, currently the
frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Of the Democrats in the Senate at that time, Biden was the most
enthusiastic of the cheerleaders for war, waving his pompoms and cartwheeling in rhythm to Dick Cheney's music. Biden said repeatedly
that America had "no choice but to eliminate the threat" posed by Saddam Hussein. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
his blustering was uniquely influential.
The former vice president now claims that his "only mistake was trusting the Bush administration," implying he was tricked
into supporting the war. This line is not as persuasive as he imagines. First, it raises the question -- can't we nominate someone
who wasn't tricked? Second, its logic crumbles in the face of Biden's recent decision to hire Nicholas Burns, former U.S. ambassador
to NATO, as his campaign's foreign policy advisor. Burns was also a vociferous supporter of the war. An enterprising reporter should
ask Biden whether Burns was also tricked. Is the Biden campaign an assembly of rubes?
Instead, the press is likelier to interrogate Biden over his holding hands and giving hugs to women at public events. Criticism
of Biden's "inappropriate touching" has become so strident that the candidate had to record a video to explain his behavior. The
moral standards of America's political culture seem to rate kissing a woman on the back of the head as a graver offense than catastrophic
war.
Polling well below Biden in the race is the congresswoman from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard. She alone on the Democratic stage has made
criticism of American militarism central to her candidacy. A veteran of the Iraq war and a highly decorated major in the Hawaii Army
National Guard, Gabbard offers an intelligent and humane perspective on foreign affairs. She's called the regime change philosophy
"disastrous," advocated for negotiation with hostile foreign powers, and backed a reduction in drone strikes. She pledges if she
becomes president to end American involvement in Afghanistan.
When Chris Matthews asked Gabbard about Biden's support for the Iraq war, she said, "It was the wrong vote. People like myself,
who enlisted after 9/11 because of the terrorist attacks, were lied to. We were betrayed."
Her moral clarity is rare in the political fog of the presidential circus. She cautions against accepting the "guise of humanitarian
justification for war," and notes that rarely does the American government bomb and invade a country to actually advance freedom
or protect human rights.
Gabbard's positions are vastly superior to that of the other young veteran in the race, Pete Buttigieg. The mayor of South Bend
recently told New York that one of his favorite novels is The Quiet American , saying that its author, Graham Greene,
"points out the dangers of well-intentioned interventions."
Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination seem low, and his prospects of becoming a literary critic appear even lower.
The Quiet American does much more than raise questions about interventions: it is a merciless condemnation of American exceptionalism
and its attendant indifference to Vietnamese suffering.
Americans hoping for peace won't find much comfort in the current White House either. President Trump has made the world more
dangerous by trashing the Iran nuclear deal, and his appointment of John Bolton, a man who makes Donald Rumsfeld look like Mahatma
Gandhi, as national security advisor is certainly alarming.
America's willful ignorance when it comes to the use of its own military exposes the moral bankruptcy at the heart of its political
culture. Even worse, it makes future wars all but inevitable.
If no one can remember a war that ended merely nine years ago, and there's little room for Tulsi Gabbard in the Democratic primary,
how will the country react the next time a president, and the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declare that they
have no choice but to remove a threat?
Norman Solomon, journalist and founder of the Institute for Public Accuracy, knows the answer to that question. He provides it
in the title of his book on how the media treats American foreign policy decisions: War Made Easy .
Where ae the people who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Should they be tried for lying to the American public?
4500 troops killed and over $1.1 TRILLION wasted with no good results .With hundreds of thousands of Iraq's killed. .
Where are they, indeed? They are still running US foreign policy; that's where they are. They are pundits in all the major media;
that's where they are.
I cannot even imagine what historians will say about the uncanny persistence of these charlatans' influence in this era after
a consistent record of disastrous, abysmal misadventures.
You don't have to look too hard to find them. Bolton, Pompeo, and other neocons are hiding in plain sight. The Military Industrial
Complex is embedded in our foreign policy like a tick on a dog.
Because you'd be knocking out a storm trooper instead of the emperor, at least as far as Bush goes. Same for why the focus is
on Bolton rather than simply Trump.
I CAN see an argument that Trump/Bush knew what they were doing when they brought those people in though. f you feel that way
and see it more of an owner of a hostile attack dog then yeah, you'd want to include those two too.
Here stands Tulsi. A woman, who, unlike their conventional troupe, can win this election. They reject her because... what? Moar
war? She's not the member of the Cult? Or it's simply some sort of collective political death wish?
They reject her because she had the temerity to speak truth to power and supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 race. She stepped
down from her position as Vice Chair of the DNC to endorse Sanders. She has real courage, and earned their wrath. She's not perfect
but she's braver and stronger than almost the entire field. Only Bernie is on par.
And Bernie is the one they also hate, maybe a little bit less openly. Thus they reject those who can win the election. It's either
a self-destructiveness or they think that it's better to keep on losing than to rebuild the party into what it needs to be.
Democrats and the Republican establishment, both, love war. It wasn't a coincidence that Hillary Clinton chose Madeleine Albright
to be a keynote speaker at "her" party convention ("we think the deaths of a half million children are worth it"). Liberals know
that there isn't really any "free" free, and that taxing the rich won't match their dreams -- it is the blood and bones of innocent
foreigners that must pay for their lust. Establishment Republicans are more straightforward: they simply profit off the death
and destruction.
This is why Trump is being destroyed, and why Tulsi is attacked. If only "she" (the one who gloated over Khameni's murder)
had been elected, we'd be in a proxy war with Russia now! A real war with Iran! This is what the American people want, and what
they'll likely get when they vote another chicken-hawk in come 2020.
Tulsi, like Sanders is a 'danger' to everything Israel wants.
So, all...all the main 'news' networks and online sites don't like them and give more coverage to the same old Dem bull peddlers
like ignorant Booker and the lousy opportunist low IQ Kamala Harris and Gillibrand.
Manafort and his ilk can be tried and convicted for their lies. I guess if the lie is big enough we grant a pass on any need for
prosecution. Justice for all? I don't think so.
Max Blumenthal posted a powerful piece at Consortium News (7/31/2019) about Biden's central and south American mis-adventures.
Biden still extols his own policies however disastrous. The hubris of the man is worse than nauseating.
Whether one thinks Gabbard has a shot at the nomination or not, it's important to keep her on the stage in the next round of debates.
Go to Tulsi2020.com
and give her just one dollar (or more if you can)
so she has enough unique contributors to make the next round. And if you get polled,early on give her your vote.
The total US costs related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are expected to be considerably larger than $1.1 trillion, according
to this study:
https://www.hks.harvard.edu...
Try $4-$6 trillion, according to the author of the study.
Long after I, Andrew Bacevitch and Hillary Clinton have gone to our reward, there will still be thousands of wounded warriors
from these US Middle East adventures dependent on VA benefits for their survival and competing with civilian seniors for government
handouts. A war with Iran would make the US fiscal situation that much worse.
The religious folks who were so anxious to protect family values only a few years ago seem to have their heads in the sand
when it comes to the financial future of today's young Americans.
A few weeks ago, I made a token contribution to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign to help her qualify for the July Democratic debates.
She will need more new contributors to qualify for the next round of debates.
Tulsi hasn't a chance of the nomination, but she's exposing things and maybe more people will get a clue about what's really going
on with American lives and taxes being squandered for the profit of the few who benefit from these atrocities and wars abroad,
done in the name of all Americans.
Being a supporter of Tulsi Gabbard for the very reasons that the author writes, has me agreeing with everything he has promoted
in his piece.
However, to answer his own question as to why Americans are lured into commenting on such innocuous and foolish things in such
an important election such as Biden's touching of women, is answered by the author's own prose.
He states that Americans are only provided such nonsense from the press that is monitoring the election process. What else
can people talk about? And even if many Americans are clearheaded enough to understand the charade of the current Democratic debates,
what or who will actually provide legitimate coverage with the exception of online sites as the American Conservative, among others?
If most Americans were actually thinking individuals, Tulsi Gabbard would be a shoo-in for the presidency in 2020. However,
given the two factors of a highly corrupted mainstream press and too many Americans not studying enough civics to understand what
is going on around them, it is highly unlikely that Tulsi Gabbard will even get close to the possibility of being nominated...
Cheney, mentioned in the article, was pure evil. I voted for GB2 for two reasons. 1) He was a very good Texas governor. He actually
got anti-tax Texas to raise taxes dedicated to support education, in return for stricter standards for teachers. A good trade
since Texas public schools were awful. 2) Dick Cheney. I thought he was the adult in the room that would provide steady and reliable
guidance for Bush.
Boy was I wrong about Cheney. "Deficits don't matter". Just watch the movie Vice. Christian Bale does an incredible job portraying
the pure evil of Cheney and the Military Industrial Complex. The movie is chilling to watch. And it is basically true. Politifact
does a good job of scoring the accuracy of Cheney's role in the Bush administration as portrayed in the movie.
U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, President Trump and National Security Advisor John Bolton at the NATO
Foreign Ministerial in Brussels, Belgium on July 12, 2018. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]
Matt Lee
reports
on the Trump administration obsessive
use of sanctions:
Call it the diplomacy of coercion.
The Trump administration is aggressively pursuing economic sanctions as a primary foreign policy tool to an extent
unseen in decades, or perhaps ever. Many are questioning the results even as officials insist the penalties are
achieving their aims.
It is true that the Trump administration is using economic coercion as its default approach to almost everything, but
there doesn't appear to be any diplomacy involved. There is such a thing as "coercive diplomacy," but there is no
evidence that Trump and his officials understand the first thing about it. An administration that genuinely wanted to
secure lasting diplomatic agreements with other states would apply pressure only as a means to a specific, achievable
goal, but with this administration they are waging purely destructive economic wars that the targeted states cannot end
without capitulating. The "maximum pressure" description implies an unwillingness to relieve pressure short of the other
side's surrender.
It is not just that it is a "combination of more sticks and fewer carrots." The Trump administration's policies are
all punishment and no reward. In the case of Iran, it could hardly be otherwise when the administration chose to
penalize Iran with sanctions for daring to comply with a multilateral nonproliferation agreement. Iran behaved
constructively and acceded to the demands of the P5+1 four years ago, and in return for their cooperation they have been
subjected to a grueling economic war despite fully complying with their commitments. When our government punishes
another state for doing what previous administrations wanted them to do, no amount of punishment could force that state
to trust our government a second time.
The administration approaches each case in the same way: they impose penalties, they make threats, they offer no
incentives, and they make outrageous, far-fetched demands that no government would ever accept. Trump handles the trade
wars in much the same way that he handles the "maximum pressure" campaigns against intransigent governments, and he
fails every time because he can't conceive of a mutually beneficial agreement and therefore refuses to compromise.
Trump's "diplomacy" is no diplomacy at all, but a series of insults, sanctions, tariffs, and threats that achieve
nothing except to cause disruption and pain. Unsurprisingly, a pressure campaign that is aimed at toppling a government
or forcing it to give up everything it has cannot be successful on its own terms as long as the targeted government
chooses to resist, and the stakes for the targeted government will always higher than they are for the administration.
In a contest of wills, the party that is fighting to preserve itself has the advantage.
Someday, when everybody in the world hates America, these economic atrocities will come
back to the USA with violence. You can't do these things to people and not expect
retaliation. When people are hungry from sanctions and can't get medicine for their
children, they will fight back. Wouldn't you? But, it won't affect Wash., just innocent
people, like the innocent people abroad suffering from Wash. policy. Americans will reap
what Wash. sows.
Late Justin
Raimondo was an astute analyst of events in Syria... This is his analysys from 2015. It is
still cogent as of August 2019.
Notable quotes:
"... "War on terrorism" turns into cold war against Russia ..."
"... By the way, according to the Pentagon's own testimony before a congressional committee, only sixty "vetted" fighters were sent into Syria to take on both Assad and ISIS. And while they denied, at first, that their pet "moderates" betrayed Washington and handed over most of their weapons and other equipment to al-Qaeda in return for "safe passage," the Pentagon later admitted it . ..."
"... [I]t is hypocritical and irresponsible to make declarations about the threat of terrorism and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels used to finance and support terrorists, including revenues from drug trafficking, the illegal oil trade and the arms trade ..."
"... It is equally irresponsible to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you'll find a way to get rid of them or somehow eliminate them. ..."
"... "I'd like to tell those who engage in this: Gentlemen, the people you are dealing with are cruel but they are not dumb. They are as smart as you are. So, it's a big question: who's playing who here? The recent incident where the most 'moderate' opposition group handed over their weapons to terrorists is a vivid example of that. ..."
"War on terrorism" turns into cold war against Russia
Posted on August
19, 2019 August 18, 2019In both Yemen and Syria, the War Party has found an
ally that they can get behind, you know, one that really supports our values: al-Qaeda.
From time to time they have even managed to get President Trump to go along with this
nonsense – presumably due to the baleful influence of John Bolton. (See
Ron Paul's recent discussion of recent developments.) It is worth a look back at an
earlier high-points in this strange alliance between the West and al-Qaeda against Russia and
Syria. Justin's column from four years ago (October 2, 2015) analyzes it in depth.
Originally published October 2, 2015
As Russian fighter jets target al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria, the Western media is up in arms
– and
in denial . They deny the Russians are taking on ISIS – and they are indignant that
Putin is
targeting al-Qaeda , which is almost never referred to by its actual name, but is instead
described as " al-Nusra ," or the more inclusive "
Army of Conquest
," which are alternate names for the heirs of Osama bin Laden.
And there are no ideological lines being drawn in this information war: both the left and
the right – e.g. the left-liberal Vox and the Fox News
network – are utilizing a map put out by
the neoconservative
"Institute for the Study of War" to "prove" that Putin isn't really attacking ISIS
– he's actually only concerned with destroying the "non-ISIS" rebels and propping up
the faltering regime of Bashar al-Assad.
The premise behind this kind of propaganda is that there really is some difference between
ISIS and the multitude of Islamist groups proliferating like wasps in the region: and that,
furthermore, al-Qaeda is "relatively" moderate when compared to the Islamic State. Yes,
incredibly, the US and British media are pushing the line that the al-Qaeda fighters in
Syria, known as al-Nusra, are really the Good Guys.
Didn't you know that we have always been at war with Eastasia?
There is
much whining , this [Thursday] morning, that a supposedly US-"vetted" group known as
Tajammu al-Aaza has felt Putin's wrath – but when we get down into the weeds, we
discover that this outfit is fighting alongside al-Qaeda:
"Jamil al-Saleh, a defected Syrian army officer who is now the leader of the rebel
group Tajammu al-Aaza,
told AlSouria.net that the Russian airstrikes targeted his group's base in
al-Lataminah, a town in the western Syrian governorate of Hama. That area represents one of
the farthest southern points of the rebel advance from the north and is therefore a crucial
front line in the war. An alliance of Syrian rebel factions, including both the al
Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front and groups considered by Washington to be more
moderate, successfully drove Assad regime forces out of the northern governorate of Idlib
and are now pushing south into Hama."
By the way, according to the Pentagon's own testimony
before a congressional committee, only sixty "vetted" fighters were sent into Syria to take
on both Assad and ISIS. And while they denied, at first, that their pet "moderates"
betrayed Washington and
handed over most of their weapons and other equipment to al-Qaeda in return for "safe
passage," the Pentagon later
admitted it . Furthermore, we were told that these were the only "vetted" fighters
actually in the field, but now we are confronted with "Tajammu al-Aaza," which – it's
being reported – is deploying US-supplied missile guidance systems against Syrian
government forces.
So a handful of "vetted" fighters suddenly turns into an entire armed force – one
which, you'll note, has effectively merged with al-Qaeda.
The lies are coming at us so fast and thick in the first 24 hours of the Russian strikes
that we face a veritable blizzard of obfuscation. They range from the egregious –
alleged photos of "civilian casualties" that
turn out to be fake – to the more subtle: a supposed Free Syrian Army commander is
reported killed by a Russian air strike, and yet it appears that very same commander was
kidnapped by ISIS last year . We are told that the town of Rastan, the site of Russian
strikes, isn't under the control of ISIS – except it was when
ISIS was executing gay men there .
The Russians make no bones about their support of Assad: in his speech to the United
Nations, Putin stated his position clearly: "We think it's a big mistake to refuse to
cooperate with the Syrian authorities and government forces who valiantly fight terrorists on
the ground." On the other hand, the objectives of the Western alliance in Syria aren't so
clear: on the one hand, Washington claims to be directing the main blow against ISIS, but its
claims of success have been
greatly exaggerated . Yet we have spent many millions arming and training "vetted" rebels
who have been defecting to ISIS and al-Qaeda in droves.
It's almost as if we're keeping ISIS around so as to put pressure on Assad to get out of
Dodge. As Putin put it in his UN speech :
" [I]t is hypocritical and irresponsible to make declarations about the threat of
terrorism and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels used to finance and support
terrorists, including revenues from drug trafficking, the illegal oil trade and the arms
trade .
" It is equally irresponsible to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve
your political goals, hoping that later you'll find a way to get rid of them or somehow
eliminate them.
"I'd like to tell those who engage in this: Gentlemen, the people you are dealing with
are cruel but they are not dumb. They are as smart as you are. So, it's a big question: who's
playing who here? The recent incident where the most 'moderate' opposition group handed over
their weapons to terrorists is a vivid example of that. "
The reality is that there are no "moderates" in Syria, and certainly not among the rebel
Islamist groups: they're all jihadists who want to impose Sharia law, drive out Christians,
Alawites, and other minority groups, and set up an Islamic dictatorship. These are our noble
"allies" – the very same people who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on
September 11, 2001, and against whom our perpetual "war on terrorism" was launched.
It's pretty clear. Saudi Arabia has lost, and,
notes Bruce Riedel, "the Houthis and Iran are the strategic winners". Saudi proxies in Aden
– the seat of Riyadh's Yemeni proto-'government' – have been turfed out by secular,
former Marxist, southern secessionists. What can Saudi Arabia do? It cannot go forward. Even
tougher would be retreat. Saudi will have to contend with an Houthi war being waged
inside the kingdom's south; and a second – quite different – war in Yemen's
south. MbS is stuck. The Houthi military leadership are on a roll , and
disinterested – for now – in a political settlement. They wish to accumulate more
'cards'. The UAE, which armed and trained the southern secessionists has opted out. MbS is
alone, 'carrying the can'. It will be messy.
So, what is the meaning in this? It is that MbS cannot 'deliver' what
Trump and Kushner needed, and demanded from him: He cannot any more deliver the Gulf 'world'
for their grand projects – let alone garner together the collective Sunni 'world' to
enlist in a confrontation with Iran, or for hustling the Palestinians into abject
subordination, posing as 'solution'.
What happened? It seems that MbZ must have bought into the Mossad 'line' that Iran was a
'doddle'. Under pressure of global sanctions, Iran would quickly crumble, and would beg for
negotiations with Trump. And that the resultant, punishing treaty would see the dismantling of
all of Iran's troublesome allies around the region. The Gulf thus would be free to continue
shaping a Middle East free from democracy, reformers and (those detested) Islamists.
What made the UAE – eulogised in the US as tough 'little Sparta' – back off? It
was not just that the Emirs saw that the Yemen war was unwinnable. That was so; but more
significantly, it dawned on them that Iran was going to be no 'doddle'. But rather, the US
attempt to strangulate the Iranian economy risked escalating beyond sanctions war, into
military confrontation. And in that eventuality, the UAE would be devastated. Iran warned
explicitly that a drone or two landed into the 'glass houses' of their financial districts, or
onto oil and gas facilities, would set them back twenty years. They believed it.
But there was another factor in the mix. "As the world teeters on the edge of another
financial crisis", Esfandyar Batmanghelidj has
noted , "few places are being gripped by anxiety like Dubai. Every week a new headline
portends the coming crisis in the city of skyscrapers. Dubai villa prices are at their lowest
level in a decade, down 24 percent in just one year. A slump in tourism has seen Dubai hotels
hit their lowest occupancy rate since the 2008 financial crisis – even as the country
gears up to host Expo 2020 next year. As Bloomberg's Zainab Fattah reported in November of last
year, Dubai has begun to "lose its shine," its role as a center for global commerce "undermined
by a global tariff war -- and in particular by the US drive to shut down commerce with nearby
Iran"".
An extraneous Houthi drone landing in Dubai's financial zone would be the 'final nail in the
coffin' (the expatriates would be out in a flash) – a prospect far more serious than the
crisis of 2009, when Dubai's real estate market collapsed, threatening insolvency for several
banks and major development companies, some of them state-linked – and necessitating a
$20 billion bailout.
In short, the Gulf realised MbS' confrontation project with Iran was far too risky,
especially with the global financial mood darkening so rapidly.
Emirati leaders faced off with MbZ, the confrontation ideologue – and the UAE came
out of Yemen formally (though leaving in situ its proxies), and initiated outreach to
Iran, to take it out of that war, too.
It is now no longer conceivable that MbS can deliver what Trump and
Netanyahu desired . Does this then mean that the US confrontation with Iran, and Jared
Kushner's Deal of the Century, are over? No. Trump has two key US constituencies: AIPAC
and the Christian Evangelical 'Zionists' to 'stroke' electorally in the lead up to the 2020
elections. More 'gifts' to Netanyahu in the lead into the latter's own election campaign are
very likely also, as a part of that massaging of domestic constituencies (and donors).
In terms of the US confrontation with Iran, it seems that Trump is turning-down the volume
on belligerence toward Iran, hoping that economic sanctions will work their 'magic' of bringing
the Islamic Republic to its knees. There is no sign of that however – and no sign of any
realistic US plan 'B'. (The Lindsay Graham initiative is not one).
Where does that leave MbS in terms of US and Israeli interests? Well, to be brutal, and
despite the family friendships 'expendable', perhaps? The scent of an eventual US
disengagement from the region is again hanging in the air.
The deeper meaning in the 'lost Yemen war', ultimately, is an end to Gulf hopes that
'magician' Trump would undo the earlier Gulf panic that the West would normalise with Iran
(through the JCPOA), thus leaving Iran as the paramount regional power. The advent of Trump,
with all his affinity towards Saudi Arabia, seemed to Gulf States to promise the opportunity
again to 'lock in' the US security umbrella over Gulf monarchies, protecting these states from
significant change, as well as leaving Iran 'shackled', and unable to assume regional
primacy.
A secondary meaning to Yemen is that Trump and Netanyahu's heavy investment in MbS and MbZ
has proved to be chimeric. These two, it turned out were 'naked' all along. And now the world
knows it. They can't deliver. They have been bested by a ragtag army of tough Houthi
tribesmen.
The region now observes that 'war' isn't happening (although only by the merest hair's
breadth): Trump is not – of his own volition – going to bomb Iran back to the
1980s. And Gulf States now see that if he did, it is they – the Gulf States – who
would pay the highest price. Paradoxically, it has fallen to the UAE, the prime agitator in
Washington against Iran, to lead the outreach toward Iran. It represents a salutary lesson in
realpolitik for certain Gulf States (and Israel). And now that it has been learned, it is hard
to see it being reversed quite so easily.
The strategic shift toward a different security architecture is already underway, with
Russia
and China proposing an international conference on security in the Persian Gulf: Russia and
Iran already have agreed joint naval exercises in in the Indian Ocean and Hormuz, and China is
mulling sending its warships there too, to protect its tankers and commercial shipping.
Plainly, there will be some competition here, but Iran has the upper hand still in Hormuz. It
is a powerful deterrent (though one best threatened, but not used).
Of course, nothing is assured in these changing times. The US President is fickle, and prone
to flip-flop. And there are yet powerful interests in the US who do want see Iran
comprehensively bombed. But others in DC – more significantly, on the (nationalist) Right
– are much more outspoken in challenging the Iran 'hawks'. Maybe the latter have missed
their moment? The fact is, Trump drew back (but not for the stated reasons) from military
action. America is now entering election season – and it is fixated on its navel. Foreign
policy is already a forgotten, non-issue in the fraught partisan atmospherics of today's
America.
Trump likely will still 'throw Israel a few bones', but will that change anything? Probably,
not much. That is cold comfort – but it might have been a lot worse for the Palestinians.
And Greater Israel? A distant, Promethean hope.
Looks like the USA played Hong Hong population like Western Ukrainians... Differneces in
history and interests with mainland china are easy to amplify given enough dollars and acess to
free training of students. Who are the the core of this color revolution with oligarchs like
Jimmy Lai concerned with the future of this fortunes under Chines control are real puppeteers of
this show.
Like in case of EuroMaydan some concerns of citizens are real and deserve listening. But they
serve are just a pretext for fueling violet actions against legitimate government.
But the protests continued even after the extradition law was taken off the table -- and
these demonstrations degenerated into disturbing scenes. In recent days, hundreds of masked
rioters have occupied the Hong Kong airport, forcing the cancellation of inbound flights while
harassing travelers and viciously assaulting journalists and
police
.
The protesters' stated goals remain vague. Joshua Wong, one of the most well known figures
in the movement, has put forward a call for the
Chinese government to "retract the proclamation that the protests were riots," and restated the
consensus demand for universal suffrage.
Wong is a bespectacled 22-year-old who has been trumpeted in Western media as a "freedom
campaigner," promoted to the English-speaking world through his own Netflix documentary, and
rewarded with the backing of the U.S. government.
But behind telegenic spokespeople like Wong are more extreme elements such as the Hong Kong
National Party, whose members have appeared at protests waving the Stars and Stripes and
belting out cacophonous renditions of the Star-Spangled Banner. The leadership of this
officially banned party helped popularize the call for the full independence of Hong Kong, a
radical goal that is music to the ears of hardliners in Washington.
Xenophobic resentment has defined the sensibility of the protesters, who vow to "retake Hong
Kong" from Chinese mainlanders they depict as a horde of locusts. The demonstrators have even
adopted one of the most widely recognized symbols of the alt-right, emblazoning images of Pepe
the Frog on their protest literature. While it's unclear that Hong Kong residents see Pepe the
same way American white nationalists do, members of the U.S. far-right have embraced the
protest movement as their own, and even personally joined their ranks.
Among the most central influencers of the demonstrations is a local tycoon named Jimmy Lai.
The self-described "head of
opposition media," Lai is widely described as the Rupert Murdoch of Asia. For the masses of
protesters, Lai is a transcendent figure. They clamor for photos with him and applaud the
oligarch wildly when he walks by their encampments.
Lai established his credentials by pouring millions of dollars into the 2014 Occupy Central
protest, which is known popularly as the Umbrella Movement. He has since used his massive
fortune to fund local anti-China political movers and shakers while injecting the protests with
a virulent brand of Sinophobia through his media empire.
Though Western media has depicted the Hong Kong protesters as the voice of an entire people
yearning for freedom, the island is deeply divided. This August, a group of protesters
mobilized outside Jimmy Lai's house, denouncing him as a "running dog" of Washington and
accusing him of national betrayal by unleashing chaos on the island.
Days earlier, Lai was in Washington, coordinating with hardline members of Trump's national
security team, including John Bolton. His ties to Washington run deep -- and so do those of the
front-line protest leaders.
Millions of dollars have flowed from U.S. regime-change outfits like the National Endowment
for Democracy (NED) into civil society and political organizations that form the backbone of
the anti-China mobilization. And Lai has supplemented it with his own fortune while instructing
protesters on tactics through his various media organs.
With Donald Trump in the White House, Lai is convinced that his moment may be on the
horizon. Trump "understands the Chinese like no president understood," the tycoon toldThe Wall Street Journal . "I think he's very good at dealing with gangsters."
Born
to Wealthy Mainland Parents
Born in the mainland in 1948 to wealthy parents, whose fortune was expropriated by the
Communist Party during the revolution the following year, Jimmy Lai began working at 9 years
old, carrying bags for train travelers during the hard years of the Great Chinese Famine.
Inspired by the taste of a piece of chocolate gifted to him by a wealthy man, he decided to
smuggle himself to Hong Kong to discover a future of wealth and luxury. There, Lai worked his
way up the ranks of the garment industry, growing enamored with the libertarian theories of
economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, the latter of whom became his close friend.
Friedman is famous for developing the neoliberal shock therapy doctrine that the U.S. has
imposed on numerous countries, resulting in the excess deaths of millions. For his part, Hayek
is the godfather of the Austrian economic school that forms the foundation of libertarian
political movements across the West.
Lai built his business empire on Giordano, a garment label that became one of Asia's most
recognizable brands. In 1989, he threw his weight behind the Tiananmen Square protests, hawking
t-shirts on the streets of Beijing calling for Deng Xiaoping to "step down."
Lai's actions provoked the Chinese government to ban his company from operating on the
mainland. A year later, he founded Next Weekly magazine, initiating a process that would
revolutionize the mediascape in Hong Kong with a blend of smutty tabloid-style journalism,
celebrity gossip and a heavy dose of anti-China spin.
The vociferously anti-communist baron soon became Hong Kong's media kingpin, worth a
whopping $660 million in 2009.
Today, Lai is the founder and majority stakeholder of Next Digital, the largest listed media
company in Hong Kong, which he uses to agitate for the end of what he calls the Chinese
"dictatorship."
His flagship outlet is the popular tabloid Apple Daily , employing the trademark mix
of raunchy material with a heavy dose of xenophobic, nativist propaganda.
In 2012, Apple Dailycarried a
full page advertisement depicting mainland Chinese citizens as invading locusts draining Hong
Kong's resources. The advertisement
called for a stop to the "unlimited invasion of mainland pregnant women in Hong Kong." (This
was a crude reference to the Chinese citizens who had flocked to the island while pregnant to
ensure that their children could earn Hong Kong residency, and resembled the resentment among
the U.S. right-wing of immigrant "anchor babies.")
The transformation of Hong Kong's economy has provided fertile soil for Lai's brand of
demagoguery. As the country's manufacturing base moved to mainland China after the golden years
of the 1980s and '90s, the economy was rapidly financialized, enriching oligarchs like Lai.
Left with rising debt and dimming career prospects, Hong Kong's youth became easy prey to the
demagogic politics of
nativism .
Many protesters have been seen waving British Union Jacks in recent weeks, expressing a
yearning for an imaginary past under colonial control which they never personally
experienced.
In July, protesters vandalized the Hong Kong Liaison Office, spray-painting the word,
"Shina" on its facade. This term is a xenophobic slur some in Hong Kong and Taiwan use to refer
to mainland China. The anti-Chinese phenomenon was
visible during the 2014 Umbrella movement protests as well, with signs plastered around the
city reading, "Hong Kong for Hong Kongers."
This month, protesters turned their fury on the Hong
Kong Federation of Trade Unions, spray-painting "rioters" on its office. The attack represented
resentment of the left-wing group's role in a violent 1967 uprising against the British
colonial authorities, who are now seen as heroes among many of the anti-Chinese
demonstrators.
Besides Lai, a large part of the credit for mobilizing latent xenophobia goes to the
right-wing Hong Kong Indigenous party leader Edward Leung. Under the direction of the
28-year-old Leung, his pro-independence party has brandished British colonial flags and
publicly harassed Chinese mainland tourists. In 2016, Leung was
exposed for meeting with U.S. diplomatic officials at a local restaurant.
Though he is currently in jail for leading a 2016 riot where police were bombarded with
bricks and pavement – and where he
admitted to attacking an officer – Leung's rightist politics and his slogan, "Retake
Hong Kong," have helped define the ongoing protests.
A local legislator and protest leader
described Leung to The New York Times as "the Che Guevara of Hong Kong's
revolution," referring without a hint of irony to the Latin American communist revolutionary
killed in a CIA-backed
operation . According to the Times , Leung is "the closest thing Hong Kong's
tumultuous and leaderless protest movement has to a guiding light."
The xenophobic sensibility of the protesters has provided fertile soil for Hong Kong
National Party to recruit. Founded by the pro-independence activist Andy Chan, the officially
banned party combines anti-Chinese resentment with calls for the U.S. to intervene. Images and
videos have surfaced of HKNP members waving the flags of the U.S. and U.K., singing the Star
Spangled Banner, and carrying flags emblazoned with images of Pepe the
Frog, the most recognizable symbol of the U.S. alt-right.
While the party lacks a wide base of popular support, it is perhaps the most outspoken
within the protest ranks, and has attracted disproportionate international attention as a
result. Chan has
called for Trump to escalate the trade war and accused China of carrying out a "national
cleansing" against Hong Kong. "We were once colonized by the Brits, and now we are by the
Chinese," he declared.
Displays of pro-American jingoism in the streets of Hong Kong have been like catnip for the
international far-right.
Patriot Prayer founder Joey Gibson recently
appeared at an anti-extradition protest in Hong Kong, livestreaming the event to his tens
of thousands of followers. A month earlier, Gibson was seen roughing up antifa activists
alongside ranks of club wielding fascists. In Hong Kong, the alt-right organizer marveled at
the crowds.
"They love our flag here more than they do in America!" Gibson exclaimed as marchers passed
by, flashing him a thumbs up sign while he waved the Stars and Stripes.
Xenophobic
PropagandaSuch xenophobic propaganda is consistent with the clash of civilizations
theory that Jimmy Lai has promulgated through his media empire.
"You have to understand the Hong Kong people – a very tiny 7 million or 0.5 percent of
the Chinese population – are very different from the rest of Chinese in China, because we
grow up in the Western values, which was the legacy of the British colonial past, which gave us
the instinct to revolt once this extradition law was threatening our freedom," Lai told Fox
News' Maria Bartiromo. "Even America has to look at the world 20 years from now, whether you
want the Chinese dictatorial values to dominate this world, or you want the values that you
treasure [to] continue."
During a panel discussion at the neoconservative Washington-based think tank, the Foundation
for Defense of Democracies, Lai
told the pro-Israel lobbyist Jonathan Schanzer,
"We need to know that America is behind us. By backing us, America is also sowing to the
will of their moral authority because we are the only place in China, a tiny island in China,
which is sharing your values, which is fighting the same war you have with China."
While Lai makes no attempt to conceal his political agenda, his bankrolling of central
figures in the 2014 Occupy Central, or Umbrella movement protests, was not always public.
Leaked emails
revealed that Lai poured more than $1.2 million to anti-China political parties including
$637,000 to the Democratic Party and $382,000 to the Civic Party. Lai also gave $115,000 to the
Hong Kong Civic Education Foundation and Hong Kong Democratic Development Network, both of
which were co-founded by Reverend Chu Yiu-ming. Lai also
spent $446,000 on Occupy Central's 2014 unofficial referendum.
Lai's U.S. consigliere is a former Navy intelligence analyst who interned with the CIA and
leveraged his intelligence connections to build his boss's business empire. Named
Mark Simon , the veteran spook arranged for former Republican vice-presidential candidate
Sarah Palin to meet with a group in the anti-China camp during a 2009 visit to Hong Kong. Five
years later, Lai
paid $75,000 to neoconservative Iraq war author and U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz to organize a meeting with top military figures in Myanmar.
This July, as the Hong Kong protests gathered steam, Lai was junketed to Washington, D.C.,
for
meetings with Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security
Advisor John Bolton, and Republican Senators Ted Cruz, Cory Gardner, and Rick Scott. Bloomberg
News correspondent Nicholas Wadhams remarked on Lai's visit, "Very unusual for a
[non-government] visitor to get that kind of access."
One of Lai's closest allies, Martin Lee, was also granted an audience with Pompeo, and has
held court with U.S. leaders including Rep. Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President
Joseph Biden .
Among the most prominent figures in Hong Kong's pro-U.S. political parties, Lee began
collaborating with Lai during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. A recipient of the
U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy's "Democracy Award" in 1997, Lee is the founding
chairman of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, now considered part of the pro-U.S. camp's old
guard.
While Martin Lee has long been highly visible on the pro-western Hong Kong scene, a younger
generation of activists emerged during the 2014 Occupy Central protests with a new brand of
localized politics.
Joshua Wong meets with Sen. Marco Rubio in Washington on May 8, 2017.
Joshua Wong was just 17 years old when the Umbrella Movement took form in 2014. After
emerging in the protest ranks as one of the more charismatic voices, he was steadily groomed as
the pro-West camp's teenage poster child. Wong received lavish praised in Time magazine,
Fortune , and Foreign Policy as a "freedom campaigner," and became the subject of
an award-winning Netflix documentary called "Joshua: Teenager vs. Superpower."
Unsurprisingly, these puff pieces have overlooked Wong's ties to the U.S. regime-change
apparatus. For instance, National Endowment for Democracy's National Democratic Institute (NDI)
maintains a close
relationship with Demosisto, the political party Wong founded in 2016 with fellow Umbrella
movement alumnus Nathan Law.
In August, a candid photo surfaced of Wong and Law meeting with Julie Eadeh, the political
counselor at the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong, raising questions about the content of
the meeting and setting off a diplomatic showdown between Washington and Beijing.
The Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong submitted a
formal complaint with the U.S. consulate general, calling on the U.S. "to immediately make a
clean break from anti-China forces who stir up trouble in Hong Kong, stop sending out wrong
signals to violent offenders, refrain from meddling with Hong Kong affairs and avoid going
further down the wrong path."
The pro-Beijing Hong Kong newspaper Ta Kung Pao published personal details about
Eadeh, including the names of her children and her address. State Department spokesperson
Morgan Ortagus lashed out, accusing the Chinese government of being behind the leak but
offering no evidence. "I don't think that leaking an American diplomat's private information,
pictures, names of their children, I don't think that is a formal protest, that is what a
thuggish regime would do," she said at a State Department
briefing.
But the photo underscored the close relationship between Hong Kong's pro-West movement and
the U.S. government. Since the 2014 Occupy Central protests that vaulted Wong into prominence,
he and his peers have been assiduously cultivated by the elite Washington institutions to act
as the faces and voices of Hong Kong's burgeoning anti-China movement.
In September 2015, Wong, Martin Lee, and University of Hong Kong law professor Benny Tai Lee
were
honored by Freedom House, a right-wing soft-power organization that is heavily funded by
the National Endowment for Democracy and other arms of the U.S. government.
Just days after Trump's election as president in November 2016, Wong was back in Washington
to appeal for more U.S. support. "Being a businessman, I hope Donald Trump could know the
dynamics in Hong Kong and know that to maintain the business sector benefits in Hong Kong, it's
necessary to fully support human rights in Hong Kong to maintain the judicial independence and
the rule of law," he
said .
Wong's visit provided occasion for the Senate's two most aggressively neoconservative
members, Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton, to introduce the "Hong Kong Human
Rights and Democracy Act," which would "identify those responsible for abduction, surveillance,
detention and forced confessions, and the perpetrators will have their U.S. assets, if any
frozen and their entry to the country denied."
Wong was then taken on a junket of elite U.S. institutions including the right-wing
Heritage Foundation think tank and the newsrooms of TheNew York Times and
Financial Times . He then held court with Rubio, Cotton, Pelosi, and Sen.
Ben Sasse .
In September 2017, Rubio, Ben Cardin, Tom Cotton, Sherrod Brown, and Cory Gardner signed off
on a
letter to Wong, Law and fellow anti-China activist Alex Chow, praising them for their
"efforts to build a genuinely autonomous Hong Kong." The bipartisan cast of senators proclaimed
that "the United States cannot stand idly by."
A year later, Rubio and his colleagues
nominated the trio of Wong, Law, and Chow for the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize.
While U.S. lawmakers nominate Hong Kong protest leaders for peace prizes and pump their
organizations with money to "promote democracy," the demonstrations have begun to spiral out of
control.
Protests Become More Aggressive
After the extradition law was scrapped, the protests moved into a more aggressive phase,
launching "hit and run attacks" against government targets, erecting roadblocks, besieging
police stations, and generally embracing the extreme modalities put on display during
U.S.-backed regime-change operations from Ukraine to Venezuela to Nicaragua.
The techniques clearly reflected the training many activists have received from Western
soft-power outfits. But they also bore the mark of Jimmy Lai's media operation.
In addition to the vast sums Lai spent on political parties directly involved in the
protests, his media group created an animated video "showing how to resist police in case force
was used to disperse people in a mass protest."
While dumping money into the Hong Kong's pro-U.S. political camp in 2013, Lai traveled to
Taiwan for a secret roundtable
consultation with Shih Ming-teh, a key figure in Taiwan's social movement that forced
then-president Chen Shui-bian to resign in 2008. Shih reportedly instructed Lai on non-violent
tactics to bring the government to heel, emphasizing the importance of a commitment to go to
jail.
According to journalist Peter
Lee , "Shih supposedly gave Lai advice on putting students, young girls, and mothers with
children in the vanguard of the street protests, in order to attract the support of the
international community and press, and to sustain the movement with continual activities to
keep it dynamic and fresh." Lai reportedly turned off his recording device during multiple
sections of Shih's tutorial.
One protester explained
to The New York Times how the movement attempted to embrace a strategy called, "Marginal
Violence Theory:" By using "mild force" to provoke security services into attacking the
protesters, the protesters aimed to shift international sympathy away from the state.
The charged atmosphere has provided a shot in the arm to Lai's media empire, which had been
suffering heavy losses since the last round of national protests in 2014. After the mass
marches against the extradition bill on June 9, which Lai's Apple Daily aggressively
promoted, his Next Digital doubled in
value , according to Eji Insight.
Meanwhile, the protest leaders show no sign of backing down. Nathan Law, the youth activist
celebrated in Washington and photographed meeting with U.S. officials in Hong Kong, took to
Twitter to urge his peers to soldier on :
"We have to persist and keep the faith no matter how devastated the reality seems to be," he
wrote.
Law was tweeting from New Haven, Connecticut, where he was enrolled with a full
scholarship at Yale University. While the young activist basked in the adulation of his
U.S. patrons thousands of miles from the chaos he helped spark, a movement that defined itself
as a "leaderless resistance" forged ahead back home.
Dan Cohen is a journalist and co-producer of the award-winning documentary, "Killing Gaza."
He has produced widely distributed video reports and print dispatches from across
Israel-Palestine, Latin America, the U.S.-Mexico border and Washington, D.C. Follow him on
Twitter at @ DanCohen3000 .
Thank you for publishing this. I have lived in Hong Kong all my life and I despaired of
reading anything in the English-language press that was vaguely fair about the riots here.
All I see are Guardian style pejorative bias. Well done.
'Hong Kong, Kashmir: a Tale of Two Occupations' Pepe Escobar,
August 7 , 2019, strategic-culture.com (CC w/ attribution):
"Readers from myriad latitudes have been asking me about Hong Kong. They know it's one of my
previous homes. I developed a complex, multi-faceted relationship with Hong Kong ever since the
1997 handover, which I covered extensively. Right now, if you allow me, I'd rather cut to the
chase.
Much to the distress of neocons and humanitarian imperialists, there won't be a bloody
mainland China crackdown on protesters in Hong Kong – a Tiananmen 2.0. Why? Because it's
not worth it.
Beijing has clearly identified the color revolution provocation inbuilt in the protests
– with the NED excelling as CIA soft , facilitating the sprawl of fifth columnists even
in the civil service.
There are other components, of course. The fact that Hong Kongers are right to be angry
about what is a de facto Tycoon Club oligarchy controlling every nook and cranny of the
economy. The local backlash against "the invasion of the mainlanders". And the relentless
cultural war of Cantonese vs. Beijing, north vs. south, province vs. political center.
What these protests have accelerated is Beijing's conviction that Hong Kong is not worth its
trust as a key node in China's massive integration/development project. Beijing invested no
less than $18.8 billion to build the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge, as part of the Greater Bay
Area, to integrate Hong Kong with the mainland, not to snub it.
Now a bunch of useful idiots at least has graphically proven they don't deserve any sort of
preferential treatment anymore.
The big story in Hong Kong is not even the savage, counter-productive protests (imagine if
this was in France, where Macron's army is actually maiming and even killing Gilets
Jaunes/Yellow Vests). The big story is the rot consuming HSBC – which has all the makings
of the new Deutsche Bank scandal.
HSBC holds $2.6 trillion in assets and an intergalactic horde of cockroaches in their
basement – asking serious questions about money laundering and dodgy deals operated by
global turbo-capitalist elites.
In the end, Hong Kong will be left to its own internally corroding devices – slowly
degrading to its final tawdry status as a Chinese Disneyland with a Western veneer. Shanghai is
already in the process of being boosted as China's top financial center. And Shenzhen already
is the top high-tech hub. Hong Kong will be just an afterthought."
'Civil Disobedience in Hong Kong or US Color Revolution Attempt?', Stephen Lendman , Global
Research,
August 13, 2019
" As the saying goes, if it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck, chances are it is
one.
What's been going on for months in Hong Kong has all the earmarks of a US orchestrated
color revolution , aimed at destabilizing China by targeting its soft Hong Kong
underbelly.
In calling for reunification of China in the early 1980s, then-leader Deng Xiaoping said
Hong Kong and Macau could retain their own economic, financial and governmental systems, Taiwan
as well under a "one country, two systems" arrangement.
The above would be something like what the US 10th Amendment stipulates, stating:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Each of the 50 US states has its own electoral system, governing procedures, and laws that
may differ from federal ones.
China's soft underbelly in Western-oriented Hong Kong left it vulnerable to what's going on.
US dirty hands likely orchestrated and manipulated pro-Western 5th column elements behind
months of anti-Beijing protests.
Dubbed Occupy Central, China's leadership is well aware of what's going on and the high
stakes. Beijing is faced with a dilemma.
Cracking down forcefully to end disruptive Hong Kong protests could discourage foreign
investments. Letting them continue endlessly can destabilize the nation.
US war on China by other means aims to marginalize, weaken, contain, and isolate the country
-- because of its sovereign independence, unwillingness to bend to US interests, and its
growing political, economic, financial, and military development.
China's emergence as a world power threatens Washington's aim to control other countries,
their resources and populations worldwide.
Its successful economic model, producing sustained growth, embarrasses the US-led unfair,
exploitative Western "free market" system.
The US eliminated the Japanese economic threat in the 1980s, a similar one from the Asian
Tiger economies in the 1990s, and now it's China's turn to be taken down.
Its leadership understands what's going on and is countering it in its own way. China is a
more formidable and resourceful US adversary than earlier ones.
Its strategy includes taking a longterm approach toward achieving its objectives with plenty
of economic and financial ability to counter US tactics.
It may become the first post-WW II nation to defeat Washington's imperial game, making the
new millennium China's century in the decades ahead.
US strategies to control other nations include preemptive wars of aggression, old-fashioned
coups, and color revolutions -- what appears to be going on in Hong Kong.
This form of covert war first played out in Belgrade, Serbia in 2000. What appeared to be a
spontaneous political uprising was developed by RAND Corporation strategist in the 1990s -- the
concept of swarming.
It replicates "communication patterns and movement of" bees and other insects used against
nations to destabilize and topple their governments.
The CIA, (anti-democratic) National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican
Institute (IRI), National (undemocratic) Democratic Institute, and USAID are involved.
Their mission is disruptively subverting democracy and instigating regime change through
labor strikes, mass street protests, major media agitprop, and whatever else it takes short of
military conflict.
Belgrade in 2000 was the prototype test drive for this strategy. When subsequently used, it
experienced successes and failures, the former notably in Ukraine twice -- in late 2004/early
2005, again in late 2013/early 2014.
US color revolution attempts have a common thread, aiming to achieve what the Pentagon calls
"full spectrum dominance" -- notably by neutralizing and controlling Russia and China,
Washington's main rival powers, adversaries because of their sovereign independence.
Controlling resource-rich Eurasia, that includes the Middle East, along with Venezuelan
world's largest oil reserves, is a key US imperial aim."
'Hong Kong protests met with denunciations and threats', Peter Symonds, 14 August 2019 ,
wsws.org
"Yesterday, amid an occupation numbering in the thousands, the airport authority was
compelled to halt all check-in services for flights after 4.30 p.m., resulting in the
cancellation of some 300 departures. Clashes erupted between riot police in the evening after
protesters seized a mainland Chinese man who they accused of being an undercover police
officer.
According to the South China Morning Post , the riot police used pepper spray in the
airport to drive out protesters. It reported that as of this morning only a small group of some
30 protesters remained.
The airport occupation has dramatically raised the stakes in the political confrontation
that is now in its 10th week. The huge protests in June over planned legislation to allow
extradition from Hong Kong to China have morphed into a protest movement making wider
democratic demands , including action against police violence and free elections based on
universal suffrage.
The city's administration, led by Chief Executive Carrie Lam and backed by Beijing, has
adamantly refused to make any concessions to the protesters, other than to suspend the
legislation. At a press conference yesterday, Lam denounced the "illegal activities" of the
protesters, defended the violent actions of the police and warned that "riot activities [have]
pushed Hong Kong to the brink of no return."
Lam's remarks echoed those of Hong Kong business leaders amid falling share prices and fears
of an economic downturn, especially in the property sector. Swire Pacific, a wealthy
family-owned business empire that owns the Cathay Pacific airline and an extensive property
portfolio, issued a statement condemning "illegal activities and violent behaviour" and gave
Lam and the police full support "in their efforts to restore law and order." Sun Hung Kai
Properties, controlled by Asia's third richest family, also called on Tuesday for the
restoration of social order and backed Lam.
Sections of the Hong Kong business elite, concerned at Beijing's encroachment on their
interests, had initially supported the protests against the extradition bill but are now
calling for an end to the protest movement. Property tycoon Peter Woo said in a statement on
Monday that the protests had already forced the government to shelve the legislation and
claimed that some people were using the issue to "purposely stir up trouble."
The huge social gulf between the handful of billionaires who dominate Hong Kong,
economically and politically, and the vast majority of the city's population looms large. Low
wages, economic insecurity, the lack of opportunities for young people, unaffordable housing,
and threadbare welfare services are all fuelling discontent and anger."
'Violent Protests In Hong Kong Reach Their Last Stage; The riots in Hong Kong are about to
end',
August 14, 2019 , moonofalabama.org
The protests, as originally started in June, were against a law that would have allowed
criminal extraditions to Taiwan, Macao and mainland China. The law was retracted and the large
protests have since died down. What is left are a few thousand students who, as advertised
in a New York Times op-ed , intentionally seek to provoke the police with "marginal
violence":
Such actions are a way to make noise and gain attention. And if they prompt the police to
respond with unnecessary force, as happened on June 12, then the public will feel disapproval
and disgust for the authorities. The protesters should thoughtfully escalate nonviolence, maybe
even resort to mild force, to push the government to the edge. That was the goal of many people
who surrounded and barricaded police headquarters for hours on June 21.
The protesters now use the same violent methods that were used
in the Maidan protests in the Ukraine. The U.S. seems to hope that China will intervene and
create a second
Tianamen scene . That
U.S. color revolution attempt failed but was an excellent instrument to demonize China. A
repeat in Hong Kong would allow the U.S. to declare a "clash of civilization" and increase
'western' hostility against China. But while China is prepared to intervene
it is unlikely to do the U.S. that favor. Its government expressed confidence that the
local authorities will be able to handle the issue.
There are rumors that some Hong Kong oligarchs were originally behind the protests to
prevent their extradition for shady deals they made in China. There may be some truth to that.
China's president Xi Jingpin is waging a fierce campaign against corruption and Hong Kong is a
target rich environment for fighting that crime." [snip]
"Rents and apartment prices in Hong Kong are high. People from the mainland who buy up
apartments with probably illegally gained money only increase the scarcity. This is one reason
why the Cantonese speaking Hong Kong protesters spray slurs against the Mandarin speaking
people from the mainland. The people in Hong Kong also grieve over their declining importance.
Hong Kong lost its once important economical position. In 1993 Hong Kong's share of China's GDP
was 27%. It is now less than a tenths of that and the city is now more or less irrelevant to
mainland China."
'World is watching': US reaction points to Hong Kong as a 'color revolution', 12 Aug, 2019,
RT.com
"One cannot help but recall that the same phrasing was used for Ukraine, during the Maidan
protests of 2013 that culminated in a violent coup in February 2014 – and plunged that
country into secession of Crimea and civil war in the Donbass, eastern Ukraine.
The impression is only reinforced by the images reminiscent of Kiev coming out of Hong Kong,
showing helmeted protesters in black masks firing grenades and throwing firebombs at police
– none of which has stopped the chorus of US media from calling the protesters "pro-democracy."
OMG.
Hong Kong protesters in Hong Kong proudly sing US National anthem "The Star-Spangled
Banner" O say can you see ... What so proudly we hailed ...brings tears to my eyes pic.twitter.com/CeM5zrA1Fe
"There is even nationalism, albeit of a xeno variety: some protesters have brandished flags
of Hong Kong's former colonial master, the UK. Others have embraced the US flag, telling
reporters it stands for "freedom, human rights and democracy." [snip]
"Even though US President Donald Trump has steered clear of Hong Kong and made sure to
describe is as an internal Chinese matter, focusing his diatribes entirely on trade, the
Chinese public is becoming increasingly convinced that Washington is instigating turmoil in
Hong Kong along the lines of "color revolutions" elsewhere."
And for a it of comic relief: ' Hong Kong phooey! Would you like any hypocrisy with that? ,
George Galloway, August 13, 2019 , RT.com
"Like a homing pigeon in reverse the entire UK media has flown like a bat out of hell away
from France all the way to Hong Kong (as they had earlier flown to Caracas until the big
protests turned into the wrong kind of protests).
There is nothing, except the shoe-sizes, of the demonstrators in Hong Kong that I don't know
thanks to the veritable blizzard of in-depth analysis of the protestors there and their each
and every demand. Protesters in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain can be executed, but we will never be
told their names.
And the hypocrisy of the media is just for starters.
If a group of British protesters broke into the British Parliament and hung, for argument's
sake, a Russian flag over the Speaker's chair it is " highly likely " that a commando
force would quickly and violently overwhelm and arrest them accompanied by volleys of
accusations about Russian interference.
If a crowd of British protestors occupied Heathrow Airport in such numbers and so
disruptively that British Airways had to stop flights in and out of the airport, causing
massive financial loss, dislocation, and personal inconvenience, I promise you that their
protest would have been cleared out by the above mentioned commandos on the very first day of
their protests.
If protesters in London were hoisting Chinese flags and singing the Chinese national anthem
then, well, I'm sure you get my point.
The struggle between the government of China and its citizens is no more the business of the
British than it is of the Slovakians. It's true that Hong Kong was a British colony for 150
years but the least said about the shame and disgrace of how that came to be, the better, I
promise you.
Suffice to say that to acquire territory by force, followed by unequal treaty at
gunboat-point to punish the actual owners of the land for resisting the British opium trade,
is, even by British Imperial standards, extraordinary. So shameful is it you'd think the
British would want to draw a veil over it. But not so."
On the other hand, and note sources and today's date :
'Chinese military personnel near Hong Kong border', Ambassador in London says China prepared
to intervene 'if things get worse'; troops 7km from border, Jimmy Yee & AFP, asiatimes.com,
August
15, 2019
"Thousands of Chinese military personnel waving red flags paraded at a sports stadium in a
city across the border from Hong Kong on Thursday.
Armored vehicles were also seen inside the stadium in Shenzhen, as concerns build that China
may intervene to end more than 10 weeks of unrest in Hong Kong.
Trucks and armoured personnel carriers are seen outside the Shenzhen Bay stadium in
Shenzhen, bordering Hong Kong in China's southern Guangdong province, on August 15, 2019.
"Indeed, China's
ambassador in London warned several hours later that Beijing was ready to intervene if the
crisis gets worse.
"Should the situation in Hong Kong deteriorate further the central government will not sit
on its hands and watch," Ambassador Liu Xiaoming said at a news conference in the UK. "We have
enough solutions and enough power within the limits of Basic Law to quell any unrest swiftly.
Their moves are severe and violent offenses, and already shows signs of terrorism."
China's state-run media reported this week that the elements of the People's Armed Police
(PAP), which is under the command of the Central Military Commission, were assembling in
Shenzhen.
Some of the personnel inside the stadium on Thursday had armed police insignias on their
camouflage fatigues, according to an AFP reporter.
The security forces could be seen moving in formation inside the stadium and occasionally
running, while others rode around outside on motorbikes.
Outside the stadium – which is around seven kilometers from Hong Kong – there
were also dozens of trucks and armored personnel carriers.
The People's Daily and Global Times, two of the most powerful state-run media outlets,
published videos on Monday of what it said was the PAP assembling in Shenzhen.
The Global Times editor-in-chief, Hu Xijin, said the military presence in Shenzhen was a
sign that China was prepared to intervene in Hong Kong.
"If they do not pull back from the cliff and continue to push the situation further beyond
the critical point, the power of the state may come to Hong Kong at any time," Hu wrote.
US President Donald Trump also said Tuesday American intelligence had confirmed Chinese
troop movements toward the Hong Kong border .
"I hope it works out for everybody including China. I hope it works out peacefully, nobody
gets hurt, nobody gets killed," Trump said.
'Satellite images show China's military massing near Hong Kong border; A satellite photo has
revealed a worrying threat, right on the border with Hong Kong. It indicates Beijing is losing
patience', news.com.au,
August 15, 2019
"Satellite photos show what appear to be Chinese armoured personnel carriers and other
military vehicles across the border from Hong Kong.
Parked in a sports complex in the city of Shenzhen, the deployment has been interpreted as a
threat from Beijing to use increased force against pro-democracy protesters.
The pictures, collected on Monday by Maxar's WorldView, show 500 or more vehicles sitting on
and around the soccer stadium at the Shenzhen Bay Sports Centre.
The military force is just across the harbour from the Asian financial hub that has been
rocked by near-daily street demonstrations.
Hong Kong's 10-week political crisis, in which millions of people have taken to the streets
calling for a halt to sliding freedoms, is the biggest challenge to Chinese rule of the
semi-autonomous city since its 1997 handover from Britain." [snip]
"The state-run People's Daily did not comment on the purpose of the vehicles but
noted that the People's Armed Police was in charge of "handling riots, turmoil, seriously
violent, criminal activities, terrorist attacks and other societal security incidents".
China looks so sleek and modern. But then, so do the futuristic skylines of many Asian and
MiddleEast cities. Such economic opulence. Such energy in a rising and thriving middle
class.
Sorry for the OT. Pepe Escobar is always a great read when he covers the CIA's activities
throughout the world. A rare topic in the tattered old US. Thanks for bringing it.
simply astounding buildings, and sleek, as you say. pepe's covered so many stories over
the decades, and my guess is that he and lendman are altogether correct that this was a
USAID, NED, cia prompted rebellion. and you?
now i haven't a clue about the alleged chinese troops massing at the border, nor about any
of the attributed to the chinese quotes, but i had pinged: 'and who invented the game of
chess?' as i discovered, few claim it was the chinese, most say east indians > persia,
etc.
singing the amerikan national anthem? waving UK and US flags? RU kidding me?
thanks for reading and commenting, pluto.
China looks so sleek and modern. But then, so do the futuristic skylines of many Asian
and MiddleEast cities. Such economic opulence. Such energy in a rising and thriving
middle class.
Sorry for the OT. Pepe Escobar is always a great read when he covers the CIA's
activities throughout the world. A rare topic in the tattered old US. Thanks for bringing
it.
China looks so sleek and modern. But then, so do the futuristic skylines of many Asian
and MiddleEast cities. Such economic opulence. Such energy in a rising and thriving
middle class.
Sorry for the OT. Pepe Escobar is always a great read when he covers the CIA's
activities throughout the world. A rare topic in the tattered old US. Thanks for bringing
it.
"It may become the first post-WW II nation to defeat Washington's imperial game, making
the new millennium China's century in the decades ahead." As a citizen of the U.S., which
will be devastated when the dollar is dropped as the reserve currency... I'm rooting for
China.
I very much appreciate this piece. While I did experience a "ding!" moment when I saw the
NED referenced, because I just watched a video on it yesterday, I was nevertheless
pathetically oblivious to what the U.S. is doing.
back up again today. you'll like the abundance of information and tweets alex rubenstein
brought on june 13, 2019 :
' American Gov't, NGOs Fuel and Fund Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Protests '
It is inconceivable that the organizers of the protests are unaware of the NED ties to some
of its members' (one outtake in a lengthy exposé):
As MintPress News previously reported :
"The NED was founded in 1983 following a series of scandals that exposed the CIA's
blood-soaked covert actions against foreign governments. 'It would be terrible for
democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA,' NED President Carl
Gershman told the New York Times in 1986. 'We saw that in the Sixties, and that's why it
has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that's why the
endowment was created.'
Another NED founder, Allen Weinstein, conceded to the Washington Post's David Ignatius,
'A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.'"
UK media cheerlead Hong Kong protesters who fear China will use 'non-political crimes to
prosecute critics'. The same media that's spent 9 years cheerleading persecution, torture
of whistleblowing platform founder Julian Assange for non-political crimes https://t.co/KuYyF0L5dS
on edit : the subtweets under cohen's original are great! robert mackey was not
amused....
now one thing to remember is that pierre omidyar was a deep contributor to centre ua, and
either NED or USAID before maidan and the putsch in ukraine. i haven't read the intercept
link, but mackey (i'm fairly certain) was one of the five 'fearless investigative
journalists' who'd smeared julian assange while he was down.
glad you've found this compilation of value, tle; me too.
on second edit: i did remember correctly, as it turns out. from my recent diary on the
crushing of julian assange (this via oscar grenfell):
An article by Robert Mackey in November, 2017 accused the WikiLeaks founder of a
"willingness to traffic in false or misleading information," of "working on behalf of
Trump" and of transforming "the WikiLeaks Twitter feed into a vehicle for smearing
Clinton."
"It may become the first post-WW II nation to defeat Washington's imperial game,
making the new millennium China's century in the decades ahead." As a citizen of the
U.S., which will be devastated when the dollar is dropped as the reserve currency... I'm
rooting for China.
I very much appreciate this piece. While I did experience a "ding!" moment when I saw
the NED referenced, because I just watched a video on it yesterday, I was nevertheless
pathetically oblivious to what the U.S. is doing.
noted that commenter karlov1 had urged others to click into b's tianemen scene hyperlink,
which goes to his own
june 4, 2019 ' Tian An Men Square - What Really Happened (Updated)' (including grisly
photos)
"Since 1989 the western media write anniversary pieces on the June 4 removal of
protesters from the Tiananmen Square in Beijing. The view seems always quite one sided and
stereotyped with a brutal military that suppresses peaceful protests.
That is not the full picture. Thanks to Wikileaks we have a few situation reports from the
U.S. Embassy in Beijing at that time. They describe a different scene than the one western
media paint to this day."
he's also brought any number of tweeted descriptions of similar violence perpetrated by
protestors on those they believe might be undercover police, and this telling paragraph:
""While the protests against the extradition bill may have been backed by some tycoons, it
is obvious that there is also a large U.S. government influence behind them. It is the U.S.,
not some oligarchs, which is behind the current rioting phase.
In 1992 Congress adopted the United States–Hong Kong Policy Act which mandates U.S.
government 'pro-democracy' policies in Hong Kong. Some Senators and lobbyists now push for a
Support Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act which would intensify the interference.
Before the June protests started Secretary of State (and former CIA head) Mike Pompeo met
with the Hong Kong 'pro-democracy' leader Martin Lee and later with 'pro-democracy' media
tycoon Jimmy Lai. The National Endowment for Democracy finances several of the groups behind
the protests."
"The other significant force in the Ukraine is the West Ukrainian (Galician) Nazi
death-squads and mobs."
Where are death camps for the Jews? Where are racial laws that expel non-Ukrainians? Where
is the propaganda of eugenics and healthy lifestyle? Where are construction projects bringing
in jobs, and state-subsidized recreation tours?
Ukraine is a Jew-driven shithole that has nothing to do with National Socialism. They
don't even honour the sacrifice of the SS Galizien.
"but what they are genuinely fantasizing about is the territory, and only the territory.
As for the 2 million-plus virulently anti-Nazi people currently living on these lands, they
simply want them either dead or expelled)."
A lie. Currently, more than a half of those "expelled" have migrated inside Ukraine. A
stark contrast to Croatia where the Serbs were driven out of the country, and their land
given to Croats.
Again, Ukraine is suicidal and full of civic nationalism, nothing about it is
blood-based.
"They and their Polish supporters want Russia to break apart in numerous small state-lets
which they (or, in their delusional dreams, the Chinese) could dominate."
Why do you consider this as a negative for the Russian people? The current Russian state
is in its death throes as much as the US and France – the ethnic Russians are dying
out, fleeing and being replaced. Any alternative might prove out more hopeful.
"In contrast, the LDNR forces seem to be doing pretty well, and their morale appears to be
as strong as ever (which is unsurprising since their military ethos is based in 1000 years of
Russian military history)."
I have to remind you that the Donbass was colonized far more recently than Ukraine –
in the 18-19th centuries. What "ancient" traditions?
"but Novorussia also is a never healing wound in the side of Nazi-occupied Ukraine"
The Donbass has never been part of Novorussia which is to the west, from Dniepropetrovsk
to Odessa. Admittedly, Novorussia's colonists were mostly from Ukraine – it is clearly
seen on the language maps.
"The problem with this slogan is that there is simply no way the (relatively small)
Galician population can ever succeed in permanently defeating their much bigger (and,
frankly, much smarter) Jewish, Polish or Russian neighbors."
Khmelnitsky managed to do just that – 100k dead Jews. And he's on the Ukrainian
currency. Too bad modern "Nazi" Ukrainians have elected a Jew President. This is not the
Khmelnitsky uprising, this is Kiev under the Khazar Khaganate before Oleg came from the
North.
It's very sad that Ukraine is just a pawn in dirty geopolitical games of the USA, the EU and Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... In 3-5 years we could have an interesting scenario in Ukraine with land (its main wealth) owned by foreign investors and a large % of population with Russian or Polish and other EU passports. As always with ideology, the result is the exact opposite of what that ideology claims: the dictatorship of proletariat impoverished and killed proletariat, Nazis dramatically shrunk German lebensraum, liberals obsession with ' liberty and universal brotherhood ' is leading to censorship, suppression and group hostilities. But here we are and the ideological idiocy that Maidan-Ukrainians embraced might not be reversible. This is not good for anybody. ..."
"... For Ukraine these are all irreversible losses, but from Western perspective, these are little victories: Russia was forced to spend more. As the West does not give a hoot about Ukraine, the US and its vassals can freely celebrate these victories. ..."
"... So, it all depends on the point of view. The West never cared about aborigines, so their point of view does not come into its calculations. ..."
"... Currently prevailing mood in Russia is that Ukraine, whoever is the power there, gets nothing, nada, zilch. ..."
"... But Ukrainian authorities worked pretty hard to achieve it, and now Ukraine has to live with this new reality. It won’t be pretty. The US was simply following its standard policy: leave a pile of shit, declare victory, and leave, waiting for someone else to clean up. ..."
"... Now there is only one way Russia would clean up: if the EU pays full price for it. As this is unlikely, the aborigines are going to bear the brunt of the consequences. ..."
miscalculation that the rotten West will help them instead of use them to create a
festering sore on Russian border for just a few billion dollars in loans.
A possibly a fatal miscalculation for Ukraine, but there is also an ideology involved. In
Maidan-Ukrainians case that ideology is Ukrainian nationalism combined with a servile Western
worship of almost cargo-cult level. An odd combination that has led to odd result.
West wanted Zelensky to win, the question is why. Tactically, Zelensky neutralized large
Russia-leaning block of voters: the 70% vote would have gone somewhere and they were not
going to vote for Poroshenko or Tymoshenko. So that misdirection was successful. But what was
the point?
Let's look at what Zelensky is actually doing (not the throw-away comedy and
rhetoric): he is trying to allow sale of Ukrainian land to foreign investors. My guess is
that he will push it through and that will his main legacy. Buying up Ukrainian arable land
has been a wet dream for many in the West since 1991. Zelensky could deliver on it, and then
move on.
In 3-5 years we could have an interesting scenario in Ukraine with land (its main wealth)
owned by foreign investors and a large % of population with Russian or Polish and other EU
passports. As always with ideology, the result is the exact opposite of what that ideology
claims: the dictatorship of proletariat impoverished and killed proletariat, Nazis
dramatically shrunk German lebensraum, liberals obsession with ' liberty and universal
brotherhood ' is leading to censorship, suppression and group hostilities. But here we
are and the ideological idiocy that Maidan-Ukrainians embraced might not be reversible. This
is not good for anybody.
Why does the Saker think that Ze had any choice? He is a puppet, a stuffed shirt brought to
”power” by Kolomoisky and allied oligarchs. The only goal was to chase Porky and
allied thieves from the trough to be able to steal more.
Now, the people of Ukraine had choice. But they blew it again, like many times before:
each Ukrainian “president” is worse than his predecessor. As the saying goes,
“fool me once, shame on you…” Ukrainians let themselves be fooled six
times already, so there is no doubt where the shame goes.
It was said that the nationalism is the last resort of a scoundrel. But it isn’t the
only one. Nationalism, stupid unrealistic dreams to feed sheeple, fairy tales about
aggression, and the war create perfect smokescreen for blatant thievery. It continues
unabated, ever since 1991.
Russia does need to make its choice. But it is complicated by the role of Russian thieves
(polite word is oligarchs) in current Russian state. Putin kicked some out. The remaining
ones have enough brains to figure that they need a strong state to protect them, lest their
loot be stolen by Western thieves. So, they are a step ahead of Ukrainian thieves who did not
tumble even to this simple realization. But no more than one step ahead.
The economic reality is that Russian state does not have the resources to restore Ukraine,
even if sane forces come to power there. So, Ukraine would likely keep festering, losing
millions of working age people (like today), possibly losing chunks of territory (as the joke
has it, whoever remains in Ukraine pays off the debt). The problems of that huge Somalia can
only be solved by concerted effort of many European countries and Russia. This is not on the
cards, at least not until Ukies create yet another Chernobyl. Then the EU might decide to
send its US overlords to Hell and pay Russia to take the hand grenade away from the monkey. I
don’t think Putin will live long enough to see that happen.
…EU might decide to send its US overlords to Hell and pay Russia to take the hand
grenade away from the monkey.
How would EU go against its overlord? Even if EU would try, the existential nihilism in
Kiev will prevent compromise. Ideologues can’t admit that their ‘idea’
didn’t work, they prefer destroying everything around. West is also at this point
incapable of admitting an error – they literally can’t do it, the lying has to go
on. That means that even groundwork for any possible compromise can’t be put in place.
This is all the way down with fireworks and it won’t be pretty.
There is such a thing as a catastrophic error and the last 5 years in Ukraine comes pretty
close to it. That is not really fixable. The monkey night as well use the grenade.
Minsk agreement was an incredibly generous deal, if Poroshenko had half a brain he would
had jumped on it and today Donbas would be a remote backwater with autonomy.
That would be true if Porky was interested in Ukraine. As it is, his only interest and
loyalty was and is his personal loot. To keep stealing, he (and allied thieves) needed the
smokescreen of war, fairy tales of “aggression”, and pipe dreams of “greater
Ukraine” for the sheeple. He succeeded in his thievery for five years. Now another gang
of thieves pushed his gang from the trough. End of story.
Are you a teenager unaware of the history of the Maidan regime-change
“revolution?” Here are two most influential Ukranian parties-participants in the
“revolution:” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)
The Svoboda Party was founded in 1991 as the Social-National Party of Ukraine … It
is widely considered a fascist..party….
Time has described it [the Right Sector Party] as a “radical right-wing group
… a coalition of militant ultra-nationalists” with an ideology that
“borders on fascism”.
Die Welt, The New York Times, and Le Monde Diplomatique have described some of
Right Sector’s constituent groups as radical right-wing, neofascist, or
neo-Nazi…
You are a pessimist (or a fatalist). I agree that EU is shamefully subservient to the US,
but when some of their core interests are at stake, even slavish EU can show some teeth. Just
think of Nord Stream-2: the US is jumping out of its skin to damage this project, but Germany
stands remarkably firm.
From Western point of view, Ukie provocation was not a complete failure (even though
it’s a catastrophic failure from Ukrainian point of view): Russia had to spend a lot to
develop the production of military things it used to import from Ukraine, like ships, ship
engines, helicopter engines, spaceship control systems, etc.
Now that it acquired the
capability to produce these things, there will be no going back regardless who rules Ukraine:
it’s industries that used to export to Russia are doomed. These include such giants as Nikolaev shipbuilding plant, Motor Sich in Zaparozie, Antonov aircraft building plant in Kiev,
etc. The same goes for transit.
It is not just natural gas transit everybody talks about.
Russia used to transport ammonia to Odessa, where it was partially exported and partially
converted into fertilizers. The plant that used to do that is dead.
Ukraine tried to sell it
for $5 billion under Yanuk and got no takers, about a year ago it tried to sell it for 10% of
that price, and got no takers again.
There also used to be substantial Russian payments for
transport via the railway going across Eastern Ukraine.
Russia built an alternative bypassing
Ukraine, so they might as well dismantle the rails on their route.
For Ukraine these are all
irreversible losses, but from Western perspective, these are little victories: Russia was
forced to spend more. As the West does not give a hoot about Ukraine, the US and its vassals
can freely celebrate these victories.
So, it all depends on the point of view. The West never cared about aborigines, so their
point of view does not come into its calculations.
That’s true, when it comes to resources, there are always alternatives how to spend
them.
Currently prevailing mood in Russia is that Ukraine, whoever is the power there, gets
nothing, nada, zilch.
Considering how closely Ukrainians are related to Russians, this feat
wasn’t easy.
But Ukrainian authorities worked pretty hard to achieve it, and now Ukraine
has to live with this new reality. It won’t be pretty. The US was simply following its
standard policy: leave a pile of shit, declare victory, and leave, waiting for someone else to
clean up.
Now there is only one way Russia would clean up: if the EU pays full price for it. As
this is unlikely, the aborigines are going to bear the brunt of the consequences.
Saker is naive and badly educated. It is stupid to call Ukraine an oligarchy. All countries on Earth are oligarchies.
The real question is which group of oligarchs is in power. In case of Ukraine those are privatization sharks, the worst kind
of neoliberal financial scum. Often real criminals.
Otto von Bismarck created a powerful German state which exists to this day. While vassal of the USA it is still a state
now. And Merkel role in EuroMaidan definitely reminds Drang
nach Osten in neoliberal packaging. Neocolonialism in its pure form
Ukraine is just a pawn in a bigger geopolitical game of the USA and EU against Russia. That explains in the current state of
Ukrainian economics and the level of Ukrainian population sufferings. Ukrainian
nationalist paradoxically served as the fifth column for the neoliberal oligarchy. The phenomenon similar to the US
nationalists role under Trump.
At the same time despite dismally low standard of living Ukrainian population is showing great resilience in the current
hardships and infrastructure while completely worn out still works. But Ukraine is now completely Latin-Americanized, which was
the goal of the USA from the very beginning for all Soviet space. Ukraine now is a debt slave of the West which
is completely opposite to any nationalist movement goals.
According to
Wikipedia just
5% of population lives of less than $5.50 a day. That's baloney. In reality the percentage is probably two-three times times
higher (average monthly pension is typically less then $1500 grivna which is less then $60) so most of pensioners live on
less then $2 a day. 8 million of the approximately 12 million of Ukrainian pensioners were receiving the minimum pension of
1312 (around $50) while medium pension amounted to 1886 UAH (Pensions
in Ukraine - Wikipedia) And 12 million is 28% of Ukrainian population (around 42-43 million total down from 45.55 before
EuroMaydan ). It is declining around 200 persons daily. On average there are 462,052 births and 662,571 deaths in Ukraine
per year.
While pensioners are definitely starving the situation at least stabilized with grivna around 25 per dollar (something like
300% after the EuroMaydan). So Nuland advantures cost dearly for average Ukrainian.
Notable quotes:
"... These guys are a minority, a pretty small one even, but they have enough muscle and even firepower to threaten any nominal Ukrainian leader. ..."
As I have indicated in a recent article , the Ukraine is not a
democracy but an oligarchy : ever since 1991 the most prosperous Soviet republic
was mercilessly plundered by an entire class (in the Marxist sense of the word) of oligarchs
whose biggest fear has always been that the same "horror" (from their point of view) which
befell Russia with Putin, would eventually arrive at the Ukraine.
Here we need to make something clear: this is NOT, repeat, NOT about nationality or
nationalism. The Ukrainian oligarchs are just like any other oligarchs: their loyalty is to
their money and nothing else. If you want to characterize these oligarchs, you could think of
them as culturally "post-Soviet" meaning that they don't care about nationality, and even
though their prime language is Russian, they don't give a damn about Russia or Russians (or
anybody else, for that matter!). Since many of them are Jews, they have a network of
supporters/accomplices in Israel of course, but also in the West and even in Russia. In truth,
these guys are the ultimate "internationalists" in their own, toxic, kind of way.
Some fine specimens of "ochlocrats"
The other significant force in the Ukraine is the West Ukrainian (Galician) Nazi
death-squads and mobs. Their power is not a democracy either, but an ochlocracy .
These guys are a minority, a pretty small one even, but they have enough muscle and even
firepower to threaten any nominal Ukrainian leader.
Can you stop with the Ukronazi crap, what kind of Nazi Government has a Jewish PM and Jewish
President ?
Azov guys dying in Donbass and the street thugs in Kiev are just cannon fodder, they don't
run shit
The majority of Ukranians don't want to be in this conflict, I don't see the point in
demonizing all of them because of some fascist larpers
People need to move on from the past and stop all that hating others for some past deeds.
Polish or Western Ukrainian hatred for Russians, Russian hatred for Germans, Chinese &
Korean hatred for the Japanese, Indian hatred for the British or the Chinese, Black South
African hatred for Afrikaners. All these are counter productive for the people and are
emotions which can be whipped up by the elites to have commoners die like cannon fodder at
worst or to take away attention towards a past historic enemy to hide their own corruption/
incompetence at best.
People need to see things from the other side as well.
As far as the Satanic Zio elite pigs, they will use any ideology as long as it serves
them. Democracy, Communism, anti-Communism, Islamic fundamentalism, anti-Islam, Jingoistic
Nationalism, Anti-Nationalism/One Worldism, feminism, Hindutva, Buddhist fundamentalism (Sri
Lanka BBS and the secret Zionist hand), Neo-Conservatism, Leftism, Colonialism,
anti-Colonialism as long it suits them. They use them and discard them away when needed. But
this seems to be the most extreme case ever. For the first time the Zio elites are using
National Socialism as an ideology to serve them. The ideology which was probably the greatest
enemy and threat to the Zio elites, in human history. Freakin crazy!!!
More grist for Saker's suckers. The Galicians (and Ukro-Nazi Jews) are behind
everything. In Saker's simplistic mind the Galicians have infiltrated all of Ukrainian
society and run the whole show, when in fact this is just a bunch of nonsense. Well, at least
Saker is putting to use his favorite Ukrainian pejorative do I really need to repeat it
again, ad nauseum?
"The other significant force in the Ukraine is the West Ukrainian (Galician) Nazi
death-squads and mobs."
Where are death camps for the Jews? Where are racial laws that expel non-Ukrainians? Where
is the propaganda of eugenics and healthy lifestyle? Where are construction projects bringing
in jobs, and state-subsidized recreation tours?
Ukraine is a Jew-driven shithole that has nothing to do with National Socialism. They
don't even honour the sacrifice of the SS Galizien.
"but what they are genuinely fantasizing about is the territory, and only the territory.
As for the 2 million-plus virulently anti-Nazi people currently living on these lands, they
simply want them either dead or expelled)."
A lie. Currently, more than a half of those "expelled" have migrated inside Ukraine. A
stark contrast to Croatia where the Serbs were driven out of the country, and their land
given to Croats.
Again, Ukraine is suicidal and full of civic nationalism, nothing about it is
blood-based.
"They and their Polish supporters want Russia to break apart in numerous small state-lets
which they (or, in their delusional dreams, the Chinese) could dominate."
Why do you consider this as a negative for the Russian people? The current Russian state
is in its death throes as much as the US and France – the ethnic Russians are dying
out, fleeing and being replaced. Any alternative might prove out more hopeful.
"In contrast, the LDNR forces seem to be doing pretty well, and their morale appears to be
as strong as ever (which is unsurprising since their military ethos is based in 1000 years of
Russian military history)."
I have to remind you that the Donbass was colonized far more recently than Ukraine –
in the 18-19th centuries. What "ancient" traditions?
"but Novorussia also is a never healing wound in the side of Nazi-occupied Ukraine"
The Donbass has never been part of Novorussia which is to the west, from Dniepropetrovsk
to Odessa. Admittedly, Novorussia's colonists were mostly from Ukraine – it is clearly
seen on the language maps.
"The problem with this slogan is that there is simply no way the (relatively small)
Galician population can ever succeed in permanently defeating their much bigger (and,
frankly, much smarter) Jewish, Polish or Russian neighbors."
Khmelnitsky managed to do just that – 100k dead Jews. And he's on the Ukrainian
currency. Too bad modern "Nazi" Ukrainians have elected a Jew President. This is not the
Khmelnitsky uprising, this is Kiev under the Khazar Khaganate before Oleg came from the
North.
It's a of nonsense as usual. This piece is quickly refuted:
ever since 1991 the most prosperous Soviet republic
People who spread this myth are ignorant or liars. It's a common one, though.
In 1990 Ukraine's per capita GDP was $1570.
Russia's was $3485.
Belarus was $2124.
So in Soviet times, Ukraine was the poorest of the three Slavic Soviet Republics. It still
is, the position hasn't changed. It's just fallen further behind.
::::::::
Everything else is just as nonsensical, I won't even bother to detail it, most of the
commenters here are as dumb/ignorant/dishonest (take your pick) as the author pretends to
be.
I don't know where Saker sources his history. Lenin had nothing to do with the creation of
Ukraine.
I live in Western Canada, where Ukrainians come starting in the late 19th century. I'm not
referring to the primarily German speaking Mennonites that left South Central Ukraine, in the
1870s, fleeing religious persecution. By WWI, more than 200,000 were in Western Canada from
all parts of Ukraine. They considered themselves Ukrainians, not Russians, or Galicians. They
were, and to a great extent, still are Ukrainian nationalists. There continues to be friction
with Polish and German local populations, although prior to the "rebirth" of Ukraine, it had
largely subsided. Recent Russian immigrants are shunned as much as the "Poles" and "Germans".
Politically, they are generally left of center, and have been since their arrival, although
in recent decades more have become "conservative" (whatever that means these days). A long
ago former Russian Jewish co-worker who was a late 60s "escapee" from the USSR, told me that
he would never vote for one of our political parties, because there were "too many
Ukrainians" in the party. I asked a "Ukrainian" friend, who I had known since grade school,
what that meant. His explanation was that there had always been tensions between Jews and
Ukrainians, for centuries, because of what Ukrainians believed was exploitation by the Jews.
Other "Ukrainians" and "Jews" have confirmed this.
The reality is, that most people in most countries just want to live their lives in peace,
with a job good enough to provide a decent home and food for the family. That 70% of
Ukrainians want that is not surprising, it's normal. That doesn't mean they aren't
nationalists, and it doesn't mean they are Nazis. However screwed up they are in trying to do
so, Ukrainians are struggling to retain their identity and culture. IMO, they are up against
internationalist forces from all sides, and none are interested in letting that happen.
@Curmudgeon
The Nazi name-calling is over the top, and not just with regard to Ukraine or Galicia.
Historical grievances or revisions are not 'Nazism'. Too many people look at Ukraine and
over-interpret the nostalgia for Bandera or simple national self-assertion.
But I think Saker is right about where this is going. Russian side has local dominance and
that will not change. The only game in town for the last 5 years has been to see if the
Western squeeze of Russia will work faster than the Russian squeeze of Ukraine. By now it is
obvious that it won't.
Kiev has made some fatal mistakes. E.g. Minsk agreement was an incredibly generous deal,
if Poroshenko had half a brain he would had jumped on it and today Donbas would be a remote
backwater with autonomy . So? The state would be intact, taxes would be paid,
passports centrally issued, etc The eastern European dynamic is that any population always
ends up disliking its immediate rulers – how long before local leaders in Donbas would
be challenged by some younger corruption fighters.
The whole Maidan thing was also terribly mismanaged – at its core it was about
getting the best potential deal for Ukraine with EU (and Russia). In the middle of the
negotiation suddenly Maidanistas decided that symbols are more important than reality and
basically folded in front of EU. Consequently Russia walked. Thus Kiev got justa bout the
worst possible combination on non-EU and deep hostility with Russia. Smarter guys would had
handled it much better, playing both sides against each other – raising the stakes.
And let's not even get started on Crimea, while Ukies ate stale cookies, they lost
overnight their most valuable possession – they couldn't anticipate it? Being able to
anticipate is a key to intelligence and in playing any game.
So we can talk about what or who is driving modern Ukraine, oligarchs, Galicians, Jews,
Kiev thugs, Canadians – it doesn't matter, what matters is that they are incompetent.
From Yushenko to Zelensky they are amateurs driven by emotion and greed. There is no
state-forming force, there is no true Ukrainian nationalism that would play up Ukraine's
strengths and manage its weaknesses. Saker is basically right – they are in a no-win
cul-de-sac, at this point any move will make their situation worse. Their best (only?) hope
is a collapse of Russia. Now, how likely is that?
@Felix
Keverich Autism of this degree does not pop out of nowhere
You had Cossacks and Mercenaries from the Ukraine joining up with the Poles, Swedes,
Napoleon, Germans and others. Calling diaspora nationalists stupid is all fine and dandy but
the constant bickering between people in current Ukraine and in Russia stinks of divide and
conquer (which is what Ukraine vs Russia conflicts always were)
Calling them stupid and calling their ethnicity fake(which they make an actual effort to
preserve, such as it is) stinks of hypocrisy when so many Great Russians were willing to tear
their country, religion and people apart in 1917 and join up with the Bolsheviks in the rape
and pillaging
You'd probably get far more progress calling them a branch of Russian civilization, you
can cite Belarus and Siberian Ukraine as examples
It's easy to dogpile on some poor Hohol since they will always be on the defensive, but it's
much harder to understand him and admit your own faults while not backing down from your
standpoint that you are both one people
Serbs often made the same mistakes with Montenegro, and the result is the modern day
shitfest where both it and Ukraine are run by hostile US puppets
The Saker is correct that reality and pragmatism are essential 'when trying to figure out
what is going on and what might happen next.' It is a hard calculation to make in a world
increasingly chaotic and dark. The Minsk Accord is probably the only glimmer of light for
Ukraine, but then all the lights – across the world – are going out. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
However screwed up they are in trying to do so, Ukrainians are struggling to retain
their identity and culture. IMO, they are up against internationalist forces from all
sides, and none are interested in letting that happen.
What you posted is called a generic "to be against everything bad, for everything good".
Living in a world of unicorns and having rainbows as result of bowel movement is, of course,
a worthy aspiration but reality with Ukraine is a teeny-weeny bit more complicated than mere
attempts to "retain their identity and culture". I'll give you a hint, vast swaths of
Ukrainian population (including in the East Ukraine) believe, as an example, that Ukrainian
civilization precedes a Sumerian one. Many, very many, also still believe that valiant
Ukrainian Armed Forces still fight, for the 5th year in a row, mighty Russian Army in the
East. We are talking here about down right mental breakdown on a national level, granted, as
I always say, modern Ukraine did happen, that is coalesced, as a political nation.
In the thirteenth century, both the Ukrainians and the Russians faced more dire threats
than each other.
In the 13th century there were no Ukrainians or Ukraine. There was Russia though, Rus'.
Imagine a US state becoming independent today, from the rest of the US.. like Ohio.. and
people are going to say "the first man on the moon was an Ohioan (Armstrong), not an
American. Sorry, doesn't work like that..
You have to admit that's an impressive combination.
Yes, but it wasn't the Saker who invented it; it does seem to reflect what's going on
there. My only criticism is that he has given more prominence to the Nazis than the Jews,
unless we consider "oligarchs" as a synonym for Jews.
Like you have said in the past he is taking the Russian side. I think it's a fairly good
analysis of the situation if you go beyond his propagandistic terminology and what he leaves
unsaid. Russia really doesn't want to engage directly in the conflict but its best policy
would be to bide its time and to encourage more pro-Russian separatism in Odessa and all
other regions along the coast so as to eventually cut off Ukraine from access to the sea
altogether. That would serve Russian interests best and strengthen its position against NATO,
the EU, and the rump Ukraine, for whatever is to follow. It's a shame for any real Ukranian
nationalists but then they should have been smarter than to join all those colour revolutions
on Maidan organised by the CIA, Soros, Jewish oligarchs, etc.
That's a frozen conflict for now. Let's have another article on UR about the latest from
the US sponsored colour revolution in Hong Kong and what are the best measures that PR China
can take to quell the riots. And it's about time they took back Formosa, but it won't be as
easy as the Russian takeover of Crimea, unless they can send a million Red Army guards there
disguised as tourists to stage a silent putsch.
@Bardon
Kaldian Neonazis is a good term for the people used in the Ukrainian ZUS coup. That is
the people that was used to gain control of Ukraine for ZUS.
This coup in Ukraine, woke me up.
V. Nuland's war cry to bless the coup was "F–k The EU"
She used Neonazis to take over Ukraine.
Wait. She is Jewish. I guess the 6 million story must be bogus. She admitted it, since if
the 6 million story was real. She would have a great fear of a tidal wave of anti-S'ism
overcoming her and her people. She had no fear. Thus, the 6 million story was proved to be
false by V. Nuland. Thanks V. Nuland for freeing the world of that nightmarish propaganda
that has saddled humanity for seventy odd years.
Secondly, she told the world the reality of J. Supremacism by stating " F..k the EU". The
world thought that ZUS loved the EU as its sister in world domination. I guess not. Would V.
Nuland ever say "F..k Israel"? I think not.
Thanks V. Nuland. A new Queen Esther or Queen Victoria.
Yep, agree with Saker – I lived there before , during and now after the Maidan and he's
spot on with most of everything – he has been, since the beginning. Zelinsky has a
dozen or more bosses and he has Zero experience in what he's doing. . Zionist Bankers and
their arms dealers, Nato, Banderas gang,Washington, US Navy, Monsanto/Bayer, Royal Dutch
{shell oil }, Dupont, Lilly Pharma, Cargill, and the list could go on. He'll be lucky if he
isn't in Diapers by the time his term is up, otherwise he will be rich. I see that
Poroshanster is being called out for taking 8 billion bucks out of Ukie-Ville. I wonder how
much Trump and his family will end up stealing?. Thanks Unz Review.
Thus Kiev got justa bout the worst possible combination on non-EU and deep hostility
with Russia. Smarter guys would had handled it much better, playing both sides against each
other – raising the stakes.
As usual, you nailed it Beckow.
Also, Saker often misunderstands things but he is right that Ukraine is in a one way street
mainly because of the out-of-this-World miscalculation that the rotten West will somehow help
them instead of use them to create a festering sore on Russian border for just a few billion
dollars in loans. It is the rest of Ukraine, excluding Donbas, that will have to pay off
these war loans already stolen by the oligarchs.
@Commentator
Mike I recall that at the time of the Zionist coup (We do remember Ms Noodleman's : "fuck
the EU" don't we?) Ukrainian Nazi's were a leading force in kicking things off.
@Mr.
Hack "In Saker's simplistic mind the Galicians have infiltrated all of Ukrainian society
and run the whole show, "
This was not what I read.
The Saker said that oligarchs and Nazi militia groups have enough power to impose their will
and their agenda on the rest of the population.
When I see words like "Nazis" in relation to Ukrainians, I know that article is sh!t
& not worth reading.
This is because you don't know what Raguli(stan) is and you cannot possibly know, because
there are no "books" written yet which would encapsulate this whole phenomenon. Of course,
Ukies have no relation to Fichte and Volkskrieg. Other than that you will find an attentive
audience among local ignoramuses.
We all know the Hypocrisy of that War. Clinton had to distract the masses from MonicaGate
and Hillary had to prove to the MIC that she could be beneficial to them.
Result : Those Kosovo Albanians had a state handed to them, and instead of building
it(with uncle Sam's and EU help) as prosperous country, they used their weapons and
"expertise" in becoming the low level gangsters of Europe. Every Europol analysis points to
the direction of Kosovo Albanians as the criminal thugs in prostitution and drug trade and
protection rackets. The largest percentage of a single ethnic group in European jails is that
of Albanians.
The most unjust and illegal of wars in the late 20c.
There was only one reason to bomb white Christian brothers in Serbia thereby aiding the
Muslim of Kosovo and Albania, and that was Russia, which by that stage had got its act
together and dealt with the traitorous oligarchs who had sold their country out to the
west.
Hillary and her cronies no doubt lost a lot of money when the Russians shut their rat
lines down.
I hope I live long enough to see those fuckers swing, and Tony Blair, Alistair Campnell
and Peter Mandelson as well.
Again, your Muslims are to blame for everything. Muslims are all different. And it is
necessary to separate the faithful Muslims from the bandits who are only covered by Muslim
slogans.
NATO and your godless government are to blame!
An Afghan Freedom Fighter in Donbass - ENG SUBTITLE
It happened at the time of the Lewinsky affair and the possible impeachment of Clinton.
They needed a distraction.
Milosevic btw. agreed to all conditions imposed on the FR of Yugoslavia except for one
condition that nobody would accept: the full and unhindered access to the territory of FRY by
NATO troops. That effectively meant an occupation. Nobody would agree to that. NATO and
Albright deliberately came up with that condition for they knew it was unacceptable. Even
Kissinger said that condition was over the top. NATO and Albright wanted that war. Serbia
btw. saved Albright twice when she was still a little Slovakian Jewish girl whose family
found refuge twice in Serbia. Once they escaped the Nazis that way and the second time the
communists.
NATO thought they would need 48 hours but they needed 78 days and Milosevic only gave in
after NATO switched from hitting military targets to civilian targets: Hospitals, commuter
trains, civilian industry, an open market, random houses in random villages. After Milosevic
pulled out his troops out of Kosovo, the KLA started killing Serbs and moderate Albanians,
not to mention engage in organ trafficking (...). As the article said, well over 200k Serbs,
moderate Albanians, Roma and other minorities were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo.
The US also used cluster bombs and DU weapons. Of the 4000 Italian KFOR troops that went
into Kosovo after the bombing, 700 are dead from cancer and leukemia with several hundreds
more seriously ill. The American KFOR troops wore hazmat suits. The Italians did not have
them and were not warned. Today, many people in southern Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo itself
are sick and dying.
yes just like USA tried to help Vietnam against communists... by killing 2 million
Vietnamese. and tried to help Korea by killing 20 % of the population. and by helping Iraq
get rid of "bad" Saddam Hussein by killing 2 million Iraqies.
Not disagreeing with you but lets remember that communists were killing a lot of people in
other areas not long before those wars in SE Asia. May have been a wash in the end.
Bring back the draft. On the whole Americans have no idea what the carnage of combat
produces. Combat vets do. And the ones that aren't natural psychopaths never want to
experience it again. This volunteer army we have is over loaded with a them. A military draft
will actually bring some sort civilian control.
Such ********. Do the millions we kill have any human rights? It's been going on for 4000
years. Ruthless pursuit of empire and fabricating phony justifications.
Hillary seems to enjoy killing people. If it wasn't Gaddaffi, it was all the people on her
body bag count, and now it's known she encouraged killing people in Serbia. Someone needs to
take that old cow out into the center of the town and burn her at the stake.
Partially true, otherwise as usually excellent Dr. Paul, ... The Pandora's box situation
was opened years before Clinton's bombing of Serbia, which was part of a larger scheme
started nearly a decade before.
That was when the US armed the religious extremists in Bosnia, in order to bring war,
"civil war" and chaos, and disintegration, the way they more recently tried to do with Syria,
or "succeeded" in doing in Libya, bringing chaos and open-air slave markets in a country that
was one of the most developed on the African continent under Gaddafi (a truth that was so
easily erased by propaganda).
And the whole neocon scheme started two decades before, with the Zbigniew Brzezinski
doctrine, when the US started arming the mujahedin in Afghanistan, provoking the trap for the
Soviet invasion of 1979, which was the real opening of US neocon's Pandora's box we are
regrettably so familiar with by now. We've all fallen in that old
neocon/military-industrial-congressional-complex trap by now. And there seems to be no end in
sight to those eternal wars "for civilization" (the old colonial trope dressed under new
fatigues). Unless serious societal and political changes take place in the US to put an end
to the US "imperial" death drive.
"... Lee Stranahan gives the best explanation I have ever heard, on the color revolution that occurred in the Ukraine. He also demonstrates how that revolution overlaps in to the one happening in the United States right now: The very one that has been going on, ever since HRC conceded her Presidential bid to DJT, in her purple pantsuit. ..."
"... The west plays a mean game. The more they try to destabilize the east, the harder Xi,Putin & Erdogan have to crack down on dissidents resultng in harder condemnation of teh west and increased meddling :) ..."
"... "the vast web of NGOs" is a web or organizations which are not accountable to anyone except their money men. ..."
"... The NGO's distort the representative nature of a society. If anything their existence proves that representative democracy is a fraud and just a way for elites to control nations. The only thing to demand after that is direct democracy where all policies etc. have to be voted in by the population. ..."
A few years ago, very few people understood the concept behind color revolutions.
Had Russia and China's leadership not decided to unite in solidarity in 2012
when they began vetoing
the overthrow of Bashar al Assad in Syria- followed by their alliance around
the Belt and Road Initiative
, then it is doubtful that the color revolution concept would be as well-known as it has become today.
At that time, Russia and China realized that they had no choice but to go on the counter offensive, since the regime change operations
and colour revolutions orchestrated by such organizations as the CIA-affiliated National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Soros
Open Society Foundations were ultimately designed to target them as those rose, orange, green or yellow revolution efforts in Georgia,
Ukraine, Iran or Hong Kong were always recognized as weak points on the periphery of the threatened formation of a great power alliance
of sovereign Eurasian nations that would have the collective power to challenge the power of the Anglo-American elite based in London
and Wall Street.
Russia's 2015 expulsion of
12 major conduits of color revolution included Soros' Open Society Foundation as well as the NED was a powerful calling out of the
enemy with the Foreign Ministry calling them "a threat to the foundations of Russia's Constitutional order and national security".
This resulted in such fanatical calls by George Soros for a
$50 billion fund to counteract Russia's interference in defense of Ukraine's democracy. Apparently the
$5 billion spent by the NED in Ukraine was not nearly enough.
In spite of the light falling upon these cockroaches, NED and Open Society operations continued in full force focusing on the
weakest links the Grand Chessboard unleashing what has become known as a "strategy of tension". Venezuela, Kashmir, Hong Kong, Tibet
and Xinjian (dubbed East Turkistan by NED) have all been targeted in recent years with millions of NED dollars pouring into separatist
groups, labour unions, student movements and fake news "opinion shapers" under the guise of "democracy building". $1.7 million in
grants was spent by NED in Hong Kong since 2017 which was a significant increase from their $400 000 spent to coordinate the failed
"Occupy HK" protest
in 2014 .
The Case of China
In response to over two months of controlled chaos, the Chinese government has kept a remarkably restrained posture, allowing
the Hong Kong authorities to manage the situation with their police deprived of use of lethal weapons and even giving into the protestors'
demand that the changes to the extradition treaty that nominally sparked this mess be annulled. In spite of this patient tone, the
rioters who have run havoc on airports and public buildings have created lists of demands that are all but impossible for mainland
China to meet including 1) an "independent committee to investigate the abuses of Chinese authorities", 2) for china to stop referring
to rioters as "rioters", 3) for all charges against rioters to be dropped, and 4) universal suffrage- including candidates promoting
independence or rejoining the British Empire.
As violence continues to grow, and as it has become an increasing reality that some form of intervention from the mainland may
occur to restore order, the British Foreign Office has taken an aggressive tone threatening China with "severe consequences" unless
"a fully independent investigation" into police Brutality were permitted. The former Colonial Governor of China Christopher Patten
attacked China by saying "Since president Xi has been in office, there's been a crackdown on dissent and dissidents everywhere, the
party has been in control of everything".
The Chinese Foreign Ministry responded saying "the UK has no sovereign jurisdiction or right of supervision over Hong Kong it
is simply wrong for the British Government to exert pressure. The Chinese side seriously urges the UK to stop its interference in
China's internal affairs and stop making random and inflammatory accusations on Hong Kong."
The British have not been able to conduct their manipulation of Hong Kong without the vital role of America's NGO dirty ops, and
in true imperial fashion, the political class from both sides of the aisle have attacked China with Senate Majority leader Mitch
McConnell and Nancy Pelosi making the loudest noise driving the American House Foreign Affairs Committee
to threaten "universal condemnation
and swift consequences" if Beijing intervenes. This has only made the photographs of Julie Eadeh, the head of Political Office at
the American Consulate in Hong Kong meeting with leaders of the Hong Kong demonstrations that much more disgusting to any onlooker.
While both Britain and America have been caught red handed organizing this color revolution, it is important to keep in mind
who is controlling who.
The Foreign Origins of the NED
Contrary to popular opinion, the British Empire did not go away after WWII, nor did it hand over the "keys to the kingdom" to
America. It didn't even become America's Junior Partner in a new Anglo-American special relationship. Contrary to popular belief,
it stayed in the drivers' seat.
The post WWII order was largely shaped by a British coup which didn't take over America without a fight.
Nests of Oxford-trained Rhodes Scholars, Fabians
and other ideologues embedded within the American establishment had a lot of work ahead of them as they struggled to purge all
nationalist impulses from the American intelligence community. While the most aggressive purging of patriotic Americans from the
intelligence community occurred during the dissolution of the OSS and creation of MI6 in 1947 and the Communist witch hunt that followed,
there were other purges that were less well known.
As an organization which was beginning to take form which was to become known as the
Trilateral Commission organized by Britain's "hand in America" called the Council on Foreign Relations and international Bilderberg
Group, another purge occurred in 1970 under the direction of James Schlesinger during his six month stint as CIA director. At that
time 1000 top CIA officials deemed "unfit" were fired. This was followed nine years later as another 800 were fired under a list
drafted by CIA "spymaster" Ted Shackley. Both Schlesinger
and Shackley were high level Trilateral Commission members who took part in the group's 1973 formation and fully took power of America
during Jimmy Carter's 1977-1981 presidency which unleashed a dystopian reorganization of American foreign and internal policy
outlined in my previous report .
Project Democracy Takes Over
By the 1970s, the CIA's dirty hand funding anarchist operations both within America and abroad had become too well known as media
coverage of their dirty operations at home and abroad spoiled the patriotic image which the intelligence community then desired.
While the internal resistance to fascist behaviour from within the intelligence Community itself was dealt with through purges, the
reality was that a new agency had to be created to take over those functions of covert destabilization of foreign governments.
What became Project Democracy herein originated with a Trilateral Commission meeting in May 31, 1975 in Kyoto Japan as a protégé
of Trilateral Commission director Zbigniew Brzezinski named Samuel (Clash of Civilizations) Huntington delivered the results of his
Task Force on the Governability
of Democracies . This project was supervised by Schlesinger and Brzezinski and presented the notion that democracies could not
function adequately in the crisis conditions which the Trilateral Commission was preparing to impose onto America and the world through
a process dubbed
"the Controlled Disintegration of Society ".
The Huntington report featured at the Trilateral meeting stated: "One might consider means of securing support and resources from
foundations, business corporations, labor unions, political parties, civic associations, and, where possible and appropriate, governmental
agencies for the creation of an institute for the strengthening of democratic institutions."
It took 4 years for this blueprint to become reality. In 1979
three Trilateral Commission members named William Brock (RNC Chairman), Charles Manatt (DNC Chairman) and George Agree (head of Freedom
House) established an organization called the American Political Foundation (APF) which attempted to fulfil the objective laid out
by Huntington in 1975.
The APF was used to set up a program using federal funds called the Democracy Program which issued an interim report "The Commitment
to Democracy" which said: "No theme requires more sustained attention in our time than the necessity for strengthening the future
chances of democratic societies in a world that remains predominantly unfree or partially fettered by repressive governments. There
has never been a comprehensive structure for a non-governmental effort through which the resources of America's pluralistic constituencies
. .. could be mobilized effectively."
In May 1981, Henry Kissinger who had replaced Brzezinski as head of the Trilateral Commission and had many operatives planted
around President Reagan,
gave a speech at Britain's Chatham House (
the controlling hand behind the Council on Foreign Relations ) where he described his work as Secretary of State saying that
the British "became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations
In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American
State Department It was symptomatic". In his speech, Kissinger outlined the battle between Churchill vs FDR during WWII and made
the point that he favored the Churchill worldview for the post war world (And ironically also that of Prince Metternich who ran the
Congress of Vienna that snuffed out democratic movements across Europe in 1815).
In June 1982,
Reagan's Westminster
Palace speech officially inaugurated the NED and by November 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy Act was passed bringing
this new covert organization into reality with $31 million of funding under four subsidiary organizations (AFL-CIO Free Trade Union
Institute, The US Chamber of Commerce's Center for International Private Enterprise, the International Republican Institute and the
International Democratic Institute) (2).
Throughout the 1980s, this organization went to work managing Iran-Contra, destabilizing Soviet states and unleashing the first
"official" modern color revolution in the form of the Yellow revolution that ousted Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. Speaking
more candidly than usual, NED President David Ignatius
said in 1991
"a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA".
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the NED was instrumental in bringing former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO/WTO system and
the New World Order was announced by Bush Sr. and Kissinger- both of whom were rewarded with knighthoods for their service to the
Crown in 1992 and 1995 respectively.
Of course, the vast web of NGOs permeating the geopolitical terrain can only be effective as long as no one says the truth and
"names the game". The very act of calling out their nefarious motives renders them impotent and this simple fact has made the
recently announced China-Russia arrangement to formulate a proper strategic response to color revolutions so important in the
current fight.
Lee Stranahan gives the best explanation I have ever heard, on the color revolution that occurred in the Ukraine. He also
demonstrates how that revolution overlaps in to the one happening in the United States right now: The very one that has been going
on, ever since HRC conceded her Presidential bid to DJT, in her purple pantsuit.
Are you saying that the Israelis who vote en masse for Netanyahu and the Jews who donate the money for AIPAC and the ADL and
the Jews who wrote America's 1965 Immigration Act, and the international Jews who created the Fed which allows the Jews to print
free money for themselves to buy up control of all US industry and commerce and communications and the institutions that form
American culture, and who support genocide of the Palestinians, are scapegoats? Are you saying that Banko-Warburg, the architect
of the Fed and the main supplier of money for the Communist takeover of Russia in 1917 by Lenin and Trotsky (Max Warburg and Jacob
Schiff), is a European-English-American banking family?
Seriously, what do you mean by European-English-American? Ehret has dodged the massive elephant in the room -- mainly Israeli
control of American foreign policy, and now domestic policy. Is it the American-Anglo elite (?), or the Israeli-American Empire
(Jews), that has the world in its grip?
The west plays a mean game. The more they try to destabilize the east, the harder Xi,Putin & Erdogan have to crack down
on dissidents resultng in harder condemnation of teh west and increased meddling :)
Trumpstein, Fatty Pompous, Bolthead, Bibi, and Soros are having old man circle jerks while planning colored revolutions together.
But China may be a bridge too far...
Color revolutions belong to city of london.. and their spy agency network.. as illustrated by russiagate, cia and fbi dont
take orders from white house
CIA-affiliated National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Soros Open Society Foundations were originators of rainbow revolutions.
Just pick a color and they were there, lock, stock, and barrel, at the center of it all.
Today you'll see their tentacles reaching from Antifa to ISIS, LGBTIQPWXYZ GlobalHomo to Open Border socialists, and most every
place where there's chaos, wars, and instabilities.
Its one big new world order of hate, hate and more hate.
Warning: SPLC is a know propaganda outlet for government and special interest organizations. They are funded by rich globalist
elites, Big Tech, and states known to be sponsors of state terrorism.
"Since president Xi has been in office, there's been a crackdown on dissent and dissidents everywhere, the party has
been in control of everything".
You can say the same for many western nations as people for objecting to current policies are made outcasts and persecuted
by their own governments. Just saying it is Xi in China or any other nation in the world is ******** ... the ever increasing censorship
and suppression of objection so they can keep the ever increasing entitlements for the top flowing.
"the vast web of NGOs" is a web or organizations which are not accountable to anyone except their money men.
Some rich people fund them as a hobby, others work for them for free - they obviously do not need to work for their daily bread
or they wouldn't be in an NGO. These NGOs meddle in the politics without standing for elections.
What qualified Soros to give many countries good advice? His money! Just money! The German compensation schemes (Wiedergutmachung)
were seed money for many. How lucky this Hungarian Soros was.
What qualified Soros to give many countries good advice?
Soros is just a puppet no different from Wilbur Ross, Justin Trudeau, Cynthia Freeland, Julie Bishop, Malcolm Turnbull, Zelenski,
Poroshenko, Steve Mnuchin et al. Follow the money.
The NGO's distort the representative nature of a society. If anything their existence proves that representative democracy
is a fraud and just a way for elites to control nations. The only thing to demand after that is direct democracy where all policies
etc. have to be voted in by the population.
Direct democracy is possible with modern technology where the a motion is presented and you have 7 days to vote upon it.
Bluff to democracy as they have it - HK only became democratic because the AnZis could
then use it to stir unrest against China. Funny how HK was never democratic while the Brits
were still there.
Prolls still think representative democracy actually gives them anything more than a
mirage.
Yes. HK had 0 votes under imperialist British rule, until near their departure. How many
British Kings, err adminstrators, of HK were elected by the HK people?
The British seeded the idea of democracy as a "gift" to the people of China, with the
specific intention of causing trouble down the line. Add a few dozen US NGO's to the mix,
Soros' funding for the "colors"... all that's happened is that down the line has arrived.
It's a politically expedient time to activate the colors.
But the era in which Britain and the US controlled all geopolitical change is over. It's
not going to happen in HK either. China has specifically told the HK police to use no
violence (imagine any of these protests happening in the USA and what would happen to the
rioters there...). The first step will be to authorize HK police to defend themselves. There
won't be a second step, as the protestors have the courage of chicken ****.
"... "Designed to provoke Tehran: Just as #Iran-UK-#Gibraltar were set to have #Grace1 tanker released today, #Trump admin moves in to spoil the effort. Will become another source of tension in Europe-US relations over Iran policy," Ellie Geranmayeh, Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, tweeted . ..."
"... As TAC previously reported , the legal rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew is questionable, because Iran is not a member of the European Union and thus can not violate EU sanctions. ..."
"... "The UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions," writes Gareth Porter, and the seizure "was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of merchant ships through international straits." ..."
British Gibraltar ordered the ship's release to ease tensions. Washington wasn't having any of it.
•
A ship approaches supertanker Grace 1 off the coast of Gibraltar on July 6, 2019. – Iran demanded on July 5, 2019
that Britain immediately release an oil tanker it has detained in Gibraltar, accusing it of acting at the bidding of
the United States. Photo by JORGE GUERRERO / AFP) (Photo credit should read JORGE GUERRERO/AFP/Getty Images)
Despite eleventh hour efforts on the part of the U.S. to detain the Grace
1 Iranian oil tanker seized by the Royal Navy in July, the vessel was released Thursday. Gibraltar's Chief Minister said
he had accepted a pledge from Iran that if the tanker was released, it would not be taken to Syria.
The Grace 1 was seized last month by the British Royal Navy for alleged
European Union sanctions violations. The British claimed that Iran was using the tanker to ship oil to Syria.
Before the last minute U.S. legal action, authorities in Gibraltar had
announced they would release the Grace 1 and drop legal actions against the ship's captain and crew in order to ease
tensions.
The U.S. application was scheduled to be heard later on Thursday by the
Gibraltar Supreme Court. The U.S. Department of Justice sought to extend the detention of the oil tanker, but the
Gibraltar Supreme Court later dropped the detention order, essentially moving evaluation of the U.S. request to another
government agency for consideration,
according
to CBS. In the mean time, the tanker is free to leave.
The U.S. filing seems to confirm
reports
that the U.S. urged the British detention of the Iranian ship in July.
"
Having failed to accomplish its objectives
through its
#EconomicTerrorism
-- including
depriving cancer patients of medicine -- the US attempted to abuse the legal system to steal our property on the high
seas," tweeted Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. "This piracy attempt is indicative of Trump admin's contempt for the
law."
After the British decision to detain the Grace 1 in July, Iran seized
the British-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero as it traveled through the Strait of Hormuz.
Tensions with Tehran have escalated since the Trump administration
withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and resumed economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Without citing specific
evidence, the
U.S. has blamed Iran
for recent attacks on other oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.
"Designed to provoke Tehran: Just as #Iran-UK-#Gibraltar were set to have
#Grace1 tanker released today, #Trump admin moves in to spoil the effort. Will become another source of tension in
Europe-US relations over Iran policy," Ellie Geranmayeh, Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations,
tweeted
.
As
TAC
previously
reported
,
the legal rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew is questionable, because Iran is not a member of the
European Union and thus can not violate EU sanctions.
"The UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions,"
writes
Gareth Porter, and the seizure "was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of
merchant ships through international straits."
It is unclear whether UK Prime Minister
Boris Johnson
will support Washington's maximum pressure campaign
against Iran. But the American decision to pursue its case in
Gibraltar's courts may indicate that Britain is unwilling to further escalate tensions with the Islamic Republic.
Barbara Boland is
's foreign policy and national security reporter. Follow her
on Twitter
@BBatDC.
How current prices correlate with Pompeo statement that "We have taken over 95 percent of the
crude oil that was being shipped by Iran all around the world, and we have taken it off the
market." ? Something really strange is happening here.
Notable quotes:
"... Given these statements, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Pompeo is not being entirely honest when he claims the maximum pressure campaign is succeeding. Rather than leveling with the American people and making an argument about why the administration is persisting with the policy in spite of the lack of progress, he has chosen to deceive the public in order to defend a dangerous policy. ..."
"... Pompeo has made a habit of deceiving the public as Secretary of State on a range of issues from Yemen to North Korea, but for the most part he has been allowed to get away with that. ..."
"... When Pompeo has been asked for proof that the sanctions are "working," he cannot point to any positive change in the Iranian government's behavior, and instead he boasts about the harm that has been done to Iran's economy and its people: ..."
"... We have taken over 95 percent of the crude oil that was being shipped by Iran all around the world, and we have taken it off the market. ..."
"... Pompeo is deception, lies, absolute dishonesty. But of course that is the mark of the trump regime in general terms. ..."
Given these statements, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Pompeo is not
being entirely honest when he claims the maximum pressure campaign is succeeding. Rather than
leveling with the American people and making an argument about why the administration is
persisting with the policy in spite of the lack of progress, he has chosen to deceive the
public in order to defend a dangerous policy.
Pompeo has made a habit of deceiving the public as Secretary of State on a range of
issues from Yemen to North Korea, but for the most part he has been allowed to get away with
that. He probably thinks that there is no price to be paid for constantly lying and
misrepresenting things to the public and Congress, and so he keeps doing it.
The more important reason why Pompeo keeps deceiving the public is that he is also eager to
please the president, and so he has to keep claiming success for failing policies because
reports of success are what the president wants to hear. When Pompeo's ridiculous op-ed came
out last week, one of the common questions that many people asked was, "Who is the audience for
this?" The point these people were making was that the "argument" in the op-ed was so facile
and nonsensical that it can't possibly have been intended to persuade anyone, so the purpose of
it had to be to placate Trump and reassure him that the policy "works."
Miller does an outstanding job picking apart Pompeo's various claims and using Pompeo's
previous contradictory claims against him, and he shows that the Secretary's defense of
"maximum pressure" is a joke to any minimally informed person. But as far as Pompeo is
concerned, all that matters is that Trump sticks with the policy. When Pompeo has been
asked for proof that the sanctions are "working," he cannot point to any positive change in the
Iranian government's behavior, and instead he
boasts about the harm that has been done to Iran's economy and its people:
I remember, David – I'm sure no one in this room, but many here in Washington
said that American sanctions alone won't work. Well, they've worked.We have taken
over 95 percent of the crude oil that was being shipped by Iran all around the world, and we
have taken it off the market.
Miller addressed Pompeo's use of economic damage as proof of the policy's success this
way:
Using economic damage to gauge the success of sanctions is like using body counts to
measure success in counter-insurgency -- it's an indicator that your policy is having an
effect, but does not necessarily imply you're any closer to achieving strategic
objectives.
For a hard-liner like Pompeo, continuing with a destructive and bankrupt policy is a matter
of ideology and an expression of hostility towards the targeted country. It doesn't matter to
hard-liners if the policy actually achieves anything as long as it does damage, and so they
take pride in the damage that they cause without any concern for the consequences for the U.S.
and Iran. Rational critics of this policy rightfully object that this is just aimless
destruction, but the destruction is the point of the policy.
It only appears incompetent until you discover who benefits, and it isn't the majority of
Americans. Who has benefited so far? The Plutocrats, oligarchs, Israel, Saudi, MIC, Big Oil,
Big Rx, immigration related services. This is just a partial list, but guess who it doesn't
include?
Any nation that allows "freedom of speech" has made the assumption that either everyone is
honest or everyone is smart enough to know bull sh !t when they hear it.
I believe that the full and proper name of the psychiatric disorder in question is
Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome [PTDS].
Symptoms include:
Eager and uncritical ingestion and social-media regurgitation of even the most patently
absurd MSM propaganda. For example, the meme that releasing factual information about actual
election-meddling (as Wikileaks did about the Dem-establishment's rigging of its own
nomination process in 2016) is a grave threat to American Democracy™;
Recent-onset veneration of the intelligence agencies, whose stock in trade is spying on
and lying to the American people, spreading disinformation, election rigging, torture and
assassination and its agents, such as liar and perjurer Clapper and torturer Brennan;
Rehabilitation of horrid unindicted GOP war criminals like G.W. Bush as alleged examples
of "norms-respecting Republican patriots";
Smearing of anyone who dares question the MSM-stoked hysteria as an America-hating
Russian stooge.
STEPHEN COHEN: I'm not aware that Russia attacked Georgia. The European Commission, if you're talking about the 2008 war,
the European Commission, investigating what happened, found that Georgia, which was backed by the United States, fighting with an
American-built army under the control of the, shall we say, slightly unpredictable Georgian president then, Saakashvili, that he
began the war by firing on Russian enclaves. And the Kremlin, which by the way was not occupied by Putin, but by Michael McFaul and
Obama's best friend and reset partner then-president Dmitry Medvedev, did what any Kremlin leader, what any leader in any country
would have had to do: it reacted. It sent troops across the border through the tunnel, and drove the Georgian forces out of what
essentially were kind of Russian protectorate areas of Georgia.
So that- Russia didn't begin that war. And it didn't begin the one in Ukraine, either. We did that by [continents], the overthrow
of the Ukrainian president in [20]14 after President Obama told Putin that he would not permit that to happen. And I think it happened
within 36 hours. The Russians, like them or not, feel that they have been lied to and betrayed. They use this word, predatl'stvo,
betrayal, about American policy toward Russia ever since 1991, when it wasn't just President George Bush, all the documents have
been published by the National Security Archive in Washington, all the leaders of the main Western powers promised the Soviet Union
that under Gorbachev, if Gorbachev would allow a reunited Germany to be NATO, NATO would not, in the famous expression, move two
inches to the east.
Now NATO is sitting on Russia's borders from the Baltic to Ukraine. So Russians aren't fools, and they're good-hearted, but they
become resentful. They're worried about being attacked by the United States. In fact, you read and hear in the Russian media daily,
we are under attack by the United States. And this is a lot more real and meaningful than this crap that is being put out that Russia
somehow attacked us in 2016. I must have been sleeping. I didn't see Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and 2016. This is reckless, dangerous,
warmongering talk. It needs to stop. Russia has a better case for saying they've been attacked by us since 1991. We put our military
alliance on the front door. Maybe it's not an attack, but it looks like one, feels like one. Could be one.
Real politik. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Don't start fights in the first place. The idea that American leadership
is any better than mid-Victorian imperialism, is laughable.
AARON MATE: We hear, often, talk of Putin possibly being the richest person in the world as a result of his entanglement
with the very corruption of Russia you're speaking about
Few appear to be aware that Bill Browder is single-handedly responsible for starting, and spreading, the rumor that Putin's
net worth is $200 billion (for those who are unfamiliar with Browder, I highly recommend watching Andrei Nekrasov's documentary
titled " The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes "). Browder
appears to have first
started this rumor early in 2015 , and has repeated it ad nauseam since then, including in
his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017 . While Browder has always framed the $200 billion figure as his own
estimate, that subtle qualifier has had little effect on the media's willingness to accept it as fact.
Interestingly, during the press conference at the Helsinki Summit, Putin claimed Browder sent $400 million of ill-gotten gains
to the Clinton campaign. Putin
retracted the statement and claimed to have misspoke a week or so later, however by that time the $400 million figure had
been cited by numerous media outlets around the world. I think it is at least possible that Putin purposely exaggerated the amount
of money in question as a kind of tit-for-tat response to Browder having started the rumor about his net worth being $200 billion.
The stories I saw said there was a mistranslation -- but that the figure should have $400 thousand and not $400 million. Maybe
Putin misspoke, but the $400,000 number is still significant, albeit far more reasonable.
Putin never was on the Forbes list of billionaires, btw, and his campaign finance statement comes to far less. It never seems
to occur to rabid capitalists or crooks that not everyone is like them, placing such importance on vast fortunes, or want to be
dishonest, greedy, or power hungry. Putin is only 'well off' and that seems to satisfy him just fine as he gets on with other
interests, values, and goals.
Yes, $400,000 is the revised/correct figure. My having written that "Putin retracted the statement" was not the best choice
of phrase. Also, the figure was corrected the day after it was made, not "a week or so later" as I wrote in my previous comment.
From the Russia Insider link:
Browder's criminal group used many tax evasion methods, including offshore companies. They siphoned shares and funds from
Russia worth over 1.5 billion dollars. By the way, $400,000 was transferred to the US Democratic Party's accounts from these
funds. The Russian president asked us to correct his statement from yesterday. During the briefing, he said it was $400,000,000,
not $400,000. Either way, it's still a significant amount of money.
There's something weird about the anti-Putin hysteria. Somehow, many, many people have come to believe they must demonstrate
their membership in the tribe by accepting completely unsupported assertions that go against common sense.
In a sane world we the people would be furious with the Clinton campaign, especially the D party but the R's as well, our media
(again), and our intel/police State (again). Holding them all accountable while making sure this tsunami of deception and lies
never happens again.
It's amazing even in time of the internetz those of us who really dig can only come up with a few sane voices. It's much worse
now in terms of the numbers of sane voices than it was in the run up to Iraq 2.
Regardless of broad access to far more information in the digital age, never under estimate the self-preservation instinct
of American exceptionalist mythology. There is an inverse relationship between the decline of US global primacy and increasingly
desperate quest for adventurism. Like any case of addiction, looking outward for blame/salvation is imperative in order to prevent
the mirror of self-reflection/realization from turning back onto ourselves.
we're not to believe we're not supposed to believe we're supposed to believe
Believe whatever you want, however your comment gives the impression that you came to this article because you felt the need
to push back against anything that does not conform to the liberal international order's narrative on Putin and Russia, rather
than "with an eagerness to counterbalance the media's portrayal of Putin". WRT to whataboutism, I like
Greenwald's definition of the term :
"Whataboutism": the term used to bar inquiry into whether someone adheres to the moral and behavioral standards they seek
to impose on everyone else. That's its functional definition.
aye. I've never seen it used by anyone aside from the worst Hill Trolls.
Indeed, when it was first thrown at me, I endeavored to look it up, and found that all references to it were from Hillaryites
attempting to diss apostates and heretics.
The degree of consistency and or lack of hypocrisy based on words and actions separates US from Russia to an astonishing level.
That is Russia's largest threat to US, our deceivers. The propaganda tables have turned and we are deceiving ourselves to points
of collective insanity and warmongering with a great nuclear power while we are at it. Warmongering is who we are and what we
do.
Does Russia have a GITMO, torture Chelsea Manning, openly say they want to kill Snowden and Assange? Is Russia building up
arsenals on our borders while maintaining hundreds of foreign bases and conducting several wars at any given moment while constantly
threatening to foment more wars? Is Russia dropping another trillion on nuclear arsenals? Is Russia forcing us to maintain such
an anti democratic system and an even worse, an entirely hackable electronic voting system?
You ready to destroy the world, including your own, rather than look in the mirror?
You're talking about extending Russian military power into Europe when the military spending of NATO Europe alone exceeds Russia's
by almost 5-1 (more like 12-1 when one includes the US and Canada), have about triple the number of soldiers than Russia has,
and when the Russian ground forces are numerically smaller than they have been in at least 200 years?
" to put their self-interests above those of their constituents and employees, why can't we apply this same lens to Putin and
his oligarchs?"
The oligarchs got their start under Yeltsin and his FreeMarketDemocraticReformers, whose policies were so catastrophic that
deaths were exceeding births by almost a million a year by the late '90s, with no end in sight. Central to Yeltsin's governance
was the corrupt privatization, by which means the Seven Bankers came to control the Russian economy and Russian politics.
Central to Putin's popularity are the measures he took to curb oligarchic predation in 2003-2005. Because of this, Russia's
debt:GDP ratio went from 1.0 to about 0.2, and Russia's demographic recovery began while Western analysis were still predicting
the death of Russia.
So Putin is the anti-oligarch in Russian domestic politics.
I know of many people who sacrifice their own interests for those of their children (over whom they have virtually absolute
power), family member and friends. I know of others who dedicate their lives to justice, peace, the well being of their nation,
the world, and other people -- people who find far greater meaning and satisfaction in this than in accumulating power or money.
Other people have their own goals, such as producing art, inventing interesting things, reading and learning, and don't care two
hoots about power or money as long as their immediate needs are met.
I'm cynical enough about humans without thinking the worst of everyone and every group or culture. Not everyone thinks only
of nails and wants to be hammers, or are sociopaths. There are times when people are more or less forced into taking power, or
getting more money, even if they don't want it, because they want to change things for the better or need to defend themselves.
There are people who get guns and learn how to use them only because they feel a need for defending themselves and family but
who don't like guns and don't want to shoot anyone or anything.
There are many people who do not want to be controlled and bossed around, but neither want to boss around anyone else. The
world is full of such people. If they are threatened and attacked, however, expect defensive reactions. Same as for most animals
which are not predators, and even predators will generally not attack other animals if they are not hungry or threatened -- but
that does not mean they are not competent or can be dangerous.
Capitalism is not only inherently predatory, but is inherently expansive without limits, with unlimited ambition for profits
and control. It's intrinsically very competitive and imperialist. Capitalism is also a thing which was exported to Russia, starting
soon after the Russian Revolution, which was immediately attacked and invaded by the West, and especially after the fall of the
Soviet Union. Soviet Russia had it's own problems, which it met with varying degrees of success, but were quite different from
the aggressive capitalism and imperialism of the US and Europe.
The pro-Putin propaganda is pretty interesting to witness, and of course not everything Cohen says is skewed pro-Putin – that's
what provides credibility. But "Putin kills everybody" is something NOBODY says (except Cohen, twice in one interview) – Putin
is actually pretty selective of those he decides to have killed. But of course, he doesn't kill anyone, personally – therefore
he's an innocent lamb, accidentally running Russia as a dictator.
The most recent dictator in Russian history was Boris Yeltsin, who turned tanks on his legislature while it was in the legal
and constitutional process of impeaching him, and whose policies were so catastrophic for Russians (who were dying off at the
rate of 900k/yr) that he had to steal his re-election because he had a 5% approval rating.
But he did as the US gvt told him, so I guess that makes him a Democrat.
Under Putin Russia recovered from being helpless, bankrupt & dying, but Russia has an independent foreign policy, so that makes
Putin a dictator.
"Does any sane person believe that there will ever be a Putin-signed contract provided as evidence? Does any sane person believe
that Putin actually needs to "approve" a contract rather than signaling to his oligarch/mafia hierarchy that he's unhappy about
a newspaper or journalist's reporting?"
Why do you think Putin even needs, or feels a need, to have journalists killed in the first place? I see no evidence to support
this basic assumption.
The idea of Russia poised to attack Europe is interesting, in light of the fact that they've cut their military spending by
20%. And even before that the budgets of France, Germany, and the UK combined well exceeded that of Russia, to say nothing of
the rest of NATO or the US.
Putin's record speaks for itself. This again points to the absurdity of claiming he's had reporters killed: he doesn't need
to. He has a vast amount of genuine public support because he's salvaged the country and pieced it back together after the pillaging
of the Yeltsin years. That he himself is a corrupt oligarch I have no particular doubt of. But if he just wanted to enrich himself,
he's had a very funny way of going about it. Pray tell, what are these 'other interpretations'?
"The US foreign policy has been disastrous for millions of people since world war 2. But Cohen's arguments that Russia isn't
as bad as the US is just a bunch of whattaboutism."
What countries has the Russian Federation destroyed?
Here is a fascinating essay ["Are We Reading Russia Right?"] by Nicolai N. Petro who currently holds the Silvia-Chandley Professorship
of Peace Studies and Nonviolence at the University of Rhode Island. His books include, Ukraine
in Crisis (Routledge, 2017), Crafting Democracy (Cornell, 2004), The Rebirth of Russian Democracy (Harvard, 1995), and Russian
Foreign Policy, co-authored with Alvin Z. Rubinstein (Longman, 1997). A graduate of the University of Virginia, he is the recipient
of Fulbright awards to Russia and to Ukraine, as well as fellowships from the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the National
Council for Eurasian and East European Research, the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies in Washington,
D.C., and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. As a Council on Foreign Relations Fellow, he served as special assistant
for policy toward the Soviet Union in the U.S. Department of State from 1989 to 1990. In addition to scholarly publications
on Russia and Ukraine, he has written for Asia Times, American Interest, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian
(UK), The Nation, New York Times, and Wilson Quarterly. His writings have appeared frequently on the web sites of the Carnegie
Council for Ethics in International Affairs and The National Interest.
Thanks for so much for this. Great stuff. Cohen says the emperor has no clothes so naturally the empire doesn't want him on
television. I believe he has been on CNN one or two times and I saw him once on the PBS Newshour where the interviewer asked skeptical
questions with a pained and skeptical look. He seems to be the only prominent person willing to stand up and call bs on the Russia
hate. There are plenty of pundits and commentators who do that but not many Princeton professors.
It has been said in recent years that the greatest failure of American foreign policy was the invasion of Iraq. I think that
they are wrong. The greatest failure, in my opinion, is to push both China and Russia together into a semi-official pact against
American ambitions. In the same way that the US was able to split China from the USSR back in the seventies, the best option was
for America to split Russia from China and help incorporate them into the western system. The waters for that idea have been so
fouled by the Russia hysteria, if not dementia, that that is no longer a possibility. I just wish that the US would stop sowing
dragon's teeth – it never ends well.
The best option, but the "American exceptionalists" went nuts. Also, the usual play book of stoking fears of the "yellow menace"
would have been too on the nose. Americans might not buy it, and there was a whole cottage industry of "the rising China threat"
except the potential consumer market place and slave labor factories stopped that from happening.
Bringing Russia into the West effectively means Europe, and I think that creates a similar dynamic to a Russian/Chinese pact.
The basic problem with the EU is its led by a relatively weak but very German power which makes the EU relatively weak or controllable
as long as the German electorate is relatively sedate. I think they still need the international structures run by the U.S. to
maintain their dominance. What Russia and the pre-Erdogan Turkey (which was never going to be admitted to the EU) presented was
significant upsets to the existing EU order with major balances to Germany which I always believed would make the EU potentially
more dynamic. Every decision wouldn't require a pilgrimage to Berlin. The British were always disinterested. The French had made
arrangements with Germany, and Italy is still Italy. Putting Russia or Turkey (pre-Erdogan) would have disrupted this arrangement.
The Crimea voted to be annexed by Russia by a clear majority. The US overran Hawaii with total disregard for the wishes of
the native population. Your comparison is invalid.
"Putin's finger prints are all over the Balkan fiasco".How is that with Putin only becoming president in 2000 and the Nato
bombing started way beforehand. It's ridiculous to think that Putin had any major influence at that time as govenor or director
of the domestic intelligence service on what was going during the bombing of NATO on Belgrad. Even Gerhard Schroeder, then chancellor
of the Federal Republic of Germany, admitted in an interview in 2014 with a major German Newspaper (Die Zeit) that this invasion
of Nato was a fault and against international law!
Can you concrete what you mean by "fingerprints" or is this just another platitudes?
I believe that the full and proper name of the psychiatric disorder in question is Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome [PTDS].
Symptoms include:
o Eager and uncritical ingestion and social-media regurgitation of even the most patently absurd MSM propaganda. For example,
the meme that releasing factual information about actual election-meddling (as Wikileaks did about the Dem-establishment's rigging
of its own nomination process in 2016) is a grave threat to American Democracy™;
o Recent-onset veneration of the intelligence agencies, whose stock in trade is spying on and lying to the American people,
spreading disinformation, election rigging, torture and assassination and its agents, such as liar and perjurer Clapper and torturer
Brennan;
o Rehabilitation of horrid unindicted GOP war criminals like G.W. Bush as alleged examples of "norms-respecting Republican
patriots";
o Smearing of anyone who dares question the MSM-stoked hysteria as an America-hating Russian stooge.
By all measures Clinton is a war criminal... Hilary is a female sociopath or worse.
Notable quotes:
"... Hillary Clinton revealed to an interviewer in the summer of 1999, "I urged him to bomb. You cannot let this go on at the end
of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?" ..."
"... The Kosovo Liberation Army's savage nature was well known before the Clinton administration formally christened them "freedom
fighters" in 1999. ..."
"... Sen. Joe Lieberman whooped that the United States and the KLA "stand for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA
is fighting for human rights and American values." ..."
"... Clinton administration officials justified killing civilians because, it alleged the Serbs were committing genocide in Kosovo.
After the bombing ended, no evidence of genocide was found, but Clinton and Britain's Tony Blair continued boasting as if their war
had stopped a new Hitler in his tracks. ..."
Twenty years ago, President Bill Clinton commenced bombing Serbia in the name of human rights, justice, and ethnic tolerance.
Approximately 1,500 Serb civilians were killed by NATO bombing in one of the biggest sham morality plays of the modern era. As British
professor Philip Hammond recently noted, the 78-day bombing campaign "was not a purely military operation: NATO also destroyed what
it called 'dual-use' targets, such as factories, city bridges, and even the main television building in downtown Belgrade, in an
attempt to terrorise the country into surrender."
Clinton's unprovoked attack on Serbia, intended to help ethnic Albanians seize control of Kosovo, set a precedent for "humanitarian"
warring that was invoked by supporters of George W. Bush's unprovoked attack on Iraq, Barack Oba-ma's bombing of Libya, and Donald
Trump's bombing of Syria.
Clinton remains a hero in Kosovo, and there is an 11-foot statue of him standing in the capitol, Pristina, on Bill Clinton Boulevard.
A commentator in the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper noted that the statue showed Clinton "with a left hand raised, a
typical gesture of a leader greeting the masses. In his right hand he is holding documents engraved with the date when NATO started
the bombardment of Serbia, 24 March 1999." It would have been a more accurate representation if Clinton was shown standing on the
corpses of the women, children, and others killed in the U.S. bombing campaign.
Bombing Serbia was a family affair in the Clinton White House. Hillary Clinton revealed to an interviewer in the summer of
1999, "I urged him to bomb. You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What
do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?" A biography of Hillary Clinton, written by Gail Sheehy and published
in late 1999, stated that Mrs. Clinton had refused to talk to the president for eight months after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.
She resumed talking to her husband only when she phoned him and urged him in the strongest terms to begin bombing Serbia; the president
began bombing within 24 hours. Alexander Cockburn observed in the Los Angeles Times,
It's scarcely surprising that Hillary would have urged President Clinton to drop cluster bombs on the Serbs to defend "our
way of life." The first lady is a social engineer. She believes in therapeutic policing and the duty of the state to impose
such policing. War is more social engineering, "fixitry" via high explosive, social therapy via cruise missile . As a tough therapeutic
cop, she does not shy away from the most abrupt expression of the therapy: the death penalty.
I followed the war closely from the start, but selling articles to editors bashing the bombing was as easy as pitching paeans
to Scientology. Instead of breaking into newsprint, my venting occurred instead in my journal:
April 7, 1999: Much of the media and most of the American public are evaluating Clinton's Serbian policy based on
the pictures of the bomb damage -- rather than by asking whether there is any coherent purpose or justification for bombing.
The ultimate triumph of photo opportunities . What a travesty and national disgrace for this country.
April 17: My bottom line on the Kosovo conflict: I hate holy wars. And this is a holy war for American good deeds
-- or for America's saintly self-image? Sen. John McCain said the war is necessary to "uphold American values." Make me barf!
Just another Hitler-of-the-month attack.
May 13: This damn Serbian war is a symbol of all that is wrong with the righteous approach to the world and to problems
within this nation.
The KLA
The Kosovo Liberation Army's savage nature was well known before the Clinton administration formally christened them "freedom
fighters" in 1999. The previous year, the State Department condemned "terrorist action by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army."
The KLA was heavily involved in drug trafficking and had close to ties to Osama bin Laden. Arming the KLA helped Clinton portray
himself as a crusader against injustice and shift public attention after his impeachment trial. Clinton was aided by many congressmen
eager to portray U.S. bombing as an engine of righteousness. Sen. Joe Lieberman whooped that the United States and the KLA "stand
for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values."
In early June 1999, the Washington Post reported that "some presidential aides and friends are describing [bombing] Kosovo
in Churchillian tones, as Clinton's 'finest hour.'" Clinton administration officials justified killing civilians because, it
alleged the Serbs were committing genocide in Kosovo. After the bombing ended, no evidence of genocide was found, but Clinton and
Britain's Tony Blair continued boasting as if their war had stopped a new Hitler in his tracks.
In a speech to American troops in a Thanksgiving 1999 visit, Clinton declared that the Kosovar children "love the United States
because we gave them their freedom back." Perhaps Clinton saw freedom as nothing more than being tyrannized by people of the same
ethnicity. As the Serbs were driven out of Kosovo, Kosovar Albanians became increasingly oppressed by the KLA, which ignored its
commitment to disarm. The Los Angeles Times reported on November 20, 1999,
As a postwar power struggle heats up in Kosovo Albanian politics, extremists are trying to silence moderate leaders with a
terror campaign of kidnappings, beatings, bombings, and at least one killing. The intensified attacks against members of the moderate
Democratic League of Kosovo, or LDK, have raised concerns that radical ethnic Albanians are turning against their own out of fear
of losing power in a democratic Kosovo.
American and NATO forces stood by as the KLA resumed its ethnic cleansing, slaughtering Serbian civilians, bombing Serbian
churches, and oppressing non-Muslims. Almost a quarter million Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, and other minorities fled Kosovo after Clinton
promised to protect them. In March 2000 renewed fighting broke out when the KLA launched attacks into Serbia, trying to seize
territory that it claimed historically belonged to ethnic Albanians. UN Human Rights Envoy Jiri Dienstbier reported that "the [NATO]
bombing hasn't solved any problems. It only multiplied the existing problems and created new ones. The Yugoslav economy was destroyed.
Kosovo is destroyed. There are hundreds of thousands of people unemployed now."
U.S. complicity in atrocities
Prior to the NATO bombing, American citizens had no responsibility for atrocities committed by either Serbs or ethnic Albanians.
However, after American planes bombed much of Serbia into rubble to drive the Serbian military out of Kosovo, Clinton effectively
made the United States responsible for the safety of the remaining Serbs in Kosovo. That was equivalent to forcibly disarming a group
of people, and then standing by, whistling and looking at the ground, while they are slaughtered. Since the United States promised
to bring peace to Kosovo, Clinton bears some responsibility for every burnt church, every murdered Serbian grandmother, every new
refugee column streaming north out of Kosovo. Despite those problems, Clinton bragged at a December 8, 1999, press conference that
he was "very, very proud" of what the United States had done in Kosovo.
I had a chapter on the Serbian bombing campaign titled "Moralizing with Cluster Bombs" in Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion
and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton–Gore Years (St. Martin's Press, 2000), which sufficed to spur at least one or two
reviewers to attack the book. Norman Provizer, the director of the Golda Meir Center for Political Leadership, scoffed in the
Denver Rocky Mountain News, "Bovard chastises Clinton for an illegal, undeclared war in Kosovo without ever bothering to mention
that, during the entire run of American history, there have been but four official declarations of war by Congress."
As the chaotic situation in post-war Kosovo became stark, it was easier to work in jibes against the debacle. In an October 2002
USA Today article ("Moral High Ground Not Won on Battlefield") bashing the Bush administration's push for war against Iraq,
I pointed out, "A desire to spread freedom does not automatically confer a license to kill . Operation Allied Force in 1999 bombed
Belgrade, Yugoslavia, into submission purportedly to liberate Kosovo. Though Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic raised the white flag,
ethnic cleansing continued -- with the minority Serbs being slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground in the same way the
Serbs previously oppressed the ethnic Albanians."
In a 2011 review for The American Conservative, I scoffed, "After NATO planes killed hundreds if not thousands of Serb
and ethnic Albanian civilians, Bill Clinton could pirouette as a savior. Once the bombing ended, many of the Serbs remaining in Kosovo
were slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground. NATO's 'peace' produced a quarter million Serbian, Jewish, and Gypsy refugees."
In 2014, a European Union task force confirmed that the ruthless cabal that Clinton empowered by bombing Serbia committed atrocities
that included murdering persons to extract and sell their kidneys, livers, and other body parts. Clint Williamson, the chief prosecutor
of a special European Union task force, declared in 2014 that senior members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) had engaged in "unlawful
killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, illegal detentions in camps in Kosovo and Albania, sexual violence, forced displacements
of individuals from their homes and communities, and desecration and destruction of churches and other religious sites."
The New York Times reported that the trials of Kosovo body snatchers may be stymied by cover-ups and stonewalling: "Past
investigations of reports of organ trafficking in Kosovo have been undermined by witnesses' fears of testifying in a small country
where clan ties run deep and former members of the KLA are still feted as heroes. Former leaders of the KLA occupy high posts in
the government." American politicians almost entirely ignored the scandal. Vice President Joe Biden hailed former KLA leader and
Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci in 2010 as "the George Washington of Kosovo." A few months later, a Council of Europe investigative
report tagged Thaci as an accomplice to the body-trafficking operation.
Clinton's war on Serbia opened a Pandora's box from which the world still suffers. Because politicians and pundits portrayed that
war as a moral triumph, it was easier for subsequent presidents to portray U.S. bombing as the self-evident triumph of good over
evil. Honest assessments of wrongful killings remain few and far between in media coverage.
This article was originally published in the July 2019 edition ofFuture of Freedom .
James Bovard is a policy adviser to The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is a USA Today columnist and has written
for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, New Republic, Reader's Digest, Playboy, American Spectator,
Investors Business Daily, and many other publications. He is the author of Freedom Frauds: Hard Lessons in American Liberty
(2017, published by FFF); Public Policy Hooligan (2012); Attention Deficit Democracy (2006); The Bush Betrayal
(2004); Terrorism and Tyranny (2003); Feeling Your Pain (2000); Freedom in Chains (1999); Shakedown (1995);
Lost Rights (1994); The Fair Trade Fraud (1991); and The Farm Fiasco (1989). He was the 1995 co-recipient of
the Thomas Szasz Award for Civil Liberties work, awarded by the Center for Independent Thought, and the recipient of the 1996 Freedom
Fund Award from the Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund of the National Rifle Association. His book Lost Rights received the
Mencken Award as Book of the Year from the Free Press Association. His Terrorism and Tyranny won Laissez Faire Book's Lysander
Spooner award for the Best Book on Liberty in 2003. Read his blog . Send
him email .
In July 30, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan reported
that the Afghan government and international military forces, primarily
the United States , caused most of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan during the first six
months of 2019. That's more killings than those perpetrated in the same time period by the
Taliban and ISIS combined.
Aerial operations were responsible for 519 civilian casualties (356 deaths and 156
injuries), including 150 children (89 deaths and 61 injuries). That constitutes a 39 percent
increase in overall civilian casualties from aerial attacks. Eighty-three percent of civilian
casualties from aerial operations were carried out by the international forces.
The targeting of civilians amounts to war crimes under the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court (ICC).
... ... ...
Team Trump's deadly actions are a continuation of the Bush and Obama
administrations' commission of the most heinous crimes in Afghanistan. On April 12, the ICC's
Pre-Trial Chamber found a "reasonable basis" to
believe that the parties to the Afghan conflict, including the U.S. military and the CIA,
committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, most of them occurring between 2005 and 2015.
They include "the war crimes of torture and cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity,
and rape and other forms of sexual violence pursuant to a policy approved by the U.S.
authorities."
The chamber, however, refused to open a formal investigation into those crimes, as
recommended by ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. In concluding that "an investigation
into the situation in Afghanistan at this stage would not serve the interests of justice," the
chamber questioned the feasibility of such a probe. An investigation would be "very wide in
scope and encompasses a high number of alleged incidents having occurred over a long time
period," the chamber wrote. It noted the extreme difficulty in gauging "the prospects of
securing meaningful cooperation from relevant authorities for the future" and found "the
current circumstances of the situation in Afghanistan are such as to make the prospects for a
successful investigation and prosecution extremely limited."
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of
the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of
Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent
book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues.
I believe that the full and proper name of the psychiatric disorder in question is
Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome [PTDS].
Symptoms include:
Eager and uncritical ingestion and social-media regurgitation of even the most patently
absurd MSM propaganda. For example, the meme that releasing factual information about actual
election-meddling (as Wikileaks did about the Dem-establishment's rigging of its own
nomination process in 2016) is a grave threat to American Democracy™;
Recent-onset veneration of the intelligence agencies, whose stock in trade is spying on
and lying to the American people, spreading disinformation, election rigging, torture and
assassination and its agents, such as liar and perjurer Clapper and torturer Brennan;
Rehabilitation of horrid unindicted GOP war criminals like G.W. Bush as alleged examples
of "norms-respecting Republican patriots";
Smearing of anyone who dares question the MSM-stoked hysteria as an America-hating
Russian stooge.
"... The field's distance from rebel-held territory in Yemen demonstrates the range of the Houthis' drones. U.N. investigators say the Houthis' new UAV-X drone, found in recent months during the Saudi-led coalition's war in Yemen, likely has a range of up to 1,500 kilometers (930 miles). That puts Saudi oil fields, an under-construction Emirati nuclear power plant and Dubai's busy international airport within their range. ..."
"... The outcome was a forgone conclusion. The smash, destroy, and destabilize campaign in the region could have only come from the most powerful lobby in the US. We all know who that is. ..."
Today Saudi Arabia finally lost the war on Yemen. It has no defenses against new weapons
the Houthis in Yemen acquired. These weapons threaten the Saudis economic lifelines.
This today
was the decisive attack:
Drones launched by Yemen's Houthi rebels attacked a massive oil and gas field deep inside
Saudi Arabia's sprawling desert on Saturday, causing what the kingdom described as a
"limited fire" in the second such recent attack on its crucial energy industry. ... The Saudi acknowledgement of the attack came hours after Yahia Sarie, a military spokesman
for the Houthis, issued a video statement claiming the rebels launched 10 bomb-laden drones
targeting the field in their "biggest-ever" operation. He threatened more attacks would be
coming.
New drones and missiles
displayed in July 2019 by Yemen's Houthi-allied armed forces bigger
Today's attack is a check mate move against the Saudis. Shaybah is some 1,200 kilometers
(750 miles) from Houthi-controlled territory. There are many more important economic targets
within that range:
The field's distance from rebel-held territory in Yemen demonstrates the range of the
Houthis' drones. U.N. investigators say the Houthis' new UAV-X drone, found in recent
months during the Saudi-led coalition's war in Yemen, likely has a range of up to 1,500
kilometers (930 miles). That puts Saudi oil fields, an under-construction Emirati nuclear
power plant and Dubai's busy international airport within their range.
Unlike sophisticated drones that use satellites to allow pilots to remotely fly them,
analysts believe Houthi drones are likely programmed to strike a specific latitude and
longitude and cannot be controlled once out of radio range. The Houthis have used drones,
which can be difficult to track by radar, to attack Saudi Patriot missile batteries, as
well as enemy troops.
The attack conclusively demonstrates that the most important assets of the Saudis are now
under threat. This economic threat comes on top of a seven percent budget deficit
the IMF predicts for Saudi Arabia. Further Saudi bombing against the Houthi will now have
very significant additional cost that might even endanger the viability of the Saudi state.
The Houthi have clown prince Mohammad bin Salman by the balls and can squeeze those at will. There is a lesson to learn from that. But it is doubtful that the borg in Washington DC
has the ability to understand it.
The outcome was a forgone conclusion. The smash, destroy, and destabilize campaign in the
region could have only come from the most powerful lobby in the US. We all know who that
is.
I'm afraid the only lesson the Borg in Washington will learn is to continue squandering US
resources and manpower on pursuing and inflicting chaos and violence in the Middle East.
Clown prince Mohammed bin Salman will not learn anything either other than to bankrupt his
own nation in pursuing this war.
Israel has driven itself into its own existential hell by persecuting Palestinians over
70+ years and doing a good job of annihilating itself while denying its own destruction. If
Israel can do it, the Christian crusaders dominating the govts of the Five Eyes nations
supporting Israel will follow suit in propping up an unsustainable fantasy. Samson option
indeed.
I am sure that the Suads will be looking to their zionist allies to supply them with the Iron
Dome system that the US military just wasted millions of tax payer dollars and purchased
several days ago. The irony of that system is that is was overwhelmed several times when the
Palestinian freedom fighters launched a wave of home made rockets at Occupied Palestine. I
hope the Sauds learn a lesson..doubt it though.
let me throw something out there. Israel has entrenched itself in the US political and media
systems. There is no logical path to eliminate or reduce that influence, and thus perhaps the
plan that has been hatched is to strengthen Iran to the point that it can confront Israel.
I anticipated just this sort of event 2+ months ago to go along with the tanker sabotaging to
expand on b's thesis about Iran having the upper hand in the current hybrid Gulf War. The
timing of this new ability dovetails nicely with the recent Russian collective security
proposal, with the Saudis being the footdraggers in agreeing about its viability due to its
pragmatic logic. So, as I wrote 2 days ago, we now have an excellent possibility of seeing an
end to this and future Persian Gulf Crises along with an idea that can potentially become the
template for an entire Southwest Asian security treaty, whose only holdout would be Occupied
Palestine. The Outlaw US Empire is effectively shutout of the entire process. And as I also
wrote, it's now time for the Saudis to determine where their future lies--with Eurasia or
with a dying Empire.
So the U.S. bought the Iron Dome stuff from Israel? I guess that means we paid for it
twice, eh? Glad to know my tax dollars are hard at work "keeping us safe."
Wonder what they might be planning for with that one?
The Yemenese military had lots of technological capabilities remaining from the Cold War
along with factories, technicians and raw materials. For example, Yemen's aerospace forces
allied with the Houthi and are the ones producing and shooting the missiles and drones. One
doesn't need to import a complete drone; technical blueprints on a floppy, CD-ROM, DVD,
thumb-drive, are all that's required. The humanitarian crisis due to food and medicine
shortages played on the minds of people such that an image of a poor, backward,
non-industrial capable society was generated that wasn't 100% correct.
And of course, this makes the threat by Iran to hit back against military and industrial
installations on the other side of the Persian Gulf that much stronger.
It would be rich indeed if Iran were to be the entity that ultimately manages to loosen
the stranglehold that the Zionists have on the USA Congress, media, president, donors to
political parties, etc.
I can imagine the shale oil producers smiling right now...100 a barrel oil will be just
what they need! Cost-push inflation leading to a return of bell bottoms and leisure suits. No
wonder all these 70's band retreads are touring again :)
So, poor Yemen wasted via siege warfare waged by NATO since 2015 though its Saudi, UAE and
terrorist proxies that came very close to success, finds the initiative to counterattack with
what little it has at its disposal--All accusations of Iranian help have never been
proven --and thanks to the Outlaw US Empire's threats against Iran force UAE to
withdrawal and seek peace with Iran with Saudi soon to follow. And the situation is all
Iran's fault?! Note the date above--it precedes Trump's election, his illegal withdrawal from
the JCPOA and institution of the illegal sanctions regime against Iran.
Europe is on board with Russia's collective security proposal. Europe had representatives
at the meet between Khamenei and the Houthi negotiator. Europe--even the UK--still working to
salvage the JCPOA via the non-dollar trade conduit. And you conclude that the Outlaw US
Empire "might actually get European support to attack Iran."
First Afghanistan, then Yemen. Maybe the western media's imaging of these people as towel
headed, sandal wearing primatives is just a tad misguided......
"... The election will be waged, like the primaries, around race-baiting. Biden will be the first victim. The other white candidates are running scared & becoming more shrill in their denunciations of whites in general by the hour. ..."
"the Great Arsenal of Democracy was looted by" the military-industrial complex Arsenal &
it's unending wars & nothing short of nuclear annihilation is going to change that. There
is no Democrat who is willing to bet their chance at the presidency on pulling it down.
And the American public, by and large, is put to sleep by lengthy discussions of the
intricacies of trade policy.
The election will be waged, like the primaries, around race-baiting. Biden will be the
first victim. The other white candidates are running scared & becoming more shrill in
their denunciations of whites in general by the hour.
There's no telling where it all may lead but it's becoming clearer day by day that the
hostility will outlast the primaries & the general election will be a very ugly affair.
There's no turning back to the soothing center now, it will be an us-vs.-them type election
& hopefully, Pat Buchanan, still America's shrewdest pundit, will keep us fully
apprised.
The most dangerous bit of theater involving sanctions initiated by the Trump administration
continues to focus on Iran. Last week, the White House elevated its extreme pressure on the
Iranians by engaging in a completely irrational sanctioning of Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif. The sanctions will have no effect whatsoever and they completely
contradict Donald Trump's repeated assertion that he is seeking diplomacy to resolving the
conflict with Iran. One doesn't accomplish that by sanctioning the opposition's Foreign
Minister. Also, the Iranians have received the message loud and clear that the threats coming
from Washington have nothing to do with nuclear programs. The White House began its sanctions
regime over a year ago when it withdrew from the JCPOA and they have been steadily increasing
since that time even though Iran has continued to be fully compliant with the agreement.
Recently, the US took the unprecedented step of sanctioning the entire Iranian Revolutionary
Guard Corps, which is part of the nation's military.
American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has made clear that the sanctions on Iran are
intended to cause real pain, which, in fact, they have succeeded in doing. Pompeo and his
accomplice in crime National Security Advisor John Bolton believe that enough pressure will
motivate the starving people to rise up in the streets and overthrow the government, an
unlikely prospect as the American hostility has in fact increased popular support for the
regime.
To be sure, ordinary people in Iran have found that they cannot obtain medicine and some
types of food are in short supply but they are not about to rebel. The sanctioning in May of
Iranian oil exports has only been partially effective but it has made the economy shrink, with
workers losing jobs. The sanctions have also led to tit-for-tat seizures of oil and gas
tankers, starting with the British interception of a ship carrying Iranian oil to Syria in
early July.
Another bizarre escalation in sanctions that has taken place lately relates to the Skripal
case in Britain. On August 2 nd , Donald Trump
signed an executive order imposing a package of new sanctions against Moscow over the
alleged poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in England in March
2018. The order "prohibit[s] any United States bank from making any loan or providing any
credit except for loans or credits for the purpose of purchasing food or other agricultural
commodities or products." The ban also includes "the extension of any loan or financial or
technical assistance by international financial institutions," meaning that international
lenders will also be punished if they fail to follow Washington's lead.
The sanctions were imposed under the authority provided by the US
Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act adopted in 1991, which
imposes penalties for use of chemical weapons. Novichok, which was reportedly used on the
Skripals, is a chemical weapon developed in the labs of the Soviet Union, though a number of
states are believed to currently have supplies of the agent in their arsenals. Russia can
appeal the sanctions with 90 days by providing "reliable assurance" that it will not again use
chemical weapons.
Russia has strenuously denied any role in the attack on the Skripals and the evidence that
has so far been produced to substantiate the Kremlin's involvement has been less than
convincing. An initial package of US-imposed sanctions against Russia that includes the export
of sensitive technologies and some financial services was implemented in August 2018.
Venezuela is also under the sanctions gun and is a perfect example how sanctions can
escalate into something more punitive, leading incrementally to an actual state of war. Last
week Washington expanded its sanctions regime, which is already causing starvation in parts of
Venezuela, to include what amounts to a complete
economic embargo directed against the Maduro regime that is being enforced by a naval
blockade.
The Venezuelan government
announced last Wednesday that the United States Navy had seized a cargo ship bound for
Venezuela while it was transiting the Panama Canal. According to a government spokesman, the
ship's
cargo was soy cakes intended for the production of food. As one of Washington's raisons
d'etre for imposing sanctions on Caracas was that government incompetence was starving the
Venezuelan people, the move to aggravate that starvation would appear to be somewhat capricious
and revealing of the fact that the White House could care less about what happens to the
Venezuelan civilians who are caught up in the conflict.
Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez
condemned the move as "serious aggression," and accused the Trump Administration of trying
to impede Venezuela's basic right to import food to feed its people.
One of the most pernicious aspects of the sanctions regimes that the United States is
imposing is that they are global. When Washington puts someone on its sanctions list, other
countries that do not comply with the demands being made are also subject to punishment,
referred to as secondary sanctions. The sanctions on Iran's oil exports, for example, are being
globally enforced with some few exceptions, and any country that buys Iranian oil will be
punished by being denied access to the US financial and banking system. That is a serious
penalty as most international trade and business transactions go through the dollar denominated
SWIFT banking network.
Finally, nothing illustrates the absurdity of the sanctions mania as a recent report that
President Trump had
sent his official hostage negotiator Robert O'Brien to Stockholm to obtain freedom for an
American rap musician ASAP Rocky who was in jail after having gotten into a fight with some
local boys. The Trumpster did not actually know the lad, but he was vouched for by the likes of
Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, both of whom have had nice things to say about the president.
The negotiator was instructed to tell Sweden that if they did not release Rocky there would be
"negative consequences." Who can doubt that the consequences would undoubtedly have included
sanctions?
It has reached the point where the only country that likes the United States is Israel,
which is locked into a similar cycle of incessant aggression. To be sure Donald Trump's
rhetoric is part of the problem, but the indiscriminate, illegal and immoral use of sanctions,
which punish whole nations for the presumed sins of those nations' leaders, is a major
contributing factor. And the real irony is that even though sanctions cause pain, they are
ineffective. Cuba has been under sanctions, technically and embargo, since 1960 and its ruling
regime has not collapsed, and there is no chance that Venezuela, Iran or Russia's government
will go away at any time soon either. In fact, real change would be more likely if Washington
were to sit down at a negotiating table with countries that it considers enemies and work to
find solutions to common concerns. But that is not likely to happen with the current White
House line-up, and equally distant with a Democratic Party obsessed with the "Russian threat"
and other fables employed to explain its own failings.
KIEV: Ukraine 's gas transport company
Ukrtransgaz has upgraded several gas pumping stations so it can provide gas to eastern and
southern regions of the country if there is a disruption in supply from Russia, the company
said on Wednesday.
More than a third of Russia's gas exports to the European Union cross
Ukraine, providing Kiev with valuable transit income.
Ukraine traditionally uses some of the gas pumped by Russia to European consumers for its
own needs in eastern and central regions and then compensates for this by deliveries from gas
storage located in the west of the country.
But the Russia-Ukraine gas transit agreement is due to expire in January and Ukrainian
energy authorities are worried that Moscow could stop gas supplies
through Ukraine, leaving some Ukrainian regions without gas in winter.
"As of today, Ukrtransgaz has implemented all the necessary technical and regulatory
solutions to create a reliable reverse scheme and it is ready for regular operation and can be
activated immediately if necessary," Uktransgaz said in a statement.
It said Ukraine had already reversed gas flows in 2009 when Russian gas giant Gazprom halted gas
supplies to Ukrainian consumers because of a price dispute.
Last month, Russian energy minister and several sources said Russia wanted to strike a
short-term deal with Kiev on gas transit to Europe when the current 10-year agreement expires
to buy time to complete pipelines that will bypass Ukraine.
But Kiev and its European allies want guarantees that Ukraine will remain a transit route
for Russian gas to Europe.
In January, European Commission Vice President Maros Sefcovic floated a proposal for the two
countries to agree a new 10-year transit contract, with a guaranteed minimum yearly transit
volume of 60 bcm and 30 bcm of additional flexibility.
Ukraine's energy firm Naftogaz said last month Kiev was still counting on Sefcovic's
proposal.
The potential for problems with the transit agreement, which brings Kiev around $3 billion
revenue per year, prompted Ukraine to increase its winter gas reserves by 18% compared with
last year to 20 billion cubic meters (bcm).
Naftogaz said this week Ukraine had stored 16.6 bcm of gas by Aug. 10, up from 13.38 bcm at
the same time last year.
Ukraine consumed 32.3 bcm of gas in 2018, 10.6 bcm of which was imported from European
markets outside Russia.
Relations between Kiev and Moscow plummeted after Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea
peninsula in 2014.
Ukraine halted its own purchases of Russian gas in 2015.
Daniel Benaim and Michael Walid Hanna
explain that the U.S. military presence in the Middle East hasn't changed much at all under
Trump, but there has been a reduction in diplomatic engagement:
For all the headlines, the U.S. military presence in the Middle East is fairly consistent.
Despite the administration's intention, laid out in the 2018 National Defense Strategy, to
refocus the U.S. military on great-power competition, the U.S. footprint in the Middle East
remains relatively constant, and seemingly permanent. Instead, what has changed is the scale
of civilian effort that, in most previous administrations, would have accompanied such a
military presence. The Trump administration has left numerous vacancies for key civilian
positions unfilled for long stretches, slashed aid programs, and focused on high-level
personal relations at the expense of broader ties. Altogether, its approach has not been
typified by either retrenchment or interventionism but by what Barry Posen, writing in
Foreign Affairs, has called "illiberal hegemony" -- military superiority shorn of diplomatic
stewardship.
Benaim and Hanna are right about this, and their article is a welcome corrective to the many
false claims that Trump is "retreating" from the region. The administration's disdain for
diplomacy and aid has been impossible to miss over the last two and a half years, and they have
combined that with more or less continuing the military deployments and missions that they
inherited. What that means in practice is that the U.S. remains entangled in the affairs of the
region, but our government's involvement leans even more heavily towards the military. That
leaves every other kind of engagement underfunded, understaffed, and neglected. Since our
foreign policy is already excessively militarized, this makes a bad problem worse. Benaim and
Hanna note this later in the article:
This approach also exacerbates the long-standing problem of overreliance on the military
as the central tool of U.S. Middle East policy. Even on a diplomat's best days, regional
leaders are well aware of the "consul effect" -- the contrast between well-resourced American
military commanders and their relatively impoverished diplomatic colleagues. Further
marginalizing diplomats costs them influence, access, and bargaining power, while positioning
the military and intelligence communities as the only effective U.S. institutional actors in
the region.
Given the reality that the U.S. military presence hasn't been reduced, and has actually
increased in some places over the last two years, how is it that we keep hearing about U.S.
"retreat" and "withdrawal" as if these were happening? Client states have an incentive to whine
about possible "abandonment" no matter what the U.S. does. Either they complain about an
"abandonment" that has supposedly already happened, or they warn against a possible
"abandonment" that might take place in the future. The whining serves the purpose of putting
pressure on every administration to maintain existing commitments and then to add more. Then
there are pundits and analysts at home that constantly fret about U.S. "withdrawal" as a way of
agitating for increased involvement. Then there are the supporters of the president that want
to pretend that the "withdrawal" is really happening in order to credit the president for doing
something he hasn't done. Add them all up, and you get an unfounded consensus that the U.S. is
"retreating" when virtually nothing has changed. In the case of Trump, there is an additional
factor of taking the president's rhetoric at face value while ignoring what his administration
is doing. Trump boasts about some things that never happened and never will happen, and for
some reason he is blamed/credited for things he never does while his real policies often escape
close scrutiny.
Put simply, U.S. military engagement in the Middle East is largely unchanged and has even
escalated to some degree under Trump, but all other kinds of engagement get short shrift. Far
from disentangling the U.S. from its excessive commitments in the region, Trump has embraced
our worst clients and deepened our government's involvement in the worst way for the sake of
arms sales and whipping up anti-Iranian sentiment. This is the exact opposite of what should be
happening, and it is antithetical to a foreign policy that extricates U.S. forces from the
region.
Application of IMF policy in Argentina has brought what is in effect an economic collapse and
astonishing poverty. While this was happening over the months, business news writers were
applauding Argentinian austerity reforms. The data (as I repeatedly showed on Economist's
View) were bad to grim, but business reporting found no problem.
China ratcheted up its accusations of U.S. involvement in fomenting protests in Hong Kong,
spotlighting a top diplomat in state media, as the restive city prepared for a 10th weekend
of demonstrations under the threat that Beijing could step in.
Hundreds of black-clad protesters began a three-day sit-in at the city's international
airport on Friday, while several demonstrations planned for the weekend were banned by the
local police. That could give rise to further clashes, days after Beijing warned it could
intervene directly if Hong Kong authorities were unable to quell the unrest on their own.
The protests come amid rising trade tensions between the U.S. and Beijing. Chinese
officials have accused the U.S. of encouraging protesters to undermine the government, though
the Trump administration has offered guidance to officials to maintain a measured response in
an effort to avoid derailing U.S. efforts on trade talks. U.S. diplomatic representatives in
Hong Kong have met with senior government officials.
On Thursday and Friday, Beijing-backed media outlets circulated a photo of Julie Eadeh,
the political unit chief of the U.S. consulate general in Hong Kong, meeting in a hotel lobby
with prominent members of the opposition, including 22-year-old Joshua Wong, a key figure in
protests that rocked Hong Kong five years ago.
The reports, in the China Daily and other mainland outlets, pointed to the meeting as
evidence that a U.S. "black hand" was behind the protests. Tai Kung Pao, a Beijing-backed
newspaper in Hong Kong, called Ms. Eadeh an expert in subversion with experience in Iraq. It
publicized the names of her children and husband, citing a church publication from her
hometown. The narrative and some of the personal details were reposted on numerous mainland
Chinese publications and websites.
State broadcaster CCTV said Friday that the Central Intelligence Agency was known for
instigating "color revolutions," a reference to demonstrations that sprang up in former
Soviet states during the previous decade. Beijing officials also said this week that the Hong
Kong unrest had the markings of a color revolution.
What do you think is motivating Beijing to connect the U.S. with the protests in Hong
Kong? Join the conversation below.
.
A spokesman for the U.S. consulate general in Hong Kong said Ms. Eadeh wasn't available for
comment, and referred questions to Washington.
A State Department spokeswoman said on Twitter on Friday that the Chinese state media
reports on the U.S. diplomat in Hong Kong had gone from irresponsible to dangerous and must
stop. She earlier called China a "thuggish regime" for targeting Ms. Eadeh.
"Chinese authorities know full well, our accredited consular personnel are just doing
their jobs, just like diplomats from every other country," she said in the tweet.
A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy denied that Washington was behind the protests, saying
that the Hong Kong demonstrations reflected residents' concerns about eroding autonomy.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry's Hong Kong Commissioner's Office on Friday said the U.S.
remarks revealed again the "dark and twisted side of U.S. psychology."
Mr. Wong said Friday that neither he nor his group receive any funding, supplies or advice
from the U.S. government. ...
Protests Put Hong Kong on Collision Course With
China's Communist Party https://nyti.ms/2MfpdHo
NYT - Javier C. Hernández and Amy Qin - August 12
HONG KONG -- As anti-government demonstrations escalate in Hong Kong, each side is staking
out increasingly polarized positions, making it difficult to find a path to compromise
between the protesters and China's ruling Communist Party.
The demonstrations, which began as a fight against a bill that would have allowed Hong
Kong residents to be extradited to the mainland, have more broadly morphed into a call for
free elections, which largely do not exist in China. To Beijing, it would be a direct
challenge to the leadership, tantamount to losing control of Hong Kong.
The once peaceful demonstrations have now intensified, coming into conflict with Hong
Kong's reputation for order and efficiency. Protesters on Monday filled the airport,
crippling one of the world's busiest transportation hubs.
Demonstrators returned again on Tuesday, with more flights canceled that day.
China is also projecting more power, raising the possibility of more intense and more
frequent clashes with the police. An official in Beijing on Monday condemned the actions of
the protesters last weekend, casting it as the first signs of "terrorism." The Chinese police
also appeared to conduct large-scale exercises across the border from Hong Kong in Shenzhen,
a city on the mainland.
"We are at a crossroads," said Martin Lee, a democracy advocate and former lawmaker. "The
future of Hong Kong -- the future of democracy -- depends on what's going to happen in the
next few months."
The unrest is exposing the inherent conflict in the political experiment that began when
China reclaimed Hong Kong from Britain in 1997, an ambitious attempt to marry Beijing's brand
of authoritarianism with a bastion of civil liberties.
China's top leader, Xi Jinping, wants to make Hong Kong more like a mainland city, using
economic incentives to buy happiness and propaganda to win loyalty. The protesters, who
represent a wide swath of Hong Kong, want a government that looks out for their interests,
not just Beijing's, to help resolve problems like astronomical housing prices and low
wages.
The two sides no longer seem to recognize each other's concerns. ...
Hong Kong Airport Suspends
Check-Ins as Protests Continue
Hundreds of people occupied parts of Hong Kong
International Airport, with some using luggage
trolleys to block travelers from reaching their gates.
The demonstration came hours after the city's
embattled leader pleaded for order following days
of escalating chaos and violent street clashes.
Hong Kong Airport Suspends Check-Ins in 2nd Day
of Disruptive Protests https://nyti.ms/2MekLsu
NYT - Mike Ives - August 12
HONG KONG -- Hong Kong's airport suspended check-ins for a second straight day on Tuesday
as protesters again disrupted its operations, hours after the city's embattled leader pleaded
for order amid escalating chaos.
Hundreds of demonstrators occupied parts of Hong Kong International Airport's departures
and arrivals halls on Tuesday, with some using luggage trolleys to block travelers from
reaching their departure gates. The Hong Kong Airport Authority closed check-in services in
the late afternoon, and it advised all passengers to leave as soon as possible.
It was the second day in a row that demonstrators had seriously disrupted operations at
the airport, one of the world's busiest. On Monday, protesters effectively shuttered it after
storming the arrivals and departures halls. As flight cancellations piled up on Tuesday, a
few scuffles broke out between protesters and travelers. ...
BEIJING -- Chinese authorities condemned violent weekend demonstrations in Hong Kong as
"deranged" acts that marked the emergence of "the first signs of terrorism" in the
semiautonomous city, vowing a merciless crackdown on the perpetrators.
The escalating rhetoric from Beijing followed a day of heated protests in Hong Kong,
including the hurling of petrol bombs, and came as thousands of protesters gathered at Hong
Kong's international airport on Monday, prompting officials to cancel all flights for the
rest of the day apart from those already en route to the air-travel hub.
"Radical Hong Kong protesters have repeatedly used extremely dangerous tools to attack
police officers," a spokesman for the Chinese government's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office
told a news briefing on Monday, according to Chinese state media. "The first signs of
terrorism are starting to appear."
On Sunday, police in riot gear fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse crowds of
protesters across Hong Kong, some of whom threw bricks and what police identified as Molotov
cocktails and smoke bombs. Police said an officer was hospitalized with burns to his legs
after being hit by a Molotov cocktail hurled by a protester.
The spokesman, Yang Guang, expressed "intense condemnation" for such "deranged and severe
criminal activities committed without regard for the consequences." Such violence must be
severely punished, "without leniency, without mercy," he said.
Mr. Yang also called on ordinary Hong Kong residents to oppose the violence. "Hong Kong
has already reached an important juncture," he said. "All the people who care about Hong
Kong's future should step firmly forward, and say no to all criminal activities and all
violent elements."
Mr. Yang didn't indicate that Beijing has any imminent plans to intervene in the unrest.
Instead, he reiterated the central government's firm support for Hong Kong's police and
judiciary in their efforts to "decisively enforce the law" and punish wrongdoers as soon as
possible.
Chinese state media, however, appeared to signal that mainland forces are ready to step
in, if necessary.
On Monday, social-media accounts run by the Communist Party's flagship newspaper, People's
Daily, and other leading state news outlets published footage of Chinese paramilitary forces
arriving in the southern city of Shenzhen, which abuts Hong Kong, over the weekend.
The footage, dated Saturday, featured captions describing the columns of armored vehicles
and trucks as a detachment from the People's Armed Police that may have been sent to
participate in summer training drills.
The People's Daily, in a microblog post featuring the footage, cited a Chinese law
outlining the armed police's powers, saying the paramilitary force can be used to deal with
"riots, disturbances, severe violent criminal incidents, terrorist attacks and other public
security incidents."
Hong Kong -- Hong Kong's real estate billionaires are calling for an end to massive
protests that have crippled local businesses and paralyzed the city's international
airport.
Swire Pacific, one of Hong Kong's richest family-owned business empires, issued a strongly
worded statement on Tuesday. The company condemned "illegal activities and violent behavior"
and threw its support behind Hong Kong's beleaguered government.
"Swire Pacific is deeply concerned by the ongoing violence and disruption impacting Hong
Kong," the company said in a statement, offering its full support for Hong Kong Chief
Executive Carrie Lam and the city's police "in their efforts to restore law and order."
The company's CEO is billionaire Merlin Swire. The family's business empire dates back
more than 200 years and has had roots in Hong Kong for much of that time. It owns luxury
hotels, office towers and high-end shopping malls in the city.
Swire is also the largest shareholder in Cathay Pacific, Hong Kong's flagship airline that
has become a high profile casualty of the turmoil. Swire said it fully supports the carrier's
"strict implementation" of new restrictions on the airline handed down by China's aviation
authority over the weekend.
The statement came as hundreds of protestors crowded into Hong Kong's international
airport, disrupting flights for the second day in a row. ...
Property tycoon: Time to "think deeply"
Sun Hung Kai Properties, which is controlled by Asia's third richest family, the Kwoks,
also called Tuesday for demonstrators to stop the violence. The real estate developer called
for the restoration of social order and voiced support for Hong Kong's government ...
@JW #40
To be fair, the US has a fantastic record of f***ing up countries with aerial bombs. The part
which the Saudis failed to understand is that the US isn't next to any of these countries...
Yemen has a population slightly lower than Texas. Imagine, Washington bombing Texas, only
filled with Texans that have more and heavier weapons(?).
The question mark is because I am not entirely certain that Yemenis are more heavily armed
than Texans, but certainly they're at least as fierce defending themselves.
Wow, that is an outstanding tour d'horizon from Magnier you linked. This is a
keeper to show others who may be amenable to learning about today's Middle East balance of
forces, and how it has been arrived at.
Succinct yet very comprehensive, the piece not only catches up the histories of recent
years, but provides an analysis of today and the near-to-mid-term future - both military and
geopolitical. It speaks of the various lessons learned along the way, including the lessons
being absorbed in real time today as the confrontation between Iran and the US has barely yet
begun and yet racked up totally instructive scores.
The new war is essentially economic; it is a war of sanctions and limiting free movement of
ship movements around the globe. It is a war of tankers and oil platforms. It is a
starvation war where no one can threaten the enemy with a return to the "stone age"
because the firepower is now universally available . Yemen is the best example: the
threat of bombing Dubai forced the Emirates to seek Iranian mediation to prevent a missile
attack against them. The Houthis, despite years of Saudi bombing of Yemen, have also
managed to bomb Saudi airports, military bases and oil stations in the heart of Saudi
Arabia, using cruise missiles and armed drones. [My emphasis]
And Hezbolllah has cemented its standing with nations in the region, expanded its skill
from guerrilla and small-theater to nation-size theater, and this:
It has run intensive courses in the use of its drones, used its precision missiles with
accuracy, produced thousands of highly trained Special Forces and it has fought an enemy
(al-Qaeda) that is much more motivated to fight to the death than any Israeli Special
Forces units. [My emphasis]
Israel is essentially paralyzed. Even to the extent, as Magnier relates, of being careful
to warn Hezbollah drivers before bombing its supply trucks, because "Israel wanted to
avoid human casualties among Hezbollah officers, fully aware of the price of
retaliation. " My emphasis again.
The bad guys have fallen behind - as we know, but as Magnier illustrates so clearly in
this appraisal, with his review of the initial western strategies just a few years ago and
how they have all been rendered null. Even the US now is an antique target for modern missile
and drone technology - and the battle-hardened skill with these weapons definitely resides
with the Levant axis rather than with the imperialists and their dogs.
The future? This:
Gaza, along with Beirut, Damascus and Baghdad, are all highly equipped by Tehran with
sufficient missiles to inflict real damage on Israel and on US forces deployed in the
Middle East. Israel is playing around by targeting various objectives tactically but with
no real strategic purpose- only for Netanyahu to keep himself busy and train his Air Force,
and to gain publicity in the media. Soon, when Syria recovers and Iraq is stronger, the
Israeli promenade will have to cease. Hezbollah in Lebanon may also find a way in the near
future to keep its irregular but organised army busy by firing anti-air missiles against
Israeli jets and imposing new rules of engagement.
Is this the end of the neoliberal counterrevolution in Argentina ? Moor did its duty moor has
to go -- Macri converted Argentina into the Debt slave again and now to get out of this situation
is nest to impossible.
Argentine president suffers crushing defeat in key primaries ahead of general election
Argentina's President Mauricio Macri suffered a crushing defeat as people voted in party
primaries on Sunday ahead of October's general election.
Given that all of the recession-hit South American country's major parties have already
chosen their presidential candidates, the primaries effectively served as a nationwide
pre-election opinion poll.
Center-left nominee Alberto Fernandez led by around 15 points after partial results were
revealed. Center-right Pro-business Macri admitted it had been "a bad election."
The first round of the presidential election will be held on October 27, with a run-off
– if needed – set for November 24.
With 87 percent of polling station results counted, Fernandez had polled 47.5 percent with
Macri on a little more than 32 percent and centrist former finance minister Roberto Lavagna a
distant third on just 8.3 percent.
Macri had been hoping to earn a second mandate, but his chances appear all but over.
If Fernandez was to register the same result in October, he would be president as
Argentina's electoral law requires a candidate to gain 45 percent for outright victory, or 40
percent and a lead of at least 10 points over the nearest challenger.
Inflation and poverty
"We've had a bad election and that forces us to redouble our efforts from tomorrow," said
Macri, whose popularity has plunged since last year's currency crisis and the much-criticized
56 billion U.S.-dollar bail-out loan he secured from the International Monetary Fund.
"It hurts that we haven't had the support we'd hoped for," he added.
Argentina is currently in a recession and posted 22 percent inflation for the first
half of the year – one of the highest rates in the world. Poverty now affects 32
percent of the population.
Backed by the IMF, Macri has initiated an austerity plan that is deeply unpopular among
ordinary Argentines, who have seen their spending power plummet.
The peso lost half of its value against the dollar last year. The Buenos Aires stock
exchange actually shot up eight percent on Friday amid expectation that Macri would do well
in Sunday's vote.
An important task now is to understand why the IMF assistance to Argentina proved damaging to
the economy from the beginning; the data showed the damage being done. However, there was
almost no mention of the problems that developed outside Argentina and there was surprise
when the failure of the economy was reflected in the serious vote against the current
president.
Of course, Joseph Stiglitz watched the same sort of problems unfold in Argentina almost 20
years ago and was severely criticized for discussing them. How did the problems recur so
readily now? Why is IMF national assistance seemingly so dangerous economically?
This drive is being led by three nations in particular: namely Israel, Saudi Arabia and
America. All three are seeking to portray Iran as the major threat to regional stability. They
are also attempting to paint her as the major sponsor of anti-Western terrorism. This is
particularly laughable, given the fact that not one of the major attacks – that have
killed hundreds across the West in recent decades – can be traced back to her, which
cannot be said for Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. or Qatar. The truth is that Iran is a major
threat to the regional hegemony of these powers. After Russia, it is principally Iran and her
allies in Hezbollah and the Houthi movement who have prevented the Americans, Israelis and
Saudis from imposing their will upon the region and removing regimes considered hostile to
their interests. At the same time, Iran is weaker than Russia and is probably regarded as a
suitable first target for elimination, after which, deprived of her main regional ally, Russia
might perhaps prove more 'amenable' to Western overtures.
Here in the West, the population, held captive by a deceptive media and a corrupt and
cynical political class, can only watch these developments with the hope that they do not
escalate further. However, if we at least attempt to apply logic and historical precedent to
the situation, we may be able to discern the hidden hands that are stirring tension across the
region. Then, perhaps, we can at least avoid being dragged into yet another foreign war in
defence of somebody else's national interests.
Charlie O'Neill is a freelance writer specialising in History and Geopolitics.
I think the idea that the USA and its few remaining allies are preparing to attack Iran is
laughable. The idea that Saudi Arabia has become a more tolerant society ridiculous. It is
all window-dressing.
The boot is now very much on the other foot. I suspect that Iran carried out the recent
false flags against tankers close to the UAE. They are doing exactly what the USA used to do
in order to initiate a war. They are not going to wait to be suffocated by the ongoing
embargoes and sanctions. It is very much to their advantage to move the date of the
inevitable hostilities forward. I suspect Russia and China are doing all they can to prevent
them from doing so. American bases in the region are hostage to Iran.
The Iranians have made it clear that in the event they are attacked, Israel would be
largely inoperable in 30 minutes. The Israelis have absolutely no ability to withstand any
losses. They have inflicted pain on others for decades and have forgotten what it feels like.
There would be a mass-exodus of the Jewish middle class – who mostly have 2nd
passports.
Qatar, where the biggest US military base in the region is based, is already an ally of
Iran in all but name. Bahrain, where the US navy is based, is a Shia stronghold. The UAE has
sent envoys to Iran to apologise for allowing a US spy plane – the one that got shot
down by the Iranians – to take off from one of their airfields. They are making
peace-overtures to Iran and withdrawing their forces from Yemen. Currently, the Saudi proxies
are fighting the Emirati proxies in Aden.
Here is something from the Irish Times – a paper that has yet to be bought up by
Zionists.
Here are the regional nations that have flipped to the side of Iran: Oman, UAE, Qatar,
Iraq and Turkey. These countries know full well that the USA and Israel are a spent force.
The Eastern province of Saudi Arabia – where the oil lies – is Shia. The Iranians
have no intention of destroying Saudi oil installations – because they might soon
control them.
The writer of this article would do well to peruse some local news sources and not rely so
heavily on the mainstream media.
Bad new for Trump, Netanyahu and Kushner's gang.
Crown Prince MbS is fading fast. His father the King has taken back some control. Other Arab
leaders are pulling out of his Yemen war. King Salman has refused to accept any plans for
Palestines except a 2 state solution and the Arab Peace Initiative offered before.
Mohammad bin Salman's Waning Influence
August 5, 2019Emile Nakhleh
So, Saudi Arabia is building its future by an alliance with women and Judaism. Good luck,
they'll need it.
As to the overall picture, the disorganization of the US into ethnic groups under Obama
and the continuation of that under Trump (who is, since the Federal government's permanent
staff opposes him, a weak president) has most groups betting, world wide, that the US won't
intervene in their local disputes. Consequently, they are fighting and cooperating as they
see fit, and a new equilibrium is forming. Also, the sun rises in the morning.
This trend is long established [1], and I doubt it can be changed.
Even the change in Saudi Arabia has to do with this trend. Saudi Arabia is apparently
betting that they can survive as a high income Arab state if they have a large qualitative
and economic superiority over their much more poor neighbors. I really hope their efforts
work better for them than did Russian efforts to Westernize.
Unfortunately here in Europe most if not all politicians and media are simply following the
U.S. line.
Large parts of european populations are also blindly trusting the mainstream narratives,
though some do due to religious reasons instead of political ones.
Whenever there is some "official resistance" to these policies it is mostly symbolic.
It is a sad state of affairs. At this point in time when most people have access to
unprecedented information recources, via the internet, there still seems to be not much
interest in actually utilizing these resources.
People are too used to being force fed their information. There are no critical thinking
abilities to speak of in the general population. The barrage of propaganda people are being
subjected to ( from every direction and at all times ) is simply impossible to withstand for
most.
Parts of the population that think of themselves as "woke", informed and as "The Resistance"
are just as misinformed and deceived ( if not more ) as the sheeplike masses they claim
superiority over
An excellent piece, but I was slightly surprised that it did not go on to examine the de
facto alliance that appears to be growing between Iran and Russia. Everything surely depends
on the scope and extent of this alliance. If it is firm and committed, then Zio-America is
stirring up a hornet's nest by its sabre-rattling. And is the Trump administration really
naïve, mad or stupid enough not to understand the consequences in the face of a strong
Russo-Persian alliance? The US body count will dwarf the combined total of all its recent
illegal and criminal undertakings on behalf of its puppet-masters. How will a six-figure sum
of American dead be sold to its public, when 'only' 58,000 American military personnel died
in the Vietnam conflict? Media control can only ever extend so far.
Russia may be Iran's main regional ally: but Iran is also vital to Russia's strategic
interests. It cannot allow Tehran to fall. That would destabilize Central Asia and the
Caucasus, Moscow's backyard. In that sense they are equal partners. While the US is allied
with Israel and Saudi Arabia in pursuit of regional hegemony, Washington has wider interests
threatening to bring it into confrontation with Russia, and China, which also has core
interests to protect. That confrontation will be a world, not a regional, war. The pattern of
history shows there is already historical precedent for such events leading to world war
– this time nuclear war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
"Made possible by a generous founding grant from Mr. Haim Saban of Los Angeles, the
Saban Center will permit the Brookings Institution to dramatically expand its research and
analysis of Middle East policy issues at a time when the region has assumed a dominant
position on the U.S. foreign policy agenda.
"After September 11, American interests in countering terrorism, promoting peace,
preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and preserving regional stability
all converged on the Middle East," Armacost noted. "The generosity of Haim Saban will
enable Brookings to expand significantly its circle of experts who will conduct original
research and develop innovative programs to promote a better understanding of the policy
choices facing American decision-makers." "
A 2010 New Yorker magazine profile of Saban said:
His greatest concern, he says, is to protect Israel, by strengthening the United
States-Israel relationship. At a conference last fall [2006] in Israel, Saban described his
formula. His "three ways to be influential in American politics," he said, were: make
donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.
In 2007, Grant Smith, the Herculean head of Institute for Research: Middle East Policy
(IRMEP), wrote of Saban's action:
11/21/2007 Excerpt from the book "Foreign Agents" Why AIPAC took over Brookings
By targeting and taking over Middle East policy at Brookings in 2002, Saban and Indyk were
able to "leapfrog" AIPAC messaging from second to last in the think tank market (WINEP had
only 2%) to first place. Taking over Brookings also made it appear to Americans that there
was now an "expert consensus" from "right to left" on the key Middle East policy issue of
the year: the US invasion of Iraq on weapons of mass destruction pretexts. Brookings is
often portrayed as a "centrist to left think tank" in the corporate news media. According
to FAIR, "Progressive or Left-Leaning" media citations were a small but important segment
of the marketplace of ideas, but combined with "centrist", they represented the majority.
For Saban and Indyk, taking over Brookings Middle East policy in 2002 meant penetrating the
63% of the marketplace of ideas that was generally not beating a drum for war in Iraq.
Saban has supported Hillary Clinton financially and in other ways, probably since the
Clintons were in the White House, but demonstrably once the Clintons bought their house in
New York state in 2000 in preparation for Hill's successful run for the senate -- heavily
backed by Saban money. Team Clinton's Favorite Billionaire https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/haim-saban-hillary-clinton-donor-230711
Hillary has been Saban's creature throughout her-post Lewinsky life.
Sher glad we dodged that Hillary bullet & voted in tRump, say what.
Who will fight this war with iran? They wont go slowly into the night but fight tooth and
nail. Remember Hezbollah never even called up its reserves and the entire war was fought with
their regular forces already stationed there numbering a few thousand at most and only a few
hundred directly being engaged.
Before Iran goes, they will make sure the world economy will for ever be changed. With
regime changes in all ME and maybe even in other countries from unhappy populations.
Technologically, yes. It's also weaker economically.
OTOH, Iran has a rising population, totally different to Russia's ongoing demographic
crisis. The Iranian population increase occurs against a backdrop of policies to curb it,
which means that Iran could increase the increase to its population size (talking about the
second derivative here) at the drop of a hat. Russia could not even dream of being in such a
situation.
Unlike Russia, Iran is not officially a democracy either. Iran has a system of officially
limited democracy yielding to the supreme authority of a clerical elite, guarded by aptly
called revolutionary guards. This system has withstood decades of Western attempts to topple
it. Iran is much better able to hold its liberal, Westernized middle class in check than
Russia.
The biggest difference is the one in ideology. Iran has the Shia branch of Islam, what
does Russia have? The Putin government tries to ally itself with the Russian Orthodox church,
but the church has much less influence on Russian society than Shiite religiosity has on
Iran. Iran is a Shiite country through and through. The Iranian regime can count on millions
of committed followers to defend it to the death. Nothing of the same kind can be said about
the Putin government.
Unlike Russia, Iran also has geography on its side. Russia can be invaded from all
directions, Iran is a mountain fortress overlooking the straights of Hormuz to boot.
Russia and Iran have complementary strengths and weaknesses. Russia cannot allow Iran to
fail, but you have to wonder whether Iran should not lend a helping hand to Russia in dealing
with its fifth-column liberals.
In reality, America is ruled by an oligarchy, America's 60 families, a de facto government
according to Ferdinand Lundberg. This "shadow government" has controlled the top levels of
the US government for most of our nation's history.
May 18, 2019 The Truth-Teller: From the Pentagon Papers to the Doomsday Machine
The growth of the military-industrial complex poses an existential threat to humanity.
Daniel Ellsberg, peace activist and Vietnam War whistleblower discusses with Tellus Senior
Fellow Allen White the continuing existential threat posed by the military-industrial complex
-- and what needs to be done about it.
MARCH 13, 2019 'Imperialism on Trial' tour comes to Northern Ireland on March 19th and
21st
Next week, the Imperialism on Trial tour comes to Belfast, Northern Ireland, and will
include an impressive line-up of speakers, including two former British Ambassadors, a former
British soldier, an Irish Republican writer, and a veteran CIA analyst – each
presenting their own analysis of world events, and interrogating the role played at home and
abroad – by western powers.
@renfro
Saudi Arabia's "drift" to better relations with Israel started in 1975 when King Faisal, the
oil embargo anti-Israel, and pro Palestinian cause King, was assassinated by a nephew, who
had just returned from the US (purely co-incidental, of course).
It was Faisal, became King in his own bloodless coup, that started reforms in Saudi Arabia.
He was a pan-Islamist as opposed to Nassar's pan-Arabist, and was open to mending fences with
Shia while suppressing Wahabbism. Bin Salman is entirely a product of the CIA/MI-6/Mossad.
@RichardMunter
The days when the number of soldiers on each side was very important are over. Now, war is
much more automated and, as always, it is dependent on the training, intelligence and
motivation of the soldiers on each side.
The mercenaries of ISIS are certainly motivated, trained and well-equipped, but they seem
to be losing 10+ soldiers for each Syrian soldier lost. That is because they have no defence
against Russian and Syrian aviation.
Both the Russians and the Iranians would make formidable adversaries – because they
are defending their own peoples. The Israelis know that they don't belong there and the
Americans are really the tourists of militarism.
While the presentation of facts is accurate, reflecting events in the past years, there is no
actual analysis and explanations, other than local power struggle, but it is a bit more
complicated than that.
Egypt had first to be tamed and after loosing the Sinai peninsula, with the peace brokered
by US (plus a continuous dole of money/weapons), the biggest Arab nation that could have
engender any meaningful threats to Israel as a state (and nowadays to its expansionist
thrust) has been quashed. At that time Iran was a monarchy resting on US support (so Israel
had beautiful relations with the regime, which posed no threats).
Now comes the Iran Revolution which suddenly becomes a threat to US interests (oil,
dollar, oil flow), Israel's interests (provides strategic depth to Lebanon, Palestinians,
Syria, and Iraq), and all Arab monarchies around since it shows their own citizens that there
is a different way of running a country
As such KSA and other monarchies (Qatar seems to be fine though) would rather make peace
with the devil (Israel), than allow the idea of a Republic (especially Arab – see
untamed Syria, and soon, after US will leave, Iraq) in their midst.
Iran free to sell oil to whomever and on whatever currency is also able to buy and build
weapons and provide a modicum of well being to its citizens while allowing a modicum of
democracy to exist as well as supporting entities as Syria, Hezbollah is a mortal threat to
US, Israel, and many Arab monarchies around, especially KSA. This level of nationalism is
unacceptable for US geo-strategic and economic planners. Such a resource, as oil cannot be
allowed to benefit all citizens of a country but needs to be controlled and enrich the few.
This is why Venezuela, Russia, Libya, Syria, etc.
@Counterinsurgency
Absolutely, and schooling is the individual supply line of the drones aka patriots who will
scarifice themselves for the Empire. This has been planned shortly after the Federal Reserve
was founded and created.
"Rebuilding America's Defenses" – A Summary Blueprint of the PNAC Plan for U.S.
Global Hegemony
Some people have compared it to Hitler's publication of Mein Kampf, which was ignored
until after the war was over.
This film goes in detail through the untold history of The Project for the New American
Century with tons of archival footage and connects it right into the present.
@RichardMunter
I think you misrepresents a little bit the underpinnings of Iran's form of government. In the
US it is said that the three branches of government are independent and on equal footing.
Practice is showing that it is not true and that the operational arm (government/President)
has the upper hand in all goings and it is seldom or ever challenged.
In Iran the top is represented by the Law (Islamic law) with its guardians (supreme
ayatollah and the guardians). I don't think conceptually this is a bad thing (except as an
atheist I have some issues with the idea of divine law, especially when it punishes
unbelievers and such) and ultimately in theory everyone else is aspirationally saying that
their country is a country of law.
Iran, also called Persia, and officially the Islamic Republic of Iran republic
@Commentator
Mike Well said. the war against Gemal Abdulnasser and his brand of revolutionary
nationalism calling for Arab unity and establishing one Arab country for all Arabs is a great
example of imperialist intervention in the Arab world.
The west does not want nor tolerates Arab unity ,any of those leaders calling for such
idea are either ousted by coups or ending up dead .
@Hossein
Iran has been a miniature empire absorbing a large number of ethnically diverse peoples for a
very long time. They know very well how to balance the interests of its various components
– unlike the USA or the UK. Of course, outsiders such the British and Americans try to
fracture the country along its ethnic lines. There is nothing new there either. Divide and
Rule.
All ethnic groupings in Iran are well aware that they have much to lose should the USA
regain control of the country. They know their history.
The real irony of what is happening is that the USA and UK have imported large numbers of
foreigners from their de facto ex colonies and they have no idea as to how to absorb these
aliens. That has rendered the USA and the UK vulnerable to being fractured themselves.
Electing a Zionist Pakistani to be the mayor of London is hardly going to appease the
Pakistanis of the UK. He only represents himself.
The Arabs of Ahwaz have only to look across the Persian Gulf to see what is happening to
their ethnic cousins in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to realise that they are quite
fortunate.
"Much that passes as idealism is disguised hatred or disguised love of power." ~Bertrand Russell
Fully applicable to any color revolution.
Notable quotes:
"... The president's top legislative ally, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), was far more direct: "Any violent crackdown would be completely unacceptable... The world is watching." ..."
"... One cannot help but recall that the same phrasing was used for Ukraine, during the Maidan protests of 2013 that culminated in a violent coup in February 2014 – and plunged that country into secession of Crimea and civil war in the Donbass. ..."
"... The impression is only reinforced by the images reminiscent of Kiev coming out of Hong Kong, showing helmeted protesters in black masks firing grenades and throwing firebombs at police – none of which has stopped the chorus of US media from calling the protesters "pro-democracy." ..."
"... There is even nationalism, albeit of a xeno variety: some protesters have brandished flags of Hong Kong's former colonial master, the UK. Others have embraced the US flag, telling reporters it stands for "freedom, human rights and democracy." ..."
"... All of this has been seen before, most recently in Kiev but also in other places. There was even the requisite meddling by the State Department: US diplomat Julie Eadeh was photographed meeting with protest leaders. It wasn't quite Victoria Nuland passing out cookies to the Maidan demonstrators, but it was enough to raise alarm. ..."
"... This is very very embarrassing. Julie Eadeh, a US diplomat in Hong Kong, was caught meeting HK protest leaders. It would be hard to imagine the US reaction if Chinese diplomat were meeting leaders of Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter or Never Trump protesters. ..."
"... " Our diplomat was doing her job and we commend her for her work," State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said at a news briefing last week. Ortagus then denounced what she said was publication of Eadeh's personal details, including the names of her children, in Chinese media as the action of a "thuggish regime." ..."
"... It is worth noting that the protests have already accomplished their original purpose, as the bill that would have allowed the extradition of criminal suspects to mainland China has been suspended. So now the demonstrators are calling for city officials to resign and broader political reforms, open-ended demands that will likely only grow with time. ..."
"... Color evolutions are a type of regime change technique developed by US strategists and executed by diplomats and non-governmental organizations. They rely on exploiting legitimate grievances of the local population, amplifying with money and marketing small groups of activists they either create or co-opt. The goal is to provoke the government into a violent crackdown, so as to destroy its legitimacy – whereupon it can be replaced in the name of "democracy and human rights." ..."
"... In the "best case" scenario, such as Serbia, the immediate body count is low but the country's democratic institutions are irreparably damaged and corrupted by this sort of fraud and manipulation. Ukraine, Syria, or Libya are what the worst-case scenario looks like: civil war or anarchy, with tens of thousands of deaths. ..."
If the iconography and tone of Hong Kong protests and the support from US diplomats weren't enough, Washington's words of concern
sure seem to suggest that the months-long demonstrations amount to a 'color revolution.' On Monday, the Trump administration urged
"all sides to refrain from violence." While carefully paying lip service to Hong Kong being an internal Chinese matter, the
unnamed White House official who spoke to the press said the US supported those "looking for democracy."
The president's top legislative ally, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), was far more direct: "Any violent
crackdown would be completely unacceptable... The world is watching."
The people of Hong Kong are bravely standing up to the Chinese Communist Party as Beijing tries to encroach on their autonomy
and freedom. Any violent crackdown would be completely unacceptable. As I have said on the Senate floor: The world is watching.
https://t.co/5VPm5P4PfB
One cannot help but recall that the same phrasing was used for Ukraine, during the Maidan protests of 2013 that culminated in
a violent coup in February 2014 – and plunged that country into secession of Crimea and civil war in the Donbass.
The impression is only reinforced by the images reminiscent of Kiev coming out of Hong Kong, showing helmeted protesters in black
masks firing grenades and throwing firebombs at police – none of which has stopped the chorus of US media from calling the protesters
"pro-democracy."
There is even nationalism, albeit of a xeno variety: some protesters have brandished flags of Hong Kong's former colonial master,
the UK. Others have embraced the US flag, telling reporters it stands for "freedom, human rights and democracy."
Hong Kong protesters in Hong Kong proudly sing US National anthem "The Star-Spangled Banner" O say can you see ... What so
proudly we hailed ...brings tears to my eyes 😂🤣💀 pic.twitter.com/CeM5zrA1Fe
All of this has been seen before, most recently in Kiev but also in other places. There was even the requisite meddling by the
State Department: US diplomat Julie Eadeh was photographed meeting with protest leaders. It wasn't quite Victoria Nuland passing
out cookies to the Maidan demonstrators, but it was enough to raise alarm.
The State Department did not deny the meeting, arguing that it was something "American diplomats do every single day around
the world."
This is very very embarrassing. Julie Eadeh, a US diplomat in Hong Kong, was caught meeting HK protest leaders. It would be
hard to imagine the US reaction if Chinese diplomat were meeting leaders of Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter or Never Trump
protesters. pic.twitter.com/JfiU2O2HZq
"Our diplomat was doing her job and we commend her for her work," State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said
at a news briefing last week.
Ortagus then denounced what she said was publication of Eadeh's personal details, including the names of her children, in Chinese
media as the action of a "thuggish regime."
It is worth noting that the protests have already accomplished their original purpose, as the bill that would have allowed the
extradition of criminal suspects to mainland China has been suspended. So now the demonstrators are calling for city officials to
resign and broader political reforms, open-ended demands that will likely only grow with time.
Even though US President Donald Trump has steered clear of Hong Kong and made sure to describe is as an internal Chinese matter,
focusing his diatribes entirely on trade, the Chinese public is becoming increasingly convinced that Washington is instigating turmoil
in Hong Kong along the lines of "color revolutions" elsewhere.
HK media has the right to report on US diplomats who actively interfere in HK situation, and help people understand what they're
doing. The US administration is instigating turmoil in HK the way it stoked "color revolutions" in other places worldwide. This
is thuggish diplomacy. pic.twitter.com/4hkH7eYyEH
If this charge is in fact true, that is very bad news for the already strained Sino-American relations – but also for Hong Kong
itself.
Color evolutions are a type of regime change technique developed by US strategists and executed by diplomats and non-governmental
organizations. They rely on exploiting legitimate grievances of the local population, amplifying with money and marketing small groups
of activists they either create or co-opt. The goal is to provoke the government into a violent crackdown, so as to destroy its legitimacy
– whereupon it can be replaced in the name of "democracy and human rights."
The prototype for this approach was the October 2000 coup in Serbia, which US diplomats and the cheerleader media then invoked
in subsequent cases.
In the "best case" scenario, such as Serbia, the immediate body count is low but the country's democratic institutions
are irreparably damaged and corrupted by this sort of fraud and manipulation. Ukraine, Syria, or Libya are what the worst-case scenario
looks like: civil war or anarchy, with tens of thousands of deaths.
Neither of which matters to the US diplomats, media or politicians, though. They declare it a "victory for democracy" and
move on to the next target, to replay the scenario all over again.
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist and political commentator, working at RT since 2015
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Allegedly authorities are infiltrating protests, instigating violence, then making
arrests. Anybody have anything on this or a countervailing narrative?
Furious pushback this week by the US State Department after a photo of a US consular official
meeting with "pro-democracy activists" was published in Hong Kong media. The National
Endowment for Democracy money is distributed through the HK consulate. The NED spent about $8
million from 1998-2015, promoting "civil society" organizations and trade unions, and
training democracy "activists", yet has remained almost invisible to the western press. http://nedprogramsinhk.blogspot.com/2016/08/ned-grants-to-hong-kong-1994-to-2015.html
Numerous HK protesters have stated publicly they seek a "return" to democracy and freedom.
Semantically, this suggests that democracy and freedom was something the HK people once
possessed. The young protesters seem ill-informed on HK's colonial past and the dynamics of
the city's internal politics. Surely the NED's millions haven't been squandered promoting
false narratives?
Engagement in regular street battles with the police would not be tolerated anywhere. If
anything, the HK police have been relatively restrained, though the protesters believe
otherwise. They seem to believe that if the government does not immediately institute their
demands and "listen" to them, then the next logical step is vandalism, street blockades and
attacks on police stations. What are the NED educational programs on democratic functions
actually teaching people?
The current battles don't match up to the fury of HK riots in 2016, when police tried to
shut down unauthorized street vendors. The emotional pitch of those battles are quite
shocking, and perhaps suggest that commerce is ultimately the most cherished freedom in
HK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1rKmZ0xLKw
Hong Kong Maidan starts crossing the Rubicon from bricks and umbrellas to US-made grenade
launchers...Do you recall the moment the Maidan snipers arrived and Pravy Sektor battallions
trained months before in Poland took over from the initially seemingly popular uprise?
The protests in Hong Kong are starting to look more and more like the events at the Kiev
Maidan in late 2013 / early 2014. Apparently someone got hold of a US-made M320 grenade
launcher.
Next thing they'll need will be tyres to create barricades and to burn.
BTW that US consular official giving orders ... ahem, meeting with "pro-democracy
activists" was identified as Julie Eadeh.
Strange that the US didn't deny that Julie Eadeh met with these people but instead
labelled China as "thuggish" for doxxing Eadeh in Hong Kong media. Looks like the US doesn't
even bother any more to advise its diplomats to take care in meeting dissidents and
regime-change activists, and not to get themselves into situations where people can
photograph them on their cellphones and spread the news on social media.
You could try forming the movement and see how far you get without it being infiltrated by
the police, the FBI or any other law enforcement agency in the area where you live, assuming
that you live in the United States.
This could very well mean that you and your followers will have to communicate and do
everything "off the grid" - that means no online contact, no email, maybe even no cellphone
contacts at all. How far would you all be able to go with that? You could use old-fashioned
snail mail but I understand the US Postal Service is
now photographing and scanning all mail and may share information about senders and
recipients with law enforcement agencies.
How will The Movement be organised? Will it have a centralised leadership to control the
agenda, aims and membership? Or will it be a network of decentralised cells with the problems
that that arrangement might have (fragmentation, disagreement over goals, objectives and
agenda and how to carry it out, whether you are prepared to use violence or not)?
I'm not saying your suggestion is a bad idea but to form a grassroots movement these days
is not as easy as it might have been in the past (and that wasn't easy for those who did form
such organisations).
"... The 77th brigade, Integrity Initiative members or just right wing sympathisers here and in America will pretend these sort of staged demonstrations are genuinely supported by Moscow citizens, when the opposite is actually true and the 'opposition leader' Navalny has a rating of 3% at most in Russia. Search the real Navalny on the internet and his true nature as an ultra fascist in the service of some western agencies becomes obvious, as this journalist certainly knows. ..."
"... Remember the scams of the 'Dusty Boy' of Syria, the Gay Girl of Damascus and the little 7 year old girl in Aleppo with perfect English, Bana Alabed, and you might start to wonder that the media are still so arrogant, trying to attract you to their agenda with such crude propaganda. ..."
"... The main stream media must think readers are still as gullible as they might have seemed before the arrival of the internet. ..."
"... The best thing to do is to hold to the law and enforce it impartially. It is well-known that the western press will try to stage embarrassing moments, like cute girl demonstrators who throw themselves to the ground and writhe about screaming that thugs are beating them up, or provocative photographs that capture a moment in which a girl is being restrained like that rock-throwing bitch a few years back. Only one side will ever be shown in the west, and it will be the side which makes Russia look the worst. Russia cannot afford to care what the west thinks. ..."
"... When she speaks to the reporter by the Yandex advertised taxi(?) she says (something like) "We gather here peacefully and they over they've gathered and are absolutely not peaceful." Bizarre. Apparently we cannot trust our eyes when we see that OMON is not doing anything but standing with discipline and waiting for orders. ..."
"... Is this like the Hong Kong thing where demonstrators rampage and destroy stuff, demanding it as their 'democratic right' yet when some nutters go and beat them or launch fireworks at them they are then up in arms demanding that the police protect them and enforce the peace? ..."
"... Everybody has learned a lot about colour revolutions, especially their likely targets, and Washington is helpful in that it continues to use the template long after an effective countering technique is available. The first time the Gene Sharp model was used, it was devastating, worked beyond the State Department's wildest dreams. ..."
"... The next time it worked pretty well, too, because everyone on the other side said "Wait; they're not using that same technique, are they?" By the time they got around to trying it on Lukashenko, he slammed the ball right back into their court by calling snap elections at the first sign of astroturfing, and steamrollered the fake opposition. ..."
"... That's probably true, but there is often inflexibility on the part of the protesters as well, and in cases where they believe they have international backing – spelled U.S.A. – their demands rarely allow much room for compromise. ..."
"... The government must step down and yield governing power, usually to a group of ideologues and liberal activists, and the next step is well-known to everyone. The American 'advisers' are sent in, and state institutions are rapidly dismantled and privatized for international investment, as happened in Yeltsin's Russia. ..."
"... When protesters claim to want "more democracy" but cannot even define what "democracy" means, then it's clear they don't know what they are talking about, and probably just American stooges. ..."
"... People in HK do have many grievances but many of their problems, like the insanely high property prices, the shortage of housing for people who are not billionaires, the pollution, the crappy infrastructure, the lack of jobs in any industry apart from buying and selling property, the dismal job prospects of people who have been through an education system that relies on rote learning and slaving through scads of homework, are problems arising from the capitalist system they still retain. Unfortunately, for most of its 20-year rule since the hand-back in 1997, the HK govt has been inept in handling most of these problems. ..."
"... Putin is in as much danger of being unceremoniously chucked out of office as he is of choking to death on his grandmother's knitting. The west is ever hopeful, and dutifully rallies to the glorification of every new dissident firebrand, but whether or not they know it, they are just going through the motions. ..."
"... It is no coincidence that it is always the same people who show up to bitch and carp about how dreadful Putin is, and how Russia needs American-style freedom and democracy and non-stop Pride parades and all the trappings of fresh admission to Club West. They are the only people who would stand to benefit from driving Putin out. Nobody else is interested. ..."
"... The western media would rush to interview and endorse any talking Russian toad if it said "I hate Putin". ..."
"... However, if the Americans want to pin their new hopes for Putin's political immolation on some 17-year-old attention-junkie bint, they should knock themselves out. They are merely hardening Russian opinion against them, and they may not care but some day they will. And then they will wail, "Why do they hate us? It must be because of our freedom!" ..."
Olga Misik: Teenage girl reads constitution in front of Putin's riot police during
Moscow protestsShe is a lone teenage girl sat cross-legged and armed with nothing
more than the Russian constitution.
They are a line of Moscow's notoriously brutal riot police, equipped with shields,
batons and helmets.
But the image of a young pro-democracy demonstrator single-handedly defying Vladimir
Putin's security forces looks set to become one of the most powerful symbols of resistance to
the president's autocracy.
Olga Misik, 17, was photographed sitting in front of the officers reading out the
country's constitution – which affirms the right to peaceful gatherings – during
protests on Saturday.
Apparently unsure how to handle such a show of calm audacity, the police hold
back.
The image has gone viral across the world, being shared thousands of times, the
peaceful defiance central to the photo faintly reminiscent of that present in the the iconic
picture of Tiananmen Square's Tank Man. It is now being used by Russian opposition to rally
support in the face of continuing state oppression.
Putin's riot police?
Moscow's notoriously brutal riot police, equipped with shields, batons and helmets --
unlike those nice riot police in Paris?
Olga has "gone viral" -- and will be forgotten in a month.
As one commenter to the Independent advises, "watch the video and not the propaganda
'Independent'":
The continuous attempt to say how bad Putin is and how perverse is Russia is really
boring. I do not know of any country in which unauthorized demonstrations are allowed,
moreover, the attitude of the Russian police is very soft compared, for example, with the US
police against those of "occupy Wall Street".
The typical hypocrisy of the Anglo-Saxon press.By the way I´m not Russian,
because the easy answer is " you are a Russian troll".
But the usual "Kremlin Troll" comments dominate:
Prigozhin trolls were already contaminating this site almost before the article has
even been posted.
Why does the Indie allow this filthy scum to basically commandeer their websites; it can't
just be because Gore & Co. welcome their rabid, typically Russian anti-Semitism.
Or maybe it is.
Either way, whilst every other news online new outlet is desperately trying to excise
these crypto-fascist losers from their sites, the Indie and their so-called Mods spend most
of their time deleting all comments warning readers of their disruptive presence.
Why?
Similarly, any comment which runs counter to the Kremlin line – despite the fact
that we are in England – is flagged frantically by these hordes of Russian Putinite
goons and thus automatically deleted.
This means that virtually the entire comments sections in the Indie reflect the views
of Putin rather than their bone fide readers from Britain and Western Europe.
Leaving aside Gore & Co's infatuation with attracting "clicks", and their hatred of
Britain and the (white) British, is this really what the Indie wants?
To be the mouthpiece for a mass-murdering, homophobic, anti-democratic despot?
Because that's what this wokesome millennial whingers' comic has become.
Response from an alleged troll:
Funny. I don't see anyone commenting about "Putin and how wonderful Russia is and that
everybody lives in harmony". All I see are people recognising that the media is twisting
truth again, making it seem Russia is doing something 'undemocratic' that virtually all
Western countries do – enact and enforce laws against unauthorised demonstrations,
peaceful or otherwise.
Tell me the truth, if you are capable. Do we, or do we not, have laws in London
preventing unauthorised demonstrations? Do we, or do we not, have riot-uniformed police to
enforce those laws when necessary?
What is different then, about this situation in Moscow, except for the fact that Russia
actually has a real written constitution, and we don't?
Countered by:
I wonder what fate awaits Olga, Novichok on the doorhandle, a Public recant to save her
family, exile away from prying eyes, murdered by some Kremlin errand boys or depression and
an open window on the 7th floor? The only way to ensure her safety is publicity
Yes, I wonder? Cue "Prigozhin troll":
These 3 articles in 3 days on the subject of an unauthorised tiny demonstration over
the issue of disputed local signatures for the Moscow council candidates reveals the depths
the MSM will go to demonise Russia, even going so far to use the obviously staged photo of
this young woman to encourage sympathy for the poor citizens of Moscow, who in this case are
no more than the 5k ultra right followers of Navalny , who periodically uses these sort of
demos to disrupt main thoroughfares in order to arouse sympathy in the compliant western
media.
The 77th brigade, Integrity Initiative members or just right wing sympathisers here and
in America will pretend these sort of staged demonstrations are genuinely supported by Moscow
citizens, when the opposite is actually true and the 'opposition leader' Navalny has a rating
of 3% at most in Russia. Search the real Navalny on the internet and his true nature as an
ultra fascist in the service of some western agencies becomes obvious, as this journalist
certainly knows.
The aim, as always , is emotive publicity used to demonise the Russian government,
which is strange as this is a local Moscow council affair, nothing to do with Putin.
Remember the scams of the 'Dusty Boy' of Syria, the Gay Girl of Damascus and the little
7 year old girl in Aleppo with perfect English, Bana Alabed, and you might start to wonder
that the media are still so arrogant, trying to attract you to their agenda with such crude
propaganda.
Even this journalist and those here insisting this biased report is genuine, are
secretly aware of its real intent but as it suits their neocon purpose, so must be defended
as police brutality about to happen to a young woman, representing the downtrodden Moscow
citizenry.
Only 5k demonstrators in the largest city in Europe might suggest a different view of
this affair, when this article won't tell you that a 12k authorised demo went off last week
without incident.
BTW Indy, when's the next report on the much more widespread weekly demos in France
against Macron and your wonderful EU?
The main stream media must think readers are still as gullible as they might have
seemed before the arrival of the internet.
Is that whole sitting down and reading of the constitution by a stuttering schoolgirl
staged or not?
My god, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel with that picture. Calling it contrived
hardly touches its banality and fakeness. I wish i could unsee it.
I think they are trying for a Tiananmen Square moment; you know, innocent unarmed
demonstrator holds back massive force? If it was not actually staged, western reporters are
jumping on the opportunity to try to inspire protests and demonstrations, like they always
do.
The Russian government and authorities long ago learned to recognize the fundamentals of
a western-inspired regime-change action – if they try to put up tents, rip them down
because if you don't, a 'tent city' will appear like it did in Kuh-yiv on the occasion of the
Orange Revolution.
If they manage to embarrass the government into allowing the protesters to
do anything they want, the west will bring in rent-a-crowds and you will have a violent riot
on your hands.
Such actions can quickly – with the enthusiastic support of the western
media – snowball into a real problem.
The best thing to do is to hold to the law and
enforce it impartially. It is well-known that the western press will try to stage
embarrassing moments, like cute girl demonstrators who throw themselves to the ground and
writhe about screaming that thugs are beating them up, or provocative photographs that
capture a moment in which a girl is being restrained like that rock-throwing bitch a few
years back. Only one side will ever be shown in the west, and it will be the side which makes
Russia look the worst. Russia cannot afford to care what the west thinks.
When she speaks to the reporter by the Yandex advertised taxi(?) she says (something like)
"We gather here peacefully and they over they've gathered and are absolutely not peaceful."
Bizarre. Apparently we cannot trust our eyes when we see that OMON is not doing anything but
standing with discipline and waiting for orders.
Is this like the Hong Kong thing where demonstrators rampage and destroy stuff, demanding
it as their 'democratic right' yet when some nutters go and beat them or launch fireworks at
them they are then up in arms demanding that the police protect them and enforce the peace?
Cake and eat it.
The subsequent protest on Saturday was the latest in a rising tide of civil unrest
across Russia sparked by dissatisfaction over declining living standards that has led to
falling ratings for Russian President Vladimir Putin and the ruling United Russia
party.
Called by opposition leader Alexei Navalny to take place outside of City Hall, just a
stone's throw away from the Kremlin, the demonstration demanded that opposition candidates be
allowed on the ballot in September's Moscow City Duma elections.
Even though the number of votes that they may have possibly achieved in the election would
have been statistically insignificant and apart from the fact that their debarment from
standing for election occurred because they could not acquire a minimum number of signatures
of support in order to stand for election, which ruling just happens to be a matter of
law.
But it's Putin CLAMPDOWN!!!!!
Thank you, Moscow Times! And Moscow City Hall is about half a mile from the Kremlin. That's some stone's throw!
The Tiananmen Square moment was China's trial by fire. If the government had wavered, then
they would have been overthrown, and China would have become a British colony again.
Fortunately, the Chinese government figured out what it had to do.
Everybody has learned a lot about colour revolutions, especially their likely targets, and
Washington is helpful in that it continues to use the template long after an effective
countering technique is available. The first time the Gene Sharp model was used, it was
devastating, worked beyond the State Department's wildest dreams.
The next time it worked
pretty well, too, because everyone on the other side said "Wait; they're not using that same
technique, are they?" By the time they got around to trying it on Lukashenko, he slammed the
ball right back into their court by calling snap elections at the first sign of astroturfing,
and steamrollered the fake opposition.
I suppose eventually Washington will move on to
something else, but just like the myth of democracy, it's so hard to let go.
Check out this 'roadmap for peace' by Doug Bandow. Although he works for the Cato
Institute, I've usually found his writing quite reasonable and rational. He is an American,
and so that carries with it the annoying presupposition that no major decisions can be made
without American input – America is too important to be left out. I have my own
feelings on that, and I don't mind sharing that when America gets involved in a multinational
project, it usually insists on rules that will turn the whole thing to American advantage,
and insists on being the leader.
All that notwithstanding, I was amused to note that most of
the concessions Bandow's plan would have Moscow yielding are things it is not actually doing,
and therefore would be easy to give up.
For instance, in exchange for Moscow's promise to not ever again meddle with American
elections, Washington would acknowledge its past political meddling and foreswear future
interventions in Russian affairs, including funding private organizations involved in
political activities. Washington would have to stop funding Russian political NGO's and admit
its meddling.
Unfortunately, Russia would have to admit to meddling in the 2016 election;
something it actually didn't do, and the fact there is no real evidence of it would become
irrelevant. But it almost seems a small price to pay.
The west would agree to drop sanctions
on Russia, but retain the legal authority to re-impose them should it become necessary
– that seems quite a bit like legitimizing them, to me. There actually is no legal
authority to impose sanctions – and threaten all your allies as to what will happen to
them if they don't go along – without ever providing proof of the grounds for
establishing them.
On the whole, it's an interesting deal. Not that it will ever happen. Washington is not
interested in deals where it has to give up something, because everything it does is for a
lofty and holy reason.
The US has just announced more sanctions against Russia because of the alleged Skripal
poisonings.
The Skripals did not die -- or did they? Where are the Skripals? And what about sanctions for the poisoning to death of the alkie mother of
three?
Don't the lives of alkie Hampshire social inadequates count? Discrimination, that is!
Deal or No Deal:
If I were in charge in Russia, I would NOT take the deal. (Hint: IT'S A TRAP!)
Especially if it meant "admitting" to something I didn't do (like meddling in the 2016
elections). That is a typical pindos snare, as Gaddafi himself learned, too late.
It's also, by the way, how American cops operate to trick innocent people: "Sign this false
confession, and you'll be home for dinner "
20 years later, they are still rotting away in the pokey
Russia should offer counter-deal: You admit to all the meddling you did, and I admit to
nothing. You big fat bully.
I agree; I would not take the deal, either. Of course it would never actually be offered,
because America will never admit to 'meddling' in anyone's elections or politics –
they're 'spreading democracy', for which they will never apologize, since it is their duty as
the Exceptional Nation. It just amused me that Bandow slyly phrased it in such a way that
Moscow would not really have to give up anything; only promise to stop doing things it is not
and has not been doing.
Likewise, America is not ever going to enter into any sort of deal which would see broad
autonomy for Eastern Ukraine and the possibility of recognizing Crimea as Russian if it
passed a do-over referendum. That would mean why, that would mean losing!
I think the grievances of the students against the Chinese government had merit. Moreover
yielding to continuing the status quo ante or reversion to Brit colony status were not the
only possible outcomes. The former happens to be the case but things need not have gone
that way.
That's probably true, but there is often inflexibility on the part of the protesters as well,
and in cases where they believe they have international backing – spelled U.S.A.
– their demands rarely allow much room for compromise.
The government must step down
and yield governing power, usually to a group of ideologues and liberal activists, and the
next step is well-known to everyone. The American 'advisers' are sent in, and state
institutions are rapidly dismantled and privatized for international investment, as happened
in Yeltsin's Russia.
In this case, the students wanted 'more democracy', and that right there suggests they
really did not have any clear goals but change.
So true. When protesters claim to want "more democracy" but cannot even define what
"democracy" means, then it's clear they don't know what they are talking about, and probably
just American stooges.
People in HK do have many grievances but many of their problems, like the insanely high
property prices, the shortage of housing for people who are not billionaires, the pollution,
the crappy infrastructure, the lack of jobs in any industry apart from buying and selling
property, the dismal job prospects of people who have been through an education system that
relies on rote learning and slaving through scads of homework, are problems arising from the
capitalist system they still retain. Unfortunately, for most of its 20-year rule since the
hand-back in 1997, the HK govt has been inept in handling most of these problems.
The thing that sparked this year's protests was the proposed extradition bill that would
establish appropriate extradition arrangements between Hong Kong and every other state or
territory that it currently does not have extradition agreements with, and this included
Mainland China, Macau and Taiwan, in the wake of the 2018 St Valentine's Day murder in which
a 20-year-old HK woman was strangled by her 19-year-old HK boyfriend while holidaying in
Taiwan, who then stuffed her body into a suitcase and left it at a train station in Taiwan
while he returned to HK. The man is currently in jail on charges relating to stealing the
woman's money after her death (he took all her ATM cards and used them) and he is due to be
freed this coming October. The HK govt has currently delayed a second reading of the
extradition bill but haven't withdrawn it entirely, which was one of the protesters'
demands.
The fact that, even after the backdown on the extradition proposal, the protesters
continued escalating their demands to the point of demanding current HK leader Carrie Lam's
removal, demonstrates that there is far more to the protesters' agenda than the extradition
proposal. Add to that the fact that protesters receive cash payments for protesting (with the
amounts jacked up if protesters destroy or damage things) and a CIA operative, Brian Kern,
has been identified as a ring-leader, and it is apparent that a Color Revolution
regime-change operation is in full swing.
The cops in Hong Kong Crown Colony were unbelievably corrupt. I worked with a former Hong
Kong policeman, a British European (the HK Crown Colony police had British senior officers
and Chinese "other ranks") who joined the force "to see the world". He was an idealist and
resigned. He could not stand the corruption that he witnessed there. His father, by the way,
was the local cop where I lived: the "village bobby", so to speak, complete with standard
issue Raleigh bicycle and cycle clips, who was a decent, friendly bloke.
This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardise it
6 (UK) Division is the new organisational home for the Army's "asymmetric edge",
comprising all things "Intelligence, Counter-Intelligence, Information Operations, Electronic
Warfare, Cyber and Unconventional Warfare".
Launched this morning, 6 Div is a rebranding of the formation formerly known as Force
Troops Command, which covered a hotchpotch of Royal Signals, Intelligence Corps and other
units, including the infamous 77 Brigade
####
Don't forget to hit the comments for hilarity!
Also, the timing of the announcement says plenty, i.e. slipping it in to the news stream
when people have already gone on holiday and all the BREXIT and other bollocks. I've not seen
this reported on the tv in the UK – which is currently facing severe flooding etc.
Is it just me or is all the PPNN reporting that 'Putin's support has dropped to levels
not seen since 2011!'. Of course they don't actually give you any numbers and cherry pick
dodgy poll numbers but there really is this Pavlovian reaction anytime there is a
demonstration in Russia, like undertakers gathering at an allegedly dangerous road crossing
waiting for some cyclist to be dragged under a trash lorry so that they can tut tut and then
profit from the cyclist's misfortune. Nix that, the PPNN are just professional versions of
MacBeth's witches, something which they don't understand is a story .
Putin is in as much danger of being unceremoniously chucked out of office as he is of choking
to death on his grandmother's knitting. The west is ever hopeful, and dutifully rallies to
the glorification of every new dissident firebrand, but whether or not they know it, they are
just going through the motions.
The only group, and I mean the only one, that would benefit
from Putin's overthrow would be the disaffected kreakliy and the poncy forgotten
semi-intellectuals.
They would be feted by the west as political visionaries, and perhaps
given minor government positions to satisfy their vanity. But who else would make out like a
bandit?
The military? Hardly – the west, after years of giggling about Russia's
decrepit military, lapsed into an uneasy silence on the subject just about the time that
long-distance Kalibr cruise-missile attack took place from the Caspian Sea into Syria, and a
west given meddling-room would want to disband the Russian military, if anything, down to a
token force of absolutely-trustworthy sycophants who would probably be issued with American
weapons.
The oligarchs? Hardly – western business would be snapping up former state
assets while simultaneously carrying out an 'anti-corruption drive' under the new President's
imprimatur.
Small businesses? Hardly – corporate interest would be in melding large
state interests into the Corporate Borg, and their method is to squeeze out small business in
order to expand market share.
The people? Hardly – Russia would be a convenient place
to move all the refugee immigrants from that entire hemisphere, while the stubborn loyalty of
the population to Putin would not be forgotten.
It is no coincidence that it is always the same people who show up to bitch and carp about
how dreadful Putin is, and how Russia needs American-style freedom and democracy and non-stop
Pride parades and all the trappings of fresh admission to Club West. They are the only people
who would stand to benefit from driving Putin out. Nobody else is interested.
They're just trying to get some mileage out of Olga what's-her-name, and make it look like a
drop in Putin's poll numbers happened exactly at the moment this young political firebrand
emerged. Pretty sad, really, but you can't tell 'em, and it wouldn't make any difference.
They have to try, it's the same instinct that makes a dog lick its nose if you smear cheese
on it.
The western media would rush to interview and endorse any talking Russian toad if it
said "I hate Putin".
I think a lot of people DID see that coming, to the extent that the only behavior acceptable
today in the American political milieu is a rehash of that sophomore's question, "Can you say
in one sentence or less what makes America the Greatest Country In The World?" The American
media typically pleats that 'the system is broken', but not during election season.
Then,
America is the greatest and running on all cylinders, and the successful candidate is the one
who will convince voters that, rather than fix the whatever system, he/she/ze/zir (it's only
a matter of time) will take a system that is the best in the world and make it squeeze out
even more happiness and satisfaction for Americans. Anyway, if you go off-message with that,
you are under the soulless influence of the Russians.
Anyway, it looks as if the democrats have gone to the well too often with that Russian
bullshit, and people are starting to get impatient with the cop-out – it's just an
excuse for having no good answer. You can always say, "X is because Russia". I think Harris
just bit the dust, and will lose a lot of support over this and gradually drop out. I got a
kick out of the "Gabbard is a non-issue, and won't even make the second debates" or something
to that effect. Whoever smugly said that was apparently asleep when a Ukrainian comedian who
plays a president on TV won the presidency in a landslide. The incumbent once thought it was
safe to laugh politely at him, because he was a non-issue, too.
I saw this story also on the same site, although it was not necessary to click on it, for
obvious reasons.
"A salute to the bravery of Olga Misik, 17, who during recent bloody protests for free
Moscow elections sat before Putin's armed-to-the-teeth goons and calmly read aloud the
Russian constitution, including Article 31 affirming the right to peaceful political
assembly. She was later arrested and allegedly beaten. "Injustice always concerns everyone,"
said Olga, who takes the long view of repression. "Today the Moscow City Duma, tomorrow the
governor of the region It is only a matter of time."
'Bloody protests for free Moscow elections'?? They were bloody? Really? and the issue was
free Moscow elections? Not candidates being allowed to run despite having been disqualified
for not reaching the signatory threshold? The game of coming up with enough signatures to
demonstrate a valid support base is an old one, trawling the obituaries and all manner of
dodges to come up with enough for people who don't really have any support, but want a
soapbox from which to squawk their message and then say they were cheated of victory by the
Kremlin. Putin's armed-to-the-teeth goons? Really? American police called to control
demonstrations are unarmed? Since when? Does arming them make them goons? I can't see their
teeth – how does the reporter know they are armed to the teeth? Olga takes the long
view of repression, does she? From the jaded pinnacle of 17? I'm surprised they did not ask
her views on gay sex – she's old enough. Just.
Embarrassing western hyperbole – a Russian review of the PISA tests that descended
to the same level might read, "A salute to the simple-mindedness of the Amerikantsi
'students', who must have gone to school at a mental institution, or been taught by the
homeless lunatics that abound in and around Amerikantsi cities. Once again they managed to
score so poorly that one might reasonably wonder if they arrived at the testing institution
by accident, thinking instead that they were being taken to see one of the
violence-and-profanity-riddled Amerikantsi movies that pollute the television and cause the
Amerikantsi schoolchildren to shoot each other as if they lived inside a video game where it
is not real blood. It's difficult to imagine a sensible explanation for such a dismal
performance, in which they finished below the OECD average in every category."
But you won't see anything like that in a Russian newspaper, or hear it on a Russian news
program. Because they don't act like the country is run by hysterical 12-year-olds. However,
if the Americans want to pin their new hopes for Putin's political immolation on some
17-year-old attention-junkie bint, they should knock themselves out. They are merely
hardening Russian opinion against them, and they may not care but some day they will. And
then they will wail, "Why do they hate us? It must be because of our freedom!"
I was particularly intrigued by the mention of the Democrats getting caught fabricating
fake Russian troll accounts to pretend the Russians were trying to influence some state
election or other, I forget what, supposedly reported in the Times. I didn't see that, and I
don't recall anyone mentioning it here.
Yet again, lying by omission . Their 'Defense Correspondent' Jonathan Marcus notes
briefly that W. Bush pulled out of the ABM Treaty in 2002 and that Russia announce pulling
out of it in 2007 but does not explain why, i.e. the combination of the following:
a) expanding these 'defensive' ABM sites to the lo-land of Po-land & also Romania
b) the universal Mk.41 launchers can also fire nuclear capable Tomahawk cruise missiles at
Russia from much closer ranges = less reaction time = reduced deterrence effect =
increases the chance of nuclear first strike against Russia, and thus
c) denied/refused Russia any means to verify the non-use of nukes for the launchers just
saying 'Trust us!' which is complete bs considering all the previous promises made and
not kept.
None of the linked articles therein mention Russia's objections. But then Marcus is
only a 'Defence correspondent' (such small details clearly aren't important in the grand
scheme of things) and he can always get a future job at NATO as a Spokesman like previous BBC
journos Oana Lungescu & Mark Laity. In a fight between Jonathan Marcus & Mark Urban,
who do you think would replace Oana? Or someone else? They all do sterling government
service
Oooh, looky here! The BBC inches itself up the line which if crossed would constitute
journalism . Why don't they just jump on in? It's safe as long as your patrons –
Da Gov – and the intelligence services don't go after you (Hello 'Guardian'!):
In an earlier statement, Russia's foreign ministry said the US decision to withdraw was
"a grave mistake".
It also accused America of violating the treaty by deploying MK-41 launchers in Europe,
capable of firing intermediate-range cruise missiles
####
So the plus is, above they actually link to the Russian Foreign Ministry statement, but no
further. The big minus is that they wrote far, far more about Russia's 'violations'.
That t-Rump thinks Russia, let alone China is excited about joining a new deal,
hahahahahahahah!
We also discover that go to and favorite 'defense expert' (MGU Candidate of Sciences
Biology degree!) for the Pork Pie News Networks Pavel Felgenhauer is not dead!
It's mostly about the control of Mid East oil and Israel status in the region ...
And despite all those positive things mentioned bellow Iran is still a theocratic state. It
is definitely not Saudi Arabia but still..
Notable quotes:
"... Despite the embargos and terrible intimidation from the West, it still sits at the threshold of the "Very high human development", defined by UNDP; well above such darlings of the West as Ukraine, Colombia or Thailand. ..."
"... Trump is President of the US. He is responsible for the actions of the US in foreign affairs. Trump is a willing sycophant of the Deep State. ..."
"... Yet another article, pointing out that there is no reason for the US to attack Iran. Yes, there is. Iran is an enemy of Israel (although with the US behind them, there isn’t much they can actually do), and Israel wants Iran destroyed. The influence of Israel in American politics is enormous. THAT is the reason. Please stop the head-scratching over why oh why the US would want to destroy Israel. Everyone knows why. ..."
"... Iran’s real “crime” is twofold: 1) It sells oil in denomiations other than the US dollar; and 2) If allowed its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would be producing vast amounts of low cost molybdenum and/or technetium which are used in medical testing, which would cut into the lucrative US market. ..."
"... There is some truth to claims about Iran’s belligerence…the Russians aren’t thrilled about everything they’re doing in Syria, which includes Shia colonizing in regions they’ve seized, which is a sign of attempting to entrench their agenda in that suffering country…and hence the continuing Israeli attacks, which nobody appreciates… ..."
"... In Iran, sources confirm that “…Russia offered to sell one million barrels daily for Iran, and to replace the European financial system with another if needed. ..."
"... There is also the issue of the illegality of Trump tearing up the deal…which was adopted [unanimously] by the UN Security Council Resolution 2231… ..."
"... The US signed that resolution…and let us remember that UNSC resolutions are INTERNATIONAL LAW…they are LEGALLY BINDING on all UN member states… ..."
"... So the US is breaking international law…the sanctions are illegal also, since only the UNSC had the legal authority to impose sanctions… ..."
"... The US’ disregard for the supreme international legal order…along with Israel similarly flouting UNSC resolutions for 50 years to pull out of the occupied territories…is simply unacceptable… ..."
As I pen this short essay, Iran is standing against the mightiest nation on earth. It is
facing tremendous danger; of annihilation even, if the world does not wake up fast, and rush to
its rescue.
Stunning Iranian cities are in danger, but above all, its people: proud and beautiful,
creative, formed by one of the oldest and deepest cultures on earth.
This is a reminder to the world: Iran may be bombed, devastated and injured terribly, for
absolutely no reason. I repeat: there is zero rational reason for attacking Iran.
Iran has never attacked anyone. It has done nothing bad to the United States, to the United
Kingdom, or even to those countries that want to destroy it immediately: Saudi Arabia and
Israel.
Its only 'crime' is that it helped devastated Syria. And that it seriously stands by
Palestine. And that it came to the rescue of many far away nations, like Cuba and Venezuela,
when they were in awful need.
I am trying to choose the simplest words. No need for pirouettes and intellectual
exercises.
Thousands, millions of Iranians may soon die, simply because a psychopath who is currently
occupying the White House wants to humiliate his predecessor, who signed the nuclear deal. This
information was leaked by his own staff. This is not about who is a bigger gangster. It is
about the horrible fact that antagonizing Iran has absolutely nothing to do with Iran
itself.
Which brings the question to my mind: in what world are we really living? Could this be
tolerable? Can the world just stand by, idly, and watch how one of the greatest countries on
earth gets violated by aggressive, brutal forces, without any justification?
I love Iran! I love its cinema, poetry, food. I love Teheran. And I love the Iranian people
with their polite, educated flair. I love their thinkers. I don't want anything bad to happen
to them.
You know, you were of course never told by the Western media, but Iran is a socialist
country. It professes a system that could be defined as "socialism with Iranian
characteristics". Like China, Iran is one of the most ancient nations on earth, and it is
perfectly capable of creating and developing its own economic and social system.
Iran is an extremely successful nation. Despite the embargos and terrible intimidation
from the West, it still sits at the threshold of the "Very high human development", defined by
UNDP; well above such darlings of the West as Ukraine, Colombia or Thailand.
It clearly has an internationalist spirit: it shows great solidarity with the countries that
are being battered by Western imperialism, including those in Latin America.
I have no religion. In Iran, most of the people do. They are Shi'a Muslims. So what? I do
not insist that everyone thinks like me. And my Iranian friends, comrades, brothers and sisters
have never insisted that I feel or think the same way as they do. They are not fanatics, and
they do not make people who are not like them, feel excluded. We are different and yet so
similar. We fight for a better world. We are internationalists. We respect each other. We
respect others.
Iran does not want to conquer anyone. But when its friends are attacked, it offers a helping
hand. Like to Syria.
In the past, it was colonized by the West, and its democratic government was overthrown, in
1953, simply because it wanted to use its natural resources for improving the lives of its
people. The morbid dictatorship of Shah Pahlavi was installed from abroad. And then, later,
again, a terrible war unleashed against Iran by Iraq, with the full and candid support of the
West.
I promised to make this essay short. There is no time for long litanies. And in fact, this
is not really an essay at all: it is an appeal.
As this goes to print, many people in Iran are anxious. They do not understand what they
have done to deserve this; the sanctions, the US aircraft carriers sailing near their shores,
and deadly B-52s deployed only dozens of miles away.
Iranians are brave, proud people. If confronted, if attacked, they will fight. And they will
die with dignity, if there is no other alternative.
But why? Why should they fight and why should they die?
Those of you, my readers, living in the West: Study; study quickly. Then ask this question
to your government: "What is the reason for this terrible scenario?"
Rent Iranian films; they are everywhere, winning all festivals. Read Iranian poets. Go eat
Iranian food. Search for images of both historic and modern Iranian cities. Look at the faces
of the people. Do not allow this to happen. Do not permit psychopathic reasoning to ruin
millions of lives.
There was no real reason for the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. The West
perpetrated the most terrible imperialist interventions, ruining entire nations.
But Iran -- it all goes one step further. It's a total lack of logic and accountability on
the part of the West.
Here, I declare my full support to the people of Iran, and to the country that has been
giving countless cultural treasures to the world, for millennia.
It is because I have doubts that if Iran is destroyed, the human race could survive.
[First published by NEO -- New Eastern Outlook]
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has
covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are ...
Thousands, millions of Iranians may soon die, simply because a psychopath who is
currently occupying the White House wants to humiliate his predecessor, who signed the
nuclear deal.
Certainly war with Iran is not because Trump wants to humiliate Obama. There is very
serious pressure on Trump to go to war with Iran, and that pressure comes from sources
including Sheldon Adelson, Netanyahu, John Bolton, and elements within the military
industrial complex and oil industries both of which would be able to capitalize on such a
misadventure. It is very possibly Trump’s misgivings about a war with Iran (in spite of
the idiotic rhetoric) that is keeping the US from attacking Iran.
While I agree with your sentiment in this article, it is unfortunate to make
over-simplifications that cheerlead a false narrative that one person is to blame for a
complex problem that spans party lines and presidencies. It was much to Obama’s credit
to enter into the agreement with Iran, and the opposition to doing so obviously runs much
deeper than Trump’s desire to make Obama look bad.
@Andre
Vltchek Yes, you can’t say everything in every piece that you write, and for
expediency there is simplification. You can get away with it by saying “among other
things, Trump’s desire to humiliate Obama may lead us into a devastating war.”
But the way you wrote it certainly insinuates that it is in fact Trump and his personal
psychopathy driving the country towards war. In that, I think you are mistaken. The jury is
not out on this one yet, and Trump’s resistance to war with Iran is a thread of hope
keeping it from happening. I am not trying to split hairs. It is important because there is a
tendency to focus on the face in the white house and not on the forces that are behind the
mischief. It also probably gets more likes among a broader audience who want to blame Trump
or Obama when they are more like two leaves being blown by a strong wind than the leader of
the free world or any other nonsensical title given to the president. Take it for a slight
literary critique and not for any disagreement with the overall sentiment or quality of the
article.
It was at that point I knew this wasn’t an intellectually honest essay. You
don’t even need to go back six months to see what a peaceful little lamb Iran is, as
it attacked merchant ships in the Straight of Hormuz. Perhaps your intended audience is
ignorant to facts, but Iran is, by no means, a country of innocent intent.
What would USA do if Iranian or any other non-friendly nation surrounded USA, including
sending heavily armed ships into its harbors?
This map from Democratic Underground puts a star on every U.S. military base in the
region, and aside from the Caspian area to the North, American forces pretty much have
Tehran surrounded (via Informed Comment).
[Non-violent resistance is not necessarily futile, but a feint]: We cannot delude
ourselves.
People ask, What about nonviolent, peaceful forms of resistance? And you know, the answer
is, There is no such thing as nonviolence.
Nonviolence is a form of disruption and only works if you are facing those who are
constrained in their use of violence, or works best if you can use your enemy’s
violence against them.
Take for example, Dr. Martin Luther King . . . [he learned from Gandhi and others that]
nonviolence is a mechanism of goading your opponent into being violent.
Once they become violent, you can call on your friends to be even more violent against
them. And he knew he could goad the sheriff into behaving violently and stupidly, and then
the FBI would descend on them.
You know, we always want to delude ourselves that war is not the answer. It would be good
if that were true, but unfortunately it is very often the key answer, the only answer.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?323264-1/the-worth-war&start=599
USA is being deliberately provocative, goading Iran to throw the first punch, whereupon
USA will “descend on them.”
It’s not the first time USA & its allies have used the tactic.
I dunno … If the West was going to attack, it should have happened several weeks ago,
if not earlier. Do you think Trump’s stand-down of an attack allegedly in progress was
to save a couple hundred Iranian lives, or might it make more sense that it became clear a
couple hundreds or thousands of coalition lives were at serious risk? The leadership knows
this will be far messier than Iraq if it goes kinetic, and they would prefer to continue to
starve Iran into submission while making a lot of noise about the ‘evil and suicidal
death-cult’ regime in Tehran.
Andre Vltchek gives a passionate defence of Iran, and the reasons for not attacking it. I
agree there are ‘doubts that if Iran is destroyed, the human race could survive.’
If the US, and its allies, were to destabilize Iran to such an extent as to threaten regime
change China and Russia would have to intervene. The world should avoid war on Iran, even if
it is for selfish reasons. All the indications point to world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@anonymous
Because the JIDF/Zionist has the modus operandi of falsifying consensus. Large numbers of
seemingly reasonable people all pushing the same view point has the unconscious effect of
making an unwary reader adopt that same viewpoint. Of course, they’re hoping you dont
go trawling through their comment history or else the whole thing blows up.
While I agree with your sentiment in this article, it is unfortunate to make
over-simplifications that cheerlead a false narrative that one person is to blame for a
complex problem that spans party lines and presidencies.
Trump is President of the US. He is responsible for the actions of the US in foreign
affairs. Trump is a willing sycophant of the Deep State.
People need to realize that it’s been a RedBlue puppet show of the same empire
since – for purposes of Iran – 1953. Blaming one politician as opposed to the
other plays right into the hands of those who want to run the world from Washington.
The past can not be changed. Trump is responsible for the here and now.
Yet another article, pointing out that there is no reason for the US to attack Iran. Yes,
there is. Iran is an enemy of Israel (although with the US behind them, there isn’t
much they can actually do), and Israel wants Iran destroyed. The influence of Israel in
American politics is enormous. THAT is the reason. Please stop the head-scratching over why
oh why the US would want to destroy Israel. Everyone knows why.
The Iran never attacked anyone narrative has long been a favourite. What is buried somewhere
in cyberspace, is an article written over 20 years ago about the causes of the Iraq –
Iran war. The article laid out several instances of Iranian revolutionaries attacking several
Iraqi border towns. It also pointed out that Iraq’s original invasion into Iran stopped
about 8 miles into Iran, apparently understanding that it was never going to defeat Iran
territorially. The article also stated that Iraq was egged on by the US to attack, in hopes
to dislodge the new regime. However, it was the Shah who attacked Iraq in the 70s over the
Shat al Arab waterway. The subsequent peace agreement settled the issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/07/archives/iraq-and-iran-sign-accord-to-settle-border-conflicts-iraq-and-iran.html
One reason given by Iraq for its invasion of Iran, post revolution, was that it viewed the
border attacks by Iranian revolutionaries, as a refutation of the treaty.
Iran’s real “crime” is twofold:
1) It sells oil in denomiations other than the US dollar; and
2) If allowed its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would be producing
vast amounts of low cost molybdenum and/or technetium which are used in medical testing,
which would cut into the lucrative US market.
The USA-Israel-Nato menaces to Iran are criminal horseshite BUT –
Iran is horrifyingly brutal toward its own citizens, one of the most savage of all
countries in per capita executions of its own people, sometimes hanging 100 people or so in a
month, typically done by slow-torture hanging, often in groups of 6 or 8 people in public
squares.
It seems that usually, Iran does not even try to break the neck of its hanging victims
with a long drop, which can induce a merciful coma before the victim dies, typically some 15
minutes to an hour later. As is often observed in Iran, smaller people such as women
typically die more slowly, their lighter weight leading to a longer period of torturous
choking.
And Iran has a bunch of other Islamic barbarisms … Iran burying women alive up to
their necks, only their veiled heads above the ground, and stoning them to death; the
floggings and amputations, sometimes the victim marked for death is flogged bloody before
being hanged from a crane etc
But André Vltchek thinks Iran is a great place …
Iran is also a bizarre social experiment in extreme social dysfunctionality, with the
‘temporary marriage’ provision in Shia religious practice that is essentially
legalised prostitution. Not only can Iranians have 4 wives as the Sunnis do, one of those can
be a ‘wife for the weekend’, legally, provided you go to the imam to be
officially ‘married’ … you can then divorce Monday morning, e.g., by
saying the word ‘talaq’ 3 times. Iranian women sometimes advertise themselves as
‘temporary wives’ (not ‘prostitutes’ of course!) for a small marital
‘gift’ of € 60 or so.
Between temporary marriage, and Iran’s practice of educating its women – often
‘bad’ for Muslim fertility – Iran’s birth rate has collapsed even
more than in much of Europe.
A great shame the US CIA overthrew the secular socialist Iranian government in 1953. May
the Iranian people be soon free of both Western-Israeli menace, and their own mad
mullahs.
…‘temporary marriage’ provision in Shia religious practice that is
essentially legalised prostitution. Not only can Iranians have 4 wives as the Sunnis do,
one of those can be a ‘wife for the weekend’, legally, provided you go to the
imam to be officially ‘married’ … you can then divorce Monday morning,
e.g., by saying the word ‘talaq’ 3 times. Iranian women sometimes advertise
themselves as ‘temporary wives’ (not ‘prostitutes’ of course!) for
a small marital ‘gift’ of € 60 or so.
May the Iranian people be soon free of both Western-Israeli menace, and their own mad
mullahs.
Well, the price for the later is the former, apparently.
Yes, you can’t say everything in every piece that you write, and for expediency
there is simplification. You can get away with it by saying “among other things,
Trump’s desire to humiliate Obama may lead us into a devastating war.” But the
way you wrote it certainly insinuates that it is in fact Trump and his personal psychopathy
driving the country towards war. In that, I think you are mistaken.
I don’t see it that way…..Vltchek has been around unz for a while…..so
it would not be wrong for him to assume most of unz knows the real forces behind Trump
and the Iran war push.
@Brabantian
You come off sounding like a Soros acolyte by parroting ‘human rights porn’ that
is largely fabricated bullshit…and disseminated by the usual NGO suspects and their
MSM partners…
That’s not to say there is no merit to your basic beef…Iran is a
theocracy…religious fanaticism has been a curse on humanity over the
ages…religion in general really…
Iran does execute a lot of people…Vltchek is overly enthusiastic about
Iran…I would say probably because he sympathizes a lot with their essentially
‘socialist’ approach [as do I]…but Iran is no angel…
But then who is…?…US cops gun down 1,000 people a year…
Also some mitigating facts to consider…a lot of the criminals Iran executes are
drug traffickers…Afghanistan next-door is heroin central…run by the CIA with
help from their ISIS private army…
This is nothing new…the deep state of empire has been running the global drug
racket for a couple of centuries now…and using it as a geopolitical weapon against
perceived ‘enemies’…going back to the opium wars that were used by the
British to ‘crack open’ China…and today aimed against Russia, Central Asia
and Iran…not to mention ‘neutralizing’ large swaths of the domestic
population by turning them into drug zombies…
Iran’s drug laws are not nearly as draconian as in other jurisdictions in the Muslim
world…capital punishment goes only for those caught with over 30 grams of hard drugs
like heroin…which is far bigger than user amounts…the death sentence is not
applied for first offenders, or even for repeat offenders of 30 to 100 grams…so really
it is the hardcore traffickers that are getting offed…I have no problem with
that…[neither do leaders like the Philippines’ Duterte who is much less tolerant
than Iran…]
There is some truth to claims about Iran’s belligerence…the Russians
aren’t thrilled about everything they’re doing in Syria, which includes Shia
colonizing in regions they’ve seized, which is a sign of attempting to entrench their
agenda in that suffering country…and hence the continuing Israeli attacks, which
nobody appreciates…
They are also spurning Russian offers of help…
In Iran, sources confirm that “…Russia offered to sell one million
barrels daily for Iran, and to replace the European financial system with another if
needed.
[Probably because they resent Russia for pressuring them to reign in their activities in
Syria…it just shows the all or nothing mentality of religious fanatics…]
All in all it is crazy to think that religious zealotry can lead to anything
good…it never has…
But there is a bigger principle here… it’s their country…
Nobody gives us the right to tell them how to live their lives…certainly compared
to Saudi Barbaria and the other gulf theocracies…not to mention serial criminal
Israel…nobody has good cause to be pointing fingers at Iran…
The US signed that resolution…and let us remember that UNSC resolutions are
INTERNATIONAL LAW…they are LEGALLY BINDING on all UN member states…
So the US is breaking international law…the sanctions are illegal also, since
only the UNSC had the legal authority to impose sanctions…
The US’ disregard for the supreme international legal order…along with
Israel similarly flouting UNSC resolutions for 50 years to pull out of the occupied
territories…is simply unacceptable…
So let’s not lose sight of the ball…this has nothing to do with Iran’s
domestic behavior…and everything to do with serial criminal USA…
@SteveK9
Yes, SteveK9, but you meant, of course, to say “why oh why the US would want to destroy
Iran”–not Israel. Israel has been trying to maneuver Uncle Sam into a shooting
war with Iran for a decade or more. Israel’s American neocons have succeeded in getting
America to destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran is the last country standing in the
way of Israel’s total dominance of the Middle East. No Israel, no war, it’s as
simple as that.
@Brabantian
Standard muslim stuff. It’s their country so up to them what they do. But Iran was
cooperating with Al Qaida in Bosnia in the 1990s chopping heads of Christians and atheists.
In fact they were aligned with USA and NATO there but now US is using that involvement
against them as proof of “terrorism” activity.
And here’s Andre praising them. It was well known that they were supplying weapons
disguised as humanitarian aid but US and NATO did nothing to stop them at the time.
@Commentator
Mike There was an embargo on any weapons getting through to Bosnia at the time. The
Bosnians were massively outgunned by the Serbs that had possession of almost all the serious
hardware after the break up of Yugoslavia. The Muslim world was not about to let this
discrepancy go unanswered.
AQ at that stage was still mostly the “foreign legion” global defense
initiative that was the initial vision of Shaykh Abdullah Azzam so it’s not surprising
the Iranians were cooperating with them at the time. It would later progressively warp into
the terrorism outfit over time in the 90’s especially with the African embassy
bombings.
@Commentator
Mike Maybe you could take a look at what is going on there as we speak.
As European, you could do it. Americans and the rest of colonists can’t.
Let’s just say there is a significant Iranian presence in Bosnia.
Serbs and Croats in the region won’t be displeased should the regime in Tehran get
smashed into pieces. Really small pieces.
The problem with the Balkans is that there is so much hatred and animosity between the
various white ethnicities, because of historical reasons, that they have a blind spot for the
much greater danger posed to them all by the massive demographic changes taking place in the
world. And if that kind of intra-white hatred were to spread to the rest of Europe it will be
even harder to salvage anything of the white European sovereignty.
Actually one can work even within those hatreds unless they’re given a chance to
flare up, and obviously certain forces work on doing just that, as we have seen in Ukraine.
Oh yes, and the Muslims aren’t helping much to bring peace about in that region.
Thanks but no thanks. Since Supreme Commander Al Baghdadi ordered muslims to get us by any
and every means I strictly avoid eating anywhere muslims work, cook, or serve, despite liking
their food. Didn’t you hear of the three Albanian Kosovars who were arrested in Italy
plotting a bombing campaign? They worked as waiters in Venice, Italy’s tourist hub. I
pity those tourists who went through their restaurant before the Kosovars decided to move
onto bigger actions. And he did mention poison, whatever, even spitting.
The problem with the Balkans is that there is so much hatred and animosity between the
various white ethnicities, because of historical reasons, that they have a blind spot for
the much greater danger posed to them all by the massive demographic changes taking place
in the world.
As for this:
And if that kind of intra-white hatred were to spread to the rest of Europe it will be
even harder to salvage anything of the white European sovereignty.
"... India is allied with America and Israel and shares with these fascist "democracies" a national hatred of Muslims--well, at least those Muslims who are not stupid enough to act as American/Israeli jihadist/terrorist assets around the world like in Libya or Syria. ..."
"... Moreover, India is a Hindu fundamentalist nation that has made common religious cause with the Zionist fundamentalist state of Israel and the Christian fundamentalist state of America. ..."
"... America's Future Is with India and Israel: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-future-india-israel-21629 ..."
Imperial divide and conquer strategy. Global strife aids imperialists. Russia, China, Iran unity threatens global Anglo Zionists.
Consequently, the logical progression is to welcome India into Anglo Zionist alliance with more aid to their extremists (Modi)
Emboldening extremists is always the way to war.
It is not that simple as Saudi sells oil to China, and India, Saudi plus Israel are on speaking terms with Russia plus Saudi
bankrolls Pakistan and US policies might change completely if Trump loses 2020.
Of course all bets are off should Modi manage to provoke a Hindu-Moslim civil war involving Pakistan.
Since I was at the age of having a political opinion, Jammu and Kashmir were part of a collection of areas under constant
conflict.
...
Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Aug 5 2019 18:13 utc | 44
Thanks for the reminder. Your use of the term 'constant conflict' reminded me of a military doctrine I stumbled upon in the
early Noughties which was called Constant Conflict. The only thing I could remember about it, today, was that it was written by
a psychopath and I did NOT like what the author was proposing.
It's dated 16.04.2016 and names the author as Retired Lieutenant Colonel of United States Army Ralph Peters and summarises
the crux of Peters' thesis and and his background/mission statement. It also provides enough info to find the original 1997 article
here... https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/articles/97summer/peters.htm
The article concludes thus and there's a footnote...
...
"The next century will indeed be American, but it will also be troubled. We will find ourselves in constant conflict, much of
it violent. The United States Army is going to add a lot of battle streamers to its flag. We will wage information warfare, but
we will fight with infantry. And we will always surprise those critics, domestic and foreign, who predict our decline."
--- Major (P) Ralph Peters is assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, where he is responsible for
future warfare. Prior to becoming a Foreign Area Officer for Eurasia, he served exclusively at the tactical level. He is a graduate
of the US Army Command and General Staff College and holds a master's degree in international relations. Over the past several
years, his professional and personal research travels have taken Major Peters to Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Ossetia, Abkhazia,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary,
the Czech Republic, Pakistan, Turkey, Burma, Laos, Thailand, and Mexico, as well as the countries of the Andean Ridge. He has
published widely on military and international concerns. His sixth novel, Twilight of Heroes, was recently released by Avon Books.
This is his eighth article for Parameters. The author wishes to acknowledge the importance to this essay of discussions with Lieutenant
Colonels Gordon Thompson and Lonnie Henley, both US Army officers.
India is allied with America and Israel and shares with these fascist "democracies" a national hatred of Muslims--well, at
least those Muslims who are not stupid enough to act as American/Israeli jihadist/terrorist assets around the world like in Libya
or Syria.
Moreover, India is a Hindu fundamentalist nation that has made common religious cause with the Zionist fundamentalist state
of Israel and the Christian fundamentalist state of America.
So perhaps India should emulate its fellow "democratic" ally of America and adopt the same ethnic cleansing tactics in Kashmir
that the Land of the Free has deployed against Native tribes throughout the Indigenous lands that America currently occupies--from
the Trail of Tears of the past to the DAPL pipeline protests today.
"... Tensions were then focused on Syria , where a mercenary army of at least 200,000 men, armed and trained by the US, UK, Israel, France, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, almost managed to completely topple the country. ..."
"... As the Americans, British, French and Israelis conducted their bombing missions in Syria, the danger of a deliberate attack on Russian positions always remained, something that would have had devastating consequences for the region and beyond. It is no secret that US military planners have repeatedly argued for a direct conflict with Moscow in a contained regional theater. (Clinton called for the downing of Russian jets over Syria, and former US officials claimed that some Russians had to " pay a little price ".) ..."
"... Trump's dramatic U-turn following his historic meeting with Kim Jong-un (a public relations/photo opportunity) began to paint a fairly comical and unreliable picture of US power, revealing to the world the new US president's strategy. The president threatens to nuke a country, but only as a negotiating tactic to bring his opponent to the negotiating table and thereby clinch a deal. He then presents himself to his domestic audience as the "great" deal-maker. ..."
"... With Iran, the recent target of the US administration, the bargaining method is the same, though with decidedly different results. In the cases of Ukraine and North Korea, the two most powerful lobbies in Washington, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies, have had little to say. Of course the neocons and the arms lobbyists are always gunning for war, but these two powerful state-backed lobbies were notably silent with regard to these countries, less towards Syria obviously. As distinguished political scientist John J. Mearsheimer has repeatedly explained , the Israel and Saudi lobbies have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy goals. ..."
"... These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at the cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been devastated by decades of conflict. ..."
"... The reasons vary with each case, and I have previously explained extensively why the possibilities for conflict are unthinkable. With Ukraine, a conflict on European soil between Russia and NATO was unthinkable , bringing to mind the type of devastation that was seen during the Second World War. Good sense prevailed, and even NATO somewhat refused to fully arm the Ukrainian army with weapons that would have given them an overwhelming advantage over the Donbass militias. ..."
"... In Syria, any involvement with ground troops would have been collective suicide, given the overwhelming air power deployed in the country by Russia. Recall that since the Second World War, the US has never fought a war in an airspace that was seriously contested (in Vietnam, US air losses were only elevated because of Sino-Soviet help), allowing for ground troops to receive air cover and protection . A ground assault in Syria would have therefore been catastrophic without the requisite control of Syria's skies. ..."
"... Because a war with Iran would be difficult to de-escalate, we can conclude that the possibility of war being waged against the country is unlikely if not impossible. The level of damage the belligerents would inflict on each other would make any diplomatic resolution of the conflict difficult. While the powerful Israeli and Saudi lobbies in the US may be beating the war drums, an indication of what would happen if war followed can be seen in Yemen. Egypt and the UAE were forced to withdraw from the coalition fighting the Houthis after the UAE suffered considerable damage from legitimate retaliatory missile strikes from the Yemen's Army Missile Forces. ..."
"... An open war against Iran continues to be a red line that the ruling financial elites in the US, Israelis and Saudis don't want to cross, having so much at stake. ..."
"... With an election looming, Trump cannot risk triggering a new conflict and betraying one of his most important electoral promises. The Western elite does not seem to have any intention of destroying the petrodollar-based world economy with which it generates its own profits and controls global finance. ..."
"... Even if we consider the possibility of Netanyahu and Bin Salman being mentally unstable, someone within the royal palace in Riyadh or the government in Tel Aviv would have counseled them on the political and personal consequences of an attack on Iran. ..."
In 2014 we were almost at the point of no return in Ukraine following the coup d'etat supported and funded by NATO and involving
extremist right-wing Ukrainian nationalists. The conflict in the Donbass risked escalating into a conflict between NATO and the Russian
Federation, every day in the summer and autumn of 2014 threatening to be doomsday. Rather than respond to the understandable impulse
to send Russian troops into Ukraine to defend the population of Donbass, Putin had the presense of mind to pursue the less direct
and more sensible strategy of supporting the material capacity of the residents of Donbass to resist the depredations of the Ukrainian
army and their neo-Nazi Banderite thugs. Meanwhile, Europe's inept leaders initially egged on Ukraine's destabilization, only to
get cold feet after reflecting on the possibility of having a conflict between Moscow and Washington fought on European soil.
With the resistance in Donbass managing to successfully hold back Ukrainian assaults, the conflict began to freeze, almost to
the point of a complete ceasefire, even as Ukrainian provocations continue to this day.
Tensions were then focused on Syria , where a mercenary army of at least 200,000 men, armed and trained by the US, UK, Israel,
France, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, almost managed to completely topple the country. Russian
intervention in 2015 managed to save the country with no time to spare, destroying large numbers of terrorists and reorganizing the
Syrian armed forces and training and equipping them with the necessary means to beat back the jihadi waves. The Russians also ensured
control of the skies through their network of Pantsir-S1, Pantsir-S2, S-300 and S-400 air-defence systems, together with their
impressive jamming (Krasukha-4), command and control
information management system (Strelets C4ISR System) and electronic-warfare technologies (1RL257 Krasukha-4).
As the Americans, British, French and Israelis conducted their bombing missions in Syria, the danger of a deliberate attack
on Russian positions always remained, something that would have had devastating consequences for the region and beyond. It is no
secret that US military planners have repeatedly argued for a direct conflict with Moscow in a contained regional theater. (Clinton
called
for the downing of Russian jets over Syria, and former US officials claimed that some Russians had to "
pay a little price ".)
Since Trump became president, the rhetoric of war has soared considerably, even as the awareness remains that any new conflict
would sink Trump's chances of re-election. Despite this, Trump's bombings in Syria were real and potentially very harmful to the
Syrian state. Nevertheless, they were
foiled by Russia's electronic-warfare capability, which was able to send veering away from their intended target more than 70%
of the latest-generation missiles launched by the British, French, Americans and Israelis.
One of the most terrifying moments for the future of humanity came a few months later when Trump started hurling threats and abuses
at Kim Jong-un , threatening to reduce Pyongyang to ashes. Trump, moreover, delivered his fiery threats in a speech at the United
Nations General Assembly.
Trump's dramatic U-turn following his historic meeting with Kim Jong-un (a public relations/photo opportunity) began to paint
a fairly comical and unreliable picture of US power, revealing to the world the new US president's strategy. The president threatens
to nuke a country, but only as a negotiating tactic to bring his opponent to the negotiating table and thereby clinch a deal. He
then presents himself to his domestic audience as the "great" deal-maker.
With Iran, the recent target of the US administration, the bargaining method is the same, though with decidedly different
results. In the cases of Ukraine and North Korea, the two most powerful lobbies in Washington, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies, have
had little to say. Of course the neocons and the arms lobbyists are always gunning for war, but these two powerful state-backed lobbies
were notably silent with regard to these countries, less towards Syria obviously. As distinguished political scientist John J. Mearsheimer
has repeatedly explained , the Israel and Saudi lobbies
have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy goals.
The difference between the case of Iran and the aforementioned cases of Ukraine, Syria and North Korea is precisely the direct
involvement of these two lobbies in the decision-making process underway in the US.
These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans
sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at the
cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been devastated
by decades of conflict.
What readers can be assured of is that in the cases of Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and Iran, the US is unable to militarily impose
its geopolitical or economic will.
The reasons vary with each case, and I have previously explained
extensively
why the possibilities for conflict are unthinkable. With Ukraine, a conflict on European soil between Russia and NATO was
unthinkable
, bringing to mind the type of devastation that was seen during the Second World War. Good sense prevailed, and even NATO
somewhat refused
to fully arm the Ukrainian army with weapons that would have given them an overwhelming advantage over the Donbass militias.
In Syria, any involvement with ground troops would have been collective suicide, given the overwhelming air power deployed
in the country by Russia. Recall that since the Second World War, the US has never fought a war in an airspace that was seriously
contested (in Vietnam, US air losses were only elevated because of Sino-Soviet help), allowing for ground troops to receive air cover
and protection . A ground assault in Syria would have therefore been catastrophic without the requisite control of Syria's skies.
In North Korea, the country's tactical and strategic nuclear and conventional deterrence discourages any missile attack. Any overland
attack is out of the question, given the high number of active as well as reserve personnel in the DPRK army. If the US struggled
to control a completely defeated Iraq in 2003, how much more difficult would be to deal with a country with a resilient population
that is indisposed to bowing to the US? The 2003 Iraq campaign would really be a "cakewalk" in comparison. Another reason why a missile
attack on North Korea is impossible is because of the conventional power that Pyongyang possesses in the form of tens of thousands
of missiles and artillery pieces that could easily reduce Seoul to rubble in a matter of minutes. This would then lead to a war between
the US and the DPRK being fought on the Korean Peninsula. Moon Jae-in, like Merkel and Sarkozy in the case of Ukraine, did everything
in his power to prevent such a devastating conflict.
Concerning tensions between the US and Iran and the resulting threats of war, these should be taken as bluster and bluff. America's
European allies are heavily involved in Iran and depend on the Middle East for their oil and gas imports. A US war against Iran would
have devastating consequences for the world economy, with the Europeans seeing their imports halved or reduced. As Professor Chossudovsky
of the strategic think tank Global Research has so ably
argued , an attack on Iran is unsustainable, as the oil sectors of the UAE and Saudi Arabia would be hit and shut down. Exports
would instantly end after the pipelines going West are bombed by the Houthis and the Strait of Hormuz closed. The economies of these
two countries would implode and their ruling class wiped out by internal revolts. The state of Israel as well as US bases in the
region would see themselves overwhelmed with missiles coming from Syria, Lebanon, the Golan Heights and Iran. The Tel Aviv government
would last a few hours before capitulating under the pressure of its own citizens, who, like the Europeans, are unused to suffering
war at home.
Because a war with Iran would be difficult to de-escalate, we can conclude that the possibility of war being waged against
the country is unlikely if not impossible. The level of damage the belligerents would inflict on each other would make any diplomatic
resolution of the conflict difficult. While the powerful Israeli and Saudi lobbies in the US may be beating the war drums, an indication
of what would happen if war followed can be seen in Yemen. Egypt and the UAE were forced to
withdraw from the
coalition fighting the Houthis after the UAE suffered considerable
damage from legitimate retaliatory missile strikes from the Yemen's Army Missile Forces.
An open war against Iran continues to be a red line that the ruling financial elites in the US, Israelis and Saudis don't
want to cross, having so much at stake.
With an election looming, Trump cannot risk triggering a new conflict and betraying one of his most important electoral promises.
The Western elite does not seem to have any intention of destroying the petrodollar-based world economy with which it generates its
own profits and controls global finance. And finally, US military planners do not intend to suffer a humiliating defeat in Iran
that would reveal the extent to which US military power is based on propaganda built over the years through Hollywood movies and
wars successfully executed against relatively defenceless countries. Even if we consider the possibility of Netanyahu and Bin
Salman being mentally unstable, someone within the royal palace in Riyadh or the government in Tel Aviv would have counseled them
on the political and personal consequences of an attack on Iran.
It is telling that Washington, London, Tel Aviv and Riyadh have to resort to numerous but ultimately useless
provocations against Iran, as they
can only rely on hybrid attacks in order to economically isolate it from the rest of the world.
Paradoxically, this strategy has had devastating consequences for the role of the US dollar as a reserve currency together with
the SWIFT system. In today's multipolar environment, acting in such an imperious manner leads to the acceleration of de-dollarization
as a way of circumventing sanctions and bans imposed by the US.
A reserve currency is used to facilitate transactions. If the disadvantages come to exceed the benefits, it will progressively
be used less and less, until it is replaced by a basket of currencies that more closely reflect the multipolar geopolitical reality.
The warmongers in Washington are exasperated by their continuing inability to curb the resilience and resistance of the people
in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Donbass, countries and regions understood by the healthy part of the globe as representing
the axis of resistance to US Imperialism.
America must always threaten someone with war. Syria, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, so many to choose from.
Conflicts must never be resolved; they must always kept simmering, so a hot war can be triggered quickly. All Presidents are
turned in the first three months after sworn in.
It's what happens as empires mature. Governance becomes bloated, corrupt and inept (often leading to wars). Maturity time has
become significantly reduced due to the rate of information technology advance. America is five years away from going insolvent
according to most models and forecasts. All new debt after 2024 will be used to pay the interest on existing debts and liabilities.
There is simply no stopping it. The US already pays close to 500 billion in annual interest on debts and liabilities. Factor in
a 600 billion or 700 billion dollar annual military budget, and unrestrained deficit spending clocking in at over a trillion,
and, well, it isn't going to work for long. Considering most new well paying jobs are government jobs... The end is either full
socialism / fascism (folks still don't get how similar these are), a currency crisis and panic, depression and institutional deterioration.
The only good news to libertarians I guess - if you can call it good - is that the blotted government along with the crony corporations
will mostly and eventually collapse. Libertarian governance might not be a choice by an electorate, it might simply become fact
in the aftermath.
I guess Trump eventually will understand this lesson in politics that friendship, mutual respect and helping each other accomplishes
way way more then threatening countries to be bombed back into the stoneage.
Noone likes to do a cutthroat deal enforced upon them by thuggery. Trump's got to learn that you can't run politics like you do
your bussinesses, it's not working unles that was his plan all this time, to destroy America.
"The Israel and Saudi lobbies have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy
goals.
These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans
sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at
the cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been
devastated by decades of conflict."
America is increasingly looking like Ancient Rome towards the end. It is overstretched, nearly insolvent, fewer allies want
to be allies, it's population is sick, physically and mentally. Obesity, diabetes, drug use/addiction make it impossible for the
Pentagon to meet recruitment goal. Mental illness causes daily mass killing. The education system is so broken/broke that there
is little real education being done. Americans are among the most ignorant, least educated and least educate-able people in the
developed world.
Militarily, the USA can bomb but that's about it... defeats upon defeats over the past two decades demonstrate the US military
is a paper tiger of astonishing incompetence.
Boeing can't make planes anymore. Lockheed is not much better. Parts of the F-35 are made by Chinese subsidiaries. The most
recently built aircraft carrier cannot launch fighter jets.
Recent estimates indicate that more than 550,000 people experience homelessness in the US on any given night, with about two-thirds
ending up in emergency shelters or transitional housing programs, and one-third finding their way to unsheltered locations like
parks, vehicles, and metro stations. According to the Urban Institute, about 25% of homeless people have jobs.
I find that it is difficult for me to wrap my head around pain and suffering on such an immense scale. Americans often think
of the homeless as drug-addicted men that don't want to work, but the truth is that about a quarter of the homeless population
is made up of children.
Seriously, why would Iran want to hijack a German ship? Iran took the UK one in retaliation for the Brits seizing the one at
Gibraltar. Had that not happened, no Brit ships in the Persian Gulf would have been touched. This is all a carefully engineered
USA provocation designed to, inter alia, increase tension in the Persian Gulf, put more nails in coffin of JCPOA...and most importantly
give UK an excuse, as remaining signatory, to call for the original UN sanctions on Iran to be snapped-back.
Federico, let me explain it simply: the U.S. is allied with Israel, and Iran hates Israel. Why, I don't know (nor do I care),
but that's why the U.S. needs to keep Iran in check.
Yet CONGRESS just passed the largest defense bill in history. The WAR industry is bankrupting us financially spiritually and
morally.
A war is coming. But upon whom this time (or STILL?), because with President Bolton and Vice President Adelson in power, China
Iran or Russia or maybe all three, are open options.
Interview with a Russian I saw 2 years ago "USA wants to create local conflicts on foreign shores, ...on our borders, we will
not allow that to happen and make the war international" I will translate: Russia will not be pulled in to some stupid small war
draining their resources while the US sits comfortable, they will throw their missiles around - no escape from nuclear winter.
If spending has reached the limit now, during peacetime....what will happen during a protracted war? Even if it stays conventional,
it would appear that a huge war effort, comparable to WWII, just won't be possible. The US seems to be in a pre-war Britain position,
but there isn't a friendly giant across the water to bail them out with both cash and resources.
Either things become insane in fairly short order, or wiser heads will prevail and the US will step back from the brink. Do
we have any wiser heads at the moment?
I keep seeing John Bolton's moustache, Andi am not filled with confidence.
I would not call this article decent. At best it is half-decent ;-) This is a typical NYT anti-Tulsi propaganda but it does make
several relent observation buried in the sea of anti-Tulsi crapola.
Notable quotes:
"... “We should be coming to other leaders in other countries with respect, building a relationship based on cooperation rather than with, you know, a police baton,” she says. ..."
"... While she is the embodiment of this anti-interventionist message onstage, there is a much larger movement brewing. There is big money in peace. Two billionaire philanthropists from opposite ends of the political spectrum — George Soros and Charles Koch — came together this summer to fund the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank to argue against American intervention abroad. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard Thinks We're Doomed by Nellie Bowles
Tulsi Gabbard is running for president of a country that she believes has wrought horror on the world, and she wants its
citizens to remember that.
She is from Hawaii, and she spends each morning surfing. But that is not what she talks about in this unlikely campaign.
She talks about the horror.
She lists countries: Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq. Failure after failure, she says. To drive the point
home, she wants to meet on a Sioux tribe reservation in North Dakota, where, she explains, the United States government committed
its original atrocity.
“These Indigenous people have been disrespected, mistreated with broken promises and desecrated lands,” Ms. Gabbard says.
... ... ...
But her run, and the unusual cross-section of voters she appeals to — Howard Zinn fans, anti-drug-war libertarians, Russia-gate
skeptics, and conservatives suspicious of Big Tech — signifies just how much both parties have shifted, not just on foreign
policy. It could end up being a sign that President Trump’s isolationism is not the aberration many believed, but rather a
harbinger of a growing national sentiment that America should stand alone.
To Ms. Gabbard, it is the United States that has been the cruel and destabilizing force.
... ... ...
“We should be coming to other leaders in other countries with respect, building a relationship based on cooperation rather
than with, you know, a police baton,” she says.
... ... ...
While she is the embodiment of this anti-interventionist message onstage, there is a much larger movement brewing. There
is big money in peace. Two billionaire philanthropists from opposite ends of the political spectrum — George Soros and Charles
Koch — came together this summer to fund the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank to argue against American
intervention abroad.
... ... ...
Ms. Gabbard says she is driven by the feeling that death could come at any moment, which she realized at age 10 but which
became more intense in Iraq.
“My first deployment was at the height of the war in 2005. We were 40 miles north of Baghdad. And there was a huge sign
by one of the main gates that just read: ‘Is today the day?’” she says. “It was such a stark reminder that my time could come
at any moment. That any day could be my last.”
She is not sure who put the sign up or why. But it was this message of potentially imminent doom that she wanted to leave
the audience with at the second Democratic debate.
“As we stand here tonight,” she told the crowd. “There are thousands of nuclear missiles pointing right at us, and if we
were to get an attack, we would have 30 minutes, 30 minutes, before we were hit.”
Ms. Gabbard continued.
“There is no shelter. This is the warmonger’s hoax. There is no shelter. It’s all a lie.”
Nellie Bowles covers tech and internet culture. Follow her on Twitter:
@nelliebowles
Politics is a drity business. The last think any aspiring politician wants is to
fight on two fronts. For example against forign wars and Isreal lobby. that's creates Doublespeak
situation for candidates like Tulsi...
Notable quotes:
"... But the Empire is taking no chances. The Empire has sicced its Presstitute Battalion on her. Josh Rogin (Washington Post), Joy Reid (MSNBC), Wajahat Ali (New York Times and CNN), and, of course the Twitter trolls paid to slander and misrepresent public figures that the Empire targets. Google added its weight to the obfuscation of Gabbard. ..."
It is unfortunate that Tulsi Gabbard succumbed to the Israel Lobby. The forces of the Empire
saw it as a sign of weakness and have set about destroying her.
The ruling elite see Gabbard as a threat just as they saw Trump as a threat. A threat is an
attractive political candidate who questions the Empire's agenda. Trump questioned the
hostility toward Russia orchestrated by the military/security complex. Gabbard questions the
Empire's wars in the Middle East. This is questioning that encroaches on the agendas of the
military/security complex and Israel Lobby. If fear of Israel is what caused Gabbard to vote
the AIPAC line on the bill forbidding criticism of Israel, she won't be able to stick to her
line against Washington's aggression in the Middle East. Israel is behind that aggression as it
serves Israeli interests.
But the Empire is taking no chances. The Empire has sicced its Presstitute Battalion on
her. Josh Rogin (Washington Post), Joy Reid (MSNBC), Wajahat Ali (New York Times and CNN), and,
of course the Twitter trolls paid to slander and misrepresent public figures that the Empire
targets. Google added its weight to the obfuscation of Gabbard.
Wars in the Middle East against Israel's enemies and preparation for major wars against
Iran, Russia, and China are the bread and butter for the powerful US military/security complex
lobby. All that is important to the military/security complex is their profits, not whether
they get all of us killed. In other words, their propaganda about protecting America is a
lie. They endanger us all in order to have enemies in order to justify their massive budget
and power.
Those of us who actually know, such as myself and Stephen Cohen, have been warning for years
that the orchestrated hostility against Russia is producing a far more dangerous Cold War than
the original one. Indeed, beginning with the criminal George W. Bush regime, the arms control
treaties achieved at great political expense by US and Soviet leaders have been abandoned by
Washington. The lastest treaty to be discarded by Washington in service to the
military/security lobby is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) negotiated by
President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbechev. This treaty banned missiles that
Washington could place in Europe on Russia's border with which to attack Russia with little or
no reaction time, and Russian missiles that could be used to attack Washington's NATO puppet
states in Europe and UK. The treaty resulted in the elimination of 2,692 missiles and a decade
of verification inspections that satisfied both parties to the agreement. But suddenly
Washington has pulled out of the treaty. The main purpose of pulling out of the treaty is to
enable the military/security complex to develop and produce new missiles at the taxpayers'
expense, but Washington also sees a military advantage in withdrawing from the INF treaty.
Washington, of course, blames the US withdrawal on Russia, just as Washington blames every
country that Washington intends to attack. But it is completely obvious even to a moron that
Russia has no interest whatsoever in abandoning the treaty. Russian intermediate-range
missiles cannot reach the United States. Russia has no reason to attack Europe, which has
no military forces of any consequence. It is the American nuclear missiles on European soil
that are the problem
Washington, however, does gain by tearing up the INF treaty. At Europe's risk, not
America's, Washington's intermediate-range nuclear misslies stationed in Europe on Russia's
borders permit a preemptive nuclear attack on Russia. Because of proximity, the warning time is
only a couple of minutes. Washington's crazed war planners believe that so much of the Russian
retaliatory capacity would be destroyed, that Russia would surrender rather than retaliate with
diminished forces and risk a second attack.
Putin stresses this danger as does the Russian military. US missiles on Russia's border puts
the world on a hair trigger. Aside from the fact that a nuclear attack on Russia is the likely
intent of the criminal neoconservatives, nuclear warning systems are notorious for false
alarms. During Cold War I, both sides worked to build trust, but since the criminal Clinton
regime Washington has worked to destroy all trust between the two dominant nuclear powers. All
that is required to obliterate life on earth, thanks entirely to the crazed fools in
Washington, is one false alarm received by the Russians. Unlike past false alarms, next time
the Russians will have no choice but to believe it.
Intermediate-range nuclear missiles leave no time for a phone call between Putin and Trump.
The Russian leader who has suffered hundreds of diplomatic insults, demonization of his person
and his country, illegal sanctions, endless false accusations, and endless threats cannot
assume that the warning is false.
The idiots in Washington and the presstitutes have programmed the end of the world. When the
alarm goes off, the Russian leader has no choice but to push the button.
Any remaining doubt in the Russian government of Washington's hostile intentions toward
Russia has been dispelled by Trump's National Security Advisor, the neocon warmonger John
Bolton. Bolton recently announced that the last remaining arms control agreement, START, will
not be renewed by Washington in 2021.
Thus, the trust built between the nuclear powers that began with President John F. Kennedy
and reached its greatest success with Reagan and Gorbachev has been erased. It will be lucky if
the world survives the destruction of trust between the two major nuclear powers.
ORDER IT NOW
The American government in Washington has been made so utterly stupid by its arrogant hubris
that it has no comprehension of the dangerous situation that it, and it alone, has created. We
are all at risk every minute of our lives because of the power, of which President Eisenhower
warned us more than a half century ago to no avail, of the US military/security complex, an
organized powerful force determined and able to destroy any American president who would
threaten their budget and power by making peace.
Donald Trump is a strong personality, but he has been cowed by the Israel Lobby and the
military/security complex. As reigning president, Trump sat there Twittering while an attack
orchestrated by the military/security complex and the Democratic Party, with 100% cooperation
from the American media, tried to portray him as a Russian agent as grounds for his
impeachment.
A strong personality in what is allegedly the most powerful office in the world who allows
his entire first term to be wasted by his opponents in an attempt to frame him and drive him
from office is all we need to know about the likely fate of Tulsi Gabbard.
Yves here. This is a very important post, documenting how despite defense contractor claims
to the contrary, increased military spending has been accompanied by job losses in the US. This
should come as no surprise. Military contracting is an exercise in pork, and regularly
flagrantly disregards national security. A classic example: US uniforms and boots are made in
China.
Another example of the benefits of military pork going outside the US was the use of
contractors during the war in Iraq. From a 2007 Vanity Fair story:
In one place the job of laundering soldiers' uniforms, for example, might be performed by
a company working directly for KBR. But in another a subcontractor will have
sub-subcontracted the work to someone else, and sometimes even sub-sub-sub-subcontracted it.
"I've come across examples where you get down four or five levels," says a government auditor
who spoke on condition of anonymity. "There's the U.S. prime, the subcontractor from the
Middle East, then a sub-subcontractor from Pakistan, then a shell corporation with a box
number in Michigan, and finally the Iraqis who're actually doing the work -- for next to
nothing."
This system has created great difficulties for anyone attempting to oversee the process on
behalf of American taxpayers. It has also substantially increased the overall costs of the
war by creating the conditions for obscene markups between contract levels. "There is an
enormous need to get a closer handle on the detail in the field," says the auditor. "If you
go ask one of the inspectors general, 'Tell me about the subcontracts,' they can't tell you
anything. It's a black hole. What this means for oversight, and basic issues of fairness, is
that there is none."
On top of that, inflating the number of people tasked to an activity was routine, and the
article has first hand accounts from individuals who tried opposing the practice.
In other words, the contracting fraud results in US taxpayers paying way more than it would
have cost for US personnel to do the work with the added insult that the tasks were performed
by locals for a pittance.
A Marilyn has once again seduced a president. This time, though, it's not a
movie star ; it's Marillyn Hewson, the head of Lockheed Martin, the nation's top defense
contractor and the largest weapons producer in the world. In the last month, Donald Trump and
Hewson have seemed inseparable. They " saved " jobs at a
helicopter plant. They took the stage together
at a Lockheed subsidiary in Milwaukee. The president vetoed
three bills that would have blocked the arms sales of Lockheed (and other companies) to Saudi
Arabia. Recently, the president's daughter Ivanka even toured a Lockheed space
facility with Hewson.
On July 15th, the official White House Twitter account tweeted a video of the Lockheed
CEO extolling the virtues of the company's THAAD missile defense system, claiming that it
"supports 25,000 American workers." Not only was Hewson promoting her company's product, but
she was making her pitch -- with the weapon in the background -- on the White House lawn.
Twitter immediately burst with outrage over the White House posting an ad for a private
company, with some calling it "unethical" and
"likely unlawful."
None of this, however, was really out of the ordinary as the Trump administration has
stopped at nothing to push the argument that job creation is justification enough for
supporting weapons manufacturers to the hilt. Even before Donald Trump was sworn in as
president, he was already
insisting that military spending was a great jobs creator. He's only doubled down on this
assertion during his presidency. Recently, overriding congressional objections, he even
declared
a national "emergency" to force through part of an arms sale to Saudi Arabia that he had once
claimed
would create more than a million jobs. While this claim has been
thoroughlydebunked , the most essential
part of his argument -- that more money flowing to defense contractors will create significant
numbers of new jobs -- is considered truth personified by many in the defense industry,
especially Marillyn Hewson.
The facts tell a different story.
Lockheed Locks Down Taxpayer Dollars, While Cutting American Jobs
To test Trump's and Hewson's argument, we asked a simple question: When contractors receive
more taxpayer money, do they generally create more jobs? To answer it, we analyzed the reports
of major defense contractors filed annually with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (
SEC ).
Among other things, these reveal the total number of people employed by a firm and the salary
of its chief executive officer. We then compared those figures to the federal tax dollars each
company received, according
to the Federal Procurement Data System, which measures the "dollars obligated," or funds, the
government awards company by company.
We focused on the top five Pentagon defense contractors, the very heartland of the
military-industrial complex, for the years 2012 to 2018. As it happened, 2012 was a pivotal
year because the Budget Control Act (BCA) first went into effect then, establishing caps on how
much money could be spent by Congress and mandating cuts to defense spending through 2021.
Those caps were never fully adhered to. Ultimately, in fact, the Pentagon will receive
significantly more money
in the BCA decade than in the prior one, a period when the American wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq were at their heights.
In 2012, concerned that those caps on defense spending would cut into their bottom lines,
the five top contractors went on the political offensive, making future jobs their weapon of
choice. After the Budget Control Act passed, the Aerospace Industries Association -- the
leading trade group of the weapons-makers --
warned that more than one million jobs would be at risk if Pentagon spending were cut
significantly. To emphasize the point, Lockheed sent layoff notices to
123,000 employees just before the BCA was implemented and only days before the 2012 election.
Those layoffs never actually happened, but the fear of lost jobs would prove real indeed and
would last.
Consider it mission accomplished, since Pentagon spending was actually
higher in 2018 than in 2012 and Lockheed received a sizeable chunk of that cash infusion.
From 2012 to 2018, among government contractors, that company would, in fact, be the top
recipient of taxpayer dollars every single year, those funds reaching their zenith in 2017, as
it raked in more than $50.6
billion federal dollars. By contrast, in 2012, when Lockheed was threatening its employees
with mass layoffs ,
the firm received nearly $37
billion .
So what did Lockheed do with those additional $13 billion taxpayer dollars? It would be
reasonable to assume that it used some of that windfall (like those of previous years) to
invest in growing its workforce. If you came to that conclusion, however, you would be sorely
mistaken. From 2012 to 2018, overall employment at Lockheed actually fell from 120,000
to 105,000
, according to the firm's filings with the SEC and the company itself reported a slightly
larger reduction of 16,350 jobs in the U.S. In other words, in the last six years Lockheed
dramatically reduced its U.S. workforce, even as it hired more employees abroad and received
more taxpayer dollars.
So where is all that additional taxpayer money actually going, if not job creation? At least
part of the answer is contractor profits and soaring CEO salaries. In those six years,
Lockheed's stock price
rose from $82 at the beginning of 2012 to $305 at the end of 2018, a nearly four-fold
increase. In
2018 , the company also reported a 9% ($590 million) rise in its profits, the best in the
industry. And in those same years, the salary of its CEO increased by $1.4 million, again
according to its SECfilings
.
In short, since 2012 the number of taxpayer dollars going to Lockheed has expanded by
billions, the value of its stock has nearly quadrupled, and its CEO's salary went up 32%, even
as it cut 14% of its American work force. Yet Lockheed continues to use job creation, as well
as its employees' present jobs, as political pawns to get yet more taxpayer money. The
president himself has bought into the ruse in his race to funnel ever more money to the
Pentagon and promote arms deals to countries like Saudi Arabia, even over
the nearly unified objections of an otherwise incredibly divided Congress.
Lockheed Is the Norm, Not the Exception
Despite being this country's and the world's top weapons maker, Lockheed isn't the
exception but the norm. From 2012 to 2018, the unemployment rate in the U.S. plummeted from roughly 8% to 4%, with more than
13 million new jobs added to the economy. Yet, in those same years, three of the five top
defense contractors slashed jobs. In 2018, the Pentagon committed approximately $118 billion in
federal
money to those firms, including Lockheed -- nearly half of all the money it spent on
contractors. This was almost $12 billion more than they had received in
2012 . Yet, cumulatively, those companies lost jobs and now employ a total of 6,900 fewer
employees than they did in 2012, according to their SEC filings .
In addition to the reductions at Lockheed, Boeing slashed 21,400 jobs and Raytheon cut 800
employees from its payroll. Only General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman added jobs -- 13,400 and
16,900 employees, respectively -- making that total figure look modestly better. However, even
those "gains" can't qualify as job creation in the normal sense, since they resulted almost
entirely from the fact that each of those companies bought another Pentagon contractor and
added its employees to its own payroll. CSRA, which General Dynamics acquired in 2018, had
18,500
employees before the merger, while Orbital ATK, which General Dynamics acquired last year, had
13,900
employees. Subtract these 32,400 jobs from the corporate totals and job losses at the firms
become staggering.
In addition, those employment figures include all company employees, even those now working
outside the U.S. Lockheed is the only top five Pentagon contractor that provides information on
the percentage of its employees in the U.S., so if the other firms are shipping jobs overseas,
as Lockheed has done and as Raytheon is planning to
do, far more than 6,900 full-time jobs in the U.S. have been lost in the last six years.
Where, then, did all that job-creation money really go? Just as at Lockheed, at least part
of the answer is that the money went to the bottom-line and to top executives. According to a
report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, a consulting firm that provides annual analyses of the
defense industry, "the aerospace and defense (A&D) sector scored record revenues and
profits in 2018" with an "operating profit of $81 billion, surpassing the previous record set
in 2017." According to the report, Pentagon contractors were at the forefront of these profit
gains. For example, Lockheed's profit improvement was $590 million, followed closely by General
Dynamics at $562 million. As employment shrank, CEO salaries at some of these firms only grew.
In addition to compensation for Lockheed's CEO jumping from $4.2 million
in 2012 to $5.6 million
in 2018, compensation for the CEO of General Dynamics increased from $6.9 million
in 2012 to a whopping $20.7 million
in 2018.
Perpetuating the Same Old Story
This is hardly the first time that these companies have extolled their ability to create
jobs while cutting them. As Ben Freeman previously
documented for the Project On Government Oversight, these very same firms cut almost 10% of
their workforce in the six years before the BCA came into effect, even as taxpayer dollars
heading their way annually jumped by nearly 25% from $91 billion to $113 billion.
Just as then, the contractors and their advocates -- and there are many of them, given that
the weapons-making outfits spend more than $100 million on lobbying yearly,
donate tens of millions of dollars to the campaigns of members of Congress every
election season, and give millions to think tanks annually --
will rush to defend such job losses. They will, for instance, note that defense spending leads
to job growth among the subcontractors used by the major weapons firms. Yet research has
repeatedly shown
that, even with this supposed "multiplier effect," defense spending produces fewer jobs than
just about anything else the government puts our money into. In fact, it's about 50% less
effective at creating jobs than if taxpayers were simply allowed to keep their money and use it
as they wished.
As Brown University's Costs of War project has reported , "$1
billion in military spending creates approximately 11,200 jobs, compared with 26,700 in
education, 16,800 in clean energy, and 17,200 in health care." Military spending actually
proved to be the worst job creator of any federal government spending option those researchers
analyzed. Similarly, according to a report by
Heidi Garrett-Peltier of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, for every $1 million of spending on defense, 6.9 jobs are created both
directly in defense industries and in the supply chain. Spending the same amount in the fields
of wind or solar energy, she notes, leads to 8.4 or 9.5 jobs, respectively. As for the
education sector, the same amount of money produced 19.2 jobs in primary and secondary
education and 11.2 jobs in higher education. In other words, not only are the green energy and
education areas vital to the future of the country, they are also genuine job-creating
machines. Yet, the government gives more taxpayer dollars to the defense industry than all
these other government functions combined .
You don't, however, have to turn to critics of defense spending to make the case. Reports
from the industry's own trade association show that it has been shedding jobs. According to an
Aerospace Industries Association analysis
, it supported approximately 300,000 fewer jobs in 2018 than it had
reported supporting just three years earlier.
If the nation's top defense contractor and the industry as a whole have been shedding jobs,
how have they been able to consistently and effectively perpetuate the myth that they are
engines of job creation? To explain this, add to their army of lobbyists, their treasure trove
of campaign contributions, and those think tanks on the take, the famed revolving door that
sends retired government officials into the world of the weapons makers and those working for
them to Washington.
While there has always been a cozy relationship between the Pentagon and the defense
industry, the lines between contractors and the government have blurred far more radically in
the Trump years. Mark Esper, the newly minted secretary of defense, for example, previously
worked as
Raytheon's top lobbyist in Washington. Spinning the other way, the present head of the
Aerospace Industries Association, Eric Fanning , had been both
secretary of the Army and acting secretary of the Air Force. In fact, since 2008, as the
Project On Government Oversight's Mandy Smithberger found , "at least 380 high-ranking
Department of Defense officials and military officers shifted into the private sector to become
lobbyists, board members, executives, or consultants for defense contractors."
Whatever the spin, whether of that revolving door or of the defense industry's publicists,
the bottom line couldn't be clearer: if job creation is your metric of choice, Pentagon
contractors are a bad taxpayer investment. So whenever Marillyn Hewson or any other CEO in the
military-industrial complex claims that spending yet more taxpayer dollars on defense
contractors will give a jobs break to Americans, just remember their track record so far: ever
more dollars invested means ever fewer Americans employed.
I seem to recall reading repeatedly that half of the American combat troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan were private contractors hired by such upstanding companies like Blackwater as
well as much, or perhaps mostly, were the staffing in such as cooks, janitors, even drivers.
Workers doing gig work in a war zone.
The American government got to use statistical legerdemain to cut the number of Americans
fighting, dying, and being injured, which means that the official numbers of American
military casualties is a lie, but it played well in the "news" stories sound bites.
The funds to pay for the hidden forces were used to pay the inflated contracts with the
money often going more to companies' profits than in paying the workers. Sometimes, as in the
case of the "retired" combat veterans, the pay was very, very good, but too often it was
chump pay especially as the wounded did not qualify for the benefits of the military such as
long term medical care or disability payments. This last bit also reduces the long term costs
of the wars for the government as any help that they might get would be something like Social
Security.
There are probably a fair number of disabled Americans wasting away from their unofficial
military service without any of the support, problematic as it is sometimes, that the
military veterans get. Then there are the lack of survivors benefits.
And yes, many people took those jobs because they were none to be had that paid the bills,
but the companies made bank.
To be clear, it wasn't combat troops. It was logistics support which was contracted out to
Halliburton under LOGCAP. Halliburton in turn used a subsidiary and subbed it out further.
USAID and various "reconstruction" contracts further inflated the number of contractors.
The significance of participating in the "Coalition" of nations was that their citizens
would not be considered mercenaries under UN agreements. Hence everyone jumping on board for
a piece of the pie.
True, the vast majority were logistical support personnel. I was one of them, IT
services.
The layers were 3 to 5 deep, everything from laundry services and kitchen people from
Pakistan and electricians and carpenters from the Philippines. KBR made bank while paying
these people squat. And not only was KBR/Haliburton getting rich over over there, they failed
to deliver on many of the services they were paid to provide.
Oh the stories I could tell. I learned the true meaning of War Profiteering courtesy of
companies like KBR.
I thought about doing a list of just what I saw, including the illegal billed for "force
protection" mentioned in this article:
In April 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil fraud case against KBR over
the issue of using private security forces in Iraq to protect its workers and
subcontractors. Private security wasn't allowed under the LOGCAP contract because the U.S.
military was supposed to provide protection.
Not only did Haliburton/KBR bill for it, they never provided it, at least not at the
largest post there, Balad Air Base.
This article is a decent summary of the big picture, on the ground level it looked a lot
worse, including costing some their lives as a direct result of incompetence and worse.
This used to be called the "self-licking ice cream cone." These people have no morals, and
don't care about anyone but themselves. They are merchants of death.
That sweet tooth got extended once the perps could brag about drinking your
milkshake . Strange how they didn't get any cavities but the rest of the populace
did.
>>A classic example: US uniforms and boots are made in China.
New Balance, the sneaker company with a small but significant US manufacturing capability,
has been protesting this vociferously for years.
After the most recent presidential election, one of their executives told a trade
publication that they were still optimistic for the future (what else were they supposed to
say?) and said specifically that they were hopeful that the new administration would enforce
Made-in-USA rules more forcefully (which they had been saying like a mantra forever).
And you can probably guess what happened. There was a Twitter storm of people burning New
Balance sneakers. The Intercept columnist Sean King put New Balance on a list of companies to
boycott.
And that is how this particular scam-laden military empire perpetuates itself: with a fake
opposition stuffed with scams of its own. How much do you wanna bet that the current holders
of said military contracts were astroturfing this opposition?
From the article:
As Brown University's Costs of War project has reported, "$1 billion in military spending
creates approximately 11,200 jobs, compared with 26,700 in education "
This implies that a job in the MIC sector making WMD pays nearly 2.4x more than a job
educating our children. What's wrong with this picture?
Trump throws billion$ more into the "defense" budget than was requested. MIC related stock
prices seem to be doing rather well. Mr. President, what's in your portfolio?
At least we get to voice our concerns – free speech – guaranteed so far, but
that's all. One day, the Ponzi will collapse, probably sooner than we think. And who will get
blamed? None other then the POTUS, but he'll escape any legal hassle's because he'll be
diagnosed with the dreaded "DEMENTIA". Where have we heard that before.
I think the grievances of the students against the Chinese government had merit. Moreover
yielding to continuing the status quo ante or reversion to Brit colony status were not the
only possible outcomes. The former happens to be the case but things need not have gone
that way. https://www.history.com/topics/china/tiananmen-square
That's probably true, but there is often inflexibility on the part of the protesters as well,
and in cases where they believe they have international backing – spelled U.S.A.
– their demands rarely allow much room for compromise. The government must step down
and yield governing power, usually to a group of ideologues and liberal activists, and the
next step is well-known to everyone. The American 'advisers' are sent in, and state
institutions are rapidly dismantled and privatized for international investment, as happened
in Yeltsin's Russia.
In this case, the students wanted 'more democracy', and that right there suggests they
really did not have any clear goals but change.
So true. When protesters claim to want "more democracy" but cannot even define what
"democracy" means, then it's clear they don't know what they are talking about, and probably
just American stooges.
People in HK do have many grievances but many of their problems, like the insanely high
property prices, the shortage of housing for people who are not billionaires, the pollution,
the crappy infrastructure, the lack of jobs in any industry apart from buying and selling
property, the dismal job prospects of people who have been through an education system that
relies on rote learning and slaving through scads of homework, are problems arising from the
capitalist system they still retain. Unfortunately, for most of its 20-year rule since the
hand-back in 1997, the HK govt has been inept in handling most of these problems.
The thing that sparked this year's protests was the proposed extradition bill that would
establish appropriate extradition arrangements between Hong Kong and every other state or
territory that it currently does not have extradition agreements with, and this included
Mainland China, Macau and Taiwan, in the wake of the 2018 St Valentine's Day murder in which
a 20-year-old HK woman was strangled by her 19-year-old HK boyfriend while holidaying in
Taiwan, who then stuffed her body into a suitcase and left it at a train station in Taiwan
while he returned to HK. The man is currently in jail on charges relating to stealing the
woman's money after her death (he took all her ATM cards and used them) and he is due to be
freed this coming October. The HK govt has currently delayed a second reading of the
extradition bill but haven't withdrawn it entirely, which was one of the protesters'
demands.
The fact that, even after the backdown on the extradition proposal, the protesters
continued escalating their demands to the point of demanding current HK leader Carrie Lam's
removal, demonstrates that there is far more to the protesters' agenda than the extradition
proposal. Add to that the fact that protesters receive cash payments for protesting (with the
amounts jacked up if protesters destroy or damage things) and a CIA operative, Brian Kern,
has been identified as a ring-leader, and it is apparent that a Color Revolution
regime-change operation is in full swing.
The cops in Hong Kong Crown Colony were unbelievably corrupt. I worked with a former Hong
Kong policeman, a British European (the HK Crown Colony police had British senior officers
and Chinese "other ranks") who joined the force "to see the world". He was an idealist and
resigned. He could not stand the corruption that he witnessed there. His father, by the way,
was the local cop where I lived: the "village bobby", so to speak, complete with standard
issue Raleigh bicycle and cycle clips, who was a decent, friendly bloke.
With a national debt approaching $23 trillion and a trillion dollar deficit for this year
alone, Congress last week decided to double down on suicidal spending, passing a two year
budget that has the United States careening toward catastrophe. While we cannot say precisely
when the economic crash will occur, we do know that it is coming. And last week Congress
pounded down on the accelerator.
We are told that the US economy is experiencing unprecedented growth, while at the same time
the Fed is behaving as it does when we are in recession by cutting rates and dodging insults
from the President because it's not cutting fast enough. This is not economic policy –
it's schizophrenia!
But that's only the beginning.
Take what they call "national defense" spending. This is the misnomer they use to try and
convince us that pumping trillions into the military-industrial complex will make us safe and
free. Nothing could be further from the truth: probably ninety percent of the "defense" budget
is aggressive militarism and welfare for the rich.
Under this budget deal the military budget would increase to nearly $1.4 trillion for two
years. Of course that's only a fraction of real military spending, which is, all told, well
over one trillion dollars per year.
What do we get for this money? Are we safer? Not at all. We are more vulnerable than ever.
We spend billions fighting "terrorism" in Africa while terrorism has actually increased since
the creation of the US Africa Command – "AFRICOM" – in 2007. Meanwhile we continue
to spend to maintain our illegal military occupation of a large section of Syria – which
benefits terrorist groups seeking to overthrow Assad.
We're sending thousands more troops to the Middle East including basing US troops in Saudi
Arabia for the first time since 2003. Back then, even neocon Paul Wolfowitz praised our
departure from Saudi Arabia because, as he rightly stated, US troops on Saudi soil was a great
recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.
Now we've pulled out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty so that we can
deploy once-forbidden missiles on China's front door. A new arms race with China will mean a
new boon for our new Defense Secretary's former colleagues at Raytheon!
A Saudi royal, Ahmed Bin Abdul Aziz, yesterday warned against "the kingdom's involvement in a
war with Iran."
"I'd oppose the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman if he decided to join a US-British
military alliance to confront Iran," The New Khalij quoted Abdul Aziz as saying.
The brother of the Saudi King added that it was important for Riyadh to take measures to
unify the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) instead of responding to US President Donald Trump's
plans, which he described as "pushing the region to the brink of war."
"... As Aguinaldo hoped, the Philippine War tapped a rich vein of anti-imperialism. Even the Democratic Party–hardly a radical organization in the age of Jim Crow–could go a little spittle-flecked on this issue. The war was "criminal aggression," the Democratic platform charged in 1900, born of "greedy commercialism" and sure to ruin the country. "No nation can long endure half republic and half empire," it warned. "Imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home." (p. 95) ..."
"... Now, with that spotlight switched off, MacArthur just wanted it over. He issued a new set of orders. Captured insurgents could be killed. Towns supporting them could be destroyed. The preferred method was burning, and since nearly every town in the north of the Philippines was aiding the rebels in some way, every one was potentially kindling. ..."
"... The men needed little encouragement to carry out these orders. As MacArthur well knew, his soldiers regarded Filipinos not at fellow Americans, but as irksome "natives." (p. 96) ..."
Andrew Bacevich
calls for
reckoning with the consequences of American colonial empire in the Philippines:
Yet the Philippines represented an altogether different case. By no stretch of the imagination did the archipelago fall within
"our backyard." Furthermore, the Filipinos had no desire to trade Spanish rule for American rule and violently resisted occupation
by U.S. forces. The notably dirty Philippine-American War that followed from 1899 to 1902 -- a conflict almost entirely expunged
from American memory today -- resulted in something like 200,000 Filipino deaths and ended in a U.S. victory not yet memorialized
on the National Mall in Washington.
Bacevich is right when he says that the Philippine War has been "almost entirely expunged from American memory today." It is significant
that one of the only times in recent years that the Philippine War was remembered was so that it could provide fodder for the counterinsurgency
fad among pro-war pundits. Max Boot was one of the chief advocates for counterinsurgency warfare, and he has cited the brutal occupation
campaign in the Philippines as an example of how to win such wars. Greg Bankoff counted the costs of the "small war" in the Philippines
that Boot praised in his book The Savage Wars of Peace , and he
described them in this response to a positive review of the book back in 2002:
Start with the description of the war itself as "small." Granted, the United States suffered only some 7,000 casualties, dead
and wounded. But estimates of Filipino mortality range from 200,000 persons upward. This is hardly small, especially considering
that the total Filipino population at the time was around seven million. Nor is it accurate to say the war ended in 1902, unless
one accepts the terms of President Theodore Roosevelt's November 1902 Brigandage Act, which redefined any band of more than three
men as bandits and subjected them to 20 years imprisonment or the death penalty. In fact, guerrilla warfare continued until 1907,
waged by popular revolutionary leaders who refused to accept the colonial yoke anew -- men such as Luciano San Miguel (who died
on the battlefield of Corral-na-Bato in March 1903), Macario Sakay (who was hanged on September 13, 1907) and Julian Montalan
(who was sentenced to life imprisonment and exiled to Palawan until 1921). No, the war did not actually end in 1902, but the U.S.
colonial authorities conveniently branded everything subsequent to that as ladronism, simple thievery.
Bankoff warned later in the same piece that "a distorted reconstruction of that past is likely to preview an equally distorted
future." Looking back seventeen years later at our multiple protracted wars, all of them enthusiastically supported by Boot and fellow
neo-imperialists, we have to conclude that the future was horribly distorted in part by this willingness to lionize and whitewash
the Philippine War as a model for U.S. foreign policy. Like that war, our ongoing wars have inflicted horrific losses on the local
populations, they are completely divorced from the security of the United States, and the people we are fighting are fighting us
because our forces are in their country.
If Boot's distorted history has contributed to the distortion of our foreign policy, we could do worse than to begin by finding
better reconstructions of the past. Daniel Immerwahr has done some important work in studying the consequences of our colonial empire
on the people in the territories that our government took over in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His book
How to Hide an Empire recounts the history of how the U.S. obtained its overseas territories, how it abused them, and how
it has created a very different kind of empire over the last seventy years.
Immerwahr recounts some of the opposition to the Philippine War from members of the Anti-Imperialist League:
As Aguinaldo hoped, the Philippine War tapped a rich vein of anti-imperialism. Even the Democratic Party–hardly a radical
organization in the age of Jim Crow–could go a little spittle-flecked on this issue. The war was "criminal aggression," the Democratic
platform charged in 1900, born of "greedy commercialism" and sure to ruin the country. "No nation can long endure half republic
and half empire," it warned. "Imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home." (p. 95)
He also describes the tactics that U.S. forces used in the war:
Now, with that spotlight switched off, MacArthur just wanted it over. He issued a new set of orders. Captured insurgents
could be killed. Towns supporting them could be destroyed. The preferred method was burning, and since nearly every town in the
north of the Philippines was aiding the rebels in some way, every one was potentially kindling.
The men needed little encouragement to carry out these orders. As MacArthur well knew, his soldiers regarded Filipinos
not at fellow Americans, but as irksome "natives." (p. 96)
If we hope to change U.S. foreign policy and repudiate empire, we have to remember first how we acquired it and the Americans
that organized to oppose it.
P.S. Another similarity between the Philippine War and the wars of the last two decades is the length of the actual fighting.
Immerwahr writes:
Stretching from the outbreak of hostilities in 1899 to the end of military rule in Moroland in 1913, it is, after the war in
Afghanistan, the longest war the United States has ever fought. (p. 107)
Don't Underestimate Iran's Ability to Fight a Bloody War They already proved themselves against Iraq during the 1980s
-- and they're far stronger today. By
Pouya Alimagham •
August 6, 2019
Circa 1980's; an Iranian soldier wearing gas mask during Iran-Iraq War. Iraq used chemical weapons against military and civilian
targets throughout the eight year war. Declassified reports indicate that Saddam Hussein had international assistance in obtaining
the weapons, including from the U.S. and U.K, and the CIA assisted in targeting.
(Creative Commons/Wikipedia) On July 29, President Trump tweeted: "Just remember, Iranians never won a war, but never lost a
negotiation." In just 12 words, Trump leveled a multi-layered, ahistorical insult against both his predecessor, Barack Obama, and
Iran.
More importantly, the remarks betray a dangerously ignorant understanding of Iran that could result in another careless Middle
East war of choice.
The tweet invokes a clichéd, colonial-era stereotype that Iranians, like other Middle Eastern peoples, are wily swindlers -- rapacious,
greedy bazaar merchants who aim to take advantage of honest and unsuspecting Westerners. Trump is hardly the first American leader
to dabble in such denigrating stereotypes. Wendy Sherman, a senior State Department official and former lead negotiator who helped
forge the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, infamously
quipped that
Iranians could not be trusted because they have "deception in their DNA."
The president deployed the stereotype of Iranian cunning to imply that they tricked a naďve president, Barack Obama, into signing
a flawed nuclear deal. According to the world's foremost nuclear security
experts , however, the
accord was ensuring Iran's compliance, thereby preventing a nuclear weapons program -- that is, until Trump subverted the agreement
in 2018.
Advertisement
More importantly, Trump's words underscore the idea that Iranians are cowardly and militarily ineffectual, but make up for such
unflattering character flaws by swindling their foes during negotiations to achieve victory.
Iran's last war, however, should dispel any notion of cowardice and military weakness -- a history President Trump and anti-Iran
hawks like National Security Adviser John Bolton must face with clear eyes if the United States is to avoid another needless, catastrophic
war in the Middle East.
Iraq Invades Iran
In the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Iran faced one of its most vulnerable moments in modern times. During the
revolutionary upheaval, many arms depots were raided and weapons were distributed to volunteers ready to deliver the monarchy its
coup de grace .
After the watershed moment, the Revolutionary Council feared that, given the Anglo-American coup in 1953 through the Iranian military,
Iran's generals could not be trusted. The subsequent purge resulted in the decimation of the country's military leadership. Moreover,
political infighting between revolutionary factions also led to unrest. To make matters worse, militant students were fearful that
the U.S. was planning to undermine the revolution through a coup -- as it did the nationalist government of Mohammad Mossadeq in
1953 -- so they resolved to ward off any such attempts. Consequently, they seized the U.S. embassy and held its personnel hostage.
The international community responded by isolating Iran for its blatant disregard for international norms.
Capitalizing on Iran's internal post-revolutionary chaos, military disarray, and international isolation, Iraqi strongman Saddam
Hussein ordered the invasion of his neighboring rival on September 22, 1980. Shortly after, Iran's internal power struggle between
the various revolutionary factions erupted into open warfare.
So devastating was the power struggle that many of the leading personalities of the Iranian Revolution died in assassinations
and bomb blasts, including Iran's president and prime minister. Thus, the Iranian state was forced to fight on two battlefronts --
internally against its challengers and externally against Iraqi invaders. The government did not, however, collapse under the weight
of its domestic rivals and foreign aggressors. In fact, the war enlivened Charles Tilly's timeless words: "War makes states."
Iranian Resilience
The Iranian state harnessed a powerful ideology that intertwined nationalism with Islamic revolutionary zeal in order to prompt
Iranians to close rank behind it, marshaling hundreds of thousands of soldiers to liberate Iranian territory occupied by the Iraqi
military. By May 24, 1982, and after tens of thousands of deaths, Iran freed the border city of Khorramshahr after a brutal two-year
siege.
Soon after Khorramshahr's liberation, the invading Iraqis were on the defensive, and Saddam's wartime financiers, namely Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait, offered Iran a multi-billion dollar reparations package to end the war. Iran's leader refused, declaring that
the only way the war would end was with Saddam Hussein's bloody demise. He then spearheaded the conflict onto Iraqi soil for the
first time. Time captured the moment by phrasing the counter-invasion as "
Iran on the march ."
Iran Versus the World
Iraq enjoyed the support of the United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and the Arab League -- with
the exception of Syria and Libya -- and even used
chemical weapons on Iranian troops.
Yet Iran persisted despite such horrible odds, and hundreds of thousands continued to go to the battlefront knowing it was possible
that they, too, could fall victim to Iraq's horrific chemical weapons.
The violence dragged on for eight bitter years, making it the longest conventional war of the 20th century -- with an Iranian
death toll estimated between half a million to a million. To put that staggering number into perspective, the conservative estimate
exceeds the total American loss of life in World War II.
The war's conclusion was a failure in Iranian eyes, as it did not end in Saddam Hussein's overthrow and Iraqis and the region
would continue to suffer at his hands. Two years later, he refused to demobilize his million-man army to a jobless future in a war-ravaged
economy, and instead dispatched them across Iraq's border again -- this time to Kuwait.
Yet neither did Iran lose the war. In fact, it was the first conflict since the two 19th-century wars with Czarist Russia in which
Iran did not lose any territory. Above all, the country survived a genocidal conflict -- and survival was its own victory.
Iran Today
Today, Iran's population is more than double what it was in 1980 -- estimated at roughly
83 million . After lacking
military support from abroad during the Iran-Iraq War, Iran now has extensive
domestic
weapons manufacturing capabilities. Also unlike 1980, it has more allies in the region. In other words, if Iran fought so stubbornly
under such dire circumstances during the '80s, it will only fight more effectively today. It has already proven itself militarily
by coordinating the fight alongside the U.S. to defeat ISIS in Iraq while simultaneously working with Russia to help the Syrian government
win an unrelenting civil war.
The Iranian military budget may be a fraction of America's, but the Trump administration -- especially anti-Iran hawks John Bolton
and Mike Pompeo -- should consider this history and current reality objectively. If they don't, if they continue to underestimate
Iran the same way the Bush administration did with a far weaker Iraq in 2003, they risk another war of choice. Indeed, on the eve
of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney infamously
stated : "I think it will
go relatively quickly weeks rather than months." To be sure, history has been unkind to his rosy assessment.
Thinking a war with Iran will be over before it begins -- or that it will, as Senator Tom Cotton
boasted
, not require more than "two strikes, the first strike and the last strike" -- is the first step towards another needless, ruinous
war.
Pouya Alimagham is a historian of the modern Middle East at Massachusetts Institute of Technology , and
author of the forthcoming Contesting the Iranian Revolution: The Green Uprisings (Cambridge University Press). Follow him
on Twitter @iPouya .
The war in
Afghanistan has reached new levels of insanity as a UN report shows US forces are killing more
civilians than ISIS and Taliban combined.
For the last several decades, the US government has openly funded, supported, and armed various
terrorist networks throughout the world to forward an agenda of destabilization and proxy war.
It is not a secret, nor a conspiracy theory -- America arms bad guys
. The situation has
gotten so overtly corrupt that the government admitted in May the Pentagon asked Congress for
funding to reimburse terrorists for their transportation and other expenses. Seriously. But that
was just the tip of the iceberg. A new report from the United Nations shows the US and its allies
in Afghanistan have killed more innocent men, women, and children than the group they claim are the
bad guys, the Taliban.
The now 18-year-old quagmire in Afghanistan is raising serious questions and once again,
it appears that the civilians are taking the brunt of the hit -- not the ostensible enemy.
In the first six months of the year, the conflict killed nearly 1,400 civilians and wounded
about 2,400 more. Afghan forces and their allies caused 52 percent of the civilian deaths
compared with 39 percent attributable to militants -- mostly the Taliban, but also the Islamic
State. The figures do not total 100 percent because responsibility for some deaths could not be
definitively established.
The higher civilian death toll caused by Afghan and American forces comes from their greater
reliance on airstrikes, which are particularly deadly for civilians. The United Nations said
airstrikes resulted in 363 civilian deaths and 156 civilian injuries.
"While the number of injured decreased, the number of civilians killed more than
doubled in comparison to the first six months of 2018, highlighting the lethal character of this
tactic,"
the United Nations report said, referring to airstrikes.
Naturally, the US military calls this report by the UN anti-American propaganda.
"We assess and investigate all credible allegations of noncombatant casualties in this
complex environment, whereas others intentionally target public areas, use civilians as human
shields and attempt to hide the truth through lies and propaganda," Colonel Sonny Leggett, a
spokesman for the United States military, said.
The line between the ostensible "good guys" and the "bad guys" has gotten so blurred
that the good guys are now openly supporting the bad while simultaneously killing more innocent
people than the bad ones.
It's a story straight out of The Onion, but in real life.
While the idea of the US government paying to support terrorists or killing more civilians than
terrorists may seem like a crazed notion it has become so overt in recent years that legislation
was specifically introduced for the sole purpose of banning the the flow of money to terrorist
organizations.
However, given the insidious history of the American empire and its creation and fostering of
terrorist regimes across the globe, it should come as no surprise that the overwhelming majority of
politicians would refuse to sign on to a law that requires them to
'Stop
Arming Terrorists.'
And, in 2017, that is exactly what happened.
The text of the bill was quite simple and contained no hidden agendas. It merely stated that it
prohibits
the use of federal agency funds to provide covered assistance to: (1) Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh
al-Sham, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or any individual or group that is
affiliated with, associated with, cooperating with, or adherents to such groups; or (2) the
government of any country that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)
determines has, within the most recent 12 months, provided covered assistance to such a group or
individual.
The only thing the bill did was prohibit the US government from giving money and weapons to
people who want to murder Americans and who do murder innocent men, women, and children across the
globe. It is quite possibly the simplest and most rational bill ever proposed by Congress. Given
its rational and humanitarian nature, one would think that representatives would have been lining
up to show their support. However, one would be wrong and in the five months after it was proposed,
just 13 members of Congress signed on as co-sponsors.
Not only is the United States refusing to stop arming terrorists, but now they are
becoming more violent than the terrorists they claim to fight. At what point do the American people
wake up to this insanity?
Sadly, it appears that the American people couldn't care less about innocent men women and
children being slaughtered with their tax dollars on the other side of the planet. They only seem
to pay attention to the area when one of these people -- whose seen their children blown to a fine
red mist by a US drone strike -- acts out in a retaliatory way. But instead of understanding that
this is blowback caused by US foreign policy, Boobus Americanus thinks these people simply "hate
our freedom."
Terrorism is necessary for the state. War, is the health of the state.
Without the constant fear mongering about an enemy who 'hates our freedom', Americans begin
questioning things. They challenge the status quo and inevitably desire more freedom. However, when
they are told that boogeymen want to kill them, they become immediately complacent and blinded by
their fear.
While these boogeymen were once mostly mythical, since 9/11, they have been funded and supported
by the US to the point that they now pose a very real threat to innocent people everywhere. As the
horrific attacks earlier this year in Sri Lanka illustrate, terrorists are organizing and
spreading.
Terrorists groups have been exposed inside the UK as well for having ties to the British
government who allowed
them
to freely travel and train with ISIS-linked groups
because those groups were in opposition to
Muammar Gaddafi, who the West wanted to snub out.
It's a vicious cycle of creating terrorists, killing innocence, and stoking war. And,
unless something radical happens, it shows no signs of ever reversing.
The radical change that is necessary to shift this paradigm back to peace is for people to wake
up to the reality that no matter which puppet is in the White House, the status quo remains
unchanged.
Trump is proving that he can lie to get into power and his supporters ignore it. If you doubt
this fact, look at what
Trump
did by calling out Saudi Arabia for their role in 9/11
and their support for terror worldwide
prior to getting elected. He now supports these terrorists and his constituency couldn't care less.
This madness has to stop.
Humanity has to stop being fooled by rhetoric
read from teleprompters by puppets doing the bidding of their masters. If Americans aren't shaken
out of this stupor by the idea that the US military and its allies are now killing more innocent
people than the Taliban and ISIS -- combined -- perhaps
But we love them anyway. They are our heroes, bravely fighting for
our freedoms in Afghanistan. Unless we kill the Afghanis over
there, they'll come here to kill us. Sure, sometimes our boys kill
innocents, but come on, we all know there are no innocent Muslims.
Even if they're kids, they'll eventually grow up to be terrorists
so better to kill them sooner than later. USA! USA! Woof! Woof!
What kind of person, really, joins the US military today?
It was
shown long ago that the Iraq war was based upon lies. Killing
civilians, bombing hospitals, air attacks on weddings, stabbing
captured and unconscious enemy in the throat (and getting away
with it), clearly there is no threat to the US to justify the
killing ...
But the actual killers are getting a bit of a surprise. Women
are being promoted past them and over them. The PC rules are
ruining the boys club and even their language is monitored. The
officers don't give a damn other than progressing to full colonel
at least, retiring with a nice pension and then working for high
pay for the private defense companies. The killers think they
will be admired, but they are just tools and may even be pushed
out.
Interestingly, through all the US bombing and killing, the
population of Afghanistan has increased from about 19 million in
2001 to about 37 million today, nearly doubling during the
senseless US attacks on their culture and people.
Sometimes much can be learned by asking simple questions. Why?
Simple questions most often have answers. Complex questions emerge
because folks can't bear to hear the answers to the simple ones. A
simple question that would be good to ask now is. Why are we
fighting in Afghanistan?
http://quillian.net/blog/your-punishment-for-believing-lies/
"The Hong Kong-Mainland conflict reflects a huge gap in national identity. This can be
explained in part on how the nationality of most Hong Kong people was changed in 1997 from
British to Chinese.
From China's standpoint, Hong Kong had always been Chinese soil. Through 150 years of
British rule, its people remained Chinese, regardless of British law.
This fitted nicely with Britain's policy, which was to see to it that the millions of
Chinese "British citizens" in Hong Kong could not move to the United Kingdom. Nationality and
immigration laws were changed.
Britain created a new category of citizens, called British Dependent Territory Citizens, in
the 1980s. This transformed United Kingdom citizens into Hong Kong citizens. When Hong Kong was
no longer a British dependent territory, yet another new category was created, British National
(Overseas). The holder has no right to live in Britain and the citizenship cannot be passed on
to the next generation.
China, too, changed its nationality law to deal with Hong Kong. The Standing Committee of
its National People's Congress in 1996 – the year before the handover – issued
"Explanations" of how China's Nationality Law would be applied in Hong Kong. That is to say,
the law would mean different things in different parts of the country, a highly unusual legal
situation.
The "Explanations" introduce a concept missing in the nationality law itself, that of
"Chinese descent." Thus, any Hong Kong resident of Chinese descent who was born in Hong Kong or
China is a Chinese national, regardless of whether he possesses Canadian, Australian, British
or other nationality. That means people who were foreign nationals were transformed into
Chinese nationals in 1997.
China – and Britain – wanted the people as well as the territory to be
transferred wholesale. The millions of people in Hong Kong were considered nothing but
chattel.
Actually, the idea of giving the inhabitants a choice of nationality when the ownership of
land is transferred is by no means novel. In fact, it happened on Chinese territory when the
Qing dynasty ceded Taiwan to Japan in 1895 in the Treaty of Shimonoseki."
This video is circulating supposedly showing the Chinese Army about to enter Hong Kong.
Not so, it is a police ceremony to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the founding of
communist China on July 30.
Here is an article in deeper detail written by Chaohua Wang.
She was at Tiananmen in 1989, and on the short list of students wanted by the Government, but
managed to escape, eventually getting a PhD at UCLA. https://outline.com/Tdnha9
The HK situation is more interesting, i.e. worse, than it first appears. I am not sanguine
that the Colour Revolution here will be suppressed by local authorities. It is clear that the
police are loath to use anything approaching adequate force on rioters, as they will face an
unsupportive and indeed overzealous magistracy, one prepared to jail police readily, but
which will release rioters on derisory bail amounts.
In that connection, think of Andy Chan, allegedly arrested in a building full of
explosives and offensive weapons, who was promptly bailed for a mere HKD1,000 without any
restriction on leaving Hong Kong.
Effectively, the administration in HK is failing to exercise the first prerogative of a
state, that being the monopoly on the use of force. Large parts of the legislature and the
judiciary will not support the police, so they do not do their jobs beyond a highly
ineffective minimum.
In such conditions the HK government cannot survive. I think it is much more likely now
that there will be armed intervention from China. There must be. HK authorities are split and
can no longer use force as appropriate and required.
Federico Pieraccini's provides a useful review of the global Big Picture where he implies
in conclusion that Washington, London, Tel Aviv and Riyadh are understood to be the unhealthy
part of the globe by the vast majority of nations, which is the context of how we should view
Russia's Persian Gulf Collective Security proposal and the SCO & ASEAN's increasingly
collaborative security efforts reported by Escobar as linked above.
Trump continues his tree sitting on the thin unstable branches he forced himself to
occupy. One wonders what he'll do next to force himself even higher. Given NordStreaam 2's
almost finished completion, I'd expect a last-ditch sanctioning of EU nations if they use the
product it conveys.
Meanwhile, TurkStream is on schedule to begin
shipping gas in the last Q of 2019, the exact time not yet announced. Both strings, one for
Turkey another for Southeast Europe, will have a "throughput capacity of 15.75 billion cubic
meters each."
As we've seen, the desire to control energy sources has driven much conflict and underlies
Geopolitics to a large degree. The big problem already existing is the Saudis and the
animosity they have for Iran and Qatar. For those two heavily NatGas endowed nations, the
most logical destination for their product is Africa via pipeline across Saudi, under Red Sea
and emerging in Eritrea and/or Egypt. Such a project won't be undertaken until there's a
drastic change in Saudi attitude/leadership. And since Iran and Qatar face the same
distribution challenges for their product, I expect to see more joint efforts by them now
that Qatar's leadership has come to its senses.
"... Wall Street bankers funded all those 'anti colonial movements' in the first place. They wanted to deal with some corrupt brown black politician over an honest White/Japanese colonial officer. ..."
"... What many people do not know is that the after the damage done by the Great Depression (the total Wall Street take over of the US Economy and the looting of independent of American business with the help of the private 'Federal' reserve ), The British Government put restrictions on trade in between the British Empire and USA to protect the economies of Britain and all of her colonies from the Wall Street pigs. ..."
http://www.unz.com/audio/gunsbutter_the-imf-and-world-bank-partners-in-backwardness-407/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information
=>
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
List of Bookmarks
Audio Player
00:00
00:00
00:00
Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.
Michael Hudson discusses his seminal work of 1972, Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire,
a critique of how the US exploits foreign economies through IMF and World bank debt; difference between the IMF
and World Bank; World Bank dysfunctional from the outset; loans made in foreign currency only; policy to
provide loans for countries to devote their land to export plantation crops; US food and monetary imperialism;
U.S. agricultural protectionism built into the postwar global system; promotion of dependency on the US as food
supplier; food blackmail; perpetration of world poverty preferred; no encouragement of land reform;
privatization of the public domain; America aided, not foreign economies; exploitation of mineral deposits;
bribery; foreign nations politically controlled at the top; veto power for US only.
This was planned decades ago. That is why Wall Street bankers funded all those 'anti colonial movements' in the
first place. They wanted to deal with some corrupt brown black politician over an honest White/Japanese
colonial officer.
"As far as is known "America's" anti-British policy was first given concrete expression in the brief that
General Marshall took with him to the Quebec Conference in 1943.
This was to the effect that the greatest single obstacle to the expansion of America's export-capitalism after
the war would be not the Soviet Union but the British Empire. What this meant, in practical terms, was that as
soon as the enemies in the field had been disposed of would come the turn of the British Empire to be
progressively destroyed and that means to this end would be shaped even while hostilities raged. The moment
they were over the campaign could begin in real earnest, the signal for which was to be Truman's abrupt
dropping of Lend-Lease to an ally whose economy had been so closely geared to war production that many markets
for her goods had been systematically referred to U.S producers.
The British Empire was not the only ally marked down for liquidation. The Dutch Empire in the East Indies and
the French Empire in Indo-China and Africa were also high on the list "
What many people do not know is that the after the damage done by the Great Depression (the total Wall
Street take over of the US Economy and the looting of independent of American business with the help of the
private 'Federal' reserve ), The British Government put restrictions on trade in between the British Empire and
USA to protect the economies of Britain and all of her colonies from the Wall Street pigs.
In Page 22 of the book we read
"However, as has happened time and again throughout history, the money-lenders had tended to overplay their
hand. The six million German unemployed who were the victims of the "Great Depression" resulted in a formidable
revolt against the Money Power -- the revolt of Adolf Hitler. There was also a rebellion, although of a much
milder kind, in Great Britain and the British nations overseas, whose representatives met in Ottawa in 1932 to
hammer out a system of Imperial Preferences calculated to insulate the British world against Wall St.
amok-runs. These Preferences, as we shall see, incurred the unrelenting hostility of the New York Money Power
and the only reason why a show-down was not forced was the far more serious threat to the international
financial system implicit in the economic doctrines of the Third Reich."
In other words, the Wall street greedy pigs after devouring American industry came to the conclusion that
they faced a major threat from Third Reich Germany (the barter system used by the regime) as well as to a
lesser extent from the British Empire (and other Empires). Hence the war to destroy Third Reich Germany,
Japanese Empire and Italy and then after the war the eventual slow destruction of the European Empires,
especially the British Empire. And hence we suddenly see 'independence movements' sprouting all over the world
and succeeding. Even before the war we had 'independence movements' and 'communist movements' all around the
world thanks to their pet 'Soviet Russia's' agents going all around and 'radicalisng the masses', all with the
blessings of Wall Street Banker pigs.
I'm curious do you live in Britain? I would bet you do because of your relentless protection of the
British Empire. The British Empire has been working on Economic World Domination since Cecil Rhodes established
the Round Table groups. I agree with a comment you made about British citizens not being responsible for their
government's tretment of countries in the colonial era. The same can be said about the American citizen if you
place all the blame on the political class and Wall Street. But then we have to take into consideration the
benefits that the English and American citizen receive from their government's crimminal dealings. As long as
they live better than anyone else in the world, they will not protest against the hand that feed them.
This artilce (audio) uncovers the reason why America and Britian along with their Anglo Saxon partners
Canada and Australia control other country's economies. Creating poverty in other countries keeps the Anglo
Saxon countries ecomomically superiour at the expense of the poor throughout the world. If American and British
citizens stopped their government's continued assault on third world countries the immigration crisis would
end.
America and England have been dominant over other countries with the help of their Jewish partners for a
long time Malla. As you commented to me, they have married into prominent British Society. I'm sorry Malla, but
there is a Mexican saying "Tanta culpa tiene el que mata la vaca que el que detiene la pata". Translation: "The
person that holds the cows feet is as guilty as the one that kills it". Meaning when you unknowingly
participate in a crime you are just as responsible as the one commiting it.
It's hard for decent Americans and British people to see themselves as perpitrators of such horrible
injustices because most of them are very warm and loving Christian people I'm sure. But so are the people of
the countries their government target. Until people stop looking at the problems we are all facing as a
Christian/Muslim – White/Black – High IQ/Low IQ problem, things will only get worse. The real problem as I see
it is a Social Class problem as we can see by this article. The Elites have no problem helping Blacks and other
races as long as they are the Rich Elites. The lower class people can starve white, black, brown, etc. it
doesn't matter just another day in the life of a parasite.
The problem as I see it, can only be solved by the "White" people that are socially below the Elites in
power and take it away from them. The reason why I say that is because history tells us that when the Social
underclass revolts against the oppressor government as so many have in Latin America, the U.S. send their
military to help the crimminal leaders and the people are murdered. The problem needs to be stopped at the
source or else nothing can change. We can talk about the Jews till we're bloe in face, but it is clear as to
who is responsible
@Malla
I am so surprised there are only 2 comments on this article! This is the most important information on this
site I like your comments Malla, you're a very smart Lady me I'm just a Rebel that hates bullies with a
passion! Some of my comments are very rough around the edges depending on the level of racism and ignorance the
commentator writes. But, always respectful to the opposite sex. Thanks for engaging Have a nice day.
Very impressive interview. Indeed, it is shocking when all piracy strategies are put together the brilliante
way Professor Hudson does. A lecture for everybody.
We can talk about the Jews till we're bloe in face, but it is clear as to who is responsible
Who do you think is behind British and American Imperialism? As per Ron Unz's findings, who was behind
Bolshevism? Regarding social and political control, there is always a Zionist element. Look at the World Bank,
the CFR, the Chabad Lubavitch presence behind Netanyahu, Putin and Trump. Look at media, music and education.
What about the Warburgs both in the United States and in Nazi Germany.
https://www.onjewishmatters.com/archives/18428
John Ruskin was the mentor of Cecil Rhodes at Oxford University. Cecil Rhodes was a member of the "Society
of the Elect" along with Rothschild. ( See pg. 311
http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf
) Rothschild proud founder of the
state of israel. Below are photos of John Ruskin's grave. Why is there a Swastika placed between 1819 and 1900?
Also, why is there a Menorah on his headstone? "The seven branch menorah was used in the ancient temple of
Jerusalem The menorah is part of the coat of arms of the modern State of Israel." –
https://www.judaicawebstore.com/7-branched-menorahs-C918.aspx
Creating poverty in other countries keeps the Anglo Saxon countries ecomomically superiour at the expense
of the poor throughout the world. If American and British citizens stopped their government's continued
assault on third world countries the immigration crisis would end.
I disagree completely. In most brown black countries, the people themselves exploit each other and cause all
the screw ups. Most people here in India (poor or rich) cheat, swindle and ruthlessly exploit others. Of course
you have the IMF gang hovering around for their loot but they are not the main factor in many third world
countries.
Thank you Bonnie for asking the perfect questions and thank you Michael for your ever
incisive and brilliantly clear answers. Together this interview is the perfect Predatory Economics 101 for
ordinary people, i.e. the Bonnie & Michael course
I write this from Athens Greece in 2019, 3 days after our US educated (Harvard & Stanford) oligarchical
class has just been voted back into power with a parliamentary majority in bone-headed but fully deserved
reaction to Tsipras the fake left traitor. Very sad and very silly since Greece is a 100% captive colony of EU
/ Washington. The only upside is that with the Trotskyists out Greeks will be able to keep our icons and our
Orthodoxy, something we shall need more than ever.
The current situation is a direct analogy with Euromaydan. And the relevant question is who
"Luovochkin" in case of Hong Cong color revolution? How many high level Hong Kong politicians
were bought by the US and UK embassies and Taiwan clandestine network ?
The hidden goal might well be to impose sanction on China based on the " violation of human
rights" like the USA regime did with Russia after EuroMaydan.
Provoking direct intervention may be the intent here. Few jurisdictions anywhere would
tolerate mob attacks on legislature buildings or police stations. Donning body armour and
throwing bricks at police gets one labelled a domestic terrorist in the USA. The HK police
have been remarkably restrained to this point, particularly compared to similar actions in,
say, France.
The protest movement succeeded in achieving its immediate demand - the shelving of the
extradition law - and is now motivated by more amorphous grievances. If much of the
motivation is the desire to retain a degree of independence from the mainland, then engaging
in insurrectionary violence directed at governmental institutions is precisely a way to
achieve the exact opposite. In that context, the influence of malign interests seeking to
provoke the CCP into a TIannemen-like crackdown is an understandable supposition.
China will not intervene unless there is pro-independence armed insurgency, like what
happened in Tibet in 1959. The Chinese government does not have to worry about contagion
either, because most mainland Chinese either doesn't care or they oppose the protest. In
fact, most
Hongkongers probably also oppose the protest. The Chinese and Hong Kong governments will
wait the protest to run it course and use it as a cautionary tale for future protests,
because such movement eventually hurts Hong Kong's economy and its own bottom line.
that is the wrong way to describe it! the chinese do not recognise (quite rightly) hong
kong borders. if the hong kongers choose to play up then they will be put down just as you
describe.
The Hong Kong police has so far done little against the rioters. Few have been arrested. It
can still up its response by several grades.
The tactic for now is to let the rioters expose themselves as what they are. The
typical Hong Konger want to mind their business and dislike having it disturbed by some
unruly students. They back the police.
When the time is ripe the police will pick off the leaders of the riots and do them
in.
While Hong Cong people, especially working and middle class might have legitimate grievances, The USA poison and exploits for
pretty nefarious purposes any protest converting it into anti-government action organized and financed by foreign sources.
Trump promised isolationalist foreign policy. He folded and his policy does not differ much from Obama administration policy.
I wonder if this is propaganda or not that some civil servants jointed the protest. In any case the carrot of emigration to Taiwan
might work for some.
Vandalizing vehicles and destroying commerce will not fare well with the majority of population, so in a way the protesters already
alienated themselves from the people of Hong Kong and clearly represent foreign interests.
Chinese "officials also recently described the US as a "black hand" behind the anti-Beijing protests - which began over a proposed
extradition bill - something which the US state department dismissed as "ridiculous". " But why they were unable to prevent those riots
despite previous exprince needs to be investigated. Probably like in EuroMaydan some Hong Kong officials changed sides.
Analogies with EuroMaydan clashes with police in the center of Kiev are evident if you want the videos. Looks like the "fighters"
(which is a tiny percentage of protesters) are well trained to play the role of shock troops. Analogies with EuroMaydan are evident
in a way they use the improvised body armor and the way they use inflammable liquids
There is also strong analogy in demands: "Protesters are also demanding that the government look into allegations of police abusing
their power, as well as a full withdrawal of the extradition bill, which has only been suspended for now. They are also demanding that
all arrested protesters be exonerated , along with the implementation of universal sufferage and that the government stop referring
to their demonstrations as riots. "
Protesters could be seen hurling bricks at the Mong Kok province police station, while others vandalized walls, vehicles and lamp
posts .
Protesters could be seen hurling bricks at the Mong Kok province police station, while others vandalized walls, vehicles and lamp
posts .
A day after thousands of civil servants took to the streets in Central to urge authorities to give in to protesters' demands,
people gathered on Saturday for an approved rally in the shopping hub of Mong Kok, but which soon splintered off into different directions
, ending in clashes in Mong Kok and Tsim Sha Tsui as police used tear gas.
Outside Tsim Sha Tsui Police Station, some had hurled bricks into its car park , while others vandalised vehicles and lamp posts.
The force said it had issued a warning for the crowd to leave before firing rounds of tear gas.
Earlier, protesters marched all the way to the Cross-Harbour Tunnel, briefly blocking it and bringing traffic to a halt, before
circling back to Mong Kok and Tsim Sha Tsui. Along sections of the main thoroughfare Nathan Road, some set up barricades and geared
up with helmets and masks as night fell. -
SCMP
According to reports, thousands of civil servants have defied government orders not to join the protests - and were met with applause
from Hong Kong residents as they took to major roads in the heart of the city's business district.
The protestors were warned peaceful or not as these constant riots have been destroying businesses as people simply will not
shop under such conditions. The fact is there is no reason for the protests accept to remove the HK government and destroy the
economy as the extradition agreement has been removed. This has nothing to do with democracy or communism but of the US forcing
China to open up their markets just as Briton did with the Opium Wars in 1841. HK is in fact a Chinese territory and has been
all along even though the Brits forced them to sign over the place after the first Opium War. It is no accident we have protests
there, in Venezuela and now in Moscow all US and British backed.
The Chinese have more patience than me as I would have set in the military the first day of protests after the HK gov announced
the extradition treaty was gone. The fact is the Chinese did not have to ask for one in the first place as it is and always has
been theirs.
Do you think the British had ask for one when they took control of all their colonies years ago? How about the US with all
theirs territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc.
Do you think the people of Hawaii had a choice when statehood was forced on them and the removal of the royal family there
all because of Dole Pineapple, US Sugar, etc. Bringing democracy to the world!
43,000 marchers -- 17,000 U.S. World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups -- who gathered in Washington, D.C.
in the summer of 1932 to demand cash-payment redemption of their service certificates. Organizers called the demonstrators the
"Bonus Expeditionary Force". General McArthur ordered Patton to roll out tanks to machine gun down his own former soldiers on
Pennsylvania Ave.
If this is happening in the US, police has already opened fire at the protesters for sure. Because they will be labeled as
domestic terrorists and killed.
A time to reflect on history of ones own imperfections. Approximately 250,000 people participated in this 1963 civil rights
march in DC, where Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I have a Dream" speech.
Between 500,000 and 600,000 people demonstrated against the Vietnam War in DC, which had led to thousands of deaths by 1969.
Coalitions started organizing smaller rallies in 1967, eventually leading up to the large anti-Vietnam march two years later.
The Solidarity Day march was a rally of about 260,000 people in DC in 1981. It was in response to President Ronald Reagan's
decision to fire 12,000 air traffic controllers who went on strike and demanded wage increases and safer working conditions.
In 1982, around a million protestors filled Central Park to protest nuclear weapons during Ronald Reagan's presidency.
This 1987 protest (also known as "the Great March") drew around 200,000 people, The New York Times reported at the time.
The march called for federal money for AIDS research and treatment, as well as an end to discrimination against LGBT people.
In 1995, Washington, DC's Million Man March took place with a stated aim to unite the Black community. Estimates for the number
of attendees vary from 400,000 to 1.1 million people.
Between 800,000 and a million people marched on the National Mall in 1993 for LGBT rights. The organizers' primary demands
were civil rights bills against discrimination, an increase in AIDS research funding, and reproductive rights.
In 1997, two years after the Million Man March, anywhere from 500,000 to 2 million people convened for the Million Woman March.
The event, which was held on a rainy Saturday in 1997, included prayer, musical performances, and speeches by local organizers
and civil rights activists.
As a protest to George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, between 10 to 15 million people marched in 600 cities across the
world in 2003. At least 500,000 people protested in American cities, including New York City, Los Angeles, and Seattle.
In 2004, the March for Women's Lives was one of the largest pro-choice protests in American history, with between 500,000 and
1.1 million attendees.
A day after Trump's inauguration, approximately half a million people protested in the Women's March in Washington DC, making
it one of the largest one-day protests in American history. Nationwide, an estimated 4.2 million came out for sister marches in
over 600 cities.
The effort also extended internationally with marches in over 60 countries on every continent -- including Antarctica.
"We must create a society in which women -- including Black women, Native women, poor women, immigrant women, disabled women,
Muslim women, lesbian queer and trans women -- are free and able to care for and nurture their families, however they are formed,
in safe and healthy environments free from structural impediments," its organizers wrote.
BTW, it has become very clear to me that the US withdrawal from the JCPOA with Iran was
co-ordinated with the western European signatories (France, United Kingdom, Germany and EU)
so that "maximum pressure" can be maintained on Iran while F/UK/DE/EU do nothing to honour
their commitments at the same time making it appear that it's Iran in breach rather than the
US/F/UK/DE/EU.
Iran is aware of this and taking action to ensure its preservation . War is coming and
F/UY/DE/EU will be involved on the side of the Great Satan.
One of Neoliberalism's assets as Hudson explains is "Intellectual Property" which is
another rent-seeking economic segment and part of Trump's Unilateral Pirate Ship. I think
you'll benefit from this Hudson paper detailing Cold War
2.0:
"The objective is to gain financial control of global resources and make trade 'partners'
pay interest, licensing fees and high prices for products in which the United States enjoys
monopoly pricing 'rights' for intellectual property. A trade war thus aims to make other
countries dependent on U.S.-controlled food, oil, banking and finance, or high-technology
goods whose disruption will cause austerity and suffering until the trade 'partner'
surrenders."
The Empire's dilemma is it's made education costs so high it can't get the domestic talent
it requires to continue its rapidly diminishing technological superiority, thus the need for
"more allies to bypass Huawei"--note the word usage, "bypass", not compete with or surpass,
the connotation being its removal as a rival, thus continuing dependency on US-based
tech.
Not entirely unrelated is my comment to vk at 8 above. The Outlaw US Empire is most
certainly classified as a Complex Society that tries to solve its problems with ever more
complex solutions that eventually lead to negative returns that further complicate the
problem. (Listen to the podcast
here by Joseph Tainter, author of The Collapse Of Complex Societies , where you
can also download a pdf copy!) With the USAF and the military as a whole, increasing amounts
of money are thrown at ever increasingly complex weapons systems yet performance in all
sectors deteriorates while the ability to recruit also degrades. The problems are widely
written about and are often cited here. And as we see with Iran and other examples, elegant
simplicity can defeat multilayered complexity. But Imperial policy makers continue to
double-down which further increases the complexity of the situation. Ouch!!
@ # 41 > "With the USAF and the military as a whole, increasing amounts of money are
thrown at ever increasingly complex weapons systems yet performance in all sectors
deteriorates while the ability to recruit also degrades. The problems are widely written..."
Indeed, Ruskie General recently remarked specific to electronic countermeasures/jammers
that the more complex they are, the easier they are to confound or defeat.
The general principle operates in all realms.
I did make a note of the guy's name...but it is obvious, isn't it? I mean one has only to
look...
"... Since the beginning of the yellow vest protests end of november 2019 there have been made 11000 arrests,without proof,it's the police that decides.There are 2000 condemnations of people that never were known to be outside the law. The arrested people are kept in a small cell ,with up to twenty persons,without sanitary equipment, stinking piss, and maybe released after 24 hours. The Order of French Lawyers sais it has nothing to do with exercising justice, when after such a confinement you must chose to accept or refuse "comparution immediate", thus to accept being judged immediately, with a lawyer appointed, who has no time to study your file, or staying in detention for maybe months, to prepare your trial. ..."
"... There have been 4000 injuries,300 grave injuries, like head injuries, losing hands, comas, 26 people lost an eye. (While Macron and his ministers are concerned about the health of Navalny, they say bluntly that- those injuries are all fault of the protestors, who'd better stay home.) ..."
I would like to point to the following article ,for those who read French and are interested
in the policies of the Macron regime towards protests from french citizens.
It appeared on the
website Agoravox, which offers a forum for anyone wanting to write and publish. Of course there
are regular authors that publish on one specific subject, like Ukraine, or the Empire, but if
you want- to write about gardening, or climate change ,you can do it.
At the moment there is
even an article of some Iranian defending MEK, and an emirati author, gives always a
hallugenic view on middle-eastern events.
Anyways,this article provides a lot of information about the violence that is bestowed
upon the protesting citizen,by an unleashed police force,who becomes more and more violent
beacause of its uncountability.Whenever there is enquiry,it is police enquiring police.
Since the beginning of the yellow vest protests end of november 2019 there have been made
11000 arrests,without proof,it's the police that decides.There are 2000 condemnations of
people that never were known to be outside the law. The arrested people are kept in a small
cell ,with up to twenty persons,without sanitary equipment, stinking piss, and maybe released
after 24 hours. The Order of French Lawyers sais it has nothing to do with exercising
justice, when after such a confinement you must chose to accept or refuse "comparution
immediate", thus to accept being judged immediately, with a lawyer appointed, who has no time to
study your file, or staying in detention for maybe months, to prepare your trial.
There have been 4000 injuries,300 grave injuries, like head injuries, losing hands, comas, 26
people lost an eye. (While Macron and his ministers are concerned about the health of
Navalny, they say bluntly that- those injuries are all fault of the protestors, who'd better
stay home.)
Police make a lavish use of LBD granade lancers, a weapon of war class A2 according
to international standards. France is the only european country that uses them, and the Swiss
manufacturer needed a derogation to export them.
There have been 19000 shots of LBD and 4000
grenades fired.
The death of Zaynab Ridouane,in Marseille,a lady 82 years,on the second floor of her
appartment, who was closing the volets of her window when two shots were deliberately
fired. The enquiry said she died of heart failure.
The death of Steve Maya Caniço, which
is now focused upon in the media, was caused,on the day of la fête de la musique, when a
police charge drove 14 people assisting a techno concert at 4 A.M on the quai of the Loire
right into the river, after falling down seven meters.
The young man, who couldnt swim drowned
and his corpse was found last week. Police inquiry sais he was drowned but not in relation to
the police charge. Now the prefect of Nantes has prohibited a memory march for Steve. At the
same time white collar criminals like tax evading ministers are still walking
free. Officials, ministers and Macronist party representatives are lying all the time
now, rarely confounded in MSM.
The author's main point, I think he is right,is that Macron has to fulfill the
recommendations of the European Council, a.k.a. GOPE(Grand Orientations de la Politique
Economique) like his predecessors Sarkozy and Hollande, and that in view of the protests to
come he is doubling down on state violence to put fear in the citizens so that they will stay
home.
Of course the media in France, who put Macron in power, and 95% of which are owned by a
handful of billionaires and weapon industrials, are minimizing protestors in numbers and
legitimacy.,in the same time worrying about Russian and Chinese state violence towards
Putin-contestot no.1 Navalny and HongKong protesters.
The GOPE are actually the directives that would completely abolish all the post-war social
achievements of the french people.After the war de Gaulle and the communists put on a welfare
system pensions, and other social and equal laws.
Since the fall of the USSR they are
demolishing it, bit by bit. Now the GOPE for 2019 show this:diminishing of social spending,and
public spending.Gains in efficiency,etc.There is also the pension reform coming up.
Violence is the last resort of Macron and his fascist clique to get those thçngs
done, and with less than 15% population support you can reign the world in France.
Where will it all end? Suicide among police man have reached 45 cases this year up till
now, more than last year's total. This is not getting away by itself.
The young man,who couldnt swim drowned and his corpse was found last week.Police inquiry
sais he was drowned but not in relation to the police charge.Now the prefect of Nantes has
prohibited a memory march for Steve.
The situation in France needs a lot more exposure. It seems the prohibition was
unsuccessful, there is a big march ongoing (video)
Events in Hong Kong may be less about extradition laws and more about the upcoming election
in Taiwan, where the two main candidates are largely identified with either the mainland or
the USA. Using the HK protests to provoke a harsh reaction from the HK authorities and/or the
Chinese government itself, provides a ready platform for the pro-American candidate. In light
of this, the protests will likely continue indefinitely, including violent acts designed to
provoke over-reaction.
Scott interviews Gareth Porter about John Bolton's most recent efforts to raise tensions
with Iran. He and Scott speculate about Iran's ability to disrupt international trade in the
region by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, and the likelihood that they would do so given
the risks of inciting more serious conflict as a result.
According to Tim Taylor we should save some of that sand. Maybe sand will be the next oil for
funding ME dictators.
Hey, everyone loves a parade and what's a parade without tanks? If gives us something in
common with the commies. On the one hand, this is a paranoid world and on the other hand,
people love to see stuff get blown up. Battling against empire is an uphill battle with a
long historical track record of failures so obscure that mostly no one has even ever heard of
them. I guess if someone is committed to fighting a losing battle then they might as well go
for losing big.
[Good to know. Thanks. Do you think that finite (made from desert sand) will eventually be
formulated to last long enough for general construction use?]
Finite: a more sustainable alternative to concrete made from desert sand
26 March 2018
Sand is worldwide in high demand and heavily used in many industries, especially
construction. With deserts full of it, one can easily be fooled into thinking that sand is an
almost infinite resource. However, desert sand has little use; the grains are too smooth and
fine to bind together, so it is not suitable for the making of for instance concrete. The
start-up Finite, founded by researchers from Imperial College London, created a material
composite made with desert sand that serves as a more sustainable alternative to
concrete.
The supply of construction-grade sand is dwindling worldwide. This type of sand is
stripped from beaches and riverbeds, but because of the heavy use, the supply is diminishing
rapidly. Desert sand, on the other hand, is plentiful. This sand is not used in construction,
as its grains are too smooth and fine to bind together for building materials.
The newly developed composite makes use of desert sand and "other abundant fine powders
that traditionally have no use". According to the inventors, Finite can be turned into
structures that have the same strength as housing bricks and residential concrete.
The material is more environmentally friendly than concrete, with a concrete footprint
that is less than half that of concrete. Unlike concrete, which must be either downcycled or
sent to the landfill at the end of its life, the new material can easily be reused as it can
be remoulded for multiple lifecycle uses. The material can be coloured using natural
dyes.
Finite can be used in desert areas, made with local sand rather than imported concrete.
For now, the material is only suitable for temporary constructions, after which the material
can be reused or left to decompose. For permanent structures, the material still has to pass
rounds of testing and regulations...
OSLO (Reuters) - Greenland could start to export sand in a rare positive spinoff from
global warming that is melting the island's vast ice sheet and washing large amounts of
sediment into the sea, scientists said on Monday.
Mining of sand and gravel, widely used in the construction industry, could boost the
economy for Greenland's 56,000 population who have wide powers of self-rule within Denmark
but rely heavily on subsidies from Copenhagen.
By mining sand, "Greenland could benefit from the challenges brought by climate change," a
team of scientists in Denmark and the United States wrote in the journal Nature
Sustainability.
The study, headlined "Promises and perils of sand exploitation in Greenland", said the
Arctic island would have to assess risks of coastal mining, especially to fisheries.
Rising global temperatures are melting the Greenland ice sheet, which locks up enough
water to raise global sea levels by about seven meters (23 ft) if it ever all thawed, and
carrying ever more sand and gravel into coastal fjords.
"You can think of it (the melting ice) as a tap that pours out sediment to the coast,"
said lead author Mette Bendixen, a researcher at the University of Colorado's Institute of
Arctic and Alpine Research.
Worldwide demand for sand totaled about 9.55 billion tonnes in 2017 with a market value of
$99.5 billion and is projected to reach almost $481 billion in 2100, driven by rising demand
and likely shortages, the study said.
"As you be muche the worse. and I cast awaie.
An yll wynde, that blowth no man to good, men saie.
Wel (quoth he) euery wind blowth not down the corn
I hope (I saie) good hap [luck] be not all out worn." - John Heywood - 1546
Biden and Sanders, Behaving Badly
A bad-faith debate over health care coverage.
By Paul Krugman
Health care was a key factor in Democrats' victory in the 2018 midterm elections, and it
should be a big plus in 2020 as well. The shared Democratic position -- that every legal
resident should have access to affordable care, regardless of income or health status -- is
immensely popular. The de facto Republican position -- that we should go back to a situation
in which those whose jobs don't come with health benefits, or who suffer from pre-existing
medical conditions, can't get insurance -- is so unpopular that G.O.P. candidates
consistently lie about their own proposals.
But right now, two of the major contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, Joe
Biden and Bernie Sanders, are having an ugly argument about health care that could hurt the
party's chances. There are real, important differences between the two men's policy
proposals, and it's fine to point that out. What's not fine is the name-calling and false
assertions. Both men are behaving badly. And for their party's sake, and their country's,
they need to stop it.
Let's back up. There are, broadly speaking, two ways a country can try to achieve
universal health insurance. One is single-payer: The government simply pays the bills. The
other retains a role for private insurance but relies on a combination of regulations and
subsidies to ensure that everyone gets covered.
We don't have to speculate about how these systems would work in practice, because every
advanced country except the U.S. has some form of universal coverage. Some, like Canada and
Britain, use single-payer (in Britain the government also operates the hospitals and pays the
doctors). Others, like Switzerland and the Netherlands, have a large role for private
insurers.
The clean little secret of health care is that both approaches work when countries try to
make them work. In fact, we can see both systems at work right here in America.
More than 100 million Americans are covered by Medicare or Medicaid, which are both
single-payer programs; despite Ronald Reagan's ominous warnings back in 1961, neither
destroyed American freedom. Since 2014, millions more have been covered by the Affordable
Care Act, which was underfunded and has been subject to extensive Republican sabotage;
nonetheless, states like California that have tried to make the act work have experienced
huge declines in the number of residents without insurance.
Which brings us back to the Democratic quarrel.
Sanders, of course, has made Medicare for All his signature proposal. Could such a plan
work? Absolutely. But there are two valid criticisms of his proposal.
First, it would have to be paid for with higher taxes. While many people would find the
increased tax burden offset by lower premiums, the required tax increases would be daunting.
And while Sanders has in fact proposed a number of new taxes, independent estimates say that
the revenue they'd generate would fall far short of what his plan would cost.
Second, the Sanders plan would require that roughly 180 million Americans give up their
current private insurance and replace it with something different. Persuading them that this
would be an improvement, even if true, would be a tall order. Indeed, there's good reason to
believe that eliminating the option of retaining private insurance would be an electoral
loser. (Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, take heed.)
On the other side, Biden is proposing to build on Obamacare. That can sound like tinkering
at the edges. But his actual plan is much bigger and better than is widely realized, with
large increases in funding, a public option, and more. It would, arguably, bring the A.C.A.
close to the standards of successful European systems.
That said, the Biden plan would preserve the crazy-quilt, Rube Goldberg aspects of our
current system, which impose a lot of unnecessary costs and make it too easy for people to
fall through the cracks.
So there's plenty of room for a good-faith Sanders-Biden argument. Unfortunately, that's
not the argument they're having.
Instead, Sanders is arguing that only single-payer can purge "corporate greed" from the
system -- an assertion belied by European experience -- and broadly hinting that Biden is in
the pocket of corporate interests. That's a criticism you can level about some of Biden's
past policy positions, like his advocacy of the 2005 bankruptcy law. But it's not a fair
criticism of a health plan that's actually pretty good, and which most people would have
considered radical just a few years ago.
For his part, Biden is declaring that the Sanders plan would undermine Medicare. In fact,
it would enhance current recipients' benefits. And it's a bad sign that Biden, who poses as
Obamacare's great defender, is using a G.O.P. scare tactic familiar from the utterly
dishonest campaign against the A.C.A. No Democrat should be stooping to that level.
Unfortunately, Biden and Sanders will be appearing on different nights during the next
Democratic debates. So it will be up to other candidates, or the moderators, to put them on
the spot. It's time for both men to stop poisoning their own party's well.
It may get ugly if Sanders points to the elephant in the room......
US remains, and Obamacare did nothing to alter it, the only "developed" country where
establishments that finance the health of human beings are run as profit generating
businesses.
Medicare is a bad model for health care because its based on a piece work production system,
ie, payment only for doing medical work, and no payment for preventing preventable medical
treatment.
For example, prescribing opiates repeatedly was paid for each and every time, but working
to not prescribe opiates is not.
And now getting people off it opiate addiction is paid for, but not working with patients
to prevent addiction to opiates.
Thanks to Nixon, a number of very good HMOs were created and required to be options in
employer benefit programs, in NH, this resulted in half of all NH residents picking the HMO
Mathew Thornton health plan over BCBS which in 1970 covered 80% of NH residents. The HMO only
had clinics covering only 60-70% of the population while BCBS paid almost any doctor in the
four state region.
MTHP was extremely well liked. It provided great health care. Doctors ran it, not bean
counters. Doctors didn't need to invent diseases to get paid for spending time with
patients.
But Bernie has stated that HMOs are bad because they seek to not provide medical
treatments, as if health care is about making patients suffer both illnesses and then the
treatments.
HMOs operate on the Deming model. Design the system for high quality so less work is
required, thus lower cost to deliver the best outcome, whether a qualty car, walkman, TV,
health.
Coming from Krugman, with a view of how he trashed Bernie's plan on behalf of Hillary in
2016, this is pretty rich.
I guess it's up to Krugman to decide when it's OK to behave badly
And then he attacks Bernie's plan: people won't want to pay more in taxes to fund Medicare
for All. Nowhere is it mentioned that the taxes would be in lieu of insurance premiums and as
we all know (!!!) people are just delighted to pay those insurance companies because, you
know it's better to be ripped off by private enterprise than to pay taxes for real insurance
coverage with no deductibles and co-pays!!!
Krugman just can't seem to wean himself of those industry talking points
"And while Sanders has in fact proposed a number of new taxes, independent estimates say that
the revenue they'd generate would fall far short of what his plan would cost."
Mealy-mouthed way of saying that Sanders is lying.
It seems that Krugman is programmed to object strenuously to anything that does not preserve
the inefficient, Rube Goldberg health insurance system were have in place today. And here I
thought that economists were all about efficiency!!!
I guess industry talking points override efficiency!!!
Deficit Man and the 2020 Election
The Trump bump probably peaked too early.
By Paul Krugman
I've seen a number of people suggest that the 2020 election will be a sort of test: Can a
sufficiently terrible president lose an election despite a good economy? And that is, in
fact, the test we'd be running if the election were tomorrow.
On one side, Donald Trump wastes no opportunity to remind us how awful he is. His latest
foray into overt racism delights his base but repels everyone else. On the other side, he
presides over an economy in which unemployment is very low and real G.D.P. grew 3.2 percent
over the past year.
But the election won't be tomorrow, it will be an exhausting 15 months from now. Trump's
character won't change, except possibly for the worse. But the economy might look
significantly different.
So let's talk about the Trump economy.
The first thing you need to know is that the Trump tax cut caused a huge rise in the
budget deficit, which the administration expects to hit $1 trillion this year, up from less
than $600 billion in 2016. This tidal wave of red ink is even more extraordinary than it
looks, because it has taken place despite falling unemployment, which usually leads to a
falling deficit.
Strange to say, none of the Republicans who warned of a debt apocalypse under President
Barack Obama have protested the Trump deficits. (Should we put Paul Ryan's face on milk
cartons?) For that matter, even the centrists who obsessed over federal debt during the Obama
years have been pretty quiet. Clearly, deficits only matter when there's a Democrat in the
White House.
Oh, and the imminent fiscal crisis people like Erskine Bowles used to warn about keeps not
happening: Long-term interest rates remain very low.
Now, the evidence on the effects of deficit spending is clear: It gives the economy a
short-run boost, even when we're already close to full employment. If anything, the growth
bump under Trump has been smaller than you might have expected given the deficit surge,
perhaps because the tax cut was so badly designed, perhaps because Trump's trade wars have
deterred business spending.
For now, however, Deficit Man is beating Tariff Man. As I said, we've seen good growth
over the past year.
But the tax cut was supposed to be more than a short-run Keynesian stimulus. It was sold
as something that would greatly improve the economy's long-run performance; in particular,
lower corporate tax rates were supposed to lead to a huge boom in business investment that
would, among other things, lead to sharply higher wages. And this big rise in long-run growth
would supposedly create a boom in tax revenues, offsetting the upfront cost of tax cuts.
None of this is happening. Corporations are getting to keep a lot more of their profits,
but they've been using the money to buy back their own stock, not raise investment. Wages are
rising, but not at an extraordinary pace, and many Americans don't feel that they're sharing
in the benefits of a growing economy.
And this is probably as good as it gets.
I'm not forecasting a recession. It could happen, and we're very badly positioned to
respond if it does, but the more likely story is just a slowdown as the effects of the
deficit splurge wear off. In fact, if you believe the "nowcasters" (economists who try to get
an early read on the economy from partial data), that slowdown is already happening. For
example, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York believes that the economy's growth was down to
1.5 percent in the second quarter.
And it's hard to see where another economic bump can come from. With Democrats controlling
the House, there won't be another big tax cut. The Fed may cut interest rates, but those cuts
are already priced into long-term interest rates, which are what matter for spending, and the
economy seems to be slowing anyway.
Which brings us back to the 2020 election.
Political scientists have carried out many studies of the electoral impact of the economy,
and as far as I know they all agree that what matters is the trend, not the level. The
unemployment rate was still over 7 percent when Ronald Reagan won his 1984 landslide; it was
7.7 percent when Obama won in 2012. In both cases, however, things were clearly getting
better.
That's probably not going to be the story next year. If we don't have a recession,
unemployment will still be low. But economic growth will probably be meh at best -- which
means, if past experience is any guide, that the economy won't give Trump much of a boost,
that it will be more or less a neutral factor.
And on the other hand, Trump's awfulness will remain.
Republicans will, of course, portray the Democratic nominee -- whoever she or he may be --
as a radical socialist poised to throw the border open to hordes of brown-skinned rapists.
And one has to admit that this strategy might work, although it failed last year in the
midterms. To be honest, I'm more worried about the effects of sexism if the nominee is a
woman -- not just the sexism of voters, but that of the news media, which still holds women
to different standards.
But as far as the economy goes, the odds are that Trump's deficit-fueled bump came too
soon to do him much political good.
Right, zero inflation, just housing prices going up 10% per year.
Hey, you are getting richer as the house you can't buy because your savings and income
isn't rising faster than 10% per year so you can finally go into debt and then do cash out
refis so you have a constant 80% debt in rising "wealth".
Constantly increasing debt on constantly incressing "wealth" is not inflation.
Just keep saying "there is no inflation, just higher living costs".
The "Aging Crisis" Is Actually Just a Labor Crisis for the Wealthy
By Dean Baker
The New York Times told us * last week that China is running out of people. That might
seem an odd concern for a country with a population of more than 1.4 billion, but you can
read it for yourself:
"Driving this regression in women's status is a looming aging crisis, and the relaxing of
the draconian 'one-child' birth restrictions that contributed to the graying population. The
Communist Party now wants to try to stimulate a baby boom."
What exactly is supposed to be China's "aging crisis?" China has had a low birth rate for
the last four decades, as the government consciously tried to slow the country's population
growth. As a result, it does have an aging population and a declining ratio of workers to
retirees, but this raises the obvious question, "So what?"
We see endless news articles and columns implying that the prospect of a declining number
of workers supporting a growing population of retirees is some sort of crisis. The people
making such assertions really need some knowledge of demographics.
The United States and other wealthy countries have been seeing drops in the ratio of
workers to retirees for many decades. In the U.S. case, we went from having 5.1 workers for
every Social Security retiree in 1960 to just 2.8 workers for each retiree today.
We pay higher taxes for Social Security and Medicare today than we did in 1960 (Medicare
did not yet exist), but few would say that current tax rates are a crisis. If China has to
see equivalent increases in taxes in the next decade or two to support its retirees, it is
hard to see it as a major problem.
Reporters and media commentators like to report on taxes as the biggest concern for
working people, but as economists like to point out, the main factor determining living
standards is what goes into workers' paychecks, not what the government takes out in
taxes.
The Social Security payroll tax rose by 6.4 percentage points between 1960 and 1990. The
Medicare tax rose by 2.95 percentage points, for a total increase in federal payroll taxes of
9.35 percentage points.
In spite of this large increase in payroll taxes over this period, workers enjoyed
considerably higher after-tax wages in 1990 than in 1960. This was true because real wages
rose, especially in the first part of this period (1960 to 1973), when real wages for the
typical worker rose at a 2.2 percent annual rate.
The story is even more dramatic in China. Real wages have risen just over 7.0 percent
annually over the last decade. Suppose wage growth slows to 5.0 percent over the next two
decades. Suppose the country has to raise taxes on workers by 20 percentage points over this
period to cover the cost of its aging population. In that case, after taxes, wages would
still be more than twice as high as they are today. What is the problem?
The basic story is that if an economy maintains a healthy rate of productivity growth,
which allows for healthy real wage growth, then the demographic changes are a relatively
small matter. This doesn't mean that society will not face some problems in adjusting for the
needs of an aging population ― the U.S. faced many problems associated with the care
and education of the Baby Boomers when we were children ― but these problems are far
from insoluble.
If simple arithmetic shows that the people shortage story is nonsense, then why does it
continually appear in the media? The most obvious explanation is that the concerns over a
smaller workforce fall into the well-known "it's hard to get good help" problem.
This is the standard refrain of rich people, employers and major media outlets. A smaller
labor market could present employers with a world where workers have more bargaining power
and can therefore demand wage increases that are equal to, possibly even greater than, the
rate of productivity growth.
As workers move from lower-paying to higher-paying ― and therefore higher
productivity ― jobs, it will be harder to get people to work at many of the
lowest-paying jobs, such as domestic workers, valets in restaurants, and other jobs that
primarily involve providing services to the wealthy.
That probably does look like a crisis to a small segment of the population. The wealthy
may really have some cause to be concerned about the prospect of a declining population and
workforce. The rest of us, not so much.
The workers in fast food serve primarily the wealthy???
The workers in dollar stores serve primarily the wealthy?
The workers serving the wealthy are primarily middle class, whether food service, retail,
child care, etc.
The problem for China is providing opportunity for the young entrepreneurs. Without an
abundant eager labor force, the old established businesses will dominate and slow change.
Thhey won't be challenged to do better.
Modern money theory and its challenges - VoxEU
---------
Some misperceptions.
MMT is not modern, it is standard generational practice.
Given the nearly unlimited history of humans doing MMT some rules have emerged:
1) MMTs generally last anywhere from three days to three months.
2) The exception to rule 1 is war time where MMT hangs around with price controls.
3) We have a legal issue. This is the first time we have done a good old MMT using double
accounting money, we usually do it by repricing gold or exiting the gold market.
I am not sure we have the brains in DC to pull this off without a nightmare result, due to
MMT becoming a tribal slogan with no real definition attached.
"The bond market agrees with Elizabeth Warren, up to a point"
By Desmond Lachman, Opinion Contributor...07/23/19...07:30 AM EDT
'The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill'
"Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is not known for her enthusiasm for the financial markets
in general and for the bond market in particular. But there seems to be one important point
on which Warren and the world's bond markets currently agree: both the U.S. and the rest of
the world could soon be heading for a nasty economic recession.
In a recent article, Warren warned that the odds of another economic downturn were high
and growing. In her view, this is due to the precarious state of our economy, which is built
on an excessive amount of household and corporate debt. That makes the U.S. economy
particularly vulnerable to a number of serious shocks that she now sees on the horizon and
that she thinks "could cause our economy's shaky foundation to crumble."
By its nature, the bond market does not spell out the reasons why it prices bonds in any
particular manner. But we can infer the bond market's economic outlook from market bond
prices.
One indication that the government bond markets now seem to be sharing Warren's gloomy
economic prognosis is the fact that long-term U.S. Treasury bond rates have declined to
significantly below the Federal Reserve's short-term policy rate. This so-called yield curve
inversion implies that the U.S. Treasury bond market is expecting that the U.S. economy will
soon go into a recession that will keep interest rates low for a long time.
A more dramatic indication of sovereign bond market pessimism is the fact that a record
US$13 trillion of global sovereign bonds, and around one half of all European sovereign
bonds, now offer negative interest rates."...
RE: Acknowledging and pricing macroeconomic uncertainties
Lars Peter Hansen, Thomas Sargent 22 July 2019
False pretences of knowledge about complicated economic situations have become all too common
in public policy debates. While we do know some things, we don't know everything. We believe
that prudent decision-making should acknowledge what we don't know. Decision makers should
strive to quantify dimensions of their ignorance and adjust their decisions accordingly. This
essay describes a tractable approach for acknowledging, characterizing, and responding to the
limited understandings discovered by researchers' efforts to interpret existing evidence by
using theories and statistical methods available at any particular moment.
An economic model tells how chance, occurrences, and purposeful decisions influence future
outcomes. Economic researchers use formal statistical models to describe and interpret data
and to formulate policy advice for government and private decision makers. Whether they
acknowledge it explicitly or not, real world decision makers also use models or 'views' about
how their decisions affect future outcomes. Because they ignore some forces and oversimplify
others, all models are just approximations to reality, some better than others depending on
the purposes to which they are put. Furthermore, at any time, we can choose among multiple
models and are unsure how much credibility to assign to each of them.
Data can surely help us assess the credibility of alternative models, but the real world
is so complicated and data are so limited that data can only tell us so much. Therefore,
economic modellers and decision makers require ways to express their opinions about the
plausibility and usefulness of alternative models for the problem at hand. Because data are
only partially informative about a model's plausibility, a decision-maker's purpose as well
as his or her 'subjective beliefs' play important roles too. The more complex the situation,
the bigger the challenge of confronting uncertainty.
Economists and other scholars have created theoretical foundations for uncertainty. For
instance, both John Maynard Keynes (1921) and Frank Knight (1921) wrote on the subject, but
mostly in literary ways that are challenging to interpret and to make operational so that
they can be applied in quantitative work. The eminent statistician Abraham Wald (1950)
introduced a theoretic framework for making decisions under uncertainty. Leonard J. Savage
(1954) constructed a complete axiomatic approach to Bayesian decision theory by including
subjective probabilities that are entirely in the mind of a decision maker. Itzhak Gilboa and
David Schmeidler (1989) extended this approach in ways that acknowledged that a decision
maker might not have a unique subjective probability distribution. Recent research in control
theory and in dynamic decision theory provides useful practical tools for assessing and
coping with various sources of uncertainty. We have worked on these topics for a number of
years. Along with others, we have used mathematics and statistics to construct operational
quantitative tools that shed light on how financial markets and the macroeconomy work and how
alternative fiscal and monetary policies affect them.
In a recent paper (Hansen and Sargent 2019), we propose ways to categorise and respond to
the multiple forms of uncertainty that confront decision makers and model builders. Thus, we
distinguish among (1) uncertainty within a model; (2) uncertainty across a set of available
known models; and (3) uncertainty about each model. We refer to (1) as risk –
uncertainty about future outcomes that is described by a single known probability
distribution. (This is the type of uncertainty assumed up until now in most work in
theoretical and applied finance and macroeconomics.) We call uncertainty of type (2)
ambiguity and represent it as being unsure about what weights or probabilities to attach to
the available models. We call (3) model misspecification and represent it by surrounding each
available model with a vast cloud statistical models with unknown forms that nevertheless fit
the available data nearly as well as does an available model.
The models that we economists build and use are highly stylised
*
[These guys both need a new stylist.
Just how certain can they be about uncertainty? If uncertainty were quantifiable then how
uncertain would it be? Uncertainty is a lot more than just confidence intervals on
statistical data sets. Operators and relationships among interdependent variables are often
uncertain while data is just distributed within variance. The past may not be a reliable
indicator of the future. I will take Keynes on uncertainty and stay out of the deep end of
the pool.]
I wonder how Eisenhower was persuaded to permit the 1953 coup in Iran.
The British wanted to preserve BP's oil concessions in Iran, but MI6 was not powerful
enough to stage a coup without help from the CIA. So the Brits pretended that Mosaddegh
leaned towards the Soviets, and the Americans pretended to believe them.
After the coup, the Shah's government transferred the majority of BP's rights to American
oil companies. It would have been much better for the Brits if they had done a deal with
Mosaddegh.
@James N. Kennett 1952: Mosaddeq Nationalization of Iran's Oil Industry Leads to Coup
Time Magazine's Man of the Year cover for 1951. Mohammad Mosaddeq
]
Iranian President Mohammad Mosaddeq moves to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in
order to ensure that more oil profits remain in Iran. His efforts to democratize Iran had
already earned him being named Time Magazine's Man of the Year for 1951. After he
nationalizes it, Mosaddeq realizes that Britain may want to overthrow his government, so he
closes the British Embassy and sends all British civilians, including its intelligence
operatives, out of the country.
Britain finds itself with no way to stage the coup it desires, so it approaches the
American intelligence community for help. Their first approach results in abject failure when
Harry Truman throws the British representatives out of his office, stating that "We don't
overthrow governments; the United States has never done this before, and we're not going to
start now."
After Eisenhower is elected in November 1952, the British have a much more receptive
audience, and plans for overthrowing Mosaddeq are produced. The British intelligence
operative who presents the idea to the Eisenhower administration later will write in his
memoirs, "If I ask the Americans to overthrow Mosaddeq in order to rescue a British oil
company, they are not going to respond. This is not an argument that's going to cut much
mustard in Washington. I've got to have a different argument. I'm going to tell the Americans
that Mosaddeq is leading Iran towards Communism." This argument wins over the Eisenhower
administration, who promptly decides to organize a coup in Iran (see August 19, 1953).
[Stephen Kinzer, 7/29/2003]
Entity Tags: Dwight Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, Muhammad Mosaddeq
Timeline Tags: US confrontation with Iran, US-Iran (1952-1953)
In Oct it will be 18 full years in Afghanistan. The US is not a learning organization.
If you trust the media, you trust the hugely funded propaganda machine that makes Goebbels
look stone age primitive.
I am a bit sensitive this week, I am finishing Gloria Emerson's "Winner and Losers"
scratching a lot of scars from Vietnam. Not easy reading if you changed your mind once the
blither was exposed.
Somewhere over Delong's it was recommended and amazon had a hardcover for
$1.56........
Bottomline from Winners and Losers: The blither is reminiscent and much of the news topics
the same.
"... And while some may be quick to dismiss her allegations, it was similar "interference" by the US state department that was observed in Ukraine just days before the fateful Maidan protests that brought down the president and thanks to Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland , set the world on its current path of cold war-era confrontation between the US and Russia, which in turn has virtually assured another global military conflict in the future. ..."
...China's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday claimed the recent protests in Hong Kong are "the work of the U.S.," adding that the United
States owes the world an explanation.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo "thinks that the recent violence in Hong Kong is reasonable because everyone knows that this
is the work of the U.S.," spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a regular press briefing, referring to when Pompeo said China should "do
the right thing" in dealing with protests in Hong Kong, in an interview with Bloomberg Television last week.
According to
Kyodo, as evidence Hua provided examples of recent U.S. "interference" in which, she claims U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, U.S.
National Security Adviser John Bolton and Pompeo met with opposition figures multiple times throughout the weeks-long protests over
a controversial extradition bill. And while some may be quick to dismiss her allegations, it was similar "interference" by the
US state department that was observed in Ukraine just days before the fateful Maidan protests that brought down the president and
thanks to
Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland , set the world on its current path of cold war-era confrontation between the US and Russia, which
in turn has virtually assured another global military conflict in the future.
"There have been many American faces in the violent parade in Hong Kong, and even some American flags," Hua said.
In urging the United States to "let go" of the Hong Kong issue, Hua warned, "Those who play with fire only get themselves burned."
China's remarks came just hours before the ministerial-level trade talks between the two nations in Shanghai collapsed without
even a glimmer of progress after just a few hours of discussions, with the future of trade negotiations in limbo.
We still do not know how, when and where the Iranian tanker was captured. There are two
mutually exclusive narratives.
1) Grace 1 "freely navigated into UK territorial waters" as Jeremy Hunt claims.
2) The capture of Grace 1 was ordered by the US long before Grace 1 entered
the Strait. Panama revoked the ship's registration and Gibraltar changed its sanction
laws.
Would the US know weeks in advance that Grace 1 is about to stop in Gibraltar? On
the other hand, If Grace 1 had known that its registration had been revoked, would it
not have avoided British waters.
I suspect Grace 1 was captured out on the Atlantic, days before the news was made
public. The Royal Marines would then reprogram the automatic identification system (AIS) to
show Gibraltar as the destination. We still have not heard from the crew. What is their
story?
Thanks for the link to Craig Murray 's article. I have been collecting sources and
analysis on the tanker seizures here
.
If you know which shipping company owns a certain cargo ship or tanker, you can usually
look up that company's database and find the ship's scheduled voyage. This is crucial
knowledge because usually cargo ships will be carrying several lots of cargo to be offloaded
at ports along the way, and new cargo taken on at the same time, so importers and exporters
need to know exactly when the ship docks at X place and when it leaves. It would be very easy
for the UK or the US to know in advance when the Grace 1 docks at Gibraltar; they only
need to know who owns the tanker, find the owner's website and look up the schedules of all
the owner's ships.
In fact the Grace 1 tanker might not have been the specific target; as long as
there was a ship purportedly carrying Iranian oil passing through the Straits of Gibraltar,
it would have been fair game. So all the British would have needed to know is which tanker or
tankers from the Middle East would have been scheduled to dock in at Gibraltar and they get
that information from the relevant port authorities.
"... Aggressive wars abroad pollute the domestic political discourse and breed hypernationalism, racism and xenophobia. The 18 or so years of war following the 9/11 attacks have seen this ostensible republic sink to new lows of behavior. ..."
"Empires in decline tend to behave badly. Indeed, whether British, French or Russian, the
twilight years of imperialism often brought brutal repression of subjects abroad, the
suppression of civil liberties at home and general varieties of brutality toward foreigners, be
they refugees or migrants.
Aggressive wars abroad pollute the domestic political discourse and breed
hypernationalism, racism and xenophobia. The 18 or so years of war following the 9/11 attacks
have seen this ostensible republic sink to new lows of behavior.
Aggressive wars of choice have ushered in rampant torture, atrocities in Iraq's Abu Ghraib
prison, indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, drone assassinations,
warrantless wiretapping, mass surveillance of the citizenry...
It's all connected. The empire -- all empires -- eventually come home."
Maj. Danny Sjursen, An American Tragedy: Empire at Home and Abroad
Regional experts had immediately suspected the possibility of an Israeli air raid after a
pro-Iranian militia arms depot in Iraq was obliterated during
a mysterious attack
on July 19
, and another reported follow-up attack this past Sunday.
The attack happened around 80 km from the Iranian border and 40 km north-east of Baghdad at Camp
Ashraf, former home to the Iranian exile group Mojahedin-e Khalq, but now reportedly in the hands
of Iranian intelligence and paramilitaries.
Speculation was rampant in the days that followed as to the source of the 'mysterious' air
strikes - or what was also initially reported as a drone strike - however, some pointed the finger
at an American operation targeting Iranian militants inside Iraq.
But now Israeli and regional media, citing western diplomats, have confirmed it was
a
nearly unprecedented Israeli operation on Iraqi soil
--
representing a major
escalation and expansion of Israel's anti-Iran operations.
Israel reportedly launched a total of two separate air strike operations on the camp using its
US-supplied F-35 stealth fighter jets.
Israel has expanded the scope of its anti-Iranian attacks and struck targets in Iraq
,
the London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported Tuesday.
According to the report, which cites anonymous Western diplomats,
Israel
struck Iranian warehouses storing arms and missiles at Camp Ashraf
, north-east of
Baghdad, twice in the past month.
On July 19, the base was struck by an Israeli F-35 fighter jet, the sources added. The base
was allegedly attacked again on Sunday.
The report alleges the primary target included
a shipment of Iranian ballistic missiles
which recently entered Iraq via the nearby Iranian border.
And though not confirmed, the report further claimed that "Iranian advisers" had been injured in
the series of airstrikes.
Israel has over the past couple of years conducted "hundreds" of attacks inside Syria, which
defense officials have claimed were primarily against Iranian and Hezbollah bases, but if this
month's air strikes on Camp Ashraf are confirmed Israeli assaults, it would constitute a major
widening in terms of the scope of Tel Aviv's "anti-Iran" targeting operations.
The news is also sure to enrage officials in Baghdad, who will mount protests defending Iraqi
sovereignty. Israel hasn't mounted a known significant attack on Iraqi soil since the days of
former dictator Saddam Hussein.
The New Quincy Institute Seeks Warmongering Monsters to Destroy Andrew Bacevich on his new left-right group, which is
going hammer and tongs against the establishment on foreign policy. By
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos •
July 30, 2019
Andrew J. Bacevich participates in a panel discussion at the U.S. Naval War College in 2016. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication
Specialist 1st Class Christian S. Eskelund/Released) For the last month, the foreign policy establishment has been abuzz over the
new kid on the block: the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft , named
for John Quincy Adams. Adams, along with our first president George Washington,
warned of foreign entanglements and the urge to go
abroad in "search of monsters to destroy," lest America's fundamental policy "insensibly change from liberty to force
. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit ."
Those in the foreign policy Blob have had different reactions to the "upstart" think tank. These are the preeminent organizations
that stand imperious in size and square footage, but have lacked greatly in wisdom and clarity over the last 20 years. Quincy will
stand apart from them in two significant ways: it is drawing its intellectual and political firepower from both the anti-war Left
and the realist and restraint Right. And it is poised to support a new "responsible statecraft," one that challenges the conditions
of endless war, including persistent American militarism here and abroad, the military industrial complex, and a doctrine that worships
primacy and a liberal world order over peace and the sovereignty of other nations.
Quincy, which is rolling out its statement of principles this
week (its official launch will be in the fall), is the brainchild of Trita Parsi, former head of the National Iranian-American Council,
who saw an opening to bring together Left and Right academics, activists, and media disenchanted by both sides' pro-war proclivities.
Together with Vietnam veteran and former Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich (also a longtime TAC contributor), the
Carnegie Endowment's Suzanne DiMaggio, Columbia University's Stephen Wertheim, and investigative journalist Eli Clifton, the group
wants to serve as a counterweight to both liberal interventionists like the Brookings Institution and Council on Foreign Relations,
and the war hawks and neoconservatives of the Heritage Foundation and Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
They've already taken hits from both sides of the establishment, dismissed brusquely
as naive , or worse,
isolationist (that swipe from neoconservative Bill Kristol, whose now-defunct Weekly Standard once ran a manifesto headlined
"The Case for American Empire"
). The fact that Quincy will be funded by both George Soros on the Left and the Charles Koch Foundation on the Right has brought
some rebuke from unfriendlies and even some friendlies. The former hate on one or the other powerful billionaire, while the latter
are wary of Soros' intentions (he's has long been a financial supporter of
"soft-power"
democracy movements overseas, some of which have encouraged revolution and regime change).
Advertisement
But Quincy's timing couldn't be more perfect. With a president in the White House who has promised to draw down U.S. involvement
overseas (with the exception of his Iran policy, he has so far held to much of that pledge), and national conservatives coming around
to TAC's long-held worldview on realism and restraint (and an increasing willingness to reach across the aisle to work with
like-minded groups and individuals), Quincy appears poised to make some noise in Washington.
According to the group's new statement of principles , "responsible
statecraft" 1) serves the public interest, 2) engages the world, 3) builds a peaceful world, 4) abhors war, and 5) is democratic.
Andrew Bacevich and Trita Parsi expanded on this further in a recent Q&A with TAC.
(Full disclosure: the author is on Quincy's steering committee and TAC also receives funding from the Charles Koch Foundation.)
TAC : Quincy's principles -- and thus it's name -- are rooted in the mission of "responsible statecraft." Can you give
me a sense of what that means in practical terms, and why you settled on this phrasing for the institute?
AB: With the end of the Cold War, policy elites succumbed to an extraordinary bout of hubris, perhaps best expressed in the claim
that history had designated the United States as its "indispensable nation." Hubris bred recklessness and irresponsibility, with
the Iraq war of 2003 as Exhibit A. We see "responsible statecraft" as the necessary antidote. Its abiding qualities are realism,
restraint, prudence, and vigorous engagement. While the QI is not anti-military, we are wary of war except when all other alternatives
have been exhausted. We are acutely conscious of war's tendency to produce unintended consequences and to exact unexpectedly high
costs.
TAC : Quincy is a trans-partisan effort that is bringing together Left and Right for common cause. Is it a challenge?
AB: It seems apparent to us that the myriad foreign policy failures and disappointments of the past couple of decades have induced
among both progressives and at least some conservatives a growing disenchantment with the trajectory of U.S. policy. Out of that
disenchantment comes the potential for a Left-Right coalition to challenge the status quo. The QI hopes to build on that potential.
TAC : Two of the principles take direct aim at the current foreign policy status quo: responsible statecraft abhors war,
and responsible statecraft is democratic (calling out a closed system in which Americans have had little input into the wars waged
in their names). How much of what Quincy aims to do involves upending conventional norms, particularly those bred and defended by
the Washington "Blob"?
AB: In a fundamental sense, the purpose of the QI is to educate the American people and their leaders regarding the Blob's shortcomings,
exposing the deficiencies of old ideas and proposing new ones to take their place.
TAC: That said, how much blowback do you anticipate from the Washington establishment, particularly those think tanks and
individuals whose careers and very existence depend on the wheels of militarism forever turning?
AB : Plenty. Proponents of the status quo are entrenched and well-funded. Breaking old habits -- for example, the practice of
scattering U.S. military bases around the world -- will not come easily.
TAC : There has been much ado about your two primary funders -- Charles Koch and George Soros. What do you say to critics
who suggest you will be tied to/limited by their agendas?
AB: Our funding sources are not confined to Koch and Soros and we will continue to broaden our support base. It's not for me to
speak for Koch or Soros. But my guess is they decided to support the QI because they support our principles. They too believe in
policies based on realism, restraint, prudence, and vigorous engagement.
TAC : Better yet, how did you convince these two men to fund something together?
TP: It is important to recognize that they have collaborated in the past before, for instance on criminal justice reform. This
is, however, the first time they've come together to be founding funders of a new entity. I cannot speak for them, but I think they
both recognize that there currently is a conceptual deficit in our foreign policy. U.S. elite consensus on foreign policy has collapsed
and the void that has been created begs to be filled. But it has to be filled with new ideas, not just a repackaging of old ideas.
And those new ideas cannot simply follow the old political alignments. Transpartisan collaboration is necessary in order to create
a new consensus. Koch and Soros are showing tremendous leadership in that regard.
TAC : The last refuge of a scorned hawk is to call his critics "isolationist." It would seem as though your statement of
principles takes this on directly. How else does Quincy take this often-used invective into account?
AB : We will demonstrate through our own actions that the charge is false.
TAC : Critics (including James Traub,
in his own piece on Quincy
) say that Washington leaders, once in office, are "mugged by reality," suggesting that the idea of rolling back military interventions
and avoiding others sounds good on paper but presidents like Barack Obama had no choice, that this is all about protecting interests
and hard-nosed realism. The alternative is a bit naive. How do you respond?
AB: Choices are available if our leaders have the creativity to recognize them and the gumption to pursue them. Obama's patient
and resolute pursuit of the Iran nuclear deal affirms this possibility. The QI will expose the "we have no choice" argument as false.
We will identify and promote choice, thereby freeing U.S. policy from outmoded habits and stale routines.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is e xecutive editor at . Follow her on Twitter
@Vlahos_at_TAC
QI is a welcome change from the endless, whining tirade of the old hawks.
I wish them well in gaining influence in DC.
I hope that they can give voice to the growing numbers of us who do not support illegal invasions, funding dissidents to
foment regime change and our flawed system of selecting key allies (regardless of their human rights records) and protecting
them and their interests at all cost. This has been a drain our economic resources and moral standing.
In this time, when nationalism and disaster capitalism seem to be winning on both sides of the Atlantic, it seems there
is little hope for peace, decency and diplomacy.
QI has a huge challenge to take on the parasitic organism that is the war machine, but any initiative is better than none.
If Quincy is to have any chance of success in its mission, it will have to tackle the issues surrounding Federal election campaign
financing. The current rules give a handful of American billionaires effective control over US Middle East policy. What is
good for donors like Sheldon and Miriam Edelson is not necessarily good for the American public. Donald Trump was elected president
of the US not Prime Minister of Israel.
I did read one of Mr. Basevich's books a few years ago and my take away remains valid today: The US cannot afford to be
the policeman of the world.
Ukraine became a geopolitical pawn. In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
Notable quotes:
"... His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the Donbass rebels and with Moscow, ..."
"... But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian citizens. ..."
"... Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence. ..."
"... Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question -- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold War. ..."
"... This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the host of The John Batchelor Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com . ..."
The election of Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who won decisively throughout
most of the country, represents the possibility of peace with Russia, if it -- and he -- are
given a chance. His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters
in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the
Donbass rebels and with Moscow, notably provisions associated with the European-sponsored Minsk
Accords. Zelensky, on the other hand, has made peace (along with corruption) his top priority
and indeed spoke directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, on July 11. The nearly
six-year war having become a political, diplomatic, and financial drain on his leadership,
Putin welcomed the overture.
But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in
Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say
quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a
Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian
citizens. (Washington has previously had some shameful episodes of
collusion with these Ukrainian neo-Nazis .) As for Putin, who does not fully control the
Donbass rebels or its leaders, he "can never be seen at home," as
I pointed out more than two years ago , "as 'selling out' Russia's 'brethren' anywhere in
southeast Ukraine." Indeed, his own implacable nationalists have made this a litmus test of his
leadership.
Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his
would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now
Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary
Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point
man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over
Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their
hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it
eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence.
Our hope should be that Trump breaks with that long-standing bipartisan policy, as he did
with policy toward North Korea, and puts America squarely on the side of peace in Ukraine. (For
now, Zelensky has set aside Moscow's professed irreversible "reunification" with Crimea, as
should Washington.) A new US policy must include recognition, previously lacking, that the
citizens of war-ravaged Donbass are not primarily "Putin's stooges" but people with their own
legitimate interests and preferences, even if they favor Russia. Here too Zelensky is embarking
on a new course. Poroshenko waged an "anti-terrorist" war against Donbass: the new president is
reaching out to its citizens even though most of them were unable to vote in the election.
Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably
architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the
Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking
regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question
-- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the
views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more
important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold
War.
This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the
host of The John Batchelor
Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com .
"... Evidence has emerged that the U.S. State Department is tied to a child trafficking operation involving Billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. shared the tail number of his Bell Long Ranger 206L3 helicopter (tail number N474AW) with a U.S. State Department OV-10D Bronco ..."
"... . Descriptions of sex between adult males and underage females by XXX company employees in Bosnia in the 2000-2002 time frame coincides with descriptions of sex . on .. aircraft and [at] residences in Palm Beach, Florida; New Mexico; and on the island of Little Saint James in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Among the "Jane Does" filing suit against the U.S. government for concluding can anyone get the details of these suits? ..."
"... So so disgusting. First there was the catholic church pedophile scandal. Then there is the Epstein scandal ..."
Evidence has emerged that the U.S. State Department is tied to a child trafficking operation involving Billionaire pedophile
Jeffrey Epstein. shared the tail number of his Bell Long Ranger 206L3 helicopter (tail number N474AW) with a U.S. State Department
OV-10D Bronco. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) registration database. Descriptions of sex
between adult males and underage females by XXX company employees in Bosnia in the 2000-2002 time frame coincides with descriptions
of sex . on .. aircraft and [at] residences in Palm Beach, Florida; New Mexico; and on the island of Little Saint James in the
U.S. Virgin Islands. Among the "Jane Does" filing suit against the U.S. government for concluding can anyone get the details of
these suits?
"... I don't doubt that Hong Kong residents have legitimate gripes, but like a tapeworm attaching itself to the host, almost any domestic unrest in any US "adversary" is usually tapped into by the US for its own purposes. ..."
"... The real issue here is the idea that Western nations have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign countries, anywhere in the world, whenever it suits them to further the agenda of the Imperialism. ..."
"... It's also funny that China.gov has decided that the protesters shouldn't be treated too harshly because its not their fault that they're childish and impatient. ..."
"... I find it interesting how "pro-democracy activists" in Hong Kong, Venezuela, Nicaragua et al uniformly resort to vandalism and arson as a preferred tactic, with the encouragement of western politicians who warn the target nations to restrain the police. ..."
"... In Hong Kong, the protesters are conducting direct attacks on government institutions - legislature, police HQ, PRC offices - which pretty much anywhere else would be met by overt force to quell insurrectionary violence. The "pro-democracy activists" in the above mentioned countries in fact show little interest in democratic process. ..."
"... China no longer needs HK the money center has moved to the Main Land. China can seat back and watch HK melt down, ..."
"... Once again, pay close attention to who is carrying water for the western empire by regurgitation corporate media narratives about the color revolution attempt in Hong Kong. Do always suspect these individuals' posts now that they reveal themselves as tools of the empire. ..."
"... How can you tell when protests are genuine and "organic" ? The corporate mass media ignores them, downplays them, and when it cannot ignore them refers to them in disparaging and ridiculing terms. ..."
"... The National Endowment for Democracy spends millions of dollars to subvert sovereign governments. You will notice that no "color revolutions" in Colombia, Honduras, or Chile. ..."
"... Hudson's main thesis is that the Petro-Dollar is instrumental in the continued operation of the Empire, and there will be no movement away from that as it would undercut dollar hegemony through the weakening of the oil market which the US has control. Therefore any movement to curb the climate catastrophe will not gain support by the US. It is a contradiction of existence. ..."
"... Currently there are numerous articles on protests in Russia (five on the portal's main page, all of which are critical of the Russian government and supportive of the relatively tiny protests). Likewise there are numerous article supportive of the protesters in Hong Kong. Again, five on Google News' main page supporting the protesters but none voicing any criticism of them. ..."
"... Meanwhile the gilets jaunes protests remain backpage news with no coverage on the main page of either the news aggregation portals or on the major news sites landing pages. Ongoing protests in Haiti, though, are not even getting backpage coverage in the western corporate mass media. ..."
"... There are certainly newsworthy events in the world, but coverage of them by the corporate mass media is 100% propaganda. They are all capitalist enterprises with pervasive interest in defending capitalism and the empire that capitalism has built. This concept isn't complicated. ..."
"... This is all money that could be spent repairing and improving our flagging infrastructure, preparing our electrical grids for possible cyber or EMP attacks (solar panels/inverters/batteries in large population centers), and addressing the student debt crisis that is only getting worse. But we all know that big business and Wall Street/The City of London control every aspect of the U.S. government and every action taken by said government is in service to their short and long term goals. ..."
"... Jacques actually criticizes Beijing for being too lenient towards Hong Kong. With its "One Nation, Two Systems" policy - which it has adhered to scrupulously - China has also allowed Hong Kong to wallow in its own lack of any spirited imperative. In consequence, many in HK look with envy across the water to Shenzhen, and wonder where their own rise to glory will come from. The structure that Jacques describes is not going to produce it. ..."
"... Wait. I thought it was one issue. The extradition issue? I wonder if Syrians had legitimate issues too? Oh my! ..."
"... I don't want my government starting revolutions that lead to wars for regime change I'm not free to stop. The ZioAnglo imperialists corrupt everything they touch. ..."
"... cash payments were offered to students to protest. This is confirmed by Jeff J Brown's article for The Greanville Post in which he mentions people were paid higher amounts "for tearing the place up". ..."
"... Interesting too in the same article is that Brian Kern has been noted as an apparent CIA operative stirring up protesters. ..."
"... In September the new university year starts. ..."
Guys, i think i found the reason behind the trade wars and crack down on globalisation by the US. They think that they will
save themselves, to a certain degree, that way.
There are long term GDP Growth and Socioeconomic Scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
OECD, and the world scientific community. They are generally used to measure the impact of Climate change on the World. In order
to measure it, Socioeconomic Scenarios were developed, as the level of economic growth in the world is very important for determining
the impact of Climate Change in the future. High growth levels will obviously affect Climate change, so these estimates are important.
For more on this you can check these studies here, some of the many dealing with this topic.
There are 5 main scenarios. All of them describe different worlds.
SSP 1 - Green World, economic cooperation, reduced inequality, good education systems. High level of economic growth, fast
catch up of the developing world with the developed world. High level of multipolarity.
SSP 2 - More of the same/ Muddling through - continuation of the current trends. Relatively high level of economic growth,
relatively fast catch up of the developing world with the developed world. Good level of multipolarity.
SSP 3 - Regional Rivalry - nationalisms, trade wars, lack of global cooperation, fragmentation of the word, environmental
degradation. Low levels of economic growth everywhere, the developing world remains poor and undeveloped. Low level of multipolarity,
West retains many positions.
SSP 4 Inequality - depicts a world where high-income countries use technological advances to stimulate economic growth;
leading to a high capacity to mitigate. In contrast, developments in low income countries are hampered by very low education
levels and international barriers to trade. Growth is medium, the catch up process between the developing world and the developed
world is not fast. Medium level of multipolarity.
SSP 5 Economic growth and fossil fuels take priority over green world - High levels of economic growth, fast catch up of
the developing world with the developed world. High level of multipolarity.
See SSP 3. A world of rivalry, trade wars, trade barriers, lack of global cooperation, and fragmentation, will lead to lower
level of growth in the developing world, and thus a slow catch up process. Multipolarity in such a world is weak as the developing
world is hampered.
In other words, a world of cooperation between countries will lead to higher economic growth in the developing world, faster
catch up process, and thus stronger multipolarity. Basically, globalisation is key. The developing world (ex West) was growing
slowly before globalisation (before 1990). Globalisation means sharing of technology and knowledge, and companies investing in
poorer countries. Outsourcing of western manufacturing. Etc. After globalisation started in 1990, the developing world is growing
very well. It is globalisation that is weakening the West and empowering the developing world. So the US needs to kill it.
So what do we see: exactly attemts to create the SSP 3 scenario. Trade wars, sanctions, attacks on multilateral institutions
- the WTO, on international law, on the Paris Agreement for Climate Change (which if accepted would put constraints on the US
economy), on the UN, bullying of Europe, support for Brexit (which weakens Europe), crack down on chinese students and scientists
in the US, crack down on chinese access to western science data, demands to remove the perks for poor countries in the WTO, etc.
This is hitting economic growth in the whole world and the global economy currently is not well. By destroying the world economy,
the US benefits as it hampers the rise of the developing nations.
You can see this process described in this article:
Trump's Brilliant Strategy to Dismember U.S. Dollar Hegemony
But the author is wrong. Trump does not do that in order to dismantle the dollar or US hegemony. Trump does that in order to
save it, implementing policies, in my opinion, devised by the US military/intelligence community. They want to destroy globalisation
and create fortress US, in order to save as much as possible of the US Empire. Chaos and lack of cooperation in the world benefit
the US.
The Outlaw US Empire's desperate. It was recently announced that Russia/China trade is now conducted mostly in Yuan/Rubble with
dollar transactions at 45% and dropping fast.
Plus, the volume of Russia/China trade is rapidly increasing and has already surpassed
2018's volume. The major Power of Siberia gas pipeline to China with an export capacity of 38 billion cubic meters compared with
the initial Nordstream project's 55 billion cubic meters will vastly increase the non-dollar trade value.
Additionally, China seeks ever more ag products from a Russia that's rapidly expanding that export potential thereby taking
away one of the Empire's few export earners. Rather soon, all Russia/China trade will be outside of the dollar system while its
volume rapidly expands. IMO, Hong Kong represents an Outlaw US Empire temper tantrum that only serves to further delegitimize
its standing with China and the ASEAN region. Rather starkly, the Outlaw US Empire is beginning to realize China doesn't need
it whatsoever, nor does most of Eurasia. Ouch!
Hmm are you trying to say that HK is unlike the Ukraine and the issuing mess that was created by the U.S. government agencies,
if you are your sadly misinformed.!!!
I don't doubt that Hong Kong residents have legitimate gripes, but like a tapeworm attaching itself to the host, almost
any domestic unrest in any US "adversary" is usually tapped into by the US for its own purposes.
Thank you b. I had a strong suspicion that the west - particularly the US/UK - were behind this brouhaha, if for no other reason
than that it arose when it did. And that the BBC World Service has been beating the drum for the protestors, always mentioning
fantastical numbers (millions, hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands) when it does so.
The BBC World Service, as the US-UK voice of corporate-capitalist-imperialism, *never* speaks to those Hong Kong people who
are not interested in the protests or the purported reasons for them (so much for their much vaunted "impartiality" which is and
always has been utter bunkum). Nor, when the extradition bill is mentioned, does the Beeb *ever* point out that it includes Taiwan
and Macau. Only China is spoken of as the focus of the bill. *Nor* does the BBC ever say that Hong Kong has (and is) used as a
bolt hole for real criminals who are wanted in China, Taiwan and Macau. And they have never mentioned the fact that HK has similar
treaties with other nation states. Nor has anything (in my hearing) been said about the US connections of any of the leaders of
this "movement." Omitting information is as important as repetition, use of weaselly terms, outright lying when seeking to propagandize.
In contrast - because it's "one of us" - virtually nothing has been reported on the Gilets Jaunes protests, except on the odd
occasion when some accompanying the protests have broken Parisian shop windows. And during those few and far between reports no
mention at all was made about the French Riot Police's brutality and the terrible wounds they inflicted on the demonstrators.
(Of course, we also never hear *anything* about what the Israelis do to Palestinians unless it can be portrayed as poor, weak
and vulnerable Israel being victimized by the Goliath Palestinians.)
By contrast every report on the HK protests underscores the HK police's use of tear gas and plastic bullets.
The real issue here is the idea that Western nations have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign countries,
anywhere in the world, whenever it suits them to further the agenda of the Imperialism.
If the Chinese people of Hong Kong have a problem with their rulers, surely they have the right to do whatever they
choose about it, without external interference. But apparently not, according the Empire and its lackeys. As ever, the West is
the arbiter of other peoples lives (and death). It's sickening and I'm ashamed by the actions of our so-called leaders.
The brainwashed faith breathers need to ask themselves which country is really persecuting religions by using them as pawns
in the ongoing oppression of others by the elite of empire and their puppets.
Nice of you to quote Tony Cartalucci. As I
mentioned in the previous thread, he has been
banned by Facebook
and Twitter . Cartalucci has been opposing NED, Soros and their fake civil society organizations and color revolutions in
Asia for at least 10 years. Part of the reason for his ban is likely
his opposition
to the color revolution attempt in Hong Kong.
...
"As that outcome was totally predictable one wonders why the Trump administration bothered to launch such nonsense. It will only
make it more difficult to solve other problems, like North Korea or global trade, over which China has influence."
Posted by b on July 27, 2019 at 17:06 UTC
... not to mention the tired old fantasy of driving a wedge between China and Russia. The chance of that succeeding now is
less than zero. It's also funny that China.gov has decided that the protesters shouldn't be treated too harshly because its
not their fault that they're childish and impatient.
Okay, so when these protests first started I wrote that this was U.S.-instigated and that Hong Kong was looking like the new Taiwan,
and the usual Trump bootlickers pretended I was exaggerating. I pretty much predicted Trump was a fraud, and a Zionist Neocon
from minute one. Never mind. I'm vindicated...again and again.
I find it interesting how "pro-democracy activists" in Hong Kong, Venezuela, Nicaragua et al uniformly resort to vandalism
and arson as a preferred tactic, with the encouragement of western politicians who warn the target nations to restrain the police.
The so-called Black Bloc torched a single police car and sprayed some graffiti in Toronto some years back and the whole city
entered a version of martial law for a few days. In Hong Kong, the protesters are conducting direct attacks on government
institutions - legislature, police HQ, PRC offices - which pretty much anywhere else would be met by overt force to quell insurrectionary
violence. The "pro-democracy activists" in the above mentioned countries in fact show little interest in democratic process.
In contrast, the protests in Puerto Rico have accomplished a fair amount with, as far as I know, very little vandalism or insurrectionary
activity. Not much media coverage on that.
thanks b... you have struck the trolls nerve center, lol.... i see the cbc is trying to rustle up more animosity towards russia-putin
with the protests from today in moscow..
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/moscow-election-protest-arrests-1.5227714
that and the selective coverage on the yellow vests protests, Venezuela protests and etc. etc. the usa empire sure is busy these
days!
C I eh? @ 22 you are always talking to a wall of hasbara psyop trolls
All in all just another brick in the wall. The more I read, the more I am stunned by the system. The scope and breath of this
stuff is stunning.
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone
All in all it's just another brick in the wall
All in all you're just another brick in the wall
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave those kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave those kids alone
All in all you're just another brick in the wall
All in all you're just another brick in the wall
Wrong, do it again!
Wrong, do it again!
If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!
(Wrong, do it again!)
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
(Wrong, do it again!)
You! Yes! You behind the bike sheds! Stand still, laddie!
(If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?)
You! Yes! You behind the bike sheds! Stand still, laddie!
If the existence of a mafia is the indicator of a fascist state, then you'll also have to worry about Japan (Yakuza), Taiwan
(allied with the Hongkonger Triad), Hong Kong itself (Triad), Russia (Eurasiatic Mafia), Italy (where the term was created), USA
(Kennedy's family had link with the American mafia) and essentially all Latin America (where narcotrafic is in all but name mafias).
Once again, pay close attention to who is carrying water for the western empire by regurgitation corporate media narratives
about the color revolution attempt in Hong Kong. Do always suspect these individuals' posts now that they reveal themselves as
tools of the empire.
How can you tell when protests are genuine and "organic" ? The corporate mass media ignores them, downplays them,
and when it cannot ignore them refers to them in disparaging and ridiculing terms.
How can you tell when protests are events that are manufactured by the empire in the fashion of free open air music
festivals? Because the empire's corporate mass media will give them free advertising, exaggerate the attendance, and refer to
the heavily marketed events in glowingly positive terms.
The above behaviors of the corporate mass media have so far proven to be infallible indicators of the legitimacy of protests
and can be relied upon with the utmost confidence. Likewise, people who echo the empire's corporate mass media narratives reveal
themselves as tools, witting or otherwise, of the empire, and their comments warrant deep skepticism.
As that outcome was totally predictable one wonders why the Trump administration bothered to launch such nonsense.
Simple. Washington DC's only option left is throwing a temper tantrum, tossing Molotov's everywhere, a scorched earth policy.
C I eh? | Jul 27 2019 19:37 utc | 22:
That's an interesting point of view. However, I remember some politician (forgot who it was) in an interview mentioning that
if the stock exchanges in HK and Shanghai were to ever merge, it would make New York and London look like small potatoes (or something
to that effect). I see all this ruckus as payback for going against The Empire.
The National Endowment for Democracy spends millions of dollars to subvert sovereign governments. You will notice that no
"color revolutions" in Colombia, Honduras, or Chile.
Russia and China are ditching the dollar for bilateral trade but not necessarily using local currencies. I am not sure if those
Euro transfers use SWIFT; I would guess so.
Per the Moscow Times.
"The dollar's share fell to 45.7% in the first quarter of 2019, down from 75.1% in 2018. When both exports and imports of goods
and services between Russia and China are considered, the share of the dollar also fell dramatically but still accounted for 55.7%
of payments ($14.7 billion of a total turnover of $26.4 billion), RBC reported.
At the same time, the euro's share in payments of Russian exports to China increased tenfold over the year from 0.7% in the
first quarter of 2018 to 37.6% in the first quarter of 2019.
news
"The euro has become a safe haven for trade operations" between Russia and China, Oleg Remyga from the Eurasia program at Skolkovo
Business School told RBC.
The euro is increasingly being used in payments for crude oil -- Russia's main export to China -- . . ."
You can always figure out where the truth lies when the beloved "directors of the revolution" show up to pass out cookies. You'd
think Pompeo et al would have figured that one out by now.
Regarding the scenarios outlined by Passer by | Jul 27 2019 17:09 utc | 1: This seems very credible as Michael Hudson outlined
in his piece in Counterpunch on July 22:
"Global warming is the second major existentialist threat. Blocking attempts to reverse it is a bedrock of American foreign
policy, because it is based on control of oil. So the military, refugee and global warming threats are interconnected."
Hudson's main thesis is that the Petro-Dollar is instrumental in the continued operation of the Empire, and there will
be no movement away from that as it would undercut dollar hegemony through the weakening of the oil market which the US has control.
Therefore any movement to curb the climate catastrophe will not gain support by the US. It is a contradiction of existence.
Since China has little oil, and considers reliance on the same a vulnerability and consequently has spent 20 years in rare
earth refinement industry development, it now controls 70 percent of the market. It will take quite a while for the West to catch
up, as at least one industry consultant has pointed out that it takes about 20 years for an industry to go from an idea to production.
These difference will underline the struggle between China and the US in the meantime You can be assured the US will not change
its current course until the Petro-Dollar is annulled.
Time will tell whether China will be able to wean itself from coal. If not, climate change remediation will not matter.
Your defense of the empire's mass media is charming, but since you are one of the obvious tools of empire that I was speaking
of it is not unexpected.
The proof of what I said above is trivial: Go to any major news aggregation site (
Google News is typical) with your browser in incognito mode and count the
stories from major corporate sources concerning protests and tax your brain to try and determine if the articles are pro or con
(critical/supportive of the protesters or the target of the protests).
Currently there are numerous articles on protests in Russia (five on the portal's main page, all of which are critical
of the Russian government and supportive of the relatively tiny protests). Likewise there are numerous article supportive of the
protesters in Hong Kong. Again, five on Google News' main page supporting the protesters but none voicing any criticism of them.
Meanwhile the gilets jaunes protests remain backpage news with no coverage on the main page of either the news aggregation
portals or on the major news sites landing pages. Ongoing protests in Haiti, though, are not even getting backpage coverage in
the western corporate mass media.
"Is there not one iota of newsworthy events left in the world to cover or is it all propaganda?"
There are certainly newsworthy events in the world, but coverage of them by the corporate mass media is 100% propaganda.
They are all capitalist enterprises with pervasive interest in defending capitalism and the empire that capitalism has built.
This concept isn't complicated.
The longer the US wastes time, resources, and energy on tired tactics like sponsored mobs and political subversion, the less
time, resources, and energy it will have to adjust favorably to the new international order that will inevitably emerge despite
Washington's efforts.
How true, and add to that list the money spent on military adventurism in the ME/Iran and destabilizing Central/South American
countries. Where does all this money come from? These "non-profits" sure seem to have a lot of it if they can send over $1.5M
to groups in Hong Kong alone within just two years.
This is all money that could be spent repairing and improving our flagging infrastructure, preparing our electrical grids
for possible cyber or EMP attacks (solar panels/inverters/batteries in large population centers), and addressing the student debt
crisis that is only getting worse. But we all know that big business and Wall Street/The City of London control every aspect of
the U.S. government and every action taken by said government is in service to their short and long term goals.
I work with many Chinese, both of mainland and HK descent. A few RL observations. Chinese from HK seem to dislike Chinese from
the mainland and vise versa. HK Chinese have generally better English. Mainland Chinese are typically less high strung and more
jovial than their HK counterparts. I have been told by HK Chinese that the protests are selfish and not fully embraced by pop.
They are seen as a nuisance, or a youthful excess. ML Chinese have told me the same as well as the opposite, they have also expressed
the same sentiment as the Chinese pol in b's article.
Circe. Do you have an answer to my question from the OT? Got a prez that
wasn't a Zioshill?
Can't find the link now, but within the past week it was announced that a new clearing mechanism was being initiated in Russia's
Far East to facilitate settling all bilateral trade between China and Russia in either Rubbles or Yuan matching a similar facility
already opened by the PBC. The figures you cited were for the 1st Q; I cited hearsay 2nd Q figures which ought to be published
soon. The point is both the dollar and its monopolistic trade and settlement mechanisms will soon be bypassed and further widened
in scope to accommodate ever increasing amounts of global commercial transactions to the great detriment of the Outlaw US Empire.
I am not sure if it is possible to run an anti-empire theme by denying democratic representation. I don't think you are going
to be able to defend the likes of Junius Ho as easily as the above, nor that locals, who to my view are almost entirely moderate,
run on manipulation from Washington or wherever.
The only point I think that can be contested outright is the local election results, that is the layer that was open to universal
suffrage, were pro-Beijing
Gives the figures under the tab "Elections of the Legislative Council" and it seems majority in absolute votes were outside
of pro-Beijing. So I still stay with the notion that at the least it is Beijing that is overstepping the mark here, that this
level of tension is not necessary. On the other hand, Beijing entered an agreement on handover that was going to be difficult
for it to meet when compared to its own ideology, not that that is any excuse.
China's ownership of over a trillion in U.S. treasury and its control over rare earth refinement are not leverage it can easily
use against U.S. imperialism as it could turn into a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Wearing down the hegemony
of the dollar is the best strategy. The other two are weapons of last resort. However, China has enough leverage to sabotage the
U.S. plan in regards to Iran, and even Venezuela, and so far it has done squat. This inaction is a huge mistake as China's sources
of oil will be U.S. compromised, and if greater conflict breaks out and the U.S. wants control, the first thing the U.S. will
do is turn off the spigot.
Thanks for your sanity, and your perspective on this storm in a Chinese teacup. Yes, regions within countries have their own
attitude towards other regions. And HK was tutored by British hypocrisy for a century and a half.
If you haven't already seen this, I think you will enjoy this short (9 min) clip from Martin Jacques on Hong Kong. He points
to the economic structure and the structure of governance in HK. In both cases they are the imperial model, where there is little
representation of the people, where policy direction came from London rather than being concocted locally, and where a few oligarchs
rule the economy and have no capacity to innovate or evolve:
Jacques actually criticizes Beijing for being too lenient towards Hong Kong. With its "One Nation, Two Systems" policy
- which it has adhered to scrupulously - China has also allowed Hong Kong to wallow in its own lack of any spirited imperative.
In consequence, many in HK look with envy across the water to Shenzhen, and wonder where their own rise to glory will come from.
The structure that Jacques describes is not going to produce it.
Sleepy @ 5 said;"I don't doubt that Hong Kong residents have legitimate gripes, but like a tapeworm attaching itself to the host,
almost any domestic unrest in any US "adversary" is usually tapped into by the US for its own purposes.
Completely with you Ron. First, Hong Kong is China's only international financial
center, so to call it insignificant is uninformed: it will take at least another generation and a change in China's currency access
before Shanghai reaches the status of Hong Kong.
Second, there is no appetite for leaving China, Hong Kong is part of China, the dispute is about the speed at which the two
are merging and respect for the 50 years agreement. Three, there is no democracy in HK: The pro-democracy politicians were voted
into the Legislature by the 5000 or so HK individuals who have been chosen to vote, but even then they were banned by Beijing
because they wouldn't swear allegiance to Beijing.
Four: People have not benefited from China, their lives have got worse: Rent controls were abolished, public housing is not
being built and the locals are being discarded in favour of a select 150 mainlanders brought in every day to take the top jobs
(lawyers, finance etc), bringing mainland corruption to what was once a fairly clean HK.
Then you have the huge wave of mainland tourists allowed to visit HK, crowding the city out with illmannered and discourteous
tourists swarming around places like TST and Mong Kok, places close to the new high speed train terminal. The business men who
used to run HK for its own interests are now running the city for Beijing: even though I think that economic reasons are not the
main drive behind the demonstrations.
As for independence: Ask yourself why Taiwan, which has been ruled by the independence party for the last 3 years, has still
not declared independence: Maybe the local politicians use it as a threat to keep back the worst aspects of Beijing? Maybe nobody
really wants to be independent, they just don't want to be invaded by uncontrollable corruption?
As for the violence, anyone with any knowledge of the HK Chinese will know that this is not their way. It is total ignorance
to think that the HK people would support violence against their own police. Even the triads who carried out the train invasions
appear to have had second thoughts afterwards, releasing the recording about them "not getting paid for the job".
I am not saying the US is not involved, they are unlikely to resist such an opportunity, but the US has no real knowledge of
the local HK population and could never influence the HK people to turn violent. Most HK people are very proud to be Chinese,
they are not looking to be American even though they will use America to get ahead. It looks like the increase in violence is
foreign interference as a signal to Beijing, but it will not have the support of the locals: 2 million marched against the extradition
law, a few thousand are involved in the riots, there is no comparison.
But your account doesn't eliminate the hybrid warfare hypothesis. On the contrary, the confirm it.
In TC-18-01 -- the American manual to unconventional warfare (UW), it states that:
WILL OF THE POPULATION
1-15. The population must possess not only the desire to resist but also the will to bear the significant
hardships associated with repressive countermeasures by the government or occupying power. Populations
that the regime subjugates or indoctrinates for long periods are less likely to possess the will required to
sustain a prolonged and difficult struggle. Populations living under repressive conditions generally either
retain their unique religious, cultural, and ethnic identity or begin to assimilate with the regime out of an
instinct to survive. Planners need to distinguish between the population's moral opinion of their
"oppressors" and their actual willingness to accept hardship and risk on behalf of their values and beliefs.
Populations recently overtaken by an occupying military force have a very different character than those
that have had to survive for decades under an oppressive regime.
1-16. Information activities that increase dissatisfaction with the hostile regime or occupier and portray the
resistance as a viable alternative are important components of the resistance effort. These activities can
increase support for the resistance through persuasive messages that generate sympathy among populations.
1-17. In almost every scenario, resistance movements face a population with an active minority supporting
the government and an equally small militant faction supporting the resistance movement (Figure 1-2). For
the resistance to succeed, it must convince the uncommitted middle population, which includes passive
supporters of both sides, to accept it as a legitimate entity. A passive population is sometimes all a well-
supported insurgency needs to seize political power. As the level of support for the insurgency increases,
the passive majority will decrease.
[...]
CIVIL AFFAIRS SUPPORT TO THE SEVEN PHASES
OF UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE
3-42. CA forces are capable of providing support to all seven phases of a UW campaign. CMO planners
and CA forces are well equipped to assist SFODs in developing the factors that make up the operational
environment of UW operations, in achieving the support or neutrality of various segments of society, or
influencing the JSOA. All Civil Affairs operations (CAO) may support UW, although the most important
role of CAO is facilitating the swift transition of power from the resistance forces to a legitimate
government after the cessation of hostilities.
In other words, it's not that the USA creates, ex nihilo , the inner contradictions of a country (which indeed exist
in any country -- the USA itself included); what they do is to take those domestic contradictions and magnify them with propaganda
warfare and hot warfare resources (color revolutions and guerrilla, low intensity warfare).
For example, you may have a young son who hates you because you deny him ice cream (you're afraid he's going to get cavities,
diabetes, obesity etc. etc.). To wage an hybrid warfare on you would be for me to tell him you're doing it not because you're
taking care of his health, but because you want to see him sad and then give him a loaded gun. Sure, many things may happen after
that: he may kill you, you may kill him, he may heavily wound you and vice versa; you can neutralize his weapon before anything
graver happens, or he may not shoot you simply because, deep down, he still loves you. Indeed, hybrid war has unpredictable results
-- but the selling point of it is that it is low cost, low risk to the USA: even if it fails, it can be tried again and again
simply because the American military is, today, the master of logistics and can reach any corner of the world while the other
countries can't touch it in a non-MAD scenario.
HK is fake and gay, an international airport, stock market and a place to launder your money. Honkies should emigrate to anglo-white
coutries if becoming eunuchs for the nordic man is their greatest dream in life. It does suit them well and they'll be relieve
without the burden of useless genitals.
Everything is possible, what should colour your views is the likelyhood of it happening. You cannot rule out anything. Let's
start at the beginning of your theory: How did the USA persuade Carrie Lam to table the Extradition Bill in the first place? And
if the answer is that they were just waiting for "something" bad to be tabled, then they are not in control, they are not manipulating
the situation, they are observers.
No, nothing so diametric as implying insanity in others simply from applauding sanity where I find it. I hadn't read your comment,
and I had to go back to find your reference. I can't place who or what RL is - sorry the reference is lost on me. But I wasn't
referring to anything except the perspective that one region having an attitude about another region means nothing more than it
would anywhere else in the world.
~~
While I'm making this comment I may as well address the thread in general and say that I don't accept any of the claims in
this thread made by anyone that this is a majority popular movement in Hong Kong. If it were that, it would feel different in
its very bones, and most people here would strongly support it. I agree totally with b's article. The US is interfering and magnifying
things, as usual, and failing.
What is clear to me, is that Hong Kong is a little bit lost, suffering from the ghosts of British sensibility, and with no
forward vision for itself. It should indeed, as Jacques suggests, seek closer integration with the mainland, in order to experience
a superior form of democratic representation, and the liberating vision of actually having a future.
You are not only saying a non specific CIA manual confirms it's own involvement, but that the totatility of that occuring (or
majority as we are talking democratic values here) is product of its approach. In other words no event is organic if it fits the
description of a circumstance that the CIA might use or fabricate. You understand you are busy justifying dictatorship, denying
(in this case Hong Kongers) the credibility or ability of own opinion. Do you really understand what you are transmitting as message
? It is exactly opposite of what you might pretend to represent. You could take this one step further,though it won't be appreciated
here, by saying b is using that tactic to subvert western opinion by making western method seem oppressive. You can go round in
circles endlessly like this, and you call it confirmation.
The Hong Kong links to Outlaw US Empire regime change NGOs are overt as revealed by b and further on this thread; so yeah,
it's as you write. My opinion seconds that of many: Hong Kong had the opportunity to become another Singapore in tandem with Macau--are
there riots there, NO!--and blew it totally. There was no Hong Kong-based vision for what to do after reunification. It
should've been no secret as to what direction PRC was going to go economically and what its plans were. These "protesters" want
to be independent so they say, but I doubt very much if they could articulate what their future plans are to keep Hong Kong's
economy vibrant and the relations they propose to have with their biggest market right next door. Without those sorts of visions
there's no way the "movement" is legitimate.
If you're going to organize a genuine Movement, you must have an agenda, a manifesto, a plan, a vision of what you want to
accomplish, particularly if you win and gain power. I've written down ideas and solutions for specific problems, analytical essays
and such--but I've never written a Revolutionary Manifesto to propose to the masses. (Big Lightbulb overhead!) It could be framed
as an answer to
this WaPost op/ed
: "We Are in Our Articles of Confederation Moment: Our national legislature no longer functions," which I linked to yesterday.
We know what's wrong, but the solution and change in direction needed don't fit soundbites. Nice homework assignment for Political
Revolution 101.
"Malaysian PM: #Israel 'the main cause of #terrorism in world'"
And can say what needs to be said. While I applaud, I disagree; IMO the Outlaw US Empire is both the main cause and most involved
globally and with impunity.
Although you seem to completely misstate vk @65's argument, your query regarding "How did the USA persuade Carrie Lam to table
the Extradition Bill in the first place?" may not be as daft as it first appears.
In 2018, Hong Kong man Chan Tong-kai, 19, took his girlfriend Poon Hiu-wing, 20, on a Valentine's Day trip to Taiwan. While
there he strangled her, stuffed her body in a suitcase and dumped it near a subway station in Taipei. After he returned to Hong
Kong, he was safe from extradition to a Taiwanese court. This horrific incident led to protests in Hong Kong and was the impetuous
for the extradition bill.
While I'm not suggesting Chan was acting at the behest of the CIA, it would certainly fit with the hybrid war scenario for
the US to use its assests to amplify the pro-extradition protests inspired by the murder, while also preparing a Colour Revolution
in response to the inevitable introduction of an extradition bill.
The NYT described it as "The Murder Case that lit the fuse in Hong Kong", hate to link to them but here goes:
@ Paora who wrote in response to apsnaz
"
While I'm not suggesting Chan was acting at the behest of the CIA, it would certainly fit with the hybrid war scenario for the
US to use its assests to amplify the pro-extradition protests inspired by the murder, while also preparing a Colour Revolution
in response to the inevitable introduction of an extradition bill.
"
We are not suppose to think that deeply.....grin Thanks for that
I agree with what Grieved wrote in a comment above and which I have repeated below
"
What is clear to me, is that Hong Kong is a little bit lost, suffering from the ghosts of British sensibility, and with no forward
vision for itself. It should indeed, as Jacques suggests, seek closer integration with the mainland, in order to experience a
superior form of democratic representation, and the liberating vision of actually having a future.
"
Hong Kong has been used as a tool like the US used Puerto Rico as to attempt to show up Cuba.
South Korea is going to go through the same transition, given the opportunity.
Democratic values are BS when the money in your pocket and bank account is not worth the digits or paper printed on......it
has no intrinsic value like before 1971 and in reality now represents DEBT maintained by FAITH
And China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other have lost FAITH in the fiat DEBT of the West because it is connected to
nothing of intrinsic value.
This is the reality that many are not prepared for but is coming soon. The West is being forced to return to a money system
that is not FIAT.
This will clarify my lifeblood claim about finance and focus folks on the perfidy of private fiat money systems
I am not surprised by this, the mainland has a scheme which allows 150 people to emigrate to HK every day, it has been running
since 1997: (2019-1997) * 365 * 150 = 1,204,500. Add to that all the individuals who have moved for other reasons, such as marriage,
and there are quite a few mainlanders in HK. Mainlanders do not speak the local language and do not have the same loyalty to HK.
The emigration scheme is part of the problem as most of those immigrants are people associated with the Chinese Communist Party
- maybe not members, but they got the ticket to emigrate, so they are viewed favourably: HK locals see them as part of the problem!
...
Posted by: aspnaz | Jul 28 2019 1:28 utc | 62
1,204,500 is only about 15% of the Hong Kong population. If the protesters truly believe that they are the majority, they
can start their own petition, as well as protesting in the streets. The fact that they haven't done so makes me a little bit suspicious
if they are the real majority, even among the 6 million or so native Hongkongers.
...
Maybe this petition shows that HK locals are right to be worried!
Posted by: aspnaz | Jul 28 2019 1:28 utc | 62
Divide and conquer, exaggerating the difference between different groups of Hongkongers?
Another interesting factor raised by your post raises is that of kissing ass: One grievance that the HK locals have is that
the local business community is too busy kissing Beijing ass. There is a small minority of HK locals, mostly business folk, who
will sign up to such a petition - handing over their HK ID numbers - in the hope of being recognised by Beijing as worthy of preferential
treatment. Beijing is authoritarian and corrupt, so having evidence of your support for Beijing can go a long way in business
circles.
Posted by: aspnaz | Jul 28 2019 1:39 utc | 64
Well, I guess Hong Kong businessmen are pragmatic. I can't really blame them. Maybe that's one of the reasons why the protesters
haven't started their own petition yet and are concentrating on street demonstrations only so far.
Naive. Either the naïveté is the product of blind idealism or it's a pretence to make a more convincing argument on the so-called
purity of the revolution emerging in HK.
You know what I don't trust? HK is like the victim of a long kidnapping by the West for many years and the locals are now suffering
from Stockholm Syndrome, believing somehow that the kidnappers had the right idea and did what they did for the locals benefit.
Now it's time to see the kidnappers for who they really are. Unfortunately for the locals and fortunately for China, the end goal
is way more important than the capitalist utopia the West uses as an inducement for rebellion.
vk gets it.
@50 NemesisCalling
Well at least you came clean about your affection for Trump. Who's fixated? The one who can see no wrong in their brand of
messiah, or the one who sees, period!????
Yeah, yeah it's what I said, you supported the Assad side over the suffering weak Syrian rebels before you supported the suffering
weak rebel side in HK. Trump's rebels over Obama's, riiiight? Cause there's a difference, riiiight? NOT.
Who cares how China stiffs the West when the West gets away with murder! The point isn't to make China clean up its act in
order to trust its power In an imperfect world, the point is a CHECK ON POWER. I don't expect anything from China except that
it act as the wall that stops imperial hegemony, and it's pretty well-positioned to do so.
If you wanna compare China's corruption vs the ZioAnglo Empire's corruption, that's a whole other circular discussion I'm not
interested in having.
I want China to be the means to the END OF THE ZIOANGLO EMPIRE. Get it? That's the big picture I care about.
Regarding the migration thing. Trump is an old man who wishes he were young again, but he won't get that either. You can't
reverse reality and you can't fight karma. So Trump, the latest Zionist stooge, can't admit that the rest of the world suffered
a massive Muslim migration thanks to wars instigated by the ZioAnglo Empire led by U.S. and so the U.S. must in turn suffer its
own massive migration of the latino kind. Nothing will reverse it; it's reality, it's karma, and so it's bigger and stronger than
Trump. He'll die a disillusioned man if he thinks a wall and cages will deter the inevitable changing demography.
Finally, Anacharsis
Yes, despite that somewhat cynical outlook on China's imperfections, I'm counting on China focusing on survival over blind
capital ambition, therefore, hopefully reclaiming more of its lost ideology, as its survival is hydrocarbon dependent which will
require it to flex some geopolitical strategy over the ZioAnglo Empire.
The seeds for these color revolutions are similar to sleeper terrorist cells. Assets are in place, and more are held in reserve
not for "specific" events to unfold, but for general societal discontent to rise to a certain level, at which time the assets
will be mobilized to help organize and focus the discontent, ultimately for the purpose of destabilizing the offending nation
state.
In Syria, for example, water shortages led to civil unrest. Western powers could have spent those billions of dollars on desalination
plants, diplomatic pressure on Turkey to release more water from their reservoirs, and helped the country remain stable through
a tough time. Instead the Western Powers spent billions of dollars hiring and arming mercenaries to collapse the Syrian Nation,
along with a massive propaganda effort geared at demonizing Assad and the Syrian Government.
I wonder what all those tens or hundreds of thousands of dead Syrian rebels think of the organic protest started by a few thousands
that they then surrendered to the ZioAnglos and their terrorist collaborators ISIS just to achieve the revolutionary noteriety
and humanitarian assistance that led them to an early grave? I'm sure it's a cautionary tale for Hong Kong.
Calling Martin Lee a US stooge is BS. A true Patriot (HK) if there ever was one. I don't deny the US has a hand in fueling the
fire, but the HK people (bottom 90%) have some legitimate grievances.
Once again, pay close attention to who is carrying water for the western empire by regurgitation corporate media narratives
about the color revolution attempt in Hong Kong. Do always suspect these individuals' posts now that they reveal themselves
as tools of the empire.
Right on the money... Bernhard's article has hit every nail squarely on the head...and driven it home with gusto...
Yet we see a number of quite ridiculous posts taking issue with the basic premise...'Organic' my arse...the color revolution
fingerprints are all over this bullshit...
I see James has also noted the unusually frenetic troll activity...
They will of course end up sorely disappointed...China is not Georgia or Ukraine where their stunts can have some effect...come
to think of it, even there the old tricks mostly now just provoke a collective yawn from the target populace...LOL
I don't want my government starting revolutions that lead to wars for regime change I'm not free to stop. The ZioAnglo imperialists
corrupt everything they touch. Let's face it, Revolution has become a dirty word. The Revolution should be AGAINST
the Zio Anglo Empire and not a source to expand its hegemonic reach!
Aye! Che is turning in his grave at this perversion.
Re: my somewhat cynical (I would say ironic, but I won't quibble) outlook on China's (your word:) imperfections: any "ideology"
has been lost (more discarded than lost, really) last century and China is now the epitome of pragmatist--pragmatism is a stage
significantly less coherent than ideologically-driven; therefore, decadence and dissolution come next--then it's just a matter
of time and how many band-aids they can come up with. If you add this to the fact that if China erodes the dollar, they also erode
the value of the money in their own pocket (since they own a rather large percentage of that corporation)...logically, I just
don't see how that horse is gonna run.
You raise a little known aspect of Karma inadvertently or not, in that there is personal, racial and country Karma. So apart
from building your own personal negative or positive Karma, we are also liable to the other sorts. How could supporting a war
mongering nation not have consequence? As such he that stands idly by as evils are committed by his country or race will be affected
by the negative Karma generated. Those that oppose such acts not so.
However the popular notion of instant Karma is nonsense, Karma can't cause effect that quickly. Sometimes it takes several
lives to balance previous Karma as all issues can't be queued for one lifetime as such perfect circumstance rarely exists. Would
expect the Karma affecting masses would be more so. Albeit it certainly appears instant in the example given.
Interesting is that there have been other civilizations prior this one, and wherein lies their history? Purely in myths or
old writing more often as analogy. But the day to day machinations and intrigues of those that wielded power there are not remembered
or even vaguely important in the mists of time. As will be our current. Sadly nothing will change with the power brokers until
our mindset as humanity changes.
Posted by: Herr Ringbone | Jul 28 2019 10:41 utc | 99
"The primary legitimate grievances are impossibly high housing costs (which many of the poorer residents of HK are not affected
by, as they have access to the city's massive public housing programme)"
More "fake" facts: Stock of public housing has gone up by 110,000 in the past 10 years. Up to 1997, under British rule, the
government was building over 84000 apartments per year. Have a look here
https://www.thb.gov.hk/eng/psp/publications/housing/HIF2018.pdf
for the misserable record of the China government. In addition, prior to 97 there were rent controls which made living easier
for the poorest: look it up yourself.
"and poor work conditions in the form of low wages and absurdly long working hours."
So the chef down the local restaurant who is a migrated mainlander, helping to keep HK salaries low, is not the fault of the
government?
So the chef down the local restaurant who is a migrated mainlander, helping to keep HK salaries low, is not the fault of the
government?
You really have a problem with people from the Mainland, don't you? Aside from your repellent racism, which you appear to have
adopted wholesale from your HK relatives, you should understand how absurd your position is. The overwhelming majority of families
in HK are only one or two generations away from the Mainland, i.e. a thirty-five year old here will have parents who very likely
came to HK from China (usually Guangdong). HK is very much a society of immigrants -- from China.
It is inevitable that people from China will come to live in Hong Kong. You appear to be complaining because you don't like
Putonghua speakers.
Posted by: Herr Ringbone | Jul 28 2019 10:51 utc | 100
"You should be able to see from this that people are lying when they claim that the extradition law would have put Hong Kong critics
of China at risk of extradition to the Mainland. That would not have been possible under the law."
The people of Hong Kong are already at risk of rendition if they criticize China: Remember the HK booksellers, kidnapped while
abroad, taken to China and forced to give TV confessions to mainland China courts. That is the reality: The people of HK know
what China will do if they criticize China!
The people of Hong Kong are already at risk of rendition if they criticize China: Remember the HK booksellers, kidnapped while
abroad, taken to China and forced to give TV confessions to mainland China courts. That is the reality: The people of HK know
what China will do if they criticize China!
If the booksellers are the only thing you can cite in this respect -- and let's face it, they are -- then you are on pretty
shaky ground, and I am not going to bother further.
flankerbandit @92 said: "[The trolls] will of course end up sorely disappointed...China is not Georgia or Ukraine where their
stunts can have some effect."
Good post, and correct. It is surprising how badly these State Department/Atlantic Council trolls misread the situation in
Hong Kong. Protests alone are not going to do more than annoy the rest of the HK population, even if they do somehow manage to
get 2 million people on board with the staged events. They absolutely need the CIA death squad snipers to shoot up the protesters
and police at one of these events in order to gain broader sympathy from the HK population, but that is not so easy in HK as in
Libya, Syria, or Ukraine. Chinese intelligence and even the Hong Kong Triads are fully expecting the CIA's antics and keep wrecking
the CIA's plans. So long as there is no violence that the complicit corporate mass media can pin on the authorities then the protests
will remain simple events... staged entertainment for a portion of the HK population. The protests will go nowhere and die out
as the audience/attendees realize that they have better things to do with their lives.
Due to being sick with chills and headaches, I have been laid up for several days and have come late to this party of all parties
to be late for (as relatives of my late father still live in Hong Kong, in Northpoint).
I have been been following the recent protests over the extradition bill through Rebecca Chan's 21SilkRoad Facebook group.
A number of people who contribute to the discussions there have mentioned that cash payments were offered to students to protest.
This is confirmed by
Jeff J Brown's article for The Greanville Post in which he mentions people were paid higher amounts "for tearing the place
up".
Interesting too in the same article is that Brian Kern has been noted as an apparent CIA operative stirring up protesters.
Note how the Asperger Nazi pointed out how he "attended" a protest. This is an important part of the distinction between
fake and staged "protest events" and genuinely organic protests. Did he participate in organizing the protest? Did he hear
about it from an organizer at his workplace, or a group passing out leaflets on a street corner? Did he pass out leaflets himself
and try to convince others to help?
No, of course not. The Asperger Nazi heard about the protest event from TV advertisements days ahead of time. The advertisements
may have been disguised as news segments, but they are advertisements nonetheless.
Fake protest events don't have participants, but rather attendees and audiences. The top organizers are salaried professionals
from event management corporations. They often hire hundreds of people (usually college students on vacation) days ahead of time
to train them up to act as event chaperones. Typically the event chaperones will themselves be managed by a couple dozen trainers
and handlers that the event management company brings in from abroad (Britain or the US). The event chaperones will be issued
identical t-shirts with an event logo professionally silkscreened on them. They will also be issued identical whistles or other
signalling devices on lanyards that they wear around their necks. They will likewise be issued backpacks with some "protest
supplies" , such as hand towels or bandannas and bottles of solutions to neutralize teargas and things like that. On the day
of the protest event each of the event chaperones will attempt to form squads of about a dozen or less protesters and explain
signalling so that the squad can coordinate its actions. In this manner the few hundred event chaperones can steer thousands of
event attendees, and by herd instinct the rest of the attendees/audience will follow.
The event management corporation will handle the marketing of the protest event. This includes working out with local TV station
producers and even international TV network producers how the event is to be portrayed and TV viewers attracted to it.
"Guerrilla marketing" tactics will also
be employed. See the linked Wikipedia article for examples. Entertainers and notable athletes will be contracted to promote the
protest event, and if possible an outdoor stage with sound system, light show, and jumbotron screens will be arranged for the
entertainers to perform from (particularly notable at the fake Maidan protests in Kiev back in 2013-2014).
Key here is that none of the attendees/audience participate in organizing the protest event. The event just seems to happen
all on its own and all the attendees/audience have to do is show up.
Real and "organic" protests are a whole different matter.
That is to say that extradition could occur before any proof of guilt, before a trial had occurred ...
That's how extraditions always work, isn't it?
You haven't paid attention to any of the safeguards I mentioned that are in the law.
If there is any favouritism in the HK judiciary, it goes against China. Those people are trained in the common law tradition
and many have a thoroughly colonial mentality still. Some judges are still foreigners, for heaven's sake. You only have to listen
to the comments that come from the Bar Association, for example.
Those might have happened exactly as you describe, but I've been in a similar situation in another part of the world and fascists
have described the situation exactly as in that manner and the gov have still been putting protesters in jail after so many years
with exactly the same accusations. Now in our situation too there might have been external actors (I don't know), yet the protest
was righteous as well. I'm not blaming you, but you may be naive too. Or it's me who's naive.
The process that I described above costs lots of money. Many $millions. It also requires the complicity of the
so-call "free press" corporate mass media. If you overlook that aspect then indeed it is you who are being naive.
Who has $millions and would pay them to disrupt the empire's satrap in Haiti? How could those people recoup their investment?
Particularly when any such investors would certainly understand that the empire can outspend them and will just install another
satrap after this one is deposed? More critically, where is the mass media cheering on the protesters in Haiti?
To be certain, it is possible to fool people into thinking external agents are behind genuine protests, but only when those
people who are fooled overlook the practical aspects of organizing protests. In fact, in order to successfully fool the fooled
it is necessary for the "free press" corporate mass media to participate in the deception.
This last point cannot be stressed enough: Whichever "side" the "free press" corporate mass media is supporting in a
protest is the bad guys in every single case. The only time the "free press" corporate mass media will suddenly
discover the righteousness of a genuine protest is if they realize that their necks are on the chopping blocks next if they continue
to back the empire.
How can this not be another attempt to 'divide and conquer'? The only odd thing about this - it still is gobbled down by the masses
of those countries in which this dividing and conquering originates. Tell me that there are similar tactics in place outside the
Western value regimes.
Nevertheless, the real importance of finding out who perpetrated/organized this latest round of instigated civil unrest, lies
within the fact that it is also applied in numerous other Nations who are turning away from this Western business model of coercion
and mayhem.
The deep state stooges will point out how bad all the socialist countries are - Nations that actually care for their populations.
Nothing China has done since Tienanmen square can compete with the Fascism of the US and Europe.
I urge anybody to read up this article on the WSWS web site for what it is worth. The German regime has just affirmed the
'Gesinnungsstrafrecht' in a ruling by
the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court).
If the Chinese government would have affirmed a law like this for Hong Kong, or its mainland territory, the Fascists would
foam at the mouth. That this law is now affirmed - 74 years after the alleged end of Fascism in Germany - in what calls itself
a 'Democracy', is beyond words.
Max Liebermann said that "One cannot eat as much as one wants to vomit" when he observed the Nazis marching through the Brandenburg
Gate.
'Gesinnungsstrafrecht' means that you can now be locked away in Germany for opposing capitalism. Or for demanding 'equality'.
How much worse has it to become before it can change to the better?
1) all hybrid wars have an "organic" component. What differentiates a legitimate revolt from a hybrid war is the artificiality
of its growth: in a popular uprising, growth is organic (result of mass mobilization by the working classes themselves), in a
hybrid war (or just a color revolution), growth comes from material and human resources help from the USA. As the Americans themselves
admit, the degree of its growth is unpredictable, and depends on many variables within the target country itself.
2) for newcomers here, please read my comments on a past free tread here. The sequence of events clearly indicates a textbook
hybrid warfare modus operandi : from pacif to violent -- this violence growing on a constant and linear degree. There was
no chance a color revolution would topple the Lam government (because it won the popular vote in the last elections), so the protest
leaders knew they needed a body count to escalate it to unconventional warfare. Was it a purely organic uprising, the protest
would've stopped once Lam killed the bill: any legitimate opposition without a prospect of absolute victory would stop right there
and declare victory, thus maintaining the mobilization and stepping up to the phase of organization (probably, founding a new
localist party to dispute the next elections); that wasn't the case with these protests, which clearly tried to breed chaos and
thus creating a theater for guerilla warfare (one of the main tactics for unconventional warfare).
3) yes, the movement initially attracted 2 million people to the streets (it probably was much less, but that's not the point
here). But after Lam withdrew the bill, those 2 million immediately turned into 70,000, which then turned into 30,000 (again,
those are the propaganda numbers, spread by the Western MSM, so you cannot accuse me of being pro-Beijing with them). Meanwhile,
a pro-Beijing movement attracted 500,000 to the streets of Hong Kong. This movement of the masses clearly indicates the anti-bill
protests had a highly artificial inflating factor -- possibly with paid protesters and paid propaganda. My bet would be that some
American NGO is paying some student leaders in HK to organize the whole thing.
4) the main problem with the anti-Beijing protesters is that their cause is utopic: full independence in not viable for Hong
Kong not much because of the Mainland grip, but because the natural conditions make the construction of a Nation-State unfeasible.
Hong Kong doesn't have agriculture and doesn't have a significant source of water. The UK is now an impoverished giant and doesn't
have the resources to sustain and eventual "independent" HK. It would continue to be a de facto province of China on economic
pressure alone (as is already the case of Taiwan -- a much bigger and naturally richer island). And the majority of the HK people
know this: the localist parties (yes, the pro-independence movement in HK is not even united) never won an election.
5) I'm not saying that the USA is evil. Good and Evil are Christian concepts, therefore they are idealisms and don't exist
in the real world. We Marxists don't use them. What I'm saying is that the USA is using its strengths to order to gain a geopolitical
advantage over its two main enemies of the 21st Century: Russia and China. Those advantages are: military logistics (hundreds
of bases around the world; supremacy over the Seven Seas and the Dollar Standard) and soft power (the world still believes that
the USA system is, if not the best possible model, the least worse). Those are the two ingredients only the USA have. Hybrid Warfare,
therefore, is a war tactic that is very cheap -- both in the political and material sense -- for the Americans to use: no wonder
it was created by them and only them use it.
The fact that the West infected the natives of Hong Kong with an extended dosage of capitalist utopia ideology plays a role in
China's ability to hold on to Hong Kong and the ZioAnglo Empire knows this. The Empire only and always fuels and fans dissent
that is good for it geostrategically and infiltrates what is ripe for the picking and HK is just too ripe and strategically important
a chess piece for the Empire to ignore and not weaponize against China.
So you all who are pretending purity in this fake incipient revolution stop pretending this isn't what's happening in HK.
China has a HK Taiwan problem. The only reason Trump isn't gloating is because he's got to settle a favorable tariff arrangement
to win over U.S. farmers in 2020.
China needs to act on its power as a global player, get serious about flexing leverage against the U.S. in different areas
including on North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as well as financially, and be less discreet and polite regarding ZioAnglo Empire's
goals while domestically balancing economic ambition with political ideology that rallies its people to recognize and stand firm
and ready against the subversive attempts of the Empire to diminish China's power.
If China continues with its laissez-faire attitude regarding the Empire's multiple aggressive geopolitical moves, and holds
back on moves of its own, then this time in history represents the beginning of China's decline and Trump is on a mission to capitalize
on its inaction and accelerate that outcome.
I don't disagree with that, except for "I'm not saying that the USA is evil." I say, as an atheist, the USA is deeply, unbelievably
evil. Yet I don't want to be blind to the sufferings of people under much much much less evil rulers as well. Any ruler is better,
much better in comparison to the rule of US. But I don't blindly approve them, in themselves, as good ones.
I admit I hadn't looked at the links etc.; yes, it seems a genuine colour rev! Yet again US, not always, but sometimes if not
most of the times, use an already existing wound.
Acar Burak @126 said: "Yet again US...use an already existing wound."
That's the beauty of identity politics and the US color revolutions. You can always find many people who believe that
they have "an already existing wound" and who just want others to acknowledge and validate it. Even in the most affluent
communities in the imperial homelands you will find no shortage of people you can recruit to your cause (whatever it may be) simply
by affirming to them that their personal butthurt is legitimate and it is someone else's fault. It is just a warmed over version
of Catholic "original sin" and in imperfect societies you will never be short on people who will find that stain or injury
within themselves that they feel is holding them back from true happiness.
Such "wounded" individuals are always easy prey for the con artist. The empire's narrative spinners encourage self-pity
among the weak while the Communists try to discourage it, so it is no surprise that the weak go crying to capitalist hucksters
who offer empty promises of cures for their internal unhappiness. That is an advantage the empire makes full use of, both internally
and among its vassal states.
Vaughn L. Treude 77
"What a shame that pro-democracy and pro-liberty movements get tainted by association with US government opportunism."
So very true. The groups want support. Unfortunately they get it from the likes of Pompeo. I watched a TED talk from 2015 about
our democracy not representing us. It pointed to the Hong Kong protests of 2014 and how the candidates were selected by a committee
for the people to vote on instead of a more democratic process.
Calling Martin Lee a US stooge is BS. A true Patriot (HK) if there ever was one. I don't deny the US has a hand in fueling
the fire, but the HK people (bottom 90%) have some legitimate grievances.
The real grievance of Hongkongers is the rampart income and wealth disparity in Hong Kong. That this grievance is not even
mentioned by the protesters is an ominous sign that the movement has been hijacked by those who have ulterior motivations.
Gruff - please provide a detailed historical example of an "organic" protest in your terms.
I go back to the 60s and every single major protest movement since that time fits neatly inside your simplistic box. None can
pass your smell test. Not to mention you offer no positive steps to correct what you see as a problem, except banning/ignoring
people with different ideas from you who are automatically considered paid trolls. And this is just blog commentary we're talking
about not y'know, organised political agitation, a relatively toothless pasttime for old timers. Duly noted even here in a commenters'
community you take the side of the supposed "insider" status-quo and seek to push out anyone with different ideas.
Grow up Gruff. Your schtick was already overly tired in 2005. It lives on here among a few self-identified "insiders" only
because b to his credit doesn't believe in ideological banning. I could name names but its the same ol high volume commenters
who start the insinuations of "lot of trolls out tonight" or whatever baloney to rally the like minded into a clique of "anti-subversion."
Every movement has its agitators and its co-opters, all with agendas of their own. Every revolution contains counter-revolutions
(real and imagined) within its power structures (AKA "power struggles"). And yes, every revolution has its power structure
too. Inescapable given human need for social hierachy. This is also the fatal flaw within every political movement (and in fact
human civilisation itself) that from the beginning it plants the seeds for fractiousness, division and eventual downfall.
What's to do then? Bow to the inevitable power of the state, is that your reactionary, arch conservative solution Gruff? Seems
the only logical answer to be inferred from your ongoing repetitive tiresome same ol same ol "troll hunting".
Maybe you are a CIA troll. See how easy that is?
At least start backing up your schtick with some relevant data. You have gone beyond simplistic and boring dude.
@128 Curtis - ".. pointed to the Hong Kong protests of 2014 and how the candidates were selected by a committee for the people
to vote on instead of a more democratic process."
You illustrate an excellent example of the shit colonial administrative system of governance that the British left in Hong
Kong. Recall that the policy of China towards its returning provinces is the "One Nation, Two Systems" framework - the same framework
that will apply to Taiwan eventually.
Under this policy of two systems, China has scrupulously left Hong Kong to govern itself, and to enjoy its own oligarchical,
stagnant and corrupt economy. Both of these things are much inferior to those in China. If people have grievances about their
life in Hong Kong, they would do well to look at the foreign methods ruling them. They would be better off under the Chinese system,
as Martin Jacques criticized Beijing for NOT imposing on Hong Kong, in the clip I
posted up-thread.
Two million people are prepared to go marching on the street, yet you are suspicious that they are not genuine because they
have not signed a petition? Sorry, I don't follow this logic: You are suspicious of anti-government protesters who will not
put their ID card numbers on a petition in an country rules by a corrupt, authoritarian government? And why is a petition more
convincing than 2m people in the street?
The number of protesters was exaggerated. The police counted only 340,000 when the protest organizers claimed two millions.
Hong Kong government is in cahoots with the real estate tycoons and is in the pockets of the uber-rich. But that's the case for
every government in the world. It does not mean the Hong Kong government is especially corrupt or authoritarian. If the protesters
can demonstrate that they are indeed a force to be reckoned with by both protesting in the streets and garnering hundreds of thousands
of signatures to support their cause, then they will have a far greater chance of success. Success means that they do not have
to worry about government persecution. By hiding both their faces and names, they undermine their own cause, reduce the chance
of their success, and increase their risk of being persecuted by the HK government.
One wonders how long it will take before other countries kick US NGOs like the CIA front organization the National Endowment for
Democracy and Soro's Open Society out of their countries as the subversives that they are.
As a simple rule of thumb "If any organs of the US State or its allies appear to support a political demonstration, that demonstration
ought automatically to be condemned by anti-imperialists and democrats of any kind". The only demonstrations worth supporting
are those organised by principled opponents of the state and spontaneous responses to actions supported by the state. Where the
state in question is at loggerheads with the Empire any opposition to that state is going to be contaminated by imperialist money
and support.
The truth is that in almost every case where the Empire, and this includes its ideological engines such as the
media, is supporting opposition to the state which it is attempting to overthrow, support for demonstrations is not only mistaken
but counter productive.
No good can come from actions which the imperialists approve of, guide and promote. This must be the case because the purpose
of the imperialists is to enslave, rape and plunder populations.
The lessons of Iran in 2009, Kiev in 2014, Venezuela today, Brazil last year etc etc, of Libya and Syria and of the overthrow
of Aristide in Haiti are quite clear: the Empire exploits the poor and the disenfranchised, it aims not to liberate them but to
bind them into a slavery more profound than any previously undergone.
With reference to Hong Kong, no doubt there are plenty of genuine grievances with the CP government. There are also plenty
of tensions of a caste and racial nature, borne of the long rule of the imperialists, employing the place as a base from which
to impose its deleterious rule on a population that it exploited in every way including the trafficking (kidnapping and sale)
of millions of 'coolies.'
Anyone with any sense in Hong Kong knows that the National Endowment of Democracy and the UK Foreign Office are not involved to
promote the interests of the people but to revive the fascist power that the Communists displaced and the "west" supported for
so long.
bevin - your "simple rule of thumb" of course precludes any chance for revolution anywhere. Thus yours is a reactionary statement
at base. Not that I'm surprised at that fact. Disappointed though.
We no longer live in the early 20th Century. When I read you more and more I believe you are mired within an antiquated political
philosophy that no loner resembles economic conditions on the globalised ground.
As imperialism already exists everywhere in many forms, guises, is international and not necessarily bound anymore by recognised
nation states, monied forces will always seek to contaminate and control any movement seeking political change.
Your rule of thumb means support for Brexit is a waste of time.
For, as is now readily apparent to most (and should have been for a long time now), the main beneficiary of Brexit will be...US
imperialism.
We must stop with these false moralisms: we all know that the question on the table here is not the welfare of the HK people,
but on which terms it will be pacified.
If you cared about the welfare of the people in abstract, you would be talking about Africa and the Middle East, not Hong Kong.
I sent this post to a friend from mainland China who is now a US citizen living in Arizona. Here is his reply:
The mess in Hong Kong definitely has British and American "black hands" behind it. I wouldn't be surprised the Chinese government
decides to take back Hong Kong completely soon if the violent protests continue. Some people in Hong Kong don't understand how
lucky they are that they don't have to live under the same rules that rest of the Chinese people have to live. Small number of
people wanted independence which I think is supported by British and American "black hands" (that's the word used by Chinese government).
Instead of enjoying what they have and possibly make it last longer than the 50 years that Chinese government originally promised,
they may very well lose it in less than 50 years. Like most Chinese, I absolutely have no sympathy for them. Soon they will find
out life will be much worse under the true Chinese government. Naturally the small number of people who started all this will
escape to England or the U.S. but rest of the people in Hong Kong will be permanently screwed.
What is wrong with extraditing people accused of crimes to the places where they are alleged to have committed the crime? This
bill that is being protested, seems to be hedged round with all sorts of restrictions on when it would be permissible to extradite
someone. To me it looks like a pretty reasonable bill. What do you think is wrong with it?
And yes, I read bevin's comment regarding B-o-rexit @ 170 in that thread the other day and snorted coffee through my nose I laughed
so hard. You were obviously straining mightily to reconcile your support for the Brexit debacle with some "wishin and hopin" that
maybe Jeremy Corbin-style socialism will strike Trump's base of voters as the way forward?
What has become of you bevin? Srsly, sir. That comment and this one support reactionary, hard right policies falsely shrouded
in a deceptive, utopian fantasy.
If the existence of a mafia is the indicator of a fascist state, then you'll also have to worry about Japan (Yakuza), Taiwan
(allied with the Hongkonger Triad), Hong Kong itself (Triad), Russia (Eurasiatic Mafia), Italy (where the term was created),
USA (Kennedy's family had link with the American mafia) and essentially all Latin America (where narcotrafic is in all but
name mafias).
Check out too, while you are at it Ron Unz's massive essay on "The Power of Organised Crime" in the Unz Review (unz.com)
"By their fruit shall ye know them." If it walks like a duck... The msm is the propaganda arm of the Empire. Anyone that relies on it for news is going to be at best confused, at worst
totally misinformed or completely shut off from reality. Yes sometimes there is some real news in it but not very often and you
cannot, sensibly, rely on it.
I feel very deeply torn about "Brexit". On the on hand I like having Europe so united and on the other the people supporting
"Remain" are the likes of Tony Blair, Mandelson, Cameron and a whole gang of undesirables and the US seems to be supporting Brexit!
It is very clear that the State Department (NED) and Atlantic Council crew have gotten their marching orders concerning Hong Kong!
Apparently the State Department thinks their HK operation still has legs and can be revitalized with sufficient astroturfing.
If b were to publish on the empire's disruption efforts in Russia that are in the news these last couple days you can expect
the very same crew to be casting FUD on b's analysis and talking up the clown Navalny like he was the real "opposition"
to Putin's United Russia party. These tools would even have defended Random Guaido if they could have thought of a way
to do so without being universally laughed at. Where Hong Kong is concerned, however, they are nursing the mistaken impression
that there is still an opening to try and sell the corporate media narrative. The only people buying though are their astroturfing
companions.
One may wonder why they come to these alternative media sites that provide analysis that is independent of the empire's artificial
narratives. Do they imagine readers here might somehow have not heard the mass media's take on things already and that if the
astroturfers regurgitate the corporate media narratives readers here will be "enlightened" and flock back to Huffington
Post and similar imperialist forums? More likely they are just following orders. Still, their presence here indicates that the
empire is concerned about the analysis that b shares and the discussions that follow that sharing. That concern is gratifying.
I agree, when the empire sends it's beasts of burden to sow chaos, you know you have gotten somewhere as an alternative media
source. The concern is indeed gratifying.
Who is your real patron? Whose orders are you taking to police the forums?
You sell the left as a very power hungry, fascistic and extremely idiotic position; you and your "comrades" are excellent left
repellents –though only for the idiotic youngsters.
But if you don't have a patron (which I doubt) and you're a genuine charlatan, that's even worse. I always smile when all those
scoundrels in the West are called left, progressive etc. And now I see the real left and I laugh. Really.
@154 William Gruff - "...why they come to these alternative media sites that provide analysis that is independent of the empire's
artificial narratives. Do they imagine readers here might somehow..."
You raise a good point that is worth considering.
We know that everything they do is done in full mediocrity, and that it either fails to achieve anything or else actually results
in a loss of what they had before. If the same dynamic is at work here, then one could expect to see that they are actually losing
with every slanderous and attacking comment they make.
Why do they hurt themselves in this way, by sending in sub-par operatives to engage with the very view that comes from having
seen through the pretense they use as cover?
Can it be that they know one thing better than us, which is that this very conversation is a fatal threat to them? In a way
that we fail to measure to its full weight, do they see they are losing? Is it possible that they see that for every troll they
send, thousands may be liberated from thralldom? And the more they see this liberation, the more they double down?
This "death by irony" would match everything else they do.
"... Why do they hurt themselves in this way, by sending in sub-par operatives to engage with the very view that comes from
having seen through the pretense they use as cover? ..."
You think that the likes of GCHQ and their equivalents in Langley and Tel Aviv will willingly pay impoverished university students
or otherwise unemployable dole-chq takers on zero-hours styled contracts a decent wage for their pains?
Even hiring people to staff the trolling call-centres is subjected to the rigours of neoliberal labour hiring and remuneration.
From the Morning Star
"Earlier this year, in mid-March, before most people in Hong Kong, never mind the West, were aware of the details of the Extradition
Bill, the US National Security Council (NSC) issued an invitation to Hong Kong opposition politicians to visit Washington.
Headed by Anson Chan, the most senior civil servant in the last British colonial administration, meetings were fast-tracked
with Trump's Vice-President Mike Pence and the NSC itself.
"The vice-president is clearly concerned about rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, including religious rights," Chan told the
media.
The main topic of conversation was stopping the extension of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (Extradition Bill).
Hong Kong's Civic Party leader Dennis Kwok, who was part of Chan's delegation, said after the NSC meeting that the US government
was "paying high attention to what's happening in Hong Kong, and extradition is certainly at the top of their priority when it
comes to Hong Kong."
They were particularly interested in how the Bill "would directly affect the interests of the American businesses and citizens
who are either in Hong Kong or going through Hong Kong."
Chan also referred directly to the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, which states that the US regards Hong Kong as
"an independent customs territory and economic entity separate from the rest of China."
This status gives Hong Kong considerable advantages in the ease of trade with the US -- its loss would seriously harm the Hong
Kong economy.
Given Hong Kong's separate monetary authority and currency, taxation rules, banking systems and property laws, this is simply
a reflection of economic reality.
However, if Hong Kong were to lose that status in US law, it could be subject to punitive tariffs, economic sanctions and a
whole raft of restrictions on Hong Kong-US trade.
These were the first hints that the Hong Kong opposition and the Trump administration would tie the Extradition Bill to the
ongoing US-China trade war.
In mid-May, these threats took a more direct form. Just weeks before the first major public mobilisation against the fugitives
law, a second high-profile delegation, this time headed by Hong Kong Democratic Party founder Martin Lee, also found a warm welcome
in the US capital.
On this occasion, the delegation met US Secretary of State Mike "Regime Change" Pompeo, then with Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of
the House of Representatives and the most powerful Democrat on Capitol Hill.
The highpoint of Lee's visit was an invitation to give testimony to the bipartisan US Congressional-Executive Commission on
China, chaired by Marco Rubio.
I have seen the true face of the HK demonstrations in the Australian Financial Review photo of the demonstrators holding US flags,
I think,that is a good example of the real reason and source of this disturbances ,
Is a revolution that benefits the ZionistAnglo Empire's hegemony legitimate? The Empire is fascism on a global scale. Do you
not see that? The higher goal should be to remove that scourge not add to its power. If the Empire hijacks a foreign domestic
protest for its own power-driven agenda, how does that benefit so many more others on the planet who don't want to be under its
dominion?
Your thinking is naive and driven by the humanitarian propaganda that the Empire uses as a Trojan Horse to move in and take
over.
I don't want Zionist America in every corner of the world exerting its militaristic world order by chaos! F.ck it! I am for
a multi-polar world where Zionist America and its vassals don't dictate the rule by breaking international law!
If the Empire co-opts through various forms of concerned psy-ops, crowd enhancement illusion, Zionist media promotion
and fake righteousness, which amounts to propaganda, the protest of 340,000 to further its enslavement of say, 350,000,000 on
a global scale, how is that good?
Again, the Empire represents GLOBAL FASCISM. In other words GREATER EVIL.
In the case of Brexit, I would discard who prefers what. Brexit is America's gain. Better to reign in the poorhouse than to
serve in the palace. In Europe the UK always demands exceptionalism. When it becomes more dependent on the US, the latter will
make the demands.
Now, of course, the UK could use a lesson in humility, and so far Brexit has certainly delivered on that! 😁
I think the U.K. should quit acting like Europe's primadonna, return to the fold and play nice with others. The alternative
is probably more karmic spanking.
@166 StarMan
Why am I not surprised?
Especially that Marco Rubio weaseled his way into this.
A political reality which has devolved so far to the right that while we babble about online trolls we begin to believe authoritarian
fascist govts supported by global oligarchs are doing the right thing on our behalf!
And is the Fascist ZioAnglo Empire doing the right thing on our and everyone's behalf with its unchecked global militaristic
and financial power and tyranny???
"... China's crude shipments from Iran totaled 855,638 tons last month, which averages to 208,205 barrels per day (bpd), compared with 254,016 bpd in May, according figures from the General Administration of Customs, cited in a recent Reuters report . ..."
"... Iran's Vice President Jahangiri made the appeal to Beijing and "friendly" countries to up their Iranian crude purchases in statements Monday. "Even though we are aware that friendly countries such as China are facing some restrictions, we expect them to be more active in buying Iranian oil ," Jahangiri reportedly told visiting senior Chinese diplomat Song Tao. He said this while also on Monday issuing a statement saying Iran stood ready to "confront" American aggression in the region and that multilateralism must be upheld. ..."
Following China's crude imports from Iran plunging this summer, sinking almost 60% in June
compared to
a year earlier - which corresponded to Washington shutting down the waiver program in May -
leaders in Tehran are urging China to buy more Iranian oil .
China's crude shipments from Iran totaled 855,638 tons last month, which averages to 208,205
barrels per day (bpd), compared with 254,016 bpd in May, according figures from the General
Administration of Customs, cited in a recent
Reuters report .
Iran's Vice President Jahangiri made the appeal to Beijing and "friendly" countries to up
their Iranian crude purchases in statements Monday. "Even though we are aware that friendly
countries such as China are facing some restrictions, we expect them to be more active in
buying Iranian oil ," Jahangiri
reportedly told visiting senior Chinese diplomat Song Tao. He said this while also on
Monday issuing a statement saying Iran stood ready to "confront" American aggression in the
region and that multilateralism must be upheld.
"The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is to protect multilateralism and
confront American hegemony,"
Jahangiri said , according to the IRIB news agency.
He added that Iran's recent move to breach uranium enrichment caps could be reversed should
other parties return to upholding their side of the nuclear agreement.
Simultaneously, China's oil purchases from Iran's rival Saudi Arabia have soared to record
volume , totaling 1.89 million barrels a day last month, according to numbers cited in
Bloomberg . "Shipments from the OPEC producer made up almost a fifth of its total oil
purchases in June and was 64% higher than the previous month," while at the same time "Imports
from Iran fell to the lowest since May 2010," according to
Bloomberg .
Meanwhile, in a crucial development related to Iran's trying to weather the severe US-led
sanctions storm, a long anticipated plan for gasoline export has begun with an inaugural
shipment to neighboring Afghanistan.
The Fars news agency said on Monday that a first consignment of export gasoline will start
trading in Iran's Energy Exchange (IRENEX) later this week .
It said some 10,000 tons of gasoline with octane number of 91 will be available for sale
to Afghanistan through IRENEX on Wednesday, adding that the trade will take place both in the
Iranian rial and in major international currencies.
Iran's refining capacity has grown significantly over the past years as the country slashed
fuel imports while also coping with increased domestic demand.
Officials have expressed hope that Iraq along with Afghanistan, as well as Caspian Sea
countries would become main destinations for gasoline export.
A country knocking on the doors of other countries to be able to sell it's product to
sustain it's economy and support it's population all the while "civilized, humane, peaceful,
and law abiding" people in the west enjoying their lives at the expense of the very same
people who they insult for not being able to stole the way they did, arguing and trying to
convince everyone else how Mullah's are oppressing their people while they're trying to
help.
China will buy more Iranian oil and so will Russia. They will have the last word whilst
the US empire will be the laughing stock of the world (well it already is).
Cruelty and Stupidity are the hallmarks of moves this century.
"What's Iran to do? It seems straightforward. Respond in kind but no more than in kind to
aggression on Iran's interests, make sure the craven Trumpists and allies realize Iran isn't
kidding about shutting down resource shipments through the Persian Gulf and the destruction
of the vast petroleum infrastructure in the Persian Gulf if Iran is attacked militarily, and
above all remain cool headed and patient. The US empire is beginning to implode."
OK so last week there was millions of barrels of Iranian oil sitting in storage tanks in
China but has not officially changed hands because of sanctions. Today imports from Iran to
China have plunged. Do you not see the correlation? It was in your own ******* article. Do
you even read some of the **** you publish?
I miss Marla...**** was straight when she was around.
See what you mean re: Marla. Nowadays most articles get published on the merit of fitting
an agenda, beyond that content seems irrelevant. And I'm not sure 'Tyler' even knows there is
an active comment section, if you see what I mean.
The Chinese have planned for (and thus probably will achieve) a SPR holding 90 days of
oil. They are past 60, maybe already past 70 these days.
Oil consumption is flat thanks to engine improvements. The turd world (Russia included) is
nervous because their oil welfare is going to come to an end.
It would be pretty tough for the U.S. to enforce any sanctions, if China agreed to buy
more oil from Iran. And there is no way the U.S. can stop them, once the Belt and Road system
is completed through the Middle East region. And since China has already lined up 152
countries to cooperate in the BRI, it is extremely difficult for the U.S. to deny them a shot
at improving their economies, especially when it comes to the subject of Iran.
So much for the "China and Russia will save Iran" crowd's desperate assertions. Russia
does not want VZ or Iranian crude on the market as it will push oil prices even lower. As I
said, there will be no WW3 over Iran. There will be no grand assemblage of minor states over
Iran. Iran is on its own.
"... "You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin rejects the claim many times publicly saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty convincing.... ..."
"... Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies??? And --if there is-- does that mean we are headed for a one-party system??? ..."
"... The Russians trying to rig the elections meme was a fallback for the failure of the “trump is a russianstooge" meme. ..."
Here are some insights into the minds of many movers and shakers in Russiagate:
Key US officials behind the Russia investigation have made no secret of their animus
towards Russia.
"I do always hate the Russians," Lisa Page, a senior FBI lawyer on the Russia probe,
testified to Congress in July 2018. "It is my opinion that with respect to Western ideals
and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans, Russia poses the most dangerous
threat to that way of life."
As he opened the FBI's probe of the Trump campaign's ties to Russians in July 2016,
FBI agent Peter Strzok texted Page: "fuck the cheating motherfucking Russians Bastards. I
hate them I think they're probably the worst. Fucking conniving cheating savages."
Speaking to NBC News in May 2017, former director of national intelligence James
Clapper explained why US officials saw interactions between the Trump camp and Russian
nationals as a cause for alarm: "The Russians," Clapper said, "almost genetically driven to
co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were
concerned."
In a May interview with Lawfare, former FBI general counsel Jim Baker, who helped
oversee the Russia probe, explained the origins of the investigation as follows: "It was
about Russia, period, full stop. When the [George] Papadopoulos information comes across
our radar screen, it's coming across in the sense that we were always looking at Russia.
we've been thinking about Russia as a threat actor for decades and decades."
"You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin
rejects the claim many times publicly saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections
as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty
convincing....
My question for Larry Johnson requires some speculation on his part: How did the claims of
"Russia meddling" which began with the DNC and Hillary campaign, take root at the FBI, CIA
and NSA???
Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies???
And --if there is-- does that mean we are headed for a one-party system???
Protesters wearing all black streamed through the Yuen Long area, even though police refused to grant permission for the march,
citing risks of confrontations between demonstrators and local residents.
By nightfall, protesters and police were once again facing off in the streets, as they've done previously during the summer-long
pro-democracy protests in the Chinese territory. Demonstrators threw objects and ducked behind makeshift shields, and police officers
shot plumes of tear gas into the air.
In May the chief organizer of the demonstrations
met with U.S. leaders:
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with Hong Kong pro-democracy leader Martin Lee on Thursday, the State Department said,
as Hong Kong activists seek to derail a proposed extradition law pushed by Beijing.
"Secretary Pompeo expressed concern about the Hong Kong government's proposed amendments to the Fugitive Ordinance law, which
threaten Hong Kong's rule of law," the department said in a statement.
Lee founded the first pro-democracy party in Hong Kong in 1990 and has been a prominent voice calling for civil liberties for
the city's residents.
Lee and
other U.S. stooges organized large demonstrations against an extradition bill which would allow the government to send people
who committed crimes in mainland China, Taiwan and Macau to those provinces where the crime was committed to receive their punishment.
Hong Kong already has similar agreements with foreign countries.
Since then the government of Hong Kong temporarily pulled the bill back. The protest movement immediately diminished. But a core
of black-clad students, influenced by the U.S. paid leaders, is trying to keep the struggle up. Throughout the last weeks they broke
into the parliament building and ransacked it. They defiled family graves or pro-Chinese politicians, attacked police lines,
harassed elderly arrivals (vid) at Hong
Kong's airport and today, during an illegal demonstration,
destroyed a car which they falsely believed
to have a Chinese mainland owner.
Such behavior will only diminish the popular support they might have received otherwise.
That the U.S. is behind this can also be seen in the
slanted
coverage the riots
receive
in 'western' media. The picture they draw is
incomplete :
Unable to defeat the bill legislatively, Hong Kong's pro-Western opposition has taken to the streets. With the help of Western
media spin - the illusion of popular opposition to the extradition bill and Beijing's growing influence over Hong Kong is created.
What is not only omitted - but actively denied - is the fact that the opposition's core leaders, parties, organizations, and
media operations are all tied directly to Washington DC via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and corporate foundations
like Open Society Foundation.
Hong Kong has 7.5 million inhabitants. While demonstrations of several ten thousands seems big, they does not represent a majority.
The so called 'pro-democracy' parties in Hong Kong have lost in each and every local election. The pro-China parties always receive
a majority of votes.
Hong Kong was once the exclusive 'door to China'. It lost that status when China opened up for trade. Today a number of much larger
cities within the mainland are way richer and more important. Hong Kong has little influence on what happens elsewhere in China.
The temporary special status it received after Britain's colonial rule is of little concern. Most people in Hong Kong recognize that.
They know that their economic well being now depends on Beijing's good will.
The U.S. may believe that the circus it creates with these student stunts might push China into doing something harsh. But the
mainland is not concerned about
such nonsense. It already knows how this will end:
"Trying to seize the opportunity to incite chaos in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region does not have popular support
and will not be successful," [Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang] said.
The students who were instigated to commit violence and crimes will go to jail. The extradition bill will be reintroduced at a
convenient time and pass Hong Kong's legislative council with a large majority.
As that outcome was totally predictable one wonders why the Trump administration bothered to launch such nonsense. It will only
make it more difficult to solve other problems, like North Korea or global trade, over which China has influence.
I don't doubt that Hong Kong residents have legitimate gripes, but like a tapeworm attaching itself to the host, almost any domestic
unrest in any US "adversary" is usually tapped into by the US for its own purposes.
Thank you b. I had a strong suspicion that the west - particularly the US/UK - were behind this brouhaha, if for no other reason
than that it arose when it did. And that the BBC World Service has been beating the drum for the protestors, always mentioning
fantastical numbers (millions, hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands) when it does so.
The BBC World Service, as the US-UK voice of corporate-capitalist-imperialism, *never* speaks to those Hong Kong people who
are not interested in the protests or the purported reasons for them (so much for their much vaunted "impartiality" which is and
always has been utter bunkum). Nor, when the extradition bill is mentioned, does the Beeb *ever* point out that it includes Taiwan
and Macau. Only China is spoken of as the focus of the bill. *Nor* does the BBC ever say that Hong Kong has (and is) used as a
bolt hole for real criminals who are wanted in China, Taiwan and Macau. And they have never mentioned the fact that HK has similar
treaties with other nation states. Nor has anything (in my hearing) been said about the US connections of any of the leaders of
this "movement." Omitting information is as important as repetition, use of weaselly terms, outright lying when seeking to propagandize.
In contrast - because it's "one of us" - virtually nothing has been reported on the Gilets Jaunes protests, except on the odd
occasion when some accompanying the protests have broken Parisian shop windows. And during those few and far between reports no
mention at all was made about the French Riot Police's brutality and the terrible wounds they inflicted on the demonstrators.
(Of course, we also never hear *anything* about what the Israelis do to Palestinians unless it can be portrayed as poor, weak
and vulnerable Israel being victimized by the Goliath Palestinians.)
By contrast every report on the HK protests underscores the HK police's use of tear gas and plastic bullets.
The real issue here is the idea that Western nations have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign countries,
anywhere in the world, whenever it suits them to further the agenda of the Imperialism.
If the Chinese people of Hong Kong have a problem with their rulers, surely they have the right to do whatever they
choose about it, without external interference. But apparently not, according the Empire and its lackeys. As ever, the West is
the arbiter of other peoples lives (and death). It's sickening and I'm ashamed by the actions of our so-called leaders.
Nice of you to quote Tony Cartalucci. As I
mentioned in the previous thread, he has been
banned by Facebook
and Twitter . Cartalucci has been opposing NED, Soros and their fake civil society organizations and color revolutions in
Asia for at least 10 years. Part of the reason for his ban is likely
his opposition
to the color revolution attempt in Hong Kong.
...
"As that outcome was totally predictable one wonders why the Trump administration bothered to launch such nonsense. It will only
make it more difficult to solve other problems, like North Korea or global trade, over which China has influence."
Posted by b on July 27, 2019 at 17:06 UTC
... not to mention the tired old fantasy of driving a wedge between China and Russia. The chance of that succeeding now is
less than zero. It's also funny that China.gov has decided that the protesters shouldn't be treated too harshly because its not
their fault that they're childish and impatient.
uh Hillary Clinton stood with Bush and lied the world into war. Hillary and Obama brought
slavery back to Libya and ISIS and the largest refugee crisis since WW2 to Syria .
Dont forget genocide in Yemen ..
Hillary also supported disastrous free trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA and {TPP that
brought back slavery} that harm workers on both sides of the borders
Hillary also toppled a democratically elected president in Honduras with Death Squads and
Obama killed 40,000 innocent t people with Sanctions in Venezuela
They are fleeing Hillary and Obama's Terror spree ..and cheer on worse WW3 with Russia
Reporter Quits NBC Citing Network's Support For Endless War
c.. Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes, Emma Peele, Without a Doubt – and I absolutely adore your
"Avengers" pseudonym !
Hillary's disgusting crimes, however, seem to me to be an attempt to ingratiate herself
(and the Democrats) with the Ultra Hawkish Bush Era Republicans.
Who can ever forgive & forget her ghoulish pronouncement, "We came, we saw, He
died!!"
(in reference to the ghoulishly brutal public murder of Libya's Qaddafi. {Qaddafi's "Green
Book" was a well imagined Socio-Economic plan for for the economic liberation of Africa from
the economic and cultural strictures of US, European Absolutist Brutal Dominion.} -- As it
was, Libya, under Qaddafi, was a liberal, socialist society with free education, free health
care for all citizens, and a nation with it's own currency , free from US/EURO manipulation
and control.
-- This Is Why We Killed Him. --
This is US Command and Control World-Wide POLICY ! ! ! --
-- Anglo-Saxon Command and Control of the Whole Wide World and all it's resources Owned and
Militarily Controlled by European Bankers
-- - EUROPEAN Bankers, Rothschild Criminal Banker WarMongers/ Wall Street and American
Military Power --
These are They which Evilly Rule the World and Disparage or Murder (annihilate) All Others
at their pleasure, and Trump is an evil antagonist with the personage of a King Leopold.
Please find "KING LEOPOLD'S GHOST' By Adam Hochschild
No matter how we might differ about the role of the U.S. military in foreign affairs, surely
we can agree that America's war spending and commitment to policing the rest of the world are
bankrupting the nation and spreading our troops dangerously thin.
All of the imperial
powers amassed by Barack Obama and George W. Bush -- to kill American citizens without due
process, to detain suspects indefinitely, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, to
carry out mass surveillance on Americans without probable cause, to suspend laws during
wartime, to disregard laws with which they might disagree, to conduct secret wars and convene
secret courts, to sanction torture, to sidestep the legislatures and courts with executive
orders and signing statements, to direct the military to operate beyond the reach of the law,
to operate a shadow government, and to act as a dictator and a tyrant, above the law and beyond
any real accountability -- were inherited by Donald Trump. These presidential powers --
acquired through the use of
executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and
legislative signing statements and which can be activated by any sitting president --
enable past, president and future presidents to operate above the law and beyond the reach of
the Constitution.
Yet no matter how we might differ about how success or failure of past or present
presidential administrations, surely we can agree that the president should not be empowered to
act as an imperial dictator with permanent powers.
Increasingly, at home, we're facing an unbelievable show of force by government agents. For
example, with alarming
regularity , unarmed men, women, children and even pets are being gunned down by twitchy,
hyper-sensitive, easily-spooked police officers who shoot first and ask questions later, and
all the government does is shrug and promise to do better. Just recently, in fact, the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals cleared a cop who aimed for a family's dog (who showed no signs of
aggression), missed, and instead
shot a 10-year-old lying on the ground . Indeed, there are countless incidents that happen
every day in which Americans are shot, stripped, searched, choked, beaten and tasered by police
for little more than daring to frown, smile, question, or challenge an order. Growing numbers
of unarmed people are being shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a
certain way, or holding something -- anything -- that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or
igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer's mind that has nothing to do with an
actual threat to their safety.
No matter how we might differ about where to draw that blue line of allegiance to the police
state, surely we can agree that police shouldn't go around terrorizing and shooting innocent,
unarmed children and adults or be absolved of wrongdoing for doing so .
Nor can we turn a blind eye to the transformation of America's penal system from one aimed
at protecting society from dangerous criminals to a profit-driven system that dehumanizes and
strips prisoners of every vestige of their humanity. For example, in Illinois, as part of a
"training exercise" for incoming cadets, prison guards armed with batons and shields rounded up
200 handcuffed female inmates, marched them to the gymnasium, then forced them to strip naked
(including removing their tampons and pads), "
bend over and spread open their vaginal and anal cavities ," while male prison guards
promenaded past or stood staring. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the entire
dehumanizing, demoralizing mass body cavity strip search --
orchestrated not for security purposes but as an exercise in humiliation -- was legal. Be
warned, however: this treatment will not be limited to those behind bars. In our present
carceral state, there is no difference between the treatment meted out to a law-abiding citizen
and a convicted felon: both are equally suspect and treated as criminals, without any of the
special rights and privileges reserved for the governing elite. In a carceral state, there are
only two kinds of people: the prisoners and the prison guards.
No matter how we might differ about where to draw the line when it comes to prisoners'
rights, surely we can agree that no one -- woman, man or child -- should be subjected to such
degrading treatment in the name of law and order .
No matter how we might differ about the deference due to those in uniform, whether military
or law enforcement, surely we can agree that America's Founders had good reason to warn against
the menace of a national police force -- a.k.a. a standing army -- vested with the power to
completely disregard the Constitution.
We labor today under the weight of countless tyrannies, large and small, disguised as "the
better good," marketed as benevolence, enforced with armed police, and carried out by an elite
class of government officials who are largely insulated from the ill effects of their actions.
For example, in Pennsylvania, a school district is threatening to
place children in foster care if parents don't pay their overdue school lunch bills . In
Florida, a
resident was fined $100,000 for a dirty swimming pool and overgrown grass at a house she no
longer owned. In Kentucky, government bureaucrats sent a cease-and-desist letter to a church
ministry, warning that the group is
breaking the law by handing out free used eyeglasses to the homeless . These petty
tyrannies inflicted on an overtaxed, overregulated, and underrepresented populace are what
happens when bureaucrats run the show, and the rule of law becomes little more than a cattle
prod for forcing the citizenry to march in lockstep with the government.
No matter how we might differ about the extent to which the government has the final say in
how it flexes it power and exerts its authority, surely we can agree that the tyranny of the
Nanny State -- disguised as "the better good," marketed as benevolence, enforced with armed
police, and inflicted on all those who do not belong to the elite ruling class that gets to
call the shots -- should not be allowed to pave over the Constitution.
At its core, this is not a debate about politics, or constitutionalism, or even tyranny
disguised as law-and-order. This is a condemnation of the monsters with human faces that have
infiltrated our government.
For too long now, the American people have rationalized turning a blind eye to all manner of
government wrongdoing -- asset forfeiture schemes, corruption, surveillance, endless wars, SWAT
team raids, militarized police, profit-driven private prisons, and so on -- because they were
the so-called lesser of two evils.
Yet the unavoidable truth is that the government has become almost indistinguishable from
the evil it claims to be fighting, whether that evil takes the form of terrorism
, torture, drug
trafficking ,
sex trafficking , murder, violence, theft, pornography,
scientific experimentations or some other diabolical means of inflicting pain, suffering
and servitude on humanity.
No matter how you rationalize it, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
So how do you fight back?
How do you fight injustice? How do you push back against tyranny? How do you vanquish
evil?
You don't fight it by hiding your head in the sand.
We have ignored the warning signs all around us for too long.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield
America: The War on the American People , the government has ripped the Constitution to
shreds and left us powerless in the face of its power grabs, greed and brutality.
What we are grappling with today is a government that is cutting great roads through the
very foundations of freedom in order to get after its modern devils. Yet the government can
only go as far as "we the people" allow.
Therein lies the problem.
The consequences of this failure to do our due diligence in asking the right questions,
demanding satisfactory answers, and holding our government officials accountable to respecting
our rights and abiding by the rule of law has pushed us to the brink of a nearly intolerable
state of affairs.
Intolerable, at least, to those who remember what it was like to live in a place where
freedom, due process and representative government actually meant something. Having allowed the
government to expand and exceed our reach, we now find ourselves on the losing end of a
tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives.
The hour grows late in terms of restoring the balance of power and reclaiming our freedoms,
but it may not be too late. The time to act is now, using all methods of nonviolent resistance
available to us.
"Don't sit around waiting for the two corrupted established parties to restore the
Constitution or the Republic," Naomi Wolf once warned. Waiting and watching will get us nowhere
fast.
If you're watching, you're not doing.
Easily mesmerized by the government's political theater -- the endless congressional
hearings and investigations that go nowhere, the president's reality show antics, the warring
factions, the electoral drama -- we have become a society of watchers rather than activists who
are distracted by even the clumsiest government attempts at sleight-of-hand.
It's time for good men and women to do something. And soon.
Wake up and take a good, hard look around you. Start by recognizing evil and injustice and
tyranny for what they are. Stop being apathetic. Stop being neutral. Stop being accomplices.
Stop being distracted by the political theater staged by the Deep State: they want you watching
the show while they manipulate things behind the scenes. Refuse to play politics with your
principles. Don't settle for the lesser of two evils.
As British statesman Edmund Burke warned, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil
is for good men [and women] to do nothing."
With all respect John, The constitution allows the president to deploy soldiers on US soil
(bypassing Posse Comitatus) during limited times of insurgency, foreign invasion, war.
Everything is in order at the moment. The treasonous companies and actors will be brought to
justice. The pedos, and the corrupt Intelligence apparatus is the target.
Sadly, this (the police state) is one issue that I think Trump has no clue about. Why
would he? Somebody needs to get in his ear on this issue.
At the same time lawlessness, driven by the media (purposefully), increases. And increases
the need for policing. The game is so ******* obvious. Stop the (((media))) and half the
problem is solved.
"The national debt is the result of the federal government borrowing money to cover years
and years of budget deficits." Right now, the U.S. government is operating in the negative on
every front: it's spending far more than what it makes (and takes from the American
taxpayers) and it is borrowing heavily ( from foreign governments
and Social Security ) to keep the government operating and keep
funding its endless wars abroad ." Trillions.
Since religious zealots are the root cause for the rise of fascism and totalitarian
communism- which are reactions from the oppressions of religious authorities supported by
secret societies, it is necessary that they must fall and be broken before any real
meaningful change can take place. I will defend the right to free speech and the 2nd to my
last breath, but when they come to burn down your houses of worship and throw you in the
ovens again, we will continue to do nothing. Just as good people did before. We will be your
pawns no longer, we're not doing your dirty work anymore. We will not continue to be your
slaves that you exploit for your twisted beliefs. History will repeat itself and you will
burn and we will watch. This needs to happen before the world has a chance to try again. But
the real damage to you zionists will be the spreading of the truth. As enough people finally
understand that you offer nothing but the dark con of man and reject your lies and oppression
whole heartedly
Occupy
was no revolution, but its initial aim of disrupting a key operation of the state was the right
idea, for you must hurt your enemy, if only for a day. Imagine Wall Street or nearby Goldman
Sachs in flames! This goal was akin to puncturing a pipeline, blowing up an important bridge or
assassinating a crucial figure. In America, however, there's no visible target who's actually
worth killing, for none is indispensable to the state's criminal function. Those out in the
open are just actors. In laying out a much ballyhooed puppet's mangled cadaver, all you'll
achieve is a symbolic goal, but perhaps it's worth it after all, for all traitors must pay, and
it may even inspire a real revolt.
Revolution sounds cool because it implies a terrible awakening of the masses, to impose
their will, exact justice and start a new paradigm, but most revolutions are fake, with many
orchestrated by another elite or triggered by a foreign power. Moreover, Americans are too
divided and atomized to rebel as a people, so the best you can hope for is to regain
independence, freedom and sanity for your state, region or maybe just town.
The first step is to stop thinking of yourself as an American, for there's no America left
to save, much less "make great again," and there are no Americans left either, for if anybody
can be a defacto American just by showing up, then the concept is meaningless. That's like me
landing in Tel Aviv tomorrow and declaring I'm a Jew.
Your average American hardly has a hometown, just a homepage, and his neighbors are the
anonymous, pseudonymous, hasbarists and trolls he compulsively chats with. If you don't even
belong to your neighborhood, how are you the citizen of any nation?
To reclaim your street, you must regain your mind, but the porn has gotten so damn good, why
would anyone want to leave PornHub, Chaturbate or Illusory Participation, USA?
I was born in 1963, a year of many coup d'états, and you may remember the one in
South Vietnam, Guatemala, Ecuador, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Benin, Togo, Iraq or Syria,
which actually witnessed two. The most significant happened right in the US of A, however, and
like most, it was certainly an inside job.
Like Ngo Dinh Diem, John F. Kennedy wasn't a good enough puppet, so he had to be expertly
brained. Even if Lyndon Johnson wasn't in on the plot, he served them faithfully afterwards, as
has every American president since. They've all gotten the message. Similarly, it only
takes one academic to be defenestrated from the ivory tower for the rest to toe the line.
Americans live in a cowed country. Home of the brave my ass!
Protesting their government, thousands of Americans became symbolically homeless
, but their society has only sunk further, with destitution, despair and anger rapidly
increasing. As the rank of those who must sleep and defecate outside constantly swells,
Washington still doesn't give a shit, but why should it? They're getting theirs.
Inside the Beltway may be a swamp, but it's a gilded one, designed for the most arrogant and
smug. Outside, the quicksand ocean keeps on devouring.
Game over, I heave these toss away lines during garbage time, but enough of this, for I must
return to my daily tons of garbage .
The future is indeed plastic. From the end of the world, I watch various endings.
The theatrically strident "radical," who's most conformist, paradoxically this specimen
is a cookie cutter puppet that's jerked by a totalitarian master, the very state he thinks
he's resisting. Obediently correct, the American radical divides and attacks the masses.
Happily domineered, he demands that everyone else becomes as shackled as he is, and since
this will never happen, he's eternally enraged.
Notice how the solidarity of the 99% is no longer evoked by anybody.
Most revolutions are fake, with many orchestrated by another elite or triggered by a
foreign power.
Your average American hardly has a hometown, just a homepage.
I've read several well done, poetic, laments for the USA tonight, always enjoy good writing.
Don't understand why you exceptionalize JFK, though, he was pretty much a white Obama, good
looking but completely without insight or competence and certainly no different than Truman,
LBJ, RonReagan and all the rest. I mean, really? Have to admit, banging MM would sure beat
Porn!
@Brabantian "Steve
Sailer had written earlier about the idea that the elite-fostered public obsessing with
racial ethnic etc identity as a war cry, date from after the crushing of the Occupy movement,
as the possibly supreme distraction from people uniting against the elites."
Been going on for a long time. The New Age movements were spookfests to sidetrack
energetic and hopeful youth from trying to initiate real change in society. Follow a guru
("got to get a guru" drummed into our minds) or a Sun Myung Moon, instead of bothering the
elite ruling families and their wealth machine.
AntiFa never goes after the true fascists, the private owners of the corporations that
work with the government at transferring wealth from Public to Private hands. The Hidden Hand
at work.
Climate Change. Taxes and more expense for individuals to combat the Public-Private
partnership geo engineering of the Weather. Great Carbo "The People must change".
How about They shut down the weather modification machines for a start.
Projects created in sub basements underneath Langley.
@IvyMikeY ou
make your entirely idiotic claim and reveal your ignorance. The worst part of UR is the large
number of ignorant and/or lying babblers peddling their wares here.
• JFK was trying to stop Israel from getting The Bomb.
• JFK had ordered US forces out of Vietnam by the end of 1965.
• JFK had spoken out against secret societies.
• JFK had issued Executive Order 11110.
• HST dropped The Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
• HST woke up in the middle of the night to recognize Israel.
• LBJ carried on an illicit affair with Israeli agent Mathilde Krim.
• LBJ called back jet fighters racing to defend the USS Liberty from Israeli
attack.
• LBJ escalated US involvement in Vietnam.
• LBJ claimed to have been visited by the Holy Spirit in the White House.
• RWR granted amnesty to illegal aliens in the U.S.
• RWR presided over downsizing, outsourcing, and offshoring U.S. industry to China.
• RWR tripled the national debt.
• RWR conspired with GHWB to delay release of U.S. hostages in Iran.
Linh Dinh: "Moreover, Americans are too divided and atomized to rebel as a people, so the
best you can hope for is to regain independence, freedom and sanity for your state, region or
maybe just town."
Atomization, alienation, and anomie are inherent properties of mass society. The only way
to get rid of these things would be to get rid of the mass of people themselves, or to
destroy the technology that undergirds such an arrangement and makes it possible. The latter
is a solution that would also cause a mass die off.
Many people imagine that the system could arbitrarily be decentralized, without
understanding that things have centralized, and are as they are, for a great many good,
practical reasons. Nevertheless, there is always nostalgia for the past. An article I
recently read ends this way:
We must have a polis again, in all that the Greeks understood by that term: small,
self-governing communities bound by common language, ethnicity, customs, and religious
traditions. Such a thing, far from being utopian, would spring from our nature, life as it
was lived across thousands of generations. What is artificial is our divorce from the land,
our crowding into cities to live alongside strangers for the purpose of endless
consumption, and our insistence on universalism even when we ourselves – those of
European descent – lose the most by it.
But that author appears not to understand, any more than you do, that such a thing is
impossible in the modern world. The technological infrastructure necessary to support the
more than seven billion people on the planet won't permit it; not even the 330 million or so
in the USA. Keep the infrastructure, and keep the atomization, alienation, and anomie. You
can't have one without the other.
Chinaman: "As Mark Twain put it succinctly: "If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let
you do it""
This doesn't appear in any of his writings, and is dubious. Twain did write or say some
other things about voting that are in conflict with it, for example:
But in this country we have one great privilege which they don't have in other countries.
When a thing gets to be absolutely unbearable the people can rise up and throw it off. That's
the finest asset we've got -- the ballot box.
– interview in Boston Transcript, 6 November 1905
A similar quote has been attributed to anarchist Emma Goldman, who seems a more likely
source.
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
Representative democracy is just evolutionary autocracy, autocracy perfected.
In the good old days, were a leader to be a bit cruel or terrible, there would be an, if a
little bloody, directly democratic revolution, and the system would be switched to something
new. This is really just the Duke of Zhou's Mandate of Heaven, but without the pointing to
the unverifiable.
But within our autocracy, a good old boy can become leader through a popularity contest,
in which they neither have to tell the truth, nor wear speedos down a promenade for judges,
be a cruel and terrible leader, and even if the system somehow indited them whilst they were
in office, then another magical election would be called, and another good old boy would be
tapped into the hot seat. Sometimes they'd wear a blue tie, sometimes a red tie – but
they'd always listen to the brain, the permanent governments of elite money and power, and do
its bidding.
Representative democracy is a facelift, and currently, the world's representative
democracies are mostly giving facelifts to zombies. Protest is the right to shout but not the
right to be listened to. Being listened to is semi-direct democracy. At the very least a
legal and independent path to the reversing of representative decisions, so that there could
be a check and balance on the whole system of government by the people, de facto as well as
de jure.
This is spot on about the disease but not about the cure. For the cure consult LaFollette's
autobiography, Pinchot on the history of the Progressive Party, Thorstein Veblen's economics
(Michael Hudson for help), Buckminster Fuller, the Townsend Clubs, Upton Sinclair Eisenhower
told us -- an alert informed citizenry is America's ONLY hope. That's why you never heard of
these people.
Been going on for a long time. The New Age movements were spookfests to sidetrack
energetic and hopeful youth from trying to initiate real change in society.
Indeed. The incubus was generated in the social sciences labs of Tavistock and Frankfurt
even earlier, in this case to impregnate the minds instead of wombs. The offspring are the
sordid sexual freaks blinded and deranged by political syphilis.
They call this abortion Cultural Marxism to complete the oxymoronic allegory of fighting
for equality when the purpose and result is the opposite through diversion and division to
entrench elite rule.
Marx's words and works have been denigrated to give authority to a miscarriage. Marxism is
for equality, real equality; not sexual perversions, race blindness, gender fusion. His
philosophical message is that our existence is determined by our relationship with the social
and economic forces acting on our lives. The root power comes from the relations of
production, that is, our place in the economic order; whether you have to labour for your
crust or you belong to the chosen or privileged class; whether you have to sell your labour
to survive or enjoy the profits from the product of someone else's labour. In a sentence:
Marxism is for economic equality. Everything else is a distraction and smoke-screen.
@Laura McGrath It is
not race that is the problem. Brazil has a very mixed population. It had ZUS coup in 2016.
Race mixing will not help free this planet of the criminals who rule us.
For the Brazilian political scientist and historian Moniz Bandeira, the alarms rang long
ago. "These demonstrations that started last year and before the World Cup were not
spontaneous. These were prepared beforehand, with trained elements, trained agitators", he
explains. In his book "A Segunda Guerra Fria" (The Second Cold War) he describes in detail
the role of some NGOs and think-thanks in the so called color revolutions. "What is
necessary in Brazil is that the government does what Putin did: to force all NGOs to
register, register the money they receive, where they receive it from and how they use
it.
"
It is all about the Benjamins. Race mixing is not going to help us at all. It is a
delusion from our rulers. Obama is a classic example. In his administration he had a coup in
Honduras, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Ukraine and who knows where else. He destroyed Libya,
Syria by supporting "rebels" and Yemen he did the same.
Moniz points out the American interest in maintaining the prevalence of the dollar as
the global currency. According to him, threatened by BRICS – and the nonexistence of
regional powers in the continent -- "That's what the U.S don't want: Brazil having nuclear
submarines, they don't want a regional power in South America – not to mention one
that is linked to China and Russia. And there's a detail unknown for the Brazilian people:
there's a struggle around the international reserve currency. The fact that the U.S has the
right to print as much dollars as they want and the fact that the dollar is the
international currency: that's where the U.S hegemony lies. And what China and Putin want
to put an end to is just that -- that's the reason behind the BRICS."
Terpil later told author and investigative journalist Jim Hougan:
Historically, one of Wilson's Agency jobs was to subvert members of both houses [of
Congress] by any means necessary . Certain people could be easily coerced by living out
their sexual fantasy in the flesh . A remembrance of these occasions [was] permanently
recorded via selected cameras . The technicians in charge of filming [were] TSD [Technical
Services Division of the CIA]. The unwitting porno stars advanced in their political
careers, some of [whom] may still be in office."
. . . .
The downfall of "Washington's Jay Gatsby"
After having left his job as an ABC News correspondent in the 1980s, Craig Spence found
success as a prominent conservative Washington lobbyist. Spence would soon find his
fortunes shift dramatically when, in June 1989 , it was revealed that he had been
pimping out children to the power elite in the nation's capital throughout the 1980s in
apartments that were bugged with video and audio recording equipment. Much like Jeffrey
Epstein, who ran a similar operation, Spence was often likened to Jay Gatsby, the
mysterious, wealthy figure from the well-known Fitzgerald novel The Great Gatsby.
"... Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The EU Council regulation in question specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel "under the jurisdiction of a member state." ..."
"... The notice required the Gibraltar government to detain any such ship for at least 72 hours if it entered "British Gibraltar Territorial Waters." Significantly, however, the video statement by Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo on July 4 explaining the seizure of the Grace 1 made no such claim and avoided any mention of the precise location of the ship when it was seized. ..."
"... There is a good reason why the chief minister chose not to draw attention to the issue of the ship's location: it is virtually impossible that the ship was in British Gibraltar territorial waters at any time before being boarded. The UK claims territorial waters of three nautical miles from its coast, whereas the Strait of Gibraltar is 7.5 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. That would make the limit of UK territory just north of the middle of the Strait. ..."
"... But international straits must have clearly defined and separated shipping lanes going in different directions. The Grace 1 was in the shipping lane heading east toward the Mediterranean, which is south of the lane for ships heading west toward the Atlantic and thus clearly closer to the coast of Morocco than to the coast of Gibraltar, as can be seen from this live view of typical ship traffic through the strait . So it is quite implausible that the Grace 1 strayed out of its shipping lane into British territorial waters at any time before it was boarded. ..."
"... Such a move clearly violates the global treaty governing the issue -- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea . Articles 37 through 44 of that agreement, ratified by 167 states, including the UK and the European Union, establish a "regime of transit passage" for international straits like the Strait of Gibraltar that guarantees freedom of navigation for merchant ships. The rules of that regime explicitly forbid states bordering the strait from interfering with the transit passage of a merchant ship, with very narrowly defined exceptions. ..."
"... The evidence indicates, moreover, that the UK's actions were part of a broader scheme coordinated with the Trump administration to tighten pressure on Iran's economy by reducing Iran's ability to export goods. ..."
"... On July 19, Reuters London correspondent Guy Falconbridge reported , "[S]everal diplomatic sources said the United States asked the UK to seize the vessel." ..."
"... Detailed evidence of Bolton deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1. ..."
"... The role of Panama's National Security Council signaled Bolton's hand, since he would have been the point of contact with that body. The result of his maneuvering was to leave the Grace 1 without the protection of flag status necessary to sail or visit a port in the middle of its journey. This in conjunction with the British seizure of the ship was yet another episode in the extraordinary American effort to deprive Iran of the most basic sovereign right to participate in the global economy. ..."
"... Back in 2013 2013 there was a rumour afoot that Edward Snowden, who at the time was stuck in the Moscow airport, trapped there by the sudden cancellation mid-flight of his US passport, was going spirited away by the President of Bolivia Evo Morales aboard his private jet. So what the US apparently was lean on it European allies to stop him. This they duly and dutifully did. Spain, France, and others denied overflight rights to the Bolivian jet, forcing it to turn back and land in Austria. There was even a report that once on the ground, the Spanish ambassador to Austria showed up and asked the Bolivian president if he might come out to the plain for a coffee--and presumably to have a poke around to see he could catch Snowden in the act of vanishing into the cargo hold. ..."
"... The rumor turned out to be completely false, but it was the Europeans who wound up with the egg on their face. Not to mention the ones who broke international law. ..."
"... Bolton persuaded the British to play along with the stupid US "maximum pressure" strategy, regardless of its illegality. (Maybe the British government thought that it would placate Trump after Ambassadorgate.) And then of course Pompeo threw them under the bus. It's getting hard to be a US ally (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel.) ..."
"... Spain lodged a formal complaint about the action, because it considers the sea around Gibraltar to be part of its international waters, "We are studying the circumstances and looking at how this affects our sovereignty," Josep Borell, Spain's acting foreign minister, said. So Gibraltar or Spanish waters? Gibraltar – Territorial Waters (1 pg): ..."
"... Worse than the bad behavior of Bolton, and the poodle behavior of Britain, is the utter failure of our press to provide us a skeptical eye and honest look at events. They've been mere stenographers and megaphones for power doing wrong. ..."
"... And this just in. A UK government official has just stated, related to the Iranian tanker stopped near Gibraltar, the UK will not be part of Trump's 'maximum pressure' gambit on Iran. We shall see if Boris Johnson is for or against that policy. ..."
"... John Bolton, war criminal. ..."
"... John Bolton has been desperate for a war with Iran for decades. This is just another escalation in his desperate attempt to get one. He's the classic neocon chicken hawk who is bravely ready to risk and sacrifice other people's lives at the drop of a hat. ..."
"... Since UK is abusing its control of Gibraltar by behaving like a thug, maybe it is better for the international community to support an independent state of Gibraltar, or at least let Spain has it. It will be better for world peace. ..."
"... While I agree with the gist of the article, remember that Bolton has no authority except that which is given to him. So stop blaming Bolton. Blame Trump. ..."
"... The provocations will go on and on until Iran shoots back and then Wash. will get the war it's been trying to start for some time now to pay back all those campaign donors who will profit from another war. ..."
"... The MIC needs constant wars to use up munitions so new ones can be manufactured. It's really just about business and politicians working together for mutual benefit to keep those contributions coming in. With all the other issues facing America, a war with Iran will just add to the end of the USA which is coming faster than you think. ..."
Did John Bolton Light the Fuse of the UK-Iranian Tanker Crisis? Evidence suggests he pressured the Brits to seize an
Iranian ship. Why? More war. By Gareth
Porter •
July 23, 2019
While Iran's seizure of a British tanker near the Strait of Hormuz on Friday was a clear response to the British capture of an
Iranian tanker in the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4, both the UK and U.S. governments are insisting that Iran's operation was illegal
while the British acted legally.
The facts surrounding the British detention of the Iranian ship, however, suggest that, like the Iranian detention of the British
ship, it was an illegal interference with freedom of navigation through an international strait. And even more importantly, evidence
indicates that the British move was part of a bigger scheme coordinated by National Security Advisor John Bolton.
British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt called the Iran seizure of the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero "unacceptable" and insisted
that it is "essential that freedom of navigation is maintained and that all ships can move safely and freely in the region."
But the British denied Iran that same freedom of navigation through the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4.
The rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew was that it was delivering oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions.
This was never questioned by Western news media. But a closer look reveals that the UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions
against that ship, and that it was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of merchant ships
through international straits.
The evidence also reveals that Bolton was actively involved in targeting the Grace 1 from the time it began its journey in May
as part of the broader Trump administration campaign of "maximum pressure" on Iran.
Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on
sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The
EU Council regulation in question
specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business
entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel "under the jurisdiction of a member state."
The UK government planned to claim that the Iranian ship was under British "jurisdiction" when it was passing through the Strait
of Gibraltar to justify its seizure as legally consistent with the EU regulation. A
maritime news outlet has reported that on July 3, the day before the seizure of the ship, the Gibraltar government, which has
no control over its internal security or foreign affairs, issued
a regulation to provide what it would claim
as a legal pretext for the operation. The regulation gave the "chief minister" of the British the power to detain any ship if there
were "reasonable grounds" to "suspect" that it had been or even that it was even "likely" to be in breach of EU regulations.
The notice required the Gibraltar government to detain any such ship for at least 72 hours if it entered "British Gibraltar
Territorial Waters." Significantly, however, the video statement
by Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo on July 4 explaining the seizure of the Grace 1 made no such claim and avoided any
mention of the precise location of the ship when it was seized.
There is a good reason why the chief minister chose not to draw attention to the issue of the ship's location: it is virtually
impossible that the ship was in British Gibraltar territorial waters at any time before being boarded. The UK claims
territorial waters of three nautical miles from its coast, whereas
the Strait of Gibraltar is 7.5 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. That would make the limit of UK territory just north of
the middle of the Strait.
But international straits must have clearly defined and separated shipping lanes going in different directions. The Grace
1 was in the shipping lane heading east
toward the Mediterranean, which is south of the lane for ships heading west toward the Atlantic and thus clearly closer to the
coast of Morocco than to the coast of Gibraltar, as can be seen from this
live view of typical ship traffic
through the strait . So it is quite implausible that the Grace 1 strayed out of its shipping lane into British territorial waters
at any time before it was boarded.
But even if the ship had done so, that would not have given the UK "jurisdiction" over the Grace 1 and allowed it to legally
seize the ship. Such a move clearly violates the global treaty governing the issue -- the
United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea . Articles 37 through 44 of that agreement, ratified by 167 states, including the UK and the European Union,
establish a "regime of transit passage" for international straits like the Strait of Gibraltar that guarantees freedom of navigation
for merchant ships. The rules of that regime explicitly forbid states bordering the strait from interfering with the transit passage
of a merchant ship, with very narrowly defined exceptions.
These articles allow coastal states to adopt regulations relating to safety of navigation, pollution control, prevention of fishing,
and "loading or unloading any commodity in contravention of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations" of bordering
states -- but for no other reason. The British seizure and detention of the Grace 1 was clearly not related to any of these concerns
and thus a violation of the treaty.
The evidence indicates, moreover, that the UK's actions were part of a broader scheme coordinated with the Trump administration
to tighten pressure on Iran's economy by reducing Iran's ability to export goods.
The statement by Gibraltar's chief minister said the
decision to seize the ship was taken after the receipt of "information" that provided "reasonable grounds" for suspicion that it
was carrying oil destined for Syria's Banyas refinery. That suggested the intelligence had come from a government that neither he
nor the British wished to reveal.
BBC defense correspondent Jonathan Beale reported: "[I]t appears
the intelligence came from the United States." Acting Spanish Foreign Minister Joseph Borrell commented on July 4 that the British
seizure had followed "a demand from the United States to the UK." On July 19, Reuters London correspondent Guy Falconbridge
reported , "[S]everal diplomatic sources said the United States asked the UK to seize the vessel."
Detailed evidence of Bolton deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on
the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1.
Panama was the flag state for many of the Iranian-owned vessels carrying various items exported by Iran. But when the Trump administration
reinstated economic sanctions against Iran in October 2018, it included prohibitions on industry services such as insurance and reinsurance.
This decision was accompanied by
political pressure on Panama to withdraw Panamanian flag status from 59 Iranian vessels, many of which were owned by Iranian
state-affiliated companies. Without such flag status, the Iranian-owned vessels could not get insurance for shipments by freighter.
That move was aimed at discouraging ports, canal operators, and private firms from allowing Iranian tankers to use their facilities.
The State Department's Brian Hook, who is in charge of the sanctions,
warned those
entities last November that the Trump administration believed they would be responsible for the costs of an accident involving a
self-insured Iranian tanker.
But the Grace 1 was special case, because it still had Panamanian flag status when it began its long journey around the Southern
tip of Africa on the way to the Mediterranean. That trip began in late May, according to Automatic Identification System
data cited by Riviera Maritime Media . It was no coincidence that the Panamanian Maritime Authority
delisted the Grace 1 on May 29 -- just as the ship was beginning its journey. That decision came immediately after Panama's National
Security Council issued an alert
claiming that the Iranian-owned tanker "may be participating in terrorism financing in supporting the destabilization activities
of some regimes led by terrorist groups."
The Panamanian body did not cite any evidence that the Grace 1 had ever been linked to terrorism.
The role of Panama's National Security Council signaled Bolton's hand, since he would have been the point of contact with
that body. The result of his maneuvering was to leave the Grace 1 without the protection of flag status necessary to sail or visit
a port in the middle of its journey. This in conjunction with the British seizure of the ship was yet another episode in the extraordinary
American effort to deprive Iran of the most basic sovereign right to participate in the global economy.
Now that Iran has detained a British ship in order to force the UK to release the Grace 1, the British Foreign Ministry will claim
that its seizure of the Iranian ship was entirely legitimate. The actual facts, however, put that charge under serious suspicion.
Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to The American Conservative . He is also the author
of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.
Honestly the Brits are such idiots, we lied them into a war once. They knew we were lying and went for it anyway. Now the are
falling for it again. Maybe it is May's parting gift to Boris?
Same EU legislation only forbids Syria exporting oil and not EU entities selling to Syria (albeit with some additional paperwork).
However, it doesn't forbid other non-EU states to sell oil to Syria. They are not behaving like the US. And this is also not UN
sanctioned. In fact, UK is also acting against the spirit of JPCOA towards Iran. Speak about Perfidious Albion (others would say
US lapdog).
Back in 2013 2013 there was a rumour afoot that Edward Snowden, who at the time was stuck in the Moscow airport, trapped
there by the sudden cancellation mid-flight of his US passport, was going spirited away by the President of Bolivia Evo Morales
aboard his private jet. So what the US apparently was lean on it European allies to stop him. This they duly and dutifully did.
Spain, France, and others denied overflight rights to the Bolivian jet, forcing it to turn back and land in Austria. There was
even a report that once on the ground, the Spanish ambassador to Austria showed up and asked the Bolivian president if he might
come out to the plain for a coffee--and presumably to have a poke around to see he could catch Snowden in the act of vanishing
into the cargo hold.
The rumor turned out to be completely false, but it was the Europeans who wound up with the egg on their face. Not to mention
the ones who broke international law.
Now we find that once again a European country had (apparently) gone out on a limb for the US--and wound up with egg on its
face for trying to show its loyalty to the US in an all-too-slavish fashion by doing America's dirty work.
Bolton persuaded the British to play along with the stupid US "maximum pressure" strategy, regardless of its illegality. (Maybe
the British government thought that it would placate Trump after Ambassadorgate.) And then of course Pompeo threw them under the
bus. It's getting hard to be a US ally (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel.)
The very fact that the UK tried to present its hijack of Iran Oil as an implementation of EU sanctions dovetail well with Bolton's
objective of creating another of those "international coalitions" without a UN mandate engaging in 'Crimes of Aggression".
The total lack of support from the EU for this UK hijack signals another defeat to both the UK and the neocons of America.
Too bad there isn't an international version of the ACLU to argue Iran's legal case before the EU body. What typically happens
is that Iran will refuse to send representation because that would in effect, acknowledge their authority. The EU will have a
Kangaroo court and enter a vacant decision. This has happened numerous times in the U.S.
Would anyone in the U.S. or EU recognize an Iranian court making similar claims? Speaking of which, the entire point of UN
treaties and international law is to prevent individual countries from passing special purpose legislation targeting specific
countries. Why couldn't Iran pass a law sanctioning EU vessels that tried to use their territorial waters, what is so special
about the EU, because it is an acronym?
Spain lodged a formal complaint about the action, because it considers the sea around Gibraltar to be part of its international
waters, "We are studying the circumstances and looking at how this affects our sovereignty," Josep Borell, Spain's acting foreign
minister, said. So Gibraltar or Spanish waters? Gibraltar – Territorial Waters (1 pg):
https://www.academia.edu/30...
Worse than the bad behavior of Bolton, and the poodle behavior of Britain, is the utter failure of our press to provide us
a skeptical eye and honest look at events. They've been mere stenographers and megaphones for power doing wrong.
Thanks for the investigative reporting. Trump has lied almost 11,000 times, so I think nobody expects the truth from The Trump
Administration anytime soon. Especially if it goes against the narrative.
And this just in. A UK government official has just stated, related to the Iranian tanker stopped near Gibraltar, the UK will
not be part of Trump's 'maximum pressure' gambit on Iran. We shall see if Boris Johnson is for or against that policy.
OK, so why did the Brits go along with it? Are they so stupid as to not figure out that Iran might respond in kind, or did the
Brits not also want war?
John Bolton has been desperate for a war with Iran for decades. This is just another escalation in his desperate attempt to
get one. He's the classic neocon chicken hawk who is bravely ready to risk and sacrifice other people's lives at the drop of a
hat.
Since UK is abusing its control of Gibraltar by behaving like a thug, maybe it is better for the international community to
support an independent state of Gibraltar, or at least let Spain has it. It will be better for world peace.
While I agree with the gist of the article, remember that Bolton has no authority except that which is given to him.
So stop blaming Bolton. Blame Trump.
The provocations will go on and on until Iran shoots back and then Wash. will get the war it's been trying to start for some time
now to pay back all those campaign donors who will profit from another war.
The MIC needs constant wars to use up munitions so
new ones can be manufactured. It's really just about business and politicians working together for mutual benefit to keep those
contributions coming in. With all the other issues facing America, a war with Iran will just add to the end of the USA which is
coming faster than you think.
WARNING: The article by Frank Ching reflects the position of the proponents of Hong Cong color revolution.
So brainwashed young people will pay for the Washington plot. This dream of emigrating to
Taiwan and, eventually, to the USA might or might not be granted. Business as usual for any color
revolution I think: without such guarantees from the State Department neocons to the leaders of
the color revolution would not push people to riot, but those guarantees might be a fake and they
might land in jail for along long time.
Attempt to undermine police moral is standard color regulation playbook trick, but I think
Chinese authorities are well aware of this (attempt to demoralize policy is number one method in
any color revolution; girls attaching flowers into police shields is classic) and took some
countermeasures. but this petition of Junior police Officers Association suggests that those
efforts probably at least partially failed and there is some level of infiltration into policy
force of color revolution proponents.
Of coarse, petition might be in itself a fake manufactured by color revolution proponents and
signed by people who can't represent the whole Association.
In might be interesting to know the level of infiltration of color revolution proponents into
the government. If we use EuroMaydan color revolution as an example some clashes might be
provoked by moles indie the government doing Washington bidding. The problem is that
neoliberalism is no longer as strong as in 2014 and such methods might be not have the same
effects despite all the efforts and money spend.
Not that the mainland China is paradise but here Hong Cong protesters are mainly doing
Washington necons bidding as timing is very suspicious indeed.
That day, June 27, the Department of Justice was literally under siege, with hundreds of
protesters encamped outside urging the secretary not to prosecute those who had been arrested
since June 9
... ... ...
The civil service can run on autopilot but police morale is a grave concern. While protest
marches are still peaceful, they are often followed by clashes between protesters and the
police, often leading to injuries on both sides.
The Junior Police Officers Association, which represents the bulk of the 31,000-strong
police force, has in a statement said that management "should not assign them tasks that may
result in injuries or deploy them to dangerous places to minimize their occupational
risks." Otherwise, the association said, it would "seek legal advice to find solutions that
will better guarantee the safety of officers."
walrus ,
I am concerned for the people of Hong Kong. The one thing the Chinese will not tolerate is
political disorder because Hong Kong is potentially an example for the rest of China.
I would therefore hope for a negotiated settlement that preserves face. This is not a time
for Western SJW's to egg the kids on either.
The alternative is perhaps Two hundred thousand young hong kong Chinese in prison
camps.........or worse. The Chinese are quite ruthless in dealing with potential insurrection
and couldn't care less about western hand wrinklier, sanctions and congressional
resolutions.
"... That said, Germany's military readiness directly relates to the invasion threat from Russia Europe actually faces. I.e., ZERO. Washington should take note but of course it won't because there is no money in it for the American Merchants of Death. And the Generals inside the Pentagon just have too much fun fear-mongering about illusory existential enemies. ..."
"... As Politico recently reported, "an investigative committee of the German parliament -- the toughest instrument that lawmakers can use to probe government misdeeds -- is digging into how lucrative contracts from her ministry were awarded to outside consultants without proper oversight ..."
"... Yet another U.S. mirror image. Because that is exactly how inside baseball works in the Pentagon acquisition system. von der Leyen as a European Hack is no worse than the Washington / Pentagon Hacks on the other side of the Atlantic. Note, MIC lifer and Raytheon parasite Mark Esper currently sitting in the Big Seat in the Pentagon. You can be sure that DoD reform is way down on his bucket list. ..."
Like all those soon to occupy positions of power in the EU, von der Leyen did not run in the
recent European elections for the position she is about to hold. She did not participate in the
debates in front of various national electorates. But she was chosen -- after the elections --
by the political class in Brussels, ostensibly for her faith in and loyalty to the European
superstate, and personally to the German chancellor Angela Merkel.
Another
report by the Rand Corporation , a think tank, revealed that it would take Germany a month
to mobilize in the case of a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. Von der Leyen is
very unpopular in the German army , but very popular with the Eurocrats.
She's a fervent supporter of a European army and a "United States of Europe" -- the
ultimate qualification for being president of the European Commission.
But there is more to the von der Leyen story. As Politico
recently reported , "an investigative committee of the German parliament -- the toughest
instrument that lawmakers can use to probe government misdeeds -- is digging into how lucrative
contracts from her ministry were awarded to outside consultants without proper oversight, and
whether a network of informal personal connections facilitated those deals."
The scent of corruption is a common element among those who are to hold key positions in the
European Union over the next few years. Josep Borrell, minister of foreign affairs for the
socialist government of Spain,
was fined 30,000 euros for insider trading. He is expected to hold the foreign policy post
in the European Commission.
Christine Lagarde, most recently chief of the IMF, was involved in the case of an
arbitration panel that awarded a massive payout to a French tycoon while she was the finance minister of
France. A special court for ministerial misconduct found her guilty of "negligence" but "waived
any punishment or criminal record, citing her 'international reputation' and role in dealing
with 'the international financial crisis.'" A marvelously L'état, C'est
Moi form of legal reasoning. Lagarde is expected to be the next president of the
European Central Bank.
The common threads of corruption, incompetence, and lack of accountability are what unites a
political class that has divorced itself from the concerns of the average European. In the last
days before her confirmation, von der Leyen pursued a charm offensive that included a commitment
to a "Green New Deal," a continuation of
an open borders policy , and a further deepening and enlargement of the European
superstate. This included the story of her having
offered hospitality to a Syrian immigrant who "now speaks German fluently."
Obviously von der Leyen would never have won the May elections running on an agenda like
that. But of course, she never had to run a campaign to win the votes of the peoples of Europe.
The campaign that she did run was premised on her having built "an extensive international
network in politics and business," as another Politico
story put it .
Von der Leyen thrived in the networking atmosphere of World Economic Forum meetings, where
she "serves on the organization's board of trustees," Politico noted, adding, "She's
also forged close ties to powerful figures outside the world of politics, most notably
Bertelsmann, Europe's largest media company, which owns RTL, the Continent's largest commercial
broadcaster, book publisher Random House and a stable of magazines."
A senior Green quoted for the article said her fluency in French has helped her establish a
rapport with the French political class that is unrivaled in Berlin.
It's clear that von der Leyen's domestic record appears to have had little effect on her
election -- what matters is that she is universally liked by the who's who. "What matters most
in these circles is the personal connection," said an adviser to the leader of one of the EU's
smaller member states.
Those who count and those who are to be ruled are not the same group of people. That seems
to be the essence of modern European politics: a political class and ideological cult that
masquerades as a competent technocratic elite, despite its long and disastrous history. Von der
Leyen's terrible record as defense minister meant nothing. Neither did Lagarde's record as head
of the IMF, where, for instance, the Greek debt crisis was transformed into a social
catastrophe. The deciding factor was their dedication to something that "those who count" are
committed to. Elections are merely a necessary, archaic ritual of legitimization.
Napoleon Linarthatos is a writer based in New York.
On Monday 22 July 1940, a major meeting was held at the Reich Economic Ministry in Berlin,
under the chairmanship of Minister Walther Funk, to discuss a directive issued by Hermann
Göring on 22 June, concerning the organization of a Greater European Economic Area under
German leadership. The Germans were well advanced with their plans for a post-war settlement.
One of the difficulties of planning lay in the fact that the Führer's aims and decisions
were not yet known and the military measures against Britain were not yet concluded.
What? A techno-managerial clique ruling the rest of us Great Unwashed (see "Deplorables")? It
couldn't happen here, could it? It's OK if they went to the right schools, isn't it?
Too much use if the word disastrous. Disastrous is what Wilhelm II did to the German empire.
This is not disastrous, but it is concerning like a rudderless ship.
Don't be asinine. Russia is not going to invade anything and has no claim on any part of
western Europe. The only thing the German military is good for is for sucking up additional
budgetary funds.
Another report by the Rand Corporation, a think tank, revealed that it would take Germany
a month to mobilize in the case of a Russian invasion of the Baltic States.
For the sake of completeness, the Rand Corporation is actually a marketing arm of the
Pentagon fully funded by the U.S. government.
That said, Germany's military readiness directly relates to the invasion threat from
Russia Europe actually faces. I.e., ZERO. Washington should take note but of course it won't
because there is no money in it for the American Merchants of Death. And the Generals inside
the Pentagon just have too much fun fear-mongering about illusory existential
enemies.
Of course that does not dismiss the charges of cronyism and corruption associated with
Ursula von der Leyen. But re:
But there is more to the von der Leyen story. As Politico recently reported, "an
investigative committee of the German parliament -- the toughest instrument that lawmakers
can use to probe government misdeeds -- is digging into how lucrative contracts from her
ministry were awarded to outside consultants without proper oversight , and whether a
network of informal personal connections facilitated those deals."
Yet another U.S. mirror image. Because that is exactly how inside baseball works in
the Pentagon acquisition system. von der Leyen as a European Hack is no worse than the
Washington / Pentagon Hacks on the other side of the Atlantic. Note, MIC lifer and Raytheon
parasite Mark Esper currently sitting in the Big Seat in the Pentagon. You can be sure that
DoD reform is way down on his bucket list.
The real story is that taxpayers on both NATO poles are played for chumps by the Power
Elites.
Russ,
1/Only last week the House of Representatives passed a motion calling on the Federal
Government to investigate the possibility that Lyme Disease arose after a biowarfare
experiment led to the accidental release of infected ticks into the wild.
2/ Re the mural. Someone very kindly posted a link to an article in a San Fran newspaper
which reveals the astonishing stupidity of the campaign against the mural which, of course,
has nothing, really to do with artistic merit and is all about preserving hypocrisies.
The notion that First Nations descendants ought to be protected from depictions of the
genocide practised against their race is American Hypocrisy of the first water. Ditto the
idea that Black people should not be made to endure reminders that their ancestors (or those
who did not rape slaves) were kidnapped and enslaved.
It is amazing that those insisting that the murals have the merit of depicting historical
realities, too often swept under carpets, are elderly white bigots is idiotic.
3/
On the subject of American Culture see 2 above- from those pretending that Epstein's
involvement in prostitution is inexplicable, to those arguing that Venezuela is being
attacked and an attempt to install a white dictatorship mounted in order to bring democracy
to the country's poor people, to the ID politicos in San Fran who have been responsible,
through the politicians they have supported for racist incarceration policies, decades of
bloody war and the lowering of living standards and life expectancy throughout the USA-all is
Hypocrisy, lies socially imposed.
Of course America has nothing that could be compared with culture in many other parts of
the world. Anything that could provide the present with historical context is erased,
bulldozed, or painted over. Even the remaking of "classic" movies is done in part to separate
people's sense of the present from America's past. What America has in place of culture is an
eternal now , with the past being ephemeral and contingent upon the needs of the
narratives of the moment. Iconic American food culture is just ground and pureed mystery
protein and carbonated corn syrup water. The consumer doesn't want to know where those
come from, and ten minutes after consuming them they have largely forgotten the
experience.
Since the Apollo missions are in the news lately I will point out that we should expect an
effort in the not too distant future similar to what we are seeing in San Francisco to erase
the reality of that part of America's history. After all, the Apollo astronauts were all
white men, and that is traumatizing for the feeble-minded neolibs.
But you know, it isn't a bad thing to want to try to develop genuine and historically
anchored culture.
Within the vast bureaucratic sprawl of the
Pentagon there is a group in charge of monitoring the general state of the military-industrial
complex and its continued ability to fulfill the requirements of the national defense strategy.
Office for acquisition and sustainment and office for industrial policy spends some
$100,000 a year producing an Annual Report to Congress.
It
is available to the general public.
It is even available to the general public in Russia, and
Russian experts had a really good time poring over it.
In fact, it filled them with optimism.
You see, Russia wants peace but the US seems to
want war and keeps making threatening gestures against a longish list of countries that refuse to
do its bidding or simply don't share its "universal values."
But now it turns out that
threats (and the increasingly toothless economic sanctions) are pretty much all that the US is
still capable of dishing out -- this in spite of absolutely astronomical levels of defense spending.
Let's see what the US military-industrial complex looks like through a Russian
lens.
It is important to note that the report's authors were not aiming to force legislators to
finance some specific project.
This makes it more valuable than numerous other sources,
whose authors' main objective was to belly up to the federal feeding trough,
and which
therefore tend to be light on facts and heavy on hype. No doubt, politics still played a part in
how various details are portrayed, but there seems to be a limit to the number of problems its
authors can airbrush out of the picture and still do a reasonable job in analyzing the situation
and in formulating their recommendations.
What knocked Russian analysis over with a feather is the fact that these INDPOL experts
(who, like the rest of the US DOD, love acronyms) evaluate the US military-industrial complex from
a market-based perspective!
You see, the Russian military-industrial complex is fully
owned by the Russian government and works exclusively in its interests; anything else would be
considered treason.
But the US military-industrial complex is evaluated based on its
profitability!
According to INDPOL, it must not only produce products for the military but
also acquire market share in the global weapons trade and, perhaps most importantly, maximize
profitability for private investors. By this standard, it is doing well: for 2017 the gross margin
(EBITDA) for US defense contractors ranged from 15 to 17%, and some subcontractors - Transdigm, for
example - managed to deliver no less than 42-45%. "Ah!" cry the Russian experts, "We've found the
problem! The Americans have legalized
war
profiteering
!" (This, by the way, is but one of many instances of something called systemic
corruption, which is rife in the US.)
It would be one thing if each defense contractor simply took its cut off the top, but
instead there is an entire food chain of defense contractors, all of which are legally required, no
less, to maximize profits for their shareholders.
More than 28,000 companies are involved,
but the actual first-tier defense contractors with which the Pentagon places 2/3 of all defense
contracts are just the Big Six: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynmics, BAE
Systems and Boeing. All the other companies are organized into a pyramid of subcontractors with
five levels of hierarchy, and at each level they do their best to milk the tier above them.
The insistence on market-based methods and the requirement of maximizing profitability turns out
to be incompatible with defense spending on a very basic level: defense spending is intermittent
and cyclical, with long fallow intervals between major orders.
This has forced even the Big
Six to make cuts to their defense-directed departments in favor of expanding civilian production.
Also, in spite of the huge size of the US defense budget, it is of finite size (there being just
one planet to blow up), as is the global weapons market. Since, in a market economy, every company
faces the choice of grow or get bought out, this has precipitated scores of mergers and
acquisitions, resulting in a highly consolidated marketplace with a few major players in each
space.
As a result, in most spaces, of which the report's authors discuss 17, including the Navy, land
forces, air force, electronics, nuclear weapons, space technology and so on,
at least a
third of the time the Pentagon has a choice of exactly one contractor for any given contract,
causing quality and timeliness to suffer and driving up prices.
In a number of cases, in spite of its industrial and financial might, the Pentagon has
encountered insoluble problems.
Specifically, it turns out that the US has only one
shipyard left that is capable of building nuclear aircraft carriers (at all, that is; the USS
Gerald Ford is not exactly a success).
That is Northrop Grumman Newport News Shipbuilding
in Newport, Virginia. In theory, it could work on three ships in parallel, but two of the slips are
permanently occupied by existing aircraft carriers that require maintenance. This is not a unique
case: the number of shipyards capable of building nuclear submarines, destroyers and other types of
vessels is also exactly one. Thus, in case of a protracted conflict with a serious adversary in
which a significant portion of the US Navy has been sunk, ships will be impossible to replace
within any reasonable amount of time.
The situation is somewhat better with regard to aircraft manufacturing.
The
plants that exist can produce 40 planes a month and could produce 130 a month if pressed. On the
other hand, the situation with tanks and artillery is absolutely dismal. According to this report,
the US has completely lost the competency for building the new generation of tanks. It is no longer
even a question of missing plant and equipment; in the US, a second generation of engineers who
have never designed a tank is currently going into retirement. Their replacements have no one to
learn from and only know about modern tanks from movies and video games. As far as artillery, there
is just one remaining production line in the US that can produce barrels larger than 40mm; it is
fully booked up and would be unable to ramp up production in case of war. The contractor is
unwilling to expand production without the Pentagon guaranteeing at least 45% utilization, since
that would be unprofitable.
The situation is similar for the entire list of areas; it is better for dual-use technologies
that can be sourced from civilian companies and significantly worse for highly specialized ones.
Unit cost for every type of military equipment goes up year after year while the volumes being
acquired continuously trend lower -- sometimes all the way to zero. Over the past 15 years the US
hasn't acquired a single new tank. They keep modernizing the old ones, but at a rate that's no
higher than 100 a year.
Because of all these tendencies and trends, the defense industry continues to lose not only
qualified personnel but also the very ability to perform the work.
INDPOL experts estimate
that the deficit in machine tools has reached 27%. Over the past quarter-century the US has stopped
manufacturing a wide variety of manufacturing equipment. Only half of these tools can be imported
from allies or friendly nations; for the rest, there is just one source: China.
They
analyzed the supply chains for 600 of the most important types of weapons and found that a third of
them have breaks in them while another third have completely broken down. In the Pentagon's
five-tier subcontractor pyramid, component manufacturers are almost always relegated to the
bottommost tier, and the notices they issue when they terminate production or shut down completely
tend to drown in the Pentagon's bureaucratic swamp.
The end result of all this is that theoretically the Pentagon is still capable of
doing small production runs of weapons to compensate for ongoing losses in localized, low-intensity
conflicts during a general time of peace, but even today this is at the extreme end of its
capabilities. In case of a serious conflict with any well-armed nation, all it will be able to rely
on is the existing stockpile of ordnance and spare parts, which will be quickly depleted.
A similar situation prevails in the area of rare earth elements and other materials for
producing electronics.
At the moment, the accumulated stockpile of these supplies needed
for producing missiles and space technology -- most importantly, satellites -- is sufficient for five
years at the current rate of use.
The report specifically calls out the dire situation in the area of strategic nuclear weapons.
Almost all the technology for communications, targeting, trajectory calculations and arming of the
ICBM warheads was developed in the 1960s and 70s. To this day, data is loaded from 5-inch floppy
diskettes, which were last mass-produced 15 years ago. There are no replacements for them and the
people who designed them are busy pushing up daisies. The choice is between buying tiny production
runs of all the consumables at an extravagant expense and developing from scratch the entire
land-based strategic triad component at the cost of three annual Pentagon budgets.
There are lots of specific problems in each area described in the report, but the main
one is loss of competence among technical and engineering staff caused by a low level of orders for
replacements or for new product development.
The situation is such that promising new
theoretical developments coming out of research centers such as DARPA cannot be realized given the
present set of technical competencies. For a number of key specializations there are fewer than
three dozen trained, experienced specialists.
This situation is expected to continue to deteriorate, with the number of personnel employed in
the defense sector declining 11-16% over the next decade, mainly due to a shortage of young
candidates qualified to replace those who are retiring. A specific example: development work on the
F-35 is nearing completion and there won't be a need to develop a new jet fighter until 2035-2040;
in the meantime, the personnel who were involved in its development will be idled and their level
of competence will deteriorate.
Although at the moment the US still leads the world in defense spending ($610 billion of $1.7
trillion in 2017, which is roughly 36% of all the military spending on the planet)
the US
economy is no longer able to support the entire technology pyramid even in a time of relative peace
and prosperity.
On paper the US still looks like a leader in military technology, but the
foundations of its military supremacy have eroded. Results of this are plainly visible:
The US threatened North Korea with military action but was then forced to back off because
it has no ability to fight a war against it.
The US threatened Iran with military action but was then forced to back off because it has
no ability to fight a war against it.
The US lost the war in Afghanistan to the Taliban, and once the longest military conflict in
US history is finally over the political situation there will return to status quo ante with the
Taliban in charge and Islamic terrorist training camps back in operation.
US proxies (Saudi Arabia, mostly) fighting in Yemen have produced a humanitarian disaster
but have been unable to prevail militarily.
US actions in Syria have led to a consolidation of power and territory by the Syrian
government and newly dominant regional position for Russia, Iran and Turkey.
The second-largest NATO power Turkey has purchased Russian S-400 air defense systems. The US
alternative is the Patriot system, which is twice as expensive and doesn't really work.
All of this points to the fact that the US is no longer much a military power at all.
This is good news for at least the following four reasons.
First, the US is by far the most belligerent country on Earth,
having
invaded scores of nations and continuing to occupy many of them. The fact that it can't fight
any more means that opportunities for peace are bound to increase.
Second, once the news sinks in that the Pentagon is nothing more than a flush toilet
for public funds its funding will be cut off
and the population of the US might see the
money that is currently fattening up war profiteers being spent on some roads and bridges,
although it's looking far more likely that it will all go into paying interest expense on
federal debt (while supplies last).
Third, US politicians will lose the ability to keep the populace in a state of
permanent anxiety about "national security."
In fact, the US has "natural security" -- two
oceans -- and doesn't need much national defense at all (provided it keeps to itself and doesn't
try to make trouble for others). The Canadians aren't going to invade, and while the southern
border does need some guarding, that can be taken care of at the state/county level by some good
ol' boys using weapons and ammo they already happen to have on hand. Once this $1.7 trillion
"national defense" monkey is off their backs, ordinary American citizens will be able to work
less, play more and feel less aggressive, anxious, depressed and paranoid.
Last but not least, it will be wonderful to see the war profiteers reduced to
scraping under sofa cushions for loose change.
All that the US military has been able
to produce for a long time now is misery, the technical term for which is "humanitarian
disaster." Look at the aftermath of US military involvement in Serbia/Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Libya, Syria and Yemen, and what do you see? You see misery -- both for the locals and for US
citizens who lost their family members, had their limbs blown off, or are now suffering from
PTSD or brain injury. It would be only fair if that misery were to circle back to those who had
profited from it.
Damnit, folks, it is their job to say things that are wrong!
There is being wrong because one is missing some crucial information, or because one is
personally invested in a wrong narrative, but then there is being wrong because one is
deliberately trying to change a narrative to a false one for duty and profit.
The goings on in Hong Kong are so obviously a retry of the previous color revolution
attempt by the evil empire that it can be used as a reliable litmus test for who is carrying
water for the US State Department and Atlantic Council.
Yes, they 'feel encroached upon'. But honestly, their feelings in this matter are
delusional, and I mean that they are on the same level of delusion as the beliefs of those
involved in the Salem witch trials. Fantastic, community-wide, shared delusion.
It is hard for people to get their heads around the truth, because the narrative
universally starts from the assumption that 'China has been interfering', 'China hasn't kept
its word', etc.
And why not? It's China, right? It's a communist dictatorship. All those have to be safe
assumptions?
Except that they aren't; such assumptions are quite wrong. China has pretty much left Hong
Kong alone.
Yes, many Hong Kongers believe that they are being oppressed by China. But the
belief is simply and literally delusional. Very badly so.
Your theory fails the empirical test. It's an abstraction akin to the "Sea Peoples" theory
about the end of the Late Bronze Age.
Hong Kong, even after receiving 2 million migrants (which should've risen it GDP
considerably), begun to stagnate in relation to the Mainland. Since 1997, it's grown on
average 30%-50% the Mainland's average annual GDP growth rate (it is now growing at a 3%
annual average -- half the Mainland's rate).
In 2017, Shenzhen surpassed Hong Kong in terms of "GDP".
The matter is simple: after the handover (1997), Hongkongers demanded to remain
capitalist. The "One country, two systems" deal was a Hongkonger condition to go back to
China. At the time, it seemed like a wise decision: China was still a poor country, and there
was no signal Deng Xiaoping's reforms would be able to get out of the "middle income
trap".
They simply bet on the wrong horse: Chinese socialism demonstrated more dynamism than
Soviet socialism and achieved an important breakthrough in the period that ranged from its
accession to the WTO in 2001 to the aftermath of the 2008 crisis in 2012 (when, e.g. Brazil
-- another country growing at an accelerated pace from 2005 to 2011 thanks to high
commodities' prices and was used as a counterexample to Chinese socialism's success --
collapsed).
We can attest this "bet on the wrong horse" theory by simply looking at the protesters'
face: most of them very young, probably born after 1997 or too young to remember pre-1997
Hong Kong. They didn't live during the British despotic and authoritarian rule; they waived
the colonial flag and called it freedom. They forgot they are already living the British
dream: Hong Kong is still capitalist to the bone -- and will be until 2047, as the deal
dictates (legal guarantee of deals is a basic principle of freedom, since it's a basic
principle of Rule of Law -- so I don't know why the protesters are complaining about it).
This "Hongkonger is a nationality" is farce, a modern fabrication by the Western MSM. Hong
Kong was never a nation, and never will be a nation. The city proper doesn't even have a
source of potable water.
And you don't have to be unicultural to be a country; the same way, having a culture
doesn't entitle you to be a country. Culture doesn't equal country. This myth, that states
country borders are determined by cultural (specially, linguistic) differentiation is a
post-WWI fabrication, when the big imperialist powers had to find an excuse to partition the
Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires. Nobody outside Europe (and the Japanese) believes
that.
You are right. Hong Kongers effectively bet on the wrong horse. I mean, you can't really
blame them. Even Deng didn't realize how quickly China would grow.
Personally I think that Hong Kongers are having a very hard time, psychologically,
adjusting to the fact that Mainland Chinese are catching up or surpassing them in terms of
wealth. In the 1990s, they felt superior to other Chinese, and were secure in this
feeling.
That's all finished now.
In fact, given that this current colour revolution falls flat and we get back to normal in
a couple of months, I predict that Hong Kongers themselves will beg for One Country, Two
Systems to be ended early in about fifteen years' time. By then, it will be clear to anyone
who isn't brain dead that 1C2S is harming the Hong Kong economy by preventing full
integration with China, and no one in HK will support it any more.
You'll see Chinese flags being waved enthusiastically all over the place, probably by a
lot of 37-year-olds who were once chucking bricks at the cops and yelling for 'independence'
in 2019.
The lack of any productive industry is the fundamental economic problem with HK since
1997, and it's prior prosperity based on using itself as a main trade and investment gateway
into the Mainland is a short and one-time affair of the unique geopolitics of that era. HKers
who believe that privilege will last forever was naive to say the least, even when back in
97.
Contrast with Singapore that insists on sustaining a sizable manufacturing base to the
point it's considered a top economic priority, albeit one where much of it is being owned by
foreign capital.
Some posters are arguing that Hong Kongers are deluding themselves and that they should know
better and stop fighting assimilation into the Chinese system.
Talk about arrogance. Hey, Venezuelans should stop fighting the U.S. And kiss the ring! I
know what's good for them.
A good analogy for asserting our will over Hong Kong would be like trying to change the
nature of lemmings because we know what's best for them. Sure they commit ritualistic
suicide, but it is still their right and within their nature to do so.
Everything else equates to meddling and this is the stuff of absolute power and empire. A
far cry indeed from the ideals that most here espouse in every other circumstance. I am not
buying for a second that Hong Kongers don't have legitimate grievances with the concept of
being absorbed into China and that they are indeed airing them out for the world to see.
The process was textbook hybrid warfare: first, they tried to do "mass peaceful protests"
in order to seek a violent police response (preferably, with some dead) so as to trigger a
chain reaction to topple the democratically elected government. The Chinese are not stupid
and ordered the police to not act violently. Then, they tried to storm the Legco in order to
provoke a violent response: the police was against smart, and used the "scorched earth"
tactic: the building was left empty and unprotected, so all that was left to the protesters
was to vandalize the building (which played against their image); the fact that some
blowhards waived the colonial flag also didn't help their image (good image is a conditio
sine qua non for a color revolution).
Carrie Lam then outsmarted the protesters further by killing the bill (which is not
essential to Mainland governance of Hong Kong either way). That further delegitimized the
continuation of the protests. We can even speculate here if this bill wasn't a bait used to
test the waters in Hong Kong.
As a last, desperate attempt by the protesters, they tried to besiege the police hq in
order to try to induce a massacre. That obviously didn't work.
Those "protesters" are likely the heads of the color revolution attempt, almost surely on
the pockets of some NGO linked to Washington. They are now planning a fall back in order to
regroup. Taiwan is using this to consolidate itself even more as liberal Festung in
China.
As I stated here before, a color revolution only works against a strong government when it
has the backup of the unconventional warfare (UW). Hong Kong is very susceptible to a color
revolution, but is inviable as an unconventional warfare theater. That's because it doesn't
have any sources of potable water -- which comes from the New Territories (the flatlands
directly above the city-peninsula).
Well, it seems the color revolutionaires are very aware of this fact:
According to "Two masked male protesters", there's new reivindication in the agenda: they
want the dissolution of the government and new elections, to be decided by "popular vote"
(i.e. whoever is in the pockets of Washington).
The Donald Trump Administration is looking more and more like George W. Bush's
Administration: a dumb clueless idiot surrounded by neocons.
Remember Donald Rumsfeld , Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, John Bolton , George Tenet, Henry
Paulson, Paul Wolfowitz , and **** Cheney from the George W Bush Administration?
Tell me Trumptards, what's so "different this time" about Donald Trump hiring Bolton,
Pompeo, Mattis/Shanahan/Esper, Haley, Haspel and Mnuchin?
The key problem for Trump is reaction of China and Russia... If Russia supports Iran the USA attack onIran might well be the
second Vietnam and KSA will probably seize to exit.
Notable quotes:
"... The bottom-line is this -- if Trump launches military strikes against Iranian military targets it is very likely he will ignite a series of events that will escalate beyond his control, expose him as a paper tiger full of empty bellicose threats and risk a war with other countries, including Russia and China. ..."
"... The "War" class in Washington and the media are exhorting tough action and doing all within their power to portray Iran as an imminent threat to the West. The mantra, "the must be stopped," is being repeated ad nauseam in all of the media echo changers. President Trump, regrettably, is ignorant of military history and devoid of strategic intelligence when it comes to employing military force. He reminds me of Lyndon Johnson during the early stages of the Vietnam War -- i.e., being exhorted to take action, increase forces and not back down rather than lose face on the international front. ..."
"... it is more likely the Brits intended this as a provocation, in coordination with some members of Trump's team, that would bait the Iranians to respond in similar fashion. Iran has taken the bait and given the Brits what Iran sees as a dose of its own medicine. ..."
"... There is a dangerous delusion within the Trump National Security team. They believe we are so dominant that Iran will not dare fight us. I prefer to rely on the sage counsel of Colonel Patrick Lang -- the Iranians are not afraid to fight us and, if backed into a corner, will do so. ..."
"... The tanker is too big to use the Suez canal and too big to discharge oil in a Syrian port. It was possibly going to a Mediterranean port, but Iran will not back-down to the UK. ..."
"... As the Saudi's appear to be losing their war with Yemen, the UAE has announced that they are not desirous of being in the middle of any US-Iran conflict. Qatar is doing a huge nat gas deal with Iran. ..."
"... A 50% reduction in oil & LNG output for greater than 3 months would crush already weakening Asian economies who are the manufactured products supply chain for most of the world and in particular the US. Will voters in Ohio, Wisconsin & Michigan cheer Trump's military strikes on Teheran when prices at Walmart double? ..."
"... I have no faith in Donald Trump when it comes to Israeli's interests. Embassy moved to Jerusalem check, Golan Heights check. Deal of the Century by his Anti-Christ Son-In-Law check. Not sure if that is a joke or not. ..."
"... "Trump's advisers have a demented obsession with Iran. They've been spoiling for a fight with Iran for decades. They have no idea how destructive it would be. It would make Iraq look like a tea party." ..."
"... Yes. A demented obsession that is not in US interests. Is it really in Saudi and Israeli interests when they may be hurt too? ..."
"... The same idiots running the show seem to believe that American oil and gas fracking makes it impervious to the loss of Middle Eastern oil (in fact, a secret motivation might be to save American frackers economically), but they forget that oil is a fungible commodity and always flows to the highest bidder. They could try of ban oil exports, but the Europe and Japan's economies would be utterly toast as there would be virtually no oil available to them, especially if Russia backed Iran and cut them off. ..."
"... Rather than blaming this on the media, neocons or the Pentagon, put the blame where it lies - with President Trump. Trump campaigned on tearing up the Iran nuclear agreement which he did once he was elected. The Trump administration re-imposed sanctions on Iran which are meant to inflict serious hardship on the Iranian people. Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo - both hawks from previous administrations. Trump is attempting to enforce the sanctions. Is there anyone else to blame but Trump? ..."
"... The use of the golden rule suggests problems with your logic. Would we sit still, for example, if Russia and/or China started fostering guerrilla movements in South America? Of course not. We would actively intervene in support of what we see as our local security imperatives. That appears to me to be all Iran is doing in its region. ..."
"... If the Gulf oilfields in Saudi Arabia and the UAE are heavily rocketed and put out of commission along with tanker loading docks and pipeline infrastructure, there won't be any oil to ship out of the Gulf anyway. ..."
"... The primary damage from a war with Iran will be economic. Oil flowing through the Staits will come to a halt and that will hit China, Japan and the rest of Asia very hard and their buying power will decrease significantly hurting our exports. Even though the U.S is self-sufficient in oil if oil prices hit $100+ on the world market look for the U.S. oil companies to increase their prices to approach the world price driving gas prices into the $5.00+/gallon range. Trump will undoubtably prohibit U.S oil exports but the damage to the economies world wide will still negatively impact the U.S. ..."
"... Post Scriptum: Signs of a dying paradigm as the western elite have gone into total sclerotic mode. Dangerous as a rabid dog. ..."
Donald Trump appears to be on the verge of doing what the "Never Trumpers" could not--destroy his Presidency and make re-election
impossible. It all boils down to whether or not he decides to launch military strikes on Iran. The bottom-line is this -- if
Trump launches military strikes against Iranian military targets it is very likely he will ignite a series of events that will escalate
beyond his control, expose him as a paper tiger full of empty bellicose threats and risk a war with other countries, including Russia
and China.
The "War" class in Washington and the media are exhorting tough action and doing all within their power to
portray Iran as an imminent threat to the West. The mantra, "the must be stopped," is being repeated ad nauseam in all of the media
echo changers. President Trump, regrettably, is ignorant of military history and devoid of strategic intelligence when it comes to
employing military force. He reminds me of Lyndon Johnson during the early stages of the Vietnam War -- i.e., being exhorted to take
action, increase forces and not back down rather than lose face on the international front.
The media is busy pushing the lie that Iran launched an unprovoked "attack" on a British flagged ship. They ignore the British
action two weeks ago, when the British Navy seized an Iranian flagged tanker heading to Syria. Britain justifies its action as just
keeping the sanction regime in place. But it is more likely the Brits intended this as a provocation, in coordination with some
members of Trump's team, that would bait the Iranians to respond in similar fashion. Iran has taken the bait and given the Brits
what Iran sees as a dose of its own medicine.
There is a dangerous delusion within the Trump National Security team. They believe we are so dominant that Iran will not
dare fight us. I prefer to rely on the sage counsel of Colonel Patrick Lang -- the Iranians are not afraid to fight us and, if backed
into a corner, will do so.
I see at least four possible scenarios for this current situation. If you can think of others please add in the comments section.
"two weeks ago, when the British Navy seized an Iranian flagged tanker"
Via Associated Press:
Royal Marines took part in the seizure of the Iranian oil tanker by Gibraltar, a British overseas territory off the southern
coast of Spain. Officials there initially said the July 4 seizure happened on orders from the U.S." .......
It gets even better than on orders from the U.S.
"Britain has said it would release the vessel, which was carrying more than 2 million barrels of Iranian crude, if Iran could
prove it was not breaching EU sanctions"
We are supposed to believe that Syria is importing oil on ships which sail through the Straights of Gibraltar rather than getting
oil from, say, Russia! or going from Iran (it is Iranian oil, so they say) through the Suez Canal? What did they
do, sail around the continent of Africa to stage this?
So the brilliant minds at GCHQ that brought us Christopher Steele and the dossier have decided that they really, really, need
to get rid of the Orange Man and they don't care how many Iranian or American lives it takes. I wonder just how many people the
man not in the news, Jeffrey Epstein, had the dirty goods on and just which government was behind his operation.
The tanker is too big to use the Suez canal and too big to discharge oil in a Syrian port. It was possibly going to a Mediterranean
port, but Iran will not back-down to the UK.
Thanks for the comment. I did a bit more research. It seems strange to me that Iran would use a ship to large for the canal
to make such a shipment to Syria, if indeed that was where it was heading.
Larry, your intel about the JCS not advising caution is most disheartening. I wouldn't be surprised if the warmongers surrounding
Trump are also telling him that his rally attending base is all for taking it to the raghead terrorists. That may not be far off.
Sure those who support Trump for his professed aversion to adventurism will be appalled at war with Iran, but his more rabid base
may follow him anywhere. Trump has no ideological need for war, but he does have a psychological need for adoration. That's not
a good situation.
"...his rally attending base is all for taking it to the raghead terrorists.."
TTG
I have seen private surveys commissioned by a deep pocketed hedge fund of working class folks in the mid-west & the south.
When the consequences of a military confrontation with Iran are described the overwhelming majority oppose it.
Larry is spot on. Trump will lose his re-election bid if he kowtows to Bibi & MbS. The short-term financial & economic effects
would crush his base and the half-life of jingoism after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, & Syria will be rather short. Trump will be
blamed by the "right" for cocking up teaching Iran a lesson and demonized by the "left "for getting us into another ME quagmire.
How does one wake POTUS Trump to the reality that his NEOCONS and Israel Firsters in his Cabinet will destroy his Presidency if
he doesn't jettison them out the door.
There is an effort underway to undermine Israeli influence in the US, and I think the calculus might be to use the exact thing
Israelis want most (war with Iran) to do that. I think the resurrection of the Epstein case is also part of that effort. Thus,
war with Iran is inevitable.
"There is an effort underway to undermine Israeli influence in the US"
Is it an organized effort? Where do I sign up?
Rick Wiles heads TruNews, a Christian evangelical network. He's been outspoken in his criticism of zionism, calls out Christian
zionists, and deplores that "the US has been taken over by zionists." To be sure, ADL has labeled Wiles an "antisemite." If TruNews
survives, it may be part of game-changing.
"From what I am hearing from knowledgeable sources [is that] no one on the Joint Chiefs of Staff at DOD are advising caution."
We should probably ignore the notion that the Joint Chiefs are bullish about a war with Iran -- the situation in the area is
terrible for us and the Joint Chiefs know it.
For example, Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan have military understandings with Iran and the former is now installing advanced S-400
Russian missiles to defend itself from us. Furthermore, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Azerbajian and Armenia will not allow
transit of war materiel or aircraft en-route to Iran. So how does the US project anything into that country?
Then again, US Central Command is located in Iran friendly Quatar, which merely hosts us and could require us to leave. How
come? Wouldn't you know it, Quatar is developing a massive gas reserve with Iran in the Gulf, is now very, very friendly with
big-brother Turkey and presently negotiating with Russia for S-400 missiles -- clearly against us.
Well, what about our Navy?
Alas, recent improvements in missiles have rendered our deep water Navy a liability -- not that the narrow Persian Gulf / Sea
of Oman is deep in any case. (President Trump learned about our Navy's vulnerability to missile attack last year as the Pentagon
quickly pulled our three carrier group force from Korea and parked those impressive ships on the south coast of Australia! )
Then there is Iran's near east client / ally Hezbollah, which has made clear that any bombing of Iran, a huge country, would
trigger heavy missile attack on postage-stamp Israel.
The Neocons may have managed to silence public Pentagon doubts, but President Trump is clearly attempting to avoid military
adventures. "No, the Iran downed drone was old and not that expensive." "The UK captured an Iranian tanker and the Iranians have
reciprocated. The two should sit down and work the situation out."
I believe that Iran is going to want to avoid war if they can. Their program of adding precision guidance to Hezbollah missiles
in Lebanon means that the longer they postpone war, the better for them. If they get to a point where they have 10,000 precision
guided missiles in Lebanon then the next Israel-Lebanon war will force Israel into a humiliating defeat.
Eighty percent of Israel's water comes from water desalination plants - and then there are electricity generation plants, sewage
treatment plants, and numerous other infrastructure targets that can be hit. Israeli civilians are soft and will cry uncle as
soon as their air conditioning cuts out.
Why not, then, have the Americans initiate the deed now... destroy Iran and Lebanon, and then, with France, the UK, Germany,
Canada et al. spend billions to rebuild Israel, with the Palestinians being sent to Jordan (if not worse).
Israel has gambled on a broader war several times in the past, and they believe (despite the fiasco in Lebanon) that each was
a win.
When did this group, leading the charge overseas in D.C. for the past 20 years, once get it right, as far as assumptions and expectations
of military necessities or outcomes? I am beginning to think this creating a greater danger out of a lesser mess is a feature,
not a defect. If so, why? To what end? Or is the policy process that broken?
Saddam ain't around any more, neither is Muammar Gaddafi. The neocons take those as great victories since the sacred state
of Israel is safe from those two.
imo a war with iran is theatre and will not take place.
should iran be attacked imo you can kiss the UAE goodbye as well as most if not all of the Saudi oil infrastructre along the
gulf. i would also expect a massive direct bombardment of israeli cities and other important targets from hezbollah starting with
the massive ammonia storage system in haifa whose destruction would annihilate that entire region. all of useful israel is in
the middle to upper third of the country closest to lebanon and easy reach for all of hezbollahs missiles.
the persian gulf upon the start of the war becomes the hotel california for any warship within. none would likely escape. and
the coup de gra for iran is whether they have the ballistic missile reach and or can gain access to russian long range bombers
fitted with kalibr or better cruise missiles able to smash diego garcia absolutely critical american relaestate in the indian
ocean.
trump imo is not crazy and can read a map as well as anyone with help from his REAL pentagon military professionals.
we have not even gotten to what happens to all those oil and interest rate derivatives far out of the money right now in somewhat
normal times. if war starts they go from notional to real fast and the western financial system implodes even with a force majeure
declaration
An Iran war would indeed most probably kill off Trump's chance of re-election. The almost inevitable spike in the price of oil
which it would bring about would have two implications:
1/ ROTW xUS manufacturing is already in recession, with services close to joining it in many countries. The US is clearly slowing
down and appears headed on the same course. The global economy is in no shape to withstand even a relatively short-lived surge
in oil prices.
2/ There is no knowing what lurks out there in the oil derivatives market, but the banking system - particularly the European
banking system - is far too fragile to sustain another bout of counterparty risk aversion along the lines of 2007/08. (And amongst
the trillions of gross derivatives exposure, one has to wonder just how many US and other banks are sitting across from Deutsche
Bank oil positions and happily netting off the counterparty risk.)
Regretably, from my side of the Atlantic the US looks like a traditional imperial power, addicted to war and conquest and with
a significant proportion of the population fetishizing (probably not a real verb) all things military. Whether Trump can be truly
damaged by extending the 'forever war' to Iran depends very much on how it goes - and I doubt he has the knowledge required to
think through all the plausible scenarios. We can be a lot more confident that carrying the blame for an unnecessary recession
into the election campaign has a solid chance of sinking him.
Just what good has the past two decades of "war and conquest" done for America, whether flyover country, Jussie Smollett's
"Maga Country" section of Chicago or the homeless encampments of Seattle, LA or Portland?
As the Saudi's appear to be losing their war with Yemen, the UAE has announced that they are not desirous of being in the
middle of any US-Iran conflict. Qatar is doing a huge nat gas deal with Iran.
Bolton is heading to Japan to "mediate" the
current economic disagreements between Japan and S. Korea.
Pompeo is declaring that the Iranian Ballistic Missile program is suddenly on the table. It would appear that the whole Iranian
atomic bomb thing was smoke and mirrors and hasbara.
There is a deal available, preparation for making the deal will involve political kabuki, grand posturing, the beating of drums
without rhythm and the flooding of the Old American Infotainment outlets with much wailing and whining about "the only democracy
in the MENA."
A deal will eventuate that allows both the USA and Iran to move on, about a week before the 2020 presidential election. Or
maybe not.
I have a question for those of you well versed with Iranian military capability. What are the capabilities of Iranian ballistic
missiles in terms of range, precision and payload lethality?
As Col. Lang has noted in the transition to war, before the US
Navy gets its ducks in a row, that is the window of opportunity that Iran has to strike back. What damage could they inflict on
oil & gas infrastructure including LNG, port & pipelines across UAE, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia?
A 50% reduction in oil & LNG output for greater than 3 months would crush already weakening Asian economies who are the
manufactured products supply chain for most of the world and in particular the US. Will voters in Ohio, Wisconsin & Michigan cheer
Trump's military strikes on Teheran when prices at Walmart double?
As Larry notes "..President Trump, regrettably, is ignorant of military history and devoid of strategic intelligence when
it comes to employing military force.." , but I believe he has good political instincts and as his Reality TV/Twitter presidency
shows he has an excellent sense of how it plays both in the MSM and social media. He must know that while the "shock & awe" and
"boom-boom" videos may give him an instant boost the stock market that he has rested his presidency on may not soar but in fact
plummet. And he can't blame Jay Powell for that.
He must also instinctually know that November 2020 is a year away and a lot can go wrong as it is economically and in financial
markets since he's been harping at the Fed to lower rates in supposedly the best economy evah. Uncertainty spikes volatility and
the credit markets are already stressed particularly in offshore eurodollar funding which is an order of magnitude larger than
mortgage credit markets were in 2007.
Maybe Rand Paul is his counter to the ziocon fifth column? I don't think he's that foolish to pull the trigger on Iran and
sink his presidency when the Deep State & NeverTrumpers are out for his blood. He must know he'll lose immunity from legal jeopardy
when he's no longer POTUS.
As Col. Lang has repeatedly observed, the decisions to go to war do not necessarily follow economic, nor domestic political logic.
It is therefore better to speculate on the players state of mind rather than looking at the aforesaid rational drivers like economics
and votes.
I have no faith in Donald Trump when it comes to Israeli's interests. Embassy moved to Jerusalem check, Golan Heights check.
Deal of the Century by his Anti-Christ Son-In-Law check. Not sure if that is a joke or not.
Israeli wants Iran destroyed and their ability to pressure US Presidents to do their bidding all the way back to President
Truman is 100% success. Trump so cravenly promotes the Zionist interest that I see no reason he will not pursue regime change
in Iran to its logical conclusion.
The plan is ultimately Greater Israeli and the leaders of Iran are well aware of this.
Many comments say that Israeli will be badly damaged by any regional war. Why do you believe Israeli is just going to take
the blows? Analysis is not advocacy as Col. Lang says.
My fear is the ultimate weapons of mass destruction are introduced into the Middle East.
"Trump's advisers have a demented obsession with Iran. They've been spoiling for a fight with Iran for decades. They have no idea
how destructive it would be. It would make Iraq look like a tea party."
Option 1 - Diplomatic solution: The UK will do what it must do, ie what the US allows it to do. The GB Imperial project is no
more and the UK is riding along somewhere in the wake of the Imperial City. Whatever influence it exerts on power there is by
flattery or deception (Steele dossier.) Trump slapped the UK Ambassador out of Washington as if he were a fly. Moreover, the UK
alone carries no stick to wield against Iran. Iran is no Falklands.
Options 2 thru 4 - some degree of military attack on Iran:
as you point out, the return on investment for any kind of attack on Iran is highly unpredictable. It depends entirely on how
Iran chooses to respond and whether it decides to roll the dice, go all in, and endure the onslaught, and inflict what damage
it can where it can, which it very well may. Does anyone in Washington have an intel based fix on Iran's intentions when attacked?
I doubt it.
Not a single intervention in the last 18 years, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya resulted in the anticipated outcome. Do they
have rear view mirrors in Washington?
My weakly held expectation, especially now with the passing of a few days, is that Washington will decide to temporize and
tell the UK to accept the humiliation, in effect kicking the can down the road. Everyone will know it is only doing what it has
been told to do.
Of course they will announce more face saving sanctions. The Donald will hope that he will be able to gut it out to 2020 without
having to make a decision that could blow him up, and likely would - but who knows? Iran will hope to gut it out to 2020 and in
the interim pray to God that some Democrat floats back down to earth with some issues, like the Donald once espoused, that will
be used to beat the Donald and send him and his family back to the upper East Side.
With the escalation game fully in play, it's going to be a close call.
I find it a bit hard to believe that leaders like Dunford, Selva, Milley, Richardson, and the others on the Joint Chiefs are
not advising caution. Milley, the next Chairman, for sure has advised caution at his recent Senate hearing. Dunford has only pushed
for an international coalition Task Force to guard ships transiting the Strait. Selva and Richardson appear to be more worried
about China.
Let us all hope that your knowledgeable sources are wrong.
The real danger is if Fred Fleitz gets to be DNI. If that happens be prepared for another scam like the Office of Special Plans
a la Wolfowicz and Feith. Probably Bolton and/or PomPom already have one hiding in the basement ready to go.
Iran's FM Zarif made a peaceful impression during Fareed Zakaria's interview. But all the headlines focus on his one statement:
"Start a war with Iran and we will end it" . Although those were NOT his words, what he said was "We will never start
a war,...But we will defend ourselves, and anybody who starts a war with Iran will not be the one who ends it."
The question is whether he speaks for the hardliners.
You forgot to mention what will happen to the world economy if the Strait of Hormuz is closed to all shipping by Iranian missiles
an mines. Stock marks would collapse and a deep recession if not depression would ensue quickly.
The same idiots running the show seem to believe that American oil and gas fracking makes it impervious to the loss of
Middle Eastern oil (in fact, a secret motivation might be to save American frackers economically), but they forget that oil is
a fungible commodity and always flows to the highest bidder. They could try of ban oil exports, but the Europe and Japan's economies
would be utterly toast as there would be virtually no oil available to them, especially if Russia backed Iran and cut them off.
Rather than blaming this on the media, neocons or the Pentagon, put the blame where it lies - with President Trump. Trump
campaigned on tearing up the Iran nuclear agreement which he did once he was elected. The Trump administration re-imposed sanctions
on Iran which are meant to inflict serious hardship on the Iranian people. Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo - both hawks from previous
administrations. Trump is attempting to enforce the sanctions. Is there anyone else to blame but Trump?
Iran is also not entirely innocent in the affairs of the Middle East. Israel believes with some evidence that Iran is building
forward bases in Syria - an unacceptable condition for Israel considering the thousands of missiles owned by Hezbollah and the
ballistic missile testing by Iran. Iran is also supplying weapons directly to Hezbollah (as they always have). In addition, Iran
is supplying weapons and (likely) ballistic missile technology to the Houthis. The Houthis have used ballistic missiles to attack
the Saudis. Yemen is on the border of Saudi Arabia - and a (Shia) Houthi government is unacceptable to the Saudis. The Trump administration
tore up the nuclear agreement because of the destabilizing political agenda of Iran (to US interests).
Trump campaigned on a more isolationist foreign policy so option 1 is still the most likely possibility for the moment (IMO).
The use of the golden rule suggests problems with your logic. Would we sit still, for example, if Russia and/or China started
fostering guerrilla movements in South America? Of course not. We would actively intervene in support of what we see as our local
security imperatives. That appears to me to be all Iran is doing in its region.
Your third paragraph is a stretch. Iran's actions that you describe are realistic (in the strategic sense of the word) responses
to Israel's overt hostility, overwhelming superiority in air power and its possession of scores of nuclear weapons.
I'm wondering if in case of war, Iran would need to "close the Gulf" at all.
If the Gulf oilfields in Saudi Arabia and the UAE are heavily rocketed and put out of commission along with tanker loading
docks and pipeline infrastructure, there won't be any oil to ship out of the Gulf anyway.
The primary damage from a war with Iran will be economic. Oil flowing through the Staits will come to a halt and that will
hit China, Japan and the rest of Asia very hard and their buying power will decrease significantly hurting our exports. Even though
the U.S is self-sufficient in oil if oil prices hit $100+ on the world market look for the U.S. oil companies to increase their
prices to approach the world price driving gas prices into the $5.00+/gallon range. Trump will undoubtably prohibit U.S oil exports
but the damage to the economies world wide will still negatively impact the U.S.
Insurance on oil vessels will become almost impossible to get. The U.S will have to indemnify ship owners and I suspect
many will not trust the U.S. to come through with the money for claims. Trump has a history of this and thus many ships will stay
in port.
A war with Iran will not be won or lost militarily, but economically. Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq and has 3 times the
population and I simply do not think we can successfully occupy the country. That being the case, I don't think the U.S can permanently
prevent sabatoge in the Staits - meaning an oil induced recession will linger world wide for many years.
UNO: increased false flag incident instigated by the anglo-zionist
DUE:Increased takfiri movements in Idlib and provocatiev
attacks InnAleppo ,Hama Dara and Dier Ezurr as the Syrian Arab Army is consolidating around Northern Hama and Around Idlib .
TRE: More tanker siezures by the Nato cohorts and portraying Iran as breachoing the JCPCOA treaty. Nevr mentioning the breach
of contract from the western alliance from Pax-Americana and its Western European vassals
Quattro Russia and China will be either utilised as middle men or further labelled as agressors and Iranian?Syrian?Yemeni apologist.
Post Scriptum: Signs of a dying paradigm as the western elite have gone into total sclerotic mode. Dangerous as a rabid
dog.
Last week it was all fire and brimstone. The US was threatening more sanctions on Iran, the
Brits were seizing oil tankers and Iran was violating the JCPOA.
I thought National Security Advisor John Bolton said the US would apply pressure until "the
pips squeak."
Where the pips are squeaking is on the Arabian Peninsula, not across the Persian Gulf in
Bandar Abbas. Specifically, I'm talking about the United Arab Emirates. The UAE sent a
delegation to Tehran recently that coincided with its partial withdrawal of troops from
Yemen.
"The UAE would like to avoid seeing their country transformed into a battlefield between
the US and Iran in case of war, particularly if Trump is re-elected. The Emirates officials
noted that the US did not respond to Iran's retaliation in the Gulf and in particularly when
the US drone was downed. This indicates that Iran is prepared for confrontation and will
implement its explicit menace, to hit any country from which the US carries out their attacks
on Iran. We want to be out of all this ", an Emirates official told his Iranian counterpart
in Tehran.
Iran promised to talk to the Yemeni officials to avoid hitting targets in Dubai and Abu
Dhabi as long as the UAE pulls out its forces from the Yemen and stops this useless war.
Saudi Crown Prime Mohammad Bin Salman is finding himself without his main Emirates ally,
caught in a war that is unwinnable for the Saudi regime. The Yemeni Houthis have taken the
initiative, hitting several Saudi strategic targets. Saudi Arabia has no realistic objectives
and seems to have lost the appetite to continue the war in Yemen.
So, with the Houthis successfully striking major targets inside Saudi Arabia and the UAE
abruptly pulling forces out, the war in Yemen has reached a critical juncture. Remember, the
Republican-controlled Senate approved a bill withdrawing support for the war back in March,
which the White House had to veto in support of its fading hopes for its Israeli/Palestinian
deal pushed by Jared Kushner.
But things have changed significantly since then as that deal has been indefinitely
postponed with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu facing a second election this fall
after he failed to secure a stable coalition.
After that there was the failed economic conference in
Bahrain in June where Kushner revealed the economic part of the plan to a half-empty room
where only the backers of the plan showed any real support.
And that's the important part of this story, because it was Kushner's plan which was the
impetus for all of this insane anti-Iran belligerence in the first place. Uniting the Gulf
states around a security pact leveraging the U.S/Israeli/Saudi alliance was part of what was
supposed to pressure the Palestinians to the bargaining table.
By placing maximum economic sanctions on both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran while continuing
to foment chaos in Syria was supposed to force Israel's enemies to fold under the pressure
which would, in turn, see the Palestinians surrender to the will of Kushner and Bibi.
The problem is, it didn't work. And now Trump is left holding the bag on this idiotic policy
which culminated in an obvious provocation when Iran shot down a $220 million Global Hawk
surveillance drone, nearly sparking a wider war.
But what it did was expose the US and not Iran as the cause of the current problems.
Since then Trump finally had to stand up and be the grown-up in the room, such as he is, and
put an end to this madness.
The UAE understood the potential for Iran's asymmetric response to US belligerence. The
Saudis cannot win the war in Yemen that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman began. The fallout
from this war has been to push Qatar out of the orbit of the rest of the Gulf Cooperation
Council, cutting deals with Iran over developing the massive North Pars gas field and pipelines
to Europe.
And now the UAE has realized it is facing an existential threat to its future in any
confrontation between Iran and the US
What's telling is that Trump is making Yemen the issue to negotiate down rather than Iran's
nuclear ambitions. Because it was never about the nuclear program. It was always about Iran's
ballistic missile program.
And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo would have us believe that for the first time Iran's
missile program is on the negotiating table. I have no idea if that's actually true, but it's a
dead giveaway that it's what the US is after.
The main reason why Trump and Netanyahu are so angry about the JCPOA is the mutual
outsourcing of the nuclear ballistic missile program by Iran and North Korea. North Korea was
working on the warhead while Iran worked on the ballistic missile.
Trump tweeted about this nearly two years ago, confirming this link. I wrote about it when
he did this. Nearly everything I said about North Korea in the blog post is now applicable
to Iran. This was why he hated the JCPOA, it didn't actually stop the development of Iran and
North Korea into nuclear states.
But tearing up the deal was the wrong approach to solving the problem. Stop pouring hundreds
of billions of dollars in weapons to the region, as Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif pointed out
recently, is the problem . By doing this he took both Russian President Vladimir Putin and
Chinese Premier Xi Jinping off his side of the table.
Now he stands isolated with only the provocateurs – Israel, the U.K., Saudi Arabia
– trying to goad him forward into doing something he doesn't want to do. And all of those
provocations that have occurred in the past month have failed to move either Trump or the
Iranians. They've learned patience, possibly from Putin. Call it geopolitical rope-a-dope, if
you will.
I said last month that the key to solving Iran's nuclear ambitions was solving the
relationship with North Korea. Trump, smartly, went there, doing what only he could
do , talk with DPRK Chairman Kim Jong-Un and reiterate his sincere desire to end
proliferation of nuclear weapons.
He can get Iran to the table but he's going to have to give up something. So, now framing
the negotiations with Iran around their demands we stop arming the Saudis is politically
feasible.
Trump can't, at this point, back down directly with Iran. Yemen is deeply unpopular here and
ending our support of it would be a boon to Trump politically. Trading that for some sanctions
relief would be a good first step to solving the mess he's in and build some trust.
Firing John Bolton, which looks more likely every day, would be another.
He's already turning a blind eye to Iranian exports to China, and presumably, other places.
I think the Brits are acting independently trying to create havoc and burnish Foreign Secretary
Jeremy Hunt's resume as Prime Minister against Boris Johnson. That's why they hijacked the oil
tanker.
But all the little distractions are nothing but poison pills to keep from discussing the
real issues. Trump just cut through all that. So did Iran. Let's hope they stay focused.
The Donald Trump Administration is looking more and more like George W. Bush's
Administration: a dumb clueless idiot surrounded by neocons.
Remember Donald Rumsfeld , Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, John Bolton , George Tenet, Henry
Paulson, Paul Wolfowitz , and **** Cheney from the George W Bush Administration?
Tell me Trumptards, what's so "different this time" about Donald Trump hiring Bolton,
Pompeo, Mattis/Shanahan/Esper, Haley, Haspel and Mnuchin?
"... "President Trump's Cabinet is already rife with corruption, stocked full of former lobbyists and other private industry power players who don't seem to mind leveraging their government positions to enrich themselves personally. Esper should fit right in," ..."
"... The linkage between officials in US government, the Pentagon and private manufacturers is a notorious example of "revolving door". It is not unusual, or even remarkable, that individuals go from one sector to another and vice versa. That crony relationship is fundamental to the functioning of the "military-industrial complex" which dominates the entire American economy and the fiscal budget ($730 billion annually – half the total discretionary public spend by federal government). ..."
"... Raytheon is a $25 billion company whose business is all about selling missile-defense systems. Its products have been deployed in dozens of countries, including in the Middle East, as well as Japan, Romania and, as of next year, Poland. It is in Raytheon's vital vested interest to capitalize on alleged security threats from Iran, Russia, China and North Korea in order to sell "defense" systems to nations that then perceive a "threat" and need to be "protected". ..."
"... It is a certainty that Esper shares the same worldview, not just for engrained ideological reasons, but also because of his own personal motives for self-aggrandizement as a former employee of Raytheon and quite possibly as a future board member when he retires from the Pentagon. ..."
"... It is also about how US foreign policy and military decisions are formulated and executed, including decisions on matters of conflict and ultimately war. The insidiousness is almost farcical, if the implications weren't so disturbing, worthy of satire from the genre of Dr Strangelove or Catch 22. ..."
"... During senate hearings this week, Esper openly revealed his dubious quality of thinking and the kind of policies he will pursue as Pentagon chief. He told credulous senators that Russia was to blame for the collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. That equates to more Raytheon profits from selling defense systems in Europe. ..."
"... It is ludicrous how blatant a so-called democratic nation (the self-declared "leader of the free world") is in actuality an oligarchic corporate state whose international relations are conducted on the basis of making obscene profits from conflict and war. ..."
Mark Esper is expected to be confirmed in coming days as the new US Secretary of Defense. His appointment is awaiting final Congressional
approval after customary hearings this week before senators. The 55-year-old nominee put forward by President Trump was previously
a decorated Lieutenant Colonel and has served in government office during the GW Bush administration.
But what stands out as his most conspicuous past occupation is working for seven years as a senior lobbyist for Raytheon, the
US' third biggest military manufacturing company. The firm specializes in missile-defense systems, including the Patriot, Iron Dome
and the Aegis Ashore system (the latter in partnership with Lockheed Martin).
As Defense Secretary, Esper will be the most senior civilian executive member of the US government, next to the president, on
overseeing military policy, including decisions about declaring war and deployment of American armed forces around the globe. His
military counterpart at the Pentagon is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, currently held by Marine General Joseph Dunford who
is expected to be replaced soon by General Mark Milley (also in the process of senate hearings).
Esper's confirmation hearings this week were pretty much a rubber-stamp procedure, receiving lame questioning from senators about
his credentials and viewpoints. The only exception was Senator Elizabeth Warren, who
slammed
the potential "conflict of interest" due to his past lobbying service for Raytheon. She said it "smacks of corruption". Other than
her solitary objection, Esper was treated with kid gloves by other senators and his appointment is expected to be whistled through
by next week. During hearings, the former lobbyist even pointedly refused to recuse himself of any matters involving Raytheon if
he becomes the defense boss.
As Rolling Stone magazine
quipped
on Esper's nomination, "it is as swampy as you'd expect".
"President Trump's Cabinet is already rife with corruption, stocked full of former lobbyists and other private industry
power players who don't seem to mind leveraging their government positions to enrich themselves personally. Esper should fit right
in," wrote Rolling Stone.
The linkage between officials in US government, the Pentagon and private manufacturers is a notorious example of "revolving
door". It is not unusual, or even remarkable, that individuals go from one sector to another and vice versa. That crony relationship
is fundamental to the functioning of the "military-industrial complex" which dominates the entire American economy and the fiscal
budget ($730 billion annually – half the total discretionary public spend by federal government).
Nevertheless, Esper is a particularly brazen embodiment of the revolving-door's seamless connection.
Raytheon is a $25 billion company whose business is all about selling missile-defense systems. Its products have been deployed
in dozens of countries, including in the Middle East, as well as Japan, Romania and, as of next year, Poland. It is in Raytheon's
vital vested interest to capitalize on alleged security threats from Iran, Russia, China and North Korea in order to sell "defense"
systems to nations that then perceive a "threat" and need to be "protected".
It is a certainty that Esper shares the same worldview, not just for engrained ideological reasons, but also because of his own
personal motives for self-aggrandizement as a former employee of Raytheon and quite possibly as a future board member when he retires
from the Pentagon. The issue is not just merely about corruption and ethics, huge that those concerns are.
It is also about how US
foreign policy and military decisions are formulated and executed, including decisions on matters of conflict and ultimately war.
The insidiousness is almost farcical, if the implications weren't so disturbing, worthy of satire from the genre of Dr Strangelove
or Catch 22.
How is Esper's advice to the president about tensions with Russia, Iran, China or North Korea, or any other alleged adversary,
supposed to be independent, credible or objective? Esper is a de facto lobbyist for the military-industrial complex sitting in the
Oval Office and Situation Room. Tensions, conflict and war are meat and potatoes to this person.
During senate hearings this week, Esper openly revealed his dubious quality of thinking and the kind of policies he will pursue
as Pentagon chief. He told credulous senators that Russia was to blame for the collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
(INF) Treaty. That equates to more Raytheon profits from selling defense systems in Europe. Also, in a clumsy inadvertent admission
he advised that the US needs to get out of the INF in order to develop medium-range missiles to "counter China". The latter admission
explains the cynical purpose for why the Trump administration unilaterally ditched the INF earlier this year. It is not about alleged
Russian breaches of the treaty; the real reason is for the US to obtain a freer hand to confront China.
It is ludicrous how blatant a so-called democratic nation (the self-declared "leader of the free world") is in actuality an oligarchic
corporate state whose international relations are conducted on the basis of making obscene profits from conflict and war.
Little wonder then than bilateral relations between the US and Russia are in such dire condition. Trump's soon-to-be top military
advisor Mark Esper is not going to make bilateral relations any better, that's for sure.
Also at a precarious time of possible war with Iran, the last person Trump should consult is someone whose corporate cronies are
craving for more weapons sales. The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
Jeffrey D. Sachs Trump is often called
an isolationist, but he is as interventionist as his predecessors. His strategy is simply to rely more heavily on US economic power
than military might to coerce adversaries, which creates its own kind of cruelty and destabilization – and embodies its own brand
of illegality.
NEW YORK – US President Donald Trump has based his foreign policy on a series of harsh economic blockades, each designed to frighten,
coerce, and even starve the target country into submitting to American demands. While the practice is less violent than a military
attack, and the blockade is through financial means rather than the navy, the consequences are often dire for civilian populations.
As such, economic blockades by the United States should be scrutinized by the United Nations Security Council under international
law and the UN Charter.
When Trump campaigned for office in 2016, he rejected the frequent US resort to war in the Middle East. During the years 1990-2016,
the US launched two major wars with Iraq (1990 and 2003), as well as wars in Afghanistan (2001), Libya (2011), and Syria (2012).
It also participated in many smaller military interventions (Mali, Somalia, and Yemen, among others). While the Syrian War is often
described as a civil war, it was in a fact a war of regime change led by the US and Saudi Arabia under a US presidential directive
called Timber
Sycamore .
None of these US-led wars (and others in recent history) achieved their political objectives, and the major conflicts have been
followed by chronic violence and instability. The attempt to force Syria's Bashar al-Assad from power led to a proxy war – eventually
involving the US, Syria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, Turkey, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates – that displaced over ten
million Syrians and caused around a half-million violent deaths.
While Trump has so far eschewed a new war, he has continued US regime-change efforts by other means. Trump is often called an
isolationist, but he is as interventionist as his predecessors. His strategy, at least so far, has been to rely more heavily on US
economic power than military might to coerce adversaries, which creates its own kind of cruelty and destabilization. And it constantly
risks flaring into outright war, as occurred with Iran this month.
The Trump administration currently is engaged in three attempts at comprehensive economic blockades, against North Korea, Venezuela,
and Iran, as well as several lesser blockades against countries such as Cuba and Nicaragua, and an intensifying effort to cut off
China's access to technology. The blockade against North Korea is sanctioned, at least in part, by the UN Security Council. The blockade
against Iran is in direct opposition to the Security Council. And the blockade against Venezuela is so far without Security Council
engagement for or against. The US is attempting to isolate the three countries from almost all international trade, causing shortages
of food, medicines, energy, and spare parts for basic infrastructure, including the water supply and power grid.
The North Korean blockade operates mainly through UN-mandated sanctions, and includes a
comprehensive list of
exports to North Korea, imports from North Korea, and financial relations with North Korean entities. The UN Food and Agriculture
Organization reports that ten million North Koreans are
at risk of hunger, partly owing to sanctions. "[T]he unintended negative impact sanctions can have on agricultural production, through
both direct and indirect impacts, cannot be ignored," the FAO warns. "The most obvious are restrictions on the importation of certain
items that are necessary for agricultural production, in particular fuel, machinery and spare parts for equipment."
The draconian US sanctions on Venezuela have come in two phases. The first, beginning in August 2017, was mainly directed at the
state oil company PDVSA, the country's main earner of foreign exchange; the second round of sanctions, imposed in January 2019, was
more comprehensive, targeting the Venezuelan government. A recent
detailed analysis
of the first round of sanctions shows their devastating impact. The US sanctions gravely exacerbated previous economic mismanagement,
contributing to a catastrophic fall in oil production, hyperinflation, economic collapse (output is down by half since 2016), hunger,
and rising mortality.
US sanctions against Iran have been in place more or less continuously since 1979. The most recent and by far most draconian measures,
introduced in August 2018 and intensified in the first half of this year, aim to cut Iran off from foreign trade. The US sanctions
are in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolution
2231 , which endorsed the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran. The effects have been devastating. The International Monetary Fund
forecasts that Iran's economy will shrink by 10% between 2017 and 2019, with inflation reaching 30% this year. Medicines are in
short supply .
One might expect that other countries would easily circumvent US sanctions. But the US has threatened to punish foreign companies
that violate the sanctions and has used the dollar's global clout as a bludgeon, threatening to sanction foreign banks that finance
trade with Iran. European companies have fallen into line, despite the European Union's express desire to engage economically with
Iran. Over the longer term, it is likely that more ways will be found to circumvent the sanctions, using renminbi, ruble, or euro
financing, yet the erosion of US sanctions will only be gradual.
Despite the intense economic pain – indeed calamity – inflicted on North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran, none of them has succumbed
to US demands. In this sense, sanctions have proved to be no more successful than military intervention. North Korea has maintained,
and most likely is expanding, its nuclear arsenal. The Iranian regime rejects US demands concerning its missile program and foreign
policies. And Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro remains in power.
The US blockades have been carried out by presidential decree, with almost no public debate and no systematic oversight by Congress.
This has been a one-man show, even more so than in the case of president-led wars, which trigger vastly more public scrutiny. Trump
realizes that he can impose crippling sanctions abroad with almost no direct costs to the US public or budget, and with virtually
no political accountability.
Military blockades are acts of war, and therefore subject to international law, including UN Security Council oversight. America's
economic blockades are similar in function and outcome to military blockades, with devastating consequences for civilian populations,
and risk provoking war. It is time for the Security Council to take up the US sanctions regimes and weigh them against the requirements
of international law and peacekeeping. Jeffrey D. Sachs , Professor of Sustainable
Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, is Director of Columbia's Center for Sustainable
Development and of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. His books include
The
End of Poverty ,
Common
Wealth , The Age of
Sustainable Development ,
Building the New American
Economy , and most recently, A New
Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism .
As long as a country neither conducts a genocide, nor attacks other countries, nobody should interfere in its internal affairs.
If a country like Venezuela or Cuba goes broke due to its incompetent leadership, it should get help from the IMF etc. in exchange
for reforms as happens with any other country. Other than that it is their business whether they want to be socialist, capitalist
or whatever. That whole ideological crusade against leftist countries has to stop, it has cost millions of lives already.
And there is a simple way to stop Iran's activities in the Middle East: let's finally solve the conflict there after decades
during which the West simply looked the other way when land, water and oil were stolen from the Palestinians and others.
In my view the US has long turned into a rogue state. The rest of the world has to prune that country by working together and
isolating it. For instance, let's create a new global currency for commodities, the Com, in order to drive the dollar out.
Let's move the UN out of the US to a neutral, peaceful country, Switzerland for instance.
Sanctions are legal and based on national sovereignty and not a proper subject of scrutiny by an international body. Blockades
are subject to international law. By calling something which is legal by another term which may involve illegality one is guilty
of shedding false light.
Sachs thinks that if sanctions have the same effect as a blockade then sanctions are blockades. This is foolish. It is like
saying 'since a woman can get pregnant either through consensual sex or through rape, it follows that all fathers are rapists'.
Trump is carrying on policies previously applied. He has made no great innovation. It appears likely that no 'regime change'
will occur. That is why there is no real 'geopolitical' risk here. The effect of sanctions is to create a widening chasm between
regime 'insiders' and the great mass of the people. This has a demoralizing effect and reduces the ability of the regime to use
its brain-washed subjects for an aggressive purpose. In other words, sanctions reduce, not increase, the threat potential of a
bitter adversary.
Current sanctions attempt to effectively have jurisdiction over third parties, i.e. not the US, who would trade with Iran. ( that,
in full compliance with international law and a binding prior agreement to which the US is a party.) I am curious how you square
that with "national sovereignty", unless that is something over which the US has a higher priority than third parties.
As in all other times that are precursors to War, the laws of disparate nations mean nothing. We all have our own laws, to rule
our own geopolitical nations, which disserve the interests of other geopolitical nations.
Most recently, the WTO admits it is insufficient to resolve trade disputes among nations, and must change its hypotheses. This
is only another precursor admission that binding international laws are becoming irrelevant, and that we must "Start all over
again", i.e. the rule of the strongest, which means one state must conquer another before we can reestablish "Common Rule."
Economic sanctions are not tantamount to acts of war and should not be treated that way at the UN Security Council or anywhere
else. To do that would just leave acts of war as the only alternative in the case of serious disputes. But neither should nations
necessarily cooperate with sanctions they see as poorly motivated or poorly designed. In those cases, the best response is usually
technical -- new institutional arrangements that raise the costs or limit the effects of poorly justified unilateral sanctions.
it is the beginning of the end for the special role of the US$ in the world economy. Dethroning the US$ has now become a matter
of national security for 95% of the planet. Not that this would not have happened anyway, nothing lasts forever, but present events
accelerate the process.
This can be good for the US in the long run, if painful at first. One sometimes quips about the curse of natural resources.
US suffers from the similar curse of the Dollar, which is a natural resource of sorts, as it can be printed out of thin air, seemingly
without consequences. The dethroning of the US$ will cause a pretty significant, perhaps shocking, drop in living standards given
US social inequalities, but it may be beneficial in the long run by imposing some sobriety and discipline upon the political system.
Then, it could also break up the country for good. May you live in interesting times, as the saying goes.
Fortunately, the ability of the U.S. to do this is fading fast, as it loses its economic domination to China. So far, China has
shown rather less tendency to meddle in the affairs of other countries, with the notable exceptions of certain territories which
it regards as part of its territory. The world is slowly becoming fairer.
"... Daniel R. DePetris is a foreign policy analyst, a columnist at ..."
"... , and a frequent contributor to ..."
"... That TAC columnists continue to hold out hope that Trump will revert to his 2016 form astounds me. ..."
"... It's like watching Obama cultists convince themselves that The Real Obama®, the hopey changey guy from 2008, will finally put in an appearance, even as he betrays them over and over again. ..."
If there is any direct communication between American and Iranian officials, it is hidden
from public view. All of this has made Senator Rand Paul's initiative to open dialogue with
Tehran urgent, necessary, and prudent.
According to a July 17 story
in Politico , Paul recently pitched himself to President Trump as a possible
presidential emissary to the Iranians -- someone who could sit down with Foreign Minister
Mohammed Javad Zarif and begin a conversation on the issues that have nearly resulted in
military conflict. Trump apparently accepted Paul's pitch while the two were on the golf course
last weekend. His decision, while not yet confirmed by the White House, suggests that Trump is
slowly beginning to recognize the deficiencies of the maximum pressure policy that National
Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and outside counsels like the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Mark Dubowitz have peddled for years. Far from forcing
Tehran's surrender, economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation have yielded more Iranian
aggression. Iran is now a wounded animal backed into a corner, ready to fight rather than
submit. The chances of a clash have increased substantially.
In a town filled with tough talkers who see foreign policy as an extension of domestic
politics, Rand Paul is one of those strange creatures who is willing to throw himself in front
of a bus for the sake of preventing a war. His foes (of which there are many, from Bill Kristol
and Lindsey Graham to Marco Rubio and Liz Cheney) use the lazy isolationist epitaph to paint
him as a gadfly on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But at his core, Paul is neither a
gadfly nor an isolationist. The junior senator from Kentucky is a non-interventionist who has
the audacity to search for diplomatic solutions before doing what most of his colleagues on
Capitol Hill would have long preferred -- involuntarily reaching for more punitive options.
This isn't the first time Paul has tried to create space for dialogue with a U.S. adversary.
Last year, when so much as talking to a Russian was universally frowned upon by the political
class, Paul flew to Moscow and delivered
a letter on behalf of President Trump to Russian parliamentarians. A month later, he
introduced an
amendment that would have lifted travel restrictions on Russian lawmakers if Moscow did the
same for their American counterparts. The amendment was a small and reasonable gesture that
removed largely symbolic sanctions in order to encourage Americans and Russians to familiarize
themselves with each other. It was lambasted in committee and
killed .
Paul's latest initiative with Iran could run into the same brick wall. The fact that the
arrangement was leaked to the media is an indication that somebody in the Trump administration
is totally opposed to the idea and wants to bury any potential conversations with the Iranians
before they begin. One can almost picture John Bolton, holed up in the White House basement,
hearing the news and frantically ordering his minions on the National Security Council to
expose it in the press.
There are also practical questions that need to be answered. With Zarif only in New York for
another few days, does Paul have the time for a one-on-one meeting? Would the Iranians be
interested in meeting with the senator, even if he does have the president's ear? Or is
Khamenei, still seething over the administration's withdrawal from the nuclear deal and
watching his government's oil exports disappear, dead set on banning any contact with the
Americans for as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office?
Organizing a backchannel with the Iranians could be difficult, in large measure because it
will be fought tooth-and-nail by the usual suspects. But Rand Paul's potential role as an envoy
should be pursued. After all, it isn't like the hawks have such a great track record.
Daniel R. DePetris is a foreign policy analyst, a columnist at Reuters , and a
frequent contributor to The American Conservative.
That TAC columnists continue to hold out hope that Trump will revert to his 2016 form
astounds me.
It's like watching Obama cultists convince themselves that The Real Obama®, the
hopey changey guy from 2008, will finally put in an appearance, even as he betrays them
over and over again.
That TAC columnists continue to hold out hope that Trump will revert to his 2016 form
astounds me.
It's like watching Obama cultists convince themselves that The Real Obama®, the
hopey changey guy from 2008, will finally put in an appearance, even as he betrays them
over and over again.
Your pessimism is certainly warranted and frequently seconded by Larison and others at TAC.
Agreed. But, what choice do we have but to encourage proposals like this one and recognize
that Trump, as infuriatingly inconsistent as he has been, needs to be encouraged when he
does something sensible.
Rand at least seems to have his ear, no small feat.
I am not saying that such moves, if they come to pass, should not be encouraged.
But let's see if anything comes of it, or if the Boltons, Pompeos and Haspels of this
world make sure that Rand fails and then chant "But we have to go to war because we tried
so hard we tried everything ZOMG war war war!"
The best reason I can think of to choose to send someone other than Rand Paul to negotiate
with Iran is that Paul was NOT one of the seven WPP senators who didn't sign Tom Cotton's
odious open letter to Iran trying to put the kibosh on the Obama nuke deal with Iran.
Maybe try Corker, or Alexander or Murkowski...someone whom the Iranians might have some
reason to trust.
I seriously doubt that Rand Paul has a whit more credibility in Tehran than Trump does,
and why would he?. I can't think of a single reason why Iran should trust him.
Good and very to the point made in this article about the hawks, these neo-cons, these war
lovers, not having a good track record.
They have a record of death and destruction and they could care less about people
suffering.
Just why do they want America to continue attacking and threaten and make war on numerous
nations?
Why...
Ursula von der Leyen arrives clouded in scandal and ready to implement radical economic
policies that will stifle growth.
like Jean-Claude Juncker, she arrives in Brussels with a record of negligence in her country
of origin. Whereas Juncker was accused of failing in his duty to inform the Luxembourg
Parliament of illegal wiretapping by the intelligence service, von der Leyen was denounced for
mismanagement. In October 2018, when she was still Germany's minister of defense,
she admitted that her department had made mistakes in awarding contracts to external
consultants, amounting to several hundred million euros.
In 2012, Josep Borrell, former president of the European Parliament and former minister in
various Spanish socialist governments, was forced to resign from his position as president of
the European University Institute (UIE) following allegations of conflicts of interest. At that
time, he was receiving €300,000 as a member of the board of directors of the Spanish
sustainable energy company Abengoa, while at the same time promoting biofuels through the
institute.
Nevertheless, alongside von der Leyen, Borrell is about to be confirmed as the new head of
EU diplomacy. Another perfect candidate.
The scandal in Berlin is not the only reason the vote for Von der Leyen was narrow. It was
also that socialists and environmentalists weren't given sufficient trade-offs (in their eyes).
The European Union is all about distributing the large number of positions and policy
priorities between the involved parties, and in this case, the left felt shafted.
A source from the PiS party (the ruling party in Poland) told journalist Oskar
Górzyński of the media company Wirtualna Polska that it was a call from Chancellor
Angela Merkel that tipped some Polish MEPs over. What did Mrs. Merkel promise them? More
agricultural subsidies? The abandonment of the Article 7 sanction procedure against judicial
reforms in Poland? Only Merkel knows that and she won't tell.
Bill Wirtz comments on European politics and policy in English, French, and German.
His work has appeared in Newsweek, the Washington Examiner, CityAM, Le Monde, Le Figaro, and
Die Welt.
Thursday, July 4, 2019"Loyalty to the Nation All the Time, Loyalty to the
Government When it Deserves It." Mark Twain wrote an essay back in 1905 called "The Czar's
Soliloquy" ( North American Review, Vol. 180.No. DLXXX). The essay was
triggered by a sentence in the London Times , reporting: "After the Czar's morning bath
it is his habit to meditate an hour before dressing himself." Twain imagined that the Czar,
standing naked in front of a mirror, was for a few moments honest with himself about the
injustices and cruelties that he had allowed and perpetrated, and hoped for a better future.
Imagining the Czar's words to himself, Twain wrote:
There are twenty-five million families in Russia. There is a man-child at every mother's
knee. If these were twenty-five million patriotic mothers, they would teach these
man-children daily, saying : "Remember this, take it to heart, live by it, die for it if
necessary: that our patriotism is medieval, outworn, obsolete; that the modern patriotism,
the true patriotism, the only rational patriotism, is loyalty to the Nation all the time,
loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.
On the Fourth of July in particular, it makes me sad to run into people whose
patriotism ebbs and flows according to what political party occupies the White House. There
ought to be a large and real line between support of whoever who is in government at a
particular time, and a broader patriotism. A country is a mixture of people, ideals, geography,
history, cultures, and more. It should be possible to love your country, whether your feelings
about the government are positive, negative, neutral, ambivalent, or don't-give-a-damn.
The clichés poured forth from Milley's lips with all the practiced smarminess of a
car salesman promoting a new line of pickup trucks. But what does this mean in practice,
Senator James Inhofe, Senate Armed Services Committee chair, wanted to know? What is General
Milley's top priority?
"The very number one for me," Milley replied, "is the modernization, recapitalization of the
nation's nuclear triad."
Now pause here for a moment. The triad -- the claim that the safety and security of the
United States requires a nuclear strike force consisting of long-range bombers and
long-range land-based missiles and missile-firing submarines -- represented fresh
thinking some 60 years ago. That was when ICBMs and Polaris submarines were entering service to
complement Strategic Air Command's fleet of B47s and B52s. If indeed "the fundamental character
of war is changing rapidly," how can it be that Milley's conception of originality is to field
glitzier versions of weapons dating back to when he was born? To make such a claim is on a par
with arguing that what the U.S. Army needed in 1940 was more horses and the U.S. Navy more
battleships.
It is small wonder that so few observers pay serious attention to what senior military
officers have to say. What they say is mostly drivel.
Andrew Bacevich is TAC 's writer-at-large and a co-founder of the Quincy Institute
for Responsible Statecraft.
Wow! Finally! No retreat to the comfort of broad generalization like "the eilites" but rather
a well considered, on target consideration of one of the individuals in a position of power
and responsibility sufficient to make the absolutely necessary changes our remarkable
nation's health demands. Thank you!
And, if the general can't make use of well a intended and considered constructive critique he
is not the experienced, compassionate adult the task requires.
It is small wonder that so few observers pay serious attention to what senior military
officers have to say. What they say is mostly drivel.
Professor Bacevich has this one exactly backwards. Notice that when the sanctified Pentagon
Generals make their fear-monger saturated pronouncements there is zero pushback from either
the Politicos or the lapdog MSM. It is not that they are not listening. It's that they fully
concur because they are intimidated by anyone wearing Stars on their shoulders.
They accept the "drivel" of the Pentagon Brass by default. BTW, which also includes the
includes the updated National Defense Strategy which has the U.S. playing belligerent Global
Cop in perpetuity and wasting taxpayer dollars out the wazoo.
If anything, the Congress and MSM should be paying more serious attention to the obsolete
and unaffordable pronouncements of the Generals and start questioning their own instinctive
deference to Pentagon authority which permits the warped, fully militarized and largely
failed U.S. foreign policy to continue as is.
I am not the first person to note that the US is displaying more and more symptoms of a dying
empire. To name a few; a broken political system, crony capitalism, a bloated military, use
of mercenaries, and unpayable debt.
The other day, while watching some general being interviewed, I noticed another symptom.
He, and other contemporary generals, have so many ribbons and metals on their chest that they
could be melted down for ore. I found a
site that lets me compare our beribboned commanders with those of yesteryear.
Civil War generals had few or no ribbons. World War I's General of the Armies Pershing
displays two rows of narrow ribbons. By World War II General Eisenhower showed three ribbon
rows. In 1950 General Bradley showed 6 rows ( you can see a detailed picture
here ).
The pictures of today's generals and officers are bedazzling. Just one example, The page
describing William J. Gainey, USA, Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman, JCS ( not even a
general ), shows a picture with at least 8 rows of ribbons, with a list 24 lines long
describing 56 awards after accounting for multiple awards.
As our military officers watch the country fall apart, at least they can fondle their
decorations.
Andrew J Bacevich does more for the long-term military strength and international standing of
the USA than much of the military and political leadership of this country. A true patriot.
That was amazing. "War is changing rapidly" coupled with "Most important: updating a 60 year
old weapon system"
Not a single world about figuring out why every war since Gulf 1 has been an abject
failure? Or the threat of our defense manufacturing infrastructure being sold by Wall Street
to China? Not a word?
The man can really talk out of both sides of his mouth, can't he? Should do great on
Capitol Hill...
Not sure how we got to this pathetic stage but my guess is that some of the pomposity is
directly related to the armies of press following the generals around in Iraq, e.g. petraeus,
et al
As a snarky comment, what in the world is with all of these "impressive" ribbons to the top
of these generals' shoulders-from what I understand, about 70-80% of them are meaningless,
only a few are for combat, valor, some are for merit, but are more or less automatic. Talk
about grade creep, how about ribbon creep.
Ike had about one or two rows, all meaningful awards. Marshall had maybe one row, meaningful
awards to a very competent general.
Those generals that came out of Iraq and Afghan were mostly mouth pieces for the press and
the politicians, i.e. drivel. None of them could win a meaningful engagement without bombing
the heck out of civilians and associated cities. In a word, pathetic.
Unless politicians feel pressure to act on military matters in a way that honors their or
their constituents' lived experiences, how are they to be incentivized to ask the right
questions? Some flavor of draft to increase stakeholders among the citizenry, or a service
requirement for government office, might realize the serious attention for which Mr. Bacevich
protests here, and drive the selection of better leaders.
To me for, both the nation and the military, we need to have an update of the high tech
weapon systems that the General talks about but we also need to have a reassessment of how we
fight wars. The wars the US won are (in my mind) the Revolution and WWII. I think the Civil
war was "lost" because although the US defeated the Confederacy it did not reunite the
nation. WWI was said to be the war to end all wars - - that didn't happen. No question that
both Korea and Vietnam were not won, despite the heroism of those fighting there - - those
wars were handled by Washington politics. MacAuthor could have won Korea but was fired. The
whole Vietnam was was managed by politics. Now to the middle east. Afghanistan is another
example of political warfare as is Iraq and potentially Iran. I believe that a war can be
partly won by high tech missiles, bombs, etc. but cannot be actually won except by occupying
the ground. We did this in Europe with the troops giving out cigarettes and candy as they
patrolled. That made them human to the previous "enemy". Our professional volunteer army
doesn't have the manpower to do this. I believe we need to have a secondary low-tech army of
drafted men and women who can be trained quickly to be able to follow commands, to use a
rifle with accuracy, and to be able to reduce civilian conflict without violent response. The
high tech folk require extended training, the low tech force is able to move in and actually
win the war. How would this help the nation? It would force people to live and work with a
diverse population and realize that we can be a single nation of people of different
backgrounds and ethnicity. The "fly over land" people really aren't a bunch of idiot racist
red-necks. The coastals are not (all) anxious to destroy America.
The US didn't just win in WWII because we occupied the ground. We won because we showed the
German people that we were happy to fire bomb entire ancient cities and indiscriminately kill
their women and children without a second thought.
And we were the good ones to surrender to. The Russians were happy to kill them all, with
the exception of a few pretty blonds who would henceforth bear strong Russian boys.
You can't win a war without utterly defeating an entire population. Which is why we can't
win our wars. None of these people have done anything to really harm us. And the American
people still have enough dignity to not just slaughter these people for no reason. We're not
entirely evil, yet.
I have always wondered what such people mean when they say that the character of warfare is
changing and the US has to adopt to such changes.
War is about 2 things; killing and destruction. That in a nutshell is the character of
war. Anything else may describe the complexities of tactics and strategies or the causes of
such conflicts but the actual features of any conflict are always the same.
The only thing that does change is the types of weapon systems used. The stupidity that
has led militaries to use them hasn't changed since the dawn of time...
"... If the answer is yes, then the IG must provide the House and Senate Armed Services committees with a report on the experiments' scope and "whether any ticks or insects used in such experiments were released outside of any laboratory by accident or experiment design." The amendment is an attempt to confirm or deny reports that Pentagon researchers -- at places such as Fort Detrick in Maryland and Plum Island in New York -- implanted diseases into insects to learn about the effects of biological weapons and also looked into using such insects to disseminate biological agents. ..."
"... A book called "Bitten," published this year, makes the case that the Defense Department research occurred and hints at a possible connection between the experiments and the spread of maladies such as Lyme disease, which is borne by ticks. ..."
"... Between 300,000 and 427,000 new cases of Lyme disease occur each year, with further growth expected in the years ahead, said Smith, a founding co-chairman of the Congressional Lyme Disease Caucus, which advocates for greater awareness of the disease and for more funding for research into a cure. ..."
"... Pat Smith, president of the Lyme Disease Association, said in an interview Monday that she is hopeful the IG report could provide information that could save lives. ..."
"... "We need to find out: is there anything in this research that was supposedly done that can help us to find information that is germane to patient health and combating the spread of the disease," she said. ..."
The House quietly voted last week to require the Pentagon inspector general to tell Congress whether the department experimented
with weaponizing disease-carrying insects and whether they were released into the public realm -- either accidentally or on purpose.
The unusual proposal took the form of an amendment that was adopted by
voice vote July 11 during House
debate on the fiscal 2020 defense authorization bill, which lawmakers passed the following day.
The amendment, by New Jersey Republican
Christopher H. Smith
, says the inspector general "shall conduct a review of whether the Department of Defense experimented with ticks and other insects
regarding use as a biological weapon between the years of 1950 and 1975."
If the answer is yes, then the IG must provide the House and Senate Armed Services committees with a report on the experiments'
scope and "whether any ticks or insects used in such experiments were released outside of any laboratory by accident or experiment
design." The amendment is an attempt to confirm or deny reports that Pentagon researchers -- at places such as Fort Detrick in Maryland
and Plum Island in New York -- implanted diseases into insects to learn about the effects of biological weapons and also looked into
using such insects to disseminate biological agents.
President Richard Nixon banned U.S. government research into biological weapons in 1969, but research into protecting U.S. military
personnel from such agents may have continued, Smith said in an interview Monday.
A book called "Bitten," published this year, makes the case that the Defense Department research occurred and hints at a possible
connection between the experiments and the spread of maladies such as Lyme disease, which is borne by ticks.
To Smith and other advocates of the Pentagon IG report, studying the past may provide data that can help stem the spread of Lyme
disease in the future.
Between 300,000 and 427,000 new cases of Lyme disease occur each year, with further growth expected in the years ahead, said
Smith, a founding co-chairman of the Congressional Lyme Disease Caucus, which advocates for greater awareness of the disease and
for more funding for research into a cure.
"We need answers and we need them now," Smith said.
Smith's amendment was co-sponsored by Minnesota Democrat
Collin C. Peterson
, who is the House caucus's other leader, and by Maryland Republican
Andy Harris .
Pat Smith, president of the Lyme Disease Association, said in an interview Monday that she is hopeful the IG report could
provide information that could save lives.
"We need to find out: is there anything in this research that was supposedly done that can help us to find information that
is germane to patient health and combating the spread of the disease," she said.
It remains to be seen whether Congress will send President Donald Trump a defense authorization bill with the weaponized ticks
amendment. The Senate has passed its version without any similar provision, and now House and Senate negotiators must reconcile the
two bills.
"... One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. ..."
"... We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. ..."
"... It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/ ..."
"... Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated" near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow, doubt it. ..."
"... This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia. ..."
"... Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat. ..."
"... Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." ..."
"... You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable. ..."
An article by Robert Berke in oilprice.com, which describes itself as "The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News," illustrates how interest
groups control outcomes by how they shape policy choices.
Berke's article reveals how the US intends to maintain and extend its hegemony by breaking up the alliance between Russia, Iran,
and China, and by oil privatizations that result in countries losing control over their sovereignty to private oil companies that
work closely with the US government. As Trump has neutered his presidency by gratuitously accepting Gen. Flynn's resignation as National
Security Advisor, this scheme is likely to be Trump's approach to "better relations" with Russia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China. Should Putin fall for such a scheme, it would be a fatal strategic blunder
from which Russia could not recover. Yet, Putin will be pressured to make this blunder.
One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West
and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent
to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient
directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. Moreover, the West with its hegemonic impulses uses economic
relationships for control purposes. Trade with China and Asia does not pose the same threat to Russian independence.
Berke says that part of the deal being offered to Putin is "increased access to the huge European energy market, restored western
financial credit, access to Western technology, and a seat at the global decision-making table, all of which Russia badly needs and
wants." Sweetening the honey trap is official recognization of "Crimea as part of Russia."
Russia might want all of this, but it is nonsense that Russia needs any of it.
Crimea is part of Russia, as it has been for 300 years, and no one can do anything about it. What would it mean if Mexico did
not recognize that Texas and California were part of the US? Nothing.
Europe has scant alternatives to Russian energy. Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology
is superior to that in the West. And Russia most certainly does not need Western loans. Indeed, it would be an act of insanity
to accept them.
It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is
a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
The Russian central bank has convinced the Russian government that it would be inflationary to finance Russian development
projects with the issuance of central bank credit. Foreign loans are essential, claims the central bank.
Someone needs to teach the Russian central bank basic economics before Russia is turned into another Western vassal. Here is the
lesson: When central bank credit is used to finance development projects, the supply of rubles increases but so does output from
the projects. Thus, goods and services rise with the supply of rubles. When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money
supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into
its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence
of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Foreign capital is not important to countries such as Russia and China. Both countries are perfectly capable of financing their
own development. Indeed, China is the world's largest creditor nation. Foreign loans are only important to countries that lack the
internal resources for development and have to purchase the business know-how, techlology, and resources abroad with foreign currencies
that their exports are insufficient to bring in.
This is not the case with Russia, which has large endowments of resources and a trade surplus. China's development was given a
boost by US corporations that moved their production for the US market offshore in order to pocket the difference in labor and regulatory
costs.
Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent
of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal
debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/
Clearly, if the massive debt of the US government is not a problem, the tiny debt of Russia is not a problem.
Berke's article is part of the effort to scam Russia by convincing the Russian government that its prosperity depends on unfavorable
deals with the West. As Russia's neoliberal economists believe this, the scam has a chance of success.
Another delusion affecting the Russian government is the belief that privatization brings in capital. This delusion caused the
Russian government to turn over 20 percent of its oil company to foreign ownership. The only thing Russia achieved by this strategic
blunder was to deliver 20 percent of its oil profits into foreign hands. For a one-time payment, Russia gave away 20 percent of its
oil profits in perpetuity.
To repeat outselves, the greatest threat that Russia faces is not sanctions but the incompetence of its neoliberal economists
who have been throughly brainwashed to serve US interests.
When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia
does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues
the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does
is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Yes, correct. But this is an IMF rule, and Russia is an IMF member. To control its monetary policy it would have to get out.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important
to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"!
This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to be lifted, because this will also force
us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been expanding by leaps and bounds for the last
two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder – 2-3% of the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St.
Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West, who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions
didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up?
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to
Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"! This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to
be lifted, because this will also force us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been
expanding by leaps and bounds for the last two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder - 2-3% of
the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St. Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West,
who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say - why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up? ;)
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too
bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity
and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow,
doubt it.
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign. At any
rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that fears gentile
nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed.
Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against
humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine
face I, somehow, doubt it.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin a little
bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough to see
through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
The Russians can't be flummoxed, they aren't children. Russia and China border each other so they have a natural mutual interest
in having their east-west areas be stable and safe, particularly when the US threatens both of them. This geography isn't going
to change. Abandoning clients such as Syria and Iran would irreversibly damage the Russian brand as being unreliable therefore
they'd find it impossible to attract any others in the future. They know this so it's unlikely they would be so rash as to snap
at any bait dangled in front of them. And, as pointed out, the bait really isn't all that irresistible. It's always best to negotiate
from a position of strength and they realize that. American policy deep thinkers are often fantasists who bank upon their chess
opponents making hoped-for predictable moves. That doesn't happen in real life.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this already.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia–a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within the
largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin adjusted
his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that many of
them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced to get down
from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a good hint on
where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still–I personally am not convinced yet. We'll see.
In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains still being around–people
who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov. Let's not forget that
despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure as a Director of FSB,
Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his career. I know for a
fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry. Enough to mention
his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main ideologue behind Russia's
military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade) but who never served a day
in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing with the consequences.
This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation–hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
He has not done it already because he just cannot let go of his dream to have it as he did in 2003, when Russia Germany and
France together blocked legality of US war in Iraq. Putin still hopes for a good working relationship with major West European
powers. Italy France and even Germany.
He still hopes to draw them away from the US. However the obvious gains from Import substitution campaign make it apparent
that Russia does benefit from sanctions, that Russia can get anything it wants in technology from the East rather than the West.
So the break with Western orientation is in the making. Hopefully.
You forgot to mention the "moderate" jihadis, including the operatives from NATO, Israel, and US. (It seems that the Ukrainian
"patriots" that have been bombing the civilians in East Ukraine, also include special "patriots" from the same unholy trinity:
https://www.roguemoney.net/stories/2016/12/6/there-are-troops-jack-us-army-donbass
). There has been also a certain asymmetry in means: look at the map for the number and location of the US/NATO military bases.
At least we can see that RF has been trying to avoid the hot phase of WWIII.
http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/NATO-vs-Russia640.jpg
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign.
At any rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that
fears gentile nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is Jewish Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
On the power and privilege that really rule the US:
"Sanctions – economic sanctions, as most of them are, can only stand and 'succeed', as long as countries, who oppose Washington's
dictate remain bound into the western, dollar-based, fraudulent monetary scheme. The system is entirely privatized by a small
Zionist-led elite. FED, Wall Street, Bank for International Settlement (BIS), are all private institutions, largely controlled
by the Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan et al clans. They are also supported by the Breton Woods Organizations, IMF and World Bank,
conveniently created under the Charter of the UN.
Few progressive economists understand how this debt-based pyramid scam is manipulating the entire western economic system. When
in a just world, it should be just the contrary, the economy that shapes, designs and decides the functioning of the monetary
system and policy.
Even Russia, with Atlantists still largely commanding the central bank and much of the financial system, isn't fully detached
from the dollar dominion – yet."
"I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this (nationalize the "central bank) already".
I read about a rumor a few years ago that Putin has been warned that nationalizing the now private Russian central bank will
bring absolutely dire consequences to both him and Russia. It is simply a step he cannot take.
How dire are the potential consequences? Consider that the refusal of the American government to reauthorize the private central
bank in the US brought about the War of 1812. The Americans learned their lesson and quickly reauthorized the private bank after
the war had ended.
Numerous attempts were made to assassinate President Andrew Jacksons specifically because of his refusal to reauthorize the
private central bank.
Here it is in audio form so you can just relax and just listen at your leisure.
*ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS* By Michael Rivero https://youtu.be/WN0Y3HRiuxo
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to
force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired
in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
300 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
This is rich from a Ukrainian nationalist ruled by Groysman/Kagans.
First, figure out who is your saint, a collaborationist Bandera (Babiy Yar and such) or a triple-sitizenship Kolomojski (auto-da-fe
of civilians in Odessa). If you still want to bring Holodomor to a discussion, then you need to be reminded that 80% of Ukrainian
Cheka at that time were Jewish. If you still think that Russians are the root of all evil, then try to ask the US for more money
for pensions, education, and healthcare – instead of weaponry. Here are the glorious results of the US-approved governance from
Kiev: http://gnnliberia.com/2017/02/17/liberia-ahead-ukraine-index-economic-freedom-2017/
"Liberia, Chad, Afghanistan, Sudan and Angola are ahead of Ukraine. All these countries are in the group of repressed economies
(49.9-40 scores). Ukraine's economy has contracted deeply and remains very fragile."
Here are your relationships with your neighbors on the other side – Poland and Romania:
"The right-winged conservative orientation of Warsaw makes it remember old Polish-Ukrainian arguments and scores, and claim its
rights on the historically Polish lands of Western Ukraine"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/01/17/poland-will-begin-dividing-ukraine/
" the "Assembly of Bukovina Romanians" has recently applied to Petro Poroshenko demanding a territorial autonomy to the Chernivtsi
region densely populated by Romanians. The "Assembly" motivated its demand with the Ukrainian president's abovementioned statement
urging territorial autonomy for the Crimean Tatars."
https://eadaily.com/en/news/2016/06/30/what-is-behind-romanias-activity-in-ukraine
And please read some history books about Crimea. Or at least Wikipedia:
"In 1783, Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire. In 1954, the Crimean Oblast was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic by Nikita Khrushchev (a Soviet dictator). In 2014, a 96.77 percent of Crimeans voted for integration of the region into
the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout." You see, the Crimeans do not like Nuland-Kagan and Pravyj Sector.
Do you know why?
100 Words @Seamus
Padraig Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin
a little bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough
to see through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
well it depends. if putin is just out for himself, I can see him getting in bed with kissinger and co. if he is about russia,
he would not. that is how I see it. it isn't about if putin is smart or stupid. just a choice and where his royalty lies.
100 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine.
How so? #Krymnash
Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves.
If by "decline" you mean "expects this year a modest growth as opposed to previous years" then you might be right.
I've been reading about Russia's imminent collapse and the annihilation of the economy since forever. Some no-names like you
(or some Big Names with agenda) had been predicting it every year. Still didn't happen.
Putin is almost down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid
now.
Can I see a source for that?
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
False equivalence.
P.S. Hey, Quart – how is Bezviz? Also – are you not cold here? Or are you one of the most racally pure Ukrs, currently residing
in Ontario province (Canada), from whence you teach your less lucky raguls in Nizalezhnaya how to be more racially pure? Well,
SUGS to be you!
@Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Do you have any links to verify this that Russia is down to bedrock,from everything I read and have read Russia's do pretty
damn good, or is this just some more of your endless antiRussian propaganda,,
A scandal of a EU member Poland:
http://thesaker.is/zmiana-piskorski-and-the-case-for-polish-liberation/
Two days after he [Piskorski] publicly warned that US-NATO troops now have a mandate to suppress Polish dissent on the grounds
of combatting "Russian hybrid war," he was snatched up by armed agents of Poland's Internal Security Agency while taking his children
to school on May 18th, 2016. He was promptly imprisoned in Warsaw, where he remains with no formal charges to this day."
With the Poland's entry into EU, "Poland did not "regain" sovereignty, much less justice, but forfeited such to the Atlanticist
project Poland has been de-industrialized, and thus deprived of the capacity to pursue independent and effective social and economic
policies Now, with the deployment of thousands of US-NATO troops, tanks, and missile systems on its soil and the Polish government's
relinquishment of jurisdiction over foreign armed forces on its territory, Poland is de facto under occupation. This occupation
is not a mere taxation on Poland's national budget – it is an undeniable liquidation of sovereignty and inevitably turns the country
into a direct target and battlefield in the US' provocative war on Russia."
" it's not the Russians who are going to occupy us now – they left here voluntarily 24 years ago. It's not the Russians that
have ravaged Polish industry since 1989. It's not the Russians that have stifled Poles with usurious debt. Finally, it's not the
Russians that are responsible for the fact that we have become the easternmost aircraft carrier of the United States anchored
in Europe. We ourselves, who failed by allowing such traitors into power, are to blame for this."
More from a comment section: "Donald Tusk, who is now President of the European Council, whose grandfather, Josef Tusk, served
in Hitler's Wehrmacht, has consistently demanded that the Kiev regime imposed by the US and EU deal with the Donbass people brutally,
"as with terrorists". While the Polish special services were training the future participants of the Maidan operations and the
ethnic cleansing of the Donbass, the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs made this official statement (02-02-2014): "We support
the hard line taken by the Right Sector The radical actions of the Right Sector and other militant groups of demonstrators and
the use of force by protesters are justified The Right Sector has taken full responsibility for all the acts of violence during
the recent protests. This is an honest position, and we respect it. The politicians have failed at their peacekeeping function.
This means that the only acceptable option is the radical actions of the Right Sector. There is no other alternative".
In short, the US has been the most active enabler of the neo-Nazi movement in Europe. Mrs. Clinton seemingly did not get a
memo about who is "new Hitler."
Do you happen to know anything about western financial giants' influence upon Russia's "Atlanticist Integrationists"?
It's low hanging fruit for me to take a pick, but I am thinking The Goldman Sachs Group is well ensconced among Russian "Atlanticist
Integrationists."
You guys are top seeded pros at uncovering Deep State-banker secrets. In contrast, I drive school bus and I struggle to even
balance the family Wells Fargo debit card!
However, since our US Congress has anointed a seasoned G.S.G. veteran, Steve Mnuchin, as the administration's Treasury Secretary,
he has become my favorite "Person of Interest" who I suspect spouts a Ural Mountain-level say as to how "Atlanticist Integrationists"
operate.
Speaking very respectfully, I hope my question does not get "flummoxed" into resource rich Siberia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead
.
Most likely the Spirit of Anti-Christ keeping them alive to do his bidding.
@Priss Factor
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
What an amazing whoring performance for the war-manufacturers! And here is an interesting morsel of information about the belligerent
Frau der Leyen:
http://www.dw.com/en/stanford-accuses-von-der-leyen-of-misrepresentation/a-18775432
"Stanford university has said Ursula von der Leyen is misrepresenting her affiliation with the school. The German defense minister's
academic career is already under scrutiny after accusations of plagiarism." No kidding. Some "Ursula von der Leyen' values" indeed.
I doubt we'll see little change from the Trump administration toward Russia.
From SOTT:
Predictable news coming out of Yemen: Saudi-backed "Southern Resistance" forces and Hadi loyalists, alongside al-Qaeda of
the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), launched a new offensive against the Houthis in western Yemen on Wednesday.
This is not the first time Saudi-backed (and by extension, Washington-backed) forces have teamed up with al-Qaeda in Yemen
.
Yemen is quickly becoming the "spark that lights the powder keg". The conflict has already killed, maimed and displaced
countless thousands (thanks to the stellar lack of reporting from trustworthy western news sources, we can only estimate the
scale of Saudi/U.S. crimes in Yemen), but now it seems that elements of the Trump administration are keen on escalation, likely
in hopes of giving Washington an excuse to carpet bomb Tehran.
Apparently, we feel satisfied fighting with our old allies, al-Qaeda and Saudis.
I think that the authors may be underestimating Putin in his determination to keep Russia and the Russian economy independent.
For example, I find this rumoured offer of "increased access to the huge European energy market" very funny, for at least two
reasons:
1) US wants to sell hydrocarbons (LPG) to the European market at significantly higher prices than the Russian prices, and
2) the current dependence of EU countries on the Russian energy would have never happened if there were better alternatives.
In other words, any detente offer that the West would make to Russia would last, as usual, not even until the signature ink
dries on the new cooperation agreements. Putin does not look to me like someone who suffers much from wishful thinking.
The Russian relationship with China is not a bed of roses, but it is not China which is increasing military activity all
around Russia, it is the West. Also, so far China has shown no interest in regime-changing Russia and dividing it into pieces.
Would you rather believe in the reform capability of an addict in violence or someone who does not need to reform? Would the West
self-reform and sincerely renounce violence just by signing a new agreement with Russia?
The new faux detente will never happen, as long as Putin is alive.
Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat.
The only one stopping Trump is Putin or Russia's missile defenses.
Indeed, Putin's main inside enemy is Russia's central bank, or the Jewish oligarchs in Russia (Atlanticists). Also Russia needs
to foster and encourage small&medium enterprises, that need cheap credit, to create competitive markets, where no prices are fixed
and market shares change. These are most efficient resource users.
In the US, Wallstreet controls government = fascism = the IG Farben- Auschwitz concentration camps to maximize profits. This
is the direction for the US economy.
Meanwhile in the EU, the former Auschwitz owners IG Farben (Bayer(Monsanto), Hoechst, BASF) the EU chemical giants, who have
patented all natures molecules, are in controll again over EU. Deutsche bank et allies is eating Greece, Italy, Spain's working
classes, using AUSTERITY as their creed.
So what is new? Nothing, the supercorporate-fascist elites are the same families, who 's morality is unchanged in a 100 years.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
I would really love to like Putin and I am trying but him protecting all those criminals and not reversing the history greatest
heist of 90′s makes it impossible. While I am behind all his moves to restore Russian military and foreign policy, I am still
waiting for more on home front. Note, not only the Bank must be nationalized. Everything, all industries, factories and other
assets privatized by now must be returned to rightful owner. Public which over 70 years through great sacrifice built all of it.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia--a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within
the largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin
adjusted his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that
many of them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced
to get down from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a
good hint on where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still--I personally am not convinced
yet. We'll see. In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains
still being around--people who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov.
Let's not forget that despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure
as a Director of FSB, Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his
career. I know for a fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry.
Enough to mention his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main
ideologue behind Russia's military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade)
but who never served a day in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing
with the consequences. This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation--hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
Smoothie, you seem to have natural aversion towards lawyers
Albeit, the first Vladimir, I mean Lenin also was a lawyers by education still he was a rather quick study. Remember that military
communism and Lenin after one year after Bolsheviks took power telling that state capitalism would be great step forward for Russia
whcih obviously was backward and ruined by wars at the time and he proceeded with New Economic Policy and Lenin despite not being
industry captain realized pretty well what constituted state power hence GOELRO plans and electrification of all Russia plans
and so forth which was later turned by Stalin and his team into reality.
Now, Lenin was ideologically motivated and so is Putin. But he clearly has been trying to achieve different results by keeping
same people around him and doing same things. Hopefully it is changing now, but it is so much wasted time when old Vladimir was
always repeating that time is of essence and delay is like death knell. Putin imho is away too relax and even vain in some way,
hence those shirtless pictures and those on the bike. And the way he walks a la "Я Московский озорной гуляка". As you said it
looks like he is protecting those criminals who must be prosecuted and yes, many executed for what they caused.
I suspect in cases when it comes to economical development he is not picking right people for those jobs and it is his major
responsibility to assign right people and delegate power properly, not to be forgotten to reverse what constitutes the history
greatest heist and crime so called "privatization". Basically returning to more communal society minus Politburo.
There is a huge elephant in the room too. Russia demographic situation which I doubt can be addressed under current liberal
order. all states which are in liberal state of affairs fail to basically procreate hence these waves of immigrants brought into
all Western Nations. Russia cannot do it. It would be suicide which is what all Western countries are doing right now.
Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology is superior to that in the West.
You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech
industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would
stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable.
Some home reading (sorry, they are in Russian, but one ought to know the language if one writes about the country).
I see the parallels, but not that one. I think the neocons hope to force the Iranians into
making that "all-in" call though. Perhaps as the neocons see it, such a strike would
magically rally the American populous to the war they so desire. Imperial conquest performed
as a defensive reflex. So they needle nearly everyone in the hopes of triggering a replay of
the WW2 saga which has taken on a mythical good vs evil aura in the US. Ironically, I would
say it is the neocons who think they need to start a war with the Iranians so that they can
be the men they think they are. The only thing still holding them back is the
passive-aggressive need to make it look like someone, anyone, else started it so they can
play the victim card once the body bags start coming home.
USN CDR A. H. McCollum was the man who conceived the so-called "Eight Action Plan" which he
outlined in his Oct 7, 1940 memo. This was his proposal for the U.S. and Britain to initiate
actions which would essentially force Japan into making a decision to wage war against the
United States.
The key elements of the plan, as outlined in McCollum's memo, include the following:
A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific,
particularly Singapore
B. Make an arrangement with the Netherlands for the use of base facilities and acquisition of
supplies in the Dutch East Indies
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific[,] in the vicinity of the
Hawaiian Islands
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions,
particularly oil
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo
imposed by the British Empire
Not too terribly different from the squeeze currently being placed on Iran by the team of
Pompeo/Boton.
The journalist Robert Stinnett in his now 20 year old book 'Day of Deceit: The Truth About
FDR and Pearl Harbor' made the case that FDR was aware of McCollum's memorandum. I have not
read Stinnett's book, but historians apparently doubted the veracity of Stinnett's thesis
regarding FDR's knowledge of the McCollum memo.
You are correct that initial embargoes of essential defense materials went to effect under
the Export Control Act during the summer of 1940. Additional items were added to the list of
embargoed materials subsequent to October 1940, following the drafting of the McCollum
memo.
So no FOR did not approve of that plan, but some guy wrote a book 20 years ago, one you
didn't read. That's quite helpful in evaluating current war mongering over Iran today.
I read Day of Deceit a month ago and found Stinnett's analysis and sourcing quite
convincing. He demolishes the standard narrative that the attack was a total tactical
surprise and to a large extent a strategic one as well. Admiral Yamamoto's orders to maintain
radio silence were honored very much in the breach, one of the worst offenders being the
at-sea mission commander himself, Admiral Nagumo. Many individual ship captains continued
reporting their positions at specified times of the day, as was their peacetime practice.
This enabled the US, British and Dutch signals monitoring stations, which were sharing
information in spite of the fact that the US was not yet a combatant, to triangulate and
track the Japanese mission fleet from its assembly point near the Kurile Islands eastward to
their launch position several hundred miles north of Oahu. Stinnett assembles a strong
circumstantial case asserting this information was available to the intelligence circles in
Washington DC and in the US radio detection/cryptanalysis stations at Corregidor, the
Aleutian Islands, and Station H on Oahu itself, practically within sight of Admiral Kimmel's
office, but it never made it to the admiral himself or to General Short. He got much of the
supporting information through the FOIA process, but some of the most damning documents he
cited he found by walking into various historical archive sites outside of the DC area and
simply asking to see what they had. He makes the point that many of the documents he cites
never saw the light of day during any of the three formal investigations of the affair: in
the months immediately after the attack; shortly after the end of the war; and half a century
later in the early 1990s. What he is unable to cite are documents that concretely connect the
president, Admiral Stark the CNO, or General Marshall the Army Chief of Staff with knowledge
of the available intelligence. Those known to have existed which might have been smoking guns
that he sought via the FOIA were either still highly classified or were "unable to be found."
However the circumstantial case that they must have known and been on board, in some cases
reluctantly, is strong. For example, it is known that the McCollum memo gained the attention
of FDR himself soon after it was published, and the White House chief usher's log documents
that the commander had several meetings with the president. McCollum, a USNA graduate, had
spent much of his childhood in Japan as the child of Christian missionaries and was almost
natively fluent in the language as well as deeply steeped in the culture.
I don't know if it came from the McCollum memo or not, but at the ABC-1 meetings in early
1941, the British delegation proposed that the US take over the defense of Singapore from the
Royal Navy, a proposal that was rejected by the American delegation.
The minutes of the ABC-1 meetings were published by the British National Archives some
years ago and I have it somewhere on my hard drive but I couldn't give you a link. As I
recall, it was interesting to see the American side rejecting the Singapore and other schemes
to get the US to defend British colonial territories.
It would seem that the best strategic option for Iran is to lay low and absorb the
economic squeeze. The Chinese are unlikely to support the oil sanctions, so they'll be able
to continue to sell them until the US navy starts to interdict their tankers. But oil is
fungible.....
It would also seem that their best military strategy is a defensive one. Obtaining the
best air defense systems and significant medium-range missiles with high payload capacity and
accuracy. At the very least they'll be able to give a black-eye while going down.
Of course the question is how the Ayatollah controls his fire breathing, martyrdom loving
hawks who bristle at their treatment by the US, Israel & the Saudis. My sense is Bibi
will get more itchy than the Ayatollah to take advantage of his perception of complete
control of Trump.
I've wondered if the Chinese will use their own tankers to pick up Iranian oil or re-flag
Iranian ones with Chinese colors as the US did for Kuwait during the Iran-Iraq war in the
1980's.
I can see the neocons wanting open conflict with Iran, but I don't know if they would risk
war with China.
I'm not sure how much control Iran has of its proxies (the Houthi rebels, Hezbollah, the Shia
Militias in Iraq, etc.). That strikes me as a reason fo both the US/Britain AND Iran to go
carefully and slowly.
Nice map, I assume it can't be considered a chart. Maps make me think. Anyway, when I
heard about the four tankers at Fujairah damaged by "sabotage" I took a look up at Qeshm
island in front of Bandar Abbas (it looks to me like a shark) and wondered how far it was
down to Fujairah. I get about 140 nautical miles.
I know that there are hardened sub-pens on the land side of Queshm Island probably out to
the western end. Recently I have read comments speculating what the Iranian class of mini- or
midget subs would be useful for. One learns that one use would be to deliver a sea-mine;
another to launch the one torpedo it can carry; and another would be as a transport for naval
commandos, or swimmers trained in demolition and mine warfare.
Then I remembered something. I took a look at the last place down on the right side of the
map on the Iranian mangrove shore, Trask, once an old fishing port. Trask is also where the
pipeline down from the CIS countries will end, and a large refinery, manufacturing, and
shipping complex is planned. Since 2008, Trask has been developed for a number of military
uses. First as a naval base which berths fast motor patrol boats of the kind that can launch
missiles like the Qader, a sea-skimmer carrying a warhead of 200 kilos which can reach out to
186 miles; also as a drone base, complete with a rail launcher which could indicate
proficiency in big stay-aloft reconnaisance drones, soon enough to be weaponized, if not
already. Significantly, it is also a base for littoral-class submarines, which would include
mini-subs design based on the North Korean Yono class, submarines that would be similar to
the one that is thought to have sunk the ROKS Cheonan in 2011 with a torpedo. Travelling at
nine or ten knots, the Iranian model of the Yono, the Ghadir, could make the crossing to
Fujairah in about twelve hours. That's a distance of 127 miles or so.
It looks to me as if the stern location of the tanker the news videos show would not have
been hit unless the ship backed into a mine. And it doesn't look like the kind of damage a
naval mine would do. A naval mine would have made an enormous ten or twenty foot cavernous
dent in that stern, at the least. What it looks like to me was that a swimmer or swimmers
placed a sticky explosive or satchel charge. (?) I think it is meant as a warning. 'We can
get you any time..."
There's another message. Fujairah and also the ports of Salalah, Sohar, and Duqm, in Oman,
have been billing themselves as "the Gateway to the Arabian Gulf." (For that historical and
scholarly insult alone they should pay.) Fujairah is the only one of the UAE that is on the
eastern side of the Musandam Peninsula. It has been advertised as the emirate that would not
be involved in a Gulf war. Out of range. Think again me buckaroos.
The United States has just signed an agreement in late March with Oman which allows US
naval and air forces to use the new state- of-the art port facilities and airport at Duqm,
down in the middle of the Oman coast, and also Salalah. Sultan Qaboos, a very impressive
leader, one of the best, who happens to be gay (but the father of his country), balances
carefully between the various powers he must deal with. Iran is already there in Oman and has
the right to establish companies and to store materiel there, and to ship cargoes. Just as
Iran does in Qatar, where two hundred trucks come across from Bushire every day and have
since June 2017 since Trump the Brain gave the OK to Mohammed Bin Salman to lay siege to
Qatar. Consider this: "Sohar Freezone has options for leasing pre-built warehouses and
commercial offices, as well as 100% foreign ownership...and a One-Stop-Shop for all relevant
permits and clearances." (From Overview--SOHAR Port and Freezone.) As to how you get this
cargo to points south, that is an interesting question...
Russia will come in if push comes to shove. Russia will not countenance the idea of an
America naval and drone base on the Caspian, which is what will happen if Iran is bombed
flat. Russia will second pilots to the Iranians and will send bombers like the Tu-95 Bear or
the Backfire capable of carrying the KH-101 which will carry Iranian markings etc. These
bombers, with enormous range, could wreck havoc on Diego Garcia, and could destroy a carrier
group.
The Iranians show us now that they were the ones who invented the game of chess. Trump can
look at China, and then he can look at Fujairah, and he can see the American economy going
down... The Iranian move is worthy of a grand master...
Great comment!
I think transferring a Tu-95 bomber will be a bit too much since the Iranians don't have much
of an air force. But missiles will do the job anyways, so why bother with planes. You don't
need to hit Diego Garcia, Israel is close enough. So is Al Udeid. Plus there will be attacks
on all US bases spread across Iraq and I suspect Syria. There is no shortage of targets for
sure for the Iranians, it this leads to war.
By the way, Chess was invented in India not ancient Persia. So was the numeral system which
is now called Arabic numerals (the Arabs have been trying to give their names to stuff which
is not theirs for a long time now) including the decimal system and negative numbers.
Thank you for your comment. You remind me that I have a group of expensive, unread books
about that part of the world. I may never read them, the way things are going.
I want to stress that Russia and Iran have already worked out the diplomatic agreements
which allow Russia to have based bombers at Hamadan, from which attacks were made on Isis in
Syria. In other words, Russia knows the way. The question is, is Russia going to stand by and
do nothing while the United States bombs Iran back to the stone ages, as it did in North
Korea during the Korean conflict? I find that hard to believe. I assume that at some point
Russia will, as Russia has previously done in other conflicts, or places, such as in Yemen,
in the 1970s and early 80's, assign pilots, and transfer planes ostensibly to the control of
the Iranian military.
Diego Garcia is an atoll in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It is a critical anchorage for
prepositioning supply ships for any land operations, such as the invasion of Iraq; it is also
a support facility, where submarines and other ships can get repairs. It is also an airbase,
where B-2 bombers might be assembling as I write, though given everything else that is NOT
happening, I assume that is doubtful. Speaking in a general way, the distance from the
Persian Gulf, Muscat, or Bahrain, say, to Diego Garcia, is about 2600 or 2700 miles.
If Russia seconded a squadron of bombers such as the TU-22M3 (NATO reporting name Backfire
C) under the aegis of Iran, and based them out of Bandar Abbas, Iran will have gotten a lot
of reach out into the Indian Ocean, since the Backfire has a combat radius of about 1300-1500
miles.
The missile it will be carrying would be the standard Russian cruise missile--it is not
hypersonic-- but it is a sea-skimmer, with a range of about 1550 miles. This is the
KH-101/102 (nuclear). It seems certain to me that the Backfire can get the KH-101 (Raduga)
missile out there; as can the Blackjack and the Bear. The mission of four or five bombers
delivering each about eight missiles could be to sink some of those prepositioning ships; and
to wreck the drone base/the airfield, and certain warehouse facilities. There is another
thing such an attack could do. Diego Garcia has more than ample rainfall. As things stand
today, it has never had a better fresh water supply system. Pipes and water storage, all has
been greatly improved. Fresh water for two to three thousand support personnel and base
activities is not a problem. I don't think Diego Garcia even needs to have a desalination
system. There is one thing, though. Diego Garcia is built on a series of coral reefs, the one
stacked on the other in geologic history as ocean levels rose 300 feet from 13,000 years ago.
The coral beneath the island is permeated with salt water. The fresh water aquifers of the
atoll sit on top of the salt water in what are called "lenses". These lenses hold an enormous
amount of water kept stable and tappable by isostatic pressure, I am guessing. If an attack
were made by JDAM missiles in areas determined from studies of the island to have these lense
aqufiers, and if the missiles went deep into them before exploding, then I think the entire
fresh water structure of the island could be ruined. The lenses would be penetrated and
ruined. Salt water would permeate, mix and spread through the aquifer. It would become like
Basra Governate, which now has an evil polluted salt brine aquifer where once it had fresh
water. (And which means that there is already considerable migration from southern Iraq into
Kurdish areas around Irbil, to the north.)
Iran should arrange with Italy for a meeting in Rome with Putin, Xi Jinping, and Trump. The
Donald could take the role of Churchill in that meeting, who got an inkling that he was the
odd-man out.
Six months later, Mark Clark went to Rome alone rather than execute the British - American
pincer plan.
Historian Andrew Buchanan argues that Clark was ordered to take that action by FDR himself
in a meeting with Clark at Bernard Baruch's plantation in North Carolina https://www.c-span.org/video/?322137-1/discussion-us-engagement-italy-world-war-ii
US forces in control of Rome shut out all diplomats, including Churchill's representatives,
from the diplomacy that then took place that determined Italy's future; USA became,
effectively, in charge of Mediterranean and trade routes to Levant and North Africa.
Israel and its US lobbies, Jewish & Christian, have GOT to be reined in, or the
American empire is on its way to the dustbin of history.
That historian Andrew Buchanan does not know that Bernard Baruch's plantation was off of
Winyah Bay on Waccamaw Neck across from Georgetown, SOUTH Carolina, is, in my view, a red
flag about his scholarship. The plantation, Hobcaw Barony, was for FDR, in 1944, a month-long
retreat which made it, in effect, the southern White House. Buchanan obviously doesn't know
anything at all about southerners in FDR's administration and the New Deal. I cannot help but
wonder if Buchanan has ever looked at the papers of James Francis Byrnes, which are held at
the University of South Carolina. My guess is that Byrnes might have made some comment about
significant matters which happened at Hobcaw, including the visit of General Clark. Shrewd,
devious Byrnes is a fascinating figure. (His handiwork is the Santee-Cooper hydroelectric
project which you get a glimpse of on I-95 as you drive over lake Marion there, created by
damming the Santee. It provided electricity for the whole depression hit state of South
Carolina.) Byrnes knew them all, including Stalin. Also, it ought to be noted that Buchanan
himself says that there is not a shred of evidence that at Hobcaw FDR personally ordered Mark
Clark to disobey the clear orders of Field Marshall Alexander and break away from what could
have been a decisive victory and instead go into Rome. It ought to be noted as well that
Buchanan's argument that by putting into power the more left-wing politician Ivanoe Bonomi
instead of the British backed General Pietro Badoglio, it meant that the communist partisans
in northern Italy therefore accepted the new government and willingly laid down their arms,
whereas under Badoglio and the King they might not have. I don't think they had a choice; and
I wonder if they actually didn't maintain a clandestine arsenal thereafter. They were by no
means ready to quit. A quick look at Wikipedia tells us that it was Churchill's government
that persuaded Bonomi, who came in in June and was ready to quit by November, to stay on. He
did so. The communists were a powerful force in Italy all the way up almost into the
1980s--it was the Red Brigade which kidnapped and murdered Aldo Moro, for example. Further,
as a reaction , to the communist threat, there is the whole question of "strategic tension"
which gave Italy the "years of lead"-- years of terror bombings by the right, such as the
Bologna train station bombing, the bombing of the passenger plane which fell off of Ustica,
and the whole mysterious thing that was Gladio. Michael Scammel in 'Koestler', his biography
of the writer Arthur Koestler, gives an account of the near hysteria in western Europe in
1948 after the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia. "The coup fulfilled Koestler's direst
predictions and worst fears: there was no room for a third force in Europe anymore--not, at
least, in countries where the Communists were strong. In France, rife with rumors of a coup
of its own and convulsed by increasingly violent strikes, he found a populace growing more
jittery by the day. Malraux talked darkly of a plot to foment civil war and publicly
threatened "a reorganization of the Resistance" to oppose communism. Charles "Chip" Bohlen,
the new American ambassador, talked wildly about dropping an atom bomb on Baku, and
newspapers were full of the threat of a new world conflict." (Page 311.) Koestler, when he
left Europe for the United States, actually believed that Europe was going to go communist.
That Europe was a lost cause.
This is not to say that I am disagreement with what you are saying overall. I find Andrew
Buchanan someone new and interesting. Very provocative. Perhaps he overreaches. Don't know
enough, really, to make the call. Thank you for the introduction to him. Hobcaw Barony is now
a large natural preserve for environmental, oceanographic and coastal studies. Remarkable
story about how the foundation was created, mostly by Baruch's daughter, who must have worked
a lifetime on it. Sixteen thousand acres on a neck of land that has the Atlantic ocean on one
side and marshes and Winyah Bay on the other. It's worth a visit.
if the true goal of the neocons is war, provoked upon iran then any naval battle group which
includes a usa carrier sent into the persian gulf is the match the neocons are looking for
once they decide to ''remember the maine'' to it sending it to the bottom, then use that
false flag as their pretext.
if its obvious to me wouldn't you suppose its obvious to the pentagon?
An apt comparison, no doubt, to "The Day of Deceit."
Then there is the high probability that, even if Iran shows restraint and plays the long
game, a provocation in the manner of "Assad gasses his own people" will be arranged for
them.
Even so, time is not on the side of the US Entity. How much longer can the Fed's
fraudulent T-bill scheme keep running? My sense is that they wouldn't be weaponizing the
dollar if they had other actual weapons to hand.
Saudi Arabia said two of its oil tankers were sabotaged off the coast of the United Arab
Emirates and described it as an attempt to undermine the security of crude supplies amid
tensions between the United States and Iran.
The reports come as the US warned ships that "Iran or its proxies" could be targeting
maritime traffic in the region, and as the US is deploying an aircraft carrier and B-52
bombers to the Gulf to counter what it called "threats from Tehran".
Exceptionally good argument. I would also posit that the element of religious belief makes
the argument even more potent.
I can't help but think back to more recent instances where the neocons were basically daring
the other party to do something - anything. Ukraine in 2014 and Syria later on, come to mind.
They had been waiting for the Russians to send in their troops to Ukraine after which they
could have totally choked the economy. They also waited for mistakes from Assad, which he
wisely avoided.
Similarly, Iran will be wise to avoid reacting in any way to these provocations. Since these
provocations are meant to provoke a reaction, if the Iranians bite their lips and hold their
hands, they would do more to hurt the neocons than by reacting blindly as the situation and
their nature perhaps goads them towards.
I humbly suggest you watch this series. Unfortunately, I don't know Persian so I can't help
with translation. I watched these series with my sister in law who is a Persian Jew with an
excellent command of Farsi; the videos are pretty informative.
Pat,
I share your concern, but for the neocons I fear that they see that backing Iran into a
position where it has nothing to lose with a war is a feature, not a bug.
~Jon
In my opinion, the critical element is the forthcoming deployment of advanced Russian and
Chinese systems such as the Sarmat heavy ICBM, scheduled I think for 2021, new submarines,
etc., etc. and I am not even talking about joint Russo/sino developments.
As Col. Lang/Gingrich explained, we are talking economics here. But unlike Japan, the
Russian, Iranian, Syrian, Chinese and associated economies under the stimulus of OBOR are
only going to get stronger if left to themselves. The American economy, in my opinion, is no
longer capable of replacing ageing infrastructure, matching Russo Chinese military technical
capabilities, fielding a million man Army and supporting allies like Korea, Taiwan,
Australia, Japan, Poland, etc. without beggaring its population.
To put that another way, the American economic marvel of military production came off a
low base with millions of underemployed work hungry people available as a result of the
depression. I don't think those conditions obtain today.
Hence the Washington logic of picking off the weakest of the Axis - Iran, right
now.
You mean a million H1B visa holders and 20 million illegal immigrants aren't our strength?
Who knew! Maybe we should outsource more manufacturing to China, that'll teach the bastards
to mess with us!
The "American Political class," rather than the US economy - solutions are available and
affordable, but not within the current US political and economic and legal and hence power
structures.
FIRE take up too much of the US economy and the best and brightest and has bought the
political class hook, line and Epstein.
"The American economy, in my opinion, is no longer capable of replacing ageing
infrastructure, matching Russo Chinese military technical capabilities"
I was in Russia for the first time last summer. I loved it, but I was surprised by how
poor they are. Our debt load aside, they have do have more limited resources.
I think the key difference is that Japan was isolated on its continent when it made the
decision to go to war. (only being allied with Nazi Germany and Italy, which were so far away
that the alliance made little difference to Japan's economic situation in 1941)
Going to war must appear more attractive when you have your back against the wall than
when you have regional allies who are still willing to support you politically and
economically in a meaningful way.
I have to admit Colonel that this post reminded me of an April 29th profile in the New Yorker
of John Bolton. Several days ago after reading the lengthy New Yorker piece I realized how
slowly but surely, the Trump admin has been consistently heading toward outright madness with
the gradual departure of people like Tillerson, J. Kelly, and Mattis from the office. It was
mentioned in the piece how Gen. Mattis thwarted multiple outright crazy attempts by McMaster
(who is now at FDD shilling for the "Long War" strategy; once a neocon, always a neocon),
Bolton and Mira Ricardel aimed at declaring war against Iran. Now that there are a few key
vacant positions in the administration such as the UN Ambs, Homeland Sec, a few at the State
Dep, and most importantly at the Pentagon, shouldn't these vacancies act as major restraining
factor against war or the Trump admin "is" stupid enough to go full war mode regardless? IMO
some things still just do not add up. just wondering...
Just curious about something. I hear news stories that we are sending the Lincoln inside the
Persian Gulf. That seems like it would negate a lot of our advantage if we actually did fight
Iran. It would be in range of every anti-ship missile they have as well as most of their navy
which is designed specifically for the Gulf and not much of a blue water navy. Why wouldn't
we keep it just outside the Gulf in the open water where our carrier and escorts would
seemingly have a bigger advantage?
I don't want a fight and I'm not pretending that I understand naval tactics, but this just
seems a bit odd to me.
The damage was above the water line and a slash as if perhaps a missile but did not
penetrate the oil bunkers. It does not look like a limpet mine. There are no reports of
airplanes or ships but is described as sabotage. It is unlikely to be a false flag. Media
reporting has been muted. Simply that it is being investigated. But as pointed out here
before there is no stockpiling of supplies needed for an invasion of Iran by a million-man
army. Inside the Persian Gulf is the last place the Commander of the Carrier Group wants to
be if war breaks out. My guess is that the sabotage to four tankers was a signal of what the
Revolutionary Guards could do if they really wanted to and as a counter to ultra-mad man U.S.
diplomacy and sanctions. Lloyd's of London must raise their insurance rates. This will raise
oil prices at the same time as prices rise due to Mid-West flooding, China's African Swine
Fever outbreak, and the imposing of a 25% tariff on Chinese imports. All sorts of bad things
are happening at once. Rather than 2003's misleading Shock and Awe propaganda, the 2019
Iranian war drums indicate total incompetence.
The Imperial Japanese believed that Americans were soft and that US troops would crumble when
faced with the mighty spirit of Bushido. They were ultimately banking on that mistaken
conclusion. I don't think the Iranians have any such delusions.
I don't see how Iran can do anything more than make some trouble that is minor in the big
scheme of things - and which will dig their hole deeper - and then lose.
I don't approve of what is being done, but I think the current Iranian regime could be
destroyed if the neocons have their way; albeit with US casualties and great material and
financial expense. I don't like how US troops and sailors may be used as bait by the
neocons.
I should add that to my mind the real question is what would follow in the wake of war. Would
the Iranians be happy to be free of the Islamic Revolutionary govt? Or would they go on for
generations with wounded pride that demands revenge, like the Palestinians? I think the
latter. In which case war/regime change solves nothing. I'm willing to bet the neocons, as
usual, have their own delusions about flowers, candy, purple thumbs, smiling faces and
freedom.
They had a front row seat for OIF and what came after. I suspect they have a good feeling for
our capability and weaknesses . . . whether they can exploit that or not, might be the issue.
Eric Newhill - IMO you are underestimating how much damage Iran could do to the fleet in a
transition to war situation before the US Navy got its ducks in line and crushed them. As for
the illusion about US willingness to fight, all our opponents have believed the same thing
before the house fell on them.
Sir,
Oh, I understand what Iran could do. As you know, it has been war gamed and the US Navy gets
hit pretty hard.
But Iran still loses. Each hit the US Navy takes, strengthens the resolve to crush Iran
that much harder.
Again, I am in no way approving of what I think may happen. I have been told by someone I
know well in the DIA that we are doing to war with Iran sooner or later. The first time I was
told this was when Obama was still in office. Then I was told that the election of Trump has
changed nothing. Make what you will of that.
"in a transition to war situation before the US Navy got its ducks in line and crushed
them" what damage could Iranian ballistic missiles do to UAE, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia?
Could they devastate oil & gas, LNG, port and pipeline infrastructure sufficiently that
it would take a year to re-build back to full capacity?
It seems it would be a lose-lose proposition for everyone including Trump's re-election
prospects. I have seen private surveys of working class people in the mid-west and the south
who by an overwhelming majority oppose a war with Iran when informed about some of the
potential consequences.
Well, Sir, unfortunately I think you called this one spot on.
IMO, if there's going to be war, then the Europeans and Brits should fight it. Their the
ones most impacted (though I recognize that everyone in the global markets will feel the pain
resulting from a closure of the straight).
Of course none of them will step up on their own and the US will have to do this. Still
holding out hope that some kind of negotiation is possible, but becoming skeptical. The
Iranians want to prove they are the men they thought they were. Still, maybe a good deal will
satisfy that need.
The Bolton/neoconservative plan of starting a war with Iran is working perfectly. In a tit
for tat action, Iran has captured one or more U.K. tankers. My hopes for avoiding a
completely unnecessary war with Iran, one we have a fair chance of losing, are becoming
slimmer and slimmer.
Eric, I'm in Europe right now and I don't think any Europeans are prepared in the slightest
to support a war with Iran. For starters, if Iran did not surrender instantaneously, an oil
shortage will collapse the European and Chinese economies and that is only one of the minor,
first order effects.
The question of "not being the men they thought they were" cuts both ways. Does the
European union want to see war with Iran? No. Do the Europeans want to see Britain, egged on
by the Neocons, take "a hard line" with Iran? No. Do the Europeans want to aid and abet the
U. S. in fighting a war with Iran through NATO? No. Do they want to be "saved from Iran " by
the U.S. galloping all over hemisphere as in 1944? No.
So do you really want to see NATO and American relationships with Europe, Russia and
China, India and the rest of the world put under severe stress in a @#@# waving contest
between Trump and the Mullahs? At the behest of Israel? Because that is what you are going to
get.
Then there is the prospect of the Chinese and Russians retaliating, and I don't even want
to go there.
The Mullahs have ruined the weekend for the leaders of each and every major nation. What
will be happening this weekend in every capital is a series of committee meetings asking the
same questions; What should our response to Iran be? What should our response to possible
American action be? What is the likely effect of war with Iran on our energy supplies? What
is the likely effect of war with Iran on our own security? What is the likely effect of war
with Iran on our economy? Public servants will be working late into the night to answer these
questions. The only thing for sure is that the price of gold is going to skyrocket when
markets open and that a lot of troops are going to get warning orders about notice to move
monday morning.
This is the same type of situation that started WW1. ....... So we decide to give those
pesky Iranian Mullahs a good whupping because they had it coming. Should be easy, after all
they are just more sand niggers, right? All of a sudden Russia drops an air defence regiment
into Tehran, We lose aircraft. China let's North Korea off the leash and at the same time
issues an ultimatum to Taiwan. Suddenly we are taking losses, have three war theatres going
at the same time. What happens then?
I suppose you think nothing is going to affect the continental U.S., so who cares?
There I must disagree:
Nethanyaou is again in election campaign same goes for President Trump; IMHO no war for the
newt 6 months and probably never.
A deal is possible ? maybe
but it should encompass the Syrian issue from where all this Iranian crisis is actually
born-again.
For example Iran could agree to withdraw its troops from Syria if USA and partners did the
same as Trump was considering.
This move would surely have some effect on the YPG position, thus on Turkey's activism along
its frontier with Syria (Afrin being not included).
Entering in negociations for a JCPOA bis will not be acceptable for Iran if sanctions (some
at least) are not lifted. My educated guess is that is precisely what's going on.
I was hoping yesterdays Zarif/Rand Paul discussion would lead to a ratcheting down of
tensions. But the hardliners on both sides would hate to have that happen and will attempt to
wreck any détente.
Did Zarif offer the idea of allowing more intrusive inspections of its nuclear program
before or after his meeting with Paul? In any case some unnamed US officials said it was a
non-starter. Probably the unnamed ones were the Mousetache-of-Idiocy and his minions?
Never should have cancelled JCPOA. Why should we have to do Israel/KSA/UAE's dirty
work?
Sir;
Isn't the "wild card" here the Israelis?
I can imagine an Iranian government, or perhaps the IRGC in a 'bitter ender' phase targeting
Israel proper before they collapse. As the fate of Gerald Ball indicates, the Israelis are
understandably paranoid about their regional competitors.
We are now engaging in cartoon villainy in terms of trying to squeeze Iran into a tiny
box. Iran cannot transact in dollars so they are reduced to bartering with Brazil for corn.
Oops, even their urea export is sanctioned but that doesn't matter because we won't let
Brazil sell them fuel oil to ship corn back to their home port. This is flat out evil.
I wondering if the former Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejah ...2005 to 2013 and His
"Apocalyptic Shiites" were put in the background...with disinformation about His falling out
of Favor....So Iran could play strategic games with the P5+1 agreement IN 2015 especially
with President Obama..
"But Iran still loses. Each hit the US Navy takes, strengthens the resolve to crush
Iran that much harder."
Cm'on man... wake up and open your eyes...
The US hasn't won any war since... Eternity...
Do I have to remind you what happens in Afghanistan, in Irak or more recently in Syria ?
Well Iran is FIVE times bigger than Syria and is not a divided
multicultural/multi-religious country. Do you think that anything you do could change the
fact that those 80 something millions people will survive and will ALL be behind their
leaders whoever he might be ?
If I was Iranian and even if the leader of the country was Adolf Hitler or some fanatic
religious Abu Satanist al Muslim, I would still be behind him if my country was attacked by
some foreign bully. My guess is that 99% of the Iranians think the same way....
Forget about allies like Hamas, Hezbollah or Houtis or even China and Russia.
Iran exists since 7000 BC and you really think that the new kid in the block with a couple
hundred years of existence would be able to take it out ?
Given your history of military victories ???!!! Don't make me laugh...
Even if you naively believe that, do you think about the consequences of such a war ? Not
on Iran, OK, you might level part of the country, but then what ?
Israel would most probably cease to exist. But so as the middle eastern Arab monarchies
and most the world's oil industry, which we all depend on...
Which means that the whole planet will suffer for years to come...
If I can't feed my kids because my country can't get enough oil thanks to some nutcase in
WDC guess how I'll feel about the US ?
Most of the world already hate you for a reason. If you want to be not just hated but
treated like enemies where ever you go, go ahead, bomb Iran, start a war, have the whole
world crumble...
And for what ???
Just "because you can" is not a valid answer...
"IMO, if there's going to be war, then the Europeans and Brits should fight it... Of
course none of them will step up on their own and the US will have to do this."
Will HAVE TO do this ???!!!
Who the hell is forcing you not to mind your own business ?
Has Iran attacked the US ? Or Britain ? Or Europe ?
Or anyone else in the past several hundreds of years ?
No...
But.... Does the US oil industry would like the oil prices to go up ? YES !!!
Do the crazies in DC want to make more money by selling more weapons ? YES !!!
Do the crazies in Wahabistan hate the Shias and want to get rid of them ? YES !!!
Do the crazies in Israel want to get rid of a powerful neighbor ? YES !!!
Do even some crazies in the US want Israel to go in flames so that Jesus comes back ?
Charles Michael
You are not correct. The Israelis have a deep psychopatholgy about Iranian ballistic missiles
and a possible nuclear weapon that might - might exist someday. That has nothing to do with
Syria.
I think the comment by 'Elliot' back in May reflects assumptions which are very
deep-seated in the West, are questionable, and if wrong, could prove extraordinarily
dangerous. So an extended response seems appropriate.
Of course the Russians have far more limited resources than the United States. What is
important is to understand the implications of that fact for their strategic thinking.
On this I would strongly recommend two pieces at the top of the 'Russia' page on the
'World Hot Spots' section of the 'Army Military Press' site.
The first is a translation of a 2017 article from the journal of the 'Academy of Military
Science', entitled 'Color Revolutions in Russia', by A.S. Brychkov and G.A. Nikonorov.
Among other things, this illustrates very well the rather central fact that Russian
military strategists are very well aware that one of the things that wrecked the Soviet Union
was the attempt to maintain permanent preparedness for a prolonged global war with a power
possessing an enormously greater military-industrial potential.
As to the implications for contingency planning for war, these are spelt out in a piece,
also published in 207, by the invaluable Major Charles K. Bartles of the Foreign Military
Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth, entitled 'Recommendations for Intelligence Staffs
Concerning Russian New Generation Warfare.'
At the risk of glossing his meaning overmuch, what is involved is a kind of 'higher
synthesis' of the ideas of two figures who were on opposing sides of the arguments of the
'Twenties of the last century, Georgiy Isserson, the pioneering theorist of 'deep
operations', and Aleksandr Svechin, who cautioned against an exclusive focus of the
'Napoleonic' strand in Clausewitz.
Both are quoted by the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian
Federation, General Valery Gerasimov, in his crucial and much misunderstood address to the
Academy of Military Science in February 2013, reproduced on the same page as the articles to
which I have referred.
What Svechin was saying, in essence, was that an attentive reader of Clausewitz would
realise that 'toujours la'audace' should be replaced as a motto by 'l'audace at the right
place and time'.
It was crucial to be able to judge when an offensive approach was absolutely the right
choice, and caution suicidal, and when the promise of a decisive victory was a snare and a
delusion, and defensive and attritional responses appropriate.
(This argument crops up in many contexts: the 'Tabouleh Line' strategy adopted by
Hizbullah, which Colonel Lang discussed in posts during and following the 2006 Lebanon War,
and also that advocated by James Longstreet at Gettysburg, are classic examples of what
Svechin would have seen as circumstances where a sound 'defensive' strategy was the key to
victory.)
As regards contemporary Russian thinking, an implication is that one of things they have
been trying to create is the ability, in appropriate situations, to use characteristics of
'deep operations' – surprise, speed, shock – in support of clearly limited
objectives.
The kind of possibility involved was alluded to in the conversation between the 'Security
Adviser' and the 'American Soldier' – seemingly involved on the ground in the
'deconfliction' process – which accompanied Seymour Hersh's June 2017 article in 'Die
Welt' on the Khan Sheikhoun sarin incident the previous April, and the U.S. air strikes that
resulted.
'SA: There has been a hidden agenda all along. This is about trying to ultimately go after
Iran. What the people around Trump do not understand is that the Russians are not a paper
tiger and that they have more robust military capability than we do.
'AS: I don't know what the Russians are going to do. They might hang back and let the
Syrians defend their own borders, or they might provide some sort of tepid support, or they
might blow us the fuck out of the airspace and back into Iraq. I honestly don't know what to
expect right now. I feel like anything is possible. The russian air defense system is capable
of taking out our TLAMs. this is a big fucking deal...we are still all systems go...'
And that brings one to another critical strand in the approach of contemporary Russian
strategic thinkers.
Not simply for war-fighting, but, critically, for 'deterring' the United States from
escalating if the Russians do successfully achieve limited objectives, they have been
concentrating on 'asymetric' involving focused investment in specific technologies.
So, Bartles explains that the Russian Ground Forces are 'significantly ahead' of the U.S.
Army in electronic warfare, key objectives being to disrupt the demonstrated American
capability for precision strikes, and also exploit the latent vulnerabilities involved in the
dependence of so much equipment on GPS. (As an Army man, he does not discuss the interesting
question of naval and air applications.)
And crucially, there has been a focus on developing a very wide range of missiles which
'missile defence' technologies are not going to be able to counter effectively in any
forseeable future, and which have steadily increasing range, accuracy and lethality. One
central purpose of this, which Gerasimov has spelt out in later addresses to the Academy of
Military Science, also available on the page to which I have linked, is to provide
non-nuclear 'deterrence' options.
It is, of course, always difficult to be clear as to what is, or is not, hype in claims
made for new weapons systems. That said, it is I think at least worth reading some
contributions by the Brussels-based American analyst Gilbert Doctorow.
In February, he produced a piece entitled 'The INF Treaty is dead: will the arms race be
won this time by the most agile or by the biggest wallet?', and another, headlined 'The
Kremlin's Military Posture Re-considered: strategic military parity with the U.S. or absolute
military superiority over the U.S.'
Certainly, a good many assertions Doctorow made merit being taken with a pinch of salt, if
not a great deal more. However, before one empties the full salt-cellar over them, a few
observations are worth making.
How much salt should be applied to Shoigu's assertion that the cost of the systems being
developed is hundreds of times less than that of the systems being developed by the United
States against Russia I cannot say.
Some questions are however worth putting. It would be interesting to be clearer than I am
as to how relevant, or irrelevant, is the fact that for a long time now Russian universities
have, frankly, wiped the floor with their Western counterparts in international programming
competitions is one.
Another relevant range of issues relates to how expensive the 'software' component of the
relevant weaponry actually produced, once it is developed. A third relates to that of how far
the new missiles, with their greater range, can be effectively deployed, either by updating
old platforms – like Soviet-era bombers – or by creating relatively low
cost-ones.
And then of course one comes to the question of how the technical military issues interact
with the 'geopolitics' involved. In recent years, a range of different Russian analysts have
been claiming, in essence, that the 'Petrine' era of Russian history is over. Three examples,
from Dmitri Trenin, Sergei Karaganov, and Vladislav Surkov, can be found at
If, as Trenin argued back in 2016, Russia has moved from aspiring to become part of a
'Greater Europe' to seeing itself as a central part of a 'Greater Eurasia', then this has
implications for how it should react to the asymetry which was central to Soviet views of INF
in the 'Eighties.'
Put simply, INF in Europe can pose a 'decapitation' threat to Russia, while Russian INF do
not do so to the United States.
At that time, the deployment of cruise and Pershing II helped to encourage a burgeoning
awareness among important sections of the 'security intelligentsia' in Moscow of the extent
to which their own security policies – of which the SS-20 deployment was just one of
many examples – had created suspicion, fear and antagonism.
The conclusion – classically expressed in Georgiy Arbatov's joke about the terrible
thing that Gorbachev was going to do to the United States, deprive it of an enemy –
turned out hopelessly naive. The liquidation of the existing Soviet security posture did not
lead to any lesssening of Western antagonism.
In his second piece, Doctorow has an interesting discussion of views expressed by Yakov
Kedmi, the sometime 'refusenik' who became a pivotal figure in organising Russian Jewish
emigration to Israel, and is now a regular guest on Russian television. And he writes:
'Perhaps Kedmi's most interesting and relevant observation is on the novelty of the
Russian response to the whole challenge of American encirclement. He noted that for the past
200 or more years the United States considered itself secure from enemies given the
protection of the oceans. However, in the new Russian military threat, the oceans will now
become the most vulnerable point in American defenses, from which the decapitating strike can
come.'
Putting the point another way. Potentially at least, the 'Greater Eurasia' as Trenin
describes it includes the Western European countries – indeed, it appears to include
Ireland. It is, obviously, enormously in the interest of the Russians to include these, in
that doing so both makes it possible to isolate the 'Anglo-Saxons', and also to provide a
counterweight to Chinese preponderance.
To do so however – and at this point I am moving towards my own speculations, rather
than simply relying upon better-informed observers – requires a complicated balancing
act.
On the one hand, the West Europeans – above all the Germans – have to be
persuaded that if they persist in following with the 'Russia delenda est' agendas of
traditional 'Anglo' Russophobes, and 'revanchists' from the 'borderlands', they should not
think this is going to be cost-free.
But on the other, the promise has to be implied that, if they 'see sense' and realise that
their future is with a 'Greater Eurasia', without their needing to 'remilitarise' in any
serious way, then they will not be threatened militarily.
This balancing act, ironically, makes it absolutely imperative for the Russians not to
threaten the Baltics – particularly given their historical links to Germany.
By the same token, it provides a particularly cogent reason for threatening to respond to
new American IMF deployments in Europe with ones that target the United States.
https://acdn.adnxs.com/ib/static/usersync/v3/async_usersync.html <img
src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" /> Iran has
also said that it will not only follow graded response to the sanctions, including possible
exiting from the JCPOA, but also reconsider its participation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, a thinly veiled threat to follow in North Korea's footsteps. It is clear that Iran will
fight the status quo arising out of Trump's maximum pressure policies in various ways, and not
allow itself to be economically strangulated.
The UK's position has now become very dubious. Why did it seize Iran's supertanker Grace
1 in the Gibraltarwaters? Four of Grace 1 's officers, including the ship's captain,
all Indians, have been charged in a Gibraltar court and are now out on bail.
In a new twist on this issue, we now know that Gibraltar changed its law
underpinning the seizure just one day before it occurred . This adds weight to reports in
Spain quoting government sources that the UK carried out the seizing of the tanker under
U.S.instructions.
The argument that Grace 1 was carrying crude oil to Syria's Baniyas refinery, and so
was violating European sanctions on Syria, sounds weak on various counts.The
Gibraltar court's order mentions EU Regulation 36/2012 on sanctions on Syria as the basis
for action against Grace 1 . Oil exports from Syria to the EU have been
banned, but not oil imports to Syria under EU regulations. Also, imports to the Baniyas
refinery are banned for machinery and equipment , not oil.
More important: In international trade, do countries through which transit takes
place have the right to impose their laws on the merchandise in transit? For example, can
pharmaceutical products from India, which arein consonance with Indian and the receiving
country's laws, be seized in transit in Europe if they violate the EU's patent laws? Such
seizures have happened , creating a trade dispute between India and the EU. The EU finally
agreed not to seize such goods in transit. So can the EU extend its sanctions to goods
in transit through its waters? Assuming the crude was indeed for Syria -- which Iran has denied
-- do EU sanctions apply when transiting through Gibraltar waters? In short, was the UK
imposing EU sanctions on Syria -- or U.S.sanctions on Iran?
There has also been another
incident involving Iran and the UK in the developing Tanker War 2. This makes the UK's role
even more suspect. Iran has denied the UK's story of its empty tanker Heritage being
blocked by Iranian boats in the Persian Gulf. The U.S., which first broke the story, claimed it
was five Iranian boats that tried to seize a British tanker. The UK authorities
claimed that it was three Iranian boats that were impeding the tanker's journey,
which were driven off by a British warship. The Iranians deny that any such incident took
place. No video or satellite image of the incident has been made public, though a U.S.aircraft
reportedly took video
footage of the incident. In his Twitter feed, BBC's Defense Correspondent Jonathan Beale
condemned the failure of the British government to release images of the incident: "UK MOD say
they will NOT be releasing any imagery from incident in Gulf when @HMS_MONTROSE confronted #Iran IRGC boats. Shame as far as I'm
concerned."
What remains unexplained is why the empty UK tanker switched off
its transponder before the alleged incident for about 24 hours, particularly in the period
when it was passing through the Strait of Hormuz -- or why an empty tanker was accompanied by a
British warship. Was the UK baiting Iran by manufacturing a maritime incident in the Gulf?
UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said on Twitter that after a phone call with Javad
Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, he
offered to release the tanker Grace 1 on the condition that it will not send the oil
to Syria. This still begs the question of the UK's locus in deciding the destination of Iranian
oil -- or why Iran should accept EU sanctions.
Trailer Trash is exactly right about brittle supply chains. To "maximize Shareholder value"
(the Prime Directive from Wall Street), corporations are maximizing (not optimizing)
efficiency, at the expense of long-term priorities.
Summer Diaz is sorta right about what I might describe as US cultural/political obesity,
but I don't look forward to living here after the shit hits the fan. There are lotsa crazy
bastards with guns. We'll see real race war, starvation, all 4 Horsemen.
Re questions about Israel's fate in Marandi's scenario: I think it's smart that he/they
don't talk about retaliation against Israel. Everybody knows that Iran has the ability to
really hurt Israel (sans Nukes, they probably can't obliterate it); but this threat is much
better left unsaid, just hanging in the air. Threatening Israel would be bad PR, decreasing
chances that EU, Russia, & China can talk the US back from the brink of WWIII. And making
sure Israel knows they're in danger - without bragging about it - gets (non-crazy) Zionists
in USA to help prevent all-out war!
It's OK for Iran to talk about the threat to KSA, UAE, etc, because everybody hates them
anyway, and cutting off the world's energy supply is their Doomsday Bomb. They need to remind
the world that if the US attacks Iran, everybody loses.
Three main antagonists have aimed at post-revolution Iran: The Outlaw US Empire, Occupied
Palestine, and Saudi Arabia, the latter being the most recent and vulnerable, while the first
two have already waged varying degrees of war with the Empire's Economic War having existed
for 40+ years. The Levant's former Colonial powers--Turkey, France, UK--are feeble, and in
Turkey's case is allied with Iran while being spurned by NATO and EU. Lurking in the
background are Russia and China's designs for Eurasian Integration which only the Outlaw US
Empire seeks to prevent as such integration benefits Saudi Arabia, Occupied Palestine, France
and UK. Thus the only entity that might benefit from non-hybrid war with Iran is the Outlaw
US Empire--Occupied Palestine's interests actually lie with becoming part of an Integrated
Eurasia not in trying to impede it. And the same goes for the other nations occupying the
Arabian Peninsula--but they all need to come to their senses by deeply examining their actual
long term interests as Qatar seems to have done in its rapprochement with Iran.
But, just how would a non-hybrid conflict with Iran benefit the Outlaw US Empire if it
consumes its regional allies? Would it bring more riches or create greater debt atop the
human cost? Most analysts have pointed to the Empire's vulnerability upon the trashing of the
current global economic structure. Indeed, the only visible benefit might accrue from slowing
Eurasian Integration. Then there's the highly negative result to the Empire's global
credibility which is already scrapping rock bottom and the likely end of Dollar Hegemony and
the Free Lunch it's lived on for the past 70+ years. But what about the fulfillment of the
Christian Rapture Myth? Sorry, but there should be no need to answer that fantastical,
magical, thinking. Not a very good balance sheet is it as liabilities seem to vastly outweigh
assets. Unfortunately, such logic is ignored by ideologues drunk on magical thinking. And
these results don't take into consideration an escalation into global nuclear conflict that's
in nobody's interest.
But as noted, Trump's up a tree and keeps climbing higher onto ever thinner, more
precarious branches. Iran offered him a chance to climb down if he removes illegal sanctions
and returns to JCPOA, which Pompeo promptly replied to with a lie that Iran would negotiate
on its ballistic missiles, thus giving the overall goal away.
So, Trump can't/won't climb down and non-hybrid conflict would do great damage to Outlaw
US Empire interests, which is where we were at July's beginning.
Iran will respond to a limited military strike with a massive and disproportionate
counterstrike targeting both the aggressor and its enablers.
Which will be the green light for an even more violent & disproportionate counterstrike
on Iran. Make no mistake - there are plenty of gung-ho Washington & Tel Aviv power
brokers who want to trash Iran. And they will do it, given the chance. The above scenario is
precisely what the war gods are hoping for.
I don't know about that. The US and Israel would really be opening up a can of worms. Any
over reaction by the USA and Israel gives Russia, India, and China a precedent to follow.
China might it easy to settle their difficulties with Taiwan. Kiev might go up in a mushroom
cloud. The USA isn't the only country in the world with problems. If they don't play by the
rules it just leads to more rule breakers.
An Alternate Scenario
There is a saying in Persian language called "Namad Maali" translates as "feltman massag", it
means slow killing.
This proverb is very often used in contemporary Persian language but most of the people do
not know the actual origin of the proverb.
There is an interesting legend behind it. Holagu Khan, a Mongol ruler, the grandson of
Chengiz Khan conquered Baghdad on year 1258, and captured the Caliph Al-Mo'tasam, the last
Caliph of Abbasid dynasty. Holagu decided to execute the Caliph and finish the 500 years
Muslim caliphate.
Many statesmen begged him to hold on. They told him that the caliph is legitimate successor
of prophet Mohammad. Caliphate is the pillar of the world, if you remove this pillar there
will be sun eclipse, thunder storm and total darkness. Holagu, with his shamanistic believes
fearing sky revenge was yielding, but he consulted his prime minister a Persian mullah, Nasir
al-Din Tusi. Nasir told him do not worry, these are total nonsense, all of our great Shai
twelve imams were direct descendants of prophet Mohammad, they were inherently innocent,
while Abbasid are not direct descendants of prophet. See that our imams, eleven out of
twelve, were martyred, there was no sun eclipse, no thunder storm, no darkness of the
world.
Holagu was bold enough to carry out the execution. Other statesmen brought forward a group of
astrologists who searched through their horoscopes and studied signs of stars and concluded
that all the signs are catastrophic, if a drop of caliph's blood drops on earth, there will
be a devastating thunder storm, rain of bloods pours down from sky and end of world ...
Holagu consulted Nasi again. Nasir being a great humorist, told him not worry, we can devise
a pretty easy solution for your peace of mind, send the caliph to hot bath of feltman
workshop, order to be wrapped in felt, they will give him a hot water bath with soap, they
will roll him slowly over and over, as they are crafting a felt, his life will be ended
peacefully in massage, without a drop of blood, meanwhile I will assign one of my intelligent
apprentice who is familiar with sky ways ( Nasir was a great mathematician and Astronomer, he
founded a famous observatory, he was inventor of trigonometry), to sit on the roof top of the
feltman workshop, he will monitor any changes on sky if there is a minor change, he will
signal to the feltman to release the caliph.
President Vladimir Khan has been giving warnings to Ayatollah do not burn JCPOA, do not close
Strait of Hurmoz. Ayatollah is telling him do not worry we are giving a feltman massage. Just
tell Xi khan do not lean his back against the wall street pillar, clean up your hands from
future fund casino, the pillars are collapsing slowly.
the US and its allies are bluffing. don't get caught up in wars and rumors of it. the only
way it was going to happen was if syria and iraq fell and both of them didn't.
when it didn't. they resort back to the usual MO, look busy.
@C I eh? #14
I don't see China as the same situation as Russia.
The Russians who have largely supported Putin despite economic ill-effects from sanctions
are, at best, 1 generation removed from 1991-1996 post-Soviet collapse privation. They
remember the bad times and how to get through them.
The mainland Chinese today are 2 generation removed from the famines in the 50s and 60s, and
furthermore there is a largely generational break due to the Cultural Revolution.
I don't see China collapsing, but I also don't see the mainstream population taking a
oil-starvation induced economic collapse well at all, because the deal is social repression
if the economy and standards of living continue to improve.
The difference is French cheese and EU fruits and vegetables - luxury goods vs. oil = energy
= everything.
There seems to be misconception about Kuwait, in particular.
Kuwaitis are fed up with the Saudis and are more Iranophile than anything. They see who is
a true regional power.
Recently, I happen to be invited to a diplomatic function, welcoming a new Kuwaiti
ambassador (Not in US). There were several businessmen associates of the new ambassador at
that function. In an impromptu conversation, they professed their love for anything Iranian
or Persian, from culture and history to food and the people, and their disdain for the Saudis
and their ruling family.
In fact, one of them, much to my shock, uttered the circulating rumor that the ruling
family in SA are actually Jews. He said everyone in the region knows about this open secret
but afraid to talk about. That was a revelation for me coming from a Kuwaiti since I never
did pay attention to those rumors.
I think in the event of a regional conflict, Kuwait will be spared by Iran. What would
happen to the ruling family will be another story.
thanks Seyed Mohammad Marandi.. i agree with your headline...
the usa is not agreement friendly.. everything is on their terms only... they rip up
contracts when a new president doesn't like it, and make endless demands of others under
threat, just like bullies do. they sanction countries and don't mind killing, starving and
subjecting people in faraway lands to their ongoing and desperate means of domination..
nothing about the usa is friendly... they spend all their money on the military not just
because it works so well for wall st and the corporations but because they think they can
continue to bully everyone and anyone indefinitely.. they get support from the obvious
suspects and all the other colonies of the usa - europe, canada and etc - turn a type of
blind eye to it all, fearful they might be next if they step out of line.. thus, all these
chattel countries fail in line with the usa regime sanctions...
basically, the prognosis isn't good.. none of the colonies are capable of speaking up to
the usa regime, largely because they lack strong leadership and independence of thought in
all this... we continue to slip towards ww3 and at present all the observing countries sit on
their hands waiting for the next shoe to drop.. that is where we are at present with regard
the ramp up to war on iran...
The Gulf states know they would be in the front lines in any conflict, Saudi and UAE
infrastructure destruction would mean Kings, Princes and Emir's scurrying from their
destroyed countries because of their inability to sell oil and feed their people, as one
Iranian General said.. the US bases in the region are not threats, "they are targets". Its
true Iran has an army of 500,000, they also have millions of military aged men who would form
militias and have the reputation of taking their shrouds with them into battle.
I think a major miscalculation by Trump, initiating this kind of scenario is unlikely, those
other whack jobs Pence, Pompeo and Bolton are a cause for concern, just hear this nutcase
Lindsey Graham threatening the Europeans....
"The United States should sanction "to the ground" European countries that continue to trade
with Iran under the 2015 nuclear deal and refuse to join America's pressure campaign against
the Islamic Republic, says top Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.
"I will tell the Europeans, 'If you want to side with the Iranians, be my guest, but you
won't use an American bank or do business with the American economy,'" Graham said".
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/07/16/601067/US-Graham-Trump-Iran-JCPOA-EU-sanction-to-ground
Punitive sanctions against nations with a powerful military establishment have an incredibly
poor track record. Germany after WWI. Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. And one might add Russia
today. The more "effective" the sanctions, the closer to war.
But, of course, military planners in the U.S. and Israel have already picked out the
targets for nuclear strikes during the very first wave of attacks on Iran. It will be nuclear
first, ask questions later. Heil Trump has already said he will use nuclear weapons:
"obliterate". But will even that work? I doubt it. Iran must expect nuclear attacks in the
first wave. Yes, their urban populations will be destroyed, but their military? I doubt
it.
The folks who now are called Iranian once fought the most militaristic society ever - the
Spartans. There is likely a memory of that conflict still, and the lessons learned. They face
a military that no longer remembers Vietnam or its lessons. Sanctions are an act of war, not
military war but war against another who have been made into enemies nonetheless. Be mightily
careful who you make your enemy, one sage reminds that you become like them. Look at those
the U.S. has made enemy: Hitler and National Socialism; Mussolini and Fascism; Stalin and
State Authoritarianism; Franco and Military Repression; and the list continues substantially,
and then look at the U.S. in a distortion free mirror and what does one see?
Taking into consideration the novel Rand Paul intervention, the likely way forward is this,
and I'm sure it is what Putin (the master negotiator) has in mind: Trump blundered badly by
throwing out the JCPOA, but he needs a way out that allows him to save face and even turn it
into a partial "win". On the world stage (ie. for the public) it needs to look like Trump
accedes to reinstate the JCPOA IN EXCHANGE for Iran withdrawing from Syria! This will not
only save the nuclear deal, thereby reducing tensions, but it will force Israel to back down
and shut up. Israel can't complain and Trump can sell it as an achievement of his, "without
having to go to war". The US, of course will have to give Iran, Syria and Russia something in
exchange: Iran and Russia ultimately bolstered their forces in Syria in order to save Assad.
All things considered, Assad has won the war, so the reason for the bolstered Iranian and
Russian presence no longer applies. What the US must agree to is to suspend its efforts to
overthrow Assad (which Trump has been trying to do via the withdrawal of US troops in
northern Syria), thereby returning the country to the status quo ante. The wild card in all
of this, however, is Turkey's presence in Syria. Perhaps China can lend a helping hand on
that issue?
@35 "when it didn't. they resort back to the usual MO, look busy."
I agree with that comment, though I will add that for this Administration "looking busy"
has a Keystone Cops look about it.
I mean, let's be real here: Norman Schwarzkopf did not make a single move against Iraq
until he had well over 500,000 GI's at his command, and Tommy Franks was not willing to
restart the Crash Boom Bang until he had built up his army to just shy of 500,000
soldiers.
And Iraq then was nowhere near as formidable as Iran is now.
Where are the troop buildups? Where is the CENTCOM army?
Nowhere. And no sign of it happening.
There is a real possibility that Bolton might get his way and start his dinky little war,
only to find that the USA loses a great big war before he even manages to get out of bed.
CENTCOM is not ready for war, nowhere close to it, and for that reason alone Iran is
correct to tell the USA that if Trump launches a "limited strike" then their response will be
"it's on, baby".
@ William Herschel 61. If the U.S. or anyone else uses any type of Nuclear weapons against
Iran, a declared ally of Russia, it will result in an immediate and full scale Nuclear
retaliation. This is a recent statement made by Vladimir Putin. Pompeo, Bolton et all are
well aware of this. The U.S. might talk of using tactical nukes but despite their Hubris,
even the most pro war in the Pentagon know what the results of that type of planned
anihilation will have on the U.S. mainland. People like Lindsey Graham are merely empty
vessels making a lot of noise.
Why would Iran allow any Western nation to save face through negotiations or
otherwise?
Khamenei yesterday tweeted several statements that were later posted to his website:
"At this meeting, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran stressed that Western
governments' arrogant behavior is the main obstacle in establishing ties and maintained:
Western governments' major vice is their arrogance. If they face a weak government, their
arrogance will be effective. But if that country knows the truth about them and resists, the
Western governments will be defeated.
"Referring to problems rising between Iran and the European partners of the JCPOA,
Ayatollah Khamenei said: Now, in the matters between us and the Europeans, the problems
persist, because of their arrogance.
"The Leader of the Islamic Revolution highlighted Iran's commitment to the JCPOA -- also
known as the Iran Deal -- and criticized European dignitaries of the deal for breaching it,
saying: As stated by our Foreign Minister, who works hard, Europe has had eleven commitments,
none of which it has met. The Foreign Minister, despite his diplomatic considerations, is
clearly stating that. But what did we do? We acted based on our commitments, and even beyond
that.
"Ayatollah Khamenei reiterated that Iran continued to stay within the JCPOA despite the
fact that the EU partners of the JCPOA as well as the British government violated the
international plan of action and yet demanded Iran to stay with its promises: Now that we
have started to reduce our commitments, they step forward. They are very insolent, and they
have not abided by their eleven commitments. We have just started to reduce some of our
commitments, and this process will surely continue."
The hypothetical suggestion Zarif made in his interview with NBC News was just
that--hypothetical--as it had to spell out again for the
apparently illiterate, deaf or both SoS Pompeo and BigLie Media presstitutes.
In his arrogance, Trump climbed up the tree he's now stuck within; and as I've pointed out
again and again, Iran isn't going to help him in his climb down--they'll be no face saving
for the arrogant Western nations. I mean, how clear can the Iranians make that?! They quite
well understand the very real interests at stake I put forth in my comment @32. And the Turks
on their own have upped the stakes with Erdogan
assuring :
"that his country is prepared to leave NATO during a meeting with Russian Deputy Vladimir
Zhirinovsky.
"'I met twice with Turkish President Recep Erdogan and he told me personally that Turkey
was willing to withdraw from NATO,' Zhirinovsky wrote."
Trump seems desperate for a way to climb down from his tree. Controversial Kentucky
Senator Rand Paul apparently volunteered his services as an emissary
to Iran , which Trump okayed but Paul's office is being mum about. As noted, Iran isn't
going to talk unless tangible, visible concessions are made prior to any talks
occurring--concessions Zarif and Rouhani have already stated as the minimum required: Ending
all illegal sanctions and return to JCPOA.
Iran just announced that they would be open to talk about ballistic missiles when US stops
selling arms in the Middle East.
You have to hand it to the Iranians. In the one-up-manship game, they are a formidable
opponent. Obviously, there is less than zero chance that would ever happen, but they are
super smart in driving the message of US arrogance home. I am happy to see they don't take
any shit from the Empire.
Washington's aggression is part
of a decades-long quest to control the spigot in the Persian Gulf.
Notable quotes:
"... As it happens, the world economy -- of which the United States is the leading beneficiary (despite President Trump's self-destructive trade wars) -- relies on an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to keep energy prices low. By continuing to serve as the principal overseer of that flow, Washington enjoys striking geopolitical advantages that its foreign policy elites would no more abandon than they would their country's nuclear supremacy. ..."
"... True, Washington fought wars in the Middle East when the American economy was still deeply vulnerable to any disruption in the flow of imported oil. In 1990, this was the key reason President George H.W. Bush gave for his decision to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait after Saddam Hussein's invasion of that land. "Our country now imports nearly half the oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic independence," he told a nationwide TV audience. ..."
"... All told, 33.6 percent of world energy consumption last year was made up of oil, 27.2 percent of coal (itself a global disgrace), 23.9 percent of natural gas, 6.8 percent of hydro-electricity, 4.4 percent of nuclear power, and a mere 4 percent of renewables. ..."
"... Concluding that the increased demand for oil in Asia, in particular, will outweigh reduced demand elsewhere, the IEA calculated in its 2017 World Energy Outlook that oil will remain the world's dominant source of energy in 2040, accounting for an estimated 27.5 percent of total global energy consumption. That will indeed be a smaller share than in 2018, but because global energy consumption as a whole is expected to grow substantially during those decades, net oil production could still rise -- from an estimated 100 million barrels a day in 2018 to about 105 million barrels in 2040. ..."
"... More dramatic yet is the growing centrality of the Asia-Pacific region to the global flow of petroleum. In 2000, that region accounted for only 28 percent of world consumption; in 2040, its share is expected to stand at 44 percent, thanks to the growth of China, India, and other Asian countries, whose newly affluent consumers are already buying cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other oil-powered products. ..."
"... To lend muscle to what would soon be dubbed the "Carter Doctrine," the president created a new US military organization, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), and obtained basing facilities for it in the Gulf region. Ronald Reagan, who succeeded Carter as president in 1981, made the RDJTF into a full-scale "geographic combatant command," dubbed Central Command, or CENTCOM, which continues to be tasked with ensuring American access to the Gulf today (as well as overseeing the country's never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East). ..."
"... When ordering US forces into combat in the Gulf, American presidents have always insisted that they were acting in the interests of the entire West. In advocating for the "reflagging" mission of 1987, for instance, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger argued (as he would later recall in his memoir Fighting for Peace ), "The main thing was for us to protect the right of innocent, nonbelligerent and extremely important commerce to move freely in international open waters -- and, by our offering protection, to avoid conceding the mission to the Soviets." Though rarely so openly acknowledged, the same principle has undergirded Washington's strategy in the region ever since: The United States alone must be the ultimate guarantor of unimpeded oil commerce in the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... Look closely and you can find this principle lurking in every fundamental statement of US policy related to that region and among the Washington elite more generally. My own personal favorite, when it comes to pithiness, is a sentence in a report on the geopolitics of energy issued in 2000 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies , a Washington-based think tank well-populated with former government officials (several of whom contributed to the report): "As the world's only superpower, [the United States] must accept its special responsibilities for preserving access to [the] worldwide energy supply." You can't get much more explicit than that. ..."
"... As things stand today, any Iranian move in the Strait of Hormuz that can be portrayed as a threat to the "free flow of commerce" (that is, the oil trade) represents the most likely trigger for direct US military action. Yes, Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support for radical Shiite movements throughout the Middle East will be cited as evidence of its leadership's malevolence, but its true threat will be to American dominance of the oil lanes, a danger Washington will treat as the offense of all offenses to be overcome at any cost. ..."
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article originally appeared
at TomDispatch.com .
It's always the oil. While President Trump was hobnobbing
with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the G-20 summit in Japan, brushing off a
recent UN report about the prince's role in the murder of Washington Post columnist
Jamal Khashoggi, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in Asia and the Middle East,
pleading with foreign leaders to support "Sentinel." The aim of that administration plan: to
protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf.
Both Trump and Pompeo insisted
that their efforts were driven by concern over Iranian misbehavior in the region and the need to
ensure the safety of maritime commerce. Neither, however, mentioned one inconvenient three-letter
word -- O-I-L -- that lay behind their Iranian maneuvering (as it has impelled every other
American incursion in the Middle East since World War II).
Now, it's true that the United States
no longer relies on imported petroleum for a large share of its energy needs. Thanks to the
fracking
revolution , the country now gets the bulk of its oil --
approximately 75 percent -- from domestic sources. (In 2008, that share had been closer to 35
percent.) Key allies in NATO and rivals like China, however, continue to depend on Middle Eastern
oil for a significant proportion of their energy needs.
As it happens, the world economy -- of
which the United States is the leading beneficiary (despite President Trump's self-destructive
trade wars) -- relies on an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to keep energy prices
low. By continuing to serve as the principal overseer of that flow, Washington enjoys striking
geopolitical advantages that its foreign policy elites would no more abandon than they would
their country's nuclear supremacy.
This logic was spelled out clearly by President Barack Obama
in a September 2013 address to the UN General Assembly in which he
declared that "the United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power,
including military force, to secure our core interests" in the Middle East. He then pointed out
that, while the United States was steadily reducing its reliance on imported oil, "the world
still depends on the region's energy supply and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire
global economy."
Accordingly, he concluded, "We will ensure the free flow of energy from the
region to the world." To some Americans, that dictum -- and its continued embrace by President
Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo -- may seem anachronistic. True, Washington fought wars in
the Middle East when the American economy was still deeply vulnerable to any disruption in the
flow of imported oil. In 1990, this was the key reason President George H.W. Bush gave for his
decision to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait after Saddam Hussein's invasion of that land. "Our
country now imports nearly half the oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic
independence," he told a nationwide
TV audience.
But talk of oil soon disappeared from his comments about what became Washington's
first (but hardly last) Gulf War after his statement provoked
widespread public outrage .
("No Blood for Oil" became a widely used protest sign then.) His son, the second President Bush,
never even mentioned that three-letter word when announcing his 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yet, as
Obama's UN speech made clear, oil remained, and still remains, at the center of US foreign
policy. A quick review of global energy trends helps explain why this has continued to be
so.
THE WORLD'S UNDIMINISHED RELIANCE ON PETROLEUM
Despite all that's been said about climate change and oil's role in causing it -- and about
the enormous progress being made in bringing solar and wind power online -- we remain trapped
in a remarkably oil-dependent world. To grasp this reality, all you have to do is read the
most recent edition of oil giant BP's "Statistical Review of World Energy," published this
June. In 2018, according to that report, oil still accounted for by far the largest share of
world energy consumption, as it has every year for decades. All told, 33.6 percent of world
energy consumption last year was made up of oil, 27.2 percent of coal (itself a global
disgrace), 23.9 percent of natural gas, 6.8 percent of hydro-electricity, 4.4 percent of
nuclear power, and a mere 4 percent of renewables.
Most energy analysts believe that the global reliance on petroleum as a share of world
energy use will decline in the coming decades, as more governments impose restrictions on
carbon emissions and as consumers, especially in the developed world, switch from oil-powered
to electric vehicles. But such declines are unlikely to prevail in every region of the globe
and total oil consumption may not even decline. According to projections from the International
Energy Agency (IEA) in its " New Policies Scenario " (which assumes significant
but not drastic government efforts to curb carbon emissions globally), Asia, Africa, and the
Middle East are likely to experience a substantially increased demand for petroleum in the
years to come, which, grimly enough, means global oil consumption will continue to rise.
Concluding that the increased demand for oil in Asia, in particular, will outweigh reduced
demand elsewhere, the IEA calculated in its 2017 World Energy Outlook that oil will remain the world's
dominant source of energy in 2040, accounting for an estimated 27.5 percent of total global
energy consumption. That will indeed be a smaller share than in 2018, but because global energy
consumption as a whole is expected to grow substantially during those decades, net oil
production could still rise -- from an estimated 100 million barrels a day in 2018 to about 105
million barrels in 2040.
Of course, no one, including the IEA's experts, can be sure how future extreme
manifestations of global warming like the severe heat waves recently tormenting
Europe and
South
Asia could change such projections. It's possible that
growing public outrage
could lead to far tougher restrictions on carbon emissions between now and 2040. Unexpected
developments in the field of alternative energy production could also play a role in changing
those projections. In other words, oil's continuing dominance could still be curbed in ways
that are now unpredictable.
In the meantime, from a geopolitical perspective, a profound shift is taking place in the
worldwide demand for petroleum. In 2000, according to the IEA, older industrialized nations --
most of them members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) --
accounted for about two-thirds of global oil consumption; only about a third went to countries
in the developing world. By 2040, the IEA's experts believe that ratio will be reversed, with
the OECD consuming about one-third of the world's oil and non-OECD nations the rest.
More
dramatic yet is the growing centrality of the Asia-Pacific region to the global flow of
petroleum. In 2000, that region accounted for only 28 percent of world consumption; in 2040,
its share is expected to stand at 44 percent, thanks to the growth of China, India, and other
Asian countries, whose newly affluent consumers are already
buying cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other oil-powered products.
Where will Asia get its oil? Among energy experts, there is little doubt on this matter.
Lacking significant reserves of their own, the major Asian consumers will turn to the one place
with sufficient capacity to satisfy their rising needs: the Persian Gulf. According to BP, in
2018, Japan already obtained 87 percent of its oil imports from the Middle East, India 64
percent, and China 44 percent. Most analysts assume these percentages will only grow in the
years to come, as production in other areas declines.
This will, in turn, lend even greater strategic importance to the Persian Gulf region, which
now possesses more than 60 percent of the world's untapped petroleum reserves, and to the
Strait of Hormuz, the
narrow
passageway through which approximately one-third of the world's seaborne oil passes daily.
Bordered by Iran, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, the Strait is perhaps the most
significant -- and contested -- geostrategic location on the planet today.
CONTROLLING THE SPIGOT
When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the same year that militant Shiite
fundamentalists overthrew the US-backed Shah of Iran, US policy-makers concluded that America's
access to Gulf oil supplies was at risk and a US military presence was needed to guarantee such
access. As President Jimmy Carter
would say in his
State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980,
The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic
importance: It contains more than two thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort
to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian
Ocean and close to the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil
must flow. Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain
control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of
the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary,
including military force.
To lend muscle to what would soon be dubbed the "Carter Doctrine," the president created a
new US military organization, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), and obtained
basing facilities for it in the Gulf region. Ronald Reagan, who succeeded Carter as president
in 1981, made the RDJTF
into a full-scale "geographic combatant command," dubbed Central Command, or CENTCOM, which
continues to be tasked with ensuring American access to the Gulf today (as well as overseeing
the country's never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East).
Reagan was the first president to
activate the Carter Doctrine in 1987 when he ordered Navy warships to escort Kuwaiti tankers, "
reflagged " with the stars and stripes, as they traveled through the Strait of Hormuz. From
time to time, such vessels had been coming under fire from Iranian gunboats, part of an ongoing
" Tanker War ," itself part
of the Iran-Iraq War of those years. The Iranian attacks on those tankers were meant to punish
Sunni Arab countries for backing Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein in that conflict. The American
response, dubbed Operation Earnest Will , offered an
early model of what Secretary of State Pompeo is seeking to establish today with his Sentinel
program.
Operation Earnest Will was followed two years later by a massive implementation of the
Carter Doctrine, President Bush's 1990 decision to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Although he
spoke of the need to protect US access to Persian Gulf oil fields, it was evident that ensuring
a safe flow of oil imports wasn't the only motive for such military involvement. Equally
important then (and far more so now): the geopolitical advantage controlling the world's major
oil spigot gave Washington.
When ordering US forces into combat in the Gulf, American presidents have always insisted
that they were acting in the interests of the entire West. In advocating for the "reflagging"
mission of 1987, for instance, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger argued (as he would later
recall in his memoir Fighting for
Peace ), "The main thing was for us to protect the right of innocent, nonbelligerent
and extremely important commerce to move freely in international open waters -- and, by our
offering protection, to avoid conceding the mission to the Soviets." Though rarely so openly
acknowledged, the same principle has undergirded Washington's strategy in the region ever
since: The United States alone must be the ultimate guarantor of unimpeded oil commerce in the
Persian Gulf.
Look closely and you can find this principle lurking in every fundamental statement of US
policy related to that region and among the Washington elite more generally. My own personal
favorite, when it comes to pithiness, is a sentence in a
report on the
geopolitics of energy issued in 2000 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies , a Washington-based
think tank well-populated with former government officials (several of whom contributed to the
report): "As the world's only superpower, [the United States] must accept its special
responsibilities for preserving access to [the] worldwide energy supply." You can't get much
more explicit than that.
Of course, along with this "special responsibility" comes a geopolitical advantage: By
providing this service, the United States cements its status as the world's sole superpower and
places every other oil-importing nation -- and the world at large -- in a condition of
dependence on its continued performance of this vital function.
Originally, the key dependents in this strategic equation were Europe and Japan, which, in
return for assured access to Middle Eastern oil, were expected to subordinate themselves to
Washington. Remember, for example, how they
helped pay for
Bush the elder's Iraq War (dubbed Operation Desert Storm). Today, however, many of those
countries, deeply concerned with the effects of climate change, are seeking to lessen oil's
role in their national fuel mixes. As a result, in 2019, the countries potentially most at the
mercy of Washington when it comes to access to Gulf oil are economically fast-expanding China
and India, whose oil needs are only likely to grow. That, in turn, will further enhance the
geopolitical advantage Washington enjoyed as long as it remains the principal guardian of the
flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. How it may seek to exploit this advantage remains to be
seen, but there is no doubt that all parties involved, including the Chinese, are well aware of
this asymmetric equation, which could give the phrase "trade war" a far deeper and more ominous
meaning.
THE IRANIAN CHALLENGE AND THE SPECTER OF WAR
From Washington's perspective, the principal challenger to America's privileged status in
the Gulf is Iran. By reason of geography, that country possesses a potentially
commanding position along the
northern Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, as the Reagan administration learned in 1987–88
when it threatened American oil dominance there. About this reality President Reagan couldn't
have been clearer. "Mark this point well: The use of the sea lanes of the Persian Gulf will not
be dictated by the Iranians," he
declared
in 1987 -- and Washington's approach to the situation has never changed.
In more recent times, in response to US and Israeli threats to bomb their nuclear facilities
or, as the Trump administration has done, impose economic sanctions on their country, the
Iranians have threatened on numerous occasions to block the Strait of Hormuz to oil traffic,
squeeze global energy supplies, and precipitate an international crisis. In 2011, for example,
Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi
warned that should the West impose sanctions on Iranian oil, "not even one drop of oil can
flow through the Strait of Hormuz." In response, US officials have vowed ever since to let no
such thing happen, just as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did in response to Rahimi at that
time. "We have made very clear," he
said , "that the
United States will not tolerate blocking of the Strait of Hormuz." That, he added, was a "red
line for us."
It remains so today. Hence, the present ongoing crisis in the Gulf, with fierce US sanctions
on Iranian oil sales and threatening Iranian gestures toward the regional oil flow in response.
"We will make the enemy understand that either everyone can use the Strait of Hormuz or no
one,"
said Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, in July 2018. And
attacks
on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz on June 13
could conceivably have been an expression of just that policy, if -- as
claimed by the United States -- they were indeed carried out by members of the
Revolutionary Guards. Any future attacks are only likely to spur US military action against
Iran in accordance with the Carter Doctrine. As Pentagon spokesperson Bill Urban
put it in response to Jafari's statement, "We stand ready to ensure the freedom of
navigation and the free flow of commerce wherever international law allows."
As things stand today, any Iranian move in the Strait of Hormuz that can be portrayed as a
threat to the "free flow of commerce" (that is, the oil trade) represents the most likely
trigger for direct US military action. Yes, Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support
for radical Shiite movements throughout the Middle East will be cited as evidence of its
leadership's malevolence, but its true threat will be to American dominance of the oil lanes, a
danger Washington will treat as the offense of all offenses to be overcome at any cost.
If the United States goes to war with Iran, you are unlikely to hear the word "oil" uttered
by top Trump administration officials, but make no mistake: That three-letter word lies at the
root of the present crisis, not to speak of the world's long-term fate.
Michael T.
Klare The Nation 's defense correspondent, is professor emeritus of peace and world-security
studies at Hampshire College and senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association in
Washington, DC. His newest book, All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon's Perspective on
Climate Change , will be published this fall.
Money, Money, Money,... Old Money, Factories, Russian Mercheant, German Industrialist,
American Slave owner... Nord Deutscheland, Bremen, was heavily Communist... Family would
understand the power of Communist Equality and Serfdom.
An old Soviet General said the EU is like the old Soviets , the leaders were not
elected, they were appointed by others mostly their friends and the EU process is the same,
fat cats appoint other fat cats instead of direct elections.
What is going on? Is Dr. Michael Carpenter a mini-John Bolton in the making?
The timing of the recent protests was to be expected. They sound as if Joe Biden is about
ready to use Georgia for his "doomed" presidential campaign in much in the same vein as John
McCain attempted to do back in August 2008. The explanation of what happened during the
protests depends on who you are listening to, and how you well you are able to separate fact
from the carefully-crafted rhetoric.
One of the first things to do when evaluating the situation is to read some of the English
language news sites, especially those heavily funded by
NED or the "National Endowment for Destabilization" as it should be called, and other
likeminded
organisations which operate under the guise of spreading democracy in Georgia.
You will naturally find op
eds there, albeit with disclaimers such as Russian Soft Power Fails, Pointing the Way to a
New Georgian Consensus, but consider the clients of the author; these appear to be biased. Each
one reads as if drafted by VOA or other such mouthpieces of US policy, while their delivery
mechanism purports to be neutral and professional.
Such articles present those who support traditional Georgian values including the Georgian
Orthodox Church hierarchs and their anti-liberal followers, as a "domestic constituency",
described as "a growing and active minority within the Georgian electorate."
The agenda becomes clear when a comparison is made: "regardless of that debate about the
past, the Georgian Dream (Party) government has been drifting more recently towards the
anti-liberal, religious program advocated by Russian propaganda."
This is pretty heavy stuff – the writer makes a BIG deal out of "close ties" between
the ruling government and Russia, and its efforts to seek a balanced policy between the West
and Russia and improve relations after the 2008 Georgian Russian war. He presents these as
being anti-liberal, and part of a religious agenda, to imply that Georgia is both a Russian
vassal state and going backwards, despite the nature of the current US government and its base
of support.
Spoiling Russian-Georgian Relations
The purpose of these articles is demonstrated by allegations that the unleashing of
"indiscriminate" violence on the mostly peaceful crowd was so sudden that a legitimate question
is raised whether Georgia's informal ruler, Bidzina Ivanishvili, received an instruction from
the offended Putin to take "severe measures."
We should not the use of the word "mostly" here. This is a backhanded acknowledgement of the
reality that the well paid rioters who were attacking police actually started out in
Saakashvili era Patriot Camps ,
participated as young teens, and got their first taste of blood in the pro-democracy protests
back in May of 2011.
Civil Georgia, where you will find this, does not hide its funding source,
NED , and also states that "opinion pages" reflect the opinions of the author, "which may
not necessarily represent the editorial views of Civil.ge, but which we consider are to our
readers' benefit." However Civil Georgia will not accept opinion pieces from those who are not
marching in step with its not-so-hidden agenda.
Where's the balance?
It is becoming clear that what is transpiring
in Georgia is not a home grown occurrence, as previously described in this journal. The
succession of staged events there, including the Gay Pride marches, are being managed from
outside.
It also comes as no surprise to see that Salome Zurabishvili, the figurehead president of
Georgia, is part of the concerted effort to blame Russia for what is transpiring. The President
of Georgia stating that Russia is its enemy comes VERY close to stating that Georgia wants a
war with Russia -- and Zurabishvili, a former French Diplomat, knows that.
Zurabishvili stated on her Facebook page that Russia is "our enemy and occupier," and that
the"fifth column" controlled by it may be perhaps more dangerous today than open aggression.
She also recently stated that "that split in the country and in society and all the domestic
strife plays into the hands of no one but Russia."
Why would she take the opposite position to the political party which put her into power,
the Georgian Dream? She was born in Paris, worked in the French Foreign Ministry, worked in
NATO, and then joined American-supported Saakashvili, who made her Minister of Foreign Affairs
of Georgia.
There was much debate over how she came to be the Georgian Dream presidential candidate in
the first place, with a strong suspicion that she had been forced upon the ruling party by the
US. So whose side is the President of Georgia, representative of the Georgian State, actually
on?
Players in a New Great Game
In response to some of the protest slogans, and the comments of the Georgian president,
Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev promprlt responded, as reported by Russian Channel 1:
"I think these statements are extremely unprofessional, and show how the Georgian president
may not be up-to-date on the situation in Georgia, or is intentionally distorting the
situation. In Georgia, various political events are happening that are related to domestic
political struggles between the radical opposition, (those holdovers from Saakashvili's regime)
and the forces now in power (Georgian Dream). Any attempt to blame Russia for the situation is
a distortion of the actual situation, and it is most unfortunate that the Georgian president is
involved in this effort. But we will hope that the Georgian people will figure everything
out."
Maybe they will, but this is easier said than done, as the media and TV stations are
diverting attention to Russia as the culprit, as are Facebook and other social media outlets.
It is no wonder that Russia has acted swiftly, based on the recommendation of the Russian
National Security Council to take some protective and perhaps punitive actions, albeit a bit
too hasty ones.
The stakes are high, and the events on the ground are part of a larger scheme of things.
Russians are being discouraged from even visiting Georgia now, perhaps because Russian security
agencies suspect a "false flag" in the planning or early stages, which would be directed
towards, or at least blamed on, the Russians.
Consequently President Putin signed a decree which prohibits Russian airlines from carrying
passengers to Georgia as of July 8th. Tour operators are also prohibited from sending organised
groups to Georgia. All this is being done for security purposes, as the present situation may
engulf the border regions with the Georgian breakaways of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
These stop gap measures are temporary in nature, and will remain in effect only until the
situation in Georgia normalises. Georgia is currently a preferred tourist destination, with
such airlines as Aeroflot, Pobeba, Ural Airlines, S7, Red Wings and Nordavia offering direct
flights. So it will be not only Georgia which suffers economically from the political unrest in
Georgia, but Russian companies too.
Considering the volume of Russian tourists, upwards of 1 and ½ million, the impact of
this ban will be tangible.
In the first six months of 2019 over half a million Russians visited Georgia, both by air
and overland. The potential loss amounts to 750 million dollars, and will not only be short
term.Some of these tourists will now go elsewhere, and if they have good experiences in other
tourist destinations may not return to Georgia in the future.
Pointing the Finger
Fixing the real blame is not difficult. It does not lie with emotional Georgians, and their
poor judgment over who was invited to speak a conference of Orthodox Mps. The American
footprint is rather substantial.
Joe Biden's advisor Michael Carpenter (by happenstance) visited Tbilisi for three days just
prior to the violent protests. Whilst there, he publicly took exception to the fact that there
were so many tourists from Russia there, and even that they were buying property in
Georgia:
"I'M NOT SURE THAT THE GOVERNMENT FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE IMPLICATIONS OF ITS OPEN DOOR
POLICY WITH RUSSIA. WITH SO MANY "TOURISTS" AND SO MUCH LAND BEING BOUGHT UP BY RUSSIAN
BUSINESSMEN, THEY [GEORGIANS AND THE GOVERNMENT] MAY WAKE UP AND FIND NOT 20% BUT 100% OF
GEORGIA OCCUPIED."
Before he worked for Biden, Dr. Michael Carpenter was Deputy Secretary for Defense in the
Pentagon with responsibility for Russia and some Eastern Bloc countries.
His warmongering
credentials are openly known. He is Senior Director of the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy
and Global Engagement, and a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council. He also serves
on the
Jamestown Foundation board of directors and has Polish political ties, having been a
Fulbright Scholar at the Polish Academy of Science.
Someone in Tbilisi must have heard Carpenter loud and clear – and not been able to
resist the opportunity. When you hear about protests in Georgia, do not think of emotional
Georgians trying to overthrow their governments at every opportunity but of the calm, measured
distinguished academics of the Penn Biden Center, who are conveniently out of the way when the
plastic bullets and biased articles start flying.
President Trump has proved being quite a wise man so far, at least in terms of foreign
policy, because he's resisted to the attempts of Pompeo and Bolton and others to start new wars
all around the world. I might be wrong, but a Hilary or a Biden whatsoever would have already
concocted three or four wars in the meantime.
There is a definitely nexus of what is going on in Ukraine and Iran to what is now being
played out in Georgia, and with potentially fatal consequences. It would be better for Georgia
to wake up and understand that this is not a "home grown" protest but one carefully manipulated
from the US – Penn Biden Center, at the University of Pennsylvania.
The moves and supporting PR come from a well-rehearsed scenario, and one which has been used
so many times, and in so many countries.
Do we have a new snake-in-the-grass in terms of a new chapter in aggressive US foreign
policy, Dr. Michael Carpenter, a mini-John Bolton in the making?
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online
magazine "New Eastern Outlook" .
For more than three months, people in Hong Kong massed in the streets to protest a proposed
extradition law. Critics say it would allow China to extradite dissenting students,
journalists, and business people to the mainland, where they could face prison for their views.
Rallies and marches of tens of thousands grew to perhaps almost two million at
their peak.
"I was very angry about the proposed law," says Adrian Leong, a former Hong Kong resident
and political activist in San Francisco. "Everyone could see themselves getting in
trouble."
But supporters of the Beijing government say the proposed law would only allow extradition
of people accused of serious crimes, not political dissidents. Western governments and media
use the phony extradition issue to foment rifts between Hong Kong and the mainland, they
argue.
"They want China to splinter and die," says Nathan Rich, an American YouTube blogger living in China.
To sort out these competing claims, we have to understand some Hong Kong history.
Opium Wars
Starting in the late 1700s, the British East India Company illegally sold opium to China. By the
1830s, British and American entrepreneurs became fabulously wealthy selling opium, while
addicting millions of Chinese. When the Chinese government ordered the sales to stop, the
British sent gunboats to Chinese ports and fought the first Opium War from
1839-1842.
The Qing dynasty lost the war and was forced to cede Hong Kong island to the British, along
with parts of other port cities. The British launched the Second Opium War from 1853-1858, in
which they seized more Chinese territory and forced China to legalize opium.
For centuries, China had the world's largest economy, selling far more goods overseas than
it imported. The opium wars were fought in the name of "free trade," – i.e., the right of
British and American drug barons to open up the Chinese market.
Modern day imperialism
Selling addictive drugs to China didn't end in the nineteenth century. During the reign of
President Ronald Reagan, for example, the US forced
China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan to buy US made cigarettes – all in the name of
opening their markets to free trade.
But by the 1980s, the People's Republic of China was emerging as a major world power, and
Britain agreed give up Hong Kong. In 1997, Britain returned Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty
with an agreement that it would maintain two different political and economic systems. It
became known as "one country, two systems."
One country, two systems was a bold step, something never tried before. China would keep its
socialist economy; Hong Kong would remain capitalist. Hong Kong would maintain governing
institutions established by the United Kingdom, including independent courts but also indirect
election of top political leaders. The one country, two systems would last for 50 years.
The Communist Party of China hoped that, given time, Hong Kong residents would come to see
the advantages of socialism and voluntarily join the mainland. They hoped Hong Kong could be a
model for integrating Taiwan into China.
But Hong Kong had existed as a separate entity for well more than 100 years, and
reunification wasn't going to be easy. Many Hongkongers seek to maintain their capitalist
institutions for as long as possible. They want direct election of political leaders and a
judiciary that tilts their way in case of disputes with Beijing.
Hongkongers have developed their own identity, notes Tom Fowdy, a China analyst who attended
university in Hong Kong. "On paper they are the same ethnic group, but they are culturally
different."
Extradition law
The roots of the current protests can be traced to the
case of Chan Tong Kai . In February, he flew to Taiwan with his girlfriend, strangled her,
stuffed her body in a suitcase, dumped her in a field, and flew back to Hong Kong. Although he
confessed, he couldn't be sent to Taiwan because Hong Kong had no extradition treaty. (Hong
Kong has extradition agreements with 20 countries but not
China, Macao, and Taiwan.)
Hong Kong authorities couldn't charge Chan with a murder that took place elsewhere. So a
Hong Kong court
convicted him on a lesser charge and sentenced him to a few months in jail.
Outrage over the Chan case led Hong Kong legislators to draft a law that would allow
extradition to any country on a case by case basis. Taiwan later indicated it would not seek
Chan's extradition, making the murder case moot. But the extradition issue remained on the
table.
Critics claim the proposed law would enable China to extradite and imprison political
dissidents from Hong Kong. However, the bill's supporters point out that an extraditable
offense must be a crime in both China and Hong Kong, which protects Hongkongers from arbitrary
arrest. And the law specifically prohibits
extradition for political crimes.
In addition, the bill granted Hong Kong's chief executive the ability to review extradition
requests and allows for two separate judicial review processes. And according to the chief
executive's office, extradition would "only cover 37 offenses punishable with imprisonment for
seven years or above, and none of them prohibits the exercise of the right to freedom of
expression."
But many people in Hong Kong simply don't trust Beijing. They cite examples when China
remanded Hong Kong residents without following judicial procedures. "The Communist Party of
China no longer respects the two systems," says activist Leong. "It only respects the one
country."
Demonstrations
On March 31, Hongkongers marched and rallied against the proposed legislation. By June, the
mostly peaceful protests grew to hundreds of thousands. On June 9, organizers
said two million people marched, while police put the number at 338,000.
Then, in a preplanned action on July 1, hundreds of militants smashed
their way into Hong Kong's legislative offices, where they destroyed furniture and sprayed
anti-communist graffiti on the walls. They draped the union
jack flag over the speaker's podium.
Analyst Fowdy says displaying the British flag doesn't mean protesters want a return to
British rule. Rather, they want Hong Kong to "remain a special administrative region under
Chinese sovereignty. They don't want Hong Kong to be just another Chinese city."
Whatever the militants' intention, in my opinion, raising the British flag leaves the
impression that they favor independence. That plays into the hands of Western powers who have
long sought to divide China.
It's no coincidence that most mainstream media unabashedly support the protesters and seek
to excuse the violent actions. An opinion article in the Wall Street Journalurged
readers to see the vandalism as "an act of desperation after years of frustration." I've yet to
see the Journal apply that logic to Black Lives Matters protesters in the US.
Here's the bottom line: Hong Kong is Chinese; it's not an independent country. Any effort
towards independence angers mainland Chinese, not just the government in Beijing.
Contrary to the impression left by the mainstream media, Hong Kong opinion is divided on the
extradition law. On June 30, tens of thousands gathered for a
rally supporting extradition and backing the Hong Kong government. Legislators say they
collected 700,000 verified signatures on a
petition supporting the proposed law.
For now, however, the momentum is with the anti-government forces. Hong Kong Chief Executive
Carrie Lam suspended the bill from consideration and on July 9 declared it "dead." Critics say
that isn't enough. They want her to withdraw the legislation completely and to resign.
So demonstrations are likely to continue. China and Hong Kong will be struggling for many
years to determine exactly what "one country, two systems" really means.
Reese Erlich's nationally distributed column, Foreign Correspondent, appears every two
weeks. Follow him on Twitter ,
@ReeseErlich; friend him on Facebook ;
and visit his webpage .
An Iranian general yesterday
confirmed Magnier's take (also
here ):
A senior Iranian general has revealed that Washington, through diplomatic channels,
recently asked Tehran to allow it to conduct a small-scale operation in the Iranian
airspace in order to save its face following the IRGC's shoot-down of a US spy drone.
Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, the Head of Iran's Civil Defence Organization,
said Iran vehemently rejected the US request, saying that it will respond to any act of
aggression.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran responded that it views any operation as a war and will
give a crushing response to it. You may initiate a war but this is Iran which will finish
it," he said Sunday.
The idea that the U.S. would ask Iran to allow it to bomb some targets without hitting
back sounds crazy.
Dear Mr. Rouhani,
could you please name me three targets in your country that I am allowed to bomb?
It is urgent as I need to look tough on Iran.
Pretty please!
Donald Trump
But this is the Trump White House and the only thing Trump really seems to care for is his
own rating.
. . .that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to
be chosen by Iran,
Trump has experience in such a charade, when empty buildings were struck with US rockets
after the fake Syrian "gas attack" in Douma, April 2018. Probably the details were worked out
between US and Russia in that case. That it wasn't possible this time is a clear indication
of Iran strength. Stronger than Russia! Imagine that.
That Trump would come begging hat in hand seeking for Tehran to let the US bomb the country
unimpeded does not strike me as surprising or implausible. It fits Trump's trademark MO of
"chaotic, incoherent" to a 't', with a heavy dash of megalomania thrown in as well. Just
another day in the office for Trump.
The seizure of the Grace 1 is more intriguing for its brazen illegality as well as the
reported circumstances (if one can believe the Brits in their claim of boarding 2.5 miles
from shore). Was this another avenue of "maximum pressure" cooked up by Iran?
As for Iran seeking US military targets in the region, those sitting ducks will be the last
targets sought. Not that they might not, but that certainly would be nuclear option for
Tehran. There is much lower hanging fruit to target that would cripple the lackey Gulf
states. Hitting the desalination plants of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain would ruin
those economies overnight without risking environmental fallout. Iran would be hammered in
the MSM, but would be no matter their course of action. Those countries would have strategic
reserves of water, so I wouldn't imagine people actually dying of thirst in the desert, but
the next day there would be a biblical exodus of the ex-pats that run those economies. The
UAE would grind to a halt, there would be a possible overthrow of the monarchy of Bahrain,
and massive unrest in Saudi Arabia, without risking immediate gloves-off war with the US.
The cartoon has an element of truth, but mainly Trump is doing the bidding of his
pro-Israel billionaire funders, Sheldon Adelson and Robert Mercer. They are frustrated that
Trump has not been forceful enough with Iran.
An Iranian general yesterday
confirmed Magnier's take (also
here ):
A senior Iranian general has revealed that Washington, through diplomatic channels,
recently asked Tehran to allow it to conduct a small-scale operation in the Iranian
airspace in order to save its face following the IRGC's shoot-down of a US spy drone.
Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, the Head of Iran's Civil Defence Organization,
said Iran vehemently rejected the US request, saying that it will respond to any act of
aggression.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran responded that it views any operation as a war and will
give a crushing response to it. You may initiate a war but this is Iran which will finish
it," he said Sunday.
The idea that the U.S. would ask Iran to allow it to bomb some targets without hitting
back sounds crazy.
Dear Mr. Rouhani,
could you please name me three targets in your country that I am allowed to bomb?
It is urgent as I need to look tough on Iran.
Pretty please!
Donald Trump
But this is the Trump White House and the only thing Trump really seems to care for is his
own rating.
. . .that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to
be chosen by Iran,
Trump has experience in such a charade, when empty buildings were struck with US rockets
after the fake Syrian "gas attack" in Douma, April 2018. Probably the details were worked out
between US and Russia in that case. That it wasn't possible this time is a clear indication
of Iran strength. Stronger than Russia! Imagine that.
That Trump would come begging hat in hand seeking for Tehran to let the US bomb the country
unimpeded does not strike me as surprising or implausible. It fits Trump's trademark MO of
"chaotic, incoherent" to a 't', with a heavy dash of megalomania thrown in as well. Just
another day in the office for Trump.
The seizure of the Grace 1 is more intriguing for its brazen illegality as well as the
reported circumstances (if one can believe the Brits in their claim of boarding 2.5 miles
from shore). Was this another avenue of "maximum pressure" cooked up by Iran?
As for Iran seeking US military targets in the region, those sitting ducks will be the last
targets sought. Not that they might not, but that certainly would be nuclear option for
Tehran. There is much lower hanging fruit to target that would cripple the lackey Gulf
states. Hitting the desalination plants of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain would ruin
those economies overnight without risking environmental fallout. Iran would be hammered in
the MSM, but would be no matter their course of action. Those countries would have strategic
reserves of water, so I wouldn't imagine people actually dying of thirst in the desert, but
the next day there would be a biblical exodus of the ex-pats that run those economies. The
UAE would grind to a halt, there would be a possible overthrow of the monarchy of Bahrain,
and massive unrest in Saudi Arabia, without risking immediate gloves-off war with the US.
The cartoon has an element of truth, but mainly Trump is doing the bidding of his
pro-Israel billionaire funders, Sheldon Adelson and Robert Mercer. They are frustrated that
Trump has not been forceful enough with Iran.
"... It is the Iranian (upper/middle class) exiles who hate and detest the revolutionary regime, because the regime has deprived them of the right to rule, that they thought was their hereditary ..."
"... But the Gulf States don't give a fig about that. They are concerned about the simple renaissance of Iranian power, which might deprive the Sunni potentates of their own position. ..."
"... Yes, it is precisely Iran's success that threatens the Gulf Autocrats, Israel, and Uncle Sugar, each for slightly different reasons, or perhaps the same reasons in different amounts. ..."
Crooke points out, correctly I believe, that the real issue is not nuclear, or the
oft-repeated foolish "largest state sponsor of terrorism," it is the revolutionary basis of
Iran's success in the Middle East, besting the Gulf dictators.
That bit about the revolution, I don't agree with. It's more the Iranian
renaissance that the Gulf States fear.
Two separate aspects need to be distinguished:
1) It is the Iranian (upper/middle class) exiles who hate and detest the revolutionary regime, because the regime has
deprived them of the right to rule, that they thought was their hereditary right. Even within Iran, upper/middle class people I met had the same
attitude - a kind of hurt that they weren't running the country. The regime is of course
populist.
2) But the Gulf States don't give a fig about that. They are concerned about the simple
renaissance of Iranian power, which might deprive the Sunni potentates of their own position.
The classic case is of course Bahrain, where the "king" is Sunni, and the vast mass of the
population Shi'a, and they're kept down by force, supported by the guns of the US 5th fleet.
But the case of Saudi is much more serious, because it's so much bigger, and every single oil
well is sitting under the feet of the Shi'a, and there are none anywhere else, certainly not
in the Saudi homeland of Najd, which is real camel-herder territory (to which we can expect
the Saudi princes to return, if ever the poor suffering Shi'a ever manage a successful
revolt).
Yes, it is precisely Iran's success that threatens the Gulf Autocrats, Israel, and Uncle
Sugar, each for slightly different reasons, or perhaps the same reasons in different
amounts.
Those being: it's Shiia, it's populist, and it was indeed a political revolution. And for
all of them it represents a viable alternative to the way they wanted things to be. Now, I
think, it's too late. Many will take note of what they have done and how, it will be
studied.
As b mentioned, stay tuned for a major op. against the British East India
Company.
from the Tehran Times:
TEHRAN – Iran's Judiciary Chief Ebrahim Raisi has demanded an immediate release of
an Iranian oil tanker seized by the British government, Fars reported.
"It seems that the British and Europeans are well aware of the Islamic Republic's reach
and potential , and accordingly, it is to their own benefit that they immediately release
this oil tanker, otherwise they should await the ramifications of their action," Raisi said
on Monday.
"... There is at present no other powerful leadership group that is so adamantly unwilling to compromise with the U.S. The potential loss of U.S. control over Middle East oil being at the root of it. ..."
"... The Saudis et al have it, and Israel is a forward operating base for protecting it. The Saudi royal family rightly fear an Iran-inspired popular uprising against them and Israel fears the loss of lands granted to them by their invisible friend as related in a popular fairy tale. ..."
"... Iran is a relatively large country with a semi independent foreign policy and banking,/ financial system, and they want to control their own resources independent of western dictates about opening up their system to the neo liberal system. ..."
"... Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then. ..."
"... Iran was after WW2 a client state of both the US and the UK, the latter installing the Shah as a ruler. Iran was important for the US and the UK through its oil resources and its border with the USSR. ..."
"... Iran is still a major player when it comes to oil, but contrary to the Shah years quite hostile to the aspirations of Israel to become the “western” power in the middle east. ..."
"... The enmity clearest showed up when Israel and the USA supplied Saddam Hussein with intelligence and Germany and France with the capability to produce chemical weapons during the Iraq/Iran war. ..."
"... America essentially followed the old British approach towards Iran: keep it semi-alive so that it can put up enough resistance to the USSR until America’s more important and intrinsic interests, such as those in the Persian Gulf, were safeguarded. But Washington never wanted to turn Iran into a strong ally that one day might be capable of challenging America. ..."
"... By changing the international balance of power and removing the risk of Soviet penetration, the USSR’s fall eliminated Iran’s value to the United States even as a buffer state. In fact, the fundamental shift to a US approach based on the principle of no compromise, can be traced to 1987, when Gorbachev’s reforms began. ..."
"... Since then, the United States has refused to accept any solution to the Iran problem that has not involved the country’s absolute capitulation. ..."
"... For instance, in 2003, Iran offered to put all the outstanding issues between the two countries on the table for negotiations, but the US refused. ..."
"... Because Iran refuses to be a second-class citizen in its own neighborhood. Theirs is an ancient culture whose legacy to the world is enormous, their history is the stuff of legend, and they are the geopolitical power player in the region, not to mention the most powerful Shia Muslim nation. ..."
>>US President Donald Trump’s ruthless use of the centrality of his country’s financial system and the dollar to force economic
partners to abide by his unilateral sanctions on Iran has forced the world to recognise the political price of asymmetric economic
interdependence.
Why is Iran such a high priority for so many US elites?
Just spit-balling here: The Iranian leadership, with good cause, wants to diminish or eliminate the U.S. grip on the region
and this subversive, potentially destabilizing sentiment resonates among the citizenry of various Middle Eastern countries.
There is at present no other powerful leadership group that is so adamantly unwilling to compromise with the U.S. The potential
loss of U.S. control over Middle East oil being at the root of it.
The Saudis et al have it, and Israel is a forward operating base for protecting it. The Saudi royal family rightly fear
an Iran-inspired popular uprising against them and Israel fears the loss of lands granted to them by their invisible friend as
related in a popular fairy tale.
This is hardly definitive and I’m sure others could elaborate.
Iran is a relatively large country with a semi independent foreign policy and banking,/ financial system, and they want to
control their own resources independent of western dictates about opening up their system to the neo liberal system.
I’m sure this is obvious to most people at this kind of web site and is overly simplistic but i sense sometimes some people
are shocked about the conflict with Iran and don’t get that basic dynamic of this conflict.
Why is Iran such a high priority for so many US elites?
Iran was after WW2 a client state of both the US and the UK, the latter installing the Shah as a ruler. Iran was important
for the US and the UK through its oil resources and its border with the USSR.
Mossadegh, by nationalising the oil supply until, played against the status and he was overthrown in a MI/CIA sponsored coup
in 1953, leaving the Shah as the sole ruler in Iran till the revolution of 1979 when Iran came under theocratic rule and basically
diminished the power the US had throughout the years of the Shah’s rule.
The US was also shown to be quite powerless -- short of an invasion -- to deal with the hostage crisis in the US embassy, which
was finally after more than a year resolved with the help of Canada.
Iran is still a major player when it comes to oil, but contrary to the Shah years quite hostile to the aspirations of Israel
to become the “western” power in the middle east.
The enmity clearest showed up when Israel and the USA supplied Saddam Hussein with intelligence and Germany and France with
the capability to produce chemical weapons during the Iraq/Iran war.
This U.S. approach towards Iran has been the result of its lack of an intrinsic interest in the country. The same was true
of Britain. The late Sir Denis Right, the UK’s ambassador to Iran in the 1960s, put it best by writing that Britain never considered
Iran of sufficient value to colonize it. But it found Iran useful as a buffer against the competing great power, the Russian
Empire. Thus, British policy towards Iran was to keep it moribund but not dead, at least not as long as the Russian threat
persisted.
America essentially followed the old British approach towards Iran: keep it semi-alive so that it can put up enough resistance
to the USSR until America’s more important and intrinsic interests, such as those in the Persian Gulf, were safeguarded. But
Washington never wanted to turn Iran into a strong ally that one day might be capable of challenging America.
By changing the international balance of power and removing the risk of Soviet penetration, the USSR’s fall eliminated
Iran’s value to the United States even as a buffer state. In fact, the fundamental shift to a US approach based on the principle
of no compromise, can be traced to 1987, when Gorbachev’s reforms began.
Since then, the United States has refused to accept any solution to the Iran problem that has not involved the country’s
absolute capitulation.
For instance, in 2003, Iran offered to put all the outstanding issues between the two countries on the table for negotiations,
but the US refused.
Because Iran refuses to be a second-class citizen in its own neighborhood. Theirs is an ancient culture whose legacy to the
world is enormous, their history is the stuff of legend, and they are the geopolitical power player in the region, not to mention
the most powerful Shia Muslim nation.
"... The current batch of military hardware is so much garbage that when the President wants to use the "superb" pieces of crap (F35 and the new boats are prime examples) a general will have to become the sacrificial lamb and give the president the news that this stuff is for show only. ..."
Peace though procurement malpractice. The current batch of military hardware is so much
garbage that when the President wants to use the "superb" pieces of crap (F35 and the new
boats are prime examples) a general will have to become the sacrificial lamb and give the
president the news that this stuff is for show only.
Pretty superficial article, but some points are interesting. Especially the fact that the collapse of neoliberalism
like collapse of Bolshevism is connected with its inability to raise the standard of living of population in major Western
countries, despite looting of the USSR and Middle eastern countries since 1991. Spoils of victory in the Cold War never got to
common people. All was appropriated by greedy "New Class" of neoliberal oligarchs.
The same was true with Bolshevism in the USSR. The communist ideology was dead after WWII when it became clear that
"proletariat" is not a new class destined to take over and the "iron law of oligarchy" was discovered. Collapse happened
in 45 years since the end of WWII. Neoliberal ideology was dead in 2008. It would be interesting to see if neoliberalism
as a social system survives past 2050.
The level of degeneration of the USA elite probably exceeds the level of degeneration of Nomenklatura even now.
Notable quotes:
"... A big reason why liberal democracies in Europe have remained relatively stable since WWII is that most Europeans have had hope that their lives will improve. A big reason why the radical vote has recently been on the rise in several European countries is that part of the electorate has lost this hope. People are increasingly worried that not only their own lives but also the lives of their children will not improve and that the playing field is not level. ..."
"... As a result, the traditional liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with the electorate, conceding ground to the alternative package of the radical right that consists of external protectionism and internal liberalisation ..."
"... Mr Mody said the bottom half of German society has not seen any increase in real incomes in a generation. ..."
"... The reforms pushed seven million people into part-time 'mini-jobs' paying €450 (£399) a month. It lead to corrosive "pauperisation". This remains the case even though the economy is humming and surging exports have pushed the current account surplus to 8.5pc of GDP." ..."
"... "British referendum on EU membership can be explained to a remarkable extent as a vote against globalisation much more than immigration " ..."
"... As an FYI to the author immigration is just the flip side of the same coin. Why were immigrants migrating? Often it's because they can no longer make a living where they left. Why? Often globalization impacts. ..."
"... The laws of biology and physics and whatever else say that the host that is being parasitised upon, cannot support the endless growth of the parasites attached upon it. The unfortunate host will eventually die. ..."
"... "negative effects of globalisation: foreign competition, factory closures, persistent unemployment, stagnating purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructures and public services" ..."
"... he ruling elites have broken away from the people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people. ..."
"... One of the things we must do in Russia is never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a better future. ..."
"... "If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ~ Michael Hudson ..."
"... I'm surprised more people don't vote for neo-fascist parties like the Golden Dawn. Ordinary liberal politics has completely failed them. ..."
The more a local economy has been negatively affected by the two shocks, the more its
electors have shifted towards the radical right and its policy packages. These packages
typically combine the retrenchment against international openness and the liberalisation of the
internal market and more convincingly address the demand for protection by an electorate that,
after the austerity following the Crisis, no longer trusts alternatives based on more liberal
stances on foreign relations and the parallel promise of a stronger welfare state.
A big reason why liberal democracies in Europe have remained relatively stable since WWII is
that most Europeans have had hope that their lives will improve. A big reason why the radical
vote has recently been on the rise in several European countries is that part of the electorate
has lost this hope. People are increasingly worried that not only their own lives but also the
lives of their children will not improve and that the playing field is not level.
On the one hand, despite some progress in curtailing 'tax havens' in recent years, there has
never been as much wealth in tax havens as there is today (Zucman 2015). This is seen as unfair
because, if public goods and services (including those required to help the transition to a
'green economy') have to be provided in the regions where such hidden wealth comes from, lost
tax revenues have to be compensated for by higher taxes on law-abiding households.
On the other hand, fairness is also undermined by dwindling social mobility. In the last
decades, social mobility has slowed down across large parts of the industrialised world (OECD
2018), both within and between generations. Social mobility varies greatly across regions
within countries, correlates positively with economic activity, education, and social capital,
and negatively with inequality (Güell at al. 2018). Renewed migration from the South to
the North of Europe after the Crisis (Van Mol and de Valk 2016) is a testimony of the widening
relative lack of opportunities in the places that have suffered the most from competition from
low-wage countries.
Concluding Remarks
Globalisation has come accompanied by the Great Convergence between countries around the
world but also the Great Divergence between regions within several industrialised countries.
The same holds within the EU. In recent years, redistributive policies have had only a very
limited impact in terms of reversing growing regional inequality.
As a result, the traditional
liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with
the electorate, conceding ground to the alternative package of the radical right that consists
of external protectionism and internal liberalisation.
This is both inefficient and unlikely to
lead to more regional convergence. What the political and policy debate in Europe is arguably
missing is a clearer focus on two of the main underlying causes of peoples' growing distrust in
national and international institutions: fiscal fairness and social mobility.
Right. It would be better to say "the traditional New Deal liberal package " has not lost
its appeal, it was killed off bit by bit starting with NAFTA. From a 2016 Thomas Frank essay
in Salon:
That appeal to [educated credentialed] class unity gives a hint of what Clintonism was
all about. To owners and shareholders, who would see labor costs go down as they took
advantage of unorganized Mexican labor and lax Mexican environmental enforcement, NAFTA held
fantastic promise. To American workers, it threatened to send their power, and hence their
wages, straight down the chute. To the mass of the professional-managerial class, people who
weren't directly threatened by the treaty, holding an opinion on NAFTA was a matter of
deferring to the correct experts -- economists in this case, 283 of whom had signed a
statement declaring the treaty "will be a net positive for the United States, both in terms
of employment creation and overall economic growth."
The predictions of people who opposed the agreement turned out to be far closer to what
eventually came to pass than did the rosy scenarios of those 283 economists and the
victorious President Clinton. NAFTA was supposed to encourage U.S. exports to Mexico; the
opposite is what happened, and in a huge way. NAFTA was supposed to increase employment in
the U.S.; a study from 2010 counts almost 700,000 jobs lost in America thanks to the treaty.
And, as feared, the agreement gave one class in America enormous leverage over the other:
employers now routinely threaten to move their operations to Mexico if their workers
organize. A surprisingly large number of them -- far more than in the pre-NAFTA days -- have
actually made good on the threat.
Twenty years later, the broader class divide over the subject persists as well.
According to a 2014 survey of attitudes toward NAFTA after two decades, public opinion
remains split. But among people with professional degrees -- which is to say, the liberal
class -- the positive view remains the default. Knowing that free-trade treaties are always
for the best -- even when they empirically are not -- seems to have become for the
well-graduated a badge of belonging.
The only internal redistribution that's happened in the past 25 – 30 yearsis from
the bottom 80% to the top 10% and especially to the top 1/10th of 1 %.
Not hard to imagine why the current internal redistribution model has lost its appeal with
the electorate.
I think there are two different globalizations that people are responding to.
1. Their jobs go away to somewhere in the globe that has lower wages, lower labor
protections, and lower environmental protections. So their community largely stays the same
but with dwindling job prospects and people slowly moving away.
2. The world comes to their community where they see immigrants (legal, illegal, refugees)
coming in and are willing to work harder for less, as well as having different appearance,
languages, religion, and customs. North America has always had this as we are built on
immigration. Europe is much more focused on terroire. If somebody or something has only been
there for a century, they are new.
If you combine both in a community, you have lit a stick of dynamite as the locals feel
trapped with no way out. Then you get Brexit and Trump. In the US, many jobs were sent
overseas and so new people coming in are viewed as competitors and agents of change instead
of just new hired help. The same happened in Britain. In mainland Europe with less inequality
and more job protection, it is more of just being overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of
newcomers in a society that does not prize that at all.
I saw the warning signs when Golden Dawn appeared in Greece
The liberals said it was just a one off, as they always do, until it isn't.
How did successful Germany turn into a country where extremism would flourish?
The Hartz IV reforms created the economic hardship that causes extremism to flourish.
"Germany is turning to soft nationalism. People on low incomes are voting against authority
because the consensus on equality and justice has broken down. It is the same pattern across
Europe," said Ashoka Mody, a former bail-out chief for the International Monetary Fund in
Europe.
Mr Mody said the bottom half of German society has not seen any increase in real
incomes in a generation. The Hartz IV reforms in 2003 and 2004 made it easier to fire
workers, leading to wage compression as companies threatened to move plants to Eastern
Europe.
The reforms pushed seven million people into part-time 'mini-jobs' paying €450
(£399) a month. It lead to corrosive "pauperisation". This remains the case even though
the economy is humming and surging exports have pushed the current account surplus to 8.5pc
of GDP."
This is a successful European country, imagine what the others look like.
"British referendum on EU membership can be explained to a remarkable extent as a vote
against globalisation much more than immigration "
As an FYI to the author immigration is just the flip side of the same coin. Why were
immigrants migrating? Often it's because they can no longer make a living where they left.
Why? Often globalization impacts.
Another recap about that really just mourns the lack of trust in the establishment, with
no answers. More "I can't believe people are sick to death of experts of dubious skills but
networking "
What it is just admitted that a system that can only work great for 20% of any given
population if they are born in the right region with the right last name just simply not work
except as an exercise in extraction?
And about the EU as if it could never be taken over by bigger authoritatians than the ones
already populating it.
Then see how much those who think it is some forever bastion of liberalism over sovereignity
likes it .
"Another recap about that really just mourns the lack of trust in the establishment,
with no answers."
Usually it involves replacing the establishment or creating an internal threat to
reinstate compliance in the establish (Strauss and Howe).
Strategies for initiate the former may be impossible in this era where the deep state can
read your thoughts through digital media so you would like it would trend to the latter.
Mmmmm, yes, migration, globalisation and such like.
But, unregulated migration into an established environment, say a country, say, UK, on one
hand furthers profits to those benefiting from low labour wages (mainly, friends of people
working for governments), but on the other leads to creation of parallel societies, where the
incoming population brings along the society they strived to escape from. The Don calls these
sh***hole societies. Why bring the f***ing thing here, why not leave it where you escaped
from.
But the real betrayal of the native population happens when all those unregulated migrants
are afforded immediate right to social security, full access to NHS and other aspects of
state support, services that they have not paid one penny in support before accessing that
particular government funded trough. And then the parasitic growth of their "family and
extended family" comes along under the banner of "human rights".
This is the damnation of the whole of Western Civilisation which had been hollowed out
from within by the most devious layer of parasitic growth, the government apparatus. The
people we pay for under the auspices that they are doing some work for us, are enforcing
things that treat the income generators, the tax paying society as serfs whose primary
function in life is to support the parasites (immigrants) and parasite enablers
(government).
The laws of biology and physics and whatever else say that the host that is being
parasitised upon, cannot support the endless growth of the parasites attached upon it. The
unfortunate host will eventually die.
Understanding of this concept is most certainly within mental capabilities of all those
employed as the "governing classes " that we are paying for through our taxes.
Until such time when legislation is enacted that each and every individual member of
"government classes " is made to pay, on an indemnity basis, through financial damages,
forced labour, organs stripping or custodial penalties, for every penny (or cent, sorry,
yanks), of damage they inflict on us taxpayers, we are all just barking.
This piece does an admirable job conflating globalisation and the ills caused by the
neoliberal capture of social democratic parties/leaders. Did people just happen to lose hope,
or were they actively betrayed? We are left to guess.
"negative effects of globalisation: foreign competition, factory closures, persistent
unemployment, stagnating purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructures and public
services"
Note that these ills could also be laid at the feet of the austerity movement, and the
elimination/privatisation of National Industrial Policy, both cornerstones of the neoliberal
infestation.
Not only is globalization not new, all of the issues that come with it are old news.
All of it.
Part of the problem is that the global economic order is still in service to the same old
same old. They have to rebrand every so often to keep the comfortable even more comfortable.
Those tasked with keeping the comfortable more comfortable have to present this crap as "new
ideas" for their own careerism or actually do not realize they haven't espoused a new idea in
500 years.
Putin's recent interview with Financial Times editor offers a clear-eyed perspective on
our changing global structure:
"What is happening in the West? What is the reason for the Trump phenomenon, as you said,
in the US? What is happening in Europe as well? The ruling elites have broken away from the
people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the
overwhelming majority of the people.
Of course, we must always bear this in mind. One of the things we must do in Russia is
never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to
create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a
better future.
You know, it seems to me that purely liberal or purely traditional ideas have never
existed. Probably, they did once exist in the history of humankind, but everything very
quickly ends in a deadlock if there is no diversity. Everything starts to become extreme one
way or another.
Various ideas and various opinions should have a chance to exist and manifest themselves,
but at the same time interests of the general public, those millions of people and their
lives, should never be forgotten. This is something that should not be overlooked.
Then, it seems to me, we would be able to avoid major political upheavals and troubles.
This applies to the liberal idea as well. It does not mean (I think, this is ceasing to be a
dominating factor) that it must be immediately destroyed. This point of view, this position
should also be treated with respect.
They cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do
over the recent decades. Diktat can be seen everywhere: both in the media and in real life.
It is deemed unbecoming even to mention some topics. But why?
For this reason, I am not a fan of quickly shutting, tying, closing, disbanding
everything, arresting everybody or dispersing everybody. Of course, not. The liberal idea
cannot be destroyed either; it has the right to exist and it should even be supported in some
things. But you should not think that it has the right to be the absolute dominating factor.
That is the point. Please." ~ Vladmir Putin
He's talking about the end of neoliberalism, the economic fascism that has gripped the
world for over 40 years:
"If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you
cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago
School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE
(finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ~
Michael Hudson
Let's get back to using fiscal policy for public purpose again, to granting nations their
right to self-determination and stopping the latest desperate neoliberal attempt to change
international norms by installing fascist dictators (while pretending they are different) in
order to move the world backwards to a time when "efforts to institutionalize standards of
human and civil rights were seen as impingements on sovereignty, back to the days when no one
gave a second thought to oppressed peoples."
Very interesting article, and even more interesting conversation! There is a type of
argument that very accurately points out some ills that need addressing, and then goes on to
spout venom on the only system that might be able to address those ills.
It may be that the
governing classes are making life easy for themselves. How to address that is the hard and
difficult issue. Most of the protection of the small people comes from government.
Healthcare, schools, roads, water etc.(I'm in scandinavia).
If the government crumbles, the
small people have to leave. The most dreadful tyranny is better than a failed state with
warring factions.
The only viable way forward is to somehow improve the system while it is
(still) running. But this discussion I do not see anywhere.
If the discussion does not
happen, there will not be any suggestions for improvement, so everything stays the same.
Change is inevitable – it what state it will catch us is the important thing. A cashier
at a Catalonian family vineyard told me the future is local and global: the next level from
Catalonia will be EU. What are the steps needed to go there?
Same old, Same old. Government is self-corrupting and is loath to change. People had
enough July fourth 1776.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness."
FWIW: The fireworks we watch every Fourth of July holiday are symbolic!!!!
The cashier seems to be envisioning a neoliberal paradise where the nation-state no longer
exists. But who, then, collects the taxes that will pay for infrastructure, healthcare,
education, public housing, and unemployment insurance? The European Parliament?
Will Germans
and Finns be willing to pay high taxes in order to pay for those services for Greeks and
Spaniards?
Look at the unemployment rate in Greece the Germans would simply say that the
Greeks are lazy parasites and don't want to work (rather than understand that the economic
conditions don't allow for job creation), and they would vote for MEPs that vote to cut taxes
and welfare programs.
But maybe this was the plan all along you create this neoliberal paradise, and slowly but
surely, people will dismantle all but the bare bones of the welfare state.
I believe that one of the fundamental flaws in the logic behind the EU is this assumption
of mobility. Proponents of the EU imagine society to be how it is described in economics
textbooks: a bunch of individual actors seeking to maximize their incomes that don't seem to
exist in any geographic context. The reality is that people are born into families and
communities that speak a language. Most of them probably don't want to just pack up all of
their things, relocate, and leave their family and home behind every time they get a new job.
People throughout history have always had a very strong connection to the land on which they
were raised and the society into which they were brought up; more accurately, for most of
human history, this formed the entire existence, the entire universe, of most people
(excluding certain oppressed groups, such as slaves or the conquered).
Human beings are not able to move as freely as capital. While euros in Greece can be sent
to and used instantly in Germany, it is not so easy for a Greek person to leave the society
that their ancestors have lived in for thousands of years and move to a new country with a
new culture and language. For privileged people that get to travel, this doesn't sound so
bad, but for someone whose family has lived in the same place for centuries and never learned
to speak another language, this experience would be extremely difficult. For many people over
the age of 25, it might not even be a life worth living.
In the past, economic difficulties would lead to a depreciation of a nation's currency and
inflation. But within the current structure of the Eurozone, it results in deflation as euros
escape to the core countries (mainly Germany) and unemployment. Southern Europeans are
expected to leave everything they have ever known behind and move to the countries where
there is work, like Germany or Holland. Maybe for a well-educated worldly 18 year old, that's
not so bad, but what about a newly laid-off working class 35 year-old with a wife and kids
and no college degree? He's supposed to just pick up his family and leave his parents and
relatives behind, learn German, and spend the rest of his life and Germany? His kids now have
to be German? Would he even be able to get a job there, anyway? Doing what? And how is he
supposed to stop this from happening, how is he supposed to organize politically to keep jobs
at home? The Greek government can hardly do anything because the IMF, ECB, and European
Commission (all unelected officials) call the shots and don't give them any fiscal breathing
room (and we saw what happened the last time voters tried to assert their autonomy in the
bailout deal referendum), and the European Parliament doesn't have a serious budget to
actually do anything.
I'm surprised more people don't vote for neo-fascist parties like the
Golden Dawn. Ordinary liberal politics has completely failed them.
"... Buying S400 and losing F35 is a win win. ..."
"... Trump administration currently sees Turkey is essentially as a lever in relation to Iran. He suspects Erdo & Trump have a deal since the G20 whereby S-400 sanctions may be held in abeyance, in return for Turkey's acquiescence to, or even assistance with the maximum pressure campaign. ..."
"... Erdogan is still in the regime-changers' sights, under siege in all areas and consequently in a very weak position. I think those forecasting a full-scale defection into Russia's orbit misunderstand the realities of the maximum pressure campaign on Turkey itself and much further it can be pushed if need be. IMO it is more likely NATO will eventually welcome the reluctant black sheep back into the fold. ..."
"... Turkey is going to get their $4.3 billion dollars back at about the same time that Iran gets all of its money back, and Venezuela gets its gold back from the Bank of England - that is to say, never. As soon as Turkey asks for its money back, the US govt will impose sanctions on Turkey and that will be that. ..."
"... Any energy corridor that goes from the Persian Gulf to Europe has to pass through Turkey and also has to pass through either Syria or Iraq. The fact that Syria and Iraq are now effectively in Russia's sphere of influence makes a Turkish-Russian alliance make all the more sense. ..."
"... Reports from several months ago indicate the S-400 was cheaper than the Patriot, more mobile, and Russia was willing to share the technology and the US wasn't. Could be the S-400 being a better deal value factored in there somewhere. Putin? He's a businessman too. ..."
What is most interesting to me, is that the Russian air force is actually pounding
Turkey's militant allies on the ground in Idlib, but both men (Erdogan and Putin) are still
strengthening their ties thru Turkstream, Russian tourism and building of a nuclear power
plant. Diplomacy seems to have surpassed conditions on the ground in Syria.
Also, Iran's leaders feel slightly betrayed by Putin's deference to Erdogan. They must
believe (as I do) that Putin has agreed to allow Turkey to occupy parts of Syria following
the war.
Turkey has been very consistent on this issue from the very beginning...and it has plans
to resettle parts of N Syria with the nearly 3 million refugees it is housing in S
Turkey.
Many critics will blame Putin for betraying Assad, but I think he is merely showing that
he is a master negotiator who recognizes the importance of 'good' relations with Turkey, and
knows he will not get everything he wants in Syria. Compromise with Turkey opens up a path to
ending the war and for pressuring US-Turkey relations which continue to worsen as Washington
continues to support a de facto Kurdistan in E Syria.
M K Bhadrakumar is a great source for following the frenetic pace of developments in
Eurasian geopolitics and he covered this very topic yesterday (see link).
His view of where the Trump administration currently sees Turkey is essentially as a
lever in relation to Iran. He suspects Erdo & Trump have a deal since the G20 whereby
S-400 sanctions may be held in abeyance, in return for Turkey's acquiescence to, or even
assistance with the maximum pressure campaign.
Whilst S-400 delivery is contrary to US/NATO wishes/policy, it makes sense to me that it
gets treated as a second order issue in this context. Turkey also wants Iran out of Syria,
but if pushed even further into a corner Turkey could make life difficult for the US on Iran
and therefore even potentially endanger Trump's re-election chances.
Erdogan is still in the regime-changers' sights, under siege in all areas and
consequently in a very weak position. I think those forecasting a full-scale defection into
Russia's orbit misunderstand the realities of the maximum pressure campaign on Turkey itself
and much further it can be pushed if need be. IMO it is more likely NATO will eventually
welcome the reluctant black sheep back into the fold.
The slippery Sultan has pushed it to the limit, but the anti-Iran coalition now needs him
- at least in the short term. My guess is he gets to keep his shiny new AD system.
Where
Turkey chooses to put it is a very interesting question; facing its ancient enemy in the
West, or perhaps sited to cover the Cyprus EEZ and its oil?
Does anyone understand the F35 deal between the participating partner nations.
Wikipedia say Turkey is a level 3 partner which cost it $4.3 billion and that sales are
handled via the Pentagon.
Who decides if a partner in the project can be denied the right to
buy their product? What I did not see is what F35 components were produced in Turkey and if
they stopped exports what redundancy their was in the system.
Can Turkey say fine I will take my $4.3 billion back as the Russians and Chinese have both
made me very attractive offers?
Turkey is going to get their $4.3 billion dollars back at about the same time that Iran
gets all of its money back, and Venezuela gets its gold back from the Bank of England - that
is to say, never. As soon as Turkey asks for its money back, the US govt will impose
sanctions on Turkey and that will be that.
Regarding #1 and #2: S-400 is already in Algeria. And it will be in India by next year.
Reuters claims that Trump's good buddy King Salman signed a deal with Russia to buy S-400s.
Reuters also reported that Qatar was considering an S-400 purchase. So why is Pom-Pom only
jumping on Turkey's back and not castigating the Saudis, Qataris, Algeriens, and Indians
about the S-400? Keeping F-35 stealth capability from snooping by S-400s is the stated reason
we don't want Turkey to have the S-400.
But when carrier based F35s are flying in the eastern Med, that stealth capability could
be snooped on by the Algerien systems (or by Russian "field service reps" in Algeria with
those systems). Ditto for the F35s in Italy. Could Israeli F35 stealth already be jeopardized
by Russian system at Khmeimim AB in Syria?
#3 Idiots. But they are being used by Trump. He puts them up to it, so that he can pull
back at the last minute and be Mr World Peace.
#4: State owned Rossiya TV lampooned Trump's Fourth of July celebration. Called it
фигня (pronounced as 'fignya' and translates as bullshit). They
mocked the tanks on display, said "the paint on these vehicles is peeling off. They have
no cannons, and the optics were pasted on with adhesive tape" . Host Yevgeny Popov called
the President "our Donald Trump" . Co-host Olga Skabeeva calls the parade "Putin's
America" .
#5: See #3
#6 & 7: I was hoping #6 would stall #7, but I have serious doubts.
Is the S-400 in Algeria already? I have found reports that it was scheduled to be
delivered in 2015 - but I can't find any reports on it actually being delivered. I don't
think the Russians would have sold it to anyone other than Belarus and China until they had
the S-500 ready to go.
Wiki says yes but their references to it are speculative.
Besides those there is a Business Insider article, German Edition, which claims Algeria
has the S-400. It was dated last November.
Plus there is a report on Sputnik re S-400 in Algeria. But that is based on a
MENAdefense.net article, which has photos (irrefutable they claim??) of several S-400
launchers in Algeria. Plus BAZ-64022 truck-tractors which are used with the S-400 and NOT the
S-300. So maybe they do and are trying to hide the fact in order to avoid sanctions? Or maybe
they have upgraded their S-300 PMU-2s to the PMU-3, which is a close match to the S-400. Or
perhaps it is all propaganda?
Regarding the F35 and the S400, the obvious thing to do is to let them have both and swap
information. We get S400 info and Russia gets F35 data.......except erdo will try and screw
both of us.
I believe Putin's goal is to transform Turkey from a NATO state into an integral part of
Russia's near abroad to eventually secure a guaranteed access to the Mediterranean and beyond
and have a reliable buffer between Russia and Middle East. It's ensuring peace of mind, not
rebuilding an empire.
I think Putin's goal is more about forming a partnership with Turkey to build an energy
corridor through Turkey to Europe. Control of this corridor, or at least membership in the
alliance that controls this corridor, is a big deal from a geopolitical standpoint.
Thus Russia and Turkey can form something along the lines of an "OPEC on steroids" -
Turkey can control who gets to pipe hydrocarbons to Europe and Russia can provide protection
to those who wish to join their alliance (as they have already done for Syria).
Any energy corridor that goes from the Persian Gulf to Europe has to pass through
Turkey and also has to pass through either Syria or Iraq. The fact that Syria and Iraq are
now effectively in Russia's sphere of influence makes a Turkish-Russian alliance make all the
more sense.
What Turkey has to gain from such an arrangement is not only transit fees for the
hydrocarbons, but also a chance to develop their economy - if Turkey is at the head of the
line for receipt of hydrocarbons to Europe, they are at the head of the line for building
industry and businesses which use those hydrocarbons as inputs (eg refineries, plastics,
aluminum, chemical production).
Access to the Med is already guaranteed by treaty just as is access to the Black Sea.
Access beyond the Med is controlled at the Suez and the pillars of Hercules.
Guaranteed during peacetime. During any hostilities you can throw that treaty out the
window.
Which is why TTG is correct that Putin's goal is to get Turkey out of NATO. And he may
doublecross Assad by blessing Turkey's permanent occupation (or annexation) of those four
districts of northern Aleppo Province (i.e. Afrin, Azaz, al-Bab, & Jarabulus). As payment
for getting out of NATO.
Until you fix the problem with, according to a poll, 56% of American parents not wanting
Arabic numerals taught to their children. I suspect that an equal number would not be able to
find any of the mentioned places on a map.
Where those with crystal balls find certainty, I find something much less. We do know that
containment polices can work very well, but any involvement in the world's longest contested
area is not worth the cost, nor the risk. The US has already spent a fortune, with very
little to show for it.
Reports from several months ago indicate the S-400 was cheaper than the Patriot, more
mobile, and Russia was willing to share the technology and the US wasn't. Could be the S-400
being a better deal value factored in there somewhere. Putin? He's a businessman
too.
Yosemite Sam Bolton is probably being told to go out there and do his thing, and suffering
from whip-lash when Trump yanks the carpet out from under them without apology. The poor dear
must be like...
Went on Kunstler's website with the tasteless name and read comment about Hannity
screaming to bomb Iran. And if Mr. Kunstler's facts are correct I imagine the Republicans
will be saving Mueller's answers for the next election. Whatever Mr. Kunstler has to say, he
says it well. What a mess. The way the bad guys have dug in and rigged the election process
and the "News" business, it is difficult to imagine anything can change.
The controls of our society have become so efficient it is tempting to say what the hell
and see if there is a good old film or an meaningful sporting event and let it go at
that.
In saying that, it brings to mind the other CN article about anti-war sentiment and
organizing against war and the war machine that has gone missing makes the point very well. I
do think the protest against the Iraq war was a watershed moment, when the protests were
simply ignored, and the in your face response by the powers that be.
Eddie S , July 4, 2019 at 10:01
"I do think the protest against the Iraq war was a watershed moment, when the protests
were simply ignored, and the in your face response by the powers that be."
Yes, I know that the whole Iraq War-crime episode was an extremely disheartening episode
to myself and millions of others who had marched in protest. It was horrible enough when the
neo-cons were able to blatantly orchestrate an illegal invasion (with the obeisance of the
long-cowed Democrats), but the RE-election of 'W' -- a year after the non-existence of the
WMDs was proven by our OWN invading military -- was in a political sense worse because it
showed that the majority of the US public was indifferent to illegal US invasions of other
countries, so there would be little resistance in the future to these 'wars'.
It was only when the media was portraying the deaths & bad injuries to US soldiers
occupying Iraq that a modest amount of public sentiment turned against the whole sordid
episode.
So the tacit message was pretty clear to powers that be -- - as long as US troops aren't
hurt, go-ahead and bomb-away those foreign men, women, and even children getting killed by
them don't matter, especially if our military leaders offer-up oh-so-sincere apologies and
state that 'these were unavoidable collateral civilian casualties because we only perform
surgical strikes on terrorists' (and said in a most serious, gravitas-laden tone, so you KNOW
they're telling the truth).
Windup , July 4, 2019 at 16:09
George wasn't 'elected' in the first place, let alone 're-elected'. I don't know if that
makes you feel better. Maybe it does- at least about the American public (at that point in
time anyway).
But it was certainly a forerunner to how we 'elect' our officials, which at this point is
more blatantly fraudulent. At least to those of us not reading/watching msm.
"... The US today is a global empire. Our country's military, ballooning to some 2.1 million in uniform at a time that there is really no significant war underway. US military spending, greater in constant dollars than at any time since WWII, represents 34% of all global military spending, and the US military budget, depending on how one counts it, is larger than the next largest eight-to-ten countries' military budgets combined. ..."
"... And remember -- US empire and militarism is and has always been supported by both political parties. ..."
"... only 32% of Americans say they are "proud" (forget "extremely proud"!) of America's vaunted political system. In a close second for popular disgust, only 37% said they are "proud" of the US health care system. ..."
"... In my view, my country has become the world's leading "rogue" nation, dismissive of all international laws and codes of conduct, actively attacking many countries on its own authority, without the support of UN Security Council resolutions, exonerating war crimes committed by its soldiers, and committed to the first use of nuclear weapons, both as a first strike against major power rivals like Russia and China, and against non-nuclear nations like Iran, and equally dismissive of all efforts, large and small, to respond to the crisis of catastrophic global heating. ..."
The US today is a global empire. Our country's military, ballooning to some 2.1 million
in uniform at a time that there is really no significant war underway. US military spending,
greater in constant dollars than at any time since WWII, represents 34% of all global military
spending, and the US military budget, depending on how one counts it, is larger than the next
largest eight-to-ten countries' military budgets combined.
To show how ridiculously huge the US military is, consider that at $220 billion for fiscal
year 2020, the US budget for Veterans Affairs alone (that's the agency that provides assistance
of all kinds, including medical, to those who served in the military, not counting career
soldiers who receive a pension that is counted separately) this one military budget line item
is larger than the entire military budget of China, and is more than three times as large as
the entire military budget of Russia, considered by many to be our primary "adversary"!
And remember -- US empire and militarism is and has always been supported by both
political parties.
... ... ...
I read that a recent Gallup Organization poll shows a significant drop in the percentage of
US Americans who are "extremely proud" of their country. True, 45% still say they are "proud"
of America, but normally that is how many say they are "extremely proud" to be Americans.
That's a significant fall-off. Even among normally super-patriotic Republicans the percentage
of those saying they are "extremely proud" this July 4 of this country was down to 76%, a 10%
drop from 2003, and close to the 68% low point reached at one point during the Obama
administration.
The main cause of the loss of patriotic ardor appears to be dismay or disgust with the US
political system. According to the poll, only 32% of Americans say they are "proud" (forget
"extremely proud"!) of America's vaunted political system. In a close second for popular
disgust, only 37% said they are "proud" of the US health care system.
So I guess I'm in pretty good company. I won't be oohing and aaahing at the local fireworks
display this year. It's basically a glorification of US war-making anyhow, and there's nothing
at all to be proud of in that regard, particularly with the US in the midst of a $1.5-trillion
upgrade of its nuclear arsenal, threatening war with Iran, pulling out of a Reagan-era treaty
banning intermediate-range nuclear missiles, and embarking in a new arms race both in space and
in virtually unstoppable hypersonic cruise missiles.
In my view, my country has become the world's leading "rogue" nation, dismissive of all
international laws and codes of conduct, actively attacking many countries on its own
authority, without the support of UN Security Council resolutions, exonerating war crimes
committed by its soldiers, and committed to the first use of nuclear weapons, both as a first
strike against major power rivals like Russia and China, and against non-nuclear nations like
Iran, and equally dismissive of all efforts, large and small, to respond to the crisis of
catastrophic global heating. [
At home, the US legal system has become a supine supporter of
virtually unlimited executive power, of unchecked police power, and of repressive actions
against the supposedly constitutionally protected free press.
It's tempting to hope that the decline noted by Gallup in the percent of Americans
expressing "extreme pride" and even of "pride" in the US, but support for the US among the
country's citizens still remains shamefully high in the face of all these negatives.
Anyhow, count me among those who won't be celebrating today's July 4 national
holiday.
"... The current batch of military hardware is so much garbage that when the President wants to use the "superb" pieces of crap (F35 and the new boats are prime examples) a general will have to become the sacrificial lamb and give the president the news that this stuff is for show only. ..."
Peace though procurement malpractice. The current batch of military hardware is so much
garbage that when the President wants to use the "superb" pieces of crap (F35 and the new
boats are prime examples) a general will have to become the sacrificial lamb and give the
president the news that this stuff is for show only.
"... "Each successor generation is less likely than the previous to prioritize maintaining superior military power worldwide as a goal of U.S. foreign policy, to see U.S. military superiority as a very effective way of achieving U.S. foreign policy goals, and to support expanding defense spending. At the same time, support for international cooperation and free trade remains high across the generations. In fact, younger Americans are more inclined to support cooperative approaches to U.S. foreign policy and more likely to feel favorably towards trade and globalization." ..."
"... Last year, for the first time since the height of the Iraq war 13 years ago, the Army fell thousands of troops short of its recruiting goals. That trend was emphasized in a 2017 Department of Defense poll that found only 14 percent of respondents ages 16 to 24 said it was likely they'd serve in the military in the coming years. This has the Army so worried that it has been refocusing its recruitment efforts on creating an entirely new strategy aimed specifically at Generation Z. ..."
"... These days, significant numbers of young veterans have been returning disillusioned and ready to lobby Congress against wars they once, however unknowingly, bought into. Look no further than a new left-right alliance between two influential veterans groups, VoteVets and Concerned Veterans for America, to stop those forever wars. Their campaign, aimed specifically at getting Congress to weigh in on issues of war and peace, is emblematic of what may be a diverse potential movement coming together to oppose America's conflicts. Another veterans group, Common Defense, is similarly asking politicians to sign a pledge to end those wars. In just a couple of months, they've gotten on board 10 congressional sponsors, including freshmen heavyweights in the House of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar. ..."
"... In February 2018, Sanders also became the first senator to risk introducing a war powers resolution to end American support for the brutal Saudi-led war in Yemen. In April 2019, with the sponsorship of other senators added to his, the bill ultimately passed the House and the Senate in an extremely rare showing of bipartisanship, only to be vetoed by President Trump. That such a bill might pass the House, no less a still-Republican Senate, even if not by a veto-proof majority, would have been unthinkable in 2016. So much has changed since the last election that support for the Yemen resolution has now become what Tara Golshan at Vox termed "a litmus test of the Democratic Party's progressive shift on foreign policy." ..."
"... And for the first time ever, three veterans of America's post-9/11 wars -- Seth Moulton and Tulsi Gabbard of the House of Representatives, and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg -- are running for president, bringing their skepticism about American interventionism with them. The very inclusion of such viewpoints in the presidential race is bound to change the conversation, putting a spotlight on America's wars in the months to come. ..."
"... In May, for instance, Omar tweeted , "We have to recognize that foreign policy IS domestic policy. We can't invest in health care, climate resilience, or education if we continue to spend more than half of discretionary spending on endless wars and Pentagon contracts. When I say we need something equivalent to the Green New Deal for foreign policy, it's this." ..."
"... It is little recognized how hard American troops fought from 1965 to 1968. Our air mobile troops in particular made a great slaughter of NVA and VC while also taking heavy casualties. ..."
"... We were having such success that no one in the military thought the enemy could keep up the fight. Then, the Tet offensive with the beaten enemy attacking every city in the South. ..."
"... Perhaps there is no open anti-war movement because the Democratic party is now pro-war. ..."
"... President Obama, the Nobel peace prize winner, started a war with Libya, which had neither attacked nor threatened the US and which, by many accounts, was trying to improve relations with the US. GW Bush unnecessarily attacked Iraq and Clinton destroyed Haiti and bombed Yugoslavia, among other actions. ..."
Peace activism is rising, but that isn't translating into huge street demonstrations, writes Allegra Harpootlian.
W hen Donald Trump entered the Oval Office in January 2017, Americans took to the streets all across the country to protest their
instantly endangered rights. Conspicuously absent from the newfound civic engagement, despite more than a decade and a half of this
country's fruitless, destructive wars across the Greater Middle East and northern Africa, was antiwar sentiment, much less an actual
movement.
Those like me working against America's seemingly
endless
wars wondered why the subject merited so little discussion, attention, or protest. Was it because the still-spreading war on
terror remained shrouded in government secrecy? Was the lack of media coverage about what America was doing overseas to blame? Or
was it simply that most Americans didn't care about what was happening past the water's edge? If you had asked me two years ago,
I would have chosen "all of the above." Now, I'm not so sure.
After the enormous demonstrations
against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the antiwar movement disappeared almost as suddenly as it began, with some even openly
declaring it dead. Critics
noted the long-term absence of significant protests against those wars, a lack of political will in Congress to deal with them,
and ultimately,
apathy on matters of war and peace when compared to issues like health care, gun control, or recently even
climate
change .
The pessimists have been right to point out that none of the plethora of marches on Washington since Donald Trump was elected
have had even a secondary focus on America's fruitless wars. They're certainly right to question why Congress, with the constitutional
duty to declare war, has until recently allowed both presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump to wage war as they wished without
even consulting them. They're right to feel nervous when a national
poll shows that more Americans think we're fighting a war in Iran (we're not) than a war in Somalia (
we are ).
But here's what I've been wondering recently: What if there's an antiwar movement growing right under our noses and we just haven't
noticed? What if we don't see it, in part, because it doesn't look like any antiwar movement we've even imagined?
If a movement is only a movement when people fill the streets, then maybe the critics are right. It might also be fair to say,
however, that protest marches do not always a movement make. Movements are
defined by their ability to challenge the status
quo and, right now, that's what might be beginning to happen when it comes to America's wars.
What if it's Parkland students
condemning American imperialism or groups fighting the
Muslim Ban that are
also fighting the war on terror? It's veterans not only trying to take on the wars they fought in, but putting themselves on
the front lines of the
gun control
,
climate change , and police brutality debates. It's
Congress
passing the first War Powers Resolution in almost 50 years. It's Democratic presidential candidates
signing a pledge to end America's endless wars.
For the last decade and a half, Americans -- and their elected representatives -- looked at our endless wars and essentially
shrugged. In 2019, however, an antiwar movement seems to be brewing. It just doesn't look like the ones that some remember from
the Vietnam era and others from the pre-invasion-of-Iraq moment. Instead, it's a movement that's being woven into just about every
other issue that Americans are fighting for right now -- which is exactly why it might actually work.
An estimated 100,000 people protested the war in Iraq in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 15, 2007 (Ragesoss, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia
Commons)
A Veteran's Antiwar Movement in the Making?
During the Vietnam War of the 1960s
and early 1970s, protests began with religious groups and peace organizations morally opposed to war. As that conflict intensified,
however, students began to join the movement, then civil rights leaders such as
Martin Luther King, Jr. got involved,
then war veterans who had witnessed the horror firsthand stepped in -- until, with a seemingly constant storm of protest in the
streets, Washington eventually withdrew from Indochina.
You might look at the lack of public outrage now, or perhaps the
exhaustion of having been outraged
and nothing changing, and think an antiwar movement doesn't exist. Certainly, there's nothing like the active one that fought against
America's involvement in Vietnam for so long and so persistently. Yet it's important to notice that, among some of the very same
groups (like veterans, students, and even politicians) that fought against that war, a healthy
skepticism about America's 21st century wars, the Pentagon, the military industrial complex, and even the very idea of American
exceptionalism is finally on the rise -- or so the
polls tell us.
"Arlington West of Santa Monica," a project of Veterans for Peace, puts reminders of the costs of war on the beach in Santa Monica,
California. (Lorie Shaull via Flickr)
Right after the midterms last year, an organization named Foundation for Liberty and American Greatness
reported mournfully that younger Americans were "turning on the country and forgetting its ideals," with nearly half believing
that this country isn't "great" and many eyeing the U.S. flag as "a sign of intolerance and hatred." With millennials and Generation
Z rapidly becoming the
largest voting bloc in America for the next 20 years, their priorities are taking center stage. When it comes to foreign policy
and war, as it happens, they're quite different from the generations that preceded them. According to the
Chicago Council of Global Affairs ,
"Each successor generation is less likely than the previous to prioritize maintaining superior military power worldwide as a
goal of U.S. foreign policy, to see U.S. military superiority as a very effective way of achieving U.S. foreign policy goals, and
to support expanding defense spending. At the same time, support for international cooperation and free trade remains high across
the generations. In fact, younger Americans are more inclined to support cooperative approaches to U.S. foreign policy and more
likely to feel favorably towards trade and globalization."
Although marches are the most public way to protest, another striking but understated way is simply not to engage with the systems
one doesn't agree with. For instance, the vast majority of today's teenagers aren't at all interested in joining the all-volunteer
military. Last year, for the first time since the height of the Iraq war 13 years ago, the Army
fell thousands of troops short
of its recruiting goals. That trend was emphasized in a 2017
Department of Defense poll that
found only 14 percent of respondents ages 16 to 24 said it was likely they'd serve in the military in the coming years. This has
the Army so worried that it has been refocusing its recruitment efforts on
creating an entirely new strategy aimed specifically at Generation Z.
In addition, we're finally seeing what happens when soldiers from America's post-9/11 wars come home infused with a sense of
hopelessness in relation to those conflicts. These days, significant numbers of young veterans have been returning
disillusioned and ready to lobby Congress
against wars they once, however unknowingly, bought into. Look no further than a new left-right
alliance between two
influential veterans groups, VoteVets and Concerned Veterans for America, to stop those forever wars. Their campaign, aimed specifically
at getting Congress to weigh in on issues of war and peace, is emblematic of what may be a diverse potential movement coming together
to oppose America's conflicts. Another veterans group, Common Defense, is similarly asking politicians to sign a
pledge to end those wars. In just a couple of months,
they've gotten on board 10 congressional sponsors, including freshmen heavyweights in the House of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and Ilhan Omar.
And this may just be the tip of a growing antiwar iceberg. A misconception about movement-building is that everyone is there
for the same reason, however broadly defined. That's often not the case and sometimes it's possible that you're in a movement and
don't even know it. If, for instance, I asked a room full of climate-change activists whether they also considered themselves part
of an antiwar movement, I can imagine the denials I'd get. And yet, whether they know it or not, sooner or later fighting climate
change will mean taking on the Pentagon's global footprint, too.
Think about it: not only is the U.S. military the world's
largest
institutional consumer of fossil fuels but, according to a
new report from Brown University's Costs of War Project, between 2001 and 2017, it released more than 1.2 billion metric tons
of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (400 million of which were related to the war on terror). That's equivalent to the emissions
of 257 million passenger cars, more than double the number currently on the road in the U.S.
A Growing Antiwar Movement in Congress
One way to sense the growth of antiwar sentiment in this country is to look not at the empty streets or even at veterans organizations
or recruitment polls, but at Congress. After all, one
indicator of a successful movement, however
incipient, is its power to influence and change those making the decisions in Washington. Since Donald Trump was elected, the most
visible evidence of growing antiwar sentiment is the way America's congressional policymakers have increasingly become engaged with
issues of war and peace. Politicians, after all, tend to follow the voters and, right now, growing numbers of them seem to be following
rising antiwar sentiment back home into an expanding set of debates about war and peace in the age of Trump.
In campaign season 2016, in an op-ed in The Washington Post , political scientist Elizabeth Saunders wondered whether foreign policy would play a significant role
in the presidential election. "Not likely," she concluded. "Voters do not pay much attention to foreign policy." And at the time,
she was on to something. For instance, Sen. Bernie Sanders, then competing for the Democratic presidential nomination against Hillary
Clinton, didn't
even prepare stock answers to basic national security questions, choosing instead, if asked at all, to quickly pivot back to
more familiar topics. In a debate with Clinton, for instance, he was asked whether he would keep troops in Afghanistan to deal with
the growing success of the Taliban. In his answer, he skipped Afghanistan entirely, while warning only vaguely against a "quagmire"
in Iraq and Syria.
Heading for 2020, Sanders is once again competing for the nomination, but instead of shying away from foreign policy, starting
in 2017, he became the face of what could be a
new American
way of thinking when it comes to how we see our role in the world.
In February 2018, Sanders also became the first senator to risk
introducing a war powers resolution to end American support for the
brutal Saudi-led war in Yemen. In April 2019, with the sponsorship of other senators added to his, the bill
ultimately passed
the House and the Senate in an extremely rare showing of bipartisanship, only to be
vetoed by President Trump. That
such a bill might pass the House, no less a still-Republican Senate, even if not by a veto-proof majority, would have been unthinkable
in 2016. So much has changed since the last election that support for the Yemen resolution has now become what Tara Golshan at
Vox termed "a litmus test of the Democratic Party's progressive shift on foreign policy."
Nor, strikingly enough, is Sanders the only Democratic presidential candidate now running on what is essentially an antiwar platform.
One of the main aspects of Elizabeth
Warren's foreign policy plan, for instance, is to "seriously review the country's military commitments overseas, and that includes
bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq." Entrepreneur Andrew Yang and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel have
joined Sanders and Warren in signing a pledge to end America's forever wars if elected.
Beto O'Rourke has called for the repeal
of Congress's 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force that presidents have cited ever since whenever they've sent American forces
into battle. Marianne Williamson , one of the
many (unlikely) Democratic candidates seeking the nomination, has even proposed a plan to transform America's "wartime economy into
a peace-time economy, repurposing the tremendous talents and infrastructure of [America's] military industrial complex to the work
of promoting life instead of death."
And for the first time ever, three veterans of America's post-9/11 wars -- Seth Moulton and Tulsi Gabbard of the House of Representatives,
and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg -- are running for president, bringing their
skepticism about American interventionism with them. The very inclusion of such viewpoints in the presidential race is bound
to change the conversation, putting a spotlight on America's wars in the months to come.
Get on Board or Get Out of the Way
When trying to create a movement, there are three likely
outcomes : you will
be accepted by the establishment, or rejected for your efforts, or the establishment will be replaced, in part or in whole, by those
who agree with you. That last point is exactly what we've been seeing, at least among Democrats, in the Trump years. While 2020
Democratic candidates for president, some of whom have been in the political arena for decades, are gradually hopping on the end-the-endless-wars
bandwagon, the real antiwar momentum in Washington has begun to come from new members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
(AOC) and Ilhan Omar who are unwilling to accept business as usual when it comes to either the Pentagon or the country's forever
wars. In doing so, moreover, they are responding to what their constituents actually want.
As far back as 2014, when a
University of Texas-Austin Energy Poll asked people where the U.S. government should spend their tax dollars, only 7 percent
of respondents under 35 said it should go toward military and defense spending. Instead, in a "pretty significant political shift"
at the time, they overwhelmingly opted for their tax dollars to go toward job creation and education. Such a trend has only become
more apparent as those
calling
for free public college, Medicare-for-all, or a Green New Deal have come to
realize that they could pay for such ideas if America would stop pouring
trillions of dollars into wars that never should have been launched.
The new members of the House of Representatives, in particular, part of the youngest, most diverse crew
to date , have begun to replace the old guard and are increasingly signalling their readiness to throw out policies that don't
work for the American people, especially those reinforcing the American war machine. They understand that by ending the wars and
beginning to scale back the military-industrial complex, this country could once again have the resources it needs to fix so many
other problems.
In May, for instance, Omar tweeted , "We
have to recognize that foreign policy IS domestic policy. We can't invest in health care, climate resilience, or education if we
continue to spend more than half of discretionary spending on endless wars and Pentagon contracts. When I say we need something
equivalent to the Green New Deal for foreign policy, it's this."
A few days before that, at a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing, Ocasio-Cortez
confronted executives from military contractor TransDigm about the way they were price-gouging the American taxpayer by selling
a $32 "non-vehicular clutch disc" to the Department of Defense for $1,443 per disc. "A pair of jeans can cost $32; imagine paying
over $1,000 for that," she said. "Are you aware of how many doses of insulin we could get for that margin? I could've gotten over
1,500 people insulin for the cost of the margin of your price gouging for these vehicular discs alone."
And while such ridiculous waste
isn't news to those of us who follow Pentagon spending closely, this was undoubtedly something many of her millions of supporters
hadn't thought about before. After the hearing,
Teen Vogue
created a list of the "5 most ridiculous things the United States military has spent money on," comedian
Sarah Silverman tweeted out the AOC
hearing clip to her 12.6 million followers, Will and Grace actress
Debra Messing publicly expressed her gratitude
to AOC, and according to Crowdtangle, a social media analytics tool, the
NowThis clip of her in that congressional
hearing garnered more than 20 million impressions.
Ocasio-Cortez calling out costs charged by military contractor TransDigm. (YouTube)
Not only are members of Congress beginning to call attention to such undercovered issues, but perhaps they're even starting to
accomplish something. Just two weeks after that contentious hearing, TransDigm
agreed to return $16.1 million
in excess profits to the Department of Defense. "We saved more money today for the American people than our committee's entire budget
for the year," said House Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings.
Of course, antiwar demonstrators have yet to pour into the streets, even though the wars we're already involved in continue to
drag on and a possible new one with Iran looms on the horizon. Still, there seems to be a notable trend in antiwar opinion and activism.
Somewhere just under the surface of American life lurks a genuine, diverse antiwar movement that appears to be coalescing around
a common goal: getting Washington politicians to believe that antiwar policies are supportable, even potentially popular. Call me
an eternal optimist, but someday I can imagine such a movement helping end those disastrous wars.
Allegra Harpootlian is a media associate at
ReThink Media , where she works with leading experts
and organizations at the intersection of national security, politics, and the media. She principally focuses on U.S. drone policies
and related use-of-force issues. She is also a political partner with the
Truman National Security Project . Find her on Twitter
@ally_harp .
"How Obama demobilized the antiwar movement"
By Brad Plumer
August 29, 2013
Washington Post
"Reihan Salam points to a 2011 paper by sociologists Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas, who find that antiwar protests shrunk
very quickly after Obama took office in 2008 -- mainly because Democrats were less likely to show up:
Drawing upon 5,398 surveys of demonstrators at antiwar protests, interviews with movement leaders, and ethnographic observation,
this article argues that the antiwar movement demobilized as Democrats, who had been motivated to participate by anti-Republican
sentiments, withdrew from antiwar protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success, if not policy success in ending
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Heaney and Rojas begin by puzzling over a paradox. Obama ran as an antiwar candidate, but his first few years in office were
rather different: "As president, Obama maintained the occupation of Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan. The antiwar movement
should have been furious at Obama's 'betrayal' and reinvigorated its protest activity. Instead, attendance at antiwar rallies
declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement dissipated.""
Rob , July 4, 2019 at 14:20
The author may be too young to realize that the overwhelming driving force in the anti-Vietnam War movement was hundreds
of thousands of young men who were at risk of being drafted and sent to fight, die and kill in that godforsaken war. As the
movement grew, it gathered in millions of others as well. Absent the military draft today, most of America's youth don't seem
to give half a damn about the current crimes of the U.S. military. As the saying goes: They have no skin in the game.
bardamu , July 3, 2019 at 20:21
There has again been some shift in Sanders' public positions, while Tulsi Gabbard occupies a position that was not represented
in '16, and HR Clinton was more openly bent on war than anyone currently at the table, though perhaps because that much of her
position had become so difficult to deny over the years.
That said, Clinton lost to Obama in '08 because she could not as effectively deny her militarism. There was at the time within
the Democratic Party more and clearer movement against the wars than there is now. One might remember the run for candidacy
of Dennis Kucinich, for example. The 8 years of the Obama regime were a consistent frustration and disappointment to any antiwar
or anticorporate voice within the Democratic Party, but complaints were muted because many would not speak against a Blue or
a Black president. More than at any prior time, corporate media spokespersons could endorse radically pro-corporate positions
and imply or accuse their opposition of racism.
That leaves it unclear, however, what any antiwar voices have to do with the Democratic Party itself, particularly if we
take "the party" to mean the political organization itself as opposed to the people whom it claims to represent. The Party and
the DNC were major engines in the rigging of the 2016 Democratic nomination–and also, lest we forget, contributors to the Donald
Trump nomination campaign.
It should not escape us, as we search for souls and soulfulness among these remnants of Democratic Parties Past, that any
turn of the party against war is surely due to Hillary Clinton's loss to presumed patsy candidate Donald Trump in 2016–the least
and second-least popular major presidential contenders in history, clearly, in whichever order one wishes to put them.
There is some value in realism, then. So as much as one hates to criticize a Bernie Sanders in anything like the present
field that he runs in, his is not a consistently antiwar position: he has gone back and forth. Tulsi Gabbard is the closest
thing to an antiwar candidate within the Party. And under even under the most favorable circumstances, 2020 is at best not her
year.
Most big money says war. scorched earth, steep hierarchy, and small constitution. Any who don't like it had best speak up
and act up.
I am for Tulsi, a Senator from Hawaii not a rep as this article says. Folk Music was in when the peace movement was strong
and building, the same for Folk Rock who songs also had words you could get without Google.
So my way of "hoping" for an Anti-War/Peace Movement is to have a Folk Revival in my mind.
Nathan Mulcahy , July 3, 2019 at 14:11
The answer to the question why anti war movement is dead is so simple and obvious but apparently invisible to most Dems/libs/progressives
(excuse my inability to discern the distinctions between labels). The answer points to our onetime "peace" president Obama.
As far as foreign interventions go (and domestic spying, among other things) Obama had continued Baby Bush's policy. Even worse,
Obama had given a bipartisan seal of approval (and legality) to most of Baby Bush's crimes. In other words, for 8 years, meaning
during the "peace" president's reign, the loyal "lefty" sheeple have held their mouth when it came to war and peace.
Obama and the Dems have very effectively killed the ant war movement
The establishment will always be pro-war because there's so much money in it. Street demonstrations will never change that,
as we recently learned with Iraq. The only strategy that has a chance of working is anti-enlistment. If they don't have the
troops they can't invade anywhere, and recruitment is already a problem. It needs to be a bigger problem.
Anonymot , July 3, 2019 at 11:51
Sorry, ALL of these Democrat wannabes save one is ignorant of foreign affairs, foreign policy and its destruction of what
they blather on about – domestic vote-getting sky pies. Oh yes, free everything: schools, health care, social justices and services.
It's as though the MIC has not stolen the money from the public's pockets to get rich by sending cheap fodder out there to get
killed and wounded, amputated physically and mentally.
Hillary signed the papers and talked the brainless idiocy that set the entire Middle East on fire, because she couldn't stand
the sight of a man with no shirt on and sitting on the Russian equivalent of a Harley. She hates men, because she drew a bad
one. Huma was better company. Since she didn't know anything beyond the superficial, she did whatever the "experts" whispered
in her ears: War! Obama was in the same boat. The target, via gaining total control of oil from Libya to Syria and Iran was
her Putin hate. So her experts set up the Ukraine. The "experts" are the MIC/CIA and our fearless, brainless, corrupt military.
They have whispered the same psychotic message since the Gulf of Tonkin. We've lost to everyone with whom we've crossed swords
and left them devastated and America diminished save for the few.
So I was a Sanders supporter until he backed the warrior woman and I, like millions of others backed off of her party. It's
still her party. Everyone just loves every victim of every kind. They all spout minor variations on the same themes while Trump
and his neocons quietly install their right wing empire. Except for one who I spotted when she had the independence to go look
for herself in Syria.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate to be the candidate who has a balance of well thought through, realistic foreign policy
as well as the domestic non-extremist one. She has the hurdle of being a too-pretty woman, of being from the remotest state,
and not being a screamer. Even this article, written about peace by a woman fails to talk about her.
Tulsi has the registered voter count and a respectable budget, but the New York Times which is policy-controlled by a few
of Hillary's billionaire friends has consistently shut her out, because Tulsi left the corrupt Hillary-owned DNC to back Sanders
and Hillary never forgave her.
If you want to know who is against Trump and war, take 5 minutes and listen to what she really said during the 1st debate
where the CBS folks gave her little room to talk. It will change your outlook on what really is possible.
Hi Anonymot; I also exited my Sanders support after over 100 cash donations and over a years painful effort. I will never
call him Bernie again; now it is Sanders, since Bernie makes him sound cute and cute was not the word that came into my mind
as Mr. Sanders missed his world moment at the democratic election and backed Hillary Clinton (I can not vote for EVIL). Sanders
then proceeded to give part of my money to the DNC & to EVIL Hillary Clinton.
So then what now? Easy as Pie; NO MORE DEMOCRATS EVER. The DNC & DCCC used Election Fraud & Election Crimes blatantly to
beat Bernie Sanders. Right out in the open. The DNC & DCCC are War Mongering more then the Republicans which is saying allot.
The mass media and major Internet Plateforms like Goggle & Facebook are all owned by Evil Oligarchs that profit from WAR and
blatantly are today suppressing all dissenting opinions (anti Free Speech).
I stopped making cash donation to Tulsi Gabbard upon the realization that the Democrats were not at all a force for Life
or Good and instead were a criminal organization. The voting for the lessor of two EVILs is 100% STUPID.
I told Tim Canova I could not support any Democrat ever again as I told Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi is still running as a criminal
democrat. If she would run independent of the DNC then I would start to donate cash to her again. End of my story about Tulsi.
I do like her antiwar dialog, but there is no; so called changing, the DNC from the inside. The Oligarchs own the DNC and are
not supportive of "We The People" or the Constitution, or the American Republic.
The end of Tim Canova's effort was he was overtly CHEATED AGAIN by the DNC's Election Fraud & Election Crimes in his 2018
run for congress against Hillary Clinton's 100% corrupt campaign manager; who congress seated even over Tim's asking them not
to seat her until his law suites on her election crimes against him were assessed. Election crimes and rigged voting machines
in Florida are a way of life now and have been for decades and decades.
All elections must be publicly funded. All votes must be on paper ballots and accessible for recounts and that is just the
very minimums needed to start changing the 100% corrupted election system we Americans have been railroaded into.
The supreme Court has recently ruled that gerrymandering is OK. The supreme court has proven to be a political organization
with their Bush Gore decision and now are just political hacks and as such need to be ELECTED not appointed. Their rulings that
Money is Free Speech & that Corporations are People has disenfranchised "We the People". That makes the Supreme Court a tool
to be used by the world money elite to overturn the constitution of the United States of America.
No More War. No More War. No More War.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 16:40
Absolutely spot-on, superb comment, P .Brooks.
DW
Nathan Mulcahy , July 3, 2019 at 18:08
I saw the light (with what the Dems are really about) after Kucinich's candidacy. That made me one of the very few lefties
in my circle not to have voted for Obama even the first time around. I hear a lot of talk about trying to reform the party from
inside. Utter bu** sh**. "You cannot reform Mafia".
Ever since Kucinich, I have been voting Green. No, this is not a waste of my vote. Besides, I cannot be complicit to war
crimes – that's what it makes anyone who votes for either of the two parties.
Steven , July 3, 2019 at 13:56
Wow you said a mouthful. It's worse than that its a cottage industry that includes gun running, drug running and human trafficking
netting Trillions to the MIC, CIA and other alphabet agencies you can't fight the mark of the beast.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:01
I fully back/endorse Gabbard, but
The battering of Bernie is not fair. He is NOT a Democrat, therefore him being able to get "inside" that party to run AS
a Dem put him in a tenuous situation. He really had no option other than to support HRC lest his movement, everyone's movement,
would get extra hammering by the neocons and status quo powers. He wouldn't be running, again, had he not done this. Yeah, it's
a bad taste, I get it, but had he disavowed HRC would the outcome -Trump- been any different? The BLAME goes fully on the DNC
and the Clintons. Full stop.
I do not see AOC as a full progressive. She is only doing enough to make it appear so. The Green New Deal is stolen from
the Green Party and is watered down. Think of this as "Obama Care" for the planet. As you should know, Gabbard's Off Fossil
Fuels Act (OFF) actually has real teeth in it: and is closer to the Green Party's positions.
I support movements and positions. PRIMARY is peace. Gabbard, though not a pacifist, has the right path on all of this: I've
been around long enough to understand exactly how she's approaching all of this. She is, however, taking on EVERYONE. As powerful
a person as she is (she has more fortitude than the entire lot of combined POTUS candidates put together) going to require MASSIVE
support; sadly, -to this point- this article doesn't help by implying that people aren't interested in foreign policy (it perpetuates
the blockout of it- people have to be reeducated on its importance- not something that the MIC wants), people aren't yet able
to see the connections. The education will occur will it happen in a timely way such that people would elect Gabbard? (things
can turn on a dime, history has shown this; she has the makeup that suggests that she's going to have a big role in making history).
I did not support Bernie (and so far have not- he's got ample support; if it comes down to it he WILL get my vote- and I've
held off voting for many years because there's been no real "peace" candidate on the plate). Gabbard, however, has my support
now, and likely till the day I die: I've been around long enough to know what constitutes a great leader, and not since the
late 60s have we had anyone like her. If Bernie gets the nomination it is my prediction that he will have Gabbard high on his
staff, if not as VP: a sure fire way to win is to have Gabbard as VP.
I'm going to leave this for folks to contemplate as to whether Gabbard is real or not:
In a context in which Rio de Janeiro's evangelical churches have been accused of laundering money for the drug trafficking
gangs, all elements of Afro-Brazilian culture including caipoeira, Jango drumming, and participation in Carnaval parades, have
been banned by the traffickers in many favelas.
[end excerpt]
"caipoeria," is something that Gabbard has practiced:
"I trained in different martial arts since I was a kid including Capoeira -- an amazing art created by slaves in Brazil who
were training to fight and resist against their slave masters, disguising their training with music, acrobatics, and dance.
Yesterday I joined my friends Mestre Kinha and others at Capoeira Besouro Hawai'i for their batizado ceremony and some fun!
" – Tulsi Gabbard December 9, 2018
The GOAL is to get her into the upper halls of governing power. If the people cannot see fit to it then I'll support Sanders
(in the end) so that he can do it.
Harpootlian claims to see what's going on, but, unfortunately, she's not able to look close enough.
Anonymot, thank you for leading out here with Gabbard and her message.
michael , July 4, 2019 at 08:10
If Gabbard had the MSM coverage Buttigieg has received she probably be leading in the polls. It is surprising(?) that this
supposedly anti-war author mentions corporatist Mayor Pete but not Gabbard.
David , July 4, 2019 at 19:55
She DOES (briefly)mention Gabbard, but she missed the fact that Gabbard is the most strongly anti-war candidate. She gets
it entirely wrong about Buttigieg, who is strikingly pro-war, and supports getting in to a war with Iran.
And sadly, Ms. Gabbard is mired at the 1% mark in the polls, even after having performed so well in the debate.
This seems to me an indication of the public's lack of caring about our foreign wars.
antonio Costa , July 3, 2019 at 19:06
The reason she's "mired" is because a number of polls don't include her!! However they include, Marianne Williamson.
How's that for inverse totalitarianism par excellence .
Skip Scott , July 4, 2019 at 07:05
I did see one poll that had her at 2%. And given the reputation of many polling outfits, I take any professed results with
a grain of salt. Tulsi's press coverage (what little she gets) has been mostly defamatory to the point of being libelous. If
her strong performance continues in the primary debates despite all efforts to sabotage her, I think she could make a strong
showing. That said, at some point she will have to renounce the DNC controlled democratic party and run as an Independent if
she wants to make the General Election debates for 2020.
"Hillary signed the papers and talked the brainless idiocy that set the entire Middle East on fire, because she couldn't
stand the sight of a man with no shirt on and sitting on the Russian equivalent of a Harley. She hates men "
If I were to psychologize, I would conjecture more un-gendered stereotype, namely that of a good student. He/she diligently
learns in all classes from the prescribed textbooks and reading materials, and, alas, American education on foreign affairs
is dominated by retirees from CIA and other armchair warriors. Of course, nothing wrong about good students in general, but
I mean the type that is obedient, devoid of originality and independent thinking. When admonished, he/she remembers the pain
for life and strives hard not to repeat it. E.g. as First Lady, Hillary kissed Arafat's wife to emulate Middle East custom,
and NY tabloids had a feast for months.
Concerning Tulsi, no Hillary-related conspiracy is needed to explain the behavior of the mass media. Tulsi is a heretic to
the establishment, and their idea is to be arbiters of what and who belongs to the "mainstream", and what is radical, marginal
etc. Tulsi richly deserves her treatment. Confronted with taunts like "so you would prefer X to stay in power" (Assad, Maduro
etc.) she replies that it should not be up to USA to decide who stays in power, especially if no better scenario is in sight.
The gall, the cheek!
Strangely enough, Tulsi gets this treatment in places like The Nation and Counterpunch. As the hitherto "radical left" got
a whiff of being admitted to the hallowed mainstream from time to time, they try to be "responsible".
Mary Jones-Giampalo , July 4, 2019 at 00:39
Yes! Thank You I was gritting my teeth reading this article #Tulsi2020
Eddie , July 3, 2019 at 11:42
The end of the anti-war movement expired when the snake-oil pitchman with the toothy smile and dark skin brought his chains
we could beleive in to the White House. The so-called progressives simply went to sleep while they never criticized Barack Obama
for escalating W. Bush's wars and tax cuts for the rich.
The fake left wing in the US remained silent when Obama dumped trillions of dollars into the vaults of his bankster pals
as he stole the very homes from the people who voted him into office. Then along came the next hope and change miracle worker
Bernie Sanders. Only instead of working miracles for the working class, Sanders showed his true colors when he fcuked his constituents
to support the hated Hillary Clinton.
Let's start facing reality. The two-party dictatorship does not care about you unless you can pony up the big bucks like
their masters in the oligarchy and the soulless corporations do. Unless and until workers end to the criminal stranglehold that
the big-business parties and the money class have on the government, things will continue to slide into the abyss.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 11:33
An informed awareness of imperialism must also include an analysis of how "technology" is used and abused, from the use of
"superior" weaponry against people who do not have such weapons, from blunderbuss and sailing ships, to B-52s and napalm, up
to and including technology that may be "weaponized" against civilian populations WiTHIN a society, be it 24/7 surveillance
or robotics and AI that could permit elites to dispense with any "need", on the part of the elites, to tolerate the very existence
of a laborung class, or ANY who earn their wealth through actual work, from maids to surgeons, from machine operators to professors.
Any assumption, that any who "work", even lawyers or military officers, can consider their occupation or profession as "safe",
is to assume that the scapegoating will stop with those the highly paid regard as "losers", such comfortable assumption may
very well prove as illusory and ephemeral as an early morning mist before the hot and merciless Sun rises.
The very notions of unfettered greed and limitless power, resulting in total control, must be recognized as the prime drivers
of endless war and shock-doctrine capitalism which, combined, ARE imperialism, unhinged and insane.
michael , July 3, 2019 at 11:06
This article is weak. Anyone who could equate Mayor Pete or the eleven Democrat "ex"-military and CIA analysts who gained
seats in Congress in 2018 as anti-war is clueless. Tulsi Gabbard is anti-regime change war, but is in favor of fighting "terrorists"
(created mostly by our CIA and Israel with Saudi funding). Mike Gravel is the only true totally anti-war 'candidate' and he
supports Gabbard as the only anti-War of the Democrats.
In WWI, 90% of Americans who served were drafted, in WWII over 60% of Americans who served were drafted. The Vietnam War "peace
demonstrations" were more about the Draft, and skin-in-the-game, than about War. Nixon and Kissinger abolished the Draft (which
stopped most anti-war protests), but continued carpet bombing Vietnam and neighboring countries (Operations Menu, Freedom Deal,
Patio, etc), and Vietnamized the War which was already lost, although the killing continued through 1973. The abolition of the
Draft largely gutted the anti-war movement. Sporadic protests against Bush/ Cheney over Afghanistan and Iraq essentially disappeared
under Obama/ Hillary in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. Since their National Emergency proclamations
no longer ever end, we are in a position to attack Venezuela (Obama), Ukraine (Obama), South Sudan (Obama), Iran (Carter, Clinton),
Libya (Obama), Somalia (Obama), Yemen (Obama), Nicaragua (Trump) and even Burundi (Obama) and the Central African Republic (Obama).
The continuing support of death squads in Honduras and other Latin American countries ("stability is more important than democracy")
has contributed to the immigration crises over the last five years.
As Pelosi noted about Democratic progressives "there are like five of them". Obama not only failed to reverse any of the police
state and warmongering of Bush/Cheney, he expanded both police state (arresting and prosecuting Chelsea Manning for exposing
war crimes, as well as more whistleblowers than anyone in history), and wars in seven Arab Muslim countries. Black Americans,
who had always been an anti-War bloc prior to Obama, converted to the new America. The Congressional Democrats joined with Republicans
to give more to the military budget than requested by Trump. (Clinton squandered the Peace Dividend when the Soviet Union fell,
and Lee Camp has exposed the $21 TRILLION "lost" by the Pentagon.)
The young author see anti-war improvements that are not there. The US is more pro-war in its foreign policies than at any time
in its history. When there was a Draft, the public would not tolerate decades of war (lest their young men died). Sanctions
are now the first attack (usually by National Emergencies!); the 500,000 Iraqi children killed by Clinton's sanctions (Madeline
Albright: "we think it was worth it!") is just sadism and psychopathy at the top, which is necessary for War.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 11:38
Superb comment, michael, very much agreed with and appreciated.
DW
Anonymot , July 3, 2019 at 12:06
You are absolutely right. Obama and Hillary were the brilliant ideas of the MIC/CIA when they realized that NO ONE the Republicans
put up after Bush baby's 2nd round. They chose 2 "victims" black & woman) who would do what they were told to do in order to
promote their causes (blacks & get-filthy rich.) The first loser would get the next round. And that's exactly what happened
until Hillary proved to be so unacceptable that she was rejected. We traded no new war for an administration leading us into
a neo-nazi dictatorship.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:04
Thank you for this comment!
Mickey , July 3, 2019 at 10:47
Tulsi Gabbard is the only peace candidate in the Democratic Party
Many current crises have the potential to escalate into a major confrontation between the nuclear powers, similar to the
Cuban missile crisis, though there is no comparable sense of alarm. Then, tensions were at boiling point, when a small military
exchange could have led to nuclear annihilation. Today there are many more such flashpoint – Syria, the South China Sea, Iran,
Ukraine to name a few. Since the end of the Cold War there has been a gradual movement towards third world war. Condemnation
of an attack on Iran must include, foremost, the warning that it could lead the US into a confrontation with a Sino-Russian
alliance. The warning from history is states go to war over interests, but ultimately – and blindly – end up getting the very
war they need to avoid: even nuclear war, where the current trend is going. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 10:36
Many truly superb, well-informed, and very enlightening comments on this thread.
My very great appreciation to this site, to its authors, and to its exceptionally thoughtful and articulate commenters.
DW
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 10:20
I appreciate this author's perspective, research, and optimism.
Clearly, the young ARE far more open to embracing a future less warlike and hegemonic, while far too many of my generation
are wedded to childish myth and fantasy around U$ driven mayhem.
However, I would suggest that vision be broadened beyond opposition to war, which opposition, while important, must be expanded
to opposition to the larger issue of imperialism, itself.
Imperialism is not merely war, it includes economic warfare, both sanctions, internationally, and predatory debt loads, domestically,
in very many nations of the world, as well as privatization of the commons (which must be understood to include all resources
necessary to human existence).
Perpetual war, which profits only the few, is driven by precisely the same aims as pitting workers against each other, worldwide,
in a "game" of "race to the bottom", creating "credit" rather than raising wages, thus creating life-long indebtedness of the
many, which only benefits monopolized corporate interests, as does corporate ownership of such necessities as water, food production,
and most channels of communication, which permits corporations to easily shape public perception toward whatever ends suit corporate
purposes while also ensuring that deeper awareness of what is actually occurring is effectively stifled, deplatformed, or smeared
as dangerous foreign fake news or as hidden, or even as blatant, racial or religious hatred.
Above all, it is critically important that all these interrelated aspects of deliberate domination, control, and diminishment,
ARE talked about, openly, that we all may have better grasp of who really aligns with creating serious systemic change, especially
as traditionally assumed "tendencies" are shifting, quickly and even profoundly.
For example, as many here point out, the Democrats are now as much a war party as the Republicans, "traditionally" have been,
even as there is clear evidence that the Republican "base" is becoming less willing to go to war than are the Democratic "base",
as CNN and MSNBC media outlets strive to incite a new Cold War and champion and applaud aggression in Syria, Iran, and North
Korea.
It is the elite Democratic "leadership" and most Democratic Presidential hopefuls who now preach or excuse war and aggression,
with few actual exceptions, and none of them, including Tulsi Gabbard, have come anywhere near openly discussing or embracing,
the end of U$ imperialism.
Both neoliberal and neocon philosophies are absolutely dedicated to imperialism in all its destructive, even terminal, manifestations.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:16
Exactly!
Gabbard has spoken out against sanctions. She understands that they're just another form of war.
The younger generations won't be able to financially support imperialist activities. And, they won't be, as the statements
to their enlistment numbers suggest, able to "man the guns." I'm thinking that TPTB are aware of this (which is why a lot of
drone and other automation of war machinery has been stepped up).
The recent alliance of Soros and Charles Koch, the Quincy Institute, is, I believe, a KEY turning point. Pretty much everything
Gabbard is saying/calling for is this institute's mission statement: and people ought to note that Gabbard has been in Charles
Koch's circle- might very well be that Gabbard has already influenced things in a positive way.
I also believe that all the great independent journalists, publishers (Assange taking the title here) and whistleblowers
(Manning taking the title here) have made a HUGE impact. Bless them all.
The US government consistently uses psychological operations on its own citizens to manufacture consent to kill anyone and
everyone. Meaningless propaganda phrases such as "Support Our Troops" and "National Security" and "War on Terror" are thrown
around to justify genocides and sieges and distract us from murder. There is no left wing or in American politics and there
has not been one since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. All we have is neoconservatives and neoliberals representing the business
party for four decades. Killing is our business and business is good. Men are as monkeys with guns when it comes to politics
and religion.
One might be hard-pressed to find more outright perversions of reality in a mere two pages of text. Congratulations Congress,
you have indeed surpassed yourself.
So it's those dastardly Russians and Iranians who are responsible for the destabilization of the Middle East, "complicating
Israel's ability to defend itself from hostile action emanating from Syria." And apparently, it's the "ungoverned space" in
Syria that has "allowed" for the rise of terrorist factions in Syria, that (we must be reminded) are ever poised to attack "Western
targets, our allies and partners, and the U.S. homeland."
Good grief.
Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 08:29
Thank you Joe Lauria and Consortiumnews.
There is much wisdom and a good deal of personal experience being expressed on these pages. I especially want to thank IvyMike
and Dao Gen. Ivy Mike you're so right about our troops in Vietnam from 1965 to 1968, draftees and volunteers, they fought what
was clearly an internal civil war fought valiantly, beyond that point, Vietnam was a political mess for all involved. And Dao
Gen all of your points are accurate.
As for our legislators, please read the linked Foreign Affairs press release signed by over 400 leglislators On May 20th.,
2019 that address "threats to Syria" including the Russia threat. Clearly it will take action by the People and Peace candidates
to end this travesty of a foreign policy.
Vietnam a war triggered by the prevention of a mandated election by the USA which Ho Chi Minh was likely to win, who had
already recently been Premier of a unified Vietnam.
Sorry, being courageous in a vicious cause is not honorable.
Speaking a true history and responsibility is honorable.
Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 11:07
No need to be sorry James Clooney. I did not mention honor in my comment, I mentioned valiant (courage and determination).
American troupes ultimately fight honorably for each other not necessarily for country. This was the message and evaluation
of Captain Hal Moore To General Westmorland And Robert McNamera after the initial engagement of US troops and NVA and can be
viewed as a special feature of the largely inaccurate DVD "We Were Soldiers And Young).
The veterans group About Face is doing remarkable work against the imperial militarization that threatens to consume our
country and possibly the world. This threat includes militarization of US police, a growing nuclear arms race, and so-called
humanitarian wars. About Face is also working to train ordinary people as medics to take these skills into their communities
whose members are on the front lines of police brutality.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate with a strong, enlightened understanding of the costs of our many imperial wars Costs to
ourselves in the US and costs to the people we invade in order to "save" them. I voted for McGovern in 1972. I would vote for
Tuldi's Gabbard in 2020 if given the chance.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:35
Vote for her now by supporting her*! One cannot wait until the DNC (or other party) picks the candidate FOR us. Anyone serious
about peace ought to support her, and do it now and far into the future. I have always supported candidates who are champions
for peace, no matter their "party" or whatever: I did not, though I wish that I had, support Walter Jones -of Freedom Fries
fame- after he did a 180 (Gabbard knew Jones, and respected him); it took a lot of guts for him to do this, but his honest (like
Ron Paul proved) was proven and his voters accepted him (and likely shifted their views along with him).
* Yeah, one has to register giving money, but for a lousy $1 She has yet to qualify for the third debate (need 130k unique
donations): and yet Yang has! (nothing against him, but come on, he is not "Commander in Chief" material [and at this time it
is, as Gabbard repeats, the single most important part of being president]).
Mary Jones-Giampalo , July 4, 2019 at 00:43
Strongly agree Only Tulsi
triekc , July 3, 2019 at 07:14
Not surprising there was little or no antiwar sentiment in the newfound civic engagement after Trump's election, since the
majority of those participating were supporters of the war criminals Obama, Clinton, and their corporate, war mongering DEM
party. Those same people today, support Obama-chaperone Biden, or one of the other vetted corporate DEMs, including socialist-in-name-only
Sanders, who signed the DEM loyalty oath promising to continue austerity for the poor, socialism for rich, deregulation, militarism,
and global war hegemony. The only party with an antiwar blank was the Green Party, which captured >2% of the ~130 million votes
in the rigged election- even though Stein is as competent as Clinton, certainly more competent than Trump, and the Green platform,
unlike Sanders', explained how to pay for social and environmental programs by ending illegal wars in at least 7 countries,
closing 1000 military command posts located all over earth, removing air craft carrier task forces from every ocean, cutting
defense spending.
I believe the CIA operation "CARWASH" was under Obama, which gave us Ultra fascism in one of the largest economies in the
world, Brazil.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:02
Superb comment, trieke, and I especially appreciate your mention of Jill Stein and the Green Party.
It is unfortunate that the the Green New Deal, championed by AOC is such a pale and intentionally pusillanimous copy of the
Green New Deal articulated by Stein, which pointedly made clear that blind and blythe economic expansion must cease, that realistic
natural constraints and carrying capacity be accepted and profligate energy squandering come to an end.
That a sane, humane, and sustainable economic system, wholly compatible with ecological responsibility can provide neaningful
endeavor, justly compensated, for all, as was coherently addressed and explained to any who cared to examine the substance of
that, actual, and realistic, original, GND.
Such a vision must be part of successfully challenging, and ending, U$ imperialism.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:53
And Trump likely signed a GOP pledge. It's all superficial crap, nothing that is really written in stone.
I LOVE Stein. But for the sake of the planet we have little time to wait on getting the Green Party up to speed (to the clasp
the levers of power). Unless Gabbard comes out on top (well, the ultimate, and my favorite, long-shot would be Gravel, but reality
is something that I have to accept) it can only really be Sanders. I see a Sanders nomination as being the next best thing (and,
really, the last hope as it all falls WAY off the cliff after that). He would most certainly have Gabbard along (if not as VP,
which is the best strategy for winning, then as some other high-ranking, and meaningful cabinet member). Also, there are a lot
of folks that would be coming in on his coattails. It is THESE people that will make the most difference: although he's got
his flaws, Ro Kana would be a good top official. And, there are all the supporters who would help push. Sanders is WAY better
than HRC (Obama and, of course, Trump). He isn't my favorite, but he has enough lean in him to allow others to help him push
the door open: I'll accept him if that's what it take to get Gabbard into all of this.
Sometimes you DO have to infiltrate. Sanders is an infiltrator (not a Dem), though he treads lightly. Gabbard has already
proven her intentions: directly confronted the DNC and the HRC machine (and her direct attack on the MIC is made very clear);
and, she is indirectly endorsed by some of the best people out there who have run for POTUS: Jill Stein; Ron Paul; Mike Gravel.
We cannot wait for the Dems (and the MIC) to disarm. We need to get inside "the building" and disarm. IF Sanders or Gabbard
(and no Gravel) don't get the nomination THEN it is time to open up direct "warfare" and attack from the "outside" (at this
time there should be enough big defectors to start swinging the tide).
Eddie S , July 3, 2019 at 23:34
Yes trieke, I voted for Stein in 2016, and I plan on voting Green Party again in 2020. I see too many fellow progressives/liberals/leftists
(whatever the hell we want to call ourselves) agonizing about which compromised Democrat to vote-for, trying to weigh their
different liabilities, etc. I've come to believe that my duty as a voter is to vote for the POTUS candidate/party whose stances/platform
are closest to my views, and that's unequivocally the Green Party. My duty as a voter does NOT entail 'voting for a winner',
that's just part of the two-party-con that the Dems & Reps run.
jmg , July 3, 2019 at 07:06
The big difference is that, during the Vietnam years, people could *see* the war. People talked a lot about "photographs
that ended the Vietnam war", such as the napalm girl, etc.
The government noticed this. There were enormous pressures on the press, even a ban on returning coffin photos. Now, since
the two Iraq wars, people *don't see* the reality of war. The TV and press don't show Afghanistan, don't show Yemen, didn't
show the real Iraq excepting for Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, who are in prison because of this.
And the wars go on:
"The US government and military are preventing the public from seeing photographs that depict the true horror of the Iraq
war."
For example, we all know that mainstream media is war propaganda now, itself at war on truth and, apart from some convenient
false flags to justify attacks, they very rarely let the very people suffering wars be heard to wake viewers up, and don't often
even show this uncensored reality of war anymore, not like the true images of this old, powerful video:
Happy Xmas (War Is Over! If You Want It)
So this is Xmas
And what have you done
-- John Lennon
mbob -- thank you -- has already put this very well, but it is above all the Dems, especially Obama and the Clintons, who
killed the antiwar movement. Obama was a fake, and his foreign policy became even more hawkish after Hillary resigned as SoS.
His reduction of Libya, the richest state in Africa, to a feudal chaotic zone in which slavery is once more prominent and his
attempt to demonize Syria, which has more semi-democracy and women's rights than any of the Islamic kingdoms the US supports
as its allies, and turn Syria into a jihadi terrorist hell, as well as Obama's bombing of other nations and his sanctions on
still other nations such as Venezuela, injured and killed at least as many people as did GW Bush's invasion of Iraq. Yet where
was the antiwar movement? In the 21st century the US antiwar movement has gained most of its strength from anti-Repub hatred.
The current uptick of antiwar feeling is probably due mostly to hatred of Trump. Yet Trump is the first president since Carter
not to invade or make a major attack on a foreign country. As a businessman, his policy is to use economic warfare instead of
military warfare.
I am not a Trump supporter, and strong sanctions are a war crime, and Trump is also slow to reduce some of Obama's overseas
bombing and other campaigns, yet ironically he is surely closer to being a "peace president" than Obama. Moreover, a major reason
Trump won in 2016 was that Hillary was regarded as the war and foreign intervention candidate, and in fact if Hillary had won,
she probably would have invaded Syria to set up her infamous "no-fly zone" there, and she might have bombed Iran by now. We
might even be in a war with Russia now. At the same time, under Trump the Dem leadership and the Dem-leaning MSM have pursued
an unabashedly neocon policy of attacking from the right Trumps attempts at detente with Russia and scorning his attempts to
negotiate a treaty with N Korea and to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan. The main reason why Trump chose dangerous neocons
like Bolton and Pompeo as advisors was probably to shield himself a little from the incessant and sometimes xenophobic attacks
from the Dem leadership and the MSM. The Dem leadership seems motivated not only by hatred of Trump but also, and probably more
importantly, by a desire to get donations from the military-industrial complex and a desire to ingratiate itself with the Intel
Community and the surveillance state in order to get various favors. Look, for example, at Adam Schiff, cheerleader-in-chief
for the IC. The system of massive collusion between the Dem party elite and the US deep state was not as advanced during the
Vietnam War era as it is now. 2003 changed a lot of things.
The only Dem presidential candidates who are philosophically and securely antiwar are Gabbard and Gravel. Even Bernie (and
even more so, Warren) can't be trusted to stand up to the deep state if elected, and anyway, Bernie's support for the Russiagate
hoax by itself disqualifies him as an antiwar politician, while the Yemen bill he sponsored had a fatal loophole in it, as Bernie
well knew. I love Bernie, but he is neither antiwar nor anti-empire. As for Seth Moulton, mentioned in the article, he is my
Rep, and he makes some mild criticisms of the military, but he is a rabid hawk on Syria and Iran, and he recently voted for
a Repub amendment that would have punished Americans who donate to BDS organizations. And as for the younger generation of Dems,
they are not as antiwar as the article suggests. For every AOC among the newly elected Dems in 2018, there were almost two new
Dems who are military vets or who formerly worked for intel agencies. This does not bode well. As long at the deep state, the
Dem elite, and the MSM are tightly intertwined, there will be no major peace movement in the near future, even if a Dem becomes
president. In fact, a Dem president might hinder the formation of a true antiwar movement. Perhaps when China becomes more powerful
in ten or twenty years, the unipolar US empire and permanent war state will no longer look like a very good idea to a large
number of Americans, and the idea of a peace movement will once again become realistic. The media have a major role to play
in spreading truthful news about how the current US empire is hurting domestic living standards. Rather than hopey-hope wish
lists, no-holds-barred reporting will surely play a big role.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:05
Absolutely superb comment, Dao Gen.
DW
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:07
Another fine example of why I think there is hope! (some very sharp commentators!)
A strong leader can make all the difference. The example gets set from the top: not that this is my preference, just that
it's the reality we have today. MLK Jr. was such a leader, though it was MANY great people that were in his movement/orbit that
were the primary architects. I suppose you could say it's a "rally around the flag" kind of deal. Just as Trump stunned the
System, I believe that it can be stunned from the "left" (the ultimate stunning would be from a Gravel win, but I'm thinking
that Gabbard would be the one that has what it takes to slip past).
I really wish that people would start asking candidates who they think have been good cabinet members for various positions.
This could help give an idea of the most important facet of an administration: who the POTUS selects as key cabinet members
tells pretty much everything you need to know. Sadly, Trump had a shot at selecting Gabbard and passed on her: as much as I
detest Trump, I gave him room in which to work away from the noecon/neolib death squads (to his credit he's mostly just stalemated
them- for a rookie politician you could say that this has been an impressive feat; he's tried to instigate new wars but has,
so far, "failed" [by design?]).
geeyp , July 3, 2019 at 01:19
"We saved more money today for the American people ." – Elijah Cummings. Yea? Well then, give it to us!! You owe us a return
of our money that you have wasted for years.
mark , July 3, 2019 at 00:17
Same old, same old, same old, same old.
Prospective candidates spewing out the same tired old hot air about how, this time, it really, really, really, really will be
different.
There won't be any more crazy multitrillion wars for Israel.
Honest.
Just like Dubya.
Just like Obomber.
Just like the Orange Baboon.
Whilst simultaneously begging for shekels from Adelson, Saban, Singer, Marcus.
And this is the "new anti war movement."
Yeah.
Tom Kath , July 3, 2019 at 00:04
Every extreme elicits an extreme response. Our current western pacifist obsession is no exception. By prohibiting argument,
disagreement, verbal conflict, and the occasional playground "dust up" on a personal level, you seem to make the seemingly less
personal war inevitable.
Life on earth is simply not possible without "a bit of biff".
An aware person may not react extremely to a extreme. USA slaughtered 5 to 10 million Vietnamese for no apparent reason other
than projection of power yet the Vietnamese trade with the USA today.
Who prohibits argument? Certainly not those with little power; it's the militarily and politically powerful that crush dissent,
(Tinamen Square , Occupy Wall Street). How much dissent does the military allow? Why is Assange being persecuted?
I believe even the most militant pacifist would welcome a lively debate on murder, death and genocide, as a channel for education
and edification.
Antonio Costa , July 2, 2019 at 20:53
Weak essay. AOC hops from cause to cause. She rarely/ever says anything about US regime change wars, and the bombing of children.
She's demonstrated no anti-war bona fides.
Only Tulsi Gabbard has forthright called for an end to regime change wars, the warmongers and reduction in our military.
The power is with the powerful. We'll not see an end to war, nor Medicare for All or much of anything regarding student debt.
These are deep systemic problems calling for systemic solutions beginning with how we live on the planet(GND is a red herring),
the GDP must become null and void if we are to behave as if plundering the planet is part of "progress". It needs to be replaced
to some that focuses on quality of life as the key to prosperity. The geopolitics of the world have to simply STOP IT. It's
not about coalitions between Russia and China and India to off-set the US imperialists. That's an old game for an empty planet.
The planet is full and exceeding it capacity and is on fire. Our geopolitics must end!
Not one of these candidates come close to focusing on the systemic problem(s) except Gabbard's focus on war because it attacks
the heart of the American Imperial Empire.
Maxime , July 3, 2019 at 09:24
I agree with you that you americans will probably not see the end of your system and the end of your problems any time soon.
BUT I disagree on that you seems to think it's inevitable. I'm not american, I'm french, and reading you saying you think
medicare for all, no student debt and end to endless wars are systemic problems linked to GDP and the current economic system
is well, amusing. We have medicare for all, in fact even better than your medicare, we have no student cost for our educating
system, and still in both cases often better results than yours, even if we are behind some of our northern neighbors, but they
don't pay for these either. And we don't wage endless wars, even if we have ourselves our own big war problems, after all we
were in Lybia, we are in Syria, we are in Mali and other parts of Africa.
We also have a big militaro-industrial complex, in fact very alike the american one. But we made clear since much longer
than we would not accept as much wars, in part because the lesson we got from WW2 and Cold War was to learn to live together
with our hated neighbor. You know, the one the other side of the Rhine. Today France is a diplomatic superpower, often the head
of the european spear onthe subject, we got feared elite military, and we are proud of that, but we would not even accept more
money (in proportion) given to our military complex.
And you know the best news (for the americans)? we have an history of warmongering going back millenias. We learn to love
Caesar and the "Guerre des Gaules", his invasion of Gauls. We learn how Franks invaded their neighbors and built the first post-roman
Empire. We learn how crusaders were called Franks, how we built our nation and his pride on ashes of european continental english
hopes and german holy empire aspirations. We learn how Napolean nearly achieved to built a new continental Empire, how we never
let them passed at Verdun, and how we rose in the face of a tyran in 1944.
All of this is still in our history books, and we're still proud of it. But today, if most of us were to be asked what we
were proud about recent wars France got into, it would be how our president vetoed USA when they tried to got UN into Irak and
forced them to invade illegally, and without us.
I think my country's revelation was Algeria's independance war. One bloody and largely filled with war crimes and crimes against
humanity. We're ashamed of it, and I think we, as a nation, learned from it that stopping wars on our soil wasn't enough. I
still don't understand how americans can still wage wars after Vietnam, but I am not american. Still, even the most warmongering
nation can learn. Let's hope you will be quicker than us, because we got millennias of bloody history before even the birth
of USA.
Eddie S , July 3, 2019 at 23:15
Thanks Maxime for a foreign perspective! I'm often curious what people in foreign countries think of our current politics
in the US,especially when I read analysis/commentaries by US writers (even ones I respect) who say "Oh most of our allies think
this or that" -- - maybe they're right or maybe they're wrong or somewhere in-between, but it's interesting getting a DIRECT
opinion from a fellow left-of-center citizen from a foreign state.
I agree with your points that European countries like France almost all have their own bloody history including an imperial
period, but the two big World Wars that killed SO many people and destroyed so many cities in Europe were so tragic and wasteful
that I suspect they DO continue to act as a significant deterrent to the saber-rattling that the US war mongers are able to
engage-in. For too many US citizens 'war' is just something that's mentioned & sometimes displayed on a screen, just like a
movie/TV program/video-game, and there's a non-reality to it because it's so far away and seldom directly affects them. Geography
has famously isolated us from the major death & destruction of war and enables too many armchair warriors to talk boldly and
vote for politicians who pander to those conceits. In a not-so-subtle way, the US IS the younger offspring of Europe, where
Europe has grown-up due to some hard lessons, while the US is going through its own destructive stage of 'lesson-learning'.
Hopefully this learning stage will be over soon and won't involve a world war.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:48
Tulsi Gabbard is, indeed,pointing at part of a major organ of imperialism, Antonio Costa, yet habeas corpus, having the whole
body of imperialism produced is necessary for the considered judgement of a people long terrorized by fictitious "monsters"
and "demons", if they are to understand that shooting warfate is but one part of the heart, while the other is economic warfare.
Both brutally destructive, even if the second is hidden from public awareness or dismissed as "a price worth paying". Imperialism
pays no price (except "blow-back", which is merely "religious extremism" as explained by a fully complicit MSM).
And the "brain" behind it all?
That is corporate/military/political/deep state/media greed – and their desperate need/ambition for total, and absolute,
control.
Only seeing the whole body may reveal the true size of the threat and the vicious nature of the real danger.
Some may argue that it is "too soon", "too early", or "too costly", politically, for Gabbard, even if she, herself, might
see imperialism as the real monster and demon, to dare describe the whole beast.
Frankly, this time, Tulsi's candidacy, her "run" for President, is not likely to see her become the Dem nominee, most likely
that will be Kamala Harris (who will happily do the bidding of brute power), rather, it is to lay the firm and solid foundation
of actual difference, of rational perspective, and thoughtful, diplomatic international behavior.
To expose the whole, especially the role of the MSM, in furthering all the rest of the lumbering body of Zombie imperialism,
would be far more effective in creating an substantial "opening" for alternative possibilities, even a new political party,
next time.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:31
I'm figuring that Warren and Harris will take one another out. Climbing to the top requires this. But, Gabbard doesn't stop
fighting, and if there's a fighter out there it is her: mentally and physically she is the total package.
Sanders' 2016 campaign was ignored, he wasn't supposed to go anywhere, but if not for the DNC's meddling he would be POTUS
right now (I have zero doubt over that). So too was Obama's climb from nowhere: of course, Obama was pushed up by the System,
the System that is NOT behind Gabbard. And then there's the clown at the helm (Trump). I refuse to ignore this history.
Gababard is by no means out. Let's not speak of such things, especially when her campaign, and message, is just starting
to burst out: the MSM is the last to admit the state of things unfavorable to the wealthy, but out on the Internet Gabbard is
very much alive. She is the best candidate (with the best platform of visibility) for peace. She has all the pieces. One comment
I read out on the internet (someone, I believe, not in the US) was that Gabbard was a gift to the Americans. Yes, I believe
this to be the case: if you really look closely you'll see exactly how this is correct. I believe that we cannot afford to treat
this gift with other than the utmost appreciation. Her sincerity when she says that she was/is willing to die for her fellow
soldiers (in reference to LBGT folks, though ALL apply) is total. She is totally committed to this battle: as a warrior in politics
she's proven herself with her support, the loyalty, for Sanders (at risk to her political career- and now look, she's running
for POTUS, she continues to come out on top!).
IvyMike , July 2, 2019 at 20:14
I burned my draft card, grew my hair out, and smoked pot and was anti war as heck. But the peace demonstrations (and riots)
in the 60's and 70's did not have much effect on how the U.S. Government prosecuted the Vietnam War. It is little recognized
how hard American troops fought from 1965 to 1968. Our air mobile troops in particular made a great slaughter of NVA and VC
while also taking heavy casualties.
We were having such success that no one in the military thought the enemy could keep up the fight. Then, the Tet offensive
with the beaten enemy attacking every city in the South.
Then the politicians and Generals knew, given the super power politics surrounding the war, that we had lost. We had failed
to recognize that we had not intervened in a Civil War, in truth Vietnam as a whole was fighting for freedom from Imperialism
and we had no friends in the South, just a corrupt puppet government. Instead of getting out, Nixon made the unforgivable choice
to slowly wind the war down until he could get out without losing, Peace With Honor the ultimate triumph of ego over humanity.
Americans had a chance to choose a peace candidate in 1972, instead Nixon won with a big majority.
The military has never been able to admit they were defeated on the battlefield by North Vietnam, blaming it instead on the
Liberal Media and the Anti War movement. Believing that lie they continue to fight unwinnable wars in which we have no national
interest at stake. The media and the people no longer fight against war, but it never really made a difference when we did.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 05:17
I too hoped for a miracle and voted for George. But then I always voted for the loser in whatever state I happened to be
living in at the particular time. I think Carter was a rare winning pick by me but only once. I got disgusted with voting and
sat out the Clinton campaigns, only returning to vote against the Bush juggernaut. In retrospect, Perot should have won to make
a real difference. I sided with the winner in Obama, but the loser turned out to be America getting saddled with that two-faced
hypocrite. Nobel Peace Prize winner indeed! (What did he spend the money on?) When you listen to their campaign promises be
aware they are telegraphing how they plan to betray you.
triekc , July 3, 2019 at 07:45
American people in mass need to hit reset button. A yellow vest-like movement made up of tens of millions of woke people,
who understand the democrats and republicans are the left and right wing of the oligarch party,
US elections have been and continue to be rigged, and the US constitution was written to protect the property (such
as slaves) of oligarchs from the people, the founding oligarchs feared real democracy, evident by all the safeguards they built
into our government to protect against it, that remain in tact today.
We need a new 21st century constitution. Global capitalism needs to be greatly curtailed, or ended out right, replaced by
ecosocialism, conservation, restoration of earth focussed society
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:38
And just think that back then there was also Mike Gravel. The CIA did their work in the 60s to kill the anti-war movement:
killing all the great social leaders.
Why wars are "lost" is because hardly is there a time when there's an actual "mission statement" on what the end of a given
war will look like. Tulsi Gabbard has made it clear that she would NOT engage in any wars unless there was a clear objective,
a clear outcome lined out, and, of course, it was authorized by THE PEOPLE (Congress).
All wars are about resources. We cannot, however, admit this: the ruling capitalists won't allow that to be known/understood
lest they lose their power.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 04:59
Ya got all that right, especially the part about the analysts essentially declaring the war lost after Tet. I remember that
offered a lot of hope on the campuses that the war would soon end (even though we lost), especially to those of us near graduation
and facing loss of that precious 2S deferment. Yet the big fool marched on, getting my generation needlessly slaughtered for
four or five more years.
And, yes, the 2 or 3 million dead Vietnamese did matter, to those with a conscience. Such a price to keep Vietnam out of
Russia's and China's orbit. Meanwhile they set an independent course after kicking us out of their land and even fought a war
with China. We should still be paying reparations for the levels of death and destruction we brought to a country half a world
away with absolutely no means or desire to threaten the United States. All our wars of choice, starting with Korea, have been
similar crimes against humanity. Turkey shoots against third world societies with no way to do us any harm. But every one of
them fought ferociously to the death to defend their land and their people. Inevitably, every occupier is sent packing as their
empire crumbles. Obviously, Americans have been too thick to learn this from mere history books. We will only learn from our
tragic mistakes. I see a lot of lessons on the upcoming schedule.
USA did not "intervene" in a civil war. USA paid France to continue it's imperial war and then took over when France fled
defeated. USA prevented a mandated election Ho Chi Minh would win and then continued western imperial warfare against the Vietnamese
( even though Vietnamese was/is bulwark against China's territorial expansion).
mauisurfer , July 2, 2019 at 20:12
The Watson study says: "Indeed, the DOD is the world's largest institutional user of petroleum and correspondingly,
the single largest producer of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the world.4"
This is a gross UNDERcount of emissions. It includes ONLY petroleum burned.
It does NOT count explosions from bombs, missiles, rockets, rifles, etc.
Perhaps someone could provide an estimate of this contribution to greenhouse gases???
Don't worry, Elizabeth Warren has a plan to operate the military on renewables! (she can continue to make sure her constituency,
which is Raytheon, is well served)
Raytheon, one of the biggest employers in Warren's state, where it's headquartered, "has a positive relationship with Sen.
Warren, and we interact with her and her staff regularly," Michael Doble, a spokesman for the company, said.
jo6pac , July 2, 2019 at 20:12
This awful news for the merchants of death and I'm sure they're working overtime to stop silliness;-). I do hope this isn't
killed by those that love the endless wars.
Thanks AH
mbob , July 2, 2019 at 20:10
Perhaps there is no open anti-war movement because the Democratic party is now pro-war. Rather than support President
Trump's efforts to end the Korean War, to reduce our involvement in the Middle East and to pursue a more peaceful path with
Russia, the Democratic party (with very, very few exceptions) is opposed to all these things.
The Democratic party places its hatred for Trump above its professed love of peace.
President Obama, the Nobel peace prize winner, started a war with Libya, which had neither attacked nor threatened the
US and which, by many accounts, was trying to improve relations with the US. GW Bush unnecessarily attacked Iraq and Clinton
destroyed Haiti and bombed Yugoslavia, among other actions.
From a peace perspective, Trump looks comparatively great (provided he doesn't attack Iraq or invade Venezuela). But, since
it's impossible to recognize Trump for anything positive, or to support him in any way, it's now impossible for Democrats to
promote peace. Doing so might help Trump. It would, of necessity, require acknowledging Trump's uniqueness among recent US Presidents
in not starting new wars.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 03:28
I agree. mbob makes perfect sense in his analysis.
The Democrats must be brought back to reality with a sound repudiation by the voters, otherwise they are of no use to America
and will have no long-term future.
Obama escalated Afghanistan when he had a popular mandate to withdraw. He facilitated the the Syrian rebellion in conjunction
with ISIS funding Saudi Arabia and Qatar. He instigated the Zalaya (primarily Hillary) and the Ukraine rebellion.
Trump supports the Yemeni genocide.
But yes citizens have been directed to hate Trump the man/symptom rather than the enduring Imperial predatory capitalistic
system.
Opps sorry; so many interventions and invasions, under Obama, special forces trained Malian general overthrew the democratically
elected president of Mali, result, more war,death and destruction.
Robert , July 3, 2019 at 10:48
You are correct in your analysis. Allegra Harpootlian is searching for the peace lobby among Democrat supporters, where it
no longer resides.
As a result of corporate-controlled mainstream media and their support for Democrat elites, Democrat supporters have largely
been brainwashed into hatred for Donald Trump and everything he stands for. This hatred blinds them to the far more important
issue of peace.
Strangely, there is huge US support to remove troops from the ME, but this support resides with the overwhelming majority
of Donald Trump voters. Unfortunately, these are not individuals who typically go to peace demonstrations, but they are sincere
in bringing all US troops home from the ME. Donald Trump himself lobbied on this, and with the exceptions of his anti-Iranian
/ pro-Israel / pro-Saudi Arabia stance and withdrawal from JCPOA, he has not only backed down from military adventurism, but
is the first President since Eisenhower to raise the issue of the influence of the military-industrial complex.
In the face of strong opposition, he is the first President ever to enter North Korea and meet with Kim Jong Un to discuss
nuclear weapons. Mainstream media continues its war-mongering rhetoric, attacking Trump for his "weakness" in not retaliating
against Iran, or in meeting "secretly" with Putin.
Opposition to Trump's peace efforts are not limited to MSM, however, but are entrenched in Democrat and Republican elites,
who attack any orders he gives to withdraw from the ME. It was not Trump, but Democrat and Republican elites who invited NATO's
Stoltenberg to speak to Congress in an attempt to spite Trump.
In essence, you have President Trump and most of his supporters trying to withdraw from military engagements, with
active opposition from Democrats like Adam Schiff, and Republican elites, actively promoting war and military spending.
DJT is like a less-likeable Inspector Clouseau. Sometimes ineptitude is a blessing. You also have a few Republicans, like
journalist Tucker Carlson of Fox News, and Democrats, like Tulsi Gabbard, actively pushing the message of peace.
Erelis , July 3, 2019 at 20:45
I think you got it. The author is right in the sense that there is an anti-war movement, but that movement is in many ways
hidden. As bizarre as it may seen counter to CW wisdom, and in some way ironically crazy, one of the biggest segments of anti-war
sentiment are Trump supporters. After Trump's decision not to attack Iran, I went to various right wing commentators who attacked
Trump, and the reaction against these major right wing war mongers was to support Trump. And with right wing commentators who
supported Trump, absolute agreement. These is of course based on my objective reading reading and totally subjective. But I
believe I am right.
This made me realize there is an untapped anti-war sentiment on the right which is being totally missed. And a lack of imagination
and Trump derangment syndrome which blocks many on the anti-war Left to see it and use it for an anti-war movement. There was
an article in The Intercept that looked research on the correlation between military deaths and voting preference. Here is the
article:
And the thing is that Trump was in many ways the anti-war candidate. And those areas that had high military death rates voted
for Trump. I understand the tribal nature of political affiliation, but it seems what I have read and this article, there may
be indeed an untapped anti-war stance with Trump supporters.
And it really just challenges my own beliefs that the major obstacle to the war mongers are Trump supporters.
mbob – I couldn't have said it better myself. Except to add that in addition to destroying Libya, the Nobel Peace Prize winner
Obama, ably assisted by Hillary Clinton, also destroyed Honduras and the Ukraine.
Anarcissie , July 3, 2019 at 11:55
Historically, the Democratic Party has been pro-war and pro-imperialism at least since Wilson. The hatred for Trump on their
part seems to be based entirely on cultural issues -- he is not subservient enough to their gods.
But as for antiwar demonstrations, it's been proved in the streets that they don't accomplish anything. There were huge demonstrations
against the war in Vietnam, but it ground on until conservatives got tired of it. At least half a million people demonstrated
against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and no one important cared. Evidently more fundamental issues than the war of the moment
are involved and I think that is where a lot of people are turning now. The ruling class will find this a lot harder to deal
with because it's decentralized and widely distributed. Hence the panic about Trump and the seething hatred of Sanders.
mbob , July 3, 2019 at 18:15
I attempted to make three points in my post. First, Democrats are now pro-war. Second, solely regarding peace, Trump looks
better than all other recent Presidents because he hasn't started any new wars. Third, the inability of Democrats (or the public
as a whole) to give Trump the benefit of a doubt, or to support him in any way, is contrary to the cause of peace.
Democrats should, without reservation, support Trump's effort to end the Korean War. They should support Trump's desire to
improve relations with Russia. They don't do either of those things. Why? Because it might hurt them politically.
Your comment does not challenge the first two points and reinforces the third.
As for Yemen, yes, Trump is wrong. Democrats rightly oppose him on Yemen -- but remarkably tepidly. Trump is wrong about
a lot of things. I don't like him. I didn't vote for him. But I will vote for him if Democrats nominate someone worse than him,
which they seem inclined to do. (Gabbard is better than Trump. Sanders probably. Maybe Warren. Of the three, only Warren receives
positive press. That makes me skeptical of her.)
Trump stood up to his advisors, Bolton and Pompeo, regarding both Iran and Venezuela. Obama, on the other hand, did not.
He followed the advice of his advisors, with disastrous consequences.
>>In addition to Tuesday's sanctions, the Treasury Department issued an advisory to maritime shipping companies, warning
them off transporting oil to Syria or risking their property and money seized if kept with financial institutions that follow
U.S. sanctions law.
"The United States will aggressively seek to impose sanctions against any party involved in shipping oil to Syria, or seeking
to evade our sanctions on Iranian oil," said Sigal Mandelker, the Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence,
in a release. "Shipping companies, insurers, vessel owners, managers, and operators should all be aware of the grave consequences
of engaging in sanctionable conduct involving Iranian oil shipments."<<
Today British marines seized a tanker near Gibraltar for the crime of transporting oil to Syria. And Trumpian peaceful military
seized Syrian oil fields. Traditional war is increasingly augmented by piracy, which is less bloody, but trades outright carnage
for deprivation of civilians. Giving "measured praise" for that makes me barf.
"... Yes. It's piracy. USA a Pirate Nation. UK a useful part of the gang. ..."
"... I mean, empires have always been expansionist, violently expansionist. I mean, this is bad, but the empire is the empire. What bothers me is the lying. The filthy unbelievable lies emanating from the likes of Hillaria Terroristica and Pompeus Maximus and even from Obama the Salesman emperor, Emperor Tex Bush the second, and our current Carnival Barker Emperor Trumpius the Rube Caller. Let alone the generals lying thru their teeth. ..."
"... There should have a new slogan for this international cabal -- "Strength through Chaos". To be precise, OUR strength through THEIR chaos. ..."
"... You could safely leave out anywhere in the Americas, I think, after reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman . Less bombs, same benevolent results. The US/Mexican Border comes to mind, filled with refugees from Guatemala and Honduras. ..."
"... I very much agree with Illargi on this. Nothing good can come from the "heroic" seizure of the tanker. Mission accomplished: we are more idiotic every passing day. ..."
"... The purpose, and effect, of empire is theft. ..."
By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at
Automatic Earth
How do you define terror? Perhaps, because of the way the term has evolved in the English
language, one wouldn't call the west 'terrorists' per se, but 'we' are certainly spreading
terror and terrorizing very large groups of people. Yeah, bring on the tanks and parade them
around town. Add a marching band that plays some war tunes.
The 'official' storyline : at the request of the US, Gibraltar police and UK marines have
seized an oil tanker in Gibraltar. The super-tanker, 1000 feet (330 meters) long, carrying 2
million barrels, had stopped there after sailing all around the Cape of Good Hope instead of
taking the Suez canal on its way, ostensibly, from Iran to Syria.
And, according to the storyline as presented to and in the western press, because the EU
still has sanctions on Iran, the British seized the ship. Another little detail I really
appreciate is that Spain's acting foreign minister, Josep Borrell, said Madrid was looking into
the seizure and how it may affect Spanish sovereignty since Spain does not recognize the waters
around Gibraltar as British.
That Borrell guy is the newly picked EU foreign policy czar, and according to some sources
he's supportive of Iran and critical of Israel. Them's the webs we weave. He's certainly in
favor of Palestinian statehood. But we're wandering
Why did the tanker take that giant detour along the African coastline? Because potential
problems were anticipated in the Suez canal. But also: why dock in Gibraltar? Because no
problems were anticipated there. However, the US had been following the ship all along, and set
this up.
A trap, a set-up, give it a name. I would think this is about Iran, not about sanctions on
Syria; that's just a convenient excuse. Moreover, as people have been pointing out, there have
been countless arms deliveries to Syrian rebels in the past years (yes, that's illegal) which
were not seized.
The sanctions on Syria were always aimed at one goal: getting rid of Assad. That purpose
failed either miserably or spectacularly, depending on your point of view. It did achieve one
thing though, and if I were you I wouldn't be too sure this was not the goal all along.
That is, out of a pre-war population of 22 million, the United Nations in 2016 identified
13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance; over 6 million are internally displaced
within Syria, and around 5 million are refugees outside of Syria. About half a million are
estimated to have died, the same number as in Iraq.
And Assad is still there and probably stronger than ever. But it doesn't even matter whether
the US/UK/EU regime change efforts are successful or not, and I have no doubt they've always
known this. Their aim is to create chaos as a war tactic, and kill as many people as they can.
How do you define terror, terrorism? However you define it, 'we' are spreading it.
That grossly failed attempt to depose Assad has left Europe with a refugee problem it may
never be able to control. And the only reason there is such a problem is that Europe, in
particular Britain and France, along with the US, tried to bomb these people's homelands out of
existence. Because their leaders didn't want to conform to "our standards", i.e. have our oil
companies seize and control their supplies.
But while you weren't looking some things changed, irreversibly so. The US and Europe are no
longer the undisputed and overwhelming global military power they once were. Russia has become
a target they cannot even consider attacking anymore, because their armies, assembled in NATO,
wouldn't stand a chance.
China is not yet at the 'might' level of Russia, but US and NATO are in no position to
attack a country of 1.4 billion people either. Their military prominence ended around the turn
of the century/millennium, and they're not going to get it back. Better make peace fast.
So what we've seen for a few decades now is proxy wars. In which Russia in particular has
been reluctant to engage but decisive when it does. Moscow didn't want to let Assad go, and so
they made sure he stayed. Syria is Russia's one single stronghold in the Middle East, and
deemed indispensable.
Meanwhile, as over half of Syrians, some 11 million people, have been forced to flee their
homes, with millions of them traumatized by war, 'we' elect to seize a tanker allegedly headed
for a refinery in the country, so we can make sure all those people have no oil or less oil for
a while longer.
So the refugees that do have the courage and will to return will find it that much harder to
rebuild their homes and towns, and will tell those still abroad not to join them. At the same
time Assad is doing fine, he may be the target of the sanctions but he doesn't suffer from
them, his people do.
Yes, let's parade some tanks around town. And let's praise the heroic UK marines who seized
an utterly defenseless oil tanker manned by a bunch of dirt-poor Philippinos. Yay! There is
probably some profound irony that explains why Trump and Bolton and Pompeo want a military
parade at the very moment the US military must concede defeat in all theaters but the
propaganda one.
Still there it is. The only people the US, the west, can still credibly threaten, are
defenseless civilians, women, children. The leaders of nations are out of reach. Maduro, Assad,
let alone Putin or Xi.
Happy 4th of July. Not sure how independent you yourself are, but I can see a few people who
did achieve independence from western terror. Just not the poor, the ones that count. But don't
look at the tanks, look at the wind instead. The winds are shifting.
The EU has been a sticking plaster and a shot of Novocain at the open wound that is
Gibraltar. Without that stabilising influence, that plaster is about to be ripped off and a
slash of neat peroxide is about to be poured onto it.
Watch for more -- unpleasant -- developments coming soon on this one.
I wondered about that myself. There could be an unspoken message now out that the UK gets
to say who gets to use the Straits of Gibraltar. I am sure that the Spanish would see no
problem with that. One thing is sure. That is a few more countries that the UK has completely
antagonized now which will come back to bite it post-Brexit.
Thank you and well said, Gentlemen, Clive, the Reverend and the author, and to Yves for
sharing.
The winds are indeed shifting, but as long as defeat is not obvious in the propaganda
theatre, that's all that matters.
The NC community, especially Anonymous 2, David and Harry, have often written about the
calibre of civil servants in the Treasury with regard to Brexit, it's the same with the
Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.
Middle East experts, often termed "Arabists", have left, often forced out for ideological
reasons. They would have cautioned against such adventures. The newer and younger breed of
Foreign Office officials, e.g. the co-author of the dodgy / sexed up (WMD) dossier Matthew
Rycroft, and some veterans like John Scarlet, now retired and consulting with former Tory MP
James Arbuthnott (whose wife "presided" over Assange's recent hearing), are far more
ideological (neo con) and willing to blur the boundaries between impartial advice and
enabling what politicians want. There are few, if any regional, specialists at the Foreign
Office any more.
Sadly, it's the same with the officer corps, more ideological, enablers and less, if at
all, cognizant of the strategic implications of such actions.
As the above happens, HMG becomes more and more dependent on advice from the likes of US
neo con think tanks, especially the Henry Jackson Society. Unlike at the Treasury and Bank of
England, so far, no such neo cons and neo liberals have been imported from the former
colonies by the Foreign Office.
As both Clive and the Reverend conclude, watch out for more unpleasant developments things
that come back to bite the UK.
Maybe there is something else behind it, but it does seem to be a very clumsy operation
– its annoyed a lot of important people (not least in Spain) at just the time when this
isn't needed for the UK. I wonder if the neocon element in Whitehall is using the interregnum
in power to seek to bind the UK even more firmly to the US post Brexit.
"Russia has become a target they cannot even consider attacking anymore, because their
armies, assembled in NATO, wouldn't stand a chance."
I am not sure the current crop of politicians and bureaucrats in the UK (or the US) know
this.
As the Colonel observes, people with specialist knowledge are being replaced with
ideologically-motivated enablers. And the Pentagon and its NATO assets stress their ability
to wage a "limited" nuclear war
"China is not yet at the 'might' level of Russia, but US and NATO are in no position to
attack a country of 1.4 billion people either."
Indeed. And I would suggest China's "might level" is very close to not only Russia's but the
US's. Just as a for instance: the PLAN (Peoples' Liberation Army Navy) has instituted
probably the largest ship building program in history. All its newer vessels are equal to or
(significantly?) better than comparable US types.
All this war talk about just how fabulously strong, or not, this and that polity is
annoyingly ignorant; let's look at the reality that China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and
the Philippines, would all be facing strong food shortages without any harvest failures. With
even moderate shortfalls, add in the rest of the world as countries start scrambling for food
to stockpile even those who are completely self sufficient. The United States has destroyed
it industrial base so much that it cannot provide all the parts, tools, white goods,
clothing, etc that it needs just to function daily. I have not checked Russia's economy, but
I suspect that like the UK, or any European country it needs other countries to survive.
One of the reasons that the British almost lost World War One, that Germany did, and the
nations that used to be the Austro-Hungarian Empire did so poorly after that war was the
breaking up of all those trade connections. Everyone was gung-ho on war or independence, but
no-one has made any plans whatsoever on to run their economy(ies) after the first few years
of war or peace. And no, sticking it all on the Germans did not work either.
I'm starting to get that last election feeling where previous sorts went a bit curious
when confronted with the choices and the past went poof . strangest thing[s]
Peace though procurement malpractice. The current batch of military hardware is so much
garbage that when the President wants to use the "superb" pieces of crap (F35 and the new
boats are prime examples) a general will have to become the sacrificial lamb and give the
president the news that this stuff is for show only.
The Israelis claim to like the F-35 and to have used it in Syria to attack Syrian Air
Defense installations after the Syrian Air Defense installations fired at their other manned
aircraft.
That's something of an endorsement of it's capabilities. How much I don't know.
I think the issue of Israeli use of US aircraft is complex – the US seems to have
pressurised Israel to drop its own aircraft, the Lavi , and it may well have been that giving
Israel priority with the F-35 was part of the quid quo pro over that. For many
countries, choosing the F-35 seems to owe more to politics than defence considerations.
I have, for some time, been of the opinion that one of the (relatively minor) reasons that
Turkey went with the S-400's is that it gets them out of the F-35 contract without legal
financial penalties. I bet the reports of the Turkish crews training in the US have been
scathing.
I have wondered if the Saab JAS 39 Gripen or the Su-57 might be good contenders.
I think it was RT that reported the other day that Russia is planning on starting full
production of the Su-57 in 2020. Given that it was speculated that production of the Su-57
was too expensive with the Russian Federation as the only customer, I wonder who might be
interested. China? Renewed Indian interest? Turkey ?
Personally, I think we in Canada should ask Sukho to submit a bid for our fighter
replacement program.
> But this time I thought how awful it would be to hear those monsters and know they
were loaded with missiles and there was no safe place to hide.
Around here there is a boat race where the military flies jets for show and quite a few
years ago, on a Saturday,while I was tinkering in the garage, this one pilot, and he or she
must have been having a grand old time, really put on a show. For half an hour to an hour the
neighborhood was subjected to the most thunderous roar, it made my skin crawl and hair stand
up, and I started thinking about and getting a tiny taste of the terror people that are
actual targets of this machine get.
On Sunday, there was no "air" show. So many people bitched and complained about Saturday
the military or show organizers called it off. Phone calls to stop the jets does not work in
the middle east, however.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for the sanction-busting war profiteers losing their illicit
cargo? Or am I supposed to feel sorry for Assad not being able to top off the gas tank on his
human rights violating war wagon?
Nobody's cool with the jingoism coming from the White House. But if the tanks come out for
only just this one very special episode of the Apprentice, the people of earth have dodged a
very obnoxious golden BB.
You're supposed to feel sorry for millions America killed in Syria and many other nations,
and the tens of millions she displaced from their homes.
According to the U.N., Nobel Peace prize winning Obama caused the greatest refugee crisis
since WW2 with all the browned skinned nations he bombed until America ran out of bombs and
then he made more and bombed again – Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Pakistan, Ukraine who have I missed there so many .
Said another way, The War on Terror IS terrorism.
About 10 years I started to realize the U.S. is an Evil Empire, a force for evil in the
world.
Happy 4th.
And may the bombing continue until there is peace. There are so many countries this great
nation has not yet bombed. Maybe we're just getting warmed up.
Google "UN says greatest refugee crisis since world war" and you'll annual reports
starting about 2014 till about 2017 – the Apex of the Obama wars – each year
replacing the previous year as all time records as humanitarian disasters.
Interesting word "illicit" meaning "outside the law." So exactly what law gives the
Americans and their faithful poodles the authority to do this?
Gibraltar was once the playground of the Barbary Pirates so it is an appropriate venue for
the hegemon to engage in a little piracy of its own. But Ilargi may be right that the winds
are shifting and bullies will get their comeuppance.
Yes. It's piracy. USA a Pirate Nation. UK a useful part of the gang.
I mean, empires have always been expansionist, violently expansionist. I mean, this is
bad, but the empire is the empire. What bothers me is the lying. The filthy unbelievable lies
emanating from the likes of Hillaria Terroristica and Pompeus Maximus and even from Obama the
Salesman emperor, Emperor Tex Bush the second, and our current Carnival Barker Emperor
Trumpius the Rube Caller. Let alone the generals lying thru their teeth.
It makes the whole enterprise ridiculous – no one but the stupidest and most
brainwashed believes the filthy liars. Terrible that our ruling class are traitors to the
country – because why lie unless you have no respect for those ruled? Lie to the stupid
cattle – let them repeat the lies and laugh at their stupidity.
The Iranians are calling it piracy and now claim the right to seize any British oil tanker
in their waters. Perhaps they have passed "sanctions" against the Brits or the EU.
I'm thinking of passing some sanctions myself under my sovereign powers and seizing some
stuff. Hey why not? EU says it's ok.
Sanctions are for OUR profiteers, not their. We impose them so that our corporations and
profiteers can benefit from higher blackmark prices. When others cut into the profit it will
not be tolerated.
I think the glass jaw is appropriate, long time PR machinations are finding it harder to
peddle, considering the outcomes, hence the need for rather vulgar public displays of
military Sergeant Major marching up and down the field too imbue greatness on the unwashed by
proxy whilst swirling down the gurgler.
This is made even more surreal by grandiose gestures of minuscule proportions magnified
way beyond their scope in the big scheme of things sans a modern news cycle.
For some ridiculous reason I keep envisioning all the new data on shipwrecks during the
east indies company era and the findings .. silly me
I still don't understand why so many "commentators" have to try discussing
important topics without considering basic facts.
There are classes of ships called, for instance, Panamax or now specifically Suezmax.
These are the largest vessels that can transit said canals. The Panama Canal has locks
of a specific size and therefore there is a hard limit. Suezmax is a bit harder to define
because, without locks, it can vary some.
But there is a maximum and at just a first glance this vessel is at least near it.
"Why did the tanker take that giant detour along the African coastline? Because
potential problems were anticipated in the Suez canal." Well, yes. But which problems.
There seem to be many, starting with the fact that the Grace 1 is under the Iranian
flag. But besides that, it is not at all unusual for a vessel of that size to sail around
the
Cape. There are many reasons. I, myself, have made a longer passage in a smaller
vessel – 13100 nautical miles from Kharg Island in Iran to New Brunswick
(Irving refinery). Around the Cape. Nobody was particularly surprised.
Reminiscent of all those US "journalists" piling on to an Aeroflot flight to Havana in
search of Edward Snowden. They, and the world, were certain he was aboard, until
the craft flew over downtown Miami.
Yes, that would be unusual but according to the articles of engagement
it could happen.
More relevant though is that there are lots of reasons for
a loaded tanker to take an indirect route not necessarily having
much to do with the ownership of the cargo. The "tanker trackers"
don't seem to be unduly surprised by the itinerary. Happens every
day.
Incidentally, I was once on a tanker sailing from Providence, RI
with orders to "steam due south until you hear from us". That could
have led to some interesting results. In the event, however, we
ended up in India after a change in engagements. The return leg
of that voyage was the 13100 mile passage I mentioned earlier.
Another time I thought I was going somewhere in the Caribbean and
ended up on a circumnavigation. Hey, it's normal. Let's not get too
excited about somebody who wants to go around the Cape instead
of risking Suez.
By the way, my experiences all occurred under the US flag so why
try to find some strange dirt on the Iranians when they are only
doing what everybody else does.
I don't think that you get it. The US seized a North Korean ship a few weeks back and now
the US had the UK seize an Iranian ship on 'suspicions'. Do you really want to see an
international situation for trade where ships can be seized as political pawns and sold? Or
maybe airplanes as well? The big insurance companies certainly want to know. The Iranians are
saying that they now have the right to seize a British ship in retaliation. Will the Brits
sell that captured ship? Will they sell the oil aboard or take it back to the UK for their
own use? Do we really want to see a widespread return to Prize Laws again?
Can we give you some sort of award for admitting you made a mistake with your first post,
and then admonishing us to "engage brain before operating mouth" ?
"Game of Thrones" LOL!! The more time changes the more it stays the same!
It's "piracy" if "they" do it to us (or our co-conspirators); it's "legal sanctions" if we do
"it" to "them".
What a farcical, lying, two-faced world we live in!
There should have a new slogan for this international cabal -- "Strength through Chaos".
To be precise, OUR strength through THEIR chaos.
Has this been the "plan" for this period
since the end of World War Two? Even if it is not a "conspiracy", but rather a "concatenation
of interests", what difference does this terminology make to those suffering the boot
heel?
You could safely leave out anywhere in the Americas, I think, after reading Confessions
of an Economic Hitman . Less bombs, same benevolent results. The US/Mexican Border comes
to mind, filled with refugees from Guatemala and Honduras.
Neither the Reagan Years (and those years before) nor the Obama Years have been a picnic
for many that live anywhere in CA (other than possibly CR and Panama). Not that most of those
running those countries are in any way innocent, particularly those that we funneled arms and
money to.
I very much agree with Illargi on this. Nothing good can come from the "heroic" seizure of
the tanker. Mission accomplished: we are more idiotic every passing day.
re: Why did the tanker take that giant detour along the African coastline?
in case anyone else has not yet noted it, super tankers, VLCCs that can carry as much as 2
million barrels, cannot get through the Suez canal, which is limited to oil tankers in the
aptly named "Suezmax" class, less than half that size
Yeah this is not a well educated writer. Contradicts his own story at one point, and no
the US can't afford to get into a major war,but that does mean they lose either, the other
side would still lose more.
The winds change are blowing, indeed. Is that the fog of war on the horizon, or the
smokestacks of progress? Neither is good for the environment but as they say, fight one
battle at a time.
America's War On Terror has long since become the War OF Terrorism and it's good to see
the rest of the world has not only caught on but is doing something about it. Great Britain
went quietly and prospered. Will America do the same or will it struggle against the
inevitable? I suspect a bit of both. We do love to kill poor innocent brown people, after
all. It's what we're best at.
Time to find another line of work. Surely we can find something more productive to do?
The war on terror is a war on non-combatants. Its western terrorists, spooks and soldiers,
against Asian terrorists, Muslims.The other form of terrorism against non-combatants is
nuclear war – that's when the military attacks civilian targets like we did in WWII in
Hamburg and Dresden and Tokyo but using more destructive ordinance.
Can we say, in light of the regular failures of our initiatives overseas, that we the
people are expecting something that is not intended. We imagine war is fought to achieve
unconditional surrender and bring the humiliated enemy to our feet begging for life but
perhaps these attacks in the Middle East and North Africa are not for a military victory at
all but to take away the natural resources of those countries, using the fog of war to
conceal our purpose?
China calls Trump's bluff; Trump blinks on sanctions threat
span ed by gjohnsit on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 4:37pm
Trump made it perfectly clear: No one will buy Iranian oil and still do business with
America. That includes
China .
Two Trump administration officials said on Friday that neither a wind-down period nor a
short-term waiver on China's oil purchases from Iran are being contemplated after Washington
surprised Iran's customers on Monday by demanding they halt the purchases by May 1 or face
sanctions.
The administration has been clear to China, Iran's top oil consumer, about no additional
waivers to the sanctions after the ones granted last November, one of the senior officials
said.
No additional waivers. No wind-down period.
It's clear and final.
China is buying Iranian oil in defiance of US sanctions and providing what Tehran hopes will
be a financial lifeline for the country's buckling economy.
Although Beijing customs data show crude purchases from Iran are down month-on-month,
China is still importing Tehran's oil despite US measures designed to cut exports to
"zero".
Last week the Chinese received their first delivery of an Iranian oil cargo since the
Trump administration in May scrapped exemptions on Iranian sanctions.
So Trump is a big, tough, strongman. So what do you think he's going to do when he's
challenged?
He's going to fold .
But according to three U.S. officials, the department's Iran czar, Brian Hook, and his team
of negotiators have discussed granting China a waiver to a 2012 law intended to kneecap the
Iranian oil industry. The alternative is allowing China, which recently welcomed a shipment
of approximately a million barrels of Iranian oil, openly to defy U.S. sanctions.
...
The 2012 Iran Freedom and Counterproliferation Act targeted the Iranian shipping,
shipbuilding and energy sectors, requiring states or companies that wish to import Iranian
oil and conduct business with the U.S. to obtain waivers from the U.S. government. A separate
law targeted purchases, rather than imports of that oil.
Officials say the State Department is discussing an arrangement that would allow China to
import Iranian oil as payment in kind for sizable investments of the Chinese oil company
Sinopec in an Iranian oil field -- and administration officials have offered to issue a
waiver for the payback oil in official correspondence between the State Department and
Sinopec, according to a source familiar with the situation.
The waiver is merely a face-saving measure. China is going to continue to defy the sanctions
one way or another.
And if China gets a waiver then
India will too.
As it stands, India has halted buying Iranian oil, but that has just pushed them into buying
more
Russian oil .
Over the last two years, a different, in some ways unrecognizable Larry Summers has been appearing in newspaper editorial pages.
More circumspect in tone, this humbler Summers has been arguing that economic opportunities in the developing world are slowing,
and that the already rich economies are finding it hard to get out of the crisis. Barring some kind of breakthrough, Summers says,
an era of slow growth is here to stay.
In Summers's recent writings, this sombre conclusion has often been paired with a surprising political goal: advocating for a
"responsible nationalism". Now he argues that politicians must recognise that "the basic responsibility of government is to maximise
the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global good".
One curious thing about the pro-globalisation consensus of the 1990s and 2000s, and its collapse in recent years, is how closely
the cycle resembles a previous era. Pursuing free trade has always produced displacement and inequality – and political chaos, populism
and retrenchment to go with it. Every time the social consequences of free trade are overlooked, political backlash follows. But
free trade is only one of many forms that economic integration can take. History seems to suggest, however, that it might be the
most destabilising one.
... ... ...
The international systems that chastened figures such as Keynes helped produce in the next few years – especially the Bretton
Woods agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt) – set the terms under which the new wave of globalisation
would take place.
The key to the system's viability, in Rodrik's view, was its flexibility – something absent from contemporary globalisation,
with its one-size-fits-all model of capitalism. Bretton Woods stabilised exchange rates by pegging the dollar loosely to gold, and
other currencies to the dollar. Gatt consisted of rules governing free trade – negotiated by participating countries in a series
of multinational "rounds" – that left many areas of the world economy, such as agriculture, untouched or unaddressed. "Gatt's purpose
was never to maximise free trade," Rodrik writes. "It was to achieve the maximum amount of trade compatible with different nations
doing their own thing. In that respect, the institution proved spectacularly successful."
Partly because Gatt was not always dogmatic about free trade, it allowed most countries to figure out their own economic objectives,
within a somewhat international ambit. When nations contravened the agreement's terms on specific areas of national interest, they
found that it "contained loopholes wide enough for an elephant to pass", in Rodrik's words. If a nation wanted to protect its steel
industry, for example, it could claim "injury" under the rules of Gatt and raise tariffs to discourage steel imports: "an abomination
from the standpoint of free trade". These were useful for countries that were recovering from the war and needed to build up their
own industries via tariffs – duties imposed on particular imports. Meanwhile, from 1948 to 1990, world trade grew at an annual average
of nearly 7% – faster than the post-communist years, which we think of as the high point of globalisation. "If there was a golden
era of globalisation," Rodrik has written, "this was it."
Gatt, however, failed to cover many of the countries in the developing world. These countries eventually created their own system,
the United Nations conference on trade and development (UNCTAD). Under this rubric, many countries – especially in Latin America,
the Middle East, Africa and Asia – adopted a policy of protecting homegrown industries by replacing imports with domestically produced
goods. It worked poorly in some places – India and Argentina, for example, where the trade barriers were too high, resulting in
factories that cost more to set up than the value of the goods they produced – but remarkably well in others, such as east Asia,
much of Latin America and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where homegrown industries did spring up. Though many later economists and
commentators would dismiss the achievements of this model, it theoretically fit Larry Summers's recent rubric on globalisation:
"the basic responsibility of government is to maximise the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global
good."
The critical turning point – away from this system of trade balanced against national protections – came in the 1980s. Flagging
growth and high inflation in the west, along with growing competition from Japan, opened the way for a political transformation.
The elections of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were seminal, putting free-market radicals in charge of two of the world's
five biggest economies and ushering in an era of "hyperglobalisation". In the new political climate, economies with large public
sectors and strong governments within the global capitalist system were no longer seen as aids to the system's functioning, but
impediments to it.
Not only did these ideologies take hold in the US and the UK; they seized international institutions as well. Gatt renamed itself
as the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the new rules the body negotiated began to cut more deeply into national policies. Its
international trade rules sometimes undermined national legislation. The WTO's appellate court intervened relentlessly in member
nations' tax, environmental and regulatory policies, including those of the United States: the US's fuel emissions standards were
judged to discriminate against imported gasoline, and its
ban on imported shrimp caught without turtle-excluding
devices was overturned. If national health and safety regulations were stricter than WTO rules necessitated, they could only
remain in place if they were shown to have "scientific justification".
The purest version of hyperglobalisation was tried out in Latin America in the 1980s. Known as the "Washington consensus", this
model usually involved loans from the IMF that were contingent on those countries lowering trade barriers and privatising many of
their nationally held industries. Well into the 1990s, economists were proclaiming the indisputable benefits of openness. In an
influential 1995 paper, Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner wrote: "We find no cases to support the frequent worry that a country might
open and yet fail to grow."
But the Washington consensus was bad for business: most countries did worse than before. Growth faltered, and citizens across
Latin America revolted against attempted privatisations of water and gas. In Argentina, which followed the Washington consensus
to the letter, a grave crisis resulted in
2002 , precipitating an economic collapse and massive street protests that forced out the government that had pursued privatising
reforms. Argentina's revolt presaged a left-populist upsurge across the continent: from 1999 to 2007, leftwing leaders and parties
took power in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, all of them campaigning against the Washington consensus on globalisation.
These revolts were a preview of the backlash of today.
Rodrik – perhaps the contemporary economist whose views have been most amply vindicated by recent events – was himself a beneficiary
of protectionism in Turkey. His father's ballpoint pen company was sheltered under tariffs, and achieved enough success to allow
Rodrik to attend Harvard in the 1970s as an undergraduate. This personal understanding of the mixed nature of economic success may
be one of the reasons why his work runs against the broad consensus of mainstream economics writing on globalisation.
"I never felt that my ideas were out of the mainstream," Rodrik told me recently. Instead, it was that the mainstream had lost
touch with the diversity of opinions and methods that already existed within economics. "The economics profession is strange in
that the more you move away from the seminar room to the public domain, the more the nuances get lost, especially on issues of trade."
He lamented the fact that while, in the classroom, the models of trade discuss losers and winners, and, as a result, the necessity
of policies of redistribution, in practice, an "arrogance and hubris" had led many economists to ignore these implications. "Rather
than speaking truth to power, so to speak, many economists became cheerleaders for globalisation."
In his 2011 book The Globalization Paradox
, Rodrik concluded that "we cannot simultaneously pursue democracy, national determination, and economic globalisation." The
results of the 2016 elections and referendums provide ample testimony of the justness of the thesis, with millions voting to push
back, for better or for worse, against the campaigns and institutions that promised more globalisation. "I'm not at all surprised
by the backlash," Rodrik told me. "Really, nobody should have been surprised."
But what, in any case, would "more globalisation" look like? For the same economists and writers who have started to rethink
their commitments to greater integration, it doesn't mean quite what it did in the early 2000s. It's not only the discourse that's
changed: globalisation itself has changed, developing into a more chaotic and unequal system than many economists predicted. The
benefits of globalisation have been largely concentrated in a handful of Asian countries. And even in those countries, the good
times may be running out.
Statistics from Global Inequality
, a 2016 book by the development economist Branko Milanović, indicate that in relative terms the greatest benefits of globalisation
have accrued to a rising "emerging middle class", based preponderantly in China. But the cons are there, too: in absolute terms,
the largest gains have gone to what is commonly called "the 1%" – half of whom are based in the US. Economist Richard Baldwin has
shown in his recent book, The Great Convergence, that nearly all of the gains from globalisation have been concentrated in six countries.
Barring some political catastrophe, in which rightwing populism continued to gain, and in which globalisation would be the least
of our problems – Wolf admitted that he was "not at all sure" that this could be ruled out – globalisation was always going to slow;
in fact, it already has. One reason, says Wolf, was that "a very, very large proportion of the gains from globalisation – by no
means all – have been exploited. We have a more open world economy to trade than we've ever had before." Citing The Great Convergence,
Wolf noted that supply chains have already expanded, and that future developments, such as automation and the use of robots, looked
to undermine the promise of a growing industrial workforce. Today, the political priorities were less about trade and more about
the challenge of retraining workers , as technology renders old jobs obsolete and transforms the world of work.
Rodrik, too, believes that globalisation, whether reduced or increased, is unlikely to produce the kind of economic effects it
once did. For him, this slowdown has something to do with what he calls "premature deindustrialisation". In the past, the simplest
model of globalisation suggested that rich countries would gradually become "service economies", while emerging economies picked
up the industrial burden. Yet recent statistics show the world as a whole is deindustrialising. Countries that one would have expected
to have more industrial potential are going through the stages of automation more quickly than previously developed countries did,
and thereby failing to develop the broad industrial workforce seen as a key to shared prosperity.
For both Rodrik and Wolf, the political reaction to globalisation bore possibilities of deep uncertainty. "I really have found
it very difficult to decide whether what we're living through is a blip, or a fundamental and profound transformation of the world
– at least as significant as the one that brought about the first world war and the Russian revolution," Wolf told me. He cited
his agreement with economists such as Summers that shifting away from the earlier emphasis on globalisation had now become a political
priority; that to pursue still greater liberalisation was like showing "a red rag to a bull" in terms of what it might do to the
already compromised political stability of the western world.
Rodrik pointed to a belated emphasis, both among political figures and economists, on the necessity of compensating those displaced
by globalisation with retraining and more robust welfare states. But pro-free-traders had a history of cutting compensation: Bill
Clinton passed Nafta, but failed to expand safety nets. "The issue is that the people are rightly not trusting the centrists who
are now promising compensation," Rodrik said. "One reason that Hillary Clinton didn't get any traction with those people is that
she didn't have any credibility."
Rodrik felt that economics commentary failed to register the gravity of the situation: that there were increasingly few avenues
for global growth, and that much of the damage done by globalisation – economic and political – is irreversible. "There is a sense
that we're at a turning point," he said. "There's a lot more thinking about what can be done. There's a renewed emphasis on compensation
– which, you know, I think has come rather late."
"... The purpose of a military conquest is to take control of foreign economies, to take control of their land and impose tribute. The genius of the World Bank was to recognize that it's not necessary to occupy a country in order to impose tribute, or to take over its industry, agriculture and land. Instead of bullets, it uses financial maneuvering. As long as other countries play an artificial economic game that U.S. diplomacy can control, finance is able to achieve today what used to require bombing and loss of life by soldiers ..."
"... It was set up basically by the United States in 1944, along with its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Their purpose was to create an international order like a funnel to make other countries economically dependent on the United States ..."
"... American diplomats insisted on the ability to veto any action by the World Bank or IMF. The aim of this veto power was to make sure that any policy was, in Donald Trump's words, to put America first. "We've got to win and they've got to lose." ..."
"... The World Bank was set up from the outset as a branch of the military, of the Defense Department. John J. McCloy (Assistant Secretary of War, 1941-45), was the first full-time president ..."
"... Many countries had two rates: one for goods and services, which was set normally by the market, and then a different exchange rate that was managed for capital movements. That was because countries were trying to prevent capital flight. They didn't want their wealthy classes or foreign investors to make a run on their own currency – an ever-present threat in Latin America. ..."
"... The IMF and the World Bank backed the cosmopolitan classes, the wealthy. Instead of letting countries control their capital outflows and prevent capital flight, the IMF's job is to protect the richest One Percent and foreign investors from balance-of-payments problems ..."
"... The IMF enables its wealthy constituency to move their money out of the country without taking a foreign-exchange loss ..."
"... Wall Street speculators have sold the local currency short to make a killing, George-Soros style. ..."
"... When the debtor-country currency collapses, the debts that these Latin American countries owe are in dollars, and now have to pay much more in their own currency to carry and pay off these debts. ..."
"... Local currency is thrown onto the foreign-exchange market for dollars, lowering the exchange rate. That increases import prices, raising a price umbrella for domestic products. ..."
"... Instead, the IMF says just the opposite: It acts to prevent any move by other countries to bring the debt volume within the ability to be paid. It uses debt leverage as a way to control the monetary lifeline of financially defeated debtor countries. ..."
"... This control by the U.S. financial system and its diplomacy has been built into the world system by the IMF and the World Bank claiming to be international instead of an expression of specifically U.S. New Cold War nationalism. ..."
"... The same thing happened in Greece a few years ago, when almost all of Greece's foreign debt was owed to Greek millionaires holding their money in Switzerland ..."
"... The IMF could have seized this money to pay off the bondholders. Instead, it made the Greek economy pay. It found that it was worth wrecking the Greek economy, forcing emigration and wiping out Greek industry so that French and German bondholding banks would not have to take a loss. That is what makes the IMF so vicious an institution. ..."
"... America was able to grab all of Iran's foreign exchange just by the banks interfering. The CIA has bragged that it can do the same thing with Russia. If Russia does something that U.S. diplomats don't like, the U.S. can use the SWIFT bank payment system to exclude Russia from it, so the Russian banks and the Russian people and industry won't be able to make payments to each other. ..."
"... You can't create the money, especially if you're running a balance of payments deficit and if U.S. foreign policy forces you into deficit by having someone like George Soros make a run on your currency. Look at the Asia crisis in 1997. Wall Street funds bet against foreign currencies, driving them way down, and then used the money to pick up industry cheap in Korea and other Asian countries. ..."
"... This was also done to Russia's ruble. The only country that avoided this was Malaysia, under Mohamed Mahathir, by using capital controls. Malaysia is an object lesson in how to prevent a currency flight. ..."
"... Client kleptocracies take their money and run, moving it abroad to hard currency areas such as the United States, or at least keeping it in dollars in offshore banking centers instead of reinvesting it to help the country catch up by becoming independent agriculturally, in energy, finance and other sectors. ..."
"... But in shaping the World Trade Organization's rules, the United States said that all countries had to promote free trade and could not have government support, except for countries that already had it. We're the only country that had it. That's what's called "grandfathering". ..."
"The purpose of a military conquest is to take control of foreign economies, to take control of their land and impose
tribute. The genius of the World Bank was to recognize that it's not necessary to occupy a country in order to impose tribute,
or to take over its industry, agriculture and land. Instead of bullets, it uses financial maneuvering. As long as other countries
play an artificial economic game that U.S. diplomacy can control, finance is able to achieve today what used to require bombing
and loss of life by soldiers."
I'm Bonnie Faulkner. Today on Guns and Butter: Dr. Michael Hudson. Today's show: The IMF and World Bank: Partners In Backwardness
. Dr. Hudson is a financial economist and historian. He is President of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trend,
a Wall Street Financial Analyst, and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.
His most recent books include " and Forgive them Their Debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance
to the Jubilee Year "; Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy , and J Is for
Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception . He is also author of Trade, Development and Foreign Debt
, among many other books.
We return today to a discussion of Dr. Hudson's seminal 1972 book, Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire
, a critique of how the United States exploited foreign economies through the IMF and World Bank, with a special emphasis on
food imperialism.
... ... ...
Bonnie Faulkner : In your seminal work form 1972, Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire ,
you write: "The development lending of the World Bank has been dysfunctional from the outset." When was the World Bank set up and
by whom?
Michael Hudson : It was set up basically by the United States in 1944, along with its sister institution, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF). Their purpose was to create an international order like a funnel to make other countries economically dependent
on the United States. To make sure that no other country or group of countries – even all the rest of the world – could not
dictate U.S. policy. American diplomats insisted on the ability to veto any action by the World Bank or IMF. The aim of this
veto power was to make sure that any policy was, in Donald Trump's words, to put America first. "We've got to win and they've got
to lose."
The World Bank was set up from the outset as a branch of the military, of the Defense Department. John J. McCloy (Assistant
Secretary of War, 1941-45), was the first full-time president. He later became Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank (1953-60).
McNamara was Secretary of Defense (1961-68), Paul Wolfowitz was Deputy and Under Secretary of Defense (1989-2005), and Robert Zoellick
was Deputy Secretary of State. So I think you can look at the World Bank as the soft shoe of American diplomacy.
Bonnie Faulkner : What is the difference between the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the IMF? Is
there a difference?
Michael Hudson : Yes, there is. The World Bank was supposed to make loans for what they call international development.
"Development" was their euphemism for dependency on U.S. exports and finance. This dependency entailed agricultural backwardness
– opposing land reform, family farming to produce domestic food crops, and also monetary backwardness in basing their monetary system
on the dollar.
The World Bank was supposed to provide infrastructure loans that other countries would go into debt to pay American engineering
firms, to build up their export sectors and their plantation sectors by public investment roads and port development for imports
and exports. Essentially, the Bank financed long- investments in the foreign trade sector, in a way that was a natural continuation
of European colonialism.
In 1941, for example, C. L. R. James wrote an article on "Imperialism in Africa" pointing out the fiasco of European railroad
investment in Africa: "Railways must serve flourishing industrial areas, or densely populated agricult5ural regions, or they must
open up new land along which a thriving population develops and provides the railways with traffic. Except in the mining regions
of South Africa, all these conditions are absent. Yet railways were needed, for the benefit of European investors and heavy industry."
That is why, James explained "only governments can afford to operate them," while being burdened with heavy interest obligations.
[1] What was "developed" was Africa's
mining and plantation export sector, not its domestic economies. The World Bank followed this pattern of "development" lending without
apology.
The IMF was in charge of short-term foreign currency loans. Its aim was to prevent countries from imposing capital controls to
protect their balance of payments. Many countries had a dual exchange rate: one for trade in goods and services, the other rate
for capital movements. The function of the IMF and World Bank was essentially to make other countries borrow in dollars, not in
their own currencies, and to make sure that if they could not pay their dollar-denominated debts, they had to impose austerity on
the domestic economy – while subsidizing their import and export sectors and protecting foreign investors, creditors and client
oligarchies from loss.
The IMF developed a junk-economics model pretending that any country can pay any amount of debt to the creditors if it just impoverishes
its labor enough. So when countries were unable to pay their debt service, the IMF tells them to raise their interest rates to bring
on a depression – austerity – and break up the labor unions. That is euphemized as "rationalizing labor markets." The rationalizing
is essentially to disable labor unions and the public sector. The aim – and effect – is to prevent countries from essentially following
the line of development that had made the United States rich – by public subsidy and protection of domestic agriculture, public
subsidy and protection of industry and an active government sector promoting a New Deal democracy. The IMF was essentially promoting
and forcing other countries to balance their trade deficits by letting American and other investors buy control of their commanding
heights, mainly their infrastructure monopolies, and to subsidize their capital flight.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Now, Michael, when you began speaking about the IMF and monetary controls, you mentioned that there
were two exchange rates of currency in countries. What were you referring to?
MICHAEL HUDSON : When I went to work on Wall Street in the '60s, I was balance-of-payments economist for Chase Manhattan,
and we used the IMF's monthly International Financial Statistics every month. At the top of each country's statistics would
be the exchange-rate figures. Many countries had two rates: one for goods and services, which was set normally by the market,
and then a different exchange rate that was managed for capital movements. That was because countries were trying to prevent capital
flight. They didn't want their wealthy classes or foreign investors to make a run on their own currency – an ever-present threat
in Latin America.
The IMF and the World Bank backed the cosmopolitan classes, the wealthy. Instead of letting countries control their capital
outflows and prevent capital flight, the IMF's job is to protect the richest One Percent and foreign investors from balance-of-payments
problems.
The World Bank and American diplomacy have steered them into a chronic currency crisis. The IMF enables its wealthy constituency
to move their money out of the country without taking a foreign-exchange loss. It makes loans to support capital flight out
of domestic currencies into the dollar or other hard currencies. The IMF calls this a "stabilization" program. It is never effective
in helping the debtor economy pay foreign debts out of growth. Instead, the IMF uses currency depreciation and sell-offs of public
infrastructure and other assets to foreign investors after the flight capital has left and currency collapses. Wall Street speculators
have sold the local currency short to make a killing, George-Soros style.
When the debtor-country currency collapses, the debts that these Latin American countries owe are in dollars, and now have
to pay much more in their own currency to carry and pay off these debts. We're talking about enormous penalty rates in domestic
currency for these countries to pay foreign-currency debts – basically taking on to finance a non-development policy and to subsidize
capital flight when that policy "fails" to achieve its pretended objective of growth.
All hyperinflations of Latin America – Chile early on, like Germany after World War I – come from trying to pay foreign debts
beyond the ability to be paid. Local currency is thrown onto the foreign-exchange market for dollars, lowering the exchange
rate. That increases import prices, raising a price umbrella for domestic products.
A really functional and progressive international monetary fund that would try to help countries develop would say: "Okay, banks
and we (the IMF) have made bad loans that the country can't pay. And the World Bank has given it bad advice, distorting its domestic
development to serve foreign customers rather than its own growth. So we're going to write down the loans to the ability to be paid."
That's what happened in 1931, when the world finally stopped German reparations payments and Inter-Ally debts to the United States
stemming from World War I.
Instead, the IMF says just the opposite: It acts to prevent any move by other countries to bring the debt volume within
the ability to be paid. It uses debt leverage as a way to control the monetary lifeline of financially defeated debtor countries.
So if they do something that U.S. diplomats don't approve of, it can pull the plug financially, encouraging a run on their currency
if they act independently of the United States instead of falling in line. This control by the U.S. financial system and its
diplomacy has been built into the world system by the IMF and the World Bank claiming to be international instead of an expression
of specifically U.S. New Cold War nationalism.
BONNIE FAULKNER : How do exchange rates contribute to capital flight?
MICHAEL HUDSON : It's not the exchange rate that contributes. Suppose that you're a millionaire, and you see that your
country is unable to balance its trade under existing production patterns. The money that the government has under control is pesos,
escudos, cruzeiros or some other currency, not dollars or euros. You see that your currency is going to go down relative to the
dollar, so you want to get our money out of the country to preserve your purchasing power.
This has long been institutionalized. By 1990, for instance, Latin American countries had defaulted so much in the wake of the
Mexico defaults in 1982 that I was hired by Scudder Stevens, to help start a Third World Bond Fund (called a "sovereign high-yield
fund"). At the time, Argentina and Brazil were running such serious balance-of-payments deficits that they were having to pay 45
percent per year interest, in dollars, on their dollar debt. Mexico, was paying 22.5 percent on its tesobonos .
Scudders' salesmen went around to the United States and tried to sell shares in the proposed fund, but no Americans would buy
it, despite the enormous yields. They sent their salesmen to Europe and got a similar reaction. They had lost their shirts on Third
World bonds and couldn't see how these countries could pay.
Merrill Lynch was the fund's underwriter. Its office in Brazil and in Argentina proved much more successful in selling investments
in Scudder's these offshore fund established in the Dutch West Indies. It was an offshore fund, so Americans were not able to buy
it. But Brazilian and Argentinian rich families close to the central bank and the president became the major buyers. We realized
that they were buying these funds because they knew that their government was indeed going to pay their stipulated interest charges.
In effect, the bonds were owed ultimately to themselves. So these Yankee dollar bonds were being bought by Brazilians and other
Latin Americans as a vehicle to move their money out of their soft local currency (which was going down), to buy bonds denominated
in hard dollars.
BONNIE FAULKNER : If wealthy families from these countries bought these bonds denominated in dollars, knowing that they
were going to be paid off, who was going to pay them off? The country that was going broke?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Well, countries don't pay; the taxpayers pay, and in the end, labor pays. The IMF certainly doesn't want
to make its wealthy client oligarchies pay. It wants to squeeze ore economic surplus out of the labor force. So countries are told
that the way they can afford to pay their enormously growing dollar-denominated debt is to lower wages even more.
Currency depreciation is an effective way to do this, because what is devalued is basically labor's wages. Other elements of
exports have a common world price: energy, raw materials, capital goods, and credit under the dollar-centered international monetary
system that the IMF seeks to maintain as a financial strait jacket.
According to the IMF's ideological models, there's no limit to how far you can lower wages by enough to make labor competitive
in producing exports. The IMF and World Bank thus use junk economics to pretend that the way to pay debts owed to the wealthiest
creditors and investors is to lower wages and impose regressive excise taxes, to impose special taxes on necessities that labor
needs, from food to energy and basic services supplied by public infrastructure.
BONNIE FAULKNER: So you're saying that labor ultimately has to pay off these junk bonds?
MICHAEL HUDSON: That is the basic aim of IMF. I discuss its fallacies in my Trade Development and Foreign Debt
, which is the academic sister volume to Super Imperialism . These two books show that the World Bank and IMF were viciously
anti-labor from the very outset, working with domestic elites whose fortunes are tied to and loyal to the United States.
BONNIE FAULKNER : With regard to these junk bonds, who was it or what entity
MICHAEL HUDSON : They weren't junk bonds. They were called that because they were high-interest bonds, but they weren't
really junk because they actually were paid. Everybody thought they were junk because no American would have paid 45 percent interest.
Any country that really was self-reliant and was promoting its own economic interest would have said, "You banks and the IMF have
made bad loans, and you've made them under false pretenses – a trade theory that imposes austerity instead of leading to prosperity.
We're not going to pay." They would have seized the capital flight of their comprador elites and said that these dollar bonds were
a rip-off by the corrupt ruling class.
The same thing happened in Greece a few years ago, when almost all of Greece's foreign debt was owed to Greek millionaires
holding their money in Switzerland. The details were published in the "Legarde List." But the IMF said, in effect that its
loyalty was to the Greek millionaires who ha their money in Switzerland. The IMF could have seized this money to pay off the
bondholders. Instead, it made the Greek economy pay. It found that it was worth wrecking the Greek economy, forcing emigration and
wiping out Greek industry so that French and German bondholding banks would not have to take a loss. That is what makes the IMF
so vicious an institution.
BONNIE FAULKNER : So these loans to foreign countries that were regarded as junk bonds really weren't junk, because
they were going to be paid. What group was it that jacked up these interest rates to 45 percent?
MICHAEL HUDSON : The market did. American banks, stock brokers and other investors looked at the balance of payments of
these countries and could not see any reasonable way that they could pay their debts, so they were not going to buy their bonds.
No country subject to democratic politics would have paid debts under these conditions. But the IMF, U.S. and Eurozone diplomacy
overrode democratic choice.
Investors didn't believe that the IMF and the World Bank had such a strangle hold over Latin American, Asian, and African countries
that they could make the countries act in the interest of the United States and the cosmopolitan finance capital, instead of in
their own national interest. They didn't believe that countries would commit financial suicide just to pay their wealthy One Percent.
They were wrong, of course. Countries were quite willing to commit economic suicide if their governments were dictatorships propped
up by the United States. That's why the CIA has assassination teams and actively supports these countries to prevent any party coming
to power that would act in their national interest instead of in the interest of a world division of labor and production along
the lines that the U.S. planners want for the world. Under the banner of what they call a free market, you have the World Bank and
the IMF engage in central planning of a distinctly anti-labor policy. Instead of calling them Third World bonds or junk bonds, you
should call them anti-labor bonds, because they have become a lever to impose austerity throughout the world.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Well, that makes a lot of sense, Michael, and answers a lot of the questions I've put together to ask
you. What about Puerto Rico writing down debt? I thought such debts couldn't be written down.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's what they all said, but the bonds were trading at about 45 cents on the dollar, the risk of their
not being paid. The Wall Street Journal on June 17, reported that unsecured suppliers and creditors of Puerto Rico, would
only get nine cents on the dollar. The secured bond holders would get maybe 65 cents on the dollar.
The terms are being written down because it's obvious that Puerto Rico can't pay, and that trying to do so is driving the population
to move out of Puerto Rico to the United States. If you don't want Puerto Ricans to act the same way Greeks did and leave Greece
when their industry and economy was shut down, then you're going to have to provide stability or else you're going to have half
of Puerto Rico living in Florida.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Who wrote down the Puerto Rican debt?
MICHAEL HUDSON : A committee was appointed, and it calculated how much Puerto Rico can afford to pay out of its taxes.
Puerto Rico is a U.S. dependency, that is, an economic colony of the United States. It does not have domestic self-reliance. It's
the antithesis of democracy, so it's never been in charge of its own economic policy and essentially has to do whatever the United
States tells it to do. There was a reaction after the hurricane and insufficient U.S. support to protect the island and the enormous
waste and corruption involved in the U.S. aid. The U.S. response was simply: "We won you fair and square in the Spanish-American
war and you're an occupied country, and we're going to keep you that way." Obviously this is causing a political resentment.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You've already touched on this, but why has the World Bank traditionally been headed by a U.S. secretary
of defense?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Its job is to do in the financial sphere what, in the past, was done by military force. The purpose of
a military conquest is to take control of foreign economies, to take control of their land and impose tribute. The genius of the
World Bank was to recognize that it's not necessary to occupy a country in order to impose tribute, or to take over its industry,
agriculture and land. Instead of bullets, it uses financial maneuvering. As long as other countries play an artificial economic
game that U.S. diplomacy can control, finance is able to achieve today what used to require bombing and loss of life by soldiers.
In this case the loss of life occurs in the debtor countries. Population growth shrinks, suicides go up. The World Bank engages
in economic warfare that is just as destructive as military warfare. At the end of the Yeltsin period Russia's President Putin said
that American neoliberalism destroyed more of Russia's population than did World War II. Such neoliberalism, which basically is
the doctrine of American supremacy and foreign dependency, is the policy of the World Bank and IMF.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why has World Bank policy since its inception been to provide loans for countries to devote their land
to export crops instead of giving priority to feeding themselves? And if this is the case, why do countries want these loans?
MICHAEL HUDSON : One constant of American foreign policy is to make other countries dependent on American grain exports
and food exports. The aim is to buttress America's agricultural trade surplus. So the first thing that the World Bank has done is
not to make any domestic currency loans to help food producers. Its lending has steered client countries to produce tropical export
crops, mainly plantation crops that cannot be grown in the United States. Focusing on export crops leads client countries to become
dependent on American farmers – and political sanctions.
In the 1950s, right after the Chinese revolution, the United States tried to prevent China from succeeding by imposing grain
export controls to starve China into submission by putting sanctions on exports. Canada was the country that broke these export
controls and helped feed China.
The idea is that if you can make other countries export plantation crops, the oversupply will drive down prices for cocoa and
other tropical products, and they won't feed themselves. So instead of backing family farms like the American agricultural policy
does, the World Bank backed plantation agriculture. In Chile, which has the highest natural supply of fertilizer in the world from
its guano deposits, exports guano instead of using it domestically. It also has the most unequal land distribution, blocking it
from growing its own grain or food crops. It's completely dependent on the United States for this, and it pays by exporting copper,
guano and other natural resources.
The idea is to create interdependency – one-sided dependency on the U.S. economy. The United States has always aimed at being
self-sufficient in its own essentials, so that no other country can pull the plug on our economy and say, "We're going to starve
you by not feeding you." Americans can feed themselves. Other countries can't say, "We're going to let you freeze in the dark by
not sending you oil," because America's independent in energy. But America can use the oil control to make other countries freeze
in the dark, and it can starve other countries by food-export sanctions.
So the idea is to give the United States control of the key interconnections of other economies, without letting any country
control something that is vital to the working of the American economy.
There's a double standard here. The United States tells other countries: "Don't do as we do. Do as we say." The only way it can
enforce this is by interfering in the politics of these countries, as it has interfered in Latin America, always pushing the right
wing. For instance, when Hillary's State Department overthrew the Honduras reformer who wanted to undertake land reform and feed
the Hondurans, she said: "This person has to go." That's why there are so many Hondurans trying to get into the United States now,
because they can't live in their own country.
The effect of American coups is the same in Syria and Iraq. They force an exodus of people who no longer can make a living under
the brutal dictatorships supported by the United States to enforce this international dependency system.
BONNIE FAULKNER : So when I asked you why countries would want these loans, I guess you're saying that they wouldn't,
and that's why the U.S. finds it necessary to control them politically.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's a concise way of putting it Bonnie.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why are World Bank loans only in foreign currency, not in the domestic currency of the country to which
it is lending?
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's a good point. A basic principle should be to avoid borrowing in a foreign currency. A country
can always pay the loans in its own currency, but there's no way that it can print dollars or euros to pay loans denominated in
these foreign currencies.
Making the dollar central forces other countries to interface with the U.S. banking system. So if a country decides to go its
own way, as Iran did in 1953 when it wanted to take over its oil from British Petroleum (or Anglo Iranian Oil, as it was called
back then), the United States can interfere and overthrow it. The idea is to be able to use the banking system's interconnections
to stop payments from being made.
After America installed the Shah's dictatorship, they were overthrown by Khomeini, and Iran had run up a U.S. dollar debt under
the Shah. It had plenty of dollars. I think Chase Manhattan was its paying agent. So when its quarterly or annual debt payment came
due, Iran told Chase to draw on its accounts and pay the bondholders. But Chase took orders from the State Department or the Defense
Department, I don't know which, and refused to pay. When the payment was not made, America and its allies claimed that Iran was
in default. They demanded the entire debt to be paid, as per the agreement that the Shah's puppet government had signed. America
simply grabbed the deposits that Iran had in the United States. This is the money that was finally returned to Iran without interest
under the agreement of 2016.
America was able to grab all of Iran's foreign exchange just by the banks interfering. The CIA has bragged that it can do
the same thing with Russia. If Russia does something that U.S. diplomats don't like, the U.S. can use the SWIFT bank payment system
to exclude Russia from it, so the Russian banks and the Russian people and industry won't be able to make payments to each other.
This prompted Russia to create its own bank-transfer system, and is leading China, Russia, India and Pakistan to draft plans
to de-dollarize.
BONNIE FAULKNER : I was going to ask you, why would loans in a country's domestic currency be preferable to the country
taking out a loan in a foreign currency? I guess you've explained that if they took out a loan in a domestic currency, they would
be able to repay it.
MICHAEL HUDSON : Yes.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Whereas a loan in a foreign currency would cripple them.
MICHAEL HUDSON : Yes. You can't create the money, especially if you're running a balance of payments deficit and if
U.S. foreign policy forces you into deficit by having someone like George Soros make a run on your currency. Look at the Asia crisis
in 1997. Wall Street funds bet against foreign currencies, driving them way down, and then used the money to pick up industry cheap
in Korea and other Asian countries.
This was also done to Russia's ruble. The only country that avoided this was Malaysia, under Mohamed Mahathir, by using capital
controls. Malaysia is an object lesson in how to prevent a currency flight.
But for Latin America and other countries, much of their foreign debt is held by their own ruling class. Even though it's denominated
in dollars, Americans don't own most of this debt. It's their own ruling class. The IMF and World Bank dictate tax policy to Latin
America – to un-tax wealth and shift the burden onto labor. Client kleptocracies take their money and run, moving it abroad
to hard currency areas such as the United States, or at least keeping it in dollars in offshore banking centers instead of reinvesting
it to help the country catch up by becoming independent agriculturally, in energy, finance and other sectors.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You say that: "While U.S. agricultural protectionism has been built into the postwar global system at
its inception, foreign protectionism is to be nipped in the bud." How has U.S. agricultural protectionism been built into the postwar
global system?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Under Franklin Roosevelt the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 called for price supports for crops
so that farmers could earn enough to invest in equipment and seeds. The Agriculture Department was a wonderful department in spurring
new seed varieties, agricultural extension services, marketing and banking services. It provided public support so that productivity
in American agriculture from the 1930s to '50s was higher over a prolonged period than that of any other sector in history.
But in shaping the World Trade Organization's rules, the United States said that all countries had to promote free trade
and could not have government support, except for countries that already had it. We're the only country that had it. That's what's
called "grandfathering". The Americans said: "We already have this program on the books, so we can keep it. But no other country
can succeed in agriculture in the way that we have done. You must keep your agriculture backward, except for the plantation crops
and growing crops that we can't grow in the United States." That's what's so evil about the World Bank's development plan.
BONNIE FAULKNER : According to your book: "Domestic currency is needed to provide price supports and agricultural extension
services such as have made U.S. agriculture so productive." Why can't infrastructure costs be subsidized to keep down the economy's
overall cost structure if IMF loans are made in foreign currency?
MICHAEL HUDSON : If you're a farmer in Brazil, Argentina or Chile, you're doing business in domestic currency. It doesn't
help if somebody gives you dollars, because your expenses are in domestic currency. So if the World Bank and the IMF can prevent
countries from providing domestic currency support, that means they're not able to give price supports or provide government marketing
services for their agriculture.
America is a mixed economy. Our government has always subsidized capital formation in agriculture and industry, but it insists
that other countries are socialist or communist if they do what the United States is doing and use their government to support the
economy. So it's a double standard. Nobody calls America a socialist country for supporting its farmers, but other countries are
called socialist and are overthrown if they attempt land reform or attempt to feed themselves.
This is what the Catholic Church's Liberation Theology was all about. They backed land reform and agricultural self-sufficiency
in food, realizing that if you're going to support population growth, you have to support the means to feed it. That's why the United
States focused its assassination teams on priests and nuns in Guatemala and Central America for trying to promote domestic self-sufficiency.
BONNIE FAULKNER : If a country takes out an IMF loan, they're obviously going to take it out in dollars. Why can't they
take the dollars and convert them into domestic currency to support local infrastructure costs?
MICHAEL HUDSON : You don't need a dollar loan to do that. Now were getting in to MMT. Any country can create its own currency.
There's no reason to borrow in dollars to create your own currency. You can print it yourself or create it on your computers.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Well, exactly. So why don't these countries simply print up their own domestic currency?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Their leaders don't want to be assassinated. More immediately, if you look at the people in charge of
foreign central banks, almost all have been educated in the United States and essentially brainwashed. It's the mentality of foreign
central bankers. The people who are promoted are those who feel personally loyal to the United States, because they that that's
how to get ahead. Essentially, they're opportunists working against the interests of their own country. You won't have socialist
central bankers as long as central banks are dominated by the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements.
BONNIE FAULKNER : So we're back to the main point: The control is by political means, and they control the politics and
the power structure in these countries so that they don't rebel.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's right. When you have a dysfunctional economic theory that is destructive instead of productive,
this is never an accident. It is always a result of junk economics and dependency economics being sponsored. I've talked to people
at the U.S. Treasury and asked why they all end up following the United States. Treasury officials have told me: "We simply buy
them off. They do it for the money." So you don't need to kill them. All you need to do is find people corrupt enough and opportunist
enough to see where the money is, and you buy them off.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You write that "by following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food blackmail." What
is food blackmail?
MICHAEL HUDSON : If you pursue a foreign policy that we don't like -- for instance, if you trade with Iran, which we're
trying to smash up to grab its oil -- we'll impose financial sanctions against you. We won't sell you food, and you can starve.
And because you've followed World Bank advice and not grown your own food, you will starve, because you're dependent on us, the
United States and our Free World Ó allies. Canada will no longer follow its own policy independently of the United States,
as it did with China in the 1950s when it sold it grain. Europe also is falling in line with U.S. policy.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You write that: "World Bank administrators demand that loan recipients pursue a policy of economic dependency
above all on the United States as food supplier." Was this done to support U.S. agriculture? Obviously it is, but were there other
reasons as well?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Certainly the agricultural lobby was critical in all of this, and I'm not sure at what point this became
thoroughly conscious. I knew some of the World Bank planners, and they had no anticipation that this dependency would be the result.
They believed the free-trade junk economics that's taught in the schools' economics departments and for which Nobel prizes are awarded.
When we're dealing with economic planners, we're dealing with tunnel-visioned people. They stayed in the discipline despite its
unreality because they sort of think that abstractly it makes sense. There's something autistic about most economists, which is
why the French had their non-autistic economic site for many years. The mentality at work is that every country should produce what
it's best at – not realizing that nations also need to be self-sufficient in essentials, because we're in a real world of economic
and military warfare.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why does the World Bank prefer to perpetrate world poverty instead of adequate overseas capacity to
feed the peoples of developing countries?
MICHAEL HUDSON : World poverty is viewed as solution , not a problem. The World Bank thinks of poverty as low-priced
labor, creating a competitive advantage for countries that produce labor-intensive goods. So poverty and austerity for the World
Bank and IMF is an economic solution that's built into their models. I discuss these in my Trade, Development and Foreign Debt
book. Poverty is to them the solution, because it means low-priced labor, and that means higher profits for the companies bought
out by U.S., British, and European investors. So poverty is part of the class war: profits versus poverty.
BONNIE FAULKNER : In general, what is U.S. food imperialism? How would you characterize it?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Its aim is to make America the producer of essential foods and other countries producing inessential
plantation crops, while remaining dependent on the United States for grain, soy beans and basic food crops.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Does World Bank lending encourage land reform in former colonies?
MICHAEL HUDSON : No. If there is land reform, the CIA sends its assassination teams in and you have mass murder, as you
had in Guatemala, Ecuador, Central America and Columbia. The World Bank is absolutely committed against land reform. When the Forgash
Plan for a World Bank for Economic Acceleration was proposed in the 1950s to emphasize land reform and local-currency loans, a Chase
Manhattan economist to whom the plan was submitted warned that every country that had land reform turned out to be anti-American.
That killed any alternative to the World Bank.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Does the World Bank insist on client governments privatizing their public domain? If so, why, and what
is the effect?
MICHAEL HUDSON : It does indeed insist on privatization, pretending that this is efficient. But what it privatizes are
natural monopolies – the electrical system, the water system and other basic needs. Foreigners take over, essentially finance them
with foreign debt, build the foreign debt that they build into the cost structure, and raise the cost of living and doing business
in these countries, thereby crippling them economically. The effect is to prevent them from competing with the United States and
its European allies.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Would you say then that it is mainly America that has been aided, not foreign economies that borrow
from the World Bank?
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's why the United States is the only country with veto power in the IMF and World Bank – to make
sure that what you just described is exactly what happens.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why do World Bank programs accelerate the exploitation of mineral deposits for use by other nations?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Most World Bank loans are for transportation, roads, harbor development and other infrastructure needed
to export minerals and plantation crops. The World Bank doesn't make loans for projects that help the country develop in its own
currency. By making only foreign currency loans, in dollars or maybe euros now, the World Bank says that its clients have to repay
by generating foreign currency. The only way they can repay the dollars spent on American engineering firms that have built their
infrastructure is to export – to earn enough dollars to pay back for the money that the World Bank or IMF have lent.
This is what John Perkins' book about being an economic hit man for the World Bank is all about. He realized that his job was
to get countries to borrow dollars to build huge projects that could only be paid for by the country exporting more – which required
breaking its labor unions and lowering wages so that it could be competitive in the race to the bottom that the World Bank and IMF
encourage.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You also point out in Super Imperialism that mineral resources represent diminishing assets,
so these countries that are exporting mineral resources are being depleted while the importing countries aren't.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's right. They'll end up like Canada. The end result is going to be a big hole in the ground. You've
dug up all your minerals, and in the end you have a hole in the ground and a lot of the refuse and pollution – the mining slag and
what Marx called the excrements of production.
This is not a sustainable development. The World Bank only promotes the U.S. pursuit of sustainable development. So naturally,
they call their "Development," but their focus is on the United States, not the World Bank's client countries.
BONNIE FAULKNER : When Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire was originally published in
1972, how was it received?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Very positively. It enabled my career to take off. I received a phone call a month later by someone from
the Bank of Montreal saying they had just made $240 million on the last paragraph of my book. They asked what it would cost to have
me come up and give a lecture. I began lecturing once a month at $3,500 a day, moving up to $6,500 a day, and became the highest-paid
per diem economist on Wall Street for a few years.
I was immediately hired by the Hudson Institute to explain Super Imperialism to the Defense Department. Herman Kahn said
I showed how U.S. imperialism ran rings around European imperialism. They gave the Institute an $85,000 grant to have me go to the
White House in Washington to explain how American imperialism worked. The Americans used it as a how-to-do-it book.
The socialists, whom I expected to have a response, decided to talk about other than economic topics. So, much to my surprise,
it became a how-to-do-it book for imperialists. It was translated by, I think, the nephew of the Emperor of Japan into Japanese.
He then wrote me that the United States opposed the book being translated into Japanese. It later was translated. It was
received very positively in China, where I think it has sold more copies than in any other country. It was translated into Spanish,
and most recently it was translated into German, and German officials have asked me to come and discuss it with them. So the book
has been accepted all over the world as an explanation of how the system works.
BONNIE FAULKNER : In closing, do you really think that the U.S. government officials and others didn't understand how
their own system worked?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Many might not have understood in 1944 that this would be the consequence. But by the time 50 years went
by, you had an organization called "Fifty Years Is Enough." And by that time everybody should have understood. By the time Joe Stiglitz
became the World Bank's chief economist, there was no excuse for not understanding how the system worked. He was amazed to find
that indeed it didn't work as advertised, and resigned. But he should have known at the very beginning what it was all about. If
he didn't understand how it was until he actually went to work there, you can understand how hard it is for most academics to get
through the vocabulary of junk economics, the patter-talk of free trade and free markets to understand how exploitative and destructive
the system is.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Michael Hudson, thank you very much.
MICHAEL HUDSON : It's always good to be here, Bonnie. I'm glad you ask questions like these.
I've been speaking with Dr. Michael Hudson. Today's show has been: The IMF and World Bank: Partners in Backwardness. Dr.
Hudson is a financial economist and historian. He is president of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trend, a Wall
Street financial analyst and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. His 1972
book, Super Imperialism : The Economic Strategy of American Empire , a critique of how the United States exploited foreign economies
through the IMF and World Bank, the subject of today's broadcast, is posted in PDF format on his website at michael-hudson.com.
He is also author of Trade, Development and Foreign Debt , which is the academic sister volume to Super Imperialism. Dr. Hudson
acts as an economic advisor to governments worldwide on finance and tax law. Visit his website at michael-hudson.com.
Guns and Butter is produced by Bonnie Faulkner, Yarrow Mahko and Tony Rango. Visit us at
gunsandbutter.org to listen to past programs, comment on shows, or join
our email list to receive our newsletter that includes recent shows and updates. Email us at
[email protected]. Follow us
on Twitter at #gandbradio.
"... Kolomoisky is the man who controls the recently elected Jewish president Zelensky -- a comedian. ..."
"... Let's not forget that Theresa May is the one who has worked assiduously on trying to overcome the results of the British referendum. She does not believe in democracy. ..."
"... This man most certainly made a substantial offshore payment to Largarde or her companies or her lawyers. That is how it works everywhere. ..."
She robbed the French taxpayer of some 404 billion Euros. The fact that she is not in
prison while protesters are being injured weekly by the French police tells you a lot about
why these people are protesting.
Since then, she has continued with her corrupt behaviour by greatly enriching the
Ukrainian/Israeli oligarch Kolomoisky -- who robbed his own bank.
How Christine Lagarde, Clinton and Nuland Funded a Massive Ukrainian Ponzi
Scheme
Kolomoisky is the man who controls the recently elected Jewish president Zelensky -- a
comedian.
I think the writer pays too much to the attire of May and Lagarde -- The pearls, the tweed
and gingham suits -- when their corruption is totally 21st century. Let's not forget that
Theresa May is the one who has worked assiduously on trying to overcome the results of the
British referendum. She does not believe in democracy. Replies: @Logan
, @George F.
Held
One of the functions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is imposing austerity
measures on the people of poor countries seeking bailouts, so perhaps choosing a corporate
lawyer to run it is fitting.
@Logan
ness tampering. After a high-profile case against public prosecutor Éric de
Montgolfier, he was sentenced in 1995 by the Court of Appeals of Douai to 2 years in prison,
including 8 months non-suspended and 3 years of deprivation of his civic rights.
"... The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that " the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo). ..."
"... Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy. ..."
"... In fact it was the reproduction of North Stream which continued, making Germany the centre of triage for Russian gas.. Then, on the basis of the " USA/EU strategic cooperation in the energy field " agreement stipulated in July 2018, US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the EU tripled. The triage centre was in Poland, from which was distributed the " Freedom Gas " which also arrived in Ukraine. ..."
"... Washington's objective is strategic – to hurt Russia by replacing Russian gas in Europe with US gas ..."
"... So what does Matteo Salvini have to say about all that? When he arrived in the " greatest democracy in the Western world ", he proudly declared - " I am part of a government which in Europe is no longer satisfied with breadcrumbs " ..."
Manlio Dinucci invites us to take a step back. He replaces the sabotage of these petrol tankers, for which Washington
accuses Teheran, in the context of the global energy policy of the United States. By doing so, he demonstrates that, contrary to
appearances, Mike Pompeo is not targeting Iran, but Europe.
While the United States prepared a new escalation of tension in the Middle East by accusing
Iran of attacking petrol tankers in the Gulf of Oman, Italian vice-Prime Minister Matteo
Salvini met with one of the artisans of this strategy in Washington, Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, assuring him that " Italy wants to regain its place as the major partner on the
European continent of the greatest Western democracy ". Thereby he has allied Italy with the
operation launched by Washington.
The " Gulf of Oman affair " , a casus belli against Iran, is a carbon copy of the " Gulf of
Tonkin affair " of 4 August 1964, itself used as a casus belli to bomb North Vietnam, which was
accused of having attacked a US torpedo boat (an accusation which was later proved to be
false).
Today, a video released by Washington shows the crew of an alleged Iranian patrol boat
removing an unexploded mine from the hull of a petrol tanker in order to conceal its origin
(because the mine would allegedly have borne the inscription " Made in Iran ").
With this " proof " - a veritable insult to our intelligence - Washington is attempting to
camouflage the goal of the operation. It is part of the strategy aimed at controlling the world
reserves of oil and natural gas and their energy corridors [ 1 ]. It is no coincidence that Iran
and Iraq are in US crosshairs. Their total oil reserves are greater than those of Saudi Arabia,
and five times greater than those of the United States. Iranian reserves of natural gas are
approximately 2.5 times those of the USA. Venezuela finds itself targeted by the USA for the
same reason, since it is the country which owns the greatest oil reserves in the world.
The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting
to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that "
the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that
the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including
for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other
European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo).
Low-cost Iranian natural gas might also have reached Europe by way of a pipeline crossing
Iraq and Syria. But the project, launched in 2011, was destroyed by the USA/NATO operation to
demolish the Syrian state.
Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be
distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South
Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of
construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union
itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy.
In fact it was the reproduction of North Stream which continued, making Germany the centre
of triage for Russian gas.. Then, on the basis of the " USA/EU strategic cooperation in the
energy field " agreement stipulated in July 2018, US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to
the EU tripled. The triage centre was in Poland, from which was distributed the " Freedom Gas "
which also arrived in Ukraine.
Washington's objective is strategic – to hurt Russia by replacing Russian gas in
Europe with US gas. But we have no guarantees, neither on the price, nor on the time-scale for
US gas extracted from the bituminous shale by the technique known as fracking (hydraulic
fracturation), which is disastrous for the environment.
So what does Matteo Salvini have to say about all that? When he arrived in the " greatest
democracy in the Western world ", he proudly declared - " I am part of a government which in
Europe is no longer satisfied with breadcrumbs ". Manlio Dinucci
Presidential elections are a joke. It's best to vote for 3rd candidate to express your
opposition to the Status quo: I won't be voting Trump again and fall for that sting. Will
vote Tulsi whether she's on ballot or not.
She will never make it as she is too honest about foreign policy and the USA lies.
Your connection is not secure says: "Wake up people. The military works for the evil
masters. They don't really want war of course, they want peace – particularly between
your ears."
It's all about welfare- welfare specifically for the military industrial complex , that
is.
The armed forces are just a bunch of heavily entrenched welfare recipients who get uniforms,
guns, bombs etc. , and are always angling for more money so that they to get more uniforms,
guns, bombs etc., to be happily provided by the "private" inc. sycophants, otherwise
collectively known as "weapons manufacturers".
Council on Foreign Relations Tulsi Gabbard U.S. President? You have to be very gullible,
to say the least, to believe that she is going to end America's endless wars.
Yes, indeed. The Deep State will only be beaten by force.
I vote for rotting from within. Not as dramatic as force, but more effective and long
lasting. I'll enjoy the show when they start, Cronus-like, knocking one another
off though.
With all due respect Mr. Smith things have really gone down hill after Bush Sr. I'm talking
about direct attacks on the rights of American citizens. Bush Sr. (R) with his CIA drug dealing
with the help of Noriega. He purchased weapons with the proceeds to arm terrorist guerrilla
groups in Nicaragua. Bill Clinton (D) helped Bush Sr. as governor of Arkansas by covering up
any investigation targeting the operation and laundering their money through a state owned
bank. Bush Jr. (R) secured lands in Afghanistan in order to restart athe heroine trade by
growing poppy fields to process and ship back to the US. Obama (R) made sure the Mexican drug
cartels were well armed in order to launch a drug war that supported the Merida Initiative,
which allowed armed DEA, CIA and Mercenaries into Mexican territory. Trump (R) will be the
clean up hitter that will usher in the dollar collapse.
Mr. Smith do you really believe it is a coincidence that Rep 8 yrs, Dem 8yrs, Rep 8yrs, Dem
8yrs, Rep 3 yrs are voted in? Please sir, don't fool yourself because in the next election I
will bet money the orange fool will be president for another 4 years unless the owners don't
want him there. But we can safely say that history tells us he will. All I'm saying that people
like you, waiting for someone to throw you a rope because you've fallen into deep water are
waiting on a rescue boat that doesn't care if you drown.
Your best bet for change was thrown away when Dr. Ron Paul failed to be nominated. Us dumb
asses in Mexico didn't need another election fraud this time around! The people started YouTube
channels that reported the "real" news (Chapucero – Quesadillas de Verdades –
Charro Politico – Sin Censura, etc.). Those channels made a big difference, countering
the negative reporting by Mexican and US MSM that the Presidential Candidate for MORENA as
"Leftist", "Communist", "Socialist", "Like Hugo Chavez", "Dangerous", etc.
With all of the US propaganda, Mexican propaganda, the negative MSM and Elite financing,
Mexicans knew they had to get out and vote in record numbers and they did! Otherwise a close
election was seen as another loss and the end of Mexico as a country. People were ready to
fight and die if necessary. They had seen the Energy Reforms forced down our throat by the
corrupt PRI/PAN parties (Mex version o DEM/REP), with the help of Hillary Clinton and the US
State Department. They drafting the changes needed to the Mexican Constitution to allow a vote.
Totally against the Law in Mexico and I'm sure the laws of the US.
There is a saying that goes something like, "If you're not ready to die for Freedom, take it
out of your Vocabulary"!
If Ron Unz is reading I might suggest he could do a little something to cover the passing of
probably one of the best Antiwar writers(Justin Raimondo) of this generation. Nobody has gotten
things more right, even before the wars developed – he predicted a war with Iraq even
before Sept 11, 2001, and it's aftermath into sectarian violence. His archives are second to
none in naming the names of who steered the war machine into the Middle East and across the
globe. I could gone on, but the link does a better job. RIP Justin.
Amazing how for these Americans, even this Tulsi, the lives of US soldiers are more
important than countless civilians they murder during the course of their wars. But even that
is a lie. They don't even care about their own soldiers once they're of no use to them any
more, if you consider the rate of alcoholism, drug addiction, unemployment, homelessness,
mental health issues, and suicide among the veterans.
And also, when it serves their purpose,
then suddenly the life of some innocent somewhere half way round the world getting abused by a
government they dislike becomes important, and the human rights card is played so they can go
and kill more than they save. I thought that to these leftist American politicians everyone is
equal so why don't they express concern about how many Afghans they have killed over there?
Oh
yes, but if they left them alone there wouldn't be those columns of young Afghans making their
way to the West for these liberals to practice their empathy and hospitality on. And who would
be guarding those poppy fields and ensuring maximum production for pharmaceutical companies and
the black market? And when an Afghan immigrant like Omar Mateen sets off on a murder spree on
US soil who is to blame?
Do they even question their wars, or their immigration policy, or
Islamic culture of intolerance, or anything at all? Some may then question gun laws, but even
that is another lie, because guns are as as available as ever. No they just shrug their
shoulders as its just part and parcel, and it's only good for the media to keep people in fear
and sell their sensational news.
And if you question any of this then you're most likely to be
called a racist or supremacist or whatever vile word they can conjure up with which to browbeat
you.
Wars are necessary for the maintaining and expanding the US controlled neoliberal empire. Wars is the health of military
industrial complex.
The Deep State will bury any candidate who will try to change the USA forign policy. Looks
what happened to Trump. He got Russiagate just for vey modest proposal of detente with Russia
(of course not only for that, but still...)
Notable quotes:
"... The first is "The War Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ Retroactive to 2002, it states that any and all individuals who conspired to defraud the United States into illegal war of aggression should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any and all assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit . to pay down the cost of the wars they lied us into. ..."
Those are interesting proposals but wishful thinking: wars are necessary for Electing Tulsi Gabbard as our next Commander in Chief will not solve our biggest problems
alone.
Her candidacy, I believe , must be augmented by two new laws which should be demanded by the
taxpayer and enforced by her administration on "day one".
The first is "The War Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ Retroactive to 2002, it states
that any and all individuals who conspired to defraud the United States into illegal war of
aggression should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any and all
assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit . to pay down the cost of the wars they
lied us into.
If they lied us into war .they pay for it NOT the US taxpayer.
The second is " The Terror Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ also retroactive to 2001,
it states that any and all individuals found to have engaged in plotting, planning, or staging
"false terror events" will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any
and all of the assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit to pay down the cost of
our War on Terror.
Americans should not have to sacrifice one cent of their tax dollars to pay for their own
defrauding by "staged" or "phony" terror events.
I believe that were Tulsi to be elected, she should set up two new task forces designed
especially for these reasons, Try to think of them as the " Office of Special Plans" IN
REVERSO.!.
Moreover she should hold weekly press briefings to notify the taxpayer of her progress, and
also how much of our 23 trillion in losses , FROM THEIR LIES, she has been able to recoup.
Getting these two initiatives up and running is the most potent force the taxpayers have in
cleaning out the fraud and larceny in DC, .ending our illegal wars overseas .. and
(finally)holding our "establishment elite " accountable for "LYING US INTO THEM"
It is way overdue for the American Taxpayer to take back control of our government from
those who ALMOST BANKRUPTED OUR ENTIRE NATION BY LYING US INTO ILLEGAL WARS.
It is not enough any more just to complain or "kvetch" about our problems .put on your
thinking caps .and start coming up with solutions and initiatives .start fighting for your
freedom, your finances and your future.
Elect the leaders YOU WANT and tell them exactly what you want them to do!
Tulsi has promised us all "SERVICE OVER SELF"
There you go !
I say that means not only ENDING our ILLEGAL, CRIMINAL WARS .but GETTING AS MUCH OF OUR
MONEY BACK from those who lied us into them !
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WAR FRAUD it is $23,000,000,000,000.00. in "heinous debt" .overdue!
"While #ISIS was stealing the Syrian oil & selling it to #Turkey, the so-called #US
led coalition (#UK included) against Daesh wasn't interested in stopping the theft of
#Syria's oil.
"But today the UK stopped an oil tanker delivering energy to the Syrian people."
Quite witty, IMO. Note the EU-3 all supported the terrorist invasion of Syria, the
destruction of Libya, and NATO's accusing Iran of sponsoring terrorism.
Spain's caretaker Foreign Minister Josep Borrell said the British targeted the tanker on a
request from the US. He added that Spain, which considers the waters off Gibraltar as its
own, was assessing the implications of the operation.
Iran has reportedly acknowledged ownership of the cargo. Its foreign ministry summoned the
British ambassador in Tehran to protest the "unlawful seizure of the Iranian tanker,"
according to the IRNA news agency.
According to Reuters, the MT Grace 1 has been used by Iran in the past to ship crude to
Singapore and China in defiance of unilateral sanctions imposed against Iran by the US. The
current trip allegedly started in Iran's port of Bandar Assalyeh, thought the papers state
that the crude was loaded in the Iraqi port of Basra.
In seizing the tanker under the pretext of sanctions on Syria, the EU seems to be at least
partially siding with Washington, which is trying to cripple the Iranian economy through
harsh economic sanctions. The pressure campaign was escalated after the US broke its
commitment under the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.
"Maybe the EU was trying to show that it was siding with the Americans, playing its part
in anti-Iranian policy? We know that the Trump administration has been critical of the
European countries," Ali Rizk, a Middle East-based journalist and writer, told RT.
"And it's likely a demonstration against Syria. It all helps an ongoing plan of parting
Syria with its allies."
@1 Allegedly(?), this oil tanker sailed from Basra in Iraq (not Iran) and remarkably went
around Africa rather than sail through the Suez, and further it allegedly also turned it's
transponder off(?)... as usual, we'll have to wait for real facts to emerge. It's still quite
unusual to intercept an oil tanker so blatantly when much more nefarious shipments are going
on.
Seems to me certain western governments do whatever they want, and no longer care about
international legalities.
She is now Panama flagged (presumably) Russian owned
IMO number 9116412
Name of the ship GRACE 1
Type of ship CRUDE OIL TANKER
MMSI 355271000
Gross tonnage 156880 tons
DWT 273769 tons
Year of build 1997
Builder HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES - ULSAN, SOUTH KOREA
Flag PANAMA
Class society LLOYD'S SHIPPING REGISTER
Manager & owner RUSSIAN TITAN SHIPPING LINES - DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Former names MERIDIAN LION until 2013 Mar
OVERSEAS MERIDIAN until 2011 Jun
MERIDIAN LION until 2006 Feb
The reason for holding the ship is given as breaking EU sanctions on Syria. Not JCPOA
related (in principle).
Here is a short but incomplete primer on Gibraltar territorial waters. The even more
extreme Spanish view is that only the port is Gibraltarian, or simply that Gibraltar is
Spanish.
Just to note Grace1 is anchored off the south east of Gibraltar, within the 3 mile
Gibraltar limit now, I don't know if she was stopped inside that zone, or why she would
venture into that 3 mile zone. In short it will be important to know what position she was
when boarded, the only info I have is that she veered hard to port into the Gibraltar 3 mile
limit, but am not sure if before or after being boarded. The Spanish government has said it
tolerates Gibraltar "acting in its waters" in this case because the action was based on EU
sanctions.
"... "Question: Mr President, you have given an extensive overview of different topics. A short time after you last met with Donald Trump, the Americans introduced new sanctions against Russia. Could you tell if you received some reassurances from Donald Trump that no new sanctions will follow this time, or do you think sanctions may be imposed again? Or are you confident that there will no more sanctions? ..."
"... "Vladimir Putin: I have no idea. This is not our business; it is up to the United States to think about how they should build relations with Russia. I think we have mutual understanding that we should somehow get out of the situation that has emerged so far. But this is the same as with our colleagues and partners from the UK. It is an abnormal situation, it must be simply rectified; we must somehow find the strength to turn the page, to move on and to look to the future. It is the same in relations with the United States. ..."
"... "Let me reiterate, I meet with US businesspeople, including at the St Petersburg Economic Forum. 550 people went there. They want to work. That means jobs, that means goals the President of the United State is trying to achieve. I actually said in that interview that after the globalisation processes led to such big growth of the world economy, even the middle class in the United States felt they were left behind. While large corporation made huge profits, their management got a lot of advantages as did their partners, the middle class did not, not very much. Wages remained the same, and the standard of living began to grow a little. Jobs are needed and conditions to raise real incomes of US citizens. To achieve that they need to expand cooperation and work with everyone, including Russia. ..."
"... "They restricted the operation of their companies in the Russian market. We made calculations across some European countries, and it really amounts to lost profits. Cutting exports (our imports are their exports) amounts to tens of billions of euros. That means jobs, either job cuts or jobs that were not created. The same applies to the United States. I hope that sanity will prevail in the end." ..."
"... That is a polite way of saying that sanity is not prevailing at the moment. Putin pointing out that there is nothing Russia can do about the current relationship between the US and Russia leaves no illusions as to who the insane party is. It is not within Russia's power to make America sane. There are no magic words they can utter to fix what ails the US. ..."
"... Globalization is simply a neoliberal economic substitute for colonialism. ..."
"... Neoliberals contrary to popular opinion do not believe in self-regulating markets as autonomous entities. They do not see democracy as necessary for capitalism. ..."
"... The neoliberal globalist world is not a borderless market without nations but a doubled world (economic -global and social- national) . The global economic world is kept safe from democratic national demands for social justice and equality, and in return each nation enjoys cultural freedom. ..."
"... Neoliberals see democracy as a real problem. Democracy means the unwashed masses can threaten the so called market economy (in fact manipulated and protected markets) with worker demands for living wages and equality and consumer demands for competitive pricing and safe products. Controlling both parties with money prevents that. ..."
"... In fact, neoliberal thinking is comparable to that of John Maynard Keynes in one respect : "the market does not and cannot take care of itself". ..."
"... Neoliberals insulate the markets by providing safe harbor for capital, free from fear of infringement by policies of progressive taxation or redistribution. They do this by redesigning government, laws, and other institutions to protect the market. ..."
"... For example the stock market is propped up by the Feds purchases of futures, replacing the plunge protection teams intervention at an even more extreme level. Manipulation of economic statistics by the BLS also serve a similar purpose. ..."
"... What you described is precisely a symptom of falling profitability. Financialisation, for example, only increases when the "real economy" is not profiting enough anymore. ..."
"... "If you try to understand how so many jobs have disappeared, the answer that you come up with over and over again in the data is that it's not trade that caused that -- it's primarily technology," Eighty percent of lost jobs were not replaced by workers in China, but by machines and automation. That is the first problem if you slap on tariffs. What you discover is that American companies are likely to replace its more expensive workers with machines." ..."
"... More evidence for Marx's Law: the USA was a victim of its own success, not of its own failures, nor because of alien enemies. ..."
In case there are others aside from myself interested in the G-20 outcomes, here are a few
links to what IMO's important. Go here to get the links to the
three main documents G-20 produced: "G20 Osaka Leaders Declaration," "Osaka declaration on
digital economy," and "G20 Osaka leaders' statement on preventing exploitation of the
internet for terrorism and violent extremism conductive to terrorism (VECT)." Pepe
Escobar's recap . Transcript of Putin's post G20 news
conference.
I hoped when I added the presser link to the Putin interview thread and hinted there
were connections between them that another line of analysis would develop, but it seems
participants were way to immersed/invested in the liberalism debate to bother.
From the press conference, I'd like to point-out one of the Q&As related to the
illegal sanctions regime, economic development and how they interact with Trump's 2016
Campaign Pledges as we begin the 2020 election cycle:
"Question: Mr President, you have given an extensive overview of different topics.
A short time after you last met with Donald Trump, the Americans introduced new sanctions
against Russia. Could you tell if you received some reassurances from Donald Trump that
no new sanctions will follow this time, or do you think sanctions may be imposed again?
Or are you confident that there will no more sanctions?
"Vladimir Putin: I have no idea. This is not our business; it is up to the United
States to think about how they should build relations with Russia. I think we have mutual
understanding that we should somehow get out of the situation that has emerged so far.
But this is the same as with our colleagues and partners from the UK. It is an abnormal
situation, it must be simply rectified; we must somehow find the strength to turn the
page, to move on and to look to the future. It is the same in relations with the United
States.
"I told you that we reasserted our wish to support the business community's proposal
regarding tools for the support of business initiatives. But it shows that the incumbent
Administration has intentions to somehow continue with this abnormal situation. I spoke
about our trade with the United States and with some other partners. Obviously, $25
billion in trade does not meet our interests and does not reflect our potential.
"That is why I have no idea if they will do anything or not. At any rate, one thing is
sure – we are not going to ask for anything. No means no. And if there is interest,
we will respond in kind and will do everything we can to turn the situation around.
"Let me reiterate, I meet with US businesspeople, including at the St Petersburg
Economic Forum. 550 people went there. They want to work. That means jobs, that means
goals the President of the United State is trying to achieve. I actually said in that
interview that after the globalisation processes led to such big growth of the world
economy, even the middle class in the United States felt they were left behind. While
large corporation made huge profits, their management got a lot of advantages as did
their partners, the middle class did not, not very much. Wages remained the same, and the
standard of living began to grow a little. Jobs are needed and conditions to raise real
incomes of US citizens. To achieve that they need to expand cooperation and work with
everyone, including Russia.
"They restricted the operation of their companies in the Russian market. We made
calculations across some European countries, and it really amounts to lost profits.
Cutting exports (our imports are their exports) amounts to tens of billions of euros.
That means jobs, either job cuts or jobs that were not created. The same applies to the
United States. I hope that sanity will prevail in the end."
It appears that Trump needs to end his Trade and Sanctions Wars (although all the
illegal sanctions aren't his doing) in order to bolster his reelection chances. The
questions are, Will the sanction hawks like Mnuchin try to impede such a policy change
since it seems to be required for domestic politics and How will D-Party candidates treat
the issue, particularly as several are hooked on Russiagate Koolaid?
And do please note the question about the interview at the end, Putin's answer and how
he put in within the context of the G20!
Great quote of Putin by karlof1 @39. That final sentence says much, though:
"I hope that sanity will prevail in the end"
That is a polite way of saying that sanity is not prevailing at the moment. Putin
pointing out that there is nothing Russia can do about the current relationship between the
US and Russia leaves no illusions as to who the insane party is. It is not within Russia's
power to make America sane. There are no magic words they can utter to fix what ails the
US.
A minor correction to dh-mtl @59 where it was claimed "[The globalists] lost power from
the mid-1930s to 1980."
The globalists were never actually out of power in the US. Instead they were confronted
with a massive upsurge in radical organized labor that threatened to remove them from
power. The globalists had to make very significant concessions to buy time for that labor
uprising to subside. That happened to take almost half a century, but throughout that
period the globalists retained power, though in a somewhat weakened form. They are back at
full strength now
'But to say any one nation "produced" the current global market economic system is a bit
like saying Yahweh created all the heavens and the earth in 6 days.'
I never suggested that 'one nation' produced this global system.
What I was suggesting is that perhaps the financial elites who benefit from, as you
describe it, a 'financial system created by and for the wealthiest elites wherever they may
call home', and who controlled Reagan and Clinton and W and Obama, Blair and Cameron and
Macron and Merkel and Aznar in Spain, etc., etc., and hundreds of MEPs in the European
parliament, and who created the U.S. Deep State, control virtually all of western
main-stream media, and who place their people in control of institutions such as the World
Bank, and IMF, and UN and WTO and BIS, and who decide the fate of the world every year at
Davos and the Bilderberg conference, might have had something the do with creating the laws
and treaties that created that system.
This sounds like a pretty effective political system to me, though definitely not
democratic.
Carter agreed to appoint Volker in order to save the bondholders by destroying the
domestic economy with interest rates over 20% which is what actually cost him the 1980
election. In 1978, McNamara was sent off to the World Bank to work in tandem with IMF to
begin the imposition of the euphemized Structural Adjustment Programs--the globalized
version of Neoliberalism.
'the Trump-nationalists and Brexiteers do not offer an effective solution to problem of
wealth inequality which is your complaint'.
Wealth inequality is not my complaint. My point is that 'dictatorship', whether it be in
the hands of 'wealthy global elites', military or other, cannot achieve acceptable outcomes
for a large, complex, modern society, and that excessive wealth inequality is a sure
indicator of dictatorship.
The Trump-nationalists and Brexiteers may not have an effective solution. But they are
convinced that what has been going on in their societies over the past 30 plus years has
definitely not worked for them either. My analysis is that they are trying to return to the
conditions in which the outcomes were much better for them.
My own conviction is that acceptable outcomes for a society can only be achieved when
the political leaders are working on behalf of the society as a whole, rather than for a
narrow privileged group, and especially a group that has little or no allegiance to the
nation-state, whose boundaries define the society.
When the political leaders are truly working on behalf of the population as a whole,
there is a wide variety of policy options that can work. Trial and error over time will
ensure that the policy options that are most appropriate for a particular society and its
circumstances will eventually emerge.
Globalization is simply a neoliberal economic substitute for colonialism.
Neoliberals contrary to popular opinion do not believe in self-regulating markets as
autonomous entities. They do not see democracy as necessary for capitalism.
The neoliberal globalist world is not a borderless market without nations but a doubled
world (economic -global and social- national) . The global economic world is kept safe from
democratic national demands for social justice and equality, and in return each nation
enjoys cultural freedom.
Neoliberals see democracy as a real problem. Democracy means the unwashed masses can
threaten the so called market economy (in fact manipulated and protected markets) with
worker demands for living wages and equality and consumer demands for competitive pricing
and safe products. Controlling both parties with money prevents that.
In fact, neoliberal thinking is comparable to that of John Maynard Keynes in one respect
: "the market does not and cannot take care of itself".
The neoliberal project did not liberate markets so much as protect them by protecting
capitalism against the threat of democracy and to reorder the world where borders provide a
captive market
Neoliberals insulate the markets by providing safe harbor for capital, free from fear of
infringement by policies of progressive taxation or redistribution. They do this by
redesigning government, laws, and other institutions to protect the market.
For example the stock market is propped up by the Feds purchases of futures, replacing
the plunge protection teams intervention at an even more extreme level. Manipulation of
economic statistics by the BLS also serve a similar purpose.
Another example is getting government to accept monopoly capitalism over competitive
capitalism and have appointed judges who believe illegal collusion is nothing more than
understandable and legal "conscious parallelism"
What you described is precisely a symptom of falling profitability. Financialisation,
for example, only increases when the "real economy" is not profiting enough anymore.
It's important to highlight that the tendency of the profit rate to fall doesn't
necessarily means a company is losing money, but just that the profit rate is secularly
decreasing. Since it's a tendency, it also doesn't mean this fall happens linearly: capital
still operates in cycles. However, over the long term, profit rates will fall, no matter
what.
The biggest reason Trump can't bring back home these manufacturing jobs is because they
have been lost in large part to the success of 'efficiency' in the US Over the past
three-and-a-half decades, manufacturers have shed more than seven million jobs while
producing more stuff than ever. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reported in The
Manufacturing Footprint and the Importance of U.S. Manufacturing Jobs that
"If you try
to understand how so many jobs have disappeared, the answer that you come up with over
and over again in the data is that it's not trade that caused that -- it's primarily
technology," Eighty percent of lost jobs were not replaced by workers in China, but by
machines and automation. That is the first problem if you slap on tariffs. What you
discover is that American companies are likely to replace its more expensive workers with
machines."
More evidence for Marx's Law: the USA was a victim of its own success, not of its own
failures, nor because of alien enemies.
When we speak of unadulterated capitalism and capital, we start with the most basic
capital we have, our hands. If I go and LABOUR by planting a tree and caring for it, the
fruit I consider mine. I might give those away at choice, or exchange them for something
else of value. That something eventually became known as money, a commonly recognised unit,
it's strength being that it could not be replicated, and its worth accepted in a wider
market by others. The fruit of a persons labour was transmitted to descendants and family
in tradition, in a society that respected that tradition. The whole process is very very
personal, including where extended business starts appearing.
Now, you want me to both accept taxation, where to not compete is a losing proposition,
and to accept that finance is able to conjure up replica money using that taxation as
basis, with which I have to compete with own earnings that are steadily purposefully
diluted - I take it very very very personally. What are you going to offer me, subsidy from
the pooled value now under your control ? Because it is a social and "fair" management of
reality ? Communism and socialism do not work, they remove the most natural good incentives
a person can have to actually go out and achieve anything, they dull what are otherwise
lively common understandings, they diminish societies that otherwise have open appreciation
for the effort of others. They try to own those, and they end up as dictatorships to try to
impose an own ideological dream. The same can be said of crony capitalism, which approaches
fascism.
That is why I subscribe to minarchic classical liberal notions of organisation, with
hard money and transparency of finance, as compromise. You know Iran and Saudi are gold
backed, don't you. You can figure out from that part of what is going on, maybe.
Someone pinch me and tell me I'm not dreaming! If this is true (my knee-jerk reaction is to
dismiss it), then it is
HUGE! EARTH SHATTERING !
In one of the most remarkable partnerships in modern American political history, Soros
and Charles Koch, the more active of the two brothers, are joining to finance a new
foreign-policy think tank in Washington. It will promote an approach to the world based on
diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing. (...) It will be
called the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, an homage to John Quincy Adams, who
in a seminal speech on Independence Day in 1821 declared that the United States "goes not
abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and
independence of all. (...) Among (Trita) Parsi's co-founders are several well-known critics
of American foreign policy, including Suzanne DiMaggio, who has spent decades promoting
negotiated alternatives to conflict with China, Iran, and North Korea; the historian and
essayist Stephen Wertheim; and the anti-militarist author and retired Army colonel Andrew
Bacevich. "The Quincy Institute will invite both progressives and anti-interventionist
conservatives to consider a new, less militarized approach to policy," Bacevich said, when
asked why he signed up. "We oppose endless, counterproductive war. We want to restore the
pursuit of peace to the nation's foreign policy agenda."
i thought it was april fools for a second, until i then thought it is probably a pile of
steaming b.s. but hey - if it can be used as fertilizer to grow a few brains in an otherwise
constant 24/7 war party mindset, i am up for it... call me when something actually happens as
a result of any soros-koch stink tank agenda..
Ultimately, Trump will find himself in a corner in which he never wished to
find himself: It may already be too late. He is there.
Professor Russell-Mead tells us "that the key
to the president's Iran policy is that his nose for power [and Trump is a keen judge of power,
R-M insists] is telling him Iran is weaker, and the US stronger than the foreign-policy
establishment believes What Mr. Trump wants is a deal with Iran that matches his sense of the
relative power of the two countries " (emphasis added).
"At the level of public diplomacy, [Trump] is engaging in his standard mix of dazzle and
spin[turning American politics into the Donald Trump Show, with the country and the world
fixated on his every move, speculating feverishly about what will come next, R-M suggests] And
at the level of power politics he is steadily and consistently tightening the screws on Iran:
arming its neighbors and assuring them of his support, tightening sanctions, and raising the
psychological pressure on the regime.
"Mr. Trump well understands the constraints under which his Iran policy is working.
Launching a new Middle East war could wreck his presidency. But if Iran starts the war, that's
another matter. A clear Iranian attack on American or even Israeli targets could unite Mr.
Trump's Jacksonian base like the attack on Pearl Harbor united America's Jacksonians to fight
Imperial Japan."
Russell-Mead's analysis probably has it right. But there is more to it than that: Trump's
approach is based on some further underlying key assumptions: Firstly, that, with the Iranian
economy tanking, and inflation soaring (Trump repeats this unfounded assertion frequently), the
Iranian revolutionary system will either implode, or approach Washington, on its knees, asking
for a new nuclear deal.
Two: Trump can afford to wait out this impending implosion, and just lever up the economic
pressures in the meanwhile. Three: Trump claims that a war with Iran would be short: "I'm not
talking boots on the ground,"
he said . "I'm just saying if something would happen, it wouldn't last very long". And
four: Trump said, (and appears to believe), that he wouldn't
need an "exit strategy" in the event of a war with Iran, which suggests that he may really
think that the war would be limited to a brief air campaign, and then it would be over.
What to say? Well, only that all of these assumptions are almost certainly wrong –
and, as Daniel Larison in The American Conservative notes ,
"if the US president thinks that a war with Iran "wouldn't last very long," he is probably
going to be more willing to start it. Iran hawks are already predictably emphasizing that
attacking Iran wouldn't be like Iraq or Afghanistan, and they are saying that in part to
overcome Trump's apparent reservations about getting bogged down in a protracted conflict".
Iran indeed would not be like Afghanistan or Iraq, but in an entirely different way to that
claimed by the hawks.
Well, Iran will not be imploding economically: On Friday, Russia signalled its commitment
to secure Iran's oil and banking sectors, should the EU's INSTEX clearing mechanism not be
working effectively by 7 July (when Iran's window to Europe on this issue closes). Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Friday that Moscow is ready to help Iran export
its crude and ease restrictions on its banking system should Europe
fail to make INSTEX a viable mechanism. China too, has stated that "normal energy dealings"
with Tehran are in accordance with law, and should be respected. The Governor of the Central
Bank of Iran said this week that Iran has "climbed past the peak of sanctions. Our oil exports
are on the rise", Hemmati said .
If the 'implosion hypothesis' is flawed, so too is the claim that Iran will come begging for
a new nuclear deal from Mr Trump. Here, by way of illustration, is the (Iranian) account of what the
Supreme Leader said to Prime Minister Abe:
"During the meeting with Abe Shinzo (on 13 June), the latter told Ayatollah Khamenei that "I
would like to give you a message from the President of the United States".
"Ayatollah Khamenei responded by pointing to the US ingenuity and untrustworthiness, and
argued, "We do not doubt your [Abe's] sincerity and goodwill. However, regarding what you
mentioned about the President of the US, I do not consider Trump as a person worth exchanging
any message with and I have no answer for him, nor will I respond to him in the future
."
"[But] what I am going to say, is said to you as the Japanese Prime Minister, and because we
consider Japan a friend of ours
"Ayatollah Khamenei noting Shinzo's assertion that the US intends to prevent Iran's
production of nuclear weapons said, "We are opposed to the nuclear weapons and my religious
Fatwa bans production of nuclear weapons; but you should know that if we intended to produce
nuclear weapons, the US could do nothing; and its non-permission [would] not be any
obstacle."
"The Supreme leader, in response to the message that "the United States is not after
regime change in Iran", insisted that "Our problem with the United States is not about regime
change. Because even if they intend to pursue that, they won't be able to achieve it When Trump
says that he is not after regime change, it is a lie. For, if he could do so, he would.
However, he is not capable of it."
"Ayatollah Khamenei similarly referred to the Japanese prime minister's remarks regarding
the United States' request to negotiate with Iran about the nuclear issue, and said, "The
Islamic Republic of Iran negotiated for 5 to 6 years with the United States and the Europeans
-- the P 5+1 -- which led to an agreement. But the United States disregarded and breached this
definite agreement. So, does common sense permit negotiations with a state that has thrown away
everything that was agreed upon?"
"He pointed to the forty years of hostility that the US has showed to the Iranian nation and
its continued hostility, and said, "We believe that our problems will not be solved by
negotiating with the US, and no free nation would ever accept negotiations under pressure."
And 'pressures' are precisely what the US is adding: i.e. increasing pressures, rather than
easing them – which stands probably as the sine qua non to resuming negotiations with
Iran. But then Trump holds to the view that America is entitled – by virtue of its
greater power – to negotiate with others only when the counterparties are under 'maximum
pressure'. Plainly, he has not been briefed well on the Iranian history of stoically enduring
far worse and violent cataclysms. Nor, that Iranians can draw on a stratum of spiritual
resilience from the narrative of Imam Hussein at times of crisis.
How so? The notion of an 'Iran on the cusp of collapse' is a meme being peddled by
various disgruntled Iranian exiles, and by the MEK, as well as by prominent hawks in the US.
But equally – and importantly, given Trump's own family predilections – this
narrative of 'just one push' and the Iranian Revolution 'is over' is being constantly urged by
Netanyahu. (Other Israelis are not so happy at their PM's open and avid support for Trump's
policy on Iran – recalling how Israel (and Netanyahu) were accused of having pushed for
the 2003 Iraq war).
So. If the assumption that Iran will either collapse, or capitulate under economic
pressure, is false; and that the presumption that 'no exit strategy' is required, because Iran
is weak and the US is militarily strong (implying that a short, quick air strike would settle
matters) – is similarly flawed, where then are we headed?
If these underlying assumptions continue to pass without serious challenge, then, as time
passes, Iran will neither have imploded, nor capitulated, as presaged; but rather, it will have
continued to send calibrated,
incrementally ascending 'messages' to demonstrating the potential costs of pursuing such a
policy – with the pain being experienced principally by those US allies who continually
advocate for harsh US 'measures' against Iran.
Ultimately, Trump will find himself in a corner in which he never wished to find himself:
It may already be too late. He is there. Either having to react militarily to Iranian
'messages', with all the potential for asymmetric Iranian counterstrikes and ratchetting
escalation: A prospect from which instinctively he recoils, because he fears this route of
indecisive military tit-for-tat may not play out well for him in terms of the 2020 elections.
And even could risk his Presidency.
Or, a humiliating, concessionary journey of return into a process closely mirroring the
(despised) JCPOA – whatever be its new name: And hope to call the defeat as
'victory'.
Quite possibly, President Putin may have it in mind to lay out some of this prospective
landscape when he met with Trump at Osaka. We probably won't be told. We'll never know.
The hostess at the seaside restaurant had an eastern European accent, so he asked her where
she was from. She said, "Belgrade, Serbia." He told her he was sorry for what the U.S.
government led by Bill Clinton had done to her country and that he considered Clinton a war
criminal. She said the bombing in 1999 was terrifying, and even though she was young at the
time, she vividly remembered it.
It traumatized her, her parents, and her family. Then she smiled and said that in the month
she had been in the U.S. for her summer job, all the Americans she had met had been so
friendly. He welcomed her to the U.S., and as he was walking away, he remembered that Clinton's
savage bombing of Serbia that had killed so many Serbian children and other innocents had been
code-named "Operation Noble Anvil."
He wondered what kind of "noble" people would think of innocent children as anvils: "heavy
usually steel-faced iron blocks on which metal is shaped," and did the friendly Americans
accept Clinton's sick lies when he ended his March 24, 1999 war address to the American people
with these words: "Our thoughts and prayers tonight must be with the men and women of our armed
forces, who are undertaking this mission for the sake of our values and our children's future.
May God bless them, and may God bless America."
"... Daniel Wirls is professor of politics at the University of California, Santa Cruz and author of several books, including " Irrational Security: The Politics of Defense from Reagan to Obama " (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010) . https://outline.com/DGG3zD Read & annotate articles ..."
When two giant Pentagon contractors --
Raytheon and United Technologies
-- proposed to merge into Raytheon Technologies, it hit the headlines. President Trump said
he was
"a little bit concerned"
that the merger would dampen competition in the defense industry. Coincidentally, Congress was at
the same time debating the administration's request for substantial increases in military spending -- particularly in weapons
procurement and research and development.
We used to call the nexus of private interests and national defense the "military-industrial complex." But that Cold War term
no longer fits. "Industrial" does not capture the breadth of the activities involved. And "military" fails to describe the range
of government policies and interests implicated. Over the past two decades we've seen transformations that include new government
reliance on private security firms, revolutions in digital technology, a post-9/11 surge in the number of veterans, and the
creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). What we have now could be called a "National Security Corporate Complex."
Here are four things you need to know about this transformation.
1.
President Dwight Eisenhower coined the term, and it stuck
In the heyday of the Cold War, with corporate giants bending metal for the Pentagon in its titanic competition with the Soviet
Union, President Dwight Eisenhower coined the phrase as part of a
famous warning
about the unprecedented
"conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry."
Eisenhower was concerned about the potential influence of industry over government policy and budgets. Since then,
analysts and pundits
have used the term to
suggest that arms manufacturers unduly influence lawmakers in voting on the size and nature of military spending, including
decisions about war and peace.
2.
9/11 changed the business of national security
Before September 11, 2001 and the resulting military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, the Department of Energy
(DOE) was the only executive branch department other than the Pentagon with major military contracts. DOE was involved because it
built and dismantled nuclear warheads.
We can see how, post-9/11, more agencies got involved in national security contracting. I used
federal contracting data
to measure the changes from 1981
to 2018.
As you can see, much of the jump in post-9/11 spending comes from the
creation of the Department of Homeland Security in late 2002
and early 2003
. Before DHS was created, some of that contracting was already being done by the agencies brought together to
form the new department, particularly the Coast Guard. But the scope and amount of DHS contracting increased dramatically --
averaging nearly $14 billion a year from 2005 onward.
But two other departments also expanded their contracting substantially after 9/11. In the 1990s, the State Department had an
average of under $700 million in contracts per year in national security related matters. From 2009 onward, that average jumped
to $8.4 billion a year.
But the most stunning increases in both overall budgets and contracting came from VA. Few Americans would guess that from 2001
to 2011, VA budget grew faster than the Pentagon's -- 271 percent compared to 240 percent -- even if the Pentagon includes its
extra spending for the wars. Part of VA's growth came in contracting. In the 1990s, VA had contracted out under $2.4 billion in
work per year in the 1990s. From 2009 onward, VA contracted out nearly $20 billion of work each year.
3. Defense contracting extends far beyond the purchase of weapons
As national security contracting has ramped up across government agencies, we've also seen a change in the focus of these
contracts. During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a great deal of media attention focused on contracts with private security
firms like Blackwater and logistics firms like Halliburton. Such "privatization" of military force continues, but it is only part
of the story.
The government also expanded its outsourcing of military and veterans' health care. Three of the top 15 Pentagon contractors
were health care corporations, including two that were in the top five for VA.
National security departments further expanded their contracting in information technology, for tasks ranging from the
prosaic, like bookkeeping, to the exotic, including cyberwarfare and artificial intelligence. That work went both to traditional
arms-making giants such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, and also enterprises such as Booz Allen Hamilton and SAIC that
specialize in such work.
As a result of the government's expanded spending on national security, many corporations now have sizable contracts with more
than one federal agency. Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics -- and perhaps the new Raytheon Technologies -- have become
diversified "Walmarts of war," as some researchers call them, delivering a wide range of goods and services to various parts of
the federal government. The Pentagon's top contractor, Lockheed Martin, has been a major contractor for VA and DHS. General
Dynamics was fourth among Pentagon contractors, second for DHS, and third for the Department of State.
Large IT specialists also contract across departments. Booz Allen Hamilton, for example, was the government's 14th largest
contractor in 2018, ranking 19th for the Pentagon, 7th for VA, and 32nd for DHS. Engineering giant Fluor Corporation was in the
top 15 for Defense, DOE, and DHS. Other examples include CACI, Jacobs Engineering, and Leidos Holdings. And of course, several
health care companies do business with VA and Pentagon.
What does all this mean?
Some observers
argue
that
the general decline in overall military spending and weapons procurement after the peak of the recent wars -- before the Trump
administration increased that spending -- meant the U.S. no longer had to worry about the influence of a military-industrial
complex.
But focusing narrowly on weapons procurement misses the bigger picture. Since 9/11, an increasingly diverse array of firms
have a significant stake in federal national security spending. Those funds now flow from a large portion of the federal
government and into many sectors of the U.S. economy. If anything, Eisenhower's complex has become more complex and potentially
influential.
"... The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and international skepticism attests. ..."
"... Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown. ..."
"... Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something of an argument that began: ..."
"... He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out. Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf. They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share. Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is the first admission that the US had operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. ..."
"... Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. ..."
"... There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were, they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack ..."
"... Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But he's not done with the disinformation exercise: ..."
"... The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification ..."
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today. This assessment is based
on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation,
recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the
area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.
This is only the latest in a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran
and its surrogates against American and allied interests, and they should be understood in
the context of 40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US
government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible
investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike
Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media
ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo
and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and
international skepticism attests.
Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute
appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire
amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the
Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned
Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown.
First, what actually happened, as best we can tell five days later? In the early morning of
June 13, two unrelated tankers were heading south out of the Strait of Hormuz, sailing in open
water in the Gulf of Oman, roughly 20 miles off the south coast of Iran. The tankers were most
likely outside Iran's territorial waters, but within Iran's contiguous zone as defined by the
UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea . At different times, some 30 miles apart, the two tankers were attacked
by weapons unknown, launched by parties unknown, for reasons unknown. The first reported
distress call was 6:12 a.m. local time. No one has yet claimed responsibility for either
attack. The crew of each tanker abandoned ship soon after the explosions and were rescued by
ships in the area, including Iranian naval vessels, who took the Front Altair crew to an
Iranian port.
Even this much was not certain in the early afternoon of June 13 when Mike Pompeo came to
the lectern at the State Department to deliver his verdict:
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today.
Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who
made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something
of an argument that began:
This assessment is based on intelligence .
He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence
assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out.
Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf.
They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share.
Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had
a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that
Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first
claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US
doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is the first admission that the US had
operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. After intelligence, Pompeo continued:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used .
Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used
torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to
the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any
actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. He went on:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation
The "level of expertise needed" to carry out these attacks on a pair of sitting duck tankers
does not appear to be that great. Yes, the Iranian military probably has the expertise, as do
the militaries of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, or others with a stake
in provoking a crisis in the region. And those who lack the expertise still have the money with
which to hire expert surrogates. The number of credible suspects, known and unknown, with an
interest in doing harm to Iran is easily in double figures. Leading any serious list should be
the US. That's perfectly logical, so Pompeo tried to divert attention from the obvious:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping .
There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were,
they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six
examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack. The one example was the May 12, 2019,
attack on four ships at anchor in the deep water port of Fujairah. Even the multinational
investigation organized by the UAE could not determine who did it. The UAE reported to the UN
Security Council that the perpetrator was likely some unnamed "state actor." The logical
suspects and their surrogates are the same as those for the most recent attack.
Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old
threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by
the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an
unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But
he's not done with the disinformation exercise:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no
proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high
degree of sophistication.
The whole proxy group thing is redundant, covered by "the level of expertise needed"
mentioned earlier. Pompeo doesn't name any proxy group here, he doesn't explain how he could
know there's no proxy group that could carry out such an attack, and he just throws word
garbage at the wall and hopes something sticks that will make you believe – no evidence
necessary – that Iran is evil beyond redemption:
Taken as a whole, these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace
and security, a blatant assault on the freedom of navigation, and an unacceptable campaign of
escalating tension by Iran.
The attacks in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan have all been provoked by the US and its
allies. The US has long been a clear threat to international peace and security, except when
the US was actually trashing peace and security, as it did in Iraq, as it seems to want to do
in Iran. There is, indeed, "an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension," but it's a
campaign by the US. The current phase began when the Trump administration pulled out of the
multinational nuclear deal with Iran. The US wages economic warfare on Iran even though Iran
continues to abide by the Trump-trashed treaty. All the other signatories and inspectors
confirm that Iran has abided by the agreement. But Iran is approaching a point of violation,
which it has been warning about for some time. The other signatories allow the US to bully them
into enforcing US sanctions at their own cost against a country in compliance with its
promises. China, Russia, France, GB, Germany, and the EU are all craven in the face of US
threats. That's what the US wants from Iran.
Lately, Trump and Pompeo and their ilk have been whining about not wanting war and claiming
they want to negotiate, while doing nothing to make negotiation more possible. Iran has
observed US actions and has rejected negotiating with an imperial power with a decades-long
record of bad faith. Lacking any serious act of good faith by the US, does Iran have any other
rational choice? Pompeo makes absolutely clear just how irrational, how dishonest, how
implacable and untrustworthy the US is when he accuses Iran of:
40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
This is Big Lie country. Forty years ago, the Iranians committed their original sin –
they overthrew one of the world's most brutal dictatorships, imposed on them by the US. Then
they took Americans hostage, and the US has been playing the victim ever since, out of all
proportion to reality or justice. But the Pompeos of this world still milk it for all it's
worth. What about "unprovoked aggression," who does that? The US list is long and criminal,
including its support of Saddam Hussein's war of aggression against Iran. Iran's list of
"unprovoked aggressions" is pretty much zero, unless you go back to the Persian Empire. No
wonder Pompeo took no question on his statement. The Big Lie is supposed to be enough.
The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification. Democrats should have
objected forcefully and continuously long since. Democrats in the House should have put peace
with Iran on the table as soon as they came into the majority. They should do it now.
Democratic presidential candidates should join Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren in
forthrightly opposing war with Iran. Leading a huge public outcry may not keep the president
from lying us into war with Iran any more than it kept the president from lying us into war
with Iraq. But an absence of outcry will just make it easier for this rogue nation to commit a
whole new set of war crimes.
Intellectually, the case for normal relations with Iran is easy. There is literally no good
reason to maintain hostility, not even the possibility, remote as it is, of an Iranian nuclear
weapon (especially now that Trump is helping the Saudis go nuclear). But politically, the case
for normal relations with Iran is hard, especially because forty years of propaganda demonizing
Iran has deep roots. To make a sane case on Iran takes real courage: one has to speak truth to
a nation that believes its lies to itself.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism,
and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from
Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an
Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. This article was first
published in Reader Supported
News . Read
other articles by William .
The New York Times is outraged, just outraged! -- that US anti-tank missiles have been found
in "unknown" Libyan rebel hands .
Of course, when tons of American military hardware was covertly sent to al-Qaeda linked
"rebels" fighting to topple Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and when those same weapons were later
transferred to the anti-Assad insurgency in Syria , many of them no doubt used by ISIS and
al-Nusra Front, the mainstream media didn't find much to complain about. But now the "scandal"
is being uncovered in 2019?
Currently, it's the UN-backed government in Tripoli which finds itself on the receiving end
of deadly accurate high-tech US-made weapons systems, according to
the Times :
Libyan government fighters discovered a cache of powerful American missiles , usually sold
only to close American allies, at a captured rebel base in the mountains south of Tripoli
this week.
The four Javelin anti-tank missiles, which cost more than $170,000 each, had ended up
bolstering the arsenal of Gen. Khalifa Hifter , whose forces are waging a military campaign
to take over Libya and overthrow a government the United States supports.
Markings on the missiles' shipping containers indicate that they were originally sold to
the United Arab Emirates, an important American partner, in 2008.
... ... ...
The Times report noted further, "If the Emirates transferred the weapons to
General Hifter, it would likely violate the sales agreement with the United States as well as a
United Nations arms embargo ."
Gen. Haftar -- who
solidified control of Eastern Libya over the past two years and swept through the south
early this year, has sought to capture Tripoli and seize military control of the entire
country, with the support of countries like the UAE and France, but is strongly opposed by
Turkey and most European countries.
Haftar has long been described by many analysts as "the CIA's man in Libya" -- given he
spent a couple decades living in exile a mere few minutes from CIA headquarters in Langley,
Virginia during Gaddafi's rule.
He was inserted back onto the Libyan battlefield before Gaddafi's eventual capture and field
execution at the hands of NATO supported Islamist fighters in 2011. The NYT offered further
details of the US weapons recovered this week
as follows :
Markings on the missile crates identify their joint manufacturer, the arms giants Raytheon
and Lockheed Martin , and a contract number that corresponds with a $115 million order for
Javelin missiles that was placed by the United Arab Emirates and Oman in 2008.
Again, isn't it a little late for the mainstream media to somehow only now discover and care
about the "scandal" of major US weapons systems in "unknown rebel hands" ?
For a trip down memory lane, and to review just what Obama and Hillary's original Libya war
has wrought, see Dan Sanchez's 2015 essay,
"Where Does ISIS Get Those Wonderful Toys?"
The CIA knows where these weapons are. All POTUS' know where these weapons are. The
Israelis know where these weapons are. The Saudis and UK know where these weapons are. What
is the problem?
" "We take all allegations of misuse of U.S. origin defense articles very seriously," a
State Department official
said in a statement following the Javelin anti-tank missile recovery.
"We are aware of these reports and are seeking additional information. We expect all
recipients of U.S. origin defense equipment to abide by their end-use obligations," the
statement continued. "
Hilarious. Do they expect the "unknown" rebels to just return them? If they're unknown,
how do tehy know they're rebels?
But i guess they're not worried under Obama thousands of these missiles were supplied to
Islamic Terrorists in Syria. And now Trump gave the green light to supply more missiles to
Turkish Islamic Terrorists in Syria. That are slaughtering Thousands of Syrian soldiers with
these missiles.
You gotta love the SCI. This shallowly-disguised Russian propaganda arm writes in the most
charming awkward idiomatic English, bouncing from a "false neutral" tone to a jingoistic
Amercia-phobic argot to produce its hit pieces.
Russian propaganda acts like Claude Raines in "Casablanca" : "i am shocked, shocked to
discover (geopolitics) going on here!" Geeeee, Europe and the US are in a struggle to
avoid Europe relying on Russia for strategic necessities like fuel, even if it imposes costs
on European consumers. If you have a dangerous disease, and your pharmacist is known for
cutting off their customers' vital drugs to extort them, you might consider using another
provider who not only doesn't cut off supplies, but also provides the police department that
protects you from your pharmacist's thugs who are known to invade customers' homes using the
profits from their own business.
The US provides the protective umbrella that limits Putin's adventurism. Russia cuts of
Ukraine's gas supplies in winter to force them into submission. Gasprom is effectively an arm
of the Russian military, weaponizing Russia's only product as a geopolitical taser. Sure, it
costs more to transport LNG across the Atlantic and convert it back to gas, but the profits
from that business are routinely funneled back to Europe in the form of US trade,
contributions to NATO, and the provision of the nuclear umbrella that protects Europeans from
the man who has publicly lamented the fall of the Soviet Union, called for the return of the
former SSRs, and violated the IRM treaty to place nuclear capable intermediate-range missiles
and cruise missiles within range of Europe and boasted about his new hypersonic weapons'
theoretic capability to decapitate NATO and American decision-making within a few minutes of
launch.
Oh, for pity's sake, Laugher. Everything...absolutely everything you attribute to Russia
in your post can be said of the U.S. I'm not much of a Wiki fan, but for expediency, here's
their view on military bases.
The establishment of military bases abroad enables a country to project power , e.g. to conduct
expeditionary
warfare , and thereby influence events abroad. Depending on their size and
infrastructure, they can be used as staging areas or for logistical,
communications and intelligence support. Many conflicts throughout modern history have
resulted in overseas military bases being established in large numbers by world powers and the
existence of bases abroad has served countries having them in achieving political and
military goals.
And this link will provide you with countries worldwide and their bases.
Note that Russia, in this particular list, has eight bases all contiguous to Russia. The
U.S. has 36 listed here with none of them contiguous to the U.S.' borders.
See better discussion at
platts.com "But US LNG could face problems of its own – the current low prices are forcing ever growing numbers of US producers
into bankruptcy. According to a recent report by Haynes and Boone, 90 gas and oil producers in the US and Canada have filed for bankruptcy
between January 2015 and the start of August 2016." So $2 price at Henry Hub should rise to at least $4 for companies to stay in business.
Notable quotes:
"... Less than half of the gas necessary for Europe is produced domestically, the rest being imported from Russia (39%), Norway (30%) and Algeria (13%). In 2017, gas imports from outside of the EU reached 14%. Spain led with imports of 31%, followed by France with 20% and Italy with 15%. ..."
"... The South Stream project, led by Eni, Gazprom, EDF and Wintershall, should have increased the capacity of the Russian Federation to supply Europe with 63 billion cubic meters annually, positively impacting the economy with cheap supplies of gas to Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Serbia, Hungary, Austria and Slovenia. Due to the restrictions imposed by the European Union on Russian companies like Gazprom, and the continuing pressure from Washington to abandon the project and embrace imports from the US, the construction of the pipeline have slowed down and generated tensions between Europe and the US. Washington is piling on pressure on Germany to derail Nord Stream 2 and stop the construction of this important energy linkage. ..."
"... Further tension has been added since ENI, an Italian company that is a leader in the LNG sector, recently discovered off-shore in Egypt one of the largest gas fields in the world, with an estimated total capacity of 850 billion cubic meters. To put this in perspective, all EU countries demand is about 470 billion cubic meters of gas in 2017. ..."
"... s mentioned, LNG imported to Europe from the US costs about 20% more than gas traditionally received through pipelines. This is without including all the investment necessary to build regasification plants in countries destined to receive this ship-borne gas. Europe currently does not have the necessary facilities on its Atlantic coast to receive LNG from the US, introduce it into its energy networks, and simultaneously decrease demand from traditional sources. ..."
"... This situation could change in the future, with LNG from the US seeing a sharp increase recently. In 2010, American LNG exports to Europe were at 10%; the following year they rose to 11%; and in the first few months of 2019, they jumped to 35%. A significant decrease in LNG exports to Asian countries, which are less profitable, offers an explanation for this corresponding increase in Europe. ..."
"... Washington, with its LNG ships, has no capacity to compete in Asia against Qatar and Australia, who have the lion's share of the market, with Moscow's pipelines taking up the rest. The only large remaining market lies in Europe, so it is therefore not surprising that Donald Trump has decided to weaponize LNG, a bit as he has the US dollar . This has only driven EU countries to seek energy diversification in the interests of security. ..."
"... The European countries do not appear to be dragging their feet at the prospect of swapping to US LNG, even though there is no economic advantage to doing so. As has been evident of late, whenever Washington says, "Jump!", European allies respond, "How high?" ..."
"... The generalized hysteria against the Russian Federation, together with the cutting off of Iranian oil imports at Washington's behest, limit the room for maneuver of European countries, in addition to costing European taxpayers a lot. ..."
One of the most important energy battles
of the future will be fought in the field of liquid natural gas (LNG). Suggested as one of the main solutions to
pollution , LNG offers the possibility
of still managing to meet a country's industrial needs while ameliorating environmental concerns caused by other energy sources.
At the same time, a little like the US dollar, LNG is becoming a tool Washington intends to use against Moscow at the expense of
Washington's European allies.
To understand the rise of LNG in global strategies, it is wise to look at a
graph (page 7)
produced by the International Gas Union (IGU) where the following four key indicators are highlighted: global regasification capacities;
total volumes of LNG exchanged; exporting countries; and importing countries.
From 1990 to today,
the world has grown from 220 million tons per annum (MTPA) to around 850 MTPA of regasification capacity. The volume of trade
increased from 20-30 MTPA to around 300 MTPA. Likewise, the number of LNG-importing countries has increased from just over a dozen
to almost 40 over the course of 15 years, while the number of producers has remained almost unchanged, except for a few exceptions
like the US entering the LNG market in 2016.
There are two methods used to transport gas.
The first is through pipelines, which reduce costs and facilitate interconnection between countries, an important example of
this being seen in Europe's importation of gas. The four main pipelines for Europe come from four distinct geographical regions:
the Middle East, Africa, Northern Europe and Russia.
The second method of transporting gas is by sea in the form of LNG, which in the short term is more expensive, complex and
difficult to implement on a large scale. Gas transported by sea is processed to be cooled so as to reduce its volume, and then
liquified again to allow storage and transport by ship. This process adds 20% to costs when compared to gas transported through
pipelines.
Less than half of the gas necessary for Europe is
produced domestically, the
rest being imported from Russia (39%), Norway (30%) and Algeria (13%). In 2017, gas imports from outside of the EU reached 14%. Spain
led with imports of 31%, followed by France with 20% and Italy with 15%.
The construction of infrastructure to accommodate LNG ships is ongoing in Europe, and some European countries already have a limited
capacity to accommodate LNG and direct it to the national and European network or act as an energy hub to ship LNG to other ports
using smaller ships.
"All of Europe's LNG terminals are import facilities, with the exception of (non-EU) Norway and Russia which export LNG. There
are currently 28 large-scale LNG import terminals in Europe (including non-EU Turkey). There are also 8 small-scale LNG facilities
in Europe (in Finland, Sweden, Germany, Norway and Gibraltar). Of the 28 large-scale LNG import terminals, 24 are in EU countries
(and therefore subject to EU regulation) and 4 are in Turkey, 23 are land-based import terminals, and 4 are floating storage and
regasification units (FSRUs), and the one import facility in Malta comprises a Floating Storage Unit (FSU) and onshore regasification
facilities."
The countries currently most involved in the export of LNG are Qatar (24.9%), Australia (21.7%), Malaysia (7.7%), the US (6.7%),
Nigeria (6.5%) and Russia (6%).
Europe is one of the main markets for gas, given its strong demand for clean energy for domestic and industrial needs. For this
reason, Germany has for years been engaged in the Nord Stream 2 project, which aims to double the transport capacity of gas from
Russia to Germany. Currently the flow of the Nord Stream is 55 billion cubic meters of gas. With the new Nord Stream 2, the capacity
will double to 110 billion cubic meters per year.
The South Stream project, led by Eni, Gazprom, EDF and Wintershall, should have increased the capacity of the Russian Federation
to supply Europe with 63 billion cubic meters annually, positively impacting the economy with cheap supplies of gas to Bulgaria,
Greece, Italy, Serbia, Hungary, Austria and Slovenia. Due to the restrictions imposed by the European Union on Russian companies
like Gazprom, and the continuing pressure from Washington to abandon the project and embrace imports from the US, the construction
of the pipeline have slowed down and generated tensions between Europe and the US. Washington is piling on pressure on Germany to
derail Nord Stream 2 and stop the construction of this important energy linkage.
Further tension has been added since ENI, an Italian company that is a leader in the LNG sector, recently discovered off-shore
in Egypt one of the largest gas fields in the world, with an estimated total capacity of 850 billion cubic meters. To put this in
perspective, all EU countries demand is about 470 billion cubic meters of gas in 2017.
ENI's discovery has generated important planning for the future of LNG in Europe and in Italy.
Problems have arisen ever since Donald Trump sought to oblige Europeans to
purchase LNG from the US in
order to reduce the trade deficit and benefit US companies at the expense of other gas-exporting countries like Algeria, Russia and
Norway. As mentioned, LNG imported to Europe from the US costs about 20% more than gas traditionally received through pipelines.
This is without including all the investment necessary to build regasification plants in countries destined to receive this ship-borne
gas. Europe currently does not have the necessary facilities on its Atlantic coast to receive LNG from the US, introduce it into
its energy networks, and simultaneously decrease demand from traditional sources.
This situation could change in the future, with LNG from the US seeing a sharp increase recently. In 2010, American LNG exports
to Europe were at 10%; the following year they rose to 11%; and in the first few months of 2019, they jumped to 35%. A significant
decrease in LNG exports to Asian countries, which are less profitable, offers an explanation for this corresponding increase in Europe.
But Europe finds itself in a decidedly uncomfortable situation that cannot be easily resolved. The anti-Russia hysteria drummed
up by the Euro-Atlantic globalist establishment aides Donald Trump's efforts to economically squeeze as much as possible out of European
allies, hurting European citizens in the process who will have to pay more for American LNG, which costs about a fifth more than
gas from Russian, Norwegian or Algerian sources.
Projects to build offshore regasifiers in Europe appear to have begun and seem unlikely to be affected by future political vagaries,
given the investment committed and planning times involved:
"There are currently in the region of 22 large-scale LNG import terminals considered as planned in Europe, except for the planned
terminals in Ukraine (Odessa FSRU LNG), Russia (Kaliningrad LNG), Albania (Eagle LNG) – Albania being a candidate for EU membership
– and Turkey (FSRU Iskenderun and FSRU Gulf of Saros).
Many ofthese planned terminals, including Greece (where one additional import terminal is planned – Alexandroupolis), Italy
(which is considering or planning two additional terminals – Porto Empedocle in Sicily and Gioia Tauro LNG in Calabria) , Poland
(FSRU Polish Baltic Sea Coast), Turkey (two FSRUs) and the UK (which is planning the Port Meridian FSRU LNG project and UK Trafigura
Teesside LNG). LNG import terminal for Albania (Eagle LNG), Croatia (Krk Island), Cyprus (Vassiliko FSRU), Estonia (Muuga (Tallinn)
LNG and Padalski LNG), Germany ( Brunsbüttel LNG), Ireland (Shannon LNG and Cork LNG), Latvia (Riga LNG), Romania (Constanta LNG),
Russia (Kaliningrad LNG) and Ukraine (Odessa).
Nine of the planned terminals are FSRUs: Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Russia, Ukraine and the UK. "In
addition, there are numerous plans for expansion of existing terminals, including in Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands,
Poland, Spain, Turkey and the UK."
Washington, with its LNG ships, has no capacity to compete in Asia against Qatar and Australia, who have the lion's share
of the market, with Moscow's pipelines taking up the rest. The only large remaining market lies in Europe, so it is therefore not
surprising that Donald Trump has decided to weaponize LNG,
a bit as he has the US dollar . This has only driven EU countries to seek energy diversification in the interests of security.
The European countries do not appear to be
dragging their feet at the prospect of swapping to US LNG, even though there is no economic advantage to doing so. As has been
evident of late, whenever Washington says, "Jump!", European allies respond, "How high?" This, however, is not the case with
all allies. Germany is not economically able to interrupt Nord Stream 2. And even though the project has many high-level sponsors,
including former chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the project constantly seems to be on the verge of being stopped – at least in Washington's
delusions.
Even Eni's discovery of the gas field in Egypt has annoyed the US, which wants less competition (even when illegal, as in the
case of Huawei) and wants to be able to force its exports onto Europeans while maintaining the price of the LNG in dollars, thereby
further supporting the US dollar as the world's reserve currency in the same manner as the
petrodollar .
The generalized hysteria against the Russian Federation, together with the cutting off of Iranian oil imports at Washington's
behest, limit the room for maneuver of European countries, in addition to costing European taxpayers a lot. The Europeans appear
prepared to set whatever course the US has charted them, one away from cheaper gas sources to the more expensive LNG supplied from
across the Atlantic. Given the investments already committed to receive this LNG, it seems unlikely that the course set for the Europeans
will be changed.
I live in Europe. I can honestly say that the people I know here prefer Russian gas. People are very ticked off about how the
US meddled in their gas supply and the structuring of the pipelines. Most feel that even if US LNG WAS competitive with Russian
gas price for now, that the US would in some way either increase prices or use it in some other way to control or manipulate the
EU. And sentiment towards USA tends toward resentment and distrust. That's not to say they are necessarily pro-Russia, but definitely
a wave of anti US is present.
US LNG pricing is based on Henry Hub which today is under $2.30/mmbtu.
Even adding in liquefaction and shipping costs, the price to the end user is extremely low.
Henry hub is projected to be sub $3 for DECADES!
Combine the low price with spot deliveries (pipe usually demands long term contracting commitments), and US LNG actually has
strong rationale for being accepted.
The statement above that US LNG cannot compete against Australia in Asia is preposterously false due to the VERY high buildout
costs of the Aussie LNG infrastructure.
Next year, Oz's first LNG IMPORT terminal at Port Kembla may well be supplied with US LNG.
The US has shown itself to be unreliable as a supplier of anything. Political posturing will always take precedence over any
international transaction.
Oh, for pity's sake, Laugher. Everything...absolutely everything you attribute to Russia in your post can be said of the U.S.
I'm not much of a Wiki fan, but for expediency, here's their view on military bases.
The establishment of military bases abroad enables a country to
project power , e.g. to conduct
expeditionary warfare , and thereby influence
events abroad. Depending on their size and infrastructure, they can be used as
staging areas or for logistical, communications and
intelligence support. Many conflicts throughout modern history have resulted in overseas military bases being established in
large numbers by world powers and the existence of
bases abroad has served countries having them in achieving political and military goals.
And this link will provide you with countries worldwide and their bases.
Note that Russia, in this particular list, has eight bases all contiguous to Russia. The U.S. has 36 listed here with none
of them contiguous to the U.S.' borders.
Whilst the left wants to go full throttle towards Wind and Solar, no one knows that the natural gas lobby is behind these sources
because both sources need a backup. While everyone talks "carbon footprint" they never discusses plant efficiency ( or
in the terms of engines brake specific fuel consumption and turbine specific fuel consumption ) in terms of thermal efficiency.
You know the boring stuff that plant operators stress over to make sure when your wife wakes up @ 3 in the morning to feed the
baby, the lights do go on, and they are creating that wattage in an cost affective manner. With that said, the king of thermal
efficiency i.e. burning a fuel to create electricity, is the Combined Cycle Natural Gas Power Plant. These plants combines a stationary
gas turbine buring natural gas to spin a generator and a boiler on the back side capture the waste heat to create steam to spin
a turbine to again add an input to the generator for a current state of the art of 61% efficiency . That means only 39%
going up the stack or for steam cooling to get your "Delta T" for the steam cycle to work. This 61% is vs maybe in the mid 40's
for a coal, oil plant or in the case of Nuclear just waste heat with nothing going out a stack. The greater wattage per fuel burned,
and the modularization of these Combined Cycle Plants aka have a series of 100mw turbines and bring them on line as needed, make
this a win-win IMHO for a massive refurbishing of our Utility base, with a host of benefits, before Gen 3 & Gen 4 Nuclear truly
take off again. These plants could be a great stop gap before Gen 3 & 4 are a reality. All the macinations towards wind and solar
and their disavantages aka being bird vegamatics, vistas being spoiled and huge swaths of land being used for panels make no sense
vs energy density of efficient plants. We are the Natural Gas King, lets not flare it anymore, and really, really leverage it
here, help allies, and use it for bringing bad behaving children of the world to the table ifyou will, if you want the candy,
behave....
Why do we have to treat other countries like we're the parent? We aren't. They are equal and fully functioning countries quite
capable of determining their own political and economic future...which may involve not trading or interacting with the U.S. Particularly
if we demand of them conditions we ourselves would never accede.
The Lithuanian FSRU "Independence" which was delivered from Hyundai Heavy Industries in 2014 to the port of Klaipeda drove
energy costs for heating through the roof and perhaps is one of the reasons the Prime Minister at the time only came in third
in the latest presidential elections. You can stay reasonably warm, eat or have money for medicine and other necessities. Pick
2 ONLY. Thank you USSA
Brainsick as Pompeo the US Pork without character.
As Long as Russia dlivery theier gas constantly and for a much better price then Us-Shale idiots, the ziocons only can lose.
We Europeans are not very impressed.
The biggest Capitalist economy on the planet needs to use mob tactics to push its over priced wares- seems 'long term' is not
part of their hit-and-run operation.
Now as for the article; apart from a few Eastern European Countries (The Ukraine, Poland etc.), I have seen no proof whatsoever,
that Europe is shifting to US LNG.
As for "As has been evident of late, whenever Washington says, "Jump!", European allies respond, "How high?""; I am sorry,
but I think those days are over..... this can be seen in our Iranian stance, the 2 Russian pipelines - 1 being Nordstream II and
the other Turk-stream, increased trade with Russia, joining the the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and so on and
so on......
Slowly but surely the anti-Russia propaganda is dying. You can fool all the people some of the time, you can fool some people
all of the time (libtards), but you can't fool all the people all of the time. Europeans (the citizens) will question why they
should pay 20-30% more for their natural gas just to please America. Politicians better have an answer or change of policy if
they want to be reelected.
...Chabad is interesting. They are a network of independent open chassidist communities,
charities and schools with strong bases in Brooklyn, Chabad Israel and Moscow, and lots of
political and secret service connections. The do not finance themselves via membership fees
but via donations. The founding Rabbi has died, so there is no one in control of this network
except the - diverse - people who donate. There is no legal restriction on who may or may not
call themselves Chabad and there is no controlling within the network. They seem to have a
policy of restricting political interventions on "Jewish issues" and not to interfere in the
politics of the host countries otherwise. So they don't mind
being seen with Viktor Orban .
Abramovich - see non existant Russian oligarchs - funded a lot on the Russian side. On the US
side they encourage
real estate donations" and are connected to Jared Kushner.
In Israel they are close to the government and Netanyahu.
A network like this can be influenced/used by all sides that donate to it. So you can see
Chabad as a CIA tool to get their foot into Eastern Europe/Russia in the 1990's, as a Russian
influence campaign or an Israeli tool.
Should Russia stop its military backing of Iran, and should the US attack Iran against
their interests, I am prepared to believe Israel succeeded. I very much doubt this will be
the case.
"... The term multi-cultural is propaganda, the shift from "nation" to "culture" is used to atomise the perception of belonging that nation implies, into becoming one amongst many under the authority of state, which at this point has usually become an impersonal law and structure from which a bureaucratic elite govern and thrive off of private enterprise, where before a feudal lordship profited by taking a share of personal endeavour. The extremes might be Frankfurt school vs serfdom, with various combinations of philosophy in-between. ..."
"... The economic zionism you describe is via knowledge of finance, monetary theory, trade, weaknesses in society, political reality and more. It uses international realities as a tool. Where before international banking was a measure of trust in the clearing of accounts, this left room for manipulation, and the ability to pressure by holding control of that accounting. ..."
"... And although immigrants should feel free to speak their language at home and even in society, they will have to accept that the language of the law, commerce, education and civil authority is that of the host nation and it is up to them to learn it or at least learn how to work with or around it. ..."
"Nationality, is a named object, programmed by propaganda."
Nationality in the formal sense, derives from two or more feudal monopolies defining their
differences and according a separate recognition to the other, usually including geographical
markers. The extension of personal identity to national identity is product of the
recognition of belonging to one specific feudal hierarchy. This might be natural or imposed,
the theme of nation literally implies the environment or peoples one is born into.
The term multi-cultural is propaganda, the shift from "nation" to "culture" is used to
atomise the perception of belonging that nation implies, into becoming one amongst many under
the authority of state, which at this point has usually become an impersonal law and
structure from which a bureaucratic elite govern and thrive off of private enterprise, where
before a feudal lordship profited by taking a share of personal endeavour. The extremes might
be Frankfurt school vs serfdom, with various combinations of philosophy in-between.
The evolution of the above has been observed to occur by financial means, but is itself
also an ideology. The capitalist side to this ranges from the granting of favours (as per
permission to reside) through to fractional lending backed only by national debt (spending).
The taxation that must still occur to provide a sense of connectedness to real economy, and
hence to provide a sense of value to the currency, punishes the established and functional
society. The sum when mispent goes towards recruiting new nationals, and on paying the elite
bureaucracy for their pet projects. The old hierarchy tends to maintain much control the
private financial sphere, and works with the state by granting it a certain legitimacy, as
well as receiving positions, contracts and favours.
The economic zionism you describe is via knowledge of finance, monetary theory, trade,
weaknesses in society, political reality and more. It uses international realities as a tool.
Where before international banking was a measure of trust in the clearing of accounts, this
left room for manipulation, and the ability to pressure by holding control of that
accounting. The reality though is that nations (leaders) became weak or corrupted,
decided on grand enterprise they could not repay, and so broke trust in the old order by
resorting to or accepting manipulation of accounts (for example ending the original European
Monetary Union of the 19th century), and eventually resorting to war amongst themselves where
outward conquest was no longer profitable enough.
Were, or are they, clients of monopolies though ? Well no, because it is an illusion that
anyone holds monopoly of finance or money. However they did commit themselves to a system
without which they would then be left weak, where they would lose public honour and respect
if they did not produce a result of some kind. The resulting corruption between various sides
became a feature of national policy, a kind of symbiosis at elite levels. "Multiculturalism"
helps hide that reality, as well as serving in terms of having population with weakened
identity at their disposal.
The only monopoly states are truly client to is that of the use of force.
On a more social side, there are corners of the world where various cultures exist well
side by side, and where interaction is positive. This even within the boundaries of one
country. However it is not that country that makes that work, the different cultures tend to
hold a deeper respect and understanding for one another, but if you look you will find that
they do keep to themselves voluntarily, and simply reside next to each other peacefully. They
don't call themselves multiculti or anything. I expect multiculturalism theoretically could
exist, but because it is so artificial a concept, it seems more like an ersatz for loss of
own culture, so being sad cheap and empty once trying to celebrate it returns to common day
to day reality.
You are right about the correct form being a society that knows itself, that naturally
governs and watches over itself. This is often criticised as simplistic or idealised, and the
reason for that is that those who seek more centralised control only have the view of putting
down vast law as scripture and then forcefully imposing it, they love complexity so as to be
those that clarify it. If we live outside of that the rules, and life, are much simpler, and
fortunately most people have an innate understanding of right and wrong somewhere. The local
culture explains or represents the true form of interaction, so if that becomes confused, so
does society, and strife and unhappiness results.
Here is an interesting and very readable explanation on monetary theory, it gives a quite
clear explanation of how finance actually works in social and political terms
"Multiculturalism" is a loaded term: if it is used to mean different styles of food, music
and dress, then I am all for it. But it does not mean that the host nation should accept
misogyny, homophobia, honor killings or other "traditional values" that immigrants bring
along.
And although immigrants should feel free to speak their language at home and even in
society, they will have to accept that the language of the law, commerce, education and civil
authority is that of the host nation and it is up to them to learn it or at least learn how
to work with or around it.
You gotta love the SCI. This shallowly-disguised Russian propaganda arm writes in the most
charming awkward idiomatic English, bouncing from a "false neutral" tone to a jingoistic
Amercia-phobic argot to produce its hit pieces.
Russian propaganda acts like Claude Raines in "Casablanca" : "i am shocked, shocked to
discover (geopolitics) going on here!" Geeeee, Europe and the US are in a struggle to
avoid Europe relying on Russia for strategic necessities like fuel, even if it imposes costs
on European consumers. If you have a dangerous disease, and your pharmacist is known for
cutting off their customers' vital drugs to extort them, you might consider using another
provider who not only doesn't cut off supplies, but also provides the police department that
protects you from your pharmacist's thugs who are known to invade customers' homes using the
profits from their own business.
The US provides the protective umbrella that limits Putin's adventurism. Russia cuts of
Ukraine's gas supplies in winter to force them into submission. Gasprom is effectively an arm
of the Russian military, weaponizing Russia's only product as a geopolitical taser. Sure, it
costs more to transport LNG across the Atlantic and convert it back to gas, but the profits
from that business are routinely funneled back to Europe in the form of US trade,
contributions to NATO, and the provision of the nuclear umbrella that protects Europeans from
the man who has publicly lamented the fall of the Soviet Union, called for the return of the
former SSRs, and violated the IRM treaty to place nuclear capable intermediate-range missiles
and cruise missiles within range of Europe and boasted about his new hypersonic weapons'
theoretic capability to decapitate NATO and American decision-making within a few minutes of
launch.
Oh, for pity's sake, Laugher. Everything...absolutely everything you attribute to Russia
in your post can be said of the U.S. I'm not much of a Wiki fan, but for expediency, here's
their view on military bases.
The establishment of military bases abroad enables a country to project power , e.g. to conduct
expeditionary
warfare , and thereby influence events abroad. Depending on their size and
infrastructure, they can be used as staging areas or for logistical,
communications and intelligence support. Many conflicts throughout modern history have
resulted in overseas military bases being established in large numbers by world powers and the
existence of bases abroad has served countries having them in achieving political and
military goals.
And this link will provide you with countries worldwide and their bases.
Note that Russia, in this particular list, has eight bases all contiguous to Russia. The
U.S. has 36 listed here with none of them contiguous to the U.S.' borders.
"... For Raimondo, being called names while in the service of trying to end U.S. wars of choice was like rocket fuel. Particularly when neoconservative David Frum launched his "unpatriotic" broadside at National Review on March 24, 2003, five days after the U.S. launched what would be the most disastrous invasion of another country since Vietnam. Being accused of "appeasing the enemy" could only mean they were getting under the warmongers' skin at a time when the rest of Washington was mobilized like lemmings for battle. ..."
"... His penultimate column on May 3 was classic Raimondo, blasting John Bolton for saber rattling for U.S. intervention in Venezuela, and entitled "Will the Real Moron Stand Up?" ..."
"... For writers who were skeptical of U.S. national security policy after 9/11 -- especially those on the Right end of the spectrum, whether they be libertarians or conservatives -- there were few outlets, at least with a substantial audience, to publish. Antiwar.com , which had been around since 1995, became a hub for Left and Right critics. Justin, though, provided the juice. His willingness to mix it up, to say what needed to be said, in unvarnished, funny, often un-politically correct language (in any given column he would be calling officials and media "shrieking monkeys," "whores," "harpies") was for many both a motivator and a balm at a time when it seemed like every column one wrote against the status quo was one step closer to career-ending purgatory. ..."
"... Surrounded by brave iconoclasts and B.S.-beaters like Phil Giraldi, Jeff Huber and Raimondo charged my courage and batteries as a writer. Justin was especially supportive, and though there were things he would say that I would never have the guts to (I tried to flex more on the reporting side, and less on the polemics), he seemed to appreciate having me as a junior member of the suicide squad. ..."
"... Why? You can read in detail here , but much of it was because of Antiwar.com 's mission to criticize U.S. war policies, its linking to government watch lists at the time, and Justin's writing, particularly on five Israelis who were detained by the FBI in New Jersey after they were spotted by witnesses on a rooftop celebrating and taking pictures in sight of the burning NYC towers on 9/11 and later deported. ..."
"... Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is ..."
"... Executive Editor at ..."
"... and former columnist at Antiwar.com. Follow her on Twitter @Vlahos_at_TAC ..."
"... He challenged conventional wisdom because he thought conventional wisdom is often wrong, which it is. As his work created more journalists and citizens who are willing to do this, his life's work was important ..."
"... And he managed to write and publish one of the best most comprehensive biographies on Murray Rothbard ever written as well, only one of the most important American thinkers of the 20th century. He will be greatly missed, at Antiwar, and everywhere else. RIP. ..."
The Antiwar.com co-founder, who died
Thursday, was one of the toughest fighters for the cause. We all benefitted.
Justin
Raimondo gives Presentation at the National Summit to Reassess the U.S.-Israel "Special
Relationship" on March 7, 2014 at the National Press Club. (You Tube) WASHINGTON -- Justin
Raimondo -- author, activist and consummate critic of the U.S. war machine–passed away at
the age of 67 on Thursday. While many of you might know him as the co-founder and prolific
columnist at Antiwar.com , he was once
branded a "unpatriotic conservative" at the start of the Iraq War, and a potential "threat to
national security" a year later.
For Raimondo, being called names while in the service of trying to end U.S. wars of choice
was like rocket fuel. Particularly when neoconservative David Frum launched his "unpatriotic"
broadside at
National Review on March 24, 2003, five days after the U.S. launched what would be the
most disastrous invasion of another country since Vietnam. Being accused of "appeasing the
enemy" could only mean they were getting under the warmongers' skin at a time when the rest of
Washington was mobilized like lemmings for battle.
"He loved it," said Eric Garris, who co-founded Antiwar.com with Raimondo. Garris was his close friend and
co-conspirator in dozens of political and anti-war campaigns from 1976 until his death
yesterday. "Justin loved to be attacked -- he viewed it usually as a badge of honor."
Word of Raimondo's death didn't quite come as a surprise to people who had been following
him online -- they knew he had been battling cancer for two years, and his volatile presence on
Twitter had dropped off to an occasional flash, then nothing, for the last few months. His
penultimate column on May 3 was classic Raimondo, blasting John Bolton for saber rattling for
U.S. intervention in Venezuela, and entitled
"Will the Real Moron Stand Up?"
For writers who were skeptical of U.S. national security policy after 9/11 -- especially
those on the Right end of the spectrum, whether they be libertarians or conservatives -- there
were few outlets, at least with a substantial audience, to publish. Antiwar.com , which had been around since 1995, became a hub for Left
and Right critics. Justin, though, provided the juice. His willingness to mix it up, to say
what needed to be said, in unvarnished, funny, often un-politically correct language (in any
given column he would be calling officials and media "shrieking monkeys," "whores," "harpies")
was for many both a motivator and a balm at a time when it seemed like every column one wrote
against the status quo was one step closer to career-ending purgatory.
"We were really very much in the wilderness," Garris recalled to me this morning. But
Raimondo surged -- doing stints on Fox News, MSNBC, even CNN at the time. He wrote quite a
bit forTACtoo, from its inception through
2016. "He had the ability to reach people and/or piss them off so much. He was such a
powerful force."
This is where I come in. Having begun writing for TAC in 2007 I was happy when Garris
reached out in
2009 to see if I wanted to do some regular columns for Antiwar.com . As one of those "misfits among misfits," I can say that
my decision to do so was both therapeutic (what better venue to rage against the machine?) and
a most fulfilling stage in my career as a journalist. Some of us might recall the atmosphere in
Washington during those times: stiflingly conformist and relentlessly punitive towards those
who did not toe the line. Surrounded by brave iconoclasts and B.S.-beaters like Phil Giraldi,
Jeff Huber and
Raimondo charged my courage and batteries as a writer. Justin was especially supportive, and
though there were things he would say that I would never have the guts to (I tried to flex more
on the reporting side, and less on the polemics), he seemed to appreciate having me as a junior
member of the suicide squad.
There was a moment I was put to the test. I was in the middle of my daughter's Girls Scout
meeting in 2013 when I got a call from Garris. I stepped out in the hall. Would I please write
a piece on Antiwar.com suing the FBI for
secretly investigating Antiwar.com in the
early days of the war, in part because of some of the things Justin had written and said? My
mind reeled. Would bringing attention to this bring further heat on the website? Would it bring
heat on me?
I read the FBI memo at the center of their planned lawsuit and agreed to write it. Frankly,
I knew in my heart I wouldn't be worth my salt as a journalist if I went wobbly on this. The
government had opened secret files on Garris and Raimondo, and at one point the FBI agent
writing the April 30, 2004 memo on Antiwar.com recommended further monitoring of the website in the form
of a "preliminary investigation to determine if [redaction] are engaging in, or have engaged
in, activities which constitute a threat to national security."
Why? You can read in detail
here , but much of it was because of Antiwar.com 's mission to criticize U.S. war policies, its linking to
government watch lists at the time, and Justin's writing, particularly on five Israelis who
were detained by the FBI in New
Jersey after they were spotted by witnesses on a rooftop celebrating and taking pictures in
sight of the burning NYC towers on 9/11 and later deported.
The ACLU had taken up their case, rightly, as an example of the government's hostile
attitude against the 1st Amendment. The government had taken advantage of its new 9/11
authorities and the country's war-time footing to spy and harass dissidents just like the old
days. Garris and Raimondo won, but their efforts to have all of the government records expunged
is still tied up in appeals . Garris said Justin was at least able to see the latest
June
12 hearing i n the Ninth Circuit.
"He saw the hearing and he got to see that what he was doing was worth something," Garris
said, audibly choking back tears. When they met, Raimondo was a libertarian gay rights
activist. Later on they would help convince Buchanan to run for president in 1992 and Raimondo
led his campaign office in San Francisco (Garris said Buchanan had sent a touching note about
Justin's death this morning). When gay protesters had surrounded and "assaulted" the San
Francisco headquarters at the time, Garris recalled, Raimondo ran out loaded for bear. "He gave
them the what-for," he said, laughing.
That was the image many of us are conjuring today. Raimondo the fighter. Raimondo the brave.
Of course not everyone agreed with him. His enemies over the years have tarred him as a racist
and anti-semite. On the other hand, he easily came to blows with his friends over a point of
view or a passage in a column–a tweet even. His bridge-burning with colleagues and fellow
travelers was notorious. "He was very vocal and contentious person who people either hated or
loved or both," Garris told me. "I've gotten a lot of emails and comments today about him that
said, you know I hated him but he was a hero."
But in the end, after 68 years of being a rebel and contrarian, he was forced to sheath the
sword. He was just too sick. "He just fought and fought, to keep going to get the words out,"
Garris said. He last saw him on Saturday. They knew it would be the last time
.
"I am going to miss him so much. My life would have been completely different if I hadn't
met him."
I know I feel that way, and millions of readers and fans (and foes) do too. RIP.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos isExecutive Editor at TAC and former columnist
at Antiwar.com.
Follow her on Twitter @Vlahos_at_TAC
I was hoping he could stay around. But let those of us who miss him redouble our efforts to
the mission we shared so that it grows stronger in the wake of our loss.
He challenged conventional wisdom because he thought conventional wisdom is often wrong,
which it is. As his work created more journalists and citizens who are willing to do this,
his life's work was important.
Reading Reclaiming the American Right well over 10 years ago (but years after first being
published), I was shocked at how intellectually challenging, substantiated with historical
fact, and fascinating it was.
Clearly, I had let the Rush Limbaugh School of Total
Immersion™, 3 hours a day, inform my views of what, exactly, the American Right,
post-WWII really was and is and continues to be to this day a little too much, no offense
to Rush and the golden EIB. I still like listening to him.
The scholarship in that book is
FAR beyond any silly Jonah Goldberg tome, no matter how snazzy the title, from "Liberal
Fascism" to his latest, with the copied James Burnham title, "Suicide of the West".
Raimondo was a incredibly well read, superbly talented writer who was self-taught on
America's history in general and the post-WWII conservative history in particular.
And he managed to write and publish one of the best most comprehensive biographies on Murray Rothbard ever written as
well, only one of the most important American thinkers of the 20th century. He will be greatly missed, at Antiwar, and
everywhere else. RIP.
on are zombies and stupid.
Have a good one, know what I mean...
"... To head the Iran Mission Center, the CIA appointed Michael D'Andrea. D'Andrea was central to the post-9/11 interrogation program, and he ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Assassinations and torture were central to his approach. ..."
"... What is germane to his post at the Iran Mission Center is that D'Andrea is close to the Gulf Arabs, a former CIA analyst told me. The Gulf Arabs have been pushing hard for action against Iran, a view shared by D'Andrea and parts of his team. For his hard-nosed attitude toward Iran, D'Andrea is known -- ironically -- as "Ayatollah Mike." ..."
"... D'Andrea and people like Bolton are part of an ecosystem of men who have a visceral hatred for Iran and who are close to the worldview of the Saudi royal family . These are men who are reckless with violence, willing to do anything if it means provoking a war against Iran. Nothing should be put past them. ..."
"... D'Andrea's twin outside the White House is Thomas Kaplan, the billionaire who set up two groups that are blindingly for regime change in Iran. The two groups are United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and Counter Extremism Project. There is nothing subtle here. These groups -- and Kaplan himself -- promote an agenda of great disparagement of Muslims in general and of Iran in particular. ..."
"... It is fitting that Kaplan's anti-Iran groups bring together the CIA and money. The head of UANI is Mark Wallace, who is the chief executive of Kaplan's Tigris Financial Group, a financial firm with investments -- which it admits -- would benefit from "instability in the Middle East." Working with UANI and the Counter Extremism Project is Norman Roule, a former national intelligence manager for Iran in the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence. ..."
"... These men -- Kaplan and Bolton, D'Andrea and Shihabi -- are eager to use the full force of the U.S. military to further the dangerous goals of the Gulf Arab royals (of both Saudi Arabia and of the UAE). When Pompeo walked before cameras, he carried their water for them. These are men on a mission. They want war against Iran. ..."
In 2017, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) created a special unit -- the Iran Mission Center -- to focus attention on
the U.S. plans against Iran . The initiative for this unit came from CIA director John Brennan, who left his post as the Trump administration
came into office. Brennan believed that the CIA needed to focus attention on what the United States sees as problem areas -- North
Korea and Iran, for instance. This predated the Trump administration.
Brennan's successor -- Mike Pompeo, who was CIA director for just over a year (until he was appointed U.S. Secretary of State)
-- continued this policy. The CIA's Iran-related activity had been conducted in the Iran Operations Division (Persia House). This
was a section with Iran specialists who built up knowledge about political and economic developments inside Iran and in the Iranian
diaspora.
It bothered the hawks in Washington -- as one official told me -- that Persia House was filled with Iran specialists who had no
special focus on regime change in Iran. Some of them, due to their long concentration on Iran, had developed sensitivity to the country.
Trump's people wanted a much more focused and belligerent group that would provide the kind of intelligence that tickled the fancy
of his National Security Adviser John Bolton .
To head the Iran Mission Center, the CIA appointed Michael D'Andrea. D'Andrea was central to the post-9/11 interrogation program,
and he ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Assassinations and torture were central to his approach.
It was D'Andrea who expanded the CIA's drone strike program, in particular the signature strike. The signature strike is a particularly
controversial instrument. The CIA was given the allowance to kill anyone who fit a certain profile -- a man of a certain age, for
instance, with a phone that had been used to call someone on a list. The dark arts of the CIA are precisely those of D'Andrea.
What is germane to his post at the Iran Mission Center is that D'Andrea is close to the Gulf Arabs, a former CIA analyst told
me. The Gulf Arabs have been pushing hard for action against Iran, a view shared by D'Andrea and parts of his team. For his hard-nosed
attitude toward Iran, D'Andrea is known -- ironically -- as "Ayatollah Mike."
D'Andrea and people like Bolton are part of an ecosystem of men who have a visceral hatred for Iran and who are close to the
worldview of the Saudi royal family . These are men who are reckless with violence, willing to do anything if it means provoking
a war against Iran. Nothing should be put past them.
D'Andrea and the hawks edged out several Iran experts from the Iran Mission Center, people like Margaret Stromecki -- who had
been head of analysis. Others who want to offer an alternative to the Pompeo-Bolton view of things either have also moved on or remain
silent. There is no space in the Trump administration, a former official told me, for dissent on the Iran policy.
Saudi Arabia's War
D'Andrea's twin outside the White House is Thomas Kaplan, the billionaire who set up two groups that are blindingly for regime
change in Iran. The two groups are United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and Counter Extremism Project. There is nothing subtle here.
These groups -- and Kaplan himself -- promote an agenda of great disparagement of Muslims in general and of Iran in particular.
Kaplan blamed Iran for the creation of ISIS, for it was Iran -- Kaplan said -- that "used a terrible Sunni movement" to expand
its reach from "Persia to the Mediterranean." Such absurdity followed from a fundamental misreading of Shia concepts such as taqiya,
which means prudence and not -- as Kaplan and others argue -- deceit. Kaplan, bizarrely, shares more with ISIS than Iran does with
that group -- since both Kaplan and ISIS are driven by their hatred of those who follow the Shia traditions of Islam.
It is fitting that Kaplan's anti-Iran groups bring together the CIA and money. The head of UANI is Mark Wallace, who is the
chief executive of Kaplan's Tigris Financial Group, a financial firm with investments -- which it admits -- would benefit from "instability
in the Middle East." Working with UANI and the Counter Extremism Project is Norman Roule, a former national intelligence manager
for Iran in the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Roule has offered his support to the efforts of the Arabia Foundation, run by Ali Shihabi -- a man with close links to the Saudi
monarchy. The Arabia Foundation was set up to do more effective public relations work for the Saudis than the Saudi diplomats are
capable of doing. Shihabi is the son of one of Saudi Arabia's most well-regarded diplomats, Samir al-Shihabi, who played an important
role as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Pakistan during the war that created al-Qaeda.
These men -- Kaplan and Bolton, D'Andrea and Shihabi -- are eager to use the full force of the U.S. military to further the
dangerous goals of the Gulf Arab royals (of both Saudi Arabia and of the UAE). When Pompeo walked before cameras, he carried their
water for them. These are men on a mission. They want war against Iran.
Evidence, reason. None of this is important to them. They will not stop until the U.S. bombers deposit their deadly payload on
Tehran and Qom, Isfahan and Shiraz. They will do anything to make that our terrible reality.
This article was produced by Globetrotter ,
a project of the Independent Media Institute.
"... India pays Iran for oil in gold. Europe would be smart to convert to the Yuan/gold convertible bond as a trading currency to use with Iran, and hold reserves in that. It's redeemable for gold at many settlement banks around the world. It was designed as a trading currency to use outside the SWIFT system. All the groundwork was painstakingly laid just for this purpose. ..."
"... Food for oil. What an insult. Europe wants it both ways. They should grow up and start leading the world instead of hiding behind Uncle Sams petticoat. ..."
"... Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ... ..."
"... Trump is a bull in a china shop. Someone will have to pick up the pieces and it won't be the one percent. YOU and I are expendable. ..."
"... Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ... ..."
"... Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the agreement. But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear what they can do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants. ..."
leveymg on Fri, 06/28/2019 - 4:41pm In a surprise move, the EU special purpose vehicle for trade with Iran (INSTEX)
exercised its first trade today. The body was set up to facilitate exports of Iranian oil without U.S. dollars, avoiding a sanctions
regime imposed unilaterally by the U.S.
Instex is now operational despite U.S. threats to European banks and officials of reprisal sanctions if they violated Iran sanctions.
Bloomberg had reported on May 7 the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Sigal Mandelker,
issued a warning letter that Instex and anyone associated with it could be barred from the U.S. financial system if it goes into
effect.
In defiance of U.S. pressure, Instex was set up by EU diplomats in January as a means to prevent total collapse of the Iranian
nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The first official trades occurred today, in the
shadow of the Group of 20 Summit meeting.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/eu-claims-iran-deal-held-togethe...
A senior EU diplomat has said the first transactions were being made by a special purpose vehicle for trade with Iran at a
meeting of the remaining members of the 2015 nuclear deal in Vienna.
Friday's meeting in Vienna featured "constructive discussions," Helga Schmid, the head of the EU diplomatic service said, confirming
the entity, named Instex, was making its first transactions.
"INSTEX now operational, first transactions being processed and more EU Members States to join. Good progress on Arak and Fordow
[fuel enrichment] projects," she posted.
The Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (Instex) is designed to facilitate trade of essential goods, such as food and
medicine, mainly from the EU to Iran. A Chinese official said Beijing was open to using the facility.
The platform has been set up in France, with a German managing director in a coordinated European effort to counterbalance
the US economic power displayed by its sanctions policy.
President Donald Trump last year pulled out of the Iranian nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA), which curbed Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions.
According to today's report:
As the talks kicked off on Friday, seven EU nations expressed support for Instex and the JCPOA, asking Iran "to abide by and
fully respect the terms and provisions of the nuclear agreement".
"We are working with France, Germany and the United Kingdom, as well as with the European External Action Service and the European
Commission, to establish channels to facilitate legitimate trade and financial operations with Iran, one of the foremost of these
initiatives being the establishment of Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges," read the statement from Austria, Belgium, Finland,
the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
Whether the declaration of support and first tranche of transactions will be enough to keep Iran committed to the 2015 nuclear
deal is still in question.
Crucial for INSTEX's success will be whether participating states also develop mechanisms for European companies and their
employees that protect them from the expected American sanctions and compensate for any damages incurred. The legislative instrument
for this exists: The EU's blocking statute. It just needs to be updated to meet the new requirements.
Read more: US welcomes German firms' compliance on Iran sanctions
International transactions independent of the dollar
The knowledge and experience gained in the process could later be transferred to other areas, such as European initiatives
in international monetary transactions. This expertise could then come in handy for establishing payment channels independent
of the American financial system and the dollar, which the US also uses as a lever in its sanctions policy.
Two pieces of good news in two days, Tulsi Gabbard winning acknowledgement and respect in the debate, and this encouraging
sign from Europe. A person could almost get used to thinking common sense is gaining ground. Thank you, leveymg, for posting
this.
this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this
link at RT.com that includes this baffling
part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:
"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week, Iranian
Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to Iranian media.
He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments
under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."
i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would mainly
be for medicines and...food (?)
Right now, it's unclear which way this is going to go. If Europe bows to American power, again, it will turn out very badly
for everyone. Iraq times ten.
this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this
link at RT.com that includes this
baffling part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:
"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week,
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to
Iranian media.
He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments
under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."
i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would
mainly be for medicines and...food (?)
...just fine. India pays Iran for oil in gold. Europe would be smart to convert to the Yuan/gold convertible bond as a trading
currency to use with Iran, and hold reserves in that. It's redeemable for gold at many settlement banks around the world. It was
designed as a trading currency to use outside the SWIFT system. All the groundwork was painstakingly laid just for this purpose.
Food for oil. What an insult. Europe wants it both ways. They should grow up and start leading the world instead of hiding
behind Uncle Sams petticoat.
[edited to correct]
this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this
link at RT.com that includes this
baffling part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:
"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week,
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to
Iranian media.
He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments
under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."
i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would
mainly be for medicines and...food (?)
Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did
before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ...
Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the agreement.
But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear what they can
do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants.
"What is our demand? Our demand is to be able to sell our oil and get the money back. And this is in fact the minimum of
our benefit from the deal," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "We are not asking Europeans to invest in
Iran... We only want to sell our oil."
Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it
did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ...
Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the
agreement. But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear
what they can do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants.
"What is our demand? Our demand is to be able to sell our oil and get the money back. And this is in fact the minimum
of our benefit from the deal," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "We are not asking Europeans to invest
in Iran... We only want to sell our oil."
"... This is just wanton shit-faced stupidity. We are referring to the Trump Administration's escalation of sanctions on Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei and its foreign minister, and then the Donald's tweet-storm of bluster, threats and implicit redlines when they didn't take too kindly to this latest act of aggression by Washington. ..."
"... That last point can't be emphasized enough. Iran is zero threat to the American homeland and has never engaged in any hostile action on U.S soil or even threatened the same. ..."
"... To the contrary, Washington's massive naval and military arsenal in the middle east is essentially the occupational force of a naked aggressor that has created mayhem through the Persian Gulf and middle eastern region for the past three decades; and has done so in pursuit of the will-o-wisp of oil security and the neocon agenda of demonizing and isolating the Iranian regime. ..."
"... the demonization of the Iranian regime is based on lies and propaganda ginned up by the Bibi Netanyahu branch of the War Party (that has falsely made Iran an "existential" threat in order to win elections in Israel). ..."
"... Likewise, it has presumed to have an independent foreign policy involving Washington proscribed alliances with the sovereign state of Syria, the leading political party of Lebanon (Hezbollah), the ruling authorities in Baghdad and the reining power in the Yemen capital of Sana'a (the Houthis). All these regimes except the puppet state of Iraq are deemed by Washington to be sources of unsanctioned "regional instability" and Iran's alliances with them have been capriciously labeled as acts of state sponsored terrorism. ..."
"... The same goes for Washington's demarche against Iran's modest array of short, medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles. These weapons are palpably instruments of self-defense, but Imperial Washington insists their purpose is aggression – unlike the case of practically every other nation which offers its custom to American arms merchants for like and similar weapons. ..."
"... For example, Iran's arch-rival across the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, has more advanced NATO supplied ballistic missiles with even greater range (2,600 km range). So does Israel, Pakistan, India and a half-dozen other nations, which are either Washington allies or have been given a hall-pass in order to bolster US arms exports. ..."
"... In short, Washington's escalating war on Iran is an exercise in global hegemony, not territorial self-defense ..."
"... When the cold-war officially ended in 1991, in fact, the Cheney/neocon cabal feared the kind of drastic demobilization of the US military-industrial complex that was warranted by the suddenly more pacific strategic environment. In response, they developed an anti-Iranian doctrine that was explicitly described as a way of keeping defense spending at high cold war levels. ..."
"... Iranians had a case is beyond doubt. The open US archives now prove that the CIA overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 and put the utterly unsuited and megalomaniacal Mohammad Reza Shah on the peacock throne to rule as a puppet in behalf of US security and oil interests. ..."
"... Indeed, in this very context the new Iranian regime proved quite dramatically that it was not hell bent on obtaining nuclear bombs or any other weapons of mass destruction. In the midst of Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Iran in the early 1980s the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against biological and chemical weapons. ..."
"... Yet at that very time, Saddam was dropping these horrific weapons on Iranian battle forces – some of them barely armed teenage boys – with the spotting help of CIA tracking satellites and the concurrence of Washington. So from the very beginning, the Iranian posture was wholly contrary to the War Party's endless blizzard of false charges about its quest for nukes. ..."
"... However benighted and medieval its religious views, the theocracy which rules Iran does not consist of demented war mongers. In the heat of battle they were willing to sacrifice their own forces rather than violate their religious scruples to counter Saddam's WMDs. ..."
"... Then in 1983 the new Iranian regime decided to complete the Bushehr power plant and some additional elements of the Shah's grand plan. But when they attempted to reactivate the French enrichment services contract and buy necessary power plant equipment from the original German suppliers they were stopped cold by Washington. And when the tried to get their $2 billion deposit back, they were curtly denied that, too. ..."
This is just wanton shit-faced stupidity. We are referring to
the Trump Administration's escalation of sanctions on Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei and its foreign
minister, and then the Donald's tweet-storm of bluster, threats and implicit redlines when they
didn't take too kindly to this latest act of aggression by Washington.
That last point can't be emphasized enough. Iran is zero threat to the American homeland
and has never engaged in any hostile action on U.S soil or even threatened the same.
To the contrary, Washington's massive naval and military arsenal in the middle east is
essentially the occupational force of a naked aggressor that has created mayhem through the
Persian Gulf and middle eastern region for the past three decades; and has done so in pursuit
of the will-o-wisp of oil security and the neocon agenda of demonizing and isolating the
Iranian regime.
But as we have demonstrated previously, the best cure for high oil prices is the global
market, not the Fifth Fleet. And the demonization of the Iranian regime is based on lies
and propaganda ginned up by the Bibi Netanyahu branch of the War Party (that has falsely made
Iran an "existential" threat in order to win elections in Israel).
Stated differently, the American people have no dog in the political hunts of Washington's
so-called allies in the region; and will be no worse for the wear economically if Washington
were to dispense with its idiotic economic warfare against Iran's 4 million barrel per day oil
industry and allow all exporters in the region to produce and sell every single barrel they can
economically extract.
Viewed in the proper context, Iran's response to the new sanctions and intensified efforts
to destroy their economy was readily warranted:
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called the new sanctions "outrageous and stupid." Mr.
Khamenei, while the political leader of Iran, also is one of the world's leading authorities
for Shia Muslims.
"Would any administration with a bit of wisdom [sanction] the highest authority of a
country? And not only a political authority, a religious, social, spiritual one, and not the
leader of Iran only, the leader of the Islamic revolution all over the world?" Mr. Rouhani said
in a speech broadcast on state television.
He said it was "obvious" that the US was lying about wanting to negotiate with Iran: "You
want us to negotiate with you again?" Mr. Rouhani said, "and at the same time you seek to
sanction the foreign minister too?"
Iran also said these sanctions closed the door on diplomacy and threatened global
stability, as American officials renewed efforts to build a global alliance against
Tehran.
Unfortunately, it didn't take the Donald long to upchuck what amounted to a dangerous
tantrum:
.Iran's very ignorant and insulting statement, put out today, only shows that they do not
understand reality. Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and
overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration. No more John Kerry
& Obama!
Those words are utterly reckless and outrageous. The Donald is carrying water for the
neocons, Bibi and the Saudis without really understanding what he is doing and in the process
is betraying America First and inching closer to an utterly unnecessary conflagration in the
Persian Gulf that will virtually upend the global economy.
Worst of all, as he escalates the confrontation with the Iranian regime, he espouses a pack
of lies and distortions that do no remotely comport with the facts. For instance, the following
tweet is absolutely neocon baloney:
.The wonderful Iranian people are suffering, and for no reason at all. Their leadership
spends all of its money on Terror, and little on anything else. The US has not forgotten Iran's
use of IED's & EFP's (bombs), which killed 2000 Americans, and wounded many
more
The truth of the matter is that the Donald is referring to attacks on US forces by the
Shiite militias in Iraq during Washington's misbegotten invasion and occupation of that
woebegone nation during the last decades. The Shiite live there, constitute the majority of its
electorate, didn't want America there in the first place, and now actually run the government
that Washington placed in power and are totally opposed to Trump's confrontation with their
Shiite compatriots in Iran.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Better still, it is crucial to understand that this entire dangerous escalation is owing to
the fact that the Donald got into his thick head that utter nonsense that the Iran nuke deal
was some kind of disaster, and from there walked-away from the deal and restarted a brutal
economic war against Iran in the guise of sanctions.
But nothing could be further from the truth. The Donald's action to terminate the Iranian
nuclear deal was a complete triumph for the War Party.
It gutted the very idea of America First because Washington's renewed round of
sanctions constitute economic aggression against a country that is no threat to the US homeland
whatsoever.
In fact, Iran did not violate any term of the nuke deal, and as we demonstrate below,
scrupulously adhered to the letter of it. So the real reasons for Trump's abandonment of the
nuke deal have everything to do with the kind of Imperial interventionism that is the
antithesis of America First.
Trump's action, in fact, is predicated on the decades long neocon-inspired Big Lie that Iran
is an aggressive expansionist and terrorism-supporting rogue state which threatens the security
of not just the region, but America too.
But that's flat out poppycock. As we documented last week, the claim that Iran is the
expansionist leader of the Shiite Crescent is based on nothing more than the fact that Tehran
has an independent foreign policy based on its own interests and confessional affiliations
– legitimate relationships that are demonized by virtue of not being approved by
Washington.
Likewise, the official charge that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism is not
remotely warranted by the facts: The listing is essentially a State Department favor to the
Netanyahu branch of the War Party.
The fact is, the Iranian regime with its piddling $14 billion military budget has no means
to attack America militarily and has never threatened to do so. Nor has it invaded any other
country in the region where it was not invited by a sovereign government host.
As Ron Paul cogently observed:
Is Iran really the aggressive one? When you unilaterally pull out of an agreement that
was reducing tensions and boosting trade; when you begin applying sanctions designed to
completely destroy another country's economy; when you position military assets right offshore
of that country; when you threaten to destroy that country on a regular basis, calling it a
campaign of "maximum pressure," to me it seems a stretch to play the victim when that country
retaliates by shooting a spy plane that is likely looking for the best way to attack.
Even if the US spy plane was not in Iranian airspace – but it increasingly looks
like it was – it was just another part of an already-existing US war on Iran. Yes,
sanctions are a form of war, not a substitute for war.
The point is Washington's case is almost entirely bogus. To wit:
Mr. Trump also reiterated his demands Monday at the White House: "We will continue to
increase pressure on Tehran until the regime abandons its dangerous activities and its
aspirations, including the pursuit of nuclear weapons, increased enrichment of uranium,
development of ballistic missiles, engagement in and support for terrorism, fueling of foreign
conflicts, and belligerent acts directed against the United States and its allies."
Let's see about those "dangerous activities and aspirations".
In fact, Iran has no blue water navy that could effectively operate outside of the Persian
Gulf; its longest range warplanes can barely get to Rome without refueling; and its array of
mainly defensive medium and intermediate range missiles cannot strike most of NATO, to say
nothing of the North American continent.
Likewise, it has presumed to have an independent foreign policy involving Washington
proscribed alliances with the sovereign state of Syria, the leading political party of Lebanon
(Hezbollah), the ruling authorities in Baghdad and the reining power in the Yemen capital of
Sana'a (the Houthis). All these regimes except the puppet state of Iraq are deemed by Washington to be sources of
unsanctioned "regional instability" and Iran's alliances with them have been capriciously
labeled as acts of state sponsored terrorism.
The same goes for Washington's demarche against Iran's modest array of short, medium and
intermediate range ballistic missiles. These weapons are palpably instruments of self-defense,
but Imperial Washington insists their purpose is aggression – unlike the case of
practically every other nation which offers its custom to American arms merchants for like and
similar weapons.
For example, Iran's arch-rival across the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, has more advanced NATO
supplied ballistic missiles with even greater range (2,600 km range). So does Israel, Pakistan,
India and a half-dozen other nations, which are either Washington allies or have been given a
hall-pass in order to bolster US arms exports.
In short, Washington's escalating war on Iran is an exercise in global hegemony, not
territorial self-defense. It is a testament to the manner in which the historic notion of
national defense has morphed into Washington's arrogant claim that it constitutes the
"Indispensable Nation" which purportedly stands as mankind's bulwark against global disorder
and chaos among nations.
Likewise, the Shiite theocracy ensconced in Tehran was an unfortunate albatross on the
Persian people, but it was no threat to America's safety and security. The very idea that
Tehran is an expansionist power bent on exporting terrorism to the rest of the world is a giant
fiction and tissue of lies invented by the Washington War Party and its Bibi Netanyahu branch
in order to win political support for their confrontationist policies.
Indeed, the three decade long demonization of Iran has served one overarching purpose.
Namely, it enabled both branches of the War Party to conjure up a fearsome enemy, thereby
justifying aggressive policies that call for a constant state of war and military
mobilization.
When the cold-war officially ended in 1991, in fact, the Cheney/neocon cabal feared the kind
of drastic demobilization of the US military-industrial complex that was warranted by the
suddenly more pacific strategic environment. In response, they developed an anti-Iranian
doctrine that was explicitly described as a way of keeping defense spending at high cold war
levels.
And the narrative they developed to this end is one of the more egregious Big Lies ever to
come out of the beltway. It puts you in mind of the young boy who killed his parents, and then
threw himself on the mercy of the courts on the grounds that he was an orphan!
To wit, during the 1980s the neocons in the Reagan Administration issued their own fatwa
again the Islamic Republic of Iran based on its rhetorical hostility to America. Yet that
enmity was grounded in Washington's 25-year support for the tyrannical and illegitimate regime
of the Shah, and constituted a founding narrative of the Islamic Republic that was not much
different than America's revolutionary castigation of King George.
That the Iranians had a case is beyond doubt. The open US archives now prove that the CIA
overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 and put the utterly unsuited and
megalomaniacal Mohammad Reza Shah on the peacock throne to rule as a puppet in behalf of US
security and oil interests.
During the subsequent decades the Shah not only massively and baldly plundered the wealth of
the Persian nation. With the help of the CIA and US military, he also created a brutal secret
police force known as the Savak, which made the East German Stasi look civilized by
comparison.
All elements of Iranian society including universities, labor unions, businesses, civic
organizations, peasant farmers and many more were subjected to intense surveillance by the
Savak agents and paid informants. As one critic described it:
Over the years, Savak became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest, detain,
brutally interrogate and torture suspected people indefinitely. Savak operated its own prisons
in Tehran, such as Qezel-Qalaeh and Evin facilities and many suspected places throughout the
country as well.
Ironically, among his many grandiose follies, the Shah embarked on a massive civilian
nuclear power campaign in the 1970s, which envisioned literally paving the Iranian landscape
with dozens of nuclear power plants.
He would use Iran's surging oil revenues after 1973 to buy all the equipment required from
Western companies – and also fuel cycle support services such as uranium enrichment
– in order to provide his kingdom with cheap power for centuries.
At the time of the Revolution, the first of these plants at Bushehr was nearly complete, but
the whole grandiose project was put on hold amidst the turmoil of the new regime and the onset
of Saddam Hussein's war against Iran in September 1980. As a consequence, a $2 billion deposit
languished at the French nuclear agency that had originally obtained it from the Shah to fund a
ramp-up of its enrichment capacity to supply his planned battery of reactors.
Indeed, in this very context the new Iranian regime proved quite dramatically that it was
not hell bent on obtaining nuclear bombs or any other weapons of mass destruction. In the midst
of Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Iran in the early 1980s the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa
against biological and chemical weapons.
Yet at that very time, Saddam was dropping these horrific weapons on Iranian battle forces
– some of them barely armed teenage boys – with the spotting help of CIA tracking
satellites and the concurrence of Washington. So from the very beginning, the Iranian posture
was wholly contrary to the War Party's endless blizzard of false charges about its quest for
nukes.
However benighted and medieval its religious views, the theocracy which rules Iran does not
consist of demented war mongers. In the heat of battle they were willing to sacrifice their own
forces rather than violate their religious scruples to counter Saddam's WMDs.
Then in 1983 the new Iranian regime decided to complete the Bushehr power plant and some
additional elements of the Shah's grand plan. But when they attempted to reactivate the French
enrichment services contract and buy necessary power plant equipment from the original German
suppliers they were stopped cold by Washington. And when the tried to get their $2 billion
deposit back, they were curtly denied that, too.
To make a long story short, the entire subsequent history of off again/on again efforts by
the Iranians to purchase dual use equipment and components on the international market, often
from black market sources like Pakistan, was in response to Washington's relentless efforts to
block its legitimate rights as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to
complete some parts of the Shah's civilian nuclear project.
Needless to say, it did not take much effort by the neocon "regime change" fanatics which
inhabited the national security machinery, especially after the 2000 election, to spin every
attempt by Iran to purchase even a lowly pump or pipe fitting as evidence of a secret campaign
to get the bomb.
The exaggerations, lies, distortions and fear-mongering which came out of this neocon
campaign are downright despicable. Yet they incepted way back in the early 1990s when George
H.W. Bush actually did reach out to the newly elected government of Hashemi Rafsanjani to bury
the hatchet after it had cooperated in obtaining the release of American prisoners being held
in Lebanon in 1989.
Rafsanjani was self-evidently a pragmatist who did not want conflict with the United States
and the West; and after the devastation of the eight year war with Iraq was wholly focused on
economic reconstruction and even free market reforms of Iran's faltering economy.
It is one of the great tragedies of history that the neocons managed to squelch even George
Bush's better instincts with respect to rapprochement with Tehran.
The Neocon Big Lie About Iranian Nukes And Terrorism
So the prisoner release opening was short-lived – especially after the top post at the
CIA was assumed in 1991 by Robert Gates. As one of the very worst of the unreconstructed cold
war apparatchiks, it can be well and truly said that Gates looked peace in the eye and then
elected to pervert John Quincy Adams' wise maxim by searching the globe for monsters to
fabricate.
In this case the motivation was especially loathsome. Gates had been Bill Casey's right hand
man during the latter's rogue tenure at the CIA in the Reagan administration. Among the many
untoward projects that Gates shepherded was the Iran-Contra affair that nearly destroyed his
career when it blew-up, and for which he blamed the Iranians for its public disclosure.
From his post as deputy national security director in 1989 and then as CIA head Gates pulled
out all the stops to get even. Almost single-handedly he killed-off the White House goodwill
from the prisoner release, and launched the blatant myth that Iran was both sponsoring
terrorism and seeking to obtain nuclear weapons.
Indeed, it was Gates who was the architect of the demonization of Iran that became a staple
of War Party propaganda after the 1991. In time that morphed into the utterly false claim that
Iran is an aggressive wanna be hegemon that is a fount of terrorism and is dedicated to the
destruction of the state of Israel, among other treacherous purposes.
That giant lie was almost single-handedly fashioned by the neocons and Bibi Netanyahu's
coterie of power-hungry henchman after the mid-1990s. Indeed, the false claim that Iran posses
an "existential threat" to Israel is a product of the pure red meat domestic Israeli politics
that have kept Bibi in power for much of the last two decades.
But the truth is Iran has only a tiny fraction of Israel's conventional military capability.
And compared to the latter's 100 odd nukes, Iran has never had a nuclear weaponization program
after a small scale research program was ended in 2003.
That is not merely our opinion. It's been the sober assessment of the nation's top 17
intelligence agencies in the official National Intelligence Estimates ever since 2007. And now
in conjunction with a further study undertaken pursuant to the 2015 nuke deal, the IAEA has
also concluded the Iran had no secret program after 2003.
On the political and foreign policy front, Iran is no better or worse than any of the other
major powers in the Middle East. In many ways it is far less of a threat to regional peace and
stability than the military butchers who now run Egypt on $1.5 billion per year of US aid.
And it is surely no worse than the royal family tyrants who squander the massive oil
resources of Saudi Arabia in pursuit of unspeakable opulence and decadence to the detriment of
the 30 million citizens which are not part of the regime, and who one day may well reach the
point of revolt.
When it comes to the support of terrorism, the Saudis have funded more jihadists and
terrorists throughout the region than Iran ever even imagined.
In fact, Iran is a nearly bankrupt country that has no capability whatsoever to
threaten the security and safety of the citizens of Spokane WA, Peoria IL or anywhere else in
the USA.
Its $460 billion GDP is the size of Indiana's and its 68,000 man military is only slightly
larger than the national guard of Texas.
It is a land of severe mountains and daunting swamps that are not all that conducive to
rapid economic progress and advanced industrialization. It has no blue water navy, no missiles
with more than a few hundred miles of range, and, we must repeat again, has had no nuclear
weapons program for more than a decade.
Moreover, Donald's incessant charge that the Obama Administration gave away the store during
the nuke deal negotiations that led to the JCPA is just blatant nonsense. In fact, the Iranians
made huge concessions on nearly every issue that made a difference.
That included deep concessions on the number of permitted centrifuges at Natanz; the
dismantlement of the Fordow and Arak nuclear operations; the virtually complete liquidation of
its enriched uranium stockpiles; the intrusiveness and scope of the inspections regime; and the
provisions with respect to Iran's so-called "breakout" capacity.
For instance, while every signatory of the non-proliferation treaty has the right to
civilian enrichment, Iran agreed to reduce the number of centrifuges by 70% from 20,000 to
6,000.
And its effective spinning capacity was reduced by significantly more. That's because the
permitted Natanz centrifuges now consist exclusively of its most rudimentary, outdated
equipment – first-generation IR-1 knockoffs of 1970s European models.
Not only was Iran not be allowed to build or develop newer models, but even those remaining
were permitted to enrich uranium to a limit of only 3.75% purity. That is to say, to the
generation of fissile material that is not remotely capable of reaching bomb grade
concentrations of 90%.
Equally importantly, pursuant to the agreement Iran has eliminated enrichment activity
entirely at its Fordow plant – a facility that had been Iran's one truly advanced,
hardened site that could withstand an onslaught of Israeli or US bunker busters.
Instead, Fordow has become a small time underground science lab devoted to medical isotope
research and crawling with international inspectors. In effectively decommissioning Fordow and
thereby eliminating any capacity to cheat from a secure facility – what Iran got in
return was at best a fig leave of salve for its national pride.
The disposition of the reactor at Arak has been even more dispositive. For years, the War
Party has falsely waved the bloody shirt of "plutonium" because the civilian nuclear reactor
being built there was of Canadian "heavy water" design rather than GE or Westinghouse "light
water" design; and, accordingly, when finished it would have generated plutonium as a waste
product rather than conventional spent nuclear fuel rods.
In truth, the Iranians couldn't have bombed a beehive with the Arak plutonium because you
need a reprocessing plant to convert it into bomb grade material. Needless to say, Iran never
had such a plant – nor any plans to build one, and no prospect for getting the requisite
technology and equipment.
But now even that bogeyman no longer exists. Iran removed and destroyed the reactor core of
its existing Arak plant in 2016 and filled it with cement, as attested to by international
inspectors under the JCPA.
As to its already existing enriched stock piles, including some 20% medical-grade material,
97% has been eliminated as per the agreement. That is, Iran now holds only 300 kilograms of its
10,000 kilogram stockpile in useable or recoverable form. Senator Kirk could store what is left
in his wine cellar.
But where the framework agreement decisively shut down the War Party was with respect to its
provision for a robust, comprehensive and even prophylactic inspections regime. All of the
major provision itemized above are being enforced by continuous IAEA access to existing
facilities including its main centrifuge complex at Natanz – along with Fordow, Arak and
a half dozen other sites.
Indeed, the real breakthrough in the JCPA lies in Iran's agreement to what amounts to a
cradle-to-grave inspection regime. It encompasses the entire nuclear fuel chain.
That means international inspectors can visit Iran's uranium mines and milling and fuel
preparation operations. This encompasses even its enrichment equipment manufacturing and
fabrication plants, including centrifuge rotor and bellows production and storage
facilities.
Beyond that, Iran has also been subject to a robust program of IAEA inspections to prevent
smuggling of materials into the country to illicit sites outside of the named facilities under
the agreement. This encompasses imports of nuclear fuel cycle equipment and materials,
including so-called "dual use" items which are essentially civilian imports that can be
repurposed to nuclear uses, even peaceful domestic power generation.
In short, not even a Houdini could secretly breakout of the control box established by the
JCPA and confront the world with some kind of fait accompli threat to use the bomb.
That's because what it would take to do so is absurdly implausible. That is, Iran would need
to secretly divert thousands of tons of domestically produced or imported uranium and then
illicitly mill and upgrade such material at secret fuel preparation plants.
It would also need to secretly construct new, hidden enrichment operations of such massive
scale that they could house more than 10,000 new centrifuges. Moreover, they would need to
build these massive spinning arrays from millions of component parts smuggled into the country
and transported to remote enrichment operations – all undetected by the massive complex
of spy satellites overhead and covert US ands Israeli intelligence agency operatives on the
ground in Iran.
Finally, it would require the activation from scratch of a weaponization program which has
been dormant according to the National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) for more than a decade.
And then, that the Iranian regime – after cobbling together one or two bombs without
testing them or their launch vehicles – would nevertheless be willing to threaten to use
them sight unseen.
So just stop it!
You need to be a raging, certifiable paranoid boob to believe that the Iranians can break
out of this framework box based on a secret new capacity to enrich the requisite fissile
material and make a bomb.
In the alternative scenario, you have to be a willful know-nothing to think that if it
publicly repudiates the agreement, Iran could get a bomb overnight before the international
community could take action.
To get enough nuclear material to make a bomb from the output of the 5,000 "old and slow"
centrifuges remaining at Natanz would take years, not months. And if subject to an embargo on
imported components, as it would be after a unilateral Iranian repudiation of the JCPA, it
could not rebuild its now dismantled enrichment capacity rapidly, either.
At the end of the day, in fact, what you really have to believe is that Iran is run by
absolutely irrational, suicidal madmen. After all, even if they managed to defy the immensely
prohibitive constraints described above and get one or a even a few nuclear bombs, what in the
world would they do with them?
Drop them on Tel Aviv? That would absolutely insure Israel's navy and air force would
unleash its 100-plus nukes and thereby incinerate the entire industrial base and major
population centers of Iran.
Indeed, the very idea that deterrence would fail even if a future Iranian regime were to
defy all the odds, and also defy the fatwa against nuclear weapons issued by their Supreme
Leader, amounts to one of the most preposterous Big Lies ever concocted.
There is no plausible or rational basis for believing it outside of the axis-of-evil
narrative. So what's really behind Trump's withdrawal from the JCPA is nothing more than the
immense tissue of lies and unwarranted demonization of Iran that the War Party has fabricated
over the last three decades.
Iran Never Wanted the Bomb
At bottom, all the hysteria about the mullahs getting the bomb was based on the wholly
theoretically supposition that they wanted civilian enrichment only as a stepping stone to the
bomb. Yet the entirety of the US intelligence complex as well as the attestation of George W.
Bush himself say it isn't so.
As we have previously indicated, the blinding truth of that proposition first came in the
National Intelligence Estimates of 2007. These NIEs represent a consensus of all 17 US
intelligence agencies on salient issues each year, and on the matter of Iran's nuclear weapons
program they could not have been more unequivocal:
"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear
weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We assess with moderate confidence Tehran
had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it
currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
"Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to
international pressure indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach
rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military
costs."
Moreover, as former CIA analyst Ray McGovern noted recently, the NIE's have not changed
since then.
An equally important fact ignored by the mainstream media is that the key judgments of
that NIE have been revalidated by the intelligence community every year since.
More crucially, there is the matter of "Dubya's" memoirs. Near the end of his term in office
he was under immense pressure to authorize a bombing campaign against Iran's civilian nuclear
facilities.
But once the 2007 NIEs came out, even the "mission accomplished" President in the bomber
jacket was caught up short. As McGovern further notes,
Bush lets it all hang out in his memoir, Decision Points. Most revealingly, he complains
bitterly that the NIE "tied my hands on the military side" and called its findings
"eye-popping."
A disgruntled Bush writes, "The backlash was immediate ."I don't know why the NIE was
written the way it was. Whatever the explanation, the NIE had a big impact – and not a
good one."
Spelling out how the Estimate had tied his hands "on the military side," Bush included
this (apparently unedited) kicker: "But after the NIE, how could I possibly explain using
the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had
no active nuclear weapons program?"
So there you have it. How is it possible to believe that the Iranian's were hell-bent on a
nuclear holocaust when they didn't even have a nuclear weapons program?
And why in the world is the Donald taking America and the world to the edge of a utterly
unnecessary war in order to force a better deal when the one he shit-canned was more than
serviceable?
The answer to that momentous questions lies with the Bombzie Twins (Pompeo and Bolton) and
the malign influence of the Donald's son-in-law and Bibi Netanyahu toady, Jared Kushner.
Rarely have a small group of fanatics more dangerously and wantonly jeopardized the
security, blood and treasure of the American people.
At the same time, the administration has signaled in recent days that it plans to let the
New Start treaty, negotiated by Barack Obama, expire in February 2021 rather than renew it
for another five years. John R. Bolton, the president's national security adviser, who met
with his Russian counterpart, Nikolai Patrushev, in Jerusalem this week, said before leaving
Washington that "there's no decision, but I think it's unlikely" the treaty would be
renewed.
Mr. Bolton, a longtime skeptic of arms control agreements, said that New Start was flawed
because it did not cover short-range tactical nuclear weapons or new Russian delivery
systems. "So to extend for five years and not take these new delivery system threats into
account would be malpractice," he told The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative outlet.
Like all of his complaints about arms control agreements, Bolton's criticisms of New START
are made in bad faith. Opponents of New START have long pretended that they oppose the treaty
because it did not cover everything imaginable, including tactical nuclear weapons, but this
has always been an excuse for them to reject a treaty that they have never wanted ratified in
the first place. If the concern about negotiating a treaty that covered tactical nuclear
weapons were genuine, the smart thing to do would be to extend New START and then begin
negotiations for a more comprehensive arms control agreement. Faulting New START for failing to
include things that are by definition not going to be included in a strategic arms reduction
treaty gives the game away. This is what die-hard opponents of the treaty have been doing for
almost ten years, and they do it because they want to dismantle the last vestiges of arms
control. The proposal to include China as part of a new treaty is another tell that the Trump
administration just wants the treaty to die.
The article concludes:
Some experts suspect talk of a three-way accord is merely a feint to get rid of the New
Start treaty. "If a trilateral deal is meant as a substitute or prerequisite for extending
New Start, it is a poison pill, no ifs, ands or buts," said Daryl G. Kimball, executive
director of the Arms Control Association. "If the president is seeking a trilateral deal as a
follow-on to New Start, that's a different thing."
Knowing Bolton, it has to be a poison pill. Just as Bolton is ideologically opposed to
making any deal with Iran, he is ideologically opposed to any arms control agreement that
places limits on the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The "flaws" he identifies aren't really flaws that
he wants to fix (and they may not be flaws at all), but excuses for trashing the agreement. He
will make noises about how the current deal or treaty doesn't go far enough, but the truth is
that he doesn't want any agreements to exist. In Bolton's worldview, nonproliferation and arms
control agreements either give the other government too much or hamper the U.S. too much, and
so he wants to destroy them all. He has had a lot of success at killing agreements and treaties
that have been in the U.S. interest. Bolton has had a hand in blowing up the Agreed Framework
with North Korea, abandoning the ABM Treaty, killing the INF Treaty, and reneging on the JCPOA.
Unless the president can be persuaded to ignore or fire Bolton, New START will be his next
victim.
If New START dies, it will be a loss for both the U.S. and Russia, it will make the world
less secure, and it will make U.S.-Russian relations even worse. The stability that these
treaties have provided has been important for U.S. security for almost fifty years. New START
is the last of the treaties that constrain the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, and when it
is gone there will be nothing to replace it for a long time. The collapse of arms control
almost certainly means that the top two nuclear weapons states will expand their arsenals and
put us back on the path of an insane and unwinnable arms race. Killing New START is irrational
and purely destructive, and it needs to be opposed.
bolton is opposed to any treaty, to any agreement, whereby the other side can expect to
obtain equally favorable terms-he wants the other side on their knees permanently without
any expectation of compromise by the empire.
It is interesting that Trump destiny now depends on geopolitical events he can't control namely actions of Iran and China.
Trump foreign policy appears to be driven by a combination of resentment and arrogance -- not a good combination for survival of
Trump and/or mankind
Was with Iran might result in high oil prices would kill the already anemic global growth and cause a recession (I guess
the volatility in oil prices will go through the roof at that point), Iran can destabilize the global economy by destroying most
of the oil production infrastructure around the gulf.
While Lyndon Johnson had chosen not running for reelection in 1968 because anti-war sentiment was high, G W Bush who was
reelected and the USA have now contractor army and casualties without draft does not matter much.
Notable quotes:
"... More likely they attack Saudi Arabia directly. Same impact, more justifiable if not outright popular. No one likes Prince Bone Saw. ..."
"... Iran could take those 10 million barrels a day away in 15 minutes. ..."
China will play a large roll in whether trump get re-elected.
If they decide they prefer his dysfunctional governance to his opponent, then they will engage
in a trade deal that will allow to trump to declare victory. It will likely be a very
superficial victory.
If they decide they would prefer to engage with a different administration, they will likely
refrain from a trade deal until after the election.
Have you asked yourself why Putin preferred trump? The answer is not pretty (for trump, or the
USA).
This is probably an absurd point of view. But in my opinion, it might be in Iran's interest
to drag the U.S into war, probably as indirectly as possible. That way they might
significantly reduce the chance of Trump being re-elected. (Obviously lives will be
sacrificed in this scenario)
The question is if it would work and would a Democrat president stop the war and go into the
same JCPOA deal again. Who knows. Very unpredictable.
Well, Mike, as absurd IMO is that Iran would risk self-destruction to get rid of Trump. He's
certainly a PITA for them, but closing the Strait of Hormuz to crash the global economy and
to blame it on Trump wouldn't work: Trump could blame it all on Iran while keeping on cooking
a controlled conflict with them, showing the world that the US doesn't depend on oil from any
other continent.
This would be a very difficult situation for a Democrat to step in and to
promise a better solution. The US would be relatively well off compared to Asia and Europe
and even could emerge out of such a constellation relatively more powerful.
But it could also
end up in a terrible mess. As you wrote: Who knows. Very unpredictable.
On Thursday, June 27, Justin Raimondo passed away after a long battle with lung cancer. He
was 67. Justin was a lifelong fighter for peace and liberty. In 1995, he co-founded Antiwar.com
with Eric Garris.
He served as Antiwar.com's editorial director and top columnist, writing over 3,000 articles for the website.
He can never be replaced and will be missed by countless numbers of fans and followers
I'm about halfway through Putin's financial Times interview and suggest it be read by
all. There is much to be gleaned from it with a view to the 2020 Election Cycle and
candidate's positions. Just consider the following very small excerpt and its implications
for policy formulation by candidates:
"What we should be talking about is not how to make North Korea disarm, but how to ensure
the unconditional security of North Korea and how to make any country, including North Korea
feel safe and protected by international law that is strictly honoured by all members of
the international community . This is what we should be thinking about." [My
Emphasis]
Putin's insights into Trump's 2016 election strategy, IMO, is very enlightening and
essential reading as the conditions that contributed to Trump's victory have worsened under
his tenure and can be used against him if wisely pursued.
"... If I were a particularly cynical analyst, it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East. My cynical theory would kind of make sense of the "catastrophic policy blunders" that the United States has supposedly made in Iraq, Libya, and throughout the region, not to mention the whole "Global War on Terror," and what it is currently doing to Syria, and Iran. ..."
"... Take a look at that map again. What you're looking at is global capitalism cleaning up after winning the Cold War. And yes, I do mean global capitalism, not the United States of America (i.e., the "nation" most Americans think they live in, despite all evidence to the contrary). I know it hurts to accept the fact that "America" is nothing but a simulation projected onto an enormous marketplace but seriously, do you honestly believe that the U.S. government and its military serve the interests of the American people? If so, go ahead, review the history of their activities since the Second World War, and explain to me how they have benefited Americans not the corporatist ruling classes, regular working class Americans, many of whom can't afford to see a doctor, or buy a house, or educate their kids, not without assuming a lifetime of debt to some global financial institution. ..."
"... OK, so I digressed a little. The point is, "America" is not at war with Iran. Global capitalism is at war with Iran. The supranational corporatist empire. Yes, it wears an American face, and waves a big American flag, but it is no more "American" than the corporations it comprises, or the governments those corporations own, or the military forces those governments control, or the transnational banks that keep the whole show running. ..."
If I were a particularly cynical analyst, it might look to me like global capitalism,
starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it
wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout
the Greater Middle East. My cynical theory would kind of make sense of the "catastrophic policy
blunders" that the United States has supposedly made in Iraq, Libya, and throughout the region,
not to mention the whole "Global War on Terror," and what it is currently doing to Syria, and
Iran.
Take a good look at
this Smithsonian map of where the U.S.A. is "combating terrorism." Note how the U.S.
military (i.e., global capitalism's unofficial "enforcer") has catastrophically blundered its
way into more or less every nation depicted. Or ask our "allies" in Saudi Arabia, Israel,
Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and so on. OK, you might have to reach
them in New York or London, or in the South of France this time of year, but, go ahead, ask
them about the horrors they've been suffering on account of our "catastrophic blunders."
See, according to this crackpot conspiracy theory that I would put forth if I were a
geopolitical analyst instead of just a political satirist, there have been no "catastrophic
policy blunders," not for global capitalism. The Restructuring of the Greater Middle East is
proceeding exactly according to plan. The regional ruling classes are playing ball, and those
who wouldn't have been regime-changed, or are being regime-changed, or are scheduled for regime
change.
Sure, for the actual people of the region, and for regular Americans, the last thirty years
of wars, "strategic" bombings, sanctions, fomented coups, and other such shenanigans have been
a pointless waste of lives and money but global capitalism doesn't care about people or the
"sovereign nations" they believe they live in, except to the extent they are useful. Global
capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open for
business or not.
Take a look at that map again. What you're looking at is global capitalism cleaning up after
winning the Cold War. And yes, I do mean global capitalism, not the United States of
America (i.e., the "nation" most Americans think they live in, despite all evidence to the
contrary). I know it hurts to accept the fact that "America" is nothing but a simulation
projected onto an enormous marketplace but seriously, do you honestly believe that the U.S.
government and its military serve the interests of the American people? If so, go ahead, review
the history of their activities since the Second World War, and explain to me how they have
benefited Americans not the corporatist ruling classes, regular working class Americans, many
of whom can't afford to see a doctor, or buy a house, or educate their kids, not without
assuming a lifetime of debt to some global financial institution.
OK, so I digressed a little. The point is, "America" is not at war with Iran. Global
capitalism is at war with Iran. The supranational corporatist empire. Yes, it wears an American
face, and waves a big American flag, but it is no more "American" than the corporations it
comprises, or the governments those corporations own, or the military forces those governments
control, or the transnational banks that keep the whole show running.
This is what Iran and Syria are up against. This is what Russia is up against. Global
capitalism doesn't want to nuke them, or occupy them. It wants to privatize them, like it is
privatizing the rest of the world, like it has already privatized America according to my
crackpot theory, of course.
if I were a geopolitical analyst, I might be able to discern a pattern there, and
possibly even some sort of strategy.
Sounds good.
Some other people did it before, wrote it down etc. but it's always good to see that
stuff.
it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the
collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately
started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East.
.there have been no "catastrophic policy blunders," not for global capitalism. The
Restructuring of the Greater Middle East is proceeding exactly according to plan. The
regional ruling classes are playing ball, and those who wouldn't have been regime-changed,
or are being regime-changed, or are scheduled for regime change.
Sure, for the actual people of the region, and for regular Americans, the last thirty years
of wars, "strategic" bombings, sanctions, fomented coups, and other such shenanigans have
been a pointless waste of lives and money but global capitalism doesn't care about people
or the "sovereign nations" they believe they live in, except to the extent they are useful.
Global capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open
for business or not.
Spot on.
Now .there IS a bit of oversight in the article re competing groups of people on top of
that "Global capitalist" bunch.
It's a bit more complicated than "Global capitalism".
Jewish heavily influenced, perhaps even controlled, Anglo-Saxon "setup" .. or Russian
"setup" or Chinese "setup".
Only one of them can be on the top, and they don't like each other much.
And they all have nuclear weapons.
"Global capitalism" idea is optimistic. The global overwhelming force against little
players. No chance of MAD there so not that bad.NOPE IMHO.
There is a chance of MAD.
That is the problem . Well, at least for some people.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of monopolies.
These stateless corporate monopolists are better understood as Feudalists. They would have
everything. We would have nothing. That's what privatization is. It's the Lords ripping off
the proles.
I was a union man in my youth. We liked Capitalism. We just wanted our fair share of the
loot. The working class today knows nothing about organizing. They don't even know they are
working class. They think they are black or white. Woke or Deplorable.
ALL OF US non billionaires are coming up on serious hard times. Serious enough that we
might have to put aside our differences. The government is corrupt. It will not save us.
Instead it will continue to work to divide us.
Another great article by C J Hopkins.
Hopkins (correctly) posits that behind US actions, wars etc lies the global capitalist
class.
"Global capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open
for business or not"
This is correct -- but requires an important caveat.
Intrinsic to capitalism is imperialism. They are the head & tail of the same coin.
Global capitalists may unite in their rapacious attacks on average citizens the world over.
However, they will disunite when it comes to beating a competitor to a market.
The "West" has no (real) ideological differences with China, Russia & Iran. This is a
fight between an existing hegemon & it's allies & a rising hegemon (China) & it's
allies.
In many ways it's similar to the WW I situation: an established imperial country, the UK,
& it's allies against a country with imperial pretensions -- Germany (& it's
allies)
To put it in a nice little homily: the Capitalist wolves prefer to eat sheep (us) -- but,
will happily eat each other should they perceive a sufficient interest in doing so.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of
monopolies.
In most key sectors, competition ends up producing monopolies or their near-equivalent,
oligopolies. The many are weeded out (or swallowed up) by the few . The
situation is roughly the same with democracy, which historically has always resulted in
oligarchy, as occurred in ancient Rome and Athens.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of monopolies.
These stateless corporate monopolists are better understood as Feudalists. They would have
everything. We would have nothing. That's what privatization is. It's the Lords ripping off
the proles.
You are right in expecting that in Capitalism there would be competition – the
traditional view that prices would remain low because of competition, the less competitive
removed from the field, and so on. But that was primitive laisser-faire Capitalism on a fair
playing field that hardly existed but in theory. Occasionally there were some "good"
capitalists – say the mill-owner in a Lancashire town who gave employment to the
locals, built houses, donated to charity and went to the Sunday church service with his
workers. But even that "good" capitalist was in it for the profit, which comes from taking
possession for himself of the value added by his workers to a commodity.
But modern Capitalism does not function that way. There are no mill-owners, just absentee
investor playing in, usually rigged, stock market casinos. Industrial capitalism has been
changed into financial Capitalism without borders and loyalty to worker or country. In fact,
it has gone global to play country against country for more profit.
Anyway, the USA has evolved into a Fascist state (an advanced state of capitalism, a.k.a.
corporatocracy) as Chomsky stated many years ago. Seen from abroad here's a view from the
horse's mouth ( The Guardian is official organ of Globalist Fascism).
'Christian Zionism' is the direct fruit of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism broadly understood. Over its
life, it has manifested itself in many ways. The beliefs were so powerful even before the
Puritan revolution that groups of English Dissenter/Low Church Protestants existed that taught
that the original natives of Britain, barbarians in every sense, had been uplifted by the
arrival of the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel – this was taught to prove that the English had
Hebrew blood and so were the Chosen Race, which meant that Anglophone Protestantism (Low
Church) was the true faith.
By the dawn of the Victorian age, standard Brit WASP Judaizing had become secular and had
discovered that Arabs are also Semites linguistically and culturally. That allowed many of the
Brit WASP Elites to adopt Arabs and/or Mohammedanism as their pet Semite to elevate over the
vast majority of British Isles natives that they despised.
The religiously pro-Jewish original focus of the culture produced by the Judaizing heresy
that was Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was still alive and very powerful at the dawn of the 20th
century. That is how the Oxford UP came to publish the Scofield Study Bible.
Churches across the South were remarkably free of any taint of overt Judaizing in the WASP
vein until well after WW2. The growth was slow but steady until after the Reagan years, when it
exploded. I have seen no signs of a regression in the 21st century.
You also are way off about the economic notions held by rural Evangelicals in the South.
As they
take the stage for the first Democratic debates of the 2020 presidential campaign, the 20
participating candidates should be ready for one frequently asked question: How will you pay
for it? Democrats often pledge to finance their most ambitious plans -- Medicare for All,
debt-free college, a Green New Deal -- with tax increases on the wealthy and corporations.
That is both sensible and fair. But candidates hoping to distinguish themselves in the
limited time they will be allotted should also consider taking a stand against the United
States' bloated defense budget.
This month, the House Armed Services Committee
advanced a $733 billion defense budget on a mostly party-line vote. According to
Defense News , the lack of Republican support for the bill
illustrated "the stark divide in defense policy between the two parties." Yet that divide
is far narrower than you might think. The bill's price tag is just $17 billion less than the
$750 billion that
President Trump requested ; it still was, as Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) boasted,
the "largest" defense budget in history. There remains a near-universal commitment in both
parties to massive defense spending -- a case of Washington bipartisanship that the country
would be better off without.
A timely new
report from the Center for International Policy's Sustainable Defense Task Force offers
an alternative path forward. In the report, "A Sustainable Defense: More Security, Less
Spending," the nonpartisan group of military and budget experts outlines a strategy that it
says would save $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years without harming national-security
interests. In fact, through a sober reassessment of the biggest threats to the United States
in the 21st century, including climate change and cyberattacks, the proposal would keep the
country safer than an outdated approach that relies on perpetual spending increases.
"...as Stratfor, put it, "Trump, fearing a much bigger escalation, got cold feet."
One is reminded of the scene from Oliver Stone's JFK (1991), a General in the Joint
Chiefs comments disparagingly about Kennedy for keeping his finger "on the chicken switch"
with regard to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
Lyndon Johnson in the White House with Henry Cabot Lodge in 1963 declares: "Gentlemen, I
want you to know I'm not going to let Vietnam go the way China did. I'm personally committed.
I'm not going to take one soldier out of there 'til they know we mean business in Asia (he
pauses) You just get me elected, and I'll give you your damned war ."
Another question exists: should the US resist the allure of military action against Iran,
what can Iran do?
US sanctions against Iran amount to an act of war. Iran can bust sanctions up to some point
-- but for how long? Will Iran suffer half a million dead children & elderly people as
Iraq did in the 90's ? SHOULD Iran have to suffer such a criminally imposed loss of life?
Where is the way out of this insanity?
Iran won't negotiate with the US for the very good reason that the US clearly wants to
sterilize Iranian sovereignty (ie the US won't accept ANY Iranian missiles -- that is, Iran
has no right to self defense).
Sad to say, Trump does not need to launch military action against Iran, merely continue to
economically terrorise Iran until it has NO choice but to initiate military action against
its tormentors.
The war on Iran will continue till kingdom come, until it falls. Its clear as day that both
Russia and China back their Iranian allies against US provocations. China hasn't flinched
under US threats to embargo Iranian crude, and continues to purchase it, and Russia has an
oil swap agreement with Iran, where it buys Iranian oil and sells it as Russian on the
international market. This must be a severe irritation to the imperialists in Washington and
London as it renders their Iran sanctions regime practically toothless.
The imperialists are not backing down in their quest for subduing Iran. Seems like the idea
here is to put as many large ships in harms way as possible....and provoke Iran to attack one
of these......This will ensure the probability of miscalculation and/ or accidents becomes
almost unavoidable. There must be regime change in Tehran, on the road to Beijing and Moscow:
Iran has every right to defend itself from US imperialisms constant violence, as is the case
with China and Russia. It is also pleasing to see the almighty war machine get a bloody nose.
But we should never lose sight of the fact that it is always the working class that
suffers the most in terms of death, injuries and destitution.
End all wars!
End production for profit and the Nation state upon which it is built!
America's history demonstrates that loss of (foreign) life is of little concern to those in
power.
The Manhattan Project was established, and mightily financed because of reasonably well
established fears that Nazi Germany was on track to build its own A-bombs.
With the defeat of Germany that fear was gone. Nevertheless, knowing full well that Imperial
Japan had no such program, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vapourised. A clear demonstration that
they, atomic weapons, WMD, worked and a warning to the Soviet Union that it too could be
annihilated.
Robert Oppenheimer and others refused to take part in building an H-bomb for class and humane
reasons. This fell on Truman's deaf ears.
American Imperialism is indifferent to death and destruction of billions.
As WSWS has stated, Trumps announcement that the loss of 150 Iranian lives is the the reason
he pulled backs so much bilge.
Trump is in a catch 22. When push has come to shove , he simply cannot sell another war to
the US working class, and he knows it , and he's been well and truly spooked by the Iranian
response.
All the US garbage of itself as ''victim'', all the 'good cop bad cop' routines are
wearing thin. Nobody is buying it anymore , especially from a gangster.
Perhaps a predicted massive spike in global temperatures will clear out the collective
cobwebs further.
Good point about the possibility of Iran sinking a carrier. The Chinese have developed
advanced anti-ship weapons that, if the results of a RAND corporation war game can be
believed, will be able to neutralize carriers. This highlights the fact that, whatever the
salesmen of advanced weaponry might say, it will not win wars alone. All of the smart weapons
in the world have not ended the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan in the favour of American
imperialism.
We can see an historical precedent in the British development of the dreadnought, the
modern battleship, in the arms race that preceded WWI. Dreadnoughts were supposed to be the
decisive super weapons of the day, but the British and German battle fleets remained in their
moorings for most of the war for fear that these expensive ships would fall prey to torpedos.
The sinking of the HMS Formidable in 1915 is a case in point. The only major engagement
between dreadnoughts was at Jutland and it was inconclusive.
For all of the contemporary bluster about super weapons and the fetishism of smart bombs
and cyber weapons, they will not decisively win a war alone. As in the world wars of the last
century, the bourgeoisie will be forced to mobilize society for a war. This will mean
bringing the working class - against its will - into the maelstrom.
Yet again the WSWS demonstrates the incredible foresight and clarity of Marxist analysis. I
would like to extend my thanks to Comrade Andre and the editors of the WSWS for their
indefatigable efforts to impart Marxist consciousness to the masses. For all of the naysayers
who have attacked the WSWS as "sectarian" or as not involved in "practical work," need we
point to anything other than the WSWSs explanation of the connection between eruption of
American imperialism and the decline of the productive forces of that nation state? That
analysis has placed the WSWS in the position of being better prepared politically for the
consequences of war than the imperialists, as the latest farce in the Middle East
demonstrates.
A quote from Trotsky will further emphasize my point:
"We will not concede this banner to the masters of falsehood! If our generation happens to
be too weak to establish Socialism over the earth, we will hand the spotless banner down to
our children. The struggle which is in the offing transcends by far the importance of
individuals, factions and parties. It is the struggle for the future of all mankind."
The official story, as usual, is a bunch of hooey. Trump wouldn't bat an eye over the death
of 150 Iranians. In addition to the worries about losing an aircraft carrier: the military
high command probably let him know that the much vaunted, and outlandishly expensive, force
of F-35s, will quickly lose its effectiveness if exposed to probing by the high tech radars
the Russians have developed, and that are used in conjunction with at least the S-400
antiaircraft and antimissile defense system. So the question is, if the stealth advantage of
the F-35 is only good for a limited time, is this particular geostrategic confrontation worth
using up that particular asset??
Then there is the whole question of whether the Iranians would close the Straits of Hormuz
in response to a major air raid on their nuclear facilities; this leads to some much more
important issues. Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of
navigation" the facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water
in them is either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be
entirely within their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the
straits after some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is
something at least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians
have stated that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no
subterfuge or secret operations will be involved.
Since nearly 30% of the World's oil moves through those straits cutting them off will
cause an immediate spike in oil prices. Prices of $100 - $300 a barrel would be reached
within a few days. If the Straits of Hormuz were closed for a longer period we could easily
see prices rise to $1,000 a barrel according to Goldman Sachs projections (see Escobar
article cited below). Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and
financial crisis of immense proportions around the world. The financial and speculative house
of cards, that the ruling classes of the U.S.-led Finance Capital Bloc depends on for their
dominance of world capital and markets, would likely come tumbling down. The amount of
derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and created constantly is
estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200 - $2,500 Trillion or
$1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, who once said "a
billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're talking BIG MONEY!!} (See
"World Derivatives Market Estimated As Big As $1.2 Quadrillion Notional, as Banks Fight
Efforts to Rein It In", March 26, 2013, Yves Smith, "Naked Capitalism", at <
https://www.nakedcapitalism... >, and "Iran Goes for 'Maximum Counter-pressure' ",
June 21, 2019, Pepe Escobar, "Strategic Culture Foundation", at <
https://www.strategic-cultu... >, and "Global Derivatives: $1.5 Quadrillion Time
Bomb", Aug 24, 2015, Stephen Lendman, Global Research, at
<
https://www.globalresearch.... >). Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various
elements of shadow banking, and speculation would collapse. Remember that total world
production of and trade in actual products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps
less than 1/31st the size of the Global Derivatives markets.
All the world's elite capitalists, be they Western or Asian or from elsewhere, maintain
homes in numerous places. One reason for this is so they have somewhere to go, if they need
to flee from environmental and/or socioeconomic disaster and the resultant chaos in their
primary place of residence. As we move ever deeper into this extremely severe and ongoing
Crisis of Capitalism, these issues will continue to become more acute.
So we can rest assured that; in addition to the crazed war-mongers Bolton and Pompeo (and
their supporters and backers) whispering in Trump's ear to "go ahead and attack the
Iranians"; and in addition to the somewhat more sober counsel of General Dunford and other
members of the top military command; that titans of finance capital were undoubtedly on the
phone warning "Bone-Spur Don" that his digs in Manhattan and Florida might not be entirely
safe if the worst were to happen in response to a military strike. The absurd story of Don
worrying about 150 Iranians is so ludicrous that it did not even pass the smell test with the
corporate controlled media for very long.
"Thirty years of endless war have created a veritable cult of militarism within the American
ruling elite, whose guiding assumption seems to be that wars can be waged without drastic
global consequences, including for the United States itself."
The military/security surveillance state is a trillion dollar enterprise that instigates
conflicts to expand its profits. Militarism works hand-in-hand with the neoliberal
corporatists who deploy the military to secure natural resources, wage slaves, and
geostrategic hegemony. It should be noted, that the US imperialist agenda left unhindered
after the dissolution of the Soviet Union only intensified.
However, in order for the US ruling class to achieve the "ultimate goal" of unilateral
hegemony in the Middle East the military must confront Iran a powerful sizable country with
economic and political ties to China and Russia. This is the dilemma confronting the
warmongering psychopaths
who are influenced by Israel and Saudi Arabia.
A significant military attack against Iran will NOT go unanswered and if the Iranian
Military destroys a US warship and kills hundreds of sailors it would unleash another major
war in the Middle East igniting the entire region and possibly leading to a world war.
What should traumatize the US population and awaken them from their hypnotic warmongering
stupur created by propaganda proliferated on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN is that the United States
came within minutes of launching a war whose military consequences it had NOT seriously
examined.
In light of these dangerous events it is obvious that a faction of the American ruling class
circles including Trump were not prepared to face the consequences of a strike against Iran.
That is precisely why Trump aborted the mission last Friday. Just yesterday Trump himself
admitted for the first time that if it was up to John Bolton then we would be fighting the
whole world. Today Pompeo has been sent to Middle East to broaden his alliance with Gulf
Monarchical regimes most notably Saudi Arabia and UAE. It is aimed to prepare the ground for
possible confrontation with Iran.
Trump's comment re Bolton that the US "would fight the whole world" sums up what the US is
really about. Take it from me, The US hates virtually every country save one: Israel. Illegal
US Sanctions regimes now extend to almost 50% of the world's population. The US does not even
like the advanced countries such as Europe and Japan. They tolerate them because of
diplomatic support and large investment and trade ties. Outside that they have no affinity or
connection. Until we all realise the true nature of The US and its exclusive cultural mindset
[NFL, NBA, MLB etc etc], populations will merely continue to enable the US to attack and
sanction everybody and anyone of their demented choosing. The tragedy is that if the other
countries became united and were committed to ending this US terror by eg dumping the US
Dollar as international reserve currency and sanctioning all US corporations, the US would
face severe turmoil and its reign of endless terror brought to a sudden end.
"The strikes were called off at the last moment, amid deep divisions at the highest levels of
the White House and the Pentagon over the consequences -- military, diplomatic and political
-- of what would likely be the single most dangerous and reckless action of the entire Trump
presidency."
I believe things simple didn't go as planned as an airplane was threatened to be taken
down. Bolton was in Israel after that to most likely assure Netanyahu that a new attack would
be conducted, Bolton Warned Iran Not to 'Mistake U.S. Prudence and Discretion for
Weakness'...
There needs to be a correction in the article on the older Raad system not having been used
but instead the newer, 'Third of Khordad' system which brought down the MQ-4C Triton.
Pictures/ Info on the Third of Khordad reveals that it is in effect an Iranian version of the
Soviet Buk-M2 of the MH-17 downing fame which the western backed Kiev junta used from its
hand me down Soviet weapons arsenal, to shoot down the ill fated Malaysian Airliner over the
Ukraine. The system also is stark evidence of the close defense relationship between the
Russians and the Iranians, confirming the suspicions in the west that whatever weaponry Putin
transfers to Syria or Iraq is by default also available to Iran.
Not to be outdone by his failure to bring Iran to its knees, Trump ordered a massive cyber
attack on Iran's missile batteries and its command and control centers after rescinding the
military order to physically attack Iran for downing the drone. The Iranians today announced
the failure of this desperate US cyber attack:
This is in addition to the CIA placing an agent within the Iranian oil ministry for
conducting sabotage. She has been arrested and faces the death penalty for espionage:
The deep State in the US will not stop trying to subdue Iran until it capitulates. Iran
must fall to Washington in order for the US to effectively counter and sabotage both Putin's
Eurasian Integration and president Xi's BRI projects.
Trump's alterration at this moment can be due to Iran's internal coherence against American
imperialism. With santions being reinforced, one can anticipate more and more impovershment
and quality of life geting lower unabated to the point that the basis for internal coherence
gets eroded substantially. We saw working class uprisings in Iran recently and leadership
accused imperialist as rabble-rousers to find a way out.That is why we need building
SEP/IYSSE in Iran to hatch revolutionary force in Iran for Iran to join the peer in the rest
of the world. Morsi in Egypt was overthrown by Sisi with the backing of US imperialism headed
by Obama at that time. So is the imperialism and it will continue to work to weaken Iran as a
force successfully confronting imperialism in the middle east currently. Let us therefore
empower international working class to empower it to overthrow imperialism on one hand and
Stalinism on the other hand. Russia too depend largely on its arms sale to maintain its
economy. But human needs, not wepons, but basic needs including clean environment. Long live
the socialist revolution in Iran and internationally. Death to imperialism. Thank you comrade
Andre Damon.
"The strikes were called off at the last moment, amid deep divisions at the highest levels of
the White House and the Pentagon over the consequences -- military, diplomatic and political
-- of what would likely be the single most dangerous and reckless action of the entire Trump
presidency."
Economically it would be Armageddon. Although some think America does not rely on Mideast
oil, the world economy does and America is a part of that despite what nationalists dream.
Bolton is making threats from Israel and clearly some believe they stand to gain from war but
militarily too it would be Armageddon. The Pentagon would answer the sinking of a carrier by
nuking Iran to preserve American "credibility" i.e. fear. China and Russia would have to
react, China at least to keep its oil supplied. India pushed against China could add more
mushroom clouds not to mention Pakistan. Israel itself with Tel Aviv bombarded from Lebanon
and maybe invaded unable to stop this might nuke Lebanon and maybe Tehran if any of it
remains and Damascus besides. Just as ww1 started because military train timetables had to be
followed there are nukewar plans in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing that won't take long. So
world workers need to start our plan before others begin. Preemptive general strikes, antiwar
and socialist revolutionary agitation and propaganda within imperialist rank and files and
human blockades of war material networks should happen at an early date like now. Now also
WikiLeaks should put out whatever it hasn't while people exist to read it. The rich are
determined to kill Assange anyway and full wartime censorship is not far off.
Some people have speculated that if the U.S. does attack Iran then Iran will launch missiles
at Saudi Arabia's oil fields which will then send oil prices skyrocketing to $130 dollars a
barrel. The article also notes that:
"While Trump's foreign policy team -- headed by National Security Advisor John Bolton and
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- 'unanimously' supported the attack, General Joseph Dunford,
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 'cautioned about the possible repercussions of a
strike, warning that it could endanger American forces,' the Times wrote."
Apparently the good general cannot get too worked up at the sight of thousands and
thousands of Iranian children, women, and old men who would be slaughtered and grievously
wounded by U.S. bombs and the water supply which would be contaminated when those bombs would
land at a nuclear power plant. But these horrific actions by the United States are of no
consequence because, as Madeline Albright observed on a television a few decades ago, the
deaths of a half million Iraqi children by the U.S. was worth it. It would appear that the
lives of foreigners are of little consequence to those who are in power. Threatening to start
a war against another country for the most specious of reasons is simply another reason why a
malignant narcissist like Trump needs to be removed from office as quickly as possible. Or
perhaps Trump believes that the best way to improve his low poll numbers is to start dropping
500 lb. bombs on a country which does not in any remote way pose a threat to the United
States.
"Almost all propaganda is designed to create fear. Heads of governments and their
officials know that a frightened people is easier to govern, will forfeit rights it would
otherwise defend, is less likely to demand a better life, and will agree to millions and
millions being spent on 'Defense'."-John Boynton Priestly [1894-1984], English writer
"Kill a man, and you are an assassin. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill
everyone, and you are a god."-Jean Rostand [1894-1977], French philosopher and biologist
After Hezballah had booted Zionist colonizers out of Lebanon, Zionist apartheid had lost its
image of "invincibility".
Now even ghetto Gaza is fighting back.
The CIA payrolled press whores like CNN's Christiane Amanpour for example a prime warmonger
and there are countless others embedded in every western media source.
Ironically, Amanpour is Iranian background, an avowed revolution hater and a devoted Iranian
Pahlavi monarchist. She's on the record for saying that she wants to see the Shah's exiled
son back on the throne in Iran, serving US imperialism for the 'benefit of the Iranian
nation'.
The sinking of an aircraft carrier, especially one as well known as the USS Lincoln, would
have been one of the biggest PR disasters for both Trump and the military. It probably would
have sparked demands from the people to know how, despite pouring trillions of dollars into
the mouths of greedy defense contractors for decades, a supposedly inferior military could so
easily take down one of our ships.
Khrushchev once said of the Sverdlov class cruisers built in the early 1950's that their only
practical purpose was as targets for anti ship missile training because of how outdated they
where considering they where armed with guns.
Maybe the anti-ship missile now stands at the point where it can make carriers obsolete
similar to how the battleship was made obsolete by the carrier.
There are some who argue that surface navies became obsolete in the 1950's with the advent of
long range missiles. For many years now, China has been helping to build up Iranian area
defences...
Cold war weapons are unsuitable for countering Iran's asymmetric warfare doctrine. A dozen or
two highly advanced US warships are no match for a thousand missile boats and thousands of
Iranian anti-ship missiles in the narrow confines of the shallow gulf.
Minutes or hours, or Trump never signed on to them, as the accounts from different US media
outlets and Trump have differed at several points. Fog of war indeed.
That's good line of attack on Trump. People do not want yet another war and they are against
overinflated military expenditures. and Trump essentially behaves like a rabid subservant to
Israel neocon in those area. So he might share the Hillary destiny in 2020
The Dem debaters want the failed JCPOA back, except one wants a more punitive one. So it's
Obama/Trump redux with all of them, worthless people. We're less safe with Iranians . .
.under the bed!
McClatchy
Klobuchar said that Trump's strategy on Iran had "made us less safe," after debate
moderators took note of increased military tensions in the Strait of Hormuz last week.
Washington has accused Iran of targeting shipping vessels, and Tehran acknowledged it shot
down an unmanned U.S. drone on Thursday, nearly prompting Trump to order a retaliatory
military strike. The 2015 nuclear deal "was imperfect, but it was a good deal for that
moment," Klobuchar stated, characterizing the agreement's "sunset periods" – caps on
Iran's enrichment and stockpiling of fissile material set to expire five to 10 years from
the next inauguration– as a potential point of renegotiation.
The Democratic field has roundly criticized Trump for his approach to Iran. Many of the
leading candidates said last week's military confrontation spawned from a crisis of the
president's own making, precipitated by his withdrawal from that landmark accord.
But up until now, the Democratic candidates have not specified how they would salvage a
deal that continues to fray – and that may collapse completely under the weight of
steadily broadening U.S. sanctions by the time a new president could be sworn in.
Few Democrats had thus far hedged over adopting the agreement entirely should they win
the presidency even if the deal survives that long. Leading candidates have characterized
the nuclear agreement as "imperfect" and in need of "strengthening," suggesting subtle
distinctions within the field over the potential conditions of U.S. re-entry into a pact. .
. here
I've got a deal for them to salvage, get off your GD pedestals and say hello to the real
world! . . .There, I feel better now.
Iran's foreign minister has dismissed US President Donald Trump 's claim that a
war between their countries would be short-lived, as Washington sought NATO's help to build an
anti-Tehran coalition.
"'Short war' with Iran is an illusion," Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote on Twitter on Thursday, a
day after Trump said he did not want a war with Iran but warned that if fighting did
break out, it "wouldn't last very long".
Tehran has accused the United States of "economic
terrorism" and "psychological warfare" over the Trump administration's application of punishing
sanctions after the US president last year unilaterally withdrew Washington from an historic
nuclear deal with world powers. Under the 2015 agreement, Iran agreed to scale back its nuclear
programme in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.
In his Twitter post, Zarif said the reimposed and tightened US sanctions "aren't an
alternative to war - they are war".
"... Iran hawks want to force Iran out of the deal to give them a pretext for conflict. These waivers are their latest target because without them other governments may be leery of cooperating on the nuclear projects that give Iran an incentive to remain in the deal. Iran has very few reasons to remain in the deal at this point, and canceling the waivers would likely be the last straw. This is what Bolton and his allies have been working towards all along. When the waivers came up for renewal this spring, the administration extended them, but now there is a real danger that they won't do that again. The last time this came up, Jarrett Blanc explained why extending the waivers is the obviously correct thing to do: ..."
"... Canceling the waivers would be another escalation by the Trump administration, and it would almost certainly prompt Iranian countermoves to further reduce or end their compliance with the deal. The Iran hawks in the administration may think they want a bigger crisis with Iran, but they may not like it when they get one. ..."
Politico reports that the most rabid Iran hawks
in the Senate and inside the administration are pushing to cancel the remaining waivers that
enable international cooperation on civilian nuclear projects in Iran. Their explicit goal is
to destroy the last pieces of the deal that the U.S. hasn't directly attacked yet.
The
report has some
interesting details, but the framing of the debate is awful:
Proponents of the nuclear deal have argued that the international nuclear projects
facilitated by the waivers help give the U.S. greater visibility and intelligence into
Iranian activities; critics say they give an international stamp of approval to Iran's
illicit activities.
This is a great example of how ostensibly "neutral" reporting favors the side acting and
arguing in bad faith. What "illicit activities" are supported by these waivers? There aren't
any. The report makes it sound as if there are two equally valid, competing positions, but one
of them is completely false. The hawks' objections to them have nothing to do with opposition
to "illicit activities" and everything to do with their hatred for the deal. The activities
that the waivers facilitate are endorsed by the JCPOA and a U.N. Security Council resolution.
They cannot be illicit because they are entirely consistent with Iran's obligations and
international law. The U.S. has been providing these waivers up until now because of the
obvious nonproliferation benefits that everyone derives from the deal, and the people that want
to end the waivers are doing so because they don't care about nonproliferation.
Iran hawks want to force Iran out of the deal to give them a pretext for conflict. These
waivers are their latest target because without them other governments may be leery of
cooperating on the nuclear projects that give Iran an incentive to remain in the deal. Iran has
very few reasons to remain in the deal at this point, and canceling the waivers would likely be
the last straw. This is what Bolton and his allies have been working towards all along. When
the waivers came up for renewal this spring, the administration extended them, but now there is
a real danger that they won't do that again. The last time this came up, Jarrett Blanc
explained why extending the waivers is the obviously correct thing to do:
Failing to renew the waivers would be indefensible. The fact that there is even an
internal debate is illuminating: At least some Trump advisors want a crisis with Iran, and
the sooner the better.
Withdrawing waivers for civil nuclear cooperation may sound less aggressive than steps
like the overhyped Guard Corps designation, but it is one of the most dangerous steps the
administration has left, threatening the international nuclear cooperation that is Iran's
only remaining practical benefit from the deal.
Canceling the waivers would be another escalation by the Trump administration, and it
would almost certainly prompt Iranian countermoves to further reduce or end their compliance
with the deal. The Iran hawks in the administration may think they want a bigger crisis with
Iran, but they may not like it when they get one.
Very few Americans have any realisation at all (certainly non that I have spoken to below
the rank of Army Colonel or Navy Captain anyway) that a war with Iran will leave 100s of
thousands if not millions of Americans dead, many capital ships at the bottom of the Gulf and
the Med (think hard about how that will happen in the Med), and the US a broken 3rd world
nation, if the states even stay together to maintain a 'US'.
You need to realise that the middle east (to include Cyprus and Turkey) will be cut off to
you. No resupply, no support, no evac. There will be no troops left in the middle east to
bring home after a few days of fighting exhaust all ammp and supplies and all positions are
then overun or destroyed.
Every last troop in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan will be wiped out, and there will be no
way at all of deploying any more troops (think why).
The shock to the weak American Psyche will be amplified by assymetrical spec ops /
gorrilla warefare in every US city.
To begin with there will be gas station fires and power line cuts in every US town and
city, followed by bridge collpases, interstate highway failures, railroad failures and then
destruction, food and medical warehouse fires, forest fires, container port sabotage, cell
phone and radio tower destruction, water mains destruction, sewage mains destruction, and of
course contamination of water reservoirs - all of which are very simple and easy assymetrical
attacks that can be rolled out nationwide by only by a few hundred well trained individuals
(already well embedded).
Add these simple WW2 partisan style acts to other acts of sabotage against fire,
ambulance, and police infrastruture (again, all very simple and easy assymetrical attacks)
and the worst elements of your own society will continue and further amplify the
conflageration.
The cities will implode and feed upon themselves, and when the carnage reaches a platau,
or simply a stage that invites escalation, then the next phase begins - think MANPADS at
every airport to bring down all relief flights and national guard units, ATGMs and HMG
against military and police units, snipers against any opertunistic target - anywhere at any
time.
There are further steps which I wont describe lest it give certain people ideas, but in
the space of just 2 weeks the entire US could brought to its knees and made to realise that
every nation on the earth, except the us, hates war and tries to avoid it.
If the US people think they can nuke Iran, kill millions more muslims, and then go back to
watching the ball game they should think again.
The Iranians (and Russians and Chinese too) have been planning for a war with the US for
decades.
The Iranians know full well that their cities will be nuked, but the Iranians believe the
US is the embodyment of Satan (and they have lots of evidence to suggest this is indeed true)
so they will fight without regard to life, to pain and to massive losses.
They, and there allies will utterly wipe out ever last US military unit in the middle east
and bring the Continental US to its knees in ways few can yet imagine.
Yes, Iran will be glass, but the US will be ashes, or at least no longer a us - as much a
victim of its own complexity and ignorance as any missiles or explosives used by Iranian spec
ops.
A war with Iran will be the last war the US ever fights. It may 'win' but at what
cost.
@ Capt. Abdul Hassan 76
Thank you for that, very insighful, perhaps a little over the top, but right on.
Sunny Runny Burger , Jun 27, 2019 10:59:29 AM |
139
Don Bacon I think you're right and in addition the amendment won't matter because the
exceptions are so encompassing nearly anything goes.
I'm going to crosspost the scenario (all I posted was the scenario, not the stuff
afterwards):
1. US false flags in Iranian vicinity.
2. US military deaths due to provoked Iranian action.
3. US limited strikes.
4. US false flag Iranian dirty bomb in US city using surplus enriched material bought from
Iran.
5. US submits evidence of Iranian nuclear attack in UNSC.
6. US attacks Iran using nuclear weapons.
A few (?) didn't buy 1 but the US got stuck on 2 so far and might get stuck on 3 as
well.
How can one make 4 fail except to talk about it so people have a chance to think of it as
a possibility when it happens?
5 is for "perception" and narrative, it doesn't matter if the UNSC doesn't agree with what
the US says or the entire world ridicules the US or if the entire world starts marching like
they "magically" and "spontaneously" did before the Iraq war (what was that about? Controlled
opposition galore?).
Russia and China are repeatedly telling the US (and everybody else) what 6 will
mean.
The Trumpian hyperbole marketing brand had generated unrealistic expectations for the "Deal
of the Century." For over a year and a half, Jared Kushner promised but missed at least three
dates to unveil the "secret" plan.
Assisted by two bono fide Zionists, Special Envoy to the Middle East Jason Greenblatt
and US Ambassador David Friedman, Kushner's lone political experience with Palestine/Israel is
his family's tax deductible contributions to building "Jewish only colonies."
Kushner's predisposed conviction and his parochial bias were palpable in the June 2nd
interview with Axios on HBO. In the interview, he opined that Palestinians were not "capable of
governing" themselves or become free from Israeli occupation.
After more than a year of hyped promotion, Kushner's Zionist team revealed a scaled down
version of Trump's "concrete plan." Evident in the leaked conference agenda, the goal of
Kushner's gathering is not to offer economic support to Palestinians, but rather to provide a
cover-up for opening the doors of Arab capitals to Israeli officials.
Israel gets the reward of the illusionary peace upfront while US tantalizes to Arabs a peace
process that may never materialize. Deferring and circumventing political process is
archetypical Israeli trademark strategy that seeks to harvest fruits before the tree blossoms.
Hence, the fruits of the US proposed miniature workshop in Bahrain.
In the Oslo Accord in 1993, the PLO agreed to recognize Israel, in advance, over 78% of
historical Palestine. There was no reciprocal Israeli obligation toward the PLO on the
remaining 22% (West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza).
A quarter of a century later, peace did not blossom and the only implemented sections of the
Oslo Accords were the PLO recognition of Israel. In addition, it relieved Israel of
administering the life of five million Palestinians, security coordination and
outsourcing―free of cost―the security services to the Palestinian Authority.
Meanwhile, Israel continued to violate and effectively buried the Oslo Accords under new
expansive "Jewish only colonies" changing the demographics of the population in areas allotted
for the future Palestinian state.
Ten years following the Accord, George W Bush proposed a Road Map for peace. To placate
Israeli reservations, Bush rewarded Israel, in advance, with an official American letter
agreeing to annex "Jewish only colonies" in the West Bank as part of any future peace
agreement.
Israel crushed Bush's Road Map under the bulldozers of yet more "Jewish only colonies." The
American letter remains the sole outcome of the Road Map. Greenblatt and Friedman are using
Bush's letter to advocate Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Kushner's economic peace is an age old Israeli contrived gas bubble intends to skirt
compliance with international law and UN resolutions. Shimon Peres floated the idea to
equivocate Israel's commitments under the Oslo Accords. Current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu revived it in 2009 to sidestep the American (Bush and Obama) administration's support
for two-state solution.
Yet, for quarter of a century since the establishment of the Palestinian authority, Israel
had systematically strangled the very economy it (and now Kushner) claims to champion.
Since 1993, the European Union invested billions of dollars in economic infrastructure,
including an airport and seaport in Gaza. In 2002 after the failure of Camp David, Israel
obliterated both facilities denying Palestinians access to trade and fishing.
To further stifle the economy, Israel erected walls separating farmers from their olive
groves and farms, spiked the West Bank with intrusive military checkpoints encumbering the
movement of goods, divided towns and cities and misappropriated tax money held on Palestinian
imports.
Kushner and Israel's invented economic peace is a political shenanigan to sedate the bird
cage (walled) economy, or leverage it in the form of collective punishment to suppress
resistance and subjugate Palestinians.
Like Oslo Accords, the Road Map, and now ahead of rolling the political plan for the "Deal
of Century", Trump conferred on Israel another advanced installment by recognizing Jerusalem as
its capital, cut financial aid to Palestinians including UN organizations, and the annexation
of the Syrian Golan Heights without any Israeli concession.
In addition to normalizing contacts between Arabs attending the Manama workshop and Israel
(another advanced installment), Kushner's plan would relegate the cost of the caged Palestinian
economy to Arab countries, gifting Israel yet more freebies without negotiation.
Kushner economic peace workshop is a false allure to salve Palestinian (and Arab)
capitulation before rolling out the eon of all political disasters. Jamal Kanj was born in a Palestinian
refugee camp in northern Lebanon ten years after the creation of the state of Israel. He moved
to the United States in late 1977, and has been active in various local and national political
organizations. Like so many other Palestinians, the life of Jamal Kanj has been an odyssey of
conflict, displacement and resettlement and Jamal Kanj is expressing a lifetime experience with
the Palestinian diaspora and struggle against and with the occupation through his writings.
Jamal Kanj is columnist at several newspapers and websites.
"... Telling was the 40-page proposal put out earlier this month by the White House, which used the terms "investment" and "financing" dozens of times, yet never once mentioned "occupation." Dan Kurtzer, who previously served as Washington's ambassador to Israel and Egypt and is now a professor of Middle East policy studies at Princeton University, tweeted : "I would give this so-called plan a 'C' from an undergraduate student. The authors of the plan clearly understand nothing." ..."
"... Can anyone explain the complete inappropriateness & Cronyism of Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner, in negotiating this sham of a Deal? This is the "Con of the Century" not the Deal of the Century? Jared Kushner never got out of Bibi's Bed & his flawed Plan is a $50 Billion dollar loan bribe, a LOAN not a Hand out & where this money is coming from, as it's not coming from America but supposedly from non-existent Arabian Financial sources is a mystery? ..."
"... An investor would have to be an utter idiot to put funds into Palestinian infrastructure because the Israelis would promptly destroy it in their next military incursion. Investment without rock solid perpetual peace is just money down the drain. ..."
The U.S.-backed two-day "Peace to Prosperity" summit in Bahrain on Tuesday and Wednesday
was designed to advance the Trump administration's vision for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict. But without any significant Palestinian representation at the summit, as well as the
absence of any Israeli government officials, the gathering was ultimately little more than a
face-saving effort on the White House's part following two years of the administration's
"futile" peacemaking efforts.
The conference is understood to have laid the foundation for the "Deal of the Century." The
details have yet to be released, although the White House claims it will unveil the plan
following Israel's elections in September. Yet some details have leaked, leading the
Palestinian Authority to declare it dead on arrival. Virtually all Palestinian factions are
united in opposition to it.
Telling was the 40-page proposal put out earlier this month by the
White House, which used the terms "investment" and "financing" dozens of times, yet never once
mentioned "occupation." Dan Kurtzer, who previously served as Washington's ambassador to Israel
and Egypt and is now a professor of Middle East policy studies at Princeton University,
tweeted
: "I would give this so-called plan a 'C' from an undergraduate student. The authors of the
plan clearly understand nothing."
The "workshop" in Bahrain began with President Donald Trump's adviser and son-in-law Jared
Kushner delivering a speech in which he
unveiled a $50 billion economic package intended to "unleash" the Palestinians' potential
as well as help develop neighboring Lebanon and Jordan. Kushner referred to a "bustling tourist
center in Gaza" without acknowledging Israel's siege of the coastal strip and the dire
humanitarian crises in the blockaded enclave. IMF Director Christine Lagarde spoke about applying
lessons from Mozambique to Palestine. Steve Schwarzman, an American billionaire whose personal
wealth exceeds Palestine's annual
GDP, advised the Palestinians to
follow the model of Singapore. The U.S. ambassador to Israel, David Friedman,
hailed the "workshop" as an "attempt to jumpstart the Palestinian economy" and "improve the
quality of life of Palestinians."
Unrealistic and Disingenuous
Undeniably, the White House's plans for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are as
unrealistic as they are disingenuous. With an ongoing conflict and no clearly defined borders,
it is at best naïve to imagine the Occupied Palestinian Territories fostering a climate
that is ripe for foreign investment. Building a tourism sector and stimulating vibrant economic
growth under occupation are also unrealistic. Whereas Kushner sought to first discuss the
economic dimensions of the Palestinians' problems while saving meetings over the political ones
for later, he fails to understand how Palestine's economic crises are linked to politics. Put
simply, the Palestinians will not be able to achieve economic development through some
foreign-driven technocratic plan without finding a solution to the political issues at the
heart of the conflict.
The Palestinian view is that the White House is simply trying to liquidate their cause by
buying them off with foreign money. Moreover, no experts believe that the Trump administration
has the political or diplomatic capital to serve as a credible mediator between the
Palestinians and Israel. The White House has absolutely no goodwill among Palestinians,
particularly in the aftermath of the administration formally recognizing
Jerusalem as Israel's capital and
slashing funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
As the first U.S. administration to officially reject the two-state solution as the basis
for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the current White House represents an
opportunity for Israel to cement its colonization of territory in land annexed during 1967. As
such, the "Deal of the Century" is about the consolidation of Israel's occupation of
Palestinian land and a way toward establishing a "second homeland" for Palestinians in Jordan
and/or Egypt. The Israeli UN ambassador's opinion
piece in The New York Times , which called for a Palestinian "surrender" and was
published just before the Bahrain summit kicked off, essentially summed up both the Israeli
government and the Trump administration's views on the Palestinian question.
GCC-Israel Ties
Nonetheless, although the summit did not raise important questions about Palestinian-Israeli
relations, it raised some about Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member-states and Israel's
gradual normalization of ties. That this summit was held in Bahrain was not a major surprise
considering that the archipelago kingdom has led the GCC in terms of moving toward
normalization of relations with Israel.
Indeed, Bahrain's openness to closer relations with the Jewish state was on display in
September 2017 when Prince Nasser bin Hamad al-Khalifa attended a multinational event in Los
Angeles where two American rabbis stated that the king of Bahrain had voiced his opposition to
the Arab League's economic boycott of Israel. As the "Peace to Prosperity" workshop began, the
Bahraini Crown Prince welcomed delegates with a
message that called the Bahraini capital, Manama, the Gulf's most religiously diverse city and
referenced its tiny Jewish community. Notably, Bahrain's former Jewish ambassador to
Washington, Houda Ezra Ebrahim Nonoo,
attended the summit.
Much like the dynamics which have brought other GCC member-states closer to Israel, a mutual
perception of Iran as a threat is at the heart of Bahrain's interest in establishing warmer
ties with Tel Aviv. Yet for Bahrain and other Arabian Peninsula monarchies -- until the
Palestinian issue is resolved -- prospects for moving toward a full normalization of relations
will remain complicated.
Whereas Kuwait stands out as the only country in the GCC that principally rejects this trend
of Gulf states moving in the direction of normalizing ties with Israel, it is the GCC's only
semi-democracy, thus this firm "pro-Palestinian" stance partially reflects pressures from
Kuwaiti public opinion.
... ... ...
Rong Cao , June 27, 2019 at 13:53
Isn't GCC on the brink of the collapse a while ago when the US congress threatened to sue
GCC for manipulate the oil prices? Guess now that the US has become a world major oil
exporter, GCC has stood on its way. So the patriarchy inside GCC, namely Saudi Arabia, has
been colluding with the US and Israel to pay $50 billion to Palestinians authority for the
purchase of Israeli's occupied lands once for all. Indeed a deal of the century for President
Trump.
KiwiAntz , June 27, 2019 at 04:28
Can anyone explain the complete inappropriateness & Cronyism of Trump's son in law,
Jared Kushner, in negotiating this sham of a Deal? This is the "Con of the Century" not the
Deal of the Century? Jared Kushner never got out of Bibi's Bed & his flawed Plan is a $50
Billion dollar loan bribe, a LOAN not a Hand out & where this money is coming from, as
it's not coming from America but supposedly from non-existent Arabian Financial sources is a
mystery?
And in order to receive this blood money, Palestinian's only have to surrender
what's left of their Country & the illegal settlements, any chance of a 2 State solution
& other humiliating concessions to Apartheid Israel, such as any Sovereignty claims to
their own Lands? And I state it's Palestinian's Land," THEIR COUNTRY" not the illegal,
immoral Land Usurper called the Nation of Israel?
This Land of Palestine, illegally occupied
since 1948 by repatriated Jews from a devastated, War ravaged Europe, as a bloodguilt reward
from the Allies, for their failure in preventing the Holocaust & genocide of the Jews
during WW2?The idiotic English came up with the disastrous plan to repatriate these European
Jewish people to a already occupied Land called Palestine? And for the record, the Historical
Jews lost their claims to these Lands, as was prophesied in the Bible following their
rejection & complicity in the Death of the Messiah?
JC stated their "House (or Nation)
would be abandoned to them" as a result of their rejection of him, being the Son of God! This
was confirmed in the year 70 B.C.E when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, destroying all their
records, the Temple & killing one million people with the survivors taken into captivity!
The confirmation of the loss of Divine favour & Gods utter rejection of the Jewish Nation
& people was that God allowed the Roman destruction to occur without any direct
intervention on his part! That was the end of the Nation State of Ancient Israel! When this
happened, it became inhabited by Arab Tribes & gradually became Palestine?
This Modern
Day interpretation of a Nation State of Israel is a monstrosity, a human construct not a
Theocratic Nation created by God!
This Plan is a utter waste of Time & other peoples
money as Palestinian's want a Political solution as mandated by the UN, not a blood money,
loan bribe by Trumps crony Capitalist, son in law, in league with Uncle Bibi Netanyahu!
Moi , June 27, 2019 at 02:40
An investor would have to be an utter idiot to put funds into Palestinian infrastructure
because the Israelis would promptly destroy it in their next military incursion. Investment
without rock solid perpetual peace is just money down the drain.
From the little I know about Saudi Arabia's war on Yemen, Yemen is still subject to a land
/ sea / air blockade. Saudi warships are patrolling Yemeni maritime territory. So that would
probably nix any possibility of Iran sending any kind of support, humanitarian as well as
military.
The war has lasted over four years and the blockade has lasted almost as long. The Saudis
are relying on mercenaries from as far away as
South America ,
Nepal and parts of Africa. Yet not only are the Houthis still holding out but as you say,
there are signs of
Saudi collapse in Yemen.
My hunch is that huge numbers of soldiers are defecting from the Saudi forces and bringing
with them equipment, vehicles, ammunition, advice and logistics support to the Houthis. Among
other things, this would account for large losses of Saudi military equipment and the
enormous wastage. Perhaps some mercenaries have also switched sides. But as I have said here
in past MoA comments forums, I can't prove that defections are occurring. Maybe I'm not using
the "right" keywords on Google Chrome, DuckDuckGo or other search engines to find the
information, or perhaps this particular narrative is a no-go zone.
@ Jen 74
Thanks for your concern for Yemen, and reports from the area.
Please be aware that the outcome of military conflicts are more dependant upon the people
affected than anything. It took the US three years to "pacify" Baghdad, because Iraqis didn't
want Americans there, and they still don't as a matter of fact.
Yemenis don't want Saudi control of their land and that has more meaning than the Saudi
mercenaries can bring to the conflict.
In the US Army, the infantry is "the Queen of battle." That's a fancy way of saying that the
men engaged in the endeavor, on the ground, are the most important variable. That's why the
Houthis in their flip-flops can destroy so many Saudi units. They care. The human element.
"... Just recently, John Judis, undisguisedly a political commentator of the Left, made an important argument in favor of nationalism. "Nationalist sentiment," he writes in his book The Nationalist Revival , "is an essential ingredient of a democracy, which is based on the assumptions of a common identity, and of a welfare state, which is based on the acceptance by citizens of their financial responsibility for people whom they may not know at all, and who may have widely different backgrounds from theirs." ..."
"... Of course, nationalism can be "the basis of social generosity or of bigoted exclusion." It is therefore important, according to Judis, that enlightened state leaders push nationalism in the proper direction. ..."
"... The presence of Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives at this gathering also suggests that at least some of the panelists will be offering two approved concepts of nationalism: propositional nationhood for the United States and solidarity with Israeli nationalism. In both cases, however, the nationalism being advocated ends up tied to an aggressive foreign policy. ..."
"... The nationalist label has now fallen into the hands of the neocon establishment, which has managed to identify it with international meddling and a creedal nation. In other words, it's been appropriated by those who already wielded power. ..."
"... But what makes American nationalism even more unpalatable now than when Robert Nisbet famously denounced it in The Present Age: Progress and Anarchy in Modern America is its rhetorical availability. It serves different agendas, depending on which power bloc appeals to it. ..."
"... Until recently, nationalism had portentous associations for much of the political class. It signified, rightly or wrongly, ethnocentricity and dislike for outsiders. Now that's all changing. Those in power have tamed the concept and are recycling it for their own purposes. Stay tuned. ..."
Just recently, John Judis, undisguisedly a political commentator of the Left, made an
important argument in favor of nationalism. "Nationalist sentiment," he writes in his book
The Nationalist Revival , "is an
essential ingredient of a democracy, which is based on the assumptions of a common identity,
and of a welfare state, which is based on the acceptance by citizens of their financial
responsibility for people whom they may not know at all, and who may have widely different
backgrounds from theirs."
Of course, nationalism can be "the basis of social generosity or of bigoted exclusion."
It is therefore important, according to Judis, that enlightened state leaders push nationalism
in the proper direction.
Judis points out that while "globalism" is a force that nationalists understandably oppose,
"internationalism" need not clash with nationalist sentiment. In a op-ed
in TheNew York Times last October, Judis praised his kind of nationalism as
being beneficial to a successful and growing welfare state and a happier world. It can
also be, he said, a stepping stone that leads beyond itself to international cooperation
.
For those who study European socialism, it is clear that Judis is reprising the position of
French sociologist Pierre
Bordieu , who argued for decades that a socialist regime must create some kind of social
glue to hold its subjects together. Judis is now transferring Bordieu's view to the American
political scene.
Advertisement
Now, a conference on "conservative nationalism," which will take place in Washington in July , may be
pushing a "nationalism" that is at least as adaptable as Judis's.
One featured speaker , Claire Lehmann, the founder of Quillette, will be talking about how
nationalism "is
the antidote to racism." Presumably the more inclusive the operative term, the less likely
will be the Left's attack on those wielding it.
The presence of Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives at this gathering also suggests
that at least some of the panelists will be offering two approved concepts of nationalism:
propositional nationhood for the United States and solidarity with Israeli nationalism. In both
cases, however, the nationalism being advocated ends up tied to an aggressive foreign
policy.
Nationalism, in any case, means different things for different peoples. It doesn't hold the
same meaning for Estonians or Hungarians, who belong to ethnic, historic communities, as it
does for a pluralistic country with hundreds of millions of people and a constantly expanding
immigrant population.
In the latest issue of the Rassemblement National monthlyL'Incorrect ,
Steve Bannon speaks of the natural fit between European nationalism and the nationalist
movement that he has been promoting in the United States. Both these ideologies, Bannon says,
derive from the same national principle. In an interview with me in the same publication, I
treated Bannon's contention as wishful thinking. The United States has become too diverse and
too culturally disunited to fit a traditional national model. Our use of nationalism will
likely lead to something less quaint and less organic but more explosive than what comes from
the Baltic nationalists or Viktor Orbán.
The nationalist label has now fallen into the hands of the neocon establishment, which
has managed to identify it with international meddling and a creedal nation. In other words,
it's been appropriated by those who already wielded power.
The same protean label is also likely to wander onto the Left, given the nontraditional and
very pliable nature of our "nationalism." John Judis may in fact be the harbinger of a new
American Left that celebrates nationalism, provided that Left is allowed to define that term
for the rest of us. Indeed, it may be possible to frame LGBT rights and reparations for blacks
as "nationalist" issues. Nationalism also need not hinder us from letting in lots of
undocumented immigrants who are only trying to join our team and learn our values.
Men and women of the interwar Right, down to such later figures as Russell Kirk and Robert
Nisbet, were understandably critical of American nationalism. They identified it with social
engineering and centralized government and preferred localism and regionalism to any
justification for an expansionist administrative state.
But what makes American nationalism even more unpalatable now than when Robert Nisbet
famously denounced it in The Present Age:
Progress and Anarchy in Modern America is its rhetorical availability. It serves
different agendas, depending on which power bloc appeals to it. The hope once entertained
by Pat Buchanan that a nationalist cause would help slow down immigration and preserve
America's traditional moral and cultural identity has not worked out as planned. Those who
control our politics and culture determine the meaning of terms, which is as true of
nationalism as it is of other political labels like "freedom" and "equality."
Until recently, nationalism had portentous associations for much of the political class.
It signified, rightly or wrongly, ethnocentricity and dislike for outsiders. Now that's all
changing. Those in power have tamed the concept and are recycling it for their own purposes.
Stay tuned.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at
Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale
Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents .
"... This story of lost American leadership and production is not unique. In fact, the destruction of America's once vibrant military and commercial industrial capacity in many sectors has become the single biggest unacknowledged threat to our national security. Because of public policies focused on finance instead of production, the United States increasingly cannot produce or maintain vital systems upon which our economy, our military, and our allies rely. Huawei is just a particularly prominent example. ..."
"... Higher budgets would seem to make sense. According to the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the United States is shifting away from armed conflicts in the Middle East to "great power" competition with China and Russia, which have technological parity in many areas with the United States. As part of his case for higher budgets, Mattis told Congress that "our military remains capable, but our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare -- air, land, sea, space, and cyber." ..."
"... And yet, the U.S. military budget, even at stalled levels, is still larger than the next nine countries' budgets combined. So there's a second natural follow-up question: is the defense budget the primary reason our military advantage is slipping away, or is it something deeper? ..."
"... The loss of manufacturing capacity has been devastating for American research capacity. "Innovation doesn't just hover above the Great Plains," Mottl said. "It is built on steady incremental changes and knowledge learned out of basic manufacturing." Telecommunications equipment is dual use, meaning it can be used for both commercial and military purposes. The loss of an industrial base in telecom equipment meant that the American national security apparatus lost military capacity. ..."
"... "The middle-class Americans who did the manufacturing work, all that capability, machine tools, knowledge, it just became worthless, driven by the stock price," he said. "The national ability to produce is a national treasure. If you can't produce you won't consume, and you can't defend yourself." ..."
"... In the commercial sector, rebuilding the industrial base will require an aggressive national mobilization strategy. This means aggressive investment by government to rebuild manufacturing capacity, selective tariffs to protect against Chinese or foreign predation, regulation to stop financial predation by Wall Street, and anti-monopoly enforcement to block the exploitation of market power. ..."
Wall Street's short-term incentives have decimated our defense industrial base and
undermined our national security.
Early this year, U.S. authorities filed criminal
charges -- including bank fraud, obstruction of justice, and theft of technology -- against the
largest maker of telecommunications equipment in the world, a Chinese giant named Huawei.
Chinese dominance in telecom equipment has created a crisis among Western espionage agencies,
who, fearful of Chinese spying, are attempting to prevent the spread of Huawei equipment
worldwide, especially
in the critical 5G next-generation mobile networking space.
In response to the campaign to block the purchase of Huawei equipment, the company has
engaged in a public relations offensive. The company's CEO, Ren Zhengfei, portrayed Western
fears as an advertisement for its products, which are, he said, "so good that the U.S.
government is scared." There's little question the Chinese government is interested in using
equipment to spy. What is surprising is Zhengfei is right about the products. Huawei, a
relatively new company in the telecom equipment space, has amassed top market share because its
equipment -- espionage vulnerabilities aside -- is the best value on the market.
In historical terms, this is a shocking turnaround. Americans invented the telephone
business and until recently dominated production and research. But in the last 20 years, every
single American producer of key telecommunication equipment sectors is gone. Today, only two
European makers -- Ericsson and Nokia -- are left to compete with Huawei and another Chinese
competitor, ZTE.
This story of lost American leadership and production is not unique. In fact, the
destruction of America's once vibrant military and commercial industrial capacity in many
sectors has become the single biggest unacknowledged threat to our national security. Because
of public policies focused on finance instead of production, the United States increasingly
cannot produce or maintain vital systems upon which our economy, our military, and our allies
rely. Huawei is just a particularly prominent example.
When national security specialists consider preparedness, they usually think in terms of the
amount of money spent on the Pentagon. One of President Donald Trump's key campaign promises
was to aggressively raise the military budget, which he, along with Congress, started doing in
2017. The reaction was instant. "I'm heartened that Congress recognizes the sobering effect of
budgetary uncertainty on America's military and on the men and women who provide for our
nation's defense," then-defense secretary Jim Mattis said. Budgets have gone up every year
since.
Higher budgets would seem to make sense. According to the 2018 National Defense
Strategy, the United States is shifting away from armed conflicts in the Middle East to "great
power" competition with China and Russia, which have technological parity in many areas with
the United States. As part of his case for higher budgets, Mattis told Congress that "our
military remains capable, but our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare --
air, land, sea, space, and cyber."
In some cases, our competitive edge has not just been eroded, but is at risk of being -- or
already is -- surpassed. The Chinese surge in 5G telecom equipment, which has dual civilian and
military uses, is one example. China is making key investments in artificial
intelligence, another area of competition. They even seem to be able to mount a rail gun on a naval ship ,
an important next generation weapons technology that the U.S. Navy has yet to incorporate.
And yet, the U.S. military budget, even at stalled levels, is still larger than the next
nine countries' budgets combined. So there's a second natural follow-up question: is the
defense budget the primary reason our military advantage is slipping away, or is it something
deeper?
The story of Huawei, and many others, suggests the latter.
♦♦♦
For over a century, America led the world in producing telecommunications equipment. The
American telecom industry, according to Zach Mottl of Atlas Tool Works, a subcontractor in the
industry, used to be a "crown jewel of American manufacturing." Mottl's company had been a
manufacturing supplier to AT&T and its Bell Labs from the early 1900s until the early
2000s. "The radar system was invented here. The transistor came out of Bell Labs. The laser. I
mean all of these high-tech inventions that have both commercial and military applications were
funded out of the research," Mottl told TAC . More than just the sexy inventions, there
was a domestic industrial sector which could make the equipment. Now, in a strategic coup for
our adversaries, that capability is gone.
Yet it wasn't one of those adversaries that killed our telecommunications capacity, but one
of our own institutions, Wall Street, and its pressure on executives to make decisions designed
to impress financial markets, rather than for the long-term health of their companies. In 1996,
AT&T spun off Bell Labs into a telecom equipment company, Lucent Technologies, to take
advantage of investors' appetite for an independent player selling high-tech telecom gear after
Congress deregulated the telecommuncations space. At the time, it was the biggest initial
public offering in history, and became the foundation of a relationship with financial markets
that led to its eventual collapse.
The focus on stock price at Lucent was systematic. The stock price was posted daily to
encourage everyone to focus on the company's relationship with short-term oriented financial
markets. All employees got a small number of "Founder's Grant Share Options," with executives
offered much larger slugs of stock to solidify the connection. When Richard McGinn became CEO
in 1997, he focused on financial markets.
Lucent began to buy up companies. According to two scholars , "The perceived
need to compete for acquisitions became a 'strategic' justification for keeping stock prices
high. This in turn demanded meeting or exceeding quarterly revenue and earnings targets,
objectives with which Lucent top executives, led by the hard-driving McGinn, became
obsessed."
Lucent got even more aggressive. McGinn's subordinate, an executive named Carly Fiorina,
juiced returns with a strategy based on lending money to risky startups who would then turn
around and buy Lucent equipment. Fiorina collected $65
million in compensation as the stock soared. And then, when the dot-com boom turned to
bust, the company, beset by accounting scandals designed to impress shareholders and the
financial markets, embarked on massive layoffs. CEO McGinn was among those laid off, but with a
$12.5 million severance package -- royal compensation for taking one of America's strategic
industrial assets down the road toward total destruction.
In the early 2000s, the telecom equipment market began to recover from the recession.
Lucent's new strategy, as Mottl put it, was to seek "margin" by offshoring production to China,
continuing layoffs of American workers and hiring abroad. At first, it was the simpler parts of
the telecom equipment, the boxes and assembly, but soon contract manufacturers in China were
making virtually all of it. American telecom capacity would never return.
Lucent didn't recover its former position. Chinese entrants, subsidized heavily by the
Chinese state and using Western technology, underpriced
Western companies. American policymakers, unconcerned with industrial capacity, allowed Chinese
companies to capture market share despite the predatory subsidies and stolen technology. In
2006, French telecom equipment maker Alcatel bought Lucent, signifying the end of American
control of Bell Labs. Today, Huawei, with state backing, dominates the market.
The erosion of much of the American industrial and defense industrial base proceeded like
Lucent. First, in the 1980s and 1990s, Wall Street financiers focused on short-term profits,
market power, and executive pay-outs over core competencies like research and production, often
rolling an industry up into a monopoly producer. Then, in the 2000s, they offshored production
to the lowest cost producer. This finance-centric approach opened the door to the Chinese
government's ability to strategically pick off industrial capacity by subsidizing its
producers. Hand over cash to Wall Street, and China could get the American crown jewels.
The loss of manufacturing capacity has been devastating for American research capacity.
"Innovation doesn't just hover above the Great Plains," Mottl said. "It is built on steady
incremental changes and knowledge learned out of basic manufacturing." Telecommunications
equipment is dual use, meaning it can be used for both commercial and military purposes. The
loss of an industrial base in telecom equipment meant that the American national security
apparatus lost military capacity.
This loss goes well beyond telecom equipment. Talking to small manufacturers and
distributors who operate in the guts of our industrial systems offers a perspective on the
danger of this process of financial predation and offshoring. Bill Hickey, who headed his
family's metal distributor, processor, and fabricator, has been watching the collapse for
decades. Hickey sells to "everyone who uses steel," from truck, car, and agricultural equipment
manufacturers to stadiums and the military.
Hickey, like many manufacturers, has watched the rise of China with alarm for decades.
"Everyone's upset about the China 2025 plan," he told TAC , referencing the current
Chinese plan causing alarm among national security thinkers in Washington. "Well there was a
China 2020 plan, 2016 plan, 2012 plan." The United States has, for instance, lost much of its
fasteners and casting industries, which are key inputs to virtually every industrial product.
It has lost much of its capacity in grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel, a specialized
metal required for highly efficient electrical motors. Aluminum that goes into American
aircraft carriers now often comes from China.
Hickey told a story of how the United States is even losing its submarine fleet. He had a
conversation with an admiral in charge of the U.S. sub fleet at the commissioning of the USS
Illinois , a Virginia-class attack submarine, who complained that the United States was
retiring three worn-out boats a year, but could only build one and a half in that time. The
Trump military budget has boosted funding to build two a year, but the United States no longer
has the capacity to do high quality castings to build any more than that. The supply chain that
could support such surge production should be in the commercial world, but it has been
offshored to China. "You can't run a really high-end casting business on making three
submarines a year," Hickey said. "You just can't do it." This shift happened because Wall
Street, or "the LBO (leveraged buy-out) guys" as Hickey put it, bought up manufacturing
facilities in the 1990s and moved them to China.
"The middle-class Americans who did the manufacturing work, all that capability, machine
tools, knowledge, it just became worthless, driven by the stock price," he said. "The national
ability to produce is a national treasure. If you can't produce you won't consume, and you
can't defend yourself."
The Loss of the Defense Industrial Base
But it's not just the dual-use commercial manufacturing base that is collapsing. Our policy
empowering Wall Street and offshoring has also damaged the more specialized defense base, which
directly produces weaponry and equipment for the military.
How pervasive is the loss of such capacity? In September 2018, the Department of Defense
released findings of its analysis into its supply chain. The results highlighted how fragile
our ability to supply our own military has become.
The report listed dozens of militarily significant items and inputs with only one or two
domestic producers, or even none at all. Many production facilities are owned by companies that
are financially vulnerable and at high risk of being shut down. Some of the risk comes from
limited production capability. Mortar tubes, for example, are made on just one production line,
and some Marine aircraft parts are made by just one company -- one which recently filed for
bankruptcy.
At risk is everything from chaff to flares to high voltage cable, fittings for ships,
valves, key inputs for satellites and missiles, and even material for tents. As Americans no
longer work in key industrial fields, the engineering and production skills evaporate as the
legacy workforce retires.
Even more unsettling is the reliance on foreign, and often adversarial, manufacturing and
supplies. The report found that "China is the single or sole supplier for a number of specialty
chemicals used in munitions and missiles . A sudden and catastrophic loss of supply would
disrupt DoD missile, satellite, space launch, and other defense manufacturing programs. In many
cases, there are no substitutes readily available." Other examples of foreign reliance included
circuit boards, night vision systems, batteries, and space sensors.
The story here is similar. When Wall Street targeted the commercial industrial base in the
1990s, the same financial trends shifted the defense industry. Well before any of the more
recent conflicts, financial pressure led to a change in focus for many in the defense industry
-- from technological engineering to balance sheet engineering. The result is that some of the
biggest names in the industry have never created any defense product. Instead of innovating new
technology to support our national security, they innovate new ways of creating monopolies to
take advantage of it.
A good example is a company called TransDigm. While TransDigm presents itself as a designer
and producer of aerospace products, it can more accurately be described as a designer of
monopolies. TransDigm began as a private equity firm, a type of investment business, in 1993.
Its mission, per
its earnings call , is to give "private equity-like returns" to shareholders, returns that
are much higher than the stock market or other standard investment vehicles.
It achieves these returns for its shareholders by buying up companies that are sole or
single-source suppliers of obscure airplane parts that the government needs, and then
increasing prices by as
much as eight times the original amount . If the government balks at paying, TransDigm has
no qualms daring the military to risk its mission and its crew by not buying the parts. The
military, held hostage, often pays the ransom. TransDigm's gross profit margins using this
model to gouge the U.S. government are a robust 54.5 percent. To put that into perspective,
Boeing and Lockheed's profit margins are listed at 13.6 percent and 10.91 percent. In many
ways, TransDigm is like the pharmaceutical company run by Martin Shkreli, which bought rare
treatments and then price gouged those who could not do without the product. Earlier this year,
TransDigm
recently bought the remaining supplier of chaff and one of two suppliers of flares,
products identified in the Defense Department's supply chain fragility report.
Yet, Trandigm's stock price thrives because Wall Street loves monopolies, regardless of who
they are taking advantage of. Take this
analysis from TheStreet from March 2019, published after the latest Inspector General
report and directly citing many of the concerning facts from the report as pure positives for
the investor:
The company is now the sole supplier for 80% of the end markets it serves. And 90% of the
items in the supply chain are proprietary to TransDigm. In other words, the company is
operating a monopoly for parts needed to operate aircraft that will typically be in service for
30 years . Managers are uniquely motivated to increase shareholder value and they have an
enviable record, with shares up 2,503% since 2009.
Fleecing the Defense Department is big business. Its executive chairman W. Nicholas Howley,
skewered by Democrats and Republicans alike in a May 2019 House Oversight hearing for making up
to 4,000 percent excess profit on some parts and stealing from the American taxpayer, received
total compensation of over $64
million in 2013 , the fifth most among all CEOs, and
over $13 million in 2018 , making him one
of the most highly compensated CEOs no one has ever heard of . Shortly after May's hearing,
the company agreed to voluntarily return $16 million in overcharges to the Pentagon, but the
share price is at near record highs.
L3 Technologies, created in 1997, has taken a different, but also damaging, approach to
monopolizing Defense Department contracts. Originally, it sought to become "the Home Depot of
the defense industry" by going on an acquisition binge, according
to its former CEO Frank Lanza. Today, L3 uses its size, its connections within the government,
and its willingness to offer federal employees good-paying jobs at L3, to muscle out
competitors and win contracts, even if the competitor has
more innovative and better priced products . This practice attracted the ire of two
Republican congressmen from North Carolina, Ted Budd and the late Walter Jones, who found
in 2017 that L3 succeeds, in part, due to "blatant corruption and obvious disregard of American
foreign interest in the name of personal economic profit."
Like TransDigm, this isn't L3's first brush with trouble. It was
temporarily suspended from U.S. government contracting for using "extremely sensitive and
classified information" from a government system to help its international business interests.
It was the subject of a scathing Senate Armed Services Committee investigation
for
failing to notify the Defense Department that it supplied faulty Chinese counterfeit parts
for some of its aircraft displays. And it agreed to pay a
$25.6 million settlement to the U.S. government for knowingly providing defective weapon
sights for years to soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yet, also like TransDigm, L3 has thrived despite its troubles. When the company was granted
an open-ended contract to update the Air Force's electronics jamming airplane in 2017,
Lieutenant General Arnold Bunch
outlined the Air Force's logic at a House Armed Services Subcommittee meeting. L3, he said,
is the only company that can do the job. "They have all the tooling, they have all the existing
knowledge, and they have the modeling and all the information to do that work," he said.
In other words, because L3 has a monopoly, there was no one else to pick. The system -- a
system designed by the financial industry that rewards monopoly and consolidation at the
expense of innovation and national security -- essentially made the pick for him. It is no
wonder our military capacities are ebbing, despite the large budget outlays -- the money isn't
going to defense.
♦♦♦
In fact, in some ways, our own defense budgets are being used against us when potential
adversaries use Wall Street to take control of our own Pentagon-developed technologies.
There's no better example than China's takeover of the rare earth metal industry, which is
key to both defense and electronics. The issue has frequently made the front page during the
recent trade war, but the seldom-discussed background to our dependence on China for rare
earths is that, just like with telecom equipment, the United States used to be the world leader
in the industry until the financial sector shipped the whole thing to China.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the Defense Department invested in the development of a
technology to use what are known as rare-earth magnets. The investment was so successful that
General Motors engineers, using Pentagon grants, succeeded in creating a
rare earth magnet that is now essential for nearly every high-tech piece of military equipment
in the U.S. inventory, from smart bombs and fighter jets to lasers and communications devices.
The benefit of DARPA's investment wasn't restricted to the military. The magnets make cell
phones and modern commercial electronics possible.
China recognized the value of these magnets early on. Chinese Premier Deng Xiaoping
famously said in 1992 that "The Middle East has oil, China has rare earth," to underscore
the importance of a rare earth strategy he adopted for China. Part of that strategy was to take
control of the industry by manipulating the motivations of Wall Street.
Wall Street's outsized control over defense contracting and industry means that every place
a foreign adversary can insert itself into American financial institutions, it can insert
itself into our defense industry.
At an Armed Services Committee hearing in 2018, Representative Carol Shea-Porter talked
about how constant the conflict between financial concentration and patriotism had been in her
six years on the committee. She recounted a CEO once telling her, in response to her concern
about the outsourcing of defense industry parts, that he "[has] to answer to stockholders."
Who are these stockholders that CEOs are so compelled to answer to? Oftentimes, China.
Jennifer M.
Harris , an expert in global markets with experience at the U.S. State Department and the
U.S. National Intelligence Council, researched a recent
explosion of Chinese strategic investment in American technology companies. She found that
China has systematically targeted U.S. greenfield investments, "technology goods (especially
semiconductors), R&D networks, and advanced manufacturing."
The trend accelerated, until the recent flare-up of tensions between the United States and
China. "China's foreign direct investment (FDI) stock in the U.S.
increased some 800% between 2009 and 2015," she wrote. Then, from 2015 to 2017, "Chinese
FDI in the U.S. climbed nearly four-fold, reaching roughly $45.6 billion in 2016 , up from just
$12.8 billion in 2014."
This investment runs right through Wall Street, the key lobbying group trying to ratchet
down Trump's tough negotiating posture with the Chinese. Rather than showing concern about the
increasing influence of a foreign power in our commerce and industry, Wall Street banks have
repeatedly followed Archie Cox down the path of easy returns.
In 2016, J.P. Morgan Chase agreed to pay a
$264 million bribery settlement to the U.S. government for creating a program, called "Sons
and Daughters," to gain access to Chinese money by selectively hiring the unqualified offspring
of high-ranking Communist Party officials and other Chinese elites. Several other banks are
under investigation for similar practices, including Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, who, not
coincidentally,
hired the son of China's commerce minister. It appears to have worked out for them. In
2017, Goldman Sachs
partnered with the Chinese government's sovereign wealth fund to invest $5 billion Chinese
government dollars in American industry.
In short, China is becoming a significant shareholder in U.S. industries, and is selectively
targeting those with strategic implications. Congresswoman Shea-Porter's discovery that defense
industry CEOs aren't able to worry about national security because they "[have] to answer to
shareholders" was disturbing enough. But the fact that it potentially translates as CEOs not
being able to worry about national security because they have to answer to the Chinese should
elevate the issue to the top of our national security discussion. This nexus of China, Wall
Street, and our defense industrial base may be the answer to why our military advantage is
ebbing. Even when American ingenuity can thrive, too often the fruits go to the Chinese.
In short, the financial industry, with its emphasis on short-term profit and
monopoly , and its willingness to ignore national security for profit, has warped our very
ability to defend ourselves.
How Did We Get Here?
Believe it or not, America has been here before. In the 1920s and 1930s, the American
defense industrial base was being similarly manipulated by domestic financiers for their own
purposes, retarding innovation and damaging the nation's ability to defend itself. And American
military readiness was ebbing in the midst of an increasingly dangerous world full of rising
autocracies.
Today it might be artificial intelligence or drones, but in the 1930s the key military
technology was the airplane. And as with much digital technology today, while Americans
invented the airplane, many of the fruits went elsewhere. The reason was similar to the problem
of Wall Street today. The American aerospace industry in the 1930s was undermined by fights
among bankers over who got to profit from associated patent rights.
In 1935, Brigadier General William Mitchell told Congress that the United States didn't have
a single plane that could go against a "first-class power." "It is a disgraceful situation and
is due," he said, "for one thing, to this pool of patents." The lack of aerospace capacity
reflected a broader industrial problem. Monopolists refused to invest in factories to produce
enough steel, aluminum, and magnesium for adequate military readiness, for fear of losing
control over prices.
New Dealers investigated, and by the time war broke out, the Roosevelt administration was in
the midst of a sustained anti-monopoly campaign. The Nazi war machine, like China today, gave
added impetus to the problem of monopoly in key technology-heavy industries. In 1941, an
assistant attorney general for the antitrust division, Norman Littell, gave a speech to the
Indiana State Bar Association about what he called "The German Invasion of American
Business."
The Nazis, he argued, used legal techniques, like patent laws, stock ownership, dummy
corporations, and cartel arrangements, to extend their power into the United States. "The
distinction between bombing a vital plant out of existence from an airplane and preventing that
plant from coming into existence in the first place [through cartel arrangements]," he said,
"is largely a difference in the amount of noise involved."
Nazis used their American subsidiary corporations to spy on U.S. industrial capacity and
steal technology, such as walkie-talkies, intertank and ground-air radio communication systems,
and shortwave sets developed by the U.S. Army and Navy. They used patents or cartel
arrangements to restrict the production of stainless steel, tungsten-carbide, and fuel
injection equipment. According to the U.S. military after the war, I.G. Farben, the Nazi
chemical monopoly, had influence over American production of "synthetic gas and oils,
dyestuffs, explosives, synthetic rubber ('Buna'), menthol, cellophane, and other products," and
sought to keep the United States "entirely dependent" on Germany for certain types of
electrical equipment.
The Nazis took advantage of an industrial system that was, like the current one, organized
along short-term objectives. But seeing the danger, New Dealers attacked the power of
financiers through direct financing of factories, excess profits taxes, and the breaking of the
power of the Rockefeller, Dupont, and Mellon empires through bank regulation and antitrust
suits. They separated the makers of airplanes from airlines, a sort of Glass Steagall for
aerospace. During the war itself, antitrust chief Thurman Arnold, and those he influenced,
sought to end international cartels and loosen patent rules in part because they allowed
control over American industry by the Nazis.
After the war, the link between global cartels and national security vulnerabilities was a
key driver of American trade and military strategy. America pursued globalization, but with two
differences from the form we have today. First, strategists sought to prevent the recurrence of
global cartels and monopolies. Second, they sought to become industrially intertwined with
allies, not rivals. While multinational corporations stretched across the West, they did not
locate production or technology development in Moscow or among strategic rivals, as we do today
in China.
Domestically, anti-profiteering institutions and rules protected against corruption,
especially important when the defense budget comprised a large chunk of overall American
research and development. The Defense Department's procurement agency -- the Defense Logistics
Agency -- was enormously powerful and oversaw procurement and supply challenges. The Pentagon
had the power to force suppliers of sole source products -- contractors that had monopolies --
to reveal cost information to the government. The financial health of defense contractors
mattered, but so did value to the taxpayer, a skilled defense industrial workforce, and the
ability to deliver quality products to aid in national defense.
A fragmented base of contractors and subcontractors ensured redundancy and competition, and
a powerful federal apparatus with thousands of employees with expertise in pricing and
negotiation kept prices reasonable. The Defense Department could even take ownership of
specialized tooling rights to create competition in monopolistic markets with specialized spare
part needs -- which is precisely where TransDigm specializes. This authority and expertise had
been carefully cultivated over decades to provide the material necessary to equip American
soldiers for World War II, the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the first Gulf war.
In the 1980s, while Ronald Reagan allowed Wall Street free rein elsewhere in the economy, he
mostly kept Wall Street from going after the defense base. But scholars began debating whether
it made sense to have such a large and expensive negotiating apparatus to deal with
contractors, or if a more "cooperative" approach should be taken. Business consultants
argued that the Pentagon could save money if it would simply be "a better customer, by
being less adversarial and more trusting" of defense contractors.
With the end of the Cold War, these arguments found new resonance. Bill Clinton took the
philosophical change that Reagan had pushed on the civilian economy, and moved it into the
defense base. In 1993, Defense Department official William Perry gathered CEOs of top defense
contractors and told them that they would have to merge into larger entities because of reduced
Cold War spending. "Consolidate or evaporate," he said at what became known as "The Last
Supper" in military lore. Former secretary of the Navy John Lehman noted, "industry leaders
took the warning to heart." They reduced the number of prime contractors from 16 to six;
subcontractor mergers quadrupled from 1990 to 1998. They also loosened rules on sole source --
i.e. monopoly -- contracts, and slashed the Defense Logistics Agency, resulting in thousands of
employees with deep knowledge of defense contracting leaving the public sector.
Contractors increasingly dictated procurement rules. The Clinton administration approved
laws changing procurement, which, as the Los Angeles Times put it, got rid of the
government's traditional goals of ensuring "fair competition and low prices." They reversed
what the New Dealers had done to insulate American military power from financiers.
The administration also pushed Congress to allow foreign imports into
American weapons through waivers of the Buy America Act, and demanded procurement officers stop
asking for cost data. Mass offshoring took place, and businesses could increase prices
radically.
This environment attracted private-equity shops, and swaths of the defense industry shifted
their focus from aerospace engineering to balance sheet engineering. From 1993 to 2000, despite
dramatic declines in Cold War military spending and declines in the number of workers in the
defense industrial base and within the military, defense stocks outperformed the S&P.
Today, the American defense establishment quietly finds itself in the same predicament it
did in the 1930s. Despite spending large amounts of money on weapons systems, it often gets
substandard equipment. It is dependent for key sources of supply on business arrangements with
potentially hostile powers. The problem is so big, so toxic, and so difficult that few
lawmakers even want to take it on. But the increasingly obvious danger of Chinese power means
we can no longer ignore it.
The Fix
Fortunately, this is fixable. Huawei's predatory pricing success has shown policymakers all
over the world what happens when we don't protect our vital industrial capacity. Last year,
Congress strengthened the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the committee
that reviews foreign investment and mergers. The Trump tariffs have begun forcing a
long-overdue conversation across the globe about Chinese steel and aluminum overcapacity, and
Democrats like Representative Dan Lipinski are focused on reconstituting domestic manufacturing
ability.
Within the defense base itself, every example -- from TransDigm to L3 to Chinese
infiltration of American business -- has drawn the attention of members of Congress.
Representatives Ted Budd and Paul Cook are Republicans and Representatives Jackie Speier and Ro
Khanna are Democrats. They are not alone. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren and
Representative Tim Ryan have joined Khanna's demand for a TransDigm investigation.
Moreover, focus on production is bipartisan. One of the most ardent opponents of
consolidation in the 1990s is current presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who in 1996
passed an amendment to block Pentagon subsidies for defense mergers, or what he called "Payoffs
for Layoffs." On the other end of the spectrum, Trump has refocused national security and trade
officials on the importance of domestic manufacturing.
Defense officials have also become acutely aware of the problem. In a 2015 briefing at the
Pentagon, in response to questions about Lockheed's acquisition of Sikorsky, then secretary of
defense Ash Carter
emphasized the importance of not having "excessive consolidation," including so-called
vertical integration, in the defense industry because it is "[not] good for the defense
marketplace, and therefore, for the taxpayer and warfighter in the long run." Carter's
acquisition chief, Frank Kendall,
also noted the "significant policy concerns" posed by the "continuing march toward greater
consolidation in the defense industry at the prime contractor level" and the effect it has on
innovation.
American policymakers in the 1990s lost the ability to recognize the value of production
capacity. Today, many of the problems highlighted here are still seen in isolation, perhaps as
instances of corruption or reduced capacity. But the problems -- diminished innovation,
marginal quality, higher prices, less redundancy, dependence on overseas supply chains, a lack
of defense industry competition, and reduced investment in research and development -- are not
independent. They are the result of the financialization of industry and of monopoly. It's time
for a new strategic posture, one that puts a premium not just on spending the right amount on
military budgets, but also on ensuring that financial actors don't capture what we do spend. We
must begin once again to recognize that private industrial capacity is a vital national
security asset that we can no longer allow Wall Street to pillage. By seeing the problem in its
totality, we can attack the power of finance within the commercial and defense base and restore
our national security capacity once again.
There are many levers we can use to reorder our national priorities. The Defense Department,
along with its new higher budgets, should have more authority to promote competition, break up
defense conglomerates, restrict excess defense contractor profits, empower contracting officers
to get cost information, and block private equity takeovers of suppliers. Congress could
reinstate the authority of the Defense Department to simply take ownership of specialized
tooling rights to create competition in monopolistic markets with specialized spare part needs,
a power it once had.
In the commercial sector, rebuilding the industrial base will require an aggressive
national mobilization strategy. This means aggressive investment by government to rebuild
manufacturing capacity, selective tariffs to protect against Chinese or foreign predation,
regulation to stop financial predation by Wall Street, and anti-monopoly enforcement to block
the exploitation of market power.
Policymakers must recognize that industrial capacity is a public good and short-term actors
on Wall Street have become a serious national security vulnerability. While private businesses
are essential to our common defense, the public sector must once again structure how we
organize our national defense and protect our defense industrial base from predatory finance.
For several decades, Wall Street has been organizing not just the financing of defense
contractors, but the capabilities of our very defense posture. That experiment has been a
failure. It is time to wake up, before it's too late.
Matt Stoller is a fellow at the Open Markets Institute. His book, Goliath: The
100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy, is due out this fall from Simon &
Schuster. Lucas Kunce spent 12 years in the United States Marine Corps, and is a veteran of the
Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The views presented are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the views of the Department of Defense or its components. This article was supported
by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. The contents of this publication are solely the
responsibility of the authors.
Sobering read. However, it is likely that only a major war will spur legislators and
administrators into action. Until then Wall Street will reign and the US administrations will
keep threatening countries with sanctions if they buy equipment that prevents the US to
conduct an easy bombing campaign on them.
I've heard similar stories about the imminent collapse of the Russian Defense sector, they
can't make their own parts, they lack diversity of suppliers, there is a huge brain drain, no
customers (somewhat true since we practice extortion).
I'm not dismissing the author, actually quite the opposite and I am agreeing with you. The
secret ingredient is an actual sense of danger. The Russians are terrified, we pretend to be
terrified but know it's all threat inflation. If we had honest people in Congress proposing
targeted budgets for real needs rather than 'freedom of navigation' when we know it's power
projection then the fear of God might return to our habits. The author brought up the 20/30's
I bet WW2 gave us that fear again.
Dude, your government stopped being able to do anything this complicated somewhere around
1995. Your infrastructure is in shambles and diabetics are dying because of an insulin
monopoly that forces them to ration medication. The rope remark resembles you.
This is the longest litany about demise of American prowess in technology that I've ever read
in TAC so far. The story of destruction of Bell Labs, described in details by Matt Stoller is
very accurate: I have been eyewitness to it from 1983 and up to its gruesome end. Carly
Fiorina, one of the runners for President in 2016, delivered American icon coup-the-grace.
She even justified her claim on presidency on business experience: destruction of another
icon of American high-tech – Hewlett-Packard. Alas, there is the most fundamental
reason for the current situation in the 21-st century USA, was formulated 100+ years ago by
Vladimir Lenin: "For profit capitalists will be eager to sell us rope, with which we'll
hung them" .
Would anybody protest today that profit IS the Nature of capitalism ? And
more: those who substitute Reality with their wet dreams might be cured by watching
Democratic 2020 debates.
Great piece. There are lots of good articles here but not that many that tell something I
really didn't already know. Great perspective on the whole China issue. Amazing how sick our
financialized economy really is when you look under the hood.
This is excellent information. Hope folks on the Hill are reading this.
The Wall Street and finance industry depend on US military, long-term this is a disaster, but
they care only for short-term profits. Whoever thought that principles of free market apply
internationally, where other goverments are free to influence "free trade" in any way they
wish, while US goverment will do nothing is an idiot.
This is just think tank swamp vapor. No real analysis, no real recommendation on adaption of the USA to the collapse of global neoliberal
system (aka the USA empire)
At the heart of the alignment between China and Russia is their shared interest in undermining U.S. influence globally. The two
countries are united in their mutual displeasure with the United States and the U.S.-dominated international order that they feel
disadvantages them. But while Russia and China may have initially banded together in discontent, their repeated engagement on areas
of mutual interest is fostering a deeper and enduring partnership.
It is clear that China will pose the greatest challenge to U.S. interests for the foreseeable future, but Beijing's increasing
collaboration with Moscow will amplify that challenge.
... ... ...
Washington must come to terms with this China-Russia alignment and work to address and manage it. To contain the depth of alignment,
Washington must look for opportunities to strain the seams in the Russia-China relationship. Russia and China may be drawing closer,
but their interests -- and especially their approaches -- are not identical. Russia and China compete in the Middle East, for example,
for military sales and nuclear energy deals. And their very different approaches to Europe could be a source of strain. In communicating
with Beijing, Washington should underscore how Russian interference in these countries could generate instability that threatens
China's growing economic interests.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is focused on combating China's unfair economic practices, a worthy undertaking. But any trade
war "victory" will be incomplete if Washington does not address Beijing's challenge, in collaboration with Moscow, to the very fabric
of the rules-based order that underpins continued U.S. global leadership and prosperity. Washington will be ineffective if it seeks
to go it alone. Pushing back against the illiberal influence of an aligned Russia and China will require the collective heft of Allies
and partners. The time is ripe to tackle this issue with America's European Allies. Europe has grown more attuned to -- and concerned
about -- the threat that China poses and shares the U.S. imperative to compete with Russia and China.
Andrea Kendall-Taylor is a senior fellow and director of the Center for New American Security's Transatlantic Security Center.
Contents of the article correlate extremely poorly with the title... I don't see even a semblance of a "containment plan" other
than a vague outline that US should ask EU countries something as of yet unspecified...
"... The possibility that the United States might be committing an act of war under false pretenses apparently did little to discourage the president's principal foreign policy advisers, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, from pushing a military response. Tehran's action was presented as raw aggression, an act of war that deserved retaliation. ..."
"... The president apparently complained to a close associate, "These people want to push us into a war, and it's so disgusting." According to The Wall Street Journal , he further opined, "We don't need any more wars." He's right. But then why has Trump chosen to surround himself with advisers apparently so at variance with his views? ..."
"... Iran is preparing to breach the limits established by the agreement because Washington repudiated it . It is evident that the president doesn't understand the JCPOA or the nuclear issue more generally. ..."
"... Moreover, though he is focused on nuclear issues, his appointees have been demanding far more of Tehran, forestalling negotiations. For instance, last year, Pompeo ordered Iran to abandon its independent foreign policy and dismantle its missile deterrent, while accepting Saudi and American domination of the region. ..."
"... Pompeo's demands look a bit like the ultimatum to Serbia in June 1914 after a nationalist backed by Serbian military intelligence assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. The Austrians set only 10, rather than 12, requirements, but they also were intended to be rejected. Vienna explained to its ally Germany that "the possibility of its acceptance is practically excluded." ..."
"... They were living out what Hermann Goering, on trial at Nuremberg, described in a private conversation to an American officer: "voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Tragically, he's probably right. ..."
Iran predictably claimed that the drone was within its airspace. American officials asserted
that it was in international airspace. Reported by The New York Times :
"a
senior Trump administration official said there was concern inside the United States government
about whether the drone, or another American surveillance aircraft, or even the P-8A manned
aircraft flown by a military aircrew, actually did violate Iranian airspace at some point. The
official said the doubt was one of the reasons Mr. Trump called off the strike."
The point is worth repeating. The military was prepared to blast away when it wasn't even
certain whether America was in the right. The episode brings to mind the 1988 shootdown of an
Iranian airliner in the Persian Gulf by the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes .
Initially the U.S. Navy justified its action, making a series of false claims about Iran Air
Flight 655, which carried 290 passengers and crew members. Eventually Washington did admit that
it had made a horrific mistake, though the Vincennes captain was later decorated.
The possibility that the United States might be committing an act of war under false
pretenses apparently did little to discourage the president's principal foreign policy
advisers, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, from
pushing a military response. Tehran's action was presented as raw aggression, an act of war
that deserved retaliation.
The president apparently complained to a close associate, "These people want to push us into
a war, and it's so disgusting." According to The Wall Street Journal , he
further opined, "We don't need any more wars." He's right. But then why has Trump chosen to
surround himself with advisers apparently so at variance with his views?
Presumably the president believes that he can control his war-happy subordinates, using them
as he sees fit. However, his overweening hubris ignores their power to set the agenda and
influence his choices. Consider the basic question of objectives regarding Iran. Trump now says
all he wants to do is keep nukes out of Tehran's hands: "Never can Iran have a nuclear weapon,"
he intoned after halting the proposed reprisal, adding that "restraint" has its limits. But the
nuclear accord was drafted to forestall an Iranian nuclear weapon. Iran is preparing to breach
the limits established by the agreement because Washington repudiated it . It is
evident that the president doesn't understand the JCPOA or the nuclear issue more
generally.
Moreover, though he is focused on nuclear issues, his appointees have been demanding far
more of Tehran, forestalling negotiations. For instance, last year, Pompeo ordered Iran to
abandon its independent foreign policy and dismantle its missile deterrent, while accepting
Saudi and American domination of the region.
These mandates were an obvious non-starter -- what
sovereign nation voluntarily accepts puppet status? In fact, Pompeo admitted that he didn't
expect Iran to surrender, but instead hoped for a popular revolution. In recently stating that
the administration would negotiate without preconditions, he added that Washington expected
Iran to act like "a normal nation," meaning behaving just as he'd demanded last year. (Notably,
there was no offer for America to act like a normal country.)
Pompeo's demands look a bit like the ultimatum to Serbia in June 1914 after a nationalist
backed by Serbian military intelligence assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne.
The Austrians set only 10, rather than 12, requirements, but they also were intended to be
rejected. Vienna explained to its ally Germany that "the possibility of its acceptance is
practically excluded."
Once it became evident that no one would willingly back down and conflict was likely,
Germany's Kaiser and Russia's Tsar tried to halt the rush to war. However, they found
themselves hemmed in by the war plans created by their nominal subordinates. With
Austria-Hungary mobilizing against Serbia, Russia had to act to protect the latter. Germany
then faced a two-front war. Thus, to aid its ally in Vienna, the Germans had to mobilize
quickly in an attempt to defeat France before Russia could put its massive army into the field.
No one had sufficient time for diplomacy.
However, cousins Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas did engage in a last minute "Willy-Nicky"
exchange of telegrams. Wilhelm warned Nicholas that general Russian mobilization would require
Germany to act, with war the result. In response, the tsar switched from general to partial
mobilization. But he was soon besieged by his top officials who insisted that the entire army
had to be called up.
Understanding that general mobilization meant war, the tsar observed: "Think of the
responsibility you are asking me to take! Think of the thousands and thousands of men who will
be sent to their deaths." But he gave in, approving mobilization on the evening of July 30.
Nicholas's concern was warranted. More than 1.7 million Russian soldiers, along with hundreds
of thousands of civilians, died in the conflict. The ensuing Russian Civil War was even more
deadly, indeed far more so for noncombatants, among them the tsar and his family.
Kaiser Wilhelm was equally at the mercy of the "France-first" Schlieffen Plan. To wait would
be to invite destruction between the French and Russians, so he approved German mobilization on
August 1. He predicted the war would lead to "endless misery," and so it did. In 1918, he was
forced to abdicate and he lived out his life in exile.
Pompeo, Bolton, and like-minded officials tried and failed to force another war last week.
Next time they may succeed in leaving the president with no practical choice but the one they
favor. In which case he will find himself starting the very conflict that he had declared
against.
Ongoing administration machinations -- exacerbated by the opportunity to manipulate a
president -- offer an important reminder as to the Founders' wisdom. Delegates to the
Constitutional Convention made clear their intention to break with monarchical practice,
minimizing the president's authority. Congress was assigned the powers to raise armies, decide
on the rules of war, issue letters of marque and reprisal, and ratify treaties. Most
importantly, the legislative branch alone could declare war.
As commander-in-chief, the president could defend against attack, but he could not even
order a retaliatory strike without congressional authority. Wrote James Madison to Thomas
Jefferson: "The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that
the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has
accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature." Delegate James
Wilson insisted that the Constitution was intended to "guard against" being hurried into war:
"It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such
distress, for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."
Most important, placing the war power with Congress ensured that the people would be heard.
Of course, even that is not enough today. Presidents have adeptly concocted "evidence" and
misled the public, such as during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.
They were living out what Hermann Goering, on trial at Nuremberg, described in a private
conversation to an American officer: "voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same way in any country." Tragically, he's probably right.
However, the Iraq debacle has resulted in greater skepticism of presidential claims. The
Trump administration's unsupported judgment that Iran was behind attacks on oil tankers was
greeted at home and abroad with a demand for more evidence. People were conscious of having
been repeatedly played by Washington and did not want a repeat. Many found the U.S. government
no more trustworthy than Iranian authorities, a humbling equivalence. And given the doubts
apparently voiced by Pentagon officials out of public view, such skepticism was
well-founded.
Last week, Donald Trump declared, "I want to get out of these endless wars." Unlike his
predecessors, the president apparently recognizes the temptation to sacrifice lives for
political gain. However, alone he will find it nearly impossible to face down the bipartisan
War Party. The best way to get out of endless wars is to not get in them in the first place.
And that requires changing personnel and respecting the constitutional limits established by
the nation's Founders.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global
Empire
Unfortunately, the President is attempting to walk a tight-rope between peace and the most
prominent funders of the GOP. Sheldon Adelson and his ilk are bent on the destruction of any
nation that stands in the way of Israeli expansion. And of course military contractors need
constant growth in tax-payer funding to support their margins and shareholder value. Hence
the blustering to appease the aforementioned and keep the bribes flowing, while backing down
to appease the base.
It would of course be in the interests of the base to oppose the bribe-taking to begin
with, but I assume that must be beyond their intellectual capacity. Or perhaps they're simply
in favor of it for ideological reasons.
We might as well be honest about it. All politicians over simplify, shade the truth, and
occasionally lie. But Trump's falsehoods are so continuous and extensive that there is no
reason to believe anything he says - everything needs to be validated against external
authorities - which is why he is so intent on tearing down all authorities that could
contradict him.
This is another in the long line of stories we are reading here (and in other places) that
Trump really doesn't want to get involved in a war but is being manipulated by Bolton, Pompeo
and the national security apparatus. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo. Even somebody as apparently dimwitted as Trump could not
possibly have failed to notice that they were warmongers. Indeed, Bolton is probably the most
extreme warmonger around: he has an extensive public record of advocating war with Iran for
about two decades now. I cannot believe that even Trump was unaware of this. And even if he
was, why hasn't he fired them? He doesn't need anybody's permission to do that. Let's get
real: Trump is every bit the warmonger as the people he hires. His statements to the contrary
are just more additions to his endless string of lies.
What's more, he has another way to avoid being cornered into starting a war. All he has to
do in that circumstance is acknowledge that the constitution doesn't grant him that authority
and toss the decision making to Congerss, where it legally belongs. But he has done nothing
that suggests he acknowledges that constitutional delegation of authority--even though it
could provide him a way out if he felt he needed one.
So, no. I don't believe for a minute that Trump wants to avoid war. Actions speak louder
than words, especially Trump's words.
You're falling for the "official" report that he called off the attack merely because 150
lives were at stake? Since when did he all of a sudden grow a conscious after the inexcusable
defense he gave for our irresponsible military and intelligence ventures? He even bypasses
Congress itself by his illegal presidential will to give weapons to the SAUDIS. The
tyrannical, radical, scourge of humanity tribal savages turned psychopathic oligarchs that is
the House of Saud.
Let's be perfectly honest with ourselves, Tucker Carson (a f*cking tv show host of all
people) convinced a US president to not commit to another illegal war. Not because lives were
at stake, heavens no. It's because going into a disastrous war with Iran would gauruntee his
chances of not getting re-elected.
The American government is a living parody with no hope of redemption.
The President's almost daily outpouring of gibberish gives one little confidence that the
notion of 'the truth' holds any importance for him or his crew. Who needs historical
precedents to establish a feeling of mistrust when even the simplest statements from the
White House are so often needlessly loaded with misapprehensions, distortions and out right
BS?
" He's right. But then why has Trump chosen to surround himself with advisers apparently so
at variance with his views?"
I get this, position. You present an incredibly tough front as you press an entirely
different goal. The problem is that the president has presented a very tough front himself.
So when it appears to to actually be tough, he comes across as "not so much". It even
provides opportunity to grand him fearful. In the scenario that I think is being played out
or made to appear to play out --- the good cop, the reasonable cop has to sound reasonable
all the time. He has to claim to be holding back the forces of evil that threaten to consume
the target. But the president has been leading the way as "bad cop" so in the mind the
targets, there are no good cops.
But in my view, all of this hoollla baaaloooey about Iran is a distraction to the real
threat
the border. And the only common ground to be had is to enforce the law. That is why I
think the president is weak. For all of the tough talk --- he folded -- again on immigration.
Pretending to get concessions that is by agreement already expected from Mexico is the such
naked weakness that launching hypersonic missiles obliterating Tehran would just give him
sandals.
Uhhhh, no. I don't regret my vote. And and I still want the wall built and the laws
enforced and the sovereignty of the US respected by guests and citizens alike,.
"... Lately, Trump and Pompeo and their ilk have been whining about not wanting war and claiming they want to negotiate, while doing nothing to make negotiation more possible. Iran has observed US actions and has rejected negotiating with an imperial power with a decades-long record of bad faith. Lacking any serious act of good faith by the US, does Iran have any other rational choice? Pompeo makes absolutely clear just how irrational, how dishonest, how implacable and untrustworthy the US is when he accuses Iran of ..."
"... The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification. Democrats should have objected forcefully and continuously long since. Democrats in the House should have put peace with Iran on the table as soon as they came into the majority. They should do it now. Democratic presidential candidates should join Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren in forthrightly opposing war with Iran ..."
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today. This assessment is based
on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation,
recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the
area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.
This is only the latest in a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran
and its surrogates against American and allied interests, and they should be understood in
the context of 40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US
government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible
investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike
Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media
ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo
and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and
international skepticism attests.
Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute
appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire
amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the
Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned
Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown.
First, what actually happened, as best we can tell five days later? In the early morning of
June 13, two unrelated tankers were heading south out of the Strait of Hormuz, sailing in open
water in the Gulf of Oman, roughly 20 miles off the south coast of Iran. The tankers were most
likely outside Iran's territorial waters, but within Iran's contiguous zone as defined by the
UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea . At different times, some 30 miles apart, the two tankers were attacked
by weapons unknown, launched by parties unknown, for reasons unknown. The first reported
distress call was 6:12 a.m. local time. No one has yet claimed responsibility for either
attack. The crew of each tanker abandoned ship soon after the explosions and were rescued by
ships in the area, including Iranian naval vessels, who took the Front Altair crew to an
Iranian port.
Even this much was not certain in the early afternoon of June 13 when Mike Pompeo came to
the lectern at the State Department to deliver his verdict:
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today.
Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who
made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something
of an argument that began:
This assessment is based on intelligence .
He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence
assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out.
Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf.
They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share.
Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had
a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that
Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first
claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US
doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is
the first admission that the US had operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. After
intelligence, Pompeo continued:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used .
Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used
torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to
the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any
actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. He went on:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation
The "level of expertise needed" to carry out these attacks on a pair of sitting duck tankers
does not appear to be that great. Yes, the Iranian military probably has the expertise, as do
the militaries of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, or others with a stake
in provoking a crisis in the region. And those who lack the expertise still have the money with
which to hire expert surrogates. The number of credible suspects, known and unknown, with an
interest in doing harm to Iran is easily in double figures. Leading any serious list should be
the US. That's perfectly logical, so Pompeo tried to divert attention from the obvious:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping .
There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were,
they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six
examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack. The one example was the May 12, 2019,
attack on four ships at anchor in the deep water port of Fujairah. Even the multinational
investigation organized by the UAE could not determine who did it. The UAE reported to the UN
Security Council that the perpetrator was likely some unnamed "state actor." The logical
suspects and their surrogates are the same as those for the most recent attack.
Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old
threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by
the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an
unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But
he's not done with the disinformation exercise:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no
proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high
degree of sophistication.
The whole proxy group thing is redundant, covered by "the level of expertise needed"
mentioned earlier. Pompeo doesn't name any proxy group here, he doesn't explain how he could
know there's no proxy group that could carry out such an attack, and he just throws word
garbage at the wall and hopes something sticks that will make you believe – no evidence
necessary – that Iran is evil beyond redemption:
Taken as a whole, these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace
and security, a blatant assault on the freedom of navigation, and an unacceptable campaign of
escalating tension by Iran.
The attacks in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan have all been provoked by the US and its
allies. The US has long been a clear threat to international peace and security, except when
the US was actually trashing peace and security, as it did in Iraq, as it seems to want to do
in Iran. There is, indeed, "an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension," but it's a
campaign by the US. The current phase began when the Trump administration pulled out of the
multinational nuclear deal with Iran. The US wages economic warfare on Iran even though Iran
continues to abide by the Trump-trashed treaty. All the other signatories and inspectors
confirm that Iran has abided by the agreement. But Iran is approaching a point of violation,
which it has been warning about for some time. The other signatories allow the US to bully them
into enforcing US sanctions at their own cost against a country in compliance with its
promises. China, Russia, France, GB, Germany, and the EU are all craven in the face of US
threats. That's what the US wants from Iran.
Lately, Trump and Pompeo and their ilk have been whining about not wanting war and claiming
they want to negotiate, while doing nothing to make negotiation more possible. Iran has
observed US actions and has rejected negotiating with an imperial power with a decades-long
record of bad faith. Lacking any serious act of good faith by the US, does Iran have any other
rational choice? Pompeo makes absolutely clear just how irrational, how dishonest, how
implacable and untrustworthy the US is when he accuses Iran of:
40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
This is Big Lie country. Forty years ago, the Iranians committed their original sin –
they overthrew one of the world's most brutal dictatorships, imposed on them by the US. Then
they took Americans hostage, and the US has been playing the victim ever since, out of all
proportion to reality or justice. But the Pompeos of this world still milk it for all it's
worth. What about "unprovoked aggression," who does that? The US list is long and criminal,
including its support of Saddam Hussein's war of aggression against Iran. Iran's list of
"unprovoked aggressions" is pretty much zero, unless you go back to the Persian Empire. No
wonder Pompeo took no question on his statement. The Big Lie is supposed to be enough.
The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification. Democrats should have
objected forcefully and continuously long since. Democrats in the House should have put peace
with Iran on the table as soon as they came into the majority. They should do it now.
Democratic presidential candidates should join Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren in
forthrightly opposing war with Iran. Leading a huge public outcry may not keep the president
from lying us into war with Iran any more than it kept the president from lying us into war
with Iraq. But an absence of outcry will just make it easier for this rogue nation to commit a
whole new set of war crimes.
Intellectually, the case for normal relations with Iran is easy. There is literally no good
reason to maintain hostility, not even the possibility, remote as it is, of an Iranian nuclear
weapon (especially now that Trump is helping the Saudis go nuclear). But politically, the case
for normal relations with Iran is hard, especially because forty years of propaganda demonizing
Iran has deep roots. To make a sane case on Iran takes real courage: one has to speak truth to
a nation that believes its lies to itself.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism,
and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from
Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an
Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. This article was first
published in Reader Supported
News . Read
other articles by William .
"... The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that " the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo). ..."
"... Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy. ..."
While the United States prepared a new escalation of tension in the Middle East by accusing
Iran of attacking petrol tankers in the Gulf of Oman, Italian vice-Prime Minister Matteo
Salvini met with one of the artisans of this strategy in Washington, Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, assuring him that " Italy wants to regain its place as the major partner on the
European continent of the greatest Western democracy ". Thereby he has allied Italy with the
operation launched by Washington.
The " Gulf of Oman affair " , a casus belli against Iran, is a carbon copy of the " Gulf of
Tonkin affair " of 4 August 1964, itself used as a casus belli to bomb North Vietnam, which was
accused of having attacked a US torpedo boat (an accusation which was later proved to be
false).
Today, a video released by Washington shows the crew of an alleged Iranian patrol boat
removing an unexploded mine from the hull of a petrol tanker in order to conceal its origin
(because the mine would allegedly have borne the inscription " Made in Iran ").
With this " proof " - a veritable insult to our intelligence - Washington is attempting to
camouflage the goal of the operation. It is part of the strategy aimed at controlling the world
reserves of oil and natural gas and their energy corridors [ 1 ]. It is no coincidence if Iran and
Iraq are in US crosshairs. Their total oil reserves are greater than those of Saudi Arabia, and
five times greater than those of the United States. Iranian reserves of natural gas are
approximately 2.5 times those of the USA. Venezuela finds itself targeted by the USA for the
same reason, since it is the country which owns the greatest oil reserves in the world.
The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting
to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that "
the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that
the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including
for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other
European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo).
Low-cost Iranian natural gas might also have reached Europe by way of a pipeline crossing
Iraq and Syria. But the project, launched in 2011, was destroyed by the USA/NATO operation to
demolish the Syrian state.
Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be
distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South
Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of
construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union
itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy.
In fact it was the reproduction of North Stream which continued, making Germany the centre
of triage for Russian gas.. Then, on the basis of the " USA/EU strategic cooperation in the
energy field " agreement stipulated in July 2018, US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to
the EU tripled. The triage centre was in Poland, from which was distributed the " Freedom Gas "
which also arrived in Ukraine.
Washington's objective is strategic – to hurt Russia by replacing Russian gas in
Europe with US gas. But we have no guarantees, neither on the price, nor on the time-scale for
US gas extracted from the bituminous shale by the technique known as fracking (hydraulic
fracturation), which is disastrous for the environment.
So what does Matteo Salvini have to say about all that? When he arrived in the " greatest
democracy in the Western world ", he proudly declared - " I am part of a government which in
Europe is no longer satisfied with breadcrumbs ".
"... His problem has always been a lack of focus, vision and discipline. He may be generally against stupid wars, but like Obama he doesn't have the experience in dealing with the establishment or the strategic knowledge to push back against what can seem like very strong, common sense arguments in favor of intervention. ..."
Rand Paul: Trump's Antiwar Counterweight The president called off airstrikes against Iran, and we have the Kentucky senator
and Tucker Carlson to thank.•
The United States almost
started a war with Iran only for President Donald Trump to change his mind at the last minute. Reports
indicate that the usual suspect, National Security Adviser John Bolton, was the main advocate for airstrikes, with the backing
of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and CIA head Gina Haspel, as well as encouragement from Senate war hawks Lindsey Graham and
Tom Cotton . Earlier on Thursday,
responding to news that Iran had reportedly downed an unmanned American drone, Trump
said , "Look, I said I want to get
out of these endless wars, I campaigned on that, I want to get out." Trump's cautiousness seemed as much a response to the Washington
chorus crying for military action as the event itself. More importantly, if the swamp wants war -- who has the president's back in
pushing peace?
This might be the most important question in American politics right now. Advertisement TAC 's Barbara Boland
reported in early June that the purpose of wedging the
now-outgoing
Patrick Shanahan into his acting defense secretary position was to put Bolton at the top of the foreign policy food chain (the incoming
Mark Esper could
fill a similar role). "He's likely to default to whatever Pompeo or Bolton wants," retired U.S. Army colonel and defense analyst
Douglas Macgregor said of Shanahan. "Pompeo and Bolton have agendas. They're not Trump's, but in the absence of strong leadership,
Shanahan is unlikely to put up much resistance." In mid-June, Pompeo blamed
alleged attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf
of Oman on Iran.
TAC
noted that Pompeo "did not cite specific evidence as to why the U.S. believes Iran, or its proxies, are responsible for the attacks."
One oil tanker owner said the
U.S. account
was wrong . Some
wondered whether
this could be another Gulf of Tonkin incident. Despite
claiming to not want
a military confrontation since joining the Trump administration, it's no secret that
Pompeo and
Bolton
have
wanted
war with Iran
for
some time .
Luckily -- as the world was reminded Thursday night -- one person who says he doesn't want war happens to be their boss. "I'm not
somebody that wants to go in to war, because war hurts economies, war kills people most importantly -- by far most importantly,"
Trump told
Fox News in mid-May when asked about Iran. The
likely death toll was reportedly
also a major factor in why the president called off airstrikes Thursday night.
Trump appears to understand the hawkish nature of the Washington foreign policy establishment that surrounds him. "Don't kid yourself,
you do have a military industrial complex. They do like war," Trump told Fox News. "I say, 'I want to bring our troops back home,'
the place went crazy . You have people here in Washington they never want to leave, they always want to fight." "No, I don't want
to fight," Trump added.
Trump's impulses, if not always his policy actions, are generally anti-war. Unfortunately, most in his immediate orbit do not
share those inclinations, with unrepentant Iraq war cheerleader Bolton topping the list. But as Bolton's influence reportedly
grows , who is
the only person the president talks to who shares his more restrained "America First" foreign policy vision?
"While Trump tolerates his hawkish advisers, the [Trump] aide added, he shares a real bond with Paul," Politico reported in August. "He
actually at gut level has the same instincts as Rand Paul," the White House aide reportedly said. (I
covered Politico
's revelations at the time for TAC. )
Politico noted, "Trump has stopped short of calling for regime change [in Iran] even though Secretary of State Mike Pompeo,
Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and Bolton support it, aligning with Paul instead, according to a GOP foreign policy expert in
frequent contact with the White House." "'Rand Paul has persuaded the president that we are not for regime change in Iran,' this
person said, because adopting that position would instigate another war in the Middle East," Politico reported.
That was 10 months ago. Today, in addition to almost bombing Iran on Thursday, the saber rattling and accusations are ratcheting
up along with the troop
deployments
, no doubt making Pompeo and Bolton happy and likely reflecting their handiwork. But despite these moves, Trump's gut still seems
to be closer to Paul's realism than what Republican hawks seek. Politico reported on May 20, "The
president has fashioned himself far more in the mold of Paul than the hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who was shocked by Trump's
plans to pull out of Syria and only was able to convince Trump to leave a small force in the country."
Politico further noted: "Trump's hiring of John Bolton as national security adviser may have changed the approach inside
the White House, but Trump's dovish core hasn't changed, senators said. Perhaps that can't prevent conflict with Iran if it strikes
first, but they said they were confident that Trump's aggressive posture is far more about a Trumpian brand of diplomacy than it
is about marching to war." Let's hope. Amid the constant tug-of-war for Trump's favor between his hawkish advisers and his realist
champion s , the president still hasn't launched a war against Iran or anyone else. But Trump will continue to need sound minds and
advice.
The Daily Beast
reports
that in addition to Paul's counsel, the president might also be getting the right encouragement from Tucker Carlson. "A source
familiar with the conversations told The Daily Beast that, in recent weeks, the Fox News host has privately advised Trump against
taking military action against Iran," The Daily Beast notes. "And a senior administration official said that during the president's
recent conversations with the Fox primetime host, Carlson has bashed the more 'hawkish members' of his administration." The president
obviously needs all the backup he can get. Because unless I'm missing something and sane foreign policy thinkers like Andrew Bacevich
or Jim Webb have had some secret correspondence with the president, there is almost no one else talking to Trump who wants to avoid
war.
Rand Paul's continuing role as unofficial adviser to the president might be his most important. Some might ask what
one man could possibly accomplish. Just ask
John Bolton
.
Do remind me, who appointed Bolton, Pompeo, Bloody Gina, Abrams and the rest of the unindicted war criminals?
Who could fire all of the above with a single stroke of the pen, for any reason or no reason at all?
Who continues to sputter and rant about Iran, a country that scrupulously complied with the JCPOA until the United States unilaterally
abrogated it?
Who continues to gleefully assist the Saudi and Emirati tyrants to commit genocide in Yemen?
Who blocked the sale of landmine removal equipment to Syria?
Trump, that's who. And that is only a partial list of his crimes. And now this [expletive deleted] wants a medal for not starting
another stupid war?
Even taking his words at face value, what he did was the equivalent of waving a loaded gun in front of someone's house and
threatening to shoot the occupants, then expecting to be praised because he was persuaded to not actually open fire.
The problem is that the alternatives (95% of the establishment hawks in either party) would wave the gun, threaten to shoot, then
actually pull the trigger.
Yeah, it's not great that Trump had to be persuaded out of military action, but praise the Lord that America has a president
who *can* be persuaded out of militarism (and routinely has).
There's a lot of perfect being the enemy of good going around on this issue.
The troika of evil (Bolton, Pompeo, Bloody Gina) are set on ever more hemming in Trump's options. Trump simply has to get rid
of these sociopaths or he will be forced into a war which will probably cost him both his reelection and legacy.
I cannot comprehend how people can be saying that Trump's instincts are against going to war. Yes, it's nice that Rand Paul gets
to talk to the President, and Tucker Carlson, too. But the people that trump hired as his policy advisors are Bolton and
Pompeo. Not only are they well known warmongers who have been on record for a long time as advocating regime change in Tehran,
Bolton is probably the most extreme of them all. He practically makes Lindsay Graham look like a pacifist. How can you say that
somebody who hired Bolton and Pompeo has anti-war instincts? It makes no sense. Even Trump's most ardent critics don't think Trump
is that stupid . You have to assume that he basically endorses their approach, even if at a tactical level he might occasionally
disagree.
A part of the answer is that these were the only candidates available who were twisted enough to support Trump withdrawing from
the Iran nuclear accord. Even within Israel, while Netanyahu was lying to Trump, Congress and Americans about Iran cheating on
the deal, Israeli intelligence agencies and the IDF supported the nuclear accord and had enough assets in Iran to confirm that
Iran was not cheating. According to the then head of the IDF, Gadi Eisenkot, the nuclear agreement simplified the defence of Israel
and prevented Iran from getting nukes for another 10-15 years. Trump, unfortunately, had campaigned on withdrawing from the deal,
and, in order to satisfy pressure from Netanyahu (and to the detriment of Israel's security), withdrew from it. My take is that
Trump fundamentally disagrees with Bolton and Pompeo. He demonstrated this by calling off the attack on Iran and he demonstrated
this by discounting the "threat" to the US by N Korea testing short-range missiles. My worry is that Bolton has positioned the
US armada in place to deliberately create a hot zone just waiting for a spark, and he has assets in place to create false-flag
attacks, some of which we have already seen (flying US drones over Iranian territory, placing bombs on oil tankers, or worse).
Maybe he had them there to create a deterrent effect and aid his strong arm negotiation tactics. Could also be it was just on
the basis of recommendations by others in the establishment.
His problem has always been a lack of focus, vision and discipline. He may be generally against stupid wars, but like Obama
he doesn't have the experience in dealing with the establishment or the strategic knowledge to push back against what can seem
like very strong, common sense arguments in favor of intervention.
"... Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of navigation" the facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water in them is either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be entirely within their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the straits after some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is something at least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians have stated that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no subterfuge or secret operations will be involved. ..."
"... Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and financial crisis of immense proportions around the world ..."
"... The amount of derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and created constantly is estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200 - $2,500 Trillion or $1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, who once said "a billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're talking BIG MONEY!!} ..."
"... Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various elements of shadow banking, and speculation would collapse. Remember that total world production of and trade in actual products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps less than 1/31st the size of the Global Derivatives markets. ..."
The official story, as usual, is a bunch of hooey. Trump wouldn't bat an eye over the death
of 150 Iranians. In addition to the worries about losing an aircraft carrier: the military
high command probably let him know that the much vaunted, and outlandishly expensive, force
of F-35s, will quickly lose its effectiveness if exposed to probing by the high tech radars
the Russians have developed, and that are used in conjunction with at least the S-400
antiaircraft and antimissile defense system.
So the question is, if the stealth advantage of the F-35 is only good for a limited time,
is this particular geostrategic confrontation worth using up that particular asset??
Then there is the whole question of whether the Iranians would close the Straits of Hormuz
in response to a major air raid on their nuclear facilities; this leads to some much more
important issues.
Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of navigation" the
facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water in them is
either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be entirely within
their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the straits after
some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is something at
least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians have stated
that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no subterfuge or
secret operations will be involved.
Since nearly 30% of the World's oil moves through those straits cutting them off will
cause an immediate spike in oil prices. Prices of $100 - $300 a barrel would be reached
within a few days. If the Straits of Hormuz were closed for a longer period we could easily
see prices rise to $1,000 a barrel according to Goldman Sachs projections (see Escobar
article cited below).
Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and financial
crisis of immense proportions around the world . The financial and speculative house of
cards, that the ruling classes of the U.S.-led Finance Capital Bloc depends on for their
dominance of world capital and markets, would likely come tumbling down.
The amount of derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and
created constantly is estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200
- $2,500 Trillion or $1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett
Dirksen, who once said "a billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're
talking BIG MONEY!!} (See "World Derivatives Market Estimated As Big As $1.2 Quadrillion
Notional, as Banks Fight Efforts to Rein It In", March 26, 2013, Yves Smith, "Naked
Capitalism", at <
https://www.nakedcapitalism... >, and "Iran Goes for 'Maximum Counter-pressure' ",
June 21, 2019, Pepe Escobar, "Strategic Culture Foundation", at <
https://www.strategic-cultu... >, and "Global Derivatives: $1.5 Quadrillion Time
Bomb", Aug 24, 2015, Stephen Lendman, Global Research, at <
https://www.globalresearch.... >).
Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various elements of shadow banking, and
speculation would collapse. Remember that total world production of and trade in actual
products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps less than 1/31st the size of the
Global Derivatives markets.
All the world's elite capitalists, be they Western or Asian or from elsewhere, maintain
homes in numerous places. One reason for this is so they have somewhere to go, if they need
to flee from environmental and/or socioeconomic disaster and the resultant chaos in their
primary place of residence. As we move ever deeper into this extremely severe and ongoing
Crisis of Capitalism, these issues will continue to become more acute.
So we can rest assured that; in addition to the crazed war-mongers Bolton and Pompeo (and
their supporters and backers) whispering in Trump's ear to "go ahead and attack the
Iranians"; and in addition to the somewhat more sober counsel of General Dunford and other
members of the top military command; that titans of finance capital were undoubtedly on the
phone warning "Bone-Spur Don" that his digs in Manhattan and Florida might not be entirely
safe if the worst were to happen in response to a military strike. The absurd story of Don
worrying about 150 Iranians is so ludicrous that it did not even pass the smell test with the
corporate controlled media for very long.
"... Any US attack on Iran in these circumstances could be a violation of the United Nations Charter, which only allows the use of military force in self-defense after an armed attack or with Security Council approval. ..."
"... UN Security Council resolution 487 of 1981 called on Israel "urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards". Israel has been allowed to ignore it for nearly 40 years. In 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, open its nuclear facilities to inspection and place them under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. Israel still refuses to join or allow inspections. ..."
"... When the CIA-engineered coup toppled Dr. Mossadeq, reinstated the Shah and his secret police, and let the American oil companies in, it was the final straw for the Iranians. The British-American conspiracy backfired spectacularly 25 years later with the Islamic Revolution of 1978-9, the humiliating 444-day hostage crisis in the American embassy and a tragically botched rescue mission. What should have been a sharp lesson for Western meddlers became a festering sore. ..."
Any US attack on Iran in these circumstances could be a violation of the United Nations
Charter, which only allows the use of military force in self-defense after an armed attack or
with Security Council approval.
Let's remind ourselves of earlier US aggression and dishonesty during the Iran-Iraq war,
as recorded in Wikipedia:
In the course of escorts by the US Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air
Flight 655 on 3 July 1988, killing all 290 passengers and crew on board. The American
government claimed that Vincennes was in international waters at the time (which was later
proven to be untrue), that the Airbus A300 had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat,
and that Vincennes feared that she was under attack. The Iranians maintain that Vincennes
was in their own waters, and that the passenger jet was turning away and increasing
altitude after take-off. US Admiral William J. Crowe later admitted on Nightline that
Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles. At the time of
the attack, Admiral Crowe claimed that the Iranian plane did not identify itself and sent
no response to warning signals he had sent. In 1996, the United States expressed their
regret for the event and the civilian deaths it caused.
Trump now wants to impose further crippling sanctions on Iran and her people while the
UK's Foreign Office minister Andrew Murrison has just been to Tehran calling for "urgent
de-escalation" and cheekily criticising Iran's "regional conduct" and its threat to stop
complying with the nuclear deal, which the US recklessly abandoned but the UK remains
committed to.
Good news about Murrison, though. A medical man, he voted against the Iraq war but as a
Navy reservist was called up to do a 6 month tour of duty there. Perhaps Murrison should go
see Trump and ask:
Why is he not more concerned about Israel's nuclear arsenal and the mental state of the
Israeli regime, which are the real threat to the region and beyond?
Why isn't he slapping sanctions on Israel for its refusal to sign up to the NPT or
engage constructively on the issue of its nuclear and other WMD programmes, not to mention
its repeated defiance of international and humanitarian laws in the Holy Land?
Trump meanwhile has signed an executive order targeting Iran's leadership with
hard-hitting new sanctions supposedly needed to deny their development of nuclear weapons.
"Never can Iran have a nuclear weapon," Trump has decreed. He added: "We will continue to
increased pressure on Tehran until the regime abandons its dangerous activities and its
asperations, including the pursuit of nuclear weapons, increased enrichment of uranium,
development of ballistic missiles, engagement and support for terrorism, fuelling of foreign
conflicts and belligerent acts...." Achingly funny. Who else could all that apply to, I
wonder? Exactly. The Bully-Boy-in-chief himself and his best buddies in Tel Aviv.
Sowing the seeds of hatred
We have conveniently short memories when it comes to our abominable conduct towards the
Iranians in 1951-53 when a previous Conservative government, in cahoots with the USA, snuffed
out Iran's fledgling democracy and reinstated a cruel dictator, the Shah. This eventually
brought about the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and created the deep distrust between Iran and
the West. Is it not shameful that the present Conservative government is spoiling for another
fight? Shouldn't the Foreign Office now focus on exerting influence through trade and
co-operation?
The Iranian regime, like many others, may not be entirely to our liking but nor was Dr
Mossadeq's democracy 65 years ago. Besides, what threat is Iran to Britain? And why are we
allowing ourselves to be driven by America's mindless hatred?
When new recruits join British Petroleum (BP) they are fed romantic tales about how the
company came into being. William Knox D'Arcy, a Devon man, studied law and made a fortune
from the Mount Morgan gold-mining operations in 1880s Australia. Returning to England he
agreed to fund a search for oil and minerals in Persia and began negotiations with the
Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar in 1901. A sixty year concession gave D'Arcy the oil rights to the
entire country except for five provinces in the north. The Persian government would receive
16% of the oil company's annual profits.
Mozzafar ad-Din was naive in business matters and unprepared for kingship when the time
came. He borrowed heavily from the Russians and in order to pay off the debt he signed away
control of many Persian industries and markets to foreigners. The deal D'Arcy cut was too
sharp by far and would eventually lead to trouble.
He sent an exploration team headed by geologist George B Reynolds. In 1903 a company was
formed and D'Arcy had to spend much of his fortune to cover the costs. Further financial
support came from Glasgow-based Burmah Oil in return for a large share of the stock.
Drilling in southern Persia at Shardin continued until 1907 when the search was switched
to Masjid-i-Souleiman. By 1908 D'Arcy was almost bankrupt. Reynolds received a last-chance
instruction: "Drill to 1,600 feet and give up". On 26 May at 1,180 feet he struck oil.
It was indeed a triumph of guts and determination. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was soon
up and running and in 1911 completed a pipeline from the oilfield to its new refinery at
Abadan. But the company was in trouble again by 1914. The golden age of motoring hadn't yet
arrived and the industrial oil markets were sewn up by American and European interests. The
sulphurous stench of the Persian oil, even after refining, ruled it out for domestic use, so
D'Arcy had a marketing problem.
Luckily Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, was an enthusiast for oil and
wanted to convert the British fleet from coal especially now that a reliable oil source was
secured. He famously told Parliament: "Look out upon the wide expanse of the oil regions of
the world!" Only the British-owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, he said, could protect British
interests. His resolution passed and the British Government took a major shareholding in the
company just in time, for World War One began a few weeks later.
During the war the British government seized the assets of a German company calling itself
British Petroleum for the purpose of marketing its products in Britain. Anglo-Persian
acquired the assets from the Public Trustee complete with a ready-made distribution network
and an abundance of depots, railway tank wagons, road vehicles, barges and so forth. This
enabled Anglo-Persian to rapidly expand sales in petroleum-hungry Britain and Europe after
the war.
In the inter-war years Anglo-Persian profited handsomely from paying the Iranians a
miserly 16%, and an increasingly angry Persia tried to renegotiate terms. Getting nowhere,
they cancelled the D'Arcy agreement and the matter ended up at the Court of International
Justice at The Hague. A new agreement in 1933 provided Anglo-Persian with a fresh 60-year
concession but on a smaller area. The terms were an improvement for the Persians but still
didn't amount to a square deal.
In 1935 Iran formally replaced Persia as the country's official name internationally and
Anglo-Persian changed to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. By 1950 Abadan was the biggest oil
refinery in the world and Britain, with its 51% holding, had affectively colonised part of
southern Iran.
Iran's small share of the profits became a big issue and so did the treatment of its oil
workers. 6,000 withdrew their labour in 1946 and the strike was violently put down with 200
dead or injured. In 1951 Anglo-Iranian declared £40 million profit after tax but handed
Iran only £7 million. Meanwhile Arabian American Oil was sharing profits with the
Saudis on a 50/50 basis. Calls for nationalisation were mounting.
As a result of the Persian Constitutional Revolution the first Majlis (parliament) was
established in 1906 and the country became a constitutional monarchy with high hopes. By
mid-century Iran not unreasonably wanted economic and political independence and an end to
poverty. In March 1951 its Majlis and Senate voted to nationalise Anglo-Iranian, which had
controlled Iran's oil industry since 1913 under terms disadvantageous to Iran. Respected
social reformer Dr Mohammad Mossadeq was named prime minister the following month by a 79 to
12 majority. On 1 May Mossadeq carried out his government's wishes, cancelling
Anglo-Iranian's oil concession due to expire in 1993 and expropriating its assets.
His explanation, given in a speech in June 1951 (M. Fateh, Panjah Sal-e Naft-e Iran
, p. 525), ran as follows...
"Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries have yielded no results this far.
With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and
backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of
the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means
of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has
ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.
"The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company
should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization
law provides that 25% of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all the legitimate
claims of the company for compensation It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel
the foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is
this allegation absurd; it is utter invention "
For this he would eventually be removed in a coup by MI5 and the CIA, imprisoned for 3
years then put under house arrest until his death.
Britain, with regime change in mind, orchestrated a world-wide boycott of Iranian oil,
froze Iran's sterling assets and threatened legal action against anyone purchasing oil
produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. It even considered invading. The
Iranian economy was soon in ruins.... sounds familiar, doesn't it? Attempts by the Shah to
replace Mossadeq failed and he returned with more power, but his coalition was slowly
crumbling under the hardships imposed by the British blockade.
At first America was reluctant to join Britain's destructive game but Churchill let it be
known that Mossadeq was turning communist and pushing Iran into Russia's arms at a time when
Cold War anxiety was high. It was enough to bring America's new president, Eisenhower, on
board and plotting with Britain to bring Mossadeq down.
Chief of the CIA's Near East and Africa division, Kermit Roosevelt Jr, arrived to play the
leading role in an ugly game of provocation, mayhem and deception. An elaborate campaign of
disinformation began, and the Shah signed two decrees, one dismissing Mossadeq and the other
nominating the CIA's choice, General Fazlollah Zahedi, as prime minister. These decrees were
written as dictated by Donald Wilbur the CIA architect of the plan
The Shah fled to Rome. When it was judged safe to do so he returned on 22 August 1953.
Mossadeq was arrested, tried, and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court.
He remarked
"My greatest sin is that I nationalised Iran's oil industry and discarded the system of
political and economic exploitation by the world's greatest empire With God's blessing and
the will of the people, I fought this savage and dreadful system of international espionage
and colonialism.
"I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle
East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests ."
His supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed. Zahedi's new government
soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium to restore the flow
of Iranian oil, awarding the US and Great Britain the lion's share - 40% going to
Anglo-Iranian. The consortium agreed to split profits on a 50-50 basis with Iran but, tricky
as ever, refused to open its books to Iranian auditors or allow Iranians to sit on the
board.
A grateful US massively funded the Shah's government, including his army and secret police
force, SAVAK. Anglo-Iranian changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954. Mossadeq died on 5
March 1967.
Apologise? Hell no Let's demonise Iran!
But the West's fun came to an abrupt halt with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and a great
British enterprise that started heroically and turned nasty ended in tears.
The US is still hated today for reimposing the Shah and his thugs and demolishing the
Iranians' democratic system of government, which the Revolution unfortunately didn't restore.
The US is widely known by Iranians as Big Satan and its regional handmaiden Israel
rejoices in the name Little Satan . Britain, as the instigator and junior partner in
the sordid affair, is similarly despised.
Moreover, Iran harbours great resentment at the way the West, especially the US, helped
Iraq develop its armed forces and chemical weapons arsenal, and how the international
community failed to punish Iraq for its use of those weapons against Iran in the Iran-Iraq
war. The US, and eventually Britain, leaned strongly towards Saddam in that conflict and the
alliance enabled Saddam to more easily acquire or develop forbidden chemical and biological
weapons. At least 100,000 Iranians fell victim to them.
"The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into
the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and
biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against
the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass
destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill
his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information
to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents.
The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did
not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England,
France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology."
While Iranian casualties were at their highest as a result of US chemical and biological
war crimes Trump was busy acquiring the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Trump
Castle , his Taj-Mahal casino, the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan and was
refitting his super-yacht Trump Princess . What does he know, understand or care about
Iran?
On the British side Foreign Secretary Jaremy Hunt was messing about at Oxford University;
and the front-runner to fill our Prime Minister vacancy, Boris Johnson, former Foreign
Secretary, was similarly at Oxford carousing with fellow Old Etonians at the Bullingdon Club.
What do they know or care?
Which brings us to today Why are we hearing nonstop sabre-rattling against Iran when we
should be extending the hand of reconciliation and friendship? And why are these clueless
leaders demonising Iran instead of righting the wrongs? Because the political establishment
is still smarting. And they are the new-generation imperialists, the political spawn of those
Dr Mossadeq and many others struggled against. They haven't learned from the past, and they
won't lift their eyes to a better future.
It's so depressing.
Economic sanctions: are they moral, or even legal?
The US and UK have led the charge on oil sanctions and other measures to make life hell
for Iranians. But are they on safe legal ground?
The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) in a statement on 26 November
2011, said they were deeply concerned about the threats against Iran by Israel, the United
States, and the United Kingdom. Referring to a report by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, IADL stated that those threats were unacceptable and dangerous not only for all the
region but for the whole of humanity, and that Article 2.4 of the UN Charter forbids not only
use of force but also the threat of force in international relations. The right of defence
does not include pre-emptive strikes.
The IADL also pointed out that while Israel was quick to denounce the possible possession
of nuclear weapons by others, it had illegally possessed nuclear weapons for many years. The
danger to world peace was so great as to require the global eradication of all nuclear
weapons, and to immediately declare the Middle East a nuclear free zone and a zone free of
all weapons of mass destruction, as required by UN Security Council resolution 687.
Furthermore, Article 33 states that "the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which
is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of
all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial
settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means..." Economic
'terror' tactics such as the vicious sanctions deployed by the US, UK and their allies
– and the similar measures used by Britain and America in the 1950s to bring down the
government of Dr Mossadeq and reinstate the Shah – are simply not part of the approved
toolkit.
Remember the context
UN Security Council resolution 487 of 1981 called on Israel "urgently to place its nuclear
facilities under IAEA safeguards". Israel has been allowed to ignore it for nearly 40 years.
In 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, open its nuclear
facilities to inspection and place them under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. Israel still
refuses to join or allow inspections.
The Zionist regime is reckoned by some to have up to 400 nuclear warheads at its disposal.
It is the only state in the region that is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Iran
is). It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. As regards
biological and chemical weapons, Israel has not signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons
Convention. It has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.
In early 2012 the US intelligence community was saying that Iran hadn't got an active
nuclear weapons programme, and Israeli intelligence agreed. The Director of the National
Intelligence Agency, James Clapper, reported: "We assess Iran is keeping open the option to
develop nuclear weapons We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build
nuclear weapons..."
So the continual focus on Iran has been a deliberate distraction. We repaid Iranian
co-operation in D'Arcy's oil venture with corporate greed and diplomatic double-cross.
America and Britain are still smarting from the time when Iran democratically elected Dr.
Mossadeq, who sensibly nationalized her vast oil resources. Up till then the grasping British
were raking in far more profit from Iranian oil than the Iranians themselves.
Back in the 1920s the US State Department had described the oil deposits in the Middle
East as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in
world history". Ever since, its designs on Iraq and Iran have been plain to see and it is
still ready to pounce on every opportunity.
When the CIA-engineered coup toppled Dr. Mossadeq, reinstated the Shah and his secret
police, and let the American oil companies in, it was the final straw for the Iranians. The
British-American conspiracy backfired spectacularly 25 years later with the Islamic
Revolution of 1978-9, the humiliating 444-day hostage crisis in the American embassy and a
tragically botched rescue mission. What should have been a sharp lesson for Western meddlers
became a festering sore.
The quest for the energy prize is not over. But it is no longer just about oil. Zionist
stooges in controlling positions in the West's corridors of power are pledged to ensure
Israel remains the only nuclear power in the Middle East and continues to dominate the region
militarily. And they are willing to spill Christian blood and spend Christian treasure in
that cause.
US National Security Adviser John Bolton, recipient of the Defender of Israel Award last
year and the Guardian of Zion Award the year before, is one such super-stooge. His stupefying
remark: "No-one has granted Iran a hunting licence in the Middle East" typifies the arrogance
of his ilk.
Stuart
Littlewood worked on jet fighters in the RAF. Various sales and marketing management
positions in manufacturing, oil and electronics. Senior associate with several industrial
marketing consultancies. Graduate Member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing (MInstM). BA
Hons Psychology, University of Exeter.
"... Nobody at the Pentagon of any consequence. This is a massive opportunity for the president to do what he seems to be insinuating he wants to do, and that is to say to have himself be the only person making any decision in the world, but it's also because of his disingenuousness, his narcissism, his ego and the very fact that he contends that he's in control for this bureaucracy, this massive imperial bureaucracy, to take over. ..."
"... So the only conclusion I can come to is that Donald Trump is an absolute genius -- you will excuse me if I don't arrive at that conclusion -- or he's an inexperienced, narcissistic, egotistical man who's going to get in big trouble sooner or later, if he's not already. ..."
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Well, John Bolton stands first and foremost. I'm told right
now that with the lack of leadership at the Pentagon, Bolton treats the Pentagon as if it were
his vassal state. I'm told that Mike Pompeo is pretty much the same way. Let's look at the
strategic genius we have dealing with Iran right here. Mike Pompeo, a former Army Captain. Wow,
there's a strategic genius for you. Tom Cotton, former Army Captain. Wow, there's another
strategic genius for you.
Nobody at the Pentagon of any consequence. This is a massive opportunity for the
president to do what he seems to be insinuating he wants to do, and that is to say to have
himself be the only person making any decision in the world, but it's also because of his
disingenuousness, his narcissism, his ego and the very fact that he contends that he's in
control for this bureaucracy, this massive imperial bureaucracy, to take over.
I've studied every president since Harry Truman, studied the decision-making process of
every one of them. I've been up close and personal with four of those presidents'
decision-making processes. Some of them are more competent, some of them are very incompetent
depending on the particular decision. But across the board, none of them work like this
administration. Not a single one of them even remotely resembles this administration. So
the only conclusion I can come to is that Donald Trump is an absolute genius -- you will excuse
me if I don't arrive at that conclusion -- or he's an inexperienced, narcissistic, egotistical
man who's going to get in big trouble sooner or later, if he's not already.
GREG WILPERT And what about the other allies of the United States? What role are they
playing? I'm particularly thinking, of course, of Saudi Arabia and Israel.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Yes. I think Mike Pompeo went to Riyadh. Others have been
dispatched -- Bolton. And they're saying sorry, we told you it was coming. But standby, it will
come. I think we have outside Washington some really powerful figures pushing for this too.
Bibi Netanyahu, Mohammad bin Salman, and maybe even Mohammed bin Zayed in the Emirates, all
want bombs to fall on Iran. I don't think they want an invasion, but that shows how little they
know about strategy because if bombs fall on Iran, here's what will happen. No matter how
precise, how around-the-clock, how devastating, no matter where they're dropped -- on the
nuclear complex, on the IRGC, on the Quds force, wherever they might be dropped.
All those bombs will do besides destroying infrastructure and killing people, all they will
do is force the Iranian people to coalesce around this very, very bad government, which they
aren't right now. They're finding it corrupter and corrupter. And so, they are as against their
government as they've ever been, as a bloc, all echelons of Iranian society, but we will force
them together with those bombs and they'll stand with their government. The second thing they
will do is go right back to North Korea, which they did when I was in government. They'll learn
more about going underground. They will go underground. They'll build a nuclear weapon. They'll
test it and then they'll say, okay, now come get us. And we'll do the same thing we're doing
with North Korea right now and they know that we will not invade. So what do we do after we've
dropped the bombs? We figure all this out real quickly and we invade. And invasion of Iran --
you heard it here -- is a disaster in the making.
GREG WILPERT Now, Iran says that it would be willing to negotiate if first the sanctions are
lifted. Earlier this year though, Mike Pompeo outlined twelve separate issues for negotiation
-- several of which go far beyond the issue of nuclear power; such as ending support for
Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen. Now, it looks like there's a complete impasse
basically between the two sides. Do you think there is any chance that this conflict could
still be worked out peacefully, given how far apart the two sides are?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON I don't want to dismiss it entirely because I think people like Bill
Burns and others who did some of the significant negotiating for President Obama that led to
the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement with Iran. I think that is still possible. I think there's
still places like Oman that would offer their good offices, like maybe Prime Minister Abe from
Japan or Sisi in Egypt. There are a lot of people out there who would offer their good offices
and might be able to affect some kind of beginning of talks. Here's the problem though. As long
as you have a thug like Mike Pompeo calling other world leaders "thugs," principally those in
Iran, and using that kind of language, and treating them the way we treat them, then there's no
respect being shown by the United States for the other party. Iran -- a 5,000-year-old
civilization. A country for a long-time homogeneous, 50-plus percent are Persian, 80 million
people, a vast country -- You've got to show that country some respect. You can't talk to them
the way Trump, Pompeo, and Bolton do. You can't disrespect them consistently like that and
expect them to ever come talk to you. So that has to stop, and I don't see it stopping anytime
soon -- let alone, taking on a more positive turn. And therefore, I don't see how we can
talk.
GREG WILPERT Okay. Well we're going to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Colonel
Larry Wilkerson, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College
of William and Mary. Thanks again, Larry, for having joined us today.
Thanks for this, I largely agree with Col. Wilkerson’s impression, and his comment
about disrespect, among other things.
It’s a minor detail, but I wonder on what he bases his view of the level of corruption
in the society there. Does he think it’s American-level corruption, or less, or more? The
type of nuance and detailed information that would be required to make that type of judgement
in my view is difficult to find in the West these days.
It’s unfortunate and telling in a way also that in the article RepubAnon mentions
above, the Middle East Monitor didn’t manage to get Khamenei’s name right
either.
Trump has finally gone full banana peel. Anyone who is able to stand up straight for five
minutes without falling over backward cannot still doubt that Trump is a dangerous lunatic,
so intellectually stunted, ignorant and narcissistic (constantly measuring the heat and
brightness of the spotlight he desperately craves, like a hypochondriac taking his
temperature and blood pressure every 10 minutes) and so easily teed up and maneuvered in this
grotesque Iran con by psychotic madmen/sycophants like Pompous & Bolton and
breathtakingly devious vipers like Bibi Satanyahu and Saudi butcher MSOB. It is plain as
doomsday.
Trump’s repudiation of the JCPOA has created an interesting situation. No country
should deal with the US unless the contents of the deal offered have prior approval from both
the House and the Senate.
Scott Ritter had a good interview with Chris Hedges detailing Pompeo’s ridiculous
preconditions. Iran should start setting their own.
As for who was responsible for the damage to the two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, I think
the market called BS on it. One filled with naptha, the other with kerosene/jet1… not
hard to make them go “BOOM”. I’m waiting for an LNG tanker to go up –
they have calorific equivalents close to low yield nuclear weapons.
They’ll learn more about going underground. They will go underground.
They’ll build a nuclear weapon. They’ll test it and then they’ll say,
okay, now come get us. And we’ll do the same thing we’re doing with North Korea
right now and they know that we will not invade. So what do we do after we’ve dropped
the bombs? We figure all this out real quickly and we invade. And invasion of Iran—
you heard it here— is a disaster in the making.
This is an interesting point that I must admit I hadn’t thought of before. It seems
obvious to anyone with even a modicum of military knowledge that an invasion of Iran would be
a gigantic and maybe impossible task, it would require an effort significantly larger than
the Vietnam War – almost certainly the largest mobilisation since WWII, and one with no
guarantee whatever of even limited success. When you read ‘insider’ articles on
the topic there is a general assumption that a war with Iran is something very different
– essentially, a stand off assault intended to cripple Iran through air strikes.
But it may well be that Bolton and his crazies (plus the Saudis and Israelis) are actually
playing a double game with the Pentagon. They are persuading them that all that’s
needed is a manageable air and naval war (which is comfortable ground for US military
strategists), while full well knowing that Iran is highly unlikely to collapse under that
sort of stress. Bit by bit, the US will be dragged into a ground war, one created by the
unstoppable momentum of a large scale air strike. This may well be the neocons actual
strategy.
Arms Dealers and Lobbyists Get Rich as Yemen Burns See the Top 4 U.S. contractors' profits explode, all while their
weapons have been used against civilian targets for years. •
June
25, 2019
And make no mistake: U.S. defense contractors and their lobbyists and supporters in government are getting rich in the process.
"Our role is not to make policy, our role is to comply with it," John Harris, CEO of defense contractor Raytheon International,
said
to CNBC in February. But his statement vastly understates the role that defense contractors and lobbyists play in Washington's
halls of power, where their influence on policy directly impacts their bottom lines. Since 2015, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates have waged war against Yemen, killing and injuring thousands of Yemeni civilians. An estimated
90,000 people have been killed, according
to one international tracker.
Nearly 90
coalition airstrikes have hit
homes , schools, markets,
hospitals, and mosques since 2015, according to Human Rights Watch. In 2018, the coalition bombed a wedding, killing 22 people, including
eight children. Another strike hit a
bus , killing at
least 26 children.
American-origin munitions produced by companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Raytheon were identified at
the site of over two dozen attacks throughout Yemen. Indeed, the United States is the single largest arms supplier to the Middle
East and has been for decades, according to a report by
the Congressional Research Service. From 2014 to 2018, the United States supplied 68 percent of Saudi Arabia's arms imports, 64 percent
of the UAE's imports, and 65 percent of Qatar's imports. Some of this weaponry was subsequently stolen or sold to
al-Qaeda linked groups in the Arabian Peninsula
, where they could be used against the U.S. military, according to
reports . The Saudi use of
U.S.-made jets, bombs, and missiles
against Yemeni civilian centers constitutes a war crime. It was an American laser-guided
MK-82 bomb that killed the children
on the bus; Raytheon's technology killed the 22 people attending the wedding in 2018 as well as a family traveling in their car;
and another American-made MK-82 bomb
ended the lives of at least 80 men, women, and children in a Yemeni marketplace in March 2016. Yet American defense contractors
continue to spend millions of dollars to lobby Washington to maintain the flow of arms to these countries.
"Companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, and other defense contractors see countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE as huge
potential markets," Stephen Miles, director of Win Without War , told
TAC . "They see them as massive opportunities to make a lot of money; that's why they're investing billions and billions of dollars.
This is a huge revenue stream to these companies." Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics have all highlighted business with Saudi
Arabia in their shareholder reports.
"Operations and maintenance have become a very profitable niche market for U.S. corporations,"
said Richard Aboulafia, a vice president at Teal Group. He added that defense contractors can make as much as 150 percent more profit
off of operations and maintenance than from the original arms sale. U.S. weapons supply
57 percent of the military aircraft used by the Royal
Saudi Air Force, and mechanics and technicians hired by American companies repair and maintain their fighter jets and helicopters.
In 2018 alone, the United States made $4.5 billion worth of arms deals to
Saudi Arabia and $1.2
billion to the United Arab
Emirates , a report by William Hartung and Christina Arabia found.
From the report
: "Lockheed Martin was involved in deals worth $25 billion; Boeing, $7.1 billion in deals; Raytheon, $5.5 billion in deals; Northrop
Grumman had one deal worth $2.5 billion; and BAE systems had a $1.3 billion deal." "Because of the nature of U.S. arms control law,
most of these sales have to get government approval, and we've absolutely seen lobbyists weighing in heavily on this," Miles said.
"The last time I saw the numbers, the arms industry had nearly 1,000 registered lobbyists.
They're not on the Hill lobbying Congress about how many schools we should open next year. They're lobbying for defense contractors.
The past 18 years of endless wars have been incredibly lucrative for the arms industry, and they have a vested industry in seeing
these wars continue, and not curtailing the cash cow that has been for them." The defense industry
spent $125 million on lobbying
in 2018. Of that, Boeing spent
$15 million on lobbyists, Lockheed Martin spent
$13.2 million , General Dynamics
$11.9 million , and Raytheon
$4.4 million ,
according to the Lobbying
Disclosure Act website.
Writes Ben Freeman:
According to a new report firms registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act have reported receiving more than $40 million
from Saudi Arabia in 2017 and 2018. Saudi lobbyists and public relations professionals have contacted Congress, the executive
branch, media outlets and think tanks more than 4,000 times. Much of this work has been focused on ensuring that sales of U.S.
arms to Saudi Arabia continue unabated and blocking congressional actions that would end U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition
in Yemen. Lobbyists, lawyers and public relations firms working for the Saudis have also reported doling out more than $4.5 million
in campaign contributions in the past two years, including at least $6,000 to Trump. In many cases, these contributions have gone
to members of Congress they've contacted regarding the Yemen war. In fact, some contributions have gone to members of Congress
on the exact same day they were contacted by Saudi lobbyists, and some were made to key members just before, and even on the day
of, important Yemen votes.
Over a dozen lobbying firms employed by defense contractors have also been working on behalf of the Saudi or Emiratis, efficiently
lobbying for both the arms buyers and sellers in one fell swoop .
One of these lobbying firms, the McKeon Group, led by former Republican congressman and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee
Howard McKeon, represents both Saudi Arabia and the American defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Orbital ATK,
MBDA, and L3 Technologies. Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman are the biggest suppliers of arms to Saudi Arabia. In 2018, the McKeon
Group took $1,697,000 from 10 defense
contractors " to, among
other objectives, continue the flow of arms to Saudi Arabia," reports National Memo. Freeman
details multiple examples where lobbyists working on behalf of the Saudis met with a senator's staff and then made a substantial
contribution to that senator's campaign within days of a key vote to keep the United States in the Yemen war.
American Defense International (ADI) represents the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia's coalition partner in the war against
Yemen, as well as several American
defense contractors, including General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, L3 Technologies, and General Atomics.
Not to be outdone by the McKeon Group, ADI's lobbyists have also aggressively pursued possible swing votes in the U.S. Senate
for the hefty sum of $45,000 a month, paid for by the
UAE . ADI lobbyists discussed
the "situation in Yemen" and the "Paveway sale to the UAE," the same bomb used in the deadly wedding strike, with the office of Senator
Martin Heinrich, a member of the Armed Services Committee, according to FARA
reports .
ADI's lobbyists also met
with Congressman Steve Scalise's legislative director to advise his office to vote against the congressional resolution on Yemen.
For their lobbying, Raytheon paid ADI
$120,000 in 2018. In addition to the
overt influence exercised by lobbyists for the defense industry, many former arms industry executives are embedded in influential
posts throughout the Trump administration: from former Airbus, Huntington Ingalls, and Raytheon lobbyist Charles Faulkner at the
State Department, who pushed Mike Pompeo
to support arms sales in the Yemen war ; to former Boeing executive and erstwhile head of the Department of Defense Patrick Shanahan;
to his interim replacement Mark Esper, secretary of the Army and another former lobbyist for Raytheon.
The war in Yemen has been good for American defense contractors' bottom lines. Since the conflict began, General Dynamics' stock
price has risen from about $135 to $169 per share, Raytheon's from about $108 to more than $180, and Boeing's from about $150 to
$360, according to In
These Times. Their analysis found that those four companies have had at least $30.1 billion in Saudi military contracts approved
by the State Department over the last 10 years. In April, President Donald Trump vetoed a resolution that would have ended American
support for the Saudi-UAE coalition war against Yemen. Such efforts have failed to meet the 60-vote veto-proof threshold needed in
the Senate. There are a few senators who didn't vote for the War Powers resolution "that will probably vote for the Raytheon sales,"
Brittany Benowitz, a lawyer and former adviser to a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told TAC. "I think you'll
continue to see horrific bombings and as the famine rages on, people will start to ask, 'Why are we a part of this war?' Unfortunately,
I don't think that will start to happen anytime soon." Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter.
Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC
Yes indeed, we are the #1 arms exporter and very proud about it. Meanwhile, Rubio, Pompeo, et. al. are also proud about how they
are finally clamping down on the nefarious arrangement that Venezuela and Cuba have to prop up their regimes.
Venezuela gives Cuba low cost oil and Cuba sends them about 25,000 doctors for free medical care to help prop up Maduro. Hmm
... sounds like one is exporting medical services in return for energy, pure, unabridged evil. Our second best export is misinformation
and lies.
I know, someone will give the State Dept line that the doctors are underpaid and the oil is below market price. The point is
that both countries export what they have more of in order to get what they need. This is the basics of any trade relationship.
Both countries are better off after the transaction and now both countries are suffering because of our benighted intervention.
I keep wondering when God is going to punish us for our appalling arrogance, pride, and our unwavering faith in our own righteousness.
God is certainly punishing me. I wish I was one of the blissfully ignorant.
The biggest business of America is war. The symptom of how all pervasive this has become is there is a new definition of defeat:
the only war that is lost, is one that ends. The new victory is now war without end.
If the Saudis have not yet routed the Houthis, I am doubt they ever will. Without invading the country and holding ground, I am
unclear of the point of constantly bombing.
The Houthis won their civil conflict, best allow them to constitute a government and deal with it.
The Saudis have invaded Yemen, but they and their mercenaries keep getting ambushed and ganked. The Yemeni tribes have a very
long and successful history of guerrilla warfare.
Admittedly, it's mostly the mercenaries, as the Saudis don't like a centralized military in particular and don't like fighting
opponents who can shoot back in general.
"Our role is not to make policy, our role is to comply with it," John Harris, CEO of defense contractor Raytheon International,
said to CNBC in February.
Yeah and Wells Fargo were just practicing "innovation" that the financial companies have told us they need to do.
The Republic is a total failure. It cares nothing for the Constitution the representatives are sworn to uphold and abide by. It's
all about the symbiosis of power in gov. and money in business. Those two factions exchange what they other needs to gain more
power and money at the expense of the taxpayers and countries abroad being destroyed. It's pretty simple if you ask 'cui bono'
and then follow the money. This time following the money may take the USA/world to thermo-nuclear war which psychos like Bolton,
Pompeo, Pence, Netanyahu, the MIC and all the other neo-cons want. Currently the war policy against Iran seems to be tied up in
Christian-Zionist eschatology to bring about the second coming of Jesus Christ. Does it get any more loony than this? Metaphysics
driving political and foreign policy is really a recipe for a disaster and may actually bring about loosing the Four Horseman
of the Apocalypse on the world, but that's OK I guess because Wash. sees the 'big picture.'
"... Should such a war really happen, the stakes would be very high, so there is every reason to assume that Iran's missiles would not only be equipped with conventional high explosive fragmentation warheads, but would also carry toxic agents and dirty bombs. ..."
"... even a handful of Tehran's missiles reaching critical infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region would be enough to cause devastation. ..."
"... On top of that, there are more questions than answers regarding the reliability of the antimissile and air defense systems that the Persian Gulf monarchies deployed to defend their hydrocarbon terminals and other oil and gas infrastructure. ..."
"... To solve the problem of Iran once and for all, the US would need to mount a large-scale ground operation, with the US Army invading the country. America would have to wipe out both regular Iranian forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, unseat the current leadership of Iran, and have a military presence in every major city for the next 10 to 15 years, keeping tight control over the entire country at the same time. ..."
Iran's downing of a US military surveillance drone last week predictably led to another
flare-up in tense relations between Tehran and Washington. What could be the implications of a
potential conflict between the two nations? Right after the Global Hawk UAV was shot down, the
New York Times reported that US President Donald Trump approved military strikes against Iran,
but then changed his mind.
Let's start by saying that the decision to launch a military operation against Iran (which
is what this is really about), including the specific time and place, would have to be taken by
a very small group of top US political and military officials. At such meetings, no leaks could
possibly occur by definition.
Now, let's take a look at some of the details. The difference between a 'strike' and an
'operation' is quite significant, at the very least in terms of duration, and forces and
equipment involved. It would be nice to know if the NYT actually meant a single airstrike or an
entire air operation.
Amusingly enough, the publication reported that the strikes were scheduled for early morning
to minimize the potential death toll among the Iranian military and civilians. It's worth
pointing out that the US has never cared about the number of victims either among the military
personnel or the civilian population of its adversaries.
Moreover, the purpose of any military conflict is to do as much damage to your enemy as
possible in terms of personnel, military hardware and other equipment. This is how the goals of
any armed conflict are achieved. Of course, it would be best if civilian losses are kept to a
minimum, but for the US it's more of a secondary rather than a primary objective.
The US Navy and Air Force traditionally strike before dawn with one purpose alone – to
avoid the antiaircraft artillery (both small and medium-caliber), as well as a number of air
defense systems with optical tracking, firing at them. Besides, a strike in the dark hours of
the day affects the morale of the enemy personnel.
Here we need to understand that Iran would instantly retaliate, and Tehran has no small
capabilities for that. In other words, it would be a full-scale war. For the US, it wouldn't
end with one surgical airstrike without consequences, like in Syria. And the US seems to have a
very vague idea on what a military victory over Iran would look like.
There is no doubt that a prolonged air campaign by the US will greatly undermine Iran's
military and economic potential and reduce the country to the likes of Afghanistan, completely
destroying its hydrocarbon production and exports industries.
To say how long such a campaign could last would be too much of a wild guess, but we have
the examples of Operation Desert Storm in 1991 when airstrikes lasted for 38 days, and
Yugoslavia in 1991 when the bombing continued for 78 days. So, theoretically, the US could bomb
Iran for, say, 100 days, wrecking the country's economy and infrastructure step by step.
However, the price the US would have to pay for starting such a military conflict may turn
out to be too high.
For instance, Iran can respond to US aggression by launching intermediate and shorter-range
ballistic missiles to target oil and gas fields and terminals in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait,
and the UAE.
Should such a war really happen, the stakes would be very high, so there is every reason to
assume that Iran's missiles would not only be equipped with conventional high explosive
fragmentation warheads, but would also carry toxic agents and dirty bombs.
Firstly, it should be pointed out that even though the capabilities of US intelligence
agencies are almost limitless, quite a few Iranian missile launching sites remain undiscovered.
Secondly, US air defense systems in the Persian Gulf, no matter how effective, would not shoot
down every last Iranian missile. And even a handful of Tehran's missiles reaching critical
infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region would be enough to cause devastation.
On top of that, there are more questions than answers regarding the reliability of the
antimissile and air defense systems that the Persian Gulf monarchies deployed to defend their
hydrocarbon terminals and other oil and gas infrastructure.
If such a scenario came true, that would bring inconceivable chaos to the global economy and
would immediately drive up oil prices to $200-250 per barrel – and that's the lowest
estimate. It is these implications that are most likely keeping the US from attacking Iran.
To solve the problem of Iran once and for all, the US would need to mount a large-scale
ground operation, with the US Army invading the country. America would have to wipe out both
regular Iranian forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, unseat the current leadership
of Iran, and have a military presence in every major city for the next 10 to 15 years, keeping
tight control over the entire country at the same time.
For the record, the US failed to do that even in Afghanistan, which is several times smaller
than Iran in terms of both territory and population. And almost 18 years of fighting later, the
US has achieved next to nothing.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
GREG WILPERT It's not clear what impact these new sanctions will have on Iran, but the sanctions
that have already been imposed since the US withdrew from the JCPOA last year have had a
serious effect on Iran's economy. According to oil industry analysts, Iranian oil exports have
dropped from 2.5 million barrels per day in April 2013, to about 300,000 barrels per day
currently. The latest sanctions come on the heels of heightened tensions. Last week, Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran of attacking two oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. Then
later that week, Iran downed an expensive US drone over the same strait saying that it had
entered Iranian airspace. President Trump later revealed that the US was about to retaliate
over the weekend with an airstrike against Iran, but Trump changed his mind in the last minute
and launched a cyber-attack against Iranian military facilities instead. Joining me now to
discuss the latest in the confrontation between the US and Iran is Colonel Larry Wilkerson. He
is former Chief of staff to the Secretary of State Colin Powell, and now a Distinguished
Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William and Mary. Thanks
for joining us again, Larry.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Good to be with you.
GREG WILPERT So let's start with the sanctions. As I said, it's far from clear whether these
latest sanctions mean anything, but the earlier sanctions are certainly having an effect on
Iran, shrinking its economy and causing shortages. Now Trump argued that he called off the
airstrike on Iran because he had been told that up to 150 people could have been killed, and
that this would have been a disproportionate response to shooting down their drone, but there
are reports that Iranians are having trouble accessing lifesaving medicines, such as for cancer
treatment. Now, what do you make of this rationale for calling off the airstrike but then at
the same time intensifying sanctions?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON There is no question that the sanctions we have on Iran -- and for
that matter on North Korea, and on Venezuela, perhaps even still do on Venezuela -- constitute
economic warfare. That's the reality that the world doesn't seem to want to address because the
United States is so powerful and that their economies and financial networks are so wrapped up
with us. That said, it's not like -- And the crassness of the United States with regard to
these sanctions was about saved by none other than Madeleine Albright best when she was
confronted with a number of Iraqi children who were dying as a result of the sanctions we had
on Saddam Hussein. And she simply said, well I thought it was worth it. Worth it -- to kill all
those children? The sanctions regimes we execute though, are a little bit more sophisticated, a
little bit more well-aimed, more precisely aimed these days.
I was very much associated with the ones on North Korea, ones on Iraq, the way we tried to
smarten them up and so forth. The ones on Iran I think are having a very meaningful impact in
terms of cutting down on Iran's ability to do everything that it does, including as you pointed
out to sell oil. But that said, if Saddam Hussein could evade the sanctions that were on him to
the extent that we now know he did, and we know from past experience how well the Kims evaded
sanctions in North Korea and invented ways to get around them -- criminal activity like
counterfeiting American hundred-dollar bills, for example. And other things that I know about
sanctions, I would say the Iranians would be able to survive these no matter how tight we think
we've made them. By and large, the Iranian government -- the Majlis, the judiciary, the
Ayatollahs, the Guardian Council, the IRGC, the Quds Force -- they don't care about the Iranian
people. That's one thing we ought to say more often and more frequently because it's true.
Corruption is so rife in Iran and all sanctions do is increase the money in the hands of
those who are corrupt, like the IRGC and the Quds Force. So despite all these statistics and
everything -- Look at oil, for example. ISIS, we now know, survived quite richly off its oil
sales and we know that Turkey was behind most of the facilitation of those oil sales. The same
thing is going to happen with Iran, so official statistics are really meaningless. That said,
the sanctions are biting, but I don't think they're ever going to bite to the extent that
someone's going to come forward like our Mr. Zarif and say, okay John. Okay Mike. Okay Donald.
We're ready to talk. It is just not gonna happen.
Even a so-called "surgical strike" on targets within Iran risks the Iranians closing the
straight of Hormuz and blocking all oil shipments– somewhere between 20%- 30% or
world's oil exports. World oil prices would skyrocket and the entire world's economy would be
in chaos. Trillion$ in derivatives would instantly be at risk. There is no way the US
military, or the Saudis can prevent this. I believe this is the real reason Trump supposedly
cancelled the planned retaliatory strike for Iran's shoot-down of our drone.
Iran knows that sanctions on Iraq during the 90's killed over 500,000 Iraqi children. Even
though Col. Wilkerson says Iran's leadership doesn't care about its people, they certainly
care more than the US does and won't be willing to sit on their hands and watch this happen.
They will resist with force if necessary and make the US and its subservient allies pay the
price.
@ jayc 57 US Hook says Iran knew what getting into when struck deal
Yes they did, and now they regret it.
In 2013 Ali Khamenei said: "Certainly, we are pessimistic about the Americans. We do not
trust them. We consider the government of the United States of America as an unreliable,
arrogant, illogical, and trespassing government,"
The JCPOA was not a unilateral deal between USA and Iran, it was a multilateral
deal
That's correct de jure, but not de facto. The US all by itself is leading the current
attack on Iran, despite what the other members might think. Iran has not gotten any
significant support from other JCPOA participants.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 24, 2019 5:10:10 PM |
66
The Trump administration's special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook...
______________________________________
Brian Hook is a "special" envoy in the sense that the "Special Olympics" are
special.
Tucker ,,,, you are kind of restoring what little faith i had left of the mainstream press
with this upload its not mutch and it has a long long way to go , but it is a start thank the
guy in the sky
I just upvoted a Tucker Carlson video. I am baffled. BTW, Jimmy Dore said TC's more
deserving of a Noble peace prize then Obama, who, of course, never should have had one in the
first place. They should be able to take them back, though it means that most of them should
be returned.
I just upvoted a Tucker Carlson video. I am baffled. BTW, Jimmy Dore said TC's more
deserving of a Noble peace prize then Obama, who, of course, never should have had one in the
first place. They should be able to take them back, though it means that most of them should
be returned.
Tucker i disagreed with u in past on many things but i genuinely am impressed with your
stance and your moral compass on wars and learning from the past.. kudos to u on this
one...it shows we can disagree on many policies yet still respect and support one another on
humanity. Glad u worked on Trump on that one.
No, Trump didn't become President last night. Last night was the culmination of two and a
half years of incredibly stupid foreign policy by a man who clearly doesn't know what he is
doing and us unfit to be the President. Obama left Trump with a situation where a wise
leader could have taken the deal endorsed by every other important nation on the planet and
created a detente with Iran. Instead, he handed policy over to the most beligarant war
hawks and gave them free reign to drive our country to the brink of a disastrous war. And
now we are supposed to congratulate Trump for failing to pull the trigger on the action
that every single step he had taken until now has been leading?
When you take the job of President of the United States, you don't get to be graded on a
curve. The fact that he didn't make the worst possible choice at the end of a long chain of
bad choices doesn't make him a good President.
"... It is utterly bizarre to hear people who believe Trump is unfit to lead seem disappointed that he isn't taking us to war. ..."
"... This is a crisis of his own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it. ..."
"... The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump is quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will change his mind after about the same amount of reflection. ..."
"... Yes, Iran dodged a bullet in this instance. So did our country. Maybe if Trump gets enough positive reinforcement from his last-second audible, he'll be less inclined to "cock and load" the American military in the future. For my part, I'm starting to think his "hawk" advisors are getting closer and closer to hitting pay dirt. By the way, who are his "dove" advisors? ..."
"... If anyone believes the reason Trump gave for calling off the strike, I refer them to his 10,000+ lies since he's been in office. My guess is he changed his mind watching Tucker. ..."
"... Trump staggers through his presidency like a pinball bouncing its way through the machine - first this side, then that side, then being flipped back up to the top by a comment he hears on Fox News to start it all over again. ..."
"... "It does not require Nostradamus-like skills to anticipate how the good cop, bad cop routine Trump appears to be trying with Bolton in particular could end in disaster." ..."
"... the entire U.S. foreign policy architecture remains hyper-busted. I.e., An Imperial President, a feckless Congress that has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, and Pentagon Brass who think that they swore an oath to be mindless automatons obeying the illegal orders of the Imperial President rather than being defenders of the Constitution. ..."
"... And Tucker Carlson aside, the MSM, sycophantic lapdog of the Pentagon, is still all in to the illegal and unconstitutional Warfare State con. ..."
No matter how laudable averting war is, the fact is that we would have never been in this
situation if Trump had not unilaterally abandoned the Iran deal. This is a crisis of his
own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it.
The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump is
quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will
change his mind after about the same amount of reflection.
I don't know. Maybe a wise president would not have appointed Bolton and Pompeo in the first
place. Nor would a wise president have had a $130 million drone flying over Iranian air space
(or right on its border).
Yes, Iran dodged a bullet in this instance. So did our country. Maybe if Trump gets
enough positive reinforcement from his last-second audible, he'll be less inclined to "cock
and load" the American military in the future. For my part, I'm starting to think his "hawk"
advisors are getting closer and closer to hitting pay dirt. By the way, who are his "dove"
advisors?
Please, he didn't even know about projected casualties until ten minutes before the attack
was to be launched, no doubt because he's too lazy smart to attend planning
meetings/briefings.
If anyone believes the reason Trump gave for calling off the strike, I refer them to his
10,000+ lies since he's been in office. My guess is he changed his mind watching Tucker.
Trump staggers through his presidency like a pinball bouncing its way through the machine
- first this side, then that side, then being flipped back up to the top by a comment he
hears on Fox News to start it all over again.
But just because on this pass he happened to randomly bounce off of a "good" bumper, we're
supposed to congratulate him for finally "becoming President". The only thing bizarre here is
the contortions his supporters put themselves through to try to deny what is obvious to
everyone else.
If I go to my neighbors front yard with a gun, point it at their house, then don't shoot, I
am not practicing restraint. I should be arrested for brandishing a firearm. This article is
crop.
Lighten up, folks. Obviously, Antle's headline, "The Night Donald Trump Became President," is
a play on the same words that a lot of talking heads (not just unreconstructed
neoconservatives like Bill Kristol, but "mainstream" centrists like Fareed Zakaria) used when
Trump bombed Syria for the first time.
He's being facetious, not serious. He isn't praising Trump or his "B-Team" for their
restraint (on the contrary, they have created a crisis for no good reason and have brought us
to the brink of war as a result) so much as he's criticizing the media for its
warmongering.
The media is actually trying to bait the President into a unilateral act of war against
another country that hasn't attacked us and couldn't threaten us even if it did.
"It does not require Nostradamus-like skills to anticipate how the good cop, bad cop
routine Trump appears to be trying with Bolton in particular could end in disaster."
At this point, I am almost afraid to check the latest news-with tapeworm Bolton, it is a
matter of time before the situation blows up.
Re: "If Trump continues to break with this pattern, however, it will be less celebrated
in Washington than it would deserve to be. Putting the unelected hawks in their proper
place would be a truly presidential act."
However, note that Trump refuses to concede any Imperial authority to wage war that
illegally violates the Constitution. He just chose not to start a war with Iran - this time.
(And also note that the Pentagon is always happy to oblige the Imperial President and kill
and destroy without question.)
So the entire U.S. foreign policy architecture remains hyper-busted. I.e., An Imperial
President, a feckless Congress that has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, and
Pentagon Brass who think that they swore an oath to be mindless automatons obeying the
illegal orders of the Imperial President rather than being defenders of the
Constitution.
And Tucker Carlson aside, the MSM, sycophantic lapdog of the Pentagon, is still all in
to the illegal and unconstitutional Warfare State con.
"... This is a crisis of his own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it. ..."
"... The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump is quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will change his mind after about the same amount of reflection. ..."
"... "If Trump continues to break with this pattern, however, it will be less celebrated in Washington than it would deserve to be. Putting the unelected hawks in their proper place would be a truly presidential act." ..."
...This Administration's handling of Iran, as compared to the last, is anything but stupid.
Unless, of course, you're of the opinion we should be going to war, and you're pissed that
this President made the right decision at the right time. Nice try, because thinking the
way you are is stupid.
No matter how laudable averting war is, the fact is that we would have never been in this
situation if Trump had not unilaterally abandoned the Iran deal. This is a crisis of
his own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it.
The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump
is quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will
change his mind after about the same amount of reflection.
I don't know. Maybe a wise president would not have appointed Bolton and Pompeo in the
first place. Nor would a wise president have had a $130 million drone flying over Iranian
air space (or right on its border).
Yes, Iran dodged a bullet in this instance. So did our country. Maybe if Trump gets
enough positive reinforcement from his last-second audible, he'll be less inclined to "cock
and load" the American military in the future.
For my part, I'm starting to think his "hawk" advisors are getting closer and closer to
hitting pay dirt.
Well, this article vanquished my very recent admiration for Michael Brendan Dougherty,
acquired by way of Mr. Dreher.
"articulates a classical Augustinian just war argument ..."
That's like claiming Mrs O'Leary's cow that kicked over the lantern and burned Chicago
to the ground was articulating the finer points of preventing forest fires originated by
Smokey the Bear.
Do the writers here do a little physical stretching before contorting yourselves into
pretzel shapes trying to justify every lantern Trump kicks over into poles of dry hay as he
goes along?
Of course conservative Christians hate pulling back from imminent, and possibly nuclear
war. When haven't they in American history?
Please, he didn't even know about projected casualties until ten minutes before the attack
was to be launched, no doubt because he's too lazy smart to attend planning
meetings/briefings.
If anyone believes the reason Trump gave for calling off the strike, I refer them to his
10,000+ lies since he's been in office. My guess is he changed his mind watching
Tucker.
Trump staggers through his presidency like a pinball bouncing its way through the machine -
first this side, then that side, then being flipped back up to the top by a comment he
hears on Fox News to start it all over again. But just because on this pass he happened to
randomly bounce off of a "good" bumper, we're supposed to congratulate him for finally
"becoming President". The only thing bizarre here is the contortions his supporters put
themselves through to try to deny what is obvious to everyone else.
If I go to my neighbors front yard with a gun, point it at their house, then don't shoot, I
am not practicing restraint. I should be arrested for brandishing a firearm. This article
is crop.
Lighten up, folks. Obviously, Antle's headline, "The Night Donald Trump Became President,"
is a play on the same words that a lot of talking heads (not just unreconstructed
neoconservatives like Bill Kristol, but "mainstream" centrists like Fareed Zakaria) used
when Trump bombed Syria for the first time. He's being facetious, not serious. He isn't
praising Trump or his "B-Team" for their restraint (on the contrary, they have created a
crisis for no good reason and have brought us to the brink of war as a result) so much as
he's criticizing the media for its warmongering. The media is actually trying to bait the
President into a unilateral act of war against another country that hasn't attacked us and
couldn't threaten us even if it did.
"It does not require Nostradamus-like
skills to anticipate how the good cop, bad cop routine Trump appears to
be trying with Bolton in particular could end in disaster."
At this point, I am almost afraid to check the latest news-with tapeworm bolton, it is a
matter of time before the situation blows up.
Re: "If Trump continues to break with this
pattern, however, it will be less celebrated in Washington than it would
deserve to be. Putting the unelected hawks in their proper place would
be a truly presidential act."
However, note that Trump refuses to concede any Imperial authority to wage war that
illegally violates the Constitution. He just chose not to start a war with Iran - this
time. (And also note that the Pentagon is always happy to oblige the Imperial President and
kill and destroy without question.)
So the entire U.S. foreign policy architecture remains hyper-busted. I.e., An Imperial
President, a feckless Congress that has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, and
Pentagon Brass who think that they swore an oath to be mindless automatons obeying the
illegal orders of the Imperial President rather than being defenders of the
Constitution.
And Tucker Carlson aside, the MSM, sycophantic lapdog of the Pentagon, is still all in
to the illegal and unconstitutional Warfare State con.
This type of article is the reason I read The American Conservative. Thank you for
addressing this important issue from a cautious and realistic perspective.
Although Donald Trump and I are on opposite sides of the fence on nearly every issue, I
do prefer his restrained foreign policy instincts to the hawkish ones of Hillary
Clinton.
Goodness you people and your Nobel prize obsession. The last guy got one he didn't deserve
so I should get one too. Whether the decision was presidential or not is hinged on motive
in my view.
If it was an assessment that if our drone did in fly over US airspace, then it
represented a legitimate target for Iran - then certainly critical thinking as expressed
has some merit to sound management.
If the matter was decided on the messiness of conflict and calculating one's political
carreer, the level of sound management is simply not a factor.
THIS is what white supremacy looks like: Punish Iran because one day in the far off future
they may develop an atomic bomb but gift Israel $3 billion a year while it harbors hundreds
of nukes. Meanwhile, pat head choppers like Saudi Arabia on the head -- As long as they
buys billions in US weapons and force nations to use US dollars to buy oil.
Do you realize that Iran is an Aryan nation, which would make them white? Israel is a
Jewish nation, which most white supremacists hate. And Saudi Arabia is an Arab country,
which would not make it a white country.
So how in the world is this what white supremacy looks like?
"... If the reports are true then Trump made an offer to the Iranians: let me bomb a few token sites - heck, I'll even let you nominate them - and then I'll declare victory and we can sit down and talk. ..."
"... Nope, said the Iranians. If you launch even a token attack then we will reply with everything we have got, and so will Hezbollah and so will Syria. Your call, Donald. ..."
"... That's the reality, apparently. One spark from Trump and the entire region goes up in flames. ..."
"how long before Iran realizes it will lose and calls on all of its asymmetric
regional forces to attack in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, Saudi Arabia and the Straits
of Hormuz"
Oh, about 12 hours, there or thereabouts. That is Iran's "Trump card". If the reports are true then Trump made an offer to the Iranians: let me bomb a few token
sites - heck, I'll even let you nominate them - and then I'll declare victory and we can sit
down and talk.
Nope, said the Iranians. If you launch even a token attack then we will reply with
everything we have got, and so will Hezbollah and so will Syria. Your call, Donald.
That's the reality, apparently. One spark from Trump and the entire region goes up in
flames.
"... But if a ground war is ruled out, then Iran is engaged in the sort of limited conflict in which it has long experience. A senior Iraqi official once said to me that the Iranians "have a PhD" in this type of part political, part military warfare. They are tactics that have worked well for Tehran in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria over the past 40 years. The Iranians have many pressure points against the US, and above all against its Saudi and Emirati allies in the Gulf. ..."
"... Saddam Hussein sought to throttle Iran's oil exports and Iran tried to do the same to Iraq. The US and its allies weighed in openly on Saddam Hussein's side – an episode swiftly forgotten by them after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in 1990. From 1987 on, re-registered Kuwaiti tankers were being escorted through the Gulf by US warships. There were US airstrikes against Iranian ships and shore facilities, culminating in the accidental but very avoidable shooting down of an Iranian civil airliner with 290 passengers on board by the USS Vincennes in 1988. Iran was forced to sue for peace in its war with Iraq. ..."
But the dilemma for Trump is at a deeper level. His sanctions against Iran, reimposed after
he withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, are devastating the Iranian economy. The
US Treasury is a more lethal international power than the Pentagon. The EU and other countries
have stuck with the deal, but they have in practice come to tolerate the economic blockade of
Iran.
Iran was left with no choice but to escalate the conflict. It wants to make sure that the
US, the European and Asian powers, and US regional allies Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates,
feel some pain. Tehran never expected much from the EU states, which are still signed up to the
2015 nuclear deal, and has found its low expectations are being fulfilled.
A fundamental misunderstanding of the US-Iran confrontation is shared by many commentators.
It may seem self-evident that the US has an interest in using its vast military superiority
over Iran to get what it wants. But after the failure of the US ground forces to win in Iraq
and Afghanistan, not to mention Somalia, no US leader can start a land war in the Middle East
without endangering their political survival at home.
Trump took this lesson to heart long before he became president. He is a genuine
isolationist in the American tradition. The Democrats and much of the US media have portrayed
Trump as a warmonger, though he has yet to start a war. His national security adviser John
Bolton and secretary of state Mike Pompeo issue bloodcurdling threats against Iran, but Trump
evidently views such bellicose rhetoric as simply one more way of ramping up the pressure on
Iran.
But if a ground war is ruled out, then Iran is engaged in the sort of limited conflict in
which it has long experience. A senior Iraqi official once said to me that the Iranians "have a
PhD" in this type of part political, part military warfare. They are tactics that have worked
well for Tehran in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria over the past 40 years. The Iranians have many
pressure points against the US, and above all against its Saudi and Emirati allies in the
Gulf.
The Iranians could overplay their hand: Trump is an isolationist, but he is also a populist
national leader who claims in his first campaign rallies for the next presidential election to
"have made America great again". Such boasts make it difficult to not retaliate against Iran, a
country he has demonised as the source of all the troubles in the Middle East.
One US military option looks superficially attractive but conceals many pitfalls. This is to
try to carry out operations along the lines of the limited military conflict between the US and
Iran called the "tanker war". This was part of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and the US came
out the winner.
Saddam Hussein sought to throttle Iran's oil exports and Iran tried to do the same to Iraq.
The US and its allies weighed in openly on Saddam Hussein's side – an episode swiftly
forgotten by them after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in 1990. From 1987 on, re-registered
Kuwaiti tankers were being escorted through the Gulf by US warships. There were US airstrikes
against Iranian ships and shore facilities, culminating in the accidental but very avoidable
shooting down of an Iranian civil airliner with 290 passengers on board by the USS Vincennes in
1988. Iran was forced to sue for peace in its war with Iraq.
Some retired American generals speak about staging a repeat of the tanker war today but
circumstances have changed. Iran's main opponent in 1988 was Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Iran was
well on its way to losing the war, in which there was only one front
"Trump took this lesson to heart long before he became president. He is a genuine
isolationist in the American tradition."
Mr. Cockburn does not understand the meaning of isolationist. Trump has been pro-empire
since the day he took office.
I have better stuff in my blog:
June 22, 2019 – Iran
People familiar with US military history know what just happened off Iran. American
aircraft and drones have violated Iranian airspace every week for years, either by accident
or because American officers like to screw with them, especially when lots of high-level
American officials want war with Iran. Complaints were filed and ignored, so the Iranians
shot one down. Note there is no international airspace in the Strait of Hormuz. Half belongs
to Iran and the other to UAE and Oman. It is an international waterway, so all ships have the
right to transit, but aircraft require permission from one of these nations.
The American people are clueless about this stuff since most only know what our
warmongering media tells them, as Jimmy Dore explains in this video. I was shocked and
pleased that President Trump saw through this ruse and bravely did nothing. If we bomb Iran
they will hit back, maybe openly with a missile barrage, or covertly using Shia militias in
Iraq, Bahrain, and Afghanistan. The USA has tens of thousands of soldiers and contractors all
over the Arab world. I'm sure local teams have spent years scouting targets and preparing to
attack after a green light from Tehran. Trump wisely cancelled this chaos, at least until
after his reelection.
"He is a genuine isolationist" Oh please; Mr. Cockburn, you're old enough to have heard of
projection. There is nothing genuine about Trump's public persona, except for his
greed and egotism. He's a world-class grifter and charlatan–i.e., still not to be
underestimated. His calculation will probably be "Can I get re-elected without jumping into
the breach? Then that's fine too. If the polls look awful, I'll roll the dice and be a
War-Time President like Dubya."
At least, Mr. Cockburn understands that the "crippling sanctions" (the way Americans are
always proud of those show that they're just knee-capping mafiosi) are leaving Iran no choice
but to fight back. So the decision may not be in Donald's hands; he may be smarter than his
media caricature, and yet not as smart as he thought.
Once American servicemen start dying for this rather nebulous cause, it will be the
reaction of American voters that will ultimately determine the extent and duration of yet
another Middle East military, nation re-engineering "adventure".
"Note there is no international airspace in the Strait of Hormuz. Half belongs to Iran and
the other to UAE and Oman. It is an international waterway, so all ships have the right to
transit, but aircraft require permission from one of these nations."
You might want to examine the UNCLOS agreement. It's created some sticky issues in the
South China Seas and in the straight in question, Iran and Oman are leaning very heavily on
that the policy. In their view it is for use exclusively for noncombatant enterprise as part
of their claim as territorial waters, they have a say in its use.
Pakistan is nuclear, pal.
Israel is nuclear, pal.
India is nuclear, pal.
North Korea is nuclear, pal.
Nobody attacks their territory these days, pal.
But Iran chose a long time ago not to go nuclear, pal.
The American Mullahs want their oil money back and so have issued yet another fatwah through
their Supreme Leader.
KiwiAntz , June 24, 2019 at 04:08
Old Geezer are you familiar with the term"Mutual Assured Destruction"? Any Nuclear attack
will be met with a Nuclear response by the Country attacked! This isn't 1945 where America
could nuke Japan & get away with it? It's 2019 & alot of Nations have the Nukes to
deter US Nuclear attacks? That's MAD in a nutshell!
Zhu , June 24, 2019 at 06:03
Who says Iran is going nuclear, Gezzer? If he usual liars.
AnneR , June 24, 2019 at 09:31
So *what* if the Iranians developed nuclear weapons? (Not that they are going to –
as they have stated over and over again. But then they are not as bloodthirsty as
Anglo-Americans always seem to be.)
Frankly, if they had done so, the US-IS-UK would be a lot less eager to bomb their country
into smithereens – all for the benefit of their more westerly neighbor (the middle
country above). NK understands this. Unfortunately, Qaddafi didn't.
And again – I repeat: which nation state is it that *has* used such weapons: twice?
Only one. (Not to mention that same country's eager use of depleted uranium – far from
its shores, of course – in bullets and shells.) Charming.
heathroi , June 24, 2019 at 09:45
is that you, John?
Steve in DC , June 24, 2019 at 09:47
Iran should go nuclear. The US doesn't f#%* with countries that have the bomb. The sooner
Iran can thwart Washington the better off the world will be. Washington will have to get
another hobbyhorse.
Tick Tock , June 24, 2019 at 11:45
How many generations has your family been inbreeding? Was it part of the US Guvment plan
to create the race of morons? Without a doubt it has been a success in making you, make
Forrest Gump look like an Einstein. Keep posting at least it might keep you off the
streets.
Ol' Hippy , June 24, 2019 at 11:58
They won't need to. All they have to do is barricade the Strait of Hormuz and collapse the
world economy that relies on oil from the Gulf States. Never mentioned in the corporate(MSM)
media circles that want war. The ensuing depression would be like no other, ever.
My friend, you've been getting too much of your news from Israel-influenced mainstream
media. Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program since 2003 (if it had one even then, which
is doubtful). That is the consensus position of all U.S. intelligence agencies, Mossad, and
several european intelligence agencies. See the reference links in my article at
https://relativelyfreepress.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-question-about-ron-wydens-intelligence.html
Moreover, as Don Bacon summarizes, Iran doesn't need nukes to hold the U.S. at bay.
Finally, Iran's unquestionable ability to close all shipping of oil through the Hormuz
Strait (30 percent of the world's supply) means that Iran has the ability to bring the
western economic system to its knees. Who needs nukes?
DH Fabian , June 24, 2019 at 13:08
Are China and Russia nuclear-armed countries, in a world that has largely come to see the
US as an unpredictable and dictatorial threat? Possibly too great of a threat to allow it to
continue?
Linda Furr , June 24, 2019 at 13:12
Who's the 'they'? US officials have already talked of nuclear attacks on areas of Iran.
The great 'democracy' of USA just ain't so. Its criminal psychopathy comes straight from
Israel – against most Americans' desires. Washington DC is sick.
Not to in any way absolve Trump, but as long as Bolton and Pompeo are on the scene there will
be blood. Bolton in particular should be in jail for crimes against humanity. He is a madman.
Scary times.
This recent 19 May piece from Ha'aretz documents precisely the manipulation of
American policy by Israeli charlatans and their agents of influence in the US. The title
says it all just by itself: "Netanyahu's Iran Dilemma: Getting Trump to Act Without
Putting Israel on the Front Line." It goes on to assess that:
"In this conflict, Israel is hoping to have its cake and eat it too. Ever since Trump
was elected president two and a half years ago, Netanyahu has been urging him to take a
more aggressive line toward Iran, in order to force it to make additional concessions on
its nuclear program and disrupt its support for militant organizations.
"Trump acceded to this urging a year ago when he withdrew America from the nuclear
agreement with Iran. That was followed by tighter sanctions on Iran, as well as
publication of a plan by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo detailing 12 steps Tehran
must take to satisfy Washington.
"But Israel isn't interested in being part of the front. That is why Jerusalem has
issued so few official statements on the Iranian issue, and why Netanyahu has urged
ministers to be cautious in what they say."
I'd say that passage captures the situation perfectly, and it just goes to show that
when you want to know about what chicanery Israel and its lobby are up to in the US, you
have to go and look at what Israelis are saying when they aren't particularly careful about
who's observing. That sort of truth is sanitized from any MSM accounts in the US.
@ OP 2
Israel is an important part of Middle East US policy decisions but not the only part, and not
the most important one. Going back to the Carter Doctrine, and before, the US has intended to
be the top dog in the Middle East but instead, through its mistakes, has become second fiddle
to Iran. The US and its allies have tens of thousands of troops with tons of military gear in
the area and are still losing influence, replaced by Iran and its Shia Crescent. That must be
reversed!
In Danielle Ryan’s article in RT's Op-ed “US will not ‘stumble into’
war with Iran by mistake. If it happens, it will be by design” she notes the prevalence
of “strange terminology” used by mainstream media to describe how the US gets
into wars. I have added to her list and checked that all have been used in the current
US-Iran scenario. The US is in danger of being: “dragged into, sucked into, sliding
into, stumbling into, slouching towards, lured into, bumbling into, blundering into and
sleepwalking into” war with Iran.
Who are they trying to kid when they have already declared economic war on Iran,
asphyxiating the Iranian economy, knowing full well that Iran has to respond.
John Bolton “sleepwalking” into war with Iran? He’ll be wide awake and
so excited he’ll probably have to relieve himself.
NemesisCalling , Jun 23, 2019 11:23:57 AM |
12Oscar Peterson , Jun 23, 2019 11:25:56 AM |
13
@Don Bacon #4
"Israel is an important part of Middle East US policy decisions but not the only part,
and not the most important one. Going back to the Carter Doctrine, and before, the US has
intended to be the top dog in the Middle East but instead, through its mistakes, has become
second fiddle to Iran. The US and its allies have tens of thousands of troops with tons of
military gear in the area and are still losing influence, replaced by Iran and its Shia
Crescent. That must be reversed!"
Have to disagree with a good deal of this.
Israel's strategic preferences have indeed become the most important single influence on
US Middle East policy. Up to a certain point in the past, that was not true, but it is now.
The Carter Doctrine has, in effect, been undermined by the distortions that the ever-growing
power of pro-Israel political Jewry in the US in both its neoconservative and Likudnik
expressions are able to impose on our policy.
Neither big oil, nor Saudi Arabia, nor anything that could objectively be called US
strategic considerations wields anything like the heft of political Jewry. And even
metastasizing Christian Zionism is only an ideological adjunct to Zionism proper, primarily a
function of the cultural damage stemming from Jewry's march through the institutions since WW
II.
That said, I must also disagree that Iran has become "the top dog" in the Middle East.
They are nowhere close, though, with their cultural and technological attainments, backed by
oil and gas deposits, their long-term strategic position has a lot of promise. A "top dog"
would not be in Iran's current underdog position vis-a-vis Israel and its US golem and having
to fight back with the stratagems we are currently seeing.
The Shia crescent is essentially a myth, and Iran's ability to exercise dominating
influence on Shia Arabs is largely a function of the hostility of Sunni Arabs to the Shia
Arab empowerment of recent years. Yes, the US is losing influence, but that is mostly a
function of our own policy dysfunction induced by dual-loyalist political Jewry and the
Israel-Über-Alles strategic preferences it imposes.
@Don Bacon
That clarifies.
I do agree that Israel is one of the 2 important factors in US calculation in south-west
Asia, the other being strategic leverage over big-league competitors. And, it is true that US
military presence in the Persian Gulf has been the Carter doctrine's making - although one
might argue the doctrine itself was created to fill the vacuum created with the departure of
the British and the subsequent independence given to the southern Sheikhdoms. The issue with
the current US strategy in the region is that it defies the reality with such an obstinance
that it completely undermines its own goals. The origin of this obstinance is well known to
everyone.
NJDuke , Jun 23, 2019 11:45:09 AM |
18Don Bacon , Jun 23, 2019 11:52:24 AM |
19
Israel or no, failure is not an option for the US in the Middle East, especially Syria which
was Hillary's Job-One during her SecState tenure.
AP, Dec 14, 2011-- US: Assad's Syria a 'dead man walking'
The State Department official, Frederic Hof, told Congress on Wednesday that Assad's
repression may allow him to hang on to power but only for a short time. And, he urged the
Syrian opposition to prepare for the day when it takes control of the state in order to
prevent chaos and sectarian conflict.
"Our view is that this regime is the equivalent of dead man walking," said Hof, the State
Department's pointman on Syria, which he said was turning into "Pyongyang in the Levant," a
reference to the North Korean capital. He said it was difficult to determine how much time
Assad has left in power but stressed "I do not see this regime surviving.". . .
here
And Syria is only the most important US target country in the ME, the Iraq challenge still
exists, Lebanon is important (receives some US military aid) and of course the old bugaboo
Iran has become more vital than ever. Iran has a heavy political influence in Iraq and Syria,
and that highway from Tehran to Beirut is a problem especially considering Iran ally (and
"terrorist") Hezbollah. So. . .that's why 50,000+ US troops, an air force, and the Navy's
Fifth fleet are there.
The main point is that the US world hegemon has to be strong everywhere, especially in
Asia, and if it's forced out of anywhere it would set a bad example, going back to 'losing
China.'
"The issue with the current US strategy in the region is that it defies the reality with
such an obstinance that it completely undermines its own goals. The origin of this
obstinance is well known to everyone."
Yes, I think that's the issue exactly, and Israel is at the heart of it all. We are
undermining our own goals (and scoring own goals.) Your point here captures the current
bottom line of US "strategy" in the region.
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what
it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses." . ."I wouldn't go to
war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two
things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of
Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.". . .General Smedley Butler, USMC, two
Congressional Medals of Honor, veteran of wars in Central America, Europe and China
Is Israel responsible for the US enmity toward North Korea? the bombing of Libya and Somalia?
Eighteen years in Afghanistan?
No. In the US, to quote Randolph Bourne (1918), war is the health of the state.
. . .With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government,
with no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the
negotiations, the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it
into collision with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country
into war. For the benefit of proud and haughty citizens, it is fortified with a list of the
intolerable insults which have been hurled toward us by the other nations; for the benefit
of the liberal and beneficent, it has a convincing set of moral purposes which our going to
war will achieve; for the ambitious and aggressive classes, it can gently whisper of a
bigger role in the destiny of the world. The result is that, even in those countries where
the business of declaring war is theoretically in the hands of representatives of the
people, no legislature has ever been known to decline the request of an Executive, which
has conducted all foreign affairs in utter privacy and irresponsibility, that it order the
nation into battle. Good democrats are wont to feel the crucial difference between a State
in which the popular Parliament or Congress declares war, and the State in which an
absolute monarch or ruling class declares war. But, put to the stern pragmatic test, the
difference is not striking. In the freest of republics as well as in the most tyrannical of
empires, all foreign policy, the diplomatic negotiations which produce or forestall war,
are equally the private property of the Executive part of the Government, and are equally
exposed to no check whatever from popular bodies, or the people voting as a mass
themselves.
"Is Israel responsible for the US enmity toward North Korea? the bombing of Libya and
Somalia? Eighteen years in Afghanistan?"
First, I did not claim that every move the US makes is Israel-induced. I said that Israel
is at the heart of our overall strategic dysfunction in the Middle East. Libya and Somalia
are peripheral, and Afghanistan is not truly in the region at all.
But let's be clear that the rise of both al Quaeda and, as a follow-on, the Islamic State
have been greatly facilitated by the resentment generated by the imposition of Jewish state
on the region at the expense of the local Arabs. Both bin Laden and Zawahiri have mentioned
the Zionist conquest and its wars as formative experiences.
And the rise of IS was a direct result of the US invasion of Iraq, itself induced by the
overlapping strains of Jewish neoconservatism and Likudnik hyper-Zionism. The overthrow of
Saddam created the political and strategic space for IS to emerge and thrive, and the
concerted attempt to overthrow Assad--another Israeli strategic preference--weakened the
Syrian state so much that it permitted the establishment of a "caliphate" which then invaded
Iraq. This expanding dynamic played a role in Libya as well.
With regard to Saudi Arabia, we have to ask why the US put its weight behind the
replacement of Muhammed bin Naif (MbN) with Muhammed bin Salman (MbS) when almost all the USG
wanted to tell Salman that we preferred staying with the known and trusted MbN. Almost
certainly, Trump's ignorant support of MbS originated with the pro-Israel Jews who dominate
his thinking. MbS has been a bonanza for Israel but a disaster for us (and the region.)
And with regard to Afghanistan, the denuding of that theater to resource the
Iraq-Iran-Syria invasion/regime change scheme demanded by Israel and its operatives in the US
had a definitively negative outcome on US policy in Afghanistan from which, it is now clear,
it will never recover.
In East Asia, the negative impact of US Israel-centric Middle East policy can be seen as
well. The neocon/Likudnik-induced morass of Iraq into which we marched distracted us from the
Asia-Pacific and particularly China's move into the South China Sea, which might have been
deterred, if we weren't expending the overwhelming majority of our energy, attention and
resources in the Middle East.
And since you bring up North Korea, the Israeli influence on US policy there is certainly
secondary but definitely not zero. Israel and its lobby seek an ultra-hard line on any US
negotiations with North Korea because they see it as an extension of Iran policy, so in their
view, any concession to North Korea is a bad example for Iran. This contributes to impeding
any possible negotiated solution to the complex of issues on the Korean Peninsula.
It is truly amazing how far the insidious reach of Israel, its nefarious lobby and the
"Is-it-good-for-the-Jews?" obsessions of political Jewry extends into US foreign policy. Our
current strategy is, as ATH noted, self-undermining. There really is no historical precedent
for it.
After all, this is what our elected, alleged representatives posit when they state
collectively, in unison, loudly, repeatedly, on their knees, that "the USA maintains an
irrevocable bond with Israel".
That statement should bring the condescension and the wrath of the USA public.
For what reason would the USA maintain an "irrevocable bond" with ANY other nation?
Regardless of the fact that ISrael is an apartheid state by its own definition as "The
Jewish State of ISrael".
You both have valid points, but I've always believed it's the dog that wags its tail.
Sure, if it was simply Palestine, one could expect different nuances of US policy. But any
qualitative difference? I don't see it.
The US would still back undemocractic strong men who would treat American interests as
paramount in return for US backing of their regime and turning a blind eye to their
enrichment at the expense of the general population. The US would be hellbent against any
pan-Arab nationalism or anything resembling socialism or sovereignty.
The proof? Well take a look at how the US treats the rest of the world.
The US and Israel have overlapping interests as it relates to the Middle East with the added
accelerator of the many dual nationals in seats of power.
lysias , Jun 23, 2019 2:21:16 PM |
57bevin , Jun 23, 2019 2:22:35 PM |
58
"Israel's strategic preferences have indeed become the most important single influence on US
Middle East policy. Up to a certain point in the past, that was not true, but it is now. The
Carter Doctrine has, in effect, been undermined by the distortions that the ever-growing
power of pro-Israel political Jewry in the US in both its neoconservative and Likudnik
expressions are able to impose on our policy."
Oscar Peterson is correct not because Israel's interests are of such importance-they
really are not- but because US Foreign policy has become totally incoherent.
This is because it is entirely aimed at fund raisers and influencers of the electorate. It is
founded on the theory that the United States can do whatever it pleases, and need never care
about consolidating its power or defending its positions because it is far more powerful than
all its potential rivals added together. This being the case its Foreign Policy becomes a
saleable commodity, just as its armed forces-which can never be defeated- are at the disposal
of the highest bidders.
Note to Psychohistorian: the open democracy website has an article on Costa Rica's public
banking today.
with regard to iran, the usa is tied at the hip to israel.. that is a fact... now, maybe it
can change, but i think phil at mondoweiss lays it out pretty clearly for anyone interested..
as i see it, this is just temporary... israel is gunning hard for war on iran.. anyone who
can't see that is in fact very blind..
meanwhile - Trump: “I have some hawks. John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was
up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time.“
bolton is in this position due the fact trump owed sheldon adelson one... at least trump
can see it, but i don't know that he can avoid where this is going... that would be putting
too much faith in a con artist - grifter..
I suggest you download Douglas Reed's comprehensive review of Zionism's activities in "The
Controversy of Zion" over the period you describe from a singular perspective and read it
thoroughly. IN fact I commend that book to everyone on this site. Reed was a correspondent
through WW2 and before and his work is detailed and readable, with extensive references.
"CBS News Analyst And Iran "War Mongering Maniac" Also Raytheon Board Member: Dore"
"How do you know the MSM is nothing more than the media wing of the
military-industrial-complex? A Raytheon board member masquerading as an objective analyst is
a good start."
"On Friday, CBS News analyst and retired Navy Admiral James Winnefeld Jr. slammed
President Trump for calling off retaliatory strikes on Iran over a downed US drone, while
insisting we must strike Iran or else the United States will "lose a lot of credibility."
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also said financial restrictions would be imposed on
Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif later this week. ............... Zarif, viewed as
Iran's most skilled diplomat, was lead negotiator in the multi-party nuclear accord reached
in 2015 under the Obama administration that Trump has since rejected.
If this was about a real estate deal in New York, Trump's bully-boy tactics might seem
reasonable. Deliberately pissing off the real leader of Iran, and sanctioning their head
diplomat means he doesn't want "negotiations". Only total surrender is permissible in light
of his foolishness.
I've got a bad feeling about all of this. Time is running out for the apartheid Jewish
state, and they're going to be mighty tempted to arrange for a bunch of US military men or
women to be brought home in body bags. That's because they can't be absolutely positive one
of the neocon Democrats will be in the White House soon.
"Trump is in danger of being crushed between a Fed that sees the US dollar's role as the
world's reserve currency collapse, and the need for the Fed to blame someone not linked to
the real causes of the collapse, that is to say, the monetary policies adopted through QE to
prolong the post-crisis economic agony of 2008....
"As foolish as it may seem, a war on Iran could be the perfect option that satisfies all
power groups in the United States. The hawks would finally have their war against Tehran, the
world economy would sink, and the blame would fall entirely on Trump. The Donald, as a
result, would lose any chance of being re-elected so it makes sense for him to call off
possible strikes as he did after the US drone was shot out of the sky."
The author echoes my words from yesterday:
"I wonder if Europeans will understand all this before the impending disaster. I doubt
it."
Regarding what I wrote about Sanders in my reply to Stever, here we have the Chancellery
of the People's Republic of China spokesman, Hua Chun Ying:
"The American leaders say that 'the era of the commercial surrender of their country has
come to an end', but what is over is their economic intimidation of the world and their
hegemony.
"The United States must again respect international law, not arrogate to itself
extraterritorial rights and mandates, must learn to respect its peers in safeguarding
transparent and non-discriminatory diplomatic and commercial relations. China and the United
States have negotiated other disputes in the past with good results and the doors of dialogue
are open as long as they are based on mutual respect and benefits."
No, I didn't cite everything in the article. There's much more of importance there to
read!
After a somewhat quiet weekend the Trump administration today engaged in another push against
Iran.
Today the Treasury Department sanctioned the leaders of
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). It also sanctioned Iran's Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Khamenei and his office! There will be no more Disney Land visits for them.
Mnuchin: "The president has instructed me that we will be designating [Iran's foreign
minister Javad] Zarif later this week." cc: @JZarif
The Treasury Secretary will designate Javad Zarif as what? A terrorist? Zarif is quite
effective in communicating the Iranian standpoint on Twitter and other social media. Those
accounts will now be shut down.
The Trump administration's special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook, said today that Iran should
respond to U.S. diplomacy with diplomacy. Sanctioning Iran's chief diplomat is probably not
the way to get there.
All those who get sanctioned by the U.S. will gain in popularity in Iran. These U.S.
measures will only unite the people of Iran and strengthen their resolve.
Iran will respond to this new onslaught by asymmetric means of which it has plenty.
On Saturday Trump said that all he wants is that Iran never gets nuclear weapons. But the
State Department wants much more. Hook today said that the U.S. would only
lift sanctions if a comprehensive deal is made that includes ballistic missile and human
rights issues. Iran can not agree to that. But this is not the first time that Pompeo
demanded more than Trump himself. Is it Pompeo, not Trump, who is pressing this expanded
version to make any deal impossible?
Brian Hook is by the way a loon who does not even understand the meaning of what he
himself says:
US Hook says Iran knew what getting into when struck deal with president who had 1 1/2
yr left in office. "They knew what they were getting into...They knew that there was a
great possibility that the next president could come in & leave the deal." Note: US
elections 17 months away
Those are two good arguments for Iran to never again agree to any deal with the
'non-agreement-capable' United States.
It seems obvious from the above that the Trump administration has
no real interest in reasonable negotiations with Iran:
"The administration is not really interested in negotiations now," said Robert Einhorn, a
former senior State Department official who was involved in negotiations with Iranian
officials during the Obama administration. "It wants to give sanctions more time to make
the Iranians truly desperate, at which point it hopes the negotiations will be about the
terms of surrender."
That is part of the strategy. But the real issue is deeper:
Pro tip: Sanctions against #Iran aren't to retaliate for the downed drone or to punish
tanker attacks or to improve the nuclear deal or to help the Iranian people but to foment
revolution against the regime. The strategy is regime change with velvet gloves.
... ... ...
Pompeo was hastily sent to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Brian Hook is now in Oman and Bolton
is in Israel. The U.S. will also pressure Europe and NATO to join a new 'coalition of the
willing'. The UK will likely follow any U.S. call as it needs a trade deal to survive after
Brexit.
Other countries are best advised to stay out.
Posted by b at
02:05 PM |
Comments (183) Our leaders have gone out of their tiny minds, first Trump confirms our
suspicions that the deal he wants must include those legal ballistic missiles, then that
nutcase Hunt pledged to stand by the US in the event of conflict with Iran, you could not
make it up.
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who is running against Boris Johnson for the Conservatives'
leadership, has pledged to stand by the US even if its confrontation with Iran leads to a
military conflict, according to The Daily Mail.
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201906241076032533-uk-foreign-secretary-hunt-admits-britain-could-follow-us-into-war-with-iran/
Trump is such a con man... He said he told Shinzō Abe, before the Japanese prime
minister visited Tehran on 12 June: "Send the following message: you can't have nuclear
weapons. And other than that, we can sit down and make a deal. But you cannot have nuclear
weapons."
This whole saga is not about nuclear weapons, it is about those conventional ballistic
missiles which Iran is manufacturing perfectly legally and changing the equation in the
region. These are precision missiles and could turn Tel Aviv and Saudi oil infrastructure
into rubble, US/Israel want to make Iran defenseless. It is not going to happen.
The US faced empire is the largest state sponsor of terror
The big lie technique works when all levels of communication are controlled. Otherwise it
makes you the laughing stock, which Trump will be at the G20 before he leaves
In dealing with Iran Pompeo & Bolton are following the infantile pattern that Israel uses
with Palestinians and Hezbollah: Make them suffer so they turn against their leaders and
provoke a regime change
It never worked because the middle easterners do not think like the Jews or Westerners. They
are resilient and have little to loose. The more hardship they get from foreign and hostile
powers the more they unite and resist. Despite the overwhelming persecution of the
Palestinians by Israel and its western allies for 50 years they are still resisting. Iran is
not different.
They are under siege for 30 years and still defiant.
Many US presidents and Boltons have passed and disappeared in oblivion after attempting and
failing regime changes in the middle east. Trump is not different.
Well, the end is most certainly nigh. Figure the US or Israel will resort to using nuclear
weapons which will result in Russia and China unleashing theirs. At least we can expect Wash
DC to be obliterated. May solve one of our problems.
Expect all nuclear facilities, military bases, and major airports to be targeted. Hopefully,
major population centers would be spared but doubt the US will reciprocate so expect all
major metropolitan areas to also be targeted.
Here is the double down on stupid which should have been expected.
Double sanctions, double demands, double threats, double censorship and the assemblage of
a fake posse - aka the coalition of the lapdogs.
Who will join the coalition of dumbfuckery? Here are the coalition members from Dubya's
Iraqi invasion in 2003:
Of the 48 countries on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the
United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of
troops to support military operations after the invasion was complete.
The list of coalition members provided by the White House included several nations that
did not intend to participate in actual military operations. Some of them, such as Marshall
Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Solomon Islands, did not have standing armies. However,
through the Compact of Free Association, citizens of the Marshall Islands, Palau and the
Federated States of Micronesia are guaranteed US national status and therefore are allowed to
serve in the US military. The members of these island nations have deployed in a combined
Pacific force consisting of Guamanian, Hawaiian and Samoan reserve units. They have been
deployed twice to Iraq. The government of one country, the Solomon Islands, listed by the
White House as a member of the coalition, was apparently unaware of any such membership and
promptly denied it.[5] According to a 2010 study, the Federal States of Micronesia, the
Marshall Islands and Palau (and Tonga and the Solomon Islands to a lesser extent) were all
economically dependent on economic aid from the United States, and thus had an economic
incentive to join the Coalition of the Willing.[6]
In December 2008, University of Illinois Professor Scott Althaus reported that he had
learned that the White House was editing and back-dating revisions to the list of countries
in the coalition.[7][8] Althaus found that some versions of the list had been entirely
removed from the record, and that others contradicted one another, as opposed to the
procedure of archiving original documents and supplementing them with later revisions and
updates.[3]
By August 2009, all non-U.S./UK coalition members had withdrawn from Iraq.[9] As a result,
the Multinational Force – Iraq was renamed and reorganized to United States Forces
– Iraq as of January 1, 2010. Thus the Coalition of the Willing came to an official
end.
Thanks to fastfreddy with the Iraq related Coalition of the Willing history
Over on another thread it was noted that today Trump is trying to build another Coalition
of the Willing to "protect" the shipping lanes.
My response was
@ Don Bacon and SRB with the comments about the crybaby defense over "protecting" shipping
lanes
I think China will tell empire like I tell the guy in front of the Post Office wanting to
protect my bicycle while I go in....."Why should I give you money to protect me from you?
100% Gangsterism. The Outlaw US Empire learned it cannot defeat Iran militarily, so it
invites other nations to become outlaws too. The G-20's in 4 days. I'll wager Trump leaves
before it's over having accomplished nothing other than absorbing abuse from most attendees.
And just what will Trump do when this move fails as it will? IMO, he just dealt Sanders a
great set of cards. The crowd expecting a repeat of Shock & Awe will grow smaller as they
slowly realize the truth of my second sentence. Instead of climbing down the tree, Trump
climbs higher onto thinner branches. What's more, Trump opens himself up to being challenged
within the Republican Party for POTUS nominee as the Current Oligarchy cannot like this
choice.
"realDonaldTrump is 100% right that the US military has no business in the Persian Gulf.
Removal of its forces is fully in line with interests of US and the world. But it's now clear
that the #B_Team is not concerned with US interests -- they despise diplomacy, and thirst for
war."
It appears Zarif concedes policy isn't made by Trump. The ignorance displayed in the
thread's comments is astounding.
The only times I can think of when a country switched sides, ie: overthrew their leaders, was
when they were caught in a squeeze between two other powers and decided to go with the
winner. Example: Italy in 1943. External pressures causing people to overthrow their leaders?
Essentially Nada.
So, what happens to derivatives if a shooting war ends up with the Straits closed? Escobar's
recent piece on the derivatives implosion that would result from a shooting war suggests that
the US/Saudi/Bibi axis is like a boys playing with matches around a can of gasoline or that
they believe they have a work-around for the derivatives problem. I would like to know
whether the BIS-types are on board with this fiasco or are trying to apply the brakes.
Bernie Sanders suggested that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was "the worst foreign policy
blunder in the history of the country." Bernie you ain't seen nothing yet, if those slavering
imbeciles have anything to do with it. The costs [including long term costs] of the
Iraq/Afghan wars [still ongoing] are estimated at 6 Trillion dollars. Here is what just one
Trillion dollars looks like http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
"Yet the nation's longest and most expensive war is the one that is still going on. In
addition to nearly 7,000 troops killed, the 16-year conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan will
cost an estimated US$6 trillion due to its prolonged length, rapidly increasing veterans
health care and disability costs and interest on war borrowing. On this Memorial Day, we
should begin to confront the staggering cost and the challenge of paying for this war".
http://theconversation.com/iraq-and-afghanistan-the-us-6-trillion-bill-for-americas-longest-war-is-unpaid-78241
I've replied to numerous people lacking knowledge that they must listen to Nasrallah when it
comes to what will occur if the Outlaw US Empire or any other entity attacks Iran. This short clip
is one of several I'm referring to. I'd say it's very likely Trump needs to be included on
the list of those needing to hear Nasrallah.
"... I propose that the Logic of Empire demands that the OBOR be interdicted and become subject to Imperial control...Iran's in the geography...and of course the oil and gas in simply part of the control over Heartland that Empire needs. ..."
"... Needs, because it's in very unstable financial condition. Essentially ketosis is underway, and Empire is in the condition of devouring its own power. ..."
"... The US will have to pay dearly to get their troops out of Afghanistan ..."
"... there is no way to "win" for one party at the cost of other parties. We are in this together. ..."
"This is about China"....not quite. It's about OBOR and Heartland, and the survival of a
corrupt and diseased Empire, or not...
What's missing here, and generally, is any attention to why. Why Iran, why now? What is
grand strategy? Is this vital or optional? Basic questions.
Of course the clowns are ignorant and stupid, how are they related to the grand
strategy?
I propose that the Logic of Empire demands that the OBOR be interdicted and become
subject to Imperial control...Iran's in the geography...and of course the oil and gas in
simply part of the control over Heartland that Empire needs.
Needs, because it's in very unstable financial condition. Essentially ketosis is
underway, and Empire is in the condition of devouring its own power.
The Strategy has zero to do with atomics, except to use them on Iran.
Summary> Iran must submit or be smashed and then submit. It does not matter who's in
charge nominally of Imperial Forces...Failing this, Empire dies.
And yet, Trumpie the clown can't spell "strait"...failed English 101?
Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jun 25, 2019 3:50:42 AM | 149
US have "lost" all wars after WW2 and then they were allied with Russia.
The US don't do old school colonialism (they destroyed the British and French empires) and
local independence goes to the highest bidder. So they have no way to ensure they will profit
after destroying everything (which they are very capable of doing).
Lets look where the US are now after WW2
Latin America: Used to be Cuba only completely outside of US sphere, now is also
Venezuela.
Asia: The US lost the Vietnam war. Vietnam now is very open to Western trade. The US could
have had that right from the start, as Ho Chi Minh started to fight for independence as
"their" guy. China has become the most powerful US competitor spending a fraction of the US
on military.
Europe: Will be Russian/Chinese sphere of influence (Gas, huge market) in the very end - at
least continental Europe. Britain tears itself apart not knowing which way to go.
Middle East: The US lost Turkey for good. Greece has become Chinese/Russian sphere of
influence. Neither Saudi nor Israel make it on any scale of "Western values" or ability to
fight proxy wars. The US may as well join OPEC as an energy producer - real interest in these
countries is marginal at best. Saudi will go the way of their Asian clients. The US will have
to pay dearly to get their troops out of Afghanistan
Of course there may be WW3, the next US president may reverse some counterproductive US
strategies, and a huge crisis may wipe off world markets. But there is no way to "win" for one party at the cost of other parties. We are in this
together.
The worlds absolute largest state sponsor and financier and trainer of Terrorists is the
United States and Israel.. The British usually just helped their enemies enemies but the US
trains anyone who will work for buck..
@ jayc 57 US Hook says Iran knew what getting into when struck deal
Yes they did, and now they regret it.
In 2013 Ali Khamenei said: "Certainly, we are pessimistic about the Americans. We do not
trust them. We consider the government of the United States of America as an unreliable,
arrogant, illogical, and trespassing government,"
The JCPOA was not a unilateral deal between USA and Iran, it was a multilateral
deal
That's correct de jure, but not de facto. The US all by itself is leading the current
attack on Iran, despite what the other members might think. Iran has not gotten any
significant support from other JCPOA participants.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 24, 2019 5:10:10 PM |
66
The Trump administration's special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook...
______________________________________
Brian Hook is a "special" envoy in the sense that the "Special Olympics" are
special.
It is interesting to listen to this speech again in view of Iran crisis, attempt to launch a
regime change in Venezuela and trade war with Chins lunched by Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... McCain and some other Western officials could barely contain themselves in there. They never forgive Putin for that speech. This was the decisive moment relations between the US. and Russia started to deteriorate. ..."
"... The Wikileaks cables showed how aggressively NATO was working to bring in Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance despite what was being said in public during that time. ..."
"... Look at the dirty bitch Victoria Nuland smirking at 11:43 . She knew what the US was about to do in Ukraine. ..."
"... this was the best anti NWO speech ever. The moment I saw it back then I knew Russia will have many problems coming for the NWO scum. You know what happened right? ..."
On February 10, 2007, Vladimir Putin delivered his keynote speech at the Munich Security
Conference, challenging the post-Cold War establishment. RT looks back a decade to see how
accurate his ideas were.
McCain and some other Western officials could barely contain themselves in there. They
never forgive Putin for that speech. This was the decisive moment relations between the US.
and Russia started to deteriorate.
The Wikileaks cables showed how aggressively NATO was working to bring in Georgia and
Ukraine into the alliance despite what was being said in public during that time.
'The Putin Interviews', where Putin is interviewed by Oliver Stone from 2015 - 2017,
brought me here. This iconic speech was referred to by Oliver Stone in the interviews. The
speech was certainly worth watching and I highly recommend watching 'The Putin Interviews'.
You won't regret it.
I'm not Russian but he is my hero, my President and my dad!!! ^_^ And proud of him. This
memorable speech was one of my favorites! He stood for what he believes in and he stayed true
to it.
Hahahahahahahahaha! You can see the Western leaders here were in a state of profound SHOCK
as they listened to this speech. They thought he was going to kow-tow to the West - and he
did the EXACT OPPOSITE! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
ment-renderer-text-content expanded"> wow awesome speech. words from a outstanding
leader. Acting and standing for true Peace and prosperity. Unlike the UN and NWO whos only
goal is to continue to create terrorism. create fear and drain any communities from being
independent and free from there False saftey taxes and sanctions. not using the world
currency exchange means there unable to falsely influence the world markets
American people should be highly alarmed
at NATO actions , they are inching closer to Russia's borders trying to encircle Russia with
military bases and missiles , this is done in preparation of an attack of the country being
encircled, nato is lying and misleading its citizens and they dont worry about consequence
of such a scenario which surely would trigger the third world war, American people and all nato member citizens should strongly push back against this , we need to consider the outcome
of a nuclear power attacking and invading another nuclear power
Russia would surely use
nuclear weapons to defend its country if overwhelmed, millions could perish in a day, we
have to condemn and protest Nato plans for another world war before its too late, it will be
our families suffering and dying not the elite that is pushing this conflict
Great speech from a great man, a man who truly loves fairness and democracy not the sugar
coated type offered by the west. Did anyone notice that by 9:50 into his speech, a good
number of them wanted out? McCain at some point couldn't even bring himself to look at Putin,
What a pitiful fellow McCain is!!!!!
This speech needs to be re-posted . and disseminated .. it is very very current , more than
ever... there is a section of world who simply do not know .
10 years passed and what Putin said back then is exactly what's happened and is
still happening. I have great respect for Russia and I have no respect for US and their
allies. Whole NATO sucks, is obsolete and is acting exactly like world's terrorists!
I have no respect for the majority of the American people as they are as responsible for the wars their corrupt capitalism
controlled US government has done. American people went along with it for all these decades and they fought these wars for
them anyway, they did not care if they bully other nations, kill innocent people...
this was the best anti NWO speech ever. The moment I saw it back then I knew Russia will
have many problems coming for the NWO scum. You know what happened right?
"... What usually stops the US are elections. The Vietnam War deeply threatened the US establishment and they "think" they learnt the lessons. ..."
"... The Russian military source says there is now active coordination between Russian and Iranian military staffs. "About coordination, of course there is participation of Russia in intelligence-sharing because of Bushehr and ISIS. We have a long and successful partnership with Iran, especially in terms of fighting against international terrorism." Two days after the drone incident, Russian specialist media published Iranian video footage of the movement of S-300's on trailer trucks. This report claims that although the S-300's are wheeled and motorized for rapid position changes, the use of highway transporters was intended to minimize road fatigue on the weapons. ..."
"... Iranian military sources have told western reporters they have established "a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East." ..."
"... The incident happened Thursday before U.S. markets opened. There was the usual confusion about exactly what happened most of the day and we had that odd statement by Trump just before Thursday market close to the effect that maybe a rouge Iranian general made a mistake in shooting down the (in this case: manned P-8A) in 'international waters'. ..."
Iran forces will attack the US in peripheral areas including especially Iraq. ..news
reports...
U.S. officials are concerned that Iran has given the green light to Iranian-backed
militias in Iraq to attack the more than 5,200 U.S. forces helping Iraqi Security Forces. And
reflecting the unique situation in Iraq, some of those security forces are Iranian-backed
militias that fall under the control of the Iraqi government.
For three days in a row this week, rockets have been fired at areas where U.S. forces or
U.S. interests are located in Iraq. On Monday, rockets targeted Camp Taji, where the U.S.-led
coalition against ISIS is training Iraqi security forces. On Tuesday, more rockets were fired
at a compound in Mosul where U.S. troops are based. Then, another attack on Wednesday struck
an oil facility near where ExxonMobil has employees.
Rocket attacks Wednesday on American and Turkish oil facilities in southern Iraq, which
may have been carried out by Iranian-backed militias, are the latest example of how Iraq
finds itself squarely in the middle of increasing tensions between its two closest partners,
the United States and Iran.
Security measures were increased at one of Iraq's largest air bases that houses American
trainers following an attack last week, a top Iraqi air force commander said Saturday. The
U.S. military said operations at the base were going on as usual and there were currently no
plans to evacuate personnel. The stepped-up Iraqi security measures at Balad air base, just
north of the capital, Baghdad.
In Iran's immediate vicinity the US Navy is especially vulnerable. Iran has thousands of
rockets and missiles, and knows how to use them, plus 34 submarines wirh 533mm torpedoes.
There's the potential of over sixty torpedoes in the water in one salvo.
from USNI:
On Sunday, the Boxer Amphibious Ready Group with embarked 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit
entered the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility, joining the Abraham Lincoln Carrier
Strike Group already on station in 5th Fleet.
As a result, the Navy now has 28,000 personnel deployed to the region. In comparison, the
Navy currently has 24,000 personnel deployed to the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans,
according to Navy data reviewed by USNI News.
"All of our training and our transit to 5th Fleet have made us prepared to respond to any
crises across the range of military operations," Capt. Brad Arthur, commander of Amphibious
Squadron 5 and the Boxer ARG/11th MEU team, said in a statement. . .
here
Don Bacon , Jun 25, 2019 9:35:55 AM |
179somebody , Jun 25, 2019 9:39:52 AM |
180
@Yeah, Right | Jun 25, 2019 9:06:21 AM | 175
What usually stops the US are elections. The Vietnam War deeply threatened the US establishment and they "think" they learnt the
lessons.
- no conscripts
- as few dead soldiers as possibele - see Iraq or
Afghanistan never mind the death of foreign civilians
So either others have to do the fighting (Syria) or the US bomb the country extensively to
make it safe for their soldiers. They miscalculated on this in Iraq.
This here is John Helmer's take - who I assume, gets his information
from the Russian military
The range of the new surveillance extends well beyond the S-300 strike distance of 200
kilometres, and covers US drone and aircraft bases on the Arabian peninsula, as well as US
warships in (and under) the Persian Gulf and off the Gulf of Oman. Early warning of US air
and naval-launched attacks has now been cut below the old 4 to 6-minute Iranian threshold.
Counter-firing by the Iranian armed forces has been automated from attack warning and
target location.
This means that if the US is detected launching a swarm of missiles aimed at Iran's
air-defense sites, uranium mines, reactors, and military operations bunkers, Iran will
launch its own swarm of missiles at the US firing platforms, as well as at Saudi and other
oil production sites, refineries, and pipelines, as well tankers in ports and under way in
the Gulf.
"The armed forces of Iran," said a Russian military source requesting anonymity, "have
air defence systems capable of hitting air targets at those heights at which drones of the
Global Hawk series can fly; this is about 19,000 to 20,000 metres. Iran's means of air
defence are both foreign-purchased systems and systems of Iran's own design; among them, in
particular, the old Soviet system S-75 and the new Russian S-300.
Recently, Iran
transported some S-300's to the south, but that happened after the drone was shot down
[June 20]. Russian specialists are working at Bushehr now and this means that the S-300's
are also for protection of Bushehr."
... ... ...
The Russian military source says there is now active coordination between Russian and
Iranian military staffs. "About coordination, of course there is participation of Russia in
intelligence-sharing because of Bushehr and ISIS. We have a long and successful partnership
with Iran, especially in terms of fighting against international terrorism." Two days after
the drone incident, Russian specialist media published Iranian video footage of the
movement of S-300's on trailer trucks. This report claims that although the S-300's are
wheeled and motorized for rapid position changes, the use of highway transporters was
intended to minimize road fatigue on the weapons.
Iranian military sources have told western reporters they have established "a joint
operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of
every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle
East."
... ... ...
In briefings for sympathetic western reporters, Iranian commanders are emphasizing the
Armageddon option; that is, however weak or strong their defenses may prove to be under
prolonged US attack, the Iranian strategy is not to wait. Their plan, they say, is to
counter-attack against Arab as well as American targets as soon as a US missile attack
commences; that's to say, at launch, not in-flight nor at impact.
The US cannot sustain any prolonged war with Iran (see elections, dead soldiers), nor can
they risk an escalation of small attacks. Nor can they isolate Iran diplomatically.
The Russian military source says there is now active coordination between Russian and
Iranian military staffs.
from Mehr News today
Heading a high delegation of Iran's Defense Ministry and the Army, Iranian Deputy Defense
Minister Brigadier General Ghasem Taghizadeh traveled to Moscow at the invitation of
Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu on Tuesday morning.
He will hold talks with Russian Defense Minister and officials, as well as visit
International Military-Technical Forum (ARMY-2019). . . here
@imo@142 - Your remark about MMT and my reply have magically gelled (in my simian brain) for a
grand unified conspiracy theory that explains a lot of oddities everyone has pointed out
previously.
The plan for last Thurs/Fri:
The incident happened Thursday before U.S. markets opened. There was the usual confusion
about exactly what happened most of the day and we had that odd statement by Trump just
before Thursday market close to the effect that maybe a rouge Iranian general made a mistake
in shooting down the (in this case: manned P-8A) in 'international waters'.
Worry, but not
panic in the markets on Friday. Oil prices would still have jumped, but derivatives don't
implode. War doesn't seem imminent. The public would have been admonished by Trump and the
MSM to 'wait for the facts' before rushing to judgement (also calming the markets). Iran
would have said nothing on Friday fearing the worse. It really couldn't have been planned
better - plenty of time to start the buzz before the weekend but avert derivative Armageddon
on Quad witching day.
Saturday is hate Iran a lot day:
The U.S. would hold off on any kind of confirmation until the weekend. CNN would
immediately roll out videos of weeping children and widows of 'our brave heros' and document
the impromptu memorials: pictures of the sailors, flowers, Teddy bears in camo, candles.
Outraged politicians would call for Iranian blood. And, of course, oil prices would have
skyrocketed.
The U.S. either conduct an attack on Iran this week or announce an impending one after
sufficient grief was milked from the 38 deaths. Trump would be shown solemly saluting the
flag-draped coffins in the C-5s arriving at Dover. If it *had* occurred in 'international
waters', the U.S. Nave would have recovered everything and kept the Iran Navy away from the
area. Casus belli - only a monster or traitor would dare question 'the facts'. Bibi would be
shrieking nonstop about how he told us so and encourage us to hurry up and destroy Iran for
them.
No sailors would have been hurt in this ruse:
I'm not making light of the thought of 38 dead U.S. sailors - none would have really died
in this scenario. The P-8A would certianly have been stripped of it's radars and advanced
electronics 'just in case'. Now there's plenty of extra room for those 38 frozen corpses
dressed in the appropriate Navy flight uniforms. Load 'em up! A USN P-8A pilot somewhere
safely ashore would be flying it via satellite just like regular drone pilots. Thanks, secret
Honeywell mystery box in the electronics bay!
Iran would have been screwed:
Video of USN ships recovering those broken (and now unthawed) bodies from the Straits
would have been required for the propaganda value. What could Iran say then? "We were
targeting the drone in our airspace, not the P-8. Honest!" Too late of course. WAR:ON.
Nobody would believe evil Iran.
Why even use a drone?
The drone would have to have been used for bait because Iran wouldn't intentionally shoot
at a P-8A (stuffed with frozen bodies or not) flying the same non-threating routes in the
middle of the Strait that they usually fly. The drone would also have been stripped but all
it's remaining cameras to capture the horrible, intentinal massacre by Iran. The plan would
have put that in Iranian airspace without explaining anything to Iran. It was suppose to draw
SAM fire.
What could have gone wrong?
The U.S. must have had enough EW on both aircraft to ensure the MQ-4A became invisible to
an approaching missile, which would eventually only seen the P-8A on it's terminal guidance
radar, not the drone. Except the Iraqis fired a SAM that used IR for terminal guidance, not
radar, ignoring whatever trick the U.S. used. The Iranian SAM may have also used a proximity
fuse, detonating it near the drone anyway. "Damn you, sneaky Iranians and your primative
IR-seeking SAMs with secret proximity fuses! Do you realize how much time and effort we put
in with our F-35s to figuring out the required radar tricks for this elaborate
scheme?"
Opening salvo:
This could also explain the bizzare 150 dead Iranian people figure Trump claimed.
There would have been a pre-planned retalitory strike on the Iranian SAM sites, but only
after market closed on Friday or on Saturday. An opening salvo only - total war would surely
follow. The U.S. would offer some fake deal. Iran would be spared destruction if they got on
their knees to their U.S. and Israeli masters. That just wouldn't ever happen, so WAR:ON. If
the U.S. went ahead with the retaliory strike based only on the drone alone, then we would
have looked like the bad guys.
How much might Iran have known?
Odd that the P-8A track wasn't also published by Iran. I wonder how they knew about the 35
frozen bodies or if they really thought there were 35 live crew? Guess we'll never know, and
nobody would believe such a nutty claim by Iran now. Frozen bodies? Remote controlled P-8As?
'Bait drone'? Hah - sounds like somethig that crackhead Paveway would dream up! Things may
have been differnt than this, but I think most people (here, anyway) were surprised by the
initial bewilderment of the Trump administration and DoD.
"What? They actually shot the drone down, not the P-8? *%^&! Why did they do
that? Get rid of the plane and dump those damn frozen bodies somewhere really deep. If you
suspect anybody on our team might be the whistleblowoing type, report them our CIA cleaner
pals to be disappeared. Hell, what do I care? My broker just called. I'm rich! F*ck the
navy - I'm retireing. See ya!"
And where the hell do you get frozen bodies today that can pass for U.S. military? Does
the Pentagon have a freezer of them somewhere for emergency use?
Some folks probably made some money [sigh...]
All I can say now is glad nothing happened as planned. I would give anything to know how
many commanding elite in the U.S. military and in-the-know congress things were buying oil
call options through proxies last week. Netanyahu and MbS were sure to have loaded up - they
LOVE money.
Thanks to somebody above with the Russia is behind Iran facts that show that attacks on
Iran are not possible but for show.
Thanks to PavewayIV with the curious scenario and confirmation that for some it is all
about MONEY
I think the EU leaders are a bit conflicted in anticipation of the G20, eh? Are they going
to join the Coalition of he Willing like their money boys tell them or do something else?
What a way to fight a war.......lets hope the fighting does not go stupider.
Existence of financial derivatives on oil (aka "paper oil") and the size of trade involving
them in world markets changes the whole situation. The USA can shoot themselves in a foot even if
the US armed forces would be able to completely destroy the Iraq army air defenses and bomb
strategic targets.
There seems to be a common theme in many articles that 'shock and awe' military strikes
will force Iran's leaders into unconditional surrender. While the US has the capability to
do this on its own, for political reasons the US is actively seeking coalition partners.
The reality is it doesn't matter how many partners the US can convince to attack Iran. No
matter how sophisticated Iran's cyber, missile or air defenses are, based on simple
logistics Iran will eventually lose a shooting war against the US and any coalition
partners. Iran knows this.
The real question when the bombing starts, is not the number of casualties that Iran can
inflict on her enemies but how long before Iran realizes it will lose and calls on all of
its asymmetric regional forces to attack in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, Saudi Arabia
and the Straits of Hormuz.
Iran doesn't have to win a shooting war, it only has to buy enough time that its forces
can disrupt oil shipments to China, India, Japan, South Korean and Europe to break the
supply chains to the US. Currently the US imports/exports over 5T dollars per year, even
impacting this by only 20% should cause the trillions in derivatives to crush the world
economy. Given that war should always be the option of last resort is there still the
possibility for negotiations?
Iran has too many examples of the promises of US and West not matching our actions. The
current sanctions are crippling the economy and backing Iran into a corner. No matter what
Iran does what guarantees can be provided that sanctions won't be reapplied. Absolutely
none. The criteria constantly change. There is an old saying in martial arts, in a fight an
opponent with no way out is far more formable than an opponent who can walk away.
Even a wide scale nuclear attack that wipes out a third of Iran's citizens in the ten
major cities and a majority of the armed forces probably won't succeed. Once nuclear
weapons are used, Iran's leaders are no longer constrained to any regional targets. If
Russia and China jump in to the fray then it could get real, as in WWIII awfully quickly.
Even without Russia and China getting involved, Iran's leaders just might consider 30M or
more deaths acceptable if her enemies are crushed. There is precedent for this. Estimates
put Russia's losses due to all causes in WWII at 25-30M people, and Russia called it a
win.
So all the babble that Iran will fold in the face of 'shock and awe' is naïve. Iran
can't win a shooting war but if can lose with style. To think that Iran can be defeated
like Iraq is folly. Iran is not Iraq. Iraq is a local power, Iran is a regional one. Iran
is too large to be attacked by ground forces. That leaves airpower. Once the bombs start to
drop, all Iranian combat units have a minimum of 72 hours of war supplies. If the US and
the coalition partners don't achieve, 'unconditional surrender' in the initial strikes then
all bets are off for keeping the conflict local.
Many articles claim the tanker and pipeline attacks of the past two weeks are 'false
flags'. Hopefully they were, because if they were not, then Iran has just proven it's ready
and has the capability to strike anywhere in the region. Iran is quickly running out of
options and has no choice but to continue escalating regional tensions until something
gives. We are indeed living in interesting times.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 24, 2019 4:58:26 PM | 59
Just to add on my recent visit to Iran. They are nearly western, much more so than
neighbouring Arab countries. But there are curiosities which keep them apart, like the hijri
solar calendar, which puts them in 1398, and the 1st of the year on 21st March. Impossible to
calculate the western date without mechanical aid.
Most that I met were anti-regime. but then they were middle class. It's not the middle
class which is voting for the regime. Rather it is a populist regime, like Trump's.
As a follower of Christ, and seasoned "fruit inspector"* I can confidently state the there
is more godly wisdom & compassion for humanity displayed by Iran, Russia, Iraq, Syria
& Palestine than ALL of the West & especially not by the likes of Pompeo, Pence,
Robertson, etc
* "By their fruits you shall know them" NOT by words alone
This may be totally naive, but how about this... Iran gets a couple nukes from somewhere,
ie. NK, Russia, Pakistan, India, Walmart... and announce it & put an end to this drawn
out dance... and force Israel, US, etc to come to terms with it. This is a war after all, and
Iran has been bullied long enough (as have we all)
I admit I have never been to Iran though I've met people who have visited the country as
tourists. I have done some reading on the country's history.
Being an Islamic theocracy, the fact that Iran uses the hijri calendar is no surprise. The
calendar is actually a lunar calendar of 12 months that is at least a week or a fortnight
shorter than the Gregorian calendar we normally use. (This explains why every year Ramadan
starts earlier than it did the previous year.) 21st March on the other hand is Nowruz
(Persian New Year) which among other things celebrates the spring equinox and is an
inheritance from pre-Islamic Persia.
I have read some information about the bonyads (charitable foundations) owned / managed by
the IRGC and other government organisations. These trusts (non-profit so they are exempt from
taxation) invest huge amounts in Iran's industries. Just the other day I was commenting at
another blog about a senior military guy in the Iranian armed forces, General Hossein Salami,
who works with a huge
IRGC-associated engineering firm that controls over 800 firms and employs over 25,000 mostly
technical and engineering staff . The income that bonyads obtain from a firm like
Salami's firm and others, which in Western countries would be considered "profit", is
distributed among IRGC members (or members of the other government agencies that run them) in
the form of subsidies for education up to and including college / university level,
healthcare and other social services.
My understanding is that most people who are members of the IRGC come from working class
families and especially families who lost breadwinners or other men of draft age during the
Iraq-Iran war (1980 - 1988).
Middle class and upper middle class layers would be the hardest hit by US sanctions on
Iran (they are the ones importing and buying overseas goods, and have the most contacts with
the Iranian diaspora) and won't have the protection of subsidies provided by bonyads or other
government organisations.
I have to say I find this talk of "the mullahs" disturbing.
I never see any collateral to demonstrate that the religious layer of Iran is actually
harmful to the people in any way. And on the contrary, everything I read about how the
religious layer is part of the governing system and the culture and welfare of the nation
seems pretty reasonable to me.
I keep coming back to the thought that this is after all the religion of the people of
this country. It is the particular way in which they approach the sacredness of the universe.
I'm not persuaded that it's more intelligent to regard the universe as being not-sacred.
To accept the benignity of religious people in positions of power and influence within a
state, you have to accept the positive aspects of religion, as well as the negative aspects.
This is where a lot of potential acceptance fails, of course.
~~
We keep hearing that it is the middle and upper classes that are disaffected with the
government (although typically the term "regime" is used). But in this cold-hearted,
neoliberal economic wasteland, surely the fact that the poor and the unprivileged are in
support of their government is not a study in "populism" but rather a study in successful
socialist principles at work?
And the link provided in the previous thread regarding Iran's leadership in the war on
drugs stated that over 8,000 Iranian police have died fighting the flow of opium from
Afghanistan. The position of the US in this trade is clear to everyone, and the reason to
sanction Iran - precisely to shackle the Iranian interdiction of the drug flow - is also
clear.
Iran strikes me very much as being like Cuba, in that its good works that yield no profit
are greater than any that come from the western nations. Ir almost seems that only a
socialist, revolutionary nation has freed itself from the shackles of greed enough to pursue
actions purely from moral concern.
I like Khamenei. I envy a country that has a moral anchor such as he, a force that acts
not as its captain but as its pilot.
~~
No particular point to make. Just some words in support of devotion to the sacred, and the
moral strength to live a life, and direct a country, along moral lines, rather than
criminal.
The Shah came to power with USA + UK coup on 1953, he lacked legitimacy, that was his main
problem, he was not an indepdendt legimtimate ruler.
Understanding Iran revolution and the long historical march is too complicated. On the
surface and apperance it seems on political, ideoligical/ theoligical levels, but the
movement is deeply in cultural and social level. Otherwise it would not be able to survive,
resist and grow for 40 years. It may take another 40-50 years the movement bear fruits.
The Shah was a tragic figure in many ways. You are correct about being the servant of his
masters until he outgrew that and started having Persian Empire ambitions. Perhaps too soon
for the politics of the era. The west of the 1970's preferred a King Hussein of Jordan.
Quiet, unpretentious and cooperative.
The Shah was a super intelligent, extremely well informed and well-read, and a great
debater. No journalist was a match for him, not even the crass and arrogant Mike Wallace. But
inherently, he was a weak man with a character that did not match his ambitions. That
weakness did not allow him to follow through with his plans and he had great plans for his
country.
Having said that, IMHO, the Seven Sisters' decision to remove him, and him capitulating so
easy, was one the biggest mistakes in modern geopolitics. Look what has happened since then.
Furthermore, Dynasties and kings are in Persian DNA. I often laugh at the talk of democracy
in Iran, as you cannot have 4-5 Iranians sit together and agree to disagree. One idea always
has to come on top and the rest be damned.
Obviously, there are so many other factors and it would a lengthy discussion best to have
over a nice Cuban cigar and a single Malt.
@ C I eh? who wrote
"
Iran can pursue the strategy of Russia, patience and double dealing, indefinitely or till the
cows come home.
"
Totally agree.
In the case of bullies the best offense is a good defense and Iran showed it has good
defense to shoot down the spy plane and not the one with cannon fodder nearby
How many more bully nations other than Israel and the US are currently "active"?
None.
This is why the G20 will be interesting to see how much the global finance power struggle
shows itself.....the cows are coming home perhaps....
As alluded to by several and directly pointed to by me, Iran's defensive capabilities have
placed the Outlaw US Empire's King in check and have forced it to move into hiding on the
board behind what amounts to nothing of substance. I think it an amazing admission that the
self-proclaimed most powerful military EVER on Earth must ask for assistance to overthrow
what is a popular Iranian government--a government and people in a strategic location within
Eurasia on the cusp of initiating an geoeconomic/geopolitical system capable of upending the
Empire's #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance. What nation other than the
usual co-outlaws will join in an action that is totally against its interests--what nation
wants, desires, to be dominated by another?
As I see it, the next move on the global chess board will occur at the G-20, and the King
will be placed in check again. However, the move required to get away from the check
situation won't be as simple as was just done today. It will require complex finesse of a
sort TrumpCo has yet to exhibit. It seems likely Trump will try to
redirect attention away from his Iranian failure, but that won't alter the fact that he
must move his King.
There has been much recent speculation about the restoration of monarchy in Iran in Western
news media which would suggest this is something currently occupying the minds of the, uh,
"best" and "brightest" brains over at Langley, Foggy Bottom and the bizarre ziggurat building at Vauxhall
Cross in London.
One little problem that our Western news media and their feeders may have overlooked is
that traditionally only men inherit the throne in Iran.
The current Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has only three daughters. His younger brother Ali
Reza (committed suicide in January 2011) left behind one daughter.
Iran strikes me very much as being like Cuba, in that its good works that yield no profit are
greater than any that come from the western nations. Ir almost seems that only a socialist,
revolutionary nation has freed itself from the shackles of greed enough to pursue actions
purely from moral concern.
Posted by: Grieved | Jun 24, 2019 7:59:24 PM | 98
How does Iran strike you in this way? You have traveled in Iran? You have lived in
Iran?
Do actually you give a fuck about Iran and Iranians? (Be honest. I mean care they way you
care about your FAMILY.)
Iran has been kept artificaly retarded and its development plans halted. A million
Iranians perished in a needless war. Iranians are forced to accept outrageous intrusions on
Iran's sovereignty. Our best minds continue to leave. And now we're being threatened with
nuclear bombardment.
"Winning"?
Why don't you wish that on your own people. Hah?
One imagines it must have been very alarming to the Global Mafia when the Shah of Iran
announced the plans for the Port of Chabahar. Can you imagine a developed Iran, in good
international standing, with a thriving modern port right on the Ohormozd [Hormoz] Strait? Do
recent events jingle a bell somewhere there, Grieved?
"Socialist"
A welfare state is not the same thing as a "socialist" system.
IRI runs a welfare state to keep the lower classes on their side. They are hugely
corrupted, even Ahmadinejad was screaming about it. It is not even remotely a secret.
The greed of the Mullahs is legendary. You clearly have never dealt with a member of that
species. I suggest you acquaint yourself with Iranian's assessment of our clerical
snakes.
[Obviously mature readers recognize that in any gross characterization we omit stating the
obvious fact that "in most every grouping of people there are exceptional and principled
members." We state this here for those who are not.]
I highly doubt that Khamenei has even $0.01 worth of assets in the US, however the real
purpose of sanctioning Khamenei and other Iranian government officials (supposedly including
the Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif) is not to seize their assets but to make
international diplomacy more difficult. For example, if Khamenei were to travel to Iraq to
face to face discussions with the Iraqi Prime Minister the US would now have the legal
framework to sanction any company involved in the travel arrangements, accommodations,
insurance, etc... Sanctioning Javad Zarif is an especially dick move as he is one of the
leading Iranian moderates and was in favor of the original JCPOA agreement. I suspect that
when Javad Zarif tries to attend the next UN summit in New York the US will attempt to
sabotage his travel based on these sanctions.
This is also more proof that the US wants a war with Iran as they are trying to crush the
moderates within Iran in the hopes that 1) the hardliners will become ascendant within Iran
and that they will pursue policies that will make it easier for the US to justify their
eventual attack on Iran and 2) making it more difficult for senior government officials to
travel aboard will make Iran's international diplomacy less effective in developing a
international coalition in opposition to the war. China and Russia acting as proxies and
advocates for Iran will be vital for future discussions
(1) "Iran has been kept artifically retarded and its development plans halted. A million
Iranians perished in a needless war."
Do you realize that Iran was attacked by Saddam who was supported by the US and that the US
provided Saddam with vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
(2) "One imagines it must have been very alarming to the Global Mafia when the Shah of
Iran announced the plans for the Port of Chabahar."
Did you know that the Shah was installed on 19 August 1953 following the overthrow of
democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in Operation Ajax by the US and the
United Kingdom? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
(3) "IRI runs a welfare state to keep the lower classes on their side."
Sounds like the US system where the two wings of the bird of prey are the Democrats and
the Republicans (Upton Sinclair, 1904). Please read up on US Neofeudal Oligarchy before
throwing stones at regimes that do not meet your ideological viewpoint. https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjune19/lessons-rome6-19.html
Yes I understand why the US would want to rape Iran and Venezuela for their energy
resources. Without these pools of liquid energy the US Empire will collapse on itself. I
suggest you read 1Pathfinding Our Destiny for a reality check on the US system. https://www.oftwominds.com/Pathfinding-Our-Destiny-sample2.pdf
I suggest that you worry about the US Zionist "christian" endtimers seeking the rapture
than the Iranian Mullahs.
/div> Realist, what are you asking for? Are you wishing for Ukraine's fate?
Or Brazil's? Or El Salvador's? The political situation in Iran should be, by rights, an Iranian
issue. I live in a country that spends trillions making life miserable for others, killing and
maiming them but cannot afford to look after it's own people. This is by rights my problem, and
I and my fellow citizens should be working to correct this imbalance. What advice do you have?
What advice should I give you? We are caught in a terrible, foolish dance but have not the
power, as individuals, to escape. This is life. Enjoy some tahdig. Railing against people here
is not particularly enlightning for anyone.
Posted by: the pessimist , Jun 24, 2019 11:39:51 PM |
132
Realist, what are you asking for? Are you wishing for Ukraine's fate? Or Brazil's? Or El
Salvador's? The political situation in Iran should be, by rights, an Iranian issue. I live in
a country that spends trillions making life miserable for others, killing and maiming them
but cannot afford to look after it's own people. This is by rights my problem, and I and my
fellow citizens should be working to correct this imbalance. What advice do you have? What
advice should I give you? We are caught in a terrible, foolish dance but have not the power,
as individuals, to escape. This is life. Enjoy some tahdig. Railing against people here is
not particularly enlightning for anyone.
Posted by: the pessimist | Jun 24, 2019 11:39:51 PM |
132
IRI runs a welfare state to keep the lower classes on their side. They are hugely
corrupted, even Ahmadinejad was screaming about it. It is not even remotely a secret.
The greed of the Mullahs is legendary. You clearly have never dealt with a member of
that species. I suggest you acquaint yourself with Iranian's assessment of our clerical
snakes.
I have had quite a few Iranians describe that situation to me. It is amazing how the
Christian religious leadership gets bashed, mostly rightly so, and the Mullahs get a pass. I
am sure they do get the job done shaking down the flock. Probably not as mullaevangelists on
TV but there are other ways. I bet one could amass quite a flock of daughters to your
harem.
A quick question: if there really were 35/38 American servicemen jammed into a P-8 and
dangled before the Iranians like a juicy bait on a hook then how, exactly, are they going to
view that display of casual recklessness w.r.t. their lives?
Wouldn't they be more than a little pissed off with the revelation that the Iranian
military cared more about their mortal souls than did their own superiors in the US chain of
command?
I was listening to a recent interview of Liberty survivors. One survivor just joined the
group after retiring from the intelligence establishment. He was on the fantail after the
ship got hit and described the whole thing including the Israeli torpedo boats flying their
flags firing at the Liberty. Later at port he had to retrieve the dead. He was threatened by
the naval brass to be silent and went on to work for them for the rest of his life.
DC is full of these guys "afraid for their careers and pension". Do not expect to much out
of them.
Grieved
I agree with you summation of the Governance of Iran. The supreme Leader has a fatwa on the
creating/ion of Nuclear weapons which he says is immoral. Well their you have it, a gaggle of
US presidents who only live to breathe the threaten use of nuclear weapons upon 'their
enemies', against a leader who wishers not the power of such a immoral weapon..
@Oscar Peterson 48
Re China siding with the US if gulf oil is cut.
If China have read Trumps global energy dominance strategy, they will know it is aimed at
them.
Trumps attacks on Venezuela and Iran are twofold.
One reason is Israel - both Iran and Venezuela are anti Israel, and the second it energy
dominance -both countries have large reserves of no US controlled oil reserves.
Energy - oil and gas are China's Achilles heel. They must be imported from somewhere and
China being the would No1 importer of oil, it is something that cannot be substituted by
Russia overnight and possibly not even in the longer term..
That does not change the fact that Trump foreign policy is a continuation of Obama fogirn policy. It is neocon forign policy directed
on "full spectrum dominance". Trump just added to this bulling to the mix.
Notable quotes:
"... When pressed on the dangers of having such an uber-hawk neo-conservative who remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq War, and who laid the ground work for it as a member of Bush's National Security Council, Trump followed with, "That doesn't matter because I want both sides." ..."
"... I was against going into Iraq... I was against going into the Middle East . Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East right now. ..."
"... Bolton has never kept his career-long goal of seeing regime change in Tehran a secret - repeating his position publicly every chance he got, especially in the years prior to tenure at the Trump White House. ..."
"... Bolton! So much winning! And there's also Perry: Rick Perry, Trump's energy secretary, was flagged for describing Trumpism as a "toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness, and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition." ..."
"... Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton was one of the architects of the Iraq War under George W. Bush, and now he's itching to start a war with Iran -- an even bigger country with almost three times the population. ..."
In a stunningly frank moment during a Sunday
Meet the Press interview focused on President Trump's decision-making on Iran, especially last week's "brink of war" moment which
saw Trump draw down readied military forces in what he said was a "common sense" move, the commander in chief threw his own national
security advisor under the bus in spectacular fashion .
Though it's not Trump's first tongue-in-cheek denigration of Bolton's notorious hawkishness, it's certainly the most brutal and
blunt take down yet, and frankly just plain enjoyable to watch. When host Chuck Todd asked the president if he was "being pushed
into military action against Iran" by his advisers in what was clearly a question focused on Bolton first and foremost, Trump responded:
"John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?"
Trump began by explaining, "I have two groups of people. I have doves and I have hawks," before leading into this sure to be classic
line that is one for the history books: "If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?"
During this section of comments focused on US policy in the Middle East, the president reiterated his preference that he hear
from "both sides" on an issue, but that he was ultimately the one making the decisions.
When pressed on the dangers of having such an uber-hawk neo-conservative who remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq
War, and who laid the ground work for it as a member of Bush's National Security Council, Trump followed with, "That doesn't matter
because I want both sides."
And in another clear indicator that Trump wants to stay true to his non-interventionist instincts voiced on the 2016 campaign
trail, he explained to Todd that:
I was against going into Iraq... I was against going into the Middle East . Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle
East right now.
It was the second time this weekend that Trump was forced to defend his choice of Bolton as the nation's most influential foreign
policy thinker and adviser. When peppered with questions at the White House Saturday following Thursday night's dramatic "almost
war" with Iran, Trump said that he "disagrees" with Bolton "very much" but that ultimately he's "doing a very good job".
Bolton has never kept his career-long goal of seeing regime change in Tehran a secret - repeating his position publicly every
chance he got, especially in the years prior to tenure at the Trump White House.
But Bolton hasn't had a good past week: not only had Trump on Thursday night shut the door on Bolton's dream of overseeing a major
US military strike on Iran, but he's been pummeled in the media.
Even a Fox prime time show (who else but Tucker of course) colorfully described him as a "bureaucratic tapeworm" which periodically
reemerges to cause pain and suffering.
It's great that the biggest war mongers are the ones that not only never served but in the case of Bolton, purposely avoided
serving. They should send that ****** to Iran so we can see just how supportive he is when he's actually in danger.
This guy is a worthless piece of **** and Trump's an idiot for hiring him.
Being a cheerleader for the Iraq war is as ridiculous as that ******* mustache. He's just letting neocons have a front row
seat to power. That's how he's keeping them from jumping ship to become democrats. They have no principles. They're just power
worshippers.
Do ya all remember when Trump took office? Losers use military strategy that is overwhelming bombardment b4 land attack. I
thought that Donnie can not survive this pressure. Looks like now he is riding horse with banner in hands. Thumb up, MJT
I was against going into the Middle East...$7 Trillion? So why is Jared trying to give away $50 Billion more? People thought
they voted for MAGA, but they got Jared...MMEGA.
How about MJANYA?...Make Jared a New Yorker Again. Send Jared and Ivanka back to New York before it's $10 Trillion.
Bolton! So much winning! And there's also Perry: Rick Perry, Trump's energy secretary, was flagged for describing Trumpism
as a "toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness, and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition."
Trump "unleashes"? For those who think, he also said Bolton is doing a good job. Crap headline. I think Solomon said, "In a
multitude of counselors there is victory".
What kind of unprofessional dingus talks openly about employee issues? That's not how you run a organization. That's how you
run a reality television show.
Sides? I could hire Hobo Joe, the bum that huffs paint and drinks scotch out of plastic bottle while yelling at traffic by
the intersection, as my advisor. He'd probably tell me to do some whacky stuff. But why would I do that?
There is no side to hear. Bomb everyone. That is John Bolton's side. It isn't worth hearing. The man shouldn't be drawing a
paycheck. He shouldn't be drawing breath. He should be pushing up daisies. He the same as ISIS.
Reading is fundamental....and certainly not needed to spout opinions. In fact, reading, combined with critical thinking, logic
and reason, just gets in the way of forming opinions. Or should I say "repeating" other's opinions.
"Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East right now."....Yes, just like your *** bosses wanted and needed and
you dumb ******* sheep still think voting matters.
Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton was one of the architects of the Iraq War under George W. Bush, and now he's
itching to start a war with Iran -- an even bigger country with almost three times the population.
Democrats in Congress have the power to pull us back from the brink , but they need to act now. Once bombs start falling and
troops are on the ground, there will be massive political pressure to rally around the flag.
"... Trump treats int'l matters like acrid biz negotiations (see art of the deal) - you pressure your carpet installer for your mega hotels with nasty e-mails, bellowing threats on the phone, rustling up the competition, getting a bunch of staff on your side to shore up da ego, etc. When the carpet-seller makes some bigly concessions on price (all understand the game that is played) you relent and make nicey, and the wives get together for tennis and a ruccola crab lunch and later some mega bash with smiling faces is pictured. ..."
Trump strove for some foreign policy triumphs. The art of the deal!
He tried his hand with N. Korea. What happened? (Besides perhaps improved NK-SK
relations ) Nothing.
Syria .. (though there is still plenty going on there) what gave Trump / the USA some
kind of 'victory'? Zilch, disounting missile attacks on a runway in an airport and on an
empty research and teaching facility.
Symbolic moves, as proposed to Iran (a deal, heh) to save face (see b's posts.)
Next, ho ho, regime change in Venezuela, that might be great, get some extra voters in
Florida. Result? The status quo ante, perhaps stronger than before, with the
Dauphin, Random Guaido, shown up to be a cynical petty fraudster, and not even
challenging enough to jail!
Iran? Note the pressure has been building up since last year when The Donald withdrew
the US from the JCPOA.
Real men go to Teheran!
Except Trump and US forces aren't going anywhere at all and most certainly not to Iran. A
real war in that theatre cannot be fought and won by the US. Nor can it be instigated and
subsequently 'let drop' or 'become unimportant, trivial, with some claims of victory' for ex.
Afghanistan. (very costly btw)
Iran has made it clear that economic sanctions are part of hybrid war, rightly so (but
not, as I still claim, by making some minor attacks on tankers round about, to provoke a
reaction, NO) -- at some point, one engages, if not: backing down is the only option.
Trump treats int'l matters like acrid biz negotiations (see art of the deal) - you
pressure your carpet installer for your mega hotels with nasty e-mails, bellowing threats on
the phone, rustling up the competition, getting a bunch of staff on your side to shore up da
ego, etc. When the carpet-seller makes some bigly concessions on price (all understand the
game that is played) you relent and make nicey, and the wives get together for tennis and a
ruccola crab lunch and later some mega bash with smiling faces is pictured.
I think he got on super well with Kim (NK) who understood all this.
Leaves begging what-who-why is the projected aim, potential hoped result of the hybrid
attack on Iran, and which parties (USA MIC, Fin. Trade Cos., Banking, FF industry, many other
industries; Israel, KSA) support it (again, for what precise aim?) Or are against
sanctions...
"... That could mean that it was there specifically for observation (of the P8, as much as Iranian defenses); and of course could mean that much of the equipment, particularly the active equipment, was no longer aboard ..."
"... Wouldn't be needed, after all, if the job was just to record what was hoped to be an Iranian reaction, and would want to minimize the amount of equipment potentially falling into enemy hands if things went bad. ..."
"... Secondly, the 35 souls on board the P8 comment by Iran was brilliant. For one thing, it put the US on the defensive and once again called world attention to the fact that the Iranians have striven to avoid loss of life (so much so that Trump even used it to partly save face on the whole thing). ..."
"... But either way, it is unquestionable that Iranian intelligence has penetrated the base, or operations, to a degree that must be causing all sorts of trepidation amongst the US hawks. ..."
Re the Boeing and the drone. With both planes apparently close together for the flight, they
were not there for maritime surveillance. Iranians most likely only picked up floating debris
initially and electronic hardware may be rovered later, but there is a possibility the drone
was stripped of hardware for its job as decoy. 35 to 38 people on the Boeing are too many for
a simple photoshoot.
The decoy entering Iranian airspace the beginnings of a US strike... it draws fire from
multiple SAM sites, the Boeing P-8 videoing the shootdown to justify the strike while
locating launch positions and directing immediate strikes onto these positions. Comes unstuck
when Iran launches a single missile. Trump cancels the strike.
Re the Boeing - if the strike was planned in advance, as the pentagon does with its
contingency plans the aircraft would have been equipped for detecting SAM sites.
To add to my post @80, the US captured the missile strike on video. One of the pics put out
by the Pentagon was of the drone exploding. This means they were videoing the drone at the
moment the missile struck. The only reason for having a video camera filming the drone that I
can see, is that the US expected it to be hit.
Why have 35 (or, according to Trump 38) people on a spy plane that is normally crewed by
9?
Because you need double-digit numbers of American casualties to get Americans'
attention.
As PavewayIV pointed out in a previous thread, the P-8 spy plane was to the east of
the drone. That means it was between the missile launcher and the drone. The P-8 has a
hundred times or more the radar cross section of the drone, despite them both being about the
same size, so electronic countermeasures or not it stands out like a sore thumb relative to
the drone to Iran's radar. It is impossible that these issues were overlooked by the people
who put this mission together.
The Navy has a bunch of P-8s. They only had one RQ-4.
The conclusion is obvious:
The drone was there to collect evidence of the destruction of the P-8.
I had noticed the directions in the in the video pics but had forgotten about that.
Makes it more complex as the crewed aircraft was to the east of the drone (closest to Iran),
yet videoing the drone expecting it to be hit...
The video also had coordinates of the aircraft taking the video and the target aircraft (in
this case the drone) I have not cross checked this with the Iranian coordinates and bringing
them up on google maps did not show the positions in relation to Iranian airspace. That the
US includes the coordinates in the pics makes me wonder if the information in the video shots
has been changed - possibly by resetting the video recorder prior to the op.
J Swift | Jun 23, 2019 7:42:55 PM | 152
A couple of random thoughts on the drone/P8. Firstly, there was earlier a fair amount of debate on the stealthiness of the
drone. I would just mention that the Iranians did not say it was a stealth drone they were tracking...they said it was in
"stealth mode." I originally thought that was just an offhand reference to the craft turning off its transponder, making it
somewhat less obvious although hardly a true stealth craft. But perhaps they meant that it was noted to be in fully passive
mode with respect to its surveillance equipment.
That could mean that it was there specifically for observation (of the P8, as much as Iranian defenses); and of course
could mean that much of the equipment, particularly the active equipment, was no longer aboard
Wouldn't be needed, after all, if the job was just to record what was hoped to be an Iranian reaction, and would want
to minimize the amount of equipment potentially falling into enemy hands if things went bad.
Secondly, the 35 souls on board the P8 comment by Iran was brilliant. For one thing, it put the US on the defensive
and once again called world attention to the fact that the Iranians have striven to avoid loss of life (so much so that Trump
even used it to partly save face on the whole thing).
As Paveway IV commented, it could have technically been an empty, remotely controlled plane, in which case the Iranian
reference to a highly unusual number of crewmen may have been a tongue-in-cheek jab at the Yanks--or there may have been an
unusually high number of crewlambs, which might also have alerted the Iranian intelligence that a set-up was unfolding.
But either way, it is unquestionable that Iranian intelligence has penetrated the base, or operations, to a degree
that must be causing all sorts of trepidation amongst the US hawks.
karlof1 | Jun 23, 2019 7:52:23 PM | 154
Jen @143--
As myself and others noted, the usual crew for P-8 is 7: two on the flight deck and 5 distributed at the 5 work stations.
The plane's equipped with a bomb/torpedo/sonobouy bay as it's primary mission's ASW. Jamming in an additional 28-30 people
would be rather difficult at best. IMO, the only way would be to remove all ordinance to make room for what could only be 3
Special Forces squads and their gear--they would paradive into Iran to do their thing, presumably. Otherwise, the plane
wasn't a P-8. I don't recall the Iranians providing the plane type, although it's clear they could have since they readily
identified the drone. That leaves us with the following:
Iran's incorrect about the # of people they "saw" on other plane.
USA's playing along with Iranian mistake, but added 3 more.
Iran's correct. USA's lying about plane type.
Iran's correct. USA correct, but altered mission and added troops.
Iran's correct. USA correct; but if shadowing drone, why so many people--trial run?
Iran's correct. Both US planes deliberately entered Iranian airspace to provoke a response that wasn't obtained
earlier in the week as Zarif just informed. If so, why so many on non-drone?
There're probably more that could be obtained, but the above seem to be the most logical. It's also possible that Iran
toppled the planes into its airspace using EW; although that possibility surprised PavewayIV, I'm not in the least.
Regardless if there were 7, 35 or 38 people on the second plane, they all probably needed new trousers upon landing. I also
wonder if the Iranian system actuates the radar-lock warning alarm giving the pilot a chance to evade? If I'm correct in my
evaluation of Iran's system, it won't and the air crew won't have time to say a final prayer.
"... This whole saga is not about nuclear weapons, it is about those conventional ballistic missiles which Iran is manufacturing perfectly legally and changing the equation in the region. These are precision missiles and could turn Tel Aviv and Saudi oil infrastructure into rubble, US/Israel want to make Iran defenseless. It is not going to happen. ..."
Trump is such a con man... He said he told Shinzō Abe, before the Japanese prime
minister visited Tehran on 12 June: "Send the following message: you can't have nuclear
weapons. And other than that, we can sit down and make a deal. But you cannot have nuclear
weapons."
On further questioning he added the demand that Tehran should not have a ballistic missile
programme, and suggested he wanted a tougher inspection regime.
This whole saga is not about nuclear weapons, it is about those conventional ballistic
missiles which Iran is manufacturing perfectly legally and changing the equation in the
region. These are precision missiles and could turn Tel Aviv and Saudi oil infrastructure
into rubble, US/Israel want to make Iran defenseless. It is not going to happen.
"... Trump and the Trump administration have no credibility; lying is simply the nature of this administration. ..."
"... Nobody is going to believe anything put out by the US government for a long time. And yes, it's really sad when Iran or North Korea are deemed more credible than my own government. ..."
"... This whole affair is about nothing except smashing yet another nation because the apartheid Jewish state wants that to happen. ..."
Laying aside political and nationalistic biases, both the United States and Iran have credibility issues. While Iran is not
known for its honesty, Trump and the Trump administration have no credibility; lying is simply the nature of this administration.
As such, the matter cannot be settled by an appeal to credibility -- although, sadly, Iran seems to be less inclined to
relentless lying than Trump.
Nobody is going to believe anything put out by the US government for a long time. And yes, it's really sad when Iran or
North Korea are deemed more credible than my own government.
The author does miss the point here:
If the United States removes the existing ruling class, it is not clear that we would be able to build a functional government
in the new Iran -- even if we airdropped billions upon billions of dollars onto the country.
This whole affair is about nothing except smashing yet another nation because the apartheid Jewish state wants that to
happen.
"... "Lying sometimes, not always lying, sometimes it's manipulations, but yeah," Merry replied. "America's warmaking history indicates that there's been significant instances of that kind of maneuvering, manipulations, and in some instances lying–Vietnam is a great example–to get us into wars that the American people weren't clamoring for." ..."
Carlson's first guest, The American Conservative 's Robert Merry, plainly stated
the likely reason for Bolton's deceitful manipulations, saying that Americans are typically
reluctant to go to war and citing a few of the historical instances in which they were
tricked into consenting to it by those who desire mass military violence.
"So, you're saying that there is a long, almost unbroken history of lying our way into
war?" Carlson asked his guest rhetorically.
"Lying sometimes, not always lying, sometimes it's manipulations, but yeah," Merry
replied. "America's warmaking history indicates that there's been significant instances of
that kind of maneuvering, manipulations, and in some instances lying–Vietnam is a great
example–to get us into wars that the American people weren't clamoring for."
Both men are correct. The US empire does indeed have an extensive and well-documented history of using
lies, manipulations and distortions to manufacture consent for war from a populace that would
otherwise choose peace, and a Reuters poll released last month found that only 12 percent of Americans favor
attacking Iranian military interests without having been attacked first.
<...>
What we are watching with Iran is a war propaganda narrative failing to get airborne. It
was all set up and ready to go, they had the whole marketing team working on it, and then it
faceplanted right on the linoleum. This is what a failed narrative management campaign looks
like. It is possible for us to see this more and more.
Today I have a lot more hope. It's becoming clear that the manipulations of the US war
machine are becoming more and more obvious to more and more people and that everyday, regular
Americans are reacting with a healthy amount of horror and revulsion. There was always the
risk that the US population would already be sufficiently paced ahead of these revelations
and there would be little to no reaction, but that didn't happen. Americans are seeing what
they're doing, and they don't like it, and they don't want it.
And that makes me so happy. Come on Captain America. Save the day. The world is counting
on you.
Our leaders seem interested in toppling Iran's theocracy. But do they want a new U.S. military draft? Because make no mistake,
that's what it will take.
<...>
Any serious effort to end the Iranian theocracy will not only require American troops, but will also almost certainly break
our vaunted All-Volunteer Force If you like the idea of regime change in Iran, you had better love the idea of a new American
draft.
We have seen for decades that American air power alone is insufficient to topple a government, [...]. Our Sunni Arab allies
are stalemated in Yemen and distinctly averse to sending troops to Syria. The idea that they would invade or occupy Iran is risible.
The Washington regime change crowd's preferred Iranian proxy is a hated cult called Mujahideen-e Khalq.
But if the mullahs are to be overthrown, it will be by American soldiers and Marines. Even if the Islamic Republic were to
somehow collapse on its own, concerns about radiological material, the security of the Strait of Hormuz or another massive wave
of refugees would probably drive the U.S.to intervene with ground troops.
U.S. politicians and generals sometimes like to point out that the volunteer military has successfully endured a decade and
a half of sustained combat and a ceaseless cycle of deployments. This is not the whole story.
Despite the enormous amount of money expended there, Iraq was by historical measures a low-intensity war. Total combat deaths
for American forces over eight years were about the size of a brigade, and losses in Afghanistan roughly half that. Yet a modest
increase in force structure required the military to greatly lower its standards, doubling felony waivers for Army recruits from
2003 to 2006, for instance.
A massive increase in the use of civilian contractors (more than 50 times the ratio in Vietnam) also hid the volunteer system's
cracks. The All-Volunteer Force was barely able to sustain two large, but low-casualty, campaigns -- neither of which has resulted
in anything resembling a U.S. strategic victory.
Occupying Iran would be a challenge of an entirely different magnitude than Iraq or Afghanistan.
<...>
The force with which we would occupy Iran is also not as resilient as most Americans probably think. Even now, in a time when
most troops are not seeing direct combat, the the volunteer force is struggling just to maintain numbers and standards. The Air
Force, Marine Corps, and Navy are each short of a full quarter of their required fighter pilots. The Army recently announced that
it is already 12,000 recruits behind on its recruiting goal for 2018 and will not make mission.
The Pentagon stated last year that 71% of Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 are ineligible to serve in the U.S. military,
most for reasons of health, physical fitness, education, or criminality. The propensity of this age group to serve is even lower.
The likely demands and casualties of a war in Iran would spell the end of the All-Volunteer Force, requiring the conscription
of Americans for the first time since 1973.
There is ample evidence that American foreign policy elites haven't learned much from Iraq or Afghanistan; one need only look
at the latest headlines from Libya or Syria. But perhaps even our modern Bourbons in Washington can grasp one simple lesson from
the post-9/11 campaigns: Wars have an uncanny tendency to take on a life of their own.
Regime change in Iran would bring a host of consequences, many of them unknowable, but almost all of them negative for America
and the region. There is one outcome we can be sure of, however: Occupying Iran would be the death of America's all-volunteer
military and necessitate a return to a draft.
This recent 19 May piece from Ha'aretz documents precisely the manipulation of
American policy by Israeli charlatans and their agents of influence in the US. The title says
it all just by itself: "Netanyahu's Iran Dilemma: Getting Trump to Act Without Putting
Israel on the Front Line." It goes on to assess that:
"In this conflict, Israel is hoping to have its cake and eat it too. Ever since Trump
was elected president two and a half years ago, Netanyahu has been urging him to take a
more aggressive line toward Iran, in order to force it to make additional concessions on
its nuclear program and disrupt its support for militant organizations.
"Trump acceded to this urging a year ago when he withdrew America from the nuclear
agreement with Iran. That was followed by tighter sanctions on Iran, as well as publication
of a plan by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo detailing 12 steps Tehran must take to
satisfy Washington.
"But Israel isn't interested in being part of the front. That is why Jerusalem has
issued so few official statements on the Iranian issue, and why Netanyahu has urged
ministers to be cautious in what they say."
I'd say that passage captures the situation perfectly, and it just goes to show that when
you want to know about what chicanery Israel and its lobby are up to in the US, you have to
go and look at what Israelis are saying when they aren't particularly careful about who's
observing. That sort of truth is sanitized from any MSM accounts in the US.
"... The Supreme Court Treason related to the 2000 election penned by the late Vincent T. Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President, and his The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, provoke similar ire. ..."
"The UNSC veto doesn't make the UN Charter null and void. Actions that violate it are
still illegal/unconstitutional and able to be challenged in domestic courts". I agree it does
not make the charter null and void, the question is how can aggressors be brought to book,
Tony Blair was accused of the crime of aggression but the Judges said he could not be
prosecuted see below. Thanks for the link to the Uniting for Peace resolution, I will read it
tomorrow.
"Tony Blair should not face prosecution for his role in the 2003 Iraq war, the high court has
ruled.
The lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and another senior judge, Mr Justice
Ouseley, said on Monday that there was no crime of aggression in English law under which the
former prime minister could be charged.
Thanks for your reply! I recall what an absolutely incensed Craig Murray wrote about that decision about Tony Blair--well
beyond a travesty as it's a Capital Crime and not subject to statutes of limitation. The Supreme Court Treason related to
the 2000 election penned by the late Vincent T. Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the
Constitution and Chose Our President, and his The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, provoke similar ire.
Going on 3 decades now, one of my primary questions is How to contain the Outlaw US Empire and make it into a law-abiding
nation without blowing up the world. I've always recognized that it would take a global coalition to arrive at a genuine
confrontation.
IMO, we're very close to that point; the G-20 will indicate just how close.
But even more importantly than the global coalition is the requirement for a political force within the Empire asking and
acting on my question. The Maximum Pressure must come from internal and external sources for any positive outcome to be
achieved. Since 2012, I've seen 2020 as THE inflection point. It seems I'm not alone.
"... China leader Xi Jinping was not behind the attempt to introduce an extradition law in Hong Kong, well-placed sources say. Nor did it originate with Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor ..."
"... In the entire 22-year history of Hong Kong, China, only 100 people had been extradited, mostly fugitives put on planes to the United States. ..."
"... One was the China-US trade war, which was now causing easily detectable damage to their country's economic indicators. And the other was the rise in illegal capital outflows, often through underground banks to Hong Kong, where it distorted the property markets. ..."
"... On May 1, China critic Gordon C. Chang (known for his 2002 book The Coming Collapse of China) wrote a widely circulated essay claiming that Beijing was behind the amendment. ..."
"... Beijing, with methodical ruthlessness, is trying to bring Hong Kong to heel,, he wrote. Many believe new rules facilitating the sending of suspects to China would effectively allow Beijing to grab people at will and thereby completely control the city. ..."
"... Hong Kong end game: why the extradition bill is an infinity stone that could decimate half of society, said a headline in the Hong Kong Free Press over a melodramatic call to action by lawyer-activist Jason Ng. ..."
"... The number of complaints, from sensible suggestions to fantastical allegations, were so large they could not be ignored. ..."
"... Dramatic interpretations of what some people believed the amendment really meant, ie, the total loss of all freedom in Hong Kong, proliferated through social media. This led, on June 9, to a peaceful protest march of hundreds of thousands of people (but probably not a million: no self-respecting journalist takes the organizer estimate as hard fact). ..."
LittleWhiteCabbage , Jun 24, 2019 9:32:25 AM |
227
For those interested in the Big Picture behind events leading up to the Hong Kong extradition law impasse, the essay below
by longtime Hong Kong columnist Nuri Vittachy gives a detailed sequence.
Nury has posted his article on his FaceBook, and those who have such an account may also read it there.
Suffice to say, there is always plenty of Western mainstream disinformation and provocateurs in the mix.
____________________________________
China leader Xi Jinping was not behind the attempt to introduce an extradition law in Hong Kong, well-placed sources say.
Nor did it originate with Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor.
The real story is quite different. And although I am sorry I cannot name the sources for the report below, this account rings
true to me. For a start, it indicates that a lot of what journalists like me have been saying was not correct. Read it if you
wish, and make up your own mind.
PROLOGUE: HANDS OVER A WALL
In 1994, an extraordinary meeting was held between police detectives from British Hong Kong, Portuguese Macau, and communist
Guangzhou. They talked about the possibilities of working jointly on cross-border crime. It seemed a tall order: the future was
full of political uncertainties.
1) MIRACLE CITY
A quarter of a century later, in 2019, Hong Kong had blossomed into a genuine oddity: a city in China with a world-class, independent
legal system.
Civil servants were proud that the city was repeatedly rated number one for judicial independence in Asia by the Global Competitiveness
Report of the World Economic Forum.
In the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, Hong Kong was ranked 16th for its rule of lawigher than many Western countries.
In the World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators project, Hong Kong scored an impressive 93 for rule of law.
But there was a little problem.
2) A SMALL DIFFICULTY
The community lawyers knew Hong Kong was weak on international co-operation against crime, having few extradition treaties. This was awkward as the Chinese coastal city had signed a United Nations pledge to significantly reduce illicit financial and
arms flows [and] strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets.
And then Hong Kong was criticized by the G7 Financial Action Task Force, which said it had a significant deficit in this area
and was undermining international collaboration.
Critics of Hong Kong weakness pointed to the UN Model Treaty on Extradition which made it clear that in the name of justice,
states had an obligation to extend extradition treaties.
In the entire 22-year history of Hong Kong, China, only 100 people had been extradited, mostly fugitives put on planes to the
United States.
3) THE EXTRADITION PARADOX
This needed fixing. Hong Kong civil servants reviewed the literature.
Jurisdictions which claim to uphold the rule of law need extradition treaties as a social justice issue, said the writers of
an influential 2011 UK report on extradition.
Extradition must NOT be limited to places with similar legal systems. States have increasingly recognized that effective extradition
should operate on the basis of mutual trust and confidence (not suspicion and disrespect)." Extradition treaties forced other
places to follow rule-of-law procedures in handling fugitives.
Extradition treaties and were particularly necessary for places which shared borders, such as neighbouring states, it said.
Britain signed extradition treaties with numerous countries with abysmal human rights records, such as Iraq and Zimbabwe. America
signed deals with the Congo, Myanmar and El Salvador.
In Hong Kong, Department of Justice staff prepared to follow the leads of Western countries in this area. Simple, right?
4) MEANWHILE IN BEIJING
Under the surface in China , the internal enemies of Premier Xi Jinping were slamming him hard on two fronts, Beijing sources
say.
One was the China-US trade war, which was now causing easily detectable damage to their country's economic indicators. And
the other was the rise in illegal capital outflows, often through underground banks to Hong Kong, where it distorted the property
markets.
At some stage, it became clear that Xi's people (but likely not Xi himself) would have been told about routine legal developments
in Hong Kong, as a part of periodic briefings.
Some people say that China's illegal cash outflow problem to Hong Kong would have been mentioned at this time, but that remains
speculation.
5) CHANGES ARE TABLED
In Hong Kong, the civil servants proposal for the lengthening of the extradition countries list was filed in February. At this
point, the job was under the remits of Justice secretary Teresa Cheng and Security secretary John Lee.
Then, in March, there was a moment of high drama. A man in Hong Kong confessed to murder overseas but could not be arrested
for it. The incident wasn't just dangerous, worrying, and embarrassing but it made real the glaring hole in Hong Kong ability
to manage international crime.
But as the expansion of extradition treaties was discussed, activists noticed that China was NOT excluded in the proposals
and saw red.
Just two years earlier, a decision to allow co-operation between Chinese and Hong Kong immigration channels at a railway station
in Kowloon had caused dire predictions of doom.
6) THE LAW IS EXPLAINED
In the face of criticism from activists, Chief Executive Carrie Lam encouraged security minister Lee to explain the amendment
better.
Hong Kong extradition law, based on the UN model used in the west, was simple at heart, he said. It targeted fugitives suspected
of one or more of a limited list of serious crimes, including murder and rape. The caseload was expected to be very small.
Offenders accused of crimes related to politics and religion would automatically be untouchable. Tax-related matters were added
to the exemptions list. ALL decisions would be made by Hong Kong legal community.
Reviewing the proposal, some lawyers felt the built-in safeguards (such as right of appeal) were strong, while others felt
they were not. Some lawyers at the Bar Association pointed to weaknesses in the wording which needed to be changed. This was not
unusual for new laws or amendments. Lawyers with an anti-government stance made dire predictions which were not necessarily impossible
but were highly unlikely.
A number of activists interpreted this discussion as proof that the legal community agreed that the amendment was a ploy by
a CCP puppet government who wanted to silence them. The media, hungry for drama, overwhelmingly featured the angriest, most negative
interpretations.
7) CONSPIRACY OVERLOAD
On May 1, China critic Gordon C. Chang (known for his 2002 book The Coming Collapse of China) wrote a widely circulated essay
claiming that Beijing was behind the amendment.
Beijing, with methodical ruthlessness, is trying to bring Hong Kong to heel,, he wrote. Many believe new rules facilitating
the sending of suspects to China would effectively allow Beijing to grab people at will and thereby completely control the city.
Grab people at will? Frustrated pro-extradition lawyers said: If this was true, tourists could not visit UK without being in
danger of being snatched by Zimbabwe and tourists visiting the United States could be snatched by the Congolese government But
who could believe that?
8) INTERPRETATIONS ESCALATE
The fears fanned by Chang and others spread fast. Soon, the main narrative for much of the Western media was that a corrupt
Hong Kong civil service was following Beijing secret orders to destroy the city rule of law, with brave youths nobly resisting.
Typical was Vox headline: The Fight to Save Hong Kong..Time magazine had: Hong Kong's Extradition Law Would be a Victory for
Authoritarianism Everywhere. Quartz had Hong Kong is in the fight of its life.
Perhaps the root of the misunderstanding was the problem of scale. Hong Kong existing extradition arrangements only handled
four or five cases a year. Even if the amendment caused the number to double or triple, it would still be a tiny number.
Yet activists gave the impression that tens of thousands of people were in imminent danger of being dragged over the border
to mainland jails: a genuinely terrifying prospect.
Hong Kong end game: why the extradition bill is an infinity stone that could decimate half of society, said a headline in the
Hong Kong Free Press over a melodramatic call to action by lawyer-activist Jason Ng.
9) REPORTED AND UNREPORTED
The number of complaints, from sensible suggestions to fantastical allegations, were so large they could not be ignored.
Carrie Lam took the ball from Lee's court and headed north. (Mrs Lam periodically reports to Zhongnanhai in Beijing in the
same way that Hong Kong's British leaders periodically reported to Whitehall in London.)
In May, she reported to Central People government representatives that Hong Kong people had significant anxieties about the
extradition amendment her people were trying to introduce.
But she said that she felt it was worth continuing. A significant portion of society was in in favor of the amendment, although
their positive declarations went largely unreported.
Her complaint was fair. News articles blithely implied that businesses, diplomats and lawyers were all united against the law,
but this was not the case.
All five of Hong Kong biggest business organizations (The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, The Chinese General Chamber
of Commerce, The Chinese Manufacturers Association of Hong Kong, The Federation of Hong Kong Industries, and The Hong Kong Chinese
Importers and Exporters Association) were in favor of the legislation, and most urged the government to pass it as soon as possible.
Hong Kong consular officials, after a detailed briefing on the amendment, came on side, recognizing the positive intentions
and close similarity to their own extradition laws.
Many senior lawyers were in favor, too although the mainstream media and social media preferred to give airtime only to the
others.
10) WRONG AGAIN
Dramatic interpretations of what some people believed the amendment really meant, ie, the total loss of all freedom in Hong
Kong, proliferated through social media. This led, on June 9, to a peaceful protest march of hundreds of thousands of people (but
probably not a million: no self-respecting journalist takes the organizer estimate as hard fact).
Afterwards, many journalists (including the present writer) confidently speculated that Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam would have
spent the evening in deep consultation with her ultimate boss, Xi Jinping, over what to do next.
In fact, we appear to have been wrong again. Xi Jinping was never involved, and there was no consultation that day between
Mrs. Lam and Beijing. She told reporters she and her team spent the day monitoring events in Hong Kong and had no contact with
the north.
The media portrayed the story as the Hong Kong government made this amendment [as a result of the] instruction of the Beijing
government, said Chinese official Liu Xiaoming on June 12. As a matter of fact, Beijing central government gave no instruction,
no order about making amendment. This amendment was initiated by the Hong Kong government.
On Saturday, 15 June, Mrs. Lam put the amendment plan on hold. She and her team remain undecided on next steps.
The real story of this amendment begins as a mundane tale of civil servants trying to fix a shortcoming they spotted in a rather
technical ordinance. But perhaps the heart of the story is something else: evidence of a deep well of mistrust of China.
EPILOGUE: HAPPY BIRTHDAY
Recently in Guangzhou, the top CID officers of Hong Kong, Macau and Guangdong met for their 25th anniversary annual confab,
celebrating a long and impressive record of successful joint crime-busting operations.
But that meeting didn't fit the present media narrative, so went unreported by the mainstream media.
And that is why wise people read widely, talk to many people, and make up their own minds about what is going on and then,
hopefully, realize that a positive future is possible. But it requires collaboration. The message of 1994 is clear--what is needed
is co-operative hands reaching over walls.
This week Glenn Greenwald and colleagues published in The Intercept articles based on
initial analysis of a massive trove of internal communications between prosecutors and judges
involved in Brazil's corruption cases. An anonymous source had provided the material. To no
one's great surprise, these documents revealed that former president Lula da Silva's
prosecution and conviction were politically motivated ( part one ;
part
two ; part
three , with more to follow).
A massive trove of previously undisclosed materials provides unprecedented insight into
the operations of the anti-corruption task force that transformed Brazilian politics and
gained worldwide attention.
Tensions in the Persian Gulf are reaching a
point
of no return
.
In recent weeks,
six
oil tankers
have been subjected to
Israeli
sabotage
disguised to look like Iranian attacks to induce the United States to take
military action against the Islamic Republic. Some days ago Iran rightfully shot out of the sky a
US Drone. In Yemen, the Houthis have finally started
responding
with
cruise and ballistic missiles to the Saudis' indiscriminate attacks, causing damage to the Saudi
international airport of Abha, as well as blocking, through
explosive
drones
, Saudi oil transportation from east to west through one of the largest
pipelines in the world.
As if the political and military situation at this time were not
tense
and complex
enough, the two most important power groups in the United States, the Fed and the
military-industrial complex, both face problems that threaten to
diminish
Washington's status as a world superpower
.
The Fed could find itself defending the role of the US dollar as the world reserve currency
during
any conflict
in the
Persian Gulf that would see the cost of oil rise to
$300
a barrel
, threatening
trillions
of dollars in derivatives
and toppling the global economy.
The military-industrial complex would in turn be involved in a war that it would struggle to
contain and even win, destroying the United States' image of invincibility and inflicting a mortal
blow on its ability to project power to the four corners of the world.
Just look at how surprised
US
officials
were about Iran's capabilities to shot down an advanced US Drone:
"Iran's ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was
developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised some
Defense Department officials, who interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make
things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the region."
The Fed and the defense of the dollar
The US dollar-based economy has a
huge debt problem
caused
by post-2008 economic policies. All central banks have lowered interest rates to zero or even
negative, thus continuing to feed otherwise dying economies.
The central bank of central banks, the Bank for International Settlements, an entity hardly
known to most people, has
stated
in writing
that "the outstanding notional amount of derivative contracts is 542 trillion dollars." The total
combined GDP of all the countries of the world is around 75 trillion dollars.
With the dimensions of the problem thus understood, it is important to look at how Deutsche Bank
(DB), one of the largest financial institutions in the world, is dealing with this. The German bank
alone has assets worth about 40 trillion dollars in derivatives, or more than half of annual global
GDP.
Their solution, not at all innovative or effective, has been to create yet another bad bank into
which to pour at least 50 billion dollars of long-term assets, which are clearly toxic.
"The bad bank would house or sell assets valued at up to 50 billion euros ($56 billion) –
after adjusting for risk – and comprising mainly long-dated derivatives.
The measures are part of a significant restructuring of the investment bank, a major
source of revenue for Germany's largest lender, which has struggled to generate sustainable
profits since the 2008 financial crisis."
Thus, not only has Deutsche Bank accumulated tens of billions of dollars in unsuccessful options
and securities, it seeks to obtain a profit that has been elusive since 2008, the year of the
financial crisis. Deutsche Bank is full of toxic bonds and inflated debts kept alive through the
flow of quantitative easing (QE) money from the European Central Bank, the Fed and the Japanese
Central Bank. Without QE, the entire Western world economy would have fallen into recession with a
chain of bubbles bursting, such as in public and private debt.
If the economy was recovering, as we are told by soi-disant financial experts, the central-bank
rates would rise. Instead, rates have plummeted for about a decade, to the extent of becoming
negative loans.
If the Western financial trend is undoubtedly heading towards an economic abyss as a result of
the monetary policies employed after 2008 to keep a dying economy alive,
what is the rescue
plan for the US dollar, its status as a global-reserve currency, and by extension of US hegemony?
Simply put, there is no rescue plan.
There could not be one because the next financial crisis will undoubtedly wipe out the US dollar
as a global reserve currency, ending US hegemony financed by unlimited spending power.
All
countries possessing a modicum of foresight are in the process of de-dollarizing their economies
and are converting strategic reserves
from US or US-dollar government bonds to primary
commodities like gold.
The military-industrial complex and the harsh reality in Iran
In this economic situation that offers no escape, the immediate geopolitical effect is a surge
of war threats in strategic locations like the Persian Gulf. The risk of a war of aggression
against Iran by the Saudi-Israeli-US axis would have little chance of success, but it would
probably succeed in permanently devastating the global economy as a result of a surge in oil
prices.
The risk of war on Iran by this triad seems to be the typical ploy of the bad loser who,
rather than admit defeat, would rather pull the rug out from under everyone's feet in order to
bring everybody down with him.
Tankers being hit and then blamed on Iran with no evidence
are a prime example of how to create the
plausible
justification
for bombing Tehran.
Upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the actions of Bolton and Pompeo seem to be
aligned in prolonging the United States' unipolar moment, continuing to issue diktats to other
countries and failing to recognize the multipolar reality we live in. Their policies and actions
are accelerating the dispersal of power away from the US and towards other great powers like Russia
and China, both of which also have enormous influence in the Persian Gulf.
The threat of causing a conflict in the Persian Gulf, and thereby making the price of oil soar
to $300 a barrel, will not save US hegemony but will rather end up accelerating the inevitable end
of the US dollar as a global reserve currency.
Trump is in danger of being crushed between a Fed that sees the US dollar's role as the world's
reserve currency collapse, and the need for the Fed to blame someone not linked to the real causes
of the collapse, that is to say, the monetary policies adopted through QE to prolong the
post-crisis economic agony of 2008.
At the same time, with Trump as president, the neocon-Israeli-Saudi supporters see a
unique opportunity to strike Iran, a desire that has remained unchanged for 40 years.
As foolish as it may seem, a war on Iran could be the perfect option that satisfies all power
groups in the United States. The hawks would finally have their war against Tehran, the world
economy would sink, and the blame would fall entirely on Trump. The Donald, as a result, would lose
any chance of being re-elected so it makes sense for him to call off possible strikes as he did
after the US drone was shot out of the sky.
While unable to live up to his electoral promises, Trump seems to be aware that the path laid
out for him in the event of an attack on Iran would lead to his political destruction and probably
to a conflict that is militarily unsustainable for the US and especially its Saudi and Israeli
allies. It would also be the catalyst for the collapse of the world economy.
In trying to pressure Iran into new negotiations, Trump runs the risk of putting too much
pressure on Tehran and giving too much of a free hand to the provocations of Pompeo and Bolton that
could end up triggering a war in the Strait of Hormuz.
Putin and Xi Jinping prepare for the worst
Our current geopolitical environment requires the careful and considered attention of relevant
heads of state. The repeated meetings between Putin and Xi Jinping indicate that Russia and China
are actively preparing for any eventuality. The closer we get to economic collapse, the more
tensions and chaos increase around the world thanks to the actions of Washington and her close
allies.
Xi Jinping and Putin, who have inherited this chaotic situation, have met at least a
dozen times over the last six months
, more recently meeting at least three times over two
months.
The pressing need is to coordinate and prepare for what will inevitably happen,
once again trying to limit and contain the damage by a United States that is completely out of
control and becoming a danger to all, allies and enemies alike.
As Putin just recently said:
"The degeneration of the universalistic model of globalization and its transformation
into a parody, caricature of itself, where the common international rules are replaced by
administrative and judicial laws of a country or group of countries.
The fragmentation of global economic space with a policy of unbridled economic
selfishness and an imposed collapse. But this is the road to infinite conflict, trade wars and
perhaps not just commercial ones. Figuratively, this is the road to the final struggle of all
against all.
It is necessary to draft a more stable and fair development model. These agreements
should not only be written clearly, but should be observed by all participants.
However, I am convinced that talking about a world economic order such as this will
remain a pious desire unless we return to the center of the discussion, that is to say, notions
like sovereignty, the unconditional right of each country to its own path to development and,
let me add, responsibility in the universal sustainable development, not just its own."
The spokesman of the Chancellery of the People's Republic of China, Hua Chun Ying, echoed this
sentiment:
"The American leaders say that 'the era of the commercial surrender of their country has
come to an end', but what is over is their economic intimidation of the world and their
hegemony.
The United States must again respect international law, not arrogate to itself
extraterritorial rights and mandates, must learn to respect its peers in safeguarding
transparent and non-discriminatory diplomatic and commercial relations. China and the United
States have negotiated other disputes in the past with good results and the doors of dialogue
are open as long as they are based on mutual respect and benefits.
But as long as these new trade disputes persist, China informs the government of the
United States of America and the whole world that it will immediately impose duties on each
other, unilaterally on 128 products from the United States of America.
Also, we think we will stop buying US public debt. It's all, good night!"
I wonder if Europeans will understand all this before the impending disaster. I doubt
it.
U.S. Navy photo by
Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class John Philip Wagner, Jr./Released◄►◄►▲▼ Remove from
Library B Show Comment Next
New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This
Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public
Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to
recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information'
checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow
Commenter Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲▼ Search
Text Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search Clear Cancel
Sooner or later the US "maximum pressure" on Iran would inevitably be met by "maximum
counter-pressure". Sparks are ominously bound to fly.
For the past few days, intelligence circles across Eurasia had been prodding Tehran to
consider a quite straightforward scenario. There would be no need to shut down the Strait of
Hormuz if Quds Force commander, General Qasem Soleimani, the ultimate Pentagon bête
noire, explained in detail, on global media, that Washington simply does not have the military
capacity to keep the Strait open.
would destroy the American economy by detonating the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market;
and that would collapse the world banking system, crushing the world's $80 trillion GDP and
causing an unprecedented depression.
Soleimani should also state bluntly that Iran may in fact shut down the Strait of Hormuz if
the nation is prevented from exporting essential two million barrels of oil a day, mostly to
Asia. Exports, which before illegal US sanctions and de facto blockade would normally reach 2.5
million barrels a day, now may be down to only 400,000.
Soleimani's intervention would align with consistent signs already coming from the IRGC. The
Persian Gulf is being described as an imminent "shooting gallery." Brigadier General Hossein
Salami stressed that Iran's
ballistic missiles are capable of hitting "carriers in the sea" with pinpoint precision.
The whole northern border of the Persian Gulf, on Iranian territory, is lined up with anti-ship
missiles – as I confirmed
with IRGC-related sources.
We'll let you know when it's closed
Then, it happened.
Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Baqeri,
went straight
to the point ; "If the Islamic Republic of Iran were determined to prevent export of oil
from the Persian Gulf, that determination would be realized in full and announced in public, in
view of the power of the country and its Armed Forces."
The facts are stark. Tehran simply won't accept all-out economic war lying down –
prevented to export the oil that protects its economic survival. The Strait of Hormuz question
has been officially addressed. Now it's time for the derivatives.
Presenting detailed derivatives analysis plus military analysis to global media would force
the media pack, mostly Western, to go to Warren Buffett to see if it is true. And it is true.
Soleimani, according to this scenario, should say as much and recommend that the media go talk
to Warren Buffett.
The extent of a possible derivatives crisis is an uber-taboo theme for the Washington
consensus institutions. According to one of my American banking sources, the most accurate
figure – $1.2 quadrillion – comes from a Swiss banker, off the record. He should
know; the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) – the central bank of central banks
– is in Basle.
The key point is it doesn't matter how the Strait of Hormuz is blocked.
It could be a false flag. Or it could be because the Iranian government feels it's going to
be attacked and then sinks a cargo ship or two. What matters is the final result; any blocking
of the energy flow will lead the price of oil to reach $200 a barrel, $500 or even, according
to some Goldman Sachs projections, $1,000.
Another US banking source explains; "The key in the analysis is what is called notional.
They are so far out of the money that they are said to mean nothing. But in a crisis the
notional can become real. For example, if I buy a call for a million barrels of oil at $300 a
barrel, my cost will not be very great as it is thought to be inconceivable that the price will
go that high. That is notional. But if the Strait is closed, that can become a stupendous
figure."
BIS will only commit, officially, to indicate the total notional amount outstanding for
contracts in derivatives markers is an estimated $542.4 trillion. But this is just an
estimate.
The banking source adds, "Even here it is the notional that has meaning. Huge amounts are
interest rate derivatives. Most are notional but if oil goes to a thousand dollars a barrel,
then this will affect interest rates if 45% of the world's GDP is oil. This is what is called
in business a contingent liability."
Goldman Sachs has projected a feasible, possible $1,000 a barrel a few weeks after the
Strait of Hormuz being shut down. This figure, times 100 million barrels of oil produced per
day, leads us to 45% of the $80 trillion global GDP. It's self-evident the world economy would
collapse based on just that alone.
War dogs barking mad
As much as 30% of the world's oil supply transits the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
Wily Persian Gulf traders – who know better – are virtually unanimous; if Tehran
was really responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident, oil prices would be going through
the roof by now. They aren't.
Iran's territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz amount to 12 nautical miles (22 km). Since
1959, Iran recognizes only non-military naval transit.
Since 1972, Oman's territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz also amount to 12 nautical
miles. At its narrowest, the width of the Strait is 21 nautical miles (39 km). That means,
crucially, that half of the Strait of Hormuz is in Iranian territorial waters, and the other
half in Oman's. There are no "international waters".
And that adds to Tehran now openly saying that Iran may decide to close the Strait of Hormuz
publicly – and not by stealth.
Iran's indirect, asymmetric warfare response to any US adventure will be very painful. Prof.
Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran once again reconfirmed, "even a limited strike
will be met by a major and disproportionate response." And that means gloves off, big time;
anything from really blowing up tankers to, in Marandi's words, "Saudi and UAE oil facilities
in flames".
Hezbollah will launch tens of thousands of missiles against Israel. As
Hezbollah's secretary-general Hasan Nasrallah has been stressing in his speeches, "war on
Iran will not remain within that country's borders, rather it will mean that the entire [Middle
East] region will be set ablaze. All of the American forces and interests in the region will be
wiped out, and with them the conspirators, first among them Israel and the Saudi ruling
family."
It's quite enlightening to pay close attention to what this Israel intel op is saying .
The dogs of war though are barking mad .
Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo jetted to CENTCOM in Tampa to discuss
"regional security concerns and ongoing operations" with – skeptical – generals, a
euphemism for "maxim pressure" eventually leading to war on Iran.
Iranian diplomacy, discreetly, has already informed the EU – and the Swiss –
about their ability to crash the entire world economy. But still that was not enough to remove
US sanctions.
War zone in effect
As it stands in Trumpland, former CIA Mike "We lied, We cheated, We stole" Pompeo
– America's "top diplomat" – is virtually running the Pentagon. "Acting" secretary
Shanahan performed self-immolation. Pompeo continues to actively sell the notion the
"intelligence community is convinced" Iran is responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident.
Washington is ablaze with rumors of an ominous double bill in the near future; Pompeo as head
of the Pentagon and Psycho John Bolton as Secretary of State. That would spell out War.
Yet even before sparks start to fly, Iran could declare that the Persian Gulf is in a state
of war; declare that the Strait of Hormuz is a war zone; and then ban all "hostile" military
and civilian traffic in its half of the Strait. Without firing a single shot, no shipping
company on the planet would have oil tankers transiting the Persian Gulf.
American government arrogance under the control of sickos has not shied away from the belief
that destroying countries that do not cave in to Washington's demand of "surrender or perish"
-- an ultimatum made in Israel. Indeed it regards that despicable policy as an entitlement
– to protect the "international community". Iran may well be the nation that will do
away with the nations of turbaned lapdogs and absolute monarchs who have been kept in power
by the dozens of US military bases in the area. Maybe a serious jolt of the global economy is
long overdue, to bring the Washington dogs of perpetual war to come to their senses.
Was Iran succumbing to the JCPOA provisions and abiding by them not sufficient
capitulation for the insane leaders in Washington?
I hope we don't go into another stupid war. Bring all our troops home from all around
the world. Just protect this Republic. We're not the policemen of the world.
@joeshittheragman
It astonishes me that people are still using the phrase "policemen of the world" to define US
behavior.
The last time I recall The US even remotely acting as the "worlds's policeman" was in
1991, when we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait.
The Iraq 2003 "debacle", the Libya"shit show" and the Syria" fiasco" have all proven, over
time, to be acts of wanton carnage and illegal aggression, . not "police work".
The United States, under Neocon tutelage , is no "policeman" .not by any stretch
It is more like a humongous version of "Bernie Madoff meets Son of Sam."
We have become a grotesque, misshapen empire .of lies fraud .,illegal war, .mass murder
..and heinous f#cking debt.
You have to hand it to the Iranians for basically announcing their intentions to destroy the
US economy via the derivatives market that the US financial industry largely produced. Kill
them with their own weapon.
A show down between the US and some entity is inevitable. Be it Iran, China or Russia, the
US will be over extended and their very expensive weaponry will, I believe, come up wanting
on all counts. The MIC has been scamming the country for decades. The military brass is just
bluster. When it comes down to an actual confrontation, the US military will come up short as
BS won't cut it.
Yes, they will destroy lots of stuff and kill lots of people but then their toys will run
out and then what? Missiles will take out the aircraft carriers and the world will see that
the emperor is naked.
In June of 2014, as the forces of the Islamic State swept toward Baghdad, President
Barack Obama began to recommit American military forces to Iraq. He also observed that
"Iran can play a constructive role, if it sends the same message to the Iraqi government
that we're sending, which is that Iraq only holds together if it is inclusive." In an
instantly famous article by Atlantic magazine correspondent and White House amanuensis
Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama indicated that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states had to learn to
"share" the Middle East with Iran.
In imagining a kind of strategic partnership with Tehran, Obama is recycling a deeply
held belief of late-Cold War "realists" like former National Security Adviser Brent
Scowcroft. "For U.S. strategy, Iran should be viewed as a potential natural partner in
the region, as it was until 1979," when Shah Reza Pahlavi was toppled in the Khomeini
revolution." "Envisioning 2030: U.S. Strategy for a Post-Western World," foresaw that "a
post-Mullah dominated government shedding Shia political ideology could easily return to
being a net contributor to stability by 2030
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/143606/Mearsheimer-S-Arabia-a-threat-not-Iran
"The truth is that it is the United States that is a direct threat to Iran, not the other
way around. The Trump administration, with much prompting from Israel and Saudi Arabia, has
its gunsights on Iran. The aim is regime change.
America does not seem to think the Iranian regieme can do anything except bluster as they
are slowly smothered.
Famous last words -- review what Bernanke said just before subprime exploded: 2007 --
Bernanke: Subprime Mortgage Woes
Won't Seriously Hurt Economy -- that said, I have no idea what will happen if Iran
decides to interfere with shipping in the straits -- or how likely that is.
The biggest long-term threat to the US is the end of the petrodollar scheme -- due to its
unmatched worldwide political and military hegemony, and 'safe haven' status, the dollar has
largely been insulated from the consequences of what are in reality staggering, almost
structural (at this point) US deficits -- but that can't and won't go on forever.
In reality, the US is today far less dependent on imported oil than most people probably
imagine, and therefore far less vulnerable to any import supply issue.
Israel and the zio/US has interfered in Iran since the 1953 CIA/Mossad coup and at intervals
ever since then and have brought this problem on by the zio/US and Israeli meddling in the
affairs of Iran and an all out war via illegal sanctions which in fact are a form of war.
Iran has not started a war in over 300 years and is not the problem , the problem is the
warmongers in the zio/US and Israel and will not end as long as the warmongers remain in
power.
A good start to ending these problems would be to abolish the CIA!
@MLK
Yes, the sanctions on Iran are having an effect, and the recent Iranian actions acknowledge
this; but that does not mean Iran is weak. Iran is telling the U.S. that it is NOT Venezuela
or North Korea. Kim is all bark, but no bite; Trump was quite right to call him "little
rocket man." Even he, with his singular lack of style and grace, is not doing this to the
Iranian leadership.
The economic sanctions against Iran already constitute acts of war. The Iranians have just
demonstrated that they can disrupt oil flow from the Middle East in retaliation, and not just
in the Street of Hormuz. In addition, they have now shown that they can take down American
aircraft, stealth or not, with precision. This means Iran is able and willing to strike back
and escalate as it sees fit, both economically and militarily. If the U.S. don't relent, Iran
WILL send the oil prices through the roof, and it will humiliate the U.S. on the world stage
if they are stupid enough to go to war over it.
The Iranian messages are simple, clear, and consistent. Compare this to the confused
cacophony that emerges from the clown troupe in Washington, and you can easily tell which
side has been caught unawares by recent events.
This is a watershed moment for Trump – he will either assert himself, return to
reason, and keep the peace; or he will stay aboard the sinking ship. No good options for him
personally, of course; his choices are impeachment, assassination, or staying in office while
presiding over the final act of the U.S. empire.
The US is committed to conflict not only most obviously against Iran, but also with
Russia.
US, or rather a bunch of lunatics infesting Trump's Admin, might be committed, but it
absolutely doesn't mean that the US has resources for that. In fact, US doesn't have
resources to fight Iran, let alone Russia. By now most of it is nothing more than
chest-thumping and posturing. Today Bolton's statement is a further proof of that.
Instead, Bush saw that situation, within the unique moment of US no longer constrained
by a rival superpower, as an opportunity to exert US global dominance.
The much derided Chomsky
There were once two gangsters in town, the USA and USSR, there's relative peace cuz each
was constrained by the rival's threat.
NOW that the USSR is gone, the remaining gangster
is running amok with total impunity.
Now I dunno if the USSR was a 'gangster' ,
as for uncle scam, .. needs no introduction I presume ?
"Iran's ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was
developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised some
Defense Department officials, who interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make
things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the
region.– "
@Wally
It's all cashflow and OPM, on the hope of hitting the big-time when prices spike. A giant
house of cards waiting to implode, and that is before one takes into account all the hugely
negative externalities associated with fracking that give it any hope of profitability, which
would vapourise if the costs of the externalities were charged to the operators.
According to preliminary data for 2018, oil demand surpassed 20 mmb/d for the first time
since 2007 and will be just shy of the 2005 peak (20,524 mb/d versus 20,802 mb/d in
2005).
It's really tragic to see two brotherly ideologies Capitalism and Islam (both want to rule
the world) go at each other throats in this manner. After all, they have fought shoulder to
shoulder a holly jihad against socialism in such far flung places as Afghanistan, Iraq and
now Syria.
I think that based on this latest conflict, people can see what a principled country US
is. People used to think that US hates only socialist revolutions. Until Iran's Islamic
revolution came along – and US was against it too. So, it's safe to say that US are
against ANY revolutions – be they Socialist or Islamic. I guess we can call them
contra-revolutionaries.
At least 95% of the American people do not want war with Iran. For that matter the same
percentage did not want war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea. But the powers that be
do not ask the American people if they want to go to war, they just do it based on the
authority they assume is theirs. Meanwhile, our elected representatives who do have the
authority to start or prevent wars turn a deaf ear to their constituents because the voices
they hear in protest are weak or muted. Let's face it, the wars since WWII have affected only
a relatively minor segment of our population. A hell of a lot more people die in traffic
accidents than on the battlefield so what's to get excited about. Keeping a large standing
army, navy and air force is good for the economy, the troops have to be provided the latest
best of everything and as for the troops themselves for many it's not a bad way to make a
living with a retirement and health care system better than many jobs in the civilian sector.
So my message to the American people is if you really do not want war with Iran you had
better speak up louder than you are now.
CAN IRAN ENTER ITO NEGOTIATION WITH IRAN? IT CANT. BECAUSE ISRAEL WITH NO FOOT IN THE DOOR OF
THE HELL IS WAGING THE WAR AND GETTING US PUNISHED .
UC Berkeley journalism professor Sandy Tolan, Los Angeles Times, December 1, 2002–
[Richard] Perle, in the same 1998 article, told Forward that a coalition of pro-Israeli
groups was 'at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate
what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein.' Now,
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has joined the call against Tehran, arguing in a November
interview with the Times of London that the U.S. should shift its focus to Iran 'the day
after' the Iraq war ends
[Hide MORE]
-- -- -
They want to foment revolution in Iran and use that to isolate and possibly attack Syria in
[Lebanon's] Bekaa Valley, and force Syria out," says former Assistant Secretary of State for
Near East Affairs Edward S. Walker, now president of the Middle East Institute. http://prospect.org/article/just-beginning
03/14/03
--
in 2003 Morris Amitay and fellow neocon Michael Ledeen founded the Coalition for Democracy
in Iran, an advocacy group pushing for regime change in Iran . According to the website, it
will be un-American,immoral and unproductive to engage with any segment of the regime .
During a may 2003 conference at the AEI on the future of Iran,Amitay sharply criticized the
U.S State Department's efforts to engage the Islamic Republic ,claimed the criticism of Newt
Gingrich did not go far enough . Amiaty was introduced by M Ledeen as the "Godfather" of
AIPAC Amitay admitted that direct action against Iran would be difficult before 2004
election.
Nostalgia for the last shah's son, Reza Pahlavi ? has again risen," says Reuel Marc
Gerecht, a former CIA officer who, like Ledeen and Perle, is ensconced at the AEI. "We must
be prepared, however, to take the battle more directly to the mullahs," says Gerecht, adding
that the United States must consider strikes at both Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and
allies in Lebanon. "In fact, we have only two meaningful options: Confront clerical Iran and
its proxies militarily or ring it with an oil embargo." http://prospect.org/article/just-beginning
March 14,2003
"Neoconservatives in the Bush Administration have long targeted Iran. Richard Perle,
former Defense Policy Board member, and David Frum, of the neo-com Weekly Standard,
co-authored "An End to Evil," which calls for the overthrow of the "terrorist mullahs of
Iran." Michael Ladeen of the influential American Enterprise Institute argues that "Tehran is
a city just waiting for us." http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/05/26/the-oil-connection/
According to the 2016 documentary Zero Days by director Alex Gibney, Israel's incessant
public threats to attack Iran coupled with intense secret demands for cyber warfare targeting
Iran were the catalyst for massive new US black budget spending
NSA Director (1999-2005) and CIA Director (2006-2009) Michael Hayden claimed in Zero Days
that the goal of any Israeli air attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would be to drag
the United States into war.
"Our belief was that if they [Israel] went on their own, knowing the limitations No, they're
a very good air force, alright? But it's small and the distances are great, and the targets
dispersed and hardened, alright? If they would have attempted a raid on a military plane, we
would have been assuming that they were assuming we would finish that which they started. In
other words, there would be many of us in government thinking that the purpose of the raid
wasn't to destroy the Iranian nuclear system, but the purpose of the raid was to put us [the
United States] at war with Iran."
https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2018/11/06/israel-and-the-trillion-dollar-2005-2018-us-intelligence-budget
Emergence of ISIS is linked to US efforts to weaken Iran
-In "The Redirection", written in 2008(!) – years before the 2011 uprising, Seymour
Hersh wrote of plans to use extremists in Syria.
Excerpts:
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in
effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has
coöperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations
that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The
U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A
by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse
a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the
nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the
covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young
Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools,
training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid
with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his
associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.
This time, "
@Simply
Simon In the old days, the orders for the US government were coming down from the
Tri-Lateral Commission and the 6-7 major companies. Rockefeller took the TLC underground
ground with himself. The oil companies continue asking the US government for protecting the
ME/NA resources. Then Neocons replaced the TLC which their focus was twofold.
1. Destabilize the regions for protecting Israel
2. Control the resources militarily
3. Keep the Chinese out and cut their access to the resources
Guess what, Chinese have penetrated the regions constructively and quietly. America with its
unjustified fucking wars is being hated even more than 1953.
@KA
Very true! Unfortunately the presidents were misinformed or uninformed about the proxies
created by the CIA. The first created to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan manned and financed
by the Saudis, recruited by Mossad and intelligence was provided by the CIA. Sound really
really good to the Americans since it was free of charge with no loss of life! Then during
the Iraq war its neighbor Syria was getting destabilized so the CIA replicated Al-Qaeda and
formed a new gang which called themselves ISIS. The function of ISIS was to overthrow
Al-Bashar of Syria. The secondary mission for both groups was to bug Iran from its western
and eastern front.
Manning both of these groups with Sunnis was the biggest mistake that KSA, Mossad and the CIA
made. See the Sunnis are not fighters without sophisticated weapons from the West. On the
other Shiites can fight with a sword and empty handed if they have to. They remind me of VC's
in Vietnam. The Shiites decimated the ISIS and most of AlQaeda now the US is trying to get
credit for that but they know better now. So my recommendation to the US is please don't
aggravate the Shiites otherwise they will embarrass us just the VC's
@Monty
Ahwazi{ All insurance companies will drop their coverage of the oil tankers
immediately.}
During the Iran-Iraq war, US re-flagged Kuwaiti tankers and ran them under US flag and
protection through the straight.
Same thing can be done again.
And if insurance companies drop coverage, US Treasury will provide the coverage: some US
insurance company will be "convinced" by US Gov to provide the coverage and US Treasury will
guarantee _any_ losses incurred by the insurance company or companies.
US can always add to the national debt ( .i.e. print more dollars).
So, no: declaration won't do.
Only destroying stuff works.
{You guys sitting here and making up these nonsensical policies}
Nobody is making policy here: we are not a government.
We are exchanging opinions.
btw: where are you sitting?
Are your personal opinions considered 'policy', because you are ..what?
@anon
That was buried deep in the article. (Thanks for posting link.) Next lines, the NYT is
skeptical of US claims. Too bad this isn't first pararaphs!)
Lt. Gen. Joseph Guastella, the Air Force commander for the Central Command region in the
Middle East, said the attack could have endangered "innocent civilians," even though
officials at Central Command continued to assert that the drone was over international
waters. He said that the closest that the drone got to the Iranian coast was 21 miles.
Late Thursday, the Defense Department released additional imagery in an email to support
its case that the drone never entered Iranian airspace. But the department incorrectly
called the flight path of the drone the location of the shooting down and offered little
context for an image that appeared to be the drone exploding in midair.
It was the latest attempt by the Pentagon to try to prove that Iran has been the
aggressor in a series of international incidents.
@Zumbuddi
Thank you. If the US were a real [HONEST] policeman, they would have stopped Kuwait from
stealing Iraqi oil. But no, Bush was a dirty cop, on the take.
@dearieme
Read "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W. Douglass. JFK was getting us out of Vietnam. In
his time, there was not massive amounts of US troops in Vietnam, only advisors. JFK planned
to get all the troops out after he was re-elected.
It was during Johnson's presidency that the Vietnam war became a huge war for the US.
Johnson set up the Gulf of Tonkin false flag on August 2 1964. This started the huge draft of
young men for Vietnam war that dragged on till the early 1970s.
Johnson also allowed Israel to do a false flag on the US on June 8 1967. Israel attacked
the USS Liberty. 34 servicemen killed and 174 injured. Israel wanted to kill them all and
blame it on Egypt, so US would nuke Egypt. Lovely nation is little Israel. The song " Love is
all you need" by the Beatles was released on June 7 1967. Summer of Love, Hippies in San
Francisco, all planned to get Americans into drugs and forget about what Israel is doing in
the Middle East. It worked, nobody noticed what Israel did since we have a "free" 500 Zion BC
press in the US in 1967 and we still do these days.
Iran is pretty self sufficient with minimal foreign debt. Their Central Bank is under their
control and works for the people. They should just hunker down and hope Trumps crew is out of
a job after the elections next year
If the US strikes they can block the straits. However, the US would probably knock out the
refineries so that will hurt
They shot down the drone because it was collecting intelligence on targets the US plans to
strike. Thats defensive not provocative
If the US wants to go at Iran they will manufacture something. People are so dumbed down
they can made to believe anything, as events 18 years ago and since have proven
Hopefully this is just distraction to cover up some nefarious plan to loot the working
class some more. Or maybe getting the straits closed is part of the plan. Who knows?
THE TICK TOCKS WHY TRUMP DIDN'T BOMB IRAN NYT'S PETER BAKER, MAGGIE HABERMAN and THOMAS
GIBBONS-NEFF:
"Urged to Launch an Attack, Trump Listened to the Skeptics Who Said It Would Be a Costly
Mistake": "He heard from his generals and his diplomats. Lawmakers weighed in and so did his
advisers. But among the voices that rang powerfully for President Trump was that of one of
his favorite Fox News hosts: Tucker Carlson.
"While national security advisers were urging a military strike against Iran, Mr. Carlson
in recent days had told Mr. Trump that responding to Tehran's provocations with force was
crazy. The hawks did not have the president's best interests at heart, he said. And if Mr.
Trump got into a war with Iran, he could kiss his chances of re-election goodbye.
"The 150-dead casualty estimate came not from a general but from a lawyer, according to the
official. The estimate was developed by Pentagon lawyers drafting worst-case scenarios that,
the official said, did not account for whether the strike was carried out during daytime,
when more people might be present at the targets, or in the dark hours before sunrise, as the
military planned.
"That estimate was passed to the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, without being cleared
with [Patrick] Shanahan or General [Joseph] Dunford. It was then conveyed to the president by
the White House lawyers, at which point Mr. Trump changed his mind and called off the
strike." NYT NYT A1
"That estimate was passed to the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, without being cleared
with [Patrick] Shanahan or General [Joseph] Dunford. It was then conveyed to the president by
the White House lawyers, at which point Mr. Trump changed his mind and called off the
strike." NYT NYT A1
Saddam was given plenty of time, and plenty of resolutions to pack up his troops and go
home
.
Saddam was given the assurance by US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, that the USA
supported his retaliatory action against Kuwait. Same usual trap and deliberate provocation;
all the rest is obfuscation.
@AnonFromTN
The loss of two American aircraft carriers appears to be the assumption you are making to
guarantee an Iranian victory.
Such a loss is by no means assured.
The idea that American willpower will collapse in the event of the loss of two capital
ships is your second assumption, and it's both a fanciful and dangerous assumption.
I'm not myself terribly impressed by American military power, but comparing naval combat
to counterinsurgency operations is absurd.
Your economic assumptions appear to come from the permabear school. Actual economies and
governments don't work that way. A major reduction in global supplies will result in
compulsory conservation, rationing, price controls, etc. This was done in recent memory in
the 1970s in both North America and Western Europe, when you were still behind the Iron
Curtain and perhaps not aware.
@alexander
Saddam was given plenty of time, and plenty of resolutions to pack up his troops and go
home."
Efforts by Egypt to arrive an Arab initiated solution was ignored and dismissed by USA
Initial Saudi effort to find a face saving exit by Saddam was met with resistance and then
a manufactured satellite image of Saddam massing his soldiers for invasion of Saudi was
widely disseminated by US.
Saddam crimes was no less or more egregious than what Israel was enjoying with US dollars
and with US support and with impunity ( It was still occupying Pastien and Parts of Syria and
Lebanon )
It was Levy the Israeli FM who threatened that his country would attack Iraq if US did
not.
War against Saddam was orchestrated by Jewish members of Thatcher and by Democrats of USA
) Solarz – NY Senator was one of the guys and the AIPAC whose president Mr. Dine
confessed the crimes )
@alexander
UN has been abused by USA taking the advantage of the collapse of Soviet . (This is what
Wolf0owitz told Wesley Clarke in 1992 in Feb : This was the time we can and we should take
care of these countries Iran Iraq Syria Libya and Yemen while Russia is still weakened and
unable to help its erstwhile vassals states) .
USA had no right to ask Saddam to leave . Subsequent behaviors of USA has proved it.
Israel also in addition has no right to exist .
If correction had to come from Iran Hezbollah and Syria- then so be it. That news would be
best thing that would happen to humanity within last 200 yrs .
@Iris
but -- but -- but (sputters Alexander the otherwise sage commenter), The UN -- that's the
U-nited Nations!! fer pete's ache, Agreed!! ( Agreed is Diplomatese for: "Please stop
twisting my arm; Please stop bankrupting my country; Please stop threatening to tell my wife
-- ).
in other words, the UN is a toy and a ploy for someone like G H W Bush salivating at the
once in a lifetime opportunity to exert world dominance -- 'scuse me: "Create a New World
Order" -- in the context of a power vacuum / dissolution of the Soviet Empire, previously the
only counterbalance to US superpower status.
No doubt the UN was got on board. It acted like the paid-for- judge and show-trial in a
case the prosecutor had already rigged.
imho, what is more significant, and what it takes years to unearth, is the decision making
and back-room dealing that came BEFORE the UN was induced to stamp its imprimatur.
Tony Blair endorsed Bush the Lesser's war on Iraq. Does that grant it legitimacy, or in
any way explain why US waged that war?
I don't care about numbers.
50 (proper) sea mines backed up by 20 air/land-sea missiles do the job. Block the Hormuz.
I am sure the regime in Tehran has that number.
Does anyone?
Don't think so.
Mines in particular.
While missiles could be tricky to produce even smart sea mines are not.
A lot of explosive-check.
A couple of sensors (acoustic/magnetic)-check.
A couple of hardened micro controller boards-check.
That's it.
In this very game there are, really, only two elements that interest me:
Tactical nukes.
Selective draft.
What hehe really interests me is the escalation from "tactical" to "strategic".
@Thorfinnsson
Let me make this clear: there won't be Iranian victory. Iran will pay a hefty price. There
will be the defeat of the Empire, though, a major climb down. The worst (for the Empire) part
would be that the whole world would see that the king has no clothes. Then the backlash
against the Empire (hated by 6/7th of the Earth population) starts, and that would be
extremely painful for everyone in the US, guilty and innocent alike (myself included).
Compulsory rationing and price controls were possible when the governments actually
governed. When the whole governments and legislatures are full of corporations' marionettes,
as is the case now in the US and EU, these measures are impossible. Profiteers will have
their day. They will crush Western economies and therefore themselves, but never
underestimate the blinding force of greed. The same greedy bastards are supplying the US
military with airplanes that have trouble flying and with ships costing untold billions that
break down in the Panama canal, of all places. The same greedy scum destroyed the US industry
and moved all production to China, in effect spelling the doom of the only country that could
have protected their loot from other thieves. That's the problem with greed: it makes people
incredibly shortsighted.
So what? That nice lessons are being imparted slowly to the Israeli slave USA.
USA does what other countries are accused of before invading . USA throws out any qualms
any morality any legality . It uses UN . Right now it is illegally supplying arms to Saudi to
Israel and to the rebels in Syria. These are the reasons US have gone to wars against other
countries for. Now some countries are standing up and saying – those days are gone ,
you can't attack any country anymore just because someone has been raped or someone has been
distributing Viagra.
As a matter of fact, the whole world began to ask, you are willing to launch your military
to eject Saddam from Kuwait Bravo! ..Now what are willing to do about Israels illegal seizure
of Palestinian territory in the West bank .It is more or less the exact same crime, Isn't
it?
George Bush Senior was the last US President in American History to withhold all loans to
Israel, until it ceased and desisted from illegal settlement activity in the Palestinian
Territories.
Many believe it was his willingness to hold Israel to the same standard as everyone else,
which cost him his second term.
@Thorfinnsson
Iran shot down a US Navy RQ-4A intel drone that cost $250: A model that is marketed as being
hard to shoot down since it has an 11 mile high altitude ceiling and a long operational
range. That a coastal AA missile battery knocked it down with one shot answers several
questions.
Tens of thousands of Venezuelans
have reportedly already died as a result of this administration's relentless assault on
their economy; those human beings are no less dead than they would have been if the US had
killed them by dropping cluster bombs on Caracas. Yet these deaths have received virtually no
mainstream media coverage, and Americans, while they
strongly oppose attacking Iran militarily , have had very little to say about Trump's
attacks on the nation's economy. The economy which people use to feed their children, to care
for their elderly and their sick.
I'm titling this essay "Starvation Sanctions Are Worse Than Overt Warfare", and I mean it. I
am not saying that starvation sanctions are more destructive or deadly than overt military
force in and of themselves; what I am saying is that the overall effect is worse, because
there's no public accountability for them and because they deliberately target civilians.
If the US were to launch a barrage of Tomahawk missiles into an Iranian suburb with the goal
of killing civilians, there'd be international outrage and the cohesion of the US-centralized
power alliance would take a major hit. Virtually everyone would recognize this as an
unforgivable war crime. Yet America will be able to kill the same number of civilians with the
same deliberate intention of inflicting deadly force, and it would suffer essentially no
consequences at all. There's no public or international pressure holding that form of violence
at bay, because it's invisible and poorly understood.
It reminds me of the way financial abuse gets overlooked and under-appreciated in our
society. Financial abuse can be more painful and imprisoning than physical or psychological
abuse (and I speak from experience), especially if you have children, yet you don't generally
see movies and TV shows getting made about it. In a society where people have been made to
depend on money for survival, limiting or cutting off their access to it is the same as any
other violent attack upon their personal sovereignty, and can easily be just as destructive.
But as a society we haven't yet learned to see and understand this violence, so it doesn't
attract interest and attention. That lack of interest and attention enables the empire to
launch deadly campaigns targeting civilian populations unnoticed, without any public
accountability. It's great that more people are starting to understand the cost of war, to the
extent that we're even seeing US presidential candidates make opposing it central to their
platforms, but this is happening at a time when overt warfare is becoming more obsolete and
replaced with something subtler and more sinister. We must as a society evolve our
understanding of what starvation sanctions are and what they do, and stop seeing them as in any
way superior or preferable to overt warfare.
The fact that people generally oppose senseless military violence but are unable to see and
comprehend a slow, boa constrictor-like act of slaughter via economic strangulation is why
these siege warfare tactics have become the weapon of choice for the US-centralized empire. It
is a more gradual way of murdering people than overt warfare, but when you control all the
resources and have an underlying power structure which maintains itself amid the comings and
goings of your officially elected government, you're in no hurry. The absence of any public
accountability makes the need for patience a very worthwhile trade-off.
So you see this siege warfare strategy employed everywhere by the US-centralized empire:
You see it with Iran and Venezuela.
You see it in Yemen, where in addition to deadly blockades the Saudis have been
deliberate targeting farms, fishing boats, marketplaces, food storage sites and
cholera treatment centers with US-assisted airstrikes.
You
saw it with Julian Assange , where Ecuador collaborated with the US to slowly make life
in the embassy more and more hellish in the hope that he'd step outside to be arrested by
British police.
You're
seeing it now with Chelsea Manning , who is currently racking up $500 a day fines for her
principled stand against a corrupt grand jury proceeding against Assange, fines which will
double next month to $1,000 a day.
The US-centralized power alliance is so powerful in its ability to hurt nations with
financial influence that in 1990 when Yemen voted against a UN Security Council Resolution
authorizing the attack against Iran, a senior US diplomat was caught on a hot mic telling the
Yemeni ambassador, "That will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast." According to
German author Thomas Pogge , "The US stopped $70 million in aid to Yemen; other Western
countries, the IMF, and World Bank followed suit. Saudi Arabia expelled some 800,000 Yemeni
workers, many of whom had lived there for years and were sending urgently needed money to their
families."
That's real power. Not the ability to destroy a nation with bombs and missiles, but the
ability to destroy it without firing a shot.
It's no wonder, then, that the drivers of this empire work so hard to continue growing and
expanding it. The oligarchs and their allies in opaque government agencies no doubt envision a
world where all noncompliant nations like Iran, Russia and China have been absorbed into the
blob of empire and war becomes obsolete, not because anyone has become any less violent, but
because their economic control will be so complete that they can obliterate entire populations
just by cutting them off from the world economy whenever any of them become disobedient.
This is the only reason Iran is being targeted right now. That's why you'll never hear a
factually and logically sound argument defending Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal;
there is none. There was no problem with the JCPOA other than the fact that it barred America
from inflicting economic warfare upon Iran, which it needed for the purpose of toppling the
nation's government so that it can be absorbed into the blob of the US-centralized empire.
And all the innocent human beings who die of starvation and disease? They don't matter.
Imperial violence only matters if there are consequences for it. The price of shoring up the
total hegemony of the empire will have been worth it .
@Sonofrex
For starters, try reading David Graeber's 'Debt: The first 5000 years' for a comprehensive
account on concepts of money, property, debt and obligation from an anthropological
perspective which soundly buries your cherished assumptions and beliefs about the primacy of
private property and it's conflation with freedom. Perhaps one of the most compelling book
I've read in recent times.
"... "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy" - Alexis de Toqueville ..."
The problem is that as De Toqueville realises (his quote below) most of the people
commenting here are simply living a parasitic existence benefiting from state largesse -
sucking the teat of a bloated and overburdened state caring not whether their sustenance is
remotely sustainable and just voting for ever more
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the
voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that
moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the
public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy" -
Alexis de Toqueville
"... Keep a close watch on whether the organizers are shown to have studied in the US and if the most vociferous media are known to have had connections to the CIA/NED. ..."
The 'Extradition Protest', with its thousands of protesters seemingly instantly mobilized,
appears to have a startling resemblance to the 'Umbrella Protests' that were backed by the
CIA/NED.
Keep a close watch on whether the organizers are shown to have studied in the US and if
the most vociferous media are known to have had connections to the CIA/NED.
"... Mr. Macri has slashed subsidies for electricity, fuel and transportation, causing prices to skyrocket, and recently prompting Ms. Genovesi, 48, to cut off her gas service, rendering her stove lifeless. Like most of her neighbors, she illegally taps into the power lines that run along the rutted dirt streets. ..."
"... "It's a neoliberal government," she says. "It's a government that does not favor the people." ..."
"... The tribulations playing out under the disintegrating roofs of the poor are a predictable dimension of Mr. Macri's turn away from left-wing populism. He vowed to shrink Argentina's monumental deficits by diminishing the largess of the state. The trouble is that Argentines have yet to collect on the other element the president promised: the economic revival that was supposed to follow the pain. ..."
"... But as Mr. Macri seeks re-election this year, Argentines increasingly lament that they are absorbing all strife and no progress. Even businesses that have benefited from his reforms complain that he has botched the execution, leaving the nation to confront the same concoction of misery that has plagued it for decades. The economy is contracting. Inflation is running above 50 percent, and joblessness is stuck above 9 percent ..."
"... Poverty afflicts a third of the population, and the figure is climbing. ..."
"... Mr. Macri sold his administration as an evolved form of governance for these times, a crucial dose of market forces tempered by social programs. ..."
"... In the most generous reading, the medicine has yet to take effect. But in the view of beleaguered Argentines, the country has merely slipped back into the rut that has framed national life for as long as most people can remember. ..."
"... "We live patching things up," said Roberto Nicoli, 62, who runs a silverware company outside the capital, Buenos Aires. "We never fix things. I always say, 'Whenever we start doing better, I will start getting ready for the next crisis.'" ..."
"... "When our president Cristina was here, they sent people to help us," she says. "Now, if there's problems, nobody helps us. Poor people feel abandoned." ..."
On the ragged streets of the shantytown across the road, where stinking outhouses sit alongside shacks fashioned from rusted sheets
of tin, families have surrendered hopes that sewage lines will ever reach them.
They do not struggle to fashion an explanation for their declining fortunes: Since taking office more than three years ago, President
Mauricio Macri has broken with the budget-busting populism that has dominated Argentina for much of the past century, embracing the
grim arithmetic of economic orthodoxy.
Mr. Macri has slashed subsidies for electricity, fuel and transportation, causing prices to skyrocket, and recently prompting
Ms. Genovesi, 48, to cut off her gas service, rendering her stove lifeless. Like most of her neighbors, she illegally taps into the
power lines that run along the rutted dirt streets.
"It's a neoliberal government," she says. "It's a government that does not favor the people."
The tribulations playing out under the disintegrating roofs of the poor are a predictable dimension of Mr. Macri's turn away
from left-wing populism. He vowed to shrink Argentina's monumental deficits by diminishing the largess of the state. The trouble
is that Argentines have yet to collect on the other element the president promised: the economic revival that was supposed to follow
the pain.
Mr. Macri's supporters heralded his 2015 election as a miraculous outbreak of normalcy in a country with a well-earned reputation
for histrionics. He would cease the reckless spending that had brought Argentina infamy for defaulting on its debts eight times.
Sober-minded austerity would win the trust of international financiers, bringing investment that would yield jobs and fresh opportunities.
But as Mr. Macri seeks re-election this year, Argentines increasingly lament that they are absorbing all strife and no progress.
Even businesses that have benefited from his reforms complain that he has botched the execution, leaving the nation to confront the
same concoction of misery that has plagued it for decades. The economy is contracting. Inflation is running above 50 percent, and
joblessness is stuck above 9 percent.
Poverty afflicts a third of the population, and the figure is climbing.
Far beyond this country of 44 million people, Mr. Macri's tenure is testing ideas that will shape economic policy in an age of
recrimination over widening inequality. His presidency was supposed to offer an escape from the wreckage of profligate spending while
laying down an alternative path for countries grappling with the worldwide rise of populism. Now, his presidency threatens to become
a gateway back to populism. The Argentine economy is contracting. Inflation is running above 50 percent, and joblessness is stuck
above 9 percent. Poverty afflicts a third of the population. Credit Sarah Pabst for The New York Times
Image
The Argentine economy is contracting. Inflation is running above 50 percent, and joblessness is stuck above 9 percent. Poverty afflicts
a third of the population. Credit Sarah Pabst for The New York Times
As the October election approaches, Mr. Macri is contending with the growing prospect of a challenge from the president he succeeded,
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who faces a
series of criminal indictments for corruption . Her unbridled spending helped deliver the crisis that Mr. Macri inherited. Her
return would resonate as a rebuke of his market-oriented reforms while potentially yanking Argentina back to its accustomed preserve:
left-wing populism, in uncomfortable proximity to insolvency.
The Argentine peso lost half of its value against the dollar last year, prompting the central bank to lift interest rates to a
commerce-suffocating level above 60 percent. Argentina was forced to secure a $57 billion
rescue from the International
Monetary Fund , a profound indignity given that the fund is widely despised here for the austerity it imposed in the late 1990s,
turning an economic downturn into a depression.
For Mr. Macri, time does not appear to be in abundant supply. The spending cuts he delivered hit the populace immediately. The
promised benefits of his reforms -- a stable currency, tamer inflation, fresh investment and jobs -- could take years to materialize,
leaving Argentines angry and yearning for the past.
In much of South America, left-wing governments have taken power in recent decades as an angry corrective to dogmatic prescriptions
from Washington, where the Treasury and the I.M.F. have focused on the confidence of global investors as the key to development.
Left-wing populism has aimed to redistribute the gains from the wealthy to everyone else. It has aided the poor, while generating
its own woes --
corruption and depression in
Brazil , runaway inflation and financial ruin in Argentina. In Venezuela, uninhibited spending has turned the country with the
world's largest proven oil reserves into a land where
children starve .
Mr. Macri sold his administration as an evolved form of governance for these times, a crucial dose of market forces tempered
by social programs.
In the most generous reading, the medicine has yet to take effect. But in the view of beleaguered Argentines, the country
has merely slipped back into the rut that has framed national life for as long as most people can remember.
"We live patching things up," said Roberto Nicoli, 62, who runs a silverware company outside the capital, Buenos Aires. "We
never fix things. I always say, 'Whenever we start doing better, I will start getting ready for the next crisis.'"
Cultivating wealth
... ... ...
In the beginning, there was Juan Domingo Perón, the charismatic Army general who was president from 1946 to 1955, and then again
from 1973 to 1974. He employed an authoritarian hand and muscular state power to champion the poor. He and his wife, Eva Duarte --
widely known by her nickname, Evita -- would dominate political life long after they died, inspiring politicians across the ideological
spectrum to claim their mantle.
Among the most ardent Peronists were Néstor Kirchner, the president from 2003 to 2007, and his wife, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner,
who took office in 2007, remaining until Mr. Macri was elected in 2015.
Their version of Peronism -- what became known as Kirchnerism -- was decidedly left-wing, disdaining global trade as a malevolent
force. They expanded cash grants to the poor and imposed taxes on farm exports in a bid to keep Argentine food prices low.
As the country's farmers tell it, Kirchnerism is just a fancy term for the confiscation of their wealth and the scattering of
the spoils to the unproductive masses. They point to Ms. Kirchner's 35 percent tax on soybean exports.
"We had a saying," Mr. Tropini says. "'For every three trucks that went to the port, one was for Cristina Kirchner.'"
reduction in export taxes.
"You could breathe finally," Mr. Tropini, the farmer, says.
He was free of the Kirchners, yet stuck with nature. Floods in 2016 wiped out more than half of his crops. A drought last year
wreaked even more havoc.
"This harvest, this year," he says, "is a gift from God."
But if the heavens are now cooperating, and if the people running Buenos Aires represent change, Mr. Tropini is critical of Mr.
Macri's failure to overcome the economic crisis.
A weaker currency makes Argentine soybeans more competitive, but it also increases the cost of the diesel fuel Mr. Tropini needs
to run his machinery. High interest rates make it impossible for him to buy another combine, which would allow him to expand his
farm.
In the first years of Mr. Macri's administration, the government lifted controls on the value of the peso while relaxing export
taxes. The masters of international finance delivered a surge of investment. The economy expanded by nearly 3 percent in 2017, and
then accelerated in the first months of last year.
But as investors grew wary of Argentina's deficits, they fled, sending the peso plunging and inflation soaring. As the rout continued
last year, the central bank mounted a futile effort to support the currency, selling its stash of dollars to try to halt the peso's
descent. As the reserves dwindled, investors absorbed the spectacle of a government failing to restore order. The exodus of money
intensified, and another potential default loomed, leading a chastened Mr. Macri to accept a rescue from the dreaded IMF.
Administration officials described the unraveling as akin to a natural disaster: unforeseeable and unavoidable. The drought hurt
agriculture.
Money was flowing out of developing countries as the Federal Reserve continued to lift interest rates in the United States, making
the American dollar a more attractive investment.
But the impact of the Fed's tightening had been widely anticipated. Economists fault the government for mishaps and complacency
that left the country especially vulnerable.
.... ... ...
Among the most consequential errors was the government's decision to include Argentina's central bank in a December 2017 announcement
that it was raising its inflation target. The markets took that as a signal that the government was surrendering its war on inflation
while opting for a traditional gambit: printing money rather than cutting spending.
... ... ...
The government insists that better days are ahead. The spending cuts have dropped the budget deficit to a manageable 3 percent
of annual economic output. Argentina is again integrated into the global economy.
"We haven't improved, but the foundations of the economy and society are much healthier," said Miguel Braun, secretary of economic
policy at the Treasury Ministry. "Argentina is in a better place to generate a couple of decades of growth."
... ... ...
Their television flashes dire warnings, like "Danger of Hyper Inflation." Throughout the neighborhood, people decry the sense
that they have been forsaken by the government.
Trucks used to come to castrate male dogs to control the packs of feral animals running loose. Not anymore. Health programs for
children are less accessible than they were before, they said.
Daisy Quiroz, 71, a retired maid, lives in a house that regularly floods in the rainy season.
"When our president Cristina was here, they sent people to help us," she says. "Now, if there's problems, nobody helps us.
Poor people feel abandoned."
... ... ...
Daniel Politi contributed reporting from Buenos Aires. Peter S. Goodman is a London-based European economics correspondent.
He was previously a national economic correspondent in New York. He has also worked at The Washington Post as a China correspondent,
and was global editor in chief of the International Business Times. @
petersgoodman
Iran's envoy to the United Nations has called on the international community to end "unlawful destabilizing measures" by the US,
declaring that while Iran does not seek war, it "reserves the right to counter any hostile act."
Iranian envoy to the UN Majid Takht Ravanchi has condemned continuing US provocations that culminated Thursday morning in the
downing of an American surveillance drone by the Iranian air force over Hormozgan province.
The drone "had turned off its identification equipment and [was] engaged in a clear spying operation," Ravanchi confirmed in a
letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, adding that the aircraft had ignored "repeated radio warnings" in order to enter
Iranian airspace near the Strait of Hormuz.
"... The build-up of riots against Hong Kong's proposed extradition treaty with the Mainland started months ago, supported and driven by commentary in the Land of the Free ..."
"... This happened before, in 2014. The Chinese leadership was certain the riots in Hong Kong reflected the work of American agencies. The following is an extract translated from a speech by Major-General Qiao Liang, a leading strategist for the Peoples' Liberation Army, addressing the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee in 2015: ..."
"... weakening yuan-dollar exchange rate will dissuade international portfolios from investing in China's projects, for which the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was established. China should respond to moves to undermine her currency, seeking to enhance the attractions of her investment opportunities to international investment funds by taking measures to support the yuan. If not, global investment funds will simply not come China's way. ..."
"... Besides attracting portfolio flows into the US, a rising dollar is also a threat to foreign governments and corporates who have borrowed dollars and then have to pay them back later. This was what mauled South-East Asian economies in the 1997 financial crisis. China as a state is not in this position, though some of her regional trading partners will have fallen into this trap again. ..."
"... It is clear from elsewhere in Qiao's speech that the Chinese understand America's motives and methods. Therefore, they will anticipate American actions to undermine the yuan. If the Americans succeed and with the yuan made unattractive, international portfolio money that is already invested in China will be sucked out, potentially crashing China's capital markets. ..."
"... Put another way, we face no less than a dangerous escalation of the financial war between America and China, with America trying to close off international finance to China. ..."
"... Through deploying similar monetary policies to the Americans, it might now occur to Beijing's central planners that they are at a severe disadvantage playing that game. The dollar and the yuan are both unbacked credit-based currencies bedevilled with debt. But if the dollar goes head-to-head against the yuan, the dollar will always destabilise the yuan. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Chinese inaction is likely to be encouraged by another factor: the escalation of US embargoes on Iranian oil, and the increasing possibility of a new Middle-East conflict with Iran. This is bound to have a bearing on Chinese-American relations. ..."
"... Meanwhile, China is securing her defences. Besides aligning with Russia and both being expected to vote at the UN against Israeli/American attempts to escalate tensions in the Gulf, Russia can be expected to covertly help Iran. Beijing is also securing a partnership to protect North Korea, with Xi visiting Pyongyang this week in order to head off American action in that direction. The whole Asian continent from Ukraine to the Bering Sea is now on a defensive footing. ..."
When you see a rash, you should look beyond the skin for a cause. It has been like this with
Hong Kong over the last few weeks. On the surface we see impressively organised demonstrations
to stop the executive from introducing extradition laws to China. We observe that university
students and others not much older are running the demonstrations with military precision. The
Mainland Chinese should be impressed.
They are unlikely to see it that way. The build-up of riots against Hong Kong's proposed
extradition treaty with the Mainland started months ago, supported and driven by commentary in
the Land of the Free . America is now coming out in the open as China's adversary, no longer
just a trading partner worried by the trade imbalances. And Hong Kong is the pressure
point.
This happened before, in 2014. The Chinese leadership was certain the riots in Hong Kong
reflected the work of American agencies. The following is an extract translated from a speech
by Major-General Qiao Liang, a leading strategist for the Peoples' Liberation Army, addressing
the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee in 2015:
"Since the Diaoyu Islands conflict and the Huangyan Island conflict, incidents have kept
popping up around China, including the confrontation over China's 981 oil rigs with Vietnam
and Hong Kong's "Occupy Central" event. Can they still be viewed as simply accidental?
I accompanied General Liu Yazhou, the Political Commissar of the National Defence
University, to visit Hong Kong in May 2014. At that time, we heard that the "Occupy Central"
movement was being planned and could take place by end of the month. However, it didn't
happen in May, June, July, or August.
What happened? What were they waiting for?
Let's look at another time table: the U.S. Federal Reserve's exit from the Quantitative
Easing (QE) policy. The U.S. said it would stop QE at the beginning of 2014. But it stayed
with the QE policy in April, May, June, July, and August. As long as it was in QE, it kept
overprinting dollars and the dollar's price couldn't go up. Thus, Hong Kong's "Occupy
Central" should not happen either.
At the end of September, the Federal Reserve announced the U.S. would exit from QE. The
dollar started going up. Then Hong Kong's "Occupy Central" broke out in early October.
Actually, the Diaoyu Islands, Huangyan Island, the 981 rigs, and Hong Kong's "Occupy
Central" movement were all bombs. The successful explosion of any one of them would lead to a
regional crisis or a worsened investment environment around China. That would force the
withdrawal of a large amount of investment from this region, which would then return to the
U.S."
That America is stoking and organising discontent anew in Hong Kong is probably still
China's view today. Clearly, the Chinese believed America covertly managed "Occupy Central" and
therefore are at it again. Apart from what their spies tell them, the protests are too well
organised and planned to be spontaneous. This time, the attack appears to have a better chance
of success. The plan is coordinated with American pressure on Hong Kong's dollar peg in an
attempt to destabilise it, principally through the threat to extend tariffs against China to
Hong Kong. This second attempt to collapse Hong Kong is therefore more serious.
Hong Kong is critical, because through Shanghai Connect it is the only lawful channel for
foreign investment flows into China. This is important to the Americans, because the US
Treasury cannot afford to see global portfolio flows attracted into China at a time when they
will be needed to invest in increasing quantities of US Treasury stock. Understand that, and
you will have grasped a large part of the urgency behind America's attempt to destabilise Hong
Kong.
Qiao Liang makes this point elsewhere in his aforementioned speech, claiming American
tactics are the consequence of the ending of Bretton Woods:
"Without the restriction of gold, the US can print dollars at will. If they keep a large
amount of dollars inside the US, it will certainly create inflation. If they export dollars
to the world, the whole world is helping the US deal with its inflation. That's why inflation
is not high in the US."
While one can take issue with his simplistic analysis, that is not the point. What matters
is what the Chinese believe. Qiao concludes:
"By issuing debt, the US brings a large amount of dollars from overseas back to the US's
three big markets: the commodity market, the Treasury Bills market, and the stock market. The
US repeats this cycle to make money: printing money, exporting money overseas, and bringing
money back. The US has become a financial empire."
Conceptually, Qiao was broadly correct. His error in these two statements was to not explain
that ownership of dollars means they are deployed exclusively in America, but perhaps he was
simplifying his argument for a non-technical audience. All dollars, despite foreign ownership,
remain in the American economy as a combination of US Treasuries and T-bills, investment in US
listed and unlisted securities, physical assets such as property and also deposits through
correspondent banks held in New York.
It is not the dollars that flow, but their ownership that changes. Dollars are bought and
sold for foreign currencies by central banks, sovereign wealth funds, commercial banks,
insurance companies and pension funds. The currencies in which these entities invest matters,
and investment decisions are obviously affected by currency prospects. It allows the US
Treasury to attract these flows into the dollar by simply making other currencies less
attractive. Foreign owners of foreign currencies can easily be spooked into the safe havens of
the dollar and US Treasuries. This is the way foreigners are corralled into funding the budget
deficit.
A weakening yuan-dollar exchange rate will dissuade international portfolios from investing
in China's projects, for which the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was established. China
should respond to moves to undermine her currency, seeking to enhance the attractions of her
investment opportunities to international investment funds by taking measures to support the
yuan. If not, global investment funds will simply not come China's way.
Besides attracting portfolio flows into the US, a rising dollar is also a threat to foreign
governments and corporates who have borrowed dollars and then have to pay them back later. This
was what mauled South-East Asian economies in the 1997 financial crisis. China as a state is
not in this position, though some of her regional trading partners will have fallen into this
trap again.
It is clear from elsewhere in Qiao's speech that the Chinese understand America's motives
and methods. Therefore, they will anticipate American actions to undermine the yuan. If the
Americans succeed and with the yuan made unattractive, international portfolio money that is
already invested in China will be sucked out, potentially crashing China's capital markets.
With the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act going onto the US statute book, President
Trump will be able to use the link to the Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sanctions
against trade, finance and technology. The concern in Hong Kong is personal wealth will now
decamp and that Hong Kong property prices will implode.
The British involvement
America's strategy has included putting pressure on her allies to fall into line with her
interests against China. All NATO members have been told not to buy Huawei equipment.
Protective of the special relationship, the British have gone along with it. But Cheltenham's
GCHQ (the UK's cyber monitoring agency) has at least given Huawei the opportunity to address
the security issues that have been raised.
A greater problem is bound to arise, and that is the role of the City of London. In 2014,
the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, agreed a plan with the Chinese leadership
for the City to work with Hong Kong to internationalise the yuan. The Chinese wanted to bypass
New York for obvious reasons.
The request to meet Osborne went through Boris Johnson, at the time Mayor of London and
leading a trade delegation to China on behalf of the City. Johnson is now odds-on favourite to
become the next Prime Minister and if appointed will undoubtedly find himself in a difficult
position. He will have to walk a very fine line between Britain's developing Chinese interests,
her special relationship with America, his new friendship with Trump, and also the trade
agreement with America which both Trump and Johnson are likely to prioritise following
Brexit.
Depending on how Johnson acts, China may have to put her plans to internationalise the yuan
on hold. The risk for China is that with her international financial plans threatened and the
Americans determined to strengthen the dollar in order to undermine the yuan, she will not have
access to the international portfolio flows she needs to help finance her infrastructure plans
and her Made in China 2025 project.
Put another way, we face no less than a dangerous escalation of the financial war between
America and China, with America trying to close off international finance to
China.
China's policy predicament
In a tactical retreat, Hong Kong has put plans to introduce the new extradition legislation
on hold. All it has achieved is to redirect demonstrators' demands towards Hong Kong's Chief
Executive to resign, and the demonstrations continued.
The question now arises as to how the Chinese will proceed. So far, they have played their
hand defensively in the financial war against America, but things are now coming to a head.
Obviously, they will protect Hong Kong, but more importantly they must address capital flight
through the Shanghai Connect. One option will be to suspend it, but that would undermine the
trust fundamental to future inward portfolio flows. It would also be a huge setback for the
international yuan. In any event, action must be taken to underwrite the yuan exchange
rate.
One option would be to increase interest rates, but this will risk being read as a panic
measure. In this context, an early and definite rise in interest rates would be better than a
delay or a lesser adjustment to monetary policy. For the domestic economy, this would favour
savers in an economy already savings-driven, but disadvantage exporters and many small and
medium-size businesses. It would amount to a reversal of recent economic and monetary policies,
which are intended to increase domestic consumption and reduce export surpluses.
The economic theories that the central planners in Beijing actually believe in will become
centre-stage. China has adopted the global neo-Keynesian standard of economic planning and
credit expansion. When the country moved rapidly from a peasant economy, credit was able to
expand without the regular pitfalls of a credit cycle observed in an advanced economy being
noticeable. This was because economic progress eclipsed the consequences of monetary
inflation.
But China is no longer an economic green-field site, having become predominantly a modern
economy. Consequently, she has moved from her pure mercantilist approach to running the economy
to a more financial and monetary style of central planning.
Through deploying similar monetary policies to the Americans, it might now occur to
Beijing's central planners that they are at a severe disadvantage playing that game. The dollar
and the yuan are both unbacked credit-based currencies bedevilled with debt. But if the dollar
goes head-to-head against the yuan, the dollar will always destabilise the yuan.
Supping from the Keynesian cup is China's principal weakness. She cannot afford to face down
the dollar, and the Americans know it. For the Chinese, the path of least risk appears to be
the one China has pursued successfully to date: do as little as possible to rock the boat, and
let America make the mistakes. However, as I shall argue later, the time is coming for China to
take the offensive.
Meanwhile, Chinese inaction is likely to be encouraged by another factor: the escalation of
US embargoes on Iranian oil, and the increasing possibility of a new Middle-East conflict with
Iran. This is bound to have a bearing on Chinese-American relations.
False flags and
Iran
Last week, two oil tankers suffered an attack by parties unknown after leaving the Strait of
Hormuz outward-bound. Predictably, the Americans and the Saudis blamed Iran, and Iran has
denied involvement. The Americans, supported by the British, have been quick to point out that
Iran had the motivation to attack and therefore was the guilty party. As a consequence of US
sanctions, her economy is in a state of collapse and Iran needs higher oil prices. The US has
been building up its Gulf fleet provocatively, increasing tensions. According to Al-Jazeera,
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani warned last December that "If one day they (the US) want to
prevent the export of Iran's oil, then no oil will be exported from the Persian Gulf."
Perhaps that day is close. Tehran must be desperate, and she blames the Americans and
Israelis for a false flag attack, an accusation that bases its credibility on previous
incidents in the region and a suspicion that Israel backed by America wants an excuse to attack
Iran. The Syrian bridge to Hezbollah threatens Israel to its North, so its involvement is
logical, and it looks like a Mossad operation. By driving Iran into a corner, it is hard to see
any other outcome than further escalation.
If America does get tied up in a new war in the Middle East, she will be fighting on two
Asian fronts: militarily against Iran and financially against China. It could descend rapidly
into a global crisis, which would not suit China's interests or anyone else's for that matter.
However, an American attack against Iran could trigger the widespread flight of investment
money to the safety of the dollar and US Treasuries.
If America achieves that objective before sending in the troops, she could then compromise
on both Iran and on tariffs against China. Assuming Qiao Liang's analysis still has traction in
Beijing, this is the way American strategy might be read by the Chinese war-gamers.
Meanwhile, China is securing her defences. Besides aligning with Russia and both being
expected to vote at the UN against Israeli/American attempts to escalate tensions in the Gulf,
Russia can be expected to covertly help Iran. Beijing is also securing a partnership to protect
North Korea, with Xi visiting Pyongyang this week in order to head off American action in that
direction. The whole Asian continent from Ukraine to the Bering Sea is now on a defensive
footing.
How will it be resolved?
If the funding of the US deficit is the underling problem, then a continuation of China's
longstanding policy of not reacting to America's financial aggression is no longer an option. A
weaker yuan will be the outcome and a second Asian financial crisis involving China would be in
the offing. It also means the progression of China's economy would become more dependent on
domestic inflationary financing through the expansion of bank credit at a time when food
prices, partially due to the outbreak of African swine fever, are rising as well.
There is bound to be an intense debate in the Chinese Politburo as to whether it is wise to
abandon neo-Keynesian financing and revert to the previous understanding that debasing the
currency and the inflation of food prices impoverishes the people and will inevitably lead to
political destabilisation. The logic behind the state accumulating a hoard of gold, encouraging
citizens to hoard it as well, and dominating international bullion markets was to protect the
citizens from a paper money crisis. That paper money crisis now threatens the yuan more than
the dollar.
It must be clear to the Chinese, who are no slouches when it comes to understanding
political strategy, why America is taking a far more aggressive stance in their financial war.
The absence of foreign buyers in the US Treasury market could turn out to be the most serious
crisis for America since the end of Bretton Woods. The Deep State, driven in this case by the
US Treasury, will not permit it to happen. For both China and America, these are desperate
times.
There was always going to be a point in time when mundane chess moves end up threatening to
check and then checkmate one or the other king. China now finds her king under serious threat
and she must make a countermove. She cannot afford portfolio flows to reverse. The financing of
her Made in China 2025 plan and the completion of the silk roads are vital to her long-term
political stability.
China must therefore counter dollar strength by means other than simply raising interest
rates. Inevitably, the solution points towards gold. Everyone knows, or at least suspects that
China has accumulated significant undeclared reserves of gold bullion. The time has probably
come for China to show her hand and declare her true gold reserves, or at least enough of them
to exceed the official gold reserves of the US.
It is likely a declaration of this sort would drive the gold price significantly higher,
amounting to a dollar devaluation. By denying gold is money, America has exposed itself to the
risk of the dollar's reserve status being questioned in global markets, and this is China's
trump card.
If Xi attends the Osaka G20 at the end of this month, the purpose would be less to talk to
Trump, but more to talk to the other leaders to make it clear what the Americans are up to and
to ensure they are aware of the consequences for the global monetary system when China takes
positive action to protect her own currency and domestic capital markets.
China gives the US too much credit for "people organizing" skills. Credit where credit is due: the Hong Kong population is dynamic and driven. They are
"incentivized" by Chinese policy itself.
Bolton is just Albright of different sex. The same aggressive stupidity.
Notable quotes:
"... Albright typifies the arrogance and hawkishness of Washington blob... ..."
"... How to describe US foreign policy over the last couple of decades? Disastrous comes to mind. Arrogant and murderous also seem appropriate. ..."
"... Washington and Beijing appear to be a collision course on far more than trade. Yet the current administration appears convinced that doing more of the same will achieve different results, the best definition of insanity. ..."
"... Despite his sometimes abusive and incendiary rhetoric, the president has departed little from his predecessors' policies. For instance, American forces remain deployed in Afghanistan and Syria. Moreover, the Trump administration has increased its military and materiel deployments to Europe. Also, Washington has intensified economic sanctions on Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, and even penalized additional countries, namely Venezuela. ..."
"... "If we have to use force, it is because we are America: we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us." ..."
"... Even then her claim was implausible. America blundered into the Korean War and barely achieved a passable outcome. The Johnson administration infused Vietnam with dramatically outsize importance. For decades, Washington foolishly refused to engage the People's Republic of China. Washington-backed dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, and elsewhere fell ingloriously. An economic embargo against Cuba that continues today helped turn Fidel Castro into a global folk hero. Washington veered dangerously close to nuclear war with Moscow during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and again two decades later during military exercises in Europe. ..."
"... Perhaps the worst failing of U.S. foreign policy was ignoring the inevitable impact of foreign intervention. Americans would never passively accept another nation bombing, invading, and occupying their nation, or interfering in their political system. Even if outgunned, they would resist. Yet Washington has undertaken all of these practices, with little consideration of the impact on those most affected -- hence the rise of terrorism against the United States. Terrorism, horrid and awful though it is, became the weapon of choice of weaker peoples against intervention by the world's industrialized national states. ..."
"... Albright's assumption that members of The Blob were far-seeing was matched by her belief that the same people were entitled to make life-and-death decisions for the entire planet. ..."
"... The willingness to so callously sacrifice so many helps explain why "they" often hate us, usually meaning the U.S. government. This is also because "they" believe average Americans hate them. Understandably, it too often turns out, given the impact of the full range of American interventions -- imposing economic sanctions, bombing, invading, and occupying other nations, unleashing drone campaigns, underwriting tyrannical regimes, supporting governments which occupy and oppress other peoples, displaying ostentatious hypocrisy and bias, and more. ..."
"... At the 1999 Rambouillet conference Albright made demands of Yugoslavia that no independent, sovereign state could accept: that, for instance, it act like defeated and occupied territory by allowing the free transit of NATO forces. Washington expected the inevitable refusal, which was calculated to provide justification for launching an unprovoked, aggressive war against the Serb-dominated remnant of Yugoslavia. ..."
"... Alas, members of the Blob view Americans with little more respect. The ignorant masses should do what they are told. (Former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster recently complained of public war-weariness from fighting in Afghanistan for no good reason for more than seventeen years.) Even more so, believed Albright, members of the military should cheerfully patrol the quasi-empire being established by Washington's far-sighted leaders. ..."
"... When asked in 2003 about the incident, she said "what I thought was that we had -- we were in a kind of a mode of thinking that we were never going to be able to use our military effectively again." ..."
"... For Albright, war is just another foreign policy tool. One could send a diplomatic note, impose economic sanctions, or unleash murder and mayhem. No reason to treat the latter as anything special. Joining the U.S. military means putting your life at the disposal of Albright and her peers in The Blob. ..."
Albright typifies the arrogance and hawkishness of Washington blob...
How to describe US foreign policy over the last couple of decades? Disastrous comes to mind. Arrogant and murderous also seem
appropriate.
Since 9/11, Washington has been extraordinarily active militarily -- invading two nations, bombing and droning several others,
deploying special operations forces in yet more countries, and applying sanctions against many. Tragically, the threat of Islamist
violence and terrorism only have metastasized. Although Al Qaeda lost its effectiveness in directly plotting attacks, it continues
to inspire national offshoots. Moreover, while losing its physical "caliphate" the Islamic State added further terrorism to its portfolio.
Three successive administrations have ever more deeply ensnared the United States in the Middle East. War with Iran appears to
be frighteningly possible. Ever-wealthier allies are ever-more dependent on America. Russia is actively hostile to the United States
and Europe. Washington and Beijing appear to be a collision course on far more than trade. Yet the current administration appears
convinced that doing more of the same will achieve different results, the best definition of insanity.
Despite his sometimes abusive and incendiary rhetoric, the president has departed little from his predecessors' policies. For
instance, American forces remain deployed in Afghanistan and Syria. Moreover, the Trump administration has increased its military
and materiel deployments to Europe. Also, Washington has intensified economic sanctions on Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, and
even penalized additional countries, namely Venezuela.
U.S. foreign policy suffers from systematic flaws in the thinking of the informal policy collective which former Obama aide Ben
Rhodes dismissed as "The Blob." Perhaps no official better articulated The Blob's defective precepts than Madeleine Albright, United
Nations ambassador and Secretary of State.
First is overweening hubris. In 1998 Secretary of State Albright declared that
"If we have to use force, it is because we are America: we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than
other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us."
Even then her claim was implausible. America blundered into the Korean War and barely achieved a passable outcome. The Johnson
administration infused Vietnam with dramatically outsize importance. For decades, Washington foolishly refused to engage the People's
Republic of China. Washington-backed dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, and elsewhere fell ingloriously. An economic embargo against
Cuba that continues today helped turn Fidel Castro into a global folk hero. Washington veered dangerously close to nuclear war with
Moscow during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and again two decades later during military exercises in Europe.
U.S. officials rarely were prepared for events that occurred in the next week or month, let alone years later. Americans did no
better than the French in Vietnam. Americans managed events in Africa no better than the British, French, and Portuguese colonial
overlords. Washington made more than its share of bad, even awful decisions in dealing with other nations around the globe.
Perhaps the worst failing of U.S. foreign policy was ignoring the inevitable impact of foreign intervention. Americans would never
passively accept another nation bombing, invading, and occupying their nation, or interfering in their political system. Even if
outgunned, they would resist. Yet Washington has undertaken all of these practices, with little consideration of the impact on those
most affected -- hence the rise of terrorism against the United States. Terrorism, horrid and awful though it is, became the weapon
of choice of weaker peoples against intervention by the world's industrialized national states.
The U.S. record since September 11 has been uniquely counterproductive. Rather than minimize hostility toward America, Washington
adopted a policy -- highlighted by launching new wars, killing more civilians, and ravaging additional societies -- guaranteed to
create enemies, exacerbate radicalism, and spread terrorism. Blowback is everywhere. Among the worst examples: Iraqi insurgents mutated
into ISIS, which wreaked military havoc throughout the Middle East and turned to terrorism.
Albright's assumption that members of The Blob were far-seeing was matched by her belief that the same people were entitled to
make life-and-death decisions for the entire planet. When queried 1996 about her justification for sanctions against Iraq which had
killed a half million babies -- notably, she did not dispute the accuracy of that estimate -- she responded that "I think this is
a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." Exactly who "we" were she did not say. Most likely she meant
those Americans admitted to the foreign policy priesthood, empowered to make foreign policy and take the practical steps necessary
to enforce it. (She later stated of her reply: "I never should have made it. It was stupid." It was, but it reflected her mindset.)
In any normal country, such a claim would be shocking -- a few people sitting in another capital deciding who lived and died.
Foreign elites, a world away from the hardship that they imposed, deciding the value of those dying versus the purported interests
being promoted. Those paying the price had no voice in the decision, no way to hold their persecutors accountable.
The willingness to so callously sacrifice so many helps explain why "they" often hate us, usually meaning the U.S. government.
This is also because "they" believe average Americans hate them. Understandably, it too often turns out, given the impact of the
full range of American interventions -- imposing economic sanctions, bombing, invading, and occupying other nations, unleashing drone
campaigns, underwriting tyrannical regimes, supporting governments which occupy and oppress other peoples, displaying ostentatious
hypocrisy and bias, and more.
This mindset is reinforced by contempt toward even those being aided by Washington. Although American diplomats had termed the
Kosovo Liberation Army as "terrorist," the Clinton Administration decided to use the growing insurgency as an opportunity to expand
Washington's influence. At the 1999 Rambouillet conference Albright made demands of Yugoslavia that no independent, sovereign state
could accept: that, for instance, it act like defeated and occupied territory by allowing the free transit of NATO forces. Washington
expected the inevitable refusal, which was calculated to provide justification for launching an unprovoked, aggressive war against
the Serb-dominated remnant of Yugoslavia.
However, initially the KLA, determined on independence, refused to sign Albright's agreement. She exploded. One of her officials
anonymously complained: "Here is the greatest nation on earth pleading with some nothingballs to do something entirely in their own
interest -- which is to say yes to an interim agreement -- and they stiff us." Someone described as "a close associate" observed:
"She is so stung by what happened. She's angry at everyone -- the Serbs, the Albanians and NATO." For Albright, the determination
of others to achieve their own goals, even at risk to their lives, was an insult to America and her.
Alas, members of the Blob view Americans with little more respect. The ignorant masses should do what they are told. (Former National
Security Adviser H.R. McMaster recently complained of public war-weariness from fighting in Afghanistan for no good reason for more
than seventeen years.) Even more so, believed Albright, members of the military should cheerfully patrol the quasi-empire being established
by Washington's far-sighted leaders.
As Albright famously asked Colin Powell in 1992:
"What's the use of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" To her, American military personnel
apparently were but gambit pawns in a global chess game, to be sacrificed for the interest and convenience of those playing. No
wonder then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell's reaction stated in his autobiography was: "I thought I would
have an aneurysm."
When asked in 2003 about the incident, she said "what I thought was that we had -- we were in a kind of a mode of thinking
that we were never going to be able to use our military effectively again." Although sixty-five years had passed, she
admitted that "my mindset is Munich," a unique circumstance and threat without even plausible parallel today.
Such a philosophy explains a 1997 comment by a cabinet member, likely Albright, to General Hugh Shelton, then Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff: "Hugh, I know I shouldn't even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out
Saddam is a precipitous event -- something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s
fly low enough -- and slow enough -- so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?" He responded sure, as soon as she qualified
to fly the plane.
For Albright, war is just another foreign policy tool. One could send a diplomatic note, impose economic sanctions, or unleash
murder and mayhem. No reason to treat the latter as anything special. Joining the U.S. military means putting your life at the disposal
of Albright and her peers in The Blob.
Anyone of these comments could be dismissed as a careless aside. Taken together, however, they reflect an attitude dangerous for
Americans and foreigners alike. Unfortunately, the vagaries of U.S. foreign policy suggest that this mindset is not limited to any
one person. Any president serious about taking a new foreign-policy direction must do more than drain the swamp. He or she must sideline
The Blob.
"... Twenty years have passed since the U.S.-orchestrated NATO attack on Yugoslavia. As the United States readied its forces for war in 1999, it organized a peace conference that was ostensibly intended to resolve differences between the Yugoslav government and secessionist ethnic Albanians in Kosovo on the future status of the province. A different scenario was being played out behind the scenes, however. U.S. officials wanted war and deliberately set up the process to fail, which they planned to use as a pretext for war. ..."
"... U.S. mediators habitually referred to the Yugoslav delegation as "the Serbs," even though they constituted a minority of the members. The Americans persisted in trying to cast events in Kosovo as a simplistic binary relationship of Serb versus Albanian, disregarding the presence of other ethnic groups in the province, and ignoring the fact that while some ethnic Albanians favored separation, others wished to remain in multiethnic Yugoslavia. ..."
"... It is probable that the U.S. was also operating electronic listening equipment and that U.S. mediators knew everything the delegations were saying in private. ..."
"... "Madeleine Albright told us all the time: 'If the Yugoslav delegation does not accept what we offer, you will be bombed.'" Šainović added, "We agreed in Rambouillet to any form of autonomy for Kosovo," but sovereignty remained the red line. [viii] ..."
"... As the conference progressed, U.S. negotiators were faced with an alarming problem, in that the Yugoslav delegation had accepted all of the Contact Group's fundamental political principles for an agreement, balking only at a NATO presence in Kosovo. On the other hand, the secessionist delegation rejected the Contact Group's political principles. Something had to be done to reverse this pattern. ..."
"... Quite intentionally, U.S. mediators included provisions in the final version of the text that no sovereign nation could be expected to accept. Neoliberal economic interests are always front and center when U.S. officials are involved, and they surely were not unaware of Kosovo's abundant reserves of mineral resources, ripe for exploitation. The first point in Article 1 of the Economic Issues section of the text states: ..."
"... Western investors were favored with a provision stating that authorities shall "ensure the free movement of persons, goods, services, and capital to Kosovo, including from international sources." [xiii] One may wonder what these stipulations had to do with peace negotiations, but then the talks had far more to do with U.S. interests than anything to do with the needs of the people in the region. ..."
"... Yugoslavia was required "to provide, at no cost, the use of all facilities and services required" by NATO. [xvii]Within six months, Yugoslavia would have to withdraw all of its military forces from Kosovo, other than a small number of border guards. [xviii] ..."
"... The plan granted NATO "unrestricted use of the entire electromagnetic spectrum" to "communicate." Although the document indicated NATO would make "reasonable efforts to coordinate," there were no constraints on its power. [xix] Yugoslav officials, "upon simple request," would be required to grant NATO "all telecommunication services, including broadcast services free of cost." [xx]NATO could take over any radio and television facilities and transmission wavelengths it chose, knocking local stations off the air. ..."
"... The plan did not restrict NATO's presence to Kosovo. It granted NATO, with its "vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia]." [xxi] NATO would be "granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tools, or charges." [xxii] ..."
"... Bombing Yugoslavia was meant to solidify the new role for NATO as an offensive military force, acting on behalf of U.S. imperial interests. Since that time, NATO has attacked Libya, and engaged in military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a variety of nations in Africa. Despite NATO's claim that it is "committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes," the record shows otherwise. ..."
"... Gregory Elich is a Korea Policy Institute associate and on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute. He is a member of the Solidarity Committee for Democracy and Peace in Korea, a columnist for Voice of the People , and one of the co-authors of Killing Democracy: CIA and Pentagon Operations in the Post-Soviet Period , published in the Russian language. He is also a member of the Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific. His website is https://gregoryelich.org . Follow him on Twitter at @GregoryElich ..."
Twenty years have passed since the U.S.-orchestrated NATO attack on Yugoslavia. As the United States readied its forces for
war in 1999, it organized a peace conference that was ostensibly intended to resolve differences between the Yugoslav government
and secessionist ethnic Albanians in Kosovo on the future status of the province. A different scenario was being played out behind
the scenes, however. U.S. officials wanted war and deliberately set up the process to fail, which they planned to use as a pretext
for war.
The talks opened on February 6, 1999, in Rambouillet, France. Officially, the negotiations were led by a Contact Group comprised
of U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia Christopher Hill , European Union envoy Wolfgang Petritsch , and Russian diplomat Boris Mayorsky
. All decisions were supposed to be jointly agreed upon by all three members of the Contact Group. In actual practice, the U.S. ran
the show all the way and routinely bypassed Petritsch and Mayorsky on essential matters.
Ibrahim Rugova , an ethnic Albanian activist who advocated nonviolence, was expected to play a major role in the Albanian secessionist
delegation. Joining him at Rambouillet was Fehmi Agani , a fellow member of Rugova's Democratic League of Kosovo.
U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright regularly sidelined Rugova, however, preferring to rely on delegation members from
the hardline Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which had routinely murdered Serbs, Roma, and Albanians in Kosovo who worked for the government
or opposed separatism. Only a few months before the conference, KLA spokesman Bardhyl Mahmuti spelled out his organization's vision
of a future Kosovo as separate and ethnically pure:
"The independence of Kosovo is the only solution We cannot live together. That is excluded." [i]
Rugova had at one time engaged in fairly productive talks with Yugoslav officials, and his willingness to negotiate was no doubt
precisely the reason Albright relegated him to a background role. Yugoslav Minister of Information Milan Komnenić accompanied the
Yugoslav delegation to Rambouillet. He recalls,
"With Rugova and Fehmi Agani it was possible to talk; they were flexible. In Rambouillet, [KLA leader Hashim] Thaçi appears
instead of Rugova. A beast." [ii]
There was no love between Thaçi and Rugova, whose party members were the targets of threats and assassination attempts at the
hands of the KLA. Rugova himself would survive an assassination attempt six years later.
The composition of the Yugoslav delegation reflected its position that many ethnic groups resided in Kosovo, and any agreement
arrived at should take into account the interests of all parties. All of Kosovo's major ethnic groups were represented in the delegation.
Faik Jashari , one of the Albanian members in the Yugoslav delegation, was president of the Kosovo Democratic Initiative and an official
in the Provisional Executive Council, which was Yugoslavia's government in Kosovo. Jashari observed that Albright was startled when
she saw the composition of the Yugoslav delegation, apparently because it went against the U.S. propaganda narrative. [iii] Throughout
the talks, Albright displayed a dismissive attitude towards the delegation's Albanian, Roma, Egyptian, Goran, Turkish, and Slavic
Muslim members.
U.S. mediators habitually referred to the Yugoslav delegation as "the Serbs," even though they constituted a minority of the members.
The Americans persisted in trying to cast events in Kosovo as a simplistic binary relationship of Serb versus Albanian, disregarding
the presence of other ethnic groups in the province, and ignoring the fact that while some ethnic Albanians favored separation, others
wished to remain in multiethnic Yugoslavia.
After arriving at Rambouillet, the secessionist Albanian delegation informed U.S. diplomats that it did not want to meet with
the Yugoslav side. Aside from a brief ceremonial meeting, there was no direct contact between the two groups. The Yugoslav and Albanian
delegations were placed on two different floors to eliminate nearly all contact. U.S. mediators Richard Holbrooke and Christopher
Hill ran from one delegation to the other, conveying notes and verbal messages between the two sides but mostly trying to coerce
the Yugoslav delegation. [iv]
Luan Koka, a Roma member of the Yugoslav delegation, noted that the U.S. was operating an electronic jamming device.
"We knew exactly when Madeleine Albright was coming. Connections on our mobile phones were breaking up and going crazy." [v]
It is probable that the U.S. was also operating electronic listening equipment and that U.S. mediators knew everything the delegations
were saying in private.
Albright, Jashari said, would not listen to anyone.
"She had her task, and she saw only that task. You couldn't say anything to her. She didn't want to talk with us and didn't
want to listen to our arguments." [vi]
One day it was Koka's birthday, and the Yugoslav delegation wanted to encourage a more relaxed atmosphere with U.S. mediators,
inviting them to a cocktail party to mark the occasion.
"It was a slightly more pleasant atmosphere, and I was singing," Koka recalled. "I remember Madeleine Albright saying: 'I really
like partisan songs. But if you don't accept this, the bombs will fall.'" [vii]
According to delegation member Nikola Šainović ,
"Madeleine Albright told us all the time: 'If the Yugoslav delegation does not accept what we offer, you will be bombed.'"
Šainović added, "We agreed in Rambouillet to any form of autonomy for Kosovo," but sovereignty remained the red line. [viii]
From the beginning of the conference, U.S. mediator Christopher Hill "decided that what we really needed was an Albanian approval
of a document, and a Serb refusal. If both refused, there could be no further action by NATO or any other organization for that matter."
[ix] It was not peace that the U.S. team was seeking, but war.
As the conference progressed, U.S. negotiators were faced with an alarming problem, in that the Yugoslav delegation had accepted
all of the Contact Group's fundamental political principles for an agreement, balking only at a NATO presence in Kosovo. On the other
hand, the secessionist delegation rejected the Contact Group's political principles. Something had to be done to reverse this pattern.
On the second day of the conference, U.S. officials presented the Yugoslav delegation with the framework text of a provisional
agreement for peace and self-rule in Kosovo, but it was missing some of the annexes. The Yugoslavs requested a copy of the complete
document. As delegation head Ratko Marković pointed out,
"Any objections to the text of the agreement could be made only after an insight into the text as a whole had been obtained."
Nearly one week passed before the group received one of the missing annexes. That came on the day the conference had originally
been set to end. The deadline was extended, and two days later a second missing annex was provided to the Yugoslav delegation.[x]
When the Yugoslavs next met with the Contact Group, they were assured that all elements of the text had now been given to them.
Several more days passed and at 7:00 PM on February 22, the penultimate day of the conference, the Contact Group presented three
new annexes, which the Yugoslavs had never seen before. According to Marković, "Russian Ambassador Boris Mayorsky informed our delegation
that Annexes 2 and 7 had not been discussed or approved by the Contact Group and that they were not the texts drafted by the Contact
Group but by certain Contact Group members, while Annex 5 was discussed, but no decision was made on it at the Contact Group meeting."
The Yugoslav delegation refused to accept the new annexes, as their introduction had violated the process whereby all proposals had
to be agreed upon by the three Contact Group members. [xi]
At 9:30 AM on February 23, the final day of the conference, U.S. officials presented the full text of the proposal, containing
yet more provisions that were being communicated for the first time. The accompanying note identified the package as the definitive
text while adding that Russia did not support two of the articles. The letter demanded the Yugoslav delegation's decision by 1:00
PM that same day.[xii] There was barely time enough to carefully read the text, let alone negotiate. In essence, it was an ultimatum.
Quite intentionally, U.S. mediators included provisions in the final version of the text that no sovereign nation could be expected
to accept. Neoliberal economic interests are always front and center when U.S. officials are involved, and they surely were not unaware
of Kosovo's abundant reserves of mineral resources, ripe for exploitation. The first point in Article 1 of the Economic Issues section
of the text states:
"The economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles."
Western investors were favored with a provision stating that authorities shall "ensure the free movement of persons, goods, services,
and capital to Kosovo, including from international sources." [xiii] One may wonder what these stipulations had to do with peace
negotiations, but then the talks had far more to do with U.S. interests than anything to do with the needs of the people in the region.
The document called for a Western-led Joint Commission including local representatives to monitor and coordinate the implementation
of the plan. However, if commission members failed to reach consensus on a matter, the Western-appointed Chair would have the power
to impose his decision unilaterally. [xiv] Local representatives would serve as little more than window-dressing for Western dictate,
as they could adopt no measure that went against the Chair's wishes.
The Chair of the Implementation Mission was authorized to "recommend" the "removal and appointment of officials and the curtailment
of operations of existing institutions in Kosovo." If the Chair's command was not obeyed "in the time requested, the Joint Commission
may decide to take the recommended action," and since the Chair had the authority to impose his will on the Joint Commission, there
was no check on his power. He could remove elected and appointed officials at will and replace them with handpicked lackeys. The
Chair was also authorized to order the "curtailment of operations of existing institutions." [xv]Any organization that failed to
bend to U.S. demands could be shut down.
Chapter 7 of the plan called for the parties to "invite NATO to constitute and lead a military force" in Kosovo. [xvi]The choice
of words was interesting. In language reminiscent of gangsters, Yugoslavia was told to "invite" NATO to take over the province of
Kosovo or suffer the consequences.
Yugoslavia was required "to provide, at no cost, the use of all facilities and services required" by NATO. [xvii]Within six months,
Yugoslavia would have to withdraw all of its military forces from Kosovo, other than a small number of border guards. [xviii]
The plan granted NATO "unrestricted use of the entire electromagnetic spectrum" to "communicate." Although the document indicated
NATO would make "reasonable efforts to coordinate," there were no constraints on its power. [xix] Yugoslav officials, "upon simple
request," would be required to grant NATO "all telecommunication services, including broadcast services free of cost." [xx]NATO could
take over any radio and television facilities and transmission wavelengths it chose, knocking local stations off the air.
The plan did not restrict NATO's presence to Kosovo. It granted NATO, with its "vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free
and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia]." [xxi] NATO would be "granted
the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tools, or charges." [xxii]
The agreement guaranteed that NATO would have "complete and unimpeded freedom of movement by ground, air, and water into and throughout
Kosovo." Furthermore, NATO personnel could not be held "liable for any damages to public or private property." [xxiii] NATO as a
whole would also be "immune from all legal process, whether civil, administrative, or criminal," regardless of its actions anywhere
on the territory of Yugoslavia. [xxiv]Nor could NATO personnel be arrested, detained, or investigated. [xxv]
Acceptance of the plan would have brought NATO troops swarming throughout Yugoslavia and interfering in every institution.
There were several other objectionable elements in the plan, but one that stood out was the call for an "international" (meaning,
Western-led) meeting to be held after three years "to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo."[xxvi] It was no mystery
to the Yugoslav delegation what conclusion Western officials would arrive at in that meeting. The intent was clearly to redraw Yugoslavia's
borders to further break apart the nation.
U.S. officials knew the Yugoslav delegation could not possibly accept such a plan.
"We deliberately set the bar higher than the Serbs could accept," Madeleine Albright confided to a group of journalists, "because
they needed a little bombing." [xxvii]
At a meeting in Belgrade on March 5, the Yugoslav delegation issued a statement which declared:
"A great deceit was looming, orchestrated by the United States. They demanded that the agreement be signed, even though much
of this agreement, that is, over 56 pages, had never been discussed, either within the Contact Group or during the negotiations."
[xxviii]
Serbian President Milan Milutinović announced at a press conference that in Rambouillet the Yugoslav delegation had "proposed
solutions meeting the demands of the Contact Group for broad autonomy within Serbia, advocating full equality of all national communities."
But "agreement was not what they were after." Instead, Western officials engaged in "open aggression," and this was a game "about
troops and troops alone." [xxix]
While U.S. officials were working assiduously to avoid a peaceful resolution, they needed the Albanians to agree to the plan so
that they could accuse the Yugoslav delegation of being the stumbling block to peace. U.S. mainstream media could be counted on to
unquestioningly repeat the government's line and overlook who the real architects of failure were. U.S. officials knew the media
would act in their customary role as cheerleaders for war, which indeed, they did.
British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook revealed the nature of the message Western officials were conveying to the Albanian delegation
when he said,
"We are certainly saying to the Kosovo Albanians that if you don't sign up to these texts, it's extremely difficult to see
how NATO could then take action against Belgrade." [xxx]
Western officials were practically begging the secessionists to sign the plan. According to inside sources, the Americans assured
the Albanian delegation that disarmament of the KLA would be merely symbolic and that it could keep the bulk of its weaponry so long
as it was concealed. [xxxi]
Albright spent hours trying to convince Thaçi to change his mind, telling him:
"If you say yes and the Serbs say no, NATO will strike and go on striking until the Serb forces are out and NATO can go in.
You will have security. And you will be able to govern yourselves." [xxxii]
That was a clear enough signal that the intent was to rip the province away from Yugoslavia and create an artificial state. Despite
such assurances, Thaçi feared the wrath of fellow KLA members if he were to sign a document that did not explicitly call for separation.
When U.S. negotiators asked Thaçi why he would not sign, he responded:
"If I agree to this, I will go home and they will kill me." [xxxiii]
This was not hyperbole. The KLA had threatened and murdered a great many Albanians who in its eyes fell short of full-throated
support for its policy of violent secession and ethnic exclusion.
Even NATO Commander Wesley Clark , who flew in from Belgium, was unable to change Thaçi's mind. [xxxiv] U.S. officials were exasperated
with the Albanian delegation, and its recalcitrance threatened to capsize plans for war.
"Rambouillet was supposed to be about putting the screws to Belgrade," a senior U.S. official said. "But it went off the rails
because of the miscalculation we made about the Albanians." [xxxv]
On the last day at Rambouillet, it was agreed that the Albanian delegation would return to Kosovo for discussions with fellow
KLA leaders on the need to sign the document. In the days that followed, Western officials paid repeated visits to Kosovo to encourage
the Albanians to sign.
So-called "negotiations" reconvened in Paris on March 15. Upon its arrival, the Yugoslav delegation objected that it was "incomprehensible"
that "no direct talks between the two delegations had been facilitated." In response to the Yugoslavs' proposal for modifications
to the plan, the Contact Group informed them that no changes would be accepted. The document must be accepted as a whole. [xxxvi]
The Yugoslav position, delegation head Ratko Marković maintained, was that "first one needs to determine what is to be implemented,
and only then to determine the methods of implementation." [xxxvii]The delegation asked the Americans what there was to talk about
regarding implementation "when there was no agreement because the Albanians did not accept anything." U.S. officials responded that
the Yugoslav delegation "cannot negotiate," adding that it would only be allowed to make grammatical changes to the text. [xxxviii]
From the U.S. perspective, the presence of the Yugoslav delegation in Paris was irrelevant other than to maintain the pretense
that negotiations were taking place. Not permitted to negotiate, there was little the Yugoslavs could do but await the inevitable
result, which soon came. The moment U.S. officials obtained the Albanian delegation's signatures to the plan on March 18, they aborted
the Paris Conference. There was no reason to continue engaging with the Yugoslav delegation, as the U.S. had what it needed: a pretext
for war.
On the day after the U.S. pulled the plug on the Paris talks, Milan Milutinović held a press conference in the Yugoslav embassy,
condemning the Paris meeting as "a kind of show," which was meant "to deceive public opinion in the whole world." [xxxix]
While the United States and its NATO allies prepared for war, Yugoslavia was making last-ditch efforts to stave off attack, including
reaching out to intermediaries. Greek Foreign Minister Theodoros Pangalos contacted Madeleine Albright and told her that Yugoslav
President Slobodan Milošević had offered to engage in further negotiations. But Albright told him that the decision to bomb had already
been made. "In fact," Pangalos reported, "she told me to 'desist, you're just being a nuisance.'" [xl] In a final act of desperation
to save the people from bombing, Milutinović contacted Christopher Hill and made an extraordinary offer: Yugoslavia would join NATO
if the United States would allow Yugoslavia to remain whole, including the province of Kosovo. Hill responded that this was not a
topic for discussion and he would not talk about it. [xli]
Madeleine Albright got her war, which brought death, destruction, and misery to Yugoslavia. But NATO had a new role, and the United
States further extended its hegemony over the Balkans.
In the years following the demise of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, NATO was intent on redefining its mission. The absence
of the socialist bloc presented NATO not only with the need to construct a new rationale for existence but also with the opportunity
to expand Western domination over other nations.
Bosnia offered the first opportunity for NATO to begin its transformation, as it took part in a war that presented no threat to
member nations.
Bombing Yugoslavia was meant to solidify the new role for NATO as an offensive military force, acting on behalf of U.S. imperial
interests. Since that time, NATO has attacked Libya, and engaged in military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a variety of nations
in Africa. Despite NATO's claim that it is "committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes," the record shows otherwise.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site,
internet forums. etc.
Gregory Elich is a Korea Policy Institute associate and on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute. He is
a member of the Solidarity Committee for Democracy and Peace in Korea, a columnist for
Voice of the People , and one of the co-authors of
Killing Democracy: CIA
and Pentagon Operations in the Post-Soviet Period , published in the Russian language. He is also a member of the Task Force
to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific. His website is
https://gregoryelich.org . Follow him on Twitter at @GregoryElich
I was shocked-- but not surprised-- to see visibly-pained CBS Pentagon flack David Martin on
the boob tube this morning quoting an unnamed source that speculated that the reason Trump
cancelled the bombing of Iran was that he got "cold-feet."
Thank you, Vasili Arkhipov, for getting cold-feet, too! Madness, our nation is afflicted
with madness.
President Donald Trump likes to think of himself as a statesman, an author, an A-level negotiator, but at heart, he's one thing:
an insult comic.
Every day in D.C. is a roast, the insults and belittling nicknames wielded like tiny comedy bullets. And if you haven't seen enough
of the fusillade on Twitter, all you need to do is turn on late night TV. Television comedy has a strange, symbiotic relationship
with the real political world, something between a feedback loop and a funhouse mirror....
"... "Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory, threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible. ..."
"... "The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals that cannot be reasoned with. ..."
Demanding that the Middle Eastern nation retaliate immediately in self-defense against the
existential threat posed by America's military operations, National Security Adviser John
Bolton called for a forceful Iranian response Friday to continuing United States aggression.
"Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory,
threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that
America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and
alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of
force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible.
"The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends
a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a
diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals
that cannot be reasoned with.
They've been given every opportunity to back down, but their goal is total domination of the
region, and Iran won't stand for that."
At press time, Bolton said that the only option left on the table was for Iran to launch a
full-fledged military strike against the Great Satan.
The current conflict is about the US hegemony in the region, not anything else.
The analysis is really good. I especially like "The Trump administration is essentially a one-trick pony when it comes to
foreign policy toward hostile states. The standard quo is to apply massive economic pressure and demand surrender"
That means that Doug Bandow
proposals while good are completely unrealistic.
Notable quotes:
"... Sixteen years ago, the George W. Bush administration manipulated intelligence to scare the public into backing an aggressive war against Iraq. The smoking gun mushroom clouds that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice warned against didn’t exist, but the invasion long desired by neoconservatives and other hawks proceeded. Liberated Iraqis rejected U.S. plans to create an American puppet state on the Euphrates and the aftermath turned into a humanitarian and geopolitical catastrophe which continues to roil the Middle East. ..."
"... Now the Trump administration appears to be following the same well-worn path. The president has fixated on Iran, tearing up the nuclear accord with Tehran and declaring economic war on it—as well as anyone dealing with Iran. He is pushing America toward war even as he insists that he wants peace. How stupid does he believe we are? ..."
"... Washington did much to encourage a violent, extremist revolution in Tehran. The average Iranian could be forgiven for viewing America as a virulently hostile power determined to do his or her nation ill at almost every turn. ..."
"... The Shah was ousted in 1979. Following his departure the Reagan administration backed Iraq’s Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran, triggering an eight-year war which killed at least half a million people. Washington reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect revenue subsequently lent to Baghdad, provided Iraq with intelligence for military operations, and supplied components for chemical weapons employed against Iranian forces. In 1988 the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in international airspace. ..."
"... Economic sanctions were first imposed on Iran in 1979 and regularly expanded thereafter. Washington forged a close military partnership with Iran’s even more repressive rival, Saudi Arabia. In the immediate aftermath of its 2003 victory over Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration rejected Iran’s offer to negotiate; neoconservatives casually suggested that “real men” would conquer Tehran as well. Even the Obama administration threatened to take military action against Iran. ..."
"... Contrary to the common assumption in Washington that average Iranians would love the United States for attempting to destroy their nation’s economy, the latest round of sanctions apparently triggered a notable rise in anti-American sentiment. Nationalism trumped anti-clericalism. ..."
"... Iran also has no desire for war, which it would lose. However, Washington’s aggressive economic and military policies create pressure on Tehran to respond. Especially since administration policy—sanctions designed to crash the economy, military moves preparing for war — almost certainly have left hardliners, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who opposed negotiations with Washington, ascendant in Tehran. ..."
"... Europeans also point to Bush administration lies about Iraq and the fabricated 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident used to justify America’s entry into the Vietnam War. Even more important, the administration ostentatiously fomented the current crisis by trashing the JCPOA, launching economic war against Iran, threatening Tehran’s economic partners, and insisting on Iran’s submission. A cynic might reasonably conclude that the president and his aides hoped to trigger a violent Iranian response. ..."
"... Indeed, a newspaper owned by the Saudi royal family recently called for U.S. strikes on Iran. One or the reasons Al Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks was to trigger an American military response against a Muslim nation. A U.S.-Iran war would be the mother of all Mideast conflagrations. ..."
"... In parallel, Washington should propose negotiations to lower tensions in other issues. But there truly should be no preconditions, requiring the president to consign the Pompeo list to a White House fireplace. In return for Iranian willingness to drop confrontational behavior in the region, the U.S. should offer to reciprocate—for instance, indicate a willingness to cut arms sales to the Saudis and Emiratis, end support for the Yemen war, and withdraw American forces from Syria and Iraq. ..."
"... Most important, American policymakers should play the long-game. Rather than try to crash the Islamic Republic and hope for the best, Washington should encourage Iran to open up, creating more opportunity and influence for a younger generation that desires a freer society. ..."
Sixteen years ago, the George W. Bush administration manipulated intelligence to scare the public into backing an aggressive war
against Iraq. The smoking gun mushroom clouds that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice warned against didn’t exist, but the
invasion long desired by neoconservatives and other hawks proceeded. Liberated Iraqis rejected U.S. plans to create an American puppet
state on the Euphrates and the aftermath turned into a humanitarian and geopolitical catastrophe which continues to roil the Middle
East.
Thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of wounded and maimed U.S. personnel, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and
millions of Iraqis displaced. There was the sectarian conflict, destruction of the historic Christian community, the creation of
Al Qaeda in Iraq—which morphed into the far deadlier Islamic State—and the enhanced influence of Iran. The prime question was how
could so many supposedly smart people be so stupid?
Now the Trump administration appears to be following the same well-worn path. The president has fixated on Iran, tearing up the
nuclear accord with Tehran and declaring economic war on it—as well as anyone dealing with Iran. He is pushing America toward war
even as he insists that he wants peace. How stupid does he believe we are?
The Iranian regime is malign. Nevertheless, despite being under almost constant siege it has survived longer than the U.S.-crafted
dictatorship which preceded the Islamic Republic. And the latter did not arise in a vacuum. Washington did much to encourage a violent,
extremist revolution in Tehran. The average Iranian could be forgiven for viewing America as a virulently hostile power determined
to do his or her nation ill at almost every turn.
In 1953 the United States backed a coup against democratically selected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. Washington then aided
the Shah in consolidating power, including the creation of the secret police, known as SAVAK. He forcibly modernized Iran’s still
conservative Islamic society, while his corrupt and repressive rule united secular and religious Iranians against him.
The Shah was ousted in 1979. Following his departure the Reagan administration backed Iraq’s Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran,
triggering an eight-year war which killed at least half a million people. Washington reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect revenue
subsequently lent to Baghdad, provided Iraq with intelligence for military operations, and supplied components for chemical weapons
employed against Iranian forces. In 1988 the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in international airspace.
Economic sanctions were first imposed on Iran in 1979 and regularly expanded thereafter. Washington forged a close military partnership
with Iran’s even more repressive rival, Saudi Arabia. In the immediate aftermath of its 2003 victory over Saddam Hussein, the Bush
administration rejected Iran’s offer to negotiate; neoconservatives casually suggested that “real men” would conquer Tehran as well.
Even the Obama administration threatened to take military action against Iran.
As Henry Kissinger reportedly once said, even a paranoid can have enemies. Contrary to the common assumption in Washington that
average Iranians would love the United States for attempting to destroy their nation’s economy, the latest round of sanctions apparently
triggered a notable rise in anti-American sentiment. Nationalism trumped anti-clericalism.
The hostile relationship with Iran also has allowed Saudi Arabia, which routinely undercuts American interests and values, to
gain a dangerous stranglehold over U.S. policy. To his credit President Barack Obama attempted to rebalance Washington’s Mideast
policy. The result was the multilateral Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It provided for an intrusive inspection regime designed
to discourage any future Iranian nuclear weapons program—which U.S. intelligence indicated had been inactive since 2003.
However, candidate Donald Trump had an intense and perverse desire to overturn every Obama policy. His tight embrace of Israeli
prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who ignored the advice of his security chiefs in denouncing the accord, and the Saudi royals,
who Robert Gates once warned would fight Iran to the last American, also likely played an important role.
Last year the president withdrew from the accord and followed with a declaration of economic war. He then declared the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps, a military organization, to be a terrorist group. (Washington routinely uses the “terrorist” designation
for purely political purposes.) Finally, there are reports, officially denied by Washington, that U.S. forces, allied with Islamist
radicals—the kind of extremists responsible for most terrorist attacks on Americans—have been waging a covert war against Iranian
smuggling operations.
The president claimed that he wanted to negotiate: “We aren’t looking for regime change,” he said. “We are looking for no nuclear
weapons.” But that is what the JCPOA addressed. His policy is actually pushing Tehran to expand its nuclear program. Moreover, last
year Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a speech that the Washington Post’s Jason Rezaian, who spent more than a year in
Iranian prison, called “silly” and “completely divorced from reality.”
In a talk to an obsequious Heritage Foundation audience, Pompeo set forth the terms of Tehran’s surrender: Iran would be expected
to abandon any pretense of maintaining an independent foreign policy and yield its deterrent missile capabilities, leaving it subservient
to Saudi Arabia, with the latter’s U.S.-supplied and -trained military. Tehran could not even cooperate with other governments, such
as Syria, at their request. The only thing missing from Pompeo’s remarks was insistence that Iran accept an American governor-general
in residence.
The proposal was a nonstarter and looked like the infamous 1914 Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia, which was intended to be
rejected and thereby justify war. After all, National Security Advisor John Bolton expressed his policy preference in a 2015 New
York Times op-ed titled: “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” Whatever the president’s true intentions, Tehran can be forgiven for
seeing Washington’s position as one of regime change, by war if necessary.
The administration apparently assumed that new, back-breaking sanctions would either force the regime to surrender at the conference
table or collapse amid political and social conflict. Indeed, when asked if he really believed sanctions would change Tehran’s behavior,
Pompeo answered that “what can change is, the people can change the government.” Both Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies and Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations have recently argued that the Islamic Republic is an exhausted
regime, one that is perhaps on its way to extinction.
However, Rezaian says “there is nothing new” about Tehran’s difficult Iranian economic problems. “Assuming that this time around
the Iranian people can compel their government to bend to America’s will seems—at least to anyone who has spent significant time
in Iran in recent decades—fantastical,” he said. Gerecht enthusiasm for U.S. warmaking has led to mistakes in the past. He got Iraq
wrong seventeen years ago when he wrote that “a war with Iraq might not shake up the Middle East much at all.
Today the administration is using a similar strategy against Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. The citizens of these countries
have not risen against their oppressors to establish a new, democratic, pro-American regime. Numerous observers wrongly predicted
that the Castro regime would die after the end of Soviet subsidies and North Korea’s inevitable fall in the midst of a devastating
famine. Moreover, regime collapse isn’t likely to yield a liberal, democratic republic when the most radical, authoritarian elites
remain best-armed.
... ... ...
More important, Washington does not want to go to war with Iran, which is larger than Iraq, has three times the population, and
is a real country. The regime, while unpopular with many Iranians, is much better rooted than Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Tehran
possesses unconventional weapons, missiles, and allies which could spread chaos throughout the region. American forces in Syria and
Iraq would be vulnerable, while Baghdad’s stability could be put at risk. If Americans liked the Iraq debacle, then they would love
the chaos likely to result from attempting to violently destroy the Iranian state. David Frum, one of the most avid neoconservative
advocates of the Iraq invasion, warned that war with Iran would repeat Iraqi blunders on “a much bigger sale, without allies, without
justification, and without any plan at all for what comes next.”
Iran also has no desire for war, which it would lose. However, Washington’s aggressive economic and military policies create pressure
on Tehran to respond. Especially since administration policy—sanctions designed to crash the economy, military moves preparing for
war — almost certainly have left hardliners, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who opposed negotiations with Washington,
ascendant in Tehran.
Carefully calibrated military action, such as tanker attacks, might be intended to show “resolve” to gain credibility. Washington
policymakers constantly justify military action as necessary to demonstrate that they are willing to take military action. Doing
so is even more important for a weaker power. Moreover, observed the Eurasia Group, Iranian security agencies “have a decades-long
history of conducting attacks and other operations aimed precisely at undermining the diplomatic objectives of a country’s elected
representatives.” If Iran is responsible, observed Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group, then administration policy perversely
“is rendering Iran more aggressive, not less,” thereby making the Mideast more, not less dangerous
Of course, Tehran has denied any role in the attacks and there is good reason to question unsupported Trump administration claims
of Iranian guilt. The president’s indifferent relationship to the truth alone raises serious questions. Europeans also point to Bush
administration lies about Iraq and the fabricated 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident used to justify America’s entry into the Vietnam War.
Even more important, the administration ostentatiously fomented the current crisis by trashing the JCPOA, launching economic war
against Iran, threatening Tehran’s economic partners, and insisting on Iran’s submission. A cynic might reasonably conclude that
the president and his aides hoped to trigger a violent Iranian response.
Other malicious actors also could be responsible for tanker attacks. Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, ISIS, and Al
Qaeda all likely believe they would benefit from an American war on Tehran and might decide to speed the process along by fomenting
an incident. Indeed, a newspaper owned by the Saudi royal family recently called for U.S. strikes on Iran. One or the reasons Al
Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks was to trigger an American military response against a Muslim nation. A U.S.-Iran war would be the
mother of all Mideast conflagrations.
Rather than continue a military spiral upward, Washington should defuse Gulf tensions. The administration brought the Middle East
to a boil. It can calm the waters. Washington should stand down its military, offering to host multilateral discussions with oil
consuming nations, energy companies, and tanker operators over establishing shared naval security in sensitive waterways, including
in the Middle East. Given America’s growing domestic energy production, the issue no longer should be considered Washington’s responsibility.
Other wealthy industrialized states should do what is necessary for their economic security.
The administration also should make a serious proposal for talks. It won’t be easy. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
declared “negotiation has no benefit and carries harm.” He further argued that “negotiations are a tactic of this pressure,” which
is the ultimate “strategic aim.” Even President Hassan Rouhani rejected contact without a change in U.S. policy. “Whenever they lift
the unjust sanctions and fulfill their commitments and return to the negotiations table, which they left themselves, the door is
not closed,” he said. In back channel discussions Iranians supposedly suggested that the U.S. reverse the latest sanctions, at least
on oil sales, ending attempts to wreck Iran’s economy.
If the president seriously desires talks with Tehran, then he should demonstrate that he does not expect preemptive surrender.
The administration should suspend its “maximum pressure” campaign and propose multilateral talks on tightening the nuclear agreement
in return for additional American and allied concessions, such as further sanctions relief.
In parallel, Washington should propose negotiations to lower tensions in other issues. But there truly should be no preconditions,
requiring the president to consign the Pompeo list to a White House fireplace. In return for Iranian willingness to drop confrontational
behavior in the region, the U.S. should offer to reciprocate—for instance, indicate a willingness to cut arms sales to the Saudis
and Emiratis, end support for the Yemen war, and withdraw American forces from Syria and Iraq. Tehran has far greater interest in
neighborhood security than the United States, which Washington must respect if the latter seeks to effectively disarm Iran. The administration
should invite the Europeans to join such an initiative, since they have an even greater reason to worry about Iranian missiles and
more.
Most important, American policymakers should play the long-game. Rather than try to crash the Islamic Republic and hope for the
best, Washington should encourage Iran to open up, creating more opportunity and influence for a younger generation that desires
a freer society. That requires greater engagement, not isolation. Washington’s ultimate objective should be the liberal transformation
of Iran, freeing an ancient civilization to regain its leading role in today’s world, which would have a huge impact on the region.
The Trump administration is essentially a one-trick pony when it comes to foreign policy toward hostile states. The standard quo
is to apply massive economic pressure and demand surrender. This approach has failed in every case. Washington has caused enormous
economic hardship, but no target regime has capitulated. In Iran, like North Korea, U.S. policy sharply raised tensions and the chances
of conflict.
War would be a disaster. Instead, the administration must, explained James Fallows, “through bluff and patience, change the actions
of a government whose motives he does not understand well, and over which his influence is limited.” Which requires the administration
to adopt a new, more serious strategy toward Tehran, and quickly.
"... Russia, China and the Europeans all want Iran to remain in JCPOA and Putin is worried about Iran acting irrationally. ..."
"... Asians all worried about the security of oil flows to Asia. Japan especially dependent on Middle East oil flows, even if they've moved out of Iranian purchases. ..."
"... The IRGC knuckle dragger in charge at Hormuz will get a medal or two, and a promotion. The U.S. is waging a total economic war on Iran. It cuts off all its exports and imports. Iran is fighting back by all means. It has no other choice. Iran now implements a "strategy of tension" that is designed to put "maximum pressure" on Trump. The tanker attacks, the mortars on U.S. troops in Iraq, the Houthi strikes an Saudi desalination plants and the shoot down of that drone are all part of that Iranian strategy. ..."
"... High Iranian officials, including its president, have multiple times announced: "If we can sell no sell oil than none of our neighbors in the gulf will be able to sell their oil." They mean that and they have the plans and means to achieve that. ..."
"... These strikes will continue, and will become stronger. I most cases Iran will have plausible deniability. That is easy to create when CentCom and the White House are know to lie left and right as they do. ..."
"... It is Trump, not Iran, who killed JCPOA. It is Trump, not Iran, who will be blamed for that war. ..."
"... Exactly! There's one striking characteristic of the "resistance" leaders, including Khamenei, Syrian President Assad, and Hezbollah's Nasrallah, and that is that they are reliable: they do what they say they are going to do. They have integrity, that quality so clearly absent from all US and Western European leaders, all beholden to their Ziodonors to assure reelection. ..."
"... Additionally, any standoff missile attack or "March of the B52s" will be met with immediate regional attacks on US (Saudi and Israeli) assets, military personnel and civilians that will destabilize the entire region and destroy the global economy. Not the best scenario for a reelection bid, is it? I'm with b. There is no knuckle dragger at Hormuz, only competent officers carrying out their orders. ..."
"... How blame is apportioned will matter little to Iran if it miscalculates one iota. Yes it cannot sit idle until it is strangled by economic sanctions. But neither can it escalate beyond the destruction of civil and military hardware alone. One dead American is all the neocons need. A counter strike would then be inevitable and the uncontrollable escalation they are counting on the likely result. ..."
"... Col. Lang has described here the catastrophic consequences for America's enemies when they have doubted its resolve. And the sure route to galvanizing that resolve is for Iran to escalate into targeting US forces. ..."
"... The only way this ends without a war which would be catastrophic for both sides is if Trump realizes the reality of the situation he is in and ditches the neocons right now. Iran has got its message across and must now desist to allow Trump breathing room to de-escalate. Let us pray that Suleimani and the Iranian leadership are men enough to understand that holding the moral high ground confers no advantage in warfare. ..."
"... Privately, phone calls to China and Russia begging for assurances of support ..."
"... This is delusional thinking. The Iranians realized a long time ago not to rely on other countries for assistance. Every Iranian knows not to trust Russians from history. China might be the only hope, not for support, but to convince that this war is as much about them. ..."
"... The Chinese should close Adelson's Macau casinos for health and safety violations. Zionist donors for Trump's election campaign are driving this. Adelson's boy Bolton needs removing before anything positive can happen, Tucker Carlson needs some help with his campaign to oust him. ..."
"... Could you explain how the concept that economic sanctions are a belligerent act of war is anti-American? This is a historical concept that you, as a teacher and student of military history, are well aware of. The Iranians are using the means that they have available to respond to these acts of war. ..."
"... They are not equipped to confront the US military directly, so they are using tactics to place pressure on the US in other areas, primarily by threatening the global economy by plausibly deniable acts against shipping in the Persian Gulf. This is a masterstroke right out of the pages of Sun Tze's Art of War. ..."
"... Trump has painted himself into a corner. He can offer sanctions relief if he wants to negotiate, or he can attack, and we can hope that the US military learned some of the lessons taught by Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper in the Millennium Challenge 2002. ..."
"... The neocons are playing out provocations until Congress is forced to vote on War just before election. The provocations will continue -- Israel's Rational Institute & expert game theorists have done this so many times they're just going through the motions. Iranians have watched that game play out before and, perhaps, know how to handle provocations in a disruptive manner. ..."
"... Hook repeated, emphasized & repeated again that "finance is the basis of war," and US / Trump strategy is to "not to bankrupt Iran," but to "deny Iran access to financial ability to fund Hezbollah, Hamas, and other of the #1 state sponsor of terror's proxies." ..."
"... The congressmen questioning Hook nodded sagely. None of them so much as hinted at the fact that the USA is so deep in debt it can never pay its way out. ..."
"... --One of the expectations of the JCPOA was that with sanctions lifted, Iran would enter into the mainstream economy, trading with states throughout the world. This normalization of commerce would constrain Iran from taking actions that would jeopardize its trade relationships. Why does Trump & the zioncons not wish Iran's commercial normalization to take place? Is it because Israel cannot stand the competition? ..."
"... -- by what right USA violates UN Charter demands that internal affairs of a member state must not be interfered with. Congressmen crowned themselves with laurel as they proclaimed that "the people of Iran are not our enemy; it is the government; we act on behalf of the Iranian people, especially Iranian women." ..."
"... Trump thinks that he can f*** Iran and sit it out? Not gonna happen. ..."
"... He gets that he cannot be an LBJ or a Harry Truman with the Albatross of an unwinnable war hung around his neck. ..."
"... But, I am afraid the chosen true believers on his staff do not believe nor care that Iran has prepared a massive disproportionate non-nuclear response that will destroy the global economy. ..."
"... John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have other agendas than the President's re-election and what is in the USA's national interests. We are not out of the woods. ..."
"... The IRGC knuckle dragger at Hormuz wisely and prudently targeted the unmanned drone and not the manned P8 aircraft. ..."
"... No, this action was appropriate in the face of our policy of maximum pressure to starve out the Iranian people and force a regime change. ..."
"... I applaud Trump's decision not to engage in a shooting war. The way he got to that decision was messy, but the final decision was right. Those calling him weak for not engaging in a war of choice are craven fools. Chief among those is Bolton. ..."
"... Trump should throw his ass and his mustache out of the WH before the sun goes down. Trump brought this situation upon himself with his pulling out of the JCPOA and initiating his "war" of maximum pressure. It is he who can deflate this crisis, not Kamenei. ..."
"... This is all one big PsyOp imo. The US has no popular support for an attack on Iran, internally or externally. We are going to attack, but want to make it seem like they showed restraint and have been left with no choice. ..."
"... And this nonsense about Iran allowing the US to make some window dressing attack on innocuous targets to save face/ All I can say is Iranians are not Arabs. ..."
"... PS -- C Span ramped up an orgy of war hysteria over Trump's threat, then stand-down over Iran's shoot-down of an un-manned drone. The public was, as usual, confined to a narrow frame of reference and range of responses: "Trump was a coward," vs. "Trump was wise." Congressmen who were interviewed emphasized that "no American was killed." ..."
"... No one mentioned that Lyndon Johnson called back flights sent to rescue crewmen on the USS Liberty when Israel attacked the ship, strafed the wounded and those in life boats. ..."
"... Everyone remembers the shootdown of Iranian Air flight 655 on July 3, 1988 by the guided missile cruiser Vincennes, under the command of the late Captain Will Rogers, in which 290 people were killed. President Reagan said America will never apologize. President Clinton ultimately paid the Iranians $130 million. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson seems like the only realist in the MSM. https://youtu.be/Rf2cS4g0pes ..."
"... It is no secret that the Neocons and the Israeli zionists (I am repeating myself here) do want a war between Iran and the United States. First, there were a few tanker attacks which were brushed off by Trump. Then this, which was more difficult to brush off. Is it possible that the drone actually went to Iranian airspace but GPS coordinates were spoofed (by insiders on the American side) so that Trump (and the administration) believed that it stayed in international airspace? ..."
"... Sorry. Here's the ink to Tucker on the Iran war brink. https://youtu.be/3PQW2tMMn2A ..."
"... Why did Donald Trump hire neocons Bolton & Pompeo as well as torturer Gina Haspel? Couldn't he find people who shared his views (at least what he said during the last campaign) that our ME regime change wars were a disaster that we shouldn't repeat? ..."
"... As Tucker noted in his segment yesterday Bolton & the neocons have been plotting a war with Iran for some time. They don't care if it sinks Trump's presidency. They have no loyalty to him only condescension. ..."
"... Yet as Tucker notes in his segment yesterday the neocons are "bureaucratic tapeworms" that some how manage to survive failure after failure with the same regime change prescriptions. Trump better wise up like right now or he can kiss his re-election goodbye. ..."
I am not now nor have I ever been a fan of Trump. However, if he does not start a war, he
will end (in my mind, at least) as a vast improvement over his immediate predecessors.
Wait a minute. Obama blew it with Libya. However,
-he reached a good deal with Iran
-he didn't bomb Syria when the crossed his "red line" and managed to make it look like the R
controlled Senate made the decision .
-He didn't kiss Bibi's ring.
look at a decent map of this area. the us naval base in Bahrain and air base Qatar are an
Iranian missiles equivalent of firing from lower Manhattan to hit something in Hoboken.
The USA military assets within the Persian gulf have if war breaks out checked into the hotel
California.
It is a logistical nightmare for the Pentagon to protect and resupply in the event of
serious hostilities. Trump surely has been told by real us military professionals the giant
hairball he takes on if he gets into a war with Iran and what it means for us servicemen
station there and throughout the larger middle east.
it is unfortunate that the usa media uses fools like bolton and pompeo as clickbait to
generate revenue fore their business at the expense of whats best for the nation but there it
is... the msm has an agenda which is not at all in the service of the nation.
Yes, a grown up has the right to change a decision. Now, ball is in Khomeini court. Abe asked
him to release some Iranian-American prisoners. If Khomeini wants to lower threshold of
conflict, he can do this gesture without losing any face. Humanitarian action.
Russia, China
and the Europeans all want Iran to remain in JCPOA and Putin is worried about Iran acting
irrationally.
See what kind of other pressure comes down on Iranians. Asians all worried
about the security of oil flows to Asia. Japan especially dependent on Middle East oil flows,
even if they've moved out of Iranian purchases. US more able to go it alone with extensive
domestic and other sources.
Khamenei should call Trump and setup a media spectacle of a summit in Switzerland. They
can agree on the same deal as before but as long as the headline says "Iran agrees to not
build nukes", Trump will be happy and Khamenei will be his new best pal.
The same playbook as KJU where nothing tangible is likely to happen except that KJU has stopped nuke & missile
tests that create media hysteria among the Never Trumpers.
IMO, the ball hasn't left Trump's court. How long is he going to tolerate the neocons in
his inner circle who are likely to keep coming up with another casus belli? Can he find some
distance from being Bibi's lapdog? How long is he going to allow his conflicted son-in-law to
meddle in the Middle East?
Trump must calculate the potential of where escalation leads and what a full on war with
Iran and its allies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon means for his re-election campaign. Bernie is
banging the table hard against any military action in Iran. The probability that 50,000 votes
in Michigan, Pennsylvania & Wisconsin changes sides the next election would be rather
high in the event of an unpredictable full-scale war.
I hope Khamenei takes any offer Trump makes for direct talks. Trump is heavily influenced by
the last person he meets.
I get that Khamenei doesn't want to meet on the premise that the JCPOA is flawed and must
be changed but if he can get an audience on the basis of airing mutual grievances in an
unfiltered environment, it would be an opportunity. Currently, the only people Trump talks to
are Neocon loons. They are innumerable but the FDD seems to be the center of gravity.
I was shocked-- but not surprised-- to see visibly-pained CBS Pentagon flack David Martin on
the boob tube this morning quoting an unnamed source that speculated that the reason Trump
cancelled the bombing of Iran was that he got "cold-feet." Thank you, Vasili Arkhipov, for
getting cold-feet, too! Madness, our nation is afflicted with madness.
The IRGC knuckle dragger in charge at Hormuz will get a medal or two, and a promotion. The U.S. is waging a total economic war on Iran. It cuts off all its exports and imports.
Iran is fighting back by all means. It has no other choice. Iran now implements a "strategy of tension" that is designed to put "maximum pressure" on
Trump. The tanker attacks, the mortars on U.S. troops in Iraq, the Houthi strikes an Saudi
desalination plants and the shoot down of that drone are all part of that Iranian
strategy.
High Iranian officials, including its president, have multiple times announced: "If we can
sell no sell oil than none of our neighbors in the gulf will be able to sell their oil." They
mean that and they have the plans and means to achieve that.
These strikes will continue, and will become stronger. I most cases Iran will have
plausible deniability. That is easy to create when CentCom and the White House are know to
lie left and right as they do.
Trump has two choices.
He can pull back on the sanctions and other U.S. violations of JCPOA, or he can start a
full war against Iran that will drown his presidency, put the world economy into a depression
($300/bl oil) and kill many U.S. soldiers.
It is Trump, not Iran, who killed JCPOA. It is Trump, not Iran, who will be blamed for
that war.
Exactly! There's one striking characteristic of the "resistance" leaders, including Khamenei,
Syrian President Assad, and Hezbollah's Nasrallah, and that is that they are reliable: they
do what they say they are going to do. They have integrity, that quality so clearly absent
from all US and Western European leaders, all beholden to their Ziodonors to assure
reelection.
The Iranians will NOT contact Trump to arrange a meeting. The Iranians will NOT
meet with Trump because the JCPOA is flawed. The Iranians will NOT meet with Trump after a
brief suspension in sanctions to ask for permanent sanctions relief. The Iranians WILL meet
with Trump when he lifts most or all of the sanctions in good faith and rejoins the JCPOA. Is
it just a coincidence that the two ships attacked last week were carrying petrochemicals,
just days after Trump and the US placed sanctions on the largest Iranian petrochemical
producer? What is it about "If we cannot ship oil/petrochemicals, nobody can." that people
don't understand?
Additionally, any standoff missile attack or "March of the B52s" will be met with
immediate regional attacks on US (Saudi and Israeli) assets, military personnel and civilians
that will destabilize the entire region and destroy the global economy. Not the best scenario
for a reelection bid, is it? I'm with b. There is no knuckle dragger at Hormuz, only
competent officers carrying out their orders.
How blame is apportioned will matter little to Iran if it miscalculates one iota. Yes it
cannot sit idle until it is strangled by economic sanctions. But neither can it escalate
beyond the destruction of civil and military hardware alone. One dead American is all the
neocons need. A counter strike would then be inevitable and the uncontrollable escalation
they are counting on the likely result.
Col. Lang has described here the catastrophic consequences for America's enemies when they
have doubted its resolve. And the sure route to galvanizing that resolve is for Iran to
escalate into targeting US forces.
The only way this ends without a war which would be catastrophic for both sides is
if Trump realizes the reality of the situation he is in and ditches the neocons right now.
Iran has got its message across and must now desist to allow Trump breathing room to
de-escalate. Let us pray that Suleimani and the Iranian leadership are men enough to
understand that holding the moral high ground confers no advantage in warfare.
Publicly, much chest thumping over how Iran has the cowardly Great Satan on the run like a
beaten dog.
Privately, phone calls to China and Russia begging for assurances of support and attempted offers of negotiations
with Trump complete with wildly unrealistic demands.
This is delusional thinking. The Iranians realized a long time ago not to rely on other
countries for assistance. Every Iranian knows not to trust Russians from history. China might
be the only hope, not for support, but to convince that this war is as much about them.
The Chinese should close Adelson's Macau casinos for health and safety violations. Zionist
donors for Trump's election campaign are driving this. Adelson's boy Bolton needs removing
before anything positive can happen, Tucker Carlson needs some help with his campaign to oust
him.
Could you explain how the concept that economic sanctions are a belligerent act of war is
anti-American? This is a historical concept that you, as a teacher and student of military
history, are well aware of. The Iranians are using the means that they have available to
respond to these acts of war.
They are not equipped to confront the US military directly, so
they are using tactics to place pressure on the US in other areas, primarily by threatening
the global economy by plausibly deniable acts against shipping in the Persian Gulf. This is a
masterstroke right out of the pages of Sun Tze's Art of War.
Trump has painted himself into a corner. He can offer sanctions relief if he wants to
negotiate, or he can attack, and we can hope that the US military learned some of the lessons
taught by Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper in the Millennium Challenge 2002.
The neocons are playing out provocations until Congress is forced to vote on War just
before election.
The provocations will continue -- Israel's Rational Institute & expert game theorists
have done this so many times they're just going through the motions.
Iranians have watched that game play out before and, perhaps, know how to handle provocations
in a disruptive manner.
Hook repeated, emphasized & repeated again that "finance is the basis of war," and US /
Trump strategy is to "not to bankrupt Iran," but to "deny Iran access to financial ability to
fund Hezbollah, Hamas, and other of the #1 state sponsor of terror's proxies."
The congressmen questioning Hook nodded sagely. None of them so much as hinted at the fact that the USA is so deep in debt it can never
pay its way out. Nor was any congressman sage enough, or moral enough, or consistent enough, to
question:
-- International policy pundits & think tankers opine that the greatest guarantee of
peace is economic stability. US is deliberately seeking to destabilize Iran economically. To
what end?
--One of the expectations of the JCPOA was that with sanctions lifted, Iran would enter into
the mainstream economy, trading with states throughout the world. This normalization of
commerce would constrain Iran from taking actions that would jeopardize its trade
relationships. Why does Trump & the zioncons not wish Iran's commercial normalization to
take place? Is it because Israel cannot stand the competition?
-- by what right USA violates UN Charter demands that internal affairs of a member state must
not be interfered with. Congressmen crowned themselves with laurel as they proclaimed that
"the people of Iran are not our enemy; it is the government; we act on behalf of the Iranian
people, especially Iranian women."
When I visited Iran in 2008, "Iranian women" spoke with us and asked if we could please
provide several days' warning before bombing Iran so that they could shelter their children.
Iranian women are some of the toughest you'll meet.
-- what casus belli legitimizes aggression against Iran? Does the USA no longer
subscribe to Just War theory? Several years ago I heard Notre Dame's Mary Ellen O'Connell
discuss Just War theory with respect to Iran -- https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia/vol2/iss2/6/.
US claims to uphold "universal values" ring hollow if such basic steps in framing policy are
ignored.
I deal in facts, not in 'deeply bigoted anti-Americanism'. Interesting that you do not want to recognize those facts. They are right before your
eyes. Just I give it a day or two until the next 'incident' happens.
Trump thinks that he can
f*** Iran and sit it out? Not gonna happen.
The question has been raised of my denigration of b. He has a long history on SST He is an
excellent military analyst but the long and so far as I can remember unbroken record of
interpreting EVERY situation as demonstrating the demonic nature of the US causes me to
discount anything he writes on other than military subjects narrowly defined. IMO b's
hostility to the US is a permanent burden that he carries.
The NYT report that Donald Trump ordered the attack and then pulled back is in Jimmy
Carter's "been there done that" territory. Although a New Yorker and he never had to sit in a
gasoline line, Donald Trump, personally and legally, cannot be a one term President. He is a
political savant.
He gets that he cannot be an LBJ or a Harry Truman with the Albatross of an
unwinnable war hung around his neck.
My assumption is that someone in the chain of command
after the surveillance drone was shot down triggered a preplanned strike package that was
stopped once it got to the President for approval. Once again global media moguls strike back
at the nationalist President with Fake News.
But, I am afraid the chosen true believers on
his staff do not believe nor care that Iran has prepared a massive disproportionate
non-nuclear response that will destroy the global economy.
John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have
other agendas than the President's re-election and what is in the USA's national interests.
We are not out of the woods.
Do we know for sure Trump is the one who initially ordered the strike? Or did someone down
the line interpret the rules of engagement (do I presume correctly that some such would be in
place at the present time?) to allow him or her to order it?
In a situation of this degree of geo-political gravity, nobody in the chain of command
below the CinC would have had the authority or temerity to attempt to order this strike
package.
Neither Pompeo nor Bolton is in the chain of command and attempts by them to order
such attacks would have been rejected by the military. BTW if Trump aborted the strikes only
10 minutes out from the targets he was cutting it too close. Communications can always
fail.
The IRGC knuckle dragger at Hormuz wisely and prudently targeted the unmanned drone and not
the manned P8 aircraft. Since it was the Iranians who recovered the wreckage, it will be hard
for the US to maintain the drone was well outside Iranian airspace.
No, this action was
appropriate in the face of our policy of maximum pressure to starve out the Iranian people
and force a regime change.
I applaud Trump's decision not to engage in a shooting war. The way he got to that
decision was messy, but the final decision was right. Those calling him weak for not engaging
in a war of choice are craven fools. Chief among those is Bolton.
Trump should throw his ass
and his mustache out of the WH before the sun goes down. Trump brought this situation upon
himself with his pulling out of the JCPOA and initiating his "war" of maximum pressure. It is
he who can deflate this crisis, not Kamenei.
This is all one big PsyOp imo. The US has no popular support for an attack on Iran,
internally or externally. We are going to attack, but want to make it seem like they showed
restraint and have been left with no choice.
I don't foresee the Iranians talking to Trump unless and until the US walks back its
sanctions, or Trump himself goes and sits down with the Ayatollah.
And this nonsense about Iran allowing the US to make some window dressing attack on
innocuous targets to save face/ All I can say is Iranians are not Arabs.
PS -- C Span ramped up an orgy of war hysteria over Trump's threat, then stand-down over
Iran's shoot-down of an un-manned drone.
The public was, as usual, confined to a narrow frame of reference and range of responses:
"Trump was a coward," vs. "Trump was wise."
Congressmen who were interviewed emphasized that "no American was killed."
No one mentioned that Lyndon Johnson called back flights sent to rescue crewmen on the USS
Liberty when Israel attacked the ship, strafed the wounded and those in life boats.
This seems like Professional Wrestling theater where you have the wrestlers hamming it up for
the drama and you wonder what the script is. We only get to see what the camera frames.
I am thankful that our military acknowledges that our President is the Commander-in-Chief. He
commanded, they obeyed. As for all the pundits on all sides, their lack of perspective or
even understanding of history leaves me terrified. There seems to be no understanding of how
Iran is capable of retaliation. An example:
Everyone remembers the shootdown of Iranian Air flight 655 on July 3, 1988 by the guided
missile cruiser Vincennes, under the command of the late Captain Will Rogers, in which 290
people were killed. President Reagan said America will never apologize. President Clinton
ultimately paid the Iranians $130 million.
Few remember what happened next -- some 8 months later, in March, 1989, Capt. Roger's
spouse Sharon, was in her van stopped at a traffic light in San Diego. A pipe bomb went off
under the back of the van. It was small -- she was unhurt, fortunately, but definitely shaken
up, and the van did catch fire. Despite an intensive investigation, the FBI has never solved
this case.
Never let us become so blind and arrogant in our strength that we are unable to conceive
retaliation by those weaker.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the drone was sent there to be shot down by the
Iranians?
It is no secret that the Neocons and the Israeli zionists (I am repeating myself here) do
want a war between Iran and the United States. First, there were a few tanker attacks which
were brushed off by Trump. Then this, which was more difficult to brush off. Is it possible
that the drone actually went to Iranian airspace but GPS coordinates were spoofed (by
insiders on the American side) so that Trump (and the administration) believed that it stayed
in international airspace?
The Americans do seem to really believe that the drone was in
international airspace and no one can make a point that it is to Iran's benefit to target an
American asset in international airspace, especially now when tensions are so high. Iran has
the most to lose in the event of a war with the Americans (no points for guessing which
country has the most to win - Israel). And it is a coincidence that the guy heading the Iran
mission Centre, Michael D'Andrea, was previously the head of drone operations. Or is it a
coincidence?
What would I do if I were a neocon who wants war between the US and Iran, a war that Trump
doesn't. For the start of hostilities, it is essential that both sides, US and Iran, feel
that they are in the right - which of course this situation is. I would create a context, an
excuse/rationale for the start of actual hostilities to the US administration (and of course
for the consumption of the American public). Then I will make the case to Trump that we
should have a 'limited' retaliation. I know that the Iranians will strike back after the
'small scale' bombing. And the Americans have to retaliate to that also. What chances are
there that any retaliation by the Americans will not end up in total war with Iran??
Trump doesn't want war and probably saw through the machinations to get him to agree to a
'small' bombing campaign as retaliation that would surely lead to a larger conflagration and
total war with Iran that the neocons want so much. This particular provocation was
unsuccessful in its aim. However, I think that provocations by the neocons will continue and
at an ever increasing pitch - enabled by the neocons within the administration and the
Israelis. Trump doesn't want war but his administration filled with neocons does and they
will find a way maneuver Trump into it. Israel will fight Iran till the last standing
American in the Middle East.
Why did Donald Trump hire neocons Bolton & Pompeo as well as torturer Gina Haspel?
Couldn't he find people who shared his views (at least what he said during the last campaign)
that our ME regime change wars were a disaster that we shouldn't repeat?
As Tucker noted in his segment yesterday Bolton & the neocons have been plotting a war
with Iran for some time. They don't care if it sinks Trump's presidency. They have no loyalty
to him only condescension.
Hopefully Trump learns from this near miss of a catastrophe for his presidency. But he has
seemed weak and indecisive on these matters all along. He never fought back for example with
all the tools at his disposal against the attempted coup by law enforcement & the
intelligence agencies.
All he did was constantly tweet witch hunt. He's once again delegated
it to Barr after Sessions sat on it.
He allowed Pompeo & Bolton to bring on fellow neocon
Elliott Abrams who previously screwed up in Nicaragua to attempt another regime change in
Venezuela, which has been another botched example of how everything that the neocons touch
turns to shit.
Yet as Tucker notes in his segment yesterday the neocons are "bureaucratic
tapeworms" that some how manage to survive failure after failure with the same regime change
prescriptions. Trump better wise up like right now or he can kiss his re-election
goodbye.
"... "Let's go back to economic issues. Many people link these difficulties with the Western sanctions. By the way, the European Union again extended them today. Sometimes, there are appeals to make peace with everyone. If Russia complied with the West's demands and agreed to everything, would this benefit our economy in any way?" ..."
"... "Second, what would this give us and what would it not give us, and what would we lose? Look, according to expert analyses, Russia fell short by about $50 billion as a result of these restrictions during these years, starting in 2014. The European Union lost $240 billion, the US $17 billion (we have a small volume of trade with them) and Japan $27 billion. All this affects employment in these countries, including the EU: they are losing our market... ..."
"... "Now, the attack on Huawei: where does it come from and what is its objective? The objective is to hold back the development of China, the country that has become a global rival of another power, the United States. The same is happening with Russia, and will continue to happen , so if we want to occupy a worthy place under the sun, we must become stronger, including, and above all, in the economy." [My Emphasis] ..."
"... Dealing with Putin's bolded remark is a question not just for Russia, China and Iran; it's a question for the entire world and harkens back to the words of George Kennan I cited a few days ago about the USA needing a policy to continue its economic dominance of the planet he uttered in 1947, the policy that became The Anti-Communist Crusade covering for its actual Super Imperialism policy to retain that dominance. ..."
"... What's happening is a titanic struggle to make the Outlaw US Empire cease pursuing that policy. ..."
I'd like barflies to ponder the following thought/probability: Radar Saturated
Environment--radiation not from just individual, discreet, identifiable points, but from such
a vast multitude that no single point can be discerned.
To further my brainstorming de-escalation, I'd like to point out what Putin said in his
Direct Line
yesterday about the economic war being waged against Russia in accordance with the Ukraine
Coup in 2014. Pavel Zarubin asks:
"Let's go back to economic issues. Many people link these difficulties with the Western
sanctions. By the way, the European Union again extended them today. Sometimes, there are
appeals to make peace with everyone. If Russia complied with the West's demands and agreed to
everything, would this benefit our economy in any way?"
I thought this a capital question very similar to Iran's dilemma. Putin's response is
quite long, so I won't cite it all. Rather, I'll limit it to his initial reply and conclusion
as they both deal with the Big Picture:
"First, what does it mean 'to make peace'? We have not fought with anyone and have no
desire to fight with anyone.
"Second, what would this give us and what would it not give us, and what would we lose?
Look, according to expert analyses, Russia fell short by about $50 billion as a result of
these restrictions during these years, starting in 2014. The European Union lost $240
billion, the US $17 billion (we have a small volume of trade with them) and Japan $27
billion. All this affects employment in these countries, including the EU: they are losing
our market....
"Now to the question of whether some things would be different if we give in and abandon
our fundamental national interests. We are not talking about reconciliation here. Perhaps
there will be some external signals, but no drastic change. Look, the People's Republic of
China has nothing to do with Crimea and Donbass, does it? We are accused of occupying
Donbass, which is nonsense and a lie.
But China has nothing to do with it, and yet the tariffs for Chinese goods are rising,
which is almost the same as sanctions.
"Now, the attack on Huawei: where does it come from and what is its objective? The
objective is to hold back the development of China, the country that has become a global
rival of another power, the United States. The same is happening with Russia, and will
continue to happen , so if we want to occupy a worthy place under the sun, we must become
stronger, including, and above all, in the economy." [My Emphasis]
This year's Direct Line was as usual filled with domestic issues some that lead to foreign
policy issues. The overall scope and distinctness of the minutia are as vast as Russia. I've
followed these over the years and note they reveal Russia's strengths and fragilities. I'm
tempted to cite more but will leave it to the reader to pursue, but after 90 minutes you
still won't be finished because the transcript isn't yet complete, which while frustrating is
also amazing.
Dealing with Putin's bolded remark is a question not just for Russia, China and Iran; it's
a question for the entire world and harkens back to the words of George Kennan I cited a few
days ago about the USA needing a policy to continue its economic dominance of the planet he
uttered in 1947, the policy that became The Anti-Communist Crusade covering for its actual
Super Imperialism policy to retain that dominance.
What's happening is a titanic struggle to
make the Outlaw US Empire cease pursuing that policy.
"... That admission along with the stark mostly unreported economic realities of any armed conflict in the Gulf region is what restrains the war mongers. The Money Power and the Current Oligarchy won't allow war is what I see. And that makes this Friday morning pleasant despite the fog. ..."
"... The risks are just too great (for what the US public is prepared to accept). And we've just seen it happen again. They might be able to screw themselves up to go through with it, and accept the losses and stalemate that will come, but it will do no good at all for Trump's re-election chances. ..."
"... Netanyahu has reiterated his desire for war with Iran -- a war that the US will fight–and is meeting with his Arab allies to help bring it about. As Ha'aretz described Netanyahu's Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting Israel on the front line. ..."
"... Listen to this horse manure coming from Brain Hook, "special" representative for Iran: "According to him, Washington was doing everything possible to defuse tensions with Iran and return the containment system in the region. ..."
"... The Zionists are smack dab in the middle of the front line with a massive crosshairs imprinted on their entirety. Occupied Palestine sits at Ground Zero, and it seems that the Zionists are finally waking up to the ultimate betrayal they'll experience at the hands of The Christian Rapturists -- they are to be Genocided in the pursuit of attempting to make a myth come to life. ..."
"... Watch the brilliant George Galloway on the consequences of war with Iran. Bottom line: only hardline Likudniks and FDD Likud USA types would approve such a disastrous move. ..."
"... If America attacks and destroys Iran after doing the same to Iraq, Palestine, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, the Islamic religion should semi-officially adopt anti-Americanism until the Empire falls, and it would be totally deserved. If we all go in, let us get a good thrashing. ..."
"... It is true that Trump needs to fire acting President Bolton. Bolton who was appointed to the NSA by Sheldon Adelson, the Israeli/American oligarch, will not allow Trump to fire Bolton; otherwise, he loses millions of $$$$. The pressure is also from Adelson and his neocon ilk. ..."
"... Iran is a big country, and won't be defeated unless the people are ready to abandon the regime. They aren't as far as I can detect. The exiles, and the middle class in Iran, hate the regime. I've just had a lot of that poured into my ears, during my visit to Iran a month ago. The popular feeling though doesn't seem to have abandoned the regime. I think we can expect a nationalist resistance, if indeed Trump does attack Iran. ..."
"... China has been complying with US sanctions on Iran, for example this article notes that China stopped buying oil from Iran . US direct trade with Iran isn't so much as issue as the US stopping Europe and China from trading with Iran. ..."
The most important Item I've read so far this morning is
this report on the Ufa, Russia Security Conference that was attended by both Iranian and Outlaw US Empire officials. The entire
article requires reading, but this is the most relevant excerpt that has some links in the original I won't duplicate:
"Given current global events, the most significant attendees in Ufa are a senior US National Security Council member and the
Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), Ali Shamkhani.
As of now, the only official news comes from Ali Shamkhani's words concerning the possibility of mediation with the US and
the possibility of Iran acquiring weapons systems to fend off US threats. Shamkhani stated:
"'We currently face demonstrative threats. Nevertheless, when it comes to air defense of our country, we consider using
the foreign potential in addition to our domestic capacities Mediation is out of question in the current situation. The United
States has unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA, it has flouted its obligations and it has introduced illegal sanctions against
Iran. The United States should return to the starting point and correct its own mistakes. This process needs no mediation.'
"'This [gradually boosting of uranium enrichment and heavy water production beyond the levels outlined in the JCPOA] is a serious
decision of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] and we will continue doing it step by step until JCPOA violators move toward agreement
and return to fulfilling their obligations. [If JCPOA participants do not comply with the deal, Iran will be reducing its commitments]
step by step within legal mechanisms that the JCPOA envisions.'"
It was noted by b that the Outlaw US Empire faces a growing international coalition against its actions, which results from
sentiments made at the rather many recent international conferences that have already occurred in June that will be topped by
G-20 in 8 days.
That admission along with the stark mostly unreported economic realities of any armed conflict in the Gulf region is what
restrains the war mongers. The Money Power and the Current Oligarchy won't allow war is what I see. And that makes this Friday
morning pleasant despite the fog.
Posted by: Anon | Jun 21, 2019 8:04:55 AM | 29 (boring that it's yet another Anon, who can't be bothered to distinguish himself
all from the other thousands of Anons)
the stage is now maximum restraint and effort at co-operation, which Iran will be expected to respect. That means one more
act against US (or false flag by US) and strikes will occur. Not comparable to hostage crisis, here US is projecting being
reasonable, even if you read that as being weak.
It's not me who reading the US as weak. It will be the attitude of the Iranians, who haven't forgotten the US failure in 1980
(April 24, 1980), as opposed to the US public for whom it is so many crises ago that they've forgotten. And the Iranians are right.
Trump hesitated, as every previous attempt to launch a strike on Iran has finished finally in a stand-down.
The risks are just too great (for what the US public is prepared to accept). And we've just seen it happen again. They
might be able to screw themselves up to go through with it, and accept the losses and stalemate that will come, but it will do
no good at all for Trump's re-election chances.
Mikael Kallavuo , Jun 21, 2019 12:19:06 PM |
91jsb , Jun 21, 2019 12:20:15 PM |
92
Well it looks like Elijah Magnier has finally written the piece he was hinting at releasing yesterday.
Here it is:
Iran is pushing US President Donald Trump to the edge of the abyss, raising the level of tensions to new heights in the Middle
East. After the sabotage of four tankers at al-Fujairah and the attack on the Aramco pipeline a month ago, and last week's
attack on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC – now categorized by the USA as a terrorist
body) yesterday shot down a US Navy drone, sending two clear messages. The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out
war, no matter what the consequences. The second message is that Iran is aware that the US President has cornered himself;
the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump launched his electoral campaign.
According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be
allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as
winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty
sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.
...
Moreover, Iran has established a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan
of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East. Iran's allies have increased
their level of readiness and alert to the highest level; they will participate in the war from the moment it begins if necessary.
According to sources, Iran's allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly
organised, orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months.
Sources confirmed that, in case of war, Iran aims to stop the flow of oil from the Middle East completely, not by targeting
tankers but by hitting the sources of oil in every single Middle Eastern country, whether these countries are considered allies
or enemies. The objective will be to cease all oil exports from the Middle East to the rest of the world.
...
Iran's economy is under attack by Trump's embargo on Iranian oil exports. Trump refuses to lift the embargo and wants to
negotiate first. Trump, unlike Israel and the hawks in his administration, is trying to avoid a shooting war. Netanyahu
has reiterated his desire for war with Iran -- a war that the US will fight–and is meeting with his Arab allies to help bring
it about. As Ha'aretz described Netanyahu's Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting
Israel on the front line.
EXCLUSIVE: In an exclusive interview with Chuck Todd, President Donald Trump says he hadn't given final approval to Iran
strikes, no planes were in the air.
The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out war, no matter what the consequences. The second message is that Iran
is aware that the US President has cornered himself; the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump launched his electoral
campaign. According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump
be allowed to bomb one or two clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners
and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy
beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.
...
Iran has established a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every
step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East. Iran's allies have increased their level
of readiness and alert to the highest level; they will participate in the war from the moment it begins if necessary. According
to sources, Iran's allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly organised,
orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months.
...
Sources confirmed that, in case of war, Iran aims to stop the flow of oil from the Middle East completely, not by targeting
tankers but by hitting the sources of oil in every single Middle Eastern country, whether these countries are considered allies
or enemies. The objective will be to cease all oil exports from the Middle East to the rest of the world.
Still, there remained doubt inside the United States government over whether the drone, or another American surveillance aircraft,
this one flown by a military aircrew, did violate Iranian airspace at some point, according to a senior administration official.
..
The delay by United States Central Command in publicly releasing GPS coordinates of the drone when it was shot down -- hours
after Iran did -- and errors in the labeling of the drone's flight path when the imagery was released, contributed to that
doubt, officials said.
A lack of provable "hard evidence" about the location of the drone when it was hit, a defense official said, put the administration
in an isolated position at what could easily end up being the start of yet another war with a Middle East adversary -- this
one with a proven ability to strike back.
Listen to this horse manure coming from Brain Hook, "special" representative for Iran: "According to him, Washington was doing
everything possible to defuse tensions with Iran and return the containment system in the region.
However, Hook blamed Tehran for rising tension in the region because of the refusal of any diplomatic initiatives.
"Our diplomacy does not give Iran the right to respond with military force. Iran needs to meet diplomacy with diplomacy, not
military force," the envoy added."
Diplomacy needs to be met with diplomacy......Really???
Iran should impose sanctions on all of SA, UAE and US oil exports. How's that for diplomacy Mr. Hook? In case you missed it
that is exactly what they are doing. Meeting your brand of diplomacy head on.
We are living in the realm of absurd. How is it that we have left the welfare of our kids, families and the future of our country
in the hands of these incompetent morons?
And why is the rest of the world sitting with their popcorn watching this horror show?
After reading the wiki item on P-8s having a normal crew of 7, I got to thinking about the 35 number either being a botched
translation or how many bodies were noted via thermal imaging radar, something I doubt Iran was thought to possess. As I wrote,
Iran can see everything to its West, which is a very BigDeal.
I digested Magnier's latest. The following is an extremely important point:
"Ha'aretz described Netanyahu's Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting Israel on
the front line ."
Except that is an impossibility. The Zionists are smack dab in the middle of the front line with a massive crosshairs imprinted
on their entirety. Occupied Palestine sits at Ground Zero, and it seems that the Zionists are finally waking up to the ultimate
betrayal they'll experience at the hands of The Christian Rapturists -- they are to be Genocided in the pursuit of attempting
to make a myth come to life.
Every writer, Magnier, b, Escobar, and most all barflies, etc, are saying the decision lies with Trump. As I've written before
and again above, I disagree. The decision to go to war with Iran rests with the Current Oligarchy running the Outlaw US Empire.
And it's my belief that such a war will not bring them A Few Dollars More and instead make their Fistful of Dollars evaporate
rapidly. thanks to their great outstanding, naked, risks. For perhaps the very first time, the Current Oligarchy is exposed
to the risks involved in a war it initially though it could win. Last night, it seemed to awaken to the potential consequences
and blinked. The Philadelphia refinery blast may be shear coincidence or not, but it also has likely helped since its right down
the street from the Current Oligarchies penthouses.
Now, it's just about the time of day when the Houthis launch their attacks.
Blooming Barricade , Jun 21, 2019 4:14:14 PM |
155
Watch the brilliant George Galloway on the consequences of war with Iran. Bottom line: only hardline Likudniks and FDD Likud
USA types would approve such a disastrous move.
If America attacks and destroys Iran after doing the same to Iraq, Palestine, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, the
Islamic religion should semi-officially adopt anti-Americanism until the Empire falls, and it would be totally deserved. If we
all go in, let us get a good thrashing.
_____
George Galloway has warned the US and its allies in the Gulf that if they were to start "World War III" with an attack on Iran
they will live to regret it because, unlike Iraq in 2003, they are capable of fighting back.
The Scottish firebrand, who famously took US lawmakers to task over the Iraq war when he testified in front of the senate in
2005, has given his take on the recent ratcheting-up of tension in the Gulf region after Iran shot down a US drone, which, it
says, had entered its airspace.
Washington maintains its UAV was shot down while patrolling over international waters in an "unprovoked attack." On Friday
President Donald Trump took to Twitter to claim the US were 10 minutes away from bombing three Iranian sites, before calling off
the strikes.
Galloway believes that many Iranians would see it as a great "pleasure to fight the United States and its allies in the region."
In a stark warning to US allies such as Qatar, the UAE and Saudia Arabia, Galloway insisted that any country that allows "its
land to be used for the launching for an American attack on Iran will itself be immediately in flames."
The former Labour MP concludes his passionate message to the world by declaring: "No more war. No more war in the Gulf. No
war on Iran."
It is true that Trump needs to fire acting President Bolton. Bolton who was appointed to the NSA by Sheldon Adelson, the Israeli/American
oligarch, will not allow Trump to fire Bolton; otherwise, he loses millions of $$$$. The pressure is also from Adelson and his
neocon ilk.
I don't think my opinion has changed. There've been several cases where they've been about to attack Iran, but then have drawn
back. Spring 2018 (Israel), 2012, even the event of 1980, where they tried but failed. Trump's aborted attack is just another
case.
Iran is a big country, and won't be defeated unless the people are ready to abandon the regime. They aren't as far as I
can detect. The exiles, and the middle class in Iran, hate the regime. I've just had a lot of that poured into my ears, during
my visit to Iran a month ago. The popular feeling though doesn't seem to have abandoned the regime. I think we can expect a nationalist
resistance, if indeed Trump does attack Iran.
China has been complying with US sanctions on Iran, for example this article notes that
China stopped buying
oil from Iran . US direct trade with Iran isn't so much as issue as the US stopping Europe and China from trading with Iran.
"... "Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory, threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible. ..."
"... "The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals that cannot be reasoned with. ..."
Demanding that the Middle Eastern nation retaliate immediately in self-defense against the
existential threat posed by America's military operations, National Security Adviser John
Bolton called for a forceful Iranian response Friday to continuing United States aggression.
"Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory,
threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that
America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and
alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of
force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible.
"The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends
a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a
diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals
that cannot be reasoned with.
They've been given every opportunity to back down, but their goal is total domination of the
region, and Iran won't stand for that."
At press time, Bolton said that the only option left on the table was for Iran to launch a
full-fledged military strike against the Great Satan.
I was shocked-- but not surprised-- to see visibly-pained CBS Pentagon flack David Martin on
the boob tube this morning quoting an unnamed source that speculated that the reason Trump
cancelled the bombing of Iran was that he got "cold-feet."
Thank you, Vasili Arkhipov, for getting cold-feet, too! Madness, our nation is afflicted
with madness.
"... Europe is being clobbered by the USA on multiple fronts - at little cost to the USA: 1- Russian sanctions; 2- Oil - sanctioning Iran raises oil price and risks a blowout of prices; 3- Gas - sanctioning companies working on Russian gas and pipelines ..."
"... It's about the financial derivatives Iran, the derivatives.. The Europeans, even if they desired honesty, are shackled by their financial shenanigans.. One bad move on their part, and the Potemkin contraption collapses, wiping out the western 1%. They're trapped, and unlike before, war is a lose for them and why? ..."
...Russia on Friday announced it was ready to help Iran export its crude and ease
restrictions on its banking system if Europe fails to launch its dollar-evading SPV, Instex
(Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges) with Tehran, according to Interfax and PressTV .
The
three European signatories to the 2015 nuclear agreement, officially known as the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), unveiled late in January the direct non-dollar payment
mechanism meant to safeguard their trade ties with Tehran following the US withdrawal from the
nuclear deal and in the face of the "toughest ever" sanctions imposed by the United States
against the Islamic Republic. In its initial stage, INSTEX would facilitate trade of
humanitarian goods such as medicine, food and medical devices, but it will later be expanded to
cover other areas of trade, including Iran's oil sales.
However, it has not resulted in any trade deals so far. In late May, the US threatened
Europe with "
loss of access to the US financial system " if it rolled out the SWIFT-evading SPV, which
appears to have crushed Europe's enthusiasm to pursue alternative financial transactions with
Tehran, forcing it to conceded to Washington (again).
Earlier this month, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Abbas Moussavi said European
governments have failed to meet their expectations in implementing INSTEX to protect the JCPOA,
criticizing their "lack of will" to deal with America's pressure against Tehran.
What this means is, China will have access to a lot cheaper oil than western market prices, including to the
hilt subsidized, with colossal hidden losses, US shale oil. Well done Trump. The Tariffs, Americuhns are the ones paying for those as well. Imbeciles.
We are seeing a return to "Gun Boat Diplomacy"... Even THAT will not work.. ultimately. Brinkmanship, of this order reveals a Disturbed mind.. the US criminal elite psyche.. Or as Jidu KrishnaMurti said so aptly..The constant assertion of belief is an indication
of fear.
The USA continues to publicize its belief.. that it is the viral of democracy.. And leader
of the Free World. Hollow words.. which it will be forced to eat.. before too long. That time of
confrontation.. is Not Far OFF !! This desperation is that of a deranged mind.. that is going down the tube.. breaking
down.. A society in free fall..
This is exactly how it will always work out when psychopaths are in charge because normal
society doesnt manage them.They come from all backgrounds but some genetic varieties of people seem to have YUGE
problems with it. I also believe inbreeding has a role.
Europe is being clobbered by the USA on multiple fronts - at little cost to the USA: 1- Russian sanctions; 2- Oil - sanctioning Iran raises oil price and risks a blowout of prices; 3- Gas - sanctioning companies working on Russian gas and pipelines
It's not the actual physical oil Russia is helping Iran with, numbnuts -- it is brokering
and facilitating the sale of oil without having the Jewish shysters in London and NY involved
- the same reason the Chinese set up their own oil bourse.
Costa. People don't understand the system. The Brits bad mouthed Russia over the Novichok
false flag incident last winter and jumped on the sanction crap. But they gladly accepted a
load of LNG from a Rotterdam energy broker to keep their asses from freezing. It was Yamal
LNG from RUSSIA. Brokers take the energy (including world-wide trades) and sell it off taking
a small bit from each "barrel"as their profit.
I'm sure the Iranians already know this. The EU is just an extension of US power. They
were never serious about allowing the free flow of trade with the Iranians. One must get rid
of the EU if a real Peace plan with Iran is to take place. But this will never happen under
Trump.
European politicians are cucks bribed to the teeth by the evil empire to toe the Zionist
line. Europe is all but an emasculated world power. Pathetic. Kick US forces out and take a
******* stand against all this ******** America is stirring on Europe's doorstep. Refugees,
terrorism, bad relations with Russia....all thanks to the Anglo Zionists. Europeans keep
taking it. The Marshall Plan guilt-trip is working well.
True but the Zionist banker noghtmare spread to the US from the British empire, so Europe
has been perpetually screwed, thus all the world wars that took place there, etc.
Europe is not a power, it is an artificial construction with no real leadership.No military to back its decisions and a bunch of feminists and homos that make up its
culturally diverse parliaments. European women act like men and the men act like women. There is no fight left in Europe..
China and Russia need to preserve Iran for the BRI which is the lifeline for everyone who
has had a belllyfull of JewSA ********. China and Russia will facilitate Iranian trade and
Iranian nuclear ICBM peacemakers will soon follow.
Trump is loosing, he scares Europeans and Turks but don't let be fooled, Americans are
not allowed near Iranian border of Turkey, why do you think is that restriction?
It's about the financial derivatives Iran, the derivatives.. The Europeans, even if they desired honesty, are shackled by their financial
shenanigans.. One bad move on their part, and the Potemkin contraption collapses, wiping out the western
1%. They're trapped, and unlike before, war is a lose for them and why?
Because the kinetic advantage is no longer with them, it's now in the East. Nevertheless, their innocent youth can still be salvaged, provided they desire salvage. No
more impunity without retribution, cheers...
So India stop importing Iranian oil in order to buy the same oil from Russia for much more
since thy where buying that same oil from Iran at great discount. India looks to Russian crude as Iranian imports crash
"... Trump is right that he can afford to be patient and now re-frame this as him being the magnanimous God-Emperor but what he's really doing is talking capital markets off a cliff. ..."
"... Because that's where the U.S. is the most vulnerable and where Iran's greatest leverage lies. This incident should have sent oil prices far higher than they did if the threat of war was real. ..."
"... Why? Because the markets discounted the U.S.'s stories immediately. There have been so many incidents like this that should have started a war in the past three years which turn out to be bogus that the market reaction was muted, at best. ..."
"... As Pepe Escobar lays out convincingly in his latest article, Iran's threats against global oil shipping aren't aimed at disrupting the global economy per se. There's plenty of oil stored in Strategic Reserves around the world to keep things operating during any U.S. military operation to destroy Iran's navy (which wouldn't take very long) and open the strait to oil traffic. ..."
"... It is that a disruption in the price of oil will force the unwinding of trillions in interest rate swap derivatives already at risk because of the tenuous hold on reality Deutsche Bank has, since DB clears a super-majority of all such derivative contracts for the whole of Europe. ..."
"... Last week I asked whether Trump's "B-Team" overplayed their hand in the Gulf of Oman , staging a potential false flag over some oil tankers to stop peace breaking out and arrest the slide in oil prices. Today everyone wants to think Iran overplayed its hand by attacking this drone. But given the amount mendacity and the motivations of the people involved, I'd say that it was yet another attempt by the enemies of peace to push us to the brink of a world war in which nothing good comes of it. ..."
Iran has had enough.
I think it's fair to say that after
60+ years of U.S. aggression towards Iran that the decision to shoot down a U.S. drone represents
an inflection point in world politics.
In the first few hours after the incident the fog of war was thick. But a day later much of it
has cleared thanks to Iran's purposeful poke at U.S. leadership by coming clean with their
intentions.
Iran chose to shoot
down this drone
versus hitting the manned P-8 aircraft and then chose not to lie about it in
public, but rather come forward removing any deniability they could have had.
They did this after President Trump's comments yesterday during a news conference with Canadian
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau where Trump described the attack as "a big mistake" and "not
intentional."
But it was intentional.
And the reason for this was that despite Trump's assurances yesterday there is considerable
debate as to where the drone actually was.
According
to a report from the NY Times
(and buried deep in a very long article):
Still, there remained doubt inside the United States government over whether the drone, or
another American surveillance aircraft, this one flown by a military aircrew, did violate
Iranian airspace at some point, according to a senior administration official. The official said
the doubt was one of the reasons Mr. Trump called off the strike -- which could under
international norms be viewed as an act of war.
The delay by United States Central Command in publicly releasing GPS coordinates of the drone
when it was shot down -- hours after Iran did -- and errors in the labeling of the drone's flight
path when the imagery was released, contributed to that doubt, officials said.
A lack of provable "hard evidence" about the location of the drone when it was hit, a defense
official said, put the administration in an isolated position at what could easily end up being
the start of yet another war with a Middle East adversary -- this one with a proven ability to
strike back.
This means a couple of things. First,
it is likely that Trump was not properly briefed
on the issue by his National Security Council, who were pushing him to strike back hard and who are
itching to get the U.S. into an armed conflict with Iran.
Framing the attack as a mistake Trump was handing Iran the opportunity to de-escalate things. To
me, this signaled that Trump was told through back channels this was an operation designed by us to
put Iran in a no-win situation -- either allow encroachment of their airspace or shoot down a drone
that would land in international waters.
Moreover,
doubts as to the drone's position, remember, with a plane carrying actual
ordnance on its wing, put Trump in a real bind.
And he knew it at the presser. That's the way Trump tried to frame this the way he did. Because
the implications here are that he is being boxed in on all sides by his administration and his
allies -- the Saudis, Israelis and the UAE -- and frogmarched to a war he doesn't want.
He wants Iran to heel but he doesn't know how to go about it.
That Iran then chose the next day to openly declare that they were not confused or misled and
knew exactly what they were doing puts Trump in an even worse position.
Because an unmanned drone, as he said in his futile tweetstorm, is not worth going to war over,
especially one whose position in in dispute.
And everyone knows it. Europe wouldn't condemn Iran here. No one did. Only the U.S. And that
silence is deafening as Pompeo, Bolton and Haspel again over-extend themselves.
Trump is right that he can afford to be patient and now re-frame this as him being the
magnanimous God-Emperor but what he's really doing is talking capital markets off a cliff.
Because that's where the U.S. is the most vulnerable and where Iran's greatest leverage lies.
This incident should have sent oil prices far higher than they did if the threat of war was real.
Why? Because the markets discounted the U.S.'s stories immediately.
There have
been so many incidents like this that should have started a war in the past three years which turn
out to be bogus that the market reaction was muted, at best.
It also tells you just how quickly the global economy is slowing down if a major military
incident between Iran and the U.S. near the Strait of Hormuz only pushed the price of Brent Crude
up to fill the gap on the weekly chart and confirm the recent low.
... ... ...
As Pepe Escobar lays out convincingly in his latest article,
Iran's threats against
global oil shipping aren't aimed at disrupting the global economy per se.
There's plenty
of oil stored in Strategic Reserves around the world to keep things operating during any U.S.
military operation to destroy Iran's navy (which wouldn't take very long) and open the strait to
oil traffic.
It is that a disruption in the price of oil will force the unwinding of
trillions in interest rate swap derivatives already at risk because of the tenuous hold on reality
Deutsche Bank has, since DB clears a super-majority of all such derivative contracts for the whole
of Europe.
No one wants to see $300 per barrel oil. That Goldman Sachs is posting potential targets of
$1000 per barrel tells you where they are positioning themselves, as if they know something?
Goldman? Have insider knowledge?
Please! It is to laugh.
What we are looking at here is the ultimate game of brinkmanship.
Trump
is saying his maximum pressure campaign will break Iran in the end and if they go one step further
(which they won't directly) he will eliminate them.
Iran, on the other hand, is stating categorically that if Trump doesn't allow Iran to trade than
no one will. And that threat is a real one, given their regional influence. Incalculable financial
and political damage can be done by Iran and its proxies around the region through attacks on oil
and gas infrastructure.
Governments will fall, markets will collapse. And no one gets out without scars.
It's the kind of stand-off that needs to end with everyone walking away and regrouping but is
unlikely to do so because of entrenched interests on both sides and the historical grudges of the
men involved.
What's important is to know that the rules of the game have changed. Iran has taken all the
punches to the nose it will take from Trump without retaliating. When you corner someone and give
them no way out you invite the worst kind of counter-attack.
Last week I asked whether
Trump's
"B-Team" overplayed their hand in the Gulf of Oman
, staging a potential false flag over some
oil tankers to stop peace breaking out and arrest the slide in oil prices. Today everyone wants to
think Iran overplayed its hand by attacking this drone. But given the amount mendacity and the
motivations of the people involved, I'd say that it was yet another attempt by the enemies of peace
to push us to the brink of a world war in which nothing good comes of it.
I give Trump a lot of credit here for not falling into the trap set for him.
He now has to begin removing those responsible for this quagmire and I'm sure that will be on
the docket when he meets with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping next week at the G-20.
It starts with John Bolton and it ends with Mike Pompeo.
And if he doesn't replace them in the next six to eight weeks then we know Trump
isn't serious about keeping us out of war.
He's just interested in doing so until
he gets re-elected
[Jun 22, 2019] this report on the Ufa, Russia Security Conference by both Iranian and Outlaw US Empire officials. The entire article requires reading, but this is the most relevant excerpt that has some links in the original I won't duplicate:
"Given current global events, the most significant attendees in Ufa are a senior US National
Security Council member and the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC),
Ali Shamkhani. As of now, the only official news comes from Ali Shamkhani's words concerning
the possibility of mediation with the US and the possibility of Iran acquiring weapons systems
to fend off US threats. Shamkhani stated:
"'We currently face demonstrative threats. Nevertheless, when it comes to air defense of our
country, we consider using the foreign potential in addition to our domestic capacities
Mediation is out of question in the current situation. The United States has unilaterally
withdrawn from the JCPOA, it has flouted its obligations and it has introduced illegal
sanctions against Iran. The United States should return to the starting point and correct its
own mistakes. This process needs no mediation.'
"'This [gradually boosting of uranium enrichment and heavy water production beyond the
levels outlined in the JCPOA] is a serious decision of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] and we
will continue doing it step by step until JCPOA violators move toward agreement and return to
fulfilling their obligations. [If JCPOA participants do not comply with the deal, Iran will be
reducing its commitments] step by step within legal mechanisms that the JCPOA envisions.'"
It was noted by b that the Outlaw US Empire faces a growing international coalition against
its actions, which results from sentiments made at the rather many recent international
conferences that have already occurred in June that will be topped by G-20 in 8 days. That
admission along with the stark mostly unreported economic realities of any armed conflict in
the Gulf region is what restrains the war mongers. The Money Power and the Current Oligarchy
won't allow war is what I see. And that makes this Friday morning pleasant despite the
fog.
Posted by: Anon | Jun 21, 2019 8:04:55 AM | 29 (boring that it's yet another Anon, who
can't be bothered to distinguish himself all from the other thousands of Anons)
the stage is now maximum restraint and effort at co-operation, which Iran will be
expected to respect. That means one more act against US (or false flag by US) and
strikes will occur. Not comparable to hostage crisis, here US is projecting being
reasonable, even if you read that as being weak.
It's not me who reading the US as weak. It will be the attitude of the
Iranians, who haven't forgotten the US failure in 1980 (April 24, 1980), as opposed to
the US public for whom it is so many crises ago that they've forgotten. And the Iranians
are right. Trump hesitated, as every previous attempt to launch a strike on Iran has
finished finally in a stand-down. The risks are just too great (for what the US public is
prepared to accept). And we've just seen it happen again. They might be able to screw
themselves up to go through with it, and accept the losses and stalemate that will come,
but it will do no good at all for Trump's re-election chances.
Posted by: Mikael Kallavuo | Jun 21, 2019 12:19:06 PM |
91 Well it looks like Elijah Magnier has finally written the piece he was hinting at
releasing yesterday. Here it
is:
Iran is pushing US President Donald Trump to the edge of the abyss, raising the level
of tensions to new heights in the Middle East. After the sabotage of four tankers at
al-Fujairah and the attack on the Aramco pipeline a month ago, and last week's attack
on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC –
now categorized by the USA as a terrorist body) yesterday shot down a US Navy drone,
sending two clear messages. The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out war,
no matter what the consequences. The second message is that Iran is aware that the US
President has cornered himself; the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump
launched his electoral campaign.
According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence
– made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three
clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out
as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent
its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile
launch against US objectives in the Gulf.
...
Moreover, Iran has established a joint operations room to inform all its allies
in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in
confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East. Iran's allies have
increased their level of readiness and alert to the highest level; they will
participate in the war from the moment it begins if necessary. According to sources,
Iran's allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of
objectives in a perfectly organised, orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response,
anticipating a war that may last many months.
Sources confirmed that, in case of war, Iran aims to stop the flow of oil from the
Middle East completely, not by targeting tankers but by hitting the sources of oil in
every single Middle Eastern country, whether these countries are considered allies or
enemies. The objective will be to cease all oil exports from the Middle East to the
rest of the world.
...
Iran's economy is under attack by Trump's embargo on Iranian oil exports. Trump
refuses to lift the embargo and wants to negotiate first. Trump, unlike Israel and the
hawks in his administration, is trying to avoid a shooting war. Netanyahu has
reiteratedhis desire for war with Iran -- a war that the US will fight–and is
meeting with his Arab allies to help bring it about. As Ha'aretz described Netanyahu's
Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting Israel
on the front line.
EXCLUSIVE: In an exclusive interview with Chuck Todd, President Donald Trump says he
hadn't given final approval to Iran strikes, no planes were in the air.
The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out war, no matter what the
consequences. The second message is that Iran is aware that the US President has
cornered himself; the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump launched his
electoral campaign. According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US
intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one
or two clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to
come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer
and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a
missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.
...
Iran has established a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon,
Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US
in case of all-out war in the Middle East. Iran's allies have increased their level of
readiness and alert to the highest level; they will participate in the war from the
moment it begins if necessary. According to sources, Iran's allies will not hesitate to
open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly organised,
orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last
many months.
...
Sources confirmed that, in case of war, Iran aims to stop the flow of oil from the
Middle East completely, not by targeting tankers but by hitting the sources of oil in
every single Middle Eastern country, whether these countries are considered allies or
enemies. The objective will be to cease all oil exports from the Middle East to the
rest of the world.
Still, there remained doubt inside the United States government over whether the drone,
or another American surveillance aircraft, this one flown by a military aircrew, did
violate Iranian airspace at some point, according to a senior administration
official.
..
The delay by United States Central Command in publicly releasing GPS coordinates of the
drone when it was shot down -- hours after Iran did -- and errors in the labeling of
the drone's flight path when the imagery was released, contributed to that doubt,
officials said.
A lack of provable "hard evidence" about the location of the drone when it was hit,
a defense official said, put the administration in an isolated position at what could
easily end up being the start of yet another war with a Middle East adversary -- this
one with a proven ability to strike back.
Posted by: b | Jun 21,
2019 1:23:18 PM |
107 b, how can you believe any of Trump's versions? I can't see that one is more
trustworthy than another
Listen to this horse manure coming from Brain Hook, "special" representative for Iran:
"According to him, Washington was doing everything possible to defuse tensions with
Iran and return the containment system in the region.
However, Hook blamed Tehran for rising tension in the region because of the refusal of
any diplomatic initiatives.
"Our diplomacy does not give Iran the right to respond with military force. Iran needs
to meet diplomacy with diplomacy, not military force," the envoy added."
Diplomacy needs to be met with diplomacy......Really???
Iran should impose sanctions on all of SA, UAE and US oil exports. How's that for
diplomacy Mr. Hook? In case you missed it that is exactly what they are doing. Meeting
your brand of diplomacy head on.
We are living in the realm of absurd. How is it that we have left the welfare of our
kids, families and the future of our country in the hands of these incompetent
morons?
And why is the rest of the world sitting with their popcorn watching this horror
show?
Posted by: Uncle Jon | Jun 21, 2019 2:53:41 PM |
131 h @124--
After reading the wiki item on P-8s having a normal crew of 7, I got to thinking about
the 35 number either being a botched translation or how many bodies were noted via
thermal imaging radar, something I doubt Iran was thought to possess. As I wrote, Iran
can see everything to its West, which is a very BigDeal.
I digested Magnier's latest. The following is an extremely important point:
"Ha'aretz described Netanyahu's Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump
to go to war without putting Israel on the front line ."
Except that is an impossibility. The Zionists are smack dab in the middle of the front
line with a massive crosshairs imprinted on their entirety. Occupied Palestine sits at
Ground Zero, and it seems that the Zionists are finally waking up to the ultimate
betrayal they'll experience at the hands of The Christian Rapturists--they are to be
Genocided in the pursuit of attempting to make a myth come to life.
Every writer, Magnier, b, Escobar, and most all barflies, etc, are saying the decision
lies with Trump. As I've written before and again above, I disagree. The decision to go
to war with Iran rests with the Current Oligarchy running the Outlaw US Empire. And it's
my belief that such a war will not bring them A Few Dollars More and instead make their
Fistful of Dollars evaporate rapidly. thanks to their great outstanding, naked, risks.
For perhaps the very first time, the Current Oligarchy is exposed to the risks
involved in a war it initially though it could win. Last night, it seemed to awaken
to the potential consequences and blinked. The Philadelphia refinery blast may be shear
coincidence or not, but it also has likely helped since its right down the street from
the Current Oligarchies penthouses.
Now, it's just about the time of day when the Houthis launch their attacks.
Watch the brilliant George Galloway on the consequences of war with Iran. Bottom line:
only hardline Likudniks and FDD Likud USA types would approve such a disastrous move.
If America attacks and destroys Iran after doing the same to Iraq, Palestine, Libya,
Syria, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, the Islamic religion should semi-officially adopt
anti-Americanism until the Empire falls, and it would be totally deserved. If we all go
in, let us get a good thrashing.
_____
George Galloway has warned the US and its allies in the Gulf that if they were to
start "World War III" with an attack on Iran they will live to regret it because, unlike
Iraq in 2003, they are capable of fighting back.
The Scottish firebrand, who famously took US lawmakers to task over the Iraq war when
he testified in front of the senate in 2005, has given his take on the recent
ratcheting-up of tension in the Gulf region after Iran shot down a US drone, which, it
says, had entered its airspace.
Washington maintains its UAV was shot down while patrolling over international waters
in an "unprovoked attack." On Friday President Donald Trump took to Twitter to claim the
US were 10 minutes away from bombing three Iranian sites, before calling off the
strikes.
Galloway believes that many Iranians would see it as a great "pleasure to fight the
United States and its allies in the region."
In a stark warning to US allies such as Qatar, the UAE and Saudia Arabia, Galloway
insisted that any country that allows "its land to be used for the launching for an
American attack on Iran will itself be immediately in flames."
The former Labour MP concludes his passionate message to the world by declaring: "No
more war. No more war in the Gulf. No war on Iran."
It is true that Trump needs to fire acting President Bolton. Bolton who was appointed to
the NSA by Sheldon Adelson, the Israeli/American oligarch, will not allow Trump to fire
Bolton; otherwise, he loses millions of $$$$. The pressure is also from Adelson and his
neocon ilk.
I don't think my opinion has changed. There've been several cases where they've been
about to attack Iran, but then have drawn back. Spring 2018 (Israel), 2012, even the
event of 1980, where they tried but failed. Trump's aborted attack is just another case.
Iran is a big country, and won't be defeated unless the people are ready to abandon
the regime. They aren't as far as I can detect. The exiles, and the middle class in Iran,
hate the regime. I've just had a lot of that poured into my ears, during my visit to Iran
a month ago. The popular feeling though doesn't seem to have abandoned the regime. I
think we can expect a nationalist resistance, if indeed Trump does attack Iran.
@Oscar Peterson #151
China has been complying with US sanctions on Iran, for example this article notes that
China
stopped buying oil from Iran .
US direct trade with Iran isn't so much as issue as the US stopping Europe and China from
trading with Iran.
While everybody is entertained with the drone and events in the Persian Gulf, as it susally
goes lately, a coup d´etat is in the works in Georgia, against the moderate, not so
russophobic as the US/UK need, recently elected government who wants to restore mutual
beneficcial relations with its neighbors..
As the available videos
illustrate , this is the same crowd on rollpay we are used to witness in the Maidan, on
jeans bermudas and t-shirts or bare chest, wearing police helmets and shields, with both, the
US and Ukrainian flags waving in the sides and amongst the crowd of "protestors".
It is also reported that the handlers were all English speakers....
Most of injured resulting, according to Georgian Health Ministry, belong to police
members.
When you see a rash, you should look beyond the skin for a cause. It has been like this with
Hong Kong over the last few weeks. On the surface we see impressively organised demonstrations
to stop the executive from introducing extradition laws to China. We observe that university
students and others not much older are running the demonstrations with military precision. The
Mainland Chinese should be impressed.
They are unlikely to see it that way. The build-up of riots against Hong Kong's proposed
extradition treaty with the Mainland started months ago, supported and driven by commentary in
the Land of the Free . America is now coming out in the open as China's adversary, no longer
just a trading partner worried by the trade imbalances. And Hong Kong is the pressure
point.
This happened before, in 2014. The Chinese leadership was certain the riots in Hong Kong
reflected the work of American agencies. The following is an extract translated from a speech
by Major-General Qiao Liang, a leading strategist for the Peoples' Liberation Army, addressing
the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee in 2015:
"Since the Diaoyu Islands conflict and the Huangyan Island conflict, incidents have kept
popping up around China, including the confrontation over China's 981 oil rigs with Vietnam
and Hong Kong's "Occupy Central" event. Can they still be viewed as simply accidental?
I accompanied General Liu Yazhou, the Political Commissar of the National Defence
University, to visit Hong Kong in May 2014. At that time, we heard that the "Occupy Central"
movement was being planned and could take place by end of the month. However, it didn't
happen in May, June, July, or August.
What happened? What were they waiting for?
Let's look at another time table: the U.S. Federal Reserve's exit from the Quantitative
Easing (QE) policy. The U.S. said it would stop QE at the beginning of 2014. But it stayed
with the QE policy in April, May, June, July, and August. As long as it was in QE, it kept
overprinting dollars and the dollar's price couldn't go up. Thus, Hong Kong's "Occupy
Central" should not happen either.
At the end of September, the Federal Reserve announced the U.S. would exit from QE. The
dollar started going up. Then Hong Kong's "Occupy Central" broke out in early October.
Actually, the Diaoyu Islands, Huangyan Island, the 981 rigs, and Hong Kong's "Occupy
Central" movement were all bombs. The successful explosion of any one of them would lead to a
regional crisis or a worsened investment environment around China. That would force the
withdrawal of a large amount of investment from this region, which would then return to the
U.S."
That America is stoking and organising discontent anew in Hong Kong is probably still
China's view today. Clearly, the Chinese believed America covertly managed "Occupy Central" and
therefore are at it again. Apart from what their spies tell them, the protests are too well
organised and planned to be spontaneous. This time, the attack appears to have a better chance
of success. The plan is coordinated with American pressure on Hong Kong's dollar peg in an
attempt to destabilise it, principally through the threat to extend tariffs against China to
Hong Kong. This second attempt to collapse Hong Kong is therefore more serious.
Hong Kong is critical, because through Shanghai Connect it is the only lawful channel for
foreign investment flows into China. This is important to the Americans, because the US
Treasury cannot afford to see global portfolio flows attracted into China at a time when they
will be needed to invest in increasing quantities of US Treasury stock. Understand that, and
you will have grasped a large part of the urgency behind America's attempt to destabilise Hong
Kong.
Qiao Liang makes this point elsewhere in his aforementioned speech, claiming American
tactics are the consequence of the ending of Bretton Woods:
"Without the restriction of gold, the US can print dollars at will. If they keep a large
amount of dollars inside the US, it will certainly create inflation. If they export dollars
to the world, the whole world is helping the US deal with its inflation. That's why inflation
is not high in the US."
While one can take issue with his simplistic analysis, that is not the point. What matters
is what the Chinese believe. Qiao concludes:
"By issuing debt, the US brings a large amount of dollars from overseas back to the US's
three big markets: the commodity market, the Treasury Bills market, and the stock market. The
US repeats this cycle to make money: printing money, exporting money overseas, and bringing
money back. The US has become a financial empire."
Conceptually, Qiao was broadly correct. His error in these two statements was to not explain
that ownership of dollars means they are deployed exclusively in America, but perhaps he was
simplifying his argument for a non-technical audience. All dollars, despite foreign ownership,
remain in the American economy as a combination of US Treasuries and T-bills, investment in US
listed and unlisted securities, physical assets such as property and also deposits through
correspondent banks held in New York.
It is not the dollars that flow, but their ownership that changes. Dollars are bought and
sold for foreign currencies by central banks, sovereign wealth funds, commercial banks,
insurance companies and pension funds. The currencies in which these entities invest matters,
and investment decisions are obviously affected by currency prospects. It allows the US
Treasury to attract these flows into the dollar by simply making other currencies less
attractive. Foreign owners of foreign currencies can easily be spooked into the safe havens of
the dollar and US Treasuries. This is the way foreigners are corralled into funding the budget
deficit.
A weakening yuan-dollar exchange rate will dissuade international portfolios from investing
in China's projects, for which the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was established. China
should respond to moves to undermine her currency, seeking to enhance the attractions of her
investment opportunities to international investment funds by taking measures to support the
yuan. If not, global investment funds will simply not come China's way.
Besides attracting portfolio flows into the US, a rising dollar is also a threat to foreign
governments and corporates who have borrowed dollars and then have to pay them back later. This
was what mauled South-East Asian economies in the 1997 financial crisis. China as a state is
not in this position, though some of her regional trading partners will have fallen into this
trap again.
It is clear from elsewhere in Qiao's speech that the Chinese understand America's motives
and methods. Therefore, they will anticipate American actions to undermine the yuan. If the
Americans succeed and with the yuan made unattractive, international portfolio money that is
already invested in China will be sucked out, potentially crashing China's capital markets.
With the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act going onto the US statute book, President
Trump will be able to use the link to the Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sanctions
against trade, finance and technology. The concern in Hong Kong is personal wealth will now
decamp and that Hong Kong property prices will implode.
The British involvement
America's strategy has included putting pressure on her allies to fall into line with her
interests against China. All NATO members have been told not to buy Huawei equipment.
Protective of the special relationship, the British have gone along with it. But Cheltenham's
GCHQ (the UK's cyber monitoring agency) has at least given Huawei the opportunity to address
the security issues that have been raised.
A greater problem is bound to arise, and that is the role of the City of London. In 2014,
the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, agreed a plan with the Chinese leadership
for the City to work with Hong Kong to internationalise the yuan. The Chinese wanted to bypass
New York for obvious reasons.
The request to meet Osborne went through Boris Johnson, at the time Mayor of London and
leading a trade delegation to China on behalf of the City. Johnson is now odds-on favourite to
become the next Prime Minister and if appointed will undoubtedly find himself in a difficult
position. He will have to walk a very fine line between Britain's developing Chinese interests,
her special relationship with America, his new friendship with Trump, and also the trade
agreement with America which both Trump and Johnson are likely to prioritise following
Brexit.
Depending on how Johnson acts, China may have to put her plans to internationalise the yuan
on hold. The risk for China is that with her international financial plans threatened and the
Americans determined to strengthen the dollar in order to undermine the yuan, she will not have
access to the international portfolio flows she needs to help finance her infrastructure plans
and her Made in China 2025 project.
Put another way, we face no less than a dangerous escalation of the financial war between
America and China, with America trying to close off international finance to
China.
China's policy predicament
In a tactical retreat, Hong Kong has put plans to introduce the new extradition legislation
on hold. All it has achieved is to redirect demonstrators' demands towards Hong Kong's Chief
Executive to resign, and the demonstrations continued.
The question now arises as to how the Chinese will proceed. So far, they have played their
hand defensively in the financial war against America, but things are now coming to a head.
Obviously, they will protect Hong Kong, but more importantly they must address capital flight
through the Shanghai Connect. One option will be to suspend it, but that would undermine the
trust fundamental to future inward portfolio flows. It would also be a huge setback for the
international yuan. In any event, action must be taken to underwrite the yuan exchange
rate.
One option would be to increase interest rates, but this will risk being read as a panic
measure. In this context, an early and definite rise in interest rates would be better than a
delay or a lesser adjustment to monetary policy. For the domestic economy, this would favour
savers in an economy already savings-driven, but disadvantage exporters and many small and
medium-size businesses. It would amount to a reversal of recent economic and monetary policies,
which are intended to increase domestic consumption and reduce export surpluses.
The economic theories that the central planners in Beijing actually believe in will become
centre-stage. China has adopted the global neo-Keynesian standard of economic planning and
credit expansion. When the country moved rapidly from a peasant economy, credit was able to
expand without the regular pitfalls of a credit cycle observed in an advanced economy being
noticeable. This was because economic progress eclipsed the consequences of monetary
inflation.
But China is no longer an economic green-field site, having become predominantly a modern
economy. Consequently, she has moved from her pure mercantilist approach to running the economy
to a more financial and monetary style of central planning.
Through deploying similar monetary policies to the Americans, it might now occur to
Beijing's central planners that they are at a severe disadvantage playing that game. The dollar
and the yuan are both unbacked credit-based currencies bedevilled with debt. But if the dollar
goes head-to-head against the yuan, the dollar will always destabilise the yuan.
Supping from the Keynesian cup is China's principal weakness. She cannot afford to face down
the dollar, and the Americans know it. For the Chinese, the path of least risk appears to be
the one China has pursued successfully to date: do as little as possible to rock the boat, and
let America make the mistakes. However, as I shall argue later, the time is coming for China to
take the offensive.
Meanwhile, Chinese inaction is likely to be encouraged by another factor: the escalation of
US embargoes on Iranian oil, and the increasing possibility of a new Middle-East conflict with
Iran. This is bound to have a bearing on Chinese-American relations.
False flags and
Iran
Last week, two oil tankers suffered an attack by parties unknown after leaving the Strait of
Hormuz outward-bound. Predictably, the Americans and the Saudis blamed Iran, and Iran has
denied involvement. The Americans, supported by the British, have been quick to point out that
Iran had the motivation to attack and therefore was the guilty party. As a consequence of US
sanctions, her economy is in a state of collapse and Iran needs higher oil prices. The US has
been building up its Gulf fleet provocatively, increasing tensions. According to Al-Jazeera,
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani warned last December that "If one day they (the US) want to
prevent the export of Iran's oil, then no oil will be exported from the Persian Gulf."
Perhaps that day is close. Tehran must be desperate, and she blames the Americans and
Israelis for a false flag attack, an accusation that bases its credibility on previous
incidents in the region and a suspicion that Israel backed by America wants an excuse to attack
Iran. The Syrian bridge to Hezbollah threatens Israel to its North, so its involvement is
logical, and it looks like a Mossad operation. By driving Iran into a corner, it is hard to see
any other outcome than further escalation.
If America does get tied up in a new war in the Middle East, she will be fighting on two
Asian fronts: militarily against Iran and financially against China. It could descend rapidly
into a global crisis, which would not suit China's interests or anyone else's for that matter.
However, an American attack against Iran could trigger the widespread flight of investment
money to the safety of the dollar and US Treasuries.
If America achieves that objective before sending in the troops, she could then compromise
on both Iran and on tariffs against China. Assuming Qiao Liang's analysis still has traction in
Beijing, this is the way American strategy might be read by the Chinese war-gamers.
Meanwhile, China is securing her defences. Besides aligning with Russia and both being
expected to vote at the UN against Israeli/American attempts to escalate tensions in the Gulf,
Russia can be expected to covertly help Iran. Beijing is also securing a partnership to protect
North Korea, with Xi visiting Pyongyang this week in order to head off American action in that
direction. The whole Asian continent from Ukraine to the Bering Sea is now on a defensive
footing.
How will it be resolved?
If the funding of the US deficit is the underling problem, then a continuation of China's
longstanding policy of not reacting to America's financial aggression is no longer an option. A
weaker yuan will be the outcome and a second Asian financial crisis involving China would be in
the offing. It also means the progression of China's economy would become more dependent on
domestic inflationary financing through the expansion of bank credit at a time when food
prices, partially due to the outbreak of African swine fever, are rising as well.
There is bound to be an intense debate in the Chinese Politburo as to whether it is wise to
abandon neo-Keynesian financing and revert to the previous understanding that debasing the
currency and the inflation of food prices impoverishes the people and will inevitably lead to
political destabilisation. The logic behind the state accumulating a hoard of gold, encouraging
citizens to hoard it as well, and dominating international bullion markets was to protect the
citizens from a paper money crisis. That paper money crisis now threatens the yuan more than
the dollar.
It must be clear to the Chinese, who are no slouches when it comes to understanding
political strategy, why America is taking a far more aggressive stance in their financial war.
The absence of foreign buyers in the US Treasury market could turn out to be the most serious
crisis for America since the end of Bretton Woods. The Deep State, driven in this case by the
US Treasury, will not permit it to happen. For both China and America, these are desperate
times.
There was always going to be a point in time when mundane chess moves end up threatening to
check and then checkmate one or the other king. China now finds her king under serious threat
and she must make a countermove. She cannot afford portfolio flows to reverse. The financing of
her Made in China 2025 plan and the completion of the silk roads are vital to her long-term
political stability.
China must therefore counter dollar strength by means other than simply raising interest
rates. Inevitably, the solution points towards gold. Everyone knows, or at least suspects that
China has accumulated significant undeclared reserves of gold bullion. The time has probably
come for China to show her hand and declare her true gold reserves, or at least enough of them
to exceed the official gold reserves of the US.
It is likely a declaration of this sort would drive the gold price significantly higher,
amounting to a dollar devaluation. By denying gold is money, America has exposed itself to the
risk of the dollar's reserve status being questioned in global markets, and this is China's
trump card.
If Xi attends the Osaka G20 at the end of this month, the purpose would be less to talk to
Trump, but more to talk to the other leaders to make it clear what the Americans are up to and
to ensure they are aware of the consequences for the global monetary system when China takes
positive action to protect her own currency and domestic capital markets.
Douglas Macgregor is right -- Trump have surrounded himself with neocons and now put himself against the wall. Wars destroy
presidency -- George Bush II is not viewed favorable by the US people now, not is Obama with his Libya adventure.
With the amount of derivatives in the US financial system the rise of the price of oil above $100 can produce some interesting
and unanticipated effects.
Notable quotes:
"... PRESIDENT TRUMP don't let them sucker you. ..."
"... The true American people, do never believe what this congress, house, and senate want they are cramming down your throats... ..."
The first thing to say here is that we have no means to know what really happened. At the
very least, there are two possible hypotheses which could explain what took place:
1) a US provocation: it is quite possible that somebody in the US chain of command decided
that Iran should be put under pressure and that having US UAV fly right next to, or even just
inside, the international border of Iran would be a great way to show Iran that the US is ready
to attack. If that is the case, this was a semi-success (the Iranians had to switch on their
radars and attack the UAV which is very good for US intelligence gathering) and a semi-failure
(since the Iranians were clearly unimpressed by the US show of resolve).
2) an Iranian provocation: yup, that is a theoretical possibility which cannot reject
prima facie : in this scenario it was indeed the Iranians who blew up the two tankers
last week and they also deliberately shot down the US UAV over international waters. The goal?
Simple: to show that the Iranians are willing and ready to escalate and that they are confident
that they will prevail.
Now, in the real world, there are many more options, including even mixes of various
options. What matters is now not this, as much as Trump's reaction:
Now, whether this was a US provocation or an Iranian one – Trump's reaction was the
only correct one. Why? Because the risks involved in any US "more than symbolic strike" would
be so great as to void any rationale for such a strike in the first place. Think of it: we can
be very confident that the Iranian military installations along the Persian Gulf and the
southern border of Iran are highly redundant and that no matter how successful any limited US
missile strike would have been, the actual military capabilities of Iran would not have been
affected. The only way for the US to effectively degrade Iranian capabilities would be to have
a sustained, multi-day, attack on the entire southern periphery of Iran. In other words, a real
war. Anything short of that would simply be meaningless. The consequences of such an attack,
however, would be, in Putin's words "catastrophic" for the entire region.
If this was an Iranian provocation, then it was one designed to impress upon the Empire that
Iran is also very much "locked, cocked and ready to rock". But if that is the case, there is
zero change that any limited strike would achieve anything. In fact, any symbolic US attack
would only signal to the Iranians that the US has cold feet and that all the US sabre-rattling
is totally useless.
I have not said such a thing in many months, but in this case I can only admit that Trump
did the right thing. No limited attack also makes sense even if we assume that the Empire has
made the decision to attack Iran and is just waiting for the perfect time. Why? Because the
longer the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and money they need
to spend remaining on very high alert.
The basic theory of attack and defense clearly states that the attacking side can gain as a
major advantage if it can leave the other side in the dark about its plans and if the costs of
being ready for a surprise attack are lower than the costs of being on high alert (those
interested in the role and importance of surprise attack in the theory of deterrence can read
Richard Betts' excellent book "
the longer the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and money
they need to spend remaining on very high alert.
Yep. Men and material getting tired. Tired men and material make mistakes.
Smart.
As I've said plenty of times before, the "beauty" of the setup is that TPTBs simply create a
climate for a mistake resulting in loss of life of American personnel. BANG.
Or, you put two combat forces next to each other and ramp up the tension. Just a matter of time.
I am currently very slightly optimistic (48-52%) that the US will not attack Iran in the
short term. In the long term, however, I consider that an AngloZionist attack is a quasi certainty.
Yep. Short term being 3 months (related to the first paragraph).
Sean Hannity lives in the largest Mansion in Lloyd Neck I have driven past his Mansion to get
a look as to just how big it is IT'S HUGE ..Lloyd Neck has the most expensive zip code in the
US ..Hannity the Chicken-Hawk thinks he is even tougher Chicken-Hawk War Hawk now that he
studies MMA Serra Brazilian Ji-jitsu on Jericho Turnpike ..Yesterday Sean Hannity"My
philosophy is you hit me .I hit you back ten times harder" .of course, Sean will be hiding in
his mega-Mansion in Lloyd Neck .as the US Cargo Planes land in Virginia with a 100 stainless
steel coffins containing the bodies headless bodies of Native Born White American Working
Class Young Men Donald and Melania step inside the cargo bay to view the stainless steel
coffins ..
Military action needs to support the underlying political goals. And, the political goal is
to stop the Iranian regime from threatening and destabilizing the region.
Would killing 150+ Iranians help dislodge the violent regime? No. Thus, the proposed
strike did not align with the political goal. Trump was right to cancel it.
Think of it as the Putin Playbook. Did Putin go for mass casualties when Turkey shot down
one of its fighters in 2015? No. Both Putin and Trump show similar strength. Restraint
against precipitous, ill conceived, and overly bloody actions.
_____
Trump realizes that the Iranian people are the victims of sociopath Kahmeni. There will be
a response with minimal bloodshed. Instead it will focus on the regime. Deepening the divide
between the Iranian people and their despotic leaders prepares the path for internal
forces to replace those leaders.
Oil storage is a likely choice. The tanks are large and spilled oil is highly visible. It
would demonstrate the inability of the regime to stop the U.S. Storage facilities are visible
to the public, so the government would have trouble denying or misrepresenting the event.
Port facilities would also be a good choice, although that would be harder to time for few to
no casualties.
That's going overboard on precision though. And what's with the oil refinery in Pennsylvania going up into balls of flame. I hope this
won't get dragooned into an "Iranian sleeper cell attack".
The provocations have to be such that domestic acquiescence in elite war profit taking will
not be disturbed. That requires a series of propaganda events ramping up for domestic
consumption.
10 minutes from striking is worryingly close, and Trump's disclosures on the matter are
troubling. Apparently it was only at this late hour that Trump came around to asking for
specifics on how many Iranians his order would kill. The generals told him approximately
150.
This was the game-changer, and Trump was nominally ordering this attack over the shoot
down of a single US surveillance drone, and he rightly noticed that killing 150 people was
not very proportionate to that, fortunately, he called the attack off before the first
missiles were fired.
Trump went on to issue a flurry of Tweets saying Iran would never be allowed to have
nuclear weapons, which of course this entire almost-attack had not a thing to do with. He
also bragged about how much damage the US sanctions have done to Iran and how weakened Iran
already is.
Troublingly though, administration hawks were still able to get Trump to sign off on the
attack earlier on Thursday, and his assurances on Twitter suggest that the loss of the
single drone really didn't enter into it as a big issue for him. This raises ongoing
concerns that having called off the Thursday attack, Trump might be sold on a lesser attack
at any time, or at least something nominally different that gets carried out before he gets
around to asking about the casualties.
Why would you end your mis-analysis where you justify war with the word PEACE? Spelling it out in all CAPS? You are seriously proposing that the US has the right to judge the government of another
country and to deliberately destabilize that country in order to oerturn its governemtn?
Do you realize that economic sanctions are considered to be acts of war? In other words, you support acts of war and think that is PEACE? Are you insane?
Military action needs to support the underlying political goals. And, the political goal
is to stop the Iranian regime from threatening and destabilizing the region.
Yeah. Makes total sense from an Israeli/Saudi perspective. When bullshit is all there is,
Hollywood logic can be used to explain the world!
Trump realizes that the Iranian people are the victims of sociopath Kahmeni.
I hope you have been given a sheet with talking points, otherwise I pity you.
The Deep State never rests.
Dual treason sandwich via Reuters for Mr. Trump. It's really like living in a Nazi regime, with Heydrich walking the corridors,
blackmailing and manipulating and "disposing of" problem factors.
Iran's top national security official has denied a Reuters report claiming that Tehran
had received a low-key message via Oman from the US warning of an imminent attack on the
Islamic Republic.
"The US didn't send any message," Keyvan Khosravi, spokesman for the National Security
Council, told Iranian television.
The comment dismissed a previous report by Reuters, which cited unnamed Iranian
officials as saying that Donald Trump had warned Tehran of a military strike and also gave
a time to respond. The message was reportedly delivered via Oman and followed the downing
of a US spy UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) earlier in the week.
Hmm, so they shot down a drone; would they be able to shoot down every American plane that
entered their airspace? A good reason to call off the strike; if the Iranians had a missile
lock on every American plane. Having all their planes shot down would be an even worse defeat
for the United States than just calling off an attack.
Putin checks Trump.
The Iranians might be deciding to stand firm against US sanctions and other provocations as
de facto acts of war before the sanctions do materially impact the Iranian
economy and its military capability.
Recall the chicanery through which the United States surreptitiously provoked Japan into
attacking the United States at Pearl Harbor so that FDR, a committed Anglophile, could enter
the European war through the back door to save his British friends.
1. Via economic sanctions, the United States and its European colonial allies
systematically denied Japan the resources it needed to sustain its population and its
industrial economy.
2. Japan decided that it would have to act to obtain those resources or, accept its
eventual demise as a nation state.
3. FDR hinted to the Dutch that the newly-positioned naval resources at Pearl Harbor would
attack and cut the Japanese lines-of-communication per chance Japan struck south to obtain
oil, rubber, and other resources in Southeast Asia. This was intentionally leaked to the
Japanese.
4. The United States monitored the locations and progress of the Japanese fleet en route
to Pearl Harbor to protect its exposed flank per the above. Japanese naval resources were
under a communications blackout. However, the Japanese merchant marine supporting those
forces were not. The US monitored their locations as a proxy for the location of the Japanese
fleet. The rest is history
The Iranians are in a similar position: either fight now at the peak of their military
power or, fight for survival later at a significant economic and military disadvantage. Like
the Japanese, the Iranians would be wise to do the former. This strategy optimizes their
chances for national survival.
The first thing in is missiles that target air defense batteries. I doubt
the US is worried about Iran shooting down every plane. The drone probably was flying a
steady even course and took no evasive maneuvers unlike an attacking aircraft. The success
rate of surface to air missiles is not very high.
@TheJester1. Via economic sanctions, the United States and its European colonial
allies systematically denied Japan the resources it needed to sustain its population and its
industrial economy.
BS. The embargo was because Japan continued to occupy part of China. All they had to do
was go back home. Did FDR do it to get us into the war? Maybe, but Hitler was under no
obligation to declare war on the US since Japan did not declare war on the USSR when Hitler
attacked the USSR.
No limited attack also makes sense even if we assume that the Empire has made the
decision to attack Iran and is just waiting for the perfect time. Why? Because the longer
the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and money they need to
spend remaining on very high alert.
Then
this might also be a strategic PSYOP destined to lull the Iranians into a false sense of
security. If that is the plan, it will fail: the Iranians have lived with a AngloZionist
bullseye painted on their heads ever since 1979 and they are used to live under constant
threat of war.
Trump Claims He Canceled an Airstrike Against Iran at the Very Last Minute
I one hundred percent support letting The Orange One continue on with his awesome cowboy
delusions as long as it keeps a war from starting.
My reaction:
"Wow, sir! You have such self-control! Those Iranians don't know how close they were to you
just kicking them back to the Stone Age! It's great that the better (wiser and more patient)
side of you won out in the end – you are awesome!"
WASHINGTON -- Maintaining that the unmanned aerial vehicle was simply going about its day
without posing a threat to anyone, U.S. Department of State officials claimed Thursday that
one of their drones was minding its own business on its way to church when Iran attacked it
out of nowhere. "This was an outrageous, unprovoked attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran on
an innocent drone who merely wanted to attend mass in peace," said acting Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo, emphasizing the drone's upstanding moral character by pointing out its history
of donating to charity, volunteering at soup kitchens, and making homemade cookies for school
bake sales. "We're talking about a drone that sings in the church choir and coaches little
league baseball games on the weekends -- an absolute pillar of the community. This is an
upstanding family drone who did nothing to deserve any sort of attack. What kind of world do
we live in where an innocent drone can't fly through Iranian air space on its way to church?"
At press time, Department of Defense officials confirmed that their request for Iran to
return the drone's body back to the U.S. for a proper burial had gone unanswered.
@MarkinLA Read Frazier Hunt, The Untold Story of Douglas MacArthur.
TheJester is right.
Yes, China was under Japanese occupation. The Chinese Communists were fighting the Japs.
The USA was supporting the side that was not fighting the Japs but the Communists, being, the
USA, fanatically anti-communist.
My guess is that the USA forced Japan into war because of the economic potential of China,
i.e. they wanted to take Japan's place.
And the USA didn't side with Hitler but with the other side because they didn't know
Indian independence would come immediately after the War. So they sided with the Brits
because of the apparent economic potential of the British Empire. If India had gained
independence just before the war the USA would have sided with Hitler, because then, without
India, German Europe would have had a greater economic potential than the British Empire.
The Iranians claim that a manned spy plane was next to the drone (i.e. that it also was in
their territory) but that they chose not to shoot it down since 35 soldiers were on board.
"Along with the American drone was an American P8 aircraft with 35 on board, and it was
also violating our airspace and we could have downed it too," he said, adding, "But we did
not do [shoot down] it, because our aim was to warn the terrorist forces of the US."
To me, a total cynic, it looks like the Americans attempted a repeat of the incident when
they deliberately misled their sailors so that they sailed into Iranian territorial waters. I
guess they messed up the GPS for them.
"Iran releases video of captured American sailor crying "
I too would cry if I realised that my superiors had set me up as a sacrificial lamb.
Let's not forget the attempt to sink the USS Liberty. That was a joint operation between
the US Deep State and Israel to try and get the US to attack Egypt.
"'But Sir, It's an American Ship.' 'Never Mind, Hit Her!' When Israel Attacked USS
Liberty"
@TheJester But why were sanctions imposed on Japan? Because Japan was acting in violation
of international law? Well yes due to Japanese imperial aggression against China. In 1935-40
Japan was no angelic virgin. It committed unprovoked aggression against China, committed
massive war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yes FDR likely wanted to have USA enter the
Pacific war to enable war against Hitler but the crippling sanctions against Japan had a
legitimate basis. To punish Japan for aggression in China
It looks like the Americans are having a false flag feast.
The positions in Iraq – whether directly or indirectly connected to the US
interests in Iraq – for example Baghdad, Basra and al-Taji base to Northwest of Baghdad
and Nineveh operations command headquarters in Northern Iraq have come under Katyusha missile
attacks in recent day, the Al-Akhbar newspaper reported.
The paper reiterated that the missile attacks have taken place as a result of recent
regional tensions, and said that the US officials are trying to portray the attacks as
messages by Iran after al-Fujaira and the Sea of Oman mishaps.
It noted that no group has claimed responsibility for the recent missile attacks on Iraqi
cities.
Sources close to Hashd al-Sha'abi Commander Abu Mohandes al-Mahdi, meantime, categorically
dismissed any accusations against the Iraqi popular and resistance forces, and said that the
Americans themselves are most probably behind some of these attacks because some of the
missiles are made in the US.
@HEREDOT Mr. Saker left out the inconvenient fact that while that drone was indeed flying
over Iranian air space, a much larger target, the Poseidon P8 was flying nearby. The P8 is a
converted Boeing 737, making for a much larger radar profile for that missile. The P8 has
many ASW capabilities, and also can control drones.
It's usual crew numbers nine, but this one had 35 sacrificial lambs packed onboard, to be
murdered by the (((Deep State))) to push Trump into the corner, with the (((MSM))) screaming
that it was Iran's fault, no proof needed or lies fabricated–just like the illegal
invasion of Iraq–to give Israel what it's demanding that its American colony do: Bomb,
bomb, bomb Iran.
My guess is that the American thugs behind this latest FF attempt were hoping the
Iranian surface-to-air missile would of shifted its initial target–the drone– and
went for the much larger P8.
That Butcher Boy Bolton and his fellow homicidal maniacs failed means that more Americans
are being lined up in their cross-hairs, ready to be sacrificed for the glory of Apartheid
Israel.
If that is the plan, it will fail: the Iranians have lived with a AngloZionist bullseye
painted on their heads ever since 1979 and they are used to live under constant threat of
war.
Wrong, Saker, the Iranians have been getting attacked by America and the Brits since we
overthrew their democratically elected prez in 1953, because he had the audacity to think and
say that the majority of Iran's oil revenues should be going to Iranians, not Wall Street
.
@BengaliCanadianDude Agreed. If Israel want to attack Iran, go ahead, but they won't,
because they know they'd get their asses kicked unless Uncle Sucker was leading the way.
Or maybe Israel could send in its fearsome DIAPER BRIGADES to wreak havoc in
Tehran?
The diaper reference is not a joke, it's fact that the IDF has issued combat nappies to
their troops, who let loose their bladder anytime they engage REAL men with guns who shoot
back. But let's give credit where its due, when it comes to shooting Palestinian kids with
slingshots or medics, Israel is #1.
@peterAUS Iran has been living with the same threat since 1979. The result is a hugely
popular military and IRGC which is one of the best career choices in the country. It's a way
of life for the nation to be under siege by now and for Shia Muslims the idea of being ready
to fight to the death always hovers due to the history of Islam with respect to the
Sunni/Shia divide. This disagreement is extreme, to be a Muslim and understand it is to feel
horror! ; and despair at the idea any reconciliation is even possible between the two sects
and a shared history does not make for a shared point of view. Shias have always been
outnumbered and it was us who were targeted for extreme violence in the end (or the
begginning) when a dispute over leadership turned bitter. Successive Islamic powers have
attempted to exterminate Shias and the latest incarnation of the Salafis begginning with
Wahhabism (nurtured by the Rothschild controlled British SS at the end of the Ottoman Empire)
and lately morphed into Takfirism which is Daesh and their ilk, have always sought out Shias
first and foremost for attack.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is firstly an Islamic Republic in full revolutionary mode,
(as opposed to 'fundamentalist') it is also in a close second the "Capital" of Shia Islam and
what I have described is the history of Iran and the times the Persian state was not an
Islamic one are no less a part of the historical memory of the nation. Even those times
(which invariably ended in defeat for Persia) reinforce the idea that it is as an Islamic
state Iran stands best chance of survival and the confidence that if they remain true to
these principles they will prevail is backed by an unbroken history of successful defense as
a righteous Islamic state. This may be beyond many of the younger generation and ignored by
the wealthy older generation Iranians but it must be ingrained in the political and social
cosnciousness of the political and religious and intellectual elite.
Iran is ready. They have always been ready in one sense. Saddan Hussein who attacked them
when they were at their weakest and still lived to regret it could attest to that if he was
still around to talk. That war in which the USA gave full and unconditional support to their
protege Saddam who only became their enemy when he became a better man and leader later on in
time, was a wake up call to Iranian leadership and the nation as one. They knew that they
needed missiles and a very strong defensive posture and that is what they have. F^ck with
them at your peril I say.
I doubt myself the USA will attack Iran, at least as long as they have ships and troops
within 1000 miles of Iran. That includes towing their static aircraft carrier "Israel" out of
range as well.
@2stateshmustate agree, the comment that "the USA is taking the events to the UN is
loaded with false something or other..
Iran initiated the UN hearing AFAIK and IRAN says it will present evidence that it was the
USA's intention.. to do the deeds ..<=personally, my feeling is neither Russia nor China
will veto .. anything about these deeds.. the only veto will come from Article II of the COUS
, present leader [one Mr. Trumpy]. who is elected not by popular vote of the govern people
in America but instead by the hidden behind the scene, state to state vote of the
electoral college.. .. <== you mean all that to-do every four years to elect a president:
democrats vs republicans beating each other up, newspapers collecting billions in
contribution dollars to publish fake I hate you slogans, and he saids, you saids: dey all
be fake news, propaganda erotic ? yep.. sure enough is. dem guys dat rites dem
Konstitutions ain't no dummies deys knows vat ve good fore dem. Read Article II, sections 2
and 3.. you see..
Popular vote elects the Article I folks ( 525 in all: 425 members of the house of
congressional districts (Art. 1, Section 2), and 100 Senators (amendment 17, proposed 1912,
approved 1913federal reserve(act of congress), income tax (amendment 16) both also 1913
),
=>but Article I (section 2 and amendment 17 ) folks have no power to act.. as powerless
buffoons ..they are authorized only to approve a few things, try cases of Treason, and make
the laws, fund the actions, wants and needs demanded by Article II persons. It takes 2/3 of
each a divided Senate and 2/3 of a divided House [Art. I, sec 7[2,3] to over-power the Art II
privilege of veto.. and
==get this=> Article II persons are charged to enforce the law( Art II, section
2 [3] he[the President} shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Where is
Hillary? I see no words making such duty to enforce the law optional (so does the AG have an
option that the President does not, .) ?
I am in full agreement with the author about who was most likely behind the attacks on the
ships and how the two separate attacks were done. Even down to accepting the possibility Iran
was behind some or all of this as provocation for the reasons given. If so it would mean they
are hurting badly and need to bring things to a head fast. This does not fit with my
observations of Iranian leadership which has always demonstrated a very long term and
patient, typically oriental approach to logjams in diplomacy and nothing has happened to
suggest they are suddenly feeling extremely more pain than previously. In short it is
possible but I doubt it.
To my mind the things which speak against the Iranians having attacked the tankers the
second time at least are substantial: Both ships were Japanese owned. This attack as such was
against Japanese interests WHILST the Japanese PM (Japanese death cult and mafia associations
and all) was making a historical visit to Tehran! What sort of dung for brains clowns would
invite someone for dinner and then send the kids out to set fire to their car whilst they
dined? Of course Washington would do something like this (shooting missiles at Syria whilst
enjoying a lovely piece of cake with their Chinese ally ffs ) but Iran? Give me a break.
Secondly if Iran was guilty, how come the USA is lying like a cheap rug from the get go?
The video the US Navy quickly produced is PROOF they are lying. The black and white imagery
does NOT hide the distinctly different paint jobs on the ship depicted and the actual one
involved. Whatever that video is, it is NOT a video of either of the ships involved in the
second incident. So if Iran was guilty why is the USA using fabricated evidence to assert
it?
The claim that the Iranians tried unsuccesfully to shoot down a Reaper drone which was
according to the USA monitoring the ship BEFORE IT WAS ATTACKED was what stuck in my craw
from the start. What the hell was a REAPER Drone doing monitoring that particular ship at
that particular time? Is this a common practice? Reaper drones are NOT recon drones they
carry hellfire missiles and kill things! When you consider the reports by the crew, as
relayed by the Japanese company owner about a flying object just before the explosion and the
pictures of the damage which clearly show fairly small holes about half way between the
gunwale and waterline the conclusion these were small missiles is hard to avoid. Indeed
HELLFIRE missiles would fit the bill nicely.
As for attacking Iran I do not believe that the USA will dare start anything, especially
now, so long as they have troops and ships within range of Iranian missiles. Iranian missiles
power is immense and an unknown because they do not know where it all is, and they do know
much of it is very, very well hardened against attack. IF they do start a war with Iran
whilst they have assets in the region, invluding "Israel" then they have completely lost
their minds and I'd say the war will end very fast and hard for them. Not even going nuclear
will do it. They are deluded if they think so. Nukes are not magic, they are just big bombs
and even the radiation component is not a big deal these days. (few realise it but modern
nukes are quite 'clean') Iran is a vast country and well dug in over millenia. However
unleashing a full nuclear war against a non nuclear state will end the USA forever as a world
citizen in every way. There is no solution for the USA except to make peace or back off. They
can plan and scheme all they like but Allah is the best of planners.
@Fran Macadam Well if that line of turkeys pecking at the crumbs of provocations
unfolding which purport to involve Iran keep on gobbling on cue they are going to realise too
late they just walked into the slaughter house. Iran will send home many thousands of their
boys and girls in body bags and sink their ships but the real hurt will be the end of the US
economy. They'll be missing even allegorical crumbs when they only have dirt to eat.
@MarkinLA Japan continued to occupy part of China (and viciously so, clearly stamping on
the foot of white-colonial interests with their homegrown late-comer colonialism) but i
mainly started to challenge US power in the Pacific, and with strong determination.
Israel does not have the ability to deceive the US, and why would it need to with Trump in
power? American fracking technology has greatly limited Iranian ability to cause trouble. If
it was the Iranians that did the limpet mine attack on international shipping then what would
their objective have been? Clearly they don't want more any real war or even more sanctions.
What they do want is create demand for their oil and sell it at a good price. The price of
oil is already up from the mere tension over the limpet mine and shootdown and had there been
US military action oil prices would have gone much higher. I see this whole affair as a sign
that the Iranian regieme is getting desperate, because America's slow smothering strategy is
working. Iran wants to breack out of its current situation and Trump is walking them into
that.
Israel will do nothing, the partisan supporters of Israel in the US can be kept quiet on
the immigration Issue by throwing them a bone (as Trump has been doing). Iran want to rase
oil prices and create demand for its oil, that is all. Hitting Iran, but quite lightly, is
the best option for Trump if he wants to win reelection. And so he will hit Iran at a time of
his choosing, which will probabally be closer to the election. The armed forces of America or
any other country are not for enforcing international law or notions of fair play, but rather
for defending that country's interests. Iran and Trump's agendas converge on a clash well
short of all out war in the very near future.
Occam's Razor suggests Trump got news that the drone was indeed inside Iranian airspace and
decided for once to call BS.
Besides, in the great scheme of things, one lost drone doesn't make up for the USS
Vincennes killing 290 people on Iran Air 655 by shooting it down in Iranian Airspace. When
the Empire warned that civil aircraft were not safe in the airspace, it wasn't the Iranian
forces they were warning about.
@Miggle Sorry, "My guess" covers all that follows. It's only my guess that the USA would
have sided with Hitler if they'd known India would not be part of the British Empire.
@TheJester But it wasn't wise for the Japanese as they were completely defeated.
The key difference between Japan and Iran is that the Japanese Empire was an aggressor,
endlessly invading its neighbours. Iran has not fought an offensive war in 40 years.
Also have to question you on the time element. Time is on the side of the Asian countries.
It's countries, like Israel, who see this as peak time for military action. Iran has survived
40 years of sanctions and can certainly survive this time, especially with the support of
Russia and China. Yet they still must react to military planes threatening their air space.
Plus they have no control over oil tankers being targeted by third parties.
The more I see of this, the more convinced I am that the US as a society is clinically
insane.
Its borders are under attack by what can only be described as an invasion is taking place
with millions off illegal immigrants pour across the border to commit crime, steal jobs or
mooch of the welfare programs.
Its cities are decaying with armies of homeless, shit and drugs flooding the streets in
ever greater numbers while the working class people flee in great waves.
Masked and armed criminals roam the streets of major US cities, attack anyone they deem to
be a wrong thinker when not busy rioting, stealing and chanting for the deaths of others.
Its economy is in a bi-polar mood. On one hand the GDP is as high as ever with tons of new
jobs getting created, on the other hand the physical economy is shrinking as stores closes
and houses go unsold due to half the nation being unable to buy anything but food and
clothes.
In the face of all of these problems, the US Government has decided to put its full
attention on overthrowing the government of Venezuela and starting a war with Iran because
somehow, those two nations who posed no danger to the US have been declared high priority
targets that requires the full spectrum attention and political intervention by the US.
@A123 "There will be a response with minimal bloodshed." Yes, we are noted for the
delicate, nearly bloodless nature of our military reactions, merely focusing on regimes with
the full-throated applause of the grateful populaces. It would be a cake-walk, to quote our
valiant SecDef Rumsfeld prior to our 2003 Iraqi minimally bloody response.
And speaking of armchair generalship, I wonder where Trump's multi-starred consultant got
the figure "150" in answer to the question of civilian casualties. This is the kind of
clear-sighted strategic vision that has a U. S. victory in Afghanistan just around the
corner, to quote our junior Clausewitz's.
But it is also plausible (if by no means certain) that at least two groups could have
opposed such a strike:
1) The planners at CENTCOM and/or the Pentagon.
Yes, it's reported that the Pentagon advised Trump not to retaliate militarily for the
drone shoot down.
Given advanced missile technologies, surface warships of any stripe are sitting ducks. I'm
guessing that Iran has a plethora of missile batteries up and down its coast. If Iran
launched a barrage of missiles simultaneously (10? 20? 30?) at a single surface warship in
the Persian Gulf, what would be the probability that the ship's self-defense systems could
neutralize them all?
If a single multi-billion dollar warship were sunk, the credibility of U.S. naval "power
projection" would evaporate. In that context, the Pentagon's reluctance may be because they'd
rather not establish that their hyper-expensive blue-water surface Navy is an
anachronism.
There is a very simple solution to all this, and the sooner it happens the better.
Everyone who conspired to defraud the US taxpayer into illegal wars (dating back to 2002),
should be forced to pay for the cost of the wars they lied us into.
All the assets of these "deceivers" should be "seized" .to pay down the 22 trillion war
debt their lies created.
If there is anything left over , it should be placed in an " Iran War Escrow Account
".
This would ensure that the burden of the war costs falls directly on "their" shoulders and
NOT the US taxpayers.
This seems like a just and fair solution for everybody ., doesn't it ?
An authentic act of war before even before firing the first bullet. First, make the
economy scream in the tradition of yet another thug masquerading as head of state (Nixon).
Second, starve them into submission. Does the first Iraq war resulting in the death of an
estimated half a million children denied essential medicines ring a bell? Venezuela is
similarly being starved into surrender. Meanwhile Guaido is embezzling the humanitarian aid
intended for his needy countrymen.
All said, the history of our country's lies and deception going back a long ways, more
than speaks for itself.
@Justsaying Of course, starvation is a favorite tactic of OUR international Communist
overlords. They've used it for decades and killed hundreds of millions of people using it.
It's cheap and easy.
On direct orders from Donald Trump ..the US Military is illegally occupying the sovereign
Nation of Syria .and Trump took a direct order from JEW ONLY ISRAEL to do this think about it
A case can be made that the US strategy is not to go to war with Iran .but rather, use the
boogey man of Iran to justify a 100 year illegal US Military occupation of Syria on behalf of
JEW ONLY ISRAEL .
The late Fat Cockroach Christopher Hitchens justified murdering thousands of Iraqis
because it would be good for the Kurds Well, here is what I say:THE CRYPTO JEW KURDS WERE
NEVER WORTH IT .Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq always meant an IDF presence in Northern
Iraq
The best analysis of the 225 million dollar MQ-4C drone(more expensive than the F-35) shoot
down in my opinion is that of Jim Stone:
"The drone shot down was an MQ-4C, which is basically a more advanced clone of the Global
Hawk. A better score for Iran than a Global Hawk. ADDITIONALLY IMPORTANT: Iran was the one
that recovered the debris, the U.S. navy did not, which means Iran was telling the truth
about where it was flying to begin with. If they got it, it fell on their turf. It is really
blown to smithereens, a direct hit. That's good for Iran because it proves their missile
systems can do it, but it is bad because they don't have any big pieces. Additionally, there
was an American P-8 spy plane accompanying the drone, Iran was able to differentiate between
the two, and hit the drone. The P-8 was a much easier target. Iran obviously opted not to hit
it because killing it's crew would have meant war."
What everyone needs to be aware of here is "stealth" technology is a total farce, and can
be defeated with long wave radar, basically the same system used by England during WWII. The
drone shot down was considered a Max Stealth aircraft, same as the F-35. The F-35 and F-22
are basically "hanger queens"(many hours of maintenance required for every hour of flying
time), and with their stealth capabilities being defeatable, they are pretty much worthless.
Trump did not pull the trigger on this because he figured out the whole thing could go real
bad real quick.
Everyone who conspired to defraud the US taxpayer into illegal wars (dating back to
2002), should be forced to pay for the cost of the wars they lied us into.
Everyone who conspired to defraud the US taxpayer into illegal wars, their heirs and all
who profited from (dating back to 1812), should be forced to pay for the cost of the wars
they lied us into.
@Justsaying You are correct. This is economic and siege warfare. Flying bullets, etc.,
add to the drama and consequences, but the war on Iran began many years ago. The vicious
clowns are up to the same old tricks, but bullshitting only the willing gulls.
No, it's not. Clearly the Nazis were on the defensive . Lying Abe Lincoln was, in
fact, much worse than the Nazis ever thought of being; in a totally different category
even.
Iran has not started a war in over 300 years and is not a terrorist nation and does not
export terrorism, that title belongs the the unholy trinity of the zio/US and Israel and
Britain, the creators and funders and suppliers of AL CIADA aka ISIS and all the various off
shoots thereof.
This war on Iran is a zionist project of the zionists who control the governments of the
zio/US and zio/Britain as has been the case in every war in Iraq and Libya and Syria and
Yemen and Lebanon , Israel has been the agent provocateur in every one of these wars!
The zionists have a goal of a satanic zionist NWO and are hell bent to get there if they
have to kill off all the goyim and muslims to accomplish it and they are well on their
way!
Read the book Blood In The Water by Joan Mellen on the zio/US and Israeli attack on the
USS Liberty for a look at how these two terrorist nations operate!
A handful of psychopaths determine our destiny. What makes us different from
animals?
I don't think other animals have psychopaths of the same species ruling over them nor do
they have hasbara clowns spouting sewage and doing worse 24/7, such as the alphanumeric zero,
above.
Mr. Saker left out the inconvenient fact that while that drone was indeed flying over
Iranian air space, a much larger target, the Poseidon P8 was flying nearby. The P8 is a
converted Boeing 737, making for a much larger radar profile for that missile. The P8 has
many ASW capabilities, and also can control drones.
If this is true the stupid bastards in control of this country better take note. If the
missile, that Iran says they developed, is cabable of distinguishing between a P8 and a drone
the US may have a big problem.
More likely, Trump and his Neocons knew that Iran had proof that the spy drone was shot down
over Iran's territory, that the truth would come out after the U.S. strike, earning the
world's condemnation and making Trump et al look like warmongering fools. That's what they
are, of course, but it gave Trump the chance to pose as a big humanitarian, stopping the
strike because, since it was only a plane, with no Americans on board, he didn't want to
"disproportionately" kill anybody. Yeah. Just wait until the Israeli puppets send another
plane with Americans on board, it'll give Israel and our traitorous Neocons the war they've
been lusting after for a decade or more.
In fact it's my understanding that the Japanese were bending over backwards in an attempt
to avoid war with the US but the Wall Street Commie catamite FDR and his henchmen foiled and
insulted them at every turn. The story of how they were repeatedly humiliated would raise the
hackles of the least sensitive among us.
The big picture is that the Wall Street and London Commies were aiming for world hegemony
even at their own populations' expense, of course, and Japan and Germany had to be castrated
even if populated and run by angels and innocent choir boys to ensure that they could be
turned into industrial slave states. It's apparent that the scum of the Earth won't rest
until they've accomplished their goals as we can clearly see here.
Sean Hannity lives in the largest Mansion in Lloyd Neck I have driven past his Mansion
to get a look as to just how big it is IT'S HUGE ..Lloyd Neck has the most expensive zip
code in the US
A simple Google search reveals Hannity sold his Lloyd Neck home in 2014, and has lived in
Oyster Bay for several years. Also, Lloyd Neck isn't even in Forbes' Top 50 Most Expensive
Zip Codes; the list is headed by four communities in California and one in Florida.
I'm not saying Sean isn't a pussy and a faggot, but your facts are suspect.
"... The real goal is domination of the Middle East -- and that's been a bipartisan US strategy for decades. ..."
"... By striking a compromise with a defiant non-democracy like Iran, which for the past 40 years has defined itself as the foremost opponent of American hegemony (liberal or otherwise), while signaling a desire to slowly dismantle American hegemony in the Middle East (in order to pivot to Asia), Obama introduced an unsustainable contradiction to US foreign policy. ..."
"... Excellent article, because it clearly exposes the central isssue - US hegemony. And that goes has implications way beyond Iran, particularly with respect to relations with China and Russia. Very similar geopolitical games are playing out in the South China Sea, around the Ukraine, and in Syria. ..."
"... This is not 1950 when the world economy was in collapse and the US was overwhelmingly the top dog. Other countries are nearly equal to the US. Hegemony is unsustainable in today's environment and one solution is a cooperative balance of power employing diplomacy, and unprecedented cooperation on questions of energy and security in order to solve global problems like climate change and the elimination of nuclear weapons. ..."
"... The new world order - as this 'confrontation' suggests, the USA, supported by the Saudis, their compatriots, and Israel. All renowned 'friends' of the USA. With friends like these who needs enemies. ..."
"... The "confrontation" goes way back to 1953, when the CIA overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh (for his "sin" of nationalizing Iranian oil) and labelled him a Communist. Everything that is adversarial in US-Iranian relations goes back to that criminal act. ..."
The real goal is domination of the Middle East -- and that's been a bipartisan US
strategy for decades.
... ... ...
...if war is the endgame of their escalation, what is the endgame of their war? Dominance --
perpetual dominance of the Middle East (and the globe as a whole) by the United States. That is
and has been Washington's grand strategy, regardless of whether a Republican, a Democrat, or a
reality-TV star has occupied the White House. America has, of course, often ensured this
domination by supporting friendly dictatorships.
But there is also a liberal version of the strategy. Liberal hegemony, or primacy, dictates
that the United States has the moral obligation and the strategic imperative to transform
anti–status quo non-democracies into liberal (pliant) democracies. According to this
grand strategy, the existence of such non-democracies is a threat to the United States and its
hegemony.
America cannot coexist with them but must ultimately transform them. Military force is
instrumental to this endeavor. As Max Boot wrote back in 2003, the pillars of liberal hegemony
must be spread and sustained " at gunpoint if need
be ."
While some advocates of liberal hegemony object to the more militaristic interpretation
preferred by neoconservatives, the difference between liberal interventionism and
neoconservatism is more a matter of nuance than core belief.
Neither can provide a solution to Washington's endless wars, because both operate within the
paradigm of primacy, which itself is a root cause of the country's perpetual conflicts. As long
as that paradigm remains the guiding principle of foreign policy, hawks like John Bolton, Tom
Cotton, and Lindsey Graham -- and their Democratic fellow travelers, too -- will continue to
steer America's engagement with the world, as it is their outlook that is compatible with
primacy, not that of those on the progressive left or the libertarian right, who have advocated
non-interventionism or negotiated settlements with those who challenge Pax Americana.
This is why the cards were stacked against the survival of the Iran nuclear deal even if
Trump had not been elected. By striking a compromise with a defiant non-democracy like
Iran, which for the past 40 years has defined itself as the foremost opponent of American
hegemony (liberal or otherwise), while signaling a desire to slowly dismantle American hegemony
in the Middle East (in order to pivot to Asia), Obama introduced an unsustainable contradiction
to US foreign policy.
This contradiction has been particularly visible among Democrats who oppose Trump's Iran
policy but who still cannot bring themselves to break with our seemingly endless confrontation
with Iran. As long as such Democrats allow the debate to be defined by the diktat of US
primacy, they will always be on the defensive, and their long-term impact on US-Iran relations
will be marginal.
After all, the strategy of US primacy in the Middle East demands Iran's defeat...
Excellent article, because it clearly exposes the central isssue - US hegemony. And that
goes has implications way beyond Iran, particularly with respect to relations with China and
Russia. Very similar geopolitical games are playing out in the South China Sea, around the
Ukraine, and in Syria.
Liberals have to stop talking about "bad actors" (whenever they are
linked with competing powers, e.g. Iran, N.Korea, etc.) but welcome them as "allies" when
they are our faithful vassals (e.g. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.). Unfortunately, Obama
appeared to understand this with respect to Iran, but totally ignored it with respect to the
rest of the world.
Victor Sciamarelli says: June 21, 2019 at 1:57 pm
I completely agree with Trita Parsi's succinct description of the problem as, "Dominance
-- perpetual dominance of the Middle East (and the globe as a whole) by the United States.
That is and has been Washington's grand strategy, regardless of whether a Republican, a
Democrat, or a reality-TV star has occupied the White House." However, why not offer
alternative policies for debate?
Consider, for example, the idea of a "balance of power." It was for the same reason that the
British fought Napoleon, the Crimean War, entered the first world war, and also why they were
constantly engaged in diplomatic agreements in Europe. British policy demanded that they
prevent the rise of a hegemon on the continent.
Napoleon was never a threat to the English mainland and neither were the Germans in 1914.
Yet, they fought both because preventing a hegemon and maintaining a balance of power
pre-empted other considerations.
I would suggest that regardless of events since 1918 such as: the decline of the British
empire, Versailles, the world wide economic depression, the rise of fascism, the reaction to
communism, or the rise of a non-European super power like the US, thinking about a modern, up
to date form of the balance of power is useful.
Furthermore, we need an alternative policy because hegemony fails the world and the American
people, and the world faces two existential threats: climate change and nuclear war.
Moreover, the US has been a superpower for so long that nobody remembers what it is like not
to be a superpower. In addition, American elites seem unwilling or unable to grasp the real
limits of military power.
In a world where the five permanent members of the UN security council are nuclear powers,
and nuclear weapons are held by smaller nations, the major power centers of the world:
Europe, Russia, China, and the US, have no choice but to cooperate with each other and with
the countries of the ME.
The ME is a focal point for establishing cooperation because the world needs energy and the
ME needs stability and development, but it requires leadership and motive.
This is not 1950 when the world economy was in collapse and the US was overwhelmingly the top
dog. Other countries are nearly equal to the US. Hegemony is unsustainable in today's
environment and one solution is a cooperative balance of power employing diplomacy, and
unprecedented cooperation on questions of energy and security in order to solve global
problems like climate change and the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Pauline Hartwig says: June 21, 2019 at 1:38 pm
The new world order - as this 'confrontation' suggests, the USA, supported by the Saudis,
their compatriots, and Israel. All renowned 'friends' of the USA. With friends like these who
needs enemies.
Gene Bell-Villada says: June 21, 2019 at 12:40 pm
The "confrontation" goes way back to 1953, when the CIA overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh (for his "sin" of nationalizing
Iranian oil) and labelled him a Communist. Everything that is adversarial in US-Iranian relations
goes back to that
criminal act.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov called on Washington to weigh the possible
consequences of conflict with Iran and said a report in the New York Times showed the situation
was extremely dangerous.
U.S. President Donald Trump approved military strikes against Iran in retaliation for the
downing of a U.S. surveillance drone, but called off the attacks at the last minute, the report
said.
"... iran and oman share the straits as they enter the indian ocean. these waters are THEIR territorial waters and have been agreed upon for decades by the world. 12 miles give or take for each side. there are NO international waters here. ..."
"... It would appear the Iranians tracked our drone essentially from time time of departure until its demise. The folks on the web would have us believe the Iranians used a $2,500 homemade missile to bring down a $120,000,000 drone. Let that soak in. Am I the only one wondering what else we are unaware? ..."
"... Iran's Air Defense Force has some really quirky own designed and manufactured, mostly Chinese and Russian knock-offs) air defense complexes with serious sensors. ..."
"... Rumor has it--Iran has a number of Yakhonts. Those are very bad news for anything on the surface in Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. ..."
iran and oman share the straits as they enter the indian ocean. these waters are THEIR
territorial waters and have been agreed upon for decades by the world. 12 miles give or take
for each side. there are NO international waters here.
if oil ships stop transiting for any reason the western economic and banking system
implodes as the notional value of all those trillions in derivatives (oil at least) become
real once the price rises. not a shot need be fired to collapse the western world living
standards and there is nothing the pentagon can do about even IF it could which it CAN'T.
peace is the only sane option IF the west wants to remain upright and obstensibly
solvent.
The Trump administration has to come up with an explanation for this. Otherwise everyone will
believe that that the red phone rang. "Mr. Putin on the line, sir." Another ripe conspiracy
theory waiting in the wings is that Iran turned on some unexpected radar and showed just what
the planes were flying into. Some logical, plausible, and not too embarassing alternative
story is needed. Fast.
Let us hope Trump's alleged caution holds. For the moment, anyway. However, let us also hope
wiser heads prevail in Iran. It seems clear to me (which I do not mistake for assuming I am
automatically correct) that there has been a PATTERN of increased, violent actions coming
from Iran. i.e. increased shelling of US positions, or, near them, anyway, in Iraq. Along
with the tanker attacks and drone attacks, two, I might add. These seem calculated, at the
moment, at avoiding US loss of life. So, they are playing around with us, testing us. This
reflects, to me, ONE kind of thinking in Iran. However, there are other sides there, I
believe.
And in the meantime Trump is, essentially, bereft of support within DC. Unless it be in
the military. One side of the elite community hates Trump, but for the moment, goes along
with him. Trying to push and prod him forward to their ends. The NeoCons and Never Trumpers.
The other side basically loathes Trump and opposes whatever position he is taking.
Reflectively. Thoughtlessly. This leaves him essentially alone. IN DC. He should get out of
the Capital more often. To his Base. Away from the talking heads. In the meantime Iran should
give pause for thought. They may think the world will be on their side, if only to oppose
Trump. But they won't get much support other than soft and meaningless words, if they keep
poking the Bear. And they just might get eaten...hard as a meal as that would be to
digest.
My poorly informed speculation drawing upon my career as a chemist (i.e., no military
training or experience, the navy rejected me when I tried to join the NROTC in 1963) I am
inclined to disbelieve our claims that our drone was in international air space. One
commentator on MoA claimed there is no international air space over the Gulf of Hormuz. The
relevant treaties address only marine access.
It would appear the Iranians tracked our drone essentially from time time of departure
until its demise. The folks on the web would have us believe the Iranians used a $2,500
homemade missile to bring down a $120,000,000 drone. Let that soak in. Am I the only one
wondering what else we are unaware?
Regarding the aborted attack, my suspicion is that someone informed Trump of the
possibility of an unsuspected Iranian asset bringing down an F-22, or horrors, an F-35. Not
likely to help our export programs.
Combined with the possibility that Iran can present convincing evidence that the drone
penetrated their air space, Trump would be in a poor position to defend himself against war
crime charges should he order an attack. Might not play well in the upcoming election
cycle.
As a businessman, he could have decided the rewards of an attack did not justify these
risks.
Regarding the aborted attack, my suspicion is that someone informed Trump of the
possibility of an unsuspected Iranian asset bringing down an F-22, or horrors, an F-35. Not
likely to help our export programs.
Certainly one of major considerations. Unlike Iraq's "integrated" (a propaganda
cliche--antiquated should have been the term), Iran's Air Defense Force has some really
quirky own designed and manufactured, mostly Chinese and Russian knock-offs) air defense
complexes with serious sensors.
It also has Russian S-300PMU2. In general, Iran is nothing
like Iraq, Libya or Syria before Russia intervened.
I would put Iran's medium range (up to
100 kilometers range and up to 20 kilometers altitude) AD capabilities as robustly good.
And
then, of course, tactical-operational ballistic missiles with an easy reach anywhere in ME
(Qatar rings the bell, among many other) and, finally, who knows how many (very-very many)
and what capability anti-shipping missiles.
Rumor has it--Iran has a number of Yakhonts.
Those are very bad news for anything on the surface in Persian Gulf and the Strait of
Hormuz.
Probably a face saving gesture - can seem tough and reasonable simultaneously. It's shaping
up as de-escalation on both sides for now, which I deduce from recent press releases on
behalf of Iranian authorities saying that they refrained from shooting down a US P-8 plane
carrying 35 people, which was accompanying the unmanned drone which they acknowledge shooting
down. So they're mirroring each other IMO - it's not going to escalate.
Eric Newhill,
IMO,it is the izzies who are pushing for the destruction of Iran, with their BS about Amalek,
their god-given title to Palestine, and their attempts to re-mold the ME in their image. The
presence of Nasrallah&Co. and their rocket forces-mostly supplied by Iran-is the primary
issue. Most of the current ills of the ME can be traced to the izzies. Think Syria.
While there is no doubt that US can pound Iran into the stone age without really working a
sweat, she probably would not have gotten off w/o a few bruises for her pains. In addition,
more importantly in my view, the izzies might have also gotten a few surprises.
My friends were glad to end last night with no emergencies on their watch. We were all very,
very worried.
Ishmael Zechariah
Flying a plane into their territory, getting shot down, and then not attacking and calling it
an opportunity to deescalate. That's rich. The only thing these whole farcical attempt at
diplomacy has proven from the day the deal was denounced as being a bad deal is that those at
the top know little of Iran and Iranians. Nor do we want to know, since virtually every time
I watch TV and they bring on an "expert" to talk about Iran, they are not only not Iranian
but half the time Jewish.
Trump has come out through the usual direct communication channel, saying the reason he
called off a strike was that casualties were certain to occur and thus would not be
proportionate to an unmanned drone--
"On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked
& loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die.
150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it,
not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is
rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more
added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against
the WORLD!" Pres Trump tweet
Yes. Trump is more cool headed than a lot of people give him credit for being.
His actions have nothing to do with him being cool headed. He is very confused man as of
today. But in this particular case we all may be thankful for none other than Tucker Carlson
who, if to believe number of American sources, does advise Trump and that, in itself, is a
really good news for everyone on the planet. In fact, if Trump wants second term, among many
things he ought to do is to remove Bolton and appoint Tucker his NSA. Carlson surely is way
more qualified for this job than Bolton. Come to think about it, Tucker could make a decent
Secretary of the State too.
I've always felt that President Trump is impulsive and that impulsiveness is one of the
things that makes him unfit to be President. My question is not 'did he order airstrikes'. My
question is 'did an adult in the room step in' or 'did he actually change his mind'. I
suspect the answer to that question will break down along the typical partisan lines.
It does make clear that he has no overall plan or strategy in place. These actions
demonstrate that our President is unpredictable. While unpredictability has its own value
(perhaps especially in the political arena) I don't want to see miscalculations creep in when
we are talking about getting involved in a new war in the ME.
I thank Generals Dunford and Selva at the JCS for putting the brakes on Moron Bolton and
SecState Pompous. Particularly General Selva who says protecting oil shipments thru the
Strait is not our job; and who also pushed back hard against escalation in Venezuela in late
April.
The ships and aircraft of all nations, including warships, auxiliaries, and military
aircraft, enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage in the Strait and its approaches.
That is true elsewhere also. The international legal regime of transit passage exists not
only at the Strait of Hormuz but also in the Strait of Gibraltar, the Dover Strait, the
Bab-el-Mandeb, and the Strait of Malacca.
Looks like impeachment for Russian collusion is off the table, Joe 'foot in mouth' Biden
gets some cover and even Democrats in congress are talking about how the AUMF is outdated.
Fixing the later, well that would take Pelosi allowing some legislation to come up for a
vote.
Prudent move by the President. It is encouraging that he put in play the concept of
proportionality. Although the scale of challenge represented by Hungary in 1956,
Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the Pueblo in 68 exceeded this event, Trump's reasoning in this
situation demonstrated a level of akin sobriety that has all too frequently been lacking in
the course of the last three presidencies. The lunatic fringes will no doubt find some way to
undercut him, the left for their usual obscene political reasons and the neo-cons because
they are neo-cons in service to their 'higher calling' but Trump by now has become accustomed
to the craven antics of former; and hopefully this unfolding will so contrast his reasoning
with the reasoning of his card carrying neo-con advisors that he will realize he needs to
clean house for the next time.
What "challenge" in Hungry? Ike made it clear, in 1944, never mind 1956, where our sphere of
interest was. There was never any doubt in Ike's mind, anyway. And who had enough gravitas
and knowledge to try and talk him out of his views? Czechoslovakia in 1968? Come on...we were
a bit, cough, cough, distracted in 1968. That was never in question either. Pueblo? Come on..
Jack posted an interesting tweet on another thread. It seems there may also be an alternate
explanation on why Trump called off the attacks.
Apparently Iran was informed of the imminent attacks. They responded through Oman &
Switzerland that they wouldn't play ball and any attack would escalate.
It is high time for Trump to eject the neocons from his administration.
There was a palpable lack of enthusiasm for a new war on FOX's programs last night.
IMO unless Trump comes to believe his re-election chances would be enhanced by a new war
or the IRG conducts ops too violent to be ignored he is likely to keep it holstered.
Iran has been abiding by the nuclear agreement. So why does it feel like the Trump
administration is edging the United States towards a war? #iran#iransanctions#trump
Ironic, politicians don't do any of the fighting but their soldiers do. The soliders don't
know why are fighting and get killed, politicians do know why they are fighting but don't get
killed. "War: A massacre of people who don't know each other for the profit of people who
know each other but don't massacre each other" Paul Valery
I feel bad for the brainwashed American citizens From school to military to sleeping ships
that are entertained with consumption Very dumbed down society
"> This whole situation, is Americas last stand along with Saudi and their local
cousins in Israel to maintain the Petro dollar system which , if Iran could trade its
resources equitably would be finished...This is the system that pays for the thousands of US
military bases surrounding China, Russia ,Iran etc...
that provides billions of dollars to maintain Israeli nuclear and military superiority in
Palestine and Western Asia
..and maintains the Saudi monopoly and high crude prices, and so the Saudi dictator
monarchist establishment...
Nobody is claiming Iran is perfect, yet lets see this for what it is..as with Trumps
attacks , tariffs and sanctions leveled across global trade and industry...The desperate
actions of a dying empire...
There is a reason is the Obama administration went back to negotiating. To keep them Iran
busy while it was launching the Stuxnet Virus on the industrial control systems in Iran.
Watch the documentary Zero Days. It is extremely eye opening.
ole="article"> The World should stand together to stop this kind of bullying....! The
Trump administration had already planned ... that it needs to invade IRAN to choke China,
Korea, Japan & now India who gets their Oil from Iran. The unilateral tearing up of an
International Agreement is evidenced that US will rather this World go to Hell and to give-up
its No. 1 place in Commerce and Defence. This kind of arrogance & "superiorority"
attitude is dangerous for one who claims the title "Sherif - of-the - World"..! USA via the
Trump Administration is HELL BENT on invading IRAN. The tearing-up and dishonouring the
wishes of the International Community in order to provoke IRAN to retaliate by also NOT
complying with the provisions of the said Agreement is evidence that the USA had already
decided to invade IRAN. They nearly did invade last year but probably decided that they can
conspire to create more incidents to justify their attack. AN INVASION ON IRAN IS PRICELESS
TO USA.... WHY..? 1) They get to plunder USD Tens/Hundreds of Trillions to enrich THEIR
coffers/ economy. 2) IRAN has the 2nd largest oil reserves. Rebrand the Oil as "American
Oil".. 3) Take control of the most important shipment ports in the world with regards to Oil
Commodity.. 4) Get rid of Out-dsted Military wears and bill them to Saudi at a premium. 5)
Introduce their latest Military Wears to the World and again Bill them to Saudi at a double
premium ;and. - to get new orders from other countries. - to send a message to China of USA's
military capabilities.. 6) To Warn China that it has a penchant to settle issues through the
Military if negotiations do not work in favour of the USA.. 7) Choke East Asian countries who
are a threat to USA's No. 1 position. 8 ) Take another step towards acknowledging ISREALS
legitimate presence of the Middle East. 9) To help Isreal fulfill their prophesy to take
control of the Middle East. Saudi will not know, what hits them when the time comes. 10)
There is another 3 more serious points but I will leave it to you guys to challenge yourself
to decipher it. 11) To put onto action his perspectives, opinion & views while he can,
should he not be elected next Term. And if Trump is able to control the War, he will be
popular enough to be elected next term. Or if the War gets out of hand, then the US
Presidential Elections may be postpone. Therefore this invasion may be his best chance to
continue on as President. THEREFORE, UNLESS THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY STEPS IN AND STRONGLY
OBJECT TO THIS BULLYING... ;;; AMERICA WILL INVADE IRAN.....! USA PROVE ME & THE WORLD
WRONG....
The US will provide Ukraine with $250 million worth of military equipment, training and
support, the Pentagon announced, saying Ukraine's Navy and marines would be among the
beneficiaries.
The Ukrainian military will get sniper rifles, grenade launchers, counter-battery radar
systems, night vision equipment and communication devices, the Pentagon statement said...
The statement said the package will bring total US security assistance to Ukraine to $1.5
billion since 2014, when a US-backed coup in Kiev ousted Ukraine's elected government.
In a pointed critique of President Trump's foreign policy leadership, Senate Minority Leader
Chuck Schumer stated to members of the press Thursday that "the American people deserve a
president who can more credibly justify war with Iran."
"What the American people need is a president who can make a much more convincing case for
going to war with Iran," said Schumer (D-NY), adding that the Trump administration's corruption
and dishonesty have "proven time and time again" that it lacks the conviction necessary to act
as an effective cheerleader for the conflict.
"Donald Trump is completely unfit to assume the mantle of telling the American people what
they need to hear in order to convince them a war with Iran is a good idea.
One of the key duties of the president is to gain the trust of the people so that they feel
comfortable going along with whatever he says. President Trump's failure to serve as a credible
advocate for this war is yet another instance in which he has disappointed not only his
colleagues in Washington, but also the entire nation."
Schumer later concluded his statement with a vow that he and his fellow Democrats will
continue working toward a more palatable case in favor of bombing Iran.
A very good analysis. Trump essentially morphed into Hillary or worse. Essentially the same type of warmonger and
compulsive liar.
Notable quotes:
"... The American people appear largely uninterested in this idea. But unless some real mass pressure is mounted against it, there is a good chance Trump will launch the U.S. into another pointless, disastrous war. ..."
"... At time of writing, the Washington Post has counted 10,796 false or misleading claims from Trump himself since taking office. Abject up-is-down lying is basically the sine qua non of modern conservative politics. ..."
"... Pompeo insists " there is no doubt " that Iran carried out the attacks -- the exact same words that Vice President Dick Cheney said in 2002 about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and his intention to use them on the United States, neither of which were true. (This is no doubt why several U.S. allies reacted skeptically to Trump's claims.) ..."
"... What's more, the downside risk here is vastly larger than tax policy. A great big handout to the rich might be socially costly in many ways, but it won't cause tens of thousands of violent deaths in a matter of days. War with Iran could easily do that -- or worse . ..."
"... Who else might have done the attacks? Saudi Arabia springs to mind. ..."
"... At a minimum, anybody with half a brain would want to be extremely certain about what actually happened before taking any rash actions. It's clear that Bolton and company, by contrast, just want a pretext to ratchet up pressure on Iran even further. ..."
"... On the other hand, sinking Iran's navy, as Stephens suggests in his column, would likely be a lot more dangerous than he thinks. Americans have long been fed a lot of hysterical nationalist propaganda from neocons like him about the invincibility of the U.S. military, and the ease with which any possible threat could be defeated. But while U.S. forces are indeed powerful, there is a very real risk that Iran's navy -- which is full of fast-attack boats, mini-subs, and disguised civilian vessels specifically designed to take out large ships with swarm attacks -- could inflict significant damage. Just a few lucky hits could kill thousands of sailors and cause tens of billions of dollars in damage. This is before you even get to the primary lesson of the Iraq War which is that an initial military victory is completely useless and probably counterproductive without a plan for what comes next. ..."
"... Finally, attacking Iran would be illegal. It would violate U.S. treaties , and thus the Constitution. The only justification is the claim that the 2001 authorization to attack Al Qaeda covers an attack on Iran . This is utterly preposterous -- akin to arguing it covers attacking New Zealand to roll back their gun control efforts -- but may explain Pompeo's equally preposterous attempt to blame Iran for a Taliban attack in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Pompeo and Bolton are clearly hell-bent on war. But Trump himself seems somewhat hesitant , sensing (probably accurately) that starting another war of aggression would tank his popularity even further. It's high time for everyone from ordinary citizens up to Nancy Pelosi to demand this rush to war be stopped. ..."
The Trump regime is attempting to gin up a war with Iran. First Trump reneged on Obama's nuclear deal with the country for no
reason, then he slapped them with more economic sanctions for no reason, and then, pushed by National Security Adviser John Bolton
and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, he moved massive military forces onto Iran's doorstep to heighten tensions further. Now, after
a series of attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman -- none of which were American -- that the administration blames on Iran,
Pompeo says the U.S. is "considering a full range of options," including war. (Iran has categorically denied any involvement.)
The American people appear
largely uninterested
in this idea. But unless some real mass pressure is mounted against it, there is a good chance Trump will launch the U.S. into
another pointless, disastrous war.
The New York Times ' Bret Stephens, for all his #NeverTrump pretensions, provides a good window into the
absolute witlessness of the pro-war
argument . He takes largely at face value the Trump administration's accusations against Iran -- "Trump might be a liar, but
the U.S. military isn't," he writes -- and blithely suggests Trump should announce an ultimatum demanding further attacks cease,
then sink Iran's navy if they don't comply.
Let me take these in turn. For one thing, any statement of any kind coming out of a Republican's mouth should be viewed with extreme
suspicion. Two years ago, the party passed a gigantic tax cut for the rich which they swore up and down would "
pay
for itself " with increased growth. To precisely no one's surprise,
this did not happen
. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) was just
one
flagrant example of many who got elected in 2016 while
lying through their teeth about their party's efforts to destroy ObamaCare and its protections for preexisting conditions.
At
time of writing, the Washington Post has counted
10,796 false or misleading claims
from Trump himself since taking office. Abject up-is-down lying is basically the sine qua non of modern conservative politics.
Republican accusations of foreign aggression should be subjected to an even higher burden of proof. The Trump regime has provided
no evidence of Iranian culpability aside from
a video of a ship the Pentagon says is Iranians removing something they say is a mine from an oil tanker -- but a Japanese
ship owner reported at least one attack came from a "
flying object ," not a mine. Pompeo insists "
there is
no doubt " that Iran carried out the attacks -- the
exact same words that Vice President
Dick Cheney said in 2002 about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and his intention to use them on the United
States, neither of which were true. (This is no doubt why several U.S. allies
reacted skeptically
to Trump's claims.)
What's more, the downside risk here is vastly larger than tax policy. A great big handout to the rich might be socially costly
in many ways, but it won't cause tens of thousands of violent deaths in a matter of days. War with Iran could easily do that --
or worse .
Who else might have done the attacks? Saudi Arabia springs to mind. False flag attacks on its own oil tankers sound outlandish,
but we're talking about a ruthless dictatorship run by a guy who had a Washington Post columnist
murdered and chopped into pieces because he didn't like
his takes. And the Saudis have already been conducting a years-long war in Yemen with catastrophic humanitarian outcomes in order
to stop an Iran-allied group from coming to power. It's by no means certain, but hardly outside the realm of possibility.
At a minimum, anybody with half a brain would want to be extremely certain about what actually happened before taking any
rash actions. It's clear that Bolton and company, by contrast, just want a pretext to ratchet up pressure on Iran even further.
But let's grant for the sake of argument that some Iranian forces actually did carry out some or all of these attacks. That raises
the immediate question of why. One very plausible reason is that all of Trump's provocations have strengthened the hand of Iran's
conservative hard-liners, who are basically the mirror image of Pompeo and Bolton. "It is sort of a toxic interaction between hard-liners
on both sides because for domestic political reasons they each want greater tension," as Jeremy Shapiro of the European Council on
Foreign Relations told
the New York Times . This faction might have concluded that the U.S. is run by deranged fanatics, and the best way to
protect Iran is to demonstrate they could choke off oil shipping from the Persian Gulf if the U.S. attacks.
This in turn raises the question of the appropriate response if Iran is actually at fault here. It would be one thing if these
attacks came out of a clear blue sky. But America is very obviously the aggressor here. Iran was following its side of the
nuclear deal to the letter before Trump reneged, and
continued to do so as of February . So far the
European Union (which is still party to the deal) has been unwilling to sidestep U.S. sanctions, prompting Iran to
threaten to restart
uranium enrichment . So Iran is a medium-sized country with a faltering economy, hemmed in on all sides by U.S. aggression. Backing
off the threats and chest-thumping might easily strengthen the hand of Iranian moderates, and cause them to respond in kind.
On the other hand, sinking Iran's navy, as Stephens suggests in his column, would likely be a lot more dangerous than he thinks.
Americans have long been fed a lot of hysterical nationalist propaganda from neocons like him about the invincibility of the U.S.
military, and the ease with which any possible threat could be defeated. But while U.S. forces are indeed powerful, there is a very
real risk that Iran's navy -- which is full of fast-attack boats, mini-subs, and disguised civilian vessels
specifically
designed to take out large ships with swarm attacks -- could inflict significant damage. Just a few lucky hits could kill
thousands of sailors and cause tens of billions of dollars in damage. This is before you even get to the primary lesson of the Iraq
War which is that an initial military victory is completely useless and probably counterproductive without a plan for what comes
next.
Taken together, these factors strongly militate towards de-escalation and diplomacy even if Iran did carry out these attacks,
which again, is not at all proven. The current standoff is almost entirely our fault, and Iranian forces are far from defenseless.
America has a lot better things to do than indulge the deluded jingoist fantasies of a handful of armchair generals who want lots
of other people to die in battle.
Finally, attacking Iran would be illegal. It would violate
U.S. treaties , and thus the Constitution. The only justification
is the claim that the 2001 authorization to attack Al Qaeda
covers an attack on Iran .
This is utterly preposterous -- akin to arguing it covers attacking New Zealand to roll back their gun control efforts --
but may explain Pompeo's
equally preposterous attempt to blame Iran for a Taliban attack in Afghanistan.
Pompeo and Bolton are clearly hell-bent on war. But Trump himself seems
somewhat hesitant ,
sensing (probably accurately) that starting another war of aggression would tank his popularity even further. It's high time for
everyone from ordinary citizens up to Nancy Pelosi to demand this rush to war be stopped.
"... [Definition: A 'false flag operation' is a horrific, staged event -- blamed on a political enemy -- and used as pretext to start a war or to enact draconian laws in the name of national security]. ..."
"... " Definition of reverse projection: attributing to others what you are doing yourself as the reason for attacking them ." John McMurtry (1939- ), Canadian philosopher, (in 'The Moral Decoding of 9-11: Beyond the U.S. Criminal State', Journal of 9/11 Studies, Feb.2013). ..."
[False flag operations:] "The powers-that-be understand that to create the appropriate atmosphere for war, it's necessary to
create within the general populace a hatred, fear or mistrust of others regardless of whether those others belong to a certain
group of people or to a religion or a nation." James Morcan (1978- ), New Zealander-born Australian writer.
[Definition: A 'false flag operation' is a horrific, staged event -- blamed on a political enemy -- and used as pretext
to start a war or to enact draconian laws in the name of national security].
" Almost all wars begin with false flag operations ." Larry Chin (d. of b. unknown), North American author, (in 'False
Flagging the World towards War. The CIA Weaponizes Hollywood', Dec. 27, 2014).
" Definition of reverse projection: attributing to others what you are doing yourself as the reason for attacking them
." John McMurtry (1939- ), Canadian philosopher, (in 'The Moral Decoding of 9-11: Beyond the U.S. Criminal State', Journal of
9/11 Studies, Feb.2013).
" That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of nations, is as shocking
as it is true; but when those who are concerned in the government of a country, make it their study to sow discord, and cultivate
prejudices between nations, it becomes the more unpardonable ." Thomas Paine (1737-1809), American Founding father, pamphleteer,
(in 'The Rights of Man', c. 1792).
" I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, and we stole . It was like -- we had entire training courses. It reminds
you of the glory of the American experiment." Mike Pompeo (1963- ), former CIA director and now Secretary of State in the
Trump administration, (in April 2019, while speaking at Texas A&M University.)
***
History repeats itself. Indeed, those who live by war are at it again. Their crime: starting illegal wars by committing false flag attacks and blaming other countries for their
own criminal acts. On this, the Donald Trump-John Bolton duo is just like the George W. Bush-Dick Cheney duo. It is amazing that
in an era of 24-hour news, this could still going on.
We recall that in 2002-2003, the latter duo, with the help of U.K.'s Tony Blair, lied their way into a war of aggression against
Iraq, by pretending that Saddam Hussein had a massive stockpile of " weapons of mass destruction "and
that he was ready to attack the United States proper. On October 6, 2002, George W. Bush scared Americans with his big Mushroom Cloud analogy. -- It was
all bogus. -- It was a pure fabrication that the gullible (!) U.S. Congress, the corporate media, and most of the American public,
swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Now, in 2019, a short sixteen years later, the same stratagem seems to being used to start another illegal war of aggression,
this time against the country of Iran. The masters of deception are at it again. Their secret agents and those of their Israeli and
Saudi allies, in the Middle East, seem to have just launched an unprovoked attack, in international waters, against a Japanese tanker,
and they have rushed to the cameras to accuse Iran. They claim that the latter country used mines to attack the tanker.
This time, they were unlucky. -- The owner of the Japanese
tanker , the Kokuka Courageous, immediately rebuked that "official" version.
Yutaka Katada , president of the Kokuka Sangyo shipping company, declared that the attack came from a bombing from above
the water. Indeed, Mr. Katada told reporters:
" The crew are saying it was hit with a flying object. They say something came flying toward them, then there was an explosion,
then there was a hole in the vessel ."
His company issued a statement saying that " the hull (of the ship) has been breached above the waterline on the starboard
side ", and it was not hit by a mine below the waterline, as the Trump administration has insinuated. -- [N. B.: There was also
a less serious attack on a Norwegian ship, the Front Altair.]
Thus, this time the false flag makers have not succeeded. But, you can be sure that they will be back at it, sooner or later,
just as they, and their well financed al-Qaeda allies, launched a few false flag "chemical" attacks in
Syria, and blamed them on the Syrian Assad government.
Donald Trump has too much to gain personally from a nice little war to distract the media and the public from the Mueller report and from
all his mounting political problems. In his case, he surely would benefit from a "wag-the-dog" scenario that John
Bolton and his friends in the Middle East could easily invent. As a matter of fact, two weeks ago, warmonger
John Bolton was coincidently
in the Middle East, in the United Arab Emirates, just before the attacks!
Besides the Japanese ship owner's denial, it is important to point out that at the moment of the attack on the Japanese tanker,
the
Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Shinzo Abe , was in Iran, having talks with the Iranian government about economic cooperation
between the two countries about oil shipments. Since Iran is the victim of unilateral U. S. economic sanctions, to derail such an
economic cooperation between Japan and Iran could have been the triggered motivation to launch a false flag operation. It did not
work. But you can be sure that the responsible party will not be prosecuted.
Conclusion
We live in an era when people with low morals, sponsored by people with tons of money, can gain power and do a lot of damage.
How our democracies can survive in such a context remains an open question.
In a pointed critique of President Trump's foreign policy leadership, Senate Minority Leader
Chuck Schumer stated to members of the press Thursday that "the American people deserve a
president who can more credibly justify war with Iran."
"What the American people need is a president who can make a much more convincing case for
going to war with Iran," said Schumer (D-NY), adding that the Trump administration's corruption
and dishonesty have "proven time and time again" that it lacks the conviction necessary to act
as an effective cheerleader for the conflict.
"Donald Trump is completely unfit to assume the mantle of telling the American people what
they need to hear in order to convince them a war with Iran is a good idea.
One of the key duties of the president is to gain the trust of the people so that they feel
comfortable going along with whatever he says. President Trump's failure to serve as a credible
advocate for this war is yet another instance in which he has disappointed not only his
colleagues in Washington, but also the entire nation."
Schumer later concluded his statement with a vow that he and his fellow Democrats will
continue working toward a more palatable case in favor of bombing Iran.
"... I was one of the first to comment that the uprising in Hong Kong is regime change-motivated. The road to Beijing leads through Hong Kong. Venezuela, Iran, China are all simmering on the Neocon stove top. And then Russia will fall like a house of cards. ..."
"... Yes, paying off more than a couple thousands would be absurd, but that's not how the US State Department manufactures these "regime change" protests. Only a few thousand end up on the payroll and that is plenty to create the illusion of "grassroots" . The real magic happens in the corporate mass media studios and newsrooms where the few thousand is amplified into a hundreds of thousands and the protest is transformed through the wizardry of marketing into the gala event of the decade. ..."
"... Assuming the Hong Kong authorities can prevent the CIA death squad snipers from doing their part of shooting up cops and protesters to turn the event into a riot, the protests will eventually die out like they did last time. The protests alone, without the CIA inspired riots, are insufficient for "regime change" ..."
I was one of the first to comment that the uprising in Hong Kong is regime
change-motivated. The road to Beijing leads through Hong Kong. Venezuela, Iran, China are all
simmering on the Neocon stove top. And then Russia will fall like a house of cards.
Let's not leave out the stealthy regime change through trumped up charges against Lula in
Brazil.
So, no BRI, no SCO, no OBOR, no EAEU, absolutely no competition to Zionist Empire. That's
the plan and Trump is front and center on it. Absolute domination c/o Trump.
There are stealth Zionists on this board, e.g. trashy referencing Mullahs and excusing
Trump's cancellation of Iran deal as complicated . Sounds Zionist to me. If it takes
the Ayatollah to pound Zionist/U.S. aggression into the ground, gimme 10 of them!!!
@139 Zach
I'll answer that: ZERO TOLERANCE.
It is an indignity on Bashar's part to have to allow Trump to save face with hundreds of
U.S. cruise missiles raining on sovereign Syrian soil.
Once you allow for one strike, you're losing and Israel will get in on the action too
whenever it feels like it. The rule must be to shoot down all intruders, manned and unmanned
the second they breach sovereign space and not give an inch. Period!
Regime change in China? Lol. Through Hong Kong? Omg, Circe. Talk about a bridge too far.
Calm yourself and get real! If Venezuela ain't falling to the !Zionists! I sincerely doubt
that Hong Kong is going to be the vanguard which will topple Beijing.
Yes, paying off more than a couple thousands would be absurd, but that's not how the
US State Department manufactures these "regime change" protests. Only a few thousand
end up on the payroll and that is plenty to create the illusion of "grassroots" . The
real magic happens in the corporate mass media studios and newsrooms where the few thousand
is amplified into a hundreds of thousands and the protest is transformed through the wizardry
of marketing into the gala event of the decade.
Assuming the Hong Kong authorities can prevent the CIA death squad snipers from doing
their part of shooting up cops and protesters to turn the event into a riot, the protests
will eventually die out like they did last time. The protests alone, without the CIA inspired
riots, are insufficient for "regime change" .
Russian president Vladimir Putin blamed the U.S. establishment for preventing an improvement in relations
between Moscow and Washington.
During his annual televised question-and-answer session with members of the
public, Putin was asked about the prospects for better ties if he met with President Donald Trump.
The Russian energy Ministry's department head Evgeny Grabchak, who faces U.S. sanctions, asked Putin on
air if he would "want to meet with Trump."
Putin replied that dialogue with the U.S. was "always good" adding that Russia was "ready for this
dialogue as long as our partners were too."
Putin went on: "But even if Trump wants to change anything, there are restrictions imposed by other
organs of power. There is a part of the American establishment that continues to invent fake news. We have
things to discuss with Trump in all areas, including the economy,"
Novaya Gazyeta
reported.
"... The second narrative -- further substantiated by recent reporting from The Intercept of collusion between the main judges in the case against Lula -- shows evidence of political persecution and a coordinated attempt to stop Lula from winning the presidential election and put a halt to the country's progressive social agenda. In this narrative, the corruption charges against Lula were manufactured in order to recover the right-wing's control of the government, despite a lack of evidence against him. ..."
"... Judge Sérgio Moro convicted Lula. He became a celebrity and is now the minister of justice in the government of President Jair Bolsonaro. It is clear that Bolsonaro won the election because Lula was not permitted to run. Moro's conviction delivered the presidency to Bolsonaro, who then rewarded Moro with the ministry appointment. ..."
"... Messages seemed to constantly be exchanged between the Moro and the Lava Jato team led by Dallagnol. These have now been revealed by The Intercept and scrutinized by a range of forensic and political analysts. It is clear that the judge and the prosecutor colluded to find Lula guilty and lock him away. ..."
"... The persecution of Lula is a story that is not merely about Lula, nor solely about Brazil. This is a test case for the way oligarchies and imperialism have sought to use the shell of democracy to undermine the democratic aspirations of the people. It is the methodology of democracy without democracy, a Potemkin Village of liberalism. ..."
Clarity emerges around the political persecution of Lula, Brazil's former president. But
what is still blurry for many is the actual case against him, writes Vijay Prashad.
Brazil's former President Luiz Inácio Lula da
Silva has now been in prison since April 2018. More than 400 Brazilian lawyers have signed a
statement that expresses alarm at what they see as procedural irregularities in the case
against him. They call for the immediate release of Lula. The Asociación Americana de
Juristas – a non-governmental organization with consultative status at the United
Nations – has called Lula a political prisoner. Lula was convicted of corruption and
money-laundering, despite a lack of solid evidence. Two lawsuits against him remain
unfinished.
Now, more evidence emerges about the collusion of the lead judge and the lead investigator
in the prosecution of Lula thanks to excellent reporting from The Intercept . The political motivations are now on the
record: they, on behalf of the oligarchy, did not want Lula – who remains hugely popular
– to be the 2018 presidential candidate of the Workers' Party (PT). Brazil's right-wing
has begun a horrible campaign to malign the journalists of The Intercept , notably its
editor Glenn Greenwald. Using the same tactics of hate, misogyny, and homophobia to defame
their journalists, they hope, will distract from and delegitimise the damning evidence of their
corrupt tactics.
Clarity now emerges around the political persecution of Lula. But what is still blurry for
many is the actual case against him. The details of his case remain murky, with many who
sympathise with Lula unsure of how to understand the corruption charges and his apparent
conviction. This newsletter is dedicated to providing a primer on Lula and the case against
him.
Who is Lula?
Luiz Inácio Lula da
Silva (73 years old), a metalworker and trade union leader, helped found the PT, Brazil's
main left party. He won two consecutive elections to govern Brazil from 2003 to 2010. At the
close of his second term, Lula had an approval rating of 86 percent – the highest in the
country's history. His poverty reduction programs – particularly his hunger alleviation
schemes – earned his government praise from around the world, which is why some are
calling
for him to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Income redistribution through social
programs such as Bolsa Família, Brasil sem Miseria, the expansion of credit, the
increase in decent work, and the increase in the minimum wage lifted almost 30 million (out of
209 million) Brazilians out of poverty. The number of public university campuses more than
doubled, leading to a 285
percent increase in Afro-Brazilians attending institutes of higher education. Brazil paid
off its debts to the IMF and the government discovered a massive new oil reserve in the Santos
Basin, off the coast of São Paulo. This oil will eventually change Brazil's strategic
position in the world.
Why was Lula arrested?
There are two narratives that exist to answer this question. The first -- the official
narrative, propagated by the bourgeoise -- is that Lula is in prison on charges of corruption
and money laundering. His cases remain pending before the courts. Curitiba's Public
Prosecutor's Office – led by Deltan Dallagnol – was in charge of an investigation
around corruption allegations at Brazil's state energy firm, Petrobras. Because a car wash
became part of the money laundering investigation, the Task Force was known as Lava Jato (Car
Wash). The Task Force uncovered activity by contractors such as OAS and Odebrecht, who had
– it turns out – remodelled an apartment on the coast and a farm in the interior
that were supposedly owned by Lula. These firms, it was said by the Task Force, had gained
concessions from Petrobras. The Task Force argued that Lula benefited from the contractors, who
in turn benefitted from state largess. This was the allegation.
The second narrative -- further
substantiated by recent reporting from The Intercept of collusion between the main
judges in the case against Lula -- shows evidence of political persecution and a coordinated
attempt to stop Lula from winning the presidential election and put a halt to the country's
progressive social agenda. In this narrative, the corruption charges against Lula were
manufactured in order to recover the right-wing's control of the government, despite a lack of
evidence against him.
Lola Alvarez Bravo, "Unos Suben y Otros Bajan," 1940.
Is there evidence against Lula?
Actually, no. The prosecutors could not prove that Lula had ever owned the apartment or the
farm. Nor could they prove any benefit to the contractors. Lula was convicted – bizarrely
– of unspecified acts . Former OAS director Léo Pinheiro, who had been
convicted of money laundering and corruption in 2014 and was to serve 16 years, gave evidence
against Lula; for this evidence, his sentence was reduced. There was no material evidence
against Lula.
Who convicted Lula?
Judge Sérgio Moro convicted Lula. He became a celebrity and is now the minister of
justice in the government of President Jair Bolsonaro. It is clear that Bolsonaro won the
election because Lula was not permitted to run. Moro's conviction delivered the presidency to
Bolsonaro, who then rewarded Moro with the ministry appointment.
Moro not only tried Lula in
his court, but also in the court of public opinion. The corporate media was on the side of the
prosecution, and leaks from the court created an image of Lula as the enemy of the people.
Bizarrely, the press often seemed to have information from the court before Lula's defence
attorneys. When Lula's lawyers filed a habeas corpus petition to get him out of jail, the
army's commander-in-chief sent the Supreme Court a message on Twitter to instructing them not
to grant the petition. The petition was denied.
Should Lula have been allowed to run for president?
The Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure says that one can only go to prison when their
appeals run out. Article 5 of the Constitution notes,"No one shall be considered guilty before
the issuance of a final and unappealable prison sentence." Why Lula went to jail in the first
place requires an investigation. Judge Moro argued that it was because he was found guilty in
the Appeal Court based on a plea bargain. This is murky. The UN's Human Rights Committee said
that Lula should have been allowed to run for president last year because his appeals had not
been exhausted. Not only did the judiciary and the prosecutors not allow Lula to run, but they
also did not allow him to meet the press and so influence the election.
What has been the role of the United States in the Lava Jato investigation?
Odd how the US Department of Justice officials visited Judge Moro during the investigation,
and how US Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco said in 2017 that the
U.S. justice officials had "informal communications" about the removal of Lula from the
presidential race. On 6 March 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice said
that it would transfer 80 percent of the fines it received from Petrobras to the Public
Prosecutor's Office to set up an "anti-corruption investment fund." It is fair to say that this
is a payment to the Lava Jato
team for its work on removing Lula from the presidential race.
What was the real corruption in this case?
Messages seemed to constantly be exchanged between the Moro and the Lava Jato team led by
Dallagnol. These have now been revealed by The Intercept and scrutinized by a range of
forensic and political analysts. It is clear that the judge and the prosecutor colluded to find
Lula guilty and lock him away. The first instance of corruption is this brazen collusion
between two parts of the government. The second instance of corruption is the role of the
United States in this case, and the pay-out to Dallagnol's department for services
rendered.
The persecution of Lula is a story that is not merely about Lula, nor solely about Brazil.
This is a test case for the way oligarchies and imperialism have sought to use the shell of
democracy to undermine the democratic aspirations of the people. It is the methodology of
democracy without democracy, a Potemkin Village of liberalism.
At Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, we are studying this phenomenon closely.
You have already seen our dossier
on the hybrid war against Venezuela and our dossier on lawfare
in Brazil. The arrest of human rights defenders from Julian Assange to Ola Bini as well as the
arrest of whistle-blowers from Chelsea Manning to David McBridge are part of this chilling
effect against the sentinels of democracy.
We are taking seriously this evisceration of democracy. We are going to look at the role of
money in elections (test case: India) and voter suppression, as well as the reduction of
'politics' to the festival of elections, the allowance of states to crush the basic
institutions of civil society, and the role of immiseration in the defeat of the democratic
spirit. We need a new theory of actually-existing democracy.
Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, journalist, commentator and a Marxist intellectual. He
is the executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and the chief editor
of LeftWord Books.
"... In layman's terms, American intelligence agencies meddled in Brazil's democracy by selectively leaking purported evidence of serious corruption by the then-ruling party, which predictably set into motion a self-sustaining inquisitional cycle that led to Rousseff's impeachment, Lula's imprisonment, and ultimately Bolsonaro's "dark horse" victory after he was presented to the people as the only non-corrupt candidate capable of restoring order out of the chaos that the socialists were blamed for causing. ..."
"... This externally triggered regime change was intended to create the domestic political conditions that were thought to make a Leftist revival impossible in the future and thereby indefinitely perpetuate the restoration of US influence in Brazil, with the Right's victory legitimized at the ballot after the majority of the population was successfully led by these foreign-manufactured events to conclude that Bolsonaro was the only person capable of changing the system. Upon entering office, he did exactly as he promised and began to push forward his controversial neoliberal reforms that provoked the latest strike. ..."
"... Bolsonaro and his US buddies obviously underestimated the Left's resilience and therefore weren't prepared for the massive pushback that this move provoked, but the public's anger last weekend was also fueled by The Intercept's leaked revelations that "Operation Car Wash's" top judge and the country's current Justice Minister colluded with prosecutors to convict Lula and therefore prevent him from running for President (which in turn greatly facilitated Bolsonaro's rise to power). ..."
"... It's important to point out that the conversation was leaked and not hacked, strongly suggesting dissident within the deepest ranks of the regime change movement for reasons that can only be speculated upon at this time but which nevertheless motivated the whistleblower to share the evidence in their possession with society in order to catalyze grassroots pressure against the government. ..."
"... It's therefore not an exaggeration to say that Brazil's long-running Hybrid War crisis never really went away, it just took a few months for it to change form and turn against its original initiators after they failed to close the Pandora's Box of regime change protest potential that they opened at the US' behest. Bolsonaro's rise to power was shady from the get-go and only made possibly by Lula's conviction and the consequent banning of the country's most popular political candidate from the presidential race ..."
"... Although some of the protesters are employing classic Color Revolution tactics during their anti-government demonstrations, this political technology isn't black and white because it could conceivably be used by anyone in pursuit of any end. ..."
Brazil's long-running Hybrid War crisis never really went away, it just took a few months
for it to change form and turn against its original initiators after they failed to close the
Pandora's Box of regime change protest potential that they opened at the US' behest.
The Bolsonaro government is coming under intense grassroots pressure as two crises continue
to converge within the country and threaten to spiral out of the authorities' control. An
estimated 45
million people just participated in a massive strike over the weekend against the proposed
neoliberal pension reforms that would increase both the age of retirement and contributions for
ordinary workers, which tens of millions of people feel is unfair but which the state says is
needed in order to fix the failing system that it inherited as a result of its predecessors'
corrupt mismanagement. Brazil has a history of seemingly irreconcilable political polarization
between the Left and Right like all Latin American countries do, but this fault line was
exacerbated to the fullest extent throughout the course of the long-running Hybrid
War on Brazil , which was waged via the NSA-facilitated "Operation Car Wash" that served as
a pretext for carrying out a preplanned pro-American regime change that represented the
crowning achievement of Obama's " Operation Condor 2.0
" and made Trump's "
Fortress America " hemispheric vision possible.
In layman's terms, American intelligence agencies meddled in Brazil's democracy by
selectively leaking purported evidence of serious corruption by the then-ruling party, which
predictably set into motion a self-sustaining inquisitional cycle that led to Rousseff's
impeachment, Lula's imprisonment, and ultimately Bolsonaro's "dark horse" victory after he was
presented to the people as the only non-corrupt candidate capable of restoring order out of the
chaos that the socialists were blamed for causing.
This externally triggered regime change was
intended to create the domestic political conditions that were thought to make a Leftist
revival impossible in the future and thereby indefinitely perpetuate the
restoration of US influence in Brazil, with the Right's victory legitimized at the ballot
after the majority of the population was successfully led by these foreign-manufactured events
to conclude that Bolsonaro was the only person capable of changing the system. Upon entering
office, he did exactly as he promised and began to push forward his controversial neoliberal
reforms that provoked the latest strike.
Bolsonaro and his US buddies obviously underestimated the Left's resilience and therefore
weren't prepared for the massive pushback that this move provoked, but the public's anger last
weekend was also fueled by The
Intercept's leaked revelations that "Operation Car Wash's" top judge and the country's
current Justice Minister colluded with prosecutors to convict Lula and therefore prevent him
from running for President (which in turn greatly facilitated Bolsonaro's rise to power).
Many
Brazilians had long suspected as much, but this was the first time that messages from a private
Telegram group consisting of the regime change collaborators were made public to corroborate
this theory. It's important to point out that the conversation was leaked and not hacked,
strongly suggesting dissident within the deepest ranks of the regime change movement for
reasons that can only be speculated upon at this time but which nevertheless motivated the
whistleblower to share the evidence in their possession with society in order to catalyze
grassroots pressure against the government.
It's therefore not an exaggeration to say that Brazil's long-running Hybrid War crisis never
really went away, it just took a few months for it to change form and turn against its original
initiators after they failed to close the Pandora's Box of regime change protest potential that
they opened at the US' behest. Bolsonaro's rise to power was shady from the get-go and only
made possibly by Lula's conviction and the consequent banning of the country's most popular
political candidate from the presidential race, which has now been proven without any
reasonable doubt to have been part of an actual conspiracy by some members of the permanent
bureaucracy ("deep state") against him.
This throws into question the electoral legitimacy of
Brazil's latest leader and therefore sets up the scenario of having every one of his political
moves invalidated if he's ever removed from office on this pretext, including the controversial
pension reform that he's trying to push through. Naturally, the labor crisis is merging with
the political one and creating a critical mass of regime change unrest.
Although some of the protesters are employing classic
Color Revolution tactics during their anti-government demonstrations, this political
technology isn't black and
white because it could conceivably be used by anyone in pursuit of any end. In this case,
the nascent movement has the same regime change objective as its pro-American antecedent and is
similarly relying on overwhelming popular support to legitimize its goals, albeit the defining
difference in this Hybrid War is that it isn't tied to any foreign power (both in terms of its
inception and development unlike "Operation Car Wash") except if one cynically traces its
origin to the US' NSA meddling many years ago. In fact, what's happening in Brazil right now is
nothing less than blowback against Bolsonaro after his conspiratorial US-backed rise to power
and the consequent pension controversy that he's since caused. The protest organizers want to
return the country to the pre-crisis status quo of being led by Lula and the Left, though they
might also embrace some mild reforms to appeal to the moderate Right that arose in recent years
if they ever end up succeeding in reversing the effects of the US' Hybrid War on Brazil.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the
relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China's One Belt One Road global vision
of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global
Research.
People, however, are supposed to have brains and are expected to be cognizant of what's
happening around them and able to assess its implications on their wellbeing. Unfortunately,
this rarely is the case, which may add credence to the theory that by settling into early
agrarian communities, humans became more caring and supportive of each other, thus undermining
the successful natural selection process by retaining idiot genes!
It is not as though the concept of danger is a new phenomenon. Ever since humans got over
the fear of carnivorous beasts and learnt how to kill them, they have concentrated on killing
each other. Hegemonic tendencies have existed for thousands of years; as early as the Sumerians
and Assyrians and continued through to the colonization monsters of the past few hundred
years.
STATUS OF HEGEMONY
Hegemonies come in different sizes; small, medium and big; an amusing "pecking order" whose
interaction can be observed on the daily news broadcasts. It also comes in different styles;
softly spoken but treacherous, generous with economic assistance but containing hidden strings
to hang you, belligerent with a viscous warmongering streak and lastly, schizophrenic;
oscillating between all the previous styles. There are also the would-be-hegemons if given half
a chance.
More recently, the hegemony arena has, though knock-out matches, been narrowed down to one
grand hegemon and a couple of runners-up, and the heat is now rising as the final tournament
approaches – Let us hope it will not be too bloody and Armageddon-ish.
Despite that, many nations continue to dream of becoming hegemons. But at the same time,
they continue to concentrate on their 'white dots' and disregard the likelihood that they are
already in the crosshairs of a bigger hegemon.
They seem oblivious to the hegemonic ploys that undermine their political and economic
structures through unending sanctions, onerous trade or military treaties, contemptuous
disregard for local and international laws, negative and false news reporting, regime change
tactics, false flag incidences, scaremongering, and outright threats that are occasionally
translated into destructive military action. Like the proverbial deer, they are frozen in the
headlights of the oncoming speeding car and wait until it is too late to save themselves.
What happened in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Somalia, Grenada,
Venezuela, Argentine, Brazil, Cuba, Greece, Iran, North Korea and many other places are only
the tip of the iceberg. What is likely to happen elsewhere is still being baked in the oven and
will come out once done and ready. What is surprising is that, not only were the signs written
on all the walls but, again, the victims failed to comprehend the messages and continued to
stare at their 'white dots'!
Southeast Asia, South China Sea, Ex-Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South & Central
America and Africa are all candidates for destabilization and possible splintering into smaller
pieces – especially those that exhibit economic weakness or cracks in their demographic,
ethnic, religious makeup and are rife with internal disharmony.
Even the European EU is now beginning to feel the brunt of the hegemon pressure of tariff
and sanctions threats. Japan, Mexico, India and Canada too, have just got a taste of an ear
pinching to remind them to dance to the grand hegemon's tune. Who is left? Not even
Timbuktu!
What about the runner-up hegemons? What about the smaller hegemons? Well, all hegemons have
the same strain of nasty genes. However, they are dormant and only begin to grow as their
host's power increases. This, most likely, is a genetic relic from the early human
hunters-gatherers' need for viciousness to survive. Maybe natural selection and/or wisdom will
eventually weed out those nasty genes, but don't bet your farm or country on it.
IS ALL
LOST?
Not necessarily, because all hegemons (big and small) also suffer from the same weaknesses
and dis-harmonies that beset their victims, although they cunningly keep them secret. Powerful
mass media and propaganda are used extensively to camouflage all the ills that would otherwise
stumble their seemingly confident and steady footsteps. This means that they are as also
vulnerable to the same ploys that they have repeatedly used on others.
Also, history confirms that all empires eventually collapse and disappear, regardless of how
long they last. Some lasted over a thousand years, which may sound too long, but in the modern
world of technology, digital communications, social media and financialized economies, the
average lifespan of hegemons has been drastically cut short.
Empires and hegemons generally start with a strategic vision of expansion and moderate
usurpation of other nations' resources; then, gluttony takes over at a rapidly increased
pace.
But as the world and its resources are limited, they sooner or later bump into and clash
with other hegemons; and are forced to change their tactics. As matters heat up, their tactics
not only become shorter and shorter-term, but become ad hoc not fully thought through and, even
haphazard – until they begin to shoot themselves in the foot.
This usually is an early sign of their demise (compare this to the Roman/Byzantine, Safavid
Iran and Ottoman empires and their confusion with multi-front wars – in addition to their
poor governance systems and economic mismanagement).
WHAT TO DO
In all events, we cannot wait out the hegemons to die out as the dinosaurs did; it would
take far too long.
More realistically, we can address the modern hegemonic world threat via a two-pronged
approach. The first is individual effort and the second is collective action.
Individual effort means to treat the sources of weakness and internal disharmony that make
individual countries susceptible to hegemonic ploys. This requires the recreation of the
governance systems to tackle all the maladies that drag nations down, including poor economic
policies, corruption, inequality, ineffective representative systems, etc.
In short, seal the cracks that invite enemies to destabilize a country. It is not easy but
is certainly better than being sucked dry off your freedom, resources and future.
As for collective action, this means getting together with other small and medium nations to
form groups/alliances that can stand up to hegemons and resist, at least, their economic
sanctions and threats. The Non-Aligned Movement was, and still is a good idea, but needs more
teeth. Alternatively, new and more practical types of groupings could be envisaged and created
– always conditional that no one nation, big or small, is allowed to become the group's
hegemon.
Dominoes may be flimsy and unstable, but if laid in parallel rows and columns and closely
bonded (zero-spaced), they become much more difficult to topple. So, don't be a lone domino
dumbly staring at your 'white dots'!
I don't see the cracks being filled. I certainly don't see them being filled by
government. On the local level, our county has grown form a modest system that typically ran
out of money before the year was out to a behemoth. Now the support staff outnumbers the
teachers in our schools. The sheriff's office is massive. The child services center is huge.
The salaries get better and better. The pensions get better. And, the taxes go up. The county
is feeding off the retirees that have flooded in from the North. The fun starts when the
Northern pension plans fail and the boomer die off kills the golden calf.
The the push will be to raise taxes to sustain a bloated bureacracy.
As Hegemonies expand, the costs to maintain the expansion eventually outweigh the
financial rewards (look how much has been blown on Afghanistan). This is funded by neglecting
the infrastructure and systems that made the Hegemonic entity powerful in the first
place.
Hegemonies, as they reach peak expansion find that the costs of further expansion, let
alone retaining their current Vassal entities exceeds their return on investment inflicting
deficits. They rot from within as infrastructure decays and its citizens see no benefit. When
a Hegemony needs to use as much tyranny to ensure that its vassal states and its own citizens
are compliant...... its days are numbered.
Until mankind relearns what made civilization possible (cooperation), then there's no
hope. That's why Russia is advancing the Rule of Law (harmonious cooperation), and China,
advancing OBOR (Economic liberation), in order to avoid the usual causes of conflict,
economic deprivation.
They've both been there (empires), done it (hegemony), and got bruised badly too..
It'd be very difficult to practice hegemony now, in a densely interconnected world, but
that doesn't mean nations won't possess some influence over others, influence being the key
word, like a man's girlfriend possesses influence over him, or vice versa, but raw hegemony?
Not likely..
Anyhow, what really ails humanity, is alienation from Divinity. Rich, famous, and powerful
people have been known to terminally end their mortality despite having it all..
Our mission, is to restore that connection, so we can finally wake up, and ascend to
explore, and multiply amongst the stars. But first things first, charity begins right here,
on planet home, cheers...
The coming 'paradigm shift', means the West and all its debt will metamorphize into
Oceania, continue to fake its hegemony, and fool its population into thinking that they still
are, what they once were.
Excellent article! Beautifully crafted and simple to understand. A refreshing view that,
to my knowledge, has not been used before. Most importantly, an easy method for awakening the
zombie classes.
Now we have the tool, let's begin using it. Black dots, dead ahead!
Trouble is that the alpha hegemon and the larger of the betas, all have a trove of nuclear
weapons. I don't think the Sumerians and Assyrians had anything quite like that.
When today's promoters of hope and denial finally meet up with the invincible force of
reality, sad very sad
"... Early in any psychology course, students are taught to be very cautious about accepting people's reports. A simple trick is to stage some sort of interruption to the lecture by confederates, and later ask the students to write down what they witnessed. Typically, they will misremember the events, sequences and even the number of people who staged the tableaux. Don't trust witnesses, is the message. ..."
"... The three assumptions -- lack of rationality, stubbornness, and costs -- imply that there is slim chance that people can ever learn or be educated out of their biases; ..."
"... So, are we as hopeless as some psychologists claim we are? In fact, probably not. Not all the initial claims have been substantiated. For example, it seems we are not as loss averse as previously claimed. Does our susceptibility to printed visual illusions show that we lack judgement in real life? ..."
"... Well the sad fact is that there's nobody in the position to protect "governments" from their own biases, and "scientists" from theirs ..."
"... Long ago a lawyer acquaintance, referring to a specific judge, told me that the judge seemed to "make shit up as he was going along". I have long held psychiatry fits that statement very well. ..."
"... Here we have a real scientist fighting the nonsense spreading from (neoclassical) economics into other realms of science/academia. ..."
"... Behavioral economics is a sideline by-product of neoclassical micro-economic theory. It tries to cope with experimental data that is inconsistent with that theory. ..."
"... Everything in neoclassical economics is a travesty. "Rational choice theory" and its application in "micro economics" is false from the ground up. It basically assumes that people are gobbling up resources without plan, meaning or relevant circumstances. Neoclassical micro economic theory is so false and illogical that I would not know where to start in a comment, so I should like to refer to a whole book about it: Keen, Steve: "Debunking economics". ..."
"... As the theory is totally wrong it is really not surprising that countless experiments show that people do not behave the way neoclassical theory predicts. How do economists react to this? Of course they assume that people are "irrational" because they do not behave according to their studied theory. (Why would you ever change your basic theory because of some tedious facts?) ..."
"... The title of the 1st ed. of Keen's book was "Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences" which was simply a perfect title. ..."
Early in any psychology course, students are taught to be very cautious about accepting people's reports. A simple trick is
to stage some sort of interruption to the lecture by confederates, and later ask the students to write down what they witnessed.
Typically, they will misremember the events, sequences and even the number of people who staged the tableaux. Don't trust witnesses,
is the message.
Another approach is to show visual illusions, such as getting estimates of line lengths in the Muller-Lyer illusion, or studying
simple line lengths under social pressure, as in the Asch experiment, or trying to solve the Peter Wason logic problems, or the puzzles
set by Kahneman and Tversky. All these appear to show severe limitations of human judgment. Psychology is full of cautionary tales
about the foibles of common folk.
As a consequence of this softening up, psychology students come to regard themselves and most people as fallible, malleable, unreliable,
biased and generally irrational. No wonder psychologists feel superior to the average citizen, since they understand human limitations
and, with their superior training, hope to rise above such lowly superstitions.
However, society still functions, people overcome errors and many things work well most of the time. Have psychologists, for one
reason or another, misunderstood people, and been too quick to assume that they are incapable of rational thought?
He is particularly interested in the economic consequences of apparent irrationality, and whether our presumed biases really result
in us making bad economic decisions. If so, some argue we need a benign force, say a government, to protect us from our lack of capacity.
Perhaps we need a tattoo on our forehead: Diminished Responsibility.
The argument leading from cognitive biases to governmental paternalism -- in short, the irrationality argument -- consists
of three assumptions and one conclusion:
1. Lack of rationality. Experiments have shown that people's intuitions are systematically biased.
2. Stubbornness. Like visual illusions, biases are persistent and hardly corrigible by education.
3. Substantial costs. Biases may incur substantial welfare-relevant costs such as lower wealth, health, or happiness.
4. Biases justify governmental paternalism. To protect people from theirbiases, governments should "nudge" the public
toward better behavior.
The three assumptions -- lack of rationality, stubbornness, and costs -- imply that there is slim chance that people can ever
learn or be educated out of their biases; instead governments need to step in with a policy called libertarian paternalism (Thaler
and Sunstein, 2003).
So, are we as hopeless as some psychologists claim we are? In fact, probably not. Not all the initial claims have been substantiated.
For example, it seems we are not as loss averse as previously claimed. Does our susceptibility to printed visual illusions show that
we lack judgement in real life?
In Shepard's (1990) words, "to fool a visual system that has a full binocular and freely mobile view of a well-illuminated scene
is next to impossible" (p. 122). Thus, in psychology, the visual system is seen more as a genius than a fool in making intelligent
inferences, and inferences, after all, are necessary for making sense of the images on the retina.
Most crucially, can people make probability judgements? Let us see. Try solving this one:
A disease has a base rate of .1, and a test is performed that has a hit rate of .9 (the conditional probability of a positive
test given disease) and a false positive rate of .1 (the conditional probability of a positive test given no disease). What is
the probability that a random person with a positive test result actually has the disease?
Most people fail this test, including 79% of gynaecologists giving breast screening tests. Some researchers have drawn the conclusion
that people are fundamentally unable to deal with conditional probabilities. On the contrary, there is a way of laying out the problem
such that most people have no difficulty with it. Watch what it looks like when presented as natural frequencies:
Among every 100 people, 10 are expected to have a disease. Among those 10, nine are expected to correctly test positive. Among
the 90 people without the disease, nine are expected to falsely test positive. What proportion of those who test positive actually
have the disease?
In this format the positive test result gives us 9 people with the disease and 9 people without the disease, so the chance that
a positive test result shows a real disease is 50/50. Only 13% of gynaecologists fail this presentation.
Summing up the virtues of natural frequencies, Gigerenzer says:
When college students were given a 2-hour course in natural frequencies, the number of correct Bayesian inferences increased
from 10% to 90%; most important, this 90% rate was maintained 3 months after training (Sedlmeier and Gigerenzer, 2001). Meta-analyses
have also documented the "de-biasing" effect, and natural frequencies are now a technical term in evidence-based medicine (Akiet
al., 2011; McDowell and Jacobs, 2017). These results are consistent with a long literature on techniques for successfully teaching
statistical reasoning (e.g., Fonget al., 1986). In sum, humans can learn Bayesian inference quickly if the information is presented
in natural frequencies.
If the problem is set out in a simple format, almost all of us can all do conditional probabilities.
I taught my medical students about the base rate screening problem in the late 1970s, based on: Robyn Dawes (1962) "A note on
base rates and psychometric efficiency". Decades later, alarmed by the positive scan detection of an unexplained mass, I confided
my fears to a psychiatrist friend. He did a quick differential diagnosis on bowel cancer, showing I had no relevant symptoms, and
reminded me I had lectured him as a student on base rates decades before, so I ought to relax. Indeed, it was false positive.
Here are the relevant figures, set out in terms of natural frequencies
Every test has a false positive rate (every step is being taken to reduce these), and when screening is used for entire populations
many patients have to undergo further investigations, sometimes including surgery.
Setting out frequencies in a logical sequence can often prevent misunderstandings. Say a man on trial for having murdered his
spouse has previously physically abused her. Should his previous history of abuse not be raised in Court because only 1 woman in
2500 cases of abuse is murdered by her abuser? Of course, whatever a defence lawyer may argue and a Court may accept, this is back
to front. OJ Simpson was not on trial for spousal abuse, but for the murder of his former partner. The relevant question is: what
is the probability that a man murdered his partner, given that she has been murdered and that he previously battered her.
Accepting the figures used by the defence lawyer, if 1 in 2500 women are murdered every year by their abusive male partners, how
many women are murdered by men who did not previously abuse them? Using government figures that 5 women in 100,000 are murdered every
year then putting everything onto the same 100,000 population, the frequencies look like this:
So, 40 to 5, it is 8 times more probable that abused women are murdered by their abuser. A relevant issue to raise in Court about
the past history of an accused man.
Are people's presumed biases costly, in the sense of making them vulnerable to exploitation, such that they can be turned into
a money pump, or is it a case of "once bitten, twice shy"? In fact, there is no evidence that these apparently persistent logical
errors actually result in people continually making costly errors. That presumption turns out to be a bias bias.
Gigerenzer goes on to show that people are in fact correct in their understanding of the randomness of short sequences of coin
tosses, and Kahneman and Tversky wrong. Elegantly, he also shows that the "hot hand" of successful players in basketball is a real
phenomenon, and not a stubborn illusion as claimed.
With equal elegance he disposes of a result I had depended upon since Slovic (1982), which is that people over-estimate the frequency
of rare risks and under-estimate the frequency of common risks. This finding has led to the belief that people are no good at estimating
risk. Who could doubt that a TV series about Chernobyl will lead citizens to have an exaggerated fear of nuclear power stations?
The original Slovic study was based on 39 college students, not exactly a fair sample of humanity. The conceit of psychologists
knows no bounds. Gigerenzer looks at the data and shows that it is yet another example of regression to the mean. This is an apparent
effect which arises whenever the predictor is less than perfect (the most common case), an unsystematic error effect, which is already
evident when you calculate the correlation coefficient. Parental height and their children's heights are positively but not perfectly
correlated at about r = 0.5. Predictions made in either direction will under-predict in either direction, simply because they are
not perfect, and do not capture all the variation. Try drawing out the correlation as an ellipse to see the effect of regression,
compared to the perfect case of the straight line of r= 1.0
What diminishes in the presence of noise is the variability of the estimates, both the estimates of the height of the sons based
on that of their fathers, and vice versa. Regression toward the mean is a result of unsystematic, not systematic error (Stigler,1999).
Gigerenzer also looks at the supposed finding that people are over-confidence in predictions, and finds that it is another regression
to the mean problem.
Gigerenzer then goes on to consider that old favourite, that most people think they are better than average, which supposedly
cannot be the case, because average people are average.
Consider the finding that most drivers think they drive better than average. If better driving is interpreted as meaning fewer
accidents, then most drivers' beliefs are actually true. The number of accidents per person has a skewed distribution, and an
analysis of U.S. accident statistics showed that some 80% of drivers have fewer accidents than the average number of accidents
(Mousavi and Gigerenzer, 2011)
Then he looks at the classical demonstration of framing, that is to say, the way people appear to be easily swayed by how the
same facts are "framed" or presented to the person who has to make a decision.
A patient suffering from a serious heart disease considers high-risk surgery and asks a doctor about its prospects.
The doctor can frame the answer in two ways:
Positive Frame: Five years after surgery, 90% of patients are alive.
Negative Frame: Five years after surgery, 10% of patients are dead.
Should the patient listen to how the doctor frames the answer? Behavioral economists say no because both frames are logically
equivalent (Kahneman, 2011). Nevertheless, people do listen. More are willing to agree to a medical procedure if the doctor uses
positive framing (90% alive) than if negative framing is used (10% dead) (Moxeyet al., 2003). Framing effects challenge the assumption
of stable preferences, leading to preference reversals. Thaler and Sunstein (2008) who presented the above surgery problem, concluded
that "framing works because people tend to be somewhat mindless, passive decisionmakers" (p. 40)
Gigerenzer points out that in this particular example, subjects are having to make their judgements without knowing a key fact:
how many survive without surgery. If you know that you have a datum which is more influential. These are the sorts of questions patients
will often ask about, and discuss with other patients, or with several doctors. Furthermore, you don't have to spin a statistic.
You could simply say: "Five years after surgery, 90% of patients are alive and 10% are dead".
Gigerenzer gives an explanation which is very relevant to current discussions about the meaning of intelligence, and about the
power of intelligence tests:
In sum, the principle of logical equivalence or "description invariance" is a poor guide to understanding how human intelligence
deals with an uncertain world where not everything is stated explicitly. It misses the very nature of intelligence, the ability
to go beyond the information given (Bruner, 1973)
The key is to take uncertainty seriously, take heuristics seriously, and beware of the bias bias.
One important conclusion I draw from this entire paper is that the logical puzzles enjoyed by Kahneman, Tversky, Stanovich and
others are rightly rejected by psychometricians as usually being poor indicators of real ability. They fail because they are designed
to lead people up the garden path, and depend on idiosyncratic interpretations.
Critics of examinations of either intellectual ability or scholastic attainment are fond of claiming that the items are "arbitrary".
Not really. Scholastic tests have to be close to the curriculum in question, but still need to a have question forms which are simple
to understand so that the stress lies in how students formulate the answer, not in how they decipher the structure of the question.
Intellectual tests have to avoid particular curricula and restrict themselves to the common ground of what most people in a community
understand. Questions have to be super-simple, so that the correct answer follows easily from the question, with minimal ambiguity.
Furthermore, in the case of national scholastic tests, and particularly in the case of intelligence tests, legal authorities will
pore over the test, looking at each item for suspected biases of a sexual, racial or socio-economic nature. Designing an intelligence
test is a difficult and expensive matter. Many putative new tests of intelligence never even get to the legal hurdle, because they
flounder on matters of reliability and validity, and reveal themselves to be little better than the current range of assessments.
In conclusion, both in psychology and behavioural economics, some researchers have probably been too keen to allege bias in cases
where there are unsystematic errors, or no errors at all. The corrective is to learn about base rates, and to use natural frequencies
as a guide to good decision-making.
Don't bother boosting your IQ. Boost your understanding of natural frequencies.
Good concrete advice. Perhaps even more useful for those who need to explain things like this to others than for those seeking
to understand for themselves.
"intelligence deals with an uncertain world where not everything is stated explicitly. It misses the very nature of intelligence,
the ability to go beyond the information given (Bruner, 1973)"
"The key is to take uncertainty seriously, take heuristics seriously, and beware of the bias bias."
Actually I think this is an example of an increasingly common genre of malapropism, where the writer gropes for the right word,
finds one that is similar, and settles for that. The worst of it is that readers intuitively understand what was intended, and
then adopt the marginally incorrect usage themselves. That's perhaps how the world and his dog came to say "literally" when they
mean "figuratively". Maybe a topic for a future article?
In 2009 Google finished engineering a reverse search engine to find out what kind of searches people did most often. Seth Davidowitz
and Steven Pinker wrote a very fascinating/entertaining book using the tool called Everybody Lies
Everybody Lies offers fascinating, surprising, and sometimes laugh-out-loud insights into everything from economics to ethics
to sports to race to sex, gender, and more, all drawn from the world of big data. What percentage of white voters didn't vote
for Barack Obama because he's black? Does where you go to school effect how successful you are in life? Do parents secretly
favor boy children over girls? Do violent films affect the crime rate? Can you beat the stock market? How regularly do we lie
about our sex lives, and who's more self-conscious about sex, men or women?
Investigating these questions and a host of others, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz offers revelations that can help us understand
ourselves and our lives better. Drawing on studies and experiments on how we really live and think, he demonstrates in fascinating
and often funny ways the extent to which all the world is indeed a lab. With conclusions ranging from strange-but-true to thought-provoking
to disturbing, he explores the power of this digital truth serum and its deeper potential – revealing biases deeply embedded
within us, information we can use to change our culture, and the questions we're afraid to ask that might be essential to our
health – both emotional and physical. All of us are touched by big data every day, and its influence is multiplying. Everybody
Lies challenges us to think differently about how we see it and the world.
I shall treat this posting (for which many thanks, doc) as an invitation to sing a much-loved song: everybody should read Gigerenzer's
Reckoning with Risk. With great clarity it teaches what everyone ought to know about probability.
(It could also serve as a model for writing in English about technical subjects. Americans and Britons should study the English
of this German – he knows how, you know.)
Inspired by "The original Slovic study was based on 39 college students" I shall also sing another favorite song. Much of Psychology
is based on what small numbers of American undergraduates report they think they think.
" Gigerenzer points out that in this particular example, subjects are having to make their judgements without knowing a key fact:
how many survive without surgery. "
This one reminds of the false dichotomy. The patient has additional options! Like changing diet, and behaviours such as exercise,
elimination of occupational stress , etc.
The statistical outcomes for a person change when the person changes their circumstances/conditions.
@Tom
Welsh A disposition (conveyance) of an awkwardly shaped chunk out of a vast estate contained reference to "the slither of
ground bounded on or towards the north east and extending two hundred and twenty four meters or thereby along a chain link fence "
Not poor clients (either side) nor cheap lawyers. And who never erred?
Better than deliberately inserting "errors" to guarantee a stream of tidy up work (not unknown in the "professional" world)
in future.
Good article. 79% of gynaecologists fail a simple conditional probability test?! Many if not most medical research papers use
advanced statistics. Medical doctors must read these papers to fully understand their field. So, if medical doctors don't fully
understand them, they are not properly doing their job. Those papers use mathematical expressions, not English. Converting them
to another form of English, instead of using the mathematical expressions isn't a solution.
Regarding witnesses: When that jet crashed into Rockaway several years ago, a high percentage of witnesses said that they saw
smoke before the crash. But there was actually no smoke. The witnesses were adjusting what they saw to conform to their past experience
of seeing movie and newsreel footage of planes smoking in the air before a crash. Children actually make very good witnesses.
Regarding the chart. Missing, up there in the vicinity of cancer and heart disease. The third-leading cause of death. 250,000
per year, according to a 2016 Hopkins study. Medical negligence.
1. Lack of rationality. Experiments have shown that people's intuitions are systematically biased.
2. Stubbornness. Like visual illusions, biases are persistent and hardly corrigible by education.
3. Substantial costs. Biases may incur substantial welfare-relevant costs such as lower wealth, health, or happiness.
4. Biases justify governmental paternalism. To protect people from theirbiases, governments should "nudge" the public toward
better behavior.
Well the sad fact is that there's nobody in the position to protect "governments" from their own biases, and "scientists"
from theirs.
So, behind the smoke of all words and rationalisations, the law is unchanged: everyone strives to gain and exert as much power
as possible over as many others as possible. Most do that without writing papers to say it is right, others write papers,
others books. Anyway, the fundamental law would stay as it is even if all this writing labour was spared, wouldn't it?
But then another fundamental law, the law of framing all one's drives as moral and beneffective comes into play the papers
and the books are useful, after all.
An interesting article. However, I think that the only thing we have to know about how illogical psychiatry is this:
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) asked all members attending its convention to vote on whether they believed
homosexuality to be a mental disorder. 5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain
it.
The APA then compromised, removing homosexuality from the DSM but replacing it, in effect, with "sexual orientation disturbance"
for people "in conflict with" their sexual orientation. Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM.
The article makes no mention of the fact that no "new science" was brought to support the resolution.
It appears that the psychiatrists were voting based on feelings rather than science. Since that time, the now 50+ genders have
been accepted as "normal" by the APA. My family has had members in multiple generations suffering from mental illness. None were
"cured". I know others with the same circumstances.
How does one conclude that being repulsed by the prime directive of every
living organism – reproduce yourself – is "normal"? That is not to say these people are horrible or evil, just not normal. How
can someone, who thinks (s)he is a cat be mentally ill, but a grown man thinking he is a female child is not?
Long ago a lawyer acquaintance, referring to a specific judge, told me that the judge seemed to "make shit up as he was going
along". I have long held psychiatry fits that statement very well.
Thank you for this article. I find the information about the interpretation of statistical data very interesting. My take on the
background of the article is this:
Here we have a real scientist fighting the nonsense spreading from (neoclassical) economics into other realms of science/academia.
Behavioral economics is a sideline by-product of neoclassical micro-economic theory. It tries to cope with experimental
data that is inconsistent with that theory.
Everything in neoclassical economics is a travesty. "Rational choice theory" and its application in "micro economics" is
false from the ground up. It basically assumes that people are gobbling up resources without plan, meaning or relevant circumstances.
Neoclassical micro economic theory is so false and illogical that I would not know where to start in a comment, so I should like
to refer to a whole book about it:
Keen, Steve: "Debunking economics".
As the theory is totally wrong it is really not surprising that countless experiments show that people do not behave the
way neoclassical theory predicts. How do economists react to this? Of course they assume that people are "irrational" because
they do not behave according to their studied theory. (Why would you ever change your basic theory because of some tedious facts?)
We live in a strange world in which such people have control over university faculties, journals, famous prizes. But at least
we have some scientists who defend their area of knowledge against the spreading nonsense produced by economists.
The title of the 1st ed. of Keen's book was "Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences" which was simply
a perfect title.
"... One of the first major confrontations with the US by Russia and the PRC was to be over the greater Middle East. The main reason was the advance negotiations with all key oil producers -- including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran -- on substituting the petrodollar with a basket of currencies where the yuan , the euro and the ruble dominate. Using the currency basket would enable the sellers and buyers to go around the US-imposed sanctions and quotas. Indeed, Beijing and Moscow were now enticing the oil producers with huge, long-term export deals which were both financially lucrative and politically tempting by offering guarantees for the well-being of the participating governments. ..."
"... The 26th of March 2018 will go in history as the most momentous day for the United States’ economy, China’s economy and the petrodollar and also for China’s status as an economic superpower. In that day China launched its yuan-denominated crude oil futures in Shanghai thus challenging the petrodollar for dominance in the global oil market. ..."
"... And with tensions escalating between Iran and the United States, Iran figures prominently in the Russia-China strategic partnership. It is an important link in the BRI. Moreover, Iran has recently become more confident in its ability to confront the United States by the joint guarantees of support it received from Russia and China in the event the US moved to strangle it and attempt a regime change. Iran’s understanding is that were the US to take military action against it, Russia and China would prevent an Iranian defeat even if there were major setbacks. ..."
One of the first major confrontations with the US by
Russia and the PRC was to be over the greater Middle East. The main reason was the advance
negotiations with all key oil producers -- including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran -- on
substituting the petrodollar with a basket of currencies where the yuan , the
euro and the ruble dominate. Using the currency basket would enable the sellers
and buyers to go around the US-imposed sanctions and quotas. Indeed, Beijing and Moscow were
now enticing the oil producers with huge, long-term export deals which were both financially
lucrative and politically tempting by offering guarantees for the well-being of the
participating governments.
The crux of the proposal is regional and includes flagrant disregard of the US sanctions on
Iran.
However, the key to the extent of the commitment of both Beijing and Moscow lies in the
growing importance and centrality of the New Silk Road via Central Asia.
Persia had a crucial rôle in the ancient Silk Road, and both the PRC and Russia now
expect Iran to have a comparable key rôle in the New Silk Road.
The growing dominance of heritage-based dynamics throughout the developing world, including
the greater Central Asia and the greater Middle East, makes it imperative for the PRC to rely
on historic Persia/Iran as a western pole of the New Silk Road. It is this realization which
led both Beijing and Moscow to give Tehran, in mid-May 2019, the original guarantees that
Washington would be prevented from conducting a "regime change".
Therefore, even though both Russia and the PRC were not satisfied with the Iranian and
Iran-proxy activities and policies in the Iraq-Syria-Lebanon area, it was far more important
for them to support Iran, and also Turkey, in their confrontations with the US in order to
expedite the consolidation of the New Silk Road.
Tehran and its key allies in "the Middle Eastern Entente" -- Turkey and Qatar -- are
cognizant of the core positions of Russia and the PRC. Since mid-May, Tehran and, to a lesser
extent, Ankara and Doha, were appraised by Moscow and Beijing of their overall direction of
political decisions. Hence, since early June 2019, Tehran has felt confident to
start building momentum of Iranian assertiveness and audacity.
Tehran has been raising its profile in the region.
Tehran insists that it is now impossible to make decisions, or do anything else, in the
greater Middle East without Iran's approval. On June 2, 2019, the Chief of Staff of the Iranian
Armed Forces, Maj.-Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, touted the new strategic posture of Iran. "The
Islamic movement has affected the entire world and on top of that, it has succeeded in
intimidating the American hegemony and Zionism," he said. Bagheri attributed the new influence
of Iran to the acquisition of regional strategic depth; that is, reaching the shores of the
Mediterranean
Mamdouh Salamehon June 18 2019
Some quarters in the West belittle the strategic partnership between China and Russia describing it as a “marriage of
convenience”. They even had the temerity to urge President Putin to make a choice between China and the West.
President Putin will never sacrifice his strategic partnership with China for the West. Both Russia and China rank their ties
as the “peak” in mutual history. This can be judged by two analytical frameworks: their converging visions of the future
world order and their harmonized national interests.
The Chinese view on the world order at this historical juncture is shared and dovetailed by Putin’s Russia. Both sides hold
the view that Washington’s alienation from both Beijing and Moscow is reflected by the deeply rooted fear of the US losing
hegemonic status as the “only indispensable superpower”. The indications of the US fear are plenty. From Beijing’s point of
view, they manifest themselves by the U.S. decision to restart a Cold War containment strategy of China and by the trade war
it is waging against it. From Moscow’s perspective, US fears manifest themselves by the US attempts to undermine Russia’s
dominance in global energy and also by the Western alliance pushing the Western sphere of influence towards the Russian
border.
In sharp contrast to mutual suspicion and deteriorating relationship between Washington and Beijing, the Chinese-Russian tie
has proved to be a stable strategic partnership built on mutual understanding, respect and national interests.
The Russia-China strategic alliance is destined to shape the global economy and the geopolitics of the world in the 21st
century converting it from a unipolar to a multipolar world.
Relations between China, the world’s largest economy based on purchasing power parity (PPP) and Russia, the world’s energy
superpower, are deepening at a time of profound change in the global geopolitical landscape.
Their tools are the petro-yuan and the Silk Road better known as the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).
The 26th of March 2018 will go in history as the most momentous day for the United States’ economy, China’s economy and
the petrodollar and also for China’s status as an economic superpower. In that day China launched its yuan-denominated crude
oil futures in Shanghai thus challenging the petrodollar for dominance in the global oil market.
Right now, China is the number one exporter on the globe, the largest crude oil importer in the world and also the world’s
biggest economy. The Chinese would like to see global currency usage reflect this shift in global economic power. The
petrodollar system provides at least three immediate benefits to the United States. It increases global demand for US
dollars. It also increases global demand for US debt securities and it gives the United States the ability to buy oil with a
currency it can print at will. In geopolitical terms, the petrodollar lends vast economic and political power to the United
States. China hopes to replicate this dynamic.
The launching of the crude oil benchmark on the Shanghai exchange could mark the beginning of the end of the petrodollar.
It is probable that the Chinese yuan will emerge as the world’s top reserve currency within the next fifteen years with the
petro-yuan emerging as the top oil currency.
Another tool of the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership is BRI. The BRI is a massive undertaking involving investments
programmes worth trillions of dollars, which will go toward connecting Asia and Europe by sea, rail, and road to promote more
trade between the continents.
And with tensions escalating between Iran and the United States, Iran figures prominently in the Russia-China
strategic partnership. It is an important link in the BRI. Moreover, Iran has recently become more confident in its ability
to confront the United States by the joint guarantees of support it received from Russia and China in the event the US moved
to strangle it and attempt a regime change. Iran’s understanding is that were the US to take military action against it,
Russia and China would prevent an Iranian defeat even if there were major setbacks.
Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
International Oil Economist
Visiting Professor of Energy Economics at ESCP Europe Business School, London
As President Donald Trump was in Florida kicking off his bid for a second term, his national
security team was in Washington hatching plans that make that prospect much less likely.
The architects of the failed George W. Bush foreign policy rightly derided by Trump as a
"big, fat mistake" on the campaign trail today exercise undue influence inside this White
House. The end result could be a war with Iran.
Just as their last turn at the wheel wrecked the Bush presidency and eventually left Barack
Obama in power alongside three-fifths Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the
Republican Party's wildest hawks could now ensure that Trump is a one-term president. The
president once understood this, telling Jeb Bush, "Your brother and his administration gave us
Barack Obama . Abraham Lincoln couldn't have won."
Trump defeated Jeb, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio, running on a foreign policy of "America
First" and repudiating a decade and a half of unwinnable wars. He then won in an upset over
Hillary Clinton, who voted to invade Iraq, pushed "kinetic military action" in Libya, and
otherwise hasn't seen a war she hasn't liked since Vietnam.
Advertisement
Now Trump is on the precipice of ceding the war issue to his political opponents, as the
border crisis metastasizes and the suburbs turn blue. Joe Biden would be the third Democratic
presidential nominee to have voted for the Iraq war -- the exception, Obama, twice won the
White House -- just as Chuck Schumer is the third straight Senate Democratic leader to have
done so.
If Trump follows Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his Bush retread national security
advisor John Bolton into a preventive war with Iran, he will make Biden and Schumer look like
Tulsi Gabbard -- and perhaps pave the way for a different Democratic nominee against whom the
anti-Hillary playbook of 2016 will prove less useful.
The president began the year promising to end the war in Syria, which Congress never
authorized in the first place, and wind down the war in Afghanistan. Alongside low
unemployment, the job growth that followed deregulation and tax cuts, and remaking the Supreme
Court in Antonin Scalia's image, keeping ISIS at bay without launching a new war in the Middle
East -- though he has surely escalated some ongoing conflicts -- stands among his top
accomplishments.
Perhaps that is the soft bigotry of low expectations, to use a Bush-era phrase, but in an
era of forever war, it counts for something. That is, it will count for something until the
Trump team invokes the congressional authorization of force used for the Afghan war to start a
new one in Iran, a move too brazenly unconstitutional for even the Bush-Cheney contingent of
old.
The cakewalk crowd has reemerged to assure us that pinprick strikes against Iranian nuclear
facilities are possible and that the regime in Tehran will prove a paper tiger. But everywhere
their promises have turned to ash. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or
cheering throngs greeting America's finest as liberators. Groups ideologically similar to the
Islamists who attacked us on 9/11 emerged from Iraq and Libya as more powerful, not less.
Iran has long been the unprincipled exception to Trump's opposition to Middle Eastern
quagmires. His desire to undo the Obama presidency predisposed him to unraveling the nuclear
deal and led him to folly in Yemen. Now it might prompt him to redo the foreign policy mistakes
that toppled the Bush dynasty, paving the way for a socialist to become the next
commander-in-chief.
Still, there remains a powerful voice inside the White House who could halt this march to
war. "The president, who campaigned against getting the U.S. bogged down in unnecessary foreign
wars, is considered the primary internal obstacle to a counterattack," Politicoreports .
Not even Trump's opinion should matter most. The Constitution vests the power to declare war
in Congress. To justify a new war based on an outdated resolution passed nearly 20 years ago to
authorize retaliation against the 9/11 attackers would be an unconscionable power grab by the
executive branch that lawmakers should not countenance. Yet time and again, Congress has
shirked its constitutional duties.
The Democrats in the House have an opportunity to put their money where
their mouths are . But maybe they won't. An Iraq-like war in Iran would go a long way
toward accomplishing their main goal: making Donald Trump a one-term president.
"... There are two possibilities. Trump wants a war with Iran and what we see is a good cop, bad cop strategy in which Trump plays the good guy for his voters until some 'grave incident' happens that lets him says that he has no choice but to 'hit back' at Iran. The other scenario is that Trump is a fool and that the war hawks use him as their tool to implement their preferred policies. ..."
"... Former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke says that the second scenario is the real one : ..."
"... Crooke describes how Bolton, and Netanyahoo behind him, outmaneuver the U.S. intelligence services over Iran. They stovepipe "intelligence" to the president and the media just like the crew of then Vice President Dick Cheney did in the run up to the war on Iraq: ..."
"... Bolton chairs at the NSC, the regular and frequent strategic dialogue meetings with Israel – intended to develop a joint action plan, versus Iran. What this means is that the Israeli intelligence assessments are being stovepiped directly to Bolton (and therefore to Trump), without passing by the US intelligence services for assessment or comment on the credibility of the intelligence presented (shades of Cheney confronting the analysts down at Langley). ..."
"... Bolton and Pompeo are representative of Trump's rabid evangelical base and Israel. The kabuki friction towards the shared goals is just that. To the degree that we are hearing shrillness from these folk reflects the increasing failure of their tactics to maintain control of the global narrative. ..."
"... I'm definitely of the good cop/bad cop belief. It fits with the entirety of his campaign and presidency: say one thing, do another, and blame somebody else. Trump wanted Bolton for NSA since the campaign. Both Bolton and Trump have had a position of confrontation with Iran for a long time ..."
"... Sheldon Adelson is Trumps biggest doner "Adelson's promotion of Bolton dates back at least to the days immediately after Trump's November 2016 election. According to The New York Times, Adelson strongly supported Bolton for the position of deputy secretary of state as Trump was putting together his cabinet" https://lobelog.com/trumps-choice-of-bolton-satisfies-his-biggest-donor/ So Trump could find it difficult to sack Bolton. ..."
"... It just seems like Iraq deja vu: GWB was the ignorant, dumb public face masking Lukidniks controlling US policy then, DJT the face masking the same now. ..."
"... US bombs falling on Iran seems awfully close to Moscow in my view. I cannot help wondering if one of Putin's cards is his own red line: not allowing Likudniks to subjugate US military power for their "interests" wrt Iran. ..."
"... It's about 1500 miles from Tehran to Moscow. That's about equal to the distance between Kansas City and San Francisco. ..."
"... As B (and many other media ) pointed out: the crew of the Japanese tanker all said the ship was hit by an air borne projectile. This was not a mine. Seems obvious if US was interested in the truth, they would recover and identify the projectile. ..."
"... IMO President's are just members of the Deep State team. Presidents lead the team that's "on the field" - like a quarterback in American football. But the Deep State 'coach' calls the plays. And the 'coach' is, in turn, ultimately responsible to the owners (capitalists) ..."
"... Sadly, I find that I disagree with both of b's latest theories: the "Iranian stealth attack" theory and the "President Bolton" theory. IMO these are propaganda narratives. ..."
"... "As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron". ..."
"... Now look at the U.S., the tanker was sitting their in broad daylight for about 10hrs and we couldn't even get ONE decent picture of an unexploded bomb sitting on the side of hull. And when the IRGC finally did show up, even our high resolution pictures were a joke and we are the SIGINT champions with hi-tech drones. Also, this means that the IRGC was able to slip into a port on the other side of the Persian Gulf and attack mines to 4 tankers undetected. ..."
"... By minimizing the Oman Gulf incidents, maybe it is way for the White House under Bolton's control to show that it is not impressed nor feeling threatened. it is also encouraging the perpetrators of the attacks to do more provocations and ideally to kill an American... ..."
"... That Iranian seaman who is alleged to have pulled off a possibly unstable, unexploded mine wearing nothing but a rubber life jacket thus endangering his life and all his crew mates and survivors in the small boat is the action of a lunatic. Or maybe it never happened. ..."
"... There's been a shift in the dialogue, to some degree, to a discussion of the overall US role in the Gulf area. ..."
"... A broadening of the security mission in the Gulf area would be a positive step. Imagine the navies of China, India and Japan taking a role! The price would be a removal of Iran sanctions, because these countries want Iran oil! . . .I can dream. ..."
Jeff Bezos' blog, the Washington Post ,
has some bits on the discussion and infighting in the Trump administration about the march
towards war on Iran. The piece opens with news of a new redline the Trump administration set
out:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has privately delivered warnings intended for Iranian leaders
that any attack by Tehran or its proxies resulting in the death of even one American service
member will generate a military counterattack, U.S. officials said.
...
While such attacks were common during the Iraq War, Pompeo told Iraqi leaders in a message he
knew would be relayed to Tehran that a single American fatality would prompt the United
States to hit back.
That warning was sent in May when Pompeo visited Baghdad. The issue may soon become
critical. Throughout the last days there were rocket attacks in Iraq against targets where U.S.
personnel is present. The AFP correspondent in Baghdad lists six of them:
Maya Gebeily - @GebeilyM - 10:20 UTC - 19 Jun 2019
Timeline of attacks on US interests in #Iraq
Fri: Mortars hit Balad base, where US troops based
Sun: Projectiles hit #Baghdad mil airport
Mon: Rockets on Taji, where coalition forces based
Tues: Mortars on #Mosul ops HQ
Wed: Rockets on housing/ops center used by IOCs near #Basra
#IRAQ: @AFP learns there were at least *two* attacks near US oil interests in #Basra in
last 24 hours - ExxonMobil + Baker Hughes, a GE Company Their senior staff are being
evacuated.
At least some of these attacks came from areas where Islamic State underground groups are
still active. The weapons used were improvised and
imprecise.
That shows how stupid the red line is that Pompeo set out. He would attack Iran if an errant
ISIS rocket by chance kills some U.S. soldier? That is nuts.
Back to the WaPo piece:
Speaking during a visit to U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa on Tuesday, Pompeo said
Trump "does not want war" but stressed the United States would act if assaulted. "We are
there to deter aggression," he said.
The U.S. violated the nuclear agreement and is waging an economic war on Iran. That was the
aggression that started the conflict. Anything that follows from that was caused by the Trump
administration.
Colonel Pat Lang
thinks that Pompeo was in Tampa to bring the military in line with his aggressive
policies:
Ole First in his Class is down in Tampaland today jawboning the leaders of CENTCOM (Mideast),
and SOCOM (badass commandos worldwide). Why is he there? The Secretary of State has no
constitutional or legal role in dealing with the armed forces. That being the case one can
only think that there is push-back from senior commanders over the prospect of war with Iran
and that Trump has been persuaded to let him do this unprecedented visit to wheedle or
threaten his way into their acquiescence.
WaPo again:
The sudden departure Tuesday of Patrick Shanahan, who has served as acting defense secretary
since January, could further sideline the Pentagon, which has campaigned to reduce the
potential for hostilities. Shanahan's withdrawal followed revelations of a complicated
domestic dispute.
The
'complicated domestic dispute ' is not so complicate at all and the case is undisputed. In
a several years long process Shanahan's ex-wife went crazy and physically attacked him and
their kids. Finally one of the kids hit back at her with a baseball bat. In court Shanahan
argued for a mild punishment for the kid. All the kids, mostly grown up now, are with him and
do not want to see their mother. All that was documented by the police and by courts. Shanahan
is not guilty of anything in that case. It was not a reason to resign.
Pat Lang
believes that the real reason was Pompeo's trip to Tampa:
Shanahan withdrew his name from confirmation process today. IMO he did it because DJT let
Pomp circumvent his authority.
The Pentagon was the last hold out against the aggressive anti-Iran policy says WaPo
:
Concerns about an escalation are particularly pointed at the Pentagon, where the absence of a
confirmed secretary has fueled worries that hawks in the White House and State Department
could push the military beyond its specific mission of destroying the remnants of the Islamic
State in Iraq and Syria, raising the potential for conflict with Iran.
It has been reported several times and by different outlets that Trump is somewhat isolated
from anti-war opinions in his administration. All he sees and hears is Fox News , Bibi
Netanyahoo and John Bolton. The WaPo piece again confirms that:
Administration officials interviewed by The Washington Post said that national security
adviser John Bolton has dominated Iran policy, keeping a tight rein on information that gets
to the president and sharply reducing meetings in which top officials gather in the White
House's Situation Room to discuss the policy.
...
The intensification of [the "maximum pressure"] campaign has triggered internal debates over
how best to execute the president's orders. At the State Department this spring, an argument
among officials over how hard to squeeze Iran with sanctions ended with those favoring the
toughest possible approach prevailing. In particular, hard-liners at the White House
squelched waivers that would have allowed Iran to keep selling oil after a May 1 deadline.
White House aides also ended waivers that allowed Iran to swap its enriched uranium for
natural uranium, an integral part of the nuclear deal.
...
While State Department officials sought to achieve a "sweet spot" that would weaken Iran
through sanctions but not push so hard that Iran would withdraw from the nuclear deal, others
have argued that Trump's goal is to destroy the accord at any cost and pursue a more
expansive policy that seeks to cripple Iran's proxy forces throughout the region.
Pentagon and State Department officials have complained, however, about the difficulty of
getting an adequate hearing for these debates under Bolton. As a result, arguments about
policy frequently are not aired and do not reach the president. The process is "very
exclusionary, and Bolton has very sharp elbows," the senior administration official said.
...
At the Pentagon, officials have quietly voiced concerns for months that the current
trajectory might make military conflict a self-fulfilling prophecy.
...
One person familiar with the recent discussions said that Pentagon officials, including
Shanahan, have been "the ones putting the brakes" on the State Department and the White
House. "DOD is not beating the drums of war," the person said.
One can quibble with that. It is the regional military commander who always asks for more
troops. More ships and more troops increase the chance for "accidents" and make a war more
likely. That is why John Bolton uses each and every small incident to send more troops to the
Middle East:
"Does the president want to send more troops? No. Will he be convinced to do it? Yes," the
senior administration official said.
Trump, in contrast to some of his advisers, has seemed to downplay the significance of
Iran's actions. In an interview published Tuesday by Time magazine, he said the recent oil
tanker attacks were "very minor."
Trump is the president. He hired those people and is responsible for what they do. But does
he know what they do?
There are two possibilities. Trump wants a war with Iran and what we see is a good cop, bad cop strategy in which Trump
plays the good guy for his voters until some 'grave incident' happens that lets him says that
he has no choice but to 'hit back' at Iran. The other scenario is that Trump is a fool and that
the war hawks use him as their tool to implement their preferred policies.
Former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke says that the second scenario is
the real one :
The consensus on 'no conflict' unfortunately, may turn out to have been overly sanguine. This
is not because Trump consciously desires war, but because the hawks surrounding him,
particularly Bolton, are painting him into a corner – from which he must either back
down, or double down, if Iran does not first capitulate.
And here is the point: the main Trump misconception may be that he does believe that Iran
wants, and ultimately, 'will seek a deal'.
Crooke describes how Bolton, and Netanyahoo behind him, outmaneuver the U.S. intelligence
services over Iran. They stovepipe "intelligence" to the president and the media just like the
crew of then Vice President Dick Cheney did in the run up to the war on Iraq:
Bolton chairs at the NSC, the regular and frequent strategic dialogue meetings with Israel
– intended to develop a joint action plan, versus Iran. What this means is that the
Israeli intelligence assessments are being stovepiped directly to Bolton (and therefore to
Trump), without passing by the US intelligence services for assessment or comment on the
credibility of the intelligence presented (shades of Cheney confronting the analysts down at
Langley). And Bolton too, will represent Trump at the 'security summit' to be held later this
month in Jerusalem with Russia and Israel. Yes, Bolton truly has all the reins in his hands:
He is 'Mr Iran'.
'Mr Anti-Iran' is a more precise moniker. Or one may just call him President Bolton.
Posted by b on June 19, 2019 at 02:20 PM | Permalink
The US is now saying that they will only protect ships in the gulf if the usual NATO suspects
come along for the ride. If they do, then when the US attacks Iran they are committed for the
regional war that follows. Bolton has done a great job of putting the band back together
again.
Its all on Trump. No excuses. When the bodybags start to flow and the gas prices go to 8 or 9
dollars a gallon he will be toast. He'll never be able to show his face in public again
without a small army around him. What a legacy.
The similarities, to me, are a poor pantomime of Nixon and Kissinger. Milhaus was always the
"madman" with his finger on the nuclear trigger which made the Nazi employment campaigner,
Kissinger, seem like one to reason with if you didn't want nuclear annihilation.
There is an interesting book, "The Fire And The Fury", that has some insight into the
administration. Trump never thought he would win and didn't intend to. He wanted to be
"Crooked Hillary's" victim. Also, the book makes a great case for Israeli collusion, not
Russia.
That said, the book makes a large showing of DJT's ignorance and indifference. Like many
ignorant presidential hopefuls, I think DJT thought he could make a difference but we all
know he's just a shill.
My favorite part of the book stated that DJT ate at Mickey D's because he's afraid of
being poisoned, not because of a great love of fast food.
The present goobermint can run Donald up and down the flag pole and blame everything in
the world on him and no one will know the difference.
The war on Iran will be different to other US/Western wars.
Previously, it has only become apparent after the war has been going for some time (they
never really end) that the war was a crime.
This time the whole of the US and the West knows full well that a war crime is being
perpetrated. This will mean a definite end of the illusions that the West has held about it's
self since WWII (or WWI). Can Empires and Civilisations continue if they no longer believe
the stories they tell themselves?
Trump has not been fooled or misled, neither have the American people, neither the
UK/European governments or peoples. We are destroying ourselves with this act.
Bolton has more brain cells than the entirety of the European peoples.
I bet soon we'll learn Shanahan was pushed out by the usual Bolton tactic of threats and
extortion -- both on the personal and familial level.
Shanahan should blow the whistle -- soon!
Thanks b. Trump is likely both a fool and a barking mad President with a narcissistic
personality. A dangerous mix open to malicious behaviour and vulnerable to manipulation. I
have no doubt that he revels in the gravitas of it all, the Napoleonic pomp and ceremony etc.
That the planet has to suffer this and Netanyahu and Pence Pentecostal ignorance is
appalling.
There wont be any summit meeting between Iran and Trump, the insult would be intolerable
and the outcome of no value to Iran. They know very well what the game is.
Bolton is just the killer for the job right where he is but will Trump find an equally
malign player for his army? I am sure there is no shortage of 'suitable' candidates.
One bright side for the planet could well be a calamitous rise in oil price and a chaotic
spin of global economic circumstances resulting in a drop in greenhouse gas emissions. On the
dark side small pockets of survival.
@uncle tungsten (8) One bright side for the planet could well be a calamitous rise in oil price and a chaotic
spin of global economic circumstances resulting in a drop in greenhouse gas emissions. On the
dark side small pockets of survival.
I am one of the supporters of the good cop/bad cop scenario.
While the existential question that has been on the table for some time is who owns the
world of finance, here we are again following the spinning of the Iran plate by late
empire.
Bolton and Pompeo are representative of Trump's rabid evangelical base and Israel. The
kabuki friction towards the shared goals is just that. To the degree that we are hearing
shrillness from these folk reflects the increasing failure of their tactics to maintain
control of the global narrative.
Something stupid is coming and it will be sad.....very sad if is our extinction instead of
difficult evolution.
thanks b... pompeo has the same agenda as israel with regard to attacks on the golan heights
or americans - same messed up logic.. nothing like having your (usa-ksa-israel-uae) proxy
army involved too.."these attacks came from areas where Islamic State underground groups are
still active." the 500 lb gorilla is ''there to deter aggression''.. right!
as for trump.. the guy is a self serving twit and fool... perfect person to represent the
usa at this point which is why so many hate him and like him, depending on where one lives..
whatever bolton does - it is on trump and the falling usa empire as i see it.. it can't fall
soon enough..
I'm definitely of the good cop/bad cop belief. It fits with the entirety of his campaign and
presidency: say one thing, do another, and blame somebody else. Trump wanted Bolton for NSA
since the campaign. Both Bolton and Trump have had a position of confrontation with Iran for
a long time. The fact that people still buy into the lies of *any* politician is a sad state
of affairs. It sure does make the job of lying far easier.
Trump's tactical nukes mounted on Trident missiles will be ready in October - end of
September according to the earlier news articles. I guess team Trump will be desperately
trying to provoke a reaction from Iran so Trump can reluctantly use his nukes. (NPR
specifically names Iran as a country that these may be used against).
Good cop bad cop is Trump's game at the moment. He needs to be judged by the people he
appoints and keeps on.
DG @1
Don't feel too sorry for the American fatality. It will probably be a US soldier who
volunteered to go overseas and kill for oil.
Might be a female soldier. That would make for better press.
Remember Nedā Āghā-Soltān? She was a beautiful Iranian woman, only 26
years old, shot in the head by a sniper in the 2009 Color (Green) Revolution attempt in Iran,
a few blocks from the actual protests.
For some odd reason, a photographer was there to take pictures, and within a couple of hours,
it was spread all over the world's media. We now call that "going viral". It takes a Mighty
Wurlitzer to make a viral spread, I've noticed.
Tucker Carlson has interviewed Tulsi Gabbard several times and has generally been anti-war
on many of his programs, and was certainly very anti-Russiagate. So, watching Fox News
isn't as horrible as say CNN, NBC, MSNBC to name the three worst.
Yes, as I wrote on the last thread, Trump's boxed into several corners, Iran not being the
only one. Really can't wait for the moment Pompeo clutches at his chest and crumples to the
ground a la Morsi. Pompeo's clearly forgotten what Putin told him. Speaking of Putin,
tomorrow he'll conduct the 17th edition of his Direct Line conversation with Russia's people
and press. Information in Russian here :
"The programme will be broadcast live by Channel One, Rossiya 1, Rossiya 24, NTV, Public
Television of Russia (OTR) and Mir TV, and by radio stations Mayak, Vesti FM and Radio
Rossii."
Unfortunately, the start time isn't provided. Questions in Russian can be submitted at the
above link.
Would never have guessed there existed a Foundation for European Progressive Studies, but
it does and its hosting a forum this
Friday:
"On Friday #21June, #IAIEvent with @FEPS_Europe in #Brussels to mark the completion of our
joint one-year research on #Europe-#Iran relations after the US withdrawal from the
#JCPOA.
"With the participation of Seyed Sajjadpour, Deputy FM of Iran."
As far as the damage done to the two tankers, if an actual limpet mine of the sort Iran
employs were used, the damage would be far more extensive than what was sustained. IMO,
continuing attacks by the sort of kamikaze drones employed would be impossible to stop; and
since the remains of the drone sink into the sea, virtually impossible to collect any
evidence that might link Iran to the attack.
The Outlaw US Empire has no cards to play other than bluff and bluster.
"That shows how stupid the red line is that Pompeo set out." Even b, one of the commenters I
respect most, falls for the canard "Yanks R stoopid LOL". If you feverishly want an
Iran war against the wishes of the majority of the planet, this is how it's done. Israel also
drops some dud mortar shells into an empty patch on the Golan (itself or by proxy) any time
it wants a mini casus belli in the Syria dossier.
I feel the Iranians have been pretty complicit propping up this image of Americans and
Israelis as untouchable demigods, who only kill and can never be killed even once. The US
should have gotten a steady stream of heroes coming home in boxes and wheelchairs the moment
they crossed the Syrian border. Then the war fevers would've cooled considerably by now;
that's how the Taliban made the orcs feel ... unwelcome in their slice of heaven. B opined at
the time "This occupation is unsustainable", but nobody has properly contested it apart from
a handful of ISIS holdouts. Eyes have been taken off balls it seems.
And again, no. That reminds of the old 'if the Führer knew'. No, Tronald is not - at
least not in this sense - a fool. He has promoted these people now said to trick him into
their respective position. Tronald is - and was - well informed about Boltons and Pompeo's
views.
No, it's the first possibility that applies. Any moment now Act 3 is staged, an 'Iranian
attack' on u.s. interests - and then Tronald will open Pandora's box - and suffer we will.
There were stories recently that Trump was about to sack Bolton. Whatever the truth of that,
there's a fundamental problem that Trump doesn't want to spend his nights in the war room. He
spends his time watching Fox News, tweeting, and his weekends at Mar-a Lago. A serious war is
beyond him, and I think he'll say no, beyond a one night big bang.
May be the intention was never to sink the tanker - but just to draw attention with some
heavy smoke. The limpet mines may exists in various size, so they may have intentionally used
a small one for this. What were doing the IRGC along the tanker if not removing something
from the hull. How do they even know there was something there of interest.
The US has no leadership,,, just a bunch of mafioso hoods vying to be at the head of the
Globalists table. The Europeons / West are little better going along to get a piece of the
action... picture a Viking feast a few thousand years ago. Difference is we are the food
they're devouring.
I am so happy 'b' explained the domestic violence attributed to Mr.Shanahan. I bit just
like MSM wanted thinking he somehow abused his family. I imagine it was because it would have
looked bad for the kind little woman.
Trump HAS drained the swamp,,, right into his administration. Look at what we in the US
have to look forward to,,, tyrants on the left,,, tyrants on the right. I suppose we deserve
this but it doesn't do well for my blood pressure.
Jeremy Hunt said that no other state or non state actor could possibly be responsible for the
tanker explosions. That is the most ignorant statement any potential Prime Minister could
make. There are so many potential culprits, any one of whom would find it more than tempting
to take Pompeo at his word and lob a bomb at a US base. The same scenario applied to Syria,
the US positively encouraged a gas attack by the head choppers by declaring such an attack
would mean US intervention. Sheldon Adelson is Trumps biggest doner "Adelson's promotion of
Bolton dates back at least to the days immediately after Trump's November 2016 election.
According to The New York Times, Adelson strongly supported Bolton for the position of deputy
secretary of state as Trump was putting together his cabinet" https://lobelog.com/trumps-choice-of-bolton-satisfies-his-biggest-donor/
So Trump could find it difficult to sack Bolton.
If this is mostly correct then the US is heading into a huge strategic catastrophe with epic
blow back. That many millions in the MENA will suffer is as usual of no consequence to
Americans but this time America will suffer a rapid irreversible decline and will deserve it.
b: Thanks for posting Lang's take on Shanahan being "outed" by Pompeo. Kind'a makes sense,
given bigger picture you paint of Israeli "interests" being "stovepiped" through Bolton to
DJT. Nothing I heard/read last night or this morning touched on this, it was all different
takes on poor/no Shanahan vetting.
The irony of Shanahan being "dumped" for what the record seems to support: he did nothing
wrong, maybe even showed noteworthy restraint vs. trump f***ing porn stars, stiffing
sub-contractors for years (etc. etc.) is mind numbing.
...
Madison James @ Jun 19, 2019 2:47:33 PM
Also, the book makes a great case for Israeli collusion, not Russia.
More like CEDING Iran policy authority to hard line Likud hawks, as B describes in this
post:
Bolton chairs at the NSC, the regular and frequent strategic dialogue meetings with Israel
– intended to develop a joint action plan, versus Iran. What this means is that the
Israeli intelligence assessments are being stovepiped directly to Bolton (and therefore to
Trump), without passing by the US intelligence services for assessment or comment on the
credibility of the intelligence presented ( shades of Cheney confronting the analysts
down at Langley ).
(my emphasis)
It just seems like Iraq deja vu: GWB was the ignorant, dumb public face masking Lukidniks
controlling US policy then, DJT the face masking the same now.
WRT war fears w/Iran: one little factoid rarely mentioned early on in Iraq
"liberation"(did B write about this?): the PNAC crowd was openly advocating for a
simultaneous military action towards Iran. Putin moved several battleships and destroyers
right off the Iranian coast in a clear signal he would defend Iran. And that was the end of
that.
Putin always holds his cards very close to his vest, but when he acts he does so
decisively and with precision (aka his Syria military maneuvers). US bombs falling on Iran
seems awfully close to Moscow in my view. I cannot help wondering if one of Putin's cards is
his own red line: not allowing Likudniks to subjugate US military power for their "interests"
wrt Iran.
psycho @ 10 opined;"I am one of the supporters of the good cop/bad cop scenario."
Add me, to the believers column.
ADKC @ 5 said;"Trump has not been fooled or misled, neither have the American people,
neither the UK/European governments or peoples. We are destroying ourselves with this
act."
james @ 11 said;" it is on trump and the falling usa empire as i see it.. it can't fall
soon enough.."
Yes, absolutely, to both above statements..
And I'll add another major player, to the joke, the U$A has become, the corporate MSM for
it's failure to honestly inform the public of reality..
...the IRGC along the tanker...
Could s/o kindly point-out a confirmation from Iran that [1] subject boat was operated/manned
by the IRGC? I'll check back for your input; thanks in advance.
"This is a very balanced approach to the #US-#Iran crisis in the Gulf from an #EU point of
view."
It links to a short CNN produced video. The few comments show the intensely high level of
ignorance of my fellow Americans that are educational all by themselves.
It's about 1500 miles from Tehran to Moscow. That's about equal to the distance between
Kansas City and San Francisco.
It is not in Russia's interest to have Iran attacked. Iran is a piece that offers a twofer
to the Anglo Zio empire. It follows the edicts of the Yinon Plan and it antagonizes
Russia.
If a war with Iran is orchestrated I will be very disappointed if Tel-Aviv is not destroyed.
At some point in time Israel must pay for its' crimes.
I read today that an Egyptian news agency blamed Israel for the recent attacks on the 2
tankers. I find this heartening. However, I fear Israel is not beyond sinking an US naval
vessel. re: USS LIBERTY. and albeit with Bolton's foreknowledge.
Shanahan was forced out. His family troubles pre-date today.
May be the intention was never to sink the tanker - but just to draw attention with some
heavy smoke. The limpet mines may exists in various size, so they may have intentionaly
used a small one for this.
As B (and many other
media ) pointed out: the crew of the Japanese tanker all said the ship was hit by an
air borne projectile. This was not a mine. Seems obvious if US was interested in the
truth, they would recover and identify the projectile.
Just for shits and giggles, a brief reminder of some of US "evidence" and false flags (all
lies) in service of these "endeavors" previously:
- reading the several excellent books and released CIA docs of the CIA engineered
Mosaddegh coup, among other things was CIA bombs set off in Mosques (this was before the
Ayatollahs were political), then flooding media with "accesssments" Mosaddegh was
responsable. Kermit Roosevelt literally boasted about this.
- Collin Powell's "clear and convincing" evidence of Sadam's mobile missile lauchers (aka
mobile weather balloons). And the GWB admin's attempts to literally destroy Hans Blix'
reputation, and as it turned out Blix was right about everything.
- Fake Satellite photos of Sadam's troops on Saudi border.
- "Incubator baby" lies to US Senate, swaying Desert Storm I approval by 1 vote (many
senators said that fabrication was the difference in their vote). And this after Sadam's
incursion into Kuwait was after 18 months of US vetoing Iraq UN resolutions seeking to
condemn Kuwait's angle drilling into Iraq's largest southern oil fields.
That's just a few from memory. At what point do US lawmakers finally put all this together
(especially given Bolton's association with those who drove GWB's Iraq invasion) and refuse
to even consider the non persuasive evidence (not to mention contradictory... aka crew says
air borne attack), remind their colleagues and America of the cost of these lies just in last
20 years, and DEMAND proof that can be verified with THEIR OWN EYES.
Judging from the headline and the quoting approvingly from "Former MI6 agent Alastair
Crooke", I'd say b believe in the "President Bolton" theory.
Like other commenters, I believe in the bad cop/good cop theory. In fact I wrote of this
only yesterday (
here and
here , and
here ):
The media promote Doublethink ...
... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct,
often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy
and neutrality... Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance -- thus
the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.
... such that Trump is both peace-loving nationalist and empire-loving
antagonist. Except that the latter is expressed as a positive: "staunch ally", "tough
negotiator", "protector", etc instead of a negative. Some people fall for it (Kool-Aid
drinkers) and MSM ignores those that talk about the meta issues of MSM complicity.
And it's not just Trump. Whenever a President does things that might cause cognitive
dissonance, apologists and the feckless press explain it away as a positive or blame
subordinates for "sabotaging" the hero President .
= = = =
IMO President's are just members of the Deep State team. Presidents lead the team that's
"on the field" - like a quarterback in American football. But the Deep State 'coach' calls
the plays. And the 'coach' is, in turn, ultimately responsible to the owners
(capitalists)
= = = =
I sense that there's now an effort to essentially 'shout down' or otherwise sideline
those that argue that the attacks are more likely to be a false flag by an anti-Iranian
organization (probably connected to Mossad or CIA) and question the efficacy of a
Iranian strategy stealth attacks.
karlof1 and Peter AU 1 described the likely subterfuge of the US claim that Iran
attached a "limpet mine". But I haven't seen much desire to discuss or spread their theory.
Reporting by Israeli media (picked up worldwide) about USA plans to bomb Iran (really
just rumors) have worked their magic and turned the page on the question of who attacked
the ships. How convenient!
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Sadly, I find that I disagree with both of b's latest theories: the "Iranian stealth
attack" theory and the "President Bolton" theory. IMO these are propaganda narratives.
there is some confusion amongst commenters here; as to what the Iranian boat was doing next
to the tanker? The first thing one should ask is; what is the source of the video? and when
was it taken? Next, the Iranians have been credited with rescuing the crew from at least 1
tanker, if not both. Which explains the large # of persons on a boat that usually operates
with a crew of 5.
Except the 2007 "Iranian proxy" attacks on US forces illegally occupying Iraq were never
proven.
Meaning the fable of Iranians being behind attacks in Iraq is hardly new. The infamous Michael Gordon--the lead "reporter" on the "Judith Miller" fall 2002 Iraqi
WMDs "reporting" in the NY Times--claimed that such "attacks" were proven in the pages of the
NYT in March 2007. (He wasn't fired–only leaving the NYT after 30 years in 2017.)
Except his "reporting" made bogus claims like the Iraqis weren't able to follow armor
penetrating shell designs that had been worked out in the 1920s.
In early 2007, there was a push by Cheney to strike Iran, the rumor is that W said
"no". So Pompeo can't even lie as well as Cheney, in that the NY Times' main Pentagon reporter
reported the 2007 events as fact at the time. (A secondary reporter, James Glanz also in Iraq in 2007, did manage to point out that the
"Iranian" shells were marked in English and the US commanders provided nothing more than
unsupported assertions regards the shells' origins. Glanz only writes for the NY Times about
once every 6 months now.)
Houthis attack Jizan--on Red Sea just North of Yemen -- power plant with cruise missile causing
large fire to erupt. Yemeni Armed Forces
Spokesman :
"There are big surprises coming soon, God willing, with higher sensitive impact on the
Saudi regime, if its aggression continues."
Expect renewed attacks on oil infrastructure.
Not so long ago, it appeared the Saudi/UAE/Merc coalition had the initiative and was
winning. That no longer appears to be the case with the invasion of Saudi territory by ground
forces accompanied by missile and drone assaults that have reached as far as Riyadh. Earlier
today,
Southfront posted videos of two successful Houthi assaults that destroyed 11 armored
vehicles and additional technicals--attacks Saudi appears incapable of stopping.
"IMO President's are just members of the Deep State team. Presidents lead the team that's
"on the field" - like a quarterback in American football. But the Deep State 'coach' calls
the plays. And the 'coach' is, in turn, ultimately responsible to the owners
(capitalists)"
IMO, the perfect analogy. Maybe the U$A posters will "get it."
Bolton is Trump's Colonel House. House was influential in plucking Woodrow Wilson out of
academia and getting him elected President in 1912 and then he moved into the White House
with Wilson. He became in Wilson's words his "alter ego." House was right next to Wilson when
he signed the Federal Reserve Act, something Wilson later said he bitterly regretted doing.
House was a most shadowy figure – he wasn't even a real colonel -, having performed
similar roles with various governors of Texas as if in preparation for his moment on the big
stage – and a long moment it was with an allegedly decisive role in Versailles in 1919.
I saw warning signals back on the campaign trail when Trump was asked who he admired in
politics and he replied after a pause John Bolton. Then I thought of Obama and Rahm Emanuel,
his chief of staff. It struck me that maybe all of us are susceptible to somebody who can get
a hold on us, who can grasp our insecurities and ingratiate themselves into our thinking
processes. The elites work on this. Jack Kennedy had his brother as his sort of alter-ego so
there was no opportunity there – which is maybe why he got shot.
Trump's father became so frustrated with Donald's bullying and reckless behavior that he
packed him off to military academy to learn some manners and self-control. Legend has it that
Trump thrived in that environment and graduated in 1964. He also studied economics and has a
Law degree. One imagines that a military academy graduate must have learned something about
governance, leadership, pecking orders, power plays and the US Constitution.
Anyone who assumes DJT is stupid or naive probably needs to do some homework...
Hoarsewhisperer "Anyone who assumes DJT is stupid or naiive probably needs to do some
homework". I think prospective Private Donald 'bone spurs' Trump would have made a good
General, [too late now, he is too old] maybe one of the greatest Generals in history. If only
he had signed up. /S
Seems Rex Tillerson was right about Trump and agrees with this HL Mencken quote.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the
inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will
reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron".
The Middle East a smoking ruin. Floods of Arab refugees pouring into Europe. Russia and China
sitting back and waiting to pick up the pieces. Do those people actually think beyond the
next step? I wouldn't want to be a European Jew for the next few decades. You can be burnt
from the bottom up, as easily as from the top down. Lets just go kick the hornets nest, cause
we are tough guys. Where. Are. The. Brain. Cells?
Promotion of War Crimes: Wheat as a Weapon :
"A fellow at a think tank bankrolled by the US gov, NATO, and arms industry insists that
'wheat is a weapon' that can 'be used to apply pressure on the Assad regime.' "The impact this would have on civilians was not mentioned, of course."
Now we know what nation's responsible for the recent firing of wheat and other
agricultural fields in Syria--The Outlaw US Empire of course: Never met a War Crime it didn't
want to employ itself as current and historic evidence proves. Such people ought to be
lobotomized.
Iran did it, they are competent, we can't find our rear end
CENTCOM gave a scenario that finally made sense, they said that an IRGC boat approached
the two tankers at night and attacked the 'mines'. This would explain why it was above the
waterline and it would take great skill to do this with no injury and without being
detected.
Now look at the U.S., the tanker was sitting their in broad daylight for about 10hrs and
we couldn't even get ONE decent picture of an unexploded bomb sitting on the side of hull.
And when the IRGC finally did show up, even our high resolution pictures were a joke and we
are the SIGINT champions with hi-tech drones. Also, this means that the IRGC was able to slip
into a port on the other side of the Persian Gulf and attack mines to 4 tankers
undetected.
Prediction: if we do get into a fight with the Iranians we are in for a very rude
awakening. All of this talk about their rusted out military is total BS. If ONLY that fool
Tom Cotton would be the one to pay the price instead of some 20 yr old kid.
Perhaps the admin senses that the end is approaching and are trying to wreak maximum havoc
and damage while they are able. Like Bolton will serve in next admin.
By minimizing the Oman Gulf incidents, maybe it is way for the White House under Bolton's
control to show that it is not impressed nor feeling threatened.
it is also encouraging the perpetrators of the attacks to do more provocations and ideally to
kill an American...
It is an open invitations to whoever wants to harm Iran to come out more brutally.
". . . [Trump] studied economics and has a Law degree."
He has a BA in economics and was given an honorary law degree from Liberty so-called
"University," a diploma mill dedicated to churning out brain-dead, right-wing religious
fanatics.
Yes, it does matter. Millions of American are ready to send their loved ones to die for
"freedom and democracy" that propaganda claims USA champions. Trump as "useful idiot" just
means that they elected the wrong guy. Trump as complicit in the dog and pony show means
there is no democracy.
Smart people have already described how the system is rigged so that we have a "managed
democracy" that mostly works for the "those that matter". Research from Princeton economists
have described America as a plutocracy with an "inverted totalitarian" form of government. I
have written many times at MoA of a adjunct to that theory: the faux populist
leadership model. Obama and Trump are the poster boys for this, though it was mostly
developed in the Clinton years.
That Iranian seaman who is alleged to have pulled off a possibly unstable, unexploded mine
wearing nothing but a rubber life jacket thus endangering his life and all his crew mates and
survivors in the small boat is the action of a lunatic. Or maybe it never happened.
What is the particular childish naïveté of Americans who believe that learning
a system inevitably leads to a willingness to support and uphold it instead of exploiting it
for personal gain?
>> Posted by: blues | Jun 19, 2019 6:52:22 PM | 53
Do tell!
With trillion dollar deficits pre-recession, the fiscal situation looks dire. Once
recession hits, tax revenue will plummet. Then, either they QE even more trillions or they
cut the MIC (measured in terms of purchasing power, if not nominally). Or both. But, the rest
of the world will suffer nominally as well. So, the dollar might remain a "cleaner dirty
shirt".
It's a difficult environment to invest in. Everything seems pricey. But, with currency
depreciation via QE, everything might become even pricier.
Life jackets aren't rubber! Try and get the story straight! Plus, you missed that the
limpet mine comes with a cloaking device that once placed onto the deck of any Iranian boat
it's rendered invisible! Honestly, we spend a lot of time dreaming up these narratives, so
the very least you can do is copy/paste properly!
On a serious note, I scanned a great many pictures of small boats and didn't come up with
one example of the one shown in the video. Finding one ought to be easy since it has numerous
unique features, most of which I commented upon. Has USN released a complete undoctored video
of the limpet removal yet? I thought not. As with the incident with the Russian ship where
USN didn't release the entire video taken from the stand-off helo because it proved USN at
fault, there won't be any release of this other video for the same reason--it proves zip,
nada, nothing.
Otherwise, I'd like to get myself one of those Iranian boats, minus the machine gun, as it
looks like an excellent fishing platform, although it lacks a cuddy and below deck stowage
room.
There's been a shift in the dialogue, to some degree, to a discussion of the overall US role
in the Gulf area.
Speaking to TIME, Trump argued that the Gulf of Oman[sic] is less strategically important
for the United States now than it used to be, citing China and Japan as nations that still
rely on the region for significant proportions of their oil. "Other places get such vast
amounts of oil there," Trump said. "We get very little. We have made tremendous progress in
the last two and a half years in energy. And when the pipelines get built, we're now an
exporter of energy. So we're not in the position that we used to be in in the Middle East
where some people would say we were there for the oil." . . here
Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters
at a roundtable that countries that benefit most from the movement of oil through the Gulf
need to take an active role in its security. . . ."The circumstances are very different now
than they were in the 1980s," Selva said. "If you think back to the reflagging operation, the
'Tanker War,' as it was nicknamed, where we reflagged and escorted tankers so that they could
flow in and out of the Strait of Hormuz, we got a substantial amount of our oil from the
Persian Gulf.. . ."We are now in a position where the bulk of that oil goes to countries in
Asia, and none of those countries have shown any predilection to pressing Iran to stop what
they are doing. What was true in the 1980s, is not true today. We are not wholly dependent on
the movement of Saudi, Kuwaiti, Qatari and Emirati oil in and out of the Gulf to sustain our
economy.". .
here
A broadening of the security mission in the Gulf area would be a positive step. Imagine
the navies of China, India and Japan taking a role! The price would be a removal of Iran
sanctions, because these countries want Iran oil! . . .I can dream.
In the current circs (esp after announcement of the latest Red Line) why write only about the
possibility of an ISIS missile landing on a US position being that it wd be "errant"?
After reading WL's comments, I had a vision of the photographer contacting the sniper by
mobile phone and berating the fellow for killing Neda Agha Soltan in the head and telling him
to find another beautiful young Iranian woman protester and to shoot her in the chest.
"... Theresa May's immediate conclusion that the Russian government bears certain and sole responsibility for the nerve-agent poisoning of the Skripals is logically, scientifically, and forensically impossible. ..."
"... Teresa May is lying, everyone who seconds her assertion of false certainty is lying, they all know they are lying, and the Russians know that they know they are lying. ..."
"... "War" is what they seem to want it to be. For the past 18 to 24 months, we've also been inundated with Morgan Freeman and Rob Reiner's ominous "We have been attacked. We are at war," video, as well as the bipartisan ( Hillary Clinton , John McCain ) insistence that alleged Russian election meddling should be considered an "act of war" equivalent to Pearl Harbor . Indeed, Trump's new National Security advisor, the warmongering lunatic John Bolton, calls it , explicitly "a casus belli , a true act of war." ..."
"... Even the military is getting in on the act. The nerve-agent accusation has been followed up by General John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, accusing Russia of arming the Taliban! It's noteworthy that this senior American military general casually refers to Russia as "the enemy": "We've had stories written by the Taliban that have appeared in the media about financial support provided by the enemy." ..."
"... The economic war against Russian is being waged through a series of sanctions that seem impossible to reverse, because their expressed goal is to extract confession, repentance, and restitution for crimes ascribed to Russia that Russia has not committed, or has not been proven to have committed, or are entirely fictional and have not been committed by anyone at all. We will only stop taking your bank accounts and consulates and let you play games with us if you confess and repent every crime we accuse you of. No questions permitted. ..."
It's a relentless economic, diplomatic, and ideological war, spiced with (so far) just a
dash of military war, and the strong scent of more to come.
I mean war with Russia, of course, although Russia is the point target for a constellation
of emerging adversaries the US is desperate to entame before any one or combination of them
becomes too strong to defeat. These include countries like Iran and China, which are developing
forces capable of resisting American military aggression against their own territory and on a
regional level, and have shown quite too much uppitiness about staying in their
previously-assigned geopolitical cages.
But Russia is the only country that has put its military forces in the way of a U.S. program
of regime change -- indirectly in Ukraine, where Russia would not get out of the way, and
directly in Syria, where Russia actively got in the way. So Russia is the focus of
attack, the prime target for an exemplary comeuppance.
Is it, then, a new Cold War, even more dangerous than the old one, as Stephen F. Cohen
says ?
That terminology was apt even a few months ago, but the speed, ferocity, and
coordination of the West/NATO's reaction to the alleged nerve-agent poisoning of the
Skripals, as well as the formation of a War Cabinet in Washington, indicates to me that we've
moved to another level of aggression.
It's beyond Cold. Call it the Warm War. And the temperature's rising.
The Nerve of Them
There are two underlying presumptions that, combined, make present situation more dangerous
than a Cold War.
One is the presumption of guilt -- or, more precisely, the presumption that the presumption
of Russian guilt can always be made, and made to stick in the Western mind.
The confected furor over the alleged nerve-agent poisoning of the Skripals demonstrates this
dramatically.
Theresa May's immediate conclusion that the Russian government bears certain and sole
responsibility for the nerve-agent poisoning of the Skripals is logically, scientifically, and
forensically impossible.
False certainty is the ultimate fake news. It is just not true that, as she says: "There is
no alternative conclusion other than the Russian state is culpable." This falsity of this
statement has been demonstrated by a slew of sources -- including the
developers of the alleged "Novichok" agent themselves, a thorough
analysis by a former UN inspector in Iraq who worked on the destruction of chemical
weapons, establishment Western scientific outlets like New Scientist ("
Other countries could have made 'Russian' nerve agent "), and the British government's own
mealy-mouthed, effective-but-unacknowledged disavowal
of that conclusion. In its own words, The British government found: "a nerve agent or
related compound," " of a type developed by Russia." So, it's absolutely,
positively, certainly, without a doubt, Russian-government-produced "Novichok" .or something
else.
Teresa May is lying, everyone who seconds her assertion of false certainty is lying, they
all know they are lying, and the Russians know that they know they are lying. It's a
It boggles the -- or at least, my -- mind how, in the face of all this, anyone could take
seriously her ultimatum, ignoring the procedures of the
Chemical Weapons Convention , gave Russia 24 hours to "explain" -- i.e., confess and beg
forgiveness for -- this alleged crime.
Indeed, it's noteworthy that France initially, and rather sharply, refused to assume Russian
guilt, with a government spokesman saying, "We don't do fantasy politics. Once the elements are
proven, then the time will come for decisions to be made." But the whip was cracked -- and
surely not by the weak hand of Whitehall -- demanding EU/NATO unity in the condemnation of
Russia. So, in an extraordinary show of discipline that could only be ordered and orchestrated
by the imperial center, France joined the United States and 20 other countries in the largest
mass expulsion of Russian diplomats ever.
Western governments and their compliant media have mandated that Russian government guilt
for the "
first offensive use of a nerve agent " in Europe since World War II is to be taken as flat
fact. Anyone -- like Jeremy Corbyn or Craig Murray -- who
dares to interrupt the "Sentence first! Verdict afterwards!" chorus to ask for, uh, evidence,
is treated to a storm of obloquy
.
At this point, Western accusers don't seem to care how blatantly unfounded, if not
ludicrous, an accusation is. The presumption of Russian guilt, along with the shaming of anyone
who questions it, has become an unquestionable standard of Western/American political and media
discourse.
Old Cold War McCarthyism has become new Warm War fantasy politics.
Helled in Contempt
This declaration of diplomatic war over the Skripal incident is the culmination of an
ongoing drumbeat of ideological warfare, demonizing Russia and Putin personally in the most
predictable and inflammatory terms.
For the past couple of years, we've been
told by Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and
Boris Johnson that Putin is the new Hitler. That's a particularly galling analogy for the
Russians. Soviet Russia, after all, was Hitler's main enemy, that defeated the Nazi army at the
cost of 20+ million of its people -- while the British Royal Family was not
un-smitten with the charms of
Hitlerian fascism , and British footballers had a poignant moment in 1938 Berlin
saluting the Fuhre.:
"War" is what they seem to want it to be. For the past 18 to 24 months, we've also been
inundated with Morgan Freeman and Rob Reiner's ominous "We have been attacked. We are at war,"
video, as well as the bipartisan (
Hillary Clinton ,
John McCain ) insistence that alleged Russian election meddling should be considered an
"act of war"
equivalent to Pearl Harbor . Indeed, Trump's new National Security advisor, the
warmongering lunatic John Bolton,
calls it , explicitly "a casus belli , a true act of war."
Even the military is getting in on the act. The nerve-agent accusation has been followed up
by General John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, accusing Russia of arming the Taliban! It's
noteworthy that this senior American military general casually refers to Russia as "the enemy":
"We've had stories written by the Taliban that have appeared in the media about financial
support provided by the enemy."
Which is strange, because, since the Taliban emerged from the American-jihadi war against
Soviet forces in Afghanistan, and the Taliban and Russia have "enduring enmity" towards each
other, as Kate Clark of the Afghanistan Analysts Network puts it . Furthermore, the sixteen-year-long
American war against the Taliban has depended on Russia allowing the U.S. to move
supplies through its territory, and being "the principal source of
fuel for the alliance's needs in Afghanistan."
So the general has to admit that this alleged Russian "destabilising activity" is a new
thing: "This activity really picked up in the last 18 to 24 months When you look at the timing
it roughly correlates to when things started to heat up in Syria. So it's interesting to note
the timing of the whole thing."
Yes, it is.
The economic war against Russian is being waged through a series of sanctions that seem
impossible to reverse, because their expressed goal is to extract confession, repentance, and
restitution for crimes ascribed to Russia that Russia has not committed, or has not been proven
to have committed, or are entirely fictional and have not been committed by anyone at all.
We will only stop taking your bank accounts and consulates and let you play games with us if
you confess and repent every crime we accuse you of. No questions permitted.
This is not a serious framework for respectful international relations between two sovereign
nations. It's downright childish. It paints everyone, including the party trying to impose it,
into an impossible corner. Is Russia ever going to abandon Crimea, confess that it shot down
the Malaysian jet, tricked us into electing Donald Trump, murdered the Skripals, is secretly
arming the Taliban, et. al .? Is the U.S. ever going to say: "Never mind"? What's the
next step? It's the predicament of the bully.
This is not, either, an approach that really seeks to address any of the "crimes" charged.
As Victoria Nuland (a Clintonite John Bolton) put it on NPR, it's about, "sending a message" to
Russia. Well, as Russia's ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov
said , with this latest mass expulsion of diplomats, the United States is, "Destroying what
little remained of US-Russian ties." He got the message.
All of this looks like a coordinated campaign that began in response to Russia's
interruption of American regime-change projects in Ukraine and especially Syria, that was
harmonized -- over the last 18 to 24 months -- with various elite and popular motifs of
discontent over the 2016 election, and that has reached a crescendo in the last few weeks with
ubiquitous and unconstrained " enemization " [1] of Russia.
It's hard to describe it as anything other than war propaganda -- manufacturing the
citizenry's consent for a military confrontation.
Destroying the possibility of normal, non-conflictual, state-to-state relations and
constituting Russia as "the enemy" is exactly what this campaign is about. That is its
"message" and its effect -- for the American people as much as for the Russia
government. The heightened danger, I think, is that Russia, which has for a long time been
reluctant to accept that America wasn't interested in "partnership", has now heard and
understood this message, while the American people have only heard but do not understand
it.
It's hard to see where this can go that doesn't involve military conflict. This is
especially the case with the appointments of Mike Pompeo, Gina Haspel, and John Bolton -- a
veritable murderers' row that many see as the core of a Trump War Cabinet. Bolton, who does not
need Senate confirmation, is a particularly dangerous fanatic, who tried to
get the Israelis to attack Iran before even they wanted to, and has
promised regime change in Iran by 2019. As mentioned, he considers that Russia has already
given him a " casus belli. " Even the staid New York Timeswarns
that, with these appointments, "the odds of taking military action will rise dramatically."
The second presumption in the American mindset today makes military confrontation more
likely than it was during the Cold War: Not only is there a presumption of guilt, there is a
presumption of weakness . The presumption of guilt is something the American imperial
managers are confident they can induce and maintain in the Western world; the presumption of
weakness is one they -- or, I fear, too many of them -- have all-too blithely
internalized.
This is an aspect of the American self-image among policymakers whose careers matured in a
post-Soviet world. During the Cold War, Americans held themselves in check by the assumption,
that, militarily, the Soviet Union was a peer adversary, a country that could and would defend
certain territories and interests against direct American military aggression -- "spheres of
interest" that should not be attacked. The fundamental antagonism was managed with grudging
mutual respect.
There was, after all, a shared recent history of alliance against fascism. And there was an
awareness that the Soviet Union, in however distorted a way, both represented the possibility
of a post-capitalist future and supported post-colonial national liberation movements, which
gave it considerable stature in the world.
American leadership might have hated the Soviet Union, but it was not contemptuous of it. No
American leader would have called the Soviet Union, as John McCain called Russia, just "a gas
station masquerading as a country." And no senior American or British leader would have told
the Soviet Union what British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson told Russia last week: to "go
away and shut up."
This is a discourse that assumes its own righteousness, authority, and superior power, even
as it betrays its own weakness. It's the discourse of a frustrated child. Or bully. Russia
isn't shutting up and going away, and the British are not -- and know they're not -- going to
make it. But they may think the Big Daddy backing them up can and will. And daddy may think so
himself.
Like all bullies, the people enmeshed in this arrogant discourse don't seem to understand
that it is not frightening Russia. It's only insulting the country, and leading it to conclude
that there is indeed nothing remaining of productive, non-conflictual, US-Russian "partnership"
ties. The post-Skripal worldwide diplomatic expulsions, which seem deliberately and desperately
excessive, may have finally convinced Russia that there is no longer any use trying. Those who
should be frightened of this are the American people.
The enemy of my enemy is me.
The United States is only succeeding in turning itself into an enemy for Russians. Americans
would do well to understand how thoroughly their hypocritical and contemptuous stance has
alienated the Russian people and strengthened Vladimir Putin's leadership -- as many of Putin's
critics warned
them it would. The fantasy of stoking a "liberal" movement in Russia that will install some
nouveau-Yeltsin-ish figure is dissipated in the cold light of a 77% election day. Putin is
widely and firmly supported in Russia because he represents the resistance to any such
scheme.
Americans who want to understand that dynamic, and what America itself has wrought in
Russia, should heed the passion, anger, and disappointment in this statement about
Putin's election from a self-described "liberal" (using the word, I think, in the intellectual
tradition, not the American political, sense), Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT TV
(errors in translation by another person):
Essentially, the West should be horrified not because 76% of Russians voted for Putin, but
because this elections have demonstrated that 95% of Russia's population supports
conservative-patriotic, communist and nationalist ideas. That means that liberal ideas are
barely surviving among measly 5% of population.
And that's your fault, my Western friends. It was you who pushed us into "Russians never
surrender" mode
[W]ith all your injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to
stop respecting you. You and your so called "values."
We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we
wanted to live like you, but not any longer.
We have no more respect for you, and for those amongst us that you support, and for all
those people who support you.
For that you only have yourself to blame.
In meantime, you've pushed us to rally around your enemy. Immediately, after you declared
him an enemy, we united around him .
It was you who imposed an opposition between patriotism and liberalism. Although, they
shouldn't be mutually exclusive notions. This false dilemma, created by you, made us to chose
patriotism.
Even though, many of us are really liberals, myself included.
Get cleaned up, now. You don't have much time left.
In fact, the whole "uprising"/color revolution strategy throughout the world is over. It's
been fatally discredited by its own purported successes. Everybody in the Middle East has seen
how that worked out for Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and the Russians have seen how it worked out
for Ukraine and for Russia
itself . In neither Russia nor Iran (nor anywhere else of importance) are the Americans,
with their sanctions and their NGOs and their
cookies ,going to stoke a popular uprising that turns a country into a fractured client of
the Washington Consensus. More fantasy politics.
The old new world Washington wants won't be born without a military midwife. The U.S. wants
a compliant Russia ( and "international community") back, and it thinks it can force it
into being.
Fear Knot
Consider this quote from
The Saker , a defense analyst who was born in Switzerland to a Russian military family,
"studied Russian and Soviet military affairs all [his] life," and lived for 20 years in the
United States. He's been one of the sharpest analysts of Russia and Syria over the last few
years. This was his take a year ago, after Trump's cruise missile attack on Syria's Al Shayrat
airfield -- another instant punishment for an absolutely, positively, proven-in-a day, chemical
crime:
For one thing, there is no US policy on anything.
The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began
saying that the Americans were
"недоговороспособны".
What that word means is literally "not-agreement-capable" or unable to make and then abide by
an agreement. While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so
much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it.
But to say that a nuclear world superpower is "not-agreement-capable" is a terrible and
extreme diagnostic.
This means that the Russians have basically given up on the notion of having an adult,
sober and mentally sane partner to have a dialog with.
In all my years of training and work as a military analyst I have always had to assume
that everybody involved was what we called a "rational actor". The Soviets sure where. As
were the Americans.
Not only do I find the Trump administration "not agreement-capable", I find it completely
detached from reality. Delusional in other words.
Alas, just like Obama before him, Trump seems to think that he can win a game of nuclear
chicken against Russia. But he can't. Let me be clear here: if pushed into a corner the
Russian will fight, even if that means nuclear war.
There is a reason for this American delusion. The present generation of American leadership
was spoiled and addled by the blissful post-Soviet decades of American impunity.
The problem is not exactly that the U.S. wants full-on war with Russia, it's that
America does not fear it. [2]
Why should it? It hasn't had to for twenty years during which the US assumed it could bully
Russia to stay out of its imperial way anywhere it wanted to intervene.
After the Soviet Union broke up (and only because the Soviet Union disappeared) the
United States was free to use its military power with impunity. For some time, the U.S. had its
drunken stooge, Yeltsin, running Russia and keeping it out of America's military way. There was
nary a peep when Bill Clinton effectively conferred on NATO (meaning the U.S. itself) the
authority to decide what military interventions were necessary and legitimate. For about twenty
years -- from the Yugoslavia through the Libya intervention -- no nation had the military power
or politico-diplomatic will to resist this.
But that situation has changed. Even the Pentagon
recognizes that the American Empire is in a "post-primacy" phase -- certainly "fraying,"
and maybe even "collapsing." The world has seen America's social and economic strength
dissipate, and its pretense of legitimacy disappear entirely. The world has seen American
military overreach everywhere while winning nothing of stable value anywhere. Sixteen years,
and the mighty U.S. Army cannot defeat the Taliban. Now, that's Russia's fault!
Meanwhile, a number of countries in key areas have gained the military confidence and
political will to refuse the presumptions of American arrogance -- China in the Pacific, Iran
in the Middle East, and Russia in Europe and, surprisingly, the Middle East as well. In a
familiar pattern, America's resultant anxiety about waning power increases its
compensatory aggression. And, as mentioned, since it was Russia that most effectively
demonstrated that new military confidence, it's Russia that has to be dealt with first.
The incessant wave of sanctions and expulsions is the bully in the schoolyard clenching his
fist to scare the new kid away. OK, everyone's got the message now. Unclench or punch?
Let's be clear about who is the world's bully. As is evident to any half-conscious person,
Russia is not going to attack the United States or Europe. Russia doesn't have scores of
military bases, combat ships and aircraft up on America's borders. It doesn't have almost a
thousand military bases around the world. Russia does not have the military forces to rampage
around the world as America does, and it doesn't want or need to. That's not because of
Russia's or Vladimir Putin's pacifism, but because Russia, as presently situated in the
political economy of the world, has nothing to gain from it.
Nor does Russia need some huge troll-farm offensive to "destabilize" and sow division in
Western Europe and the United States. Inequality, austerity, waves of immigrants from
regime-change wars, and trigger-happy cops are doing a fine job of that. Russia isn't
responsible for American problems with Black Lives Matter or with the Taliban.
All of this is fantasy politics.
It's the United States, with its fraying empire, that has a problem requiring military
aggression. What other tools does the U.S. have left to put the upstarts, Russia first, back in
their places?
It must be hard for folks who have had their way with country after country for twenty years
not to think they can push Russia out of the way with some really, really scary threats, or
maybe one or two "bloody nose" punches. Some finite number of discrete little escalations.
There's already been some shoving -- that cruise missile attack, Turkey's downing of a Russian
jet, American attacks on Russian personnel (ostensibly private mercenaries) in Syria -- and,
look, Ma, no big war. But sometimes you learn the hard way the truth of the reverse Mike Tyson
rule: "Everyone has a game plan until they smack the other guy in the face."
Consider one concrete risk of escalation that every informed observer is, and every American
should be, aware of.
The place where the United States and Russia are literally, geographically, closest to
confrontation is Syria. As mentioned, the U.S. and its NATO ally, Turkey, have already attacked
and killed Russians in Syria, and the U.S. and its NATO allies have a far larger military force
than Russia in Syria and the surrounding area. On the other hand, Russia has made very
effective use of its forces, including what Reuters
calls "advanced cruise missiles" launched from planes,
ships , and
submarines that hit ISIS targets with high precision from 1000 kilometers.
Russia is also operating in accordance with international law, while the U.S. is not. Russia
is fighting with Syria for the defeat of jihadi forces and the unification of the Syrian state.
The United States is fighting with its jihadi clients for the overthrow of the Syrian
government and the division of the country. Russia intervened in Syria after Obama announced
that the U.S. would attack Syrian army troops, effectively declaring war. If neither side
accepts defeat and goes home, it is quite possible there will be some direct confrontation
over this. In fact, it's hard to imagine that there won't.
A couple of weeks ago Syria and Russia
said the U.S. was planning a major offensive against the Syrian government, including
bombing the government quarter in Damascus. Valery Gerasimov, head of Russia's General Staff,
warned: "In the event of a threat to the lives of our servicemen, Russia's armed forces will
take retaliatory measures against the missiles and launchers used." In this context,
"launchers" means American ships in the Mediterranean.
Also a couple of weeks ago, Russia announced a number of new, highly-advanced weapons
systems. There's discussion about whether some of the yet-to-be-deployed weapons announced
may or
may not
be a bluff, but one that has already been deployed, called Dagger ( Kinzhal, not the
missiles mentioned above), is an air-launched hypersonic cruise missile that files at 5-7,000
miles per hour, with a range of 1200 miles. Analyst Andrei Martyanov claims that: "no
modern or perspective air-defense system deployed today by any NATO fleet can intercept even a
single missile with such characteristics. A salvo of 5-6 such missiles guarantees the
destruction of any Carrier Battle Group or any other surface group, for that matter."
Air-launched. From anywhere.
The U.S. attack has not (yet) happened, for whatever reason (Sputnik reporter Suliman
Mulhem, citing "a military monitor," claims
that's because of the Russian warnings). Great. But given the current state of America's
anxiously aggressive "post-primacy" policy -- including the Russiamania, the Zionist-driven
need to destroy Syria and Iran, and the War Cabinet -- how unlikely is that the U.S. will, in
the near future, make some such attack on some such target that Russia considers crucial to
defend?
And Syria is just one theater where, unless one side accepts defeat and goes home, military
conflict with Russia is highly likely. Is Russia going to abandon the Russian-speaking people
of the Donbass if they're attacked by fascist Kiev forces backed by the U.S.? Is it going to
sit back and watch passively if American and Israeli forces attack Iran? Which one is going to
give up and accept a loss: John Bolton or Vladimir Putin?
Which brings us to the pointed question: What will the U.S. do if Russia sinks an American
ship? How many steps before that goes full-scale, even nuclear? Or maybe American planners (and
you, dear reader) are absolutely, positively sure that will never happen, because the U.S. has
cool weapons, too, and a lot more of them, and the Russians will probably lose all their ships
in the Mediterranean immediately, if not something worse, and they'll put up with anything
rather than go one more step. The Russians, like everybody, must know the Americans always
win.
Happy with that, are we? Snug in our homeland rug? 'Cause Russians won't fight, but the
Taliban will.
This is exactly what is meant by Americans not fearing war with Russia (or war in general
for that matter). Nothing but contempt.
The Skripal opera, directed by the United States, with the whole of Europe and the entire
Western media apparatus singing in harmony, makes it clear that the American producers have no
speaking role for Russia in their staging of the world. And that contempt makes war much more
likely. Here's The Saker again, on how
dangerous the isolation the U.S. and its European clients are so carelessly imposing on Russia
and themselves is for everybody:
Right now they are expelling Russian diplomats en mass e and they are feeling very
strong and manly.
The truth is that this is only the tip of a much bigger iceberg. In reality, crucial
expert-level consultations, which are so vitally important between nuclear superpowers, have
all but stopped a long time ago. We are down to top level telephone calls. That kind of stuff
happens when two sides are about to go to war. For many months now Russia and NATO have made
preparations for war in Europe. Very rapidly the real action will be left to the USA and
Russia. Thus any conflict will go nuclear very fast. And, for the first time in history, the
USA will be hit very, very hard, not only in Europe, the Middle-East or Asia, but also on the
continental US.
Mass diplomatic expulsions, economic warfare, lockstep propaganda, no interest whatsoever in
respectfully addressing or hearing from the other side. What we've been seeing over the past
few months is the "kind of stuff that happens when two sides are about to go to war."
The less Americans fear war, the less they respect the possibility of it, the more likely
they are to get it.
Ready or Not
The Saker makes a diptych of a point that gets to the heart of the matter. We'd do well to
read and think on it carefully:
1/ The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not.
2/ The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not.
Russia is afraid of war. More than twenty million Soviet citizens were
killed in WWII, about half of them civilians. That was more than twenty times the number of
Americans and British casualties combined. The entire country was devastated. Millions died in
the 872-day siege of Leningrad alone, including Vladimir Putin's brother. The city's population
was decimated by disease and starvation, with some reduced to cannibalism. Wikileaks calls it "one of the
longest and most destructive sieges in history [and] possibly the
costliest
in casualties." Another million-plus died in the nine-month siege of Stalingrad.
Every Russian knows this history. Millions of Russian families have suffered from it. Of
course, there was mythification of the struggle and its heroes, but the Russians, viscerally,
know war and know it can happen to them . They do not want to go through it
again. They will do almost anything to avoid it. Russians are not flippant about war. They fear
it. They respect it.
The Americans are not (afraid of war). Americans have never experienced anything
remotely as devastating as this. About 620,000 Americans died in the Civil War, 150 years ago.
(And we're still entangled in that!) The American mainland has not been attacked by a
significant military force since the War of 1812. Since then, the worst attacks on American
territory are two one-off incidents (Pearl Harbor and 9/11), separated by seventy years,
totaling about six-thousand casualties. These are the iconic moments of America Under
Siege.
For the American populace, wars are "over there," fought by a small group of Americans who
go away and either come back or don't. The death, destruction, and aroma of warfare -- which
the United States visits on people around the world incessantly -- is unseen and unexperienced
at home. Americans do not, cannot, believe, in any but the most abstract intellectual sense,
that war can happen here , to them. For the general populace, talk of war is just more
political background noise, Morgan Freeman competing for attention with Stormy Daniels and the
Kardashians.
Americans are supremely insouciant about war: They threaten countries with it incessantly,
the government routinely sells it with lies, and the political parties promote it
opportunistically to defeat their opponents -- and nobody cares. For Americans, war is part of
a game. They do not fear it. They do not respect it.
The Russians are ready for war. The Nazi onslaught was defeated -- in Soviet Russia,
by Soviet Citizens and the Red Army -- because the mass of people stood and fought together for
a victory they understood was important. They could not have withstood horrific sieges and
defeated the Nazis any other way. Russians understand, in other words, that war is a crisis of
death and destruction visited on the whole of society, which can only be won by a massive and
difficult effort grounded in social solidarity. If the Russians feel they have to fight, if
they feel besieged, they know they will have to stand together, take the hits that come, and
fight to the finish. They will not again permit war to be brought to their cities while their
attacker stays snug. There will be a world of hurt. They will develop and use any weapon they
can. And their toughest weapon is not a hypersonic missile; it's that solidarity, implied by
that 77%. (Did you read that Simonyan statement?) They may not be seeking it, but, insofar as
anybody can be, they are ready to fight.
Americans are not (ready for war): Americans experience the horror of wars as a
series of discrete tragedies visited upon families of fallen soldiers, reported in
human-interest vignettes at the end of the nightly news. Individual tragedies, not a social
disaster.
It's hard to imagine the social devastation of war in any case, but American culture wants
no part of thinking about that concretely. The social imagination of war is deflected into
fantastic scenarios of a super-hero universe or a zombie apocalypse. The alien death-ray may
blow up the Empire State Building, but the hero and his family (now including his or her
gender-ambivalent teenager, and, of course, the dog) will survive and triumph. Cartoon
villains, cartoon heroes, and a cartoon society.
One reason for this, we have to recognize, is the victory of the
Thatcherite/libertarian-capitalist "no such thing as society" ideology. Congratulations, Ayn
Rand, there is no such thing as American society now. It's every incipient entrepreneur
for him or herself. This does not a comradely, fighting band of brothers and sisters make.
Furthermore, though America is constantly at war, nobody understands the purpose of it.
That's because the real purpose can never be explained, and must be hidden behind some facile
abstraction -- "democracy," "our freedoms," etc. This kind of discourse can get some of the
people motivated for some of the time, but it loses its charm the minute someone gets smacked
in the face.
Once they take a moment, everybody can see that there is nobody with an army threatening to
attack and destroy the United States, and if they take a few moments, everybody can see how
phony the "democracy and freedom" stuff is and remember how often they've been lied to before.
There's just too much information out there. (Which is why the Imperial High Command wants to
control the internet.) Why the hell am I fighting? What in hell are we fighting
for? These are questions everybody will ask after, and too many people are now asking
before, they get smacked in the face.
This lack of social understanding and lack of political support translates into the
impossibility of fighting a major, sustained war that requires taking heavy casualties -- even
"over there," but certainly in the snug. American culture might be all gung-ho about Seal Team
Six kicking ass, but the minute American homes start blowing up and American bodies start
falling, Hoo-hah becomes Uh-oh , and it's going to be Outta here .
Americans are ready for Hoo-hah and the Shark Tank and the Zombie Apocalypse. They
are not ready for war.
You Get What You Play For
"Russiagate," which started quite banally in the presidential campaign as a Democratic arrow
to take down Trump, is now Russiamania -- a battery of weapons wielded by various sectors of
the state, aimed at an array of targets deemed even potentially resistant to imperial
militarism. Trump himself -- still, and for as long as he's deemed unreliable -- is targeted by
a legal prosecution of infinite reach (whose likeliest threat is to take him down for something
that has nothing to do with Russia). Russia itself is now targeted in full force by economic,
diplomatic, ideological -- and, tentatively, military -- weapons of the state. Perhaps most
importantly, American and European people, especially dissidents, are targeted by a unified
media barrage that attacks any expression of radical critique, anything that "sows division" --
from Black Lives Matter, to the Sanders campaign, to "But other countries could have made it"
-- as Russian treachery.
The stunning success of that last offensive is crucial to making a war more likely, and must
be fought. To increase the risk of war with a nuclear power in order to score points against
Donald Trump or Jill Stein -- well, only those who neither respect, fear, nor are ready for war
would do such a stupid and dangerous thing.
It's impossible to predict with certainty whether, when, or with whom a major hot war will
be started. The same chaotic disarray and impulsiveness of the Trump administration that
increases the danger of war might also work to prevent it. John Bolton may be fired before he
trims his moustache. But it's a pressure-cooker, and the temperature has spiked
drastically.
In a previous
essay , I said that Venezuela was a likely first target for military attack, precisely
because it would make for an easy victory that didn't risk military confrontation with Russia.
That's still a good possibility. As we saw with Iraq Wars 1 (which helped to end the "Vietnam
Syndrome") and 2 (which somewhat resurrected it), the imperial high command needs to inure the
American public with a virtually American-casualty-free victory and in order to lure them into
taking on a war that's going to hurt.
But the new War Cabinet may be pumped for the main event -- an attack on Iran. Trump,
Pompeo, and Bolton are all rabid proponents of regime-change in Iran. We can be certain
that the Iran nuclear deal will be scrapped, and everyone will work hard to implement the
secret agreementthe Trump administration already has with Israel to "to deal
with Iran's nuclear drive, its missile programs and its other threatening activities" -- or, as
Trump himself expresses it: "cripple the [Iranian] regime and bring it to collapse." (That
agreement, by the way, was negotiated and signed by the previous, supposedly not-so-belligerent
National Security Advisor, H. R. McMaster.)
Still, as I also said in the previous essay, an attack on Iran means the Americans must
either make sure Russia doesn't get in the way or make clear that they don't care if it
does. So, threatening moves -- not excluding probing military moves -- against Russia will
increase, whether Russia is the preferred direct target or not.
The siege is on.
Americans who want to continue playing with this fire would do well to pay some respectful
attention to the target whose face they want to smack. Russia did not boast or brag or threaten
or Hoo-Hah about sending military forces to Syria. When it was deemed necessary -- when
the United States declared its intention to attack the Syrian Army -- it just did it. And
American10-dimensional-chess players have been squirming around trying to deal with the
implications of that ever since. They're working hard on finding the right mix of threats,
bluffs, sanctions, expulsions, "Shut up and go away!" insults, military forces on the border,
and "bloody nose" attacks to force a capitulation. They should be listening to their target,
who has not tired of asking for a "partnership," who has clearly stated what his country would
do in reaction to previous moves (e.g., the abrogation of the ABM Treaty and stationing of ABM
bases in Eastern Europe), whose country and family have suffered from wartime devastation
Americans cannot imagine, who therefore respects, fears, and is ready for war in ways Americans
are not, and who is not playing their game:
[2]
Though it's ridiculous that it needs to be said: I'm not talking here about the phony fear
engendered by the media presentation of the "strongman," "brutal dictator" Vladimir Putin. This
is part and parcel of comic-book politics -- conjuring a super-villain, who, we all know, is
destined to be defeated. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Jim Kavanagh
There is so much disinformation that it is difficult to judge the Israeli news report below
that the US is planning a military attack on Iran. Israel wants the US to attack Iran and the
report could be an attempt to push events in that direction.
There is no valid reason for Washington to serve Israeli interests.
It would be extremely irresponsible for Washington to risk starting another war.
As Russian and Chinese interests could be threatened by a US war with Iran, the situation
could become uncontrollable.
If there is a real prospect of a US attack on Iran, it would be a responsible action for
Russia and China to block it in advance by taking a firm position.
U.N. officials: U.S. planning a 'tactical assault' in Iran
By SHLOMO SHAMIR/MAARIV ONLINE
06/17/2019
The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian
facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.
Is the US going to attack Iran soon?
Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are
assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the
tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday.
According to the officials, since Friday, the White House has been holding incessant
discussions involving senior military commanders, Pentagon representatives and advisers to
President Donald Trump.
The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian
facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.
"The bombing will be massive but will be limited to a specific target," said a Western
diplomat.
Neocon donors ask Trump for favors and he can't refuse... Trump foreign policy is a direct continuation of Bush II and Obama
foreign policy and is dominated by neocons, who rule the State Department. Pomeo is a rabid neocon, to the right of
Condoleezza Rice, Hillary and John Kerry. Actually anti-Iranian and pro-Israeli bias was clearly visible even during 2016
campaign, but few voters paid any attention. Now they should.
It is clear that Trump is the most pro-Israel President after Johnson.
Notable quotes:
"... In contrast, in the Middle East the president has been extraordinarily bellicose. In April, the Administration revoked waivers that allowed certain countries to buy oil from Iran without violating U.S. sanctions [ U.S. Won't Renew Sanction Exemptions For Countries Buying Iran's Oil , by Bill Chappell, NPR, April 22, 2019]. In early May, the president imposed new sanctions on Iranian metals, a direct threat to the regime's economic viability. ..."
"... The "maximum pressure campaign," as it has been called, puts Iran in the position of either accepting a humiliating surrender or striking out where it can [ Maximum pressure on Iran Means Maximum Risk of War , by Ilan Goldenberg, Foreign Policy, June 14, 2019]. ..."
"... Why Iran would do this is questionable, unless it's just a move of desperation. ..."
"... But did Iran actually do it? Washington has a credibility gap with the rest of the world and its own people thanks to the disaster of the Iraq War . There were, it turned out, no "Weapons of Mass Destruction." So now many Americans openly question whether Iran attacked these tankers. This includes some MSM reporters who trusted the "intelligence community" when it was attacking Trump but now want an "international investigation of the incident". [ Ben Rhodes, CNN, And Others Purposefully Fuel Pro-Iranian "False Flag Conspiracy Theories After Tanker Attacks , RedState, June 14, 2019] ..."
The most optimistic explanation: Trump intends to use immigration as an election issue in
2020. Yet his fecklessness in office will be as unappealing to many voters as the Democrats'
extremism. [ Trump Is
Vulnerable to Biden on Immigration, by Michael Brendan Dougherty, National
Review, June 11, 2019] After all, Trump
began his campaign vowing to solve the immigration problem almost exactly four years ago --
but essentially nothing has been done.
Later that month, the president said a fight would mean "the official end of Iran" [
Trump threatens Iran With 'Official End' by Kenneth Walsh, US News and World
Report, May 20, 2019].
The "maximum pressure campaign," as it has been called, puts Iran in the position of either
accepting a humiliating surrender or striking out where it can [ Maximum
pressure on Iran Means Maximum Risk of War, by Ilan Goldenberg, Foreign
Policy, June 14, 2019].
Why Iran would do this is questionable, unless it's just a move of desperation.
But did Iran actually do it? Washington has a credibility gap with the rest of the world and
its own people thanks to the disaster of the Iraq War
. There were, it turned out, no "Weapons of Mass Destruction." So now many Americans openly
question whether Iran attacked these tankers. This includes some MSM reporters who trusted the
"intelligence community" when it was attacking Trump but now want an "international
investigation of the incident". [ Ben Rhodes, CNN, And Others Purposefully Fuel Pro-Iranian "False Flag Conspiracy Theories
After Tanker Attacks, RedState, June 14, 2019]
This is not the same country that re-elected George W. Bush in 2004. The trust in
institutions is gone; America is war-weary.
There is also a deeper fundamental question. Our country is crumbling. The border is
non-existent; entire communities are being overrun. There's something perverse about even
entertaining a dangerous and costly military intervention halfway around the world. It's akin
to a Roman emperor declaring he will conquer India while barbarians are crossing the Rhine.
"There is no doubt," Pompeo told "Fox News Sunday,"
This, from Sec. Mike Pompous, to the Apparatchik arm of the Administration. As if the
American public, or the world, would/could believe anything out of the mouths of these
pathetic, bombastic, buffoons.
mcsmcs
...We are supposed to believe the intelligence community about this, but not anything else
apparently.
BassHunter
The trifecta of ignorant bellicosity (ie Trump/Bolton/Pompeo) have no credibility because
they constantly and consistently lie about everything all the time. It is a situation of
their own making. The true surprise here is that THEY are surprised that others refuse to
believe them...
13 hours ago Would someone please explain to me why anyone would attempt to remove an
unexploded mine from the side of a ship, and take it on board their own vessel? Seriously. Is
this a case of waste not, want not?
It doesn't matter much, though, even if it's true. Nobody believes a word coming out of this
administration. We are a global laughing stock run by pathological liars. Like thumb_up
5 Reply reply Link link Report flag
mcsmcs 12 hours
ago They would take it because it could be traced back to the country that made it and/or put
it there.
But it they could have taken it off and let it fall to the bottom of the ocean. Like
thumb_up 1 Reply reply Link link Report flag
longretired 10 hours ago The other question is why was the min attached above the waterline?
Mrine mines are designed to explode underwater.
Like thumb_up 1 Reply reply Link link Report
flag Patti C 14 hours ago
Trump and Pompeo are abhorrent. They have destroyed our foreign policy. No one in their right
mind should be voting for Trump for a second term. This administration has no credibility
nationally and internationally. Americans who support Trump are ruining our country and are
voting against their interests over and over again. Wake up! Republicans and Mitch McConnell
should be punished for the amoral Trump Administration. Democrats need to dominate in the 2020
elections! Democrats need to work with all communities across the country to save our
democratic republic. Vote Democrats across the nation in 2020. 10 hours ago About what? He
actually said the Government has determined. And we all know how unreliable this government
is.
The intelligence community always has lots of dat . Like the lies about the Iraq war start,
it did not support their assertions. 15 hours ago Odd the only countries siding with the US
version of this incident are the ones who stand to gain from continuing to isolate Iran.
Saudi Arabia especially is not a fair player, as exemplified by their behavior in Sudan as
well. 15 hours ago Simple. Reread The Boy Who Cried Wolf. When you have a narcissistic
president who cannot speak the truth and goes around naked in The Emperor's New Clothes, his
sycophantic appointees say, "Oh yes, you are wearing the most Beautiful new robe." Like
thumb_up 4 Reply reply Link link Report flag
Portia1992 15 hours ago The U.S. has zero credibility and should never be trusted. We are
warmongers controlled by U.A.E., Saudi Arabia & Israel.
22 hours ago (Edited) This is how stupid we've become: My fear is the real reason we pulled out
of a deal that was very effective at both keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons and
incentivizing them to behave (for greater economic opportunities) is that Trump hates the
fact that Obama developed the deal.
He's forever spoke of developing "a better deal" with regard to everything Obama did. He
wanted a "better" healthcare plan to replace Obamacare too. But the very folks that voted for
Trump (especially in places like Kentucky) benefited too greatly from "Obamacare" and loudly
demanded that Trump not touch it.
Here we go again with Trump trying to screw things up (even if it means risking
American military lives in a conflict that was COMPLETELY unnecessary when Trump took
office).
It was never truly about what Iran was doing. They were behaving so well that all of our
European allies cheered the former peace deal (IT WAS WORKING VERY WELL). Some of this is about
Trump's weird love for Saudi Arabia (a bitter enemy of Iran).
But most of this is in Trump's bigoted head. Put simply, we are on the brink of war with a
very nasty adversary mainly because Trump hates Obama and everything he did. Even our closest
allies (that loved Obama) are not treated as well as Putin (who hated Obama, too). Like
thumb_up 9 Reply reply Link link Report flag
BassHunter 12 hours ago Bingo! Like thumb_up 1 Reply reply
Link link Report flag NormaLee10 22 hours ago
(Edited) Report from my last trip to Iran. I just love the Chinese sneakers I bought in Ahwaz
(sorry Nike) Love the Russian fur hat I bought in Tabriz((sorry Gap) The high speed train,
built by the Chinese, was a wonderful ride. . Thank you to the Russian Crew inviting us to tour
their ship in the port near the Caspian. I get compliments on my Turkish scarves , my Indian
cotton dresses. The new boutique hotel, refurbished by a German chain was great.
Just think, if the Dump would have stayed and expanded on the Nuclear agreement,he could have
sent Ivanka over to pick up where she left off, designing a hotel in Kazakhstan , or stolen
some designs off Persian carpets.
23 hours ago The U.S. lost all credibility under W, who claimed that Iraq had Weapons of Mass
Destruction.
Not a single person in a gubbmint office has learned a damned thing since. Like
thumb_up 6 Reply reply Link link Report flag
decaff 23 hours ago So we watched W. Bush get into a huge mess in Iraq (actually it was
Cheney). Just imagine the mess that the Orange Clown may get us into with Iran. (which benefits
his relationships with Saudi Arabia).
Like thumb_up 5 Reply reply Link link Report
flag Ralph Carlson 23 hours
ago Trump is and always has been nothing more than a bully
Like thumb_up 4 Reply reply Link link Report
flag RGR 23 hours ago This guy
came in on a wild horse ride, Mexicans are rapists, etc...Pull out of the Iran deal (even
though it appeared to be working)....and how he is helping the military (while taking money out
of their budget for 'the wall').
TURNS OUT...he is the wild horse, and this one is not one that should be allowed out of the
barn...
He is a fool...how long does it take to figure this out...his district in NY only voted 10%
for him...they knew! Like thumb_up 5 Reply reply Link
link Report flag Citizen of the Planet 1
day ago You are now witnessing the manifestation of 2 years of Trump's chest pounding and
bullying. No one trusts us. No one. Nobody. Like thumb_up 6 Reply reply Link link Report flag Al Terego Oz 1 day ago
Interesting how quickly it's gone from being possibly a mine to definitely a mine. Like
thumb_up 3 Reply reply Link link Report flag
Bimberg 22 hours ago Very soon Trump will announce that "It's mine, mine, mine!"
Like thumb_up 1 Reply reply Link link Report
flag Pinky_the_Cat 1 day ago
The reason Trump can't make a case for this is that there is no evidence.
There is so little evidence that Trump had to buy propaganda from Heritage.org . That is how thin this
"... Acting totally mad and indicating you don't care is a good way to defeat those who is your equal. Isn't this is exactly how the US government has been acting lately? ..."
"... Interesting this WaPost op/ed totally trashing Trump/Pompeo foreign policy and their utter inability didn't generate any further comment on the previous thread. Sure, it came from BezosPost, but it surely represents some powerful faction that's totally at odds with the directionlessness of Trump and Pompeo. ..."
"... Its June and you know who loves blood to be spilled in June, and right before July 4 you know. Look for a limited aerial strike per PCR, and then they hope Iran retaliates and gives an excuse for them to escalate. ..."
"... Americans are so brainwashed into buying into US militarism and exceptionalism that Trumps approval ratings will go up. Anyone criticizing the military or war is labelled anti-American and censored by Social Media. ..."
"... Seems that Shanahan balked at being the scapegoat for the next war so they found another. Shanahan is said to be pretty smart (Masters and MBA from MIT). ..."
"... Has Trump been misled by his advisors, when he twitted about the infamous video shot in the dark by modern means that would surprise the Iranians?I Mean ,because now it turns out to be made in clear daylight with the newly published images. Is Trump angry about being cheated or did he play with the game and was his twitted remark kind of an inside joke? ..."
"... Previously we had G.Haspel showing non-pertinent to the matter camera shots of duck and children to convince him into expelling a max number of Russian diplomats. ..."
"... I am sure there are many Americans interested to know who is in charge at the USA.. ..."
"... ... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality... Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance -- thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction. ..."
"... Such that Trump is both peace-loving nationalist and empire-loving antagonist. Except that the latter is expressed as a positive: "staunch ally", "tough negotiator", "protector", etc instead of a negative. Some people fall for it (Kool-Aid drinkers) and MSM ignores those that talk about the meta issues of MSM complicity. ..."
"... IMO President's are just members of the Deep State team. Presidents lead the team that's "on the field" - like a quarterback in American football. But the Deep State 'coach' calls the plays. And the 'coach' is, in turn, ultimately responsible to the owners (capitalists). ..."
"... In light of what the WaPost published I linked to above regrading the utter lack in confidence in both Trump and Pompeo to conduct a rational foreign policy, I seriously doubt the change at SecDef will provide optimism for improvement. Some apparently think such dissent is just shadowplay; IMO, they are mistaken. And I will again note the dissent isn't just about Iran; rather, it's about the conduct of overall foreign policy, especially Trade Policy, which is eating into corporate profitability. ..."
"... That would be a terrible miscalculation from US leadership. The one reason why Pearl Harbour wasn't a lasting disaster for the US is that the carriers survived. What if Iran actually manages to sink a carrier air group? I mean, nukes and nearly untouchable power projection through aircraft carriers are the two main reasons why the US is still the supreme superpower around. Show people that the carriers can be taken out and actually begin to take them out, and plenty of people and countries will begin to consider leaving that mad army parading as a country to itself - not to mention some will soon openly rebel. ..."
"... The US has 50,000 troops and a carrier strike group "protecting American interests" in the Persian Gulf area of the Middle East. Somebody in government ought to tell us what those "interests" are, which require such an investment. That would be nice. ..."
"... The Guardian-- The Iran crisis was created in Washington. The US must be talked down ..."
Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, who has done a wonderful job, has decided
not to go forward with his confirmation process so that he can devote more time to his
family....
....I thank Pat for his outstanding service and will be naming Secretary of the Army, Mark
Esper, to be the new Acting Secretary of Defense. I know Mark, and have no doubt he will do a
fantastic job
On May 9 the White House announced
that it would nominate Shanahan for the Secretary of Defense position. But it never sent the
nomination request to Congress to have Shanahan confirmed. During the usual FBI background
check before a confirmation, a 2010 domestic violence incident Shanahan was involved in
came up . It seems that it now
ended his short career at the Pentagon.
Shanahan had zero experience in the military. He is a former Boeing manager. A recent
Politicoportrait of
Shanahan described him as weak leader who allowed the war hawks in National Security
Council to directly talk with regional commanders without even informing him. He was no
counterweight for Bolton and Pompeo who are eager to wage war on Iran.
Yesterday ABC News
reported that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo would meet with talk with the Central Command
and Special Operations Command leaders without Shanahan being there. It was extremely
unusual:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will travel to Florida on Monday to meet with leaders from
U.S. Central Command and Special Operations Command on Tuesday. The U.S. is considering "all
options," including military force, to respond to Iran's reported attack on two oil vessels,
Pompeo said on Sunday, raising concerns of a U.S. strike.
...
Pompeo will meet with CENTCOM and Special Operations Command at MacDill Air Force Base in
Florida on Tuesday to "discuss regional security concerns and ongoing operations," according
to Ortagus, after calling several world leaders over the weekend to discuss America's
evidence that Iran was behind last week's attacks.
There is no information what plans those talks were about.
At @CENTCOM at @MacDill_AFB, @SecPompeo says he conferred with military commanders to
coordinate State and Defense Dept policy on Iran.
Says US is serious about deterring Iran regime from further aggression in the region.
Says Pres Trump does not want war against Iran.
[Another very unusual sign is that the old war criminal Henry Kissinger visited the Pentagon
yesterday and today .]
Trump already had difficulties to find a new Secretary of Defense. Shanahan was not his
first choice. To now find a new candidate will be difficult.
It is unlikely that the U.S. would launch a war without a Secretary of Defense in place. Bolton and Pompeo obviously want a war on Iran and they try their best to instigate it. They
need a new SecDef in place as soon as possible. Pompeo served five years as an officer in the U.S. army. He has extensive political
experience. Would he want to become Secretary of Defense?
That would leave the Secretary of State position open for John Bolton to move in. The
confirmation would be a bit difficult but the Senate is in Republican hands and might go with
it. One of Bolton's cronies could then take over the National Security Advisor position. From the war-hawks' point of view it would be the ideal configuration to launch a big
one.
Posted by b on June 18, 2019 at 02:03 PM |
Permalink
Possibly true. I was only looking at this from Sputnick:
"The numerous US media stated that Secretary of the Army Mark Esper had been discussed as a
possible alternative choice as defense secretary to Shanahan if Trump decided not to nominate
him."
I have hard time believing that Bolton and Pompeo under consideration. Pompeo isn't gonna
wanna leave his current job and as for Bolton John Kiriakou wrote last week that Trump is
quietly working behind the scenes to find a replacement for him. If anything it might suggest
that Trump is working to covertly reign in Bolton and Pompeo with another SecDef who can
better control them.
Besides Mr. Esper, who was confirmed as secretary of the Army in November 2017, officials
said that Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, and Richard V. Spencer, the secretary of the
Navy, are on the short list for defense secretary.
... and I thought I was to far out speculative with the above.
"From the war-hawks' point of view it would be the ideal configuration to launch a big one." Gosh, and I thought that Hillary was the big warmonger...guess it would've only been worse
under her.
Obama didn't have a problem getting re-elected with all of his own secret foreign wars and
dronings going on. If indeed Pimpeo and Bolt-On get their way, Trump will execute the same
type of campaign against Iran except there will be no boots on the ground, even "advisors"
given the relationship status of the countries surrounding Iran. The U.S. has exhausted its
credibility and goodwill. So we'll be funding terrorists, perpetrating false flags, using
drones to attack Iranian seagoing military vessels and launching the occasional "precision"
cruise missile strike against alleged nuclear weapons and maybe even chemical weapons
processing facilities.
If there is a land war, Israel will fight to the last American troop.
Trump's list of Most Unsuitable Candidates for Higher Office is getting perilously short.
Assuming our most famous U.S. billionaire capitalists are not interested, what are Cheney and
Condoleezza doing these days? Erik Prince? Some aging Grand Wizard of the KKK? A random death
row inmate? The mind boggles.
i said this on the last thread, but i would be curious for others feedback on it..
"think about it... is there going to be more money made and generated starting a war on
iran, or not?? the choice is obvious for those into money... create mayhem and raise a lot of
money off of it.. and what countries seem to excel at that??"
as for innocent people dying, that has never been a concern for those into money...
Just to see how far we've come, or how bad the situation is, I'd consider Kissinger going on
his own to check things out with the top military brass to actually be a good sign. He's no
fool and knows that war with Iran will only confirm to Russia and China that they have to
stand together, strong, against the USA, and that they'd probably better back Iran up on this
one. I wouldn't be surprised if Kissinger is back to his old ways, and that's it's a similar
move to when he warned the generals to call him right away if Nixon ever gave the order to
use nukes. The guy is slimy and ruthless, but knows the limits and doesn't plan to suicide
half the planet.
Colonel Pat Lang assumes that Shanahan just resigns in disgust because Pompeo and Bolton
are running the show without consulting with the military. Not sure which is right.
One can hope that the neo-con buddies overplayed their hands and that they just put Trump in
such a shitty situation that he's going to tell them to go to Hell soon - hopefully before
anyone does something *really* stupid. But right now, that's just that, hope.
NYT saying Pompeo is considered for SecDef might just be Pompeo and his neo-con buddies
saying dumb shit and leaking false information to appear important, and trying to force
Trump's hands. I really hope that's what happened - because then it would piss Trump off and
he might be looking for a way of getting rid of him. If the leak is genuine, on the other
hand, that's a terrible sign.
Yes, I believe the US would use nukes if they think they could get away with it... that's
how crazy works. Would the other nuclear powers step in,,, highly doubtful. If that happens
then the US might even threaten them with annihilation. They would believe the US is sooo
insane that it would really risk planet destruction and could decide to cave to the US
wishes.
Acting totally mad and indicating you don't care is a good way to defeat those who is your
equal. Isn't this is exactly how the US government has been acting lately?
"I believe the US would use nukes if they think they could get away with it...that's how
crazy evil works."
and Sean Hannity would say ... "never has a country had so much power and abused it so
little, the Iranians [10 minute Litany of robotic talking point lies] left us no choice." Pompeo, Pence and Haley all declaring it the most righteous and justifiable act ever. Trump would close the border to any Iranian refugees and embargo any Iranians who survived
just like he is doing to the Syrians and Venezuelans now.
Isn't the Secretary of State the most senior member of the cabinet and regarded as more
powerful that POTUS? The position where real power resides? How could a buffoon like Bolton
even be considered for Secretary if State? Just another one of Trump's ricaldoodlelus
appointments? What a lark!
Bolton graduated from Yale in 1970. I wonder if he is a member of the Skull & Bones?
Or closely associated? If so, that makes him much, much more than a mere buffoon but, rather,
the very embodiment of the Deep State's and neo-Con's war strategy; that would make Bolton a
very, very dangerous person in a very, very powerful position.
Trump would appear to be nothing more than a facilitator.
Both George H.W & George W. Bush were bonesman. Cheney only went to Yale but didn't
graduate. Far from Cheney being the controlling influence over George W. (as presented in
media and movies) maybe Cheney was just following orders.
Marie Colville (did she ever really exist?) also appears to have been an alumni of Yale
(was a fake background constructed?).
Supposedly, the Skull & Bones control Yale; what a very strange place. Anyone,
associated with Yale (like Bolton) should be kept well away from power!
Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Just when you think the US of A's Generalissimo Bone Spur and
President Chief Kaiser of Ignorance Arrogance, Stupidity and Hypocrisy (aka: Donald Trump)
could not sink to any lower level of idiocy than he already has, he does so. What a country!
Only in America!
Shouldn't be difficult for Iran, if bmobed at all by US/NATO, to hit Israel - in a big way -
from a number of geographic locations and a variety of methods. It would be major and
catastrophic.
It poses too great a danger to good friends, with whom the USA maintains an "irrevocable
bond", according to the US Congress, the Apartheid State of Israel.
I guess Shanahan resigned so he could spend more time abusing his family.
I find it interesting that one of the ships attacked, the Front Altair, had a crew of
Russians and Filipinos.
This was the crew saved by the Iranians. The US story is that they were picked up by a Dutch
tanker and then kidnapped by the Iranians. Clearly, the Iranians still saved them, no matter
who actually picked them up first.
If the Dutch had turned the crew over to the US, who believes that they would already be
released? (The Iranians already released them).
I know that B thinks that this attack was from the Iranians, but the fact that one ship was
Japanese, while Abe was in Tehran, and the other had a crew of Russians and Filipinos, both
countries under attack from the US, makes me believe that those men were destined to be held
for leverage.
For a preview of what things would look like with Pompeo and Bolton in those positions, I
recommend a viewing of the movie Vice. (Vice, as in Cheney, working with Rumsfeld and
narcissistic poodles such as Powell to start the current ME quagmire.)
Trump went too far with Iran under the devilish advice and initiatives of Heckle and
Jeckle...
If he wants to stop the escalation with Iran, before it gets out of control, the only way is
to move Pompeo to Sec of Defense where he will have to face the powerful and war-reluctant
military. Trump would also simultaneously fire Bolton.
Depending on the reactions of the neocons and Jewish lobby, he will then choose a new sec of
state, 'brilliant' Jared Kushner?
I think the US has become very skilled at fighting wars without taking casualties. I think
the air attacks in Syria - on Iranian forces - have made it pretty clear that Iran has no
meaningful defense capabilities vs air attack. What Trump is probably counting on is a turkey
shoot and I think that is exactly what it will be.
What is Trump's motivation to be provocative with Iran?' Pelosi asks – and the answer is Adelson.
Adelson called on the last president, Barack Obama, to nuke Iran in 2013
https://mondoweiss.net/2019/06/motivation-provocative-adelson/
its a war for israel
We should take heart from readers comments in the New York Times in response to an article by
the NYT Editorial Board.
There were 473 of them before the Times closed the discussion, and we could not find a single
one that is supportive of war or of U.S. efforts to continue pressure on Iran. So Bret
Stephens gets to spur on a war in his Times column, but the paper's readers are universally
against the idea. Moreover, they hold the Times responsible and see through the equivocations
in the editorial. Several point out that the press was the handmaiden of the Iraq disaster.
https://mondoweiss.net/2019/06/readers-newspaper-abetting/#comments
The US position is an attempt to keep hegemony over the region because both Israel and Saudi
Arabia feel the US is losing it, and they are correct.
Trump walked away from the JCPOA at the
behest of Israel with the accusation that it was a bad deal, the deal did in fact rule out
enrichment of uranium above 3.5%, approx 90% enrichment is required to build a nuclear
device.
The Ayatollah issued a decree to the effect that nuclear weapons were un-Islamic,
therefore Iran should not have them.
The real reason Trump walked away was because Iran was
in rapid production of highly accurate conventional ballistic missiles some of which would
find their way to Hezbollah, the UN Resolution banned the building of missiles capable of
carrying a nuclear payload, but not conventional warheads, to ban the latter would have
rendered Iran defenseless, which was the whole idea of the Israeli and Saudi Arabian
intervention.
Being incapable of defending itself is not something any state could
countenance, that's why it will never happen, hence the stand off.
In my opinion there will be no war with Iran, too many losers, Saudi Arabia/UAE, Israel, the
US fleet [in Bahrain] the US bases all over the Middle East, of course Iran and its friends
could be destroyed [but at what cost?] The Strait of Hormus is bristling with Iranian anti
ship missiles, the first sign of war would see the US fleet depart from Bahrain, the
lumbering giant and vulnerable B52's based in Qatar would not get off the ground and US
airbases in the region well within range if Iranian missiles would be reduced to rubble. As
for any US carriers in the area and why US carriers are obsolete, especially in the Iranian
situation here is an article by Gary Brecher from 10 years ago and very witty.. http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/all/1/
Interesting
this WaPost op/ed totally trashing Trump/Pompeo foreign policy and their utter inability
didn't generate any further comment on the previous thread. Sure, it came from BezosPost, but
it surely represents some powerful faction that's totally at odds with the directionlessness
of Trump and Pompeo.
After so many fiascos, there seems to be very little appetite for armed conflict amongst
the Vassals except for UK. There's lots of domestic uproar over Trump policies the tanker
attacks have muted so far but won't go away anytime soon -- particularly the Concentration Camp
charges, which are 100% correct, extremely damning and damaging.
Look at the situation from
overseas. Escalating belligerency across the board aimed at enemies and allies alike is
combined with visibly repressive, likely unconstitutional and, in the world's eyes, morally
reprehensible actions toward vulnerable innocents from which horror stories occur on a daily
basis. Oh, and don't forget Assange and the War against Truth. And your government is being
asked to support TrumpCo's policies?! I bet plenty of leaders are biting their tongues. The
G-20's in ten days.
At least Gates resisted the Obama/Hillary mission to destroy Libya (worked with JCS to
contact Gaddhafi's sons). Hillary put a stop to that. One wonders if Pompeo and Bolton are
playing a multi-view game of picking a SecDef that they (and Kushner/Netanyau) approve of.
Oops. It wasn't so much Gates as Kucinich leading that effort with the JCS. But Gates was
hesitant in a TIME article about a meeting with Obama and KerryHillary to discuss possible
military action against Iran. At the time, I figured it was posturing for Israel. I focused
on the description of Kerry and Hillary as "interventionists."
This is rather ominous. Sounds a bit like cleaning house and removing potential witnesses who
aren't will the program or may soon have a grudge to bear.
Its June and you know who loves blood to be spilled in June, and right before July 4 you
know. Look for a limited aerial strike per PCR, and then they hope Iran retaliates and gives an
excuse for them to escalate.
Americans are so brainwashed into buying into US militarism and exceptionalism that Trumps
approval ratings will go up. Anyone criticizing the military or war is labelled anti-American and censored by Social Media.
Declining IQ's and chronic illnesses due to vaccines and other environmental toxins will limit any protests. Besides, the
military is the one way to get a free college education while getting paid to go to school. The young will continue lining up
to serve and fight these threats to the American way of life. Shouting America First. MAGA. Waving their Made in China flag.
God blesses US. Might makes right, etc
Puppet regimes in occupied Europe will go along. Fellow Fake wrestlers in China and Russia
will make squeaky noises. So predictable
It dawned on me that those outside the Outlaw US Empire don't know about TrumpCo's
Concentration Camps and the surrounding, escalating controversy. As I've written,
conflation of Concentration with Death Camps and decades of propaganda are fueling the issue:
"'The Holocaust did not begin with the murder of six million Jews,' writer Bess Kalb
tweeted in response to Cheney. 'It began with the same dehumanization, deportation, and
internment we see today. You, sickeningly, invoke the Holocaust to minimize their suffering.
Shame.'
As you might imagine given the level of Jewish/Zionist support, Cheney and the Republicans
have made an enormous mistake.
"Come to think of it, unless Dick Cheney is busy with other priorities, he ought to be
available for a reboot of Shock & Awe."
There are some who believe he is the unofficial President running things from his
underground city built as part of the Continuity of Government that kicks in during National
Emergencies such as the one declared 18 years ago and still in effect
Not 100% sure this is true but I suspect his voice is being heard
President Trump made the announcement with a pair of midday tweets that Shanahan was
withdrawing and that Army Secretary Mark Esper would take his place as acting Defense
secretary
On Esper, in April Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan announced that the
president nominated Army Gen. Mark Milley to serve as the next JCS chairman which would be
effective in about September when General Joseph Dunford leaves after four years on the job.
His predecessor was an Army general, so it was considered odd to select another Army general
to be top dog.
Now, Esper is Army too and if he were nominated for SecDef that would shake some people.
What about Air Force and Navy? What are they, chopped liver?
. . .more on Esper from The Hill:
Esper graduated from West Point in 1986 and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel before
retiring. His Army career includes a combat tour in Iraq during the Gulf War. Several
Republican senators have already said they'd support Esper should he be nominated.
. . .(but) Esper was a lobbyist at defense contractor Raytheon for seven years prior to
becoming Army secretary. Esper's lobbyist past could bring up some of the issues that
dogged Shanahan on potential conflicts of interest.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Executive Director Noah Bookbinder
said in a statement that Esper "risk[s] being tainted by his previous work for a major
defense contractor. The group's allegations against Shanahan in part prompted the inspector
general investigation.
"While Esper may not have had sway over these types of deals as secretary of the Army,
as acting secretary of Defense he will have potential influence over such deals, as well as
over the controversial proposed merger of Raytheon and UTC to become the second largest
defense company in the U.S.," Bookbinder said. "His ethics agreement -- and his ability to
follow it -- will be something we will be watching closely." . . .
here
Seems that Shanahan balked at being the scapegoat for the next war so they found
another. Shanahan is said to be pretty smart (Masters and MBA from MIT).
Is it that he's not a strong manager or did he just play along to get his ticket
stamped? I wouldn't be surprised if he's made the new CEO of Boeing (It's now clear that
Boeing will have to do more to recover from their 737Max debacle) . Or perhaps he'll join
a Defense-focused Private Equity firm, or simply sit on the Boards of several defense-related
enterprises. Any of these will be better than accepting the Trump Administration's Poison
Chalice.
Seems that Shanahan balked at being the scapegoat for the next war so they found another.
Shanahan is said to be pretty smart (Masters and MBA from MIT).
Is it that he's not a strong manager or did he just play along to get his ticket stamped?
I wouldn't be surprised if he's made the new CEO of Boeing (It's now clear that Boeing
will have to do more to recover from their 737Max debacle) . Or perhaps he'll join a
Defense-focused Private Equity firm, or simply sit on the Boards of several defense-related
enterprises. Any of these will be better than accepting the Trump Administration's Poison
Chalice.
Has Trump been misled by his advisors, when he twitted about the infamous video shot in the
dark by modern means that would surprise the Iranians?I Mean ,because now it turns out to be
made in clear daylight with the newly published images. Is Trump angry about being cheated or
did he play with the game and was his twitted remark kind of an inside joke?
Previously we had G.Haspel showing non-pertinent to the matter camera shots of duck and
children to convince him into expelling a max number of Russian diplomats.
And much earlier it
was pictures shown to Melania and him of dead or agonizing Syrian children that made him
order missile attack on Syria. Is that the way he is being handled by his surroundings in his
decision process? Is there a doctor around at the White House?
Reading Harry Law's post @41, it looks like the US needs another Pearl Harbour to carry its
people to war.
Plenty of Pearl Harbour type assets around the Persian Gulf. Problem for the US is getting
Iran to react and hit some of these.
... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct,
often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy
and neutrality... Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance -- thus the
person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.
Such that Trump is both peace-loving nationalist and empire-loving antagonist. Except that
the latter is expressed as a positive: "staunch ally", "tough negotiator", "protector", etc
instead of a negative. Some people fall for it (Kool-Aid drinkers) and MSM ignores those that
talk about the meta issues of MSM complicity.
And it's not just Trump. Whenever a President does things that might cause cognitive
dissonance, apologists and the feckless press explain it away as a positive or blame
subordinates for "sabotaging" the hero President.
snake @53: I am sure there are many Americans interested to know who is in charge at the
USA..
IMO President's are just members of the Deep State team. Presidents lead the team that's
"on the field" - like a quarterback in American football. But the Deep State 'coach' calls
the plays. And the 'coach' is, in turn, ultimately responsible to the owners
(capitalists).
They appointed a VP of Raetheon as Secretary of Defense which is appropriate because that is
who is selling the US the missiles to demolish Iran.
US intelligence learns from a highly credible source that Iran's Revolutionary Guards
have completed preparations for a large-scale assault on an important Saudi oil facility
within days.
You know this stuff is being fed to the military industrial congressional complex. It
looks like they will start some limited bombing of Iran prior to the 2020 elections to get
everyone waving their flags and shouting Hurahh.
I hope there isn't a war, but there is one nation you didn't mention which doesn't figure
it'll be hurt much by an outbreak of violence. A large number of goyim ending up dead doesn't
bother them the least bit. I'd imagine the smashing of Iran would be worth receiving a few
bombs on their stolen land. But not a lot, for if that happened they'd start waving around
the nuke option and cause Trump to keep on till the job was done to their satisfaction.
Thanks for the old War Nerd link. If the situation with aircraft carriers was bad then, a
2019 update would show them to be even worse in the death-trap category. But we're still
building them.
In light of what the WaPost published I linked to above regrading the utter lack in
confidence in both Trump and Pompeo to conduct a rational foreign policy, I seriously doubt
the change at SecDef will provide optimism for improvement. Some apparently think such
dissent is just shadowplay; IMO, they are mistaken. And I will again note the dissent isn't
just about Iran; rather, it's about the conduct of overall foreign policy, especially Trade
Policy, which is eating into corporate profitability.
Which side will take the next move is the question now. Perhaps another Houthi attack on
Saudi oil infrastructure, which present very soft, vulnerable targets. Perhaps a Houthi
ballistic missile attack on UAE port facilities. The Idlib offensive will begin again after
the non-ceasefire that saw continual al-Qaeda attacks and mounting Terrorist losses; perhaps,
the long awaited push West from Aleppo will occur. But Syria is tangential to the Iranian
confrontation. Maybe the EU will announce something significant that shows independent
thinking? Time marches inexorably onward to the next event.
That would be a terrible miscalculation from US leadership. The one reason why Pearl Harbour
wasn't a lasting disaster for the US is that the carriers survived. What if Iran actually
manages to sink a carrier air group? I mean, nukes and nearly untouchable power projection
through aircraft carriers are the two main reasons why the US is still the supreme superpower
around. Show people that the carriers can be taken out and actually begin to take them out,
and plenty of people and countries will begin to consider leaving that mad army parading as a
country to itself - not to mention some will soon openly rebel.
The US has 50,000 troops and a carrier strike group "protecting American interests" in the
Persian Gulf area of the Middle East. Somebody in government ought to tell us what those
"interests" are, which require such an investment. That would be nice.
I think that article is about Iran having a reason to do it, but I didn't read in it that
"b" believed that Iran had done it. I took him as more musing about the possibility without
believing it himself?
Unnecessarily aggressive, ill-considered – and deceptively presented – US
policies have once again brought the Middle East to the brink of an accidental war very few
want. America's European friends, including Britain, have an urgent responsibility to talk
it down – and drag it back from the abyss.
Global Opinions
What the Iran crisis tells us about Trump's lack of credibility
Why the Persian Gulf is a flashpoint for U.S.-Iran tensions
Here's what you need to know about the two suspected attacks on five ships in the Persian Gulf in the last month
and the region where they occurred.
(Joyce
Lee, Elyse Samuels/The Washington Post)
By
Jason
Rezaian
Global Opinions writer
June 17
Nearly a week after
two
oil tankers
were attacked with explosives in the Gulf of Oman, what actually happened is still in dispute. What is
clear to everyone watching, though, is the Trump administration's complete lack of credibility as it continues its
bumbling attempts to express a coherent Iran policy.
Soon after the attack, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo showed a grainy video of several men on a small boat pulling an
object from the side of a much larger vessel. He claimed the video showed an Iranian patrol boat removing an unexploded
mine from the ship. This, he said, was irrefutable evidence that Iran had launched an attack on a Japanese-owned ship.
Pompeo made these statements on the same day that Japan's prime minister, Shinzo Abe,
visited
Tehran
-- at the behest of President Trump -- to urge Iran to begin new negotiations with the White House.
The skepticism was immediate. Allies who are predisposed to agree with the United States on all issues (such as Britain
or and Israel), or specifically on anti-Iran measures (such as
Saudi
Arabia
or the United Arab Emirates) were on board.
"The video is not enough. We can understand what is being shown, sure, but to make a final assessment, this is not
enough for me," Germany's foreign minister, Heiko Maas,
told
reporters
on Friday. Japan has also requested
stronger
evidence
.
Iran could very well have been behind the tanker attacks, as the Trump administration claims. But the lingering doubts
about the White House's account, expressed by friends and adversaries alike, are the real story here.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the State Department on June 13. (Alex Brandon/AP)
"There is no doubt," Pompeo
told
"Fox
News Sunday," adding, "The intelligence community has lots of data, lots of evidence. The world will come to see much of
it, but the American people should rest assured we have high confidence with respect to who conducted these attacks as
well as half a dozen other attacks throughout the world over the past 40 days."
But there appears to be great doubt, and the fault lies with the administration's flimsy and unconvincing case to
counter what it claims is an increasing threat from Tehran.
As though on cue, Iran's Atomic Energy Organization announced on Monday that it would
increase
its stockpile
of enriched uranium to beyond the limits it had agreed to as part of the 2015 nuclear
deal
with
world powers, including the United States.
From the start, the entire premise of Trump's decision to pull out of the nuclear agreement with Iran was disingenuous.
Like the Obama-era deal or not, it seemed to be doing what it was intended to do: limiting Iran's nuclear activities so
that it couldn't weaponize its program. By withdrawing from the deal, the Trump administration gave up key leverage that
it could use against the regime.
Iran's move to begin pulling back from its commitments under the nuclear deal underscores that fact, and marks yet
another escalation in tensions between Tehran and Washington.
The State Department's narrative that Iran's malign behavior over recent months is a result of a regime emboldened by a
weak nuclear deal, and then angered by Washington pulling out of that same deal, is a farce.
The Iranian regime has been engaged in terrible acts since its inception 40 years ago. Its antagonism toward the United
States and its allies has ebbed and flowed, depending on perceived threats and opportunities -- and the U.S. withdrawal
from the deal took away the major incentive Iran had to behave.
By its own rhetoric, the Trump administration is currently exerting what it calls "maximum pressure" on Tehran. Under
this policy, reactions from Iran -- such as the tanker attacks or increased uranium enrichment -- are not only expected,
but are, in essence, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
By being pushed into a corner economically and militarily, the regime in Tehran may perceive there to be few other
options.
Given recent events, the administration has reason to call for increased pressure on Iran. But other world leaders are
signaling to the White House that they don't trust Washington to lead the way.
The big question, then, is why is the administration failing so miserably in making its case to the world? The reactions
to Pompeo's
remarks
reflect
how much credibility the administration has lost -- both on Iran, and on its foreign policy objectives as a whole.
Pointing a finger at Iran for any crime was once as close to a slam dunk as there was in international politics. Not
anymore.
That is because we are reminded at every turn that the notions of U.S. supremacy and security have little to do with the
promotion of foreign democracy. The Trump team's inability to take a principled stand on the
thuggish
behavior
of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the tepid response to the
crisis
in Venezuela
are prime examples.
And if Iran did attack the tankers, it was likely banking on exactly what has happened: one more crack in the United
States' shield of credibility.
The best comments and conversations at The Washington Post, delivered every Friday. Join the conversation.
By signing up you agree to our
Terms
of Use
and
Privacy
Policy
Jason Rezaian
Jason
Rezaian is a writer for Global Opinions. He served as The Post's correspondent in Tehran from 2012 to 2016.
He spent 544 days unjustly imprisoned by Iranian authorities until his release in January 2016.
Follow
Others cover stories. We uncover them.
Limited time offer:
Get unlimited digital access for less than $1/week.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/talk/embed/stream?asset_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fopinions%2F2019%2F06%2F17%2Fwhat-iran-crisis-tells-us-about-trumps-lack-credibility%2F&initialWidth=487&childId=coral_talk_embed&parentTitle=Iran%2C%20Trump%20%E2%80%94%20and%20what%20the%20crisis%20says%20about%20his%20lack%20of%20credibility%20-%20The%20Washington%20Post&parentUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fopinions%2F2019%2F06%2F17%2Fwhat-iran-crisis-tells-us-about-trumps-lack-credibility%2F%3Futm_term%3D.e30d0d714cc6
Most Read
Opinions
"... The Gulf of Credibility - I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in https://t.co/P1wE1Y886i ..."
"... When the ruling elite wanted a war with Iraq they invented incubator babies and WMD programs that didn't exist. Their inventions were far fetched, but not unbelievable. However, the idea that the paranoid dictator Saddam was just going to hand over his most powerful weapons to religious fanatics that hated his guts, was laughably stupid. ..."
"... When the ruling elite wanted a war with Libya they invented a genocidal, Viagra-fueled, rape army. Their invention was far fetched, and bit lazy, but you could be forgiven for believing that the Mandarins believed it. ..."
"... This latest anti-Iran warmongering is just plain stupid. It's as if they don't really care if anyone believes the lies they are telling. For starters, look at the shameless liar who is telling these lies. ..."
"... Looking at this incident/narrative from any/every angle leaves one to conclude "false flag". ..."
"... As for the "most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime" that also happens to be "bazaar-level conspiracy theories involving a false-flag operation by Israel's Mossad". Because Mossad actually does that. ..."
"... If El Trumpo was going to drain the swamp, why did he take these cretins, Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel, Abrams into his cabinet? Is the tail, wagging the dog as usual? ..."
"... The elite are both lazy and stupid. Even the Orange Man will not be sucked into another Douma style false flag operation. The reasons why this is a basic false flag is obvious. If anybody reading about this doesn't understand the culprits responsible weren't Iranian, then they should be interviewed for mental competency. ..."
"... But Pompous Mike and Bolt-on Bolt-off need to be removed from any semblance of governmental authority. I could go on but this whole affair is making me tired...I'm going back to my swamp. ..."
The Gulf of Credibility - I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack
a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in
https://t.co/P1wE1Y886i
When the ruling elite wanted a war with Iraq they invented incubator babies and WMD programs that didn't exist. Their inventions
were far fetched, but not unbelievable. However, the idea that the paranoid dictator Saddam was just going to hand over his most
powerful weapons to religious fanatics that hated his guts, was laughably stupid.
When the ruling elite wanted a war with Libya they invented a genocidal, Viagra-fueled, rape army. Their invention was far
fetched, and bit lazy, but you could be forgiven for believing that the Mandarins believed it.
This latest anti-Iran warmongering is just plain stupid. It's as if they don't really care if anyone believes the lies they
are telling. For starters, look at the shameless liar who is telling these lies.
You mean "Mr. We Lied, We Cheated, We Stole"? What a disgraceful character...
pic.twitter.com/pMtAgKaZcG
Then there are the many problems of their "proof".
Where is the video of the Iranians PLACING explosives & detonating them? Removal would be prudent by any Navy/CG. Also location
of explosives is VERY high off waterline ...Weird. It's not a limpet mine, it's a demo charge. Had to be put on by fairly high
boat w/ a long gaff/pole https://t.co/3qzB7TrrYv
The distress call went out at 6 am. So, according to CENTCOM's analysis of this video, they're suggesting that 10 hours after
the tanker was hit, the IRGC just casually pulled up to the tanker to remove unexploded limpet mine in broad daylight?!
The Japanese company that owns the ship has refused to cooperate in this
false flag mission.
But in remarks to Japanese media, the president of the company that owns the ship said the vessel wasn't damaged by a mine. "A
mine doesn't damage a ship above sea level," said Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo, the owner and operator of the vessel.
"We aren't sure exactly what hit, but it was something flying towards the ship," he said.
Looking at this incident/narrative from any/every angle leaves one to conclude "false flag".
Finally, there is the question of "why"?
What would Iran hope to accomplish by this? I found one
establishment source that tried to rationalize.
Iran denied responsibility, with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif descending to bazaar-level conspiracy theories involving a false-flag
operation by Israel's Mossad.
If you're not inclined to believe the Trump administration – and such skepticism is entirely reasonable – most detectives would
still tell you that the most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime.
To those seeking logic behind the attacks, though, it may be hard to see why Iran would do this – but that assumes that the
regime in Tehran is a rational actor.
The Gulf of Oman attacks are especially hard to explain: targeting Japanese shipping on the very day that Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe was meeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on a well-publicized peace mission would seem extraordinarily counterproductive, even
for a regime with an almost fanatical commitment to self-harm.
Have you ever noticed that everyone that we want to start a war with is crazy? Regimes that stand solid for generations under
hostile conditions are always run by maniacs. You'd think that insanity would prevent them from taking power in the first place,
but that seems to only be true with our allies.
As for the "most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime" that also happens to be "bazaar-level conspiracy theories
involving a false-flag operation by Israel's Mossad". Because Mossad actually does that.
Since the U.S.'s tightening of sanctions has squeezed Iranian oil exports, nobody else's should be allowed to pass through
waters within reach of the IRGC.
The Iranians know that these threats, if repeated, can lose their power if not followed with action. The attacks on the tankers,
then, can be explained as a demonstration that Khamenei's attack dogs have some teeth.
There is another rationale. If Iran does eventually agree to negotiate with the U.S., it will want to bring some bargaining
chips to the table – something it can exchange for the removal of sanctions. In the negotiations over the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran
was able to offer the suspension of its nuclear program. It doesn't have that particular chip now, although Tehran has recently
threatened to crank up the centrifuges again.
Meanwhile, the regime may have calculated that the only way to secure some kind of negotiating position is blackmail: End the
sanctions, or we take out some more tankers, and send oil prices surging.
This almost sounds logical, except for one thing: Iran tried that in 1988 and it didn't work. It only caused the one thing the
U.S. was itching for: to kill some Iranians.
Do you think that they've forgotten? Or that the U.S. is less warlike? Oh wait. Iranians are crazy and can't be reasoned with, amirite?
US public radio @NPR does not mention it was Iranians
who saved the crew. That's how terrible they are at journalism
-- boomerWithaLandline (@Irene34799239)
June 14, 2019
The only real question is, why such a transparent lie? Has the ruling elite gotten lazy or stupid? Or do they think that we are
that lazy and stupid? I have an alternative
theory .
For the last two years, as you've probably noticed, the corporate media have been not so subtly alternating between manufacturing
Russia hysteria and Nazi hysteria, and sometimes whipping up both at once. Thus, I've dubbed the new Official Enemy of Freedom
"the Putin-Nazis." They don't really make any sense, rationally, but let's not get all hung up on that. Official enemies don't
have to make sense. The important thing is, they're coming to get us, and to kill the Jews and destroy democracy and something
about Stalin, if memory serves. Putin is their leader, of course. Trump is his diabolical puppet. Julian Assange is well, Goebbels,
or something. Glenn Greenwald is also on the payroll, as are countless "useful idiots" like myself, whose job it is to sow division,
discord, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism, anti-Hillaryism, collusion rejectionism, ontological skepticism, and any other
horrible thing you can think of.
Their bullsh*t lies have gotten lazy and stupid because real effort isn't required to start a war and kill a lot of people.
That is the question, I ask thee? If El Trumpo was going to drain the swamp, why did he take these cretins, Bolton, Pompeo,
Haspel, Abrams into his cabinet? Is the tail, wagging the dog as usual?
The elite are both lazy and stupid. Even the Orange Man will not be sucked into another Douma style false flag operation.
The reasons why this is a basic false flag is obvious. If anybody reading about this doesn't understand the culprits responsible
weren't Iranian, then they should be interviewed for mental competency.
My money, the little that I have, is on either the Saudis or the Israelis; maybe even both.
But Pompous Mike and Bolt-on Bolt-off need to be removed from any semblance of governmental authority. I could go on but
this whole affair is making me tired...I'm going back to my swamp.
@ 71 b4real
"Do you really believe those bankers with their terminals and wingtip shoes are telling the
boys with the billion dollars of weaponry what to do?"
Simple answer: Yes. US weapons sales in 2018 were worth $192 billion. Total miltary budget
in 2018 was $650 billion. That does not add up to even a trillion which is a paltry sum when
compared to about $30 trillion sloshing around US banks and fund management companies.
Let's take the example of the world's biggest arms producer – Lockhead Martin. The
State Street Corporation (fund management) holds 16.6% of the shares of Lockhead Martin,
Capital World Investors (California) hold 7.7%, Vanguard Group 7% and BlackRock Inc. 6.7%.
That means 4 fund management companies own 38% of the stock of Lockead Martin. These guys
with the wingtip shoes can fire the entire management team of Lockhead Martin at the drop of
a hat.
The finance, insurance and real estate sector accounted for 20% of US GDP in 2016
(Forbes), which means approximately $18 trillion. You may argue that real estate has little
to do with bankers but every sale needs a mortgage and private equity has moved into real
estate in a big way over the last decade.
It should also be recalled that the man who created the CIA and ran it for over a decade -
Allen Dulles - was a Wall Street lawyer.
"... The question that must be raised is who gains what from these incidents. Let's start from saying that even if Tehran had nothing to do with these attacks, it will still suffer the consequences. It is enough to recall the Gulf of Tonkin incident that took place in August 1964. Back then, a US-staged false flag initiated full-scale conflict in Southeast Asia. ..."
There have always been people who have tried to gain power and control. The only
distinction was the mechanism through which they planned to achieve it: brute force or
something more original. For example, researchers manipulate data to attain the results they
want, while traders try to manipulate and influence market prices by disseminating erroneous
information. Some go even further by conducting so-called "false flag" and "fake news"
operations.
However, it is a gradual process. First, the technique of misinformation is implemented
– as you may remember, in 2016, the Internet was filled with fake news aimed at
distorting public opinion and helping one of the candidates to become president of the United
States of America. This year, intelligence agencies and non-government entities have decided to
use similar ploys to influence oil prices.
According to Wikipedia, a
false flag is "intentional misrepresentation or covert operation designed to deceive; the
deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for
some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility." Recently it became popular for
countries to "organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations
or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression and foreign
military or economic aggression."
Recently there were news report that two oil tankers had been damaged in a suspected attack
in the waters between the United Arab Emirates and Iran as they were leaving the Persian Gulf.
And predictably, the United States claimed that Iran was responsible for
damaging the vessels in the Gulf of Oman. This was the second such incident in four weeks.
The question that must be raised is who gains what from these incidents. Let's start from
saying that even if Tehran had nothing to do with these attacks, it will still suffer the
consequences. It is enough to recall the Gulf of Tonkin incident that took
place in August 1964. Back then, a US-staged false flag initiated full-scale conflict in
Southeast Asia.
Iran has already accused the US of lying about a "torpedo attack" on an American-linked oil
tanker. "The US and its regional allies must stop warmongering and put an end to mischievous
plots and false-flag operations in the region," Iran's mission to the United Nations said .
As history has shown, the Americans won't back down. Does it mean that Iran is next on its
target list for war? Only time will tell.
Nevertheless, without waiting for the results of an investigation, Brent prices spiked after the reports
of the attacks on tankers leaving the Persian Gulf.
The Brent
crude quote won 4.45% on Thursday, shortly after news of the attacks broke, but it has
since slightly decreased, or, should we say, corrected. Without any doubt, someone managed to
put up a really good million-dollar front.
"... Its political benefit: minimizing the number of U.S. "boots on the ground" and so American casualties in the never-ending war on terror, as well as any public outcry about Washington's many conflicts. ..."
"... Its economic benefit: plenty of high-profit business for weapons makers for whom the president can now declare a national security emergency whenever he likes and so sell their warplanes and munitions to preferred dictatorships in the Middle East (no congressional approval required). ..."
"... Think of all this as a cult of bombing on a global scale. America's wars are increasingly waged from the air, not on the ground, a reality that makes the prospect of ending them ever more daunting. The question is: What's driving this process? ..."
"... In a bizarre fashion, you might even say that, in the twenty-first century, the bomb and missile count replaced the Vietnam-era body count as a metric of (false) progress . Using data supplied by the U.S. military, the Council on Foreign Relations estimated that the U.S. dropped at least 26,172 bombs in seven countries in 2016, the bulk of them in Iraq and Syria. Against Raqqa alone, ISIS's "capital," the U.S. and its allies dropped more than 20,000 bombs in 2017, reducing that provincial Syrian city to literal rubble . Combined with artillery fire, the bombing of Raqqa killed more than 1,600 civilians, according to Amnesty International . ..."
"... U.S. air campaigns today, deadly as they are, pale in comparison to past ones like the Tokyo firebombing of 1945, which killed more than 100,000 civilians; the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki later that year (roughly 250,000); the death toll against German civilians in World War II (at least 600,000); or civilians in the Vietnam War. (Estimates vary, but when napalm and the long-term effects of cluster munitions and defoliants like Agent Orange are added to conventional high-explosive bombs, the death toll in Southeast Asia may well have exceeded one million.) ..."
"... the U.S. may control the air, but that dominance simply hasn't led to ultimate success. In the case of Afghanistan, weapons like the Mother of All Bombs, or MOAB (the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. military's arsenal), have been celebrated as game changers even when they change nothing. (Indeed, the Taliban only continues to grow stronger , as does the branch of the Islamic State in Afghanistan.) As is often the case when it comes to U.S. air power, such destruction leads neither to victory, nor closure of any sort; only to yet more destruction. ..."
"... Just because U.S. warplanes and drones can strike almost anywhere on the globe with relative impunity doesn't mean that they should. Given the history of air power since World War II, ease of access should never be mistaken for efficacious results. ..."
"... Bombing alone will never be the key to victory. If that were true, the U.S. would have easily won in Korea and Vietnam, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Despite total air supremacy, the recent Iraq War was a disaster even as the Afghan War staggers on into its 18th catastrophic year. ..."
"... No matter how much it's advertised as "precise," "discriminate," and "measured," bombing (or using missiles like the Tomahawk ) rarely is. The deaths of innocents are guaranteed. Air power and those deaths are joined at the hip, while such killings only generate anger and blowback, thereby prolonging the wars they are meant to end. ..."
"... A paradox emerges from almost 18 years of the war on terror: the imprecision of air power only leads to repetitious cycles of violence and, even when air strikes prove precise, there always turn out to be fresh targets, fresh terrorists, fresh insurgents to strike. ..."
"... Using air power to send political messages about resolve or seriousness rarely works. If it did, the U.S. would have swept to victory in Vietnam. In Lyndon Johnson's presidency, for instance, Operation Rolling Thunder (1965-1968), a graduated campaign of bombing, was meant to, but didn't, convince the North Vietnamese to give up their goal of expelling the foreign invaders -- us -- from South Vietnam. ..."
"... Air power is enormously expensive. Spending on aircraft, helicopters, and their munitions accounted for roughly half the cost of the Vietnam War. ..."
"... Aerial surveillance (as with drones), while useful, can also be misleading. Command of the high ground is not synonymous with god-like "total situational awareness ." ..."
"... Air power is inherently offensive. That means it's more consistent with imperial power projection than with national defense ..."
"... Despite the fantasies of those sending out the planes, air power often lengthens wars rather than shortening them. ..."
"... Air power, even of the shock-and-awe variety, loses its impact over time. The enemy, lacking it, nonetheless learns to adapt by developing countermeasures -- both active (like missiles) and passive (like camouflage and dispersion), even as those being bombed become more resilient and resolute. ..."
"... Pounding peasants from two miles up is not exactly an ideal way to occupy the moral high ground in war. ..."
"... all the happy talk about the techno-wonders of modern air power obscures its darker facets, especially its ability to lock America into what are effectively one-way wars with dead-end results. ..."
"... War's inherent nature -- its unpredictability, horrors, and tendency to outlast its original causes and goals -- isn't changed when the bombs and missiles are guided by GPS. Washington's enemies in its war on terror, moreover, have learned to adapt to air power in a grimly Darwinian fashion and have the advantage of fighting on their own turf. ..."
From Syria to Yemen in the Middle East, Libya to Somalia in Africa, Afghanistan to Pakistan
in South Asia, an American aerial curtain has descended across a huge swath of the planet. Its
stated purpose: combatting terrorism. Its primary method: constant surveillance and bombing --
and yet more bombing.
Its political benefit: minimizing the number of U.S. "boots on the ground" and so
American casualties in the never-ending war on terror, as well as any public outcry about Washington's many
conflicts.
Its economic benefit: plenty of high-profit business for weapons makers for whom the president can now
declare a national security emergency whenever he likes and so sell their warplanes and
munitions to preferred dictatorships in the Middle East (no congressional approval
required).
Its reality for various foreign peoples: a steady diet of "
Made in USA " bombs and missiles bursting here, there, and everywhere.
Think of all this as a cult of bombing on a global scale. America's wars
are increasingly waged from the air, not on the ground, a reality that makes the prospect of
ending them ever more daunting. The question is: What's driving this process?
For many of America's decision-makers, air power has clearly become something of an
abstraction. After all, except for the 9/11 attacks by those four hijacked commercial
airliners, Americans haven't
been the target of such strikes since World War II. On Washington's battlefields across the
Greater Middle East and northern Africa, air power is always almost literally a one-way affair.
There are no enemy air forces or significant air defenses. The skies are the exclusive property
of the U.S. Air Force (and allied air forces), which means that we're no longer talking about
"war" in the normal sense. No wonder Washington policymakers and military officials see it as
our strong suit, our asymmetrical
advantage , our way of settling scores with evildoers, real and imagined.
Bombs away!
In a bizarre fashion, you might even say that, in the twenty-first century, the bomb and
missile count replaced the Vietnam-era body count as a metric of (false) progress . Using data
supplied by the U.S. military, the Council on Foreign Relations estimated that the U.S. dropped
at least 26,172 bombs in seven
countries in 2016, the bulk of them in Iraq and Syria. Against Raqqa alone, ISIS's "capital,"
the U.S. and its allies dropped more than
20,000 bombs in 2017, reducing that provincial Syrian city to
literal rubble . Combined with artillery fire, the bombing of Raqqa killed more than 1,600
civilians, according to
Amnesty International .
Meanwhile, since Donald Trump has become president, after claiming that he would get us out
of our various never-ending wars, U.S. bombing has surged, not only against the Islamic State
in Syria and Iraq but in
Afghanistan as well. It has driven up the
civilian death toll there even as "friendly" Afghan forces are sometimes mistaken for the
enemy
and killed , too. Air strikes from Somalia
to
Yemen have also been on the rise under Trump, while civilian casualties due to U.S. bombing
continue to be
underreported in the American media and
downplayed by the Trump administration.
U.S. air campaigns today, deadly as they are, pale in comparison to past ones like the Tokyo firebombing of 1945,
which killed more than 100,000 civilians; the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki later
that year (roughly 250,000); the death toll against German civilians in World War II (at least
600,000); or civilians in the Vietnam War. (Estimates vary, but when napalm and the long-term
effects of cluster
munitions and defoliants like Agent Orange are added to
conventional high-explosive bombs, the death toll in Southeast Asia may
well have exceeded one million.) Today's air strikes are more limited than in those past
campaigns and may be more accurate, but never confuse a 500-pound bomb with a surgeon's
scalpel, even rhetorically. When " surgical " is applied to bombing in today's
age of lasers, GPS, and other precision-guidance technologies, it only obscures the very real
human carnage being produced by all these American-made bombs and missiles.
This country's propensity for believing that its ability to rain hellfire from the sky provides a
winning methodology for its wars has proven to be a fantasy of our age. Whether in Korea in the
early 1950s, Vietnam in the 1960s, or more recently in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, the
U.S. may control the air, but that dominance simply hasn't led to ultimate success. In the case
of Afghanistan, weapons like the Mother of All Bombs, or MOAB (the most powerful
non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. military's arsenal), have been celebrated as game changers even
when they change nothing. (Indeed, the Taliban only continues to grow stronger
, as does the branch of the Islamic State in Afghanistan.) As is often the case when it comes
to U.S. air power, such destruction leads neither to victory, nor closure of any sort; only to
yet more destruction.
Such results are contrary to the rationale for air power that I absorbed in a career spent
in the U.S. Air Force. (I retired in 2005.) The fundamental tenets of air power
that I learned, which are still taught today, speak of decisiveness. They promise that air
power, defined as "flexible and versatile," will have "synergistic effects" with other military
operations. When bombing is "concentrated," "persistent," and "executed" properly (meaning not
micro-managed by know-nothing politicians), air power should be fundamental to ultimate
victory. As we used to insist, putting bombs on target is really what it's all about. End of
story -- and of thought.
Given the banality and vacuity of those official Air Force tenets, given the
twenty-first-century history of air power gone to hell and back, and based on my own experience
teaching such history and strategy in and outside the military, I'd like to offer some air
power tenets of my own. These are the ones the Air Force didn't teach me, but that our leaders
might consider before launching their next "decisive" air campaign.
Ten Cautionary Tenets
About Air Power
1. Just because U.S. warplanes and drones can strike almost anywhere on the globe with
relative impunity doesn't mean that they should. Given the history of air power since World
War II, ease of access should never be mistaken for efficacious results.
2. Bombing alone will never be the key to victory. If that were true, the U.S. would
have easily won in Korea and Vietnam, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. American air
power pulverized both North Korea and Vietnam (not to speak of neighboring
Laos and Cambodia ), yet the Korean War ended in a stalemate and the Vietnam War in
defeat. (It tells you the world about such thinking that air power enthusiasts, reconsidering
the Vietnam debacle, tend to argue the U.S. should have bombed even more -- lots
more .) Despite total air supremacy, the recent Iraq War was a disaster even as the
Afghan War staggers on into its 18th catastrophic year.
3. No matter how much it's advertised as "precise," "discriminate," and "measured,"
bombing (or using missiles like the Tomahawk ) rarely is. The deaths of
innocents are guaranteed. Air power and those deaths are joined at the hip, while such
killings only generate anger and blowback, thereby prolonging the wars they are meant to
end.
Consider, for instance, the "decapitation" strikes launched against Iraqi autocrat Saddam
Hussein and his top officials in the opening moments of the Bush administration's invasion of
2003. Despite the hype about that being the beginning of the most precise air campaign in all
of history, 50 of those attacks, supposedly based on the best intelligence around, failed to
take out Saddam or a single one of his targeted officials. They did, however, cause "dozens"
of civilian deaths. Think of it as a monstrous repeat of the precision air attacks launched
on Belgrade in 1999 against Slobodan Milosevic and his
regime that hit the Chinese
embassy instead, killing three journalists.
Here, then, is the question of the day: Why is it that, despite all the "precision" talk
about it, air power so regularly proves at best a blunt instrument of destruction? As a
start, intelligence is often faulty. Then bombs and missiles, even "smart" ones, do go
astray. And even when U.S. forces actually kill high-value targets (HVTs), there are
always more HVTs out there. A paradox emerges from almost 18 years of the war on terror:
the imprecision of air power only leads to repetitious cycles of violence and, even when air
strikes prove precise, there always turn out to be fresh targets, fresh terrorists, fresh
insurgents to strike.
4. Using air power to send political messages about resolve or seriousness rarely
works. If it did, the U.S. would have swept to victory in Vietnam. In Lyndon Johnson's
presidency, for instance, Operation Rolling Thunder (1965-1968), a
graduated campaign of bombing, was meant to, but didn't, convince the North Vietnamese to
give up their goal of expelling the foreign invaders -- us -- from South Vietnam.
Fast-forward to our era and consider recent signals sent to North
Korea and
Iran by the Trump administration via B-52 bomber deployments, among other military
"messages." There's no evidence that either country modified its behavior significantly in
the face of the menace of those
baby-boomer-era airplanes.
5. Air power is enormously expensive. Spending on aircraft, helicopters, and their
munitions accounted for roughly half the cost of the Vietnam War. Similarly, in the
present moment, making operational and then maintaining Lockheed Martin's boondoggle
of a jet fighter, the F-35, is expected to cost at least
$1.45 trillion over its lifetime. The new B-21 stealth bomber will cost more than $100 billion
simply to buy. Naval air wings on aircraft carriers cost billions each year to maintain and
operate. These days, when the sky's the limit for
the Pentagon budget, such costs may be (barely) tolerable. When the money finally begins to
run out, however, the military will likely suffer a serious hangover from its wildly
extravagant spending on air power.
6. Aerial surveillance (as with drones), while useful, can also be misleading. Command
of the high ground is not synonymous with god-like "total situational
awareness ." It can instead prove to be a kind of delusion, while war practiced in
its spirit often becomes little more than an exercise in destruction. You simply can't
negotiate a truce or take prisoners or foster other options when you're high above a
potential battlefield and your main recourse is blowing up people and things.
7. Air power is inherently offensive. That means it's more consistent with imperial
power projection than with national defense . As such, it fuels imperial ventures, while
fostering the kind of "
global reach, global power " thinking that has in these years had Air Force generals in
its grip.
8. Despite the fantasies of those sending out the planes, air power often lengthens
wars rather than shortening them. Consider Vietnam again. In the early 1960s, the Air
Force argued that it alone could resolve that conflict at the lowest cost (mainly in American
bodies). With enough bombs, napalm, and defoliants, victory was a sure thing and U.S. ground
troops a kind of afterthought. (Initially, they were sent in mainly to protect the airfields
from which those planes took off.) But bombing solved nothing and then the Army and the
Marines decided that, if the Air Force couldn't win, they sure as hell could. The result was
escalation and disaster that left in the dust the original vision of a war won quickly and on
the cheap due to American air supremacy.
9. Air power, even of the shock-and-awe variety, loses its impact
over time. The enemy, lacking it, nonetheless learns to adapt by developing countermeasures
-- both active (like missiles) and passive (like camouflage and dispersion), even as those
being bombed become more resilient and resolute.
10. Pounding peasants from two miles up is not exactly an ideal way to occupy the
moral high ground in war.
The Road to Perdition
If I had to reduce these tenets to a single maxim, it would be this: all the happy talk
about the techno-wonders of modern air power obscures its darker facets, especially its ability
to lock America into what are effectively one-way wars with dead-end results.
For this reason, precision warfare is truly an oxymoron. War isn't precise. It's nasty,
bloody, and murderous. War's inherent nature -- its unpredictability, horrors, and tendency
to outlast its original causes and goals -- isn't changed when the bombs and missiles are
guided by GPS. Washington's enemies in its war on terror, moreover, have learned to adapt to
air power in a grimly Darwinian fashion and have the advantage of fighting on their own
turf.
Who doesn't know the old riddle: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear
it, does it make a sound? Here's a twenty-first-century air power variant on it: If foreign
children die from American bombs but no U.S. media outlets report their deaths, will anyone
grieve? Far too often, the answer here in the U.S. is no and so our wars go on into an endless
future of global destruction.
In reality, this country might do better to simply ground its many fighter planes, bombers, and
drones. Paradoxically, instead of gaining the high ground, they are keeping us on a low road to
perdition.
In December of 2017, Daniel Ellsberg published a book,
"The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" . Among many other things,
he revealed the actual Strangelovian nature of our military establishment. Most enlightening
is his revelation that many in the high command of our nuclear triggers do not trust, or even
have contempt for, civilian oversight and control of the military. They covertly regard the
presidential leadership as naïve and inept, though it would be professional suicide to
admit such an attitude openly.
Comes now 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕹𝖊𝖜
𝖄𝖔𝖗𝖐 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 with the
revelation that the Pentagon's Cyber Command has attacked Russia's power grid with software
"implants" designed to destroy that grid the instant a mouse click is given, thereby possibly
initiating global war. Most alarmingly, the details of this secret action were kept from the
President, lest he countermand the operation or leak it to the Russians.
So now we have a general staff that is conducting critical international military
operations on its own, with no civilian input, permission or hindrances of any kind. A
formula for national suicide, executed by a tiny junta of unelected officers who decide to
play nuclear Russian roulette.
We seem to be ineluctably and irreversibly trapped in a state of national dementia.
Just remember this: The U.S. had the technological advantage in Viet Nam, and blasted that
country, along with Cambodia, and Laos, with 7.5 million tons of bombs, (more than the entire
WWII campaign of 2.25 million tons), and the Vietnamese were still able to kick our *** out
of the country by 1975.
There is a 11th tenet: air force operations need airports or aircraft carriers, and these
are very vulnerable to modern, high precision missiles. If the enemy has plenty of missiles,
your fighters and bombers can be impeded to take off and land, or even be destroyed. Modern
aircrafts need very sophisticated and working infrastructures to be operational.
In the case of a full war with Iran, I see all hostile bases and airports destroyed or
damaged by Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian missiles. They have tens of thousand of them - it is
30 years they have been accumulating missiles in prevision of a possible forthcoming war.
You are right. Also, there are many nations with subs and probably more countries have
acquired nukes than are willing to admit. I strongly suspect Iran already has nukes. If North
Korea has them, I see no reason that Iran wouldn't be even further ahead. They have been
under threat of US attacks for my entire lifetime. Anyway, I would not put it past some other
countries to hit US coastal cities and then deny any knowledge about who did it. There are
many capable and many people have been made enemies by our foreign policy. Surely these
people have treaties to help each other should be attack. And why would they make these
treaties public and antagonize the US military further. I'm sure there are many well kept
secrets out there. We must evolve, or the US and Israel could find it is us against the
world.
War is hell. It has always been so. The failure here is that since World War II all US
wars have been fatuously political. Actions have not been taken to win but to posture about
moral greatness and the ability to force the enemy to deal without destroying his capacity to
resist.
How can you say the US lost in Vietnam when the entire country could have been removed
from the face of the Earth? Yes the price of such removal would have been very high but it
could have been done. Do such considerations mean that if one withdraws one has lost?
The US won the war in the Pacific but it is now considered an excessive use of force that
the US used nuclear weapons to conclude the war. Perhaps the US did not use enough force then
to successfully conclude the Vietnam war? Perhaps, it failed to field the right kind of
force?
The definition of lost is an interesting one. The practical answer is that the US did lose
in many places because it was unwilling to pay the price of victory as publicly expressed.
Yet it could have won if it paid the price.
So an interesting question for military types is to ask how to lower the price. What kind
of weapons would have been needed to quickly sweep the enemy into oblivion in Vietnam let us
say, given the limits of the war? Could the war have been won without ground troops and
choppers but with half a million computer controlled drones armed with machine guns and
grenades flying in swarms close to the ground?
The factories to produce those weapons could have been located in Thailand or Taiwan or
Japan and the product shipped to Vietnam. Since only machines would be destroyed and the
drones are obviously meant to substitute for ground troops then how about a million or two
million of the drones in place of the half a million ground troops? Could the US, with
anachronistic technology to be sure, have won the war for a price that would have been
acceptable to the US?
The idea here is that one constructs an army, robot or otherwise, than can destroy the
enemy it is going to fight at a price which is acceptable. This is actually a form of
asymmetric warfare which requires a thorough understanding of the enemy and his capabilities.
The US did not enter Vietnam with such an army but with one not meant to serve in Vietnam and
whose losses would be deeply resented at home. The price of victory was too high.
But this does not mean that the US cannot win. It only means that the commitment to win in
a poorly thought out war must be great enough to pay the price of victory. This may be a
stupid thing to do but it does not mean that it cannot be done. One cannot assume that the US
will never again show sufficient commitment to win.
Victory means you get to write your own ******** version of history.The most devastating
civilian bombing campaign in human history is not even mentioned in this article. The US fire
bombing of 30 major cities in Korea with the death toll estimated at between 1.2 million and
1.6 million. I bet most US citizens aren't even aware of this atrocity or that the military
requested Truman to authorize the use of nuclear warheads which he, thankfully, declined to
do.
What does the word "victory" mean? It means whatever the rulers want it to mean. In this
case, "victory" is synonymous with prolongation and expansion of warmaking around the world.
Victory does not mean an end to combat. In fact, victory, in the classic sense, means defeat,
at least from the standpoint of those who profit from war. If someone were to come up with a
cure for cancer, it would mean a huge defeat for the cancer industry. Millions would lose
their jobs. CEO's would lose their fat pay packages. Therefore, we need to be clearheaded
about this, and recognize that victory is not what you think it is.
Talked with a guy recently. He is a pilot. He flies planes over Afghanistan. He is a
private contractor.
The program began under the Air Force. It then was taken over by the Army. It is now a
private contractor.
There are approx 400 pilots in country at a time with 3 rotations. He told me what he gets
paid. $200,000 and up.
They go up with a NSA agent running the equipment in back. He state that the dumbass
really does not know what the plane is capable of. They collect all video, audio, infrared,
and more? (You have to sense when to stop asking questions)
I just wanted to know the logistics of the info gathered.
So, the info is gathered. The NSA officer then gets with the CIA and the State Dept to see
what they can release to the end user. The end user is the SOCOM. After it has been through
review then the info is released to SOCOM.
So with all of this info on "goatherders" we still cannot pinpoint and defeat the "enemy"?
No. Too many avenues of profit and deceit and infighting. It will always be. May justice here
and abroad win in the end.
Concentrate on the true enemies. It is not your black, or Jewish, or brown, or Muslim
neighbor. It is the owners of the Fed, Dow chemical, the Rockefellers, McDonnel Douglas and
on and on and on and on and on and on..............
The ROAD to perdition passes through APARTHEID Israhell.
"It does not take a genius to figure out that the United States... has no vital
interests at stake in places like Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq. Who is driving the process
and benefiting? Israel is clearly the intended beneficiary... " – Philip Giraldi,
Former CIA officer.
Gina Haspel is
facing a Congressional grilling as her confirmation hearings for the CIA director's position
get underway.
Should she overcome it, she'll be the first woman to hold the director's job. It's a high
profile position, but Haspel has been a pretty low profile person up until this point. So who
is Trump's nominee to run the government's spy agency?
Haspel, who would replace new secretary of state Mike Pompeo , has been
with the agency since 1985, spending much of her career undercover. She has received several
awards, including the George H. W. Bush Award for excellence in counterterrorism and the
Presidential Rank Award, the highest award in the federal civil service. She also has overseen
the
torture of some terror suspects , which is what critics and former ambassadors are worried
about.
A 2017 New York Times report says Haspel, in 2002, oversaw the torture of two
suspects at a secret prison in Thailand and later was involved in the destruction of videotapes
documenting that torture.
One of those prisoners was waterboarded 83 times in a
single month, had his head repeatedly slammed into
walls , and endured other harsh methods before interrogators decided he had no useful
information to provide, says the Times .
As a result of such torture, she was shifted out of her role as head of the CIA's
clandestine service.
Haspel was picked to run the CIA's clandestine operations unit in 2013, but Senator
Dianne Feinstein , who was the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee at the
time, blocked the promotion because of Haspel's history of torture.
Within the agency, though, Haspel is reportedly widely respected – and has support
from members of both the Bush and Obama administrations. Where she stands personally on issues
such as extreme interrogation techniques is an unknown, as she has not offered any public
comments on policy, as you would expect for an undercover officer.
And that's what Senators are hoping to learn more about as their questioning gets
underway.
It is not a secret that the USA have a very powerful MIC lobby that by-and-large defines the USA foreign policy. Israel can be considered
as a yet another MIC lobbyist. This lobby in interesting in launching the war (especially pro-Israel faction of the MIC lobby)
The USA can definitely crush Iran military, but the cost might be higher that in case of Iraq. Also without occupation of the country
that will not be anything like a decisive victory. In Iraq, the USA was helped by the fact that military quickly crumbed and was undermined
by betrayals of several high ranking generals. Whether the same will be the case in Iran is difficult to predict.
Theocratic regimes tend to became more fragile with time, so at that stage is Iran now is difficult to predict without being in
the country. So counting on the fragility of the regime might be a valid consideration. But the war typically unites nations so to exploit
those weaknesses with war is more difficult task, then just waiting for the regime collapse.
That USA has at least two firm allied in such a war: Israel and Saudis.
Notable quotes:
"... It would widen the "forever war," which Trump said he would end, to a nation of 80 million people, three times as large as
Iraq. It would become the defining issue of his presidency, as the Iraq War became the defining issue of George W. Bush's presidency.
..."
"... Trump's repudiation of the treaty was followed by his reimposition of sanctions and a policy of maximum pressure. This was
followed by the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist" organization. ..."
"... U.S. policy has been to squeeze Iran's economy until the regime buckles to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 12 demands, including
an end to Tehran's support of its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. ..."
"... Sunday, Pompeo said Iran was behind the attacks on the tankers in the Gulf of Oman and that Tehran instigated an attack that
injured four U.S. soldiers in Kabul though the Taliban claimed responsibility. ..."
"... Tehran has denied any role in the tanker attacks, helped put out the fire on one tanker, and accused its enemies of "false
flag" attacks to instigate a war. ..."
"... Writing in The Wall Street Journal Monday were Ray Takeyh and Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies, a neocon nest funded by Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson. In a piece titled, "America Can Face Down a Fragile
Iran," the pair make the case that Trump should squeeze the Iranian regime relentlessly and not fear a military clash, and a war with
Iran would be a cakewalk. ..."
"... "Iran's fragile theocracy can't absorb a massive external shock. That's why Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has, for the most part,
adhered to the JCPOA (the nuclear pact) and why he is likely angling for negotiation over confrontation with the Great Satan." ..."
"... This depiction of Iran's political crisis and economic decline invites a question: If the Tehran regime is so fragile and the
Iranian people are so alienated, why not avoid a war and wait for the regime's collapse? ..."
"... Who wants a U.S. war with Iran? Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and who
oppose every effort of Trump's to extricate us from those wars. ..."
"... Should they succeed in Iran, it is hard to see how we will ever be able to extricate our country from this blood-soaked region
that holds no vital strategic interest save oil, and America, thanks to fracking, has become independent of that. ..."
Such a war, no matter how long, would be fought in and around the Persian Gulf, through which a third of the world's seaborne
oil travels. It could trigger a worldwide recession and imperil Trump's reelection.
It would widen the "forever war," which Trump said he would end, to a nation of 80 million people, three times as large
as Iraq. It would become the defining issue of his presidency, as the Iraq War became the defining issue of George W. Bush's presidency.
And if war comes now, it would be known as "Trump's War."
For it was Trump who pulled us out of the Iran nuclear deal, though, according to U.N. inspectors and the other signatories
– Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China – Tehran was complying with its terms.
Trump's repudiation of the treaty was followed by his reimposition of sanctions and a policy of maximum pressure. This
was followed by the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist" organization.
Then came the threats of U.S. secondary sanctions on nations, some of them friends and allies, that continued to buy oil from
Iran.
U.S. policy has been to squeeze Iran's economy until the regime buckles to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 12 demands,
including an end to Tehran's support of its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
Sunday, Pompeo said Iran was behind the attacks on the tankers in the Gulf of Oman and that Tehran instigated an attack
that injured four U.S. soldiers in Kabul though the Taliban claimed responsibility.
The war hawks are back.
"This unprovoked attack on commercial shipping warrants retaliatory military strikes," said Senator Tom Cotton on Sunday.
But as Trump does not want war with Iran, Iran does not want war with us. Tehran has denied any role in the tanker attacks,
helped put out the fire on one tanker, and accused its enemies of "false flag" attacks to instigate a war.
If the Revolutionary Guard, which answers to the ayatollah, did attach explosives to the hull of the tankers, it was most likely
to send a direct message: If our exports are halted by U.S. sanctions, the oil exports of the Saudis and Gulf Arabs can be made
to experience similar problems.
Yet if the president and the ayatollah do not want war, who does?
Not the Germans or Japanese, both of whom are asking for more proof that Iran instigated the tanker attacks. Japan's prime
minster was meeting with the ayatollah when the attacks occurred, and one of the tankers was a Japanese vessel.
Writing in The Wall Street Journal Monday were Ray Takeyh and Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for
the Defense of Democracies, a neocon nest funded by Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson. In a piece titled, "America Can Face Down
a Fragile Iran," the pair make the case that Trump should squeeze the Iranian regime relentlessly and not fear a military clash,
and a war with Iran would be a cakewalk.
"Iran is in no shape for a prolonged confrontation with the U.S. The regime is in a politically precarious position. The sullen
Iranian middle class has given up on the possibility of reform or prosperity. The lower classes, once tethered to the regime by
the expansive welfare state, have also grown disloyal. The intelligentsia no longer believes that faith and freedom can be harmonized.
And the youth have become the regime's most unrelenting critics.
"Iran's fragile theocracy can't absorb a massive external shock. That's why Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has, for the most
part, adhered to the JCPOA (the nuclear pact) and why he is likely angling for negotiation over confrontation with the Great Satan."
This depiction of Iran's political crisis and economic decline invites a question: If the Tehran regime is so fragile and
the Iranian people are so alienated, why not avoid a war and wait for the regime's collapse?
Trump seems to have several options:
Negotiate with the Tehran regime for some tolerable detente.
Refuse to negotiate and await the regime's collapse, in which case the president must be prepared for Iranian actions that
raise the cost of choking that nation to death.
Strike militarily, as Cotton urges, and accept the war that follows, if Iran chooses to fight rather than be humiliated
and capitulate to Pompeo's demands.
One recalls: Saddam Hussein accepted war with the United States in 1991 rather than yield to Bush I's demand he get his army
out of Kuwait.
Who wants a U.S. war with Iran? Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and
who oppose every effort of Trump's to extricate us from those wars.
Should they succeed in Iran, it is hard to see how we will ever be able to extricate our country from this blood-soaked
region that holds no vital strategic interest save oil, and America, thanks to fracking, has become independent of that.
There is a
report that the Trump administration may be preparing an attack on Iran:
Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are
assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the
tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday.
According to the officials, since Friday, the White House has been holding incessant
discussions involving senior military commanders, Pentagon representatives and advisers to
President Donald Trump.
The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian
facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.
If this report is true, that would mean that the worst of the Iran hawks in the
administration are prevailing once again. The report goes on to say that "Trump himself was not
enthusiastic about a military move against Iran, but lost his patience on the matter and would
grant Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is pushing for action, what he wants." If that is
true, that is an absurdly casual way to blunder into an unnecessary war. Trump should
understand that if he takes the U.S. into a war against Iran, especially without Congressional
authorization, it will consume the rest of his presidency and it should cost him his
re-election. Starting an unnecessary war with Iran would go down as one of the dumbest, most
reckless, illegal acts in the history of U.S. foreign policy.
Congress must make absolutely clear that the president does not have the authority to
initiate hostilities against Iran. Both houses should pass a resolution this week saying as
much, and they should block any funds that could be used to support such an action. There is no
legal justification for attacking Iran, and if Trump approves an attack he would be violating
the Constitution and should be impeached for it.
The risk of war with Iran is greater than it was six months ago, and it is much greater than
it was two and a half years ago when Trump took office. The U.S. and Iran are in this dangerous
position solely because of the determined efforts of Iran hawks in and around this
administration to drive our country on a collision course with theirs. Those efforts
accelerated significantly thirteen months ago with the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and the
reimposition of sanctions, and things have been getting steadily worse with each passing month.
It is not too late to avert the collision, but it requires the U.S. to make a dramatic change
in policy very soon. Since we know we can't count on the president to make the right decision,
Congress and the public need to make him understand what the political price will be if he
makes the wrong one.
"... For the United States, as for all warlike nations, military power has traditionally been the decisive factor determining whether it wins or loses its campaigns to capture or subdue other countries. World War II was the climax of that bloody history. ..."
"... It was not only the Dulles brothers, however, who brought the United States into the regime-change era in the early 1950s. Eisenhower himself was a fervent advocate of covert action. Officially his defense and security policy, which he called the "New Look," rested on two foundations, a smaller army and an increased nuclear arsenal. In reality, the "New Look" had a third foundation: covert action. Eisenhower may have been the last president to believe that no one would ever discover what he sent the CIA to do. With a soldier's commitment to keeping secrets, he never admitted that he had ordered covert regime-change operations, much less explained why he favored them. ..."
For most of history, seizing another country or territory was a straightforward proposition.
You assembled an army and ordered it to invade. Combat determined the victor. The toll in death
and suffering was usually horrific, but it was all done in the open. That is how Alexander
overran Persia and how countless conquerors since have bent weaker nations to their will.
Invasion is the old-fashioned way.
When the United States joined the race for empire at the end of the 19th century, that was
the tactic it used. It sent a large expeditionary force to the Philippines to crush an
independence movement, ultimately killing some 200,000 Filipinos. At the other end of the
carnage spectrum, it seized Guam without the loss of a single life and Puerto Rico with few
casualties. Every time, though, U.S. victory was the result of superior military power. In the
few cases when the United States failed, as in its attempt to defend a client regime by
suppressing Augusto Cesar Sandino's nationalist rebellion in Nicaragua during the 1920s and
30s, the failure was also the product of military confrontation. For the United States, as for
all warlike nations, military power has traditionally been the decisive factor determining
whether it wins or loses its campaigns to capture or subdue other countries. World War II was
the climax of that bloody history.
After that war, however, something important changed. The United States no longer felt free
to land troops on every foreign shore that was ruled by a government it disliked or considered
threatening. Suddenly there was a new constraint: the Red Army. If American troops invaded a
country and overthrew its government, the Soviets might respond in kind. Combat between
American and Soviet forces could easily escalate into nuclear holocaust, so it had to be
avoided at all costs. Yet during the Cold War, the United States remained determined to shape
the world according to its liking -- perhaps more determined than ever. The United States
needed a new weapon. The search led to covert action.
A news agency
During World War II the United States used a covert agency, the Office of Strategic
Services, to carry out clandestine actions across Europe and Asia. As soon as the war ended, to
the shock of many OSS agents, Harry Truman abolished it. He believed there was no need for such
an agency during peacetime. In 1947 he changed his mind and signed the National Security Act,
under which the Central Intelligence Agency was established. That marked the beginning of a new
era. Covert action replaced overt action as the principal means of projecting American power
around the world.
Truman later insisted that he had intended the CIA to serve as a kind of private global news
service. "It was not intended as a 'Cloak & Dagger Outfit!'" he wrote. "It was intended
merely as a center for keeping the President informed on what was going on in the world [not]
to act as a spy organization. That was never the intention when it was organized." Nonetheless
he did not hesitate to use the new CIA for covert action. Its first major campaign, aimed at
influencing the 1948 Italian election to ensure that pro-American Christian Democrats would
defeat their Communist rivals, was vast in scale and ultimately successful -- setting the
pattern for CIA intervention in every Italian election for the next two decades. Yet Truman
drew the line at covert action to overthrow governments.
The CIA's covert-action chief, Allen Dulles, twice proposed such projects. In both cases,
the target he chose was a government that had inflicted harm on corporations that he and his
brother, John Foster Dulles, had represented during their years as partners at the globally
powerful Wall Street law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. In 1952 he proposed that the CIA
overthrow President Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala, whose government was carrying out land reform
that affected the interests of United Fruit. By one account, State Department officials "hit
the roof" when they heard his proposal, and the diplomat David Bruce told him that the
Department "disapproves of the entire deal." Then Dulles proposed an operation to overthrow
Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran, who had nationalized his country's oil industry.
Secretary of State Dean Acheson flatly rejected it.
White House resistance to covert regime-change operations dissolved when Dwight Eisenhower
succeeded Truman at the beginning of 1953. Part of the new administration's enthusiasm came
from Allen Dulles, Washington's most relentless advocate of such operations, whom Eisenhower
named to head the CIA. The fact that he named Dulles's brother as secretary of State ensured
that covert operations would have all the necessary diplomatic cover from the State Department.
During the Dulles brothers' long careers at Sullivan & Cromwell, they had not only learned
the techniques of covert regime change but practiced them. They were masters at marshaling
hidden power in the service of their corporate clients overseas. Now they could do the same
with all the worldwide resources of the CIA.
It was not only the Dulles brothers, however, who brought the United States into the regime-change era in the early
1950s. Eisenhower himself was a fervent advocate of covert action. Officially his defense and security policy, which he called
the "New Look," rested on two foundations, a smaller army and an increased nuclear arsenal. In reality, the "New Look" had a
third foundation: covert action. Eisenhower may have been the last president to believe that no one would ever discover what he
sent the CIA to do. With a soldier's commitment to keeping secrets, he never admitted that he had ordered covert regime-change
operations, much less explained why he favored them. He would, however, have had at least two reasons.
Since Eisenhower had commanded Allied forces in Europe during World War II, he was aware of
the role that covert operations such as breaking Nazi codes had played in the war victory --
something few other people knew at the time. That would have given him an appreciation for how
important and effective such operations could be. His second reason was even more powerful. In
Europe he had had the grim responsibility of sending thousands of young men out to die. That
must have weighed on him. He saw covert action as a kind of peace project. After all, if the
CIA could overthrow a government with the loss of just a few lives, wasn't that preferable to
war? Like most Americans, Eisenhower saw a world of threats. He also understood that the threat
of nuclear war made overt invasions all but unthinkable. Covert action was his answer. Within a
year and a half of his inauguration, the CIA had deposed the governments of both Guatemala and
Iran. It went on to other regime-change operations from Albania to Cuba to Indonesia.
Successive presidents followed his lead.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was once again free to launch
direct military invasions. When it found a leader it didn't like -- such as Saddam Hussein or
Muammar Qaddafi -- it deposed him not through covert action, but by returning to the approach
it had used before World War II: the force of arms. Covert efforts to overthrow governments
have hardly ceased, as any Iranian or Venezuelan could attest. The era when covert action was
America's principal weapon in world affairs, however, is over. That makes this a good time to
look back.
Metrics for covert action
Books about the Cold War heyday of covert action era are a mini-genre. Lindsey A. O'Rourke's
contribution is especially valuable. Unlike many other books built around accounts of CIA
plots, Covert Regime Change takes a scholarly and quantitative approach. It provides
charts, graphs, and data sets. Meticulous analysis makes this not the quickest read of any book
on the subject, but certainly one of the best informed. Chapters on the disastrous effort to
overthrow communist rule in Eastern Europe, which cost the lives of hundreds of deceived
partisans, and on the covert-action aspects of America's doomed campaign in Vietnam are
especially trenchant.
O'Rourke identifies three kinds of covert operations that are aimed at securing perceived
friends in power and keeping perceived enemies out: offensive operations to overthrow
governments, preventive operations aimed at preserving the status quo, and hegemonic operations
aimed at keeping a foreign nation subservient. From 1947 to 1989, by her count, the United
States launched 64 covert regime-change operations, while using the overt tool -- war -- just
six times. She traces the motivations behind these operations, the means by which they were
carried out, and their effects. Her text is based on meticulous analysis of individual
operations. Some other books about covert action are rip-roaring yarns. This one injects a dose
of
rigorous analysis into a debate that is often based on emotion. That rigor lends credence to
her conclusions:
When policymakers want to conduct an operation that they know violates international
norms, they simply conduct it covertly to hide their involvement.
Covert missions typically have lower potential costs than their overt counterparts, but
they are also less likely to succeed.
Can interveners acquire reliable allies by covertly overthrowing foreign governments?
Overall, I find the answer is no. Covert regime changes seldom worked out as intended.
The new leader's opponents often accused him of being a U.S. puppet and, in some cases,
even took up arms against the regime. In fact, approximately half of the governments that
came to power in a U.S.-backed covert regime change during the Cold War were later violently
removed from power.
States targeted in a covert regime-change operation appear less likely to be democratic
afterward and more likely to experience civil war, adverse regime changes, or human-rights
abuses
Covert regime changes can have disastrous consequences for civilians within the target
states. Countries that were targeted by the United States for a covert regime change during
the Cold War were more likely to experience a civil war or an episode of mass killing
afterward.
Even nominally successful covert regime changes -- where U.S.-backed forces came to power
-- seldom delivered on their promise to improve interstate relations.
Although these conclusions are not new, they have rarely if ever been presented as the
result of such persuasive statistical evidence. Yet even this evidence seems unlikely to force
a reassessment of covert action as a way to influence or depose governments. It is an American
"addiction." The reasons are many and varied, but one of the simplest is that covert action
seems so easy. Changing an unfriendly country's behavior through diplomacy is a long, complex,
multi-faceted project. It takes careful thought and planning. Often it requires compromise.
Sending the CIA to overthrow a "bad guy" is far more tempting. It's the cheap and easy way out.
History shows that it often produces terrible results for both the target country and the
United States. To a military and security elite as contemptuous of history as America's,
however, that is no obstacle.
Although covert regime-change operations remain a major part of American foreign policy,
they are not as effective as they once were. The first victims of CIA overthrows, Prime
Minister Mossadegh and President Arbenz, did not understand the tools the CIA had at its
disposal and so were easy targets. They were also democratic, meaning that they allowed open
societies in which the press, political parties, and civic groups functioned freely -- making
them easy for the CIA to penetrate. Later generations of leaders learned from their ignorance.
They paid closer attention to their own security, and imposed tightly controlled regimes in
which there were few independent power centers that the CIA could manipulate.
If Eisenhower could come back to life, he would see the havoc that his regime-change
operations wreaked. After his overthrow of Mossadegh, Iran fell under royal dictatorship that
lasted a quarter-century and was followed by decades of rule by repressive mullahs who have
worked relentlessly to undermine American interests around the world. The operation he ordered
in Guatemala led to a civil war that killed 200,000 people, turning a promising young democracy
into a charnel house and inflicting a blow on Central America from which it has never
recovered. His campaign against Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, which included the
fabrication of a poison kit in a CIA laboratory, helped turn that country into one of the most
violent places on Earth.
How would Eisenhower respond to the long-term disasters that followed his covert action
victories? He might well have come up with a highly convincing way to excuse himself. It's now
clear, he could argue, that covert action to overthrow governments usually has terrible
long-term results -- but that was not clear in the 1950s. Eisenhower had no way of knowing that
even covert regime-change operations that seem successful at the time could have devastating
results decades later.
We today, however, do know that. The careful analysis that is at the center of Covert
Regime Change makes clearer than ever that when America sets out to change the world
covertly, it usually does more harm than good -- to itself as well as others. O'Rourke
contributes to the growing body of literature that clearly explains this sad fact of
geopolitics. The intellectual leadership for a national movement against regime-change
operations -- overt or covert -- is coalescing. The next step is to take this growing body of
knowledge into the political arena. Washington remains the province of those who believe not
only that the United States should try to reconfigure the world into an immense American sphere
of influence, but that that is an achievable goal. In the Beltway morass of pro-intervention
think tanks, members of Congress, and op-ed columnists, America's role in the world is usually
not up for debate. Now, as a presidential campaign unfolds and intriguing new currents surge
through the American body politic, is an ideal moment for that debate to re-emerge. If it does,
we may be surprised to see how many voters are ready to abandon the dogma of regime change and
wonder, with George Washington, "Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?"
This article was originally published in the June 2019 edition ofFuture of Freedom .
This post was written by: Stephen Kinzer Stephen Kinzer is an author and
newspaper reporter. He is a veteran New York Times correspondent who has reported from more
than 50 countries on five continents. His books include "Overthrow" and "All the Shah's Men".
In a TV interview on June 2, on the news docuseries
"Axios" on the HBO channel, Jared Kushner opened up regarding many issues, in which his 'Deal
of the Century' was a prime focus.
The major revelation made by Kushner, President Donald Trump's adviser and son-in-law, was
least surprising. Kushner believes that Palestinians are not capable of governing
themselves.
Not surprising, because Kushner thinks he is capable of arranging the future of the
Palestinian people without the inclusion of the Palestinian leadership. He has been pushing his
so-called 'Deal of the Century' relentlessly, while including in his various meets and
conferences countries such as Poland, Brazil and Croatia, but not Palestine.
Indeed, this is what transpired at the
Warsaw conference on 'peace and security' in the Middle East. The same charade, also led by
Kushner, is expected to be rebooted in
Bahrain on June 25.
Much has been said about the subtle racism in Kushner's words, reeking with the stench of
old colonial discourses where the natives were seen as lesser, incapable of rational thinking
beings who needed the civilized 'whites' of the western hemisphere to help them cope with their
backwardness and inherent incompetence.
Kushner, whose credentials are merely based on his familial connections to Trump and family
friendship with Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is now poised to be the colonial
administrator of old, making and enforcing the law while the hapless natives have no other
option but to either accommodate or receive their due punishment.
This is not an exaggeration. In fact, according to leaked information concerning Kushner's
'Deal of the Century,' and published in the Israeli daily newspaper, Israel Hayom , if
Palestinian groups refuse to accept the US-Israeli diktats, "the US will cancel all financial
support to the Palestinians and ensure that no country transfers funds to them."
In the HBO interview, Kushner offered the Palestinians a lifeline. They could be considered
capable of governing themselves should they manage to achieve the following: "a fair judicial
system freedom of the press, freedom of expression, tolerance for all religions."
The fact that Palestine is an occupied country, subject in every possible way to Israel's
military law, and that Israel has never been held accountable for its 52-year occupation seems
to be of no relevance whatsoever, as far as Kushner is concerned.
On the contrary, the subtext in all of what Kushner has said in the interview is that Israel
is the antithesis to the unquestionable Palestinian failure. Unlike Palestine, Israel needs to
do little to demonstrate its ability to be a worthy peace partner.
While the term 'US bias towards Israel' is as old as the state of Israel itself, what is
hardly discussed are the specifics of that bias, the decidedly condescending, patronizing and,
often, racist view that US political classes have of Palestinians – and all Arabs and
Muslims, for that matter; and the utter infatuation with Israel, which is often cited as a
model for democracy, judicial transparency and successful 'anti-terror' tactics.
According to Kushner a 'fair judicial system' is a conditio sine qua non to determine
a country's ability to govern itself. But is the Israeli judicial system "fair" and
"democratic"?
Israel does not have a single judicial system, but two. This duality has, in fact, defined Israeli courts from the
very inception of Israel in 1948. This de facto apartheid system openly differentiates between
Jews and Arabs, a fact that is true in both civil and criminal law.
"Criminal law is applied separately and unequally in the West Bank, based on nationality
alone (Israeli versus Palestinian), inventively weaving its way around the contours of
international law in order to preserve and develop its '(illegal Jewish) settlement
enterprise'," Israeli scholar, Emily Omer-Man, explained in her essay 'Separate and
Unequal'.
In practice, Palestinians and Israelis who commit the exact same crime will be judged
according to two different systems, with two different procedures: "The settler will be
processed according to the Israeli Penal Code (while) the Palestinian will be processed
according to military order."
This unfairness is constituent of a massively unjust judicial apparatus that has defined the
Israeli legal system from the onset. Take the measure of administrative detention as an example.
Palestinians can be held without trial and without any stated legal justification. Tens of
thousands of Palestinians have been subjected to this undemocratic 'law' and hundreds of them
are currently held in Israeli jails.
It is ironic that Kushner raised the issue of freedom of the press, in particular, as Israel
is being derided for its dismal record in that regard. Israel has reportedly committed
811 violations against Palestinian journalists since the start of the 'March of Return' in
Gaza in March 2018. Two journalists – Yaser Murtaja and Ahmed Abu Hussein –
were killed and 155 were wounded
by Israeli snipers.
Like the imbalanced Israeli judicial system, targeting the press is also a part of a
protracted pattern. According to a press release issued by the Palestinian Journalists Union
last May, Israel
has killed 102 Palestinian journalists since 1972.
The fact that Palestinian intellectuals, poets and activists have been imprisoned for
Facebook and other social media posts should tell us volumes about the limits of Israel's
freedom of press and expression.
It is also worth mentioning that in June 2018, the Israeli Knesset
voted for a bill that prohibits the filming of Israeli soldiers as a way to mask their
crimes and shelter them from any future legal accountability.
As for freedom of religion, despite its many shortcomings, the Palestinian Authority hardly
discriminates against religious minorities. The same cannot be said about Israel.
Although discrimination against non-Jews in Israel has been the raison d'être
of the very idea of Israel, the Nation-State Law of July 2018 further cemented the
superiority of the Jews and inferior status of everyone else.
According to the new Basic Law, Israel is "the national home of the Jewish people" only and
"the right to exercise national self-determination is unique to the Jewish people."
Palestinians do not need to be lectured on how to meet Israeli and American expectations,
nor should they ever aspire to imitate the undemocratic Israeli model. What they urgently need,
instead, is international solidarity to help them win the fight against Israeli occupation,
racism and apartheid.
Interesting that this Israeli-First traitor Clawson mentions Lincoln and Ft. Sumter. He finally admits what genuine historians
of the Civil War long knew: Lincoln was a warmonger and tyrant, not an emancipator. The Civil war was fought to eliminate true
freedom and equality in this country and it has been downhill ever since. The working class and soldier-class in America today
are slaves in every sense of the word. Slaves to Zion. No wonder the certified warmonger and racist Lincoln is worshiped equally
by Left and Right today, whilst genuine American patriots like Robert E. Lee have their legacy torn down. Lincoln was the proto-Neocon.
Tom Dilorenzo summed up the real Lincoln when he wrote in Lincoln Unmasked:
"Imagine that California seceded from the union and an American president responded with the carpet bombing of Los Angeles,
San Diego, and San Francisco that destroyed 90 percent of those cities. Such was the case with General Sherman's bombardment of
Atlanta; a naval blockade; a blocking off of virtually all trade; the eviction of thousands of residents from their homes (as
occurred in Atlanta in 1864); the destruction of most industries and farms; massive looting of private property by a marauding
army; and the killing of one out of four males of military age while maiming for life more than double that number. Would such
an American president be considered a 'great statesman' or a war criminal? The answer is obvious.
A statesman would have recognized the state's right to secede, as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, among other places, and
then worked diligently to persuade the seceded state that a reunion was in its best interest. Agreat statesman, or even a modest
one, would not have impulsively plunged the entire nation into a bloody war.
Lincoln's warmongering belligerence and his invasion of all the Southern states in response to Fort Sumter (where no one was
harmed or killed) caused the upper South -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas -- to secede after originally voting
to remain in the Union. He refused to meet with Confederate commissioners to discuss peace and even declined a meeting with Napoleon
III of France, who offered to broker a peace agreement. No genuine statesman would have behaved in such a way.
After Fort Sumter, Lincoln thanked naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in manipulating the South Carolinians into
firing at Fort Sumter. A great statesman does not manipulate his own people into starting one of the bloodiest wars in human history."
mathias alexand
Here's a man who holds a press conference to announce a secret plan. Only in America.
False flags here, false flags there, false flags everywhere. All too further the aims of the 'masters of the universe'. We know
who was responsible for the tanker attacks. Who are the 3 countries absolutely desperate to take Iran down and install a completely
pliant puppet regime answerable to Washington, Tel Aviv and to a lesser extent Riyadh. And creatures like Clawson, and all the
other vermin can only see $$$$. Thats all they care about. Opening up more markets to further enrich themselves. I echo the other
commenters also. The evil men stoop to for greed, power and control. Psychopaths.
harry law
The Foreign Office issued a statement saying: "It is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military – the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps – attacked the two tankers on 13 June. No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible."
Unbelievable, The UK vassal will use this to as one more reason to evade their responsibilities in implementing the JCPOA.
Well they would say that, wouldn't they. The UK vassal state will spout any peice of crap in their assigned role as vassal state.
Australia is just as gushingly sycophantic and cravenly jellified.
Er . just a rough guess Bill going on the belligerent foaming at the mouth by people in those places along with the likes of Bolton
and Pompeo. In fact, you can probably go all the way back to about 1980 or so.
mark
I think the real giveaway was when all three rogue states openly stated their intention of doing this 1,000 times over the past
10 years. That was the crucial clue Sherlock Holmes was looking for.
Wilmers31
And who funds the Washington Institute? Last time I looked the International Crisis Group existed thanks to Soros and is usually
treated like a serious organisation.
Many Europeans are not in love with the idea of war with Iran, just to achieve obedience to the US. 90 million people is bigger
than Germany.
wardropper
These are the shysters, the spivs and the con men of bygone times. They are the ones who lurked at street corners, waiting for
someone to come along who was gullible enough to buy the Moon from them.
But, for some reason, they are all in politics today.
Now how could that be?
Only because there are people whom it currently suits to use shysters, spivs and con men in order to create enough chaos for
us to want to give up and just let those people have their way.
I agree with Rhys below. There is no more disgusting example of sub-humanity to be found on earth than these warmongers.
To deal with them, however, we will have to realize that their "philosophy", if you can call it that, runs very deep. It didn't
just enter their heads last week.
They are reared and trained in it.
It will be a tough battle.
wardropper
I should add that, in bygone times, the police and the law were usually able to deal with the shysters, spivs and con men, since
their lack of conscience often gave them away.
The modern version, however, which has moved into politics, was shrewd enough to use a few decades of bribery and threats in order
to build around itself a nice little shell, through which the law simply cannot penetrate, except on special occasions, mainly
for show.
Rhys Jaggar
There is a big cabal of warmongers who stoke the fuel but never see action. I find those people more disgusting than anyone on
earth.
Draft dodgers, academics, 'historians' etc etc.
Ball-less pricks is what I call them .
mark
All fully paid up members of the Bill Clinton Light Infantry.
William HBonney
Yeah, well I'm not a great fan of those who would appease Assad, Putin, Hussein, Gaddafi
You must be so proud.
andyoldlabour
The appeasers would include the US who fully supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, who provided him with chemical
weapons and logistical help in using those weapons, which killed around 50,000 Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians.
The same appeasers armed and funded the Taliban (Mujahideen) against the Soviets.
The US are the single largest force for terrorism the World has ever seen.
William HBonney
The easiest, and perhaps best metric by which to judge a country, is 'do people aspire to live there? '.
I see you admire the Soviet Union, but at its dissolution, people were queuing to leave. And yet the US, and the UK, according
to you, iniquitous places of tyranny, are oversubscribed. Could it be, that for all your implied erudition, you are merely a bellend?
axisofoil
You must be a big fan of CNN and the NYT. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
BigB
Well, even as a pacifist: if that is his sentiment – I hope he has sons or daughters in the military stationed in CENTCOM in Qatar.
I bet he hasn't, though.
Rhisiart Gwilym
He should be right there on the frontline himself. That would straighten the disgusting creep's ideas out about the 'usefulness'
of deliberately provoking war
"... A few years ago, Sheldon Adelson wanted the US to drop a nuke on Iran. Video below. What Sheldon wants, Trump the errand-boy delivers. The fact that the US public is overwhelmingly against a war with Iran is completely irrelevant. ..."
"... Probably a 50/50 chance it was an American-Saudi-Israel false flag. ..."
"... Just like how the Reichstag Fire took place and by pure happenstance, the Nazis had the Enabling Act all ready to go. ..."
"... If I was a betting man I'd put my money on the "actual" culprits being Mossad, CIA, MI6 or any combination of the three. The Neocons and Zionists in Washington are traitors to our Constitutional Republic! Don't let them drag us into another foreign war for Israel! ..."
"... Remember the USS Liberty! Never Forget! ..."
"... This updated post from "Moon of Alabama" is definitely worth reading: "Today's Attacks On Ships In The Gulf Of Oman Are Not In Iran's Interest – Or Are They? (Updated)": https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/todays-attacks-on-ships-in-the-gulf-of-oman-are-not-in-irans-interest.html#more ..."
"... Maybe Colin Powell can come out of retirement and deliver the US/neocon presentation at the UN Security Council: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rp6WuTSTyS8 ..."
"... The only person whom I can recall endlessly deceiving on this is Benjamin Netanyahu, whom I recall making speech after speech claiming that Iran was just about to have nuclear weapons. He's been doing that for over a decade now. ..."
"... As for incentives/disincentives, Mossad doesn't have much disincentive. If they are caught, they and their friends in the USA will scream 'Fake News!'. ..."
"... Who wants war? Saudis to prop up oil prices and get Iran in trouble? Pompeo because he wants to bring on the Rapture and the return of JC? Donald Trump so he can be a "wartime president" stir up his base and please the military contractor donors? Netanyahu to distract from his corruption charges and weaken Iranian Islamists? Some really stupid underground hardliners in Iran? ..."
"... I forgot one more who wants war: Bolton because he is an immoral idiot who wants to strut. ..."
Back in the 1960's as the Cuban missile crisis was brewing, JFK conferred with then French
president Charles DeGaulle and offered to show him the reconnaissance pictures showing the
Russian missiles in Cuba. DeGaulle is said to have replied "No, I do not need to see
pictures. The word of the President of the United States is enough."
It's impossible to imagine anyone saying that today, unless they still believe in the
tooth fairy.
It very well could an act by a state that according to an elite Army warfare college, is
"known to disregard international law to accomplish mission" and also a
"wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a
Palestinian/Arab act."
What state? See "U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study," Washington Times, September 10,
2001.
A few years ago, Sheldon Adelson wanted the US to drop a nuke on Iran. Video below. What
Sheldon wants, Trump the errand-boy delivers. The fact that the US public is overwhelmingly
against a war with Iran is completely irrelevant.
Yes, Iran is to be blamed! Absolutely true, US President himself said so!
Let's look at some facts and then deductions. So, the US drone was following the Iranian
boat. Iranians saw the drone, fired at it and missed. Regardless, they continued their
"journey" to the tanker, all the while their supreme leader was trying to persuade Abe to
help Iran.
Tump: It was Iran the terrorist nation, not leaders but the nation. Not long ago Trump lauded
Iranians as very nice people. If the drone was there, why don't we see the beginning of the
boat's journey and then where that boat with the mine went? According to Mr Pompeo and Mr
Bolton, the nation of terrorists is not only evil but stupid too. Yet no other actor in the
region has the sophistication to perform such an act (that is stupid act) – according
to Mr.Pompeo.
Hm who else, I wonder would be interested in bringing down Iran? I can't think even of one
such actor.
Lest we forget. Gen. Wesley Clark's revelation. This was first revealed to General Wesley
Clark in 1991 by neo-con Paul Wolfowitz. The seven countries which were to be invaded and
blessed with regime change were Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, and the big
prize, Iran with its wealth of resources and potential market of over 70 million persons.This
same plan was revealed again to General Clark during a visit to the Pentagon ten days after
9-11, the event that presented the neo-cons, and no doubt others behind the scenes, with
their Pearl Harbor, their justification to proceed with the plan, somewhat conveniently. You
can see Clark say it in person on YouTube if you don't believe it.
The only thing missing is a bunch of Iranian passports "just accidentally found" near the
ships with a big floating arrow pointing towards them, just in case we're clueless. If we get dragged into a bunfight with Iran because of this we deserve all the opprobrium
anyone hurls at us–if only for our outright stupidity.
""This assessment is based on intelligence [I think we already know what the Saudis and
Israelis want us to think], the weapons used [which were what again?], the level of expertise
needed to execute the operation [more than what was needed to prove the existence of fake
WMDs], recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping ['Iranian attacks' according to who,
exactly?], and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and
proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication [so sophisticated there's no
evidence they did it]," the Secretary said, without taking questions [or citing proof]"
He doesn't even bother with a Colin Powell style PowerPoint to convince us he believes any
of the horsesh!t he's peddling. Real contempt for the American public.
Let's quote that fellow with the little moustache, shortly before he ordered the invasion of
Poland: "I will provide a propagandistic casus belli. Its credibility doesn't matter. The
victor will not be asked whether he told the truth."
To think that the only obstacle between peace and war is a president too stupid to
understand that he brought this on himself.
It's very sad that I trust the word of the Ayatollah Khameni more than the President of the
United States or any of his spokesman. The proxy which had the weapons, level of expertise needed to execute the operation,
resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication is called the
Central Intelligence Agency.
How utterly convenient!
Abe is meeting with the Iranian leadership, what better time to attack Japanese tankers
(what better time for Saudi Arabia, Israel and the neocons, that is)? Not 24 hours go by after the supposed attack and Pompeo already knows who did it and has a
response ready. Why, it's almost like his mind were already made up! (But when it comes to,
say, that Saudi prince who chops up journalists, it seems that we can never ever ever really
know what happened!)
Just like how the Reichstag Fire took place and by pure happenstance, the Nazis had the
Enabling Act all ready to go.
Sarcasm aside, everyone knows that Pompeo is lying, looking for an excuse to escalate
tensions. The question is whether anyone will do anything about it.
If I was a betting man I'd put my money on the "actual" culprits being Mossad, CIA, MI6 or
any combination of the three. The Neocons and Zionists in Washington are traitors to our
Constitutional Republic! Don't let them drag us into another foreign war for Israel!
Jason Ditz, the News Editor at Antiwar.com reports: "Pompeo's declaration of Iran's guilt was
based chiefly on similar incidents happening in mid-May. John Bolton and Pompeo blamed Iran
then, and since this was the same sort of thing, they blame Iran now. The problem is, they
have offered no evidence Iran was responsible for the first incidents, let alone today's, and
are just tying them all together. Pompeo rattled off a list of things to blame Iran for,
including multiple incidents that were done by Yemen's Houthis, a rocket fired in Iraq that
was never convincingly blamed on anyone, and an Afghanistan bombing that clearly was nothing
to do with Iran at all."
Jason Ditz goes on to report: "The big questions are, as always, motive. Iran has no
conceivable reason to attack such ships. In this case, one of the ships is even
Japanese-owned. Japan is a very important trading partner of Iran, and Japan's prime minister
Abe Shinzo is visiting Iran right now, trying to reduce tensions. Abe has also declared Iran
to have no intention to make nuclear arms. This would be a preposterous move for Iran to even
consider. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif declared that 'suspicious doesn't begin to
describe' what happened, noting that the attacks were timed to when Japanese PM Abe Shinzo
was meeting with Iran's Supreme Leader. Abe's meeting was also a subject of Pompeo's
comments, as Pompeo falsely accused Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of having refused the meeting with
Abe. In reality, the meeting took place, and Khamenei simply rejected a proposal to trade
messages with President Trump. Pompeo went on to declare the attack on a Japanese ship during
Abe's Iran visit as an Iranian 'insult to Japan.' This all rests on the US assumption of
Iran's guilt, and as Zarif points out, makes the attack look suspiciously like it might have
been carried out for the benefit of the anti-Iran narrative. "
I read somewhere that the Iranians used weapons of mass destruction given to them by Saddam
to attack the USS Maine in the Gulf of Tonkin, taking American lives on American soil.
I had forgotten that basically all wars are "protected by a bodyguard of lies," according
to the video. Most poignant to me was the Iraqi woman pleading to Congress about Sadam
Hussein's destruction of incubators, which George HW Bush later referenced as the "babies
strewn about the floor like firewood." Except it was all fabricated by a PR firm!
Is anyone really that delusional to believe that Iran is going to attack a Japanese tanker
while the Japanese PM is meeting with the Ayatollah? The ONLY explanation that makes sense is
that it was planned in the White House by Pompeo and Bolton. Whether it was with or without
Trump's knowledge and approval is irrelevant. P & B have been openly salivating for any
excuse to start a war with Iran, and Trump has given them free rein. It is a war crime, and
all three are guilty.
The USS Liberty is spot on. That was our Versailles Treaty and Johnson ceded much of our
foreign policy and intelligence to Israel – we capitulated and have continued to
capitulate to Israel. Things are looking grim and look like a repeat of Iraq. What can stop
this momentum to war?
Well, it seems that just about 100% of those who comment here have this figured out. Once
these things were a bit more sophisticated, but now the Empire doesn't seem to care if its
schemes are blatantly transparent.
Abe has been closely consulting with Trump and the Iranians as a go-between to create the
conditions which can allow Trump to save face now that Bolton's and Pompeo's campaign against
Iran is a big fat failure.
It is clear who hopes to gain by this little stunt, which will not go anywhere. Abe is
certainly not going to be fooled by any of this. Don't expect the WaPo or the NYT to expose
this obvious false flag.
Iran is a rather divided country, and some groups regard USA with as much hatred and
suspicion as the neocons hold towards them. The responsible party might have been IRGC,
intending to raise tensions enough to make their government's current fence-straddling act
unviable and force them to scrap the JCPA.
I'd try to avoid the logic that it must have been
Saudis/Israel/USA, because if it was Iran, the likes of Bolton would somehow be in the right.
They're not. So far, Iran hasn't been the one responsible for the vast majority of
provocations, and even if it elements on their side were did this, the chickenhawks running
USA's national security won't bother to secure proof before escalating. It's not a secret
that they want war and aren't particularly picky about how they get it.
Saudi Arabia.
The other agencies speculated here are off the mark: Israel would fear getting caught, CIA
leaks like a sieve, MI6 has no incentive. But the Saudis? They have the combination of economic incentives, religious hatred,
technical knowledge, advanced (American) weaponry, and who-gives-a-crap-if-we-get-caught
attitude.
Given Iran's history of endless deception in their nuclear weapons development program, might
all these suggestions of these attacks being an American fabrication be a bit premature? How
about even a tiny bit of objectivity? Or did Larsen write all these comments? (:
I have a question about the video footage supposedly showing Iranians removing a mine from a
tanker. The quality of the picture is no better than that we saw back in the 1965 Tonkin Gulf
incident, when N Vietnamese boats allegedly attacked a US Navy ship. But that was 54 years
ago. In video technology today 1080p is a standard resolution, 4k is pretty common. Why is
the US Navy still showing something that looks like it came from my Dad's 8mm home movie
set-up?
"Given Iran's history of endless deception in their nuclear weapons development program,
might all these suggestions of these attacks being an American fabrication be a bit
premature? How about even a tiny bit of objectivity? Or did Larsen write all these comments?
(:"
What "history of endless deception"? Every third party has confirmed that Iran has
complied strictly with the JCPOA.
The United States, on the other hand, has a long track record of blatant lies to get the
wars it seeks ..
Exactly what I am hoping for IF the US attacks Iran. All depends on the Iranian
capabilities to cripple the flow of oil from the ME. So I say: Go Iran, make us pay! And
don't forget to throw some missiles on the royal Saudi palace and Riyad. Make that a few
dozen. Or hundred.
"Given Iran's history of endless deception in their nuclear weapons development program,
might all these suggestions of these attacks being an American fabrication be a bit
premature? How about even a tiny bit of objectivity? Or did Larsen write all these comments?
(:"
The only person whom I can recall endlessly deceiving on this is Benjamin Netanyahu, whom
I recall making speech after speech claiming that Iran was just about to have nuclear
weapons. He's been doing that for over a decade now.
As for incentives/disincentives, Mossad doesn't have much disincentive. If they are
caught, they and their friends in the USA will scream 'Fake News!'.
Mr. Bone Saw has got to be extremely cocky now.
And both of them could reasonably expect that if they succeed in triggering a US-Iran war,
that even later exposure wouldn't matter.
Yesterday (June 13th) Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), a Democratic candidate for President in
2020, was interviewed by the Washington Post's Robert Costa. Here (at 23:58-28:06) is a brief
excerpt of Rep. Gabbard's excellent views on US Iran policy:
Who wants war?
Saudis to prop up oil prices and get Iran in trouble?
Pompeo because he wants to bring on the Rapture and the return of JC?
Donald Trump so he can be a "wartime president" stir up his base and please the military
contractor donors?
Netanyahu to distract from his corruption charges and weaken Iranian Islamists?
Some really stupid underground hardliners in Iran?
There are some plausible choices but none of them is the Iranian government.
I frankly just don't believe anything coming form the US government anymore, especially
warmongering neo-cons in charge of foreign policy, the Pentagon, and Deep State actors.
What on earth would Iran have to gain from attacking a Japanese oil tanker while their
leader is meeting with the Japanese PM? More likely a false-flag CIA operation.
"I have a question about the video footage supposedly showing Iranians removing a mine
from a tanker. The quality of the picture is no better than that we saw back in the 1965
Tonkin Gulf incident, when N Vietnamese boats allegedly attacked a US Navy ship. But that was
54 years ago. In video technology today 1080p is a standard resolution, 4k is pretty common.
Why is the US Navy still showing something that looks like it came from my Dad's 8mm home
movie set-up?"
100%. When I heard on the news this morning that there was video showing Iranians, I
thought "They have them". Then I saw the video. Now I call BS.
Are these the same guys that provided the irrefutable "evidence" of weapons of mass
destruction in Iran?
I am sure that since the Mossad provides us with intelligence in that area of the world, they
are completely objective, and have the best interest of the American military at heart.
@Snark: I tend to agree that the video raises more questions: -what would be the purpose of a
mine above the water line?
-why does it take a group of 10-20 people milling about on the bow to remove a mine?
-does 10-20 people really indicate a clandestine effort to remove a mine, more like a
clusterf____?
As OffGuardian remarked, does the deep state (cia,mi6,mossad) really think we are that
stupid?
Why would Iranians attack their own interests? Because they are "evil". Let's see: Front
Altair is owned by John Frederiksen, the owner of the Frontline Tanker company, who moved
Iranian oil for nearly 40 years including during the "tanker war" with Iraq siding with Iran.
Mr Federiksen was called Khomeini's blood life.
What about the Japanese tanker? While the Supreme Leader of Iran was working on Abe to help
Iran?
Who's evil, who's stupid?
"Outrage on Capitol Hill over 'completely unacceptable' US-funded scheme to shape Iran
debate," The Independent, Wednesday, June 12, 2019:
"United States officials say they are outraged by a government-funded troll campaign that
has targeted American citizens critical of the administration's hardline Iran policy and
accused critics of being loyal to the Tehran regime. State Department officials admitted to
Congressional staff in a closed-door meeting on Monday that a project they had funded to
counter Iranian propaganda had gone off the rails. Critics in Washington have gone further,
saying that the programme resembled the type of troll farms used by autocratic regimes
abroad. 'It's completely unacceptable that American taxpayer dollars supported a project that
attacked Americans and others who are critical of the Trump administration's policy of
escalation and conflict with Iran,' a senior Congressional aide told The Independent, on
condition of anonymity. 'This is something that happens in authoritarian regimes, not
democracies'."
The Independent article by Negar Mortazavi and Borzou Baragahi continues: "One woman
behind the harassment campaign, a longtime Iranian-American activist, has received hundreds
of thousands of dollars from the State Department over the years to promote 'freedom of
expression and free access to information.' The campaign relentlessly attacked critics of the
Iran policy on social media, including Twitter and Telegram messaging app, accusing them
without evidence of being paid operatives of the regime in Tehran. A spokeswoman for the
State Department told reporters on Monday that funding for the 'Iran Disinformation Project'
had been suspended and is under review after it was reported that it went beyond the scope of
its mandate by veering from countering propaganda from Iran to smearing domestic critics of
White House policy. State Department officials disclosed to lawmakers they had granted $1.5
million for Iran Disinfo, which repeatedly targeted, harassed and smeared critics of Trump's
tough stance against Iran on social media.
The Independent article noted: "Among those targeted were American activists, scholars,
and journalists who challenged the Trump administration's 'maximum pressure campaign' against
Iran. The revelation that US taxpayer money was being used to attack administration critics
has now sparked a flurry of queries. 'There are still so many unanswered questions here,'
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar wrote on Twitter. 'What rules are in place to prevent state-funded
organisation from smearing American citizens? If there wasn't public outcry, would the
Administration have suspended funding for Iran Disinfo?' Cold War-era US rules barring the
use of government-funded propaganda against American citizens have been flouted for decades
State Department officials speaking at the closed-door meeting admitted the project was out
of bounds, according to Congressional staffers speaking to The Independent on condition of
anonymity. Both Democratic and Republican Congressional staffers were highly critical of the
project and questioned whether US officials should continue to work with the contractor,
E-Collaborative for Civic Education. The State Department spokeswoman declined to outline
steps to prevent such an operation in the future E-Collaborative for Civic Education,
co-founded by Iranian American activist Mariam Memarsadeghi, is a long-time State Department
contractor "
Foundation for Defence of Democracies and MEK involved in creating fake articles. The
Independent continues:
"Congressional officials also confirmed to The Independent that one individual working for
the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, an influential Washington organisation with
hawkish views on Iran, is part of the E-Collaborative for Civic Education's Iran
Disinformation Project Over the weekend, The Intercept revealed that a purported Iranian
activist, who had published dozens of articles on Iran in prominent outlets such as Forbes
and The Hill, does not exist and is a fake persona run by a team of operatives connected to a
bizarre Iranian political cult. The "Heshmat Alavi" persona had a strong presence on Twitter
and harassed Iranian journalists, academics, and activists who are critical of the
Mujahedin-e-Khalq organisation, a one-time armed guerilla group now holed up in Albania.
There is no known link between the Iran Disinfo programme and the fake persona. At least one
was cited by the Trump administration as proof against the effectiveness of the Obama-era
nuclear deal. Some of the MEK articles were also picked up by US government funded Voice of
America's Persian-language service "
Let's not forget the lies our great-grandparents were told to inveigle us into WWI: "German
troops are raping Belgian nuns" and "German troops are using Belgian babies for bayonet
practice."
100 years from now a future historian, (probably Russian or Chinese), writing about the
collapse of the US, will chronicle how the Americans gullibly believed the war propagandists
asserting that Iran fired on oil tankers, which belonged to it trading partner, with the same
sense of disbelief we now feel upon reading of the crazy assertions made about German
troops.
The Japanese ship's captain came out today and said that there was no way the ship was hit by
a mine as US claimed, it was hit above sea level and sailors saw something hitting the
vessel, like a torpedo.
Why on earth would Iran want to bomb a Japanese ship in the middle of a visit by the
Japanese PM?
This whole thing stinks to high heaven.
The US under the rule of the neocons in the Trump admin, the Pence-Pompeo-Bolton trifecta,
is a menace and a danger to the whole world. From Iran to Venezuela, Ukraine to North Korea,
China to Russia, there isn't a country these neocon stooges don't want to pick a quarrel
with. America has become the greatest threat to world peace.
Sam – When was the last time Iran invaded another country? Why is Israel pushing so
hard for us to fight yet another war on their behalf. As Ron Paul said – if they want
to fight Iran – let them, but we must stand aside as they duke it out. Israel has
created enough Gold Star mothers in the US. Time to do their own fighting. Larsen and Giraldi
make a lot of sense.
"... The appeasers would include the US who fully supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, who provided him with chemical weapons and logistical help in using those weapons, which killed around 50,000 Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians. The same appeasers armed and funded the Taliban (Mujahideen) against the Soviets. The US are the single largest force for terrorism the World has ever seen. ..."
WATCH: US economist urges covert violence to provoke war with Iran "I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically
go down – someday one of them might not come up." Admin
Many believe war with the Islamic Republic of Iran has been the dream of some hardcore neocons in Washington since at least 2001.
Back in 2012 former employee of the IMF and current economist for the World Bank,
Patrick Clawson , provided fuel for this belief when
he was videoed obliquely advocating using covert violence so that the US president "can get to war with Iran."
In a startlingly frank speech, Clawson makes it clear he believes (and apparently approves) that the US has a history of seeking
war for profit, and of using provocations to goad its perceived enemies into starting such wars. Clawson highlights in particular
the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in 1861
, which, he says, was deliberately engineered by president Lincoln in pursuit of an excuse to launch a war on the Southern secessionist
states.
In light of the recent alleged attacks on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, timed to coincide with the visit of the Japanese prime
minister to Iran, and in light of Secretary of State Capone Pompeo's precipitate and predictable claim the attacks were
likely perpetrated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, this is an apposite time to recall this telling little incident.
Below see the transcript of Mr Clawson's remarks
Transcript
"I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough and it's very hard for me to see how the United States president can get
us to war with Iran which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming that the traditional way of America gets
to war is what would be best for US interests
Some people might think that mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us in to the World War two as David mentioned. You may recall we had
to wait for Pearl Harbor.
Some people might think mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War One. You may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode
Some people might think that mr. Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall they had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin
episode.
We didn't go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded, and may I point out that mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call off
the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which
the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.
So if in fact the Iranians aren't going to compromise it would be best if somebody else started the war
But I would just like to suggest that one can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August
17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down – someday one of them
might not come up.
Who would know why?
We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not advocating that but I'm just suggesting that a it's
this is not a either-or proposition of, you know, it's just sanctions has to be has to succeed or other things.
DunGroanin
Always follow the money they made lots instantly from the firework display, it aint rocket science!
What do you expect from a Zionist Front like WINEP? They've been inciting wars for Israel for decades. "Getting the stupid goys
to fight Israel's wars for decades."
Jen
If Patrick Clawson is typical of the kind of economist employed at the IMF and then promoted to a leading position at the World
Bank, I dread to think of the calibre of people who also applied for his job in the past and were rejected. His speech is so garbled
and full of unconscious slip-ups.
andyoldlabour
The US has convinced itself of its own so called "exceptionalism", where they can say anything out in the open, reveal their greatest
desires, their unholy plans. There must be some "good" Americans who can stop this madness, or have they all become inflicted/infected
with some hate virus?
Milton
Interesting that this Israeli-First traitor Clawson mentions Lincoln and Ft. Sumter. He finally admits what genuine historians
of the Civil War long knew: Lincoln was a warmonger and tyrant, not an emancipator. The Civil war was fought to eliminate true
freedom and equality in this country and it has been downhill ever since. The working class and soldier-class in America today
are slaves in every sense of the word. Slaves to Zion. No wonder the certified warmonger and racist Lincoln is worshiped equally
by Left and Right today, whilst genuine American patriots like Robert E. Lee have their legacy torn down. Lincoln was the proto-Neocon.
Tom Dilorenzo summed up the real Lincoln when he wrote in Lincoln Unmasked:
"Imagine that California seceded from the union and an American president responded with the carpet bombing of Los Angeles,
San Diego, and San Francisco that destroyed 90 percent of those cities. Such was the case with General Sherman's bombardment of
Atlanta; a naval blockade; a blocking off of virtually all trade; the eviction of thousands of residents from their homes (as
occurred in Atlanta in 1864); the destruction of most industries and farms; massive looting of private property by a marauding
army; and the killing of one out of four males of military age while maiming for life more than double that number. Would such
an American president be considered a 'great statesman' or a war criminal? The answer is obvious.
A statesman would have recognized the state's right to secede, as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, among other places, and
then worked diligently to persuade the seceded state that a reunion was in its best interest. Agreat statesman, or even a modest
one, would not have impulsively plunged the entire nation into a bloody war.
Lincoln's warmongering belligerence and his invasion of all the Southern states in response to Fort Sumter (where no one was
harmed or killed) caused the upper South -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas -- to secede after originally voting
to remain in the Union. He refused to meet with Confederate commissioners to discuss peace and even declined a meeting with Napoleon
III of France, who offered to broker a peace agreement. No genuine statesman would have behaved in such a way.
After Fort Sumter, Lincoln thanked naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in manipulating the South Carolinians into
firing at Fort Sumter. A great statesman does not manipulate his own people into starting one of the bloodiest wars in human history."
mathias alexand
Here's a man who holds a press conference to announce a secret plan. Only in America.
False flags here, false flags there, false flags everywhere. All too further the aims of the 'masters of the universe'. We know
who was responsible for the tanker attacks. Who are the 3 countries absolutely desperate to take Iran down and install a completely
pliant puppet regime answerable to Washington, Tel Aviv and to a lesser extent Riyadh. And creatures like Clawson, and all the
other vermin can only see $$$$. Thats all they care about. Opening up more markets to further enrich themselves. I echo the other
commenters also. The evil men stoop to for greed, power and control. Psychopaths.
harry law
The Foreign Office issued a statement saying: "It is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military – the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps – attacked the two tankers on 13 June. No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible."
Unbelievable, The UK vassal will use this to as one more reason to evade their responsibilities in implementing the JCPOA.
Er . just a rough guess Bill going on the belligerent foaming at the mouth by people in those places along with the likes of Bolton
and Pompeo. In fact, you can probably go all the way back to about 1980 or so.
mark
I think the real giveaway was when all three rogue states openly stated their intention of doing this 1,000 times over the past
10 years. That was the crucial clue Sherlock Holmes was looking for.
Wilmers31
And who funds the Washington Institute? Last time I looked the International Crisis Group existed thanks to Soros and is usually
treated like a serious organisation.
Many Europeans are not in love with the idea of war with Iran, just to achieve obedience to the US. 90 million people is bigger
than Germany.
wardropper
These are the shysters, the spivs and the con men of bygone times. They are the ones who lurked at street corners, waiting for
someone to come along who was gullible enough to buy the Moon from them.
But, for some reason, they are all in politics today.
Now how could that be?
Only because there are people whom it currently suits to use shysters, spivs and con men in order to create enough chaos for
us to want to give up and just let those people have their way.
I agree with Rhys below. There is no more disgusting example of sub-humanity to be found on earth than these warmongers.
To deal with them, however, we will have to realize that their "philosophy", if you can call it that, runs very deep. It didn't
just enter their heads last week.
They are reared and trained in it.
It will be a tough battle.
wardropper
I should add that, in bygone times, the police and the law were usually able to deal with the shysters, spivs and con men, since
their lack of conscience often gave them away.
The modern version, however, which has moved into politics, was shrewd enough to use a few decades of bribery and threats in order
to build around itself a nice little shell, through which the law simply cannot penetrate, except on special occasions, mainly
for show.
Rhys Jaggar
There is a big cabal of warmongers who stoke the fuel but never see action. I find those people more disgusting than anyone on
earth.
Draft dodgers, academics, 'historians' etc etc.
Ball-less pricks is what I call them .
mark
All fully paid up members of the Bill Clinton Light Infantry.
andyoldlabour
The appeasers would include the US who fully supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, who provided him with chemical
weapons and logistical help in using those weapons, which killed around 50,000 Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians.
The same appeasers armed and funded the Taliban (Mujahideen) against the Soviets.
The US are the single largest force for terrorism the World has ever seen.
William HBonney
The easiest, and perhaps best metric by which to judge a country, is 'do people aspire to live there? '.
I see you admire the Soviet Union, but at its dissolution, people were queuing to leave. And yet the US, and the UK, according
to you, iniquitous places of tyranny, are oversubscribed. Could it be, that for all your implied erudition, you are merely a bellend?
BigB
Well, even as a pacifist: if that is his sentiment – I hope he has sons or daughters in the military stationed in CENTCOM in Qatar.
I bet he hasn't, though.
Rhisiart Gwilym
He should be right there on the frontline himself. That would straighten the disgusting creep's ideas out about the 'usefulness'
of deliberately provoking war
Standing at the forefront of game-changing innovations in undersea warfare, Navy Cmdr.
Scott Smith has only one small request. Don't call the Navy's fleet of unmanned undersea
vehicles "drones." "It has a negative connotation," Smith said. "We think of drone strikes
as taking out Taliban, and we're nowhere near that." Not yet, anyway. But the Pentagon is
trying quickly to get there.
Last fall, the Navy named Smith as the first-ever commander of the new Unmanned Undersea
Vehicle Squadron 1, or UUVRON-1. It's spearheading the service's development and deployment
of unmanned underwater vehicles. Called UUVs, they're are already being used for
surveillance and to clear mines and map the ocean floor, according to Bryan Clark, a
retired submariner who is now a senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments.
So don't get it twisted, this ascendent FUKUS drone army is doubleplusgood; it's designed
for mapping and minesweeping! Sort of like a bunch of little Indian Joneses! Of course the
article does go on to brag:
There are even ongoing efforts to launch UUVs from Virginia-class submarines to conduct
surveillance or deliver payloads. He said that over the next decade sailors should expect
to use the underwater robots to bring sonar arrays and mines to the seabed, launch
torpedoes or become torpedoes themselves to destroy enemy warships . Smith wants to see
UUVs in all kinds of sizes to fill gaps in future missions. "Those missions that are too
dangerous to put men on," Smith said.
It is absolutely side-splitting though that they think they can achieve Total Spectrum
Dominance with these toys. Sorry, I'm looking for any old silver lining these days.
Posted by: sejomoje | Jun 13, 2019 1:59:56 PM |
10 5 No matter the culprit in this latest incident, I lay this current world unrest at
the feet of our current empire.
The economic terrorism, imposed on other nations through U$ sanctions, is the real
problem..
"US officials, however, were quick to point the finger at Iran. "It's clear that Iran is
behind the Fujairah attack. Who else would you think would be doing it? Someone from Nepal?"
said US National Security Adviser John Bolton.
In turn, US Secretary of State Pompeo alleged that Iran had attacked the tankers to raise
the global price of oil.
Tehran has denied any involvement and called for an investigation."
"On the previous day, a fire broke out on an Iranian oil platform of the South Pars gas
field in the Persian Gulf and was subsequently contained and no fatalities were
reported."
Recall the plot of the movie A Fistful of Dollars and another can of worms becomes
possible.
Whenever the US has their conclusion this quickly, before even the appearance of an
investigation (as with MH17, and Syria "chemical" attacks), I feel it is almost certain that
they are making $&!% up, and the reality is likely the opposite of what they have
said.
Both Israel and the Saudis are far too incompetent to carry out a sophisticated attack like
this - see, ships didn't sink but a message was delivered nonetheless. Probable some military
contractor idling in Syria was reassigned to do this.
An obvious question is why the US is not providing evidence to support its claims.
On possible explanation is that there is no evidence.
Another would be that there is evidence but that if the US produced the evidence, then it
would be constrained to "do something." In the scenario in which Iran is conducting these
quasi-attacks to warn of impending greater escalation if the US continues to starve it, both
sides want the other to initiate any violence, and the US doesn't really want the global
economic chaos that hostilities would inevitably bring--especially in conjunction with the
trade/tech war with China. Therefore, it is pulling its punches and withholding the evidence
it has.
Iran may sense that given the US-China and US-Russia issues and the 2020 election, they
had better escalate now or be slowly bled to death. But they would like the US to provide a
pretext for Iran to take real action to block traffic into and out of the Persian Gulf. But
the US wants to be able to portray Iran as the aggressor.
Hence the cat-and-mouse game ongoing. I have to admit, it does make a certain
comprehensive sense.
The Japanese Prime Minister was visiting Tehran at the time of the attack upon a Japanese
tanker.
What a perfect time to attack a Japanese tanker.
Such a plan reeks of incompetence.
Incompetence is a finger print of the Saudis.
Reminder that they butchered journalist Jamal Khashoggi in their own embassy. They mailed
bombs (hidden in printers) to the US and Britain
and kept the tracking slips of the packages - nice plan ! All bombers must remember to save
their tracking slips.
They tried to embarrass Iran by attacking a Japanese tanker while the Japanese Prime
Minister was having a positive visit to Tehran.
the usa has produced 'phony' hard evidence in the past... it typically goes with false
flags.. i am not saying this will come out of this, or that iran is not involved, but i lean
strongly to the ramp up in a focus on the strait of hormuz as all part of a longer strategy
of creating stress on iran and potentially dragging them into war.. either way as OP mentions
in his last line @128...
Evidence versus claims. I give you the recent near collision between Russian and USN
warships where USN claimed Russian fault whereas the evidence decisively proved otherwise.
USN shut-up rather quickly and the incident went to the dust bin. In an earlier comment, I
speculated that an IED-type device was used and that it was installed while the ships laded.
Torpedoes were certainly not used, and the limpet mine assertion remains that until a
forensic examination is done, and that won't happen until the ships return to a port where
repairs can be made. Also, we have the much less reported attacks on Iranian ships and
extraction infrastructure--the tit for tat where we'll only be treated to the tits as I
commented in a trivial comment that disappeared. The upshot is, the Outlaw US Empire has
scant credibility when it comes to making claims about anything sans extraordinary evidence.
Iran, of course, knows that. But given the overall context, I doubt Iran's responsible and
stand by my earlier prediction of a CIA/MI-6 proxy doing the deed.
I agree that US credibility on many things is weak--especially in connection with
Iran--but the point is that there is a plausible scenario in which Iran is ready to
escalate--or threaten to escalate--to break out of the US stranglehold but needs to execute
the escalation very carefully.
I also agree that the false flag scenario is still very much in play.
Here're links to a couple of things bouncing around the Twitterverse. The first is a
video clip of
Bolton Caitlin does an excellent job of
unpacking again . It's actually a good thing this video was saved as it needs to be
distributed once again.
The second is a pic of Bolton framed at
the header by "Iran is going to attack us" and at the footer with "Even if we have to do it
ourselves."
Both IMO are worthy of viral retweeting provided you have an account.
DW interviewed a guy today who said it could be Iran but that it could also be a false flag
by one of the Emirates. His interview didn't last long before they went to someone with more
of the US voice. The whole time I was thinking they said it was a torpedo and we know Israel
has at least one submarine. I wonder where it is right now. Meanwhile the official US
statement sounds similar to early declarations about Russians hacking HRC's email: "We assess
..."
librul 141
I thought the same thing. It's like the chemical weapons attack in Syria that happened on the
same day the inspectors arrived. It's like the White Helmets being wherever HTS is. The alt
media is the only arena where people say this sounds fishy.
You shouldn't be misled. Iran does not want war, because the leadership knows that it will
definitely lead to gigantic damage in its own country. In Tronald's administration and
elsewhere, on the other hand, there are people who absolutely want a war, the four B's in the
first place. Tronald himself doesn't really want one, but is caught between a rock and a hard
place. He absolutely wants to make the economy look positive until the next elections, but
this is difficult because there are signs of recession everywhere in the world. An important
factor is the price of oil. Despite the sanctions against Iran, it has not yet risen, the
fracking industry, which produces what it can do due to its debts service necessities,
continues to lose money at these prices. It will be difficult to avoid collapses. So Tronald
may be willing to do more to push up the price of oil. For example, a nice little false flag
action. The Relotius media are almost convinced, no wonder if even someone like B is
wobbling.
But, people; the empire is the empire, we know how it works, that doesn't change. That's
Tonkin 2.0.
United States officials say they are outraged by a government-funded troll campaign
that has targeted American citizens critical of the administration's hardline Iran policy and
accused critics of being loyal to the Tehran regime.
State Department officials admitted to Congressional staff in a closed-door meeting on
Monday that a project they had funded to counter Iranian propaganda had gone off the rails.
Critics in Washington have gone further, saying that the programme resembled the type of
troll farms used by autocratic regimes abroad.
Alright then, how is WWIII going for everyone? Everyone got their pith helmet at the ready?
I agree with the sentiments that think this is a warning to empire instead of false flag
because no body bags
I feel sorry for those MoA barflies that continue to have some faith that Trump has a
scintilla of humanism in him and continue to ask for some proof other than BS Q spewment.
Show me ANY example of Trump showing compassion, empathy for other than his fellow war
criminals he is rumored to pardon. Trump is a very hurt human being who is being used as such
by those that control empire for their purposes. To the extent that he agrees to do their
bidding, he is just another in a string of president war criminals of the US, since Jimmy
Carter.
The world outside the West is playing the long game and the West is now very punch drunk
and coming to the end of its run of empires. I read a posting from Reuters in the last 48
hours or so where some pundit was quoting folks "telling" China that they should not include
private finance in this trade war thing......GRIN
The West is holding a very weak hand except for the extinction card. Will they play it
because they are sore losers? Given what they have done to our planet, it would not surprise
me for them to have the ultimate hubris to call the game over......sigh The Cosmos may be
better for it but we have potential if we try.....
pat lang makes a
good distinction on what is a us gov't assessment, verses an intel assessment..
@160 karlof1 / 161 john.. thanks for those links.. my position - all that is no
surprise... i find it surprising some are surprised.. the usa is thick into propaganda at
this point and said they would spend good money on war propaganda.. videos of bolton saying
lying is okay aren't helpful to their cause though..
"'We have no interest in engaging in a new conflict in the Middle East. We will defend
our interests, but a war with Iran is not in our strategic interest, nor in the best interest
of the international community.' --@CENTCOM spokesman Lt. Col. Earl Brown."
Seems the Pentagon has flipped the bird to Pompeo and Bolton, which happened before
during BushCo.
--------------------------
Maybe such a war with Iran is not in the interests of the United States, but certainly in
the interests of Israel.
Trump ratchets up the sanctions before and Abe visits Iran which does reflect his
negotiating style. Iran allegedly hits a tanker while Abe is taking to Iran. Now Abe has to
go back towing the US line, as usual, saying it was Iran's fault and he loses face being
insulted by Iran. What a perfect way to step up the tensions and garner more UN support.
These events will continue and slowly get worse until the coup de gra, which would be
something like the sinking of a large US naval vessel in the Persian gulf. The US peoples
minds are not right yet and it will take time for their minds to be framed back into war.
During the Iran Iraq war the US re flagged Kuwait tankers during the Tanker War. We could easily
see a new Tanker War but on a much lower lever driven by the third party actors who stand to
profit.
War with Iran will be a disaster for everyone involved except one small nation that knows
how to cover their tracks.
Iran will be demolished eventually. Those who gain from destroying Iran are behind
presstv. published a video showing 44 people saved from two on fire sinking ships. I know how
difficult it is to identify these people from their faces, especially a 44 crew member crowd
but I think even stinkcom could manage to do that. The media BS about this incident suggest,
who ever done it, is dealing with something that went very wrong.. Iran saves 44 sailors and
shows them on TV.. the west claims, with no proof whatsoever, that the Iranians did not save
these sailors even though the sailors are safe in Iran? Hmmm!
I suggest the reporters and journalist that reported this, be tasked to investigate the
suspicious looking dark hole named "false flag". Its a possible threat to Israel and Saudia
Arabia. Its approximate location is about 200 trillion light years due East from here.. The
media are saying Iran and Russia teamed up to dig a hole in space, and once the Iran-Russian
team managed to get the hole dug, they climbed deep inside of the hole and turned its lights
off. The west is saying they flipped the switch in the WH to keep the Iranian-Russian team
from claiming its "light out" success. When the reporters and journalist get back, I am sure
we will be all ears to hear the how the Russian and Iranian team managed to make a hole in
space, dark.
@karlof1 - I read the Luongo piece and I find it the most pivotal of all current
commentary - largely because it's about the oil situation globally. Neither Iran nor Russia
need the price of oil to go up in order to prosper - the US and Saudi Arabia do need the
price to go up.
Having said that, I don't know that insurance rates rising are actually adding to the
producer's revenue at the wellhead/refinery.
I do know that oil is self-regulating, in that whenever it gets around $100 a barrel and
over, the global economy stalls and the demand for oil goes down, resulting in glut for a
time and lower prices - not to mention global recession. As Luongo illustrates, right now the
world is in a large glut. There's nothing to push the price up (which Trump desperately
needs) except tightening production, which Saudi wants, but which Russia doesn't want to
do.
~~
So imagine a world filled to the brim with bluster, and yet once again what actually moves
on the ground (or below the waves) is actually very little. Enough bluster to scare everyone
and increase leverage of the security apparatus, and just enough damage to inch the oil price
up without crashing the global economy. Expect more such ratcheting.
Iran didn't do this latest episode. The US and Israel are the likely actors, with Saudi
and UAE providing lunch money for the excursion. Also, the false flag works fine without dead
bodies if the intent is not for a war with Iran - which the US military absolutely knows
cannot be won - but to trigger oil prices up. At times, commercial interests take over, and
ride the wave of military activity, and I suspect this one is about the money.
And these neocons, by the way, seem able to live on pure fantasy. I don't think they'll
achieve a real war. They visibly make their points - increase their stature - in their peer
group purely from grandstanding.
It's worth linking the Tom Luongo piece again for a nice understanding of oil fundamentals in
the region and the world currently. It's important to understand how illusory and temporary
the US fracking phenomenon is:
Trump Thinks US Oil Is His Strength When It's His Achilles' Heel
As a commenter here (David on May 13) said recently, the US fracking industry's appalling
indebtedness comes due in 2023. This is far enough through Trump's potential second term that
he can blame everyone else and move on. I've made a personal note to expect a US economic
plunge in that year.
To see Trump's acts as merely keeping the ponzi scheme going for as long as possible, and
for as much short-term reward through the second term, is the best understanding of White
House policy I think.
Grieved @184 thanks for that link. Just saw an update on Fox stating Iran has formally denied
any part of this incident but can't find a solid Iranian news source to confirm.
@ Pnyx 181 . . . for the usa it is not the same. Their homeland is far away, while Iran would suffer
extreme devastation in the event of a war - whatever the final result. So I think it is
absolutely unthinkable that Iran would do anything to increase the risk of war.
You don't understand -- every US death in war is now a news item. When 5 or 6 dies it's
huge news. This is not Vietnam with 200 dying every week. Its different now. So if a thousand
soldiers die in the beginning of a conflict with Iran it's HUGE. No American cares how many
Iranians would die, but they DO care if Americans die, homeland or not. THAT's why the
generals are against it too. . .PS: If the Iranians sink that carrier, it's 5,000+ American
dead. Unacceptable.
So that's why Iran is free to dispute the aggression against them with some violent
events. More power to them.
I would think that if the Iranian's held the crew and took off an unexploded bomb that they
can ask the crew how they might have gotten there......
Were the ships in Iran controlled waters such that the empire side could not retrieve the
unexploded bomb? If that is the case then I suspect the unexploded bomb may show up in
pictures we see that show where it might have come from.....
from the grasping at straws mines department.
news report
Iran removed a mine from a ship, so that proves that Iran put it there!
The U.S. military has released a video it says implicates Iran's Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps (IRGC) in the attack on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, the latest violent
incident the United States and its allies blame on Tehran.
The U.S. Central Command on June 13 said the video shows crews from IRGC boats removing
what looks like an unexploded mine from the side of one of the two attacked oil tankers. .
.
here
the US has met its match, asking for a seizure at the UNSC --
Earlier in the day at the UN, U.S. acting Ambassador Jonathan Cohen called on the Security
Council to confront the "clear threat" posed by Tehran in the region.
The attacks "demonstrate the clear threat that Iran poses to international peace and
security," Cohen told reporters following the closed-door Security Council meeting.
Cohen said that "no proxy group in the area has the resources or the skill to act with this
level of sophistication."
"Iran, however, has the weapons, the expertise, and the requisite intelligence information
to pull this off," he said.
"I've asked the Security Council to remain seized of the matter and I expect that we will
have further conversations about it, and how to respond in the days ahead," he added.
Loud chuckling was heard in Tehran.
Don Bacon , Jun 13, 2019 11:06:34 PM |
195Anon , Jun 13, 2019 11:20:05 PM |
196
So this is what comes to mind...
Houthi or al. are responsible for first event. They target Saudi/Nor. ships.
Saudi et. al. target ships friendly to Iran.
Understand though that in these events there is a total asymmetry at play. That is to say
that actions will not follow any logic we know of. The above is the closest I get to making
sense BUT as far as I know each side might have been responsible for the actions that seemed
most counterproductive to itself. Planners know the mindset of society, a false false flag is
an option.
We are left with qui bono, and I think the reply to that is as reliant on the global
geopolical and economic environment, as well as who will de facto gain the upper hand. It
seems to me to be a form of psychological warfare where expansion of power is questioned by
the appearance or reality of being goaded. This is not a good circumstance at all.
A fluid situation for sure. I wish I had had the time to follow things more closely. Thanks
karlof, Oscar for all the links and info.
Can't add anything substantial apart from a general maxim: when the Empire had proof the
'other' is to blame, they readily display said proof. When they are to blame... Skripols,
Mari Marmara, MH17, etc.
@ Anon who wrote
"
It seems to me to be a form of psychological warfare where expansion of power is questioned
by the appearance or reality of being goaded. This is not a good circumstance at all.
"
The first part is confusing to me
I think you meant
Psychological warfare is going on
I assume you mean the West that is questioning "by the appearance or reality of being
goaded".
Your "expansion of power" leaves me wanting the meat
Yes, China/Russia and aligned are collaborating in ways that reduces the power of empire
but not necessarily in ways that translates into the same sort of power......That said,
global private finance versus "socialism is the eye of the storm and everything else is
proxy. We are not seeing the beginning of socialism but we are seeing the end of global
private finance which I think your "expansion of power" misrepresents because one supports a
few and the other supports all......maybe it would be clearer to say the elimination of power
by a few and the assumption of the power by the many.
I think it is a good circumstance and way past due for our species to survive.
@193 dh... i thought you could... what happened? are you one of those long lost draft
dodgers?
hey - maybe he can hide under his mustache if the bombs start falling? it is almost big
enough... either that, or bugs bunny can grab it when he ain't watching.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ-BOqQw_TQ
@194 Is it my imagination or is that video showing a "limped mine" that is on THE OTHER SIDE
of the ship than the one that is aflame?
If that is true - and it looks like it - then we have to assume that the Dastardly
Iranians(tm) stuck limpet mines to both sides of that ship.
Why do that?
It maximizes your chances of being detected, and maximises the time it takes to attach the
limpets, and with no discernible benefit.
Why do that, when speed and stealth are at a premium?
Don Wiscacho , Jun 14, 2019 12:12:46 AM |
205David Gibson , Jun
14, 2019 12:57:54 AM |
206
MOA 14/06/19
If the strategic aim of the Imperialist powers is to still claim all of the Middle East oil
and resources and to crush any movement towards independence then the stumbling block is Iran
and Russia who have stood in their way vis-a-vie Syria.
NATO has succeeded in Iraq and Libya and almost succeeded in Syria but are still trying
using the flip/flop position of Turkey and Idlib as a Castle in the game to defeat any
independence movement out of US hegemony.
At this time no oil or chemicals have spilled into the Gulf waters. This is by design.
Whilst the comments pertaining to the main article are informative and useful most are
getting bogged down and arguing about details and missing the overall global plans of the
Imperialist plans.
The Imperialist plan remains the same whilst their tactics can and do change. Their bag of
dirty tricks is quite bottomless and yes they think they can fight against any move for
National Independence anywhere in the world.
Latin America most notably Venezuela, Africa with AFRICOM already using drones.
Australia, fully under MI6/CIA control. No defence of Assange an Australian Citizen, plus
the coup against Gough Whitlam.
The UK, with either Boris, or Hunt being in bed with Donald, both lap dogs to the USA and
like with Harold Wilson they won't allow Corbyn to become PM.
France with Macron the poodle trying to show he is as tough as Trump by being more stupid.
We all know the situation of an Empire in decline. It isn't all about oil!
David Gibson ,
Jun 14, 2019 12:57:54 AM |
206Jen , Jun 14, 2019 1:07:57 AM |
207
Psychohistorian @ 189:
The crews of both tankers were rescued by an Iranian rescue ship so I would say both
tankers were in Iranian waters in the Gulf of Oman.
Don Wiscacho
I take it that Abe on this exercise was no more than a US asset. Iran has stuck to the Nuke
agreement and US has reneged so nothing to negotiate or mediate on Iran's side. Abe going to
Iran as mediator means he was asking for concessions from Iran - that Iran make some moves to
appease the US.
US is the type that if you give an inch, they take a mile. If Iran made one concession then
US would take it as a sign of weakness and expect them to make more.
I might have missed mention of it in all the hullabaloo, but I have seen nothing of the US
Navy response which would involve tracking down the perpetrators, and ensuring no further
acts were committed.
It is that absence of obvious response which causes me to think that our host might be
incorrect in his assessment, and that the perpetrator is a party the US Navy would sooner not
apprehend.
Iran would be crazy to take on the US so why provoke them. They stand to lose their oil then
anyway. War is an economy and Everyone knows that Bolton is a war monger and that Iran is a
thorn in Israels side and he needs an excuse to go to war. Also he can't use the WMD card
again to start a war and JumpStart the US economy.
I have not followed this closely. There is real proof of "attack" and not accidental or set
fire? There is video of a crew "abandoning ship? But then again, in 2019 there is no such
thing as video or image proof, at least without expert verification.
guys its BIG OIL... TRUMP approved Ethanol 15 for YEAR ROUND USE a few days ago... that means
GAS PRICES would be cheaper for Americans as more corn instead of oil would be used in
Automobiles. That drove OIL prices down! This attack on the two ships immediately drove CRUDE
OIL up 2.87%!
It seems that TRUMP pissed off some very powerful big oil men & oil-rich Arab nations
when he approved the E15!
Why blame Iran? No idea.
Why attack the ships owned by Japan while Shinzo Abe is there negotiating peace? No Idea.
Who carried out the attack? No Idea.
Interesting and sane interview on 'today program' news radio 4 bbc U.K. 7.50am ish.
Admiral Lord west - - - could be any US - proxy group in Middle East looking to gain by
escalating US -Iran conflict !
He said it could well be ''a pro US group in Iran'' similar to the US backed opposition in
Venezuela !
My view is this makes the most sense!
Probably given the nod by Bolton/Trump ect
Definitely funded and armed by US !
Just as in Venezuela.
Plus- bare in mind the main motive will be western public voter deception, same as anti
Russia/ Skripal, Anti Syria / chloride. Venezuela/opposition.
Criminal psychopath profile tells us -> USA Trump.
Meanwhile Twitter censorship thousands of iranian accounts. Pro-american accounts for war is
of course never removed.
Twitter has announced that it is removing 4,779 accounts associated or backed by
Tehran, the latest strike in the ongoing anti-Iran campaign perfectly timed to coincide with
the attack on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/461825-iran-trolls-gulf-tonkin-twitter/
Don Bacon
Iran removed a mine from a ship, so that proves that Iran put it there!
Indeed, that is the illogical proapganda MSM use now, very disturbing. Its Tonkin once
again.
Not to mention, is it iranians? Is it a mine to begin with? Is that really how you handle
a mine? Just pull it off with your bare hands around 10 plus people on a small boat?
Interesting also that US just happend to be there spying.
IRO that 'high-res' video footage from the usual suspects.
By coincidence they've had a surveillance drone or a chopper on location? Maybe, I don't
know.
The Iranians do have the means to spot drones and choppers, we do know this ever since they
hijacked and/or crashed RQ-170 and MQ-9 vehicles a couple of years back.
Are we to believe them - the Iranians - being that stupid to launching such an operation
while knowing full well they are being watched by their main adversary?
Regarding technicalities:
Iran has got the know-how to build limpet mines? So it must have been done by Iranian forces?
You don't say. Building a limpet mine is trivial. Get your hands on a bunch of Nd-magnets, a
3rd grade chemist cooking up a couple of kilos of a HEI composition, a mechanical engineer
for the hardware and a physicist assisting in creating the fusing system and you're all
set.
I, for one, am being positive Lichtenstein did it - most likely on direct orders of the
ruling prince - after all there's chemists, physicists and mechanical engineers inhabiting
that tiny speck of land.
Would be intreresting if iranians actually picked up a mine though and it was an american
made, israeli made mine. Iran has a big chance now to frame the incident.
Good points zanon
To add - If the US start all-out War with Iran, how many refugees would that create ?
millions !
And if so, would we blame them/ the victems and drive them back from safety to the conflict
area, or do we blame the US and demand they compensate their victems.
If we are to return to a sane world, the perpetrators MUST pay the price and receive full
punishment .
American politicians always say ' we will do what is in America's interest' and right there
is the problem - - - not able to anticipate the outcome of there own actions !
Example - all recent conflict.
One definition of insanity is making the same mistake over and over again !!
@224 Bizarre. The photo shows the limped mine on the starboard side of the ship. The video
from the Bainbridge shows the Iranians removing that limped mine on the port side of the
ship.
The photo doesn't appear reversed - the name is clearly seen - so why would the US reverse
the video?
Okay, not a torpedo. Now it's a mine. But wait a minute, the Japanese say something was
flying above the water. The US shows a video of the Iranians removing a limpet mine. The
Japanese contest the "assessment" of the US and the US video shows the Iranians removing a
mine NOT placing one.
The story gets stranger as the neoclowns push for war.
If infact the Iranians did recover from either ship an explosive machine, a mine, flying
machine, rocket, unexploded torpedo,etc, or indeed any forensic material, that and the
debriefings of the crews will make for great political theater...that stuff is fairly
festooned with serial numbers... "film at 11", as they used to say...
"What? Only three booms? But we gave those idiots we hired four mines to attach
to that ship! Oh, cr@p, the place is swarming with drones by now. What do we do about the
fourth mine now? Can we pretend the Cubans stole it from us with their killer crickets and
gave it to Iran?
Moon of Alabama lost all credibility with this article. Israel has a huge online troll party
going on blaming Iran for this. Attack 2 tankers tied to Japanese interests,while the
Japanese Leader is conferring with Iran's leader, outside the mouth of the Persian Gulf is
too much codswallop to swallow.
Two comments: "Blamed Iran but did not present any evidence" says it all. These incidents
remind one of the Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin "incident" in which the US government claimed their
forces were attacked by North Vietnam. Subsequently it was proven by the NSA and others that
there was no attack. It was simply propaganda to give the Americans an excuse to escalate the
war. It would surprise no one, if it turned out that the US or Saudi's hired black operatives
to stage these attacks so that they could escalate tensions with Iran.
and.
It was previously reported that the limpet mine was still attached to the ship. So why
didn't the US, in need of solid evidence, go to the ship and remove the mine thereby
obtaining hard evidence that could be evaluated? Instead, the US did nothing, Iran undertook
its removal not wanting it to explode which makes sense. Then the US used it's removal by
others to suggest complicity. The US is either incompetent or just making plots up (lying as
usual). Iran's removal of the mine means nothing.
@134 Yonatan - A little frightener to Japan - this makes great sense and should have been
obvious. Thanks for pointing it out.
@198 psychohistorian - it was a mouthful, but actually makes sense. Anon is saying that
under the guise of seeming to be provoked and acting purely in reaction (to the bad actions
of Iran, etc), the US is actually exerting and expanding its power in the region, all the
while making the narrative say that it's the other unruly elements causing the ruckus.
I agree with Anon that it's more a case that a psy-ops theater has intensified, which
tells several departments of the empire that the game can get a little harsher, and they can
get away with it. It doesn't hurt that increased violence and aggravation on the region will
raise the price of oil, which fits US thinking. In fact, with Bolton accusing Iran of trying
to raise the price of oil, we now know with virtual certainty that these words reflect a US
intention somewhere in the mix.
[Sidebar: Funny how they never dropped that old propaganda thing of accusing the target of
your own actions before the target can accuse you of this act. I suspect this is an ancient
ploy of evildoers - when you can't seize the moral high ground because you have no place
there, then you must steal the moral high ground. Plunder and occupation by another
name.]
The warning to Japan to hold steady to its western mission is very plausible. And anything
that happens can be blamed on Iran anyway - the perfect patsy for all kinds of mayhem. And
still Israel would like to provoke the US military into a suicidal attack on Iran.
So, several incentives for several players, several actions, and more to come, all under
the virtual fog of virtual war.
The US has claimed that the tanker attacks showed "a level of sophistication implicating a
nation, not a random terrorist". Again this is pure bullshit and propaganda from the Trump
bunch. I recall the attack on the guided missile carrier, USS Cole in which the ship was
damaged and a number of sailors were killed. The USS Cole was attacked successfully by a
small fiberglass boat loaded with C4. Successful yet hardly "sophisticated". The US has been
selling limpet mines and other armaments to every whack job group and country for decades.
That a few of these made it onto a small boat and were delivered to the tankers is hardly
surprising and does not require any sophistication at all. So once again, we have deception,
lies, and war mongering coming out of the Blight House and its Trumpian orifices.
I am guessing those Iranian mine removers accidentally left passport behind?
Or was flag on boat and Iranian Guard uniforms were give-away.
Thank goodness for the I/C - you can never have enough intelligence (or war).
This is my first time commenting in this blog. With all due respect to the writer and the
quality of his journalism, sometimes it is easy to miss the distinction between causality
versus correlation between events.
We tend to find patterns where they might not exist. From Iranian perspective, it was the
first time they were being sanctioned for petrochemical materials versus raw oil. Not a fan
of any government, but I believe true journalism should stay away from any judgment or
speculation.
Thanks for all the great articles and analyses.
"flying objects" = drones?
...from JapanToday Operator of tanker says sailors saw 'flying objects' just before attack
The Japanese operator ship operator of one of two oil tankers attacked near the Strait of
Hormuz on Thursday said that sailors on board its vessel, the Kokuka Courageous, saw
"flying objects" just before the attack, suggesting the tanker wasn't damaged by mines.
That account contradicts what the U.S. military has said as it released a video it says
shows Iranian forces removing an unexploded limpet mine from one of the two ships in the
suspected attack.
Speaking at a news conference in Tokyo, Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo Co, said
he believes the flying objects seen by the sailors could be bullets, and denied possibility
of mines or torpedoes because the damages were above the ship's waterline. He called
reports of mine attack "false." . .
here
The two tanker vessels attacked Thursday are adrift in the Gulf of Oman today as the U.S.
military is directing everyone's attention to a newly released, low-resolution video that
allegedly shows a group of people in a watercraft removing an unexploded mine from the
damaged hull of the M/T Kokuka Courageous in broad daylight and in clear view of the U.S.
Navy's guided-missile destroyer, USS Bainbridge.
U.S. Central Command claims the small watercraft in the video belongs to Iran's
Revolutionary Guard Corps: "an IRGC Gashti Class patrol boat," according to one of two
evening statements by CENTCOM officials.
Worth noting: The boat's clear and distinct connection to Iran or the IRGC, however, is not
evident in the video itself. Nor is it clear from the video (1) where the boat came from,
(2) who the occupants were, (3) whether what was allegedly removed was in fact a limpet
mine (as the OSINT folks at Bellingcat pointed out this morning), or (4) where the boat
went to after its occupants concluded their activity from the side of the Courageous. . .
here
comment from craig murray poster spencer eagle- "There's one glaring thing wrong about
that US video of Iranians allegedly removing a limpet mine from that tanker, too many
spectators. Even if they did plant the mine, no crew in their right minds would gather round
as their colleague made safe a live mine from a bobbing boat."
from LongWarJournal Yemen's Houthis target Saudi airports
Over the span of 24 hours, Yemen's Houthi insurgent movement has twice targeted the Abha
international airport with missiles and suicide drones.
At least 26 people were wounded on Wednesday after the Houthis launched a cruise missile at
the Abha airport. Video of the bombing released by Saudi Arabia shows the moment the
missile struck the airport. The use of a cruise missile on a civilian infrastructure
represents a major shift in the war between Saudi Arabia and the Houthi insurgents.
Speaking to the Houthi-ran Al Masirah News, an official spokesman said that the strike came
in response to Saudi aggression in Yemen and civilians should avoid "vital and military
areas as they have become legitimate targets to us." . . here
I've just seen the Navy video. I've got some problems with the shadows. They seem too long.
The incident has supposedly happened at 4 pm local time. The location is almost exactly
situated on the Tropic of Cancer, i.e now, Mid June, the sun creates almost vertically
shadows at midday. At 4 pm, the angle should still be 60 degree or so. Correspondingly the
shadows should still be very short. The shadows in the video to me appear to be created by a
30 degree sun angle at most. This is of course only a preliminary estimation.
Bottom line: The video doesn't match the supposed time and location of the incidence.
Also lacking any resolution is what can the US do next, since its options are severely
limited.
IMO Iran has the US by the short hairs. In fact Iran may provide an encore,just to rub it
in.
After hundred of sanctions on Iran, Trump is now faced with a tough decision.
1- Order military attacks on Iran and start a tit for tat escalation that would to a disaster
in the region and hampers Trump re-election
2 Attack Iran's so called proxies: Hezbollah, Houthis, Syria then regional allies of the USA,
ie the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel will get more of these 'mini attacks' that will disrupt
oil supplies and Israel security. These attacks will show the world that Trump's big talk and
economical sanctions are totally ineffective
I think that while Iran may not be responsible for the attacks in the Oman Gulf, I am sure
that they condone them without hesitation. Who ever is doing it intentionaly or not is giving
to Iran a posture that Trump will have to match.
That is why Trump's only choice other than war is to fire Bolton and scapegoat him at the
risk of losing the Israeli lobby and the neocons support for his re election.
Yet if he wants to keep the Israeli lobbies support, Trump will need to have Netanyahu
re-elected..
That is his only choice
Already foreign medias are demonizing Bolton as a prelude to his firing
Is John Bolton the most dangerous man in the world?
Intersting that the boarding crew on one of the boat were russians, also a puzzle?
Don Bacon
US could of course do anything they want, as they have in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan,
Pakistan - you name it.
Next thing could be an explosion on a military US frigate or something similar. We all know
who would be blamed and call for US attacks would be real simple.
from CDR Salamander
Let's break that in to little bits.
1. No USA ships are involved.
2. No USA citizens are involved.
3. No USA territory or waters are involved.
4. All cargo was headed to Asia.
. . .This. Is. Not. Our. Problem.
What is Norway doing? Japan? They are both our allies, but they have the lead on this - not
us.
Who really benefits from this? It isn't Iran. It certainly is not the USA.
Everyone needs to take a powder and take a step back.
This talk of military action this soon is insanity. This is irresponsible. . . here
If drone-delivered: the mines would be heavy so a long-range drone would be needed. However,
if the drone took off from a near-by ship then then a less complex drone could be used. But a
small ship lacks space for a runway. It would need some sort of launcher/catapult. Oh, here's one .
What is needed now is information what really happend - I dont see any info on what was
actually happend but people that call for war.
Was it a mine? Missile? Torped? Grenade? Lets say it was a type of missile that was produced
by nation X, who fired it?
Who/what was put there?
Was it an exercise that these ships accidently moved in to? - Was it an accident?
Relates to security of transport through the straight.
If Iran were in fact responsible, would make me question their sanity.
Barring that they are insane, I cannot see how it could be Iran, could be anybody except
Iran.
To state the obvious: Look at motive and opportunity.
If Trump were not insane/idiot, he might suggest that there are many with possible motive and
that it should be carefully investigated before action or even comment is made - more babies
from incubators and dead ducks. How stupid is Trump really.
"Our crew said that the ship was attacked by a flying object," Mr. Katada said of the
incident on Thursday.
What kind of flying object? Apparently it is as of yet unidentified.
In other words, the NYT is reporting that the operator of the ship is claiming that the
ship was hit by a UFO (Unidentified Flying Object.) Whoo, Whoo!
Iran tightens the screws....
from TehranTimes B-Team launching 'sabotage diplomacy' against Iran, Zarif warns
TEHRAN – Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Friday accused Washington
of jumping "to make allegations against Iran without a shred of factual or circumstantial
evidence" as two oil tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday. . . here
The propaganda war has already been won by the US, it is Iran Iran Iran and the MSM and even
some people here talk about Iran having or might have some culpability. Meanwhile NO ONE
could show any evidence or reason for the argument.
Think about that, how easily desinformation works and how illogical it really is.
Murray makes good points--as usual. The bit out the Norwegian tanker's owners having a
history of cooperation with the Iranian government is interesting.
@mk 254
The timeline in the CENTCOM release is interesting, claiming that the alleged IRGC craft
arrived at the Japanese ship around 0800 but didn't take the "limpet mine" or whatever it was
until 1600. If the boat were IRGC and was trying to remove evidence--a command-detonated
explosive that failed to explode?--you'd think they would do it immediately. Also, I can't
tell what kind of video the released clip is--EO or IR? It doesn't look like EO taken in
daylight.
The american admiral in charge is fanatically anti-iranian:
It is important to realize that Chief of Naval O[erations Admiral John Richardson, a
creature of former Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, is taking the lead in this
warmongering against Iran.
He and Carter were opposed to the nuclear agreement that the Obama administration worked
out with Tehran, and are now working to deneuclarize the Iranian regime.
Richardson had the Navy look allegedly for those two sunk subs found soon after they
disappeared, the USS Scorpion and Thresther, when they were actually looking for the USS
Batfish and Puffer which were sunk in 1982 in the Anglo-American War against Sweden soon
after Ricgardson joined the submarine corps.
He is a full blown warmonger against America's alleged enemies.
I am surprised to see some posters and Bevin proposing that maybe it was Iran, at this
point.
Seems premature. Though it is possible, barring substantial evidence, it would be my starting
point that that is the least likely scenario.
And the jump to conclusion (as by Trump et al) suggests bias or motive.
Distance to target would be reduced by heavy mines but using multiple drones would help
with that problem.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not just the drone tech that's important. If you're going to do a 'op' like this
where you want guaranteed non-attribution, then you've got to have the tech well tested and
very reliable. A drone failure or mission foul-up could be devastating.
So, its not an off-the shelf drone and it's a hand-picked crew that has been trained on
such a mission over months and it's "off the books" and it's carried out by an organization
that can ensure secrecy (implying intelligence organization). Thus, a "state actor".
I think that concluding now that Iran didn't do it is a mistake.
> We don't know who did it.
> Tehran clearly indicated it had enough of the US aggressive baseless sanctions, and
would do something.
> Tehran is controlling the discourse ("lack of evidence," etc).
> US (AKA world-power) choices are extremely limited; Iran's aren't.
Virgil suggests above that Trump's only choices to deal with this incident is to start a
war or fire Bolton. He goes onto suggest if Trump fired Bolton he'd lose the neocon vote and
Israel's support.
WRONG. Please go to conservative sites. Any of them. During the primaries and campaign.
Read and learn for yourself what the conservative voter was demanding of the nominee in
comment sections. Please. Folks make these declarations that are not true. Trump voters do
not want war. Trump voters do not want regime changes. And Trump voters are as suspicious if
not more so of Bolton than many here are.
Neocons aka Never Trumpers after the campaign took their toys and left the right side of
the aisle. They embraced their kissing cousins the neo libs who own the Dem Party.
Conservatives loathe the neocons. The neocons loathe conservatives.
Only warmongers and its profiteers want war - NeoCons and NeoLibs. The rest of us
Americans - right, left, middle, indy, green whatever DO NOT WANT WAR WITH ANY DAMNED
BODY.
@ Zanon 269 The american admiral in charge is fanatically anti-iranian:
The CNO has no authority over naval operations, that takes place in the combat commands,
CENTCOM (Tampa) in this case.
Johstone linked @ 276
". . .the US has been provoking Iran with extremely aggressive and steadily tightening
sanctions, which means that even if Tehran is behind the attacks, it would not be the
aggressor and the attacks would most certainly not have been "unprovoked". Economic sanctions
are an act of war; if China were to do to America's economy what America is doing to Iran's,
the US would be in a hot war with China immediately. It could technically be possible that
Iran is pushing back on US aggressions and provocations, albeit in a strange and
neoconservatively convenient fashion."
Excellent comment.
But neocons and zionists are taking over the Trump agenda.
Trump supporters are becoming confused about what they support - they support Trump so they
are increasingly defending this ziocon crap.
But your point is I think very excellent, the public (and Trumps original supporters in
particular) does not want war (with the exception of some religious kooks, perhaps).
Neocons aren't solely responsible for anything, but depended upon support form "liberals" AKA
neo-libs for the various mistaken wars. That includes people like: Gore, Biden, Obama, and
the Clintons.
Trump is anti-establishment for the most part so that is a good thing, in regard to Russia
for one specific thing, but nothing in life is perfect.
I would remind everyone that the greatest pressure against US+allies strategy of economic
strangulation of Iran and Syria is the current operation to retake Idlib.
Yesterday's attacks against shipping will almost certainly be used as an excuse to
increase US troop levels and/or act belligerently in defense of their "interests" such as
retaining Idlib.
From SST (see link provided by james @245):
As for what the US might do about it, the New York Times reports that yesterday morning,
after the news of the attack began to break, there was a previously scheduled meeting in
"the Tank" at the Pentagon, involving Shanahan, Dunford and other top officials to discuss
threats in the Middle East and US troop levels. The Times reports that weeks prior
Centcom chief Gen. McKenzie had actually asked for 20,000 troops but that Dunford expressed
the fear that if that many were ordered to the Gulf, it would be provocative "and perhaps a
sign that, despite denials, the Trump administration's real goal was regime
change."[Note: 1,500 troops were reported to have been approved]Prior
to yesterday's meeting Shanahan and Dunford were ready to make the case that Mr. Trump had
told the Pentagon to reduce American forces and United States involvement in the current
wars in the Middle East, and avoid direct confrontation with Iran ...
Now Tehran has the option to say to the US: Drop those thirteen demands and we'll talk.
It has other options also, now that the air has been cleared a bit.
Khamenei will have to approve whatever it is, and he's a realist
https://www.bs-shipmanagement.com/en/media/emergency-response
14 June 2019
Media Statement
"Update - Kokuka Courageous incident – Gulf of Oman
The Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement (BSM) managed product carrier Kokuka Courageous is now
safely undertow in the Gulf of Oman heading towards Kalba Anchorage, UAE....
...The vessel was about 70 nautical miles from Fujairah and about 16 nautical miles from
the coast of Iran
BSM is actively monitoring the situation in the Gulf of Oman and will issue another statement
when we have further details."
....
A search of the internet brings up no photos whatsoever of this ship under tow or at any
time after it was attacked... apart from the microsoft paint job. I guess the damage does not
match the US narrative.
Seriously, a drone attaching a limpet mine?! Please use your brains before proposing
something that ludicrous!
Why not look at what occurred in the Brent Oil Market for drones instead. This chart
shows trading volume and price before and after event. What you see is a massive shorting
followed by covering, followed by another short play, then further covering. Some entity(ies)
made a lot of money with their prior knowledge of the event. The tankers didn't need to be
sunk to drive that play; just a little Flare to provide visibility. How do I know what's
depicted by the chart is shorting followed by covering? I've seen such behavior a great
number of times before, particularly in the run-up to the massive financial takedown in
2007-8 when many mortgage writing firms were shorted massively so they could be bought-up for
next to nothing. Such behavior has CIA/Mossad stamped all over it, which is what I thought to
begin with.
Well, Iran did do it. You know they did it, because you saw the boat, I guess one of the
mines didn't explode and it's probably got, essentially, Iran written all over it," he
said. "And you saw the boat at night trying to take the mine off , and successfully
took the mine off the boat and that was exposed. And that was their boat, that was them.
And they didn't want the evidence left behind.
Trump:
While Trump added that Iran must not have known the U.S. has nighttime surveillance
capabilities , a timeline from U.S. Central Command accompanying the video's release
indicates the apparent mine removal happened in broad daylight , which would make
the operation even more brazen."
Hmmmm........
These attacks could have only been the work of a sophisticated nation state actor.
Specifically a sophisticated nation state actor that does not know that the US has "nighttime
surveillance capabilities".
@ Zanon 284 Trump has been as bad on Russia as the "establishment"
Not by choice, I believe, and the US president is not a total dictator. Often he must do what
he's told, especially when the establishment (especially the "intelligence" community) is out
to get him, and they don't take prisoners.
@ karlof 288 Seriously, a drone attaching a limpet mine?! Please use your brains ..
Where did you read that?
A reference would be helpful.
Or are you kidding. Must be. So say so?
The US has not only lost the narrative, it has royally screwed the pooch, getting in deeper
and deeper with its falsehoods. Can a laughing-stock rule the world?
I agree. Trump can only do this election wise if it is a quick campaign that lets him
claim victory fast and does not involve dying US soldiers.
As is, there is a huge problem already for the US to leave Afghanistan.
Saudi might have been crazy enough to do it as they need serious help with the
Houthis.
I doubt Israel is interested in a war that might get them into Hezbollah's crosshairs.
I don't think, by the way, that economic problems from the sanctions are forcing Iran, as
there is this
Chinese - Pakistan - Iran sea route. There is also a
connection to Russia via the Caspian . And I don't doubt they have good relations to the
-stans.
They simply own one of the most strategic places the world has to offer. With mountains .
"... Except for Afghanistan, the "Arc of Crisis" hasn't been all that successful as far as creating instability to Russia's south, and it hasn't been all that successful in promoting Anglo-American hegemony either. However, it has been wildly successful in perpetuating the "arc of instability" that justifies US military spending, so the MIC is quite well satisfied with the policies whether the broader interests and security of the British and American people are served well by the policy or not. ..."
"... Interesting to note that Daesh only ever appear to be attacking the traditional enemies of the Zionist. ..."
"... Daesh are like another Gladio, but on steroids. ..."
Yes. Originally, creation of the "Arc of Crisis" was proposed by Bernard Lewis as a means to divide and rule, which has always
been the British Empire's mody operandi , and Zbigniew Brzezinski wanted to create an "Arc of Crisis" all along the southern
border of the USSR and later, Russia.
Except for Afghanistan, the "Arc of Crisis" hasn't been all that successful as far as creating instability to Russia's south,
and it hasn't been all that successful in promoting Anglo-American hegemony either. However, it has been wildly successful in
perpetuating the "arc of instability" that justifies US military spending, so the MIC is quite well satisfied with the policies
whether the broader interests and security of the British and American people are served well by the policy or not.
There are many different aspects to this, like from the moment that large numbers of prisoners on death row in S.A. were given
the ultimatum for joining the FSA or decline and face certain execution.
Too often regions are deliberately being exploited by greedy individuals and mixed into politics.
Interesting to note that Daesh only ever appear to be attacking the traditional enemies of the Zionist.
Despite
the deep schism that separates America's deranged political duopoly, they do share a common
foreign policy pet project, and that is to prevent Russia from ever shining again on the global
stage in all fields of endeavor.
One of Donald Trump's main pledges on the 2016 campaign trail was to rekindle the dying
embers of US-Russia relations, which had been undergoing a mini Ice Age under Barack Obama, his
ballyhooed 'reset' notwithstanding. But before Trump was ever put to the test of romancing
Russia, he was sidelined by one of the most malicious political stunts of the modern age.
It is only necessary to recall the 2016 Winter of Our Discontent when the Democratic leader
sent
35 Russian diplomats and their families packing just before New Year's Eve in retaliation for
Russia's alleged involvement in hacking the Democratic National Committee's computers. Before
Trump ascended the throne, those unfounded claims lit the fuse on 'Russiagate,' the debacle
which continues to undermine not just US-Russia relations, but the entire US political
system.
Yet would things have turned out any differently between Washington and Moscow had the
Democrats graciously accepted defeat in 2016 without feeling the need to blame remote Russia? I
am not sure.
Today, observers reason that
the US Republicans have no choice but to 'get tough' on Russia in an effort to dispel
Democrat-generated rumors of excessive coziness with the Kremlin. Last year, for example, Trump
bested Obama on the Russia front when he expelled 60 Russian diplomats in response to an
alleged assassination attempt on former British spy, Sergey Skripal; an astonishing move on the
part of the US conservative, but with so much riding on the line was it really a surprise?
And what was it exactly that was 'riding on the line'? Aside from good relations between the
world's two premier nuclear powers, not to mention thwarting nuclear Armageddon as Prime
Minister Theresa May very unwisely
issued an ultimatum to Russia over the matter, there is the question of hundreds of
billions of dollars of business contracts – from gas supplies to military hardware.
Tycoon Trump would sooner win over European gas supplies than the plains of Central Asia, for
example, the geopolitical lynchpin so dear to the hearts of US policymakers, like the late
Zbigniew Brzezinski. This is where so many people misread Donald Trump: His heart and mind is
devoted to the business deals, not the military steals. But that doesn't necessarily make his
moves are any less dangerous.
From President Trump's perspective, Russia is a 500-pound cigar-chomping guy at the
negotiating table with an ego and stature equal to his own that must be vanquished lest The
Deal be lost and he – Donald J. Trump, CEO and Founder of The Trump Organization –
look like a second-rate negotiator and fraud. Similar to the methods a belligerent globalist,
Trump the inveterate businessman will do anything to achieve leverage in the pursuit of
profit.
This is where Trump was only too happy to oblige the British with their extremely suspect
Skripal story because vilifying the Russians, once again, would give the US an upper hand in
stealing business away from Moscow, most notably in the realm of European gas supplies.
Presently, the Trump administration is trying hard to halt progress on Nord Stream 2, an
ambitious 11 billion euro ($12.4 billion) project to construct a gas pipeline under the Baltic
Sea from Russia to Germany.
Speaking from Kiev this week, US Energy Secretary Rick Perry
said Washington, once again endorsing the spirit of free competition and enterprise, was
preparing to introduce sanctions on foreign companies involved in the project.
But that's just the beginning.
To show how low the Americans would stoop to get a piece of this lucrative European market,
which the Russian's have been dutifully supplying for many decades, they've gone for some
dramatic
rebranding , calling LNG supplies "freedom gas." You know, the byproduct of 'freedom
fries.'
"Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom
gas throughout the world by giving America's allies a diverse and affordable source of clean
energy," said US Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes.
Dmitry Peskov, official spokesman of the Russian president, scoffed at such cynical attempts
by Washington to strong-arm nations into accepting its preferred version of the 'free
market.'
"Instead of fair competition they prefer to act like in Wild West times," Peskov told RT's
Sophie Shevardnadze ahead of the St.
Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). "They just show the gun and say that no,
you guys here in Europe, you are going to buy our natural gas and we don't care that it is at
least 30% more expensive than the gas coming from the Russians. This is the case."
Perhaps nowhere else is this effort to 'control the market' more evident than in the realm
of military spending, and particularly among NATO states. Currently, European countries spend
some $240 billion annually on military weapons and forces, while Russia spends just $66 billion
each year. Yet for businessmen like Trump, that is not good enough. Employing the vacuous claim
of an 'aggressive Russia,' Trump is passing around the proverbial hat, demanding
that NATO members contribute an ever-higher amount of their GDP to military spending. At the
same, the eastern border with Russia has become militarized like never before.
Here there is striking convergence on the part of the Democrats and Republicans when it
comes to Russia. The Democrats under Barack Obama, accepting the baton passed to them by the
Bush administration, dropped a US-made missile
defense system in Romania, a stone's throw from the Russian border. Obama's assurances that the
Russians would be allowed to participate in the project were casually forgotten. But the
Russians, who know a thing or two about military strategy, did not forget. Last year, Vladimir
Putin unveiled a number of
daunting military breakthroughs, including hypersonic weapons, which the Russian leader
explained were developed with the sole purpose of striking a strategic balance between the two
nuclear superpowers. And if the world needs more of anything these days, it is certainly
balance.
With such ploys in mind, it is easy to see why Moscow has little cause for celebration with
either a Democrat or Republican in the White House. Both political parties have long viewed
Russia not as a potential partner that could lend tremendous assistance in resolving some of
the planet's most intractable problems, but rather as some Cold War foe that needs vilified and
vanquished. Of course there is good reason for this decades-long duplicity. The double-pronged
attack by the Democrats and Republicans allows Washington to continue to make strategic inroads
against Russia, as well as China, while filling the corporate coffers at the same time. It is
an age-old strategy – albeit a foolhardy one in an age of nuclear weapons – which
is doomed to ultimate failure, if not disaster, if left unchecked. The views of individual
contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags:
NATOPerryRussiaTrumpUS
For those who still look in occasionally on what is happening with Nord Stream II, the
Americans are still blustering about killing it with new sanctions targeted against
pipelaying vessels and those who finance them, insure them, and so on. Its typical
dog-in-the-manger pressure is applied with a view to supplying Europe itself, with 'freedom
gas'. That, of course, is not using energy as a weapon – just so we're clear. It's
trying to force Europe to buy higher-priced American gas by using economics as a weapon.
Anyway, Germany is getting pretty fed up with it. Mutti Merkel has let the Americans know
that they are not going to be able to stop the project. She has let it be known that the
project already has European approval 'in principle', and that she is aware this is all about
Ukraine and forcing Russia to continue gas transit through it and supplement its budget with
transit fees. Germany's Ambassador to the United States, Emily Haber, has allegedly been even
more pointed than that.
"In particular, according to Bild, the German Ambassador to the United States, Emily
Haber, has sent a letter to the US Congress urging them to stop threatening Russian companies
PJSC NOVATEK and PJSC Gazprom, operating in Germany, with new sanctions. In her words, such
actions jeopardize the energy security of Germany and of the entire European Union.
In her letter, Emily Haber points out that since countries of the European Union have
adopted amendments to the Gas Directive, the issue of blocking the construction of the Nord
Stream-2 gas pipeline is closed for Europe: "All countries that criticized the Nord Stream-2
approved this document " . Given the situation, the German diplomat described any further
steps that Washington might take in order to hinder the development of the project as
counterproductive and potentially threatening the energy security of the EU."
Gosh; that reminds me – Chinese tariffs on American LNG more than doubled a couple
of weeks ago. As of June 1st, the tariff went from 10% to 25%. Not having much of an effect,
though – Chinese imports of American LNG have only dropped from 1.4 million tons during
the first 4 months of last year to .3 million tons over the same period this year. The
unclaimed LNG must be sold on the open market, and that drives the price down. Price has a
direct effect on American production, and if it goes too low production must be reined
in.
You're doing a great job, Mr. Trump – keep it up! Make America great again!
Looks like firms like 23andMe opened
the can of worms... Use of genetics to substantiate racist stereotypes
For almost two decades, Farber and his colleagues have advocated for this immigrant
community in the face of what they see as targeted discrimination. In cases of marriage, Farber
acts as a type of rabbinical lawyer, pulling together documentation and making a case for his
clients in front of a board of rabbinical judges. He fears that DNA testing will place even
more power in the hands of the Rabbinate and further marginalize the Russian speaking
community. "It's as if the rabbis have become technocrats," he told me. "They are using
genetics to give validity to their discriminatory practices."
Despite public outrage and
protests in central Tel Aviv, the Rabbinate have not indicated any intention of ending DNA
testing, and reports continue to circulate in the Israeli media of how the test is being used.
One woman allegedly had to ask her mother and aunt for
genetic material to prove that she was not adopted. Another man was asked to have his
grandmother, sick with dementia, take
a test.
Boris Shindler, a political activist and active member of the Russian speaking community,
told me that he believes that the full extent of the practice remains unknown, because many of
those who have been tested are unwilling to share their stories publicly out of a sense of
shame. "I was approached by someone who was married in a Jewish ceremony maybe 15, 20 years
ago, who recently received an official demand saying if you want to continue to be Jewish, we'd
like you to do a DNA test," Shindler said. "They said if she doesn't do it then she has to sign
papers saying she is not Jewish. But she is too humiliated to go to the press with this."
What offends Shindler most is that the technique is being used to single out his community,
which he sees as part of a broader stigmatization of Russian speaking immigrants in Israeli
society as unassimilated outsiders and second-class citizens. "It is sad because in the Soviet
Union we were persecuted for being Jewish and now in Israel we're being discriminated against
for not being Jewish enough," he said.
As well as being deeply humiliating, Shindler told me that there is confusion around what
being genetically Jewish means. "How do they decide when someone becomes Jewish," he asked. "If
I have 51% Jewish DNA does that mean I'm Jewish, but if I'm 49% I'm not?"
This is a typical Trump. He understands that "protection of Germany" is a profitable "protection racket" for the USA, but still lies.
Notable quotes:
"... U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said during a visit to Ukraine in May that he expected Congress to prepare legislation to sanction companies involved in the pipeline's construction. ..."
U.S. president reiterates threats over Nord Stream 2 project
Russia says efforts to block pipeline amount to 'blackmail'
'Germany Is Making a Tremendous Mistake by Relying on Pipeline,' says Trump 'Germany Is Making a Tremendous Mistake by Relying on
Pipeline,' says Trump Close Share
Donald Trump upped his criticism of Germany on
Wednesday as he threatened sanctions over Angela Merkel's continued support for a gas pipeline from Russia and warned that he could
shift troops away from the NATO ally over its defense spending.
Echoing previous threats about German support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump said he's looking at sanctions to block the
project he's warned would leave Berlin "captive" to Moscow. The U.S. also hopes to export its own liquefied natural gas to Germany.
"We're protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of dollars in money from Germany" for its gas,
Trump told reporters at the White House during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda.
The comments were the latest sign of how U.S.-German ties have eroded in recent years. The U.S. president has repeatedly rebuked
Merkel's government over the pipeline project, trade policies and defense spending. Germany, in turn, has criticized Trump's moves
to abandon international agreements, including on climate change and Iran.
Though he didn't say which companies or governments could potentially face sanctions, Trump's comments about the pipeline generated
a swift response from Moscow, which said the American president was engaging in "nothing other than blackmail and a form of unfair
competition," according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
Merkel and Trump met most recently last week during anniversary celebrations of the 1944 D-Day invasion. That gathering came days
after the EU's longest-serving leader took Trump to task at a commencement address at Harvard University, urging students to "tear
down walls" and not to treat "lies as truth." Without naming the U.S. leader, Merkel left little doubt as to whom she might mean
to a crowd who cheered her on.
U.S. opposition to the gas pipeline is bipartisan, out of concern that Russia could use its supplies of natural gas to exert pressure
on Western European nations dependent on the fuel. U.S. lawmakers also fear that with an added northern pipeline for its gas, Russia
could more easily cut off fuel to Ukraine, which is now a key transit country to Europe.
"Germany is making a tremendous mistake" by relying on the pipeline from Russia, Trump said during a joint news conference with
Duda.
Regardless of the political controversy, the Nord Stream 2 project has
faced delays and may not be ready to transport gas until the second half of 2020, according to a report made public by Denmark's
Energy Agency.
Nord Stream 2 organizers argue a new pipeline is needed to guarantee supplies will continue to flow in the coming decades as EU
domestic reserves shrink and import needs rise. Opponents of the project say it hurts the bloc's cohesion and weakens its Energy
Union strategy aimed at integrating the region's gas and power markets, diversifying energy supplies and improving security.
Uniper SE, Engie SA, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, OMV AG and BASF SE's Wintershall are European partners of Russia's Gazprom PJSC in
financing the project to expand Nord Stream by 55 billion cubic meters a year. Russia supplies a third of Europe's gas and has no
plans to give up its share to the expanding list of competitors from Norway to the U.S.
Trump, speaking during the news conference Wednesday, said that Poland signed a contract to purchase an additional $8 billion
of liquefied natural gas from U.S. companies, on top of $25 billion already under contract.
Trump said he'll meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Group of 20 summit in Japan at the end of the month, though
its not clear the pipeline project will be on their agenda.
2016 data. Source: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators
U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said during a visit to Ukraine in May that he expected Congress to prepare legislation to sanction
companies involved in the pipeline's construction.
Senators Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, and Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, have drafted a bill that would target U.S.
sanctions at vessels laying the pipeline and deny U.S. visas to executives from companies linked to the ships. The legislation would
also block transactions in U.S.-based property or interests belonging to those individuals and would penalize entities that provide
insurance to the project.
In the latest sign of Trump's frustration over German defense spending, the president said he's discussed sending as many as 2,000
more U.S. troops to Poland -- and might take them from Germany since he believes Berlin isn't spending enough on defense as a partner
in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. There are more than 30,000 U.S. troops in Germany.
Under an agreement reached during the Obama administration, NATO members committed to spending 2% of GDP on defense by the mid-2020s,
a level only seven
nations were estimated to have reached in 2018.
"Germany's at 1%, they should be at 2%," Trump said. According to NATO documents, spent about 1.2 percent of GDP on defense in
2018.
The U.S. already has a few thousand troops in Poland as part of its role in NATO. Trump's move, if carried out, would add to that,
but it wasn't clear if the forces would be permanently based there or just rotated through.
-- With assistance by Daryna Krasnolutska, Nick Wadhams, Daniel Flatley, Stepan Kravchenko, Ewa Krukowska, and Vanessa Dezem
"... Article 2 (subsection 4)- "All members shall refrain .from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state ." ..."
"... During WWII, our notion of "settler colonialism" (from earlier era's) mutated into "Nazi Lebensraum" and subsequently became outlawed by the entire known world as a supreme evil. ..."
"... Yet to this day, NOT ONE academic, activist (left or right), or political thinker throughout the entire political spectrum refers to "territorial expansion through conquest" as odious and criminal . "Nazi Lebensraum". ..."
"... Today, when people refer to Israels "eastward" expansion (through conquest) of the Palestinian territories, .the term "Lebensraum" simply vanishes from the English vernacular. ..."
Is it " SETTLER COLONIALISM" or is it "LEBENSRAUM" ?
I am sure Mr. Shenker is a bright man , and I wonder how he would distinguish the
difference between these two ideas, don't you ?
Here is my understanding.
LEBENSRAUM (or literally "living space") was both the central and dominant principle
driving Nazi Germany throughout WWII. Hitler believed that Eastern Europe had to be
"conquered" in order to create a "Greater German Empire"otherwise known as " The Third
Reich".
[a note to specialists on WWII .. This is most generally the accepted narrative by most of
the world]
After WWII, both "war of aggression" and "territorial expansion through conquest" became
the "supreme crimes"of the civilized world . and were ratified as such, in Article two of the
UN charter.
Article 2 (subsection 4)- "All members shall refrain .from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state ."
SETTLER COLONIALISM is best understood as the westward expansion of European Nations
throughout North (and South) America from the 15th century to the 19th century.
So what is the "essential" difference between the two ideas ?
The answer is simple "Dates"
When Europeans expanded "westward" into the "new world" three centuries ago , it wasn't
considered a "CRIME" to do so by anybody.
During WWII, our notion of "settler colonialism" (from earlier era's) mutated into "Nazi
Lebensraum" and subsequently became outlawed by the entire known world as a supreme evil.
Yet to this day, NOT ONE academic, activist (left or right), or political thinker
throughout the entire political spectrum refers to "territorial expansion through conquest"
as odious and criminal . "Nazi Lebensraum".
Why not ? Strange, ..isn't it ?
They, mysteriously, harken back (and utilize) the term "settler colonialism" as if to
soften and muddy the criminality of the act .. by referencing an earlier era when such
behavior wasn't considered a "crime".
Today, when people refer to Israels "eastward" expansion (through conquest) of the
Palestinian territories, .the term "Lebensraum" simply vanishes from the English
vernacular.
It just DISAPPEARS .
It is as though both its meaning , and the catastrophic horrors of WWII, never existed at
all.
Yet to this day, NOT ONE academic, activist (left or right), or political thinker
throughout the entire political spectrum refers to "territorial expansion through conquest"
as odious and criminal . "Nazi Lebensraum".
Very astute comment. "Chosen" semantics is part of the aggression war strategy.
"... The FAA has a clearly established pro-Boeing bias and will likely allow Boeing to unground the 737 MAX. We must demand that the two top FAA officials resign or recuse themselves from taking any more steps that might endanger the flying public. The two Boeing-indentured men are Acting FAA Administrator Daniel Elwell and Associate FAA Administrator for Aviation Safety Ali Bahrami. ..."
"... The FAA has long been known for its non-regulatory, waiver-driven, de-regulatory traditions. It has a hard time saying NO to the aircraft manufacturers and the airlines. After the aircraft hijackings directing flights to Cuba in the 1960s and 1970s, the FAA let the airlines say NO to installing hardened cockpit doors and stronger latches in their planes. These security measures would have prevented the hijackers from invading the cockpits of the aircrafts on September 11, 2001. The airlines did not want to spend the $3000 per plane. Absent the 9/11 hijackings, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney might not have gone to war in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Boeing has about 5,000 orders for the 737 MAX. It has delivered less than 400 to the world's airlines. From its CEO, Dennis Muilenburg to its swarms of Washington lobbyists, law firms, and public relations outfits, Boeing is used to getting its way. ..."
"... Right now, the Boeing/FAA strategy is to make sure Elwell and his FAA quickly decide that the MAX is safe for takeoff by delaying or stonewalling Congressional and other investigations. ..."
"... Time is not on the side of the 737 MAX 8. A comprehensive review of the 737 MAX's problems is a non-starter for Boeing. Boeing's flawed software and instructions that have kept pilots and airlines in the dark have already been exposed. New whistleblowers and more revelations will emerge. More time may also result in the Justice Department's operating grand jury issuing some indictments. More time would let the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, led by Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) dig into the failure of accountability and serial criminal negligence of Boeing and its FAA accomplices. Chairman DeFazio knows the history of the FAA's regulatory capture. ..."
"... The FAA and its Boeing pals are using the "trade secret" claims to censor records sought by the House Committee. When it comes to investigating life or death airline hazards and crashes, Congress is capable of handling so-called trade secrets. This is all the more reason why the terminally prejudiced Elwell and Bahrami should step aside and let their successors take a fresh look at the Boeing investigations. That effort would include opening up the certification process for the entire Boeing MAX as a "new plane." ..."
The Boeing-driven FAA is rushing to unground the notorious prone-to-stall Boeing 737
MAX (that killed 346 innocents in two crashes) before several official investigations are
completed. Troubling revelations might keep these planes grounded worldwide.
The FAA has a clearly established pro-Boeing bias and will likely allow Boeing to unground
the 737 MAX. We must demand that the two top FAA officials resign or recuse themselves from
taking any more steps that might endanger the flying public. The two Boeing-indentured men are
Acting FAA Administrator Daniel Elwell and Associate FAA Administrator for Aviation Safety Ali
Bahrami.
Immediately after the crashes, Elwell resisted grounding and echoed Boeing claims that the
Boeing 737 MAX was a safe plane despite the deadly crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia.
Ali Bahrami is known for aggressively pushing the FAA through 2018 to further abdicate its
regulatory duties by delegating more safety inspections to Boeing. Bahrami's actions benefit
Boeing and are supported by the company's toadies in the Congress. Elwell and Bahrami have both
acquired much experience by going through the well-known revolving door between the industry
and the FAA. They are likely to leave the FAA once again for lucrative positions in the
aerospace lobbying or business world. With such prospects, they do not have much 'skin in the
game' for their pending decision.
The FAA has long been known for its non-regulatory, waiver-driven, de-regulatory traditions.
It has a hard time saying NO to the aircraft manufacturers and the airlines. After the aircraft
hijackings directing flights to Cuba in the 1960s and 1970s, the FAA let the airlines say NO to
installing hardened cockpit doors and stronger latches in their planes. These security measures
would have prevented the hijackers from invading the cockpits of the aircrafts on September 11,
2001. The airlines did not want to spend the $3000 per plane. Absent the 9/11 hijackings,
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney might not have gone to war in Afghanistan.
The FAA's historic "tombstone" mentality (slowly reacting after the crashes) is well known.
For example, in the 1990s the FAA had a delayed reaction to numerous fatal crashes caused by
antiquated de-icing rules. The FAA was also slow to act on ground-proximity warning
requirements for commuter airlines and flammability reduction rules for aircraft cabin
materials.
That's the tradition that Elwell and Bahrami inherited and have worsened. They did not even
wait for Boeing to deliver its reworked software before announcing in April that simulator
training would not be necessary for the pilots. This judgment was contrary to the experience of
seasoned pilots such as Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger. Simulator training would delay
ungrounding and cost the profitable airlines money.
Boeing has about 5,000 orders for the 737 MAX. It has delivered less than 400 to the world's
airlines. From its CEO, Dennis Muilenburg to its swarms of Washington lobbyists, law firms, and
public relations outfits, Boeing is used to getting its way. Its grip on Congress – where
300 members take campaign cash from Boeing – is legendary. Boeing pays little in federal
and Washington state taxes. It fumbles contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense but
remains the federal government's big vendor for lack of competitive alternatives in a highly
concentrated industry.
Right now, the Boeing/FAA strategy is to make sure Elwell and his FAA quickly decide that
the MAX is safe for takeoff by delaying or stonewalling Congressional and other
investigations.
The compliant Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, under Senator Roger
Wicker (R-MS), strangely has not scheduled anymore hearings. The Senate confirmation of Stephen
Dickson to replace acting chief Elwell is also on a slow track. A new boss at the FAA might
wish to take some time to review the whole process.
Time is not on the side of the 737 MAX 8. A comprehensive review of the 737 MAX's problems
is a non-starter for Boeing. Boeing's flawed software and instructions that have kept pilots
and airlines in the dark have already been exposed. New whistleblowers and more revelations
will emerge. More time may also result in the Justice Department's operating grand jury issuing
some indictments. More time would let the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
led by Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) dig into the failure of accountability and serial criminal
negligence of Boeing and its FAA accomplices. Chairman DeFazio knows the history of the FAA's
regulatory capture.
Not surprising on June 4, 2019, DeFazio sent a stinging letter to FAA's Elwell and his
corporatist superior, Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao, about the FAA's intolerable
delays in sending requested documents to the Committee. DeFazio's letter says: "To say we are
disappointed and a bit bewildered at the ongoing delays to appropriately respond to our records
requests would be an understatement."
The FAA and its Boeing pals are using the "trade secret" claims to censor records sought by
the House Committee. When it comes to investigating life or death airline hazards and crashes,
Congress is capable of handling so-called trade secrets. This is all the more reason why the
terminally prejudiced Elwell and Bahrami should step aside and let their successors take a
fresh look at the Boeing investigations. That effort would include opening up the certification
process for the entire Boeing MAX as a "new plane."
The Boeing-biased Elwell and Bahrami have refused to even raise in public proceedings the
question: "After eight or more Boeing 737 iterations, at what point does the Boeing MAX 8
become a new plane?" Many, including Cong. David Price (D-NC), chair of the House
Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees the FAA's budget, have already questioned the
limited certification process.
Heavier engines on the old 737 fuselage changed the MAX's aerodynamics and made it
prone-to-stall. It is time for the FAA's leadership to change before the 737 MAX flies with
vulnerable, glitch-prone software "fixes".
Notwithstanding the previous Boeing 737 series' record of safety in the U.S. during the past
decade – (one fatality), Boeing's bosses, have now disregarded warnings by its own
engineers. Boeing executives do not get one, two, three or anymore crashes attributed to their
ignoring long-known aerodynamic engineering practices.
The Boeing 737 MAX must never be allowed to fly again, given the structural design defects
built deeply into its system.
alt media-verse is currently on fire with the news that the US State Dept's answer to Al Capone, Mike Pompeo, has been caught
promising "Jewish leaders" to send the boys round to Jeremy Corbyn if he should get elected and subsequently prove to be uppity and
out of line. According to the
WaPo , who broke the story:
The remarks, which are contained in audio of a private meeting leaked to The Washington Post, make Pompeo the second senior U.S.
official to comment on Britain's turbulent leadership succession in the past week.
During his meeting with Jewish leaders in New York, Pompeo was asked if Corbyn "is elected, would you be willing to work with
us to take on actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the U.K.?"
In response, Pompeo said, "It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gantlet and get elected. It's possible. You should
know, we won't wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best," he said to fervent applause
from attendees.
"It's too risky and too important and too hard once it's already happened," he said.
Of course the idea the "Jewish leaders" harbor any real fear that Jeremy Corbyn (Jeremy Corbyn!) is going to make life "difficult"
for British Jews if elected is simply risible. They know, just as every moderately informed person knows, that that's absurd. They
know Corbyn has no wish to make life difficult for anybody – except possibly the uber wealthy and the profiteer class.
They know the "antisemitism" fear is just a cover for the very very real fear that a Corbyn government will break the unwritten
rules of modern western governance and reject the agenda of austerity, exploitation and perpetual war that has been creating huge
profits and ideological thrills for the blessed few over the last twenty years.
They know that what Pompeo is promising is action to prevent this possibility coming about.
People are up in arms about this, and some seem quite shocked. Apparently the idea the neoliberal elites would try regime change
or regime-control on a relatively prosperous western country was something they didn't previously think possible.
Unfortunately it's more than possible. The state apparatus of the different western nations are a tight bond of mutual regard
and interest, just as likely to foment regime change on their own or their allies' elected representatives as on those of impoverished
or "developing" countries, if they believe those representatives threaten the perceived interests of the state. Of course it
isn't too often necessary, since the same western state apparatus also works to ensure that only governments that don't threaten
perceived state interests manage to get elected. But, when the unthinkable happens, MI5 and the CIA are quite happy to step up
to the plate and throw their own or their allies' democratic governments out the window. It's happened – or nearly happened –
at least twice in the last fifty years.
In the 1960s the UK security agencies, senior military and members of the royal family were apparently
contemplating
a fullblown coup against Labour prime minister Harold Wilson.
In 1975 it was
Australia's turn , when democratically elected reforming prime minister Gough Whitlam was overthrown in a bloodless constitutional
coup organised jointly by the US and UK .
The old empire and the new have form in this regard, and this means no one should take Pompeo's words (spoken in private let's
not forget) lightly.
It's also interesting to look at how the WaPo frames the revelation. There's no sense of outrage or surprise there. In fact it's
an almost matter-of-fact piece, written with no awareness of its potential impact. Even those in the comments who object in some
form are mostly doing it within the permissible current language of dissent – blaming Trump , because in these identity politics-saturated
times, your morality resides in who or what you are NOT in what you do.
To the WaPo – and many of its readers – there's nothing intrinsically either wrong or surprising in the idea a US secretary of
state should be overtly promising to interfere in the democratic governance of another country.
I had concerns about her ties to India and therefore Israel. But I doubt she would let Jews
or Israelis run the US like Trump does.
Trump has gathered the US Jewish vultures to handle his "deal of the century' ..and that
deal will be raping Palestine and as much of the ME as they can. Given the opportunity I
don't know whose throat I'd cut first probably the little girlie fop Kushner.
White House invites key Trump business allies to Bahrain forum in search for a Middle
East 'deal of the century' .. CNBC
[MORE]
The White House has invited some of President Trump's key business allies to an event in
Bahrain intended to kick-start the administration's long-awaited Middle East peace plan. The
Bahrain meeting will focus on the economic part of the "deal of the century," which has been
led by Jared Kushner. Tom Barrack, CEO of real estate investment firm Colony Capital, will be
heading to the event. Blackstone's Steve Schwarzman, BlackRock's Larry Fink and Goldman
Sachs' Dina Powell were also invited.
Tom Barrack, a loyal supporter of the president and the CEO of real estate investment firm
Colony Capital, will be heading to the event slated to start on June 25 at the Four Seasons
in Bahrain's capital, Manama.
"Tom is pleased to be a participant in a well organized forum for the purpose of advancing
the peace process in the Middle East," said his spokesman, Owen Blicksilver. "He has been a
lifelong advocate of economic prosperity being a foundation stone of hope for the entire
region especially its exploding young and largely unemployed population."
Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and Goldman Sachs' Dina Powell
are among the heavy hitters who have been invited to the gathering dubbed "Peace to
Prosperity," according to people familiar with the planning.
Schwarzman is likely to attend, one of the people said, while Fink will not be going due to
previous commitments, a separate source added. It's unclear whether Powell, a former deputy
national security advisor under Trump, will join the group.
Schwarzman is a top donor to Trump's reelection campaign. In 2017, he contributed $344,400
Trump's joint fundraising committee.
Blackstone, BlackRock and Goldman Sachs all have extensive ties to the Middle East, including
offices in Dubai, Riyadh and Tel-Aviv.
A senior administration official did not deny that Schwarzman, Fink and Powell were invited
to the forum.
The Trump White House and its associates have close ties to Bahrain. Reuters previously
reported that the administration was pursuing a nearly $5 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets
to island nation in the Gulf. The president's outside lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, landed a
security consulting contract with the country's Ministry of Interior, The Daily Beast
reported.
A team of White House officials led by Kushner has been attempting to bring Israeli and
Palestinian leaders to the negotiating table since the administration's earliest days. Last
month, the White House announced the Bahrain summit, which was described at the time as a
chance for attendees to "galvanize support for potential economic investments and initiatives
that could be made possible by a peace agreement," with a particular focus on
Palestinians.
Meanwhile, Palestinian business executives are turning down invitations to the event,
which Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has ripped.
"Trump's 'deal of the century' will go to hell, as will the economic workshop in Bahrain
that the Americans intend to hold and present illusions," Abbas said last week.
Kushner, in a recent interview with Axios, fired back at the Palestinian government, and
blamed the leadership for the loss of U.S. aid that was cut from the West Bank and Gaza.
"The actions we've taken were because America's aid is not entitlement. Right, if we make
certain decisions which we're allowed to as a sovereign nation to respect the rights of
another sovereign nation and we get criticized by that government, the response of this
president is not to say, 'Oh, let me give you more aid,'" Kushner said.
Representatives from wealthy Gulf states the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia will be
attending. Officials from Qatar are set to take part as well.
Barrack, who was the chairman of Trump's inaugural committee and is a grandson of Lebanese
immigrants, has a long history of attempting to make inroads in the Middle East, particularly
through advocating for business investments.
While Barrack is not running point on the Trump administration's efforts, he is still
deeply involved in the process. He authored a white paper for the administration titled "The
Trump Middle East Marshall Plan," which specifically mentions expanding U.S. and
international business opportunities there as a way to unite the region.
"... Even more depressing, McMaster is author of the excellent book, "Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam". Now he's retailing lies of his own in pursuit of another war. ..."
"... The "Foundation for the Defense of Democracies" subsists on donations intended to advance the foreign policy agendas of countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Those are the kind of "democracies" they want America to "defend" ..."
McMaster then proceeds to mount a hypothetical -- nuclear blackmail. "This regime could say [if U.S. forces] don't go
off the Korean Peninsula, we're going to threaten the use of nuclear weapons," the retired general explained. And yet
this, too, is riddled with nonsense, the biggest objection being that making such an ultimatum would court the very
military confrontation with the United States he wants to avoid.
When McMaster was in the Trump administration, he
floated
many of the same arguments about why
attacking
North Korea should be an option. Those
arguments
didn't make any
sense
when he made them as National Security Advisor, and they haven't improved now that he has migrated to the
inaccurately named Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). McMaster's latest statements confirm that his preventive
war talk wasn't just empty rhetoric on his part when he worked for Trump. He was apparently
deadly serious
about entertaining a U.S. attack on North Korea, and he continues to talk about it as though it were a reasonable and
legitimate policy option. The reporting that he and others in the administration had a
"messianic fervor"
about this seems to have been right.
It can't be stressed enough that launching an attack on North Korea would an outrageous act of aggression. It would
put the U.S. in clear violation of the U.N. Charter and make our government an illegal aggressor just like North Korea
was in 1950. McMaster was and still is promoting the idea that the U.S. should be willing to commit a massive crime
against another country. Unfortunately, talk of preventive war against certain states is not just tolerated in
Washington, but it is actively encouraged and embraced by many other hard-liners, including the current National
Security Advisor, who is also in favor of launching an attack on North Korea. These hard-liners dismiss the possibility
of deterring these states so that they can have an excuse to attack, but invariably the behavior they cite as evidence
that a state can't be deterred is proof that they desire self-preservation and regime security above all else.
Hard-liners also like to warn about "nuclear blackmail" from other states, but they can't ever produce an example of
a nuclear weapons state that has successfully engaged in such blackmail to extract concessions from others. It makes
even less sense when we consider what would happen to the blackmailing state if it followed through on the threat.
Threatening to launch a nuclear first strike to gain concessions from other governments wouldn't get that government
what it wants, and carrying out the threat would result in the state's certain annihilation. There is no upside to
engaging in "nuclear blackmail" and a huge downside. If "nuclear blackmail" worked, there would likely have been a lot
more blackmail attempts by nuclear weapons state over the last seventy-four years, and more states would want to acquire
nuclear weapons for this purpose. In reality, just about the only use that nuclear weapons have is to deter attacks from
others, and that is pretty clearly why North Korea built their nuclear arsenal. Threatening them with attack just
confirms them in their view that they have to retain them, and actually attacking them would be the only thing that is
likely to prompt them to use them.
There's a scene in the movie Dr. Strangelove where all the powerful men were sitting in the war room discussing
the possible state of the world after the nuclear attack. They start by lamenting the deaths of tens of
millions of Americans, and that they might be the only leaders left to rebuild America. They then worked their
way to moving to a bunker to make sure they were safe, then bringing in women who could help repopulate the
country, and then making sure the women were beautiful and that there would be enough to get started on having
lots of children right away. So in less than 2 minutes, they go from the end of civilization to having a harem
for each of them. When powerful people can see a disaster as a chance to gain even more power, they will take
it regardless of the consequences to anyone else. That's who they are.
I must have missed when our own official policy renounced nuclear first strike. As far as I know, it's still
"one of the options on the table." And now with the latest "low yield nuke" deployments in the pipeline, it
gives the illusion that nuclear war can be a winning option to defend the heartland or expand the empire's
overseas power.
Even more depressing, McMaster is author of the excellent book, "Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam". Now he's retailing lies of his own in pursuit of
another war.
"the inaccurately named Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)"
That name is a sick joke. The
"Foundation for the Defense of Democracies" subsists on donations intended to advance the foreign policy
agendas of countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Those are the kind of "democracies" they want America to
"defend".
McMaster has literally gone off the edge since he was named as the head of a group over at the FDD group of
warmongers -- they literally on a daily basis call for more war, attacks on Iran, and NK -- more tragically, they have
access and influence with Bolton and Pompeo.
Sick beyond belief but that is where their money comes into play.
Trump betrayed anti-war votes. So he will not get the same voting blocks that he got in 2016.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War. ..."
"... In a recent interview with Fox News's Tucker Carlson, Gabbard doubled down on her anti-war credentials, telling the host that war with Iran would be "devastating, " adding that "I know where this path leads us and I'm concerned because the American people don't seem to be prepared for how devastating and costly such a war would be So, what we are facing is, essentially, a war that has no frontlines, total chaos, engulfs the whole region, is not contained within Iran or Iraq but would extend to Syria and Lebanon and Israel across the region, setting us up in a situation where, in Iraq, we lost over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform. A war with Iran would take far more American lives, it would cost more civilian lives across the region Not to speak of the fact that this would cost trillions of taxpayer dollars coming out of our pockets to go and pay for this endless war that begs the question as a soldier, what are we fighting for? What does victory look like? What is the mission?" ..."
"... Gabbard, and also Carlson, did not hesitate to name names among those pushing for war, one of which begins with B-O-L-T-O-N. She then asked "How does a war with Iran serve the best interest of the American people of the United States? And the fact is it does not," Gabbard said. "It better serves the interest of people like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia who are trying to push us into this war with Iran." ..."
"... In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and in 2016 she backed Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy. More recently, she has criticized President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, a very bold step indeed given the power of the Israel Lobby. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years, and that is why the war party is out to get her. Two weeks ago, the Daily Beast displayed a headline : "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists." The article also had a sub-headline: "The Hawaii congresswoman is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood." ..."
"... Tulsi responded "Stephanopoulos shamelessly implied that because I oppose going to war with Russia, I'm not a loyal American, but a Putin puppet. It just shows what absurd lengths warmongers in the media will go, to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who dares oppose their warmongering." ..."
"... ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is loaded with a full complement of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation. ..."
"... for the moment, she seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform. It might just resonate with the majority of Americans who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States ..."
Voters looking ahead to 2020 are being bombarded with soundbites from the twenty plus Democratic would-be candidates. That Joe
Biden is apparently leading the pack according to opinion polls should come as no surprise as he stands for nothing apart from being
the Establishment favorite who will tirelessly work to support the status quo.
The most interesting candidate is undoubtedly Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is a fourth term Congresswoman from Hawaii, where
she was born and raised. She is also the real deal on national security, having been-there and done-it through service as an officer
with the Hawaiian National Guard on a combat deployment in Iraq. Though in Congress full time, she still performs her Guard duty.
Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In
the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus
on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening
terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay
over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.
In a recent interview with Fox News's Tucker Carlson, Gabbard doubled down on her anti-war credentials, telling the host that
war with Iran
would
be "devastating, " adding that "I know where this path leads us and I'm concerned because the American people don't seem to be
prepared for how devastating and costly such a war would be So, what we are facing is, essentially, a war that has no frontlines,
total chaos, engulfs the whole region, is not contained within Iran or Iraq but would extend to Syria and Lebanon and Israel across
the region, setting us up in a situation where, in Iraq, we lost over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform. A war with Iran
would take far more American lives, it would cost more civilian lives across the region Not to speak of the fact that this would
cost trillions of taxpayer dollars coming out of our pockets to go and pay for this endless war that begs the question as a soldier,
what are we fighting for? What does victory look like? What is the mission?"
Gabbard, and also Carlson, did not hesitate to name names among those pushing for war, one of which begins with B-O-L-T-O-N.
She then asked "How does a war with Iran serve the best interest of the American people of the United States? And the fact is it
does not," Gabbard said. "It better serves the interest of people like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi
Arabia who are trying to push us into this war with Iran."
Clearly not afraid to challenge the full gamut establishment politics,
Tulsi Gabbard had previously called for an end to the "illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government," also observing that "the
war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing
the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate
the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world." She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a
personal trip to Damascus in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries "if you are
serious about pursuing peace." She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the
country as well as ending American interventions for "regime change" in the region.
In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and in 2016 she backed Bernie Sanders' antiwar
candidacy. More recently, she has criticized President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Last May, she criticized
Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, a very bold step indeed given the power of the Israel Lobby.
Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years, and
that is why the war party is out to get her. Two weeks ago, the Daily Beast
displayed a headline
: "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists." The article also had a sub-headline: "The Hawaii congresswoman
is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood."
The obvious smear job was picked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, television's best known Hillary Clinton clone, who
brought it up in an interview with Gabbard shortly thereafter. He asked whether Gabbard was "softer" on Putin than were some
of the other candidates. Gabbard answered: "It's unfortunate that you're citing that article, George, because it's a whole lot of
fake news." Politico the reported the exchange and wrote: "'Fake news' is a favorite phrase of President Donald Trump ," putting
the ball back in Tulsi's court rather than criticizing Stephanopoulos's pointless question. Soon thereafter CNN produced
its own version of Tulsi
the Russophile , observing that Gabbard was using a Trump expression to "attack the credibility of negative coverage."
Tulsi
responded "Stephanopoulos shamelessly implied that because I oppose going to war with Russia, I'm not a loyal American, but a
Putin puppet. It just shows what absurd lengths warmongers in the media will go, to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who dares
oppose their warmongering."
Tulsi Gabbard had attracted other enemies prior to the Stephanopoulos attack. Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept
described how NBC news published a
widely distributed story on February 1 st , claiming that "experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia
have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard."
But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge,
which was exposed by no less
than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest
that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind
this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called
Hamilton 68 , a news "intelligence net checker" that
claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD
website advises that "Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity."
ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund.
It is loaded with a full complement
of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol.
It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts
by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.
No doubt stories headlined "Tulsi Gabbard Communist Stooge" are in the works somewhere in the mainstream media. The Establishment
politicians and their media component have difficulty in understanding just how much they are despised for their mendacity and unwillingness
to support policies that would truly benefit the American people but they are well able to dominate press coverage.
Given the flood of contrived negativity towards her campaign, it is not clear if Tulsi Gabbard will ever be able to get her message
across.
But, for the moment, she seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform.
It might just resonate with the majority of Americans who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related
frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States
The Project for a New Middle East[1] is a Project for a New Holocaust. It is happening
now. The policy of "Creative Chaos"[2] underpins the "Middle East Holocaust". Empire willfully
destroys the sovereignty and territorial integrity of prey nations such as Libya, Iraq, Syria,
Yemen, Ukraine, and beyond. Genocidal ethnic cleansing, mass murder and destruction are
described benignly as "chaos" and as "creative".
Empire deploys meticulously planned strategies to fabricate sectarian and ethnic divides,
and to balkanize prey nations. The notion, as expressed by Condoleeza Rice , that the Middle
East should be divided into a "Sunni Belt" and a "Shia Belt"[3] objectifies peoples, diminishes
their humanity, turns them into fictional "stock characters" defined exclusively by perceived
religious affiliations, and deliberately fabricates ethnic and religious tensions, all of which
serve as preconditions for imperialists to create chaos and the disintegration of strong
nation-states into fractious vassal states, devoid of self-determination and sovereignty.
Empire sees non-compliant, self-governing, secular, pluralist, multi-confessional,
democratic states as enemies. Syria is all of the above, and therefore an "enemy". Empire
further destroys the "host" when it "opens the veins" of prey countries for resource plundering
and criminal occupation. The oil-rich, strategically-located area East of the Euphrates is one
such example.
When Empire supports the SDF against ISIS, it is polishing its fake image by creating the
perception that it opposes ISIS, even as it re-introduces "rebadged" ISIS into the same battle
grounds. Alternatively, as in the case of Raqqa, Empire "rescues" and redeploys ISIS elsewhere.
Both terrorists and civilians are expendable in these demonic operations.
Empire rounds civilians up in terrorist-controlled concentration camps[4]. It "weaponizes"
them by deliberately creating conditions of desperation which lend themselves to recruiting
opportunities for new terrorist proxies. Daesh will never disappear as long as Empire is in
control or seeking control globally.
As long as Western war propaganda remains ascendant, and Western populations remain
oblivious, Westerners will continue to believe that these wars are humanitarian or in their
national interests. In fact, the wars are anti-humanitarian, and they only represent narrow
"special interests."
NATO's strongest weapon is its apparatus of "Perception Management". Without it, NATO and
the imperialists would be exposed as the Supreme International War Criminals that they
are.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
and the author of Voices from Syria , Global Research Publishers, 2017.
"... Last February, the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on Gaza's protests concluded that "it has reasonable grounds to believe that during the Great March of Return, Israeli soldiers committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Some of those violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity, and must be immediately investigated by Israel." ..."
"... Article 12 of the Rome Statute allows for ICC's jurisdiction in two cases; first, if the State in which the alleged crime has occurred is itself a party of the Statute and, second, if the State where the crime has occurred agrees to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court. ..."
The
Chief Military Advocate General of the Israeli army, Sharon Afek, and the US Department of
Defense General Counsel, Paul Ney,
shared a platform at the 'International Conference on the Law of Armed Conflict', which
took place in Herzliya, Israel between May 28-30.
Their panel witnessed some of the most misconstrued interpretations of international law
ever recorded. It was as if Afek and Ney were literally making up their own law on warfare and
armed conflict, with no regard to what international law actually stipulates.
Unsurprisingly, both Afek and Ney agreed on many things, including that Israel and the US
are blameless in all of their military conflicts, and that they will always be united against
any attempt to hold them accountable for war crimes by the International Court of Justice
(ICC).
Their tirade against the ICC mirrors that of their own leaders. While Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu's
anti-ICC position is familiar, last April, US President Donald Trump virulently expressed
his contempt for the global organization and everything it represents.
"Any attempt to target American, Israeli, or allied personnel for prosecution will be met
with a swift and vigorous response," Trump
said in a writing on April 12.
While Trump's (and Netanyahu's) divisive language is nothing new, Afek and Ney were
entrusted with the difficult task of using legal language to explain their countries' aversion
for international law.
Prior to the Herzliya Conference, Afek addressed the Israel Bar Association convention in
Eilat on May 26. Here, too, he made some ludicrous claims as he absolved, in advance, Israeli
soldiers who kill Palestinians.
"A soldier who is in a life-threatening situation and acts to defend himself (or) others
(he) is responsible for, is receiving and will continue receiving full back-up from the Israeli
army," he
said .
The above assertion appears far more sinister once we remember Afek's views on what
constitutes a "life-threatening situation", as he had articulated in Herzliya a few days
later.
"Thousands of Gaza's residents (try) to breach the border fence," he said, with reference to
the non-violent March of Return at the fence separating besieged Gaza from Israel.
The Gaza protesters "are led by a terrorist organization that deliberately uses civilians to
carry out attacks," Afek said.
Afek sees unarmed protests in Gaza as a form of terrorism, thus concurring with an
earlier statement made by then-Israeli Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, on April 8,
2018, when he declared that "there are no innocents in Gaza."
Israel's shoot-to-kill policy, however, is not confined to the Gaza Strip but is also
implemented with the same degree of violent enthusiasm in the West Bank.
'No attacker, male or female, should make it out of any attack alive,'
Lieberman said in 2015. His orders were followed implicitly, as hundreds of Palestinians
were
killed in the West Bank and Jerusalem for allegedly trying to attack Israeli occupation
soldiers or armed illegal Jewish settlers.
Unlike democratic political systems everywhere, in Israel the occupation soldier becomes the
interpreter and
enforcer of the law.
Putting this policy into practice in Gaza is even more horrendous as unarmed protesters are
often being killed by Israeli snipers from long distances. Even
journalists and
medics have not been spared the same tragic fate as the hundreds of civilians who were
killed since the start of the protests in March 2018.
Last February, the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on Gaza's protests
concluded
that "it has reasonable grounds to believe that during the Great March of Return, Israeli
soldiers committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Some of those
violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity, and must be immediately
investigated by Israel."
In his attack on the ICC at the Herzliya Conference, Afek contended that "Israel is a
law-abiding country, with an independent and strong judicial system, and there is no reason for
its actions to be scrutinized by the ICC."
The Israeli General goes on to reprimand the ICC by urging it to focus on "dealing with the
main issues for which it was founded."
Has Afek even read the Rome Statute? The first Article states that the ICC has the "power to
exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as
referred to in this Statute."
Article 5 elaborates the nature of these serious crimes, which include: "(a) The crime of
genocide; (b) Crimes against humanity; (c) War crimes; (d) The crime of aggression."
Israel has been accused of at least two of these crimes – war crimes and crimes
against humanity – repeatedly, including in the February
report by the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry.
Afek may argue that none of this is relevant to Israel, for the latter is not "a party to
the Rome Statute," therefore, does not fall within ICC's legal jurisdiction.
Wrong again.
Article 12 of the Rome Statute allows for ICC's jurisdiction in two cases; first, if the
State in which the alleged crime has occurred is itself a party of the Statute and, second, if
the State where the crime has occurred agrees to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the
court.
While it is true that Israel is not a signatory of the Rome Statute, Palestine has, since
2015, agreed to submit itself to the ICC's jurisdiction.
Moreover, in April 2015, the State of Palestine formally became a member of the ICC, thus
giving the court jurisdiction to investigate crimes committed in the Occupied Territories since
June 13, 2014. These crimes include human rights violations carried out during the Israeli war
on Gaza in July-August of the same year.
Afek's skewed understanding of international law went unchallenged at the Herzliya
Conference, as he was flanked by equally misguided interpreters of international law.
However, nothing proclaimed by Israel's top military prosecutor or his government will alter
the facts. Israeli war crimes must not go unpunished; Israel's judicial system is untrustworthy
and the ICC has the legal right and moral duty to carry out the will of the international
community and hold to account those responsible for war crimes anywhere, including Israel.
"... Trump's eunuchs are still guarding and serving their master I see. And their master is a psychopath who is getting ready to pardon the tough guy kind of psychopath he admires. Of course the Orange psychopath doesn't consider the fact that this kind of thing , just like the Iraqi prison tortures , incentivizes the commission of war crimes by our opponents and allies, and in doing so puts US service members at greater risk. ..."
Trump's eunuchs are still guarding and serving their master I see. And
their master is a psychopath who is getting ready to pardon the tough guy kind of psychopath
he admires. Of course the Orange psychopath doesn't consider the fact that this kind of thing
, just like the Iraqi prison tortures , incentivizes the commission of war crimes by our
opponents and allies, and in doing so puts US service members at greater risk.
Here's Trump's hero ..
"One day, from his sniper nest, Chief Gallagher shot a girl in a flower-print hijab who
was walking w/ other girls on the riverbank. She dropped, clutching her stomach, & the
other girls dragged her away."
A mass murderer according to Senior Seals: "Would order needless risks, to fire rockets at
houses for no apparent reason. He routinely parked an armored truck on a Tigris River bridge
& emptied the truck's heavy machine gun into neighborhoods on twith no discernible
targets."
"Platoon members said he spent much of his time in a hidden perch with a sniper rifle,
firing three or four times as often as other platoon snipers. They said he boasted about the
number of people he had killed, including women."
Two other snipers said, the chief shot an unarmed man in a white robe with a wispy white
beard. They said the man fell, a red blotch spreading on his back."
Gallagher ordered a hatchet & a hunting knife" before 2017 deployment. He texted the
man who made them (a Navy Seal veteran) shortly after arriving in Iraq: "I'll try and dig
that knife or hatchet on someone's skull!"
May 2017, a SEAL medic was treating a wounded 15 y/o Islamic State fighter. "He's mine,"
Gallagher said. "Gallagher walked up without a word and stabbed the wounded teenager several
times in the neck and once in the chest with his hunting knife, killing him."
He didn't even try to hide the murder of the 15 y/o. He brought other seals around minutes
later & took a photo over the body. Later, he texted the photo to a fellow SEAL in
California: "Good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/navy-seals-crimes-of-war.html
Now Trumpies bear in mind that Gallagher's own fellow Seals testified against him
that's how depraved this guy Trump is pardoning is.
Here's Gallagher if you live in a stand your ground state and run into him shoot the
bastard, he'll have his hunting knife on him so you can claim self defense.
A full-fledged war with Tehran will tank the US economy because the fighting will
immediately make the price of oil skyrocket, an adviser to Iran's supreme leader warned. US
leaders will not go to war against Tehran if they care for the economic wellbeing of their
country, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, aide and adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali
Khamenei,
told Fars News Agency.
The first bullet fired in the Persian Gulf will push the oil prices well above $100. It
will be unbearable for the US and Europe, as well as American allies like Japan and South
Korea.
Safavi, who has led the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the past, stated that
Washington prefers to wage "economic and psychological war" against the nation. The US
knows there will be "significant costs" should a full-fledged conflict erupt, he
said.
The Pentagon had earlier announced plans to deploy marines and Patriot air defense missile
systems to join an aircraft carrier strike group operating near the Persian Gulf. Officials in
Tehran have been downplaying the military buildup by the US near its borders but vowed to
strike back if attacked.
Last month, Iran partially suspended its commitments under the 2015 deal on its nuclear
programs, known as the JCPOA. The step followed several rounds of sanctions reimposed on Iran
by the US which withdrew from the agreement a year ago.
Posted on
May 30, 2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. I don't know
enough about the structure of the Iranian economy to assess whether oil export revenue is as
critical as this article suggests. Iran clearly needs foreign currency (exports) to buy imports
like pharmaceuticals and any critical materials and products they don't produce domestically
like chips.
I was under the impression that Iran had become pretty autarchical due to having been under
sanctions for so long. But it may still have enough import dependence to prevent it from simply
net spending. If the sanctions have indeed meaningfully reduced domestic productive capacity,
"printing" would produce inflation pronto. The Western press says yes. However an academic who
visited the country in the last year (but before the latest round) said they didn't see any
signs of distress during several weeks there when he went about freely (and this individual
spends most of his time in developing economies).
It's hard to predict what will happen in the oil market as the U.S. sanctions on Iran
tighten. For now, it looks like India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey will hold off from buying
Iranian oil. These countries -- with China -- had been the main sources of Iran's foreign
exchange. It is unlikely -- at the present time -- that India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey
will break the U.S. siege on Iran. They have made it clear that they do not want to rattle the
U.S. cage. Request for new waivers from the U.S. came to naught. India's government had said
that it would reassess the purchases of cheap Iranian oil after the elections. It is likely
that India will restart some buys, but certainly not enough to prevent economic collapse in
Iran.
As the May deadline for the U.S. sanctions loomed, these countries bought vast amounts of
oil from Iran to create their own buffer stocks. Revenues from the export of oil reached $50
billion for the Iranian financial year of 2018-19 (ending March 20). The oil sector contributed
to 70 percent of Iran's exports. This income is essential for running Iran's government and
paying its 4.6 million employees. The cost of the government is roughly $24 billion. With the
collapse of sales to India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey, Iran will have a very difficult time
raising revenues to maintain its economy. The National Development Fund and the hard currency
reserves have already begun to be depleted, with dollar holdings now in the tens of
billions.
New Silk Road
Tehran has long been hoped that China would continue to buy Iranian oil and prevent the
meltdown of Iran's economy and its government. There are two reasons why China would want to
ignore U.S. sanctions and continue to buy Iranian oil. The first has to do with the fact that
Iran's oil is cheap and of a quality that Chinese refiners prefer. The second has to do with
Iran's crucial location along the line of China's Belt and Road as well as its String of Pearls
initiatives. Chaos in Iran or a government in Tehran that is pliant to the United States would
be unacceptable to Beijing. Roads, trains and pipelines -- the infrastructure of the Belt and
Road Initiative -- are to run from the Chinese territory through Central Asia into Iran and
then outward toward West Asia and -- via Turkey -- into Europe. Iran's centrality to this
project should not be underestimated.
In the first few months of 2019, China bought about half of Iran's crude oil exports. It has
become a crucial pillar for Iran, whose diplomats say quite openly that if China no longer buys
Iran's oil or invests in Iran, the problems for the country will be grave. Massive oil buys
from China in the weeks leading to the end of the U.S. waivers are, however, no indication of
the continuation of this relationship. Chinese oil companies put in large orders to stockpile
oil in anticipation of the cuts. Oil analysts suggest that the two major Chinese oil importers
-- China Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec) and China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC)
have not put in any buys since the U.S. waivers expired.
Why China Is Not Buying Iranian Oil
China -- the world's fastest-growing consumer of oil -- continues to buy oil from the United
States -- the world's fastest-growing producer of oil. These two countries are locked in a
trade war, with tariffs rising on a raft of products from steel to soybeans. China has not
placed any tariffs on U.S. crude oil imports, but it has reduced its purchases of U.S. oil by
80 percent. Despite China's withdrawal from the U.S. oil market, it has not closed the door on
future purchases. Meanwhile, China has increased its oil purchases from Saudi Arabia by 43
percent in April. There is every indication that China will continue to increase its buys from
the kingdom during the course of this year -- to substitute for Iranian oil and, perhaps, for
U.S. oil. China has also been slowly increasing its natural gas imports from Australia, a
tendency that is expected to rise.
New surveillance technology of tankers, low oil prices and more constraints on settling
bills have made it difficult to smuggle oil out of Iran. Last year, smuggled oil out of Iran
totaled a minuscule 0.3 million barrels per day. This is not enough to compensate for the oil
purchases stopped by East and South Asian countries. U.S. sanctions, in this climate, have made
tanker owners and insurers skittish about carrying Iranian oil.
Chinese firms are susceptible to this pressure. Nonetheless, the Liberian-flagged tanker
Pacific Bravo is said to have loaded Iranian oil after the expiry of the waiver and is
making its way to China. As of this writing, the tanker is off the coast of Sri Lanka. When it
arrives in China and offloads its cargo, how will the U.S. respond?
Iran-Iraq-Syria
Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was in Baghdad on May 26. He met with Iraq's
Foreign Minister Mohamed al-Hakim, who said that Iraq's government does not believe that the
"economic blockade" -- namely the U.S. sanctions -- was good for the region. "We stand with
Iran in its position," Hakim said.
Earlier in May, Iraq's Oil Minister Thamer Gadhba said that his country would continue to
buy Iran's natural gas -- essential for Iraq's electricity grid. This was despite U.S. pressure
to cut natural gas purchases from Iran and to substitute this through a $14 billion deal with
U.S. energy firms (including General Electric). Indications show that Iraq will not bend to
U.S. pressure at this time. Nor will Iraq block Iranian oil from going to Syria by truck -- an
energy source that is essential to Syria.
China's Shield
U.S. troops continue to arrive in the Gulf region, threatening Iran. Zarif and al-Hakim
jointly said that this is a dangerous development. Pressure on Iran increases daily.
China has made it clear that it could buy Iranian oil if it can pay in yuan or euros, but it
does not want to make Iran part of its dispute with the United States. The appetite to bring
Iran onto the bargaining table with the United States does not exist in Beijing. Nor is Beijing
willing to provide Iran with a protective shield.
But there are pressures on China not to ignore its own interests in the region. China built
a large port in Gwadar, Pakistan, which was intended to circumvent the long transit of goods
(and oil) from the Gulf through the Straits of Malacca to the South China Sea. But there are
tensions here, as Baloch Liberation Army attacks mount on Chinese targets. One hundred and
fifty kilometers west of Gwadar is the Iranian port of Chabahar, developed with Indian
assistance. The United States -- at a request from the Afghan government -- has turned the
other way to continued Indian involvement in that port, which includes transportation lines to
the Afghan border through Iran. Iran has signaled that it would be interested in giving China a
role in this port if India begins to drift away.
China has increased its engagement in West Asia, but not to the point of getting sucked into
a conflict that it sees as unfortunate. What this means is that Iran cannot rely fully on
China. And yet, China is the only antidote to the U.S. suffocation of Iran.
Global oil production is high, as are oil inventories. Oil prices, consequently, are low and
will likely be lowered by reduced global demand. Projected low oil prices should raise more
alarms in Tehran, since Iranian external revenues will decline and so too will its importance
to Chinese importers. The only reason for China to throw a shield around Iran is to protect the
Belt and Road Initiative. Not for the oil.
I've no insights into the internal economy of Iran, but i would have assumed that the
victory in Syria will take a lot of pressure off – its support for Assad cost Iran many
billions in foreign currency which it can now hopefully wind down, especially as it looks
like the Chinese and Qatari's will step up in providing recovery aid for Syria.
Another potential major source of revenue is Qatar, which is of course still in conflict
with its Gulf neighbours. Qatar shares its vast off-shore gas reserves with Iran with a
variety of secret protocols. It would hardly be a surprise if it turned out much of the gas
they sell is in fact Iranian. The Saudis are dependent on Qatari gas for their electricity
supply, so they could well be inadvertently providing funding for Iran.
But the biggest problem for Iran is surely consistent low oil prices and the fact that
their main customers have built up very large stockpiles. Also, low prices for Irans other
exports, such as plastics, fertilisers, copper and aluminium can't be helping. I believe
climate change might also be impacting on their long term prospects for exporting
agricultural produce, especially nuts and fruit. Iran future may be as dependent on avoiding
drought as it is on rising oil prices.
Yes, sorry, my mistake, out of date information – KSA used to get natural gas from
the South Pars field in Qatar prior to the LNG boom, but is seemingly now self sufficient for
electricity generation. I was getting my pipelines mixed up.
I wonder whether the aggressive stance against Iran has more to do with blocking the Silk
Road Initiative rather than just Iran herself and Iran's oil. Probably Xi Jinping feels this
and will support Iran, in agreement with Prashad's statement in this sense. I also believe
that some EU leaders share this view. Given the importance of Iran this migth result in an
acceleration of the development of swift independent payment systems. We will see.
Xi knows the Silk Road importance, and Obama's forgotten Pivot to Asia wasn't a feel good
initiative.
I think US foreign policy types are hold deeply racist convictions. Iran is still the
target because Iran dumped our man In Tehran. How dare those little people reject a US
approved choice? Combined with an expat crowd of SAVAK every bit as deluded as the Cubans who
came after the fall of Batista who have it on "good authority" they are about to be returned
to power I mean democracy is about to flourish, the usual thugs in Washington have what they
need to rant and rave.
As a counter narrative, the problem is Iran is another country I wouldn't normally worry
about. I don't have a monthly premium I send to Iran or went to Iran's for school when I was
a kid. Naturally only the SAVAK narrative gets pushed. Like anything, my guess is this is a
bit of a last hurrah. 1979 was so long ago.
I think part of the justification for a hardline on Iran is indeed to block the Silk Road
initiative, but its a clumsy and stupid one if that's the case. You could argue that a more
open Iran, trading freely with Europe and the US on its own terms would be much more cautious
about being used as a transit hub for China. But Iran really has very little choice now but
to make itself indispensable to China.
From what I understand from the business media, it seems the US really is taking a hard
line on the EU's attempt to bypass the Swift system and most European companies are
reluctantly falling in line with the sanctions. The EU may be given no choice but to accept
the sanctions or overtly challenge them at every level – the latter being unlikely as
it would need a unanimity and toughness the EU rarely shows, especially when it comes to the
US.
Interesting how this fits in or contrasts with the recent (and remarkably well written)
article on What does it Mean to Live in a Multi Polar World? We May Be About to Find
Out. It's clear from China's behavior as described in this present article that the
United States still has considerable and, given how much it's been abused, remarkable clout.
One can justifiably be boggled that the United States' indiscriminate weaponization of
economic sanctions hasn't already exerted a devastating price internationally for US
credibility that Trump – setting the world ablaze merely to distract his base and keep
the virtually insane thugs in his administration happy – could care less about.
Regardless that Trump is merrily squandering (more blatantly but hardly having a monopoly
over recent US Presidents) any residual US credibility in unilateral power being a beneficial
force, the suggestion that "Even the historic tendency to focus on state power should be
questioned in this moment," from the Multi Polar article, is well couched as a
question rather than an assertion.
It seems inconceivable that Trump is aware of it, but his self serving conflagrational
antics if they don't set off a major military conflict that could easily spread out of
control, may be beneficial in the long run, but we're not there yet.
Mention of Russia and it's reaction is unfortunately missing from the article (or I missed
it).
Yes, Trump looks not aware of much which doesn't fall within his narrow set of
interests.Regarding Russia, what I've heard is that it has an ambivalent position. In one
side Russia fears the US but in the other side migth somehow fear the increasing power of
China. Regarding oil they won't protest high prices if this is a consequence of US politics,
but Russia economically depends on Europe so they should be interested on diversification.
And Russia's leadership hate climate change initiatives of course. Just to make things
clearer hahahahahahah
Actually, the points you raise are exactly what would have been interesting to at least
touch on in this article.
Re Russia, I suppose this article is more about oil consuming nations than oil producing
ones, but since US hegemony and the apparent lack of push back is so intrinsic to the
discussion, it would have been helpful to include some mention of Russia.
Also, as I look at it, my point that the US as a nation state still has clout can be
turned on it's head and align more with the question mark raised in the Muilti Polar article
if one argues that the US instigated conflict with Iran stems more from perceived interests
of the oil and fossil fuel industries and that Washington or more specifically puppet Trump,
fickle as he is, is simply going along to get along and trying at the same time to use it for
his own ends as much as possible.
I've been reading up on the natgas angle (Iran uses its big natgas supply mostly
domestically, but this is related)
Pakistan seems willing to block the Iran connection for now – the unfinished Peace
pipeline (natgas) is an indicator.
Also in natgas, Asian spot prices collapsed in the past year to the $4 range due to both
LNG and pipeline supply racing ahead of demand (import terminals, power plants), and also
Japan in the process of reactivating its nuke electric. Asian NG was around $10 when the gold
rush started, post Fukushima. This is also part of the story.
At the same time, much seaborne LNG import capacity is being built in SE asia (Japan a big
player in development apparently), due in mid 2020s. Together with Chinese and other NG
plants being built to displace oil, this is supposed to drive prices to recover and probably
overshoot in 4 years or so.
For now, the economic pressure on gas importers is unusually low, and pressure on gas
exporters is higher. The US is still basically neutral in net import/export, which is the
best way to be. It is not good for Iran, since their natgas export will not be developed
until this market phase passes. It does make it harder for US energy exports to work as
leverage over importers in general (China, India, Pak.).
I think this author is too influenced by the power of money and neglects the power of
nationalism and justice. Hardship brings people together in a delightful way, a shared burden
and a real sense of "we are all in this together" – the sense that Cameron tried and
failed to activate in UK because society had been destroyed by Thatcher. The Iranian people
are strengthened by sanctions. I expect Chinese energy purchases will increase when the
railway connection is perfected and shipments are no longer exposed to maritime attack by
pirates or governments.
I was glad to see this author characterise the sanctions as a blockade. We need to be
straightforward in our terminology and Ron Paul was right to give them their proper name
– blockade is an act of war, placing warships off another country's commercial ports to
prevent trade in and out. Lat's be frank about that.
Why is the Baluchi Liberation Army focused on attacking China? How does that enhance the
prospects of independence for Baluchistan? There has been nothing on this in the western
press to my knowledge. It sounds like cover for a gang of crooks. Can anyone help?
"... " nothing to address poverty, homelessness, healthcare, low income, incarceration; nor does it address climate change Military spending diverts resources. If we want genuine socio-economic and climate justice, new thinking is essential" ..."
For no important reason, I was thinking about the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier, HMS "Queen Elizabeth II". This ship has
been in the news, but for all the wrong reasons: her commander was recently removed by helicopter whilst anchored in the
Forth, accused of having used the ship's car for personal use whilst in the US (maybe he should have used a helicopter?).
Even Lord West of Spithead (former head of the RN) expressed his bemusement at the style of management. But if this really
is a question of misuse of public money, then it seems but a drop in several oceans compared with the bigger pictures –
firstly of defence spending, secondly of defence strategy, and lastly of man-management.
Firstly, the cost to build these two 65,000T aircraft carriers is currently about $10 Billion (when it
comes to such eye-watering amounts of money, the figures always expand because defence spending is notoriously adrift). This
is however a bargain compared with US super-carriers (100,000T) which are nuclear-powered, cost about $15 Billion to build
(and $3 Billion to de-commission).
The US fields about 10 such ships: they are quite defenceless (thus have to be escorted by various surface escorts and
submarines) thus 5-6,000 men. The 2013 cost of clothing, training, feeding, paying such numbers put the daily running costs to
USD $6.5 Million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier). If the Royal Navy deems her Captain
over-used the ship's car, then money must be tight.
But what of the aircraft the ship was built to carry? QEII is supposed to carry 36 F-35Bs (designed for US Marines) built
by US firm, Lockheed-Martin.
The F-35 programme was 7 years behind schedule and $150 Billion over-budget (perfectly acceptable in defence spending!).
Lockheed-Martin are not Boeing – and any reference to their 737 Max would be inappropriate – but when half remain grounded for
lack of spares, then one (for-the-price-of-two) costs $300 million.
The 72 aircraft for two ships adds $11 Billion. (N.B. these are their off-the-shelf price, not their whole-of-life cost).
Secondly, QE II apparently now has 12 F-35Bs and will be attached to the US Marines. British taxpayers'
money has not been well spent. I don't know how much a supersonic missile or torpedo costs, nor indeed a swarm of plastic
drones, but such an expensive ship makes for a very juicy target.
The first aircraft carrier HMS Hermes, was launched in 1919 and technology has changed in 100 years, but not strategy.
Carriers' vulnerability puts a serious counterweight to any 'prestige' they might bring to erstwhile superpowers; indeed, the
UK's prostrated serfitude to the US destroys any last pretence of British Sovereignty.
All empires fall: losing one may be a misfortune, but to lose two is pure incompetence. Australia, Canada and NZ cling on
like drowning men, weighed-down by oxymoronic military intelligence and misplaced political allegiance. Peace benefits
Humanity. Wars profit Bankers.
As per the
latest NZ Budget, our military will spend $5 Billion, doing " nothing to address poverty, homelessness, healthcare,
low income, incarceration; nor does it address climate change Military spending diverts resources. If we want genuine
socio-economic and climate justice, new thinking is essential".
Finally, man-management: the Royal Navy in 1757 executed Admiral Byng for 'failure to do his utmost'.
Voltaire considered that this was the British way "pour encorager les autres". Is it likely that the removed commander will
ever again do his utmost for King & Country?
British Secretary of Defense (Stupid Boy, Gavin Williamson) has walked the plank for breaching Cabinet duplicity, and PM
May has been given a seat on the next helicopter. Napoleon said: Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake.
andyoldlabour
Aircraft carrier = very large target.
Sink the carrier after it launches aircraft and where are the aircraft going to land?
Modern missile technology has made large ships obsolete.
William HBonney
Anti missile technology is devastatingly effective.
If carriers are sitting ducks, you'd struggle to name the
last one sunk.
harry law
An MIT security expert says that Israel's famed Iron Dome missile defense system is flawed, with a success rate
of under five percent.
During the November 2012 conflict, a detailed review of a large number of photographs of Iron Dome interceptor
contrails revealed that the rocket-defense system's success rate was very low -- as low as 5 percent or, perhaps,
even less. A variety of media outlets have attributed the low casualty number to the supposed effectiveness of
the Iron Dome system, quoting Israeli officials as saying it has destroyed 90 percent of the Hamas rockets it
targeted. But close study of photographic and video imagery of Iron Dome engagements with Hamas rockets -- both in
the current conflict and in the 2012 hostilities -- shows that the low casualties in Israel from artillery rocket
attacks can be ascribed to Israeli civil defense efforts, rather than the performance of the Iron Dome missile
defense system.
https://thebulletin.org/2014/07/the-evidence-that-shows-iron-dome-is-not-working/
Note this against Hamas 'Roman candles' not against ballistic missiles travelling at mach 10 [7,500 MPH]
mark
The last major naval engagement where US fleet carriers were under any serious threat was the invasion of the
Philippines in 1944. Of course the Japanese were not equipped with anti ship missiles at the time. There were
many instances of damage from aircraft in suicide attacks, but a single hit would not sink a fleet carrier.
From memory I believe at least one smaller escort carrier was sunk in 1945.
I think several British carriers were sunk, one by a submarine early in the war, one off Norway in 1940 and
the Ark Royal in 1941. There may have been others. Some scort carriers were also lost. Germany introduced the
first anti ship missiles in 1943, the Fritz X and Henschel 293. They were very effective in a number of attacks
off Italy, damaging the battleship Warspite and sinking a cruiser and a number of other targets, as well as the
Italian battleship Roma as it was on its way to surrender.
In Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, opposing naval forces were so weak as to be virtually non existent. Anti ship
missiles were used by Argentine forces in 1982 to sink two large vessels, the Coventry and Atlantic Conveyor, a
merchant ship converted into a makeshift aircraft carrier. The last case occurred in 2006, when Hezbollah
severely damaged and nearly sank a large Israeli warship. It appears that the missile actually failed to
explode.
Countries like Iran and DPRK are now equipped with a large number of anti ship missiles of far greater
sophistication than any previously employed in battle. There are surprises in every war, and no one can
accurately predict what will occur until battle is joined. Experienced and competent commanders expected
cavalry to play an important part in WW1. Many others doubted that armoured and mechanised forces would be
effective in WW2, because of problems of supply and command and control, or that aircraft would be capable of
sinking heavily armoured warships. But it seems reasonable to draw attention to the increasing vulnerability of
large aircraft carriers.
Yarkob
I'd also struggle to name the last conflict in which a CVG was put under any threat at all, ..the new gen of AM
(lasers) will be the nuts, but I'd still not like to be on board a ship these days in a "real" conflict.
andyoldlabour
The Japanese had 20 aircraft carriers sunk in WW", including the "unsinkable" Shinano. The US had 12 carriers
sunk in that war, and the UK lost 8.
The last aircraft carrier to be sunk, was the IJN Amagi in Kure Harbour in July 1945.
William HBonney
So, seventy four years ago
Island nations need carriers, the threat is always from the sea.
Tim Jenkins
I think you'll find that Jamaica has more jet skis, than aircraft carriers . . .
Regardless, the
biggest threats from the seas, were always the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, False Flag Pirates
and good ole' Uncle $ham's navy,
on the hunt for corporate resources to thieve . . .
Perhaps you would like to stress your brain, (rather than arguing some mathematical stupidity) and
give us all just one example of when Aircraft Carriers were used defensively, William ? Additionally,
Bill, even friendly fire and silly lil' accidents with old munitions can immobilise an aircraft carrier,
to the point where somebody like John McCain jumps ship ASAP, for example on the USS Forrestal
"I'm an old Navy pilot. I know when a crisis calls for all hands on deck,"
Sen. McCain said >>> records show otherwise !
Show some respect for others' intelligence.
mark
McCain had to be flown off the Forrestal. He was in serious danger of being lynched by his crewmates
after his negligence caused around 130 dead.
William HBonney
I have great respect for the intelligence of others, but I fear my country could become a satellite of
Russia.
The UK isn't Jamaica. It has more people, and a tradition of invention which has elevated
its position in the world.
As to aircraft carriers, they are an offensive weapon (attack being the better part of defence) ,
but always part of a carrier group. The defense of the vessel dependent on the air power of her
aircraft, and to a lesser extent the accompanying fleet.
The world is a dangerous place, don't take the freedoms we have in the UK for granted. If you doubt
that, live in an undemocratic country. I do, and it makes me love my country more.
John
"My country had become a stale lite off Russia" fuck right off you're a puppet nation as it is you
MSM led sissy
mark
The UK already is a satellite. It is a US satellite. It is more of a US satellite than the old GDR
ever was of the Soviet Union.
The world certainly is a dangerous place. I'm sure that most
Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Yemenis, Palestinians, Iranians and
Venezuelans would fully agree with you. It is a dangerous place largely because of the homicidal
antics and military adventures of rogue terrorist regimes like the USA and its satellites like the
UK as they rampage across the planet slaughtering, starving and immiserating tens of millions, like
Nazi Germany on steroids. Which even now are simultaneously threatening further criminal wars of
aggression against three of those countries.
You're certainly wise not to take freedoms for granted. They are ancient history. In the UK as
in the USA, stringent censorship is being imposed and civil liberties are being shredded.
Whistleblowers and dissidents who reveal evidence of numerous war crimes and atrocities are
increasingly subject to persecution and intimidation by a corrupt and politicised judicial system,
with a growing number of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. We are all subject to an
Orwellian system of state snooping and surveillance. Torture has bee normalised, and we have a
"Leader of the Free World" who is an enthusiastic advocate of torture, inheriting a long
established global Gulag of concentration camps, torture chambers and secret prisons in a score of
countries, including UK territory, where thousands of unfortunates have been and are being tortured
and murdered on an industrial scale.
I agree with you that you live in an undemocratic country. If that makes you love your country
more, good luck to you.
UreKismet
I dunno why they still bother with carriers, I realise the fleet bossfella likes to hang out on one, but if the navy
is still any use for escorts or carrying troops etc which it likely isn't as sea is slow and planes do most of that
stuff now, but anyway if the navy does need it's own aeroplanes for anything more than empire building I woulda
thought it would be smarter to do what my old man did in ww2.
He flew an avengerMk2 in the english fleet air arm as
escort for convoys up to Murmansk. They didn't use aircraft carriers I dunno why, prolly just not wanting to waste
resources on commies, truth be told. Instead he and his cobbers were launched into the air by steam catapult off the
foredeck of freighters.
They flew patrol looking out for nazis then landed their plane (which had floats) beside the 'mothership' and got
craned aboard.
That would seem to me to be smarter as it doesn't require putting all yer eggs in one basket. As far as the old
bastard was concerned it was better too, since the english navy appears to have learned bugger all from the battle of
Jutland in the first half of the 20th century euro war where the english navy lost lost 3 battlecruisers, 3 armored
cruisers, and 8 destroyers off the coast of Denmark in 1916.
Navy architects appear to have done nothing about protecting the cordite magazines from flash explosion in the 20+
year interregnum between the two blues, cause the HMS Hood had exactly the same design flaw of a bottleneck with
inboard cordite distribution causing lax safety practices as the boats in the Jutland debacle, resulting in the
'mighty hood' going down a coupla minutes after first being hit by a german shell. The magazine blew up, 3 men
survived and more than 1300 crew did not.
Then the ark royal, the one boat the old bugger did fly off early on in his ww2 gig, was sunk thanks to incredible
stupidity and incompetence by its leadership.
No wonder all the kiwi pilots were only too happy to take the 'shit detail' the english navy offered of flying off
freighters in the North Sea.
Building vast floating targets seems to me to have been more about admirals' penis envy than sensible strategic
planning. Useful for a handful of years in the thousands of years old arseholes have been getting young men to kill
each other, by the end of ww2 aircraft carriers had become surplus to needs and nothing has happened since then to
alter that.
Same same goes for huge nuke subs, no matter how many kazillions is spent on making them invisible, the edge is lost
in a matter of months and within a short time even small non-superpower navies know where all the genocidal,
population-killing, nuke subs are. If USuk ever do decide in a fit of lunacy to attack Iran, I betcha the Iranians
will knock off most of the big stuff (aircraft carriers, battleships and nuke subs) with a flotilla of craftily
utilised inflatables in the first few days.
All that money literally billions every year, which could be used employing citizens to do constructive stuff
within their communities gets blown in bribes, boats and bombs just so that scummy politicians and brainless navy
bosses get to show off in the most facile dick measuring contest since Churchill needed a magnifying glass and a pair
of tweezers to try and meet Uncle Joe's challenge way back when. lol.
andyoldlabour
I have to correct you about no aircraft carriers being used on the Russian convoy operation, there were several.
They were mostly converted merchant ships, with decks around 500 feet long, and carried Hurricanes, Swordfish and
Martlets.
I know this because my late uncle served on HMS Avenger.
Fair enough, my knowledge is confined to what the old man said. He was always whining about his back getting
permanently buggered by the catapult.
In defense I will say that after checking the links that the so called aircraft carriers used on the Murmansk
run all appear to be freighters converted into 'carriers' rather than purpose built ships.
I have a brother who lapped all that war stuff up who would most likely know more, the little I know was when
in some sort of weird post his karking it curiosity I bought (but never actually put together ) a model of a
fleet arm avenger Mk2 as far as I can work out he was in either 851 or 855 squadron but am not even sure of
that.
William HBonney
Salisbury (military action by an antagonistic foreign power using WMD's), demonstrates what happens if a country is
not resolute about its defence.
Sometimes that means building weapons systems capable of taking the consequences
right up to the enemies coastline.
A carrier is only a 'sitting duck' if one considers it as a single vessel, but no navy would use them like that.
They are an integrated weapons system, and kept well out of harms way. Typically, a carrier group would destroy the
means to wage war on it long before any missiles were launched at it.
John
Well we spotted the liberal shill who believes every MSM story printed. Are you antonym in his new Jew profile?
Probably
mark
Salisbury (false flag operation by out of control Spook Agencies) demonstrates what happens when we are ruled by
half wits concocting transparent provocations as a pretext for aggression.
Yarkob
"Salisbury (military action by an antagonistic foreign power using WMD's), demonstrates what happens if a country
is not resolute about its defence."
LOL
sorry, that's all your comment warranted. For a proper response, see: OffG, Craig Murray, MoA et al..
again, LOL
Northern
For a start, you're on the wrong website if you think your first statement won't go unchallenged.
All the
Salisbury incident 'demonstrated' was that Cold War spy games are still very much a part of our psychopathic
leader's toolbox. Everything else beyond that is unsubstantiated speculation of which we'll likely never know the
truth and you'd have to be either a simpleton, or a blatant liar to suggest otherwise.
I won't bother with the rest of your post because arguing the pros and cons of a Carrier's military
capabilities and application means I have to implicitly accept the terminological trick (pulled by both yourself
above, our governments and the companies that build these things) that an aircraft carrier somehow qualifies as a
'defensive' weapon.
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule. Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
and you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee!
When you realise how much money is poured into these HMS Sitting Ducks you realise just how far we have been duped
when told there is never enough money for the NHS.
Hugh O'Neill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGQ-wgPGTp8
Tut, your last paragraph reminded me of Eisenhower's "Humanity hanging from a cross of iron" speech from 1953.
Things shave got steadily worse since then.
Not if but when
Military Intelligence?
I would argue, yes, there is a lot of intelligence, because one cannot be dumb
stupid idiot when able to appropriate vast amount of vital resources to build plain criminal evil destructive
instruments of death.
Not if but when
.. put the daily running costs to USD $6.5 Million
The ship broadside, if in Australia, can be used to promote/advertise racing and gambling.
Grafter
Why are we allowing this shit to happen ?
John
Because Brits are cowards and have had decades of being told to do a Gandhi aka fuck all in regards to getting
change. Voting never changed a thing you asked for violence on the other hand does. Do you think our leaders would
listen if they knew they had a good chance of having no head left?
Not if but when
.. what power(s) do 'we' have to prevent shit from --
any shit
-- from happening?
harry law
This from the 'war nerd' describing how new missiles have made the carriers obsolete
"Every single change in technology in the past half a century has had "Stop building carriers!" written all over it.
And nobody in the navy brass paid any attention.
The lesson here is the same one all of you suckers should have learned from watching the financial news this year:
the people at the top are just as dumb as you are, just meaner and greedier. And that goes for the ones running the
US surface fleet as much as it does for the GM or Chrysler honchos. "The purpose of the Navy," Vice Admiral John
Bird, commander of the Seventh Fleet, tells me, "is not to fight." The mere presence of the Navy should suffice, he
argues, to dissuade any attack or attempt to destabilize the region. From Yokosuka, Guam, and Honolulu
That's the kind of story people are still writing. It's so stupid, that first line, I won't even bother with it: "The
purpose of the Navy is not to fight." No kidding. The Seventh Fleet covers the area included in that 2000 km range
for the new Chinese anti-ship weapons, so I guess it's a good thing they're not there to fight".
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/all/1/
Hugh O'Neill
Harry, thanks for the superb link: the war nerd takes no prisoners.
mark
In the next war, carriers will be more vulnerable to missile attack than battleships were to air attack in WW2.
Imagine a 100,000 ton carrier sinking with its air group and 5-6,000 crew, its crippled nuclear reactors poisoning
the ocean.
nwwoods
I understand that Japan recently committed to purchasing a fleet of F-35s, perhaps because they are by default
optimized for kamikaze ops.
Hugh O'Neill
Nwwoods – Great response: financial kamikaze. Divine flatulence
mark
Perhaps they could supply the captain with a bicycle instead, painted the appropriate shade of navy blue, and save a
bit of money.
These 65k ton carriers are the biggest ships ever operated by the Navy. Its battleships and fleet
carriers of WW2 were 35,000 and 25,000 tons respectively. They might as well have been named HMS White Elephant I and
II. One will be mothballed immediately (maybe they could sell it to the Chinese?) The other may operate with a much
reduced complement of a handful of aircraft (if the F35s ever work.)
This is a ludicrous prestige project that will be seen as a national embarrassment as time goes by, like the
scrapped Nimrod AEW. It reflects the delusions of our ruling elite ("What if we want to bomb North Korea?") and those
of people like Admiral West.
To operate, aircraft carriers require an escort of 5-6 frigates and destroyers and a submarine, for anti aircraft
and anti submarine defence. These won't be available. Britain has a grand total of 17 frigates and destroyers, 5 – 6
of which are out of commission undergoing refits at any one time. British frigates and destroyers are less well
equipped than their foreign counterparts. Crewing even one of these ships will be a major headache. The personnel
strength of the Navy is currently 29,000. Even the cost of fuel for operations is prohibitive. The US carriers have
nuclear reactors which only require refuelling around once every fourteen years.
It would have made much more sense to buy a few extra frigates and destroyers instead. Maybe the odd small
aircraft carrier of around 20,000 tons like the Invincible class, if they really wanted. Though most people think in
any future wars large aircraft carriers against a half competent enemy would be little more than floating coffins,
very vulnerable to the new class of anti ship missiles like the Yakhonts/ Sunburn. In recent times, they have only
been used in modern colonial style warfare against the present day equivalent of the Zulus and the Fuzzy Wuzzies.
Brave but not terribly well equipped fighting men who don't have so much as an Airfix model Spitfire for air defence.
Aircraft carriers would be terribly vulnerable if used even against countries like Iran or North Korea.
And then there are the aircraft. I think the actual unit cost of the F35 comes in at something around $400 million
a pop all in. Whether it will ever work is open to question. America has problems building aircraft that don't work.
This thing has problems with its engines, which keep conking out in mid flight, with the oxygen system, which keeps
failing with rather unfortunate consequences for the pilot, and the cannon, which won't fire because its computer
won't work. It has wings which are too small for a good fighter, and it can't bomb anything if it faces any stronger
opposition than a few tribesmen with AK47s. Apart from that, it's okay, though we probably can't afford more than a
dozen of them. The previous F22 was a similar failure. The production line was closed down after 100 – odd of them
had been made, though they were supposed to produce 1,000.
America used to produce some very good aircraft, like the F14/15/16/18. The F35 is supposed to replace them, but
the new aircraft is grossly inferior to them all. They are talking about putting the F18 and A10 back into
production. This is eerily reminiscent of the Luftwaffe in WW2, whose new aircraft projects like the Messerschmitt
210 and Heinkel 177 were flying death traps. They were forced to put obsolete aircraft like the Junkers 87 and the
Heinkel 111 back into production till the end of the war, so that they had something to fight with, however
inadequate.
Still, so long as Lockheed's profits are okay, I suppose that's the main thing. And Gavin Pugwash Williamson, or
his successor, can posture and preen about how Britain rules the waves with HMS White Elephant and its dozen Flying
Turkeys, even if they can't scrape a crew together for it. Why should England tremble?
Rhys Jaggar
HMS White Elephant was an electoral bung of Gordon Brown. Whose constituency built the damn thing?
Real warfare
now is about blasting the ionosphere to create awful weather in enemy territory. It is releasing super pests onto
other contitenrs to infest agricultural crops. It is engineering viruses to be more harmful and releasing them
abroad. It is crashing global stock markets to wipe competitors out.
Aircraft carriers had their day. In about 1945 .
I do not want proxy wars either. Not in Ukraine, not in Syria, not in North Korea, not in Venezuela.
But all our corrupt officials and representatives think wasting trillions of our money on archaic overpriced
ersatz masturbation toys is just fine and dandy.
It is not ok to sell their daughters into foreign prostitution though.
Oh no .
Mucho
By my estimations, the only way out of this mess is to buckle the machine and arrange mass withdrawal of labour.
Crash the whole rotten lot of it
Maggie
Fantastic idea, however I think you will find that many workers don't even know what or who they are working for.
Pity we can't post a list of companies?
mark
The only problem with that is that they don't need the labour any more. The proles are surplus to requirements and
can now be culled, as the Davos/ Bilderberg crew have decided. They aren't needed any more to dig coal, smelt
steel ingots, or hammer rivets in shipyards.
Mucho
it's the only weapon we have, either that, or we remain eternally enslaved by the forces of evil
Mucho
Here is a link to a CIA document showing details of the effects of millimeter waves on biological structures.
It is a translation of the original Soviet files from research done in 1977, declassified in 2012. This comes
from the Fullerton Informer, who, by my estimation, is a truly great person, a beacon of light. 5G equals
permanent exposure to this man made radiation, 24/7. This is an enormous threat to you and your family,
wherever you are. TIME TO START TAKING ACTION AGAINST THIS EVIL
https://thefullertoninformer.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/cia-millimeter-waves-1.pdf
wardropper
Re: aircraft carriers in general:
I sometimes feel that I could show up somewhere in the corridors of the Pentagon with a plan to recycle people's
shirts and underwear cheaply into some sort of instant camouflage in the event of an "enemy" guided-missile attack
upon one of "our" aircraft carriers, and there would be a high-ranking official there daft enough to fund me to the
tune of billions of dollars to develop it.
Certifiable insanity is no stranger to the military environment of modern western government.
Ramdan
"When the Way governs the world, the proud stallions drag dung carriages. When the Way is lost to the world, war
horses are bred outside the city."
"Weapons are ominous tools. They are abhorred by all creatures. Anyone who
follows the Way shuns them."
"Those who advice the ruler on the Way, do not want the world subdued with weapons."
Tao Te Ching
We live in society that grew accustomed to war and violence as the sole mean to "solve" its conflicts. The irony
of this is that now there is a hughe issue with bullying and cyber-bullying and people are still 'wondering' how was
this ever possible in a, so called, civilized society.
A 'civilized society' that still debates what's the best (more economic and efficient) way to go to war, that is, the
more efficient way to manslaughter .
wardropper
I think our main problem is that most people are, essentially, decent, whereas politicians are not.
And it's the politicians who make the decisions
Mucho
Welcome to the Age of the Stupid – we know virtually all the answers to our problems, but do the opposite for
the benefit of a few thousand of Satan's agents
wardropper
That is extremely well-said.
And I am, myself, probably sometimes guilty of what you say too, although I do try not to be.
DiggerUK
With missile capabilities at the level they have now reached, aircraft carriers are as useless as WW2 battleships
turned out to be in the 1940's.
Russia recently demonstrated the maximum tactical use they can be put to, when they
sent their one remaining carrier to Syria. Against a smaller power they give you the advantage of air superiority
when deployed as a 'pop up airfield', but against another major power they would be useless. The recent US sabre
waving in the Gulf may impress the gormless, but even Iran has the missile capability to make them worthless.
As to the racket that is war, Major General Smedley Butler published this pamphlet in 1935 based on an after
dinner speech he made. Not the finest writing, but well worth a read _
https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf
SO.
The AK's not a carrier in the conventional sense so you shouldn't really consider it as such.
Whilst it's original function might have been considered to be a nuclear launch platform (there were 500kT
nukes under it's deck) it's real purpose was as an area denial system designed to kill aircraft within it's
engagement envelope.
As such, somewhat ironically the ancient old soviet aircraft carrier is probably the only thing afloat that
could withstand a modern missile attack by itself.
mark
The AK also served another useful purpose, generating hysteria in the media, with Sid Scurvy, Ace Reporter of
the Daily Bugle, warning how Putin was about to murder us all in our beds when it came within a couple of
hundred of miles of the UJK coastline. Whilst simultaneously running pieces about how the thing was so clapped
out it was about to sink.
DunGroanin
The Anglo-Imperialists (self loving white peoples) are prepared to go down fighting.. if they can't have it, neither
can anyone else.
Time that the non- brain dead 5-eyes morons realused that we didn't win the second world war by outselves. There
were many millions of Sub-continentals, Africans and Afro-Caribbeans as well Afro-Americans, Native Americans etc.
AND the millions and millions of Russians, military and civilians, who actually stopped the Anglo-Imperialists proxy
Nazi mercenaries and wiped out their military strength. Only than did the 'Allies' make a token effort at invasion.
Aircraft carriers are totally useless in modern warfare. They are visible from the sky and vulnerable to missiles
– hypersonic and ballistic, never mind frogmen with limpets.
John
Can tell you Gott two thumbs down for the use of her word 'white'. Fucking skin colour pussies are to easy to
scare
Jen
Let me be the first to say it!
Military intelligence? Does that even exist in the context of the British armed
forces?
" Finally, man-management: the Royal Navy in 1757 executed Admiral Byng for 'failure to do his utmost' "
Yes, doing his utmost meant he should have arranged with the enemy to execute him.
Paul
Byng was the victim of politicians and the Admirality who were actually responsible for the failure to stop the
French taking Menorca by sending his fleet late and ill- equipped. It was embarrassingly obvious to most involved
that it was an unjust, vindictive and low life response. He was shot on the deck of his own ship. It was a
typically British way of doing things, when in trouble, blame somebody else and punish them. Nobody at the top is
ever to blame in Britain; it's a tradition that is still well maintained
mark
The powers that be seemed determined to uphold these traditions by treating Julian Assange as a latter day
Admiral Byng.
mark
Then, as now, shit flows downhill.
Fair dinkum
Proof.
That humans are headed for extinction.
wardropper
Unless, of course, those who believe in the human spirit are right, and further evolution lies in that direction
It looks indeed as if our physical existence at least is headed nowhere – in its current form at any rate
Maggie
So Wardropper – It appears that Brave New World was actually predictive programming? And all these years I
thought it was a fiction.
wardropper
I think we can safely relax, Maggie – somewhat.
It is certainly fiction.
So we have our fiction on one side, and our personal experience on the other.
What kind of cocktail we make of that is up to us, I reckon.
"... From what I have read, including excerpts of JCPOA, it seems that Iran's move to restart some low level enrichment is captured in the agreement as something that Iran could do if the other party(ies) are in breach of the agreement. And at this time, the US is not a party any longer and the EU is in breach by stopping any economic intercourse with Iran. ..."
"... This should be reiterated again and again, because just mentioning that Iran unilaterally is starting enrichment puts a target on their back especially in the United States of Amnesia, while they are still just doing only what is prescribed by the JCPOA. ..."
"... Bolton's lying goes with his broad contempt for the American people. He treats us like contemptible sheep, he lies to us, and then he tries to manipulate Trump into sending our sons and daughters to fight wars for his foreign buddies. ..."
"... It is indeed remarkable in a very bad way that Bolton has any credibility to speak on issues. He has a very long track record of lie after lie after lie, going back to the build up for Iraq war. Indeed, he has never acknowledged that Iraq war a monumental tragedy. ..."
John Bolton
repeats one of the Trump administration's biggest and most important lies:
Donald Trump's national security adviser said Wednesday there was "no reason" for Iran to back out of its nuclear deal with
world powers other than to seek atomic weapons, a year after the U.S. president unilaterally withdrew America from the accord.
Bolton and other administration officials have promoted the lie that Iran seeks nuclear weapons for months. Unfortunately, members
of Congress and the press have largely failed to call out these lies for what they are. There is no evidence to support the administration's
claims, and there is overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, but if they can get away with saying these things without being
challenged they may not need evidence to get the crisis that Bolton and others like him want.
In this case, the AP story just relays Bolton's false and misleading statements as if they should be taken seriously, and their
headline trumpets Bolton's dishonest insinuations as if they were credible. This is an unfortunate case of choosing the sensationalist,
eye-catching headline that misinforms the public on a very important issue. Bolton's latest remarks are especially pernicious because
they use Iran's modest reactions to Trump administration sanctions as evidence of Iran's imaginary intent to acquire weapons. The
U.S. has been trying to push Iran to abandon the deal for more than a year, and at the first sign that Iran begins to reduce its
compliance in order to push back against the administration's outrageous economic warfare Bolton tries to misrepresent it as proof
that they seek nuclear weapons. Don't fall for it, and don't trust anything Bolton says. Not only does he have a record of distorting
and manipulating intelligence to suit his purposes, but his longstanding desire for regime change and his ties to the Mujahideen-e
Khalq (MEK) make him an exceptionally unreliable person when it comes to any and all claims about the Iranian government.
The story provides some context, but still fails to challenge Bolton's assertions:
Bolton said that without more nuclear power plants, it made no sense for Iran to stockpile more low-enriched uranium as it
now plans to do. But the U.S. also earlier cut off Iran's ability to sell its uranium to Russia in exchange for unprocessed
yellow-cake uranium [bold mine-DK].
Iran has set a July 7 deadline for Europe to offer better terms to the unraveling nuclear deal, otherwise it will resume
enrichment closer to weapons level. Bolton declined to say what the U.S. would do in response to that.
"There's no reason for them to do (higher enrichment) unless it is to reduce the breakout time to nuclear weapons," Bolton
said.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration ended the sanctions waivers that enabled Iran to ship its excess low-enriched uranium
out of the country. They made it practically impossible for Iran to do what they have been reliably doing for years, and now Bolton
blames Iran for the consequences of administration actions. The administration has deliberately put Iran in a bind so that they
either give up the enrichment that they are entitled to do under the JCPOA or exceed the restrictions on their stockpile so that
the U.S. can then accuse them of a violation. Left out in all of this is that the U.S. is no longer a party to the deal and violated
all of its commitments more than a year ago. Iran has patiently remained in compliance while the only party to breach the agreement
desperately hunts for a pretext to accuse them of some minor infraction.
Iran's record of full compliance with the JCPOA for more than three years hasn't mattered to Bolton and his allies in the slightest,
and they have had no problem reneging on U.S. commitments, but now the same ideologues that have wanted to destroy the deal from
the start insist on treating the deal's restrictions as sacrosanct. These same people have worked to engineer a situation in which
Iran may end up stockpiling more low-enriched uranium than they are supposed to have, and then seize on the situation they created
to spread lies about Iran's desire for nukes. It's all so obviously being done in bad faith, but then that is what we have come
to expect from Iran hawks and opponents of the nuclear deal. Don't let them get away with it.
The reason that Iran is threatening to enrich its uranium to a higher level is that the U.S. has been relentlessly sanctioning
them despite their total compliance with the terms of the JCPOA. The Trump administration has done all it could to deny Iran the
benefits of the deal, and then Bolton has the gall to say that they have no other reason to reduce their compliance. Of course Iran
does have another reason, and that is to put pressure on the other remaining parties to the deal to find a way to get Iran the benefits
it was promised. It is a small step taken in response to the administration's own destructive policy, and it is not evidence of
anything else. Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, and it is grossly irresponsible to treat unfounded administration claims about
this as anything other than propaganda and lies.
From what I have read, including excerpts of JCPOA, it seems that Iran's move to restart some low level enrichment is captured
in the agreement as something that Iran could do if the other party(ies) are in breach of the agreement. And at this time, the
US is not a party any longer and the EU is in breach by stopping any economic intercourse with Iran.
This should be reiterated again and again, because just mentioning that Iran unilaterally is starting enrichment puts a target
on their back especially in the United States of Amnesia, while they are still just doing only what is prescribed by the JCPOA.
Bolton's lying goes with his broad contempt for the American people. He treats us like contemptible sheep, he lies to us,
and then he tries to manipulate Trump into sending our sons and daughters to fight wars for his foreign buddies.
It is indeed remarkable in a very bad way that Bolton has any credibility to speak on issues. He has a very long track record of lie after lie after lie, going back to the build up for Iraq war. Indeed, he has never
acknowledged that Iraq war a monumental tragedy.
I think NK has it right to assert that Bolton is a defective human product.
Neocon hawks are destroying US economics very effectively by supersizing military expenses and the costs of foreign wars.
Essentially Trump administration is acting in Israeli and Saudi interests in this case
Notable quotes:
"... Like many other phony administration offers to negotiate, Pompeo's proposal doesn't really include anything new or different. The administration is still insisting on the preposterous demands that the Secretary of State delivered last year. That is what Pompeo's "normal nation" reference means. In other words, the administration still expects Iranian capitulation, and they are willing to meet with Iranian officials to accept their surrender. ..."
"... Of course, this would not be a "conversation," which implies give-and-take between equals who speak to each other with respect. This would amount to something much more like a demarche where the U.S. tells Iran what it must do and then expects Iran's representatives to nod in agreement. ..."
"... Pompeo is an Iran hawk, but he is also a yes-man who seeks to curry favor with the president at all times. If he thinks that the president wants him to make diplomatic-sounding noises, he will make those noises, but it doesn't mean very much in terms of the administration's goals and means. ..."
"... Iran hawks are used to feigning interest in diplomacy while doing everything they can to undermine and poison it. As always, judge the administration by what it does and not what it happens to be saying at the moment. As long as the U.S. keeps its illegitimate sanctions in place and continues to make unrealistic and excessive demands, offers to talk are meaningless because the administration has already rendered negotiations useless. ..."
"... Pompeo is an unskilled purveyor of "smoke & mirrors" diplomacy: he thinks the world is unaware that preconditions with Iran have been in place since May 2018 when Trump unilaterally tore up the JCPOA followed by a slew of unprecedented sanctions against the Iranian people. ..."
"... Of course this statement is not for Iran, it is for the U.S. public to make the case for 'we tried' when in actuality, 'we lied'. ..."
Pompeo
made a statement about talks with Iran that is much less meaningful than it seems:
The United States is prepared to engage with Iran without pre-conditions about its nuclear program but needs to see the country
behaving like "a normal nation", U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Sunday.
Iran dismissed the offer as "word-play".
Like many other phony administration offers to negotiate, Pompeo's proposal doesn't really include anything new or different.
The administration is still insisting on the preposterous demands that the Secretary of State delivered last year. That is what
Pompeo's "normal nation" reference means. In other words, the administration still expects Iranian capitulation, and they are willing
to meet with Iranian officials to accept their surrender. The report continues:
"We are certainly prepared to have that conversation when the Iranians can prove that they want to behave like a normal nation,"
he told a joint news conference with his Swiss counterpart Ignazio Cassis.
Of course, this would not be a "conversation," which implies give-and-take between equals who speak to each other with respect.
This would amount to something much more like a demarche where the U.S. tells Iran what it must do and then expects Iran's representatives
to nod in agreement.
The Iranian government's dismissive response is to be expected. For one thing, the distrust between Washington and Tehran is
immense, so Iran's government is bound to view any offer with suspicion. The Iranian government has already explained what the U.S.
has to do if they want to talk about anything, and the administration has no intention of doing any of those things. As far as Iran
is concerned, their nuclear program isn't up for discussion, so what would be the point of meeting with U.S. officials when the
administration remains committed to its outrageous policy of economic warfare and collective punishment?
Pompeo is an Iran hawk, but he is also a yes-man who seeks to curry favor with the president at all times. If he thinks that
the president wants him to make diplomatic-sounding noises, he will make those noises, but it doesn't mean very much in terms of
the administration's goals and means.
Iran hawks are used to feigning interest in diplomacy while doing everything they can to undermine
and poison it. As always, judge the administration by what it does and not what it happens to be saying at the moment. As long as
the U.S. keeps its illegitimate sanctions in place and continues to make unrealistic and excessive demands, offers to talk are meaningless
because the administration has already rendered negotiations useless.
There is an understandable temptation to seize on comments from administration officials as proof that they are giving up on
a destructive and fruitless policy, but until the administration translates its rhetorical gestures into actions we should assume
that the policy remains unchanged.
Pompeo is an unskilled purveyor of "smoke & mirrors" diplomacy: he thinks the world is unaware that preconditions with Iran
have been in place since May 2018 when Trump unilaterally tore up the JCPOA followed by a slew of unprecedented sanctions against
the Iranian people.
The exodus of qualified State Department careerists can't be plugged by promoting the likes of
Brian Hook.
Have brought up Gabbard's sticking with the lies and false narratives regarding Russia and Ukraine, clearly one of her blind
spots in her "antiwar" political campaign, that along with the massive and unrelenting war OF terror. That letter is a rather disgusting
display of imperialist obfuscation by the duopoly political parties, fully supporting the lies about Maduro and what's happening
in VS and in effect providing cover for future actions. You can't claim to be against military action while also lying about the
reasons. Of course they can, that's how they prep the public for imperial advances. up 4 users have voted.
i totally endorse zuesse's theory, but oh my, he'd brought in a lot of moving parts at the time. paranoid conspiracy theory
or 'coincidence theory', as some brilliant mofo used to ask. (i'l think of his name later.) the russian defense ministry's contentions
are in conflict with zuesse's (buk missiles v. another jet with missiles), but i sure as hell know that the dutch report
decision in advance was bullshit. i'd think that one would have to be willfully blind to accept it at face value, esp.
if any of them like gabbard were on the defense and intel committees at the time. same with madurro's venezuela, to pretend
that it's not mainly the egregious sanctions and blockades that are responsible for the estimated 40,000 citizens who've died
for lack of medicines and food. and now their CLAP food delivery system is under attack...again.
i get that the intel they're fed is rubbish, but they all have the duty to look further than what lies they're spoon fed.
CEPR has been incredibly valuable a resource for one, and it's pretty mainstream.
but he's right about one thing: yanukovitch was overthrown due to his refusal to sign the EU association memo, and when Imperialists
speak of how 'russia stole crimea', or refuse to see why the separatists in the donbass formed their own independent nation-states,
it's utter hypocrisy.
thanks for reading and commenting, big al.
oh, and do you know if tulsi's FP is still at her house.gov site? i looked at all her press releases that were dated after
that offensive letter, but i'd found nothing new.
@wendy davis I mean, there's the establishment/government narrative and there's the truth, that's about all I need to
know. It's like that saying "trust, but verify". I say fuck that, "don't trust, and verify that".
I don't know about Gabbard's FP, she's done some housecleaning and avoided certain things since becoming the CFR's choice for
2024. Again, I've already done enough research, what, for over 3 years now?, to see what she's all about, something I failed
to do in 2007/8 regarding Obama. Lo and behold, all the clues were there just waiting to be uncovered, but I wasn't in the same
place as now.
...by the Russians, who were not allowed to participate in the Dutch investigation. The information and data was presented
to the Dutch and to the Western media in September 2018. Everything one could hope to see in physical evidence is here. There
is additional evidence not in this article that adds to the details and forensics presented here.
This information was not published in the West or in the Vassal State of Netherlands. The US possesses satellite photos of
the incident. But it has classified those photos and refuses to release them.
As for means, motive and opportunity:
• MH17 was shot down over Ukraine, not over Russia.
• It was shot down with a missile owned by Ukraine, not by Russia.
• It had propaganda value for Ukraine and its CIA masters, none for
• The missile was fired from territory controlled by the neo nazi Kiev regime.
But the best evidence of what took place, as far as I'm concerned, is right here:
Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, falling in the rebel-held part of
the country. The crash claimed the lives of 283 passengers and 15 crew members, most of them Dutch nationals. Russia
was blamed by Western media in the first days after the tragedy, even before any evidence had been collected on the ground.
and thank you. your memory is prodigious, and having the 2018 RT news is srsly helpful, as is your M,M, & O formula. blame
first, then fail to allow russia (and malaysia) to be able to run investigations. good to know as well that the malaysian minister
knew of the serial numbers and that ukraine owned the missiles.
eric zuesse had said that even dutch journalists were raising havoc with the JIT back in the day. but just think what this
false blame resulting in mega-sanctions began, then onto the skripals, russia-gate in many guises, and tra la la.
mr. wd laughed this mornin' and said he wishes he had a choice to vote for sergei lavrov for prez; i second that!
dunno if the EU still wants a compact with ukraine, but NATO sure wants the neo-nazi nation as a member. ping: if i have
the energy and time, i'll try to find in zuesse's tome admissions by snipers in 2014, as well.
Must admit I didn't hunt down her Ukraine position, but my personal take is Obummer and the CIA set out to foment problems
and managed to get a fascists regime elected in order to oppose Russia. The new Ukrainian president may take things in a more
pro-Russia direction?
site, at her election site. well, check out Russia , for now. and i do thank you; i was lookin' in all the wrong places.
; )i'll check out more soon as i have time, but zounds: russia: crimea, the nation's interference in our election, wooof. of
course jill stein raised boatloads of bucks for recounts in three states on the basis of russian interference, later 'foreign
interference' against the wishes of the green party board and her own running mate, so...there's that, but it was just a dodge
against trump winning, not hillary. sorry, tulsi.
for being in such a hurry i hadn't even registered your speculation about zelenskiy, but nah, he wants crimea and the donbass
self-declared republics that Putin stole from him...back. he's being lauded and applauded for 'standing up to KGB Putin'. ;
)
and the IMF's bailin' em out again so they have enough to pay their NATO dues and join the EU. (just saw that tryin' to remember
how to sorta spell the comic's name.)
maybe it was passengers', was returned to Malaysia ... but in a sealed coffin, that even family members were refused to open.
At the time an OSCE member was the first to arrive at the crash site. Some 20 minutes after the downing. The photos taken
by him, or so it was attributed, showed round holes (not shrapnel) shot in the pilot area. Sorry I don't have any links handy
on either of these, but I'm pretty sure this is correct.
as i understand it, the hole size was not in contention. but weather it had been the pilot or a passenger: '...but in a sealed
coffin, that even family members were refused to open.'
is that perhaps a malaysian custom? is the truth out there somewhere?
eric zuesse remind us, the holes in the cockpit were likely from machine guns on the ukrainian fighter jet sent to make sure
the ukie buk missiles had (omg) killed the plane, which if i'm getting it right (a big IF) was changing direction as it went
down. my apologies for not getting all the moving parts and claims right on this thread.
but the 21st century wire shows charts and evidence that the flight crew was ordered to change course by the air traffic
control tower (as per the later censored bbc plus recordings).
...was involved in the downing of MH17, which was the opinion of many aviation experts and others, who found bullet holes
in the cockpit, wings, and fuselage. This in addition to Buk damage.
Recordings were captured by multiple sources of a frightened and stressed Ukrainian pilot, who radioed, "I shot the wrong
plane!" He sounded as if he was commanded to shoot down a military target plane and was misled into shooting a passenger jet.
That pilot, named Voloshyn, later committed suicide.
The typical recollection of the incident is:
A fighter was also sent up to 'make sure' the target plane was shot down. If I remember rightly, the plane was hit, but
was still flying and it began to turn back. If the plane story (which I tend to believe) is true, it's at that point that
the fighter jet opened fire on the cockpit and wings.
That would also account for Buk damage to the Boeing, as well as fighter machine gun damage to the cockpit.
You can find many references to this incident along with transcripts of the conversation between the fighter pilot and the
ground base.
video confessions from the snipers at maidan (i assume ukrainians firing on protestors in front of the trades union building
that was eventually...burned to the ground.
but this?
"For instance, Moscow said a theory was never tested that the airliner could have been downed by a fighter jet spotted
by Russian radar stations near flight MH17. The theory was later proven false by the discovery of debris from the Buk rocket.
Though Russia doesn't possess those black boxes ( which, by chance, were handed by the pro-Russian separatists to the
Malaysian Government's representative, and yet that Government handed them to Netherland's Government instead of to Russia's
-- apparently trusting Netherlands more than trusting Russia or even themselves), Russia does possess, and publicly reveals,
evidence that's conclusive on its own; and it is 100% consistent with Haisenko's reconstruction of the event, regardless
whether a Buk was involved or not."
one of his links went to ' MH17 Verdict: Real Evidence Points to US-Kiev Cover-up of Failed False Flag '
July 25, 2014 , 21stcenturywire.com
"As MH17 moved into Ukrainian air space, it was moved by ATC Kiev approximately 200 miles north – putting it on a new
course, heading directly into a war zone, a well-known dangerous area by now – one that's hosted a number of downed military
craft over the previous 3 weeks. Robert Mark, a commercial pilot and editor of Aviation International News Safety magazine,
confirmed that most Malaysia Airlines flights from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur would normally travel along a route significantly
further south than the route MH17 was diverted onto.
Data on all airline flight records can be found here. The BBC reported on July 17th: " Ukraine's SBU security service
has confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner,
a source in Kiev has told Interfax news agency."
a great (and lengthy) collaborative investigation by 21st century wire. thanks, obomba, thanks, tulsi, thanks Pierre and
vickie nuland. and even the new guy can't control his neo-nazis. but then again, at least yulia tymoshenko didn't win.
but NATO will add them to the roster soon, which is one of the reasons that the atlantic council had recommended him: to
root out poroshenko's oligarchs' corruption.
but i almost wish i hadn't it's sooooo long and full of twists and turns, news reports, videos, but in general the theme
is that mikhail saakashvilli hired them, then stiffed them.
' The "Snipers' Massacre" in Kiev -- Another False Flag? ',
January
13, 2015 , granvillepost.com, eric zuesse
you may remember him best john Mccains buddy: 'today we are all georgians'? like ahmed chalabi, he's the proverbial bad penny
who keeps returning in whatever guise needed (after expulsions), and the
big news this week is that zelenskiy's reinstated his ukrainian
citizenship after promising to give up his former ambitions and work with the new prez.
"... Pompeo has shown some unexpected political savvy by distancing himself from the doomed "peace plan," which appears to be little more than a scheme to buy Palestinian capitulation through a combination of promises of Arab money and political strong-arming from the Gulf States and Israel. ..."
On May 28, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in New York City for a closed-door meeting with
the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. In remarks that were
covertly recorded and passed along to the Washington Post, Pompeo effectively declared that the
Middle East peace plan conjured by First Son-in-Law Jared Kushner was a non-starter and would
be rejected by most parties.
Instead of the "deal of the century" touted by President Donald
Trump, Pompeo conceded that the peace scheme was a losing proposition. "I get why people think
this is a deal that only Israel could love. I understand the perception of that. I just hope
everyone will give the space to listen and settle in a bit." Pompeo continued his blunt
remarks: "I don't want to call it failing. Call it whatever. I fail a lot, so it's not about
using a word like that."
Pompeo admitted that the State Department is giving a good deal of
attention to what to do next if the Kushner Plan flops.
Until Prime Minister-elect Benjamin Netanyahu failed to put together a majority cabinet this
week and had to call snap elections for September, it had been expected that the long-awaited
Kushner Plan would be rolled out this month. Now the launch date is delayed until late
September or early October after a new Israeli government is formed and sworn in.
Pompeo has shown some unexpected political savvy by distancing himself from the doomed
"peace plan," which appears to be little more than a scheme to buy Palestinian capitulation
through a combination of promises of Arab money and political strong-arming from the Gulf
States and Israel.
Western corporate mass media is cherry-picking what China has said: "Restrictions
imposed by the UN Security Council on Iran have been fully implemented in the HKSAR under the
United Nations Sanctions [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – Iran] Regulation
[Chapter 537BV of the Laws of Hong Kong]."
"Woohoo! China's on our side! They are backing US sanctions!" -gullible American
mass media consumer
Fake western "journalists" leave out the very next three sentences: "However, the UN
Security Council has not imposed any restrictions on the export of petroleum from Iran.
Certain countries may impose unilateral sanctions against certain places on the basis of
their own considerations. Those sanctions are outside the scope of the UN Security Council
sanctions implemented by the HKSAR."
In other words, "Go f#$k yourselves, you exceptional fools!" , though of
course the Chinese are too polite to say that outright.
"... By putting Mr. Biden forward as the establishment presidential candidate, the Democrats affirm that they see themselves well-served by reactionary illiberalism. Otherwise, their rhetorical rejections of white nationalism and xenophobia could be supported by robust critiques of their own policies of the last four decades and a well-considered political program to counter their consequences could be put forward. But Mr. Biden is the antithesis of both. ..."
Two related tendencies have sown confusion over the crisis of liberalism that continues to
unfold across the U.S. and Europe. On the one hand, the forces of the political right are
ascendant. Right-wing leaders are being elected as an apparent rebuke of the serial failures of
neoliberalism. On the other, the will of the polity is increasingly irrelevant to the
formulation and concerns of nominally public policies.
In the U.S., the political establishment continues to put forward candidates which its
functionaries appear to believe can best perpetuate this illusion of democracy. Befuddlement at
the rise of reactionary forces is met with an increasingly strident insistence that there is
nothing to react against, that all is well if people would only shut up and follow the
directions of their betters.
Despite the conspicuous failures of the existing order here and abroad -- a series of
murderous vanity wars intermingled with economic crises of increasing scale and scope, the
seemingly unstoppable trajectory toward full-blown environmental crisis, nuclear weapons that
serve as background psychic violence and political economy that is organized to milk the polity
dry at every opportunity, the political powers-that-be seek to perpetuate this radically
dysfunctional status quo.
In this environment, the rise of illiberal, reactionary forces seems not only predictable,
but to be the ugly cousin of the neoliberal resolve that all is well. Adding insult to injury
is the insistence that the neoliberal order, the bi-partisan governance that fronts for the
oligarchs, bears no responsibility for the consequences of four decades of neoliberal rule. It
is the polity's unwillingness to comport with the dictates of rule by and for the oligarchs
that is the point of contestation, goes the chide.
An entire functionary class that smiled and nodded approvingly when Bill Clinton
launched his 1992 presidential bid at Stone Mountain, Georgia, birthplace of the twentieth
century KKK, while standing in front of neatly ordered black prisoners, is mystified by the
re-emergence of white nationalism. And while the Clinton / Biden
1994 Crime Bill wasn't exactly a white nationalist manifesto, it inflicted more racially
targeted human misery than the late twentieth century Klan ever could have hoped for.
If enacting punitive measures against the poor is separable from the full throated and
bi-partisan endorsement of the quasi-market -- heads, the rich win, tails, everyone else loses,
economics of neoliberalism, where is the evidence? And how, precisely, does this con recover
from the panicked giveaways of 2009 when the '
runway was foamed ' with the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of working people
and poor to prevent oligarchs from losing their fifth yacht or their seventh vacation home?
The alternative to the vile misdirection of xenophobia would be for the oligarchs and their
servants in the political class to confess that their faux-market economics -- trade agreements that created the
asymmetry of mobile capital and immobilized labor, was a tragic mistake that displaced millions
of workers for the benefit of the oligarchs. With honest accounting of what happened and who is
responsible 'off the table,' xenophobia appears to be the preferred tactic of the
oligarchs.
The farce of Democratic Party functionaries shouting 'racist' at the thoroughly predictable
fruit of their labors has subsided with the political ascendance of Joe Biden to complicate the
line between white nationalism and liberal loathing of the audience it helped create. The
neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville were / are white nationalists. But what does this make
professional-class liberals who supported the Clinton / Biden 1994 'Crime' Bill under feigned
ignorance of its racial subtext?
The sub-textual connotation of the term 'dog whistle' behind the Crime Bill doesn't do
justice to the social violence of its facts. The subject-object relation of the political
panderer to his / her audience carries with it the moral formulation 1) we agree that overt
racism is objectionable because 2) if it weren't, we wouldn't be opaque expressing it. But how
is this not to assert that race represents a real, as opposed to manufactured, line of
division, something akin to the white nationalist's premise of its essential character?
The dog-whistle is, to the extent that there is an audience for it in the terms given,
politically motivated misdirection. The speaker won't be explicit if the audience is clear as
to the true meaning of what is being said. But isn't this even more insidious than the
straightforward (if ontologically implausible) claim of essential difference by race? The
rhetorical layer of 'crime' gives a social logic to a host of punitive consequences. With the
Crime Bill, the Clintons and Joe Biden grievously harmed the lives of hundreds of thousands, if
not millions, of human beings.
There is, of course, a long history behind this relation of law and racial repression. Law,
the legislative, judicial, policing and penal functions, was used to maintain the institution
of slavery and later, following the Civil War, to recreate its broad contours for purposes of
economic taking. Convict leasing, Black Codes, Jim Crow and mass incarceration are part of an
historical trajectory. However, to the point made by Adolph Reed, degree matters -- current
conditions aren't analogous to those of the Jim Crow South or slavery.
But with this history behind it, what legitimate basis is there for the sub-textual use of a
relation of race to criminality? As the patriarch of modern political marketing, did Bill
Clinton really believe that there was no racial subtext to his vile stunt at Stone Mountain?
More pointedly, through promoting the compound storyline of race and crime, how is Mr. Clinton
not promoting a slightly more complex, and insidious, version of white nationalist
'difference?' Alternatively, if crime has a social basis, why would proposed solutions be
punitive rather than restorative?
All of this could be ancient history if it didn't exist at the center of current travails.
Without an accounting of the failures of liberalism, these compound storylines from history
provide the rhetorical core of contemporary politics. It is hardly coincidental that Joe Biden
is 1) a dedicated corporatist, 2) a long-time purveyor of racist tropes, 3) the Democrats
latest, if improbable, hope for restoration of the neoliberal order.
Joe Biden opposed the racial integration of public schools. He wrote most of the Clinton's
1994 Crime Bill. He was an enthusiastic proponent of NAFTA. He joined the Clintons to support
George W. Bush's catastrophic war against Iraq. And he supported the TPP (Trans-Pacific
Partnership) until the very end. He authored many, if not most, of the policies of modern
liberalism / neoliberalism that are being contested.
By putting Mr. Biden forward as the establishment presidential candidate, the Democrats
affirm that they see themselves well-served by reactionary illiberalism. Otherwise, their
rhetorical rejections of white nationalism and xenophobia could be supported by robust
critiques of their own policies of the last four decades and a well-considered political
program to counter their consequences could be put forward. But Mr. Biden is the antithesis of
both.
The Democrats co-invented identity politics to defer blame for the consequences of their
policies. If they cared about combatting racism and xenophobia, none of the Democratic Party
establishment would be considered for public office. The rhetorical distinction between dog
whistles and white nationalism begs the question of what objective dog whistles are intended to
convey. These aren't precisely the same. Dog whistles are more insidious in that they include
compound storylines (e.g. race and criminality) that are more onerous to disentangle.
White nationalism is frightening for its direct ties to the history of racialized violence.
However, the scientific racism that served as the 'natural' basis for alleged racial difference
used by the Nazis was an American invention. Its proponents were the professional class of the
late nineteenth and early twentieth century. And the intersection of these two tendencies, the
brutal, barely reflexive racial loathing of the Stone Mountain KKK and the educated, liberal
use of racist subtexts to facilitate 'respectable' racism amongst the modern professional
class, is the apparent point of Bill Clinton's 1992 photo op.
At what point is politics about leading rather than manipulating people via a shared
vocabulary? Phrased differently, how is this shared vocabulary not tied to consensus around the
logic it represents? So-and-so understands the logic of racism well enough to convey it through
coded language and still chooses to perpetuate it for political gain. Why not give his audience
the benefit of the doubt and use this understanding to challenge the logic?
The broader backdrop of an ascendant political right in Europe emerges from a similar
unwillingness / inability of European liberals / neoliberals to atone for the consequences of
their policies and develop alternative political programs. Xenophobia is portrayed as arising
from the shadows of twentieth-century European history as a moral failing of the polity rather
than the manufactured, and predictable, political crisis that it is.
As with the American refugee 'crisis' arising from U.S. military interventions in Central
America, the refugee crisis across Europe is the product of American / NATO led military
incursions in the region as well as economic dislocations emerging from the structure of the EU
(European Union). One reason why George H.W. Bush decided against occupying Iraq after the
first Gulf War was for fear of destabilizing the region. This fear was realized when George W.
Bush, with widespread support from the Democratic Party establishment, launched the U.S. war
and occupation of Iraq.
Furthermore, as has been addressed ad infinitum over the last decade, through the creation
of the EU, member nations exchanged fiscal sovereignty for membership in a trading bloc. When
crisis struck, the inability of member nations to respond with fiscal stimulus meant that
'externally' imposed austerity was the only alternative. This flawed structure supported the
interests of some member nations (Germany) against those of the European periphery. This
institutionalized class warfare, carried out under the cover of fiscal probity, has led to
widespread questioning of the nature and purpose of the liberal institutions the EU
represents.
Across the U.S. and Europe cottage industries have arisen proclaiming critiques of the EU,
globalism and liberalism / neoliberalism to be the work of nascent fascists and neo-fascists.
While historical parallels exist, missing is analysis of the parallel failures (then and now)
of neoliberal policies as well as a social accounting for the consequences of these
failures.
More pointedly, such claims require historical parsing that lacks a cohesive logic outside
of political posturing. American slavery and genocide against the indigenous population
constituted the initial conditions of American industrial success going into the early
twentieth century. Considered in combination with the scientific racism of eugenics,
contemporaneous American imperial endeavors and oligarchic control over the U.S. economy going
into the Great Depression, the Nazi political program looked
remarkably similar to the American program .
Additionally, the genesis of racialized violence in economic relations has been materially
misrepresented in current accounts of the rise of European fascism. This history is given
substance in Howard Zinn's
A People's History of the United States . Mr. Zinn provides evidence of race being
knowingly used by capitalists to divert attention away inconvenient class interests. This
history places the modern Democrat's use of identity politics in a different light. Dog
whistles and identity politics are premised in pre-existing and concrete racial divisions.
In contrast to white nationalism, these divisions can have a social basis, rather than in
'nature.' This would seem to make racial identity more malleable, and therefore more amenable
to being resolved. But as establishment Democrats demonstrated through their use of dog
whistles and racialized policies, rhetorical compounding can put a superficially respectable
face on racialized violence. The professional class can respond to 'crime' without considering
its history as a strategy of racialized economic taking, its genesis in capitalist class
relations, or the violence inherent in policing and incarceration.
The Democrat's apparent strategic confusion in putting Joe Biden forward as the
establishment candidate should put an end to identity politics as more than cover for the class
interests that the Democrats represent. The studied ignorance embedded in the question: 'If we
broke up the big banks tomorrow would that end racism' is oblivious to the relationship between
Bill Clinton's neoliberal programs and his racially targeted public policies. Given the
historical use of racial division as a tool of class control, the correct answer is yes,
breaking up the big banks would be a step toward ending racism.
None of this is to pick on the Democrats per se. Republicans have long fostered / aligned
with white nationalism. But again, given the historical genesis of the idea of race, what this
suggests is that both political parties serve the interests of capital. Moral distinctions
between pandering to white nationalists and the use of dog whistles and racially targeted
public policies depend on parsing history in ways that the political elevation of Joe Biden
calls into question.
The bitter rhetorical battle over the use, or even the theoretical coherence, of identity
politics, has had no apparent impact on the Western political establishment's march into the
abyss. A quick bet is that part of the political calculus behind the elevation of Mr. Biden is
that he wouldn't hesitate to use dog whistles, racially divisive language and xenophobia if he
thought it would help him win the election. The conceit that such would only be a tactic was
belied when Bill Clinton used it to craft punitive policies like ending welfare and the Crime
Bill.
The West, led by liberal / neoliberal establishments, is in a terrible way. As recent
European elections demonstrate, the rise of hard-right governments has followed serial public
disappointment with their liberal / neoliberal predecessors. Far from being irrational
rejection of functioning liberalism, it is the inability of liberals to accept and address the
consequences of their own mal-governance that is leading the move rightward.
Bill Clinton's answer to Reaganism was to triangulate Reaganite policies from the right. Joe
Biden is a product of this same time, place and ethos. Whomever the Democrat's choice for
president ends up being, without a fundamental redistribution of political power, the outcome
will be the same -- a long march into the political abyss.
Ex-chief of Israel's national intelligence agency Meir Dagan had an interesting answer to
the question if Lubavitchers serve in the Mossad.
By COLlive reporter
Are there Lubavitcher chassidim serving in the Mossad?
This candid question was presented to Meir Dagan , the former director of the national
intelligence agency of Israel, during a private meeting in Jerusalem, on Tuesday.
Dagan, who served under 3 prime ministers and was an officer in the Israel Defense Forces
(IDF), was chatting with donors following the inauguration of a new career development center
for frum Jews.
During the conversation about the employment of haredi Jews in the country's many security
branches, Dagan was asked whether Lubavitchers serve in the Mossad.
His reply: "You will be surprised to know how many haredim serve in the Mossad."
Dagan added that aside from the employment of chassidim in a professional capacity, the
Chabad organization provides spiritual assistance at Mossad's central commend in Tel Aviv.
"Chabad gets a Yashar Koach (kudos) because thanks to them the synagogue at the Mossad
command was renovated and we now have a luxurious shul."
As reported in the past, Dagan had a friendly relationship with a Shluchim couple in Belarus
when he underwent a successful liver transplant in 2012.
"The Chabad House in Minsk, (a city which) its Jewish history is known to all, became my
home," said Dagan who was born on a train between the Soviet Union and Poland during the
Holocaust. "Rabbi Schneur Deitsch and his wife will remain forever engraved in my heart."
The Rebbe's unknown ties to the head of the Mossad and their assistance to Chabad's
educational and outreach activities in the Former Soviet Union were mapped out in the Hebrew
book "The Rebbe and the Mossad," published in 1998.
The inside story of the Rebbe's involvement in Israel's security, as told by its defense and
government leaders, is told in JEM's documentary film Faithful and Fortified – Volume
1.
"... They will be the ones to blackmail Europe and Germany if Europe becomes dependent on LNG from the U.S. So everything U.S. administrations are yelling at others is just projection, one knows immediately that it is in fact what the U.S. is doing under the veil or will be doing when the need/opportunity will arise. ..."
"... Trump is not an aberration, it is just how the U.S. always behaved, but now it is in the open, for all to see, the crassness and the bullying. ..."
"... Germany is the linchpin of the world and the U.S. (and others) is becoming hysterical at the possibility of not keeping the Germans down any longer… ..."
"... American Jewish intellectuals have really jumped the shark since the Iraq War. The most outlandish, slandering statements are stuffed into their essays and they trash whole peoples at the slightest “offence” to their worldview. ..."
If Daenerys Targaryen had announced her desire to use her last dragon to torch Moscow and
Saint Petersburg, the Neocons would have lionized her as the womanly exemplar of democracy
and wise foreign policy that produces peace and justice for all.
Neocons are very much the evil they call us to battle.
I had to rub my eyes with incredulity when I read that.
If Russia wants to weaken Ukraine, why did it ever build a pipeline through it in the first
place? Russia didn't stop using the Ukraine pipeline intially for political reasons. It was
because Ukraine was stealing gas meant for pass-through to other European countries and it
wasn't paying its bills. Don't pay your utility bills and see what happens.
Russia does not want to "control" Germany with Nord Stream, it wants to make money. And
Germany wants cheap gas. Strictly business.
And how can Russia control Germany with Nord Stream when it knows that the first time it
shuts off gas for political reasons would be the last. Because Russia knows that Germany will
find alternative suppliers and never come back. The Russians ain't stupid.
Russia wants bilateral trade with Europe without the Global Cop Gorilla perpetually in the
background arrogant calling the shots.
The final reconciliation of Europe and Russia should have occurred 25 years but didn't
because the ham-fisted United States threw up the fear-monger barriers. And that was because
its National Security States wants an existential "enemy" to justify its massive costs.
The sooner Europe ejects the U.S. War Machine from its territories the better. Better for
Europe, better for Russia and better for the American taxpayers.
I am with SteveM here. And I was shocked to see MarkVA’s comment. Mark has proved to
be a respectable commentator, especially on Rod’s Blog, with very astute and sensible
observations. It seems that tribalism is clouding his judgment when observing the world outside
the U.S.
It is well known that the Soviets and the Russians always keep their end of the bargain and
they know if they don’t do so they will end up loosing and being vilified. Whereas the
U.S. always breaks its agreements, it is not thrust worthy (not agreement capable). Imagine
depending on such an economic partner?!
They will be the ones to blackmail Europe and Germany if Europe becomes dependent on LNG
from the U.S. So everything U.S. administrations are yelling at others is just projection, one
knows immediately that it is in fact what the U.S. is doing under the veil or will be doing
when the need/opportunity will arise.
Trump is not an aberration, it is just how the U.S. always behaved, but now it is in the
open, for all to see, the crassness and the bullying.
Germany is the linchpin of the world and the U.S. (and others) is becoming hysterical at
the possibility of not keeping the Germans down any longer… And Germany is moving
ahead. It just sacrificed West Bank, and declared the BDS movement illegal as a soap to
Israelis, to burnish its credentials with those blackmailers, so that it will become free to
re-orient its politics and strategic configuration as it needs and wants.
fabian, May 23, 2019 at 2:33 pm
Gas? Where is the problem? Russian gas is cheaper that’s it. Furthermore, there is
another pipeline that’s going to bring gas from the Mediterranean to Europe and another
from Qatar.
And if all else fails and Russia flexes its muscles (which ones by the way) do you think
that the over-indebted America will not sell its gas to the Germans?
And yes, it’s not a good strategy to be too dependent on America. It quickly takes the
goods away when its interests are at stake.
Tiktaalik, May 24, 2019 at 5:14 pm
@MarkVA
>>The Nord Stream I and II gas pipe lines (aka Molotov-Ribbentrop Gas Lines), a
Gazprom initiative, has everything to do with weakening Ukraine and increasing German energy
dependence on Russia;
How could NS increase German energy dependence on Russia? It will be the very same gas which
at the moment flows through the Ukraine.
Surely, NS would decrease anybody’s dependence from the Ukraine. So what?
Tiktaalik, May 24, 2019 at 5:18 pm
@MarkVA
>>Oh, and some lesser European countries were partitioned by the important European
countries. So yes, Europe was quite busy spreading joy and happiness all around:
It’s a bit rich when it’s coming from an American. You’re still in
Plymouth, right?
Kouros, May 24, 2019 at 11:35 pm
@MarkVA (May 23, 2019 at 8:12 pm )
That was a hit with the posting on Ukraine…
To bad it wasn’t accompanied by the Recognition of the US administration that the
Golan Heights, taken from Syria by Israel after a war, against all worlds dictum, now belongs
to Israel.
At least in Crimea, which by administrative fiat was moved within USSR from Russia to
Ukraine in the 1950s, there was a referendum.
And for me, US is Devil Incarnate since it put a target of nuclear missiles on my mother
country. May the curse of a 1000 hells be upon it.
Josep, May 25, 2019 at 5:05 am
Reading sites like Russia Insider gave me the notion that Germany would be better off as
allies with Russia than with the USA. After all, Russia and Germany:
* are on the metric system
* have languages that use grammatical gender
* share the same 220-volt “Schuko” power plugs and sockets
* implement Civil Law, and most importantly
* aren’t separated by a whole ocean.
American Jewish intellectuals have really jumped the shark since the Iraq War. The most
outlandish, slandering statements are stuffed into their essays and they trash whole peoples at
the slightest “offence” to their worldview.
There are strong anti-German currents in American culture and politics, going back to at
least WW1 and also manifest today (no other treaty ally is treated with such dismissive
hostility by the Trump administration as Germany). But they are regarded as completely normal
and rarely get critical attention, whereas German anti-Americanism is treated as a pathology or
some kind of sacrilege…the German-American relationship (calling it
“friendship” is a lie) is profoundly asymmetrical.
Agreed in both counts. The casual anti-white racism thrown about by the likes of such people
(let’s not forget Davids Medienkritik, Little Green Footballs, Grouchy Old Cripple and
Dissident Frogman) is a lot scarier than any jumpscare I’ve encountered. And in the case of
German_reader’s comment, It’d be interesting to consider how Trump reconciles his
hostility towards Germany with his own German heritage.
At one point in the Iraq War, the German news outlet Der Spiegel had readers rate their
opinion of president Bush on their website on a scale of 1 (most favorable) to, if I recall
correctly, 6 (least favorable). After seeing public opinion of Bush in Germany overwhelmingly
“least favorable”, users of FreeRepublic went to this poll and attempted to
gerrymander the results by selecting “most favorable”, deleting their site cookies,
and repeating so as to make it look like more people in Germany supported Bush than opposed. This
was called “freeping”.
"Those who advocate Multiculturalism seem to have lost an important instinct towards
group -- and thus genetic -- preservation. Once a society, as a whole, espouses
Multiculturalism as a dominant ideology then the society is acting against its own genetic
interests and will ultimately destroy itself."
Ed Dutton
Watching his incredibly entertaining Jolly Heretic You Tube channel, it's easy to
forget that Ed Dutton is also an extremely serious, and increasingly prolific, researcher,
author, and scientist. The recent publication by Arktos of Dutton's Race Differences in
Ethnocentrism follows closely in the wake of Dutton's At Our Wits' End: Why We're
Becoming Less Intelligent and What it Means for the Future (2018), How to Judge People
by What They Look Like (2018), J. Phillipe Rushton: A Life History Perspective
(2018), and The Silent Rape Epidemic: How The Finns Were Groomed to Love Their Abusers
(2019). In Race Differences in Ethnocentrism, Dutton, who has collaborated with Richard
Lynn on a number of occasions, builds impressively on the work of the latter and has offered,
in this text, one of the most informative, formidable, pressing, intriguing, and poignant
monographs I've read in years.
ORDER IT NOW
Dutton's book is a work of science underscored by an inescapable sense of social and
political urgency, and has been explicitly prompted into being by the need to address two
questions "particularly salient during a period of mass migration": 'Why are some races more
ethnocentric than others?' and, most urgently of all, 'Why are Europeans currently so low in
ethnocentrism?' In attempting to answer these questions, Dutton has designed a book that is
accessible to readers possessing even the most modest scientific knowledge, without
compromising on academic rigor or the use of necessary scientific language. The text is
helpfully replete with explanatory commentary and useful rhetorical illustrations, and its
opening four chapters are dedicated exclusively to placing the study in context and exploring
the nature of the research itself. This is a book that can, and should, be read by
everyone.
In the brief first chapter, Dutton explains ethnocentrism or group pride as taking two main
forms. The first, positive ethnocentrism, involves "taking pride in your ethnic group or nation
and being prepared to make sacrifices for the good of it." Negative ethnocentrism, on the other
hand, "refers to being prejudiced against and hostile to members of other ethnic groups."
Typically, a highly ethnocentric person or group will demonstrate both positive and negative
ethnocentrism, although it is very common for people and groups to be high in one aspect of
ethnocentrism but not in the other. It is also apparent that some countries and ethnic groups
are very high in both forms of ethnocentrism while others are extremely low in the same. The
author sets out to explore how and why such variations and differences have occurred, and are
still fluctuating. This is clearly a piece of very novel research. Dutton remarks that "there
exists no systematic attempt to understand why different ethnic groups may vary in the extent
to which they are ethnocentric." Dutton's foundation is built on a deep reading of existing
literature on the origins and nature of ethnocentrism, pioneered to some extent by R. A. LeVine
and D. T. Campbell in the 1970s, and built upon most recently by Australia's Boris Bizumic.
These scholars advanced the argument that ethnocentrism was primarily the result of conflict.
Another highly relevant theory in the study of ethnocentrism has been the concept of 'inclusive
fitness,' which argues that ethnocentrism provides a method for indirectly passing on one's
genes.
Dutton closes his introductory chapter by providing an interesting overview of historical
observations of differences in ethnocentrism. During the so-called 'Age of Discovery,'
Europeans encountered large numbers of different and distant tribes, and many remarked on the
reception they received from these groups. Some, such as the natives of Hawaii and the Inuit
were noted as being extremely friendly, while the negrito tribes of the Andaman Islands, near
India, remain notoriously hostile to outsiders, shoot arrows at passing aircraft, and kill
intruding foreigners, including
an American missionary in November 2018 . The Japanese appear throughout history to have
combined a moderate level of negative ethnocentrism with very high levels of positive
ethnocentrism, resulting in a society typified by high levels of social harmony and in-group
co-operation, and willing sacrifice for the nation in times of war. By contrast, the
Yąnomamö tribe of Venezuela are very high in negative ethnocentrism but very low in
positive ethnocentrism, resulting in a society riddled with lawlessness, extreme violence, poor
social harmony, and an inability to form stable social structures of any kind. Differences in
general levels of ethnocentrism are important because, as Dutton points out, those societies
most welcoming of outsiders were subsequently colonized and fundamentally and permanently
changed by migration. Meanwhile, those societies that displayed extreme hostility to outsiders
have remained almost intact, and remain unchanged even centuries after the European 'Age of
Discovery.'
In the second chapter, Dutton answers the question 'What is 'Race'?' Although many of our
readers will be familiar with most of the material presented in this chapter, it is
nevertheless a very well-presented defense of the concept of race and its unabashed employment
as a scientific system for categorizing and studying humans. In Dutton's presentation, 'race'
is employed to refer to what in the animal kingdom would be a subspecies: a breeding population
separated from another of the same species long enough to be noticeably evolved to a different
environment but not long enough to be unable to have fertile offspring with the other group.
After discussing the processes through which different races or subspecies evolve, Dutton
offers a summary of historical taxonomies of race, before finally answering a number of
criticisms of the concept of race. In the third chapter, and following much the same framework,
Dutton sets out to answer the question, 'What is Intelligence?' Here Dutton answers a number of
criticisms of the concept of intelligence, particularly as they relate to Blacks, before moving
to a discussion of race differences in intelligence. The debt to Richard Lynn's research is
quite clear in this chapter, but Dutton presents past findings with style, conviction, and
novel context, meaning that familiar elements such as Cold Winters Theory are worth getting to
grips with once more.
The fascinating fourth chapter is where the study begins in earnest, and answers the
question 'What Are 'Ethnocentrism' and 'Ethnicity'?' It goes without saying that both terms
have entered, if not dominated, the lexicon of White advocacy, and I found it very refreshing
to become more familiar with the scientific basis for them. Dutton, referring to the work of
Bizumic, notes that the term 'ethnocentrism' was coined by the Polish sociologist Ludwig
Gumplowicz (1838–1909) before entering English with the work of the American economist
William Sumner (1840–1910). In order to better explain the nature of ethnocentrism,
Dutton lays out various lexical definitions of ethnicity and discusses competing schools of
thought in relation to the origins of ethnicity. The division between scholars of ethnicity can
be broadly discussed in terms of two camps: 'Primordialists,' and 'Constructivists' or
'Subjectivists.' Primordialists, representing an older school of thought, assert that ethnic
groups are extremely ancient and are ultimately based around common ancestry. Supporting this
position, Dutton, borrowing from Frank Salter, points out that genetic data shows that ethnic
groups really are distinct genetic clusters. Constructivists, on the other hand, assert that
ethnic identities are merely a product of culture and environment, and are therefore arbitrary
and subject to change. The author spends a great deal of time dissecting the arguments of the
Constructivists and, for me personally, one of the great pleasures of Race Differences in
Ethnocentrism is reading as Dutton prods and teases and the manifold weaknesses in the
Constructivist position.
The author closes the chapter with an extended discussion of the sociobiological origins of
ethnic identity, before providing a summary of proffered causes for ethnocentrism. These
include threat and conflict, psychodynamic theory as advanced by Freud, terror management (a
variation on the theme of threat and conflict), self-aggrandizement theories (ethnocentrism
boosts in-group self-esteem), Marxist theory (ethnocentrism is a tactic employed by one group
in order to gain power over, and exploit, another group), social dominance theory
(ethnocentrism as a side-effect of certain types of personality), socialization explanations
(children learn to be ethnocentric), and the sociobiological model (ethnocentrism is a product
of evolution and adaptation). Dutton argues convincingly that only the sociobiological model
offers answers which explain group behavior in both animals and humans, arguing that
"ethnocentrism is most parsimoniously understood via a partly biological theory wherein the
ethnic group is a kind of extended family."
In the fifth chapter, Dutton surveys recent evidence for the sociobiological model of
ethnocentrism and ethnicity. At the core of the chapter is J. Philippe Rushton's ' Genetic
Similarity Theory ,' which is treated with respect but also caution by the author, who
insists that "it does not fully explain all manifestations of ethnocentrism and, accordingly,
it needs to be nuanced and carefully developed." Put simply, ' Genetic Similarity Theory
' is the idea that animals will instinctively behave more pro-socially to those who share more
of their genes, and that ethnic groups, which are essentially extended families, will
demonstrate the same inclination towards the genetically similar in the form of ethnic
nepotism. It is this inclination to support the genetically similar that paves the way for
'inclusive fitness' -- indirectly passing on at least some of one's genes by supporting kin --
and thus provides some explanation for the origins of altruism. Rushton provided a great deal
of research strongly indicating that humans very much tend to marry, befriend, and otherwise
associate with those who are genetically similar to them, and this is succinctly explored. Some
controversy surrounds the issue of whether or not ' Genetic Similarity Theory ' is
applicable to circles beyond genealogical kin, and Dutton explores the work of Frank Salter in
support of the idea that it is indeed applicable. The only criticism of the concept that Dutton
concedes is that 'Genetic Similarity Theory' does not fully explain variations in ethnocentrism
and therefore does not appear to attribute sufficient weight to environmental factors,
especially external threats to the interests of the ethny -- a factor that has demonstrably
inflamed ethnocentrism throughout human history. Dutton also suggests that fluctuations in
ethnocentrism may also be rooted in the dynamics of human personality, both as humans age, and
as far as personality is influenced by 'Life History Strategy.'
ORDER IT NOW
The sixth chapter, 'Ethnocentrism, Personality Traits and Computer Modelling,' focuses in
detail on the issue of personality. Dutton explains that "we have to examine the concept of an
'ethnocentric personality' because there are race differences in modal personality. So, if
there is an 'ethnocentric personality,' then this would neatly explain why race differences in
ethnocentrism exist." Dutton ultimately dismisses the idea of an 'ethnocentric personality,'
particularly the work of Adorno on prejudice, as having very little relevance to meaningful
research on ethnocentrism. He concludes rather that it seems very likely that "ethnocentrism is
not the by-product of a series of partly heritable personality traits." Instead, "ethnocentrism
is a human universal and is significantly genetic, in the sense that propensity to genetic
similarity is partly genetic." The chapter then moves to the concept of 'group selection,'
during which is it explained and demonstrated that ethnocentric groups are more likely to win
the battle of group selection. "The more ethnocentric group should always triumph in battles of
group selection. This would mean that, all else being equal, races that were compelled, by the
nature of their environment, to combat other groups (by being internally cooperative by
externally hostile) would be more ethnocentric." Computer modelling of such battles has
demonstrated conclusively that ethnocentric strategies will always triumph, leading Dutton to
conclude that universalist humanitarianism is ultimately a losing strategy, "unable to sustain
high levels of in-group cooperation." Humanitarian groups invariably "waste their precious
reproductive potential helping out free riders who give them nothing in return."
In Chapter 7, one of the best and most provocative in the book, Dutton explores the genetics
of ethnocentrism. Dutton takes as his starting point the high level of positive and negative
ethnocentrism among Northeast Asians, and attempts to find candidate genes that may play a role
in producing this situation. Building on research suggesting that oxytocin may contribute to
in-group bias by motivating in-group favouritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group hostility,
Dutton points to scholarly findings that Northeast Asians disproportionately possess ("much
higher than Europeans") genes identified with fear of social exclusion and higher oxytocin
levels (A118G – OPRM1). Further research has indicated that the serotonin transporter
gene polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) combines with environmental factors to shape in-group bias. Dutton
cites studies showing that "70–80 percent of an East Asian sample carried the short form
of this gene, that is to say the form that makes you more ethnocentric. Only 40–45
percent of Europeans in the sample carried the short form of the gene. Indeed, it was found
that across twenty-nine nations, the more collectivist a culture was the more likely it was to
have the short form as the prevalent allele in the population." Dutton adds that his own work
found such correlations to be weak, and he is reluctant to attribute ethnocentrism to small
numbers of specific genes. He instead finishes the chapter with the suggestion that specific
genes such as these may play a small role, but only in conjunction with Life History Theory --
for example, he provides data suggesting that populations with Slow Life History strategies
(typified by higher intelligence, delayed gratification, and higher investment in children) are
likely to be higher in positive ethnocentrism.
In Chapter 8, Dutton presents data on race differences in ethnocentrism, and he then
explores the impact of cousin marriage and religion on ethnocentrism. The chapter opens with a
very interesting discussion of racial dating preferences derived from the OKCupid dating site.
The data suggest that, at least in sexual terms, White women were the most ethnocentric group,
overwhelmingly preferring to date men from their own ethnic group. By contrast, most non-White
groups seemed to have a preference for dating Whites. Dutton explains that this data cannot be
meaningfully employed in the study of ethnocentrism because the fact non-Whites want to have
sex with Whites merely means that "Whites have value." He continues: "this does not, of course,
mean that black people would be necessarily more inclined to lay down their lives for white
people, show preference for white interests over those of their own race, vote for whites over
members of their own race or any other behaviour of that kind that might be regarded as low in
ethnocentrism." Dutton instead utilizes the 'World Values Survey' as a more reliable indicator
of ethnocentric feeling, and finds that East Asians are among the most ethnocentric
populations. At this stage, the author returns to Genetic Similarity Theory, pointing out that
the East Asian gene pool is much smaller than the European gene pool -- in other words, two
random Japanese men will be more closely related than two random English men. This is important
because
any act of ethnic altruism by the Japanese man would have a greater payoff in terms of
inclusive fitness than would precisely the same act by an Englishman. As such, we would
expect higher levels of positive ethnocentrism among Northeast Asians than among Europeans.
By the same token, were a Japanese person to be confronted by a foreigner, this would
potentially damage his genetic interests to a greater extent than would be the case if a
European, from a larger gene pool, was confronted by a foreigner.
Genetic Similarity Theory, as outlined above, is particularly salient in Dutton's discussion
of ethnocentrism among Arabs and South Asians, populations with high levels of cousin marriage.
Arabs and South Asians are more ethnocentric than Europeans but, unlike East Asians, the nature
of Arab and South Asian ethnocentrism tends more towards negative ethnocentrism -- something
Dutton links to relatively lower average intelligence. Consanguineous marriage, itself a
response to a stressful and/or conflict-riven ecology and a means of developing a functioning
society in populations with Fast Life History strategies, will accelerate and deepen negative
ethnocentrism.
This phenomenon is deepened further by high levels of religiosity, which, Dutton argues, has
been demonstrated as boosting both positive and negative ethnocentrism. Among the aspects of
religion that contribute to ethnocentrism and group selection, Dutton cites high levels of
fertility, matrimony, physical punishment of children, bodily mutilation, honor killing,
martyrdom, celibacy, and intense violence or enmity directed at non-believers. I found Dutton's
work here to be especially interesting, though I was left with some significant questions about
the nature of modern Christianity, something disappointingly absent from Dutton's text despite
his rich background in the study of Christian fundamentalists. Why is modern Christianity so
entirely lacking in ability to promote any kind of ethnocentrism? My own instinct is that it
has something to do with the development and spread of the belief in a "personal Jesus," a
largely nineteenth-century American innovation, rather than the older belief in folding oneself
into a community of believers under a more distant and overarching God of nations. But this
would require an essay, or several, to fully articulate, rather than an aside in a book review.
It should suffice to state here that more detail or illustration from Dutton in this regard
would have been most welcome.
Dutton spends several pages discussing Jewish ethnocentrism, and is appreciative of the work
of Kevin MacDonald in this area. Jews are clearly very high in positive ethnocentrism, as
demonstrated by very high levels of in-group philanthropy, belief in themselves as members of a
Chosen People with a special world-historical destiny, and the prolific production of
self-congratulatory and apologetic literature about themselves that is frequently accompanied
by a widespread refusal to make any concessions on negative aspects of the history of the
ethnic group. Jews have also distinguished themselves throughout history with very high levels
of negative ethnocentrism, including their genocides of other peoples (real or imagined) in
their religious texts, very negative portrayals of non-Jews in their religious commentaries,
frequent outbursts against Greek cultural influence in the Classical period, exploitative
economic relationships with Europeans since at least the Carolingian dynasty, the preference
for suicide over conversion in the Medieval period, high levels of culturally disruptive
behaviors among host populations in the modern period, and most recently their extraordinarily
hostile treatment of the Palestinians. This can be partly explained, as Dutton points out, by
the highly consanguineous nature of the Jews. For example, "it has been found that the world's
10 million Ashkenazi Jews are all descended from about 350 Ashkenazi Jews who found themselves
in Eastern Europe about the year 1400." High levels of inbreeding have led to the noted
prevalence of several genetic disorders among the Jews, including Tay-Sachs Disease, Gaucher's
Disease, and Riley-Day Syndrome. Dutton argues that Jews would have been more ethnocentric than
Europeans from the earliest stages of their settlement in Europe, and that this ethnocentrism
would have been deepened even further over historical time, in successive cycles, by their
continued breeding within a small gene pool (intensifying the impact of Genetic Similarity
Theory) and their presence in a high stress environment typified by periodic outbursts of
reactive persecution (resulting in "harsh selection" for the most ethnocentric Jews). Dutton
then discusses the findings of one study carried out by developmental psychologists, in which
it was found that Israeli infants displayed unusually intense fear reactions in response to
strangers when compared with North German infants. Whereas the North German infants had
relatively minor reactions to strangers, the Israeli infants became "inconsolably upset."
The author brings his eighth chapter to a close with a discussion of low ethnocentrism among
Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans. Low ethnocentrism among Africans is explained briefly via
their very pronounced r -strategy, resulting in low rates of consanguineous marriage and
a much broader gene
pool and genetic diversity . On the other hand, Europeans, argues Dutton, occupy a
'Goldilocks Zone' of very low ethnocentrism because they are less K -selected than East
Asians, have a larger gene pool, and their environment is less harsh, leading to lower levels
of group selection. There appears to be a position on the r – K spectrum,
lower than East Asian K strategies, where cousin marriage is selected for (boosting
ethnocentrism) and this position is occupied by Arabs and South Asians rather than Whites, who
instead occupy a position below East Asians but above Arabs and South Asians. The trade-off for
this relatively weakened position of Europeans is that for a population with moderate-to-high
intelligence, "low ethnocentrism would permit a greater ability to trade and pool resources and
so, ultimately, the creation of an extremely large coalition with a very large gene pool. This
group would be more likely than a smaller group to produce geniuses."
Dutton thus argues that, in a sense, some level of selection took place for low
ethnocentrism in Europeans -- a "genius" group evolutionary strategy. Dutton argues that groups
with high levels of genius but low levels of ethnocentrism will triumph over groups with high
levels of ethnocentrism but low levels of genius so long as certain conditions are met. The
most important condition is that the genius group should maintain a basic level of
ethnocentrism. Should this base level decline or collapse, the genius strategy would fail and
highly ethnocentric groups would eventually dominate. European ethnocentrism has clearly been
stronger in the past than it is at present, a fact the author very capably discusses within the
framework of broader fluctuations in ecology (especially the advent of the industrial
revolution) and ongoing evolutions in race itself.
In Chapter 9, Dutton explores in detail several variables that may impact ethnocentrism at
individual and group level. Highly stressful situations in which survival is at risk have been
shown to boost ethnocentrism, and researchers have found that playing violent video games is
even sufficient to increase aggression to perceived out-groups. Mortality salience, or the fear
of death, has also been shown to lead people to believe in a way which is highly defensive of
their in-group. Although Dutton does not explore the theme in any great depth, I was moved to
reflect on how anti-stress Western civilization has become during the last 60 or so years, not
only in terms of industrialization, radically lowered infant mortality, and medical advances
(all of which Dutton explores), but also in the extraordinary emphasis placed by modern culture
on individual transient pleasures and prolonging youth (and therefore delaying or avoiding
confronting death). Decadence, which is what such a culture essentially decays into, is
therefore obstructive or oppositional to the development of ethnocentrism, and 'weaponized
decadence' therefore strikes me as a particularly useful strategy that could be employed by a
highly ethnocentric group with significant cultural influence in a host society with
pre-existing moderate-to-low levels of ethnocentrism -- a way of pushing a stronger "genius
evolutionary strategist" into a fatally lower level of ethnocentrism and thus, ultimately, into
defeat and destruction. Other variables impacting upon levels of ethnocentrism, and discussed
by Dutton, include age, gender, pregnancy, intelligence and education, and ethnic
diversity.
ORDER IT NOW
I found the last of these the most salient. Dutton, following from Vanhanen and Salter,
argues that multi-ethnic societies are much less capable of successfully defending themselves
against incursion from outsiders. This is for three key interrelated reasons. The first is
lower levels of trust, as sapped confidence in one's group leads to radically fewer sacrifices
on behalf of the group. The second is that a multi-ethnic society will be able to draw on
significantly lower reserves of positive ethnocentrism. The third is that ethnic minorities
will tend to support immigration, essentially acting as a fifth column; allies to the outsiders
engaged in incursion. So much for the "diversity is our greatest strength" mantra.
In the penultimate chapter, Dutton makes the argument that the industrial revolution and its
consequences have been a disaster for European ethnocentrism. Industrialization has
significantly reduced human ecological stress in the West, and has accelerated the decline of
European religion -- one of the key supports for an already low level of European
ethnocentrism. Advances in medicine and developments in the welfare state have led to wholesale
dysgenic impacts such as the extraordinary rise in numbers of people with moderate to severe
genetic disorders (26 percent increase in hemophilia, 22 percent increase in cystic fibrosis,
and a 300 percent increase in phenylketonuria). The author posits that the increased
proliferation of unhealthy mutations has further precipitated the decline of healthy instincts
rooted in healthy genes that promoted survival (on a related note, it is interesting that those
identified as ethnocentric score very highly in
disgust sensitivity -- a trait associated with disease avoidance ). Dutton and some of his
colleagues have come to describe such negative mutations as "spiteful mutations" which "cause
people to act against their own genetic interests." He continues:
If [carriers of 'spiteful genes'] influence society, they can persuade even non-carriers
of these 'spiteful' genes to act in self-destructive ways and they can undermine structures
-- such as religion -- which help to promote group interests. Woodley of Menie et al. call
this 'social epistasis.' As a consequence, modern (liberal) religion and ideology -- far from
being an indirect means of genetic preservation -- would in fact reflect a sick society's
growing desire to destroy itself. An obvious example can be seen in the ideology of
Multiculturalism and Political Correctness.
In Dutton's reading of our present situation then, the worst of our traitors are in fact
what perhaps Nietzsche was referring to when he condemned "the botched and the bungled" --
malformed and maladapted offspring eager for self-destruction, and dragging the healthy down
with them.
The final, brief, chapter of Race Differences in Ethnocentrism offers a neat summary
of the findings and central arguments of the book before ending on a warning and offering some
meagre light at the end of the tunnel. The warning is clear:
Europe is increasingly allowing into its borders people who are extremely high in
ethnocentrism as predicted by their high levels of religiousness, low median age, their
practice of cousin marriage, low average intelligence, and (likely) low mutational load. We
have noted that the ethnocentric strategy will, eventually, tend to dominate all other
strategies in the battle for group survival. Alternate strategies can also work, such as the
development of large and highly inventive coalitions, but these cannot last if they promote
ideologies which are actively to the detriment of their genetic interests, as it happening
with Political Correctness, which actively promotes an effective destruction of European
people.
And yet this may be a night that is necessary before the dawn, as Europeans are once more
plunged into a cleaning cauldron of harsh, selective conditions:
We are now living under these conditions. But it will be the collapse of [European]
civilisation and power that will likely lead, many years hence, to their becoming more
ethnocentric once again.
It is the humbling, unenviable, and largely thankless task of websites like The
Occidental Observer
obwandiyag says: May 24, 2019
at 2:37 am GMT Oh, positive ethnocentrism is all well and good. It's just that you have
to ignore how rotten the actual individual members of your own group that you actually know
are. Then, it's pride all the way! Read More • Replies: @Endgame
Napoleon , @Anon ,
@Parsnipitous
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Colin Wright says:
• WebsiteMay 24,
2019 at 3:23 am GMT • 100 Words ' By contrast, the Yąnomamö tribe of
Venezuela are very high in negative ethnocentrism but very low in positive ethnocentrism,
resulting in a society riddled with lawlessness, extreme violence, poor social harmony, and
an inability to form stable social structures of any kind.'
It would be a cruder version of Israel, then. Read More • Replies: @AaronB
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
At least in the short term, this would seem questionable.
At one extreme, consider the US from 1780 to about 1970. By very willingly accepting and
incorporating newcomers, it increased in size roughly fifty-fold, and grew to be the most
powerful state in the world. Our subsequent history demonstrates that it's possible to have
too much of a good thing, but
At the other extreme, consider Jews -- a group very assiduously devoted to preserving
its group identity, and not at all interested in absorbing outsiders. Over the last
century, roughly a third have been exterminated, another third are rapidly being
assimilated in the US notwithstanding their efforts at self-preservation, and the last
third have decided the course of wisdom is to pack themselves into a strip of semi-desert
and attack all their neighbors without actually crushing any of them.
Whatever the failings of the strategy of the US, it's far from demonstrated that the
opposite course makes for an improvement. Read More • Replies: @Wally
, @notanon2
, @RobRich
, @John
Gruskos Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Ron
Unz says: May 24,
2019 at 4:01 am GMT • 200 Words Well, most of the article was pretty interesting.
But I'm quite skeptical about this claim:
Dutton instead utilizes the 'World Values Survey' as a more reliable indicator of
ethnocentric feeling, and finds that East Asians are among the most ethnocentric
populations.
This doesn't really make any sense. Until the last hundred years or so, I'd guess that
something like 99% of Han Chinese had almost never even *seen* a non-Han during their
entire lives, and that was also true for almost all of their ancestors for many, many
centuries. Probably the same for Japanese and Koreans.
But if you and almost all of your ancestors have lived all of their lives in a nearly
100% ethnically-pure social environment, how would any tendencies toward ethnocentricity
ever evolve or be maintained? Wouldn't they be about as useful as wings on a gopher?
In support of this theoretical framework, isn't it an empirical fact that China has
always been one of the most "absorptive" nations in the world, with some of the lowest
barriers to ethnic intermarriage and assimilation? That's why the Chinese have absorbed so
many other groups over the millennia, including all the groups that conquered them.
Moreover, there's that famous dictate by Confucius that foreigners who come to China and
act like Chinese should be considered Chinese. Indeed, I think you could make a reasonable
case that China is the world's oldest "Propositional Nation." Read More • Agree:
Godfree Roberts ,
Mr.
XYZ • Replies: @Thulean
Friend , @micheal8
, @AaronB
, @notanon2
, @Anon
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Colin Wright says:
• WebsiteMay 24,
2019 at 4:03 am GMT • 100 Words ' "it has been found that the world's 10
million Ashkenazi Jews are all descended from about 350 Ashkenazi Jews who found themselves
in Eastern Europe about the year 1400." '
Given the large Jewish populations expelled from Britain, France, and the German states
in previous centuries, this statement seems almost fantastically improbable. Surely there
were more than 350 Ashkenazim in Eastern Europe in 1400, and surely more than 350 of them
contributed to the genes of the modern population of Ashkenazim. This leaves aside the
visible resemblance of German Jews to Gentile Germans, of Polish Jews to Gentile Poles, etc
-- and the implications of that. Read More • Replies: @Ron
Unz , @Johnny
Rottenborough , @notanon2
, @Anon
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
' "it has been found that the world's 10 million Ashkenazi Jews are all descended from
about 350 Ashkenazi Jews who found themselves in Eastern Europe about the year 1400."
'
Given the large Jewish populations expelled from Britain, France, and the German
states in previous centuries, this statement seems almost fantastically improbable.
I'm not up on the latest genetic research, but it does sound a little garbled
From what I recall seeing a decade or so ago, almost European Jews are descended from
the offspring of a few hundred Middle Eastern males and Northern Italian females who lived
around 500-800 AD (the date was disputed and it's also fuzzy in my memory).
However, by the time the Jews established themselves in Eastern Europe, perhaps around
1000 AD or later, there were probably some tens of thousands of them.
So maybe new scientific findings have updated the history or (more likely) the writer is
getting the two different foundation events mixed up. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Endgame Napoleon
says: May 24, 2019
at 4:42 am GMT@obwandiyag
Glorifying other groups doesn't help to purify your own group, either. Humans are "all too
human," as the man said. Where is BatMan when you need him? He is enjoying himself in Gotham
& Gomorra. Read More • LOL: Tusk Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon [932] • Disclaimer says: May 24,
2019 at 5:42 am GMT@obwandiyag
Ignoring that is harder for some groups who are lousy with rotten members (nearly everyone).
Other groups merely have to deal with an unavoidable standard deviation that is part of the
human condition. Those groups invented advanced prison systems, long ago, along with the rest
of advanced civilization. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This
Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon [932] • Disclaimer says: May
24, 2019 at 5:52 am GMT • 200 Words Ethnocentrism is about two things:
psychological health and political protection.
That humans require identity and belonging, things that by definition require barriers,
isn't debatable in terms of their salubrious effects on the individual's mental health.
Humans require political protection from other groups. Humans without political or other
protection that arises from the in-group traditionally had de facto or actual slave status
in the presence of other groups. The same is true today.
Slavers, with slaver religions, push for an end to out-group ethnocentrism for their
desired slaves because it eradicates that group's ability to politically or physically
defend themselves in an effective manner. Due to lack of effective in-group
cooperation.
Those resisting slavery should always work to build a deep and single ethnic culture and
the genetic in-group that it incubates over time.
Once this is formed, political power will follow via the deep in-group cooperation that
this genetically and culturally deeply linked group encourages.
Self-protection, independence, and self determination are all attainable thereafter. All
which are correctly seen as fundamental Human Rights.
Those that fail to cooperate effectively enough, even when allowed their ethnocentrism,
will continue to be controlled by out-groups. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More...
This Commenter Display All Comments
A model based on the genetic sequencing of 128 Ashkenazi Jews concludes that today's
Ashkenazim descend from the fusion of European and Middle-Eastern Jews during the
medieval era, between 600 to 800 years ago.
The math also indicates that today's sprawling community of Ashkenazi Jews -- there
are more than 10 million around the world -- derived from just 350 people or so.
Read More • Replies: @res ,
@Colin
Wright Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
How would one go about ranking groups, organizations, individuals, social networks and
publications by intensity or degrees of ethnocentrism?
Could one use automated methods to produce and update these rankings in real time by
tracking and mining social media and all media in general?
One obvious approach: count up the number of times an agent mentions its ethnic
identity, issues, problems, enemies, etc. in its communications.
Questions that would be interesting to answer: which are the most ethnocentric groups in
contemporary American politics? In contemporary European politics? In contemporary global
politics?
Which are the most significant and strategic ethnic conflicts in contemporary global
politics? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All
Comments
One issue here is that the effective population size may be (much) less than the census
population size at any given time. This page gives some reasons for that: http://www.uwyo.edu/dbmcd/molmark/lect07/lect7.html
It would be good to hear from a real population geneticist about this. This graphic from
the first link above seems to indicate much larger effective population sizes than the
other two links. Note that AJ = Ashkenazi Jewish and FL = Flemish.
Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
A model based on the genetic sequencing of 128 Ashkenazi Jews concludes that today's
Ashkenazim descend from the fusion of European and Middle-Eastern Jews during the medieval
era, between 600 to 800 years ago.
The math also indicates that today's sprawling community of Ashkenazi Jews -- there
are more than 10 million around the world -- derived from just 350 people or so.'
Then either (a) Haaretz inaccurately reported the results of the research, or (b)
the research itself was flawed.
Enough historical data exists so that we effectively know all Ashkenazim were not
descended solely from 350 ancestors living between 600 and 800 years ago.
If I announced that a genetic study showed that all whites currently living in America
were descended from four hundred Irishmen present in New York City in 1860, would you
believe it?
since most of us don't clearly understand genetics or how research into it is conducted,
there's a tendency to accept any stated result as certain truth, handed down at Mount
Sinai.
Actually, I suspect -- and some of the results proferred imply -- it's no more certain
than anything else. Read More • Disagree: Ron Unz Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
A bunch of dumbasses start being punished for their idiocy, forcing them to adapt and
become smart. Then they strut around the world like they own the place, but then relax,
become cucked and then regress to the start. At that point another group is on it's rise,
or it's a dark age until the same group starts over Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Dutton then discusses the findings of one study carried out by developmental
psychologists, in which it was found that Israeli infants displayed unusually intense
fear reactions in response to strangers when compared with North German infants. Whereas
the North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers, the Israeli infants
became "inconsolably upset."
Interesting.
By the way, a very good review &, as far as I can tell, an intriguing book. Read
More • Agree: Thulean Friend ,
anon19 • Replies:
@AaronB
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
isn't it an empirical fact that China has always been one of the most "absorptive"
nations in the world, with some of the lowest barriers to ethnic intermarriage and
assimilation? That's why the Chinese have absorbed so many other groups over the
millennia, including all the groups that conquered them.
These foreigners have been Mongolians, Manchu etc. People who are closely related kin.
It's like various tribes of Europe absorbing each other and forming greater nations.
It's qualitively different when you talk about people who look radically different from
you, because that implies the genetic distance is also far greater. There is no reason to
assume that North East Asians are on par with Northern Europeans in their low
ethnocentrism, though it is likely lower than many assume since intermarriage rate with
Whites is quite high (but only really with Whites. Whereas Whites mix with a lot of
groups). Read More • Replies: @Ron
Unz , @david
fields Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
anon19 says: May 27,
2019 at 4:44 am GMT All races, except for brainwashed-by-Jews, unorganized whites are
extremely ethnocentric. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display
All Comments
Cyrano says: May 27,
2019 at 5:03 am GMT • 200 Words I don't think I buy this theory about low European
ethnocentricity at all. I think it's all the rich degenerate elites who are to blame for
the "decline" in ethnocentricity.
The rich degenerates think that being rich is their ethnicity – and the only one
worth defending – not some genetic similarity with the great unwashed whom they
despise.
That's why they invented that most humane of all altruisms – multiculturalism
– because it defends their ethnicity based on money, to hell with genetically based
ethnicity.
I think that ordinary Europeans are as ethnocentric as they always were, someone else is
expanding their ethnic acceptance against their will in order to preserve their financial
ethnocentricity.
And first of all why blame the Europeans – like they were the ones who invented
multiculturalism? If European civilization is going to collapse – it's not going to
happen in Europe first – it's going to happen in the birthplace of multiculturalism.
Read More • Replies: @Wizard of
Oz , @notanon2
, @Anon
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
These foreigners have been Mongolians, Manchu etc. People who are closely related kin.
It's like various tribes of Europe absorbing each other and forming greater nations.
It's qualitively different when you talk about people who look radically different
from you, because that implies the genetic distance is also far greater.
At least with regard to China, I just don't think that's correct
As far as I know, Westerners who've moved to China and taken up Chinese wives and
Chinese customs have been absorbed as easily as other Asians.
And here's a notable historical example. For various reasons, Jews have traditionally
been exceptionally resistant to absorption into local populations, remaining as a distinct
group sometimes after thousands of years of living within a particular host population. But
China absorbed its Jews long ago, being just about the only documented case that easily
comes to mind. Read More • Replies: @jeff
stryker , @Wizard of
Oz , @Thulean
Friend , @j2 ,
@Anon ,
@AaronB
, @Anon
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
at least in sexual terms, White women were the most ethnocentric group, overwhelmingly
preferring to date men from their own ethnic group.
So many Unzers BTFO here Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter
Display All Comments
Wizard of Oz says:
May 27, 2019
at 5:37 am GMT • 100 Words @Cyrano
Aren't you mistaken in attributing multiculturalism to the rich? Certainly they don't
participate in it as perhaps you imply when you say that being rich is their ethnicity. Mark
Zuckerberg and his wife are perhaps typical , and, I would suggest, not people of different
cultures but from one which is not that of the rich but of the upper middle class educated.
Perhaps you are suggesting that people like that underrate the importance of differences in
culture that isn't actually part of their experience and therefore rather softheadedly say
"each to his own" in libertarian style without understanding what they are thereby
encouraging amongst the lower classes. Could you spell out your case please? Read More •
Replies: @Cyrano
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Ashkenazi Jews appear to be 40-50% Italian according to DNA tests on the female
side.
Which means at some point following the diaspora from Judea in Roman times there was a
massive degree of intermarriage between Jewish men and Roman women prior to the fall of
Rome.
Also, considering that Jews trace their origins through their mothers, one would think
that they would all consider themselves Italians.
So they Jews had to absorb non-Jews into their gene pool at some point.
As for Westerners assimilating into Chinese culture, this is relatively commonplace. A
small number of Portuguese live in Macau and of course there are more recent examples. Read
More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Wizard of Oz says:
May 27, 2019
at 6:05 am GMT • 300 Words @Ron Unz
I have hardly even a vague knowledge of China's absorption of Jews (and haven't, I confess,
asked Google an obvious, let alone probing, question). But what you say raises the question
of how much more impressed with Chinese culture, custom and governance the Jews in China were
than the Jews elsewhere. Dark Ages Europe (and the ME) with Christian mobs destroying ancient
art and learning may not have looked good compared with Tang or Sung dynasty China (though I
invite someone to tell me about differences within China in those times). Alternatively one
might ask whether the Jews in Europe were only clinging to Judaism through desperately strict
reliance on the/a Talmud which helped maintain separation whereas the Jews in China may have
been free of that limiting influence. Compare indeed the rapidity with which Jews in America,
not least, I believe, the poor of Eastern Europe, began to assimilate at least in so far as
intermarriage implies assimilation. To that plenty of grouches would no doubt point to Jewish
corruption of what the grouches would like to think of as the culture they were assimilating
with (whereas I am more a "Jewish Century" interpreter) but my emphasis would tend to be
rather on the division and, for a time, arrested development, of American Jewry by the
creation of Israel and its drawing on people's need for tribalism and at least equal need to
have an object or ideal beyond themselves. (Isn't being a good American enough? Well, hardly,
when you are a prosperous part of the one superpower .). I suspect assimilation is going to
win. Read More • Replies: @jeff
stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
Ghali says: May 27,
2019 at 6:06 am GMT Dutton's book has NO science. It is a fabricated lie that relies on
racism and prejudice. Multicultural societies are the opposite of monocluturals; they are
rich in diversity and culture. Just like monoagriculture, monocultural societies are empty of
all the organic ingredients. Read More • Disagree: Robert Dolan •
Replies: @Anon
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Westerners who've moved to China and taken up Chinese wives and Chinese customs have
been absorbed as easily as other Asians.
What percentage are they of the total population? 0.01%? Hardly relevant as an
example.
China absorbed its Jews long ago, being just about the only documented case that
easily comes to mind.
Jews in China were always an extremely small minority, several orders of magnitudes
lower than in leading Western countries as a percentage of the population. Harder to build
buffers in such an environment. Also, I would take issue with your characterisation of Jews
as unable to assimilate. Non-Orthodox Jews in the US have an intermarriage rate of 72%. The
rabbis are constantly reminding us of the 'silent holocaust'. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Why is modern Christianity so entirely lacking in ability to promote any kind of
ethnocentrism?
50+ years of sustained media attack.
the only defense against television is a television station of your own. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
notanon2 says: May 27,
2019 at 7:02 am GMT@Colin
Wright with Jews very concentrated in urban areas i would have thought the Black Death
could have caused a bottleneck like that (as the plague didn't reach Poland for some
reason).
map of spread of black death
note big gap in Poland Read More • Replies: @Republic
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
At least in the short term, this would seem questionable.
the simulations used to study this set a level playing field so it won't be true in all
real world situations. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This
Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
j2 says:
May 27,
2019 at 8:10 am GMT • 400 Words @Ron
Unz Ron, the claim, when correctly understood, is correct also concerning China.
Chinese are especially negative towards Blacks, anybody with dark skin color. (They think
Blacks smell bad.) They appreciate white skin color. They avoid tanning and use whitening
creams. Yes, they absorb Whites, including Jews, but they are ethnocentric towards other
peoples.
I have this kind of a small theory why this is so. Consider a trait, like intelligence,
being not a product of additive gene alleles, but by a combination of favorable alleles of
several genes. We can assume the combinations are mostly two gene combinations. Assume a
population has two alleles of each two genes (A,a and B,b) with A,a and B,b being each of
50% frequency, and one combination AB raises the trait. Thus, 1/4 of the population has AB.
Mixing this population with a population with two other alleles for these genes, D,d and
E,e, produces a population where the trait increasing combinations, AB and DE, occur in 1/8
of the population. Thus, the average of the trait decreases from mixing.
From this one can conclude that populations with a large number of alleles increasing
the trait has a lower average on the trait, like IQ in Sub Saharan Africa. In SSA genetic
diversity is high and thus there are many alleles of all genes. While in East Asia genetic
diversity is lower than in Europe and the IQ trait is higher. Indeed, if we plot genetic
diversity against average IQ we should get more or less a Piffer plot, a straight line.
This would come from a PGS being not additive but a combination of pairs of two (or more)
IQ genes. To support this idea, notice that additive positive alleles should make a sweep
and become fixed and the variance at the both ends of the trait should be small because the
distribution converges to normal. But this is not so, we do not have populations with
average IQ of 150, while we have very tall or very short dog races produced by selection.
It indicates that the height trait is additive but IQ is not additive.
From this idea it follows that ethnocentrism is higher in populations with low genetic
diversity, average values of traits are higher in populations with low genetic diversity
(as natural selection cannot act if diversity is high: descendants too seldom inherit the
trait of the parents). It would follow that East Asians are ethnocentric, have a higher IQ
and low diversity. They would still like to mix with people possessing the trait they
admire (white skin), so it is not a contradiction. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
RobRich says: •
WebsiteMay 27, 2019
at 8:36 am GMT • 100 Words @Colin
Wright Good point. As libertarians point out the US grew 30-fold with relatively open
borders then tripled that with variations of the current more restrictive but open to
extended family/high achievers (Have a close relative, great invention or a million bucks to
invest in the US? To the head of the line! Otherwise take a number, BTW the waiting list is
100 years long–good luck!) still pretty open compared to most countries. By 1970 is was
near a 100-fold, not 50-fold, growth, so your case is even better. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Some, such as the natives of Hawaii and the Inuit were noted as being extremely
friendly,
Didn't Capt.Cook get killed and eaten by those "friendly," natives of Hawaii? Read More
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
micheal8 says: May 27, 2019
at 12:32 pm GMT • 100 Words @Ron Unz
There are lots of apocryphal data saying many things about the Chinese over history.
Of course, in the US of 330 million people at least 46.6 million are foreign born (by far the
highest number of any country, according to Wikipedia).
China has a population of a billion or so, but less than a million foreign born. This despite
the dramatic improvement in their culture and economics.
So over 14% of the US population are foreign born vs 0.1% of Chinese. One can argue as to the
basis for this difference, but almost all nations are restrictive on accepting immigrants,
unless they provide value.
Would seem the Chinese are similar to the Japanese (who are now absorbing more foreigners due
to a shortage of young workers), who will not tolerate big changes in their society or mores
unless brought about internally. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Catiline says: May 27, 2019
at 12:36 pm GMT Andrew Joyce are you back on Twitter? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter Display All Comments
While coming from a similarly ancient civilization I suspect Jews found less ability to
trade or profit in China than Europe which is why less of them gravitated there than to
Europe.
Jews did not really make much of an impact in India either.
I suspect that because money-lending was never a crime in China or India, there was not
much of living in either of those countries for Jews compared to Europe where they
thrived.
Jews in America arrived as Edison was inventing the film camera and industrialization
required many lawyers, bankers and so on. China never needed these. Read More •
Replies: @Wizard of
Oz Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
david fields says:
May 27,
2019 at 12:56 pm GMT • 200 Words @Thulean
Friend I tend to agree with Unz, that Chinese are quite open to mixing with and/or
assimilating other ethnic groups. Apart from the well-known examples of Manchus and
Mongols, a large community of Jews migrated to China during the Middle Ages and settled in
Kaifeng, China where they gradually and non-violently assimilated. If one observes the
behavior of Chinese-Americans in the U.S., a large plurality if not a majority marry
Caucasians within one or two generations, usually with little opposition from their
families.
For a literary work that touches on of this Chinese cultural trait, I refer readers to
James McKenna's excellent novel, "The Sandpebbles", which was based on his experience in
the U.S. Navy in China in the 1920s. At that time was not unusual for retiring navy
enlisted men to settle down in China, often with a Chinese woman. To paraphrase a line from
the novel, 'For the Chinese, it's quite natural for a foreigner to become a Chinese'. Read
More • Replies: @the grand
wazoo Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
Ethnocentrism is not a directly selected for thing – it is unfortunate that HBD
promoters no longer understand second-order effects.
To HBD people, every trait is a simplistic directly selected for thing, not a second or
third order effect of some other trait.
This is a sign of the declining intelligence of our times, this inability to think
complexly.
Anyways, ethnocentrism is a second order effect of egoism – you love yourself, you
love your group. Your group is just a version of yourself.
An ethnocentric society is also a highly competitive and stratified by status one
internally, because it is a society with a high level of egoism – when whites were
ethnocentric, it was the same way with them. And it's the same way in other ethnocentric
societies like China.
The reason whites went from being an intensely ethnocentric group to not being one in
the space of less than a century has nothing to do with genetics, of course, but because
they lost the egocentric perspective – partly as a result of loss of religion, which
inculcated positive self image (one is in a relationship with God), and partly as a result
of the so called objectivity and neutrality required by science, which makes you lose touch
with your natural self love.
If whites ever become ethnocentric again, there will have to be a general rise in
competitiveness also.
Of course, the picture is not one dimensional, and is balanced out by warmth,
camaraderie, and brotherhood. Israelis are fiercely competitive with each other but also
extremely brotherly and helpful to anyone in need.
And whites will be the same way if they become ethnocentric again – but let there
be no illusions about the bad side as well. Read More • Replies: @jeff
stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Anon [282] • Disclaimer says: May
27, 2019 at 2:28 pm GMT • 100 Words @Ron
Unz It all depends if the other group is thought to be *higher* or *lower* , higher and
lower meaning what they quite universally mean in human business.
See how well a vast number of races are absorbed in China
(Corollary 1: a group seeing itself as *above* all others will avoid intermixing with
every other group).
I don't venture into saying this is wrong this is right these are better those are
worse. Behind the surface, everyone agrees to the rules of the game. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
AaronB says: May 27,
2019 at 2:53 pm GMT • 100 Words @Ron
Unz Individual Jewish communities, especially in extremely remote locations without
connections to the rest of the world, have disappeared. That's not at all unusual. And Jews
have been assimilating into gentile populations throughout history.
Plus, the Jews of Kaifeng have not entirely disappeared.
But I agree with your point that Chinese can and do assimilate racial outsiders –
all ethnocentric groups do. There are Chinese and Indian looking Jews in Israel, and of
course conversion to Judaism is a very real thing.
I cannot think of any ethnocentric group that isn't prepared to assimilate racial
outsiders in the right numbers, provided they demonstrate commitment to the culture –
skin in the game – and aren't numerous enough to rapidly alter the racial character.
Read More • Replies: @jeff
stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
We do see a detente in politics. Jews and Irish-Americans initially distrusted and
disliked one another. Southern Democrats, who produced Clinton and Carter, obviously
harbored anti-Jewish feelings (The word anti-Semite refers more to Arabs).
However, Irish-Americans and Jews and Southerners worked together in the Democrat party.
Without the Jewish vote, Clinton would never have been elected (He was undone by his
involvement with one, however).
In this sense, ethnocentrism was replaced by politics.
As for the white identity in America, it was always based upon a value system. Whites
were from all corners of Europe and never bound by blood but by a sense of political and
moral identity.
Once this was gone, whites had no cultural anchor. Asians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and
Italian-Americans to a lesser extent always had a cultural anchor of sorts. White
Americans, for whatever reason, did not seem to. When drugs swept through America,
encouraged by Jews (As well as by Irish-Americans like Timothy Leary and Charles Manson of
course) they ravaged whites and not Jews. BEASTIE BOYS were the first "whiggers" but Jews
never sought to imitate them. Ron Jeremy and Sarah Silverman and Al Goldstein all espoused
sexual freedom and promiscuity but the out-of-wedlock birth rate never soared among
Jews.
Similarly, Asians-Americans and Hindus and Muslims have not really be affected by the
media like whites.
These are only a few of the reasons. But I agree with you that science (Rationalism and
passivity) somehow eroded belief systems essential to European-Americans. Read More •
Replies: @John
Gruskos , @AaronB
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
In a number of societies Jews did not particularly thrive. For example, in Calcutta the
Iraqi Jews failed completely and most moved to Israel simply in order to survive
economically (Not due to persecution).
I knew Jews in Kerala personally and they had fared slightly better by intermarrying
with Brahmin women to become the so-called St. Thomas Christians.
But Jews have come and gone from several major civilizations without making a great
impact.
European Jews were, you remember, just that. Sometime after the Diaspora they
intermarried with Roman women at a time when Rome was in the late stages of its glory and
the Askenazi Jews as a race began and subsequently found themselves in the Rhineland as
this rose in prominence.
Jews probably NEVER fared as well in Spain or India or China or Persia as they did in
Europe. Why?
This is debatable. Read More • Replies: @AaronB
, @notanon2
, @Anon
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
By very willingly accepting and incorporating newcomers, it increased in size roughly
fifty-fold, and grew to be the most powerful state in the world.
Wrong!
Most of the increase was due to high birth rate among old stock Americans, which was in
turn due to affordable family formation (low land prices / high wages).
The highest % increases ever recorded in the decennial census occurred 1790-1830, during
a period of very low immigration levels.
America would have become the world's greatest economic and military power, even if the
total number of immigrants from 1780 to 1970 had been precisely 0. Read More • Agree:
Ron
Unz Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
for whatever reason . . . somehow eroded belief systems essential to
European-Americans
Read Culture of Critique .
American (aka real American, aka un-hyphenated American, aka old-stock American, aka
White American) ethnocentrism was deliberately attacked and destroyed by a series of Jewish
intellectual and political movements, with the intention of facilitating the group
interests of Jews.
The education system, news media and entertainment industry are all viscerally hostile
to American ethnocentrism, but supportive of the ethnocentrism of diaspora peoples living
among the Americans, especially the Jews. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Wizard of Oz says:
May 27,
2019 at 3:45 pm GMT • 100 Words @jeff
stryker It may be pedantically logical to say so, but I think what you are effectually
doing is to deny significance to what Ron said by saying there weren't really very many of
them (because of lack of opportunity for exercosing their particular skills).
As to your last paragraph, what bearing do you think it has on the assimilation, past,
present and future, in America. It could be said that the value added by lawyers and
bankers in industrialising America was very different from the activities in Eastern Europe
which, with or without justice, aroused antagonism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AaronB says: May 27,
2019 at 4:07 pm GMT • 300 Words @jeff
stryker I'm not sure about that. I believe the Iraqi Jews who traded in India were very
successful, and Iraqi Jews in Israel have a good reputation. I believe the extremely
wealthy British Sasoon family were Iraqi Jews who made their fortune in the India trade.
Interestingly, Iraqi Jews took over many Indian dishes like curry and mango chutney
(known as amba in Israel, and put on schwarma).
The Syrian and Persian Jewish community were also very successful, and Jews had a Golden
Age in Spain.
You are correct though that nowhere did the Jews achieve the same level of prominence as
in post 18th century Europe – and the reason is obviously the European Enlightenment,
which enshrined the rule of Reason and destroyed healthy traditions that allowed Europeans
to compete against Jews.
Before this period, Jewish success in Europe was on par with their performance in Syria
or Persia – successful, but nothing amazing.
And yes, Ashkenazi Jews are indeed actually 50% European (90% and up on the mothers
side), Italian, to be specific, with northern European admixture.
There is a surprising number of Hasidic Jews who look Aryan – tall, blond, and
blue eyed. And if you stroll through the Hasidic areas of Brooklyn you will see lots of
blond kids with blue eyes and pale skin. But there are lots of darker Med types as
well.
The truth is that each Jewish community mixed heavily with the local population –
very heavily – and Jews are anything but a pure ethnic group.
There is an ethnic core, to be sure – but what really shapes them and unites them
is the culture and religion. That's what it takes to make a people and nation. Read More
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
AaronB says: May 27,
2019 at 4:19 pm GMT • 300 Words @jeff
stryker This isn't quite true. I grew up in the modern orthodox community in Brooklyn
in the 90s, and heavy drug use was extremely widespread even among kippa wearing religious
Jews, and indeed all sorts of dysfunction including wild parties and sex. It was truly wild
times – today's kids are so much tamer all across America.
Perhaps it wasn't as bad as in the white community today, and the drugs were different
but not always, but Jews are not magically insulated from social trends.
However, most of these guys that I knew are married with kids and jobs today –
Jewish culture, with its traditions, social cohesiveness, and general rejection of abstract
Enlightenment culture, provided a level of protection and resilience that deracinated and
de-culturalized whites do not have, tragically.
These are only a few of the reasons. But I agree with you that science (Rationalism
and passivity) somehow eroded belief systems essential to European-Americans.
This really key to understanding what's going on with whites, and you understand this
because you live in Asia, and can see a more organic culture first hand.
The solution is simple but very daring and bold – simply relax the role of
rational and abstract thought in life, and an organic culture based on intuition and
different ways of engaging with the world will begin to spontaneously regenerate itself
among whites.
Simply acknowledge human powerlessness and dependence on God.
But this is extremely difficult to do for people addicted to ego and control, and
probably a real collapse is needed before they are willing to accept the help of a higher
power. Read More • Replies: @jeff
stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Grace Poole says:
May 27,
2019 at 5:02 pm GMT • 200 Words I listened closely to several of Dutton's videos
-- he's gifted and highly knowledgeable; it would be great to see Dutton & E Michael
Jones at a grand conference, UNZpac USA.
re his, Why do the Irish have a low IQ? (93 compared to British 100)
Among other things, he argues that
a. it takes intelligence to migrate
b. the Potato famine induced massive migration; -- the best Irishmen left Ireland
At the same time, I'm trying to get some work done on a house, and in my region, only
Hispanics/Latinos do this work. I'd hire an English-speaking tradesman if I could find
same, but I can't.
The painter, electrician and wannabe carpenters working on my property do not speak
English and understand only rudimentary English; they neither read nor write -- preparing a
prioritized list for their use is pointless. They possess a certain group canniness -- the
painter suggests the electrician, etc., and they are diligent about their work. But
Honduras is not experiencing a brain-drain based on these men.
So I wonder if Dutton got it wrong in some fundamental way: Was the Potato famine
pursued and prolonged by the British precisely to drive cheap labor to Anglo-America, and /
or to pursue the Talmudic dictum, Kill all the best gentiles?
That is pretty close to what we are slowly slowly discovering happened to the German
(and Italian -- thanks, Guido Preparata) people and nation.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/TFqCiJOpWhk?feature=oembed @notanon2
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
AaronB says: May 27,
2019 at 5:05 pm GMT • 100 Words @Bardon
Kaldian Presumably, those Israeli children are seeing racially similar people. So the
response was not to different race people, but to strangers.
Secondly, Israeli culture is no doubt quite different, closely at war with a neighboring
people and subject to periodic terrorist attacks, and infants are conditioned differently
at an early age.
This does not say anything about genetic differences. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Jews probably NEVER fared as well in Spain or India or China or Persia as they did in
Europe. Why?
nepotism is one aspect of ethnocentrism.
if group A is more nepotistic than group B then they gain an advantage in small scale
competition (e.g. business) .
Jews in India/China etc hit a wall cos their competitors was the same as them –
this is the thing, Jewish nepotism isn't unusual, most peoples are like that, WEIRD peoples
are the odd ones out.
(this is why they're starting to get out-competed in the US particularly by Indians)
nb ethnocentrism operates at different scales – in peacetime most "ethnic"
competition is very small scale i.e. two extended families competing over a business
opportunity. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide
Thread Display All Comments
But if you and almost all of your ancestors have lived all of their lives in a nearly
100% ethnically-pure social environment, how would any tendencies toward ethnocentricity
ever evolve or be maintained? Wouldn't they be about as useful as wings on a gopher?
But most people across the world lived like this, so the whole genetic ethnocentrism or
non ethnocentrism thing seems like it doesn't really make sense. Most Swedish people
probably never saw a non European, and most Anatolian Turks probably never saw a non Turk,
and most Omani Arabs likewise.
Only a very few groups would have had the chance, for relatively short periods, to live
in cosmopolitan cities are areas with clear racial fault lines.
Ethmocentrism is surely a second-order effect and an acquired cultural trait. It also
doesn't make sense that Europeans went from being intensely ethnocentric to very little in
the space of a century. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This
Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anonymous [145] • Disclaimer says: May
27, 2019 at 5:14 pm GMT • 200 Words It is not a race/ethnicity specific thing; it
is an in-group thing. It is also very much tied to cultural unity.
Why is modern Christianity so entirely lacking in ability to promote any kind of
ethnocentrism?
Europeans lost faith in Christianity after WW2. In 1945, Europe was in ruins with
millions dead, after having fought yet another war that supposedly nobody ever wanted.
People turned inwards and reflected on the past 500 years of European history. There were
numerous wars between Christian states and between Christians and non-Christians. There was
the age of exploration, slavery, colonialism, conquistadors, etc. Christianity itself was
not necessarily blamed, but it didn't need to be; it was just enough that it was associated
with the entire time period. And in 1945, whether rightly or wrongly, these associations
were overwhelmingly negative. Christianity has remained in Europe, of course, but these
days certain aspects are emphasized ("love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek") over
others. Even secular Europeans still retain certain Christian values which are then
conveniently incorporated into their acceptance of mass immigration.
In comparison, Christianity in the US still retains an aspect of being a force for local
unity in a way that has been lost in Europe. Recent American conflicts have usually been
subtly framed as being a triumph of Christian America over atheist commies or Muslims. Of
course, I am sure that it is just a coincidence that this exists to the benefit of a
certain tribe. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All
Comments
I don't think I buy this theory about low European ethnocentricity at all. I think
it's all the rich degenerate elites who are to blame for the "decline" in
ethnocentricity.
my understanding of ethnocentricity is although it's always there, unless people are
under a direct threat it is a relatively weak force except at the scale where people are
most related e.g. extended family, clan etc and to be a big factor at higher scales it
needs cultural reinforcement.
in the past western elites promoted that cultural reinforcement whereas now they do the
opposite.
so i think euros did gradually get less ethnocentric but it was disguised because the
elites compensated for it artificially with patriotic cultural reinforcement and then when
the elites suddenly stopped (from WW1 onwards) the underlying low ethnocentricity remained.
Read More • Replies: @Cyrano
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
re his, Why do the Irish have a low IQ? (93 compared to British 100)
based on personal experience i both believe and disbelieve this data.
one of the things you notice if you ever work in areas with lots of blue collar
immigrants is the kids are taller and smarter than the parents even if they're marrying
other immigrants from the same place.
keyword: same?
i worked construction (a long time ago) with people from rural Ireland so yeah i can see
where the 93 figure comes from but at the same time I worked with the kids or grand kids of
same and they were "normal" so i think there's a rural inbreeding effect which is being
missed – not inbreeding in the sense of actively marrying close cousins but a long
term effect of people in the same valley marrying each other for so many centuries they're
all effectively close cousins and all it takes to get rid of negative homozygous effects is
marrying someone from the next valley.
i think there's potentially big jumps in average IQ between rural and urban for this
reason and differences in average IQ between genetically similar populations may often be
the result of differences in the ratio of urban : rural : mountain rural. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Anon [421] • Disclaimer says: May
27, 2019 at 5:41 pm GMT@Colin
Wright English:
"a language is a dialect with an army and navy"
Yiddish:
"a shprakh iz a dyalekt mit an armey aum yam – flot
German:
Eine Sprache ist ein Dialekt mit einer Armee und einer Marine
A comparison of three Germanic languages; where's the supposed Slavic? Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Cyrano says: May 27,
2019 at 5:51 pm GMT • 300 Words @Wizard of
Oz Multiculturalism was invented in lieu of real Socialism – in order to avoid
it. They even borrowed the main mantra from socialism – "We are all equal".
Socialism is about equality, not capitalism. When you hear capitalist talk about
equality you have to know that there is some kind of scam involved.
The whole idea of multiculturalism stinks of Nazi Germany influence. They were the first
to use the term "socialism" for propaganda purposes and the same thing is with the
multiculturalism – it was created for purely propaganda purposes to portray the west
as progressive and liberal – in order to prevent demand for social improvements.
What makes things funnier is that both the Nazis and present day "democracies" were
sworn enemies of socialism – as being the "evil" system, yet when they want to fake
humanization of their system, they borrow elements from socialism. Is than irony or
what?
They are obviously lying about socialism being the "evil" system, because with their
actions they admit that the only way capitalism can progress – is toward socialism.
Now, I am not advocating conversion towards total socialism – that has been tried
– it didn't quite work out. But the improvements that need to be made in capitalism
have to be borrowed from socialism – the only other option is to borrow from
feudalism and that's not going to work either.
"Real" socialism advocated equality among nations and among people within a nation
– provided they stayed where they are. The modern Frankenstein of socialism that they
created in the West with chopped up body parts of socialism, misaligned them and breathed
into the monster the holy spirit of capitalism and they expected it to work.
How can you achieve "equality" by bringing hordes from the 3rd world when you haven't
achieved equality among the original, native born population? But that's the whole point
– isn't it – to pretend that you are striving for some kind of equality,
because you don't want the native born population to move one inch closer to being equal
with the rich elites. Read More • Replies: @notanon2
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
if you and almost all of your ancestors have lived all of their lives in a nearly 100%
ethnically-pure social environment, how would any tendencies toward ethnocentricity ever
evolve or be maintained?
i think people are assuming the "ethno" part of ethnocentricity developed at and for the
ethnic group scale whereas i think it mostly came into being at the clan or extended family
level.
those evolved traits can then be culturally reinforced to operate at the ethnic group
level depending on various factors
– inclination of elites to promote that cultural reinforcement
– how actually related the group is at the group level
– peace or war Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
Cyrano says: May 27,
2019 at 6:13 pm GMT • 100 Words @notanon2
So what are you saying, that in order to strengthen ethnic bonds, they should organize
pow-wows? Ethnic bonds are as strong as ever in Europe.
The rich elites are ruining societies in order to preserve their personal wealth.
If they want to test how strong are the ethnic ties, why not one single country which is
now under threat of multiculturalism has organized a referendum on immigration? Then you'll
find out how strong the ethnic bonds are.
But I guess "democracy" was only designed to let you choose which clown from the deep
state you want to entertain you in the next 4 years. You were never asked for opinion on
things that really matter.
Every western country should organize "Brexit" style referendum on such a crucial issue
which threatens the survival of the state – immigration. Read More • Replies:
@notanon2
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Multiculturalism was invented in lieu of real Socialism
the multicult was invented cos slavery was abolished and Emma Lazarus' family needed a
new source of cheap labor. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This
Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
That is the general area where The Pale of Settlement was established hundred of years
later by the Jews Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
So what are you saying, that in order to strengthen ethnic bonds, they should organize
pow-wows?
the elites used to actively promote patriotism to reinforce ethnocentricity but now they
promote anti-nationalism.
Ethnic bonds are as strong as ever in Europe.
they're still strong in south and east Europe but less so in NW Europe.
The rich elites are ruining societies in order to preserve their personal wealth.
yes partly that but also partly an anti-nationalist reaction to the world wars because
Europeans developed technology that made war dysgenic even for the winners.
If they want to test how strong are the ethnic ties, why not one single country which
is now under threat of multiculturalism has organized a referendum on immigration? Then
you'll find out how strong the ethnic bonds are.
imo the level of overt ethocentricity displayed by a population will be a combination
of
– baseline level
– the level of elite reinforcement (or not)
– the level of external threat
so yes even with a low baseline and the elites actively suppressing the normal reaction
to being replaced in your own homeland, being replaced is clearly enough of a threat to get
people to vote against it in a referendum but so far not enough to force politicians to put
it to a referendum.
so far all most people do is move away. this may change when there's nowhere left to
run. Read More • Replies: @Vianney
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Vianney says: May 27,
2019 at 8:48 pm GMT • 100 Words @notanon2
The trials by NY Jewish lawyers of Alt Right protesters in Charlottesville COULD serve as a
referendum if a few, or better yet, a group or Law School summoned the cajones to argue on
the side of American heritage.
It's Thomas Jefferson's city, fer chrissake, that is being reduced to "remember Munich"
status.
No mere happenstance.
Is there no one left in Charlottesville with enough pride to snatch up and raise high
the American flag rather than the blue 6-star? Read More • Replies: @notanon2
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
notanon2 says: May 27, 2019
at 9:12 pm GMT@Vianney
given the education system only went fully anti-white c. 10 years ago the people who
understand what is happening and have (or will have) the skills to fight back in the courts
are probably still in college or only recently left. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon [427] • Disclaimer says: May
27, 2019 at 10:16 pm GMT • 300 Words @Ron
Unz Chinese have lived in Southeast Asia since the 1800's, yet in virtually all SEA
countries, they remain distinct as an ethnic group, rarely intermarry with non-Chinese.
Growing up as an ethnic Chinese minority in Malaysia, I was taught to believe that the
Chinese were the superior race, compared to the lazy, low IQ Malays or Indians.
Since immigrating to the US in my teens in the 80's, I have watched with alarm how much
immigration from mainland China has grown in the US in the last 2 decades. My mixed race
kids tell me the Chinese kids in school tell them their mainland Chinese parents always
tell them "China #1!", and they wonder why their parents moved to the US (the answer:
because they are all corrupt and need to get out with their ill gotten gains before they
get thrown in jail). Chinese ethnocentrism is real and it is ugly.
However, as with all generalization, there are always exceptions and I am one such. I've
grown to despise my own tribe over the last 4 decades. I see how the Chinese behave the
world over, whether they are the majority or minority, they are greedy, selfish, dishonest,
rude, loud, clannish and have excessive ethnic pride, which causes many to completely lack
introspection. They are also a filthy tribe who does not take care of their environment,
their yard, and lack any kind of civic mindedness. The Cantonese are an especially
obnoxious tribe among the Chinese, absolutely abominable.
I think fewer Chinese is a good thing for the world. My tribe needs to die out, either
through childlessness or intermarriage. The world will be a better place. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
mcohen says: May 27,
2019 at 10:30 pm GMT • 100 Words "Those who advocate Multiculturalism seem to have
lost an important instinct towards group -- and thus genetic -- preservation. Once a
society, as a whole, espouses Multiculturalism as a dominant ideology then the society is
acting against its own genetic interests and will ultimately destroy itself."
Ed Dutton
Bullshit.inbreeding leads to retardation and genetic diseases
As defined
inbreed
/ɪnˈbriːd/
verb
gerund or present participle: inbreeding
breed from closely related people or animals, especially over many generations.
"persistent inbreeding has produced an unusually high frequency of sufferers from this
disease" Read More • Replies: @anon
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
the grand wazoo says:
May 27, 2019
at 10:33 pm GMT • 100 Words @david
fields I doubt the Chinese, or Asians in general are quick to assimilate by marriage. How
many mixed couples, i.e. Asian/White, Asian/Black, do we see. Not many and closer to none,
even here in liberal metro LA. I was at a party in Palos Verdes, Ca. the other day. There
were a number of Asian couples present, but not 1 mixed. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon [427] • Disclaimer says: May
27, 2019 at 10:38 pm GMT • 200 Words @Cyrano
Lack of ethnocentrism in whites is almost entirely caused by the last 5 decades of
relentless Jewish brainwashing and browbeating through their control of the media and the
education establishment. Jews have beaten white guilts into the white psyche to the point
where whites are either afraid to express their true feelings or are completely brainwashed
into believing in their own evilness. It's a real shame as Northern Europeans especially
from Germany and Scandinavia are probably the best race: intelligent, industrious, and
quite possibly the only truly honest people on earth.
European countries are the most beautiful places on earth not because they are the
richest -- many Europeans actually live quite modestly by American standards, they live in
small apartments or homes and don't make that much money compared to many upper middle
class professionals in the US, but they take care of their environments. They build
beautiful homes, grow beautiful gardens and yards, keep their environments clean and tidy,
and obey the law. It makes their societies look rich by comparison.
People in other parts of the world need to take a page from the Northern Europeans and
take better care of their environments. Beautiful places put people in better moods, and
make them want to be better people, e.g. more honest and law abiding. Read More •
Replies: @Cyrano
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
anon [297] • Disclaimer says: May 27,
2019 at 10:46 pm GMT@mcohen I
agree, therefore all Jews should be forced to interbreed exclusively with Nigerians to solve
their severe inbreeding problem. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
For various reasons, Jews have traditionally been exceptionally resistant to
absorption into local populations, remaining as a distinct group sometimes after
thousands of years of living within a particular host population.
Throughout ancient Europe, Jews were not allowed to own land and were often despised as
the money lenders throughout the diaspora. I don't know how hard it would've been for the
Jews to ditch Judaism, adopt Christianity, intermarry and completely assimilate with the
native Europeans, but at least the Spaniards had tried to get them to do that, to no avail.
I can only surmise that the Jewish religion is a very strong religion that keeps the Jews
believing out of fear or a strong sense of kinship.
However, many Jews in the US have become secular, yet continue to identify as Jews.
Perhaps this is because membership has its privileges, Jews help out other Jews in
business, academia, politics etc. But lately I'm thinking it has a lot to do with Israel.
There seems to be more and more "Holocaust Museums" being built all over the west. Who is
building them? Nearly 80m died in WWII, yet all we ever hear about are the 6m. Israel
depends on support from the diaspora to survive, esp. those in the US, both financially and
politically, so they continue to fan up the Holocaust to keep Jews loyal to the tribe, even
as the influence of Judaism wanes. As such, as long as Israel is still around, Jews will
never fully assimilate to whichever country they live in, because Israel wouldn't let them.
Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
Anon [427] • Disclaimer says: May
27, 2019 at 11:05 pm GMT@Ghali
Multicultural societies are all failed societies, dysfunctional, chaotic, dog-eat-dog,
every man for himself, everybody hates everybody. Just look at Malaysia or Brazil.
The US is turning into Brazil x 10, with nukes. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Parsnipitous says:
May 27, 2019
at 11:07 pm GMT@obwandiyag
You're such an idiot, Obi Wan. I don't mind the leftist/antiracist bent, but you're making
such poor arguments. What is your connection here? You getting paid? Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Cyrano says: May 27,
2019 at 11:20 pm GMT • 100 Words @Anon
Here we go about the Jews again. Can we leave them out of at least one conversation?
Ethnocentrism is "losing strength" today because it's actively suppressed by the elites.
They do this by equating ethnocentrism with racism and accusing only the deplorables of
being racists, while they – the rich degenerates are so above it.
The elites implemented multiculturalism because it's the cheapest form of "socialism".
Cheapest for them – it didn't cost them a penny, in the long run Multiculturalism is
going to be the most expensive and destructive form of phony socialism for each country
that embraced it. Read More • Replies: @Time to
Wake Up , @Vianney
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Jews probably NEVER fared as well in Spain or India or China or Persia as they did in
Europe. Why?
Jews did well in Europe because the native Europeans are honest and easy to rip off. The
dishonest always make the honest look stupid by comparison.
But the Spaniards, Indians, Chinese, Persians are as dishonest and unscrupulous as the
Jews, so they have no advantage over these groups. Read More • Replies: @jeff
stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Time to Wake Up says:
May 27, 2019
at 11:58 pm GMT@Cyrano
Yep, the (((elites))) wanted multiculturalism. When every group is an outgroup, (((they)))
will no longer stick out as the only outgroup and be easily called out for all their
treacheries. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide
Thread Display All Comments
Vianney says: May 28,
2019 at 12:23 am GMT • 100 Words @Cyrano
Jewish-designed, intended and enforced brain washing -- they, themselves, call it
psychological warfare, is an historical fact and a present reality.
There may be other groups or causal factors responsible for breakdown of
ethnocentricism, but Jewish ideology and praxis ranks at or near the top of the list.
It's foolish and self-destructive to ignore an accurate diagnosis out of fear of
'offending the Jew.' That is a Jewish defense mechanism. A soldier does not refrain from
dispatching an adversary just because the adversary calls him names. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Agathocles says:
May 28,
2019 at 12:25 am GMT • 300 Words We should recognise that within Europe there is
significant disparities in levels of ethno-centrism. For example, the Greek belief in the
superiority of its culture compared to others (somewhat of a proxy of ethno-centrism) is
through the roof compared to northern and western Europe.
Despite being one of history's most important trading people, being in a part of the
world which is not isolated and also having been colonised by Muslim Turks for 400 or so
years, Greeks have retained remarkable consistency in their genetic composition with only
relatively small intrusions of Slavic ancestry primarily in Macedonia and some Levantine
intrusions in Cyprus.
The key to ethnocentricity, which is not addressed by many, is a strong and stable
family structure as ethnicity is largely passed on by genes and family education. Of
course, state education is also critical. And Greeks again show some of the healthiest
signs in the developed world on this front. Children born out of wedlock in the two
Hellenic states of Greece and Cyprus are very low.
Of course, even the Greek family is not immune to modern lifestyle-related diseases as
witnessed by the low birthrate.
As for state education, although the Greek state has sometimes been disorganised,
wherever Greeks go, they establish two things first: a church and school often with the
support of the Greek state. Both institutions are key vehicles for the perpetuation of
ethno-centric values Read More • Replies: @utu
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
utu
says: May 28, 2019
at 12:44 am GMT@Agathocles
And Greeks have been ranked with the highest in Europe anti-Semitism index by ADL. Read More
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Similarly Chinese cannot get over on Koreans or Japanese like they can on Southeast
Asians. Why? Because they have the same characteristics as Chinese.
Makes sense the Jews fared less well in Southern Europe getting over on wary and shrewd
Sicilians or Spanish. Read More • Replies: @AaronB
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
But I agree with your general point – Jewish dominance after the Enlightenment is
only because northern Europeans made themselves vulnerable to group competition.
This is undoubtedly correct. Read More • Replies: @jeff
stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Jews had their Abbie Hoffmans (A real charmer who once doled out advice on how crash Bar
Mitzvah's in STEAL THIS BOOK) and their whiggers (BEASTIE BOYS made EMINEM look positively
sophisticated) and their sexual degenerates (Goldstein, Ron Jeremy, Sarah Silverman).
But Jews never regarded these people as examples of any kind. They merely regarded them
as degenerates who HAPPENED to be Jewish.
Similarly, crack cocaine's popularity affected Jews in the boroughs of New York as well.
But statistically less.
As for wild teenage behavior among whites or Jews, this seemed to reach a peak in the
post-70's period of FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH and by 1983 dissipated during the Reagan
Revolution.
When one watches the original KARATE KID today their first thought is "where are the
police? Where's the principal?" Read More • Replies: @AaronB
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
AaronB says: May 28,
2019 at 1:32 am GMT@jeff
stryker I have always despised the Beastie Boys, I can tell you that. Utterly talentless,
vulgar, hacks. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide
Thread Display All Comments
Spain is ostensibly easy to explain. There was less animosity between Muslims and Jews
at that time than between Muslims and Catholics, provided the Jews paid their taxes. Same
as the Maghreb. Which the Catholics were aware of and so expelled the Jews along with the
Muslims.
In addition to the Enlightenment is the European class system, from which Jews were
relatively free.
Whereas in Southern Europe, trade had existed in Rome for a long time. There was also
the issue of usury.
"... Newsweek unearthed another clue as to the provenance of the claims. The magazine said that it learned from one Pentagon official that the satellite imagery of loading missiles into fishing dhows was not produced by U.S. intelligence but rather had been provided by Israel. ..."
"... Ravid's Israeli sources acknowledged that it wasn't hard intelligence or even an intelligence assessment based on evidence. Instead, as one Israeli official acknowledged, Mossad "drew several scenarios for what Iran might be planning." Ravid's sources ultimately admitted that Israel's Mossad doesn't really know "what the Iranians are trying to do." ..."
"... That April 15 meeting was only the most recent one between top U.S. and Israeli national security officials over the past year, according to Ravid. These meetings were conducted under a still-secret U.S.-Israeli agreement on a joint plan of action against Iran reached after two days of unannounced meetings at the White House between Ben Shabbat and then-national security advisor H.R. McMaster on December 12, 2017. ..."
"... It also creates a new incentive for the Israelis and Saudis to provoke military responses by Hamas in Gaza or the Houthis in Yemen. ..."
@renfro Remember
Iraq .with visions of WMDs, yellow cake and dancing Israelis in your head.
"In meetings in Washington and Tel Aviv in the past few weeks," the paper's Jerusalem
correspondent wrote, "Israeli intelligence warned" U.S. officials that "Iran or its proxies
were planning to strike American targets in Iraq." The report cited a "senior Middle Eastern
intelligence official" -- the term traditionally used to describe an Israeli intelligence
official–as the source.
Newsweek unearthed another clue as to the provenance of the claims. The magazine said that
it learned from one Pentagon official that the satellite imagery of loading missiles into
fishing dhows was not produced by U.S. intelligence but rather had been provided by
Israel.
Reporting by the leading Israeli diplomatic correspondent Barak Ravid, now of Channel 13
but also filing for Axios, provides more detailed evidence that Israel was the original
source of all three alleged Iranian threats. Ravid's story reports that an Israeli
delegation, led by national advisor Meir Ben Shabbat, met with Bolton and other U.S. national
security officials in the White House on April 15 and passed on to them "information about
possible Iranian plots against the U.S. or its allies in the Gulf," according to "senior
Israeli officials."
Bolton confirmed the meeting with Ben Shabbat in a tweet after it happened, but revealed
nothing about what was discussed.
Ravid's Israeli sources acknowledged that it wasn't hard intelligence or even an
intelligence assessment based on evidence. Instead, as one Israeli official acknowledged,
Mossad "drew several scenarios for what Iran might be planning." Ravid's sources ultimately
admitted that Israel's Mossad doesn't really know "what the Iranians are trying to do."
This is the obvious explanation for why U.S. officials were so unwilling to reveal the
provenance of what has loosely been called "intelligence." It also tallies with one Pentagon
official's revelation to Newsweek that the satellite imagery cited as evidence of missiles in
fishing boats had been "provided to U.S. officials by Israel ."
That April 15 meeting was only the most recent one between top U.S. and Israeli national
security officials over the past year, according to Ravid. These meetings were conducted
under a still-secret U.S.-Israeli agreement on a joint plan of action against Iran reached
after two days of unannounced meetings at the White House between Ben Shabbat and
then-national security advisor H.R. McMaster on December 12, 2017. Ravid reported the
details of that agreement in late December based on information from a "senior U.S. official"
and confirmation from senior Israeli officials.
Ravid's story provided details on the four working groups that were formed under the
agreement, including one on "Joint U.S.-Israeli preparation for different escalation
scenarios in the region, concerning Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza." The
Mossad "scenarios" apparently provided the central ideas with which to justify the Trump
administration's subsequent escalatory moves against Iran, including ostentatiously moving an
aircraft carrier and a B-52 bomber group into the region.
Bolton's May 5 statement warning of "unrelenting force" against Iran in response to any
attack by either Iranian or "proxy" forces added a very significant new element to America's
retaliatory threats. It referred to an attack "on United States interests or on those of our
allies." That broadening of the range of scenarios that could be cited to justify a U.S.
strike against Iran, which has so far been studiously ignored by major news media, represents
a major concession to the Israelis and Saudi Arabia.
It also creates a new incentive for the Israelis and Saudis to provoke military responses by
Hamas in Gaza or the Houthis in Yemen. And it poses the problem of incidents that could be
blamed on Iran or a "proxy" but for which actual responsibility is ambiguous, such as the
apparent "limpet mine" attack on oil tankers on May 12 -- or the rocket fired into Baghdad's
Green Zone within a mile of the U.S. embassy there Sunday night.
These deceptions are part of a dangerous game being run by Bolton in which Israel is
apparently playing a crucial role. That should prompt some serious questioning as to Bolton's
claims and the role of the alleged secret U.S.-Israeli understandings.
War between the United States and Iran looms, even though the latter poses no threat to the
former. President Donald Trump says he doesn't want war but for the Iranians to call him.
Perhaps his entire campaign is an elaborate effort to scare Tehran to the negotiating table. Or
perhaps he hopes to win political support by fomenting a foreign crisis. How ironic that would
be: in 2011, Trump warned via tweet that "Barack Obama will attack Iran in the not too distant
future because it will help him win the election."
However, the president already ran against the Islamic Republic, in 2016. Moreover, his
words have been incendiary, threatening "the official end of Iran." Although U.S. intelligence
officials admit that Tehran's confrontational rhetoric is largely a response to Washington's
aggression, the administration's military moves are sharply increasing tensions as well as the
possibility of a costly mistake or misjudgment.
The War Party is active again in the Imperial City. Before joining the administration,
National Security Advisor John Bolton forthrightly called for an attack on the Islamic
Republic. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also demanded regime change in Iran. More recently, he
admitted that sanctions were intended to induce the Iranian people to "change the government."
While claiming not to seek war, he threatened retaliation for any attack by Iranian "proxy
forces" and on "American interests."
Tehran has long been a favorite target of influential neoconservatives and ultra-hawks. The
invasion of Iraq almost immediately led to calls for a turn to Tehran. Several years ago,
Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy suggested staging a false flag
operation: if "the Iranians aren't going to compromise," he said, "it would be best if somebody
else started the war." Today, Senator Tom Cotton predicts an easy American
victory.
Advertisement
The Saudis also openly favor an American war against Iran. (Defense Secretary Robert Gates
once quipped that Riyadh would fight Iran "to the last American.") A newspaper owned by the
royal family last week called on Washington to "hit hard." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu has worked tirelessly to inflate the Iranian "threat" and told a TV interviewer that
he'd convinced Trump to abandon the nuclear deal.
Yet conflict with Iran would be a disaster, far worse than with Iraq. Even the Council on
Foreign Relations' Max Boot, a vocal neoconservative and uber-hawk, has warned against this.
And Americans would not be the only casualties. Jason Rezaian, TheWashington
Post reporter who spent more than a year in an Iranian prison, observed: "those who will
suffer most have little say in the matter. It's the Iranian people who have borne the brunt of
40 years of enmity between the United States and the Islamic republic, and in the current
standoff, they stand to lose the most yet again."
The possibility that the chief executive might rush or be pushed into such a disastrous war
is exactly why the Founders obliged presidents to go to Congress for approval. The Constitution
places the power to declare war in the hands of the legislature.
Yet modern presidents routinely claim monarchical powers, using the military without proper
authority. Legislators often avoid taking responsibility for wars that might turn unpopular.
But neither unconstitutional nor irresponsible behavior justifies chief executives doing the
same.
Trump has proven no more faithful to the Constitution than his predecessors. For instance,
Pompeo refused to commit the administration to going to Congress for the authority to attack
Iran. (The secretary did the same when earlier questioned about the administration's military
threats against Venezuela.) Pompeo suggested that the president might rely on the post-9/11
authorization for use of military force, an even more ludicrous reach than the Obama
administration's appeal to the same measure for its fight against the Islamic State and strikes
on Syria.
The refusal to obey the Constitution is evidence of weakness. In contrast, many of America's
strongest chief executives recognized Congress's authority. George Washington declared: "The
Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition
of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and
authorized such a measure."
Abraham Lincoln praised the Founders for recognizing war "to be the most oppressive of all
Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold
the power of bringing this oppression upon us." Dwight Eisenhower was equally insistent on the
need for legislative approval for war.
Delegates to the constitutional convention insisted they were not recreating the king of
England or replicating his powers, especially to start wars. After all, war is the hallmark of
unlimited government. Warned James Madison: "Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is,
perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War
is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes
are the known instrument for bringing the many under the domination of the few."
The Founders knew this problem well, since a succession of European kings and queens had
launched a succession of unnecessary and even frivolous conflicts. The price was paid in blood
and treasure by the common folk. John Jay observed that kings were often led "to engage in wars
not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people." Pierce Butler insisted
that the president not be invested with the authority to start wars, like a monarch who enjoyed
the "opportunity of involving his country in a war whenever he wished to promote her
destruction."
Madison explained the principle incorporated in the Constitution: "Those who are to conduct
a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be
commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great
principle in free governments, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or
the power of executing from the power of enacting laws."
Thus, the Constitution gives to Congress most military powers: raising an army, funding the
military, issuing letters of marquee, approving rules of war, ratifying treaties, and, of
course, taking America into war. Article 1, Section 8 (11) states: "Congress shall have the
power to declare war." Observed Madison: the "fundamental doctrine of the Constitution that the
power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature."
Despite this history, some modern analysts bizarrely contend that Congress only ever gets to
"declare" that the president had started a war. In fact, the Founders changed the operative
word from "make" to "declare" merely to ensure that the commander-in-chief could respond to a
surprise attack. They did not even believe the president could launch a reprisal without legal
authority. They certainly didn't intend to enable the president to wander the globe smiting
nations hither and yon at his sole discretion.
Despite their many disagreements, the Founders agreed on this point. The president commanded
the military but could only prosecute wars authorized by Congress . Said George Mason,
the chief executive "is not safely to be entrusted with" the power to start wars, which
required "clogging rather than facilitating war." Thomas Jefferson cited the Constitution's
"effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose." Explained
James Wilson: "It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve
us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is in the legislature at
large."
Even Alexander Hamilton, who leaned toward monarchy, emphasized that the commander-in-chief
was just the "first general and admiral." The president's authority was "in substance much
inferior to" that of Britain's monarch, and "would amount to nothing more than the supreme
command and direction of the land and naval forces while that of the British king extends to
the declaring of war."
Trump is bound by the Constitution when confronting Iran. Indeed, the not insubstantial
possibility of him and his officials lying America into another irresponsible war of choice is
why the Founders placed the decision with Congress. Americans have learned at a high cost that
presidents cannot be trusted to act like kings.
With a presidential election approaching, Americans should seriously ponder whether they
want to entrust the presidency to someone who believes he's empowered to make war without
constraint. It's time to choose a chief executive who's prepared to follow the
Constitution.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
(Xulon Press). He is a graduate of Stanford Law School and a member of the California and
Washington, D.C. bars.
"... The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as "an altogether hotter war." ..."
"... From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we -- not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians -- were number one, and, more importantly, were meant to be. That history's verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living in or near Washington, D.C. ..."
"... Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright's justification for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever). ..."
"... Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment's formula for militarized global leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers, including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent counted for nothing. ..."
"... Yet in 2016, Trump's critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump's half-baked formula for Making America Great Again -- building "the wall," provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat -- is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether irrelevant. His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don't help ..."
"... There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a sense the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would consider neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.) ..."
"... In this sense the alliance of China, Iran, Russia and Turkey might serve as an external countervailing force which allows some level of return to sanity, like was the case when the USSR existed. ..."
"... I agree with Bacevich that the dissolution of the USSR corrupted the US elite to the extent that it became reckless and somewhat suicidal in seeking "Full Spectrum Dominance" (which is an illusive goal in any case taking into account existing arsenals in China and Russia and the growing distance between EU and the USA) ..."
The Great Power Game is On and China is Winning If America wants to maintain any influence in Asia, it needs to wake
up. By Robert W. Merry •
May 22,
2019
President Donald J. Trump participates in a bilateral meeting with President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People, Thursday,
November 9, 2017, in Beijing, People's Republic of China. (
Official White House Photo
by Shealah Craighead) From across the pond come two geopolitical analyses in two top-quality British publications that lay out
in stark terms the looming struggle between the United States and China. It isn't just a trade war, says The Economist in
a major cover package. "Trade is not the half of it," declares the magazine. "The United States and China are contesting every domain,
from semiconductors to submarines and from blockbuster films to lunar exploration." The days when the two superpowers sought a win-win
world are gone.
For its own cover, The Financial Times ' Philip Stephens produced a piece entitled, "Trade is just an opening shot in a
wider US-China conflict." The subhead: "The current standoff is part of a struggle for global pre-eminence." Writes Stephens: "The
trade narrative is now being subsumed into a much more alarming one. Economics has merged with geopolitics. China, you can hear on
almost every corner in sight of the White House and Congress, is not just a dangerous economic competitor but a looming existential
threat."
Stephens quotes from the so-called National Defense Strategy, entitled "Sharpening the American Military's Competitive Edge,"
released last year by President Donald Trump's Pentagon. In the South China Sea, for example, says the strategic paper, "China has
mounted a rapid military modernization campaign designed to limit U.S. access to the region and provide China a freer hand there."
The broader Chinese goal, warns the Pentagon, is "Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United
States to achieve global pre-eminence in the future."
The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more
intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as "an altogether hotter war."
... ... ..
Russia: Of all the developments percolating in the world today, none is more ominous than the growing prospect of an anti-American
alliance involving Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran. Yet such an alliance is in the works, largely as a result of America's inability
to forge a foreign policy that recognizes the legitimate geopolitical interests of other nations. If the United States is to maintain
its position in Asia, this trend must be reversed.
The key is Russia, largely by dint of its geopolitical position in the Eurasian heartland. If China's global rise is to be thwarted,
it must be prevented from gaining dominance over Eurasia. Only Russia can do that. But Russia has no incentive to act because it
feels threatened by the West. NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been
part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries.
Given the trends that are plainly discernible in the Far East, the West must normalize relations with Russia. That means providing
assurances that NATO expansion is over for good. It means the West recognizing that Georgia, Belarus, and, yes, Ukraine are within
Russia's natural zone of influence. They will never be invited into NATO, and any solution to the Ukraine conundrum will have to
accommodate Russian interests. Further, the West must get over Russia's annexation of the Crimean peninsula. It is a fait accompli
-- and one that any other nation, including America, would have executed in similar circumstances.
Would Russian President Vladimir Putin spurn these overtures and maintain a posture of bellicosity toward the West? We can't be
sure, but that certainly wouldn't be in his interest. And how will we ever know when it's never been tried? We now understand that
allegations of Trump's campaign colluding with Russia were meritless, so it's time to determine the true nature and extent of Putin's
strategic aims. That's impossible so long as America maintains its sanctions and general bellicosity.
NATO: Trump was right during the 2016 presidential campaign when he said that NATO was obsolete. He later dialed back on
that, but any neutral observer can see that the circumstances that spawned NATO as an imperative of Western survival no longer exist.
The Soviet Union is gone, and the 1.3 million Russian and client state troops it placed on Western Europe's doorstep are gone as
well.
So what kind of threat could Russia pose to Europe and the West? The European Union's GDP is more than 12 times that of Russia's,
while Russia's per capita GDP is only a fourth of Europe's. The Russian population is 144.5 million to Europe's 512 million. Does
anyone seriously think that Russia poses a serious threat to Europe or that Europe needs the American big brother for survival, as
in the immediate postwar years? Of course not. This is just a ruse for the maintenance of the status quo -- Europe as subservient
to America, the Russian bear as menacing grizzly, America as protective slayer in the event of an attack.
This is all ridiculous. NATO shouldn't be abolished. It should be reconfigured for the realities of today. It should be European-led,
not American-led. It should pay for its own defense entirely, whatever that might be (and Europe's calculation of that will inform
us as to its true assessment of the Russian threat). America should be its primary ally, but not committed to intervene whenever
a tiny European nation feels threatened. NATO's Article 5, committing all alliance nations to the defense of any other when attacked,
should be scrapped in favor of language that calls for U.S. intervention only in the event of a true threat to Western Civilization
itself.
And while a European-led NATO would find it difficult to pull back from its forward eastern positions after adding so many nations
in the post-Cold War era, it should extend assurances to Russia that it has no intention of acting provocatively -- absent, of course,
any Russian provocations.
Pragmatic isolationalism is a better deal then the current neocon foreign policy. Which Trump is pursuing with the zeal similar
to Obama (who continued all Bush II wars and started two new in Libya and Syria.) Probably this partially can be explained by
his dependence of Adelson and pro-Israeli lobby.
But the problem is deeper then Trump: it is the power of MIC and American exeptionalism ( which can be viewed as a form of
far right nationalism ) about which Andrew Bacevich have written a lot:
From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we --
not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians -- were number one, and, more importantly, were meant
to be. That history's verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living
in or near Washington, D.C.
If doubts remained on that score, the end of the Cold War removed them. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse
of communism, politicians, journalists, and policy intellectuals threw themselves headlong into a competition over who could
explain best just how unprecedented, how complete, and how wondrous was the global preeminence of the United States.
Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright's justification
for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore
required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever).
"If we have to use force," Secretary of State Albright announced on morning television in February 1998, "it is because
we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future."
Back then, it was Albright's claim to American indispensability that stuck in my craw. Yet as a testimony to ruling class
hubris, the assertion of indispensability pales in comparison to Albright's insistence that "we see further into the future."
In fact, from February 1998 down to the present, events have time and again caught Albright's "we" napping. The 9/11 terrorist
attacks and the several unsuccessful wars of choice that followed offer prime examples. But so too did Washington's belated
and inadequate recognition of the developments that actually endanger the wellbeing of 21st-century Americans, namely climate
change, cyber threats, and the ongoing reallocation of global power prompted by the rise of China. Rather than seeing far into
the future, American elites have struggled to discern what might happen next week. More often than not, they get even that
wrong.
Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment's formula for militarized global
leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers,
including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent
counted for nothing.
Yet in 2016, Trump's critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful
run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely
approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump's half-baked formula for Making America Great Again -- building "the wall,"
provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat -- is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether
irrelevant. His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don't help.
There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a sense
the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would consider
neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.)
In this sense the alliance of China, Iran, Russia
and Turkey might serve as an external countervailing force which allows some level of return to sanity, like was the case when
the USSR existed.
I agree with Bacevich that the dissolution of the USSR corrupted the US elite to the extent that it became reckless and somewhat
suicidal in seeking "Full Spectrum Dominance" (which is an illusive goal in any case taking into account existing arsenals in
China and Russia and the growing distance between EU and the USA)
"... The Iranian goal is to break the resolve of the US, given American military retreats from the Middle East in the past – Lebanon (1984), Iraq (2011), and Syria (presently) – and to increase the cost of Iranian oil sanctions on the global economy through additional disruptions to supply. ..."
"... This is obviously a dangerous game that could lead to real war, not just proxy war. As a result, it is important to explore the potential impact of both on the world oil market, despite the latter being significantly more likely than the former. ..."
"... On the deterrence front, the US has moved numerous military assets to the Persian Gulf region since the Trump administration's "no waiver" oil sanctions came into effect. These include: hastening the arrival of a carrier strike group; deployment of a bomber task-force; additional Patriot missiles; and as reported by The New York Times, drawing up plans to send up to 120,000 US troops to the Middle East, if Iran attacks US forces or rushes to develop nuclear weapons. ..."
As tensions between Iran and the US continue to escalate, analysts have begun to consider the likelihood and consequences of an
Iran war. There has been much talk of an Iran War in recent weeks, but the likelihood of a war, whether intentional or accidental,
is relatively small for the simple reason that the leaders of Iran and the US don't want one. President Donald Trump, who has been
remarkably faithful to his campaign promises, to the chagrin of many, doesn't want another Iraq-like war – with a quick victory
followed by a long defeat. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, doesn't want his revolution and country crushed by the
massive military might of America.
This is not to say there aren't powerful individuals in the Trump administration – such as National Security Advisor John Bolton
and possibly Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – and regional allies – Israel, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) – who want a
war to bring about regime change in Iran, and who are willing to stir the pot in an attempt to make it happen.
Trump's personal preference for Iran may also be regime change, with a negotiated neutering of the Islamic Republic his next best
outcome. But he probably would settle for long-term containment of Iran through his
"maximum pressure"
campaign, accepting that the Iranian regime would likely be able to sustain itself though skirting sanctions.
Iran has made huge geopolitical gains in the Middle East since the US inadvertently pushed Shiite-majority Iraq into the Iranian
sphere of influence by imposing democracy on the country following the 2003 war. Tehran now directly or indirectly controls an arc
of territory north of Saudi Arabia – Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – while supporting Houthi rebels to the south of the kingdom in Yemen.
Although US sanctions on Iran's oil and metal exports are unlikely to bring about regime change, they will make it significantly
more difficult for the Islamic Republic to consolidate its territorial gains and sustain its regional proxy network, as the
government will have to prioritize domestic spending to maintain social stability. Simply put, the sanctions make it more difficult
for Iran to directly challenge its regional enemies, Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE and score additional foreign policy victories.
Despite an aversion to war with the US, it appears Khamenei has given Qassem Suleimani, leader of Iran's powerful Quds Force and
national hero, permission to encourage foreign militias aligned with Tehran to cause mischief for US and allied forces in the Middle
East, and if possible, disrupt the flow of oil from the region through non-attributed actions.
The Iranian goal is to break the resolve of the US, given American military retreats from the Middle East in the past –
Lebanon (1984), Iraq (2011), and Syria (presently) – and to increase the cost of Iranian oil sanctions on the global economy through
additional disruptions to supply.
This is obviously a dangerous game that could lead to real war, not just proxy war. As a result, it is important to explore
the potential impact of both on the world oil market, despite the latter being significantly more likely than the former.
US Perspective
Pompeo laid out the Trump administration's rationale and strategy for dealing with the Islamic Republic in
"Confronting Iran,"
an article in the November-December 2018 issue of
Foreign Affairs
. He argued the deal the Obama administration and international community struck with Iran in 2015 – the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) – was fundamentally flawed as it failed to end the country's nuclear weapons ambition. Instead, the deal
simply postponed Iran's nuclear ambitions while the regime continued its ballistic missile program to allow it to deliver a nuclear
payload.
At the same time, the deal gave
"Tehran piles of money, which the supreme leader has used to sponsor all types of terrorism throughout the Middle East (with few
consequences in response) and which have boosted the economic fortunes of a regime that remains bent on exporting its revolution
abroad and imposing it at home."
The core of the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign are economic sanctions designed to
"choke off revenues"
to Iran to force its government to negotiate a
"new deal"
covering its nuclear activities, ballistic missile program and
"malign behaviour"
across the Middle East, while providing sufficient military deterrence to keep Tehran from lashing out at US forces and allies
in the region.
Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, and has since ratcheted up economic sanctions on the Islamic
Republic in August and November of last year, while going the full monty on Iranian crude and condensate exports at the beginning of
May.
On the deterrence front, the US has moved numerous military assets to the Persian Gulf region since the Trump
administration's
"no waiver"
oil sanctions came into effect. These include: hastening the arrival of a carrier strike group; deployment of a bomber
task-force; additional Patriot missiles; and as reported by The New York Times, drawing up plans to send up to 120,000 US troops to
the Middle East, if Iran attacks US forces or rushes to develop nuclear weapons.
It should be noted that a military buildup of this size would take months, and the 120,000 number is widely viewed as
insufficient for a full-scale invasion of Iran. The Islamic Republic has been planning and building up asymmetric military
capabilities to thwart a US attack since the 1990s, while the country is larger in size and population than Iraq. The US military
plan reported by the New York Times did not call for a land invasion of Iran.
On May 14, Trump denied the New York Times report, but in characteristic fashion appeared to up the ante.
"Now, would I do that? Absolutely,"
Trump said.
"But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we're not going to have to plan for that. If we did that, we would send a hell of a
lot more troops than that."
But in the Foreign Affairs
article Pompeo wrote that Trump does not want the US to go to war with Iran:
"President Trump does not want another long-term US military engagement in the Middle East -- or in any other region, for that
matter. He has spoken openly about the dreadful consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2011 intervention in Libya."
Iranian Perspective
On May 14, Khamenei explicitly said that Iran does not want to go to war with the US, and suggested the same of America, as a war
would be in neither country's interest.
"There won't be any war,"
he said.
"Neither we nor they seek war. They know it will not be in their interest."
In terms of Iran's current situation, David Petraeus, ex-CIA director and America's former top general in the Middle East,
possibly put it best.
"Certainly, if Iran were to precipitate that [a war], it would be a suicide gesture,"
Petraeus said on May 9.
"It would be very, very foolhardy. And they know that."
The Islamic Republic has done an excellent job of marshaling relatively limited financial and military resources to expand its
influence and control through the Middle East since 2003, but its defense budget of about US$16 billion – or a mere 3.7 percent of
GDP – falls considerably short compared to regional rivals Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE on an individual basis, let alone a
collective one. The military capabilities of the US dwarf those of Iran on every conceivable measure, which should come as no
surprise since America's most recent defense budget is a massive US$686 billion.
Khamenei also said his country has no desire to negotiate with the US, given the Trump administration's extreme demands and
unilateral breaking of the nuclear pact, and suggested the current crisis will likely be a long one, a view supported by Hassan
Rouhani, the democratically elected president of Iran.
"The Iranian nation has chosen the path of resistance,"
Khamenei said.
Rouhani was even more explicit. Speaking to activists from a wide range of political factions on May 12, he said Iran is facing
"unprecedented"
pressure from US sanctions and suggested economic conditions may become worse than during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War.
"The pressures by enemies is a war unprecedented in the history of our Islamic revolution,"
Rouhani said, according to the state news agency IRNA.
"But I do not despair and have great hope for the future and believe that we can move past these difficult conditions provided
that we are united
."
"... As the Pentagon's strategic paper posits, China's overriding foreign policy goal is to squeeze America out of East Asia and force it back to the Hawaiian islands as its forward position in the Pacific. Thus would Hawaii cease to be America's strategic platform for projecting power into Asia and become merely a defensive position. If this strategic retreat were to happen, it would be one of the most significant developments in international relations since the end of World War II. ..."
"... None of your suggestions is likely to happen, absent defeat. America's trump card is the fiat dollar as world currency, defended by the full faith and power of an imperial global military, with its own economic inertia to the domestic economy as well. ..."
"... The most obvious step is to forge a genuine alliance with India. America can't take on China alone (although China's ineluctable demographic decline may make the US' relative decline in fortunes short-lived), and the world's largest democracy, and soon to be most populous nation, is an obvious counterweight to China, despite its still inefficient economy. ..."
"... The US has been trying to reverse this, but our patronizing attitude towards a proud country seeking great-power status has led to modest progress at best, and their defense relationship with Russia is stronger than with us. ..."
"... There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a sense the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would consider neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.) ..."
"... Overlooked might be Germany's copycat foreign policy posturing too often hidden behind 'humanitarian' language. https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/projects/new-power-new-responsibility/the-paper/ ..."
"... Guess the parallel with the US 'New American Century' is not misplaced. Do you realize that Germany aims to leverage the EU for establishing its position as a 'World Player'. Do realize too that it tends to categorize other countries along the same zero sum power line of reasoning as the US "either with us or against us". ..."
"... This German foreign policy gave birth to the European Neighborhood Policy which exploited the US instigated coup to indenture Ukraine into a dependent NON-member state associated exclusively with the EU excluding normal economic relations with Russia. ..."
"... One of the most malign effects of Israeli and Saudi control of American politicians is the grotesque overemphasis on the Middle East in US foreign policy. Trump's trade fights to one side, it often seems as if we dismiss or ignore much of the rest of the world. This disproportion has been obvious and growing since the end of the last century, but at this point it's pathological. ..."
"... Well, it all depends on goals doesn't it. US foreign policy goals are to increase chaos and create international tension. Why? Because US foreign policy exists to feed military and intel contractors on the one hand and asserting power for the sake of asserting power with no overall strategy other the Great Game. ..."
The Great Power Game is On and China is Winning If America wants to maintain any influence in Asia, it needs to wake
up. By Robert W. Merry •
May 22,
2019
President Donald J. Trump participates in a bilateral meeting with President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People, Thursday,
November 9, 2017, in Beijing, People's Republic of China. (
Official White House Photo
by Shealah Craighead) From across the pond come two geopolitical analyses in two top-quality British publications that lay out
in stark terms the looming struggle between the United States and China. It isn't just a trade war, says The Economist in
a major cover package. "Trade is not the half of it," declares the magazine. "The United States and China are contesting every domain,
from semiconductors to submarines and from blockbuster films to lunar exploration." The days when the two superpowers sought a win-win
world are gone.
For its own cover, The Financial Times ' Philip Stephens produced a piece entitled, "Trade is just an opening shot in a
wider US-China conflict." The subhead: "The current standoff is part of a struggle for global pre-eminence." Writes Stephens: "The
trade narrative is now being subsumed into a much more alarming one. Economics has merged with geopolitics. China, you can hear on
almost every corner in sight of the White House and Congress, is not just a dangerous economic competitor but a looming existential
threat."
Stephens quotes from the so-called National Defense Strategy, entitled "Sharpening the American Military's Competitive Edge,"
released last year by President Donald Trump's Pentagon. In the South China Sea, for example, says the strategic paper, "China has
mounted a rapid military modernization campaign designed to limit U.S. access to the region and provide China a freer hand there."
The broader Chinese goal, warns the Pentagon, is "Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United
States to achieve global pre-eminence in the future."
The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more
intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as "an altogether hotter war."
As the Pentagon's strategic paper posits, China's overriding foreign policy goal is to squeeze America out of East Asia and
force it back to the Hawaiian islands as its forward position in the Pacific. Thus would Hawaii cease to be America's strategic platform
for projecting power into Asia and become merely a defensive position. If this strategic retreat were to happen, it would be one
of the most significant developments in international relations since the end of World War II.
America has been projecting significant power into Asia since the 1890s, when President William McKinley acquired Hawaii through
annexation, then seized Guam and the Philippines in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. For good measure, he cleared the way
for the construction of the Panama Canal and continued his predecessors' robust buildup of the U.S. Navy. President Theodore Roosevelt
then pushed the Canal project to actual construction, accelerated the naval buildup, and sent his Great White Fleet around the world
as a signal that America had arrived on the global scene -- as if anyone could have missed that obvious reality.
With the total victory over Japan in World War II, America emerged as the hegemon of Asia, with colonies, naval bases, carrier
groups, and strategic alliances that made it foolhardy for any nation to even think of challenging our regional dominance. Not even
the Vietnam defeat, as psychologically debilitating as that was, could undercut America's Asian preeminence.
Now China is seeking to position itself to push America back into its own hemisphere. And judging from the language of the National
Defense Strategy, America doesn't intend to be pushed back. This is a clash of wills, with all the makings of an actual military
conflict.
But if China represents the greatest potential threat to America's global position, making an eventual war likely (though not
inevitable), why is Washington not acting like it knows this? Why is it engaging in so many silly military capers that undermine
its ability to focus attention and resources on the China challenge? While the National Defense Strategy paper suggests that U.S.
officials understand the threat, America's actions reveal an incapacity to grapple with this reality in any concentrated fashion.
Here's a general idea of what a U.S. foreign policy under Trump might look like if it was based on a clear recognition of the
China threat:
Iran: Since the end of the Cold War, the sheer folly of Trump's Iran policy has been exceeded only by George W. Bush's
Iraq invasion. Barack Obama bequeathed to his successor a rare gift in the Iran nuclear deal, which provided an opportunity to direct
attention away from Tehran and toward America's position in East Asia. In no way did it serve America's national interest to stir
up tensions with Iran while the far more ominous China threat loomed. A policy based on realism would have seized that opportunity
and used the channels of communication forged through the nuclear deal to establish some kind of accommodation, however wary or tenuous.
Instead, America under Trump has created a crisis where none need exist.
Personnel: While the Iran policy might be difficult to reverse, a reversal is imperative. And that means Trump must fire
National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. While their bully boy actions on the global stage seem
to mesh with Trump's own temperament, the president also appears increasingly uncomfortable with the results, particularly with regard
to their maximum pressure on Iran, which has brought America closer than ever to actual hostilities. Whether Trump has the subtlety
of mind to understand just how destructive these men have been to his broad foreign policy goals is an open question. And Trump certainly
deserves plenty of blame for pushing America into a zone of open hostility with Iran. But he can't extricate himself from his own
folly so long as he has Bolton and Pompeo pushing him toward ever more bellicosity in ever more areas of the world. He needs men
around him who appreciate just how wrongheaded American foreign policy has been in the post-Cold War era -- men such as retired Army
Colonel Douglas MacGregor and former Virginia senator Jim Webb. Bolton and Pompeo -- out!
Russia: Of all the developments percolating in the world today, none is more ominous than the growing prospect of an anti-American
alliance involving Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran. Yet such an alliance is in the works, largely as a result of America's inability
to forge a foreign policy that recognizes the legitimate geopolitical interests of other nations. If the United States is to maintain
its position in Asia, this trend must be reversed.
The key is Russia, largely by dint of its geopolitical position in the Eurasian heartland. If China's global rise is to be thwarted,
it must be prevented from gaining dominance over Eurasia. Only Russia can do that. But Russia has no incentive to act because it
feels threatened by the West. NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been
part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries.
Given the trends that are plainly discernible in the Far East, the West must normalize relations with Russia. That means providing
assurances that NATO expansion is over for good. It means the West recognizing that Georgia, Belarus, and, yes, Ukraine are within
Russia's natural zone of influence. They will never be invited into NATO, and any solution to the Ukraine conundrum will have to
accommodate Russian interests. Further, the West must get over Russia's annexation of the Crimean peninsula. It is a fait accompli
-- and one that any other nation, including America, would have executed in similar circumstances.
Would Russian President Vladimir Putin spurn these overtures and maintain a posture of bellicosity toward the West? We can't be
sure, but that certainly wouldn't be in his interest. And how will we ever know when it's never been tried? We now understand that
allegations of Trump's campaign colluding with Russia were meritless, so it's time to determine the true nature and extent of Putin's
strategic aims. That's impossible so long as America maintains its sanctions and general bellicosity.
NATO: Trump was right during the 2016 presidential campaign when he said that NATO was obsolete. He later dialed back on
that, but any neutral observer can see that the circumstances that spawned NATO as an imperative of Western survival no longer exist.
The Soviet Union is gone, and the 1.3 million Russian and client state troops it placed on Western Europe's doorstep are gone as
well.
So what kind of threat could Russia pose to Europe and the West? The European Union's GDP is more than 12 times that of Russia's,
while Russia's per capita GDP is only a fourth of Europe's. The Russian population is 144.5 million to Europe's 512 million. Does
anyone seriously think that Russia poses a serious threat to Europe or that Europe needs the American big brother for survival, as
in the immediate postwar years? Of course not. This is just a ruse for the maintenance of the status quo -- Europe as subservient
to America, the Russian bear as menacing grizzly, America as protective slayer in the event of an attack.
This is all ridiculous. NATO shouldn't be abolished. It should be reconfigured for the realities of today. It should be European-led,
not American-led. It should pay for its own defense entirely, whatever that might be (and Europe's calculation of that will inform
us as to its true assessment of the Russian threat). America should be its primary ally, but not committed to intervene whenever
a tiny European nation feels threatened. NATO's Article 5, committing all alliance nations to the defense of any other when attacked,
should be scrapped in favor of language that calls for U.S. intervention only in the event of a true threat to Western Civilization
itself.
And while a European-led NATO would find it difficult to pull back from its forward eastern positions after adding so many nations
in the post-Cold War era, it should extend assurances to Russia that it has no intention of acting provocatively -- absent, of course,
any Russian provocations.
The Middle East: The United States should reduce its footprint in the region on a major scale. It should get out of Afghanistan,
with assurances to the Taliban that it will allow that country to go its own way, irrespective of the outcome, so long as it doesn't
pose a threat to the United States or its vital interests. U.S. troops should be removed from Syria, and America should stop supporting
Saudi Arabia's nasty war in Yemen. We should make clear to Israel and the world that the Jewish state is a major U.S. ally and will
be protected whenever it is truly threatened. But we should also emphasize that we won't seek through military means to alter the
regional balance of power based on mere perceptions of potential future threats to countries in the region, even allies. The United
States won't get drawn into regional wars unrelated to its own vital interests.
Far East: Once the other regional decks are cleared, America must turn its attention to Asia. The first question: do we
wish to maintain our current position there, or can we accept China's rise even if it means a U.S. retreat or partial retreat from
the region? If a retreat is deemed acceptable, then America should secure the best terms possible over a long period of tough and
guileful negotiations. But if we decide to maintain regional dominance, then China will have to be isolated and deterred. That will
mean a long period of economic tension and even economic warfare, confrontations over China's extravagant claims of sovereignty in
the South China Sea and elsewhere, strong U.S. alliances with other Asian nations nurtured through deft and measured diplomacy, soaring
technological superiority, and a continual upper hand in any arms race.
In this scenario, can war be averted? History suggests that may not be likely. But either way, America won't remain an Asian power
if it allows itself to be pinned down in multiple nonstrategic spats and adventures around the world. Asia is today's Great Game
and China is winning. That won't be reversed unless America starts playing.
None of your suggestions is likely to happen, absent defeat. America's trump card is the fiat dollar as world currency, defended
by the full faith and power of an imperial global military, with its own economic inertia to the domestic economy as well.
That allows U.S. legal decisions to have extra territorial scope as the real international power, not now irrelevant toothless
international institutions like the UN.
Nice summary, Mr Merry. Even the most die-hard Trumpet can find something to disagree upon with their Dear Leader while supporting
everything else he does, but this clear and succinct outline leaves no where for the Deplorables to hide. Coupled with the China
trade war fiasco, thias is pretty grim.
Of course, come 2020, all will be forgiven by the GOP, and even one criticism with be blasted with a twitter assault.
The most obvious step is to forge a genuine alliance with India. America can't take on China alone (although China's ineluctable
demographic decline may make the US' relative decline in fortunes short-lived), and the world's largest democracy, and soon to
be most populous nation, is an obvious counterweight to China, despite its still inefficient economy.
Unfortunately our support for the treacherous Pakistanis has poisoned our relationship with India. In 1971, Nixon actually
sent a carrier group in the Bay of Bengal to intimidate the Indians into stopping support for the Bangladeshis fighting a war
of independence against the genocidal (West) Pakistan, and the Indians had to call on the Soviets to send nuclear submarines to
deter that threat. Like all ancient nations, Indians have long memories. Ironically, that reckless action was in cahoots with
China.
The US has been trying to reverse this, but our patronizing attitude towards a proud country seeking great-power status
has led to modest progress at best, and their defense relationship with Russia is stronger than with us.
Pragmatic isolationism is a better deal then the current neocon foreign policy. Which Trump is pursuing with the zeal similar
to Obama (who continued all Bush II wars and started two new in Libya and Syria.) Probably this partially can be explained by
his dependence of Adelson and pro-Israeli lobby. But the problem is deeper then Trump: it is the power of MIC and American exceptionalism
( which can be viewed as a form of far right nationalism ) about which Andrew Bacevich have written a lot:
From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we --
not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians -- were number one, and, more importantly, were meant to be.
That history's verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living in or
near Washington, D.C.
If doubts remained on that score, the end of the Cold War removed them. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse
of communism, politicians, journalists, and policy intellectuals threw themselves headlong into a competition over who could
explain best just how unprecedented, how complete, and how wondrous was the global preeminence of the United States.
Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright's justification
for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore
required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever).
"If we have to use force," Secretary of State Albright announced on morning television in February 1998, "it is because
we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future."
Back then, it was Albright's claim to American indispensability that stuck in my craw. Yet as a testimony to ruling class
hubris, the assertion of indispensability pales in comparison to Albright's insistence that "we see further into the future."
In fact, from February 1998 down to the present, events have time and again caught Albright's "we" napping. The 9/11 terrorist
attacks and the several unsuccessful wars of choice that followed offer prime examples. But so too did Washington's belated
and inadequate recognition of the developments that actually endanger the wellbeing of 21st-century Americans, namely climate
change, cyber threats, and the ongoing reallocation of global power prompted by the rise of China.
Rather than seeing far into the future, American elites have struggled to discern what might happen next week. More often
than not, they get even that wrong.
Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment's formula for militarized global
leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers,
including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent
counted for nothing.
Yet in 2016, Trump's critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful
run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely
approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump's half-baked formula for Making America Great Again -- building "the wall,"
provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat -- is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether
irrelevant.
His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don't help.
There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a
sense the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would
consider neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.)
In this limited sense the alliance of China, Iran, Russia and Turkey might serve as an external countervailing force which
allows some level of return to sanity, like was the case when the USSR used to exist.
I agree with Bacevich that the dissolution of the USSR corrupted the US elite to the extent that it became reckless and somewhat
suicidal in seeking "Full Spectrum Dominance" (which is an illusive goal in any case taking into account existing arsenals in
China and Russia and the growing distance between EU and the USA.)
Your current foreign policy simply seems to reflect the astonishing degree of violence that permeates your society, when observing
you Americans from a place like Hong Kong or China it's really frightening, I would be more scared to visit the US than Liberia
or Sierra Leone, with those innumerable ( armed ) nutcases roaming your streets, you are by now used to it, and it saddens me,
thinking of how grateful we should be for all you have done in the distant past for so many countries in the world
The blockheads advising know nothing Trump about history and geo-politics don't care a whit about the American people or what
is ten years down the road. These people, Bolton, Pompeo and the joke-Kushner- are ego/power lovers and are doing the opposite
of a sane policy to every part of the globe.
How the hell do you goad and threaten Russia, for example, for no good reason and how do you threaten Russia, which, like the
U.S., with the push of several buttons can turn any city in the world to ashes, in minutes.
The American people are not only dumb as a wall, they don't care about foreign policy and they don't wanna know. The're looking
at celebrities and looking at their smart phones for fun and weirdness. The phones are smarter than them and they pay the price
when clown Trump does things like trade wars and so on.
Yeah, the average American, what prizes they are, as in they look and say,
Is that the actress there on the 'news' oh, what's she wearing is that the 'genius' athlete, what does that smelly guy say
today hey, let's order food delivered so we can watch and tomorrow to the sports bar and
This article forgets to mention why it would be in the American people's interest to be the hegemon of East Asia. I can't think
of any reason myself. Anyone?
Guess the parallel with the US 'New American Century' is not misplaced. Do you realize that Germany aims to leverage the
EU for establishing its position as a 'World Player'. Do realize too that it tends to categorize other countries along the
same zero sum power line of reasoning as the US "either with us or against us".
This German foreign policy gave birth to the European Neighborhood Policy which exploited the US instigated coup to indenture
Ukraine into a dependent NON-member state associated exclusively with the EU excluding normal economic relations with Russia.
I agree with the article, but not the title. The article acknowledges two important points, but leaves out another.
First, it correctly acknowledges that our obsession with Iran is vastly disproportionate to the threat it poses. In fact, we
would do well to scale back our adventurism in the Middle East. If China is winning in the Far East, it is largely because we
have chosen to devote resources elsewhere.
Second, it correctly acknowledges that continued antagonizing of Russia by the West is needless. It is time to normalize relations
with Russia, recognize its legitimate interest in having some buffer against the West, and repatriate Russian nationals who have
recently immigrated to the West.
Third, the article fails to acknowledge that China, like Russia, is also entitled to some sphere of influence. And there is
historic precedence for certain such claims. Those claims are tenuous when it comes to Japan and the Korean peninsula. But there
is little reason why American Navy ships should be sailing right up to the borders of China, just as there is little reason why
Chinese Navy ships should be sailing off the coast of Oregon. We also need to understand that provoking a trade war that slows
the Chinese economy merely enhances the power of President Xi. Trump has given President Xi a massive political gift, and for
no good reason. The trade imbalance is evidence of the strength of our economy, not a sign that we're losing out to China.
One of the most malign effects of Israeli and Saudi control of American politicians is the grotesque overemphasis on the Middle
East in US foreign policy. Trump's trade fights to one side, it often seems as if we dismiss or ignore much of the rest of the
world. This disproportion has been obvious and growing since the end of the last century, but at this point it's pathological.
If we are to compete effectively with China and other global players, if we are to have a balanced and effective foreign policy
in general, we need to remove the Middle East blinders, get Israel and Saudi Arabia off our back, and start seeing the world as
it is, rather than as Israel and Saudi Arabia pay our politicians to see it.
Simple questions: Why should we care? And how does all this soft power benefit the average citizens? And for all the China fears,
they appear to react very rationally and avoid military conflicts.
Ok, it is true Chinese oil buying is probably keeping Iran in a better economic situation but again this seems more of a problem
of Iran hawks not the average citizen. Honestly, I wish the US had more of treasury focused foreign policy and stop worrying about
US power.
Well, it all depends on goals doesn't it. US foreign policy goals are to increase chaos and create international tension.
Why? Because US foreign policy exists to feed military and intel contractors on the one hand and asserting power for the sake
of asserting power with no overall strategy other the Great Game.
Any rational analysis of the past couple of decades forces us to come to that conclusion. The reason why this whole scheme
is unlikely to fail in the short and medium term is US military involvement in 150 countries has brought much of the world under
Washington's control–or at least their ruling elites. The best China can do is provide an alternative to the Empire and live in
some sort of harmony with it because China has not shown any intention of competing militarily with the US. Iran is a key part
of the Silk Road project and that is the strategic reason for the attempt to crush or destroy Iran that is central to the strategy.
The US wants to keep China and Russia out of Europe–that, if you look at policy, seems to be the main contest.
The conflict with Iran has assumed heightened importance because,at 70 years old, John Bolton has to face the possibility that
he might die without having started a war somewhere.
The author misses two other two other components of of a proper China "containment" policy: Immigration and trade policy. The
US should be actively trying to attract immigration of skilled young workers and entrepreneurs (including from China) and encouraging
university graduates from abroad to remain. The US ought to join the TPP in order to increase our leverage in negotiating reductions
in Chinese restrictions on trade and investment.
Why would Russia want to make a deal with the United States, which cannot be trusted to keep its word, or even to act rationally
in pursuit of its own interests?
Generally a good article, but it misses an important point. While China and Russia do have natural spheres of influence, the countries
within those natural spheres hate being there.
Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam are naturally within China's influence, but they don't trust the Chinese at all, and surely don't
want China to dominate their countries. And given they way the Chinese empire treats Tibetan and Uigurs, they have good reason
for that.
Similarly in Eastern Europe, where Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic States might be in Russian sphere, but they sure don't want
to be. The fact is that NATO did not aggressively seek them out for membership, those small countries begged to join NATO out
of their historical fear of Russia.
While recognizing such spheres of influence, do we want to abandon friendly, democratic countries to a hostile, autocratic
power? The Cold War model of Finland give some hope for a compromise, but it won't be easy to implement outside of Finland.
This article is another vivid illustration of how disoriented and narrow-minded when a typical intelligent and well-meaning American
is talking about China. For examples:
1. The author has no problem acknowledging specific geopolitical interests to accommodate Russia or even Iran, but when he
comes to China, he fails completely to mention any of the legitimate interests China has in East Asia.
2. The author repeats the nonsensical China haters' allegation about China's threat to America, and China's intention to push
American out of East Asia.
3. The author resorts back to a typical zero-sum or even cold-war style mentality when talking about overall China strategy,
without even considering the possibilities that China and America can co-exist in a friendly manner, where all the peaceful competition
between the two countries ultimately translating into net positive results that benefit the people of both countries and the world.
Unfortunately, our so-called "experts" in China are consistently failing Americans badly, because they lack the knowledge and
perspective to think from the other side of the coin.
I scrolled for quite a bit before finding Thaomas' comment about TPP. Leaving it will prove to be one of the Trump's admin's greatest
blunders (which is saying something) and any column about China strategy that omits it is incomplete.
So why exactly should Russia be accommodated and be allowed its sphere of influence and a 'defense perimeter' and not China? I
don't get it. And why should the USA be allowed the fruits of its aggression in the form of an annexed and brutally conquered
Hawaii? why can't Uncle Sam be satisfied with San Diego as a naval base?
The USA has the Monroe Doctrine giving it dominion over the Western Hemisphere, and China holds the Mandate of Heaven granting
it hegemony over everything else. Can't the Dragon and the Eagle get along on that basis??
In terms of geography, China vitally needs Russia in order to close off a corridor through which Muslims will flow to China. Without
that cooperation from Russia, China will be seriously hobbled by unassimilable and hostile migrants in its south. At least symbolically,
this will cripple its superpower claims.
The U.S. would be stupid not to seek an alliance with Russia, given Russia's geographical strengths, which also includes its
proximity to the Arctic and therefore a legal claim to the oil and gas buried there.
Geography is Russia's long-term strength, and not incidentally is a reason why trying militarily to force Putin to surrender
Crimea could easily lead to nuclear war, which might begin with tactical (battlefield) Russian nukes aimed at NATO garrisons in
eastern Europe.
China isn't fated to win its contest with the U.S. if it must depend on Russia in order to become an unquestioned superpower.
We need Russia for strategic security as much as Russia needs us for economic growth.
Nice summary. In my view the US (not Trump) make a big mistake to throw Russia in the arms of China. It's not only its geopolitical
situation that is the problem but the fact the it gives China unlimited access to natural resources. In a generation, if things
goes the way they do now, the only saving grace for the US will be a failure of this partnership. Because if it works, by the
sheer force of gravity it will swallow Europe. But betting on the adversary's failure is not a good strategy.
eh, keeping pressure on Iran keeps Saudi Arabia happy which means they stay in our sphere; as opposed to China's.
Until Venezuala wants to become part of the Oil-for-dollars system or we all drive electric cars and only oil for remote work
and emergency military expeditions then we need the Saudis on our side.
This kind of mentality is the reason why I think the demise of America is necessary to achieve world peace.
Why on God's green earth should America dominate East Asia? Last time I checked, America is NOT part of Asia. We are not even
in the same hemisphere for crying out loud. Why can't we just leave Asia to the Asians?
When was the last time China invaded a country? Never. These are the same people who discovered Africa and America long before
the Europeans, but only wanted to "do business" and trade. They already have 1.3 Billion mouths to feed, the last thing the Chinese
government needs is more mouths to feed.
Meanwhile, when Washington thinks of invasion, all they think of is guns, tanks, battleships. The Chinese are already quietly
invading and conquering the west -- through immigration. All along the East and West coasts, Chinese dominant cities and schools
are popping up everywhere. America really is the stupidest country on earth sometimes. All brawn and no brain. We want to start
wars with everybody in the name of protecting "American interests", while the rest of the world are already conquering us from
within through immigration. Wake up America.
Though Mr. Merry sees things clearly, I can't really see why people like playing these games in the age of nukes.
It's one thing trying to play Kaiser Wilhelm II and dream of containment and conquest when you actually had to send armies
to defeat your enemies, It's another to do so when people can kill a few millions by pressing a button.
Though Mr. Merry sees things clearly, I can't really see why people like playing these games in the age of nukes.
It's one thing trying to play Kaiser Wilhelm II and dream of containment and conquest when you actually had to send armies
to defeat your enemies, It's another to do so when people can kill a few millions by pressing a button.
I would assume that the US is "in" East Asia, to a significant extent, because Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have sought US security
and defense guarantees. The US has not forced itself into the region. Korea has reasons to be concerned about China, due to its
experiences during the Korean War, and Taiwan, which wishes to remain independent of Chinese control, is directly threatened by
China.
As for other allies in the region, Philippine president Duterte's overtures, upon taking office, to China, and his especially
disparaging remarks about the US while making an official visit to China, seem quite puzzling, given China's illegitimate seizing
of Philippine territory in the West Philippine Sea. US relations with the Philippines needs to be reexamined in light of this
development. While Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are first-level allies in the region, the Philippines is not.
U.S. ships are involved in provocative "freedom of navigation" exercises in the South China
Sea and other ships gather ominously in the Mediterranean Sea while National Security Advisor
John Bolton and Secretary of State Michael Pompeo along with convicted war criminal Elliot
Abrams conspire to save the people of Venezuela with another illegal "regime change"
intervention. But people are drawn to the latest adventures of Love and Hip-Hop, the Mueller
report, and Game of Thrones. In fact, while millions can recall with impressive detail the
proposals and strategies of the various players in HBO's latest saga, they can't recall two
details about the pending military budget that will likely pass in Congress with little debate,
even though Trump's budget proposal represents another obscene increase of public money to the
tune of $750 billion.
This bipartisan rip-off could not occur without the willing collusion of the corporate
media, which slants coverage to support the interests of the ruling elite or decides to just
ignore an issue like the ever-expanding military budget.
The effectiveness of this collusion is reflected in the fact that not only has this massive
theft of public money not gotten much coverage in the mainstream corporate media, but also it
only received sporadic coverage in the alternative media. The liberal-left media is distracted
enough by the theatrics of the Trump show to do the ideological dirty work of the elites.
Spending on war will consume almost 70% of the budget and be accompanied by cuts in public
spending for education, housing, the environment, public transportation, jobs trainings, food
support programs like food stamps and Meals on Wheels, as well as Medicare, Medicaid, and
Social Security. Most of the neoliberal candidates running in the Democratic Party's electoral
process, however, haven't spoken a word in opposition to Trump's budget.
The public knows that the Democratic Party's candidates are opposed to Trump's wall on the
southern border, and they expect to hear them raise questions about the $8.6 billion of funding
the wall. But while some of the Democrats may oppose the wall, very few have challenged the
details of the budget that the
U.S. Peace Council indicates . For example:
"$576 billion baseline budget for the Department of Defense; an additional $174 billion
for the Pentagon's Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), i.e., the war budget; $93.1 billion
for the Department of Veterans Affairs; $51.7 billion for Homeland Security; $42.8 billion
for State Department; an additional $26.1 billion for State Department's Overseas Contingency
Operations (regime change slush fund); $16.5 billion for the Department of Energy's National
Nuclear Security Administration (nuclear weapons budget); $21 billion for NASA (militarizing
outer space?); plus $267.4 billion for all other government agencies, including funding for
FBI and Cybersecurity in the Department of Justice."
The Peace Council also highlights the following two issues: First, the total US military and
war budget has jumped from $736.4 billion to $989.0 billion since 2015. That is a $252.6
billion (about 35%) increase in five years. Second, thesimultaneous cuts in the government's
non-military spending are reflected in the proposed budget.
Here are some of biggest proposed budget cuts:
+ $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid over 10 years, implementing work requirements as well
as eliminating the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. The budget instead adds
$1.2 trillion for a "Market Based Health Care Grant" -- that is, a block grant to states,
instead of paying by need. It's not clear whether that would be part of Medicaid.
+ An $845 billion cut to Medicare over 10 years. That is about a 10 percent cut .
+ $25 billion in cuts to Social Security over 10 years, including cuts to disability
insurance.
+ A $220 billion cut to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program(SNAP) over 10 years ,
which is commonly referred to as food stamps, and includes mandatory work requirements. The
program currently serves around 45 million people.
+ A $21 billion cut to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families , an already severely
underfunded cash-assistance program for the nation's poorest.
+ $207 billion in cuts to the student loan program, eliminating the Public Service Loan
Forgiveness program and cutting subsidized student loans.
+ Overall, there is a 9 percent cut to non-defense programs , which would hit Section 8
housing vouchers, public housing programs, Head Start, the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
nutrition program, and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program , among others.
The working classes and oppressed peoples of the U.S. and around the world can no longer
afford the unchallenged ideological positions of the Pentagon budget and the associated
expenditures for so-called defense that are considered sacrosanct in the U.S. They cannot
afford that much of the U.S. public is not concerned with issues of so-called foreign policy
that the military budget is seen as part.
The racist appeals of U.S. national chauvinism in the form of "Make America Great" and the
Democrats' version of "U.S. Exceptionalism" must be confronted and exposed as the cross-class,
white identity politics that they are. The fact that supposedly progressive or even "radical"
politics does not address the issue of U.S. expenditures on war and imperialism is reflective
of a politics that is morally and political bankrupt. But it also does something else. It
places those practitioners firmly in the camp of the enemies of humanity.
The objective fact that large numbers of the public accept that the U.S. can determine the
leadership of another sovereign nation while simultaneously being outraged by the idea of a
foreign power interfering in U.S. elections demonstrates the mindboggling subjective
contradictions that exist in the U.S. For example – that an Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez can
assert that she will defer to the leadership of her caucus on the issue of Venezuela or that
Barbara Lee can vote to bring Trump's budget proposal out of committee or that Biden can
proudly support Trump's immoral backing of a neo-fascist opposition in Venezuela and
they will all get away with those positions – reveals the incredible challenge that we
face in building an alternative radical movement for peace, social justice and
people(s)-centered human rights.
So, we must join with
U.S. Peace Council and the other members of the Anti-war, pro-peace, and anti-imperialist
communities in the U.S. to "resist and oppose this military attack on our communities, our
livelihoods and our lives." This is an urgent and militant first step in reversing the cultural
support for violence and the normalization of war that currently exists in the U.S. Now is the
moment to demand that Congress reject and reverse the Trump Administration's military budget
and the U.S. Government's militaristic foreign policy. But now is also the moment to commit to
building a powerful countermovement to take back the power over life and death from the
denizens of violence represented by the rapacious 1%. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Ajamu Baraka
Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016
candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing
columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch
magazine.
Newby claims (in 2019) that if a scientist named Willy Burgdorfer had not made a confession
in 2013, the secret that Lyme disease came from a biological weapons program would have died
with him. Yet, in 2004 Michael Christopher Carroll published a book called Lab 257: The Disturbing
Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory . He appeared on several television
shows to discuss the book, including on NBC's Today Show, where the book was made a
Today Show Book Club selection. Lab 257 hit the New York Times nonfiction
bestseller list soon after its publication.
Newby's book reaches the same conclusion as Carroll's, namely that the most likely source of
diseased ticks is Plum Island. Newby reaches this conclusion on page 224 after mentioning Plum
Island only once in passing in a list of facilities on page 47 and otherwise avoiding it
throughout the book. This is bizarre, because Newby's book otherwise goes into great depth, and
even chronicles extensive research efforts that lead largely to dead ends, and because there is
information available about Plum Island, and because Carroll's best-selling book seems to
demand comment, supportive or dismissive or otherwise.
In fact, I think that, despite the avoidance of any discussion of Plum Island, Newby's
research complements Carroll's quite well, strengthens the same general conclusion, and then
adds significant new understanding. So, let's look at what Carroll told us, and then at what
Newby adds.
Less than 2 miles off the east end of Long Island sits Plum Island, where the U.S.
government makes or at least made biological weapons, including weapons consisting of diseased
insects that can be dropped from airplanes on a (presumably foreign) population. One such
insect is the deer tick, pursued as a germ weapon by the Nazis, the Japanese, the Soviets, and
the Americans.
Deer swim to Plum Island. Birds fly to Plum Island. The island lies in the middle of the
Atlantic migration route for numerous species. "Ticks," Carroll writes, "find baby chicks
irresistible."
In July of 1975 a new or very rare disease appeared in Old Lyme, Connecticut, just north of
Plum Island. And what was on Plum Island? A germ warfare lab to which the U.S. government had
brought former Nazi germ warfare scientists in the 1940s to work on the same evil work for a
different employer. These included the head of the Nazi germ warfare program who had worked
directly for Heinrich Himmler. On Plum Island was a germ warfare lab that frequently conducted
its experiments out of doors . After all, it was on an island. What could go wrong?
Documents record outdoor experiments with diseased ticks in the 1950s (when we know that the
United States was using such weaponized life forms in North
Korea ). Even Plum Island's indoors, where participants admit to experiments with ticks,
was not sealed tight. And test animals mingled with wild deer, test birds with wild birds.
By the 1990s, the eastern end of Long Island had by far the greatest concentration of Lyme
disease. If you drew a circle around the area of the world heavily impacted by Lyme disease,
which happened to be in the Northeast United States, the center of that circle was Plum
Island.
Plum Island experimented with the Lone Star tick, whose habitat at the time was confined to
Texas. Yet it showed up in New York and Connecticut, infecting people with Lyme disease -- and
killing them. The Lone Star tick is now endemic in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey.
If Newby agrees or disagrees with any of the above, she does not inform us. But here's what
she adds to it.
The outbreak of unusual tick-borne disease around Long Island Sound actually started in
1968, and it involved three diseases: Lyme arthritis, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and
babesiosis. A U.S. bioweapons scientist, Willy Burgdorfer, credited in 1982 with discovering
the cause of Lyme disease, may have put the diseases into ticks 30 years earlier. And his
report on the cause of Lyme disease may have involved a significant omission that has made it
harder to diagnose or cure. The public focus on only one of the three diseases has allowed a
disaster that could have been contained to become widespread.
Newby documents in detail Burgdorfer's work for the U.S. government giving diseases to ticks
in large quantities to be used as weapons, as they have been in Cuba in 1962, for example. "He
was growing microbes inside ticks, having the ticks feed on animals, and then harvesting the
microbes from the animals that exhibited the level of illness the military had requested."
Burgdorfer published a paper in 1952 about the intentional infecting of ticks. In 2013,
filmmaker Tim Grey asked him, on camera, whether the pathogen he had identified in 1982 as the
cause of Lyme disease was the same one or similar or a generational mutation of the one he'd
written about in 1952. Burgdorfer replied in the affirmative.
Interviewed by Newby, Burgdorfer described his efforts to create an illness that would be
difficult to test for -- knowledge of which he might have shared earlier with beneficial
results for those suffering.
Newby, who has herself suffered from Lyme disease, blames the profit interests of companies
and the corruption of government for the poor handling of Lyme disease. But her writing
suggests to me a possibility she doesn't raise, namely that those who know where Lyme disease
came from have avoided properly addressing it because of where it came from.
Newby assumes throughout the book that there has to have been a particular major incident
near Long Island Sound, either an accident or an experiment on the public or an attack by a
foreign nation. Burgdorfer reportedly claimed to another researcher that Russia stole U.S.
bioweapons. Based on that and nothing else, Newby speculates that perhaps Russia attacked the
United States with diseased ticks, coincidentally right in the location where the U.S.
government experimented with diseased ticks.
"What this book brings to light," Newby writes, "is that the U.S. military has conducted
thousands of experiments exploring the use of ticks and tick-borne diseases as biological
weapons, and in some cases, these agents escaped into the environment. The government needs to
declassify the details of these open-air bioweapons tests so that we can begin to repair the
damage these pathogens are inflicting on human and animals in the ecosystem."
Another product of U.S. bio-weapons tax dollars at work, of course, was the anthrax mailed
to politicians in 2001. While Newby speculates that perhaps someone was trying to demonstrate
the danger for our own good, I don't think we should forget that one purpose served -- whether
or not intended -- by the "anthrax attacks" was a significant augmentation of the Iraq war
lies. The attacks were falsely blamed on Iraq, and even if people have forgotten that, they
fell for it long enough for it to matter. The one bit of truth in current public understanding
of Lyme disease is that it has not been falsely blamed on some country the United States is
eager to bomb. Let's keep it that way! Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: David Swanson
"... There are differences between the parties, but they are mainly centered around social issues and disputes with little or no consequence to the long-term path of the country. The real ruling oligarchs essentially allow controlled opposition within each party to make it appear you have a legitimate choice at the ballot box. Nothing could be further from the truth. ..."
"... There has been an unwritten agreement between the parties for decades where the Democrats pretend to be against war and the Republicans pretend to be against welfare. Meanwhile, spending on war and welfare relentlessly grows into the trillions, with no effort whatsoever from either party to even slow the rate of growth, let alone cut spending. The proliferation of the military industrial complex like a poisonous weed has been inexorable, as the corporate arms dealers place their facilities of death in the congressional districts of Democrats and Republicans. In addition, these corporate manufacturers of murder dole out "legal" payoffs to corrupt politicians of both parties in the form of political contributions. The Deep State knows bribes and well-paying jobs ensure no spineless congressman will ever vote against a defense spending increase. ..."
"... Of course, the warfare/welfare state couldn't grow to its immense size without financing from the Wall Street cabal and their feckless academic puppets at the Federal Reserve. The Too Big to Trust Wall Street banks, whose willful control fraud nearly wrecked the global economy in 2008, were rewarded by their Deep State patrons by getting bigger and more powerful as people on Main Street and senior citizen savers were thrown under the bus. ..."
"... When these criminal bankers have their reckless bets blow up in their faces they are bailed out by the American taxpayers, but when the Fed rigs the system so they are guaranteed billions in risk free profits, they reward themselves with massive bonuses and lobby for a huge tax cut used to buy back their stock. With bank branches in every congressional district in every state, and bankers spreading protection money to greedy politicians across the land, no legislation damaging to the banking cartel is ever passed. ..."
"... I voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary. ..."
"... If the Chinese refuse to yield for fear of losing face, and the tariff war accelerates, a global recession is a certainty. ..."
"... These sociopaths are not liberal or conservative. They are not Democrats or Republicans. They are not beholden to a country or community. They care not for their fellow man. They don't care about future generations. They care about their own power, wealth and control over others. They have no conscience. They have no empathy. Right and wrong are meaningless in their unquenchable thirst for more. They will lie, steal and kill to achieve their goal of controlling everything and everyone in this world. This precisely describes virtually every politician in Washington DC, Wall Street banker, mega-corporation CEO, government agency head, MSM talking head, church leader, billionaire activist, and blood sucking advisor to the president. ..."
"... The problem is we have gone too far. The "American Dream" has become a grotesque nightmare because people by the millions sit around and dream about being a Kardashian. Makes me want to puke. ..."
"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the
right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a
minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!"" – Bill Hicks
Anyone who frequents Twitter, Facebook, political blogs, economic blogs, or fake-news
mainstream media channels knows our world is driven by the "Us versus Them" narrative. It's
almost as if "they" are forcing us to choose sides and believe the other side is evil. Bill
Hicks died in 1994, but his above quote is truer today then it was then. As the American Empire
continues its long-term decline, the proles are manipulated through Bernaysian propaganda
techniques, honed over the course of decades by the ruling oligarchs, to root for their
assigned puppets.
Most people can't discern they are being manipulated and duped by the Deep State
controllers. The most terrifying outcome for these Deep State controllers would be for the
masses to realize it is us versus them. But they don't believe there is a chance in hell of
this happening. Their arrogance is palatable.
Their hubris has reached astronomical levels as they blew up the world economy in 2008 and
successfully managed to have the innocent victims bail them out to the tune of $700 billion,
pillaged the wealth of the nation through their capture of the Federal Reserve (QE, ZIRP),
rigged the financial markets in their favor through collusion, used the hundreds of billions in
corporate tax cuts to buy back their stock and further pump the stock market, all while their
corporate media mouthpieces mislead and misinform the proles.
There are differences between the parties, but they are mainly centered around social
issues and disputes with little or no consequence to the long-term path of the country. The
real ruling oligarchs essentially allow controlled opposition within each party to make it
appear you have a legitimate choice at the ballot box. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
There has been an unwritten agreement between the parties for decades where the
Democrats pretend to be against war and the Republicans pretend to be against welfare.
Meanwhile, spending on war and welfare relentlessly grows into the trillions, with no effort
whatsoever from either party to even slow the rate of growth, let alone cut spending. The
proliferation of the military industrial complex like a poisonous weed has been inexorable, as
the corporate arms dealers place their facilities of death in the congressional districts of
Democrats and Republicans. In addition, these corporate manufacturers of murder dole out
"legal" payoffs to corrupt politicians of both parties in the form of political contributions.
The Deep State knows bribes and well-paying jobs ensure no spineless congressman will ever vote
against a defense spending increase.
Of course, the warfare/welfare state couldn't grow to its immense size without financing
from the Wall Street cabal and their feckless academic puppets at the Federal Reserve. The Too
Big to Trust Wall Street banks, whose willful control fraud nearly wrecked the global economy
in 2008, were rewarded by their Deep State patrons by getting bigger and more powerful as
people on Main Street and senior citizen savers were thrown under the bus.
When these criminal bankers have their reckless bets blow up in their faces they are
bailed out by the American taxpayers, but when the Fed rigs the system so they are guaranteed
billions in risk free profits, they reward themselves with massive bonuses and lobby for a huge
tax cut used to buy back their stock. With bank branches in every congressional district in
every state, and bankers spreading protection money to greedy politicians across the land, no
legislation damaging to the banking cartel is ever passed.
I've never been big on joining a group. I tend to believe Groucho Marx and his cynical line,
"I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member". The "Us vs. Them" narrative
doesn't connect with my view of the world. As a realistic libertarian I know libertarian ideals
will never proliferate in a society of government dependency, willful ignorance of the masses,
thousands of laws, and a weak-kneed populace afraid of freedom and liberty. The only true
libertarian politician, Ron Paul, was only able to connect with about 5% of the voting public.
There is no chance a candidate with a libertarian platform will ever win a national election.
This country cannot be fixed through the ballot box. Bill Hicks somewhat foreshadowed the last
election by referencing another famous cynic.
"I ascribe to Mark Twain's theory that the last person who should be President is the one
who wants it the most. The one who should be picked is the one who should be dragged kicking
and screaming into the White House." ― Bill Hicks
Hillary Clinton wanted to be president so badly, she colluded with Barack Obama, Jim Comey,
John Brennan, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch and numerous other Deep State sycophants to ensure
her victory, by attempting to entrap Donald Trump in a concocted Russian collusion plot and
subsequent post-election coup to cover for their traitorous plot. I wouldn't say Donald Trump
was dragged kicking and screaming into the White House, but when he ascended on the escalator
at Trump Tower in June of 2015, I'm not convinced he believed he could win the presidency.
As the greatest self-promoter of our time, I think he believed a presidential run would be
good for his brand, more revenue for his properties and more interest in his reality TV
ventures. He was despised by the establishment within the Republican and Democrat parties. The
vested interests controlling the media and levers of power in society scorned and ridiculed
this brash uncouth outsider. In an upset for the ages, Trump tapped into a vein of rage and
disgruntlement in flyover country and pockets within swing states, to win the presidency over
Crooked Hillary and her Deep State backers.
I voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary. I hadn't voted for a Republican since
2000, casting protest votes for Libertarian and Constitutional Party candidates along the way.
I despise the establishment, so their hatred of Trump made me vote for him. His campaign
stances against foreign wars and Federal Reserve reckless bubble blowing appealed to me. I
don't worship at the altar of the cult of personality. I judge men by their actions and not
their words.
Trump's first two years have been endlessly entertaining as he waged war against fake news
CNN, establishment Republicans, the Deep State coup attempt, and Obama loving globalists. The
Twitter in Chief has bypassed the fake news media and tweets relentlessly to his followers. He
provokes outrage in his enemies and enthralls his worshipers. With millions in each camp it is
difficult to find an unbiased assessment of narrative versus real accomplishments.
I'm happy he has been able to stop the relentless leftward progression of our Federal
judiciary. Cutting regulations and rolling back environmental mandates has been a positive.
Exiting the Paris Climate Agreement and TPP, forcing NATO members to pay their fair share, and
renegotiating NAFTA were all needed. Ending the war on coal and approving pipelines will keep
energy costs lower. His attempts to vet Muslims entering the country have been the right thing
to do. Building a wall on our southern border is the right thing to do, but he should have
gotten it done when he controlled both houses.
The use of tariffs to force China to renegotiate one sided trade deals as a negotiating
tactic is a high-risk, high reward gamble. If his game of chicken is successful and he gets
better terms from the Chicoms, while reversing the tariffs, it would be a huge win. If the
Chinese refuse to yield for fear of losing face, and the tariff war accelerates, a global
recession is a certainty. Who has the upper hand? Xi is essentially a dictator for life
and doesn't have to worry about elections or popularity polls. Dissent is crushed. A global
recession and stock market crash would make Trump's re-election in 2020 problematic.
I'm a big supporter of lower taxes. The Trump tax cuts were sold as beneficial to the middle
class. That is a false narrative. The vast majority of the tax cut benefits went to
mega-corporations and rich people. Middle class home owning families with children received
little or no tax relief, as exemptions were eliminated and tax deductions capped. In many
cases, taxes rose for working class Americans.
With corporate profits at all time highs, massive tax cuts put billions more into their
coffers. They didn't repatriate their overseas profits to a great extent. They didn't go on a
massive hiring spree. They didn't invest in new facilities. They did buy back their own stock
to help drive the stock market to stratospheric heights. So corporate executives gave
themselves billions in bonuses, which were taxed at a much lower rate. This is considered
winning in present day America.
The "Us vs. Them" issue rears its ugly head whenever Trump is held accountable for promises
unkept, blatant failures, and his own version of fake news. Holding Trump to the same standards
as Obama is considered traitorous by those who only root for their home team. Their standard
response is that you are a Hillary sycophant or a turncoat to the home team. If you agree with
a particular viewpoint or position of a liberal then you are a bad person and accused of being
a lefty by Trump fanboys. Facts don't matter to cheerleaders. Competing narratives rule the
day. Truthfulness not required.
The refusal to distinguish between positive actions and negative actions when assessing the
performance of what passes for our political leadership by the masses is why cynicism has
become my standard response to everything I see, hear or he read. The incessant level of lies
permeating our society and its acceptance as the norm has led to moral decay and rampant
criminality from the White House, to the halls of Congress, to corporate boardrooms, to
corporate newsrooms, to government run classrooms, to the Vatican, and to households across the
land. It's interesting that one of our founding fathers reflected upon this detestable human
trait over two hundred years ago.
"It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental
lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity
of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has
prepared himself for the commission of every other crime." – Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine's description of how moral mischief can ruin a society was written when less
than 3 million people inhabited America. Consider his accurate assessment of humanity when over
300 million occupy these lands. The staggering number of corrupt prostituted sociopaths
occupying positions of power within the government, corporations, media, military, churches,
and academia has created a morally bankrupt empire of debt.
These sociopaths are not liberal or conservative. They are not Democrats or Republicans.
They are not beholden to a country or community. They care not for their fellow man. They don't
care about future generations. They care about their own power, wealth and control over others.
They have no conscience. They have no empathy. Right and wrong are meaningless in their
unquenchable thirst for more. They will lie, steal and kill to achieve their goal of
controlling everything and everyone in this world. This precisely describes virtually every
politician in Washington DC, Wall Street banker, mega-corporation CEO, government agency head,
MSM talking head, church leader, billionaire activist, and blood sucking advisor to the
president.
The question pondered every day on blogs, social media, news channels, and in households
around the country is whether Trump is one of Us or one of Them. The answer to that question
will strongly impact the direction and intensity of the climactic years of this Fourth Turning.
What I've noticed is the shunning of those who don't take an all or nothing position regarding
Trump. If you disagree with a decision, policy, or hiring decision by the man, you are accused
by the pro-Trump team of being one of them (aka liberals, lefties, Hillary lovers).
If you don't agree with everything Trump does or says, you are dead to the Trumpeteers. I
don't want to be Us or Them. I just want to be me. I will judge everyone by their actions and
their results. I can agree with Trump on many issues, while also agreeing with Tulsi Gabbard,
Rand Paul, Glenn Greenwald or Matt Taibbi on other issues. I don't prescribe to the cult of
personality school of thought. I didn't believe the false narratives during the Bush or Obama
years, and I won't worship at the altar of the Trump narrative now.
In Part II of this article I'll assess Trump's progress thus far and try to determine
whether he can defeat the Deep State.
"The scientific and industrial revolution of modern times represents the next giant
step in the mastery over nature; and here, too, an enormous increase in man's power over
nature is followed by an apocalyptic drive to subjugate man and reduce human nature to the
status of nature. Even where enslavement is employed in a mighty effort to tame nature, one
has the feeling that the effort is but a tactic to legitimize total subjugation. Thus,
despite its spectacular achievements in science and technology, the twentieth century will
probably be seen in retrospect as a century mainly preoccupied with the mastery and
manipulation of men. Nationalism, socialism, communism, fascism, and militarism,
cartelization and unionization, propaganda and advertising are all aspects of a general
relentless drive to manipulate men and neutralize the unpredictability of human nature. Here,
too, the atmosphere is heavy-laden with coercion and magic." --Eric Hoffer
If you don't agree with everything Trump does or says, you are dead to the
Trumpeteers
That's not true. When Trump kisses Israeli ***, most "Trumpeteers" are outraged. That does
not mean they're going to vote for Joe "I'm a Zionist" Biden, or Honest Hillary because of
it, but they're still pissed.
These predators (((them))) need to fear the Victims, us! That is what the 2ND Amendment is
for. It's coming, slowly for now, but eventually it speeds up.
Any piece like this better be littered with footnotes and cited sources before I'm
swallowing it.
I'll say it again: this is the internet, people. There's no "shortage of column space" to
include links back to primary sources for your assertions. Otherwise, how am I supposed to
distinguish you from another "psy op" or "paid opposition hit piece"?
"The question pondered every day on blogs, social media, news channels, and in households
around the country is whether Trump is one of Us or one of Them."
If you still ponder this question, then you are pretty frickin' thick. It is obvious at
this point, that he betrayed everything he campaigned on. You don't do that and call yourself
one of "us".......damn sure aren't one of "me".
If I couldn't keep my word and wouldn't do what it takes to do what is right.....then I
would resign. But I would not go on playing politics in a world that needs some real
leadership and not another political hack.
The real battle is between Truth and Lie. No matter the name of your "team" or the "side"
you support. Truth is truth and lies are lies. We don't stand for political parties, we stand
for truth. We don't stand for national pride, we take pride in a nation that is truthful and
trustworthy. The minute a "side" or "team" starts lying.....and justifying it.....that is the
minute they become them and not one of us.
Any thinking person in this country today knows we are being lied to by the entire
complex. Until someone starts telling the truth.....we are on our own. But I be damned before
I am going to support any of these lying sons of bitches......and that includes Trump.
Dark comedy. All the elections have been **** choices until the last one. Take a look at
Arkancide.com and start counting the
bodies.
Anyone remember the news telling us how North Korea promised to turn the US into a sea of
fire?? Trump absolutely went to bat for every single American to de-escalate that
situation.
Don't tell me about Arkancide or the Clintons. I grew up in Arkansas with that sack of
**** as my governor for 12 years.
NK was never a real threat to anyone. Trump didn't do ****. NK is back to building and
shooting off missiles and will be teaming up with the Russians and Chinese. You are a duped
bafoon.
I don't think anybody thought NK was an existential threat to the US. It has still been
nice making progress on bringing them back into the world and making them less of a threat to
Japan and S. Korea. Trump did that.
Dennis Rodman did that, or that is to say, Trump an extension thereof ..
Great theater..
Look, i thought it was great that Trump went Kim Unning. I mean after all, i had talked
with a few elderly folks that get their news directly from the mainstream of mainstream,
vanilla news reportage. Propaganda central casting. I remember them being extremely
concerned, outright petrified about that evil menace, kim gonna launch nukes any minute now.
If the news would have been announced a major troop mobilization, bombing campaigns, to begin
immediately they would have been completely onboard, waving the flag.
Frankly, it is only a matter of time, and folks can speculate on the country of interest,
but it is coming soon to a theater near you. So many being in the crosshairs. Iran i suspect
.. that's the big prize, that makes these sociopaths cream in their panties.
Probably. In the second term .. and so far, if ones honestly evaluates the "brain trust" /
current crop of dimwit opposition, and in light of their past 2 plus years of moronic
posturing with their hair on fire, trump will get his second term ..
Until the last one? You are retarded, the last election was a masterpiece of Rothschilds
Productions. The Illuminati was watching you at their private cinema when you were voting for
Trump and they were laughing their asses off.
The author does not realize that everyone in America, except Native American Indians, were
immigrants drawn towards the false promise of hope that is the American Dream, turned
nightmare..
Owning your own home, car, & raising a family in this country is so damn expensive
& risky, that you'd have be on drugs or an idiot to even fall for the lies.
I don't see an us vs them, I see the #FakeMoney printers monetized every facet of life,
own everything, & it truly is RENT-A-LIFE USSA, complete with bills galore, taxes galore,
laws galore, jails & prisons galore, & the worst fkn country anyone would want to
live in poverty & homelessness in.
At least in many 3rd world nations there is land to live off of & joblessness does not
= a financial death sentence.
Sure. Lets all go back to living in huts.....off the land....no cars.....no
electricity.....no running water......no roads....
There is a price to pay for things and it is not always in the form of money. We have
given up some of our freedom for the ease and conveniences we want.
The problem is we have gone too far. The "American Dream" has become a grotesque nightmare
because people by the millions sit around and dream about being a Kardashian. Makes me want
to puke.
There is a balance. Don't take the other extreme or we never find balance.
This article is moronic. One can easily prove that Trump is not like all the others in the
poster. Has this author been living under a rock for the last 2.5 yrs? The past 5 presidents
represent a group that has been literally trying to assassinate Trump, ruin his family, his
reputation, his buisness and his future, for the audacity to be an ousider to the power
network and steal (win) the presidency from under their noses. He's kept us OUT of war. He's
dissolved the treachery that was keeping us in the middle east through gaslighitng and a
proxy fake war that is ISIS, the globalists' / nato / fiveys / uk's fake mercenary army
The greatest threat to the USA is its own dumbed down drugged up citizens who cannot
compete with anyone. America is a big military powerhouse but that doens't make successful
countries
Notice how modern narrative is getting manipulated. What is being reported and referenced
is completely different from how things are. And knowing that we can assume that the entire
history is a fabricated lie, written by the ruling class to support its status in the minds
of obedient citizens.
This article is garbage propaganda that proves that they think we aren't keeping score or
paying attention. The gaslighting won't work when it relies on so much counterthink, willful
ignorance, counterfacts and weaponized omissions
The reality is the de-escalation of wars, the stability of our currency and our economy,
and the moral re-grounding of our culture does not occur until we do what over 100 countries
have done over the centuries, beginning in Carthage in 250AD.
The congress are statusquotarians. If they solved the problems they say they would,they'd
be out of a job. and that job is sitting there acting like a naddler or toxic post turtle
leprechaun with a charisma and skill level of zero. Their staff do all the work, half of them
barely read, though they probably can
I still think 1st and 2nd ammedment is predicated on which party rules the house. If a Dem
gets into the WH, we're fucked. Kiss those Iast two dying amendments goodbye for good.
If we rely on any party to preserve the 1st or 2nd Amendments, we are already fucked. What
should preserve the 1st and 2nd Amendments is the absolute fear of anyone in government even
mentioning suppressing or removing them. When the very thought of doing anything to lessen
the rights advocated in these two amendments, causes a politician to piss in their pants,
liberty will be preserved. As it is now citizens fear the government, and as a result tyranny
continues to grow and fester as a cancer.
You may very well be right. I still hold out hope, but upon seeing what our society is
quickly morphing into, that hope seems to fade more each and every day.
If you think the 1st and 2nd amendments are reliant on who is in office, then you are
already done. Why don't you try growing a pair and being an American for once in your
life.
I will always have a 1st and 2nd "amendment" for as long as I live. Life is meaningless
without them.....as far as I am concerned. Good thing the founders didn't wait for king
George to give them what they "felt" was theirs.....by the laws of Nature and Nature's
God.
I hope the democrats get the power......and I hope they come for the guns......maybe then
pussies like you will finally have to **** or get off the pot......for once in your life.
There are worse things than dying.
This country cannot be fixed through the ballot box. Unless we get rid of *** influencing
from abroad and domestically. Getting rid of English King few hundred years ago was a joke!
this would be a challenge because dual-citizens masquerading as locals.
Last revolution (1776) we targeted the WRONG ENEMY.
We targeted King George III instead of the private bankers who owned of the Bank of
England and the issued of the British-pound currency.
George III was himself up to his ears in debt to them by 1776, when the bankers installed
George Washington to replace George III as their middleman in the American colonies, by way
of the phony revolution.
Phony because ownership of the central bank and currency (Federal-Reserve Banks,
Federal-Reserve notes) we use, remains in the same banking families' hands to this day. The
same parasite remains within our government.
It is this strangely incomplete calculus that creates the shifting Loser world of
rifts and alliances. By operating with a more complete calculus, Sociopaths are able to
manipulate this world through the divide-and-conquer mechanisms. The result is that the
Losers end up blaming each other for their losses, seek collective emotional resolution,
and fail to adequately address the balance sheet of material rewards and losses.
To succeed, this strategy requires that Losers not look too closely at the non-emotional
books. This is why, as we saw last time, divide-and-conquer is the most effective means for
dealing with them, since it naturally creates emotional drama that keeps them busy while
they are being manipulated.
Or maybe it is just one front: I.e. making globalisation difficult for the Chinese :
by pushing non Chinese Asians countries to de-integrate their supply chains with China
and
by cutting its supply of oil though shortages induced by tensions in the Gulf.
The US knows that it can't be the sole superpower anymore any longer, so the strategy is to
reverse globalisation so that no other global superpower (a Russian-Chinese with a dominating
Persia in the Middle East) can emerge.
Far too early to say if the strategy will be successful or not.
As far as I am concerned, the silver linings would be that a long period of oil shortage
could finally be the trigger to switch industrial infrastructure worldwide away from liquid
and gaseous fossils, and that less globalised supply chain would be more robust to shocks,
but if these silver linings were the ultimate goals, I could think of less adversarial ways
to achieve that globally, with less money wasted on the military
The benefits of joint pricing mechanisms are also enormous. Currently, Iran has no choice
because of the sanctions but to sell its oil – including from the shared fields –
at massively reduced pricing that is comprised of its official selling price (OSP) minus the
sanctions discount minus the incremental risk discount. This has resulted in Iran offering
'cost, insurance, and freight' cargoes for 'free on board' pricing, with the difference
between the two covered by Iran. "Under this new agreement, Iranian oil from these shared
fields will be sold based on Iraq's much higher three month moving average OSP pricing for
cargoes, with no discounts at all, and the three month moving average for the effective spot
market that Iraq has created and now controls," said the oil source.
Thanks for the in-depth info. Lots to digest and research.
the US has acted in such bad faith so often in the early stages of conflicts that it's
sensible to wonder how much of this account is accurate. It is very frustrating to be
dealing with an informational hall of mirrors.
It's depressing to say but I when I read anything from domestic official sources or the
media I can't help but think it's mostly lies. Not under the illusion that foreign actors are
all righteous and benevolent, but as you said, our nation's track record with the truth in
these scenarios is pretty tainted at this point. Just as we found out with Saddam and
Qaddafi, these leaders have little reason to poke the dragon, and a lot of reason to build up
defenses.
Interesting observations if true, and they certainly do make sense of a lot of the things
that have been happening.
I see it hasn't dissuaded Trump though, this morning he is reported as doubling down on
his threats to Iran. A big fear now is that Iran does not seem to be in the mood to give
Trump the sort of symbolic 'win' he can use to climb down gracefully (and sack Bolton). The
Saudi's can probably be scared into stepping back, but the Israeli's and the neocons want a
hot war.
Its easy to see this gradually ratchet up step by step into an uncontrolled region wide
conflict.
Not sure what to make of this article but the Anglo-American press is not providing much
context for the recent ratcheting up of confrontation with Iran.
The MSM is mostly stenographers and right leaning pundits. If no one tells them, they
wouldn't know.
Also, the DC elites were pretty irked by Obama's Iran deal. They deferred to Obama and the
Europeans who demanded the deal, but I think they live in a world where DC's enemies are the
enemies of the American people who overwhelmingly supported the Iran deal. DC hasn't come to
grips with this.
but I think they live in a world where DC's enemies are the enemies of the American
people who overwhelmingly supported the Iran deal. DC hasn't come to grips with this.
Yes, because all pain, real blood and death, misery and horror that they cause in fighting
what they assume putatively are "the American people's enemies" are never suffered by them,
but only everyone else including the American people; all the financial benefits do go to
them so it is all gain and no cost.
Will Lavrov and Wang Yi's guarantees prevent an Israeli nuclear attack on Iranian
facilities, followed by US pledges to fully support Israel's right to self defence?
There are two kinds of weapons in the world offensive and defensive. The latter are
cheaper, a fighter plane compared to a bomber. If a country does not (or cannot afford to)
have offensive intent, it makes sense to focus on defense. It is what Iran has done.
Moreover, its missile centered defense has a modern deadly twist -- the missiles are
precision-guided. As an Iranian general remarked when questioned about the carrier task
force: some years ago it would've been a threat he opined; now it's a target. Iran also has a
large standing army of 350,000 plus a 120,000 strong Revolutionary Guard and Soviet style air
defenses. In 2016 Russia started installation of the S-300 system. It has all kinds of
variants, the most advanced, the S-300 PMU-3 has a range similar to the S-400 if equipped
with 40N6E missiles, which are used also in the S-400. Their range is 400 km, so the Iranian
batteries are virtually S-400s. The wily Putin has kept trump satisfied with the S-300
moniker without short-changing his and China's strategic ally. The latter continuing to buy
Iranian oil.
Iran has friends in Europe also. Angela Merkel in particular has pointed out that Iran has
complied fully with the nuclear provisions of the UN Security Council backed Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action i.e. the Iran nuclear deal. She is mustering the major European
powers. Already alienated with Trump treating them as adversaries rather than friends, they
find Trump's bullying tiresome. President Macron, his poll ratings hitting the lowest, is
hardly likely to engage in Trump's venture. In Britain, Theresa May is barely able to hold on
to her job. In the latest thrust by senior members of her party, she has been asked to name
the day she steps down.
So there we have it. Nobody wants war with Iran. Even Israel, so far without a
post-election government does not want to be rained upon by missiles leaky as its Iron Dome
was against homemade Palestinian rockets. Topping all of this neither Trump nor Secretary of
State Pompeo want war. Trump is as usual trying to bully -- now called maximum pressure --
Iran into submission. It won't. The wild card is National Security Adviser John Bolton. He
wants war. A Gulf of Tonkin type false flag incident, or an Iranian misstep, or some accident
can still set it off. In Iran itself, moderates like current President Hassan Rouhani are
being weakened by Trump's shenanigans. The hard liners might well want to bleed America as
happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't trust those air defenses too much, where have they ever performed well? The scary
part is where Iran assumes that USA can through repeated air strikes wipe out their missiles.
They will from the start find themselves in a "use them or lose them" scenario and may launch
everything as response to even a limited US strike, since they can't know if it is limited or
the beginning of a full scale attack, and I doubt Iran is willing to go down without doing
everything it can to hurt their enemies. (Possibly excluding Israel which is crazy enough to
go nuclear in response).
Yves here. Glenn F sent along this story about recent events in the US-Iran conflict, many of
which don't appear to have been reported in the English language press. Interestingly, the
article takes the position that it is the Saudis that have been doing their best and largely
succeeding in suppressing these reports.
Going into the weekend, it looked as if the US was trying to turn down the Iran threat meter
a notch. Both Iran and the Saudis said they didn't want war but were prepared for one. Then a
mystery rocket landed in the Green Zone in Baghdad. Oopsie.
From the Wall Street Journal:
No major destruction was inflicted by the rocket, which landed near a museum displaying
old planes and caused some damage to a building used by security guards, according to an
official in the interior ministry.
The interior ministry official, who declined to be identified, said the rocket had landed
around a kilometer from the U.S. Embassy inside Baghdad's Green Zone, where many other
diplomatic missions and Iraqi government offices are located.
No group claimed responsibility. But security officials said security forces had found and
seized a mobile rocket launcher in an area of Baghdad where Shiite militias, including some
with close links to Iran, have a presence.
But also note this:
The Trump administration last week ordered a partial evacuation of its diplomatic missions
in Baghdad and Erbil citing increased threats posed by Iran and its allies in Iraq. The Iraqi
government has varying degrees of control over an array of armed groups, some of which are
closely affiliated with Iran.
On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to Democratic Presidential candidate Mike
Gravel who discusses why he is joining the race to pull the debate to the left, the nature of
his contenders such as Joe Biden, Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders, US regime change attempts
in Venezuela and escalating tension with Iran, Julian Assange's imprisonment in the UK and the
US' extradition request. Next we speak to Chris Williamson MP, in his first international
interview since being suspended by the Labour Party.
He discusses NHS privatisation by stealth with the new GP contracts due to be signed next
week, Israeli oppression of Palestinians, Trump's escalation against Iran and Julian Assange's
on-going imprisonment in Belmarsh Prison.
Love Mike gravel, honest, good, genuine person with pure heart and soul! Donate dollar to
get him on the debates! Love Chris Williamson also a great men we need more people like
these! This channel should have way more subs and views, great show!
The proven oil reserves in Venezuela are recognized as the largest in the world, totaling
297 billion barrels . They are going to be INVADED by the real world terrorists, the
USA,BRITAIN, and their puppet allies !!!! Need I say more?
The take away quote
"
Wang also reiterated the principled stand against the "long-arm jurisdiction" imposed by
the United States.
"
Empire is having its hand slapped back in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, ???
Where are they going to get their war on?
I see empire as a war junkie and they are starting to twitch in withdrawals which is
dangerous but a necessary stage. Trumps latest tweets show that level of energy.
The
spinning plates of empire are not wowing the crowds like before.....what is plan Z?
"First published From Parameters, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14: US Army War College: "There will
be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple
conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines,
but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de
facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open
to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."
"Excerpts From Pentagon's Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival':
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the
territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that
posed formerly by the Soviet Union.
This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and
requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose
resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These
regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and
Southwest Asia.
There are three additional aspects to this objective: First, the U.S. must show the
leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of
convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a
more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.
Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the
advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking
to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the
mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or
global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies
that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military
position in the world."
... access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil"
"... More broadly, Wilkerson pegs the ramping up of confrontation with China as "all about keeping the [military-industrial] complex alive" that Wilkerson explains "the military was scared to death would disappear as we began to pay the American people back" a peace dividend at the end of the cold war. US government efforts against terrorism, explains Wilkerson, have also been used to ensure the money keeps flowing. ..."
Former Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell in the George W. Bush administration,
warns in a new The Real News interview with host Sharmini Peries that the United States government is driving down a "highway to
war" with China -- a war for which Wilkerson sees no sound justification.
The drive toward war is not undertaken in response to a real threat posed by China to the people of America. Instead, argues Wilkerson,
the US government is moving toward war for reasons related to money for both the military and the broader military-industrial complex,
as well to advance President Donald Trump's domestic political goals.
Wilkerson, who is a member of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity's Academic Board, elaborates on the US military's
money-seeking motivation to advance the new China scare, stating:
All of this right now, first and foremost, is a budget ploy. They want more money.
And that's largely because their personnel costs are just eating their lunch. And, second, it's an attempt to develop - and
this has something to do with money too of course - another threat, another cold war, another feeding system .
The military just hooks up like it is hooking up to an intravenous, you know, an IV system and the money just pours out-slush
fund money, appropriated money, everything else.
More broadly, Wilkerson pegs the ramping up of confrontation with China as "all about keeping the [military-industrial] complex
alive" that Wilkerson explains "the military was scared to death would disappear as we began to pay the American people back" a peace
dividend at the end of the cold war. US government efforts against terrorism, explains Wilkerson, have also been used to ensure the
money keeps flowing.
"... In July 2017 Strache and his right hand man Johann Gudenus, who is also the big number in the FPOe, get invited for dinner to a rented villa on Ibiza, the Spanish tourist island in the Mediterranean. They are told that the daughter of a Russian billionaire plans large investments in Austria. It was said that she would like to help his party. The alleged daughter of the Russian billionaire, who is actually also Austrian, and her "friend" serve an expensive dinner. Alcohol flows freely. The pair offers a large party donation but asks for returns in form of mark ups on public contracts. ..."
"... Unknown to Strache the villa is professionally bugged with many hidden cameras and microphones. ..."
"... The right-wing parties will use the case to boost their legitimacy. ..."
"... Strache was obviously set up by some intelligence services, probably a German one with a British assist. The original aim was likely to blackmail him. But during the meeting on Ibiza Strache promised and did nothing illegal. Looking for potential support for his party is not a sin. Neither is discussing investments in Austria with a "daughter of a Russian oligarch." Some boosting while drunk is hardly a reason to go to jail. When the incident provided too little material to claim that Strache is corrupt, the video was held back until the right moment to politically assassinate him with the largest potential damage to his party. That moment was thought to be now. ..."
"... The massive economic shock following the banking collapse of 2007–8 is the direct cause of the crisis of confidence which is affecting almost all the institutions of western representative democracy. The banking collapse was not a natural event, like a tsunami. It was a direct result of man-made systems and artifices which permitted wealth to be generated and hoarded primarily through multiple financial transactions rather than by the actual production and sale of concrete goods, and which then disproportionately funnelled wealth to those engaged in the mechanics of the transactions. ..."
"... The political assassination of Christian Strache is unjust. What was done during the 2007-8 banking crisis was utterly corrupt and also unjust. Instead of going to jail the bankers were rewarded with extreme amounts of money for their assault on the well being of the people. The public was then told that it must starve through austerity to make up for the loss of money. ..."
During the last days a right wing politician in Austria was taken down by using an elaborate sting. Until Friday Heinz-Christian
Strache was leader of the far right (but not fascist) Freedom Party of Austria (FPOe) and the Vice Chancellor of the country. On
Friday morning two German papers, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung and Der Spiegelpublished
(German)
reports (English) about an old video that was made to take Strache down.
The FPOe has good connections with United Russia, the party of the Russian President Putin, and to other right-wing parties in
east Europe. It's pro-Russian position has led to verbal attacks on and defamation of the party from NATO supporting and neoliberal
circles.
In July 2017 Strache and his right hand man Johann Gudenus, who is also the big number in the FPOe, get invited for dinner to
a rented villa on Ibiza, the Spanish tourist island in the Mediterranean. They are told that the daughter of a Russian billionaire
plans large investments in Austria. It was said that she would like to help his party. The alleged daughter of the Russian billionaire,
who is actually also Austrian, and her "friend" serve an expensive dinner. Alcohol flows freely. The pair offers a large party donation
but asks for returns in form of mark ups on public contracts.
Unknown to Strache the villa is professionally bugged with many hidden cameras and microphones.
A scene from the video. Source: Der Falter (vid,
German)
During the six hour long party several schemes get proposed by the "Russian" and are discussed. Strache rejects most of them.
He insists several times that everything they plan or do must be legal and conform to the law. He says that a large donation could
probably be funneled through an endowment that would then support his party. It is a gray area under Austrian party financing laws.
They also discuss if the "Russian" could buy the Kronen Zeitung , Austria's powerful tabloid, and use it to prop up his party.
The evening goes on with several bottles of vodka on the table. Starche gets a bit drunk and boosts in front of the "oligarch
daughter" about all his connections to rich and powerful people. He does not actually have these.
Strache says that, in exchange for help for his party, the "Russian" could get public contracts for highway building and repair.
Currently most of such contracts in Austria go to the large Austrian company, STRABAG, that is owned by a neoliberal billionaire
who opposes the FPOe. At that time Strache was not yet in the government and had no way to decide about such contracts.
At one point Strache seems to understand that the whole thing is a setup. But his right hand man calms him down and vouches
for the "Russian". The sting ends with Strache and his companion leaving the place. The never again see the "Russian" and her co-plotter.
Nothing they talked about will ever come to fruition.
Three month later Strache and his party win more than 20% in the Austrian election and form a coalition government with the
conservative party OeVP led by Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. Even while the FPOe controls several ministries, it does not achieve much
politically. It lacks a real program and the government's policies are mostly run by the conservatives.
Nearly two years after the evening on Ibiza, ten days before the European parliament election in which Strache's party is predicted
to achieve good results, a video of the evening on Ibiza is handed to two German papers which are known to be have strong transatlanticist
leanings and have previously been used for other shady 'leaks'. The papers do not hesitate to take part in the plot and publish extensive
reports about the video.
After the reports appeared Strache immediately
stepped down and the conservatives
ended the coalition with his party. Austria will now have new elections.
On Bloomberg Leonid Bershidsky
opines
on the case:
Strache's discussion with the Russian oligarch's fake niece shows a propensity for dirty dealing that has nothing to do with idealistic
nationalism. Nationalist populists often agitate against entrenched, corrupt elites and pledge to drain various swamps. In the
videos, however, Strache and Gudenus behave like true swamp creatures, savoring rumors of drug and sex scandals in Austrian politics
and discussing how to create an authoritarian media machine like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's.
I do not believe that the people who voted for the FPOe (and similar parties in other countries) will subscribe to that view.
The politics of the main stream parties in Austria have for decades been notoriously corrupt. Compared to them Strache and his party
are astonishingly clean. In the video he insists several times that everything must stay within the legal realm. Whenever the "Russian"
puts forward a likely illegal scheme, Starche emphatically rejects it.
Bershidsky continues:
Strache, as one of the few nationalist populists in government in the European Union's wealthier member states, was an important
member of the movement Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has been trying to cobble together ahead of the European Parliament
election that will take place next week. On Saturday, he was supposed to attend a Salvini-led rally in Milan with other like-minded
politicians from across Europe. Instead, he was in Vienna apologizing to his wife and to Kurz and protesting pitifully that he'd
been the victim of a "political assassination" -- a poisonous rain on the Italian right-winger's parade.
...
This leaves the European far right in disarray and plays into the hands of centrist and leftist forces ahead of next week's election.
Salvini's unifying effort has been thoroughly undermined, ...
This is also a misreading of the case. The right-wing parties will use the case to boost their legitimacy.
Strache was obviously set up by some intelligence services, probably a German one with a British assist. The original aim was
likely to blackmail him. But during the meeting on Ibiza Strache promised and did nothing illegal. Looking for potential support
for his party is not a sin. Neither is discussing investments in Austria with a "daughter of a Russian oligarch." Some boosting while
drunk is hardly a reason to go to jail. When the incident provided too little material to claim that Strache is corrupt, the video
was held back until the right moment to politically assassinate him with the largest potential damage to his party. That moment was
thought to be now.
But that Strache stepped down after the sudden media assault only makes him more convincing. The right-wing all over Europe will
see him as a martyr who was politically assassinated because he worked for their cause. The issue will increase the right-wingers
hate against the 'liberal' establishment. It will further motivate them: "They attack us because we are right and winning." The new
far-right block Natteo Salvini
will setup in the European Parliament will likely receive a record share of votes.
Establishment writers notoriously misinterpret the new right wing parties and their followers. This stand-offish sentence in the
Spiegel story about Strache's party demonstrates the problem:
In the last election, the party drew significant support from the working class, in part because of his ability to simplify even
the most complicated of issues and play the common man, even in his role as vice chancellor.
The implicit thesis, that the working class is too dumb to understand the "most complicated of issues", is not only incredibly
snobbish but utterly false. The working class understands very well what the establishment parties have done to it and continue to
do. The increasing vote share of the far-right is a direct consequence of the behavior of the neoliberal center and of the lack of
real left alternatives.
Last week, before the Strache video appeared, Craig Murray
put his finger on the wound:
The massive economic shock following the banking collapse of 2007–8 is the direct cause of the crisis of confidence which is affecting
almost all the institutions of western representative democracy. The banking collapse was not a natural event, like a tsunami.
It was a direct result of man-made systems and artifices which permitted wealth to be generated and hoarded primarily through
multiple financial transactions rather than by the actual production and sale of concrete goods, and which then disproportionately
funnelled wealth to those engaged in the mechanics of the transactions.
...
The rejection of the political class manifests itself in different ways and has been diverted down a number of entirely blind
alleys giving unfulfilled promise of a fresh start – Brexit, Trump, Macron. As the vote share of the established political parties
– and public engagement with established political institutions – falls everywhere, the chattering classes deride the political
symptoms of status quo rejection by the people as "populism". It is not populism to make sophisticated arguments that undermine
the received political wisdom and take on the entire weight of established media opinion.
If one wants to take down the far right one has to do so with arguments and good politics for the working class. Most people,
especially working class people, have a strong sense for justice. The political assassination of Christian Strache is unjust. What
was done during the 2007-8 banking crisis was utterly corrupt and also unjust. Instead of going to jail the bankers were rewarded
with extreme amounts of money for their assault on the well being of the people. The public was then told that it must starve through
austerity to make up for the loss of money.
While I consider myself to be a strong leftist who opposes the right wherever possible, I believe to understand why people vote
for Strache's FBOe and similar parties. When one talks to these people issues of injustice and inequality always come up. The new
'populist' parties at least claim to fight against the injustice done to the common men. Unlike most of the establishment parties
they seem to be still mostly clean and not yet corrupted.
In the early 1990s Strache actually flirted with violent fascists but he rejected their way. While he has far-right opinions,
he and his like are no danger to our societies. If we can not accept that Strache and his followers have some legitimate causes,
we will soon find us confronted with way more extreme people. The neoliberal establishment seems to do its best to achieve that.
Posted by b on May 19, 2019 at 01:10 PM |
Permalink
The US objective is to sustain US tech prominence by stifling Chinese plans to advance its
economy. Of course China will never agree to that.
from CFR..
The Chinese government has launched "Made in China 2025," a state-led industrial policy
that seeks to make China dominant in global high-tech manufacturing. The program aims to
use government subsidies, mobilize state-owned enterprises, and pursue intellectual
property acquisition to catch up with -- and then surpass -- Western technological prowess
in advanced industries.
For the United States and other major industrialized democracies, however, these tactics
not only undermine Beijing's stated adherence to international trade rules but also pose a
security risk. . . here
Boeing and Hollywood are two week stops that China can hit with impunity.
Notable quotes:
"... China has outspent the US on R&D since 2009 and now invests three times as much each year. ..."
"... The issue with these chips highlights just how ridiculous the American position is. The chips referred to are Intel processors they use in servers and qualcomm (arm core) processors in cell phones. Funny thing is, these processors are not even made in the US, and their replacement isn't that much of an issue, not for a company with the resources Huawei possesses. ..."
"... For government and other high security uses China has options like the MIPs based Loongson but that wouldn't work in the commercial environment so hopelessly devoted to x86 and windows. Probably the best solution would be to make an x86 analog like AMD markets, and it wouldn't take that long to do. ..."
"... The United States attacked China's largest telecom equipment maker Huawei. If China decides to retaliate, it could target chip giants like Qualcomm and Broadcom, which rely heavily on it for revenue, or tech giant Apple, which depends on them for iPhone manufacturing. ..."
"... Huawei's competitors Nokia and Ericsson would stand to win from the above ban as the United States and its allies would resort to them for 5G deployment. Nokia's and Ericsson's stocks rose more than 4% and 2% in early trading on May 16. . . here ..."
"... Chip fab is the only remaining significant technological lead that America retains anymore, but the raw engineering brainpower behind that industry in the US is mostly imported from China anyway. The Chinese have no shortage of brilliant engineers, they just have not really had the need to do without Intel and AMD before. Now they do. ..."
"... Within a year or so China will be producing chips as good as America's. Another year after that and America will be eclipsed in that industry. No longer will people be looking for "Intel Inside!" stickers on products but rather "Huawei Inside!" . ..."
"... What doesn't seem to be clear, or else ignored/excused here -- China is today just as globalist as the US and in fact the multinational corporations in control of both countries are inextricably linked, especially in the high tech sector currently under the intense MoA thread microscope. ..."
"... By our standards exploitation of workers in China is a grim picture , which compares with the grim blue collar conditions in the US, the equal and opposite result of the globalist equation wrt offshoring factory jobs endemic to capitalist production. ..."
"... MoA China "experts" should study the reality of globalization after removing the rose colored glasses if you wish to be considered analysts instead of merely wishful thinkers/cheerleaders of groupthink delusion. ..."
@William Gruff #75: China is already producing world-class ARM chips. HiSilicon 's latest Kirin
processors are on par with Qualcomm's Snapdragon and Samsung's Exynos processors. Apple's
A-series is ahead of them all, but what does it matter if Apple's rising prices and falling
quality are going to kill Apple anyway?
Per Reuters, Huawei spends $11b on US components, and its ability to withstand this hit will
vary by segment: "Huawei being unable to manufacture network servers, for example, because
they can't get key U.S. components would mean they also stop buying parts from other
countries altogether," said an executive at a Huawei chip supplier.
"They can relatively better manage component sourcing for mobile phones because they have
their own component businesses for smartphones. But server and network, it's a different
story," the executive said.
Are there any articles on how dependent Apple and Boeing are on Chinese components? This
strategy seems incredibly short-sighted.
Remember the "Asian pivot"? Did Huawei and other critical tech companies start making
independent chips back then? Or before? When were the tariffs planned? Speculation, anyone?
The issue with these chips highlights just how ridiculous the American position is. The chips
referred to are Intel processors they use in servers and qualcomm (arm core) processors in
cell phones. Funny thing is, these processors are not even made in the US, and their
replacement isn't that much of an issue, not for a company with the resources Huawei
possesses.
Huawei already has its own arm based soc's it uses in it's high end phones and they can
replace processors in it's low end phones with lesser versions of these.
The Intel processors will be tougher to do for the commercial market because of software
compatibility issues.
For government and other high security uses China has options like the MIPs based Loongson
but that wouldn't work in the commercial environment so hopelessly devoted to x86 and
windows. Probably the best solution would be to make an x86 analog like AMD markets, and it
wouldn't take that long to do.
The United States attacked China's largest telecom equipment maker Huawei. If China
decides to retaliate, it could target chip giants like Qualcomm and Broadcom, which rely
heavily on it for revenue, or tech giant Apple, which depends on them for iPhone
manufacturing.
Huawei uses Qualcomm's modems in its high-end smartphones and has been in settlement talks
with the chip supplier over a licensing dispute. Tensions between the United States and
Huawei could delay this licensing settlement, sending Qualcomm's stock down 4.4% on May
16.
Huawei's competitors Nokia and Ericsson would stand to win from the above ban as the
United States and its allies would resort to them for 5G deployment. Nokia's and Ericsson's
stocks rose more than 4% and 2% in early trading on May 16. . .
here
"Soon U.S. chip companies will have lost all their sales to the second largest
smartphone producer of the world. That loss will not be just temporarily, it will become
permanent." --b
This is a crucial and important development. So long as China is just developing their
domestic chip designs as an academic exercise they will forever trail behind the market
leaders by at least one technological iteration. Why try so hard with chip designs that will
only ever just be used in college degree theses papers and proof of concept models? Real
innovation comes from scratching an itch; from fulfilling an actual need. Chip fab is the
only remaining significant technological lead that America retains anymore, but the raw
engineering brainpower behind that industry in the US is mostly imported from China anyway.
The Chinese have no shortage of brilliant engineers, they just have not really had the need
to do without Intel and AMD before. Now they do.
In the short term the transition will be painful for China. The first few iterations of
their replacement chip designs will be buggy and not have the features of chips they could
have bought for cheaper from the US. They will also have problems ramping up capacity to meet
their needs. Typical growing pains, in other words. In the long term, though, this will be
seen as the point at which the end started for America's chip tech dominance. Within a
year or so China will be producing chips as good as America's. Another year after that and
America will be eclipsed in that industry. No longer will people be looking for "Intel
Inside!" stickers on products but rather "Huawei Inside!" .
Isnt it clear the US is globalist? Uhhm, well, yes, it's only been clear for the prior 75
years at least. In fact Lenin laid it all out during WWI so one could
say it's been clear for 100 years.
What doesn't seem to be clear, or else ignored/excused here -- China is today just as
globalist as the US and in fact the multinational corporations in control of both countries
are inextricably linked, especially in the high tech sector currently under the intense MoA
thread microscope.
Why aren't Huawei making making more smartphone chips in production? Because so many
Chinese component manufacturers are still heavily invested in churning out product for Apple.
These companies employ millions in "relatively high paying" factory jobs and account for a
large slice of Chinese export income and stock market capitalization. These corporate
oligarchs supported by the Chinese government retain a vested interest in the status quo.
This is not to minimize Huawei or Chinese growing ability to compete at the design and
innovation level as well as production, it is simply rightsizing the perspective to fit the
reality. Huawei production is growing worldwide but this doesn't mean Apple or Samsung will
evaporate or fall by the wayside and the Chinese need Apple and its markets too . In
fact, Huawei is now willing for the first time to sell microchips to third party cell phone
producers including Apple. Successful capitalist growth for China depends on increasing
production into new products, technologies and markets not replacing current platforms with
new. The product cycle will take care of itself in time anyway.
China is still in the industrial growth phase of its capitalist development, although
beginning to transition to the higher phase for sure. Of course.
MoA China "experts" should study the reality of globalization after removing the rose
colored glasses if you wish to be considered analysts instead of merely wishful
thinkers/cheerleaders of groupthink delusion.
Trump calculation is probably that neoliberalism in China already corrupted Communist Party enough for US being able to
destabilize the country buy depriving it of export revenue. And it is true that influence neoliberal Fifth column in china exists
and can compete with Communist Party for power. If Trump timing is correct China will be crushed. If this in incorrect the
USA might be crushed. This is a very high stake game as Trump burn bridges way too easily (being reckless and arrogant all his
life). Bulling as a negotiating tactics might be OK for New York real estate market is not that good in negotiating with
countries such as China.
Both countries are neoliberal countries but Chinese have more flexibility as remnants of Communist Party control remain in
place. But the same remnants are also a bog danger, as China might find itself in the position of the USSR when the US
crushed oil price and deprived it of much of its export revenue. In this case Communist Party will be blamed for social
disruptions and might lose power due tot he power of Chine Fifth column of
nouveau riche like happened in the USSR (opposition was supported by huge cash injections from the USA). I hope they study the
USSR experience very carefully and will not repeat Gorbachov mistakes (although it is difficult, as it is very difficult to find a
more stupid politician then Gorbachov, unless we assume that he was a traitor). Also the level of nationalism in China is
much higher and that might help. In any case this uncharted territory for both China and the USA.
The Trump administration seems to have the illusion that if you raise the stakes high enough, other countries will cave to US
demands. There might also be an element of creating foreign adversary in order to unite the domestic front. If Chinese will hold
their position tight despite the pain, Trump might lose the election in 2020 as he will be unable to protect the economy for
more then a year and the first signs of reception nullify his changes, as he will be blames for it.
Notable quotes:
"... This article titled 'Face' by Walrus over at SST is well worth a read alongside b's piece. https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/05/face-by-walrus.html ..."
"... Both these articles give a very clear picture of what the drunken louts 'Team Trump' are up against in their so called trade war. Very much like a drunken spectator climbing into the ring thinking he can take on a professional boxer. ..."
"... The US attack on China did not start with Trump. This is what Obama's military "Pivot to Asia" was about, as was the TPP, which explicitly was designed to develop an economic alliance that left China out. Capitalist trade wars are also not new, as are hot wars. They are part of capitalism. ..."
"... "Intellectual property" is a laughable assertion, an audacious attempt by the US to corner all human advances and claim them as the property of US capitalists, to be only used for their profits. As if! ..."
"... What an appalling ruling elite in the USA. Blamers and punishers. Never take any responsibility for their murderous acts ..."
"... The U.S. talks about pressuring China until they give in. China talks about a solution that respects the dignity of each party. ..."
"... I had the sudden realisation that US politics is essentially monarchist in its nature, for all the complicated legal and constitutional structures that have been built around it over the past 240+ years. US politics and culture are fixated on one individual with extreme powers; the superhero obsession in Hollywood is one symptom of that. ..."
"... In a way the US now resembles the Ottoman empire during that empire's Sultanate of Women period (late 1500s to mid-1700s) when sultans' power was dominated by their mothers, viziers and sometimes the janissaries who became a hereditary class during that period. ..."
"... Idolatry is universal. People always gravitate towards Alpha personalities. ..."
"... In looking into US culture and why it gives rise the type of leadership it has, I think it may be the belief in exceptionalism. Exceptionalism may also carry with it the belief that all other peoples want to be like them and all they (Americans) have to do is free those peoples from the nasty dictators ruling over them. ..."
"... Patrick Armstrong in one of his articles has said that in his dealings with US officials as Canadian ambassador or diplomat, is that American officials genuinely believed that all they had to do was overthrow the evil dictator and the people would welcome Americans or willingly join the US system. ..."
"... But, at the same time, on another level, Americans understand that the president is a puppet and must obey orders, or have his brains blown out in bright daylight, in the town square. ..."
"... We hold both these views simultaneously, hence, as Orwell called it, Doublethink. ..."
"... The British court said, no patent, no copyright and no monopoly can last longer than 7 years. that was 1787-89, and it explains the for a short time clause in the USA constitution. ..."
"... I don't think the US sees the world's nations as commanded by their senior politician. Far from it, but to keep the US public locked in a child's mentality, the govt and its MSM present every political event/action/reaction as between personalities. Can't have reason and logic breaking out among the minions can we? ..."
"... China's "competitive advantages" are too big for a confederation of micro-countries in the Pacific to overcome. ..."
"... b said;" the U.S. economic system is based on greed and not on the welfare of its citizens." Bingo! Jrabbit @ 52 said;"US foreign policy has been remarkably consistent for over 20 years." Maybe the last 100 yrs.? Demonize countries people and rulers, and take their stuff, but why not? We are, don't ya' know, the exceptional nation, doing gods work. Manifest Destiny, isn't it great? ..."
"... Smacking down China is a strategic priority for the Deep State. ..."
"... the neocons in the US believes it is now or never to defend the USA unique position as world power. They believe, that if they don't fight now, they will have lost. I say, they already have. ..."
"... Trust the UnitedSnake to blame the Chinese for reneging on an agreement ! Fact is, Trump's team Add in last minute conditions that are totally unacceptable to China. Chinese commentators are fuming at the audacity of the demands. 'WTF, Do they think we'r their gawd damned 51st state ?' ..."
"... Typical UnitedSnake's 'negotiation' tactics, designed to fail ! Thats how Clinton justity his bombing of ex Yugo, by blaming Belgrade for the breakdown of negotiation ,to justify its 78 days of aerial arsons against Yugo. ..."
Both these articles give a very clear picture of what the drunken louts 'Team Trump' are
up against in their so called trade war. Very much like a drunken spectator climbing into
the ring thinking he can take on a professional boxer.
@ Peter AU 1 | May 17, 2019 4:33:54 PM |
1 5 Trump
demanded concessions on trade
banned Huwei
made military [plans with Taiwan
saber rattled in the China Sea
Trump wants improved trade conditions for improved economic climate in the U.S.
But there are others in the admin who want something else.
But still: "backup chips it has independently developed"
That's a good one Mr Moon.
The US attack on China did not start with Trump. This is what Obama's military "Pivot to
Asia" was about, as was the TPP, which explicitly was designed to develop an economic
alliance that left China out.
Capitalist trade wars are also not new, as are hot wars.
They are part of capitalism.
"Intellectual property" is a laughable assertion, an audacious attempt by the US to corner
all human advances and claim them as the property of US capitalists, to be only used for
their profits.
As if!
What an appalling ruling elite in the USA. Blamers and punishers. Never take any
responsibility for their murderous acts.
Rise up people, these are dangerous, stupid leaders and elites.
B says: Whatever face is at the top is only representing the layers below.
Yes, this is the case when complex governmental systems are functioning properly. In
this case power is distributed throughout the system, based on the role each individual
within the system. People must have a collaborative culture for complex systems to function
properly.
People of an authoritarian nature hate complex systems and distributed power, as such
systems limit the freedom of action of the authoritarian leader. The corollary to this is
that systems must be kept simple to accommodate authoritarian leaders. And simple systems
are much less powerful and effective than complex systems.
My observation is that, in the U.S., authoritarianism is the dominant culture, as
opposed to a collaborative culture of the Chinese that is implied by B's comment.
Indeed we see many signs in these negotiations that the U.S. is operating based on a
culture of authoritarianism, whereas China is operating based on a culture of
collaboration. Among the signs:
The tendency that B. noted of Americans to assign all power to the leader.
(This is not the first time, and in fact it is a common mistake of the U.S. and one of the
reasons that their regime change efforts almost never achieve a result that is favorable
for the U.S.)
The U.S. talks about winning and losing. China talks equity.
The U.S. talks about pressuring China until they give in. China talks about a
solution that respects the dignity of each party.
The principle behind negotiations for people of a collaborative culture is 'Win-Win or
No-Deal'. For Authoritarians, Win-Win is a compromise, and compromise is the equivalent of a
loss. My conclusion is that there is only a very low probability that the U.S. and China will
successfully negotiate a trade deal. The cultures of the authoritarian Americans and the
collaborative Chinese are too divergent. China will only accept Win-Win and the U.S. cannot
accept Win-Win.
Classic US empire strategy.
Build up a supplier and when they start to be serious a competitor take them down.
Asian Tiger crisis,forcing occupied Japan into the Plaza Accord etc.
They left it too long with China, way too long.
China has not recycled its trade dollars surplus into USTs since 2014.
No replacement suppliers like Vietnam or Indonesia etc will do either, no more vendor
finance
for the US.
It will have to live within its means, no wonder the neocohens are going
insane.
We are watching the death of the $ as GRC first hand.
NO jared, Trump is in charge, fully responsible and yet totally irresponsible. He hires
and fires, he barks the orders, Trump is not captive. You may desperately wish to believe
that but NO, Trump wants it like this and NO dissent.
This is Henry Kissinger's plan implemented by Trump. A war criminal implementing a
sociopath war criminal's plan. Trump is a killer and an oligarchs stooge and he like the
rewards.
See the fabulous Aaron Mate discussion previously linked in the last thread.
I'd be curious to know what other MoA barflies think of the US tendency to personalize
other countries' governments and political systems and reduce them all to monarchies of one
sort or another, and what this says about the American psychology generally. So much of the
US slather and accusations against Russia and China and what those nations are supposedly
doing look like psychological projection of the US' own sins and malevolent behaviour.
I was in hospital nearly 20 years ago for a major operation and some of my recuperation
there was spent watching a few old "Star Trek: Next Generation" episodes. Watching those
shows, I was struck by how much "power" the Star Trek captain Jean-Luc Picard appeared to
wield. Every one of his subordinates deferred to his decisions and very few challenged
him.
I know this is an old TV show with scripts that emphasise individual action over
collective action and delineating a whole culture on board the Starship fleet (this is a
long time before "Game of Thrones") but I had the sudden realisation that US politics is
essentially monarchist in its nature, for all the complicated legal and constitutional
structures that have been built around it over the past 240+ years. US politics and culture
are fixated on one individual with extreme powers; the superhero obsession in Hollywood is
one symptom of that.
In a way the US now resembles the Ottoman empire during that empire's Sultanate of Women
period (late 1500s to mid-1700s) when sultans' power was dominated by their mothers,
viziers and sometimes the janissaries who became a hereditary class during that period.
@ dh-mtl 21
You provided an excellent analysis of two very different kinds of people, westerners and
Asians (Chinese). Americans who believe that Chinese are pretty much like them, and respond
to people, to pressures and and to situations in the same way, are badly mistaken.
I would add another: Westerners want instant results and quick profits whereas Chinese take
the long view. Heck, they've been around for five thousand years so why not.
I'm glad you raise the issue of increased prices for US consumers, b. I have been looking
in vain for a mention of this even in alternative media. Nobody appears to be talking about
it.
If I can go off track for a moment the events surrounding Boeing are highly significant
and a parallel to what is happening generally in the US. Here is a something I wrote for
naked capitalism but did not send - Yves is too fierce and I don't trust her. A bit like a
feminine Colonel what's his name Laing...
Because of the prestige of Boeing Wall Street left its dimantling until quite late -
1997. GE and Ford had already produced their versions of the 737 Max in the 1960s with the
Corvair and the Pinto respectively as finance people started to take over the running of US
companies. There is something very sad in watching a once magnificent company reduced by
bankers to a shadow of its former self.
There has been a trade imbalance for quite a while but it didn't seem to matter much. The
Chinese raised their standard of living, Americans got cheap stuff, surplus dollars went
into treasuries to fund the deficit.
It all worked pretty well until Trump and MAGA. Somehow he thinks he'll bring the jobs
back but no Americans are going to make sneakers and circuit boards for $2 an hour.
I have just replied to Karlof1 in I think the previous thread and I link into this. In
looking into US culture and why it gives rise the type of leadership it has, I think it may
be the belief in exceptionalism. Exceptionalism may also carry with it the belief that all
other peoples want to be like them and all they (Americans) have to do is free those
peoples from the nasty dictators ruling over them.
Patrick Armstrong in one of his articles has said that in his dealings with US officials as
Canadian ambassador or diplomat, is that American officials genuinely believed that all
they had to do was overthrow the evil dictator and the people would welcome Americans or
willingly join the US system.
All the economic momentum is in Eurasia, centering on China, India, and Russia.
China is spearheading this drive and re-assuming its historical status as the richest
land in the world. Instead of resisting, Washington should be working with projects like
the BRI that help enrich everyone. (Indeed, why doesn't Washington announce a BRI for North/South America, perhaps a Yellow
Brick Road? But that's an aside...)
And concerns about Chinese spying through their companies should be equaled with
internal reflection about the practice in the United States. Perhaps it would be wise for
both countries to develop and practice international standards that respect human rights in
an Everything's Connected world.
Given how the US and China frequently treat "different" people with disdain, that's a
lot to ask. But no country or people is spotless regarding abusing human rights and some
wisdom with power would be welcome from both governments.
You point out that our entertainment industry focuses its plots on strong leaders, and Good
Guys vs Bad Guys, and we definitely internalize that, especially when our overlords want to
demonize another country, and use our entertainment-induced perspective as a shortcut.
They tell us that the leader of the targeted country is a Bad Guy and we must kill the
people in order to save them. And Americans nod and comply. Except for the 5% that prefers
peace, and they argue that the leader is not a Bad Guy, so we shouldn't kill the people to
save them.
No American ever thinks to argue international law or basic morality, we just argue about
the plot lines.
But, at the same time, on another level, Americans understand that the president is a
puppet and must obey orders, or have his brains blown out in bright daylight, in the town
square.
We hold both these views simultaneously, hence, as Orwell called it, Doublethink.
China has succeeded because it does not honor copyright and patent monopolies. Western
civilization is failing because it imposes the feudal monopoly by rule of law system.. The
state will make sure a few fat cats are lords and the masses are their slaves.
---
It is almost asking the change of China's political system." <= no its not, the struggle
today is freedom, human rights and the right to self determination not socialism vs
capitalism.. it the struggle today is capitalism vs monopolism.. because monopolism aims to
make every single human being alive its slave to a very few monopoly powered corporate
giants.. China is a clear example of what can be if the masses are allowed to compete
without the shackles of copyrights, patents and other thin air monopolies.
Some aspects of China's trade behavior can and should be criticized.
Why? Because of that "intellectual property" stuff? Japan basically built itself from the
ground up in the post-war through allowed and unallowed intellectual property theft. Canon
and Nikon, for example, essentially fac-similed Leica during that period; after the
transition to digital, they erased their theft past, but it doesn't change the objective
truth both wouldn't exist without stealing technology from a defeated country (Germany). It
did the same with missile reentrance technology it stole from the USSR after the Cold
War.
< Technology is a product of the human mind.. copyright and patents are thefts of the
products of the human mind.. and human mind assets do not belong to anyone, to any
country.. Instead, copyright and patents (intellectual property) are and should be in the
public domain (but the scum that write the laws have created from thin air; rights which do
not exist, and given the rights they fabricated to their feudal lords and the corporations
owned by such lords. So the lawmaking scum have made it possible for a few (feudal lords)
to establish and maintain a monopoly in the good life, over the masses in the world. ..
Just as in the in England, France and Switzerland, where only the rich, corrupt
politicians, and criminal few hung out and traded copyright and patent monopolies in the
coffee houses, (much like stocks and bonds are traded today, monopoly trading was a game
between fat cats (today's the fat cats are wall street barons), ..monopolies allow rich and
wealth to support their royal life styles at the price of enslaving the masses to poverty.
Luckily a court in England, threaten by an angry crowd of the masses, denied the wealthy
their perpetual lifetime patents and copyright demands, no longer could the fat cats
squeeze ownership of an intellectual creation from its creator, convert it to intangible
property, and use the intellectual property to monopolize the world.
The British court
said, no patent, no copyright and no monopoly can last longer than 7 years. that was
1787-89, and it explains the for a short time clause in the USA constitution.
I don't think the US sees the world's nations as commanded by their senior politician. Far
from it, but to keep the US public locked in a child's mentality, the govt and its MSM
present every political event/action/reaction as between personalities. Can't have reason
and logic breaking out among the minions can we?
As for Trump being in charge, I rather doubt it, no US president has been "in charge" of
any thing except possibly what is for lunch since Washington.
Too many policies Trump began, such as negotiations with NK, have been trashed by his
"teams" who I believe are actually his minders put in place by the Deep State.
Is Trump a great guy? A NY developer by their very nature is not a great guy. But I do
think he wants to be seen as a great president. To do that he has to pull off some deals
that will be remembered which is why he wanted the deal with NK, that Pompeo blew up.
I also think that the govt is preparing for the time when the dollar is no longer the
reserve currency. And to do that you need to pull manufacturing back from abroad (from
China), seize critical assets (from Venezuela),break any and all treaties that require you
to spend money you won't have (making NATO (pay as you go).
All things the govt is doing, admittedly with the most horrific management team since
Taft's. But they are moving on all fronts to circle the wagons of US commerce.
They know what is coming, some of them may see war as the way to bilk a few more
trillions out of the treasury, but I don't think the military will let them. For they know
that if they go up against a nation that Russia and China support and botch it, that
R&C will go for the throat and that, more so than the currency crash would be the end
of the US.
These moves we see are very serious because the end game is for the continued existence
(or death)of the US. And many of these tactical moves are very high risk because they
hasten the end of the dollar. I give the dollar five years more, tops. Then it will be just
one in a basket of currencies until the yuan makes its way to the top.
And where that strange UN Agenda 21 fits in this I don't know, its plan for the US is
for drastically reduced population (70% loss, from what?)the remaining population in mega
cities and truly vast areas of no go set aside for the "environment." It reads like a
National Parks program on crack with a side of Hunger Games.
The next five years are going to be really critical and I personally think the US will
only make it by the skin of its teeth.
@ Jen. Another thought. The era in which the current state of America was conceived.
British colonies in a war of separation or independence against the British. Europe and
Britain at that time mostly ruled by hereditary monarchs nobles and lords ect.
Americans which I take it at that time would have been mostly British ancestry had done
away with hereditary monarchs and so forth. It would have been somewhat exceptional at the
time. In the targeting of the leader of a nation as the source of all evil, I wonder if
that relates back to doing away with hereditary leadership especially monarch.
President Trump has declared a national emergency due a threat to the US from "the ability
of foreign adversaries to create and exploit vulnerabilities in information and
communications technology or services, with potentially catastrophic effects, and thereby
constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy,
and economy of the United States," so various actions and prohibitions have been stipulated
here .
I think war reporting rules are in place with China, and Trade war has started.
Every month that passes without a crisis is a success for China right now as it over takes
US in GDP, tech, and trade links.
Key issues are bringing Europe in - the Huawei ban extended to Europe is battlefield #1,
Northstream (gas link to Russia) is #2.
First get Europe on board, the US can up things a lot further.
If Trump gets this right, he can delay outright defeat by China under well beyond his 8
years are up. (Bush or Obama early on could have won, or could have found a peaceful
solution).
A president doesn't have to obey the orders of the powers that be just because they
threaten to kill him otherwise. A brave president would defy them to do their worst. If
they went ahead and killed him, he would still have accomplished something important. By
exposing the nature of the system, he would have robbed it of its legitimacy and brought a
revolution much closer.
You've all been trained very well to ignore the class warfare.
China's "peaceful rise" was convenient when it enriched the Western elite.
But when China makes a play for equal footing, the must be smacked down. In each case (rise, smack-down) ordinary people (like yourselves) get f*cked. Kissinger's NWO? It's for the children.... No, not YOUR children. Welcome to the rabbithole.
Best example of a country stealing foreign inventions and protecting its 'uneconomical'
industries with tariffs is the USA.
It was notorious that in the C19th American publishers pirated authors and musicians from
Europe, particularly of course from Britain where the intellectual properties of Dickens
and his contemporaries laid the basis for many an American publishing fortune.
Among the primary victims were American authors who couldn't compete against stolen
imports.
I am not so sure the conclusions of the article are correct. Tariffs on Chinese factories
will force production to other countries in the area like Vietnam where costs are not going
to be much higher than China.
Granted, the US may be pissed off that Huawei is placing back doors in their systems but
I suspect that they are only copying what the US has done for years with US companies like
Microsoft.
My daughter managed 5 factories located in China of a clothing manufacture based in the
US some years ago. She said there was constant chaos as the workers were continually on
strike. Bad air, dangerous machines, poor wages. few bathrooms, bad water, childcare is
chaining you child to a fence for the day, and the like. Her boss flew to China and asked
for the cheapest costs possible. They showed him a factory full of little children cranking
out production. He left crying his eyes out. He was a cold hearted bastard but even that
was too much for him to see.
I viewed first hand the destruction trade agreements like NAFTA caused to good union
wages and benefits in the US. Hell, that is what got Trump elected. It is tough to watch
your children go into the same profession and make 50% less in wages and fringes 30 years
later.
Intellectual property and patents? No so sure about that, the views here are new to me.
I always supported them but I guess I need to dig deeper on that one.
In the net I think China is the loser, fewer jobs, higher food costs, their markets are
down 30%, ours are peaking and are seen as a safe haven for money. Export numbers for China
are dropping as is the trade balance.
At this point it is not a trade war but a re balancing of markets IMHO. If it was a real
trade war things would be far worse. Middle supplier countries will be hurt, US farmers,
some markets win some lose. If it was business as usual then it would be business as usual.
Trump is stirring the pot and what the endgame is is anyone's guess. Did anyone really
believe China would just bend over and accept any demands from the US?
All that being said China can easily wait it out and hope Trump loses and the policy is
reversed which I am sure his policies will be reversed if anyone else gets elected.
Your link about Boeing is a good one. Today at Naked Capitalism was a
story about a possible 'payback' link between Huawei and Boeing. China has the option
of causing a great deal of pain to both the US and Boeing in retaliation.
They could declare the recertified 737-MAX to be unsafe, so much so they're cancelling
all orders and forbidding any landings in or overflights of China. If Canada hadn't screwed
up so badly, the local Bombardier airplane might have been substituted for the 737. But
Canada did goof in a major way.
There is no way that the US could subsidize the growth of a larger population base
forever.
China sends vast amounts of manufactured goods to the United States; the US pays for all
this with dollars it can effortlessly print. So who is subsidizing whom?
The National Basketball Association Inc. is hiring its first head of government and
public affairs in China as it seeks to protect its most important international market at
a time of high tension in the U.S.-China relationship.
What I don't like about Chas Freeman's article is his tone-deafness.
He has been around government enough to know better. Smacking down China is a strategic
priority for the Deep State. But Chas says:
There is no longer an orderly policy process in Washington to coordinate, moderate, or
control policy formulation or implementation. Instead, a populist president has
effectively declared open season on China.
It's a bit disturbing to see people here read Kissinger's 2014 Op-Ed (finally) but say
nothing about Chas Freeman's assertion that it's all made up by a "populist" President.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
If the above hurt your feeling please feel free to retreat to your happy place. We'd all
be better off.
Not happy, just learned to live with it. I think I get your point. The policy really
means little, the underlying issues will never change.
Been in the rabbit hole for a really long time. If more people jump in maybe things will
really start to change.
I am not so sure the conclusions of the article are correct. Tariffs on Chinese factories
will force production to other countries in the area like Vietnam where costs are not
going to be much higher than China.
First of all, this is not a new phenomenon: low wages, low technology industries are
already being transferred to India and SE-Asia. The Chinese know this and there are
innumerous articles on the internet you can find about it.
But even if this process accelerates, that won't solve the manufacturing problem of the
USA: it will continue to be abroad. Besides, China's "competitive advantages" are too big
for a confederation of micro-countries in the Pacific to overcome. It has a socialist
economy (centrally planified economy, under the hegemony of the working class); it has 1.5
billion people that will only peak in 2030; it is decades ahead in built infrastructure; it
has a huge scale economy advantage (e.g. infrastructure projects that are required to reach
a certain desired productive level, which are profitable in China, may not be profitable in
e.g. Malaysia simply because it is too small); its financial sector is not dominant over
production. But then, I repeat: even if the USA nukes China, manufacturing still won't go
back to American soil.
America's problem is a secular fall of its profit rates, not manufacturing capacity: it
can import whatever and how much products it needs simply because it can print world money
(Dollar system).
b said;" the U.S. economic system is based on greed and not on the welfare of its
citizens." Bingo! Jrabbit @ 52 said;"US foreign policy has been remarkably consistent for over 20
years." Maybe the last 100 yrs.? Demonize countries people and rulers, and take their stuff, but
why not? We are, don't ya' know, the exceptional nation, doing gods work. Manifest Destiny, isn't it great?
I know next to nothing about the "Huawei" business, so a new
article about it is something to grab at. Pretty cut and dried, huh? Hauwei is pure
evil, and no 'ifs' or 'buts' about it.
But who is this guy. A couple of quick searches turned up some more of his output.
'It's now or never': The untold story of the dramatic, Canadian-led rescue of Syria's
White Helmets
How Israel became a defender of the Syrian people
Just another neocon hack peddling BS, so I'm back to square one.
China will wait it out until Trump is out of office. The Chinese leadership is pretty
smart and had at least three years to prepare for the worst case scenario. Once Chinese
industries as a whole follow Huawei's footsteps (i.e. Plan B), there will be no turning
back. They'll set off Plan B once they see Trump winning 2020.
Are we to asume from "Some aspects of China's trade behavior can and should be criticized"
that the United States are shining example of trade (and all other) policies,all others to
follow?
For government and other high security uses China has options like the mips based
Loongson but that wouldn't work in the commercial environment so hopelessly devoted to
x86 and windows. Probably the best solution would be to make an x86 analog like amd
markets, and it wouldn't take that long to do.
Chinese-Taiwanese joint venture Zhaoxin has been making x86 processors since
2013, based on VIA Technologies' x86 license. These processors are manufactured by
Taiwanese TSMC, but may switch to Chinese SMIC
once it launches its 14nm process later this year.
"Whatever face is at the top is only representing the layers below." --b
The truth of this is also why so many in America hate Trump so much. He is too perfect a
reflection of what America truly stands for. Trump accurately represents America, from
America's bloated, over-inflated sense of self-importance and worth to America's
pussy-grabbing foreign policy. Trump-hate is really self-hate.
Delusional American Russiagater Trump Derangement Syndrome victims will protest, but
such people are incapable of taking a good hard look at themselves.
Hmm... "delusional" and "American" are redundant adjectives here. I should
be more careful with my writing style.
Mr. Gruff you have it almost correct, Americans and the USA are not one in the same and
they never have been.
I still don't think you guys get it.. The 7 article constitution of the USA apportions the
power to rule between two branches and separates the masses from their personal political
powers and their human rights. Its result is not a democracy, but a few people rule
republic. 100% of the authority to rule (operate and make decisions) is vested in one
person (Art. II, rule and decide: President w/VP backup), subject only to the powers
distributed to the two bodied legislative structure ( Art. I, pass law and raise money: 450
house+100 senate persons). Critical to understand => one person makes all decisions, and
directs the day to day government. Article III thru VII defines the judiciary and clarifies
various situations. (525 popularly elected + 2 electoral college appointed <=paid
governors) vs. 350,000,000 powerless governed persons entitled only to 3 votes/voter
[Senator(1), House members(2)] and allowed one vote/voter for each President(1) and VP(1)
<=but both Art. II persons are appointed by the electoral college).
The USA is about delivering to the ownership of a very few, all of the assets, all of
the power, and all of the services once possessed by the many. The demand for all of the
possessions of the many, to be delivered to the few, has expanded over time from 13 colony
America to earth and now space. No one but the few are entitled to anything and the USA and
other governments are there to be sure of it. But how is 'total possession vested in the
few' to be maintained? By rule of law!
But what law would transfer everyone's possessions into the ownership of a few? Ah, the
laws of monopoly.. so rule of law, from thin air , generates=> monopoly powers
and rights of ownership.. Examples of laws that bear monopoly powers and that transfer
ownership rights are copyright laws, patent laws, as they convert monopoly powers that once
the many shared (via governments) now belong to the few. The transfer is called
privatization. Oil is controlled for the benefit of the private few by ownership laws and
right to produce contracts. All in all the function of t he USA has been to make a few very
wealthy at the expense of the many.
The trade issues, sanctions, wars, tariffs, race wars, oil wars, religious wars etc. are
about which people are going to be the few. Until the form and function of governments are
determined by the masses from the bottom, instead of by the few from the top, nothing will
ever change. The masses will suffer or prosper according to which government is the
winner.
US factories moved to China because the US economy is based on greed?!! US government greed
for the company's money maybe. US factories moved to China because it was cheaper to
produce products there and then pay the expense to ship them all the way back. The US has
one of the highest federal tax rates on earth, and add in high state taxes for an
unacceptable situation. US fiat paper money is the base problem.
William Gruff @ 72 & snake 71
I was just about to say the very same thing !
Delusions of grandeur ! And now major self-harm systems !
But are these degenerates above the law ? They are after all genocidal mass murder's!
String um up I say or shall we fry um ?
Right now the brain dead American public are like something out of -- - -
'The invasion of the body snatchers ' film
@58, JackRabitt, Smacking down China is a strategic priority for the Deep State.
the first time I got some type of glimpse of the average American Mind on China, as it
filtered down from "the deep state" to the more fearfully ill-informed quarters of society
no doubt, was in the post 9/11 universe. The person or persons pushing the meme, may have been a bit confused by all the
conspiracy theories about 9/11 unfolding at the time.
Anyway, Chinese troops he/she/they asserted readers were close to the Mexican border
approaching, advancing swiftly.
In hindsight, maybe accidentally, although I doubt, Trump combines the elements of that
narrative perfectly. And it is not my intention to argue right or wrong here. But
apparently down at the border there is this "invasion" on the other hand there's also the
Yellow Peril.
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , May 18, 2019 9:58:41 AM |
link
Well, the chinese system of power has always been the thoughest to understand for any
outsider. It has been this way, but in the last years it seems the so called age of
information has lead to erode the curtains of this complex mechanism. At least for those
who want to look behind those curtains, and not use them to project their propaganda.. ;)
And it is a good sign that while Xi tired to establish himself in such a unique position
of power like Mao, and openly tried to put himself into the historic succession of the old
emperors (like Mao did too), that the will of the people and party still tips the scale of
power.
It means the chinese confucian tradition and its consequences for a ruler even today still
matter. Even though they are anyway lost on someone who is not of Asian origin.
What to westerners look like a dictator, is of a different nature as one can even
imagine with western eyes. Every ruler has to strive for balance, for harmony, which in
turns makes hearing of the peoples popular will be a necessity.
Even though many Chinese say, they like any other people only strive for what they need
most ;) (like harmony and compromise). Though many also say, that the chinese will always
choose stability and security over freedom. And i guess that is what many from the western
world dont get about China, and also about the Putinists.
I say let them and every one else have their choice. Just like i say let the US do theirs,
and reap what they seeded.
For those able to read German check out the Books of Peter Scholl-Latour on China. The
most telling and authorative books from a journalist who has reported first had for over 60
years, and has always defended and honored his own perspective;
While the western so called reporters were trapt in their professional delusion of pro-NATO
propaganda, and while the SDS praised the culture revolution as a democratic means, when
whole china was terrorized and millions slaugtherd.
Hard to walk that middle ground, while being attacked from ideological drones from both
sides i guess..
Anyway, the neocons in the US believes it is now or never to defend the USA unique
position as world power. They believe, that if they don't fight now, they will have
lost.
I say, they already have.
Short of pulling a Hitler on China, meaning a total annihilation of the Chinese people,
there is nothing they can do. And even Bolton will have a hard time trying to push through
a clear cut genocide ;)
We will see China rise. Those who feared of this will see that china will not be half as
bad as thought, and those who gloirfy china and put them into a good (vs bad US) black-wide
scheme will learn of the faults of the Chinese power and its projection (Like its own
believe of supremacy, of racism (a reason why china in the cold war was pretty
unsuccessful in Africa, where most knew who deeply racist Chinese treated their fellows as
workers, guest students,..).
All in all, what we need is a true and functional global community of nations and
people, where goverments truely work together to balance out the stronger world powers. And
with the pressure of Chinas rise and its strugle with the US, we may finally have a better
chance for this to at least partially succed.
I hope.. ;) Or of course it nuclear winter time. We will see.
China now, Japan in the 1980s - it's "deja vu all over again!"
"AFTER ITS DEFEAT in World War II, Japan was content to take foreign inventions -- the
transistor, the laser, the videotape player -- and convert them into products that it could
market around the world. Japan acquired much of its base of Western technology, most of it
American, perfectly legally through licensing, careful study of scientific papers and
patents, and imitation. But when the U.S. wasn't willing to share, some Japanese companies
simply copied with little regard for patents and other intellectual property rights that
the courts have only recently begun to define in many areas of high technology.
The U.S.,
confident of its technical superiority, ''sold out to the Japanese,'' says G. Steven Burrill, head of the high-technology consulting group at Arthur Young, a Big Eight
accounting firm. ''We let them share our brain.''
Now, belatedly awake to the recognition
that Japan has been eating their breakfast, lunch, dinner, and bedtime snack, American
companies are stirring. IBM vs. Fujitsu over computer software, Honeywell vs. Minolta over
automatic focusing, Corning Glass vs. Sumitomo Electric over fiber optics -- these are only
the latest, best-publicized complaints that Japan has stolen American technology.
Even as
those legal battles are fought out, the copycat cliche is becoming obsolete. A series of
studies financed by the U.S. government since 1984 warn that Japan has caught up with the
U.S. or passed it in the development of integrated circuits, fiber optics, computer
hardware engineering, and advanced materials like polymers. It is pressing hard in some
areas of biotechnology, and lags primarily in computer software.
Already there are signs
that the Japanese, buoyed by their new prowess, have assumed the arrogance of the U.S.
along with its technology."
"A MEASURE of Japan's progress can be found in the number of patent filings in the U.S.,
Japan's most important export market. ..."
"THE FACT that Americans now worry about their access to Japanese technology is an
acknowledgment of Japan's new scientific competence. When the Japanese were known primarily
as copycats, the flow of technology was essentially in one direction. It was also cheap.
Aaron Gellman, president of a consulting firm, says that for years U.S. firms licensed
technology to the Japanese without asking for a grant-back, the right to use any
improvements they made. Says Gellman: ''This was very arrogant and implied that no one
could improve on our technology.''"
"U.S. scientists and companies have failed to take advantage of opportunities to tap
Japanese academic research. ''What's wrong here is pure laziness,'' says Martin Anderson,
an analyst with the MAC Group, a consulting firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts."
Trust the UnitedSnake to blame the Chinese for
reneging on an agreement ! Fact is, Trump's team Add in last minute conditions that are totally unacceptable to
China.
Chinese commentators are fuming at the audacity of
the demands.
'WTF, Do they think we'r their gawd damned 51st state ?'
Typical UnitedSnake's 'negotiation' tactics, designed to fail ! Thats how Clinton justity his bombing of ex Yugo,
by blaming Belgrade for the breakdown of negotiation ,to justify its 78 days of aerial
arsons against Yugo.
How the UnitedSnake destroyed Toshiba and took over its crown jewel chip tech,... Toshiba was severely punished for breaking fukus
sanction on USSR, by selling state of art milling
machine to the Soviets. the unitedsnake slapped a heavy fine, demanded
the resignation of Toshiba CEO, imposed a ten
years ban on Toshiba products, FORCED the Japs
to share their latest chip tech with Merikkans. Toshiba never recovered from that disaster.
An excellent summary of many aspects of a serious and deteriorating situation. In the end, China has a lot of brainpower to apply to situations like this.They are used to speaking and writing one of the world's most difficult languages. They are used to playing Go, one of the world's most difficult board games. And their national endowment of analytical skills immensely surpasses that of the United
States.
They are said to have eight times as many students in math and science and engineering
in their universities. Xi himself is very bright, having earned degrees in difficult subjects at demanding
universities, and he is calm and very forward-thinking. Just consider that magnificent
long-term Silk Road Project. When I think of Trump with his constant mock-heroic poses and foot-high signatures on
every silly memo and his gang of noisy, pompous thugs in top appointments, I can't help
thinking I know how this will turn out in the end.
China's
yuan slide risks trolling Trump It's good to remember that would not be the first time. After the first round of
tariffs, China devalued the Renminbi and it basically
wiped out the tariffs . In fact, it didn't even need to devalue that much: 1 Renminbi
is now US$ 0.14 -- just a little over the Government max upwards band of 1:7.
In 2013, the CEO of French hi tech co Alstom
was arrested by FBI, while changing flight at
New York.
His 'crime', breaking MERIKKAN anti corruption
law by bribing govn officials in INDONESIA ! Such is the LONG arm of merikkan extra territorial jurisdiction, rings a bell ...
Ms meng ?
Just like Toshiba, the French paid a very heavy price. The CEO went to jail, Allstom,
the crown
jewel of French industry, was FORCED to sell off its core business to its main rival, GE.
!
What did Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability says....
ONCE IS HAPPENSTENCE, TWIC IS COINCIDENCE...
US MegaCos. outsourced and 'globalised' with the blessing, nay encouragement! of the Pol.
Class. Cheaper labor and lax environmental rules, in comparison with 'home' (US, W countries,
etc.) is a mantra. That is of course good enough, and one can track, say, sh*t-clothes
factories transiting from Bangladesh, to China, to Malaysia, to Mexico, etc.
Other motives, the first is lack of responsibility and involvement which allows
domineering and rapacious behavior. Foreign co. implant can just leave, relocate, if
whatever. A random /racist term/ exploited worker in the 3rd world is not voting in US
elections.
Deadly industrial pollution is outsourced, and energy use etc. at home while not
curtailed or significantly diminished is not as high as one might see under condition of
the industries returning home - a sort of 'greener' environment can be touted.
The PTB simply cannot grasp why some US citizens, who live high on the hog, house, 2
cars, 3 kids, endless dirt cheap consumer goods, etc. produced by 'slaves' abroad,
complain. If the 'stuff' was produced at home, it would cost much more, the pay would be
going to 'low-level' US labor -- in a more closed economic circuit there would be more
'equality' as things stand today in the US - *not* claiming it's a general rule.
Trump had some confused? thoughts about turning the present situation around, and
relocating industrial - some extractive - manufacturing - jobs back home, say 1960s, with
decent pay, to ppl who would then vote for him.
The stumbling block is that profits to shareholders, oligarchs, chief CEO's, asset
trippers, usurers, Mafia types, Banks and other Fin, and Politicians who in the US are
highly paid lackeys, etc. is set to diminish, as 'the pie' can no longer be grown much to
accomodate all these grifters. Due to energy constraints, disruption of climate change,
etc.
Brit and Dutch spooks now concur with Trump the charlatan's claim of Huawei security risk ! Trust the Brits to doublecross the Chinese, after they've been given the huawei source
codes to examine and declared it free of bugs. As for the Dutch , they seems to be the goto guys these days, whenever the 5liars need
some loyal poodles to corroborate their B.S., cue the M17 'investigation'.
"The MIC is embedded in our society to such a degree that it cannot be dislodged, and
also that it could be said to be concerned, exclusively, with self-preservation and
expansion, like a giant, malignant virus."
The system has evolved to be very good at defending itself – while leaving the
country, "in reality so poorly defended".
Thanks again CJH for all the chuckles. It is time all 'real' people acknowledged that
The NYT is the " Propagandist of Record ".
Nothing more. And it's been like that for quite a while. While it would be logical to
identify the systemic bend, and blindness that it has, it is probably against the law, like
all discussions about [redacted]
A pattern that has played out consistently for over 2000 years, and can be seen for what
it is in reviewing the Pale (of Settlements) and the conditions for those not included in the
[redacted]. But really, it's beyond the pale, isn't it. People, slowly but surely, are
building immunity to the perception management programs, even with the wildly amplified
volume and frequency , we see the early adapters adapting, and opting for the red
pill .
Just a co-incidence that while the psychotic ' leaders ' of a small colonial '
government ' squatting on expropriated land, committing escalating genocidal programs
against the indigenous population, and actively conflating it with anti-[redacted], while the
co-affiliates resident in the empire's other nation-states keep quiet, there seems to be an
epidemic of anti-[redacted]?!
" It's a trick, and we use it a lot. " he, he, aren't we so clever!
This ruse is coming to an end soon
and all of those people working in the desert somewhere, writing stuff online, are going to
have to get real jobs.
Trump provided to be another Obama -- master of "bait and switch". His promise to disengage from foreign wars remains an
unfulfilled promise. Due to thefact that he is owned by pro-Israel lobby he broung into his administrations such rabid neocons as
chickenhawk Bolton and smug ruthless careerist masquerading as
far-right zealot as Pompeo (and before them Haley). His promises to raise the standard of living of middles
class (which is impossible without cutting the military budget) remains fake. He is a fake. The second fake after obama --
Republican Obama.
Notable quotes:
"... While the national debt of the United States was recorded at 22.03 trillion as of April 2019, Washington's going ahead with its hawkish policies worldwide with recent NATO summit pushing for further unity against China, Russia and Iran. NATO's annual overall military budget was US$ 957 billion in 2017 where the US's share was US$ 686 billion, accounting for 72 percent of the total. This number is pressed by the US to rise in the years to come. ..."
"... According to The Guardian, Trump takes more than $1tn in taxpayer money and allocates $750bn to the military. In other words, out of every taxpayer dollar, 62 cents go to the military and Department of Homeland Security and seven cents to Veterans affairs. It leaves just 31 cents for all the rest: education, job training, community economic development, housing, safe drinking water and clear air, health and science research and the prevention of war through diplomacy and humanitarian aid. ..."
"... In 2017, US spent US$ 685,957 billion with 3.6 of its GDP on military spending while the UK stood second at US$ 55,237 billion with 2.1 per cent of GDP. France and Germany allocated US$ 45,927 billion and 45,472 billion respectively with 1.8 and 1.2 percent of their GDPs. The NATO member states are pressured for raising their defense spending to 2 percent and gradually up to 4 percent in five years. ..."
While the national debt of the United States was recorded at 22.03 trillion as of April
2019, Washington's going ahead with its hawkish policies worldwide with recent NATO summit
pushing for further unity against China, Russia and Iran. NATO's annual overall military budget
was US$ 957 billion in 2017 where the US's share was US$ 686 billion, accounting for 72 percent
of the total. This number is pressed by the US to rise in the years to come.
According to The Guardian, Trump takes more than $1tn in taxpayer money and allocates $750bn
to the military. In other words, out of every taxpayer dollar, 62 cents go to the military and
Department of Homeland Security and seven cents to Veterans affairs. It leaves just 31 cents
for all the rest: education, job training, community economic development, housing, safe
drinking water and clear air, health and science research and the prevention of war through
diplomacy and humanitarian aid.
The Trump budget finds vast billions for militarization, while it cuts "smaller" poverty
alleviation projects and other programs, claiming the goal is to save money.
Rutherford Institute's founder and director John W. WhiteHead writes in his institute's
website that the American nation is being preyed upon by a military industrial complex that is
propped up by war profiteers, corrupt politicians and foreign governments. He remarks:
"Don't be fooled into thinking that your hard-earned tax dollars are being used for
national security and urgent military needs".
He writes "you know what happens to tax dollars that are left over at the end of the
government's fiscal year? Government agencies – including the Department of Defense
– go on a 'use it or lose it' spending spree so they can justify asking for money in the
next fiscal year".
"We are talking about $97 billion worth of wasteful spending"
He maintains that the nation's educational system is pathetic, the infrastructure is
antiquated and growing more outdated by the day and the health system is overpriced and
inaccessible to those who need it most.
The tax cuts on super-rich, outflow of huge sums in interest payment for debt and more
spending are plunging the US economy into a new crisis, according to many authors. The US
economy faces a deficit which means the spending especially on military and defence is far
exceeding the tax revenues.
In 2017, US spent US$ 685,957 billion with 3.6 of its GDP on military spending while the UK
stood second at US$ 55,237 billion with 2.1 per cent of GDP. France and Germany allocated US$
45,927 billion and 45,472 billion respectively with 1.8 and 1.2 percent of their GDPs. The NATO
member states are pressured for raising their defense spending to 2 percent and gradually up to
4 percent in five years.
According to a study regarding world powers' overseas military bases
China retains twelve military bases;
France runs nine military bases including in Germany, Lebanon and UAE;
Germany has two military bases in France and United States;
India has seven bases including in Tajikistan and Maldives;
Israel possesses one military base in Syria's Golan Heights;
Pakistan has a military center with 1,180 personnel in Saudi Arabia;
Russia runs eight military facilities including in Armenia, Georgia, Syria and some
Central Asian countries;
UK controls ten military bases including in Bahrain, Canada, Germany, Singapore and
Qatar;
t he US is leading nearly 800 military bases across the world that run in full swing with
the highest budget.
In other words, the US possesses up to 95 per cent of the world's military bases . The
Department of Defense says that its locations include 164 countries. Put another way, it has a
military presence of some sort in approximately 84 percent of the nations on this
planet.
The annual cost of deploying US military personnel overseas, as well as maintaining and
running those foreign bases, tops out at an estimated US$ 150 billion annually. The US bases
abroad cost upwards of US$ 50 billion only for building and maintenance, which is enough to
address pressing needs at home in education, health care, housing and infrastructure.
In 2017 and 2018, the world's largest military spenders were the United States, China, Saudi
Arabia, Russia and India. The UK took over France as sixth largest spender in 2018 while Japan
and Germany stood at eighth and ninth positions.
In early 2018, Pentagon released a report saying that Afghan war costs US$ 45 billion to
taxpayers in the preceding year. Of this amount, US$ 5 billion has been spent on Afghan forces,
US$ 13 billion towards US forces in Afghanistan and the rest on economic aid.
But these costs are far lower than the time when the US military was highly engaged in
Afghanistan. With nearly 100,000 soldiers in the country from 2010 to 2012, the price for
American taxpayers surpassed US$ 100 billion each year. For now, there are around 16,000 US
troops in Afghanistan. Despite hundreds of billions of dollars have gone into Afghanistan, the
US admits it failed in war against militants in Afghanistan.
In November 2018, another study published by CNBC reported that America has spent US$ 5.9
trillion on wars in the Middle East and Asia since 2001 including in Afghanistan, Iraq and
Syria. The study also reveals that more than 500,000 people have been killed in the wars and
nearly 10 million people have been displaced due to violence.
The US has reportedly spent US$ 1.07 trillion in Afghanistan since 2001 which include
Overseas Contingency Operations funds dedicated to Afghanistan, costs on the base budget of the
Department of Defense and increase to the budget of the Department of Veteran Affairs.
In Afghanistan, the US costs of war in 2001 commenced with US$ 37.3 billion that soared to
US$ 57.3 billion in 2007 and US$ 100 billion in 2009. The year with record spending was 2010
with US$ 112.7 billion that slightly plummeted to US$ 110.4 billion in 2011 but took downwards
trend in the later years.
Due to skyrocketing military costs on the US government, Trump Administration recently
decided to pack up some of its military bases in Afghanistan and Middle East to diminish
expenditures, though it doesn't mean the wars would end at all.
According to Afghanistan Analysts Network, the US Congress has appropriated more than US$
126 billion in aid for Afghanistan since financial year 2002, with almost 63 percent for
security and 28 percent for development and the remainder for civilian operations, mostly
budgetary assistance and humanitarian aid. Alongside the US aid, many world countries have
pumped millions of dollars in development aids, but what is evident for insiders and outsiders
is that a trickle of those funds has actually gone into Afghanistan's reconstruction.
With eighteen years into Afghan war, the security is deteriorating; Afghan air force is
ill-equipped; poppy cultivation is on the rise; roads and highways are dilapidated or
unconstructed; no mediocre hospital and health care has been established; weekly conflict
causalities hit 150-250; electricity is still imported from Central Asian countries; economy
remains dependent upon imports; unemployment rate is at its peak; more than three quarters of
population live under poverty line and many, many more miseries persist or aggravate.
The US boasts of being the largest multi-billion dollar donor for Afghanistan, but if one
takes a deeper look at the living standards of majority and the overall conditions, it can be
immediately grasped that less than half of that exaggerated fund has been consumed. The US-made
government of Afghanistan has deliberately been left behind to rank as the first corrupt
country in the world. Thanks to the same unaddressed pervasive corruption, a hefty amount of
that fund has been either directed back to the US hands or embezzled by senior Afghan
officials.
Afghanistan's new Living Conditions Survey shows that poverty is more widespread today than
it was immediately after the fall of Taliban regime, or in other words, in the early days of US
invasion.
Next month, Kabul will host a Consultative Loya Jirga attended by around 2,000
representatives from Afghanistan which will cost the Afghan Ministry of Finance AF 369 million
(equivalent to five million US$). Even as the past has proved that these events are only
symbolic and further complicating the achievement of peace, a country with great majority under
poverty line doesn't deserve to organize such costly gatherings.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Masud Wadan is a geopolitical analyst based in Kabul. He is a frequent contributor to
Global Research.
It seems as if British Jewish pressure groups have achieved their goal: anti-Semitism is now
a mass movement in the UK. The rabid Zionist
Algemeiner reports that "Antisemitism and virulent Israel-hatred were rife on Saturday at a
pro-Palestinian demonstration in London."
The Jewish press seems to be upset by a pro-Palestinian march that assembled at the offices
of the BBC, not too far from a synagogue. I guess that the rationale is simple: once London is
dotted with synagogues, human rights enthusiasts will be pushed out of the city. They will have
to gather somewhere out of the green belt.
Jewish outlets complain that participants brandished 'antisemitic badges and placards,' such
as "Israel provokes anti-Semitism." I am puzzled. Is this really an anti-Semitic statement? If
anything, it is an attempt to identify the cause of anti-Semitism.
Jewish outlets are also upset by images of the Star of David crossed with a swastika. To
start with, those who equate Israel with Nazi Germany actually contemplate the memory of the
Holocaust and are by no means 'deniers.' I guess that the time is ripe for Zionists and
supporters of Israel to accept that in consideration of the ongoing Israeli racist crime in
Palestine, the Star of David has become a symbol of evil in the eyes of many.
The Jewish press is upset by the slogan "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"
that calls for Israel's destruction. I would actually expect Jews who seem to be upset by the
Hitlerian concept of an 'Aryans-only state' to accept that the concept of a 'Jews-only state'
is equally disturbing.' They should support Israel becoming 'a state of its citizens' and
accept that sooner or later this state will evolve into Palestine, from the river to the
sea.
The Jewish press is totally irritated by Jewish Voice for Labour's Secretary Glyn Secker,
who claimed that pro-Israel Labour officials were a "fifth column" in the party and asked,
"What on earth are Jews doing in the gutter with these rats?" I would remind my readers that
Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) is itself a Jewish racist exclusive
political body that wouldn't accept non-Jews into its ranks. I have wondered more than once how
it is possible that the anti-racist Jeremy Corbyn is willing to be associated with such a body.
However, in his statement (if quoted correctly by the Jewish press), secretary Glyn Secker
actually expresses the most disturbing tribal supremacist view. He looks down at a bunch of
labour MPs whom he labels 'rats' and call for his Jewish brethren to disassociate from these
low creatures. Glyn, in practice, sustains the Jew/Goy binary divide. He should actually
receive the Kosher weekly award rather than be abused by the Zionist league.
But we can be reassured. Campaign Against Antisemitism has already confirmed that they are
"reviewing the evidence that we gathered today. Where crimes have been committed, we will work
with the authorities to ensure that there are arrests and prosecutions."
ORDER IT NOW
The facts on the ground are undeniable. The more Jewish bodies campaign against
anti-Semitism the more opposition to Jewish politics is detected. The relentless Zionist
campaign against Corbyn didn't hurt him, as he is still leading in most
national election polls . Branding Nigel Farage as an
anti-Semite didn't touch the man whose party is
polling higher than the Tories and Labour combined in the coming European Parliament
election. One way to look at it is to argue that Brits are not moved by the Jewish
anti-Semitism hysteria. Another way to look at it is to conclude that Brits are actually
grossly disturbed by the anti-Semitism frenzy. Being hated by the Zionist lobby has become a
badge of honour, an entry ticket to Britain's political premiership.
The facts on the ground are undeniable. The more Jewish bodies campaign against
anti-Semitism the more opposition to Jewish politics is detected. The relentless Zionist
campaign against Corbyn didn't hurt him, as he is still leading in most national election
polls.
In contrast to the 1960's Israel is starting to look unfashionable. Young people feel
embarrassed to be associated with Jewish activism and Zionism.
Being unfashionable is a very serious state of affairs. Many failing businesses will
testify to this. You do all the tried and tested stuff, and it just doesn't work.
@Grace
Poole Why is a Jewish only state disturbing? It is surrounded by 32 Apartheid muslim only
countries.
Could I move to Iran?
If Israel becomes a theocracy not a democracy, who cares. Look at the neighborhood.
If not Jewish only then what a Jihad state like the rest of the Arab world?
Give Israel the razor blade.
All you dog noses who claim the Jews made a banquet from the holocaust. Just look at the meal
the Arabs made from those original 750,000 refugees created by the State of Israel founding
war.
Cry me a river. They have an entire UN agency devoted to their every need, and status to 3rd
and 4th generation children of the originals not living in the country, who have citizenship
else where, How does that add up to the 5 million diaspora pals.
It is all such a game to see Israel go down mostly thru jealously that the Jews came from the
ashes of near by extension to create the best country over there.
I would pay each one of the Pals 2 million to move to Jordan from the West Bank, and Gaza
to the Sinai with joint ownership with Egypt. But that is a good idea and would solve the
problem. No one wants to solve the problem they just want to see the Jews go down. Gilad
licks his lips over it.
@Fran
Taubman "There's always kind of a calming feeling I tell folks when I think of the
Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors --
Palestinians -- who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human
dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people's passports,"
said Tlaib.
"And just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the
Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that
time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways.
But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away and it was forced on them."
Because Jews hold the establishment of Israel to be a prerequisite for the destruction of
all other nations in a final world war, which the Jews seem intent on instigating with Islam.
Zohar Shemot 32a.
After which Israel is slated to be the only remaining national power (everyone else being
destroyed).
Do not forget your books. We don't.
Why is a non-Jewish European-only State disturbing to you and other Jews?
You have your own state but refuse the same to others. You are not Europeans (Brits,
Germans, etc) as these were originally ethnic-racial categories before you interfered. Yet
you claim them your yourselves as well, and in doing so deny everyone else an exclusive
identity.
Jews only allow themselves an exclusive identity, because your "god" (the writing of Jews)
only gave Judea a nation. Correct?
Asking moronic questions at this point, which everyone knows the answer to, is insulting.
You people are not innocent, are not dumb, and you know precisely why people are hostile to
your mass genocidal, supremacist tribe.
I would pay each one of the Pals 2 million to move to Jordan from the West Bank, and
Gaza to the Sinai with joint ownership with Egypt. But that is a good idea and would solve
the problem.
At a cost of $9 trillion. Who is going to pay?
Realistically, offer $100,000 per person, or $450 billion total. Double that to include
the diaspora Pals, and close the refugee camps. If the resettlement took place over a decade,
it would cost $90 billion a year, which could come from the US Defense budget. The latter
could be wound down over the same decade, as it would no longer be needed to fight wars on
behalf of Israel. Israel would get land and peace; Palestinians would be well compensated;
and the USA would be relieved of its duty as a Middle-Eastern warmonger. Everybody wins.
What's not to like?
However, to gain approval for the plan in the USA, it would be necessary to show that the
expenditure is both worthwhile and an improvement over the status quo . This would
mean explaining what the status quo actually is; and how and why it has come about.
Unfortunately, this information is so inflammatory that it can never be publicly
discussed.
I don't think this is true. A few years back, Daniel Finkelstein of the (London) Times
characterised British anti-semitism as "background noise".
The pro-Palestinian demonstrations are the "exception that proves the rule". Their support
has two cores: radical Muslims, and political activists on the Left. Neither is a mass
movement.
The British Left tends to support people who have the most "victim points". Rightly or
wrongly, they believe that Palestinians have a lot of victim points and, as the Holocaust
moves from living memory into history, that Israelis and diaspora Jews have very few.
Furthermore, the Left particularly seeks ogres who are white and Western. Paradoxically,
they dislike Israel because Israelis are similar to Britons, not because they are different.
In contrast, massacres by Saddam Hussein, ISIS, or Rwandans never attracted much opprobrium
from the Left. The idea of holding people to a lower moral standard, the less they look or
sound like oneself, is obviously racist; but it is followed by people who genuinely believe
that they are the least racist people on earth.
@nicholas
nicola I hope the collective Ummah looks at:
Somalia
All of Africa
China
Myamar
All of Arabia
Slave labor in Libya
Women's rights in the Islamic world
Genital mutilation
beheadings
The entire muslim population in Israel has quadrupled since 1948. I guess the slaughtering
of Muslims is not going so well.
You are deranged and delusional.
Jews demand their own exclusive state (subsidized by goyim), the privilege to cleanse
their sacred (and expanding) Jews-Only territory of native gentiles, and the right to travel
(and live) among the goyim as they see fit.
And don't you dare complain about these privileges. That's anti-Semitism!
And then there's the matter of speech.
Jews not only enjoy top tier access to the MSM (since they've conspired to buy up most of
it for the undisclosed purpose of advancing pan-Zionist hegemony) but they actively and
openly form teams, lobbies and NGOs to limit the right and opportunity of others to speak
freely and assemble lawfully for the purpose of expressing their own political
grievances.
Resistance and resentment to the entrenched double-standards that favor Jews, and
state-sponsored lawlessness that empowers Israel, is routinely decried as anti-Jewish
'bigotry'. It is also mislabeled as 'anti-Semitism'. This keeps the opposition weak and
off-balance.
How very clever. How very diabolical.
Why not call 'anti-Semitism what it is?
So-called 'anti-Semitism' is simply anti-Jewishness (or counter-Jewisness). It is merely
an attitude.
Depending upon the circumstances, this attitude might be right or it may be wrong. But
'anti-Semitism' is all about Jews, their behavior, and their impact on non-Jews. Why not
focus on this inescapable fact?
And since 'anti-Semitism' is not about 'Semites' at all, the very term itself is something
of a canard.
On the other hand, organized Jewry is truly powerful. Sometimes it does real damage.
Sometimes it does real harm. Sometimes it destroys. Why can't we talk about it openly?
Calling morally-grounded opposition to the real damage and real harm done by Jews
'anti-Semitism' is a calculated libel.
On the other hand, identifying and castigating organized Jewry for its various sins is
vital, courageous, and healthy. So do the right thing.
When I was much younger and in Graduate School I hosted three British students who were on a
summer sabbatical at the medical college I was attending.
There was no particular reason that the Jews in America came up over beers, many beers
(Texans and the British like beer equally well). But they told me that there was and
expression among common British about Jews, and, no it's not that the only good Jew is a dead
Jew.
It was that "antisemitism is when one hates the Jews more than is absolutely
necessary".
"Jewish outlets complain that participants brandished 'antisemitic badges and placards,' such
as "Israel provokes anti-Semitism." I am puzzled. Is this really an anti-Semitic statement?
If anything, it is an attempt to identify the cause of anti-Semitism."
Yep, absolutely true.
It's not their religion about which folks object. It's not their race, if you want to call
it a race.
IT'S THEIR
BEHAVIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wrong. At the time, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, was a supporter
and ally of Hitler. When the two met, al-Husseini told Hitler that they shared the same
enemies: "the English, the Jews, and the Communists." The two went on to scheme about how
best to set upon and destroy the Jews of the Middle East. What's more, the Arabs regularly
massacred Jews in Mandatory Palestine.
Lies are the lifeblood of anti-Semitism, and there's a purpose to Tlaib's false history.
It serves to bolster the lie that the Jews waged war on a friendly and welcoming people,
stole their land, and condemned them to ruin. Anti-Semitism depends on lies because its
very motive is to hide the truth of one's own failings and lay blame on the Jews. The
history of anti-Semitism is, in a sense, a history of wicked fabrications: From Jewish
deicide, to the blood libel, to the claims of Jewish sorcery, to The Protocols of the
Elders of Zion, to the idea that Jews were tipped off about 9/11, to the claim that Jews
push the U.S. into wars, to the outrage over Jews supposedly buying politicians, to lies
about Israel's founding.
Tlaib and Omar are exemplars of this tradition, peddlers of anti-Semitic folktales. In
addition to spouting revisionist history, Tlaib has accused America's Israel-supporters of
dual loyalty. Omar has done that and more, claiming that Israel has hypnotized the world
into not seeing the evil it perpetrates, and stating that America's pro-Israel policies are
simply purchased by those who support the Jewish state.
It is a very powerful and accurate expression to say that Israel is "unfashionable" –
it is also true that most young people today feel no connection to the holocaust – when
Rashida uses the word "comforting" to refer to her people's sacrifice for the Jews, I feel
that the customary Zionist response to call these expressions "canards" will also be seen as
an unfashionable response. Thank God for brave people like Tlaid and Omar who express
distaste for the unfashionable and vulgar behavior of Israel and Zionists. Omar and Tlaib
have already emboldened millions of others who share their ambivalence and horror, when they
read about the Israel colonist settlers and their brutality to the Palestinians they displace
.
It is surrounded by 32 Apartheid muslim only countries.
Not so. Lebanon, Syria, and even Egypt have Christian minorities that have been protected
over the years. Jordan has a few, but not many. Iraq, prior to Israel's proxy war on Saddam
had plenty of Christians, including Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam's ministers.. Palestine has/had
Christians that were killed by Israelis in the same way Muslims were.
Could I move to Iran?
I don't know, I'm not in charge of the Iranian immigration policy. Why not ask the Jews
who are members of the Majles? You know, the legislative body with seats reserved for Jews
and other minorities.
Like most Zionists, you seem to ignore the part where T.E. Lawrence got the go ahead from
the British government to promise Arabs, which included Palestine, freedom from the Ottomans
and self rule, in exchange for a revolt against them. That promise was never kept. The
philo-Semite mass murderer Churchill is alleged to have organized Lawrence's
assassination. http://www.criminalelement.com/the-murder-of-lawrence-of-arabia-tony-hays/
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his Russian counterpart Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed a broad number of security
related issues in Sochi on Tuesday ranging from nuclear arms control to ratcheting US tensions with Iran to Venezuela to Ukraine.
Importantly, the two top diplomats traded warnings against election meddling and interference in their respective countries -- though
we might add that Lavrov's message was packed with more sarcasm following the Mueller report clearing Trump of "collusion".
In response to Pompeo's reportedly warning Russia to never interfere in what he described as America's "sacred" elections, specifically
warning against any 2020 presidential election interference, Lavrov shot back with: "We can discuss this topic forever, but until
we have cold hard facts on the table, we cannot have a grown-up discussion about it," according to Russia's
RT .
Speaking to reporters afterward, Lavrov said proudly that he had handed Pompeo a "memorandum" on US interference in Russia but
didn't reveal its precise contents, only saying, "we're prepared to talk on this topic."
Though both expressed hope for improved ties between Washington and Moscow, Reuters characterized it as a testy and impatient
exchange :
Visiting Russia for the first time as secretary of state, Pompeo publicly clashed with Lavrov on issues from Ukraine to Venezuela.
After their meeting, both men said they had been far apart on many issues .
"I made clear to Foreign Minister Lavrov... that interference in American elections is unacceptable. If the Russians were engaged
in that in 2020 it would put our relationship in an even worse place than it has been ," he said.
"I'd encourage them not to do that. We would not tolerate that."
However, soon after the summit, Russian President Putin in public statements indicated his belief that "Trump is in the mood to
restore ties with Russia."
He also indicated it's his own desire to "fully restore" Russia-US ties, according to the AP, and interestingly also praised the
"quite objective" Mueller report in statements to reporters
.
"As you know, just a few days ago, I had the pleasure of talking with the US president on the phone," Putin told Pompeo during
the Tuesday summit in Sochi. "I got the impression that the [US] president was inclined to re-establish Russian-American relations
and contacts to resolve together the issues that are of mutual interest to us."
Pompeo, for his part, appeared to say as much following the meeting, saying, "The United States stands ready to find common ground
with Russia as long as the two of us can engage seriously on those issues."
President Trump has made clear that his expectation is that we will have an improved relationship between our two countries.
This will benefit each of our peoples. And I think that our talks here today were a good step in that direction.
However, Pompeo still went through a litany of disagreements he had with Russia, especially centering on multiple hot spots around
the globe where the Trump administration has exercised a big stick approach.
At Lavrov-Pompeo presser, around 28:30, Lavrov says something significant: Russia recently offered to publish info from a US-Russia
channel on cyberspace that he claims would address the allegations of Russian election meddling. He says the US declined:
https://t.co/o4MbqQlwCy
Below is a brief run-down of key points to the two briefed reporters on afterwards.
Nuclear treaty
At the top of the agenda, Lavrov signaled Russia could be open to a new arms control treaty after the recent US withdrawal from
the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, countered by Russia suspending its obligations under the Reagan-era pact which
crucially served to keep missile build-up out of Europe.
Pompeo stressed China had to be part of any future sweeping deal, also considering rapid advances in defense technology. Lavrov
expressed hope that any future agreements will be "positively received by both nations."
The New START nuclear arms reduction treaty will expire in February of 2021, giving greater impetus for both sides to work through
the current impasse.
No common ground on Venezuela
Predictably the Venezuela hawk Pompeo slammed Russia's "interfering" in the Latin American country's internal affairs, adding
also to that list China, Cuba and Iran.
"Maduro has brought nothing but misery to the Venezuelan people," Pompeo stated. "We hope that Russian support for Maduro will
end." Lavrov defended the right of Venezuelans to choose their own president and refused to recognize US-declared "Interim President"
Juan Guaido.
"Democracy cannot be done by force," Lavrov told reporters. "The threats that we hear against the Maduro government, threats that
come from the mouths of US officials this has nothing in common with democracy."
* * *
No desire for war with Iran
"We fundamentally do not see a war with Iran," Secretary of State Pompeo said, but added: "We've made it clear to the Iranians
that if American interests are attacked, we will certainly respond in an appropriate fashion."
On Tuesday President Trump denied a prior
New York
Times report which alleged the White House was planning to send up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East should conflict erupt
between Iran and the United States. The president called the report "fake news" but still added that should war actually break out
he would send "a hell of a lot more," according to Reuters.
Lavrov stated that Russia hopes "reason will gain the upper hand," and added that Moscow opposed the US pullout of the 2015 Iran
nuclear deal (JCPOA), and further that Europe is right in attempting to stick to the deal.
Ukraine standoff
Pompeo informed Lavrov that the US hadn't budged in its position regarding Moscow's "illegal" annexation of the Crimea in 2014,
saying economic sanctions would remain in place until Russia reverses course.
Following the Ukrainian election of comedian turned unlikely politician Volodymyr Zelensky, Pompeo said Russia should now "work
with Ukraine's new president-elect to bring peace to eastern Ukraine," according to a paraphrase of Pompeo's words by Reuters, and
further that Russian authorities should release Ukrainian sailors captured in last year's dangerous
Kerch Strait incident .
"... The film also shows war crimes that implicate the entire structure of the U.S. military, as everyone involved was acting under orders, seeking permission to fire, waiting, then getting it before once more blasting away. The publication of this video, plus all the Wikileaks publications that followed, comprise the whole reason everyone in the U.S. who matters, everyone with power, wants Julian Assange dead. They also want him hated. Generating that hate is the process we're watching today. ..."
"... "Everyone" in this case includes every major newspaper that published and received awards for publishing Wikileaks material; all major U.S. televised media outlets; and all "respectable" U.S. politicians -- including, of course, Hillary Clinton, who was rumored (though unverifiably) to have said, "Can't we just drone this guy?" ..."
"... Please watch it. The footage shows not only murder, but bloodlust and conscienceless brutality, so much of it in fact that this became one of the main reasons Chelsea Manning leaked it in the first place. As she said at her court-martial : "The most alarming aspect of the video for me, was the seemingly delight of bloodlust they [the pilots] appeared to have. They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging with, and seemed to not value human life in referring to them as 'dead bastards,' and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers." ..."
Yves
here. Even though this post covers known territory, it seems worthwhile to encourage those of
you who haven't watched the "Collateral Murder" footage to view the full version. It's
important not only to keep the public (and that includes people in your personal circle)
focused on what Assange's true hanging crime is in the eyes of the officialdom .and it ain't
RussiaGate. That serves as a convenient diversion from his real offense. That effort has a
secondary benefit of having more people watch the video.
Before
and after images of the van that came to pick up the bodies of eleven men shot to death by
circling American helicopters in Iraq in 2007. Both children in the van were wounded. "Well,
it's their fault for bringing their kids to a battle," said one of the pilots. "That's right,"
replies another. From the videoCollateral Murder.
Below is a full video version of Collateral Murder , the 2007 war footage that was
leaked in 2010 to Wikileaks by Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning. This version was posted to the Wikileaks YouTube
channel with subtitles. It will only take about 15 minutes of your life to view it.
It's brutal to watch, but I challenge you to do it anyway. It shows not just murder, but a
special kind of murder -- murder from the safety of the air, murder by men with heavy machine
guns slowly circling their targets in helicopters like hunters with shotguns who walk the edges
of a trout pond, shooting at will, waiting, walking, then shooting again, till all the fish are
dead.
The film also shows war crimes that implicate the entire structure of the U.S.
military, as everyone involved was acting under orders, seeking permission to fire, waiting,
then getting it before once more blasting away. The publication of this video, plus all the
Wikileaks publications that followed, comprise the whole reason everyone in the U.S. who
matters, everyone with power, wants Julian Assange dead. They also want him hated. Generating that hate is the process we're watching today.
"Everyone" in this case includes every major newspaper that published and received awards
for publishing Wikileaks material; all major U.S. televised media outlets; and all
"respectable" U.S. politicians -- including, of course, Hillary Clinton, who was rumored (though
unverifiably) to have said, "Can't we just drone this guy?"
Yes, Julian Assange the person can be a giant douche even to his supporters, as this exchange
reported by Intercept writer Micah Lee attests. Nevertheless, it's not for being a
douche that the Establishment state wants him dead; that state
breeds, harbors and honors douches everywhere in the world . They want him dead for
publishing videos like these.
Please watch it. The footage shows not only murder, but bloodlust and conscienceless
brutality, so much of it in fact that this became one of the main reasons Chelsea Manning
leaked it in the first place. As she
said at her court-martial : "The most alarming aspect of the video for me, was the
seemingly delight of bloodlust they [the pilots] appeared to have. They dehumanized the
individuals they were engaging with, and seemed to not value human life in referring to them as
'dead bastards,' and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers."
The Wikileaks page for the video is here . A transcript is here .
This was done in our name, to "keep us safe." This continues to be done every day that we
and our allies are at "war" in the Middle East.
Bodies pile on bodies as this continues. The least we can do, literally the least, is to
witness and acknowledge their deaths.
Below is the second half and conclusion of "Afghanistan,
the Forgotten Proxy War". While the previous sections examined the economic roots of
imperialism, as well as the historical context of the Cold War within which to situate the
Mujahideen, the following explores the anatomy of proxy warfare and media disinformation
campaigns which were at the heart of destabilizing Afghanistan. These were also a large part of
why there was little to no opposition to the Mujahideen from the Western 'left', whose
continued dysfunctionality cannot be talked about without discussing Zbigniew Brzezinski. We
also take a look at what led to the Soviet Union's demise and how that significantly affected
the former Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and many other parts of the world. The United
States has been at war in Afghanistan for four decades now, and it will reach its 40th year on
July 3, 2019. The original "moderate rebel"
One of the key players in the anti-Soviet, U.S.-led regime change project against
Afghanistan was Osama
bin Laden , a Saudi-born millionaire who came from a wealthy, powerful family that owns a
Saudi construction company and has had close ties to the Saudi royal family. Before becoming
known as America's "boogeyman", Osama bin Laden was put in charge of
fundraising for the Mujahideen insurgents, creating numerous charities and foundations in
the process and working in coordination with Saudi intelligence (who acted as liaisons between
the fighters and the CIA). Journalist Robert Fisk even gave bin Laden a glowing review, calling
him a "
peace warrior " and a philanthropist in a 1993 report for the Independent . Bin
Laden also provided recruitment for the Mujahideen and is believed to have also received
security training from the CIA. And in 1989, the same year that Soviet troops withdrew, he
founded the terrorist organization Al Qaeda with a number of fighters he
had recruited to the Mujahideen. Although the PDPA had already been overthrown, and the Soviet
Union was dissolved, he still maintained his relationship with the CIA and NATO, working with
them from the
mid-to-late 1990s to provide support for the secessionist Bosnian paramilitaries and the
Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in the destruction and dismantling of Yugoslavia.
The United States would eventually turn Bin Laden into a scapegoat after the 2001 terrorist
attacks, while still maintaining ties to his family and providing arms, training, and funding
to Al Qaeda and its affiliates (rebranded as "moderate rebels" by the Western media) in its
more recent regime change project against Syria, which started in 2011. The Mujahideen not only
gave birth to Al Qaeda, but it would set a precedent for the United States' regime-change
operations in later years against the anti-imperialist governments of Libya and Syria.
Reagan entertains Mujahideen fighters in the White House.
With the end to the cycle of
World Wars (for the time being, at least), it has become increasingly common for the United
States to use local paramilitaries, terrorist groups, and/or the armed forces of comprador
regimes to fight against nations targeted by U.S. capital interests. Why the use of proxy
forces? They are, as Whitney Webb
describes , "a politically safe tool for projecting the U.S.' geopolitical will abroad."
Using proxy warfare as a kind of power projection tool is, first and foremost, cost-effective,
since paid local mercenaries or terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda will bear the burden of
combat and casualties rather than American troops in places like Libya and Syria. For example,
it costs much less
to pay local paramilitaries, gangs, crime syndicates, terrorist groups, and other reactionary
forces to perform the same military operations as U.S. troops. Additionally, with the advent of
nuclear weapons it became much more perilous for global superpowers to come into direct combat
with one another -- if the Soviet Union and the United States had done so, there existed the
threat of "mutually assured destruction", the strong possibility of instantaneous and
catastrophic damage to the populations and the economic and living standards of both sides,
something neither side was willing to risk, even if it was U.S. imperialism's ultimate goal to
destroy the Soviet Union. And so, the U.S. was willing to use any other means necessary to
weaken the Soviet Union and safeguard its profits, which included eliminating the Democratic
Republic of Afghanistan even if it had neither the intent nor the means of launching a military
offensive on American soil. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union had the means of producing a
considerably large supply of modern weapons, including nuclear deterrents, to counter the
credible threat posed by the United States. To strike the Soviet Union with nuclear missiles
would have been a great challenge for the United States, since it would have resulted in
overwhelming retaliation by the Soviet Union. To maneuver this problem, to assure the
destruction of the Soviet Union while protecting the U.S. from similar destruction, the CIA
relied on more unconventional methods not previously thought of as being part of traditional
warfare, such as funding proxy forces while wielding economic and cultural influence over the
American domestic sphere and the international scene. Furthermore, proxy warfare enables
control of public opinion, thus allowing the U.S. government to escape public scrutiny and
questions about legal authorization for war. With opposition from the general public
essentially under control, consent for U.S.-led wars does not need to be obtained, especially
when the U.S. military is running them from " behind the scenes " and
its involvement looks less obvious. Indeed, the protests against the war on Vietnam in the
United States and other Western countries saw mass turnouts.
And while the U.S.-led aggression in Vietnam did involve proxy warfare to a lesser degree,
it was still mostly fought with American "boots-on-the-ground", much like the 2001 renewed
U.S.-led aggression against Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In contrast, the U.S.
assault on Afghanistan that began in 1979 saw little to no protest. The Mujahideen even
garnered support from large portions of the Western left who joined the chorus of voices in the
Western mainstream media in demonizing the PDPA -- a relentless imperialist propaganda campaign
that would be repeated in later years during the U.S. wars on Libya and Syria, with the
difference being that social media had not yet gained prominence at the time of the initial
assault on Afghanistan. This leads to the next question: why recruit some of the most
reactionary social forces abroad, many of whom represent complete backwardness?
In Afghanistan, such forces proved useful in the mission to topple the modernizing
government of the PDPA, especially when their anti-modernity aspirations intersected with U.S.
foreign policy; these ultra-conservative forces continue to be deployed by the United States
today. In fact, the long war on Afghanistan shares many striking similarities with the long war
on Syria, with the common theme of U.S. imperialism collaborating with violent Sunni extremists
to topple the secular, nationalist and anti-imperialist governments of these two former 'Soviet
bloc' countries. And much like the PDPA, the current and long-time government of the Ba'ath
Arab Socialist Party in Syria has made many strides towards achieving national liberation and
economic development, which have included: taking land from aristocratic families (a majority
of whom were Sunni Muslims while Shia Muslims, but especially Alawites, traditionally belonged
to the lower classes and were treated as second class citizens in pre-Ba'athist Syria) and
redistributing and nationalizing it, making use of Syria's oil and gas reserves to modernize
the country and benefit its population, and upholding women's rights as an important part of
the Ba'athist pillars.
Some of these aristocratic landlords, just like their Afghan counterparts, would react
violently and join the Muslim Brotherhood who, with CIA-backing, carried out acts of terrorism
and other atrocities in Hama as they made a failed attempt to topple the government of Hafez al
Assad in 1982.
The connection between the two is further solidified by the fact that it was the Mujahideen
from which Al Qaeda emerged; both are inspired by Wahhabist ideology, and one of their chief
financiers is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (as well as Israel, a regional imperial power and a
key ally of the United States). In either case, these Wahhabi-inspired forces were vehemently
opposed to modernization and development, and would much rather keep large sections of the
population impoverished, as they sought to replace the PDPA and the Ba'athists with Sunni
fundamentalist, anti-Shia, theological autocracies -- Saudi-style regimes, in other words.
These reactionary forces are useful tools in the CIA's anti-communist projects and
destabilization campaigns against independent nationalist governments, considering that the
groups' anti-modernity stance is a motivating factor in their efforts to sabotage economic
development, which is conducive to ensuring a favourable climate for U.S. capital interests. It
also helps that these groups already saw the nationalist governments of the PDPA and the Syrian
Ba'ath party as their 'archenemy', and would thus fight them to the death and resort to acts of
terrorism against the respective civilian populations.
Zbigniew Brzezinski stated in a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur in response
to the following question:
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given
arms and advice to future terrorists?
[Brzezinski]: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the
collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe
and the end of the cold war?
Once again, he makes it clear that the religious extremism of the Mujahideen fighters was
not an issue for Washington because the real political value lay in eliminating the PDPA and
putting an end to Soviet influence in the Greater Middle East, which would give the U.S. the
opportunity to easily access and steal the country's wealth. And in order to justify the U.S.
imperialist intervention in Afghanistan, as well as to obscure the true nature of the
Mujahideen fighters, the intervention needed to be accompanied by a rigorous mass media
campaign. The Reagan administration -- knowing full well that American mainstream media has
international influence -- continued the war that the Carter administration started and saw it
as an opportunity to "step up" its domestic propaganda war, considering that the American
general public was still largely critical of the Vietnam War at the time.
As part of the aggressive imperialist propaganda campaign, anyone who dared to publicly
criticize the Mujahideen was subjected to character assassination and was pejoratively labelled
a "Stalinist" or a "Soviet apologist", which are akin to labels such as "Russian agent" or
"Assadist" being used as insults today against those who speak out against the U.S.-backed
terrorism in Syria. There were also careful rebranding strategies made specifically for Osama
bin Laden and the Mujahideen mercenaries, who were hailed as "revolutionary freedom fighters"
and given a romantic, exoticized "holy warrior" makeover in Western media; hence the title of
this section. The Mujahideen mercenaries were even given a dedication title card at the end of
the Hollywood movie Rambo III which read, "This film is dedicated to the brave
Mujahideen fighters of Afghanistan"; the film itself added to the constructed romantic image as
it portrayed the Mujahideen fighters as heroes, while the Soviet Union and the PDPA were
portrayed as the cartoonish villains. The Rambo film franchise is well known for its
depiction of the Vietnamese as "savages" and as the aggressors in the U.S. war on Vietnam,
which is a blatant reversal of the truth .
The Hollywood blockbuster franchise would be used to make the Mujahideen more palatable to
Western audiences, as this unabashed, blatantly anti-Soviet propaganda for U.S. imperialism
attracted millions of viewers with one of the largest movie marketing campaigns of the time. Although
formulaic, the films are easily consumable because they appeal to emotion and, as Michael
Parenti states in Dirty Truths , "The entertainment industry does not merely give the
people what they want: it is busy shaping those wants," (p. 111). Rambo III may
not have been critically
acclaimed , but it was still the second most commercially successful film in the
Rambo series, grossing a total of $189,015,611 at the box
office . Producing war propaganda films is nothing new and has been a long staple of the
Hollywood industry, which serves capitalist and imperialist interests. But, since the
blockbuster movie is one of the most widely available and distributed forms of media,
repackaging the Mujahideen into a popular film franchise was easily one of the best ways
(albeit cynical) to justify the war, maintaining the
American constructed narrative and reinforcing the demonization campaign against Soviet
Russia and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Now, outside of the cinema, CBS News went as
far as to air fake battle footage meant to help perpetuate the myth that the Mujahideen
mercenaries were "freedom fighters"; American journalists Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould,
although decidedly biased against the Soviet Union and its allies, documented this ruse
in which the news channel participated. In terms of proxy warfare, these were just some of the
ways used to distract from the fact that it was a U.S.-led war.
The dedication title card as it originally appeared at the end of the film Rambo III.
In Afghanistan, proxy forces provided a convenient cover because they drew attention away
from the fact that U.S. imperialism was the root cause of the conflict. The insurgents also
helped to demonize the targets of U.S. foreign policy, the PDPA and the Soviet Union, all the
while doing the majority of the physical combat in place of the American military. In general,
drawing attention away from the fact that it has been the United States "pulling the strings"
all along, using proxy forces helps Washington to maintain
plausible deniability in regard to its relationship with such groups. If any one of these
insurgents becomes a liability, as what had happened with the Taliban, they can just as easily
be disposed of and replaced by more competent patsies, while U.S. foreign policy goes
unquestioned. Criminal gangs and paramilitary
forces are thus ideal and convenient tools for U.S. foreign policy. With the rule of
warlords and the instability (namely damage to infrastructure, de-industrialization, and
societal collapse) that followed after the toppling of the PDPA, Afghanistan's standard of
living dropped rapidly, leading to forced mass migrations and making the country all the more
vulnerable to a more direct U.S. military intervention -- which eventually did happen in
2001.
Zbigniew Brzezinski: godfather of colour revolutions and proxy wars, architect of the
Mujahideen
The late Brzezinski was a key figure in U.S. foreign policy and a highly influential figure
in the Council on Foreign Relations. Although the Polish-American diplomat and political
scientist was no longer the National Security Advisor under Ronald Reagan's presidency, he
still continued to play a prominent role in enforcing U.S. foreign policy goals in upholding
Washington's global monopoly. The liberal Cold War ideologue's signature strategy consisted of
using the CIA to destabilize and force regime-change onto countries whose governments actively
resisted against Washington. Such is the legacy of Brzezinski, whose strategy of funding the
most reactionary anti-government forces to foment chaos and instability while promoting them as
"freedom fighters" is now a longstanding staple of U.S. imperialism.
How were the aggressive propaganda campaigns which promoted the Mujahideen mercenaries as
"freedom fighters" able to garner support for the aggression against the former Democratic
Republic of Afghanistan from so many on the Western left who had previously opposed the war on
Vietnam? It was the through the CIA's use of 'soft-power' schemes, because leftist opinion also
needed to be controlled and manipulated in the process of carrying out U.S. foreign and public
policy. Brzezinski mastered the art of targeting intelligentsia and impressionable young people
in order to make them supportive of U.S. foreign policy, misleading a significant number of
people into supporting U.S.-led wars.
The CIA invested money into programs that used university campus, anti-Soviet "radical
leftist activists" and academics (as well as artists and writers) to help spread imperialist
propaganda dressed up in vaguely "leftist"-sounding language and given a more "hip",
"humanitarian", "social justice", "free thinker" appeal. Western, but especially American,
academia has since continued to teach the post-modernist "oppression theory" or "privilege
theory" to students, which is anti-Marxist and anti-scientific at its core. More importantly,
this post-modernist infiltration was meant to distract from class struggle, to help divert any
form of solidarity away from anti-imperialist struggles, and to foster virulent animosity
towards the Soviet Union among students and anyone with 'leftist' leanings. Hence the
phenomenon of identity politics that continues to plague the Western left today, whose strength
was effectively neutered by the 1970s. Not only that, but as Gowans mentions in his book,
Patriots, Traitors and Empires: The Story of Korea's Struggle for Freedom :
"U.S. universities recruit talented individuals from abroad, instill in them the U.S.
imperialist ideology and values, and equip them with academic credentials which conduce to
their landing important political positions at home. In this way, U.S. imperial goals
indirectly structure the political decision-making of other countries." (pp. 52-53)
And so we have agencies and think-tanks such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
which has scholarly appeal and actively interferes in elections abroad -- namely, in countries
that are targets of U.S. foreign policy. Founded in 1983 by Reagan and directed by the CIA, the
agency also assists in mobilizing coups and paid "dissidents" in U.S.-led regime change
projects, such as the 2002 failed attempt against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, as well as helping
to create aggressive media campaigns that demonize targeted nations. Another instance of this
"soft power" tactic of mobilizing U.S.-backed "dissidents" in targeted nations are the number
of Sunni Islamic fundamentalist
madrassas (schools) sponsored by the CIA and set up by Wahhabi missionaries from Saudi
Arabia in Afghanistan -- which started to appear in increasing numbers during the 1980s,
reaching over 39,000 during the decade. Afghanistan's public education institutions were
largely secular prior to the fall of Kabul in 1992; these madrassas were the direct,
ideological and intellectual antitheses to the existing institutions of education. The
madrassas acted as centres for cult-like brainwashing and were essentially CIA covert
psychological operations (psy-ops) intended to inspire divisiveness and demobilize younger
generations of Afghans in the face of imperial onslaught so that they would not unite with the
wider PDPA-led nationalist resistance to imperialism.
The NED's founding members were comprised of Cold War ideologues which included Brzezinski
himself, as well as Trotskyists who provided an endless supply of slurs against the Soviet
Union. It was chiefly under this agency, and with direction provided by Brzezinski, that
America produced artists, "activists", academics, and writers who presented themselves as
"radical leftists" and slandered the Soviet Union and countries that were aligned with it --
which was all part of the process of toppling them and subjugating them to U.S. free market
fundamentalism. With Brzezinski having mastered the art of encouraging postmodernism and
identity politics among the Western left in order to weaken it, the United States not only had
military and economic might on its side but also highly sophisticated ideological instruments
to help give it the upper hand in propaganda wars.
These "soft power" schemes are highly effective in masking the brutality of U.S.
imperialism, as well as concealing the exploitation of impoverished nations. Marketing the
Mujahideen mercenaries as "peace warriors" while demonizing the PDPA and referring to the
Soviet assistance as an "invasion" or "aggression" marked the beginning of the regular use of
"humanitarian" pretexts for imperialist interventions. The Cold War era onslaught against
Afghanistan can thus be seen as the template for the NATO-led regime change projects against
Yugoslavia, Libya, and Syria, which not only involved the use of U.S.-backed proxy forces but
also "humanitarian" pretexts being presented in the aggressive propaganda campaigns against the
targeted countries. It was not until 2002, however, that then-American UN representative
Samantha Powers, as well as several U.S.-allied representatives, would push the United Nations
to officially adopt the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine into the Charter -- which
was in direct contradiction to the law that recognizes the violation of a nation's sovereignty
as a crime. The R2P doctrine was born out of the illegal 78-day NATO
air-bombing of Yugoslavia from March 24 to June 10, 1999. And although plans to dismantle
Yugoslavia go as far back as 1984, it was not until much of the 1990s that NATO would begin
openly intervening --
with more naked aggression -- starting with the funding and support for secessionist
paramilitary forces in Bosnia between 1994-1995. It then sealed the 1999 destruction of
Yugoslavia with with the balkanization of the Serbian province of Kosovo . In addition
to the use of terrorist and paramilitary groups as proxy forces which received CIA-training and
funding, another key feature of this "humanitarian" intervention was the ongoing demonization
campaigns against the Serbs, who were at the centre of a vicious Western media propaganda war.
Some of the most egregious parts of these demonization campaigns -- which were tantamount to
slander and libel -- were the claims that the Serbs were "
committing genocide " against ethnic Albanians. The NATO bombing campaign was illegal since
it was given no UN Security Council approval or support.
Once again, Brzezinski was not the National Security Advisor during the U.S.-led campaign
against Yugoslavia. However, he still continued to wield influence as a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations, a private organization and Wall Street think tank. The Council on Foreign
Relations is intertwined with highly influential NGOs who are essentially propaganda
mouthpieces for U.S. foreign policy, such as Human Rights Watch, which has fabricated stories
of atrocities allegedly committed by countries targeted by U.S. imperialism. Clearly,
unmitigated U.S. imperial aggression did not end with the destruction of the former Democratic
Republic of Afghanistan, nor with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The post-Cold War years
were a continuation of U.S. imperialism's scramble for more spheres of influence and global
domination; it was also a scramble for what was left of the former 'Soviet bloc' and Warsaw
Pact. The dismantling of Yugoslavia was, figuratively speaking, the 'final nail in the coffin'
of whatever 'Soviet influence' was left in Eastern Europe.
The demise of the Soviet Union and the "Afghan trap" question
Image on the right: Left to right: former Afghan President Babrak Karmal, and former Soviet
leader Leonid Brezhnev. Karmal took office at around the same time (December 1979) the PDPA
requested that Moscow intervene to assist the besieged Afghanistan.
The sabotage and subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union meant that only one global
hegemon remained, and that was the United States. Up until 1989, the Soviet Union had been the
barrier that was keeping the United States from launching a more robust military intervention
in Afghanistan, as well as in Central and West Asia. While pulling out did not immediately
cause the defeat of Kabul as the PDPA government forces continued to struggle for another three
years, Mikhail Gorbachev's decision to withdraw Soviet troops arguably had a
detrimental impact on Afghanistan for many years to come. Although there was no Soviet
military assistance in the last three years of Najibullah's presidency, Afghanistan continued
to receive aid from the USSR, and some Soviet military advisers (however limited in their
capacity) still remained; despite the extreme difficulties, and combined with the nation's
still-relatively high morale, this did at least help to keep the government from being
overthrown immediately. This defied U.S. expectations as the CIA and the George H.W. Bush
administration had believed that the government of Najibullah would fall as soon as Soviet
troops were withdrawn. But what really hurt the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan's army was
when the Soviet Union was dismantled in 1991; almost as soon as the dissolution happened and
Boris Yeltsin (with U.S. backing) took over as Russia's president, the aid stopped coming and
the government forces became unable to hold out for much longer. The U.S. aggression was left
unchecked, and to this day Afghanistan has not
seen geopolitical stability and has since been a largely impoverished 'failed state',
serving as a training ground for terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. It continues to be
an anarchic battleground between rival warlords which include the ousted Taliban and the U.S.
puppet government that replaced them.
But, as was already mentioned above, the "Afghan trap" did not, in and of itself, cause the
dismantling of the Soviet Union. In that same interview with Le Nouvel Observateur ,
Brzezinski had this to say in response to the question about setting the "trap":
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself
desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
[Brzezinski]: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we
knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Likewise with Cuba and Syria, the USSR had a well-established alliance with the
Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, one of mutual aid and partnership. Answering Kabul's
explicit request for assistance was a deliberate and conscious choice made by Moscow, and it
just so happened that the majority of Afghans welcomed it. For any errors that Leonid Brezhnev,
the General Secretary at the time, may have made (which do deserve a fair amount of criticism,
but are not the focus of this article), the 1979 decision to intervene on behalf of Afghanistan
against U.S. imperialism was not one of them. It is true that both the Soviet and the U.S.
interventions were military interventions, but the key difference is that the U.S. was backing
reactionary forces for the purposes of establishing colonial domination and was in clear
violation of Afghan sovereignty. Consider, too, that Afghanistan had only deposed of its king
in 1973, just six years before the conflict began. The country may have moved quickly to
industrialize and modernize, but it wasn't much time to fully develop its military defenses by
1979.
Image below: Mikhail Gorbachev accepts the Nobel Peace Prize from George H.W. Bush on
October 15, 1990. Many Russians saw this gesture as a betrayal, while the West celebrated it,
because he was being awarded for his capitulation to U.S. imperialism in foreign and economic
policy.
Other than that, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the Soviet Union imploded due
to an accumulating number of factors: namely, the gradual steps that U.S. foreign policy had
taken over the years to cripple the Soviet economy, especially after the deaths of Brezhnev and
Yuri Andropov. How Gorbachev responded during the U.S.-led onslaught against Afghanistan
certainly helped to exacerbate the conditions that led to the dissolution. After the deaths of
Brezhnev and Andropov, the Soviet Union's economy became disorganized and was being liberalized
during much of the 1980s. Not only that, but the Reagan administration escalated the arms race,
which intensified after they had scrapped the 'detente' that was previously made in the
mid-1970s. Even prior to Reagan's hardline, bombastic rhetoric and escalation against the USSR,
the Soviet Union was already beginning to show signs of strain from the arms race during the
late-1970s. However, in spite of the economic strains, during the height of the war the
organized joint operations between the Soviet army and the Afghan army saw a significant amount
of success in pushing back against the Mujahideen with many of the jihadist leaders either
being killed or fleeing to Pakistan. Therefore, it is erroneous to say that intervening in
Afghanistan on behalf of the Afghan people "did the Soviet Union in."
In a misguided and ultimately failed attempt to spur economic growth rates, Gorbachev moved
to end the Cold War by withdrawing military support from allies and pledging cooperation with
the United States who promised "peace". When he embraced Neoliberalism and allowed for the USSR
to be opened to the U.S.-dominated world capitalist economy, the Soviet economy imploded and
the effects were felt by its allies. It was a capitulation to U.S. imperialism, in other words;
and it led to disastrous results not only in Afghanistan, but in several other countries as
well. These include: the destruction of Yugoslavia, both wars on Iraq, and the 2011 NATO
invasion of Libya. Also, Warsaw Pact members in Eastern Europe were no longer able to
effectively fight back against U.S.-backed colour revolutions; some of them would eventually be
absorbed as NATO members, such as Czechoslovakia which was dissolved and divided into two
states: the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Without Soviet Russia to keep it in check, the United
States was able to launch an unrestrained series of aggressions for nearly two decades. Because
of his decision to withdraw from the arms race altogether, in a vain attempt to transform the
Soviet Union into a social democracy akin to those of the Nordic countries, Gorbachev had
deprived the Russian army of combat effectiveness by making significant cuts to its defense
budget, which is partly why they were forced to evacuate. Not only that, but these diplomatic
and military concessions with the United States gave them no benefit in return, hence the
economic crisis in Russia during the Yeltsin years. Suffice to say, the Gorbachev-Yeltsin years
are not remembered fondly in Russia and many regard Gorbachev as a traitor and Western agent
who helped to bring the Soviet Union to its collapse. In more recent years,
efforts are being made to assess the actions taken by Gorbachev with regards to
Afghanistan; this includes going against and revising the resolution put forth by him which
suggested that the USSR intervention was "shameful".
In short, Afghanistan did not cause the Soviet Union's demise even if it required large
military spending. More accurately: it was Gorbachev's impulsive decision to quickly discard
the planned economy in favour of a market economy in order to appease the United States, who
made the false promise that NATO would not expand eastward. If there was a real "trap", it was
this and Gorbachev played right into the hands of U.S. imperialism; and so, the Soviet Union
received its devastating blow from the United States in the end -- not from a small, minor
nation such as Afghanistan which continues to suffer the most from the effects of these past
events. For many years, but especially since the end of WWII, the United States made ceaseless
efforts to undermine the USSR, adding stress upon stress onto its economy, in addition to the
psychological warfare waged through the anti-Soviet propaganda and military threats against it
and its allies. Despite any advances made in the past, the Soviet Union's economy was still not
as large as that of the United States. And so, in order to keep pace with NATO, the Soviet
Union did not have much of a choice but to spend a large percentage of its GDP on its military
and on helping to defend its allies, which included national liberation movements in the Third
World, because of the very real and significant threat that U.S. imperialism posed. If it had
not spent any money militarily, its demise would most likely have happened much sooner. But
eventually, these mounting efforts by U.S. imperialism created a circumstance where its
leadership under Gorbachev made a lapse in judgment, reacting impulsively and carelessly rather
than acting with resilience in spite of the onslaught.
It should also be taken into account that WWII had a profound impact on Soviet leadership --
from Joseph Stalin to Gorbachev -- because even though the Red Army was victorious in defeating
the Nazis, the widespread destruction had still placed the Soviet economy under an incredible
amount of stress and it needed time to recover. Meanwhile, the convenient geographical location
of the United States kept it from suffering the same casualties and infrastructural damage seen
across Europe and Asia as a result of the Second World War, which enabled its economy to
recover much faster and gave it enough time to eventually develop the U.S. Dollar as
the international currency and assert dominance over the world economy. Plus, the U.S. had
accumulated two-thirds of the world's gold reserves by 1944 to help back the Dollar; and even
if it lost a large amount of the gold, it would still be able to maintain Dollar supremacy by
developing the fiat system to back the currency. Because of the destruction seen during WWII,
it is understandable that the Soviet Union wanted to avoid another world war, which is why it
also made several attempts at achieving some kind of diplomacy
with the United States (before Gorbachev outright capitulated). At the same time, it also
understood that maintaining its military defenses was important because of the threat of a
nuclear war from the United States, which would be much more catastrophic than the Nazis'
military assaults against the Soviet Union since Hitler did not have a nuclear arsenal. This
was part of a feat that U.S. imperialism was able to accomplish that ultimately overshadowed
British, French, German, and Japanese imperialism, which Brzezinski reveals in his book, The
Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives : an unparalleled
military establishment that, by far, had the most effective global reach which allowed the U.S.
to "project forces over long distances", helping it to assert its global domination and impose
its "political will". And what makes the American Empire distinct from the Japanese Empire,
British Empire, and other European empires is that one of the bases for its ideology is the
socially constructed international hierarchy of nations, and not races as was the case with the
other aforementioned empires. This constructed international hierarchy of nations is more
effective because it means not only greater expansionism, but also the greater ability to
exercise global primacy and supremacy. More specific to Central Asia and the Middle East, the
Wahhabist and Salafist
groups propped up by the CIA were always
intended to nurture sectarianism and discord in order to counter a mass, broad-based united
front of nations against imperialism -- an example of divide-and-conquer, which is an age-old
tradition of empire, except this time with Neoliberal characteristics.
Therefore, the
Mujahideen against Afghanistan should not be thought of simply as "the Afghan trap", but rather
as the U.S. subjugation and plundering of West and Central Asia and an important milestone
(albeit a cynical one) in shaping its foreign policy with regards to the region for many years
to come. If one thing has remained a constant in U.S. foreign policy towards West and Central
Asia, it is its strategic partnership with the oil autocracy of Saudi Arabia, which acts as the
United States' steward in safeguarding the profits of American petroleum corporations and
actively assists Western powers in crushing secular Arab and Central Asian nationalist
resistance against imperialism. The Saudi monarchy would again be called on by the U.S.
government in 2011 in Syria to assist in the repeated formula of funding and arming so-called
"moderate rebels" in the efforts to destabilize the country. Once again, the ultimate goal in
this more recent imperial venture is to contain Russia.
Cold War 2.0? American Supremacy marches on
The present-day anti-Russia hysteria is reminiscent of the anti-Soviet propaganda of the
Cold War era; while anti-communism is not the central theme today, one thing remains the same:
the fact that the U.S. Empire is (once again) facing a formidable challenge to its position in
the world. After the Yeltsin years were over, and under Vladimir Putin, Russia's economy
eventually recovered and moved towards a more dirigiste economy; and on top of that, it moved
away from the NATO fold, which triggered the old antagonistic relationship with the United
States. Russia has also decided to follow the global trend of taking the step towards
reducing reliance on the
U.S. dollar , which is no doubt a source of annoyance to the U.S. capitalist class. It
seems that a third world war in the near future is becoming more likely as the U.S. inches
closer to a direct military confrontation against Russia and, more recently, China. History
does appear to be repeating itself. When the government of Bashar al Assad called on Moscow for
assistance in fighting against the NATO-backed terrorists, it certainly was reminiscent of when
the PDPA had done the same many years before. Thus far, the Syrian Arab Republic has continued
to withstand the destabilization efforts carried out by the Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist
groups and Kurdish militias at the behest of the United States, and has not collapsed as Libya,
Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan did.
But what often gets overlooked is the repeated Brzezinskist formula of funding highly
reactionary forces and promoting them as "revolutionaries" to Western audiences in order to
fight governments that defy the global dictatorship of the United States and refuse to allow
the West to exploit their natural resources and labour power. As Karl Marx once said , "Men
make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under
self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted
from the past." Such a phenomenon is no accident or a mere mistake. The geopolitical
instability that followed after the overthrow of the PDPA ensures that no sound, united, and
formidable opposition against U.S. imperialism will emerge for an indefinite number of years;
and it seems that Libya, where the Brzezinskist-style of regime change also saw success and
which is now a hotbed for the slave trade, is on the same path as Afghanistan. This is all a
part of what Lenin calls moribund capitalism
when he discussed the economic essence of imperialism; and by that, he meant that imperialism
carries the contradictions of capitalism to the extreme
limit . American global monopoly had grown out of U.S. foreign policy, and it should go
without saying that the American Empire cannot tolerate losing its Dollar Supremacy, especially
when the global rate of profit is falling. And if too many nations reject U.S. efforts to
infiltrate their markets and force foreign finance capital exports onto their economies in
order to gain a monopoly over the resources, as well as to exploit the labour of their working
people, it would surely spell a sharp decline in American Dollar hegemony. The fact that the
United States was willing to go as far as to back mercenaries to attack the former Democratic
Republic of Afghanistan and fight the Soviet Union, as well as to spend billions of dollars on
a highly elaborate but effective propaganda campaign, shows a sign of desperation of the
American Empire in maintaining its global hegemony.
Since the end of World War II the United States has been, and is by and large still, the
overwhelming world-dominating power. It is true that the American Empire is in decline, in
light of increasing trends towards "de-Dollarization," as well as the rise of China and Russia
which pose as challenges to U.S. interests. Naturally, Washington will desperately try to cling
on to its number one position in the world by accelerating the growth of its global monopolies
-- whether it is through placing wholly unnecessary tariffs against competitors such as China,
or threatening to completely cut
Venezuelan and Iranian oil out of the global market -- even if it means an increasing drive
towards World War III. The current global economic order which Washington elites have been
instrumental in shaping over the past several decades reflects the interests of the global
capitalist class to such an extent that the working class is threatened with yet another world
war despite the unimaginable carnage witnessed during the first two.
When we look back at these historical events to help make sense of the present, we see how
powerful mass media can be and how it is used as a tool of U.S. foreign policy to manipulate
and control public opinion. Foreign policy is about the economic relationships between
countries. Key to understanding how U.S. imperialism functions is in its foreign policy and how
it carries it out -- which adds up to plundering from relatively small or poorer nations more
than a share of wealth and resources that can be normally produced in common commercial
exchanges, forcing them to be indebted; and if any of them resist, then they will almost
certainly be subjected to military threats.
With the great wealth that allowed it to build a military that can "project forces over long
distances," the United States is in a unique position in history, to say the least. However, as
we have seen above, the now four decade-long war on Afghanistan was not only fought on a
military front considering the psy-ops and the propaganda involved. If anything, the Soviet
Union lost on the propaganda front in the end.
From Afghanistan we learn not only of the origins of Al Qaeda, to which the boom in the
opioid-addiction epidemic has ties, or why today we have the phenomenon of an anti-Russia
Western "left" that parrots imperialist propaganda and seems very eager to see that piece of
Cold War history repeat itself in Syria. We also learn that we cannot de-link the events of the
2001 direct U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan and what followed from those of 1979;
Afghanistan's colonial-feudal past, its break from that with the 1978 Saur Revolution, and the
U.S.-led Mujahideen are all as much of a part of its history (and the Greater Middle East, by
extension) as the events of 2001. It cannot be stressed enough that it is those historical
conditions, particularly as they relate to U.S. foreign policy, that helped to shape the
ongoing conflict today.
Obviously, we cannot undo the past. It is not in the interests of the working class
anywhere, in the Global South or in the Global North, to see a third world war happen, as such
a war would have catastrophic consequences for everyone -- in fact, it could potentially
destroy all of humanity. Building a new and revitalized anti-war movement in the imperialist
nations is a given, but it also requires a more sophisticated understanding of U.S. foreign
policy. Without historical context, Western mass media will continue to go unchallenged,
weaning audiences on a steady diet of "moderate rebels" propaganda and effectively silencing
the victims of imperialism. It is necessary to unite workers across the whole world according
to their shared interests in order to effectively fight and defeat imperialism and to establish
a just, egalitarian, and sustainable world under socialism. Teaching the working class
everywhere the real history of such conflicts as the one in Afghanistan is an important part of
developing the revolutionary consciousness necessary to build a strong global revolutionary
movement against imperialism.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Originally published by LLCO.org on March 30, 2019. For the full-length article and
bibliography, click here .
Bolton power over Trump is connected to Adelson power over Trump. To think about Bolton as pure advisor is to seriously
underestimate his role and influence.
Notable quotes:
"... But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety. ..."
"... A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U. ..."
"... "Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," ..."
"... Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble. ..."
"... The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo, especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas. ..."
"... Tulsi for Sec of State 2020... ..."
"... Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner for failing to "win". ..."
"... You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the last 50 years. ..."
"... I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people and far too many details. ..."
"... Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they could matter. ..."
"... Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central to many of our poor strategic decision making. ..."
"... I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he really does not want one. ..."
"... "Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats." ..."
"... So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks ..."
"... If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee? ..."
It's time for Trump to stop John Bolton and Mike Pompeo from
sabotaging his foreign policy | Mulshine
"I put that question to another military vet, former Vietnam Green Beret Pat Lang.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," said Lang of Trump.
But Lang, who later spent more than a decade in the Mideast, noted that Bolton has no direct
control over the military.
"Bolton has a problem," he said. "If he can just get the generals to obey him, he can start
all the wars he wants. But they don't obey him."
They obey the commander-in-chief. And Trump has a history of hiring war-crazed advisors who
end up losing their jobs when they get a bit too bellicose. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
comes to mind."
" In Lang's view, anyone who sees Trump as some sort of ideologue is missing the point.
"He's an entrepreneurial businessman who hires consultants for their advice and then gets
rid of them when he doesn't want that advice," he said.
So far that advice hasn't been very helpful, at least in the case of Bolton. His big mouth
seems to have deep-sixed Trump's chance of a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. And
that failed coup in Venezuela has brought up comparisons to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion
during the Kennedy administration." Mulshine
--------------
Well, pilgrims, I worked exclusively on the subject of the Islamic culture continent for the
USG from 1972 to 1994 and then in business from 1994 to 2006. I suppose I am still working on
the subject. pl
I don't get it I suppose. I'd always thought that maybe you wanted highly opinionated Type A
personalities in the role of privy council, etc. You know, people who could forcefully
advocate positions in closed session meetings and weren't afraid of taking contrary
positions. But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't
stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety.
But these days it's the loudmouths who get these jobs, to our detriment. When will senior
govt. leaders understand that just because a person is a success in running for Congress
doesn't mean he/she should be sent forth to mingle with the many different personalities and
cultures running the rest of the world?
A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned
the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U.
No. I would like to see highly opinionated Type B personalities like me hold those jobs. Type
B does not mean you are passive. It means you are not obsessively competitive.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed,"
Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat
primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of
non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the
corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble.
Interesting post, thank you sir. Prior to this recent post I had never heard of Paul
Mulshine. In fact I went through some of his earlier posts on Trump's foreign policy and I
found a fair amount of common sense in them. He strikes me as a paleocon, like Pat Buchanan,
Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Scheuer, Doug Bandow, Tucker Carlson and others in that mold.
The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo,
especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly
at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec
and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for
campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss
of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas.
My best hope is that
Trump teams up with libertarians and maybe even paleocons to run his foreign policy. So far
Trump has not succeeded in draining the Swamp. Bolton, Pompeo and their respective staff
"are" indeed the Swamp creatures and they run their own policies that run against Trump's
America First policy. Any thoughts?
Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full
of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a
successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from
Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was
owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat
there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he
turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the
room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that
was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner
for failing to "win".
You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they
can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump
out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in
pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the
last 50 years.
I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to
walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people
and far too many details. I see he and his trade team not buckling to the Chinese at least not yet despite the intense
pressure from Wall St and the big corporations.
Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative
consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to
his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they
could matter.
Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to
their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart
enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central
to many of our poor strategic decision making.
Just out of curiosity: Did the deal go through in the end, despite Trump's ire? Or was
Trump so furious with the negotiating result of his Japanese partner that he tore up the
draft once it was presented to him?
I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in
using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he
really does not want one.
Mulshine's article has some good points, but he does include some hilariously ignorant bits
which undermine his credibility.
"Jose Gomez Rivera is a Jersey guy who served in the State Department in Venezuela at the
time of the coup that brought the current socialist regime to power."
Wrong. Maduro was elected and international observers seem to agree the election was
fair.
"Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American
public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of
course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats."
So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual
portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at
times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks and
shudders in its death throes underneath them, and at others it seems like they really have no
idea what to do, other than engage in juvenile antics, snort some glue from a paper bag and
set fires in the dumpsters behind the Taco Bell before going out into a darkened field
somewhere to violate farm animals.
If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to
find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee?
This was true about Iraq war. This is true about Venezuela and Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... In a rather odd article in the London Review of Books , Perry Anderson argued that there wasn't, and wondered aloud why the U.S. war on Iraq had excited such unprecedented worldwide opposition - even, in all places, within the U.S. - when earlier episodes of imperial violence hadn't. ..."
"... Lots of people, in the U.S. and abroad, recognize that and are alarmed. And lots also recognize that the Bush regime represents an intensification of imperial ambition. ..."
"... Why? The answers aren't self-evident. Certainly the war on Iraq had little to do with its public justifications. Iraq was clearly a threat to no one, and the weapons of mass destruction have proved elusive. The war did nothing for the fight against terrorism. Only ideologues believe that Baghdad had anything to do with al Qaeda - and if the Bush administration were really worried about "homeland security," it'd be funding the defense of ports, nuclear reactors, and chemical plants rather than starting imperial wars and alienating people by the billions. Sure, Saddam's regime was monstrous - which is one of the reasons Washington supported it up until the invasion of Kuwait. The Ba'ath Party loved to kill Communists - as many as 150,000 according to some estimates - and the CIA's relationship with Saddam goes back to 1959 . ..."
"... Iraq has lots of oil , and there's little doubt that that's why it was at the first pole of the axis of evil to get hit. (Iran does too, but it's a much tougher nut to crack - four times as big, and not weakened by war and sanctions.) ..."
Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small c rappy little country and
throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.
- Michael
Ledeen , holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute
Actually, the U.S. had been beating Iraq's head against the wall for a dozen years, with
sanctions and bombing. The
sanctions alone killed over a million Iraqis, far more than have been done in by weapons of
mass destruction throughout history. But Ledeen's indiscreet remark, delivered at an AEI
conference and reported by Jonah Goldberg in National Review Online , does capture some
of what the war on Iraq is about.
And what is this "business" Ledeen says we mean? Oil, of course, of which more in a bit.
Ditto construction contracts for Bechtel. But it's more than that - nothing less than the
desire, often expressed with little shame nor euphemism, to run the world. Is there anything
new about that?
The answer is, of course, yes and no. In a rather odd article in the London Review of Books ,
Perry Anderson argued that there wasn't, and wondered aloud why the U.S. war on Iraq had
excited such unprecedented worldwide opposition - even, in all places, within the U.S. - when
earlier episodes of imperial violence hadn't. Anderson, who's edited New Left Review for years, but who has almost no
connection to actual politics attributed this strange explosion not to a popular outburst of
anti-imperialism, but to a cultural antipathy to the Bush administration.
Presumably that antipathy belongs to the realm of the " merely cultural ," and is of no great
political significance to Anderson. But it should be. U.S. culture has long been afflicted with
a brutally reactionary and self-righteous version of Christian fundamentalism, but it's never
had such influence over the state. The president thinks himself on a mission from God, the
Attorney General opens the business day with a prayer meeting, and the Pentagon's idea of a
Good Friday service is to invite Franklin Graham , who's pronounced Islam a "wicked and
evil religion," to deliver the homily, in which he promised that Jesus was returning soon. For
the hard core, the Iraq war is a sign of the end times, and the hard core
are in power.
Lots of people, in the U.S. and abroad, recognize that and are alarmed. And lots also
recognize that the Bush regime represents an intensification of imperial ambition. Though the
administration has been discreet, many of its private sector intellectuals
have been using the words "imperialism" and " empire " openly and with
glee. Not everyone of the millions who marched against the war in the months before it started
was a conscious anti-imperialist, but they all sensed the intensification, and were further
alarmed.
While itself avoiding the difficult word "empire," the Bush administration has been rather
clear about its long-term aims. According to their official national security strategy and the
documents published by the Project
for a New American Century (which served as an administration-in-waiting during the Clinton
years) their goal is to assure U.S. dominance and prevent the emergence of any rival powers.
First step in that agenda is the remaking of the Middle East - and they're quite open
about this as well. We all know the countries that are on the list; the only remaining issues
are sequence and strategy. But that's not the whole of the agenda. They're essentially
promising a permanent state of war, some overt, some covert, but one that could take
decades.
Imperial returns?
Why? The answers aren't self-evident. Certainly the war on Iraq had little to do with its
public justifications. Iraq was clearly a threat to no one, and the weapons of mass destruction
have proved elusive. The war did nothing for the fight against terrorism. Only ideologues
believe that Baghdad had anything to do with al Qaeda - and if the Bush administration were
really worried about "homeland security," it'd be funding the defense of ports, nuclear
reactors, and chemical plants rather than starting imperial wars and alienating people by the
billions. Sure, Saddam's regime was monstrous - which is one of the reasons Washington
supported it up until the invasion of Kuwait. The Ba'ath Party loved to kill Communists - as
many as 150,000 according to some estimates - and the CIA's relationship with Saddam goes back
to 1959
.
Iraq has lots of oil , and there's little doubt that that's why
it was at the first pole of the axis of evil to get hit. (Iran does too, but it's a much
tougher nut to crack - four times as big, and not weakened by war and sanctions.)
It now looks
fairly certain that the U.S. will, in some form, claim some large piece of Iraq's oil. The
details need to be worked out; clarifying the legal situation could be very complicated, given
the rampantly illegal nature of the regime change. Rebuilding Iraq's oil industry will be very
expensive and could take years. There could be some nice profits down the line for big oil
companies - billions a year - but the broader economic benefits for the U.S. aren't so clear. A
U.S.-dominated Iraq could pump heavily and undermine OPEC, but too low an oil price would wreck
the domestic U.S. oil industry, something the Bush gang presumably cares
about. Mexico would be driven into penury, which could mean another debt crisis and lots of
human traffic heading north over the Rio Grande. Lower oil prices would be a boon to most
industrial economies, but they'd give the U.S. no special advantage over its principal economic
rivals.
It's
sometimes said that U.S. dominance of the Middle East gives Washington a chokehold over oil
supplies to Europe and Japan. But how might that work? Deep production cutbacks and price
spikes would hurt everyone. Targeted sales restrictions would be the equivalent of acts of war,
and if the U.S. is willing to take that route, a blockade would be a lot more efficient. The
world oil market is gigantic and complex, and it's not clear how a tap could be turned in
Kirkuk that would shut down the gas pumps in Kyoto or Milan.
Writers like David Harvey argue
that the U.S. is trying to compensate for its eroding economic power by asserting its military
dominance. Maybe. It's certainly fascinating that Bush's unilateralism has to be financed by
gobs of foreign money - and he gets his tax cuts, he'll have to order up even bigger gobs. But
it's hard to see what rival threatens the U.S. economically; neither the EU nor Japan is
thriving. Nor is there any evidence that the Bush administration is thinking seriously about
economic policy, domestic or international, or even thinking at all. The economic staff is
mostly dim and marginal. What really seems to excite this gang of supposed conservatives is the
exercise of raw state power.
Jealous rivals
And while the Bushies want to prevent the emergence of imperial rivals , they may only be encouraging that. Sure, the EU
is badly divided within itself; it has a hard enough time picking a top central banker , let alone deciding on a common
foreign policy. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is already semi-apologizing to Bush for
his intemperate language in criticizing the war - not that Bush has started taking his calls.
But over the longer term, some kind of political unification is Europe's only hope for acting
like a remotely credible world power. It's tempting to read French and German objections to the
Iraq war as emerging not from principle, but from the wounded narcissism of former imperial
powers rendered marginal by American might. Separately, they'll surely hang. But a politically
united Europe could, with time, come to challenge U.S. power, just as the euro is beginning to look like a credible rival to the dollar.
(Speaking of the euro, there's a theory circulating on the net that the U.S. went to war
because Iraq wanted to price its oil in euros, not dollars. That's grossly overheated
speculation. More on this and related issues when LBO begins an investigation of the
political economy of oil in the next issue.)
An even more interesting rivalry scenario would involve an alliance of the EU and Russia.
Russia is no longer the wreck it was for most of the 1990s. The economy has been growing and
the mildly authoritarian Putin has imposed political stability. Russia, which has substantial
oil interests in Iraq that are threatened by U.S. control, strongly opposed the war, and at
least factions within the Russian intelligence agency were reportedly feeding information
unfriendly to the U.S. to the website Iraqwar.ru . There's a lot recommending an EU-Russia
alliance; Europe could supply technology and finance, and Russia could supply energy, and
together they could constitute at least an embryonic counterweight to U.S. power.
So the U.S. may not get out of Iraq what the Bush administration is hoping for. It certainly
can't want democracy in Iraq or the rest of the region, since free votes could well lead to
nationalist and Islamist governments who don't view ExxonMobil as the divine agent that Bush seems to. A
New York Times piece celebrated the outbreak of democracy in Basra, while conceding that
the mayor is a former Iraqi admiral appointed by the British. The lead writers of the new
constitution are likely to be American law professors; Iraqis, of course, aren't up to the task
themselves.
Certainly the appointment of Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner (Ret.) - one of the
few superannuated brass not to have enjoyed a consulting contract with a major TV network - to
be the top civilian official guiding the postwar reconstruction of Iraq speaks volumes. A
retired general is barely a civilian, and Garner's most recent job was as president of
SY Technology , a military
contractor that worked with Israeli security in developing the Arrow antimissile system. He
loves antimissile systems; after the first Gulf War, he enthused about the Patriot's
performance with claims that turned out to be nonsense. He's on record as having praised
Israel's handling of the intifada. If that's his model of how to handle restive subject
populations, there's lots of trouble ahead.
lightness
In the early days of the war, when things weren't going so well for the "coalition,"
it was said that the force was too light. But after the sandstorm cleared and the snipers
were mowed down, that alleged lightness became a widely praised virtue. But that force
was light only by American standards: 300,000 troops; an endless rain of Tomahawks,
JDAMs, and MOABs; thousands of vehicles, from Humvees to Abrams tanks; hundreds of
aircraft, from Apaches to B-1s; several flotillas of naval support - and enormous
quantities of expensive petroleum products. It takes five gallons of fuel just to start
an Abrams tank, and after that it gets a mile per gallon. And filling one up is no
bargain. Though the military buys fuel at a wholesale price of 84¢ a gallon, after
all the expenses of getting it to the front lines are added in, the final cost is about
$150 a gallon. That's a steal compared to Afghanistan, where fuel is helicoptered in,
pushing the cost to $600/gallon. Rummy's "lightness" is of the sort that only a $10
trillion economy can afford.
The Bush gang doesn't even try to keep up appearances, handing out contracts for Iraq's
reconstruction to U.S. firms even before the shooting stopped, and guarding only the oil and
interior ministries against looters. If Washington gets its way, Iraq will be rebuilt according
to the fondest dreams of the Heritage Foundation staff, with the educational system reworked by
an American contractor, the TV programmed by the Pentagon, the ports run by a rabidly antiunion
firm, the police run by the Texas-based military contractor Dyncorp , and the oil taken out of
state hands and appropriately privatized.
That's the way they'd like it to be. But the sailing may not be so smooth. It looks like
Iraqis are viewing the Americans as occupiers, not liberators. It's going to be hard enough to
remake Iraq that taking on Syria or Iran may be a bit premature. But that doesn't mean they
won't try. It's a cliché of trade negotiations that liberalization is like riding a
bicycle - you have to keep riding forward or else you'll fall over. The same could be said of
an imperial agenda: if you want to remake the world, or a big chunk of it, there's little time
to pause and catch your breath, since doubt or opposition could gain the upper hand. Which
makes stoking that opposition more
urgent than ever.
Losing it all
There's a feeling around that Bush is now politically invulnerable . Certainly the atmosphere
is one of almost coercive patriotism. That mood was nicely illustrated by an incident in
Houston in mid-March. A teenager attending a rodeo failed to stand along with the rest of the
crowd during a playing of Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American," a dreadful country song
that has become a kind of private-sector national anthem for the yahoo demographic, thanks to
its truculent unthinking jingoism. A patriot standing behind the defiantly seated teen started
taunting him, tugging on his ear as an additional provocation. The two ended up in a fight, and
then under arrest.
There's a lot of that going around, for sure. Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins get disinvited
from events, websites nominate
traitors for trial by military tribunal, and talk radio hosts organize CD-smashings. But things
aren't hopeless. A close analysis of Greenwood's text might suggest why. The song's core
argument is contained in its two most famous lines: "I'm proud to be an American/where at least
I know I'm free." But the oft-overlooked opening reads: "If tomorrow all the things were
gone/I'd worked for all my life," the singer would still be a grateful patriot. That's
precisely the condition lots of Americans find themselves in. More than two million jobs have
disappeared in the last two years. Millions of Americans have seen their retirement savings
wiped out by the bear market, and over a million filed for bankruptcy last year. Most states and
cities are experiencing their worst fiscal crises since the 1930s, with massive service cuts
and layoffs imminent. In the song, such loss doesn't matter, but reality is often less
accommodating than a song.
As the nearby graphs show, W's ratings are much lower than his father's at the end of Gulf
War I, and his disapproval ratings much higher. Their theocratic and repressive agenda is
deeply unpopular with large parts of the U.S. population. Spending scores of billions on
destroying and rebuilding Iraq while at home health clinics are closing and teachers working
without pay is potentially incendiary. Foreign adventures have never been popular with the
American public (much to the distress of the ruling elite). An peace movement that could draw
the links among warmongering, austerity, and repression has great political potential. Just a
month or two ago, hundreds of thousands were marching in American streets to protest the
imminent war. Though that movement now looks a bit dispirited and demobilized, it's unlikely
that that kind of energy will just disappear into the ether.
Speaking of getting led around by the nose, we come to one Gina Haspel's great deceptions.
This deception plays directly into the hands of Russiagaters. This woman, supposedly brought
into CIA leadership in order to demolish the agency, is proving quite adept in perpetuating its
reign of terror. Again, we have a neocon undermining Trump's prestige and authority.
(EIRNS) -- The New York Times ran a story yesterday titled, "Gina Haspel
Relies on Spy Skills To Connect with Trump. He Doesn't Always Listen." Based on interviews with
former and current CIA agents who worked with CIA Director Haspel (but not interviewing her),
the Times praises her skills and attempts to denigrate Trump, but they also retail a story
about her and Trump which could cost Haspel deeply.
Following the March 2018 breaking of the Skripal poisoning story in England, the Times
writes, Trump had initially "written off the poisoning as part of legitimate spy games,
distasteful but within the bounds of espionage." Haspel, on the other hand, was backing
London's demand for Trump to blame Russia immediately and expel dozens of Russian
diplomats.
Writes the Times:
"During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy CIA director, turned toward Mr. Trump. She
outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told the
President that the 'strong option' was to expel 60 diplomats.
"To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials
including Ms. Haspel also tried to show him that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were not the
only victims of Russia's attack.
"Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children
hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She
then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently killed by
the sloppy work of the Russian operatives."
This appeal reportedly swayed Trump to go along with Haspel's advice.
If it sounds like the British "White Helmet" terrorists in Syria faking pictures of children
being hit with chemical weapons to convince Trump to bomb Syrian targets, it is indeed
precisely the same.
Former British Ambassador Craig Murray, an outspoken critic of these British imperial lies
and atrocities, posted a response today to the Times garbage on his blog. He states first that
yet another truth behind the Skripal lies was revealed recently by police, acknowledging that
"the perfume bottle Charlie Rowley found was sealed and could not have been the container used
on the Skripals." He goes on: "It took nine months for us to learn that, by a truly wonderful
coincidence, the first person to find the Skripals ill on the bench was the Chief Nurse of the
British Army."
But on the Haspel story in the Times, Murray is furious. "The problem is," he writes,
"there were no hospitalized children. No children have been reported as becoming ill
following their duck feeding with the Skripals. We have heard from one of the parents that
they were shown by the police extremely clear [closed-circuit surveillance] CCTV footage of
the duck feeding, which has never been made public. Surely if the child had been
hospitalized, the parent would have mentioned it?"
He quotes Dr. Stephen Davies of Salisbury Hospital, who wrote to the New York Times on March
14 stating clearly that no children had been hospitalized, and that every person who came to
the hospital fearing they had been contaminated had no symptoms and tests turned out negative.
Murray states:
"We also know that the duck feeding was the time that Boshirov and Petrov [the alleged
Russian culprits] were physically closest to the Skripals. But this is the first time there
has ever been any mention of any harm to the ducks. Dead ducks would have been noticed by the
public."
It appears that the British Empire is the dead duck in this myth.
A former US Army Colonel has blasted Department of Defense's (DOD) latest report on China's
military capabilities as a
"budget ploy"
.
"You're looking at a situation where
the only thing [the DOD] can ask for, in terms of fixing any of this, is
money -- more
and more money
" retired Colonel Lawrence "Larry" Wilkerson said of the
DoD's annual report prepared for Congress
entitled, "Military and Security Developments
Involving the People's Republic of China 2019".
Wilkerson, who served as former chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell, described
in an interview with
The Real News
that hyping the China threat taps into a
well-trodden American pastime of fear-mongering in order
to squeeze more precious taxpayer
dollars towards inflated budgets
.
The Pentagon report focused heavily on President Xi's plans for rapid modernization of the
People's Liberation Army (PLA), especially China's ambitious plans for the region's
"largest navy"
--
which has lately included ongoing construction of the country's
third aircraft carrier (the first full-sized one), with plans for seven total by 2025.
Watch the interview with Army Col. (ret.) Larry Wilkerson below.
Col. Wilkerson
dismissed
the
idea that China's aircraft carrier or latest much reported naval modernization initiatives were
real causes for concern:
We've got a dozen [aircraft carriers]. They've got one at sea, one about to come out, and
another one perhaps, and ours are so far ahead of theirs that
it's 10, 15, 20 years
before they even achieve the kind of capacity we have
.
He explained that "aircraft carriers are extraordinarily vulnerable and we're going to find that
out when one of them with 5,000 hands and $14bn worth of taxpayer money is sunk in less than 30
minutes, whenever we get engaged in something real."
Now a military analyst who teaches at The College of William & Mary in Virginia,
Wilkerson addressed the familiar Pentagon cycle of threat inflation in the interview:
The [US] army could not expand;
it could not take on a real enemy today without
massive conscription and full mobilization
. And I wonder if the nation could even stand
that today. And so, you're looking at a situation where the only thing [the DOD] can ask for, in
terms of fixing any of this, is money -- more and more money.
However, he did warn that the heightened rhetoric and blustering amidst a trade war could serve
to paint both sides into a corner, resulting in a scenario of blindly bumbling toward war, as
other analysts have described
of the so-called "Thucydides Trap".
Wilkerson said an increasingly aggressive US posture toward Beijing could create a
"self-fulfilling prophecy,"
wherein each minor escalation based on inflating threats
begins
"demarcating the highway to war with China,"
- according to the interview.
"... Those who have been following the Trump administration drama since the beginning might remember that, after initially welcoming Kelly as a "steady hand" and "adult in the room" who would bring order to a chaotic West Wing, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump swiftly turned on the former general, and their months-long power struggle become fodder for endless anonymously sourced reports and reprisals. ..."
"... That feud apparently left a bad taste in Kelly's mouth that just won't go away. Which is probably why, five months after being 'liberated' from the West Wing, Kelly felt comfortable publicly expressing his distaste for the two - in his own reserved way, not mentioning the couple by name - Trump Administration senior advisors during an interview with David Rubenstein on Bloomberg TV . ..."
"... And in what sounded suspiciously like ingratitude toward his host, Kelly said he had removed a few "very disruptive" people from the administration after arriving in the West Wing, and was struck by the "intense personal ambition" of some of his staffers. ..."
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/08/2019 - 20:00 0 SHARES TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrint John Kelly has had a few months to reflect on his
tumultuous tenure as White House Chief of Staff. And though he's apparently forgiven the
president for the angry tweets and public rebukes, which helped fuel persistent rumors about
his impending firing, the former general still holds a grudge against his former West Wing
antagonist: Javanka. Those who have been following the Trump administration drama since the
beginning might remember that, after initially welcoming Kelly as a "steady hand" and "adult in
the room" who would bring order to a chaotic West Wing, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump swiftly
turned on the former general, and their months-long power struggle become fodder for endless
anonymously sourced reports and reprisals.
That feud apparently left a bad taste in Kelly's mouth that just won't go away. Which is
probably why, five months after being 'liberated' from the West Wing, Kelly felt comfortable
publicly expressing his distaste for the two - in his own reserved way, not mentioning the
couple by name - Trump Administration senior advisors during an interview with
David Rubenstein on Bloomberg TV .
Kelly told Rubenstein that members of the Trump family serving in the administration needed
to be "dealt with" - even if Kelly wasn't the one to do it.
"They were an influence that has to be dealt with," Kelly said Tuesday during an interview
on Bloomberg Television's "The David Rubenstein Show," when asked whether it was complicated
to have the president's family working at the White House. "By no means do I mean Mrs. Trump
- the first lady's a wonderful person."
The Marine general sat for the interview in Las Vegas, where he was attending Anthony
Scaramucci's SALT conference (ironic because one of the first things Kelly did after arriving
in the West Wing was fire Scaramucci over an unhinged rant published in the New Yorker where
Scaramucci accused Steve Bannon of trying to "suck his own c*ck").
And in what sounded
suspiciously like ingratitude toward his host, Kelly said he had removed a few "very
disruptive" people from the administration after arriving in the West Wing, and was struck by
the "intense personal ambition" of some of his staffers.
I would have more respect for Kelly, if he bayoneted both Bolton and Pompeo on his way out
the door. That would have been the "Marine" thing to do, and would have been a greater
service to the country and the world.
Each year, Congress approves hundreds of billions of
dollars for the US defense budget... but the real number exceeds $1 trillion.
In its latest budget request,
the Trump administration is asking for a near-record
$750
billion
for the Pentagon and related defense activities -- an astonishing figure by any measure.
If passed by Congress, it will be one of the largest military budgets in American history,
topping
peak
levels reached during the Korean and Vietnam wars. And keep one thing in mind: That $750 billion
represents only part of the actual annual cost of our national security state.
There are at least 10 separate pots of money dedicated to fighting wars, preparing for
yet more wars, and dealing with the consequences of wars already fought.
So the next time
a
president
,
a
general
,
a
secretary
of defense
, or a hawkish
member
of Congress
insists that the US military is woefully underfunded, think twice. A careful look
at US defense expenditures offers a healthy corrective to such wildly inaccurate claims.
Now,
let's take a brief dollar-by-dollar tour of the US national security state of 2019,
tallying the sums as we go, and see just where we finally land (or perhaps the word should
be "soar"), financially speaking.
The Pentagon's base budget:
The Pentagon's regular, or base, budget is slated to be
$544.5 billion in fiscal year 2020 -- a healthy sum but only a modest down payment on total military
spending.
As you might imagine, that base budget provides basic operating funds for the Department of
Defense, much of which will be squandered on preparations for ongoing wars never authorized by
Congress, overpriced weapons systems that aren't actually needed, or outright waste, an expansive
category that includes everything from cost overruns to unnecessary bureaucracy. That $544.5
billion is the amount publicly reported by the Pentagon for its essential expenses and includes
$9.6 billion in mandatory spending that goes toward items like military retirement.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4855
Among those basic expenses, let's start with waste, a category even the biggest boosters
of Pentagon spending can't defend.
The Pentagon's own Defense Business Board found that
cutting unnecessary overhead, including a bloated bureaucracy and a startlingly large shadow
workforce of private contractors, would
save
$125
billion over five years. Perhaps you won't be surprised to learn that the board's proposal has done
little to quiet calls for more money. Instead, from the
highest
reaches
of the Pentagon (and the
president
himself)
came a
proposal
to
create a Space Force, a sixth military service that's all but guaranteed to further bloat its
bureaucracy and
duplicate
work
being done by the other services. Even Pentagon planners estimate that the future Space Force will
cost $13 billion over the next five years (and that's undoubtedly a low-ball figure).
In addition, the Defense Department employs an army of private contractors --
more
than 600,000
of them -- many doing jobs that could be done far more cheaply by civilian government
employees.
Cutting the private contractor work force by 15 percent to a
mere
half-million
people would promptly save more than
$20
billion per year
. And don't forget the
cost
overruns
on major weapons programs like the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent -- the Pentagon's
unwieldy name for the Air Force's new intercontinental ballistic missile -- and routine overpayments
for even minor spare parts (like
$8,000
for
a helicopter gear worth less than $500 -- a markup of 1,500 percent).
Then there are the overpriced weapons systems the military can't even afford to operate, like a
$13
billion
aircraft carrier, 200 nuclear bombers at $564 million a pop, and the F-35 combat
aircraft, the most expensive weapons system in history, at a price tag of at least
$1.4
trillion
over the lifetime of the program. The Project on Government Oversight has
found
-- and
the Government Accountability Office recently
substantiated
-- that,
despite years of work and staggering costs, the F-35 may never perform as advertised.
And don't forget the Pentagon's recent
push
for
long-range strike weapons and new reconnaissance systems designed for future wars with a
nuclear-armed Russia or China, the kind of conflicts that could easily escalate into World War III,
in which such weaponry would be beside the point. Imagine if any of that money were devoted to
figuring out how to prevent such conflicts rather than hatching yet more schemes for how to fight
them.
BASE BUDGET TOTAL: $554.1 BILLION
The war budget:
As if its regular budget weren't enough, the Pentagon also maintains
its very own slush fund, formally known as the Overseas Contingency Operations account, or OCO. In
theory, the fund is meant to pay for the War on Terrorism -- that is, the US wars in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and elsewhere across the Middle East and Africa. In practice, it does that
and so much more.
After a fight over shutting down the government led to the formation of a bipartisan commission
on deficit reduction -- known as Simpson-Bowles after its co-chairs, former Clinton chief of staff
Erskine Bowles and former Republican senator Alan Simpson -- Congress passed the
Budget
Control Act
of 2011. It put caps on both military and domestic spending that were supposed to
save a total of
$2 trillion
over
10 years. Half that figure was to come from the Pentagon, as well as from nuclear-weapons spending
at the Department of Energy. As it happened, though, there was a huge loophole: The war budget was
exempt from the caps. The Pentagon promptly began to put
tens
of billions
of dollars into it for pet projects that had nothing whatsoever to do with current
wars (and the process has not stopped). The level of abuse of this fund remained largely secret for
years, with the Pentagon
admitting
only
in 2016 that just half the money in the OCO went to actual wars, prompting critics and numerous
members of Congress -- including then-Representative Mick Mulvaney, now President Donald Trump's
latest chief of staff -- to
dub
it
a "slush fund."
This year's budget proposal supersizes the slush in that fund to a figure that would likely be
considered absurd if it weren't part of the Pentagon budget. Of the nearly $174 billion proposed
for the war budget and "emergency" funding, only a little more than
$25
billion
is meant to directly pay for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The rest
will be set aside for what's termed enduring activities that would continue even if those wars
ended or for routine Pentagon activities that couldn't be funded within the constraints of the
budget caps. The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives is expected to work to alter this
arrangement. Even if the House leadership has its way, however, most of its reductions in the war
budget would be
offset
by
lifting caps on the regular Pentagon budget by corresponding amounts. (It's worth noting that
Trump's budget calls for someday eliminating the slush fund.)
The 2020 OCO also includes
$9.2
billion
in "emergency" spending for building Trump's beloved wall on the US-Mexico border,
among other things. Talk about a slush fund! There is no emergency, of course. The executive branch
is just seizing taxpayer dollars that Congress refused to provide. Even supporters of the
president's wall should be troubled by this money grab. As 36 former Republican members of
Congress
recently
argued
, "What powers are ceded to a president whose policies you support may also be used by
presidents whose policies you abhor." Of all of Trump's "security"-related proposals, this is
undoubtedly the most likely to be eliminated or at least scaled back, given the congressional
Democrats against it.
WAR BUDGET TOTAL: $173.8 BILLION
Running tally: $727.9 billion
The Department of Energy/nuclear budget:
It may surprise you to know that work on the
deadliest weapons in the US arsenal, nuclear warheads, is
housed
in
the Department of Energy, not the Pentagon. The DOE's
National
Nuclear Security Administration
runs a nationwide research, development, and production network
for nuclear warheads and naval nuclear reactors that
stretches
from
Livermore, California, to Albuquerque and Los Alamos, New Mexico, to Kansas City, Missouri, to Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, to Savannah River, South Carolina. Its laboratories also have a
long
history
of program mismanagement, with some projects coming in at nearly eight times their
initial estimates.
NUCLEAR BUDGET TOTAL: $24.8 BILLION
Running tally: $752.7 billion
Defense-related activities:
This category covers the $9 billion that annually goes to
agencies other than the Pentagon -- the bulk of it to the FBI for homeland-security-related
activities.
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES TOTAL: $9 BILLION
Running tally: $761.7 billion
The five categories above make up the budget of what's officially known as national defense.
Under the Budget Control Act, this spending should have been capped at $630 billion. The $761.7
billion proposed for the 2020 budget is, however, only the beginning of the story.
The Veterans Affairs budget:
The wars of this century have resulted in a new generation
of veterans. In all, over
2.7
million
US military personnel have cycled through the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan since
2001. Many of them remain in need of substantial support to deal with the physical and mental
wounds of war. As a result, the budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs has gone through the
roof, more than
tripling
in this century to
a proposed
$216
billion
. And this massive figure may not even be enough to provide the necessary services.
\More than
6,900
US military
personnel have died in Washington's post-9/11 wars, with more than
30,000
wounded
in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. These casualties are, however, just the tip of the iceberg.
Hundreds
of thousands
of returning troops suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, illnesses created
by exposure to toxic burn pits, or traumatic brain injuries. The US government is committed to
providing care for these veterans for the rest of their lives. An analysis by the Costs of War
Project at Brown University determined that obligations to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan
wars will total
more
than $1 trillion
in the years to come. This cost of war is rarely considered when leaders in
Washington decide to send US troops into combat.
VETERANS AFFAIRS TOTAL: $216 BILLION
Running tally: $977.7 billion
The Homeland Security budget:
The Department of Homeland Security is a mega-agency
created after the 9/11 attacks. At the time, it swallowed
22
existing
government organizations, creating a massive department that currently has nearly a
quarter
of a million
employees.
Agencies
that
are now part of the DHS include the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Customs
and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Citizenship and Immigration Services,
the Secret Service, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office, and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
While some of the DHS's activities -- such as airport security and
defense
against
the smuggling of a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb into our midst -- have a clear security rationale,
many others do not. ICE -- America's deportation force -- has done far more to
cause
suffering
among innocent people than to thwart criminals or terrorists. Other questionable DHS
activities include grants to local law enforcement agencies to help them buy
military-grade
equipment.
HOMELAND SECURITY TOTAL: $69.2 BILLION
Running tally: $1.0469 trillion
The international-affairs budget:
This includes the budgets of the State Department and
the US Agency for International Development. Diplomacy is one of the most effective ways to make
the United States and the world more secure, but it has been under assault in the Trump years. The
Fiscal Year 2020 budget calls for a
one-third
cut
in international affairs spending, leaving it at about one-fifteenth of the amount allocated for
the Pentagon and related agencies grouped under the category of national defense. And that doesn't
even account for the fact that more than
10
percent
of the international affairs budget supports military aid efforts, most notably the
$5.4
billion
Foreign Military Financing program. The bulk of FMF goes to Israel and Egypt, but in
all over a dozen countries receive funding under it, including Jordan, Lebanon, Djibouti, Tunisia,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS TOTAL: $51 BILLION
Running tally: $1.0979 trillion
The intelligence budget:
The United States has
17
intelligence
agencies. In addition to the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the FBI, mentioned above,
they are the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State
Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the Drug Enforcement Agency's Office of National
Security Intelligence, the Treasury Department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the
Department of Energy's Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, the National Reconnaissance
Office, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the Army's Intelligence and Security Command,
the Office of Naval Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence, Coast Guard Intelligence, and Air
Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. And then there's that 17th one, the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence, set up to coordinate the activities of the other 16.
We know remarkably little about the nature of the nation's intelligence spending, other than its
supposed total, released in a report every year. By now, it's
more
than $80 billion
. The bulk of this funding, including for the CIA and NSA, is believed to be
hidden under obscure line items in the Pentagon budget. Since intelligence spending is not a
separate funding stream, it's not counted in our tally below (though, for all we know, some of it
should be).
INTELLIGENCE BUDGET TOTAL: $80 BILLION
Running tally: $1.0979 trillion
Defense share of interest on the national debt:
The interest on the national debt is
well on its way to becoming one of the most expensive items in the federal budget. Within a decade,
it is projected to exceed the Pentagon's regular budget in size. For now, of the more than $500
billion in interest taxpayers fork over to service the government's debt each year, about
$156
billion
can be attributed to Pentagon spending.
DEFENSE SHARE OF NATIONAL DEBT TOTAL: $156.3 BILLION
Final tally: $1.2542 trillion
So our final annual tally for war, preparations for war, and the impact of war comes to more
than $1.25 trillion, more than double the Pentagon's base budget. If the average taxpayer were
aware that this amount was being spent in the name of national defense -- with much of it wasted,
misguided, or simply counterproductive -- it might be far harder for the national security state to
consume ever-growing sums with minimal public pushback. For now, however, the gravy train is
running full speed ahead, and its main
beneficiaries
-- Lockheed
Martin,
Boeing
,
Northrop Grumman, and their cohort -- are laughing all the way to the bank.
Chris Hedges, host of "On Contact," joins Rick Sanchez to discuss the role of the Democratic establishment in the "Russiagate"
media frenzy. He argues that it was an unsustainable narrative given the actions of the White House but that the Democratic elite
are unable to face their own role in the economic and social crises for which they are in large part to blame. They also discuss
NATO's expansionary tendencies and how profitable it is for US defense contractors.
Years ago I kept hearing from the newsmedia that Russia was the "enemy".
Frontline had a show about "Putin's Brain". Even Free
Speech TV shows like Bill Press and "The Nation" authors like Eric Alterman push the Hillary style warmongering and do nothing
to expose the outright lies out there.
These are supposed to be thought outside of the corporate mainstream newsmedia. The emphasis
only on Trump and Fox News is totally hypocritical.
The US and Great Britain are trying to economically cripple Syria via cutoff of oil
supplies as "The Syrian government is scrambling to deal with its worst fuel crisis since
the war began in 2011, aggravated by U.S. sanctions targeting oil shipments to
Damascus." https://www.apnews.com/a99a22ad2598474ca39a7d8cde560c31
"Under the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and Great Britain, no Iranian oil tankers are
allowed to transit the Suez Canal if they are destined for a Syrian port, a Syrian military
source told Al-Masdar News this morning."
Thus the Egyptian government is apparently technically lying about their role in the
sanction when they state "Egypt's government denied Wednesday banning the passage of oil
tankers to Syria through the Suez Canal. Navigation in the canal is going according to
international conventions and treaties that guarantee the right of safe navigation to all
tankers without discrimination."
https://syrianobserver.com/EN/news/49720/cairo-denies-syrian-accusations-on-banning-iranian-oil-tanker-passage.html
Consequently, Iran is shipping Syria oil via tanker trucks.
"1200 Iranian tankers loaded with oil products reached Syria through Iraq in the past
week," Al- Iraqia reports, adding, "The number of Iranian oil tankers are expected to reach
1500 per week, and after providing current Syrian needs, they will be fixed at 500 tankers
per week."
Those that oppose US and Israeli world domination has to buy time and promote economic
collapse within the Empire. Eventually the Sparta like militarism will bankrupt both
countries. The wild card is Venezuela - if they can get their hands on this oil they, and
their allies, can continue to spread chaos for a couple more decades. As it now stands the US
proven oil reserves are between 36-39 billion barrels and the US is consuming that oil at a
rate of about 4.3 billion barrels/year.
The US is also putting pressure on Turkey in hopes of deposing the current government that
supports the GNA in Libya and opposes the gulf states and Saudi Arabia. Turkey needs the
Iranian heavy crude for its Tupras refinery. Substituting heavy crude from Russia is an issue
as Russia has already contracted with Italy and Greece to supply heavy crude to their
refineries. https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/04/turkey-iran-usa-ankara-seeks-alternative-sources-iranian-oil.html
B wrote "The Syrian oilfields, which could produce enough to keep the country running, are under
control of the U.S. proxy forces. The U.S. prohibited to sell that oil to the Syrian
government."
It is about the money. It is another spinning plate trying to be war just like Iran,
Venezuela, etc. And when the money music stops (which is only when enough nations stop buying
US Treasuries) the elite are going to say that the poor should pay for those attempts at
war.
I like the comment by frances above about the drunk on the canal boat and China/Russia/et
al are trying to keep us alive, hoping the drunk passes out.....and we all get to watch and
learn how not to run a world where the drunk owns the punch bowl.
"... ...The Saudi-led OPEC+ production cut strategy is still in place, but it is partly successful due to the negative repercussions of the sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. The high level of compliance with the agreement (128%) is based on the loss of these particular volumes. At the same time, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Russia, are sticking to their roles, cutting as needed. Optimism about Iraq is based on uncertain assumptions, while Libya's overall situation is highly volatile. ..."
The removal of U.S. waivers for leading oil importers of Iranian oil and gas is putting the
Tehran regime under severe pressure. While Trump's target of reducing Iranian production to
zero is unrealistic, the impact of the sanctions is undeniable.
...The Saudi-led OPEC+ production cut strategy is still in place, but it is partly
successful due to the negative repercussions of the sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. The high
level of compliance with the agreement (128%) is based on the loss of these particular volumes.
At the same time, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Russia, are sticking to their roles, cutting as needed.
Optimism about Iraq is based on uncertain assumptions, while Libya's overall situation is
highly volatile.
...In the coming weeks, as analysts focus on production figures, storage volumes and demand,
OPEC will be focusing on defusing pressure to increase production, while at the same time the
Saudi-led faction will likely confront the Tehran-Venezuela (and possibly Iraqi) axis. Iran has
openly threatened to undermine OPEC's stability if no support can be gathered before the June
meeting. In several statements to the press, Iran's oil Minister has warned that OPEC is in
danger of collapse. Tehran threatens at present to take all necessary measures to block oil and
gas flows from OPEC members that are supporting the U.S. sanctions regime. At the same time,
Tehran has warned to take measures against countries trying to fill in the supply gap left by
Iran. Zanganeh reiterated the latter during a meeting with OPEC secretary general Barkindo in
Tehran. Barkindo reacted by saying that OPEC will do its utmost to depoliticize oil and gas
policies of the organization. OPEC's SG statements however look very bleak in light of the
growing heat in the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Much of the shambolic belligerence and pointless aggression of Not-A-Neocon Trump can be
seen as cutting down world oil production in service of higher prices for SA's royals and, a
very distant second, US shale producers. Venezuela isn't an existential threat to the US, not
like Goldman Sachs, but embargoes on oil would keep the price up. Iran's not an existential
threat, but oil embargoes... Syria's not an existential threat but putting the oil on the
black market...
"... First, the new turn in the administration's Iran policy appears to mark a decisive defeat for President Donald Trump in his long-running battle with his foreign policy minders. It is now very unlikely Trump will achieve any of his policy objectives, a number of which represent useful alternatives to the stunningly shambolic strategies advanced by Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and other zealots in the administration. ..."
"... Second, this administration's foreign policy has steadily assumed an irrational character that may be unprecedented in U.S. history. This is perilous. The administration's near-paranoiac hostility toward Pyongyang and Moscow are cases in point. So is its evident indifference to alienating longstanding allies across the Atlantic and in Asia. As of this week, however, Pompeo's "down to zero" policy makes Iran the most immediate danger. ..."
"... The question is why this administration's foreign policies are so amateurish and discombobulated. Corollary question: Why is the president surrounded by policy advisers so thoroughly at odds with those of his objectives that are worthwhile? ..."
"... Trump may not have chosen his foreign policy team so much as its members have been imposed upon him. ..."
"... He was self-evidently behind the decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and the announcement in March that Washington recognizes Israeli jurisdiction over the Golan Heights. ..."
"... It is unlikely anything is all done in connection with the embassy move and the Golan Heights decision. Both run diametrically counter to international law and both have significantly damaged U.S. credibility in the Middle East. Trump, in short, makes his own miscalculations, and they are as grave as any made by the Pompeo–Bolton axis. There are few wise heads in this administration. ..."
"... You guys fail to see that the notion that Trump and Co genuinely seek to "improve ties" with Russia is a key element of the larger "Russiagate" psyop, a truly laughable idea which is disproved not only by the longer term historical record, but also by the veritable mountain of evidence that has accrued since Trump came into office demonstrating that this administration has only EXACERBATED the empire's long running and profoundly anti-Russian foreign policy agenda. ..."
"... Irrational foreign policy? I wish the United States would just drop the charade and declare itself a global empire. What we see is the foreign policy of empire. Is this rational or isn't it? ..."
"... Current US foreign policy is aligned to impose maximum pressure on countries like Venezuela and Iran in order to pressure those governments and hopefully topple them with sanctions. The entire World is hungry for oil and the demand for oil is expanding at an exponential rate which in turn guides US foreign policy. ..."
Patrick Lawrence gauges the backfiring potential of Pompeo's withdrawal on Thursday of U.S.
sanction waivers from eight major importers.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's announcement last
week that no importer of Iranian oil will henceforth be exempt from U.S. sanctions is as risky
as it is misguided. The
withdrawal of waivers as of this Thursday effectively gives eight importers dependent on
Iranian crude -- India, Japan, South Korea, China, Turkey, Taiwan, Italy, and Greece -- 10
days' notice to adjust their petroleum purchases.
This is now a full-court press: The intent is
to cut off Iran's access to any oil market anywhere as part of the administration's "maximum
pressure" campaign against Tehran. "We are going to zero,"
Pompeo said as he disclosed the new policy.
Nobody is going to zero. The administration's move will further damage the Iranian economy,
certainly, but few outside the administration think it is possible to isolate Iran as
comprehensively as Pompeo seems to expect.
Turkey immediately rejected "unilateral sanctions and impositions on how to conduct
relations with neighbors," as Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavusoglu put it in a Twitter
message.
China could do the same, if less bluntly.
Other oil importers are likely to consider
barter deals, local-currency transactions, and similar "workarounds." In the immediate
neighborhood, Iraq is so far
ignoring U.S. demands that it cease purchasing natural gas and electricity from
Iran.
Insights on Overreach
There are a couple of insights to be gleaned from this unusually aggressive case of policy
overreach.
First, the new turn in the administration's Iran policy appears to mark a decisive defeat
for President Donald Trump in his long-running battle with his foreign policy minders. It is
now very unlikely Trump will achieve any of his policy objectives, a number of which represent
useful alternatives to the stunningly shambolic strategies advanced by Pompeo, National
Security Advisor John Bolton, and other zealots in the administration.
Weakened by relentless "Russia-gate" investigations, for instance, the president has little
chance now of improving ties with Moscow or negotiating with adversaries such as Iran and North
Korea, as he has long advocated.
In a Face the Nationinterview Sunday, Iranian
Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Tehran would be open to bilateral talks under the
right conditions. It was the second time in a week that Zarif made this point. But those around
Trump, not least Bolton and Pompeo, are sure to block any such prospect -- or sabotage talks if
they do take place, as they did
Trump's
second summit with Kim Jong-un, North Korea's leader, in late February.
Second, this administration's foreign policy has steadily assumed an irrational character
that may be unprecedented in U.S. history. This is perilous. The administration's
near-paranoiac hostility toward Pyongyang and Moscow are cases in point. So is its evident
indifference to alienating longstanding allies across the Atlantic and in Asia. As of this
week, however, Pompeo's "down to zero" policy makes Iran the most immediate danger.
Persian Gulf Chokepoint
Iranian officials, including Zarif, now
threaten to close the
Strait of Hormuz, chokepoint of the Persian Gulf, if Iranian tankers are prevented from passing
through it. This is an indirect warning that the Iranian military could confront the U.S. Fifth
Fleet, which operates in the Gulf and adjacent waters.
A sharp spike in oil prices is another danger with which the administration now lands
itself. Taken together, U.S. sanctions against Venezuela and Iran are intended to take roughly
2 million barrels of oil a day out of the market.
Saudi Arabia has pledged to make up the lost supply, but
many analysts question its ability to sustain an increase in output given the advancing
depletion of its long-productive Ghawar field. Spare capacity among producers is already
wafer-thin. Do we need to risk another oil crisis, given the flagging global
economy?
Trump's foreign policy minders also risk alienating allies -- South Korea, Japan, India, the
Europeans -- whose cooperation the U.S. needs on numerous other policy questions. In the case
of China, the administration puts progress on a
nearly
complete trade deal and Beijing's leverage with North Korea in jeopardy.
There are other cases demonstrating the Trump administration's apparently thorough
indifference to collateral damage and the animosity of allies. Since the U.S. abandoned the
Paris climate
pact and the 2015 accord governing Iran's nuclear program, the Europeans have hardly
contained their anger; they are openly furious now about the tightened sanctions against Iran.
The South Koreans, frustrated with Washington's intransigent stance toward Pyongyang, now search
for ways to engage the North despite many layers of UN and U.S–imposed sanctions.
The question is why this administration's foreign policies are so amateurish and
discombobulated. Corollary question: Why is the president surrounded by policy advisers so
thoroughly at odds with those of his objectives that are worthwhile?
Trump arrived in Washington an outsider: This is where answers to these questions begin.
This limited the New York dealmaker to a shallow pool from which to build his administration.
His never-ending Russia-gate problem further handicaps him. This administration is among the
most opaque in recent history, so certainties as to its internal workings are hard to come by.
But Trump may not have chosen his foreign policy team so much as its members have been imposed
upon him.
However his advisers arrived in the administration, they are a toxic combination of
neoconservatives, many
drawn from the Heritage Foundation , and
evangelical
Christians . Bolton is emblematic of the former, Pompeo of the latter. This is the current
complexion of American foreign policy.
Zealots and Crusaders
Both camps are populated with zealots and crusaders; both cultivate irrational world views
rooted in extremist ideology and sentiment. Bolton's obsession is the restoration of
unchallenged U.S. supremacy. Pompeo is said to view adversaries such as North Korea and Iran as
George
W. Bush did : The U.S. is in an "end times" war with Gog and Magog, biblical manifestations
of the evil abroad in the world.
To be clear, there is more wrong than right in the president's foreign policy thinking. He
was self-evidently behind the decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and the
announcement in March that Washington recognizes Israeli jurisdiction over the Golan
Heights.
"This is very important strategically for victory, heights, because you're up high, very
important,"
Trump said over the weekend. "Fifty-two years ago this started [when Israel captured Golan
from Syria in the 1967 war] and I did it quickly. Done. It's all done."
It is unlikely anything is all done in connection with the embassy move and the Golan
Heights decision. Both run diametrically counter to international law and both have
significantly damaged U.S. credibility in the Middle East. Trump, in short, makes his own
miscalculations, and they are as grave as any made by the Pompeo–Bolton axis. There are
few wise heads in this administration.
At the same time, Trump's desire to negotiate with adversaries -- Russia, Iran, North Korea
-- is entirely defensible. But the "down to zero" Iran policy to take effect this week can be
read as a signal of the president's failure to counter the foreign policy Manicheans who
surround him.
There may be skirmishes to come, but the battle is over. We must now watch as extremist
ideologues accelerate America's already evident decline as a global power -- along with its
increasing isolation.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is
"Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist. His web
site is www.patricklawrence.us. Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist .
Brian James , May 2, 2019 at 12:23
Apr 30, 2019 A New Mega Cartel Is Emerging In Oil Markets
China and India -- two of the world's largest oil importers and the biggest demand growth centers globally -- are close
to setting up an oil buyers' club to have a say in the pricing and sourcing of crude oil amid OPEC's cuts and U.S. sanctions
on Iran and Venezuela, Indian outlet livemint reports, citing three officials with knowledge of the talks.
Thanks for that link, I'm sure I'll follow this. I feel the same apprehension the
narrator's inflection seemed to convey in closing "We'll have to see where this leads." That
apprehension is that this will push the war-mongers to accelerate the timetable for an attack
on Iran.
Stuart Davies , May 1, 2019 at 09:00
Sorry to see that Consortium News still maintains their commitment to the ludicrous
premise that Trump is "pro Russian" at heart:
" the new turn in the administration's Iran policy appears to mark a decisive defeat for
President Donald Trump in his long-running battle with his foreign policy minders .Weakened
by relentless "Russia-gate" investigations, for instance, the president has little chance now
of improving ties with Moscow or negotiating with adversaries such as Iran and North Korea,
as he has long advocated."
Utter nonsense. You guys fail to see that the notion that Trump and Co genuinely seek to
"improve ties" with Russia is a key element of the larger "Russiagate" psyop, a truly
laughable idea which is disproved not only by the longer term historical record, but also by
the veritable mountain of evidence that has accrued since Trump came into office
demonstrating that this administration has only EXACERBATED the empire's long running and
profoundly anti-Russian foreign policy agenda.
Irrational foreign policy? I wish the United States would just drop the charade and declare itself a global
empire. What we see is the foreign policy of empire. Is this rational or isn't it?
Asymmetric warfare with Iran has already begun. Internet based "worms" and economic
sanctions have, so far, been successfully coordinated in concert with our rather reluctant
Western Occident allies. These attacks have been more or less been kept at bay. The
alternative, direct military intervention would prove to be a new "holocaust" and would
target roughly seventy separate nuclear research sites and dozens of scattered air force
bases. The weapons of choice would be DU-38 munitions and huge bombs. DU has a proven record
against fortified concrete and armored structures. It has an infamous reputation for leaving
permanent, radioactive "ground shine" wherever used. Lest we all (never) forget the
absolutely horribly deformed children born in southern Iraq who suffered prenatal exposure to
radiation poisoning! In war, it's always the most vulnerable and innocent to suffer the most
for example; Yemeni civilians.
The militant factions of our Pentagon and Congress (found within both sides of the
political aisle) will continue to pursue the long range plan I outlined some time ago in a
CONSORTIUMNEWS commentary. To recap it, this tug-of-war is not so much about trading in the
USD as it is about a global oil glut. I believe it was Bandar bin Sultan who commented that,
and I'm paraphrasing him here; there's plenty of relatively easy oil everywhere, the idea to
grasp is, what countries will be permitted to extract and sell it? Thus, the global and
persistent NeoCon plan seems to be to cap or severely restrict, Libyan, Iranian and Iraqi oil
reserves, meanwhile making backroom deals that permit a few SCO, (reluctantly) Russian,
Saudi, African and US/Canadian reserves to flourish on the open market. Venezuelan oil will
act as the back up resource should, a regional nuclear war in the middle east result in
irreversible damage to "friendly" refineries and ready access to them. Again, ground shine
due to a deployment of neutron A-weaponry (N-Bombs)..most likely from Israel. Ah!, sweet
treachery in times of war eh? Need I remind our CONSORTIUMNEWS readership of Hitlers last
minute betrayal of Stalin? The Israelis want a "piece of the oil action" too!
So sorry to see the country ripped apart. Hatful , boasting reprobates behind the steering
wheel
vinnieoh , April 30, 2019 at 10:05
Thank you Mr. Lawrence for, if nothing else, hypothesizing or postulating why the Trump
administration foreign policy is as you say, so amateurish and discombobulated. But I do
agree with Drew Hunkins below that for whatever reasons(*), Trump himself has always vilified
and mocked Iran. He is nothing if not a scurrilous opportunist, and threatening Iran just
fits his personality as a bully. Very few if any of the other kids on the playground have the
guts or integrity to come to Iran's defense.
It lightened my spirit just a little bit when you said that the Trump administration "is
one of the most opaque in recent history." Why, just yesterday I heard our glorious leader
say that his administration is the most transparent ever in American history. I wish that I
should live long enough to see the use of such superlatives disappear from our discourse.
I somehow missed Mr. Zarif's several statements concerning a willingness to engage in
bilateral talks. That is almost flabbergasting. Which Iranians could possibly believe there
is an honest negotiator now anywhere close to the levers of power in DC? But Zarif continues
to hold to and operate in the terms of classic diplomacy: do not close any doors forever,
and; do not relinquish the high ground of sensibleness and integrity to your opponent. But,
surely there aren't ANY Iranians who believe that the US would make any concessions,
de-escalate any of our threats, or place a muzzle on our two rabid dog allies.
(*) It is my firm belief that the overwhelming motivation for much of what Trump does goes
back directly to the annual DC correspondents dinner where Obama publicly and rightfully
humiliated and mocked that fat-assed moron. And well he should have. It didn't miss my notice
that Trump once again skipped that event. He will never attend – it was the absolute
lowest point of his public life (so far), everybody laughing at him and that horrible skinny
n####r twisting the rhetorical knife relentlessly. I'm reminded of a short story of Harlan
Ellison's called "Stardust." I'll leave it to the curious to follow that lead. Narcissism as
a genetic "addiction."
vinnieoh , April 30, 2019 at 10:17
Right after the 2016 election I posted something to the effect that perhaps we should ask
native Americans if they think it is unusual that an unprincipled real estate speculator is
now the captain of the state.
Zhu , April 30, 2019 at 01:22
Thanks for confirming that Pompeo is a Dispensationalist, eager for the End of the
World.
Roberto , April 30, 2019 at 08:01
The neocons, Bolton and Pompeo, are not going to put an end to the world, because the
Greek Islands need nothing from the United States. They only need a little gasoline for their
cars and motor scooters. However, the neocons are going to put an end to the petrodollar,
because no one on earth can trust the "out of control government" of the United States, any
longer.
CitizenOne , April 30, 2019 at 01:06
During the Iraq war there were many calls from conservatives to not stop at the border
with Iran. They supported a plan to roll US tanks and other offensive forces until they
reached Tehran and obliterated it defeating the rogue nation and securing Iranian oil
fields.
The scenario proposed today to strangle resource rich nations by war hawks is similar to
the post war imaginings posed by Patton to keep on going until the US armed forces reached
Moscow. It is similar to the plans of MacArthur to lay down a nuclear radiation barrier along
North Korea's northern border with China to create a lethal ionizing radioactive zone or no
mans land to prevent China from sending Chinese troops across the border.
Each one of these proposed but never implemented war strategies in hind sight would have
probably netted the US great gains at minimal risk.
On one hand, the current administrations strategy and tactics to wage economic war against
US "enemies" which are all rich with oil reserves seems like the right aggressive maneuvers
to make easy wins for the USA. On the other hand the World has changed since those times.
Current US foreign policy is aligned to impose maximum pressure on countries like
Venezuela and Iran in order to pressure those governments and hopefully topple them with
sanctions. The entire World is hungry for oil and the demand for oil is expanding at an
exponential rate which in turn guides US foreign policy.
There is thousands of years of history of nations including the US to takeover the riches
of nations and profit from the resources.
Pentagon serves Wall Street and is controlled by CIA which is actually can be viewed as a
Wall Street arm as well.
Notable quotes:
"... This time, though, the general got to talking about Russia. So I perked up. He made it crystal clear that he saw Moscow as an adversary to be contained, checked, and possibly defeated. There was no nuance, no self-reflection, not even a basic understanding of the general complexity of geopolitics in the 21st century. ..."
"... General It-Doesn't-Matter-His-Name thundered that we need not worry, however, because his tanks and troops could "mop the floor" with the Russians, in a battle that "wouldn't even be close." It was oh-so-typical, another U.S. Army general -- who clearly longs for the Cold War fumes that defined his early career -- overestimating the Russian menace and underestimating Russian military capability . ..."
"... The problem with the vast majority of generals, however, is that they don't think strategically. What they call strategy is really large-scale operations -- deploying massive formations and winning campaigns replete with battles. Many remain mired in the world of tactics, still operating like lieutenants or captains and proving the Peter Principle right, as they get promoted past their respective levels of competence. ..."
"... If America's generals, now and over the last 18 years, really were strategic thinkers, they'd have spoken out about -- and if necessary resigned en masse over -- mission sets that were unwinnable, illegal (in the case of Iraq), and counterproductive . Their oath is to the Constitution, after all, not Emperors Bush, Obama, and Trump. Yet few took that step. It's all symptomatic of the disease of institutionalized intellectual mediocrity. ..."
"... Let's start with Mattis. "Mad Dog" Mattis was so anti-Iran and bellicose in the Persian Gulf that President Barack Obama removed him from command of CENTCOM. ..."
"... Furthermore, the supposedly morally untainted, "intellectual" " warrior monk " chose, when he finally resigned, to do so in response to Trump's altogether reasonable call for a modest troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
The two-star army general strode across the stage in his rumpled combat fatigues, almost
like George Patton -- all that was missing was the cigar and riding crop. It was 2017 and I was
in the audience, just another mid-level major attending yet another mandatory lecture in the
auditorium of the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
The general then commanded one of the Army's two true armored divisions and had plenty of
his tanks forward deployed in Eastern Europe, all along the Russian frontier. Frankly, most
CGSC students couldn't stand these talks. Substance always seemed lacking, as each general
reminded us to "take care of soldiers" and "put the mission first," before throwing us a few
nuggets of conventional wisdom on how to be good staff officers should we get assigned to his
vaunted command.
This time, though, the general got to talking about Russia. So I perked up. He made it
crystal clear that he saw Moscow as an adversary to be contained, checked, and possibly
defeated. There was no nuance, no self-reflection, not even a basic understanding of the
general complexity of geopolitics in the 21st century. Generals can be like that --
utterly "in-the-box," "can-do" thinkers. They take pride in how little they discuss policy and
politics, even when they command tens of thousands of troops and control entire districts,
provinces, or countries. There is some value in this -- we'd hardly want active
generals meddling in U.S. domestic affairs. But they nonetheless can take the whole "aw shucks"
act a bit too far.
General It-Doesn't-Matter-His-Name thundered that we need not worry, however, because
his tanks and troops could "mop the floor" with the Russians, in a battle that "wouldn't even
be close." It was oh-so-typical, another U.S. Army general -- who clearly longs for the Cold
War fumes that defined his early career -- overestimating the Russian menace and
underestimating Russian military
capability . Of course, it was all cloaked in the macho bravado so common among
generals who think that talking like sergeants will win them street cred with the troops.
(That's not their job anymore, mind you.) He said nothing, of course, about the role
of mid- and long-range nuclear weapons that could be the catastrophic consequence of an
unnecessary war with the Russian Bear.
I got to thinking about that talk recently as I reflected in wonder at how the latest
generation of mainstream "liberals" loves to fawn over generals, admirals -- any flag officers,
really -- as alternatives to President Donald Trump. The irony of that alliance should not be
lost on us. It's built on the standard Democratic fear of looking "soft" on terrorism,
communism, or whatever-ism, and their visceral, blinding hatred of Trump. Some of this is
understandable. Conservative Republicans masterfully paint liberals as "weak sisters" on
foreign policy, and Trump's administration is, well, a wild card in world affairs.
The problem with the vast majority of generals, however, is that they don't think
strategically. What they call strategy is really large-scale operations -- deploying massive
formations and winning campaigns replete with battles. Many remain mired in the world of
tactics, still operating like lieutenants or captains and proving the Peter Principle right, as they
get promoted past their respective levels of competence.
If America's generals, now and over the last 18 years, really were strategic thinkers,
they'd have spoken out about -- and if necessary resigned en masse over -- mission sets that
were unwinnable, illegal (in the case of Iraq), and counterproductive . Their oath is to
the Constitution, after all, not
Emperors Bush, Obama, and Trump. Yet few took that step. It's all symptomatic of the
disease of institutionalized intellectual mediocrity. More of the same is all they know:
their careers were built on fighting "terror" anywhere it raised its evil head. Some, though no
longer most, still subscribe to the faux intellectualism of General Petraeus and his legion of
Coindinistas
, who never saw a problem that a little regime change, followed by expert counterinsurgency,
couldn't solve. Forget that they've been proven wrong time and again and can count
zero victories since 2002. Generals (remember this!) are never held accountable.
Flag officers also rarely seem to recognize that they owe civilian policymakers more than
just tactical "how" advice. They ought to be giving "if" advice -- if we invade Iraq,
it will take 500,000 troops to occupy the place, and even then we'll ultimately destabilize the
country and region, justify al-Qaeda's worldview, kick off a nationalist insurgency, and become
immersed in an unwinnable war. Some, like Army Chief General Eric Shinseki and CENTCOM head
John Abizaid, seemed to
know this deep down. Still, Shinseki quietly retired after standing up to Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Abizaid rode out his tour to retirement.
Generals also love to tell the American people that victory is
"just around the corner," or that there's a "light at the end of the tunnel." General
William Westmoreland used the very same language when predicting imminent victory in Vietnam.
Two months later, the North Vietnamese and Vietcong unleashed the largest uprising of the war,
the famed Tet Offensive.
Take Afghanistan as exhibit A: 17 or so generals have now commanded U.S. troops in this,
America's longest war. All have commanded within the system and framework of their
predecessors. Sure, they made marginal operational and tactical changes -- some preferred
surges, others advising, others counterterror -- but all failed to achieve anything close to
victory, instead laundering failure into false optimism. None refused to play the same-old game
or question the very possibility of victory in landlocked, historically xenophobic Afghanistan.
That would have taken real courage, which is in short supply among senior officers.
Exhibit B involves Trump's former cabinet generals -- National Security Advisor H.R.
McMaster, Chief of Staff John Kelley, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis -- whom adoring and
desperate liberals took as saviors and canonized as the supposed adults
in the room . They were no such thing. The generals' triumvirate consisted ultimately of
hawkish conventional thinkers married to the dogma of American exceptionalism and empire.
Period.
Let's start with Mattis. "Mad Dog" Mattis was so anti-Iran and bellicose in the Persian
Gulf that President Barack Obama
removed him from command of CENTCOM.
Furthermore, the supposedly morally untainted, "intellectual" " warrior
monk " chose, when he finally resigned, to do so in response to Trump's altogether
reasonable call for a modest troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria.
Helping Saudi Arabia terror bomb Yemen and starve 85,000 children to death? Mattis rebuked
Congress and
supported that. He never considered resigning in opposition to that war crime. No, he fell
on his "courageous" sword over downgrading a losing 17-year-old war in Afghanistan. Not to
mention he came to Trump's cabinet straight from the board of contracting giant General
Dynamics, where he collected hundreds of thousands of military-industrial complex dollars.
Then there was John Kelley, whom Press Secretary Sarah Sanders implied
was above media questioning because he was once a four-star marine general. And there's
McMaster, another lauded intellectual who once wrote an interesting book and taught history at
West Point. Yet he still drew all
the wrong conclusions in his famous book on Vietnam -- implying that more troops, more
bombing, and a mass invasion of North Vietnam could have won the war. Furthermore, his work
with Mattis on Trump's unhinged
, imperial National Defense Strategy proved that he was, after all, just another devotee of
American hyper-interventionism.
So why reflect on these and other Washington generals? It's simple: liberal veneration for
these, and seemingly all, military flag officers is a losing proposition and a formula for more
intervention, possible war with other great powers, and the creeping militarization of the
entire U.S. government. We know what the generals expect -- and potentially
want -- for America's foreign policy future.
Just look at the curriculum at the various war and staff colleges from Kansas to Rhode
Island. Ten years ago, they were all running war games focused on counterinsurgency in the
Middle East and Africa. Now those same schools are drilling for future "contingencies" in the
Baltic, Caucasus, and in the South China Sea. Older officers have always lamented the end of
the Cold War "good old days," when men were men and the battlefield was "simple." A return to a
state of near-war with Russia and China is the last thing real progressives should be
pushing for in 2020.
The bottom line is this: the faint hint that mainstream libs would relish a Six Days in May– style military coup is more than a little disturbing, no matter what you think
of Trump. Democrats must know the damage such a move would do to our ostensible republic. I
say: be a patriot. Insist on civilian control of foreign affairs. Even if that
means two more years of The Donald.
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major and regular contributor to Truthdig . His
work has also appeared in Harper's, the Los Angeles Times , The Nation , Tom Dispatch , and The
Hill . He served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and later taught history at his alma
mater, West Point. He is the author of Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet .
[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an
unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of
the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
As soon as nations learn to avoid dollar transactions that will dramatically weaken the USA
neoliberal empire. Bulling using technology transfer prohibitions is not effective as Germany and
Japan are now fully recovered from WWII destruction and post immediate threat to the USA
technological hegemony.
We the people needn't worry about our vote for president in as much as we the people
should investigate the people who surround our president's. Trump has been overtaken from his
campaigns foreign policy rhetoric by the same cabal of those who have captured the other
previous presidents from they're living up to their promises, whether by choice or by
compromise. I wish that a presidential campaign requirement were that each presidential
candidate would divulge the cabinet choices they would make as secretary's of our national
agencies. I wish for a lot of things that never will happen but still it would be nice to
know such substantial appointments as opposed to knowing about their personality disorders
wish are always disclosed for further review and constant discussion.
I've said it before that the US is going to sanction itself into obscurity. These
sanctioned nations are many and still growing if you include our allies. It's all sticks and
no carrots. When it all collapses the collapse may be blamed on US arrogance and profit.
"... US global power is built on several significant facts. These include: the US victory in World War II, its subsequent advanced economy and dominant military position throughout five continents. ..."
"... The US advanced its dominance through a series of alliances in Europe via NATO; Asia via its hegemonic relationship with Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan as well as Australia and New Zealand in Oceana; Latin America via traditional client regimes; Africa via neo-colonial rulers imposed following independence. ..."
"... The most significant advance of US global power took place with the demise and disintegration of the USSR, the client states in Eastern Europe, as well as the transformation of China and Indo-China to capitalism during the 1980's. ..."
US global power in the Trump period reflects the continuities and changes which are
unfolding rapidly and deeply throughout the world and which are affecting the position of
Washington.
Assessing the dynamics of US global power is a complex problem which requires examining
multiple dimensions.
We will proceed by:
Conceptualizing the principles which dictate empire building,
specifically the power bases and the dynamic changes in relations and structures which shape
the present and future position of the US. Identifying the spheres of influence and power and
their growth and decline. Examining the regions of conflict and contestation. The major and
secondary rivalries. The stable and shifting relations between existing and rising power
centers. The internal dynamics shaping the relative strength of competing centers of global
power. The instability of the regimes and states seeking to retain and expand global power.
Conceptualization of Global Power
US global power is built on several significant facts. These include: the US victory in
World War II, its subsequent advanced economy and dominant military position throughout five
continents.
The US advanced its dominance through a series of alliances in Europe via NATO; Asia via its
hegemonic relationship with Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan as well as Australia and
New Zealand in Oceana; Latin America via traditional client regimes; Africa via neo-colonial
rulers imposed following independence.
US global power was built around encircling the USSR and China, undermining their economies
and defeating their allies militarily via regional wars.
Post WWII global economic and military superiority created subordinated allies and
established US global power, but it created the bases for gradual shifts in relations of
dominance.
US global power was formidable but subject to economic and military changes over time and in
space.
US Spheres of Power: Then and Now
US global power exploited opportunities but also suffered military setbacks early on,
particularly in Korea, Indo-China and Cuba. The US spheres of power were clearly in place in
Western Europe and Latin America but was contested in Eastern Europe and Asia.
The most significant advance of US global power took place with the demise and
disintegration of the USSR, the client states in Eastern Europe, as well as the transformation
of China and Indo-China to capitalism during the 1980's.
US ideologues declared the coming of a unipolar empire free of restraints and challenges to
its global and regional power. The US turned to conquering peripheral adversaries. Washington
destroyed Yugoslavia and then Iraq – fragmenting them into mini-states. Wall Street
promoted a multitude of multi-national corporations to invade China and Indo-China who reaped
billions of profits exploiting cheap labor.
The believers of the enduring rule of US global power envisioned a century of US imperial
rule.
In reality this was a short-sighted vision of a brief interlude.
The End of Unipolarity: New Rivalries and Global and Regional Centers of Power: An
Overview
US global power led Washington into 'overreach', in several crucial areas: it launched a
series of costly prolonged wars, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, which had three negative
consequences: the destruction of the Iraq armed forces and economy led to the rise of the
Islamic State which overtook most of the country; the occupation in Afghanistan which led to
the emergence of the Taliban and an ongoing twenty year war which cost hundreds of billions of
dollars and several thousand wounded and dead US soldiers; as a result the majority of the US
public turned negative toward wars and empire building
The US pillage and dominance of Russia ended, when President Putin replaced Yeltsin's vassal
state. Russia rebuilt its industry, science, technology and military power. Russia's population
recovered its living standards.
With Russian independence and advanced military weaponry, the US lost its unipolar military
power. Nevertheless, Washington financed a coup which virtually annexed two thirds of the
Ukraine. The US incorporated the fragmented Yugoslavian 'statelets' into NATO. Russia countered
by annexing the Crimea and secured a mini-state adjacent Georgia.
China converted the economic invasion of US multi-national corporations into learning
experiences for building its national economy and export platforms which contributed which led
to its becoming an economic competitor and rival to the US.
US global empire building suffered important setbacks in Latin America resulting
from the the so-called Washington Consensus. The imposition of neo-liberal policies
privatized and plundered their economies, impoverished the working and middle class, and
provoked a series of popular uprising and the rise of radical social movements and center-left
governments.
The US empire lost spheres of influence in some regions (China, Russia, Latin America,
Middle East) though it retained influence among elites in contested regions and even launched
new imperial wars in contested terrain. Most notably the US attacked independent regimes in
Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Sudan via armed proxies.
The change from a unipolar to a multi polar world and the gradual emergence of regional
rivals led US global strategists to rethink their strategy. The Trump regime's aggressive
policies set the stage for political division within the regime and among allies.
The Obama – Trump Convergence and Differences on Empire Building
By the second decade of the 21 st century several new global power alignments
emerged: China had become the main economic competitor for world power and Russia was the major
military challenger to US military supremacy at the regional level. The US replaced the former
European colonial empire in Africa. Washington's sphere of influence extended especially in
North and Sub Sahara Africa: Kenya, Libya, Somalia and Ethiopia. Trump gained leverage in the
Middle East namely in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Jordan.
Israel retained its peculiar role, converting the US as its sphere of influence.
But the US faced regional rivals for sphere of influence in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq and
Algeria.
In South Asia US faced competition for spheres of influence from China, India, Afghanistan
and Pakistan.
In Latin America sharp and abrupt shifts in spheres of influence were the norm. US influence
declined between 2000 – 2015 and recovered from 2015 to the present.
Imperial Power Alignments Under President Trump
President Trump faced complex global, regional and local political and economic
challenges.
Trump followed and deepened many of the policies launched by the Obama- Hillary Clinton
policies with regard to other countries and regions . However Trump also radicalized and/or
reversed policies of his predecessors. He combined flattery and aggression at the same
time.
At no time did Trump recognize the limits of US global power. Like the previous three
presidents he persisted in the belief that the transitory period of a unipolar global empire
could be re-imposed.
Toward Russia, a global competitor, Trump adopted a policy of 'rollback'. Trump imposed
economic sanctions, with the strategic 'hope' that by impoverishing Russia, degrading its
financial and industrial sectors that he could force a regime change which would convert Moscow
into a vassal state.
At the beginning of his Presidential campaign Trump flirted with the notion of a business
accommodation with Putin. However, Trump's ultra-belligerent appointments and domestic
opposition soon turned him toward a highly militarized strategy, rejecting military –
including nuclear – agreements, in favor of military escalation.
Toward China, Trump faced a dynamic and advancing technological competitor. Trump resorted
to a 'trade war' that went far beyond 'trade' to encompass a war against Beijing's economic
structure and social relations. The Trump regime-imposed sanctions and threatened a total
boycott of Chinese exports.
ORDER IT NOW
Trump and his economic team demanded China privatize and denationalize its entire state
backed industry. They demanded the power to unilaterally decide when violations of US rules
occurred and to be able to re-introduce sanctions without consultations. Trump demanded all
Chinese technological agreements, economic sectors and innovations were subject and open to US
business interests. In other words, Trump demanded the end of Chinese sovereignty and the
reversal of the structural base for its global power. The US was not interested in mere 'trade'
– it wanted a return to imperial rule over a colonized China.
The Trump regime rejected negotiations and recognition of a shared power relation: it viewed
its global rivals as potential clients.
Inevitably the Trump regime's strategy would never reach any enduring agreements on any
substantial issues under negotiations. China has a successful strategy for global power built
on a 6 trillion-dollar world-wide Road and Belt (R and B) development policy, which links 60
countries and several regions. R and B is building seaports, rail and air systems linking
industries financed by development banks.
In contrast, the US banks exploits industry, speculates and operates within closed financial
circuits. The US spends trillions on wars, coups, sanctions and other parasitical activities
which have nothing to do with economic competitiveness.
The Trump regime's 'allies' in the Middle East namely Saudi Arabia and Israel, are parasitic
allies who buy protection and provoke costly wars.
Europe complains about China's increase in industrial exports and overlook imports of
consumer goods. Yet the EU plans to resist Trump's sanctions which lead to a blind alley of
stagnation!
Conclusion
The most recent period of the peak of US global power, the decade between 1989-99 contained
the seeds of its decline and the current resort to trade wars, sanctions and nuclear
threats.
The structure of US global power changed over the past seven decades. The US global empire
building began with the US command over the rebuilding of Western European economies and the
displacement of England, France, Portugal and Belgium from Asia and Africa.
The Empire spread and penetrated South America via US multi-national corporations. However,
US empire building was not a linear process as witness its unsuccessful confrontation with
national liberation movements in Korea, Indo China, Southern Africa (Angola, Congo, etc.) and
the Caribbean (Cuba). By the early 1960's the US had displaced its European rivals and
successfully incorporated them as subordinate allies.
Washington's main rivals for spheres of influence was Communist China and the USSR with
their allies among client state and overseas revolutionaries.
The US empire builders' successes led to the transformation of their Communist and
nationalist rivals into emergent capitalist competitors.
In a word US dominance led to the construction of capitalist rivals, especially China and
Russia.
Subsequently, following US military defeats and prolonged wars, regional powers proliferated
in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Regional blocs competed with US
clients for power.
The diversification of power centers led to new and costly wars. Washington lost exclusive
control of markets, resources and alliances. Competition reduced the spheres of US power.
In the face of these constraints on US global power the Trump regime envisioned a strategy
to recover US dominance – ignoring the limited capacity and structure of US political ,
economic and class relations.
China absorbed US technology and went on to create new advances without following each
previous stage.
Russia's recovered from its losses and sanctions and secured alternative trade relations to
counter the new challenges to the US global empire. Trump's regime launched a 'permanent trade
war' without stable allies. Moreover, he failed to undermine China's global infrastructure
network; Europe demanded and secured autonomy to enter into trade deals with China, Iran and
Russia.
Trump has pressured many regional powers who have ignored his threats.
The US still remains a global power. But unlike the past, the US lacks the industrial base
to 'make America strong'. Industry is subordinated to finance; technological innovations are
not linked to skilled labor to increase productivity.
Trump relies on sanctions and they have failed to undermine regional influentials. Sanctions
may temporarily reduce access to US markets' but we have observed that new trade partners take
their place.
Trump has gained client regimes in Latin America, but the gains are precarious and subject
to reversal.
Under the Trump regime, big business and bankers have increased prices in the stock market
and even the rate of growth of the GDP, but he confronts severe domestic political instability,
and high levels of turmoil among the branches of government. In pursuit of loyalty over
competence, Trump's appointments have led to the ascendancy of cabinet officials who seek to
wield unilateral power which the US no longer possesses.
Elliot Abrams can massacre a quarter-million Central Americans with impunity, but he has
failed to impose US power over Venezuela and Cuba. Pompeo can threaten North Kore, Iran and
China but these countries fortify alliances with US rivals and competitors. Bolton can advance
the interests of Israel but their conversations take place in a telephone booth – it
lacks resonance with any major powers.
Trump has won a presidential election, he has secured concessions from some countries but he
has alienated regional and diplomatic allies. Trump claims he is making America strong, but he
has undermined lucrative strategic multi-lateral trade agreements.
US 'Global Power' does not prosper with bully-tactics. Projections of power alone, have
failed – they require recognition of realistic economic limitations and the losses from
regional wars.
This is a fine synopsis but it leaves out the most fundamental of issues.
The American People don't want to be an Empire, .never asked to be an Empire and despise,
to the core, our ruling elites who defrauded us into becoming one.
We do live in an Empire now, to our chagrin, but it is (in truth) a malevolent empire .an
Empire of Fraud, Belligerence .. and Heinous
F#cking Debt .
Show me one American, anywhere, who is happy about it .
Our ruling elites have "lied" us into multiple wars of "never ending" criminal aggression
..wars which have all but exterminated the solvency of the nation and reaped untold carnage
and misery on tens of millions of people who never attacked us (and never intended to).
This "War Fraud", foisted upon us , has been a catastrophic disaster for our country and
the world.
A "mind -bending, catastrophic, . disaster".
Every single belligerent "oligarch" , "plutocrat" and "establishment elite", who conspired
to defraud us into these "illegal wars", should be rounded up and thrown in federal prison
Every single penny of their assets should be seized to pay down the cost of wars they lied us
into.
This is , hands down, the most meaningful step we could take, as a nation.
Not only would it change the direction of the world, almost overnight, but it would lay
the groundwork for the United States to rebuild itself.
Once we make "Accountability for War Fraud" our nations highest priority, we can repair
and rebuild.
If we don't, we won't and(tragically) might never be able to.
Sanctions are the foreign policy equivalent of obstruction of justice traps. Sanctions
are initiated in the hope the sanctioned country then commits some actionable trepidation, a
Casus belli. They say the first casualty of war is the truth but that casualty comes way
before war starts and continues long after war ends.
"... Trump *escalated* US-Iran and US-Venezuela conflicts and intensified the sabre rattling towards both countries, according to all analysts. For the first time a POTUS openly said direct US invasion to Venezuela "is on the table" and his Adelson bought appointment for USNSA Bolton publicly showed in a notebook the writing "5000 troops to Colombia" openly suggesting a direct invasion was imminent. For the first time the White House asked the Pentagon to draw up options for military strikes against Iran. ..."
"... Trump's administration declared a whole branch of the Iran armed forces (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation. This is an escalation and according to most analysts, considered an act of war. ..."
"... Trump administration heavily increased sanctions to Iran, Russia and Venezuela and in the latter case even instigated a failed uprising and coup d'etat, going as far as to declare a virtual political Venezuelan nobody the "official" president of the country, which is in itself unbelievable and has no historic precedent. Another act of war actually. ..."
"... Trump administration also escalated the tensions with China, ordered the arrest and de facto kidnapping of Chinese corporate executives and openly used the US legal apparatus to attack and hinder a foreign corporation. ..."
"... Trump has been, objectively, the most neocon Israel-firster POTUS in US history. ..."
"... Friendly reminder that voting for Republicans and expecting US Jewish lobby/Corporate America promoted policies such as open borders and US imperialist interventions to stop is moronic beyond belief. Republicans are the most pro corporate pro US Jewish lobby of the two parties by far. At least there is talk and critique about how the Israel Lobby owns the USG in the Dem party. Nothing of the sort going on in the GOP. ..."
The U.S. missile strike on Shayrat Airbase on 7 April 2017 was the first time the U.S.
became a deliberate, direct combatant against the Syrian government and marked the start of
a series of deliberate direct military actions by U.S. forces against the Syrian government
and its allies in May -- June 2017 and February 2018.
Trump *escalated* the war from covert support to insurgents to direct intervention and
official *invasion* in Syria. This is the equivalent of going from financing and supporting a
faction in a so called proxy war in say Vietnam to leading the US to go full Iraq WMD and
become a warring and invading faction in the conflict. Again, this is an escalation.
The number of boots on the ground vs Obama's is data you just took out of your bottom.
Sources for your cheap PR shilling? You don't have any because this statement of yours is a
blatant lie.
Trump *escalated* US-Iran and US-Venezuela conflicts and intensified the sabre rattling
towards both countries, according to all analysts. For the first time a POTUS openly said
direct US invasion to Venezuela "is on the table" and his Adelson bought appointment for
USNSA Bolton publicly showed in a notebook the writing "5000 troops to Colombia" openly
suggesting a direct invasion was imminent. For the first time the White House asked the
Pentagon to draw up options for military strikes against Iran.
Trump's administration declared a whole branch of the Iran armed forces (IRGC) as a
terrorist organisation. This is an escalation and according to most analysts, considered an
act of war.
Trump's administration ended the Iran deal without any objective reasons, ie Obama's
effort to deescalate the Israel firsters driven Iran-US conflict
Trump administration heavily increased sanctions to Iran, Russia and Venezuela and in
the latter case even instigated a failed uprising and coup d'etat, going as far as to declare
a virtual political Venezuelan nobody the "official" president of the country, which is in
itself unbelievable and has no historic precedent. Another act of war actually.
Trump administration declared Golan Heights part of Israel brought US embassy to
Jerusalem, increasing the tensions and animosity towards the US in the ME.
Trump administration will declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation, increasing
the animosity from Arab countries in the ME to unbelievable levels. This includes non Arab
country Turkey also, a traditional ally until neocon Trump took power.
Trump administration also escalated the tensions with China, ordered the arrest and de
facto kidnapping of Chinese corporate executives and openly used the US legal apparatus to
attack and hinder a foreign corporation.
Trump has been, objectively, the most neocon Israel-firster POTUS in US history.
Friendly reminder that voting for Republicans and expecting US Jewish lobby/Corporate
America promoted policies such as open borders and US imperialist interventions to stop is
moronic beyond belief. Republicans are the most pro corporate pro US Jewish lobby of the two
parties by far. At least there is talk and critique about how the Israel Lobby owns the USG
in the Dem party. Nothing of the sort going on in the GOP.
Immigration restrictionism is a traditional pro working class, leftist policy.
Non intervention and "pacifist" policies the same. How many GOP supporters were against
the Vietnam and Iraq war? Not many yeah.
Trump has dropped more bombs and missiles on Middle Eastern countries in a comparable
period of time than any modern U.S. President. Presidents Bush, Obama and now [2017] Trump
have dropped nearly 200,000 bombs and missiles on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Pakistan,
Yemen and Somalia. Trump's rate of bombing eclipses both Bush and Obama; and Trump is on a
pace to drop over 100,000 [180,000 to be precise] bombs and missiles on Middle Eastern
countries during his first term of office -- which would equal the number of bombs and
missiles dropped by Obama during his entire eight-year presidency.
Here's more perspective:
The United States Government, under the Trump administration, reportedly drops a bomb
every 12 minutes, which means that 121 bombs are dropped in a day, and 44,096 bombs per year.
The Pentagon's data show that during George W. Bush's eight years he averaged 24 bombs
dropped per day, that is, 8,750 per year. Over the course of Obama's time in office, his
military dropped 34 bombs per day, 12,500 per year. This shows that even though American
presidents are all war criminals, Trump is the most vicious of them all.
Yes, Trump is dropping almost FOUR TIMES MORE BOMBS than Barack Obama and over FIVE TIMES
MORE BOMBS than G.W. Bush -- which included military invasions of two countries.
We also know that Trump expanded America's wars in Afghanistan and Syria (and, no, he is
NOT bringing U.S. troops home from Syria) and is ramping up America's war machine against
Venezuela, Iran, China and Russia. And this does not even take into account the way Trump has
given Benjamin Netanyahu's raunchy racist regime the green light to expand its wars against
the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria and Iran or the U.S./Israeli proxy war (with Saudi Arabia
taking the lead) in Yemen.
Then there is Somalia:
In the age of Donald Trump, wasn't that [the Battle of Mogadishu -- Black Hawk Down] a
million presidencies ago? Honestly, can you even tell me anymore what in the world it was all
about? I couldn't have, not without looking it up again. A warlord, starvation, U.S.
intervention, 18 dead American soldiers (and hundreds of dead Somalis, but that hardly
mattered) in a country that was shattering. President Clinton did, however, pull out those
troops and end the disastrous mission -- and that was that, right? I mean, lessons learned.
Somalia? Africa? What in the world did it all have to do with us? So Washington washed its
hands of the whole thing.
And now, on a planet of outrageous tweets and murderously angry white men, you probably
didn't even notice, but more than two years into the era of Donald Trump, a quarter-century
after that incident, American airstrikes in yep, Somalia, are precipitously on the rise.
Last year's 47 strikes, aimed at the leaders and fighters of al-Shabaab, an Islamist
terror outfit, more than tripled the ones carried out by the Obama administration in 2016
(themselves a modest increase from previous years). And in 2019, they're already on pace to
double again, while Somali civilians -- not that anyone (other than Somali civilians) notices
or cares -- are dying in significant and rising numbers.
And with 500 troops back on the ground there and Pentagon estimates that they will remain
for at least another seven years, the U.S. military is increasingly Somalia-bound, Congress
hasn't uttered a peep on the subject, and few in this country are paying the slightest
attention.
So consider this a simple fact of the never-ending Global War on Terror (as it was once
called): the U.S. military just can't get enough of Somalia. And if that isn't off the
charts, what is? Maybe it's even worth a future book (with a very small print run) called not
Black Hawk Down II but U.S. Down Forever and a Day.
And now that I've started on the subject (if you still happen to be reading), when it
comes to the U.S. military, it's not faintly just Somalia. It's all of Africa.
After all, this country's military uniquely has a continent-wide Africa Command (aka
AFRICOM), founded in 2007. As Nick Turse has often written for TomDispatch, that command now
has its troops, thousands of them, its planes, and other equipment spread across the
continent, north to south, east to west -- air bases, drone bases, garrisons, outposts,
staging areas, you name it. Meanwhile, AFRICOM's outgoing commanding general, Thomas
Waldhauser, only recently told Congress why it's bound to be a forever outfit -- because,
shades of the Cold War, the Ruskies are coming! ("Russia is also a growing challenge and has
taken a more militaristic approach in Africa.")
And honestly, 600-odd words in, this wasn't meant to be a piece about either Somalia or
Africa. It was meant to be about those U.S. wars being off the charts, about how the Pentagon
now feeds eternally at the terror trough, al-Shabaab being only a tiny part of the slop it
regularly digests.
And, while America's wars are way up, according to Gallup, church attendance in America is
way down:
As Christian and Jewish Americans prepare to celebrate Easter and Passover, respectively,
Gallup finds the percentage of Americans who report belonging to a church, synagogue or
mosque at an all-time low, averaging 50% in 2018.
U.S. church membership was 70% or higher from 1937 through 1976, falling modestly to an
average of 68% in the 1970s through the 1990s. The past 20 years have seen an acceleration in
the drop-off, with a 20-percentage-point decline since 1999 and more than half of that change
occurring since the start of the current decade.
Most interesting is this Gallup observation:
Although the United States is one of the more religious countries, particularly among
Western nations, it is far less religious than it used to be. Barely three-quarters of
Americans now identify with a religion and only about half claim membership in a church,
synagogue or mosque.
The rate of U.S. church membership has declined sharply in the past two decades after
being relatively stable in the six decades before that. A sharp increase in the proportion of
the population with no religious affiliation, a decline in church membership among those who
do have a religious preference, and low levels of church membership among millennials are all
contributing to the accelerating trend.
Obviously, America's Jewish and Muslim populations pale compared to its Christian
population. The vast decline of attendance to religious services, therefore, primarily means
church attendance. Notice, also, that this steep decline commenced at the beginning of this
century (2000) -- when G.W. Bush became President of the United States.
I tried to warn readers -- and listeners to my nationwide radio talk show -- that due to
his insatiable war fever, G.W. Bush was going to forever warp the perception in people's
minds of Christianity. And, sadly, I was absolutely right. After eight years of the
warmongering G.W. Bush in the White House, millions of Americans came to associate
Christianity with wars of aggression. As a result, the exodus out of America's churches began
in earnest.
Enter Donald Trump.
As noted above, Trump has expanded Bush's war fever exponentially. But Trump has done more
than that: He has aggressively put the United States smack dab in the middle of Israel's
wars. It could even be argued that Donald Trump has turned the U.S. military into a proxy
army for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
Don't get me wrong: I am very cognizant of the fact that G.W. Bush's "war on terror" was
nothing more than a proxy war for Israel. But the Israeli connection was covert and
completely covered up. Not anymore. Donald Trump is unabashedly and explicitly partnering the
mission of the U.S. military with that of the IDF. No wonder Benjamin Netanyahu promises to
name a community in the Israel-seized, Israel-occupied Golan Heights after Donald Trump.
(Trumplinka would fit Netanyahu's concentration-style occupation nicely.)
So, not only are millions of Americans now associating Christianity with G.W. Bush's wars
of aggression, they are associating Christianity with Donald Trump's wars of aggression for
the racist apartheid State of Israel. The result: the steepest decline in church attendance
and church affiliation in U.S. history.
The longer evangelical Christians continue to support Donald Trump's radical pro-Israel,
pro-war agenda, the deeper America will plunge into an anti-Christian country.
The good news is that all over America, people are waking up to the Israel deception.
Support for the erroneous doctrine of dispensational eschatology is in a giant free fall; the
myth of Zionist Israel being a resurrected Old Testament Israel is being repeatedly exposed;
the attempts by Israel's toadies to characterize people whose eyes are open to the truth of
Zionism as being "anti-Semitic" is losing more and more credibility by the day; and more and
more people are becoming aware of the utter wickedness of the Zionist government in Israel.
Plus, more and more people are beginning to understand the plight of the persecuted people
(including Christian people) in the Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine.
Ron, maybe your shipmates on the USS LIBERTY didn't die in vain after all.
From an historical perspective, overextended wars are the downfall of any empire; from a
financial perspective, warfarism is the precursor to an economically depressed middle class;
and from a Scriptural/spiritual perspective, God cannot and will not bless a warmongering
nation.
Let's be clear: God is not building a "Greater Israel." God is not building a third Jewish
temple. God is not speaking through phony prophets who are attributing some sort of divine
calling to Trump's pro-Israel warmongering. God is not blessing America because we are
blessing Zionist Israel. Just the opposite: The more America aligns itself with Israel's
belligerence, bullying and bombing of innocent people, the more God will deliver us over to
becoming an antichrist country. After all, one cannot idolize and partner with antichrists
without becoming one himself.
Burning down the house. Driving like a madman on the road to nowhere has put the nation on a
path to its own demise. Our foreign policy is a disaster that does nothing to promote
democracy anywhere in the world. Our military has provided nothing but instability in the
world since the end of world war 2. Ask yourself, why are we involved in so many useless wars
that don't make the world a better place?
Don't you feel like we are being used by war hawks who see every skirmish as a threat to our
national security? Why can't we cut out all the military BS and just trade with with nations
that want to trade, and ignore those who want to kill each other. Let them figure it out on
their own. Social Capitalism is the only policy we should be supporting.
"All statements of Trump do not count. All Trump statements are results from stress of
torture by Democrats, and deep state."
When this president stated during the campaign,
that christians don't have to forgive their enemies, I rolled my eyes stated he wrong, and
understood well he doesn't know what christianity means and supported him anyway
that he supported same sex marriage, I rolled my eyes, rebuffed the the silliness of his
comments and understood, he is not a conservative and beyond that he doesn't know what
christianity means
when it was uncovered that he had in fact had relations outside of marriage, I rolled my
eyes, and understood that alone could be a disqualifying factor in light of the competition
and supported him anyway
when some of the most respected departments of government leaders said he colluded with
Russians, based on the evidence, I said "poppycock" and supported him anyway
when media swirled with tales of Russian bath houses and carousings abounded, I thought
nonsense and supported hum anyway
when the rumors of underage girls and same sex parties and orgies seped into the main, I
rolled my eyes and supported him anyway . . .
when he spouted off about Charlottesville prematurely, I supported him anyway . . .
when became clear he actually advocated torture, I choked, spat and supported him anyway,
afterall he's not schooled in international relations and the consequences for our service
personnel, much less apparently the basics of tortures effectiveness, especially in large
scale strategies such as the US is engaged in
when it came to light he was completely ignorant of how our criminal justice system gets
it wrong as exampled by the Cen 5 case, I supported him anyway . . .
I supported him in spite of his comments about the poor and people like me who supported
him
There's a long list of tolerance is support of this president based on his advocacy
regarding turning the attention to the US welfare . . .
And when he actually agreed that the Russians had sabotaged the US elections and even
engaged in murder in the states of our European allies -- I knew, that in all liklihood the
turn inward was dead.
Here' a man who beat all the odds because of stalwart support of people like me, who
repeatedly bit the sides of our cheeks in the understanding that the returns would exceed the
price only to discover that the man who beat the odds doesn't seem to have a spine to stand
on ideologically which were the foundations of my advocacy: national security, less reckless
spending, holding business and financial organizations accountable for misbehavior, investing
in the US citizen, restructuring our trade deals to benefit the US, not merely shooting up
tarrifs that would in turn be priced to the citizens the supposed tarrifs were intended to
protect, tax cuts that actually gave middle americans less, no evidence of a draw down in our
careless ME behaviors, i even gave him some room to deal with israel as perhaps a new way
forward -- it's a new way alright – no pretense of acting as honest brokers –
that's new, Immigration is worse and by worse he might as well be serving tea and crumpets at
the border welcoming illegals . . .
If the man you elected to turn the corner actually becomes the vehicle for of what you
elected him to reject and change, eventually one has to acknowledge that fact. he beat the
deep state, he just either had not the courage, the integrity, or the ability, perhaps all
three to withstand the victory and do the work. Of course he had opposition and not much of
it very fair and nearly all of it damaging to the country. But he had support to stand
against it -- he chose an easier path.
And while I support him still, I have no intention of pretending that he is fulfilling the
mandate for which he was elected. I would be lying to myself and doing a disservice to
him.
I have not changed, I knew he was a situational leader, I knew what that meant, but I
voted for a particular agenda, he left the reservation on his own accord and the "deep
state", the establishment", the democrats, the liberals, the libertarians, can only be held
to blame for so much --
But several weeks ago, on top of a complete failure to ensure US order security, the armed
forces paid homage to Mexicans on US territory by relinquishing their weapons and
surrendering -- and given the tenure thus far -- - it devastatingly fitting that this
occurred under this admin.
And in the midst of all this, he is pandering to those engaged in same sex behavior --
– deep state my eye . . .
the path of least resistance. I cling to the belief that having voting for any of the
other candidates -- matters would have been far worse.
I make no apologies for being a conservative and Christian and holding a loyalty to the
US.
I reject your whine, it had legs and even some salience still, but at this stage, very
little.
Now he is bed with Sen. Rubio, Sen. Cruz and others on mucking around in SA -- I can only
consider your comments as an attempt at humor.
"... As much as Trump has proven to be a disaster with his appointments of Bolton/Pompeo/E Abrams, things could still be worse. We could have wound up with Little Marco, the John McCain of his generation. All praise to Tucker for having the guts to go against the grain. ..."
"... The answer here is simple. When the President of of the US stated that he believed Russia under the instructions of Pres. Putin attempted to sabotage the democratic process, and from the mouths many of our leadership -- was successful he made a major power on the world stage a targeted enemy of the US. When that same president accused Pres. Putin of plotting the same in Europe and ordered the murders inside those sovereign states -- ..."
"... He essentially stated that our global strategic interests include challenging the Russian influence anywhere and everywhere on the planet as they are active enemies of the US and our European allies. What ever democratic global strategic ambitions previous to the least election were stifled until that moment. ..."
"... Sanctions and blockades are acts of war. Try doing it to Washington or one of its vassals, and watch the guns come out. ..."
"... Historically, sanctions are not an alternative to war; they are a prelude to it. Sanctions are how Uncle Scam generally softens up foreign countries in preparation for an invasion or some sort of 'régime-change' operation. ..."
"... All of this is smoke in mirrors. The real story is that Washington is headed for default on it's 22 trillion dollar debt and the Beltway Elites are losing it. They are desperate to start a conflict anywhere, but especially with an oil rich nation like Venezuela or Iran install their own puppets and keep this petro-dollar scam running a little while longer. ..."
"... Syria, Iraq and Libya were not destroyed for oil. Oil provided cover for the real reason. In fact, oil companies opposed war for oil. It doesn't benefit the US or those companies. Those three countries were and are Israel's primary enemies and neighbors and that is why they were destroyed. Only if you stick your head in the sand and ignore the enormous power of Israel and their Jewish supporters which is constantly on full display constantly can someone not see that. ..."
"... Venezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world. I'm pretty sure there are still lots of guns around. They're not using rocks to kill one another. The U.S. military richly deserves to get itself trapped in a Gaza type situation of house to house fighting in the favellas above Caracas. ..."
"... Trump is a Trojan horse under zionist control who had 5 draft deferments but now is the zionists war lord sending Americans to fight and die in the mideast for Israel just like obama and bush jr. , same bullshit different puppet! ..."
"... America is Oceania , war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and I would add to what Orwell said, war in the zio/US is perpetual for our zionist overlords. ..."
"... Imperialists always see themselves as spreading good things to people who will benefit from them. And imperialists necessarily always dilute their own culture. ..."
"... If the imperialist culture is already rootless cosmopolitan, it will see no downside to the above. If the Elites of a culture have become cosmopolitans divorced from any meaningful contact with their own people (i.e. those of their own blood and history), then they will lead their people into ever more cultural pollution and perversion. ..."
"... Remember. The choice was between Trump and Clinton. Not Trump and Jesus. ..."
"... The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed at articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime change wars. ..."
"... I'm not sure what "Alt-Right" or "2.0 movement" really means in the current shills-vs-people wars but all the best and the brightest in our ranks are clearly against the globalists. ..."
Venezuela illustrates why a 3.0 movement is necessary.
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed at
articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and
international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime change
wars.
The Trump administration's interventions in Syria and Venezuela are victimizing mainly poor
brown people in Third World countries. And yet, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is extremely
animated and stirred up in a rage at the neocons who are currently running Blompf's foreign
policy. Similarly, it has cheered on the peace talks between North Korea and South Korea.
Isn't it the supreme irony that the "racists" in American politics are the real
humanitarians
while the so-called "humanitarians" like Sen. Marco Rubio and Bill Kristol are less adverse
to bloodshed and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people die than the
"racists"?
It is ironic. There is also the issue of economic-based US interventionism, particularly in
the oil-gifted nations mentioned. It's their oil. Since the US economy is oil-dependent --
and since fracking is a short-lived "miracle" of unprofitable companies that have already
extracted the easy pickings -- it is the role of US leaders to make sure that we can buy oil
from nations like Venezuela, keeping relations as good as possible for those means. But US
leaders have no business telling them who should rule their country, much less stirring up
trouble that can end up in bloodshed.
There's a comment on here about US forces and the Kurds in Syria, helping themselves to
oil, while Syrians wait in long lines for gas in a country that is an oil fountain. I have no
idea whether or not it is true, and since the US press would rather gossip than report, we'll
probably never know. But since oil prices have gone up recently in the USA, it might be true,
especially since politicians always want to pacify the serfs facing other unaffordable
expenses, like rent. If true you can see how that would make the people in an oil-rich
country mad.
Isn't it the supreme irony that the "racists" in American politics are the real
humanitarians while the so-called "humanitarians" like Sen. Marco Rubio and Bill Kristol
are less adverse to bloodshed and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people
die than the "racists"?
There is nothing ironic about your simple statement of fact. The humanitarians you mention
are about as much interested in human rights as John Wayne Gacy. There is gold in them there
hills, and their "friends" no longer control that gold. So we must go to war.
Rubio is running neck and neck in my mind as one of the most disgusting political whores
of all time.
As much as Trump has proven to be a disaster with his appointments of Bolton/Pompeo/E Abrams,
things could still be worse. We could have wound up with Little Marco, the John McCain of his
generation. All praise to Tucker for having the guts to go against the grain.
How is that working out now?
Those are rocks those guys are throwing..right?
Why not let THEM do the fighting and keep the guys from Ohio and Alabama here?
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela
What Trump administration military intervention? Number of Boots on the ground:
Syria -- Reduced vs. Obama, at most a few thousand
Iran -- ZERO
Venezuela -- Again ZERO
It is quite amazing that Trump Derangement Syndrome [TDS] can take ZERO troops and falsely
portray that as military intervention. In the real, non-deranged world -- Rational thought
shows ZERO troops as the absence of military intervention.
Trying to use non-military sanctions to convince nations to behave better is indeed the
exact opposite of military intervention. If the NeoConDem Hillary Clinton was President. Would the U.S. have boots on the ground in
Iran And Venezuela?
Why is the Trump Derangement Syndrome [TDS] crowd so willing to go to war for Hillary
while misrepresenting TRUMP's non-intervention?
Those who pathologicially hate Trump are simply not rational.
The answer here is simple.
When the President of of the US stated that he believed Russia under the instructions of
Pres. Putin attempted to sabotage the democratic process, and from the mouths many of our
leadership -- was successful he made a major power on the world stage a targeted enemy of the
US. When that same president accused Pres. Putin of plotting the same in Europe and ordered
the murders inside those sovereign states --
He essentially stated that our global strategic interests include challenging the Russian
influence anywhere and everywhere on the planet as they are active enemies of the US and our
European allies. What ever democratic global strategic ambitions previous to the least
election were stifled until that moment.
Until that moment foreign policy could have been shifted, but after that moment
Don't forget the genocide in Yemen. Wanting to exclude Yemenis from the USA means you're an
evil racist, but turning a blind eye to mass murder is A-OK.
Gold, Black Gold and Pirates : all about wealth and people getting in the way of the 21st
Century Privateers who will stop at nothing including overthrowing governments in Syria,
Libya, Iraq and elsewhere.
@A123Historically, sanctions are not an alternative to war; they are a prelude to it.
Sanctions are how Uncle Scam generally softens up foreign countries in preparation for an
invasion or some sort of 'régime-change' operation.
I appreciate the fact that Team Trump has not actually sent in the tanks yet, whereas
Hellary probably would have by now. Believe me, that is probably one of the very few good
arguments in favor of Trump at this point. But if we want to make sure that he never does
attack, then now is the time to make some noise– before the war starts.
All of this is smoke in mirrors. The real story is that Washington is headed for default on
it's 22 trillion dollar debt and the Beltway Elites are losing it. They are desperate to
start a conflict anywhere, but especially with an oil rich nation like Venezuela or Iran
install their own puppets and keep this petro-dollar scam running a little while longer.
If we weren't on the brink of economic collapse I could never see the Washington Elites
risking it all with a game of nuclear chicken with Russia and China over Ukraine and
Taiwan.
This commentator lost me when he decided Guaido was as socialist as Maduro. Nope. He would
not have US backing were that the case.
I checked out Telesur on Youtube on April 30 – its continued functioning was one sign
the coup attempt had failed. The comments section was full of Guaido supporters ranting about
how much they hated Chavistas and socialists and some were asking where Maduro was, probably
trying to sustain the myth that he had fled.
"When was the last time we successfully meddled in the political life of another country" The
answer to that, Tucker, depends on who you ask. While Syria, Iraq and Libya were "failures"
because we were told we would bring peace and prosperity to those countries, that was not the
goal of the architects of those wars, neither was it oil. The primary goal was to pacify
these countries and neuter them so they would not stand up to their neighbor and enemy
Israel. And if they had to be destroyed to accomplish that, that's fine. Minus Egypt, those
three countries were Israel's primary enemies in the three Arab-Israeli wars. Venezuela is
not "another" war for oil, but it might be the first.
Syria, Iraq and Libya were not destroyed for oil. Oil provided cover for the
real reason. In fact, oil companies opposed war for oil. It doesn't benefit the US or those
companies. Those three countries were and are Israel's primary enemies and neighbors and that
is why they were destroyed. Only if you stick your head in the sand and ignore the enormous
power of Israel and their Jewish supporters which is constantly on full display constantly
can someone not see that.
@EliteCommInc.
The russians are not the ennemies of the europeans , the russians are europeans , the yankees
are nor european .
If the yankees were the allies of the europeans , why they should need hundreds of
military occupation bases in Europe ? why they should impose on europeans self defeating
trade sanctions against Russia ? , strange " allies " .
@conatus
you are late conatus , the russians are building in Venezuela a factory of Kalasnikov rifles
, and Maduro is traing a militia of two million men , to help the army .
@conatusVenezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world. I'm pretty sure there are still
lots of guns around. They're not using rocks to kill one another.
The U.S. military richly deserves to get itself trapped in a Gaza type situation of house
to house fighting in the favellas above Caracas.
@War
for Blair Mountain{If JFK were alive ..and POTUS in 2019 he would give the order to
overthrow the Maduro Goverment .}
JFK was alive way back then, when he gave the order to overthrow Castro and the result was
the Bay of Pigs disaster. And – for better or worse – Cubans are still running
their own country, not some foreign installed puppet.
'The order to overthrow Maduro' today would have the same disasterous end.
It should be obvious by now, that despite all the hardships, majority of Venezuelans don't
want a foreign installed puppet.
Carlson is right on Venezuela but was wrong on 911 truthers which he said back in September
2017, that 911 truthers were nuts! 911 which was done by Israel and the zionist controlled
deep state lead to the destruction of the mideast for Israel and the zionist NWO!
Trump is a Trojan horse under zionist control who had 5 draft deferments but now is the
zionists war lord sending Americans to fight and die in the mideast for Israel just like
obama and bush jr. , same bullshit different puppet!
America is Oceania , war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and I would
add to what Orwell said, war in the zio/US is perpetual for our zionist overlords.
One more thing, if Venezuela did not have oil the zio/US would not give a damn about
it!
Imperialists always see themselves as spreading good things to people who will benefit from
them. And imperialists necessarily always dilute their own culture.
If the imperialist culture is already rootless cosmopolitan, it will see no downside to
the above. If the Elites of a culture have become cosmopolitans divorced from any meaningful
contact with their own people (i.e. those of their own blood and history), then they will
lead their people into ever more cultural pollution and perversion.
Jews are a people who fit the opening sentence of the preceding paragraph. The WASP Elites
fit the second sentence.
If "no one is more opposed to destructive regime-change wars than the Alt-Right", it means
that the Alt-Right are traditional conservatives, paleo-(as opposed to neo)conservatives.
Real conservatives have always opposed getting into foreign wars that posed no threat to the
U.S. They opposed Wilson lying us into WW1, Roosevelt lying us into WW2. When the
neo-conservatives (American Jews loyal to Israel) got Washington under their thumb, we
started our decades of disastrous regime-change wars based on lies, starting with the
invasion of Iraq. Those neocon mf ers are still in charge.
An Alt Right 2.0 concept that is compassionate with the damage done by US war and economic
exploitation against the poorest people of the world who are mostly brown people is an
interesting concept.
But I think it will ultimately fail, since so many of the white people who make up the Alt
Right are angry with minorities and see them as a lower race. And these white people are more
interested in playing the victim card anyways.
@A123
You speak truth and cite facts, these loons go bananas.
Thank God they have no real power.
Hopefully they don't even own a hamster . probably would make the little fella read Mien
Kempf.
Because a hamster reading is just as cogent and linear as their arguments.
They are frustrated they cannot find a way to blame the Jews! for Maduro being a greedy
murdering sweathog who lets zoo animals starve while he looks like animated male
cellulite.
Funny- in their prostrations to dictators ( these retards actually defend and admire
Jong-Un) they conveniently have omitted Putin is cutting Russia from the WWW- the
Internet.
They will have a Russia intranet.
Pointing out to the obtuse daily commenters that under the tyrants that practically
fellate- they would be arrested and tortured for their Unz hissy fits and word diarrhea
Nationwide radio talk show? Wow! What's the station name, number and air time?
If you listen to people with actual media shows, they don't call people TROLL just because
they have a different opinion. They don't engage in female hysterical ranting because someone
has a different idea about the mechanics of the world.
Who are your sponsors? I can't imagine you would not want the free publicity .
I agree, there is irony in labels, in trying to tell who is more disposed towards 'bloodshed
and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people die'. Why do we fight? It is
for power. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict of the past
– no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might
change, but not power. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin,
nation, religion, ideology, politics – everything. We unite with the enemies of our
principles, because that is what serves our interest. It is power, not any of the above
concepts, that is the cause of war. And that is what is leading the world to nuclear
Armageddon. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@TKK
My sponsors are truth and America first. All Zionist hucksters are on my hit list. Again, I
suggest you and yours consider "making aliyah". https://www.nbn.org.il/
Number of Boots on the ground:
-- Syria -- Reduced vs. Obama, at most a few thousand
-- Iran -- ZERO
-- Venezuela -- Again ZERO
We will see in the future. Trump has to stir the pot. The foaming at the mouth media and his political opposition, in
both parties, need something to blather on about. Jus like rasslin'. Remember. The choice was between Trump and Clinton. Not Trump and Jesus.
@TKK
Oh, I see a point there, and it's an interesting one – openly Christian presidents
discredit their Christianity by engaging in non-righteous wars. After contemplating the
point, I don't think the foreign policy of W or Trump is anywhere close to being the primary
factor in the decline in church attendance. After all, the Catholic Church and other
denominations are mired in myriad sex scandals, the internet pulls people from God with
private depravity, science offers compelling hows if not whys, entertainment options abound,
and so on. Nonetheless, an orthodox and faithful Christian president committed to peace and
not fighting for oil or foreign interests would be a thing to behold. With caveats relating
to perceived sanity, that person would get my vote.
"The russians are not the ennemies of the europeans , the russians are europeans , the
yankees are nor european . "
These comments don't make any sense to me based on what I wrote. My comments have no
bearing on whether the Russians are an actual threat or not. I see them as competitors with
whom there are some places to come to some agreements. They doesn't mean I truth them.
Furthermore, my comments have no bearing on the territorial nature of Russian ethos.
That's not the point. Europeans have been at each other since there were Europeans. From the
Vikings and before to Serbia and Georgian conflicts. But none of that has anything to do with
my comments.
You might want to read them for what they do say as opposed to what you would like them to
say.
Jul 26, 2017 CIA director hints US is working to topple Venezuela's elected government
CIA Director Mike Pompeo indirectly admitted that the US is pushing for a new government
in Venezuela, in collaboration with Colombia and Mexico.
Feb 22, 2019 An Ocean of Lies on Venezuela: Abby Martin & UN Rapporteur Expose
Coup
On the eve of another US war for oil, Abby Martin debunks the most repeated myths about
Venezuela and uncovers how US sanctions are crimes against humanity with UN investigator and
human rights Rapporteur Alfred De Zayas.
"After all, the Catholic Church and other denominations are mired in myriad sex scandals . .
."
Not even to the tune of 4%, and I am being generous. The liberals have managed to make the
Church look a den of NAMBLA worshipers -- hardly. In the west the Churches are under pressure
from the same sex practitioners to reject scriptural teachings on the behavior, but elsewhere
around the world, Catholic institutions, such as in Africa -- reject the notion.
@TKK
Thanks. Ignoring mindless trolls is a necessary skill for the site.
____
Given the end of the Mueller exoneration, both Trump and Putin are looking to strengthen
ties. Thus it is:
-- Unlikely that Putin is heavily committed to helping Maduro. The numbers are too small
for that. Also, what would Putin do with Maduro? The last thing Putin needs is a spoiler to
the developing detente.
-- Much more likely the troops have a straightforward purpose. Brazilian
military/aerospace technology would jump ahead 20 years if they could grab an intact S-300
system. Russia doesn't want a competitor in that market, so they have a deep interest in
reclaiming or destroying S-300 equipment as Maduro goes down.
@EliteCommInc.
You are certainly right. I have no doubt that the vast majority of priests are good men
innocent of these charges, and that there are more public school sex scandals (by both raw
numbers and percentage) then similar Church scandals. The scandals do have public currency
and legs, though, and are one reason often cited as to why the pews are empty. I am at fault
for helping to keep this ruinous perception alive with my online rhetoric, and thank you for
pointing it out.
' It's the oil ' canard has always been the excuse cultivated for suckers, and boy
do suckers fall for it.
US oil companies have not received the big oil deals in countries where the US, at the
behest of "that shitty little country", have interfered militarily. However, Russia, China,
& to a limited degree, a few European companies have.
@PeterMX
Bibi's biggest enemy, his main prize, has always been Iran. He is afraid that, if Trump
refuses to do his bidding now, it may well be too late in an election year. One way or
another Bolton and Pompeo are going to convince their token boss to green light a massive
bombing campaign, especially if Iran attempts to shut down the Straits of Hormuz. It will
happen this year if Trump fails to come to his senses.
@Scalper
In the first place, your bizarre partisan rant is a little out of place. There aren't too
many QAnons here at Unz, and there are probably a fair number of regulars here who wouldn't
even identify as Republicans or 'conservatives' (whatever that term means today).
Secondly, some of your talking points aren't even accurate:
Trump administration will declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation,
increasing the animosity from Arab countries in the ME to unbelievable levels. This
includes non Arab country Turkey also, a traditional ally until neocon Trump took
power.
If Trump were truly to declare the Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization, a lot of
Arab rulers would actually thank him. You see, the Brotherhood is actually illegal in
most Arab countries today, precisely because it has a history of collaborating with foreign
intelligence services such as MI6, the CIA and Mossad. More recently, it was strongly
associated with failed régime-change projects in countries like Egypt and Syria; so
with a few exceptions (like Qatar), the Brotherhood is not well liked by Arab rulers.
Immigration restrictionism is a traditional pro working class, leftist policy.
Traditionally leftist? Sure up until the Hart-Celler Act of 1965! The sad fact is,
we don't an anti-immigration party in the US at all today. Neither the Republicans nor the
Democrats have any interest whatsoever in halting–or even just slowing
down–immigration.
@PeterMX
It's obvious that FOX is giving Tucker a lot of latitude. They continued to support him when
advertisers left, and when accusations of racism emerged from a radio interview he'd done
years ago with a shock jock. They dare not fire him as he has the largest and most fervent
base of supporters on cable news. But Tucker knows that there is one big issue, the Elephant
in the room, of which he dare not speak. It's that shitty little country calling the shots,
whose name begins with an I.
@Anonymous
I think there may be more alt-righters opposed to foreign wars and exploitative 'free' trade
treaties than you assume. Most of the alt-righters I know oppose the current régime's
"invade the world, invite the world" policies (to borrow a phrase from our own Steve Sailer).
But unlike the anti-imperialist left (with whom they often do ally), they usually argue
against such policies based on popular self-interest rather than abstract universal morality.
They usually choose to argue that being a mighty world empire has worked to the
detriment of the majority of people in America; that the whole thing is just a scam to
enrich and empower a small, corrupt élite.
what goes unremarked here and elsewhere is the ethnic composition of Venezuela. From a few
searches, Whites are only about one-third of V.
The Tipping Point for chaos is clear. Brazil is half White, Argentina is near 100 % White,
ditto Chile.
(Argentina ca. 1900 exterminated a large number its "Indigenous." )
The most stable of Latin America is Costa Rica, which is apparently about three quarters
White.
Meanwhile the jewyorktimes reports the narco-traffickers in the Maduro administration.
Hopeless. Any Brown or Black Country is doomed. Brazil works cuz Whites know how to
control the 45% mulattos and 5 % Blacks. For now anyway. Mexico is a narco-state with the
only 9% Whites able to control the half breeds and Indigenous thru co-option. Wait for Mexico
to blow up.
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed
at articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and
international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime
change wars.
That's an amazing point. I'm not sure what "Alt-Right" or "2.0 movement" really means in the current
shills-vs-people wars but all the best and the brightest in our ranks are clearly against the
globalists.
@Avery
The Deep state/CIA did the Bay of Pigs. JFK was not informed about it before it happened. JFK
was fighting the CIA and deep state throughout his presidency. He wanted to shatter the CIA
into a million pieces. Read "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W. Douglass. His peace speech
on June 10, 1963 was too much for our deep state. That speech was the biggest triggers that
set the motion for his assassination.
Whatever anyone thinks about the Alt-Right it did expose a lot of things about our current
era, our history, our politics, and power paradigms that once seen can not be unseen.
And what are you going to do about it? What can anyone really do, honestly?
Not too much at least in America. Eastern Europe still has a good chance.
In America, the trajectory and machinations of power have been set for a long time and
revolutionary romanticism tends to work better for the Left than the Right. A quick look at
the data easily reveals this.
So what do you do when you realize how so much of everything that's presented as real and
true isn't real or true? And there are so many truly bad human beings with major power over
our culture, politics, and society?
Well, when has that not been the case in human history? At some point, acknowledging all
the black pills is sort of like accepting your human limits, your finitude, your genetics,
the unanswered mysteries of existence, the nothingness of Earth in the grand scheme, and just
basic gravity.
You could become a courageous online revolutionary and eventually trigger some unstable
person to get things shut down and deplatformed.
Or you could organize with socially and psychologically healthy and mature adults who try
to prioritize attainable and realistic goals and gain some moralizing victories that can
buffer against the demoralizing defeats.
Luckily, out of the winter of our discontent have emerged many healthy tendrils of new
growth.
The new millennium has seen a marked increase in parties and movements which appeal to racial
and ethnic nationalism. What's behind it? I have an idea.
Economic globalization could be a factor, as multinational corporations have shifted
operations and production around the globe, to places where labor is cheaper and there's less
official concern for public well-being. That's meant the loss of skilled-labor jobs in a
number of countries with relatively high wages and state regulation in the name of public
interest. There's doubtless anger that such jobs have been lost to Mexicans, Chinese,
Filipinos, and people of other nations. But there's also evidence that this racial-ethnic
anger is local and less abstract. Something else has triggered highly authoritarian
Conservatives, I think.
The studies of Conservatives and authoritarians which I've cited in previous essays [
here
and here ]
suggested that these individuals are more sensitive to, and more alarmed by, conditions which
present them with uncertainty. Any change from the status quo will do that. Consequently, any
perceived deviation from the traditional order, with its established culture and hierarchies,
will cause them to band together and fight for the status quo ante.
It's my hypothesis that, in many nations around the world, the 21st Century brought with
it the increased presence and upward mobility of populations which Conservative/authoritarian
citizens considered non-traditional and lower status. Conservative/authoritarian citizens
would have viewed these social changes as threats to their traditional cultures and
hierarchies, and they would have taken political actions intended to conserve or restore
their traditional orders [e.g., to "Make America Great Again"].
Between 2000 and 2015, estimated global
migration increased from about 173 million migrants to 244 million migrants, a jump of
41% (if I did the math correctly). Here are the top 10 countries to which they migrated:
"... Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization. Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies. ..."
The world is at a dangerous crossroads. The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens
the future of humanity. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East,
Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The US-NATO military agenda combines both major theater operations
as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.
America's hegemonic project is to destabilize and destroy countries through acts of war, covert operations in support of terrorist
organizations, regime change and economic warfare. The latter includes the imposition of deadly macro-economic reforms on indebted
countries as well the manipulation of financial markets, the engineered collapse of national currencies, the privatization of State
property, the imposition of economic sanctions, the triggering of inflation and black markets.
The economic dimensions of this military agenda must be clearly understood. War and Globalization are intimately related. These
military and intelligence operations are implemented alongside a process of economic and political destabilization targeting specific
countries in all major regions of World.
Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization.
Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which
consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies.
In turn, the demise of national sovereignty was also facilitated by the instatement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995,
evolving towards the global trading agreements (TTIP and TPP) which (if adopted) would essentially transfer state policy entirely
into the hands of corporations. In recent years, neoliberalism has extend its grip from the so-called developing countries to the
developed countries of both Eastern and Western Europe. Bankruptcy programs have been set in motion. Island, Portugal, Greece, Ireland,
etc, have been the target of sweeping austerity measures coupled with the privatization of key sectors of the national economy.
The global economic crisis is intimately related to America's hegemonic agenda. In the US and the EU, a spiralling defense budget
backlashes on the civilian sectors of economic activity. "War is Good for Business": the powerful financial groups which routinely
manipulate stock markets, currency and commodity markets, are also promoting the continuation and escalation of the Middle East war.
A worldwide process of impoverishment is an integral part of the New World Order agenda.
Beyond the Globalization of Poverty
Historically, impoverishment of large sectors of the World population has been engineered through the imposition of IMF-style macro-economic
reforms. Yet, in the course of the last 15 years, a new destructive phase has been set in motion. The World has moved beyond the
"globalization of poverty": countries are transformed in open territories,
State institutions collapse, schools and hospitals are closed down, the legal system disintegrates, borders are redefined, broad
sectors of economic activity including agriculture and manufacturing are precipitated into bankruptcy, all of which ultimately leads
to a process of social collapse, exclusion and destruction of human life including the outbreak of famines, the displacement of entire
populations (refugee crisis).
This "second stage" goes beyond the process of impoverishment instigated in the early 1980s by creditors and international financial
institutions. In this regard, mass poverty resulting from macro-economic reform sets the stage of a process of outright destruction
of human life.
In turn, under conditions of widespread unemployment, the costs of labor in developing countries has plummeted. The driving force
of the global economy is luxury consumption and the weapons industry.
The New World Order
Broadly speaking, the main corporate actors of the New World Order are
Wall Street and the Western banking conglomerates including its offshore money laundering facilities, tax havens, hedge funds
and secret accounts,
the Military Industrial Complex regrouping major "defense contractors", security and mercenary companies, intelligence outfits,
on contract to the Pentagon;
the Anglo-American Oil and Energy Giants,
The Biotech Conglomerates, which increasingly control agriculture and the food chain;
Big Pharma,
The Communication Giants and Media conglomerates, which constitute the propaganda arm of the New World Order.
There is of course overlap, between Big Pharma and the Weapons industry, the oil conglomerates and Wall Street, etc.
These various corporate entities interact with government bodies, international financial institutions, US intelligence. The state
structure has evolved towards what Peter Dale Scott calls the "Deep State", integrated by covert intelligence bodies, think tanks,
secret councils and consultative bodies, where important New World Order decisions are ultimately reached on behalf of powerful corporate
interests.
In turn, intelligence operatives increasingly permeate the United Nations including its specialized agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, trade unions, political parties.
What this means is that the executive and legislature constitute a smokescreen, a mechanism for providing political legitimacy
to decisions taken by the corporate establishment behind closed doors.
Media Propaganda
The corporate media, which constitutes the propaganda arm of the New World Order, has a long history whereby intelligence ops
oversee the news chain. In turn, the corporate media serves the useful purpose of obfuscating war crimes, of presenting a humanitarian
narrative which upholds the legitimacy of politicians in high office.
Acts of war and economic destabilization are granted legitimacy. War is presented as a peace-keeping undertaking.
Both the global economy as well as the political fabric of Western capitalism have become criminalized. The judicial apparatus
at a national level as well the various international human rights tribunals and criminal courts serve the useful function of upholding
the legitimacy of US-NATO led wars and human rights violations.
Destabilizing Competing Poles of Capitalist Development
There are of course significant divisions and capitalist rivalry within the corporate establishment. In the post Cold War era,
the US hegemonic project consists in destabilizing competing poles of capitalist development including China, Russia and Iran as
well as countries such as India, Brazil and Argentina.
In recent developments, the US has also exerted pressure on the capitalist structures of the member states of the European Union.
Washington exerts influence in the election of heads of State including Germany and France, which are increasingly aligned with Washington.
The monetary dimensions are crucial. The international financial system established under Bretton Woods prevails. The global financial
apparatus is dollarized. The powers of money creation are used as a mechanism to appropriate real economy assets. Speculative financial
trade has become an instrument of enrichment at the expense of the real economy. Excess corporate profits and multibillion dollar
speculative earnings (deposited in tax free corporate charities) are also recycled towards the corporate control of politicians,
civil society organizations, not to mention scientists and intellectuals. It's called corruption, co-optation, fraud.
Latin America: The Transition towards a "Democratic Dictatorship"
In Latin America, the military dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s have in large part been replaced by US proxy regimes, i.e.
a democratic dictatorship has been installed which ensures continuity. At the same time the ruling elites in Latin America have remoulded.
They have become increasingly integrated into the logic of global capitalism, requiring an acceptance of the US hegemonic project.
Macro-economic reform has been conducive to the impoverishment of the entire Latin America region.
In the course of the last 40 years, impoverishment has been triggered by hyperinflation, starting with the 1973 military coup
in Chile and the devastating reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s.
The implementation of these deadly economic reforms including sweeping privatization, trade deregulation, etc. is coordinated
in liaison with US intelligence ops, including the "Dirty war" and Operation Condor, the Contra insurrection in Nicaragua, etc.
The development of a new and privileged elite integrated into the structures of Western investment and consumerism has emerged.
Regime change has been launched against a number of Latin American countries.
Any attempt to introduce reforms which departs from the neoliberal consensus is the object of "dirty tricks" including acts of
infiltration, smear campaigns, political assassinations, interference in national elections and covert operations to foment social
divisions. This process inevitably requires corruption and cooptation at the highest levels of government as well as within the corporate
and financial establishment. In some countries of the region it hinges on the criminalization of the state, the legitimacy of money
laundering and the protection of the drug trade.
The above text is an English summary of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky's Presentation, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua,
May 17, 2016. This presentation took place following the granting of a Doctor Honoris Causa in Humanities to Professor Chossudovsky
by the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN)
Villains of the day: Random Guy, Pompeo, and nefarious band of willie, barovsky etc.
Pompeo is perhaps green with envy, why Boris Johnson should keep the mantle of the most
clownish top diplomat of a major state? He can do better! But once the tall tale was said, it
was duly echoed in supine media. NYT made a paragraph, and actually noted how Pompeo
explained his alleged knowledge of Maduro preparing for departure: >>Pressed about the
source of this information, Mr. Pompeo said it was drawn from "open-source material," and
conversations with "scores and scores of people on the ground," including members of the
military and opposition leaders. "He was headed for Havana," he said of Mr. Maduro.<<
The Guardian made a separate article on the topic, with no notes of caution, damn the
torpedoes, copy with full speed!
So "people on the ground" could have reliable, ha ha, info on the conversations between
Maduro and "Russians". "Scores of people" were interviewed, hm., seems that the wily Maduro
eschew a usual step of information blockade, letting the little golpistas -- and him -- look
silly. I actually do not believe in those "scores of interviews", Most generously, there were
that many conversations from which his people could "draw" a rumor prepared ahead of time,
probably by his own Department.
Finally, the nefarious long linkers. Is it really THAT hard to learn how to make neat
links this
one ? Join lines and remove all spaces from the text below
"... The Empire is not weak, this is poor analysis. India and Europe stopped buying Iranian oil. 1 billion $ of Iranian oil stays blocked in China, no one wants to touch it. Even Khamenei admitted that Europe left the JCPOA in practice. ..."
"... Iran is in deep recession. Venezuela is in deep recession and is surrounded. ..."
"... Iraq? US troops are staying there. Syria? US troops are staying there long term. 1 third of the country containing the biggest oil fields is under US control. There is fuel shortage crisis due to sanctions. Europe is not stopping its sanctions either. ..."
"The Empire only appears to be strong. In reality it is weak, confused, clueless"
The Empire is not weak, this is poor analysis. India and Europe stopped buying Iranian oil. 1 billion $ of Iranian oil stays blocked in
China, no one wants to touch it. Even Khamenei admitted that Europe left the JCPOA in
practice.
Iran is in deep recession. Venezuela is in deep recession and is surrounded. Almost
all of Latin America now has pro-US governments. CIA linked Bolsonaro took over in Brazil.
Turkey is in deep recession and Erdogan lost the big cities.
India is moving closer to the US. Europe remains a vassal. Russian economic growth is
weak. The US won the trade war against China as Andrei Martyanov himself admitted.
Iraq? US troops are staying there. Syria? US troops are staying there long term. 1 third
of the country containing the biggest oil fields is under US control. There is fuel shortage
crisis due to sanctions. Europe is not stopping its sanctions either.
There is no doubt that they will be weaker in the future, but they will fight hard to stop
this and gain time.
WASHINGTON -- Overall military expenditures rose 2.6 percent
between 2017 and 2018 , to hit a total of $1.82 trillion, according to new research from
the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
The total from 2018 is 5.4 percent higher than 2009, and represents a 76 percent increase
over 1998, a 20-year period.
Sixty percent of global military spending came from five countries: The United States ($649
billion), China ($250 billion), Saudi Arabia ($67.6 billion), India ($66.5 billion) and France
($63.8 billion). Russia ($61.4 billion) and the United Kingdom ($50 billion) were the other two
countries to spend $50 billion or more on defense.
However, there are ups and downs among the biggest spenders. While the U.S. (4.6 percent,
the first overall growth since 2010), China (5 percent) and India (3.1 percent) increased their
respective military spending year over year, Saudi Arabia cut its spending by 6.5 percent,
France by 1.4 percent and Russia by 3.5 percent.
And overall defense spending per gross domestic product fell to 2.1 percent in 2018,
representing $239 per global citizen, a 0.1 percent decrease over one year and a 0.5 percent
decrease over 10 years.
Notably, Russia ranked outside the top five for the first time since 2006. China, meanwhile,
increased its military spending for the 24th consecutive year, and its spending is almost 10
times higher than it was in 1994; however, researchers warn that Chinese growth may slow in the
coming year.
"The annual rate of growth of China's military spending has slowed steadily since it reached
a post-2009 high of 9.3 percent in 2013. The growth of 5.0 percent in 2018 was the lowest
annual increase since 1995," the authors note. "China has followed a policy of linking growth
in military spending with economic growth. With its economic growth slowing in 2018 to the
lowest level in 28 years, slower rates of growth in the coming years can be expected if China
continues to follow this policy."
Cuts in DOD
should start right here, given the utter absurdity and culture of entitlement that continues
unchecked in DOD with the objectively preposterous $21 BILLION per year tax free monthly
optional off-ship and of-base surmised "housing" allowances/handouts in our nation's all
volunteer military.
Just look at these tax free monthly handouts! They are all beyond ridiculous regardless of
location and rank! And most were increased yet again for 2019!
Upwards of $2,000-over $5,000 a month tax free for singles, the vast majority of who could
and should be living in the existing and more than adequate singles quarters on the ships and
bases they are assigned.
Upwards of eye-popping ranges of $4,000-$6,000-$8,000-$10,677, yes, $10,677 a month tax free
for so-called "dual married" volunteer couples. Dual marrieds are two married volunteers. There
are approx. 90,000 volunteers who are dual married. And all of these couples get TWO tax free
monthly handouts for their ONE family unit.
If they have a kid, one gets the higher "with dependents" tax free rate. And the other gets
the slightly lower "without dependents" rate. If no kid, then they both get the tax free
monthly "without" rate. And the vast majority of these dual marrieds are already being paid
from $100,000-$300,000 and more in combined annual base pays, other pays, and other tax free
monthly handouts each year.
These extremely well paid couples should be using their very generous US taxpayer provided
de facto salaries to pay for their housing needs just like the taxpaying public. Or at a bare
minimum means testing is more than appropriate just as other federal social welfare programs
are administered.
And the most outrageous fact concerning these patently absurd tax free monthly handouts is
that no proof of any kind is needed to show that these tax free windfalls are actually being
used for off base "housing" needs or expenses in the first place.
And as a direct result of this utter lack of management control and fiscal responsibility,
most volunteers gain much lower cost housing (e.g., most singles opt to roommate) so they can
divert, although currently legally, hundreds and even many thousands tax free into their
pockets each month and/or divert them into luxury auto purchases and other items of excess so
they can live vastly premature affluent lifestyles off the backs of the U.S. taxpayers.
And here is a sample of these ludicrous tax free monthly handouts by four cities over four
ranks. Cumulatively, there are hundreds of thousands of military volunteers currently assigned
throughout these four locations. And although there are many other locations with lower tax
free monthly handouts, there are many others with even higher figures.
E-3s are typically GED or HS educated. The vast majority are 19-20 years old with less than 2
years in the military since leaving their parent's homes, literally.
E-7s are typically the same as above but add 10-12 years and perhaps a dubious AA or BA
"e-degree" gained at full taxpayer expense during their supposed "working" hours from an open
enrollment, for profit, on-line diploma mill that caters to DOD staff and relies on taxpayer
funds in DOD "training" accounts for its very existence.
O-3s are typically twenty somethings with undergrad degrees occupying entry-level or near
entry-level military pseudo management or staff positions.
O-6s include legions of desk-based administrative support staffers with grad degrees earned
100% off the backs of the U.S. taxpayers
Contact your members of Congress today to help get this $21 billion per year, but little
known outside of DOD tax free out of control gravy train stopped in its tracks
"... It's the US ruling elite that are the true deplorables. ..."
"... The war on civilization is never a failure for as long as the invader wins. Winning in this case means toppling a government, destabilizing an economy and dividing a population then leaving a country in chaos. It's not a foreign policy failure for the U.S. That is the policy working exactly as intended. All the talk later, where they claim that they had "bad intel" or they "made mistakes" or "miscalculated" is complete bullshit. They know what they're doing. If they didn't, they wouldn't keep doing it over and over in the exact same way. ..."
"... {A titular ruler, or titular head, is a person in an official position of leadership who possesses few, if any, actual powers. Sometimes a person may inhabit a position of titular leadership and yet exercise more power than would normally be expected, as a result of their personality or experience} ? ..."
"... They'd follow the money if they really wanted to end the terrorism. In that regard, bombing Raqqa to hell was sure convenient as USA destroyed all the evidence - or at least they can make that claim. ..."
"... So he gets trotted out just in time to revive the "ISIS threat", and take the blame for various recent funny-smelling terrist attacks, people going to odd places like New Zealand and Sri Lanka to vent their spleens at Muslims and Christians, respectively. I have half-a-suspicion somebody is trying to get a religious war of some sort going. ..."
"... we're talking 1 and a half million dead so far in Iraq and Afghanistan...and that's being conservative. ..."
"... Where? Where was it published? On what platform? Is it really that hard to trace the IPs? Turkey is really determined to get those S-400s. The Empire first threatened to withhold F-35s, then to impose sanctions, then to expel Turkey from NATO, then to move its bases to Greece. Still, Turkey wouldn't budge. Time to deploy some good old terrorism, so that the Empire will be obliged to come in and "help". ..."
"... I have long believed that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi actually is associated either with Moss ad or the CIA. That's why he's had so many miracle escapes. That's why they never catch him and often don't even know where he is. And we know that his ISIS never, never attacks Israeli targets or fat Saudi Prince targets. ..."
"... Those would in fact be the targets of choice for any genuine jihad movement. Not Syria or Iraq, which are two states Israel has wanted to harm or eliminate for years. ISIS has always been a fraud, a very complex and deadly one, but a fraud. ..."
"... Many years ago, even before this character posed as a "Syrian rebel" who was photographed meeting with John McCain, he was outed as a Mossad agent by the name of Simon Elliot. ..."
"... Al Jazeera "can't confirm the authenticity of the video." ..."
"... A history of Wahhabism which is a problem for the globe; https://ahtribune.com/religion/155-a-history-of-wahhabism.html The KSA, whose ass the empire kisses daily, is the main funder for these clowns. ..."
What's the Wonder my dear?
Duh!
He is in CIA safe house in Al-Anbar.
ISI is looking for this CIA's "Patsy" hide out. Watch this space, he has blood of 14
Pakistani soldiers on his hands via Iran hit. We will end this MOSSAD Agent.
The one hundred thousand people that died in Iraq and Afghanistan due to terrorist
activities would certainly agree that the trillions of dollars that have been spent on the
War on Terror has done very little to remove the spectre of terrorist activities from their
homes, cities and nations.
Sally Snyder: The war on terror is a war of terror and in that sense, though morally
reprehensible and costly, has been success. Regime change and the destabilization of the
Middle East has been the goal.
It's the US ruling elite that are the true deplorables.
War on terror was the war on an entire civilization. Association/Replacement of the word
terror was just for the public consumption. It's a simple strategy that makes the
aggressors appear like the good guys who are there to defend themselves or the values they
hold.
The war on civilization is never a failure for as long as the invader wins. Winning in
this case means toppling a government, destabilizing an economy and dividing a population
then leaving a country in chaos. It's not a foreign policy failure for the U.S. That is the
policy working exactly as intended. All the talk later, where they claim that they had "bad
intel" or they "made mistakes" or "miscalculated" is complete bullshit. They know what
they're doing. If they didn't, they wouldn't keep doing it over and over in the exact same
way.
War on the civilizations yields massive benefits. It's the shortcoming of the model of
the western civilization that it continuously requires massive input that can't be achieved
by the legal means of business and trade.
Auntie Gina the tit ular head of Al-CIA-duh/ Al Qaeda/ ISIS?
{A titular ruler, or titular head, is a person in an official position of leadership
who possesses few, if any, actual powers. Sometimes a person may inhabit a position of
titular leadership and yet exercise more power than would normally be expected, as a result
of their personality or experience} ?
They'd follow the money if they really wanted to end the terrorism.
In that regard, bombing Raqqa to hell was sure convenient as USA destroyed all the
evidence - or at least they can make that claim.
So he gets trotted out just in time to revive the "ISIS threat", and take the blame for
various recent funny-smelling terrist attacks, people going to odd places like New Zealand
and Sri Lanka to vent their spleens at Muslims and Christians, respectively. I have
half-a-suspicion somebody is trying to get a religious war of some sort going.
They don't seem to be having that much success with getting that war going, so I expect
the attacks will go on.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, self declared caliph of ISIS, appeared in new video
published today.
Where? Where was it published? On what platform? Is it really that hard to trace the
IPs? Turkey is really determined to get those S-400s. The Empire first threatened to withhold
F-35s, then to impose sanctions, then to expel Turkey from NATO, then to move its bases to
Greece. Still, Turkey wouldn't budge. Time to deploy some good old terrorism, so that the
Empire will be obliged to come in and "help".
I have long believed that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi actually is associated either with Moss ad
or the CIA. That's why he's had so many miracle escapes. That's why they never catch him and often don't even know where he is. And we know that his ISIS never, never attacks Israeli targets or fat Saudi Prince
targets.
Those would in fact be the targets of choice for any genuine jihad movement. Not Syria
or Iraq, which are two states Israel has wanted to harm or eliminate for years. ISIS has always been a fraud, a very complex and deadly one, but a fraud.
Many years ago, even before this character posed as a "Syrian rebel" who was photographed
meeting with John McCain, he was outed as a Mossad agent by the name of Simon Elliot.
The guy in recent picture looks like one of Rita Katz's actors.
It is a show to threaten Turkey with the same as Sri Lanka (where they refine lots of
Iranian crude...and more...look it up). Many ties to Iran/Sri Lanka....and to Turkey.
Typical nazi thugs....bribes, arson, dynamite...and patsies...in this case maybe mossad
actor? Why not> Cui Bono?
As to the locus of the actor? Paramount? Warner Bros? Probably not. Does it matter?
They're parading a ringer...don't fall for the gag. Erdo won't fall for it either.
Baghdadi has nice toys by his side and not just the AK-47 with the camo bit over the
barrel. It looks like a camo case on night vision gear (or vidcam?) just below that, too.
To quote the Joker: "Where does he get those wonderful toys?"
Ahh a new game of "where in the world is ..." except instead of bin Laden (or his
stand-in) the guest in Pakistan living near a military base we have Baghdadi. Maybe
Baghdadi lives in that area, too. (awaiting his execution for the media and masses). I
doubt it though. I'm thinking Turkey or even Saudi Arabia.
... This move by Baghdadi could backfire in a big way. Got my popcorn ready. Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 29, 2019 5:06:26 PM | 19
It does seem unnecessarily cheeky/ fishy.
If 'they' had fiendishly brilliant plan, why wouldn't they'd just do it and leave it to the
intel wonks to figure out what went wrong?
It's big news in the J-C International media.
Al Jazeera "can't confirm the authenticity of the video."
"Russiagate without Russia" actually means "Isrealgate". This individual points that he mentions below does not matter. Russiagate was a carefully planned and
brilliantly executed false flag operation run by intelligences
agencies (with GB agencies playing an important in some episodes decisive role) and headed probably by Obama himself via Brennan. There
were two goals: (1) to exclude any possibility of detente with Russia and (2) to block any Trump attempts to change the USA foreign
policy including running foreign war that enrich Pentagon contractors and justify supersized budget for intelligence agencies. As such
is was a great success.
The fact that no American was indicted and that Mueller attempt to prosecute Russian marketing agneces failed does not matter. The
atmosphere is now posoned for a generation. Americans are brainwashed and residue of Russiagate will stay for a long, long time. Neocons
Bolton and Pompeo now run Trump administration foreign policy with Trump performing most ceremonial role in foreign policy domain.
In this sense Skripals poisoning was another false flag operation, which was the logical continuation of Russiagate. And Magnitsky
killing (with Browder now a primary suspect) was a precursor to it. Both were run from Great Britain.
It is actually interesting how Mueller report swiped under the carpet the role of Great Britain in unleashing the Russiagate hysteria.
Two important foreign forces in the 2016 US Presidential elections was the Israel lobby and Great Britain. Trump proved to be a
marionette not of Russia but of Israeli lobby. so sad...
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller's report does answer that question: There were effectively no "Kremlin intermediaries." The report contains no evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign spoke to a Kremlin representative during the election, aside from conversations with the Russian ambassador and a press-office assistant, both of whom were ruled out as having participated in a conspiracy (more on them later). ..."
For more than two years, leading US political and media voices promoted a narrative that Donald Trump conspired with or was compromised
by the Kremlin, and that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would prove it. In the process, they overlooked countervailing evidence and
diverted anti-Trump energies into fervent speculation and prolonged anticipation. So long as Mueller was on the case, it was possible
to believe that " The Walls Are Closing In " on the
traitor /
puppet / asset in the
White House
.
The long-awaited completion of Mueller's probe, and the release of his redacted report, reveals this narrative -- and the expectations
it fueled -- to be unfounded. No American was indicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Mueller's report
does lay out extensive evidence that Trump sought to impede the investigation, but it declines to issue a verdict on obstruction.
It presents no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with an alleged effort by the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton,
and instead renders this conclusion: "Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the [Trump] Campaign coordinated or conspired
with the Russian government in its election-interference activities." As a result, Mueller's report provides the opposite of what
Russiagate promoters led their audiences to expect: Rather than detailing a sinister collusion plot with Russia, it presents what
amounts to an extended indictment of the conspiracy theory itself.
1. Russiagate Without Russia
The most fundamental element of a conspiracy is contact between the two parties doing the conspiring. Hence, on the eve of the
report's release, The New York
Times noted that among the "outstanding questions" that Mueller would answer were the nature of "contacts between Kremlin
intermediaries and the Trump campaign."
Mueller's report does answer that question: There were effectively no "Kremlin intermediaries." The report contains no evidence
that anyone from the Trump campaign spoke to a Kremlin representative during the election, aside from conversations with the Russian
ambassador and a press-office assistant, both of whom were ruled out as having participated in a conspiracy (more on them later).
It should be no surprise, then, to learn from Mueller that, when "Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen
began trying to make inroads into the new administration" after Trump's election victory, they did not know whom to call. These powerful
Russians, Mueller noted, "appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect."
If top Russians did not have "preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with" the people that they supposedly conspired with,
perhaps that is because they did not actually conspire.
To borrow a phrase from Nation contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen, when it comes to the core question of contacts between
Trump and the Russian government, we are left with a "Russiagate without Russia." Instead we have a series of interactions where
Trump associates speak with Russian nationals, people with ties to Russian nationals, or people who claim to have ties to
the Russian government. But none of these "links," "ties," or associations ever entail a member of the Trump campaign interacting
with a Kremlin intermediary. Russiagate promoters have nonetheless fueled a dogged media effort to track
every
known instance in which someone in Trump's orbit
interacted with " the Russians ," or
someone who can be linked
to them . There is nothing illegal or inherently suspect about speaking to a Russian national -- but there is something xenophobic
about implying as much.
2. Russiagate's Predicate Led Nowhere
The most glaring absence of a Kremlin intermediary comes in the case that ostensibly prompted the entire Trump-Russia investigation.
During an April 2016 meeting in Rome, a London-based professor named Joseph Mifsud reportedly informed Trump campaign aide George
Papadopoulos that "the Russians" had obtained "thousands of emails" containing "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. That information made its
way to the FBI, which used it as a pretext to open the "Crossfire Hurricane" probe on July 31, 2016. Papadopoulos was later indicted
for lying to FBI agents about the timing of his contacts with Mifsud. The case stoked speculation that Papadopoulos acted as an
intermediary between
Trump and Russia
.
But Papadopoulos played no such role. And while the Mueller report says that Papadopoulos "understood Mifsud to have substantial
connections to high-level Russian government officials," it never asserts that Mifsud actuall y had those connections.
Since Mifsud's suspected Russian connections were the purported predicate for the FBI's initial Trump-Russia investigation, that
is a conspicuous non-call. Another is the revelation from Mueller that
Mifsud made false statements to FBI investigators
when they interviewed him in February 2017 -- but yet, unlike Papadopoulos, Mifsud was not indicted. Thus, even the interaction that
sparked the Russia-collusion probe did not reveal collusion.
3. Sergey Kislyak Had "Brief and Non-Substantive" Interactions With the Trump Camp
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak's conversations with Trump campaign officials and associates during and after the 2016 election
were the focus of intense controversy and speculation, leading to the recusal of
Jeff Sessions, then attorney
general, and to the indictment of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
After an exhaustive review, Mueller concluded that Kislyak's interactions with Trump campaign officials at public events "were
brief, public, and non-substantive." As for Kislyak's
much –
ballyhooed meeting which Sessions in September 2016, Mueller saw no reason to dispute that it "included any more than a passing
mention of the presidential campaign." When Kislyak spoke with other Trump aides after the August 2016 Republican National Convention,
Mueller "did not identify evidence in those interactions of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."
The same goes for Kislyak's post-election conversations with Flynn. Mueller indicted Flynn for making "false statements and omissions"
in an interview with the FBI about his contacts with Kislyak during the transition in December 2016. The prevailing supposition was
that Flynn lied in order to hide from the FBI an
election-related payoff or "
quid pro quo
" with the Kremlin. The report punctures that thesis by reaffirming the facts in Flynn's indictment: What Flynn hid from agents
was that he had "called Kislyak to request Russian restraint" in response to sanctions imposed by the outgoing Obama administration,
and that Kislyak had agreed. Mueller ruled out the possibility that Flynn could have implicated Trump in anything criminal by noting
the absence of evidence that Flynn "possessed information damaging to the President that would give the President a personal incentive
to end the FBI's inquiry into Flynn's conduct."
4. Trump Tower Moscow Had No Help From Moscow
The November 2018 indictment of Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was widely seen as damning, possibly impeachment-worthy,
for Trump. Cohen admitted to giving false written answers to Congress in a bid to downplay Trump's personal knowledge of his company's
failed effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. To proponents of the collusion theory, Cohen's admitted lies were proof that "
Trump is compromised by
Russia ," " full stop ."
But the Mueller report does not show any such compromise, and, in fact, shows there to be no Trump-Kremlin relationship. Cohen,
the report notes, "requested [Kremlin] assistance in moving the project forward, both in securing land to build the project and with
financing." The request was evidently rejected. Elena Poliakova, the personal assistant to Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov,
spoke with Cohen by phone after he e-mailed her office for help. After their 20-minute call, the report says, "Cohen could not recall
any direct follow-up from Poliakova or from any other representative of the Russian government, nor did the [Special Counsel's] Office
identify any evidence of direct follow-up."
5. and Trump Didn't Ask Cohen to Lie About It
The Mueller report not only dispels the notion that Trump had secret dealings with the Kremlin over Trump Tower Moscow; it also
rejects a related impeachment-level "bombshell." In January, BuzzFeed News
reported that Mueller had evidence that Trump "directed" Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow project. But according to
Mueller, "the evidence available to us does not establish that the President directed or aided Cohen's false testimony," and that
Cohen himself testified "that he and the President did not explicitly discuss whether Cohen's testimony about the Trump Tower Moscow
project would be or was false." In a de-facto retraction, BuzzFeed updated its story with an
acknowledgment
of Mueller's conclusion .
6. The Trump Tower Meeting Really Was Just a "Waste of Time"
The June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower was
widely
dubbed
the
" Smoking
Gun ." An e-mail chain showed that Donald Trump Jr. welcomed an offer to accept compromising information about Clinton as "part
of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." But the pitch did not come from the meeting's Russian participants, but instead
from Rob Goldstone, a British music publicist acting on their behalf. Goldstone said that he invented "publicist puff" to secure
the meeting, because in reality,
as he told NPR , "I had no idea what I was talking about."
Mueller noted that Trump Jr.'s response "showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist
candidate Trump's electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer's presentation did not provide such information [emphasis mine]."
The report further recounts that during the meeting Jared Kushner texted then-Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort that it was a "waste
of time," and requested that his assistants "call him to give him an excuse to leave." Accordingly, when "Veselnitskaya made additional
efforts to follow up on the meeting," after the election, "the Trump Transition Team did not engage."
7. Manafort Did Not Share Polling Data to Meddle in the US Election
In January, Mueller accused Manafort of lying to investigators about several matters, including sharing Trump polling data and
discussing a Ukraine peace plan with a Ukrainian-Russian colleague, Konstantin Kilimnik, during the 2016 campaign. According to Mueller,
the FBI "assesses" that Kilimnik has unspecified "ties to Russian intelligence." To collusion proponents, the revelation was dubbed
" the closest we've seen yet to real, live, actual
collusion " and even the "
Russian collusion smoking gun ."
Mueller, of course, reached a different conclusion: He "did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling
data and Russia's interference in the election," and, moreover, "did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian
government on its election-interference efforts." Mueller noted that he "could not reliably determine Manafort's purpose in sharing"
the polling data, but also acknowledged (and bolstered) the explanation of his star witness, Rick Gates, that Manafort was motivated
by proving his financial value to former and future clients.
Mueller also gave us new reasons to doubt the assertions that Kilimnik himself is a Russian intelligence asset or spy. First,
Mueller did not join
media pundits in asserting such about
Kilimnik. Second, to support his vague contention that Kilimnik has, according to the FBI, "ties to Russian intelligence," Mueller
offered up a list of " pieces of the Office's
Evidence" that contains no direct evidence. For his part, Kilimnik has repeatedly stated that he has no such ties, and recently
told The Washington Post that Mueller never attempted to interview him.
8. The Steele Dossier Was Fiction
The Steele dossier -- a collection of Democratic National Committee-funded opposition research alleging a high-level Trump-Russia
criminal relationship -- played a critical role in the Russiagate saga. The FBI relied on it for leads and evidentiary material in
its investigation of the Trump campaign ties to Russia, and prominent
politicians ,
pundits , and
media
outlets promoted it as
credible .
The Mueller report,
The New York Times
noted last week , has "underscored what had grown clearer for months some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared
to be false, and others were impossible to prove." Steele reported that low-level Trump aide Carter Page was offered a 19 percent
stake in the state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft if he could get Trump to lift Western sanctions. In October 2016 the FBI, citing
the Steele dossier, told the FISA court that it "believes that [Russia's] efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other
individuals associated with" the Trump campaign. The Mueller report, however, could "not establish that Page coordinated with the
Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election."
The Steele dossier claimed that Michael Cohen visited Prague to meet Russian agents in the summer of 2016. In April 2018, McClatchy
reported to much fanfare that Mueller's team "has evidence" that placed Cohen in Prague during the period in question. Cohen later
denied the claim under oath, and Mueller agreed, noting that Cohen "never traveled to Prague."
After reports emerged in August 2016 that the Trump campaign had rejected an amendment to the Republican National Committee platform
that called for arming Ukraine, Steele claimed that it was the result of a quid pro quo. The Mueller report "did not establish that"
the rejection of the Ukraine amendment was "undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia."
9. The Trump Campaign Had No Secret Channel to WikiLeaks
In January, veteran Republican operative and conspiracy theorist Roger Stone caused a stir when he was indicted for lying to Congress
about his efforts to make contact with WikiLeaks. But Mueller's indictment actually showed that Stone
had no communications with WikiLeaks
before the election and no privileged information about its releases . Most significantly, it revealed that Trump officials were
trying to learn about the WikiLeaks releases through Stone -- a fact that underscored that the Trump campaign neither worked with
WikiLeaks nor had advance knowledge of its e-mail dumps.
Mueller's final report does nothing to alter that picture. Its sections on Stone are heavily redacted, owing to Stone's pending
trial. But they do make clear that Mueller conducted an extensive search to establish a tie between WikiLeaks, the Trump campaign,
and Stone -- and came up empty. New
reporting from The Washington Post underscores just how far their farcical efforts went. The Mueller team devoted
time and energy to determine whether far-right conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, best known for promoting the false claim that Barack
Obama was born outside the United States, served as a link between Stone and WikiLeaks. Mueller's prosecutors "spent weeks coaxing,
cajoling and admonishing the conspiracy theorist, as they pressed him to stick to facts and not reconstruct stories," the Post
reports. "At times, they had debated the nature of memory itself." It is unsurprising that this led Mueller's prosecutors to
ultimately declare, according to Corsi's attorney, "We can't use any of this."
10. There Was No Cover-Up
The Mueller report does not just dispel the conspiracy theories that have engulfed political and media circles for two years;
it puts to rest the most popular, recent one: that Attorney General William Barr engaged in a
cover-up . According to the dominant narrative, Barr was
somehow concealing Mueller's damning evidence
, while Mueller, even more improbably, stayed silent.
One could argue that Barr's summary downplays the obstruction findings, though it accurately relays that Mueller's report does
"not exonerate" Trump. It was Mueller's decision to leave the verdict on obstruction to Barr and make clear that if Congress disagrees,
it has the power to indict Trump on its own. Mueller's office assisted with Barr's redactions, which proved to be, as Barr had pledged,
extremely limited. Despite containing numerous embarrassing details about Trump, no executive privilege was invoked to censor the
report's contents.
In the end, Mueller's report shows that the Trump-Russia collusion narrative embraced and evangelized by the US political and
media establishments to be a work of
fiction . The American public
was presented with a far different picture from what was expected, because leading pundits, outlets, and politicians ignored the
countervailing facts and promoted maximalist interpretations of others. Anonymous officials also leaked explosive yet uncorroborated
claims, leaving behind many stories that were subsequently discredited, retracted, or remain unconfirmed to this day.
It is too early to assess the damage that influential Russiagate promoters have done to their own reputations; to public confidence
in our democratic system and media; and to the prospects of defeating Trump, who always stood to benefit if the all-consuming conspiracy
theory ultimately collapsed. The scale of the wreckage, confirmed by Mueller's report, may prove to be the ultimate Russiagate scandal.
"... The waivers expire in May, meaning that those countries could potentially face US sanctions beyond that deadline. China and Turkey, on their part, have strongly condemned the American restrictions, arguing the US is not in a position to intervene in their trade ties with Iran. ..."
"... We don't have any information from our Saudi partners or other OPEC members that they are ready to pull out from the deal. ..."
"... He assured that Moscow is "fulfilling its commitments" to the production cuts agreed by OPEC and several non-OPEC producers in December. Saudi Arabia is also "unlikely" to withdraw, being the driving force behind the wider coalition. ..."
It's hard to foresee how US efforts to bring Iranian oil exports to zero will play out in
future, Vladimir Putin admitted, saying OPEC members should live up to their obligation to keep
output as low as possible if it comes true. Russia has an agreement with the Organization of
the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to cut their output by 1.2 million barrels per day,
which remains in effect until July of this year, Putin said. But the US waivers – which
gave a host of countries an exemption from the existing anti-Iran sanctions – expire much
earlier, he reminded.
I don't imagine how the global energy market will react to that.
In November, the US re-imposed sanctions on Iran's energy, shipbuilding and banking sectors
in a bid to deprive Tehran of its main sources of revenue. But it simultaneously issued waivers
to China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey – the main importers of Iranian crude
– so that they can find alternative vendors of oil.
The waivers expire in May, meaning that those countries could potentially face US sanctions
beyond that deadline. China and Turkey, on their part, have strongly condemned the American
restrictions, arguing the US is not in a position to intervene in their trade ties with
Iran.
Commenting on the issue, Putin said he hopes the market will eventually avoid the deficit of
Iranian oil and that Iran will still be able to sell it. The comment came on the heels of
conflicting reports that Donald Trump persuaded Riyadh to ramp up oil output this lowering fuel
costs; these reports were denounced by OPEC officials.
Nevertheless, there is "no evidence" that any country is going to withdraw from the
OPEC+ agreement to drop oil outputs, Putin said.
We don't have any information from our Saudi partners or other OPEC members that they
are ready to pull out from the deal.
He assured that Moscow is "fulfilling its commitments" to the production cuts agreed
by OPEC and several non-OPEC producers in December. Saudi Arabia is also "unlikely" to
withdraw, being the driving force behind the wider coalition.
"... A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, " Maintaining the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." In 2011, senior national security fellow James Carafano wrote " Five Steps to Defend America's Industrial Defense Base ," which complained about a "fifty billion dollar under-procurement by the Pentagon" for buying new weaponry. In 2016, Heritage made the case for several years of reinvestment to get the military back on "sound footing," with an increase in fiscal year 2016 described as "an encouraging start." ..."
"... These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? ..."
"... note that from the Heritage 2015 IRS 990 submission the then president Jim DeMint was paid over a Million Bucks in total compensation. Trulio will no doubt also be living very large care of the MIC Cronies while in the Big Seat of that Think Pimp Tank ..."
"... Heritage senior national security fellow and defense contractor stooge James Carafano was paid over $300 Grand. Not bad scratch for merely shilling for the Merchants of Death. ..."
"... And those MIC Cronies are shrewd. It's not just Conservative Inc. They buy off EVERYBODY. ..."
"... To demonstrate how insidious the Security State propaganda is in shaping Fake News, Lockheed Martin and other defense contractors are named contributors to ostensibly left-leaning PBS/NPR. ..."
"... And Jeff Bezos' Amazon inked a $600M deal with CIA/NSA to provide cloud computing services, which is Amazon's actual cash cow. You think Bezos' Washington Post will go heavy on the civil liberties intrusions of the Deep State? ..."
"... BTW, Mad Dog Mattis parachuted into the SecDef job from a BoD slot at General Dynamics. Have we heard even a peep from Mad Dog about acquisition reform since he assumed his latest perch on the Security State apparatus? ..."
"... I wonder when Think Tanks will stop being "non-profit" and being issuing stock. ..."
"... When Keynes suggested digging holes to spend money, he did not mean using explosives to do so, and he did not want the bulk of it go to profiteers safely contained within their inflationary "national security" bubble. ..."
"... "In 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that 52 of the biggest defense contractors employed 2,435 former generals, senior executives and acquisition officers. Of those, 422 were in a position to work on defense contracts directly related to their former agencies and at least nine may have been working on the same contracts they previously oversaw." ..."
Conservative think tank considers Lockheed fixture
for its next president. •
According to recent
reports, the Heritage Foundation, clearly the most established and many would say
politically influential conservative think tank in Washington, is considering David Trulio,
Lockheed Martin vice president and longtime lobbyist for the defense industry, to be its next
president. While Heritage's connection to Washington's sprawling national security industry is
already well-established, naming Trulio as its president might be seen as gilding the lily.
If anything, reading this report made me more aware of the degree to which the "conservative
policy community" in Washington depends on the whims and interests of particular donors.
And this relationship is apparently no longer something to be concealed or embarrassed by.
One can now be open about being in the pocket of the defense industry. Trulio's potential
elevation to Heritage president at what we can assume will be an astronomical salary, will no
doubt grease the already well-oiled pipeline of funds from major contractors to this
"conservative" foundation, which already operates with an annual
disclosed budget of almost $100 million.
A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, "
Maintaining the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further
government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring a superior fighting force" and
"sustaining international stability." In 2011, senior national security fellow James Carafano
wrote " Five
Steps to Defend America's Industrial Defense Base ," which complained about a "fifty
billion dollar under-procurement by the Pentagon" for buying new weaponry. In 2016, Heritage made the
case for several years of reinvestment to get the military back on "sound footing," with an
increase in fiscal year 2016 described as "an encouraging start."
These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on
funds from defense giants, or the foundation's belief that unless we steadily increase our
military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies
somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more
inclined to do so if he is being rewarded in return. Incidentally, the 2009 position paper
seems to be directing the government to throw more taxpayer dollars to Boeing than to its
competitor Lockheed. But it seems both defense giants have landed a joint contract this year to
produce a new submersible for the Navy, so it may no longer be necessary to pick sides on that
one at least. No doubt both corporations will continue to look after Heritage, which will
predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding.
Although one needn't reduce everything to dollars and cents, if we're looking at the issues
Heritage and other likeminded foundations are likely to push today, it's far more probable
they'll be emphasizing the national security state rather than, say, opposition to gay marriage
or the defense of traditional gender roles. There's lots more money to be made advocating for
the former rather than the latter. In May 2013, Heritage
sponsored a formal debate between "two conservatives" and "two liberals" on the issue of
defense spending, with Heritage and National Review presenting the "conservative" side.
I wondered as I listened to part of this verbal battle why is was considered "conservative" to
call for burdening American taxpayers with massive increases in the purchase of Pentagon
weaponry and planes that
take 17 years to get off the ground.
Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's
about rates a very far second to keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often
simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have the word "conservative"
attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or
publication, not necessarily the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage
advocates "conservative."
In any event, Mr. Trulio won't have to travel far if he takes the Heritage helm. He and his
corporation are already ensconced only a few miles away from Heritage's Massachusetts Avenue
headquarters, if the information provided by Lockheed Martin is correct. It says:
"Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace
company that employs approximately 98,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the
research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology
systems, products and services." A company like that can certainly afford to underwrite a think
tank -- if the price is right.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown
College, where he taught for twenty-five years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale PhD. He
writes for many websites and scholarly journals and is the author of thirteen books, most
recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents. His books have been
translated into multiple languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern
Europe.
Professor Gottfried, note that from the Heritage 2015 IRS 990 submission the then
president Jim DeMint was paid over a Million Bucks in total compensation. Trulio will no
doubt also be living very large care of the MIC Cronies while in the Big Seat of that
Think Pimp Tank .
Heritage senior national security fellow and defense contractor stooge James Carafano was
paid over $300 Grand. Not bad scratch for merely shilling for the Merchants of Death.
And those MIC Cronies are shrewd. It's not just Conservative Inc. They buy off EVERYBODY.
To demonstrate how insidious the Security State propaganda is in shaping Fake News, Lockheed
Martin and other defense contractors are named contributors to ostensibly left-leaning
PBS/NPR.
You think NPR will ever run a story on the TRILLION dollar boondoggle that is the
F-35 or the other hyper-busted weapon systems catastrophes? Or in interviews, challenge the
idiotic fear-mongering of the Generals used as fronts for the bankrupt U.S. Global Cop
foreign policy?
And Jeff Bezos' Amazon inked a $600M deal with CIA/NSA to provide cloud computing
services, which is Amazon's actual cash cow. You think Bezos' Washington Post will go heavy
on the civil liberties intrusions of the Deep State?
When the Post was still hard-copy-centric, LockMart and the other defense contractors
regularly took out expensive full-color, full-page ads in the Post. When given that Pentagon
weapons acquisition is all inside baseball, those adverts had no actual marketing value. They
were merely payoffs to the Post to go easy on their reporting of defense contracting
pathologies
BTW, Mad Dog Mattis parachuted into the SecDef job from a BoD slot at General Dynamics.
Have we heard even a peep from Mad Dog about acquisition reform since he assumed his latest
perch on the Security State apparatus?
Nope, given the massive Military-Security State lobbying and propaganda engine that is in
place, it's all over but the crying for the deluded taxpayers.
The US Military is the biggest Jobs Program/Corporate Welfare in the world. And many
conservative voters are the biggest dupes in the world for not understanding that we don't
need a big, expensive military to defend America.
'Which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the
foundation's belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be
endangering "international stability"?'
The chicken-egg here is contrived – the military-industrial-congressional complex in
general and 9/11 specifically provide an excellent example to explain punctuated
equilibrium.
I wonder when Think Tanks will stop being "non-profit" and being issuing stock.
Until then, there will be many players engaged in vigorous rimming the self-penetrating
sinkhole of "national security spending" to extract profits from the channeling of public
purse funds financed with Treasury debt backed by the promise of the full tax revenue of
government of the USA – supplied by tax cuts. I could accept the tongue wagging as a
particularly offensive type of performance art, if the money that goes into the hole did not
have to drop as bombs out of airplanes and from drones somewhere beyond the borders to ensure
that demand sustains. When Keynes suggested digging holes to spend money, he did not mean
using explosives to do so, and he did not want the bulk of it go to profiteers safely
contained within their inflationary "national security" bubble.
"In 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that 52 of the biggest defense
contractors employed 2,435 former generals, senior executives and acquisition officers. Of
those, 422 were in a position to work on defense contracts directly related to their former
agencies and at least nine may have been working on the same contracts they previously
oversaw."
A clown beat a high profile member of the established political class, due most likely to the
voters being disgusted by said political class? Uhmm, where have we seen this before?
Some pretty strange ideas if we are taking about oil. What they are smiling at RAND?
Notable quotes:
"... That evaluation is quite strange. The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make a profit. Increasing production beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers. All recent new U.S. production comes from shale oil. Optimistic estimates put the break even point for good shale oil fields at around $50 per barrel. Few fields can produce at lower costs. Most shale oil fields have a higher break even point. There is also a danger in suppressing oil prices. Many oil producing countries have U.S. friendly regimes. They need high oil prices to survive. Ruining them will not come cheap for the U.S. in geopolitical terms. ..."
"... of the 8 most promising suggestions - 6 of them are military... it seems to me these think tanks are great pr tools for the military industrial complex... who cares if the usa continues to move into 3rd world status as a nation, so long as more money for weapons can be acquired?? that is what these think tanks - rand and etc seem to want to foist on the public... it is all so very sad.. ..."
"... No, I think most US weapons procurement gives weapons that don't work as advertised, and wouldn't win wars anyway. I think it's one reason why the US military is largely only capable of spoiler wars, not actually conquering any place. (The other is the general unreliability of mercenary forces, which the US army basically is, however much they try to cultivate a militant Christian ethos.) ..."
"... I also do not believe spoiler wars help the country as a whole (as opposed to some of the owners) I think pretty much all a burden, immoral to boot and should be massively reduced. ..."
"... Even if you’re sure those companies are entirely private, if you print the current global reserve currency, can you not give “free” money to frackers and thereby make them more competitive than global peers? Sure, that’s flooding the market with an illegal subsidy. But, who can conduct proper accounting in opaque markets? ..."
According to RAND the best option to overextend and unbalance is to produce more oil:
Expanding U.S. energy production would stress Russia's economy, potentially constraining its government budget and, by extension,
its defense spending. By adopting policies that expand world supply and depress global prices, the United States can limit Russian
revenue. Doing so entails little cost or risk, produces second-order benefits for the U.S. economy, and does not need multilateral
endorsement.
That evaluation is quite strange. The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make
a profit. Increasing production beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers. All recent new U.S. production
comes from shale oil. Optimistic estimates put the break even point for good shale oil fields
at around $50 per barrel. Few fields can produce at lower costs. Most shale oil fields have a higher break even point. There
is also a danger in suppressing oil prices. Many oil producing countries have U.S. friendly regimes. They need high oil prices to
survive. Ruining them will not come cheap for the U.S. in geopolitical terms.
The second best option says RAND is to increase sanctions of Russia. This also doesn't make much sense. Russia can produce everything
it needs and it has free access to the world's largest markets, China and India.
The best military options listed by RAND are all useless. All the new weapon systems Russia has revealed over the last two years
are way more capable than anything the U.S. is able to field. If the U.S., as RAND advocates, invest more in certain fields, it will
only be to catch up. That does not impose any new costs on Russia.
... ... ...
In all I find it a bit impertinent to publicly argue for "overextending and unbalancing Russia". Where is the need to do such?
The study demonstrates again that strategic analysis by U.S. think tanks is woefully shallow-minded. The "experts" writing these
have no deep understanding of Russia, or even of the economic-political complexity of the real world.
Four of the eight best options the RAND study found start with the words "Invest more in ...". It is a sign that the foremost
motive its writers had in mind is to grab more taxpayer money. Fine. Give it to them already. Overextending and unbalancing the U.S.
by more abstruse expenditure for weapon systems that do not work will neither hurt me nor Russia.
thanks b.. of the 8 most promising suggestions - 6 of them are military... it seems to me these think tanks are great pr tools
for the military industrial complex... who cares if the usa continues to move into 3rd world status as a nation, so long as more
money for weapons can be acquired?? that is what these think tanks - rand and etc seem to want to foist on the public... it is
all so very sad..
@1 steven.. well, as i read you, you are essentially supporting a continuation of the usa pouring endless
money into the military then, regardless the accuracy of the accounts on the new Russian weapons.. do i have that right?
No, I think most US weapons procurement gives weapons that don't work as advertised, and wouldn't win wars anyway. I think
it's one reason why the US military is largely only capable of spoiler wars, not actually conquering any place. (The other is
the general unreliability of mercenary forces, which the US army basically is, however much they try to cultivate a militant Christian
ethos.)
However, since I also do not believe spoiler wars help the country as a whole (as opposed to some of the owners) I think
pretty much all a burden, immoral to boot and should be massively reduced.
>> The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make a profit. Increasing production
beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers.
Even if you’re sure those companies are entirely private, if you print the current global reserve currency, can you not give
“free” money to frackers and thereby make them more competitive than global peers? Sure, that’s flooding the market with an illegal
subsidy. But, who can conduct proper accounting in opaque markets?
Of course, the money is not “free”. Depreciating the currency, an inflation tax, shows up in lower-quality goods (like frankenfood—
we cannot afford healthy food any more) and higher prices in everything. But, again, who’s counting? The BLS and the media? Yep.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson says unilateral sanctions against Iran are illegal, and show the
ascendancy of John Bolton; they intensify tension with China and threaten our international
position
The Trump administration is ramping up its campaign against Iran by announcing it will end
waivers allowing eight countries to continue importing Iranian oil -- part of an attempt to
drop Iranian oil exports to zero. This follows the Trump administration's categorization of
part of Iran's army, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, as a terrorist organization, and
unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal.
"This administration, for all intents and purposes in my view, is working against the
interests of the United States," Colonel Larry Wilkerson told The Real News Network's Marc
Steiner. China and Turkey have already said they will not abide by the U.S. ending of the
waivers, but India will possibly follow along, all of which could lead to a more profound trade
war.
The decision also represents the influence of National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was
in favor of these sanctions, while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wanted the waivers to
continue.
Steiner noted that the sanctions violate international law and asked whether this brings the
U.S. closer to war with Iran, or if the sanctions are "in lieu of war." Wilkerson explained
that John Bolton wants war even if Trump does not, and that regardless, these oil sanctions are
"economic warfare" -- an especially risky international gamble.
"We're getting away with it [only] because we are the most powerful country in the world,
economically, financially, and militarily," Wilkerson said. "That's not always going to be the
case."
Wilkerson suspects that countries such as China, Russia, or India will eventually respond to
U.S. sanctions with their own, or make an end-run around them.
"I think we're going to see other nations objecting in ways we can't really calculate right
now," Wilkerson said. "And by that I mean we're going to have everything from the Chinese
attempting to use other means of exchange than the dollar to the Chinese and the Russians
perhaps working together to build an entirely separate and functional financial network that
will eventually supplant that of the United States."
He told Steiner that it appears as though the U.S. is "suicidal," lacking any interest in
diplomacy, and continuing to distance itself from its allies.
"We just lost badly in Syria, and we lost to a triumvirate of Syria under Bashar al-Assad,
Russia, and Iran. Look at what happened, what has happened in Iraq. We lost a lot of men and
women there. We shed blood and treasure there for an utterly ill-conceived invasion, but
nonetheless we did. Now Iraq is more or less under the influence of Iran. The only ally we have
in the region that we can count on at any time is an authoritarian, brutal state under a boy
king who's losing one war on one flank and alienated Qatar on the other," Wilkerson said. "It's
all falling apart. We're losing everywhere I look in the world, losing badly to that man in
Moscow who picks up the pieces and you know, goes to Cuba when Marco Rubio decides he doesn't
like Cuba, goes to Venezuela when we decide we might have an option for Venezuela that will
include military force. Putin is the strategist in the world right now picking up on every
piece we drop -- and we're dropping too many." Story Transcript MARC STEINER Welcome to
The Real News Network. I'm Marc Steiner. Great to have you all with us. Trump is stepping up
his campaign against Iran once again, announcing that he will end waivers that allowed eight
countries to continue importing Iranian oil. He wants to drive Iranian oil exports to zero. All
this comes on the heels of officially labeling the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist
organization and of course, forcing the U.S. to unilaterally pull out of the Iran Nuclear Deal.
Well what course are we on? Are we inching toward a war with Iran? Are these intensified
sanctions just an alternative to all-out war? How could the U.S. just unilaterally impose
international sanctions? Doesn't that violate international law? Can he do it because the U.S.
has a vital role in the international system of finance? Both Turkey and China have already
announced they will not abide by Trump's unilateral declaration of sanctions. Does this
intensify our trade war with China? We'll see. Joining us here at The Real News once again is
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Chief-of-staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin
Powell, retired from U.S. Army, and is now Distinguished Adjunct Professor at the College of
William and Mary where he teaches U.S. National Security. I welcome and good to have you back
with us here on The Real News.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Good to be back again.
MARC STEINER So before we start, let's run this short piece by Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo and what he had to say about the intensifying of sanctions.
MIKE POMPEO Today I am announcing that we will no longer grant any exemptions. We're going
to zero, going to zero across the board. We will continue to enforce sanctions and monitor
compliance. Any nation or entity interacting with Iran should due it's diligence and err on the
side of caution. The risks are simply not going to be worth the benefits. We've made our
demands very clear to the Ayatollah and his cronies: end your pursuit of nuclear weapons, stop
testing and proliferating ballistic missiles, stop sponsoring and committing terrorism, halt
the arbitrary detention of U.S. citizens. Our pressure is aimed at fulfilling these demands and
others and I will continue to accelerate until Iran is willing to address them at the
negotiating table.
MARC STEINER So what's your instant analysis of what we've just seen here, what we're
seeing, Larry?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON First, the dispute within the administration -- much ballyhooed
between Bolton and Pompeo and Brian Hook, Pompeo's main man on Iran -- is apparently over and
Bolton won. Pompeo and Brian Hook were not in favor of going all the way on oil sanctions. They
were in favor of continuing the waivers for countries like China and India, and so forth. So
that means Bolton's won. That's an ominous victory in my mind. More ominous was Bolton and
Pompeo and Pompeo in particular's testimony to the Congress about the "connections between
al-Qaeda and Iran." I've been there done that. I remember when George Tenet very forcefully and
powerfully in late January-early February of 2003, pointed out to Colin Powell who had just
said, toss that stuff out of my presentation to the United Nations. It stinks. That stuff
being, connections between al-Qaeda and Baghdad over 9/11. Pompeo essentially said to Rand Paul
in questioning him in the Senate and elsewhere, that there were connections between al-Qaeda
and Iran, and implied that those connections gave the president the right to go to war with
Iran without having to go to the Congress of the United States. In other words, the original
A.U.M.F. authorization for the use of military force issued after 9/11, pertained some
seventeen to eighteen years later to Iran.
MARC STEINER And that's where you skin yourself. Most people who know this arena, know that
area, the contradiction of saying Iran and al-Qaeda are one or are working with one another,
just on its face doesn't make any sense.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Nonsense just as it was with Saddam Hussein. We all know now, but it
was a very powerful thing for Colin Powell to tell the U.N. Security Council and even more
powerful for him to tell the American people that. And that's what Trump and Bolton and Pompeo
now are trying to duplicate: another specious case for war.
MARC STEINER So do you think -- speaking of that -- are we inching our way towards war with
Iran, or do you think what we're seeing, these sanctions, are actually in lieu of war? What do
you think the dynamic is here?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON I don't think Trump wants war, but I know John Bolton does. So I
have to imagine that there is going to be a come to Jesus meeting or some such resolution with
Donald Trump if Bolton persists in wanting to use military force and Donald Trump doesn't. On
the side of all of this, is Trump's new partner in crime, Bibi Netanyahu. We don't know what
Bibi promised Donald Trump when Donald Trump weighed in on Bibi's election. I'm told by people
who know these sorts of things in Israel, that had Trump not weighed in heavily for Bibi, that
he might not have won, that it might have been a lot closer that it was, and it was pretty
close anyway. So I don't know what Bibi promised Trump in return. It might be that he conducts
whatever military operation is conducted with respect to Iran. Anything's possible here with
these two characters.
MARC STEINER But the whole Bibi question is something we've spent a half-an-hour, hours just
talking about what that relationship is, and who's driving whose foreign policy when it comes
to Iran especially.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Yes. Gideon Levy in Haaretz was right when he said U.S.-Middle East
policy is not made in Washington. It's made, he said Tel Aviv, but now he would say
Jerusalem.
MARC STEINER So let me ask you another question. How can the United States just unilaterally
impose international sanctions? I thought that's something the Security Council would have to
do and people are writing this as a violation of international law. So from your perch when you
were the Secretary of State and now, how does that play into all this?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON I think it plays very dangerously. We are becoming -- through our
manipulation of the Swiss system and other means in the world for financial transactions -- a
pariah in the world. Very much despised and even hated in the world and increasingly, by our
own friends and allies like Germany, France, Britain, and so forth. This manipulation of this
system that we largely set up for tracking terrorist monies and so forth, has been turned into
a very sophisticated weapon. It's economic warfare in anybody's book and the only reason we're
getting away from it, you just hinted at. We're getting away with it because we are the most
powerful country in the world -- economically, financially, and militarily. That's not always
going to be the case and I suspect there are going to people like China, like Russia, like
India, like other countries in the world, finally getting tired of this and start reciprocating
and building other systems to go around ours.
MARC STEINER Stepping up the sanctions against Iran and saying nobody can buy any oil from
Iran at all, zeroing them out -- China and Turkey have already said we're not abiding by this.
You can't tell us how to run our economy and what we're doing. India is caught between a rock
and a hard place. They don't want to go with this. Ten percent of their crude oil comes from
Iran, but they're in a tough bind given who finances them as well. So how is this going to play
out? This can lead to greater trade wars between China and the U.S. How do you see this all
tumbling out, both in terms of Iran and our relationship with those other nations?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON I think we're going to see other nations objecting in ways that we
can't really calculate right now. By that I mean, we're going to have everything from the
Chinese attempting to use other means of exchange than the dollar, to the Chinese and the
Russians perhaps working together to build an entirely separate and functional financial
network that will eventually supplant that of the United States. So this has enormous potential
for backfiring, just like all the enemies we are creating in the world right now and the allies
that we're distancing ourselves from. These are not positive moves by the United States. If I
were on Mars looking down at the United States right now, and I were some wise Martian
statesmen, and I was trying to figure out what the United States -- the current hegemon of the
world -- was trying to do, I would think we were trying to commit suicide. It's as if we do not
have any means of doing anything diplomatically or otherwise, that doesn't rebound to our
discredit. Look at what's happened. We just lost badly in Syria and we lost to a triumvirate of
Syria under Bashar al-Assad, Russia, and Iran. Look at what has happened in Iraq. We lost a lot
of men and women there. We shed blood and treasure there for an utterly ill-conceived invasion,
but nonetheless we did. Now Iraq is more or less under the influence of Iran. The only ally we
have in the region that we can count on at any time is an authoritarian, brutal state under a
boy-king who's losing one war on one flank, and alienated Qatar on the other. Our latest NATO
in the Middle East just lost its most formidable partner, Egypt. It's all falling apart. We're
losing everywhere I look in the world and losing badly to that man in Moscow who picks up the
pieces and goes to Cuba when Marco Rubio decides he doesn't like Cuba. He goes to Venezuela
when we decide we might have an option for Venezuela that would include military force. Putin
is the strategist in the world right now, picking up on every piece we drop, and we're dropping
too many.
MARC STEINER So very quickly here before we run out of time, one quick question. If you were
sitting in the halls of power at this moment, and your job is Chief-of-staff or the Secretary
of State, I'm curious what you would be saying to a president that said we have to do this.
What would you say is the alternative? What would you be saying at this moment?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Which one do you want to pick? [laughter] Kim Jong-un is going to
fire a ballistic missile or he's going to do a nuclear test or both sometime around
Christmas.
MARC STEINER Right.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON This administration for all intents and purposes, in my view, is
working against the interests of the United States. So the first thing I would do is sit down
and say, Mr. President, please before I walk out of here and go back to Foggy Bottom and retire
from my position because you are going to fire me, I want to know what you think the national
interests of the United States are. You said you were going to "make America great again." You
are destroying America. You said you were going to bring jobs back. You have only brought the
jobs back that the last three years of the Obama administration generated, because no president
ever generates them instantly. So you haven't done anything yet that looks like it's in the
interest of the United States and you've done a whole load of things that are clearly not in
our interest, not the least of which is to drive our allies away and make many enemies whom you
said all options are on the table confronting. Please, Mr. President. Tell me what you think
our interests are.
MARC STEINER And with that, I want to say thank you once again. Colonel Larry Wilkerson,
always a pleasure to have you here at The Real News. And thanks so much for your thoughts and
wisdom.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Thank you.
MARC STEINER And I'm Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network. Thank you all for joining
us. Take care.
That completely wrong. You can't prevent the "march of history" even if you understand that it is directed against you.
The collapse of the USSR put in motion forces for the revolution of the results of WWII. And EuroMaydan like previously Baltic
states "Maidans" were the direct result of this dissolution and changed balance of power in Europe with EU now being the
dominant force and the USA dominant geopolitical force.
Still it is true that Ukraine EuroMaydan was the major Putin's defeat and the major victory of the US neocons in general and
Obama as the President in particular. It might well be that this was inevitable as the
trajectory of post-soviet republic is reliable move toward anti-Russian stance as a side effect
of obtaining the independence, but still this was a defeat. It was actually Yanukovich who encouraged and helped to organized and
finance far right forces and the Party in Ukraine. such a pro-Russian President as fame news media in the USA and GB like to
describe him
Poroshenko was the USA SOB. The USA allowed Zelensky to run for office, and allowed him to win. Zelensky is most probably
another USA SOB, although only time will tell. Comedians are usually are people with very high IQ who see the absurdity of
the current life in Ukraine and Poroshenko regime more clearly then others. The question is whether he will be allowed to do
something about it by the USA and EU, who control Ukraine both politically and financially. Biden story of dismissal of the
General Prosecutor of Ukraine (who tried to procedure the firm Biden son got money from ) with ease tells us something about the
nature of the current governance of Ukraine: is is not even a vassal state -- it is a colony.
Nuland success in pushing Ukrainian nationalists to arm uprising against Yanukovich (pissing EU which signed a treaty with
Yanukovich about holding elections, which he would certanly lose, a day before) also can be explained that at this point the USA
controlled vital centers of Ukrainian political power including intelligence agencies, several oligarchs (Poroshenko is one;
Timoshenko is another) and, especially, media. In Ukraine Western NGO have the status of diplomatic missions (with
corresponding immunity), so in no way such a country can be independent in any meaningful sense of this word.
But craziness, aggressiveness and recklessness of the US neocons, who now practice old imperial "might makes right" mode
of operation, gives the world some hope. They most probably will burn the USA geological power it acquired after the
dissolution of the USSR sooner then many expect. Like look at Bolton and Pompeo recent actions.
Notable quotes:
"... "For better or for worse, Putin has put an end to oligarch rule in Russia. Members of Putin's inner circle may be immensely rich, but they know to whom they owe their wealth. By imprisoning Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Putin sent a clear message to the all-powerful oligarchs that controlled Russia during former president Boris Yeltsin's time: stay out of politics." ..."
The main feeling about the entire topic of the Ukraine is one of total disgust, a
gradual and painful realization of the fact that our so-called "brothers" are brothers only
in the sense of the biblical Cain and the acceptance that there is nobody to talk to in
Kiev.
Russia likes to fashion itself as a "great power". A real great power should have been
able to insert itself in Ukrainian politics, regardless of any brotherly feelings – you
know, like US did.
As a Russian, I feel disgust at our leaders who squandered all of Russia's historic
influence on the Ukraine and gave up – poor neo-Soviet dinosaurs got completely
outmaneuvered.
@Kiza
Read
Try to understand
Read it again
Try to understand
Read it again
Try to understand
"For better or for worse, Putin has put an end to oligarch rule in Russia. Members of
Putin's inner circle may be immensely rich, but they know to whom they owe their wealth. By
imprisoning Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Putin sent a clear message to the all-powerful oligarchs
that controlled Russia during former president Boris Yeltsin's time: stay out of
politics."
Vladimir Golstein, professor of Slavic studies at Brown University. He was born in Moscow
and emigrated to the United States in 1979.
Considering that this 'study' is an overblown version of the Real Men Go to Tehran
delusion (which is STILL in the pondering phase) it's hard to ignore the trepidation revealed
in an assessment divided into pseudo business-like categories of...
1. Likelihood of Success
2. Benefits
3. Costs & Risks
...when there are sufficient unresolved uncertainties to be fine-tuned to keep this plan
bogged down in the pondering phase for even longer than the unconsummated Real Men Go To Iran
nothing-burger.
Parachuting Harvard mafia on Russia was a more powerful weapon and led to more destruction of Russian economy then direct
bombardment would
Notable quotes:
"... Concerning the capability of wrecking finances of other states, USA is not a slouch, the most powerful weapon is economic advise. If I interpret news correctly, it were experts of Goldman Sachs that help Greek government to borrow about twice as much as they could handle in the long run. The wreckage in Russia was as impressive, but, alas, hard to repeat, so now it remains to carp about their "bad behavior". ..."
I think that at least some weapon systems that USA makes or develops can be indeed
superior. The most acute loss from the approach of "invest in over-extending and un-balancing
the opponent" is that USA, while powerful, cannot do everything in the same time.
My favorite comparison chart is timeliness of subway systems in major metropolitan areas.
Honestly, I cannot find it, because the search is swamped with the tales of woe of subway
commuters in NYC. As befits the greatest financial center, cultural metropolis etc. etc., NYC
has a transportation system that is comparable in its extend to other metropolitan areas like
Tokyo, Paris or London. However, the performance is uninspiring. On the chart in NYT that I
can't find out at the moment, only Mexico City had a lower percentage of train rides delayed
by less than 10 minutes. I checked Moscow that has a larger subway system (compared to NY)
and which was not on the chart. They pride themselves with frequency of delays that is 5
times smaller than in Paris (50 times smaller than in NYC?). Moscovites can actually plan
their daily lives assuming that their commutes will arrive on time.
This is the most glaring example of a lost opportunity to take care of domestic needs, but
the quality of education, healthcare etc. is mediocre compared with the rest of OECD,
although there is always the southern neighbor that saves USA from being dead last.
Incidentally, NYC subway is not exactly underfunded, instead, it may have the most
irrational management among major metropolitan areas which accurately reflects deficiencies
of American political system. Bloated costs are pervasive across many areas, surely in
military, healthcare and broadly meant policing, and their originate in lobbo-cracy, a
plethora of lobbies grabbing chunks of monies either directly spent or (mis)regulated by the
government. The activity of these lobbies is tightly regulated by elaborate rules, but the
end effect is as if USA were pathetically corrupted (say, half as corrupted as Nigeria).
Concerning the capability of wrecking finances of other states, USA is not a slouch, the
most powerful weapon is economic advise. If I interpret news correctly, it were experts of
Goldman Sachs that help Greek government to borrow about twice as much as they could handle
in the long run. The wreckage in Russia was as impressive, but, alas, hard to repeat, so now
it remains to carp about their "bad behavior".
Sanctions are also powerful when directed at small/medium size economies. Russia, although
disparaged as "a smaller economy than Italy", but in actuality, Italy has "GDP per capity
PPP" that is 40% larger than Russia, and Russia has 2.4 times larger population, so quite a
bit larger economy in terms of "purchasing parity", and the most glaring domestic production
deficiency are fruit and vegetables that, according to latest news, have a number of
potential suppliers that are most glad when they can sell their produce.
There are several crimes for which Poroshenko can be investigated and the USA can do nothing
about: one is Odessa massacre which supposedly was financed by Poroshenko. And Kolomysky was also
involved so it remain to be seen if this issues will be raised. Also the power of far right
forces in Ukraine is such that just raising this question might be equal to treason in the eyes
of Ukrainian nationalists. Because such powerful figures as Avakov and Parubiy were also
involved.
Notable quotes:
"... Ukrainians don’t give a shit about the Poro regime, and are perfectly willing to see it incarcerated. Nor do NatsBatalions really crave to be seen as puppets of DC, Kolo, or Israel, or Brussels. Your take is really simplistic here. ..."
The West is concerned with protecting Poro. Based on WSJ editorials, obsequious legations to
manlet Macron. None of that means jack shit.
DC will have to exercise real power to prevent a cleaning of the house. Word are words.
Rumors are rumors. Z. will act within his mandate and limits placed by rabid opposition. He
will act in keeping with rational need to not fight a US-backed congress, to get shot in the
streets for things too radical. Majority of Ukrainians will be happy to see Poro in prison. DC
can keep this from happening not with words, but with bullets. Strana can claim what it wants,
its claims are patent garbage.
Ukrainians don’t give a shit about the Poro regime, and are perfectly willing to
see it incarcerated. Nor do NatsBatalions really crave to be seen as puppets of DC, Kolo, or
Israel, or Brussels. Your take is really simplistic here.
... ... ...
Z. does have a party. The elections for the Ukranian Parliament is in September. His party,
as a matter of fact, is leading in opinion polls. https://ria.ru/20190416/1552741067.html And it is
doing so together with the party of Boiko.
Logically then, given enough time/space Z. should be in a position to pursue necessary
policies end of the year.
‘The truth is nobody knows what will happen next…There are just too many
parameters to consider, and the real balance of power following this election has not
manifested itself yet’, as The Saker forebodingly warns. The pattern of history
suggests the continent is heading for another world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
The course of events in Europe and globally predict things will only get worse. Like The
Saker, ‘I also very much hope that I am wrong.’
A clown beat a high profile member of the established political class, due most likely to the
voters being disgusted by said political class? Uhmm, where have we seen this before?
The Alarming Rise of Ukraine's Neo-Nazi MPs Since the 2014 "Pro-democracy Revolution"
By Shane Quinn
Global Research, April 26, 2019 Region: Europe Theme: History In-depth Report:
UKRAINE
REPORT
Less than two years ago, the Ukraine's parliament (Verkhovna Rada) voted to outlaw the St
George's Ribbon, an emblem often worn to commemorate those who liberated the Soviet Union from
Hitler's rule. Up to seven million Ukrainian infantrymen comprised part of the Red Army during
their struggle against Nazi Germany, as Hitler was finally broken in the east.
By winter 1943, the once apparently indestructible Wehrmacht was spinning on its tail, their
officers with their heads turning about westward, as they gradually retreated towards the
German frontiers. Come the spring of 1945, about 2.5 million dead Ukrainian soldiers lay strewn
across central and eastern Europe, many of their bodies never to be recovered.
The decision by an increasingly far-right Ukrainian parliament to ban remembrance symbols
which commemorate those who fought against the Third Reich is, therefore, a desecration of
their memory. It is an attempt to wash over that awful suffering the Ukrainian state endured
during the Nazi occupation, with Hitler outlining plans to turn the country into a servile
colony of Germanic dominion.
Over elapsing time from the February 2014 US-instituted "pro-democracy revolution", an ever
expanding group of neo-Nazis has been elected to office. Notable amid these menacing figures is
the far-right military commander Yuriy Bereza (image on the right), an MP since November 2014
who was elected under the title "People's Deputy of Ukraine".
Bereza is a member of fascist-infiltrated party, People's Front, which counts among its
prominent MPs the neo-Nazi Andriy Parubiy , Chairman of the Ukrainian parliament since April
2016. In the early 1990s, Parubiy co-founded the far-right Social-National Party of Ukraine
with fellow extremist Oleh Tyahnybok, that later became known as the Svoboda (Freedom)
party.
When, in May 2017, a few of the Ukraine's conscientious MPs objected to moves in banning the
St George's Ribbon, Bereza roared down from his parliamentary seat that he would like to "grab
a machine gun and shoot those bast*rds". Bereza cuts an intimidating figure. He is a tall man
routinely clad in full army fatigues, with tightly-cropped hair, broad shoulders and stern
expression.
In December 2018, Bereza punched in the face Nestor Shufrych , an MP with the centre-left
party For Life, after the latter removed a poster from the parliamentary podium which accused
wealthy Ukrainian politician, Viktor Medvedchuk (image on the left), of being a Kremlin
"agent". Medvedchuk is said to be an associate of Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Bereza is familiar with the use of arms. Since April 2014, he has held the position of
Dnipro Battalion leader: A fascist-linked unit which has fought Moscow-backed separatists in
eastern Ukrainian regions such as the Donetsk Oblast, an area which rests directly upon
Russia's south-western border, and is a mere 400 miles from Volgograd (Stalingrad). The Dnipro
Battalion is subordinated to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, which among other
things implements state policy.
Bereza and his regiment were involved in fighting during the autumn 2014 Battle of Ilovaisk,
ending in decisive victory for the Moscow-supported Donetsk People's Republic.
Bereza's cause has drawn sympathy and backing from commercial media outlets like the Los
Angeles Times, which
wrote how his unit "survived on grass and rainwater as they braved five days of incessant
sniper fire". The LA Times also quotes Bereza and, despite a heightened risk of nuclear war,
the newspaper calls for increased funding to be granted to the far-right battalions.
Over Christmas 2014, Bereza's regiment was accused of war crimes by human rights groups,
such as the deliberate starvation of Ukrainian civilians. His battalion has received more than
$10 million of financial support from billionaire businessman Ihor Kolomoyskyi . There are
photographs of the oligarch shaking hands amiably with Bereza in spring 2014.
Kolomoyskyi has provided critical support too for Volodymyr Zelensky , the Ukraine's
president-elect, by guaranteeing him widespread exposure on television networks that the tycoon
owns. Kolomoyskyi is one of the most powerful and affluent Ukrainians in the world. His
corporate influence extends from the Caucasus of Eurasia to the Appalachian mountains of North
America.
In a plot befitting a Hollywood film noir, Kolomoyskyi is presently under investigation by
the FBI regarding claims of "ordering contract killings" and "financial crimes", including
money laundering and embezzlement. In 2016, Kolomoyskyi was accused of defrauding the Ukraine's
largest bank (PrivatBank) of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Also that year a criminal case was opened in Russia against Kolomoyskyi, purporting that he
had organized the killings of civilians. He has been compelled to deny other allegations in the
past relating to bribery and abduction.
Kolomoyskyi, who lived in the US for a period and retains vast business interests in states
like Ohio and West Virginia, moved to Israel last September – which may well complicate a
potential extradition to America, as he also possesses part Israeli citizenship.
Kolomoyskyi has bankrolled other far-right regiments fighting in eastern Ukraine, such as
the Azov, Aidar and Donbas battalions. These armed groups have been cited by human rights
activists for committing an array of offences, including war crimes – which have gone
unpunished – like torture, abductions, possible executions, unlawful detention, sexual
assault, etc.
An alarming number of neo-Nazis have indeed been elected to office in the Ukrainian
parliament. Over the past five years of what the Washington Post calls "fledgling democracy",
the following fascist figures have all enjoyed work as Ukrainian MPs, and they each comprise
past and current members of the neo-Nazi Svoboda party: Oleh Tyahnybok, Ihor Mosiychuk, Oleh
Osukhovskyi, Yuriy Bublyk, Oleksandr Marchenko, Oleh Makhnitskyi, Andriy Ilyenko, Ruslan
Koshulynskyi, Mykhailo Holovko, Yuriy Levchenko, Igor Miroshnychenko, Pavlo Kyrylenko and
Eduard Leonov.
The above's presence in the corridors of power has been almost undocumented in mass media
reporting. There are other fascists receiving continued employment in the Ukrainian parliament
– like Andriy Biletsky , co-founder of the now defunct white supremacist Social-National
Assembly. Since late 2016, MP Biletsky has held the leadership of National Corps, a far-right
party. This organization is reported to be expanding steadily with Biletsky saying
last month that,
"we see how successful our movement is Ukraine is tired of the chaos, it needs new people
who will protect the country".
Source: Euronews
For over two years from May 2014 Biletsky commanded the Azov Battalion, which enjoyed tacit
Western support whilst fighting Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. Azov Battalion
soldiers can be seen in photographs giving Nazi salutes, while flanked with swastikas and other
symbols based on SS insignia.
More far-right individuals are holding seats like Andrey Artemenko, a Canadian citizen and
MP since November 2014, who claims to be a "neo-conservative" and has membership of the
fascist-led Radical Party. The Radical Party leader and MP is far-right extremist Oleh Lyashko
, whose militant activities in the east of Ukraine were condemned by human rights
organizations, in which he was described as "one particularly errant MP". Lyashko has been
accused in preceding months of corruption relating to "illicit enrichment", which he
denies.
Among the Radical Party MPs is the briefly above-mentioned Ihor Mosiychuk, a neo-Nazi who is
a past member of both the Svoboda party and Social-National Assembly. Mosiychuk, sworn to
office in November 2014, is also a journalist and editor-in-chief of the hardline newspaper
Vechirnaya Vasilkov.
Serhiy Melnychuk , former leader of the Aidar Battalion, is likewise a Radical Party MP, as
he has been since November 2014. Melnychuk is currently under investigation over allegations
regarding a false assets declaration, while he has previously been the subject of multiple
legal cases and accused of abduction. Melnychuk was stripped of his parliamentary immunity in
June 2015.
There are further far-right Ukrainian MPs embedded in seemingly respectable parties like the
People's Front. Among them is Ihor Lapin, a multi-decorated militant commander who comprised
part of the Aidar Battalion, which draped Nazi-style insignia over its armoured vehicles.
Holding membership of the People's Front too is the aforementioned Parubiy, who has enjoyed
trips to America and Canada, and is acquainted with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg .
The far-right military figure, Mykhailo Havryliuk , is himself a People's Front member and MP,
with Yuriy Bereza as stated also claiming a position in that party.
There are in addition fascists posing as "independents" in parliament such as Volodymyr
Parasyuk, a former soldier in the Dnipro Battalion, commanded by Bereza. Parasyuk is a past
member of the neo-Nazi party, Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists. He was elected in November
2014, and still enjoys a place as MP more than four years on. Parasyuk has a reputation for
physically assaulting people he does not like, including cowardly attacks on statesman
Oleksandr Vilkul and security chief Vasyl Hrytsak, kicking the latter in the head while he was
seated.
Boryslav Bereza is a separate extreme right-wing independent MP, and was elected in November
2014; he is a former spokesperson for Right Sector, a fascist party, and despite his surname he
is no relation to Yuriy Bereza.
Boryslav Bereza is an open admirer of the Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera , speaking warmly
of his "three classic principles" in interviews. Moreover, in December 2014 Boryslav Bereza
acknowledged that during the fighting in eastern Ukraine, Right Sector provided important
assistance for Biletsky's notorious Azov Battalion.
MP Dmytro Yarosh , the one-time head of Right Sector, is yet another neo-Nazi who in the
past was placed on Interpol's international wanted list, acceding to the Kremlin's request.
Since late 2014, Yarosh constitutes a Ukrainian MP, and for many years he has been leader of
the Tryzub (Trident) paramilitary group, whose full title is the Stepan Bandera All-Ukrainian
Organization.
In Western establishment dialogue – pertaining to regimes they support – the
terms "neo-Nazi" and "fascist" have been virtually erased from official records and reporting.
These unequivocal labels are instead replaced with descriptions like "ultra-conservative",
"nationalist" and "maverick". The latter ambiguous words blur the lines of neo-Nazism and
fascism, sowing seeds of doubt and confusion in the reader's mind. A fascist now becomes an
ultra-conservative or nationalist.
There are other post "revolution" MPs who have been part of fascist regiments, like Nadiya
Savchenko, an Iraq War veteran and former instructor in the Aidar Battalion. Savchenko is a
far-right extremist, and had been held in a Ukrainian jail for over a year until her unexpected
release last week – after being suspected of planning a terrorist attack on the Ukrainian
parliament building, and intending to overthrow the government. Savchenko still faces trial
regarding these claims, and prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko said her departure from prison suggests
that the country's court apparatus is "gravely ill".
In June 2014, Savchenko was arrested by Russian authorities, placed on trial, and after long
deliberation was charged in March 2016 with complicity in the killing of two state journalists.
President Petro Poroshenko championed Savchenko's cause, describing her as "a symbol of the
struggle for Ukraine"; and in March 2015 he awarded her the title "Hero of Ukraine", the
highest honour that can be bestowed upon a Ukrainian citizen.
Semen Semenchenko , the far-right Donbas Battalion commander, was sworn in as a Ukrainian MP
in November 2014. Semenchenko's election to parliament came weeks after his regiment was
accused by a UN monitoring mission of executing war crimes on Ukrainian civilians, such as
torture, beatings and sexual assault.
In September 2014, Semenchenko had arrived in Washington where he met Congress and Pentagon
representatives. That same month he publicly called for US military backing, and enjoyed
further visits to America later that year, while he is himself an admirer of Israel. In June
2017, an appeal was expounded against Semenchenko by former Donbas Battalion soldiers, who
wanted an investigation conducted after accusing him of criminal acts.
In December 2018, Semenchenko was detained in Tbilisi, Georgia and suspected of "illegal
possession and acquisition of arms". He was not arrested due to having a diplomatic passport,
and thereafter travelled by airplane to an unknown destination.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily
on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent
contributor to Global Research.
"... FARA requires all individuals and organizations acting on behalf of foreign governments to registered with the Department of Justice and to report their sources of income and contacts. Federal prosecutors have claimed that Butina was reporting back to a Russian official while deliberating cultivating influential figures in the United States as potential resources to advance Russian interests, a process that is described in intelligence circles as "spotting and assessing." ..."
"... Selective enforcement of FARA was, ironically, revealed through evidence collected and included in the Mueller Report relating to the only foreign country that actually sought to obtain favors from the incoming Trump Administration. That country was Israel and the individual who drove the process and should have been fined and required to register with FARA was President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. As Kushner also had considerable "flight risk" to Israel, which has no extradition treaty with the United States, he should also have been imprisoned. ..."
"... Kushner reportedly aggressively pressured members of the Trump transition team to contact foreign ambassadors at the United Nations to convince them to vote against or abstain from voting on the December 2016 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 condemning Israeli settlements. The resolution passed when the US, acting under direction of President Barack Obama, abstained, but incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn did indeed contact the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice and asked for Moscow's cooperation, which was refused. Kushner, who is so close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the latter has slept at the Kushner apartment in New York City, was clearly acting in response to direction coming from the Israeli government. ..."
"... Another interesting tidbit revealed by Mueller relates to Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos's ties to Israel over an oil development scheme. Mueller "ultimately determined that the evidence was not sufficient to obtain or sustain a conviction" that Papadopoulos "committed a crime or crimes by acting as an unregistered agent of the Israeli government." Mueller went looking for a Russian connection but found only Israel and decided to do nothing about it. ..."
The Mueller Special Counsel inquiry is far from over even though a
final report on its findings has been issued. Although the investigation had a mandate to
explore all aspects of the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US election, from the start
the focus was on the possibility that some members of the Trump campaign had colluded with the
Kremlin to influence the outcome of the election to favor the GOP candidate. Even though that
could not be demonstrated, many prominent Trump critics, to include Laurence Tribe of the
Harvard Law School,
are demanding that the investigation continue until Congress has discovered "the full facts
of Russia's interference [to include] the ways in which that interference is continuing in
anticipation of 2020, and the full story of how the president and his team welcomed, benefited
from, repaid, and obstructed lawful investigation into that interference and the president's
cooperation with it."
Tribe should perhaps read the report more carefully. While it does indeed confirm some
Russian meddling, it does not demonstrate that anyone in the Trump circle benefited from it or
cooperated with it. The objective currently being promoted by dedicated Trump critics like
Tribe is to make a case to impeach the president based on the alleged enormity of the Russian
activity, which is not borne out by the facts: the Russian role was intermittent, small scale
and basically ineffective.
One interesting aspect of the Mueller inquiry and the ongoing Russophobia that it has
generated is the essential hypocrisy of the Washington Establishment. It is generally agreed
that whatever Russia actually did, it did not affect the outcome of the election. That the
Kremlin was using intelligence resources to act against Hillary Clinton should surprise no one
as she described Russian President Vladimir Putin as Hitler and also made clear that she would
be taking a very hard line against Moscow.
The anti-Russia frenzy in Washington generated by the vengeful Democrats and an
Establishment fearful of a loss of privilege and entitlement claimed a number of victims. Among
them was Russian citizen Maria Butina, who has a court date and will very likely be
sentenced tomorrow .
Regarding Butina, the United States Department of Justice would apparently have you believe
that the Kremlin sought to subvert the five-million-member strong National Rifle Association
(NRA) by having a Russian citizen take out a life membership in the organization with the
intention of corrupting it and turning it into an instrument for subverting American democracy.
Maria Butina has, by the way, a long and well documented history as an advocate for gun
ownership and was a co-founder in Russia of Right to Bear Arms, which is not an intelligence
front organization of some kind. It is rather a genuine lobbying group with an active
membership and agenda. Contrary to what has been reported in the mainstream media, Russians can
own guns but the licensing and registration procedures are long and complicated, which Right to
Bear Arms, modeling itself on the NRA, is seeking to change.
Butina, a graduate student at American University, is now in a federal prison, having been
charged with collusion and failure to register as an agent of the Russian Federation. She was
arrested on July 15, 2018. It is decidedly unusual to arrest and confine someone who has failed
to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) , but she has not been granted bail because, as a
Russian citizen, she is considered to be a "flight risk," likely to try to flee the US and
return home.
FARA requires all individuals and organizations acting on behalf of foreign governments to
registered with the Department of Justice and to report their sources of income and contacts.
Federal prosecutors have claimed that Butina was reporting back to a Russian official while
deliberating cultivating influential figures in the United States as potential resources to
advance Russian interests, a process that is described in intelligence circles as "spotting and
assessing."
Maria eventually pleaded guilty of not registering under FARA to mitigate any punishment,
hoping that she would be allowed to return to Russia after a few months in prison on top of the
nine months she has already served. She has reportedly fully cooperated the US authorities,
turning over documents, answering questions and undergoing hours of interrogation by federal
investigators before and after her guilty plea.
Maria Butina basically did nothing that damaged US security and it is difficult to see where
her behavior was even criminal, but the prosecution is asking for 18 months in prison for her
in addition to the time served. She would be, in fact, one of only a handful of individuals
ever to be imprisoned over FARA, and they all come from countries that Washington considers to
be unfriendly, to include Cuba, Saddam's Iraq and Russia. Normally the failure to comply with
FARA is handled with a fine and compulsory registration.
Butina was essentially convicted of the crime of being Russian at the wrong time and in the
wrong place and she is paying for it with prison. Selective enforcement of FARA was,
ironically, revealed through evidence collected and included in the Mueller Report relating to
the only foreign country that actually sought to obtain favors from the incoming Trump
Administration. That country was Israel and the individual who drove the process and should
have been fined and required to register with FARA was President Donald Trump's son-in-law
Jared Kushner. As Kushner also had considerable "flight risk" to Israel, which has no
extradition treaty with the United States, he should also have been imprisoned.
Kushner reportedly aggressively
pressured members of the Trump transition team to contact foreign ambassadors at the United
Nations to convince them to vote against or abstain from voting on the December 2016 United
Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 condemning Israeli settlements. The resolution passed
when the US, acting under direction of President Barack Obama, abstained, but incoming National
Security Adviser Michael Flynn did indeed contact the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice
and asked for Moscow's cooperation, which was refused. Kushner, who is so close to Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the latter has slept at the Kushner apartment in New York
City, was clearly acting in response to direction coming from the Israeli government.
Another interesting tidbit revealed by Mueller relates to Trump foreign policy adviser
George Papadopoulos's ties to Israel over an oil development scheme. Mueller "ultimately
determined that the evidence was not sufficient to obtain or sustain a conviction" that
Papadopoulos "committed a crime or crimes by acting as an unregistered agent of the Israeli
government." Mueller went looking for a Russian connection but found only Israel and decided to
do nothing about it.
As so often is the case, inquiries that begin by looking for foreign interference in
American politics start by focusing on Washington's adversaries but then comes up with Israel.
Noam Chomsky
described it best "First of all, if you're interested in foreign interference in our
elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as
compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Netanyahu
goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with
overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president's policies -- what happened with Obama
and Netanyahu in 2015. Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress
trying to -- calling on them to reverse US policy, without even informing the president? And
that's just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence."
Maria Butina is in jail for doing nothing while Jared Kushner, who needed a godfathered
security clearance due to his close Israeli ties, struts through the White House as senior
advisor to the president in spite of the fact that he used his nepotistically obtained access
to openly promote the interests of a foreign government. Mueller knows all about it but
recommended nothing, as if it didn't happen. The media is silent. Congress will do nothing. As
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi put it "We in Congress stand by
Israel. In Congress, we speak with one voice on the subject of Israel." Indeed.
Smiling Joe Biden, the glad handler from Delaware, is nothing more than another neocon
wolf in sheep's clothing. His tenure as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993
resulted in the infamous Anita Hill debacle due to his failure to investigate Ms. Hill's
allegations that then SCOTUS nominee Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her several years
earlier. The result was an embarrassing televised hearing that exposed Biden's
incompetence, along with that of other members of the committee.
In the end, an unqualified right wing legal 'bump on the log' attained a seat as a
Supreme Court justice. Later it was proven that Ms. Hill's claims were true, but the damage
was done. BTW, Biden's penchant for fascists was on display in the Yugoslavian civil
war.
Well known Twitter "bot" Ian56 has published a thread about Biden
. I suggest people give it a looksee. Ian asks in his first entry:
"How the hell does the Oligarchy think they are going to get Creepy Joe Biden past the
public? I mean the average American Joe is extremely dumb & ignorant, but even they are
not that dumb."
I just posted the answer @11. Welcome to 1984. We are now officially at war with
Eastasia!
The good thing about Biden entering the race is that it complicates an already difficult path
to the nomination for the slew of establishment candidates. Biden is not a first choice for
the Democratic intelligentsia. Sample Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight regularly and you'll know
that Kamala Harris and boy-mayor Buttigieg are the favorites. Of course, Trump would eat
either whole.
I'm rooting for Sanders, not because I believe him to be uniquely authentic, but because
he is the one who scares the shit out of the big-ticket donors who guide the Democratic
Party.
Read last week's
front-pager from Jonathan Martin. Guaranteed if Bernie walks away with the primary in a
rout, you'll see prominent Dems back a third party candidate.
The fact that Biden survived the "GropeGate" stuff from a view weeks ago reinforces how the
msm is cooking coverage or withholding it altogether.
Take a look at some video compilations of ol' Gropey-Joe as he is swearing in elected reps
and photo-documenting the occasion.
Irrespective of his Obama-esque policies and status as standard-bearer for TPTB, the guy
is just a straight up creep. And a particularly bad Catholic.
...
I agree that Sanders-Gabbard would absolutely destroy Trump and garner perhaps even more
backing than Obama c. 2008.
I put the scary Socialist angle that is used against Sanders as carrying the same weight
as the whole Crouching Blackman, Hidden Muslim thing that followed Obama during his run.
It is just hard to tell as to how sensible they (Sanders and Gabbard) would be allowed to
be WRT FP.
But Trump had an opportunity to love his country. And he chose orherwise. SAD!
As long as Hunter Biden is still a director
of Burisma Holdings (which includes at least one other unpleasant individual on
the Board of Directors), there is always a chance that elements within or connected to the
Ukrainian government (even under Volodymyr Zelenskiy's Presidency, when he has his back
turned on his fellow politicians), the previous Poroshenko government or Poroshenko himself,
and / or the Maidan Revolution - Crowdstrike, Dmitri Alperovich and Chalupa sisters, we're
looking at all of you - might try to derail any or all of the Democratic Party presidential
candidates in attempts to have Joe Biden declared the official Democrat presidential
contender in 2020. The only question is how openly brazen these people are going to be in
order to save their pet project in Kiev before Ukraine erupts in civil war (and it won't be
civil war in the Donbass area) and the entire country goes down in flames.
As for the rest of the 20 candidates, I would prefer Tulsi Gabbard out of the lot. In this
respect India's general elections, already under way, are going to be important. Gabbard
needs to let go of Narendra Modi and his Hindutva BJP party - her friendship with Modi and
his association with Hindutva are sure to come under scrutiny as will also any connections
she and her office staff have with
The Science of Identity Foundation organisation.
Joe Biden is hard wired to the corruption in the corporate DNC. The tell on this will be when
the media starts to roll him out with the fanfare of a new model car. It is hard to imagine
that he can inspire voters in the primaries. But if the sell goes overboard and it becomes
obvious that the fixers are determined to hand him the nomination; then it will be a real
poke in the eye, and another PSYOPS to grossly demoralize voters in this country. Biden is
about as exciting as a glass of milk that's curdled overnight on the end table by the bed.
The Deep State wanted a MAGA nationalist to counter the challenge from Russia and China and
that's what they got.
Sanders is a sheepdog/stooge that works for the Zionist establishment and Deep State just
like Biden and a few others that are in the race. As much as you wag your 'tale', the stink
remains.
The oligarchy reels out all tired scams over and over, until you want to cry out in anguish.
Don't let them wear you down. Never capitulate. If Biden by some horrible chance has the
winning hand, I'm guessing he will pick Gillibrand for his VP, a centrist of compromising
kind, a shapeshifting clone to remind people of Hillary on some subconscious level. More of
the same will fix us right up, on our journey to virtual political reality, and the end of
humanity. These fucks will use the "little nukes" as they tuck us into bed.
a) violate sanctions and risk severe penalties; or
b) go along with sanctions but if Iran pulls the pin on the world economy, China could
very well completely crash economically, to the point that I wonder if there could be a
revolution. Also, everyone knows about China's Muslim issues, Iran could say "it would be
shame if someone armed those tens of million of Muslims you have".
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif has
conducted an interview with Reuters saying Trump didn't want war but could be "lured into
one." As usual, Reuters doesn't just provide a transcript of the interview, only publishing
what it wants to publish. We'll need to await the official Iranian transcript to note what
else was said and what was reported out-of-context.
China will ignore the illegal Outlaw US Empire diktat and carry on as before. If it's
challenged, it has the means to defend itself and will. The Empire is beholden to China not
the other way-round.
@39
Nobody cares what Italy and Greece need. They are good little vassals and will do what told.
Turkey is of course a bigger problem, but might just be mostly overlooked and ignored.
The big fish are China and India. Those are the major users of iranian oil, and neither of
them is likely to desist. What will the US do with them? Not possiple to financially sanction
China.
That's why I think there will be lots of talk, but no action against anyone still buying
iranian oil. Especially since Venezuela is not resolved. Nobody, not even the US, intends to
march into Venezuela to "liberate" any oil wells any time soon.
While Maduro might some day collapse under his camarilla's corruption and his own
incompetence, it will take a long time, probably years. Especially the opposition against him
is similary incompetent. My guess is, it will take longer than Trump will be in office.
For
decades, Washington's favourite means of punishing nations that do not subscribe to its
narrative has been through the imposition of economic sanctions. This has become particularly
apparent with the ongoing and increasing sanctions against Iran, Russia and North Korea. While
sanctions against these governments have garnered headlines for the past few years, in fact,
there are far more sanctions that we rarely hear about.
In 1950, the Office of Foreign
Assets Control was formed as part of the United States Department of the Treasury. OFAC
administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions that are based on U.S. foreign policy and
national security goals. Sanctions have been imposed for the following reasons:
1.) terrorism
2.) international narcotics trade
3.) proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
4.) threats to national security, foreign policy and/or economy of the United States
Economic sanctions, in their most basic form, are defined as the withdrawal of trade and
financial relations with a targeted nation for foreign and security policy purposes. Economic
sanctions can take many forms including freezing of assets, arms embargoes, trade restrictions
and bans, capital restraints, foreign aid reductions and travel bans. According to the Council on
Foreign Relations , the United States uses economic and financial sanctions more than any
other nation.
In the United States, sanctions can originate in either the Executive or Legislative branches
of government. Presidents begin the process by issuing an Executive Order or EO which affords
the president social powers to regulate commerce with a given entity. Under the EO, the
president declares that there is a national emergency in response to "unusual and
extraordinary" foreign threats, for instance, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
and the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States. In addition to Executive actions,
Congress can also pass legislation to both modify and impose sanctions. Most sanctions programs
are administered by the previously mentioned OFAC, however, other government departments may be
involved including Homeland Security, Justice, State and Commerce.
On the OFAC website interested parties can search for information on federally mandated
sanctions programs. Under each sanctions program there is an exhaustive listing of changes to
the programs, guidelines that must be followed under penalty of law. There is also a listing of
"General Licences" which are issued in order to authorize activities that would otherwise be
prohibited under law. Here is a
list from OFAC showing active sanctions programs and the date of their last update:
OFAC also tracks " Specially
Designated Nationals (SDNs) and Blocked Individuals ". This list contains the names of
individuals and companies that are owned, controlled by or acting on behalf of targeted nations
as well as the names of terrorists and narcotics traffickers that are not affiliated with any
nation. The assets of these SDNs are blocked and American citizens and permanent residents are
prohibited from doing business with them. Here is a very small sampling of SDNs from the PDF
version of the complete listing:
In total, there are 1157 pages listing the names of over 6000 SDNs and blocked individuals.
Here is a specific person showing how difficult it is to ensure that you are not dealing with a
SDN with an unknown number of aliases:
In this case, the SDGT following his name indicates that he is sanctioned under the Global
Terrorism Sanctions Regulations.
OFAC can impose civil penalties on individuals and organizations that act in contradiction to
the imposed sanctions. So far in 2018, there have been two penalties imposed as shown
here
for doing business with Iran:
...and here for doing business with Sudan:
During 2017 , 16 OFAC
Enforcement Actions resulted in penalties of $119,527,845, up substantially from penalties
totalling $21,609,315 in 2016.
Let's now look at the sanctions programs that are currently in place from the Council on
Foreign Relations. Here is a graphic showing the current U.S. sanctions programs and their year
of inception:
With this background on Washington's use of sanctions, let's look at what the World Economic
Forum (WEF) has to say about the effectiveness of
sanctions . The key factor in the effectiveness of sanctions is the size and capacity of
the nation being sanctioned and the power of the sanctioning nation or coalition. Applying
sanctions is a double-edged sword; for instance, in the case of Iran, China and Russia have
stepped in to develop Iran's massive natural gas reserves whereas American oil companies are
banned from investing and profiting from their potential investments in Iran. There are also
longer term impacts of sanctions as show in this quote from the WEF:
" The consequences of this trend are evolving, but they potentially include companies'
"de-globalization". That is, as companies are increasingly forced to think of themselves as
tied to their home governments, they will think twice before investing in certain markets
abroad. Other consequences include changes in traditional foreign trade patterns in line with
new geopolitical alignments. Faced in 2006 with the Russian wine embargo, Georgia had to
look for new markets in the West, where it was headed politically. When in 2014 Russia faced
Western sanctions, it accelerated its rapprochement with China, the one major power that
refused to condemn its actions and shared Moscow's opposition to US global dominance. The outcome of these geo-economic campaigns is not a zero-sum game. The stronger economy
backed by other forms of power can incur more damage on the target country than it will sustain
in return, but it does not always alter the political behaviour of the government to be
"punished". Sometimes sanctions can make that behaviour even more problematic. Ironically,
the true winner may be a third party that jumps into the opening: European countries in the
initial phases of US-Iran sanctions; China in the case of current Western sanctions against
Russia; Russia in the case of the post-Tiananmen Western weapons ban on China; Turkey in the
situation when EU pressure made Russia abandon its South Stream gas pipeline project. " (my
bolds)
In many cases (i.e. Iran, Syria and North Korea), the ultimate desired impact of sanctions is
to create an atmosphere where the targeted government is subjected to "regime change". As well,
sanctions are generally less effective against nations that are adversaries since the sanctions
may create a political climate where there is a stiffening of resolve of the people being
punished by an outside power. We need look no further than the example of Vladimir Putin who,
despite nearly five years of sanctions, still retains the backing of the majority of Russians
as shown here :
One would think that Washington would have concluded that economic sanctions have not
necessarily proven to be an effective means of getting its way in the world and, in fact, may
have punished domestic businesses more than they punished foreign adversaries. The lessons
taught by nearly 70 years of American economic isolation against Cuba are a prime example;
while the sanctions have been painful, they resulted in a nation that has maintained its
resolve in the face of economic difficulties and a leader that outlived and out ruled the
reigns of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I,
Clinton and Bush II.
Tuesday, April 23, 2019US Power
Wielding - Unconventional Warfare and Financial Power Back in December 2008, WikiLeaks
released a relatively little-noted document "
US Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare ". This 248-page, nine chapter
publication was the September 2008 revision of the U.S. Army Field Manual 3-05.130, the
keystone doctrine for Army special operations forces operations in unconventional warfare.
This document defines unconventional warfare as:
" Operations conducted by, with or through irregular forces against a variety of state and
no-state opponents. "
These operations are conducted:
" ...in support of a resistance movement, an insurgency, and ongoing or pending conventional
military operations "
Such operations have the following common conceptual core:
". ..working by, with, or through irregular surrogates in a clandestine and/or covert manner
against opposing actors. "
In Chapter 2, the document outlines the instruments of United States national power which help
the United States to achieve its national strategic objectives. These instruments of national
power include diplomacy, information, intelligence, economic, financial, law enforcement and
military. For the purposes of this posting, let's focus on one of these instruments as follows,
the Financial Instrument of National Power . Here's how the document describes this
instrument:
" The financial instrument of national power promotes the conditions for prosperity and
stability in the United States and encourages prosperity and stability in the rest of the
world. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is the primary federal agency responsible
for the economic and financial prosperity and security of the United States and as such is
responsible for a wide range of activities, including advising the President on economic and
financial issues, promoting the President's growth agenda, and enhancing corporate governance
in financial institutions. In the international arena, the Treasury works with other federal
agencies, the governments of other nations, and the international financial institutions to
encourage economic growth; raise standards of living; and predict and prevent, to the extent
possible, economic and financial crises." I like that " encourages
prosperity and stability intherest of the world ". That is true, unless you
happen to live in a nation which doesn't share Washington's viewpoint. Just ask people living
in one of many nations who are currently subject to one or another of Washington's long list of
sanctions as shown here (current to
mid-2017):
The document proceeds to note the following:
" T he application of economic or financial incentives is among the most powerful ideas
in the U.S. arsenal of power. Although some U.S. adversaries are irreconcilable to
accommodation with U.S. interests and must be engaged in other ways, many declared or
potential adversaries can be persuaded or dissuaded by economic or financial means to become
declared or potential allies (or at least neutralized) the ability of the United States
government to affect the economic environment is enormous, and it has economic weapons at its
disposal. Unconventional warfare planners must carefully coordinate the introduction and
withholding of economic and financial assets into the Unconventional Warfare Operational Area
(UWOA) with their interagency partners. For example, direct application of USAID grants to
specific human groups can alter negative behaviors or cement positive affiliations. At the
highest levels of diplomatic and financial interaction, the United States Government's ability
to influence international financial institutions -- with corresponding effects to exchange
rates, interest rates, credit availability, and money supplies -- can cement multinational
coalitions for unconventional warfare campaigns or dissuade adversary nation-state governments
from supporting specific actors in the UWOA. " (my bolds)
As you can see, the United States is willing to use financial blackmail including exchange and
interest rate manipulation, credit availability and the supply of money to either persuade
certain nations to join its unconventional warfare campaign or to dissuade adversarial nations
from supporting the "other side" of an unconventional warfare strategy.
Here is a screen capture of page 2-8 of the document outlining how the United States can use
financial incentives to manipulate other nations (ARSOF = Army Special Operations Forces and UW
= Unconventional Warfare, DOS = Department of State, IC = Intelligence Community):
Note this sentence:
" Government can apply unilateral and indirect financial power through persuasive
influence to international and domestic financial institutions regarding availability and terms
of loans, grants, or other financial assistance to foreign state and nonstate actors
."
It is also interesting to note that the document clearly states that the World Bank,
International Monetary Fund, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and Bank for
International Settlements are basically functioning as organizations that Washington can use to
drive its global agenda and as yet another tool in America's quest for global hegemony. This
isn't terribly surprising in the case of the World Bank since we find the following on its
website:
In addition, the Treasury Department's
Office of Foreign Assets Control whose sole responsibility is as follows:
". ..to administer and enforce economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and
national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists,
international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and other threats the national security... "
...has a " long history of conducting economic warfare valuation to any Army Special
Operations Forces unconventional warfare. ".
This Army manual, leaked over a decade ago by WikiLeaks, gives us a very clear view of how
Washington uses financial manipulation through its influence on the World Bank, IMF, OECD and
other "global" groups to wage unconventional warfare on any nation that doesn't share its view
of how the world should function and that threatens America's control of the globe. The use of
financial blackmail to bend countries to America's narrative and overthrow nations who do not
succumb to America's wishes is not terribly surprising, however, it is interesting to actually
see one key aspect of Washington's unconventional warfare methodology in print.
"... IMO, the numerous studies done over the decades since the Iranian Revolution and the futile attempt to overthrow it by waging war upon it via Iraqi proxy has proven to the US military that waging war again on Iran's a fatal policy mistake. ..."
It's not the amount per se; rather, it's who would be affected -- Deep State actors, not
deplorables. That such entities would find themselves victimized by Trump's actions provides
motivation to deter same.
IMO, the numerous studies done over the decades since the Iranian Revolution and the
futile attempt to overthrow it by waging war upon it via Iraqi proxy has proven to the US
military that waging war again on Iran's a fatal policy mistake.
The Bully Foursome--Bolton, Pompeo, Pence, and Trump--seem to believe they can get Iran to
submit where all other previous efforts have failed. Instead, their bullying tactics and
gifts to Zionistan generated blowback that's enlarging the Arc of Resistance, while
alienating Europe.
What's a Deep State actor to do? Pence is even more of a tyro than Trump and his rise to
POTUS must be avoided. If they could both be impeached and removed, then they'd get Pelosi,
which would likely be a relief.
With her as POTUS, it might be possible to derail Sanders.
But it must be admitted, grave damage to the Empire's facade's been done that's beyond
repair.
Understand this if nothing else, Khalifa Haftar is a terrorist hand puppet of the CIA. He
is a thief, a liar, a thug, and a traitor to Libya. He threatens legitimate Libyans daily and
uses the NSA listening equipment (brought into Libya in 2011) to target any Libya who speaks
his name. Khalifa Haftar would not ever be supported by Russia. This lie has been perpetrated
in the mainstream for years. Now they have stepped up their game and have stated that Russian
mercenaries are in Libya supporting Haftar at the behest of the leader of Russia. Nothing
could be farther from the truth.
The Great Tribes have confirmed to me everything that I have written.
Libya has lost their country to terrorist thugs, their infrastructure has been destroyed,
their wealth has been stolen and continues to be stolen. They have had one million Libyans
killed....
It is the assets and geographical location that they would own. The ruination, destruction
and death of Libya and her people are just acceptable collateral damage to achieve their evil
agenda.
The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction or SIGAR just released the
third edition of its High-Risk List to the 116th Congress of the United States and the
Secretaries of both State and Defense. In this report, SIGAR identifies the most serious
threats to the American government's $132 billion reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. This
information is of particular interest and importance given that negotiations are currently
underway to end the United States' involvement in Afghanistan, involvement that began on
October 7, 2001, making this the longest military engagement in American history.
The report opens with this rather sobering summary of the past, present and future in
Afghanistan:
" The $132 billion appropriated since 2002 for Afghanistan's reconstruction has been used to
train and equip Afghan security forces, strengthen government institutions, promote the rule of
law, protect women's rights, improve health and education, and stimulate economic development,
among other objectives. Yet the gains from our nation's investment in Afghanistan's reconstruction face multiple
threats: continued insecurity, endemic corruption, weak Afghan institutions, the insidious
impact of the narcotics trade, and inadequate coordination and oversight by donors. While an equitable and sustainable peace agreement in Afghanistan could end much of the
violence that presents the greatest threat to the reconstruction effort, a peace agreement may
bring its own set of challenges to sustaining the gains that the United States, its Coalition
partners, and the Afghan government have achieved over that time." (my bold)
Here is a listing of the eight current high risk areas: 1.) Widespread Insecurity - whether a peace plan is put into place or not, Afghanistan
is likely to continue to experience multiple violent extremist organizations. The Afghan
National Defense and Security Forces require annual funding of between $4 billion and $5
billion to remain viable. 2.) Underdeveloped Civil Policing Capability - The United States has spent more effort
reconstructing the Afghan National Army than on the Afghan National Police meaning that there
is no strategy for a competent civil police force backed by rule of law. Sustaining a national
police force will require significant foreign funding. 3.) Endemic Corruption - Corruption is endemic and forms a significant threat to the
Afghan government. This means that reconstruction programs will continue to be subverted and
are likely to fail. Here is a graphic from Transparency International showing where Afghanistan
lies on the global spectrum when it comes to corruption:
Afghanistan has the world's 9th lowest corruption score as shown on this list: 4.) Sluggish Economic Growth - Afghanistan's legal economy is sluggish and there are
numerous barriers to further economic growth. 5.) Illicit Narcotics Trade - Afghanistan remains the world's largest producer of opium
poppies and had the two highest years of cultivation in 2017 and 2018. Funds from the illicit
drug trade fund the Taliban, corrupt members of the Afghan government, military and police and
also employ 600,000 Afghanis. 6.) Threats to Women's Rights - More than $1 billion has been spent since 2002 to
advance the status of women in Afghanistan but gains made so far are fragile, particularly in
rural areas, and are likely to be unprotected should the Taliban be part of a peace
settlement. 7.) Challenge of Reintegration - The social, economic and political reintegration of
tens of thousands of former fighters back into Afghan society will be difficult, particularly
in light of the nation's weak economy and political uncertainty and distrust. 8.) Restricted Oversight - If a peace settlement includes reductions in foreign
personnel providing oversight on foreign funded programs, problems in the nation will only
increase thanks to high levels of corruption.
Let's look at some examples of where U.S. tax dollars have been spent in Afghanistan. Since
2001, an estimated $780 billion has been appropriated for Afghanistan including war funding,
diplomatic and consular programs, military and embassy construction projects etcetera. Of this
$738 billion or 95 percent of the total was obligated by the Department of Defense.
Reconstruction costs make up 15 percent of total U.S. funds obligated for Afghanistan since
2001 and are broken down as follows: 1.) Security - $83.1 billion (63 percent of the total) to build up Afghan military and
police. In fiscal 2019, 82 percent of the funds appropriated for Afghanistan reconstruction
were spent on assisting the security sector. The "success" of this program can be put into
perspective with
this map showing the areas of Afghanistan that are under control of the Taliban, the
original target of Operation Enduring Freedom: 2.) Governance and Economic Development - $33.9 billion (26 percent of the total). In
fiscal 2018, only 12 percent of the funds appropriated for Afghanistan reconstruction were
spent on improving the nation's economy. 3.) Counternarcotics Programs - $8.9 billion (7 percent of the total).
The remaining 4 percent of reconstruction funds have been spent to support civilian operations,
humanitarian initiatives and in combating society-wide corruption.
Let's close by looking at a few quotes from the report that show just how dire the situation in
Afghanistan still is nearly 18 years after Operation Enduring Freedom began and how unlikely a
peace settlement is likely to change the situation on the ground: 1.)Failure to successfully reintegrate an estimated 60,000 Taliban fighters and
their families, and other illegal armed groups, could undermine the successful implementation
of any peace agreement.
2.) The opium trade plays a significant role in the Afghan economy and it is difficult to
seehow a peace accord between the Afghan government and the insurgency would translate
into the collapse or contraction of the illicit drug trade. The country requires a growing
economy or favorable economic conditions to provide farmers and former insurgents with
legitimate employment and a reliable income to replace opium poppy cultivation. The Afghan
government also needs to pursue major drug traffickers, which it has not done consistently or
successfully. According to the Department of Justice, "certain influential people are above the
law."
3.) Effective policing will require a force that gives citizens the presumption of innocence
rather than anticipating and taking preemptive offensive operations against perceived threats.
U.S. agencies, such as the Justice Department, currently lack the personnel numbers and
para-military strength to accompany Afghan National Police trainees into high-threat
districts.
4.) In a post-settlement environment, depending on the terms of an agreement, there may also
be the challenge of integrating former Taliban fighters into the national security forces and
society. These issues could become more acute should international financial and military
support decline sharply before, during, or after peace talks between the Afghan government and
the Taliban.
Let's close this sobering view of Afghanistan's future with an excerpt from the prepared
remarks given by
the the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, John F. Sopko that
accompanied the release of the report:
" If the U.S. reduces its presence in Afghanistan but feels compelled to provide significant
financial support for reconstruction, there may be little choice but to provide a greater
proportion of funding as on-budget assistance. But if that road is taken, assistance should be
conditioned on an independent finding that adequate monitoring mechanisms and internal controls
for the Afghan ministry or multilateral trust fund in question are in place. If those conditions are lacking and assistance is provided anyway, we may as well set the
cash ablaze on the streets of Kabul for all the good it will do. I urge Congress to not just think about how much money should be given, but also to think
about how that money will be provided and monitored. If the need for oversight is ignored or
sidelined, both the American taxpayer and the Afghan people will suffer, even with a successful
peace agreement." (my bold)
At the very least, it appears that 18 years of war has accomplished almost nothing when it
comes to meaningful and permanent changes in Afghanistan despite the spending of hundreds of
billions of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars.
Israel and the Ukraine are now the two countries on the planet in which both the
President [Zelenskii] and the Prime-Minister [Groisman] are Jews
just a day after his election Zelenskii is already making all sorts of anti-Russian
statements.
since Zelenskii has no personal power base of any kind, Kolomoiskii will have him do
exactly as he is told and Kolomoiskii can easily be told to behave by the Empire.
Here is a new ruler of Ukraine, the Israeli/Ukrainian/Swiss citizen Kolomoisky
:
The ethnically Jewish Kolomojsky has been the main financier of Azov Battalion
:
The Azov Battalion was initially formed out of the neo-Nazi gang Patriot of Ukraine.
Azov Battalion -- which is accused of human-rights abuses, including torture, by Human
Rights Watch and the United Nations -- was incorporated into Ukraine's National Guard.
The New York Times called the battalion "openly neo-Nazi," while USA Today, The Daily
Beast, The Telegraph, and Haaretz documented group members' proclivity for swastikas,
salutes, and other Nazi symbols
Oil prices are on the rise after the United States announced a new crackdown on Iran's oil
exports aiming to reduce them to zero.
Iran's threatening retaliation by blocking the Strait of Hormuz - the world's lifeline of oil
from all Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.
The move has
Economic Sanctions === Economic Terrorist Attack Recent terrorist attacks indicate that
the United States is using extremist organizations to provoke religious wars. The aim is to
split Eurasia and make troubles for Europe. The United States is very afraid of peace in
Eurasia, because it will make the United States a third world country.
Oil prices are on the rise after the United States announced a new crackdown on Iran's oil
exports aiming to reduce them to zero.
Iran's threatening retaliation by blocking the Strait of Hormuz - the world's lifeline of oil
from all Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.
The move has
CIA is actually a state within the state as Church commission revealed and it has an immanent tendency to seek control over "surface
state" and media. In other words large intelligence apparatus might well be incompatible with the democratic governance.
Notable quotes:
"... The CIA has a track record of acting out of self interest since its inception and should not be believed. That being said, the public is almost completely unaware of the agency's misdeeds. ..."
"In the long run, the CIA can't deceive the Chinese government without also deceiving, in some way, the American public. This
leaves us with an obvious problem: Should we believe anything the CIA says?" [RealClearWorld].
"It's a tough question for a democracy to answer. Trust is built on the tacit agreement that the "bad things" an agency does are
good for the country.
If the public believes that that is no longer the case – if it believes the agency is acting out of self-interest and not national
interest – then the agreement is broken. The intelligence agency is seen as an impediment of the right to national self-determination,
a means for the ends of the few."
Huey Long <
RE: Hall of Mirrors/Believing the CIA
The CIA has a track record of acting out of self interest since its inception and should not be believed. That being said, the public is almost completely unaware of the agency's misdeeds.
I think the reason folks like Manning, Snowden
and Assange are so reviled by the agency is because they are a threat to the CIA's reputation more than anything else.
"... North Stream is a problem as the goal is to economically weaken Russia, tie the EU to the USA via energy supplies and support
our new client state -- Ukraine. ..."
"... But this is also related to attempts to prevent/weaken the alliance of Russia and China. As geopolitical consequences of this
alliance for the USA-led neoliberal empire are very bad ..."
Best bet is for Russia to want to trade with the US and Europe. The gas pipeline will not be enough leverage on Germany
as it provides 9% of their needs.
Yes. And that's against the USA interests (or more correctly the US-led neoliberal empire interests). North Stream is a
problem as the goal is to economically weaken Russia, tie the EU to the USA via energy supplies and support our new client state
-- Ukraine.
As you know, nothing was proven yet in Russiagate (and DNC hacks looks more and more like a false flag operation, especially
this Guccifer 2.0 personality ), but sanctions were already imposed. And when the US government speaks "Russia" in most cases
they mean "China+Russia" ;-). Russia is just a weaker link in this alliance and, as such, it is attacked first. Russiagate is
just yet another pretext after MH17, Magnitsky and such.
To me the current Anti-Russian hysteria is mainly a smokescreen to hide attempt to cement cracks in the façade of the USA neoliberal
society that Trump election revealed (including apparent legitimization of ruling neoliberal elite represented by Hillary).
And a desperate attempt to unite the society using (false) war propaganda which requires demonization of the "enemy of the
people" and neo-McCarthyism.
But this is also related to attempts to prevent/weaken the alliance of Russia and China. As geopolitical consequences of
this alliance for the USA-led neoliberal empire are very bad (for example, military alliance means the end of the USA global
military domination; energy alliance means that is now impossible to impose a blockade on China energy supplies from Middle East
even if Iran is occupied)
In this sense the recent descent into a prolonged fit of vintage Cold War jingoistic paranoia is quite understandable. While,
at the same time, totally abhorrent. My feeling is that unless Russia folds, which is unlikely, the side effects/externalities
of this posture can be very bad for the USA. In any case, the alliance of Russia and China which Obama administration policies
forged spells troubles to the global neoliberal empire dominated by the USA.
Trump rejection of existing forms of neoliberal globalization is one sign that this process already started and some politicians
already are trying to catch the wind and adapt to a "new brave world" by using preemptive adjustments.
Which is why all this Trump-Putin summit hysteria is about.
Neither hard, nor soft neoliberals want any adjustments. They are ready to fight for the US-led neoliberal empire till the
last American (excluding, of course, themselves and their families)
Here we need to look at the candidate political history, their actions before the election. "Trump scam" like "Obama
scam" was based on the fact that they do not have political history, they were what Romans called "Tabula
rasa". A "clean state" politician into which
voters can project their wishes about domestic and foreign policy. That was a dirty. but very effective trick.
But the most important factor in Trump win was the he was competing against despicable warmonger Hillary Clinton, the
establishment candidate who wanted to kick the neoliberal globalization can down the road. So the "lesser evilism" card was
also in play consciously or unconscionably as well. So with Hillary as the opposition candidate it was a kind of
implementation of the USSR style elections on a new level. but with the same with zero choice. Effectively the US
electorate was disenfranchised when FBI has thrown Sander under the bus by exonerating Hillary. In a way FBI was the
kingmaker in 2016 elections.
And please note that the Deep State launched a color revolution against Trump to keep him in check. Only later it became
evident that he from the very beginning was a pro-Israel neoconservative, probably fully controlled by pro-Israel forces. That Trump
electorate bought MIGA instead of MAGA from the day one.
Notable quotes:
"... The question is even if we got a candidate against the War Party & the Party of Davos, would it matter? Trump, the candidate who campaigned on the wasteful expenditures in our endless wars has surrounded himself with neocons and continues to do Bibi's bidding ratcheting up tensions in Latin America, Middle East and with Russia. What's changed even with a candidate that the Swamp disliked and attempted to take down? ..."
In a recent call from Trump requesting his opinion on China, Jimmy Carter noted that China
has not spent a dime on war since 1979, whereas we've spent trillions & continue to spend
even more.
China invested trillions in their infrastructure while ours crumbles. They've invested in
building the world's manufacturing capacity while we dismantled ours. We spend twice per
capita on healthcare compared to any other western country, yet chronic diseases like
diabetes keeps growing. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined yet
how superior is our weaponry compared to the Russians who spend one-tenth of what we spend?
We've financialized our economy and socialized speculative losses of Wall St mavens but when
some politicians talk about spending on the commons then socialism is labeled bad.
The question is even if we got a candidate against the War Party & the Party of Davos,
would it matter? Trump, the candidate who campaigned on the wasteful expenditures in our
endless wars has surrounded himself with neocons and continues to do Bibi's bidding
ratcheting up tensions in Latin America, Middle East and with Russia. What's changed even
with a candidate that the Swamp disliked and attempted to take down?
"Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the
first time Clinton's personal office. "
The report shows that Russia coordinated with Trump even if he was unaware of it.
Do you understand that you implicate Obama administration in total and utter incompetence,
if not pandering to the foreign intervention into the USA elections. The latter is called
criminal negligence in legal speak.
So all our three letter agencies with their enormous budgets and staff including NSA which
intercepts all incoming/outgoing communications (and probably most internal communications)
can't protect the USA elections from interference that they knew about ? Why they did not
warn Trump?
Or NSA assumed that it was yet another CIA "training exercise" imposing as Russian
hackers?
It not clear why Russia need such a crude methods as, for example, hacking Podesta email
via spearfishing (NSA has all the recodings in this case), as you can buy, say a couple of
Google engineers for less then a million dollars (many Google engineers hate Google with its
cult of performance reviews and know that they are getting much less then their Facebook
counterparts, so this might well be not that difficult) and get all you want without extra
noise.
Historically Soviet and, especially, East German intelligence were real experts in
utilizing "humint". With the crash of neoliberal ideology that probably is easier for
Russians now then it was for Soviets or East Germans in 60th-80th.
For example, from my admittedly nonprofessional point of view, the most logical assumption
about DNC hack is that it was a mixture of the internal leak (download of the files to the
UCB drive) and Crowdstrike false flag operation (cover up operation which included implanting
Russian (or Ukrainian) malware from Vault 7 to blame Russians.
"Do you understand that you implicate Obama administration"
They did screw up.
Wrong. The fact that they did not warn/brief Trump suggests that this was an a
deliberate and pre-planned attempt to entrap him by initiating Russian contacts by
FBI/CIA/MI6 moles
Papadopoulos set up ( via Josef Misfud (MI6) and Stefan Halper (CIA) ). At the time
Halper probably was reporting to the current CIA director Gina Haspel who was at this
time CIA station chief in GB. She is a Brennan protégé, of recent Skripals
dead ducks hoax fame.
Surveillance was specifically established to collect compromising material on Trump
and his associates with high level official in Obama administration (and probably Obama
himself) playing coordinating role.
Colonel Lang's blog is a good source of information on those issues with posts by
former intelligence specialists.
And please note that I am not a Trump supporter. I resent him and his policies.
Powerful video about US propaganda machine. Based on Iraq War propaganda efforts. This is a
formidable machine.
Shows quite vividly that most US politicians of Bush era were war criminal by Nuremberg
Tribunal standards. Starting with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. They planned the war of aggression
against Iraq long before 9/11.
"... Donald Trump's presidency, like preceding ones, is trapped by the interests of the power elite that has ruled America since World War II. The constraints imposed on domestic policy by this elite inevitably have a direct impact on America's foreign policy. ..."
"... The growing misalignment between government policies and people's yearnings coincides with the ascent of the military establishment within the power elite that rules America. Despite the country's aggressive expansionism, America's power elite was initially driven mainly by political and economic forces and much less by its growing military strength. It is fair to say that the military establishment, as an influential component of the American power elite, only appeared in the context of World War II. Nowadays, it is a dominant player. ..."
"... Today's power elite in America is fundamentally the same as the one that emerged after World War II and which was accurately described by C. Wright Mills in the 1950s. Consequently, the main forces shaping US domestic and foreign policies have not changed since then. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War did not make irrelevant the existing power elite at that time. The elite only became more vocal in its efforts to justify itself and this explains today's existence of NATO, for instance. ..."
"... Despite its economic and entrepreneurial might, the US distilled version of capitalism is unable to attain the needs of a growing number of its population, as the Great Recession of 2008 has shown. Within the OECD, arguably the club with the highest levels of economic and social development in the world, US rankings are abysmal, for instance concerning education and health, as it lays at the bottom in learning metrics and on critical health measures such as obesity. The wealth gap has widened and the social fabric is broken. American economic decline is evident and growing social conflict across economic, social and geographic lines is just a reaction to this decline. ..."
"... Concerning China, Trump is learning about the limits of his ability to successfully challenge it economically. It seems virtually impossible to reverse China's momentum which, if it continues, will consolidate its economic domination. ..."
"... A fundamental weakness of American foreign policy is its inability to understand war in all its different dimensions ..."
"... Despite the need to see through Trump's true intentions beyond his pomp and circumstance, there is an important warning to be made. Trump's eventual inability to fulfill his promises, combined with his bravado and America's incapacity to take a more sobering approach to world events is a dangerous combination. ..."
Donald Trump's presidency, like preceding ones, is trapped by the interests of the power elite
that has ruled America since World War II. The constraints imposed on domestic policy by this elite
inevitably have a direct impact on America's foreign policy. Alternative social forces, like
the ones behind Trump's presidential triumph, only have a limited impact on domestic and ultimately
on foreign policy. A conceptual detour and a brief on history and on Trump's domestic setting when
he was elected will help clarifying these theses.
Beyond the different costumes that it wears (dealing with ideology, international law, and even
religion), foreign policy follows domestic policy. The domestic policy actors are the social forces
at work at a given point of time, mainly the economic agents and their ambitions (in their multiple
expressions), including the ruling power elite. Society's aspirations not only relate to material
welfare, but also to ideological priorities that population segments may have at a given point of
time.
From America's initial days until the mid 1800s, there seems to have been a broad alignment of
US foreign policy with the wishes of its power elite and other social forces. America's expansionism,
a fundamental bulwark of its foreign policy from early days, reflected the need to fulfill its growing
population's ambitions for land and, later on, the need to find foreign markets for its excess production,
initially agricultural and later on manufacturing. It can be said that American foreign policy was
broadly populist at that time. The power elite was more or less aligned in achieving these expansionist
goals and was able to provide convenient ideological justification through the writings of Jefferson
and Madison, among others.
As the country expanded, diverging interests became stronger and ultimately differing social forces
caused a significant fracture in society. The American Civil War was the climax of the conflicted
interests between agricultural and manufacturing led societies. Fifty years later, a revealing manifestation
of this divergence (which survived the Civil War), as it relates to foreign policy, is found during
the early days of the Russian Revolution when, beyond the ideological revulsion of Bolshevism, the
US was paralyzed between the agricultural and farming businesses seeking exports to Russia and the
domestic extractive industries interested in stopping exports of natural resources from this country.
The growing misalignment between government policies and people's yearnings coincides with the
ascent of the military establishment within the power elite that rules America. Despite the country's
aggressive expansionism, America's power elite was initially driven mainly by political and economic
forces and much less by its growing military strength. It is fair to say that the military establishment,
as an influential component of the American power elite, only appeared in the context of World War
II. Nowadays, it is a dominant player.
Today's power elite in America is fundamentally the same as the one that emerged after World War
II and which was accurately described by C. Wright Mills in the 1950s. Consequently, the main forces
shaping US domestic and foreign policies have not changed since then. The collapse of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War did not make irrelevant the existing power elite at that time.
The elite only became more vocal in its efforts to justify itself and this explains today's existence
of NATO, for instance.
Despite its economic and entrepreneurial might, the US distilled version of capitalism is unable
to attain the needs of a growing number of its population, as the Great Recession of 2008 has shown.
Within the OECD, arguably the club with the highest levels of economic and social development in
the world, US rankings are abysmal, for instance concerning education and health, as it lays at the
bottom in learning metrics and on critical health measures such as obesity. The wealth gap has widened
and the social fabric is broken. American economic decline is evident and growing social conflict
across economic, social and geographic lines is just a reaction to this decline.
Trump won his presidency because he was able to get support from the country's growing frustrated
white population. His main social themes (bringing jobs to America by stopping the decline of its
manufacturing industry, preventing further US consumer dependence on foreign imports and halting
immigration) fitted well with the electors' anger. Traditional populist themes linked to foreign
policy (like Russophobia) did not play a big role in the last election. But whether or not the Trump
administration can align with the ruling power elite in a manner that addresses the key social and
economic needs of the American people is still to be seen.
Back to foreign policy, we need to distinguish between Trump's style of government and his administration's
actions. At least until now, focusing excessively on Trump's style has dangerously distracted from
his true intentions. One example is the confusion about his initial stance on NATO which was simplistically
seen as highly critical to the very existence of this organization. On NATO, all that Trump really
cared was to achieve a "fair" sharing of expenditures with other members and to press them to
honor
their funding commitments.
From immigration to defense spending, there is nothing irrational about Trump's foreign policy
initiatives, as they just reflect a different reading on the American people's aspirations and, consequently,
they attempt to rely on supporting points within the power elite which are different from the ones
used in the past.
Concerning China, Trump is learning about the limits of his ability to successfully challenge
it economically. It seems virtually impossible to reverse China's momentum which, if it continues,
will consolidate its economic domination. A far-reaching lesson, although still being ignored, is
that China's economic might is showing that capitalism as understood in the West is not winning,
much less in its American format. It also shows that democracy may not be that relevant, as it is
not necessarily a corollary or a condition for economic development. Perhaps it even shows the superiority
of China's economic model, but this is a different matter.
As Trump becomes more aware about his limitations, he has naturally reversed to the basic imprints
of America's traditional foreign policy, particularly concerning defense. His emphasis on a further
increase in defense spending is not done for prestigious or national security reasons, but as an
attempt to preserve a job generating infrastructure without considering the catastrophic consequences
that it may cause.
On Iran, Obama's initiative to seek normalization was an attempt to walk a fine line (and to find
a less conflictive path) between supporting the US traditional Middle East allies (mainly the odd
combination of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) and recognizing Iran's growing aspirations. Deep
down, Obama was trying to acknowledge Iran's historical viability as a country and a society that
will not disappear from the map, while Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, may not be around in a few
years. Trump's Iran policy until now only represents a different weighing of priorities, although
it is having far reaching consequences on America's credibility as a reliable contractual party in
international affairs.
In the case of Afghanistan, Trump's decision to increase boots on the ground does not break the
inertia of US past administrations. Aside from temporary containment, an increasing military presence
or a change in tactics will not alter fundamentally this reality.
Concerning Russia, and regardless of what Trump has said, actions speak more than words. A continuous
deterioration of relations seems inevitable.
Trump will also learn, if he has not done so already, about the growth of multipolar forces in
world's events. Russia has mastered this reality for several years and is quite skillful at using
it as a basic tool of its own foreign goals. Our multipolar world will expand, and Trump may even
inadvertently exacerbate it through its actions (for instance in connection with the different stands
taken by the US and its European allies concerning Iran).
While fulfilling the aspirations of the American people seems more difficult within the existing
capitalist framework, there are also growing apprehensions coming from America's power elite as it
becomes more frustrated due to its incapacity of being more effective at the world level. America's
relative adolescence in world's history will become more and more apparent in the coming years.
A fundamental weakness of American foreign policy is its inability to understand war in all its
different dimensions. The US has never suffered the consequences of an international conflict in
its own backyard. The American Civil War, despite all the suffering that it caused, was primarily
a domestic event with no foreign intervention (contrary to the wishes of the Confederation). The
deep social and psychological damage caused by war is not part of America's consciousness as it is,
for instance in Germany, Russia or Japan. America is insensitive to the lessons of history because
it has a very short history itself.
Despite the need to see through Trump's true intentions beyond his pomp and circumstance, there
is an important warning to be made. Trump's eventual inability to fulfill his promises, combined
with his bravado and America's incapacity to take a more sobering approach to world events is a dangerous
combination.
Oscar Silva-Valladares is a former investment banker that has lived and worked in North and
Latin America, Western & Eastern Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan, the Philippines and Western Africa.
He currently chairs Davos International Advisory, an advisory firm focused on strategic consulting
across emerging markets.
"... Nevertheless, while it appeared to the Clinton partisans in the Obama White House, in the DoJ, the CIA, the FBI and overseas in the UK, that the e-mail case had been quashed sufficiently to preserve the likelihood of Clinton's accession, they had enough reservations to exploit a garbage pail of political dirt to take out an "insurance policy." ..."
Who is taking the over/under on whether Barr will actually investigate the origins of the attempted entrapment of Trump in Russia
collusion and the roles played by key players in US law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well as the Brits & Aussie government
agencies therein?
I'm willing to bet that it will all be swept under the rug and that Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Lynch & Rice will not be testifying
to any grand jury. Barr has received multiple criminal & conspiracy referrals from Rep. Devin Nunes. However, Trump himself disregarded
Nunes recommendation to declassify several documents & communications including the FISA application on Carter Page. The question
is does Trump want to get to the bottom of the conspiracy? So far all he's done is tweet. IMO, Barr is the epitome of a Swamp
Rat.
"Let your plans be dark and as impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt." – Sun Tzu
I have a feeling that President Trump will declassify and release the relevant documents in a manner that they will have maximum
effect. It is stunning that the entirety of federal law enforcement, intelligence, and State department embraced and fortified
Russian misinformation in their jihad against Trump.
This must never happen again. At least the operation was run by political hacks, former analysts who fancied themselves as
operators. Their ham- fisted prints are over this shit storm. Thank you God for Comey, Brennan, and Clapper -- the three stooges
of espionage.
I suppose that it's possible that AG Barr's DoJ will mount a serious investigation into the many tentacles ongoing governmental
debacle that began with the Lynch DoJ providing political direction and cover for Comey's FBI to lie down on the Clinton e-mail
investigation. Which came first, the cover up, or the capitulation, is not completely clear. Perhaps it was a hand in glove affair.
Suffice it to say that by any standard of competence, it was a faux effort.
In my opinion, what was not done should constitute the elements of an obstruction violation. It would be a difficult charge
to argue before a jury. Was the level of incompetence such that a reasonable person could not believe that it could not exist
in the FBI, that there had to be malicious intent?
Nevertheless, while it appeared to the Clinton partisans in the Obama White House, in the DoJ, the CIA, the FBI and overseas
in the UK, that the e-mail case had been quashed sufficiently to preserve the likelihood of Clinton's accession, they had enough
reservations to exploit a garbage pail of political dirt to take out an "insurance policy."
Once again the question, could they possibly have been so incompetent. "What the heck" appears to have been the launching pad;
Clinton's going to win anyway, Trump will be crushed under the unmaskings, leaks, and innuendo; and no one will ever find out.
But Trump wins, and the unwholesome political cabal is now stuck with an investigation of an incoming President whom they had
tried to frag on the skimpiest evidentiary grounds imaginable. And worse, he appears to be sensing there is something rotten in
the state of Denmark, and Cardinal Jim Comey is a shitty liar, and now he's out, and what is going to happen to this garbage scow
they've launched, now with Comey gone. How do they kill this thing? Worse, how do they kill the political riot this thing has
caused. They can't; they double down; they take out another insurance policy - Jim Comey's good bud, Bob Mueller with a posse
of partisan attorneys, many vets of the Obama DoJ, a couple of squads of FBI Agents, including two who were prominent in the e
mail case and the Steele inquiry, and a set up akin to a shadow DoJ. What could go wrong? They would hound the bastard out of
office.
Which returns us to the question of whether Barr will mount a serious investigation into the political scandal of the last
100 years, at least. I suppose it is possible, but right now I'm not optimistic. For one thing Barr appeared at the big press
conference with Rod Rosenstein. Rod Rosenstein is at minimum a critical witness. There is every reason to suspect that Comey,
McCabe, Mueller, and Rosenstein conferred before Comey's leak to the NYT via a lawyer friend in furtherance of Mueller's appointment.
Going side by side with Rosenstein at this juncture doesn't augur well.
On the other hand, the continuing lunatic behavior of the demented left may give Barr no other choice but to sort the mess
out once and for all for the good of the country. We'll see.
The biggest take I got out of the Mueller report is that Trump is a sleazy character and that is not what I want from the president,
the Face of America to the rest of the world. Whether the Deep State went after Trump in an organized fashion is just noise in
my ears. To me that is just normal political infighting the same as Trump and other Republicans went after Obama for being an
illegitimate President as a non-citizen.
Sorry, but it IS NOT "normal political infighting" for the cabal to have sought and still to seek the overthrow of of the legitimate
head of state and government.
Gordon begins her
comparison by exploring the main charge levied against Nazis during the Nuremberg trials, which was
committing a crime against peace due to Germany's breach of the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, which, she
explains, "essentially outlawed war." American prosecutors in the mid-20th century insisted that this
initial crime was the unlawful act from which all other crimes committed by the Nazis originated.
"By comparison," the author tells Scheer, "I look at the Bush-Cheney administration's decision to make
an unnecessary and illegal war, both in Afghanistan and especially in Iraq.
"It's very clear from the documentary record that exists that the main reason people were being
tortured [by the U.S. before the Iraq War began] was because they wanted to get somebody somewhere to say
that Saddam Hussein was in league with al-Qaida, so that there could be an excuse for invading Iraq,"
Gordon says.
Throughout the so-called war on terror, the ethics expert says, the U.S. has also violated several
rules set forth in just-war theory, including what constitutes collateral damage and proportionality, in
its slaughter of countless Iraqi civilians.
"We took what had been one of the most vibrant, developed and cosmopolitan countries in that part of
the world -- which was Iraq -- and we essentially did what [U.S. military officials] used to say they wanted to
do to North Vietnam: bombed it back to the Stone Age," Gordon says.
Listen to Scheer and Gordon discuss a range of moral issues that Americans for several generations
have swept under the rug as the government both openly and secretly commits crimes in their name abroad.
You can also read a transcript of the interview below the media player.
Robert Scheer:
Hi, this is Robert Scheer with another edition of Scheer Intelligence.
The intelligence comes from my guests. In this case, it's Rebecca Gordon. And she has her doctorate in
ethics and social theory. I teach ethics at USC; you teach at the University of San Francisco, which is a
Catholic school, so presumably with all their difficulties they're still concerned about ethics. And
actually we have a good pope, in major ways, who's dealing with the subject I want to talk to you about:
the ethics of war making, and the violence that has been unleashed on the world. And you wrote two very
important books, maybe the most important in some ways. One is called
Mainstreaming Torture,
and
another is called
American Nuremberg.
So the question I want to ask you, you know, because we've
always treated the crimes of others, particularly the Germans, the worst crimes of modern history, as an
aberration in the development of the human race. Those people went berserk, crazy, and they were evil;
now we have another category, Muslims are evil, they do terrible things. We're recording this on a day
where in New Zealand, some 48 people trying to practice their religion were killed. So we see a lot of
crime against Muslims, as there was obviously a lot of crimes against Jews and other people. And in your
writing, you're very clear that the crimes of Nuremberg, of the Nazis, are a low level of evil. But the
real question is, the Germans are so much like Americans. They were–largest number of immigrants in this
country were Germans; they're a white, Anglo-Saxon population; they're highly educated, probably the
highest level of music and science at that point. And can it happen here?
Rebecca Gordon:
And that, of course, is the question many of us have been asking at
least since the election of 2016, and probably before that. And the answer in some ways, of course, is
that it did happen here with the invasion of the Americas by people from Europe, and the destruction of
all the peoples who were living here at the time. So there has been a genocide on this continent and in
South America that, you know, we just forget about, because it happened a while ago. But coming to
Nuremberg, what I was trying to do in the book is to say how important the principle was that was
established at Nuremberg, which is that international law is real law. And when you break international
law, there are genuine consequences, and people can and should be held accountable. So what I looked at
was the conduct of this so-called War on Terror in the post-September 11th period, and asked: Could the
United States be accused of the same categories of crimes for which the Nazi leadership were held
accountable? And there were three categories that were established by the prosecution, and these were
crimes against peace; ordinary war crimes, which had already been well described in the body of
international law; and a new category, crimes against humanity, which was created in order to take in the
enormity of what had been done in Europe by the Nazis. But what was very interesting is that it was
Americans who insisted that the first of these crimes should be crimes against peace. So what's that?
That means making an aggressive war. It means starting a war that was not a war of self-defense, that was
not a war of so-called necessity, but making an aggressive war. Why was that illegal? It was illegal
because Germany and the United States and many other countries in Europe had signed a treaty in 1928
called the Kellogg–Briand Treaty, which essentially outlawed war. It said that nations will not use war
to settle their disputes. And the argument that the U.S. prosecutors made was that all the other crimes
that the Germans committed actually sprang from this first crime of making this aggressive, unnecessary,
illegal war. And so by comparison, I look at the Bush-Cheney administration's decision to make an
unnecessary and illegal war, both in Afghanistan and especially in Iraq. And just as the Nazi crimes
arose from this making of a war that was wrong and illegal, the U.S. crimes–and specifically now because
my area of expertise is torture, I look at the reasons why the United States became involved in torture.
And in the beginning, it's very clear from the documentary record that exists, that the main reason
people were being tortured, both in the CIA dark sites and also at Guantanamo under the Department of
Defense, was because they wanted to get somebody somewhere to say that Saddam Hussein was in league with
Al-Qaeda, so that there could be an excuse for invading Iraq. And so the other crimes–
RS:
But wait, let's be very clear about that. This would be like the Nazis saying,
Jewish bankers destroyed our economy and colluded with Western powers, and therefore made life untenable
in Germany. That was the vicious scapegoating argument to justify Nazi expansion and destruction of other
societies. So this thing of whether Bush–you know, it's kind of become part of folklore–they lied us into
the war in Iraq. But what you're saying, and very clearly, the very idea of going to war in Iraq over the
9/11 incident, which not only did Saddam Hussein have–
RG:
Nothing to do with.
RS:
–nothing to do with, but actually he was opposed to Al-Qaeda, and it was the one
country where Al-Qaeda could not operate in, was Iraq. But instead of going to war with Pakistan, or
going to war, you know, elsewhere–no. We–
RG:
Or Saudi Arabia.
RS:
Well, of course, Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 hijackers–
RG:
Came from.
RS:
–came from. You could actually make an argument to go into–hey, you attacked us,
you supplied the money and so forth. No, we whitewashed the Saudi Arabia thing and went to war with Iraq.
So your analogy, listeners should understand, is very precise. It is inventing an excuse, a defensive
excuse, to engage an offensive invasion.
RG:
Exactly. And from that spring all of these other kinds of crimes. So then I look
at ordinary war crimes, and if you go over the Geneva Conventions and the various other laws of war, you
can see that there are a number of categories of crimes. Many of them have to do with failing to make the
distinction between civilians and fighters, combatants. And of course the Bush-Cheney administration very
early on decided to create a third, nonexistent category called unlawful combatants. But this designation
doesn't exist in the International Red Cross's understanding; it doesn't exist in the Geneva
Convention's. It was just a convenient way of saying this particular group of people, whoever it is that
we choose to capture, detain forever, torture–they have no legal standing in the world. They exist
outside of international law.
RS:
So let me pick up on that also. And I don't want to lose the earlier thread of
the invention of war, and connecting with this incredibly important work you've done on torture. And you
made the statement, which I think people should ponder: the reason we were torturing these people was not
to get information about a future attack. We already had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and everything, we knew
everything about it, and so forth. The real reason for it was to invent an alibi for the invasion, to get
somebody to say Saddam Hussein was backing them. And I think that's a very important–a reason, by the
way, to read your book,
Mainstreaming Torture
; let me give a plug here. But this other argument
is also interesting, the whole idea of the noncombatant. And we are doing this interview at a time when
Chelsea Manning, formerly Bradley Manning, is in prison–
RG:
Yes.
RS:
–again, because they want to fabricate a story about WikiLeaks and all that, and
get everybody off the hook for all of the crimes and torture and everything they've done. But the
interesting thing is, if you look at what did WikiLeaks–and they were just like in the position of the
Washington Post
with the Pentagon Papers, they're the publisher–what did Chelsea Manning reveal?
She revealed the death of noncombatants, including journalists. So why don't you develop that a little
bit, because that is so critical to the moment, that no one–no one has been prosecuted for those attacks
that she revealed with the data. But she is now sitting in prison.
RG:
And this is, of course–the fate of whistleblowers all over the world, and
certainly in this country, is exactly that. That the matters that they have revealed disappear in a story
that becomes about the crimes of the revealer. And of course in the war in Iraq, there was tremendous
amounts of civilian death. And it falls into a number of categories; one category is those people who had
actually been detained and were being held by U.S. forces. And for example at Abu Ghraib, we know–which
is the prison outside of Baghdad that had been Saddam Hussein's major torture site, and which the U.S.
decided in its wisdom would be the perfect place to hold detainees, and where we know a group of
reservists ended up torturing people. But the real torture was going on upstairs, by the employees of
various C.I.A. contractors, and by the C.I.A. itself. And that's where people actually died. So there's
that whole category of people, but that's a much smaller category than the category of ordinary civilians
whose lives were either ended or destroyed by the regular U.S. use of warfare in places like Fallujah and
other cities. So that we took what had been one of the most vibrant, developed, and cosmopolitan
countries in that part of the world–which was Iraq–and we essentially did what they used to say they
wanted to do to North Vietnam, bombed it back to the Stone Age. And so in just war theory, there are
these rules about discriminating between combatants and noncombatants, and you are permitted a certain
number of civilian deaths as long as they are side effects of your attempt to go after some legitimate
military target. And this is called collateral damage; it's, collateral means on the side, right? But in
fact, in Iraq, we don't know because there are many different counts, but anywhere between 500,000 and a
million people have died in the U.S. invasion and occupation in Iraq. And when you lay that against the
3,000 people who died on September 11th, none of whom were killed by anyone even from Iraq, you also see
that we have violated another rule of just war theory, which is proportionality. We have destroyed human
life out of all proportion.
RS:
And let me just–you know, it's so difficult to grapple with these questions. And
you are teaching at one of the major Catholic universities here.
RG:
It's a Jesuit university, and that's a little different. And these are the
left-wing Jesuits.
RS:
I'm not putting down your school. [Laughter] Hey, I teach ethics at the
University of Southern California–
RG:
Enough said.
RS:
–and clearly, yes, we are ethically challenged at this moment. I was about to
actually celebrate the pope in this regard. And so there is a certain necessity for being consistent in
the application of these principles, or they mean nothing.
RG:
Exactly.
RS:
And I think that's the body of your life's work, to remind us of that. So in a
sense, you are at a good place where you're teaching. I'm just wondering, how is this disregarded so
widely? I mean, people make a big deal about don't kill the unborn child. You know, I could see arguments
about that. But if that's the beginning of a consistent, pro-life position, yes, it makes certain sense.
If it's the end of a pro-life position, and then you end welfare and you don't care what happens to the
baby and so forth, you're into a deep immorality. And it seems to me you're at a very interesting place.
Because for better or worse, this pope seems to be the only one able to challenge, let's call it U.S.
imperialism or imperial ventures, on a moral basis.
RG:
I think that's right. He certainly is doing a better job of that than either of
his last two predecessors.
RS:
Or the major–
RG:
Other major, yeah. No, I think that's right. And I think, you know, it's
interesting that at USF, we have Reserve Officers' Training Corps. We have people who are training to be
second lieutenants when they leave university in the U.S. Army. And I have had students tell me, I had a
student from Guam who told me, you know, Professor Gordon, I know that when they send me to basic
training, they're going to try to take me apart and change me from being a person into being a soldier.
And I just want you to know that I'm not going to let them do that to me. He said, but you know, ROTC was
my ticket off the island, and I have a duty now to follow through with my promise. And I just, my heart
broke for him. Because what they do to you in basic training is actually a slightly lighter version of
what they do when they train torturers. Everyone who becomes a torturer–and people don't just torture on
a whim; people are trained to be torturers. And part of that training involves being brutalized first
yourself, and having survived that ordeal, you emerge with this sense of yourself as an elite person who
therefore has the right, as a superior being, and now the skills, to turn around and abuse and torture
people who come along behind you. And the U.S. has its own methods of training, and its own locations
where this happens.
RS:
[omission for station break] I'm back after our break with Professor and Doctor
Rebecca Gordon. And we were just talking about how we train people to be torturers. And this is
fascinating, because if you don't consider this question, that you're getting basically good people to do
horrible things, you're missing the whole point. But I just want to say something about the good German.
Because the basic appeal of Hitler was the solid–you know, he was going to make Germany great again. And
this is, I'm not demonizing Germans here, but Donald Trump's father was obviously familiar with this in
his lineage, in that tradition. And the whole appeal, even though this dictator Hitler was this
funny-looking guy, hardly the Aryan model–was to a notion of order. And even in the concentration camps,
keeping direct bookkeeping of how many teeth you pulled and gold you found in the teeth, and so forth.
But it's not–manners. They had the manners. And what bothers me about the very simplistic Trumpwashing
that we're going through now, that Trump is uniquely evil–it's all about manners. He's crude, he's
boorish, he's a misogynist, he says these things, he does these things, he grabs people's private parts,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That's not his crime. His crime is he's continuing a tradition of
bombing people who we have no right to bomb. And so I want to push this a little bit more, the whole
question of manners. Because what Nuremberg did is unmask the manners. And this was also true in the
Eichmann trial that Hannah Arendt talked about, when she talked about the banality of evil. Evil can be
masked by manners. Smile while you learn to kill, right?
RG:
That's exactly right. And I especially know, when you talk about the meticulous
records that they kept, this is a hallmark of torture regimes all over the world. This very careful
record-keeping, this documentation of the work that's been done–because there's no shame about the work.
The process of becoming a torturer includes developing a sense of yourself as doing something uniquely
courageous, uniquely necessary, a unique sacrifice that you as the torturer, more in sorrow than in
anger, are being forced to do by the tremendous evil that confronts you. And so you're absolutely right
that especially among upper-class liberals in the United States, the objection to Trump is his manner,
and his manner is crude and obnoxious, as you say. But what he's really doing is not only continuing to
kill people, and in fact increasing the number of drone strikes, for example, over the already great
number that the Obama administration–
RS:
A man of impeccable manners. Barack Obama. I even feel that way about Bill
Clinton. When Bill Clinton's on television, I smile. I like him. He's warm, he's encouraging. And then I
forget, he's the guy that ended the welfare system, for example. Yes.
RG:
Exactly. Exactly right. And you know, Trump is now with his, I don't know if
you've taken a look at his so-called budget, but he's planning to take away our Medicare and Medicaid,
just in case you might have wanted to have healthcare. Obviously, that's dead on arrival. But
nonetheless, the point is that he is masking what he is actually doing by distracting us with this
bombastic display. And in fact, one of his officials in the EPA actually recently said exactly that, that
they've been able to make all these regulatory changes because every time it looks as though the press is
going to notice, Trump fires off a tweet, and everybody's like, ooh, shiny!
RS:
This is a really important point. Because if you look at the Nuremberg Trial or
you look at the Eichmann trial, these people all hid behind manners. They were well spoken, they were
well educated, and they were following a Charlie Chaplinesque figure, a ludicrous figure; Hitler was
certainly a, yes, he was a more ludicrous figure than Trump, in terms of manners and style and
everything. But his popularity was largely based on being a sort of comic figure, in a way. He inspired a
whole nation of logical, scientific, well-educated–probably the best-educated population in the world.
And so I've had this experience, I've talked to people in the business community and they say well, you
know, but Trump is good for business. And we did have a mess before, and then look at what's happened to
unemployment, and so forth and so on. And so we are really at the limit of manners as a guide. And that's
really what Nuremberg is about. Nuremberg was unmasking manners. Now, we didn't continue after that; we
had the brief Eichmann trial. But what we didn't really ever do in this country–and this is why I want
people to listen or to read your book, better to read it, although listening is great–we never really
took apart the Nazi experience. Because we wanted the ex-Nazis and other Germans to be our allies in the
Cold War. So we have never had that investigation of how an incredibly well-educated, Christian,
law-and-order nation goes into madness.
RG:
Not only that, we never did what the next step was supposed to be, which is
establish a venue in which U.S. war crimes could also be examined in World War II. And there were a
number of people who developed the Nuremberg principles, and worked on the original trial, who really
honestly believed that this would be the prelude to establishing an international court for trying
offenses committed during war, and expected that the United States would in fact be held accountable, not
only for the firebombing of German cities, but for the destruction of up to 60 Japanese cities which were
constructed of wood and paper and reduced to ashes, in a campaign that really very few people in this
country even know about. Although Robert McNamara actually describes it in that excellent documentary–
RS:
The Fog of War
, yeah.
RG:
--
The Fog of War.
RS:
And it's excellent because you see that McNamara was involved in designing the
bombing of Japan and Germany. But also, I mean–like, we talk about Korea. Oh, North Korea, animals, and
Kim Il-sung and his progeny–nobody I ever run into knows we leveled every single structure in North Korea
during the Korean War. Again, a war that was not needed; it was an attempt to get a Chinese communist who
had come to power the year before. I mean, it's bizarre. Then you look at what we did to North Vietnam,
and the carpet bombing, and everything. So this is critical. American exceptionalism–I've mentioned this
a number of times on this podcast–to my mind, is a really, it's the most profound problem that American
people have to face.
RG:
It's a vicious idea. And it's been taken up in different ways by both the liberal
democratic world, and by the, you know, the hard right in this country. The idea that by definition, the
United States can do no wrong, because we are the leader of the so-called free world. Which is a locution
I don't even understand anymore, given that we're not competing anymore with the unfree communist world
that supposedly we were in opposition to. But the idea that–and this was the argument, actually, that the
Bush administration made about torture. By definition, the United States is a country that does not
torture. Therefore, whatever it is that you are observing, it cannot be torture, because that would be a
logical contradiction, because we are the nation that doesn't do that. And it's almost impossible to
enter into that understanding of the world, because no amount of evidence that you can present to the
person who believes that is going to break that worldview. And so American exceptionalism allows us not
only to have military bases in over 100 countries around the world; not only to conduct secret wars that
the people in this country don't even know about–we just suddenly woke up and said, oh my gosh, we're
having a war in Somalia! Who knew. And not to mention Yemen–I was very heartened to see that the Senate
had actually voted with the House to reprimand the U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia in Yemen. But leave
that aside. This whole idea that we are a unique bearer of human rights and democracy in the world–it's
very hard to break, because it's a concealed, hermetically sealed worldview that people imbibe in grade
school. And they imbibe it as they grow up, and it takes a lot of effort to break through. And one of the
sad things that I see, especially with younger people that I've worked with in organizations like War
Times/Tiempo de Guerras, is that once you've broken through, it then becomes very hard to imagine that
the United States is not permanently and always going to be the hegemon. It almost, having made the
effort and understood the danger the U.S. actually presents to the world, it becomes almost impossible to
recognize when the U.S. actually loses one. And I think it's very important we claim our victories.
RS:
Well you know, you hit it clearly with this, the abandonment by the Democratic
Party of any serious oppositional role. [With] control of the House now, there should be hearings about
what are we doing in these different countries. And instead they're actually criticizing Trump for being,
kind of selling out by getting out of Afghanistan, or not fighting more aggressively in Syria. And we've
actually sort of lost the peace movement, in a way, is a theme I get back to once in a while here. And we
forget, actually, most of the terrible wars since World War II have been fought under democrats, and
financed enthusiastically. So I want to get back to basic moral principles, because they don't mean
anything if you're not consistent. You have to call out people on the left or on the right, you have to
call out war crimes, you have to call out the attacks on homosexuals, black people, Jewish
people–anybody, any other, and so forth. It's something that Jesus reminded us of in the tale of the Good
Samaritan, if you can believe that Luke is the word of God, and not the others, [Laughter] where the Good
Samaritan doesn't appear. I don't want to get into your whole Catholic university thing here. But it's
interesting to me, this notion of consistency. Because it's painful to be consistent. It requires
examining the motives of people you voted for. And this was the problem of Germany: people forget Hitler
was elected. People forget Germany had all the trappings of a–
RG:
Of a democracy.
RS:
–of a democracy. And more important, the conceit that somehow
education–education, and manners–will prevent genocide is a lie. Maybe it's time to recognize this whole
notion of American greatness is the end of thought; if you are by definition great, there's nothing to
question. And it seems to me that main religions that we've had, their one demand that they have in
common is you must question not only your nation's morality, but your own. The devil is in you. We have
to struggle with this devil, we have to struggle with these forces. Yet as a nation, we think America the
beautiful absolves us all. And that's what you're saying in your torture book. That basically, you take
these young recruits that have a very limited knowledge of our history, and you convince them that they
are the agents, really, of a higher power.
RG:
Absolutely right. And in doing that, you pervert the very virtues that we say the
United States is supposed to represent. The virtue of courage, for example, becomes the courage to
suppress your squeamishness at causing pain to another human being. And justice becomes the idea that you
give the punishment first and the trial later, if ever. Right? And this is exactly what we see in the way
our detainees have been treated. And honestly, another locus of this that we don't often recognize is
what goes on on the U.S. soil prisons and jails in this country, where we have 2.2 million people locked
up in cages, and where torture is a regular feature of prison life. It's no accident that the reservists
who were downstairs at Abu Ghraib, they were from West Virginia, and most of them in their civilian life
were prison guards. They were corrections officers. And there's a famous email that one of the
ringleaders, Charles Graner, sent home which said: The Christian in me knows it's wrong, but the
corrections officer in me loves to see a grown man piss himself. And that is exactly the attitude of the
people who are caging up 2.2 [million] largely, vastly disproportionately, black and Latino, Latinx,
people in this country today. And so torture actually is a red thread that runs through the entire
history of the United States, beginning with the Native American population. Slavery itself would not
have been as successful as it was at allowing the amassing of capital–which is, you know if you're a good
Marxist, the congealed labor of these unpaid, captive people, who when they got to the United States, or
what was not even yet the United States, would not work unless, the farmers figured out, they were caused
physical pain. And it was the use, the concerted, intentional, well-documented use of physical pain in
the cotton fields a century later that forced people to develop a physical technology of their bodies
that allowed them, in the course of 40 years, to multiply by eight times the amount of cotton a human
being could pick in a day, because the alternative was to have the skin taken off your back with a whip.
RS:
You know, increasingly in my life I have been a bad Marxist. And I've embraced
some truths that seemed to come out of these religions that, growing up, really frightened me or were
intimidating, and also were on the wrong side. But let's take it back to the pope, let's take it back to
the Jesuit school, University of San Francisco, where you teach. There's a wisdom that I daresay Karl
Marx did not sufficiently embrace. It is that we all have a capacity for evil. That we have virtue; we
care, we bring children into this world, we nurture them, we care about others, we can cry over a
refugee. On the other hand, the 2.2 million–I've been on Death Row quite recently interviewing Kevin
Cooper, who I believe is an innocent man. And fortunately, the governor of California has suspended the
death penalty, and I think Gavin Newsom deserves great credit for his courage. But–and it is a cage, and
we don't care; we don't care about these people. And we don't care about the people we bomb, and we don't
care–they're expendable, they're throwaway people. You want them out of sight, out of mind. It's very
deliberate. And the problem is, if Marxism were accurate [Laughter]–I don't know, not too many people
care, anyway, but since the two of us are talking about it–you know, if it was just the economic motive,
we'd probably do better. The libertarians, for instance–to the degree that they're right, they're right,
yes. But the wars don't make sense. And growing that cotton that way didn't ultimately make sense. And
slavery didn't make sense. Except–except if we have a barbaric part of our nature, if we have a need to
exploit others. Not just for economic reasons; if power corrupts. And this, not to quote Marx, but to
quote Jefferson or Washington, these people who came to power in this great experiment of ours, with all
its contradictions–I repeat this ad nauseum on these podcasts. All their, yes, white, male, I got it, I
got it, slave owners, the whole thing–they were on to a wisdom about their own corruption. And the reason
we have the First Amendment, the reason we have all the amendments, the reason we have separation of
powers, is that power corrupts.
RG:
Absolutely.
RS:
And what comes through in these torture stories and so forth–I talked, I have one
student, just like you, I've had students go off to these wars. I had one who ended up at Abu Ghraib and
at Guantanamo, a reserve officer. He was outside with the families. I'm not going to compromise his
privacy. But he told me what shook him up was he was being told all these things about the people inside
the jail, but his job was to herd the families that were trying to visit. And he could not deny that
there was some kind of humanity going on with these people inside, or why would all these people care so
much about them. And I think we need to be reminded of our own capacity for evil. I think that's what
Nuremberg was about, that the people who commit evil don't present as evil and are not inherently more
evil than we are.
RG:
Exactly.
RS:
And we have to struggle with this. And the good liberals who accommodate this,
and say well, you know, Barack Obama had to do this with the drones, and governor so-and-so had to kill
these people even though he didn't believe in the death penalty–we have to challenge that. Because that
is the fount of evil.
RG:
So, my favorite virtue, Aristotle calls it phronesis, or practical wisdom. St.
Thomas Aquinas calls it prudentia, prudence. But what it really is, is that capacity of the mind that
allows you to actually understand the moral questions that are in front of you. And not to be fooled by
the fog of American exceptionalism, by the distraction of a Trumpian tweet, but to be able to actually
examine and really see, in this case, the effects of U.S. policy on actual human beings around the world.
And this requires a kind of courage to be willing to accept that your own self-understanding, and the
understanding of your people, your country, might be wrong. But it also requires a willingness to look,
to actually see and examine what's in front of you. And if there's one virtue I would like to see
developed, and that I try to develop in my own students, it's this virtue of practical wisdom, where you
actually are responsible for what the effects of your actions can reasonably be foreseen to be. And this
is something that we in the United States really don't have. It's trained out of us, we don't have it.
And part of it, yes, is that capacity to understand that the ability to do evil things exists in all of
us, and it's also to understand that when you multiply that capacity by the technological and economic
power that a country like the United States has, the results–well, the results
"... John Pilger, among few others, has already stressed how a plan to destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was laid out as far back as 2008 – at the tail end of the Cheney regime – concocted by the Pentagon's shady Cyber Counter-Intelligence Assessments Branch. ..."
"... But it was only in 2017, in the Trump era, that the Deep State went totally ballistic; that's when WikiLeaks published the Vault 7 files – detailing the CIA's vast hacking/cyber espionage repertoire. ..."
"... This was the CIA as a Naked Emperor like never before – including the dodgy overseeing ops of the Center for Cyber Intelligence, an ultra-secret NSA counterpart. ..."
"... The monolithic narrative by the Deep State faction aligned with the Clinton machine was that "the Russians" hacked the DNC servers. Assange was always adamant; that was not the work of a state actor – and he could prove it technically. ..."
"... The DoJ wanted a deal – and they did make an offer to WikiLeaks. But then FBI director James Comey killed it. The question is why. ..."
"... Some theoretically sound reconstructions of Comey's move are available. But the key fact is Comey already knew – via his close connections to the top of the DNC – that this was not a hack; it was a leak. ..."
"... Ambassador Craig Murray has stressed, over and over again (see here ) how the DNC/Podesta files published by WikiLeaks came from two different US sources; one from within the DNC and the other from within US intel. ..."
"... he release by WikiLeaks in April 2017 of the malware mechanisms inbuilt in "Grasshopper" and the "Marble Framework" were indeed a bombshell. This is how the CIA inserts foreign language strings in source code to disguise them as originating from Russia, from Iran, or from China. The inestimable Ray McGovern, a VIPS member, stressed how Marble Framework "destroys this story about Russian hacking." ..."
"... No wonder then CIA director Mike Pompeo accused WikiLeaks of being a "non-state hostile intelligence agency" ..."
"... Joshua Schulte, the alleged leaker of Vault 7, has not faced a US court yet. There's no question he will be offered a deal by the USG if he aggress to testify against Julian Assange. ..."
"... George Galloway has a guest who explains it all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VvPFMyPvHM&t=8s ..."
"... Escobar is brain dead if he can't figure out that Trumpenstein is totally on board with destroying Assange. As if bringing on pukes like PompAss, BoltON, and Abrams doesn't scream it. ..."
The Made-by-FBI indictment of
Julian Assange does look like a dead man walking. No evidence. No documents. No surefire
testimony. Just a crossfire of conditionals...
But never underestimate the legalese contortionism of US government (USG) functionaries. As
much as Assange may not be characterized as a journalist and publisher, the thrust of the
affidavit is to accuse him of conspiring to commit espionage.
In fact the charge is not even that Assange hacked a USG computer and obtained classified
information; it's that he may have discussed it with Chelsea Manning and may have had the
intention to go for a hack. Orwellian-style thought crime charges don't get any better than
that. Now the only thing missing is an AI software to detect them.
Assange legal adviser Geoffrey Robertson – who also happens to represent another
stellar political prisoner, Brazil's Lula – cut
straight to the chase (at 19:22 minutes);
"The justice he is facing is justice, or injustice, in America I would hope the British
judges would have enough belief in freedom of information to throw out the extradition
request."
That's far from a done deal. Thus the inevitable consequence; Assange's legal team is
getting ready to prove, no holds barred, in a British court, that this USG indictment for
conspiracy to commit computer hacking is just an hors d'oeuvre for subsequent espionage
charges, in case Assange is extradited to US soil.
All about Vault 7
John Pilger, among few others, has already stressed how a plan to
destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was laid out as far back as 2008 – at the tail end
of the Cheney regime – concocted by the Pentagon's shady Cyber Counter-Intelligence
Assessments Branch.
It was all about criminalizing WikiLeaks and personally smearing Assange, using "shock
troops enlisted in the media -- those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the
truth."
This plan remains more than active – considering how Assange's arrest has been covered
by the bulk of US/UK mainstream media.
By 2012, already in the Obama era, WikiLeaks detailed the astonishing "scale of the US Grand
Jury Investigation" of itself. The USG always denied such a grand jury existed.
"The US Government has stood up and coordinated a joint interagency criminal investigation
of Wikileaks comprised of a partnership between the Department of Defense (DOD) including:
CENTCOM; SOUTHCOM; the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); Defense Information Systems Agency
(DISA); Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA); US Army Criminal Investigation Division
(CID) for USFI (US Forces Iraq) and 1st Armored Division (AD); US Army Computer Crimes
Investigative Unit (CCIU); 2nd Army (US Army Cyber Command); Within that or in addition,
three military intelligence investigations were conducted. Department of Justice (DOJ) Grand
Jury and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of State (DOS) and Diplomatic
Security Service (DSS). In addition, Wikileaks has been investigated by the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Office of the National CounterIntelligence
Executive (ONCIX), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); the House Oversight Committee; the
National Security Staff Interagency Committee, and the PIAB (President's Intelligence
Advisory Board)."
But it was only in 2017, in the Trump era, that the Deep State went totally ballistic;
that's when WikiLeaks published the Vault 7 files – detailing the CIA's vast
hacking/cyber espionage repertoire.
This was the CIA as a Naked Emperor like never before – including the dodgy
overseeing ops of the Center for Cyber Intelligence, an ultra-secret NSA counterpart.
WikiLeaks got Vault 7 in early 2017. At the time WikiLeaks had already published the DNC
files – which the unimpeachable Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
systematically proved was a leak, not a hack.
The monolithic narrative by the Deep State faction aligned with the Clinton machine was
that "the Russians" hacked the DNC servers. Assange was always adamant; that was not the work
of a state actor – and he could prove it technically.
There was some movement towards a deal, brokered by one of Assange's lawyers; WikiLeaks
would not publish the most damning Vault 7 information in exchange for Assange's safe passage
to be interviewed by the US Department of Justice (DoJ).
The DoJ wanted a deal – and they did make an offer to WikiLeaks. But then FBI
director James Comey killed it. The question is why.
It's a leak, not a hack
Some theoretically sound
reconstructions of Comey's move are available. But the key fact is Comey already knew
– via his close connections to the top of the DNC – that this was not a hack; it
was a leak.
Ambassador Craig Murray has stressed, over and over again (see
here ) how the DNC/Podesta files published by WikiLeaks came from two different US sources;
one from within the DNC and the other from within US intel.
There was nothing for Comey to "investigate". Or there would have, if Comey had ordered the
FBI to examine the DNC servers. So why talk to Julian Assange?
T he release by WikiLeaks in April 2017 of the malware mechanisms inbuilt in
"Grasshopper" and the "Marble Framework" were indeed a bombshell. This is how the CIA inserts
foreign language strings in source code to disguise them as originating from Russia, from Iran,
or from China. The inestimable Ray McGovern, a VIPS member, stressed how Marble Framework
"destroys this story about Russian hacking."
No wonder then CIA director Mike Pompeo accused WikiLeaks of being a "non-state hostile
intelligence agency", usually manipulated by Russia.
Joshua Schulte, the alleged leaker of Vault 7,
has not faced a US court yet. There's no question he will be offered a deal by the USG if he
aggress to testify against Julian Assange.
It's a long and winding road, to be traversed in at least two years, if Julian Assange is
ever to be extradited to the US. Two things for the moment are already crystal clear. The USG
is obsessed to shut down WikiLeaks once and for all. And because of that, Julian Assange will
never get a fair trial in the "so-called 'Espionage Court'" of the Eastern District of
Virginia, as
detailed by former CIA counterterrorism officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou.
Meanwhile, the non-stop demonization of Julian Assange will proceed unabated, faithful to
guidelines established over a decade ago. Assange is even accused of being a US intel op, and
WikiLeaks a splinter Deep State deep cover op.
Maybe President Trump will maneuver the hegemonic Deep State into having Assange testify
against the corruption of the DNC; or maybe Trump caved in completely to "hostile intelligence
agency" Pompeo and his CIA gang baying for blood. It's all ultra-high-stakes shadow play
– and the show has not even begun.
Not to mention the Pentagram has silenced 100,000 whistleblower complaints by
Intimidation, threats, money or accidents over 5 years . A Whistleblower only does this when
know there is something seriously wrong. Just Imagine how many knew something was wrong but
looked the other way.
Maybe President Trump will maneuver the hegemonic Deep State into having Assange testify
against the corruption of the DNC; or maybe Trump caved in completely to "hostile
intelligence agency" Pompeo and his CIA gang baying for blood.
Escobar is brain dead if he can't figure out that Trumpenstein is totally on board with
destroying Assange. As if bringing on pukes like PompAss, BoltON, and Abrams doesn't scream it.
assange and wikileaks are the real criminals despite being crimeless. the **** is a
sanctioned criminal, allowed to be criminal with the system because the rest of the
sanctioned criminals would be exposed if she was investigated.
this is not the rule of laws. this is the law of rulers.
"... Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues (such as street murders in Mexico). ..."
"... The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving the FBI in 2005. ..."
"... Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins, is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI. All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration itself. ..."
"... Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations, particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the 1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at either. ..."
I made the mistake of listening to NPR last week to find out what Conventional Wisdom had to say
about Trump firing Comey, on the assumption that their standardized Mister-Rogers-on-Nyquil voice
tones would rein in the hysteria pitch a little. And on the surface, it did-the NPR host and guests
weren't directly shrieking "the world is ending! We're all gonna die SHEEPLE!" the way they were
on CNN. But in a sense they were screaming "fire!", if you know how to distinguish the very minute
pitch level differences in the standard NPR Nyquil voice.
The host of the daytime NPR program asked his guests how serious, and how "unprecedented" Trump's
decision to fire his FBI chief was. The guests answers were strange: they spoke about "rule of law"
and "violating the Constitution" but then switched to Trump "violating norms"-and back again, interchanging
"norms" and "laws" as if they're synonyms. One of the guests admitted that Trump firing Comey was
100% legal, but that didn't seem to matter in this talk about Trump having abandoned rule-of-law
for a Putinist dictatorship. These guys wouldn't pass a high school civics class, but there they
were, garbling it all up. What mattered was the proper sense of panic and outrage-I'm not sure anyone
really cared about the actual legality of the thing, or the legal, political or "normative" history
of the FBI.
For starters, the FBI hardly belongs in the same set with concepts like "constitutional" or "
rule of law." That's because the FBI was never established by a law. US Lawmakers refused to approve
an FBI bureau over a century ago when it was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt. So he ignored Congress,
and went ahead and set it up by presidential fiat. That's one thing the civil liberties crowd hates
discussing - how centralized US political power is in the executive branch, a feature in the constitutional
system put there by the holy Founders.
In the late 1970s, at the tail end of our brief Glasnost, there was a lot of talk in Washington
about finally creating a
legal charter for the FBI -70 years after its founding. A lot of serious ink was spilled trying
to transform the FBI from an extralegal secret police agency to something legal and defined. If you
want to play archeologist to America's recent history, you can find this in the New York Times' archives,
articles with headlines like
"Draft of Charter for F.B.I. Limits Inquiry Methods" :
The Carter Administration will soon send to Congress the first governing charter for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. The proposed charter imposes extensive but not absolute restrictions
on the bureau's employment of controversial investigative techniques, .including the use of informers,
undercover agents and covert criminal activity.
The charter also specifies the duties and powers of the bureau, setting precise standards and
procedures for the initiation ,and conduct of investigations. It specifically requires the F.B.I.
to observe constitutional rights and establishes safeguards against unchecked harassment, break‐ins
and other abuses.
followed by the inevitable lament, like this editorial from the Christian Science Monitor a year
later, "Don't Forget the
FBI Charter". Which of course we did forget-that was Reagan's purpose and value for the post-Glasnost
reaction: forgetting. As historian Athan Theoharis
wrote , "After 1981, Congress never seriously considered again any of the FBI charter proposals."
The origins of the FBI have been obscured both because of its dubious legality and because of
its original political purpose-to help the president battle the all-powerful American capitalists.
It wasn't that Teddy Roosevelt was a radical leftist-he was a Progressive Republican, which sounds
like an oxymoron today but which was mainstream and ascendant politics in his time. Roosevelt was
probably the first president since Andrew Jackson to try to smash concentrated wealth-power, or at
least some of it. He could be brutally anti-labor, but so were the powerful capitalists he fought,
and all the structures of government power. He met little opposition pursuing his imperial Social
Darwinist ambitions outside America's borders-but he had a much harder time fighting the powerful
capitalists at home against Roosevelt's most honorable political obsession: preserving forests, parks
and public lands from greedy capitalists. An early FBI memo to Hoover about the FBI's origins explains,
"Roosevelt, in his characteristic dynamic fashion, asserted that the plunderers of the public
domain would be prosecuted and brought to justice."
According to New York Times reporter Tim Wiener's Enemies: A History of the FBI , it
was the Oregon land fraud scandal of 1905-6 that put the idea of an FBI in TR's hyperactive mind.
The scandal involved leading Oregon politicians helping railroad tycoon Edward Harriman illegally
sell off pristine Oregon forest lands to timber interests, and it ended with an Oregon senator and
the state's only two House representatives criminally charged and put on trial-along with dozens
of other Oregonians. Basically, they were raping the state's public lands and forests like colonists
stripping a foreign country-and that stuck in TR's craw.
TR wanted his attorney general-Charles Bonaparte (yes, he really was a descendant of that
Bonaparte)-to make a full report to on the rampant land fraud scams that the robber barons were
running to despoil the American West, and which threatened TR's vision of land and forest conservation
and parks. Bonaparte created an investigative team from the US Secret Service, but TR thought their
report was a "whitewash" and proposed a new separate federal investigative service within Bonaparte's
Department of Justice that would report only to the Attorney General.
Until then, the US government had to rely on private contractors like the notorious, dreaded Pinkerton
Agency, who were great at strikebreaking, clubbing workers and shooting organizers, but not so good
at taking down down robber barons, who happened to also be important clients for the private detective
agencies.
In early 1908, Attorney General Bonaparte wrote to Congress asking for the legal authority (and
budget funds) to create a "permanent detective force" under the DOJ. Congress rebelled, denouncing
it as a plan to create an American okhrana . Democrat Joseph Sherley wrote that "spying
on men and prying into what would ordinarily be considered their private affairs" went against "American
ideas of government"; Rep. George Waldo, a New York Republican, said the proposed FBI was a "great
blow to freedom and to free institutions if there should arise in this country any such great central
secret-service bureau as there is in Russia."
So Congress's response was the opposite, banning Bonaparte's DOJ from spending any funds at all
on a proposed FBI. Another Congressman wrote another provision into the budget bill banning the DOJ
from hiring Secret Service employees for any sort of FBI type agency. So Bonaparte waited until Congress
took its summer recess, set aside some DOJ funds, recruited some Secret Service agents, and created
a new federal detective bureau with 34 agents. This was how the FBI was born. Congress wasn't notified
until the end of 1908, in a few lines in a standard report - "oh yeah, forgot to tell you-the executive
branch went ahead and created an American okhrana because, well, the ol' joke about dogs
licking their balls. Happy New Year!"
The sordid history of America's extralegal secret police-initially named the Bureau of Investigation,
changed to the FBI ("Federal") in the 30's, is mostly a history of xenophobic panic-mongering, illegal
domestic spying, mass roundups and plans for mass-roundups, false entrapment schemes, and planting
what Russians call "kompromat"- compromising information about a target's sex life-to blackmail or
destroy American political figures that the FBI didn't like.
The first political victim of J Edgar Hoover's kompromat was Louis Post, the assistant secretary
of labor under Woodrow Wilson. Post's crime was releasing over 1,000 alleged Reds from detention
facilities near the end of the FBI's Red Scare crackdown, when they jailed and deported untold thousands
on suspicion of being Communists. The FBI's mass purge began with popular media support in 1919,
but by the middle of 1920, some (not the FBI) were starting to get a little queasy. A legal challenge
to the FBI's mass purges and exiles in Boston ended with a federal judge denouncing the FBI. After
that ruling, assistant secretary Louis Post, a 71-year-old well-meaning progressive, reviewed the
cases against the last 1500 detainees that the FBI wanted to deport, and found that there was absolutely
nothing on at least 75 percent of the cases. Post's review threatened to undo thousands more FBI
persecutions of alleged Moscow-controlled radicals.
So one of the FBI's most ambitious young agents, J Edgar Hoover, collected kompromat on Post and
his alleged associations with other alleged Moscow-controlled leftists, and gave the file to the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives-which promptly announced it would hold hearings to
investigate Post as a left subversive. The House tried to impeach Post, but ultimately he defended
himself. Post's lawyer compared his political persecutors to the okhrana (Russia, again!):
"We in America have sunk to the level of the government of Russia under the Czarist regime," describing
the FBI's smear campaign as "even lower in some of their methods than the old Russian officials."
Under Harding, the FBI had a new chief, William Burns, who made headlines blaming the terror bombing
attack on Wall Street of 1920 that killed 34 people on a Kremlin-run conspiracy. The FBI claimed
it had a highly reliable inside source who told them that Lenin sent $30,000 to the Soviets' diplomatic
mission in New York, which was distributed to four local Communist agents who arranged the Wall Street
bombing. The source claimed to have personally spoken with Lenin, who boasted that the bombing was
so successful he'd ordered up more.
The only problem was that the FBI's reliable source, a Jewish-Polish petty criminal named Wolf
Lindenfeld, turned out to be a bullshitter-nicknamed "Windy Linde"-who thought his fake confession
about Lenin funding the bombing campaign would get him out of Poland's jails and set up in a comfortable
new life in New York.
By 1923, the FBI had thoroughly destroyed America's communist and radical labor movements-allowing
it to focus on its other favorite pastime: spying on and destroying political opponents. The FBI
spied on US Senators who supported opening diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union: Idaho's William
Borah, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Thomas Walsh of the Judiciary Committee, and
Burton K Wheeler, the prairie Populist senator from Montana, who visited the Soviet Union and pushed
for diplomatic relations. Harding's corrupt Attorney General Dougherty denounced Sen. Wheeler as
"the Communist leader in the Senate" and "no more a Democrat than Stalin, his comrade in Moscow."
Dougherty accused Sen. Wheeler of being part of a conspiracy "to capture, by deceit and design, as
many members of the Senate as possible and to spread through Washington and the cloakrooms of Congress
a poison gas as deadly as that which sapped and destroyed brave soldiers in the last war."
Hoover, now a top FBI official, quietly fed kompromat to journalists he cultivated, particularly
an AP reporter named Richard Whitney, who published a popular book in 1924, "Reds In America" alleging
Kremlin agents "had an all-pervasive influence over American institutions; they had infiltrated every
corner of American life." Whitney named Charlie Chaplin as a Kremlin agent, along with Felix Frankfurter
and members of the Senate pushing for recognition of the Soviet Union. That killed any hope for diplomatic
recognition for the next decade.
Then the first Harding scandals broke-Teapot Dome, Veterans Affairs, bribery at the highest rungs.
When Senators Wheeler and Walsh opened bribery investigations, the FBI sent agents to the senators'
home state to drum up false bribery charges against Sen. Wheeler. The charges were clearly fake,
and a jury dismissed the charges. But Attorney General Dougherty was indicted for fraud and forced
to resign, as was his FBI chief Burns-but not Burns' underling Hoover, who stayed in the shadows.
"We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in
sex-life scandals and plain blackmail This must stop."
With the Cold War, the FBI became obsessed with homosexuals as America's Fifth Column under Moscow's
control. Homosexuals, the FBI believed, were susceptible to Kremlin kompromat-so the FBI collected
and disseminated its own kompromat on alleged American homosexuals, supposedly to protect America
from the Kremlin. In the early 1950s, Hoover launched the Sex Deviates Program to spy on American
homosexuals and purge them from public life. The FBI built up 300,000 pages of files on suspected
homosexuals and contacted their employers, local law enforcement and universities to "to drive homosexuals
from every institution of government, higher learning, and law enforcement in the nation," according
to Tim Weiner's book Enemies. No one but the FBI knows exactly how many Americans' lives and careers
were destroyed by the FBI's Sex Deviants Program but Hoover-who never married, lived with his mother
until he was 40, and traveled everywhere with his
"friend" Clyde Tolson .
In the 1952 election, Hoover was so committed to helping the Republicans and Eisenhower win that
he compiled and disseminated a 19-page kompromat file alleging that his Democratic Party rival Adlai
Stevenson was gay. The FBI's file on Stevenson was kept in the Sex Deviants Program section-it included
libelous gossip, claiming that Stevenson was one of Illinois' "best known homosexuals" who went by
the name "Adeline" in gay cruising circles.
In the 1960s, Hoover and his FBI chiefs collected kompromat on the sex lives of JFK and Martin
Luther King. Hoover presented some of his kompromat on JFK to Bobby Kennedy, in a concern-trollish
way claiming to "warn" him that the president was opening himself up to blackmail. It was really
a way for Hoover to let the despised Kennedy brothers know he could destroy them, should they try
to Comey him out of his FBI office. Hoover's kompromat on MLK's sex life was a particular obsession
of his-he now believed that African-Americans, not homosexuals, posed the greatest threat to become
a Kremlin Fifth Column. The FBI wiretapped MLK's private life, collecting tapes of his affairs with
other women, which a top FBI official then mailed to Martin Luther King's wife, along with a note
urging King to commit suicide.
FBI letter anonymously mailed to Martin Luther King Jr's wife, along with kompromat sex tapes
After JFK was murdered, when Bobby Kennedy ran for the Senate in 1964, he recounted another disturbing
FBI/kompromat story that President Johnson shared with him on the campaign trail. LBJ told Bobby
about a stack of kompromat files - FBI reports "detailing the sexual debauchery of members of the
Senate and House who consorted with prostitutes." LBJ asked RFK if the kompromat should be leaked
selectively to destroy Republicans before the 1964 elections. Kennedy recalled,
"He told me he had spent all night sitting up and reading the files of the FBI on all these
people. And Lyndon talks about that information and material so freely. Lyndon talks about everybody,
you see, with everybody. And of course that's dangerous."
Kennedy had seen some of the same FBI kompromat files as attorney general, but he was totally
opposed to releasing such unsubstantiated kompromat-such as, say, the Trump piss files-because doing
so would "destroy the confidence that people in the United States had in their government and really
make us a laughingstock around the world."
Imagine that.
Which brings me to the big analogy every hack threw around last week, calling Trump firing Comey
"Nixonian." Actually, what Trump did was more like the very opposite of Nixon, who badly wanted to
fire Hoover in 1971-2, but was too afraid of the kompromat Hoover might've had on him to make the
move. Nixon fell out with his old friend and onetime mentor J Edgar Hoover in 1971, when the ailing
old FBI chief refused to get sucked in to the Daniel Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers investigation, especially
after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. Part of the reason Nixon created his
Plumbers team of black bag burglars was because Hoover had become a bit skittish in his last year
on this planet-and that drove Nixon crazy.
Nixon called his chief of staff Haldeman:
Nixon: I talked to Hoover last night and Hoover is not going after this case [Ellsberg] as
strong as I would like. There's something dragging him.
Haldeman: You don't have the feeling the FBI is really pursuing this?
Nixon: Yeah, particularly the conspiracy side. I want to go after everyone. I'm not so interested
in Ellsberg, but we have to go after everybody who's a member of this conspiracy.
Hoover's ambitious deputies in the FBI were smelling blood, angling to replace him. His number
3, Bill Sullivan (who sent MLK the sex tapes and suicide note) was especially keen to get rid of
Hoover and take his place. So as J Edgar was stonewalling the Daniel Ellsberg investigation, Sullivan
showed up in a Department of Justice office with two suitcases packed full of transcripts and summaries
of illegal wiretaps that Kissinger and Nixon had ordered on their own staff and on American journalists.
The taps were ordered in Nixon's first months in the White House in 1969, to plug up the barrage
of leaks, the likes of which no one had ever seen before. Sullivan took the leaks from J Edgar's
possession and told the DOJ official that they needed to be hidden from Hoover, who planned to use
them as kompromat to blackmail Nixon.
Nixon decided he was going to fire J Edgar the next day. This was in September, 1971. But the
next day came, and Nixon got scared. So he tried to convince his attorney general John Mitchell to
fire Hoover for him, but Mitchell said only the President could fire J Edgar Hoover. So Nixon met
him for breakfast, and, well, he just didn't have the guts. Over breakfast, Hoover flattered Nixon
and told him there was nothing more in the world he wanted than to see Nixon re-elected. Nixon caved;
the next day, J Edgar Hoover unceremoniously fired his number 3 Bill Sullivan, locking him out of
the building and out of his office so that he couldn't take anything with him. Sullivan was done.
The lesson here, I suppose, is that if an FBI director doesn't want to be fired, it's best to
keep your kompromat a little closer to your chest, as a gun to hold to your boss's head. Comey's
crew already released the piss tapes kompromat on Trump-the damage was done. What was left to hold
back Trump from firing Comey? "Laws"? The FBI isn't even legal. "Norms" would be the real reason.
Which pretty much sums up everything Trump has been doing so far. We've learned the past two decades
that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What
does bind them are "norms"-and while those norms may mean everything to the ruling class, it's an
open question how much these norms mean to a lot of Americans outside that club.
The USA doesn't have a legal basis either, it is a revolting crown colony of the British Empire.
Treason and heresy all the way down. Maybe the British need to burn Washington DC again?
Wondered how Comey thought he could get away with his conviction and pardon of Sec Clinton.
Seems like part of the culture of FBI is a "above and beyond" the law mentality.
Back in the early 1970s a high school friend moved to Alabama because his father was transferred
by his employer.
My friend sent a post card describing among other things the fact that Alabama had done away
with the requirement of a math class to graduate high school, and substituted a required class
called "The Evils of Communism" complete with a text-book written by J. Edgar Hoover; Masters
of Deceit.
In Dallas,Texas my 1959 Civics class had to read the same book. We all were given paperback
copies of it to take home and read. It was required reading enacted by Texas legislature.
So I'd guess you weren't fooled by any of those commie plots of the sixties, like the campaigns
for civil rights or against the Vietnamese war.
I can't really brag, I didn't stop worrying about the Red Menace until 1970 or so, that's when
I started running into returning vets who mostly had no patience for that stuff.
We've learned the past two decades that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when
it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What does bind them are "norms"
Or as David Broder put it (re Bill Clinton): he came in and trashed the place and it wasn't
his place.
It was David Broder's place. Of course the media play a key role with all that kompromat since
they are the ones needed to convey it to the public. The tragedy is that even many of the sensible
in their ranks such as Bill Moyers have been sucked into the kompromat due to their hysteria over
Trump. Ames is surely on point in this great article. The mistake was allowing secret police agencies
like the FBI and CIA to be created in the first place.
Sorry, my initial reaction was that people who don't know the difference between "rein" and
"reign" are not to be trusted to provide reliable information. Recognizing that as petty, I kept
reading, and presently found the statement that Congress was not informed of the founding of the
FBI until a century after the fact, which seems implausible. If in fact the author meant the end
of 1908 it was quite an achievement to write 2008.
Interesting to the extent it may be true, but with few sources, no footnotes, and little evidence
of critical editing who knows what that may be?
Who he is is irrelevant. I don't take things on faith because "the Pope said" or because Mark
Ames said. People who expect their information to be taken seriously should substantiate it.
So anything the FBI does to get rid of him must by definition be ok! Besides, surely our civic-minded
IC would never use their power on the Good Guys™!
Ah yes, the voice of "caution." And such attention to the lack of footnotes, in this day when
the curious can so easily cut and paste a bit of salient text into a search engine and pull up
a feast of parse-able writings and video, from which they can "judiciously assess" claims and
statements. If they care to spend the time, which is in such short supply among those who are
struggling to keep up with the horrors and revelations people of good will confront every blinking
day
Classic impeachment indeed. All from the height of "academic rigor" and "caution." Especially
the "apologetic" bit about "reign" vs "rein." Typos destroy credibility, don't they? And the coup
de grass (sic), the unrebuttable "plausibility" claim.
One wonders at the nature of the author's curriculum vitae. One also marvels at the yawning
gulf between the Very Serious Stuff I was taught in grade and high school civics and history,
back in the late '50s and the '60s, about the Fundamental Nature Of Our Great Nation and its founding
fathers and the Beautiful Documents they wrote, on the one hand, and what we mopes learn, through
a drip-drip-drip process punctuated occasionally by Major Revelations, about the real nature of
the Empire and our fellow creatures
PS: My earliest memory of television viewing was a day at a friend's house - his middle-class
parents had the first "set" in the neighborhood, I think an RCA, in a massive sideboard cabinet
where the picture tube pointed up and you viewed the "content" in a mirror mounted to the underside
of the lid. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5onSwx7_Cn0
The family was watching a hearing of Joe McCarthy's kangaroo court, complete with announcements
of the latest number in the "list of known Communists in the State Department" and how Commyanism
was spreading like an unstoppable epidemic mortal disease through the Great US Body Politic and
its Heroic Institutions of Democracy. I was maybe 6 years old, but that grainy black and white
"reality TV" content had me asking "WTF?" at a very early age. And I'd say it's on the commentor
to show that the "2008" claim is wrong, by something other than "implausible" as drive-by impeachment.
Given the content of the original post, and what people paying attention to all this stuff have
a pretty good idea is the general contours of a vast corruption and manipulation.
Interesting article on the history of the FBI, although the post-Hoover era doesn't get any
treatment. The Church Committee hearings on the CIA and FBI, after the exposure of notably
Operation CHAOS (early
60s to early 70s) by the CIA and
COINTELPRO(late 1950s to
early 1970s) by the FBI, didn't really get to the bottom of the issue although some reforms
were initiated.
Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for
the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the
most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal
gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays
this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast
a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel
targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues
(such as street murders in Mexico).
The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within
corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate
Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed
Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving
the FBI in 2005.
Maybe this is legitimate, but this only applies to their protection of the interests of large
corporations – as the 2008 economic collapse and aftermath showed, they don't prosecute corporate
executives who rip off poor people and middle-class homeowners. Banks who rob people, they aren't
investigated or prosecuted; that's just for people who rob banks.
When it comes to political issues and national security, however, the FBI has such a terrible
record on so many issues over the years that anything they claim has to be taken with a grain
or two of salt. Consider domestic political activity: from the McCarthyite 'Red Scare' of the
1950s to COINTELPRO in the 1960s and 1970s to targeting of environmental groups in the 1980s and
1990s to targeting anti-war protesters under GW Bush to their obsession with domestic mass surveillance
under Obama, it's not a record that should inspire any confidence.
Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record
on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins,
is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if
still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI.
All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters
are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration
itself.
As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about the
Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered
politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people
like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences. The
Saudi intelligence agency role in 9/11 was buried for over a decade, as well. Since 9/11, most
of the FBI investigations seem to have involved recruiting mentally disabled young Islamic men
in sting operations in which the FBI provides everything needed. You could probably get any number
of mentally ill homeless people across the U.S., regardless of race or religion, to play this
role.
Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to
investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations,
particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have
been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian
business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the
1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at
either.
Ultimately, this is because FBI executives are paid off not to investigate Wall Street criminality,
nor shady U.S. government activity, with lucrative positions as corporate board members and so
on after their 'retirements'. I don't doubt that many of their junior members mean well and are
dedicated to their jobs – but the fish rots from the head down.
As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about
the Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered
politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people
like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences.
The Clinton Administration had other priorities. You know, I think I'll let ex-FBI Director
Freeh explain what happened when the FBI tried to get the Saudis to cooperate with their investigation
into the bombing of the Khobar Towers.
"That September, Crown Prince Abdullah and his entourage took over the entire 143-room Hay-Adams
Hotel, just across from Lafayette Park from the White House, for six days. The visit, I figured,
was pretty much our last chance. Again, we prepared talking points for the president. Again,
I contacted Prince Bandar and asked him to soften up the crown prince for the moment when Clinton,
-- or Al Gore I didn't care who -- would raise the matter and start to exert the necessary pressure."
"The story that came back to me, from "usually reliable sources," as they say in Washington,
was that Bill Clinton briefly raised the subject only to tell the Crown Prince that he certainly
understood the Saudis; reluctance to cooperate. Then, according to my sources, he hit Abdullah
up for a contribution to the still-to-be-built Clinton presidential library. Gore, who was
supposed to press hardest of all in his meeting with the crown Prince, barely mentioned the
matter, I was told." -Louis J. Freeh, My FBI (2005)
In my defense I picked the book up to see if there was any dirt on the DNC's electoral funding
scandal in 1996. I'm actually glad I did. The best part of the book is when Freeh recounts running
into a veteran of the Lincoln Brigade and listens to how Hoover's FBI ruined his life despite
having broken no laws. As if a little thing like laws mattered to Hoover. The commies were after
our precious bodily fluids!
I'm not sure there are many functioning norms left within the national political leadership.
Seemed to me Gingrich started blowing those up and it just got worse from there. McConnell not
allowing Garland to be considered comes to mind
Thanks to Mark Ames now we know what Pres. Trump meant when he tweeted about his tapes with
AG Comey. Not some taped conversation between Pres. Trump & AG Comey but bunch of kompromat tapes
that AG Comey has provided Pres. Trump that might not make departing AG Comey looked so clean.
"... "I have never felt more uncomfortable than I do today," warns former CIA Director Jack Devine, saying that, with "frankly uncivilized" ISIS, there is a greater risk of violence worldwide than ever before. ..."
"... Devine argued that dismantling ISIS's command structure is crucial for minimizing the danger it presents, much like al Qaeda before them. "We killed three-fourths of their leadership," he said of al Qaeda. "We have to do the same thing with ISIS. "We have to destroy their refuge over there. When they start to lose, their recruiting numbers start to fall." ..."
"... My guess is that Iran have done a deal with Putin in that once ISIS is swept away Iran gets to build a gas pipeline through Iraq (which it controls) and through Syria into Europe. Russia is allowing Iran into the European gas market because Bandar threatened Sochi, and Putin wants to end the House of Saud in retaliation. Two weeks from now the world is going to make laws that pushes countries towards natural gas and away from coal and oil. ..."
"... I would say that's accurate, since the U.S. put ISIS there to block the Iran - Iraq - Syria pipeline. When Russia destroys ISIS, the previously planned pipeline can proceed. It has nothing to do with Russian 'permission' - Putin expects someone to eventually be sending gas up from the Middle East once the slaughter stops. He doesn't care who it is or how much. It's not going to displace more than a fraction of the Russian supply to Europe. Syria rejected the Qatari pipeline for its own reasons - probably because Qatar was planning on killing Assad and replacing him with a Western stooge well before the Qatari-Turkey pipeline was announced. In fact, the announcement was pretty much an insult to Syria. Qatar quite arrogantly announced that they WOULD be building the pipeline through Syria without bothering to ask them. ..."
"... Putin negotiates with everyone. He was even talking with Israel about helping them with the Leviathan pipeline. The U.S. seems to favor 'regime change' as the preferred strategy to expand its oil interests where it has no business doing so. ..."
"... The CIA serves no master, it is the fucking master. It does deals that are anti American, and they don't care, because America is just a sugar daddy to them. We are the chumps who pay their bills, while they put half of all honest Americans on their enemies list. ..."
"... CIA is international, not American. They are the hit men for the biggest corporations on earth, and most especially the biggest energy firms. Oil and CIA go together, and there is the Saudi connection. ..."
"... CIA is the lead agent if world Islamic extremism, they don't fight it, they nurture it! Their long term goal is to use mass Islamic terror armies to do what the CIA and Corporate masters want done. Need a police state in America? Do a hit on America 9/11. Need to eliminate Russia? Create ISIS and direct them against Russia's allies. And you can take it from there. It will continue on as before. Nobody left has the power to take down the CIA terror rings. ..."
"... No shit, sherlock, and it's because of you and the most vile mass murderer of all time, the CIA (and DIA, and NSA, and FBI, etc.), but predominantly the CIA and the Pentagon, that ISIS and such exists today! Whether it was Allen Dulles coordinating the escape of endless number of mass murderering Nazis, who would end up in CIA-overthrown countries, aiding and abetting their secret police (Example: Walter Rauff, who was responsible for at least 200,000 deaths, ending up as an advisor to Augusto Pinochet's secret police or DINA) or the grandson of the first chairman of the Bank for International Settlements, Richard Helms and his MKULTRA, you devils are to blame. ..."
"I have never felt more uncomfortable than I do today," warns former CIA Director Jack Devine, saying that, with
"frankly uncivilized" ISIS, there is a greater risk of violence worldwide than ever before.
"I think this is the most dangerous time in terms of sustained violence," he said on "The Cats Roundtable"
in an interview airing Sunday on New York's AM-970.
"I have never felt more uncomfortable than I do today," he told host John Catsimatidis. "Some percentage of the world today
is always either unbalanced or radicalized. When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill
anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
Devine cited the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as an unprecedented threat in terms of its wanton disregard for human
life...
"I dealt with terrorists in South America in the 1970s, but they never attacked innocent women and children indiscriminately,"
he said.
"You have a group in ISIS today that is frankly uncivilized. These folks could get stronger and stronger.
We basically have to destroy ISIS over there," Devine said.
Devine argued that dismantling ISIS's command structure is crucial for minimizing the danger it presents, much like al
Qaeda before them. "We killed three-fourths of their leadership," he said of al Qaeda. "We have to do the same thing with ISIS.
"We have to destroy their refuge over there. When they start to lose, their recruiting numbers start to fall."
Devine, who mainly served during the Cold War, said ISIS is a scourge without parallel because it has no concern for self-preservation.
"There is nothing that can be compared with nuclear weapons and their use," he said of tensions between the U.S. and the former
Soviet Union.
"[But] people felt safe in the sense there was countervailing balance," he added. "Early in our contest with
the Russians, it was clear we had checks and balances."
Finally Devine admits...
"If there's blame to be put, it's on our failure to have done that by this point."
Selected Skeptical Comments
i_call_you_my_base
"I dealt with terrorists in South America in the 1970s..."
"And by dealt I mean trained and funded."
Looney
John Kerry to the MSM:
Do not use "Al Qaeda" or "Al Nustra" - just call them "Allies" (pronounced Al Lies). ;-)
Looney
Vatican_cameo
"I have never felt more uncomfortable than I do today," he told host John Catsimatidis. "Some percentage of the world today
is always either unbalanced or radicalized. When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill
anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
By small group he means CIA, Right? I thought he would have been a little clearer.
Occident Mortal
My guess is that Iran have done a deal with Putin in that once ISIS is swept away Iran gets to build a gas pipeline through
Iraq (which it controls) and through Syria into Europe. Russia is allowing Iran into the European gas market because Bandar threatened
Sochi, and Putin wants to end the House of Saud in retaliation. Two weeks from now the world is going to make laws that pushes
countries towards natural gas and away from coal and oil.
Paveway IV
"...once ISIS is swept away Iran gets to build a gas pipeline through Iraq (which it controls) and through Syria into Europe..."
I would say that's accurate, since the U.S. put ISIS there to block the Iran - Iraq - Syria pipeline. When Russia destroys
ISIS, the previously planned pipeline can proceed. It has nothing to do with Russian 'permission' - Putin expects someone to eventually
be sending gas up from the Middle East once the slaughter stops. He doesn't care who it is or how much. It's not going to displace
more than a fraction of the Russian supply to Europe. Syria rejected the Qatari pipeline for its own reasons - probably because
Qatar was planning on killing Assad and replacing him with a Western stooge well before the Qatari-Turkey pipeline was announced.
In fact, the announcement was pretty much an insult to Syria. Qatar quite arrogantly announced that they WOULD be building the
pipeline through Syria without bothering to ask them.
The U.S. blocked the first Iran pipeline (called the Persian Pipeline) FROM IRAN to Iraq in 2010 by forcing the Swiss company
that partnered with Iran to back out due to Israeli - ooops, 'Western' sanctions on Iran. The second Iran-sourced NG pipeline
from Iran through Iraq and Syria - called the Friendship Pipeline - was agreed to in 2012 by the countries involved. That's when
the U.S. launched it's failed coup attempt in Syria and let its ISIS mad-dogs loose in Iraq. Tyler usually refers to this by the
derogatory label of "Islamic Pipeline" - a snide label that Kagan-PNAC and Western oil companies used. Tyler never refers to the
Western-backed Qatari pipeline as the Jihadi Pipeline, nor does he refer to the Kirkuk-Haifa oil pipeline as the Jewish Pipeline.
I'm not sure about the inconsistency - maybe he's trying to make some point.
Putin negotiates with everyone. He was even talking with Israel about helping them with the Leviathan pipeline. The U.S.
seems to favor 'regime change' as the preferred strategy to expand its oil interests where it has no business doing so.
goldhedge
The CIA guy doesn't mention the House of Saud.
Pfft.
Jack Burton
Good catch! And there never do.
CIA and House of Saud have done a long term deal to look out for each other in this world. The CIA serves no master, it
is the fucking master. It does deals that are anti American, and they don't care, because America is just a sugar daddy to them.
We are the chumps who pay their bills, while they put half of all honest Americans on their enemies list.
CIA is international, not American. They are the hit men for the biggest corporations on earth, and most especially the
biggest energy firms. Oil and CIA go together, and there is the Saudi connection.
CIA is the lead agent if world Islamic extremism, they don't fight it, they nurture it! Their long term goal is to use
mass Islamic terror armies to do what the CIA and Corporate masters want done. Need a police state in America? Do a hit on America
9/11. Need to eliminate Russia? Create ISIS and direct them against Russia's allies. And you can take it from there. It will continue
on as before. Nobody left has the power to take down the CIA terror rings.
"I dealt with terrorists in South America in the 1970s, but they never attacked innocent women and children indiscriminately,"
he said.
No shit, sherlock, and it's because of you and the most vile mass murderer of all time, the CIA (and DIA, and NSA, and
FBI, etc.), but predominantly the CIA and the Pentagon, that ISIS and such exists today!
Whether it was Allen Dulles coordinating the escape of endless number of mass murderering Nazis, who would end up in CIA-overthrown
countries, aiding and abetting their secret police (Example: Walter Rauff, who was responsible for at least 200,000 deaths, ending
up as an advisor to Augusto Pinochet's secret police or DINA) or the grandson of the first chairman of the Bank for International
Settlements, Richard Helms and his MKULTRA, you devils are to blame.
Recommended reading (to better understand why the USA is known as the Great Satan):
Funny how these fucks can come out and say this kind of shit and get away with it. The fucker's basically pleading guilty to murder,
FFS.
Ms No
They didn't kill anybody in South America my ass.... The school of Americas, Operation Condor, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia,
Nicaragua, Guatamala, El Salvador .... who the hell are they kidding? The CIA has always been covered and nobody ever cared.
Perimetr
"If there's blame to be put. . ."
It's on the CIA for running its global terrorist operations, funded by the $1 trillion dollars a year coming from its Afghanistan
heroin operation.
sirs and madams,
.
"Christmas celebration this year is going to be a charade because the whole world is at war. We are close to Christmas. There
will be lights, there will be parties, bright trees, even Nativity scenes – all decked out – while the world continues to wage
war.
It's all a charade. The world has not understood the way of peace. The whole world is at war. A war can be justified, so to
speak, with many, many reasons, but when all the world as it is today, at war, piecemeal though that war may be-a little here,
a little there-there is no justification.
What shall remain in the wake of this war, in the midst of which we are living now? What shall remain? Ruins, thousands of
children without education, so many innocent victims, and lots of money in the pockets of arms dealers."
The discovery of America by Europe had to happen. The savages had to be eliminated and The Revolutionary War had to happen.
Slavery had to begin, and after it, segregation had to begin, but, what must be, will be, slavery and segregation had to end.
Old School colonization of poor nations had to happen. The Boer War had to happen. The Spanish American War had to happen. The
Main had to be sunk. WWI had to happen. Calvary charges had to end. Totalitarian Communism had to happen. Germany's 20's depression
had to happen, reactionary jingoism had to happen, and Kristallnacht and the Reichstag fire had to happen. The Allies had to win
WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be publicity stunts, and the Cold War had to begin. JFK had to be wacked, the Vietnam War
had to happen, the FED still was happening. Civil Rights laws had to be passed. Recognition of China had to happen, going off
the gold standard had to happen, and Nixon had to be kicked out of office. Corporate Globalization had to begin. After Carter
an actor had to be President. Unions had to be stifled. Perestroika and glasnost had to happen. The Berlin Wall had to come down.
The MIC had to find another enemy, and suddenly 9/11 had to happen.
Over population has to happen, poisoning the environment has to happen, and the NWO has to happen.
Ladies and gentlemen, the NWO is here, and there is nothing you can do, and nothing you could have done to stop it.
Edit. I see none of our supposed enemies 'truth bombing' 9/11, 7/7, and the 13th Paris attacks. I see no trade embagoes, I
see no arguments in the Security Council over the illegality of US/Nato bombing in Syria.
blindman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/jimmy-carter-is-correct-t_b_79...
Jimmy Carter Is Correct That the U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy
Posted: 08/03/2015 11:48 am EDT
.
On July 28, Thom Hartmann interviewed former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and, at the very end of his show (as if this massive
question were merely an afterthought), asked him his opinion of the 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision,
both decisions by the five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. These two historic decisions enable unlimited secret money
(including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial campaigns. Carter answered:
It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it's just an oligarchy with unlimited
political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies
to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we've just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff
to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. ... At the present
time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that
is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell." ...
.
it is the money "system", man.
blindman
corporations and hoodwink powers ride on the indifference of the damned, the silence of the dead and doomed.
Dinero D. Profit
The Satus Quo can rely upon the loyalty of their employees, Congress, the military, the military industrial contractors, their
workers and family members, the crime control establishment, all Uniersity professors and employees, and every employee of all
publically traded companies, and every person employed by the MSM.
The dead and doomed are irrelevant. If you have an establishment job, you'll obey and ask no vital questions.
Dick Buttkiss
Sunnis and Shiites hate each other far more than they hate Christians, Jews, or anyone else. If it weren't for oil, the USG wouldn't
give a flyiing fuck if they anihilated each other. Instead, it conspires with them in ways far beyond its ability to comprehend,
much less navigate. Thus is the US ship of state heading for the shoals of its destruction, the only question being how much of
the country and the outside world it takes down with it.
ross81
thats bullshit Western propaganda that Shiites hate Sunnis and vice versa. In the same way that the Brits stirred up Protestant
hatred of Catholics in Ulster for centuries, the US/Israel/Saudi does the same with Sunnis vs Shiites on a much bigger scale in
the Middle East. Divide and Conquer.
geno-econ
This is getting scary in that one or two more attacks will result in travel freezes, flow of Middle East oil and result in huge
increase in military as well as Homeland security costs. A depression or economic collapse a real possibility Perhaps time for
a Peace Conference of all interested parties. The US started this shit and should be the first to call for a Peace Conference.
Macho talk will only make things worse.
moonmac
We can print trillions out of thin air at the drop of a hat but we can't kill a small group of terrorists. Got it!
sgt_doom
Or, we pour billions of dollars every year into the CIA, NSA, and DIA, and only a poor old fart such as myself can figure out
that Bilal Erdogan is the ISIS connection to oil trading (Turkish president, Erdogan's son) and Erdogan's daughter is with ISIS?
GRDguy
Ex-CIA boss gets it wrong, again.
"When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
should be:
"When you have a small group of financial sociopaths willing to lie-to, steal-from and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
and you'll probably be punished, jailed or shot for tryin' to protect yourself and your family.
Ban KKiller
War profiteer. That is it. Along wth James Comey, James Clapper, Jack Welch and the list is almost endless...
BarnacleBill
"When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
Simply take out the word "their", and the description perfectly fits the CIA, MI6 and their like. For them, it's all a business
deal, nothing more - a massive slum-clearance project. Destroy people's houses, provide accommodation and food, ship them somewhere
else; do it again and again until the money-printing machine conks out. It's money for old rope.
And, yes, we're all vulnerable. The man got that right.
Duc888
"You get the politicians you deserve."
CIA types are appointed, not elected.
Duc888
I do not know if there are any Catherine Austin Fitts fans on this web site but this is definitely worth the time. The FEDGOV
came after her non stop for 6 years when she worked for HUD under Bush Sr. If nothing else this lady is tenacious. In this presentation
she uncorks exactly HOW the deep black budgets are paid for...and it ain't your tax dollars. What she uncovered while at HUD was
simply amazing..... and she made an excellent point. At the top... it's NOT "fraud" because that's how it was all deigned right
from the get go after wwII. It brings to mind the funny computer saying....."it's a feature, not a bug".
She digs right into how the CIA was funded... Truly amazing stuff. ...of course the dick head brigade will come along here
and deride her because of the conference she is speaking at.... well, who the fuck cares, her presentation is excellent and filled
with facts.
Yes it is 1 hour 20 minutes long but imho it is well worth the watch...
DANA BASH, CNN: So explosive. So incredibly serious. The Times report also says that James Comey created similar memos after the
other meetings that he had with the president. So this could be just the tip of the iceberg. Maybe the most explosive, but it's very
clear that James Comey wanted to get out there that this happened, created this paper trail real time, contemporaneously rather,
in order to protect himself from exactly what happened last week, him being fired, him being blamed. You know, wanting to know that
he has sort of the information at his disposal if, in fact, this happened...
If you just take a step back, Wolf, just in the past 24 hours, right or wrong, what this president has done, his first 100 plus
days, even before he came into office is pick fights with the intelligence community and now the law enforcement community. Particularly
the way, never mind he fired James Comey, but the way in which he did it, not giving him the respect of actually telling him in person
or at least not having him find out from cable news.
So we know that they talk about the deep state -- well these are communities that have a lot of loyalty within -- and know how
to get back, even if you're the president of the United States.
And the fact is that when the intelligence community found out about the conversation that the president had with the Russians,
talking about classified information, we don't know all the details.
We're told that it wasn't as bad as it might have seemed initially, that's what the White House sources are saying, but still,
the intelligence community leaked that out. Now we know that the FBI director was keeping notes on many things. But the fact that
this is the first one that he made clear and made public.
It's so incredibly explosive, as Jeff said, is the clearest most dangerous sign yet of potential obstruction of justice. Makes
you think, what else is going to happen? And it's very hard for Republicans who have in the past 24 hours been more aggressively
critical of the president begging for a crisis-free day or crisis-free hour, very hard for them not to take this incredibly seriously.
STEPHEN COHEN: But the point here is that Russia has been torn between East and the West forever. Its best policy, in its
own best interest, is to straddle East and West, not to be of the East or the West, but it's impossible in this world today. And
U.S.-led Western policy since the end of the Soviet Union, and particularly since Putin came to power in 2000, has persuaded the
Russian ruling elite that Russia can not count any longer, economically, politically, militarily, on being part of the West. It has
to go elsewhere. So all this talk about wanting to win Russia to an American position that's anti-Iranian and anti-Chinese is conceived
in disaster and will end in disaster. They should think of some other foreign policy.
...Haven't these people learned anything from the implosion of their pathetic Russiagate hysteria? The Russophobes won't be
happy until we're at war with a nuclear power and the nukes are about to land.
Here are things Trump has actually done, as opposed to red-limned fantasies drawn from the fever-dreams of Putin haters:
Unilaterally abandoned 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty
Expelled 60 diplomats and closed 3 Russian diplomatic annexes
Bombed Syria, a Russian ally, with Russian troops in country
Sold arms to Ukraine, which is actively at war with Russia
Threatened Germany to cancel a new Russian pipeline through the Baltic (effort failed)
Even more sanctions against Russia and Russian nationals
Stationed missile defense systems on the Russian border in violation of arms treaties
Massive military exercises in Europe on the Russian border
Stationed troops in Poland
Negotiating with Poland to build a permanent US military base in Poland
Assange actually undermined the key pre-condition of the Deep state existence -- secrecy.
Notable quotes:
"... Robert Mueller, who helped the Bush administration deceive the world about WMD in Iraq, has claimed that the GRU was the source of WikiLeaks' 2016 drops, and claimed in his report that WikiLeaks deceived its audience by implying that its source was the murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich. ..."
"... The smear is that Assange knew his source was actually the Russian government, and he implied it was Seth Rich to throw people off the scent. Mueller asserted that something happened, and it's interpreted as hard fact instead of assertion. There's no evidence for any of this, and there's no reason to go believing the WMD guy on faith about a narrative which incriminates yet another government which refuses to obey the dictates of the US empire. ..."
"... HItchen's Razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." ..."
I'm just going to toss this one here at the end because I'm seeing it go around a lot in the
wake of the Mueller report.
Robert Mueller, who helped the Bush administration deceive the world about WMD in Iraq, has
claimed that the GRU was the source of WikiLeaks' 2016 drops, and claimed in his report that
WikiLeaks deceived its audience by implying that its source was the murdered DNC staffer Seth
Rich.
This claim is unsubstantiated because, as we discussed in Smear 4, the public has not seen a
shred of evidence proving who was or was not WikiLeaks' source, so there's no way to know there
was any deception happening there. We've never seen any hard proof, nor indeed anything besides
official narrative, connecting the Russian government to Guccifer 2.0 and Guccifer 2.0 to
WikiLeaks, and Daniel Lazare for Consortium News documents that there are in fact some
major
plot holes in Mueller's timeline. Longtime Assange friend and WikiLeaks ally Craig Murray
maintains that he knows the
source of the DNC Leaks and Podesta Emails were two different Americans, not Russians, and
hints that one of them was a DNC insider. There is exactly as much publicly available evidence
for Murray's claim as there is for Mueller's.
Mainstream media has been blaring day after day for years that it is an absolute known fact
that the Russian government was WikiLeaks' source, and the only reason people scoff and roll
their eyes at anyone who makes the indisputably factual claim that we've seen no evidence for
this is because
the illusory truth effect causes the human brain to mistake repetition for fact.
The smear is that Assange knew his source was actually the Russian government, and he
implied it was Seth Rich to throw people off the scent. Mueller asserted that something
happened, and it's interpreted as hard fact instead of assertion. There's no evidence for any
of this, and there's no reason to go believing the WMD guy on faith about a narrative which
incriminates yet another government which refuses to obey the dictates of the US
empire.
And I guess that's it for now. Again, this article is an ongoing project, so I'll be
updating it and adding to it regularly as new information comes in and new smears need
refutation. If I missed something or got something wrong, or even if you spotted a typo, please
email me at [email protected] and let
me know. I'm trying to create the best possible tool for people to refute Assange smears, so
I'll keep sharpening this baby to make sure it cuts like a razor. Thanks for reading, and
thanks to everyone who helped! Phew! That was long.
We don't have to like Julian Assange, but the release of the "Collateral Damage" video
alone is enough to justify defending Assange and the freedom of the press.
She really didn't debunk the thing about Seth Rich very well. Basically just said that
whatever Mueller said wasn't true, which doesn't go very far for me. He definitely did imply
that he got at least some of his info from Rich so if there is some sort of proof of that, it
needs to be supplied; otherwise Mueller's story is the only one.
I have recently seen a political cartoon with Dotard then saying: "I love Wikileaks" + " I
will throw her in jail" and now saying: "I know nothing about Wikileaks" + "I will throw him
in jail"
It summed up perfectly that swine's lack of integrity.
It's so simple. Assange and Wikileaks exposed Hillary, Podesta, and the entire DNC to be
lying, deceiving, hypocritical, disingenuous, elitist bastards. His crimes are miniscule
compared to that, and all who attempt to condemn Assange only show us that they are members
of that foul group.
Excellent thorough content. And Kim Schmitz pointed out they'll drag things on for as long
as possible and try to add additional things as they go. Such a bunch of sad, pathetic
control freaks. Covering up their own failures, crimes and short comings with a highly
publicized distraction putting the screws to a single journalist.
“ Ty Clevenger has FOIAed information from NSA asking for any data that involved
both Seth Rich and also Julian Assange .
And they responded by saying we’ve got 15 files , 32 pages , but they’re all
classified in accordance with executive order 13526 covering classification, and therefore
you can’t have them.
That says that NSA has records of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange. I
mean, that’s the only business that NSA is in — copying communications between
people and devices.”
Assange and Snowden are freedom fighters, exposing the duplicitous, corrupt, and criminals
to the entire world.
The hundreds of millions of mindless zombies are so brainwashed by the fake news industry,
that if Assange and Snowden are not spies, they are criminal in some capacity.
I have liberal, conservative, and libertarian leaning friends, and virtually every one of
them believe Assange and Snowden are traitors to America, got innocent people killed, are
rapists, or too cowardly to stand trial in the USA.
What has happened to common sense and some necessary cynicism?
Why even bother arguing with these people. Assange gave up his liberty to reveal the
truth, and the American public said in essence "so what." No one except the leakers and
whistle-blowers faced any punishment, and I can't think of a single national politician who
even talks about doing anything about the misconduct that was revealed. Yeah, a small
percentage of the population is outraged at what was revealed, but the vast majority
literally don't give a ****.
Hehe... I guess you will find out how wrong you are in 2020 :-) His release of Hillary's
emails gave Trump 2016... and him turning his back on Assange took away his chances in
2020
Most regular readers on ZH know but this is an echo chamber for "Always Trumpers" so there
won't be many commenters on this article. Rather than defend his DOJ's extradition attempts
with implausible theories they'll be chattering back and forth about the Mueller Report.
Agreed. It's amazing to me that people who claim to be believers of the MAGA message don't
see the harm associated with the arrest of Assange, and all of the other uniparty **** Trump
is perpetuating. A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.
Yeah and yet.... everyone seemed to credit Hillary's loss to the release of her emails on
wikileaks... Hmm that narrative that seems to be trying to minimize the impact on Trumps
chances in 2020 really breaks down in the face of that fact doesn't it?? Trump has no hope...
just stop... get behind a republican that has a chance... Trump doesn't... he lost half of
his base... get over it...
"... Trump's main problem in this respect is that the diversity of viewpoints within the military, the NSA or other government agencies might already be too narrow and he needs a Republican version of Stephen Cohen who has always advocated for engagement with Russia, along with other people from outside Washington DC but with experience in state legislatures for the various departments. ..."
"... I agree and I suspect Trump regards Putin as a fellow CEO and perhaps the best one on the planet. ..."
"... A more fundamental problem is that the US has not yet reached rock bottom. So, its delusions remain strong. Trump, as said before, may be a false dawn unless the bottom is closer than suspected and he has new allies (perhaps foreign allies). ..."
It is not about politics, but Trump's peculiar management style, Timofey Bordachev, Director
of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies of the Faculty of World Economy
and International Affairs at Russia's High School of Economics, told RIA Novosti.
"Those who have been studying the business biography of the newly elected president have
noted that he has always played off his high-ranking employees against each other. While doing
so he remained above the fight," he said.
And
Gevorg Mirzayan, an assistant professor of the Political Science department at the Financial
University in Moscow pointed out two purposes for the nominations.
The above brings rationality to the diverse selections made by Trump.
However, the black swan event will be an economic collapse (fast or protracted over several
years). That will be the defining event in the Trump presidency. I have no inkling how he or those
who may replace him would respond.
I had guessed myself that Trump was going to run the government as a business corporation. Surrounding
himself with people of competing viewpoints, and hiring on the basis of experience and skills
(and not on the basis of loyalty, as Hillary Clinton might have done) would be two ways Trump
can change the government and its culture. Trump's main problem in this respect is that the diversity
of viewpoints within the military, the NSA or other government agencies might already be too narrow
and he needs a Republican version of Stephen Cohen who has always advocated for engagement with
Russia, along with other people from outside Washington DC but with experience in state legislatures
for the various departments.
If running the US government as a large mock business enterprise brings a change in its culture
so it becomes more open and accountable to the public, less directed by ideology and identity
politics, and gets rid of people engaged in building up their own little empires within the different
departments, then Trump might just be the President the US needs at this moment in time.
Interesting that Russian academics have noted the outlines of Trump's likely cabinet and what
they suggest he plans to do, and no-one else has. Does this imply that Americans and others in
the West have lost sight of how large business corporations could be run, or should be run, and
everyone is fixated on fake "entrepreneurship" or "self-entrepreneur" (whatever that means) models
of running a business where it's every man, woman, child and dog for itself?
I agree and I suspect Trump regards Putin as a fellow CEO and perhaps the best one on the planet.
Trump may have noted how Putin did an incredible turnaround of Russia and it all started with
three objectives: restore the integrity of the borders, rebuild the industrial base and run off
the globalists/liberals/kreakles. I am certainly not the first one to say this and I think that
there is a lot of basis for that analysis. However, Trump will have a far more difficult challenge
and frankly I don't think he has enough allies or smarts to pull it off.
A more fundamental problem is that the US has not yet reached rock bottom. So, its delusions
remain strong. Trump, as said before, may be a false dawn unless the bottom is closer than suspected
and he has new allies (perhaps foreign allies).
Assuming that it is correct, who might be the most likely culprit?
Making that assumption, I want to focus on this part:
The U.S. embassy in Kuwait contacted a contracted private company to send the
package to the U.S. on board of an American airline.
Government is evil. Therefore hiring enough vetted US citizens to run an embassy is to be
avoided if a Private Company can be paid to do the same job. It's been done in the Military.
NASA. National Intelligence has been "privatized". (think Edward Snowden)
What shocked me most from the recent story here about Torturer Gina Haspel lying to Trump
wasn't that she did it. The woman has no scruples at all, and her misbehavior is hardly a
surprise. The NYT piece was just another story about an ignorant old man who can be easily
managed. No, here is the part which jumped out at me.
"Houseflies buzzing around the Oval Office were drawing his attention, and ire.
After reading that I'd be surprised if there is a competent core of White House GOVERNMENT
workers remaining there. Nobody to manage the flying vermin. It took the director of the CIA
to send over some flypaper!
I doubt if the Trumpies could organize a 1-float parade, so the lax security could be
almost anywhere in the chain of events. But my present vote is on a Private Company. It might
be the transport company. If they don't have junior staffers in the Embassy to run simple
missions like delivering a package, they probably don't have an in-house cleaning staff,
either. So they may hire some locals to come in and mop and sweep the joint. Inexpensive
Outsiders.
So the USA helped to re-install medieval treatment of woman in Afghanistan and then called it progress toward human rights...
Notable quotes:
"... But, yes, 'somebody did something'. You don't need a conspiracy theory, because a conspiracy is a secret agreement to commit a crime, and this crime is right out in the open. Millions of people killed for fun and profit. Not that there weren't other conspiracies as well. ..."
Trump's demagogic ploy with the freshman lawmaker raises the more serious question of who
and what led to the "Day of Planes," writes Max Blumenthal.
... ... ...
To effectively puncture Trump's demagogic ploys, the
discussion of 9/11 must move beyond a superficial defense of Omar and into an exploration of a
critical history that has been suppressed. This history begins at least 20 years before the
attacks occurred, when "some people did something." Many of those people served at the highest
levels of U.S. government, and the things they did led to the establishment of Al Qaeda as an
international network – and ultimately, to 9/11 itself.
Taliban 'Unimportant'
Back in 1979, some people initiated a multi-billion-dollar covert operation to trap the
Red Army in Afghanistan and bleed the Soviet Union at its soft underbelly. They put heavy
weapons in the hands of Islamist warlords such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, dispatched Salafi
clerics such as "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman to the battlefield, and printed millions of
dollars worth of textbooks for Afghan children that contained math equations encouraging them
to commit acts of violent martyrdom against Soviet soldiers. They did anything they could to
wreak havoc on the Soviet-backed government in Kabul.
These people were so hellbent on smashing the Soviet Union that they made common cause
with the Islamist dictatorship of Pakistan's Zia-ul-Haq and the House of Saud. With direct
assistance from the intelligence services of these U.S. allies, Osama bin Laden, the scion of
Saudi wealth, set up his Services Bureau on the Afghan border as a waystation for foreign
Islamist fighters.
These people even channeled funding to bin Laden so he could build training camps along the
Afghan-Pakistan border for the so-called freedom fighters of the mujahideen. And they kept
watch over a ratline that shepherded young Muslim men from the West to the front lines of the
Afghan proxy war, using them as cannon fodder for a cold-blooded, imperial operation marketed
by the Wahhabi clergy in Saudi Arabia as a holy obligation.
These people were in the CIA, USAID, and the National Security Council. Others, with names
like Charlie Wilson, Jesse Helms, Jack Murtha, and Joe Biden, held seats on both sides of the
aisle in Congress.
When they finally got what they wanted, dislodging a secular government that had provided
Afghan women with unprecedented access to education, their proxies plunged Afghanistan into a
war of the warlords that saw half of Kabul turned to rubble, paving the way for the rise of the
Taliban. And these people remained totally unrepentant about the monster they had created.
"Can you imagine what the world would be like today if there was still a Soviet Union?"
remarked Zbigniew Bzezinski, the former NSC director who sold President Jimmy Carter on the
Afghan proxy war. "So yes, compared to the Soviet Union, and to its collapse, the Taliban were
unimportant."
To some in Washington, the Taliban were a historical footnote. To others, they were allies
of convenience. As a top State Department diplomat commented to journalist Ahmed Rashid in
February 1997, "The Taliban will probably develop like Saudi Arabia. There be [the Saudi-owned
oil company] Aramco, pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with
that."
CIA Cover-ups and Blowback
Back in the U.S., some people fueled the blowback from the Afghan proxy war. The Blind
Sheikh was given a special entry visa by the CIA as payback for the services he provided in
Afghanistan, allowing him to take over the al-Kifah Center in New York City, which had
functioned as the de facto U.S. arm of Al Qaeda's Services Bureau. Under his watch and with
help from bin Laden, some people and lots of aid were shuttled to the front lines of U.S. proxy
wars in Bosnia and Chechnya while the Clinton administration generally looked the other
way.
Though the Blind Sheikh was eventually convicted in a terror plot contrived by a paid
informant for the FBI, some people in federal law enforcement had been reluctant to indict him.
"There was a whole issue about [Abdel-Rahman] being given a visa to come into this country and
what the circumstances were around that," one of his defense lawyers, Abdeed Jabara told me.
"The issue related to how much the government was involved with the jihadist enterprise when it
suited their purposes in Afghanistan and whether or not they were afraid there would be
exposure of that. Because there's no question that the jihadists were using the Americans and
the Americans were using the jihadists. There's a symbiotic relationship."
During the 1995 trial of members of the Blind Sheikh's New York-based cell, another defense
lawyer, Roger Stavis, referred to his clients before the jury as "Team America," emphasizing
the role they had played as proxy fighters for the U.S. in Afghanistan. When Stavis attempted
to summon to the witness stand a jihadist operative named Ali Abdelsauod Mohammed who had
trained his clients in firearms and combat, some people ordered Mohammed to refuse his
subpoena. Those people, according to journalist Peter Lance, were federal prosecutors Andrew
McCarthy and Patrick Fitzgerald.
The government lawyers were apparently fretting that Mohammed would be exposed as an active
asset of both the CIA and FBI, and as a former Army sergeant who had spirited training manuals
out of Fort Bragg while stationed there during the 1980s. So Mohammed remained a free man,
helping Al Qaeda plan attacks on American consular facilities in Tanzania and Kenya while the
"Day of the Planes" plot began to take form.
In early 2000, some people gathered in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to prepare the most daring Al
Qaeda operation to date. Two figures at the meeting, Saudi citizens named Nawaf al-Hazmi and
Khalid al-Midhar, were on their way to the United States. While in Kuala Lumpur, the duo's
hotel room was broken into by CIA agents, their passports were photographed, and their
communications were recorded. And yet the pair of Al Qaeda operatives was able to travel
together with multiple-entry visas on a direct flight from Kuala Lumpur to Los Angeles. That's
because for some reason, some people from the CIA failed to notify any people at the FBI about
the terror summit that had just taken place. The "Day of Planes" plot was moving forward
without a kink.
In Los Angeles, some people met Hazmi and Midhar at the airport, provided the two
non-English speakers with a personal caretaker and rented them apartments, where neighbors said
they were routinely visited each night by unknown figures in expensive cars with darkened
windows. Those people were Saudi Arabian intelligence agents named Omar Bayoumi and Khaled
al-Thumairy.
Crawford , Texas
It was not until August 2001 that Midhar was placed on a terrorist watch list. That month,
some people met at a ranch in Crawford, Texas, and reviewed a classified document headlined,
"Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US." The bulletin was a page-and-a-half long, with
detailed intelligence on the "Day of Planes" plot provided by Ali Mohammed, the Al
Qaeda-FBI-CIA triple agent now registered as "John Doe" and disappeared somewhere in the
federal prison system. Those people reviewed the document for a few minutes before their boss,
President George W. Bush, moved on to other matters.
According to The Washington Post , Bush exhibited an "expansive mood" that day,
taking in a round of golf. "We are going to be struck soon, many Americans are going to die,
and it could be in the U.S.," CIA counterterrorism chief Cofer Black warned days later. Bush
did not meet with his cabinet heads again to discuss terrorism until Sept. 4.
A week later, on Sept. 11, some people did something.
They hijacked four civilian airliners and changed the course of American history with little
more than box cutter blades in their hands. Fifteen of those 19 people, including Hazmi and
Midhar, were citizens of Saudi Arabia. They were products of a Wahhabi school system and a
politically stultifying society that had thrived under the protection of a special relationship
with the U.S. Indeed, the U.S. had showered theocratic allies like Saudi Arabia with aid and
weapons while threatening secular Arab states that resisted its hegemony with sanctions and
invasion. The Saudis were the favorite Muslims of America's national security elite not because
they were moderate, which they absolutely were not, but because they were useful.
In the days after 9/11, the FBI
organized several flights to evacuate prominent Saudi families from the U.S., including
relatives of Osama bin Laden. Meanwhile, Islamophobia erupted across the country, with even
mainstream personalities such as TV news anchor Dan Rather taking to the airwaves to claim
without evidence that Arab-Americans had celebrated the 9/11 attacks.
Unable to find a single operational Al Qaeda cell in the country, the FBI turned to an army
of paid snitches to haul in mentally unstable Muslims, dupes and idlers like the Lackawanna 6
in manufactured plots. Desperate for a high-profile bust to reinforce the "war on terror"
narrative, the bureau hounded Palestinian Muslim activists and persecuted prominent Islamic
charities like the Holy Land Foundation, sending its directors to prison for decades for the
crime of sending aid to NGOs in the occupied Gaza Strip.
As America's national security state cracked down on Muslim civil society at home, it turned
to fanatical Islamist proxies abroad to bring down secular and politically independent Arab
states. In Libya, the U.S. and UK helped arm the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a longtime
affiliate of Al Qaeda, using it as a proxy to depose and murder Muammar Gaddafi. As that
country transformed from a stable, prosperous state into an Afghanistan-style playground for
rival militias, including a chapter of the Islamic State, the Obama administration moved to do
the same to Damascus.
In Syria, the CIA armed an outfit of supposedly "moderate rebels" called the Free Syrian
Army that turned out to be nothing more than a political front and weapons farm for an array of
extremist insurgent factions including Al Qaeda's local affiliate and the Islamic State. The
latter two groups were, of course, products of the sectarian chaos of Iraq, which had been
ruled by a secular government until the U.S. came knocking after 9/11.
The blowback from Iraq, Libya and Syria arrived in the form of the worst refugee crises the
world has experienced since World War II. And then came the bloodiest terror attack to hit the
UK in history – in Manchester. There, the son of a Libyan Islamic Fighting Group member,
who traveled to Libya and Syria on an MI6 ratline, slaughtered concert-goers with a nail
bomb.
Cataclysmic social disruptions like these were like steroids for right-wing Islamophobes,
electrifying Trump's victorious 2016 presidential campaign, a wing of the Brexit "Leave"
campaign in the UK, and far-right parties across Europe. But as I explain in "The Management of
Savagery," these terrifying trends were byproducts of decisions undertaken by national security
elites more closely aligned with the political center – figures who today attempt to
position themselves as leaders of the anti-Trump resistance.
Which people did which things to drag us into the political nightmare we're living through?
For those willing to cut through the campaign season bluster, Ilhan Omar's comments dare us to
name names.
Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of books including best-selling
" Republican
Gomorrah ," " Goliath ," "
The
Fifty One Day War " and " The Management of
Savagery ," published in March 2019 by Verso. He has also produced numerous print articles
for an array of publications, many video reports and several documentaries including "
Killing Gaza " and "
Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie ." Blumenthal founded the
Grayzone in 2015 to shine a
journalistic light on America's state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic
repercussions. 36 comments for "Behind the Omar Outrage: Suppressed History of 9/11"
Jeff Harrison , April 19, 2019 at 11:24
The US doesn't seem to have the ability to see ourselves as others see us. This explains
why we don't understand why other countries/peoples react badly towards us. This will get
worse as we move into a more imperialistic mode. We continue to use the anachronistic phrase
"leader of the free world" all the while missing out on the fact that the rest of the world
has, in essence, become free and they, for the most part, don't want us leading them.
bill haymes , April 19, 2019 at 05:20
everyone who has not examined ALL THE EVIDENCE of 9/11 WITH AN OPEN MIND is imo simply
whistling in the wind
Anarcissie , April 19, 2019 at 11:12
I suppose, then, that that would mean going back to the earliest days of the 20th century,
when the British leadership, considering that its future navy, a main pillar of its empire,
would have to be fueled with oil instead of coal, and that there was a lot of oil in the
Middle East, began its imperial projects there, which of course involved wars, police, spies,
economic blackmail, and other tools of empire. The US seized or wangled or inherited the
imperial system from the British and thus acquired the associated regional, ethnic, and
religious hostilities as well. Since the Arabs and other Muslims were weak compared with the
Great Powers, resistance meant terrorism and guerrilla warfare on one side and massive
intervention and the support of local strongmen, Mafia bosses, dictators, and so on on the
other.
After 9/11. mentioning this important fact became 'justifying bin Laden' or 'spitting on
the graves of the dead' so you couldn't talk about it.
But, yes, 'somebody did something'. You don't need a conspiracy theory, because a
conspiracy is a secret agreement to commit a crime, and this crime is right out in the open.
Millions of people killed for fun and profit. Not that there weren't other conspiracies as
well.
Abe , April 18, 2019 at 23:23
Behind the Omar Outrage: Suppressed History of the pro-Israel Lobby
Max Blumenthal's article and his 2019 book, The Management of Savagery: How America's
National Security State Fueled the Rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Donald Trump (2019), is an
impressive exercise in burying the leads.
Blumenthal does chronicle a decades-long panoply of active measures by numerous pro-Israel
Lobby figures, groups and think tanks. Yet he fails to explicitly recognize the connection
between pro-Israel Lobby efforts and the covert operations and overt invasions of America's
national security state.
Julian Assange of Wikileaks was more explicit. Assange named the "country that has
interfered in U.S. elections, has endangered Americans living or working overseas and has
corrupted America's legislative and executive branches. It has exploited that corruption to
initiate legislation favorable to itself, has promoted unnecessary and unwinnable wars and
has stolen American technology and military secrets. Its ready access to the mainstream media
to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions and it accomplishes all
that and more through the agency of a powerful and well-funded domestic lobby [ ] That
country is, of course, Israel."
i really like her and support her but if she just had the good sense to have simply said
"some people did something terrible" none of the present chapter of "islamophobia" would be
acted out..no matter how much we think we know about the real truth(?) what happened that day
did not blow up the white house, congress or the ruling class of america but nearly three
thousand pretty ordinary folks yes, just like what "we" do repeatedly, but nevertheless, and
considering the overwhelming mind fuck that went on with replaying the tragedy on tv for days
so that millions across the nation were put in shock, we need to be just a little more
considerate and possibly understanding both about how many people might feel and how some
people might use any opportunity to perform this second rate islamophobia, which is a tiny
fractional form of the original monstrous behavior that has destroyed nations, governments
and millions of people in the islamic world..that is islamophobia, not the reactionary crap
that passes for it which should be as understandable – under the circumstances –
as terrorism!
Zhu , April 18, 2019 at 22:32
It should have been obvious that our government had made enemies around the world &
that some would attempt revenge some day. Instead, we all thought that what we did to other
people could never happen to us.
Joe Tedesky , April 18, 2019 at 21:41
This is a must read for the skeptics who doubt any questioning of the official 9/11
Commission Report. This investigative reporting by Max Blumenthal is another good reason to
read the Consortium.
hetro , April 18, 2019 at 17:18
Max Blumenthal's emphasis on "somebody did something" in echo to Ilhan Omar's comments,
plus his emphasis on what has been "suppressed," will hopefully lead on to further
disclosures of what took place for the 9/11 event.
Anyone who watches the Omar video will see she is mainly emphasizing a disgraceful
demonizing of Muslims in general. Additionally, what has brought on all the hatred to her,
she did not speak with the "quasi-theological understanding" that demands the official
narrative, with hushed tones, while speaking of the event:
Max Blumenthal above:
". . . by reinforcing the quasi-theological understanding of 9/11 that leaves anti-Muslim
narratives unchallenged. "The memory of 9/11 is sacred ground, and any discussion of it must
be done with reverence," insisted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
It would be a fine thing for CN, despite Mr. Parry's former reservations, to open up
enquiry into further discussion of what has been "suppressed"–or at the very least to
the very serious questions that have not yet been answered on that horrible day.
OlyaPola , April 18, 2019 at 14:17
"Trump's demagogic ploy with the freshman lawmaker raises the more serious question of who
and what led to the "Day of Planes," writes Max Blumenthal."
All processes of suppression tend to spread that which is being suppresed facilitating
de-suppression of much that is being suppressed leaving a residual.
Framing and access to sources may continue the lack of perception of this residual and
hence facilitate misrepresentation through ommission.
"Back in 1979, some people initiated a multi-billion-dollar covert operation to trap the
Red Army in Afghanistan and bleed the Soviet Union at its soft underbelly."
Restriction of frame is a tool of obfuscation and choice of point of initiation a tool of
misrepresentation.
During the early 1970's due to internal factors primarily but not wholly in the period of
1964 to 1970, the Politburo of the Soviet Union agreed detente on the bases of spheres of
influence with the United States of America facilitating the creation of a greater assay of
and reliance upon the US dollar fiat currency, further butressed by commodity arrangements
including but not restricted to the petro-dollar, in part to underpin the United States of
America economic recovery including recovering their control over their perceived threats
within their sphere of influence, particularly but not exclusively Japan.
In reaction/attempt at circumvention in 1973 Mitsui-Mitsubishi representing the zaibatsu
sought to jointly develop the Trans-Siberian railway, the port of Nahodka and other
industrial options including in Japan primarily in Northern Honshu and in Hokkaido with the
Soviet Union but this project was terminated by the Politburo, the reason given being
potential threats from China after confrontation including on the Amur and the need to build
BAM (Baikal-Amur Railway) to the north of the Trans-Siberian Railway – the projects
rejected were ancestor of the present OBOR project with differing participants re-explored
from 1993 onwards.
These opportunities and trajectories in the 1970's were explained to the Politburo in the
1970's but rejected by the Politburo.
The Soviet Union was invited into Afghanistan by the Afghani government and hence never
"invaded" Afghanistan.
The Politburo accepted the invitation of the Afghani government despite the advice of
those practiced in strategic evaluation – the illusion that the Politburo was practiced
in strategic evaluation endured in an ideological half-life post August 1968 but increasingly
was ignored in practice.
During the 1970's there was an oscillating aspect of contrariness and attempt to regain
perceived control in many of the decision of the Politburo led by the man who loved medals
and awards Mr. Brezhnev.
Consequently the Politburo and the Soviet Union was complicit in facilitating
opportunities for " Back in 1979, some people initiated a multi-billion-dollar covert
operation to trap the Red Army in Afghanistan and bleed the Soviet Union at its soft
underbelly."
However the targets of these operations were not restricted to the Soviet Union but
included as part of an ongoing "strategy" "to underpin the United States of America economic
recovery/maintainence including recovering/maintaining their control over their perceived
threats within their sphere of influence, particularly but not exclusively Japan." and the
location of these efforts were chosen the middle of Central Asia in reaction to experiences
in Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and Israel post 1973.
The above are necessarily thumbnails in confirmation and extension of the not widely
perceived causation/facilitation/ history/trajectories/time horizons which may aid
perception, as may testing the hypotheses that Ms. Omar is being attacked for challenging
myth irrespective of which myth she attempts to challenge.
The military offensive against Tripoli is more political than in fact a military offensive
to overwhelm the enemy. Of course battles are fought but just the fact that heavy weapons
(tanks, artillery etc...) were not used in the first few weeks could indicate that the attack
was somehow aiming to be fast, to aim fo tribal allegiance shifts or just to make a point.
Only in the past week or so we have seen tanks and air strikes taking place, which seems an
escalation of the conflict.
Haftar's LNA has won this war, though many battles will be fought ahead, the LNA has
brought a very united support from Egypt, KSA and UAE and with that it brings France, Russia
and now the US in supporting it, either as opportunistic, individual agenda or simply to
speed up the peaceful process.
The fact is the GNA is becoming seriously isolated, very few support besides Turkey, Qatar
and Italy, all the indication that there is a good chance for Tripoli to saved from
destruction in a mix of military/political solution in weeks to come. Key tribal vocal and on
the ground support, like Zittan's, will be crucial for this peace process.
Then Misrata will be a totally different animal, here Muslin Brotherhood/al Qaeda and ISIS
are packed and strong, support from Turkey and Qatar is abundant, there is no peaceful
solution for Misrata, only annihilation of the filthy terrorists, like in Idlib in Syria.
Trump is supporting Haftar because he is STILL a CIA asset and to keep Russia's hands off
Libya. Haftar is also friends with the Egyptian Zionist Sissy and likewise, MbinSaw.
So now, there's only one smart thing for Putin to do; support THE OTHER SIDE. If he
doesn't do this, the U.S. has a CIA stooge ruling Libya, who is friends with all its allies
including the most lunatic state of the 3 -- Israel, though all three are ruled by despot
nutjobs.
Putin should at worst remain neutral or support the other side to mess with Trump's
geo-engineering.
Now that Putin and Kim will be holding a summit soon; it would be nice to see Putin f...ck
up U.S. plans in Libya too!
It's about putting up roadblocks to the Empire's geopolitical grab. That's the way you
balance power. If ever war breaks out, you want to have as many allies, friendly air space
and allied ports as possible. It doesn't mean a World War will happen again, but it could,
and geostrategy is good INSURANCE. The U.S. will never be Russia's natural ally, not even
close, therefore Putin better play it smart always planning for the worst while hoping for
the best.
Alas, I'm not sure what Putin's thinking lately allowing the lunatic state to attack
Iranian military assets in Syria! Too many Zionist oligarchs in Putin's sphere. One day Putin
will utter Caesar's last words: Et tu, Brute? Because you sure as hell can't trust a Zionist
when it comes to securing your own power!
But only the LNA and GNA are mentioned. I thought there were 3 governments in Libya - one
west, one east, and one pushed by the UN. Wikipedia's Libyan Civil War entry adds the
National Salvation Army to the LNA and GNA. But the NSA may no longer play a part with the
militias rising to the fore. And do the militias support the UN-backed GNA? From what I've
read the militias are working together against "one-man rule" of Haftar.
Libya is a broken country, Haftar brings stability, the end of the militias, Islamists and
slavery. Haftar has already won that is why the US are now supporting him.
Russia has had a long standing dialogue with Haftar. Haftar will probably gain some sort
of independence by balancing these conflicting powers (Russia and US). The US will get oil at
the price they want (need) but I expect that Russia will gain most from Haftar coming out on
top.
Haftar was part of the revolution that brought Gadaffi to power - I doubt that he is a CIA
poodle.
Haftar was part of the revolution that brought Gadaffi to power - I doubt that he is a CIA
poodle.
Posted by: ADKC | Apr 19, 2019 5:30:50 PM
Hogwash. You left out the part where Haftar joined the revolution that deposed and
murdered Gaddafi after returning to Libya from Langley! Haftar is a ruthless power-lusting
butcher and not trustworthy at all!
Yes he was part of the forces that overthrew Gaddafi and also connected to the CIA - I
didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I would very much prefer Gaddafi to still be in power -
Libyans almost certainly feel the same (the vast majority felt the same when the uprising
happened).
But Haftar has won and the alternative to Haftar is criminal gangs and Islamist militias.
So what choice is there really? Haftar brings a much greater likelihood of peace and
stability. But, he won't be bringing back the life that Libyans had when Gaddafi was in
charge.
It appears that he instigated his war in 2015 without the agreement/support of US &
CIA and this may well indicate that he is his own person - but this might just be a
smokescreen. Regardless, what real choice is there for ordinary Libyans - continuing war,
chaos and conflict or accepting that Haftar has won?
But Haftar has won and the alternative to Haftar is criminal gangs and Islamist
militias. So what choice is there really?
Wrong. It's not an either Haftar or terrorists situation, dynamic whatever. This falsehood
is UAE, SAUDI bullshet propaganda. Wahhabism is trying to take over Libya and Sudan! Wherever
the Saudis are involved trouble follows lest you forget Syria and Yemen!
Haftar is bad for Libya PERIOD. More proof is that before Trump called Haftar to offer his
support, he spoke with UEA's MBZ. It all stinks! Leave Libya alone -- hands off! All foreign
influence out! That's the best option.
financial matters , Apr 19, 2019 7:08:35 PM |
link
Nice to see Russia and the US on the same side actually fighting real terrorism. This is a
win against the deep state.
The US doesn't care what murderous thug is in charge.
Posted by: BraveNewWorld | Apr 19, 2019 3:22:46 PM | 9
My first thought was -- now they are telling us?
Of course, HRC put it nicely in a debate with Trump: "you will never see me singing
praises for a dictator or strongmen who does no love America." Qaddafi, RIP, did not love
America, so he had to go once an opportunity emerged. Maduro does not love America. Sisi may
have a kind word now and then etc.
"... But, yes, 'somebody did something'. You don't need a conspiracy theory, because a conspiracy is a secret agreement to commit a crime, and this crime is right out in the open. Millions of people killed for fun and profit. Not that there weren't other conspiracies as well. ..."
Trump's demagogic ploy with the freshman lawmaker raises the more serious question of who
and what led to the "Day of Planes," writes Max Blumenthal.
... ... ...
To effectively puncture Trump's demagogic ploys, the
discussion of 9/11 must move beyond a superficial defense of Omar and into an exploration of a
critical history that has been suppressed. This history begins at least 20 years before the
attacks occurred, when "some people did something." Many of those people served at the highest
levels of U.S. government, and the things they did led to the establishment of Al Qaeda as an
international network – and ultimately, to 9/11 itself.
Taliban 'Unimportant'
Back in 1979, some people initiated a multi-billion-dollar covert operation to trap the
Red Army in Afghanistan and bleed the Soviet Union at its soft underbelly. They put heavy
weapons in the hands of Islamist warlords such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, dispatched Salafi
clerics such as "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman to the battlefield, and printed millions of
dollars worth of textbooks for Afghan children that contained math equations encouraging them
to commit acts of violent martyrdom against Soviet soldiers. They did anything they could to
wreak havoc on the Soviet-backed government in Kabul.
These people were so hellbent on smashing the Soviet Union that they made common cause
with the Islamist dictatorship of Pakistan's Zia-ul-Haq and the House of Saud. With direct
assistance from the intelligence services of these U.S. allies, Osama bin Laden, the scion of
Saudi wealth, set up his Services Bureau on the Afghan border as a waystation for foreign
Islamist fighters.
These people even channeled funding to bin Laden so he could build training camps along the
Afghan-Pakistan border for the so-called freedom fighters of the mujahideen. And they kept
watch over a ratline that shepherded young Muslim men from the West to the front lines of the
Afghan proxy war, using them as cannon fodder for a cold-blooded, imperial operation marketed
by the Wahhabi clergy in Saudi Arabia as a holy obligation.
These people were in the CIA, USAID, and the National Security Council. Others, with names
like Charlie Wilson, Jesse Helms, Jack Murtha, and Joe Biden, held seats on both sides of the
aisle in Congress.
When they finally got what they wanted, dislodging a secular government that had provided
Afghan women with unprecedented access to education, their proxies plunged Afghanistan into a
war of the warlords that saw half of Kabul turned to rubble, paving the way for the rise of the
Taliban. And these people remained totally unrepentant about the monster they had created.
"Can you imagine what the world would be like today if there was still a Soviet Union?"
remarked Zbigniew Bzezinski, the former NSC director who sold President Jimmy Carter on the
Afghan proxy war. "So yes, compared to the Soviet Union, and to its collapse, the Taliban were
unimportant."
To some in Washington, the Taliban were a historical footnote. To others, they were allies
of convenience. As a top State Department diplomat commented to journalist Ahmed Rashid in
February 1997, "The Taliban will probably develop like Saudi Arabia. There be [the Saudi-owned
oil company] Aramco, pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with
that."
CIA Cover-ups and Blowback
Back in the U.S., some people fueled the blowback from the Afghan proxy war. The Blind
Sheikh was given a special entry visa by the CIA as payback for the services he provided in
Afghanistan, allowing him to take over the al-Kifah Center in New York City, which had
functioned as the de facto U.S. arm of Al Qaeda's Services Bureau. Under his watch and with
help from bin Laden, some people and lots of aid were shuttled to the front lines of U.S. proxy
wars in Bosnia and Chechnya while the Clinton administration generally looked the other
way.
Though the Blind Sheikh was eventually convicted in a terror plot contrived by a paid
informant for the FBI, some people in federal law enforcement had been reluctant to indict him.
"There was a whole issue about [Abdel-Rahman] being given a visa to come into this country and
what the circumstances were around that," one of his defense lawyers, Abdeed Jabara told me.
"The issue related to how much the government was involved with the jihadist enterprise when it
suited their purposes in Afghanistan and whether or not they were afraid there would be
exposure of that. Because there's no question that the jihadists were using the Americans and
the Americans were using the jihadists. There's a symbiotic relationship."
During the 1995 trial of members of the Blind Sheikh's New York-based cell, another defense
lawyer, Roger Stavis, referred to his clients before the jury as "Team America," emphasizing
the role they had played as proxy fighters for the U.S. in Afghanistan. When Stavis attempted
to summon to the witness stand a jihadist operative named Ali Abdelsauod Mohammed who had
trained his clients in firearms and combat, some people ordered Mohammed to refuse his
subpoena. Those people, according to journalist Peter Lance, were federal prosecutors Andrew
McCarthy and Patrick Fitzgerald.
The government lawyers were apparently fretting that Mohammed would be exposed as an active
asset of both the CIA and FBI, and as a former Army sergeant who had spirited training manuals
out of Fort Bragg while stationed there during the 1980s. So Mohammed remained a free man,
helping Al Qaeda plan attacks on American consular facilities in Tanzania and Kenya while the
"Day of the Planes" plot began to take form.
In early 2000, some people gathered in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to prepare the most daring Al
Qaeda operation to date. Two figures at the meeting, Saudi citizens named Nawaf al-Hazmi and
Khalid al-Midhar, were on their way to the United States. While in Kuala Lumpur, the duo's
hotel room was broken into by CIA agents, their passports were photographed, and their
communications were recorded. And yet the pair of Al Qaeda operatives was able to travel
together with multiple-entry visas on a direct flight from Kuala Lumpur to Los Angeles. That's
because for some reason, some people from the CIA failed to notify any people at the FBI about
the terror summit that had just taken place. The "Day of Planes" plot was moving forward
without a kink.
In Los Angeles, some people met Hazmi and Midhar at the airport, provided the two
non-English speakers with a personal caretaker and rented them apartments, where neighbors said
they were routinely visited each night by unknown figures in expensive cars with darkened
windows. Those people were Saudi Arabian intelligence agents named Omar Bayoumi and Khaled
al-Thumairy.
Crawford , Texas
It was not until August 2001 that Midhar was placed on a terrorist watch list. That month,
some people met at a ranch in Crawford, Texas, and reviewed a classified document headlined,
"Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US." The bulletin was a page-and-a-half long, with
detailed intelligence on the "Day of Planes" plot provided by Ali Mohammed, the Al
Qaeda-FBI-CIA triple agent now registered as "John Doe" and disappeared somewhere in the
federal prison system. Those people reviewed the document for a few minutes before their boss,
President George W. Bush, moved on to other matters.
According to The Washington Post , Bush exhibited an "expansive mood" that day,
taking in a round of golf. "We are going to be struck soon, many Americans are going to die,
and it could be in the U.S.," CIA counterterrorism chief Cofer Black warned days later. Bush
did not meet with his cabinet heads again to discuss terrorism until Sept. 4.
A week later, on Sept. 11, some people did something.
They hijacked four civilian airliners and changed the course of American history with little
more than box cutter blades in their hands. Fifteen of those 19 people, including Hazmi and
Midhar, were citizens of Saudi Arabia. They were products of a Wahhabi school system and a
politically stultifying society that had thrived under the protection of a special relationship
with the U.S. Indeed, the U.S. had showered theocratic allies like Saudi Arabia with aid and
weapons while threatening secular Arab states that resisted its hegemony with sanctions and
invasion. The Saudis were the favorite Muslims of America's national security elite not because
they were moderate, which they absolutely were not, but because they were useful.
In the days after 9/11, the FBI
organized several flights to evacuate prominent Saudi families from the U.S., including
relatives of Osama bin Laden. Meanwhile, Islamophobia erupted across the country, with even
mainstream personalities such as TV news anchor Dan Rather taking to the airwaves to claim
without evidence that Arab-Americans had celebrated the 9/11 attacks.
Unable to find a single operational Al Qaeda cell in the country, the FBI turned to an army
of paid snitches to haul in mentally unstable Muslims, dupes and idlers like the Lackawanna 6
in manufactured plots. Desperate for a high-profile bust to reinforce the "war on terror"
narrative, the bureau hounded Palestinian Muslim activists and persecuted prominent Islamic
charities like the Holy Land Foundation, sending its directors to prison for decades for the
crime of sending aid to NGOs in the occupied Gaza Strip.
As America's national security state cracked down on Muslim civil society at home, it turned
to fanatical Islamist proxies abroad to bring down secular and politically independent Arab
states. In Libya, the U.S. and UK helped arm the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a longtime
affiliate of Al Qaeda, using it as a proxy to depose and murder Muammar Gaddafi. As that
country transformed from a stable, prosperous state into an Afghanistan-style playground for
rival militias, including a chapter of the Islamic State, the Obama administration moved to do
the same to Damascus.
In Syria, the CIA armed an outfit of supposedly "moderate rebels" called the Free Syrian
Army that turned out to be nothing more than a political front and weapons farm for an array of
extremist insurgent factions including Al Qaeda's local affiliate and the Islamic State. The
latter two groups were, of course, products of the sectarian chaos of Iraq, which had been
ruled by a secular government until the U.S. came knocking after 9/11.
The blowback from Iraq, Libya and Syria arrived in the form of the worst refugee crises the
world has experienced since World War II. And then came the bloodiest terror attack to hit the
UK in history – in Manchester. There, the son of a Libyan Islamic Fighting Group member,
who traveled to Libya and Syria on an MI6 ratline, slaughtered concert-goers with a nail
bomb.
Cataclysmic social disruptions like these were like steroids for right-wing Islamophobes,
electrifying Trump's victorious 2016 presidential campaign, a wing of the Brexit "Leave"
campaign in the UK, and far-right parties across Europe. But as I explain in "The Management of
Savagery," these terrifying trends were byproducts of decisions undertaken by national security
elites more closely aligned with the political center – figures who today attempt to
position themselves as leaders of the anti-Trump resistance.
Which people did which things to drag us into the political nightmare we're living through?
For those willing to cut through the campaign season bluster, Ilhan Omar's comments dare us to
name names.
Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of books including best-selling
" Republican
Gomorrah ," " Goliath ," "
The
Fifty One Day War " and " The Management of
Savagery ," published in March 2019 by Verso. He has also produced numerous print articles
for an array of publications, many video reports and several documentaries including "
Killing Gaza " and "
Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie ." Blumenthal founded the
Grayzone in 2015 to shine a
journalistic light on America's state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic
repercussions. 36 comments for "Behind the Omar Outrage: Suppressed History of 9/11"
Jeff Harrison , April 19, 2019 at 11:24
The US doesn't seem to have the ability to see ourselves as others see us. This explains
why we don't understand why other countries/peoples react badly towards us. This will get
worse as we move into a more imperialistic mode. We continue to use the anachronistic phrase
"leader of the free world" all the while missing out on the fact that the rest of the world
has, in essence, become free and they, for the most part, don't want us leading them.
bill haymes , April 19, 2019 at 05:20
everyone who has not examined ALL THE EVIDENCE of 9/11 WITH AN OPEN MIND is imo simply
whistling in the wind
Anarcissie , April 19, 2019 at 11:12
I suppose, then, that that would mean going back to the earliest days of the 20th century,
when the British leadership, considering that its future navy, a main pillar of its empire,
would have to be fueled with oil instead of coal, and that there was a lot of oil in the
Middle East, began its imperial projects there, which of course involved wars, police, spies,
economic blackmail, and other tools of empire. The US seized or wangled or inherited the
imperial system from the British and thus acquired the associated regional, ethnic, and
religious hostilities as well. Since the Arabs and other Muslims were weak compared with the
Great Powers, resistance meant terrorism and guerrilla warfare on one side and massive
intervention and the support of local strongmen, Mafia bosses, dictators, and so on on the
other.
After 9/11. mentioning this important fact became 'justifying bin Laden' or 'spitting on
the graves of the dead' so you couldn't talk about it.
But, yes, 'somebody did something'. You don't need a conspiracy theory, because a
conspiracy is a secret agreement to commit a crime, and this crime is right out in the open.
Millions of people killed for fun and profit. Not that there weren't other conspiracies as
well.
Abe , April 18, 2019 at 23:23
Behind the Omar Outrage: Suppressed History of the pro-Israel Lobby
Max Blumenthal's article and his 2019 book, The Management of Savagery: How America's
National Security State Fueled the Rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Donald Trump (2019), is an
impressive exercise in burying the leads.
Blumenthal does chronicle a decades-long panoply of active measures by numerous pro-Israel
Lobby figures, groups and think tanks. Yet he fails to explicitly recognize the connection
between pro-Israel Lobby efforts and the covert operations and overt invasions of America's
national security state.
Julian Assange of Wikileaks was more explicit. Assange named the "country that has
interfered in U.S. elections, has endangered Americans living or working overseas and has
corrupted America's legislative and executive branches. It has exploited that corruption to
initiate legislation favorable to itself, has promoted unnecessary and unwinnable wars and
has stolen American technology and military secrets. Its ready access to the mainstream media
to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions and it accomplishes all
that and more through the agency of a powerful and well-funded domestic lobby [ ] That
country is, of course, Israel."
i really like her and support her but if she just had the good sense to have simply said
"some people did something terrible" none of the present chapter of "islamophobia" would be
acted out..no matter how much we think we know about the real truth(?) what happened that day
did not blow up the white house, congress or the ruling class of america but nearly three
thousand pretty ordinary folks yes, just like what "we" do repeatedly, but nevertheless, and
considering the overwhelming mind fuck that went on with replaying the tragedy on tv for days
so that millions across the nation were put in shock, we need to be just a little more
considerate and possibly understanding both about how many people might feel and how some
people might use any opportunity to perform this second rate islamophobia, which is a tiny
fractional form of the original monstrous behavior that has destroyed nations, governments
and millions of people in the islamic world..that is islamophobia, not the reactionary crap
that passes for it which should be as understandable – under the circumstances –
as terrorism!
Zhu , April 18, 2019 at 22:32
It should have been obvious that our government had made enemies around the world &
that some would attempt revenge some day. Instead, we all thought that what we did to other
people could never happen to us.
Joe Tedesky , April 18, 2019 at 21:41
This is a must read for the skeptics who doubt any questioning of the official 9/11
Commission Report. This investigative reporting by Max Blumenthal is another good reason to
read the Consortium.
hetro , April 18, 2019 at 17:18
Max Blumenthal's emphasis on "somebody did something" in echo to Ilhan Omar's comments,
plus his emphasis on what has been "suppressed," will hopefully lead on to further
disclosures of what took place for the 9/11 event.
Anyone who watches the Omar video will see she is mainly emphasizing a disgraceful
demonizing of Muslims in general. Additionally, what has brought on all the hatred to her,
she did not speak with the "quasi-theological understanding" that demands the official
narrative, with hushed tones, while speaking of the event:
Max Blumenthal above:
". . . by reinforcing the quasi-theological understanding of 9/11 that leaves anti-Muslim
narratives unchallenged. "The memory of 9/11 is sacred ground, and any discussion of it must
be done with reverence," insisted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
It would be a fine thing for CN, despite Mr. Parry's former reservations, to open up
enquiry into further discussion of what has been "suppressed"–or at the very least to
the very serious questions that have not yet been answered on that horrible day.
OlyaPola , April 18, 2019 at 14:17
"Trump's demagogic ploy with the freshman lawmaker raises the more serious question of who
and what led to the "Day of Planes," writes Max Blumenthal."
All processes of suppression tend to spread that which is being suppresed facilitating
de-suppression of much that is being suppressed leaving a residual.
Framing and access to sources may continue the lack of perception of this residual and
hence facilitate misrepresentation through ommission.
"Back in 1979, some people initiated a multi-billion-dollar covert operation to trap the
Red Army in Afghanistan and bleed the Soviet Union at its soft underbelly."
Restriction of frame is a tool of obfuscation and choice of point of initiation a tool of
misrepresentation.
During the early 1970's due to internal factors primarily but not wholly in the period of
1964 to 1970, the Politburo of the Soviet Union agreed detente on the bases of spheres of
influence with the United States of America facilitating the creation of a greater assay of
and reliance upon the US dollar fiat currency, further butressed by commodity arrangements
including but not restricted to the petro-dollar, in part to underpin the United States of
America economic recovery including recovering their control over their perceived threats
within their sphere of influence, particularly but not exclusively Japan.
In reaction/attempt at circumvention in 1973 Mitsui-Mitsubishi representing the zaibatsu
sought to jointly develop the Trans-Siberian railway, the port of Nahodka and other
industrial options including in Japan primarily in Northern Honshu and in Hokkaido with the
Soviet Union but this project was terminated by the Politburo, the reason given being
potential threats from China after confrontation including on the Amur and the need to build
BAM (Baikal-Amur Railway) to the north of the Trans-Siberian Railway – the projects
rejected were ancestor of the present OBOR project with differing participants re-explored
from 1993 onwards.
These opportunities and trajectories in the 1970's were explained to the Politburo in the
1970's but rejected by the Politburo.
The Soviet Union was invited into Afghanistan by the Afghani government and hence never
"invaded" Afghanistan.
The Politburo accepted the invitation of the Afghani government despite the advice of
those practiced in strategic evaluation – the illusion that the Politburo was practiced
in strategic evaluation endured in an ideological half-life post August 1968 but increasingly
was ignored in practice.
During the 1970's there was an oscillating aspect of contrariness and attempt to regain
perceived control in many of the decision of the Politburo led by the man who loved medals
and awards Mr. Brezhnev.
Consequently the Politburo and the Soviet Union was complicit in facilitating
opportunities for " Back in 1979, some people initiated a multi-billion-dollar covert
operation to trap the Red Army in Afghanistan and bleed the Soviet Union at its soft
underbelly."
However the targets of these operations were not restricted to the Soviet Union but
included as part of an ongoing "strategy" "to underpin the United States of America economic
recovery/maintainence including recovering/maintaining their control over their perceived
threats within their sphere of influence, particularly but not exclusively Japan." and the
location of these efforts were chosen the middle of Central Asia in reaction to experiences
in Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and Israel post 1973.
The above are necessarily thumbnails in confirmation and extension of the not widely
perceived causation/facilitation/ history/trajectories/time horizons which may aid
perception, as may testing the hypotheses that Ms. Omar is being attacked for challenging
myth irrespective of which myth she attempts to challenge.
Given that Russia's economy today is smaller than Italy's and its military budget wouldn't
buy a toilet seat or hammer in the U.S. military procurement system, the question of why Russia
would seem a great mystery outside of history. And left unstated is that the U.S. defense
industry needs enemies to survive. 'Radical Islam,' an invention of oil and gas industry flacks
that turned out to be serviceable for marketing Tomahawk missiles and stealth fighter jets as
well, lost some of its luster when ISIS and Al Qaeda came over to 'our side.' And humanitarian
intervention ain't what it used to be with Libya reduced to rubble and open-air slave markets
now dotting the landscape.
From 1948 through the early 1990s Russia was Pennywise the evil clown, helping to sell
bananas, nuclear weapons and cut-rate underwear around the globe wherever American empire
alighted. Costumed 'communists,' locals paid a day-rate to dress up and shout whatever slogans
conveyed evil most effectively, were a staple of CIA interventions from Iran to Guatemala to
the streets of New York, Boston and Los Angeles. Never mind that the slayer of monsters is more
monstrous than an army of evil clowns, as the Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians,
Nicaraguans, El Salvadorans, Chileans, Iraqis, Afghanis, Yemenis and on and on, were to
learn.
The big why (?) here would suggest an eternal mystery were it not for the arithmetic we
learned as tykes. The U.S. has an annual military budget that is larger than the next seven
evil empires combined. Killing people and blowing shit up is what America does. Stated
reverse-wise, what is the point of being able to end all human life on earth more than once?
Yet the U.S. can do it 3X -- 5X or 30X -- 50X, depending on which analysis is chosen. And while
it would be anti-historical to remove mal-intent as motive, an alternative explanation of the
militarization of the police is 'overstock,' that there is nothing else to do with the stuff
that the Pentagon produces.
This would seem a tremendous waste of resources under any reasonable theory of their
efficient use (e.g. capitalism). The explanation of 'national defense' reads as legitimate
until history is brought back in. For a few thousand years, the argument against maintaining a
standing army was that standing armies tend to get used. Preparations for armed conflict
facilitate armed conflict. The mobilizations for WWI and WWII were mobilizations, not drawdowns
from existing military inventory. There is something to be said for wars requiring large
expenditures of time, effort and resources from everyone for whom they are undertaken.
Otherwise, they are likely to be started lightly.
The U.S. has long been the most militaristic
nation in the world. This probably doesn't read right to most Americans. 'We' are a
peace-loving nation that only sends in the military as a last resort, goes the myth. And 'we'
changed the name from the Department of War to the Department of Defense. It was early in the
twentieth century that U.S. General Smedley Butler proclaimed that 'war is a racket' (racket =
organized crime) as he described his military career as a ' gangster for capitalism .' The business of war in support
of capitalism had long been a business in its own right, just ask Wall Street.
When the George W. Bush administration created the Department of Homeland Security following
9/11, the obvious question from people who thought about such things was: what are these people
going to do all day? With daily briefings presented to Mr. Bush entitled ' Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.
'before 9/11, the only intelligence failure, if that is what it was, occurred in the White
House. Mr. Bush's entourage had been rumbling about going back to Iraq to 'finish the job'
since the end of his father's war. How much of a leap was it then to assume that Mr. Bush's WMD
scam was a pretext for re-invading Iraq?
But the question isn't rhetorical. With 240,000 people employed by DHS to find terrorists,
terrorists will be found. The basic insight is that justifying one's employment is crucial to
keeping it. In this light, the FBI counter-terrorism unit spent its time since 2001 enticing
poor and desperate people to claim each other as terrorists. The first person to point out that
there are no terrorists would be the first to receive a pink slip. And the same is true of
government contracting. Brave entrepreneurs who feed at the trough of military largesse need to
justify their existences. If they don't, some other proud patriot will step forward and do so.
A logic of necessity becomes a legitimating belief system More broadly, one could argue that
manufacturing terrorists has been the strategic goal of U.S. military operations for much of
the last century. If you bomb enough villages and wedding parties, people will fight back.
Wasn't this the implied storyline of anti-communist agitprop like Red Dawn and anti-Muslim
agitprop like Zero Dark Thirty -- if you invade 'our' country and / or bomb 'our' villages and
wedding parties, we will fight back. As a business proposition, the more people that are
killed, the more legitimate the operation is made to appear. Make the weapons, then employ
hundreds of thousands of people to explain why 'we' need to bomb villages. Then make more
weapons.
Graphic: Time Magazine was the voice of post-War liberalism in the 1970s -- it reflected
the opinions emanating from American officialdom through a faux-critical lens. This cover
featuring Muammar Gaddafi presaged the Obama administration's destruction of Libya by 35 years.
The main difference then was relative honesty about U.S. motives -- 'Oil' was the lede in 1973,
where 'humanitarian' concerns drove the American propaganda effort in 2011. Note: 'Arab' was
replaced by 'Muslim extremist' following the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Source: Time,
Inc.
Propaganda theory is relevant here because of the ease with which the Russiagate story was
sold -- all evidence, no matter how contradictory, was claimed to point in only one direction.
Contrariwise, Russia isn't the Soviet Union. America's political leaders have long supported
strongmen and dictators. The biggest threat to free and fair elections in the U.S. is American
oligarchs followed by Israel. The Democrat running in the 2016 presidential election openly
manipulated the 1996 Russian presidential election. Russia today is a neoliberal petrostate.
Vladimir Putin is admired in Russia because he booted out corrupt American 'advisors' who were
looting the country. In other words, Russia today isn't Russia!
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and ostensible end of the first Cold War, a '
peace dividend ' of
reduced military spending was expected to fund increased domestic spending, the classic 'guns
versus butter' formulation shifted in favor of butter. A drop to pre-WWII levels of military
spending would have meant 95%+ of the military-industrial complex went away. Following a very
brief drop in the rate of growth of military spending in the early 1990s, a recession caused by
the looting of Savings & Loans and its aftermath led to the argument that 'the economy'
couldn't withstand a reduced military. September 11 th , 2001 was the best day ever
for U.S. military contractors. America was back in the business of industrial-scale
slaughter.
Early on, the American defense industry tried a few new enemies on for size. The George W.
Bush administration's WMD scam targeted an audience that had been primed by several decades of
anti-Muslim propaganda (see Time cover above) tied to oil geopolitics. The only WMDs found in
Iraq had come from the Reagan administration in its effort to keep Iraq warring with Iran in
the Iran-Iraq war. Current American amnesia over the genesis of Islamophobia is quaint. The New
York Times has been demonizing
Muslims since the 1970s . It was hardly incidental that 'reporting' on the Iraq war
contained breathless descriptions of newly created instruments of mass slaughter.
However, there were two tacks that propelled the Iraq War forward. Humanitarian intervention
had been the liberal formulation for selling the carpet bombing of civilian populations as in
the interest of those being bombed. The term was used for the aerial bombardment of civilian
populations in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the mid-1990s. And it was the back-up explanation for the
American war against Iraq -- to remove an evil dictator in order to liberate the people of
Iraq. It was also used to justify the U.S. / NATO bombing of Libya in 2011. To the certain
dismay of the defense industry, none of those interventions retained the patina of good
intentions once it became known that the target nations had been functionally destroyed.
Russiagate has been a godsend for those who profit from destruction. As the story goes, the
wily Russian bear, led by an evil dictator and newly trained in the technologies of modernity,
set loose a witch's brew of inter-continental ballistic internet messages to sow dissent
amongst the brothers and sisters of die Vaterland united by their common bond of loving
America. For younger readers, the claim that foreign 'agitation' motivated the Civil Rights and
anti-War movements, and more broadly, the American Left, has been a mainstay of CIA and FBI
propaganda since these agencies were created. Old playbooks are good playbooks?
Those with a sense of humor, if humor includes installing a drunken buffoon to head a
nuclear armed foreign power, might offer that 'Trump' is the English translation of 'Yeltsin.'
In 1996 the American President colluded with people inside the Russian government to overturn
the democratic will of the Russian people to install Boris Yeltsin as President of Russia. Yuk,
yuk -- an unstable jackass was installed to head a foreign government. The 'payback' narrative
no-doubt motivated true belief amongst some American officials after 2016. But alas, as with
bombed villages and wedding parties, unless you just will not stop fucking with other people,
they generally have other things to do than plot revenge.
None of the propagators of the phony WMD stories suffered from passing off state propaganda
as news. The New York Times and Washington Post found themselves on the winning side of the
'fake news' scam to shut down the opposition press. Even Judith Miller, brief heroine of the
free press for being 'stove-piped' by Dick Cheney, went on to a well-paid gig at Fox News,
wrote an autobiography that more than just her immediate family read and now lives as a
'celebrity.' Heroes of the #Resistance like David Corn, Rachel Maddow and Michael Isikoff have
the proceeds from book sales and television appearances to sustain them until their services
are needed to sell the next scam-with-a-purpose.
The economic role of American defense spending will lead to endless iterations of WMD and
Russiagate scams until the Pentagon is shut down. And that's the good part. The wars that these
scams support are the bane of humanity. Their true costs, in terms of lives destroyed, appear
to be meaningless to people living in twenty-room houses who want to live in thirty room
houses. Winding down the warfare state would be less politically fraught if people had
non-murderous ways of paying their bills. But how was this not understood as the warfare state
was being built?
Finally,
apologists for Russiagate claim that it has been nowhere near as dangerous as WMD lies.
Let's see: a cadre of national security officials spent two-and-one-half years claiming that it
has secret evidence that the President of the U.S. colluded with the leader of a foreign
government to assume power and then use his office for the benefit of that foreign leader.
Following, the domestic press claimed that the U.S. 'was under attack' and 'was at war' with
this foreign power. Meanwhile, the U.S. went about arming anti-Russian militias on Russia's
border while unilaterally abrogating a short-and-intermediate range nuclear weapons treaty
after publicly announcing that it was 'modernizing' its stockpile of
short-and-intermediate-range nuclear weapons.
Respectfully, this has all been a tad less than constructive.
Assuming that it is correct, who might be the most likely culprit?
Making that assumption, I want to focus on this part:
The U.S. embassy in Kuwait contacted a contracted private company to send the
package to the U.S. on board of an American airline.
Government is evil. Therefore hiring enough vetted US citizens to run an embassy is to be
avoided if a Private Company can be paid to do the same job. It's been done in the Military.
NASA. National Intelligence has been "privatized". (think Edward Snowden)
What shocked me most from the recent story here about Torturer Gina Haspel lying to Trump
wasn't that she did it. The woman has no scruples at all, and her misbehavior is hardly a
surprise. The NYT piece was just another story about an ignorant old man who can be easily
managed. No, here is the part which jumped out at me.
"Houseflies buzzing around the Oval Office were drawing his attention, and ire.
After reading that I'd be surprised if there is a competent core of White House GOVERNMENT
workers remaining there. Nobody to manage the flying vermin. It took the director of the CIA
to send over some flypaper!
I doubt if the Trumpies could organize a 1-float parade, so the lax security could be
almost anywhere in the chain of events. But my present vote is on a Private Company. It might
be the transport company. If they don't have junior staffers in the Embassy to run simple
missions like delivering a package, they probably don't have an in-house cleaning staff,
either. So they may hire some locals to come in and mop and sweep the joint. Inexpensive
Outsiders.
Trump betrayed anti-war republicans. As the result he lost any support of anti-war
Republicans. That can't be revered as he proved to be a marionette of Israel lobby. How that will
influence outcome of 2020 elections remains to be seen.
"The president has said that he does not want to see this country involved in endless wars .
I agree with that," Bernie Sanders told the Fox News audience at Monday's town hall meeting in
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Then, turning and staring straight into the camera, Bernie added: "Mister President, tonight
you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia
should not be determining the military or foreign policy of this country."
Sanders was talking about a War Powers Act resolution that would have ended U.S. involvement
in the five-year civil war in Yemen that has created one of the great humanitarian crises of
our time, with thousands of dead children amidst an epidemic of cholera and a famine.
Supported by a united Democratic Party on the Hill, and an anti-interventionist faction of
the GOP led by Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed
both houses of Congress.
But 24 hours after Sanders urged him to sign it, Trump, heeding the hawks in his Cabinet and
National Security Council, vetoed S.J.Res.7, calling it a "dangerous attempt to weaken my
constitutional authorities."
With sufficient Republican votes in both houses to sustain Trump's veto, that should have
been the end of the matter.
It is not: Trump may have just ceded the peace issue in 2020 to the Democrats. If Sanders
emerges as the nominee, we will have an election with a Democrat running on the "no-more-wars"
theme Trump touted in 2016. And Trump will be left defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and
civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.
Does Trump really want to go into 2020 as a war party president? Does he want to go into
2020 with Democrats denouncing "Trump's endless wars" in the Middle East? Because that is where
he is headed.
In 2008, John McCain, leading hawk in the Senate, was routed by a left-wing first-term
senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who had won his nomination by defeating the more hawkish
Hillary Clinton, who had voted to authorize the war in Iraq.
In 2012, the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who was far more hawkish than Obama on Russia,
lost.
Yet in 2016, Trump ran as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq war and
an anti-interventionist who wanted to get along with Russia's Vladimir Putin and get out of
these Middle East wars.
Looking closely at the front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination of 2020 -- Joe
Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker --
not one appears to be as hawkish as Trump has become.
Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Secretary of State John
Kerry and re-imposed severe sanctions.
He declared Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, to which
Tehran has responded by declaring U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Ominously, the
IRGC and its trained Shiite militias in Iraq are in close proximity to U.S. troops.
Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the
consulate that dealt with Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized
Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights seized from Syria in 1967, and gone silent on Bibi
Netanyahu's threat to annex Jewish settlements on the West Bank.
Sanders, however, though he stands by Israel, is supporting a two-state solution and
castigating the "right-wing" Netanyahu regime.
Trump has talked of pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Yet the
troops are still there.
Though Trump came into office promising to get along with the Russians, he sent Javelin
anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced a pullout from Ronald Reagan's 1987 INF treaty that
outlawed all land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Venezuela -- ostensibly to repair the
S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged in recent blackouts -- Trump,
drawing a red line, ordered the Russians to "get out."
Biden is expected to announce next week. If the stands he takes on Russia, China, Israel,
and the Middle East are more hawkish than the rest of the field, he will be challenged by the
left wing of his party and by Sanders, who voted "no" on the Iraq war that Biden supported.
The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting towards the Trump position of 2016. And
the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is growing.
And when added to the anti-interventionist and anti-war wing of the Democratic Party on the
Hill, together, they are able, as on the Yemen War Powers resolution, to produce a new
bipartisan majority.
Prediction: by the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the
Democratic Party will have captured the "no more wars" political high ground that candidate
Donald Trump occupied in 2016.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and
read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com.
"... Skripal was just one more effort to tighten sanctions against Putin's allies in the Russian oligarchy and isolate Trump from foreign policy initiatives not approved by the Deep State. ..."
"... The significance of the NY Times story, then, is that, inadvertently it reinforces the reality that in the matter of Russiagate and Trump all roads lead to London, the Tory Establishment, which has been living off US-Russian tensions for seventy years and security agencies doing what the CIA cannot do for itself. ..."
Craig Murray has a piece on this today. There is nothing very new in what he writes but he
sees the significance of this story, which is not about ducks or children or Donald Trump's
personality but a concerted and thorough campaign, carried out largely by British state
actors, to deepen the 'west's' isolation of Russia.
The real story of both the Cold War and the continually recurring propaganda stories about
the "millions" of "victims of communism" is that the Soviet Union was manipulated throughout
its history by capitalist control over the international economy. Like a demonic organist
capitalist governments pulled out all the stops to control the moods and the policies of a
state that the Bolsheviks never did get to rule.
In the end the Politburo gave in and did what the 'west' had always been wanted which is
to hand over the country, lock, stock and population to the cannibals of capital.
The result being what was probably, after the 1930-45 war, the largest kill off of
Russians in modern history: Yeltsin plus Harvard Business School being responsible for many
more deaths than even the intoxicated propagandist Robert Conquest ever dreamed of.
It is that total control over Russia, through the manipulation of its economy, and the
direction of its capitalists, that is behind the long series of sanctions, which are being
added to every day: their purpose is to re-invent Yeltsinism, re-empower the Fifth Column in
the Kremlin, and, in a stroke, re-establish the inevitable and eternal hegemony of the
Washington centered Empire.
In this work the assistance of the 'cousins'in MI6 and GCHQ, plus the entire British
military establishment has been crucial in a period in which the subservience of POTUS to the
Deep State was, thanks to the underestimation of his electoral chances, very much in
question. During a period in which Trump had to be tamed and brought under control the UK
Establishment's assistance in coming up with a series of highly publicised interventions was
crucia l.
Lysias points out that Haspel had acted as the CIA's Head of Station in London in 2016. It
was in London that the entire "Russiagate" nonsense was put together, with British based
actors continually prodding Congress, the media and the Democrats to act on revelations
regarding Papadopolous, Mifsud, Stefan Halper.
Skripal was just one more effort to
tighten sanctions against Putin's allies in the Russian oligarchy and isolate Trump from
foreign policy initiatives not approved by the Deep State.The significance of the
NY Times story, then, is that, inadvertently it reinforces the reality that in the matter of
Russiagate and Trump all roads lead to London, the Tory Establishment, which has been living
off US-Russian tensions for seventy years and security agencies doing what the CIA cannot do
for itself.
The Saker: What will happen once Nord Stream II is finished? Where is Europe heading
next, especially in its relationship with the USA and Russia?
Dmitry Orlov: The new pipelines under the Baltic and the Black Sea will be completed, along
with the second LNG installation at Sabetta, and Russia will go on supplying natural gas to
Europe and Asia. I suspect that the fracking extravaganza in the US is entering its end game
and that the dream of large-scale LNG exports to Europe will never materialize.
The nations of Europe will gradually realize that its relationship with Russia is mostly
beneficial while its relationship with the US is mostly harmful, and will make certain
adjustments. The Ukraine, its natural gas pipeline system decrepit and beyond repair, will
continue to import natural gas from Europe, only now the methane molecules will actually flow
to it from the west rather from the east.
Way to brave predictions, I think... I think he grossly underestimates
durability of neoliberal state like the USA. May be in 20 years the USA will really start
experiencing huge problems like he described due to the end of cheap oil". But before that only
huge exogenous shock can crash such a society.
Notable quotes:
"... It will be interesting to see how public and government workers, as a group, react to the realization that the retirements they have been promised no longer exist; perhaps that will tip the entire system into a defunct state. ..."
"... And so, Trump or no Trump, we are going to have more of the same: shiny young IT specialists skipping and whistling on the way to work past piles of human near-corpses and their excrement; Botoxed housewives shopping for fake organic produce while hungry people in the back of the store are digging around in dumpsters ..."
"... well-to-do older couples dreaming of bugging out to some tropical gringo compound in a mangrove swamp where they would be chopped up with machetes and fed to the fish; and all of them believing that things are great because the stock market is doing so well. ..."
"... But he simply does not understand the USA. He’s been predicting collapse for some time and it has not occurred or come close to happening. Washington is filled with smart kleptocrats who understand they cannot afford to destroy the country that keeps on giving them the wealth and power they crave. Trump, can flounce around Washington and the rest of the country and do and say outrageous things and it has no effect on life whatsoever. ..."
"... While, on the surface, people support ideas like higher minimum wage, universal health-care and other aspects of social democracy, it their masters say “no” then they’ll forgo it and take pride in their ability to endure suffering, early death, their children on heroin or meth, and so on. ..."
"... Since I’m fairly “connected” to the lower/working class and its struggles in my part of the world I can assure you people almost enjoy suffering to a degree that foreigners easily miss and seldom ascribe it to the thieves and criminals who run our society. ..."
"... Will there be a civil war in the US, like in the 1861-1865 period ? No, I don’t think so. Will there be severe social disturbances ? Yes, these I do expect, leading to the break up of the US. The only part of the US which probably will emerge as a cohesive force will be the old South, Dixie land, which has history and tradition behind it. The US has been kicking the financial can down the road for a long time. This cannot last for ever. ..."
"... with people like Siluanov and Nabiullina in charge of the nation’s money, I am not optimistic… ..."
"... The acceleration of economic collapse in the West will be likely bring (overt) fascism and war–world war. ..."
"... In particular, the AngloNazi sorry Anglosphere nations (Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and of course America) are a clear and present threat that should not be underestimated, discounted, or spin-doctored away. ..."
"... But the Anglos studiously avoid facing the reality that their precious way of life, capitalist system, and Anglo-American world order itself are premised upon their own ruthless exploitation of the Global South and developing nations in general. ..."
"... Trump and the MAGA hordes, as well as similar xenophobic and nationalist movements throughout the Anglosphere and Europe, are only a precursor to what is coming. They represent the grievances of the lower-middle classes within the Anglo American Empire and Europe who want a greater cut of the economic loot of empire for themselves–which necessitates an even more aggressive and militaristic grab for global resources, markets, and geopolitical power. ..."
"... He’s way too negative on the USA’s domestic prospects. Despite its absurdities, the US system is fundamentally robust and unlikely to suffer any major, sudden collapse, at least for many decades. It will certain decline further, plumbing the depths of depravity more than it has to date, but the system will chug along. The US has vacuumed up talent from all over the world, bolstering it’s economic capacity and the rents extracted by oligo. It’s day to day institutions, such as courts, post offices and the like function better now than they did in the 80s or 90s. ..."
"... All the incentives are there to keep the thing together, with little real risk of some sort of succession movement or serious insurrection. The main advantages the US has on this score are it’s mass surveillance system, policing infrastructure and media. The US media can make the great bulk of the people believe absolutely anything, if given enough time. ..."
The Saker: You recently wrote an article titled " Is the USS
Ship of Fools Taking on Water? " in which you discuss the high level of stupidity in
modern US politics? I have a simple question for you: do you think the Empire can survive Trump
and, if so, for how long?
Dmitry Orlov: I think that the American empire is very much over already, but it hasn't been
put to any sort of serious stress test yet, and so nobody realizes that this is the case. Some
event will come along which will leave the power center utterly humiliated and unable to
countenance this humiliation and make adjustments. Things will go downhill from there as
everyone in government in media does their best to pretend that the problem doesn't exist. My
hope is that the US military personnel currently scattered throughout the planet will not be
simply abandoned once the money runs out, but I wouldn't be too surprised if that is what
happens.
The Saker: Lastly, a similar but fundamentally different question: can the USA (as
opposed to the Empire) survive Trump and, if so, how? Will there be a civil war? A military
coup? Insurrection? Strikes? A US version of the Yellow Vests?
Dmitry Orlov: The USA, as some set of institutions that serves the interests of some
dwindling number of people, is likely to continue functioning for quite some time. The question
is: who is going to be included and who isn't? There is little doubt that retirees, as a
category, have nothing to look forward to from the USA: their retirements, whether public or
private, have already been spent. There is little doubt that young people, who have already
been bled dry by poor job prospects and ridiculous student loans, have nothing to look forward
to either.
But, as I've said before, the USA isn't so much a country as a country club. Membership has
its privileges, and members don't care at all what life is like for those who are in the
country but aren't members of the club. The recent initiatives to let everyone in and to let
non-citizens vote amply demonstrates that US citizenship, by itself, counts for absolutely
nothing. The only birthright of a US citizen is to live as a bum on the street, surrounded by
other bums, many of them foreigners from what Trump has termed "shithole countries."
It
will be interesting to see how public and government workers, as a group, react to the
realization that the retirements they have been promised no longer exist; perhaps that will tip
the entire system into a defunct state.
And once the fracking bubble is over and another third of the population finds that it can
no longer afford to drive, that might force through some sort of reset as well. But then the
entire system of militarized police is designed to crush any sort of rebellion, and most people
know that. Given the choice between certain death and just sitting on the sidewalk doing drugs,
most people will choose the latter.
And so, Trump or no Trump, we are going to have more of the same: shiny young IT specialists
skipping and whistling on the way to work past piles of human near-corpses and their excrement;
Botoxed housewives shopping for fake organic produce while hungry people in the back of the
store are digging around in dumpsters; concerned citizens demanding that migrants be allowed
in, then calling the cops as soon as these migrants set up tents on their front lawn or ring
their doorbell and ask to use the bathroom; well-to-do older couples dreaming of bugging out to
some tropical gringo compound in a mangrove swamp where they would be chopped up with machetes
and fed to the fish; and all of them believing that things are great because the stock market
is doing so well.
At this rate, when the end of the USA finally arrives, most of the people won't be in a
position to notice while the rest won't be capable of absorbing that sort of upsetting
information and will choose to ignore it. Everybody wants to know how the story ends, but that
sort of information probably isn't good for anyone's sanity. The mental climate in the US is
already sick enough; why should we want to make it even sicker?
I love Orlov’s wit and general cynical attitude as it mirrors mine (perhaps not the
wit). I think he seems to understand the Ukraine and Russia relatively well though I’m
not in a position to question him on that but I do know something about the politics of
NATO/EU/USA and their intentions and that Orlov gets.
But he simply does not understand the USA. He’s been predicting collapse for some
time and it has not occurred or come close to happening. Washington is filled with smart
kleptocrats who understand they cannot afford to destroy the country that keeps on giving
them the wealth and power they crave. Trump, can flounce around Washington and the rest of
the country and do and say outrageous things and it has no effect on life whatsoever.
If
anything the economy actually is “better” not as good as the cooked statistics
indicate but things have improved for people I know in that area. Americans, despite the
obvious propaganda nature of the media still are true-believers in the official Narrative
because meaning and myth always trumps reality.
While, on the surface, people support ideas
like higher minimum wage, universal health-care and other aspects of social democracy, it
their masters say “no” then they’ll forgo it and take pride in their
ability to endure suffering, early death, their children on heroin or meth, and so on.
Since
I’m fairly “connected” to the lower/working class and its struggles in my
part of the world I can assure you people almost enjoy suffering to a degree that foreigners
easily miss and seldom ascribe it to the thieves and criminals who run our society. Americans
strut around but feel powerless and don’t have a plan or think they can have a plan
because they lack the conceptual frameworks to understand that their leadership is thoroughly
rotten.
Having said that, I agree with Auslander, Americans don’t need the central
government and would do better, initially, in a highly chaotic situation and establish their
own order in their communities and rig up a new set of arrangements very quickly.
In some
ways the fall of Washington would be the best thing to ever happen in my country.
I am afraid you are wrong. Orlov does understand the US, just like I do, as I have lived
in the US. Yes, Orlov has been predicting the collapse of the US, and it will happen. I would
like to direct your attention to the following video (the second part is very
interesting):
Will there be a civil war in the US, like in the 1861-1865 period ? No, I don’t
think so. Will there be severe social disturbances ? Yes, these I do expect, leading to the
break up of the US. The only part of the US which probably will emerge as a cohesive force
will be the old South, Dixie land, which has history and tradition behind it. The US has been
kicking the financial can down the road for a long time. This cannot last for ever.
“The only part of the US which probably will emerge as a cohesive force will be the old
South, Dixie land, which has history and tradition behind it. ”
Maybe, but actually I would say most regions of the USA have some kind of “old
tradition” —and a lot nicer ones than that of the old racist South. I’ll
take New England and the Maritimes any day over the steamy South where the kudzu creeps over
I mean *everything*, the snakes proliferate, and you can’t survive the summer without
AC 24/7.
Well…I just started in on this piece and already I have a major
beef…Orlov’s notion that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was good for
Russia…
China was [and arguably still is] an empire of diverse regions, ethnicities and
religions…but how is that holding China back today, or during previous centuries of
imperial glory…?
Clearly China doesn’t fit into Orlov’s idea of an empire as a ‘wealth
pump’ that sucks from the periphery to enrich the center…this is true of course
of exploitation-based imperial projects such as western colonialism…but is clearly not
applicable to the Chinese model, which has been both the biggest and most durable empire in
human history…so that is a big hole in Orlov’s ‘theory’…
It is true that the USSR was a fundamentally different kind of empire from the
exploitative western colonialism…and it is also true that it ultimately did not
succeed…although it managed to accomplish almost incomprehensible progress in
modernization, science and technology…and industrialization…the foundations of
Russian strength today rest squarely on the foundations put in place during the Stalin
era…
Elsewhere on this site there is a brilliant series of essays by Ramin Mazaheri about the
tumultuous cultural revolution of the 1960s…and why it was necessary…Russia
also needed a cultural revolution around this time…the system needed to be rejigged to
better serve the people…in living standard…fairness and
justice…opportunity for social advance…etc…
But it never happened…instead the system became more sclerotic than ever…and
the welfare of the people stagnated…at the very moment in time when the capitalist
west, especially the United States, was able to reign in the appetites of its parasite class
and provide the people with a decent share of its [largely ill-gotten, by means of global
finance colonialism] gains…[during the postwar decades, the share of national wealth
of the 0.1 percent fell to an all time low of about 7 percent…about a quarter of
historic, and current levels]…
This was the golden age in the US…well paying jobs in industry were plentiful and
the company president made perhaps ten times what the shop floor worker took home…a
second household income was completely unnecessary…university education at state
colleges was practically free…
The life of the Soviet citizen in the1960s was not too far behind…Stalin’s
five year plans in the1930s had created an industrial powerhouse…it was Russia’s
ability to produce that allowed it to prevail over Germany in the existential war…and
despite the devastation of the people, cities and countryside Russia was able to quickly
become a technological superpower…as an aerospace engineer I have a deep appreciation
of the depth and breadth of Russian technical achievements and the basic scientific advances
that made that possible…the US was laughably left in the dust, despite having skimmed
the cream of Nazi Germany’s technical scientific talent…and contrary to what US
propaganda would have the people believe…
... ... ...
Of course the massive Chinese empire has been adapting like this for centuries, if not
millennia…Russia with the Soviet Union only needed to make similar smart
adjustments…instead they threw out the baby with the bathwater…let’s see
where Russia goes from here, but with people like Siluanov and Nabiullina in charge of the
nation’s money, I am not optimistic…
But back to Orlov…let’s see where he goes after starting off very clumsily.
.
The acceleration of economic collapse in the West will be likely bring (overt) fascism and
war–world war.
In particular, the AngloNazi sorry Anglosphere nations (Britain, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, and of course America) are a clear and present threat that should not be
underestimated, discounted, or spin-doctored away.
As collapse intensifies, these Anglo American entities led by the USA will surely lash out
in even more aggressive wars to maintain their unipolar world order that they have ruled over
since the fall of the Soviet Union. The use of tactical nuclear weapons, bio-warfare, and
other "exotic" weapons should not be ruled out.
At base, the Anglo Americans possess an inbred sense of economic entitlement. They whine
like snowflakes about the foreign outsourcing of jobs or "illegal immigrants stealing our
jobs" as a chauvinistic demand for a greater share of the economic spoils of imperialism.
But the Anglos studiously avoid facing the reality that their precious way of life,
capitalist system, and Anglo-American world order itself are premised upon their own ruthless exploitation of the Global
South and developing nations in general.
And God forbid that the Anglos lose their parasitic way of life and (horror) are compelled
to live like the vast majority of humanity in the developing world from Africa to Asia to
Latin America to the Middle East.
The disaffected middle classes and labor aristocracy of the Anglosphere will comprise the
grassroots basis for 21st-century fascism, similar to how these socio-economic classes were
the grassroots support for the German Third Reich or Mussolini's Italy in the 1930s-40s.
Trump and the MAGA hordes, as well as similar xenophobic and nationalist movements
throughout the Anglosphere and Europe, are only a precursor to what is coming. They represent
the grievances of the lower-middle classes within the Anglo American Empire and Europe who
want a greater cut of the economic loot of empire for themselves–which necessitates an
even more aggressive and militaristic grab for global resources, markets, and geopolitical
power.
As Martin Lee has put it, the Beast reawakens.
Boswald Bollocksworth on April 17, 2019 · at 9:37 pm EST/EDT
He’s way too negative on the USA’s domestic prospects. Despite its absurdities, the US system is fundamentally robust
and unlikely to suffer any major, sudden collapse, at least for many decades. It will certain decline further, plumbing the
depths of depravity more than it has to date, but the system will chug along. The US has vacuumed up talent from all over the
world, bolstering it’s economic capacity and the rents extracted by oligo. It’s day to day institutions, such as courts, post
offices and the like function better now than they did in the 80s or 90s.
All the incentives are there to keep the thing together, with little real risk of some sort of succession movement or
serious insurrection. The main advantages the US has on this score are it’s mass surveillance system, policing infrastructure
and media. The US media can make the great bulk of the people believe absolutely anything, if given enough time.
The US capacity to meddle overseas will wither, after all how well can a submarine filled with drag queens and single
mothers operate? And who’d be willing to endure shelling for a monstrosity like contemporary America?
But the domestic system is brilliantly designed, not going anywhere.
"... Haspel is not the "underling" . Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy. ..."
"... In the real organization chart for the empire the CIA is above the President. This has been the case in the US since Kennedy. ..."
"... Trump will not fire Haspel. He can't. He's just an actor playing a role in a show, and Haspel is one of the producers/writers of that show. If she doesn't put firing in the script then Trump cannot say those lines. I doubt he really wants to anyway. ..."
"If Trump were not in on the schemes he would just fire his underlings!"
This sentiment indicates a failure to understand the power dynamics at play here. Haspel
is not the "underling" . Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an
oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to
serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy.
In the real organization chart for the empire the CIA is above the President.
This has been the case in the US since Kennedy.
Trump cannot fire Haspel or Pompeo. They can fire him, though, and with a sniper's bullet
if they want.
Unfortunately for the oligarchy, that would cause additional complications at a time when
they have lots of tricky and inexplicably unstable (for them) operations ongoing, which is
why they are just steering Trump around instead of replacing him. And Trump is willfully
cooperating, even if they are not filling him in on the plans.
Trump will not fire Haspel. He can't. He's just an actor playing a role in a show, and
Haspel is one of the producers/writers of that show. If she doesn't put firing in the script
then Trump cannot say those lines. I doubt he really wants to anyway.
Intelligence agencies, once created, has their own development dynamics and tend to escape from the control of
civilians and in turn control them. Such an interesting dynamics. In any case, the intelligence agencies and first of all top
brass of those agencies constitute the the core of the "deep state". Unlike civiliant emplorres they are protected by the veil of
secrecy and has access to large funds. Bush the elder was probably the first deep state creature who became the president of the
USA, but "special relationship" of Obama and Brennan is also not a secret.
Another problem is that secrecy and access to surveillance, Which gives intelligence agencies the ability to blackmail politicians.
Availability of unaccounted financial
resources make them real kingmakers. In a sense, as soon as such agencies were created the tail started waging the dog.
Notable quotes:
"... Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry Truman (1943-53) reportedly characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five decades – as the nation's top law enforcer? ..."
"... One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb. ..."
"... JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ. Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ into the White House. ..."
"... However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald – a cover-up that persists to this day. ..."
"... But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career. ..."
"... Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others ..."
No other individual in modern US history has a more sinister legacy than John Edgar Hoover,
the founder and lifetime director of the FBI. He founded the bureau in 1924 and was its
director until his death in 1972 at the age of 77.
Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned
into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry
Truman (1943-53) reportedly
characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five
decades – as the nation's top law enforcer?
J Edgar Hoover and his henchmen kept files on thousands of politicians, judges, journalists
and other public figures, according to
biographer Anthony Summers. Hoover ruthlessly used those files on the secret and often sordid
private lives of senior public figures to control their career conduct and official decisions
so as to serve his interests.
And Hoover's interests were of a rightwing, anti-communist, racist bigot.
Ironically, his own suppressed homosexuality also manifested in witch-hunts against
homosexuals in public life.
It was Hoover's secret files that largely informed the McCarthyite anti-communist
inquisitions of the 1950s, whose baleful legacy on American democracy, foreign policy and
freedom of expression continues to this day.
One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots
of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is
suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual
tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb.
Absurdly, the FBI chief maintained that there was "no such thing as the Mafia" in public
statements.
Two notorious cases of how FBI wiretapping worked under Hoover can be seen in the
presidencies of John F Kennedy (1961-63) and Richard Nixon (1969-74).
As recounted by Laurent Guyénot in his 2013 book , 'JFK to 9/11: 50
Years of Deep State', Hoover made a point of letting each new president know of compromising
information he had on them. It wouldn't be brandished overtly as blackmail; the president would
be briefed subtly, "Sir, if someone were to have copies of this it would be damaging to your
career". Enough said.
JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and
extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once
confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made
the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ.
Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ
into the White House.
However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly
anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy
pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt
led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample
evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep
State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald –
a cover-up that persists to this day.
As for Richard Nixon, it is believed that "Tricky Dicky" engaged in secret communications
with the US-backed South Vietnamese regime on the cusp of the presidential elections in 1968.
Nixon promised the South Vietnamese stronger military support if they held off entering peace
talks with communist North Vietnam, which incumbent President Johnson was trying to organize.
LBJ wanted to claim a peace process was underway in order to boost the election chances of his
vice president Hubert Humphrey.
Nixon's scheming prevailed. The Vietnam peace gambit was scuttled, the Vietnam war raged on,
and so the Democrat candidate lost. Nixon finally got into the White House, which he had long
coveted from the time he lost out to JFK back in 1960.
But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was
classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is
possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating
in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career.
These are but only two examples of how Deep State politics works in controlling and
subverting American democracy. The notion that lawmakers and presidents are free to serve the
people is a quaintly naive one. For the US media to pretend otherwise, and to hail the FBI as
some kind of benign bastion of justice, while also deprecating claims of "Deep State" intrusion
as "conspiracy theory", is either impossibly ignorant of history – or a sign of the
media's own compromised complicity.
Nonetheless, to blame this culture of institutionalized blackmail and corruption on one
individual – J Edgar Hoover – is not fair either.
Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not
alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not
just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the
Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others.
Once formed, the Deep State – as an alternate, unaccountable, unelected government
– does not surrender its immense power willingly. It has learnt to hold on to its power
through blackmail, media control, incitement of wars, and, even ultimately, assassination of
American dissenters.
The illegal tapping of private communications is an oxygen supply for the depredations of
the American Deep State.
Thinking that such agencies are not actively warping and working the electoral system to fix
the figurehead in the White House is a dangerous delusion.
So too are claims that American democracy is being "influenced" by malign Russian enemies,
as the US intelligence chiefs once again
chorused in front of the Senate this past week. The consummate irony of it!
The real "influence campaigns" corrupting American democracy are those of the "All-American"
agencies who claim to be law enforcers and defenders of national security.
US citizens would do well to refresh on the untold history of their country to appreciate
how they are being manipulated.
We might even surmise that a good number of citizens are already aware, if only vaguely, of
the elite corruption – and that is why Washington DC is viewed with increasing contempt
by the people.
"... That fact is a very sad and disturbing commentary on what America is or has become. Tolerating torture and excusing such an activity in the name of national security is the same justification that Stalin and Castro employed to punish dissidents. ..."
"... Let me be clear about my position. If Gina was in fact the Chief of Base and oversaw the application of the waterboarding and other inhuman treatment then she lacks the moral authority to head the CIA. Unfortunately, the United States has a long history of overlooking human rights violations and war crimes. ..."
"... Students of WW II will recall that US military intelligence recruited and protect Klaus Barbie, the Butcher of Lyon, as an asset after the war. He murdered Jews and sent others to Auschwitz. He should have been hung. Instead, we turned a blind eye and gave him a paycheck. ..."
"... I've read that she enjoyed torture and mocked a prisoner who was drooling by accused him of faking it. I never knew anything about her sexual orientation but now I have to consider if she's so cruel because she hates men. ..."
"... Yes, waterboarding is torture. We considered it so egregious that we prosecuted Japanese military officers after WWII for using it on POWs. ..."
"... just reinforces the feeling that those at the upper echelons are completely out of touch or alternatively are just lying/posturing to present themselves in a better light. ..."
"... A torturer is a torturer, no matter how one try to glaze it, or sugar coat it. If one is against torture, or the fancy name for it EIT, one should come out and say it like it is. This lady is accused of torturing captives ( enemy combatant) that can't and will not go away unless she come clean. ..."
Before Gina became the Chief of Staff for Rodriguez, what role did she play in the waterboarding of two AQ operatives in Thailand?
It appears that she was at least witting of what was going on. Did she have the authority to decide what measures to apply to the
two? Did she make such decisions?
Those are facts still to be determined. I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. But there are others who I respect
that are adamant in opposing her nomination. The only thing I know for sure is that her nomination will be a bloody and divisive
political battle. If it comes down to embracing waterboarding as an appropriate method to use on suspected terrorists, then a majority
of Americans are supportive of that practice and will cheer the appointment of Haspel.
That fact is a very sad and disturbing commentary
on what America is or has become. Tolerating torture and excusing such an activity in the name of national security is the same justification
that Stalin and Castro employed to punish dissidents. It is true that one man's terrorist is another woman's freedom fighter.
Let me be clear about my position. If Gina was in fact the Chief of Base and oversaw the application of the waterboarding
and other inhuman treatment then she lacks the moral authority to head the CIA. Unfortunately, the United States has a long history
of overlooking human rights violations and war crimes.
Students of WW II will recall that US military intelligence recruited and protect Klaus Barbie, the Butcher of Lyon,
as an asset after the war. He murdered Jews and sent others to Auschwitz. He should have been hung. Instead, we turned a blind eye
and gave him a paycheck.
I've read that she enjoyed torture and mocked a prisoner who was drooling by accused him of faking it. I never knew anything about her sexual orientation but now I have to consider if she's so cruel because she hates men.
IIRC, Haspel was the chief of staff to whom Rodriguez refers. That does not sound like a bit player. Would you say that Kelly
is a bit player in the Trump admin? As you say, we should know the facts, but so far it looks like she both participated in torture
and in its cover-up.
With all the crap going on at the FBI, the last thing we need now is a divisive candidate for any top level government position
(torture advocacy is divisive for many of us).
A woman, a lesbian, who cares as long as they are a capable and decent law-abiding
individual.
Yes, waterboarding is torture. We considered it so egregious that we prosecuted Japanese military officers after WWII for using
it on POWs.
And where do you get "admitted" terrorists from? In America, even with suspected terrorists, there is the principle
of innocent until proven guilty. At least we once believed in that standard.
And I very much respect you for your position on this (it is this American's view as well).
What amazes me (and yet doesn't) is the example of Rodriguez's supposed introspection "How bad could this be?" Really?!? That
just strikes me as not having any feel for the media, US citizenry, or even common sense, and just reinforces the feeling that
those at the upper echelons are completely out of touch or alternatively are just lying/posturing to present themselves in a better
light.
PT -- Thank you. Much to consider in these times. I come down on the "no torture and waterboarding is torture" side of the debate
but am also just eager for some competence and professional experience in key positions.
That these positions may be mutually
exclusive says a great deal about our current situation. Again, thank you, for your opinions and information.
A torturer is a torturer, no matter how one try to glaze it, or sugar coat it. If one is against torture, or the fancy name for
it EIT, one should come out and say it like it is. This lady is accused of torturing captives ( enemy combatant) that can't and
will not go away unless she come clean.
At the end of the day that don't matter, since as a policy, and base on your own statement,
this country's government will prosecut and punish for liking of torture but not torture and tortures. And, furthermore, is not
even willing to do away with it, per it's elected president. Trying to show a clean, moral, democracy on the hilltop image, is
a BS and a joke.
Yeah, my eyes almost popped out of my head as I read it in the news. Direct brazen
manipulation of your boss, who happens to be a commander in chief of a nuclear power. And
no, I don't hear any howls about treason and conspiracy from across the pond.
"Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied".
This would indicate, if true, that the Brits desired to manipulate and used the CIA here
mainly as conduit to influence Trump. It would make more sense, historically as well,
interpreting causality and motive this way.
"... The idea that Trump was kidded along in this way with photos of suffering children is similar to that which allegedly persuaded him to bomb Syria (along with the UK and France) after the more recent also alleged Douma chemical weapons attacks. So who actually was telling him porkies and why or is this just another myth to prove Trump's crassness – in which case there is no need to make anything up. ..."
"... Trump doesn't give a toss about suffering children or suffering anyone else, so it's not likely that he was persuaded by the kind of argument that runs from injured children to the need for US diplomatic action. ..."
"... Trump forgets he lies in minutes. He'd not heard about Julian Assange? If I was reporter I would have played him his words from my laptop and ask: Mr President is this you or a fake President? ..."
"... Actually he is a fake President as most US Presidents are. The man's a dunce. I thought after George W Bush US Presidents couldn't get any worse but know history hits us up the backside with a banjo yet again. ..."
I took note when I read that on the Guardian website late last night. What struck me was
the treatment of the statement as if it could be true, but in more than one way.
The idea that Trump was kidded along in this way with photos of suffering children is
similar to that which allegedly persuaded him to bomb Syria (along with the UK and France)
after the more recent also alleged Douma chemical weapons attacks. So who actually was
telling him porkies and why or is this just another myth to prove Trump's crassness –
in which case there is no need to make anything up.
Even if the story is true, the article accepts it as fact and in no way qualifies it,
which is just plain misrepresentation as Craig points out.
The reference to the two Russian operatives at that time is certainly a give away one way
and another – but nothing in the article to highlight that inconsistency.
Strange timing too for the appearance of the article too. No doubt there will be a
response from the Russian Embassy.
Trump brings together stupidity, narcissistic mental illness and obnoxiousness such that
when an official has to deal with him their attitude must surely be to tell the moron
whatever gets him to do what they want as soon as possible, so they don't have to spend any
more time than necessary in a room with him.
He lies all the time – the guy can't stop
lying – nobody wants to spend time with a person like that – even his wife can't
stand the sight of him – and it doesn't matter what it is that you tell him or show
him.
Trump doesn't give a toss about suffering children or suffering anyone else, so it's not
likely that he was persuaded by the kind of argument that runs from injured children to the
need for US diplomatic action.
The question is who was behind the anti-Russian side of the
Skripal story and why. Not much progress will be made without looking at the British
defence review and the huge increase in military spending that warfare interests have
moved Gavin Williamson's lips to call for.
"(E)xtremely clear CCTV footage of the duck feeding"? So there are fixed cameras watching
where the ducks swim in Queen Elizabeth's Park in Salisbury, are there? Because I haven't
been able to find even some lamp posts they might be secured to. (
Some images .) Which is not to say the Skripals weren't photographed. And how's the
Nikolai Glushkov inquest going?
Trump forgets he lies in minutes. He'd not heard about Julian Assange? If I was reporter I would have played him his words from my laptop and ask: Mr President
is this you or a fake President?
Actually he is a fake President as most US Presidents are. The man's a dunce. I thought after George W Bush US Presidents couldn't get any worse but know history hits
us up the backside with a banjo yet again.
Simple really: Show the video of the Skripal actively feeding the ducks – blank the
kids faces and we'll be able to see them in all of their pre poisoned glory.
All this has been done before by the MS – The London Bridge attackers – 7/7
and so on.
So why not show the video? Because it shows something(s) which they want to hide. I have my views as to why, as do others but once you start lying you have to develop a
good memory and ' British Intelligence ' is a misnomer.
Let us not for one moment forget: Yulia musty be alive somewhere. I reckon they did in
Sergei – serve him right for being a double (or triple) agent – but Yulia must
still be around. She TOLD US in her video she was fine and getting better.
Thank god for Craig Murray and the Off-Guardian, they have preserved our sanity over this mad
story, this maddest of British Intel cockups.
@Nicholas – I'd advise delaying the conclusion that it was a cockup, except in the
sense that in most military and intelligence operations something cocks up –
until we hear what happens with British military spending plans.
Someone said to me on Twitter that confirmation of Novichock was from a Mass Spec of the
nerve agent bound to some enzyme (probably acetyl cholinesterase). Is this really the
official line? If so it's rubbish. Whoever made such a claim was clearly no chemist. Acetyl
Cholinesterase weighs about 66700 Daltons and the nerve agent weighed, say between 200 and
400 daltons. Firstly a mass spectrum of the protein would be that of the protein plus or
minus anything upto about 300 water molecules Which makes the mass (69400 +/- 2700) and a
multitude of other possible ions or other factors bound to it. The error in the mass of the
protein clearly exceeds the mass of the nerve agent. Given that, because of the blinding
uncertainties as to what species are actually hitting the detector in the mass spectrometer,
no-one anywhere attempts to study ligands bound to proteins by mass spec and certainly not
one of this size, why would they do it in this case?
The CIA Director tells outright lies to her boss, who as a result approves a stern
national rebuke.
In a cartoon version of life where Dick Dastardly gets to be an intelligence supremo, and
a total dummy gets to be President, this would be highly likely. Needless to say, to believe
such a scenario would exist in the real world requires a massive suspension of logic.
More likely there's something coming down the track that requires Haspel, and or the CIA,
to be discredited prior to its becoming visible to the public ?
What could possibly be coming down the track that isn't comparable to what we already know
about Haspel and the CIA though?
If you can straight faced maintain support for an admitted and documented human rights
abuser who heads a non accountable government spy agency that has been extra judicially
torturing, assassinating and over throwing any who stands in its way for 70 years; what on
earth could be about to come out that's suddenly going to convince our bought and paid for
media, and by extension the general public, that these monsters have been discredited?
UK spooks are switching to damage limitation mode, with the help of the Deborah Haynes of
Sky and II:
"Update: UK security sources say they're unaware of children hospitalised because of
#novichok or wildlife killed in #Skripal attack. May have been a photo of a dead swan though
not evidence swan was killed by #Novichok. If that's true, I wonder what these images used by
CIA were! "
"... I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation. Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. ..."
"... Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of Power. ..."
"... American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy." ..."
"... Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities: Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious. ..."
"... There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government. ..."
"... If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!" ..."
"... I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them. ..."
"... She was put in charge there not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect. ..."
"... furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states " For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition? ..."
"... Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be considered in the contexts of these words. ..."
Nothing will say more about who we are, across three American administrations -- one that demanded torture, one that covered it
up, and one that seeks to promote its bloody participants -- than whether Gina Haspel becomes director of the CIA.
Haspel oversaw the
torture of human beings in Thailand as the chief of a CIA black site in 2002. Since then, she's worked her way up to deputy director
at the CIA. With current director Mike Pompeo slated to move to Foggy Bottom, President Donald Trump has proposed Haspel as the Agency's
new head.
Haspel's victims waiting for death in Guantanamo cannot speak to us, though they no doubt remember their own screams as they were
waterboarded. And we can still hear former CIA officer
John Kiriakousay : "We did
call her Bloody Gina. Gina was always very quick and very willing to use force. Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because
they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information."
It was Kiriakou who exposed the obsessive debate over the effectiveness of torture as false. The real purpose of torture conducted
by those like Gina Haspel was to seek vengeance, humiliation, and power. We're just slapping you now, she would have said in that
Thai prison, but we control you, and who knows what will happen next, what we're capable of? The torture victim is left to imagine
what form the hurt will take and just how severe it will be, creating his own terror.
Haspel won't be asked at her confirmation hearing to explain how torture works, but those who were waterboarded under her stewardship
certainly could.
I met my first torture victim in Korea, where I was adjudicating visas for the State Department. Persons with serious criminal
records are ineligible to travel to the United States, with an exception for dissidents who have committed political crimes. The
man I spoke with said that under the U.S.-supported military dictatorship of Park Chung Hee he was tortured for writing anti-government
verse. He was taken to a small underground cell. Two men arrived and beat him repeatedly on his testicles and sodomized him with
one of the tools they had used for the beating. They asked no questions. They barely spoke to him at all.
Though the pain was beyond his ability to describe, he said the subsequent humiliation of being left so utterly helpless was what
really affected his life. It destroyed his marriage, sent him to the repeated empty comfort of alcohol, and kept him from ever putting
pen to paper again. The men who destroyed him, he told me, did their work, and then departed, as if they had others to visit and
needed to get on with things. He was released a few days later and driven back to his apartment by the police. A forward-looking
gesture.
The second torture victim I met was while I was stationed in Iraq. The prison that had held him was under the control of shadowy
U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces. Inside, masked men bound him at the wrists and ankles and hung him upside-down. He said they
neither asked him questions nor demanded information. They did whip his testicles with a leather strap, then beat the bottoms of
his feet and the area around his kidneys. They slapped him. They broke the bones in his right foot with a steel rod, a piece of rebar
ordinarily used to reinforce concrete.
It was painful, he told me, but he had felt pain before. What destroyed him was the feeling of utter helplessness, the inability
to control things around him as he once had. He showed me the caved-in portion of his foot, which still bore a rod-like indentation
with faint signs of metal grooves.
Gina Haspel is the same as those who were in the room with the Korean. She is no different than those who tormented the Iraqi.
As head of a black site, Haspel had sole authority to halt the questioning of suspects, but she allowed torture to continue.
New information
and a redaction of earlier reporting that said Haspel was present for the waterboarding and torture of Abu Zubaydah (she was
actually the station chief at the black site after those sessions) makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture
of all of the prisoners there, but pay it little mind. The confusion arises from the government's refusal to tell us what Haspel
actually did as a torturer. So many records have yet to be released and those that have been are heavily redacted. Then there are
the tapes of Zubaydah's waterboarding, which Haspel later pushed to have destroyed.
Arguing over just how much blood she has in her hands is a distraction from the fact that she indeed has blood on her hands.
Gina Haspel is now eligible for the CIA directorship because Barack Obama did not prosecute anyone for torture; he merely signed
an executive order banning it in the future. He did not hold any truth commissions, and ensured that almost all government documents
on the torture program remained classified. He did not prosecute the CIA officials who destroyed videotapes of the torture scenes.
Obama ignored the truth that sees former Nazis continue to be hunted some 70 years after the Holocaust: that those who do evil
on behalf of a government are individually responsible. "I was only following orders" is not a defense of inhuman acts. The purpose
of tracking down the guilty is to punish them, to discourage the next person from doing evil, and to morally immunize a nation-state.
To punish Gina Haspel "more than 15 years later for doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told
were lawful orders, would be a travesty and a disgrace,"
claims one of
her supporters. "Haspel did nothing more and nothing less than what the nation and the agency asked her to do, and she did it well,"
said Michael Hayden,
who headed the CIA during the height of the Iraq war from 2006-2009.
Influential people in Congress agree. Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which will soon review
Haspel's nomination,
said , "I know Gina personally and she has the right skill set, experience, and judgment to lead one of our nation's most critical
agencies."
"She'll have to answer for that period of time, but I think she's a highly qualified person,"
offered Senator
Lindsey Graham. Democratic Senator Bill Nelson
defended Haspel's
actions, saying they were "the accepted practice of the day" and shouldn't disqualify her.
His fellow Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, signaled her likely acceptance,
saying , "Since my concerns were raised over the torture situation, I have met with her extensively, talked with her She has
been, I believe, a good deputy director." Senator Susan Collins
added that Haspel "certainly has the expertise and experience as a 30-year employee of the agency." John McCain, a victim of
torture during the Vietnam War,
mumbled only that Haspel would have to explain her role.
Nearly alone at present, Republican Senator Rand Paul says he will
oppose Haspel's nomination. Senators Ron Wyden and Martin Heinrich, both Democrats, have told Trump she is unsuitable and will
likely also vote no.
Following World War II, the United States could have easily executed those Nazis responsible for the Holocaust, or thrown them
into some forever jail on an island military base. It would have been hard to find anyone who wouldn't have supported brutally torturing
them at a black site. Instead, they were put on public trial at Nuremberg and made to defend their actions as the evidence against
them was laid bare. The point was to demonstrate that We were better than Them.
Today we refuse to understand what Haspel's victims, and the Korean writer, and the Iraqi insurgent, already know on our behalf:
unless Congress awakens to confront this nightmare and deny Gina Haspel's nomination as director of the CIA, torture will have transformed
us and so it will consume us. Gina Haspel is a torturer. We are torturers. It is as if Nuremberg never happened.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of
We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He tweets@WeMeantWell.
Covering up torture is quite possibly the worst thing Obama did. (I'd put it neck-and-neck with targeted killing.) This nation
desperately needs a president who will expose all of these horrors, and appoint an attorney general who will prosecute these acts
as war crimes.
Trump likes waterboarding. He said so himself. One assumes he meant, being a whimpering coward himself, when someone else does
it to someone else. But who knows? Enjoy judge Gorsuch.
"doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told were lawful orders"
To complete the parallel, we would need to prosecute and punish those who asked her to do it, and those who told her those
orders were lawful. Instead, some are doing paintings of their toes, some are promoted to be Federal judges, and some are influential
professors at "liberal" law schools. Why punish *only* her?
I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation.
Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. I am in full support of Mr. Van Buren's thesis. However, Pro Publica, which seems
to have been the source of much reporting of Haspel's torture record, has retracted the claim that Haspel had tortured in Thailand.
Mr. Van Buren quotes another source from his blog that supports the thesis that Haspel is a torturer. How does one know what to
believe? Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate
and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of
Power.
Its because we lost our sense of what makes us who we are. We are an empire that dances for private interests. In Rome they were
called families and led by patricians, they had money private guards, gladiators, and even street people supporting them. In the
Modern USA they are called Interest Groups and/or Corporations. They are lead by CEOs and instead of gladiators they have Lawyers.
Our being better matters less then their own squabbles which is why a torturer could reach the highest seat in intel. The majority
of Americans have lost their sense of being Americans instead they are Republicans, Democrats, etc, etc. Things that once use
to be part of an American have come to define us.
American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always
virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military
governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy."
At least this appointment along with the election of Trump shows the true face of the United States in international affairs.
When we face the fact we are (a) an oligarchy and (b) a brutal Empire we might have a chance to return to something more human.
Few readers, even of TAC, will want to look at our recent history of stunning brutality and lack of interest in even being in
the neighborhood of following international law.
CIA has purposefully refused to disclose Haspel's role for a decade+ They have selectively released information last week to discredit
those criticizing her. I don't think we should play their game, letting them set the agenda. Instead, I declaim torture itself
and any role she played in it, whether she poured the water or kept the books.
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of the CIA's Haspel put him at risk?
In the 2003 film "Love Actually" the British Prime Minister (played by Hugh Grant) jokes with a Downing Street employee Natalie
(Martine McCutcheon):
"PM: You live with your husband? Boyfriend, three illegitimate but charming children? –
"NATALIE: No, I've just split up with my boyfriend, so I'm back with my mum and dad for a while.
"PM: Oh. I'm sorry.
"NATALIE: No, it's fine. I'm well shot of him. He said I was getting fat.
"PM: I beg your pardon?
"NATALIE: He said no one's going to fancy a girl with thighs the size of big tree trunks. Not a nice guy, actually, in the end.
"PM: Right You know, being Prime Minister, I could just have him murdered.
"NATALIE: Thank you, sir. I'll think about it.
"PM: Do – the SAS are absolutely charming – ruthless, trained killers are just a phone call away."
It's just a film. It's just a joke. But the joke works because the public knows that – in reality – the security services have
the skills-sets and the abilities, to do damage anyone they want to do damage to -- and to probably get away with it.
Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect
Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities:
Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even
for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious.
Fast forward again to yesterday, March 17, 2018: Former CIA Director John Brennan wasn't joking when he reacted to the firing
of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- and President Donald Trump's tweeted celebration of it -- by tweeting this attack against
Trump:
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful
place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America
will triumph over you."
Obama UN Representative Samantha Power followed up on the Brennan tweet with this:
"Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan."
When public officials and former public officials -- like Shumer, Brennan and Power -- make such public statements it must
necessarily have a chilling effect on public criticism of the security services.
After all, none of the three are joking. They're serious. And the American people know that they're serious.
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of CIA operative Haspel put him at risk?
New information makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture of all of the prisoners at her black site, but pay it little
mind. The confusion is because the government refuses to tell us what Haspel actually did as a torturer. Arguing over just how
much blood she has on her hands is a distraction when she indeed has blood on her hands.
The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient to disqualify her from heading the Agency. If the
Agency wishes to clarify her role, as was done via trial for the various Nazis at Nuremberg, we can deal with her actions more
granularly.
Since we have not had any more successful attacks on the scale of 9-11, it is very easy to be scrupulous regarding rough treatment
of terrorists.
But if we had suffered a dozen or more such attacks, of increasing magnitude and maybe involving nuclear weapons, how many
of you would still be condemning Mrs Haspel et al.? Or would you then be complaining they had not used water-boarding enough?
The 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, was caught weeks before 9-11. Investigators figured out he was up to no good, tried
to get permission to search his computer, but were denied. The U.S. Government carefully protected his privacy rights. So are
you pleased with the outcome, Mr van Buren?
I'm sorry – this whole piece is a massive non sequitur. Ms. Haspel has no 'blood' on her hands as US extreme interrogation techniques
(sleep deprivation, uncomfortable positions, waterboarding) didn't draw any. They are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating
the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones. US techniques might have been bad policy – won't argue – but lets not fall
for a false equivalency.
Ms. Haspel was an agent of her government, acting on it's orders under it's policies and guidelines. Which leads to
Nuremberg. The Nuremberg tribunals (they were military tribunals – not trials) were conducted by a victorious military force
against a defeated military force. They were widely criticized as vengeance even by such august people as Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court Stone and associate Justice Douglas. There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the
United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government.
And lastly there's this from a comment of the authors: "The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient
to disqualify her from heading the Agency." Utter nonsense. That was the mission of the Agency at that time. It's like saying
a 33yr old Drone Pilot who takes out an ISIS/Al Qaida operative as well as 15 civilians is disqualified to be the Sec Def 2 decades
later.
If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth
that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!"
We demonize Russia at every opportunity, but I don't see Russia rewarding torturers by appointing them to high office.
I didn't know too much about this woman's background until I read that Rand Paul opposes her nomination. I tend to take notice
whenever Rand Paul holds forth on any subject. All I can say is that if her actual record even approximates what has been alleged,
then this woman is unfit for the post–Nuremberg or no Nuremberg.
"As we've proved, we're not better than them. Any of them." Oh, -PLEASE-, spare us the hyperbole! WE burn alive captives held
in cages? WE saw off their heads?
Thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape
(S.E.R.E.) training programs.
All of the torturers should be brought to justice. So should all of the officials who ordered or authorized torture.
There is no statute of limitations on capital Federal crimes. For a U.S. citizen to kill via torture is a capital Federal crime,
no matter where the torture took place. If statutes of limitations make it too late to prosecute some acts of torture, it is not
too late to bring about some measure of justice by making torturers pariahs. As many sexual harassers have recently learned, there
is no statute of limitations in the court of public opinion.
The story linking her to torture has been formally retracted. She had nothing to do with torture anywhere. How about a retraction
of this story and an apology.
I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School
of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know
better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them.
Personally,
I prefer that the cruelty should be, as Lincoln once put it, "unalloyed by the base metal of hypocrisy"
bob sykes: you should read Pro Publica's retraction (
https://www.propublica.org/article/cia-cables-detail-its-new-deputy-directors-role-in-torture
) of the claim that Haspel was in charge of the Thai black site when Abu Zubaydeh was tortured. She was put in charge there
not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding
at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect.
Winston: why do you suppose "thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion,
Resistance and Escape (S.E.R.E.) training programs"? Is it not to prepare them for the possibility of what we call torture when
used by our adversaries?
furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals,
pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states "
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,
is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition?
Wilfred, the problem was not that the Feds protected Zacarias Moussaoui's right to privacy. The problem is that it let any of
the 20 Arab Muslims into the US in the first place. Closing our borders and mass deportations would have been the best thing to
do in the aftermath of 9/11, not torture and invasions.
Very well put. Lest we forget: Bush also delivered the stern warning that "war crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be
punished, and it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders'."
Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter
and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be
considered in the contexts of these words.
Chris Mallory (Mar 19 @1:47 p.m.), I agree with you. We shouldn't be letting them in.
But if someone had sneaked-a-peek at Moussaoui's laptop during the 3 weeks they had him before 9-11, we might have been able
to thwart the attack altogether. (And the Press has been strangely incurious about investigating whoever it was who issued the
injunction protecting Moussie's precious computer). This type of hand-wringing cost us 3,000 lives. Even more, considering the
Afghan & 2nd Iraq wars would never have been launched, were it not for 9-11.
We respect the ICC and its judgment on Kosovo "independence" (which, by the way, was
purely advisory and non-binding) which we helped carve out from her mother country via 78
days of day-and-night bombing raids. ICC is the highest legal institution of the world
community and its rulings must be mandatory on all UN members. Therefore, the Kosovo
"independence" is a legally done deal and must be respected.
(fast forward 11 years):
The very same United Kingdom Government:
The ICC's ruling on Chagos Archipelago is a piece of **** and the institution itself is
totally illegitimate and illegal farce and should be disbanded. Of course the British
government has no intention whatsoever of ever complying with such an idiotic ruling from a
quasi-legal institution. The right lies where our might rests.
So there, folks. Take it from the royal horse's mouth.
"The suit was brought by Mauritius and some of the 1,500 Chagos islanders who were
forcibly removed from the archipelago in 1973."
The decision was made on Feb 25, 2019. What happened in the 46 years between 1973 and the
court decision?
Did it take that long for the UN Court to be bribed?
"Diego Garcia: Is The "Terror Fulcrum" of the United States in the Eastern
Hemisphere's Indian Ocean.
The delusional American people think their government is such a benevolent, kind,
peace-loving force in the world. My God... the results of the tribe's decades-long
brainwashing upon an ignorant goy host is breathtaking.
Hold on here, Poncho. The US does not recognize the Hague-based International Court of
Justice as legitimate in the matter. Furthermore, such court is impotent in matters of
enforcement. So the US military will be staying on the island for a period not to exceed
indefinitely. And that's a very, very long time.
Strange how people develop reading comprehension problems when they don't like facts - the
main thrust of the article is here: ' How Great Britain can argue for international law in
the Crimea and South China Sea, while ignoring the International Court of Justice on the
Chagos'............ nope, we don't like it when other people do what we do, cant do that! we
are exceptional..........
This sheds a whole new light on the death of those two poor little hamsters, or was it
guinea pigs, said to be starved while the police was investigating the premises of
Skripal.
With Haspel around they might have succombed to her nasty ways of torturing.
Concerning who is pulling the strings, please forgive a repost of an interview with one
who knows. On 31 May 2017 Putin gave an interview with Le Figaro where he said:
"I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the
same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is
elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing
dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones.
These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is
what happens with every administration."
A long list of people with briefcases so far ends with Gina.
You're right. I see people like Robert Kagan's opinions being respectfully asked on foreign affairs, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams
being hired to direct our foreign policy.
The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and
flourishing careers. Now they're angling for war with Iran.
It's preposterous and sickening. And it can't be allowed to stand, so you can't just stand off and say you're "wrecked". Keep
fighting, as you're doing. I will fight it until I can't fight anymore.
Fact-bedeviled JohnT: “McCain was a problem for this nation? Sweet Jesus! There quite simply is no rational adult on the planet
who buys that nonsense.”
McCain had close ties to the military-industrial complex. He was a backer of post-Cold War NATO. He was a neoconservative darling.
He never heard of a dictator that he didn’t want to depose with boots on the ground, with the possible exception of various Saudi
dictators (the oil-weaponry-torture nexus). He promoted pseudo-accountability of government in campaign finance but blocked accountability
for the Pentagon and State Department when he co-chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs with John
Kerry.
And, perhaps partly because of the head trauma and/or emotional wounds he suffered at the hands of Chinese-backed Commies,
it’s plausible to think he was regarded by the willy-nilly plotters of the deep state as a manipulable, and thus useful, conduit
of domestic subversion via the bogus Steele dossier.
Unfortunately, the episode that most defines McCain’s life is the very last one–his being a pawn of M-16 in the the deep state’s
years-long attempt to derail the presidency of Donald Trump.
Measuring success means determining goals. The goals of most wars is to enrich the people in charge. So, by this metric, the war
was a success. The rest of it is just props and propaganda.
“Pyrrhic Victory” look it up the Roman Empire Won but lost if the US is invaded and the government does not defend it I would
like to start my own defense: But the knee jerk politics that stirs America’s cannon fodder citizens is a painful reminder of
a history of jingoist lies where at times some left and right agree at least for a short moment before the rich and powerful push
their weight to have their way.
If All politics is relative Right wingers are the the left of what? Nuclear destruction? or Slavery?
My goodness! I am also a veteran, but of the Vietnam war, and my father was a career officer from 1939-1961 as a paratrooper first,
and later as an intelligence officer. He argued vigorously against our Vietnam involvement, and was cashiered for his intellectual
honesty. A combat veteran’s views are meaningless when the political winds are blowing.
Simply put, we have killed thousands of our kids in service of the colonial empires left to us by the British and the French
after WWII. More practice at incompetent strategies and tactics does not make us more competent–it merely extends the blunders
and pain; viz the French for two CENTURIES against the Britsh during the battles over Normandy while the Planagenet kings worked
to hold their viking-won inheritance.
At least then, kings risked their own lives. Generals fight because the LIKE it…a lot. Prior failures are only practice to
the, regardless of the cost in lives of the kids we tried to raise well, and who were slaughtered for no gain.
We don’t need the empire, and we certainly shouldn’t fight for the corrupt businessmen who have profited from the never-ending
conflicts. Let’s spend those trillions at home, so long as we also police our government to keep both Democrat and Republican
politicians from feathering their own nests. Term limits and prosecutions will help us, but only if we are vigilant. Wars distract
our attention while corruption is rampant at home.
Thanks, I appreciate this article.
I’ll make two points, my own opinion:
it’s the same story as Vietnam, the bull about how the politicians or anti-war demonstrators tied the military ‘hand,’ blah, blah.
Nonsense. Invading a nation and slaughtering people in their towns, houses…gee…what’s wrong with that, eh?
The average American has a primitive mind when it comes to such matters.
Second point I have, is that both Bushes, Clinton, Obama, Hillary and Trump should be dragged to a world court, given a fair trial
and locked up for life with hard labor… oh, and Cheney too,for all those families, in half a dozen nations, especially the children
overseas that suffered/died from these creeps.
And, the families of dead or maimed American troops should be apologized to and compensation paid by several million dollars to
each.
The people I named above make me sick, because I have feelings and a conscience. Can you dig?
Though there is a worldly justification for killing to obtain or maintain freedoms, there is no Christian justification for it.
Which suggests that Christians who die while doing it, die in vain.
America’s wars are prosecuted by a military that includes Christians. They seldom question the killing their country orders
them to do, as though the will of the government is that of the will of God. Is that a safe assumption for them to make? German
Christian soldiers made that assumption regarding their government in 1939. Who was there to tell them otherwise? The Church failed,
including the chaplains. (The Southern Baptist Convention declared the invasion of Iraq a just war in 2003.) These wars need to
be assessed by Just War criteria. Christian soldiers need to know when to exercise selective conscientious objection, for it is
better to go to prison than to kill without God’s approval. If Just War theory is irrelevant, the default response is Christian
Pacifism.
“Iraq Wrecked” a lot of innocent people. Millions are dead, cities reduced to rubble, homes and businesses destroyed and it was
all a damned lie. And the perpetrators are Free.
Now there is sectarian violence too, where once there was a semblance of harmony amongst various denominations. See article link
below.
“Are The Christians Slaughtered in The Middle East Victims of the Actions of Western War Criminals and Their Terrorist Supporting
NATO ‘Allies’”?
We are a globalist open borders and mass immigration nation. We stand for nothing. To serve in this nation’s military is very
stupid. You aren’t defending anything. You are just a tool of globalism. Again, we don’t secure our borders. That’s a very big
give away to what’s going on.
If our nation’s military really was an American military concerned with our security we would have secured our border after 9/11,
reduced all immigration, deported ALL muslims, and that’s it. Just secure the borders and expel Muslims! That’s all we needed
to do.
Instead we killed so many people and imported many many more Muslims! And we call this compassion. Its insane.
Maybe if Talibans get back in power they will destroy the opium. You know, like they did when they were first in power…. It seems
that wherever Americans get involved, drugs follow…
“Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very
structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” In Eisenhower’s televised farewell address January 17, 1961.
Rational thought would lead one to believe such words from a fellow with his credentials would have had a useful effect. But it
didn’t. In point of fact, in the likes of Eric Prince and his supporters the notion of war as a profit center is quite literally
a family affair.
The military-industrial complex couldn’t accomplish this all by its lonesome self. The deep state was doing its thing. The two
things overlap but aren’t the same. The deep state is not only or mainly about business profits, but about power. Power in the
world means empire, which requires a military-industrial complex but is not reducible to it.
We now have a rare opportunity to unveil the workings of the deep state, but it will require a special counsel, and a lengthy
written report, on the doings in the 2016 election of the FBI (Comey, Strzok, et. al.), and collaterally the CIA and DIA (Brennan
and Clapper). Also the British government (M-16), John McCain, and maybe Bush and Obama judges on the FISA courts.
"... The U.S. alone expelled 60 Russian officials. Trump was furious when he learned that EU countries expelled less than 60 in total. A year ago the Washington Post described the scene: ..."
"... Today the New York Times portraits Gina Haspel's relation with Trump. The writers seem sympathetic to her and the CIA's position. They include an anecdote of the Skripal expulsion decision that is supposed to let her shine in a good light. But it only proves that the CIA manipulated the president for its own purpose: ..."
"... Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives. ..."
"... Ms Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he embraced the strong option. ..."
"... If the NYT piece is correct, the CIA director, in cooperation with the British government, lied to Trump about the incident. Their aim was to sabotage Trump's announced policy of better relations with Russia. The ruse worked. ..."
"... The NYT piece does not mention that the pictures Gina Haspel showed Trump were fake. It pretends that her lies were "new information" and that she was not out to manipulate him: ..."
"... The job of the CIA director is to serve the president, not to protect the agencies own policies. ..."
"... The 1970s movie 3 Days of The Condor is about the evils of the See Eye A. Also they create trial balloon in the movie about taking middle east oil. This later happens in real life with NeoCon See Eye A stooges - Poppy Bush then later GW Bush-Cheney, Clintons and Oboma all agency owned men. ..."
"... The head of the See Eye A is to serve the elites-Central banksters not the President. They did not serve JFK. Any President who crosses the central bankers aka roth-schilds ends up dead. ..."
"... It is interesting to see that nations that have traditionally been pro-American feel that the threat posed by American power is growing. ..."
"... Haspel was CIA station chief in London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired to stop Trump's candidacy. In her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more likely she participated in it. That Brennan supported her argues for the latter. ..."
"... Photos of fake dead ducks and fake sickened children confirm the Skripal story is, in turn, completely fake. It says a lot that the NY Times either does not know this or that its contempt for its readership matches the contempt by which the intelligence agencies hold for their putative boss. ..."
"... Thanks for bringing this Skripal segment to light, b, as most of us don't read the NY Times in any form. Haspel likely had a hand in the planning of the overall scheme of which the Skripal saga and Russiagate are interconnected episodes. Clearly, the Money Power sees the challenge raised by Russia/China/Eurasia as existential and is trying to counter hybridly as it knows its wealth won't save it from Nuclear War. ..."
"... after integrity initiative, we know the uk is full of shite on most everything... thus, the msm will not be talking about integrity initiative.. ..."
"... once Teresa May has spoken in Parliament, and Trump committed to expelling embassy staff, there is no way any alternative version of the truth is possible. ..."
"... Skripal of course was a colleague of Steele, and possibly the only person he asked to get info for the dossier beyond what Nellie Ohr had already given him. His evidence might have been crucial. The CIA and others have a strong motive to kill Skripal and a stronger one to blame the Russians. ..."
"... The fact that the 'Dirty Dossier' and the 'Skripal "story"' both originate in one and the same small town in the UK, tells you all you need to know about both. ..."
"... Haspel will not be fired. ..."
"... It is clear the USA, France, Israel and UK are fasting approaching ungovernable .. no one in government can keep the lies of the other hidden, and none of the governed believes anyone in government, the MSM, the MIC or the AIG (ATT, Intel and Google). .. ..."
"... The actors in government, their lawyers, playmates and corporations have become the laughing stock of the rest of the world. ..."
An ass kissing portrait of Gina Haspel,
torture
queen and director of the CIA, reveals that she lied to Trump to push for more
aggression against Russia.
In March 2018 the British government asserted, without providing any evidence, that the
alleged 'Novichok' poisoning of Sergej and Yulia Skripal was the fault of Russia. It urged
its allies to expel Russian officials from their countries.
The U.S. alone expelled
60 Russian officials. Trump
was furious when he learned that EU countries expelled less than 60 in total. A year
ago the Washington Post described the scene:
President Trump seemed distracted in March as his aides briefed him at his Mar-a-Lago
resort on the administration's plan to expel 60 Russian diplomats and suspected spies.
The United States, they explained, would be ousting roughly the same number of
Russians as its European allies -- part of a coordinated move to punish Moscow for the
poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter on British soil.
"We'll match their numbers," Trump instructed, according to a senior administration
official. "We're not taking the lead. We're matching."
The next day, when the expulsions were announced publicly, Trump erupted, officials
said. To his shock and dismay, France and Germany were each expelling only four Russian
officials -- far fewer than the 60 his administration had decided on.
The president, who seemed to believe that other individual countries would largely
equal the United States, was furious that his administration was being portrayed in the
media as taking by far the toughest stance on Russia.
The expulsion marked a turn in the Trump administration's relation with Russia:
The incident reflects a tension at the core of the Trump administration's increasingly
hard-nosed stance on Russia: The president instinctually opposes many of the punitive
measures pushed by his Cabinet that have crippled his ability to forge a close
relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The past month, in particular, has marked a major turning point in the
administration's stance, according to senior administration officials. There have been
mass expulsions of Russian diplomats, sanctions on oligarchs that have bled billions of
dollars from Russia's already weak economy and, for the first time, a presidential tweet
that criticized Putin by name for backing Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Today the New York Timesportraits Gina
Haspel's relation with Trump. The writers seem sympathetic to her and the CIA's position.
They include an anecdote of the Skripal expulsion decision that is supposed to let her
shine in a good light. But it only proves that the CIA manipulated the president for its
own purpose:
Last March, top national security officials gathered inside the White House to discuss
with Mr. Trump how to respond to the nerve agent attack in Britain on Sergei V. Skripal,
the former Russian intelligence agent.
London was pushing for the White House to expel dozens of suspected Russian
operatives, but Mr. Trump was skeptical. ... During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr. Trump.
She outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told
the president that the "strong option" was to expel 60 diplomats.
To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials
including Ms. Haspel also tried to show him that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were not
the only victims of Russia's attack.
Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children
hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals.
She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently
killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives.
Ms Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but
pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the
pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he
embraced the strong option.
The Skripal case was widely covered and we
followed it diligently (scroll down). There were no reports of any children affected by
'Novichok' nor were their any reports of dead ducks. In the official storyline the
Skripals, before visiting a restaurant,
fed bread to ducks at a pond in the Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury.
They also
gave duck-bread to three children to do the same. The children were examined and their
blood was tested.
No
poison was found and none of them fell ill . No duck died. (The duck feeding episode
also disproves
the claim that the Skripals were poisoned by touching a door handle.)
If the NYT piece is correct, the CIA director, in cooperation with the British
government, lied to Trump about the incident. Their aim was to sabotage Trump's announced
policy of better relations with Russia. The ruse worked.
The NYT piece does not mention that the pictures Gina Haspel showed Trump were
fake. It pretends that her lies were "new information" and that she was not out to
manipulate him:
The outcome was an example, officials said, of how Ms. Haspel is one of the few people
who can get Mr. Trump to shift position based on new information.
Co-workers and friends of Ms. Haspel push back on any notion that she is manipulating
the president. She is instead trying to get him to listen and to protect the agency,
according to former intelligence officials who know her.
The job of the CIA director is to serve the president, not to protect the agencies own
policies. Hopefully Trump will hear about the anecdote, recognize how he was had, and fire Haspel. He should not stop there but also get rid of her protector who likely had a role in
the game:
Ms. Haspel won the trust of Mr. Pompeo, however, and has stayed loyal to him. As a
result, Mr. Trump sees Ms. Haspel as an extension of Mr. Pompeo, a view that has helped
protect her, current and former intelligence officials said.
Posted by b on April 16, 2019 at 08:37 AM |
Permalink
I don't see how it's possible to manipulate someone (and especially the US president) into
doing something they don't want to do with lies like the ones described here. On the
contrary presidents, CEOs etc. favor the staffers who tell them the kind of lies they want
to hear in order to reinforce what they wanted to do in the first place.
I've never seen any reason to alter my first position on Trump, that like any other
president he does what he wants to do.
The 1970s movie 3 Days of The Condor is about the evils of the See Eye A. Also they create
trial balloon in the movie about taking middle east oil. This later happens in real life
with NeoCon See Eye A stooges - Poppy Bush then later GW Bush-Cheney, Clintons and Oboma
all agency owned men.
The joke 7in the final scene Robert Redford tells See Eye A man Cliff Robertson that he
gave all the evidence to the NY Times. What a joke. The NY Times and the Wash Post are the
mouthpieces for the SEE Eye A. The AP news sources most of their stories from those two
papers and other lackey See Eye A newspapers.
One final criticism in moon's story. The head of the See Eye A is to serve the elites-Central banksters not the
President. They did not serve JFK. Any President who crosses the central bankers aka roth-schilds ends up dead.
After this, she got the top job, so what is the real lesson here? Sociopathic liars get
promoted....or you can tell the truth, try to be honorable and fade into obscurity.. In a nest of psychos, you have to really be depraved to become the top psycho...
Nuke it for orbit, it's the only way to be sure...
Backing up Russ's point, when will you realise the "buck stops" on Trump's desk for any
and all departments he oversees, which are run by his appointees? Trump is dedicated to
creating a neoconservative foreign policy melded to a neoliberal economic policy favouring
his corporate fascist sponsors. Recently, you've been all over the Assange indictment,
Trump's relationship with Nuttyahoo and the related rollback of JCPOA. Is this what you
want to see continued into a second term?
There is much evidence to show Trump and the GOP working steadily towards a "democracy"
where Congress is castrated (one might say the system castrates Congress anyway), opposing
candidates are jailed, opposition votes are suppressed and the media is weakened to the
point where no one can tell the difference.
They haven't got there quite yet but once the judiciary is controlled by GOP ideologues
it's game over. And McConnell is dedicating his life to make that the reality ASAP.
Meanwhile back at the ranch we are dedicated to knocking down any and all potential
opposition to this GOP hostile takeover for some reason I've yet to fathom.
Hopefully Trump will hear about the anecdote, recognize how he was had, and fire
Haspel. He should not stop there but also get rid of her protector who likely had a role in
the game[Pompeo]
Hopefully yes to all four propositions. Why am I sceptical though (except conceivably
the first)?
The story veers into complete fiction when it claims that pictures of dead ducks had any
effect on Trump. He doesn't like, nor care about animals. He's the first POTUS in decades I
believe to not even pretend to like dogs by having an official White House dog and every
policy his Administration can take against animals, they have taken. I'm not even sure I
buy the spin that he cared about dead kids either. And NYT readers know this about him, so
I don't understand what the point of peddling this fiction is other than to paint Torture
Queen in some kind of good light (and we KNOW that she certainly doesn't care about dead
anything).
another example of trump's stupidity and pathological inability to think for himself. he
gets his views from fox and his policy from bolton. his equally vapid daughter and kushner
whine to him about sooper sad syria pictures they saw in a sponsored link while googling
for new tmz gossip.
even worse that this is the twat in charge of one of russiagate's main instigating "deep
state" agencies. he spent the entirety of his presidency railing against their various lies
then takes this wankery at face value. it's just like the "chinese soldiers in venezuela";
if those pictures were legit they'd have been splattered over every front page and
permanently attached to screeching cnn and msnbc segments demanding trump "finally get
tough" on "putin's russia".
my only surprise is that she didn't tell him about british babies ripped from incubators
and dipped in anthrax powder.
the nyt shilling for a soCIopAth? not that surprising.
The consultant in emergency medicine at Salisbury hospital wrote to The Times, shortly
after the Skripal incident. His choice of words was odd, and some have said they indicate
no novichok poisoning occurred. Leaving that to one side, his letter certainly puts paid to
the idea that more than three people (the Skripals and the policeman, DCI Bailey) were
poisoned.
https://www.onaquietday.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/DocSaysNoNerveAgentInSalisbury.jpg
" the nerve agent attack in Britain on Sergei V. Skripal, "
There was no attack on the Skripals. or on anyone else.
The Russophobia in whose context it falls, is of a higher order, in which a fabricated
narrative of a Skripal-like attack had an important function.
The Skripals were perfectly happy to lend their name to the fabrication, and are living
happily, probably in New Zealand.
The Daily Beast article that b linked to describes how many serious, well-informed people
felt that Haspel was unsuitable to lead the CIA. Even more strange and troubling was that Haspel was supported by Trump's nemesis,
John Brennan.
Despite all that, MAGA Trump still nominated her. Any notion that Trump is at odds with, or "manipulated" by, Haspel, Bolton, or Pompeo is
just propaganda. We've seen such reporting before (esp. wrt Bolton) and Trump has taken no
action.
I see that Trump derangement is alive and well here at MoA. Commenters talk as if Trump is
the first president stupid enough to be manipulated by the security agencies and shadow
government sometimes referred to as a "deep state". People don't have to be historians or
look back to Rome, just read the books about how the great general who "won WWII" was used
by the oligarchy which had full control of US foreign policy throughout Eisenhower's term in
office.
Works produced after WWII, C. Wright Mills, The Power elite was written in 1956,The
Brothers and The Divil's Chessboard each about the Dulles Brothers and how they operated US
foreign policy for the interests of the oligarchy, and the work Peter Phillips, GIANTS: The
Global Power Elite and the work of David Rothkopf which thoroughly describes the feudal
system under which the Western cultures are ruled.
The US government is a pantomime it is a show it has no power.
How many here can honestly say they understand that the US dollar itself and the ENTIRE
GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM is privately owned. Why do you think the "banks were bailed out"?
because the banks were in power not the government. The US is 22 trillion in debt - the
oligarchy is the creditor - take over the US gov. and you have a powerless pile of
debt.
Around 6,000 people control 85% of global assets until that changes nothing will change.
The oligarchy won virtually all the mines and control the price of all basic commodities
necessary for modern life, the internet, oil of course and more.
What is failing and what has failed over and over for 500 years is Western Civilization and
its three "great religions" which preach obedience, oppression, domination by a one god
suffocating mythology.
But the oligarchy doesn't own just the basic commodities, it owns the religions and it owns
the drugs and all illegal trade as well.
Western "civilization" is really nothing more than one vast feudal kingdom, with royal
courts in DC, Tel Aviv and Ryiadh. Wheather there is a god or not, religion is made of
flesh and blood not miracles. No Rabbi or Priest or Imam claims visitations by god to
instruct them on doctrine - they are flesh and blood and they want power so they behave
like sycophants to the money they need to expand their power...all for the good souls under
their care.
Haspel was CIA station chief in London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired
to stop Trump's candidacy. In her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more
likely she participated in it. That Brennan supported her argues for the latter.
What can we expect from a tv personality who became a US president? A man who ran with an
advertisement worthy of a business man like him, "Make America Great Again." How does he go
about doing it? Giving more money to the military industrial-Congressional complex, even
though we are really flat broke. Using aggressive tactics used by Wall Street in hostile
company takeovers to really intimidate other nations. And hire and place those he really
agrees with in important positions who really reflect his true feelings. I'm sure when he
spoke with Haspel before offering her the job, he brought up the topic of torture and
agreed with her on its use on terrorists.
I think there's a reasonable case to be made that they conspired not to stop Trump but
to further speculation of Trump's "collusion" with Russia (what would later be known as
Russiagate). The "collusion" and "Russia meddled" accusations are what fueled the new
McCarthyism.
I'll just add to Jerry's comment at #3 that the final line in the movie "Day of the Condor"
is something like "But will they print it?" which really spoke to the message of the film
in its entirety. The condor being an endangered bird for whom the hero is named, and the
beginning outrage being the brutal murder of book lovers researching useable plot details
for the 'company'makes this message current and applicable to what we see in the Skripal
case. And instead of librarians, we now have online commenters, a doughty breed, and we
have Assange.
Instead of 'Will they print it?' I am wondering 'Will they make another movie about
it?'
Remind me, where is Yulia Skripal these days? Well and truly 'disappeared' it seems. The
mask is off. the snarling face of the beast is there for all to see.
What a total waste of an article discussing a story published in NYT or WaPo.
b, the World has divided itself into those who consume alternative media such as this
and stupidos who consume MSM. There is nothing in-between that you are attempting to
discuss and dissect here. NYT = cognitive value zero.
Fake News not worth one millisecond of our time, not even to decode what the regime
wants us to know, we know all that already. Personally, I am only interested in the new
methods of domestic repression, what is next after the warning of Assange arrest, future
rendition and torture. The Deep Stare appears to be coming out into open, will it soon get
rid of the whole faux democracy construct and just use iron fist to rule? It already impose
its will as the rule of law. All of the Western block is heading in this direction.
Photos of fake dead ducks and fake sickened children confirm the Skripal story is, in turn,
completely fake. It says a lot that the NY Times either does not know this or that its
contempt for its readership matches the contempt by which the intelligence agencies hold
for their putative boss.
The story veers into complete fiction when it claims that pictures of dead ducks had any
effect on Trump. He doesn't like, nor care about animals. Mataman | Apr 16, 2019 9:45:30 AM
This assumes that Trump would primarily care about the ducks (and children) when he
approved a massive expulsion, rather that his image and "ah, in that case it would look bad
if we do not do something really decisive".
In any case, I was thinking why NYT would disclose something like that. The point is
that readers of Craig Murray (not so few, but mostly Scottish nationalists who are also
leftist and have scant possibilities and/or inclination to vote in USA) and MoonOfAlabama
would quickly catch a dead fish here, but 99.9% of the public is blissfully unaware of any
incongruences in the "established" Skripal narrative.
BTW, it is possible that the journalist who scribbled fresh yarn obtained from CIA did it
earnestly. Journalists do not necessarily follow stories that they cover -- scribbling from
given notes does not require overtaxing the precious attention span that can be devoted to
more vital cognitive challenges. I am lazy to find the link, but while checking for news on
Venezuela, I stumbled on a piece from Express, a British tabloid, where Guaido was named a
"figurehead of the oposition" supported by "450 Western countries". My interpretation was
that more literate journalists were moved for to more compelling stories as Venezuela went
to the back burner.
Yes, indeed, the Skripal Affair is one of the obviously contrived stunts we've seen.
Just outrageous in its execution. On a par with the US having a man who didn't even run for president of Venezuela swear
himself in and then pressure everyone to accept him as president.
Interesting, I had no idea Gina Haspel - aka, The Queen of Blood - played a role. I
thought it was all original dirty work by Britain's Theresa May. Boy, I hope people are through with the false notion that if women just get into
leadership, the world will become a better gentler place.
Macron was (afaik?) the only EU 'leader' who was quoted in the MSM as bruiting re. the
Skripal affair a message like:
.. no culpability in the part of Russia has been evidenced .. for now...
I suppose he was enjoined to shut his gob right quick (have been reading about brexit so
brit eng) as nothing more in that line was heard.
Hooo, the EU expelled a lot of Russ. diplomats, obeying the USuk, which certainly
created some major upsets on the ground.
Some were expelled, went into other jobs, other places, but then others arrived, etc.
The MSM has not made any counts - lists - of names numbers - etc. of R diplos on the job -
anywhere. As some left and then others arrived.
Once more, this was mostly a symbolic move, if extremely nasty, insulting, and
disruptive.
Theresa May's speech re. Novichok, Independent 14 March 2018:
.. on Monday I set out that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a
Novichok: a military grade nerve agent developed by Russia. Based on this capability,
combined with their record of conducting state sponsored assassinations – including
against former intelligence officers whom they regard as legitimate targets – the UK
Government concluded it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and
despicable act. ..
imo, the media has, once again, simply taken its lead from trump himself, & started
making things up completely. & you're absolutely correct in pointing out that, much
like trump's true believers, the msm's targeted audience never even notices...
Thanks for bringing this Skripal segment to light, b, as most of us don't read the NY
Times in any form. Haspel likely had a hand in the planning of the overall scheme of
which the Skripal saga and Russiagate are interconnected episodes. Clearly, the Money Power
sees the challenge raised by Russia/China/Eurasia as existential and is trying to counter
hybridly as it knows its wealth won't save it from Nuclear War.
after integrity initiative, we know the uk is full of shite on most everything... thus, the
msm will not be talking about integrity initiative..
what i didn't know is what @18 lysias pointed out.."Haspel was CIA station chief in
London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired to stop Trump's candidacy. In
her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more likely she participated in it.
That Brennan supported her argues for the latter." ditto jr's speculation @20 too...
so gaspel shows trump some cheap propaganda that she got from who??
my main problem with b's post - i tend to see it like kiza @23) is maintaining the idea
trump isn't in on all of this.. the thought trump is being duped by his underlings.. if he
was and it mattered, he would get rid of them.. the fact he doesn't says to me, he is in on
it - get russia, being the 24/7 game plan of the west here still..
Please stop listening to idiot libertarians and their "US is flat broke" meme.
The reality is that: so long as Americans transact in dollars, the United States government
can tax anytime it feels like by issuing new dollars via the Fed.
Equally, so long as 60% of the world's trade is conducted in dollars, this is tens to
hundreds of billions of dollars of additional taxation surface area.
The MMT people - I don't agree 100% with everything they say, but they do understand the
actual operation of fiat currency.
The people who want a hard currency are either wealthy (and understand that conversion to
hard currency cements their wealth) or are useful idiots who don't understand that currency
devaluation is the single easiest way to tax in a democracy.
I doubt Haspel knew the ducks were fake - she was probably just given stuff to pass up
the chain.
It is a lot like John Kerry who was shown convincing satellite data of the BUK launch that
hit MH17 - but no one could be bothered to pass on even the launch site coordinates to the
JIT. I'm sure this stuff goes on all the time, and of course, once Teresa May has spoken in
Parliament, and Trump committed to expelling embassy staff, there is no way any alternative
version of the truth is possible.
Skripal of course was a colleague of Steele, and possibly the only person he asked to
get info for the dossier beyond what Nellie Ohr had already given him. His evidence might
have been crucial. The CIA and others have a strong motive to kill Skripal and a stronger
one to blame the Russians.
The fact that the 'Dirty Dossier' and the 'Skripal "story"' both
originate in one and the same small town in the UK, tells you all you need to know about
both.
"The people who want a hard currency are either wealthy (and understand that conversion
to hard currency cements their wealth) or are useful idiots who don't understand that
currency devaluation is the single easiest way to tax in a democracy."
The useful idiocy is most surprising among US farmers. In the 19th century they broadly
understood that fiat money was good for chronic low-wealth debtors like themselves, while
hard money was bad and a gold standard lethal. This was the basis of the Populist movement.
Nothing has changed financially, but today's farmers, and the low-wealth debtor class in
general, seem more likely to be goldbuggers than to have any knowledge of economics or of
their own political history.
karlof1 36
Once a faction becomes submerged in the Mammon theocracy and becomes nothing but
mercenary nihilists, thinking is no longer necessary or desirable, except to come up with
attractive, pseudo-plausible lies.
This certainly characterizes "the right" (including liberals), but they have no monopoly
on it. By now "the left" is nearly as thoughtless and instrumental on behalf of Mammon,
except to the extent that a few people are starting to really grapple with what it means to
have an intrinsically ecocidal and therefore suicidal civilization. That's really the only
thought frontier left, all else has been engulfed in Mammon, productionism, scientism and
technocracy.
I remind that Mussolini wasted his legislature.. 1 balmy after noon @ a roadside spot.
it made his government stronger.?
It is clear the USA, France, Israel and UK are fasting approaching ungovernable .. no
one in government can keep the lies of the other hidden, and none of the governed believes
anyone in government, the MSM, the MIC or the AIG (ATT, Intel and Google). ..
The actors in
government, their lawyers, playmates and corporations have become the laughing stock of the
rest of the world. Everyone in the government is covering for the behaviors of someone else
in government, the MSM has raised the price of a pencil to just under a million, stock
markets are bags of hot thin air, and everyone in side and outside of the centers of power
at all levels of government have lied thru their teeth so much that their teeth are melting
from the continuous flow of hot deceitful air.
Corrupt is now the only qualification for
political office, trigger happy screwball the only qualification for the police and the
military and . making progress is like trying to conduct a panty raid at a female nudist
camp.
John Anthony La Pietra , Apr 16, 2019 3:47:03 PM |
link
"... What's the real agenda though behind that article? It's to put Gina Haspel in a favourable light at the same time as it's criticising Trump. Is the NYT promoting Gina Haspel as someone who deserves a more influential position than the nation's top torturer? She wouldn't be the first such criminal being subtly encouraged to try for DJT's job in the future. ..."
"... I see it as a complex exercise in CYA. They need to reinforce certain narratives. ..."
"... As of almost 8 PM, there are 35 comments. In a national newspaper on a story like this? There must be a committee cherry picking them for "suitability" - the collection is as fake as the article. Wonderful Haspel at the head of an amazing CIA tutoring a clueless moron of a POTUS. The third part they got right. ..."
"... Why are they fluffing the torturer and the out-of-control CIA? Is something planned where they want both to shine in their future stories on that "something"? ..."
The New York Times article seems whiffy to me. (Is anything from the NYT not whiffy?) The
article is the work of no fewer than five writers and the part about Donald Trump being
swayed by pictures of sick children in hospital and dead ducks seems a bit like a game of
Chinese whispers.
What's the real agenda though behind that article? It's to put Gina Haspel in a favourable
light at the same time as it's criticising Trump. Is the NYT promoting Gina Haspel as someone
who deserves a more influential position than the nation's top torturer? She wouldn't be the
first such criminal being subtly encouraged to try for DJT's job in the future.
Better not play too many of those
"Call of Duty" video games either. You might find that being a pretend mercenary shooting
up innocent people in foreign lands is not just for the purpose of wasting a half of day on
mindless entertainment.
I see it as a complex exercise in CYA. They need to reinforce certain narratives.
>> The media was right about Trump: he has a soft spot for Russia.
>> Trump cares about people (and even ducks) - remember how he bombed Syria because
of the babies? Now Trump is super concerned about the people of Venezuela. What a
humanitarian!
>> Russia has no reason to oppose USA (in Venezuela or elsewhere) - they could just
contact their friend Trump! To do otherwise demonstrates malicious intent.
As of almost 8 PM, there are 35 comments. In a national newspaper on a story like this?
There must be a committee cherry picking them for "suitability" - the collection is as fake
as the article. Wonderful Haspel at the head of an amazing CIA tutoring a clueless moron of a
POTUS. The third part they got right.
Why are they fluffing the torturer and the out-of-control CIA? Is something planned where
they want both to shine in their future stories on that "something"?
"... Therefore, both individuals were both an admission that the change in the system is needed and that the ruling regime is into life-extension by means of "whatever it takes". Once the "change" potential is exhausted, repression must take over as the principal life extension mechanism; clearly, these methods do not have a sharp start-over points in time - they overlap. ..."
"... It is an interesting connection of dots that Bloody Gina is Brennan's protégée and thus that Trump has truly stacked up his administration with former i.e. current enemies, But this only shows that Trump works for the same masters as his political enemies. Again, nothing new. ..."
Trump is like a voodoo doll into which every sh**bag sticks pins. Firstly, it is
irrelevant whether he was a swamp creature before election or was coopted into it after.
Secondly, Trump was transparently chosen to be the "agent of change" for the other half of
the US population, just as Obama before.
Therefore, both individuals were both an admission that the change in the system is needed
and that the ruling regime is into life-extension by means of "whatever it takes". Once the
"change" potential is exhausted, repression must take over as the principal life extension
mechanism; clearly, these methods do not have a sharp start-over points in time - they
overlap.
This is where we are now, Assange was the most prominent member of the real
opposition to the regime, where they try to confuse with plenty of faux opposition.
Therefore, the Assange's head had to be chopped off publicly and his slowly rotting corpse
will now be on display through "courts of justice" for the next couple of years as a warning
to the consumers of alternative media. Go back to reading the approved "journalism" or ... To
understand better one just needs to read/re-read Solzhenitsyn.
The other major ongoing life-extension activity, overlapping with repression, is the
confiscation of guns from the last remaining armed Western population (lots of leftist oxen
pulling that cart). Having too many guns amongst the population is bad for resolving personal
conflicts peacefully, but it is even worse for the abusive, exploitative regime. Thus, taking
the guns away is doing the right thing for a totally wrong reason.
It is an interesting connection of dots that Bloody Gina is Brennan's
protégée and thus that Trump has truly stacked up his administration with
former i.e. current enemies, But this only shows that Trump works for the same masters as his
political enemies. Again, nothing new.
Therefore, where is a Western Solzhenitsyn to document artistically what transpires in a
society deeply in debt and in social & moral decline?
Trump also hoped the Sisi meeting would re-invigorate his idea of an "Arab NATO", the
proposed Middle East Security Alliance (MESA), raised at the beginning of his Presidency. MESA
would, U.S. planners believed, align the Gulf Arab states -- particularly Saudi Arabia -- with
Jordan and Egypt to strategically balance and oppose Iran. Cairo cannot realistically support
such a position in black and white terms (neither can Qatar or Jordan, at this stage).
Cairo is actually open to improved relations with Iran, particularly because the Egyptian
Government feels less than secure that the current Saudi regime is stable and reliable.
Trump, during the White House meeting, strenuously attempted to support Saudi Arabia and
MbS, but received strong pushback from al-Sisi on that account.
The measure of Egypt's rejection of the U.S. pressure was indicated when al-Sisi,
immediately upon returning to Cairo on April 10, 2019, formally withdrew Egypt from MESA. Egypt
had very deliberately not sent a delegation to the MESA summit in Riyadh on April 8, 2019.
...
The ongoing belief in the U.S. that Egypt's defenses are existentially dependent on
Washington is something which Cairo cannot comprehend. Washington policy thinking is that Cairo
would obey U.S. diktat because it needed spare parts for U.S.-supplied equipment, or because it
so needed the relatively small contribution offered by the Camp David Accord aid payments.
The author says very little about Egypts relations with Syria. I remember when the US
agent Morsi tried to push Egypt to fight against Assad. Genral Al Sisi stopped this because
it would have torn also Egypt apart, especially the Army which has very friendly ties with
the Syrian army.
General Al Sisi and President Assad have something very basic in common. Both want to
preserve the culture of their countries which are multi religious, representing the
developments in these areas over thousands of years. AL Sisi was acting swiftly to protect
the Copts which is a christian religion, maybe the true birthplace of christianity. The copts
have deep roots in the old Egyptian religion. In a speech Al Sisi said that the copts are an
essential part of Egypt and that they are the link to Egypts great past.
You sure as hell can't say trump isn't trying! He just vetoed the Senate bill to end all
aid to continue the war on Yemen! What did Yemen ever do to us? Not a damn thing! His true
colors are shining more every day. His followers will say it's a trick! It's 4d chess! It's
disgusting!
The area around Venezuela is actually now the richest "oil region" in the world.
You know... I often ponder how must simpler and peaceful the world could and SHOULD be
were the ziombie United States not such a belligerent force. Our Founding Fathers would be
outrageously appalled at their descendants to whom they bequeathed responsibility for
maintaining and championing their original philosophy.
The question now is who in the Washington bureaucracy will take the blame for pushing
Trump to insist on actions by al-Sisi which any fundamental analysis of the situation points
to being infeasible and against Egypt's view of its own strategic interests.
i think the question now is whether Trump is such an idiot Zionist that he takes his
orders from Sheldon Adelson Bolt-on, and Pompous. MIGA.
Already answered,and the ***-whipping when he takes on Iran will be well deserved,no way
to
win short of using nukes. Iran is far too important to Russia and China for that to be
allowed. Logistics and demographics are not on the US's side, even the Pentagram wants
nothing to do with an actual war with Iran.
Even people on the fringe of the Jewish Israeli society, the Russian Israelis, were all for
Jewish nationalism and against socialism and Arabs. This is really silly. They are hardly
considered Jews, to begin with. The Ministry of Interior plans to check them for DNA and
whether they are Jewish at all.
The Russians are weak economically, and their participation in the national discourse is
minimal. There is not a single Russian on the national Israeli TV channels.
They have a party of their own, the party of Mr Lieberman. However, the main demands of Mr
Lieberman are (1) to bring the death penalty upon Arabs, (2) to bomb and invade Gaza, and (3)
to make Mr Lieberman the Minister of Defence. And the Russian Israelis voted for him – or
for Mr Netanyahu – anyway.
Israelis of Oriental origins who inhabit poor peripheral towns are similar to Russians. They
also vote for Netanyahu and for his nationalist right-wing party, Likud. They are proud they
vote against the Ashkenazi Blue-and-White Party, though all leaders of Likud are Ashkenazi
Jews.
Is there a chance to change things in Israel, with such a Parliament? Well, yes. A military
defeat can change minds, like it did in many countries many times. Otherwise, it is hard to
imagine what would cause Netanyahu to change his course in view of the US support, Saudi
friendship, Syrian weakness, and good election results. He is not for resolving conflicts, he
is for managing conflict, and he is doing that well.
Russia's Putin plays ball with Bibi, too. Perhaps he does not like Bibi's relentless attacks
on Syria, perhaps his heart goes for Palestinians, but he is a cautious statesman, and he does
not want to antagonise the man who can mobilise American Jews into an action against Russia.
There are enough American Jews against Russia and against Putin as things are; Putin does not
need more. Besides, the Israeli opposition is not keen on Putin; they are lining up with the US
Democrats and with Brussels Europeans. They called for direct intervention in Syria on the side
of 'moderate rebels', while Netanyahu had kept Israel out of Syrian War and did not obstruct
Putin's Syrian campaign.
Will Netanyahu annex the whole of the West Bank, as he said during the election campaign?
Probably not; as nothing will be obtained by such an act but making apartheid visible. Instead,
he is likely to annex every place where Jews live in the West Bank, turning the territory of
Palestine into a slug-eaten cabbage leaf. He also may annex Area C, a bigger part of
Palestinian territory presently under Israeli military control and Palestinian civilian
administration. The Jewish settlers demand it, for, they say, Palestinians damage the
contiguity of the Jewish settlements.
The Jewish religious parties came out stronger in the new parliament. They also enjoy a very
high natural growth with families of 5 to 8 children average. They are not eager to compete on
the labour market, and prefer to be paid for studying Talmud and having kids. While it may
annoy some Israelis, in my view, it is an internal issue of little interest or importance for
anybody outside the Jewish milieu.
Is there a possible solution for the conflict? It is definitely not the Deal of the Century
of Mr Jared Kushner, some yet undefined arrangement usually done with smoke and mirrors.
Probably One Democratic State, where Jews and non-Jews are equal, is the only possible
solution, as the place is too small to divide but large enough to share.
As people were forming up to stage this year's March 8 rally for women's rights in Kiev, a
group of about three dozen young men, clad in dark clothes, started harassing the marchers by
tearing off their lapel pins and ripping away their placards.
Some of the men tried to pull away a banner from Mariya Dmytriyeva, a well-known spokeswoman
for feminist causes. She resisted. "Woman, why are you so nervous?" they jeered at her.
Fortunately, she says, police intervened and separated them.
It's a familiar scene in Ukraine these days, where radical ultra-rightists are an
increasingly threatening presence on the streets. "I think that overall these groups are very
insignificant in size. But they are very radical and very loud," Ms. Dmytriyeva says. "If they
can get away with attacking us like that, it shows there is something dangerous there."
Though few in number overall, far-right groups operate with a high degree of impunity in
Ukrainian society, allowing them to harass and attack minorities and human rights advocates
without repercussions. Some worry that such groups, given their anti-democratic ideals,
paramilitary discipline, and freedom to operate, could have an outsize influence should Ukraine
return to political instability. Though the ultra-rightists were given much latitude due to
their help protecting the Maidan Revolution and the fledgling government that followed, now
they highlight a key weakness of the current system.
"During the Maidan there was a context that was comfortable for [the radical right]. During
the war [with rebels in the east], it was very comfortable," says Vyacheslav Likhachev, a
historian and expert on Ukraine's right-wing movements. "Today we do not have a context in
which a small minority, with street fighting skills, have the means to create instability. But
in case there is instability, they are a very dangerous factor."
Operating with
impunity
Ukraine's far-right groups, some of which include armed veterans of the war in Donbas, are
an extremely controversial topic. And despite considerable stabilization in Ukrainian society
over the past five years, the danger they pose appears to be growing.
Just a couple of days after the March 8 rally, scores of far-right activists belonging to
the new National Corps party attacked the motorcade of President Petro Poroshenko in the
Ukrainian city of Cherkasy,
injuring 19 police officers . In the past year, far-right organizations have carried out
over two dozen violent assaults on women's groups, LGBT activists, and Roma encampments that
have left many injured and at least one person dead. It is very rare,
activists say , that police intervene as they did in Ms. Dmytriyeva's case, much less bring
the attackers to justice.
Analysts say the strength of these groups derives mainly from the weakness of Ukraine's
post-Maidan state, or rather its reluctance to enforce law and order when it comes to the
depredations of radical rightists. That may be in part due to the role ultra-right fighters
played during the Maidan revolt against former President Viktor Yanukovych, as organized
defenders of the protest encampment and sometimes initiators of violence against
police.
Even more important is their status as war heroes who formed private battalions and
rushed to the front in 2014 to battle separatist rebels at a time when the Ukrainian Army was
in serious disarray. As a result they enjoy connections with authorities, and a level of social
respectability, that would probably not be the case otherwise.
It's important to point out that despite their high public visibility and the apparent
impunity with which they act on the streets, the far-right groups do not appear to represent
any social upsurge of radical nationalism. Indeed, a joint candidate put forward by five of
Ukraine's leading ultra-rightist groups in the March 31 first round of Ukrainian presidential
elections, Ruslan Koshulynskyi, won less than 2% of the votes.
Rather, the fear among many here is that if Ukraine's weak state institutions should again
suffer any sort of breakdown, these highly organized, disciplined, armed, violence-prone,
and ideologically determined groups might punch far above their weight in determining a
political outcome.
'We are not democrats'
Instability is a prospect that may not be far from the surface in post-Maidan Ukraine. The
Right Sector, a militant ultra-nationalist group that played a very prominent role during the
Maidan uprising, has since consolidated itself as a political party with an armed wing and a
youth movement. It may not be the largest right-wing movement in Ukraine, but it has maintained
its revolutionary sense of purpose and complete rejection of the existing order.
"We are not democrats. We participate in elections only because they are a step to
revolution," says Artyom Skoropadskiy, press spokesman of the Right Sector party. "We want to
change the whole system. New people, new order, new rules in the state system of Ukraine. We
oppose Russia, and we are against Ukraine joining the European Union and NATO. We want Ukraine
to be a self-sufficient, independent state."
The Right Sector backed Mr. Koshulynskyi's presidential bid simply because it offered an
opportunity for political agitation, he says, and the vote tally is of secondary interest.
"Our organization is designed to take power. If circumstances warrant, that could happen by
nondemocratic methods. Believe me, we are very capable of acting in extreme situations," he
adds. "At the Maidan we had only 300 activists, and look what we did. In fact, if you consider
that there was never more than 1 million people participating in the Maidan altogether, out of
a population of 42 million, it shows how things really work. The active minority always leads
the passive majority. Scenarios change, and we are ready. Our purpose is to save Ukraine."
The Right Sector, and other militant street groups such as C-14 and the newly created
National Corps, already pose a real and present danger to vulnerable groups of the population,
such as gay and transgender people, women's activists, Roma, as well as any dissidents who
might, rightly or wrongly,
be viewed as "pro-Russian."
Ulyana Movchan, director of Insight, a nongovernmental group that provides legal services
and other support to LGBT groups, says that people who do not belong to these vulnerable groups
of the population should wake up and be more concerned about what is happening.
"The problem is that these right-wing activists are armed; they have combat experience.
They are organized into illegal military groups," she says. "They are trying to control the
streets and maybe, in future, political life as well. We do not know what they might do. They
don't just pose a personal danger to certain activists, they are a threat to the whole
society."
Giving too much leeway to nationalists?
Many Ukrainian analysts argue that these new rightist groups are not "nationalist," but
rather racist, intolerant, and extreme social conservatives. But it may be a problem that more
mainstream Ukrainian nationalists, such as the Svoboda party – which does not participate
in street violence – tend to make heroes of 20th-century "fighters for Ukrainian
independence." Those include Stepan Bandera, whose fascist ideology, collaboration with the
Nazis, and participation in
wartime ethnic cleansing against Poles and Jews makes him and those like him poor role
models for modern Europe-bound Ukraine.
The Ukrainian parliament has passed legislation making it illegal to deny the hero status of
Mr. Bandera. In Kiev, a major boulevard was recently renamed "Bandera Prospekt." It should be
no surprise that groups like the Right Sector model themselves on such World War II-era
Ukrainian nationalist fighters.
"We are a Ukrainian nationalist group, in the image of Stepan Bandera," says Mr.
Skoropadskiy.
Tensions over these historical issues are real enough, especially in the more Russified
eastern Ukraine – where everyone's grandfather served in the Red Army – and they
may be part of the explanation for the very high first round vote for Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a
Russian-speaker from eastern Ukraine who plays down nationalist themes.
"During the past five years the government made more steps [to legitimize figures like Mr.
Bandera] than much of society is willing to accept," says Mr. Likhachev. "Most of society feels
we don't need Lenin or Bandera. But you can't really mobilize people politically with these
issues. There has been no big public movement against it."
More significant is the strong attraction these new radical right groups seem to exercise
over Ukrainian youth. They articulate a cause. They have slick promotional materials and
maintain a big infrastructure of sports clubs, training camps, and regular activities.
"I see how many young people want to be part of a movement," says Ms. Movchan. "It's kind of
fashionable these days to join something, and here they are with all kinds of tools of
recruitment, such as fight clubs, training grounds, and parades. They bring out the worst
emotions, like homophobia and racism, to channel their aggression. I wish we could broaden our
own audience to show young people there are other ways to be active, like fighting for human
rights."
"... For Christ's sake! The "Deep State"!?! With a well documented pathological liar and a seemingly endless supply of professional sycophants in our government selling our nation to the highest bidder in plain sight why in the world do you folks continue to need grand delusions of demons in the woodwork??? ..."
"... I have no reason to believe Comey, Clapper and Brennen have served this nation with honor and integrity in dealing with more responsibility than that required to sit safely at home and blabber about as the victim of some grand conspiracy ..."
"... To the extent that McCain comes out looking bad in a special counsel's report, Trump haters like you will no longer be able to talk about Trump's supposed terrible character in dissing noble John McCain, and holding it up as Exhibit A of why Trump shouldn't be president. ..."
"... Our failures of statecraft are quite analogous to the ongoing errors in my field (medicine), well described in "To Err is Human." We've made a lot of progress in medicine in addressing them, mostly though systems engineering. That's because the tendency toward these errors is a result of how human brains are wired, and if you have a human brain, no matter how smart or well educated you are, you have those tendencies. The key is to create systems that catch the errors. ..."
"... Now we have to figure out how to create systems to constrain politicians, and especially the military-industrial-Congressional complex (Eisenhower's actual original term), from making those errors. ..."
"... "Iraq wrecked me, even though I somehow didn't expect it to. I was foolish to think that traveling to the other side of the world and spending a year seeing death and poverty, bearing witness to a war, learning how to be mortared at night and deciding it didn't matter that I might die before breakfast, wasn't going to change me. Of the military units I was embedded in, three soldiers did not come home; all died at their own hands." ..."
"... Here is a thought; the unprovoked American aggression in Iraq wrecked Iraq! There is no comparison between the millions of dead, dispossessed, displaced, terrorized and radicalized Iraqis and a few thousand PTSD cases with the richest government in the world on their side. ..."
"... It's like a pimp complaining about bruised knuckles on account of hitting a woman too many times! ..."
"... The title of your book sounds like "Invading Iraq was a Good Idea but the Implementation was Bad and I Couldn't Fix It". Did you really think we could invade a sovereign country based on lies and win "hearts and minds" if we just did it the right way? Not possible. ..."
The invasion of Iraq was a mistake of historic dimensions. The "weapons of mass destruction" excuse was a lie. When I see George
W. Bush smiling on TV, I want to puke. Likewise, I cannot view an image of Lyndon Johnson without revulsion. They are both responsible
for much death and suffering. I have heard people try to excuse both of them, with the statement that "they meant well." The road
to Hell is paved with good intentions.
For Christ's sake! The "Deep State"!?! With a well documented pathological liar and a seemingly endless supply of professional
sycophants in our government selling our nation to the highest bidder in plain sight why in the world do you folks continue to
need grand delusions of demons in the woodwork???
I have no reason to believe Comey, Clapper and Brennen have served this nation with honor and integrity in dealing with
more responsibility than that required to sit safely at home and blabber about as the victim of some grand conspiracy.
The war In Afghanistan would have ended 15 years ago if the sons of members of Congress were being drafted. "It's easy to send
someone else's sons to war."
You left out the phrase "anything other than" following the phrase "have served this nation with" in your last sentence.
You forgot to express your confidence in John McCain. Good luck with that. McCain's top aide flew to a foreign city to receive
the Steele dossier, gave it to the senator, who then gave it to the FBI–as per Steele's script, I assume. It's another reason
why we need a special counsel to look into the FBI's role. A special counsel can hardly omit the McCain piece of the puzzle, whereas
a regular prosecutor can easily ignore it and cover McCain's keister.
To the extent that McCain comes out looking bad in a special counsel's report, Trump haters like you will no longer be able
to talk about Trump's supposed terrible character in dissing noble John McCain, and holding it up as Exhibit A of why Trump shouldn't
be president.
More than anything else concerning the FBI's election shenanigans, the McCain-Steele nexus–specifically the report written
about it by a special counsel–could expose the deep state's modus operandi. Not even an inspector general's report can do that
as well as a special counsel's report.
Your book will go out of print. In 10 to 20 years it will be reprinted and sell well. It takes that long for people to remove
their heads from their nether regions and be willing to contemplate the errors made.
The real irony is that we know better. There is a vast body of literature on major cognitive errors, and the whole catalog
is on display in the debacle described. Our failures of statecraft are quite analogous to the ongoing errors in my field
(medicine), well described in "To Err is Human." We've made a lot of progress in medicine in addressing them, mostly though
systems engineering. That's because the tendency toward these errors is a result of how human brains are wired, and if you
have a human brain, no matter how smart or well educated you are, you have those tendencies. The key is to create systems that
catch the errors.
Now we have to figure out how to create systems to constrain politicians, and especially the military-industrial-Congressional
complex (Eisenhower's actual original term), from making those errors.
I commiserate with your disillusioning journey because I went through a similar odyssey into self-awareness like yours many decades
ago. I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam (31 May 1967 – 31 May 1968). It's all been downhill from there. A gradual slide
down the slippy slope of history in our decline as a nation. There's not much one can really do. But at my age, I will be long
gone when our country hits burns and crashes as it hits bottom.
"Iraq wrecked me, even though I somehow didn't expect it to. I was foolish to think that traveling to the other side of the world
and spending a year seeing death and poverty, bearing witness to a war, learning how to be mortared at night and deciding it didn't
matter that I might die before breakfast, wasn't going to change me. Of the military units I was embedded in, three soldiers did
not come home; all died at their own hands."
Enough books and movies about those poor damaged American boys yet?
The navel gazing never stops.
Here is a thought; the unprovoked American aggression in Iraq wrecked Iraq! There is no comparison between the millions
of dead, dispossessed, displaced, terrorized and radicalized Iraqis and a few thousand PTSD cases with the richest government
in the world on their side.
Get over yourselves! Honestly! It's like a pimp complaining about bruised knuckles on account of hitting a woman too many
times!
The title of your book sounds like "Invading Iraq was a Good Idea but the Implementation was Bad and I Couldn't Fix It". Did
you really think we could invade a sovereign country based on lies and win "hearts and minds" if we just did it the right way?
Not possible.
Just a cynical take, but implying that there are lessons to be learned from previous or present wars that should keep us from
engaging in future wars presumes that the goal is to, where possible, actually avoid war.
It also suggests a convenient, simplistic narrative that the military/DOD is incompetent and stupid, and unable to learn from
previous engagements.
I wonder if the Middle East is nothing more than a live-fire laboratory for the military; if it seems as though there is no
plan, no objective, no victory for these engagements, maybe that is because the only objectives and victory are to provide practical
war training for our troops, test equipment and tactics, keep defense contractors employed and the Pentagon's budget inflated,
and to project power and provide a convenient excuse for proximity to our 'real' enemies.
Draping these actions under a pretense of spreading 'peace and democracy' is just a pretense and, as we can see by our track
record, has nothing to do with actual victory. "Victory", depending on who you ask, is measured in years of engagement and dollars
spent, period.
And because it is primarily taking place in the far away and poorly understood Middle East, it is never going to be enough
of an issue with voters for politicians to have to seriously contend with.
This person is a crybaby. At 49 he went to a war that most rational people knew already, was an immoral, illegal waste of people,
time and money. But now he wants to whine about PTSD. I have the same opinion about most soldiers who fought there also. Nobody
made them volunteer for that junk war so quit whining when things get a little hard
Editor's Note: @ProfessorsBlogg tweeted 14/4 a translation of "Mi
Amigo Julian Assange", authored by Ms Alicia Castro, formerly Argentina's ambassador in the
UK and Venezuela. The text in Spanish appeared the same day in Página 12 ,
Argentina. Text translated by Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli, April 14, 2019.
In 2012, the year I arrived in London as ambassador, Julian Assange obtained the
diplomatic asylum of Ecuador and settled in the embassy on Hans Crescent Street. That day the
embassy was surrounded by cars of the British police and some agents struggled to enter. My
first reflection was to send some trays with meat pasties -"empanadas"- and sweet pastries to
alleviate the doings of ambassador Ana Alban. During the following days, together we organized
a meeting of Latin American ambassadors, to follow from the legation of Ecuador the session of
the OAS [the Organization of American States] where the asylum of Assange was discussed. We
sat, for the first time, around that dark table, in an austere room. Suddenly, and discreetly,
as we all were waiting, Julian Assange burst in. He was already a legend. I expressed to him
how much, we the Latin Americans, had to thank for his revelations about the diplomatic cables
that showed the deep and perverse degree of interference by the United States government in our
affairs. I myself had as proof the cable that the ambassador of the United States in Argentina,
Lino Gutierrez, wrote about my appointment as ambassador in Venezuela, where specific details
of my actions are described, which I did not even remember.
That day began a long series of encounters that I had with Julian throughout the four years
of my mission in London and in subsequent years, when I visited him several times. Our first
conversation revolved around the accusations in Sweden about sexual abuse; We spoke frankly,
and I concluded that it was a fabrication of two unscrupulous women with whom he had casual
relationships, who had been manipulated to accuse him of criminal doings. Sweden demanded his
extradition to respond to these allegations -they never pressed charges against him- while his
lawyers tirelessly requested that he could testify in London, since Sweden would extradite him
to the United States for revealing state secrets.
At that time, the embassy was crowded with interesting people who visited him; philosophers,
politicians, musicians, designers. And I could regret that I had missed the visit of Zizek,
Yoko Ono or Yannis Varoufakis, but in a next meeting I was meeting the designer Vivienne
Westwood, the human rights lawyer Helena Kennedy, the filmmaker Ken Loach, Bianca Jagger, and
mythical investigative journalists -such as the American Gavin MacFadyen, creator of the Centre
for Investigative Journalism (CIJ) and the Australian John Pilger. Many of them are my friends
until today. We tried to alleviate [Julian Assange's] confinement with any excuse: we
celebrated his birthday parties, his 100 days of asylum -for which I brought a cake with the
number 100-, my daughter and I went with enthusiasm to assemble Julian's Christmas tree,
and I also accompanied him at some New Year Eve festivities. end of the year accompanying him.
Ecuador came to be at the centre of London's political and cultural life, and former President
Rafael Correa was recognized by the progressive sectors as a definite defender of human
rights.
In each of my long conversations with Julian I learned something, that he is a man obsessed
with a clear and uncommon mission: to democratize the truth. Unlike other platforms, Wikileaks
does not reveal information related to a certain political affiliation , but publishes the
information it receives, once it is accurately deciphered and checked, and without revealing
the source. It has published more than 10 million classified documents revealing the secrets
that once belonged to a small elite linked to the military industrial complex
As time went by, the threats at the embassy were decreasing; the next ambassador prescribed
stricter visiting conditions; there was hardly any food one night when former Foreign Minister
Ricardo Patiño visited him -when he caught me by surprise that he tirelessly sings a
whole Latin American repertoire, being totally abstemious, and [also] the grace of Judge
Baltasar Garzon (one of the Assange team's lawyers) in dancing flamenco . We tried
unsuccessfully that Julian would sing a syllable or dance, but we never succeeded. He relaxed
though and accompanied us with that radiant smile of his, which is lost today. One day I
realized that Julian had not touched an animal for years, and I began to visit him with my dog
Mandiyu, whom he sat on his lap and became fond of, as he did of "empanadas"
[meat pasties] and our Malbec wine, which I brought him occasionally.
Then we succeeded that he would be allowed to have a kitten, whose company he greatly
enjoyed, and whose presence at the embassy has generated one of the most odd and obtuse amongst
the complaints raised by the current president of Ecuador. Lenin Moreno took away [Julian
Assange's] diplomatic asylum in violation of international law and the resolution of UN
Committee on Arbitrary Detention which established in 2015 that Assange's detention is
arbitrary and illegal and that he should be released.
The last times I saw him, his situation was worrisome. He was being spied on, and had a
ribbon hanging from his neck with a series of pen drives. We talked in the dining room, around
that table where we met for the first time, raising the volume of the radio and writing part of
what we wanted to say, exchanging two notebooks and covering our heads to avoid cameras and
microphones. He would never give up.
Julian was violently dragged out from the embassy of Ecuador and taken captive by the police
of the decadent Teresa May, while he was shouting that the United Kingdom must resist the
pressure of Trump. That image destroys me and I cannot see it without crying, nor can I stop
thinking of my friend now unjustly confined in prison.
Lenin Moreno has agreed with Donald Trump the rendition [of Assange] to the United States,
and Assange will have to face an extradition trial, accused of "conspiracy" for alleged
cooperation with the former intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to decipher the password of a
US Defence Ministry computer belonging to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet). Trump
and May defend and implement the espionage on the private life of the citizens and the opacity
of the States.
Today, that all of us are victims of the gross manipulation of information, subject to media
operations designed to demonize and wage causes against political and social leaders , in the
middle of a war of "fake news" that distorts reality, it is shocking and paradoxical that a
journalist is imprisoned for acting as a soldier of the truth.
Assange is not American [citizen] and the Wikileaks platform is a foreign news
organization. The idea that the government of the United States can reach and extradite a
member of any media in the world is terrifying. Never in the history of the United States has
an editor been persecuted for presenting truthful information to the public. It creates the
precedent that any journalist can be extradited, tried and imprisoned for publishing accurate
information about the United States. The freedom of the press does not consist only in the
right to publish, but also in the right to read, in the right to be informed, in the right to
be informed that we have, as readers.
This universal right has its best defender in Julian Assange, a hero of a new type, for whose
freedom we will tirelessly claim, together with the men and women of the world who believe that
the truth will set us free.
I recently spoke to some college students who, I realized, were in fifth grade when I got on
a plane to Iraq. They now study that stuff in history classes like "Opportunities and Errors:
21st-Century America in the Middle East." About halfway through our conversation, I realized
it's coming up on 10 years since I first went to Iraq. Now that's real history.
I was a Foreign Service Officer then, a diplomat, embedded with the U.S. Army at a series of
forward operating bases and in charge of a couple of reconstruction teams, small parts of a
complex failure to rebuild the Iraq we wrecked. I ended up writing a book about it all,
explaining in tragicomic terms how we failed (those "Errors").
The book, We Meant Well: How I Helped
Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People was -- and wasn't --
well-received. People laughed at the funny parts, but my message -- it didn't work and here's
why -- was largely dissipated at the time (2012) by government and media propaganda centered on
The Surge. That was David Petraeus's plan to pacify the Sunnis and push al-Qaeda away, while
clearing, holding, and building across the country, apparently to make room so ISIS and the
Iranians could move in.
Meanwhile, the new American president, elected in part based on his "no" vote on the war in
2003, proclaimed it all a victory and started bringing the troops home even while I was still
in Iraq. Meanwhile my employer, the U.S. Department of State, was unhappy with my book. After a
year-long
process , State pushed me into early retirement. My career was history.
Advertisement
Iraq wrecked me, even though I somehow didn't expect it to. I was foolish to think that
traveling to the other side of the world and spending a year seeing death and poverty, bearing
witness to a war, learning how to be mortared at night and deciding it didn't matter that I
might die before breakfast, wasn't going to change me. Of the military units I was embedded in,
three soldiers did not come home; all died at their own hands. Around us, Iraqis blew
themselves up alongside children. Everyone was a potential killer and a potential target. I did
this at age 49, on antidepressants and with a good family waiting back home. I cannot imagine
what it would have done to 18-year-old me. And I had it easier than most, and much easier than
many.
People asked in line at Trader Joe's and in interviews on semi-important TV shows, "Was it
all worth it to you?" I always answered yes. I'm not important, I said, but the story is. And
now we're making the same mistakes in Afghanistan. The only way to even start to justify it was
to think there might be some meaning behind it all. It didn't do anything for me but fill my
soul with vodka but maybe somehow it helped?
See, my book wasn't aimed at cataloging the failures in Iraq per se, but in trying to make
sure we didn't do the same thing in Afghanistan. The initial title wasn't We Meant Well,
but Lessons for Afghanistan from the Reconstruction of Iraq . The early drafts were
pretentious scholarly stuff, outlining our mistakes. Harvard Business School-like case studies.
Maps. Footnotes. It would have sold maybe five copies, and so my editors encouraged me to add
more funny parts. NPR's Fresh Air actually added a laugh track to my
interview . I figured I'd get the lessons across with humor more effectively anyway. In
such situations, you have to think that way. You can't believe that what you went through
didn't matter and keep getting out of bed every morning.
I now know officially that it did not matter. It was pointless. SIGAR shows I accomplished
nothing.
SIGAR is the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, a government oversight
body that is supposed to prevent waste, fraud, and mismanagement of the billions of dollars
being spent rebuilding Afghanistan but that has its hands full just keeping a CVS
receipt-length history of what's wrong. Sound familiar?
SIGAR just released its " 2019 High-Risk List ," which
points out especially egregious things that will follow in the wake of any peace agreement in
Afghanistan. Here are some quoted highlights:
set the
cash ablaze on the streets of Kabul for all the good it will do."
That last line really got me. In my book, I'd written, "While a lot of the money was spent
in big bites at high levels through the Embassy, or possibly just thrown into the river when no
one could find a match to set it on fire ." Had SIGAR read what I'd written? Or was the
joke just so obvious that we'd both come to the same punchline 10 years and two countries
apart?
Word for word as in Iraq, and after over 17 years of American effort, the U.S. has failed to
establish a viable government in Afghanistan, eliminate the local
insurgents/patriots/residents, establish a civil society, tamp down corruption, and ensure some
sort of national defense. Afghanistan has almost no chance of survival except as a Taliban
narcoland with financial support needed indefinitely to avoid whatever "worse" would be in that
calculus.
But there still are semi-believers. One former State Department colleague is on her fourth
assignment in Kabul, roughly half her career. Her job is to liaise with the few NATO officials
still hanging around. She says it's easy work; they've known each other for years. She's heard
we're making progress.
Around the same time as the SIGAR report, the Army War College released its history of the Iraqi Surge, a quagmire of dense
prose that I'm only about halfway through, but so far no mention of the impact of
reconstruction. The theme seems to be that the Army had some good ideas but the politicians got
in the way. Fair enough, but they misspelled Vietnam as I-r-a-q all throughout.
The post-9/11 wars have metastasized across three presidencies so far. Pick the thing you
detest most about Bush, Obama, and Trump, and complain about how it was never investigated
enough and how there weren't enough hearings. And then I'll disagree, for most everything that
happened and continues to happen in Iraq and Afghanistan has gone uninvestigated, unheard of,
and unpunished. It's ancient history.
We all want to believe that what we did, what we didn't do, the moral injury, the PTSD, the
fights with spouses, the kid at home we smacked too hard when she wouldn't eat her green beans,
all of what we saw and heard, mattered. You read that SIGAR report and tell me how. Because
basically I'm history now.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for
the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan.
"... While Russia is being set up as the scapegoat of the collapsing western liberal establishment, this most recent red alarm by Freeland and Canada's response to the "danger" is useful for two reasons: ..."
"... First and foremost, Freeland's shameless warnings over "foreign interference" have become so loud that an irony has become unavoidable. She has after all been caught red handed behind the destabilization of both Ukraine and Venezuela. Secondly, by reviewing the mechanisms being created by Canada to counter-act this "threat", a clear insight is provided into the inner workings of the actual foreign influences which infiltrated Canada many decades ago. ..."
"... On the first point, Freeland's role as a co-architect of the nazi-fueled overthrow of a pro-Russian government in February 2014 is now well known. Aside from her family's Nazi connections going back to her grandfather Michael Chomiak's leading role as a Nazi collaborator in WWII, and her own mother's role in helping to draft Ukraine's neo-liberal constitution, Freeland herself not only befriended leading neo-Nazi collaborators such as Canadian Ukrainian Congress' president Paul Grod and but has also promoted NATO's anti-Russian expansion across eastern Europe. ..."
"... Freeland set up a program for regime change which involved a two-part formula of 1) mobilizing mass direct support for the overthrow of a government, and 2) gaining international support for said overthrow. ..."
"... Canada itself was infiltrated by a foreign player many years ago and what we will briefly see is that Canada can only be called the "world's first post national-state nation" because it never really became a genuine nation in the first place, but was always manipulated by a foreign power... although not the one you think. ..."
"... It is from this cybernetics central node that the web of governance both in Canada and also across other British infiltrated territories in the Trans-Atlantic system is coordinated under the directives of London. ..."
In the midst of one of the
most de-stabilizing scandals to rock Canada in years, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland
announced on April
5 that the threat of "Foreign interference" going into the October 2019 elections was at an all-time high. Sitting beside her UK
counterpart at a G7 meeting in France, Freeland stated:
"Interference is very likely and we think there have already been efforts by malign foreign actors to disrupt our democracy"
. Her warning was echoed by an embattled puppet Prime Minister in Ottawa who
stated it is "very clearly that countries like Russia are behind a lot of the divisive campaigns that have turned our politics
even more divisive and more anger-filled than they have been in the past. "
The Measures to Defend the British Deep State
In order to counteract this "foreign threat", several Canadian mechanisms have been announced to "keep democracy safe" in alignment
with the G7, Five Eyes and NATO. These mechanisms are:
The creation of an " Incident
Public Protection Panel " run by five Privy Council bureaucrats under the Clerk of the Privy Council which will exist outside
of the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, whose job is to maintain the integrity of elections. In defense of this
mysterious group, Canada's Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould stated that "it won't be one person who will decide what
Canadians will be allowed to know" (apparently having five people decide is more democratic). The new Clerk of the Privy Council
is Ian Stugart, who served as former deputy minister to Chrystia Freeland until just a few weeks ago.
A
Security and Intelligence Election Threats Task Force which will incorporate all of Canada's intelligence agencies such as the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP, the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and Freeland's Global Affairs Canada.
All of these agencies are Privy Council organizations.
The Rapid
Response Mechanism of the G7 created in June 2018 and headquartered in Ottawa Canada in Freeland's Global Affairs Office and
Privy Council Office.
While Russia is being set up as the scapegoat of the collapsing western liberal establishment, this most recent red alarm
by Freeland and Canada's response to the "danger" is useful for two reasons:
First and foremost, Freeland's shameless warnings over "foreign interference" have become so loud that an irony has become
unavoidable. She has after all been
caught red handed
behind the destabilization of both Ukraine and Venezuela. Secondly, by reviewing the mechanisms being created by Canada to counter-act
this "threat", a clear insight is provided into the inner workings of the actual foreign influences which infiltrated Canada many
decades ago.
Chrystia Freeland: Regime Change Princess of Ukraine and Venezuela
On the first point, Freeland's role as a co-architect of the nazi-fueled overthrow of a pro-Russian government in February
2014 is now well known. Aside from her family's Nazi connections going back to her grandfather Michael Chomiak's leading role as
a
Nazi collaborator in WWII, and her own mother's role in helping to draft Ukraine's neo-liberal constitution, Freeland herself
not only befriended leading neo-Nazi collaborators such as Canadian Ukrainian Congress'
president Paul
Grod and but has also promoted NATO's anti-Russian expansion across eastern Europe.
Working alongside fellow Oxford operative Ben Rowswell (now head of the Canadian International Council/ Chatham House of Canada)
during his three year tenure as Ambassador to Venezuela (2014-2017), Freeland set up a program for regime change which involved
a two-part formula of 1) mobilizing mass direct support for the overthrow of a government, and 2) gaining international support for
said overthrow.
Rowswell's on-the-ground work was designed to achieve the former as he himself admitted in
a 2017 interview saying "We became one of the
most vocal embassies in speaking out on human rights issues and encouraging Venezuelans to speak out" . Before leaving his post to
become the head of the Chatham House of Canada,
he tweeted "I don't think they (anti-Maduro forces) have anything to worry about because Minister Freeland has Venezuela way
at the top of her priority list" .
Working on fulfilling the 2nd part of the formula, Freeland directed the creation of the "Lima Group". A
Global News article of
January 24 described the group in the following terms:
"Playing a key role behind the scenes was Lima Group member Canada, whose Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland spoke to Guaido
the night before Maduro's swearing-in ceremony to offer her government's support should he confront the socialist leader".
It shouldn't be too surprising in our day and age that a nation with such a high reputation as "polite Canada" is actuality, an
active agency for regime change and global governance. Canada's very Prime Minister
did assert in 2016 that
"Canada is the world's first post national-state nation" . What may surprise some readers is that Canada itself was infiltrated
by a foreign player many years ago and what we will briefly see is that Canada can only be called the "world's first post national-state
nation" because it never really became a genuine nation in the first place, but was always manipulated by a foreign power... although
not the one you think.
The "Foreign Influence" Controlling Canada
While a longer presentation is needed to do this story justice, it is enough to note for now that neither Freeland, nor Rowswell
are operating on behalf of Canada's interests, but are rather both operatives run by an entity that took over Canada many decades
ago and are currently directed by two interlocking organizations: The Privy Council Office and the Rhodes-Milner Round Table Group
.
The Privy Council Office
The Privy Council office was set up in 1867 in order to act as the British hand guiding its newly formed confederacy (Canada nearly
became a part of Lincoln's America in the wake of the Civil War. The only thing stopping that outcome was Britain's creation of a
confederation. The full story is told in the
Imperial Myth of Canada's National
Policy. ). While its power was always great, there was still room for independent policy making by nationalistic elected officials
when the international conditions were favorable.
This was nearly entirely destroyed during the reign of technocratic golden boy Pierre Elliott Trudeau during his
1968-1973 reform of the Federal Government
under the guidance of the OECD's
Sir Alexander King. It was during this time Sir King's Club of Rome (Ottawa branch) was set up in Ottawa under the guidance of
Trudeau and his clerk of the Privy Council Michael Pitfield, and other neo-Malthusian technocrats such as Privy Council President
Michel Lamontagne, Maurice Strong, and Governor General Roland Mitchener.
It was from this control point in Ottawa in 1971 that the work later to become known as Limits to Growth was funded by tax payers
and which became the bible for the new Malthusianism and blueprint for the "post-industrial society". It is from this cybernetics
central node that the web of governance both in Canada and also across other British infiltrated territories in the Trans-Atlantic
system is coordinated under the directives of London.
this whole world wide medeling thing after our govs have been unashamedly meddling everywhere for years , it just shows thier
fear, they are loosing thier populaces and looking for scapegoats, i love it, times are changing
...will Canada follow suit in order to become a true sovereign nation freed of all foreign imperial influence once and for
all?
Ha ha (Bart Simpson style). Canada has, and will always be, a British-USA vassal-state (with a veneer of democratic elections).
Washington tells the Ottawa government to jump! After asking permission from the UK, Canada negotiates with America as to how
high - since the country is technically insolvent there isn't that much jumping room.
Russia is charged with bringing things in the open, to the light, instead of letting creatures of the dark skulk in shadows,
plotting, backstabbing, poisoning and conducting their "business" as usual. Because apparently democracy flourishes in darkness
and ignorance...
"... In SUPERCLASS we learn that this class of people actually own and control the three largest Western religions and many of the secondary ones - they all preach obedience to authority as paramount. They also own the drugs trade around the world. 95% of the world supply of opium comes out of Afghanistan under the watchful eye of the Elite through use of the US military. ..."
"... And just as an aside to any historians out there, Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the Twenty-first Century shows how a critical mass of capital was had formed 500 years ago and has grown consistently at a rate greater than the general economy ever sense. He showed that before, during and after the French Revolution and later the US "revolution" the core capital of the west made profits. These revolutions, like government today, were pantomimes whilew the real power profited from the slaughter. The Elite prosper from war that is why there has been continual war and slaughter on their behalf sinse August 6, 1945. The nuclear weapons belong to them. ..."
You ask a question about European political class's perception and defence of European
interests that is as perplexing here as it is in regard to Libya and Syria, to name just
these. There was at least some coherent defence of international law and principle during
Bush II's lead up to the Iraq war, but Europe's defence of law and Europe's common interests
seem to have ceased at some point since then.
Because, like the US European government is a tool of the Global Power Elite, it is
nothing more than pantomime. The West is fully owned and operated by the global elite.
In books going back to C Wright Mills' The Power Elite in 1956 to SUPERCLASS by David
Rothkopf, and GIANTS: The Global Power Elite by Peter Phillips clearly outline just how
powerful the Global Elites really are.
In SUPERCLASS we learn that this class of people actually own and control the three
largest Western religions and many of the secondary ones - they all preach obedience to
authority as paramount. They also own the drugs trade around the world. 95% of the world
supply of opium comes out of Afghanistan under the watchful eye of the Elite through use of
the US military.
There is one and only one Western empire - that of the Global Elites.
85% of the valuable assets in the world are controlled by the Global Elites.
There is no offsetting force against them, there simply does not exist today a force
capable of challenging their ownership of the world.
And just as an aside to any historians out there, Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the
Twenty-first Century shows how a critical mass of capital was had formed 500 years ago and
has grown consistently at a rate greater than the general economy ever sense. He showed that
before, during and after the French Revolution and later the US "revolution" the core capital
of the west made profits. These revolutions, like government today, were pantomimes whilew
the real power profited from the slaughter. The Elite prosper from war that is why there has
been continual war and slaughter on their behalf sinse August 6, 1945. The nuclear weapons
belong to them.
House Oversight Committee members will decide Tuesday whether to subpoena senior Trump
administration officials over a whistleblower's claim. The issue is top-level security
clearances, including those for the president's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband, Jared
Kushner, who are both presidential advisers. Paula Reid reports.
The issuance of security clearances is an executive agency function controlled by
executive order and entirely within the discretion of the president. Trump isn't violating
anything if he overrides a lower level determination on a security clearance since the entire
function of issuing a security clearance stems from his own constitutional authority. The
whole idea around security clearances is that the president has people in executive agencies
that he can trust. He can trust his own daughter and son-in-law, even if some woman in the
clearance department thinks otherwise.
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a
man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. Mark Twain
Jared Kushner is the in-law that Trump calls "his son," he's has a similar back story to the
President elect. But who is the man touted for a big role in the new administration? Subscribe
to us and get more videos from Channel 4 News Subscribe for more: bit.ly/LtASif.
Jared Kushner has allegedly been peddling his Trump White House credentials to influence
foreign policy in an attempt to save his sinking real estate business.
Former Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste tells CBC The Weekly's Wendy Mesley the
Trump administration seems to lack any 'normative behaviour.'
Interesting but very controversial. Jewish people do possess business acumen and are more oriented toward money success. Just
look what happened in the USSR after its dissolution and Yeltsin privatization. Most "oligarchs" turned to be Jewish ;-)
Also the achievement of Jewish people in science should be be underestimated. This nation gave world a lot of top
physicists mathematicians and philosophers.
Notable quotes:
"... Even the Saudi Monarchy's occasional outbursts against Israel do not inhibit it from engaging in large-scale financial transactions with the Jewish banking elite on Wall Street and City of London and from forming covert alliances with Israeli intelligence in order to overthrow secular pro-Palestinian Arab regimes – as has happened in Libya, Iraq and Syria. They have both benefited from the massive ethnic cleansing of the highly educated minority Christian populations of secular Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Fake anti-Semitism is most recently seen in the launching of series of anti-Semitic 'threats' by ethno-centric Jews to create hysteria, serves many purposes following the recent rise of populism in Europe and the election of the American President Donald Trump who had promised to withdraw the US from wars in the Middle East. First, it secures widespread support from North American and European regimes, especially when Israel is criticized throughout the world and at the United Nations for its war crimes in occupied Palestine. ..."
"... It is almost certain that the US FBI had identified the perpetrator of these acts as they uncovered the sophisticated operation based in Israel. The FBI would have demanded Israeli police arrest 'the culprit' and shut down the operation. Israeli police staged their own 'fake' investigation and concluded that the complex cloaked cyber operations 'were the work of a shy nineteen year old with dyslexia' – clearly another example of the Jewish genius. ..."
"... A review of the top 10 US multi-billionaires finds four who are identified as 'Jews': Mark Zuckerberg with $56 billion, Larry Ellison with $52.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg with $47.5 billion and Sergey Brin $39.4 billion. In other words 40% of the super-richest Americans are 'Jews' while 60% are non-Jews. Among the top ten in the US, billionaire Jews with a total of $195.1 billion are collectively less rich than the top billionaire Gentiles who own $282.7 billion. ..."
"... All the high-tech computer and financial billionaires are just assumed by the tribalists to view themselves as 'Jewish geniuses' even though they may have learned and borrowed ideas and knowledge from their non-Jewish partners and mentors in Silicon Valley or Wall Street. ..."
Ethno-religious (ER) beliefs and practices have been harmless when individuals or
groups linked to those practices have limited influence over the state and economy. In contrast,
when such groups exercise a disproportionately powerful influence over the state and economy, they
dominate and exploit majorities while forming closed self-replicating networks.
Examples of powerful ethno-centric regimes in the 1930's are well known for their brutality and
devastating consequences. These include the white Christians in the US, Germany and the European
colonial settlement regimes in Rhodesia, South Africa, India and Indonesia, as well as the Japanese
imperialists in Asia.
In the post-colonial or neo-colonial era, ethno-centrism has taken the form of virulent anti-Islamic
hysteria resulting in predatory Western regimes embarking on wars and military occupations in the
Middle East.
The rise of Judeo-centrism, as an economic and political force, occurred in the last half of
the 20th century. The Jewish-Zionist seizure, occupation and ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine
and their rising economic and political influence within the United States has created a formidable
power bloc with significant implications for world peace.
The rise of Jewish ethnocentrism (JE) has confounded its proponents as well as its adversaries;
Zionists and anti-Semites alike are surprised by the scope and depth of JE.
Advocates and adversaries, of all persuasions, conflate the power of what they call 'the Jews',
for their own purposes. Advocates find proof of 'Jewish genius' in every prestigious position and
attribute it to their own unique culture, heredity and scholarship, rather than the result of a greater
social-cultural context. The anti-Semites, for their part, attribute all the world's nefarious dealings
and diabolic plots to 'the Jews'. This creates a strange duality of illusions about the exceptionalism
of a minority group.
In this paper I will focus on demystifying the myths buttressing the power of contemporary Judeo-centric
ideology, belief and organizational influence. There is little point in focusing on anti-Semitism,
which has no impact on the economy and the exercise of state power with the possible exception of
Saudi Arabia. Even the Saudi Monarchy's occasional outbursts against Israel do not inhibit it from
engaging in large-scale financial transactions with the Jewish banking elite on Wall Street and City
of London and from forming covert alliances with Israeli intelligence in order to overthrow secular
pro-Palestinian Arab regimes – as has happened in Libya, Iraq and Syria. They have both benefited
from the massive ethnic cleansing of the highly educated minority Christian populations of secular
Iraq and Syria.
Fake Anti-Semitism: Operational Weapon of the Ethno-Centric Jews
Fake anti-Semitism is most recently seen in the launching of series of anti-Semitic 'threats'
by ethno-centric Jews to create hysteria, serves many purposes following the recent rise of populism
in Europe and the election of the American President Donald Trump who had promised to withdraw the
US from wars in the Middle East. First, it secures widespread support from North American and European
regimes, especially when Israel is criticized throughout the world and at the United Nations for
its war crimes in occupied Palestine. Widespread fake anti-Semitic attacks divert attention to Judeo-ethno
centrists and validate their claims to be the first among the history's victims. Second, widely publicized
'fake' acts of anti-Semitism arouse the ethnocentric foot soldiers and increase rich donor contributions
to the illegal Jewish settlements and the Israeli military. Third, 'fake anti-Semitism' is used to
threaten, repress and outlaw any organizations and individuals who criticize Israel and the influence
of Jewish ethnocentric organizations in their home countries.
How many 'anti-Semitic' acts are staged is uncertain: On March 23, 2017, an Israeli-American
man was arrested in Israel for sending hundreds of fake anti-Semitic threats to Jewish institutions
and schools in four European countries and nine US states. Such threats led to the emergency grounding
of two US airlines and the panicked evacuation of countless schools and cultural centers. This man
used a sophisticated system of cloaking accounts to appear to originate in other countries. Despite
his high skills at cyber-terrorism, Israeli authorities preposterously described him as a 'teenager
with a learning disability'. The Israeli-American cyber-terrorist's arrest made the 'back-pages'
news in the US for one day while his (and others') fake threats continued to make international headlines
for weeks.
These scores of fake anti-Semitic bomb threats were cited by the major ethnocentric leaders in
the US to pressure the US President and hundreds of Congressional leaders, University Presidents,
etc. to mindlessly echo their clamor for greater police state investigations against critics of Israel
and to offer special 'protection' for potential 'Jewish victims'. Moves to outlaw criticism of Israel
as 'anti-Semitism' and a 'hate crime' increased.
Not surprisingly the leading Jewish organizations never backed down or called on the US government
to investigate the source of the fake anti-Semitic threats: that is Israeli-American Zionists, who
carry both nations' passports and can enter and exit with total ease and enjoy immunity from extradition.
It is almost certain that the US FBI had identified the perpetrator of these acts as they uncovered
the sophisticated operation based in Israel. The FBI would have demanded Israeli police arrest 'the
culprit' and shut down the operation. Israeli police staged their own 'fake' investigation and concluded
that the complex cloaked cyber operations 'were the work of a shy nineteen year old with dyslexia'
– clearly another example of the Jewish genius.
It is more likely that the hundreds of false-anti-Semitic
threats were part of an Israeli state operation identified by the FBI who 'diplomatically' pressured
Tel Aviv to cut out the monkey business. The news report of the lone-wolf teenager in Israel allowed
the Israeli intelligence to cover-up their role. Once the Israelis passed off the unbelievable tale
of a brilliant, if troubled, young 'lone wolf', the entire US mass media buried the story forever.
In due time the so-called perpetrator will be released, amply rewarded and his identity re-cycled.
In the meantime the US government, as well as several European governments, was forced to allocate
tens of millions of dollars to provide extra security to Jewish institutions in the wake of these
fake threats.
Jewish Power: The Top 25 American Multi-Billionaires
In February 2017, Forbes magazine compiled a list of the world's billionaires, including a country-by-country
account. The top five countries with multi-billionaires among its citizens are: the US with 565,
China with 319, Germany with 114, India with 101, and Russia with 96. Moreover, since 2016 the net
worth of the multi-billionaires grew 18% to $7.67 trillion dollars.
While the US has the greatest number of billionaires, China is fast catching up.
Despite China's advances, the US remains the center of world capitalism with the greatest concentration
of wealth, as well as the greatest and growing inequalities. One reasonably can argue that who controls
US wealth controls the world.
'Jews' among the Top 25 Multi-Billionaires in the US
A review of the top 10 US multi-billionaires finds four who are identified as 'Jews': Mark Zuckerberg
with $56 billion, Larry Ellison with $52.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg with $47.5 billion and Sergey
Brin $39.4 billion. In other words 40% of the super-richest Americans are 'Jews' while 60% are non-Jews.
Among the top ten in the US, billionaire Jews with a total of $195.1 billion are collectively less
rich than the top billionaire Gentiles who own $282.7 billion.
Of the top 25 multi-billionaires in the US, 11 of the 25 are Jews. In other words 'the Jews'
represent 44% of the top 25 biggest billionaires – outnumbered by Gentiles but catching up.
Analysis of the 'Richest Jews'
We place 'Jews' in quotation marks because this is a doubtful signifier – more useful to both
Zionist fanatics and anti-Semitic polemicists. Most are not 'practicing' or are completely disinterested
in tribal religions. Nevertheless, half of secular Jews in the US are active supporters of Israel
or involved in Fifth Column Israeli 'front groups'.
In other words, about half of the richest 'Jews' do not consider themselves to be religiously
or ethnically 'Jewish'. Super rich Jews are divided regarding their ethnic loyalties between the
US and Israel.
Moreover what is murkier, many of the richest so-called 'Jews' were born to 'mixed marriages'.
Strictly religious Jews do not recognize the children of such marriages as Jews because their mothers
are not Jewish. The omnivorous Zionists, on the other hand, classify all of them as Jews on the basis
of their actual or potential contribution to the State of Israel. In other words, the Zionist classification
of 'Jews' becomes arbitrary, politicized and dependent on organizational affiliation. Religious practice
and ethno-cultural purity are less important.
Judeo-Centrism and the Intrinsic Superiority Fallacy
Among the many zealous advocates of the Judeo-centric world, the most tiresome are those who
claim they represent the product of superior genetics, culture and heritage – unique and intrinsic
to Jews.
For many centuries most Jews were illiterate believers of religious tribal myths, taught by anti-scientific
rabbis, who closed off the ghettos from the accomplishments of higher culture and forbade integration
or mixed marriages. The high priests punished and expelled any Jews who were influenced by the surrounding
Hellenistic, Romanized, Arabic, Renaissance and Rationalists cultures, like the great Spinoza.
In other words, Jews who had rejected Jewish law, the Scriptures and the Torah were expelled
as apostates. But these 'apostates' were most open to the modern ideas of science. Jews greatly benefited
from the emancipatory laws and opportunities following the French Revolution. Under Napoleon, Jews
became citizens and were free to advance in science, the arts and finance by attending secular universities
away from the primitive, superstitious Rabbi-controlled ghetto 'schools'.
The dramatic growth of intellectual excellence among Jews in the 19th century was a result of
their ceasing to be Jews in the traditional closed religious sense. Did they suddenly switch on their
'genius genes' or invent a fake history or religion, as the ethno-centrist would have us believe?
It seems far more likely that they took great advantage of the opportunities opened to them with
major social and political developments in the greater society. As they assimilated and integrated
in secular traditions, they ceased to be Jews in the tribal religious sense. Their scientific, medical
and financial success came from learning, absorbing and exchanging scientific ideas, high culture
and conservative, liberal and socialist ideas with the larger progressive non-Jewish society.
It is no coincidence that 'great Jewish achievers' like the totally secular Albert Einstein were
educated in German universities by German professors and drew on scientific knowledge by German and
non-Jewish scholars. His intellectual development was due to his free association with the great
scientists and scholars of Germany and Europe, not closeted away in some ethno-tribal commune.
The Jews who remained embedded in the Polish, Lithuanian and Russian ghettos, under the reign
of the leading Rabbis, remained illiterate, poor and backward. Most of the claims of 'superior' cultural
heritage or traditions are the creation of a mythical folk history serving ethno-national supremacists.
The Myth of the Contemporary Genius
The modern ethnocentric ideologues ignore the 'dilution of Jewishness' in their celebratory identification
with successful 'Jews'.
Many of the best thinkers, writers, scientists and political leaders were conversos (Christian
converts), or integrated European secular nationalists, socialists, monarchists, bankers and professionals.
Some remained 'reformed Jews' or later transformed into secular Zionists: nationalists who despised
non-Europeans as inferior and couldn't even conceive of Arab Palestine as their 'homeland'. It wasn't
until the 20th century that Zionism was in part 'Judacized'. Early Zionists looked at various locations
for a homeland, including Argentina and parts of Africa and Russia.
These ethno-chauvinist ideologues lay claim to all brilliant individuals, no matter how tenuous
as examples of 'Jewish genius'. Even those personally opposed Jewish ethno-religious beliefs and
indifferent to tribal loyalties end up being claimed as examples of the 'Jewish genius'. Once some
'matrilineal link' could be found, their success and brilliance was tied to the mystical lineage,
no matter how tenuous.
This bizarre practice became even more commonplace following the Jewish military conquest and
brutal ethnic cleansing of Palestine, with the military, political and financial backing of non-Jewish
Europe and the United States. With myths and inflated ideas of unique virtue and brilliance, Israel
was established as a racist apartheid state. A new militant, ethnocentric Judaism converted Israel and its overseas backers into an ethno-ideological
international power with religious trappings, based on the myth of its 'exceptionalism'. To maintain this myth, the personal histories of all prominent 'Israel Firsters' were sanitized
and scrubbed of anti-social and destructive behavior.
All Jewish billionaires were to be portrayed as uniquely philanthropic, while the exploits of
Jewish billionaire swindlers (Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky) were not to be mentioned
in polite company. The conquests of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, rapist-procurer head of
the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Governor Elliot Spitzer, Congressman Anthony Weiner and other similar
perverts quietly slithered off the edge of the planet although all had once been hailed as examples
of 'ethnocentric genius'.
Major Jewish political donors to US-UK-French electoral parties were hailed while their work
on behalf of Israel was naturally assumed but not discussed. The dizzying shifts between open adulation
and selective whitewash served to reinforce the illusion of superiority. Anyone, Jew or Gentile,
bold enough to point out the obvious hypocrisy would be immediately censored as 'self-hating' (Jew)
or 'anti-Semite' (Gentile).
Return to the Beginning: Judeo-Centric Power
As mentioned above, Jews represent a substantial minority among the top multi-billionaires, but
they are still a minority. Below the top level of wealth are the single digit billionaires and triple
and double digit multi-millionaires; here the proportion of 'Jews' increases. These 'less-than-super-billionaires'
are among the most active and the biggest financial and political supporters of the ethno centric
ideology and tribal cohesion.
Los Angeles-based Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban contributed tens of millions of dollars
to support of the Jewish state's occupation of Palestine and brutal colonial land grabbing 'settlers'.
His wealth is largely based on his 'genius' in pushing culturally vacuous Japanese cartoons (Mighty
Morphing Power Rangers) on the nation's children. He is the primary donor to the Democratic Party
pushing Israel's agenda – his number one priority as an American citizen.
The lesser 'foot soldiers' of the Zionist power structure are the millionaires and affluent professionals,
dentists, stockbrokers, lawyers, doctors and impresarios. The middle and lower levels of wealth and
power are a diverse group – mostly ethno-religious and secular, but very self-identified ethno-Jews.
A minority is totally secular or converted to non-Jewish religions (especially Buddhism, Christianity)
Despite the constant drumbeat of ethnocentric identity, an increasing number of young US 'Jews'
do not identify with Judaism or Israel. Their influence however is minimal.
The wealthy ethno-religious and secular ethnic Jews may or may not constitute a numerical majority
but they are the best organized, most political and most adamant in their claims to 'speak for and
represent the Jewish community' as a whole, especially during waves of (fake) 'anti-Semitism'!
The many former-Jews, anti-tribal Jews and 'non-Jewish' Jews are no match for the ethnocentric
political apparatus controlled by the chauvinists.
When the tribalists appropriate the glory of a secular non-Jewish Jewish scientist or major 'prize
winner' they claim his or her tribal affiliation in order to impress the 'goys' and to seduce younger
more skeptical Jews about the advantages of ethno-chauvinism.
All the high-tech computer and financial billionaires are just assumed by the tribalists to view
themselves as 'Jewish geniuses' even though they may have learned and borrowed ideas and knowledge
from their non-Jewish partners and mentors in Silicon Valley or Wall Street.
Upward mobility within academia, government and business circles is automatically assumed by
the tribalists to be a reward for superior merit – 'Jewish genius' – rather than nepotism or connections.
Tribal networks and 'understandings' play a powerful unspoken role in career success and immunity
from the consequences of failure, incompetence or dishonesty.
Multi-billionaires and multi-millionaires prospered because they entered establish lucrative
fields or made their career choices highly profitable.
Early on, many powerful Gentile bankers provided entry for talented Jews to succeed. This is
despite revisionist history bemoaning the exclusion of US Jews on Wall Street and their degrading
denial of membership in select WASP country clubs. These myths of brutal oppression on Wall Street
or Long Island yacht clubs have empowered generations of American Jews to assume the role of spokespersons
for the oppressed everywhere. The expression 'crying all the way to the bank' comes to mind.
By the last quarter of the 20th century and especially in the 21st century, deindustrialization
and the shift to financialization in the US economy increased the power and privilege of a disproportionate
number of multi-billionaire/millionaire Jews. This seismic shift has coincided with the pervasive
impoverishment of the marginalized working class in the former 'rust belt' and central parts of the
country and the incredible concentration of national wealth at the top 1%. This is a demographic
shift and ethno-class apartheid of huge, but unstudied, significance.
The most important political question is not how many Jews are super-wealthy but what proportion
of them are influential political donors and active in the Democratic or Republican Parties in order
to intervene on behalf of clan, tribe and motherland (Israel). Majorities among Jews are not crucial
– most are not politically active. What is decisive is the percentage of all the super-wealthy who
are politically active, organized and contribute substantially to influence and control the mass
media to promote their ethno-centric ideology and punish critics.
Conclusion
Overt and covert Jewish supremacists have embroidered a fake history and legacy of exceptional
intelligence ignoring the context of advanced non-Jewish science and cultures, which preceded and
later provided Jews with opportunities for education and wealth.
The danger inherent in all ethno-centric tribes is that they work to dominate majority populations
by creating systems of assigning superiority and inferiority. They then use these to justify growing
inequalities of wealth, education and political power!
Historically favored minorities tend to overreach and, like the eyeless Sampson, bring down the
Temple on everyone. Power corrupts and absolute ethno-chauvinist power corrupts absolutely. Intelligent
Jews of principle are abandoning
That happened often when a second rate provincial lawyer became the Secretary of State. At least Kerry knows French. Pompeo
knows absolution nothing and is capable only of repeating old cliché.
Today's special word is: Projection
Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo should go into advertising. Since the late '50's, we've torn Latin America to shreds, but we're the good guys, eh?!. ..."
"... Doesn't Pompeo also believe in the rapture. ..."
Pompeo should go into advertising. Since the late '50's, we've torn Latin America to
shreds, but we're the good guys, eh?!.
I luv my country, but I hate my government.
beemasters
This must have been the most transparently crooked administration ever in the US history! Ain't that the pot calling the
kettle black!
2willies
Doesn't Pompeo also believe in the rapture.
Idaho potato head
At some point even the most deluded sheep has got to realize he is being lied to. Or is it just as in the Matrix, there is
an age limit as to when a mind can be awoken.
After reading CYMS1 below I retract that question.
This is a pretty accurate description of "Myth about the USA" which is very common in xUSSR area too.
Notable quotes:
"... The farther you are from the US, the more mythical it becomes. Here in Ea Kly, most people have never been to Saigon, much less California, New York or Las Vegas, so their faith in the US can become childishly fanatical. This week, I met three brothers who still regret not jumping on a boat to escape, forty years ago. Every Vietnamese they know who ended up in the US had become fabulously rich, they insisted, and they cited a man who returned to build a road for his village as a typical example. ..."
"... A man in his 40's asked me if wife swapping is common in the US. As evidenced by every movie and music video, America is this insanely sexed up place where everybody is always jumping into everybody else's bed, not the land of widespread porn addiction, compulsive masturbators, bitter divorcees, smart phone exhibitionism, paid cuddlers and the never married growing old alone. ..."
"... A woman told me that she had a friend in the US who was making "only" $2,400 a month, "How can you live on so little?" "Many Americans make less than that," I answered. "I sure did most of my time there." ..."
"... She looked amused. She had no idea most Americans have to pay around 20% of their incomes on taxes, and that housing and transportation costs eat up half of their paychecks. ..."
"... As New York, Chicago, Miami, Houston, Denver, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles become covered with feces from homeless Americans, American colonies will be set up not just on Mars, but Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, in whatever order, for they're all as near as Hollywood, or your computer, assuming you'll still have one. ..."
America's most enduring export has been its image. Self-infatuated, it seduces everyone into
worshipping its self-portrait. In 1855, Walt Whitman wrote, "The United States themselves are
essentially the greatest poem," then set out to define this "greatest poem" to the rest of the
world, a monumental achievement. In 2005, Harold Pinter said, "I put to you that the United
States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and
ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most
saleable commodity is self-love. It's a winner."
The farther you are from the US, the more mythical it becomes. Here in Ea Kly, most people
have never been to Saigon, much less California, New York or Las Vegas, so their faith in the
US can become childishly fanatical. This week, I met three brothers who still regret not
jumping on a boat to escape, forty years ago. Every Vietnamese they know who ended up in the US
had become fabulously rich, they insisted, and they cited a man who returned to build a road
for his village as a typical example.
These aborted
boat people looked at me with scorn when I told them there are plenty of poor Americans,
with many in such despair they drug themselves to death, and life in the US is often a very
lonely experience, even for the native-born, with roots going back generations. I was
besmirching these naïfs' religion.
A man in his 40's asked me if wife swapping is common in the US. As evidenced by every movie
and music video, America is this insanely sexed up place where everybody is always jumping into
everybody else's bed, not the land of widespread porn addiction, compulsive masturbators,
bitter divorcees, smart phone exhibitionism, paid cuddlers and the never married growing old
alone.
A woman told me that she had a friend in the US who was making "only" $2,400 a month, "How
can you live on so little?" "Many Americans make less than that," I answered. "I sure did most of my time there."
She looked amused. She had no idea most Americans have to pay around 20% of their incomes on
taxes, and that housing and transportation costs eat up half of their paychecks.
Most people in Ea Kly have never even seen an American. In the next town, Krong Buk, there's
a white resident, the only one in a 30 mile radius. Most of his neighbors know him as simply
ông Tây, Mr. Westerner, though some do call by his first name, Peter.
A man said to Peter, "Merci, madame," the only Western phrase he knew.
Most have no idea that Peter is actually
Swiss
, and not American, but he's rich enough, by local standards, so he's more or less an
American.
White people are rich, live in fabulous countries, travel all over and can suddenly show up
even in Krong Buk to buy a nice piece of land by the lake, build an elegant house, with a guest
bungalow next to it. Whereas the locals only
fish
in this lake ,
the white man swims daily, for he knows how to enjoy life.
The apex of whiteness, though, is the United States of America, a country that didn't just
drop seven million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, as well as 20 million gallons
of herbicides, mostly Agent Orange, but sent twelve tall, clean cut and good intentioned white
men to the moon, a transcendental feat that's still unequaled after half a century, and it's a
safe bet that neither the Russians, Chinese nor anyone else will be able to accomplish this for
a while, maybe ever. Of course, Americans can return to the moon tomorrow if they want to, but
they're already looking way beyond it.
As New York, Chicago, Miami, Houston, Denver, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles become
covered with feces from homeless Americans, American colonies will be set up not just on Mars,
but Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, in whatever order, for they're all as
near as Hollywood, or your computer, assuming you'll still have one.
I think most people, (especially Russians), can relate to this sentiment. The average Ruski
is incredibly hard on their own country. But it's like how you can make fun of your siblings,
but when someone else does you knock their teeth in. I'd like to say I always respected this,
but it's not true. I was more brazen in my earlier days of travel, and hypocritically
complained about Japan with the very Muslim I referred to earlier. It's not just me, though. Go
on any expat forum, and it's full of gripes.
The first thing ESL teachers talk about when they meet is how much they miss peanut butter
or how they hate the pollution or whatever. And yet, they don't go home. The same is true of
Mexican immigrants in America and Africans in Europe, if you ever take the time to chat with
them. (Which is part of what made me more rightwing and nationalist.) The vast majority who
don't go home are economic migrants. Economic in terms of balancing the supply & demand of
money, or balancing sexual market value.
... ... ...
What is some advice you have for Americans who also want to get out?
YOU ARE INCREDIBLY LUCKY!!!
It really can't be overstated how blessed you are to have American citizenship. You can be
in tons of debt, have zero dollars in the bank, and several misdemeanors, and you'll still get
an automatic 90 day visa on arrival. Even with a one way plane ticket. This is unheard of and
will likely not be the case in the near future if current demographic trends continue. So seize
the day!
Seriously. In these past 8 years, I've met so many wealthy, well educated, amazing
[Russian] people who have to jump through so many hoops and sacrifice so much for the mere
chance of a USA tourist visa. If you only knew
... ... ...
Or "life happens" and you'll need to pay for the broken water heater or flat tire. So just
run away while you still can. The other mistake I see people make is that they toil away for
80% of the year in a job they hate, so they can splurge for a few days in an Americanized
luxury resort. Why not make every day exotic and truly get a feel for the local atmosphere by
moving somewhere for a year instead? In my experience, the most expensive part of travel is the
plane ticket. So be smart and just get a one way ticket and find a job once you get there.
have peace of mind knowing the American Embassy will take care of your spoiled ass.
Pfft. What an idiot! The State Dept employees at my local embassy wouldn't piss on me if I
was on fire – mostly because they would spend half the day researching what the proper
protocol is, and if wasn't in the book(which is most often the case) their un-thinking ass
wouldn't know whether to shit or wind their watch.
If you needed a big headed egotistical asshole for whatever reason you'd be in the right
place.
One of the more endearing compliments I ever received was from an old Russian girlfriend, who
told her friends, "He's one of the good ones he has a Russian soul." She and her friends were
just as described above, generous to a fault despite what was an obvious wealth gap.
But the funniest thing she ever did was to use her bare hand to kill a cock-roach that had
dared to cross our table at a restaurant.
Should have married that girl. Then again, I might have dodged the Babooshka bomb.
Interestingly enough, she had no desire to ever go to the US, so that was not a part of the
calculus.
Have some sympathy for our poor consular officers abroad they spend far too much time face
to face with the wretched refuse of the world trying to scam their way into the US.
The thing is, I don't want a "benevolent dictatorship" like Singapore or Russia. I want
to live in a country like the Founding Fathers of America intended.
Pick a number: everybody wants to "live in a country like the Founding Fathers of America
intended," probably even the Founding Fathers themselves did. But is seems that all our
governments just end up being dictatorships sooner or later anyway; so that being the case, I
would prefer a sane dictatorship (like Russia or Singapore) to an insane one, which is what
we Americans have at the moment.
The other mistake I see people make is that they toil away for 80% of the year in a job
they hate, so they can splurge for a few days in an Americanized luxury resort. Why not
make every day exotic and truly get a feel for the local atmosphere by moving somewhere for
a year instead?
So true.
If all else fails, just buy a bus ticket to Minnesota and see what it's like to live in
Somalia for a day.
Money quote (from comments): This GOP/Israel connection stinks to high heaven. Anyone who studied or remembers our problem with
Communist spies back in the '50s has got to be hearing alarm bells ringing in their ears. Worries about Soviet spying and Russian meddling
pale in comparison to what's now going on in plain sight with Israel.
Notable quotes:
"... As usual, Trump made the announcement of recognizing Israel's claim to the Golan Heights without any consultation with any of the relevant administration officials: ..."
"... After more than two years of watching Trump's impulsive and reckless "governing" style, it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone that he makes these decisions without advance warning. There is no evidence that Trump ever thinks anything through, and so he probably sees no reason to tell anyone in advance what he is going to do. ..."
"... Trump almost never bothers consulting with the people who will be responsible for carrying out his policies ..."
"... There is absolutely no upside for the United States in endorsing illegal Israeli claims to the Golan Heights. It is a cynical political stunt intended to boost Netanyahu and Likud's fortunes in the upcoming election, and it is also a cynical stunt aimed at shoring up Trump's support from Republican "pro-Israel" voters and donors. ..."
"... Once again, Trump has put narrow political ambitions and the interests of a foreign government ahead of the interests of the United States. That seems to be the inevitable result of electing a narcissist who conducts foreign policy based on which leaders flatter and praise him. ..."
"... Bolton is usually the culprit responsible any destructive and foolish policy decision over the last year, and his baleful influence continues to grow. We can also see the harmful effects of the administration's Iran obsession at work. In the end, the Syria "withdrawal" hasn't happened and apparently isn't going to, but Trump nonetheless gives Israel whatever it wants in exchange for nothing so that they will be "reassured" of our unthinking support. ..."
"... I wonder what Mr. Kagan has to say now about "authoritarian" regimes?! ..."
"... Trump is making one hell of a mess for the next president to clean up. ..."
"... The decision to leave the INF treaty was taken in a similar way and with a total disregard for the consequences. The leaders of the European NATO countries have shown utter spinelessness in going along with it. ..."
"... I am shocked and horrified by what I've seen under Trump. I am deeply disappointed that so few Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) have stood up to him on foreign policy, and I will never vote Republican again. This GOP/Israel connection stinks to high heaven. Anyone who studied or remembers our problem with Communist spies back in the '50s has got to be hearing alarm bells ringing in their ears. Worries about Soviet spying and Russian meddling pale in comparison to what's now going on in plain sight with Israel. ..."
"... To be fair, it ain't just Team R that has the sloppy crush on Israel. Team D is just as bad, even if they don't gush quite so publicly. In fact, episodes such as this one are useful in a way, as they make it hard to pretend that this is just a one-off, a misguided decision that we have to go along with to appease a powerful friend. ..."
"... Nevertheless, Israel should be very concerned about Northern Syria. If war breaks out and the US is forced to go to war with its own NATO ally as a result, Israel should prepare to kiss its alliance with the US goodbye. ..."
"... Many (rightfully or not) will blame Israel due to its connections to neoconservatism and Saudi jingoism, and consequently we may end up seeing BOTH parties becoming unfriendly to Israel over the subsequent generation. ..."
"... All of this could be prevented if President Trump would just tell Saudi Arabia to STOP the nonsense. But no. He's too focused on MIC profits. He's not America First. And quite frankly, I'm starting to think Benjamin Netanyahu is not Israel-first either, because if he were he'd be warning Trump about the mess he's going to end up getting America, Israel, and much of Europe and the Middle East into. ..."
As usual, Trump
made the announcement
of recognizing Israel's claim to the Golan Heights without any consultation with any of the relevant administration officials:
President Donald Trump's tweet on Thursday recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli territory surprised members of his own
Middle East peace team, the State Department, and Israeli officials.
U.S. diplomats and White House aides had believed the Golan Heights issue would be front and center at next week's meetings
between Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. But they were unprepared for any presidential
announcement this week.
No formal U.S. process or executive committees were initiated to review the policy before Trump's decision, and the diplomats
responsible for implementing the policy were left in the dark.
Even the Israelis, who have advocated for this move for years, were stunned at the timing of Trump's message.
After more than two years of watching Trump's impulsive and reckless "governing" style, it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone
that he makes these decisions without advance warning. There is no evidence that Trump ever thinks anything through, and so he probably
sees no reason to tell anyone in advance what he is going to do.
Trump almost never bothers consulting with the people who will be responsible for carrying out his policies and dealing
with the international fallout, and that is probably why so many of his policy decisions end up being exceptionally poor ones. The
substance of most of Trump's foreign policy decisions was never likely to be good, but the lack of an organized policy process on
major decisions makes those decisions even more haphazard and chaotic than they would otherwise be.
There is absolutely no upside for the United States in endorsing illegal Israeli claims to the Golan Heights. It is a cynical
political stunt intended to boost Netanyahu and Likud's fortunes in the upcoming election, and it is also a cynical stunt aimed at
shoring up Trump's support from Republican "pro-Israel" voters and donors.
Whatever short-term benefit Israel gains from it, the U.S. gains nothing and stands to lose quite a bit in terms of our international
standing.
There has been no consideration of the costs and problems this will create for the U.S. in its relations with other regional states
and beyond because Trump couldn't care less about the long-term effects that his decisions have on the country.
Once again, Trump has put narrow political ambitions and the interests of a foreign government ahead of the interests of the
United States. That seems to be the inevitable result of electing a narcissist who conducts foreign policy based on which leaders
flatter and praise him.
Trump's bad decision can be traced back to Bolton's visit to Israel earlier this year:
Administration officials said that National Security Advisor John Bolton was instrumental to the decision, after visiting Israel
in January to assure officials there that the United States would not abandon them in Syria despite Trump's sudden withdrawal
of troops from the battlefield.
Nervous Israeli officials saw an opportunity. "It was an ask," one Israeli source said, "because of the timing -- it suddenly
became a relevant issue about Iran."
Bolton is usually the culprit responsible any destructive and foolish policy decision over the last year, and his baleful
influence continues to grow. We can also see the harmful effects of the administration's Iran obsession at work. In the end, the
Syria "withdrawal" hasn't happened and apparently isn't going to, but Trump nonetheless gives Israel whatever it wants in exchange
for nothing so that they will be "reassured" of our unthinking support.
Well, of course Trump puts America last. There is one and only one person he is interested in -- himself. As you say this is his
narcissistic personality at work.
My never ending question is always, "Why does any Republican with a conscience remain silent? Are they really all this shallow
and self absorbed? Is there nothing Trump does that will finally force them to put country before party and their own ambition?"
It's a really sad state of events that has put this country on the road to ruin.
Trump is making one hell of a mess for the next president to clean up. Straightening out all this stupidity will take
years. Here's hoping that Trump gets to watch his foreign policy decisions tossed out and reversed from federal prison.
The decision to leave the INF treaty was taken in a similar way and with a total disregard for the consequences. The leaders
of the European NATO countries have shown utter spinelessness in going along with it.
The administration says that a Russian missile violates the treaty but it will not tell us what the range of the missile is.
Nor will it allow its weapons inspectors to go and look at it.
The reason is clear: Fear that the weapons inspectors' findings would contradict the administration's claims.
I voted Republican ever since I started voting. I voted for Bush I, Dole, Dubya, and McCain. I couldn't vote for either Obama
or Romney, but I voted for Trump because of Hillary Clinton.
I am shocked and horrified by what I've seen under Trump. I am deeply disappointed that so few Republicans (or Democrats,
for that matter) have stood up to him on foreign policy, and I will never vote Republican again. This GOP/Israel connection stinks
to high heaven. Anyone who studied or remembers our problem with Communist spies back in the '50s has got to be hearing alarm
bells ringing in their ears. Worries about Soviet spying and Russian meddling pale in comparison to what's now going on in plain
sight with Israel.
To be fair, it ain't just Team R that has the sloppy crush on Israel. Team D is just as bad, even if they don't gush quite
so publicly. In fact, episodes such as this one are useful in a way, as they make it hard to pretend that this is just a one-off,
a misguided decision that we have to go along with to appease a powerful friend.
Europoliticians tell that last one a lot. "We really don't want to but the Americans twisted our arms ZOMG Special Relationship
so sorry ZOMG!" Only with a lot more Eurobureaucratese.
I agree with the article's premise, but not because of this move regarding Israel.
Personally, I believe this move will have little impact on the outcome of the crisis in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and the
other Arab monarchies are too focused on containing Iran and Turkey to give a crap about what Israel does. The only Arab states
that I can see objecting to this move are Syria (obviously) and the others who were already allied with Iran and/or Turkey to
begin with.
Right now, the REAL center of attention in the region should be Northern Syria. THAT's where the next major war likely will
begin. In that area, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Turkey and the United Arab Emirates are the ones doing the major escalations,
while Israel has virtually no role at all aside from sideline cheer-leading. And of course, Trump is doing nothing to stop what
could become the next July Crisis. What's "America First" about that?
Nevertheless, Israel should be very concerned about Northern Syria. If war breaks out and the US is forced to go to war
with its own NATO ally as a result, Israel should prepare to kiss its alliance with the US goodbye.
There is no way our international reputation will come out of this war unscathed, and odds are we'll be in a far worse position
diplomatically than we were at any point in our history, even during the Iraq war. When that happens, the American people will
be out to assign blame. Many (rightfully or not) will blame Israel due to its connections to neoconservatism and Saudi jingoism,
and consequently we may end up seeing BOTH parties becoming unfriendly to Israel over the subsequent generation.
All of this could be prevented if President Trump would just tell Saudi Arabia to STOP the nonsense. But no. He's too focused
on MIC profits. He's not America First. And quite frankly, I'm starting to think Benjamin Netanyahu is not Israel-first either,
because if he were he'd be warning Trump about the mess he's going to end up getting America, Israel, and much of Europe and the
Middle East into.
Unlike invasive weeds, however, modem Governments - the more effective of them - have managed to develop offensive systems
that have destroyed nearly all of the traditional, reformative feedback loops that were used to keep the more outrageous
negaciprocal Governments in check in the past.
For example, the very purpose of the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution - expressed quite specifically by its framers
as the People’s God-given right to bear arms - was to allow “the People” to revolt against tyranny. The American Revolution
itself wasn’t an act of repulsing a foreign power. It was a war by the British colonies against the very Government which was
legally entitled to lay claim to its territory.
There is absolutely nothing about the American Revolution, celebrated every year in the U.S. with the Day of Independence
(July 4), which could not be compared to U.S. citizens rising up today and dethroning the crime syndicate that currently resides
in Washington D.C.1
Will such an occurrence ever happen?
It will never occur . . . regardless of which new, demonic, uncharted levels of Extreme Negaprocity the U.S. descends into.
Quite apart from the stunning successes of the U.S. Government’s relentless gullibility tests, there is the issue of a complete
disparity in both defensive and offensive capability between the Government and the governed, between the privileged and the non
1%.
In earlier times a Government didn’t think in terms of superior military technology. It thought about advantages in terms of
“numbers” or resources. For many hundreds of years, European Governments had able fighters; so did the people. Governments had
military hardware; spears, shields, horses, bows, arrows, and other low-tech weaponry. So did the people. Governments were far
more worried about inciting citizen unrest.
Washington has the luxury of not caring whatsoever about this. Today the disparity between the tools that a people can use to
protect itself against an excessively tyrannical Government and the tools that a Government can use to quell even mild
dissension have never been greater.
Chapter 3: It Is the Nature Of Governments, As Creatures Of Extreme Negaprocity, To Create
And Nurture Systems Of "Intermediaryism"' That Extend And Preserve Their Negaciprocal
Activities
When Jerry Mander wrote The Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television in 1975, his
first argument was that television was creating an "intermediary" world where people were
divorced from their own experience of reality.2 Having been near the pinnacle of the television
advertising business for years, he could see, first-hand, how television allowed vested
interests to create realities that distorted, subverted, and misdirected not only people's own
personal interests, but how it disconnected them from any meaningful interaction with the
natural world around them.
He was able to see how television was being used to program people in insidious ways.
Television, however, is only one artifact of intermediary subversion that saturates the
landscape of modern life. The arguments that Mander made could well be applied to a host of
technological gadgets and devices...
... ... ....
as i proceeded into aduitnood, i was sucked into a dcvolutionary whirlwind of college life, military service, business, the
creation of three manufacturing companies, two failed marriages, two stints in U.S. federal prison related to my work as an
herbalist, and then the realization that I could never safely return to the country of my birth - no matter what I said or did -
and that 1 must live out the remainder of my days in exile.
There is no place left for me in this world.
With more than seven billion people currently living on the planet, it would be absurd to suggest that we have seen the
complete collapse of human habitat. It’s a work in progress. (You always see the greatest population bloom just before overshoot
and die-out. Ask any evolutionary biologist.)
What we have now is only the complete collapse of suitable habitat for fully functioning human beings who are spiritually
aware. I am, as author Kurt Vonnegut concluded in his final work, “a Man Without a Country,” who has unwittingly found himself
in the “Lunatic Asylum of the Universe.”1 And I suspect that many of the people who will choose to read this book feel the same
way. Nonetheless, it is yet a better exile that we seek. Once
again, if the fundamental principle of life as expressed in the Chinese I Ching is true - that “when situations proceed beyond
their extremes, they alternate to their opposites,”4 then our journey home can only be filled with light, love, and an
inexpressible joy that we cannot - even now - imagine. No one may know the timing, but our way must be clear, our minds calm,
and our spirits aware. For "only the bright and the gentle can overcome
the dark and unyielding.”5
It wasn't Colby, but William Casey. "We'll know our disinformation program is complete
when everything the American public believes is false." William Casey, Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, 1981 – 1987.
32:54 ..."I'm an elitist and
you're stupid which gives me a right to rule over you".... ... I'm paraphrasing here Darwin's
theory of evolution goes against the laws of thermodynamics in that you cannot create order
out of chaos, chaos creates chaos. This man is brilliant I'm getting his book!
Here in Portugal people almost beat me when i talk about this things, i feel alone, nobody
see the Deep state pulling the strings throught the Eurpean Union, i'm hiting my my to the
wall everyday seeing some shiit hapening in this country
While Brexit and Trump have been making
the headlines, the Italian economy has been sliding into a technical recession (again). Both the OECD and
the European Central Bank (ECB) have lowered the growth forecasts for Italy to negative numbers, and in what
analysts see as a precautionary move, the ECB is reviving its sovereign bond buying programme, which it had
started to unwind just five months earlier.
"Don't underestimate the impact of the Italian recession," is what French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire
told Bloomberg News (Horobin 2019). "We talk a lot about Brexit, but we don't talk much about an Italian
recession that will have a significant impact on growth in Europe and can impact France, because it's one of
our most important trading partners." More important than trade, however, and what Le Maire is not stating,
is that French banks are holding around €385 billion of Italian debt, derivatives, credit commitments and
guarantees on their balance sheets, while German banks are holding €126 billion of Italian debt (as of the
third quarter of 2018, according to the Bank for International Settlements).
In light of these exposures to Italian debt, it is no wonder that Le Maire, along with the European
Commission, is worried by Italy's third recession in a decade -- as well as by the growing anti-euro rhetoric
and posturing of Italy's coalition government, comprised by the Five-Star Movement (M5S) and the Lega. The
knowledge that Italy is too big to fail is fuelling the audacity of Italy's coalition government in its
attempt to reclaim fiscal policy space by openly flouting the budgetary rules of the E.U.'s Economic and
Monetary Union (EMU).
The result is a catch-22. The more the European Commission tries to bring the Italian government into
line, the more it will feed the anti-establishment and anti-euro forces in Italy. On the other hand, the
more the European Commission gives in to the demands of the Italian government, the more it will fritter
away its credibility as the guardian of the EMU's Stability and Growth Pact. This stalemate is not going
away as long as Italy's economy remains paralyzed.
A Crisis of the Post-Maastricht Treaty Order of Italian Capitalism
It is therefore vital to understand the true origins of Italy's economic crisis in order to find pathways
out of Italy's permanent stagnation. In a
new paper
, I provide an evidence-based pathology of Italy's recession -- which, I argue, must be regarded
as a crisis of the post-Maastricht Treaty order of Italian capitalism, as Thomas Fazi (2018) calls it. Until
the early 1990s, Italy enjoyed decades of relatively robust economic growth, during which it managed to
catch up with other Eurozone nations in income (per person) (Figure 1). In 1960, Italy's per capita GDP (at
constant 2010 prices) was 85% of French per capita GDP and 74% of (weighted average) per capita GDP in
Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands (the Euro-4 economies). By the mid-1990s, Italy had almost
caught up with France (Italian GDP per person equalled 97% of French per capita income) and also with the
Euro-4 (Italian GDP per capita was 94% of per capita GDP in the Euro-4).
Figure 1
Three decades of catching up, 25 years of falling behind: real GDP per person in Italy relative to
France/Euro-4, 1960-2018
Source
: author's calculation based on AMECO data.
But then a very steady decline began (see Figure 1), erasing decades of (income) convergence. The income
gap between Italy and France is now (as of 2018) 18 percentage points, which is more than what it was in
1960; Italian GDP per capita is 76% of per capita GDP in the Euro-4 economies. Beginning in the early to
mid-1990s, Italy's economy began to stumble and then fall behind, as all major indicators -- income per person,
labour productivity, investment, export market shares, etc. -- began a very steady decline.
It is not a coincidence that the sudden reversal of Italy's economic fortunes occurred after Italy's
adoption of the "legal and policy superstructure" imposed by the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which cleared
the road for the establishment of the EMU in 1999 and the introduction of the common currency in 2002.
Italy, as I show in the paper, has been the star pupil in the Eurozone class -- the one economy that committed
itself most strongly and consistently to the fiscal austerity and structural reforms that form the essence
of the EMU macroeconomic rulebook (Costantini 2017, 2018). Italy kept closer to the rules than France and
Germany and paid heavily for this: The permanent fiscal consolidation, the persistent wage restraint and the
overvalued exchange rate killed Italian aggregate demand -- and the demand shortage asphyxiated the growth of
output, productivity, jobs and incomes. Italy's stasis is an object lesson for all Eurozone economies,
but -- paraphrasing G.B. Shaw -- as a warning, not as an example.
Perpetual Fiscal Austerity
Italy did more than most other Eurozone members in terms of self-imposed austerity and structural reform
in order to satisfy the conditions of EMU (Halevi 2019). This is clear when comparing Italy's fiscal policy
post-1992 to that of France and Germany. Various Italian governments ran continuous primary budget surpluses
(defined as public expenditure excluding interest payments on public debt, minus public revenue), averaging
3% of GDP per year during 1995-2008. French governments, in contrast, ran primary
deficits
of 0.1%
of GDP each year on average during the same period, while German governments managed to generate a primary
surplus of 0.7% on average per year during those same 14 years. Italy's permanent primary surpluses during
1995-2008 would have reduced its public debt-to-GDP ratio by around 40 percentage points -- from 117% in 1994
to 77% in 2008 (while keeping all other factors constant). But slow (nominal) growth relative to high
(nominal) interest rates pushed up the debt ratio by 23 percentage points and washed away more than half of
the public debt-to-GDP reductions of 40 percentage points achieved by austerity. Could it be true that
Italy's permanent austerity, intended to lower the debt ratio by running permanent primary surpluses,
backfired because it slowed down economic growth?
Italy's governments (including the left-of-centre Renzi coalition) continued to run significant primary
budget surpluses (of more than 1.3% of GDP on average per year) during the crisis period of 2008-2018.
Showing permanent fiscal discipline was a top priority, as Prime Minister Mario Monti admitted in a 2012
interview with CNN, even if that meant "destroying domestic demand" and pushing the economy into decline.
Italy's almost "Swabian" commitment to fiscal discipline stands in some contrast to the French ("
laissez
aller
") attitudes: The French government ran primary deficits at an average of 2% of GDP during
2008-2018 and allowed its public debt-to-GDP ratio to rise to almost 100% in 2018. The cumulative fiscal
stimulus thus provided by the French state amounted to €461 billion (in constant 2010 prices), whereas the
cumulative fiscal drain on Italian domestic demand was €227 billion. The Italian budget cuts show up in
non-trivial declines in its public expenditure on social expenditure per person, which is now (as of 2018)
around 70% of public social spending per capita in Germany and France. One doesn't dare speculate what the
"Gilets Jaunes" (yellow vest) protests in France would have looked like if France had put through an
Italian-style fiscal consolidation post-2008.
Permanent Real Wage Restraint
When Italy signed the Maastricht Treaty, its high rates of inflation and unemployment were regarded as
major problems. Inflation was blamed on the "excessive" power of labour unions and an "excessively"
centralized wage bargaining system, which resulted in strong wage-push inflation and a profit squeeze -- as
wage growth tended to exceed labour productivity growth, which lowered the profit share. Seen this way, the
blame for Italy's high unemployment could be shifted onto its "rigid" labour markets and too strongly
protected "worker aristocracy." Bringing down inflation and restoring profitability required wage
moderation, which in turn could only be achieved by a radical deregulation of labour markets, or what is
euphemistically called, "structural reforms."
Italy does not have a statutory minimum wage (unlike France) and also does not have a generous
unemployment benefit system (in terms of unemployment insurance replacement rates and duration, and
entitlement conditions) compared with the E.U. average. Employment protection for regular employees in Italy
is roughly at the same level as job protection in France and Germany. Italy's structural labour market
reforms involved drastically reducing employment protection for temporary workers, and as a result, the
share of temporary workers in total Italian employment increased from 10% during 1991-1993 to 18.5% in 2017.
Between 1992 and 2008, total (net) employment in Italy increased by 2.4 million new jobs, of which almost
three-quarters (73%) were fixed-term jobs. In France, by comparison, (net) employment grew by 3.6 million
jobs during 1992-2008, of which 84% were regular (permanent) jobs and only 16% were temporary positions.
In addition, the bargaining power of unions was reduced by the abandoning of the target of full
employment in favour of public debt reduction (Costantini 2017) and by a much more restrictive
(anti-inflation) central bank policy and the fixed exchange rate. As a result, real wage growth per
employee, which averaged 3.2% per year during 1960-1992, was lowered to a mere 0.1% per year during the
period 1992-1999 and to 0.6% per annum during 1999-2008. Within the E.U., Italy's turnaround was remarkable:
From 1992 through 2008, the growth of Italian real wages per worker (0.35% per year) was only half the real
wage growth in the Euro-4 (0.7% per annum) and it was even lower compared to real wage growth in France
(0.9% per year). Interestingly, from 1992 through2008, Italian real wage growth per employee was slightly
lower than (already stingy) German real wage growth (0.4% per year). To see the long-run picture, Figure 2
plots the ratio of the real wage of an Italian worker to the real wage of the average French, German and
Euro-4 worker from 1960 through2018. In the early 1960s, the average wage of Italian workers was about 85%
of the French wage, and this ratio increased to 92% in 1990-1991. Starting in 1992, the Italian real wage
began a steady decline in terms of the average French wage -- and in 2018, the average Italian employee earned
only 75% of the wage earned by her/his French comrade. The wage gap between Italy and France is bigger today
than it was in the 1960s. The same pattern holds when one compares Italian wages to German and/or Euro-4
wages.
Figure 2
Three decades of catching up, 25 years of falling behind: real wage per employee in Italy relative to
France / Germany / Euro-4, 1960-2018
Source
: author's calculation based on AMECO data.
Italy's wage moderation proved an effective strategy to kill three (not just two) birds with only one
stone. First, wage restraint helped to bring down inflation -- to 3.4% on average per year from 1992 through
1999 (from 9.6% on average per annum from 1960-1992) and further down to 2.5% per year from 1999 through
2008 and 1.1% from 2008 through 2018. Italy is no longer prone, in a structural sense, to high and
accelerating inflation. Second, wage restraint increased the labour intensity of Italy's GDP growth -- and thus
reduced unemployment. Italy's unemployment rate peaked in the mid-1990s at more than 11%, but labour market
deregulation and wage restraint successfully brought down unemployment to 6.1% in 2007 and 6.7% in
2008 -- which was lower than the unemployment rates of France (which equaled 8% in 2007 and 7.4% in 2008) and
Germany (where unemployment was 8.5% in 2007 and 7.4% in 2008). Finally, as intended, wage moderation led to
a substantial increase in the profit share of Italy's GDP: The profit share rose by more than 5.5 percentage
points, from 36% in 1991 to about 41.5% from 2000 through 2002, after which it stabilized around 40% until
2008. During the 1990s, the recovery of the profit share was considerably stronger in Italy than in France,
and comparable to what happened in Germany -- notwithstanding the fact that Italy's profit share was already
relatively high to begin with.
Italy's structural reforms of the 1990s paid off handsomely in terms of a higher profit share, in other
words, and Italy's profit share remained substantially higher than that of France and Germany. With lowered
inflation, effective wage restraint, declining unemployment, public indebtedness on the decline and the
profit share considerably raised, Italy appeared to be set for a long period of strong growth. It did not
happen. The operation was carried out successfully, but the patient died. According to the coroner's
post-mortem, the cause of death was a structural lack of aggregate demand.
The Suffocation of Italian Aggregate Demand after 1992
By keeping close to the EMU rulebook, Italian economic policy created a chronic shortage of (domestic)
demand. Domestic demand growth per Italian averaged 0.25% per year from 1992 through2018 -- a sharp decline
compared to the domestic demand growth (of 3.3% per year) recorded from 1960 through1992 and also much below
domestic demand growth (of 1.1% per person per year) in the Euro-4 countries. Italy's real export growth
(per person) also declined, from 6.6% on average per year from 1960 through 1992 to 3% per year from 1992
through 2018. Average annual export growth (per person) was 4.4% in the Euro-4 countries from 1992 through
2018. Italy's chronic demand shortage reduced capacity utilization (especially in manufacturing) and this,
in turn, lowered the profit rate. According to my estimates, capacity utilization in Italian manufacturing
declined by a staggering 30 percentage points relative to capacity utilization in French manufacturing
between 1992 and 2015.
The utilization rate of Italian manufacturing relative to German manufacturing declined from 110% in 1995
to 76% in 2008, and sunk further to 63% in 2015 -- a decline by a stunning 47 percentage points. Lower capacity
utilization reduced the rate of profit in Italian manufacturing by 3 to 4 percentage points relative to
French and German profit rates. This must have considerably depressed Italian manufacturing investment and
growth. Let me emphasize the fact that Italy's profit rate declined even when the share of profits in income
increased. This means that Italy's strategy of fiscal austerity and wage restraint proved to be
counterproductive, because it failed to improve the profit rate: The drop in demand and capacity utilization
had a bigger (negative) impact on firm profitability than the increase in the profit share.
As I argue in the paper, this condition of chronic demand shortage was created, in particular, by (
a
)
perpetual fiscal austerity, (
b
) permanent real wage restraint, and (
c
) a lack of
technological competitiveness which, in combination with an unfavourable (euro) exchange rate, reduces the
ability of Italian firms to maintain their export market shares in the face of increasing competition of
low-wage countries (China in particular). These three factors are depressing demand; reducing capacity
utilization and lowering firm profitability; and hurting investment, innovation, and productivity growth.
They are hence locking the country into a state of permanent decline, characterized by the impoverishment of
the productive matrix of the Italian economy and the quality composition of its trade flows (Simonazzi et
al. 2013).
Italy's manufacturing sector is not "technology intensive" and suffers from stagnating productivity. As
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate, the cost competitiveness of Italian manufacturers vis-ŕ-vis the Euro-4 countries
depends on low wages and not on superior productivity performance. Whereas industrial workers in France and
Germany were earning €35 per hour (in constant 2010 prices) in 2015, and their colleagues in Belgium and the
Netherlands earned even more, Italian workers in manufacturing were bringing home only €23 per hour (in
constant 2010 prices) -- or one-third less (see Figure 3). But at the same time, industrial labour productivity
per hour of work is considerably higher in France and Germany (at €53 per hour in constant 2010 prices) than
in Italy, where it is around €33 per hour (Figure 4). Italian manufacturers are thus taking the low road,
while firms in the Euro-4 countries are travelling on the high road. Or in other words, compared with German
and French manufacturers, Italian firms suffer from a lack of technological strength, which in Germany is
based on high productivity, innovative efforts and high product quality. True, Italian firms do stand out
for their high relative quality in more traditional, lower-tech export products such as footwear, textiles,
and other non-metallic mineral products. But they have been steadily losing ground in export markets of more
dynamic products characterized by higher levels of R&D and technology intensity, such as chemicals,
pharmaceuticals and communications equipment (Bugamelli
et al.
2018).
Locked into a Position of Structural Weakness
For two reasons, this specialization in low- and low-medium technology activities locks the country into
a quasi-permanent position of structural weakness. The first is that the exchange-rate elasticity of export
demand is larger for traditional exports than for medium- and high-tech exports. As a result, the
appreciation of the euro did hurt Italian exporters of traditional products harder than German and French
firms exporting more "dynamic" goods and services. Thus, the overvalued euro penalizes Italian export growth
more than it damages export growth in the Euro-4 economies.
The second factor is that Italian firms are operating in global markets which are more strongly exposed
to the growing competition of low-wage countries and China in particular. In 1999, 67% of Italy's exports
consisted of (traditional) products exposed to medium to high competition from Chinese firms -- compared to a
similar exposure to Chinese competition of 45% of exports in France and 50% of exports in Germany (Bugamelli
et al
. 2018). The share of Italy's exports in world imports declined from 4.5% in 1999 to 2.9% in
2016 -- and the market share loss was heavily concentrated in more traditional market segments characterized by
high exposure to Chinese competition (Bugamelli
et al.
2018). As Chinese and other developing
economy firms continue to expand their production capabilities and to upscale, competitive pressures will
mount in medium- and medium-high tech segments as well. Italian firms have difficulties facing competition
from low-wage countries: They are generally too small to wield any pricing power, too often single-product
producers unable to diversify market risks, and too dependent on foreign markets, because their home market
is in the doldrums.
Figure 3
Real wage per hour of work in manufacturing: Italy versus the Euro-4 countries, 1970-2015 (euro's,
constant 2010 prices)
Source
: author's calculation based on EU-KLEMS (Jäger 2017).
Figure 4
Manufacturing labour productivity per hour of work: Italy versus the Euro-4
countries, 1970-2015 (euro's, constant 2010 prices)
Source
: author's calculation based on EU-KLEMS (Jäger 2017).
Italy's Permanent Crisis Is a Warning for the Eurozone
There are rational ways to get the Italian economy out of the current paralysis -- none of them easy, and
all of them founded on a long-term strategy of "walking on two legs": (a) reviving domestic (and export)
demand, and (b) diversifying and upgrading the productive structure and innovative capabilities and
strengthening the technological competitiveness of Italy's exports (to get away from direct wage-cost
competition with China). This means that both austerity and real wage growth suppression must stop. Instead,
the Italian government should gear up for providing unambiguous directional thrust to the economy by means
of higher public investment (in public infrastructure and "greening" and decarbonizing energy and
transportation systems) and novel industrial policies to promote innovation, entrepreneurship and stronger
technological competitiveness.
There is no dearth of constructive proposals by Italian economists to help their economy out of the
current mess -- including Guarascio and Simonazzi (2016), Lucchese et al. (2016), Pianta et al. (2016),
Mazzucato (2013), Dosi (2016), and Celi et al. (2018). These proposals all centre on creating a
self-reinforcing process of investment-led and innovation-driven growth, orchestrated by an "entrepreneurial
state" and founded on relatively regulated and co-ordinated firm-worker relationships, rather than on
deregulated labour markets and hyper-flexible employment relations. These proposals might work well.
The same cannot be said, however, of the "one-leg" fiscal stimulus proposed by the M5S-Lega coalition
government, the aim of which is a short-run revival of domestic demand by means of higher public
(consumption) spending. None of the proposed spending will help solving Italy's structural problems. What is
completely lacking is any longer-term directional thrust, or the second leg of a viable strategy -- which the
neoliberal Lega will be unwilling to provide and the "progressive-in-name-only" M5S seems incapable of
devising (Fazio 2018). Plus ça change, plus c'est la męme chose.
More importantly, any rational "two-leg" developmental strategy will be incompatible with sticking to the
EMU macroeconomic rulebook and keeping financial markets calm, which are supposed to act as the
disciplinarian of Eurozone sovereigns (Costantini 2018; Halevi 2019). This is clear from what happened when
the M5S-Lega government came up with an expansionary Draft Budgetary Plan (DBP) for 2019. The total impact
of the one-leg fiscal stimulus initially proposed in the 2019 DBP amounted to an estimated 1.2% of GDP in
2019, 1.4% in 2020 and 1.3% in 2021 -- and even this minute budgetary expansion triggered strong negative
responses from the European Commission and increases in Italian bond yields.
Blanchard
et al.
(2018, p. 2) formalize this status quo in a mechanical debt-dynamics model and
conclude that the 2019 DBP risks triggering "unmanageable spreads and serious crisis, including involuntary
exit from the Eurozone." Blanchard
et al
. (2018, p. 16) argue for a fiscally neutral budget, which
they think would lead to lower interest rates and "probably" (in their words) to higher growth and
employment. Equations, graphs and technocratic econospeak are competently used to turn what in fact
constitutes a very modest transgression of the EMU rulebook into a low-probability- catastrophic event -- which
everyone would want to avoid (see Costantini 2018). What is tragic is that the 2019 DBP does not come close
to what would be needed for a rational strategy. All the sound and fury is for nothing.
Worse still is the fact that maintaining Italy's status quo, which is what a fiscally neutral budget
would mean, carries a real, but unrecognized low-probability, high-impact risk: a breakdown of political and
social stability in the country. Continued stagnation will feed the resentment and anti-establishment,
anti-euro forces in Italy. This will destabilize not just Italy, but the entire Eurozone. Italy's crisis
thus constitutes a warning to the Eurozone as a whole: Continued austerity and real wage restraint, in
combination with the de-democratization of macroeconomic policymaking, make for a "dangerous game" (Costantini
2018) -- a game which risks further empowering anti-establishment forces elsewhere in the Eurozone as well.
This is like opening Pandora's box. No one can tell where this will end. Economists (including Italians)
carry an enormous responsibility in all this, both because they are much to blame for the chaos and because
they fail to continue to unite behind rational strategic solutions to resolve the Italian crisis. "Perhaps,"
John Maynard Keynes wrote, "it is historically true that no order of society ever perishes save by its own
hand" (Keynes 1919). Rational economists have to prove Keynes' verdict wrong, starting in Italy -- if only
because the Brexit mess appears to be beyond redemption.
Article seems to ignore why Germany is holding so much Italian Debt, which to my reading is Germany wanted
to create a captured market and kill off export competition with the foundation of a currency union at the
exchange rates set and provision of easy credit for German goods, with the long term goal of creating a 4th
Reich by means of capital slavery. Like climate change, many Italian intellectual elite knew this was going to
happen, but that it would enrich them at the cost to both the old capital elite and working classes, with the
bill falling due long after they had passed away.
When people talk about Italy being unstable: From the post, which describes the stability of austerity >
Italy kept closer to the rules than France and Germany and paid heavily for this: The permanent fiscal
consolidation, the persistent wage restraint and the overvalued exchange rate killed Italian aggregate
demand -- and the demand shortage asphyxiated the growth of output, productivity, jobs and incomes. Italy's
stasis is an object lesson for all Eurozone economies, but -- paraphrasing G.B. Shaw -- as a warning, not as an
example.
And people wonder why the Movimento Cinque Stelle arose? Or why Matteo Salvini, Trump imitator, now has so
much influence?
All of the graphs show that the average person in Italy has been made poorer because of EU policies and the
euro. The remarkable thing is that Italians still want to remain in the EU and in the euro because these
supranational structures keep the Italian state in line. Yet job creation is stalled. There is a considerable
brain drain. The Mezzogiorno is gradually losing population–emptying out because the economic prospects are so
dire.
And the left is in collapse because of years of Renzi's Blairism / Clintonism.
In reality, Chabad's ideology is NOT Jewish. In Israel, Chabad is considered by the most
important Rabbis as a religion different from Judaism. Chabad is a different religion.
Chabadism is NOT Judaism.
So, why is this bad for the Jews? Chabad is a criminal organization. Chabad is mostly
involved in white collar criminal activities such as financial fraud, tax evasion, and money
laundering.
Chabad has also been linked to various Jewish child abuse cases
When these criminal activities are discovered and exposed to the public, and because Chabad
poses as a Jewish organization, anti-Jewish hatred is created. That is, Chabad creates
anti-semitism in the world.
Also, many of Chabad victims are Jewish. Mostly, Jewish children. Chabad runs several
schools around the world. The objective of these schools is NOT to provide a good Jewish
education for their students. The objective of these schools is to MAKE A PROFIT at the expense
of the Jewish children.
... ... ...
Chabad-Lubavitch is also an international organized crime syndicate that strangles free
enterprise and raises the level of violence, fraud, and corruption in various cities in the
USA, and across the world.
... ... ...
Disclaimer: Please conduct your own investigation about the issues
mentioned in this website. This website is only a brief summary of the problems with Chabad.
For more information, please talk to your local community Rabbi. Also, if you really care about
being Jewish, come live in Israel and study Judaism.
Copyright Notice: According to Jewish Law, it is a Mitzva, a religious obligation, to
provide this information to every Jew in the world, in order to protect Jewish children from
Chabad, and to save Jewish lives and Jewish souls from being destroyed by Chabad. Therefore,
permission is granted to copy and reproduce all of the information found on this website in any
form and publication, including any website or blog, and to translate it to any language. The
only requirement is that you mention that the information was obtained from this website, and
in the case of internet pages, please add a link back to this website.
Money quote: "The Russian collusion investigation was based solely on the dodgy Steele Dossier that was discredited here from
the get-go. This was a product of British Intelligence Community. The intent was to keep and then to get Donald Trump out of the White
House. It failed but they did succeed in turning him into a neo-lib-con fellow traveler. There are clear parallels between the end stages
of the Soviet Union and the American Empire. My take since the Iraq Invasion is that they are insane. The ruling elite is detached from
reality, incompetent and arrogant. Sooner or later someone with their facilities still intact will lead a middle-class revolt against
the global plutocracy to restore democracy and reverse the rising inequality. We were lucky that the fall of the Soviet Union did not
lead to a nuclear war. The next time a nuclear armed Empire crashes we may not be so fortunate."
Notable quotes:
"... Among interesting dates, it appears that Stefan Halper was already trying to reach out to Lokhova in January-February 2016 – a lot earlier than his approaches to Papadopoulo s and Page. This was done through Professor Christopher Andrew, co-convenor with Halper and the former MI6 had Sir Richard Dearlove of the ‘Cambridge Intelligence Seminar.’ ..."
"... Meanwhile, Lokhova has set up a blog on which she has posted a some interesting relevant material, with perhaps more to come. It is very well worth a look.(See https://www.russiagate.co.uk .) ..."
"... Of particular interest, to my mind, is the full text of her – unpublished – May 2017 interview with the ‘New York Times.’ This points us back to is the fact – of which Lokhova shows no signs of awareness – that the idea that the Western powers and the Russians might have a common interest in fighting jihadist terrorism has been absolute anathema to many key figures on both sides of the Atlantic, with Dearlove certainly among them. ..."
"... ‘AN APOLOGY: Yesterday, I compared @nytimes journalists, who smeared @GenFlynn and accused me of being a Russian spy, to cockroaches. In good conscience, I must apologize to the cockroaches for the distress caused to them for being compared to @nytimes #Russiagate hoaxers. Sorry!’ ..."
"... The centerpiece of this is a proposal submitted to the FCO in August last year by what seems to be essentially the same consortium whose existence as a government contractor has now been made public. The ‘Institute for Statecraft’ has vanished, and one consortium member, ‘Aktis Strategy’, has gone into liquidation. But other key members are the same. ..."
"... A central underlying premise is that if anyone has any doubts as to whether the ‘White Helmets’ are a benevolent humanitarian organisation, or the Russians were responsible for the poisoning of the Skripals or the shooting down of MH17, the only possible explanation is that their minds have been poisoned by disinformation. ..."
"... In fact, what is at issue an ambitious project to co-ordinate and strengthen a very large number of organisations in different countries which are committed to a relentlessly Russophobic line on everything. (The possibility that it might not be very bright to push Russia into the arms of China, the obviously rising power, does not seem to have occurred to these people – perhaps they need less ons from Sir Halford Mackinder, or indeed Niccolò Machiavelli, on ‘statecraft.’) ..."
"... The clear close integration of other cyber people from the ‘Atlantic Council’ into Orwellian ‘information operations’ sponsored by the British Government simply puts these facts into sharp relief. ..."
"... There has to be a strong possible ‘prima facie’ case that anyone in authority prepared to accept the ‘digital forensics’ from ‘CrowdStrike’ is complicit in the conspiracy against the constitution, and/or the conspiracy to cover-up that conspiracy. This certainly goes for Comey, and I think it also goes for Mueller." ..."
"... I'd recommend for reading Alexei Yurchak's "Everything Was Forever, Until It was No More: The Last Soviet Generation." Its about a class of apparatchiks and bureaucrats and hangers on who spoke this arcane, abstract dogmatic language that anyone normal had long since given up trying to understand. It had long ceased to have any relevance or attachment to the lives lived by ordinary, increasingly suffering people, who started talking to each other in practical and direct language. ..."
"... The Russian collusion investigation was based solely on the dodgy Steele Dossier that was discredited here from the get-go. This was a product of British Intelligence Community. The intent was to keep and then to get Donald Trump out of the White House. It failed but they did succeed in turning him into a neo-lib-con fellow traveler. ..."
"... There are clear parallels between the end stages of the Soviet Union and the American Empire. My take since the Iraq Invasion is that they are insane. The ruling elite is detached from reality, incompetent and arrogant. Sooner or later someone with their facilities still intact will lead a middle-class revolt against the global plutocracy to restore democracy and reverse the rising inequality. We were lucky that the fall of the Soviet Union did not lead to a nuclear war. The next time a nuclear armed Empire crashes we may not be so fortunate. ..."
"Dan, Thanks for the reference, which I will follow up. Unfortunately, although Bongino has produced a lot of extremely valuable
material, a lot of it is buried in the 'postcasts', searching through which is harder than with printed materials. It would greatly
help if there were transcripts, but of course those cost money.
I am still trying to fit the exploding mass of information which has been coming out into a coherent timeline. Part of the
problem is that there is so much appearing in so many different places. In addition to trying to think through the implications
of the information in this post and the subsequent exchanges of comments, I have been trying to make sense of evidence coming
out about the British end of the conspiracy.
An important development here has been rather well covered by Chuck Ross, in a recent ‘Daily Caller’ piece headlined ‘Cambridge
Academic Reflects On Interactions With 'Spygate’ Figure’ and one on ‘Fox’ by Catherine Herridge and Cyd Upson, entitled ‘Russian
academic linked to Flynn denies being spy, says her past contact was “used” to smear him.’ However, the evidence involved has ramifications
which they cannot be expected to understand, as yet at least.
At issue is the attempt to use the – apparently casual – encounter between Lieutenant-General Flynn and Svetlana Lokhova at a
dinner in Cambridge (U.K.) in February 2016 to smear him by, among other things, portraying her as some kind of ‘Mata Hari’ figure.
Among interesting dates, it appears that Stefan Halper was already trying to reach out to Lokhova in January-February 2016
– a lot earlier than his approaches to Papadopoulo s and Page. This was done through Professor Christopher Andrew, co-convenor with
Halper and the former MI6 had Sir Richard Dearlove of the ‘Cambridge Intelligence Seminar.’
This suggests that this was not simply a case Halper acting on his own. It also I think brings us back to the central importance
of Flynn’s visit to Moscow in December 2015.
Meanwhile, Lokhova has set up a blog on which she has posted a some interesting relevant material, with perhaps more to come.
It is very well worth a look.(See https://www.russiagate.co.uk
.)
Of particular interest, to my mind, is the full text of her – unpublished – May 2017 interview with the ‘New York Times.’ This
points us back to is the fact – of which Lokhova shows no signs of awareness – that the idea that the Western powers and the Russians
might have a common interest in fighting jihadist terrorism has been absolute anathema to many key figures on both sides of the Atlantic,
with Dearlove certainly among them.
Some of Lokhova’s comments on ‘twitter’ are extremely entertaining. An example, with which I have much sympathy:
‘AN APOLOGY: Yesterday, I compared @nytimes journalists, who smeared @GenFlynn and accused me of being a Russian spy, to
cockroaches. In good conscience, I must apologize to the cockroaches for the distress caused to them for being compared to @nytimes
#Russiagate hoaxers. Sorry!’
Meanwhile, another interesting recent ‘tweet’ comes from Eliot Higgins, of ‘Bellingcat’ fame. He is known to some skeptics as
‘the couch potato’ – perhaps he should be rechristened ‘king cockroach.’ It reads:
‘Looking forward to gettin g things rolling with the Open Information Partnership, with @bellingcat, @MDI_UK, @DFRLab, and @This_Is_Zinc
https://www.openinformation...’
There is an interesting ‘backstory’ to this. The announcement of an FCO-supported ‘Open Information Partnership of European Non-Governmental
Organisations, charities, academics, think-tanks and journalists’, supposedly to counter ‘disinformation’ from Russia, came in a
written answer from the Minister of State, Sir Alan Duncan, on 3 April.
In turn this followed the latest in a series of releases of material either leaked or hacked from the organisations calling themselves
‘Institute for Statecraft’ and ‘Integrity Initiative’ by the group calling themselves ‘Anonymous’ on 25 March.
The centerpiece of this is a proposal submitted to the FCO in August last year by what seems to be essentially the same consortium
whose existence as a government contractor has now been made public. The ‘Institute for Statecraft’ has vanished, and one consortium
member, ‘Aktis Strategy’, has gone into liquidation. But other key members are the same.
A central underlying premise is that if anyone has any doubts as to whether the ‘White Helmets’ are a benevolent humanitarian
organisation, or the Russians were responsible for the poisoning of the Skripals or the shooting down of MH17, the only possible
explanation is that their minds have been poisoned by disinformation.
An interesting paragraph reads as follows:
‘An expanded research component could generate better understanding of the drivers (psychological, sociopolitical, cultural
and environmental) of those who are susceptible to disinformation. This will allow us to map vulnerable audiences, and build scenario
planning models to test the efficiency of different activities to build resilience of those populations over time.’
They have not yet got to the point of recommending psychiatic treatment for ‘dissidents’, but these are still early days. The
‘Sovietisation’ of Western life proceeds apace.
In fact, what is at issue an ambitious project to co-ordinate and strengthen a very large number of organisations in different
countries which are committed to a relentlessly Russophobic line on everything. (The possibility that it might not be very bright
to push Russia into the arms of China, the obviously rising power, does not seem to have occurred to these people – perhaps they
need less ons from Sir Halford Mackinder, or indeed Niccolò Machiavelli, on ‘statecraft.’)
Study of the proposal hacked/leaked by ‘Anonymous’ bring out both the ‘boondoggle’ element – there is a lot of state funding available
for people happy to play these games – and also the strong transatlantic links.
A particularly significant presence, here, is the ‘DFRLab’. This is the ‘Digital Forensic Research Lab’ at the ‘Atlantic Council’,
where Eliot Higgins is a ‘nonresident senior fellow.’ The same organisation has a ‘Cyber Statecraft Initiative’ where Dmitri Alperovitch
is a ‘nonresident senior fellow.’
It cannot be repeated often enough that it is difficult to see any conceivable excuse for the FBI to fail to secure access to
the DNC servers. One would normally moreover expect that, on an issue of this sensitivity, they would have the ‘digital forensics’
done by their own people.
There can be no conceivable excuse for relying on a contractor selected by the organisation which is claiming that there has been
a hack, when an alternative possibility is a leak: and the implications of the alternative possibility could be devastating for that
organisation.
To rely on a contractor linked to the notoriously Russophobic ‘Atlantic Council’ is even more preposterous.
The clear close integration of other cyber people from the ‘Atlantic Council’ into Orwellian ‘information operations’ sponsored
by the British Government simply puts these facts into sharp relief.
There has to be a strong possible ‘prima facie’ case that anyone in authority prepared to accept the ‘digital forensics’ from
‘CrowdStrike’ is complicit in the conspiracy against the constitution, and/or the conspiracy to cover-up that conspiracy. This certainly
goes for Comey, and I think it also goes for Mueller."
OT but related, just watched a former naval Intelligence officer, now working for the Hoover Institute interviewed on FOX about
the Rooshins in Venezuela. Said, the 100 Russians are there to protect Maduro because he cannot trust his own army. Maduro's days
are numbered because he is toxically unpopular.
Got me thinking, our Intelligence services are good at psy-ops and keeping our gullible MSM in line but God help us if we ever
actually needed real Intelligence about a country. I remember about a month ago how all of these 'Think Tank Guys' were predicting
how the only people loyal to Maduro were a few of his crony Generals, that the rank and file military hated him and there were
going to be mass defections.
It didn't happen and we are all just supposed to forget that.
[not a socialist, don't have any love for Maduro, I just know that I will never learn anything of about Venezuela from these think
tank dudes, we are just getting groomed]
Venezuela isn't about "socialism," or even Maduro--it's about the oil. They have the largest proven reserves in the world, though
much of it is non-conventional and would need a ton of investment to exploit. But it's their oil, not ours, and we have no right
to meddle in their internal affairs.
Venezuela is neither about socialism nor oil in my opinion. It is everything to do with the neocons. And Trump buying into their
hegemonic dreams. Notice the resurrection of Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame as the man spearheading this in a triumvirate
with Bolton & Pompeo. IMO, a perfect foil for Putin & Xi to embroil the US in another regime change quagmire that further weakens
the US.
"There can be no conceivable excuse for relying on a contractor selected by the organisation which is claiming that there has
been a hack, when an alternative possibility is a leak: and the implications of the alternative possibility could be devastating
for that organisation.
To rely on a contractor linked to the notoriously Russophobic 'Atlantic Council' is even more preposterous."
True; and true. It is also true that the Clinton e-mail investigation was faux, a limp caricature of what an investigation
would look like when it is designed to uncover the truth. Allowing a subject's law firm to review the subject's e-mails from when
she was in government for relevancy is beyond preposterous. An investigation conducted in the normal way by apolitical Agents
in a field office would not walk away from a trove of evidence empty handed.
The inter-relatedness and overlapping of DoJ, CIA, and FBI personnel assigned to the Clinton e-mail case, the Russophobic nightmare
of a 'case' targeting Carter Page, and by extension, the Trump presidential campaign, and yes, the Mueller political op, all reek
of political bias and ineptitude followed by more political bias; and then culmination in a scorched earth investigation more
characteristic of something the STASI might have undertaken than American justice.
Early morning raids, gag orders, solitary confinements, show indictments that will never see adjudication in a court room - truly
unbelievable.
In your opinion was this surveillance, criminal & counter-intelligence investigation as well as information operations against
Trump centrally orchestrated or was it more reactive & decentralized?
There are so many facets. Fusion GPS & Nellie Ohr with her previous CIA connection. Her husband Bruce at the DOJ stovepiping
the dossier to the FBI. Brennan and his EC. Clapper and his intelligence assessment. Halper, Mifsud, Steele along with Hannigan
and the MI6 + GCHQ connection. Downer and the Aussies. FISA warrants on Page & Papadopolous. The whole Strzok & Page texting.
Comey, Lynch & the Hillary exoneration. McCabe. Then all the Russians. And the media leaks to generate hysteria.
I'd recommend for reading Alexei Yurchak's "Everything Was Forever, Until It was No More: The Last Soviet Generation." Its
about a class of apparatchiks and bureaucrats and hangers on who spoke this arcane, abstract dogmatic language that anyone normal
had long since given up trying to understand. It had long ceased to have any relevance or attachment to the lives lived by ordinary,
increasingly suffering people, who started talking to each other in practical and direct language.
And yet the chatterati
continued to chatter and invent ludicrously unreal worlds and analyses of the actual world they lived in until... bang... it was
no more.
I'd skip the first few chapters which are full of impenetrable marxist jargon.
The Russian collusion investigation was based solely on the dodgy Steele Dossier that was discredited here from the get-go.
This was a product of British Intelligence Community. The intent was to keep and then to get Donald Trump out of the White House.
It failed but they did succeed in turning him into a neo-lib-con fellow traveler.
There are clear parallels between the end stages of the Soviet Union and the American Empire. My take since the Iraq Invasion
is that they are insane. The ruling elite is detached from reality, incompetent and arrogant. Sooner or later someone with their
facilities still intact will lead a middle-class revolt against the global plutocracy to restore democracy and reverse the rising
inequality. We were lucky that the fall of the Soviet Union did not lead to a nuclear war. The next time a nuclear armed Empire
crashes we may not be so fortunate.
"... "They're only up in arms if they believe that there is an alternative." ..."
"... "Evil essentially is predatory and destructive behavior. Socrates said that it ultimately is ignorance, because nobody would set out intentionally to do it. But in that case, evil would be an educational system that imposes ignorance and tunnel vision, distracting attention from understanding how economic society actually works in destructive ways." ..."
"... MH: It's becoming a second Gilded Age. An abrupt change of direction in economic trends occurred after Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were elected in 1979/80. The result has been to invert what the 19th-century economists understood to be a free market -- that is, a market free from a privileged hereditary class living on unearned income in the form of land rent, monopoly rent and financial extraction. ..."
"... JS: I was in my first few years of college when Thatcher came in in 1979, and when Reagan was elected in 1980. I asked my economics professors what was going on, but I could not find a single professor to coherently describe the U-turn that was occurring. It certainly wasn't in Paul Samuelson's textbook that we were given. ..."
"... Neoliberalism actually started with Carter in the late 1970's, and it was Volcker's monetary assault that helped lose him the election (and of course the Iran hostage crisis). ..."
"... The outcomes were not so predetermined and could have been Carter-Callaghan rather than the Reagan-Thatcher duo that did so much to force the world along the neoliberal path, and bring us "New" Neoliberal Labour (that Thatcher actually stated was her greatest achievement) ..."
"... I think evil takes on a life of its own. Over the course of civilization it gets standardized. But what I see happening right now is a bunch of apoplectic, frantic "oligarchs" with egg on their face begging us all to help them change. ..."
"... I don't wish to mount a defense of the Republican Elite; the system did pressure towards money-love. However, there were counter balancing features. Money was vital, but so was virtue. Honour, courage, dignity were ..."
"... A Roman aristocrat had to perform the minimum set required military campaigns. Only intellectual freaks such as Cicero could climb the hierarchy without making somekind of significant military achievement. ..."
"... Caesar won the Laural crown (?) through genuine acts of bravery. Roman aristocrats risked their lives & died in war. And their troops knew it. ..."
"... Systems of Survival ..."
"... Money addiction -- I have trouble reconciling that concept with the short-term biases of the wealthy and their seeming lack of interest in economic growth. They aren't happy with a bigger slice of pie from a bigger pie. They want grow their slice from the pie relative to everyone else -- even if the pie grows smaller. Money as power, and an insatiable lust for power is more consistent with the actions of the oligarchs. ..."
"... "That leaves the question facing us today: Is the American oligarchy and state as rapacious as that of Rome?" -- I'm not sure this post really answered that opening question. I believe the American oligarchy, while continuing in the long tradition of oligarchic depredation, is much more rapacious than that of Rome and much more dangerous as the world rushes toward collapse. After the fossil fuels are gone there are no more. The Climate is already lurching into chaos and may have already crossed a point of no near-term return to the relatively mild and stable climate immediately preceding the Anthropocene. ..."
Money-love [φιλοχρηματία, philochrêmatia] has always been extreme because wealth is addictive
From what I've been able to glean regarding Roman society, wealth acquisition was strongly driven by the demands of a political
order that was relatively unstructured and unstable, depending on imperial whims, favoritism, influence purchasing. In the eyes
of a pleb it might look like elites were just whooping it up -- and that was certainly true -- but their fun had a systemic driver
to it. To be sure you're in favor, or that your coalition is holding up, you need sesterces.
That's what the Romans told their provinces. Everything they did was always to preserve "good order," meaning open opportunities
for their own wealth grabbing. They never said they were out to destroy and loot other societies.
This is largely true, but I was gobsmacked to find Caesar, in his Commentary on the Gallic Wars, serving up an extended quote
of a Gallic "state" leader exhorting his followers to fight Caesar in order to escape slavery. Caesar even allows the guy to distinguish
between earlier conflicts, in which another state would invade, plunder, and then leave, from conflicts with the Romans, in which
the state would be occupied forever and its people enslaved. Brunt cites Caesar as boasting the wars gained 1,000,000 slaves,
a figure he regards as inflated, but he also notes that other writers of the time didn't strongly dispute it.
I've got it on Kindle, so why not let Caesar report Critognatus' speech:
The Cimbri, after laying Gaul waste, and inflicting great calamities, at length departed from our country, and sought other
lands; they left us our rights, laws, lands, and liberty.
But what other motive or wish have the Romans, than, induced by envy, to settle in the lands and states of those whom they
have learned by fame to be noble and powerful in war, and impose on them perpetual slavery?
For they never have carried on wars on any other terms.
There's little logic for neoliberalism beyond a faith that short-term greed is the best way to optimize long-term
growth.
Or as George H.W. Bush said: Voodoo economics. But he didn't stick to that position very long once Reagan took him on
board.
Thanks again to NC for the great series. However this non economics person will very humbly repeat my objection that while
money equals power, power doesn't necessarily have to be about money. I recently read a book about the history of the Plains indians
and for them power was represented by horses–a kind of wealth to be sure–but also by bravery and skill at violence. So perhaps
what we are really talking about is not economic systems and theories but this will to dominate that causes power to corrupt and
creates the mindset that "too much is never enough." In other words the problem is really all about psychology with economics
as a subbranch. A future era of better psychologists may produce better economists. Or here's hoping.
"They're only up in arms if they believe that there is an alternative."
"Evil essentially is predatory and destructive behavior. Socrates said that it ultimately is ignorance, because nobody
would set out intentionally to do it. But in that case, evil would be an educational system that imposes ignorance and tunnel
vision, distracting attention from understanding how economic society actually works in destructive ways."
"If we don't go for it then somebody will and we'll lose out" was the frustrating bottom line for an iron worker I was speaking
with about the proposal to drop a new NFL tax payer subsidized practice facility into our already development gridlocked area.
Every point I made to him circled right back to this justification.
He just couldn't conceive of an alternative and I wasn't prepared enough to offer him others.
Because nowadays we must consider the economic tradeoff on everything–just like we are told.
which brings up that sweet definition of evil by MH–within the context of JS's question about enabling Climate Change
As soon as that guy becomes more concerned about feeding his kids, and less concerned about football stadiums, it's possible
he'll be much more focused, more understanding, and willing to listen to your opinion.
MH: It's becoming a second Gilded Age. An abrupt change of direction in economic trends occurred after Ronald Reagan and
Margaret Thatcher were elected in 1979/80. The result has been to invert what the 19th-century economists understood to be a free
market -- that is, a market free from a privileged hereditary class living on unearned income in the form of land rent, monopoly
rent and financial extraction.
JS: I was in my first few years of college when Thatcher came in in 1979, and when Reagan was elected in 1980. I asked my
economics professors what was going on, but I could not find a single professor to coherently describe the U-turn that was occurring.
It certainly wasn't in Paul Samuelson's textbook that we were given.
This interview with Mr. Hudson has been a fascinating education. Thank you, Yves.
That said, there is a tendency, at least in the tone of the interview, to ascribe a kind of insuperable power to top-down manipulation
and control by the oligarchies of which Hudson speaks. My sense is that, instead, sometimes the mass of people want to be so free
of one perceived set of problems that they support stepping into another -- as in the early 1980s.
MMT and "intelligent jubilee" (i.e., the opposite of what Geithner/Obama/Benanke did) supporters -- of which I am one -- might
do well to consider what preceded the so-called Reagan revolution:
Rising inflation and unemployment in the 1970s were perceived to becoming inescapable in the US political landscape of the
time.
The bad news about life in the Soviet Union was leaking out faster and faster in the late 1970s, once the American media lionized
the cause of refuseniks like Natan Sharansky during the Carter years. (Remember Peter Jennings covering the trials and persecution
of sweet, innocent, Natan Sharansky -- the wolf who dropped his sheep's clothing once he arrived in Israel?) Sometimes bad guys
provoke important news about other, more powerful, bad guys.
Thousands of American workers came home from Moscow after Carter cancelled US participation in the 1980 Olympics -- with shocking
tales of just how crappy the Russians had it.
Reagan beat Carter and Anderson 51-41-7 in 1980, and Reagan then whooped Mondale 59-41 in the 1984 popular vote. Job growth
had picked up, the American media was generally happy to lead cheers for the US while pummeling the nasty Soviets. It felt like
the Bear that is misfortune had been satisfied with catching the Russkis.
The old joke points out that we humans instinctively know we can't outrun the Bear; the natural tendency is to therefore sometimes
focus on outrunning our neighbors, so the Bear is satisfied to get them. Our ancestors were selected for that feature.
As 'hemeantwell' noted, the fact that Caesar brought home lots of slaves casts a broader light (than Mr. Hudson's interview)
on for whom Caesar's revolution was intended. How might MMT advocates wrestle with the push and pull of similar 'social identity'
competitions when the Bear is seen to be coming?
The bear was frightened, I can tell you, I lived behind the Iron Curtain.
But there was a lot of talk about peace. A lot. Like – everywhere. And it was not fake. People looked on Americans with genuine
interest and a bit of trepidation, and of course (what proved unhealthful) desire to emulate. And they wanted to be friends and
learn from them. Look at C-SPAN videos of 1989, 1990 – for example one of Soviet banking officials at a seminar with US bankers
– and you will see genuine, practically childlike belief that what the US experts and and banking practitioners were saying was
gospel.
Btw I don't know whether the same talk of peace was present in the US at the time. What continually strikes me is how talk
of peace is utterly absent in MSM now, has been for the last 20 years that I have observed.
It's so beneficial to have Mr. Hudson and others who have studied ancient history from the point of view of how money and indebtedness
works to share all this learning with us. How little is the difference between ancient oligarchs and modern ones! We think our
civilization is so wonderful and enlightened when it is just another part of the old system of inequality playing itself out over
and over again. I too wonder how long the wheel of fortune will take to complete this particular circuit, but with climate change
skulking so near, it may not be long.
Neoliberalism actually started with Carter in the late 1970's, and it was Volcker's monetary assault that helped lose him
the election (and of course the Iran hostage crisis). The same in the UK, with the Labour government bringing in the IMF
and fighting with the unions in the later 1970s to cause the "winter of discontent" that brought in Thatcher (and without the
Falklands War Thatcher would have been out after one term). Labour could have called an earlier election and probably won, but
decided not to in a huge tactical mistake.
The outcomes were not so predetermined and could have been Carter-Callaghan rather than the Reagan-Thatcher duo that did
so much to force the world along the neoliberal path, and bring us "New" Neoliberal Labour (that Thatcher actually stated was
her greatest achievement)
My only quibble would be to point out that you are referring to the neoliberal implementation -- it's tenets are rather older,
dating back at least to the 1938 Walter Lippmann Colloquium.
And well before that, as demonstrated clearly in Quinn Slobodian's recent "Globalists".
This stimulating book considers the historical development of the nexus of ideas and policy initiatives that fall under the
umbrella term 'neoliberalism' -- the political-economic structures and processes that have given us expanding 'globalizing financialization',
legal trade agreements that constrain national sovereignty, massively increasing asset and income disparities, and the consequent
precariousness and stress -- even misery -- afflicting most of us.
Though neoliberalism's origin is commonly associated with the Mont Pèlerin Society, founded in 1947, and prominently with the
figures of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, and more recently with Milton Friedman and the "Chicago Boys", Slobodian demonstrates
that neoliberalism's roots reach much deeper -- into the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire -- indeed of all traditional
off-shore empires -- following WW1, and in subsequent decolonization and the rise of new nations with aspirations of their own.
In large part, neoliberal order, with its international trade deals, was a response to the "problem" posed by the demands of these
diverse new nations to join the 'developed' world on an equal footing with their erstwhile colonial overlords, and to take sovereign
control of their own resources.
So, contrary to conventional understanding, neoliberalism did not spring fully-formed, post-WW2, from the foreheads of Walter
Lippman, von Mises, or Hayek; indeed, the cast of characters playing their parts in this developing drama is a rather large one,
and their origins, interconnections, and contributions are many and diverse, and often surprising.
Mankind survived the collapse of Rome. Barbarism was ascendent in the West. Civilization rose again. This time the collapse
will result in barbarism at the best.
The world problem is Climate Change. Climate change is a product of overpopulation & portable energy as that which creates
Climate change.
The US Treasury creates currency when Congress Votes a Bill that requires it. What is required is an MMT principled Fund that
pays for renewables, energy capture, nuclear power and those new machines that suck CO2 out of the air & turn it into clean hydrocarbon
fuels. The machine has been invented by Carbon Engineering. Takes up 30 acres. Hundreds of thousands are needed to stabilize CO2
levels in the atmosphere.
Methane was never factored in very well into the 1970s understanding of what was then called Ecology. Now we know that the
Methane being released by fracking and permafrost melting is already happening and will keep happening and accelerating so that
there will be a Methane Bubble Melt. 10 to 15 years and all the Methane will melt.
I see what was expected to happen to earth with a population of 9 billion as happening at 7.5 billon or exactly where we are
now. The expectation was that 9 billion was sustainable. 13 billion was said to be sustainable for 3 weeks.
Coral reefs are dying. Insects are dying. Diatoms are the bottom of the food chain in the oceans. They are dependent on coral
reefs. Birds depend on insects and their populations are dwindling.
I consider MMT, the work of conceptual art that allows currency to be generated by bills passed by governments, or a World
government, as a Last Chance Concept.
"The civilized work for what they want, while the barbarians steal what they want." In my civilization I am paid to do work.
Concepts are made real as money is given out for what is not yet real. The young want to have families and the old want the world
they helped build and make safe survive. Such compulsions are innate and often ethical. It is simply unethical to leave the world
worse than you found it.
Idea to idea to real & Ideal is ideal. The American philosophy is ethical eclectic pragmatism. Climate Change is not just to
be fought because it will get hotter but because the food chain will collapse. Other than from the MMT Funding for what it will
take to possibly protect the food chain, what have we?
I think evil takes on a life of its own. Over the course of civilization it gets standardized. But what I see happening
right now is a bunch of apoplectic, frantic "oligarchs" with egg on their face begging us all to help them change.
And none of us feel much warmth toward them. Somehow in the late 70s we the people, the laborers, small farmers, and mom &
pops and small business got blamed for everything that went wrong. And austerity was force-fed to us. What went wrong was actually
military hubris. Now there's an example of non-productive interest inflating away the empire. If the money had been used rationally
we'd have created an equal, balanced society and encouraged others by our example. Humans have always chosen the things that work
best. Somewhere, mid-century we freaked out and decided that we needed to control oil and growth but we were literally overtaken
by our own successes – big agriculture, population growth and ponzi economics. The thing we have to do now is bring this mess
back down to Earth. Requiring a fundamental change.
To change everything and turn it around. No more little tweaks of denial. Instead of the once successful "industrial" capitalism,
what we must have now is environmental capitalism. Value and share the gains of preserving the planet. It sounds like a full reversion
to a time before money, which is the symbol of material exploitation.
And it just so happens we still have the instinct for cooperation. The gains can be distributed to everyone. We just must find
ways that preserve rather than destroy the planet. Same idea, different god. There are plenty of jobs to go around. We have good
science and technology. We're not total idiots, yet. It only takes a minority of people to see the light and everything will change.
I do think we are already there, except for the shouting, as they say.
But those holding and near the levers of power are really sick and deluded individuals. And we have to understand this about
the nukes (post 1945): They exist in case the USA loses a big war or doesn't get its way. Yes, that is the level of depravity
that has developed.
Thanks so much for this series of posts on the ancient world and its comparison to today. I once read Seneca's "Letters from
a Stoic" and was surprised to see/realize the considerable apparent overlap between stoicism – which was itself the continuation
of an earlier tradition – and the early Christian church.
A great article this with lots to chew on. What he says rings true from what I have read. After the second Punic war, Roman
veterans found that the wealthy had seized their small farm holdings while they were gone and incorporated them into their own
estates. These were to become the great Latifundium. Meanwhile, the dispossessed Romans veterans made their way to Rome and joined
the plebs there. Over time, as the Roman army could not recruit these same type of landed men as the smaller holdings were being
eliminated, the Romans had to resort to a professional standing body which no longer owed their allegiance to Rome but to whatever
Roman general paid them – with disastrous results. Caesar was not the first here and the name Sulla also comes to mind. By the
end of the empire the Romans were resorting to paying barbarian tribes to fight for them which worked, until it didn't. So in
short, the greed of the wealthy in Rome destroyed the very thing that had made Rome so successful and resilient.
I don't wish to mount a defense of the Republican Elite; the system did pressure towards money-love. However, there were
counter balancing features. Money was vital, but so was virtue. Honour, courage, dignity were required.
A Roman aristocrat had to perform the minimum set required military campaigns. Only intellectual freaks such as Cicero
could climb the hierarchy without making somekind of significant military achievement.
Caesar won the Laural crown (?) through genuine acts of bravery. Roman aristocrats risked their lives & died in war. And
their troops knew it.
Other factors also tended to mitigate against the oligarchic instinct. For instance, Senators were legally barred from trade
or money lending (& yes, they often got around such bans. ) Sumptuary laws were tried (& failed).
It should also be remembered that for all the economic polarisation, Roman citizenship was highly valued. The Roman's won the
2nd Punic , essentially because Hannibal fundamentally miscalculated -- Roman allies, Latins etc did not go over to Hannibal in
hordes. They stayed loyal.
In Systems of Survival , Jane Jacobs meditated on different power structures. Some required virtus , steadfastness,
etc., others, notably money power didn't.
Somebody, somewhere, wrote about alchemy's response to money, in seeking the Philosopher's Stone. That would be a chemical
that could be transformed into anything in a chemical reaction, rather as money could in the market. I thought it was in Graeber's
Debt , but it's not showing up there.
Philosopher's Stone= the Replicator Tech in Star Trek. costless production of basic needs. add in warp drive(=unlimited expansion,
limited time-cost), and the inherent human traits that cause all the problems(ie: greed, etc) are overcome without having to fix/eliminate
them just give them somewhere to go.(this is why i'm all for asteroid mining)
Several things trouble me about this post. People believe there is no alternative -- I disagree with that view. I'd restate
the assertion as great efforts are and have been made to convince people there is no alternative. You don't need to be my age
to learn a little about tax rates in the Eisenhower years. The economy did all right then. My impression talking with young people
isn't that they believe there is no alternative, instead they have no idea how to make things change for the better, and neither
do us old farts. Our democracy is broken. It no longer cares for the public good.
Money addiction -- I have trouble reconciling that concept with the short-term biases of the wealthy and their seeming
lack of interest in economic growth. They aren't happy with a bigger slice of pie from a bigger pie. They want grow their slice
from the pie relative to everyone else -- even if the pie grows smaller. Money as power, and an insatiable lust for power is more
consistent with the actions of the oligarchs.
I think the concept of growth which shows up in several parts of the post needs some adjustment. Growth is tied to the consumption
of fossil fuels as is increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels are nearing points of declining and unstable production. Unless
growth can be decoupled from fossil fuels all the imperial control of what fossil fuels remain will do little but extend our time
at the expense of others as we all race toward a point of collapse.
Some of the discussion of Neoliberalism confuses me. -- Neoliberalism is not the same as laissez-faire or neoclassical economics.
"That leaves the question facing us today: Is the American oligarchy and state as rapacious as that of Rome?" -- I'm not
sure this post really answered that opening question. I believe the American oligarchy, while continuing in the long tradition
of oligarchic depredation, is much more rapacious than that of Rome and much more dangerous as the world rushes toward collapse.
After the fossil fuels are gone there are no more. The Climate is already lurching into chaos and may have already crossed a point
of no near-term return to the relatively mild and stable climate immediately preceding the Anthropocene.
Thermonuclear weapons scattered in many hands adds existential danger to the threats posed by the American oligarchy and Power
Elite structures and their insane lust for power.
Other than these quibbles, this is a remarkable series of posts presenting what to me is a very new view of the ancient world.
It offers a much better understanding of the ancient world and some of its key literature and early writings. Time to order some
books [I still haven't ordered a copy of "Forgive Them Their Debts" and now have to add a copy of this most recent book.]
Had lunch with one of the "Chicago Boys" that Hudson describes as the source of economics current woes.
After that lunch, which was a discussion of many of Michael's themes, I completely agree with his assessment of what they have
wrought. While the Chicago Boys may profess to have Mill and Ricardo as hero's, as Hudson does, Mills and Ricardo's theories are
obliterated by the way the Chicago Boys have completely fallen in love with Ayn Rand's philosophy. Everyone is on their own. The
rich are rich because they are naturally better at stuff than those who are not. They hate government regulation, they view government
as the creator of problems, they have no compunction for watching the population sink into debt and penury. After all "it's their
own look out".
Funny, when you read things abstractly on a wonderful site like Naked Capitalism, but then witness this terrible philosophy
first hand, suddenly things are not so abstract. Michael's right.
Russian research team which claimed to have detected signs of intelligent life in Washington has now discovered the life there
not to be quite so intelligent after all.
A Russian spokesman, who wishes to remain anonymous, told our Moscow science correspondent -- who also wishes to remain anonymous
-- that the Washington atmosphere has been poisoned by huge clouds of putrid hot air belching from the corporate media. He explained
that such a hostile environment makes it almost impossible for intelligent life to survive, let alone evolve a sustainable culture.
The Russian team believes there may still be small pockets of intelligent life elsewhere on the North American continent but without
the necessary conditions they need to thrive they are destined to disappear without trace.
Speaking off the record, the Russian spokesman, who asked us not to disclose his identity, added that hopes of finding intelligent
life in London, Paris, Berlin and other Western European locations, where it might be expected to flourish, are fading fast. Though
it is believed intelligent life once existed in Occiental Europe, an atmosphere suitable for the maintenance of such life has all
but evaporated.
"... Brookfield Asset Management has agreed to lease the troubled office tower for 99 years and is paying for the lease up front, rather than in the typical yearly ground rent, the Wall Street Journal reports. The financial terms of the deal were not made public, but the New York Times reports that Brookfield is paying $1.1B. ..."
"... Thanks b and you are wise to be sceptical. The up front payment to the Kusher kleptocracy by Brookfield Partners (Asset Management) is not just unusual but more like extraordinary! One test will be how this deal compares to other deals. Was Kushner avoiding taxes by doing a lease? Is this a common practice? ..."
"... It is an old story. From February 12, Bess Levin, Vanity Fair: Qatar Shocked, Shocked to Learn It Accidentally Bailed Out Jared Kushner ..."
"... In 2015, Kushner and his family business, Kushner Cos., bought a portion of the New York Times building on West 43rd Street from Russian /Israeli real estate billionaire Lev Leviev for $295M, where $285M was borrowed from Deutsche Bank to complete the transaction, despite the 666 albatross hanging over Kushners head ..."
"... Qatar paid over a billion dollars to build and expand the US base in Qatar and charges no rent for that base. This allows Qatar to easily brush aside any question of loyalty that may be posed by USA and makes the US/US military reluctant to pressure Qatar. But Israel would have no qualms about apply pressure. The "Jared bailout" allows for a narrative of Qatari leadership as weak and corrupt - much like the ridiculous claims that Putin is pro-Israel. ..."
Kushner Extorted Qatar - Or Did He?DG , Mar 30, 2019 5:37:23 PM |
link
The Hillreporter just published a very juicy story about Jared Kushner, the son in law and senior advisor of President
Trump.
It says that Kushner, with the help of the Saudi clown prince Mohammad bin Salman, extorted Qatar for $1 billion to save his families
real estate business in New York.
While the story sounds plausible and fits the public known timeline of other events, there is so far no evidence that supports
it.
Ward first talked through the story on yesterday's KrassenCast
, a podcast by the anti-Trump and
somewhat shady Krassenstein
brothers who also run the Hillreporter .
In 2007, at the hight of the real estate bubble, the Kushner family bought the 666 5th Avenue building in New York City for $1.8
billion. Ten years later the Kushners were in real trouble. Plans to replace the building with a new one found no financing. The
property was losing lots of money and a huge mortgage payment was due in January 2019. The family had to look for a bail out.
In early 2017 the Kushner family had several meetings with Qatari officials to discuss a deal. The Intercept
reported :
Joshua Kushner, a venture capitalist and the younger brother of White House adviser Jared Kushner, met with Qatari Finance Minister
Ali Sharif Al Emadi the same week as his father, Charles Kushner, did in April 2017, in an independent effort to discuss potential
investments from the Qatari government. Both meetings took place at Al Emadi's St. Regis Hotel suite in Manhattan.
This revelation comes after Charles Kushner, in an interview with the Washington Post this week, confirmed for the first time
that his meeting with Al Emadi had indeed taken place on the subject of financing for the underwater Kushner property at 666 Fifth
Avenue.
"What I have learned is that in the ensuing month [May 2017] before the US visit to Riyadh, Jared Kushner got on a plane and flew
to Doha, the Qatari capital, and he reamed the Qatari ruling family, the al-Thanis, for not doing the deal with his father They
began to feel that he was indirectly threatening their sovereignty. The next thing they know, when they show up to the summit
in Riyadh, the Emir, the ruler of Qatar, arrives with an entourage, but his entourage is suddenly cut off from him, and not allowed
into the summit at the same time by the Saudis, which he felt was a move to deliberately make him look weak. You have to remember
during this summit, Jared and Ivanka go off for a cozy secret unmonitored dinner with [Saudi Crown Prince] MBS. Nobody knows what
they talked about."
Fifteen days later the Saudis and the UAE blockade Qatar and send troops to its border. Trump supports the Saudi blockade against
the advice of his Secretary of State Tillerson and his Defense Secretary Mattis and despite the fact the the biggest U.S. base in
the area is in Qatar.
Nine months later, a Canadian company, Brookfield Partners, who the Qatari Investment Authority owns a $1.8 billion or 9% stake
in, bailed out Kushner Properties, with a 99-year lease agreement for 666 5th Ave.
...
Around this same time, President Trump publicly shifts course, no longer supporting the blockade, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
tells Saudi Arabia to stop the embargo.
If the blockade of Qatar originates in a Kushner extortion scheme, as the story insinuates, it would have serious political consequences.
But is that true?
Charles Kushner, head of the Kushner Companies, is in advanced talks with Brookfield Asset Management over a partnership to take
control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower in Midtown Manhattan, 666 Fifth Avenue, according to two real estate executives who
have been briefed on the pending deal but were not authorized to discuss it.
The deal only
closed in August 2018 on terms that had changed from the first report and were unusual:
Brookfield Asset Management has agreed to lease the troubled office tower for 99 years and is paying for the lease up front,
rather than in the typical yearly ground rent, the Wall Street Journal reports. The financial terms of the deal were not made
public, but the New York Times reports that Brookfield is paying $1.1B.
What was the real sequencing here? Was the property deal agreed upon before the Trump administration changed its stand on the
Qatar blockade or after that happened? Was it related to it or not? We don't know. There is no public record of the alleged Jared
Kushner flight to Qatar. There is so far no other evidence that would support the story. The tale fits the publicly known timeline,
but that is not enough to believe it. Its authors may have used the public timeline to then fit a story onto it.
It is possible that the Kushner property deal and the Qatar blockade are intimately intertwined but there is, so far, no proof
for it. That idea that Kushner played the Saudis is dubious. The other way around is more likely.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE had plenty of reason to blockade Qatar. Both countries fear the Qatari support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
They hate Qatar's Al Jazeerah TV because it often publicly opposes their policies. The Saudis need money and annexing the very rich
Qatar would solve all their problems. Brookfield Properties denies that Qatar or the Qatari investment agency had any involvement
in 666 5th Ave. deal.
Even if Qatar, through Brookfield, made a deal with the Kushner family, it does not mean that it was extorted. The Qatari rulers
might simply have hoped that the deal would help them. It did not. The blockade still continues despite the real estate deal. Trump
had his own reasons to support the Saudis Qatar blockade. He wanted them to buy as many U.S. weapon system as possible, if only to
beat out Obama, who sold the Saudis all sorts of military trash for a record amount of money.
During the Mueller Russia investigation lots of smoke seemed to show that there was a 'collusion' fire burning somewhere under
the hundreds of facts and figures. There wasn't.
The story about the Kushner 'extortion of Qatar' might create a similar '
the walls are closing in ' (vid) farce only to end up with
nothing. It is interesting that the Vicky Ward story was published on March 29, a day after Jared Kushner
was interviewed
behind closed door by the Senate Intelligence Commission:
President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner returned to the Senate Intelligence Committee for a closed door interview Thursday
as part of the committee's Russia investigation.
...
The first time Kushner appeared before the panel in 2017, he was interviewed by committee staff. The committee has wanted to re-interview
witnesses central to the investigation. On Thursday, senators were sitting in on the interview.
Russiagate is really finished
. The Republican's rule the Senate. Why would they continue to interview Kushner and why would senators sit in on it? Might the 'Kushner
extorted Qatar' be a planned sequel to Russiagate or why else was it launched right now?
Posted by b on March 30, 2019 at 05:28 PM |
Permalink
One has to wonder whether Kushner's influence was involved in this deal which would have seen the geopolitical balance in the
Middle East tilt into Saudi Arabia's favour.
Thanks b and you are wise to be sceptical. The up front payment to the Kusher kleptocracy by Brookfield Partners (Asset Management)
is not just unusual but more like extraordinary! One test will be how this deal compares to other deals. Was Kushner avoiding
taxes by doing a lease? Is this a common practice?
I did like the reference to Trump outdoing Obummer in arms deals and had a good laugh at Trumps childish racism in that game.
He sure hates Obummer but he sure won't go after him in any way. Trump wont even go after $hillary and her global empire shakedown
Foundation. Sometimes I think he is now a sitting duck but then I am an optimist.
In addition to likely having had the chance to hear about the deal through Brookfield directly or read about it in the paper
of record, one would imagine the Qataris were keeping tabs on all things Kushner on account of Jared's father, Charles Kushner,
taking a meeting with Qatar's finance minister, Ali Sharif Al Emadi in April 2017. (Kushner the Elder later said he accepted
the invite purely "out of respect" for the Qataris to tell them there was no way "we could do business.")
Of course Trump throwing the full weight of the US behind Saudi Arabia and UAE was a de facto shake down of Qatar. And of course,
Saudi and UAE were actively lobbying for it.
thanks b.. it will be interesting to see how much traction vicky wards reporting gets and whether any of it gets substantiated..
i do believe the usa is crazy enough to do another witch hunt, so anything is possible here... she works for the huffpost..
that is grounds to discredit here right there in my books..
More theatrics as diversion, while the crooks in D.C. dismantle the agencies that keep the wealthy oligarchs at bay, as they rewrite
the rules to allow greed and avarice to become virtues.
"Rules and regulations never changed a man's heart, but they can restrain the heartless."
Meanwhile, propaganda organs in America won't publicize real Donald Trump scandals like the case of ''Maria'' a Waterbury 12-year
old alleged child rape victim of Donald Trump and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The crimes allegedly occurred at a midtown
Manhattan mansion owned by Epstein's friend Les Wexner.
Donald Trump recently named as his Secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta, former U.S. Attorney for South Florida, the federal official
directly overseeing sweetheart future immunity deal for Grifter in Chief acolytes like Jeffrey Epstein... As Labor Secretary,
Acosta is charged with overseeing federal laws designed to combat domestic and international sex trafficking.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York is currently deciding whether to unseal the documents from a 2017
lawsuit involving one of Epstein's sex trafficking victims and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's assistant.
Other possible corrupt practices involving stable genius center around China's decision to grant Ivanka Trump 38 new trademarks
in the middle of a trade war dispute... Part of current trade war negotiations are EB-5 investment visas. Jared Kushner and Trump
stand to benefit from EB-5 visas designed to attract Chinese investment in the United States in return for permanent residency.
Curiously an EB-5 visa scam was being run out of an office in Jupiter, Florida, located across the street from the Orchids
of Asia massage parlor raided by police where Trump billionaire friend Kraft was caught in a possible Chinese Honey Trap.
Russiagate may be done but thats because it was defined improperly. Sometimes it helps to look back to get a big picture perspective
Starting in 1999, Putin enlisted two oligarchs Lev Leviev and Roman Abramovich, who would go on to become Chabad's biggest
patrons worldwide, to create the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia under the leadership of Chabad rabbi Berel Lazar,
who would come to be known as "Putin's rabbi."
Roman Abramovich is the owner of the Chelsea Football Club of the English Premier League. He was a victor (along with Paul
Manafort's patron Oleg Deripaska) in the aluminum wars of the 1990s and reportedly the person who convinced Boris Yeltsin that
Putin would be a proper successor.
Ivanka Trump is very close friends with Abramovich's wife , Dasha Zhukova. Zhukova reportedly attended the inauguration as
Ivanka's personal guest. Leviev is the one with the closest links to the Trumps and Israel
It starts with Bayrock . This is the company that Donald Trump teamed up with to build his Trump Soho project. There were three
main actors . One was convicted mob associate and FBI informant Felix Sater. Another was Tevfik Arif, a likely Russian intelligence
connection who was once was arrested by the Turks . The third was the late Tamir Sapir, another man with ties to Russian intelligence.
The late billionaire Tamir Sapir, was born in the Soviet state of Georgia. Trump has called Sapir "a great friend." In December
2007, he hosted the wedding of Sapir's daughter, Zina, at Mar-a-Lago. The groom, Rotem Rosen, was the CEO of the American branch
of Africa Israel, the Putin oligarch Leviev's holding company, and known as Leviev's right hand man.
As mentioned Leviev was one of two oligarch's who Putin had establish the "Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia" under
the leadership of Chabad rabbi Berel Lazar, who would come to be known as 'Putin's rabbi.'" Sater, Sapier, Jared, Ivanka are all
Chabad members and/or donors
Trump had business discussions in Moscow in 2013 about Moscow real estate projects with Agalarovs, Alex Sapir (son of Tamir
Sapir, brother of Zina, and brother-in-law of Rotem Rosen.) and Rotem Rosen, a pair of New York-based Russian . This may also
have been discussed during the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower that was attended by Kushner, Manafort and Donald Trump Jr and
a Russian lawyer associated with Fusion GPS (Steele dossier) and the Leviev linked Prevezon
Agalarov is a Moscow-based property developer who had won major contracts from Putin's government. He hosted Trump's 2013 Miss
Universe contest at his concert hall in Moscow. He orchestrated the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting and formed a new American shell
company a month beforehand with the help of the Russian lawyer who attended the meeting.
In 2015, Kushner and his family business, Kushner Cos., bought a portion of the New York Times building on West 43rd Street
from Russian /Israeli real estate billionaire Lev Leviev for $295M, where $285M was borrowed from Deutsche Bank to complete the
transaction, despite the 666 albatross hanging over Kushners head
Deutsche Bank and two companies tied to Leviev, Africa Israel Investments and Prevezon, have all recently been the subject
of money laundering investigations. A laundering case against Prevezon was settled two months after Trump fired Bharara, with
a $6M slap on the wrist settlement that raised some eyebrows.
As for 666, Kushner gets bailed out by Brookfield who has Qatar as its 2nd largest investor. But consider that at the same
time they did this deal they also acquired Westinghouse Electric, a nuclear power company. Now members of the Trump administration
propose selling nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia. Interesting.
Can't seem to find a Putin/Russian oligarch connection although that's probably due to the fact you cant use anonymous shell
companies to buy property in NYC any longer due to new rules by FinCEN
But so many conflict of interests here, Israel, China, Saudis, Russian oligarchs, etc and virtually no oversight or transparency.
With twitter being used to manipulate markets one has to imagine rampant insider trading as well (hey guys, my tweets going out
at 3 pm, get your trades in and remember my 5%).
@7 savvy globalist somebody wants us to know that there's nothing to see here!
But the Vanity Fair article he links to, written by Bess L-evin, makes this unsubstantiated(!) point:
So why is Doha taking pains to insist it accidentally bailed out the First-in-Laws on their no good, very bad investment
now?
1) Actually, the Reuters article that she refers to explicitly states that Qatar has a minority position and no board representation
! It is a known in the financial world as a "passive investment".
2) L-evin's wording is extremely disingenuous: the Qataris never said they bailed out anyone, accidentally or otherwise!!
Interestingly, Vicky Ward used to work at Vanity Fair, and is currently an editor at HuffPost (a Democratic rag). And media that
broke/promoted this story (Leevin and Krasseenstein) could (naturally) rise some suspicions of a connection to Israel's conflict
with Iran. Qatar shares a huge gas field with Iran so Qatar has been reluctant to join KSA and Israel against Iran.
Qatar paid over a billion dollars to build and expand the US base in Qatar and charges no rent for that base. This allows
Qatar to easily brush aside any question of loyalty that may be posed by USA and makes the US/US military reluctant to pressure
Qatar. But Israel would have no qualms about apply pressure. The "Jared bailout" allows for a narrative of Qatari leadership as
weak and corrupt - much like the ridiculous claims that Putin is pro-Israel.
1) Documentation is scarce and the few that exist don't fit the journalist's story chronology (even though, in the concrete
case, you could argue for expediency/bureacratic delay, so this criterium alone doesn't bust the journalist's chronology)
2) The whole narrative simply doesn't have social cohesion. It simply doesn't make any sense for Trump to risk be impeached
in such polarized scenario just to rescue his son-in-law. It makes even less sense for the Arab royalties to submit to a much
weaker political player such as Kushner. And, as b mentions, Trump had many more powerful reasons to sanction Qatar.
@11 &12
Corruption abounds, but any of it that touches Zionists, the Clinton's, or the royal family (Epstein, Prince Andrew) is off limits.
They are untouchable to the MSM.
people like Brennan & Clapper are feeding the "trump really, really, no really hearts putin" narrative to the msdnc crowd, and
this of an administration being helmed by CIA men like Pompeo.
like the fbi's manufacture wholesale of "islamo-terrorist" non-events
in part to distract from the presence of the actual threat of rising fascism & racism (a la Nazism, as in NZ) from the usual suspects,
much beloved of the fibbies, it's convenient for all, incl trump, to be painted as bff's with Vlad.
if the goal was to stop or in any way impede the trump admin (not just trump himself, who is a know-nothing shit golem animated
by the glad-handing he receives from the people actually in charge, who just feed his narcissistic fantasies), there are other,
more practical & achievable ways to do it. in-fighting among the herd who have not yet jumped off the Gadarene cliffs is not the
same thing as opposition, not among the Legion possessed swine in D.C. they are just grunting & snorting at each other, occasionally,
very occasionally & deliberately, trampling one of their own, as they plummet over the edge.
it's pretty clear that funny things like such pigs' full-throated support of Zionism is more important to Pelosi & Schumer
than resisting the Trump admin *in any way,* no matter how much they personally despise trump. and mainly they despise him for
helping to reveal what some POTUS would have sooner or later: the pointlessness of Congress; that the "unitary executive", as
the titular head of the corporate security state, is already fully in charge; that "dyarchy," dual rule by legislative & executive,
is non-existent.
"On Friday, the United Nations Security Council, following a closed-door meeting, issued a
statement to the press calling for Hifter's LNA to "halt its military activity" near Tripoli.
When Britain proposed a formal resolution along these lines, however, Russia opposed it, no
doubt fearing that it could become the pretext for a fresh Western intervention in Libya.
The British draft included a passage calling "for those who undermine Libya's peace and
security to be held to account."
What hypocrisy! There was no such call when the UK joined with France and the United
States to overthrow the country's government and inflict death upon its population and
destruction upon its infrastructure.
*****No one, from Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron on down, was ever held
accountable for a criminal war of aggression that turned the country into a living
hell.****
Launched under the pretext of a UN resolution authorizing the imposition of a no-fly zone
over Libya to halt the supposed (but non-existent) threat of a massacre in the eastern city
of Benghazi, the war saw money and arms poured into Islamist militias and lavished on Al
Qaeda operatives, who were backed by a relentless bombing campaign, which included nearly
30,000 sorties in the course of seven months.
A war launched on the pretext of protecting civilians culminated in the carpet bombing of
Sirte, a bastion of popular support for Gaddafi, and the lynch-mob torture and murder of the
Libyan leader, over which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laughingly gloated, "We
came, we saw, he died."
"In the intervening eight years, the attempts to install a pro-Western puppet regime in a
devastated country controlled by clashing Islamist, tribal and other militias have failed
miserably. The regime headed up by Sarraj, recognized as Libya's "legitimate" government,
barely controls even Tripoli. Under its supposed rule, the country's education and health
systems have collapsed, while inflation is ravaging living standards, the unemployment rate
has reached 30 percent, and fully a third of the population lives below the poverty line.
Conditions of life for masses of Libyans have deteriorated dramatically since the overthrow
of Gaddafi."
For its part, the United States insists on running Ukraine, appointing a special envoy
– Kurt Volker – to preserve its feeling of international importance after it was
pointedly left out of the Normandy Format; Meddlers R Us; we don't need no steenking
invitations.
A glance over trade statistics suggests this
was a wise choice for the Exceptional Nation – the year before the Glorious Maidan,
Revolution of Dignity, the USA did around $3 Billion worth of trade with Ukraine, selling it
$1.92 Billion worth of goods and services, and buying $1.03 Billion worth of goods and services
from it, posting an American trade surplus of $888 Million. Last year the USA did around $4
Billion worth of trade with Ukraine, selling it $2.46 Billion in goods and services, and buying
$1.35 Billion worth of goods and services from it, handsomely increasing the American trade
surplus to $1.13 Billion. Considering Ukraine is impoverished and living on handouts, while the
per-capita GDP has fallen by more than 6% despite the country having lost about 3 million
people (Ukraine's population today is almost exactly what it was in 1960), that's quite an
achievement.
Russian research team which claimed to have detected signs of intelligent life in Washington has now discovered the life there
not to be quite so intelligent after all.
A Russian spokesman, who wishes to remain anonymous, told our Moscow science correspondent -- who also wishes to remain anonymous
-- that the Washington atmosphere has been poisoned by huge clouds of putrid hot air belching from the corporate media. He explained
that such a hostile environment makes it almost impossible for intelligent life to survive, let alone evolve a sustainable culture.
The Russian team believes there may still be small pockets of intelligent life elsewhere on the North American continent but without
the necessary conditions they need to thrive they are destined to disappear without trace.
Speaking off the record, the Russian spokesman, who asked us not to disclose his identity, added that hopes of finding intelligent
life in London, Paris, Berlin and other Western European locations, where it might be expected to flourish, are fading fast. Though
it is believed intelligent life once existed in Occiental Europe, an atmosphere suitable for the maintenance of such life has all
but evaporated.
With Jared kushner ( Bibis bff and playing the role of **** Cheney) and Aldonson Trumps
private banker ( aka Vegas buddies) what could go wrong in PEACE negotiations?
... ... ...
Apparently Bibi sleeping in Jareds bed wasn't a metephor but a foreign policy
statement!💊🐍 the house of Kushner that Trump built.
"... In so doing, he has effectively repudiated the entire post-World War II international order and signalled that wars of conquest and territorial aggrandisement are the order of the day. Such annexations were declared illegal under the Geneva Conventions, enacted in the wake of the Second World War to prevent the repetition of similar actions carried out by Germany's Nazi regime, which set the stage for the outbreak of war in 1939. ..."
"... Netanyahu's announcement will give succour to his support base among fascistic layers of the settlers and religious nationalists, driving Israel's capitalist political setup ever further toward outright apartheid, fascism and military dictatorship. It is a prelude to intensified Israeli military aggression in the occupied West Bank, Gaza and the broader Middle East. ..."
"... He has brought into his electoral coalition, and a possible share of government power should he win, outright fascist elements linked to the banned Kach Party of the late Meir Kahane, a party that was designated a terrorist organization by the US, Canada, the European Union, Japan and Israel itself. ..."
"... Trump's naked interference in the Israeli elections is bound up with US imperialism's broader aim of escalating its military intervention in the Middle East to roll back the growth of Iranian influence in the wake of the successive debacles suffered by Washington in Iraq, Libya and Syria. ..."
"... The political antecedents of Netanyahu's Likud Party, Vladimir Jabotinsky's Revisionists, who were to remain a minority tendency until the 1970s, articulated this position most clearly. Their aim was the establishment of a Jewish state on the entire land of Biblical Palestine, including Transjordan. With the Jews a minority in Palestine, such a state would necessarily mean expelling the Arab population to ensure its Jewish character. ..."
"... In 1923, Jabotinsky explained, in an article titled "The Iron Wall," that the Zionist project could be achieved only against the wishes of the native population. He envisaged the need for an iron wall to protect the Jews from the native population. He said, "A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the near future." Without a garrison, Zionist colonization of Palestine would be impossible, and "therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force." ..."
"... Netanyahu has now made explicit what has long been implicit: the incorporation of the West Bank into a Greater Israel. It can be achieved and sustained only through the imposition of military rule. To this end, his government has passed a series of measures, including the openly racist "Nation-State Law" enshrining Jewish supremacy as the legal foundation of the state, bringing the political and legal system into alignment with the reality of Jabotinsky's garrison state, based on the brutal oppression of an entire people, the Palestinians. ..."
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared his intention of extending Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, captured in
the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, if he is re-elected prime minister in Tuesday's general election.
In so doing, he has effectively repudiated the entire post-World War II international order and signalled that wars of conquest
and territorial aggrandisement are the order of the day. Such annexations were declared illegal under the Geneva Conventions, enacted
in the wake of the Second World War to prevent the repetition of similar actions carried out by Germany's Nazi regime, which set
the stage for the outbreak of war in 1939.
Netanyahu's announcement will give succour to his support base among fascistic layers of the settlers and religious nationalists,
driving Israel's capitalist political setup ever further toward outright apartheid, fascism and military dictatorship. It is a prelude
to intensified Israeli military aggression in the occupied West Bank, Gaza and the broader Middle East.
Netanyahu told a television Channel 12 interviewer on Saturday that he would not "evacuate any community." Nor would he divide
Jerusalem, a reference to Palestinian demands for East Jerusalem to serve as the capital of a future Palestinian state. He said,
"I will not divide Jerusalem, I will not evacuate any community and I will make sure we control the territory west of Jordan."
He added, "A Palestinian state will endanger our existence and I withstood huge pressure over the past eight years. No prime minister
has withstood such pressure. We must control our destiny."
Netanyahu made it clear that he viewed President Donald Trump's recognition of Israel's illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights,
captured in 1967, as a green light to press on with Likud's long-held expansionist policy of a Greater Israel. He said, "Will we
move ahead to the next stage? Yes. I will extend sovereignty, but I don't distinguish between the settlement blocs and the isolated
ones, because each settlement is Israeli, and I will not hand it over to Palestinian sovereignty."
Speaking about the Bedouin community of Khan al-Ahmar, which he has pledged to evacuate despite international outrage, Netanyahu
promised that "it will happen." He added, "I promised, and it will happen at the soonest opportunity."
Netanyahu's announcement was aimed at bolstering his position in the election, which he had called ahead of schedule in order
to win political backing to ensure his immunity from prosecution on a raft of corruption charges. Facing unexpectedly strong opposition
from a slate of generals assembled by the so-called Blue and White coalition, headed by former chief of staff Benny Gantz, he has
leveraged Trump's support to appeal to his right-wing support base.
He has brought into his electoral coalition, and a possible share of government power should he win, outright fascist elements
linked to the banned Kach Party of the late Meir Kahane, a party that was designated a terrorist organization by the US, Canada,
the European Union, Japan and Israel itself.
Trump's naked interference in the Israeli elections is bound up with US imperialism's broader aim of escalating its military
intervention in the Middle East to roll back the growth of Iranian influence in the wake of the successive debacles suffered by Washington
in Iraq, Libya and Syria.
Netanyahu's growing alliance with the House of Saud and the petro-monarchs of the Gulf has served to ensure their acquiescence
-- with pro forma denunciations -- to this latest assault on the Palestinians.
But apart from Netanyahu's short-term political calculations, his announcement derives from Zionism's foundation upon exclusivist
conceptions of racial, religious and linguistic hegemony to justify the establishment of a Jewish state through the violent dispossession
of the indigenous Arab population, who formed the overwhelming majority of the population, making use of the horrors of the Holocaust
as a rationale for the oppression of another people.
The political antecedents of Netanyahu's Likud Party, Vladimir Jabotinsky's Revisionists, who were to remain a minority tendency
until the 1970s, articulated this position most clearly. Their aim was the establishment of a Jewish state on the entire land of
Biblical Palestine, including Transjordan. With the Jews a minority in Palestine, such a state would necessarily mean expelling the
Arab population to ensure its Jewish character.
In 1923, Jabotinsky explained, in an article titled "The Iron Wall," that the Zionist project could be achieved only against
the wishes of the native population. He envisaged the need for an iron wall to protect the Jews from the native population. He said,
"A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the near future." Without a garrison, Zionist
colonization of Palestine would be impossible, and "therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force."
The establishment of a Jewish state was viewed with sympathy by millions of people around the world, who were appalled at the
catastrophe that had befallen the Jews. But the major powers excluding Britain, but including the Soviet Union, supported the establishment
of a Jewish state as a means of blocking Britain's position in the Middle East. As a result, the UN voted in 1947 for the partition
of Palestine, hailing the new state as a progressive entity dedicated to building a democratic and egalitarian society for the most
cruelly oppressed people of Europe.
As soon as the State of Israel was declared in 1948, war broke out between the Arabs and the Jews, who were able to seize more
land than was included in the 1947 partition plan, driving out some 750,000 Palestinians from their homes. Not wanting to pay the
price of the concessions demanded by the superpowers, in terms of borders and refugees, Israel's Labour government did not try to
make peace after the war, instead instituting a policy of "striving for peace" -- but not too fast -- which became the template for
future governments. The more Israel got used to the situation of neither peace nor war, the louder grew the voices calling for the
maintenance of the status quo.
After the 1967 war, when Israel captured East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan, Gaza from Egypt and the Golan Heights from
Syria, the Labour government moved rapidly to annex East Jerusalem and build settlements in the occupied territories that are now
home to some 700,000 Israeli Jews, many of them extreme nationalists and religious zealots who are heavily armed. Labour had, in
effect, adopted the Revisionists' policy.
The war and the settlement movement spawned the growth of immensely reactionary political and social forces within Israel itself,
with Menachem Begin's Likud party demanding the territories be brought under Israeli sovereignty on the grounds that they were the
Biblical lands of Samaria and Judea, promised by God to the Jewish people.
In 1993, a Labour government signed an illusory peace deal, the Oslo Accords, brokered by the US, with the Palestine Liberation
Organization. Ostensibly, the agreement was to usher in a Palestinian statelet. But its real purpose was to prevent the intifada
that broke out in 1987 from developing into a revolutionary uprising by the Palestinian masses in the occupied territories, and to
subcontract the task of suppressing the masses to the Palestinian bourgeoisie.
Instead of peace and a Palestinian state, the Oslo Accords set the stage for an expansion of the settlements and land seizures
to control the access roads to these enclaves and strengthen their connection to Israel itself, with the Palestinian Authority left
to police small patches of land, mostly impoverished cities, surrounded and cut off by Israeli troops.
In line with its long-held policy, the Likud Party vehemently opposed any territorial concessions to the Palestinians embodied
in the Accords. Its leaders stood by as its angry supporters called Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin a traitor, paving the way for his
murder in 1995 by a right-wing fanatic. With none of the mainstream political parties prepared to make any fundamental changes, the
fraudulent peace process was all but dead.
Netanyahu has now made explicit what has long been implicit: the incorporation of the West Bank into a Greater Israel. It
can be achieved and sustained only through the imposition of military rule. To this end, his government has passed a series of measures,
including the openly racist "Nation-State Law" enshrining Jewish supremacy as the legal foundation of the state, bringing the political
and legal system into alignment with the reality of Jabotinsky's garrison state, based on the brutal oppression of an entire people,
the Palestinians.
The so-called "centre-left" opposition in the elections, led by Gantz, has not challenged Netanyahu's annexation pledge, resorting
to verbal obfuscations and calls for a "regional conference" or "secure separation," thereby signifying consent.
This marks the historic bankruptcy and culmination of the entire reactionary Zionist project and all such nationalist programs.
Tough talk about the need to punish Russia for meddling in the 2016 U.S. election is running into the reality that
Congress's enthusiasm for additional sanctions is waning.
"We face a little bit of sanctions fatigue around here these days," said Republican Senator Marco Rubio of
Florida, the sponsor of one of the bills aimed at Russia. "Hopefully we'll get more people on board."
Two main proposals are circulating aimed at increasing pressure on Russian individuals and companies by
restricting their access to U.S. markets and capital. Both Senate bills received significant attention in 2018
after President Donald Trump failed to condemn Russia for its election meddling, but they lost steam after
November's midterm elections and aren't moving any faster in this year's Congress.
Many lawmakers still want Russia to face stronger consequences for its actions in the U.S. and elsewhere, but
there's no clear consensus on how to send the right message to the Kremlin. Two other factors add to the
hesitation: concern about unintended
economic
consequences, and the difficulty of passing legislation in a divided Congress when the measures don't
have the president's support.
"Sanctions can often be a double-edged sword," said Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, chairman of
the Homeland Security Committee. "So we really should take a little bit of a step back and assess where we are and
what we can really do."
Sovereign Debt
Markets are closely watching the next U.S. moves on sanctions, since any action may
affect
Russia's sovereign debt. The ruble has depreciated against the dollar since 2014, when the U.S. imposed
sanctions on during the Obama administration.
Senators Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, in February
reintroduced their
DASKA Act
, which would impose sanctions on Russian individuals, cyber operations and liquid natural gas export
facilities. The legislation calls for the president to "
prescribe
regulations
" for sanctions on sovereign debt issued 90 days after the law is enacted. The bill would also
reinforce support for NATO, and would create a new office in the State Department to respond to cyber threats.
The other Senate bill, the
DETER Act
, was reintroduced last week by Rubio and Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. It would
require the Director of National Intelligence to tell Congress on any foreign interference within 60 days of a
federal election. If a Russian violation is found, sanctions would target that country's political figures and its
energy and defense sectors. Sanctions could also extend to government and state-owned company bonds issued after
the bill is signed into law.
Van Hollen said the current version of his bill includes an
option
for the president to waive sanctions in the interest of "national security." Senators considered adding
this provision in 2018 as an escape valve that would improve its chances of getting a floor vote, after the
Treasury Department
warned of
potential economic spillover.
Previous versions of both bills failed to advance at the end of 2018 as Congress turned its focus to government
spending measures, judicial nominations and a farm bill.
Van Hollen said the new version would deter Russian misbehavior because it would punish future action.
"We're not talking about adding new sanctions now, we're sending a clear signal that if you screw around in our
elections again, there's going to be swift and severe punishment," he said. "It makes much more sense to tie a
sanction to future conduct to deter the conduct."
The U.S. has
sanctioned
roughly 700 Russian entities since 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and fostered unrest in eastern
Ukraine. Other sanctions were imposed
following
the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the
poisoning
of a former Russian agent and his daughter in the U.K. in March 2018.
Lawmakers last year stepped up the push for legislation compelling new sanctions after Trump sparked bipartisan
outcry
when he stood beside Russian President Vladimir Putin following a one-on-one summit in Helsinki and
said he believed Putin's denial of Russia interference in U.S. elections.
Mueller Momentum
While senior lawmakers now express mixed feelings about what to do next, the upcoming release of portions of
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the 2016 election and the Trump campaign could bring renewed
attention to the sanctions bills.
"You'll see more interest in this from other members who may not have been as involved when they can see the
full Mueller report," said Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia and vice chairman of the Intelligence
Committee.
Some key lawmakers are taking their time, though, as they try to decide the best next steps. Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Chair Jim Risch, an Idaho Republican, said he isn't backing any particular proposal at this
time.
'It's Getting Worse'
"The purpose is to persuade people to adjust their conduct, and it's not happening," Risch said. "In fact, if
anything it's getting worse. That's what is causing the discussion."
Risch said he couldn't "really judge what the appetite is" in the Senate for more sanctions, but he'd like to
see a strong stance from the U.S. "I'm interested in seeing Russia change their conduct," he said. "And the
Russian administration, they're not nice people. They do bad things."
Jim Risch
Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, a Democrat on Risch's committee, said Congress's willingness to
further punish Russia will also hinge on that country's participation in other conflicts around the world.
"We're seeing their activities in Venezuela," Shaheen said of Russia's support for the faltering Nicolas Maduro
regime
that the U.S. has sought to transition out of power. "If we see those kinds of activities continue,
that there will be a growing appetite for additional sanctions."
Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat also on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Congress should be
thinking "a little more creatively about how to make Russia pay a price." Murphy said the focus should be on how
to address underlying geopolitical problems, rather than focusing on isolated punitive measures.
"We could spend our time talking about actual long-term strategies to try to combat Russia's influence, or we
could spend all our time slapping sanctions on Russian individuals and banks," Murphy said. "The former is
probably more important than the latter."
Russiagate is about keeping Russian down via additional sections. As simple as that. Epidemics of Neo-McCarthyism also
helps to cement cracks in the US neoliberal facade and, as such, is very helpful for the US elite.
It also absolves Neoliberal Democrats of the political fiasco of the century -- rejection of establishment candidate by
the majoring of working Americans which happened when Hillary Clinton was defeated by a person with zero political experience and no
political patty behind him.
Notable quotes:
"... "The results of Mueller's investigations are a disgrace to the U.S. and their political elite. It's now confirmed that all their allegations have been plucked out of thin air. The media have played a shameful role of lie-mongers in a campaign built on lies. The adherents of this conspiracy theory are discredited. Only an idiot can believe them now." ..."
"... We've seen anti-Russian xenophobia spread into the American mainstream. Etched in our minds are comments like the one James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, made in an interview when he said that Russians are "almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever." ..."
"... To those of us who paid attention to American media and politics over the past two years, it quickly became clear that too many in the United States know nothing about our country. ..."
Alexey Pushkov, a former diplomat and a political analyst,
tweeted to his 360,000 followers on Tuesday
, following the release of Attorney General William Barr's summary of the report:
"The results of Mueller's investigations are
a disgrace to the U.S. and their political elite. It's now confirmed that all their allegations have been plucked out of thin air.
The media have played a shameful role of lie-mongers in a campaign built on lies. The adherents of this conspiracy theory are discredited.
Only an idiot can believe them now."
To the Kremlin and its supporters, Russia is the aggrieved party here, and the government's consistent denials of interfering
in America's internal affairs have been fully vindicated. Appearing on the Russian talk show "60 Minutes," Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman
for the foreign ministry, said the ministry was preparing a report to name and shame the "brigade of propagandists" -- pointing at,
among others, Fareed Zakaria -- who tried to tie Mr. Trump to Russia. She added that "apologies are expected."
... ... ...
...it becomes clear that whatever the outcome of
the Mueller investigation, our relationship with America has changed.
We've seen anti-Russian xenophobia spread into the American mainstream. Etched in our minds are comments like the one James
Clapper, the former director of national intelligence,
made in an interview when he
said that Russians are "almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever."
... ... ...
In the atmosphere where "contacts with Russians" has become cause for suspicion, every bank transaction and visa application faces
extra scrutiny. I've heard from people I know about how exchange programs, conferences and businesses are suffering.
To those of us who paid attention to American media and politics over the past two years, it quickly became clear that too many
in the United States know nothing about our country. Ominous images of onion-shaped domes
taking over the
White House baffled us; St. Basil's Cathedral is not part of the Kremlin complex and has no political connotation. The ubiquity
of hammers and sickles in visuals accompanying Trump-Russia reports seemed likewise absurd. Our country hasn't been Communist for
about 30 years.
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are
started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me
share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars
against so many foreign nations.
Thank you in spades for bringing our attention to that truth.
"... The seeds sown in the US' "Long War"* are terrible. Libya discord gave arms and bases for US support to Salafi jihad in Syria, ISIS is US sown, Iraq is to be a permanent occupation more dangerous than South Korea, Afghanistan is a tottering escapade each new commander bringing a fresh set of objectives none connected to an end to the blood shed. ..."
"... The press is at fault, they work for the empire's war profiteers. ..."
"... *Many commentators on the US' military horrors since 9/11/01 stopped saying "global war on terror" and use "Long War". ..."
7 years after the US - led by Obama, Hillary & @SamanthaJPower - bombed Libya in the
name of "humanitarianism" along with the UK & France & then utterly ignored it, the
country is so violent, unstable & dangerous that US troops can no longer safely
remain
American troops in Libya moved out of country as violence escalates near capital
The announcement comes as the U.N.-backed government in Tripoli vowed to defend the
capital against a renegade militia seeking to storm its way into the city, a showdown that
threatened to spill into bloody urban combat in the streets of Tripoli.
How come none of this is on page one above the fold?
EMichael, goes after Chinese oppression of Muslims, but never a word about humanitarian
tragedies US spreads from Caracas to Yemen through Kandahar to Pyongyang.
Russia doing any of this to Ukraine or Georgia would be howled about!
The seeds sown in the US' "Long War"* are terrible. Libya discord gave arms and bases for
US support to Salafi jihad in Syria, ISIS is US sown, Iraq is to be a permanent occupation
more dangerous than South Korea, Afghanistan is a tottering escapade each new commander
bringing a fresh set of objectives none connected to an end to the blood shed.
The press is at fault, they work for the empire's war profiteers.
*Many commentators on the US' military horrors since 9/11/01 stopped saying "global war on
terror" and use "Long War".
Note: Michael Hudson published and forgive them their debts: Lending, Foreclosure, and
Redemption From Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year in November of last year. It is the
first volume in what will be a trilogy on the long history of the tyranny of debt. I have
interviewed him extensively as he writes the second volume, The Collapse of
Antiquity.
John Siman : Michael, in the first volume of your history of debt -- "
ORDER IT NOW
and forgive them their debts , dealing with the Bronze Age Near East, Judaism and
early Christianity -- you showed how over thousands of years, going back to the invention of
interest-bearing loans in Mesopotamia in the third millennium BC, many kings from a variety of
Mesopotamian civilizations proclaimed Clean Slate debt cancellations on a more or less regular
basis. And you showed that these royal proclamations of debt amnesty rescued the lower classes
from debt bondage, maintaining a workable economic balance over many centuries. Because these
kings were so powerful -- and, let's say, enlightened -- they were able to prevent the social
and economic polarization that is inevitable when there is no check on an oligarchic creditor
class extracting exponentially increasing interest from debtors.
But now, as you write the second volume, your theme gets turned upside down. You are showing
how the Greeks and the Romans learned about interest-bearing debt from their contacts with
Middle Eastern civilizations, but tragically failed to institute programs of Clean Slate debt
amnesty. Their failure has been a kind of albatross around the neck of Western economies ever
since.
So I'd like to start this conversation in the late 500s BC, because we can see at that time
the beginnings of both the Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic, plus of two more
important civilizations. First was the Athens of Cleisthenes, who had led the overthrow the
"tyrant" Hippias and became the father of Athenian democracy. Second, there was the Roman
Republic of Lucius Junius Brutus, who overthrew the last of Rome's legendary kings, the
"tyrant" Tarquinius Superbus.Third was the Persian civilization of Cyrus the Great. He was a
"divine king," in many ways in the ancient tradition of Hammurabi. Fourth were the post-exilic
Jews of Ezra and Nehemiah, who returned to Jerusalem, rebuilt the Temple and redacted the
Bible. They were the inventors of the Jubilee years of Clean Slate debt forgiveness, even
though they depicted the teaching as coming from Moses.
So, beginning with the late 500s BC, to what extent was the notion of Clean Slate debt
amnesty remembered, and to what extent was it rejected?
Michael Hudson : Every kind of reform, from Mesopotamia to Greece, was put forth as
if it simply restored the way things were in the beginning. There was no concept of linear
progress in Antiquity. They thought that there was only one way to do things, so any reform
must be the way the world was meant to be in the very beginning. All reformers would say that
in the beginning everybody must have been equal. Their reform was aimed at restoring this state
of affairs.
That's why, when Plutarch and even the Spartan kings in the third century BC talked about
canceling debts and promoting equality, they said that they were simply restoring the original
system that Lycurgus had created. But there was no sign that Lycurgus had really done these
things. It was made up. Lycurgus was a legendary figure. So was Moses in the Jewish tradition.
When the Bible was redacted and put together after the return from Babylon, they put debt
cancellation and land redistribution -- the Jubilee Year -- right in the center of Mosaic Law.
So it seemed that this was not an innovation, but what Moses said in the beginning. They
created a Moses figure much like the Greeks created a Lycurgus figure. They said that this is
how things were meant to be. This is how it was in the beginning -- and it just happened to be
their own program.
This was a projection backwards: a retrojection. Felix Jacoby wrote that Athenian history
was that way, basically party pamphleteering projecting their ideal program back to Solon or to
whomever one might choose as a good guy to model. Writers would then say that this original
good guy supported the program that they were proposing in their epoch. This was the ancient
analogy to "Constitutional Originalism" in the United States as a frame for right-wing
policies.
JS : So, ever since the 500s BC, the surefire way to critique the status quo has been
to say you are trying to go back to the Garden of Eden or to some other pristine Saturnian
Golden Age.
MH : Yes, you want to say that the unfair world around you isn't what was meant, so
this couldn't have been the original plan, because the past had to be a successful takeoff. So
the program that reformers always turned out to be what the Founding Fathers meant.
JS : That's veryinspirational!
MH : The key is to appear as a conservative, not a radical. You accuse the existing
status quo as being the beneficiaries of the radicals who have distorted the original Fair Plan
that you're trying to restore.
JS : So in the 500s BC we have Cyrus -- and his inscription on the Cyrus Cylinder --
boasting that he freed the Babylonians from their tax debt and bonds, and we have the
post-exilic Jews proclaiming d'ror
[דְּרֹ֛ור] in Leviticus 25, proclaiming
"liberty throughout the land." We also have the reforms of Cleisthenes in Athens,
isonomia [ἰσονομία, literally, equality
under the law], a genuine attempt at democracy. But let's start with Rome. What do you want to
say about the nova libertas , the "new liberty" proclaimed in Rome after the last king
was expelled and the Republic was founded? Didn't Brutus and his wellborn friends boast that
they were the institutors of true liberty?
MH : Liberty for them was the liberty to destroy that of the population at large.
Instead of cancelling debts and restoring land tenure to the population, the oligarchy created
the Senate that protected the right of creditors to enslave labor and seize public as well as
private lands (just as had occurred in Athens before Solon). Instead of restoring a status
quo ante of free cultivators -- free of debt and tax obligations, as Sumerian amargi
and Babylonian misharum and andurarum meant -- the Roman oligarchy accused anyone
of supporting debtor rights and opposing its land grabs of "seeking kingship." Such men were
murdered, century after century.
Rome was turned into an oligarchy, an autocracy of the senatorial families. Their "liberty"
was an early example of Orwellian Doublethink. It was to destroy everybody else's
liberty so they could grab whatever they could, enslave the debtors and create the polarized
society that Rome became.
JS : OK, but this program worked. The Republic grew and grew and conquered everyone
else for century after century. Then the Principate became the supreme power in the Western
world for several more centuries.
MH : It worked by looting and stripping other societies. That can only continue as
long as there is some society to loot and destroy. Once there were no more kingdoms for Rome to
destroy, it collapsed from within. It was basically a looting economy. And it didn't do more
than the British colonialists did: It only scratched the surface. It didn't put in place the
means of production that would create enough money for them to grow productively. Essentially,
Rome was a financial rentier state .
Rentiers don't create production. They live off existing production, they don't
create it. That's why the classical economists said they were supporting industrial
capitalists, not British landlords, not monopolists and not predatory banks.
JS : This has all been forgotten, both in the United States and in England --
MH : Let's say, expurgated from the curriculum.
JS : Worse than forgotten!
MH : That's why you don't have any history of economic thought taught anymore in the
United States. Because then you'd see that Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and the "Ricardian
socialists" and indeed most of the 19th century had a completely opposite idea of what
constituted a free market.
JS : Opposite? How so?
MH : Opposite from the neoliberal idea that freedom means freedom for the wealthy to
indebt and destroy the economy. Opposite from the liberty of Brutus to overthrow the Roman
kings and establish an autocratic oligarchy.
JS : So do we want to see the Roman kings as defenders of the people -- defending
them from predatory oligarchs?
MH : Yes, especially Servius Tullius. There was a great flowering of Rome, making it
attractive to immigrants by making the city livable for newcomers. They did this because at
that time, in the 6th century BC, all societies had a shortage of labor. Labor was the factor
of production in short supply, not land. Not even in Athens was land in short supply in the 6th
and 5th centuries. You needed labor, and so you had to make it attractive for immigrants to
join your society instead of having your people run away, as they would in a society run by
creditors reducing clients to bondage.
JS : So you are writing about how Roman liberty was actually the liberty of
oligarchic creditors from populist pressures for debt forgiveness. What of the
d'ror of Leviticus 25 -- the liberty of the postexilic Jews? Did they actually proclaim
years of Jubilee in which debts were forgiven and bondservants were returned to their
families?
MH : After the Babylonian Jews returned to Jerusalem, I'm sure that they said that it
was time for the land to be returned to its original owners -- and their families, by the way,
were the original owners who were exiled in the Babylonian Captivity. I rely largely on Baruch
Levine for this idea of the ge'ullah
[גְּאֻלָּה], saying give us back our
ancestral lands. [See thecolloquium Levine and Hudson co-edited on Land and Urbanization in
the Ancient Near East , and their preceding volume on ancient privatization.] There must
have been some kind of settlement along those lines. Unfortunately, the Judaic lands did not
keep their records on on clay tablets that could be thrown out and recovered thousands of years
later. We don't have any record of their economic history after the Return.
JS : Now I've brought along the transcriptions of several Egyptian papyri for you to
look at. I also want to show you a papyrus in Aramaic from Judæa. It's not direct
evidence that the post-exilic Jews were having Jubilee years, but it's indirect evidence,
because it says that a particular debt has to be paid, even during a time of general debt
amnesty, even if it falls due in a shmita [שמיטה], a
sabbath year. So it sounds like the Jews were finding loopholes --
MH : It certainly sounds like it! Babylonian creditors tried a similar ploy, but this
was disallowed. (We have court records confirming the realm's misharum acts.)
JS : In the Mosaic commandments to forgive debt, can we infer that there was some
sort of program of debt forgiveness in place already in place in postexilic Jerusalem?
MH : Yes, but it ended with Rabbi Hillel and the Prozbul clause. Debtors had to sign
this clause at the end of their debt contracts saying that they waived their rights under the
Jubilee year in order to get a loan. That was why Jesus fought against the Pharisees and the
rabbinical leadership. That's what Luke 4 is all about [ And there was delivered unto him
the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it
was written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the
gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the
captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to
preach the acceptable year of the Lord" = the Jubilee year.] Luke also pointed out that the
Pharisees loved money!
JS : Let me ask you about Egypt here. Unfortunately, as you said, the postexilic Jews
did not leave us any clay tablets and almost no papyri, but we do have loads of papyri
concerning the Ptolemaic kings of Egypt. So from, say, 300 B.C. to the death of Cleopatra, we
have official evidence that the Egyptian kings proclaimed debt amnesties. Maybe one of the
reasons, or perhaps the main reason for this, is because they were so powerful, like the
Mesopotamian kings. So even though the Ptolemaic kings were biologically and genetically
Macedonian Greek -- married to their sisters, too -- they aspired to rule in the ancient
Egyptian pharaonic tradition of We Are God-Kings and We Own Everything in the Kingdom.
MH : Certainly the Hellenistic kings had the ancient pharaonic Sed festivals, which
go back thousands of years and were a kind of jubilee. The Egyptians had regular debt
cancellations, because under the pharaohs the debts that would have been cancelled were
basically tax debts. They were owed to the crown, so he was cancelling debts owed to himself
ultimately. And we see this thousands of years later in the trilingual stone, the Rosetta
Stone, which the priests wrote for that young boy who was Ptolemy V. They explained to him that
this is how Egypt always had done it, and to act as a pharaoh, he had to do the same.
JS : And I think it is worth pointing out here that the same verb-plus-noun
combination for forgiving debts that the priests used in Greek on the Rosetta Stone is also
used by Matthew in the Lord's Prayer
[ἀφῆκεν/ἄφες
ὀφειλήματα, aphēken/aphes
opheilēmata]. It shows up in lots of papyri. The same Greek verb and noun, again and again
and again.
But let's go back to the Greeks of the 500s BC. They are a couple of hundred years out of
their Dark Age, so their society has been reconstituted after the demographic wipeout. It's
been reconstituted, but without Near Eastern-style "divine kingship" and its Clean Slate
proclamations. Just the opposite. Socrates had conversations with the rhapsodes who had
memorized and recited the Iliad . Even in their great epic, the Greeks' legendary king
of kings Agamemnon comes across as a kind of narcissistic loser. How would you describe Greek
kingship, especially the so-called tyrants?
MH : There never really were Greek kings of the type found throughout the Bronze Age
Near East and surviving into the first millennium in Assyria and even in Persia. The Greek
polities that emerged from their Dark Age were run by what shrewd Classicists call
mafiosi , something like the post-Soviet kleptocrats. They formed closed political
monopolies reducing local populations to clientage and dependency. In one polity after another
they were overthrown and exiled, mainly by aristocratic reformers from the elite families
(often secondary branches, as was Solon). Later oligarchic writers called them "tyrants" as an
invective, much as the word rex -- king -- became an invective in oligarchic Rome.
These tyrant-reformers consolidated their power by redistributing land from the leading
families (or in Sparta, land conquered from Messenia, along with its population reduced to
helotage) to the citizen-army at large all over Greece – except in Athens. That was one
of the most reactionary cities in the 7th century, as shown by what is known about the laws of
Draco. After some abortive coups in the seventh century, Solon was appointed in 594 to avoid
the kind of revolution that had led reformer "tyrants" to overthrow narrow aristocracies in
neighboring Megara and Corinth. Solon decreed a half-way reform, abolishing debt slavery (but
not the debtor's obligation to work off debts with his own labor), and did not redistribute
Athenian land from the city's elites.
Athens was one of the last to reform but then because it was such a badly polarized
autocratic society, it swung -- like Newton's Third Law of Motion: every action has an equal
and opposite reaction -- it swung to become the most democratic of all the Greek polities.
Some historians in the past speculated that Solon might somehow have been influenced by
Judaic law or other Near Eastern practice, but this is not realistic. I think Solon was simply
a pragmatist responding to widespread demands that he do what the reformers -- the so-called
tyrants -- were doing throughout Greece. He didn't redistribute the land like they did, but he
at least ended outright debt slavery. Free debtors (mainly cultivators on the land) were being
seized and sold outside of Athens to slave dealers. Solon also tried to recover some of the
land that wealthy families had grabbed. At least, that's what he wrote in his poems describing
his actions.
So to answer your question, I think debt cancellations were not a diffusionist policy from
the East, but a spontaneous pragmatic response such as was being widely advocated as far west
as Rome with its Secession of the Plebs a century later -- followed by much of Greece in the
4th century BC, and Sparta's kings in the late 3rd century BC.
Poorer Athenians were so angry with Solon for being not revolutionary enough that he went
into exile for 10 years. The real creators of Athenian democracy were Peisistratos [died 528/7
BC], his sons, also called tyrants, and then Cleisthenes in 507. He was a member of the wealthy
but outcast family, the Alcmaeonidae, who had been expelled in the 7th century. Solon had
allowed them to return, and they were backed by Delphi (to which the family contributed
heavily). Cleisthenes fought against the other oligarchic families and restructured Athenian
politics on the basis of locality instead of clan membership. Servius Tullius is credited for
enacting much the same reform in Rome. Lewis Henry Morgan's Ancient Society [1877]
described this restructuring of voting districts as the great watershed creation of
western-style democracy.
JS : Let me go back now to the way Athens and the other poleis emerged from
the Dark Age.
MH : Judging from the art and pottery, Greece didn't begin to recover until the 8th
century BC.
JS : So we're talking about the 700s BC. As Greece was learning from the Near Eastern
civilizations, everything from mythology to the alphabet to weights and measures --
MH : And commercial practices, credit practices.
JS : Yes, all this came from the Near East, including the practice of charging
interest. But what about Clean Slate debt amnesty? I want to argue logically here -- not from
any hard historical evidence, but only deductively -- that the Greeks would have wanted the
concept of Clean Slate debt forgiveness, they would have wanted to learn this too from the Near
East, but they could not do it because they were always going to lack a Hammurabi-style "divine
king."
MH : I think you miss the whole point of how Western civilization evolved here. First
of all, who "wanted" Near Eastern kingship? Certainly not the emerging oligarchies. The ruling
elites wanted to use interest-bearing debt to enrich themselves – by obtaining control
over the labor power of debtors.
Second, I don't think the Greeks and Italians knew about Near Eastern royal proclamations,
except as an alien practice much further East than Asia Minor. Falling into debt was a disaster
for the poor, but a means for their Western patrons to gain power, land and wealth. There is no
record of anyone suggesting that they should be in the Near East. The connection between the
Near East and Greece or Italy was via traders. If you're a Phoenician or Syrian merchant with
the Aegean or Italy, you're going to set up a temple as an intermediary, typically on an
island. Such temples became the cosmopolitan meeting places where you had the oligarchs of the
leading families of Greek cities visiting each other as part of a Pan-Hellenic group. You could
say that Delphi was the "Davos" of its day.
It was through these trading centers that culture diffused – via the wealthiest
families who travelled and established relationships with other leading families. Finance and
trade have always been cosmopolitan. These families learned about debt obligations and
contracts from the Near East, and ended up reducing much of their local populations to
clientage, without kings to overrule them. That would have been the last thing they wanted.
JS : So absent Hammurabi-style "divine kingship," is debt bondage and brutal
polarization almost inevitably going to happen in any society that adopts interest-bearing
debt?
MH : We see a balance of forces in the ancient Near East, thanks to the fact that its
rulers had authority to cancel debt and restore land that wealthy individuals had taken from
smallholders. These kings were powerful enough to prevent the rise of oligarchies that would
reduce the population to debt peonage and bondage (and in the process, deprive the palace of
revenue and corvée labor, and even the military service of debtors owing their labor to
their private creditors). We don't have any similar protection in today's Western Civilization.
That's what separates Western Civilization from the earlier Near Eastern stage. Modern
financialized civilization has stripped away the power to prevent a land-grabbing creditor
oligarchy from controlling society and its laws.
So you could characterize Western Civilization is being decadent. It's reducing populations
to austerity on a road to debt peonage. Today's new oligarchy calls this a "free market," but
it is the opposite of freedom. You can think of the Greek and Roman decontextualization of Near
Eastern economic regulations as if the IMF had been put in charge of Greece and Rome, poisoning
its legal and political philosophy at the outset. So Western Civilization may be just a vast
detour. That's what my forthcoming book, The Collapse of Antiquity, is all about. That
will be the second volume in my trilogy on the history of debt.
JS : So are we just a vast detour?
MH : We have to restore a balanced economy where the oligarchy is controlled, so as
to prevent the financial sector from impoverishing society, imposing austerity and reducing the
population to clientage and debt serfdom.
JS : How do you do that without a Hammurabi-style "divine kingship"?
MH : You need civil law to do what Near Eastern kings once did. You need a body of
civil law with a strong democratic government acting to shape markets in society's overall
long-term interest, not that of the One Percent obtaining wealth by impoverishing the 99
Percent. You need civil law that protects the population from an oligarchy whose business plan
is to accumulate wealth in ways that impoverish the economy at large. This requires a body of
civil law that would cancel debts when they grow too large for the population to pay. That
probably requires public banking and credit – in other words, deprivatization of banking
that has become dysfunctional.
All this requires a mixed economy, such as the Bronze Age Near Eastern economies were. The
palace, temples, private sector and entrepreneurs acted as checks and balances on each other.
Western Civilization isn't a mixed economy. Socialism was an attempt to create a mixed economy,
but the oligarchs fought back. What they call a "free market" is an unmixed monolithic,
centrally planned financialized economy with freedom for the oligarchy to impoverish the rest
of society. That was achieved by landlordism monopolizing the land in feudal Europe, and it is
done by finance today.
John Siman : Could you define what you mean by a mixed economy ?
Michael Hudson : There are many degrees of how "mixed" an economy will be -- meaning
in practice, how active its government sector will be in regulating markets, prices and credit,
and investing in public infrastructure.
In the 20 th century's Progressive Era a century ago, a "mixed economy" meant
keeping natural monopolies in the public sector: transportation, the post office, education,
health care, and so forth. The aim was to save the economy from monopoly rent by a either
direct public ownership or government regulation to prevent price gouging by monopolies.
The kind of "mixed economy" envisioned by Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and other classical
19 th century free market economists aimed at saving the economy from land rent paid
to Europe's hereditary landlord class. Either the government would tax away the land's rent, or
would nationalize it by taking land out of the hands of landlords. The idea was to free markets
from economic rent ("unearned income") in general, including monopoly rents, and also to
subsidize basic needs to create a price-competitive national economy.
Long before that, in the Bronze Age -- which I describe in and forgive them their
debts -- the palace reversed the buildup of personal and agrarian debts by annulling them
on a more or less regular basis. This freed the economy from the overgrowth of debt that tended
to build up chronically from the mathematical dynamics of compound interest, and from crop
failures or other normal "market" phenomenon.
In all these cases a mixed economy was designed to maintain stability and avoid exploitation
that otherwise would lead to economic polarization.
JS: So a mixed economy is still a market economy?
MH : Yes. All these degrees of "mixed economy" were market economies. But their
markets were regulated and subordinated to broad social and political objectives rather than to
personal rent-seeking or creditor gains. Their economic philosophy was long-term, not
short-term, and aimed at preventing economic imbalance from debt and land monopoly.
Today's "mixed economy" usually means an active public sector undertaking investment in
infrastructure and controlling money and credit, and shaping the context of laws within which
the economy operates. This is best understood by contrasting it to what neoliberals call a
"pure" or "market" economy – including what the Trump administration accuses China of
when it proposes countervailing tariffs to shape the U.S. and international market in a way
that favors American corporations and banks.
So it is necessary to clear the terminological slate before going into more detail. Every
economy is a "market economy" of some sort or another. What is at issue is how large a role
governments will play -- specifically, how much it will regulate, how much it will tax, how
much it will invest directly into the economy's infrastructure and other means of production or
act as a creditor and regulator of the monetary and banking system.
JS: What can we learn from the mixed economies of the Ancient Near East? Why were
they so prosperous and also stable for so long?
MH : The Bronze Age mixed economies of Sumer, Babylonia, Egypt and their Near Eastern
neighbors were subject to "divine kingship," that is, the ability of kings to intervene to keep
restoring an economy free of personal and rural debt, so as to maintain a situation where the
citizenry on the land was able to serve in the military, provide corvée labor to create
basic infrastructure, and pay fees or taxes to the palace and temples.
Mesopotamian rulers proclaimed Clean Slates to keep restoring an idealized status quo
ante of free labor (free from debt bondage). Babylonian rulers had a more realistic view of
the economy than today's mainstream economists. They recognized that economies tended to
polarize between wealthy creditors and debtors if what today are called "market forces" are not
overridden -- especially the "market forces" of debt, personal liberty or bondage, and land
rent. The task of Bronze Age rulers in their kind of mixed economy was to act from
"above" the market so as to prevent creditors from reducing the king's subjects (who were their
military defense force) to bondage from appropriating their land tenure rights. By protecting
debtors, strong rulers also prevented creditors from becoming an oligarchic power in opposition
to themselves.
JS: What kind of economic theories and economic models are the critics of mixed
economies trying to advance?
MH : Opponents of a mixed economy have developed an "equilibrium theory" claiming to
show that markets come to a natural, fair and stable balance without any government
"interference." Their promise is that if governments will refrain from regulating prices and
credit, from investing and from providing public services, economies will settle naturally at a
highly efficient level. This level will be stable, unless "destabilized" by government
"interference." Instead of viewing public investment as saving the economy from monopoly rent
and debt peonage, the government itself is described as a "rent seeker" exploiting and
impoverishing the economy.
JS: But is this sort of economic theory legitimate, or just a libertarian-sounding
camouflage for neoliberal pillage?
MH : It's Orwellian Doublethink. Today's neoliberal theory justifies oligarchies
breaking free of public control to appropriate the economic surplus by indebting economies to
skim off the economic surplus as interest and then foreclose on personal landholdings and
public property, overthrowing "mixed economies" to create a "pure oligarchy." Their idea of a
free market is one free for creditors and monopolists to deny economic freedom to the rest of
the population. The political extension of this approach in antiquity was to unseat kings and
civic regimes, to concentrate power in the hands of an increasingly predatory class reducing
the economy to bondage, impoverishing it, and ultimately leaving it to be conquered by
outsiders. That is what happened to Rome in Late Antiquity.
Advocates of strong government have a diametrically opposite mathematical model. Ever since
the Bronze Age, they recognized that the "natural" tendency of economies is to polarize between
a wealthy creditor and land-owning class and the rest of society. Bronze Age rulers recognized
that debts tend to grow faster than the ability to pay (that is, faster than the economy).
Babylonian rulers recognized that if rulers did not intervene to cancel personal debts (mainly
agrarian debts by cultivators) when crops failed, when military action interfered, or simply
when debts built up over time, then creditors would end up taking the crop surplus and even the
labor services of debtors as interest, and finally foreclosing on the land. This would have
deprived the palatial economy of land and labor contributions. And by enriching an independent
class of creditors (on their way to becoming large landowners) outside of the palace, financial
wealth would express itself in economic and even military power. An incipient financial and
landholding oligarchy would mount its own military and political campaign to unseat rulers and
dismantle the mixed palatial/private economy to create one that was owned and controlled by
oligarchies.
The result in Classical Antiquity was economic polarization leading to austerity and
bondage, grinding the economy to a halt. That is the tendency of economies in "unmixed"
economies where the public sector is privatized and economic regulation is dismantled. Land and
credit was monopolized and smallholders became dependent clients and ultimately were replaced
by slaves.
Mixed economies by the late 19 th century aimed at minimizing market prices for
real estate and monopoly goods, and for credit. The economic aim was to minimize the cost of
living and doing business so as to make economies more productive. This was called "socialism"
as the natural outgrowth of industrial capitalism protecting itself from the most burdensome
legacies of feudalism: an absentee landlord class, and a banking class whose money-lending was
not productive but predatory.
JS: So mixed economies require strong and ultimately good governments.
MH : Any "mixed" economy has some basic economic theory of what the proper role of
government is. At the very least, as in the 20 th century, this included the
limitation of monopoly rents. The neoclassical (that is, anti-classical) reaction was to
formulate a euphemistic theory of consumer "demand" -- as if American consumers "demand" to pay
high prices for pharmaceuticals and health care. Likewise in the case of housing prices for
renters or, for owner-occupied housing, mortgage charges: Do renters and home buyers really
"demand" to pay higher and higher rents and larger and larger mortgages? Or are they compelled
to pay out of need, paying whatever their suppliers demand ( e.g ., as in "Your money or
your life/health").
So to answer your question, a mixed economy is one in which governments and society at large
realize that economies need to be regulated and monopolies (headed by credit and land
ownership) kept out of the hands of private rent-seekers in order to keep the economy free and
efficient.
JS : Has there ever been a civil society that effectively implemented a mixed economy
since, say, 500 BC?
MH : All successful economies have been mixed economies. And the more "mixed" they
are, the more successful, stable and long-lasting they have been as a result of their mutual
public/private checks and balances.
America was a mixed economy in the late 19th century. It became the world's most successful
industrial economy because it didn't have an absentee landlord class like Europe did (except
for the railroad octopus), and it enacted protective tariffs to endow a domestic manufacturing
class to catch up with and overtake England.
JS : Other countries?
MH : Germany began to be a mixed economy in the decades leading up to World War I.
But it had a mentally retarded king whom they didn't know how to restrain, given their cultural
faith in royalty. China is of course the most successful recent mixed economy.
JS : Isn't it pretty brutal in China for most of the population?
MH : Most of the population does not find it brutal there. It was brutal under
colonialism and later still, under Mao's Cultural Revolution. But now, most people in China
seem to want to get rich. That's why you're having a consolidation period of trying to get rid
of the local corruption, especially in the rural areas. You're seeing a consolidation period
that requires clamping down on a lot of people who became successful through shady
operations.
JS : So how would you describe an ideal society without a Hammurabi-style "divine
kingship"? An ideal mixed economy?
MH : The credit system would be public. That way, public banks could create credit
for socially productive purposes -- and could cancel the occasional overgrowth of debts without
causing private creditors to lose and protest. The public sector also would own and operate the
natural infrastructure monopolies. That was the basic principle of classical economics from
Adam Smith to Marx, even for erstwhile libertarians such as Henry George. Everybody in the 19th
century expected a mixed economy with governments playing a growing role, replacing absentee
landlords, bankers and monopolists with public collection of economic rent, public control of
the credit system and provider of basic needs.
JS : How extensive should the public sector be?
MH : A classical public sector would include the natural monopolies that otherwise
would engage in price gouging, especially the credit and banking system. These sectors should
be public in character. For one thing, only a public bank can write down the debts -- like
student debts today -- without hurting an independent oligarchic financial class. If student
debts and mortgage debts were owed to public banks, they could be written down in keeping with
the reasonable ability to be paid. Also, public banks wouldn't make junk mortgage loans to
NINJA borrowers, as did Citibank and the other crooked banks. A public bank wouldn't make
predatory corporate raiding and takeover loans, or finance and speculate in derivative
gambles.
Most of all, when the debt overhead becomes too large -- when a large corporation that is
essential to the economy can't pay its debts -- public banks can write down the debt so that
the company isn't forced into bankruptcy and sold to an American vulture fund or other vulture
fund. It can keep operating. In China the government provides this essential service of public
banks.
The key public concern throughout history has been to prevent debt from crippling society.
That aim is what Babylonian and other third-millennium and second-millennium Near Eastern
rulers recognized clearly enough, with their mathematical models. To make an ideal society you
need the government to control the basic utilities -- land, finance, mineral wealth, natural
resources and infrastructure monopolies (including the Internet today), pharmaceuticals and
health care so their basic services can be supplied at the lowest price.
All this was spelled out in the 19 th century by business school analysts in the
United States. Simon Patten [1852-1922] who said that public investment is the "fourth factor
of production." But its aim isn't to make a profit for itself. Rather, it's to lower the cost
of living and of doing business, by providing basic needs either on a subsidized basis or for
free. The aim was to create a low-cost society without a rentier class siphoning off
unearned income and making this economic rent a hereditary burden on the economy at large. You
want to prevent unearned income.
To do that, you need a concept to define economic rent as unearned and hence unnecessary
income. A well-managed economy would do what Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Marx
and Veblen recommended: It would prevent a hereditary rentier class living off unearned
income and increasing society's economic overhead. It's okay to make a profit, but not to make
extractive monopoly rent, land rent or financial usury rent.
JS : Will human beings ever create such a society?
MH : If they don't, we're going to have a new Dark Age.
JS : That's one thing that especially surprises me about the United States. Is it not
clear to educated people here that our ruling class is fundamentally extractive and
exploitative?
MH : A lot of these educated people are part of the ruling class, and simply taking
their money and running. They are disinvesting, not investing in industry. They're saying, "The
financial rentier game is ending, so let's sell everything and maybe buy a farm in New
Zealand to go to when there is a big war." So the financial elite is quite aware that they are
getting rich by running the economy into the ground, and that this must end at the point where
they've taken everything and left a debt-ridden shell behind.
JS : I guess this gets back to what you were saying: The history of economics has
been expurgated from the curriculum.
MH : Once you strip away economic history and the history of economic thought, you
wipe out memory of the vocabulary that people have used to criticize rent seeking and other
unproductive activity. You then are in a position to redefine words and ideals along the lines
that euphemize predatory and parasitic activities as if they are productive and desirable, even
natural. You can rewrite history to suppress the idea that all this is the opposite of what
Adam Smith and the classicaleconomists down through Marx advocated.
Today's neoliberal wasteland is basically a reaction against the 19 th century
reformers, against the logic of classical British political economy. The hatred of Marx is
ultimately the hatred of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, because neoliberals realize that
Smith and Mill and Ricardo were all leading to Marx. He was the culmination of their free
market views -- a market free from rentiers and monopolists.
That was the immediate aim of socialism in the late 19 th century. The logic of
classical political economy was leading to a socialist mixed economy. In order to fight
Marxism, you have to fight classical economics and erase memory of how civilization has dealt
with (or failed to deal with) the debt and rent-extracting problems through the ages. The
history of economic thought and the original free-market economics has to be suppressed.
Today's choice is therefore between socialism or barbarism, as Rosa Luxemburg said.
JS : Let's consider barbarism: When I observe the neoliberal ruling class -- the
people who control the finance sector and the managerial class on Wall Street -- I often wonder
if they're historically exceptional because they've gone beyond simple greed and lust for
wealth. They now seek above all some barbaric and sadistic pleasure in the financial
destruction and humiliation of other people. Or is this historically normal?
MH : The financial class has always lived in the short run, and you can make
short-term money much quicker by asset stripping and being predatory can by being productive.
Moses Finley wrote that there was not a single productive loan in all of Antiquity. That was
quite an overstatement, but he was making the point that there were no productive financial
markets in Antiquity. Almost all manufacturing, industry, and agriculture was self-financed. So
the reader of Finley likely infers that we modern people have progressed in a fundamental way
beyond Antiquity. They were characterized by the homo politicus , greedy for status. We
have evolved into homo œconomicus , savvy enough to live in stable safety and
comfort.
We are supposedly the beneficiaries of the revolution of industrial capitalism, as if all
the predatory, polarizing, usurious lending that you had from feudal times (and before that,
from Antiquity), was replaced by productive lending that finances means of production and
actual economic growth.
But in reality, modern banks don't lend money for production. They say, "That's the job of
the stock market." Banks only lend if there's collateral to grab. They lend against assets in
place. So the result of more bank lending is to increase the price of the assets that banks
lend against -- on credit! This way of "wealth creation" via asset-price inflation is the
opposite of real substantive progress. It enriches the narrow class of asset holders at the top
of the economic pyramid.
JS : What about the stock market?
MH : The stock market no longer primarily provides money for capital investment. It
has become a vehicle for bondholders and corporate raiders to borrow from banks and private
funds to buy corporate stockholders, take the companies private, downsize them, break them up
or strip their assets, and borrow more to buy back their stocks to create asset-price gains
without increasing the economy's tangible real asset base. So the financial sector, except for
a brief period in the late 19th century, especially in Germany, has rarely financed productive
growth. Financial engineering has replaced industrial engineering, just as in Antiquity
creditors were asset strippers.
The one productive activity that the financial sector engaged in from the Bronze Age onward
was to finance foreign trade. The original interest-bearing debt was owed by merchants to
reimburse their silent partners, typically the palace or the temples, and in time wealthy
individuals. But apart from financing trade – in products that were already produced
– you've rarely had finance increase the means of production or economic growth. It's
almost always been to extract income. The income that finance extracts is at the expense of the
rest of society. So the richer the financial sector is, the more austerity is imposed on the
non-financial sector.
JS : That's pretty depressing.
MH : When I did the show with Jimmy Dore [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSvcB55R8jM
], he saw that the most important dynamic to understand is that debts grow more rapidly than
the economy at large. The rate of interest is higher than the rate of growth. It may not be
higher than the profit rate, but it's higher than the rate of growth. So every society that has
interest-bearing debt is going to end up deeper and deeper in debt. At a certain point the
creditors are paid at the expense of production and investment -- and soon enough they
foreclose.
JS : And then?
MH : Then you have debt deflation. That is the norm. Austerity. It is not an anomaly,
but the essence. The Babylonians knew this, and they tried to avoid debt deflation by wiping
out the predatory personal debts, not the business debts that were commercial and productive.
Only the non-commercial debts were wiped out.
JS : How could Modern Monetary Theory be used now, effectively?
MH : The main way is to say that governments don't have to borrow at interest from
existing financial "savers," mainly the One Percent. The government can do what America did
during the Civil War: print greenbacks. (The MMT version is the Trillion-dollar platinum coin.)
The Treasury can provide the money needed by the economy. It does that by running a budget
deficit and spending money into the economy. If you don't do that, if you do what Bill
Clinton did in the last years of his presidency and run a budget surplus, then you force the
economy to depend on banks for credit.
The problem is that bank credit is essentially predatory and extractive. The same thing
happens in Europe. The Eurozone governments cannot run a budget deficit of more than 3 percent,
so the government is unable to spend enough money to invest in public infrastructure or
anything else. As a result, the Eurozone economy is subject to debt deflation, which is
exacerbated by people having to borrow from the banks at high interest rates that far exceeds
the rate of growth. So Europe is suffering an even more serious debt deflation than the United
States.
JS : Is any of this going to change, either in Europe or here?
MH : Not until there's a crash. Not until it gets serious enough that people realize
that there has to be an alternative. Right now Margaret Thatcher and the neoliberals have won.
She said there was no alternative, and as long as people believe There Is No Alternative,
they're not going to realize that it doesn't have to be this way, and that you don't need a
private banking sector. A public banking sector would be much more efficient.
JS : How would you sum up Wall Street right now? Is it entirely predatory? Entirely
parasitical? What are Wall Street's essential functions now?
MH : Number one, to run a casino. By far the largest volume at stake is betting on
whether interest rates, foreign exchange rates or stock prices will go up or down. So the
financial system has turned into a gambling casino. Its second aim is to load the economy down
with as much debt as possible. Debt is the banking system's "product," and the GDP counts its
"carried interest" penalties and late fees, its short-term trading gains as "financial
services" counted as part of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The aim is to get as much of these financial returns as possible, and finally to foreclose
on as much property of defaulting debtors as possible. The business plan -- as I learned at
Chase Manhattan years ago -- is to transfer all economic growth into the hands of financial
investors, the One Percent. The financial business plan is to create a set of laws and mount a
campaign of regulatory capture so that all the growth in the economy accrues to the One
Percent, not the 99 Percent. That means that as the One Percent's rentier income grows,
the 99 Percent gets less and less each year, until finally it emigrates or dies off, or is put
into a for-profit prison, which looks like a growth industry today.
JS : Is there a single good thing that Wall Street does? Is there anything good that
comes out of Wall Street?
MH: You have to look at it as a system. You can't segregate a particular action from
the overall economy. If the overall system aims at making money in predatory ways at somebody
else's expense, then it is a zero-sum game. That is essentially a short-run business model. And
politically, it involves opposing a mixed economy. At least, the "old fashioned" socialist
mixed economy in which governments subordinate short-term gain-seeking to long-term objectives
uplifting the entire economy.
As the Greek philosophers recognized, wealthy people define their power by their ability to
injure the rest of society, so as to lord it over them. That was the Greek philosophy of
money-lust [πλεονεξία, pleonexia ]
and hubris [ὕβρις] -- not merely arrogance, but behavior that was
injurious to others.
Rentier income is injurious to society at large. Rentiers define a "free
market" as one in which they are free to deny economic freedom to their customers,
employees and other victims. The rentier model is to enrich the oligarchy to a point
where it is able to capture the government.
John Siman : It seems that unless there's a Hammurabi-style "divine king" or some
elected civic regulatory authority, oligarchies will arise and exploit their societies as much
as they can, while trying to prevent the victimized economy from defending itself.
Michael Hudson : Near Eastern rulers kept credit and land ownership subordinate to
the aim of maintaining overall growth and balance. They prevented creditors from turning
citizens into indebted clients obliged to work off their debts instead of serving in the
military, providing corvée labor and paying crop rents or other fees to the palatial
sector.
JS : So looking at history going back to 2000 or 3000 BC, once we no longer have the
powerful Near Eastern "divine kings," there seems not to have been a stable and free economy.
Debts kept mounting up to cause political revolts. In Rome, this started with the Secession of
the Plebs in 494 BC, a century after Solon's debt cancellation resolved a similar Athenian
crisis.
MH : Near Eastern debt cancellations continued into the Neo-Assyrian and
Neo-Babylonian Empires in the first millennium BC, and also into the Persian Empire. Debt
amnesties and laws protecting debtors prevented the debt slavery that is found in Greece and
Rome. What modern language would call the Near Eastern "economic model" recognized that
economies tended to become unbalanced, largely as a result of buildup of debt and various
arrears on payments. Economic survival in fact required an ethic of growth and rights for the
citizenry (who manned the army) to be self-supporting without running into debt and losing
their economic liberty and personal freedom. Instead of the West's ultimate drastic solution of
banning interest, rulers cancelled the buildup of personal debts to restore an idealized order
"as it was in the beginning."
This ideology has always needed to be sanctified by religion or at least by democratic
ideology in order to prevent the predatory privatization of land, credit, and ultimately the
government. Greek philosophy warned against monetary greed
[πλεονεξία, pleonexia ] and
money-love [φιλοχρηματία,
philochrêmatia ] from Sparta's mythical lawgiver Lycurgus to Solon's poems
describing his debt cancellation in 594 and the subsequent philosophy of Plato and Socrates, as
well as the plays of Aristophanes. The Delphic Oracle warned that money-love was the only thing
that could destroy Sparta [Diodorus Siculus 7.5]. That indeed happened after 404 BC when the
war with Athens ended and foreign tribute poured into Sparta's almost un-monetized regulated
economy.
The problem, as famously described in The Republic and handed down in Stoic
philosophy, was how to prevent a wealthy class from becoming wealth-addicted, hubristic and
injurious to society. The 7 th -century "tyrants" were followed by Solon in Athens
in banning luxuries and public shows of wealth, most notoriously at funerals for one's
ancestors. Socrates went barefoot
[ἀνυπόδητος, anupodêtos ] to
show his contempt for wealth, and hence his freedom from its inherent personality defects. Yet
despite this universal ideal of avoiding extremes, oligarchic rule became economically
polarizing and destructive, writing laws to make its creditor claims and the loss of land by
smallholders irreversible. That was the opposite of Near Eastern Clean Slates and their
offshoot, Judaism's Jubilee Year.
JS : So despite the ideals of their philosophy, Greek political systems had no
function like that of Hammurabi-like kings -- or philosopher-kings for that matter -- empowered
to hold financial oligarchies in check. This state of affairs led philosophers to develop an
economic tradition of lamentation instead. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, Livy and Plutarch
bemoaned the behavior of the money-loving oligarchy. But they did not develop a program to
rectify matters. The best they could do was to inspire and educate individuals -- most of whom
were their wealthy students and readers. As you said, they bequeathed a legacy of Stoicism.
Seeing that the problem was not going to be solved in their lifetimes, they produced a
beautiful body of literature praising philosophical virtue.
MH : The University of Chicago, where I was an undergraduate in the 1950s, focused on
Greek philosophy. We read Plato's Republic , but they skipped over the discussion of
wealth-addiction. They talked about philosopher-kings without explaining that Socrates' point
was that rulers must not own land and other wealth, so as not to have the egotistical tunnel
vision that characterized creditors monopolizing control over land and labor.
JS : In Book 8 of the Republic , Socrates condemns oligarchies as being
characterized by an insatiable greed [ἀπληστία,
aplêstia ] for money and specifically criticizes them for allowing polarization
between the super-rich
[ὑπέρπλουτοι, hyper-ploutoi
] and the poor [πένητες, penêtes ], who are made
utterly resourceless [ἄποροι, aporoi ].
MH : One needs to know the context of Greek economic history in order to understand
The Republic 's main concern. Popular demands for land redistribution and debt
cancellation were resisted with increasing violence. Yet few histories of Classical Antiquity
focus on this financial dimension of the distribution of land, money and wealth.
Socrates said that if you let the wealthiest landowners and creditors become the government,
they're probably going to be wealth-addicted and turn the government into a vehicle to help
them exploit the rest of society. There was no idea at Chicago of this central argument made by
Socrates about rulers falling subject to wealth-addiction. The word "oligarchy" never came up
in my undergraduate training, and the "free market" business school's Ayn Rand philosophy of
selfishness is as opposite from Greek philosophy as it is from Judeo-Christian religion.
JS : The word "oligarchy" comes up a lot in book 8 of Plato's Republic . Here
are 3 passages:
1. At Stephanus page 550c "And what kind of a regime," said he, "do you understand by
oligarchy [ὀλιγαρχία]?" "That based on a
property qualification," said I, "wherein the rich
[πλούσιοι] hold office [550d] and the poor man
[πένης, penês ] is excluded.
2. at 552a "Consider now whether this polity [ i.e . oligarchy] is not the first that
admits that which is the greatest of all such evils." "What?" "The allowing a man to sell all
his possessions, which another is permitted to acquire, and after selling them to go on living
in the city, but as no part of it, neither a money-maker, nor a craftsman, nor a knight, nor a
foot-soldier, but classified only as a pauper [πένης, penês
] and a dependent [ἄπορος, aporos ]." [552b] "This
is the first," he said. "There certainly is no prohibition of that sort of thing in
oligarchical states. Otherwise some of their citizens would not be excessively rich
[ὑπέρπλουτοι, hyper-ploutoi
], and others out and out paupers [πένητες,
penêtes ]."
3 at 555b: "Then," said I, "is not the transition from oligarchy to democracy effected in
some such way as this -- by the insatiate greed
[ἀπληστία, aplêstia ] for that which
oligarchy set before itself as the good, the attainment of the greatest possible wealth?"
MH : By contrast, look where Antiquity ended up by the 2 nd century BC.
Rome physically devastated Athens, Sparta, Corinth and the rest of Greece. By the Mithridatic
Wars (88-63 BC) their temples were looted and their cities driven into unpayably high debt to
Roman tax collectors and Italian moneylenders. Subsequent Western civilization developed not
from the democracy in Athens but from oligarchies supported by Rome. Democratic states were
physically destroyed, blocking civic regulatory power and imposing pro-creditor legal
principles making foreclosures and forced land sales irreversible.
JS: It seems that Greek and Roman Antiquity could not solve the problem of economic
polarization. That makes me want to ask about our own country: To what extent does America
resemble Rome under the emperors?
MH: Wealthy families have always tried to break "free" from central political power
-- free to destroy the freedom of people they get into debt and take their land and property.
Successful societies maintain balance. That requires public power to check and reverse the
excesses of personal wealth seeking, especially debt secured by the debtor's labor and land or
other means of self-support. Balanced societies need the power to reverse the tendency of debts
to grow faster than the ability to be paid. That tendency runs like a red thread through Greek
and Roman history.
This overgrowth of debt is also destabilizing today's U.S. and other financialized
economies. Banking and financial interests have broken free of tax liability since 1980, and
are enriching themselves not by helping the overall economy grow and raising living standards,
but just the opposite: by getting the bulk of society into debt to themselves.
This financial class is also indebting governments and taking payment in the form of
privatizing the public domain. (Greece is a conspicuous recent example.) This road to
privatization, deregulation and un-taxing of wealth really took off with Margaret Thatcher and
Ronald Reagan cheerleading the anti-classical philosophy of Frederick von Hayek and the
anti-classical economics of Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys.
Something much like this happened in Rome. Arnold Toynbee described its oligarchic land grab
that endowed its ruling aristocracy with unprecedented wealth as Hannibal's Revenge. That was
the main legacy of Rome's Punic Wars with Carthage ending around 200 BC. Rome's wealthy
families who had contributed their jewelry and money to the war effort, made their power grab
and said that what originally appeared to be patriotic contributions should be viewed as having
been a loan. The Roman treasury was bare, so the government (controlled by these wealthy
families) gave them public land, the ager publicus that otherwise would have been used
to settle war veterans and other needy.
Once you inherit wealth, you tend to think that it's naturally yours, not part of society's
patrimony for mutual aid. You see society in terms of yourself, not yourself as part of
society. You become selfish and increasingly predatory as the economy shrinks as a result of
your indebting it and monopolizing its land and property. You see yourself as exceptional, and
justify this by thinking of yourself as what Donald Trump would call "a winner," not subject to
the rules of "losers," that is, the rest of society. That's a major theme in Greek philosophy
from Socrates andPlato and Aristotle through the Stoics. They saw an inherent danger posed by
an increasingly wealthy landholding and creditor ruling class atop an indebted population at
large. If you let such a class emerge independently of social regulation and checks on personal
egotism and hubris, the economic and political system becomes predatory. Yet that has been the
history of Western civilization.
Lacking a tradition of subordinating debt and land foreclosure from smallholders, the Greek
and Italian states that emerged in the 7 th century BC took a different political
course from the Near East. Subsequent Western civilization lacked a regime of oversight to
alleviate debt problems and keep the means of self-support broadly distributed.
The social democratic movements that flowered from the late 19 th century until
the 1980s sought to re-create such regulatory mechanisms, as in Teddy Roosevelt's trust
busting, the income tax, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, postwar British social democracy. But
these moves to reverse economic inequality and polarization are now being rolled back, causing
austerity, debt deflation and the concentration of wealth at the top of the economic pyramid.
As oligarchies take over government, they lorded it over the rest of society much like feudal
lords who emerged from the wreckage of the Roman Empire in the West.
The tendency is for political power to reflect wealth. Rome's constitution weighted voting
power in proportion to one's landholdings, minimizing the voting power of the non-wealthy.
Today's private funding of political campaigns in the United States is more indirect in
shifting political power to the Donor Class, away from the Voting Class. The effect is to turn
governments to serve a financial and property-owning class instead of prosperity for the
economy at large. We thus are in a position much like that of Rome in 509 BC, when the kings
were overthrown by an oligarchy claiming to "free" their society from any power able to control
the wealthy. The call for "free markets" today is for deregulation of rentier wealth,
turning the economy into a free-for-all.
Classical Greece and Italy had a fatal flaw: From their inception they had no tradition of a
mixed public/private economy such as characterized in the Near East, whose palatial economy and
temples produced the main economic surplus and infrastructure. Lacking royal overrides, the
West never developed policies to prevent a creditor oligarchy from reducing the indebted
population to debt bondage, and foreclosing on the land of smallholders. Advocates of debt
amnesties were accused of "seeking kingship" in Rome, or aspiring to "tyranny"(in Greece).
JS: It seems to me that you're saying this economic failure is Antiquity's original
sin as well as fatal flaw. We have inherited a great philosophic and literary tradition from
them analyzing and lamenting this failure, but without a viable program to set it right.
MH: That insight unfortunately has been stripped out of the curriculum of classical
studies, just as the economics discipline sidesteps the phenomenon of wealth addiction. If you
take an economics course, the first thing you're taught in price theory is diminishing marginal
utility: The more of anything you have, the less you need it or enjoy it. You can't enjoy
consuming it beyond a point. But Socrates and Aristophanes emphasized, accumulating money is
not like eating bananas, chocolate or any other consumable commodity. Money is different
because, as Socrates said, it is addictive, and soon becomes an insatiable desire
[ἀπληστία, aplêstia ].
JS: Yes, I understand! Bananas are fundamentally different from money because you can
get sick of bananas, but you can never have too much money! In your forthcoming book, The
Collapse of Antiquity , you quote what Aristophanes says in his play Plutus (the god
of wealth and money). The old man Chremylus -- his name is based on the Greek word for money,
chrêmata [χρήματα] -- Chremylus and his slave
perform a duet in praise of Plutus as the prime cause of everything in the world, reciting a
long list. The point is that money is a singular special thing: "O Money-god, people never get
sick of your gifts. They get tired of everything else; they get tired of love and bread, of
music and honors, of treats and military advancement, of lentil soup, etc., etc. But they never
get tired of money. If a man has thirteen talents of silver -- 13 million dollars, say -- he
wants sixteen; and if he gets sixteen, he will want forty, and so forth, and he will complain
of being short of cash the whole time."
MH: Socrates's problem was to figure out a way to have government that did not serve
the wealthy acting in socially destructive ways. Given that his student Platowas an aristocrat
and that Plato's students in the Academy werearistocratsas well, how can you have a government
run by philosopher-kings? Socrates's solution was not practical at that time: Rulers should not
have money or property. But all governments were based on the property qualification, so his
proposal for philosopher-kings lacking wealth was utopian. And like Plato and other Greek
aristocrats, they disapproved of debt cancellations, accusing these of being promoted by
populist leaders seeking to become tyrants.
JS: Looking over the broad sweep of Roman history, your book describes how, century
after century, oligarchs were whacking every energetic popular advocate whose policies
threatened their monopoly of political power, and their economic power as creditors and
privatizers of the public domain, Rome's ager publicus , for themselves.
I brought with me on the train Cæsar's Gallic War . What do you think of
Cæsar and how historians have interpreted his role?
MH: The late 1 st century BC was a bloodbath for two generations before
Cæsar was killed by oligarchic senators. I think his career exemplifies what Aristotle
said of aristocracies turning into democracies: He sought to take the majority of citizens into
their own camp to oppose the aristocratic monopolies of landholding, the courts and political
power.
Cæsar sought to ameliorate the oligarchic Senate's worst abuses that were stifling
Rome's economy and even much of the aristocracy. Mommsen is the most famous historian
describing how rigidly and unyieldingly the Senate opposed democratic attempts to achieve a
role in policy-making for the population at large, or to defend the debtors losing their land
to creditors, who were running the government for their own personal benefit. He described how
Sulla strengthened the oligarchy against Marius, and Pompey backed the Senate against Caesar.
But competition for the consulship and other offices was basically just a personal struggle
among rival individuals, not rival concrete political programs. Roman politics was autocratic
from the very start of the Republic when the aristocracy overthrew the kings in 509 BC. Roman
politics during the entire Republic was a fight by the oligarchy against democracy and the
populace as a whole.
The patricians used violence to "free" themselves from any public authority able to check
their own monopoly of power, money and land acquisition by expropriating smallholders and
grabbing the public domain being captured from neighboring peoples. Roman history from one
century to the next is a narrative of killing advocates of redistributing public land to the
people instead of letting it be grabbed by the patricians, or who called for a debt
cancellation or even just an amelioration of the cruel debts laws.
On the one hand, Mommsen idolized Cæsar as if he were a kind of revolutionary
democrat. But given the oligarchy's total monopoly on political power and force, Mommsen
recognized that under these conditions there could not be any political solution to Rome's
economic polarization and impoverishment. There could only be anarchy or a dictatorship. So
Caesar's role was that of a Dictator -- vastly outnumbered by his opposition.
A generation before Caesar, Sulla seized power militarily, bringing his army to conquer Rome
and making himself Dictator in 82 BC. He drew up a list of his populist opponents to be
murdered and their estates confiscated by their killers. He was followed by Pompey, who could
have become a dictator but didn't have much political sense, so Caesar emerged victorious.
Unlike Sulla or Pompey, he sought a more reformist policy to check the senatorial corruption
and self-dealing.
The oligarchic Senate's only "political program" was opposition to "kingship" or any such
power able to check its land grabbing and corruption. The oligarchs assassinated him, as they
had killed Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus in 133 and 121, the praetor Asellio who sought to
alleviate the population's debt burden in 88 by trying to enforce pro-creditor laws, and of
course the populist advocates of debt cancellation such as Catiline and his supporters.
Would-be reformers were assassinated from the very start of the Republic after the aristocracy
overthrew Rome's kings.
JS: If Caesar had been successful, what kind of ruler might he have been?
MH: In many ways he was like the reformer-tyrants of the 7 th and 6
th centuries in Corinth, Megara and other Greek cities. They all were members of the
ruling elite. He tried to check the oligarchy's worst excesses and land grabs, and like
Catiline, Marius and the Gracchi brothers before him, to ameliorate the problems faced by
debtors. But by his time the poorer Romans already had lost their land, so the major debts were
owed by wealthier landowners. His bankruptcy law only benefited the well-to-do who had bought
land on credit and could not pay their moneylenders as Rome's long Civil War disrupted the
economy. The poor already had been ground down. They supported him mainly for his moves toward
democratizing politics at the expense of the Senate.
JS: After his assassination we get Caesar's heir Octavian, who becomes Augustus. So
we have the official end of the Republic and the beginning of a long line of emperors, the
Principate. Yet despite the Senate's authority being permanently diminished, there is continued
widening of economic polarization. Why couldn't the Emperors save Rome?
MH: Here's an analogy for you: Just as nineteenth-century industrial reformers
thought that capitalism's political role was to reform the economy by stripping away the legacy
of feudalism -- a hereditary landed aristocracy and predatory financial system based mainly on
usury -- what occurred was not an evolution of industrial capitalism into socialism. Instead,
industrial capitalism turned into finance capitalism. In Rome you had the end of the senatorial
oligarchy followed not by a powerful, debt-forgiving central authority (as Mommsen believed
that Caesar was moving toward, and as many Romans hoped that he was moving towards), but to an
even more polarized imperial garrison state.
JS: That's indeed what happened. The emperors who ruled in the centuries after
Cæsar insisted on being deified -- they were officially "divine," according to their own
propaganda. Didn't any of them have the potential power to reverse the Roman economy's
ever-widening polarization of the, like the Near Eastern "divine kings" from the third
millennium BC into the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and even the Persian Empire in the first
millennium?
MH: The inertia of Rome's status quo and vested interests among patrician nobility
was so strong that emperors didn't have that much power. Most of all, they didn't have a
conceptual intellectual framework for changing the economy's basic structure as economic life
became de-urbanized and shifted to self-sufficient quasi-feudal manor estates. Debt amnesties
and protection of small self-sufficient tax-paying landholders as the military base was
achieved only in the Eastern Roman Empire, in Byzantium under the 9 th – and
10 th -century emperors (as I've described in my history of debt cancellations in
and forgive them their debts ).
The Byzantine emperors were able to do what Western Roman emperors could not. They reversed
the expropriation of smallholders and annulled their debts in order to keep a free tax-paying
citizenry able to serve in the army and provide public labor duties. But by the 11
th and 12 th centuries, Byzantium's prosperity enabled its oligarchy to
create private armies of their own to fight against centralized authority able to prevent their
grabbing of land and labor.
It seems that Rome's late kings did something like this. That is what attracted immigrants
to Rome and fueled its takeoff. But with prosperity came rising power of patrician families,
who moved to unseat the kings. Their rule was followed by a depression and walkouts by the bulk
of the population to try and force better policy. But that could no be achieved without
democratic voting power, so faith was put in personal leader -- subject to patrician violence
to abort any real economic democracy.
In Byzantium's case, the tax-avoiding oligarchy weakened the imperial economy to the point
where the Crusaders were able to loot and destroy Constantinople. Islamic invaders were then
able to pick up the pieces.
The most relevant point of studying history today should be how the economic conflict
between creditors and debtors affected the distribution of land and money. Indeed, the tendency
of a wealthy overclass to pursue self-destructive policies that impoverish society should be
what economic theory is all about. We'll discuss this in Part 4.
John Siman: I want to spell out the implications of the points that Socrates brought
up, and with which you and I agree. That leaves the question facing us today: Is the American
oligarchy and state as rapacious as that of Rome? Or is it universally the nature of oligarchy
in any historical setting to be rapacious? And if so, where is it all leading?
Michael Hudson : If Antiquity had followed the "free market" policies of modern
neoliberal economics, the Near East, Greece and Rome would never have gained momentum. Any such
"free market" avoiding mutual aid and permitting a wealthy class to emerge and enslave the bulk
of the population by getting it into debt and taking its land would have shrunk, or been
conquered from without or by revolution from within. That's why the revolutions of the 7
th century BC, led to reformers subsequently called "tyrants" in Greece (and "kings"
in Rome) were necessary to attract populations rather than reduce them to bondage.
So of course it is hard for mainstream economists to acknowledge that Classical Antiquity
fell because it failed to regulate and tax the wealthy financial and landowning classes, and
failed to respond to popular demands to cancel personal debts and redistribute the land that
had been monopolized by the wealthy.
The wealth of the Greek and Roman oligarchies was the ancient counterpart to today's
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector, and their extractive and predatory behavior
is what destroyed Antiquity. The perpetuation of this problem even today, two thousand years
later, should establish that the debt/credit dynamic and polarization of wealth is a central
problem of Western civilization.
JS : So what were -- and are -- the political and social dynamic at work?
MH : The key is the concept of wealth addiction and how it leads to hubris --
arrogance that seeks to increase power in ways that hurt other people. Hubris is not merely
over-reaching; it is socially injurious. The wealthy or power injure other people knowingly, to
establish their power and status.
That is what Aristophanes meant when his characters say that wealth is not like bananas or
lentil soup. Wealth has no object but itself . Wealth is status -- and also political
control. The creditor's wealth is the debtor's liability. The key to its dynamic is not
production and consumption, but assets and liabilities -- the economy's balance sheet. Wealth
and status in the sense of who/whom. It seeks to increase without limit, and Socrates and
Aristotle found the major example to be creditors charging interest for lending "barren" money.
Interest had to be paid out of the debtor's own product, income or finally, forfeiture of
property; creditors did not provide means of making interest to pay off the loan.
This is the opposite of Austrian School theories that interest is a bargain to share the
gains to be made from the loan "fairly" between creditor and debtor. It also is the opposite of
neoclassical price theory. The economics taught in universities today is based on a price
theory that does not even touch on this point. The liberty that oligarchs claim is the right to
indebt the rest of society and then demand full payment or forfeiture of the debtor's
collateral. This leads to massive expropriations, as did the Junk Mortgage foreclosures after
2008 when President Obama failed to write down debts to realistic market values for real estate
financed on loans far beyond the buyer's ability to pay. The result was 10 million
foreclosures.
Yet today's mainstream economics treats the normal tendency to polarize between creditors
and debtors, the wealthy and the have-nots, as an anomaly. It has been the norm for the last
five thousand years, but economics sidesteps actual empirical history as if it is an anomaly in
the fictional parallel universe created by the mainstream's unrealistic assumptions. Instead of
being a science, such economics is science fiction.It trains students in cognitive dissonance
that distracts them from understanding Classical Antiquity and the driving dynamics of Western
civilization.
JS: This gets us back to the question of whether universities should just be shut
down and started up all over again.
MH: You don't shut them down, you create a new group of universities with a different
curriculum. The path of least resistance is to house this more functional curriculum in new
institutions. That's what America's Republican and pro-industrial leaders recognized after the
Civil War ended in 1865. They didn't shut down Harvard and Yale and Princeton and the Christian
free-trade Anglophile colleges. They created state colleges funded by land grants, such as
Cornell in upstate New York, and business schools such as the Wharton School at the University
of Pennsylvania, endowed by industrialists to providing an economic logic for the state's
steel-making and related industrial protectionism. The result was an alternative economics to
describe how America should develop as what they saw as a new civilization, free of the
vestiges of Europe's feudal privileges, absentee ownership and colonialist mentality.
The Republicans and industrialists saw that America's prestige colleges had been founded
long before the Civil War, basically as religious colleges to train the clergy. They taught
British free trade theory, serving the New England commercial and banking interests and
Southern plantation owners. But free trade kept the United States dependent on England. My book
America's Protectionist Takeoff describes how the American School of Political Economy,
led by Henry Carey and E. Peshine Smith (William Seward's law partner), developed an
alternative to what was being taught in the religious colleges.
This led to a new view of the history of Western civilization and America's role in fighting
against entrenched privilege. William Draper's Intellectual Development of Europe , and
Andrew Dixon White's History of the Warfare of Science with Theology saw the United
States as breaking free from the feudal aristocracies that were a product of the way in which
antiquity collapsed, economically and culturally.
JS : So business schools were originally progressive!
MH : Surprising as it may seem, the answer is Yes, to the extent that they described
the global economy as tending to polarize under free trade and an absence of government
protectionism, not to become more equal. They incorporated technology, energy-use and the
environmental consequences of trade patterns into economic theory, such as soil depletion
resulting from plantation monocultures. Mainstream economics fought against such analysis
because it advocated markets "free" for polluters, "free" for nations to pursue policies that
made them poorer and dependent on foreign credit.
JS : So this is how the Wharton School's first professor of economics, Simon Patten,
one of the founders of American sociology, fits into this anti- rentier tradition! That
is such a revelation to me! They developed an analysis of technology's effects on the economy,
of monopoly pricing and economic rent as unearned income that increases the cost of living and
cost of production. They explained the benefits of public infrastructure investment. Today that
is called "socialism," but it was industrial capitalists who took the lead in urging such
public investment, so as to lower their cost of doing business.
MH : The first U.S. business schools in the late 19 th century described
rentiers as unproductive. That is why today's neoliberals are trying to rewrite the
history of Institutionalism in a way that expurgates the Americans who wanted the government to
provide public infrastructure to make America a low-cost economy, undersell England and other
countries, and evolve into the industrial giant it became by the 1920s.
JS : That was Simon Patten's teaching at the Wharton School -- government-subsidized
public infrastructure as the fourth factor of production.
MH : Yes. America's ruling political class tried to make the United States a dominant
economy instead of a rentier economy of landlords and financial manipulators.
JS : How did the robber barons fit into this story?
MH : Not as industrialists or manufacturers, but as monopolists opposed by the
industrial interests. It was Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting and the Republicans that enacted
the Sherman antitrust act. Its spirit was continued by Franklin Roosevelt.
JS :Is today's economy a second age of robber barons?
MH : It's becoming a second Gilded Age. An abrupt change of direction in economic
trends occurred after Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were elected in 1979/80. The result
has been to invert what the 19 th -century economists understood to be a free market
-- that is, a market free from a privileged hereditary class living on unearned income in the
form of land rent, monopoly rent and financial extraction.
JS : I was in my first few years of college when Thatcher came in in 1979, and when
Reagan was elected in 1980. I asked my economics professors what was going on, but I could not
find a single professor to coherently describe the U-turn that was occurring. It certainly
wasn't in Paul Samuelson's textbook that we were given.
MH : There's little logic for neoliberalism beyond a faith that short-term greed is
the best way to optimize long-term growth. It is natural for the wealthiest classes to have
this faith. Neoliberalism doesn't look at the economy as a social system, and it excludes as
"externalities" concerns with the environment, debt dependency and economic polarization. It
only asks how to make a short-term hit-and-run gain, regardless of whether this is done in a
way that has a positive or negative overall social effect. Realistic economic logic is social
in scope, and distinguishes between earned and unearned income. That is why economists such as
Simon Patten and Thorstein Veblen decided to start afresh and create the discipline of
sociology, to go beyond narrow individualistic economics being taught.
Today's mathematical economics is based on circular reasoning that treats all that has
happened as having been inevitable. It is all survival of the fittest, so it seems that there
is no alternative. This policy conclusion is built into economic methodology. If we weren't the
fittest, we wouldn't have survived, so by definition (that is, circular reasoning), any
alternative is less than fit.
Regarding the fact that you had to read Samuelson when you were in college, he was famous
for his Factor Price Equalization Theorem claiming to prove mathematically that everybody and
every nation tends naturally to become more and more equal (if government stands aside). He
denied that the tendency of the global economy is to polarize, not equalize. The political
essence of this equilibrium theory is its claim that economies tend to settle in a stable
balance. In reality they polarize and then collapse if they do not reverse their polarizing
financial and productivity and wealth dynamics are.
The starting point of economic theorizing should explain the dynamic that lead economics to
polarize and collapse. That is the lesson of studying antiquity that we have discussed in our
earlier talks. Writers in classical antiquity, like Bronze Age Near Eastern rulers before them
and the Biblical prophets, recognized that a rentier economy tends to destroy the
economy's productivity and widespread prosperity, and ultimately its survival. In today's world
the Finance, Insurance,and Real Estate [FIRE] sector and monopolies are destroying the rest of
the economy, using financial wealth to take over the government and disable its ability to
prevent their operating in corrosive and predatory ways.
JS : Why aren't more people up in arms?
MH : They're only up in arms if they believe that there is an alternative. As long as
the vested interests can suppress any idea that there is an alternative, that matters
don't have to be this way, people just get depressed. In our third interview you spoke about
Socrates and the Stoics producing a philosophy of lamentation and resignation. By his day there
seemed no solution except to denounce wealth. When matters got much worse in the Roman Empire,
wealth was abhorred. That became the message of Christianity.
What is needed is to define the scope of the alternative that you want. How can the economy
grow when households, business, and government have to pay more and more of their revenue to
the financial sector, which then turns around and lends its interest and related income out to
indebt the economy even more? The effect is to extract even more income. Rising government debt
and tax cuts for the rentiers lead to the privatization of public infrastructure and
natural monopolies. Higher prices are charged for tolls to pay for public healthcare,
education, roads and other services that were expected to be provided for free a century ago.
Financialized privatization thus creates a high-rent, high-cost economy -- the opposite of
industrial capitalism evolving into socialism to finally free society from rentier
income.
JS: Wouldn't that be based on the insatiable desire
[ἀπληστία, aplêstia ] for money and the
super-rich [ὑπέρπλουτοι,
hyper-ploutoi ] oligarchs in Book 8 of Plato's Republic ? So we get back to my
question: Is the behavior of the super-rich a constant in human nature?
MH: Money-love
[φιλοχρηματία,
philochrêmatia ] has always been extreme because wealth is addictive. But their
dynamic of credit -- other peoples' debts -- increasing at compound interest is mathematized
and the economy is put on automatic pilot to self-destruct. Its business plan to "create
wealth" by making financial gains at somebody else's expense, without limit. This kind of
financial wealth is a zero-sum activity. The wealth of the creditor class, the One Percent, is
achieved by indebting the 99 Percent.
JS: Why is it a zero-sum activity?
MH: A zero-sum activity is when one party's gain is another's loss. Instead of income
paid to creditors being reinvested in means of production to help the economy grow, it's spent
on buying more assets. The most wasteful examples are corporate stock buyback programs and
financial raids. And the largest effect of financialization occurs as loans and Quantitative
Easing simply bid up the price of real estate, stocks, bonds and other assets. The effect is to
put housing and a retirement income further out of range of people who have to live by working
for wages and salaries instead of living off absentee ownership, interest and financial
asset-price gains.
JS: Why is this being done instead of investing in the economy to help the population
live a better and more prosperous life?
MH: The tax and regulatory system is set up to make financial gains or create
monopoly privileges. That is quicker and more certain, especially in an economy shrinking as a
result of financialization and the austerity it imposes. It's hard to make profits by investing
in a shrinking economy suffering from debt deflation and a squeeze on family budgets to pay for
health care, education and other basic needs.
JS: So it becomes more about extraction. Let's come back to Global Climate Change and
rising sea levels as a foundation of American foreign policy.
MH: Since the 19th century, American policy has been based on the recognition that
GDP growth reflects rising energy use per capita. Rising productivity is almost identical with
the curve of energy use per worker. That was the basic premise of E. Peshine Smith in 1853, and
subsequent writers, whom I describe in America's Protectionist Takeoff: 1918-1914 . The
policy conclusion is that if you can control the source of energy -- which remains mainly oil
and coal -- then you can control global GDP growth. That is why Dick Cheney invaded Iraq: to
grab its oil. It is why Trump announced his intention to topple Venezuela and take its oil.
If other nations are obliged to buy their oil from the United States or its companies, then
it's in a monopoly position to turn off their electricity (like the United States did to
Venezuela) and hurt their economies if they don't acquiesce in a world system that lets
American financial firms come in and buy out their most productive monopolies and privatize
theirpublic domain. That's why America's foreign policy is to monopolize the world's oil, gas
and coal in order to have a stranglehold on the rate of growth of other countries by being able
to deny them energy. It's like denying countries food in order to starve them out. The aim isto
exploit Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America what Rome exploited its Empire.
JS: Would you be comfortable using words like evil to describe what's going on
now?
MH : Evil essentially is predatory and destructive behavior. Socrates said that it
ultimately is ignorance, because nobody would set out intentionally to do it. But in that case,
evil would be an educational system that imposes ignorance and tunnel vision, distracting
attention from understanding how economic society actually works in destructive ways. On that
logic, post-classical neoliberal economics and the Chicago Boys are evil because their ideology
breeds ignorance and leads its believers to act in ways that are injurious to society,
preventing personal fulfillment through economic growth. Evil is a policy that makes most of
society poorer, simply in order to enrich an increasingly wealth-addictive rentier layer
at the top. Werner Sombart described the bourgeoisie as floating like a globules of fat on top
of a soup.
JS: This is now happening on a path that follows an exponential extreme. I guess
global warming makes it particularly evil. We're not simply talking about taking advantage of
other people within a society, we're talking about destruction of the planet and its
environment.
MH: Economists dismiss this as an "externality," that is, outside the scope of their
models. So these models are deliberately ignorant. You could say that this makes them evil.
JS: That is what I've suspected since we started the Iraq War in 2003.
MH: America's military buildup, its anti-environmental policy and global wars are
part of the same symbiotic strategy. The reason why America will not be part of a real effort
to mitigate global warming is that its policy is still based on grabbing the oil resources of
the Near East, Venezuela, and everywhere else that it can. Also, the oil industry is the most
tax-exempt and politically powerful sector. If it also happens to be the primary cause of
global warming, that is viewed as just collateral damage to America's attempt to control the
world by controlling the oil supply. In that sense the environmental impasse is a byproduct of
American imperialism.
JS: What's hopeful in the United States right now? What is a possible good
outcome?
MH: T he precondition would be for people to realize that there is an
alternative. Starting with wiping out of student debts, they can realize that the overall debt
overhead can be wiped out without hurting the economy -- and indeed, rescuing it from the
financial rentier class inasmuch as all debts on the liabilities side of the balance
sheet have their counterpart on the asset side as the savings of today's financial oligarchy,
which is doing to the U.S. economy what Rome's Senate did to the ancient world.
JS: How can people proceed from here?
MH: Understanding must come first. Once you have to have a sense of history, you
realize that there is an alternative. You also see what happens when a creditor
oligarchy gets strong enough to prevent any public power from writing down debts and to prevent
attempts to tax it.
You have to do to America today what the Republicans did after the Civil War: You have to
have a new university curriculum dealing with economic history, the history of economic thought
and the real world's long-term development.
JS: And what would be the premise for such economic history?
MH: T he starting point is to realize that civilization began in the ancient Near
East, and made a turn to oppose a strong public regulatory sector in Classical Greece and Rome.
The long-term tension is the eternal fight by the oligarchy of creditors and large land owners
to reduce the rest of society to serfdom, and to oppose strong rulers empowered to act in the
economy's long-term interest by creating checks against this polarization.
JS : So how much longer does this go on -- for months, for years, for decades?
MH : It always goes on longer than you think it will. Inertia has a great elastic
self-reinforcing power. Polarization will widen until people believe that there is an
alternative and decide to fight for it. Two things are required for this to happen: First, a
large proportion of people need to see that the economy is impoverishing them, and that the
existing picture of what is happening is misleading. Instead of wealth trickling down, it is
defying gravity and sucking income up from the base of the economic pyramid. People are having
to work harder just to stay in place, until their life style breaks down.
Second, people must realize that it doesn't have to be this way. There is an
alternative
JS : Right now most people think that government regulation and progressive taxation
will make things worse, and that the wealthy are job creators, not job destroyers. They think
that the system needs to be bolstered, not replaced, because the alternative is "socialism" --
that is, what the Soviets did, not what Franklin Roosevelt was doing. But today bailing out the
banks and giving subsidies to new employers is said to be for our own good.
MH : That's what the Romans told their provinces. Everything they did was always to
preserve "good order," meaning open opportunities for their own wealth grabbing. They never
said they were out to destroy and loot other societies. Madeline Albright followed this
rhetorical pattern in describing as being, like the Romans and France's brutal mission
civilisatrice , a program to uplift the world free-market efficiency. For performing this
service, the imperial power takes all the money that its colonies, provinces and allies can
generate. That's why the U.S. meddles in foreign politics, as we have just seen in Ukraine,
Libya and Syria.
JS : You've described the greatest meddling as distorting the narrative of history to
depict creditor and rentier drives toward oligarchy as being democratic and helping to raise
living standards and culture. Your books show just the opposite.
MH : Thank you. (Republished from
Naked Capitalism by permission of author or representative)
Questions for Dr. Hudson: Why should a public banking system charge interest at all on loans?
Could they not merely charge a one-time service fee to cover the cost of loan administration
and a one-time insurance fee to cover the costs of defaulting on the loan? After all, they
are not actually loaning money – they are creating money at minimal risk to the bank.
Charging interest to create money strikes me as mere theft.
Charging interest to create money strikes me as mere theft.
The school of Salamanca is where this idea of interest on money was codified, where the
Jesuit priests proclaimed it as a loss of wants. That is, since people loaned out their
money, they didn't get use of it, so they should be paid for their loss.
If you examine how banking works, banks hypothecate new money the moment you sign a debt
instrument. Both the new bank credit and debt instrument pop into being simultaneously.
To ask for compounding interest on this simple legerdemain is an outrageous abuse, so you
are right it is theft.
There are situations where it is not usurious. For example, Schacht's MefoBills scheme,
the interest fluxed outward from Reichsbank to the bill holder. A bill would be
presented to industry, and said industry would then start work making goods. Bill would then
be presented for discount, which is fancy way of saying paid for, or paid off. Upon discount,
bill would be examined to see if goods were produced. Then the bill would be paid its full
face value AND the interest it accrued.
Reichsmarks flowed from Reichsbank to the bill holder, who was paid interest. The bill
holder then spent his new Reichsmarks into the money supply.
Benjamin Franklin's public bank spent into the commons the extra money necessary
for debtors to pay interest on their loans. The commons were improved, so one could view this
as non usurious, even though it was positive interest. For the most part, FEES are all that
should accompany new loans, not compounding interest.
Canada had a quasi sovereign economy 1938 to 1974 and spent debt free into the
commons and on public infrastructure, their economy did not polarize toward creditors. The
Ministry of Finance owned all the common shares of Bank of Canada. BOC was a crown bank.
Note in all the "good" examples, interest flowed outward from an exogenous creator toward
the population. In bad examples of interest, it drains purchasing power from the
population.
By the way, a MEFOBILL scheme today could be used to release debts. The bill is created
exogenously by Treasury or even a shell company. The bill has a drawer, payee and drawee. It
is like a check. It channels toward a specific goal. For example, if you wanted to pay off
student debts, then the bill would aim at the student, who then presents bill to bank holding
student's debt instrument. Bill would eventually make its way to the FED through bank reserve
loops, and FED would expand their ledger. FED would use their keyboard to make new dollars,
which flow back into private bank system to pay off the students debt instrument. So double
entry mechanic laws are not abrogated. Student's debt disappeared, and Mefobill stays on FED
ledger forever, not accruing interest. Or, you could specify a small amount of interest to
the bank as a fee for their operations.
U.S. could use Mefobill scheme to lure industry back to the U.S. as it specifically
channels toward a goal.
The money system is something we humans created, it can be used for good or ill. To
paraphrase Michael, we need good civil law that codes for morality.
That was a soul-transforming read. It put into words what I could never put into words, but
on an instinctive level I have always felt these things. I have always had this irrational
hatred of bankers, landlords, capitalists, and any one else who dances to that faggy Gordon
Gekko tune. But I could never figure out why, let alone explain it clearly. This article has
done that for me right here and right now today. I am so grateful. This one is a keeper, now
I finally understand my hate. And I am proud of it. This is why Hitler was a good person, he
made these little bitch finance fags squeal and screech like the untermenschen they really
are.
It is interesting to note that the facts explored in this article corroborate and
synchronize with the facts explored in an amateur work titled "The Sumerian Swindle: How the
Jews Betrayed Mankind." If you look you can print the book free off the internet
somewhere.
From now on I only see humans in two distinct groups: productive people who work for a
living, and parasitic leeches who exploit the former. Twas ever thus. Let us successfully
genocide the latter in the near future.
The book sounds extremely interesting. I will probably get it, but that thing about the
Kaiser is a bad mistake. The German nation had been subjected to France and its proxies
marching across it for centuries. As always happens it unified in the face of threat, but
financially the structure was still harking back to the Holy Roman Empire. Being
decentralised as far as raising revenues was concerned, the Kaiser was unable to exert the
full strength of Germany. The Weimar government instituted reforms were intended to remedy
that for defensive purposes, but unfortunately Hitler inherited those reforms and that extra
wherewithal was a major reason for the early military successes in WW2 that set the world
agog.
Germany began to be a mixed economy in the decades leading up to World War I. But it had
a mentally retarded king whom they didn't know how to restrain, given their cultural faith
in royalty. China is of course the most successful recent mixed economy.
Dubious.France had financed massive military preparation by Russia, and Poincaire (cousin
of the brilliant physicist) was fixated with recovering Alsace and Lorraine (where he was
born). The military situation was gravely deteriorating for Germany partly because Germany.
The Kaiser did not attack France in 1905 when Britain had a tiny army and Russia was in
chaos. That was the craziest thing he did as leader.
Mr. Hudson thinks we can get the desirable results of Divine Kingship without having Divine
Kings, simply by enacting "laws" that promote a broad distribution of wealth. But he also
says that the oligarchy makes the laws and appoints the "elected" lawmakers. So he's engaged
in an exercise in wishful thinking. There is no democratic path to his desired result.
An excellent tour de force completely relevant to the major problems we face today, so
thank you , Ron Unz!
and turn the government into a vehicle to help them exploit the rest of society.
It's extremely obvious that's is exactly what our "constitution" was designed to do.
Hudson's insistence that debt must be government controlled runs into the problem
consistently, which both he and the interviewer discuss.
Essentially, the problem is that whoever gets the power will abuse it. "The government" is
no more a disinterested group of parties than the oligarchs or the plutocrats. The best
answer is to have a noble ruling class, but good luck with that; it will never happen at
least on a permanent basis.
So what's the answer? I wish I knew
The best [the Greek philosophers] could do was to inspire and educate individuals
I highly doubt anyone can do much more, but the last thing to do is to hope for some
Messiah, especially a rich one. Are you tRumpeteers listening?
PS: I liked the mention of Aristophanes. All of his plays are as instructive as they are
amusing and should be read by all. Same with Lucian of Samosata and Juvenal to mention just a
few.
JS said: "Right now most people think that government regulation and progressive taxation
will make things worse,"
Er, no, most people do not "think" that [ if they "think" at all].
They mostly "think" the exact opposite.
Due to their public [ie government funded] er,"education" [ie brainwashing], they are
actually dumb enough to believe that more government, and more regulations will make things
better for them, despite the fact that more than any other factor, it is the size and scope
of government that has directly caused the financial problems most of them are now
experiencing. "Stupid is a stupid does".
In fact, more, bigger government and more regulations will only further increase poverty
and make things even worse for them all than they are today.
This just in:
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
Government doesn't work" Harry Browne
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"Everything government touches turns to crap" Ringo Starr
"The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the
kind of man whose ideas are idiotic" H.L.Mencken
There was no concept of linear progress in Antiquity. They thought that there was only
one way to do things, so any reform must be the way the world was meant to be in the very
beginning.
The Hebrews had their liberation from captivity, Hesiod had his three prior ages "before
there was iron," Odysseus travels the world observing the various ways of men, Plato
envisions a radical transformation of human society, Aristotle compares the constitutions of
various Greek city-states, Thucydides resorts to archaeology to show that the Athenians were
not the original inhabitants of the Attic Peninsula.
It's not difficult to come up with what seem to be counter examples to Hudson's assertion
that there was no "linear progress" and no vision of other ways of doing things in Antiquity.
Ancient Mediterranean societies did see humanity as moving in a direction, evolving by
discovery and by making new institutions to address novel problems.
I found that peculiar as well. Another thing that was out of place was the "deification"
of Teddy Roosevelt and his so called trust busting as well as FDR's continuously "evolving"
New Deals. Both Roosevelts and their programs were tRump-like frauds whose main interest was
self aggrandizement at whatever cost.
Like tRump, the rhetoric was grand but the motive and execution left much to be desired.
While I get what Hudson is saying when he sez "there oughta be a law," I think history has
proven, repeatedly, that while there's a possibility that there ought to be one, it's not
likely it'll do much good, and certainly no permanent good.
The greatest debt creator in the history of America is the zionists privately owned FED and
the zionist owned central banks in every country in the world that create money out of thin
air and charge the goyim/proles for the use of this zionist created charade, which started in
1913 here in the zio/US with the diabolical draconian demonic FED.
Free America, abolish the FED and return to government created , debt free money as was
the case prior to December 23, 1913!
@G.
Poulin G. Poulin says: "Mr. Hudson thinks we can get the desirable results of Divine
Kingship without having Divine Kings, simply by enacting "laws" that promote a broad
distribution of wealth. "
Yup. The whole, as per usual, "benevolent dictator" fantasy writ large, yet once again. It
never stops.
You'd think that by now, this late in the game, and given history, that most people would
have finally figured out that government "solutions" never worked , and never can, or
will.
But no, luckily for governments, there's always a plentiful supply of new, brainwashed
dreamer/fantasists [or "suckers" as P.T Barnum reportedly called them], who are ever more
eager for a government that does what they think it should do, and who "think" that it/they
actually will, despite all the historical evidence directly contradicting their inane
fantasies.
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the
government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the
government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of
kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
–Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
" idealists and realists begin to get on each other's nerves. But the real difference is
in the capacity for appreciating the immense gap of blue inane which separates earth from
heaven, and in the realist's unwillingness to assume that men have angels' wings. "
@onebornfree
oneborn free, your screed is you projecting fears about abusive government.
Hudson just explained in historical terms that it is only properly constructed government
that can reign in Oligarchy. It is clear that society WILL polarize toward creditors if
certain safeguards are not put in place.
So, you will have to come to grips with your cognitive dissonance.
Hudson also sets the framework for governments "proper role." Anything outside of that
role is government overstepping its bounds.
By providing the framework, Hudson is doing the world a tremendous service, and as such he
will go down as one of the great men of history.
New glasses are being put on your nose, but you prefer to wear your old glasses that make
you see improperly?
It reminds me of all the wishful thinking about China, how their ghost cities are going to
do them in, and their economy cannot keep doing so well, and so on. It is people not
believing what is right in front of their eyes, or their inability to see outside of their
brainwashed mentality.
Hudson says that public banks are an option for erasing debts.
China does this now with their state banks, which is one of their secret weapons.
In the mid 90's China swept all of their old communist era debt into the trash can. This
then made their "books" look good to Western Finance standards, and China was essentially
given MFN status.
Then it was game on! Wall Street soon greenmailed American industry to leave for China, to
then get some of that wage arbitrage. We are living in the aftermath of this civilization
destroying decision making by our ruling finance class.
China has helped the wall street finance class loot America, as China creates new Yuans
from their state banks to match their countries growth rate. These new Yuans have to be there
in order to swap for dollars won in trade. The dollars end up in China's state banks, and are
recycled back to the U.S. to buy TBills instead of buying goods from mainstreet.
Today and reality is staring you in the face. Look at it. America's finance class did
indeed export jobs and our patrimony, and china did indeed use their public banking system.
China is working for their people's benefit, while a traitor class of finance oligarchy is
working against the public interest in America.
Those of you who are against Public banks need to get real and look at actual data. For
example, the bank of North Dakota is a public bank and has a good track record. Please, use
data and think for yourself rather than being a brainwashed dupe.
Another way is to continue to use PRIVATE BANKS, and have public money. The money supply
is nationalized, not the bank. All new money comes into being from a monetary authority or
Treasury as per the constitution. Banks then become gyro, which is a fancy word for
inter-mediation. Banks stop making money with a new debt instrument, but instead only match
up new creditors and debtors with existing money.
Within each private bank are two piles of numbers: 1) Pile A is people's savings, which
preferably was debt free at inception 2) Pile B is government credit, or national credit.
National Credit can be channeled toward specific goals that the country has agreed is in
its interests.
You as a debtor can borrow from either pile. The national credit creates a debt instrument
that can be easily jubileed in the same easy way as could a debt instrument hypothecated at a
public bank.
Public banks to my mind are a little too close to government even though they have a good
history. Nationalizing the money supply instead is better. Why? A good percentage of supply
becomes floating money (debt free) and this component becomes a permanent inheritance to the
people, giving them freedom to do commerce. An economically free people are also politically
free.
@onebornfreeSavior? Nothing can stop what has been set in motion, namely, Earth's Sixth Mass
Extinction, as the climate shifts rapidly to a
New Cretaceous "hothouse" climate. Neither voting nor your anarchism can invalidate
scientific evidence. Apparently, you can't read, because McPherson's Paradox
explains humanity's conundrum in plain terms: (a) continuing to evaporate Earth's coal beds
and oil fields into the atmosphere ensures our quick extinction from global warming, and (b)
stopping fossil fuel use only hastens our demise, because of "global masking effect" or "
global dimming
." Do you really think that evaporating coal beds and oil fields into the atmosphere has no
consequences?
"[T]heir complete extinction (in the co-extinction scenario) was abrupt, and
happened far from their tolerance limits, and close to global diversity collapse (
around 5 °C of heating )"
Co-extinctions annihilate planetary life during extreme environmental change
(Scientific Reports volume 8, Article number: 16724, published 13 November 2018) http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35068-1
Remember, Trump has already promised 4 °C of heating is baked into the cake,
and stopping fossil fuel use would remove the "global dimming" effect of air pollution and
lead to a near instantaneous rise of 2°C. A true paradox has no solution.
1. Please use your commenting privilege to address the substance of the articles. The
sentence that you first quote is ancillary to this one, but you've plucked it out as a wedge
for your umpteenth anarchic strut.
2. Why so frequently insulting? I happen to share your general perspective, but if you're
prosletyzing your style stinks.
3. If nothing else, please realize that you only need to piss once on each hydrant to
leave your mark.
@Dutch
Boy Unfortunately, Dr. Hudson never attacks the "Elephant in the Room -- –The
Control of Economies by the Magic Jews." The Jews control all pathways including media,
social and economic which they will never relinquish because with the money they make they
control the world's politicians by using the greed of mankind against them.
The Jews use the Holocaust to intimidate stupid whites in Western Civilization with guilt
and control everything including our foreign policy to immigration. Civilization will not
survive as long as the power of the Jews continue to rule mankind.
@Dutch
Boy Consider that a 10 year loan at 4% now would then have a fee (simple, not even
compound interest) of 40% of the principle.
It defeats the purpose of a loan paying over time. Even the 20% down is for equity, not
prepayment of interest.
Or you could simply roll the fees in. There is a House for sale for $200,000. The bank
buys it but then to get ownership with lein, and you have to pay the bank $300,000 to cover
everything (do you get any equity before going positive?).
How about just saving money including gold in your mattress until you can afford
something?
@MEFOBILLS
Federal Reserve, TARP, and QE – the debts of the banksters were erased and they paid
themselves bonuses, and it took more cash that would pay off every mortgage of those who lost
their homes
Unfortunately, Dr. Hudson never attacks the "Elephant in the Room -- –The Control
of Economies by the Magic Jews."
Hudson does but in a peripheral way. See below. Our (((friends))) like to use their
capital rather than labor. They use usury as a weapon, and tend to be among the Oligarch
class. Why? Because their religion gives cover and sanction for predatory behavior. Note that
our friends adore Hillel. Jewish religion went off the rails after Hillel, and is now an
apologist for the creditor class, and hence against a balanced logos type world.
Hudson cannot go after the Jews, but I can and so can you. It is ok to point out where
Jewish ideology becomes "Crime Inc." In fact, I find the most moral people to be
anti-semites, so Hudson who obviously has a strong moral basis, is smart enough to NOT touch
the Jewish third rail, or he would become persona non-grata.
There is no question Hudson possesses a first class mind, and by not touching the third
rail he is preserving his career. It is up to us to decode what he is saying and we can be
more blunt about things.
You don't have to be Jewish to be a predator, and by association most of us can decode
what he is saying.
MH: Yes, but it ended with Rabbi Hillel and the Prozbul clause. Debtors had to sign this
clause at the end of their debt contracts saying that they waived their rights under the
Jubilee year in order to get a loan. That was why Jesus fought against the Pharisees and
the rabbinical leadership. That's what Luke 4 is all about
@jacques
sheete He also seems very keen on China's policy. From what I can make out this is
because the government loans the money and can cancel the debt. So China being locked into
growth by massively Keynesian policies that cannot be haltet for fear of global economic
collapse is a good thing it seems. Hmmm.
@tz1
Federal Reserve, TARP, and QE – the debts of the banksters were erased and they paid
themselves bonuses, and it took more cash that would pay off every mortgage of those who lost
their homes
Yes of course. It would have been much better to take over the banks and give the "bond
holders" a haircut.
What the haircut means is that the debt instrument cannot make claims on the future. The
amount it can claim is written down to what the real economy can pay.
Our financial oligarchy did not want to take a haircut, and since they own the government,
they made their politician puppets dance.
We cannot see what is in the bill till we pass the bill.
Some here have pointed out that democracy is a joke. Yes it is. Universal Suffrage
democracy, where any rube can vote is especially bad.
You do need a ruling class which looks like the people it rules over. This ruling class
also has to be servants of their people.
China's ruling class is constantly polling their people to get data on how they are doing.
If a politician is found to be corrupt, they are killed or ejected. Think of it like your
body, bad elements and parasites are attacked by the immune system, otherwise you (the host)
will die.
@Biff
"You're a broken record that needs to be tossed up in the air in front of a twelve gauge."
Seem like a lot of trouble to go to – especially as I might be carrying a 12 gauge,
or similar, myself
This just in: there's an "ignore" button – I suggest you learn how to use it.
But regardless of whether the "commniunist" label is completely accurate or not, he's just
yet another in a long line of naive intellectuals who thinks that the government can solve
problems, problems it alone created.
"The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the
kind of man whose ideas are idiotic" H.L.Mencken
@tz1
Fee's on a loan should cover the bank's cost, which is a tiny fraction of what they take now
in the form of usury.
Think closely on this, the bank makes a loan, and it is only a matter of typing of a debt
instrument. Today with computers that amounts to a few minutes of work. They then on-sale the
debt instrument to another, usually TBTF bank, and get rid of any risk.
The better way is for people to pool their savings, and the bank is gyro. Debtor then buys
a house borrowing your savings. The old savings and loan system worked like this.
In Canada, when they had a sovereign banking system (1938 to 1974) they used trusts. Banks
were not allowed to hypothecate new housing loans. Trusts and savings and loans both pool
existing money and loan it out.
It was a beneficial cycle where the young borrowed from the old, and the old benefited
from some interest income, to then buy goods and services produced by the young.
Interest isn't always bad, but you have to look at it in context. About 70% of debt
instruments resident at banks are hypothecated against land. This is so finance oligarchy can
GRAB THE LAND in a depression via swaps or other schemes. Depressions are inevitable when M2
is always draining to pay debts at interest.
In the case of Canada's trust system, the interest was cycling back to the young (interest
was pointing outward to the population) to buy goods and services they produced.
@MEFOBILLS
MEFOBILLS says: "Hudson just explained in historical terms that it is only properly
constructed government that can reign in Oligarchy. It is clear that society WILL polarize
toward creditors if certain safeguards are not put in place.So, you will have to come to
grips with your cognitive dissonance. Hudson also sets the framework for governments "proper
role." Anything outside of that role is government overstepping its bounds."
Short answer: "The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is
always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic" H.L.Mencken
MEFOBILLS says: "Hudson also sets the framework for governments "proper role.""
This just in: it's "proper role" [ in the US] was already [supposedly ]"set" via
the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and more famously via a coup
d'etat which resulted in the scam called "The Constitution and Bill of Rights" .
Although the Constitution remains a scam to this day, a return to its supposed limits
would, at least temporarily, drastically downsize the federal government, which would be step
in the right direction.
For government is the problem, never the solution.
But of course, yourself [and most others here] remain too brainwashed [by the government,
and with your money] to ever understand that
Ya gotta watch out when someone takes Marx's economic observations (which were impressive) as
an automatic pass for his social prescriptions (which were a gateway to hell on earth).
@Dutch
Boy As a matter of logic aren't those creators of money reducing the value of the money
held by those who have saved to get it? So doesn't fairness require that they use interest
rates to maimtain the stability of the currency's value?
@Max So
you advocate euthanasia (when you are feeling nice rather than cruel and vengeful) of the
rapidly increasing retired population? Understood that you need to support the infant
generation but Hitler had the answer for that one didn't he: euthanasia of those who wouldn't
be able to contribute. How long do we indulge people with an unemployment benefit?
@jacques
sheete Which US subsidy programs might be regarded as proleptic jubilees? And writeoffs
like that massive solar energy disaster under Obama are surely equivalent to the jubilees.
And welfare payments are surely jubilees in advance.
@Sollipsist
Sollipsist says: "Ya gotta watch out when someone takes Marx's economic observations
(which were impressive) as an automatic pass for his social prescriptions (which were a
gateway to hell on earth)."
Wrongo. Marx's economic theories were as as idiotic as his social prescriptions- in fact,
his "social prescriptions" were directly derived from his idiotic economic theories, which is
exactly why such "social prescriptions" are, as you say, "a gateway to hell on earth".
As for the author of this article , pure Marxist or not, his own "social prescriptions"
are, like Marx's , the mere pontifications of a pseudo-intellectual statist, fantasizing
about solving social problems via that which he worships and adores , that is , yet more
government [of the "right" kind, mind you, and despite its obvious failure to do any such
thing to date].
Another case of "the blind leading the blind", I'm afraid, just more of the same old
hackneyed "government should do this- government can solve this " claptrap .
Hudson spent half the article talking about mixed economies being the best and only type
to work.
Also, it was the JEWISH CREDITOR CLASS, that funded Bolshevism. Wall Street Jews and some
London money funded the Bolsheviks.
Bolshevism in turn was not what Marx had intended.
Marx thought that industrial capitalism, especially that of the type he witnessed in
Germany, would evolve into an advanced form of socialism mixed economy. It would evolve after
industrial capitalism failed, or industrial capitalism would have evolved.
Instead, finance capitalism, that of the rentier credit class won out .
When Marx died, he said "I am a most unhappy man."
Instead of getting caught up in labels, look at the data or what they actually believe in.
It takes a little bit more energy and effort, rather than falling for simple platitudes.
Hudson's childhood background was Bolshevik, but he didn't pick his parents. If you look
at his actual body of work, he is analyzing where all economic systems fail.
Russian and Chinese communism failed because markets are not purely inelastic. You cannot
pretend that every market type needs government control, especially when pricing signals will
work. Systems that are predicated on lies, will not survive in the long term.
For government is the problem, never the solution.
Simple minded platitudes.
ALL COMPLEX SYSTEMS HAVE HIERARCHY!
All advanced civilizations have hierarchy.
There has to be a "brain" for any complex organization, it will not self organize.
This whole market is your god, or gold is your god is the rentier class duping you with
hypnosis.
Funny thing about Libertarian-tards and their junk economics, the very thing they want
they cannot have because their ideology brings about what they don't want – economic
slavery.
Free markets are free for the rentier to take his gains on your life energy and turn you
into his debt slave.
• This is the "anarchy" of the future stateless society which Marx and Engels had
accepted in 1872. Man becomes "his own master – free". The first condition for this
full-fledged freedom is: freedom from the state, not of the state, nor merely in the state.
As far as Marx's eye could see, the state is not the guarantor of freedom http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1970/xx/state.html
This is one the most brilliant things I've ever read here. I've read a great deal about the
various facts and events Mr. Hudson talks about but I've never been able to put them together
like Mr. Hudson. He's provided a framework for realizing how all these seemingly disparate
events fit together. I'm very grateful.
@Wizard of
Oz Retirees weren't regarded as parasites by National Socialism, Schlomo. Your
parasitic ilk, however, were.
"The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance , rent
supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes the NSV often
refused to provide aid to Jews " – National Socialist
People's Welfare
This is fake history. Mythology becoming history. A Jewish speciality.
1- The Jews were never in Ancient Egypt – or the Egyptians would have documented
it.
2- There is absolutely no archeological artifact from the Palestine region that show that
they were there before their exile. Plenty of proof that the Egyptians had been there earlier
on.
3- Palestine was desert at that time and had been abandoned by the Egyptians as it was
infertile – not a land of milk and honey. Yemen was agricultural and prosperous.
4- The Jews were exiled from Yemen – because they and non-Jewish Arabs (the Jews and
Arabs were the same people at that time), continued to raid the caravans bringing goods from
Yemen to Petra. The Babylonians punished them by taking them back to Babylon. After the
Persians liberated them, some went back to Yemen and some went to Palestine.
5- Locations in the Old Testament correspond to places in Yemen and Hejaz. Even their
names.
The best counter to Robert Michels's iron law of oligarchy (whatever the ostensible form of
government, it turns out in practice to be oligarchic rule by the group that has the real
power) was devised by Cleisthenes in Athens shortly before 500 B.C.: give power to average
citizens by appointing to offices ordinary citizens randomly chosen. It worked, as is shown
by how deeply resented it was by oligarchs like Plato.
Is a U.S. Presidential Executive Order signed on April 5, 1933 , by President
Franklin D. Roosevelt forbidding the hoarding of gold within the continental United
States .
It required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount
of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve
, in exchange for $20.67 (consumer price index, adjusted value of $400 today) per troy
ounce. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the recently passed
Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, violation of the order was punishable by fine up
to $10,000 (equivalent to $193,548 today) or up to ten years in prison, or both .
Order 6102 specifically exempted "customary use in industry, profession or art", a
provision that covered artists, jewelers, dentists, and sign makers among others. The order
further permitted any person to own up to $100 in gold coins (a face value equivalent to 5
troy ounces (160 g) of gold valued at about $6,339 in 2016).
@MEFOBILLS
MEFOBILLS says: "All advanced civilizations have hierarchy.There has to be a "brain" for
any complex organization, it will not self organize. "
So presumably, a half wit such as yourself knows exactly what that hierarchy should be,
who the "brain" "should" be and exactly what and where everyone's "correct" place within it
"should" be, because people cannot self organize.
Sieg Heil, mein fuhrer! You're an even dumber sheep than I had initially suspected!
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"Everything government touches turns to crap" Ringo Starr
"The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the
kind of man whose ideas are idiotic" H.L.Mencken
There are several problems with Dr. Hudson's views here. Some have referenced some. I would
point out that we already have laws and practices to restrict the use of wealth from
impoverishing the population. But you have to have a leadership willing to enforce or apply
them. We have had no less than three major financial bailouts of the financial class in the
US. And at no time was the bailout extended to the industries consumers. I am unclear what
the prescription is to divorce the political class from the financial class.
The only new law that would make sense are laws that bar legislators from owning, stocks,
sitting on the boards of stocks or any financial institution they manage. And that would have
to extend to all immediate family members. Further, one has to completely cut off funds from
lobbyists, activists and the corporate class entities.
The economy is already comprised of mixed practices: private ownership and wealth
creation, government employment, non-profit entities and taxation and other programs that
assist citizens, i.e. welfare
The one over riding observation I would make about the economy is that we continue to have a
trade imbalance, which according to an old rule of thumb suggests that economy is not really
growing.
@G.
Poulin Mr. Hudson makes his contribution towards the greater good by educating the
populace. What's your problem? -- He is not a fairy. He is a knowledgeable and honest person;
the former requires a lot of willpower, the second requires courage.
@MEFOBILLS
Libertarians were invented and constructed on purpose to serve as the useful idiots of
oligarchs whom they worship and do everything to protect their right to be oligarchs while at
the same time being sodomized by them.
I am very happy to read this interview, because for me, this is the first time that I have
completely understood Michael Hudson's work. And I say this after watching countless of his
interviews over the past 8 years.
Before this interview here, I had always wanted to ask him if the Clean Slate policies
disappeared over 3000 years ago, then what was he saying in his books and lectures? If the
entirety of Western Civilization is based on oligarchy, rentiers, then what hope is there for
anything? I mean the Romans lasted a thousand years doing this rentier stuff. That's a long
time for misery.
Now, with this interview I understand more fully the period after the Civil War and into
the FDR Presidency as a partially-successful attempt to make things in the country different,
more egalitarian, more correct. And after this interview, I understand Hudson's main point:
the road to change lies in understanding the failures of antiquity.
Looking at things through the rentier oligarchy lens has been the revelation in my life in
the past 10 years. I never undeststood Chile & Allende until then. Likewise with
antiquity and likewise with the history of the United States. But those of us who do
understand these things, thanks in great part to Michael Hudson, are few.
As part of a very late stage college degree I earned 4 years ago, I took an Econ class in
my last semester. The class featured certain films as it related to economics and that was
indeed very interesting (I had never seen Coppola's "Tucker: The Man And His Dream" before so
that was "entertaining"), but the text book for the class was Friedman. I read it and could
not believe how dunderheaded, how wrong it was. And I realized from communication with the
professor that he believed all of it. His attitude seemed to be: who are you to question
economics orthodoxy, you uppity undergrad.
This interview above was both enlightening and depressing. How many decades longer do we
have to go before things change?
"The king said
that the plan was dangerous and not simple to implement, in particular the part relating to the
land swaps in Tzofar, a moshav in the Arava desert, and Naharayim, where Jordan conquered in 1948
the Island of Peace and a hydroelectric power-plant that belonged to Israel.
According to the
Trump proposal, Jordan would receive from Saudi Arabia an area equal in size to these territories
which Israel would reacquire.
In addition, Jordan has been asked to take in a million
"Palestinian" refugees in several stages, in return for $45 billion in investments.
Jordan's
entire GDP is only $40 billion. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states will finance these
investments."
Jewish Press
--------------
The full "good deal of the century" will evidently be
revealed after the Israeli election. Pieces of the "good deal of the century" have previously
been revealed. The move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem has been followed by endless Palestinian
waves of self immolation along the Gaza "dead line." This will continue indefinitely unless the Beebster or his successor decide to re-occupy Gaza to stop Palestinian rockets reaching Tel Aviv.
Now, that would be a spectacle.
Another piece of "The Kushner Plan" was the cession by the US of
the occupied Syrian Golan Heights to Israel. The justification for this was that the Israelis
hold it by force of arms. Syria, of, course does not accept the US transfer of title deed to part
of its territory. These two things are typical of Trump's NY City real estate methodology. In his
mind he is systematically taking points of contention off "the bargaining table" so that he can
"close" over what's left. This latest "offer" made to Jordan is part of what is left.
Perhaps
some savant can explain what the various parts of this "partial good deal" mean. " A million
Palestinians?" Where would they come from? Would they be round up for transportation to The East?
Saudi Arabia would transfer land to Jordan? Where? On the Gulf of Akabah coast near Tabuk?
Really?
The Saudis and Gulfies would cough up $45 billion for investments in Jordan? To do what?
Tourism? Really?
And who would own these enterprises? Lebanon will give its citizenship to the
hordes of Palestinian descended people who inhabit the country? They have firmly resisted this
for decades. Explain all this, someone. pl
Would King Abdullah accept any of Kushner's offers? He knows that at best Kushner will be
around for another 6 years. What happens after? Recent history (past 50 years) shows that the
US can't be trusted in any deal.
According to people I talk with in Israel, when Israel takes over the West Bank the
Palestinians would not be offerred Israeli Citizenship or national voting rights. The theory
is Israel is not annexing the West Bank but just acting as a Civil Administrator. A semantic
justification but Israel would have total control over the West Bank and it's people.
"Would they be round up for transportation to The East?"
Well that would be the irony to end all ironies; the sight of Jews rounding up millions of
citizens, whom the Israeli Reich considers it is better off without. Whoops, forgot we are
not supposed to make comparisons with the folk whose own Deal of the Century was aimed at
bringing about their ethnically pure state.
Colonel, I wonder, how is this brazen collusion with Zionists likely to go down with the
regular people of the Gulf states. Have MbS' bread and forthcoming circuses replaced all
solidarity with the Ummah, or might we see some resistance to this planned grand betrayal of
the Palestinians?
Why would KSA give some of its land to Jordan? Why would "Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states"
finance those "investments"? I don't understand what's in this for SA and the Gulfies.
We might recall that the King of Jordan, heir to the Hashemite kingdom, asserted his
historical claim and authority over the two holy cities (Mecca and Medina) and a good part of
western Saudi Arabia. His declaration to the world came about at the same time as Saddam
overran Kuwait and was preparing to take the Northestern Province of Saudi Arabia and the
oilfiields there. So the current 'deal of the century' would lay to rest those claims,
leaving S.A. with control of the holy cities. The price would be paying off Jordan with
billions and giving them some, but not nearly all the land they had claimed and now
controlled by Saudi Arabia.
It gets better. Looks like an attempt to ensure that Syria can never get its land back.
Striking when Syria is weak. Not sure how the other Arabs will react, if at all.
Via Middle East Monitor,
Israel is planning to settle some 250,000 settlers in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights
over the next 30 years, the Israeli Broadcasting Authority (IBA) revealed yesterday.
Tulsi is a really great polemist with a very sharp mind and ability to find weak points in the opponent platform/argumentation
and withstand pressure. In the debate she will probably will wipe the floor with Trump. IMHO he stands no chances against her in the
open debate
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is for socialism when it comes to taxpayers underwriting military contractors and arms manufacturers. The same money would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country's infrastructure and green economy, and it would be better for humanity. ..."
"... While the paper hailed the fact that the Pentagon's budget increase allowed local workers to keep their jobs and encouraged a skilled workforce to move to a small town in rural Ohio, Gabbard apparently hinted that the whole story in fact described what amounted to re-distribution of money from taxpayers to a de-facto depressed area to save some jobs – a social-democratic if not outright socialist move indeed. ..."
"... In her post, Gabbard also added that the US might have had a better use for a $160 billion boost in defense spending over two years. “The same money would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country’s infrastructure and green economy, and it would be better for humanity,” she wrote. ..."
US President Donald Trump, who has been relentlessly bashing everything linked to what he sees as 'socialism,' is himself no stranger
to using socialist principles to support the US arms industry, Tulsi Gabbard has claimed. One could hardly suspect Trump of being
a socialist in disguise.
After all, the US president has emerged as one of the most ardent critics of the leftist ideological platform.
Just recently, he announced he would "go into the war with some socialists," while apparently referring to his political opponents
from the Democratic Party.
But the president also seems to be quite keen on borrowing some socialist ideas when it fits his agenda, at least, according to
the congresswoman from Hawaii and Democratic presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, who recently wrote in a tweet that "Trump
is for socialism when it comes to taxpayers underwriting military contractors and arms manufacturers."
Trump is for socialism when it comes to taxpayers underwriting military contractors and arms manufacturers. The same money
would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country's infrastructure and green economy, and it would be better for humanity.https://t.co/tcNqsNQVbN
She was referring to a
piece in The Los Angeles Times, which cheerfully reported that Trump's whopping military budget helps to breathe some new life
into a Pentagon-owned tank manufacturing plant somewhere in northwestern Ohio that was once on the verge of a shutdown.
While the paper hailed the fact that the Pentagon's budget increase allowed local workers to keep their jobs and encouraged a
skilled workforce to move to a small town in rural Ohio, Gabbard apparently hinted that the whole story in fact described what amounted
to re-distribution of money from taxpayers to a de-facto depressed area to save some jobs – a social-democratic if not outright socialist
move indeed.
It is very much unclear if Trump had this Ohio plant or any other factories like it in mind when he supported the record Pentagon
budget. After all, redistributing large sums of public money in favor of the booming US military industrial complex does not look
very much like socialism.
In her post, Gabbard also added that the US might have had a better use for a $160 billion
boost in defense
spending over two years. “The same money would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country’s infrastructure and green economy,
and it would be better for humanity,” she wrote.
Trump, meanwhile, seems to be pretty confident that his policies indeed “make America great again” while it is those
pesky socialists that threaten to ruin everything he has achieved. “I love the idea of 'Keep America Great' because you know
what it says is we've made it great now we're going to keep it great because the socialists will destroy it,” he told an audience
of Republican congress members this week, while talking about the forthcoming presidential campaign.
"... This entire article fleshes out one central truth – capitalism as practiced by the US Government inevitably involves war by any and all means, seeking total domination of every human being on the planet, foriegn or native to the US Hegemon. It seeks total rule of the rich and powerful over everyone else. ..."
"Russia is an inalienable and organic part of Greater Europe and European civilization. Our citizens think of themselves as
European. That's why Russia proposes moving towards the creation of a common economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean,
a community referred to by Russian experts as 'the Union of Europe' which will strengthen Russia's potential in its economic pivot
toward the 'New Asia.'" Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, February 2012
The allegations of 'Russian meddling' only make sense if they're put into a broader geopolitical context. Once we realize that
Washington is implementing an aggressive "containment" strategy to militarily encircle Russia and China in order to spread its tentacles
across Central Asian, then we begin to understand that Russia is not the perpetrator of the hostilities and propaganda, but the victim.
The Russia hacking allegations are part of a larger asymmetrical-information war that has been joined by the entire Washington political
establishment. The objective is to methodically weaken an emerging rival while reinforcing US global hegemony.
Try to imagine for a minute, that the hacking claims were not part of a sinister plan by Vladimir Putin "to sow discord and division"
in the United States, but were conjured up to create an external threat that would justify an aggressive response from Washington.
That's what Russiagate is really all about.
US policymakers and their allies in the military and Intelligence agencies, know that relations with Russia are bound to get increasingly
confrontational, mainly because Washington is determined to pursue its ambitious "pivot" to Asia plan. This new regional strategy
focuses on "strengthening bilateral security alliances, expanding trade and investment, and forging a broad-based military presence."
In short, the US is determined to maintain its global supremacy by establishing military outposts across Eurasia, continuing to tighten
the noose around Russia and China, and reinforcing its position as the dominant player in the most populous and prosperous region
in the world. The plan was first presented in its skeletal form by the architect of Washington's plan to rule the world, Zbigniew
Brzezinski. Here's how Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor summed it up in his 1997 magnum opus, The Grand Chessboard:
American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives:
"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia (p.30) .. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically
axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions.
. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its
enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's
known energy resources." ("The Grand Chessboard:American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives", Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic
Books, page 31, 1997)
14 years after those words were written, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took up the banner of imperial expansion and
demanded a dramatic shift in US foreign policy that would focus primarily on increasing America's military footprint in Asia. It
was Clinton who first coined the term "pivot" in a speech she delivered in 2010 titled "America's Pacific Century". Here's an excerpt
from the speech:
"As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot
point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be
smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership,
secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will
therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in the Asia-Pacific
region
Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge
technology ..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia The region already generates more than
half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama's goal of doubling exports by 2015,
we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia and our investment opportunities in Asia's dynamic markets."
("America's Pacific Century", Secretary of State Hillary Clinton", Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)
The pivot strategy is not some trifling rehash of the 19th century "Great Game" promoted by think-tank fantasists and conspiracy
theorists. It is Washington's premier foreign policy doctrine, a 'rebalancing' theory that focuses on increasing US military and
diplomatic presence across the Asian landmass. Naturally, NATO's ominous troop movements on Russia's western flank and Washington's
provocative naval operations in the South China Sea have sent up red flags in Moscow and Beijing. Former Chinese President Hu Jintao
summed it up like this:
"The United States has strengthened its military deployments in the Asia-Pacific region, strengthened the US-Japan military
alliance, strengthened strategic cooperation with India, improved relations with Vietnam, inveigled Pakistan, established a pro-American
government in Afghanistan, increased arms sales to Taiwan, and so on. They have extended outposts and placed pressure points on
us from the east, south, and west."
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been equally critical of Washington's erratic behavior. NATO's eastward expansion has convinced
Putin that the US will continue to be a disruptive force on the continent for the foreseeable future. Both leaders worry that Washington's
relentless provocations will lead to an unexpected clash that will end in war.
Even so, the political class has fully embraced the pivot strategy as a last-gasp attempt to roll back the clock to the post war
era when the world's industrial centers were in ruins and America was the only game in town. Now the center of gravity has shifted
from west to east, leaving Washington with just two options: Allow the emerging giants in Asia to connect their high-speed rail and
gas pipelines to Europe creating the world's biggest free trade zone, or try to overturn the applecart by bullying allies and threatening
rivals, by implementing sanctions that slow growth and send currencies plunging, and by arming jihadist proxies to fuel ethnic hatred
and foment political unrest. Clearly, the choice has already been made. Uncle Sam has decided to fight til the bitter end.
Washington has many ways of dealing with its enemies, but none of these strategies have dampened the growth of its competitors
in the east. China is poised to overtake the US as the world's biggest economy sometime in the next 2 decades while Russia's intervention
in Syria has rolled back Washington's plan to topple Bashar al Assad and consolidate its grip on the resource-rich Middle East. That
plan has now collapsed forcing US policymakers to scrap the War on Terror altogether and switch to a "great power competition" which
acknowledges that the US can no longer unilaterally impose its will wherever it goes. Challenges to America's dominance are emerging
everywhere particularly in the region where the US hopes to reign supreme, Asia.
This is why the entire national security state now stands foursquare behind the improbable pivot plan. It's a desperate "Hail
Mary" attempt to preserve the decaying unipolar world order.
What does that mean in practical terms?
It means that the White House (the National Security Strategy) the Pentagon (National Defense Strategy) and the Intelligence Community
(The Worldwide Threat Assessment) have all drawn up their own respective analyses of the biggest threats the US currently faces.
Naturally, Russia is at the very top of those lists. Russia has derailed Washington's proxy war in Syria, frustrated US attempts
to establish itself across Central Asia, and strengthened ties with the EU hoping to "create a harmonious community of economies
from Lisbon to Vladivostok." (Putin)
Keep in mind, the US does not feel threatened by the possibility of a Russian attack, but by Russia's ability to thwart Washington's
grandiose imperial ambitions in Asia.
As we noted, the National Security Strategy (NSS) is a statutorily mandated document produced by the White House that explains
how the President intends to implement his national security vision. Not surprisingly, the document's main focus is Russia and China.
Here's an excerpt:
"China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They
are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress
their societies and expand their influence." (Neither Russia nor China are attempting to erode American security and prosperity."
They are merely growing their economies and expanding their markets. If US corporations reinvested their capital into factories,
employee training and R and D instead of stock buybacks and executive compensation, then they would be better able to complete globally.)
Here's more: "Through modernized forms of subversive tactics, Russia interferes in the domestic political affairs of countries
around the world." (This is a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black.')
"Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries
target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data." (The western media behemoth is the biggest disinformation
bullhorn the world has ever seen. RT and Sputnik don't hold a candle to the ginormous MSM 'Wurlitzer' that controls the cable news
stations, the newspapers and most of the print media. The Mueller Report proves beyond a doubt that the politically-motivated nonsense
one reads in the media is neither reliably sourced nor trustworthy.)
The Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community is even more explicit in its attacks on Russia. Check it out:
"Threats to US national security will expand and diversify in the coming year, driven in part by China and Russia as they respectively
compete more intensely with the United States and its traditional allies and partners . We assess that Moscow will continue pursuing
a range of objectives to expand its reach, including undermining the US-led liberal international order, dividing Western political
and security institutions, demonstrating Russia's ability to shape global issues, and bolstering Putin's domestic legitimacy.
We assess that Moscow has heightened confidence, based on its success in helping restore the Asad regime's territorial control
in Syria, ·Russia seeks to boost its military presence and political influence in the Mediterranean and Red Seas mediate conflicts,
including engaging in the Middle East Peace Process and Afghanistan reconciliation .
Russia will continue pressing Central Asia's leaders to support Russian-led economic and security initiatives and reduce engagement
with Washington. Russia and China are likely to intensify efforts to build influence in Europe at the expense of US interests
" ("The Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community",
USG )
Notice how the Intelligence Community summary does not suggest that Russia poses an imminent military threat to the US, only that
Russia has restored order in Syria, strengthened ties with China, emerged as an "honest broker" among countries in the Middle East,
and used the free market system to improve relations with its trading partners and grow its economy. The IC appears to find fault
with Russia because it is using the system the US created to better advantage than the US. This is entirely understandable given
Putin's determination to draw Europe and Asia closer together through a region-wide economic integration plan. Here's Putin:
"We must consider more extensive cooperation in the energy sphere, up to and including the formation of a common European energy
complex. The Nord Stream gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea and the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea are important steps
in that direction. These projects have the support of many governments and involve major European energy companies. Once the pipelines
start operating at full capacity, Europe will have a reliable and flexible gas-supply system that does not depend on the political
whims of any nation. This will strengthen the continent's energy security not only in form but in substance. This is particularly
relevant in the light of the decision of some European states to reduce or renounce nuclear energy."
The gas pipelines and high-speed rail are the arteries that will bind the continents together and strengthen the new EU-Asia superstate.
This is Washington's greatest nightmare, a massive, thriving free trade zone beyond its reach and not subject to its rules. In 2012,
Hillary Clinton acknowledged this new threat and promised to do everything in her power to destroy it. Check out this excerpt:
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described efforts to promote greater economic integration in Eurasia as "a move to
re-Sovietize the region." . "We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it,"
she said at an international conference in Dublin on December 6, 2012, Radio Free Europe."
"Slow down or prevent it"?
Why? Because EU-Asia growth and prosperity will put pressure on US debt markets, US corporate interests, US (ballooning) national
debt, and the US Dollar? Is that why Hillary is so committed to sabotaging Putin's economic integration plan?
Indeed, it is. Washington wants to block progress and prosperity in the east in order to extend the lifespan of a doddering and
thoroughly-bankrupt state that is presently $22 trillion in the red but continues to write checks on an overdrawn account.
But Russia shouldn't be blamed for Washington's profligate behavior, that's not Putin's fault. Moscow is merely using the free
market system more effectively that the US.
Now consider the Pentagon's 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) which reiterates many of the same themes as the other two documents.
"Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive military advantage has been eroding. We
are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order -- creating a
security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition,
not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security."
(Naturally, the "security environment" is going to be more challenging when 'regime change' is the cornerstone of one's foreign
policy. Of course, the NDS glosses over that sad fact. Here's more:)
"Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions
of its neighbors ..(Baloney. Russia has been a force for stability in Syria and Ukraine. If Obama had his way, Syria would have wound
up like Iraq, a hellish wastelands occupied by foreign mercenaries. Is that how the Pentagon measures success?) Here's more:
"China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model
"China and Russia are now undermining the international order from within the system .
Get the picture? China and Russia, China and Russia, China and Russia. Bad, bad, bad.
Why? Because they are successfully implementing their own development model which is NOT programed to favor US financial institutions
and corporations. That's the whole thing in a nutshell. The only reason Russia and China are a threat to the "rules-based system",
is because Washington insists on being the only one who makes the rules. That's why foreign leaders are no longer falling in line,
because it's not a fair system.
These assessments represent the prevailing opinion of senior-level policymakers across the spectrum. (The White House, the Pentagon
and the Intelligence Community) The USG is unanimous in its judgement that a harsher more combative approach is needed to deal with
Russia and China. Foreign policy elites want to put the nation on the path to more confrontation, more conflict and more war. At
the same time, none of these three documents suggest that Russia has any intention of launching an attack on the United States. The
greatest concern is the effect that emerging competitors will have on Washington's provocative plan for military and economic expansion,
the threat that Russia and China pose to America's tenuous grip on global power. It is that fear that drives US foreign policy.
And this is broader context into which we must fit the Russia investigation. The reason the Russia hacking furor has been allowed
to flourish and spread despite the obvious lack of any supporting evidence, is because the vilifying of Russia segues perfectly with
the geopolitical interests of elites in the government. The USG now works collaboratively with the media to influence public attitudes
on issues that are important to the powerful foreign policy establishment. The ostensible goal of these psychological operations
(PSYOP) is to selectively use information on "audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately
the behavior of organizations, groups, and individuals."
The USG now sees the minds of ordinary Americans as a legitimate target for their influence campaigns. They regard attitudes and
perceptions as "the cognitive domain of the
The emerging Euro-Asian power block is very heterogeneous. Russia, China, and the smaller affiliated players like Central Asia,
Iran, Syria, Turkey don't agree on almost anything. They have different cultures, religions, economies, demographic profiles,
even writing systems. The most rational strategy to prevent the Euro-Asian block from consolidating would be to get them to fight
each other. Alternatively, find the weakest link and attack it in an area where its reluctant allies don't share its interests.
Exactly the opposite has happened in the last 5-10 years: US has seemingly worked overtime to get China-Russia alliance of
the ground. They used to distrust each other, today, after Ukraine, South China See, etc they have become close allies. Same with
Iran and Syria: instead of letting them stew in their own internal problems – mostly religious and having a nepotistic elite –
US has managed to turn the fight into an external geo-political struggle, literally invited Russia to join in, and ended up losing.
Bush turned Iraq from a fanatically anti-Iran bastion to a reliable ally of Iran and started an un-winnable land war in Afghanistan
(incredible!). Obama turned Libya, the richest and most stable African country that threatened no-one and kept African migrants
far away, into a chaotic hellhole where slave trade flourishes and millions of Sub-Saharan Africans can use it to move on to Europe.
Then Obama tried to coup-de-etat Erdogan in Turkey, and – even worse – failed miserably. This gang can't shoot straight
– whatever they put in their position papers is meaningless drivel because they are too stupid to think. They have no patience
to wait for the right time to move, no ability to manage on the ground allies, and an aversion to casualties that makes winning
a war impossible. Today Trump threatens Germany over its energy security (pipelines), further antagonises Turkey and Erdogan,
watches helplessly as EU becomes the next UN (lame and irrelevant), and bets everything on a few small allies like Saudi Arabia
and Izrael that are of almost no use in Euro-Asia.
A guy who says about the Russia-gate collusion fiasco that ' maybe I had bad information ' is no master of the universe.
And he run the joint under Obama. Complaining about Russia saying bad stuff about you – or ' information warfare ' – is
a pathetic sign of weakness. Maybe the testosterone levels have dropped more than we have been told.
the russophobia is just drama to keep the MIC spending at $700+ billion per year
there is no way to justify that level of spending and pretend they don't have $25 billion one time to actually help solve the
real problem for the U.S.
"The USG now sees the minds of ordinary Americans as a legitimate target for their influence campaigns. They regard attitudes
and perceptions as "the cognitive domain of the battlespace" which they must exploit in order to build public support for their
vastly unpopular wars and interventions. "
Here is a short guide on how to detect subversion of the mind by the media and their handlers by a former military intelligence
officer.
If one recognizes that Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy & Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997)" in replacing
"Lebensraum" with "control over Eurasia", "Tausendjähriges Reich" with "American Primacy" and providing our 'elite' with an "realist"
and "amoral" excuse to act completely and consistently immoral one has to recognize too that this "Grand Chessboard" is an amalgamation
of 'Mein Kampf' and 'Il Principe".
Reluctant to use that Hitler comparison one ought to read the Introduction of the "Grand Chessboard" in which Brzezinki himself
proudly refers to both Hitler and Stalin sharing his ideas about control over Eurasia as a prerequisite for that "American Primacy".
Recognizing this however one can't escape the conclusion that this "Grand Chessboard" with its consistent 'amoral realist imperatives'
is serving up inherently immoral 'imperatives' as inescapable options dressed up in academic language and with absolutely abhorrent
arrogance.
Stating that Brennan's Russophobia is somehow a degeneration of Brzezinki's "Grand Chessboard" is completely overlooking how
difficult it would be to outdo Brzezinki's own total moral degeneration.
One has to recognize that by now the only bipartisan aspect of US policy can be found in sharing these despicable and immoral
'imperatives' to maintain that "American Primacy" at all cost (of course to the rest of the world).
"The allegations of 'Russian meddling' only make sense if they're put into a broader geopolitical context. Once we realize that
Washington is implementing an aggressive "containment" strategy to militarily encircle Russia and China in order to spread its
tentacles across Central Asian, then we begin to understand that Russia is not the perpetrator of the hostilities and propaganda,
but the victim. The Russia hacking allegations are part of a larger asymmetrical-information war that has been joined by the entire
Washington political establishment. The objective is to methodically weaken an emerging rival while reinforcing US global hegemony."
TRUE!
I would suggest that the initials 'US' in the final sentence be changed to: Anglo-Zionist Empire.
"Now the center of gravity has shifted from west to east, leaving Washington with just two options: Allow the emerging giants
in Asia to connect their high-speed rail and gas pipelines to Europe creating the world's biggest free trade zone, or try to overturn
the applecart by bullying allies and threatening rivals, by implementing sanctions that slow growth and send currencies plunging,
and by arming jihadist proxies to fuel ethnic hatred and foment political unrest. Clearly, the choice has already been made. Uncle
Sam has decided to fight til the bitter end."
Just like the Brit Empire – of which the Yank Empire is merely Part 2, the part where it becomes obvious that it is the Anglo-Zionist
Empire, which, like a band of screeching Pharisees standing on the walls of Jerusalem hurling curses at the Romans they inform
that Jehovah will soon wipe out all Romans to save His Chosen Race, would choose utter destruction for all over any common sense
backing down to prevent mass slaughter.
Nothing harmed US more than Brzezinski's ideology. US did build up far east with their investments, while neglecting their own
backyard. US should have build up rather North and South America and make it the envy of the world. Neglecting particularly South
America now created Desperate south American people, who have no jobs and no future and these people are now invading US.
A guy who says about the Russia-gate collusion fiasco that 'maybe I had bad information' is no master of the universe. And
he run the joint under Obama. Complaining about Russia saying bad stuff about you – or 'information warfare' – is a pathetic
sign of weakness. Maybe the testosterone levels have dropped more than we have been told.
Testosterone plus steady, unrelenting decline and corruption of American "elites" most of who have no background in any fields
related to actual effective governance especially in national security (military) and diplomatic fields. Zbig's book is also nothing
more than doctrine-mongering based on complete lack of understanding of Russian history.
Reluctant to use that Hitler comparison one ought to read the Introduction of the "Grand Chessboard" in which Brzezinki
himself proudly refers to both Hitler and Stalin sharing his ideas about control over Eurasia as a prerequisite for that "American
Primacy".
Zbig was a political "scientist" (which is not a science) by education, fact aggravated by his Russophobia, and thus inability
to grasp fundamentals of military power and warfare–a defining characteristic of American "elites". He, obviously, missed on the
military-technological development of 1970s through 1990s, to arrive to the inevitable conclusion that classic "geopolitics" doesn't
apply anymore. Today we all can observe how it doesn't apply and is made obsolete.
(Jan.1998) US history – "How Jimmy Carter I Started the Mujahideen" – Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor 1977-1981
"Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services
began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security
adviser to President Carter.
Zbigniew Brzezinski Taliban Pakistan Afghanistan pep talk 1979
In 1979 Carters National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski went into Pakistans border regions with Afghanistan to give
a little pep talk to some prospective majehadeen (Holy Warriors). In a 1997 interview for CNN's Cold War Series, Brzezinski hinted
about the Carter Administration's proactive Afghanistan policy before the Soviet invasion in 1979, that he had conceived.
@DESERT FOX Why was it that the Brit Empire kept acting throughout the later 18th, the 19th and early 20th centuries to harm
Russia, even when it technically was allied with Russia? Why the Crimean War, for example?
Why, for example, was Brit secret service all over the assassination of Rasputin and tied in multiple ways to most non-Marxist
revolutionary groups?
This entire article fleshes out one central truth – capitalism as practiced by the US Government inevitably involves war by
any and all means, seeking total domination of every human being on the planet, foriegn or native to the US Hegemon. It seeks
total rule of the rich and powerful over everyone else.
@anon Like the Ukranians, the 'Balts' virtually always are controlled by somebody else. When Russia does not control the Baltic
states, they are controlled by either Poles or Germans. Russians know what that means: the Baltic states are then used as weapons
to attack Russia.
The region is much calmer when Russia controls the Baltic states, and that is before taking into consideration how the Polish-Lithuanian
Empire turned its Jews lose to terrorize all Orthodox Christians and how Germanic states later used Lutheranism as a force in
the Baltics to ignite war with Russia and, under the queer Frederick the Great also used Jewish bankers to finance wars against
Russia.
@Rurik Upon consideration, what Putin should do is set up a "Free" German government in
Königsburg just like the US is doing with Gaido in Venezuela. Get China to recognize it.
Then they should start negotiating lucrative contracts, treaties and alliances between the
Free Germans and the rest of OBOR. It would be fascinating to see how ZOG reacted.
Oh, and most important of all, declare a new debt free currency, perhaps gold backed. I
could live with the Reichsmark.
@JR ssaid:
If one recognizes that Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy & Its
Geostrategic Imperatives (1997)" in replacing "Lebensraum" with "control over Eurasia",
"Tausendjähriges Reich" with "American Primacy" and providing our 'elite' with an
"realist" and "amoral" excuse to act completely and consistently immoral one has to recognize
too that this "Grand Chessboard" is an amalgamation of 'Mein Kampf' and 'Il Principe".
Except that Germany did not send Germans into the conquered territories during WWII,
though they wanted to do so.
Junk author, junk book of the butcher of Yugoslavia who would be hanged with Bill clinton by
Nuremberg Tribunal for crimes against peace. Albright is not bright at all. she a female bully
and that shows.
Mostly projection. And this arrogant warmonger like to exercise in Russophobia (which was the
main part of the USSR which saved the world fro fascism, sacrificing around 20 million people)
This book is book of denial of genocide against Iraqis and Serbian population where bombing with
uranium enriched bombs doubled cancer cases.If you can pass over those facts that this book is
for you.
Like Robert Kagan and other neocons Albright is waiving authoritarism dead chicken again and
again. that's silly and disingenuous. authoritarism is a method of Governance used in military.
It is not an ideology. Fascism is an ideology, a flavor of far right nationalism. Kind of
"enhanced" by some socialist ideas far right nationalism.
The view of fascism without economic circumstances that create fascism, and first of
immiseration of middle and working class and high level of unemployment is a primitive
ahistorical view. Fascism is the ultimate capitalist statism acting simultaneously as the civil
religion for the population also enforced by the power of the state. It has a lot of common with
neoliberalism, that's why neoliberalism is sometimes called "inverted totalitarism".
In reality fascism while remaining the dictatorship of capitalists for capitalist and the
national part of financial oligarchy, it like neoliberalism directed against working class
fascism comes to power on the populist slogans of righting wrong by previous regime and kicking
foreign capitalists and national compradors (which in Germany turned to be mostly Jewish)
out.
It comes to power under the slogans of stopping the distribution of wealth up and elimination
of the class of reinters -- all citizens should earn income, not get it from bond and other
investments (often in reality doing completely the opposite).
While intrinsically connected and financed by a sizable part of national elite which often
consist of far right military leadership, a part of financial oligarchy and large part of lower
middle class (small properties) is is a protest movement which want to revenge for the
humiliation and prefer military style organization of the society to democracy as more potent
weapon to achieve this goal.
Like any far right movement the rise of fascism and neo-fascism is a sign of internal problem
within a given society, often a threat to the state or social order.
Still another noted that Fascism is often linked to people who are part of a distinct ethnic
or racial group, who are under economic stress, and who feel that they are being denied rewards
to which they are entitled. "It's not so much what people have." she said, "but what they think
they should have -- and what they fear." Fear is why Fascism's emotional reach can extend to
all levels of society. No political movement can flourish without popular support, but Fascism
is as dependent on the wealthy and powerful as it is on the man or woman in the street -- on
those who have much to lose and those who have nothing at all.
This insight made us think that Fascism should perhaps be viewed less as a political
ideology than as a means for seizing and holding power. For example, Italy in the 1920s
included self-described Fascists of the left (who advocated a dictatorship of the
dispossessed), of the right (who argued for an authoritarian corporatist state), and of the
center (who sought a return to absolute monarchy). The German National Socialist Party (the
Nazis) originally came together ar ound a list of demands that ca- tered to anti-Semites,
anti-immigrants, and anti-capitalists but also advocated for higher old-age pensions, more
educational op- portunities for the poor, an end to child labor, and improved ma- ternal health
care. The Nazis were racists and, in their own minds, reformers at the same time.
If Fascism concerns itself less with specific policies than with finding a pathway to power,
what about the tactics of lead- ership? My students remarked that the Fascist chiefs we remem-
ber best were charismatic. Through one method or another, each established an emotional link to
the crowd and, like the central figure in a cult, brought deep and often ugly feelings to the
sur- face. This is how the tentacles of Fascism spread inside a democ- racy. Unlike a monarchy
or a military dictatorship imposed on society from above. Fascism draws energy from men and
women who are upset because of a lost war, a lost job, a memory of hu- miliation, or a sense
that their country is in steep decline. The more painful the grounds for resentment, the easier
it is for a Fascist leader to gam followers by dangling the prospect of re- newal or by vowing
to take back what has been stolen.
Like the mobilizers of more benign movements, these secular evangelists exploit the
near-universal human desire to be part of a meaningful quest. The more gifted among them have
an apti- tude for spectacle -- for orchestrating mass gatherings complete with martial music,
incendiary rhetoric, loud cheers, and arm-
lifting salutes. To loyalists, they offer the prize of membership in a club from which
others, often the objects of ridicule, are kept out. To build fervor, Fascists tend to be
aggressive, militaristic, and -- when circumstances allow -- expansionist. To secure the
future, they turn schools into seminaries for true believers, striv- ing to produce "new men"
and "new women" who will obey without question or pause. And, as one of my students observed,
"a Fascist who launches his career by being voted into office will have a claim to legitimacy
that others do not."
After climbing into a position of power, what comes next: How does a Fascist consolidate
authority? Here several students piped up: "By controlling information." Added another, "And
that's one reason we have so much cause to worry today." Most of us have thought of the
technological revolution primarily as a means for people from different walks of life to
connect with one another, trade ideas, and develop a keener understanding of why men and women
act as they do -- in other words, to sharpen our perceptions of truth. That's still the case,
but now we are not so sure. There is a troubling "Big Brother" angle because of the mountain of
personal data being uploaded into social media. If an advertiser can use that information to
home in on a consumer because of his or her individual interests, what's to stop a Fascist
government from doing the same? "Suppose I go to a demonstra- tion like the Women's March,"
said a student, "and post a photo
on social media. My name gets added to a list and that list can end up anywhere. How do we
protect ourselves against that?"
Even more disturbing is the ability shown by rogue regimes and their agents to spread lies
on phony websites and Facebook. Further, technology has made it possible for extremist
organiza- tions to construct echo chambers of support for conspiracy theo- ries, false
narratives, and ignorant views on religion and race. This is the first rule of deception:
repeated often enough, almost any statement, story, or smear can start to sound plausible. The
Internet should be an ally of freedom and a gateway to knowledge; in some cases, it is
neither.
Historian Robert Paxton begins one of his books by assert- ing: "Fascism was the major
political innovation of the twentieth century, and the source of much of its pain." Over the
years, he and other scholars have developed lists of the many moving parts that Fascism
entails. Toward the end of our discussion, my class sought to articulate a comparable list.
Fascism, most of the students agreed, is an extreme form of authoritarian rule. Citizens are
required to do exactly what lead- ers say they must do, nothing more, nothing less. The
doctrine is linked to rabid nationalism. It also turns the traditional social contract upside
down. Instead of citizens giving power to the state in exchange for the protection of their
rights, power begins with the leader, and the people have no rights. Under Fascism,
the mission of citizens is to serve; the government's job is to rule.
When one talks about this subject, confusion often arises about the difference between
Fascism and such related concepts as totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, tyranny,
autocracy, and so on. As an academic, I might be tempted to wander into that thicket, but as a
former diplomat, I am primarily concerned with actions, not labels. To my mind, a Fascist is
someone who identifies strongly with and claims to speak for a whole nation or group, is
unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use whatever means are necessary --
including violence -- to achieve his or her goals. In that conception, a Fascist will likely be
a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist.
Often the difference can be seen in who is trusted with the guns. In seventeenth-century
Europe, when Catholic aristocrats did battle with Protestant aristocrats, they fought over
scripture but agreed not to distribute weapons to their peasants, thinking it safer to wage war
with mercenary armies. Modern dictators also tend to be wary of their citizens, which is why
they create royal guards and other elite security units to ensure their personal safe- ty. A
Fascist, however, expects the crowd to have his back. Where kings try to settle people down,
Fascists stir them up so that when the fighting begins, their foot soldiers have the will and
the firepower to strike first.
Hypocrisy at its worst from a lady who advocated hawkish foreign policy which included the
most sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam, when, in 1998, Clinton began almost daily
attacks on Iraq in the so-called no-fly zones, and made so-called regime change in Iraq
official U.S. policy.
In May of 1996, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Madeleine Albright, who at the time was
Clinton's U.N. ambassador. Correspondent Leslie Stahl said to Albright, in connection with
the Clinton administration presiding over the most devastating regime of sanctions in history
that the U.N. estimated took the lives of as many as a million Iraqis, the vast majority of
them children. , "We have heard that a half-million children have died. I mean, that's more
children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and, you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think
the price is worth it.
While I found much of the story-telling in "Fascism" engaging, I come away expecting much
more of one of our nation's pre-eminent senior diplomats . In a nutshell, she has devoted a
whole volume to describing the ascent of intolerant fascism and its many faces, but punted on
the question "How should we thwart fascism going forward?"
Even that question leaves me a bit unsatisfied, since it is couched in double-negative
syntax. The thing there is an appetite for, among the readers of this book who are looking
for more than hand-wringing about neofascism, is a unifying title or phrase which captures in
single-positive syntax that which Albright prefers over fascism. What would that be? And, how
do we pursue it, nurture it, spread it and secure it going forward? What is it?
I think Albright would perhaps be willing to rally around "Good Government" as the theme
her book skirts tangentially from the dark periphery of fascistic government. "Virtuous
Government"? "Effective Government"? "Responsive Government"?
People concerned about neofascism want to know what we should be doing right now to avoid
getting sidetracked into a dark alley of future history comparable to the Nazi brown shirt or
Mussolini black shirt epochs. Does Albright present a comprehensive enough understanding of
fascism to instruct on how best to avoid it? Or, is this just another hand-wringing exercise,
a la "you'll know it when you see it", with a proactive superficiality stuck at the level of
pejorative labelling of current styles of government and national leaders? If all you can say
is what you don't want, then the challenge of threading the political future of the US is
left unruddered. To make an analogy to driving a car, if you don't know your destination, and
only can get navigational prompts such as "don't turn here" or "don't go down that street",
then what are the chances of arriving at a purposive destination?
The other part of this book I find off-putting is that Albright, though having served as
Secretary of State, never talks about the heavy burden of responsibility that falls on a head
of state. She doesn't seem to empathize at all with the challenge of top leadership. Her
perspective is that of the detached critic. For instance, in discussing President Duterte of
the Philippines, she fails to paint the dire situation under which he rose to national
leadership responsibility: Islamic separatists having violently taken over the entire city of
Marawi, nor the ubiquitous spread of drug cartel power to the level where control over law
enforcement was already ceded to the gangs in many places...entire islands and city
neighborhoods run by mafia organizations. It's easy to sit back and criticize Duterte's
unleashing of vigilante justice -- What was Mrs. Albright's better alternative to regain
ground from vicious, well-armed criminal organizations? The distancing from leadership
responsibility makes Albright's treatment of the Philippines twin crises of gang-rule and
Islamist revolutionaries seem like so much academic navel-gazing....OK for an undergrad
course at Georgetown maybe, but unworthy of someone who served in a position of high
responsibility. Duterte is liked in the Philippines. What he did snapped back the power of
the cartels, and returned a deserved sense of security to average Philippinos (at least those
not involved with narcotics). Is that not good government, given the horrendous circumstances
Duterte came up to deal with? What lack of responsibility in former Philippine leadership
allowed things to get so out of control? Is it possible that Democrats and liberals are
afraid to be tough, when toughness is what is needed? I'd much rather read an account from an
average Philippino about the positive impacts of the vigilante campaign, than listen of
Madame Secretary sermonizing out of context about Duterte. OK, he's not your idea of a nice
guy. Would you rather sit back, prattle on about the rule of law and due process while
Islamic terrorists wrest control over where you live? Would you prefer the leadership of a
drug cartel boss to Duterte?
My critique is offered in a constructive manner. I would certainly encourage Albright (or
anyone!) to write a book in a positive voice about what it's going to take to have good
national government in the US going forward, and to help spread such abundance globally. I
would define "good" as the capability to make consistently good policy decisions, ones that
continue to look good in hindsight, 10, 20 or 30 years later. What does that take?
I would submit that the essential "preserving democracy" process component is having a
population that is adequately prepared for collaborative problem-solving. Some understanding
of history is helpful, but it's simply not enough. Much more essential is for every young
person to experience team problem-solving, in both its cooperative and competitive aspects.
Every young person needs to experience a team leadership role, and to appreciate what it
takes from leaders to forge constructive design from competing ideas and champions. Only
after serving as a referee will a young person understand the limits to "passion" that
individual contributors should bring to the party. Only after moderating and herding cats
will a young person know how to interact productively with leaders and other contributors.
Much of the skill is counter-instinctual. It's knowing how to express ideas...how to field
criticism....how to nudge people along in the desired direction...and how to avoid ad-hominem
attacks, exaggerations, accusations and speculative grievances. It's learning how to manage
conflict productively toward excellence. Way too few of our young people are learning these
skills, and way too few of our journalists know how to play a constructive role in managing
communications toward successful complex problem-solving. Albright's claim that a
journalist's job is primarily to "hold leaders accountable" really betrays an absolving of
responsibility for the media as a partner in good government -- it doesn't say whether the
media are active players on the problem-solving team (which they have to be for success), or
mere spectators with no responsibility for the outcome. If the latter, then journalism
becomes an irritant, picking at the scabs over and over, but without any forward progress.
When the media takes up a stance as an "opponent" of leadership, you end up with poor
problem-solving results....the system is fighting itself instead of making forward
progress.
"Fascism" doesn't do nearly enough to promote the teaching of practical civics 101 skills,
not just to the kids going into public administration, but to everyone. For, it is in the
norms of civility, their ability to be practiced, and their defense against excesses, that
fascism (e.g., Antifa) is kept at bay.
Everyone in a democracy has to know the basics:
• when entering a disagreement, don't personalize it
• never demonize an opponent
• keep a focus on the goal of agreement and moving forward
• never tell another person what they think, but ask (non-rhetorically) what they think
then be prepared to listen and absorb
• do not speak untruths or exaggerate to make an argument
• do not speculate grievance
• understand truth gathering as a process; detect when certainty is being bluffed;
question sources
• recognize impasse and unproductive argumentation and STOP IT
• know how to introduce a referee or moderator to regain productive collaboration
• avoid ad hominem attacks
• don't take things personally that wrankle you;
• give the benefit of the doubt in an ambiguous situation
• don't jump to conclusions
• don't reward theatrical manipulation
These basics of collaborative problem-solving are the guts of a "liberal democracy" that
can face down the most complex challenges and dilemmas.
I gave the book 3 stars for the great story-telling, and Albright has been part of a great
story of late 20th century history. If she would have told us how to prevent fascism going
forward, and how to roll it back in "hard case" countries like North Korea and Sudan, I would
have given her a 5. I'm not that interested in picking apart the failure cases of
history...they teach mostly negative exemplars. Much rather I would like to read about
positive exemplars of great national government -- "great" defined by popular acclaim, by the
actual ones governed. Where are we seeing that today? Canada? Australia? Interestingly, both
of these positive exemplars have strict immigration policies.
Is it possible that Albright is just unable, by virtue of her narrow escape from Communist
Czechoslovakia and acceptance in NYC as a transplant, to see that an optimum immigration
policy in the US, something like Canada's or Australia's, is not the looming face of fascism,
but rather a move to keep it safely in its corner in coming decades? At least, she admits to
her being biased by her life story.
That suggests her views on refugees and illegal immigrants as deserving of unlimited
rights to migrate into the US might be the kind of cloaked extremism that she is warning us
about.
Albright's book is a comprehensive look at recent history regarding the rise and fall of
fascist leaders; as well as detailing leaders in nations that are starting to mimic fascist
ideals. Instead of a neat definition, she uses examples to bolster her thesis of what are
essential aspects of fascism. Albright dedicates each section of the book to a leader or
regime that enforces fascist values and conveys this to the reader through historical events
and exposition while also peppering in details of her time as Secretary of State. The climax
(and 'warning'), comes at the end, where Albright applies what she has been discussing to the
current state of affairs in the US and abroad.
Overall, I would characterize this as an enjoyable and relatively easy read. I think the
biggest strength of this book is how Albright uses history, previous examples of leaders and
regimes, to demonstrate what fascism looks like and contributing factors on a national and
individual level. I appreciated that she lets these examples speak for themselves of the
dangers and subtleties of a fascist society, which made the book more fascinating and less of
a textbook. Her brief descriptions of her time as Secretary of State were intriguing and made
me more interested in her first book, 'Madame Secretary'. The book does seem a bit slow as it
is not until the end that Albright blatantly reveals the relevance of all of the history
relayed in the first couple hundred pages. The last few chapters are dedicated to the reveal:
the Trump administration and how it has affected global politics. Although, she never
outright calls Trump a fascist, instead letting the reader decide based on his decisions and
what you have read in the book leading up to this point, her stance is quite clear by the
end. I was surprised at what I shared politically with Albright, mainly in immigration and a
belief of empathy and understanding for others. However, I got a slight sense of
anti-secularism in the form of a disdain for those who do not subscribe to an Abrahamic
religion and she seemed to hint at this being partly an opening to fascism.
I also could have done without the both-sides-ism she would occasionally push, which seems
to be a tactic used to encourage people to 'unite against Trump'. These are small annoyances
I had with the book, my main critique is the view Albright takes on democracy. If anything,
the book should have been called "Democracy: the Answer" because that is the most consistent
stance Albright takes throughout. She seems to overlook many of the atrocities the US and
other nations have committed in the name of democracy and the negative consequences of
capitalism, instead, justifying negative actions with the excuse of 'it is for democracy and
everyone wants that' and criticizing those who criticize capitalism.
She does not do a good job of conveying the difference between a communist country like
Russia and a socialist country like those found in Scandinavia and seems okay with the idea
of the reader lumping them all together in a poor light. That being said, I would still
recommend this book for anyone's TBR as the message is essential for today, that the current
world of political affairs is, at least somewhat, teetering on a precipice and we are in need
of as many strong leaders as possible who are willing to uphold democratic ideals on the
world stage and mindful constituents who will vote them in.
The book is very well written, easy to read, and follows a pretty standard formula making
it accessible to the average reader. However, it suffers immensely from, what I suspect are,
deeply ingrained political biases from the author.
Whilst I don't dispute the criteria the author applies in defining fascism, or the targets
she cites as examples, the first bias creeps in here when one realises the examples chosen
are traditional easy targets for the US (with the exception of Turkey). The same criteria
would define a country like Singapore perfectly as fascist, yet the country (or Malaysia)
does not receive a mention in the book.
Further, it grossly glosses over what Ms. Albright terms facist traits from the US
governments of the past. If the author is to be believed, the CIA is holier than thou, never
intervened anywhere or did anything that wasn't with the best interests of democracy at
heart, and American foreign policy has always existed to build friendships and help out their
buddies. To someone ingrained in this rhetoric for years I am sure this is an easy pill to
swallow, but to the rest of the world it makes a number of assertions in the book come across
as incredibly naive. out of 5 stars
Trite and opaque
We went with my husband to the presentation of this book at UPenn with Albright before it
came out and Madeleine's spunk, wit and just glorious brightness almost blinded me. This is a
2.5 star book, because 81 year old author does not really tell you all there is to tell when
she opens up on a subject in any particular chapter, especially if it concerns current US
interest.
Lets start from the beginning of the book. What really stood out, the missing 3rd Germany
ally, Japan and its emperor. Hirohito (1901-1989) was emperor of Japan from 1926 until his
death in 1989. He took over at a time of rising democratic sentiment, but his country soon
turned toward ultra-nationalism and militarism. During World War II (1939-45), Japan attacked
nearly all of its Asian neighbors, allied itself with Nazi Germany and launched a surprise
assault on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, forcing US to enter the war in 1941. Hirohito
was never indicted as a war criminal! does he deserve at least a chapter in her book?
Oh and by the way, did author mention anything about sanctions against Germany for
invading Austria, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Poland? Up until the Pearl Harbor USA and
Germany still traded, although in March 1939, FDR slapped a 25% tariff on all German goods.
Like Trump is doing right now to some of US trading partners.
Next monster that deserves a chapter on Genocide in cosmic proportions post WW2 is
communist leader of China Mao Zedung. Mr Dikötter, who has been studying Chinese rural
history from 1958 to 1962, when the nation was facing a famine, compared the systematic
torture, brutality, starvation and killing of Chinese peasants compares to the Second World
War in its magnitude. At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in
China over these four years; the total worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55
million.
We learn that Argentina has given sanctuary to Nazi war criminals, but she forgets to
mention that 88 Nazi scientists arrived in the United States in 1945 and were promptly put to
work. For example, Wernher von Braun was the brains behind the V-2 rocket program, but had
intimate knowledge of what was going on in the concentration camps. Von Braun himself
hand-picked people from horrific places, including Buchenwald concentration camp. Tsk-Tsk
Madeline.
What else? Oh, lets just say that like Madelaine Albright my husband is Jewish and lost
extensive family to Holocoust. Ukrainian nationalists executed his great grandfather on
gistapo orders, his great grandmother disappeared in concentration camp, grandfather was
conscripted in june 1940 and decommissioned september 1945 and went through war as
infantryman through 3 fronts earning several medals. his grandmother, an ukrainian born jew
was a doctor in a military hospital in Saint Petersburg survived famine and saved several
children during blockade. So unlike Maideline who was raised as a Roman Catholic, my husband
grew up in a quiet jewish family in that territory that Stalin grabbed from Poland in 1939,
in a polish turn ukrainian city called Lvov(Lemberg). His family also had to ask for an
asylum, only they had to escape their home in Ukraine in 1991. He was told then "You are a
nice little Zid (Jew), we will kill you last" If you think things in ukraine changed, think
again, few weeks ago in Kiev Roma gypsies were killed and injured during pogroms, and nobody
despite witnesses went to jail. Also during demonstrations openly on the streets C14 unit is
waving swastikas and Heils. Why is is not mentioned anywhere in the book? is is because
Hunter Biden sits on the board of one of Ukraine's largest natural gas companies called
Burisma since May 14, 2014, and Ukraine has an estimated 127.9 trillion cubic feet of
unproved technically recoverable shale gas resources? ( according to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA).1 The most promising shale reserves appear to be in the
Carpathian Foreland Basin (also called the Lviv-Volyn Basin), which extends across Western
Ukraine from Poland into Romania, and the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the East (which borders
Russia).
Wow, i bet you did not know that. how ugly are politics, even this book that could have been
so much greater if the author told the whole ugly story. And how scary that there are
countries where you can go and openly be fascist.
To me, Fascism fails for the single reason that no two fascist leaders are alike. Learning
about one or a few, in a highly cursory fashion like in this book or in great detail, is
unlikely to provide one with any answers on how to prevent the rise of another or fend
against some such. And, as much as we are witnessing the rise of numerous democratic or
quasi-democratic "strongmen" around the world in global politics, it is difficult to brand
any of them as fascist in the orthodox sense.
As the author writes at the outset, it is difficult to separate a fascist from a tyrant or
a dictator. A fascist is a majoritarian who rouses a large group under some national, racial
or similar flag with rallying cries demanding suppression or exculcation of those excluded
from this group. A typical fascist leader loves her yes-men and hates those who disagree: she
does not mind using violence to suppress dissidents. A fascist has no qualms using propaganda
to popularize the agreeable "facts" and theories while debunking the inconvenient as lies.
What is not discussed explicitly in the book are perhaps some positive traits that separate
fascists from other types of tyrants: fascists are rarely lazy, stupid or prone to doing
things for only personal gains. They differ from the benevolent dictators for their record of
using heavy oppression against their dissidents. Fascists, like all dictators, change rules
to suit themselves, take control of state organizations to exercise total control and use
"our class is the greatest" and "kick others" to fuel their programs.
Despite such a detailed list, each fascist is different from each other. There is little
that even Ms Albright's fascists - from Mussolini and Hitler to Stalin to the Kims to Chavez
or Erdogan - have in common. In fact, most of the opponents of some of these
dictators/leaders would calll them by many other choice words but not fascists. The
circumstances that gave rise to these leaders were highly different and so were their rules,
methods and achievements.
The point, once again, is that none of the strongmen leaders around the world could be
easily categorized as fascists. Or even if they do, assigning them with such a tag and
learning about some other such leaders is unlikely to help. The history discussed in the book
is interesting but disjointed, perfunctory and simplistic. Ms Albright's selection is also
debatable.
Strong leaders who suppress those they deem as opponents have wreaked immense harms and
are a threat to all civil societies. They come in more shades and colours than terms we have
in our vocabulary (dictators, tyrants, fascists, despots, autocrats etc). A study of such
tyrant is needed for anyone with an interest in history, politics, or societal well-being.
Despite Ms Albright's phenomenal knowledge, experience, credentials, personal history and
intentions, this book is perhaps not the best place to objectively learn much about the risks
from the type of things some current leaders are doing or deeming as right.
Each time I get concerned about Trump's rhetoric or past actions I read idiotic opinions,
like those of our second worst ever Secretary of State, and come to appreciate him more.
Pejorative terms like fascism or populism have no place in a rational policy discussion. Both
are blatant attempts to apply a pejorative to any disagreeing opinion. More than half of the
book is fluffed with background of Albright, Hitler and Mussolini. Wikipedia is more
informative. The rest has snippets of more modern dictators, many of whom are either
socialists or attained power through a reaction to failed socialism, as did Hitler. She
squirms mightily to liken Trump to Hitler. It's much easier to see that Sanders is like
Maduro. The USA is following a path more like Venezuela than Germany.
Her history misses that Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist, and Nazism in
Germany was a reaction to Wiemar socialism. The danger of fascism in the US is far greater
from the left than from the right. America is far left of where the USSR ever was. Remember
than Marx observed that Russia was not ready for a proletarian revolution. The USA with ready
made capitalism for reform fits Marx's pattern much better. Progressives deny that Sanders
and Warren are socialists. If not they are what Lenin called "useful idiots."
Albright says that she is proud of the speech where she called the USA the 'Indispensable
Nation.' She should be ashamed. Obama followed in his inaugural address, saying that we are
"the indispensable nation, responsible for world security." That turned into a policy of
human rights interventions leading to open ended wars (Syria, Yemen), nations in chaos
(Libya), and distrust of the USA (Egypt, Russia, Turkey, Tunisia, Israel, NK). Trump now has
to make nice with dictators to allay their fears that we are out to replace them.
She admires the good intentions of human rights intervention, ignoring the results. She says
Obama had some success without citing a single instance. He has apologized for Libya, but
needs many more apologies. She says Obama foreign policy has had some success, with no
mention of a single instance. Like many progressives, she confuses good intentions with
performance. Democracy spreading by well intentioned humanitarian intervention has resulted
in a succession of open ended war or anarchy.
The shorter histories of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Venezuela are much more
informative, although more a warning against socialism than right wing fascism. Viktor Orban
in Hungary is another reaction to socialism.
Albright ends the book with a forlorn hope that we need a Lincoln or Mandela, exactly what
our two party dictatorship will not generate as it yields ever worse and worse candidates for
our democracy to vote upon, even as our great society utopia generates ever more power for
weak presidents to spend our money and continue wrong headed foreign policy.
The greatest danger to the USA is not fascism, but of excessively poor leadership
continuing our slow slide to the bottom.
@Rurik Upon consideration, what Putin should do is set up a "Free" German government in
Königsburg just like the US is doing with Gaido in Venezuela. Get China to recognize it.
Then they should start negotiating lucrative contracts, treaties and alliances between the
Free Germans and the rest of OBOR. It would be fascinating to see how ZOG reacted.
Oh, and most important of all, declare a new debt free currency, perhaps gold backed. I
could live with the Reichsmark.
Sean
says:
April 4, 2019 at 4:51 pm GMT 300 Words I am not aware that anyone has ever considered Syria
a crucial centre of world power, and while Ukraine was once thought of that way back in the
days of Halford Makinder, I am afraid now they are both worthless.
I think you should distinguish between the deep state and the elite. The former are
primarily concerned with US primacy. The elite are economic internationalists and focused on
profit. Carter instituted a decades long policy mandating officials to help trade with China
under the influence of Brzezinski's Russophobia.
They fundamentally miscalculated the ability
of China to rapidly rival the West in productive capacity. Now the Western economies are
dependant on a Keynesian and financially frail China going all out for future growth. The elite
are in no position to lower the boom on China, and I think that is the last thing they
intend.
China is a milch cow for the global capitalists, they are dependant on China
succeeding.
Everyone is in favour of free trade if they think they will be successful in it, so the
Chinese enthusiasm is no evidence of altruism or the absence of a venal elite in their country.
Free trade allocating reward based on merit will benefit the American elite through their
Chinese investments, but it does not sound like good news for the American worker.
If there is pressure for something to stop China it will not just be coming from the rust
belt. The deep state plus the working class versus the financial elite is already ongoing; a
struggle to control American policy as the wealth generated by China is reaped by Western
financial elites and America falls to the status of second rate power.
Even as President Donald Trump threatens to shut down the southern border, his
administration is quietly working on a plan to expand some forms of legal immigration into the
U.S.
Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, has been working for months on a
proposal that could increase the number of low- and high-skilled workers admitted to the
country annually, four people involved in the discussions told POLITICO.
The low-profile effort to allow more legal immigrants into the U.S. stands in stark contrast
to Trump's increasingly dramatic efforts to curb illegal immigration, an issue he speaks about
daily and describes as a national crisis. But Trump himself has publicly said he also supports
higher levels of legal immigration, a priority generally backed by a business community short
on skilled workers.
The effort began in January when Kushner started to convene a series of meetings with dozens
of advocacy groups, including business and agriculture organizations. Some, though not all of
them, openly support the expansion of legal immigration. It has continued in recent weeks with
a smaller four-person White House working group led by Kushner and could generate a proposal
for Congress by summer.
Trump personally tasked Kushner -- who successfully
forged a December compromise on criminal justice reform but is still struggling to deliver
a Middle East
peace plan -- with the priority of legal immigration. But it is a daunting challenge,
requiring legislation in an issue area that has confounded Congress in recent years.
This article by late Robert Parry is from 2016 but is still relevant in context of the
current Ukrainian elections and the color revolution is Venezuela. The power of neoliberal
propaganda is simply tremendous. For foreign events it is able to distort the story to such an
extent that the most famous quote of CIA director William Casey "We'll know our disinformation
program is complete when everything the American public believes is false" looks like
constatation of already accomplished goal.
Exclusive: Several weeks before Ukraine's 2014 coup, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
Nuland had already picked Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be the future leader, but now "Yats" is no
longer the guy, writes Robert Parry.
In reporting on the resignation of Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the major
U.S. newspapers either ignored or distorted Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland's
infamous intercepted
phone call before the 2014 coup in which she declared "Yats is the guy!"
Though Nuland's phone call introduced many Americans to the previously obscure Yatsenyuk,
its timing – a few weeks before the ouster of elected Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovych – was never helpful to Washington's desired narrative of the Ukrainian people
rising up on their own to oust a corrupt leader.
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who pushed for the
Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup leaders.
Instead, the conversation between Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt
sounded like two proconsuls picking which Ukrainian politicians would lead the new government.
Nuland also disparaged the less aggressive approach of the European Union with the pithy
put-down: "Fuck the E.U.!"
More importantly, the intercepted call, released onto YouTube in early February 2014,
represented powerful evidence that these senior U.S. officials were plotting – or at
least collaborating in – a coup d'etat against Ukraine's democratically elected
president. So, the U.S. government and the mainstream U.S. media have since consigned this
revealing discussion to the Great Memory Hole.
On Monday, in reporting on Yatsenyuk's Sunday speech in which he announced that he is
stepping down, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal didn't mention the Nuland-Pyatt
conversation at all. The New York Times did mention the call but misled its readers regarding
its timing, making it appear as if the call followed rather than preceded the coup. That way
the call sounded like two American officials routinely appraising Ukraine's future leaders, not
plotting to oust one government and install another.
The Times
article by Andrew E. Kramer said: "Before Mr. Yatsenyuk's appointment as prime minister in
2014, a leaked recording of a telephone conversation between Victoria J. Nuland, a United
States assistant secretary of state, and the American ambassador in Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt,
seemed to underscore the West's support for his candidacy. 'Yats is the guy,' Ms. Nuland had
said."
Notice, however, that if you didn't know that the conversation occurred in late January or
early February 2014, you wouldn't know that it preceded the Feb. 22, 2014 coup. You might have
thought that it was just a supportive chat before Yatsenyuk got his new job.
You also wouldn't know that much of the Nuland-Pyatt conversation focused on how they
were going to "glue this thing" or "midwife this thing," comments sounding like prima facie
evidence that the U.S. government was engaged in "regime change" in Ukraine, on Russia's
border.
The 'No Coup' Conclusion
But Kramer's lack of specificity about the timing and substance of the call fits with a long
pattern of New York Times' bias in its coverage of the Ukraine crisis. On Jan. 4, 2015, nearly
a year after the U.S.-backed coup, the Times published an "investigation" article declaring
that there never had been a coup. It was just a case of President Yanukovych deciding to leave
and not coming back.
That article reached its conclusion, in part, by ignoring the evidence of a coup, including
the Nuland-Pyatt phone call. The story was co-written by Kramer and so it is interesting to
know that he was at least aware of the "Yats is the guy" reference although it was ignored in
last year's long-form article.
Instead, Kramer and his co-author Andrew Higgins took pains to mock anyone who actually
looked at the evidence and dared reach the disfavored conclusion about a coup. If you did, you
were some rube deluded by Russian propaganda.
"Russia has attributed Mr. Yanukovych's ouster to what it portrays as a violent,
'neo-fascist' coup supported and even choreographed by the West and dressed up as a popular
uprising," Higgins and Kramer
wrote . "Few outside the Russian propaganda bubble ever seriously entertained the Kremlin's
line. But almost a year after the fall of Mr. Yanukovych's government, questions remain about
how and why it collapsed so quickly and completely."
The Times' article concluded that Yanukovych "was not so much overthrown as cast adrift by
his own allies, and that Western officials were just as surprised by the meltdown as anyone
else. The allies' desertion, fueled in large part by fear, was accelerated by the seizing by
protesters of a large stock of weapons in the west of the country. But just as important, the
review of the final hours shows, was the panic in government ranks created by Mr. Yanukovych's
own efforts to make peace."
Yet, one might wonder what the Times thinks a coup looks like. Indeed, the Ukrainian coup
had many of the same earmarks as such classics as the CIA-engineered regime changes in Iran in
1953 and in Guatemala in 1954.
The way those coups played out is now historically well known. Secret U.S. government
operatives planted nasty propaganda about the targeted leader, stirred up political and
economic chaos, conspired with rival political leaders, spread rumors of worse violence to come
and then – as political institutions collapsed – watched as the scared but duly
elected leader made a hasty departure.
In Iran, the coup reinstalled the autocratic Shah who then ruled with a heavy hand for the
next quarter century; in Guatemala, the coup led to more than three decades of brutal military
regimes and the killing of some 200,000 Guatemalans.
Coups don't have to involve army tanks occupying the public squares, although that is an
alternative model which follows many of the same initial steps except that the military is
brought in at the end. The military coup was a common approach especially in Latin America in
the 1960s and 1970s.
' Color Revolutions'
But the preferred method in more recent years has been the "color revolution," which
operates behind the façade of a "peaceful" popular uprising and international pressure
on the targeted leader to show restraint until it's too late to stop the coup. Despite the
restraint, the leader is still accused of gross human rights violations, all the better to
justify his removal.
Later, the ousted leader may get an image makeover; instead of a cruel bully, he is
ridiculed for not showing sufficient resolve and letting his base of support melt away, as
happened with Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.
But the reality of what happened in Ukraine was never hard to figure out. Nor did you have
to be inside "the Russian propaganda bubble" to recognize it. George Friedman, the founder of
the global intelligence firm Stratfor, called Yanukovych's overthrow "the most blatant coup
in history."
Which is what it appears if you consider the evidence. The first step in the process was to
create tensions around the issue of pulling Ukraine out of Russia's economic orbit and
capturing it in the European Union's gravity, a plan defined by influential American neocons in
2013.
On Sept. 26, 2013, National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, who has been a
major neocon paymaster for decades, took to the op-ed page of the neocon Washington Post and
called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step toward toppling Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
At the time, Gershman, whose NED is funded by the U.S. Congress to the tune of about $100
million a year, was financing scores of projects inside Ukraine training activists, paying for
journalists and organizing business groups.
As for the even bigger prize -- Putin -- Gershman wrote: "Ukraine's choice to join Europe
will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents.
Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near
abroad but within Russia itself."
At that time, in early fall 2013, Ukraine's President Yanukovych was exploring the idea of
reaching out to Europe with an association agreement. But he got cold feet in November 2013
when economic experts in Kiev advised him that the Ukrainian economy would suffer a $160
billion hit if it separated from Russia, its eastern neighbor and major trading partner. There
was also the West's demand that Ukraine accept a harsh austerity plan from the International
Monetary Fund.
Yanukovych wanted more time for the E.U. negotiations, but his decision angered many western
Ukrainians who saw their future more attached to Europe than Russia. Tens of thousands of
protesters began camping out at Maidan Square in Kiev, with Yanukovych ordering the police to
show restraint.
Meanwhile, with Yanukovych shifting back toward Russia, which was offering a more generous
$15 billion loan and discounted natural gas, he soon became the target of American neocons and
the U.S. media, which portrayed Ukraine's political unrest as a black-and-white case of a
brutal and corrupt Yanukovych opposed by a saintly "pro-democracy" movement.
Cheering an Uprising
The Maidan uprising was urged on by American neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State
for European Affairs Nuland, who passed out cookies at the Maidan and reminded Ukrainian
business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their "European
aspirations."
A screen shot of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland
speaking to U.S. and Ukrainian business leaders on Dec. 13, 2013, at an event sponsored by
Chevron, with its logo to Nuland's left.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, also showed up, standing on stage with right-wing extremists
from the Svoboda Party and telling the crowd that the United States was with them in their
challenge to the Ukrainian government.
As the winter progressed, the protests grew more violent. Neo-Nazi and other extremist
elements from Lviv and other western Ukrainian cities began arriving in well-organized brigades
or "sotins" of 100 trained street fighters. Police were attacked with firebombs and other
weapons as the violent protesters began seizing government buildings and unfurling Nazi banners
and even a Confederate flag.
Though Yanukovych continued to order his police to show restraint, he was still depicted
in the major U.S. news media as a brutal thug who was callously murdering his own people. The
chaos reached a climax on Feb. 20 when mysterious snipers opened fire, killing both police and
protesters. As the police retreated, the militants advanced brandishing firearms and other
weapons. The confrontation led to significant loss of life, pushing the death toll to around 80
including more than a dozen police.
U.S. diplomats and the mainstream U.S. press immediately blamed Yanukovych for the sniper
attack, though the circumstances remain murky to this day and some investigations have
suggested that the lethal sniper fire came from buildings controlled by Right Sektor
extremists.
To tamp down the worsening violence, a shaken Yanukovych signed a European-brokered deal on
Feb. 21, in which he accepted reduced powers and an early election so he could be voted out of
office. He also agreed to requests from Vice President Joe Biden to pull back the police.
The precipitous police withdrawal opened the path for the neo-Nazis and other street
fighters to seize presidential offices and force Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their
lives. The new coup regime was immediately declared "legitimate" by the U.S. State Department
with Yanukovych sought on murder charges. Nuland's favorite, Yatsenyuk, became the new prime
minister.
Throughout the crisis, the mainstream U.S. press hammered home the theme of white-hatted
protesters versus a black-hatted president. The police were portrayed as brutal killers who
fired on unarmed supporters of "democracy." The good-guy/bad-guy narrative was all the American
people heard from the major media.
The New York Times went so far as to delete the slain policemen from the narrative and
simply report that the police had killed all those who died in the Maidan. A typical Times
report on March 5, 2014, summed up the storyline: "More than 80 protesters were shot to death
by the police as an uprising spiraled out of control in mid-February."
The mainstream U.S. media also sought to discredit anyone who observed the obvious fact that
an unconstitutional coup had just occurred. A new theme emerged that portrayed Yanukovych as
simply deciding to abandon his government because of the moral pressure from the noble and
peaceful Maidan protests.
Any reference to a "coup" was dismissed as "Russian propaganda." There was a parallel
determination in the U.S. media to discredit or ignore evidence that neo-Nazi militias had
played an important role in ousting Yanukovych and in the subsequent suppression of anti-coup
resistance in eastern and southern Ukraine. That opposition among ethnic-Russian Ukrainians
simply became "Russian aggression."
Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a
Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)
This refusal to notice what was actually a remarkable story – the willful unleashing
of Nazi storm troopers on a European population for the first time since World War II –
reached absurd levels as The New York Times and The Washington Post buried references to the
neo-Nazis at the end of stories, almost as afterthoughts.
The Washington Post went to the extreme of rationalizing Swastikas and other Nazi symbols by
quoting one militia commander as calling them "romantic" gestures by impressionable young men.
[See Consortiumnews.com's " Ukraine's
'Romantic' Neo-Nazi Storm Troopers ."]
But today – more than two years after what U.S. and Ukrainian officials like to
call "the Revolution of Dignity" – the U.S.-backed Ukrainian government is sinking into
dysfunction, reliant on handouts from the IMF and Western governments.
And, in a move perhaps now more symbolic than substantive, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk is
stepping down. Yats is no longer the guy.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Khalid Talaat , April 16, 2016 at 20:39
Is it too far fetched to think that all these color revolutions are a perfection of the
process to unleash another fake color revolution, only this time it is a Red, White and Blue
revolution here at home? Those that continue to booze and snooze while watching the tube will
not know the difference until it is too late.
The freedom and tranquility of our country depends on finding and implementing a
counterweight to the presstitutes and their propaganda. The alternative is too
destructive in its natural development.
Abe , April 15, 2016 at 18:49
Yats and Porko are the guys who broke Ukraine. By the end of December 2015, Ukraine's
gross domestic product had shrunk around 19 percent in comparison with 2013. Its decimated
industrial sector needs less fuel. Yatsie did a heck of a job.
The timing of "Yats" departure is ominous. Mid-April, six weeks from now would be the
first chance to renew the invasion of DPR Donesk/Lugansk."Yats" failed in 2014, and didn't
try in 2015. Who is "the new guy"? Will the new Prime Minister begin raving about renewing
the holy war to recover the lost oblasts? 2016 is really Ukraine's last chance. Ukraine
refuses to implement Minsk2, and they have been receiving lots of new weapons. I believe
President Putin put the Syrian operation on " standby" not only to avoid approaching the
border, provoking a Turkish intervention, but also so he can give undistracted attention to
DPR Donesk/Lugansk.
Bill Rood , April 12, 2016 at 11:50
I guess I must be inside the Russian propaganda bubble. It was obvious to me when I
looked at the YouTube videos of policemen burning after being hit with Molotov
cocktails.
We played the same game of encouraging government "restraint" in Syria, where we
demanded Assad free "political prisoners," but we now accuse him of deliberately encouraging
ISIS by freeing those people, so that he can point to ISIS and ask, "Do you want that?"
Targeted leaders are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Andrei , April 12, 2016 at 10:26
"the Ukrainian coup had many of the same earmarks as such classics as the
CIA-engineered regime changes in Iran in 1953 and in Guatemala in 1954", Romania 1989 Shots
were fired by snipers in order to stirr the crowds (sounds familiar?) and also by the army
after Ceasescu ran away, which resulted in civilians getting murdered. Could it possibly be
that it was said : "Iliescu (next elected president) is the guy!" ?
Joe L. , April 12, 2016 at 11:00
Check out the attempted coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela 2002, that is very
similar with protesters, snipers on rooftops, IMF immediately offering loans to the new coup
government, new government positions for the coup plotters, complacency with the media
– propaganda, funding by USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy etc. John
Pilger documents how the coup occurred in his documentary "War on Democracy" –
https://vimeo.com/16724719 .
archaos , April 12, 2016 at 09:45
It was noted in the minutes of Verkhovna Rada almost 2 years before Maidan 2 , that
Geoffrey Pyatt was fomenting and funding destabilisation of Ukraine.
All of Svoboda Nazis in parliament (and other fascisti) then booed the MP who stated
this.
Mark Thomason , April 12, 2016 at 06:57
Also, the Dutch voted "no" on the economic agreement the coup was meant to force through
instead of the Russian agreement accepted by the President it overthrew. Now both "Yats" and
the economic agreement are gone. All that is left is the war. Neocons are still happen.
They wanted the war. They really want to overthrow Putin, and Ukraine was just a tool in
that.
Realist , April 12, 2016 at 05:51
You're right, it doesn't have to be the military that carries out a coup by deploying
tanks on the National Mall. In 2000, it was the United States Supreme Court that exceeded
its constitutional authority and installed George W. Bush as president, though in reality he
had lost that election. I wonder when that move will rightfully be characterized as a coup by
the historians.
"On Sept. 26, 2013, National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, who has
been a major neocon paymaster for decades, took to the op-ed page of the neocon Washington
Post and called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step toward toppling
Russian President Vladimir Putin."
It should be remembered that Victoria Nuland took up the post of Assistant Secretary of
State for European and Eurasian Affairs in Washington on September 18, 2013.
Coincidentally, two other women closely connected to events in Ukraine were also in
Washington during September 2013.
Friend of Nuland and boss of the IMF, which has its own HQ in Washington, Christine
Lagarde was swift to respond to a Ukraine request for IMF loans on February 27th 2014, just
five days after the removal of Yanukovych on February 22nd. Lagarde is pictured with
Baronness Catherine Ashton in Washington in a Facebook entry dated September 30th 2013.
Ashton was High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy at the
time.
Though visiting Kiev at the same time as Nuland in February 2014 Catherine Ashton never
appeared in public with her, which seems a little odd considering the women were on the same
mission, and talking to the same people. Nevertheless, despite appearing shy of being
photographed with each other the two women weren't quite so shy of being pictured with
leaders of the coup, including the right wing extremist, Oleh Tyahnybok.
Ashton refused to be drawn into commenting on Nuland's "Fuck the E.U.!" outburst,
describing Nuland as "a friend of mine." The two women certainly weren't strangers, they had
worked closely together before. September 2012 saw them involved in discussions with Iran
negotiator Saeed Jalili over the country's supposed nuclear arms ambitions.
The question is not so much whether the three women talked about Ukraine's future –
it would be ridiculous to think they did not – but how closely they worked together,
and exactly how closely they might have been involved in events leading up to the overthrow
of the legitimate government in Kiev. More on this here:
Another failed "regime change". Aren't these guys (Neoconservatives) great. They fail,
piss off/kill millions, yet seem to keep making money and retaining power. Time to WAKE UP
AMERICA.
Skip Edwards , April 11, 2016 at 20:06
Read "The Devil'Chessboard" by David Talbot to understand what has been occurring as a
result of America's Dark, Shadow government, an un-elected bunch of vicious psychopaths
controlling our destiny; unless stopped. Get a clue and realize that "Yats is our guy"
Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton's "gal." Hillary Clinton is Robert Kagen's "gal." Time to
flush all these rats out of the hold and get on with our lives.
Joe L. , April 11, 2016 at 18:40
Mr. Parry thank you for delving into the proven history of coups and the parallels with
Ukraine. It amazes me how anyone can outright deny this was a coup especially if they know
anything about US coups going back to WW2 (Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973, attempt in
Venezuela 2002 etc. – and there are a whole slew more). I read before, as you have
rightly pointed out, that in 1953 the CIA led a propaganda campaign in Iran against Mossadegh
as well as financing opposition protesters and opposition government officials. Another
angle, as well, is looking historically back to what papers such as the New York Times were
reporting around the time of the coup in Iran – especially when we know that the
US/Britain overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh for their own oil interests
(British Petroleum):
New York Times: "Mossadegh Plays with Fire" (August 15, 1953):
The world has so many trouble spots these days that one is apt to pass over the odd one
here and there to preserve a little peace of mind. It would be well, however, to keep an eye
on Iran, where matters are going from bad to worse, thanks to the machinations of Premier
Mossadegh.
Some of us used to ascribe our inability to persuade Dr. Mossadegh of the validity of our
ideas to the impossibility of making him understand or see things our way. We thought of him
as a sincere, well-meaning, patriotic Iranian, who had a different point of view and made
different deductions from the same set of facts. We now know that he is a power-hungry,
personally ambitious, ruthless demagogue who is trampling upon the liberties of his own
people. We have seen this onetime champion of liberty maintain martial law, curb freedom of
the press, radio, speech and assembly, resort to illegal arrests and torture, dismiss the
Senate, destroy the power of the Shah, take over control of the army, and now he is about to
destroy the Majlis, which is the lower house of Parliament.
His power would seem to be complete, but he has alienated the traditional ruling classes
-the aristocrats, landlords, financiers and tribal leaders. These elements are
anti-Communist. So is the Shah and so are the army leaders and the urban middle classes.
There is a traditional, historic fear, suspicion and dislike of Russia and the Russians. The
peasants, who make up the overwhelming mass of the population, are illiterate and
nonpolitical. Finally, there is still no evidence that the Tudeh (Communist) party is strong
enough or well enough organized, financed and led to take power.
All this simply means that there is no immediate danger of a Communist coup or Russian
intervention. On the other hand, Dr. Mossadegh is encouraging the Tudeh and is following
policies which will make the Communists more and more dangerous. He is a sorcerer's
apprentice, calling up forces he will not be able to control.
Iran is a weak, divided, poverty-stricken country which possesses an immense latent wealth
in oil and a crucial strategic position. This is very different from neighboring Turkey, a
strong, united, determined and advanced nation, which can afford to deal with the Russians
because she has nothing to fear -and therefore the West has nothing to fear. Thanks largely
to Dr. Mossadegh, there is much to fear in Iran.
My feeling is that the biggest sin that our society has is forgetting history. If we
remembered history I would think that it would be very difficult to pull off coups but most
media does not revisit history which proves US coups even against democracies. I actually
think that the coup that occurred in Ukraine was similar to the attempted coup in Venezuela
in 2002 with snipers on rooftops, immediate blame for the deaths on Hugo Chavez where media
manipulated the footage, immediate acceptance of the temporary coup government by the US
Government, immediately offering IMF loans for the new coup government, government positions
for many of the coup plotters, and let us not leave out the funding for the coup coming from
USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy. I also remember seeing the New York Times
immediately blaming Chavez and praising the coup but when the coup was overturned and US
fingerprints started to become revealed (with many of the coup plotters fleeing to the US)
then the New York Times wrote a limited retraction buried in their paper. Shameless.
SFOMARCO , April 11, 2016 at 15:16
How was NED able to finance "scores of projects inside Ukraine training activists,
paying for journalists and organizing business groups", not to mention to host such
dignitaries as Cookie Nuland, Loser McCain and assorted Bidens? Seems like a recipe for a
coup "hidden in plain sight".
Bob Van Noy , April 11, 2016 at 14:36
Ukraine, one would hope, represents the "Bridge Too Far" moment for the proponents of
regime change. Surely Americans must be catching on to what we do for selected nations in the
name of "giving them their freedoms". The Kagan Family, empowered by their newly endorsed
candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, will feel justified in carrying on a new cold war,
this time world wide. Of course they will not be doing the fighting, they, like Dick Cheney
are the self appointed intellects of geopolitical chess, much like The Georgetown Set of the
Kennedy era, they perceive themselves as the only ones smart enough to plan America's
future.
Helen Marshall , April 11, 2016 at 17:11
I wish. How many Americans know ANYTHNG about what has happened in Ukraine, about Crimea
and its history, and/or could even locate them on a map?
Pastor Agnostic , April 12, 2016 at 04:11
Nuland is merely the inhouse, PNAC female version of Sidney Blumenthal. Which raises the
scary question. Who would she pick to be SecState?
Under neoliberalism any regime change is necessary followed by an economic rape. That was the case with the USSR in 1991,
that was the case in Ukraine in 2014. Only the size and length of the looting varies depending of the strength of new government.
Both the size and the length is maximal if in power are marionette like Yeltsin or Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko.
Saying "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" now should sound as "Beware of Americans who bring you color revolutions." They bring the
economic rape (aka "Disaster
capitalism") as the second phase. That's the nature of neocolonialism -- now you do not need to occupy the country.
It's enough to make it a debt slave using IMF and install compradors to endure the low of money and continuing impoverishment of the
population.
With such crooked and greedy friends as Biden and Kerry and their narcoaddicts sons you do not need enemies. But the main
danger are not individual sharks but Western financial institutions like IMF and World bank. Those convert countries into debt slaves
and that means permanently low standard (Central African in case of Ukraine, something like $2 a day) of living for generations
to come.
What is interesting is that unlike say German nationalists in 30th, the Ukrainian nationalists proved to be completly
useless in defending the Ukraine from looting. They actually serves as supplementary tool of the same looting.
The standard of living of Ukrainians dropped 2-3 times since 2014. How pensioners survive, on $50 a month pension I simply do not
understand. In any case Neoliberalism proved to be very effecting is keeping "developing" nations economic growth down and converting
them into debt slaves. The fact that Biden use loans as a tool of extortion (as in threat to cancel one billion loan) to close criminal
investigation of his sons company is just an icing on the cake. Poroshenko and his camarilla should be tried in the court of law for
his corruption and pandering to the Western sharks, who were happy to steal from Ukraine as much as then can.
To pay $166K a month for Biden's son cocaine is way too much to such impoverished country as Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... "I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko. ..."
"... " Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council on Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat. ..."
"... The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member. ..."
"... U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia. - The Hill ..."
"... And before he was fired, Shokin says he had made "specific plans" for the investigation - including "interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." "I would like to emphasize the fact that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine," added Shokin. Joe Biden "clearly had to know" about the probe before he insisted on Shokin's ouster . Via The Hill: ..."
"... The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor's case against Burisma; ..."
"... President Obama named Biden the administration's point man on Ukraine in February 2014 ..."
"... Remember Victoria Nuland's famous phone recording of "**** the EU?" This was nothing more than another CIA destabilization campaign carried out of another Sovereign Country. With the goal of breaking the Bush Senior & Jim Baker agreement of not surrounding Russia with NATO countries after their Collapse. ..."
"... Let's face it. If Ukrainians loved it's Country, Joey, Hunter and the Choco-**** would have wound up like Mikhail Lesin during an all night party in an upscale grotto in Kiev by now! ..."
"... At last some questions for this dirt ball-burisma is tied in with one of the most if not the most corrupt oligarch, Koloimiski. Biden is up to his eyeballs in some dodgy deals in china as well-this guy and his son are walking corruption personified. ..."
"... Didn't Hillary teach Joe that a tax free foundation is better than using your son's LLC for laundering the bribes... This is basic stuff. ..."
"... Joe "the Conqueror" "Caesar Magnus" Biden. Joe of Ukraine, the best bud of $oro$. ..."
Originally from:
Forget 'Creepy'
- Biden Has A Major Ukraine Problem Joe Biden appears to have made a major tactical error last year when he bragged to an
audience of foreign policy experts how he threatened to hurl Ukraine into bankruptcy if their top prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin,
wasn't immediately fired, according to
The Hill 's John Solomon.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling,
Biden described
how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in
U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General
Viktor Shokin. -
The Hill
"I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at
them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling
the conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council
on Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat.
Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden's account, though they claim the pressure was applied
over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day . Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine's
parliament obliged by
ending Shokin's tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not
bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired. -
The Hill
And why would Biden want the "son of a bitch" fired?
In what must be an amazing coincidence, the prosecutor was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into a natural gas
firm - which Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the board of directors.
The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm
Burisma Holdings
that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers
into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period
when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia. -
The Hill
The Hill 's Solomon reviewed the general prosecutor's file for the Burisma probe - which he reports shows Hunter Biden, his business
partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
And before he was fired, Shokin says he had made "specific plans" for the investigation - including "interrogations and other
crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." "I would like to emphasize the fact
that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine," added Shokin. Joe Biden "clearly had to know" about the probe before he
insisted on Shokin's ouster . Via The Hill:
Although Biden made no mention of his son in his 2018 speech, U.S. and Ukrainian authorities both told me Biden and his office
clearly had to know about the general prosecutor's probe of Burisma and his son's role. They noted that:
Hunter Biden's appointment to the board was widely reported in American media;
The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor's
case against Burisma;
Great Britain took very public action against Burisma while Joe Biden was working with that government on Ukraine issues;
Biden's office was quoted, on the record, acknowledging Hunter Biden's role in Burisma in a New York Times article about the
general prosecutor's Burisma case that appeared four months before Biden forced the firing of Shokin. The vice president's office
suggested in that article that Hunter Biden was a lawyer free to pursue his own private business deals.
President Obama named Biden the administration's point man on Ukraine in February 2014 , after a popular revolution ousted
Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych and as Moscow
sent military forces into Ukraine's Crimea territory.
***
Key questions for 'ol Joe:
Was it appropriate for your son and his firm to cash in on Ukraine while you served as point man for Ukraine policy? What work
was performed for the money Hunter Biden's firm received? Did you know about the Burisma probe? And when it was publicly announced
that your son worked for Burisma, should you have recused yourself from leveraging a U.S. policy to pressure the prosecutor who
very publicly pursued Burisma?
Remember Victoria Nuland's famous phone recording of "**** the EU?" This was nothing more than another CIA destabilization
campaign carried out of another Sovereign Country. With the goal of breaking the Bush Senior & Jim Baker agreement of not surrounding
Russia with NATO countries after their Collapse.
Let's face it. If Ukrainians loved it's Country, Joey, Hunter and the Choco-**** would have wound up like Mikhail Lesin
during an all night party in an upscale grotto in Kiev by now!
Amazing that all 3 of them are still alive and that "Song Bird" McCain (#4) was allowed to die from his brain cancer instead
of joining them or being dismembered and put on display when he made these visit(s) (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbfsTcJCKDE ) along
with General Vallely (#5)!!!
Taras Bulba , 1 hour ago
At last some questions for this dirt ball-burisma is tied in with one of the most if not the most corrupt oligarch, Koloimiski.
Biden is up to his eyeballs in some dodgy deals in china as well-this guy and his son are walking corruption personified.
CarifonianSeven, 2 hours ago
Didn't Hillary teach Joe that a tax free foundation is better than using your son's LLC for laundering the bribes... This
is basic stuff.
Pernicious Gold Phallusy, 1 hour ago
Joe cheated his way through undergrad and law school. He would be unable to understand any of that.
whittler, 1 hour ago
What? You mean folks will finally care about little Hunter hiring Azov neo-Nazi fighters (oops! security I mean) to protect
his fracking site just north of the 'troubles' in the eastern Ukraine? I'm sure they were working for free and that no Biden money
was ever used to payoff (oops again! I mean pay the wages of) a bunch of Nazis (dang it again, I mean neo-Nazis, it sounds so
much warmer and fuzzier when you add 'neo').
Creepy Joe and all D's agree, 'Nazi' = bad, neo-Nazi = warm, fuzzy and good; heck, they even like to kill Russians Russians
Russians!!!
Cracker 16 , 1 hour ago
Joe "the Conqueror" "Caesar Magnus" Biden. Joe of Ukraine, the best bud of $oro$.
"... When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. ..."
When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are
controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule,
near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
"... Given that Guaidó was trained by a group funded by USAID's sister organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) -- and is known to take his marching orders from Washington, including his self-proclamation as "interim president" and his return to Venezuela following the "humanitarian aid" showdown -- it is worth considering that this USAID document may well serve as a roadmap to the upcoming and Guaidó-led "tactical actions" that will comprise "Operation Freedom." ..."
"... Titled "Rapid Expeditionary Development (RED) Teams: Demand and Feasibility Assessment," the 75-page document was produced for the U.S. Global Development Lab, a branch of USAID. It was written as part of an effort to the "widespread sentiment" among the many military, intelligence, and development officials the report's authors interviewed "that the USG [U.S. government] is woefully underperforming in non-permissive and denied environments," including Venezuela. Notably, some of the military, intelligence and development officials interviewed by the report's authors had experience working in a covert capacity in Venezuela. ..."
"... The report goes on to state that "RED Team members would be catalytic actors, performing development activities alongside local communities while coordinating with interagency partners." It further states that "[i]t is envisioned that the priority competency of proposed RED Team development officers would be social movement theory (SMT)" and that "RED Team members would be 'super enablers,' observing situations on the ground and responding immediately by designing, funding, and implementing small-scale activities." ..."
"... Also raising the specter of a Venezuela link is the fact that the document suggests Brazil as a potential location for a RED Team pilot study. Several of those interviewed for the report asserted that "South American countries were ripe for pilots" of the RED Team program, adding that "These [countries were] under-reported, low-profile, idiot-proof locations, where USG civilian access is fairly unrestrained by DS [Diplomatic Security] and where there is a positive American relationship with the host government." ..."
"... This January, Brazil inaugurated Jair Bolsonaro as president, a fascist who has made his intention to align the country close to Washington's interests no secret. During Bolsonaro's recent visit to Washington, he became the first president of that country to visit CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. President Donald Trump said during his meeting with Bolsonaro that "We have a great alliance with Brazil -- better than we've ever had before" and spoke in favor of Brazil joining NATO. ..."
"... This is supported by the troubling correlation between a document produced by the NED-funded group CANVAS and the recent power outages that have taken place throughout Venezuela, which were described as U.S.-led "sabotage" by the country's government. A recent report by The Grayzone detailed how a September 2010 memo by CANVAS -- which trained Juan Guaidó -- described in detail how the potential collapse of the country's electrical infrastructure, like that recently seen in Venezuela, would be "a watershed event" that "would likely have the impact of galvanizing public unrest in a way that no opposition group could ever hope to generate." ..."
"... The document specifically named the Simon Bolivar Hydroelectric Plant at Guri Dam, which failed earlier this month as a result of what the Venezuelan government asserted was "sabotage" conducted by the U.S. government. That claim was bolstered by U.S. Senator Marco Rubio's apparent foreknowledge of the power outage. Thus, there is a precedent of correlation between these types of documents and actions that occur in relation to the current U.S. regime-change effort in Venezuela. ..."
With its hands tied when it comes to military intervention, only covert actions - such as those described in the RED Team document
- are likely to be enacted by the U.S. government, at least at this stage of its ongoing "regime change" effort in Venezuela.
Juan Guaidó, the self-proclaimed "interim president of Venezuela" who is supported by the United States government, recently announced
coming "tactical actions" that will be taken by his supporters starting April 6 as part of "
Operation Freedom ," an alleged grassroots effort
to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
That operation, according to Guaidó, will be
led by "Freedom and Aid Committees" that in turn create "freedom cells" throughout the country -- "cells" that will spring to
action when Guaidó gives the signal on April 6 and launch large-scale community protests. Guaidó's stated plan involves the Venezuelan
military then taking his side, but his insistence that "all options are still on the table" (i.e., foreign military intervention)
reveals his impatience with the military, which has continued to stay loyal to Maduro throughout Guaidó's "interim presidency."
However, a document released by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) in February, and highlighted last month in
a report
by Devex, details the creation of networks of small teams, or cells, that would operate in a way very similar to what Guaidó
describes in his plan for "Operation Freedom."
Given that Guaidó
was trained by a group funded by USAID's sister organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) -- and is known to take
his marching orders from Washington, including
his self-proclamation as "interim president" and his return to Venezuela following the "humanitarian aid" showdown -- it is worth
considering that this USAID document may well serve as a roadmap to the upcoming and Guaidó-led "tactical actions" that will comprise
"Operation Freedom."
RED Teams
Titled "Rapid Expeditionary Development (RED) Teams: Demand and Feasibility Assessment," the 75-page
document was produced for the U.S. Global Development Lab,
a branch of USAID. It was written as part of an effort to the "widespread sentiment" among the many military, intelligence, and development
officials the report's authors interviewed "that the USG [U.S. government] is woefully underperforming in non-permissive and denied
environments," including Venezuela. Notably, some of the military, intelligence and development officials interviewed by the report's
authors had experience working in a covert capacity in Venezuela.
The approach put forth in this report involves the creation of rapid expeditionary development (RED) teams, who would "be deployed
as two-person teams and placed with 'non-traditional' USAID partners executing a mix of offensive, defensive, and stability operations
in extremis conditions." The report notes later on that these "non-traditional" partners are U.S. Special Forces (SF) and the CIA.
The report goes on to state that "RED Team members would be catalytic actors, performing development activities alongside local
communities while coordinating with interagency partners." It further states that "[i]t is envisioned that the priority competency
of proposed RED Team development officers would be social movement theory (SMT)" and that "RED Team members would be 'super enablers,'
observing situations on the ground and responding immediately by designing, funding, and implementing small-scale activities."
In other words, these teams of combined intelligence, military and/or "democracy promoting" personnel would work as "super enablers"
of "small-scale activities" focused on "social movement theory" and community mobilizations, such as the mobilizations of protests.
The decentralized nature of RED teams and their focus on engineering "social movements" and "mobilizations" is very similar to
Guaidó's plan for "Operation
Freedom." Operation Freedom is set to begin through "Freedom and Aid committees" that cultivate decentralized "freedom cells" throughout
the country and that create mass mobilizations when Guaidó gives the go ahead on April 6. The ultimate goal of Operation Freedom
is to have those "freedom cell"-generated protests converge on Venezuela's presidential palace, where Nicolás Maduro resides. Given
Guaidó lack of momentum and popularity within Venezuela, it seems highly likely that U.S. government "catalytic actors" may be a
key part of his upcoming plan to topple Maduro in little over a week.
Furthermore, an appendix included in the report states that RED Team members, in addition to being trained in social movement
theory and community mobilization techniques, would also be trained in "weapons handling and use," suggesting that their role as
"catalytic actors" could also involve Maidan-esque behavior. This is a distinct possibility raised by the report's claim that RED
Team members be trained in the use of both "offensive" and "defensive" weaponry.
In addition, another appendix states that RED Team members would help "identify allies and mobilize small amounts of cash to establish
community buy-in/relationship" -- i.e., bribes -- and would particularly benefit the CIA by offering a way to "transition covert
action into community engagement activities."
Feeling Bolsonaro's breath on its neck
Also raising the specter of a Venezuela link is the fact that the document suggests Brazil as a potential location for a RED Team
pilot study. Several of those interviewed for the report asserted that "South American countries were ripe for pilots" of the RED
Team program, adding that "These [countries were] under-reported, low-profile, idiot-proof locations, where USG civilian access is
fairly unrestrained by DS [Diplomatic Security] and where there is a positive American relationship with the host government."
This January, Brazil inaugurated Jair Bolsonaro as president, a fascist who has made his intention to align the country close
to Washington's interests no secret. During Bolsonaro's
recent visit to Washington, he became the first president of that country to visit CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. President
Donald Trump said during his meeting with Bolsonaro that "We have a great alliance with Brazil -- better than we've ever had before"
and spoke in favor of Brazil joining NATO.
Though Bolsonaro's government
has claimed late in February that it would not allow the U.S. to launch a military intervention from its territory, Bolsonaro's
son, Eduardo Bolsonaro -- an adviser to his father and a Brazilian congressman --
said
last week that "use of force will be necessary" in Venezuela "at some point" and, echoing the Trump administration, added that
"all options are on the table." If Bolsonaro's government does allow the "use of force," but not a full-blown foreign military intervention
per se, its closeness to the Trump administration and the CIA suggests that covert actions, such as those carried out by the proposed
RED Teams, are a distinct possibility.
Frontier Design Group
The RED Team report was authored by members of Frontier Design Group (FDG) for USAID's Global Development Lab. FDG is a national
security contractor and its mission statement on its website is quite revealing:
Since our founding, Frontier has focused on the challenges and opportunities that concern the "3Ds" of Defense, Development
and Diplomacy and critical intersections with the intelligence community. Our work has focused on the wicked and sometimes overlapping
problem sets of fragility, violent extremism, terrorism, civil war, and insurgency. Our work on these complex issues has included
projects with the U.S. Departments of State and Defense, USAID, the National Counterterrorism Center and the U.S. Institute of
Peace."
FDG also states on is website that it also regularly does work for the Council on Foreign Relations and the Omidyar Group -- which
is controlled by Pierre Omidyar, a billionaire with deep ties to the U.S. national security establishment that were the subject of
a recent MintPress series. According to journalist Tim Shorrock, who mentions the document in
a recent investigation
focusing on Pierre Omidyar for Washington Babylon , FDG was the "sole contractor" hired by USAID to create a "new counterinsurgency
doctrine for the Trump administration" and the fruit of that effort is the "RED Team" document described above.
One of the co-authors of the document is
Alexa Courtney , FDG founder
and former USAID liaison officer with the Department of Defense; former manager of civilian counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan
for USAID; and former counterinsurgency specialist for U.S. intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton.
In addition, according to Shorrock, Courtney's name has also been found "on several Caerus [Associates] contracts with USAID and
US intelligence that were leaked to me on a thumb drive, including a $77 million USAID project to track 'licit and illicit networks'
in Honduras." Courtney, according to
her LinkedIn account, was also
recently honored by Chevron Corporation for her "demonstrated leadership and impact on development results." MintPress
recently reported
on the role of Chevron in the current U.S.-led effort to topple Maduro and replace him with Guaidó.
Send in the USAID
Though Devex was told last month that USAID was "still working on the details in formulating the Rapid Expeditionary Development
(RED) Teams initiative," Courtney
stated
that the report's contents had been "received really favorably" by "very senior" and "influential" former and current government
officials she had interviewed during the creation of the document.
For instance, one respondent asserted that the RED Team system would "restore the long-lost doing capacity of USAID." Another
USAID official with 15 years of experience, including in "extremely denied environments," stated that:
We have to be involved in national security or USAID will not be relevant. Anybody who doesn't think we need to be working
in combat elements or working with SF [special forces] groups is just naďve. We are either going to be up front or irrelevant
USAID is going through a lot right now, but this is an area where we can be of utility. It must happen."
Given that the document represents the efforts of the sole contractor tasked with developing the current administration's new
counterterrorism strategy, there is plenty of reason to believe that its contents -- published for over a year -- have been or are
set to be put to use in Venezuela, potentially as part of the upcoming "Operation Freedom," set to begin on April 6.
This is supported by the troubling correlation between a document produced by the NED-funded group CANVAS and the recent power
outages that have taken place throughout Venezuela, which were described as U.S.-led "sabotage" by the country's government. A
recent report by The Grayzone detailed how a September 2010 memo by CANVAS -- which trained Juan Guaidó -- described in detail
how the potential collapse of the country's electrical infrastructure, like that recently seen in Venezuela, would be "a watershed
event" that "would likely have the impact of galvanizing public unrest in a way that no opposition group could ever hope to generate."
The document specifically named the Simon Bolivar Hydroelectric Plant at Guri Dam, which failed earlier this month as a result
of what the Venezuelan government asserted was "sabotage" conducted by the U.S. government. That claim was bolstered by U.S. Senator
Marco Rubio's apparent foreknowledge of the power outage. Thus, there is a precedent of correlation between these types of documents
and actions that occur in relation to the current U.S. regime-change effort in Venezuela.
Furthermore, it would make sense for the Trump administration to attempt to enact such an initiative as that described in the
document, given its apparent inability to launch a military intervention in Venezuela, despite its frequent claims that "all options
are on the table." Indeed, U.S. allies -- including those close to Venezuela, like Colombia --
have rejected military intervention, given the U.S.' past role in bloody coups and civil wars throughout the region.
Thus, with its hands tied when it comes to military intervention, only covert actions -- such as those described in the RED Team
document -- are likely to be enacted by the U.S. government, at least at this stage of its ongoing "regime change" effort in Venezuela.
"... The purpose is very simple: to create the perception that the government of Russia still somehow controls or manipulates the US government and thus gains some undeserved improvements in relations with the U.S. Once such perception is created, people will demand that relations with Russia are worsened to return them to a "fair" level. While in reality these relations have been systematically destroyed by the Western establishment (CFR) for many years. ..."
"... It's a typical inversion to hide the hybrid war of the Western establishment against Russian people. Yes, Russian people. Not Putin, not Russian Army, not Russian intelligence services, but Russian people. Russians are not to be allowed to have any kind of industries, nor should they be allowed to know their true history, nor should they possess so much land. ..."
"... Russians should work in coal mines for a dollar a day, while their wives work as prostitutes in Europe. That's the maximum level of development that the Western establishment would allow Russians to have (see Ukraine for a demo version). Why? Because Russians are subhumans. ..."
"... The end goal of the Western establishment is a complete military, economic, psychological, and spiritual destruction of Russia, secession of national republics (even though in some of them up to 50% of population are Russians, but this will be ignored, as it has been in former Soviet republics), then, finally, dismemberment of what remains of Russia into separate states warring with each other. ..."
"... The very concept of Russian nation should disappear. Siberians will call their language "Siberian", Muscovites will call their language "Moscovian", Pomorians will call their language "Pomorian", etc. The U.S. Department of State will, of course, endorse such terminology, just like they endorse the term "Montenegrian language", even though it's the same Serbo-Croatian language with the same Cyrillic writing system. ..."
The purpose is very simple: to create the perception that the government of Russia still somehow controls or manipulates
the US government and thus gains some undeserved improvements in relations with the U.S. Once such perception is created, people
will demand that relations with Russia are worsened to return them to a "fair" level. While in reality these relations have been
systematically destroyed by the Western establishment (CFR) for many years.
It's a typical inversion to hide the hybrid war of the Western establishment against Russian people. Yes, Russian people.
Not Putin, not Russian Army, not Russian intelligence services, but Russian people. Russians are not to be allowed to have any
kind of industries, nor should they be allowed to know their true history, nor should they possess so much land.
Russians should work in coal mines for a dollar a day, while their wives work as prostitutes in Europe. That's the maximum
level of development that the Western establishment would allow Russians to have (see Ukraine for a demo version). Why? Because
Russians are subhumans.
Whatever they do, it's always wrong, bad, oppressive, etc. Russians are bad because they're bad. They must be "taught a lesson",
"put into their place". It would, of course, be beneficial and highly profitable for Europeans to break with Anglo-Saxons and
to live in peace and harmony with Russia, but Europeans simply can not overcome their racism towards Russians. The young Europeans
are just as racist, with their incessant memes about "squatting Russians in tracksuits", "drunken Russians", etc., as if there's
nothing else that is notable about a country of 147 million people.
The end goal of the Western establishment is a complete military, economic, psychological, and spiritual destruction of
Russia, secession of national republics (even though in some of them up to 50% of population are Russians, but this will be ignored,
as it has been in former Soviet republics), then, finally, dismemberment of what remains of Russia into separate states warring
with each other.
The very concept of Russian nation should disappear. Siberians will call their language "Siberian", Muscovites will call
their language "Moscovian", Pomorians will call their language "Pomorian", etc. The U.S. Department of State will, of course,
endorse such terminology, just like they endorse the term "Montenegrian language", even though it's the same Serbo-Croatian language
with the same Cyrillic writing system.
"... She suggests, "Kushner was increasingly caught up in his own mythology. He was the president's son-in-law, so he apparently thought he was untouchable." (Pg. 114) She notes, "allowing Kushner to work in the administration broke with historical precedent, overruling a string of Justice Department memos that concluded it was illegal for presidents to appoint relatives as White House staff." (Pg. 119) ..."
"... She observes, "Those first few days were chaotic for almost everyone in the new administration. A frantic Reince Priebus would quickly discover that it was impossible to impose any kind of order in this White House, in large part because Trump didn't like order. What Trump liked was having people fight in front of him and then he'd make a decision, just like he'd made snap decisions when his children presented licensing deals for the Trump Organization. This kind of dysfunction enabled a 'floater' like Kushner, whose job was undefined, to weigh in on any topic in front of Trump and have far more influence than he would have had in a top-down hierarchy." (Pg. 125) ..."
Author Vicky Ward wrote in the Prologue to this 2019 book, "Donald Trump
was celebrating being sworn in as president And the whole world knew that his daughter and
son-in-law were his most trusted advisers, ambassadors, and coconspirators. They were an
attractive couple---extremely wealthy and, now, extraordinarily powerful. Ivanka looked like
Cinderella Ivanka and her husband swept onto the stage, deftly deflecting attention from Donald
Trump's clumsy moves, as she had done do often over the past twenty years. The crowd roared in
approval They were now America's prince and princess."
She notes, "Jared Kushner learned about the company [his father's] he would later run. Jared
was the firm's most sheltered trainee. On his summer vacations, he'd go to work at Kushner
Companies construction sites, maybe painting a few walls, more often sitting and listening to
music No one dared tell him this probably would not give him a deep understanding of the
construction process. But Charlie [Jared's father] doggedly groomed his eldest son for
greatness, seeing himself as a Jewish version of Joseph Kennedy " (Pg. 17-18)
She states, "Ivanka had to fight for her father's attention and her ultimate role as the
chief heir in his real estate empire When Donald Trump divorced her mother, Ivana she would go
out of her way to see more of her father, not less she'd call him during the day and to her
delight, he'd always take her call. (Trump's relationship with the two sons he had with Ivana,
Don Jr. and Eric, was not nearly so close for years.) 'She was always Daddy's little girl,'
said a family friend." (Pg. 32-33) She adds, "As Ivanka matured, physically and emotionally,
her father talked openly about how impressed he was with her appearance---a habit he has
maintained to this day." (Pg. 35)
She recounts, "at a networking lunch thrown by a diamond heir Jared was introduced to Ivanka
Jared and Ivanka quickly became an intriguing gossip column item. They seemed perfectly matched
But after a year of dating, they split in part because Jared's parents were dismayed at the
idea of their son marrying outside the faith Soon after, Ivanka agreed to convert to Judaism
Trump was said to be discombobulated by the enormity of what his daughter had done. Trump, a
Presbyterian, who strikes no one as particularly religious, was baffled by his daughter's
conversion 'Why should my daughter convert to marry anyone?'" (Pg. 51-53)
She observes, "Ivanka Trump was critical in promoting her husband as the smoother, softer
counterpart to his father's volatility.. they could both work a room, ask after people's
children, talk without notes, occasionally fake a sense of humor And unlike her husband, she
seemed to have a ready command of figures and a detail, working knowledge of all the properties
she was involved in Ivanka seemed to control the marital relationship, but she also played the
part of devoted, traditional Orthodox wife." (Pg. 70-71)
Of 2016, she states, "No one thought Kushner or Ivanka believed in Trump's populist
platform. 'The two of them see this as a networking opportunity,' said a close associate.
Because Kushner and Ivanka only fully immersed themselves in Trump's campaign once he became
the presumptive Republican nominee they had to push to assert themselves with the campaign
staff Kushner quickly got control of the campaign's budget, but he did not have as much
authority as he would have liked." (Pg. 74-75) She adds, "Ivanka appeared thrilled by her
husband's rising prominence in her father's campaign. It was a huge change from the days when
Trump had made belittling jokes about him. If Don Jr. and Eric were irked by the new favorite
in Trump's court, they did not show it publicly." (Pg. 85)
She points out, "Trump tweeted an image [Hillary with a backdrop of money and a Star of
David] widely viewed as anti-Semitic an 'Observer' writer, criticized Kushner in his own
newspaper for standing 'silent and smiling in the background' while Trump made 'repeated
accidental winks' to white supremacists Kushner wrote a response [that] insisted that Trump was
neither anti-Semitic nor a racist Not all of Kushner's relatives appreciated his efforts to
cover Trump's pandering to white supremacists." (Pg. 86-87) Later, she adds, "U.S.-Israel
relations was the one political issue anyone in the campaign ever saw Kushner get worked up
about." (Pg. 96)
On election night, "Kushner was shocked that Trump never mentioned him in his speech and
would later tell people he felt slighted. He was going to find a way to get Trump to notice him
more. Ivanka would help him the couple would become known as a single, powerful entity:
'Javanka.'" (Pg. 101) She suggests, "Kushner was increasingly caught up in his own mythology.
He was the president's son-in-law, so he apparently thought he was untouchable." (Pg. 114) She
notes, "allowing Kushner to work in the administration broke with historical precedent,
overruling a string of Justice Department memos that concluded it was illegal for presidents to
appoint relatives as White House staff." (Pg. 119)
She observes, "Those first few days were chaotic for almost everyone in the new
administration. A frantic Reince Priebus would quickly discover that it was impossible to
impose any kind of order in this White House, in large part because Trump didn't like order.
What Trump liked was having people fight in front of him and then he'd make a decision, just
like he'd made snap decisions when his children presented licensing deals for the Trump
Organization. This kind of dysfunction enabled a 'floater' like Kushner, whose job was
undefined, to weigh in on any topic in front of Trump and have far more influence than he would
have had in a top-down hierarchy." (Pg. 125)
She recounts, "Another epic [Steve] Bannon/Ivanka fight came when bannon was in the Oval
Office dining room while Trump was watching TV and eating his lunch Ivanka marched in, claiming
Bannon had leaked H.R. McMaster's war plan [Bannon said] 'No, that was leaked by McMaster '
Trump [told her], 'Hey, baby, I think Steve's right on this one ' Bannon thought he would be
fired on the spot. But he'd learned something important: much as Trump loved his daughter and
hated saying no to her, he was not always controlled by her." (Pg. 138-139)
She notes, "[Ivanka] also found a way to be near Trump when he received phone calls from
foreign dignitaries -- while she still owned her business. While Ivanka's behavior was
irritating, Kushner was playing a game on a whole different level: he was playing for serious
money at the time of the Qatari blockade Kushner's family had been courting the Qataris for
financial help and had been turned town. When that story broke the blockade and the Trump
administration's response to it suddenly all made sense." (Pg. 156)
Arguing that "Kushner was behind the decision to fire [FBI Director James] Comey" (Pg.
163-164), "Quickly, Trump realized he'd made an error, and blamed Kushner. It seemed clear to
Trump's advisers, and not for the first time, that he wished Kushner were not in the White
House. He said to Kushner in front of senior staff, 'Just go back to New York, man '" (Pg. 167)
She adds, "[Ivanka's] reluctance to speak frankly to her father was the antithesis of the story
she had been pushing in the media Ivanka had told Gayle King 'Where I disagree with my father,
he knows it. And I express myself with total candor.'" (Pg. 170)
She states, "at the Group of 20 summit in Germany she briefly took her father's seat when he
had to step out The gesture seemed to send the message that the U.S. government was now run on
nepotism." (Pg. 182)
E-mails from George Nader [an adviser to Shiekh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the crown
prince of Abu Dhabi] "made it clear that Kushner's friends in the Gulf mocked him behind his
back Nader wrote 'Nobody would even waste a cup of coffee on him if it wasn't for who he was
married to.'" (Pg. 206)
She points out, "since October 2017, hundreds of children had been taken from their parents
while attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border and detained separately news shows everywhere
showed heartbreaking images of young children being detained. The next month, Ivanka posted on
Instagram a photograph of herself holding her youngest child in his pajamas. Not for the first
time, her tone-deaf social media post was slammed as being isolated in her elitist, insulated
wealthy world On June 20, Trump signed an executive order that apparently ended the border
separations. Minutes later, Ivanka finally spoke publicly on the issue Her tactic here was tell
the public you care about an issue; watch silently while your father does the exact opposite;
and when he moves a little, take all the credit." (Pg. 225)
She asserts, "Kushner's friendship with a Saudi crown prince was now under widespread
scrutiny [because] Rather than expressing moral outrage over the cold-blooded murder of an
innocent man [Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi], Kushner did what he always does in a crisis:
he went quiet." (Pg. 232)
She concludes, "Ivanka Trump has made no secret of the fact that she wants to be the most
powerful woman in the world. Her father's reign in Washington, D.C., is, she believes, the
beginning of a great American dynasty Ivanka has been carefully positioning herself as
[Trump's] political heir " (Pg. 236)
While not as "scandalous" as the book's subtitle might suggest, this is a very interesting
book that will be of great interest to those wanting information about these crucial members of
the Trump family and presidency.
"... On March 18, 2019, the military commanders of Iran, Syria, and Iraq convened in Damascus in order to discuss long-term strategic and operational cooperation. The delegations were led by Mohammad Bagheri (Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces), Ali Abdullah Ayyoub (the Syrian Defense Minister), and Othman al-Ghanmi (Chief of Staff of the Iraqi Military). Officially, the summit addressed coordination in counter-terrorism operations, joint securing and opening of borders, and restoring Damascus' control over the en-tire Syrian territory. ..."
"... In mid-March 2019, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Muhterem Ince and his Iranian counterpart, Hussein Zulfiqari, reached "an agreement on launching a simultaneous operation against terror groups that threat-en the security of both countries" during a meeting in Ankara. If successful, this would be the first of many operations. The first joint operation was conducted on March 18-23, 2019, mainly in northern Iraq. In addition to widespread bombing and shelling, around 600 Turkish and Iranian special forces carried out joint raiding operations against Kurdish "terrorist camps". In the last days of the operation, aerial bombings were directed at all Kurdish nemeses in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Iran. On March 24, 2019, Ankara and Tehran announced that they "are determined to continue carrying out such joint counter-terrorism operations". ..."
"... The first priority was to build Qatar's new oil and gas pipelines to the Mediterranean via Iran-Iraq-Syria and also connect to the pipelines in Turkey. These pipelines would substitute for the originally planned "Sunni pipelines" which were to transverse Qatar-Saudi Arabia-Iraq-Syria and which had originally led to the Qatari support for the Syrian jihad. The new pipelines would move to the shores of the Mediterranean -- mainly the Syrian port of Latakia -- gas and oil from both Qatar and Iran. The pipelines would be followed by electricity lines and a fully integrated transportation infrastructure on a regional basis. ..."
"... Taken together, the transportation cooperation agreement between the three bloc members (Qatar, Iran, and Turkey), and the transportation agreement between Iran, Iraq, and Syria, provide for a road and rail-way system linking all these states. This makes Iran the lynchpin of the regional transportation networks, and, thus, a crucial purveyor of access for the PRC. Indeed, PRC senior officials consider Iran to be "a key pivot to China's BRI in the region". ..."
The key to the success of the bloc is the emerging correlation of influence of the great
powers in the aftermath of the wars in Syria and Iraq . Russia and the People's Republic of
China are ready to compromise with the regional powers in order to secure their vital and
global interests, while the US, Saudi Arabia and, to a lesser extent, Israel, are the nemeses
of the bloc.
The roots of "the Middle Eastern Entente" are in Doha. Qatar in Summer 2017 initiated a
myriad of bilat-eral and trilateral discussions with Iran and Turkey after Saudi Arabia and the
GCC allies imposed the siege on Qatar in June of that year. However, it was not until the
second half of 2018, with the initial impact of the siege largely ameliorated, that the
long-term post-war posture of the greater Middle East became a major priority.
It was then that Doha, Tehran, and Ankara started talking about forming a coherent strategic
bloc.
According to Iman Zayat, the Managing Editor of The Arab Weekly, in late November 2018, the
three coun-tries struck a deal in Tehran to create a "joint working group to facilitate the
transit of goods between the three countries". This was the beginning of a profound realignment
of the three regional powers. "Qatar has irrevocably joined with Ankara and Tehran against its
former Arab allies. It has conclusively positioned itself in a regional alliance that pursues
geopolitical dominance by driving instability," Zayat noted.
It did not take long for the three powers to realize that for such a bloc to succeed it must
focus on security issues and not just economic issues.
Hectic negotiations followed. In mid-December 2018, the three foreign ministers -- Muhammad
bin Ab-dulrahman al-Thani, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and Mevlut Çavusoglu -- signed the
protocols and agree-ments for the new bloc on the sidelines of the 18th Doha Forum. In the
Forum, Qatar formally called for "a new alliance that would replace the four-decade-old Gulf
Cooperation Council". Since then, specific and concrete negotiations on the consolidation of
the bloc have been taking place. The final modalities for joint actions and common priorities,
particularly the integration of the Arab states, were formulated in ear-ly March 2019.
Iran was the dominant force in this phase.
The last decisive push for the Arab integration took place during Bashar al-Assad's visit to
Tehran on Feb-ruary 25, 2019. There, he submitted to the demands of the Iranian mullahs and to
tight supervision by Teh-ran. Significantly, during his stay in Tehran, Assad was constantly
escorted by Qassem Soleimani, Mahmoud Alavi, and Ali Akbar Velayati, who attended all his
meetings with Iranian leaders. In Tehran, Assad commit-ted to supporting the new bloc and to
support the greater Middle East the bloc members were trying to create.
The geo-strategic and geo-economic objectives of the bloc are huge, and, as things stand in
late March 2019, largely attainable.
The first objective of "the Middle Eastern Entente" was to quickly consolidate strong
influence, if not he-gemony, over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan before the Fertile Crescent
of Minorities could re-emerge as a viable geo-strategic and political entity. The primary
rôle of the revived Fertile Crescent of Minorities was to constitute a buffer containing
the upsurge of the Sunni Arab milieu and blocking the access of both Iran and Turkey to the
heartlands of al-Jazira.
The greatest fear of the bloc members, however, was the possible ascent of the Kurds as a
regional power once they internalized the US betrayal and were ready to strike deals with
Moscow and Damascus. The overall susceptibility of the four Arab countries to the new regional
posture was evident from their blatant disregard of the US sanctions on Iran. Hence, this
region would soon become the key to a new grand-strategic and grand-economic posture for the
entire greater Middle East.
Tehran emerged as the dominant power in the security posture.
The surge has been conducted under the command of Maj.-Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Commander of
the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC: Pasdaran). Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i on March 11, 2019, awarded Soleimani a unique and high State honor: the
Order of Zolfaghar. [Significantly, this order, established in 1856 as The Decoration of the
Commander of the Faithful by Em-peror Naser al-Din Shah, was awarded until 1925 where it was
renamed as The Order of Zolfaghar by Em-peror Reza Shah I. It had not been awarded since the
downfall of the Shah in 1979 until the award -- pre-sumably in the highest of the three classes
of the Order -- to Maj.-Gen. Soleimani.]
Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told the Mehr News Agency that Soleimani received the
award on account of his leading "the fight against terrorism and extremism in the region".
Zarif stressed that So-leimani's achievements "have prepared the grounds for creating a strong
and stable region free from violence and radicalization".
On March 18, 2019, the military commanders of Iran, Syria, and Iraq convened in Damascus in
order to discuss long-term strategic and operational cooperation. The delegations were led by
Mohammad Bagheri (Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces), Ali Abdullah Ayyoub (the Syrian
Defense Minister), and Othman al-Ghanmi (Chief of Staff of the Iraqi Military). Officially, the
summit addressed coordination in counter-terrorism operations, joint securing and opening of
borders, and restoring Damascus' control over the en-tire Syrian territory.
In reality, the tripartite summit discussed the emerging regional posture now that the wars
in Syria and Iraq are nearing their end. Bashar al-Assad addressed the summit and stressed
long-term security and policy issues.
Bagheri explained that the objective of "the tripartite summit between Iran, Syria and Iraq
with the participation of their senior commanders [was] to coordinate efforts on the fight
against terrorist groups in the region. ... Over the last few years, excellent coordination has
been achieved between Iran, Syria, Russia and Iraq, and there has been solidarity with the
Resistance Axis that led to significant victories in counter-ing terrorism, and today, on the
basis of these victories, the consolidation of sovereignty and progress to-wards the liberation
of the rest of Syria is taking place."
Concurrently, the initial indications of things to come were already unfolding.
In mid-March 2019, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Muhterem Ince and his Iranian counterpart,
Hussein Zulfiqari, reached "an agreement on launching a simultaneous operation against terror
groups that threat-en the security of both countries" during a meeting in Ankara. If
successful, this would be the first of many operations. The first joint operation was conducted
on March 18-23, 2019, mainly in northern Iraq. In addition to widespread bombing and shelling,
around 600 Turkish and Iranian special forces carried out joint raiding operations against
Kurdish "terrorist camps". In the last days of the operation, aerial bombings were directed at
all Kurdish nemeses in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Iran. On March 24, 2019, Ankara and Tehran announced that they "are determined
to continue carrying out such joint counter-terrorism operations".
Meanwhile, Qatar has emerged as the dominant power regarding all issues pertaining to the
regional economy.
The first priority was to build Qatar's new oil and gas pipelines to the Mediterranean via
Iran-Iraq-Syria and also connect to the pipelines in Turkey. These pipelines would substitute
for the originally planned "Sunni pipelines" which were to transverse Qatar-Saudi
Arabia-Iraq-Syria and which had originally led to the Qatari support for the Syrian jihad. The
new pipelines would move to the shores of the Mediterranean -- mainly the Syrian port of
Latakia -- gas and oil from both Qatar and Iran. The pipelines would be followed by
electricity lines and a fully integrated transportation infrastructure on a regional
basis.
The long-term strategic infrastructure envisioned by "the Middle Eastern Entente" reflected
the grand-strategic aspirations of Iran and Turkey.
The key arteries would be from Iran to the shores of the Mediterranean, and from western
Turkey to the Red Sea and the Hijaz. Ultimately, these roads would be supplanted by railways.
Iran and Iraq have already started constructing the railway line from the Shalamcheh border
crossing to Basra in Iraq. This is the first segment of a line which would reach Latakia.
Tehran is negotiating with Damascus Iranian management of the civilian port in Latakia (the
Russians control the military facilities) in the next few months as a major outlet for Iran's
international trade.
Taken together, the new railroads would provide access for the New Silk Road to the eastern
Mediterra-nean and the Red Sea; would connect the Russia-Iran north-south route with the
Mediterranean; and would constitute an extension of the Europe-Turkey rail-line much like the
old Baghdad and Persian Gulf railway. The existing Iranian railroad system connects the
north-south rail-line to the Pakistani border and, thus, ultimately to western China.
Both Beijing and Moscow are most interested in the speedy completion of these rail-lines as
part of the extended Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Taken together, the transportation cooperation agreement between the three bloc members
(Qatar, Iran, and Turkey), and the transportation agreement between Iran, Iraq, and Syria,
provide for a road and rail-way system linking all these states. This makes Iran the lynchpin
of the regional transportation networks, and, thus, a crucial purveyor of access for the PRC.
Indeed, PRC senior officials consider Iran to be "a key pivot to China's BRI in the
region".
On March 19, 2019, PRC Minister of Commerce Zhong Shan stressed the rôle of Iran as "the strategic partner" in the greater Middle East for "the further development of economic
and trade ties" with the entire region. "Iran is China's strategic partner in the Middle-East
and China is the biggest trade partner and im-porter of oil from Iran," Zhong said. Ultimately,
this would secure for Iran a central place in the overall PRC strategic and economic
calculations.
The second objective of "the Middle Eastern Entente" was to use the Arab bloc, particularly
its Sunni elements, in conjunction with escalation in Yemen and growing hostility of
(non-Sunni, but Ibadi) Oman, in order to smother and subdue Saudi Arabia. With Saudi Arabia
already near implosion as a result of the erratic reign of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
bin 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Saud, the leaders in Doha, Tehran, and Ankara appear convinced that it
would only take little pressure in order to bring about the break-up and self-dismemberment of
Saudi Arabia.
The key to the bloc's anticipated success was in its capitalizing on heritage-based trends
already growing throughout Saudi Arabia. The aggregate impact of the Turkish-Jordanian and
Islamist-jihadist subversion in the Hejaz, the growing impact of the anti-al-Saud tribal and
jihadist movements organizing in the Nejdi highlands, and the Iran-facilitated radicalization
and militancy of the Shi'ite communities in the Saudi Arabian east would accelerate the
self-dismemberment of Saudi Arabia along traditional lines. Even if the House of al-Saud did
not lose power soon, the myriad of internal problems would prevent Saudi Arabia from playing a
regional rôle against the new bloc and its allies.
A large number of intelligence officials and experts throughout the Middle East concur with
this assessment.
... ... ...
Meanwhile, the Qataris and their allies have made it clear that they do not fear a US
reaction to the emergence of "the Middle Eastern Entente".
Qatari senior officials attribute this to repeated threats from Doha that should the US
interfere with the new bloc and its ascent to prominence, Doha would order the immediate
closure of the huge US base in Al-Udeid, Qatar, and would also stop interceding with Tehran to
prevent Iran-sponsored Shi'ite jihadists from attacking the US Navy base in Bahrain. As well,
the growing dependence of the US Intelligence Community on Turkish Intelligence (Milli
?stihbarat Te?kilat?: MIT) for clandestine operations in Central Asia and in sup-port of the
secessionist Muslim communities of both Russia and China accounts for the US muted reaction to
the Turkish abandonment of NATO.
The same logic would negate US resistance to the ascent of the bloc. Similarly, the US
eagerness for a Trump-Rouhani summit (tailored after the Trump-Kim summit), where Qatar and Oman were the chief mediators, would also restrain a harsh reaction to Iran's growing regional
rôle.
The Trump Administration is cognizant of the US limitations in the greater Middle East.
At the same time, the US remains adamant on preventing the PRC and Russia from consolidating their influence in the greater
Middle East and bringing the New Silk Road into the region. Senior US officials, mainly National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, have warned repeatedly that there could be no compromise with the PRC, nor tolerance of
the ascent of the PRC anywhere. "This is a very big issue, how to deal with China in this
century -- probably the biggest international issue we face," Bolton said on March 21,
2019.
"... By Thomas Ferguson, Director of Research for the Institute of New Economic Thinking; Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Boston. Originally published at the Institute of New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Kane, who coined the term "zombie bank" and who famously raised early alarms about American savings and loans, analyzed European banks and how regulators, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, backstop them. ..."
"... We are only interested observers of the arm wrestling between the various EU countries over the costs of bank rescues, state expenditures, and such. But we do think there is a clear lesson from the long history of how governments have dealt with bank failures . [If] the European Union needs to step in to save banks, there is no reason why they have to do it for free best practice in banking rescues is to save banks, but not bankers. That is, prevent the system from melting down with all the many years of broad economic losses that would bring, but force out those responsible and make sure the public gets paid back for rescuing the financial system. ..."
"... In 2019, another question, alas, is also piercing. In country after country, Social Democratic center-left parties have shrunk, in many instances almost to nothingness. In Germany the SPD gives every sign of following the French Socialist Party into oblivion. Would a government coalition in which the SPD holds the Finance Ministry even consider anything but guaranteeing the public a huge piece of any upside if they rescue two failing institutions? ..."
Running in the background, though, was a new, darker theme: That the post-2008 reforms had gone too far in restricting policymakers'
discretion in crises. The trio most responsible for making the post-Lehman bailout revolution -- Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner,
and Henry Paulson --
expressed their
misgivings in a joint op-ed :
But in its post-crisis reforms, Congress also took away some of the most powerful tools used by the FDIC, the Fed and the Treasury
the FDIC can no longer issue blanket guarantees of bank debt as it did in the crisis, the Fed's emergency lending powers have
been constrained, and the Treasury would not be able to repeat its guarantee of the money market funds.
These powers were critical in stopping the 2008 panic The paradox of any financial crisis is that the policies necessary to
stop it are always politically unpopular. But if that unpopularity delays or prevents a strong response, the costs to the economy
become greater.
We need to make sure that future generations of financial firefighters have the emergency powers they need to prevent the next
fire from becoming a conflagration.
Sotto voce fears of this sort go back to the earliest reform discussions. But the question surfaced dramatically in Timothy Geithner's
2016 Per Jacobsson Lecture, " Are We Safer? The Case for Strengthening
the Bagehot Arsenal ." More recently, the Group of Thirty
has advanced similar suggestions -- not too surprisingly, since Geithner was co-project manager of the report, along with Guillermo
Ortiz, the former Governor of the Mexican Central Bank, who introduced the former Treasury Secretary at the Per Jacobson lecture.
Aside from the financial collapse itself, probably nothing has so shaken public confidence in democratic institutions as the wave
of bailouts in the aftermath of the collapse. The redistribution of wealth and opportunity that the bailouts wrought surely helped
fuel the populist surges that have swept over Europe and the United States in the last decade. The spectacle of policymakers rubber
stamping literally unlimited sums for financial institutions while preaching the importance of austerity for everyone else has been
unbearable to millions of people.
Especially in money-driven political systems, affording policymakers unlimited discretion also plainly courts serious risks. Put
simply, too big to fail banks enjoy a uniquely splendid situation of "heads I win, tails you lose" when they take risks. Scholars
whose research INET has supported, notably
Edward Kane , have shown how the certainty of government bailouts advantages large financial institutions, directly affecting
prices of their bonds and stocks.
For these reasons INET convened a panel at a G20 preparatory meeting in Berlin on "
Moral Hazard Issues in Extended Financial Safety Nets ."
The Power Point presentations of the three panelists are presented in the order in which they gave them, since the latter ones sometimes
comment on Edward Kane
's analysis of the European banks. Kane, who coined the term "zombie bank" and who famously raised early alarms about American
savings and loans, analyzed European banks and how regulators, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, backstop them.
Peter Bofinger
, Professor of International and Monetary Economics at the University of Würzburg and an outgoing member of the German Economic Council,
followed with a discussion of how the system has changed since 2008.
Helene Schuberth
, Head of the Foreign Research Division of the Austrian National Bank, analyzed changes in the global financial governance system
since the collapse.
The panel took place as public discussion of a proposed merger between two giant German banks, the Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank,
reached fever pitch. The panelists explored issues directly relevant to such fusions, without necessarily agreeing among themselves
or with anyone at INET.
But the point Robert Johnson, INET's President, and I
made some years back , amid an earlier wave of talk about using public money to bail out European banks, remains on target:
We are only interested observers of the arm wrestling between the various EU countries over the costs of bank rescues,
state expenditures, and such. But we do think there is a clear lesson from the long history of how governments have dealt with
bank failures . [If] the European Union needs to step in to save banks, there is no reason why they have to do it for free best
practice in banking rescues is to save banks, but not bankers. That is, prevent the system from melting down with all the many
years of broad economic losses that would bring, but force out those responsible and make sure the public gets paid back for rescuing
the financial system.
The simplest way to do that is to have the state take equity in the banks it rescues and write down the equity of bank shareholders
in proportion. This can be done in several ways -- direct equity as a condition for bailout, requiring warrants that can be exercised
later, etc. The key points are for the state to take over the banks, get the bad loans rapidly out of those and into a "bad bank,"
and hold the junk for a decent interval so the rest of the market does not crater. When the banks come back to profitability,
you can cash in the warrants and sell the stock if you don't like state ownership. That way the public gets its money back .at
times states have even made a profit.
In 2019, another question, alas, is also piercing. In country after country, Social Democratic center-left parties have shrunk,
in many instances almost to nothingness. In Germany the SPD gives every sign of following the French Socialist Party into oblivion.
Would a government coalition in which the SPD holds the Finance Ministry even consider anything but guaranteeing the public a huge
piece of any upside if they rescue two failing institutions?
there needs to be an asset tax on/break up of the megas. End the hyper-agglomeration of deposits at the tail end.
not holding my breath though. (see NY state congressional delegation)
to be generous, tax starts at $300 billion. Even then it affects only a dozen or so US banks. But would be enough to clamp
down on the hyper-scale of the largest US/world banks.
The world would be better off with lot more mid-sized regional players.
Anyone who mentions Timmy Geithner without spitting did not pay attention during the Obama reign of terror. He and Obama crowed
about the Making Home Affordable Act, implying that it would save all homeowners in mortgage trouble, but conveniently neglected
to mention that less than 100 banks had signed up. The thousands of non-signatories simply continued to foreclose. Not to mention
Eric Holder's intentional non-prosecution of banksters. For these and many other reasons, especially his "Islamic State is only
the JV team" crack, Obama was one of our worst presidents.
Fergusons graph on DBK's default probabilities coincides with the ECB's ending its asset purchase programme and entering the
"reinvestment phase of the asset purchase programme". https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/implement/omt/html/index.en.html
The worst of the euro zombie banks appear to be getting tense and nervous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKpzCCuHDVY
Maybe that is why Jerome Powell did his volte-face last month on gradually raising interest rates. Note that the Fed also reduced
its automatic asset roll-off. I'm curious if the other euro-zombies in the "peers" return on equity chart are are experiencing
volatility also.
Apparently the worst fate you can suffer as long as you don't go Madoff is Fuld. According to wikipedia his company manages
a hundred million which must be humiliating. It's not as humiliating as locking the guy up in prison would be by a very long stretch.
Greenspan famously lamented that there isn't anything the regulators can really do except make empty threats. This is dishonest.
The regulations are not carved in stone like the ten commandments. In China they execute incorrigible financiers all the time.
Everybody forgets (or at least does not mention) that Greenspan was a member of the Class of '43, the (mostly Canadian) earliest
members of the Objectivist Cult with guru Ayn Rand. Expecting him to act rationally is foolish. It may happen accidentally (we
do not know why he chose to let the economy expand unhindered in 1999), but you cannot count on it. In a world with information
asymmetry expecting markets to be concerned about reputation is ridiculous. To expect them to police themselves for long term
benefit is even more ridiculous.
I think Finance is currently about 13% of the S&P 500, down from the peak of about 18% or so in 2007. I think we will have
a healthy economy and improved political climate when Finance is about 8-10% of the S&P 500 which is about where I think finance
plays a healthy, but not overwhelming rentier role in the economy.
"... "If true, these new reports raise grave questions about what derogatory information career officials obtained about Mr. Kushner to recommend denying him access to our nation's most sensitive secrets, why President Trump concealed his role in overruling that recommendation, why [former White House chief of staff John] Kelly and [former White House counsel Don] McGahn both felt compelled to document these actions, and why your office is continuing to withhold key documents and witnesses from this Committee," wrote Cummings. ..."
"... Since then, the White House has yet to release the documents, and Kushner has come under further scrutiny for allegedly discussing sensitive government matters over WhatsApp and private email. Cummings wrote another letter demanding documents related to Kushner's communication practices on March 21, 2019, threatening to subpoena if the White House fails to comply by April 1. ..."
"... During his period with top-security clearance, the President's son-in-law had access to the nation's most sensitive information. Like President Trump, Kushner did not put his assets in a blind trust, and he retains extensive real estate properties and substantial ownership of Kushner companies. Kushner Companies sought investment from Qatar in the family's heavily indebted 666 Fifth Avenue property (which has since been rescued by Brookfield Properties), which the Qataris denied, weeks before the Saudi and UAE blockade on the nation. ..."
"... In February 2019, a report titled "Whistleblowers Raise Grave Concerns with Trump Administration's Efforts to Transfer Sensitive Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia," House Democrats detailed a push by top Trump officials, including Kushner, to give Saudi Arabia technology to build nuclear power plants. According to the Intercept , the Saudi crown prince boasted to the Emirati prince he had Kushner "in his pocket." ..."
"... Although it appears Kushner may no longer have to worry about the Mueller investigation, the President's son-in law's financial conflicts of interest and foreign policy inexperience make him a dangerous liability to the national security of the United States, and evidence indicates he will remain under the scrutiny of the House Oversight Committee for the foreseeable future. ..."
Jared Kushner Called Before Senate
Intelligence Committee
"If
true, these new reports raise grave questions about what derogatory information career officials obtained about
Mr. Kushner to recommend denying him access to our nation's most sensitive secrets."
On March 28, 2019, the Senate Intelligence
Committee called President Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner for a closed-door meeting. It
was Kushner's second meeting in front of the panel, having previously testified about his contacts with
Russians during the 2016 campaign in July, 2017.
Kushner has faced intense media scrutiny since his
nomination, as the 38-year-old real estate developer and investor held no prior foreign policy experience at
the time President Trump designated him as the administration's Middle East emissary. His failure to disclose
numerous encounters with Russians he made during Trump's campaign, such as Russian Ambassador
Sergey Kislyak
and banker
Sergei Gorkov
, fueled suspicions of collusion that have plagued his tenure.
It is unknown what was discussed in Kushner's most
recent meeting with the Senate Intelligence Committee, but he later expressed hope the Mueller probe's
conclusion would put an end to the suspicions. After his meeting with the Congressional Committee, Kushner gave
Axios
a statement:
"Today I voluntarily
answered follow up questions with the Senate Committee on Intelligence to help them complete their
investigation. Which they said would be soon. I hope my cooperation will help the country get the transparency
it deserves and puts an end to these baseless accusations. It is time for Congress to complete its work, move
on, and to turn its attention to the real problems facing Americans every day."
Jared Kushner's Access to Government Intel
Raises Alarm
Intelligence and White House officials have
expressed concern about granting Kushner access to government secrets in lieu of his failure to disclose his
meetings with foreign contacts in his clearance application.
Reports
that President Trump ordered his then-Chief of Staff, John Kelly, to override the misgivings of
senior officials and approve Kushner's security clearance led to the House Oversight Committee demanding the
White House release documents related to the clearances of top advisors. The committee's chairman,
Representative Elijah Cummings (D-MD), wrote a
letter
to White House counsel Pat Cipollone, ordering the documents to be handed over by March 4, 2019.
"If true, these new
reports raise grave questions about what derogatory information career officials obtained about Mr. Kushner to
recommend denying him access to our nation's most sensitive secrets, why President Trump concealed his role in
overruling that recommendation, why [former White House chief of staff John] Kelly and [former White House
counsel Don] McGahn both felt compelled to document these actions, and why your office is continuing to
withhold key documents and witnesses from this Committee," wrote Cummings.
Since then, the White House has yet to release the
documents, and Kushner has come under further scrutiny for allegedly discussing sensitive government matters
over WhatsApp and private email. Cummings
wrote another
letter demanding documents related to Kushner's communication practices on March 21, 2019,
threatening to subpoena if the White House fails to comply by April 1.
During his period with top-security clearance, the
President's son-in-law had access to the nation's most sensitive information. Like President Trump, Kushner
did not
put his assets in a blind trust, and he retains extensive real estate properties and substantial
ownership of Kushner companies. Kushner Companies
sought investment
from Qatar in the family's heavily indebted 666 Fifth Avenue property (which has since
been
rescued
by Brookfield Properties), which the Qataris denied, weeks before the Saudi and UAE blockade on the
nation.
Jared Kushner's Cozy Relationship with Saudi
Arabia, MBS
Kushner's financial conflicts of interest lead to
serious national security concerns. Kushner has maintained a close relationship with Saudi Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman, whom he allegedly messages directly over
WhatsApp
.
In February 2019, a
report
titled "Whistleblowers Raise Grave Concerns with Trump Administration's Efforts to Transfer
Sensitive Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia," House Democrats detailed a push by top Trump officials,
including Kushner, to give Saudi Arabia technology to build nuclear power plants. According to the
Intercept
, the Saudi crown prince boasted to the Emirati prince he had Kushner "in his pocket."
In the
report
, the whistleblowers stated, "Strong private commercial interests have been pressing aggressively for
the transfer of highly sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia." Around the same time, Brookfield Asset
Management made a deal with the Kushner's to bail out the underwater 666 Fifth Avenue property; Brookfield
announced the $4.6 billion purchase of Westinghouse Electric, a bankrupt nuclear power company. Westinghouse
Electric has previously
sought bids
to develop atomic energy in the Saudi kingdom.
Although it appears Kushner may no
longer have to worry about the Mueller investigation, the President's son-in law's financial conflicts of
interest and foreign policy inexperience make him a dangerous liability to the national security of the United
States, and evidence indicates he will remain under the scrutiny of the House Oversight Committee for the
foreseeable future.
Russiagate may be done but thats because it was defined improperly. Sometimes it helps to
look back to get a big picture perspective
Starting in 1999, Putin enlisted two oligarchs Lev Leviev and Roman Abramovich, who would
go on to become Chabad's biggest patrons worldwide, to create the Federation of Jewish
Communities of Russia under the leadership of Chabad rabbi Berel Lazar, who would come to be
known as "Putin's rabbi."
Roman Abramovich is the owner of the Chelsea Football Club of the English Premier League.
He was a victor (along with Paul Manafort's patron Oleg Deripaska) in the aluminum wars of
the 1990s and reportedly the person who convinced Boris Yeltsin that Putin would be a proper
successor.
Ivanka Trump is very close friends with Abramovich's wife , Dasha Zhukova. Zhukova
reportedly attended the inauguration as Ivanka's personal guest. Leviev is the one with the
closest links to the Trumps and Israel
It starts with Bayrock . This is the company that Donald Trump teamed up with to build his
Trump Soho project. There were three main actors . One was convicted mob associate and FBI
informant Felix Sater. Another was Tevfik Arif, a likely Russian intelligence connection who
was once was arrested by the Turks . The third was the late Tamir Sapir, another man with
ties to Russian intelligence.
The late billionaire Tamir Sapir, was born in the Soviet state of Georgia. Trump has
called Sapir "a great friend." In December 2007, he hosted the wedding of Sapir's daughter,
Zina, at Mar-a-Lago. The groom, Rotem Rosen, was the CEO of the American branch of Africa
Israel, the Putin oligarch Leviev's holding company, and known as Leviev's right hand
man.
As mentioned Leviev was one of two oligarch's who Putin had establish the "Federation of
Jewish Communities of Russia" under the leadership of Chabad rabbi Berel Lazar, who would
come to be known as 'Putin's rabbi.'" Sater, Sapier, Jared, Ivanka are all Chabad members
and/or donors
Trump had business discussions in Moscow in 2013 about Moscow real estate projects with
Agalarovs, Alex Sapir (son of Tamir Sapir, brother of Zina, and brother-in-law of Rotem
Rosen.) and Rotem Rosen, a pair of New York-based Russian . This may also have been discussed
during the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower that was attended by Kushner, Manafort and Donald
Trump Jr and a Russian lawyer associated with Fusion GPS (Steele dossier) and the Leviev
linked Prevezon
Agalarov is a Moscow-based property developer who had won major contracts from Putin's
government. He hosted Trump's 2013 Miss Universe contest at his concert hall in Moscow. He
orchestrated the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting and formed a new American shell company a
month beforehand with the help of the Russian lawyer who attended the meeting.
In 2015, Kushner and his family business, Kushner Cos., bought a portion of the New
York Times building on West 43rd Street from Russian /Israeli real estate billionaire Lev
Leviev for $295M, where $285M was borrowed from Deutsche Bank to complete the transaction,
despite the 666 albatross hanging over Kushners head
Deutsche Bank and two companies tied to Leviev, Africa Israel Investments and Prevezon,
have all recently been the subject of money laundering investigations. A laundering case
against Prevezon was settled two months after Trump fired Bharara, with a $6M slap on the
wrist settlement that raised some eyebrows.
As for 666, Kushner gets bailed out by Brookfield who has Qatar as its 2nd largest
investor. But consider that at the same time they did this deal they also acquired
Westinghouse Electric, a nuclear power company. Now members of the Trump administration
propose selling nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia. Interesting.
Can't seem to find a Putin/Russian oligarch connection although that's probably due to the
fact you can't use anonymous shell companies to buy property in NYC any longer due to new
rules by FinCEN
But so many conflict of interests here, Israel, China, Saudis, Russian oligarchs, etc
and virtually no oversight or transparency. With twitter being used to manipulate markets
one has to imagine rampant insider trading as well (hey guys, my tweets going out at 3 pm,
get your trades in and remember my 5%).
One of the rare early realistic assessments of Trump foreign policy. most were wrong. Circe was right in major points. The
appointment of CIA director was the litmus test and Trump failed it by appointing neocon Pompeo.
Trump foreign policy is a typical neocon foreign policy. People just tried to overlook it in vain hopes that Trump will change the US
foreign policy
Notable quotes:
"... 95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time. ..."
"... And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job. He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get the death penalty for treason. ..."
"... Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,". ..."
"... Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet. The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon -unfriendly President was elected. ..."
"... Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The 'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to fund security agencies and buy arms. ..."
"... And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the "peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly. ..."
"... What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense. ..."
"... he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh? ..."
95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated
obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is
a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This
is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.
And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if Snowden
is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him
to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job. He already
stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get the death penalty for
treason.
Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the
Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern
of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,".
That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up the Iran deal.
Many of you here are extremely naďve regarding Trump.
b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run by a deep-state faction that found
the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.
Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke
of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet. The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon-unfriendly
President was elected.
Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The
'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to
fund security agencies and buy arms.
And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder
until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad
as they were before the "peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.
What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military
(note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.
And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel
or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh?
The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:
>> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?
>> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only check on elites are other elite factions?
An enormous cultural failure that has produced a brittle social fabric.
>> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow the another to gain power?
Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction
or a real attempt at a 'color revolution'.
"... Define unprecedented. What are your standards for a "major western nation"? Any moral standard? Do they include blowing up countries, using militarized spooks with unlimited secret funding? ..."
"... If you side with the devil what are you? In tilting with the CIA, Trump is a saint. ..."
"... Don't worry. Be happy. Nothing can be done now. The voters wanted someone to "shake things up." Trump will be applying creative destruction to government ..."
"... Obama failed to drive the NeoCons out of government. Trump may do so, but the replacement might be fundamentally more corrupt. ..."
"... Looters on the other hand love destruction. The resulting chaos affords them more opportunity to get windfalls. Trump will give the voters the radical change they think they want. But Trump will use the destruction as an opportunity for personal gain. The public will be left with a gutted government that will need to be rebuilt before it will function again ..."
"... One quibble: The destruction he applies will not be creative. It will be thorough but entirely unimaginative. ..."
"... Why do you think a war is brewing? What do you think is going to happen? They'll give him bad intel like they did with Bush? ..."
"... The meme that Trump will "get US into war" is a Clinton loser-whiner meme! Delusional and misleading; the neocon Clinton would have done Putin first CIA fictional, regime change excuse the yellow press could spread. ..."
"... Because they are already reportedly telling some of their contacts not to trust the government with information in case it ends up with hostile governments. Maybe using the word "war" is misleading. Maybe "cold war" is more accurate, but in general I mean a state of mutual distrust. ..."
Just as an aside - not really economics, but I am really worrying about what the war between the future white house team and the
CIA that seems to be brewing. I don't see good solutions to this. It is sort of unprecedented in a major western country. Can
you think of a similar case (where the intelligence services - and perhaps the military as well regarded there own government
head as an enemy agent)?
Define unprecedented. What are your standards for a "major western nation"? Any moral standard? Do they include blowing up
countries, using militarized spooks with unlimited secret funding?
If you side with the devil what are you? In tilting with the CIA, Trump is a saint.
Don't worry. Be happy. Nothing can be done now. The voters wanted someone to "shake things up." Trump will be applying creative
destruction to government
Obama failed to drive the NeoCons out of government. Trump may do so, but the replacement might be fundamentally more corrupt.
As with Obamacare, the idea is to destroy it and replace it with something better. Most revolutions find it easy to destroy
and very much harder to build Most sane leaders recognize this difficulty and modify the existing rather than destroy and never
getting around to replacement or find the replacement to be worse than the existing.
Looters on the other hand love destruction. The resulting chaos affords them more opportunity to get windfalls. Trump will
give the voters the radical change they think they want. But Trump will use the destruction as an opportunity for personal gain.
The public will be left with a gutted government that will need to be rebuilt before it will function again
I don't believe in "creative destruction", I believe in "destructive creation" which is something quite different. But that is
not the point. This is not about the government as such, it is about the security apparatus in itself. It could get very nasty
if that ends up either totally alienated or politicized.
If I were President, provoking an organization whose specialty is covert operations and which has track record of bringing about
the demise of insufficiently agreeable leaders would not be high on my to-do list.
The meme that Trump will "get US into war" is a Clinton loser-whiner meme! Delusional and misleading; the neocon Clinton would
have done Putin first CIA fictional, regime change excuse the yellow press could spread.
Trump is an isolationist who repeatedly said the Iraq war was a disaster, which it was. If the CIA is going after Trump they're
doing a bad job. The worst they could come up with is some unverified accounts that Trump likes pee-pee parties.
Because they are already reportedly telling some of their contacts not to trust the government with information in case it
ends up with hostile governments. Maybe using the word "war" is misleading. Maybe "cold war" is more accurate, but in general
I mean a state of mutual distrust.
"... Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy headaches and priority will be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted attempts to put the US and Russia on a collision course. ..."
"... Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, Trump inherits America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy mess in Iraq and now Syria. ..."
"... This week US B-2 heavy bombers attacked Libya. US forces are fighting in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and parts of Africa. For what? No one is quite sure. America's foreign wars, fueled by its $1 trillion military budget, have assumed a life of their own. Once a great power goes to war, its proponents insist, 'we can't be seen to back down or our credibility will suffer.' ..."
"... If President Trump truly wants to bring some sort of peace to the explosive Mideast, he will have to reject the advice of the hardline Zionists with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Their primary interest is Greater Israel, free of Arabs, not in a Greater America. Trump is too smart not to know this. But he may also listen to his blood and guts former generals who lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation of Saudi Arabia by the US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases, acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it. ..."
What I found most impressive this time was the reaffirmation of America's dedication to the peaceful transfer of political power.
This was the 45th time this miracle has happened. Saying this is perhaps banal, but the handover of power never fails to make me
proud to be an American and thankful we had such brilliant founding fathers.
This peaceful transfer sets the United States apart from many of the world's nations, even Britain and Canada, where leaders under
the parliamentary system are chosen in a process resembling a knife fight in a dark room. The US has somehow managed to retain its
three branches of government in spite of the best efforts of self-serving politicians to wreck it.
Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy headaches and priority will
be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted
attempts to put the US and Russia on a collision course.
Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, Trump inherits
America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy
mess in Iraq and now Syria.
This week US B-2 heavy bombers attacked Libya. US forces are fighting in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and parts of Africa. For what?
No one is quite sure. America's foreign wars, fueled by its $1 trillion military budget, have assumed a life of their own. Once a
great power goes to war, its proponents insist, 'we can't be seen to back down or our credibility will suffer.'
Trump will struggle to find a face-saving retreat from these unnecessary conflicts and shut his ears to the siren songs of the
war party and deep state which just failed to stage a 'soft' coup to block his inauguration. Waging little wars against weak nations
is a multi-billion dollar national industry in the US. America has become as addicted to war as it has to debt.
If President Trump truly wants to bring some sort of peace to the explosive Mideast, he will have to reject the advice of the
hardline Zionists with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Their primary interest is Greater Israel, free of Arabs, not in a
Greater America. Trump is too smart not to know this. But he may also listen to his blood and guts former generals who lost the wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Trump appears to have been gulled into believing the canard that Mideast-origin violence is caused by what he called in his inaugural
speech, radical Islamic terrorism. This is a favorite device promoted by the hard right and Israel to de-legitimize any resistance
to Israel's expansion and ethnic cleansing. The label of 'terrorism' serves the same purpose.
Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation of Saudi Arabia by the
US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases,
acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it.
Unfortunately, President Trump is unlikely to get this useful advice from the men who now surround him, with the possibly exception
of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Let's hope that Tillerson and not Goldman Sachs bank ends up steering US foreign policy.
(Reprinted from EricMargolis.com by permission
of author or representative)
"... It gives a formal US stamp of approval to Israel's violation of international law, and, in particular of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilians into occupied territory. Roughly 20,000 Israeli settlers live in the occupied Golan Heights today – now with the unambiguous backing of the US government. ..."
"... Jared Kusher's family is so close Netanyahu that the prime minister once slept in Kushner's childhood bedroom . Between the Trump administration's personnel and rightward lurch in Israeli politics, the pieces that would make the current one-state reality permanent are rapidly falling into place. ..."
No country in the world recognizes Israel's rule over the Golan Heights, occupied by
Israel in 1967 and unilaterally annexed in 1981 – no country,
that is, until now.
Donald Trump signed a presidential proclamation on Monday formally recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, still
considered Syrian territory under international law. Standing by President Trump's side during an address by the two heads of state
in Washington DC, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, reportedly called Trump's decision "
historic justice " and gifted the president a box of wine from the occupied territory. As they embraced, Israeli forces began
an aerial bombardment of the besieged Gaza Strip after rockets launched from Gaza hit a house in a community north of Tel Aviv earlier
that day.
Trump's announcement is unmistakably an election-time favor for Netanyahu. Saddled with multiple corruption charges, including
one for bribery, Netanyahu and his Likud party have been flagging in the polls. Likud increasingly appears threatened by the center-right
Blue and White party, jointly headed by the taciturn retired general Benny Gantz and former TV personality Yair Lapid. Netanyahu's
desperation can be measured by the extremity of his rhetoric. He and his surrogates have spent the past several weeks waging a hateful,
vicious campaign, accusing the Arab political parties of supporting terrorism and explicitly warning that a Gantz and Lapid victory
would lead to dead Israelis.
Many in Israel, however, view Netanyahu, despite his flaws, as a talented statesman and skilled advocate for the country's interests
on the international stage, and Netanyahu has campaigned on achievements such as normalizing relations with the Gulf states and the
US embassy's move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Golan Heights declaration – which initially took even the secretary of state, Mike
Pompeo, who was in Israel at the time, by surprise – is likely meant to bolster this image.
Trump's recognition of the Golan Heights marks the total capture of US policymaking in the Middle East by pro-Israel right
But Trump's Golan Heights proclamation is not just a cynical political gambit. It is a dramatic change in US policy in the Middle
East that could have serious consequences. Trump, unlike his predecessors, has never even pretended to abide by international norms
and conventions. And yet the decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over territory that the international community nearly unanimously
considers occupied, or at the very least disputed, is unprecedented.
It gives a formal US stamp of approval to Israel's violation of international law, and, in particular of the Fourth Geneva
Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilians into occupied territory. Roughly 20,000 Israeli settlers
live in the occupied Golan Heights today – now with the unambiguous backing of the US government.
This potentially paves the way for Israel's annexation, in part or whole, of the West Bank. It has long been a talking
point on the Israeli hard right that, despite the international community's protestations, there would be few consequences for extending
Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank . Trump's declaration,
it seems, has not only proven them right, but given them an added boost: unlike during the Obama years, they can be confident that
the global hegemon will take their side.
If Netanyahu's Likud wins enough seats on 9 April to form a government, it is very like that annexation, at the very least, will
be on the table for discussion. The Likud's central committee unanimously voted in 2017 in favor of annexing the West Bank. Naftali
Bennett, co-chair of the New Right party, has proposed a plan to annex parts of Area C of the West Bank. And the other rightwing
parties – the extremist Union of Parties of the Right and Moshe Feiglin's Identity party, both of which would almost certainly sit
in a future Likud government – have only more extreme proposals for dealing with "the Palestinian question", including the forced
transfer of Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Jordan.
Trump's recognition of the Golan Heights marks the total capture of US policymaking in the Middle East by pro-Israel right. US
ambassador to Israel David Friedman is an opponent of the two-state solution who previously operated the charitable arm of
a rightwing orthodox religious seminary in the West Bank settlement of Beit El. Jared Kusher's family is so close Netanyahu
that the prime minister once slept
in Kushner's childhood bedroom . Between the Trump administration's personnel and rightward lurch in Israeli politics, the pieces
that would make the current one-state reality permanent are rapidly falling into place.
It is important to remember this in light of the glitz and pablum of the AIPAC policy conference taking place this week in Washington
DC, where the PR hacks and policy flacks are working hard to launder Israel's image, to obscure the fact that there is one sovereign
state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea that determines the lives of roughly 13 million people; that of those 13
million, only half – Israeli Jews – have full citizenship and social rights; and that the other half, the Palestinians, live under
a range of discriminatory systems, from codified discrimination but legal citizenship within Israel, to residency without the right
to vote in East Jerusalem, to military dictatorship in the West Bank.
Donald Trump , his administration, the pro-Israel lobby,
and Netanyahu all intend to keep it that way.
Joshua Leifer is an associate editor at Dissent. Previously, he worked at +972 Magazine and was based in Jerusalem
This rocket attack was a gift to Bibi, not a constraint in any manner. The one thing that
could save that pathetic waste of oxygen is another war in Gaza. Taken together with the
upcoming election, it's even harder to see how Hamas could possibly benefit from the
situation. Therefore my money would be on a splinter group in Gaza aiming to erode popular
support for Hamas, or a false flag by Netanyahoo and cohorts.
Israel now has the pretext the media desires to whitewash its crimes and the Israelis will
once again be picnicking along the Palestinian border in Gaza cheering the destruction.
I can only agree with Gideon Levy quoted @51 as the explanation for the Israeli madness:
they have thoroughly brainwashed themselves. Bibi isn't the cause for the racism, he is a
symptom. There will be no one stepping forward from that populace who would even poke at the
status quo. Change will only be imposed from the outside. Much like in the US where the
'progressives' (maximum snark) have deluded themselves into thinking Trump is the problem.
Trump is the symptom, not the cause. We ourselves, both the left and the right, are the
problem.
The recent missile attack was denied by Hamas and claimed by what was a new unknown group
whose name I can't recall. Interesting that in the very limiting confines of Gaza there could
arise a group armed with missiles unknown to Hamas. That led me to think in terms of Zionist
provocation to help criminal Bibi.
Nutty clearly reached a dead-end policy-wise long ago and has done nothing to solve
Palestine's fundamental problem of the presence of so many Zionists. Trump hasn't helped
Zionistan with his illegal declaration of Golan belonging to it as it only ensures Syria will
eventually regain it in what will be a ruinous war.
Nobody has mentioned the presence of an enlightened Zionist leader (is there such a
thing?) amongst the candidates. But if there is one, s/he needs to be elected as at some
future point Israel will be replaced by Palestine.
April-May-June sure looking like some very interesting months geopolitically.
Israel/Gaza
Ukraine
Brexit/UK - bye-bye May?
EU Elections - bye-bye Merkel?
Indonesia Elections
India Elections
South Africa Elections
Australia Elections
That's 25% of the G20 right there potentially changing leaders.
"But whoever wins the election will have an interest in a fundamental change of the
situation. A new leader in Tel Aviv might have ideas on how to do that."
Gideon Levy, in a recent article in Haaretz, dispels any notion that fundamental change is
even possible in Israel.
"Simply put, the people are the problem. Netanyahu has voters. There are those who vote
for his kind. There are those who have hated Arabs long before Netanyahu. There are those who
despise blacks, detest foreigners, exploit the weak and look down their noses at the whole
world – and not because of Netanyahu. There are those who believe they are the chosen
people and therefore deserve everything.
There are those who think that after the Holocaust, they are permitted to do anything.
There are those who believe that Israel is tops in the world in every field, that
international law doesn't apply to it, and that no one can tell it what to do.
There are those who think Israelis are victims – always victims, the only victims
– and that the whole world is against us. There are those who are convinced that Israel
is allowed to do anything, simply because it can.
There are those who believe in the sword alone. There are those who champion aggression,
in the territories and on the roads, and who don't know any other language. There are
unprecedented levels of ignorance.
There's brainwashing to an extent unknown in a democracy. Is Netanyahu responsible for all of
this? Come on.
The problem is the atmosphere, the spirit of the times, the values and outlooks that
have become ingrained here during decades of Zionism.
...The apartheid did not start with him and will not end with his departure; it probably
won't even be dented. One of the most racist nations in the world cannot complain about its
prime minister's racism....That there is no ideological alternative has nothing to do with
Netanyahu."
One can only imagine the reaction stateside if this article appeared in a major American
publication. Politicians would be falling over themselves in a frenzy of outrage and the
jewish lobbies would be pounding the drumbeats of 'anti-semite'.
As per the above assessment, the 'single missile at long range near a fine hospital, with
seven "wounded" and none killed' seems like the most likely scenario.
So what would this accomplish? Well most people here have been saying that Benny will most
likely pull some sort of military escalation in the face of being tried for various things
and being called 'soft' on Palestinian "terrorists". In his position how can he not? With the
official nod from The Orange One re: the annexation of the Golan to ratchet up the tension,
maybe even some further escalation? A recently installed USAn base and a few pledge of
allegiance papers signed might be a good trip-wire in case thins heat up... As we have seen
seemingly disparate events are often planned to coincide at pivotal times. What might be some
others that are ready to be sprung? Is the Donbass line ready to burst as the temps warm? Are
there a few B-52s lumbering around the airspace? Maybe the regime change dream-team is
brewing up something nasty and new in Venezuela having exhausted the rather dated playbook?
Perhaps when the Brexit fiasco begins to boil over, there will be a chaotic chorus of events
unleashed to thrill us all...!!!
"Trump & his crew have made a mockery of both #AmericaFirst & #MAGA concepts by
putting the interests of a foreign country before those of the US. I just cant understand how
Americans put up w/ this shit. Zionists & Evangelicals support it but why do the rest
stay silent?"
My simple answer: Small minds dominated by BigLie Media.
Is he really that stupid? After Hillary Clinton email scandal ? Amazing ! Those people really feel that they are above the
law.
Notable quotes:
"... But Lowell said Kushner was not violating federal law requiring official communications to be preserved because he takes screenshots of his messages and then sends them to his White House email account, Cummings wrote. ..."
"... Cummings said Lowell also told him and then-South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy, who was the chair at the time of the December meeting, that first daughter and presidential adviser Ivanka Trump conducts official White House business on her personal email account. ..."
President Trump's adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner used the encrypted
messaging service WhatsApp as well as his personal email account to conduct official business,
a top House Democrat charged Thursday.
The revelation came during a Dec. 19 meeting of the House Oversight and Reform Committee,
which released the information in a letter Thursday.
Chairman Elijah Cummings wrote to White House counsel Pat Cipollone to tell him that
Kushner's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, had confirmed during the meeting that Kushner "continues to use"
WhatsApp to conduct White House business.
But Lowell said Kushner was not violating federal law requiring official communications to
be preserved because he takes screenshots of his messages and then sends them to his White
House email account, Cummings wrote.
Kushner, whom the president put in charge of finding peace in the Middle East, regularly
communicates with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman via WhatsApp, Politico reported.
It was unclear whether Kushner continued to use WhatsApp after the December meeting.
Cummings said Lowell also told him and then-South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy, who was the
chair at the time of the December meeting, that first daughter and presidential adviser Ivanka
Trump conducts official White House business on her personal email account.
"These communications raise questions about whether these officials complied with the
Presidential Records Act and whether the White House identified this personal email use during
its internal review and took steps to address it," Cummings wrote.
This is one of the best summaries of Chris christi book. Bravo !
It is important to understand that Flynn approached Russian at Kusher request with the goal to derail anti-Isreali resoluition in
the US.
So if Jared then initiated firing of Flynn then Jared is a really dangerous ruthless shark.
Notable quotes:
"... When Bannon canned him at Trump Tower not long after the 2016 election, Christie demanded to know who was behind it, threatening that he would publicly finger Bannon if he didn't spill the beans. Bannon blamed Kushner, saying he was still furious over Christie's prosecution of Charles Kushner in 2005. "The kid's been taking an ax to your head with the boss ever since I got here," Bannon told him, according to the book. ..."
"... Christie also reveals how Jared Kushner bad-mouthed him to Trump in 2016, begging the future president not to name him transition chairman. "He implied I had acted unethically and inappropriately but didn't state one fact to back that up. Just a lot of feelings -- very raw feelings that had been simmering for a dozen years," he writes. ..."
"... Christie also slams Kushner for giving his father-in-law tone-deaf political advice. He says Kushner thought firing Flynn would end talk of collusion with Russia's election meddling, and that firing FBI chief James Comey would not spark "an enormous sh-t-storm" in Washington. "Again, the president was ill-served by poor advice," he writes. ..."
Chris Christie, in his new tell-all about working on Donald Trump's campaign, paints a scathing portrait of first son-in-law Jared
Kushner -- depicting him as a vengeful, underhanded dullard ill equipped to work in the White House.
In " Let Me Finish
," the former New Jersey governor accuses Kushner of orchestrating a "hit job" on him in revenge for Christie's prosecution of
Jared's dad, Charles Kushner, which resulted in him doing time in a federal pen.
"Steve Bannon made clear to me that one person and one person only was responsible for the faceless execution that Steve was now
attempting to carry out. Jared Kushner, still apparently seething over events that had occurred a decade ago," Christie writes in
the book, a copy of which was obtained by The Guardian.
In other revelations:
Christie writes about how Trump told him he was too fat and that he needed to slim down. "You gotta look better to be able
to win" in politics, Trump told him over dinner in 2005. During the 2016 presidential campaign, he also urged Christie to wear
longer ties -- like the president's -- because it would make him look thinner.
He trashes Trump's pick for attorney general, Jeff Sessions, saying that the arch-conservative former Alabama senator was
"not-ready-for-prime-time" and that his recusal from the special counsel's Russia probe led to its expansion. Christie himself
wanted the job, but he was blackballed by Kushner and Trump's daughter, Ivanka, according to the book.
Christie also slammed disgraced former national security adviser Mike Flynn, who faces sentencing for lying to the FBI about
his contacts with Russia, branding him "the Russian lackey and future federal felon."
Christie mocked the former Army general as "a train wreck from beginning to end a slow-motion car crash."
But most of his venom
is directed at Kushner,
who talked Trump out of naming Christie the head of his transition team, a position that ultimately went to Vice President Mike
Pence.
When Bannon canned him at Trump Tower not long after the 2016 election, Christie demanded to know who was behind it, threatening
that he would publicly finger Bannon if he didn't spill the beans. Bannon blamed Kushner, saying he was still furious over
Christie's prosecution of Charles Kushner in 2005. "The kid's been taking an ax to your head with the boss ever since I got here,"
Bannon told him, according to the book.
Charles Kushner pleaded guilty to 18 charges and served 14 months in a federal pen in Alabama. He also hired a hooker to
seduce his brother-in-law, recorded them doing the deed and sent a tape of the encounter to his sister -- an effort to force his
brother-in-law's silence about Kushner's crimes.
Christie also reveals how Jared Kushner bad-mouthed him to Trump in 2016, begging the future president not to name him transition
chairman. "He implied I had acted unethically and inappropriately but didn't state one fact to back that up. Just a lot of feelings
-- very raw feelings that had been simmering for a dozen years," he writes.
Kushner insisted the sex tape and blackmailing were a family matter and that his father should not have been prosecuted for it.
"This was a family matter, a matter to be handled by the family or by the rabbis," Christie writes.
Christie also slams Kushner for giving his father-in-law tone-deaf political advice. He says Kushner thought firing Flynn
would end talk of collusion with Russia's election meddling, and that firing FBI chief James Comey would not spark "an enormous sh-t-storm"
in Washington. "Again, the president was ill-served by poor advice," he writes.
Christie also claims that the Trump White House -- which other exposes have portrayed as beset by chaos and scandal -- would be
running like a Swiss watch if he had been in charge of the transition. Pence's transition team had a "thrown-together approach"
that resulted in bad hires for top posts "over and over again." Unlike other tomes by former White House staffers and journalists,
Christie takes it easy on the president, admitting only that he often speaks off the cuff, creating needless controversy.
President Trump reportedly ordered former Chief of Staff John Kelly to give son-in-law Jared
Kushner a top-secret security clearance, even though the decision was not supported by the
intelligence community.
Trump directed Kelly to give his senior adviser the security clearance early last year after
both Kushner and wife, Ivanka Trump, told the president to intervene in the process,
according to The Washington Post .
Kelly was apparently so concerned about the move, he documented Trump's request in a memo,
the paper said. Kushner finally received the clearance in May.
Both Ivanka and the president have said in the past that they did not interfere in the
security-clearance process.
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said on Thursday
that his committee is already probing the process and is awaiting documents they had requested
from the White House.
A spokesman for Kushner's lawyer told the paper that in 2018, "White House and security
clearance officials affirmed that Mr. Kushner's security clearance was handled in the regular
process with no pressure from anyone."
Before Jared Kushner became a senior White House adviser, he was at the helm
of the New York Observer - where he would personally order the removal of content that was critical of his
associates.
According to a report by
Buzzfeed
, the president's son-in-law ordered a software developer at his newspaper to kill a handful of
stories that were unfavorable to his cronies.
One of the stories that he had removed from online was a seemingly benign
story from 2012 about
NBA
Commissioner Adam Silver purchasing a $6.75million apartment, however personal real estate purchases
are something privacy-conscious famous New Yorkers typically like to keep out of the press.
The NBA commissioner has since publicly praised his friend, Kushner, for
helping the NBA find space for a retail store.
Kushner also had a legal story about a 2010 settlement between a then-New York
attorney general Andrew Cuomo and real estate firm Vantage Properties wiped from the Observer site.
That suit alleged Vantage illegally forced tenants out of their apartments to
raise rents.
+5
Copy link to paste in your message
'Nothing Sacred But the Truth': Before Jared Kushner went to work for the Trump
administration he was at the helm of the New York Observer after purchasing the publication in 2006 for
$10million. According to a report, Kushner used his power to have stories that were critical of his rich
friends wiped from the site
+5
Copy link to paste in your message
Jared Kushner used his position as owner of the New York Observer to wipe stories
from the site that his upper-echelon associates would not want out. One of the vanished pieces was about
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver's (pictured) purchasing a $6.7million apartment
Additionally Kushner ordered another 2010 article deleted about Vantage's top
executive Neil Rubler removed that apparently had him on a '10 worst landlords' list.
The Observer's articles often took aim at the city's upper-echelon but it
faltered under Kushner's leadership.
He stepped down from the helm of the publication to join the Trump
administration. The ownership of the Observer is currently in a family trust, with the Observer Media Group
saying he does not currently have a hand in editorial matters.
Austin Smith, the software employee who handled the eye-raising requests for
content to be deleted, told Buzzfeed: 'That Kushner, a newspaper owner of all people, would participate in
an administration that labels news media the enemy of the people, is an affront to the very notion of the
freedom of the press and an utter betrayal of those who worked hard and in good faith for him at the
Observer,'
Meanwhile Elizabeth Spiers who was the Editor-in-Chief at the time Kushner was
purging articles he found unfavorable, said she was not aware that he was doing so, and that he purposely
went behind her back to get the underhanded job done.
'If I had known about it, Jared and I would have had a big problem,' she
said.
'Jared's such a coward. Went directly to Austin because he knew I wouldn't do
it.' Spiers said adding that that Smith didn't have any choice in the matter but to delete the stories since
he was not an editorial employee.
Spiers took to Twitter Monday night with some choice words for Kushner.
'I found out a few months ago that while I was the editor in chief of the
Observer, Jared was instructing our third party tech provider to delete articles critical of his business
associates w/out my knowledge. I don't have enough choice expletives describe my feelings about that,' she
tweeted in response to the report published by Buzzfeed.
+5
Copy link to paste in your message
Elizabeth Spiers pictured with Kushner at an Observer event in 2011 had choice
words for the president's son-in-law's under-handed deletion of articles to the favor of his wealthy
friends
+5
Copy link to paste in your message
+5
Copy link to paste in your message
Copy link to paste in your message
...
Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump made $83 million in 2017
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:00
Previous
Play
Skip
LIVE
Mute
00:00
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration Time
0:55
Fullscreen
Need Text
Video Quality
Minimize
Expand
Close
'But if you want to be the worst possible owner of a news operation,
vindictively and unethically erasing the work of your own your own (severely underpaid, hardworking)
journalists solely to lubricate the volume and frequency of your cocktail party invites is a good way to do
it,' Spiers added.
Kushner's under-the-table favors via his news publication did not end when
Spiers was out.
Instead, he continued wiping the pages clean for his friends in high places
under Aaron Gell as well.
Gell, Spiers' deputy editor and successor, said he also was unaware that
Kushner was deleting the work of his editorial staff as favors to his friends, as the president's son-in-law
was still using the tech team to remove the articles.
'When Jared announced I was out, he told me, ''I just needed someone I could
trust,'' Gell said to BuzzFeed News.
'The more I learn about how he wanted to run the paper, the more I've been
able to take that as a compliment.'
Kushner purchased the New York Observer in 2006 for $10million, with money he
made from real-estate investments. The money for those property investments was gifted to him by his
family.
Advertisement
Read more:
Observer Media has once again bounced its editor-in-chief -- the latest sign of turmoil at the New York publication with ties
to Jared Kushner, the real estate scion and senior adviser to President Trump.
Ben Robinson
, a former chief creative officer of Thrillist, was out on Friday after only 10 months as the editor-in-chief. Observer president
James Karklins said the EIC job is not being replaced and that instead there would be "continued executive direction."
Also gone in the Friday shakeup is deputy editor Adam Laukhuf.
The top edit job now falls to social media editor Mary von Aue, according to changes posted on the Observer website, which listed
her as editorial director.
Kushner, married to Ivanka Trump, said he was stepping away from involvement with the publication he bought in 2005 shortly after
becoming an unpaid senior adviser to President Trump in early 2017. At that time, he handed the Observer to a family trust and appointed
his brother-in-law Joseph Meyer as CEO.
Karklins did not mention the new role for von Aue in his statement to The Post.
"Ben Robinson is no longer with the organization and has stepped down as Editor-in-chief of Observer," he said. "At this time
the Observer is not replacing the Editor-in-chief position and will continue to execute our content strategy with our current editorial
team in place and continued executive direction."
Said one former staffer, "Working at the Observer, you get used to unpleasant surprises. And every setback -- especially the latest
one, which I fear may signal the death of the Observer -- is entirely the fault of upper management."
Observer names former Thrillist executive to top editor job The Observer Media Group finally tapped a new editor-in-chief,
naming...
The ex-staffer said that Robinson had hoped to rekindle some of the Observer's past glory when he joined on Feb. 14, 2018. He
had staffers read "The Kingdom of New York," a collection of classic Observer stories.
"Upper management treated Ben horribly and they should be ashamed of themselves though I know they're not," the ex-staffer added.
The publication, once a salmon-colored print weekly, in its glory days had been a must-read for the media and political chattering
classes following its founding by Arthur Carter. Graydon Carter had once been its editor-in-chief before landing at Vanity Fair.
Under EIC Peter Kaplan, its "Sex and the City" column by Candice Bushnell inspired the hit TV show that starred Sarah Jessica Parker.
The publication dropped New York from its title and abandoned its print edition in early 2017 in favor of chasing a national digital
audience.
Kushner reportedly paid $10 million to acquire the money-losing publication from Arthur Carter in 2005.
Said former executive editor Merin Curotto, "More than anything, I think it's really sad. When our last EIC Ken Kurson resigned,
the editorial team -- one that for nearly two years had weathered the Trump-Kushner turmoil -- was left essentially lost at sea.
It took nine months not only to find Ben Robinson, but to convince him the Observer really was an environment ripe for change."
"... "Mr. Kushner pled guilty, he admitted the crimes. So what am I supposed to do as a prosecutor?" Christie asked. "If a guy hires a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, and videotapes it, and then sends the videotape to his sister in an attempt to intimidate her from testifying before a grand jury, do I really need any more justification than that?" ..."
"... Christie now writes that Jared Kushner retaliated after the 2016 election by having Stephen K. Bannon, then an executive for Trump's campaign, fire him. The White House and a spokesperson for Jared Kushner did not immediately respond to a request for comment. ..."
"... Jared is ethically deficient if he thinks his father's behavior was acceptable. ..."
"... Two crime families: a marriage made in "heaven".! ..."
Chris Christie rips Kushner's dad: 'One of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes that I prosecuted' - The Washington Post
Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie took several shots at White House senior adviser Jared Kushner in his new book "
Let Me Finish ," alleging that in an act of spite, Donald Trump's son-in-law coordinated his removal from the president's transition
team shortly after the 2016 election.
He claims Kushner was still "seething" from events that took place more than a decade prior -- when Christie, as a U.S. attorney,
prosecuted Kushner's father, Charles, for tax evasion, witness tampering and illegal campaign contributions, sending the elder Kushner
to prison for 14 months.
The former governor did not mince words while discussing the case Tuesday:
"Mr. Kushner pled guilty, he admitted the crimes. So what am I supposed to do as a prosecutor?" Christie asked. "If a guy
hires a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, and videotapes it, and then sends the videotape to his sister in an attempt to intimidate
her from testifying before a grand jury, do I really need any more justification than that?"
He added, "It's one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes that I prosecuted when I was U.S. attorney," Christie said during
a segment with PBS's "Firing Line With Margaret Hoover." "And I was a U.S. attorney in New Jersey, Margaret -- so we had some loathsome
and disgusting crime going on there!"
"It's one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes that I prosecuted...and I was the U.S. attorney in New Jersey."
@ChrisChristie talks about prosecuting Charles
Kushner for tax evasion, illegal campaign contributions and witness tampering.
#FiringLineShowPBS pic.twitter.com/rBNn0j0bCY
-- Firing Line with Margaret Hoover (@FiringLineShow)
January 29, 2019
Charles Kushner, a wealthy and well-connected real estate developer, pleaded guilty in 2004 to 18 counts of filing false tax returns,
retaliating against witnesses and making illegal campaign contributions. He was sentenced to 24 months in prison and served 14.
Christie at the time wrote in a
news release that Kushner's
guilty plea was a "great victory for the people of New Jersey."
"No matter how rich and powerful any person may be, they will be held accountable for criminal conduct by this office," he wrote.
Christie now writes that Jared Kushner retaliated after the 2016 election by having Stephen K. Bannon, then an executive for
Trump's campaign, fire him. The White House and a spokesperson for Jared Kushner did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
"Jared Kushner, still apparently seething over events that occurred a decade ago, was exacting a plot of revenge against me, a
hit job that made no sense at all for the man we had just helped elect," Christie wrote in "Let Me Finish." "And Steve Bannon, hot-shot,
big-balls campaign executive, was quietly acquiescing to it."
He continued, "What wimps, what cowards. And how disloyal to Donald Trump."
MollyNYC, 1 month ago (Edited)
So Charles Kushner (by way of suborning a witness) hires a hooker to destroy his own sister's marriage, humiliate her, and
cause what was probably profound emotional harm.
His own sister.
What does it say about Jared Kushner that after all those years, he still couldn't wrap his head around the idea that his father
-- not the federal attorney -- was the bad guy in this story?
Marilynn Gray-Raine, 1 month ago (Edited)
A SNAKE PIT, People !!! What slimy vipers, every one of them! Rotten, deeply flawed creatures in human guise! Mobsters! Soul-less
ignoranus's*. Beyond contempt. White collar crime "punishment" should be much harsher. 14 months in jail?! Really?
The cancerous
crimes these capitalist thugs commit against weaker individuals and the planet at large are IMMENSE , and the punishment should
fit the crime! I say they should all be sardined in a sewer cell with Bernie Madoff forever !
*"ignoranus" someone who is both
ignorant and an a**hole !
Wolfie Smith, 1 month ago (Edited)
tax evasion, witness tampering and illegal campaign contributions ... WTF!!!
Am I alone in seeing patterns in this White House, only the best people can attend the court of King Donald.
Aumale, 1 month ago
More proof that Trump and his ilk operate like mobsters.
UrbanLover, 1 month ago
Jared is ethically deficient if he thinks his father's behavior was acceptable.
I
would like to express my gratitude to
Jared
Kushner
for reviving interest in my 2006 book,
The
Price of Admission
. I have never met or spoken with him, and it's rare in this life to find such a selfless benefactor. Of
course, I doubt he became Donald Trump's son-in-law and
consigliere
merely
to boost my lagging sales, but still, I'm thankful.
My book exposed a grubby secret of American higher education: that the rich buy their underachieving children's way into elite
universities with massive, tax-deductible donations. It reported that New Jersey real estate developer Charles Kushner had
pledged $2.5m to
Harvard
University
not long before his son Jared was admitted to the prestigious Ivy League school, which at the time accepted about
one of every nine applicants. (Nowadays, it only takes one out of 20.)
I also quoted administrators at Jared's high school, who described him as a less-than-stellar student and expressed dismay at
Harvard's decision.
"There was no way anybody in the administrative office of the school thought he would on the merits get into Harvard,'' a former
official at the Frisch school in Paramus, New Jersey, told me. "His GPA [grade point average] did not warrant it, his SAT scores
did not warrant it. We thought, for sure, there was no way this was going to happen. Then, lo and behold, Jared was accepted. It
was a little bit disappointing because there were at the time other kids we thought should really get in on the merits, and they
did not.''
Risa Heller, a spokeswoman for Kushner Companies, said in an email on Thursday that "the allegation'' that Charles Kushner's gift
to Harvard was related to Jared's admission "is and always has been false". His parents, Charles and Seryl Kushner, "are
enormously generous and have donated over $100m to universities, hospitals and other charitable causes. Jared Kushner was an
excellent student in high school and graduated from Harvard with honours.'' (About 90% of Jared's 2003 class at Harvard also
graduated with honours.)
My Kushner discoveries were an offshoot of my research for a chapter on Harvard donors. Somebody had slipped me a document I had
long coveted: the membership list of Harvard's Committee on University Resources. The university wooed more than 400 of its
biggest givers and most promising prospects by putting them on this committee and inviting them to campus periodically to be
wined, dined and subjected to lectures by eminent professors.
My idea was to figure out how many children of these corporate titans, oil barons, money managers, lawyers, high-tech consultants
and old-money heirs had gone to Harvard. A disproportionate tally might suggest that the university eased its standards for the
offspring of wealthy backers.
I began working through the list, poring over Who's Who in America and Harvard class reunion reports for family information.
Charles and Seryl Kushner were both on the committee. I had never heard of them, but their joint presence struck me as a sign
that Harvard's fundraising machine held the couple in especially fond regard.
The clips showed that Charles Kushner's empire encompassed 25,000 New Jersey apartments, along with extensive office, industrial
and retail space and undeveloped land. Unlike most of his fellow committee members, though, Kushner was not a Harvard man. He had
graduated from New York University. This eliminated the sentimental tug of the alma mater as a reason for him to give to Harvard,
leaving another likely explanation: his children.
Sure enough, his sons Jared and Joshua had both enrolled there.
Charles Kushner differed from his peers on the committee in another way: he had a criminal record. Five years after Jared entered
Harvard, the elder Kushner pleaded guilty in 2004 to tax violations, illegal campaign donations and retaliating against a
witness. (As it happens, the prosecutor in the case was Chris Christie,
recently
ousted
as the head of Trump's transition team.)
Charles
Kushner had hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law
, who was cooperating with federal authorities. Kushner then had a
videotape of the tryst sent to his sister. He was sentenced to two years in federal prison.
I completed my analysis, which justified my hunch. Of the 400-plus tycoons on Harvard's list – which included people who were
childless or too young to have college-age offspring – more than half had sent at least one child to the university.
I also decided that the Kushner-Harvard relationship deserved special attention. Although the university often heralded big gifts
in press releases or a bulletin called, in a classic example of fundraising wit, Re:sources, a search of these outlets came up
empty. Harvard didn't seem eager to be publicly associated with Charles Kushner.
While looking into Kushner's taxes, though, federal authorities had subpoenaed records of his charitable giving. I learned that
in 1998, when Jared was attending the Frisch school and starting to look at colleges, his father had pledged $2.5m to Harvard, to
be paid in annual instalments of $250,000. Charles Kushner also visited Neil Rudenstine, then Harvard president, and discussed
funding a scholarship programme for low- and middle-income students.
I phoned a Harvard official, with whom I was on friendly terms. First I asked whether the gift played any role in Jared's
admission. "You know we don't comment on individual applicants,'' he said. When I pressed further, he hung up. We haven't spoken
since.
At Harvard, Jared Kushner majored in government. Now the 35-year-old is poised to become the power behind the presidency. What he
plans to do, and in what direction he and his father-in-law will lead the country, are far more important than his high school
grades.
In a recent thought-provoking article
Gideon Levy, probably one of the last genuine Israeli voices for peace, claims that "It is
not Netanyahu who is responsible for Israeli 'racism, extreme nationalism, divisiveness,
incitement, hatred, anxiety and corruption.'" Behind Netanyahu, Levy says, there's a nation of
voters and other elected officials that aren't very different from their leader.
"Simply put, the people are the problem There are those who have hated Arabs long before
Netanyahu. There are those who despise blacks, detest foreigners, exploit the weak and look
down their noses at the whole world – and not because of Netanyahu. There are those who
believe they are the chosen people and therefore deserve everything."
Levy reaffirms the observation that I have been pushing for two decades. The problem with Israel is
not of a political
kind . The conflict with the Palestinians or the Arabs is not of a political nature as some
delusional characters within the Palestinian solidarity movement have been proclaiming for
years. Israel defines itself as the Jewish state. In order to grasp Israel, its politics, its
policies and the intrusive nature of its lobby, we must understand the nature of
Jewishness. We must learn to define the differences between Jews (the people), Judaism
(the religion) and Jewishness (the ideology). We have to understand how those terms are related
to each other and how they influence Israeli and Jewish politics globally.
Levy writes that "there are those who think that after the Holocaust, they are permitted to
do anything. There are those who believe that Israel is tops in the world in every field, that
international law doesn't apply to it, and that no one can tell it what to do. There are those
who think Israelis are victims – always victims, the only victims – and that the
whole world is against us. There are those who are convinced that Israel is allowed to do
anything, simply because it can."
In order to understand what Levy is referring to we must dig into the core of Jewish
identification and once and for all grasp the notion of Jewish choseness. Levy contends that
"racism and xenophobia are deeply entrenched here, far more deeply than any Netanyahu The
apartheid did not start with him and will not end with his departure; it probably won't even be
dented. One of the most racist nations in the world cannot complain about its prime minister's
racism." Netanyahu as such, is not the disease. He is a mere symptom.
ORDER IT NOW
The devastating news is that neither the Israeli 'Left' nor the Jewish so-called 'anti'
Zionist league are any less racist than their Zionist foes. The Israeli Left pushes for a 'two
state solution.' It crudely ignores the Palestinian cause i.e. the Right of Return. The Israeli
Left advocates segregation and ghettoization; not exactly the universal message of harmony one
would expect from 'leftists.' Disturbingly, the Diaspora Jewish 'anti' Zionist Left is even
more racially exclusive than the Israeli Right. As I have explored many times in the past,
Corbyn's 'favourite Jewish political group namely, Jewish Voice for Labour
(JVL) is a racially exclusive political cell. It wouldn't allow gentiles into its Jews-only
club. Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is no better. It will happily take donations from Goyim but
will never allow those Goyim to become its board members.
Levy proclaims that "Netanyahu is the best thing to ever happen to Israeli politics –
you can dump everything on him." But in his most astute observation, which has been explored
before by Uri Avnery (may he rest in peace) and yours truly, Levy continues, "It would be great
if some local Nelson Mandela would arise, a brave leader with vision who would change the
country's basic values and lead a revolution. But no such person has been born here, and it's
doubtful he ever will be."
Levy points at the core of the Zionist failure. If early Zionism was a promise to civilise
the diaspora Jew by means of 'homecoming,' Israel happened to do the complete opposite. Not
much is left out of the Zionist promise to make the Jews 'people like all other people': as
Israel is about to perpetrate another colossal war crime in Gaza, we have to admit that we are
dealing with an institutionally racist and dangerous identity like no other.
Another good one Atzmon. I thinks it's hard for people to grasp outside of Israel the
connection you speak of between the religion, the people, and the ideology. Its underreported
for obvious reasons in the media, plus the control the Israel lobby and its donors the
Adelsons, Sabans, and Singers have in the US on what people hear about Israel and its
citizens. All you hear is it's a democracy among hostile states that hate it because of
freedom or democracy or whatever propaganda speak the mouth peace for Israel/Zionism media
uses. You never hear about Israel's and its citizens actions that cause it just the eternal
victim status they have been awarded.
Violent Islam is the Disease, Resistance Leaders are the Symptom
The author makes a good point. Netanyahu is not unique:
– Modi resists violent Islam in Kashmir.
– Jinping resists violent Islam in Xinjiang.
– Orban resists violent Islam in Hungary.
– Trump resists violent Islam in the U.S.
– Netanyhau resists violent Islam in Israel.
And, there are more cases not in the list above
Islam views all non-Muslims as infidels. Violent Islam wages Jihad until the infidels are
killed, converted, or willingly submit as Dhimmi slaves. Until Islam changes, Resistance
leaders will continue to protect their people. Perhaps the collapse of the Iranian government
and its funding of terrorism will open the door to that change.
______
Israel started as a far left venture where the people lived in true communist shared
estates know as Kibbutz. Seventy years of resisting violent Islam has changed the people into
a practical group that will do what is necessary to stay alive.
The upcoming election makes no difference in Israeli survival strategy. Netanyahu's only
serious competitor, Benny Gantz, openly states he will fight Iran's violent Islamic expansion
in Lebanon & Syria (Iranian Hezbollah) and in Gaza (Iranian Hamas).
First:
Yes, do let's differentiate between Jews, judaism and jewishness (lest anyone be accused of
criticizing "Jews the people," which is something only an anti-semite or a self-hating Jew
might do, isn't it?).
The Jews are the people, judaism is their deeply inculcated worldview and ethos, and
jewishness is their inherently logical behavior.
Or the Jews are the computer, judaism is its operating system and jewishness its
applications.
Or the Jews are the rice, while judaism and jewishness are the white on rice.
Second:
The zionism did NOT fail to deliver its promise to make the Jews "people like other people."
It is Atzmon who fails to understand that the Jews' definition of "people" ("nations") is
based on the very Jewish worldview of the model: irrationally hateful, brutal, greedy,
covetous, and ruthless "winners." I would say zionism succeeded remarkably well, but it had
eager students to start with.
Mr. Atzmon has painted himself in a corner on this otherwise tough editorial. But let's
give him some credit. Gilad's taken a hell of a lotta heat for his rough and penetrating
criticisms of the Zionist colony and its endless deceptions. And he (generally) pulls no
punches.
But when all is said and done, and all the hairs are split, and all the (overdue) debates
are finally finished (and we can somehow separate the 'racist' Jews from the good,
'humanitarian' Jews) we are nevertheless left with a core Jewish identity that puts God's
Chosen People forever and eternally above the rest of humanity. God says so!
Basically, the problem is that Jewishness and 'Jewish supremacism' are pretty much one and
the same.
@A123
"Israel started as a far left venture Seventy years of resisting violent Islam has changed
the people into a practical group that will do what is necessary to stay alive."
I wonder why the Palestinians employ violence ? Of course, the State of Israel was born out
of terrorism (King David hotel, multiple assassinations etc) & ethnic cleansing (ie Nakba
). And yes, the Palestinians were also violent.
As for Israel's "survival" -- that's been a none issue since the late 70's, at a minimum.
Israel with its 100's of nuclear weapons & it's US body guard has NO survival issues.
It's all the poor bastards around them who have survival problems : (Syria, Lebanon, Gaza,
Iran, Libya etc)
Typical brain dead Hasbara nonsense. Orban resists third world immigration, which I
support, the problem is about mass non white immigration not Islam. The ultimate problem is
the jew, it is they that push for mass immigration and miscegenation the most.
And the rest of this article just goes on and on about how evil , Israel, Israelis are ,
and as to how they are self-justified and unified in being so. And this is a Jew writing
this.
Wow. What is the world to do? Doesn't seem to be any other option or solution, except a
trip to Wannsee.
@A123
Dancing Isreaeli said to the cops:" We are not your problem . Arabs are "
This guy is shouting at China India Russia and at the God : Israel is not the problem Its
these Muslims.
Question is this : will these guys be allowed on the graves of the 911 victims strewn all
across the world- Germany Soviet Russia, Poland, American rust belt, WW1 and 2 British
cemeteries?
When did they say something that turned out to be true?
Having said that, the world would be a better place if they ended up destroying elite run
US UK . Yes they would cut the branch on which they are sitting . But they would jump the
ship just before taht happening
You know Albert Sasson whow as knighted , who married in Riothchilds family, whose grand
son / nephew or another Sasson – by name Amery gave us the Balfour in part . He was
thrown out of Iraq court for corruption He made it to Raj's India and planted the seed of
opium That soon ate up all the available fertile lands of north India . The opium made him
rich made India poor corrupted British Raj and led to Chinese deprivations rebellion and to
communism
@neutral
Regardless, Jews (definition as provided and all three facets) are the most coherent group
globally. They can muster the most coordination, the strongest drive, the detachment and
loyalty, add as needed,
Since everyone here on unz likes thinking in bursts, to the matter. That makes for
success. No reason to whine about for the loosing party, the WASP, traditional US elites. If
some other group has ambitions, it should acquire that type of quality identity.
Islam is a poor enemy, as Jews see them as target practice, so should other entities
maybe.
Western European descend Whites, and the ambition of enlightenment, (for one, all
individuals across ethnic and religious lines being equals), should stow their ambitions of
principle until they are in charge. That will require appropriating the same acerbic mindset
of the Jew, and not whine publicly about the teacher. White elites have sold out, they are
burdened by a commoner population that far exceeds any asset value. To disconnect their base,
also made them hostages of Jew elites.
From the point of view of the Euro-descend commoner, non-Jew, unpriviledged, as long as
they see themselves as genuine and belonging to the system, the US, and not the trash they
are treated as, as long as the non-Jewish middle classes continue their egocentric quest for
scraps, they deserve the Gaza they are converted into. No Jew should be blamed for pushing an
outsider into demise. The tactics are in the open for grabs, Whites (non-Latino, non-Jew)
have only themselves to blame for their demise.
"... On May 9, 2004, according to the court documents, Kushner got in touch with one of the private detectives and instructed him to mail the tape and still photos to his sister Esther, who opened the package and saw her husband having sex with the prostitute. If Charles Kushner's plan was to "gain leverage" over his sister, it didn't work. Esther and Schulder took the tape to law enforcement, and another count, retaliating against a cooperating witness, was added to the charges against Kushner. ..."
"... Charles Kushner was charged in July 2004. He had all the resources anyone would need to fight the charges, but instead chose to plead guilty. He was sentenced to two years in prison and served 14 months, at a facility in Alabama. His son Jared flew down to visit him every Sunday. ..."
"... Last November, Kushner told Forbes that, "Six months ago, Gov. Christie and I decided this election was much bigger than any differences we may have had in the past, and we worked very well together. The media has speculated on a lot of different things, and since I don't talk to the press, they go as they go, but I was not behind pushing him out or his people." Maybe. Maybe, as Jared Kushner maintains, all the reports of "differences" between him and Christie are inaccurate. But if the case of Kushner's father, and his uncle, and his other uncle, and his aunt, and their business is any indication, putting aside differences is not the family way. ..."
Jared Kushner is thought to have been behind the purging of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie from the presidential transition.
By all accounts, Jared Kushner, the husband of President Trump's favorite daughter, has become an extraordinarily powerful man
in the White House. To formally appoint Kushner a senior adviser, with a top security clearance, the president sought and received
a Justice Department opinion declaring the White House exempt from federal anti-nepotism laws. That meant Kushner could have an official
White House title to go along with his trusted-member-of-the-family influence. But Kushner wielded plenty of power before joining
the White House staff.
For one thing, he is thought to have been behind the purging of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie from the presidential transition.
Of course, Christie, tainted by Bridgegate, had problems of his own. But opposition from Kushner is said to have blocked Christie
at key points during the campaign and transition. Kushner's ire reportedly targeted others, too, for their Christie connections.
After Christie was fired from heading the transition, two colleagues Christie had brought into the effort, Mike Rogers and Matthew
Freedman, were dumped as well. "Both were part of what officials described as a purge orchestrated by Jared Kushner," the
New York Times reported on November
15. "Mr. Kushner, a transition official said, was systematically dismissing people like Mr. Rogers who had ties with Mr. Christie."
"As a federal prosecutor, Mr. Christie sent Mr. Kushner's father to jail," the Times noted. Many other sources have confirmed
the origin of Kushner's animus was Christie's prosecution of the elder Kushner. But most public mentions of the reason have been
as brief as the Times'. It turns out the story behind the story is much longer, and more complicated. And ugly. The short version
is: In 2004, Jared Kushner's father Charles, a real estate magnate in New Jersey and New York, pleaded guilty to a tax fraud scheme
in which he claimed hundreds of thousands of dollars in phony deductions for office expenses at the partnerships he created to manage
the apartment buildings he owned. Kushner, a major donor to the Democratic Party, also pleaded guilty to fraudulently making hundreds
of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions in the names of employees and associates who didn't know their names were being
used. Finally, Kushner pleaded guilty to retaliating against a cooperating witness in the case -- his sister. He did so by setting
a trap in which he hired a prostitute to lure his sister's husband into a sexual encounter in a New Jersey hotel, where the action
was secretly photographed and videotaped. Kushner sent the pictures and tape to his sister as revenge, apparently motivated by Kushner's
belief that she and her husband were helping U.S. Attorney Christie and his prosecutors. Another Kushner brother-in-law, his wife's
brother Richard Stadtmauer, was charged in the tax evasion scheme, and was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison. Beyond
that, the Kushner family also brought employees into the fraud, with three Kushner Companies workers charged in the matter. All pleaded
guilty.
Given the extent of the criminal behavior involved -- confirmed by guilty pleas and a conviction at trial -- it's hard to imagine
that one could examine the Kushner family case and conclude that the prosecutor was the bad guy. But in the Trump campaign and presidency,
Christie has apparently suffered for his role in bringing members of the Kushner family and their employees to justice. The criminal
case began as a family feud. (For a detailed look at the complicated and intense relations between the various Kushners, see this
Gabriel Sherman New York magazine article from 2009.) Some of
the problems seemed rooted in the lifelong competitiveness between Charles Kushner and his brother Murray. In the early 2000s, Murray
Kushner came to believe there was serious mismanagement going on in Kushner Companies. Murray sued Charles. The suit was settled
and sealed. But then, while the suit was still in arbitration, a Kushner Companies employee, accounting manager Robert Yontef, filed
a suit of his own against Charles. Yontef alleged that Charles used monies from various real estate properties (referred to as "the
entities" in the lawsuit) for activities that had nothing to do with the companies, like paying speaking fees to Benjamin Netanyahu
($100,000), Bill Clinton ($125,000), Paul Volcker ($50,000), and Terry Bradshaw. (Alas, the lawsuit gave no dollar figure for the
former quarterback's speaking appearance.)
Yontef also charged that Charles Kushner had made millions in campaign contributions through a fraudulent bundling scheme. "Initially,
contributions that Charles made through the entities were returned because there was a requirement that the names of partners be
given when a partnership makes a political contribution," the suit said. "As a result, Charles issued partnership checks for the
contribution and then attributed the contribution to particular partners. These partners, however, were not notified that certain
contributions had been made in their names until after the contributions were made, and in many instances were never notified that
other political contributions were being made by Charles with partnership funds in their names." In a declaration attached to the
suit, Yontef said that he had become increasingly upset by what he had seen at the Kushner Companies, and that he told Charles' sister
Esther and her husband William Schulder, who also worked for the company, what Charles was doing. According to Yontef, Esther introduced
Yontef to Murray Kushner, and Yontef also told him the story. "Over the next months, I would occasionally provide Murray with samples
of the documents which demonstrate these wrongdoings," Yontef said. The lawsuits did more than aggravate existing family antagonisms.
They also raised the suspicions of law enforcement and gave investigators a roadmap into what was going on inside Kushner Companies.
And indeed, in February 2003, the office of U.S. Attorney Christie began a grand jury investigation. In the months that followed,
the grand jury heard evidence of tax fraud, illegal political contributions, and more. An attachment to the criminal information
ultimately filed against Charles Kushner refers to Cooperating Witness 1 (CW1), Cooperating Witness 2 (CW2), and Cooperating Witness
3 (CW3). They are not named in the case, but a look at circumstances and other documents strongly suggests that CW1 was Esther, CW2
was her husband William Schulder, and CW3 was Yontef. The three of them, court papers noted, provided information and documents to
the FBI and prosecutors. The criminal information laid out an extensive scheme to use "the entities," that is, Kushner-created companies
that owned and managed individual Kushner properties, as vehicles for phony deductions. An entity known as Pheasant Hollow Associates
filed for $41,356 in "fraudulent office expenses" on Tax Day, 1999, the information said, and for $142,030 in such expenses on Tax
Day, 2000. Another entity, Quail Ridge Associates, filed for $119,000 in fake office expenses on Tax Day 2000 and $349,123 in 2001.
Still another entity, Westminster Management, filed for $112,250 in phony expenses on Tax Day 2001. In another count, the criminal
information says Charles Kushner, "without the knowledge or permission of certain partners," made federal campaign contributions
"in excess of $385,000" in the names of those unwitting partners. (Kushner was a major supporter of New Jersey Democratic Gov. Jim
McGreevey, who in 2002 appointed Kushner to the board of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. McGreevey wanted to make
Kushner chairman of the Port Authority, but backed down after accusations the appointment would have been a political payoff.) The
criminal information says Charles Kushner became aware of the grand jury investigation in March 2003, and that his sister Esther
was "providing information to investigating law enforcement." In the weeks and months that followed, authorities said, Kushner's
lawyers made "regular efforts" to convince investigators that CW1, CW2, and CW3 were "generally untrustworthy." The efforts were,
apparently, to no avail.
Then, in August 2003, according to court documents, Kushner "initiated a scheme" to "gain leverage" over Esther and William Schulder.
The idea was to "orchestrate the covert videotaped seduction" of Schulder and then hit Esther with video of her husband committing
adultery. Charles Kushner recruited two private investigators to do the work. In New York , Gabriel Sherman reported that
Kushner complained to one of the men that Schulder "has been f -- king around on my sister forever." Kushner paid the two men a total
of $25,000 to set the trap. The problem was, they didn't do it. According to court papers, the men spent weeks complaining that they
couldn't find a woman who would agree to have sex with Schulder on camera. "The scheme stalled," according to court papers. Things
went nowhere for about four months. Then, in November 2003, a frustrated Charles Kushner took matters into his own hands and "personally
recruited" a New York prostitute for the job. The two private investigators took a room in the Red Bull Inn in Bridgewater, New Jersey
and wired it for video. It took a couple of tries, but the Kushner-recruited prostitute found Schulder in a diner, introduced herself,
told him her car had broken down, and asked for a ride back to the hotel. When Schulder agreed, she invited him to her room. He declined,
but got her phone number.
The next day, he came back, and Charles Kushner got the video he wanted. After the sexual encounter, one of the private investigators
took the video to Kushner. "In a conference room with an associate present, defendant Charles Kushner viewed the videotape and expressed
satisfaction with it," the criminal information says.
Kushner was so pleased, the court papers say, that he wanted the two investigators to set the same trap for Robert Yontef. In
December, another woman was recruited, the hotel room was wired, the my-car-broke-down approach was made. But Yontef turned the woman
down twice. There was no sex, and no tape. According to the papers, Kushner didn't use the Schulder videotape until May 2004, when
he learned that some of his associates had been told they were targets of the grand jury investigation.
On May 9, 2004, according to the court documents, Kushner got in touch with one of the private detectives and instructed him
to mail the tape and still photos to his sister Esther, who opened the package and saw her husband having sex with the prostitute.
If Charles Kushner's plan was to "gain leverage" over his sister, it didn't work. Esther and Schulder took the tape to law enforcement,
and another count, retaliating against a cooperating witness, was added to the charges against Kushner.
Of course, the sex angle got the most coverage in the New Jersey and New York media. When the prostitute who had been with Schulder
cooperated with authorities, the New York Post ran a
story headlined, "Sex
Gal Now Helping Feds -- Hooker Turns On Kushner."
Charles Kushner was charged in July 2004. He had all the resources anyone would need to fight the charges, but instead chose
to plead guilty. He was sentenced to two years in prison and served 14 months, at a facility in Alabama. His son Jared flew down
to visit him every Sunday.
Brother-in-law Richard Stadtmauer went to trial in 2009 and was convicted and sentenced to three years. The others charged in
the case pleaded guilty and received lesser sentences. While it was all going on, Jared Kushner was a student at Harvard and, later,
studied for law and business degrees at New York University. He was not involved in the family's criminal activity. His father's
spectacular flameout meant that Jared, who conferred with Charles constantly on matters of business, had to take a much bigger role
in the family's business affairs.
Chris Christie, has paid a price for bringing a case in which every single defendant was guilty.
Who did Jared blame
for what had happened? Not his father. "Charlie and Jared blamed papers in general and more specifically the Newark Star-Ledger
for besmirching the family name," Gabriel Sherman wrote in 2009: And, the crimes notwithstanding, [Jared] sees his father as
a victim. "His siblings stole every piece of paper from his office, and they took it to the government," Jared maintained.
"Siblings
that he literally made wealthy for doing nothing. He gave them interests in the business for nothing. All he did was put the tape
together and send it. Was it the right thing to do? At the end of the day, it was a function of saying 'You're trying to make my
life miserable? Well, I'm doing the same.'"
Five years later, in a 2014
interview with the New York real estate publication The Real Deal, Jared called his father's treatment "obviously unjust" and
said the experience had soured him on an earlier ambition to become a prosecutor.
"If you're convicting murderers, it's one thing,"
Jared said. "It's often fairly clear. When you get into things like white-collar crime, there are often a lot of nuances. Seeing
my father's situation, I felt what happened was obviously unjust in terms of the way they pursued him."
Now the pursuer, the prosecutor-turned-governor-turned-Trump-supporter
Chris Christie, has paid a price for bringing a case in which every single defendant was guilty. Both Jared Kushner and Christie
deny there's a problem. "That stuff is ancient history,"
Christie
told ABC two weeks ago, on March 29.
Last November,
Kushner told Forbes that, "Six months ago, Gov. Christie and I decided this election was much bigger than any differences we
may have had in the past, and we worked very well together. The media has speculated on a lot of different things, and since I don't
talk to the press, they go as they go, but I was not behind pushing him out or his people." Maybe. Maybe, as Jared Kushner maintains,
all the reports of "differences" between him and Christie are inaccurate. But if the case of Kushner's father, and his uncle, and
his other uncle, and his aunt, and their business is any indication, putting aside differences is not the family way.
Byron York is the chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner, a Fox News contributor and the author of The
Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.
"... "Jared Kushner of 666 Fifth Avenue is the beating heart of this unprecedentedly corrupt and deeply evil administration," Tribe wrote . "He'll eventually be exposed as an insatiably greedy Benedict Arnold." ..."
"... "Kushner is going to get us into a *devastating* war with Iran. Jared, singlehandedly. Jared, to make money for himself [sic]," the attorney wrote. "I'll say now that Jared more richly deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life than Manafort, and Manafort richly deserves it," he argued. "That's how bad this is." ..."
"... "Don't believe anything you hear from Kushner's attorney or from Kushner. *Ever*. The latter will always be lying to you, and the former will either be lying to you or will have been lied to by his client [sic]," Abramson continued. He then pointed to the reports surrounding Kushner's top-secret security clearance, which he allegedly was granted despite the disapproval of intelligence agencies and top administration officials. ..."
"... "Our foreign policy is totally off the rails in a way that is dangerous, and the sole reason for this is the Kushner-Trump axis. Our values have been betrayed in ways that we may shortly feel so keenly our heads will spin. We need whistleblowers to blow their whistles now," he said. Abramson also argued that Kushner should go to prison for "a very, very long time." ..."
"... Trump's former chief of staff John Kelly and top intelligence officials opposed granting Kushner access to viewing sensitive top secret materials pertaining to the nation's security, according to a recent report from The New York Times . However, the president reportedly ordered his son-in-law be granted the clearance, allegedly disregarding the objections. ..."
Laurence Tribe, a professor
of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, slammed President Donald Trump's son-in-law of Jared Kushner in a tweet this weekend,
suggesting he would soon be "exposed" as a traitor.
Sharing a long Twitter thread by attorney and academic Seth Abramson, who is also a
columnist for Newsweek , Tribe on Saturday referred
to Kushner as "Smarmy, slimy, smiling."
Kushner, who is married to Ivanka Trump, was appointed by the president as a senior White House adviser in January 2017.
"Jared Kushner of 666 Fifth Avenue is the beating heart of this unprecedentedly corrupt and deeply evil administration,"
Tribe wrote . "He'll eventually be exposed
as an insatiably greedy Benedict Arnold."
Tribe is referring to the infamous General Benedict Arnold, an early hero of the American Revolution against the British, who
later switched sides and betrayed his young nation in 1779. "His name has since become synonymous with the word 'traitor,'"
according to History .
Abramson's thread , shared by Tribe,
laid out a case for why Kushner is allegedly the "greatest domestic danger to America."
The attorney and columnist made the claim after "many months" of research for a forthcoming book titled Proof of Conspiracy
. "Many former US government officials know for a fact that what I've just said is true," Abramson wrote in his first tweet in the
series.
"Kushner is going to get us into a *devastating* war with Iran. Jared, singlehandedly. Jared, to make money for himself [sic],"
the attorney wrote. "I'll say now that Jared more richly deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life than Manafort, and Manafort
richly deserves it," he argued. "That's how bad this is."
"Don't believe anything you hear from Kushner's attorney or from Kushner. *Ever*. The latter will always be lying to you,
and the former will either be lying to you or will have been lied to by his client [sic]," Abramson continued. He then pointed to
the reports surrounding Kushner's top-secret security clearance, which he allegedly was granted despite the disapproval of intelligence
agencies and top administration officials.
"Trump circumventing our intelligence community to give his son-in-law that access is the shibboleth that made the current danger
to America *possible* [sic]," Abramson warned.
"Our foreign policy is totally off the rails in a way that is dangerous, and the sole reason for this is the Kushner-Trump
axis. Our values have been betrayed in ways that we may shortly feel so keenly our heads will spin. We need whistleblowers to
blow their whistles now," he said. Abramson also argued that Kushner should go to prison for "a very, very long time."
Trump's former chief of staff John Kelly and top intelligence officials opposed granting Kushner access to viewing sensitive
top secret materials pertaining to the nation's security, according to
a recent report from The New York Times . However, the president reportedly ordered his son-in-law be granted the clearance,
allegedly disregarding the objections.
Jim Boyle Kathy Rhodarmer The article said the details will be revealed soon, so I guess we'll all just have to wait for the investigation
to decide. Traitor is pretty strong accusation, but the massive Qatar loan, secretive relationship with MSB and intelligence agencies
concern with his security clearance are all big red flags. The oversight will continue...
Martin Wulfe Tribe is a highly respected constitutional lawyer,
but so far this article is a real disappointment and lacks any details. We'll just have to wait until the full article comes out
to see what actual evidence there is to back this up, if there is any.
Danny LaMaster Trump and Kushner are selling American
secrets for personal gain
Bud
Dailey Kushner is not and never will be a American patriot , and has no business in American government.
Kathy
Dreher The same is true of the Trump crime family.
Joan Nelson Jared is too cozy with our enemy, no, not
ally, Saudi Arabia.Setting up some opportunities for himself and his family after he leaves the WH. The scummy atmosphere in the
WH is reflective of the presence of incompetent family members who have no business there...
In Ber 2018 Kusher security clearance wasdongraded.
Notable quotes:
"... Among those nations discussing ways to influence Kushner to their advantage were the United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico, the current and former officials said. ..."
"... Kushner's interim security clearance was downgraded last week from the top-secret to the secret level, which should restrict the regular access he has had to highly classified information, according to administration officials. Washpost ..."
" Officials in at least four countries have privately discussed ways they can manipulate Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law
and senior adviser, by taking advantage of his complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience,
according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports on the matter.
Among those nations discussing ways to influence Kushner to their advantage were the United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico,
the current and former officials said.
It is unclear if any of those countries acted on the discussions, but Kushner's contacts with certain foreign government officials
have raised concerns inside the White House and are a reason he has been unable to obtain a permanent security clearance, the officials
said.
Kushner's interim security clearance was downgraded last week from the top-secret to the secret level, which should restrict the
regular access he has had to highly classified information, according to administration officials. Washpost
------------------
Most people will probably be struck by the fall from grace of Kushner and other WH staff dilettantes. I am not terribly interested
in that. What strikes me is that this is the third major compromise of US SIGINT products in the last year. The first was the felonious
disclosure to the press of US intelligence penetration of Russian diplomatic communications. the second was the disclosure to the
press of penetration of GRU communications. In this one the oral or written discussions among the officials of several foreign countries
are revealed. These conversations were probably encrypted.
Is Jeff Sessions still alive? Why are there no prosecutions for these felonies? pl
"... Jared sold himself as the only man who could make a deal between Dems and the GOP. He pointed to "his" recent success with prison reform as proof of his bonafides. ..."
"... Of course, he blew it as usual. He told his side that Dems would vote for Trump's $5.7 billion "wall, or whatever you want to call it" -- and they didn't. He said the Dems would break ranks -- and they didn't. ..."
"... The Senate votes came, and the Trump proposal got FEWER votes than the Democratic proposal, which managed to get 6 GOP Senators to jump ship. Kushner had not only failed; he'd embarrassed the boss. ..."
"... Of course, it was Donald who appointed Jared, and gave him the reins on this critical project -- ignoring the fact that Pence had actually served in Congress, knew the players, and knew the game. Even after two years' worth of evidence that a political neophyte cannot solve all the nation's most intractable problems just because he sleeps with the boss's daughter, the First Con fell for a con man. ..."
Jared sold himself as the only man who could make a deal between Dems and the GOP. He pointed to "his" recent success with
prison reform as proof of his bonafides.
Of course, he blew it as usual. He told his side that Dems would vote for Trump's $5.7 billion "wall, or whatever you want
to call it" -- and they didn't. He said the Dems would break ranks -- and they didn't.
It appears that Kushner talked to a few junior Dems, who were too wet behind the ears to tell the president's son in law that
he needed to change his meds. He read their silence as meaning they were prepared to commit mutiny and, putting all his chips
on that bet, stopped talking to both Pelosi (where the real power lies) and Schumer.
Then he told everyone he'd cracked it.
The Senate votes came, and the Trump proposal got FEWER votes than the Democratic proposal, which managed to get 6 GOP
Senators to jump ship. Kushner had not only failed; he'd embarrassed the boss.
As others have said below, Trump always finds someone to blame for his mistakes. But in this case there were very good reasons
for pointing the finger at Kushner.
Of course, it was Donald who appointed Jared, and gave him the reins on this critical project -- ignoring the fact that
Pence had actually served in Congress, knew the players, and knew the game. Even after two years' worth of evidence that a political
neophyte cannot solve all the nation's most intractable problems just because he sleeps with the boss's daughter, the First
Con fell for a con man.
Bush II campaigned on "no nation building" mantra. He lied. Crump campaigned no foreign wars manta. He lied.
Notable quotes:
"... The 16th anniversary of the Iraq war last week was marked by a shortage of people defending the costliest foreign policy blunder of this young century, even in circles where support for that misadventure was once sacrosanct. ..."
"... Yet even as the folly and injustice of Iraq congeals into conventional wisdom inside the Beltway, famously resistant to rethinking bipartisan military interventions no matter how ill-advised, it is an open question whether anything has changed. Dick Cheney's protestations notwithstanding , the presidential wars largely continue unimpeded by the "America First" commander-in-chief. ..."
"... John Bolton seems to have more say about when American troops will leave Syria or Afghanistan than the president of the United States. Trump's second veto will almost certainly be of a bipartisan resolution rebuking -- and terminating -- U.S. support for the war in Yemen. We appear to be escalating in Somalia. Tensions are rising with Iran and Venezuela, with the administration trending toward a functionally neoconservative position on both despite major newspapers publishing pleas to retire that label . ..."
The 16th anniversary of the Iraq war last week was marked by a shortage of people defending the costliest foreign policy blunder
of this young century, even in circles where support for that misadventure was once sacrosanct.
Former George W. Bush mouthpiece Ari Fleischer supplied a
promptly ratioed
tweetstorm that quibbled with the "Bush
lied, people died" mantra concerning his old boss's handling of the intelligence on Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
Never Trumper David French
gamely argued
that Saddam Hussein was a greater source of instability than the chaos brought about by the invasion, followed by Barack Obama's
withdrawal. In so doing, French reminded us that, however off-putting some conservatives find Donald Trump, the president's
criticism
of the war matters more to
many of those who devote their time to denouncing his every utterance.
Yet even as the folly and injustice of Iraq congeals into conventional wisdom inside the Beltway, famously resistant to rethinking
bipartisan military interventions no matter how ill-advised, it is an open question whether anything has changed. Dick Cheney's
protestations notwithstanding , the presidential wars largely continue unimpeded by the "America First" commander-in-chief.
John Bolton seems to have more say about when American troops will leave Syria or Afghanistan than the president of the United
States. Trump's second veto will almost certainly be of a bipartisan resolution rebuking -- and terminating -- U.S. support for the
war in Yemen. We appear to be escalating in Somalia. Tensions are rising with Iran and Venezuela, with the administration trending
toward a functionally neoconservative position on both despite major newspapers publishing pleas to
retire that label .
It is interesting to read how naive Thierry Meyssan was in 2018
Notable quotes:
"... Over the last 70 years, Israël has continually been stealing its neighbours' territory. It currently occupies the Syrian Golan, the farms of the Lebanese Shebaa, and a very large part of the Palestinian territories of 1967, including almost all of East Jerusalem. ..."
"... For Fatah, Israël is a second Rhodesia, a colonial State which pronounced itself independent. For Hamas, based on an interpretation of the Hadiths (not the Coran), the problem is that a Muslim land cannot be governed by non-Muslims. ..."
"... Equally, it is today extremely unjust, not to transfer the US embassy to West Jerusalem, but to give up on establishing the Palestinian government in East Jerusalem. Here again, the responsibility does not lie with Jared Kushner, but with the " international community ", and in particular with the Arab Sionist governments, who have allowed Israël, for the last 70 years, to eat up the city, apartment by apartment. ..."
"... So while, for 70 years, Western diplomats have contrived to multiply and complexify the conflicts in the Middle East, Jared Kushner is the first to have brought a resolution. The angel-faced Presidential advisor is a talented organiser. Thierry Meyssan ..."
Jared Kushner is a very secret personality about whom we know very little. At best, we know
he has a high regard for the Law, and was destined to become a prosecutor. However, when his
father was arrested and incarcerated for tax evasion, he was sure this was an injustice.
According to him, his father had fallen victim to a sting operation. He therefore abandoned his
law studies and set to work rescuing the family business, a real estate development firm -
which he managed with success. During this period, he developed for himself the smoothest image
possible in order to distance himself from the accusations leveled against his father.
His father-in-law, Donald Trump, seems to trust him implicitly, to the point of tasking him
de facto with the organization of his electoral campaign. Certain of his adversaries expressed
their surprise that he was able to run this campaign with minimal means, and yet lead it to
victory.
As soon as he arrived at the White House, President Trump asked him to participate in the
most secret meetings, despite the fact that he does not have Top Secret accreditation –
which in fact he still does not have.
Hoping to leave a name in History by succeeding in a task that his predecessors have all
addressed without ever having realised, President Trump tasked him with resolving the
Israëli-Arab conflict and pacifying the Middle East. This is a gamble which is all the
more perilous in that the young man (age 36) has previously taken a stand alongside Israël
by financially supporting Tsahal and the Jewish colonies on Palestinian land. However, Kushner
has a great need of being accepted by his milieu, so it is quite possible that these gifts have
another meaning.
Nominating for this assignment a trusted personality who is devoid of diplomatic experience
is a second challenge for President Trump. Considering the failure of US professional
diplomats, he is attacking an old problem from a new angle. For this mission, Jared Kushner has
obtained a rare privilege – he is the only senior administrator whose meetings with
foreign political personalities are not the object of written records. In this way, no-one can
rebuke him for his mistakes, nor even criticise the way in which he approaches the subjects -
not even the Secretary of State, since he is accountable only to the President.
In the opinion of those personalities who have met him, Kushner follows the same principles
as his father-in-law:
first of all, acknowledge reality, even if this implies abandoning well-established
official rhetoric;
secondly, consider all the advantages that can be drawn from earlier bilateral
agreements;
and thirdly, as far as possible, take into account multilateral Law.
The only difference with his father-in-law is his perfect mutism, as compared to the
provocative and contradictory declarations used by the President to destabilise his
listeners.
During the last ten months, Jared Kushner has multiplied his journeys to the Middle East -
particularly to his favorite destinations – Saudi Arabia and Israël. We have just
experienced, without understanding it, the beginning of his operation.
Saudi Arabia
The reality of
Arabia, from Trump's point of view during his electoral campaign, was as follows:
• the accumulation of petro-dollars, or the massive sums in dollars paid by the USA for
oil that the Saudis do not produce.
• the central role of the Kingdom, under the control of MI6 and the CIA, in the fight
against Arab nationalism and the manipulation of Islamic terrorism.
• Its crisis of succession.
The bilateral agreements are the Quincy agreements signed by Franklin Roosevelt in 1945,
renewed by George Bush Jr. in 2005, and valid until 2065. Although they have never been
published, many people who participated in their negotiation have described them as
follows:
• The King of Arabia accepts the control of its oil by the United States, while in return,
the US agrees to protect the King, and by extension, his private property, Saudi Arabia.
• The King of Arabia agrees to raise no obstacle against the creation of a state for the
Jewish population of the ex-Ottoman Empire, while the United States favors its regional
role.
So Jared Kushner prepared the summit on 21 May 2017 in Riyadh which brought together almost
all of the heads of state of the Muslim world around President Trump. Saudi Arabia immediately
broke its ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and ceased financing the jihadist groups all over
the world – at least, almost all, except for Yemen [ 1 ]. The Kingdom used its influence to
convince the other Muslim states present. However, this success had a price:
• Qatar refused the new US policy. Not wishing to have wasted the 137 billion dollars it
had spent in the fight against Syria [ 2 ], it continued its support for
certain jihadists. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates unilaterally decided on an
embargo. While Secretary of State Rex Tillerson tried to distance himself from this quarrel,
Kushner and President Trump took sides with Arabia.
• Kushner agreed to help King Salman sort out his succession to the throne as he saw
fit.
The palace coup of 4 November
At the end of October, Jared Kushner went to Saudi Arabia for three days. He shared long
work sessions with the King's son, Prince Mohammed ben Salmane (MBS), and drew up with him a
list of the members of the royal family who were to be neutralised. Unsure of the possible
reactions of the Royal Guard once Prince Mutaib had been dismissed, he offered MBS the
assistance of the mercenaries of Academi (ex-Blackwater) in order to proceed with the arrests.
Finally, remembering the media campaign against his father, he provided the spin doctors with a
soothing tale of " the fight against corruption " with which to gloss over the palace coup.
He had already left Riyadh when the Lebanese Prime Minister, Saad Hariri – the legal
son of Rafic Hariri, but the biological son of a Fadh prince [ 3 ] – was invited to an emergency
meeting in Riyadh, " where he would be received by King Salman ". We know the end of this story
[ 4 ] –
the resignation speech of Hariri and the arrest or execution of all the princes capable of
contesting or claiming the succession to the throne.
Hundreds of cousins of MBS were arrested, and placed under house arrest or in detention. One
after the other, they agreed – often under torture – to hand over their fortunes to
their sovereign. In this way he collected more than 800 billion dollars, according to the
Wall Street Journal [ 5 ].
No voices anywhere in the world spoke up to come to the aid of these fallen billionaires,
who until then had sat in the most prestigious board of directors.
Witnesses declared that certain members of the royal family were hospitalised and treated
before they were taken back into the interrogation room. MBS affirmed that he had liberated
several personalities, including Prince Mutaib himself, Turki ben Abdallah, Doctor Ibrahim ben
Abdelaziz ben Abdallah al-Assaf (ex-Saudi Minister of finances) and Mohammad ben Abdel Rahman
al-Toubaichi (ex-head of protocol to the Court).
This is certainly not the end of the story. In conformity with the instructions of President
Trump, Jared Kushner will now attempt to recuperate part of the confiscated fortunes for his
country.
The Hariri affair
Contrary to what the French Press pretends, the liberation of the Lebanese Prime Minister
owes little to Paris. It is true that President Emmanuel Macron intervened, since Saad Hariri
has triple nationality - Saudi-Lebanese-French. It is true, Macron went to Riyadh, but only
succeeded in being insulted [ 6 ]. The only useful action came from
his Lebanese counterpart, President Michel Aoun.
France was blocked by a simple reality – in international consular Law, multinationals
are not allowed to benefit from diplomatic immunity in a country of which they are citizens.
However President Aoun overturned the situation by defending not Saad Hariri the man, but his
Prime Minister Saad Hariri. There is no doubt whatsoever that arresting and placing under house
arrest the head of the government of another country outside of any judicial procedure is an
act of war – and indeed, the international press whispered rumours of a possible Saudi
bombardment of Lebanon. Immediately, the Baabda palace threatened to bring the affair before
the arbitration court of the United Nations, and simultaneously, to alert the Security Council.
And via his Syrian counterpart Bachar el-Assad, he also contacted Egyptian President Abdel
Fattah al-Sissi, who made the connection between the pro- and anti-US. It was al-Sissi who
telephoned Jared Kushner and obtained, with his support, the liberation of the Prime Minister.
And in fact, as soon as Hariri was freed, he went to Cairo to thank al-Sissi.
The
Israëli-Arab question
This leaves us with the Israëli-Palestinian question.
The naked reality is this:
Over the last 70 years, Israël has continually been stealing its neighbours'
territory. It currently occupies the Syrian Golan, the farms of the Lebanese Shebaa, and a very
large part of the Palestinian territories of 1967, including almost all of East Jerusalem.
The leaders of the Palestinian Resistance have almost all been neutralised by
Israël – many of them have been assassinated, those who remain with Fatah have
mostly been corrupted by their enemies, while those of Hamas have openly collaborated with
Mossad to eliminate their rivals [ 7 ]. The only organisations who
continue to fight for their rights are a few small groups like the Islamic Jihad and the
FPLP-CG.
It is true that the Palestinians and the other Arab and/or Muslim people maintain a
sense of the Law, and militate for the respect of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian
people. But in the absence of credible political representation, they can do nothing, apart
from marching by the tens of millions on " Jerusalem Day ".
The bilateral agreements are:
The realisation of the project expressed by the British Balfour Declaration, and by the
14 points of US President Wilson which created Israël [
8 ].
The letter addressed to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon by President George Bush Jr., which
refutes the right of return to Palestinian refugees, and recognises the territories conquered
since 1949 as being integral parts of Israël [
9 ].
The multilateral agreements are:
Resolutions 242 [ 10 ] and 338 [
11 ] of the United Nations
Security Council and article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention.
Only President Trump and a few of his advisors know the scenario written by Jared Kushner.
He has followed the policy of his predecessors by reducing the situation to a simple
Israëli-Arab dispute. Following the line of John Kerry, he has favored the reconciliation
of Fatah and Hamas against Israël, and has succeeded in persuading them (but not the
FPLP-CG, nor the Islamic Jihad) to sign an agreement, on 12 October in Cairo [ 12 ]. He has engineered
the election to the head of Hamas of a childhood friend of the leader of Fatah, Mohammed
Dahlan, in preparation for the fusion of the two movements.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian factions continue to express radically different ideas. For
Fatah, Israël is a second Rhodesia, a colonial State which pronounced itself independent.
For Hamas, based on an interpretation of the Hadiths (not the Coran), the problem is that a
Muslim land cannot be governed by non-Muslims.
The beginning of events came with the announcement of the transfer of the US embassy from
Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem.
Clearly, the White House is testing its ability to force its way through. Indeed, on one
hand, the plan for the sharing of Palestine in fact anticipates that West Jerusalem will be the
capital of the Hebrew state. But on the other hand, the Security Council has condemned
Israël for designating West Jerusalem as its capital [ 13 ].
The strange meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which has just been held in
Istanbul, proposed to transfer the capital of the Palestinian State from Ramallah to East
Jerusalem [ 14
]. Except that this seems difficult to realise, and in fact has not been realised. Perhaps this
was simply a gallant last stand designed to force the acceptance of this abandon by Muslim
public opinion.
Provisional Conclusion
The adversaries of President Trump are attempting by any means possible to oblige him to
give up on his advisor Jared Kushner. Nevertheless, he is still in office. He has, for the
moment, managed to end Saudi support for terrorist groups and resolve the question of the
succession to the throne by cutting the Gordian knot, in other words, by neutralizing the royal
family. We may regret the method chosen – hanging old men by their feet and torturing
them until they hand over their bank accounts. The fact remains that all the other solutions,
or even worse, the absence of solutions, could have led to a civil war. The fault lies not with
Jared Kushner, but with those who have for so long accepted the barbaric and medieval
régime of the Saudis.
Equally, it is today extremely unjust, not to transfer the US embassy to West Jerusalem, but
to give up on establishing the Palestinian government in East Jerusalem. Here again, the
responsibility does not lie with Jared Kushner, but with the " international community ", and
in particular with the Arab Sionist governments, who have allowed Israël, for the last 70
years, to eat up the city, apartment by apartment.
So while, for 70 years, Western diplomats have contrived to multiply and complexify the
conflicts in the Middle East, Jared Kushner is the first to have brought a resolution. The
angel-faced Presidential advisor is a talented organiser. Thierry Meyssan
Is Trump's Jared Kushner connection to the Chabad Lubavitch sect the cause for his dramatic U-turn? The sect is deliberately
fomenting a prophesied Third World War.
It believes Jews are God's chosen people and
everyone else is trash. In the book "Gatherings of Conversations"Rebbe
Schneerson tells his followers that Jewish people are an extension of God and
Gentiles are destined to serve the Jews .
"Israel wasn't a political discussion for him; it was his family, his life, his people,"
said Hirschy Zarchi, rabbi at the Chabad House at Harvard.
Between 2003 and 2013, his family foundation donated a total of $342,500 to various
institutions and projects associated with the movement. Especially endowed was the Chabad
center at Harvard University, which received $150,000 in 2007 (the foundation's single biggest
donation to a Lubavitch-affiliated enterprise) and then another $3,600 in 2013. In addition
, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has donated $11,550 to three Chabad institutions. In
2006,
Kushner's father Charles was sentenced to 24 months in prison for making illegal campaign
donations & witness tampering.
He and the rest of his family are all crooks as are most politicians. Deals are made
between thieves. Wealth serves as a mask.
I wonder how much he will make! Am so sick at
the lack of morals among officials all over the world. Do good because it is the right
thing to do not because of the accolades. Let thereby real judge!
No! Of course not. Why does anyone believe this nonsense!
First off, I think by "bring peace to the Middle East" you must be referring to "solve the
Israeli-Palestinian dilemma". There are numerous conflicts in the broader Middle East that make
broader peace impossible.
Jared Kushner has no diplomatic experience. He doesn't seem to have any special knowledge
about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Being raised an Orthodox Jew, I think
it will be impossible for the Palestinians to see him as a neutral party.
Here's something that people should have learned before the election: p...
(more)
"... In phone conversations with friends, Trump would share his frustrations concerning members of his staff and the internal chaos that drove the White House. ..."
"... Kushner was a suck-up. ..."
"... Jared and Ivanka should never have come to Washington. ..."
In phone conversations with friends, Trump would share his frustrations concerning members
of his staff and the internal chaos that drove the White House.
When he got on the phone after dinner, he'd speculate on the flaws and weaknesses of each
member of his staff. Bannon was disloyal (not to mention he always looks like shit). Priebus
was weak (not to mention he was short -- a midget). Kushner was a suck-up. Sean Spicer was
stupid (and looks terrible too). Conway was a crybaby. Jared and Ivanka should never have
come to Washington.
Wolff reveals that the small group of friends did not keep details of Trump's calls to them
confidential.
... ... ...
Trump fired Priebus and brought Gen. John Kelly in to serve as the White House chief of
staff. Bannon left the White House soon after, and Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are serving a
more diminished role in the White House. Sean Spicer also quit, and Kellyanne Conway remains a
counselor to the president.
There is a probably difference between contacts with officials of Russian state and member of
Jewish mafia of Russia/USSR origin. But it never ne investigated.
The Soviet and
Russian émigré
community in New York's Brighton Beach contains a large Jewish
presence. Some of these newer American-based Jewish gangsters, such as Ludwig Fainberg (who has lived in Ukraine,
Israel and the United States, but never in Russia), share more in common culturally with Russia
and the Soviet republics than their predecessors, such as Meyer Lansky. [36][ page
needed ]
Russian Jewish mafia figures, such as Semion Mogilevich , have attempted to
penetrate the United States, including participating in a US$10 billion money laundering scheme
through the Bank of New York in 1998.
Israeli mobsters also have had a presence in the United States. The Israeli mafia (such as the Abergil crime family ) is heavily
involved in ecstasy trafficking
in America. [37]
US President Donald
Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is also a senior adviser to the White House, is under FBI
scrutiny as part of its probe into Russia's meddling in the 2016 US election, NBC News reported
on Thursday.
The report citing multiple sources said Kushner's interaction with the Russians has been a
focus of the investigation. In December, Kushner met with the Russian ambassador to the US
Sergey Kislyak and a banker from Moscow, according to NBC.
But it remains unclear exactly what activities have drawn the FBI's attention, and
investigators' interests in Kushner "does not mean they suspect him of a crime or intend to
charge him," the report said.
This came after reports that Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn and
campaign manager Paul Manafort have been examined for their connections with the Russian
government.
The 36-year-old Kushner, who is married to Trump's daughter Ivanka, is an American real
estate investor and worked in his father-in-law's presidential campaign team as a key adviser
on US policy toward Israel and campaign strategy. In January, he was named senior adviser to
the president and became a powerful figures in the West Wing.
"The Iraq war began sixteen years ago tomorrow," Fleischer tweeted on March
19. "There is a myth about the war that I have been meaning to set straight for years. After no
WMDs were found, the left claimed 'Bush lied. People died.' This accusation itself is a lie.
It's time to put it to rest."
Fleischer goes on to declare that "The fact is that President Bush (and I as press
secretary) faithfully and accurately reported to the public what the intelligence community
concluded," before noting that "The CIA, along with the intelligence services of Egypt, France,
Israel and others concluded that Saddam had WMD. We all turned out to be wrong. That is very
different from lying."
As a Chief Weapons Inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in Iraq from
1991 through 1998, I was intimately familiar with the intelligence used by the U.S.
Intelligence Community to underpin the case for war (which I debunked in June 2002 in an
article published in Arms Control Today ). Armed with the
unique insights that came from this experience, I can state clearly and without any reservation
that Ari Fleischer, once again, has misrepresented the facts when it comes to the Bush
administration's decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.
Advertisement
The fact is, the Iraq War was never about WMD. Rather, it was waged for one purpose and one
purpose only -- regime change. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the sole focus of this effort,
and the so-called "intelligence" used to justify this act was merely an excuse for action. Ari
Fleischer knows this, and to contend otherwise -- as he does via twitter -- is simply a
continuation of the lies he told from the very beginning about the U.S. case for war with
Iraq.
UNSCOM had, by the fall of 2002, been relegated to the pages of history, replaced by a new
inspection organization, the United
Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) . It is through the
work of UNMOVIC that Ari Fleischer's defense of George W. Bush collapses. In November 2002 the
Bush administration pushed for the UN Security Council to pass Resolution
1441 , which found Iraq to be in "material breach" of its disarmament obligations.
Inspectors from UNMOVIC were dispatched to Iraq shortly thereafter in a last-ditch effort to
account for the totality of Iraq's WMD.
The work of the inspectors was undermined from the start by the Bush administration, led by
Ari Fleischer. "It is very well true that the inspectors who are working as diligently as they
can in an environment made very difficult for them by Iraqi actions, may not be giving notice,"
Fleischer
explained in a press conference, "but that does not mean Iraq is not receiving notice as a
result of their electronic means and other means to know what the inspectors are doing. Which
puts the inspectors in a very hard position."
But Fleischer had no evidence that Iraq was getting advance notice, and the experience of UNMOVIC
inspectors on the ground suggested otherwise. When asked by a reporter about the
possibility of giving the UN weapons inspectors more time to complete their task, Fleischer
fired back, asking "More time for what? More time to be run-around by a regime that has not
complied, that has concealed its weapons, and that has grown throughout the years --
particularly the four years when no one was in the country -- extraordinarily good at hiding
what they have and deceiving those who are there to do their level best."
Left unsaid was the fact that the inspectors had repeatedly asked the U.S. for access to the
very intelligence being used to underpin the American claims that Iraq was holding on to
prohibited WMD and were denied. "If the UK and the U.S. are convinced and they say they have
evidence," Hans
Blix, the head of UNMOVIC, had noted on December 20, 2002, "then one would expect they
would be able to tell us where is this stuff." When asked if they were getting cooperation from
U.S. and Western intelligence agencies, Blix replied, "Not yet. We get some, but we don't get
all we need."
In 2010,
Blix commented on the provisions of Security Council resolution 1441, which had declared
Iraq to be in "material breach" of its obligation to disarm, and which was cited
by Ari Fleischer to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003. "The
declaration, I felt, might give Iraq a chance for a new start," Blix noted, " except that it
was very hard for them to declare any weapons when they didn't have any. "
This is the conclusion that anyone taking umbrage with Ari Fleischer over his attempt to
whitewash the role he played -- as an extension of President George W. Bush -- in facilitating
the Iraq War should rely on. Deflecting blame onto the U.S. intelligence community ignores the
fact that the decision to go to war was the exclusive purview of the Executive Branch that
Fleischer served. Iraq's alleged retention of proscribed WMD were merely an excuse to achieve
the higher goal of regime change. The inspection process initiated in November 2002 to
investigate Iraq's WMD programs was, from the U.S. perspective, a façade created to
justify a decision to go to war that was made long before the inspectors ever set foot on the
ground.
"Intelligence," therefore, was an artifice manufactured by the Bush administration as a
smoke screen. A memorandum prepared by
the head of the British MI-6 intelligence service , Richard Dearlove, following a July 23,
2002 meeting in Washington, DC, underscores this truth: "There was a perceptible shift in
attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through
military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD . But the intelligence
and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Bush knew that the engagement with the United Nations, including the crafting of resolution
1441 and the dispatch of inspectors to Iraq, was simply an elaborate charade, cruel theatrics
meant to dangle the prospects of peace, all the while preparing for war -- something Ari
Fleischer knew all along, as this exchange
with the press aptly demonstrates:
Question: "Does regime change mean that you want to change the leader of Iraq, or you want
to change the nature of the regime?"
Fleischer: "The objective is for Saddam Hussein's Iraq to disarm, to stop threatening its
neighbors, to stop repressing minorities within its own country. And that's why Congress passed
the policy of regime change."
Press: "Well, which of those definitions is correct?"
Fleischer: "Well, let's do it -- let me cut to the bottom line on it. What I would propose
is that in the event Saddam Hussein gives the order, and under his leadership and direction
disarms Iraq, gives up its weapons of mass destruction, has no more chemical weapons, no more
biological weapons, stops using hostility as a way to deal with its neighbors, stops repression
of minorities with his own country, give me a call. After you cover Saddam Hussein doing these
things, let's talk about it. Until then, the president is focused on making sure that these
developments take place as a result either of the UN resolutions being enforced, or by whoever
in Iraq taking these actions to make it happen. But this is probably the mother of all
hypotheticals. Give me a phone call when it happens."
Press: "So Saddam could stay in power if those objectives were carried out?"
Fleischer: "Again, call me up when Saddam Hussein gives the directions for all those factors
to take place."
Press: "So, that's a yes?"
Fleischer: "I think this is a question of how many devils can dance on the head of a
pin."
Press: "It's not. Can he stay in power and have regime change?"
Fleischer: "You're asking the mother of hypotheticals. And I think it's a rather "
Press: "Does it refer to a leader or a government regime change?"
Fleischer: "It refers to actions that have to be taken to keep the peace."
Press: "So it's a question of policy, not personnel?"
Fleischer: "That's a good way to put it."
Press: "So he could stay in power if those things happen?"
Fleischer: "If you want to fool yourselves into believing that that's what Saddam Hussein
would do in policy, that's an interesting way to approach it."
The fact of the matter is that Saddam did, in fact, do everything listed by Ari Fleischer to
effect a change in the policies of Iraq in order to preserve his regime. But President Bush --
whom Fleischer represented -- never had any intention of recognizing such change, even when it
occurred. President Bush, Ari Fleischer and every representative of the U.S. administration
involved in formulating and implementing U.S. policy on Iraq was being dishonest in the extreme
when dangling the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the Iraq problem.
In short, they all lied, and Ari Fleischer was the mouthpiece for disseminating these lies,
a task he continues to perform to this day.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author ofDeal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road
to War . 14 Responses to Ari Fleischer Lied, and People Died
Thank you for another reminder of what really happened. My only quibble is that this uses
GWB, the figurehead, as the power and decision-maker. Like Bolton & Co today, the ones
calling the plays are not the public face that can get elected by the proles. It was the
Cheney/Wolfy/Rummy cabal, smokescreened by Rove, who sent Iraq back to the stone age at the
behest of Israel.
One down and more to go Iran is the next big target of the same mentality.
It is interesting to note the following requirement: "stops repression of minorities with
his own country". It indicates that Bush administration had a plan B for invading Iraq, on
the template of Kosovo
The writer states: "In short, they all lied, "
Therefore, based on the evidence that the Iraq war was a lie, where are the prosecutions?
Millions of people are dead, soldiers are dead or maimed, Iraq is reduced to rubble in parts
of its land and nothing happens to the perpetrators of lies. What does this say about our
so-called "justice system"? http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2018/12/will-war-criminals-be-brought-to.html
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
It is the same today with the intelligence being fixed to justify the US exit from the INF
treaty.
Why does the administration not tell us what the range of the disputed missile is?
Why would Russia deploy a land-based missile in breach of the treaty when it could deploy
it at sea and not violate any treaty?
Not surprisingly, this information has not been supplied.
Behind the decision to leave the INF treaty is John Bolton. He also fought to remove Jose
Bustani as the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) which
governs the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Bustani was trying to bring Iraq into that treaty. That is why he had to go. If he had
succeeded it would have removed the excuse for war.
It's astonishing that creeps like Fleischer have the temerity to show their faces in public.
His lies caused terrible damage to America and millions of innocent civilians in the Middle
East. He should shut the **** up and thank his lucky stars he wasn't sent to prison for his
part in this disgusting episode.
The War of Lies Against Iraq
By Eric S. Margolis
March 23, 2019
Sixteen years ago, the US and Britain committed a crime of historic proportion, the
invasion and destruction of Iraq. It was as egregious an aggression as Nazi Germany's 1939
invasion of Poland.
Large numbers of Iraqi civilians died from 2003-2007. Iraq's water and sewage systems were
bombed, causing widespread cholera. The UN estimated 500,000 Iraqi children alone died as a
result. Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, said it was 'a price worth paying.'
[read more at link below]
And now we get to do all over again, with the right target this time, Iran. Don't forget that
after 9/11 the first call was to go after Iran and not our trusty allies in the ME who were
the real perps. Iraq was just the consolation prize for these insane ideologues, who should
all be in jailed for war crimes.
If you define weapons of mass destruction as nuclear war capabilities, then Iraq had none. If
you define weapons of mass destruction as chemical, then Iraq historically had these weapons
which it used against Iran, the Kurds, and shot some in Iraq War I at Israel. What happened
to the chemical weapons? They were sold/moved to Syria, where they still are today, and still
being used by the Assad regime. When the US troops got to Iraq in Gulf War II, the chemical
weapons were gone from Iraq, but not from Syria, which is why Iran, has a vested interest in
being involved in Syria, not to mention Israel. Does this help to make more sense of what
seems to be a perpetual war?
Trump just wanted these chemical weapons destroyed and never created again, and the US will
evacuate the Middle East once this is accomplished.
The article and the comments say it all: the lies, nothing else, were used to destroy Iraq!
No intell "mistake" can be offered-it is and was a neo con deception of the country and
the world.
Accountability, however, will not happen. Very ominous for the situation pertaining to
Iran and Venezuela. If the thugs in suits, pompeo, bolton, abrams, feel no consequence will
happen, why worry-it is off to intervention/regime change they go.
American sheeple have the institutional memory of a gnat and the mass media coverup and
malfeseance will continue.
"Liberals were called traitors, we were right
The Bush admin's push for war stank from the beginning"
On the issue of Iraq, there's no hiding behind liberal, democrats, conservative,
republicans, libertarians, etc.
Most of the country was heck bent on war as a matter of revenge, regardless of policy. The
fear mongering for policies adjecent to the actual events and actors of 9/11 was not only
coming out of DC, but main street. New Yorkers were no less intent on war making than the WH,
Congress or various think tanks, businesses or educators from elite or non-elite schools.
And what has occurred since moots any real escape in labels. The group who should have
been the least likely and the most prudent, the most thoughtful – the conservatives had
bent conservatism so out of distortion that even they had no defense against unreason.
I have tended to give the president and those in the WH and Congress the benefit of the
doubt that they sincerely considered a response in the region as a defense. I did not go to
select schools, and the schools I did attend did not require me to Ovid or an overview of the
classics in Greek or Latin. I had not attended a war college class or anything of the kind.
But when the case was presented for war – it simply didn't have the evidence or a
rationale that made sense. In fact, some of those contentions contradicted the what was known
as well as each other. It was deeply disturbing and disappointing. But when I read the
president's response to Dir. Tenet,
"If that's all you got, we can't go to war"
or words to that effect, they reflected my thoughts entirely. And for a long time I
considered that all of this mayhem was part of a diplomatic package. I was already outside
the main on the issue of Afghanistan, which I thought was overkill and strategically unsound
for the what should have been the goal – dealing with the actors of 9/11.
I do agree with Inspector Ritter, it was also quite clear that until the inspectors had
finished their mission, minus any evidence that Pres Hussein was in violation – there
was no case. Nor was there a case for invasion based on any humanitarian crisis or
genocide.
But what I have not been able to do is cross that line that they the president knowing and
deliberately conspired to manufacture (lie) evidence against an innocent party. And I have
been able to cross that line to despite having contemplated this article for two days and I
will no doubt read it again, to include the references. Those of that objected the first go
'round, if not pacifists, have problem read several pools of of information and arguments
regarding the case or lack thereof for war and the misleading the country by the leadership.
And it's frustrating that those who actually got the matter spot on are still battling the
those that got the matter and subsequent similar advances incorrect to this day. It's down
right painful considering the measures that were engaged to not merely silence opposition,
but to destroy people's lives.
What has been broken may not be repairable, one hopes it is, believes it is, but reading
this article is just too deep wound to see it. And what is salt in the wound has been three
years of accusations about Russian collusion for the purposes of undermining the executive
who claimed we should reconsider how we address the adventures. And the near total buy in of
that press by half of the country minus any catastrophic event, makes the wars seem as window
dressing to a much deeper and darker ethic that plagues us.
And then there is the question of what to do about all of this official misrepresentation.
Not only must we filter out whether they knowingly lied, but what to do about it. The
daunting task of arresting so many in so many positions of leadership and research. I
consider it serious business to make a false report, much less doing so on a document of
declaration for official business -- that is purjury. We impeached a president because he
mislead about what was a private intimate indiscretion --
What s described above is devastatingly more egregious by several Everests in
magnitude.
And it implicates our partners in what could only be a crime: Great Britain, Israel,
Australia, Poland and others who aided and abetted in the matter.
Caveat pre-defense: L'est I be called an anti-semite, Israel has a right to exist and self
defense.
They were wrong. And that the factual data contradicted their claims may not be enough to
claim they did not genuinely believe their own "lies" if "lies" they were. Or maybe I am just
unwilling to hold people on my team to account to the standard required. Perhaps, accepting
the idea that they knowingly perjured themselves is just too painful to accept.
Unwilling to call a spade a spade – maybe just too merciful or at the end of the day
-- cowardice.
"... The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to overturn the results of elections. ..."
"... At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this. ..."
"... I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee – Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this conspiracy. ..."
"... It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' – notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further. ..."
"... They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. ..."
"... Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal. ..."
"... The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue; ..."
"... Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law. ..."
"... It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection" operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.) ..."
There were no major disagreements between Mueller and his managers at the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ).
The Russians who tried to interfere in the 2016 election were exposed and charged -- but no
American was charged with any effort to conspire with Moscow and hijack the election.
the "Steele dossier" that was the main FISA evidence was paid for with funds
from Hillary Clinton
's campaign and the Democratic Party;
Christopher Steele, the dossier's author, had told a senior DOJ official he was desperate to
defeat Trump;
most of the dossier was not verified before it was used as evidence of alleged Trump-Russia
collusion; and
agents collected statements from key defendants such as Papadopoulos and Carter Page during
interactions with an FBI informant that strongly suggested their innocence.
Such omissions are so glaring as to constitute defrauding a federal court. And each and
every participant to those omissions needs to be brought to justice.
An upcoming DOJ inspector general's report should trigger the beginning of that
accountability in a court of law, and President Trump can assist the effort by declassifying
all evidence of wrongdoing by FBI, CIA and DOJ officials. " The Hill
------------
Pilgrims, the seditious conspiracy to depose the elected president of the United States for
conspiracy to commit treason with the Government of the Russian Federation has been
defeated.
The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously
used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make
an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to
overturn the results of elections.
At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary
Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever,
clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the
even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British
intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose
staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this.
The leftist press is already discounting the results of Mueller's investigation while
gloating over how long the Democratic held House of Representatives can continue to search
through Trump's life trying to find criminality.
AG Barr should stand Mueller up next to him at a press conference to make clear the results
of his report and to answer questions about it. After that the prosecutions should begin.
pl
I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee –
Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled
against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this
conspiracy.
It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a
strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' –
notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which
case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further.
The argument that declassification of relevant documentation would harm the intelligence
relationship between the U.S. and U.K. has clearly been made with great emphasis from this
side.
In fact, it is pure bollocks. A serious investigation on your side, which could lead to
the kind of clean-out which should have happened when the scale of the corruption of
intelligence in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq became clear, might pave the way for us
to reconstruct reasonably functional intelligence services.
Doing this on both sides of the Atlantic might pave the way for a reconstruction of an
intelligence relationship which was actually beneficial to both countries, as in recent years
it patently has not been.
Whether there is a realistic prospect of people on your side opening the cans of worms on
ours, as well as your own, of course remains a moot point.
I'm glad the Steele affair has been examined at the American end -
"They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with
Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US
political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and
spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York.
"
What about the UK end? We're fussing over some little local difficulties in the UK at the
moment and at our end the questions still remain - Who in the UK authorised it and how high did it go?
The problem with criminal prosecution is one must cite a Brit or US law which was violated.
The only ones in US law that I am aware of stipulate that the plotting must be by means of
violence, "by force". All this appears to me to be only the propagation of rumors.
I think it might be more the investigation of the propagation of rumours. Think back to that election campaign, and to the period before the inauguration.
Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an
odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers
nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it
turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal.
With respect it is not propagating rumours to ask how that happened. As for my own
interest in the affair, it is not propagating rumours to ask how a senior UK ex-Intelligence
Officer comes to be mixed up in it all. I suppose I started to look on it as rather more than a prank or a few cogs slipping when
that senior UK ex-Intelligence Officer got whisked away to a safe house. We're a penny
pinching lot over here and we don't run to that sort of thing for nothing.
An investigation could certainly be predicated on the reasonable suspicion that Steele, et
al, conspired to defraud the United States, in this case a purposeful and knowing smear of a
candidate for office; also, another potential violation could be lying to the FBI, T 18 USC
1001.
The problem, as I see it, is sorting out the malignant from the merely incompetent. As I've
argued many times, the dossier should have been dismissed from the outset as a pile of
garbage, empty of actionable content, because the ultimate sources could not be vetted: the
information could not be said to be either credible or reliable. The information was acted on
by screening it behind the reliabilty and credibility, so called, of Steele. So it would be
necessary to show that Steele knew that the information, point by point, was false. This
could be difficult. Steele's first line of defense would be that he threw everything that he
heard from anyone at all into the mix in the expectation that the "professionals" would
figure it out.
Yes, they were all partisan, Steele, his sources, his bosses, the so called
professionals, and their partisanship would be easy to prove; and yes, almost assuredly their
partisanship contributed, perhaps even explained, their defective judgement as to how to
handle the scurrilous information, especially on the part of the so called professionals, but
proving they actually knew the materials to be false would be difficult.
They couldn't know
that it was false because they had no ability to run down the sources. The professionals
would defend themselves by saying they had no ability to vet the sources but the information
represented such a serious security threat that they had no alternative but to try to vet the
information by launching the investigation against the targets. This puts the cart before the
horse, represents an astonishing lack of judgement, especially considering the "exalted"
positions in the Intel Community the people exercising the bad judgement occupied, but there
it is - "we thought we were doing the right thing."
Perhaps this defense could be overcome by
demonstrating that people at such high and important heights of government could not possible
be so stupid... maybe.
And of course we have the orchestrated leaks to various media, the orchestrated unmaskings,
all of which kept the media frenzy fired up. All in all, it was the greatest political dirty
trick ever attempted in American Politics, and did devastating damage to both domestic
tranquility and national security. Trump survived, but the damage done is incalculable.
So It pains me greatly to think that the reckoning will likely have to be political rather
than criminal because the malice that can be demonstrated is so admixed and even overshadowed
by incompetence and judgement flaws; and even a political reckoning given the state of the
country is so uncertain.
I hope that I am wrong and that some kind of prosecution can be fashioned because of the
sheer enormity of violence that was done to our electoral system, surpassing by far the
chickenshit case Mueller brought against the Russian troll farm; but I fear that I am right.
It hurts to think that so much damage can be caused by scheming little political weasels and
that they all may well walk away scot free; and even be lionized by their political confreres
as having tried to do the right thing. This is the state of American politics today!!!
I see that some of the midgets on horseback are saying that they will bring Mueller before
congress to explain himself. Their knight in shining armor has failed to return with the holy
grail. A couple even suggested that perhaps Mueller has been influenced by the Russians or
somehow intimated by Trump.
The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue;
and that
+ all the crazy Marxism (social and economic), bad immigration policy and Green New Deal is
going to doom the Democrats in 2020. They look like they are jumping off a final sake fueled
banzai charge. Maybe they think the best defense is a good offense re; the prosecutions that
should happen. What is the chance that Mueller will pass *all* he has learned to help get the
criminal cases under way?
On 13 July 2018, when announcing the indictment of 12 Russian military officers by the
Mueller group for "conspiring to interfere" in the 2016 presidential election, Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein admitted that no "interference" actually happened. In this
video of his announcement, starting at 5 minutes, 52 seconds into it and ending at the 6
minute, 5 second mark, he says--
"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.
There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election
result."
Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results
of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly
pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law.
However, I am concerned that the new attorney general, William Barr, will not do so based
on his past associations and work. I hope I am wrong about that, but I am not optimistic.
It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly
unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a
weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection"
operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such
obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.)
I'm wrestling with the idea that 'twas ever thus and now with the internet its workings
are revealed to a "lay" audience with no connection to the dark arts of the spy business. But
I am curious, with the good Colonel's indulgence, if the new tools of the trade have made
things which should be secret not possible to be kept secret?
Amen to the prosecutions. If there is seen to be no accountability for this fraud then we are
seriously damaging what's left of democracy. Who, in their right mind, is going to publicly
support and assist a political candidate who is not "Swamp approved" if they face the threat
of thereby triggering their own, and their family's destruction by the judicial system?
I suggest that even a pardon is not enough for those entrapped in this mess. There needs
to be restitution.
To put that another way, in my opinion, "birther" allegations could be passed off as
political tactics. Nobody got hurt. It is just good luck that Russiagate hasn't resulted in
suicide or worse - so far.
I certainly agree that consequences must be brought to bear: lying politicians without a
shred of evidence, nor did they offer any for their lies; press for their utter and complete
malfeasance and corruption without a shred of evidence, the doj/fbi corrupted and coup
plotting officials,and finally the shame to all who shrieked about "evil" putin, russia the
aggressor, etc. It has set our discourse back decades, forced any critics of this insanity
into the shadows, and completely killed any attempt at normal diplomacy between nations.
I noted one astute writer as equating this russiagate insanity to the lies surrounding wmd
and the destruction of iraq. Close. The damage from this criminality is incalculable!
Will the shrillest of all in the press lose their jobs? Nah, not a chance. Prob get raise
or promotion.Will the brennans, clintons, clappers, et al do the perp walk. Nah, not a
chance. High paid lawyers will tie the courts up for years if not decades.
And america has the institutional memory of a gnat. And of course, the question is as to
high up did this criminality go? I personally do not believe it is a question-it is obvious
to me. The major question for me is how high up the prosecution, if any, will go.
Problem is...who's going to do the prosecuting?
The DOJ - protector of the swamp - has become thoroughly corrupted as an arm of the
Democrat-media party.
Should (can) Trump appoint a special prosecutor as far as possible from the DOJ?
The president might use this and any Republican-led prosecutions as leverage to work out
deals that will allow him to achieve his agenda. I think he'll need to given how the
Democrats intend to use their house majority to launch investigations and hearings to find
something, anything to howl about and impede his agenda.
Still need to see the full report. I hope it is releasable. Otherwise the conspiracy theories
or leaks will never let up. The article cited is a partisan opinion piece, not a news report.
It accepts the fallback stance that yes, crimes were committed but collusion by Trump was not
among them. This actually seems possible if only in light of the chaotic condition of the
campaign.
That said, I would not be surprised to find collusion discounted. Not that the Russians
didn't interfere. That would be entirely in character. But I don't know any reason for
supposing that they would have a better understanding of American political dynamics than the
Americans who make good livings being the best in that arena. The Russians seem to have been
doing the same things as numerous other players. They shouldn't have been in that game, but
there is no strong reason for according them Superman status. Their strongest feature seems
to have been sheer quantity. Outrage over their actions often seems to flow from a poor grasp
of the real nature of normal political process.
"The Russians seem to have been doing the same things..."
Multiple members of the FBI and DOJ seem to have been interfering in the 2016 Presidential
election. How many other federal and state elections did they interfere with?
Can you cite a single piece of hard evidence, not simply allegation, that proves the Russians
interfered in the 2016 election? If so, please cite it, since I know of none. Thank you.
"... Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump president ..."
"... The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives, getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of amounts to an attempted soft coup. ..."
"... It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. ..."
"... As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry. Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch ..."
"... I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way. ..."
"... Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller to prove. ..."
"... It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the "national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon. ..."
"... It is time to build cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony. Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it. The truth will work better. ..."
Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy
that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump
president. They did this fully aware that Trump was a repulsive, narcissistic ass clown who
bragged about "grabbing women by the pussy" and jabbered about building "a big, beautiful
wall" and making the Mexican government pay for it. They did this fully aware of the fact
that Donald Trump had zero experience in any political office whatsoever, was a loudmouth
bigot, and was possibly out of his gourd on amphetamines half the time. The American people
did not care. They were so disgusted with being conned by arrogant, two-faced, establishment
stooges like the Clintons, the Bushes, and Barack Obama that they chose to put Donald Trump
in office, because, fuck it, what did they have to lose?
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to
conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every
component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence
agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to
remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of
amounts to an attempted soft coup.
It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was
nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. The Clintons once
again, both Bill and Hillary, have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug in the White
House to the status of some kind of martyr. What a country America it is. One thing should be
clear however. Any politician or media pundit that towed the pro-Clintonista line should be
barred from public office or the media forever.
As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary,
they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry.
Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch. There is one difference between Typhoid
Mary, and Bill and Hillary: Typhoid Mary didn't realize what she was doing, the Clintons did!
sorry to double post, but it just occurred to me that they pulled a classic DC move: if you
have something humiliating or horrible to admit, do it on a friday night.
i have to wonder if the entire western media is cynically praying for a (coincidentally
distracting) school shooting or terrorist attack within the next two days.
I have close friends that have been on the MSNBC/Maddow Kool-Ade for years. Constantly
declaring Mueller was on the verge of closing in on Trump and associates for treason with the
Russians. On Friday night after dinner at our home, the TV was tuned to MSNBC so they could
watch their spiritual leader Rachel Maddow....what a pitiful sight (both Maddow and friends).
No one was going to jail or be impeached for conspiring with Putin.....how on how could that
be true. Putin personally stole the election from Clinton and THEY are just going to let him
walk was the declaration a few feet from my chair. Normally, I would recommend grieve
counseling, but they are still my friends ... now they can go back to blaming Bernie for
Clinton's loss. Maybe I will recommend grieve counseling!
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Mar 23, 2019 2:27:18 PM |
link
@dltravers: Apart from the "goyim" you may be right.. But if you want to claim with that
Trumps opponents where under the pressure of the Zionists, you got it all wrong man.. ;) No
presidents been more under the Zionist thumb than DJT.
That ofc doesnt make Hillarys Saudi and Muslim brotherhood connections better.. ;)
Anyway, cheers to the end of this BS! And lets hope that Trump has now payed off his debts
with Adelson now that he secured Bibis reelection. But dont hold your breath.. ;)
"very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this
moronic load of bull spunk has officially discredited themselves for life".
I wish so, but that's not how the exceptional nation of US of A works, as demonstrated by
the Iraq WMD fiasco case. In fact, very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit
(about Saddam's WMD" BS) is alive and well, spreading more BS. What is even more depressing
is that the huge chunk of this exceptional nation cannot have enough of the BS and is
chanting "give me more, give me more...".
The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion.
However some good things have come out of the investigation. It cost taxpayers 2 million
but recouped over 25 million from those convicted of fraud and tax evasion.
And its not over, Mueller has sent 5 to 7 referrals or evidence/witnesses to SDNY, EDNY, DC,
EDVA, plus the National Security and Criminal Divisions. These from information turned up
crimes unrelated to his Russia probe and allegedly concerning Trump or his family business, a
cadre of his advisers and associates. They are being conducted by officials from Los Angeles
to Brooklyn.
The bad news is it exposed how wide spread and corrupt the US has become...in private and
political circles.
The other bad news is most of the Trump lovers and Trump haters are too stupid to drop
their partisan and personal blinders and recognize that ....ITS THE CORRUPTION STUPID.
b you have repeatedly made the case that this whole thing was kicked off by the Steele
dossier. That is factually incorrect. The first investigation was already running before the
dossier ever materialized. That investigation spawned the special prosecutors investigation
when Trump fired Comey and then went on TV and said it was because of the Russia
investigation. The Russia investigation was originally kicked off by Papadopoulos drinking
with the the Australian ambassador and bragging about what the campaign was doing with
Russia. Remember the original evidence was presented to the leadership of both the House and
the Senate when they were both controlled by the Republican party and every one that was
briefed came out on camera and said the Justice dept was doing the right thing in pursuing
this.
I think the Democrats should lose Hillary down a deep hole and not let her near any of the
coming campaign events. But this came about because of the actions of the people around
Trump. Not because Hillary controls the US government from some secret bunker some where.
One could argue Russiagate was on the contrary quite a success. The Elites behind the scheme
never believed it would end up with Trump's impeachment. What they did accomplish though is a
deflection via "Fake News" from the Dem's election failures & shenanigans and refocus the
attention towards the DNC's emerging pedophilia scandals (Weiner, the Podesta's, Alefantis,
etc) & suspicious deaths (Seth Rich, etc) towards a dead-end with the added corollary of
preventing US/Ru rapprochement for more then half an administration..
Blooming Barricade , Mar 23, 2019 3:10:02 PM |
link
The deeply tragic thing about this for the media, the neocons, and the liberals is that they
brought it upon themselves by moving the goalposts continuously. If, after Hillary lost, they
had stuck to the "Russia hacked WikiLeaks" lie, then they probably have sufficient proof from
their perspective and the perspective of most of the public that Russia helped Trump win. In
this case it would be remembered by the Democrats like the stolen election of 2000 (albeit
the fact that it was a lie this time). They had multiple opportunities to jump off this
train. Even the ridiculous DNI report could have been their final play: "Russia helped
Trump." Instead of going with 2000 they went with 2001, aka 9-11, with the same neocon
fearmongers playing the pipe organ of lies. As soon as they accepted the Steele Dossier,
moving the focus to "collusion" they discredited themselves forever. Many of the lead
proponents were discredited Iraq war hawks. Except this time it was actually worse because
the whole media bought into it. This leaves an interesting conundrum: there were at least
some pro-Afghanistan anti-Iraq warmongers who rejected the Bush premise in the media, so they
took over the airwaves for about two years before the real swamp creatures returned. This
time, it will be harder to issue a mea culpa. They made this appear like 9-11, well, this
time the truthers have won, and they are doomed.
Societies collapse when their systems (institutions) become compromised. When they are no
longer capable of meeting the needs of the population, or of adapting to a changing world.
Societal systems become compromised when their decision making structures, which are
designed to ensure that decisions are taken in the best interest of the society as a whole,
are captured by people who have no legitimacy to make the decisions, and who make decisions
for the benefit of themselves, at the expense of society as a whole.
Russia-gate is a flagrant example of how the law enforcement and intelligence institutions
have been captured. Their top officials, no longer loyal to their country or their
institution, but rather to an international elite (including the likes of Soros, the
Clintons, and far beyond) have used these institutions in an attempt to delegitimize a
constitutionally elected president and to over turn an election. This is no less than treason
of the highest order.
Indeed, the actions much of the Washington establishment, as well as a number
international actors, since Trump was elected seems suspiciously like one of the 'Color
Revolutions' that are visited upon any country who's citizens did not 'vote right' the first
time. Over-throw the vote, one way or another, until the result that is wanted is achieved.
None of these 'Color Revolutions' has resulted in anything good for the country involved.
Rather they have resulted in the destruction of each country's institutions, and eventually
societal collapse.
In the U.S. the capturing of systems' decision making structures is not limited to
Russia-Gate and the overturning of the electoral system. Their are other prime examples:
- The capture of the Air Transport Safety System by Boeing that has resulted in the recent
737 Max crashes, and likely the destruction of the reputation of the U.S. aviation industry,
in an industry where reputation is everything.
- The capture of the Financial Regulatory System, by Wall Street, who in 1998 rewrote the
rules in their own favor, against the best interests of the population as a whole. The result
was the 2008 financial crisis and the inability of the U.S. economy to effectively recover
from that crisis.
- This capture is also seen in international diplomatic systems, where the U.S. is
systematically by-passing or subverting international law and international institutions,
(the U.N. I.C.J., I.N.F. treaty) etc., and in doing so is destroying these institutions and
the ability to maintain peace.
The result of system (institution) capture is difficult to see at first. But, in time, the
damage adds up, the ability of the systems to meet the needs of the population disappears,
and societal decline sets in.
It looks today like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of
many indicators.
Your comment on the BBC is on the mild side. I listen to it when I drive in in the morning
and also get annoyed sometimes. When it is reporting on the Westminster bubble it is
factually accurate as far as I can judge. Apart from that, and particularly in the case of
the BBC news, we're in information control territory.
But accept that and the BBC turns into quite a valuable resource. It's well staffed, has
good contacts, and picks up what the politicians want us to think with great accuracy.
In that respect it's better than the newspapers and better also than the American media.
Those news outlets have several masters of which the political elite is only one. The BBC has
just the one master, the political elite, and is as sensitive as a stethoscope to the
shifting currents within that political elite.
So I wouldn't despise the BBC entirely. It tells us how the politicians want us to think.
In telling us that it sometimes gives us a bearing on what the politicians et al are doing
and what they intend to do.
The never-Trumpers will never let their dreams die. Of course, they never oppose Trump on
substantive issues like attempting a coup in Venezuela, withdrawing from the INF treaty,
supporting the nazis in Ukraine, supporting Al Qaeda forces in Syria, etc. But somehow
they're totally against him and ready to haul out the latest stupid thing he said as their
daily fodder for conversation...
renfro @ 10 said;"The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion."
Uh no, just doing their job of distracting the public, while ignoring the real issues
the
American workers care about. You know, the things DJT promised the workers, but has never
delivered.(better health care for all, ending the useless wars overseas, an
infrastructure
plan to increase good paying jobs), to name just a few.
The corporate Dems( which is the lions share of them), are bought and paid for to
distract, and they've done it well.
The Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, and most who have come before, are of the same
ilk.
Bend over workers and lube up, for more of the same in 2020...
I profoundly disagree with the notion that Russiagate had anything to do with Hillary's
collusion with the DNC. Gosh, that is naive at best.
1) Hillary didn't need to collude against Sanders - the additional money that she got from
doing so was small change compared the to overall amount she raised for her campaign.
2) Sanders was a long-time friend of the Clintons. He boasted that he's known Hillary
for over 25 years.
3) Sanders was a sheepdog meant to keep progressives in the Democratic Party. He was
never a real candidate. He refused to attack Hillary on character issues and remained loyal
even after Hillary-DNC collusion was revealed.
When Sanders had a chance to total disgrace Hillary, he refused to do so. Hillary
repeatedly said that she had NEVER changed for vote for money but Warren had proven that
she had: Hillary changed her vote on the Bankruptcy Bill for money from the credit card
industry.
4) Hillary didn't try to bury her collusion with the DNC (as might be expected), instead
she used it to alienate progressive voters by bring Debra Wasserman-Shultz into her
campaign.
5) Hillary also alienated or ignored other important constituencies: she wouldn't
support an increase in the minimum wage but accepted $750,000 from Goldman Sachs for a
speech; she took the black vote for granted and all-but berated a Black Lives Matters
activist; and she called whites "deplorables".
Hillary threw the race to her OTHER long-time friend in the race: Trump. The
Deep-State wanted a nationalist and that's just what they got.
6) Hillary and the DNC has shown NO REMORSE whatsoever about colluding with Sanders and
Sanders has shown no desire whatsoever to hold them accountable.
IMO Russiagate (Russian influence on Trump) and accusations of "Russian meddling" in the
election are part of the same McCarthyist psyop to direct hate at Russia and stamp out any
dissent. Trump probably knowingly, played into the Deep State's psyop by:
> hiring Manafort;
> calling on Russia to release Hillary's emails;
> talking about Putin in a admiring way.
And it accomplished much more than hating on Russia:
> served as excuse for Trump to do Deep State bidding;
> distracted from the real meddling in the 2016 election;
> served as a device for settling scores:
- Assange isolated
(Wikileaks was termed an "agent of a foreign power");
- Michael Flynn forced to resign
(because he spoke to the Russian ambassador).
hopehely , Mar 23, 2019 3:49:15 PM |
link The US owes Russia an official apology. And also Russia should get its stolen
buildings and the consulate back. And maybe to get paid some compensation for the injustice
and for damages suffered. Without that, the Russiagate is not really over.
If memory serves me correctly, the initial accusations of collusion between DJT's
presidential campaign and the Kremlin came from Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity company hired
by the Democratic National Committee to oversee the security of its computers and databases.
This was done to deflect attention away from Hillary Clinton's illegal use of a personal
server at home to conduct government business during her time as US State Secretary (2009 -
2013), business which among other things included plotting with the US embassy in Libya (and
the then US ambassador Chris Stevens) to overthrow Muammar Gaddhafi's government in 2011, and
conspiring also to overthrow the elected government in Honduras in 2010.
The business of Christopher Steele's dossier (part or even most of which could have been
written by Sergei Skripal, depending on who you read) and George Papadopoulos' conversation
with the half-wit Australian "diplomat" Alexander Downer in London were brought in to bolster
the Russiagate claims and make them look genuine.
As B says, Crowdstrike does indeed have a Ukrainian nationalist agenda: its founder and
head Dmitri Alperovich is a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council (the folks who fund
Bellingcat's crapaganda) and which itself receives donations from Ukrainian oligarch Viktor
Pinchuk. Crowdstrike has some association with one of the Chalupa sisters (Alexandra or
Andrea - I can't be bothered dredging through DuckDuckGo to check which - but one of them was
employed by the DNC) who donated money to the Maidan campaign that overthrew Viktor
Yanukovych's government in Kiev in February 2014.
thanks b... i would like russiagate to be finished, but i tend to see it much like kadath
@2.. the link @2 is worth the read as a reminder of how far the usa has sunk in being a
nation of passive neocons... emptywheel can't say no to this as witnessed by her article
from today.. ) as a consequence, i agree with @14 dh-mtl's conclusion - "It looks today
like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of many indicators."
the irony for those of us who don't live in the usa, is we are going to have watch this
sad state of affairs continue to unravel, as the usa and the west continue to unravel in
tandem.. the msm as corporate mouthpiece is not going to be tell us anything of relevance..
instead it will be continued madcow, or maddow bullshit 24-7... amd as kadath notes @2 - if
any of them are to step up as a truth teller - they will be marginalized or silenced... so
long as the mainstream swallow what they are fed in the msm, the direction of the titanic is
still on track...
@19 hopehely... you can forget about anything like that happening..
What Difference Does it Make?
They don't really need Russia-gate anymore. It bought them time. As we speak nuclear bombers
make runs near Russian borders every day and Russian consulates get attacked with heavy
weaponry in the EU and no Russian outlet is even making a reference,while Israel is ready to
move heavy artillery in to Golan targeting Russia bases in Syria and China raking all their
deals for civilian projects in the Med.
Russia got stuffed in the corner getting all the punches.
What a horrible witch hunt, but the msm will keep on denying and keep creating new hoaxes
about Trump, Russia.
Heck the media even deny there was no collussion, they keep spinning it in different ways!
Thanks for citing Caitlin Johnstone's wonderful epitaph, b--Russiavape indeed!
During the fiasco, the Outlaw US Empire provided excellent proof to the world that it does
everything it accused Russia of doing and more, while Russia's cred has greatly risen.
Meanwhile, there're numerous other crimes Trump, his associates, Clinton, her
associates--like Pelosi--ought to be impeached, removed from office, arrested, then tried in
court, which is diametrically opposed to the current--false--narrative.
Scotch Bingeington , Mar 23, 2019 4:47:39 PM |
link
The people who steered us into two years of Russiavape insanity are the very last people
anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our world.
Yes, absolutely. And not just regarding the world's future, but even if you happen to be
in the same building with one of them and he/she bursts into your already smoke-filled room
yelling that the house is on fire.
Btw, whatever authority has ever ruled that "ex-MI6 dude" Steele (who doesn't remind me of
steel at all, but rather of a certain nondescript entity named Anthony Blair) is in fact
merely 'EX'? He himself? The organisation? The Queen perhaps?
Expose them at every opportunity, they should not get away with this like nothing
happend:
If you think a single Russiagate conspiracist is going to be held accountable for media
malpractice, you clearly haven't been awake the past 2 decades. No one will pay for being
wrong. This profession is as corrupt & rotten as the kleptocracy it serves
defeatism isn't the answer -- should remind & mock these hacks every opportunity.
Just need to be aware of the beast we're up against.
The establishment plays on peoples fears and so we all sink together as we all cling to
our "lesser evils", tribal allegiances, and try to avoid the embarrassment of being
wrong.
Although everyone is aware of the corruption and insider dealing, no one seems to want to
acknowledge the extent, or to think critically so as to reveal any more than we already
know.
It's almost as though corruption (the King's nudity) is a national treasure and revealing
it would be a national security breach in the exceptional nation.
And so to the Deep State cabal continues to rule unimpeded.
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years
Posted by: Ken | Mar 23, 2019 2:09:31 PM | 4
You people don't get it do you?
'The Plan' was to get rid of Turkey-Russia-Israel (and a few others) with one fell
swoop....
Russia gate was both a diversion from the real collusions (Russian Mafia , China and Israel)
and a clever ruse to allow Trump to back off from his campaign promise to improve relations
with Russia. US policy toward Russia is no different under Trump than it was during Obamas
administration. Exactly what the Russia Gaters wanted and Trump delivered.
That Mueller could find nothing more than some tax/money laundering/perjury charges in
which the culprits in the end get pardoned is hardly surprising given his history. Want
something covered up? Put Mueller on it.
To show how afraid Trump was of Mueller he appointed his long term friend Barr as AJ and
pretended he didn't know how close they were when it came out. There is no lie people wont
believe. Lol
Meanwhile Trumps Russian Mafia connections stay under the radar in MSM, Trump continues as
Bibi's sock puppet, the fake trade war with China continues as Ivanka is rolling in China
trademarks .
The Rothschild puppet that bailed out Trumps casinos as Commerce Secretary overseeing
negotiations that will open the doors for more US and EU (they willy piggy back on the deal
like hyenas) jobs to go to China (this time in financial/services) and stronger IPR
protections that will facilitate this transfer, and will provide companies more profits in
which to buyback stocks but wont bring manufacturing jobs back.
The collusion story has been hit badly and it will likely lose its momentum, but I wonder how
far reaching this loss of momentum is. There are many variants. The 'unwitting accomplice' is
an oxymoron which isn't finished yet. The Russians hacking the election: not over. The
Russians sowing discord and division. Not over. Credibility of the Russiagate champions
overall? Not clear. Some could take a serious hit. Brennan and other insiders who made it
onto cable tv?
It is possible that the whole groupthink about Russiagate changes drastically
and that 'the other claims' also lose their credibility but it's far from certain. After
years of building up tension Russia's policies are also changing. I think they have shown
restraint but their paranoia and aggressiveness is also increasing and some claims will
become true after all.
"Russiagate" has always been a meaningless political fraud.
When folks like Hillary Clinton sign on to something and give it a great deal of weight,
you really do know you are talking about an empty bag of tricks. She is a psychopathic liar,
one with a great deal of blood on her hands.
My problem with this official result is that it may tend to give Trump a boost, new
credibility.
The trouble with Trump has never been Russia - something only blind ideologues and people
with the minds of children believe - it is that he is genuinely ignorant and genuinely
arrogant and loud-mouthed - an extremely dangerous combination.
And in trying to defend himself, this genuine coward has completely surrendered American
foreign policy to its most dangerous enemies, the Neocons.
Blaming Russiagate on Hillary is very easy for those who hate her or hope that Trump will
deliver on his faux populist fake-agenda.
No one wants to contemplate the possibility that Hillary and Trump, and the duopoly they
lead, fixed the election and planned Russiagate in advance.
It seems a bridge too far, even for the smart skeptics at MoA.
So funny.
Trump has proven himself to be a neocon. He broke his campaign promise to investigate
Hillary within DAYS of being elected. He has brought allies of his supposed enemies into his
Administration.
Yet every one turns from the possibility that the election was fixed. LOL.
The horrible possibility that our "democracy" is managed is too horrible to contemplate.
Lets just blame it all on Hillary.
Those who have been holding their breath for two years can finally exhale. I guess the fever
of hysteria will have to be attended a while longer. A malady of this kind does not easily
die out overnight. Those who have been taken in, and duped for so long, can not so easily
recover. The weight of so much cognitive dissonance presses down on them like a boulder. The
dust of the stampeded herd behind Russiagate is enough paralyze the will of those who have
succumbed.
As Joseph Conrad once wrote, "The ways of human progress are inscrutable."
Russiagate is a pendulum, it reached the dead point, it would hange in the air for a moment,
then it would start swinging right backwards at full speed crashign everything in the way!
It would be revealed, it was Russia who paid Muller to start that hysteria and stole money
from American tax-payers and make America an international laughing stock. "Putin benefited
from it", highly likely!
Muller's investigation is paid for with Manafort's seized cash and property and Manafort
has made Yanukovich king of Ukraine, so Manafort is Putin's agent, so Muller is working of
Putin's money, so it was Putin's collusion everything that Muller is doing! Highly
likely.
There is no "Liberal Media". Those whom claim to be Liberal and yet support the Warmonger
Democratic Party (Republican lite) are frauds. Liberalism does not condone war and it most
certainly does not support wars of aggression - especially those wars waged against
defenseless nations. Neither can liberalism support trade sanctions or the subjugation of
Palestinians in the Apartheid State of ISreal.
We must be very careful with the words we choose, in order to paint the correct
conjuncture and not to throw the bathtub with the baby inside.
It's one thing to say Bernie Sanders is not a revolutionary; it's another completely
different thing to say he was in cahoots with the Clintons.
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary. Not only he chose to do so, but he only didn't win
because the DNC threw all its weight against him.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist. He's an imperialist who believes the
spoils of the empire should be also used to build a Scandinavian-style Welfare State for the
American people only. A cynic would tell you this would make him a Nazi without the race
theme, but you have to keep in mind societies move in a dialectical patern, not a linear one:
if you preach for "democratic socialism", you're bringing the whole package, not only the
bits you want.
I believe the rise of Bernie Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it
exists. Americans are more aware of their own contradictions (more enlightened) now than
before he disputed those faithful primaries of 2016. And the most important ingredient for
that, in my opinion, was the fact he was crushed by both parties; that the "establishment"
acted in unison not to let him get near the WH. That was a didactic moment for the American
people (or a signficant part of it).
But I agree Russiagate went well beyond just covering the Clintons' dirt in the DNC.
It may have be born like that, but, if that was the case, the elites quickly realized it
had other, ampler practical uses. The main one, in my opinion, was to drive a wedge between
Trump's Clash of Civilizations's doctrine -- which perceives China as the main long term
enemy, and Russia as a natural ally of the West -- and the public opinon. The thing is most
of the American elite is far too dependent on China's productive chain; Russia is not, and
can be balkanized.
There is a funny video compilation of the TV talking heads predicting the end of Trump, new
bombshells, impeachment, etc., over the last two years.
Unfortunately, the same sort of compilation could be made of sane people predicting "this new
information means the end of Russiagate" over the same time period.
The truth is that the truth doesn't matter, only the propaganda, and it has not stopped, only
spun onto new hysteria.
As others have said, hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been
wrong all along. They have too much emotional investment in the grand conspiracy theory to
simply let it go. Rather, they will forever point to what they believe are genuine bits of
evidence and curse Mueller for not following the leads. And the Dems in the House of
Representatives will waste more time and resources on pointless investigations in an effort
to keep the public sufficiently distracted from more important matters, such as the endless
wars and coups that they support. A pox on all their houses, both Democrats and
Republicans.
"...hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been wrong all along."
Wrong about what? There seems to be "narrative" operative here that there are only two
positions on this matter: the "right" one and the "wrong" one and nothing else.
Ben's and other comments might make this a little bit superfluous but it's short.
A case of divide and conquer against the population
This time it was a fabricated scandal.
Continued control over "facts" and narratives, the opportunity for efficient misdirection
and distraction, stealing and wasting other people's time and effort, spurious disagreements,
wearing down relations.
The illusion of choice, (false) opposition, blinded "oversight", and mythical claims
concerning a civilian government (in the case of the US: "of, for, and by" or something like
that).
Who knew or knows is irrelevant as long as the show goes on. There's nothing to prove
anything significant about who if anyone may or may not be behind the curtain and thus on
towards the next big or small scandal we go because people will be dissatisfied and hungry
and ready to bite as hard as possible on some other bait for or against something.
Maybe "Russiagate" was impeccably engineered or maybe it organically outcompeted other
distractions on offer that would ultimately also waste enormous amounts of time and
effort.
Management by crisis
The scandals, crises, "Science says" games and rubbish, outrage narratives, and any other
manipulations attempt and perhaps succeed at controlling the US and the world through
spam.
Jonathan @39: Of course it was fixed. That's what the Electoral College is for.
Well, you can say the same think about money-as-speech , gerrymandering, voter
suppression, etc. Despite all these, Americans believe that their democracy works.
I contend that what we witnessed in 2016 was a SHOW. Like American wrestling. It was
(mostly) fake. The proper term for this is kayfabe .
My advice to the yanks mourning Russiagate: move to the UK. The sick Brits will keep the
Russia hating cult alive even after they spend a decade puking over Brexit.
Jackrabbit @18
So, you don't think HRC qualifies as a nationalist? She can't fake populist, but she can do
nationalist.
I also think she is much too ambitious to have intentionally thrown the election. It was her
turn dammit! Take a look at her behavior as First Lady if you think she's the kind of
personality that is content to wield power from behind the scenes.
They didn't fall for the Steele dossier. I recall that emptywheel had discredited the dossier
during the election as it was known to have been rejected by major media outlets leading up
to the election. I think they merely fell behind the others as the outgoing administration,
the Democrats, the CIA, and the media chose to use the dossier to 'blackmail' Trump.
The most important fruit of russiagate, from the view of the establishment of the hegemon, is
that America has now taken a giant step towards full bore censorship.
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's
that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him
and Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax
returns. Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the
press asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns). Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate,
meaningless astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like
open borders. These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the
Democrats and another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character
issues and to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other
examples: Bernie refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's
well known work to squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer
Flowers), and didn't talk about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make")
and her glee at the overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find
that even a little bit strange?
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him and
Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax returns.
Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the press
asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns) . Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate, meaningless
astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like open borders.
These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the Democrats and
another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character issues and
to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other examples: Bernie
refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's well known work to
squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer Flowers), and didn't talk
about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make") and her glee at the
overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find that
even a little bit strange?
mourning dove @57: Exactly! It's the Electoral College that decides elections, not
voters.
Do you think Hillary didn't know that? She refused to campaign in the three mid-western
states that would've won her the electoral college. Each of the states were won by Trump by a
thin margin.
Gosh and Blimey!
Comment #56 in a thread about an utterly corrupt political system and no-one has mentioned
the pro-"Israel" Lobby?
Words fail me. So I'll use someone else's...
From Xymphora March 21, 2019.
"Truth or Trope?" (Sailer):
"Of the top 50 political donors to either party at the federal level in 2018, 52 percent
were Jewish and 48 percent were gentile. Individuals who identify as Jewish are usually
estimated to make up perhaps 2.2 percent of the population.
Of the $675 million given by the top 50 donors, 66 percent of the money came from Jews and 34
percent from gentiles.
Of the $297 million that GOP candidates and conservative causes received from the top 50
donors, 56 percent was from Jewish individuals.
Of the $361 million Democratic politicians and liberal causes received, 76 percent came from
Jewish givers.
So it turns out that Rep. Omar and Gov. LePage appear to have been correct, at least about
the biggest 2018 donors. But you can also see why Pelosi wanted Omar to just shut up about
it: 76 percent is a lot."
Next up another false flag operation. The thing is, it would have be non-trivial and
involving the harming of people to jolt the narrative back to that favoring the deep state.
And taking off the proverbial media table, that Mueller found no collusion. Yes, election in
2016 no collusion, but Putin was behind the latest horrific false flag, "oh look, Trump is
not confronting Putin"...
Not even getting into the "treason", "putin's c*ckholster", "what's the time on Moscow,
troll!" crap we've been subjected to for 3 years, please enjoy this mashup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjUvfZj-Fm0.
I've said before that she's a terrible strategist and she ran a terrible campaign and she's
terribly out of touch. I think she expected a cake walk and was relying on Trump being so
distasteful to voters that they'd have no other option.
I think Trump legitimately won the election and I don't believe for a second that she won the
popular vote. There were so many problems with the election but since they were on the losing
side, nobody cares. In 2012 I didn't know anyone else who was voting for Jill Stein, way too
many people were still in love with Obama. She got .4% of the vote. In 2016 most of the
people I knew were voting for Jill Stein, she drew a large crowd from DemExit, but they say
she got .4% of the vote. Total bullshit. There was also ballot stuffing and lots of other
problems, but it still wasn't enough.
I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her
elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and
the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way.
Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough
to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has
helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller
to prove.
It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that
Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the
"national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify
the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon.
It is time to build
cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony.
Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it.
The truth will work better.
"... RussiaGate was never a sustainable narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there. ..."
"... And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that Hillary's blackmail is now worthless. ..."
"... They don't fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power. ..."
"... The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled. If they don't do something dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time. Justice is not done simply by saying, "No evidence of collusion." ..."
"... It's clear that RussiaGate is a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall on their sword at this point? Comey? No. McCabe? No. ..."
"... If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb. ..."
"... If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate. ..."
"... And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us. ..."
"... Hillary is the epitome of evil. ..."
"... I don't think Hillary is enough. I want McCabe, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch, Obama, Lois Lerner, Blasey Ford, Brennan, Clapper, Abedin, Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice, Strzok, Page, Sally Yates, all of the phony FISA cohort brought to justice. ..."
"... Her DNC cabal cooked in less than 24 hours from the election defeat a conspiracy of Russian meddling and now, when more information became available, HCR is involved in two separate cases of foreign collusion, The Steele dossier, with Russo-Anglo meddling and another a Ukrainian one, which is now under investigation and the purpose was getting their help for becoming elected. ..."
"... Without a doubt the Russian collusion is the most serious one, because it deliberately sabotaged diplomatic relations with Russia and lead into to a new cold war era. This also raised substantially risks for a direct confrontation with catastrophic consequences. The damage from these treacherous acts is huge and the felony bears pretty much all hallmarks of treason. Se deliberately undermined her own nation´s interests and rather risked even a war simply, because she is a psychopath, who refused to concede the defeat in due elections and instead wanted to hide real reasons for her loss to any cost for everybody else, "because it was her turn to get elected". ..."
"... HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH ..."
"... It is clear that from the beginning, fraudulent FISA warrants, that it was a case of Obama's administration digging dirt on Trump believing that when Hillary wins there will be nobody to hold them responsible ..."
"... When Hillary lost there was only one way out for them to justify that kind of abuse, to find something, anything on Trump so they can say that they were right. Worse than Watergate by orders of magnitude, involving FBI, DOJ and WH itself. ..."
During most of the RussiaGate investigation against Donald Trump I kept saying that all
roads lead to Hillary Clinton.
Anyone with three working brain cells knew this, including
'Miss' Maddow, whose tears of disappointment are particularly delicious.
Robert Mueller's investigation was designed from the beginning to create something out of
nothing. It did this admirably.
It was so effective it paralyzed the country for more than two years, just like Europe has
been held hostage by Brexit. And all of this because, in the end, the elites I call The Davos
Crowd refused to accept that the people no longer believed their lies about the benefits of
their neoliberal, globalist agenda.
Hillary Clinton's ascension to the Presidency was to be their apotheosis along with the
Brexit vote. These were meant to lay to rest, once and for all time, the vaguely libertarian
notion that people should rule themselves and not be ruled by philosopher kings in some distant
land.
Hillary's failure was enormous. And the RussiaGate gambit to destroy Trump served a laundry
list of purposes to cover it:
Undermine his legitimacy before he even takes office.
Accuse him of what Hillary actually did: collude with Russians and Ukrainians to effect
the outcome of the election
Paralyze Trump on his foreign policy desires to scale back the Empire
Give aid and comfort to hurting progressives and radicalize them further undermining our
political system
Polarize the electorate over the false choice of Trump's guilt.
Paralyze the Dept. of Justice and Congress so that they would not uncover the massive
corruption in the intelligence agencies in the U.S. and the U.K.
Isolate Trump and take away every ally or potential ally he could have by turning them
against him through prosecutor overreach.
Hillary should have been thrown to the wolves after she failed. When you fail the people she
failed and cost them the money she cost them, you lose more than just your funding. What this
tells you is that Hillary has so much dirt on everyone involved, once this thing started
everyone went along with it lest she burn them down as well.
Burnin' Down da House
Hillary is the epitome of envy. Envy is the destructive sin of coveting someone else's life
so much they are obsessed with destroying it. It's the sin of Cain. She envies what Trump has,
the Presidency. And she was willing to tear it down to keep him from having it no matter how
much damage it would do. She's worse than the Joker from The Dark Knight.
Because while the Joker is unfathomable to someone with a conscience there's little stopping
us from excising him from the community completely., even though Batman refuses.
Hillary hates us for who we are and what we won't give her. And that animus drove her to
blackmail the world while putting on the face of its savior.
And that's what makes what comes next so obvious to me. RussiaGate was never a sustainable
narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there
are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there.
Mueller thought all he had to do was lean on corrupt people and threaten them with
everything. They would turn on Trump. He would resign in disgrace from the public outcry. It
didn't work. In the end Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone all held their ground or
perjured themselves into the whole thing falling apart.
Andrew Weissman's resignation last month was your tell there was nothing. Mueller would
pursue this to the limit of his personal reputation and no further. Just like so many other
politicians.
Vote Your Pocketbook
With respect to Brexit I've been convinced that it would come down to reputations. Would the
British MP's vote against their own personal best interests to do the bidding of the EU? Would
Theresa May eventually realize her historical reputation would be destroyed if she caves to
Brussels and betrays Brexit in the end? Always bet on the fecklessness of politicians. They
will always act selfishly when put to the test. While leading RussiaGate, Mueller was always
headed here if he couldn't get someone to betray Trump.
And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his
reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that Hillary's blackmail is now
worthless.
They don't fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she
has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power. The
progressives that were convinced of Trump's treason are bereft; their false hope stripped away
like standing in front of a sandblaster. They will be raw, angry and looking for blood after
they get over their denial.
Everyone else who was blackmailed into going along with this lunacy will begin cutting deals
to save their skins. The outrage over this will not end. Trump will be President when he stands
for re-election.
The Wolves Beckon
The Democrats do not have a chance against him as of right now. When he was caving on
everything back in December it looked like he was done. That there was enough meat on the
RussiaGate bones to make Nancy Pelosi brave. Then she backed off on impeachment talk.
Oops....
... ... ...
The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled. If they don't do something
dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time.
Justice is not done simply by saying, "No evidence of collusion."
It's clear that RussiaGate is
a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall
on their sword at this point? Comey? No. McCabe? No. There is only one answer. And Obama's
people are still in place to protect him. I said last fall that " Hillary would
indict herself. " And I meant it. Eventually her blackmail and drive to burn it all down
led to this moment.
The circumstances are different than I expected back then, Trump didn't win the mid-terms.
But the end result was always the same. If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then
all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb.
Because the bigger project, the erection of a transnational superstate, is bigger than any
one person. Hillary is expendable. Lies are expensive to maintain. The truth is cheap to
defend. Think of the billions in opportunity costs associated with this. Once the costs rise
above the benefits, change happens fast. If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this
country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason
anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate.
We all know it's the truth. So, the cheapest way out of this mess for them is to give the
MAGApedes what they want, Hillary.
And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us.
I don't think Hillary is enough. I want McCabe, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch,
Obama, Lois Lerner, Blasey Ford, Brennan, Clapper, Abedin, Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice,
Strzok, Page, Sally Yates, all of the phony FISA cohort brought to justice. Think of the
taxpayer money wasted on this ridiculous Mueller investigation! The Roger Stone arrest was an
outrage. Who tipped off CNN? Who ordered it? What was with the attack dogs and machine guns?
And now we have Nadler trying to destroy anyone and everyone who ever did business with
Trump. All those 80 people who got letters from him asking for documents will now be
bankrupted by legal fees.
According to Scott Adams, one recipient is refusing to
cooperate -- he's saying "I can't afford for me and family to be destroyed." He put the request
for documents in a drawer. He has no money for lawyers.
This insanity and abuse of power has
got to stop. Meanwhile, nothing gets done in Congress. We're all looking at censorship,
tilted search engines, de-monetization, being beat up on campus for trying to express an
opinion, being accosted in a restaurant (or, VP Pence, from the stage ("Hamilton"), getting
sucker-punched for wearing a MAGA hat, having elections stolen through myriad Dem cheating
methods, and NOTHING is being done.
Her DNC cabal cooked in less than 24 hours from the election defeat a conspiracy of Russian
meddling and now, when more information became available, HCR is involved in two separate
cases of foreign collusion, The Steele dossier, with Russo-Anglo meddling and another a
Ukrainian one, which is now under investigation and the purpose was getting their help for
becoming elected.
Without a doubt the Russian collusion is the most serious one, because it deliberately
sabotaged diplomatic relations with Russia and lead into to a new cold war era. This also
raised substantially risks for a direct confrontation with catastrophic consequences. The
damage from these treacherous acts is huge and the felony bears pretty much all hallmarks of
treason. Se deliberately undermined her own nation´s interests and rather risked even a
war simply, because she is a psychopath, who refused to concede the defeat in due elections
and instead wanted to hide real reasons for her loss to any cost for everybody else, "because
it was her turn to get elected".
It is clear that from the beginning, fraudulent FISA warrants, that it was a case of
Obama's administration digging dirt on Trump believing that when Hillary wins there will be
nobody to hold them responsible.
When Hillary lost there was only one way out for them to
justify that kind of abuse, to find something, anything on Trump so they can say that they
were right. Worse than Watergate by orders of magnitude, involving FBI, DOJ and WH itself.
"... "After reading several articles, it seemed clear that key difficulties for Russians communicating in English include: definite and indefinite articles, the use of presuppositions and correct usage of say/tell and said/told. Throughout 2017, I constructed a corpus of Guccifer 2.0's communications and analyzed the frequency of different types of mistakes. The results of this work corroborate Professor Connolly's assessment. ..."
"... Overall, it appears Guccifer 2.0 could communicate in English quite well but chose to use inconsistently broken English at times in order to give the impression that it wasn't his primary language. The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken, did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian. ..."
"... Access and motive . . .here are two who had both: Seth Rich and Imran Awan. That our fake news organizations have no interest in either, that should tell you something. ..."
"I didn't really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for
now." - exce
The State Department paused its investigation of the Secretary's emails so as not to
interfere with the Mueller investigation. Here we see Taibbi writes an exhaustive
condemnation of the Western press while leaving out the very crux of the story, the very
source of the stolen DNC emails was Clapper and Brennan pretending to be Guccifer 2.0.
Pitiful attempt at redemption there Matt. Seriously, go **** your self.
"After reading several articles, it seemed clear that key difficulties for Russians
communicating in English include: definite and indefinite articles, the use of
presuppositions and correct usage of say/tell and said/told. Throughout 2017, I constructed a corpus of Guccifer
2.0's communications and analyzed the frequency of different types of mistakes. The
results of this work
corroborate
Professor Connolly's assessment.
Overall, it appears Guccifer 2.0 could communicate in English quite well but chose to use
inconsistently broken English at times in order to give the impression that it wasn't his
primary language. The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken, did not follow the
typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.
To date, Connolly's language study has not drawn any significant objections or
criticism."
DNC emails were downloaded at 22.3Mbs, a speed which is not possible to achieve remotely, or even local. It is the exact
download speed of a thumb drive.
All russian "fingerprints" were embedded in error codes, which had to be affirmatively copied. They were not an accident.
And please remind me, who exactly was it that examined the DNC servers and pointed at Russia?
Access and motive . . .here are two who had both: Seth Rich and Imran Awan. That our fake news organizations have no
interest in either, that should tell you something.
This is clear that the Emollients Law is being broken. Kushner is making a ton of money
and using over seas trips to create a larger establishment for his own empire . He is trying
to make up for his big loses . This truly Breaks all laws of our Government .Using his
position to make money . He needs to go ................
The Family Trump, the people are absolutely no shame, not 1%, to the Millions of poor
Americans, on the Streets, in Tents, on Highways, under Highways!!! Ivanka Trump, she a young
Women, no heart!!! No Empathy to the Millions of poor Amer.
It's not rocket science people! They were raised by corrupt parents and grandparents who
taught them well. Children will model what their parents teach them. They are also children
who are inexperienced & way over their head and very unqualified so they are
overwhelmed.
The business of Trump giving away something he doesn't own is insane. But insanity has been
the theme of most everything else him and his neocon helpers have been doing of late.
I believe it's time to start paying attention to the truly nutty stories. The crazier
sounding ones ought to get the most attention. After all, who would have conceived the
Trumpies declaring a genuine nobody to be the true President of Venezuela? Early finds:
A US military base on Taiwan. New weapons to Taiwan. More high-level contacts with that
nation. All proposed by the Trumpies. Who benefits most from a small or large war with China?
Headline from the neocon york times:
Israel Is on the Brink of Disaster. Trump Just Made Things Worse.(March 22,
2019)
On Twitter on Thursday, he wrote that "it is time for the United States to fully
recognize Israel's Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and
security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!" It is the latest, and
most important, signal from Washington that Mr. Trump is ready to acknowledge Israeli
control of the Golan Heights.
But those signals are also being read by the Israeli right wing as an encouragement to
pursue annexation of territory in the West Bank -- a far more dangerous step that would
present Israel with an unparalleled existential threat to its Jewish and democratic
character.
I'd ask if there is any reason for the murdering and stealing rightwingnut
settlers not to celebrate? Trump has been doing their bidding at every turn, even when
it does direct harm to the US. Are there any indications the Trumpies have something planned
for the subhuman Palestinians. As a matter of fact, YES.
The are much better 'Kushner, boy wonder' articles than this one floating around, but I
want to focus on a single part:
Kushner said in February the White House was poised to unveil the peace plan after
Israel's election in April. While in Warsaw, Kushner said the plan will impact the
entire Middle East region and is "really about establishing border and resolving
final-status issues," according to Sky News Arabia.
Change "final-status" to Final Solution and that would be just about right.
Death-March time, Baby, and to the exultant Republican & End-Timers chant of "they had
their chance, but blew it".
The Trump administration along with Jared Kushner employed in the White House, a lawyer by
the name of Ira Greenstein from Newark, New Jersey, who was by all accounts still acting
as President and/or in the interest of his energy corporation when the U.S. bombed Syria.*
Genie Energy.
An energy corporation operating privately in Syrian territory -- the Israeli-occupied
Golan Heights.
U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration are inherently subjugated by this
paradigm of interests. When commencing with hostile military action against Syria, they
did so while having a direct conflict of interest, primarily related to business ties with
this corporation. This, along with seemingly ulterior political dealings with the Israeli
government, has gone part and parcel to the destabilization of Syria.
While benefiting
Genie Energy, its backers and involved officials.
Officials such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
This essentially represents extortion against Syria, as part of a behind-the-scenes
deal between parties, with Greenstein's boss, the founder of Genie Energy and top
Netanyahu donor Howard Jonas having made billions through a telecommunications deal made
possible under the watch of both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and White
House Office of American Innovation (OAI ) -- for which to benefit said parties for their
actions.
*
The U.S. has since attacked Syria's government a number of times, furthering the
risk of nuclear war or a widened conflict in the Middle East. Ira Greenstein left the
White House on March 30th, 2018 following earlier reporting by this author.
U.S. Navy's USS Porter strikes Syria in April of 2017.
On April
6th, 2017, the U.S. launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria.
Targeting Shayrat Airbase (FAA LID: OS65), numerous aircraft were
destroyed, primarily Mikoyan Mig-23ML and Sukhoi Su-22M3 models. These
being the same parent models which had been involved in
operations
over Daraa, which is a choke point near the Golan Heights,
it remains as of this posting as being under the control of hostile actors
such as Islamic State (ISIS).*
*
Syria has since made strides in retaking this key area.
On April 14th, 2018, about a year later, this act was repeated with
U.S.-led military strikes against a large number of targets within
Syria -- both France and the U.K. participated in this escalation despite
the associated risks.
Ira Greenstein
Troop deployments
had preceded the airstrikes, with a permanent
presence
with or without ISIS
being
touted
in 2017, setting U.S. involvement in Syria at an ever
increasing rate
. Continued or further involvement in Syria by the Trump
administration or other U.S.-led actors, as shown below in this article, is
illegal.
James Mattis
claimed
at the time that approximately 20% of the Syrian Arab Air Force
(SyAAF) was destroyed; impacting Syria's military capabilities, this would
then continue with further bombings on Syria by the Israeli Air Force.
Israel would find herself
losing
an F-16 this year after Syrian Air Defenses retaliated in
self-defense due to these bombings.
More recently
, activity has included an increasing amount of U.S.
military action against the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) or its pro-government
forces, despite inherent conflicts of interest present within the Trump
administration.
This type of behavior sits in stark contrast to Iran and Russia having
been formally invited by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to participate in
Syria's affairs militarily.
To get to the very heart of the matter, we have to go back to the
presidential transition period, when Newark
lawyer
Ira Greenstein was a member of ex-Congressman John Sweeney's
"Tiger Team."
While he was still Genie Energy's acting President.
This made Greenstein an official presidential transition team member for
the incoming Trump administration, as some may recall, Jared Kushner was a
member
of this team as well.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said that there is a strong possibility that Trump's family
could be indicted by other entities based on the work of Mueller. http:// ow.ly/ZibI30o9PFQ
This month marks the 20th anniversary of Operation Allied Force, NATO's 78-day air war against Yugoslavia. It was a war waged
as much against Serbian civilians – hundreds of whom perished – as it was against Slobodan Milošević's forces, and it was a campaign
of breathtaking hypocrisy and selective outrage. More than anything, it was a war that by President Bill Clinton's own admission
was fought for the sake of NATO's credibility.
One Man's Terrorist
Our story begins not in the war-torn Balkans of the 1990s but rather in the howling wilderness of Afghanistan at the end of the
1980s as defeated Soviet invaders withdrew from a decade of guerrilla warfare into the twilight of a once-mighty empire. The United
States, which had provided arms, funding and training for the mujahideen fighters who had so bravely resisted the Soviet occupation,
stopped supporting the jihadis as soon as the last Red Army units rolled across the Hairatan Bridge and back into the USSR. Afghanistan
descended deeper into civil war.
The popular narrative posits that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network, Washington's former mujahideen allies, turned on the
West after the US stationed hundreds of thousands of infidel troops in Saudi Arabia – home to two out of three of Sunni Islam's holiest
sites – during Operation Desert Shield in 1990. Since then, the story goes, the relationship between the jihadists and their former
benefactors has been one of enmity, characterized by sporadic terror attacks and fierce US retribution. The real story, however,
is something altogether different.
From 1992 to 1995, the Pentagon flew
thousands of al-Qaeda mujahideen, often accompanied by US Special Forces, from Central Asia to Europe to reinforce Bosnian Muslims
as they fought Serbs to gain their independence from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Clinton administration
armed and trained these fighters in
flagrant violation of United Nations accords; weapons purchased by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran were secretly shipped to the jihadists
via Croatia, which netted a hefty profit from each transaction. The official Dutch inquiry into the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, in
which thousands of Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys were slaughtered by Bosnian Serb and Serbian paramilitary forces, concluded
that the United States was "very closely involved" in these arms transfers.
When the Bosnian war ended in 1995 the United States was faced with the problem of thousands of Islamist warriors on European
soil. Many of them joined the burgeoning Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which mainly consisted of ethnic Albanian Kosovars from what
was still southwestern Yugoslavia. Emboldened by the success of the Slovenes, Croats, Macedonians and Bosnians who had won their
independence from Belgrade as Yugoslavia literally balkanized, KLA fighters began to violently expel as many non-Albanians from Kosovo
as they could. Roma, Jews, Turks and, above all, Serbs were all victims of Albanian ethnic cleansing.
The United States was initially very honest in its assessment of the KLA. Robert Gelbard, the US special envoy to Bosnia,
called it "without any question a terrorist
group." KLA backers allegedly included Osama bin Laden
and other Islamic radicals; the group largely bankrolled its activities by trafficking heroin and sex slaves. The State Department
accordingly added the KLA to its list of terrorist organizations in 1998.
However, despite all its nastiness the KLA endeared itself to Washington by fighting the defiant Yugoslavian President Slobodan
Milošević. By this time Yugoslavia, once composed of eight nominally autonomous republics, had been reduced by years of bloody civil
war to a rump of Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo. To Serbs, the dominant ethnic group in what remained of the country, Kosovo is regarded
as the very birthplace of their nation. Belgrade wasn't about to let it go without a fight and everyone knew it, especially the Clinton
administration. Clinton's hypocrisy was immediately evident; when Chechnya fought for its independence from Moscow and Russian forces
committed horrific atrocities in response, the American president
called the war an internal Russian affair
and barely criticized Russian President Boris Yeltsin. But when Milošević resorted to brute force in an attempt to prevent Yugoslavia
from further fracturing, he soon found himself a marked man.
Although NATO
called
the KLA "the main initiator of the violence" in Kosovo and blasted "what appears to be a deliberate campaign of provocation" against
the Serbs, the Clinton administration was nevertheless determined to attack the Milošević regime. US intelligence confirmed that
the KLA was indeed provoking harsh retaliatory strikes by Serb forces in a bid to draw the United States and NATO into the conflict.
President Clinton, however, apparently wasn't listening. The NATO powers, led by the United States, issued Milošević an ultimatum
they knew he could never accept: allow NATO to occupy all of Kosovo and have free reign in Serbia as well. Assistant US Secretary
of State James Rubin later
admitted that "publicly we had to make clear we were seeking an agreement but privately we knew the chances of the Serbs agreeing
were quite small."
Wagging the Dog?
In 1997 the film Wag the Dog debuted to rave reviews. The dark comedy concerns a Washington, DC spin doctor and a Hollywood
producer who fabricate a fictional war in Albania to distract American voters from a presidential sex scandal. Many observers couldn't
help but draw parallels between the film and the real-life events of 1998-99, which included the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton's
impeachment and a very real war brewing in the Balkans. As in Wag the Dog , there were exaggerated or completely fabricated
tales of atrocities, and as in the film the US and NATO powers tried to sell their war as a humanitarian intervention. An attack
on Yugoslavia, we were told, was needed to avert Serb ethnic cleansing of Albanians.
There were two main problems with this. First, there was no Serb ethnic cleansing of Albanian Kosovars until after NATO
began mercilessly bombing Yugoslavia. The German government
issued several reports confirming this. One, from October 1998, reads, in part:
The violent actions of the Yugoslav military and police since February 1998 were aimed at separatist activities and are no
proof of a persecution of the whole Albanian ethnic group in Kosovo or a part of it. What was involved in the Yugoslav violent actions
and excesses since February 1998 was a selective forcible action against the military underground movement (especially the KLA) A
state program or persecution aimed at the whole ethnic group of Albanians exists neither now nor earlier.
Subsequent German government reports issued through the winter of 1999 tell a similar story. "Events since February and March
1998 do not evidence a persecution program based on Albanian ethnicity," stated one report released exactly one month before the
NATO bombing started. "The measures taken by the armed Serbian forces are in the first instance directed toward combating the KLA
and its supposed adherents and supporters."
While Serbs certainly did commit atrocities (especially after the ferocious NATO air campaign began), these were often greatly
exaggerated by the Clinton administration and the US corporate mainstream media. Clinton claimed – and the media dutifully parroted
– that 600,000 Albanians were "trapped within Kosovo lacking shelter, short of food, afraid to go home or buried in mass graves."
This was completely false . US diplomat David
Scheffer claimed that "225,000 ethnic Albanian men are missing, presumed dead." Again, a
total fabrication . The FBI, International War Crimes
Tribunal and global forensics experts flocked to Kosovo in droves after the NATO bombs stopped falling; the total number of victims
they found was around 1 percent of the figure claimed by the United States.
However, once NATO attacked, the Serb response was predictably furious. Shockingly, NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark declared
that the ensuing Serbian atrocities against the Albanian Kosovar population had been
"fully anticipated" and were apparently of little concern to Washington.
Not only did NATO and the KLA provoke a war with Yugoslavia, they did so knowing that many innocent civilians would be killed, maimed
or displaced by the certain and severe reprisals carried out by enraged Serb forces. Michael McGwire, a former top NATO planner,
acknowledged that "to describe the bombing as a humanitarian intervention is really grotesque."
Bloody Hypocrites
The other big problem with the US claiming it was attacking Yugoslavia on humanitarian grounds was that the Clinton administration
had recently allowed – and was at the time allowing – far worse humanitarian catastrophes to rage without American intervention.
More than 800,000 men, women and children were slaughtered while Clinton and other world leaders stood idly by during the 1994 Rwandan
genocide. The US also courted the medievally brutal
Taliban regime in hopes of achieving stability in Afghanistan and with an eye toward building a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through
Afghanistan to Pakistan. Clinton also did nothing to stop Russian forces from viciously crushing nationalist uprisings in the Caucuses,
where Chechen rebels were fighting for their independence much the same as Albanian Kosovars were fighting the Serbs.
Colombia, the Western Hemisphere's leading recipient of US military and economic aid, was waging a fierce, decades-long campaign
of terror against leftist insurgents and long-suffering indigenous peoples. Despite
horrific brutality and pervasive human rights violations, US aid to Bogotá increased year after year. In Turkey, not only did
Clinton do nothing to prevent government forces from committing widespread atrocities against Kurdish separatists, the administration
positively encouraged its NATO ally with billions of dollars in loans and arms sales. Saudi Arabia, home to the most repressive fundamentalist
regime this side of Afghanistan, was – and remains – a favored US ally despite having one of the
world's worst human rights
records. The list goes on and on.
Much closer to the conflict at hand, the United States tacitly approved the largest ethnic cleansing campaign in Europe since
the Holocaust when as many as 200,000 Serbs were
forcibly expelled from the Krajina region of Croatia by that country's US-trained military during Operation Storm in August 1995.
Krajina Serbs had purged the region of its Croat minority four years earlier in their own ethnic cleansing campaign; now it was the
Serbs' turn to be on the receiving end of the horror. Croatian forces stormed through Krajina, shelling towns and slaughtering innocent
civilians. The sick and the elderly who couldn't escape were executed or burned alive in their homes as Croatian soldiers machine-gunned
convoys of fleeing refugees.
"Painful for the Serbs"
Washington's selective indignation at Serb crimes both real and imagined is utterly inexcusable when held up to the horrific and
seemingly indiscriminate atrocities committed during the NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia. The prominent Australian journalist
John Pilger noted that "in the attack on Serbia, 2 percent of NATO's missiles hit military targets, the rest hit hospitals, schools,
factories, churches and broadcast studios." There is little doubt that US and allied warplanes and missiles were targeting the Serbian
people as much as, or even more than, Serb forces. The bombing knocked out electricity in 70 percent of the country as well as much
of its water supply.
NATO warplanes also deliberately bombed a building containing the headquarters of Serbian state television and radio in the middle
of densely populated central Belgrade. The April 23, 1999 attack occurred without warning while 200 employees were at work in the
building. Among the 16 people killed were a makeup artist, a cameraman, a program director, an editor and three security guards.
There is no doubt that the attack was meant to demoralize the Serbian people. There is also no doubt that those who ordered the bombing
knew exactly what outcome to expect: a NATO planning document viewed by Bill Clinton, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President
Jacques Chirac forecast as
many as 350 deaths in the event of such an attack, with as many as 250 of the victims expected to be innocent civilians living in
nearby apartments.
Allied commanders wanted to fight a "zero casualty war" in Yugoslavia. As in zero casualties for NATO forces, not the people they
were bombing. "This will be painful for the Serbs," Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon sadistically predicted. It sure was. NATO warplanes
flew sorties at 15,000 feet (4,500 meters), a safe height for the pilots. But this decreased accuracy and increased civilian casualties
on the ground. One attack on central Belgrade mistakenly
hit Dragiša Mišović hospital with a laser-guided "precision" bomb, obliterating an intensive care unit and destroying a children's
ward while wounding several pregnant women who had the misfortune of being in labor at the time of the attack. Dragana Krstić, age
23, was recovering from cancer surgery – she just had a 10-pound (4.5 kg) tumor removed from her stomach – when the bombs blew jagged
shards of glass into her neck and shoulders. "I don't know which hurts more," she lamented, "my stomach, my shoulder or my heart."
Dragiša Mišović wasn't the only hospital bombed by NATO. Cluster bombs dropped by fighter jets of the Royal Netherlands Air Force
struck a hospital and a market in the city of Niš on May 7,
killing 15 people and wounding 60 more. An emergency clinic
and medical dispensary were also bombed in the
mining town of Aleksinac on April 6, killing at least five people and wounding dozens more.
Bridges were favorite targets of NATO bombing. An international passenger train traveling from Belgrade to Thessaloniki, Greece
was
blown apart by two missiles as it crossed over Grdelica gorge on April 12. Children and a pregnant woman were among the 15 people
killed in the attack; 16 other passengers were wounded. Allied commander Gen. Wesley Clark claimed the train, which had been damaged
by the first missile, had been traveling too rapidly for the pilot to abort the second strike on the bridge. He then offered up a
doctored video that was sped up more than three times so that the pilot's behavior would appear acceptable.
On May 1, at least 24 civilians, many of them children, were killed when NATO warplanes
bombed a bridge in Lužane just as a bus was crossing.
An ambulance rushing to the scene of the carnage was struck by a second bomb. On the sunny spring afternoon of May 30, a bridge over
the Velika Morava River in the small town of Vavarin was
bombed by low-flying German Air Force F-16 fighters while hundreds of local residents gathered nearby to celebrate an Orthodox
Christian holiday. Eleven people died, most of them when the warplanes returned and bombed the people who rushed to the bridge to
help those wounded in the first strike.
No One Is Safe
The horrors suffered by the villagers of Surdulica shows that no one in Serbia was safe from NATO's fury. They endured some 175
bombardments during one three-week period alone, with 50 houses destroyed and 600 others damaged in a town with only around 10,000
residents. On April 27, 20 civilians, including 12 children,
died when bombs meant to
destroy an army barracks slammed into a residential neighborhood. As many as 100 others were wounded in the incident. Tragedy
befell the tiny town again on May 31 when NATO
warplanes returned to bomb an ammunition depot but instead hit an old people's home; 23 civilians, most of them helpless elderly
men and women, were blown to pieces. Dozens more were wounded. The US military initially said "there were no errant weapons" in the
attack. However, Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre later testified before Congress that it "was a case of the pilot getting confused."
The CIA was also apparently confused when it relied on what it claimed was an outdated map to approve a Stealth Bomber strike
on what turned out to be the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Three Chinese journalists were killed and 27 other people were wounded.
Some people aren't so sure the attack was an accident – Britain's Observer later
reported that the US deliberately bombed the
embassy after discovering it was being used to transmit Yugoslav army communications.
There were plenty of other accidents, some of them horrifically tragic and others just downright bizarre. Two separate attacks
on the very Albanians NATO was claiming to help killed 160 people, many of them women and children. On April 14, NATO warplanes bombed
refugees along a 12-mile (19-km) stretch of road between the towns of Gjakova and Deçan in western Kosovo, killing 73 people including
16 children and wounding 36 more. Journalists reported
a grisly scene of "bodies charred or blown to pieces, tractors reduced to twisted wreckage and houses in ruins." Exactly one month
later, another column of refugees was
bombed near Koriša, killing
87 – mostly women, children and the elderly – and wounding 60 others. In the downright bizarre category, a wildly errant NATO missile
struck a residential neighborhood in the Bulgarian capital Sofia, some 40 miles (64 km) outside of Serbia. The American AGM-88 HARM
missile blew the roof off
of a man's house while he was shaving in his bathroom.
NATO's "Murderous Thugs"
As the people of Yugoslavia were being terrorized by NATO's air war, the terrorists of the Kosovo Liberation Army stepped up their
atrocities against Serbs and Roma in Kosovo. NATO troops deployed there to keep the peace often failed to protect these people from
the KLA's brutal campaign. More than 164,000 Serbs fled or
were forcibly driven from the Albanian-dominated province and by the summer of 2001 KLA ethnic cleansing had rendered Kosovo almost
entirely Albanian, with just a few die-hard Serb holdouts living in fear and surrounded by barbed wire.
The KLA soon expanded its war into neighboring Macedonia. Although NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson called the terror group
"murderous thugs," the United States – now with George W. Bush as president – continued to offer its invaluable support. National
Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice personally
intervened in an attempt to persuade Ukraine to halt arms sales to the Macedonian army and when a group of 400 KLA fighters were
surrounded at Aracinovo in June 2001, NATO ordered Macedonian forces to hold off their attack while a convoy of US Army vehicles
rescued the besieged militants. It later
emerged that 17 American military advisers were embedded with the KLA at Aracinovo.
Credibility Conundrum
The bombing of Yugoslavia was really about preserving the credibility of the United States and NATO. The alliance's saber rattling
toward Belgrade had painted it into a corner from which the only way out was with guns blazing. Failure to follow threats with deadly
action, said President Clinton, "would discredit NATO." Clinton
added
that "our mission is clear, to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO's purpose." The president seemed willfully ignorant of NATO's
real purpose, which is to defend member states from outside attack. British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed with Clinton,
declaring on the eve of the war that
"to walk away now would destroy NATO's credibility." Gary Dempsey, a foreign policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute,
wrote that the Clinton administration
"transformed a conflict that posed no threat to the territorial integrity, national sovereignty or general welfare of the United
States into a major test of American resolve."
Waging or prolonging war for credibility's sake is always dangerous and seems always to yield disastrous results. Tens of thousands
of US troops and many times as many Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian soldiers and civilians died while Richard Nixon sought an "honorable"
way out of Vietnam. Ronald Reagan's dogged defense of US credibility cost the lives of 299 American and French troops killed in Hezbollah's
1983 Beirut barracks bombing. This time, ensuring American credibility meant backing the vicious KLA – some of whose fighters had
trained at Osama bin Laden's terror camps in Afghanistan. This, despite the fact that al-Qaeda had already been responsible for deadly
attacks against the United States, including the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
It is highly questionable whether bombing Yugoslavia affirmed NATO's credibility in the short term. In the long term, it certainly
did not. The war marked the first and only time NATO had ever attacked a sovereign state. It did so unilaterally, absent any threat
to any member nation, and without the approval of the United Nations Security Council. "If NATO can go for military action without
international blessing, it calls into question the reliability of NATO as a security partner," Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak,
then Moscow's ambassador to NATO, told me at a San Francisco reception.
Twenty years later, Operation Allied force has been all but forgotten in the United States. In a country that has been waging
nonstop war on terrorism for almost the entire 21st century, the 1999 NATO air war is but a footnote in modern American history.
Serbs, however, still seethe at the injustice and hypocrisy of it all. The bombed-out ruins of the old Yugoslav Ministry of Defense,
Radio Television of Serbia headquarters and other buildings serve as constant, painful reminders of the horrors endured by the Serbian
people in service of NATO's credibility.
Brett Wilkins is a San Francisco-based author and activist. His work, which focuses on issues of war and peace and human rights,
is archived atwww.brettwilkins.com
U.S. out of Iraq. U.S. out of Syria. U.S. out of Afghanistan. U.S. out of South Korea.
U.S. out of Okinawa. U.S. out of Germany. U.S. out of Saudi Arabia. U.S. out of Cameroon.
U.S. out of Djibouti. U.S. out of Qatar. U.S. out of Niger.
The Trump administration has
ignored yet another mandated deadline for reporting to Congress on Yemen:
A senior Pentagon official had pledged to deliver the strategy report at the beginning of
March after failing to meet a Feb. 1 deadline mandated by law.
In recent months, the Trump administration has disregarded several certification
requirements from Congress. In February, the State Department refused to say whether the
Saudi-led force had reduced civilian casualties in the Yemeni conflict. And the White House
failed to respond to lawmakers' query about whether Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
was responsible for the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Last year, the administration met the first certification deadline by brazenly lying to
Congress that the Saudi coalition was successfully reducing harm to civilians in Yemen.
Congress completely failed to hold Secretary Pompeo accountable for those lies, and the
administration has obviously concluded that it can get away with disregarding these
requirements. For the last several months, both the Secretary of State and the Pentagon have
simply refused to comply with the law. In this case, the Pentagon probably can't "detail
specific US diplomatic and national security objectives" because the only discernible objective
of reflexive support for the Saudis and Emiratis in Yemen is to indulge them in whatever they
want to do. An administration that has illegally involved the U.S. in the war on Yemen for more
than two years obviously won't have any respect for legal requirements set by Congress when
they can't even be bothered to respect the Constitution.
The administration's contempt for the law and their disrespect for Congress are additional
reasons why the House should vote on and pass the antiwar Yemen resolution that the Senate
passed earlier this month. Beyond that, Congress needs to increase pressure on the Saudi and
Emirati governments with additional measures to cut off arms sales and hearings to scrutinize
the numerous human rights abuses and war crimes committed by their forces and their
proxies.
When war supporters object that Congress risks undermining the U.S.-Saudi relationship, it
is important for members of Congress to know that it is Mohammed bin Salman who has jeopardized
the relationship through his reckless and destructive behavior. The Saudi government has been
desperately lying about its conduct in Yemen and elsewhere to the U.S. and the entire world,
and the crown prince has proven himself to be completely unreliable and strikingly incompetent
at everything except grabbing more power for himself:
"We know who this guy is, we know what he's capable of, and treating him like he's an ally
or a reliable partner is totally untenable," said Jeremy Konyndyk, a former US Agency for
International Development director during the Obama administration.
The Saudi government has made itself a liability to the U.S. Since the administration puts
Saudi Arabia first and won't do anything to defend American interests, it falls to Congress to
do what the president won't.
"... The White House didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. But in another stand-off with House Democrats, Cipollone on Thursday rejected a request renewed last week from Cummings and two other committee chairmen for information on Trump's communications with Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... Cummings said the committee obtained a document that "appears" to show that McFarland conducted official business on her personal email account. He said the document was related to efforts by McFarland and other White House officials to transfer sensitive U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia "in coordination with Tom Barrack, a personal friend of President Trump and the chairman of President Trump's inaugural committee." ..."
"... Regarding Trump's communications with Putin, Cummings, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel say they are examining the substance of in-person meetings and phone calls, the effects on foreign policy, and whether anyone has sought to conceal those communications. ..."
"... The Constitution gives the executive branch exclusive power to conduct foreign relations, Cipollone said. "Congress cannot require the president to disclose confidential communications with foreign leaders." ..."
A key House Democrat is renewing demands that the White House turn over documents about the use of private texts or emails by
Jared Kushner, saying Kushner's lawyer acknowledged that the senior aide used the non-secure WhatsApp application to communicate
with foreign leaders.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings said in a letter sent Thursday to White House Counsel
Pat Cipollone that the administration has failed to produce documents tied to Kushner and other officials despite requests from the
committee since 2017. Cummings also sought a briefing on how the official messages are being preserved.
... ... ...
The White House didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. But in another stand-off with House Democrats, Cipollone on
Thursday rejected a request renewed last week from Cummings and two other committee chairmen for information on Trump's communications
with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
WhatsApp
Cummings, to underscore his concern about whether unsecured White House communications have included classified information, said
in his letter that Lowell acknowledged during the December meeting that Kushner had used WhatsApp to communicate with foreign leaders.
Kushner is a senior White House adviser and the son-in-law of President
Donald Trump , overseeing the administration's Middle
East policies among other issues. Cummings said he and then-Oversight Chairman
Trey Gowdy , a Republican who has since retired from Congress,
met with Lowell in December.
Cummings's letter said Lowell said that Kushner has been in compliance with the law, and that he takes "screenshots" of communications
on his private WhatsApp account and forwards them to his official White House email account or to the National Security Council.
Cummings wrote that when asked whether Kushner ever used WhatsApp to discuss classified information, Lowell replied, "That's above
my pay grade."
The focus on Kushner and others follows the earlier investigations by the Justice Department and Republican-controlled congressional
committees of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server when she served as secretary of state during the Obama administration.
'Alternative Means'
In Thursday's letter, Cummings said the White House's refusal to turn over documents is "obstructing the committee's investigation
into allegations of violations of federal records laws" and potential breaches of national security. He demanded that the White House
say by March 28 whether it intends to comply voluntarily with the renewed requests.
"If you continue to withhold these documents from the committee, we will be forced to consider alternative means to obtain compliance,"
Cummings said.
... ... ....
K.T. McFarland
Cummings also wrote that his committee has obtained new information about other White House officials that raises additional security
and federal records concerns about the use of private email and messaging applications.
His letter said others may have been involved in the practice while they worked at the White House, including former deputy national
security adviser K.T. McFarland and former chief strategist
Steve Bannon.
Cummings said the committee obtained a document that "appears" to show that McFarland conducted official business on her personal
email account. He said the document was related to efforts by McFarland and other White House officials to transfer sensitive U.S.
nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia "in coordination with Tom Barrack, a personal friend of President Trump and the chairman of President
Trump's inaugural committee."
The chairman said another document appeared to show that Bannon received documents "pitching the plan from Mr. Barrack through
his personal email account," at a time Bannon was at the White House and working on broader Middle East policy.
Regarding Trump's communications with Putin, Cummings, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and Foreign Affairs Chairman
Eliot Engel say they are examining the substance of in-person meetings and phone calls, the effects on foreign policy, and whether
anyone has sought to conceal those communications.
In a written response Thursday, Cipollone wrote, "While we respectfully seek to accommodate appropriate oversight requests, we
are unaware of any precedent supporting such sweeping requests."
The Constitution gives the executive branch exclusive power to conduct foreign relations, Cipollone said. "Congress cannot require
the president to disclose confidential communications with foreign leaders."
In a joint statement on Thursday night, Cummings, Engel and Schiff said that the Obama administration had "produced records describing
the president and secretary of state's calls with foreign leaders." The congressmen added that "President Trump's decision to break
with this precedent raises the question of what he has to hide."
( Updates with statement from Cummings, Schiff and Engel, in final paragraph.
"... A study of the Syria war coverage by nine leading European newspapers clearly illustrates these issues: 78% of all articles are based in whole or in part on agency reports, yet 0% on investigative research. Moreover, 82% of all opinion pieces and interviews are in favor of the US and NATO intervention, while propaganda is attributed exclusively to the opposite side... ..."
"In a remarkable report by British Channel 4, former CIA officials and a Reuters correspondent spoke candidly about the
systematic dissemination of propaganda and misinformation in reporting on geopolitical conflicts:"
Many thanks, and much respect to you Sir for bringing this important piece to my attention.
I apologize for another somewhat off topic posting, but I have not seen it posted here earlier, and I think that this should be
seen by as many eyes as possible.
It is one of the most important aspects of our media system -- and yet hardly known to the public: most of the international
news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies based in New York, London and Paris.
The key role played by these agencies means that Western media often report on the same topics, even using the same wording.
In addition, governments, military and intelligence services use these global news agencies as multipliers to spread their messages
around the world.
A study of the Syria war coverage by nine leading European newspapers clearly illustrates these issues: 78% of all articles
are based in whole or in part on agency reports, yet 0% on investigative research. Moreover, 82% of all opinion pieces and interviews
are in favor of the US and NATO intervention, while propaganda is attributed exclusively to the opposite side...
David Kramer, a long-time advisor to late Senator John McCain, revealed that he met with two Obama administration officials
to inquire about whether the anti-Trump dossier authored by former British spy Christopher Steele was being taken seriously.
In one case, Kramer said that he personally provided a copy of the dossier to Obama National Security Council official Celeste
Wallander.
In a deposition on Dec. 13, 2017 that was recently posted online, Kramer said that McCain specifically asked him in early December
2016 to meet about the dossier with Wallander and Victoria Nuland, a senior official in John Kerry's State Department. Senator McCain
asked me to meet with both of them to see if this was being taken seriously in the government," Kramer said.
"And Senator McCain asked you to meet with them?" Kramer was asked to clarify.
"Yes, just to see if this was being taken seriously. I think he wanted to do -- this was his kind of due diligence before he went
to Director Comey."
Kramer testified that in his conversations with Nuland and Wallander he was told by both of them that each were aware of the dossier
and that Nuland "thought Steele was a serious person."
Kramer revealed that he gave a copy of the dossier to Wallander, who was familiar with the contents but did not have a copy.
"I had a subsequent conversation with Ms. Wallander in which I gave her a copy of the document. That was probably around New Year's,"
he said.
"She had not seen it herself until I had shown it to her," Kramer added. "She had heard about it. And she didn't know the status
of it."
In the same testimony, the McCain associate revealed that he held a meeting about the dossier with a reporter from BuzzFeed News
who he says snapped photos of the controversial document without Kramer's permission when he left the room to go to the bathroom.
That meeting was held at the McCain Institute office in Washington, Kramer stated.
BuzzFeed infamously
published Steele's full dossier on January 10, 2017 setting off a firestorm of news media coverage about the document.
Prior to his death, McCain admitted to personally handing the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey but he refused repeated
requests for comment about whether he had a role in providing the dossier to BuzzFeed, including numerous inquiries sent to his office
by this reporter.
In his
book published last year, McCain maintained he had an "obligation" to pass the dossier charges against Trump to Comey and he
would even do it again. "Anyone who doesn't like it can go to hell," McCain exclaimed.
Kramer, meanwhile, also said that he briefed others reporters on the dossier contents, including CNN's Carl Bernstein, in an effort
to have the anti-Trump charges verified.
The same day BuzzFeed released the full dossier, CNN first
reported
the leaked information that the controversial contents of the dossier were presented during classified briefings inside classified
documents presented one week earlier to then-President Obama and President-elect Trump.
Kramer said that he believed McCain was sought out in order to provide credibility to the dossier claims.
"I think they felt a senior Republican was better to be the recipient of this rather than a Democrat because if it were a Democrat,
I think that the view was that it would have been dismissed as a political attack," Kramer stated.
The controversial Fusion GPS firm hired Steele to do the anti-Trump work that resulted in the compilation of the dossier. Fusion
GPS was paid for its anti-Trump work by Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee via the Perkins Coie
law firm.
Kramer's testimony sheds a new light on the role of the Obama administration in disseminating the largely-discredited dossier
that was reportedly involved in the FBI's initial investigation into the Trump campaign and unsubstantiated claims of Russian collusion.
Also Comey
cited the dossier as evidence in a successful FISA application to obtain a warrant to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, a
former adviser to President Trump's 2016 campaign. The testimony also revealed how McCain was utilized to give the wild dossier charges
a credibility boost.
Nuland and dossier
Nuland's specific role in the dossier episode has been the subject of some controversy for her.
In their
book , "Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump," authors and reporters
by Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that Nuland gave the green light for the FBI to first meet with Steele regarding his dossier's
claims. It was at that meeting that Steele initially reported his dossier charges to the FBI, the book relates.
Steele sought out Rome-based FBI Special Agent Michael Gaeta, with whom he had worked on a previous case. Before Gaeta met with
Steele on July 5, 2016, the book relates that the FBI first secured the support of Nuland, who at the time was assistant Secretary
of State for European and Eurasian Affairs specializing in Russia.
Regarding the arrangements for Steele's initial meeting with the FBI about the dossier claims, Isikoff and Corn report:
There were a few hoops Gaeta had to jump through. He was assigned to the U.S. embassy in Rome. The FBI checked with Victoria
Nuland's office at the State Department : Do you support this meeting ? Nuland, having found Steele's reports on Ukraine to have
been generally credible, gave the green light.
Within a few days, on July 5, Gaeta arrived and headed to Steele's office near Victoria station . Steele handed him a copy
of the report. Gaeta, a seasoned FBI agent, started to read . He turned white. For a while, Gaeta said nothing . Then he remarked,
"I have to report this to headquarters."
The book documents that Nuland previously received Steele's reports on the Ukrainian crisis and had been familiar with Steele's
general work.
Nuland faced confirmation
questions
prior to her appointment as assistant secretary of state over her reported role in revising controversial Obama administration
talking points about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. Her
reported changes sought to protect
Clinton's State Department from accusations that it failed to adequately secure the woefully unprotected U.S. Special Mission in
Benghazi.
Nuland's name surfaced in a flurry of news media reports last year about the dossier and Kerry's State Department.
Sidney Blumenthal
An extensive New Yorker profile
of Steele named another former official from Kerry's State Department for alleged involvement in circulating the dossier. The
magazine reported that Kerry's chief of staff at the State Department, John Finer, obtained the contents of a two-page summary of
the dossier and eventually decided to share the questionable document with Kerry.
Finer received the dossier summary from Jonathan M. Winer, the Obama State Department official who acknowledged regularly interfacing
and exchanging information with Steele, according to the report. Winer previously conceded that he shared the dossier summary with
Nuland.
After his name surfaced in news media reports related to probes by House Republicans into the dossier, Winer authored a Washington
Post
oped in which he conceded that while he was working at the State Department he exchanged documents and information with Steele.
Winer further acknowledged that while at the State Department, he shared anti-Trump material with Steele passed to him by longtime
Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whom Winer described as an "old friend." Winer wrote that the material from Blumenthal – which
Winer in turn gave to Steele – originated with Cody Shearer, who is a controversial figure long tied to various Clinton scandals.
Nuland, Winer Give Conflicting Accounts
There are seeming discrepancies between Winer and Nuland about actions taken involving the dossier.
Nuland described in a Politico podcast
interview
what she claimed was her reaction when she was presented with Steele's dossier information at the State Department.
She said that she offered advice to "those who were interfacing with" Steele, immediately telling the intermediary or intermediaries
that Steele "should get this information to the FBI." She further explained that a career employee at the State Department could
not get involved with the dossier charges since such actions could violate the Hatch Act, which prevents employees in the executive
branch of the federal government from engaging in certain kinds of political activities.
In a second interview, this one with CBS's Face The Nation, Nuland also stated that her "immediate" reaction was to refer Steele
to the FBI.
Here is a transcript of the
relevant
section of her February 5 interview with Susan B. Glasser, who described Nuland as "my friend" and referred to her by her nickname
"Toria":
Glasser: When did you first hear about his dossier?
Nuland: I first heard -- and I didn't know who his client was until much later, until 2017, I think, when it came out. I first
heard that he had done work for a client asserting these linkages -- I think it was late July, something like that.
Glasser: That's very interesting. And you would have taken him seriously just because you knew that he knew what he was talking
about on Russia?
Nuland: What I did was say that this is about U.S. politics, and not the work of -- not the business of the State Department,
and certainly not the business of a career employee who is subject to the Hatch Act, which requires that you stay out of politics.
So, my advice to those who were interfacing with him was that he should get this information to the FBI, and that they could evaluate
whether they thought it was credible.
Glasser: Did you ever talk about it with anyone else higher up at the department? With Secretary Kerry or anybody else?
Nuland: Secretary Kerry was also aware. I think he's on the record and he had the same advice.
Nuland stated that Kerry "was also aware" of the dossier, but she did not describe how he was made aware. She made clear that
she told "those who were interfacing" with Steele to go to the FBI since any State Department involvement could violate the Hatch
Act.
Her Politico podcast interview was not the only time she claimed that her reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI.
On Face The Nation on February 4, Nuland engaged in the following
exchange in which she stated her "immediate" reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI (emphasis added):
MARGARET BRENNAN: The dossier.
VICTORIA NULAND: The dossier, he passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding, and our immediate reaction
to that was, "This is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI, if there is any concern here that one candidate or the
election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian federation. That's something for the FBI to investigate."
And that was our reaction when we saw this. It's not our -- we can't evaluate this. And frankly, if every member of the campaign
who the Russians tried to approach and tried to influence had gone to the FBI as well in real time, we might not be in the mess
we're in today.
Nuland gave the two interviews after her name started surfacing in news media reports involving Kerry's State Department and the
dossier. Her name also came up in relation to a criminal referral of Steele to the Justice Department in the form of a letter authored
last year by Sen. Chuck Grassley, who at the time chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
The Grassley-Graham criminal referral
contains redacted information that Steele received information from someone in the State Department, who in turn had been in
contact with a "foreign sub-source" who was in touch with a redacted name described as a "friend of the Clintons."
Numerous media reports have since stated that the source of information provided to the State Department that was in turn passed
on to Steele was Cody Shearer, a controversial figure tied to the Clintons who is also an associate of longtime Clinton friend Sidney
Blumenthal. According to sources who
spoke
to CNN, Shearer's information was passed from Blumenthal to Winer, who at the time was a special State Department envoy for Libya
working under Kerry. Winer
says that Kerry personally recruited him to work at the State Department.
It is Winer's version of events that seems to conflict with Nuland's.
In an
oped published in the Washington Post, Winer identified Nuland as the State Department official with whom he shared Steele's
information. Winer writes that Nuland's reaction was that "she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material."
He does not relate any further reaction from Nuland.
Winer wrote in the Washington Post (emphasis added):
In the summer of 2016, Steele told me that he had learned of disturbing information regarding possible ties between Donald
Trump, his campaign and senior Russian officials. He did not provide details but made clear the information involved "active measures,"
a Soviet intelligence term for propaganda and related activities to influence events in other countries.
In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as the "dossier." Steele's sources
suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign
but also had compromised Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign.
I was allowed to review, but not to keep, a copy of these reports to enable me to alert the State Department. I prepared a
two-page summary and shared it with Nuland, who indicated that, like me, she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made
aware of this material.
That was the extent of Winer's description of Nuland's reaction upon being presented with Steele's dossier claims. Nuland's public
claim that her "immediate" response was to refer Steele to the FBI since State involvement could violate the Hatch Act seems to conflict
with the only reaction that Winer relates from Nuland – that she felt Kerry should be made aware of the dossier information.
In Winer's Washington Post oped, he writes that Steele had a larger relationship with the State Department, passing over
100 reports relating to Russia to the U.S. government agency through Winer. Winer wrote that Nuland found Steele's reports to be
"useful" and asked Winer to "continue to send them."
He wrote:
In 2013, I returned to the State Department at the request of Secretary of State John F. Kerry, whom I had previously served
as Senate counsel. Over the years, Steele and I had discussed many matters relating to Russia. He asked me whether the State Department
would like copies of new information as he developed it. I contacted Victoria Nuland, a career diplomat who was then assistant
secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and shared with her several of Steele's reports. She told me they were useful
and asked me to continue to send them. Over the next two years, I shared more than 100 of Steele's reports with the Russia experts
at the State Department, who continued to find them useful. None of the reports related to U.S. politics or domestic U.S. matters,
and the reports constituted a very small portion of the data set reviewed by State Department experts trying to make sense of
events in Russia.
Kramer and the dossier
In his book, "The Restless Wave," McCain provided an inside account of how he says he came across the dossier.
He wrote that he was told about the claims in the document at a security conference in Canada in November 2016, where he was approached
by Sir Andrew Wood, a former British ambassador to Moscow and friend of ex-British spy Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier.
McCain wrote that Wood told him Steele "had been commissioned to investigate connections between the Trump campaign and Russian
agents as well as potentially compromising information about the President-elect that Putin allegedly possessed."
McCain, however, did not address the obvious question of whether he was told exactly who "commissioned" Steele to "investigate"
the alleged Russian ties. The dossier was paid for by Clinton's campaign and the DNC.
McCain goes on to describe Wood as telling him Steele's work "was mostly raw, unverified intelligence, but that the author strongly
believed merited a thorough examination by counterintelligence experts."
The politician says the dossier claims described to him were "too strange a scenario to believe, something out of a le Carré novel,
not the kind of thing anyone has ever actually had to worry about with a new President, no matter what other concerns."
Still, McCain says he reasoned that "even a remote risk that the President of the United States might be vulnerable to Russian
extortion had to be investigated."
McCain concedes Wood told him he had not actually read the dossier himself, and writes that he wasn't sure if he ever met Wood
before and couldn't recall previously having a conversation with Wood. Still, McCain took Wood's word for it when Wood vouched for
Steele's credibility. "Steele was a respected professional, Wood assured us, who had good Russian contacts and long experience collecting
and analyzing intelligence on the Kremlin," McCain wrote.
Present at the meeting with Wood and McCain was Kramer, who McCain writes agreed to "go to London to meet Steele, confirm his
credibility and report back to me."
McCain doesn't detail Kramer's visit to London beyond simply writing, "When David returned, and shared his impression that the
former spy was, as Sir Andrew had vouched, a respected professional, and not to outward appearances given to hyperbole or hysteria,
I agreed to receive a copy of what is now referred to as 'the dossier.'''
McCain leaves out exactly where Kramer obtained his dossier copy.
The Washington Post
reported last February that Kramer received the dossier directly from Fusion GPS after McCain expressed interest in it. Those
details marked the clearest indication that McCain may have known that the dossier originated with Fusion GPS, meaning that he may
have knowingly passed on political material to the FBI.
Also, in a New York Times oped in January,
GPS co-founders Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritch wrote that they helped McCain share their anti-Trump dossier with the Obama-era intelligence
community via an unnamed "emissary."
In his own testimony, Kramer relates conversations with Simpson about the dossier.
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author
and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio ." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on
Facebook.
Merkel might say: "There is definitely a place for Brazil in NATO. They can have ours."
Forget it! Merkel is the most servile lackey that the US could wish for. She is
doing everything her masters in Washington ask her to do. For example the German public is
awaiting a mildly entertaining show of their government on how to work around yesterdays
court decision:
International law is the yardstick for international politics. This has been clarified by
the Higher Administrative Court in Münster in a spectacular ruling on lethal US drone
missions in Yemen. Several relatives of victims who were killed in such attacks had sued.
They hold the Federal Republic of Germany jointly responsible for this because the United
States allegedly also uses the US airbase in Ramstein in Rhineland-Palatinate for these
fatal attacks.
There are important indications that the drone attacks in question violate international
law and the fundamental right to life. The Federal Republic of Germany must protect these
rights and stand up for them. Therefore the Federal Republic must clarify now in a first
step whether the attacks offend against international right.
NOT! Aside from the fact, that the public press largely ignores this decision, our
governments have a long record of doing actually nothing when formally independent judges
even from the highest courts ask them to adhere to the law.
Speaking of embarrassing lackeys, when the empire was seeking a new nodal point to more
efficiently drone bomb Northern Africa the most obvious/nearby European locations like Italy,
France or Greece all said "Nah, better not". But, don't you worry, Missus Merkel was of
course happy to offer Stuttgard in Southern Germany as base for AFRICOM!
This article was written 4 years ago, but the problem with Putin successor remains. Putin is a unique politician and his replacement
might be much weaker, causing troubles for Russia. This is not new problem for Russia, but this time it will be especially
acute. BTW this comment thread looks like "who is who" list for NATObots.
Notable quotes:
"... We could all use a real leader like Putin who takes no b.s. from anybody and is quick to adapt to any situation in a calm assertive way. He earns our admiration every day, the way he steers across an ever changing minefield and not because of his mucho image. We do not need leaders who deceit people by spewing relentless propaganda and no clarity. They fail as individuals and as a group because they are spineless. If multiple people repeat the same lie it does not make it true. It must be a club membership requirement to play the politics game and keep quiet about wrong things you see. ..."
"... Action man outwitting the Neocons in the international chess game. More surprises to come ..."
"... Karl Rove said "Empire creates its own reality". No wonder the mantra "Assad must go" is now enshrined in international politics by the Neocon alliance. They didnt figure on Putin obviously. ..."
"... It happens regardless, take the example in Volgograd (Vauxhall) two years ago. I am afraid that KSA and the Gulf States will be funding the usual mix of 'moderately terroristic shenanigans" in reprisal, but they did this before anyways. ..."
"... He making the US looked like whiny bitches. Good job; you alienate Russia and manage to strengthen the China-Russo relationrelationship. Sanctions that don't work, secret economic wars and multiple failed coup d'etat in Georgia and Ukraine [also do not work] ..."
"... Like US - Hospital - Afganistain. anyway ISIS are paid money by the CIA and don't care who they work for it's money that they are motivated by not ideology, that ideology stuff is made-up. Google it and dig, get yourself informed. ..."
"... Not quite sure why Mr Putin playing ice-hockey on his birthday is worthy of a story to open up for comments unless the Guardian is ' trawling ' to encourage some new anti-Putin Cold War rhetoric in the comments section. ..."
"... PS / Don't forget that nice Israeli Prime Minister Mr Netanyahu's birthday and how he celebrates it. Ensure you open it up for comment as I'm sure also that many will wish to voice an opinion. Will this now be a standard ' Birthday Feature ' for all world leaders in the Guardian, or has this newspaper just granted an exception for Mr Putin's birthday ? ..."
I wonder if everyone on the Guardian staff has the same "man crush" on Putin? Could explain all these obsessive articles. I
also wonder if he spent any time in the penalty box?
laticsfanfromeurope -> Extracrispy 7 Oct 2015 17:06
You prefer ISIS and Al-Nusra then the legitimate Syrian gov. and the legitimate help of Russia...not a surprise from stupid
western supporters!
pfox33 7 Oct 2015 17:05
There isn't one of our western politicians that wouldn't sell his fucking mother to be getting the attention that Putin's getting.
I thought he was supposed to be isolated.
So to keep the hockey thing going, Putin's stolen the puck in the neutral zone, split the Nato defensemen who were too far
forward and is on a breakaway.
I feel sorry for Obama because I think he's a good leader but when it comes to trying to maneuver in a geopolitical situation
like Syria he's fucked before he leaves the house. Putin can just act without trying to herd cats like Obama has to do with his
Nato minions. He doesn't have a bunch of recalcitrant GOP senators calling him everything but a white man and running their mouths
about what they would do.
... ... ...
filin led -> Braminski 7 Oct 2015 16:55
It's you who are a troll, sir. By what you say, anything can be dismissed as paid propaganda. That means, you are as likely
to be a paid agent yourself. So, if you can't come up with a constructive argument, stop commenting please.
Mordantdude -> Poppy757 7 Oct 2015 16:40
As Russians say: "Envy silently".
giacinto101 7 Oct 2015 15:59
We could all use a real leader like Putin who takes no b.s. from anybody and is quick to adapt to any situation in a calm
assertive way. He earns our admiration every day, the way he steers across an ever changing minefield and not because of his mucho
image. We do not need leaders who deceit people by spewing relentless propaganda and no clarity. They fail as individuals and
as a group because they are spineless. If multiple people repeat the same lie it does not make it true. It must be a club membership
requirement to play the politics game and keep quiet about wrong things you see.
SilkverBlogger 7 Oct 2015 15:54
Action man outwitting the Neocons in the international chess game. More surprises to come
CIAbot007 -> Poppy757 7 Oct 2015 15:39
Most of Aussies have a bit of common sense which says that you can't blame anyone before it is prooved. With Western MSM propaganda
machine blaming Russia and Putin even before anything happens you bet there's no such thing as balanced and unskewed reporting
and even will for any kind of such thing. Don't get fooled, use your brain or your brain will be used by someone else.
SilkverBlogger 7 Oct 2015 14:48
Karl Rove said "Empire creates its own reality". No wonder the mantra "Assad must go" is now enshrined in international
politics by the Neocon alliance. They didnt figure on Putin obviously.
PekkaRoivanen MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 14:30
In the West, we don't have a sycophantic press kissing the leader's backside:
Guardian: Barack Obama scores just 2 out of 22 basketball hoops - video
You wrote that Obama plays basketball and you prove it with this video where Obama wears dress shirt (tie removed :-D) and
scores badly.
Are you sure Obama plays basketball? Or is it just press kissing his backside?
Kev Kev Hektor Uranga 7 Oct 2015 14:28
the USA persecutes and kills people who speak out against it. Only difference is the USA does it in ways that nobody sees..
In other words the USA is the same as Russia only they do their work in the dark. When nobody is looking.
Abiesalba MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 14:26
That's the guy who is wishing Putin a happy birthday.
The US/UK duo have caused with their insane illegal wars more than a million deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and
counting.
I recommend you look up a little the complex history and present situation in Chechnya and the North Caucasus region.
ISIS (which the insanely aggressive US/UK duo have in effect created) is already spreading its influence INSIDE the Russian
Federation. So Putin has direct interests to defeat ISIS and stabilise Syria (and Iraq). In addition, the south of the Russian
Federation is on the map of territories which ISIS plans to conquer.
See for example:
-
8 ISIS supporters killed in N. Caucasus special op
(2 August 2015)
Russian security forces have foiled a terrorist group that recently pledged allegiance to ISIS in Ingushetia, in the Northern
Caucasus, according to the National Anti-Terror Committee (NAC). Security forces seized explosives, weapons and over 2,000 rounds
of ammunition.
-
How Russian Militants Declared A New ISIS 'State' In Russia's North Caucasus
(26 June 2015)
The Islamic State group announced the creation of its northernmost province this week, after accepting a formal pledge of allegiance
from former al Qaeda militants in the North Caucasus region of Russia.
-
-
It is true that at present, the Chechens are begging Putin to let them strike in Syria (and this is also closely linked to the
complicated history of North Caucasus), but Putin has not unleashed them. See for example here:
-
-
Kadyrov asks Putin to allow Chechen infantry to fight in Syria (RT, 2 October 2015)
-
The head of the Chechen Republic has asked the Russian president to send Chechen units to fight Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL)
in Syria, adding that his fighters have sworn to fight terrorists till the end.
"Being a Muslim, a Chechen and a Russian patriot I want to say that in 1999 when our republic was overrun with these devils
we swore on the Koran that we would fight them wherever they are," the Chechen leader said. "But we need the Commander-in-Chief's
decision to do this," he emphasized. According to the Russian Constitution, the president [Putin] is also the commander-in-chief
of the military forces.
BMWAlbert clanview46 7 Oct 2015 14:26
It happens regardless, take the example in Volgograd (Vauxhall) two years ago. I am afraid that KSA and the Gulf States
will be funding the usual mix of 'moderately terroristic shenanigans" in reprisal, but they did this before anyways.
Julian1972 MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 14:21
That was last year...also it was authored by a combination of the CIA and their right-wing 'Operation Stay Behind' cohorts...though,
if you don't know that by now you doubtless never will.
Abiesalba MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 14:16
Murderers, thieves and embezzlers stroking each other's egos.
Putin has a long way to go to match the US/UK.
-
-
Here is a recent report about 'collateral damage' compiled by Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Global Survival
and the Nobel Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War:
-
Body Count: Casualty Figures After 10 Years of the 'War on Terror' (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan)
(March 2015)
-
This investigation comes to the conclusion that the war has, directly or indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000
in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, i.e. a total of around 1.3 million.
NOT included in this figure are further war zones such as Yemen.
The figure is approximately 10 times greater than that of which the public, experts and decision makers are aware of and propagated
by the media and major NGOs.
And this is only a conservative estimate. The total number of deaths in the three countries named above could also be in excess
of 2 million, whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely.
-
-
For more about civilian casualties due to the US-led coalition strikes in Syria and Iraq, see the Airwars website:
584 – 1,720 civilians killed:
To date, the international coalition has only conceded two "likely" deaths, from an event in early November 2014. It is also
presently investigating seven further incidents of concern; is carrying out credibility assessments on a further 13; and has concluded
three more investigations – having found no 'preponderance of evidence' to support civilian casualty claims.
More Power -> MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 14:13
He making the US looked like whiny bitches. Good job; you alienate Russia and manage to strengthen the China-Russo relationrelationship.
Sanctions that don't work, secret economic wars and multiple failed coup d'etat in Georgia and Ukraine [also do not work].
Just look at the World Bank, BRICS is on the door step. Happy birth day Putin. A badass mofo
blueskis -> MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 14:06
The vats majority of the 5500 killed have been civilians in East Ukraine killed by airstrikes ordered by kiev/washington, fully
justifying Russian intervention.
ooTToo -> MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 13:40
Like US - Hospital - Afganistain. anyway ISIS are paid money by the CIA and don't care who they work for it's money that
they are motivated by not ideology, that ideology stuff is made-up. Google it and dig, get yourself informed.
geedeesee -> MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 13:19
Russia is attacking what they said they'd attack, Tavernier. ISIS, al-Nusrah, and other terrorist organisations.
inconvenienttruth13 -> MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 13:18
No he isn't. Anybody with a functioning brain knows he had nothing to do with that. Unlike the US genocide in the Middle East
- over 2 million dead and counting - not to mention the deliberate and sustained attack on a hospital. Maybe you don' get to see
the news in your ward?
inconvenienttruth13 -> MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 13:13
The US created, funds, trains and arms ISIS - they are only supporting terrorists in their campaign to effect regime change.
Russia is responding to a request fro the Syrian government, so its actions are entirely legal. The faces that the USA and the
KSA are the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world.
monteverdi1610 7 Oct 2015 12:22
Not quite sure why Mr Putin playing ice-hockey on his birthday is worthy of a story to open up for comments unless the
Guardian is ' trawling ' to encourage some new anti-Putin Cold War rhetoric in the comments section.
PS / Don't forget that nice Israeli Prime Minister Mr Netanyahu's birthday and how he celebrates it. Ensure you open it
up for comment as I'm sure also that many will wish to voice an opinion. Will this now be a standard ' Birthday Feature ' for
all world leaders in the Guardian, or has this newspaper just granted an exception for Mr Putin's birthday ?
Foreign policy is no longer controlled by the President of the USA. It is controlled by the Deep state.
This article is from 2015 but can easily be written about Trump administration
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, as Putin himself had proposed in his visionary October 2011 article, the Eurasian Union could have become one of the pillars of a huge harmonized economic area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok and based on the EU's single-market rules (acquis communautaire). ..."
"... First and foremost, because the self-proclaimed "exceptional" power (actually, a mere "outlying island" in the Atlantic, according to the founder of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder) and its dysfunctional "deep-state" officialdom did not want it to be. How could they have permitted such a thing? How could they have allowed other countries to get on with improving the lives of their citizens without being obliged to seek Washington's approval every step of the way? ..."
"... In order to make sure that they were not side-lined, the US elites had to intervene. The Western propaganda machine started churning out all sorts of nonsense that Putin is a new Hitler who is bent on restoring the Soviet empire and who is bullying Europe, while continuing to bang on about his "increasingly autocratic rule". ..."
"... Deadly attacks by chauvinistic proxies were launched on the Russophone people in South Ossetia, Georgia in 2008 and more recently in Ukraine. ..."
"... Stuck in an Orwellian nightmare, Europe has to demonstrate its unfailing loyalty to Big Brother and go along with the view that Russia, an intrinsic and valuable part of the European mainstream both historically and culturally, represents universal evil and that the Earth will not be safe until the Federation has been dismembered and Putinism wiped out once and for all. ..."
"... Having self-destructed in two world wars, it has become an easy and even willing prey to an arrogant, ignorant and power-drunk predator that has never experienced the hardships and horrors that Europe has. ..."
"... Even more terrifying, intellectually third-rate Washington viceroys such as Victoria Nuland and the freelancing armchair warrior Senator McCain are allowed to play God with our continent. ..."
"... Indeed, the damage extends beyond the economy. By aligning with the forces of chaos – such as chauvinistic extremists in Ukraine – Washington and its Euro-vassals are corrupting the moral (and intellectual) core of the West. ..."
"... 'My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: "Money, we give them money." "Foreign aid?" I asked. "No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale. We bought them. They report to us." Perhaps this explains Tony Blair's $50 million fortune one year out of office'. ..."
"... "We, the [CENSORED] people, control America and the Americans know it." -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED] ..."
Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy... European
democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy
The avalanche of commentary since the Ukrainian crisis erupted a year ago has overshadowed any reflections on the immense forgone
benefits (technically speaking, the "opportunity cost") of what might have been if Washington had been working for peace and stability
instead of war and chaos.
Imagine the following: After the unraveling of the Communist bloc, Europe, in partnership with the US, had forged a new security
system in which Russia was treated as a valued and equal partner – one whose interests were respected. Russia, decimated by a century
of wars and Communist imperialism, would doubtless have eagerly reciprocated in kind. Most countries of the former Soviet Union would
have then proceeded to build a new Eurasian structure of which Russia would have served as the natural umbrella, given its long-standing
interaction with the region's diverse nations and cultures.
Indeed, as Putin himself had proposed in his visionary October 2011 article, the Eurasian Union could have become one of the
pillars of a huge harmonized economic area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok and based on the EU's single-market rules (acquis
communautaire).
The rising Far Eastern economic powerhouse, with the world's most populous country, China, at its centre, would have linked up
with the world's largest economy (the EU). An enormous Eurasian production and financial bloc would have been created – one that
drew primarily on secure supplies of Russian energy and other natural resources. Untold investment opportunities would have opened
up in Siberia and Russia's Far East as well as in Central Asia. Hundreds of millions of people in Eurasia and elsewhere would have
been lifted out of poverty. And, not least, the EU would have been refashioned as an integral part of the dynamic trans-Eurasian
economy (rather than as a German-centred empire, as appears to be the case today), thereby making a major contribution to overcoming
the ongoing global economic depression.
All of this was not to be, however. Why not? First and foremost, because the self-proclaimed "exceptional" power (actually, a
mere "outlying island" in the Atlantic, according to the founder of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder) and its dysfunctional "deep-state"
officialdom did not want it to be. How could they have permitted such a thing? How could they have allowed other countries to
get on with improving the lives of their citizens without being obliged to seek Washington's approval every step of the way?
European democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy
In order to make sure that they were not side-lined, the US elites had to intervene. The Western propaganda machine started
churning out all sorts of nonsense that Putin is a new Hitler who is bent on restoring the Soviet empire and who is bullying Europe,
while continuing to bang on about his "increasingly autocratic rule".
Deadly attacks by chauvinistic proxies were launched on the Russophone people in South Ossetia, Georgia in 2008 and more recently
in Ukraine.
And in what is eerily reminiscent of Stalinist "bloc discipline", the EU/NATO nomenclature was ordered to implement the absurd
strategy of severing the Russian economy from the EU. For their part, the cowering Eurocrats willingly obliged by imposing sanctions
on Russia that, perversely, have had a negative impact on their own economies (but, let it be stressed, not that of the US). No questions
raised and no public debate on the wisdom of such a strategy permitted.
Stuck in an Orwellian nightmare, Europe has to demonstrate its unfailing loyalty to Big Brother and go along with the view
that Russia, an intrinsic and valuable part of the European mainstream both historically and culturally, represents universal evil
and that the Earth will not be safe until the Federation has been dismembered and Putinism wiped out once and for all.
This abuse and humiliation of Europe is unparalleled. The continent that gave the world the wonders of the Antiquity, modern democracy,
the industrial revolution and what is arguably the greatest tradition of philosophy, fine arts and classical music is being bullied
by its oversized offspring. Having self-destructed in two world wars, it has become an easy and even willing prey to an arrogant,
ignorant and power-drunk predator that has never experienced the hardships and horrors that Europe has. War and extermination
camps are etched into the European DNA. America "knows" about them only from afar – and, not least, from the Hollywood entertainment
industry.
Even more terrifying, intellectually third-rate Washington viceroys such as Victoria Nuland and the freelancing armchair warrior
Senator McCain are allowed to play God with our continent. The so-called European "leaders" are colluding with them in plunging
Europe into the abyss and thereby risking nuclear confrontation.
America, too, is a loser
But this is not just a tragedy for Europe and Eurasia. We are also witnessing the wilful misrule of America and, by default, of
the entire West. Indeed, Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy. The
"democracy-promoters" running Washington's foreign-policy apparatus apparently do not understand that America has nothing to lose
and a lot to gain from the Eurasian economic project: the rising tide of global economic welfare would lift everyone's boats, including
its own. Why should it matter to Washington if the rising tide comes from other quarters beyond its control?
Indeed, the damage extends beyond the economy. By aligning with the forces of chaos – such as chauvinistic extremists in Ukraine
– Washington and its Euro-vassals are corrupting the moral (and intellectual) core of the West. If it continues to support such
forces against Russia, united Europe will lose not only its backbone but its very soul. The moral consequences of this loss will
be enormous and could lead to the precipitous erosion of Western democracy.
The 'autocrats' want to work with the West, not against it
US and EU leaders believe that the Russian and Chinese "autocrats" are out to destroy the West because the latter hate freedom
(as George W. Bush might have put it). And hence, they argue, the autocrats must be stopped in their tracks. The simple truth is
that Western leaders are too blinkered to understand that far from desiring to destroy the West, Russia and China want it to prosper
so that they can work with it to everyone's benefit. Having enjoyed a privileged position over several centuries and having attained
unprecedented prosperity in recent decades, the West simply cannot understand that the rest of humanity has no interest in fomenting
the "clash of civilizations" but rather craves peace and stability so that it can finally improve its economic lot.
Perhaps, however, all is not yet lost. It is still possible that reason – and economic forces – will prevail and force the West
to correct the errors of its ways. What we need, perhaps, more than ever is the ability to step out of the box, question our fundamental
assumptions (not least about Russia and China) and find the courage to change policies that have proved disastrous. After all, critical
thought, dispassionate analysis and the ability to be open to new ideas is what made the West so successful in the past. If we are
to thrive once again in the future, we must resurrect these most valuable and unsurpassed assets.
What I cannot understand is the naive belief that elected politicians would act in the interests of those whom they represent.
Under what other circumstances do we see human beings act with disinterested altruism? So why would a bunch of people who have
been ruthlessly selected for selfishness, arrogance, and callousness - a bunch of carefully chosen psychopaths, if you will -
behave in that way?
'My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to
my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: "Money, we give them money." "Foreign
aid?" I asked. "No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale. We bought them. They report to
us." Perhaps this explains Tony Blair's $50 million fortune one year out of office'.
- Paul Craig Roberts
jabirujoe
"Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy".
Not only it's foreign policy but it's domestic policy as well. Let's call it for what it really is. The Wall Street/Corporate
policy which is the driving force behind behind everything the US does
Toddrich
"We, the [CENSORED] people, control America and the Americans know it." -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]
"When we're done with the U.S. it will shrivel up and blow away." -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]
The welfare or future of the American people are not part of the equation.
Is this a plan of the elite to introduce national security state in action. Are they afraid of the collapse of neoliberal social
order and try to take precautions?
Notable quotes:
"... These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness. ..."
"... the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. ..."
"... Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse. ..."
"... no molten metal ..."
"... A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." ..."
"... Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories : ..."
"... Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be? ..."
"... Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was only $386,000,000. ..."
"... Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way. ..."
"... All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies, and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never clarified). ..."
"... This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down. ..."
"... http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully flawed NIST report ..."
"... There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area. ..."
"... The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what happened at WTC. ..."
"... If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless. ..."
"... Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt. It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob. ..."
"... The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. ..."
What does the evidence show about the Solomon Brothers Building in Manhattan?
Numerous structural engineers – the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents – say that the
official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates
the law of physics":
The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked
into as part of the original investigation
Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural
engineering experience:
From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that
windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those
explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building
from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities
Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience,
says:
Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite
in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition
Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with
over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry:
World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident
Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience
in all types of buildings:
I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings [please ignore any reference in this essay to the
Twin Towers. This essay focuses solely on Building 7]. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were
imploded
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis,
writes:
Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day [i.e. on September
11th]? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses
including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust
WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This
is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized
therefore what is the cause?
In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by
any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation
How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading?
The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective.
***
Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual
members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames-just
as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would
have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity,
i.e., strength and stiffness.
Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching
its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, "if" the structure in the vicinity started to weaken, the superstructure
above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist
toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur.
Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping
of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse.
For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse .
We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity
loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse
at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We do not know the phenomenon of the high
rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.
The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled
demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should
normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated
to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?
Antonio Artha,with 15+ years of experience
in building design
Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings [Again, please ignore any reference to the Twin Towers this essay
focuses solely on WTC7]. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11,
unless proven otherwise
James Milton Bruner, Major, U.S. Air Force,
instructor and assistant professor in the Deptartment of Engineering Mechanics & Materials, USAF Academy, and a technical writer
and editor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
It is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire.
This is very suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living
David Anthony Dorau, practicing structural
engineer with 18 years' experience in the inspection and design of buildings under 5 stories tall, who worked as a policy analyst
for the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of the U.S. Congress providing independent research and reports on technological
matters
Russell T. Connors, designed many buildings
and other types of structures
The above is just a sample. Many other structural
engineers have questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous top experts in other relevant disciplines, including:
The top European expert on controlled building demolition, Danny Jowenko (part
1, part 2,
part 3)
Harry G. Robinson, III – Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President
of two major national architectural organizations – National Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural
Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute
of Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies
Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran
U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam –
says:
The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to
cause the buildings to implode as they did
Watch this short video on Building 7 by Architects and Engineers (ignore any reference to the Twin Towers, deaths on 9/11, or
any other topics other than WTC7):
Fish In a Barrel
Poking holes in the government's spin on Building 7 is so easy that it is like shooting fish in a barrel.
As just one example, the spokesman for the government agency which says that the building collapsed due to fire said there was
no molten metal at ground zero:
And see witness statements at the beginning of this video
Indeed, not only was structural steel somehow melted on 9/11, but it was evaporated. As the New York Times
reports, an expert
stated about World Trade Center building 7:
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers
said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated
in extraordinarily high temperatures.
(pay-per-view). Evaporation means conversion from a liquid
to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate
them
Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants.
Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the
U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratories:
Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as
rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 .
"Firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was
pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you
were creating a giant lake."
This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:
The fact that there were raging fires and molten metal even after the application of
massive quantities of water and fire retardants shows how silly the government spokesman's claim is.
Again, this has nothing to do with "inside job" no one was killed in the collapse of Building 7, no wars were launched based on
a rallying cry of "remember the Solomon Brothers building", and no civil liberties were lost based on a claim that we have to prevent
future WTC7 tragedies.
It is merely meant to show that government folks sometimes lie even about issues tangentially related to 9/11.
Pooua > Wolfen Batroach • 2 years ago
Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were
the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be?
JusticeFor911 > Pooua
Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002,
Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was
only $386,000,000.
I'd say nearly half of $1,000,000,000.00 was the primary cause to include this building with the towers. Keep in mind that
President Bush's brother Marvin was a principal in the company Securacom that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines and
Dulles International Airport. Are dots connecting yet?
Pooua > JusticeFor911
If you buy a new car, you take out full coverage insurance on it. Insuring billion-dollar buildings is standard procedure,
especially when one had already suffered a terrorist attack. You insinuation is nothing but gossip and suggestion.
No, Securacom did not provide security for WTC; that's the job of the Port Authority of NY & NJ. Securacom had a contract to
perform a limited service for PANYNJ, and Marvin Bush was only a bit player (he was on the board of directors) in the company.
Your paranoid ramblings are lies.
IBSHILLIN > Pooua
Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if
an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could
be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way.
All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies,
and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never
clarified).
This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down.
Pooua > IBSHILLIN
I find it amazing that you consider yourself such an unquestionable expert that you not only feel qualified to insist that
explosives brought down the WTC buildings, even in contradiction to scores of scientists, engineers and investigators of NIST,
FEMA, FBI and MIT who say otherwise, and you do so without offering any evidence at all to support your bizarre claim.
No building the size of any of the WTC buildings has ever been brought down by controlled demolition, but of those that come
closest, the planning took years, and the rigging took months of hard work by teams of experts working around the clock. This
is not something that can be hidden.
Your suggestion is entirely preposterous and without merit.
NIST, FEMA, FBI and MIT are worthless entities! What about the experts in that documentary? Nanothermite brought them down
smart guy!
Pooua > ihaveabrain • 25 days ago
You posted a 1.5-hour video. I am not here to watch a 1.5-hour video; I'm here to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC
7. If you have something to say, say it here.
NIST has been the premier standards body used by the US government for a century, covering virtually every aspect of engineering
and public safety in this country. It employes thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians. For you to claim that it is
a worthless entity is idiocy on your part.
linked1 > Pooua • 24 days ago
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video
that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully
flawed NIST report
You claim to want to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC-7 but you can't be bothered to watch painstakingly researched
documentaries that include thousands of witnesses, victims, scientists, and structural professionals.
You ought to educate yourself before calling other's claims 'worthless idiocy'. You are wrong, and history will prove you wrong.
Pooua > linked1
I've been reading arguments about 9/11 for two years. I've been arguing about other issues for the last 25 years, at least
since I took a class in classical logic. What you need to understand is, you aren't arguing anything when you send me off to listen
to someone else. The other guy might be arguing something, but you aren't doing anything. And, the fact that I've spent two years
reading everything I could find on the subject makes me strongly suspect that this five-hour video would be just a waste of my
time.
If you want to discuss this matter, then discuss it. Don't send me off to spend hours of my time listening to someone else.
You explain it. If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it, and you are wasting everyone's time.
mulegino1 . > Pooua
The levels of energy required to turn most of the Twin Towers and WTC7 into nanoparticles (thus the pyrocastic flow which only
occurs in volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations) would be thousands of orders of magnitude greater than airliner impacts
and hydrocarbon based office fires, which are claimed to have initiated a "gravity collapse".
How could a "gravity collapse" perfectly mimic the detonation of a small tactical nuclear device or devices-electromagnetic
pulse, molten lava and a mushroom cloud?
Pooua > mulegino1
I want you to look at this image from the WTC on 9/11. It shows the debris after the Towers collapsed. Does this look like
nanoparticles to you? Most of the debris was bigger than a man's fist.
Thumbnail
There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something
that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area.
The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what
happened at WTC.
mulegino1 . > Pooua
If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless.
There was indeed a pyroclasticas flow as anyone with youtube can determine for themselves.
Pooua > WilliamBinney • a year ago
It is your job to do more than make idiotic, speculative assertions and pretend that constitutes a reason for disregarding
the government's account of the event. Yet, you all have completely failed to do anything except expose your own inability to
account for the events of that day.
Dizzer13 > Pooua • a year ago
Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt.
It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob.
mulegino1 . > Pooua • 2 years ago
The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose
information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.
The official narrative is so ludicrous from any standpoint that the "debunkers" resort to wildly implausible scenarios in order
to convince the above cited demographic that the government and the major national media were reporting factual information when
in fact they were reading from a script. And it was a very poorly written script. The Bin Laden bogeyman was already being invoked
before the buildings exploded.
What you've got here is a pseudo-religious narrative designed to so enrage the dumbed down sheeple that they will lash out
in their fury against virtually anyone designated by the powers that be as the enemy- a Sorelian myth.
Like any false narrative, the official story breaks down at the level of discrete facts and can only survive as a holistic
mythologized, meta-historical events.
This is anold, 2015 article that is still rrrelenet today. Well written overview of British policies toward Russia
Notable quotes:
"... Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the intention of coming out on top is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and its entire system is coming down. ..."
"... EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putin's bid for the Presidency, and throwing Russia into deadly political turmoil. ..."
"... In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against the Russian government as "authoritarian," "dictators," and so forth. She said, "The trend lines for freedom and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since Vladimir Putin took power and set about the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state." She announced at that point that the elections would be illegitimate: "[T]he current regime will likely use the upcoming parliamentary elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March 2012 with the inevitable falsifications and manipulations, to claim the continued legitimacy of its rule." ..."
"... The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy, from which perch she has spread "Cold War" venom against Putin and the Russian government. ..."
"... Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08. ..."
"... NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online "anti-corruption" activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations. Addressing crowds on the street, Navalny sounds more like Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic. Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration in Moscow. ..."
January 9, 2012 -Organizers of the December 2011 "anti-vote-fraud" demonstrations in Moscow have announced Feb. 4 as the date
of their next street action, planned as a march around the city's Garden Ring Road on the 22nd anniversary of a mass demonstration
which paved the way to the end of the Soviet Union. While there is a fluid situation within both the Russian extraparliamentary opposition
layers, and the ruling circles and other Duma parties, including a process of "dialogue" between them, in which ex-Finance Minister
Alexei Kudrin is playing a role, it is clear that British imperial interests are intent on-if not actually destroying Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin's bid for reelection as Russia's President in the March 4 elections-casting Russia into ongoing, destructive political
turmoil.
Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the intention of coming out on top
is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and its entire system is coming down.
Review of the events leading up to the Dec. 4, 2011 Duma elections, which the street demonstrators demanded be cancelled for fraud,
shows that not only agent-of-British-influence Mikhail Gorbachov, the ex-Soviet President, but also the vast Project Democracy apparatus
inside the United States, exposed by EIR in the 1980s as part of an unconstitutional "secret government,"[1]
have been on full mobilization to block the current Russian leadership from continuing in power.
Project Democracy
Typical is the testimony of Nadia Diuk, vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), before the Subcommittee
on Europe and Eurasia of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs last July 26. The NED is the umbrella of Project Democracy;
it functions, inclusively, through the International Republican Institute (IRI, linked with the Republican Party) and the National
Democratic Institute (NDI, linked with the Democratic Party, and currently headed by Madeleine Albright).
Diuk was educated at the U.K.'s Unversity of Sussex Russian studies program, and then taught at Oxford University, before coming
to the U.S.A. to head up the NED's programs in Eastern Europe and Russia beginning 1990. She is married to her frequent co-author,
Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Institute, who headed up the private intelligence outfit Freedom House[2]
for 12 years. Her role is typical of British outsourcing of key strategic operations to U.S. institutions.
EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putin's bid for the Presidency, and throwing Russia
into deadly political turmoil.
In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against the Russian government as "authoritarian,"
"dictators," and so forth. She said, "The trend lines for freedom and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since
Vladimir Putin took power and set about the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state." She
announced at that point that the elections would be illegitimate: "[T]he current regime will likely use the upcoming parliamentary
elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March 2012 with the inevitable falsifications and manipulations, to claim
the continued legitimacy of its rule."
Diuk expressed renewed hope that the disastrous 2004 Orange Revolution experiment in Ukraine could be replicated in Russia, claiming
that "when the protests against authoritarian rule during Ukraine's Orange Revolution brought down the government in 2004, Russian
citizens saw a vision across the border of an alternative future for themselves as a Slavic nation." She then detailed what she claimed
were the Kremlin's reactions to the events in Ukraine, charging that "the leaders in the Kremlin-always the most creative innovators
in the club of authoritarians-have also taken active measures to promote support of the government and undermine the democratic opposition...."
Holos Ameryky
The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy, from which perch she has spread
"Cold War" venom against Putin and the Russian government.
While lauding "the democratic breakthroughs in the Middle East" in 2011, Diuk called on the Congress to "look to [Eastern Europe]
as the source of a great wealth of experience on how the enemies of freedom are ever on the alert to assert their dominance, but
also how the forces for freedom and democracy will always find a way to push back in a struggle that demands our support."
In September, Diuk chaired an NED event featuring a representative of the NED-funded Levada Center Russian polling organization,
who gave an overview of the then-upcoming December 4 Duma election. Also speaking there was Russian liberal politician Vladimir Kara-Murza,
who predicted in the nastiest tones that Putin will suffer the fate of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In this same September period,
Mikhail Gorbachov, too, was already forecasting voting irregularities and a challenge to Putin's dominance.
The NED, which has an annual budget of $100 million, sponsors dozens of "civil society" groups in Russia. Golos, the supposedly
independent vote-monitoring group that declared there would be vote fraud even before the elections took place, has received NED
money through the NDI since 2000. Golos had a piecework program, paying its observers a set amount of money for each reported voting
irregularity. NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny-the online anti-corruption activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations-since
2006, when he and Maria Gaidar (daughter of the late London-trained shock therapy Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar) launched a youth debating
project called "DA!" (meaning "Yes!" or standing for "Democratic Alternative"). Gorbachov's close ally Vladimir Ryzhkov, currently
negotiating with Kudrin on terms of a "dialogue between the authorities and the opposition," also received NED grants to his World
Movement for Democracy.
Besides George Soros's Open Society Foundations (formerly, Open Society Institute, OSI), the biggest source of funds for this
meddling, including funding which was channeled through the NDI and the IRI, is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Officially, USAID has spent $2.6 billion on programs in Russia since 1992. The current acknowledged level is around $70 million annually,
of which nearly half is for "Governing Justly & Democratically" programs, another 30% for "Information" programs, and only a small
fraction for things like combatting HIV and TB. On Dec. 15, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Philip Gordon announced that the Obama Administration would seek Congressional approval to step up this funding, with "an initiative
to create a new fund to support Russian non-governmental organizations that are committed to a more pluralistic and open society."
Awaiting McFaul
White House/Pete Souza
The impending arrival in Moscow of Michael McFaul (shown here with his boss in the Oval Office), as U.S. Ambassador to Russia,
is seen by many there as an escalation of Project Democracy efforts to destabilize the country.
People from various parts of the political spectrum in Russia see the impending arrival of Michael McFaul as U.S. Ambassador to
Russia as an escalation in Project Democracy efforts to destabilize Russia. McFaul, who has been Barack Obama's National Security
Council official for Russia, has been working this beat since the early 1990s, when he represented the NDI in Russia at the end of
the Soviet period, and headed its office there.
As a Russia specialist at Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Hoover Institution, as well as the
Carnegie Endowment, and an array of other Russian studies think tanks, McFaul has stuck closely to the Project Democracy agenda.
Financing for his research has come from the NED, the OSI, and the Smith-Richardson Foundation (another notorious agency of financier
interests within the U.S. establishment). He was an editor of the 2006 book Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine's Democratic
Breakthrough, containing chapters by Diuk and Karatnycky.
In his own contribution to a 2010 book titled After Putin's Russia,[3]
McFaul hailed the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine-which was notoriously funded and manipulated from abroad-as a triumph of "people's
political power from below to resist and eventually overturn a fraudulent election."
Before coming to the NSC, one of McFaul's many positions at Stanford was co-director of the Iran Democracy Project. He has also
been active in such projects as the British Henry Jackson Society which is active in the drive to overthrow the government of Syria.
The Internet Dimension
The December 2011 street demonstrations in Moscow were organized largely online. Participation rose from a few hundred on Dec.
5, the day after the election, to an estimated 20,000 people on Bolotnaya Square Dec. 10, and somewhere in the wide range of 30,000
to 120,000 on Academician Sakharov Prospect Dec. 24.
Headlong expansion of Internet access and online social networking over the past three to five years has opened up a new dimension
of political-cultural warfare in Russia. An EIR investigation finds that British intelligence agencies involved in the current
attempts to destabilize Russia and, in their maximum version, overthrow Putin, have been working intensively to profile online activity
in Russia and find ways to expand and exploit it. Some of these projects are outsourced to think tanks in the U.S.A. and Canada,
but their center is Cambridge University in the U.K.-the heart of the British Empire, home of Bertrand Russell's systems analysis
and related ventures of the Cambridge Apostles.[4]
The scope of the projects goes beyond profiling, as can be seen in the Cambridge-centered network's interaction with Russian anti-corruption
crusader Alexei Navalny, a central figure in the December protest rallies.
While George Soros and his OSI prioritized building Internet access in the former Soviet Union starting two decades ago, as recently
as in 2008 British cyberspace specialists were complaining that the Internet was not yet efficient for political purposes in Russia.
Oxford University's Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism produced a Soros-funded report in 2008, titled "The Web that Failed:
How opposition politics and independent initiatives are failing on the Internet in Russia." The Oxford-Reuters authors regretted
that processes like the Orange Revolution, in which online connections were crucial, had not gotten a toehold in Russia. But they
quoted a 2007 report by Andrew Kuchins of the Moscow Carnegie Center, who found reason for optimism in the seven-fold increase in
Russian Internet (Runet) use from 2000 to 2007. They also cited Robert Orttung of American University and the Resource Security Institute,
on how Russian blogs were reaching "the most dynamic members of the youth generation" and could be used by "members of civil society"
to mobilize "liberal opposition groups and nationalists."
Scarcely a year later, a report by the digital marketing firm comScore crowed that booming Internet access had led to Russia's
having "the world's most engaged social networking audience." Russian Facebook use rose by 277% from 2008 to 2009. The Russia-based
social networking outfit Vkontakte.ru (like Facebook) had 14.3 million visitors in 2009; Odnoklassniki.ru (like Classmates.com) had
7.8 million; and Mail.ru-My World had 6.3 million. All three of these social networking sites are part of the Mail.ru/Digital Sky
Technologies empire of Yuri Milner,[5]
with the individual companies registered in the British Virgin Islands and other offshore locations.
The Cambridge Security Programme
Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that the Runet grew five times faster
than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08.
Two top profilers of the Runet are Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski, who assessed its status in their essay "Control and Subversion
in Russian Cyberspace."[6] At
the University of Toronto, Deibert is a colleague of Barry Wellman, co-founder of the International Network of Social Network Analysis
(INSNA).[7] Rohozinski is a
cyber-warfare specialist who ran the Advanced Network Research Group of the Cambridge Security Programme (CSP) at Cambridge University
in 2002-07. Nominally ending its work, the CSP handed off its projects to an array of organizations in the OpenNet Initiative (ONI),
including Rohozinski's SecDev Group consulting firm, which issues the Information Warfare Monitor.
The ONI, formally dedicated to mapping and circumventing Internet surveillance and filtering by governments, is a joint project
of Cambridge (Rohozinski), the Oxford Internet Institute, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, and
the University of Toronto.
Deibert and Rohozinski noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East,
in 2000-08. They cited official estimates that 38 million Russians were going online as of 2010, of whom 60 had broadband access
from home; the forecast number of Russia-based Runet users by 2012 was 80 million, out of a population of 140 million. Qualitatively,
the ONI authors welcomed what they called "the rise of the Internet to the center of Russian culture and politics." On the political
side, they asserted that "the Internet has eclipsed all the mass media in terms of its reach, readership, and especially in the degree
of free speech and opportunity to mobilize that it provides."
This notion of an Internet-savvy core of the population becoming the focal point of Russian society is now being hyped by those
who want to push the December demonstrations into a full-scale political crisis. Such writers call this segment of the population
"the creative class," or "the active creative minority," which can override an inert majority of the population. The Dec. 30 issue
of Vedomosti, a financial daily co-owned by the Financial Times of London, featured an article by sociologist Natalya
Zubarevich, which was then publicized in "Window on Eurasia" by Paul Goble, a State Department veteran who has concentrated for decades
on the potential for Russia to split along ethnic or other lines.
Zubarevich proposed that the 31% of the Russian population living in the 14 largest cities, of which 9 have undergone "post-industrial
transformation," constitute a special, influential class, as against the inhabitants of rural areas (38%) and mid-sized industrial
cities with an uncertain future (25%). Goble defined the big-city population as a target: "It is in this Russia that the 35 million
domestic users of the Internet and those who want a more open society are concentrated."
The Case of Alexei Navalny
In the "The Web that Failed" study, Oxford-Reuters authors Floriana Fossato, John Lloyd, and Alexander Verkhovsky delved into
the missing elements, in their view, of the Russian Internet. What would it take, they asked, for Runet participants to be able to
"orchestrate motivation and meaningful commitments"? They quoted Julia Minder of the Russian portal Rambler, who said about the potential
for "mobilization": "Blogs are at the moment the answer, but the issue is how to find a leading blogger who wants to meet people
on the Internet several hours per day. Leading bloggers need to be entertaining.... The potential is there, but more often than not
it is not used."
NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online "anti-corruption" activist and cult figure of the December
demonstrations. Addressing crowds on the street, Navalny sounds more like Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist
found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic. Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration
in Moscow.
It is difficult not to wonder if Alexei Navalny is a test-tube creation intended to fill the missing niche. This would not be
the first time in recent Russian history that such a thing happened. In 1990, future neoliberal "young reformers" Anatoli Chubais
and Sergei Vasilyev wrote a paper under International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) auspices, on the priorities
for reform in the Soviet Union. They stated that a certain personality was missing on the Soviet scene at that time: the wealthy
businessman. In their IIASA paper, Chubais and Vasilyev wrote: "We now see a figure, arising from historical non-existence: the figure
of a businessman-entrepreneur, who has enough capital to bear the investment responsibility, and enough technological knowledge and
willingness to support innovation."[8]
This type of person was subsequently brought into existence through the corrupt post-Soviet privatization process in Russia, becoming
known as "the oligarchs." Was Navalny, similarly, synthesized as a charismatic blogger to fill the British subversive need for "mobilization"?
Online celebrity Navalny's arrest in Moscow on Dec. 5, and his speech at the Academician Sakharov Prospect rally on Dec. 24 were
highlights of last month's turmoil in the Russian capital. Now 35 years old, Navalny grew up in a Soviet/Russian military family
and was educated as a lawyer. In 2006, he began to be financed by NED for the DA! project (see above). Along the way-maybe through
doing online day-trading, as some biographies suggest, or maybe from unknown benefactors-Navalny acquired enough money to be able
to spend $40,000 (his figure) on a few shares in each of several major Russian companies with a high percentage of state ownership.
This gave him minority-shareholder status, as a platform for his anti-corruption probes.
It must be understood that the web of "corruption" in Russia is the system of managing cash flows through payoffs, string-pulling,
and criminal extortion, which arose out of the boost that Gorbachov's perestroika policy gave to pre-existing Soviet criminal networks
in the 1980s. It then experienced a boom under darlings of London like Gaidar, who oversaw the privatization process known as the
Great Criminal Revolution in the 1990s. As Russia has been integrated into an international financial order, which itself relies
on criminal money flows from the dope trade and strategically motivated scams like Britain's BAE operations in the Persian Gulf,
the preponderance of shady activity in the Russian economy has only increased.
Putin's governments inherited this system, and it can be ended when the commitment to monetarism, which LaRouche has identified
as a fatal flaw even among genuinely pro-development Russians, is broken in Russia and worldwide. The current bankruptcy of the Trans-Atlantic
City of London-Eurozone-Wall Street system means that now is the time for this to happen!
Yale Fellows
In 2010, Navalny was accepted to the Yale World Fellows Program, as one of fewer than 20 approved candidates out of over a thousand
applicants. As EIR has reported, the Yale Fellows are instructed by the likes of British Foreign Office veteran Lord Mark
Malloch-Brown and representatives of Soros's Open Society Foundations.[9]
What's more, the World Fellows Program is funded by The Starr Foundation of Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, former chairman and CEO
of insurance giant American International Group (AIG), the recipient of enormous Bush Jr.-Obama bailout largesse in 2008-09; Greenberg
and his C.V. Starr company have a long record of facilitating "regime change" (aka coups), going back to the 1986 overthrow of President
Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. Navalny reports that Maria Gaidar told him to try for the program, and he enjoyed recommendations
from top professors at the New Economic School in Moscow, a hotbed of neoliberalism and mathematical economics. It was from
New Haven that Navalny launched his anti-corruption campaign against Transneft, the Russian national oil pipeline company, specifically
in relation to money movements around the new East Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline. The ESPO has just finished the first year of operation
of its spur supplying Russian oil to China.
Navalny presents a split personality to the public. Online he is "Mr. Openness." He posts the full legal documentation of his
corruption exposés. When his e-mail account was hacked, and his correspondence with U.S. Embassy and NED officials about funding
him was made public, Navalny acknowledged that the e-mails were genuine. He tries to disarm interviewers with questions like, "Do
you think I'm an American project, or a Kremlin one?"
During the early-January 2012 holiday lull in Russia, Navalny engaged in a lengthy, oh-so-civilized dialogue in Live Journal with
Boris Akunin (real name, Grigori Chkhartishvili), a famous detective-story author and liberal activist who was another leader of
the December demonstrations, about whether Navalny's commitment to the slogan "Russia for the Russians" marks him as a bigot who
is unfit to lead. Addressing crowds on the street, however, Navalny sounds like Mussolini. Prominent Russian columnist Maxim Sokolov,
writing in Izvestia, found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic.
Navalny may well end up being expendable in the view of his sponsors. In the meantime, it is clear that he is working from the
playbook of Gene Sharp, whose neurolinguistic programming and advertising techniques were employed in Ukraine's Orange Revolution
in 2004.[10] Sharp, a veteran
of "advanced studies" at Oxford and 30 years at Harvard's Center for International Affairs, is the author of The Politics of Nonviolent
Action: Power and Struggle, which advises the use of symbolic colors, short slogans, and so forth.
While at Yale, Navalny also served as an informant and advisor for a two-year study conducted at Harvard's Berkman Center for
Internet and Society, one of the institutions participating in the OpenNet Initiative, launched out of Cambridge University in the
U.K. The study produced a profile titled "Mapping the Russian Blogosphere," which detailed the different sections of the Runet: liberal,
nationalist, cultural, foreign-based, etc., looking at their potential social impact.
Allen Douglas, Gabrielle Peut, David Christie, and Dorothea Bunnell did research for this article.
[1] "Project Democracy:
The 'parallel government' behind the Iran-Contra affair," Washington, D.C.: EIR Research, Inc., 1987. This 341-page special report
explored the connection between the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the illegal gun-running operations of Col. Oliver
North, et al., which had been mentioned in cursory fashion in the Tower Commission report on that "Iran-Contra" scandal. Lyndon
H. LaRouche, Jr.'s introduction to the report identified the roots of North's "Irangate" gun-running in Henry A. Kissinger's reorganization
of U.S. intelligence under President Richard M. Nixon, in the wake of post-Watergate findings by the 1975 Senate Select Committee
to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (Church Committee). The process of replacing traditional
intelligence functions of government with National Security Council-centered operations, often cloaked as promoting ``democracy''
worldwide, was continued under the Trilateral Commission-created Administration of Jimmy Carter. Supporting ``democracy''--often
measured by such criteria as economic deregulation and extreme free-market programs, which ravage the populations that are supposedly
being democratized--became an axiom of U.S. foreign policy. The NED itself was founded in 1983.
[2] "Profile:
'Get
LaRouche' Taskforce: Train Salon's Cold War Propaganda Apparat,"EIR, Sept. 29, 2006, reviews the Truman-era roots
of relations among Anglo-American intelligence figures John Train, James Jesus Angleton, Jay Lovestone, and Leo Cherne, all of
whom were later active against LaRouche and his influence. Cherne's International Rescue Committee (IRC) was described by Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, its one-time director of public relations, as an instrument of "psychological warfare." The closely related
Freedom House project was directed by Cherne for many years. Geostrategists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has written that
Russia is destined to fragment as the Soviet Union did, have sat on its board.
[3] Stephen K. Wegren,
Dale Roy Herspring (eds.), After Putin's Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain, Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010,
p. 118.
[4] Craig Isherwood,
"Universal Principles vs. Sense Certainty," The New Citizen, October/November 2011, p. 12 (http://cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/cv7n6_pages12to14.pdf).
Founded as the Cambridge Conversazione Society in 1820, by Cambridge University professor and advisor to the British East India
Company, the Rev. Charles Simeon, the Apostles are a secret society limited to 12 members at a time. Its veterans have held strategic
intelligence posts for the British Empire, both in the heyday of overt colonialism, and in the continuing financial empire and
anti-science "empire of the mind," for nearly two centuries, during which Cambridge was the elite university in Britain, Trinity
College was the elite college within Cambridge, and the Apostles were the elite within Trinity. Isherwood reported, "Among other
doctrines, the Apostles founded: Fabian socialism; logical positivism specifically against physical chemistry; most of modern
psychoanalysis; all modern economic doctrines, including Keynesianism and post-World War II 'mathematical economics'; modern digital
computers and 'information theory'; and systems analysis. They also founded the world-famous Cavendish Laboratory as the controlling
priesthood for science, to attack Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann, in particular.... John Maynard Keynes, a leader of the Apostles,
... traced the intellectual traditions of the Apostles back to John Locke and Isaac Newton, and through Newton back to the ancient
priesthood of Babylon." The group's abiding focus on influencing Russia is exemplified by not only Bertrand Russell himself, but
also the involvement of several members of the Apostles, including Lord Victor Rothschild of the banking family, and future Keeper
of the Queen's Pictures Sir Anthony Blunt, in the Anglo-Soviet spy rings of the mid-20th Century.
[5] Billionaire Milner
is a self-described failed physicist. He worked for the World Bank on Russian banking issues in the 1990s, before making his fortune
as one of Russia's newly minted "oligarchs"-a business partner of now-jailed Mikhail Khodorkovsky in the Menatep banking group,
among other projects.
[6] In Access Controlled:
The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace, an OpenNet Initiative (ONI) book, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2010.
[8] Anatoliy Chubais
and Sergei A. Vasiliev, "Privatization in the USSR: Necessary for Structural Change," in Economic Reform and Integration: Proceedings
of 1-3 March 1990 Meeting, Laxenberg, Austria: IIASA, July 1990. The authors' notion of a charismatic businessman-entrepreneur
comes straight from Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter who coined the term Unternehmergeist, or "entrepreneur-spirit,"
to describe people he called agents of "creative destruction."
"... In Kushner, Inc. , investigative journalist Vicky Ward digs beneath the myth the couple has created, depicting themselves as the voices of reason in an otherwise crazy presidency, and reveals that Jared and Ivanka are not just the President's chief enablers: they, like him, appear disdainful of rules, of laws, and of ethics. ..."
"... They are entitled inheritors of the worst kind; their combination of ignorance, arrogance, and an insatiable lust for power has caused havoc all over the world ..."
"... In Kushner, Inc. , Ward holds Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump accountable: she unveils the couple's self-serving transactional motivations and how those have propelled them into the highest levels of the US government where no one, the President included, has been able to stop them. ..."
Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are the self-styled Prince and Princess of America. Their
swift, gilded rise to extraordinary power in Donald Trump's White House is unprecedented and
dangerous.
In Kushner, Inc. , investigative journalist Vicky Ward digs beneath the myth
the couple has created, depicting themselves as the voices of reason in an otherwise crazy
presidency, and reveals that Jared and Ivanka are not just the President's chief enablers:
they, like him, appear disdainful of rules, of laws, and of ethics.
They are entitled
inheritors of the worst kind; their combination of ignorance, arrogance, and an insatiable lust
for power has caused havoc all over the world, and may threaten the democracy of the United
States.
Ward follows their trajectory from New Jersey and New York City to the White House, where
the couple's many forays into policy-making and national security have mocked long-standing
U.S. policy and protocol. They have pursued an agenda that could increase their wealth while
their actions have mostly gone unchecked.
In Kushner, Inc. , Ward holds Jared Kushner
and Ivanka Trump accountable: she unveils the couple's self-serving transactional motivations
and how those have propelled them into the highest levels of the US government where no one,
the President included, has been able to stop them.
To paraphrase the author, on the dangerous scale, Jared & Ivanka are #1 & #2 with
Donald Trump, as terrible as he is, coming in at #3. Imagine that. While Donald Trump is
acting out, getting all of the attention, these two are like sharks below the surface,
making policy in the Middle East in order to make the Saudi's happy and being paid
personally & handsomely for that policy". It's like Donald Trump is running cover for
Jared & Ivanka. The biggest question remains. How much longer is the Republican Party
going to allow this kind of nepotism and corruption to continue?
Inside the Kushner pompousness. Vicky did a great job showing how dangerous these two
ignorant no nothing people are ruining our democracy. A must read.
amazing, simply amazing. You need to watch this Town Hall in full to appreciate the skills she demonstrated in defense of
her principles. What a fearless young lady.
And this CNN warmonger, a prostitute of MIC was/is pretty devious. Question were selected with malice to hurt Tulsi and people who
ask them were definitely pre-selected with an obvious intent to smear Tulsi. In no way those were spontaneous question. This was a session
of Neocon//Neolib inquisition. Tulsi behaves like a modern Joan of Arc
From comments: "People need to donate to Tulsi Gabbard for president so she is allowed on the DNC sponsored debate stages. 65000
unique donors required to be in the debates. Donation can be as small as $1 if you can't afford $25"(mrfuzztone)
Notable quotes:
"... Braver then 99.9% of all men in power. They just enjoy watching the blood sports they create for profit. Looks like people are starting to get fed up with the show. About time ..."
"... WE CURRENTLY HAVE A CRONY CAPITALIST PYRAMID SCHEME AND CNN PLAYS IT'S PART TO KEEP THAT SYSTEM IN PLACE ..."
"... I'm 66, a Progressive formerly from Boston where we eat and breathe politics and I'll tell you... never in my life have I seen a Democratic candidate like this fearless young woman who will simultaneously attract veterans AND anti-war folks AND moderate Republicans AND youth. NO OTHER CANDIDATE CAN DO THIS. My absolute belief is that if Tulsi's not on the ticket... Trump wins. Sorry Bernie, this time I'm going with Tulsi. ..."
Braver then 99.9% of all men in power. They just enjoy watching the blood sports they create for profit. Looks like people
are starting to get fed up with the show. About time✌️ 😉
I'm 66, a Progressive formerly from Boston where we eat and breathe politics and I'll tell you... never in my life have
I seen a Democratic candidate like this fearless young woman who will simultaneously attract veterans AND anti-war folks AND moderate
Republicans AND youth. NO OTHER CANDIDATE CAN DO THIS. My absolute belief is that if Tulsi's not on the ticket... Trump wins.
Sorry Bernie, this time I'm going with Tulsi.
Tulsi handled these hacks like a pro LOOL Are you a capitalist? LOL What s stupid question.....CCN usually stacks there town
halls with corporate cronies. I bet Bernie picks her for a high position in his government.
People need to donate to Tulsi Gabbard for president so she is allowed on the DNC sponsored debate stages. 65000 unique donors
required to be in the debates. Donation can be as small as $1 if you can't afford $25.
In the latest blow to both Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration, the WSJ reported
overnight that Federal prosecutors and Department of Transportation officials are scrutinizing
the development of Boeing 737 MAX jetliners and in particular its anti-stall (MCAS) system,
inquiries described as "unusual" and which come amid probes of regulators' safety approvals of
the new plane.
The Seattle Times separately reported that Boeing's safety analysis of a new flight control
system on 737 MAX jets had several crucial flaws.
According to
the WSJ , a "grand jury in Washington, D.C., issued a broad subpoena dated March 11 - a day
after the Ethiopian Airlines crash a week ago - to at least one person involved in the 737
MAX's development, seeking related documents, including correspondence, emails and other
messages." The subpoena, with a prosecutor from the Justice Department's criminal division
listed as a contact, sought documents to be handed over later this month.
It wasn't immediately clear if the Justice Department's probe is related to scrutiny of the
FAA by the DOT inspector general's office, reported earlier Sunday by The Wall Street Journal
and that focuses on a safety system that has been implicated in the Oct. 29 Lion Air crash that
killed 189 people, according to a government official briefed on its status. Aviation
authorities are looking into whether the anti-stall system may have played a role in last
week's Ethiopian Airlines crash, which killed all 157 people on board . The WSJ sources add
that the inspector general's inquiry focuses on ensuring relevant documents and computer files
are retained.
The Justice Department probe involves a prosecutor in the fraud section of the department's
criminal division, a unit that has brought cases against well-known manufacturers over safety
issues, including Takata Corp.
The news comes at a sensitive time for both the FAA, which was among the last regulators to
ground the 737 Max following a broad global response (led by China) and for Boeing, whose stock
has tumbled in the aftermath of the latest crash, and as the WSJ notes, "it is highly unusual
for federal prosecutors to investigate details of regulatory approval of commercial aircraft
designs, or to use a criminal probe to delve into dealings between the FAA and the largest
aircraft manufacturer the agency oversees."
Probes of airliner programs or alleged lapses in federal safety oversight typically are
handled as civil cases, often by the DOT inspector general. The inspector general, however,
does have authority to make criminal referrals to federal prosecutors and has its own special
agents.
Ironically, over the years, U.S. aviation companies and airline officials have been sharply
critical of foreign governments, including France, South Korea and others, for conducting
criminal probes of some plane makers, their executives and in some cases, even individual
pilots, after high-profile or fatal crashes. The FAA's current enforcement policy stresses
enhanced cooperation with domestic airlines and manufacturers -- featuring voluntary sharing of
important safety data -- instead of seeking fines or imposing other punishment.
News of the U.S. government scrutiny comes shortly after Ethiopia's transport minister,
Dagmawit Moges, said there were "clear similarities" between the two crashes. U.S. officials
cautioned that it was too early to draw conclusions because data from the black boxes of the
Ethiopian Airlines plane still need to be analyzed. The two crashes - which may be linked to
the same structural defect on the airliner - have sparked the biggest crisis Boeing has faced
in about two decades, threatening sales of a plane model that has been the aircraft giant's
most stable revenue source and potentially making it more time consuming and difficult to get
future aircraft designs certified as safe to fly.
The FAA said Sunday that the 737 MAX, which entered service in 2017, was approved to carry
passengers as part of the agency's "standard certification process," including design
analyses; ground and flight tests; maintenance requirements; and cooperation with other civil
aviation authorities. Agency officials in the past have declined to comment on various
decisions regarding specific systems. Sunday's statement said the agency's "certification
processes are well established and have consistently produced safe aircraft."
Earlier, a Boeing spokesman said: "The 737 MAX was certified in accordance with the
identical FAA requirements and processes that have governed certification of all previous new
airplanes and derivatives. The FAA considered the final configuration and operating parameters
of MCAS during MAX certification, and concluded that it met all certification and regulatory
requirements."
Boeing Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg said in a statement Sunday the company continues to
support the Ethiopian investigation, "and is working with the authorities to evaluate new
information as it becomes available." Muilenburg added: "As part of our standard practice
following any accident, we examine our aircraft design and operation, and when appropriate,
institute product updates to further improve safety."
Governments world-wide have grounded the MAX, an updated version of the decades-old 737,
while investigators and engineers seek clues.
And so, as 737 Max scrutiny grows and as Boeing and the FAA now seek to deflect increased
government attention to one another - Boeing stock is once again tumbling, and is down 3% in
premarket trading...
How the Boeing 737 Max grounding and the Genoa
bridge collapse show us that allowing companies to self-certify the safety of their products can be deadly
On
Wednesday the United States joined 42 other countries in grounding Boeing's 737 Max 8 jets, days after a crash
in Ethiopia of a 737 Max 8 jet left 157 people dead. The United States was a holdout, taking days longer to
ground the planes than most of Europe. Our Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said, in those days between,
that they weren't grounding the planes because "
the
agency's own reviews of the aircraft show no 'systematic performance issues.'
"
There were some conflicting accounts of exactly how
the US came to ground the 737 Max 8. A
statement from Boeing
on Wednesday read that "Boeing has determined -- out of an abundance of caution and in
order to reassure the flying public of the aircraft's safety --
to
recommend to the FAA the temporary suspension of operations
of the entire global fleet of 371 737 MAX
aircraft."
In other words, Boeing claimed it was their idea /
recommendation that the FAA ground the aircraft. Meanwhile, Donald Trump declared that he grounded the aircraft
by executive order, forcing the FAA's hand.
Which begs the question -- why did it take a
presidential decree and/or the company itself to get the FAA, the main agency responsible for overseeing
airplane transit in the United States, to ground potentially dangerous aircraft?
As James Hall, the former National Transportation
Safety Board chairman,
explained in the Times
, in 2005 the FAA turned its safety certification responsibilities over to the
manufacturers themselves (if manufacturers met some requirements). In plain speak, this means that Boeing got
to decide if Boeing's airplanes were safe enough to fly -- with no additional third-party checks.
The FAA said the purpose of this change was to
save the aviation industry roughly $25 billion
between
2006 to 2015.
Given this, it makes you wonder if the statement on
Tuesday by Acting FAA Administrator Daniel K. Elwell -- that the agency had conducted its own review -- was
factual, or if the agency had simply reviewed the safety review that Boeing had conducted on itself. It also
clarifies why Boeing came to recommend to the FAA that their planes be grounded, rather than the FAA taking any
decisive action on their own.
The term for this maze, where a government safety
agency allows an industry to regulate itself so the industry can
save some
money
, and where the industry itself has to be the one to recommend to government that their product
shouldn't be in operation pending investigation, is
regulatory
capture
.
From Wikipedia
: "Regulatory capture is a form of government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency,
created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special
interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating."
The issue, in short, is that it is rarely in a
business' self-interest to ensure the absolute safety of their products. Safety testing takes time, money, and
if inspections reveal problems that need fixing, more money. Corporations are profit maximizers and pursue
whatever method they need to minimize cost (including minimizing fixing flaws in their products) and maximize
profit.
Without the threat of outside inspection or serious
repercussions, there are few incentives to fix potential problems. Insurance covers accidents, and most
mega-corporations have funds set aside in their operating budgets to pay the (generally small, relative to
their operating budgets) fines governments may impose if and when a problem is discovered.
This is why it is unlikely that industry will ever
sufficiently regulate itself on safety issues.
Remember Edward Norton's job in "Fight Club"?
"The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now,
should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A. Multiply it by the probable rate of
failure, B. Multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A x B x C equals X. If X is less
than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
The United States isn't alone in turning over
self-certification of its transportation and infrastructure to industry. The Genoa Bridge Collapse in Italy
last year, in which 43 people died, is another case.
The
Morandi Bridge is a privately-owned toll bridge, publicly built but later sold off to Autostrade, a company
majority owned by the Benetton clothing family. As a private infrastructure company, Autostrade has a profit
maximization goal of keeping bridge maintenance costs low and toll profits high. Thanks to further
privatization efforts of the Italian government, the
safety and inspection
of bridges
is also conducted by private companies. In the case of the Morandi Bridge, the inspection
company responsible for safety checks and certification of the bridge was owned by Autostrade's parent company,
leaving the company that owns the bridge to self-certify its
safety.
The result, as the world saw, was a bridge that collapsed.
As Texas engineer Linwood Howell
said in the Times,
"the engineers inspecting the bridge would have their own professional liabilities to
worry about, including the profits of the company that was paying them," i.e. a clear conflict of interest
between maintaining basic safety and ensuring their own jobs.
Meanwhile, as Italian law professor Giuliano
Fonderico
noted
, "the government behaved more like its first priority was cooperating with Autostrade, rather than
regulating it."
George Stigler, who received the Nobel Peace Prize
in Economics
in part for his work around regulatory capture
in 1982, believed that it was likely that industry would
come to dictate the regulatory issues within their industries because of personal connections, a greater
understanding of issues facing industry than the general public, but mostly, a public ignorance around what
their regulators are up to.
Perhaps it is time for people to pay
a little more attention to what our regulators, who we pay to protect us from bridge collapses and plane
crashes, are up to. There are some
people with big ideas on fixes
for regulatory capture, but public demand will also need to exist for real
reform efforts to take place.
Rubble aftermath of a Saudi airstrike on a Yemeni neighborhood in 2015.
Almigdad Mojalli/Voice of America The Wall Street Journal echoes Pompeo's
obnoxious Yemen
lies in their editorial on the antiwar resolution that the Senate passed last week:
The Saudis aren't in danger of an Iranian invasion, but don't underestimate the signal
that abandoning our ally would send across the Middle East. It will be seen by Iran and
Russia as an invitation to more trouble-making, and another signal to allies that the U.S.
can't be trusted. More war is the likeliest result.
There is no foreign war so despicable and unjust that The Wall Street Journal won't
defend it to the end. It is telling that the WSJ editors don't talk about the war on
Yemen until Congress moves to try to withdraw the U.S. from it. The massive humanitarian crisis
that threatens the lives of as many as 15 million Yemenis doesn't concern them (and it never
comes up in this editorial), because if they mentioned it that would remind everyone that the
Saudi coalition bears the greatest responsibility for causing mass starvation and creating the
conditions for the world's worst modern cholera outbreak. The U.S. has not only been enabling
Saudi war crimes in its bombing campaign, but our government has also been helping to create
the world's worst humanitarian crisis through our unstinting support for the war. The editorial
omits all of this because including it would show how breathtakingly cynical and horrible the
pro-war argument is. War supporters never acknowledge the consequences of the destructive
policies they defend because they know it would discredit them, and so they try to change the
subject to anything else. In this case, war supporters have been desperate to make the Yemen
debate about Iran because they cannot honestly talk about the costs of the conflict or the U.S.
role in it.
Saudi Arabia is not an ally of the United States, and our government isn't obliged to
support them in a military intervention they chose to begin along with the United Arab Emirates
without consulting Washington. The U.S. certainly isn't obliged to indulge them in their failed
war of choice almost four years later. The war has become a drain on Saudi and Emirati
resources, and it has exposed them as weak, cruel, and incompetent as they have devastated
Yemen's infrastructure, starved its people, and failed achieved any of their stated goals. No
one should care about doing these despotic governments any favors, but forcing them to end
their war would be doing them a favor all the same. If the U.S. were perceived as abandoning
the Saudis by halting support for their war, that would be guaranteed to improve our country's
reputation around the world rather than harm it. The U.S.-Saudi relationship is a liability and
an embarrassment for our country, and the sooner we are rid of it in its current form the
better it will be for us and the region.
Supporters of the war on Yemen have no rational argument for continued U.S. involvement, and
so they are reduced to changing the subject from the war criminal states that the U.S. aids and
abets to the Iranian government that has almost nothing to do with the conflict. Ending U.S.
support for the war would be a "gift" to Iran, the WSJ editors tell us, as if four years
of keeping the Saudis and Emiratis bogged down in a war they cannot win has done anything to
harm Iran or curtail its influence in the region. The lie at the heart of the war on Yemen is
that it has something to do with opposing so-called Iranian "expansionism," but it is the war
itself that has done more for Iranian influence in Yemen than anything else. The longer that
the U.S. enables the Saudi coalition to continue its senseless and indefensible campaign, the
better it is for the Saudis' and Emiratis' rivals. Iran hawks are always wrong about what
benefits Iran's government and what harms it, and this is no exception.
The editorial's comparison between last week's vote and Congressional opposition to
continued involvement in the Vietnam War is unintentionally revealing and damning for their
side. Just like supporters of the Vietnam War, supporters of the war on Yemen are defending a
war that can't be won in a place where the U.S. should never have been involved. In this case,
war supporters are squarely on the side of the aggressors, and in their continued backing for
this disgraceful policy they show their utter contempt for the lives of the people of
Yemen.
Mitchell A. Orenstein
Authoritarian nationalists such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán win support not only by attacking
immigrants, but also by delivering economic policies that benefit the poor and middle class. Western analysts and,
more important, Western leaders need to learn this lesson before it's too late.
On March 20, the European People's Party, the conservative bloc
in the European Parliament, will decide whether to expel Hungary's ruling party, Fidesz. The EPP has been slow to
censure Fidesz and Hungary's autocratic prime minister, Viktor Orbán, for its assault on democracy and rule of
law. Yet, Orbán's Western critics have been equally slow to understand the social and economic policies that
underpin his popularity.
Consider the
bold set of
family policies
that Orbán announced on February 10. So far, the verdict in the West on these policies, which
are aimed at addressing the country's low fertility rate and further reducing immigration, has been thunderously
negative and all but blind to their effectiveness in entrenching Orbán's support among Hungarian voters.
Western analysts fail to recognize that authoritarian
nationalists such as Orbán win support not only by attacking immigrants, but also by delivering economic policies
that benefit average people. Mainstream political parties in the West need to learn this economic lesson fast if
they want to compete against their own populist challengers.
Orbán is keen to connect his nationalist message to generous
and popular social policies, while encouraging Hungarian women and families to have more children. Hungary's
current fertility rate of
1.45 children per
female
is below replacement rate. And its population has been shrinking since 1989, mirroring declines in
other former communist countries that used to provide extensive social support to families.
The plan's centerpiece is a lifetime exemption from personal
income tax for women who bear and raise four or more children (Orbán and his wife have five). This and other
policies in the new package will have a real impact on all families in Hungary. Women under 40 who marry for the
first time and have worked for at least three years will be eligible for a $36,000 "childbearing" loan at a
discounted rate, which will be forgiven as they have children. Larger families can apply for an $9,000 government
grant toward the purchase of a seven-seat automobile. Grandparents taking care of children will be eligible for
leave from work and benefits. And the government will create 21,000 new subsidized childcare places.
Leading Western media, analysts, and politicians have been
almost universally critical of the plan, thereby falling right into Orbán's trap.
The Economist
, a
longtime advocate of the free-market economic policies that have impoverished many in Eastern Europe while
producing great wealth for a few and higher living standards for a middle-class
minority
,
predictably criticized
Orbán's plan for being too expensive. The new measures are "unlikely to give birth to a
baby boom" and could "swell an economy that is close to overheating, and inflate house prices."
Subscribe now
For a limited time only, get unlimited access to On Point, The Big Picture, and the PS Archive, plus
our annual magazine, for less than $2 a week.
SUBSCRIBE
Journalist Adam Taylor echoed these sentiments in
The
Washington Post
,
arguing that
Orbán's policies will "barely move the needle on birthrate and may represent a poor return on
investment." We have heard this same Western critique for decades: helping people is too expensive and does not
work, paying for houses will only make them pricier, and it's better to rely on markets than on public policies.
But Orbán's critics ignore the examples of Poland and Russia,
which also have implemented natalist policies in recent years. Russia's fertility rate is up to 1.75 children per
female, from a low of 1.17 in 1999, partly owing to a
grant program
for new parents. Poland, too, has achieved higher birth rates since 2015 after introducing the
massive
Family 500+ initiative
, which enables parents to pay for school supplies, clothes, and vacations. Both schemes
were criticized as being too expensive, but Poland's public deficit has
fallen
, not risen. Rather,
these policies have stimulated economic growth while dramatically
reducing child poverty
and increasing
school enrollment.
Although free-market attacks on bold new social programs are no
surprise, some of the sharpest criticism of Orbán's policies has come from the left. Progressives strongly dislike
the fact that many of his proposals target women in a way that seems to advance a conservative, pro-family agenda.
To
The Guardian
's Afua Hirsch,
for example
, "the idea that assistance for those in poverty is conditional on obedient reproduction is verging
on the dystopian." Similarly, Princeton professor Kim Lane Scheppele, interviewed on
Public Radio
International
,
warned
that, "Women are going to bear the burden of Orbán's failed economic policies." And Swedish Social
Affairs Minister Annika Strandhäll
said
that, "This kind of policy will harm the autonomy for which women have struggled for decades."
These analysts are right that Orbán's policies are designed to
encourage women to marry, buy houses, bear more children, and stay in Hungary. But their criticism misses the mark
in important ways. Overall, these proposals are not coercive. Nor do they seek to keep women barefoot and
homebound. Instead, Orbán's plan is designed to help women manage their work-life balance. For that, it should be
celebrated, not excoriated.
Consider the lifetime income-tax exemption for women with four
or more children. The primary beneficiaries of this program will be women who work, because those with no income
will gain no advantage. In two-parent families where both partners have similar or equal earning potential, it may
make sense for the woman to work tax-free, or run the family business, while the man stays at home with the
children.
Likewise, giving grandparents childrearing benefits helps women
to enter the labor force. So does subsidized childcare. And although the new loan programs do encourage women to
have children, they also may enable them to buy a home. In short, these policies provide state support for women's
unpaid labor.
Like it or not, some of Europe's boldest new social-policy
initiatives are coming from its most illiberal governments. The negative reactions of mainstream opinion leaders
in the West show how unprepared they are to do battle with Orbán and others for voters' hearts and minds. The
populist right is pressing the rhetoric and policies of social democracy into the service of authoritarian
nationalism. If the West cannot see or understand the appeal of this, it will be unable to fight back.
A newly declassified US intelligence memo has been unearthed this week and featured in a bombshell
Wall
Street Journal
report. It proves that the year prior to the Bush administration's 2003
invasion of Iraq the White House was expressly warned in great detail of all that could and would
go wrong in the regime change war's aftermath, including
the Sunni-Shia sectarian chaos and
proxy war with Iran
that would define Iraq and the whole region for years following. And
crucially, it reveals that seven months
before
the US invasion of Iraq, American
intelligence officials understood that
Osama bin Laden was likely "alive and well and
hiding in northwest Pakistan"
--
important given that a key Bush
admin claim to sell the war was that Saddam Hussein and bin Laden were
"in league"
against the
United States.
The
July 2002 memo
was authored by William Burns, then serving as assistant secretary of state for near eastern
affairs, and though clearly dismissed by the Bush neocons making the case for war, proved prescient
on many levels.
"Following are some very quick and informal thoughts on how events before,
during and after an effort to overthrow the regime in Baghdad could unravel if we're not careful,
intersecting to create
a 'perfect storm'
for American interests,"
Burns wrote
in the memo, classified 'Secret' and sent to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
The classified memo's existence was first brought to the public's attention through
Knight Ridder's reporting
in July 2003, which sought to reveal at the time there were pockets
of dissenting voices in the State Department and intelligence community pushing back against the
absurd White House claim that the whole operation would be a
"cakewalk"
and US troops would be greeted as "liberators". And there's Vice President Dick Cheney's infamous
declaration that the military effort
would take
"weeks rather than months."
Now, sixteen years after the start of the war the "perfect storm" intel briefing has been made
public in fully redacted form and it affirms, as the
WSJ reports
, "Diplomats accurately forecast many setbacks:
sectarian violence, attacks
on U.S. troops, Iranian intervention and long road to structural change
." Out of this came
the rise of ISIS and the continued unleashing of regime change and sectarian chaos on neighboring
Syria.
The ten page memo outlines a litany of
catastrophic doom and gloom scenarios
resulting from the invasion which would destabilize not only Iraq, but
unleash sectarian
hell on the entire region
.
Here are but a handful of the memo's many warnings which later proved right on target, as
summarized by the military reporting website
Task
& Purpose
:
Iran increasing aid to anti-American groups in both Iraq and Afghanistan because it
feared being "next on US hit list."
Security in Iraq collapsing following regime change because Iraqi troops and police would
be too afraid to patrol while Iraqis aligned with the United States would prove to be inept.
U.S. troops coming under increasing attacks as they patrol both Shiite and Sunni cities.
"If they intervene to stop disputes, they are perceived to have sided with one party or
another in a tribal dispute, thus incurring the wrath of the opposing party."
Afghanistan's security situation simultaneously deteriorating, creating the need for more
U.S. troops there.
"Carpetbaggers, bill collectors, expats and exiles," arriving in Iraq. "It will be a wild
mix."
"I don't mean to be pessimistic, because I really do believe that if we do it right this could
be a tremendous boon to the future of the region, and to U.S. national security interests," the
memo stated. "But we should have no illusion that it will be quick or easy."
And further contradicting Cheney's "weeks rather than months" claim, the memo accurately
predicted that U.S. troops would have to stay for,
"Five years – maybe four if we're lucky,
ten if we're not."
Some further interesting highlights from the July 2002 'Secret' report are below.
* * *
Osama bin Laden hiding in Pakistan
(the Bush admin claimed Saddam
and bin Laden were in cahoots)
"Osama bin Laden turns out to be alive and well and hiding in NW Pakistan. We press Paks,
internal stresses grow in Pakistan."
Iran and Syria targeted next
"Following US warnings that it would take the war on terrorism to all groups with global
capabilities, Iran and Syria hold summit meeting, decide US has targeted them."
Iran and Syria "strengthen positions in face of perceived US threat against them following
action in Iraq."
Sectarian score settling and Shia uprising
"This means night becomes the time for revenge, all over Iraq. A horrible wave of bloodletting
and private vengeance begins... US forces are helpless to stop the countrywide phenomenon. Police,
intelligence, senior military, and Baath Party officials effectively go into hiding..."
"Shia religious and political leaders, unhappy with composition of provisional government and
determined to secure greater share of power in post-Saddam Iraq... This leads to more violent
confrontations, and deaths, and the riots become a political tool to demonstrate power and increase
leverage against Sunnis and Kurds..."
Long US quagmire to put down sectarian powder keg
"Faced with inchoate and escalating disorder in the provinces, the US faces an agonizing
decision: step up to a more direct security role, or devolve power to local leaders."
"The Shia in the south, quietly aided by Iran, stage major revolt, taking over local government
offices and killing interim officials."
Weapons from Saddam's army will disappear (to be later used against US occupation)
"Law and Order, collecting weapons. We won't get them, most will go to ground."
"All for one, one for all, free for all - deals, short-term scrambles. It will be every clan for
itself."
"... As investigative journalist Uri Friedman puts it, for more than 15 years now, the United States has been fighting terrorism with a credit card , "essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan." ..."
"... For decades, the DoD's leaders and accountants have been perpetrating a gigantic, unconstitutional accounting fraud, deliberately cooking the books to mislead the Congress and drive the DoD's budgets ever higher, regardless of military necessity ..."
"... That price gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire is a sad statement on how little control "we the people" have over our runaway government. ..."
Our nation is being preyed upon by a military industrial complex that is propped up by war
profiteers, corrupt politicians and foreign governments.
America has so much to offer -- creativity, ingenuity, vast natural resources, a rich
heritage, a beautifully diverse populace, a freedom foundation unrivaled anywhere in the world,
and opportunities galore -- and yet our birthright is being sold out from under us so that
power-hungry politicians, greedy military contractors, and bloodthirsty war hawks can make a
hefty profit at our expense.
Don't be fooled into thinking that your hard-earned tax dollars are being used for national
security and urgent military needs.
It's all a ruse.
You know what happens to tax dollars that are left over at the end of the government's
fiscal year? Government agencies -- including the Department of Defense -- go on a "use it or
lose it" spending spree so they can justify asking for money in the next fiscal year.
According to an investigative report by Open the Government, among the items purchased
during the last month of the fiscal year when government agencies go all out to get rid of
these "use it or lose it" funds: Wexford Leather club chair ($9,241), china tableware
($53,004), alcohol ($308,994), golf carts ($673,471), musical equipment including pianos,
tubas, and trombones ($1.7 million), lobster tail and crab ($4.6
million) , iPhones and iPads ($7.7 million), and workout and recreation equipment ($9.8
million).
Anyone who suggests that the military needs more money is either criminally clueless or
equally corrupt, because the military isn't suffering from lack of funding -- it's suffering
from lack of proper oversight.
Rest assured, however, that if Trump gets his way -- to the tune of a
$4.7 trillion budget that digs the nation deeper in debt to foreign creditors, adds
$750 billion for the
military budget , and
doubles the debt growth that Trump once promised to erase -- the war profiteers (and
foreign banks who "own" our debt) will be raking in a fortune while America goes belly up.
This is basic math, and the numbers just don't add up.
As it now stands, the U.S. government is operating in the negative on every front: it's
spending far more than what it makes (and takes from the American taxpayers) and it is
borrowing heavily ( from foreign governments
and Social Security ) to keep the government operating and keep funding
its endless wars abroad .
Certainly, nothing about the way the government budgets its funds puts America's needs
first.
The nation's educational system is pathetic (young people are learning nothing about their
freedoms or their government). The infrastructure is antiquated and growing more outdated by
the day. The health system is overpriced and inaccessible to those who need it most. The
supposedly robust economy is belied by the daily
reports of businesses shuttering storefronts and declaring bankruptcy. And our so-called
representative government is a sham.
If this is a formula for making America great again, it's not working.
The White House wants taxpayers to accept that the only way to reduce the nation's
ballooning deficit is by cutting "entitlement" programs such as Social Security and Medicare,
yet the glaring economic truth is that at the end of the day, it's the military industrial
complex -- and not the sick, the elderly or the poor -- that is pushing America towards
bankruptcy.
We have become a debtor nation , and the
government is sinking us deeper into debt with every passing day that it allows the military
industrial complex to call the shots.
Simply put, the government cannot afford to maintain its over-extended military empire.
To be clear, the U.S government's defense spending is about one thing and one thing only:
establishing and maintaining a global military empire.
Although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world's population, America boasts almost
50% of
the world's total military expenditure , spending
more on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations combined.
The American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its
breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.
Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent
government officials, America's expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate
of more than $32 million
per hour .
The U.S. government is spending money it doesn't have on a military empire it can't
afford.
As investigative journalist Uri Friedman puts it, for more than 15 years now, the United
States has been fighting
terrorism with a credit card , "essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of
purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local
governments, and by countries like China and Japan."
For decades, the DoD's leaders and accountants have been perpetrating a gigantic,
unconstitutional accounting fraud, deliberately cooking the books to mislead the Congress and
drive the DoD's budgets ever higher, regardless of military necessity. DoD has literally been
making up numbers in its annual financial reports to Congress -- representing trillions
of dollars' worth of seemingly nonexistent transactions -- knowing that Congress would rely
on those misleading reports when deciding how much money to give the DoD the following
year.
Unfortunately, the outlook isn't much better for the spending that can be tracked.
A government audit found that defense contractor Boeing has been massively overcharging
taxpayers for mundane parts, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in overspending. As
the report noted, the American
taxpayer paid :
$71 for a metal pin that should cost just 4 cents; $644.75 for a small gear smaller than a
dime that sells for $12.51: more than a 5,100 percent increase in price. $1,678.61 for another
tiny part, also smaller than a dime, that could have been bought within DoD for $7.71: a 21,000
percent increase. $71.01 for a straight, thin metal pin that DoD had on hand, unused by the
tens of thousands, for 4 cents: an increase of over 177,000 percent.
That price
gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire is a
sad statement on how little control "we the people" have over our runaway government.
Mind you, this isn't just corrupt behavior. It's deadly, downright immoral behavior.
The U.S. government is not making the world any safer. It's making the world more dangerous.
It is estimated that the U.S. military
drops a bomb somewhere in the world every 12 minutes . Since 9/11, the United States
government has directly contributed to the deaths of around 500,000. Every one of those deaths
was paid for with taxpayer funds.
Those who call the shots in the government -- those who push the military industrial
complex's agenda -- those who make a killing by embroiling the U.S. in foreign wars -- have not
heeded Johnson's warning.
The U.S. government is not making American citizens any safer . The repercussions of
America's military empire have been deadly, not only for those innocent men, women and children
killed by drone strikes abroad but also those here in the United States.
The transformation of America into a battlefield is blowback.
All of this carnage is being carried out with the full support of the American people, or at
least with the proxy that is our taxpayer dollars.
The government is destabilizing the economy, destroying
the national infrastructure through neglect and a lack of resources, and turning taxpayer
dollars into blood money with its endless wars, drone strikes and mounting death tolls.
As Martin Luther King Jr. recognized, under a military empire, war and its profiteering will
always take precedence over the people's basic human needs.
Similarly, President Dwight Eisenhower warned us not to let the profit-driven war machine
endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the
final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not
clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its
laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern
heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power
plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half
million bushels of wheat. We
pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it
is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [ ] Is there no other way the world may live?"
We failed to heed Eisenhower's warning.
The illicit merger of the armaments industry and the government that Eisenhower warned
against has come to represent perhaps the greatest threat to the nation today.
It's not sustainable, of course.
Eventually, inevitably, military empires fall and fail by spreading themselves too thin and
spending themselves to death.
As long as "we the people" continue to allow the government to wage its costly, meaningless,
endless wars abroad, the American homeland will continue to suffer: our roads will crumble, our
bridges will fail, our schools will fall into disrepair, our drinking water will become
undrinkable, our communities will destabilize, our economy will tank, crime will rise, and our
freedoms will suffer.
So who will save us?
As I make clear in my book, Battlefield
America: The War on the American People , we'd better start saving ourselves: one by one,
neighbor to neighbor, through grassroots endeavors, by pushing back against the police state
where it most counts -- in our communities first and foremost, and by holding fast to what
binds us together and not allowing politics and other manufactured nonrealities to tear us
apart.
Start today. Start now. Do your part.
Literally and figuratively, the buck starts and stops with "we the people."
When we should be paying our seniors a generous amount of social security and pensions to
people who earned them, we are paying illegals and their kids to come to America and act like
parasites. Our children will be debt slaves because of Congress.
We are also paying trillions to the MIC and three letter agencies with absolutely no
oversight. We pay hundreds of thousands of totally useless government employees including the
military and over a 1000 bases on foreign soil.
Eisenhower warned against letting the MIC take control of the country.
What is weird, you spend that money on infrastructure, which would substantially improve
the economy through gained efficiencies and you can afford to waste it but if you waste it,
you can not spend it on infrastructure to be able to afford to burn it, blow it up, fire it
or just plain dump it.
Well, it is pretty clear, from the screams of the insiders, the reform is coming and they
know it. The louder the rants of screams of the establishment, the closer they are to
losing.
Look at what they do, they kill people for profit, if they could silence us by killing us,
they would, they can not, they have already lost, now it is just a matter of political grind
and legal process, to root them out and then investigate and prosecute them, en mass.
They had total control for decades and most knew nothing, now control is broken and most
people know.
Ditch the ABM and INF treaties. Extend NATO to Russia's borders. Regime change in Ukraine.
Demonize Putin/Russia. Then claim umpteen billions more needed for national defense.
Wonderful.
this article would not have seen the light of day on facebook or youtube, but thanks to
Tyler of zerohedge with his total respect for free speech, people can learn why their country
is bankrupt.
Its funny. Less than 40 years after the cold war and the Russian successor state is
putting on the same trick to the USSA that doomed the USSR. Russia is lean and mean now and its forcing the US to spend just truly insane amounts on
weapons.
War spending has always - ALWAYS! - since at least the late 19th Century - been an
instrument of wealth redistribution: from the poor to the rich.
The only question I have is: where did all that wealth go? It would be fun to collect the
dots and find out who now owns AT LEAST $3 TRILLION stolen from the Pentagon since 2001.
I don't get this stolen bit. Nothing is stolen from US tax payers. Its US debt holders
that get screwed. The US is one big worldwide theft of finished goods , resources and
capaital
nothing is lost or stolen, the defense department is totally careless with the people's
money.
$20 billions of weapons were left in Iraq after the us left but the funny part they were
left in far warehouses that only ISIS got hold of them.
If I was a conspiracy theorist , I would say they left these weapons on purpose for isis
to wage war and invade Syria which they did, but all this stuff was in vain as all these
weapons got destroyed by the Russians and the american people lost $20 billion.
Welcome to the New Rome, ruled by the Military Industrial Complex (M.I.C.) and the
Bansksters (Wall Street, FED, Treasury, Corporations, Insurers) and their bought corrupt
CONgress members.
"Save for retirement!" to pay the bonuses of the rats above.
"Support the Troops!" to die for the corrupt rats above.
"... Warren could have easily gone either way, succumbing to the emotive demands of the Never Trump mob. She instead opted to stick to the traditional progressive position on undeclared war, even if it meant siding with the president. ..."
"... Bravo Congressman Khanna. And to those progs who share his sympathies with those of us who have consistently opposed US military adventurism. Howard Dean's comments that American troops should take a bullet in support of "women's rights" in Afghanistan (!) only underscores why he serves as comic relief and really should consider wearing tassels and bells. ..."
"... Trump – and Bernie – put their fingers on the electoral zeitgeist in 2016: the oligarchy is out of control, its servants in Washington have turned their backs on the middle class, and we need to stop getting into stupid, needless wars. ..."
"... "Principles", LOL? What principles? When have Democrats ever not campaigned on a "bring them home, no torture, etc" peace platform and then governed on a deep state neocon foreign policy, with entitlements to drone anyone on earth in Obama's case? At least horrible neocon Republicans are honest enough to say what they believe when they run. ..."
"... Hillary was full hawk. It was Trump who said he was less hawkish. Yeah, he hasn't lived up to that either. But Democrats can't go hawkish in response. They already were the hawks. ..."
When President Donald Trump announced in December that he wanted an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, there was
more silence and opposition from the Left than approval. The 2016 election's highest-profile progressive, Senator Bernie Sanders,
said virtually nothing at the time. The 2018 midterm election's Left celeb, former congressman Beto O'Rourke, kept mum too. The 2004
liberal hero, Howard Dean, came out against troop withdrawals,
saying they would damage women's rights
in Afghanistan.
The liberal news outlet on which Warren made her statement, MSNBC, which had already been sounding more like Fox News circa 2003,
warned that withdrawal from Syria could hurt national security. The left-leaning news channel has even made common cause with Bill
Kristol and other neoconservatives in its shared opposition to all things Trump.
Maddow herself has not only vocally opposed the president's decision, but has become arguably more popular than ever with liberal
viewers by peddling
wild-eyed anti-Trump conspiracy theories worthy of Alex Jones. Reacting to one of her cockamamie theories, progressive journalist
Glenn Greenwald tweeted , "She is Glenn Beck
standing at the chalkboard. Liberals celebrate her (relatively) high ratings as proof that she's right, but Beck himself proved that
nothing produces higher cable ratings than feeding deranged partisans unhinged conspiracy theories that flatter their beliefs."
The Trump derangement that has so enveloped the Left on everything, including foreign policy, is precisely what makes Democratic
presidential candidate Warren's Syria withdrawal position so noteworthy. One can safely assume that Sanders, O'Rourke, Dean, MSNBC,
Maddow, and many of their fellow progressive travelers' silence on or resistance to troop withdrawal is simply them gauging what
their liberal audiences currently want or will accept.
Warren could have easily gone either way, succumbing to the emotive demands of the Never Trump mob. She instead opted to stick
to the traditional progressive position on undeclared war, even if it meant siding with the president.
... ... ...
Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with
Senator Rand Paul.
The antiwar movement is not a "liberal" movement. Hundreds of mainly your people addressed the San Francisco board of supervisors
asking them to condemn an Israeli full-fledged attack on Gaza. When they were finished, without objection from one single supervisor,
the issued was tabled and let sink permanently in the Bay, never to be heard of again. Had the situation been reversed and Israel
under attack there most probably would have been a resolution in nanoseconds. Maybe even half the board volunteering to join the
IDF? People believed Trump would act more objectively. That is why he got a lot of peace votes. What AIPAC wants there is a high
probability our liberal politicians will oblige quickly and willingly. Who really represents America remains a mystery?
"That abiding hatred will continue to play an outsized and often illogical role in determining what most Democrats believe about
foreign policy."
True, but the prowar tendency with mainstream liberals ( think Clintonites) is older than that. The antiwar movement among
mainstream liberals died the instant Obama entered the White House. And even before that Clinton and Kerry and others supported
the Iraq War. I think this goes all the way back to Gulf War I, and possibly further. Democrats were still mostly antiwar to some
degree after Vietnam and they also opposed Reagan's proxy wars in Central America and Angola. Some opposed the Gulf War, but it
seemed a big success at the time and so it became centrist and smart to kick the Vietnam War syndrome and be prowar. Bill Clinton
has his little war in Serbia, which was seen as a success and so being prowar became the centrist Dem position. Obama was careful
to say he wasn't antiwar, just against dumb wars. Gore opposed going into Iraq, but on technocratic grounds.
And in popular culture, in the West Wing the liberal fantasy President was bombing an imaginary Mideast terrorist country.
Showed he was a tough guy, but measured, unlike some of the even more warlike fictitious Republicans in that show. I remember
Toby Ziegler, one of the main characters, ranting to his pro diplomacy wife that we needed to go in and civilize those crazy Muslims.
So it isn't just an illogical overreaction to Trump, though that is part of it.
Won't happen. Gabbard is solid and sincere but she's not Hillary so she won't be the candidate. Hillary is the candidate forever.
If Hillary is too drunk to stand up, or too obviously dead, Kamala will serve as Hillary's regent.
The problem isn't THAT Trump is pulling the troops out of Syria. The problem is HOW Trump is pulling the troops out of Syria.
The Left isn't fighting about 'keeping troops indefinitely in Syria' vs pulling troops out of Syria'. Its a fight over 'pulling
troops out in a way that makes it so that we don't have to go back in like Obama and Iraq' vs 'backing the reckless pull out Trump
is going to do'.
For Democrats, everything depends on what the polls say, which issues seem important to get elected. They will say anything,
no matter how irrational & outrageously insane if the polls say Democrat voters like them. If American involvement in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan are less important according to the polls, Democratic 2020 hopefuls will not bother to focus on it.
For True Christian conservatives, everything depends on how issues line up to God's laws. Polls do not change what is morally
right, & what is morally evil.
"I am glad Donald Trump is withdrawing troops from Syria. Congress never authorized the intervention."
Bravo Congressman Khanna. And to those progs who share his sympathies with those of us who have consistently opposed US
military adventurism. Howard Dean's comments that American troops should take a bullet in support of "women's rights" in Afghanistan
(!) only underscores why he serves as comic relief and really should consider wearing tassels and bells.
Kasoy: "For True Christian conservatives, everything depends on how issues line up to God's laws. Polls do not change what is
morally right, & what is morally evil."
I think that needs the trademark symbol, i.e True Christians™
The Second Coming of Jack Hunter. Given his well-documented views on race, it's no surprise he's all in on Trump. That surely
outweighs Trump's massive spending and corruption that most true libertarians oppose.
Trump – and Bernie – put their fingers on the electoral zeitgeist in 2016: the oligarchy is out of control, its servants in
Washington have turned their backs on the middle class, and we need to stop getting into stupid, needless wars.
Of course, the left would come out against puppies and sunshine if Trump came out for those things.
But if they are smart, they'd recognize that on war, or his lack of interest in starting new wars, even the broken Trump clock
has been right twice a day.
The flip side of this phenomenon is that so many Republican voters supported Trump's withdrawal from Syria. Had it been Obama
withdrawing the troops, I suspect 80-90% of Republicans would have opposed the withdrawal.
This does show that Republicans are listening to Trump more than Lindsey Graham or Marco Rubio on foreign policy. But once
Trump leaves office, I fear the party will swing back towards the neocons.
"Principles", LOL? What principles? When have Democrats ever not campaigned on a "bring them home, no torture, etc" peace
platform and then governed on a deep state neocon foreign policy, with entitlements to drone anyone on earth in Obama's case?
At least horrible neocon Republicans are honest enough to say what they believe when they run.
Dopey Trump campaigned on something different and has now surrounded himself with GOP hawks, probably because he's lazy and
doesn't know any better.
Bernie, much like Ron Paul was, 180 degrees away, is the only one who might do different if he got into office, and the rate
the left is going he may very well be the nominee.
Hillary was full hawk. It was Trump who said he was less hawkish. Yeah, he hasn't lived up to that either. But Democrats can't
go hawkish in response. They already were the hawks.
The least bad comment on Democrats is that everyone in DC is a hawk, not just them.
"... Ward delves into questions about whether Kushner misused his role as a way to find financing to rescue a Fifth Avenue property in Manhattan and suggests that Kushner dimwittedly nearly dragged the United States into a war in the region. It is a dark and mostly one-sided portrait, one with which the Kushner and Trump families no doubt will disagree. ..."
"... The greatest challenge of the book, and one that is likely to raise questions, is fulfilling the third element of Ward's subtitle: "Greed. Ambition. Corruption." The latter word connotes criminality; while Kushner's father served time in prison, neither Jared nor Ivanka has been accused of crimes by a prosecutor. ..."
"... To be sure, President Trump and his family have thrown around such concepts loosely, and without hedging. During the 2016 campaign, he called Hillary Clinton the " Most Corrupt Candidate Ever! ," retweeting an image that encased the words in a Jewish star against a backdrop of U.S. currency, a tweet widely criticized as anti-Semitic. (Trump said he thought it was a sheriff's star.) Clinton, like Jared and Ivanka, has not been charged by prosecutors with corruption. ..."
"... To rehabilitate the family image, Ward writes, the elder Kushner adopted a plan that called for transitioning from owning garden apartments in New Jersey to acquiring a Fifth Avenue office tower, a "trophy" that would dazzle the doubters. In addition, Jared would buy the New York Observer to get friendly media treatment, and he would "date someone prominent." While the father pulled the strings, the son got the credit -- and later the blame -- for buying the nation's most expensive office property just before the Great Recession, leaving him with a staggering debt. As for the prominent woman, Kushner dated Ivanka Trump. ..."
"... In the rather cynical portrait Ward draws, Ivanka, too, was strategic. Ward quotes her as saying in her own book, " The Trump Card ": "If someone perceives something to be true, it is more important than if it is in fact true." ..."
"... She writes that only after a thorough investigation by Congress and other authorities might they "finally face a reckoning." ..."
Kushner, Inc. Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump By Vicky Ward
St. Martin's. 286 pp. $28.99
... ... ...
There are no blockbuster revelations here regarding Kushner's meeting with a Russian banker or his involvement in a meeting with
a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower, two issues that have drawn the interest of investigators. Ward is, however, particularly critical
of Trump's decision to hand over Middle East policy to Kushner, which led to clashes with then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and
others.
Ward delves into questions about whether Kushner misused his role as a way to find financing to rescue a Fifth Avenue property
in Manhattan and suggests that Kushner dimwittedly nearly dragged the United States into a war in the region. It is a dark and mostly
one-sided portrait, one with which the Kushner and Trump families no doubt will disagree.
For much of the book, as is often the case with volumes seeking to tell an inside story of the White House, the sources are anonymous
and highly critical. If Ward secured on-the-record interviews with her two main subjects, she does not say so; their voices are mostly
filtered through the mouths of others, most of whom may have a vested interest in spinning conversations a certain way. It is, to
be sure, a particularly challenging task that Ward has undertaken, given Kushner's rare public comments and the couple's obsession
with maintaining their image and protecting the president.
The greatest challenge of the book, and one that is likely to raise questions, is fulfilling the third element of Ward's subtitle:
"Greed. Ambition. Corruption." The latter word connotes criminality; while Kushner's father served time in prison, neither Jared
nor Ivanka has been accused of crimes by a prosecutor.
In the text, while Ward hammers the couple on page after page, she doesn't explicitly accuse them of corruption as defined by
legal statutes. Perhaps the closest she comes is when she writes that "it's been reported" that Ivanka Trump oversaw her family's
project in Azerbaijan in which a partner's brother had been described in a U.S. diplomatic cable as corrupt.
"As a result, it's possible that the Trump Organization violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act," Ward writes, providing
a notable hedge.
To be sure, President Trump and his family have thrown around such concepts loosely, and without hedging. During the 2016
campaign, he called Hillary Clinton the "
Most Corrupt Candidate Ever! ," retweeting an image that encased the words in a Jewish star against a backdrop of U.S. currency,
a tweet widely criticized as anti-Semitic. (Trump said he thought it was a sheriff's star.) Clinton, like Jared and Ivanka, has not
been charged by prosecutors with corruption.
Ward, who relies heavily on the reporting of others (noted in endnotes), as well as her own sources, has a tendency, particularly
in the first half of the book, to make sweeping statements and repeat rumors, some of which she then bats down. She writes that one
man "was rumored to sleep with men and hired prostitutes," and says another was "not one to be troubled by ethics."
Ward paints a sordid portrait of Kushner's coming-of-age, retelling tales of how his father's contributions to Harvard may have
greased his way into the college. A war within the Kushner family led his father, Charles Kushner, to arrange for a prostitute to
entrap a relative with whom he had feuded. Charles Kushner went to prison for his part in the scheme and other matters. Jared later
told New York magazine that his father's viewpoint was: "
You're trying to make my life miserable? Well, I'm doing
the same. "
To rehabilitate the family image, Ward writes, the elder Kushner adopted a plan that called for transitioning from owning
garden apartments in New Jersey to acquiring a Fifth Avenue office tower, a "trophy" that would dazzle the doubters. In addition,
Jared would buy the New York Observer to get friendly media treatment, and he would "date someone prominent." While the father pulled
the strings, the son got the credit -- and later the blame -- for buying the nation's most expensive office property just before
the Great Recession, leaving him with a staggering debt. As for the prominent woman, Kushner dated Ivanka Trump.
Donald Trump was not pleased at first, according to Ward. "Why couldn't she have married Tom Brady?" he said, referring to the
New England Patriots quarterback, Ward writes. "Have you seen how he throws a football?"
In the rather cynical portrait Ward draws, Ivanka, too, was strategic. Ward quotes her as saying in her own book, "
The Trump Card ": "If someone perceives something to be true, it is more important than if it is in fact true."
When President Trump said there were "
very fine people, on both sides " of a Charlottesville clash during which white supremacists shouted "Jews will not replace us,"
Trump's economic adviser Gary Cohn threatened to resign, noting that some of his family members had been killed in the Holocaust.
Ivanka urged him to stay, telling him: "My dad's not a racist. He didn't mean any of it; he's not anti-Semitic," according to Ward.
Cohn remained in his post.
At first, Jared and Ivanka didn't plan to work in the White House, but after Trump brought them in as advisers, they frequently
clashed with chief strategist Stephen Bannon and others. An "epic" and profane fight took place between Bannon and Ivanka over who
was leaking stories, Ward writes.
"Everybody knows you leak," Bannon is reported to have told Ivanka.
"You're a f---ing liar," she is said to have responded. "Everything that comes out of your mouth is a f---ing lie."
"Go f--- yourself. . . . You are nothing," Bannon reportedly said.
The president, according to Ward, eventually wanted to send Jared and Ivanka back to New York, but after so many firings and resignations
in the White House, he needed them more than ever.
Some of their activities have remained largely opaque. And Ward can take speculation about corruption only so far. She writes
that only after a thorough investigation by Congress and other authorities might they "finally face a reckoning."
Hate of Russia national runs deep with the infected bowels of the State Department. Sounds
like Neo-cons saber rattling and wanting to start WWIII over a bunch of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis
installed thanks to Victoria Nuland.
So much for detente with Russia. Trump proved to be just a marionette of MIC...
Sentiments about Trump at Zerohedge noticeably deteriorates since 2016
The US State Department announced on Friday that it would be joining
the European Union and Canada to impose new sanctions against Russia in response to the
Kremlin's "continued aggression in Ukraine."
Sanctions will apply to six "individuals who orchestrated the unjustified November 25 attack
on three Ukrainian naval vessels near the Kerch Strait."
Also sanctioned by the United States are eight companies, including six Russian defense
firms, "including shipbuilding companies; two individuals involved in the NOvember sham
"elections" in Russia-controlled eastern Ukraine; and two Russian energy and construction
companies operating in Crimea."
Read the State Department announcement below:
Washington – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) designated six Russian individuals and eight entities in response to Russia's
continued and ongoing aggression in Ukraine. Today's action targets individuals and entities
playing a role in Russia's unjustified attacks on Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait,
the purported annexation of Crimea, and backing of illegitimate separatist government elections
in eastern Ukraine. These actions complement sanctions also taken today by the European Union
and Canada, and underscore the strength and commitment of the transatlantic partnership to
counter Russia's continued destabilizing behavior and malign activities.
"The United States and our transatlantic partners will not allow Russia's continued
aggression against Ukraine to go unchecked. This joint initiative with our partners in the
European Union and Canada reinforces our shared commitment to impose targeted and meaningful
sanctions in response to the Kremlin's attempts to disregard international norms and
undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity," said Treasury Secretary Steven T.
Mnuchin. "The international community is strongly aligned against Russia's naval attacks in
the Kerch Straight, purported annexation of Crimea, and support for the illegitimate
separatist-conducted elections in eastern Ukraine."
OVERVIEW
Five years after its invasion of Ukraine and its attempted annexation of Crimea, Russia
continues to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity while failing to
implement its obligations under the Minsk agreements. On November 25, 2018, Russian authorities
opened fire on and rammed three Ukrainian ships off the coast of Crimea, seizing the ships and
capturing 24 Ukrainian crew members, who remain illegally detained in Russia. Russia also
continues its occupation of Crimea, and the Kremlin has also backed illegitimate elections held
by Ukrainian separatists in the so-called Donetsk People's Republic on November 11, 2018.
As a result of today's designations, all property and interests in property of the
designated individuals and entities are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from
transacting with them. Moreover, any entities owned 50 percent or more by these designated
persons are also blocked by operation of law.
Designations Related to Russia's Attack in the Kerch Strait
OFAC today sanctioned four Russian officials who were involved in the Kerch Strait attack.
OFAC designated Gennadiy Medvedev, the Deputy Director of the Border Guard Service of Russia's
Federal Security Service; Sergey Stankevich, the Head of the Border Directorate of Russia's
Federal Security Service; and Andrey Shein, the Deputy Head of the Border Directorate and Head
of the Coast Guard Unit of Russia's Federal Security Service. Medvedev and Stankevich directly
controlled and organized the attack against the Ukrainian ships and their crew, while Shein
participated in the operation against the seized Ukrainian ships and crew.
OFAC also designated Ruslan Romashkin, the Head of the Service Command Point of the Federal
Security Service of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol.
Medvedev, Stankevich, Shein, and Romashkin are being designated pursuant to Executive Order
(E.O.) 13661 for being officials of the Government of the Russian Federation.
DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO RUSSIA'S PURPORTED ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA
Today's action also targets six Russian defense firms with operations in Crimea, several of
which misappropriated Ukrainian state assets to provide services to the Russian military. Four
of these entities are being designated pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the defense and
related materiel sector of the Russian Federation economy, and two entities are being
designated pursuant to E.O. 13685 for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine.
Yaroslavsky Shipbuilding Plant is a Russian state-owned shipbuilding plant that has built
vessels for Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) and the Russian Ministry of Defense.
Yaroslavsky Shipbuilding Plant is also the project developer for a naval vessel that was
completed at the Federal SUE Shipyard "Morye" in Crimea. Yaroslavsky Shipbuilding Plant is
being designated pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the defense or related materiel sector
of the Russian Federation economy.
Zelenodolsk Shipyard Plant, named after A.M. Gorky, is one of the largest ship manufacturers
in Russia and has produced missile frigates and corvettes for the Russian Navy. The Zelenodolsk
Shipyard Plant has collaborated with Crimea-based enterprise Skloplastic, which was unlawfully
nationalized by the Russian government following its illegal invasion of Crimea in 2014. The
Zelenodolsk Shipyard Plant is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the
defense and related materiel sector of the Russian Federation economy.
AO Kontsern Okeanpribor (Okeanpribor) is a producer of hydroacoustic equipment and has
supplied components to the Russian Navy. Okeanpribor has also collaborated on a naval project
at the Federal SUE Shipyard "Morye" in Crimea. Federal SUE Shipyard "Morye" was designated by
OFAC on September 1, 2016. Okeanpribor is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating
in the defense and related materiel sector of the Russian Federation economy.
PAO Zvezda (Zvezda) is a supplier of diesel engines to the Russian Navy. Zvezda has also
supplied components for Russian naval vessels that were being built at the Federal SUE Shipyard
"Morye" in Crimea. Zvezda is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the
defense and related materiel sector of the Russian Federation economy.
AO Zavod Fiolent (Fiolent) is a Crimea-based electronics manufacturer that has supplied
parts for use in Russian military equipment. Fiolent was unlawfully seized by the Russian
Federation following its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Fiolent is being designated pursuant to
E.O. 13685 for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine.
GUP RK KTB Sudokompozit (Sudokompozit) is a Crimea-based producer of defense components that
are supplied for Russian military use. Sudokompozit was unlawfully seized by the Russian
Federation following its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Sudokompozit is being designated
pursuant to E.O. 13685 for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine.
OFAC also designated the following two entities pursuant to E.O. 13685, due to their
activities in Crimea.
LLC SK Consol-Stroi LTD is being designated for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine.
LLC SK Consol-Stroi LTD, a limited liability company registered in the city of Simferopol,
Crimea, is one of Crimea's largest construction companies. LLC SK Consol-Stroi LTD is engaged
in the construction of residential and commercial real estate in cities throughout the Crimea
region including, among others, Feodosia, Kerch, Yalta, Simferopol, Sevastopol, and
Yepatoria.
LLC Novye Proekty is being designated for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine. In
2016, Russian authorities awarded the private company Novye Proekty an oil and gas exploration
license for the Crimean Black Sea shelf. The Crimean shelf is believed to be rich in
hydrocarbons and authorities in Ukraine have reported that Ukraine lost about 80 percent of its
oil and gas deposits in the Black Sea due to Russia's purported annexation of Crimea. Novye
Proekty's license permits geological studies, prospecting, and the extraction of raw
hydrocarbon materials from the Black Sea's Glubokaya block. Prior to Russia's purported
annexation of Crimea the Glubokaya block was estimated to hold reserves of 8.3 million tons of
crude and 1.4 billion cubic meters of natural gas.
DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO ILLEGITIMATE SEPARATIST GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE
Today's action also targets two Ukrainian separatists who were involved in the organization
of the November 2018 illegitimate elections in the so-called Donetsk People's Republic. These
illegitimate elections clearly contradict Russia's commitments under the Minsk agreements, and
were strongly opposed by the United States and EU.
Aleksey Alekseevich Naydenko is the Deputy Chair of the Central Election Commission of the
so-called Donetsk People's Republic. Naydenko is being designated for being responsible for or
complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten
the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Vladimir Yurievich Vysotsky is the Secretary of Central Election Commission of the so-called
Donetsk People's Republic. Vysotsky is being designated for being responsible for or complicit
in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace,
security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine.
View identifying information on the individuals designated today.
" DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO RUSSIA'S PURPORTED ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA"
purported
/pərˈpôrdəd/
adjective
appearing or stated to be true, though not necessarily so; alleged.
There is nothing "purported" about it, it was true and as legitimate as it could possibly
be.
Then under "DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO ILLEGITIMATE SEPARATIST GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS IN
UKRAINE" they claim that Russia violated its committments under Minsk 2, which the US never
officially recognized. Minsk 2 intended increased sovereignty for the Oblasts under a new
Ukraine Federal constitutional arrangement. That constitutional amendment has never been
initiated by Kiev, with the blessing of Uncle Sam. It is the Ukraine puppet government who is
in violation of Minsk 2.
If the US wrote this, assume the opposite to be true.
[Article]: " Sanctions will apply to six "individuals who orchestrated the unjustified
November 25 attack on three Ukrainian naval vessels near the Kerch Strait." "
Translation: "The propaganda lunacy will continue". "We will keep telling the same old
same old lies until people believe them".
My understanding of that incident is that the Ukrainian boats had some unexplained special
forces people on board and they refused to pull over when ordered to. From Russia's view,
there was a real risk of these people planning to plant explosives to blow up the Kerch
bridge.
Now it appears that no matter which government is in power they go along with the
aggressive agenda of the US.
Been like that since the '50's, just that you believed that the economy and world was
good.
Voting matters ZERO. The lie you are made to believe is that there is a choice when
voting, when in fact the ruling party is the financial engineers and bankers behind all
governments.
Voting is a waste of time. The heart of the beast is the USD reserve and the Rothschild
empire. Once we abolish that pig, all western governments implode under their own weight of
cheap talk and empty "policy".
The evidence that the orange swine is a Rothschild Trojan Horse is overwhelming at this
point. Only a scumbag or an absolute imbecile would fail to see it. Fvck you orange
roach.
I didn't read your comments at that time but I tip my hat to you. I realised that
everything he said during the campaign was bullsh!t after he started appointing Goldman Sachs
bankers to his cabinet...
You are a little wrong when you call this system "colonial". Today it is neo-colonialism.
When the United States subordinates the country, they do not bear any responsibility for the
fate of this country, since the formally subordinate country remains independent and all its
actions are performed "voluntarily."
Ukraine is a good example. Now this country commits ritual suicide "completely
voluntarily."
They've thought of that. That's why they tell us "The US has no colonies". Because you
have to support them if you admit to owning them. That's why by 1960, every colonial nation
on earth was giving its own colonies independence. They were costing more than they were
worth.
What we do now is to groom some local fellow, like Guaido, to take over the government and
run it the way we would like him to. We pay generously for this favor, in the form of loans
and direct investments. The fortunate ones near the seat of power come out fabulously well.
But neither we nor the country's rulers take on any responsibility for the welfare of their
people.
One of the dictators we backed was the director of the Brazilian military, who seized
power back in 1964... a fellow named Castelo Branco. And he was asked once at a press
conference how the economy was doing.
He replied "The economy, it is doing marvelously! The people, on the other hand-- not so
good."
If you don't offer protection to your puppet eventually some other power might try the
same trick and overthrow him. But if you do provide protection that area becomes a
colony.
So what you describing can only work when there is only one major power on the planet. The US
enjoyed it for some time but it can't have it anymore, that's reality.
The system is predicted to work some time into the future, for the reason that it is based
on subterfuge and military force. And we have a military as large as that of the entire rest
of the planet put together. So to us it doesn't matter what you call it. They control the
media, so they can just not report a word you say about them.
What will undo it will be a collapse of the dollar-based economy. And that will be kind of
hard to achieve, as every rich person on earth keeps his wealth denominated in dollars. So
there is little pressure to kill it. That's why we always used to call it The Almighty
Dollar.
However there are limits. Our main weapon now being used to enforce behavior is financial
sanctions. So it's pretty much assured that at some point in the near future the sanctioned
nations (Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela...) will be getting together to set up an alternate
financial system. Probably based on the yuan.
That's the thing about offensive weapons systems. As a Mexican wit put it "Let them build
a twenty foot wall. We will build a 21 foot ladder."
Can anyone confirm what will happen when Germany will shut down those US Command Center
(NATO) because Germany is able to finance their own. (US Personal has to go) Nato support Act
is an US Law and not an authorized NATO Law
that's a fake battle. The US foreign policy is controlled by MIC and Wall Street. Elected
officials, as we see in cases of both Oabma and Trump administrations, "simply does not
matter."
That arrangement (which now is associated with the term the Deep state") is a part of the
rule of military-industrial complex and due to the existence of powerful three letter agencies
created by Truman can't be changed. Essntially Truman secured the victory of military industrial
complex for the next hundred years or more.
Congressional efforts are underway to seize control of foreign-policy decisions from the
executive. Who will win?
There are signs of growing congressional inconsistency, if not incoherence, regarding the
authority of the president in foreign affairs. The legislature seeks to interfere on issues
that are the president's responsibility while still failing to fulfill its own constitutionally
mandated responsibility regarding the war power.
An incident of misplaced assertiveness took place in January when the House of
Representatives passed the NATO Support Act prohibiting the executive branch from using any
funds to facilitate U.S. withdrawal from the Alliance in any way. The legislation appears to
bar a drawdown of U.S. troop levels in Europe and any effort to terminate U.S. membership in
NATO.
Enacting the legislation seemed weirdly premature. President Donald Trump has not even taken
any substantive actions that might diminish U.S. participation in NATO affairs. He has merely
criticized the allies for their lack of burden-sharing in the collective defense effort and
(correctly) suggested that NATO itself might be "obsolete" given how much the European and
global security environments have changed since the Alliance's birth at the dawn of the Cold
War against the Soviet Union.
The constitutionality of such restrictions also is highly suspect. The Constitution makes
the president the steward of foreign affairs. Presidents historically have enjoyed wide
latitude regarding the interpretation, execution, and even termination of U.S. treaties. Chief
executives have enjoyed even greater latitude regarding troop deployments, especially in
noncombat situations, and the nature, extent, and duration of military commitments to implement
treaties or other agreements. Congressional interference in the form of the NATO Support Act
would be truly revolutionary -- and not in a good way. It is a transparent congressional
attempt to usurp the president's rightful constitutional authority and seek to micromanage U.S.
foreign policy.
The NATO issue is not the only case in which congressional efforts are underway to seize
control of foreign-policy decisions from the executive. A faction in both houses is now pushing
a measure that would prevent the White House from failing to honor U.S. obligations under the
Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty until it expires in February 2021. Unlike in the case
of NATO, the president has taken tangible steps against the INF. After accusing Russia of
violating its obligations under the treaty, Trump announced that the United States intended to
withdraw from the INF . It should be stressed that the issue is not whether the president's
policies on NATO or the INF are wise or misguided; the relevant issue is whether the
Constitution invests the executive or Congress with the authority to make those decisions.
Greater congressional assertiveness on such issues is especially odd given how readily
Congress has abandoned its own explicit constitutional authority to control the war power. Even
as legislators moved to restrict Trump regarding NATO and the INF, there was no effective
campaign to prevent him from implementing his decision to keep at least two hundred troops in
Syria, despite the continuing lack of any congressional authorization for U.S. military
involvement in that combat zone.
... ... ...
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a
contributing editor at the National Interest , is the author of twelve books and more than 750
articles on foreign affairs.
Could you say that "checks and balances" of the US in current stage are "unbalanced"
Looks like executive branch has its own policies and legislative branch is trying very hard
to nullify whatever executive branch can or could potentially do (and it will impact future
presidents too).
And more importantly all this "meddling" (forgive me the pun) between the branches
essentially cripples the US politics, foreign and internal.
If one can imaging THAT is the Russian goal then perhaps Mr. Trump could get the Star of Hero
of the Russian Federation pretty soon
Our system of checks and balances has become totally unbalanced, destabilized like some
Arab government we've decided don't like. Political scientists are all telling us that we're
on the way to having a classic autocratic regime, where nothing matters except what El
Supremo says matters.
And Congress is supine. They really don't care much about how the country is being run,
they just care if they get re-elected. And the right half of them thinks they won't get
re-elected if they oppose Trump. So there's no veto-proof majority.
It never used to be this way. But it has been said that "The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Thomas Jefferson)
And we just don't have enough patriots to get the job done. I look to the young people to
be changing that.
Political scientists are all telling us that we're on the way to having a classic
autocratic regime, where nothing matters except what El Supremo says matters.
I have elusive feeling that American policies have already been praying to "El Supremo" for
some time, it just wasn't so openly obvious until now.
And the "El Supremo" name is "Wall Street". Globalisation have taken over American policies
for some time.
It became obvious after "too big to fail" incidents of 2008.
Another example: FAANG has so much power now that it can literally kill smaller private
companies with a mouse click. It can shape public opinion and no doubt it can soon be able to
elect politicians.
That's something different. Wall Street funds quite a large portion of the campaigns waged
by both parties. So whichever party wins an election, they are anxious to never offend their
sponsors. You might look up the proportions of presidential elections contributions made by
the financial and insurance industries.
(This is also why we can never seem to get a good single-payer health system. It would get
rid of private health insurance.)
I was talking about the once-creeping, now-galloping expansion of presidential powers.
This was first evident during the presidency of George W Bush, when the theory of the
Unitary Executive was put forth, by people like John Yoo and David Addington.
It establishes the theory that the Constitution allows a sitting president to disregard
those laws he doesn't want to enforce and to take executive actions that do not depend on
congressional approval. That is, he is above the law and accountable to no one.
Empire, even a powerful one cannot win prosperity with a war or wars. Eventually you'd
need to provide some economy to the colonies. The less you provide the more they gonna hate
you and resist you. The more you provide the less they gonna need you and eventually
overthrow you.
Winning with wars is utopia, like communism.
You are a little wrong when you call this system "colonial". Today it is neo-colonialism.
When the United States subordinates the country, they do not bear any responsibility for the
fate of this country, since the formally subordinate country remains independent and all its
actions are performed "voluntarily."
Ukraine is a good example. Now this country commits ritual suicide "completely
voluntarily."
"But the impotence one feels today -- an impotence we should never consider permanent -- does
not excuse one from remaining true to oneself, nor does it excuse capitulation to the
enemy, what ever mask he may wear. Not the one facing us across the frontier or the
battle lines, which is not so much our enemy as our brothers' enemy, but the one that
calls itself our protector and makes us its slaves. The worst betrayal will always be to
subordinate ourselves to this
Apparatus,
and to trample underfoot, in its service,
all human values in ourselves and in others."
Simone Weil
"And in some ways, it creates this false illusion that there are people out there looking
out for the interest of taxpayers, the checks and balances that are built into the system
are operational, when in fact they're not. And what you're going to see and what we are
seeing is it'll be a breakdown of those governmental institutions. And you'll see
governments that continue to have policies that feed the interests of -- and I don't want
to get clichéd, but the one percent or the .1 percent -- to the detriment of everyone
else...
If TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent
meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time
in a faster car... I think it's inevitable. I mean, I don't think how you can look at all
the incentives that were in place going up to 2008 and see that in many ways they've only
gotten worse and come to any other conclusion."
Neil Barofsky
"Written by Carmen Segarra, the petite lawyer turned bank examiner turned whistleblower
turned one-woman swat team, the 340-page tome takes the reader along on her gut-wrenching
workdays for an entire seven months inside one of the most powerful and corrupted
watchdogs of the powerful and corrupted players on Wall Street – the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York.
The days were
literally
gut-wrenching. Segarra reports that after months of being
alternately gas-lighted and bullied at the New York Fed to whip her into the ranks of the
corrupted, she had to go to a gastroenterologist and learned her stomach lining was gone.
She soldiered through her painful stomach ailments and secretly tape-recorded 46 hours of
conversations between New York Fed officials and Goldman Sachs. After being fired for
refusing to soften her examination opinion on Goldman Sachs,
Segarra released the tapes to ProPublica and the radio program This American Life
and
the story went viral from there...
In a nutshell, the whoring works like this. There are huge financial incentives to go
along, get along, and keep your mouth shut about fraud. The financial incentives encompass
both the salary, pension and benefits at the New York Fed as well as the high-paying job
waiting for you at a Wall Street bank or Wall Street law firm if you show you are a
team player
.
If the Democratic leadership of the House Financial Services Committee is smart, it will
reopen the Senate's aborted inquiry into the New York Fed's labyrinthine conflicts of
interest in supervising Wall Street and make removing that supervisory role a core
component of the Democrat's 2020 platform. Senator Bernie Sanders' platform can certainly
be expected to continue the accurate battle cry that 'the business model of Wall Street is
fraud.'"
"... Revealed: Donald Trump's son-in-law challenged by Rex Tillerson and Gary Cohn for mixing personal interests with US foreign policy ..."
"... Jared Kushner was told by the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, that his interference had 'endangered the US', while his wife Ivanka's team was derided as the 'home of all bad ideas'. Photograph: Jim Bourg/Reuters Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner , was confronted by two of the most senior US government officials for mixing his personal interests with US foreign policy, according to a new book. ..."
"... Ward reports that Tillerson blamed Kushner for Trump's abrupt endorsement of a provocative blockade and diplomatic campaign against Qatar by Saudi Arabia and several allies in June 2017. ..."
"... "You've got to be crazy," Cohn is said to have told Kushner in front of others. Kushner met the executives around the time he hosted Chinese government officials at the Fifth Avenue tower. The building was eventually refinanced by a Qatari-backed investment fund. ..."
"... Ward's book portrays Kushner and Ivanka Trump as relentlessly ambitious operators who are loathed by many forced to work with them. She reports that White House staffers mocked Kushner as the "secretary of everything" for his wide-ranging meddling and derided Ivanka Trump's team as Habi – "home of all bad ideas". ..."
"... Bannon recalls Kushner furiously shouting at him at the White House in 2017 after he confronted Kushner about holding secret talks with senators on immigration reform. "He goes from a little boy to, like, this fucking devil," Bannon is quoted as saying. ..."
"... Bannon also claims to have told Ivanka Trump: "Go fuck yourself you are nothing" in front of her father, during an argument over who was the bigger leaker to the media. Ivanka Trump is said to have called Bannon a "fucking liar". ..."
Revealed: Donald Trump's son-in-law challenged by Rex Tillerson and Gary Cohn for mixing personal interests with US foreign policy
Jared Kushner was told by the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, that his interference had 'endangered the US', while his wife
Ivanka's team was derided as the 'home of all bad ideas'. Photograph: Jim Bourg/Reuters Donald Trump's son-in-law,
Jared Kushner , was confronted by two of the most
senior US government officials for mixing his personal interests with US foreign policy, according to a new book.
Kushner, an envoy to the Middle East for his father-in-law, is said to have been robustly challenged by both Rex Tillerson, then
secretary of state, and Gary Cohn, formerly Trump's top economic adviser.
The confrontations are detailed in Kushner Inc by the journalist Vicky Ward, who also describes interference in foreign relations
by Kushner's wife, Ivanka Trump . The book is scheduled
to be released on 19 March. A copy was obtained by the Guardian.
Ward reports that Tillerson blamed Kushner for Trump's abrupt endorsement of a provocative blockade and diplomatic campaign
against Qatar by Saudi Arabia and several allies in June 2017. The US has thousands of troops stationed in Qatar.
Tillerson "told Kushner that his interference had endangered the US", an unidentified Tillerson aide tells Ward. Tillerson is
also said to have read negative "chatter" about himself in intelligence reports after Kushner belittled him to Kushner's friend Mohammed
bin Salman, the controversial Saudi crown prince.
Meanwhile, Cohn is said to have rebuked Kushner in January 2017 after it was revealed Kushner had dined with executives from the
Chinese financial corporation Anbang, which was considering investing in the Kushner family's troubled tower at 666 Fifth Avenue
in Manhattan.
The heart of the US-Saudi relationship lies in the Kushner-prince friendship | Mohamad Bazzi Read
more
"You've got to be crazy," Cohn is said to have told Kushner in front of others. Kushner met the executives around the time
he hosted Chinese government officials at the Fifth Avenue tower. The building was eventually refinanced by a Qatari-backed investment
fund.
Ivanka Trump is reported to have interfered in telephone calls between her father and foreign dignitaries despite having overseas
business interests. "Thanks so much for the CD you sent me," she is quoted as having told an Indian leader by someone who heard the
call. The Trump Organization owns several residential towers in India.
Ward's book portrays Kushner and Ivanka Trump as relentlessly ambitious operators who are loathed by many forced to work with
them. She reports that White House staffers mocked Kushner as the "secretary of everything" for his wide-ranging meddling and derided
Ivanka Trump's team as Habi – "home of all bad ideas".
John Kelly, formerly Trump's chief of staff and homeland security secretary, is quoted as dismissing the couple as "just playing
government".
The book also details disagreements between them and Steve Bannon, Trump's former campaign chief and top White House strategist.
Bannon clashed with the couple, who are former Democrats, while pushing to convert Trump's aggressively nationalist campaign rhetoric
into government policy.
Bannon recalls Kushner furiously shouting at him at the White House in 2017 after he confronted Kushner about holding secret
talks with senators on immigration reform. "He goes from a little boy to, like, this fucking devil," Bannon is quoted as saying.
Bannon also claims to have told Ivanka Trump: "Go fuck yourself you are nothing" in front of her father, during an argument
over who was the bigger leaker to the media. Ivanka Trump is said to have called Bannon a "fucking liar".
For her part, Ivanka Trump is focused on cementing a Trump dynasty to rival the Kennedys and Bushes by becoming commander-in-chief
herself one day, according to Ward. "She thinks she's going to be president of the United States," Cohn is quoted as saying.
"... Everything I understand about German behavior in regards to 3rd parties is totally in lockstep with the US - never mind that Germany has been occupied by the US since WW2 - so why not a scheme to build more Russian dependency on the West? ..."
"... The people who destroyed the USSR are still in power; their whole existence depends on whoring out Russia to the West because that is all they have ever done. They can't not stop because to stop would be an act of self-annihilation. Russian elites, at least a large faction of them, desperately want back into the clubhouse, if they cant get in they will find something else to do until the moment the clubhouse door is opened to them again, and then they will fall all over themselves to get in. ..."
Only a few weeks ago, German politicians and media were up in arms protesting to the Trump
administration for interfering in Berlin's internal affairs. There were even outraged
complaints that Washington was seeking "regime change" against Chancellor Angela Merkel's
government.
Those protests were sparked when Richard Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany,
warned German companies involved in the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline with Russia that they
could be hit with American economic sanctions if they go ahead with the Baltic seabed
project.
Earlier, Grenell provoked fury among Berlin's political establishment when he openly gave
his backing to opposition party Alternative for Germany. That led to consternation and
denunciations of Washington's perceived backing for regime change in Berlin. They were public
calls for Grenell to be expelled over his apparent breach of diplomatic protocols.
Now, however, Germany is shamelessly kowtowing to an even more outrageous American
regime-change plot against Venezuela.
... ... ...
Perhaps this policy of appeasement is also motivated by Berlin's concern to spare the
Nord Stream 2 project from American sanctions.
When NS2 is completed later this year, it
is reckoned to double the capacity of natural gas consumption by Germany from Russia. That will be
crucial for Germany's economic growth.
Another factor is possible blackmail of Berlin by Washington.
Recall the
earth-shattering revelations made by American whistleblower Edward Snowden a few years back when he
disclosed that US intelligence agencies were tapping the personal phone communications of
Chancellor Merkel and other senior Berlin politicians.
Recall, too, how the German state
remarkably
acquiesced
over what should
have been seen as a devastating infringement by Washington.
The weird lack of action by Berlin over that huge violation of its sovereignty by the Americans
makes one wonder if the US spies uncovered a treasure trove of blackmail material on German
politicians.
Berlin's pathetic kowtowing to Washington's interference in Venezuela begs an ulterior
explanation. No self-respecting government could be so hypocritical and duplicitous.
Whatever Berlin may calculate to gain from its unscrupulous bending over for Washington,
one thing seems clear, as Russian envoy Nebenzia warned: "One day you are next" for American
hegemonic shafting.
Well, Merkel is doing a good job of protecting Germany's interests by opposing the U.S.
regarding North Stream 2.
The German stand on Venezuela is disappointing, but they might be
figuring no skin off their back, since Venezuela is not in Europe, so might as well appease cheeto head.
I am personally suspicious of Nord Stream 2 and think Russia is making a HUGE mistake.
Everything I understand about German behavior in regards to 3rd parties is totally in
lockstep with the US - never mind that Germany has been occupied by the US since WW2 - so why
not a scheme to build more Russian dependency on the West? The Russians are fools to have
built this pipeline - they should be moving away from Europe, not foolishly trying to sew
themselves onto it as an appendage. This will come back to bite them on the ***, mark my
words.
And this, in a nutshell, is why Russia is always taking one step forward and two back. The
people who destroyed the USSR are still in power; their whole existence depends on whoring
out Russia to the West because that is all they have ever done. They can't not stop because
to stop would be an act of self-annihilation. Russian elites, at least a large faction of
them, desperately want back into the clubhouse, if they cant get in they will find something
else to do until the moment the clubhouse door is opened to them again, and then they will
fall all over themselves to get in.
"... I thought we lived in a corporate state and since the Supreme Court has ruled corporations have rights – the voting morons already have loyalty to their corporate masters – "one nation, under God and all of his defense contractors " ..."
I thought we lived in a corporate state and since the Supreme Court has ruled corporations
have rights – the voting morons already have loyalty to their corporate masters –
"one nation, under God and all of his defense contractors "
Anti-Semitism theater – a carefully staged social movement organized by Government
owned media to divide the peons and make them hate each other. Real hate-group profit lies in
charging for vast quantities of militarism but making just enough to kill women and children
overseas.
Back home the flag waving patriots insist they need a giant military with weapons
for anyone who can pay to protect them and their families. Dual loyalty to the Jewish lobby
and the defense lobby.
"... I thought we lived in a corporate state and since the Supreme Court has ruled corporations have rights – the voting morons already have loyalty to their corporate masters – "one nation, under God and all of his defense contractors " ..."
I thought we lived in a corporate state and since the Supreme Court has ruled corporations
have rights – the voting morons already have loyalty to their corporate masters –
"one nation, under God and all of his defense contractors "
Anti-Semitism theater – a carefully staged social movement organized by Government
owned media to divide the peons and make them hate each other. Real hate-group profit lies in
charging for vast quantities of militarism but making just enough to kill women and children
overseas.
Back home the flag waving patriots insist they need a giant military with weapons
for anyone who can pay to protect them and their families. Dual loyalty to the Jewish lobby
and the defense lobby.
"... That 93% of all personnel that are employed by the CIA are paper pushers in Langley and just 7% are in the field, of which I read sometime ago, has a ring of truth to me. ..."
Anyone remember Mullah Omar, the deceased leader of the Taliban? The U.S. military and intelligence services claimed over and
over again that he was hiding in Pakistan. Bette Dam
finds (pdf) that he wasn't:
After 2001, Mullah Omar never stepped foot in Pakistan, instead opting to hide in his native land -- and for eight years,
lived just a few miles from a major U.S. Forward Operating Base that housed thousands of soldiers.
In late 2001, after the U.S. invasion, Mullah Omar resigned as leader of the Taliban and the movement officially surrendered
to Hamid Karzai who promised them reconciliation. The U.S. did not like that and launched a vengeful campaign against all former
Taliban member. Eighteen years later the U.S. is suing for peace.
Mullah Omar lived quietly, meditated and studied religious text. Allah remarked on his death:
On April 23, 2013, Mullah Omar passed away. That day, Jabbar Omari told me, the hot, dry lands of southern Afghanistan experienced
something he'd never seen before: a hail storm. I assumed it was hagiographic bluster, but later I found a U.S. army publication
referring to that day: "More than 80 Task Force Falcon helicopters were damaged when a sudden unprecedented hailstorm hit
Kandahar Airfield April 23, where nearly half of the brigade's helicopters were parked."
The fact that Mullah Omar's death was suppressed for two years even from high-level official sources, indicates to me that the
theory bin Laden died in 2001 is very plausible. We even have a similar progression of statements regarding their respective health,
doubts of whether they were alive at the respective time, etc.
Of course, both terror leaders were kept "alive" for geopolitical reasons. Once ISIS (and later Russia/China) took over as
a serious threat in the corporate media narrative, they no longer had to cling to those old phantoms.
The story on Omar is astonishing, but to me not surprising. If the US spends billions on finding one guy, and at the end of the
day, he is literally just down the road, it shows how incompetent and useless our intelligence gathering has become.
That 93% of all personnel that are employed by the CIA are paper pushers in Langley and just 7% are in the field, of which
I read sometime ago, has a ring of truth to me.
Stupidity has a firm grip on our rulers, and they are getting, not only us but many others, killed for absolutely no reason.
And the dunces called the American voter, keep re-electing them. It leaves me breathless.
IF this article has validity, there was absolutely no play on MSM anywhere.
"A group of progressive lawmakers including Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ro
Khanna, Elizabeth Warren, and many others are signing onto a pledge saying that they will not
support the endless "forever wars" that the U.S. loves to engage in. This is a big leap
forward, and it shows that the military industrial complex might struggle for relevance as
the country continues to move to the left. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins discusses this."
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is launching a review of the main set of rules governing stock
trading, opening the door to the biggest potential changes in a decade-and-a-half, the head of the agency said on Friday.
The possible changes are aimed at making it easier to trade illiquid stocks, making more trading information available to investors,
and improving the speed and quality of public data feeds needed for trading.
The SEC in 2005 adopted a broad framework called Regulation National Market System that was largely aimed at ensuring retail investors
get the best price possible and preventing trades from being executed at prices that are inferior to bids and offers displayed on
other trading venues.
Since then, faster, more sophisticated technology has put a bigger focus on rapid-fire, high-speed trading. There has also been
an influx of new electronic stock exchanges, fragmenting liquidity and increasing costs for brokers around exchange connectivity
and market data needed to fuel algorithmic trading.
"It is clear that the market challenges we faced in the early 2000s are not the same as the issues that we confront over a decade
later," Jay Clayton, chairman of the SEC, said at an event in New York.
To get a better grasp of current market issues, the SEC held a series of roundtable discussions with industry experts last year
that led to potential rule-making recommendations around thinly-traded securities, combating retail fraud, and market data and market
access, Clayton said.
Some areas the SEC is looking at include:
- Increasing the speed of, and adding more stock price information to, public data feeds to help make them more competitive against
the more expensive, private data feeds sold by most stock exchanges.
- Allowing thinly-traded securities to trade only on their listing market, rather than on all 13 U.S. stock exchanges.
- Improving disclosure around reverse mergers.
- Adjusting the quote size of some high-priced stocks.
The 2019 review follows an active 2018 for the SEC.
The regulator adopted rules to increase transparency around broker-dealer stock order routing and private off-exchange trading
venues. It also ordered a pilot program to test banning lucrative rebate payments that exchanges make to brokers for liquidity-adding
stock orders.
judi 1 hour ago What about Naked Shorting? It is out of control and no one including the SEC is doing anything to stop it??
Tara 41 minutes ago The rules implemented in 2005 did nothing to help retail traders with accounts under 25K.
When are you going to address the real issue of stock price manipulation? Also, bring back the uptick rule. And while you are at
it, we need rules to punish dishonest analysts who publish opinions of price that are so far off the charts, they never reflect actual
earnings often announced days later.
Rob 38 minutes ago They are going to make it more in favor of big boys aka the banks
"... The multi-polar world is quickly becoming a reality and the US empire is in decline. Doubtful this brouhaha about 'protection money' will change that trend in any meaningful way. ..."
Trump has driving desire to be seen as the first businessman president.
The appeal of Trump making 'allies pay their fair share' any reality check on how counterproductive the effort is to the
waning US empire
Trump's unique candidacy put him in the White House without any real foreign policy staff who would have long ago gotten
Trump to abandon the silly idea - at least after he was elected.
The multi-polar world is quickly becoming a reality and the US empire is in decline. Doubtful this brouhaha about 'protection
money' will change that trend in any meaningful way.
The only other explanation is this really is 4D chess on Trump's part where he sees these silly shakedown attempts as the most
efficient way of getting the US out of NATO.
Thanks B. This is how empires end, or at least one way. Hubris gets them every time. I for
one will be glad to see US troops at the very least reduced in Italy, and for all of Europe
for that matter.
Especially now that the INF is dead. And I hear that Italy is now looking at
embracing China's B&R Initiative. I say have at it! There's the shiver waiting to run up
Washington's spine. You might find this amusing, too: >
https://thesaker.is/us-treats-luxembourg-like-a-vassal-state-or-us-imperial-hubris-gone-bonkers/
Little Luxembourg. It does bring a big smile. Keep going, Trump. You're on the right track.
More Art of the Deal, anyone?
This will be good for every one. Trump demands the Germans and Japanese pay for US
protection, which they reject and the US military goes home. Isn't that an excellent outcome
for all parties?
The only section that is slightly unclear is, "The only sound reason to keep the 30,000
U.S. troops in Germany is to prevent them from moving to Poland from where they could
threaten the country."
Surely the US occupation of Germany has been tacitly or latently threatening and
controlling and dominating and bullying and extorting Germany for around 74 years?
So what major difference would it make if they were moved a few hundred kilometers
away?
Kick 'em out! Germany has more than served her sentence!
The European people should support Trump in his desire to eliminate NATO. Of course the Deep
State in both Europe and the US will fight it tooth and nail. Maybe the #GiletsJaunes who
have been erased from western media will finally topple the Party of Davos candidate Macron.
And similar populist movements in other European countries can topple other Deep State
stooges from western Europe. Merkel is already on her way out as the CDU/CSU combine and the
Social Democrats implode in Germany.
Extortion because you're broke. We don't have the money to pay for it, so this
administration resorts to mob tactics to keep the scam going. "The government and us are cut
from the same cloth." Sam Giancana, former Chicago mob boss.
If that graphic is any indication of public opinion in Germany, things are even worse than
I'd heard.
There has been a small series of events where the German Government gave the US meddlers a
shove-off. First was the new gas pipeline Nord 2 - they refused to fold for perfectly good
economic reasons. Next was the German rejection of the horrible F-35. Recently I'm seeing
headlines about Germany and the Chinese 5G company.
Given all of this, I'm beginning to doubt if the Germans will allow the US to plant new
short-range nuclear missiles on their soil. Becoming a WW3 target for no good reason except
to please the US of A Imperia wouldn't seem to be a very clever move on their part.
I agree with Elliott A that it is better to have the US troops in Poland than in Germany -
and better that the inviters of the US troops then become the target for the defensive
nuclear missiles they force Russia to deploy rather than Germany.
Furthermore, if Poland is forced to pay the full cost of their invited US guests, maybe
their voters will eventually come to their senses and vote in more rational Polish
politicians.
The Poles are generally pseudo-Catholic and mercenary, pro-American in-name-only; as soon
as it could hit them in the pocket, they will pipe down very quickly and balk/bridle.
Hence Poland is a worthy (temporary) stopover for the US (including the NSA) when evicted
from Germany. The fact that Merkel is out soon is dangerous because she doesn't really G/A/F,
and will defer the decision to the next poor blighter.
There could be a treaty in place that says American troops can remain in Germany until the
year 2500 but Trump's just shot himself in the foot again by giving Germany a get-out
clause.
Zero hedge is reporting that Pence went a bit further than that and urged Germany To provoke
Russian Navy in the Kerch Strait by sending ships there in a freedom of navigation exercise.
Strangely enough Merkel said she was willing to provoke Russia, but thought doing it wouldn't
accomplish anything so she didn't want to provoke Russia for no reason. God, how insane are
these idiots. And now it looks like in response Pence/Trump will extort Germany for not being
mindlessly obedient enough.
Merkel is already on her way out as the CDU/CSU combine and the Social Democrats implode
in Germany.
Posted by: ab initio | Mar 8, 2019 11:49:49 AM | 6
The problem is though, that the Deep State have already reserved their places in Merkel's
successors, the AfD. All of these right-wing "populist" parties acros Europe seem to be no
more than a cynical vehicle for the Deep State to hijack popular discontent and channel it
into a new form of slavery to replace the old. Hence Steve Banner's dubious and highly
dangerous politicking for the so-called populist movement in Europe.
A real future lies in Jeremy Corbyn and maybe also a few other left-wing parties in Europe
(as long as they don't become compradors like Syriza) - but the Deep State is fighting Corbyn
tooth and nail. In Germany there is Die Linke who have some good people and some good
policies (from my limited knowledge!) - but their popularity is still in the doldrums,
unfortunately.
And of course, the extortion must be paid in US Dollars. Clearly, the threat is all about
keeping Dollar Hegemony alive by reducing the massive trade deficit. I see AfD making capital
thanks to this. As for Japan, Russia will not sign a Peace Treaty with it until all foreign
military forces are removed--a condition that's been reiterated several times over the last
few months to which I've linked. Okinawans are furious at being twice colonized and are at
the end of their rope. So far they've been peaceful, but I think it's clear to them by now
that the only way to remove the foreign vermin is to literally push them into the sea.
Korea's situation's been discussed on that thread.
For the domestic Outlaw US Empire, shutting down the Overseas Empire of Bases and the
related destabilization projects globally would save @ $1 Trillion/year--an utter wastage of
monies for projects that are decidedly NOT in the National Interest. And as most here
understand, the world would be more peaceful if the Outlaw US Empire would cease being an
Outlaw and an Empire. And it would become cleaner too as the US Military is the most
polluting entity on the planet.
Isn't Poland offering to pay the United States $2 billion to establish a base called Fort
Trump?
BTW, perhaps this is a ruse to remove all U.S. troops from Syria. I'd love to be there
when Elliott "debt collector" Abrams turns up demanding the money from Assad. There is an
opportunity for one of the greatest reality TV programs ever (I'm a neo-con, get me out of
here) which makes me wonder if that's Trump's reason for this scheme.
All Americans needs to protect Americans in the US is a coast guard and a border patrol.
Everything else is either protection for corporations doing business [which should be added
to the price of their products/services to reflect true costs] or empire.
Yes, it's another damp squib, another no-win, another over-promise, another posture, like all
the others.
This is all Trump knows and integrity never enters the equation.
Any sign of that border wall, that the Mexican government was going to pay for?
Not exactly "The Art of The Deal". more like one long and embarrassing suicide note.
I don't exactly dislike Trump particularly as he has "Mullered" a number of cretinous
insiders whom required a reality check but he is hindbound by his capinet; none of his plans
went through and he is in it well over his depth particularly since he appears to be
suffering from ADHD, dementia and schizophrenia - just what you need in the
Commander-in-Chief?
On the bright side, you can get a bigly discount for being a faithful toady and swearing
allegiance to the US of A. Wonder where the US 'leaders' got the idea of swearing allegiance
to a foreign power?
....the world would be more peaceful if the Outlaw US Empire would cease being an Outlaw
and an Empire....
Trump's just demonstrated that by staying out of the very recent Indo-Pakistan incident.
Maybe he didn't want Americans dying in the shithole that is the sub-continent. Maybe he
didn't see any opportunity to line his own pocket. Whatever his reason, he did the right
thing. Would Hillary have done the same? I don't know.....
Empire is getting the rest of its plates spinning so that must mean that the end is
getting closer. I don't think that the Philippine's plate is spinning fast enough so Trump
needs to give it some special love.
Pretty soon we will need a plate spinning scorecard just to keep track of all the
action.
Syria
Iran
Ukraine
Venezuela
Russia
China
Korea
EU w/ NATO
and now Germany and Japan
What plates am I missing?
Think about how much of the peoples resources are going to keeping these plates
spinning.
Who are going to come to the table with what arguments when the debt music stops?
* Trump has driving desire to be seen as the first businessman president.
* The appeal of Trump making 'allies pay their fair share' any reality check on how
counterproductive the effort is to the waning US empire
* Trump's unique candidacy put him in the White House without any real foreign policy staff
who would have long ago gotten Trump to abandon the silly idea - at least after he was
elected.
The multi-polar world is quickly becoming a reality and the US empire is in decline.
Doubtful this brouhaha about 'protection money' will change that trend in any meaningful
way.
The only other explanation is this really is 4D chess on Trump's part where he sees these
silly shakedown attempts as the most efficient way of getting the US out of NATO.
American troops pack up your shit and get the f*ck out, oh and here's an invoice for $100
billion to cover the cost of cleaning up your toxic waste.
Thanks for your business.
The only Germans that want them are restaurants and shops located near the bases and other
businesses that cater to them.
Yes, Trump's new policy is very welcome if it gets Germany to kick them out or, better
yet, get out of NATO. I wonder if Trump intends it - or is he just plain stupid?
Victor Cha, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in
Washington, said the administration was sending a deliberate message by demanding "Cost
Plus 50" from South Korea first , even though that effort fell short.
Ouch, poor SK. What a timing, straight after 'successful' NK talks.
With allies like that, who needs enemies?
Perhaps this will finally get the EU to kick the US and its NATO out.
But I don't underestimate the ability of EU elites to crawl to the US. It's like second
nature. And they get their pockets stuffed full of dollars to be kept in line.
Let me guess the free loading douche bag country that gets the most support from the US will
magically be excluded from these demands yet again.
I sure hope they try this protection racquet in Iraq. The government is already under huge
pressure to kick the Americans out after Trumps visit there last month.
What's America's plan to maintain economic wealth at the end of the debt spiral and dollar
collapse????
I have an idea!! Tribute! Hey, it worked for the Aztecs. Soon many countries will
see it as a small price to pay to avoid having democracy brought to their countries. Previous
versions of this scheme, such as buying US treasury debt knowing full well it will never be
repaid wont cut it anymore. So we are moving towards the real thing.
When I used to play football in my young days (i.e. soccer for the american lads here), I had
to pass by a huge US military base in the south of Germany each time in order to reach the
training ground. But strangely, I never challenged the necessity of that base in the first
place - probably due to my lack of geopolitical, historical consciousness. Only after they
build a second, even bigger base directly on the opposite side of the road and after two
combat helicopters - for the first time - flew directly above my head, I finally became aware
and started to question things. I wonder how many people that drive the same road each day
actually do feel the same...
Anyway, thank you b and thanks to all the well-experienced forumites for providing the vital
informations and inputs that helped me to better understand what is going on after all.
This is quite a slap in the face as the US has been raising tensions with Russia and any
conflict with Russia would likely cause the destruction of Europe.
Wondering how this will play out in places such as the Persian Gulf state of Bahrain where
the U.S. actually pays the dictator to lease the Navy and Air Force bases? Where the U.K.
pays the dictator for a British naval facility, too, which is shared?
Remember when Bahrain and other Arab countries in the Persian Gulf didn't want bases to be
called bases? Instead they were each a Regional Operations Support Establishment, aka ROSE.
Surely there's a different term now, but we still pay to lease bases.
Give trump credit: he raises the issue. And by doing so he gives people the opportunity to be
thrust into the act of questioning.
I continue to believe that this is really the overriding attribute of his presidency. What
people like the Germans do with this opportunity is entirely incumbent on them. But it is an
opportunity nonetheless, and as b correctly asserts, this is a welcomed change from the
political grab ass of the preceding administrations.
We should wish good luck to the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) in hosting US
bases: not only will they have to foot the cost of hosting US forces but their entire
economies by now must be revolving around being open-air military barracks. All while their
own citizens are voting with their feet.
Psychohistorian @ 22: You're missing large parts of Africa (possibly Djibouti where there's a
US base; Rwanda which is a US satrapy under President Paul Kagame; western Africa where there
are offshore oil and gas deposits) and Georgia where the US operates a bioweapons laboratory.
Once again, on the surface this is obvious extortion. But I can't help but think this is
really a purposeful 'own goal.' I know this is likely giving Trump too much credit, but in a
parallel universe this is exactly what you would do if you had a hidden agenda to enfeeble
the US to cause our eventual pull back. There's no political way to slowly scale back our
involvement, but there is a way to overreach under everyone's noses and get the same end
result. Is this a 666d chess move or just what happens as empire descends into chaos,
grasping at straws? Either way I'm fine with the obvious result!
We are seeing the true colors. What we now have are Co-Presidents: Bolton, Trump; and Co-Vice
Presidents Pompous and Pence. The 4 morons do not realize they are isolating the U.S.A. and
hastening rejection of the USD.
Adhere my diktat and keep purchasing our T-bills.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has allegedly stood up to pressure from Washington as she
declined a proposal by Vice President Mike Pence to send German Navy ships towards Russia's
Crimea, Bloomberg reports, citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter. Pence
allegedly wanted German ships to sail through the Kerch Strait separating Crimea from
mainland Russia. France, [.]
next, trump asks venezuela to pay in advance for the invasion. in usd.
Emmanuel Goldstein , Mar 8, 2019 3:59:51 PM |
link
This is an utterly brilliant Empire-killing move by Trump. Speaking of the UK I wonder how
much we will be asked to pony up for the US air bases and troops still in the UK 75 years
after D-day. This should hit just after Brexit and we may have a different government in the
chair......
the germans would be owned by the russian,gadaffi saddam hussein serbia and hitler if it was
not for uk and usa.
we keep the world safe and stop irania and the hamas terroist pushing israel into the sea.
i say to the germans pay the man or be invaded by evil doers
Although I didn't read or watch, it appears most major BigLie Media have published/aired this
story, a point I was curious about since Friday's usually a slow news day, thus begging the
question: What's the public's reaction? Might there be a groundswell calling for returning
the troops home so that both the occupied nation and the occupier save monies? And what of
the opposite argument, that even more troops and bases are needed to defend against the Red
and Yellow Menace?
If I was a president who could not step too far out of line due to powerful forces all around
me, I would take the ideas of neocons et al and push them even further over the line past
reasonable.
No-one in power could argue against me because I'm implementing their ideas, even though I'm
taking them too far.
But pushing things too far creates real resistance, and makes the real policies obvious, and
brings about the end of the empire.
I might decide to:
1. Move the US embassy to Jerusalem, to make it clear who calls the shots
2. Demand that NATO countries pay more and publicly disrespect their leaders
3. Demand that Germany and Japan pay for their occupation
4. Obviously attack Venezuela (in contrast to previous less-obvious attacks)
5. and other increasingly outrageous demands until the vassals get fed up
Meanwhile I'd do other things that I have to do to keep the powerful forces happy.
I may be a terrible person with no 3-d chess master plan, but perhaps things would be
different after my term. And "different" might approximate "better".
"Obama
was a smiling murderer, says Ilhan Omar" And of course, she's 100% correct. As Ben Norton
noted in this tweet , Omar's
words were citied in a Politico article that he linked. You'll note, that by extension
she also called Trump a murderer, just not as "polished."
There's merit in your argument. For example, the so far small contingent of anti-war
Progressive Democrats either were elected or emboldened thanks to Trump, Rep. Omar being the
most prominent example. The same could be said of pushing the far-right's policy goals, as
that's also generated resistance. Too bad the initial call for resistance was based on the
Russiagate hoax. Time will tell!
Okay. If you don't get your weekly payola, then shut down the foreign bases. Only thing is,
what do we do with all these armed people trained to kill on command, looking for some action
in between saying the Pledge of Allegiance and painting Bible verses on bombs?
I sure as shit don't want them all coming back here, loitering around in the US. Got too
many cops on steroids as it is.
@ teri who wrote
"
I sure as shit don't want them all coming back here, loitering around in the US. Got too many
cops on steroids as it is.
"
Its called karma
I live here too....the energy needs to be refocused on planet rehab and going to the stars
along with my standard make global finance public
It sure will.
Especially the Neocons as they scramble around trying to collect all the rust flakes to glue
them back onto dilapidated USA's dilapidated Foreign Policy.
I'm sorry, but many people posting here are delusional about Trump's motives.
For a start, none of the issues discussed in this post would cause the American people
much in the way of dispute. Broadly, most Americans would think that other countries should
pay for US "support". Americans disagree quite a bit about "The Wall" and gender issues
around public restrooms; but not so much about the issues raised in this post. So there IS NO
RESISTANCE, and WILL NOT BE ANY RESISTANCE, within the US, on getting countries to pay.
Other countries might have problems but what other countries think has never been much of
an issue for Americans.
The issue of getting other countries to pay is about cost and the out-of-control US debt.
And, also, about Trump electioneering.
Should other countries refuse to pay (or request US troops to leave), then they can expect
to be sanctioned or economically damaged. Just consider how France (a US ally) had one of
their prize jewel (world-beating) nuclear technology intellectual assets, Alstom's
Arabelle steam turbine , taken from them by the US. This happened way before Trump so
demonstrates how the US operates (the art of the [coercive] deal is the way the US rolls).
France, and in particular Macron, who was French Finance/Economic Minster, at the time, had
no choice but to accept the takeover. Macron actually appeared quite gleeful about it (Macron
was effectively working for US, not French, interests).
Can Columbia or Kosovo afford to pay? Or will Washington increase the financial support they
give to those countries to cover the bill.
As for NATO, the core system was based on the countries that are members providing a
reliable easily-secured base for American expeditionary forces to attack and invade one of
the two countries that are at the heart of the Eurasian landmass. In exchange for that the
United States bankrolled NATO. If Trump breaks that bargain, what incentive is there for the
core members of NATO to allow wars to be fought on their territory particularly now that
Putin has said he is focused on improving the lives of ordinary Russians rather than going to
war with Europe but will make sure that the decision centres of any countries that attack or
are somehow involved in an attack on Russia will be destroyed. None as far as I can see, so
it looks like it'll be goodbye NATO.
@55ADKC - why would other countries pay to have the usa military on their soil? this explains
the whole agenda of fearmongering that has been in overdrive 24/7 since i was a kid...
nothing else explains it.. keep the fear up to justify this craziness.. i can't see anyone
paying for it.. i sure wouldn't want that if i was german, japanese or south korean for
example... now, maybe the leaders of these countries are going to be faced with a stark
choice... side with this b.s., or get removed from office... i praise trump for bringing this
forth and hope that he strikes a big fat zero from the countries that have usa bases on
them...
I think Trump believes the hype fed to Americans forever that the US soldiers are the good
guys and they really are protecting these countries. He also has a reputation for squeezing
contractors etc.
To MAGA he thinks it needs better deals and more people sending money in.
@59. I think that's right. He genuinely believes US forces are out there protecting 'our
allies' and keeping the world safe for democracy etc. But he also thinks 'our allies' are
taking advantage of American generosity. This is a common sentiment among Trump voters.
I think most Americans think they are protecting the world.
iv> i agrees we are the white hatters many folks hate the uk and usa and
norway for are freedoms.
we need to be able to affords a big bat to stomp the evil doers if we cannot afford the big bat
folks must suffer.
the uk and usa tax payers are sick of paying for new bats to protect the world if the world
does not pay for protection new hitlers arrafats,gadaffis and hezbollah terrosits will be along
soon to take are democrasy
Posted by: chuck newsum , Mar 8, 2019 6:50:20 PM |
link
i agrees we are the white hatters many folks hate the uk and usa and norway for are
freedoms.
we need to be able to affords a big bat to stomp the evil doers if we cannot afford the big
bat folks must suffer.
the uk and usa tax payers are sick of paying for new bats to protect the world if the world
does not pay for protection new hitlers arrafats,gadaffis and hezbollah terrosits will be
along soon to take are democrasy
Posted by: chuck newsum | Mar 8, 2019 6:50:20 PM |
link
Because they are (particularly, in Europe) occupied countries and many things can be done
to ensure compliance (economic, gladio operations, sanctions, theft of assets, prosecution
for any offence [no matter how small, incidental, or accidental] if a dollar is involved,
influx of refugees, war [directly or adjacent to target country], removal of post-colonial
areas of influence, instigating financial collapse [Deutche Bank is supposed to be very
vulnerable and would effect the entire EU/world], etc).
Why couldn't France protect Alstom? Would France be able to resist if the US targeted the
African CFA countries (which are France's neo-colonial milk-cows and essential to the
economic well-being of France and detrimental to the African people subject to the CFA
franc)?
You "praise Trump" for raising this issue but it's just the same old, same old.
The only place relatively secure is the Chinese/Russia milieu but that's the other side of
the real "wall" and restricts the expansion of OBOR. And the price (for Russia and China) is
having the entire western nuclear arsenal aimed at you.
Whether or not any payments are actually made will make no difference; US troops will
remain in occupied territory. (BTW: Europe will pay, the key is Germany. If Germany refuse to
pay the rest will follow. But Germany can't fudge this; it would amount to open resistance
and a re-negotiation of the outcome of the 2nd World War and, unless the US want to give up
the fruits of their 1945 victory, I don't see that happening. Germany will realise that, if
the US insist, they will have to comply; it's the direct consequence of losing the war and
being occupied.]
Moving American troops to Poland? Surely, the benefits are many. First, since the size of the
military is much smaller than in Warsaw block times, there are many military grounds.
Particularly in areas where forests are larger, climate harsher, and local men are fond of
beating up strangers when they get drunk. Local roads are crappy and American soldiers are
prone to hit side road trees. To summarize, martial skills and spirit are bound to improve.
For even better results, they should be moved to Estonia, Latvia and Finnmark, areas
bordering Russian Federation. OTOH, fleecing Balts would be like squeezing blood from stone.
E.g. Lithuania is an exemplary NATO member, spending 2% of GDP on the military, and yet they
cannot afford a tank.
He's already said he doesn't believe the hype. He said it 60 Minutes after his
inauguration...
"We've spent 6 Trillion dollars in the Middle East....6 Trillion! We could have rebuilt
America twice. It's unfair what's happened to the American people, and we're gonna put a stop
to it."
The countries Trump wants to hit with fees are those he wanted the US military to pull out of
anyway. The cold war relics. Europe, Korea ect. Any bases to do with Israel Iran Venezuela
will not be hitting up the host country for extortion money. Bases he wants to use to
pressure China will also likely be exempt.
Those that do get hit with the fees, Trump doesn't give a shit if the US stays or leaves, so
long as the US is well paid if it stays.
I don't think Corbyn is the Messiah you take him for. He has sound ideas on not bombing
foreigners - unusual in a British politician - but apart from that he's a busted flush. Not
even close observers care to predict who will come out on top in the mud wrestling at
Westminster but if Corbyn makes it watch him accommodate.
.
With great respect, "b", and as happens rarely, I don't believe this article is on target.
America is the spine and most of the muscle of European defence. Forget Aachen. It'll be a
long time before any purely European defence force is up to scratch.
The Europeans are hoping that America will hold the fort in the meantime. That's not an
alliance. It's a marriage of temporary convenience.
Of course the other problem with this is it makes the American forces official mercenaries
rather than national forces and all the legal consequences that flow from that.
History first as tragedy and later as a farce. Alexander Solzhenitsyn: "Beria reported only
to Stalin and Stalin reported only to Satan." Now Bolton reports only to Trump and Chump
reports only to Sreadsheets. So much winning and multi-dimensional chess... It's deplorable.
Lol
@59 and @60 This is why the shock will be all the more stunning to the Americans.
Its "allies" have no problem with Uncle Sam spending like a drunken sailor. As far as they
are concerned, well, who cares.
But if Trump insists THEY pay for American profligacy then they are going to say "no".
American pundits will then pontificate on how much MORE it would cost those allies, and
the response will be: don't be stupid, we won't spend money to protect ourselves against a
threat that doesn't exist.
Because - and let's be honest here - in a post-NATO world the only military threat to
Europe will be the USA, and the US Army will be on the other side of the Atlantic.
I see a number of comments where the question's begged: Just what nation intends to invade
Europe such that the continuing Outlaw US Empire's occupation's warranted? Putin and Xi want
Europe to join the EAEU/BRI confab--invasion via commerce?!
It appears the Anti-Communist Crusade is having a hard time dying in some quarters,
particularly where continually invoking it is required dogma by controlling interests.
I think Trump and his MAGA boils everything down to money. Money goes out and money comes in.
His job is to slow the money going out and get more money coming in. I think it is that
simple. You get bombed by our smart freedom and democracy bombs then you should be decent
enough to pay for it. Also our bases are protecting you from getting bombed by evildoers
bombs. You should definitely pay for that. Why are we?
I'd like to see a study of the amount of money spent into the local economy by the occupation
forces in Germany, Japan and South Korea. Not just by the military but by the servicemen,
families, civilian contractors for housing, travel, schools, food, entertainment, etc
Obviously paying to be occupied is not happening, but there is some logic to the idea that
the occupied receive some economic benefits from being occupied, including but not limited to
a reduction in spending on their own military.
Any spending into the local economy is dwarfed by the amount of ecological damage
done--just look at Subic Bay or Okinawa. And yes, studies have been done into both aspects;
I've read them, but have no links.
." It's unfair what's happened to the American people, and we're gonna put a stop to
it."
Trump just does not believe in others hype, only his own hype. So show me evidence he is
stopping the spending which was his main point in what was infaur to Americans. Spending on
the military is even higher, 6 trillion is now 8 trillion even if the accountants still cant
tell who got paid
If Trump has shown us anything it is that he believes in the hype that whats good for Big
Business is good for America. Even his request for more money from NATO countries is a
request/demand to buy more from the MIC and not money to offset US military spending.
Sure, the reasons for the increased military spending are bogus, but he adds fuel to
supposed conflicts with Iran, Russia, China, North Korea that allows him to justify more
spending. Trumps just replaced Obama/Bush hype with his own personal hype. Call it Trump
hype.
Pft, that's what economist Michael Hudson has been saying:
The US military spending overseas during the Vietnam war resulted in a balance of payments
crisis, with the surprise solution being the recycling of USD from offshore economies back
into the US financial sector.
And it's been going on ever since.
I'll try to get a link ... Super
Imperialism also recently linked by the indefatigable karlof1.
The larger America's balance-of-payments deficit becomes, the more dollars end up in the
hands of European, Asian and Near Eastern central banks, and the more money they must
recycle back to the United States by buying U.S. Treasury bonds.
It's worthwhile to read any and all of Hudson's writings, including his autobiographical
essay. He has worked in the belly of the beast; Chase Manhattan bank and Standard Oil (Exxon)
just for starters, the Treasury and Finance departments of USA and Canada amongst others.
People, people!...Where will the military go? It's so obvious, it is staring us in the
face...
Space!
Ah, but not just space --
Mars!
The War Planet!
And best of all -- there's no people there! They can have their war games ad infinitum!!!
To boldly go...ok, I know, that dates me...
But oh my, blow it up! Blow it all up!! Keep on making horrible weapons, ship them off to
Mars! Raytheon on steroids; what's not to love????? Trump will go down in history - no - up,
up, and AWAY!!! [Just think - he'll have to visit the troops at Thanksgiving, take them a
turkey - oh and take any Bushes and Boltons and Obamas and Clintons with him as it is rather
far, a few Thanksgivings away but who's counting?]
People are really thinking too hard.
The Trump strategy is simple a la "The Apprentice":
Get a bunch of ambitious people to commit to deliver to outlandish goals. These goals are set
such that achieving or failing them, the blame goes to the failure but the success goes to
the leader.
If they fail: "You're Fired"
If they succeed: "I'm Brilliant"
This proposal broadens USA's demand that Germany terminate its plans to obtain energy imports
from Russia via Northstream. Trump has already asserted publicly (weeks ago) that the added
cost of LNG imports should be viewed as a defense-related cost. Via this new mechanism, the
cost will be not be borne 100% by Germany.
To understand why this new approach is likely to work, please read ADKC's comments.
Pundits may poke fun but the AZ Empire is deadly serious and most AZ elites will be
supportive. Especially when they are insulated from the cost (as they are).
@6ADKC... i agree with arbys view on this... trump and an undue number of americans probably
think they are doing some good protecting others.. it's laughable! now, as to your question
about france and alstrom... i don't know the specifics, but i know how easily euro
politicians, and politicians in general can be bought... i think it is excellent trump is
raising this issue, as i hope the leadership in these poodle countries recognize their goose
will be cooked soon enough, as ordinary people won't stand for it.. so, i am simplifying here
and i have to race out and will be back later to add more.. i see what you and jackrabbit are
getting at, but at some point this mafia-gangster strategy is going to collapse.. maybe i am
too naive, or idealistic.. i will give you that!
Your assessment is fine and not without merits but the other variable you seem to be
missing is the German people and others in Europe, themselves.
Will this cowtowing to the US bullying not in the end fully ensconse their leaders as the
globalist shills they truly are and thus lead to their demise? That is what b us alluding to.
We are unaware of Trump's motivations, here, but that is inconsequential when we are talking
about him waking up the people of Europe to finally give US the boot.
While cruising around the internet tubes I ran into a casual remark about Syria to the effect
that since the US is doing an occupation there, aren't "we" entitled to payment? If there is
any truth to a spate of recent headlines, the neocons have already solved that one.
How would ISIS have acquired any tonnage of gold? Perhaps it was part-payment for the oil
they sold until the Russians intervened. (the US sure didn't bother those sales!) More likely
they stole it from citizens and businesses. There have been LOTS of reports about the US
secretly rescuing ISIS fighters. Now here is yet another motive for those airlifts. I predict
any such gold will be quickly melted down so as to make it forever untraceable. Would Pompeo
or Bolton do such a thing?
It's bad enough that Omar tackled AIPAC, but to dump on Saint Obama is likely to get her
pegged as a "self-hating negro". Wonder what Speaker Nancy will do this time? Threaten to
waterboard her?
*** NO UPFRONT PAYMENT - We provide Fake, Counterfeit, Novelty, Duplicate passports of
United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Spain, Italy & any country fake documents, such as
driving license, utility bills, any identity card, birth certificates. Use it to travel
internationally if you have good connections with airports immigration, who can allow you to
travel to your dream country & you can use the fake passports to find cash in hand jobs
in Canada, the United Kingdom, USA & to find accommodation & to open a bank account
& more benefits. Contact Mr. Raja Thakur on WhatsApp 0044 7477 1170 28. Delivery within 2
weeks! Total fee is $2000 paid upon when you receive your high-quality fake passport.
*** કોઈ અગાઉ
ચુકવણી જરૂરી
નથી - અમે
યુનાઈટેડ
કિંગડમ, કેનેડા,
જર્મની, સ્પેન,
ઇટાલી અને કોઈપણ
દેશના નકલી,
બનાવટી,
નોવેલ્ટી,
ડુપ્લીકેટ
પાસપોર્ટ અને
ડ્રાઇવિંગ
લાઇસેંસ,
યુટીલીટી બિલ,
કોઈપણ ઓળખપત્ર,
જન્મ
પ્રમાણપત્રો
જેવા કોઈપણ નકલી
દસ્તાવેજો
પ્રદાન કરીએ
છીએ. જો તમારી
પાસે એરપોર્ટ
ઇમિગ્રેશન સાથે
સારા કનેક્શન
હોય તો
આંતરરાષ્ટ્રીય
મુસાફરી માટે
તેનો ઉપયોગ કરો
જે તમને તમારા
સ્વપ્નના
દેશમાં મુસાફરી
કરવાની તક આપી
શકે છે અને તમે
કૅનેડા,
યુનાઇટેડ
કિંગડમ, USA માં કેશ
ઇન હેન્ડ નોકરીઓ
શોધવા માટે અને
બેંક એકાઉન્ટ
ખોલાવવા માટે
અને અન્ય લાભો
મેળવવા માટે આ
નકલી
પાસપોર્ટનો
ઉપયોગ કરી શકો
છો. શ્રી રાજા
ઠાકુરનો
વ્હોટ્સએપ પર
સંપર્ક કરો: 0044 7477 1170 28.
ડિલિવરી માત્ર 2
અઠવાડિયામાં!
કુલ ફી છે $2000 જે
તમે તમારા હાઈ
ક્વોલિટીવાળા
નકલી પાસપોર્ટ
પ્રાપ્ત કરો
ત્યારે જ
ચુકવવાની
રહેશે.
ہم
انگلینڈ،کینڈا،جرمنی،اسپین،
اٹلی اور کسی
بھی دوسرے ملک
کے ڈپلیکیٹ اور
فیک پاسپورٹ،
کسی بھی قسم کا
آڈی کارڈ،
ڈرائیونگ
لائسنس،یوٹیلیٹی
بلز،برتھ
سرٹیفکیٹ اور اس
کے علاؤہ بھی
کوئی بھی
ڈاکیومنٹ قلیل
مدت میں بنا کے
دیتے ہیں۔
اگر آپ کے
ایئرپورٹ
امیگریشن
اہلکاروں سے
اچھے تعلقات ہیں
تو آپ اپنے پسند
کے ممالک میں
سفر کر سکتے
ہیں۔
آپ ان ڈاکیومنٹ
سے کینیڈا،
انگلینڈ،
امریکہ اور کسی
بھی دوسرے ملک
میں نوکری اور
رہاہیش حاصل کر
سکتے ہیں اور
اپنا بینک
اکاؤنٹ کھلوا
سکتے ہیں۔
ہم صرف دو ہفتوں
میں آپ کو یہ
ڈاکیومنٹ بنا کے
دیں گیے۔
پاسپورٹ بنانے
کا معاوضہ صرف
دو ہزار ڈالر ہے
اور وہ بھی آپ
پاسپورٹ ملنے کے
بعد ادا کیجئے۔
مزید معلومات کے
لیے ہمارے واٹس
ایپ نمبر پر
رابطہ کریں:
مسٹر راج ٹھاکر
00447477117028
This was sent to me yesterday by a concerned Indian, with the tag of..."Be careful with
your country"
He's right!
Re: "America is the spine and most of the muscle of European defence."
Defence against whom exactly? People pushing the narrative that the Russian Federation is
a menace never mention the numbers involved. The European countries have roughly 3 times the
population, 5 times the military spending and a massive advantage in GDP, look it up. If you
add the US to the equation then more like 5 times the population and 15 times the military
spending. The Russians have nukes of course but with the odds stacked up so spectacularly
against them I don't blame them for thinking they need them as a deterrent. If you had
another adversary in mind don't be shy.
Thanks for the links. I have been following Hudson for the last 12 years and agree with
much of what he says. I do disagree that dollar holdings are a tax on other countries. These
dollars for the most part are paid to companies for goods and services. They exchange some of
this with their central bank to invest locally or pay expenses. The central bank then prints
their local currency out of thin air to exchange. The USD are then counted as reserves which
allows them to create more local currency by 10+ times, depending on their reserve
requirements. This money is spent or invested in the local economy.
The USD reserves can also be used to fund their own trade deficits with other countries,
or pay of USD denominated loans
A lot has changed since 1971. After the Vietnam War was winding down the US pulled out of
Bretton Woods as Hudson anticipated. They then established the Petrodollar which was not
anticipated. This put more USD into the hands of OPEC nations as they were told to accept
only USD and in return would be allowed higher oil prices, and much was recycled back to the
US, but they and the rest of the world had other options.
This option was the Eurodollar which began in the 60's in a limited fashion . A later
sub-option was Eurodollars in the many tax havens, which developed first on British
territories and then in the Carribean.
These options being exercised limited the amount of dollars coming back to the US and
caused higher interest rates in order to attract some more of the dollars back.
The 1985 Plaza accord put in place an agreement to weaken the dollar with the US to buy
more imported goods as they encouraged more US companies to move offshore to produce in low
wage countries to keep inflation down. In return the deficits would be funded by other
countries resending back the USD they received by buying treasuries. This was when the US
realized they could spend and run up fiscal/trade deficits without consequences, and so they
did. Oh my.
Then after the fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent looting bu oligarchs the
Eurodollar Market, especially in the tax havens , exploded even further as these oligarchs
and western investors transferred their stolen loot to these offshore tax havens which were
already loaded with dollars from the criminal drug trade (mafia-five eyes) and multinational
corporations evading taxes at home
In 1990 the Fed then made it easier for US banks to import and use these Eurodollars by
setting a zero reserve requirement (same as Fed Funds) on Eurodollar deposits which they
could then loan out at many order of magnitudes. This fueled the great credit and asset
bubbles using drug money and stolen Soviet asset money which came in to buy Trumps property
and stocks. It also allowed banks to increase credit to cash strapped consumers who felt the
pinch of neoliberalism and globalization, since the banks were flush with cheap cash. This
led to the Great Collapse in 2008
Added to this Eurodollar supply from 1993 was Chinas own oligarchs growing increasingly
rich from US investment/trade and from converting the peoples assets to individual party
members who wanted a safe place to hide their loot and evade taxes in China
Quantitative Easing following the crash of 2008 provided another source of a cash influx
for the US. Toxic waste from foreign and local banks were bought with USD printed from thin
air.
Recent Quantitative Tightening meant trouble though. So Trumps new tax measures made it
possible for US corporations to return Eurodollars hidden offshore which is fueling stock
buybacks and propping up the market. If not for this a 2008 collapse would be here.
When the next crash happens, I am sure the US will surprise us yet again. Pretty sure the
fix will be named Green something or another and a Carbon Dollar/Tax
@70 english outsider.. i agree with @13 BM... however, the msm in the uk is so warped, maybe
they will succeed in marginalizing corbyn.. i thought
this article today from jonathan cook was pretty good.. as for the usa being the backbone
of europe military and etc.. europe needs to grow a spine themselves and stop taking it in
the rear from the usa.. this suggestion from trump is a good place to start by saying no...
maybe the poodles are incapable.. that sounds like what you are saying..
@pft... i think i agree with you, although i don't study the financial dynamics enough..
the bailout from 2008 will be followed by more bailouts.. they will just be bigger... that is
the name of the game - bust and bailout.. bailing out the banks, until the world asks for
something different..
Why would only blacks object to existence of these monuments? What about the purported
victors of that war? They could have objected but did not. The people attacking these
monuments are effectively declaring that they want a civil war, as I see it.
Icons of outstanding accomplishment seem nearly always to be about war.. and the political
figures that made the Oligarchs filthy rich prosecuting a war that killed millions. The more
dead, the bigger the statute.
Where are the monuments to Watson and Crick, Newton, the persons that discovered penicillin,
the engines that convert energy from one form to a more usable other form or statutes of the
persons that founded our great universities or the persons that discovered how to capture
electricity and make available in every household?
Few icons to those that have made the quality of our lives better are ever produced,
Why?
Probably because the war mongers would have none of that.. Oligarchs own 90% of the press,
the media, and
means of communicating their wars, no damn invention that makes life better for the
displicibles is going to get into the way of profit making wars that fund so much of Economic
Zionism.
Consider the recent invention at the U of Australia where hard work discovered 2,200
different places in the world, where a combination of sunlight and wind energy can produce
and store sufficient energy to supply 24/7 all the energy the entire world needs on the power
grid. Not a word of it in the media. Soon I expect to see a monument to the shock and awe
bastards?
"Russians are brainwashed daily that the West is an awful place and we are going to
invade them at any moment. " Oh rather you're brainwashed daily that Russia is an awful place
where Russians are brainwashed daily that the West is an awful place and we are going to
invade them at any moment.
I'm pretty sure not a single Russian believes that the west is going to invade. For
reasons that are obvious, or should be obvious.
You must be joking ! 70 per cent of Americans do not know what the Constitution is, and
six per cent don't even know when Independence Day falls. In a recent survey just over a half
of Americans didn't know what the Taliban are , despite the fact they led the charge in
Afghanistan.
When looking at a map of the world, young Americans had a difficult time correctly
identifying Iraq (1 in 7) and Afghanistan (17%). This isn't that surprising, but only a slim
majority (51%) knew where New York was. According to Forbes and National Geographic, an
alarming 29% couldn't point to the Pacific Ocean.
Many didn't know where Europe is let alone Spain.
Americans cultural ? What a hoot !
runner911 -> jezzam 5 Sep 2015 04:09
Be assured Russia is more than capable of defending itself against Western ( USA )
aggression, plus they hold the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet , so lets be clear
no-one is going to attack Russia and risk nuclear annihilation in return. As regards being
surrounded by NATO, how do you think the yanks would react if the same were to apply to the
USA and that sad corrupt country was surrounded by Russian Forces ? The last time it happened
in 1962, as I recall the yanks were whining like whipped dogs, but eventually agreed to
dismantle their missiles in Turkey provided the Russians did the same in Cuba.
Beckow -> notoriousANDinfamous 5 Sep 2015 11:59
You lost the argument, so you are trying to change the subject. Now we can see why Western
media doesn't allow an open discussion - you don't have much to say.
East-central Europe was invaded by Germans, Russians, Ottomans, French, even the Swedes.
Germans murdered about 15 million people here. Ottomans (Turks) about 10 million. Russians
liberated us from a murderous German occupation after WWII and stayed way too long...
Russian victims are in tens of thousands. Given that Russians lost about 1.5 million
soldiers liberating us from Germans and saved us from planned extermination by Nazis over
time, we keep some perspective about it. But I am not sure your ideological and slogan-driven
thinking would understand any of it...
EugeneGur -> zenithmaster 5 Sep 2015 11:43
This has zero to do with Russia's poor relations with the EU and everything to do the
Russians' smaller spending power.
This is not quite true. You underestimate the power of the sentiment. One example:
Russian tourism to Estonia dropped 60% after the scandal with the Bronze soldier in 2007,
long before any decrease in the buying power, and it never recovered.
You are right, of course, that the decreased value of the ruble affected mass tourism,
but the effect was multiplied by the anger towards Europe, believe me, it was. Going through
the visa process was always annoying and humiliating but under the present circumstances it
became unbearable. This one thing that affects all European countries whether its Bulgaria or
Italy.
MaoChengJi -> jezzam 5 Sep 2015 09:56
Yeah, something like what thecorporateclass said above.
I'll add this: deep down even people like you don't believe in any Russian 'invasion'
in Ukraine. They know: if Russia did invade, it would've been over long time ago. The
question, rather, is about Kiev regime's control of the border, which would amount to a
blockade of Donetsk-Lugansk republics; blocking all the supplies, attacking from all
directions, and exterminating people who feel ethnically Russian.
This can not happen: it would've brought the Russian government down, and therefore no
Russian government could participate in it; be it led by Putin, Dugin, or Navalny, or anyone
at all. It's just a physical impossibility. IMO.
TheCorporateClass -> jezzam 5 Sep 2015 06:37
The West agrees to drop this missile shield, Putin agrees to stop his military
interference in Ukraine.
This needs correcting IF it is to work as a solution.
The West agrees to drop this missile shield, agrees to stop it's interventions into
Ukrainian government and it's politics, agrees to stop FUNDING and GUIDING far right neo-nazi
militias and their political wings, agrees to stop making intentionally
false/unproven/fictional accusations against Russia & Putin's Government, stops providing
military intelligence to Ukraine (a non-Nato country), and admits to the direct connection
between the externally caused "political and social" instability in Ukraine begun by EU/NATA
and the externally caused "political and social" instability and then Civil War in Syria with
oil/gas supplies from Russia and Qatar ... then that would be a great first step towards the
truth of matters bullshit.
Then all of Russia and Putin at their ELECTED President would no doubt agree to stop his
humane military interference in Ukraine on behalf of those people having their human rights
and lives taken by ideologically driven psychopaths and their corrupt crazies from
Washington, Berlin, Riyadh, Doha, and Tel Aiv.
Simple really.
HollyOldDog -> raffine 5 Sep 2015 04:59
Whereas there are convoys of Russian trucks that are stopping the East Ukrainians of
starving to death. The only 'gifts' that West Ukraine gives to their East compatriates is
constant shelling, grad missile fire, mine fields and snipers that shoot any East Ukrainians
on sight whether they are men ,women or children.
MaoChengJi -> jezzam 4 Sep 2015 23:48
I believe the western anti-missile installations along the Russian borders give the
impression that the US is trying to break the MAD balance and create, at some point in the
future, a defense against retaliatory nuclear strike. That seems like the only rational
explanation for those installations. For do you think they are for?
MaoChengJi -> andy4248 4 Sep 2015 22:10
"Russians are brainwashed daily that the West is an awful place and we are going to
invade them at any moment. "
Oh rather you're brainwashed daily that Russia is an awful pleace where Russians are
brainwashed daily that the West is an awful place and we are going to invade them at any
moment.
I'm pretty sure not a signle Russian believes that the west is going to invade. For
reasons that are obvious, or should be obvious.
crackling -> MaoChengJi 4 Sep 2015 22:03
fingerprints is copying GWBush's data collection on citizens and visitors to the US - last
night I just had my photo and fingerprints taken on customs entry to Taiwan - I expect it's
becoming the norm these days.
Beckow -> notoriousANDinfamous 4 Sep 2015 21:22
Address Obama's admission that "US assisted in the transition of power", why do you skip
over it? $15 billion was a loan and it was used for the Ukrainian budget. If someone stole
some of it, prove it and charge them.
I never said that Russians didn't try to influence Kiev, but so did US - listen to the
recording, it assigns roles for different protest leaders. Ashton was an EU official and she
was standing with the protestors - so were many others, incl. Nuland, ambassador, etc... -
that goes way beyond "trade agreement".
I am a Slovak and I comment on anything I feel like. If you have a problem with that,
maybe you don't understand democracy and freedom of speech. By the way, most people in my
part of Europe (from Budapest to Vienna to Prague) roughly share my view of the situation. We
know Russians, we know Ukrainians, and we can judge for ourselves.
Popeyes -> andy4248 4 Sep 2015 19:45
It's very sad but Russians are for more aware of what's going on politically than their
Western counterparts. The fact that they have a low opinion of Westerners is hardly
surprising and they certainly don't have to be " brainwashed ' by the Kremlin to know what's
going on. They only have to look at Iraq, Libya, and Syria, Ukraine the list is endless to
figure it out. You could blame GM food for the fact that Americans seem to be pretty dim and
clueless on Europeans affairs, but as for the rest of Europeans I guess they are the ones
that are really "brainwashed".
Beckow -> notoriousANDinfamous 4 Sep 2015 19:32
Thou protest too much.
The "baroness" was an EU foreign secretary, that's pretty high up. In addition: US
ambassador, assistant sec for Europe (Nuland), and a number of other officials were at the
Maidan protests - videos and all.
The recording was very specific about who (Yats) should be Prime Minister and how it
should be done. If US also does that in Spain, that's even a bigger problem.
$5bn is a lot of "civil organizations" - most of it in the last 5-10 years. Russia gave a
loan - that is very different.
Finally, Obama literally said "we assisted with the transition of power in Ukraine"
what other proof can one possible have than an admission by the chief?
By the way I used the term "assist in an overthrow". To "orchestrate" is more pro-active.
Given what has been made public there definitely was "assistance" (see Obama's statement
above), whether that amounts to "orchestrate" like in 1953 Iran, I would leave to the
historians.
Beckow -> notoriousANDinfamous 4 Sep 2015 18:52
There are videos of dozens of Western leaders standing on the podium with the
demonstrators on Maidan (just imagine Lavrov joinig an Occupy protest in New York or
London).
There are recordings of Nuland deciding on who will run Ukraine ("f...k Europe").
US spent 5 billion in 20 years on "civil groups" in Ukraine.
If you prefer an infantile denial, I can't help you. Just don't be surprised if you become
irrelevant.
Beckow -> dmitryfrommoscow 4 Sep 2015 18:34
Yes it was always mostly about the visa-free access to EU. Ukrainians want to move to
Europe for jobs, benefits, school, etc... That was what drove Maidan energy (and US took
advantage of it).
But your numbers are off. There are about 1 million Ukrainians now in EU, mostly in UK,
Czech, Hungary and Poland. E.g. Poland has about 400,000 new Ukrainian migrants. The real
large numbers are yet to come. I think they will - they are watching the Syrians and getting
jealous, worried that all the empathy will be used up. Slovakia (my country) has camps ready
on the border. We also suddenly have a lot of Ukrainians who have discovered the Slovak (or
Czech) heritage. The same thing is going on in Poland, Romania and Hungary.
Millions are coming. And they won't be tourists or have money for Italian hotels. But I am
sure the Western media will find a way to blame it on Russia. Such are the pleasures of
dead-end ideologies, everything is very simple: "Putin did it!."
Beckow -> notoriousANDinfamous 4 Sep 2015 18:26
"US didn't orchestrate a coup in Ukraine and hasn't offered Kiev a military
alliance"
I suppose that would depend on your definition of "orchestrate" and a "coup". Most
rational observers would agree that US at a minimum assisted with the Maidan revolution (or a
coup). There are videos, recordings, financial transfers. Until the whole Maidan thing went
bad, the US State Department was very open about the assistance that they had provided on
Maidan, Obama said "we assisted with the transition of power in Ukraine" (actual quote).
US has said since 2008 that Ukraine will join Nato. They reiterated it last year and
Ukraine has an official policy of joining Nato. There are joint exercises and training with
Nato. It is rather conclusive that US and Ukraine are having a "military alliance".
Given those two facts how can you deny it? Or do you also deny the nose between your
eyes?
magicmirror1 4 Sep 2015 18:11
Fingerprints to get a visa.
Welcome to democratic EU. This is the future European leaders are building and I cannot
understand why.
dmitryfrommoscow -> Ola Smith 4 Sep 2015 16:46
Ola, the problem is there are no 45 million people in Ukraine these days. As many as 2.8
million people with Ukrainian passports work and live in Russia alone. And I think twice as
many live and work in the EU. And about five to seven million are in a crouch start position
to rush elsewhere at the first opportunity that avails itself. After all the Maidan
hullabaloo was about getting free access to European -- and probably North American -- job
markets and disappearing there for good. Let's throw aside all that talk about 'democracy and
values' and be honest about it.
A popular narrative in the West is that the world would be a much better place if all
countries just look and act more like the Western world. Indeed, the West has enjoyed great
wealth and growth over the years. But growing instability in the Western world has also raised
doubts about the Western-style of democratic governance.
In fact, there is a tendency to put Western-style democracy on a pedestal; but by doing so,
we overlook its faults and even potential dangers. From the never-ending gridlock in
Washington, to chaos in the House of Commons of United Kingdom over the Brexit mess, to people
rioting on the streets of Paris, more and more people are calling into question the
effectiveness of Western-style democracy.
Brexit, for some at least, encapsulates the perils and pitfalls of this style of democracy.
In June 2016, the people of the UK voted to leave the European Union and, for now at least, the
UK will leave the EU by March 29 this year, with or without a plan in place. The irrational
jump into the unknown and the chaos that followed has created a troubling situation for the
country, as well as other parts of the world, raising serious questions about the effectiveness
and legitimacy of UK-style democracy.
Whether to leave or stay in the EU is a complicated issue that requires careful study and
rational decisions from knowledgeable, well-informed people. It is irresponsible to just drag
people off the streets for a vote on a major policy issue like Brexit. For example, days after
the UK voted to leave the EU, a commentary on TIME's website wrote that the referendum was not
a triumph of democracy, but an ugly populist fiasco.
Thus, there is good reason why more and more people feel like Western-style democracy has
become a big joke. In the UK, the people voted to "take back control" of their country -- but
without a plan. In the United States, politics has become a soap opera and the system is
pitting Americans against Americans, splitting the country further apart. In fact, the US
government has become so divided and dysfunctional that it recently broke the record for the
longest shutdown in US history, which forced many government employees to turn to food banks to
feed their families.
Yet, a very different story is unfolding in Asia. During the more than month-long government
shutdown in the United States, China made history, too -- by landing the Chang'e-4 spacecraft
on the far side of the moon. As a US senator pointed out during the shutdown, China has
quadrupled its GDP since 2001, but the United States cannot even keep the government up and
running. He called the situation in the United States "ludicrous."
Clearly, Western-style democracy is not "the end of history," as some have predicted and
hoped for. This is not to say that the Western system is a failure or that China's system is
superior to Western-style democracy, but it is fair to say that China's own system is a good
fit for the country and it achieves the best results for the Chinese people.
For example, China has built the largest, most advanced high-speed train network in the
world. It is the envy for many in the world, even for many Americans, including former
President Barack Obama, who, nearly a decade ago, unveiled a plan for a national network of
high-speed passenger rail lines that was envisioned to transform travel in America. The plan,
like many others, turned out to be an American Dream that never came true. Just recently in
California, for example, the state's new governor killed the high-speed rail program that would
link Los Angeles to San Francisco -- a project beloved by the just-retired four-term Governor
Jerry Brown.
And then there is US President Donald Trump's ambitious plan to "Rebuild America," which he
has been unable to deliver. Stuck in an endless battle with Democrats over funding for the
border wall, Trump declared a national emergency to fulfill his pledge to construct a wall
along the US-Mexico border. His decision reflects a difference between the two countries'
models. Whereas the Chinese model is people-centered, the American model is vote-centered. With
regard to the "security and humanitarian crisis" on the country's southern border, the people
are asking, "where is the crisis?" And herein lies the dilemma: Decisions, like Trump's
decision to declare a national emergency, are essentially political stunts for votes. The
Western model reduces people to a source of votes, essentially turning democracy into a game of
likes.
This kind of decision-making is in stark contrast to the decision-making process in China,
which makes annual, five-year, and long-term plans to guide the country forward and conducts
extensive consultations to reach a broad consensus on major issues. A clear advantage of the
Chinese system is that it is constantly exploring ways to adapt to the changing times,
including large-scale reform of Party and government institutions to adapt to internal and
external changes.
Perhaps there was a time when one could argue that the Western model produced the best
results, but that is no longer the case. What we are seeing now is that it is increasingly
difficult for Western countries to reach a consensus on major issues and to form a strategic
plan. Western-style of democracy has become too rigid and Western democratic institutions are
in a state of degradation, making it next to impossible to carry out any substantial reform.
This can be seen in the fact that democracy in the Western world has increasingly become a
fight for money and a game of manipulating people for votes.
In China's socialist democracy, there is a strong and stable political force that represents
the interests of the great majority of the Chinese people. The Chinese government takes a
people-centered approach to politics and good governance ensures that results can be delivered.
It should be no wonder, then, that the Western model is barreling toward a cliff, while China
is making great progress in various aspects, including the nation's ambitious plan to eradicate
poverty by 2020. In a world of turmoil, there is reason for China and the Chinese people to be
confident in its path.
--it is fair to say that China's own system is a good fit for the country and it achieves
the best results for the Chinese people--
Putting it broadly 'One Size does not fit All' - as such values of the society, history of
the society and potential of the society are different everywhere - as such state management
be different. Moroever governance methods be flexible enough so that the decisions be adopted
according to the national and international requirements.
In some Western countries it's not the political system itself that is necessarily bad. In
the case of the present "sole superpower", for example, refusal to change policies based on
the extermination of over 95% of its indigenous population and centuries of inhuman slavery
of black people have perpetuated the present war against oppressed minorities. Further, the
continuation of aggressive wars overseas, a habit that prompted Martin Luther King Jr to call
his country "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world" has ensured the neglect of
infrastructure, healthcare, and quality of disenfranchised minorities, especially the
Afro-Americans. It's not surprising that in poll after poll, the US have garnered the most
votes for being the most dangerous country in the world. The much-maligned North Korea was
second.
Millions of poor people of all colours. The Africans used slaves long before the Arabs/
Europeans went to Africa and bought them from Africans, who used them for centuries, rounded
them up, for sale to anyone with trinkets. The A-rabs were real big slavers, real big. Russia
used Swedish slaves as did all nations use their fellow humans as slaves, only the US Negros
get all the publicity.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee members Rand Paul
(R-KY) and Tom Udall (D-NM) introduced the 2019 American Forces Going Home After Noble (AFGHAN)
Service Act to end America's longest war, honor the volunteers who bravely serve our nation by
providing bonuses to those who have deployed in support of the Global War on Terrorism, and
redirect the savings from ending nation-building in Afghanistan to America's needs at home.
Though American troops achieved what they were sent to carry out in October 2001, the
mission shift to nation-building has kept our forces in Afghanistan over 17 years later. Over
2,300 military members have sacrificed their lives in the war, with another 20,000 wounded in
action. In addition, the Afghanistan war has cost the United States $2 trillion, with the war
currently costing over $51 billion a year.
"Endless war weakens our national security, robs this and future generations through
skyrocketing debt, and creates more enemies to threaten us. For over 17 years, our soldiers
have gone above and beyond what has been asked of them in Afghanistan. It is time to declare
the victory we achieved long ago, bring them home, and put America's needs first," said Sen.
Paul .
"Soon, U.S. service members will begin deploying to Afghanistan to fight in a war that began
before they were born. As we face this watershed moment, it's past time to change our approach
to the longest war in our country's history," said Sen. Udall . "Our armed forces in
Afghanistan, including many from New Mexico, have served with exceptional valor and
effectiveness in the face of extraordinary challenges. After expelling the Taliban from power
and dismantling Al Qaeda's base of power in Afghanistan, they enabled a new Afghan government
to be formed while also eliminating Osama Bin Laden. But it is Congress that has failed to
conduct the proper oversight of this nearly 18-year war. Now, we must step up, and listen to
the American people -- who rightly question the wisdom of such endless wars. This bipartisan
resolution would bring our troops home at long last, while implementing a framework for
reconciliation."
The 2019 AFGHAN Service Act
• Declares victory in Afghanistan. The masterminds of the 9/11 attack are no longer
capable of carrying out such an attack from Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011,
and Al Qaeda has been all but eliminated from Afghanistan.
• Pays, within one year, a $2,500 bonus to all members of the military who have served
in the Global War on Terrorism. Since 2001, more than 3,002,635 men and women have deployed
overseas in support of this effort. This would be a one-time cost of approximately $7 billion
and an immediate savings of over 83% when compared to the current yearly costs. The $51 billion
a year can be redirected to domestic priorities.
• Additionally, there is precedent for service bonuses going back to the Revolutionary
War.
• Sets guidelines for withdrawal. Within 45 days, a plan will be formulated for an orderly
withdrawal and turnover of facilities to the Afghan Government, while also setting a framework
for political reconciliation to be implemented by Afghans in accordance with the Afghan
Constitution. Within a year, all U.S. forces will be withdrawn from Afghanistan.
• At the completion of withdrawal, the 2001 AUMF will be repealed.
You can read the entire 2019 AFGHAN Service Act below:
Trump actually proved to be very convenient President to CIA., Probably as convenient as Obama... Both completely outsourced
foreign policy to neocons and CIA )in this sense the appointment of Pompeo is worst joke Trump could play with the remnants of
US democracy_ .
Notable quotes:
"... "The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street." ..."
"... "It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads." ..."
"... Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria. In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups. ..."
"... "So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him." ..."
"... But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. ..."
"... He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable. ..."
And on the heels of
Dennis Kucinich's warnings , The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with
the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous.
As TheAntiMedia's Carey Wedler notes ,
Greenwald asserted in
an interview with Democracy Now, published on Thursday, that this boils down to a fight between the Deep State and the Trump administration.
Though Greenwald has argued the leaks were "wholly justified" in spite of the fact they violated criminal law, he also questioned
the motives behind them.
"It's very possible - I'd say likely - that the motive here was vindictive rather than noble," he wrote. "Whatever else is true,
this is a case where the intelligence community, through strategic (and illegal) leaks, destroyed one of its primary adversaries
in the Trump White House."
"The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies:
the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the
Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement
of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street."
As Greenwald explained during his interview:
"It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate
disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the
world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads."
Greenwald believes this division is a result of the Deep State's disapproval of Trump's foreign policy and the fact that the intelligence
community overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton over Trump because of her hawkish views. Greenwald
noted that Mike Morell,
acting CIA chief under Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and NSA under George W. Bush, openly spoke out against Trump
during the presidential campaign.
Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria.
In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead
advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups.
"So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was
exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout
the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him."
"[In] the closing months of the Obama administration, they put together a deal with Russia to create peace in Syria. A few
days later, a military strike in Syria killed a hundred Syrian soldiers and that ended the agreement. What happened is inside
the intelligence and the Pentagon there was a deliberate effort to sabotage an agreement the White House made."
Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of
undermining Trump is dangerous. "Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated
and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving," he said, likely alluding to a recent court ruling that nullified Trump's travel
ban.
He continued:
"But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to
urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity."
He argues that mentality is "a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it," highlighting that members
of both prevailing political parties are praising the Deep State's audacity in leaking details of Flynn's conversations.
As he wrote in his article, " it's hard to put into words how strange it is to watch the very same people - from both parties,
across the ideological spectrum - who called for the heads of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Tom Drake, and so many other Obama-era
leakers today heap praise on those who leaked the highly sensitive, classified SIGINT information that brought down Gen. Flynn."
He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence
during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable.
@Felix
Keverich You're full of shit what the heck do you know about industry you useless little
fart ? are you an industrial engineer do you have any technical qualifications whatsoever or
do you just pull buzzwords like 'marketable skills' out your wazoo, as needed ?
The Ukraine certainly had all kinds of 'entrepreneurs' they're called OLIGARCHS who
very capably enriched themselves unfortunately 'entrepreneurs' are what normal people would
call parasites, flim-flam men and hucksters
As for Ukrainian workers lacking 'marketable skills' I guess that would be 'skills' like
TROLLING, your specialty and making retarded statements on discussion fora
Ukraine had more very qualified engineers per capita than any country in Europe a huge
amount of intellectual capacity, and a very good industrial base especially in high tech
areas like aerospace and propulsion their problem was that they chose to play games with the
rotten west, instead of friendship with Russia, with which their industry was
integrated
You're a complete wanker in the A. Karlin mold. Get lost you have nothing to
contribute
@Big
Bill They fought that it was Russia, that was holding them back, and by separating they
could quickly achieve Western European standard of living. The first guy to become
president of independent Ukraine promised people that they were going to "live like France"
.in 5 years (!). lol
So their plan was something like this:
Lately, they began to think that the Ukraine's path to prosperity goes through EU
membership, hence popular support for Euromaidan, and you know the results
You're full of shit what the heck do you know about industry you useless little fart
? are you an industrial engineer do you have any technical qualifications whatsoever or do
you just pull buzzwords like 'marketable skills' out your wazoo, as needed ?
Your industries are worth ZERO, if you're unable to sell your products, and the Ukraine
struggled to sell its manufactured goods after 1991. Its traditional customer – Russia
began to import Western goods.
You sound like Martyanov. lol It doesn't take any "special qualification" to figure out
that Soviet-era factories were churning out worthless crap – there is a reason why that
system fell apart, you know.
I think the books contains some useful information about the history of Propaganda Wars and the Deep state. But also a
lot of junk: Fidel Castro listed along with CIA connected neocons as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski: Key elements in this secret
war have been the Department of State, the National Security Council, the Central
Intelligence Agency, as well as some of the conspirators' secret agents like Allen Dulles,
Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Fidel Castro.
He also denigrates Marx, which sound very simplistic. While Marx was wrong about many things and first of about
"the dictatorship of the proletariat". As well as the idea that proletariat is a new progressive class that will became the
next dominant class on the next stage of the development of the mankind, displacing capitalists. But Marx provided an
excellent framework for the analysis of capitalism. So to throw out all the Marxism is IMHO unwise.
Notable quotes:
"... The conspirators are a small group of Wall Street bankers, oil magnates and CEOs of transnational corporations, most of them senior members of the Council on Foreign Relations. ..."
"... Key elements in this secret war have been the Department of State, the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, as well as some of the conspirators' secret agents like Allen Dulles, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Fidel Castro. ..."
America is at war. But this not a conventional war waged with tanks, battleships and planes
in conventional battlefields -- at least not yet. It is a secret, insidious type of war whose
battleground is the people's minds. Its main weapons are propaganda and mass brainwashing by
disinformation, cunning, deception and lies in a large scale not used against the people of any
nation since Nazi Germany. Though important, however, those elements are just part of a series
of carefully planned and executed long and short-term psychological warfare operations. In
synthesis, it is a psychological war -- a PSYWAR.
If an unfriendly foreign power had carried
out against the American people the actions carried out by Wall Street bankers, Oil magnates
and CEOs of transnational corporations entrenched at the Council on Foreign Relations and its
parasite organizations, we might well have considered it an act of war.
Unfortunately, most
Americans ignore that they are under attack. The reason is because, like Ninja assassins, the
main weapon used by the conspirators who have managed to infiltrate and take control of the
U.S. Government and most of American life has been their invisibility. For almost a century,
these small group of conspirators have been waging a quiet, non-declared war of attrition
against the American people, and it seems that they are now ready for the final, decisive
battle.
Unfortunately, as the last two presidential elections showed, the brainwashed American
people reacted by changing the puppets, leaving the puppet masters untouched and in control. In
this book Servando Gonzalez studies in detail the origins of the conspiracy, who the
conspirators are, the main elements of this PSYWAR and, what's more important, how we can fight
back and win
This review is from: Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War
Against the American People (Paperback)
About the book
America is at war. But this is not a conventional war waged with tanks, battleships and
planes in conventional battlefields --at least, not yet. It is a secret, insidious type of
war whose battleground is the people's minds. Its main weapons are mind viruses disseminating
mass brain-washing through propaganda disinformation, cunning, deception and lies in a large
scale not used against any people since Nazi Germany. Though important, these elements are
just part of a series of carefully planned and executed long- and short-term psychological
warfare operations. In synthesis, it is a psychological war --a PSYWAR.
If an unfriendly foreign power had carried out against the American people the actions
carried out by Wall Street bankers, Oil magnates and CEOs of transnational corporations
entrenched at the Council on Foreign Relations and its parasite organizations, we might well
have considered it an act of war. Unfortunately, most Americans ignore that they are under
attack. The reason is because, like Ninja assassins, the main weapon used by the conspirators
who have managed to infiltrate and take control of the U.S. Government and most of American
life has been their invisibility.
For almost a century, this small group of conspirators have been waging a quiet,
non-declared war of attrition against the American people, and it seems that they are now
ready for the final, decisive battle. Unfortunately, as the last two presidential elections
showed, the brainwashed American people reacted by changing the puppets, leaving the puppet
masters in control.
This book studies in detail the origins of the conspiracy, who the conspirators are, the
main elements of this PSYWAR and, what's more important, how we can fight back and win.
About the Author
Cuban-born Servando Gonzalez got his training as a historian at the University of Havana.
He has written books, essays and articles on Latin American history, intelligence, espionage,
and semiotics.
Servando is the author of Historia herética de la revolución fidelista, The
Secret Fidel Castro, The Nuclear Deception and La madre de todas las conspiraciones, all
available at Amazon.com.
He also hosted the documentaries Treason in America: The Council on Foreign Relations and
Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro Connection, produced by Xzault Media Group of San
Leandro, California.
What the critics are saying
Servando Gonzalez' exposé of the Alien Queen, also known as the CFR, could easily
alter the future of Western civilization and America for the good. These are times when a
single man may make great contributions to the cause of human dignity and freedom. --Kevin E. Abrams, co-author with Scott Lively of The Pink Swastika.
Thoreau wrote, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root." Servando Gonzalez didn't waste any time hacking at the branches, and
reveals the very crooked roots of evil. This is a most impressive book. A must read. --G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature from Jekyll Island.
Servando Gonzalez has studied in detail the men and organizations that rule the world.
This book reveals the true story of how Fidel Castro came to power, and discusses the
powerful group that has kept him in power for almost fifty years. It is one of the most
important books of this decade. Read it and learn about the invisible forces that direct the
course of world affairs. --Stanley Monteith, author of Brotherhood of Darkness.
Read this book. Read it carefully. It not only tells you what's happening today but, with
very well chosen historical perspective, it lets you look down the road of the recent past
for proof of what it says. That is the best way to learn to look at the future in order to
fathom what is coming your way. And what is coming our way in the U.S., Europe --the whole
world-- is riddled with grave dangers, pitfalls and perils. --Adrian Salbuchi, author of El cerebro del mundo: la cara oculta de la
globalización.
Edward Bernays wrote, "We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas
suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." However, Servando Gonzalez, an astute
researcher and author, masterly divulges the machinations behind many historical and
contemporary events and reveals who is really managing the presidential puppet strings. As
Servando maintains, the new American Revolution, using covert warfare, is a conflict without
guns. Rather, the ammunition is lies and psychological warfare and every American citizen is
a target. It is a fabulous book, a must-read! --Deanna Spingola, author of When the Power Elite Rules.
Book's Content
Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War Against the American
People
Contents
Preface
Conspiracies and Conspiracy "Theories" Espionage and Skepticism Historians and Intelligence Analysts The Art and Science of Historical Tradecraft
Introduction
A Fractured America The Covert American Revolution Who Are the New World Order Conspirators? The Secret War Against the American People Walking Back the Cat
Chapter 1. Is There an Invisible Government of the United States?
The CIA as Scapegoat The Council on What? The Science of Historical Forensics U.S. Presidents on Blinders CFR's Inside Critics The CFR Octopus The CIA's True Bosses
Chapter 2. Spying: The Rockefellers' True Passion
The Inquiry: First U.S. Civilian Intelligence Agency House-Wilson: A Typical Case of Agent Recruitment Wilson: The First Successful U.S. Puppet President The Family that Spies Together . . . Nelson and David Inherit Their Grandpa's Passion for Spying The Family Tradition Continues
Chapter 3. The Council on Foreign Relations: The Conspirators' Secret Intelligence
Agency
The Conspirators Create an Anti-American Monster The CFR: Second U.S. Civilian Intelligence Agency A Very Secretive Organization The CFR: an Association of Criminal Traitors The Invisible Government of the United States The CFR Conspirators Take Early Control of the Press The Conspirators Extend Their Control Over the Press, the Arts and the Academia The Conspirators Infiltrate the Two Parties The Conspirators Infiltrate the State Department
Chapter 4. The OSS: of the Bankers, by the Bankers, for the Bankers
American Intelligence Before and After WWI Was the OSS an Intelligence Agency? OSS: The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight OSS: The Conspirators' Fifth Column Inside the U.S. Armed Forces The Assassination of General Patton
Chapter 5. The National Security Act, the CIA and the Creation of Artificial
Insecurity
The National Security Act of 1947 and the Origins of the National Security Council U.S. Presidents as CFR's Puppets The National Security Council: a Key Tool of the CFR Conspirators Why the CIA? The CIA: The Conspirators' Secret Military Arm The NSC Illegally Authorizes the CIA to Conduct Covert Operations Covert Operations: The CIA's True and Only Purpose
Chapter 6. The CIA's "Failures"
The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight? The Gang That Shouldn't Shoot Straight CIA's Failed Assassination Attempts on Fidel Castro The CIA's True Role Team B VS Team A The Two CIAs CFR Conspirators Create CIA B American Patriots Working for CIA A HUMINT VS TECHINT Enemy Moles Inside the CIA Angleton's Deep Game
Chapter 7. The Cold War PSYOP
The CFR Conspirators Use the CIA to Recruit Fidel Castro The Bogotazo False Flag Operation and the Cold War PSYOP The Agent Provocateurs Planting False Clues Was Castro a Communist? The Bogotazo and the Assassination of Gaitán An Intelligence Analysis of the Bogotazo Gaitan's Assassin: A Manchurian Candidate? An Intelligence Analysis of Gaitán's Assassination New Pieces of the Puzzle The Bogotazo: Still a Mystery
Chapter 8. The CFR Mole Infiltrates the Soviets
The Destruction of Russia and the Creation of the Soviet Union Khrushchev's Peaceful Threat A Spy is Born ... or Made? Fidel Castro to the Rescue The Bay of Pigs PSYOP
Chapter 9. Agent Castro Warms Up the Cold War
The Soviets Swallow the Dangling Bait The CFR's Agent Provocateur Strikes Again Khrushchev Tries to Get Rid of Castro, But Fails Castro's Good Job on Behalf of His CFR Masters The Latin American Guerrillas and Other PSYOPs Fidel Castro and the 9/11 False Flag Operation The Castro-Chávez PSYOP
Chapter 10. PSYOPs Against the American People I
A War in the People's Minds PSYOPs Do Exist The War-for-Eugenics PSYOP The Anti-Christian PSYOP The Gay Movement PSYOP The Gay Marriage PSYOP
Chapter 11. PSYOPs Against the American People II
The Environmental PSYOP Anthropogenic Global Warming? The Two Party PSYOP The War on Terror PSYOP The Obama PSYOP
Chapter 12. Castro's Cuba: A Testing Ground for the New World Order?
The Cuban Economy Before Castro Cuba as a Testing Ground Castro's Cuba: a CFR Conspirator's Paradise
Chapter 13. The End of the CIA and the Beginning of the New World Order
The CFR Conspirators Take Control Over the U.S. Military The CFR's Fifth Column Inside the U.S. Armed Forces Faithful to Two Flags? The CFR Conspirators Destroy the CIA They Don't Need Anymore The "Support Our Army" Myth
Epilogue: What Can We Do to Win This War?
Is the U.S. Becoming a Totalitarian Dictatorship? Ballots or Bullets? Why They Hate Us? The Conspirators' Final Push for the New World Order PSYWAR and Mind Viruses
Appendixes
Appendix I. A Chronology of Treason
Appendix II. The Evaluation of Information: Intelligence, the 9/11/2001 Events, and the Cuban
Missile Crisis of 1962
Appendix III. Hegelian-type PSYOPS. False Flag Operations: Bogotazo and 9/11/2001
From the Preface
This is a book about a conspiracy. It is not, however, about the imaginary "vast
right-wing conspiracy" mentioned by Hillary Clinton. Neither it is about the alleged
"conspiracy of ideas" carried out by well-intentioned, honest people engaged in "an
ideological battle," mentioned by Congressman Ron Paul.
It is about a real vast right- left-wing conspiracy carried out by a group of criminal
psychopaths without any ideology at all except maximum power and control. To carry out their
plants, the conspirators usually resort to deception, coercion, extortion, usury,
racketeering, Ponzi schemes, theft, torture, assassination and large-scale mass murder.
The ultimate goal of these conspirators is the total destruction of the American republic
as we knew it and the creation of a global communo-fascist feudal totalitarian society under
their full control --a society they euphemistically call the New World Order.
The conspirators are a small group of Wall Street bankers, oil magnates and CEOs of
transnational corporations, most of them senior members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Though their push for total control of the U.S. government began in 1913 during the Wilson
administration, since the end of WWII it has become a fully developed psychological war of
immense proportions secretly waged against the American people. Key elements in this secret
war have been the Department of State, the National Security Council, the Central
Intelligence Agency, as well as some of the conspirators' secret agents like Allen Dulles,
Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Fidel Castro.
This conspiracy resembles a gigantic puzzle of which many pieces are missing or have been
intentionally placed in the wrong place in order to mislead. This explains why most analysts
who have studied the phenomenon using the analytical method have failed to find the true
source of the problem.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars This book is a roller coaster... , September 13,
2010
This book is a roller coaster. It questions most of your accepted ideas about
the Council on Foreign Relations, the OSS, the CIA, Castro, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban
missile crisis, 9/11 and many other events we take for granted. After reading this book I
agree with the author's assertion that most of what has been written about the CIA - pro and
con - is simply hogwash.
Gonzalez's theory about the two CIAs after the Team A -- Team B deception is very
convincing. This may explain why this is at the same time the most anti-CIA and the most
pro-CIA book ever written. (The book is dedicated to Arthur B. Darling, the first CIA
official historian.)
Moreover, this is the only book I have read that provides a logical explanation to the
CIA's seemingly illogical abandonment of HUMINT for its current widespread use of TECHINT,
and why good CIA officers have been abandoning the Agency.
Also, after reading many books about James Jesus Angleton, this books dissects his
behavior and shows what he really was: a traitor and a common criminal serving not the
American people but his true masters, the Wall Street bankers and oil magnates who created
the CIA.
A must read for CIA former and current officers, particularly the ones in the intelligence
area.
This book reads like a spy novel. In almost every single page I found shocking assertions
and theories -- supported by more than a thousand scholarly footnotes.
After enumerating the long list of CIA's failures, many books about the CIA rhetorically
ask the question: "Why the CIA has been so stupid?" After reading Gonzalez' book now I ask
myself, how I have been so stupid to believe the assertions that the CIA guys --or, much
better, the people who control the CIA-- are stupid?
In his book Gonzalez shows how, since its very conception, the CIA has never served us,
the American people, but the Wall Street bankers, oil magnates and CEOs of transnational
corporations who created it. The time is ripe to get rid of the CIA and the rest of alphabet
soup of intelligence organizations who use taxpayers money to protect the interest of
international bankers and transnational corporations.
Ah, and before we close the CIA building and throw away the key, I would like to see
destroyed the bust of William Donovan decorating its vestibule. While the traitor who ordered
that assassination of General Patton got a statue, the heroic, patriotic general's memory has
been covered with mud. What a shame!
I had a chance to read
and advance copy of this book and it was very interesting. I am a fan of conspiracy theory
books and historical books so this was right up my alley. What I realized though, after I
read more and more of the book is that this is not your typical book on this subject. It
backs ideas up with facts and has lots of good footnotes which I will use for future
reference. This type of subject matter may not be for everyone, but considering how things
are going in this country, it might be worth the read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Had a chance to
purchase a copy of the book this past Saturday, started reading it then and finished it this
morning. Mr. Gonzalez has done such a remarkable job of analyzing historical events in detail
and providing so much key evidence that his claims must be taken seriously. I'm not going to
go into every detail about the book, but if you believe that everything in this country is
not as it seems and that we are being lied to by our government now and have been lied to in
the past, read this book.
Gonzalez in his engaging prose brings you quickly up-to-speed in the globalist plan and
the players. In spite of the abundance of typos and editing errors along with some stilted
English phrases, the book will be difficult to put down; and when it ends, you'll want to
know more. Hopefully,the second printing will be better-edited.
Warning, you will not be able to go back to where you were before, after reading this
book! , June 12, 2012
I am an honorably discharged Veteran with 20 years of military service and because I've
questioned the actions and motivations of the CFR, Homeland security, the bombing of the
Oklahoma Federal Building and the events of 9/11, I have been labeled by my government as a
potential terrorist. I am ashamed, hurt, confused and feel alarmed.
Why and how did it get to this point?
If you want to understand, put on your seat-belt and prepare yourself when you read
Servando Gonzalez's Psychological Warfare and the New World Order.
The wealth of historical, empirical proof within this work will rock your world. Just when
you think that you have reached the climax of evidence, the next wave of proof makes the hair
on the back of your neck stand up!
This book will affect you in a way that you will never be able to walk down American
streets again without recognizing that you could be seen as nothing more than cannon fodder
for a ruthless and cunning organization that has been working for a goal for over a hundred
years.
I am not religious but what has been going on in America and the rest of the world, is
truly evil. It's a force that is working to insure billions of people will suffer and who is
left will serve the masters of the New World Order.
This is not science fiction, not some crazy story of some sick delusional nut, this is
reality of elements within our government.
Servando Gonzalez will guide you through this strange and factual journey about what is
really going on in America and elements with in our government. If you don't care about your
love ones, if you don't care about your honor, if you don't care about knowing about what you
can do to protect yourself against this force, don't read this master piece of factual
work.
***Fair warning*** The knowledge in this capstone of work will affect you personally!
Literally. Servando Gonzalez's book on psychological warfare looks at the people and
organizations (and their motivations) of the conspiracy behind all other conspiracies.
For decades I've read of the main conspiracy-related events of my life time, the who's and
why's behind - JFK's and RFK's assassinations, the Contra/Arkansas cocaine/arms trade and
Whitewater money laundering scandal, the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9/11 attacks - and have
been fascinated, shocked, outraged, bewildered and disgusted. This book goes right to the
heart of the agenda behind these various events, and shows them to be mere layers in a much
larger onion. This book provides a clear overview but is also full of fascinating details,
especially on how Castro was a CIA agent and how his rule of Cuba has not been what it seems,
as well as providing a run down of some of the current PSYOPs being run on the American
public.
Gonzalez's own review here gives an outline of the details better than I ever could so I
will keep this short. I came across this book after reading a lengthy review by Gonzalez for
a different book on Amazon, greatly impressed by his intellect and perspective. At first I
was leery of purchasing his book because many of these reviews appear written by friends of
his (single review reviewers always make me skeptical). However this book delivers, and as
another reviewer commented here, it will change your understanding, views and perhaps life.
It has quickly risen into the top 10 list of influential books I've read. I'd even venture
say it is essential.
My main complaint is that while well informed, and intelligent Gonzalez's writing is often
dense and repetitive (as well as having a fair number of typos), and so apparently rushed to
press without thorough editing. Given the timely need of this book this is excusable, but
hopefully will be remedied in a second edition. More importantly I was sometimes left
wondering how Gonzalez knows all these (specific) people are CFR members/agents? And this
uncertainty of mine, and implied dependence on him, left me in doubt about the whole thesis
(are we both just paranoid delusional? lol!).... But perhaps such doubt (in the face of my
own mix of information and disinformation) is a healthy thing.
Many times when talking with friends about conspiracy ideas and theories they inevitably
ask two fundamental questions; 1) who is behind it all, and 2) why?
This book answers both clearly;
1) The Council of Foreign Relations (via the National Security Council, the CIA and
increasingly the US military command) and various sister organizations (The Trilateral
Commission and The Bilderberg Group). Many individuals are identified, most of these are
familiar public figures (as most high level government appointees and elected officials are
drawn from this elite group).
2) The New World Order - global domination for sustainable control and order by the
super-rich elite (the .0001%, not the mere, ordinary, scape-goated/smoke-screened "1%"). The
effect could well be a return to a new feudal age, with almost all of us in a "safe" but
unfree and impoverished serfdom (kind of like with the Cuba "experiment"). The kicker being
that to do this, "us" will probably be less than a quarter (and perhaps much less) of those
now alive.
And it also answers the question of how.
"But the conspirators who planned to bring a revolutionary change of government in the
United States to implement the communo-fascist regime they call the New World Order were a
bunch of physical cowards, who didn't have the courage to risk their lives in a revolution by
gun play. Consequently, despite the fact that the political system they wanted to implement
was a mixture of communism and fascism, they neither adopted the revolutionary tactics of
open insurrection favored by the Communists, nor the coup d'etat techniques of the Fascists,
but the evolutionary, infiltration techniques advocated by the British Fabians." (pg. 40)
The tools to achieve this Brave New World vision include any and all available. For some
it is direct warfare (the Middle East), for others, famine and eugenics (Africa), and for
American's it is mainly mind control (mass hypnosis and indoctrination) and psychological
warfare (destabilizing events leading to doubt, confusion, fear, depression and
helplessness). Of course this plan is not a given (even though already far along in it's
realization). There are other forces for change, sanity and awakening in the world today.
This is a well-documented expose of the puppet masters that pull the strings of the United
States Government.
As a retired police officer and intelligence analyst, I read this book with validation of
the ideas presented in the fore front of my mind. I used two bookmarks while reading. One
bookmark kept my current place and the other marked the corresponding footnotes. The
footnotes are detailed and accurate and led to even-more paths of discovering the truth.
This book is proof that the United States Government has been usurped by the Council of
Foreign Relations, transnational corporations and Wall Street bankers.
Every chapter is a light bulb going off in your mind. The author has brilliantly gathered
pieces of the puzzle and assembled them into a coherent picture.
This book is essential for understanding what has happened to our country and what is
still happening. It is a MUST read!
The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the Munich Security Conference,
and Angela Merkel's stunning defiance of Mike Pence, after the United States Vice President urged Germany to cease
its economic activities with Russia and China, starting with Nord Stream 2 and the deepening energy links to
Russia.
My, Ukraine's American Minister of Health – Yuliana Suprun – is doing an
outstanding job. Ukraine was the locus of the world's biggest rise in measles cases in 2018,
from about 5,000 cases the year before to 35,120 the year just past. Moreover, 24,042 new
cases were reported in the first 2 months of this year.
But it was the Moskali who caused the epidemic by trolling social network sites with false
information as regards the efficacy of vaccination against measles.
Russian-backed attempts to sabotage Ukraine's economic, political, and health
developments have left the country fighting a measles outbreak and continuing a bloody,
undeclared war. The situation is emblematic of increasing tension between the ideologies of
President Vladimir Putin and countries of the pro-democratic, neoliberal west.
The measles outbreak -- affecting other countries including Serbia, Georgia, Greece,
and Italy -- has hit Ukraine hardest, with the country's 23 000 cases accounting for
more than half the European regional total. Kremlin-supported social media accounts spreading
discredited theories about the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine, combined with shortages
and underfunding, have been blamed for the outbreak. Research published on Aug 23 concluded
Russian trolls promoted discord and, masquerading as legitimate users, created a false
impression that arguments for and against vaccination were equipoised. The result has been an
erosion of public consensus on the value of vaccine programmes. The precipitous fall in
vaccination level began after 2008, when 95% of eligible children in Ukraine received their
second (and final) recommended dose of the MMR vaccine. By 2016, the rate was 31%, among the
lowest in the world.
Although now rising again, the latest 85% measles vaccination rate recorded by WHO
remains below that needed for herd immunity. Records in 2016 show poor vaccination rates for
other diseases: only 19% of children received the third recommended dose of the
diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine and 56% received the third recommended dose of oral
polio vaccine.
Hepatitis B vaccination was low, with coverage with hepatitis B birth-dose and
third-dose vaccines at 37% and 26%, respectively. WHO estimates between 3% and 5% of the
Ukraine's 45 million population has been infected with hepatitis C.
Ukraine bears the second largest HIV epidemic in eastern Europe and central
Asia.
The above was printed in the much respected "The
Lancet" . Who wrote it, I know not -- but I can hazard a guess.
It begins with the outrageous statement that "Russia" is resposible for the epidemic,
specifically, the"ideology" of the Russian president is the cause of the epidemic.
No proof given: no data: sweet fuck all. Just an assertion that "Pyutin" is
responsible.
You know, it's a shame Ukrainians are so gullible, and believe Russia's lies without checking
any other sources of information – don't they know how to use The Microsoft and The
Google? Not to mention gullible Americans, who also fell for it.
Oh, and the Australians, who were so gobsmacked by Russia's campaign to discredit
vaccinations that being a 'vaccine skeptic' is now punishable by up to 10 years in
prison.
Mind you, the 'anti-vaxxers' in those instances are reportedly Australian nurses and
midwives – but I daresay they. too, were taken in by clever Russian trolls posing as
legitimate users on social media.
Some of you will probably be asking "At what point, for the love of Christ, are people
expected to take responsibility for their own decisions, instead of hiding behind the
feebleminded excuse that they were tricked by the Russians?" For my part, I am convinced that
Russia is going to take over the world, because Russian trolls are so much smarter than the
public in any country you care to name. With a few cat pictures and a sprinkling of Black
Lives Matter stories, many of them generated after the American election was actually over,
the Russians tricked the American electoral college into making Donald Trump president of the
United States instead of Mrs. Clinton, but in such a way that more of the public actually
voted for Clinton than for Trump. And the electoral college is supposed to be made up of
America's leaders. Brilliant, you must admit.
Watch out for the Kremlin campaign against photography – because having your picture
taken steals your soul – due to open in The Ukraine this summer. Then there will not
even be a photographic record of all the Ukrainians who died from measles, conniption fits,
brain fever and the fantods, as the Kremlin wipes them out with their own gullibility.
Survival of the fittest, baby.
"... Yesterday Israel's attorney general published his decision to indict Mr Netanyahu on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust in connection with three cases. ..."
"... Israel is tough on its leaders. It is certainly tougher than Britain that has so far failed to charge Tony Blair with war crimes or the USA that similarly failed to indict George Bush for launching an illegal war*. ..."
"... Ariel Sharon's political career didn't come to an end after the massacre in Sabra and Shatila. The Kahan Commission that was formed to probe Israeli involvement in that colossal crime found that the IDF was indirectly responsible and that Sharon, who was then the Defense Minister, bore personal responsibility for the massacre. The commission recommended the removal of Sharon from his post as Defense Minister. ..."
"... Israel is led by criminals who love their country. For at least 70 years, Britain has been led by criminals who loathe their country. ..."
"... "The Jewish State is an unusual place. It indicts its leaders and occasionally even locks them behind bars". ..."
"... Which is hardly surprising, since most people who rise to high political office (in any country) tend to be criminals – or at the very least callous and cruel. What really is surprising, as Mr Atzmon observes, is how rarely other countries see fit to prosecute their political leaders, even when they commit glaringly obvious crimes. ..."
"... As Howard Scott accurately remarked, "A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation". (Or, one might add, enough influence to launch a campaign for political power). ..."
"... Canadian Jew Henry Makow speaks often of the vicious rivalry in Jewry between the 'globalist' Jews typified by George Soros, and the 'nationalist-zionist' Jews typified by Netanyahu, who has recently making waves by his alliances with European right-wing parties, who are associated in many Jewish minds with 'anti-semitism' ..."
"... The prosecution of Netanyahu, can be seen as artillery fire by the Soros-type camp, which thinks Netanyahu has really gone too far linking himself with Viktor Orbán and so on ..."
"... One recalls the famous 'anti-semitic' tweet of Netanyahu's son Yair against Soros, using the infamous 'happy merchant' jewish caricature http://images.jpost.com/image/upload/q_60/391963 ..."
The Jewish State is an unusual place. It indicts its leaders and occasionally even locks
them behind bars. Former Israeli president Moshe Katsav was found guilty of "rape, sexual
harassment, committing an indecent act while using force, harassing a witness and obstruction
of justice". He was sentenced to seven years in prison. Veteran Israeli PM Ehud Olmert was
convicted of two counts of bribery and was also sent to prison.
Yesterday Israel's attorney
general published his decision to indict Mr Netanyahu on charges of bribery, fraud and breach
of trust in connection with three cases.
Israel is tough on its leaders. It is certainly tougher than Britain that has so far failed
to charge Tony Blair with war crimes or the USA that similarly failed to indict George Bush for
launching an illegal war*.
Yet Israel is far from an ethical realm. It is institutionally
racist towards the indigenous people of the land as well as African immigrants, and it is also
abusive to its poor. Israel is occasionally accused of gross
war crimes . One may wonder why a criminal state with such an appalling record is so harsh
with its leaders.
Zionism is one possible answer. Zionism, in its early days, was contemptuous of 'the Jews.'
It promised to civilise the chosen people by means of 'homecoming.' The following comments
weren't made by Adolf Hitler or a member of the Nazi party but by some of the most dedicated
early Zionists:
The wealthy Jews control the world, in their hands lies the fate of governments and
nations. They set governments one against the other. When the wealthy Jews play, the nations
and the rulers dance. One way or the other, they get rich." (Theodor Herzl, Deutsche
Zeitung, as cited by an Israeli documentary )
'The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and
spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social
obligations, knows no order nor discipline.' ( Our Shomer 'Weltanschauung' ,
Hashomer Hatzair, December 1936, p.26. As cited by Lenni Brenner)
'The enterprising spirit of the Jew is irrepressible. He refuses to remain a
proletarian. He will grab at the first opportunity to advance to a higher rung in the social
ladder.'(The Economic Development of the Jewish People, Ber Borochov, 1916)
The harsh treatment of Israeli politicians by the Israeli media and judicial system is
inspired by that Zionist promise. Israel wants to be 'a state like all other states.' It wants
its politicians to be ethical and behave with dignity. But the Israeli people aren't sure about
the importance of such trappings. Mostly, they could care less whether the judicial system or
the media approve of their leaders' ethical records.
Ariel Sharon's political career didn't come to an end after the massacre in Sabra and
Shatila. The Kahan
Commission that was formed to probe Israeli involvement in that colossal crime found that
the IDF was indirectly responsible and that Sharon, who was then the Defense Minister, bore
personal responsibility for the massacre. The commission recommended the removal of Sharon from
his post as Defense Minister. These findings did not stop Sharon political career, as we know,
he went on to become Israel's prime minister a few years later.
The asterisk says it all:"Needless to mention, Israel sends its politicians to jail for
bribery but also does not prosecute war crimes as much as it should." As long as you're
plundering & strafing shegetzes you're on safe ground in Israel (or wherever else you can
get away with it in heathen territory). Just like you can traffic in shiksas all you want
(one of Israel's leading industries until too much publicity recently).But if you dare screw
(either connotation) one of the tribe, your bacon (oink, oink) is fried!
"As much as early Zionism promised to change the people of Israel, the people themselves
haven't been keen of turning into something totally foreign to their true nature" instead,
they're more keen to turn their true nature into something very threatening to foreigners.
"Despite yesterday's polls that suggest that Netanyahu's support has dropped following the
decision to indict him, it is likely that within a few days we will find that Netanyahu's
support is rising" as he directs his ire to another foreign population again, in Iran or Gaza
or Europe or wherever. "This response to findings of criminal behaviour [of only one kind]
enlightens the dialectical clash between what the Israelis 'are' and the image they insist
upon attributing to"..the Other.
"Israelis love to see themselves as a dignified Western civilisation guided by law and
order" at home; while they avidly sell-out this image in the world. "Israel is at least
'democratic' enough to bring this contradiction to light." So give them a little credit,
anyway – but no reprieve.
The striking thing about the crimes Netanyahu is charged with is how trivial and Pollyannish
they are compared to what he should be charged with. If I think this living outside Israel, I
can only imagine what his diehard supporters think .
"The Jewish State is an unusual place. It indicts its leaders and occasionally even locks
them behind bars".
Which is hardly surprising, since most people who rise to high political office (in any
country) tend to be criminals – or at the very least callous and cruel. What really is surprising, as Mr Atzmon observes, is how rarely other countries see fit to
prosecute their political leaders, even when they commit glaringly obvious crimes.
As Howard Scott accurately remarked, "A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who
has not sufficient capital to form a corporation". (Or, one might add, enough influence to
launch a campaign for political power).
Regarding why corrupt Israel surprises us by prosecuting its own leaders sometimes – Before he ended up suddenly dead in Florida USA, exiled Israeli journalist Barry Chamish
(1952-2016), always pointed out a corruption back-story behind such criminal charges
For example, Chamish attributed the bizarre Moshe Katsav indictment, to how Katsav had
been an impediment to the machinations of the even-more-connected Shimon Peres.
Canadian Jew Henry Makow speaks often of the vicious rivalry in Jewry between the
'globalist' Jews typified by George Soros, and the 'nationalist-zionist' Jews typified by
Netanyahu, who has recently making waves by his alliances with European right-wing parties,
who are associated in many Jewish minds with 'anti-semitism'
The prosecution of Netanyahu, can be seen as artillery fire by the Soros-type camp, which
thinks Netanyahu has really gone too far linking himself with Viktor Orbán and so
on
@NoseytheDuke "inquiry into metaphysical contradictions and their solutions."
"also known as the dialectical method, is at base a discourse between two or more people
holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through
reasoned arguments."
"the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions."
"a term used to describe a method of philosophical argument that involves some sort of
contradictory process between opposing sides. " [the key phrase: Israelis contradict
themselves, or Israeli behavior contradicts its profession of virtue]
Pretty interesting video... no we know that the Swamp consumed Flatfooted Donald rather quickly
Notable quotes:
"... Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal ..."
"... Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice? ..."
"... FakeStream Media ..."
"... The very Fake Media has met their match ..."
Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture
a Trump scandal
Louis John 2 hours ago
@hexencoff
McCain is a trouble maker. supporter of the terrorist and warmonger Iraq Libya
Syria he is behind all the trouble scumbag
Gary M 3 hours ago
McCain is a globalist
belaghoulashi 2 hours ago
(edited) McCain has always been full of horseshit. And he has always relied on people calling
him a hero to get away with it. That schtick is old, the man is a monumental failure for this
country, and he needs to have his sorry butt kicked.
ryvr madduck 1 hour ago
+belaghoulashi
Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the
ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed
him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's
exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain
then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should
have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice?
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
When you start to drain the swamp, the swamp creatures start to show.
Alexus Highfield 3 hours ago
@Michael Cambo
don't they...they do say shit floats.
Geoffry Allan 41 minutes ago
@Michael Cambo
- Trump has not drained the swamp he has surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet who
don't give a damn about the working middle class who struggle e eryday to make a living -
explain to me how he is draining the swamp
tim sparks 3 hours ago
Trump is trying so fucking hard to do a good job for us.
Integrity Truth-seeker 2 hours ago
@tim sparks
He is not trying... HE IS DOING IT... Like A Boss. Thank God Mark Taylor Prophecies
2017 the best is yet to come
Jodi Boin 3 hours ago
McCain is a traitor and is bought and paid for by Soros.
Grant Davidson 4 hours ago
Love him or hate him. The guy is a frikkin Genius...
Patrick Reagan 4 hours ago
FakeStream Media
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
@Patrick Reagan
Very FakeStream Media
aspengold5 4 hours ago
I am so disappointed in McCain.
orlando pablo 4 hours ago
my 401k is keep on going up....thank u mr trump....
Dumbass Libtard 3 hours ago
McCain is not a Republican. He is a loser. Yuge difference.1
Mitchel Colvin 3 hours ago
Shut up McCain! I can't stand this clown anymore! Unfortunately, Arizona re-elected him for six
more years!
robert barham 4 hours ago
The very Fake Media has met their match
H My ways of thinking! 3 hours ago
Why does everyone feel that if they don't kiss McCain's ass, they are being un American? Mccain
has sold out to George Soros. He is a piece of shit who is guilty of no less than treason! Look
up the definition for treason if you're in doubt!
Sam Nardo 3 hours ago
(edited) Mc Cain and Graham are two of the best democrats in the GOP. They are called RINOS
kazzicup 3 hours ago
We love and support our President Donald Trump. The media is so dishonest. CNN = Criminal News
Network.
Geoffry Allan 34 minutes ago
@kazzicup - yeah if you get rid of the media Trump becomes
a dictator - is that what you want he will censor everything and tell you what he wants - Trump
is still president and he is doing his job and fulfilling his promises even though the media is
there and reporting - so what's the problem - I don't want a got damn dictator running this country
- if you don't like the media then just listen to Trump - 2nd amendment free speech and the right
to bear arms we have to respect it even if we may disagree
Buffett Supports Trump on Cabinet Picks 'Overwhelmingly'
by Amanda L Gordon and Noah Buhayar
January 19, 2017, 8:19 PM EST January 20, 2017, 10:12 AM EST
Warren Buffett said he "overwhelmingly" supports President-elect Donald Trump's choices for cabinet
positions as the incoming commander-in-chief's selections face confirmation hearings in the U.S.
Senate.
"I feel that way no matter who is president," the billionaire Berkshire Hathaway Inc. chairman
and chief executive officer said Thursday in New York at the premiere of a documentary about his
life. "The CEO -- which I am -- should have the ability to pick people that help you run a place."
"If they fail, then it's your fault and you got to get somebody new," Buffett said. "Maybe you
change cabinet members or something."
Buffett, 86, backed Hillary Clinton in the presidential election, stumping for her in Omaha, Nebraska,
and headlining fundraisers. The billionaire frequently clashed with Trump and scolded him for not
releasing income-tax returns, as major party presidential candidates have done for roughly four decades.
Trump's cabinet picks include Treasury Secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. banker; former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state; and retired
Marine Corps General James Mattis as Defense secretary.
Since the election, Buffett has struck a more conciliatory tone toward Trump and called for unity.
In an interview with CNN in November, he said that people could disagree with the president-elect,
but ultimately he "deserves everybody's respect."
Trump's Popularity
That message hasn't resonated. Trump's popularity is the worst for an incoming president in at
least four decades, with just 40 percent of Americans saying they have a favorable impression of
him, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll published Tuesday. Buffett said on Thursday that the
low approval ratings won't matter much.
"It's what you go out with that counts -- 20, 50 years later what people feel you've achieved,"
Buffett said.
The president-elect has continued his pugnacious style during the transition, picking fights on
Twitter with news outlets, automakers, defense contractors, intelligence agencies, Hollywood actress
Meryl Streep and civil rights hero-turned-U.S. Congressman John Lewis.
* It solved the problem of Democrats beginning to get a spine and going after the Felonious
Five (or at least the three with major conflict of interest).
* It bumped Bush's approval rating from 40% to 80%.
* It greatly lowered opposition to Bush's anti-civil-liberties policies, such as creating
"1st Amendment Zones".
* It made passage of the Patriot Act possible.
* People were able to smear opposition to the Bush team policies as treasonous.
* It rendered torture, aggressive war, and barbaric imprisonment without due process of
law respectable.
Bush Administration sabotaged investigation:
Remember Coleen Rowley who claimed that an FBI superior back in DC rewrote her request for
a warrant, to make it less likely that it would be approved? There was also the FBI agent in
Arizona who wanted to investigate certain pilot students, but was prohibited.
Remember the DeLenda Plan? Once
we knew the USS Cole was Al Qaeda, it should have been executed. As in the spring of 2001.
Alas, it was deferred to after 9/11. Most incompetent crew ever and the Twin Towers fell down
taking 3000 people with because of their utter incompetence.
The US neoliberal/neocon elite emasculated Trump in just three months.
Notable quotes:
"... The elites are wetting their pants ..."
"... The really clever ones recognize that their is a populist upsurge worldwide against elite policymaking as Thoma discussed in his column on Davos man. ..."
So, which elites are you talking about? Just give me an
example or two. Y'know, it is possible to be successful and still spend a
lot of time doing the right things for people not as
successful as you.
Summers and Krugman. See their most recent columns. I think
more of the level-headed elites are thinking/hoping that
Trump will be 4 years and out and it will all blow over.
The really clever ones recognize that their is a populist
upsurge worldwide against elite policymaking as Thoma
discussed in his column on Davos man.
Tom aka Rusty -> EMichael...
, -1
Yes, there are a few of those. I;ve been impressed by some of
the things I have heard from the Steyer brothers. But then
there is Bill and Hill, Soros, the Trump cabinet, Rubin/Corzine/Rattner/Summers
and a whole unheavenly host. But not all that many impress me, particularly in
Manhattan and California.
Never believe the CIA. Ever! January 26, 2019 CIA Was Aiding Jihadists Before Soviets
Invaded Afghanistan
According to recently declassified documents of the White House, CIA and State Department
as reported by Tim Weiner for The Washington Post, the CIA was aiding Afghan jihadists before
the Soviets invaded in 1979. The then American President Jimmy Carter signed the CIA
directive to arm the Afghan jihadists in July 1979, whereas the former Soviet Union invaded
Afghanistan in December the same year.
Author Originally, there were four parties involved in the Afghan conflict which are
mainly responsible for the debacle in the Af-Pak region. Firstly, the former Soviet Union
which invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. Secondly, Pakistan's security agencies which
nurtured the Afghan so-called "mujahideen" (freedom fighters) on the behest of
Washington.
what you say is true and correct. Fast forward to 2019. I never thought I would have to
believe those "authorities" or organizations to stop our own president. How far down the
rabbit hole we are. Keep it up . I should mention that consortium news was one of the sites
that was hit by a barrage of not true things. Do you remember KIllary Shillary, world war 3
on this website? That is when I stopped. No defence of Ms Clinton, but the attacks were
relentless. I do believe consortium news was hijacked by some really partisan people.
OlyaPola , February 22, 2019 at 3:12 am
"Before Soviets Invaded Afghanistan"
The Soviet forces were invited to Afghanistan by the Afghani Government – they never
invaded Afghanistan or Syria.
"... "That might have left people with the false impression that their votes mean absolutely nothing, and that the entire American electoral system is just a simulation of democracy, and in reality they are living in a neo-feudalist, de facto global capitalist empire administrated by omnicidal money-worshipping human parasites that won't be satisfied until they've remade the whole of creation in their nihilistic image." ..."
"That might have left people with the false impression that their votes mean absolutely
nothing, and that the entire American electoral system is just a simulation of democracy, and
in reality they are living in a neo-feudalist, de facto global capitalist empire
administrated by omnicidal money-worshipping human parasites that won't be satisfied until
they've remade the whole of creation in their nihilistic image."
Now that's writing worth reading. If the Nobel committee did not serve the Global Empire,
it would give the Literature Prize to Hopkins.
The late 19th and 20th century Russians had the horror of dealing with Nihilists running
amuck in their country. Now the Nihilists rule the world as multi-billionaire Globalists.
This is from 2015. Not much changed... But relevant for Venezuela. So what will happen with Venesuellians if
the color revolution suceeed, is easy to predict using Ukrainian example
Notable quotes:
"... Ukraine, what a mess. As though it was ever about the people. It was a grab for resources, 19-century style. But with 21st-century stakes. You can see what the West is after when you look at the US-Ukraine Business Council. ..."
"... Meanwhile last night & this morning, just to distract the people of what is going on in the West, Kiev launched a massive shelling over Donetsk and other places in Donbass using weapons forbbiden by the Minsk agreements, including Tor missiles, one of which fell at a railway station but didn't explode... it was defused by emergency workers but the proof is there if you care to see... it was thesecond biggest attack since the cease fire... ..."
"... This is the IMF hired guns now going after the very people who helped the Wall Street IMF shysters in the illegitimate coup and the set up of the illegitimate Kiev junta, a mix of half Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian mongrels. ..."
"... Furthermore, instead of bringing in the people who helped overthrow Janukovich into the government fold, the IMF is placing it's foreign collaborators in ministerial positions by making them instant Ukrainian citizens, while keeping the right wing, without whose help the coup would not have succeeded, out of government and slowly trying to eliminate them with their private foreign mercenary force. ..."
"... Madame "F*ck the EU Nuland from the US state department bordello, a devout Zionist, enticed these supposed Ukrainian NAZIs to help her in her dirty deeds, no doubt with promises of power sharing. ..."
"... She no doubt got her position not by intelligence but by connections. More than 6000 Ukrainians, human beings, innocent men women and children, have died in madame Nuland's engineered coup, putting her in league with her mentor, Henry Kissinger, aka the butcher of Vietnam. ..."
"... The Ukrainian sub-saharan African minimum wage is now being accompanied by Somali-style politics. ..."
"... The BBC are bravely sticking to their decision not to report this story. Congratulations are in order for such dedication. The graun protected its readership from this confusing information for 24 hours and then caved to the temptation to report news. Too bad. ..."
"... Can we officially congratulate Nuland for a crappy job and also for providing Putin with all the tools he needed to bring back Ukraine under his wing. False flag operations for American private interests must stop now. They are immoral, unethical and only bring death and destruction to otherwise stable societies. The UN should have a say. ..."
"... Neither Azov nor Right Sector want peace. On 3 July 4,000 men from these units protested in Kiev, calling for resumption of the war against the eastern provinces. They favour ethnic cleansing. ..."
"... The west would not have dialogue with Russia because it was not what Washington wanted. Washington wanted to push a wedge between Russia and EU at any cost even 6500 lives and unfortunately they succeeded ..."
"... The Right Sector does not exist, or if it does, it has been created by Moscow. The crisis in Greece is also the work of Russian agents. The ISIS is financed and trained by Putin. Ebola was cooked up in a laboratory in Saint Petersburg. Look for the Russian! ..."
"... this is what happens when you play with fire: you get burned. Using Neo-Nazi's to implement Nato expansionist policies was always a very bad idea. It's just a shame it is not people like Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland who will have to suffer the blowback consequences- it is the poor Ukrainian people. This is not that different to what has happened in Libya- where Islamic extremists were used as a proxy force to oust Gaddafi. ..."
"... the jihadists in Ukraine are the integral part of Iraqization of Ukraine. The lovers of Nuland's cookies are still in denial that Ukraine was destined by the US plutocrats to become a sacrificial lamb in a fight to preserve the US dollar hegemony. ..."
"... Why, don't you know? They infiltrated Ukraine, the CIA (and NATO and the EU somehow) created Maidan, their agents killed the protesters, then they overthrew a legitimate government and installed a neo-nazi one, proceeded to instigate a brutal oppression against Russian speakers, then started a war against the peaceful Eastern Ukrainians and their innocent friends in the Kremlin, etc etc. Ignorant question that, by now you should know the narrative! ..."
"... The BBC investigative reported earlier this year that a section of Maidan protesters deliberately started shooting the police. This story was also reported in the Guardian. Google and you will easily find it. The BBC also reported that the Prosecutors Office in Kiev was forbidden by Rada officials from investigating Maiden shooters. ..."
"... have you ever studied geography? If yes, you should remember the proximity of Ukraine to Russia (next door) and the proximity of Ukraine to the US (thousands miles away). Also, have you heard about the CIA Director Brennan and his covert visit to Kiev on the eve of the beginning of the civil war in Ukraine? This could give you an informed hint about the causes of the war. Plus you may be interested to learn about Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (Ms. Nudelman), her cookies, and her foul language. She is, by the way, a student of Dick Cheney. If you were born before 2000, you might know his name and his role in the Iraq catastrophe. Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (and the family of Kagans she belongs to) finds particular pleasure in creating military conflicts around the globe. It is not for nothing that the current situation in Ukraine is called Iraqization of Eastern Europe. ..."
"... This newspaper and other western media documented the armed members of far right groups on Maidan. One BBC journalist was actually shot at by a Svoboda sniper, operating from Hotel Ukraina - the video is still on the BBC website. ..."
"... As predicted the real civil war in Ukraine is still to happen. The split between the east and the ordinary Ukrainian was largely manufactured ..."
"... "When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as it is, in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules all Western mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at that time?" ..."
"... in time Ukrainians will regard Maidan's aftermath as most of them view the Orange Revolution -- with regret and cynicism. ..."
"... Of course the Guardian doesn't like to explain that 'Right Sector' are genuine fascists - by their own admission! These fascists, who wear Nazi insignia, were the people who overthrew the elected government of Ukraine in the US / EU-supported coup - which the Guardianistas and other PC-brainwashed duly cheered on as a supposed triumph of democracy. Since that glorious US-financed and EU-backed coup, wholly illegal under international law, Ukraine's economy has collapsed, as has Ukrainians' living standards. ..."
The Georgian authorities have asked Interpol to put a Red notice on Mikheil Saakashvili as the
request to Ukraine to return him for trial in Georgia was refused.
ww3orbust PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 20:22
That does not detract from the fact that the Ukrainian cabinet has been chosen by the US state
department. Natives of the US, Georgia and Lithuania were hastily granted Ukrainian citizenship
in order to maintain an iron grip on Ukraine, while accusing Putin of appointing majors or governors
- in his capacity as head of state?
ww3orbust 13 Jul 2015 20:16
Amazing, nothing at all mentioned by the BBC. It does not fit in to their narrative to see the
country descend into a new stage of anarchy, between the people who murdered police and protesters
on Maidan square, and the US state department installed cabinet. Presumably if Right Sector refuse
to disarm and continue torturing civilians and murdering police, the BBC will continue to ignore
it and focus instead on its Russo-phobic narrative, while accusing Russia of propaganda with the
self-righteous piety that only the BBC are capable of. Or god forbid, more stories about what
colour stool our future king has produced this week.
The thing is, Ukraine is unique in allowing their Nazi thugs to be armed and have some semi-official
status. Everywhere else (including Russia), governments are looking to constrain the activities
of Nazis and prosecute them where possible.
jgbg Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 18:26
If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.
Them and Svoboda. If it had just been Orange Revolution II, with a simple change of Jewish
oligarchs in charge, there might have been some complaints but little more. It is the Russian-hating
far right that has brought about the violence and everything that has happened since.
PrinceEdward GreatMountainEagle 13 Jul 2015 18:22
Last I heard, Ukraine owes China billions for undelivered Grain.
HollyOldDog gimmeshoes 13 Jul 2015 18:11
But the Euro Maidan press is just an Ukrainian rag that invents stories to support its corrupt
government in Kiev.
jgbg PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 17:54
I forget the article, but in the comments I mentioned that multiple Georgians were being
appointed to high level positions by Kiev, and some Russophobe called me a liar.
Not a few days later, Shakashvilli was appointed governor of Odessa. An ex-president of another
country, as governor of a province in another one! Apparently, none of the millions upon millions
of Ukrainians were qualified for the job.
Sakashvilli's former Minister of Internal Affairs in Georgia, Eka Zguladze, is First Deputy
Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. Of course, the Georgian people removed these chumps from
power the first chance they got but the Ukrainian electorate haven't had any say in the appointments
of foreigners in their country.
Well ... when it comes to Ukraine, the need to stock up on popcorn. This bloody and unpredictable
plot is not even in the "Game of Thrones." And this is only the middle of the second season.
Today Speaker of the "RS" Andrew Sharaskin, said: Sports Complex in Mukachevo where the shooting
occurred, was used as the base of the separatists DNR.
- A place 1,000 kilometers from Donetsk! But it's a great excuse to murder the guard in the café
and wounded police officers.
I think tomorrow will say that there have seen Russian Army tanks and Putin - 100%
"Ukraine is part of Europe" - the slogans of the Maidan in action...
Pravyi Sektor were not wrong. However, you cannot have armed groups cleaning up corruption
outside the law...that only works in Gotham City.
Right Sector weren't trying to clean up corruption, they were simply trying to muscle in on
the cigarette smuggling business. If Right Sector cared about crime and public order, they wouldn't
be driving around, armed to the teeth, in vehicles stolen in the EU. (In the video linked in the
article, all of their vehicles have foreign number plates. At least one of those vehicles is on
the Czech police stolen vehicle database:
http://zpravy.idnes.cz/pravy-sektor-mel-v-mukacevu-auta-s-ceskymi-spz-fqj-/zahranicni.aspx?c=A150713_102110_zahranicni_jj)
The EU and the US have stated on many occasions that there are "No Right Wing Nationalists" operating
in Ukraine and its simply propaganda by Putin.
So there shouldn't be anything to worry about should there ?
Stas Ustymenko hfakos 13 Jul 2015 15:15
Yes, yes. You seem to tolerate Medvedchuk and Baloga mafias way better, for years.
Transcarpathian Region is the most corrupt in all of Ukraine (which is quite a fit). What we see
here is a gang war in fatigues.
tanyushka Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 15:14
sorry i posted the same above... i was just to hasty.. sorry again...
in the main picture of the same article it's interesting to notice the age of most of the conscripted
soldiers... they are in their 30's, theirs 40's and even in their 50's... it's forced conscription,
they are not volunteers... while all the DPR & LPR soldiers are real volunteers...
an uncle, the father of a cousin, was conscripted in Kherson... my cousin had to run away to South
American to say with an aunt to avoid conscription... many men are doing it in Ukraine nowadays...
not because they are cowards but because they don't want to kill their brothers & sisters for
the benefit of the oligarchs and their NATO masters (and mistresses...)
did you know that all the conscripts have to pay for their own uniforms and other stuff, while
in the National Guard and the oligarchs batallions everything is top quality and for free... including
bulletproof vests and other implements courtesy of NATO
Demi Boone 13 Jul 2015 15:13
Well finally they reveal themselves. These Ukraine Nationalists are the people who instigated
the anarchy and shootings at Maidan and used it as an excuse to wrongfully drive out an elected
President and in the chaos that followed bring in a coup Government which represents only West-Ukraine
and suppress' East-Ukraine. You are looking at the face of the real Maidan and not the dream that
a lot of people have tried to paint it to be.
Stas Ustymenko MartinArvay 13 Jul 2015 15:11
Many Right Sector members are indeed patriots. But it looks like the organisation itself is,
sadly, much more useful for providing thugs for hire than "justice".
BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:20
But seriously, the naval base is probably the reason, it is too important for some interests
to have a less-reliable (Ukrainian) in charge, this is a job only for the most trusted poodles.
If things had gone differently, the tie-eatimng chap would have been appointed Mayor of Sebastopol.
BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:15
There appears to be a Quisling-shortage in Ukraine at present.
Stas Ustymenko obscurant 13 Jul 2015 13:32
More accurately, Kolomoyskiy is Ukrainian oligarch. Who happens to be ethnically, culturally
and, by all accounts, religiously, a Jew.
Stas Ustymenko Kaiama 13 Jul 2015 13:24
Ukrainian Volunteer Corps of the Right Sector fighting in Donbass is two battalions. How is
this a "key organization"? They are a well-known brand and fought bravely on some occasions, but
the wider org is way too eager to brandish arms outside of combat or training. They will be reigned
in, one way or another, and soon.
GameOverManGameOver Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 12:02
Shh shh shh. This news does not exist yet in the western media, therefore it's nothing but
Russian propaganda.
Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 11:54
It gets worse - soldiers from the UA are now refusing to follow orders in protest against the
total anarchy sweeping the chain of command, and their lack of rest and equipment.
Tensions have been rising between the government and the Right Sector militia that has
helped it fight pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country.
Finally, the Guardian decided to report the actual new after satisfying itself with ample discussion
of the quality of Russian cheeses. Right sector "helped" to fight "separatists"? Really? Does
Alec Luhn know that there are currently two (!) RS battalions at the front and 19 (!) inside Ukraine?
They are some warriors. Now they are occupying themselves fighting as criminals they are for the
control of contraband.
At the ATO zone, they help consists of plundering, murdering and raping the local population.
They enter a village, take everything of value from houses and then blow them up. They rape women
and girls as young as 10 years old. They've been doing this for more than a year, and we've been
telling you that for more than a year. But apparently in the fight against "pro-Russian separatists"
everything is good. These crimes are so widespread, even the Ukrainian "government" is worried
this will eventually becomes impossible to deny. Some battalions such as Shakhtersk and Aidar
have been officially accused of crimes and ompletely or partially reformed.
Examples: http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/EUR50/040/2014/en/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bfb_1413804655
Ukraine, what a mess. As though it was ever about the people. It was a grab for resources,
19-century style. But with 21st-century stakes. You can see what the West is after when you look
at the US-Ukraine Business Council. It bring NATO, Monsanto and the Heritage Foundation under
one roof:
You'd be surprised, but I like Bandera (controversial as he was) way more than I trust some
people who wrap themselves in his red-and-black Rebel banner. Yarosh included. Banderite rebellion
ended 60 years ago. Its major goal was establishing a "united, free Ukrainian state"; by contrast,
stated ultimate goals of the Right Sector are way murkier; I'm not sure even most of the movement's
members are clear on what these are.
With present actions, Right Sector has a huge image problem in the West. If it will come to all-out
conflict, no doubt the West will back Poroshenko government over a loose confederation of armed
dudes linked by the thin thread of 30ies ideology (suspect even then). And the West will be right.
Stas Ustymenko Nik2 13 Jul 2015 11:03
Methinks you're way overselling a thug turf war as "major political event. Truth is, the region
has been long in the hands of organized crime. The previous regime incorporated and controlled
almost all organized crime in the country, hence no visible conflict. Now, individual players
try to use temporary uncertainty to their advantage.
Right Sector claims they were trying to fight
the smuggling, but this doesn't sound plausible. The word is, what's behind the events is struggle
for control over lucrative smuggling between two individuals (who are both "businessmen" and "politicians",
members of Parliament). Both are old-school players, formerly affiliated with Yanukovitch party.
One just was savvy enough to buy himself some muscle under Right Sector banner. Right Sector will
either have to straighten out its fighters (which it may not be able to do) or disappear as a
political player. I fail to see how people see anything "neo-Nazi" in this gang shootout.
PaddyCannuck Cavirac 13 Jul 2015 10:21
Nobody here is an apologist for Stalin, who was a brutal and cruel despot, and the deportations
of the Crimean Tatars were quite indefensible. However, a few observations might lend some perspective.
1. Crimea has been invaded and settled by an almost endless succession of peoples over the
millennia. The Crimean Tatars (who are of Turkic origin) were by no means the first, nor indeed
the last, and cannot in any meaningful sense be regarded as the indigenous people of Crimea.
2. The Crimean Tatars scarcely endeared themselves to the Russians, launching numerous raids,
devastating many towns, including the burning of Moscow in 1571, and sending hundreds of thousands,
if not millions of Russians into slavery in the Ottoman Empire.
3. The deportations took place in 1942 - 1943 against the backdrop of World War II, when a lot
of bad stuff happened, including -
4. The American (and also Canadian) citizens of Japanese ethnicity who had their property confiscated
and were likewise shipped off to camps. Their treatment, if anything, was worse.
Sevastopol, Pearl Harbor. What's the difference? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Meanwhile last night & this morning, just to distract the people of what is going on in the West,
Kiev launched a massive shelling over Donetsk and other places in Donbass using weapons forbbiden
by the Minsk agreements, including Tor missiles, one of which fell at a railway station but didn't
explode... it was defused by emergency workers but the proof is there if you care to see... it
was thesecond biggest attack since the cease fire...
Nik2 6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:53
Not exactly. By now, BBC has made good coverage of these events in Ukrainian and Russian languages,
but not in English. It looks like BBC considers that Western public does not deserve the politically
sad truth about armed clashes between "champions of Maidan Revolution" and "new democratic authorities,
fighting corruption". Western public should not be in doubt about present-day "pro-European" Ukraine.
And "The Guardian" still has only one article on the issue that could be a turning point in Ukrainian
politics. This is propaganda, not informing about or analyzing really serious political events.
VictorWhisky 13 Jul 2015 09:51
This is the IMF hired guns now going after the very people who helped the Wall Street IMF shysters
in the illegitimate coup and the set up of the illegitimate Kiev junta, a mix of half Ukrainian
and non-Ukrainian mongrels.
Furthermore, instead of bringing in the people who helped overthrow Janukovich into the government fold, the IMF is placing it's foreign collaborators in ministerial
positions by making them instant Ukrainian citizens, while keeping the right wing, without whose
help the coup would not have succeeded, out of government and slowly trying to eliminate them
with their private foreign mercenary force.
Madame "F*ck the EU Nuland from the US state department
bordello, a devout Zionist, enticed these supposed Ukrainian NAZIs to help her in her dirty deeds,
no doubt with promises of power sharing.
So madame Nuland was perfectly willing to get in bed
with the Ukrainian NAZI devils (her Jewish friend should be proud) and when the dirty deed was
done, she is now turning against Ukrainian nationalists in the attempt to have outside forces
in control of Ukraine. Madame Nuland is not as intelligent or capable as portrayed, because if
she was, she would have known Ukraine has a very delicate and very complicated political structure
and history with nearly half the country speaking Russian and more loyal to the Russians than
to the US.
An intelligent person familiar with Ukrainian history would know any attempt of placing
a US stooge in Kiev would certainly result in a civil war.
She no doubt got her position not by
intelligence but by connections. More than 6000 Ukrainians, human beings, innocent men women and
children, have died in madame Nuland's engineered coup, putting her in league with her mentor,
Henry Kissinger, aka the butcher of Vietnam. That intelligent idiot's policies resulted in the
death of 3 million Vietnamese and 50,000 young Americans. Does madame Nuland intend to sacrifice
that many Ukrainians to prove her ultimate stupidity?
Jeremn Luminaire 13 Jul 2015 09:51
The conscripts didn't want to shoot their fellow Ukrainians. The nationalists don't believe
the people in the east are their fellow Ukrainians.
Because they were lovely guys, evidently, and their "popularity" has nothing to do with armed
thugs beating you up if you say anything against them (or the state prosecuting you for denying
or questioning their heroism).
Jeremn jezzam 13 Jul 2015 09:35
Ukrainian media, reporting Ukrainian government official:
12 police dead in two days, 180 wounded with gunshot wounds.
Still Kremlin lies?
Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 09:30
Thank God Ukraine is finally free and democratic. The old autocratic regime actually had the
gall to make running street battles illegal - but those dark days are in the past. In the liberated
Ukraine you are free spend the dollar a day you get paid on a bullet proof vest so the rampant
Nazi street gangs don't kill you.
Jeremn SHappens 13 Jul 2015 09:26
You'd be surprised, there are Bandera-lovers in the UK too. There's a Bandera museum. And there
is this lot, teaching Christian values to children. And telling them that Bandera was a hero.
Future Right Sector supporters being crafted as we type.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:24
The Ukrainian sub-saharan African minimum wage is now being accompanied by Somali-style politics. Luckily, the Russians have liberated Crimea so piracy on the high seas isn't an option for
the Ukrainians.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:18
Apparently, UAVs generously supplied to Ukrainians by the Canadian taxpayers are being put
to good use smuggling cigarettes into Slovakia.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:12
The BBC are bravely sticking to their decision not to report this story. Congratulations are
in order for such dedication.
The graun protected its readership from this confusing information for 24 hours and then caved
to the temptation to report news. Too bad.
aucontraire2 13 Jul 2015 08:36
Can we officially congratulate Nuland for a crappy job and also for providing Putin with
all the tools he needed to bring back Ukraine under his wing.
False flag operations for American private interests must stop now. They are immoral, unethical
and only bring death and destruction to otherwise stable societies. The UN should have a
say.
SomersetApples 13 Jul 2015 08:25
The country is bankrupt; the Kiev putschists are selling off the country's assets to their
New York allies, the oligarchs and Nazis are at war against each other and the illegal putschist
government and now toilet mouth Nuland is back on the scene. Looks like a scene form Dante's Inferno.
todaywefight Polvilho 13 Jul 2015 07:54
Which Russian invasion will this be the of he approximately 987 mentioned by Poroshenko and
our man Yatz...or are you referring to the people of the AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA's (yes
that was what was called after the 1994 referendum) massive wishes to (like Donbass) go against
a government who illegally dismissed an elected president a wish that was reflected on a referendum
which was allowed by their constitution 18(7)
Bosula Scepticbladderballs 13 Jul 2015 07:38
Yes. Most of the protesters are good people who just want a better deal in life.
monteverdi1610 13 Jul 2015 06:54
Remember all those CIF threads when those of us who pointed to the neo-Nazis in Ukraine were
immediately called ' Putinbots ' ?
PS/ Apologies would be the order of the day , perhaps ?
Sturney 13 Jul 2015 06:49
Apparently this conflict is over. Temporarily over. Anyway in ever-contracting economy, in
a Mariana trench between Russia and EU, in the most totalitarian country in history, such conflicts
will continue. Since Nuland tossed yeast in the outhouse nobody can stop fermentation of sh*t.
Help yourself with some beer and shrimps. I am looking forward when these masses splash out to
EU, preferably to Poland. Must be fun to watch. (Lipspalm)
Justin Obisesan 13 Jul 2015 06:33
In the run-up to the Euro 2012 football tournament, jointly hosted by Poland and Ukraine, I
remember how the media in this country worked themselves into a frenzy harping on about the presence
of violent neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine. After the removal of Mr Yanukovych from office, the same
media organisations changed their tune by describing any talk of neo- Nazis in Ukraine as "Russian
propaganda". The Western media coverage of the Ukrainian crises has been so blatantly pro-Kiev
and anti-Donbass that their claims of impartiality and objectivity cannot be taken seriously anymore.
Jeremn jgbg 13 Jul 2015 06:16
It is fine when they are shooting at Donetsk, but not so good when they use the same tactics
in western Ukraine.
Azov are the same, violent neo-Nazi thugs given authority, and this article notes that PrivatBank
is the bank that services requests for donations to the Azov funds, using J P Morgan as intermidiary.
Neither Azov nor Right Sector want peace. On 3 July 4,000 men from these units protested in
Kiev, calling for resumption of the war against the eastern provinces.
They favour ethnic cleansing.
Jeremn William Fraser 13 Jul 2015 06:10
The people who support Bandera are in western Ukraine. They are the ones who say Stalin starved
the Ukrainian people.
Trouble is, in the 1930s, western Ukraine belonged to Poland.
It was the Russians, eastern Ukrainians and other Soviet people who starved, not the western
Ukrainians.
Kefirfan 13 Jul 2015 06:02
Good, good. Let the democracy flow through you...
Pwedropackman SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:53
It will be interesting to see which side the US and Canada will support. Probably Poroshenko
and the Oligarchs because the Right Sector is not so happy about the ongoing sales of Ukraine
infrastructure to US corporates.
SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:14
Harpers' babies are out manifesting, supporting the good guys:
"Supporters of Ukraine's Right Sector extremist group rallied in Ottawa Sunday amid the
radicals' ongoing standoff with police in western Ukraine."
The rally outside the Ukrainian embassy was organized by the Right Sector's representative
office in the Canadian capital, 112 Ukraine TV channel reported, citing the Facebook account of
the so-called Ukrainian Volunteer Corps.
careforukraine 13 Jul 2015 05:09
I wonder how long it will be before the us denounces nazi's in ukraine?
Kind of seems like we have seen this all before.
Almost like how ISIS were just freedom fighters that needed our support until ?.....
Well we all know what happened there.
Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 05:04
If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.
GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 04:41
Yes, I agree, they do wreck the economy. That was my point. Russia want's strong economies
to do business with, not broken economies that only ask for financial aid.
Like I said, no evidence of Russian troops in Donbass and South Ossetia asked for the presence
of Russian troops to deter the Georgian government from trying another invasion.
And organisations like CIS are meant to expand economic ties. Just like the EU I suppose. They
function in pretty much the same way with everyone getting a chance to lead. So I don't know why
that should be a bad thing. Since the EU is not interested in admitting Russia why can't Russia
go to other organisations?
VladimirM Dmitriy Grebenyuk 13 Jul 2015 04:26
It's a poisonous sarcasm, I think. But I've heard that RS accuse the Ukrainian government of
being pro-Putin as the government accuse them of being Russian agents. Surreal a bit.
stewfen FOHP46 13 Jul 2015 04:24
The west would not have dialogue with Russia because it was not what Washington wanted. Washington
wanted to push a wedge between Russia and EU at any cost even 6500 lives and unfortunately they
succeeded
GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 03:54
I'll admit that frozen conflicts could be useful to Russia. But only from a security point
of view. And why not, exactly? NATO is Russia's biggest threat, so it would make sense for the
government to want to avoid it expanding any further. I understand your misgivings since you're
speaking from the position that NATO should expand to deter Russi I mean 'Iran', but surely you
understand that Russia wanting to prevent that makes logical sense? Sure, it's at someone else's
expense but let's not pretend that big countries doing something at someone else's expense is
a new and revolutionary concept reserved only to Russia. And the Georgian conflict dates back
to the very early 90's.
From an economic point of view though, no sense at all. Frozen conflicts usually bring economic
barriers. Believe it or not Russia's priority isn't expansion, but the economy. And trade with
it's neighbours is an important element of the Russian economy. It's very hard to trade with areas
that are in the middle of a frozen conflict. So in that sense the last thing Russia would want
are profitable areas in a frozen conflict around it's borders hampering it's economic growth.
And none of this has anything to do with Marioupol.
Debreceni 13 Jul 2015 03:38
The Right Sector does not exist, or if it does, it has been created by Moscow. The crisis in
Greece is also the work of Russian agents. The ISIS is financed and trained by Putin. Ebola was
cooked up in a laboratory in Saint Petersburg. Look for the Russian!
Kaiama PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 02:50
We don't know if PS were also doing it as well or just poking their noses into someone else's
business. Who started it? I doubt the correct answer will ever be known. Two unsavoury groups
arguing about an illegal business. The problem is that the MP is an MP whereas PS is a national
organisation.
It's never the US....it's never the West.....
(you know, to balance things) : )
todaywefight 13 Jul 2015 01:53
If any one on the other side, the dark side, ever thought that these lot will hold hands with
any one, lay down their arms and sing Kumbaya, uou are either utterly naive or willfully ignorant.
Apparently, these lot have 23 battalions, armed to their teeth, the added bonus for the Privy
Sektor is that , due to expedience and cowardice , they have just made legal and incorporated
into the Ukrainian army, Kyiv is in a highway to nowhere.
Incidentally, unlike the maidan demonstrations which essentially were only in Kyiv there are
demonstrations in more than a dozen cities, and have established dozen of check points already
and Yarosh a member of the VT. have clearly instructed them to fight if necessary.
GameOverManGameOver Omniscience 13 Jul 2015 01:35
So? Yes there are nationalists in Russia, just like everywhere else. You get a gold star for
googling. Shall I get some articles with European and American nationalists to parade around to
make a vague point? If you want I can get you an article of Lithuanians dressed up as the Waffen
SS parading around Vilnius. That's Lithuania the EU and Nato member. Funny how EU principles disappear
when it's one of their own violating them.
You seem to be missing the point entirely. While all countries have their nationalists, those
nationalists are a very small minority, have no power, have no popular support, have no seats
in government, usually derided by the majority of the population and they certainly aren't armed
to the teeth roaming around the country killing, torturing and kidnapping people with the blessing
of their government
HollyOldDog Joe way 13 Jul 2015 00:09
The Right Sector were / are Ukrains Storm Troopers who have had more advanced training by the
Americans. If the Right Sector turn on the Kiev Government they will be difficult to defeat, and
who knows if the civilian population of Ukraine may join in the 'fun' by ousting the current unpopular
Ukrainian government.
sorrentina 12 Jul 2015 23:35
this is what happens when you play with fire: you get burned. Using Neo-Nazi's to implement
Nato expansionist policies was always a very bad idea. It's just a shame it is not people like
Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland who will have to suffer the blowback consequences- it is the poor
Ukrainian people. This is not that different to what has happened in Libya- where Islamic extremists
were used as a proxy force to oust Gaddafi.
annamarinja jgbg 12 Jul 2015 23:31
The threshold has been guessed impatiently by the US neocons (while the provocateur Higgins/
Bellingcat fed the gullible the fairy tales about Russian army in Ukraine). The US needs desperately
a real civil war in Ukraine, the Ukrainians be damned. Just look what the US-sponsored "democracy
on the march" has produced in the Middle East. Expect the same bloody results in eastern Europe.
annamarinja obscurant 12 Jul 2015 23:25
perhaps you do not realize that your insults are more appropriate towards the poor Ukrainians
that have been left destitute by the cooky-carrying foreigners and their puppets in Kiev. The
Ukrainian gold reserve has disappeared... meanwhile, the US Congress has shamed the US State Dept
for collaborating with Ukrainian neo-nazis. Stay tuned. But do not expect to hear real news from
your beloved Faux News.
annamarinja quorkquork 12 Jul 2015 23:14
the jihadists in Ukraine are the integral part of Iraqization of Ukraine. The lovers of Nuland's
cookies are still in denial that Ukraine was destined by the US plutocrats to become a sacrificial
lamb in a fight to preserve the US dollar hegemony.
Bud Peart 12 Jul 2015 22:59
Well we always knew it would end this way. With a stalemate in the war with the East the Right
wing paramilitaries and private oligarch militias (whom the west funded and trained) have gone
completely feral and are now in fighting directly with whats left of the Ukrainian National Army.
This is pretty much the rode to another breakaway in Galacia which would effectively end the Ukraine
as a functional state.
The government should move as fast as possible to get a decent federal structure (copy switzerland)
in place before the whole of the West goes into revolt as well.
DelOrtoyVerga LostJohnny 12 Jul 2015 22:38
That is what you get when you put fascists in your government.
I rather reword it to
That is what you get when you enable and rely on thugish pseudo-fascist radical para-military
groups to impose order by force and violence against dissident segments of your own population
(which is armed to the teeth probably by Russia)
Bosula Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 22:37
What do you think it is?
There were several people identified directly or indirectly in this BBC story whose stories should
have been formally pursued by legal authorities in Kiev.
If you lived in the West you would understand that we call these references as possible 'leads'
- you follow these 'leads' and see where they take you. That is what Western police do.
The story says that Kiev didn't want to follow up any of these points. Why? What harm could this
do?
You state that you do not understand the point that this BBC journalist was making. But I have
in a fair way tried to to explain the point that the BBC was making.
This story caused quite a stir went it came out - and the BBC chose to stick with it and support
their British reporter. In an edited and shorter form the story is still on the BBC - the editing
is also acknowledged by the BBC.
Do you think the BBC should have blocked or not published this investigative piece?
If so - why?
And why hasn't Kiev followed up these issues?
Have I addressed your point yet?
HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 21:34
I am just watching a program recorded earlier. Hiroshima: The Aftermath. I have got past the
part when the Japanese 'survivors' had to drink from the pools of Black Rain ( highly radioactive)
and watched the part when American Army Tourists visited the city to take a few photos ( no medical
help though) while gawking at the gooks. In fact the Japanese civilians recieved no medical assistance
at all from the Americans. The commentator just said that they were just there to study the effects
of nuclear radiation on a civilian population. These nuclear bombs were just dropped on Japan
to save One Day of the surrender of the Japanese forces.
The next documtary I will watch another day is the sinking of the Tirpitz by the RAF using
Tallboy bombs. At least this had a useful pupose in helping to stop the destruction of the North
Atlantic convoys, sending aid to Russia. That aid along with the rebuilding of the Soviet Armies
helped the Soviet Union to destroy the invading Nazi forces and provided a Second Front to the
Western Allies to invade Normandy. A lot of good can be achieved when the East and West work together
- maybe avoiding the worst effects of Global Warming but the Americans only seem to want to spend
Trillions $ building more powerful nuclear weapons. Is this all that America has now, an Arms
Industry - I can see it now, cooling the planet with a Nuclear Winter.
HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 20:33
The USA caused the chaos in Ukraine so they must pay the billions of $ to fix it then leave
Ukraine alone.
6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:29
One of the amusing features of the Soviet media was the long silences it maintained on possibly
embarrassing breaking news until it became clear what the Party Line was.
Eventually, a memo would go out from Mikhail Suslov's office to various media outlets and the
silence would be broken.
At least everyone knew exactly how that system worked. What is happening with the British media
is much more murky.
The beeb/graun seem to be the Pravda/Izvestia, whilst the torygraph is a sort of Trybuna Ludu
- ie real news very occasionally appears in it.
6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:08
So, after a mere 24 hours the Graun ran a story on Mukachevo. The Torygraph actually had the
nerve to run the AFP wire report more or less straight away.
The BBC are still keeping shtum.
The Beeb/Graun complex have well and truly had the frighteners put on them.
PrinceEdward Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 20:07
There's no doubt. I agree that the MP was probably running cigarettes, but also Right Sektor
was going to muscle in.
If you asked somebody 3 years ago if Ukraine would be rocked by armed bands with RPGs and Light
Machine Guns fighting in towns, they would have thought you were crazy.
This isn't Russia, this is the Ultranats/Neo-Nazis.
PrinceEdward obscurant 12 Jul 2015 20:05
Right, it's the people in Donbass who bury 14th SS Division veterans with full honors, push
for full pensions to surviving Hiwi and SS Collaborators... not those in Lvov. Uh huh.
BMWAlbert 12 Jul 2015 20:04
11 months of investigations by the newKiev regime, attempting to implicate the the prior one
for the murder of about 100 people in Kiev early last year was unsuccessful. There may be better
candidates here.
fragglerokk ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 19:55
It always amazes me that the far right never learn from history. The politicians and oligarchs
always use them as muscle to ensure coup success then murder/assasinate the leaders to make sure
they dont get any ideas about power themselves. Surprised its taken so long in ukraine but then
the govt is barely hanging onto power and the IMF loans have turned to a trickle so trouble will
always be brewing, perhaps theyve left it too long this time. Nobody will be shedding any tears
for the Nazis and Banderistas.
Why, don't you know? They infiltrated Ukraine, the CIA (and NATO and the EU somehow) created
Maidan, their agents killed the protesters, then they overthrew a legitimate government and installed
a neo-nazi one, proceeded to instigate a brutal oppression against Russian speakers, then started
a war against the peaceful Eastern Ukrainians and their innocent friends in the Kremlin, etc etc.
Ignorant question that, by now you should know the narrative!
Kaiama gimmeshoes 12 Jul 2015 19:53
If you think Pryvi Sektor want to "clean up" then yes, but not in the way you imagine - they
just want the business for themselves.
Geordiemartin 12 Jul 2015 19:51
I am reminded of AJP Taylor premise that Eastern Europe has historically had either German
domination or Russian protection.
The way that the Ukrainian government had treated their own Eastern compatriots leaves little
reason to believe they would be welcome back into the fold and gives people of Donbass no reason
to want to rejoin the rest of the country.
If government is making an effort to reign in the likes of Right sector it is a move in the
right direction but much much more will be needed to establish any trust.
Some Guy yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:45
just because they are nazis doesnt mean they are happy about doing any of this... now. look
at greece and the debacle that has unfolded over the past week has been . the west ukraine wanted
to be part of the euro zone and wanted some of that ecb bail out money. now they are not even
sure if they could skip out on the bill and know they are fighting for nothing . russia gave them
14 bil dollars . the west after the coup only gave the 1 bil
Andor2001 Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 19:44
According to the eyewitnesses the RS shot a guard when he refused to summon the commanding
officer. It was the beginning of the fight.
Andor2001 yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:41
Remember Shakespeare "Othello"? Moor has done his job, Moor has to go..
The neo-Nazis have outlived their usefulness.
Bosula caaps02 12 Jul 2015 19:39
The BBC investigative reported earlier this year that a section of Maidan protesters deliberately
started shooting the police. This story was also reported in the Guardian. Google and you will
easily find it.
The BBC also reported that the Prosecutors Office in Kiev was forbidden by Rada officials from
investigating Maiden shooters.
Maybe the BBC is telling us a lie? The BBC investigation is worth a read - then you can make up
your own mind.
Bosula William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 19:29
Kazakhstan had the highest percentage of deaths from Stalin's policies in this period when
he prevented the nomad herders moving from the mountains to the planes to take advantage of the
benefits of seasons and weather.
Stalin forced the nomads to stay in one area and they perished in the cold of the mountains or
the heat of the summer plains (whichever zone they were forced to stay in).
Some of my family is Ukrainian and some recognise that Stalin's policies weren't specifically
aimed at Ukrainians - the people of Kazakhstan suffered the most (as a percentage of population).
Either way, there is no genetic difference between Slavs or Russian or Ukrainian origin in Ukraine
or Russia - they are all genetically the same people.
This information should be better taught in Ukraine.
The problem is that it would undermine the holy grail story of right wing nationalism in Ukraine.
It's been one of the biggest mistakes ( although Ukraine's military started in a desperately
poor condition ) , to allow militia groups to get so powerful. Right sector should not have arms
and guns... The national Ukraine military should, If members of Right sector want to fight , they
should leave Right sector and join the army.
This was and will happen if they don't disband such armed groups.
annamarinja silvaback 12 Jul 2015 18:18
have you ever studied geography? If yes, you should remember the proximity of Ukraine to Russia
(next door) and the proximity of Ukraine to the US (thousands miles away). Also, have you heard
about the CIA Director Brennan and his covert visit to Kiev on the eve of the beginning of the
civil war in Ukraine? This could give you an informed hint about the causes of the war. Plus you
may be interested to learn about Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (Ms. Nudelman), her cookies, and her foul language.
She is, by the way, a student of Dick Cheney. If you were born before 2000, you might know his
name and his role in the Iraq catastrophe. Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (and the family of Kagans she belongs
to) finds particular pleasure in creating military conflicts around the globe. It is not for nothing
that the current situation in Ukraine is called Iraqization of Eastern Europe.
Bev Linington JJRichardson 12 Jul 2015 18:10
Ukrainians shot down the plane. East, West does not matter as they were all Ukrainians before
the government overthrow. Leaders of the new government could not look past some Ukrainian citizens
ethnicity, instead of standing together united, they decided to oppress which lead to the referendum
in Crimea and the rise of separatists in the East.
jgbg Chirographer 12 Jul 2015 17:53
And for the Pro-Russian posters the newsflash is that could also describe the situation
inside the Donbass.
It certainly describes the situation in Donbass where Right Sector or the volunteer battalions
are in charge. In Dnepropetrovsk, Right Sector would simply turn up at some factory or other business
and order the owner to sign document transferring the enterprise to them. In other cases, they
have kidnapped businessmen for ransom. Some people have simply disappeared under such circumstances.
The Ukrainian National Guard simply break into homes left empty by people fleeing the war and
steal the contents. Such was the scale of looting, the Ukrainian postal service have now refused
to ship electrical goods out of the ATO area unless the senders have the original boxes and receipts.
jgbg AlfredHerring 12 Jul 2015 17:45
Maybe Kiev just needs to bomb them some more.
Putin promised to protect the Russian speaking people in Ukraine - but he hasn't really done
that. His government has indicated that they would not allow Kiev to simply overrun or obliterate
the people of Donbass. Quite where their threshold of actual intervention lies is anyone's guess.
The "pro-Russian" government that you refer to was only elected because it promised to sign
the EU trade agreement. It then reneged on that promise...
Yanukovych's government was elected the previous one was useless and corrupt.
Yanukovych wanted to postpone the decision to sign for six months, while he attempted to extract
more from both the EU and Russia. Under Poroshenko, the implementation of the EU Association Agreement
has been delayed for 15 months, as the governments of Ukraine, the EU and Russia all recognised
that Russian trade (with the favourable terms which Ukraine enjoys) are vitail to Ukraine's economic
recovery. Expect that postponement to be extended.
.... severely and brutally curtailing freedom of speech and concentrating all power in the
hands of Yanukovich's little clan...
As opposed to sending the military to shell the crap out of those who objected to an elected
government being removed by a few thousand nationalists in Kiev.
There was no "coup".
An agreement had been signed at the end of February 2014, which would see elections in September
2014. The far right immediately moved to remove the government (as Right Sector had promised on
camera in December 2013). None of the few mechanisms for replacing the president listed in the
Ukrainian constitution have been followed - that makes it a coup.
The Maidan protesters were not armed
This newspaper and other western media documented the armed members of far right groups on
Maidan. One BBC journalist was actually shot at by a Svoboda sniper, operating from Hotel Ukraina
- the video is still on the BBC website.
....the interim government that was put in place by the parliament in late February and
the government that was elected in May and Oct. of 2014 were and are not fascist.
The interim government included several ministers from Svoboda, formerly the Socialist Nationalist
Party of Ukraine. These were the first Nazi ministers in a European government since Franco's
Spanish government that ended in the 1970's. In a 2013 resolution, the EU parliament had indicated
that no Ukrainian government should include members of Svoboda or other far right parties.
pushkinsideburn vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 16:45
There has been a marked change in rhetoric over the last few weeks. Even CiF on Ukraine articles
seems to attract less trolls (with a few notable exceptions on this article - though they feel
more like squad trolls than the first team). Hopefully a sign of deescalation or perhaps just
a temporary lull before the MH17 anniversary this week?
pushkinsideburn calum1 12 Jul 2015 16:38
His other comments should have been the clue that arithmetic, like independent critical thinking,
is beyond him.
normankirk 12 Jul 2015 16:19
Right sector were the first to declare they wouldn't abide by the Minsk 2 peace agreement.Nevertheless,
Dmitry Yarosh, their leader is adviser to Ukraine's Chief of staff. Given that he only received
about 130,000 votes in the last election, he has a disproportionate amount of power.
As predicted the real civil war in Ukraine is still to happen. The split between the east and
the ordinary Ukrainian was largely manufactured . In the long term no body would be able to live
with the right sector or more precisely the right sector cant share a bed with anyone else.
sashasmirnoff RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 15:44
"When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as
it is, in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules
all Western mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at
that time?"
This may be why:
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - former CIA Director William
Colby
Alexander_the_Great 12 Jul 2015 15:43
This was so, so predictable. The Right Sector were the main violent group during the coup in
2014 - in fact they were the ones to bring the first guns to the square following their storming
of a military warehouse in west Ukraine a few days before the coup. It was this factor that forced
the Police to arm themselves in preparation.
Being the vanguard of the illegal coup, they then provided a useful tool of manipulation for
the illegal Kiev government to oppress any opposition, intimidate journalists who spoke the truth
and lead the war against the legally-elected ELECTED governments of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Having failed in the war against the east, western leaders have signalled the right sector
has now outlived its usefulness and has become an embarrassment to Kiev and their western backers.
The Right Sector meanwhile, feel betrayed by the establishment in Kiev. They have 19 battalions
of fighters and they wont go away thats for sure. I think one can expect this getting more violent
in the coming months.
SHappens jezzam 12 Jul 2015 15:40
Putin is a Fascist dictator.
Putin is not a dictator. He is a statist, authoritarian-inclined hybrid regime ruler that possesses
some democratic elements and space for opposition groups.
He has moderate nationalist tendencies in foreign affairs; his goal is a secure a strong Russia.
He is a patriot and has a charismatic authority. Russians stay behind him.
ploughmanlunch samuel glover 12 Jul 2015 15:31
'this notion that absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master script drawn up
in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome'
Agreed.
As is everything is Russia's fault.
ConradLodziak 12 Jul 2015 15:26
This is just the latest in a string of conflicts involving the right sector, as reported by
RT, Russian media and until recently many Ukrainian outlets. The problem, of course, is that Porostinko
has given 'official' status to the right sector. Blow back time for him.
CIAbot007 William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:06
Yes, Russia (USSR) from the USSR foundation had been forcing people of the then territory of
Ukraine to identify themselves as Ukrainians under the process of rootisation - Ukrainization,
then gave to Ukraine Donbass and left side Dniepr and Odessa, Herson and Nikolaev, and then decided
to ethnically cleane them.. It doesn't make sense, does it? Oh, wait, sense is not your domain.
annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:05
let me help you with arithmetics: 72 years ago Europe was inflamed with the WWII.
There was a considerable number of Ukrainians that collaborated with Hitler' nazis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Galician)
In short, your government finds it is OK to glorify the perpetrators of genocide in Europe during
the WWII.
Nik2 12 Jul 2015 15:04
These tragic events, when YESTERDAY, on Saturday afternoon, several civilians were unintentionally
wounded in gun battles in previously peaceful town near the Hungary and Slovakia borders, vividly
exposes Western propaganda. Though mass media in Ukraine and Russia are full of reports about
this from the start, The Guardian managed to give first information exactly 1 day later, and BBC
was still keeping silence a few minutes ago. Since both sides are allies of the West (the Right
Sector fighters were the core of the Maidan protesters at the later stages, and Poroshenko regime
is presumably "democratic"), the Western media preferred to ignore the events that are so politically
uncomfortable. Who are "good guys" to be praised? In fact, this may be the start of nationalists'
revolt against Ukrainian authorities, and politically it is very important moment that can fundamentally
change Ukrainian politics. But the West decides to be silent ...
annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 14:59
Do your history book tell you that the Holodomor was a multiethnic endeavor? That the Ukrainians
were among the victims and perpetrators and that the whole huge country had suffered the insanely
cruel policies of multiethnic bolsheviks? The Holodomor was almost a century ago, whereas the
Odessa massacre and the bombardments of civilian population in east Ukraine by the neo-nazi thugs
(sent by Kiev), has been going during last year and half. Perhaps you have followed Mr. Brennan
and Mrs. Nuland-Kagan too obediently.
foolisholdman zonzonel 12 Jul 2015 14:58
zonzonel
Oops, the presumably fascist govt. is fighting a fascist group.
What is a poor troll to do these days??
Antiukrainian copywriting just got more difficult, perhaps a raise is needed? Just sayin.
What's your problem? Never heard of Fascist groups fighting each other? Never heard of the
"Night of the Long Knives"? Fascists have no principles to unite them. They believe in Uebermenschen
and of course they all think that either they themselves or their leader is The Ueberuebermensch.
Anyone who disagrees is an enemy no matter how Fascist he may be.
samuel glover ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 14:55
Y'know, I'm no fan of the Russophobic hysteria that dominates English-language media. I've
been to Ukraine several times over the last 15 years or so, and I'm sorry to say that I think
that in time Ukrainians will regard Maidan's aftermath as most of them view the Orange Revolution
-- with regret and cynicism.
That said, this notion that everything, absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master
script drawn up in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome. Most post-revolution regimes purge
one end or the other of the current ideological wings. Kiev has already tangled with the oligarch
and militia patron Igor Kolomoisky. So perhaps this is another predictable factional struggle.
Or maybe, as another comment speculates, this is a feud over cigarette tax revenue.
In any case, Ukraine is a complex place going through an **extremely** complex time. it's too
soon to tell what the Lviv skirmish means, and **far** too soon to lay it all on nefarious puppetmasters.
TheTruthAnytime ADTaylor 12 Jul 2015 14:49
The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country,...
Is the CIA their country? So far they've only seemed to serve the interests of American businesspeople,
not Ukrainian interests. Also, murdering eastern Ukrainians cannot really be considered such a
great service to Ukraine, can it?
annamarinja ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:44
Maidan was indeed a popular apprising, but it was utilized by the US strategists for their
geopolitical games. The Ukrainians are going to learn hard way that the US have never had any
interest in well-being of the "locals" and that the ongoing civil war was designed in order to
create a festering wound on a border with the Russia. The Iraqization of Ukraine was envisioned
by the neocons as a tool to break both Russia and Ukraine. The sooner Ukrainians come to a peaceful
solution uniting the whole Ukraine (for example, to federalization), the better for the general
population (but not for the thieving oligarchs).
vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 14:38
"Couple of hundred Right Sector supporters demonstrated in Kiev?" Come on! Over the last week,
there have been enough of videos of thousands of people in fatigues trying to block access to
government buildings and shouting rather aggressive demands. The entire battalions of "National
Guard." This is much bigger than just 100 people on a peaceful rally. Ukraine might be heading
towards Maidan 3.0.
ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:26
The situation in Ukraine has been unravelling for months and this news broke on Friday evening.
The Minsk II cease fire has not been honoured by Poroshenko, who has not managed to effect
any of the pledges he signed up to. The right sector who rejected the cease-fire from the start
are now refusing the rule of their post coup president in Kiev.
Time for Victoria Nuland to break out the cookies? Or maybe it's too late for that now. The
country formerly know as Ukraine is turning out to be another outstanding success of American
post -imperial foreign policy.
Meanwhile in UFA the BRIC's economic forum is drawing to a close, with representatives from
the developing world and no reporting of the aspirations being discussed there of over 60% of
the world's population. It's been a major success, but if you want to learn about it, you will
have to turn to other media sources - those usually reported as Russian propaganda channels or
Putin's apologists.
The same people who have been reporting on the deteriorating situation in Kiev since the February
coup. Or as Washington likes to call it a popular up rising.
'The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country'
Don't get me wrong. I detest the fascist militias and their evil deeds.
However, despite their callousness, brutality and stupidity, they have been the most effective
fighting force for Kiev ( more sensible Ukrainians have been rather more reluctant to kill their
fellow countrymen ).
Deluded ? Yes. Cowardly ? No.
Even more reprehensible, in my opinion are the calculating and unprincipled Kiev Government
that have attempted to bully a region of the Ukraine that had expressed legitimate reservations,
using those far right battalions, but accepting no responsibility for the carnage that they carried
out.
mario n 12 Jul 2015 12:52
I think it's time Europe spoke up about dangers of Ukrainian nationalism. 72 years ago Ukrainian
fascists committed one of the most hideous and brutal acts of genocide in the human history. Details
are so horrifying it is beyond imagination. Sadly not many people remembers that, because it is
not politically correct to say bad things about Ukraine. Today mass murderers are hailed as national
heroes and private battalions and ultranationalist groups armed to the teeth terrorise not only
Donbas but now different parts of the country like Zakarpattia where there is strong Hungarian,
Russian and Romanian minority.
How many massacres and acts of genocide Europe needs before it learns to act firmly?
SHappens 12 Jul 2015 12:49
Kiev has allowed nationalist groups including Right Sector to operate despite allegations
by groups like Amnesty International, that Right Sector has tortured civilian prisoners.
You know what, you dont play with fire or you will get burnt. It was written on the wall that
these Bandera apologists would eventually turn to the hand that fed them. I wonder how Kiev will
manage to blame the russians now.
RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 12:33
Of course the Guardian doesn't like to explain that 'Right Sector' are genuine fascists - by
their own admission! These fascists, who wear Nazi insignia, were the people who overthrew the elected government
of Ukraine in the US / EU-supported coup - which the Guardianistas and other PC-brainwashed duly
cheered on as a supposed triumph of democracy. Since that glorious US-financed and EU-backed coup, wholly illegal under international law,
Ukraine's economy has collapsed, as has Ukrainians' living standards.
The US neocons are losing interest in their attempted land grab of Ukraine - and the EU cretins
who backed the coup, thinking it would be a nice juicy further territorial acquisition for the
EU, are desperately looking the other way, now that both the US and EU realize that Ukraine is
a financial black hole.
When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as it is,
in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules all Western
mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at that time?
jgbg 12 Jul 2015 12:15
The move came after a gunfight broke out on Saturday, when about 20 Right Sector gunmen
arrived at a sports complex controlled by MP Mikhail Lano. They had been trying to stop the
traffic of cigarettes and other contraband, a spokesman for the group said.
Put another way, one group of gangsters tried to muscle in on the cigarette smuggling operation
of another group of gangsters. Smuggling cigarettes into nearby EU countries is extremely lucrative. Here's some video of some of the events:
Note the registration plates driven by both Right Sector and the other gangsters i.e. not Ukrainian.
In all likelihood, these cars are all stolen. Right Sector and fighters from "volunteer battalions" have become accustomed to muscling in
on other people's activities (legal or not) in Donbass. This sort of thuggery is routine when
these folk come to town. It is only when since they have continued such activities on their home
turf in west and central Ukraine that the authorities have taken any notice.
Barr is CIA's shyster lawyer, Mueller is CIA's cleaner. Both FBI and DoJ are completely
controlled by CIA "focal points" (Dulles' term) or dotted-line reports (Bush-era
Newspeak.)
What's more, Hill and Bill work for CIA too: Hill got her start purloining documents for
CIA's "Watergate" purge of Nixon; Cord Meyer recruited Bill at Oxford.
CIA brainwashing makes Republicans blame Democrats for what CIA does to you, and makes
Democrats blame Republicans for what CIA does to them. CIA runs your country while party
loyalists tear each other's throats out. Divide et impera.
Nobody will be doing a fine job for the country because CIA doesn't give a rat's ass about
the country. They've got a business to run: drug-dealing, gun-running, child trafficking and
pedophile blackmail, money-laundering, foreign asset-stripping.
"I've given up the illusion that we'll ever vote our way out of this madness, look at
Narco Rubio's tweet yesterday using snuff photos of Gaddafi after the gangsters in DC
murdered him and destroyed his country, turning it back centuries, using them as a threat
to Maduro. You don't vote that kind of Mob out, we have the mafia now in charge of our
country, the most powerful military in the world is run by satanic mobsters, and we're
foolish enough to think voting is going to make this go away? Criminals and gangsters don't
stop until they're either in prison or dead. They don't go away or give up power because
you ask them to, which is all voting is, asking them nicely. Good luck with that!
Mafia is the correct description. And you are right, they will never willingly give up
their power. It has to be taken from them. And anyone who expects voting to do that job
better find themselves a Elliot Ness to put in the WH.
Barr is CIA's shyster lawyer, Mueller is CIA's cleaner. Both FBI and DoJ are completely
controlled by CIA "focal points" (Dulles' term) or dotted-line reports (Bush-era
Newspeak.)
What's more, Hill and Bill work for CIA too: Hill got her start purloining documents for
CIA's "Watergate" purge of Nixon; Cord Meyer recruited Bill at Oxford.
CIA brainwashing makes Republicans blame Democrats for what CIA does to you, and makes
Democrats blame Republicans for what CIA does to them. CIA runs your country while party
loyalists tear each other's throats out. Divide et impera.
Nobody will be doing a fine job for the country because CIA doesn't give a rat's ass about
the country. They've got a business to run: drug-dealing, gun-running, child trafficking and
pedophile blackmail, money-laundering, foreign asset-stripping.
"... When we suggest turning to universally approved OSCE documents that reject as unacceptable any obstacles standing in the way of the public or journalists getting access to information, we are told that this was the case in 1990 and should remain there. ..."
"... It wasn't us that bombed Libya and turned it into a "black hole." It still remains such and through it bandits, terrorists and arms traffickers travel to the Sahara-Sahel zone whereas migrants are heading to the north. Therefore, we leave it up to them to deal with those who are responsible for this. ..."
"... Apparently, the international legal space is being fragmented – the US is doing this all along the way while the EU is isolating itself when it comes to a number of issues. The processes that are taking place in Eurasia may also be interpreted as isolation at some point but in reality we want to launch something that will become all-embracing. ..."
"... Maybe, there is a rational idea in everything that is taking place. As Vladimir Lenin used to say, "before uniting it is necessary resolutely to draw lines of demarcation." Maybe, we should be fragmented to understand who the main global players are. ..."
We are now saying that the world is changing and the interdependence of states is growing. Do you think international regulation,
for instance, in communications, can be radically improved in perspective? Because of fake news navigation in the sea of information
leaves much to be desired. Is it possible to regulate a host of other things related to migration flows and capital management?
Is it possible to raise international regulation to a new level or is this altogether impossible? Will countries continue to strike
unstable alliances for shorter or longer periods of time or are there grounds to hope for an improvement of this situation?
Sergey Lavrov:
This question is fairly controversial. In brief, currently this regulation that should be ideally based on universal principles
of international law is being replaced with narrowly interpreted rules elaborated in a narrow circle of states.
As for fake news, France, for example, adopted a law that filters the media space the way it wants. The Russian media Russia Today
and Sputnik are political outcasts. They are not allowed to visit the Elysee Palace or attend any special events. When we address
French officials in this context, they tell us that everything is correct because in their view these are propaganda instruments
rather than news agencies. This is what regulation is all about.
When we suggest turning to universally approved OSCE documents that reject as unacceptable any obstacles standing in the way
of the public or journalists getting access to information, we are told that this was the case in 1990 and should remain there.
There are other examples as well. When France failed to use the OPCW exclusively for passing remotely a verdict on who is guilty
and who is not in violation of all conceivable norms of the Chemical Weapons Convention, it took the initiative to establish an International
Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons that was not linked with any international structures. A few months
later the EU made a decision to the effect that if the new structure reveals violators, Brussels will impose sanctions on them. This
is, of course, regulation but this regulation is based on the narrow interpretation of broad interests by an individual group of
countries.
As for the internet, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has been talking for years, if not decades, about the way
the internet should function so as to not offend anyone. No results have been produced and there will not be any in the foreseeable
future for obvious-to-all reasons. I have practically no doubts about this. Likewise, for the same reason virtually not a single
Western country supported our proposals that were endorsed by the UN General Assembly at the onset of work on the rules of responsible
conduct in cyberspace.
You mentioned migration. There is the Global Compact for Migration that was adopted last year. The West was fighting for it to
include a provision on the equal and divided responsibility for the migration crisis. Russia and other countries objected. It
wasn't us that bombed Libya and turned it into a "black hole." It still remains such and through it bandits, terrorists and arms
traffickers travel to the Sahara-Sahel zone whereas migrants are heading to the north. Therefore, we leave it up to them to deal
with those who are responsible for this.
We are now talking about the formation of the multipolar international order. Its development was preceded by a whole historical
era.
Apparently, the international legal space is being fragmented – the US is doing this all along the way while the EU is isolating
itself when it comes to a number of issues. The processes that are taking place in Eurasia may also be interpreted as isolation at
some point but in reality we want to launch something that will become all-embracing.
Maybe, there is a rational idea in everything that is taking place. As Vladimir Lenin used to say, "before uniting it is necessary
resolutely to draw lines of demarcation." Maybe, we should be fragmented to understand who the main global players are.
Not those that established the UN in 1945 but those that are playing today, in the middle of the 21 st century. Only
after this we should think what to do next, for instance, with the UN. It is absolutely clear that the UN Security Council requires
a reform because the world's developing regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America are not properly represented in it. Today, up to
one third of the UN Security Council is represented by EU countries. I don't think that if more countries from the historical West
are added to this structure, it will gain the diversity we want to see in it.
Calling a spade a spade......
"
TEHRAN, Feb. 24 (Xinhua) -- Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Sunday that
the West has turned the Middle East into a "powder keg" through arms sales to the Arab
countries in the region, Press TV reported.
Over the past year alone, the West sold weapons worth 100 billion U.S. dollars to the
countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, said Zarif.
"The weapons did not bring security to anyone," he added.
The Iranian minister made the remarks in a foreign policy speech at the University of
Tehran.
Since the United States withdrew from the 2015 landmark Iranian nuclear deal last May,
Iran has been under unprecedented sanctions from Washington.
Iran has also repeatedly denied the West's criticism of its alleged "interfering" policies
in the region.
"
Don't the people pulling the strings behind the media understand what they have done?
They have convinced a large part of the nation that everything that they were taught from
childhood is a fraud.
Civilizations are only held together by the "glue" of shared beliefs. The
deep-state-media-complex has just applied a solvent to the very glue that holds the entire
culture together.
And Hopkins says a disillusioned people might realize
in reality they are living in a neo-feudalist, de facto global capitalist empire
administrated by omnicidal money-worshipping human parasites that won't be satisfied until
they've remade the whole of creation in their nihilistic image.
There has been a longstanding bipartisan attack against the nation, and I use that term as
defined as "a stable, historically developed community of people with a territory, economic
life, distinctive culture, and language in common."
But I don't think the "deep-state-media-complex" is concerned by this. Again, feature not
bug.
NATO's Aggression Against Serbia and Montenegro in 1999
The NATO launched a military intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia
and Montenegro) on March 24th, 1999 in the name of protection of human rights of Kosovo
Albanians. In other words, the 78 days of barbaric air-strikes were formally justified by
"humanitarian intervention" which was mainly based on the false flags and fake news (like the
Rachak case) by Western corporate mass media or brutal lies from the ground (like by William
Walker – a Head of the Kosovo Verification Mission).
In essence, regional organizations like the NATO, according to the UN Charter, do not have
the right to interfere in internal affairs of any country, not even in internal affairs of
their own member states. This superior international document and instrument of global security
explicitly demand the approval of the UNSC for the undertaking of any armed action by any
regional organization. The NATO never asked and never became authorized to carry out military
intervention against Serbia and Montenegro in 1999 and, therefore, according to modern Public
International Law, this "humanitarian" intervention under arms was a pure act of brutal
aggression against a sovereign country and as such a crime against peace. Subsequently, human
rights served in this case just as a justification for the realization of certain geopolitical
aims in the Balkans. It became of crystal visibility in February 2008 when Kosovo Albanians
proclaimed an independent Republic of Kosovo which became recognized by all US' satellites
around the world. In 1999 NATO did not bomb Serbia and Montenegro for the sake of Kosovo
independence but only to protect "human rights" (of Albanians). However, the same NATO nothing
did to continue the protection of human rights (of Kosovo Serbs and other non-Albanians) after
the war when the province became put under complete protectorate and control by the NATO who
nothing did to prevent comprehensive ethnic cleansing of the province committed by Albanian
extremists (former members of the KLA).
Although, as it is presented above, every armed intervention is strictly prohibited by both
Public International Law and the UN Charter, the NATO, established in 1949 on the foundation of
Article 51 of the UN Charter which is dealing with the right to collective and individual
self-defense, attacked the FYR on March 24th, 1999 with continual barbaric air-strikes for the
next 77 days. The term "air-strikes", the NATO was regularly used at its own press conferences
during the aggression on Serbia and Montenegro like the term "collateral damage" for the mass
destruction and civilian casualties resulted by the NATO bombing. In their official statements,
NATO's officials declaratively claimed that the focal reason for those (illegal) air-strikes
was a set of humanitarian issues among them the most important have been three:
1) protection of individual human rights,
2) violation of Albanian rights in Kosovo as a national minority, and
3) prevention of the potential policy of genocide and ethnic cleansing against ethnic
Albanians by Yugoslavia's security forces.
Nevertheless, the aggression was accompanied by dirty and powerful media propaganda which
was, of course, directly supported by a number of politically "correct" legal and human rights
experts for the purpose to wash the brains of the Western audience. Most of them justified the
aggression with the right of Kosovo Albanians to self-determination, although such right is not
supported by any valid international instrument if the right to self-determination means the
destruction of territorial integrity of the country. However, the same experts did not
recognize the same right to self-determination to Croatia's and Bosnia's Serbs during the break
up of ex-Yugoslavia.
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, center, with court security guards at left and
right, appears before the U.N. war crimes tribunal in The Hague, Tuesday July 3, 2001.
Milosevic walked into the U.N. tribunal courtroom, Tuesday, without lawyers to represent him
against charges of war crimes against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo in 1999. Milosevic died in his
prison cell in the Hague on March 11, 2006 allegedely of a heat attack jist a few months begore
the verdict to be annouced.
To keep in our mind, according to Public International Law and the UN Charter, the
aggression also includes bombing by the armed forces of one country against the territory of
another country or use of any arms and armed forces of one country against the territory of
another as, for instance, NATO used Kosovo Albanian KLA as ground forces during the Kosovo War.
But the crucial fact in relation to the 1998−1999 Kosovo War was that since there was no
real humanitarian catastrophe before the NATO aggression starred on March 24th, 1999 against
the FRY, it had to be created what exactly NATO did during the air-strike campaign of 78 days
in order to justify its occupation of the province after the war followed by Kosovo's secession
from Serbia in 2008.
Violation Of Human Rights In Kosovo
No one claims that human rights of all citizens including and ethnic Albanians in
Kosovo-Metochia have not been violated to a certain extent before NATO's military campaign in
1999. This fact was approved in several resolutions by the UNSC before the NATO aggression but
what is systematically hidden as a fact is that original flagrant violation of human rights in
the province came from the side of Albanian KLA as this terrorist organization launched a
widespread policy of attacking, kidnapping and killing of the Serbs in order to provoke
Serbia's security forces who reacted as they did it by violation of human rights of those
Albanians who participated in the actions of and/or supported the KLA's activities. Here we
have to keep in mind that a majority of Kosovo's Albanians did not support the methods of
combat by the KLA including and Dr. Ibrahim Rugova – a political leader of Kosovo's
Albanians. In order to calm down a political situation in the province, the Yugoslav Government
concluded with different international organizations, like the OSCE or the NATO, several
agreements allowing the OSCE monitoring mission in Kosovo-Metochia. The Yugoslav Government as
well as agreed to restrain the activities by its security forces if the opposite side (the KLA)
would do the same. That the Albanian side before NATO's aggression was committing war crimes is
clear from the invitation to both the Yugoslav and Kosovo's Albanian sides by the international
community to cooperate with the UN special Tribunal (est. 1993) for the crimes committed on the
territory of ex-Yugoslavia (including Kosovo-Metochia too). The fact was that regarding this
invitation to cooperate with the Tribunal's prosecutor in the Hague, the leaders of the
"Albanian national community" were also invited but not only the Yugoslav side to participate
in the investigation for all offenses within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Albanian
side was, in other words, invited to participate in the investigation of personal involvement
of the KLA members in the crimes committed against other ethnic groups in Kosovo-Metochia, with
the final political aim to secede the province from the FRY.
Nevertheless, in no one resolution on Kosovo before March 24th, 1999, it was not mentioned
any "threat to peace" in the province nor did they order the UNSC to form international armed
forces with the right to re-establish the peace and order in Kosovo, that was to undertake
certain armed actions against Serbia and Montenegro. In 1998, the FRY as a sovereign state was
combating separatist Albanian movement in Kosovo-Metochia, in some cases with inordinate use of
force, but, nevertheless, there was no real humanitarian catastrophe at that time. The recent
historical experience of violation of human rights according to contemporary definition, in the
province suggests that the critical situation was escalating with the creation of the KLA in
1995 which took comprehensive terrorist actions for the sake to bring about the secession of
Kosovo from Serbia. The Yugoslav security forces came into serious conflict with different
groups of the KLA, and the judiciary of the FRY accompanied by relevant experts and scholars
justifiably qualified the armed actions of Kosovo's separatists as classic terrorism and
criminal acts against a sovereign state.
[iv]
Former leader of KLA Ramush Haradinaj arrested on 5 January 2017 on a Serbian arrest warrant
by French border police upon his arrival at EuroAirport Basel Mulhouse Freiburg on a flight
from Pristina. Serbian authorities urged France to extradite Haradinaj, citing that he
personally took part in the torture, murder, and rape of civilians. On 27 April 2017, a French
court turned down a Serbian request to extradite Ramush Haradinaj and released him. Since
September 9, 2017 Haradinaj is the Prime Minister of self-proclamed Kosovo.
In essence, there were prior to NATO's aggression on the FRY the problems of protection of
human rights in Kosovo-Metochia, but certainly no to such extent as it was exaggerated by the
Western mass media and policymakers at least no bigger than in many other corners of the world
like in Colombia or Turkey's eastern part populated by ethnic Kurds. Surely, the situation in
regard to human rights in Turkey since 1994 onward is much more serious than it was in
Kosovo-Metochia in 1998 as the Kurdish human and minority rights are drastically violated like
in 1994 when a large number of the Kurdish villages were destroyed by the Turkish police and
regular army's forces and when almost one million of ethnic Kurds fled Turkey to neighboring
states but the US administration simply did nothing to protect the Kurdish human rights. Even
no initiative was launched for the UN to undertake a legitimate international action in order
to prevent Turkey's authorities to stop with the production of a humanitarian
catastrophe.
Producing Humanitarian Catastrophe But Characterized As No Aggression
The focal result of NATO's bombing of Serbia and Montenegro was a huge number of refugees of
all nationalities from Kosovo-Metochia that became, in fact, a real humanitarian catastrophe.
However, during such exodus of people, NATO's military aggression under the umbrella of the
"armed humanitarian intervention" became even strengthened in spite of all prohibitions which
have been existing in Public International Law. However, during and after the bombardment of
the FRY, the UN resolutions, like the UNSC Resolution of June 10th, 1999, simply did not
mention the bombardment at all for a very reason: if mentioned it would have to be officially
qualified as "aggression" what means a violation of Public International Law and the UN
Charter. In this case, however, due to the established voting system in the UNSC (threat of
using Russian and Chinese veto rights), no resolution could be adopted. The Resolution of June
10th, 1999, in fact, is speaking only about deployment of international security forces
including and those of the NATO in the province after the war for the sake to " establish safe
environment for all people in Kosovo, as well as to facilitate safe return of all displaced
people and refugees to their homes". In other words, nowhere in the whole text of the
resolution is mentioned the bombardment of the FRY and, therefore, a pure act of aggression
against a sovereign state. That was the same with another previous resolution adopted during
the aggression (Resolution 1239 on May 14th, 1999) which does not say any single word about
NATO's bombardment but instead it only says that international community expresses serious
concern in respect to the humanitarian catastrophe in and around Kosovo as a result of
continuing crisis but who produced this crisis is absolutely unclear from the text of the
resolution. The same text confirms the rights of all refugees and displaced persons to return
to their homes in a safe and dignified manner but what was a real background of the crisis is
not clear. According to the UN resolutions on Kosovo, the NATO barbaric bombardment and a
classic act of aggression on a sovereign state, in fact, believe or not, never happened!
We have to mention that there were several attempts by Russia and China in the UNSC to adopt
an appropriate resolution in which would be recognized that NATO's air-strikes in 1999 really
happened on the ground and subsequently they had to be characterized as "aggression". However,
such resolution's proposals failed as not being adopted for the only reason – used veto
rights by the USA, the UK, and France (the Western obstruction).
Arguments Against
Humanitarian Intervention
There are several focal objections by the scholars, policy-makers, and lawyers to
humanitarian intervention advocated at various times. Here, we will address the most important
arguments against humanitarian intervention taking primarily the case of NATO's bombing of the
FRY in 1999:
No real basis for humanitarian intervention in Public International Law . The common good
is best preserved by maintaining a ban on any use of force not authorized by the UNSC.
Interveners have typically either claimed to be acting in self-defense according to the
"implied authorization" of the UNSC resolutions and the UN Charter or have refrained from
making any reasonable legal argument based on Public International Law at all.
States do not intervene for primarily humanitarian reasons . States always have mixed
real reasons for humanitarian and other interventions and are very rarely prepared to
sacrifice their own soldiers overseas. It means that humanitarian intervention is guided by
calculations of national interest but not by what is best for the victims in whose name the
intervention is formally carried out.
States are not allowed to risk the lives of their own soldiers in order to save strangers
. Political leaders do not possess any moral right to shed the blood of their own citizens on
behalf of suffering foreigners. Citizens are having the exclusive responsibility of their own
state, and their state is entirely their own business and, therefore, if a civil authority
has broken down this is the responsibility only of the citizens and political leaders of that
state but not of the foreign powers.
T he issue of abuse . In the absence of a not politically colored mechanism for deciding
when a real humanitarian intervention is permissible, states have a possibility to espouse
humanitarian motives just as a formal pretext to morally cover the pursuit of national
self-interest as, for instance, A. Hitler did with the Sudetenland.
Selectivity of response . States all the time apply principles of humanitarian
intervention selectively following their own national interest but not real protection of
human rights. In other words, a state's behavior is always governed by what the Government
decides to be in their interest and, therefore, states are selective about when they choose
to intervene. As an example, the selectivity of response is the argument that NATO's
"humanitarian" intervention in Kosovo in 1999 could not be driven by real humanitarian
concerns as it has done nothing to address, for instance, the very much larger humanitarian
catastrophe in Darfur, a province in West Sudan (Darfur genocide).
A problem of moral principles . There is no generally reached consensus on a set of moral
principles about humanitarian intervention which should not be permitted in the face of
disagreement about what constitutes extreme cases of the violation of human rights.
Practically, humanitarian intervention does not work . Humanitarian intervention is not
workable as the outsiders cannot impose human rights especially by those who have the same
problem in their homes. Democracy can be established only by a domestic struggle for liberty
but not from the outside. It means that human rights cannot take root if they are imposed by
outsiders. The argument is that the oppressed people should by themselves overthrow
non-democratic authority.
Conclusion
The norms of Public International Law and doctrine of collective security after 1945
presented above, unfortunately, did not stop different forms of armed interventions around the
globe but especially by the US – a country which became a global champion of aggression.
Armed "humanitarian" interventions are still going to be a reality of the present and future
international relations under the umbrella of the R2P.
After the Cold War, the most brutal, illegal and shameful "humanitarian intervention" was in
the southern Serbian province of Kosovo-Metochia in 1999 that was, in fact, NATO's aggression
against the FRY in a form of an air campaign. However, beside this example of "humanitarian
intervention" as a violation of Public International Law, there were many similar interventions
before like when in 1983 the USA invaded a sovereign state of Granada with some 8.000 soldiers
under justification to protect the lives of about 1.000 American citizens living there under
the belief that they were threatened due to the unrest in this country. However, the real
reason of such "humanitarian intervention" has been of purely political and geostrategic nature
rather than humanitarian one as US' troops occupied the whole island (state) of Granada
including and those parts in which US' citizens did not live. The focal proof of abuse of
Public International Law was a fact that the American troops de facto occupied Granada as they
stayed on the island even after all the American citizens had left and changed the Government
of it.
From the presentation above, it is quite clear that NATO's military action against Serbia
and Montenegro in 1999 cannot be characterized as a just war of "humanitarian intervention"
even according to the criteria by the 17th-century Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius not to speak
about the modern set of criteria incorporated into the UN Charter and Public International Law.
Therefore, the action was rather a classic example of brutal military aggression against a
sovereign state covered by politicized Western mass media. It is true that "media are not only
spectator in modern conflicts, but must be considered active participants forming public
opinion and also creating and directing threat perception" that was exactly the case of the
1998−1999 Kosovo War when the Western corporate mass media succeeded to convince public
opinion that NATO's "humanitarian intervention" was a just war.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made a formal electoral pact for the upcoming
April election with the Otzma Yehudit (literally, "Jewish Power") party which has as its policy
the expulsion of all non-Jews from Israel, and whose leaders have said that "Christians are
'blood sucking vampires' who should be expelled from Israel."
News of the alliance was carried in the media aimed directly at Jews, such as the
Times of Israel , but has been completely suppressed in the Jewish lobby controlled media
in Europe and America -- because there, the Jewish lobby always pushes "non-racialism" as its
official policy for non-Jews.
According to the
Times of Israel
, Netanyahu has reached a deal with the Jewish Home Party to grant that "national-religious
party" a pair of ministerial posts after April's elections in exchange for it merging with the
Otzma Yehudit party, whose name in Hebrew literally translates as "Jewish Power."
The Times of Israel reported that the Jewish Home party earlier agreed to run in the
April elections jointly with the "National Union," party, which "has come under increasing
pressure from Netanyahu to make an alliance with Otzma Yehudit and Eli Yishai's Yachad, arguing
that a failure on those smaller parties' part to clear the electoral threshold could deprive
his Likud of enough potential partners to form a ruling coalition."
"... Tulsi Gabbard has recently launched a new attack on New World Order agents and ethnic cleansers in the Middle East, and one can see why they would be upset with her ..."
"... Gabbard is smart enough to realize that the Neocon path leads to death, chaos, and destruction. She knows that virtually nothing good has come out of the Israeli narrative in the Middle East -- a narrative which has brought America on the brink of collapse in the Middle East. Therefore, she is asking for a U-turn. ..."
"... The first step for change, she says, is to "stand up against powerful politicians from both parties" who take their orders from the Neocons and war machine. These people don't care about you, me, the average American, the people in the Middle East, or the American economy for that matter. They only care about fulfilling a diabolical ideology in the Middle East and much of the world. These people ought to stop once and for all. Regardless of your political views, you should all agree with Gabbard here. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard has recently launched a new attack on New World Order agents and ethnic
cleansers in the Middle East, and one can see why they would be upset with her. She said:
" We must stand up
against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up
new wars to wage, new places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and
hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy, our security, and destroying our
middle class."
It is too early to formulate a complete opinion on Gabbard, but she has said the right thing
so far. In fact, her record is better than numerous presidents, both past and present.
As we have documented in the past, Gabbard is an Iraq war veteran, and she knew what
happened to her fellow soldiers who died for Israel, the Neocon war machine, and the military
industrial complex. She also seems to be aware that the war in Iraq alone will cost American
taxpayers at least six trillion dollars.
[1] She is almost certainly aware of the fact that at least "360,000 Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans may have suffered brain injuries."
[2]
Gabbard is smart enough to realize that the Neocon path leads to death, chaos, and
destruction. She knows that virtually nothing good has come out of the Israeli narrative in the
Middle East -- a narrative which has brought America on the brink of collapse in the Middle
East. Therefore, she is asking for a U-turn.
The first step for change, she says, is to "stand up against powerful politicians from both
parties" who take their orders from the Neocons and war machine. These people don't care about
you, me, the average American, the people in the Middle East, or the American economy for that
matter. They only care about fulfilling a diabolical ideology in the Middle East and much of
the world. These people ought to stop once and for all. Regardless of your political views, you
should all agree with Gabbard here.
[1] Ernesto Londono, "Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion," Washington
Post , March 28, 2013; Bob Dreyfuss, The $6 Trillion Wars," The Nation , March 29,
2013; "Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson
Institute Study," Huffington Post , May 14, 2013; Mark Thompson, "The $5 Trillion War
on Terror," Time , June 29, 2011; "Iraq war cost: $6 trillion. What else could have
been done?," LA Times , March 18, 2013.
[2] "360,000 veterans may have brain injuries," USA Today , March 5, 2009.
"We must stand up against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage, new
places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy,
our security, and destroying our middle class."
"... US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class ..."
...Charles Schumer is a JEW NATIONALIST who uses his power and the
power of the Israel Lobby to get American soldiers to fight wars on behalf of Israel in the
Middle East and West Asia.
US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and
Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the
foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class.
"... Congress needs to take back the war powers. The fact that no one wants to be the one responsible for deciding to go to war might help slow down if not stop all these regime change wars. Maybe if Congress votes on it enough of them will be reluctant to make a yes vote. ..."
"... how being a mercenary soldier/terrorist in other people's countries, murdering their people and destroying their infrastructure, for military and multinational corporate profits and Wall St., translates to "serving and sacrificing for the people of our country"? How do you make that weird leap in logic? ..."
Foreign policy is more than just war and peace, it is a nuanced and complex issue that
directly affects us here at home. In this interview, Dr. Jane Sanders sits down with
Representative Tulsi Gabbard to talk about U.S. foreign policy and how it affects us here at
home.
Tulsi this is the first I've explored who you are. This conversation felt like a life
giving refreshment. The constant war and regime change policy of every administration since I
was a young child has been utterly confounding. We are bankrupting our society and
civilization with military expenditure exactly like a life destroying heroin addict except
it's on a global scale. These people in the powers that be together with the masses that back
them are literal sociopaths and they're entirely in control at both the highest and base
levels. The only other time I've felt as nourished by a public figure that somehow pierced
through the mainstream media was Bernie Sanders actually expressing the fact that we are an
oligarchy not a democracy. Like oligarchy, anti-war and imperialism is just not talked about.
US Americans won't acknowledge the scale of our imperialism.
Tulsi should run and both Sanders should follow her lead. As much as I love him, Bernie's
too old to be president - when it gets to the stage against Trump, we need a young, vibrant
face. Add onto that the fact that she's a veteran who actually asked to be deployed in
comparison to him, a draft dodger - he looks like an old fat pathetic septogenarian next to
an early 40s real populist. Ultimately it is up to Sanders whether this whole thing is about
a man or a movement. If he runs, he'll probably win the primary but it is not a guarantee
that he'd win - Tulsi would win and she'd be around for decades to come as a standard barer
too.
"Sensible politics" seems to be an oxymoron these days and pretty much throughout the
history of our country. It's so refreshing to see a politician who has a vision for the
future that the majority of us can get behind. It scares me though. I've read quite a bit
about JFK the past few years, and he amassed a number of very powerful and dangerous enemies.
They won't just stand by and allow someone in a position of influence to get the truth out
about our immoral and illegal wars. Tulsi, I support your efforts to bring peace to the
Middle East and elsewhere, but please do be careful. You're a fighter and I admire that, but
we all want you to be safe and healthy for many years to come.
Tulsi Gabbard, I am thrilled to have someone like you running for president. I am a fellow
Veteran dealing with disability and I am glad to have a candidate who understands the issues
Veterans are dealing with. I also realize that the voting public will support the person who
resonates with their personal lives and issues that don't exist in their life they will
disregard.Thank you for you're support.
The DNC will lie cheat and steal the election from Tulsi Gabbard just like they did Bernie
Sanders, and the 15 million Americans who Left the un-Democratic party will double and
triple....DEMEXIT
Tulsi Gabbard needs to be the president of the United States of America period. If she not
the president of our country will not survive. That is a fact, how stupid can our government
be. I guess very stupid, what else can I say. We don't hear that in main news media, the
reason we do hear it the media . The news media is totally brought, the main news media love
money and the devil, simple as that. How are you going to hear about wars from main news
media. They do care about the citizens or the country. We really don't have a real news
media, it all propaganda. All fake news, that why one doesn't hear anything from the new
medias.
Congress needs to take back the war powers. The fact that no one wants to be the one
responsible for deciding to go to war might help slow down if not stop all these regime
change wars. Maybe if Congress votes on it enough of them will be reluctant to make a yes
vote.
WAKE UP, PEOPLE! Bernie is a sell-out - a sheeple-herder that never intended to win. He
was a gatekeeper for Hillary because she is AIPAC-beloved and he is an Israel-firster. He
threw his supporters under the bus as they told him in real time that the nomination was
being stolen. He's part of the con, and the sooner we realize this, the better off we'll be.
BERNIE WORKS FOR DEMOCRATS. Vote Third Party (REAL third parties, not the Bernie Sanders'
kind).
Kinky, 2 months ago
Tulsi - re your comment about our veterans who have "served and sacrificed for their country," could you clarify how
being a mercenary soldier/terrorist in other people's countries, murdering their people and destroying their infrastructure,
for military and multinational corporate profits and Wall St., translates to "serving and sacrificing for the people of our
country"? How do you make that weird leap in logic?
That's a natural reaction to the revelation of Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy FBI
director, that top Justice Department officials, alarmed by Donald Trump's firing of former
Bureau director James Comey, explored a plan to invoke the 25th Amendment and kick the duly
elected president out of office.
According to New York Times reporters Adam Goldman and Matthew Haag, McCabe made the
statement in an NBC 60 Minutes interview to be aired on Sunday. He also reportedly said
that McCabe wanted the so-called Russia collusion investigation to go after Trump for
obstructing justice in firing Comey and for any instances they could turn up of his working in
behalf of Russia.
The idea of invoking the 25th Amendment was discussed, it seems, at two meetings on May
16, 2017. According to McCabe, top law enforcement officials pondered how they might recruit
Vice President Pence and a majority of cabinet members to declare in writing, to the Senate's
president pro tempore and the House speaker, that the president was "unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office." That would be enough, under the 25th Amendment, to install
the vice president as acting president, pushing aside Trump.
But to understand what kind of constitutional crisis this would unleash and the precedent it
would set, it's necessary to ponder the rest of this section of the 25th Amendment. The text
prescribes that, if the president, after being removed, transmits to the same congressional
figures that he is indeed capable of discharging his duties, he shall once again be president
after four days. But if the vice president and the cabinet majority reiterate their declaration
within those four days that the guy can't govern, Congress is charged with deciding the issue.
It then takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to keep the president removed, which would have
to be done within 21 days, during which time the elected president would be sidelined and the
vice president would govern. If Congress can't muster the two-thirds majority within the
prescribed time period, the president "shall resume the powers and duties of his office."
It's almost impossible to contemplate the political conflagration that would ensue under
this plan. Citizens would watch those in Washington struggle with the monumental question of
the fate of their elected leader under an initiative that had never before been invoked, or
even considered, in such circumstances. Debates would flare up over whether this comported with
the original intent of the amendment; whether it was crafted to deal with physical or mental
"incapacitation," as opposed to controversial actions or unsubstantiated allegations or even
erratic decision making; whether such an action, if established as precedent, would destabilize
the American republic for all time; and whether unelected bureaucrats should arrogate to
themselves the power to set in motion the downfall of a president, circumventing the
impeachment language of the Constitution.
For the past two years, the country has been struggling to understand the two competing
narratives of the criminal investigation of the president.
One narrative -- let's call it Narrative A -- has it that honorable and dedicated federal
law enforcement officials developed concerns over a tainted election in which nefarious Russian
agents had sought to tilt the balloting towards the candidate who wanted to improve
U.S.-Russian relations and who seemed generally unseemly. Thus did the notion emerge, quite
understandably, that Trump had "colluded" with Russian officials to cadge a victory that
otherwise would have gone to his opponent. This narrative is supported and protected by
Democratic figures and organizations, by adherents of the "Russia as Threat" preoccupation, and
by anti-Trumpers everywhere, particularly news outlets such as CNN, The Washington Post
, and The New York Times .
The other view -- Narrative B -- posits that certain bureaucratic mandarins of the
national security state and the outgoing Obama administration resolved early on to thwart
Trump's candidacy. After his election, they determined to undermine his political standing, and
particularly his proposed policy toward Russia, through a relentless and expansive
investigation characterized by initial misrepresentations, selective media leaks, brutal law
enforcement tactics, and a barrage of innuendo. This is the narrative of most Trump supporters,
conservative commentators, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page, notably
columnist Kimberley Strassel.
The McCabe revelation won't affect the battle of the two narratives. As ominous and
outrageous as this "deep state" behavior may seem to those who embrace Narrative B, it will be
seen by Narrative A adherents as evidence that those law enforcement officials were out there
heroically on the front lines protecting the republic from Donald J. Trump.
And those Narrative A folks won't have any difficulty tossing aside the fact that McCabe was
fired as deputy FBI director for violating agency policy in leaking unauthorized information to
the news media. He then allegedly violated the law in lying about it to federal investigators
on four occasions, including three times while under oath.
Indeed, Narrative A people have no difficulty at all brushing aside serious questions posed
by Narrative B people. McCabe is a likely liar and perjurer? Doesn't matter. Peter Strzok, head
of the FBI's counterespionage section, demonstrated his anti-Trump animus in tweets and emails
to Justice official Lisa Page? Irrelevant. Christopher Steele's dossier of dirt on Trump,
including an allegation that the Russians were seeking to blackmail and bribe him, was compiled
by a man who had demonstrated to a Justice Department official that he was "desperate that
Donald Trump not get elected and passionate about him not being president"? Not important. The
dossier was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party? Immaterial.
Nothing in the dossier was ever substantiated? So what?
Now we have a report from a participant of those meetings that top officials of the
country's premier law enforcement entity sat around and pondered how to bring down a sitting
president they didn't like. The Times even says that McCabe "confirmed" an earlier
report that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein suggested wearing a wire in meetings with
Trump to incriminate him and make him more vulnerable to the plot.
There is no suggestion in McCabe's interview pronouncements or in the words of Scott Pelley,
who conducted the interview and spoke to CBS This Morning about it, that these federal
officials ever took action to further the aim of unseating the president. There doesn't seem to
be any evidence that they approached cabinet members or the vice president about it. "They were
speculating, 'This person would be with us, this person would not be,' and they were counting
noses in that effort," said Pelley. He added, apparently in response to Rosenstein's
insistence that his comments about wearing a wire were meant as a joke, "This was not perceived
to be a joke."
What are we to make of this? Around the time of the meetings to discuss the 25th Amendment
plot, senior FBI officials also discussed initiating a national security investigation of the
president as a stooge of the Russians or perhaps even a Russian agent. These talks were
revealed by The New YorkTimes and CNN in January, based on closed-door
congressional testimony by former FBI general counsel James Baker. You don't have to read very
carefully to see that the reporters on these stories brought to them a Narrative A sensibility.
The Times headline: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on
Behalf of Russia." CNN's: "Transcripts detail how FBI debated whether Trump was 'following
directions' of Russia." And of course, whoever leaked those hearing transcripts almost surely
did so to bolster the Narrative A version of events.
The independent journalist Gareth Porter, writing at Consortium News, offers a penetrating
exposition of the inconsistencies, fallacies, and fatuities of the Narrative A matrix, as
reflected in how the Times and CNN handled the stories that resulted from what were
clearly self-interested leaks.
Porter notes that a particularly sinister expression in May 2017 by former CIA director
John O. Brennan, a leading Trump antagonist, has precipitated echoes in the news media ever
since, particularly in the Times . Asked in a committee hearing if he had intelligence
indicating that anyone in the Trump campaign was "colluding with Moscow," Brennan dodged the
question. He said his experience had taught him that "the Russians try to suborn individuals,
and they try to get them to act on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly."
Of course you can't collude with anybody unwittingly. But Brennan's fancy expression has the
effect of expanding what can be thrown at political adversaries, to include not just conscious
and nefarious collaboration but also policy advocacy that could be viewed as wrongheaded or
injurious to U.S. interests. As Porter puts it, "The real purpose is to confer on national
security officials and their media allies the power to cast suspicion on individuals on the
basis of undesirable policy views of Russia rather than on any evidence of actual collaboration
with the Russian government."
That seems to be what's going on here. There's no doubt that McCabe and Rosenstein and
Strzok and Brennan and Page and many others despised Trump and his resolve to thaw relations
with Russia. They viewed him as a president "who needed to be reined in," as a CNN report
described the sentiment among top FBI officials after the Comey firing.
So they expanded the definition of collusion to include "unwitting" collaboration in order
to justify their machinations. It's difficult to believe that people in such positions would
take such a cavalier attitude toward the kind of damage they could wreak on the body
politic.
Now we learn that they actually sat around and plotted how to distort the Constitution, just
as they distorted the rules of official behavior designed to hold them in check, in order to
destroy a presidential administration placed in power by the American people. It's getting more
and more difficult to dismiss Narrative B.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the
author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century. MORE FROM THIS
AUTHOR
You're right, it didn't change a thing in the full-throated support to depose an elected
President they disagree with. The bureaucratic cabal has long had a more informal absolute
veto over who can even run for President. This guy challenged that hegemony of insider power
brokers, and caused the revelation that we have morphed into a Potemkin-style, managed
democracy, in which we don't choose who gets to run, just which of their choices we are allowed
to approve.
Such is the decadent trajectory, of republics that transition into empires, where
democratic accountabilty to the governed, domestic and foreign, decays in favor of empire
administrators and their elite beneficiaries and their sinecures at the expense of the
majority.
People rail against Trump as some sort of would-be Caesar, but he is elected, while those
permanent unaccountable "national security" czars acting in secrecy they are willing to
transfer all power to, are not.
No form of popular government can survive when secret police recording everything and spying
on the population become the real power.
"It's difficult to believe that people in such positions would take such a cavalier attitude
toward the kind of damage they could wreak on the body politic."
What we don't want to recognize is that people in such positions are, in fact, just that
dumb. It is unfortunately true. While not a Trump supporter, I would be out on the streets with
them if these jacka$$es had tried to pull this off. They should ALL be immediately terminated
and any benefits revoked.
Last night (Feb 14, 2019) Tucker Carlson interviewed retired Harvard law professor Alan
Dershowitz (1:04-3:36):
Carlson: "Professor, thanks very much for coming on. So now the suspicions of many are
confirmed by one of the players in it. The Department of Justice discussed trying to remove the
President using the 25 Amendment. What's your reaction to that?
Dershowitz: "Well, if that's true, it is clearly an attempt at a coup d'état.
Relating to what your former guest said, let's take the worst case scenario: Let's assume the
President of the United States was in bed with the Russians, committed treason, committed
obstruction of justice -- the 25 Amendment simply is irrelevant to that. That's why you have an
impeachment provision. The 25th amendment is about Woodrow Wilson having a stroke. It's about a
president being shot and not being able to perform his office. It's not about the most
fundamental disagreements. It's not about impeachable offenses. And any Justice Department
official who even mentioned the 25th Amendment in the context of President Trump has committed
a grievous offense against the Constitution. The framers of the 25th amendment had in mind
something very specific. And trying to use the 25th amendment to circumvent the impeachment
provisions, or to circumvent an election is a despicable act of unconstitutional
power-grabbing. And you were right when you said it reminded me of what happens in third world
countries. Look, these people may have been well-intentioned. They may believe that they were
serving the interests of the United States. But you have to obey the law and the law is the
Constitution and the 25th Amendment is as clear as could be: incapacity, unable to perform
office. That's what you need. That's why you need 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate
agreeing. And it has to be on the basis of a medical or psychological incapacity. Not on the
basis of even the most extreme crimes -- which there is no evidence were committed -- but even
if they were, that would not be basis for invoking the 25th Amendment. And I challenge any
left-wing person to get on television and to defend the use of the 25th Amendment. I challenge
any of my colleagues who are in the "Get Trump At Any Cost" camp to come on television and
justify the use of the 25 Amendment other than for physical or psychiatric incapacity.
Carlson: I bet they're doing that right now. This is an attack on our system, I would say,
not just the President. Alan Dershowitz, thank you very much.
Dershowitz: It is an attack on our system. It's an attack on the constitution. Thank
you.
How many millions of dollars did Bill and Hill receive from Russians? How much of America's
uranium deposits did Hillary sell to Russians during her time in the Obama administration? The
New York Times informs us:
" . . . the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity
in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for
national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from
a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off
was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions
from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton
Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling
$2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an
agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.
Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
"And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in
Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank
with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
"At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease
concerns about ceding control of the company's assets to the Russians. Those promises have been
repeatedly broken, records show."
I wonder how much howling and how many allegations of "collusion" with Russia we'd be
hearing if the name Clinton were removed from the NY Times article and the name Trump were
inserted?
The article states: " top officials of the country's premier law enforcement entity sat around
and pondered how to bring down a sitting president they didn't like."
-- -- -- --
Which makes one wonder if "The rule of law" is becoming the rule of outlaws? When the
non-elected in the justice profession appear to have their own agenda.
Trump is an idiot, but his enemies in the lib-Dem-media Establishment are far worse: corrupt,
deceitful, arrogant, and lawless. Exhibit A is Andrew McCabe.
That's why I'll vote for the Idiot-in-Chief (again) in 2020. Because the alternative makes
me vomit.
"The pages of this publication drift further and further into utter insanity and
despicable defense of Trump. Stand up for the values of the Constitution, or something, but
not for this man who is no more than a self-enriching demagogue with no understanding of the
reactionary politics he uses to delude the rubes and attract asinine threadbare pieces like
this one."
Actually no. Consider me the inverse of Peter. I didn't vote for Trump due to the character
weaknesses Peter describes. However, what I see is a seriously flawed man who has served the
useful purpose of revealing an echo chamber of flawed and self-serving biases shared by the
media and political establishment of this country. I see CNN, the NY Times, the Washington
Post, and even some key leaders of our security services in a completely different light than I
did two years ago. I am thankful for the clarity. I consider Merry's article to be a
contribution in that direction.
"Peter" sez: "Can't imagine why career law enforcement officials were concerned with a guy they
knew to be a criminal taking over the office of the presidency."
Weird but no one has shown any actual criminal behavior by said President. Two years later
still no charges. But Peter and these "career law enforcement officials" KNEW he was a
criminal. Then Peter appeals to the Constitution, apparently oblivious to the fact that the
Constitution doesn't make any provisions for plotting to remove the lawfully elected President
because you don't like just because you "know" he is a "criminal", in spite of any actual
evidence.
"After his election, they (the deep state) determined to undermine his political standing, and
particularly his proposed policy toward Russia, through a relentless and expansive
investigation characterized by initial misrepresentations, selective media leaks, brutal law
enforcement tactics, and a barrage of innuendo. This is the narrative of most Trump supporters,
conservative commentators, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page, notably
columnist Kimberley Strassel."
The trouble with that is it completely ignores the ton of evidence pointing to really
nefarious stuff.
Lots of times, when there's smoke, there's fire. And when the smoke is overwhelming there
probably is a fire. A big one.
Trump has been going after the Russians since his inauguration. Therefore, those trying to
remove him from office are likely the actual Russian agents. Of course they would need smoke
and mirrors to hide that fact and deflect attention from themselves. It just so happens that
Russian spies are trained by the FSB to accuse others of being a spy, for just this purpose.
I'm looking at you, John O. (Oleg?) Brennan
No matter who the President is, there is some group of people in Washington is ALWAYS trying to
bring him down. Who those people are, and how large and powerful the group is, depends on a
variety of factors. But a competent president manages to enact his agenda while staying one
step ahead of his intriguers. Obama and GWB accomplished both, more or less because they were
intelligent men of good character (though Obama was much smarter and better man than W)
While Bill Clinton's character was too low to avoid impeachment he was a smart and able
administrator. Trump has both low character and low intellect so it is not surprising A. that
many people want to bring him down and B. that they have been pretty effective.
Politics may be a blood sport in Washington but that's not the same as a "deep state". And
Trump can't compete and win with anyone in Washington who doesn't grovel before him like the
supine Senate Republicans. And that is no one's fault but his.
You wanting Trump to be a Russian agent does not make him one. It never
will. Get over it. , ,
February 16, 2019 at 12:08 am
"If it turns out that Trump IS a Russian asset, will you apologize, Robert Merry? Because he
certainly acts like one. And, as REAL Republicans used to say, if it looks like a duck, walks
like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe it's a duck."
@One Guy Yeah, because sending deadly aid to Ukraine is so pro-Russian. What an idiot you
are!
"Can't imagine why career law enforcement officials were concerned with a guy they knew to be a
criminal taking over the office of the presidency. Shame on them!"
They also "knew" Martin Luther King Jr. was a Soviet agent.
The issue with the 25th amendment, is that the President's character flaws or mental deficiency
were known and very visible before the election. Is it constitutionally proper for Congress to
suspend a President for a preexisting condition that was known to and unhidden from voters? If
Congress did that, it means Congress has a veto over who the public is allowed to vote in as
President.
Forget the Covington students, Andrew McCabe and his lady co-workers have some pretty punchable
faces. (Ok, I'm enough of a sexist to not punch a lady. I'd use eye-rolling and mocking
gestures instead.)
The problem is not the existence of the deep state. It's inevitable that there will be
unelected officials who will continue to shape policy regardless of who is elected President.
The problem is that the deep state is blatantly working to undermine its elected
leadership. If you can't in good conscience work with your President, the honorable thing
to do is resign as some undoubtedly have. It's not an excuse for insubordination.
"... Due to her antiwar stance in Syria, Gabbard was at one point rumored to be a potential candidate to head Trump's State Department, and even met with the president-elect at Trump Tower in November 2016, but nothing came of it. ..."
"... In January 2017, she traveled to Syria on a fact-finding trip, outraging the Washington establishment. She has also proposed a bill to outlaw US weapons sales to terrorists. ..."
"... It is unclear whether Gabbard will get much traction among the establishment Democrats, who she has frequently disagreed with on foreign policy issues. ..."
"... So many entrenched bipartisan interests fear the foreign policy debate her presence on the campaign trail will provoke. Look for more obsessive attacks in Omidyar's the Interventionist, republished in his local Hawaii paper. ..."
Due to her antiwar stance in Syria, Gabbard was at one point rumored to be a potential candidate to head Trump's State Department,
and even met with the president-elect at Trump Tower in November 2016, but nothing came of it.
In January 2017, she traveled to Syria on a fact-finding trip,
outraging the
Washington establishment. She has also proposed a bill to
outlaw US weapons
sales to terrorists.
Gabbard first sparked rumors of a 2020 run
in December , when she toured Iowa and New
Hampshire, the first two states to host nationwide party primary elections.
Inspired by the party's strong showing in the November midterms, a number of Democrats are eager to challenge Trump in the 2020
presidential election.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) announced on New Year's Eve that she was forming a presidential exploratory committee.
Julian Castro, former Housing and Urban Development secretary in the Obama administration, has also toured Iowa and is expected to
announce his candidacy this weekend.
It is unclear whether Gabbard will get much traction among the establishment Democrats, who she has frequently disagreed with
on foreign policy issues.
Ostensibly, Tulsi Gabbard checks all the correct "diversity boxes" that Democrats claim they want: young, female, minority.
But weirdly, she won't benefit from satisfying these (fake) criteria, because she's hated for unrelated political reasons. So
that should be fun.
Tulsi Gabbard is a really next-level politician. Any amateur can be a traditional US racist politician, but it takes skill
to succeed in America as a Hindu-nationalist racist / tankie Assad apologist.
Say what you want about Tulsi Gabbard (I have my own criticisms) but this is probably an accurate prediction of how opposition
to her campaign from other Democrats will play out https://t.co/xEhdD1ZmyN
So many entrenched bipartisan interests fear the foreign policy debate her presence on the campaign trail will provoke.
Look for more obsessive attacks in Omidyar's the Interventionist, republished in his local Hawaii paper. Also, not sure what
this means for a Bernie run. https://t.co/RD7pCRRkTW
Gino Santa Maria /
Shutterstock.com Pence
repeated his tone-deaf demands to our allies to quit the nuclear deal at the Munich
Security Conference over the weekend. The response from the Europeans was even frostier than it
had been in Warsaw:
European officials brushed off U.S. Vice President Mike Pence's call this week for the
bloc to ratchet up pressure on Iran, saying they will continue defending the 2015 nuclear
deal and stay engaged with Iran's government.
World leaders gathered at the annual Munich Security Conference on Friday to debate a
range of issues from the Middle East, to trade, Europe's future and cyberwarfare. Speaking at
the conference on Saturday, Mr. Pence, who is on a diplomatic trip to Europe, said the
European Union should follow the U.S. in leaving the Iran nuclear deal.
U.S.-European relations are lower than they have been at any time since the the run-up to
and immediate aftermath of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Just as the Bush administration
berated and insulted longtime allies for refusing to fall in line behind their destructive and
reckless war, the Trump administration is berating and insulting some of our closest allies
over their refusal to capitulate to unreasonable American demands on Iran and the nuclear deal.
Many of the elements of these two rifts are
similar : an irrational American fixation on a wildly exaggerated or non-existent threat in
the Middle East, an arrogant assumption that our allies are obliged to do whatever our
government tells them to do, and open expressions of contempt for the allies that disagree with
the course being set by the irresponsible U.S. administration. In both cases, some of our
closest allies unsuccessfully try to stop the administration from making terrible, costly
errors, and they are rewarded for their efforts with condemnation and threats.
The most worrying similarity between the 2002-03 breach with our European allies and today
is the willingness of administration officials to promote obvious lies in the service of their
destructive policy. Like other members of the administration, Pence has been pushing the
dishonest claim that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. He said this in his
Warsaw speech :
But beyond its hateful rhetoric, the Iranian regime openly advocates another Holocaust and
it seeks the means to achieve it. Iran seeks to recreate the ancient Persian Empire under the
modern dictatorship of the ayatollahs.
Iran's government neither advocates for this, nor does it "seek the means to achieve it."
Any work that Iran did on nuclear weapons research took place more than fifteen years ago, and
it has not resumed since then. Iran's nuclear program is peaceful, and the IAEA has confirmed
Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal more than a dozen times in a row. The talking points of
Iran hawks remain unchanged from the mid-2000s, but in the meantime the rest of the world has
moved on.
If Pence really believed what he was saying, he wouldn't be urging our allies to tear up the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The nuclear deal has ensured that Iran cannot
develop and build nuclear weapons, and anyone genuinely worried about Iran's acquisition of
such weapons would not try to destroy the agreement that makes that outcome practically
impossible. The only reason to promote the lie that Iran seeks nuclear weapons is to create a
pretext for war. Iran hawks hate the nuclear deal so passionately because it deprives them of
that pretext. That is why they are determined to do whatever they can to kill the deal even if
that means badly damaging relations with our most important treaty allies.
Europe will not bend in this one. Too much at stake, inside the EU (elections) as well as
outside the EU (geoplitics, Brexit).
As mr. Larison so often points out, the Iran obsession is the weirdest irrational thing in
US foreign policy. Shooting oneself in the foot time after time.
A lot of special interests by special people underneath that I presume.
Between the progressives and the conservatives, the conservatives are often the ones talking
about religion, God and morality, and accuse the Left to be Godless and immoral. Yet it does
not seem to vex them their side had started the war in Iraq with false pretense, which led to
disastrous economic, geopolitical, and human costs. Now, as Larison observed, they are poised
to repeat it.
What averagely decent human beings can inflict such sufferings on others with such
impunity and without conscientious qualms?
Pence lacks basic loyalty and good judgment. He's abandoning and betraying our oldest allies,
and he isn't even doing it for a compelling reason of state.
Indeed, after watching the degrading spectacle of 2016 and 2018 campaign donations, it's
hard not to suspect that Pence is doing it to keep Israel money flowing to GOP candidates,
possibly for a future presidential run of his own. That he's putting America and American
lives at risk for the Israel money.
Would it not be in American interest to demonstrate compliance with the existing agreement if
it sought further agreement on ballistic missiles and involvement with their neighbors
internal affairs? It not only precludes diplomacy for the nuclear issue, but any and all
other conflicts of interest
Yes, it is increasingly clear that our recent actions with respect to Iran are for the
purpose of preparing for, and conjuring a pretext for, war.
Mr. Larison, I am sure your efforts are a major contributor to the recent Congressional
resolution regarding the Yemen war. You were a lone voice crying in the wilderness for years.
Please keep up on this Iranian issue as well. Many, many lives are at stake. You are an
unsung hero.
"[Pence] is abandoning and betraying our oldest allies, and he isn't even doing it for a
compelling reason of state. "
That's what blows my mind. There seems to be no reason for what Pence is doing, except
perhaps to please Binyamin Netanyahu or Muhammed bin Salman. And does Pence really expect
Europe to risk its basic security by following the lead of corrupt American politicians
bobbing for Israel dollars?
Being pro-Zionism is New York way of being militarist
Notable quotes:
"... Trump just appointed John Bolton ! Trump has betrayed us ! How did they turned him ? Blah blah blah .. Forchrissake ! ..."
"... It boggles the mind that even at this stage, so many peoples are still bamboozled by this duopoly dog and pony show , aka the mukkan election ! ..."
The ability of those in power to manipulate
the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has allowed for an
inverted totalitarianism
which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered
by the interests of the common man.
In neoliberal MSM there is positive feedback loop for "Trump is a Russian agent" stories. So the meme feeds on itself.
Notable quotes:
"... And yet the trending, most high-profile stories about Trump today all involve painting him as a Putin puppet who is working to destroy America by taking a weak stance against an alarming geopolitical threat. This has had the effect of manufacturing demand for even more dangerous escalations against a nuclear superpower that just so happens to be a longtime target of U.S. intelligence agencies. ..."
"... the mass media is not in the business of reporting facts, it's in the business of selling narratives. Even if those narratives are so shrill and stress-inducing that they imperil the health of their audience. ..."
"... Trump is clearly not a Russian asset, he's a facilitator of America's permanent unelected government just like his predecessors, and indeed as far as actual policies and administration behavior goes he's not that much different from Barack Obama and George W Bush. Hell, for all his demagogic anti-immigrant speech Trump hasn't even caught up to Obama's peak ICE deportation years ..."
"... Used to be that the U.S. mass media only killed people indirectly, by facilitating establishment war agendas in repeating government agency propaganda as objective fact and promulgating narratives that manufacture support for a status quo which won't even give Americans health insurance or safe drinking water ..."
"... Now they're skipping the middle man and killing them directly by psychologically brutalizing them so aggressively that it ruins their health, all to ensure that Democrats support war and adore the U.S. intelligence community . ..."
"... The social engineers responsible for controlling the populace of the greatest military power on the planet are watching France closely, and understand deeply what is at stake should they fail to control the narrative and herd ordinary Americans into supporting U.S. government institutions. ..."
"... The ability of those in power to manipulate the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has allowed for an inverted totalitarianism which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered by the interests of the common man. ..."
The always excellent Moon of Alabama blog has just
published a sarcasm-laden piece documenting the many, many aggressive maneuvers that this administration has made against the
interests of Russia, from pushing for more NATO funding to undermining Russia's natural gas interests to bombing Syria to sanctioning
Russian oligarchs to dangerous military posturing.
<picture deleted>
And yet the trending, most high-profile stories about Trump today all involve painting him as a Putin puppet who is working
to destroy America by taking a weak stance against an alarming geopolitical threat. This has had the effect of manufacturing demand
for even more dangerous escalations against a nuclear superpower that just so happens to be a longtime target of U.S. intelligence
agencies.
If the mass media were in the business of reporting facts, there would be a lot less "Putin's puppet" talk and a lot more "Hey,
maybe we should avoid senseless escalations which could end all life on earth" talk among news media consumers. But there isn't,
because the mass media is not in the business of reporting facts, it's in the business of selling narratives. Even if those narratives
are so shrill and stress-inducing that they imperil the health of their audience.
Like His Predecessors
Trump is clearly not a Russian asset, he's a facilitator of America's permanent unelected government just like his predecessors,
and indeed as far as actual policies and administration behavior goes he's
not that much different
from Barack Obama and George W Bush. Hell, for all his demagogic anti-immigrant speech Trump
hasn't even caught up to Obama's peak ICE deportation years.
If the mass media were in the business of reporting facts, people would be no more worried about this administration than they
were about the previous ones, because when it comes to his administration's actual behavior, he's just as reliable an upholder of
the establishment-friendly status quo as his predecessors.
Used to be that the U.S. mass media only killed people indirectly, by facilitating establishment war agendas in repeating
government agency propaganda as objective fact and promulgating narratives that manufacture support for a status quo which won't
even give Americans health insurance or safe drinking water.
They do this for a reason, of course. The Yellow Vests protests in France have continued unabated for their
ninth consecutive week , a decentralized populist uprising resulting from ordinary French citizens losing trust in their institutions
and the official narratives which uphold them.
The social engineers responsible for controlling the populace of the greatest military power on the planet are watching France
closely, and understand deeply what is at stake should they fail to control the narrative and herd ordinary Americans into supporting
U.S. government institutions. Right now they've got Republicans cheering on the White House and Democrats cheering on the U.S.
intelligence community, but that could all change should something happen which causes them to lose control over the thoughts that
Americans think about their rulers.
Propaganda is the single most-overlooked and under-appreciated aspect of human society. The ability of those in power to manipulate
the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has allowed for an
inverted totalitarianism
which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered
by the interests of the common man.
The only thing that will lead to real change is the people losing trust in corrupt institutions and
rising like lions against them. That gets increasingly likely as those
institutions lose control of the narrative, and with trust in the mass media at an all-time low, populist uprisings restoring power
to the people in France, and media corporations
acting increasingly weird and insecure , that looks more and more likely by the day.
The USA state of continuous war has been a bipartisan phenomenon starting with Truman in Korea and proceeding with Vietnam,
Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and now Syria. It doesn't take a genius to realize that these limited, never ending
wars are expensive was to enrich MIC and Wall Street banksters
Notable quotes:
"... Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our republic. ..."
The one thing your accurate analysis leaves out is that the goal of US wars is never what the media spouts for its Wall Street
masters. The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives,
create more enemies to be fought in future wars, and to provide a rationalization for the continued primacy of the military class
in US politics and culture.
Occasionally a country may be sitting on a bunch of oil, and also be threatening to move away from the petrodollar or talking
about allowing an "adversary" to build a pipeline across their land.
Otherwise war is a racket unto itself. "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable,
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. "
― George Orwell
Also we've always been at war with Oceania .or whatever that quote said.
Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into
an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously
pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our
republic.
Even you, Tucker Carlson, mock the efforts of Ilhan Omar for criticizing AIPAC and
Elliott Abrams.
I don't personally care for many of her opinions but that's not what matters:
if we elect another neocon government we won't last another generation. Like the lady asked
Ben Franklin "What kind of government have you bequeathed us?", and Franklin answered "A
republic, madam, if you can keep it."
Feb. 14, 2019 (EIRNS) -- Responding to the U.S. Senators' efforts to impose new sanctions on
Russia by proposing a bill on Feb. 13 called the "Defending American Security from Kremlin
Aggression Act (DASKA)" of 2019, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said behind such proposals
"there is an absolutely concrete, pragmatic and aggressive trading approach, having
nothing to do with international trade rules.... This policy sometimes borders on
racketeering. I mean various provisions of the draft law aimed at disrupting various energy
projects of Russian companies, undermining the activities of Russian banks with state
participation,"
Peskov said, reported TASS.
The proposed legislation, an updated version of an earlier bill that did not muster enough
support, seeks to increase economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Russia "in response
to Russia's interference in democratic processes abroad, malign influence in Syria, and
aggression against Ukraine, including in the Kerch Strait," said Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who
proposed the bill with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), among other members of the Foreign Relations
Committee.
That why war is called racket, And that's why dominance of military-industrial complex turns
any country in neo-fascist state. Still people can fight this cancer, even if changes are not
that great.
Notable quotes:
"... It is easy for them to make the recommendation to head into to war for two very simple reasons. The first is that it will not require any personal sacrifice. The other reason is that it will not require any sacrifice of those closest to them. ..."
It is easy for them to make the recommendation to head into to war for two very simple
reasons. The first is that it will not require any personal sacrifice. The other reason is
that it will not require any sacrifice of those closest to them.
And I say this as a Veteran that also thought Iraq was a good idea back in 2001. The
difference is that I then went there to serve. As a result I have learned hard fought
lessons. Tucker is spot on. Maybe the follow up article can be a piece that discusses why we
need more "combat" Veterans up in the beltway. And it is good that more veterans are now
serving in Congress but not all are combat veterans.
...[Trump] administration is still filled with Hawks ...
1) The administration action in Iran is aggressive and counter-productive to long term peace. The nuclear deal was an effective
way of ensuring Iran controlling behavior for 15 years as the other parties, Europe and China, wanted to trade with Iran. (Additionally
it makes our nation depend more on the Saudia relationship in which Washington should be slowly moving away from.)
2) Like it or not, Venezuela is another mission creep for the Trump Administration. Recommend the administration
stay away from peace keeping troops and suggest this is China's problem. (Venezuela in debt to their eyeballs with China.)
3) Applaud the administration with peace talks with NK but warn them not to overstate their accomplishments. It is ridiculous
that the administration signed big nuclear deals with NK that don't exist.
"... The precedent was established in Italy with assistance to non-Communist candidates from the late 1940s to the 1960s. "We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their expenses," said F. Mark Wyatt, a former C.I.A. officer, in a 1996 interview . ..."
"... A self-congratulatory declassified report on the C.I.A.'s work in Chile's 1964 election boasts of the "hard work" the agency did supplying "large sums" to its favored candidate and portraying him as a "wise, sincere and high-minded statesman" while painting his leftist opponent as a "calculating schemer." Advertisement ..."
"... C.I.A. officials told Mr. Johnson in the late 1980s that "insertions" of information into foreign news media, mostly accurate but sometimes false, were running at 70 to 80 a day. In the 1990 election in Nicaragua, the C.I.A. planted stories about corruption in the leftist Sandinista government, Mr. Levin said. The opposition won. ..."
"... Over time, more American influence operations have been mounted not secretly by the C.I.A. but openly by the State Department and its affiliates. For the 2000 election in Serbia, the United States funded a successful effort to defeat Slobodan Milosevic, the nationalist leader, providing political consultants and millions of stickers with the opposition's clenched-fist symbol and "He's finished" in Serbian, printed on 80 tons of adhesive paper and delivered by a Washington contractor. ..."
"... Similar efforts were undertaken in elections in wartime Iraq and Afghanistan, not always with success. After Hamid Karzai was re-elected president of Afghanistan in 2009, he complained to Robert Gates, then the secretary of defense, about the United States' blatant attempt to defeat him, which Mr. Gates calls in his memoir "our clumsy and failed putsch." ..."
"... At least once the hand of the United States reached boldly into a Russian election. American fears that Boris Yeltsin would be defeated for re-election as president in 1996 by an old-fashioned Communist led to an overt and covert effort to help him, urged on by President Bill Clinton. It included an American push for a $10 billion International Monetary Fund loan to Russia four months before the voting and a team of American political consultants (though some Russians scoffed when they took credit for the Yeltsin win). ..."
"... In 2016, the endowment gave 108 grants totaling $6.8 million to organizations in Russia for such purposes as "engaging activists" and "fostering civic engagement." The endowment no longer names Russian recipients, who, under Russian laws cracking down on foreign funding, can face harassment or arrest. ..."
"... What the C.I.A. may have done in recent years to steer foreign elections is still secret and may not be known for decades. It may be modest by comparison with the agency's Cold War manipulation. But some old-timers aren't so sure. ..."
"... "I assume they're doing a lot of the old stuff, because, you know, it never changes," said William J. Daugherty, who worked for the C.I.A. from 1979 to 1996 and at one time had the job of reviewing covert operations. "The technology may change, but the objectives don't." ..."
Bags of cash delivered to a Rome hotel for favored Italian candidates. Scandalous stories leaked to foreign newspapers to swing
an election in Nicaragua. Millions of pamphlets, posters and stickers printed to defeat an incumbent in Serbia.
The long arm of Vladimir Putin? No, just a small sample of the United States' history of intervention in foreign elections.
On Tuesday,
American intelligence chiefs warned the Senate Intelligence Committee that Russia appears to be preparing to repeat in the 2018
midterm elections the same full-on chicanery it unleashed in 2016: hacking, leaking, social media manipulation and possibly more.
Then on Friday, Robert Mueller, the special counsel, announced the indictments of 13 Russians and three companies, run by a businessman
with close Kremlin ties, laying out in astonishing detail a three-year scheme to use social media to attack Hillary Clinton, boost
Donald Trump and sow discord.
Most Americans are understandably shocked by what they view as an unprecedented attack on our political system. But intelligence
veterans, and scholars who have studied covert operations, have a different, and quite revealing, view.
"If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,"
said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A., where he was the chief of Russian operations. The United States
"absolutely" has carried out such election influence operations historically, he said, "and I hope we keep doing it."
Loch K. Johnson, the dean of American intelligence
scholars , who began his career in the 1970s investigating the C.I.A. as a staff member of the Senate's Church Committee, says
Russia's 2016 operation was simply the cyber-age version of standard United States practice for decades, whenever American officials
were worried about a foreign vote.
"We've been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947," said Mr. Johnson, now at the University of Georgia.
"We've used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners -- you name it. We've planted false information in foreign newspapers. We've used
what the British call 'King George's cavalry': suitcases of cash."
The United States' departure from democratic ideals sometimes went much further. The C.I.A. helped overthrow elected leaders in
Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s and backed violent coups in several other countries in the 1960s. It plotted assassinations and supported
brutal anti-Communist governments in Latin America, Africa and Asia.
But in recent decades, both Mr. Hall and Mr. Johnson argued, Russian and American interferences in elections have not been morally
equivalent. American interventions have generally been aimed at helping non-authoritarian candidates challenge dictators or otherwise
promoting democracy. Russia has more often intervened to disrupt democracy or promote authoritarian rule, they said.
Equating the two, Mr. Hall says, "is like saying cops and bad guys are the same because they both have guns -- the motivation
matters."
This broader history of election meddling has largely been missing from the flood of reporting on the Russian intervention and
the investigation of whether the Trump campaign was involved. It is a reminder that the Russian campaign in 2016 was fundamentally
old-school espionage, even if it exploited new technologies. And it illuminates the larger currents of history that drove American
electoral interventions during the Cold War and motivate Russia's actions today.
"I'm not in any way justifying what the Russians did in 2016," Mr. Levin said. "It was completely wrong of Vladimir Putin to intervene
in this way. That said, the methods they used in this election were the digital version of methods used both by the United States
and Russia for decades: breaking into party headquarters, recruiting secretaries, placing informants in a party, giving information
or disinformation to newspapers."
His findings underscore how routine election meddling by the United States -- sometimes covert and sometimes quite open -- has
been.
The precedent was established in Italy with assistance to non-Communist candidates from the late 1940s to the 1960s. "We had bags
of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their expenses," said F. Mark Wyatt, a former C.I.A. officer, in
a 1996 interview .
Covert propaganda has also been a mainstay. Richard M. Bissell Jr., who ran the agency's operations in the late 1950s and early
1960s, wrote casually in his autobiography
of "exercising control over a newspaper or broadcasting station, or of securing the desired outcome in an election."
A self-congratulatory
declassified report on the C.I.A.'s
work in Chile's 1964 election boasts of the "hard work" the agency did supplying "large sums" to its favored candidate and portraying
him as a "wise, sincere and high-minded statesman" while painting his leftist opponent as a "calculating schemer."
Advertisement
C.I.A. officials told Mr. Johnson in the late 1980s that "insertions" of information into foreign news media, mostly accurate
but sometimes false, were running at 70 to 80 a day. In the 1990 election in Nicaragua, the C.I.A. planted stories about corruption
in the leftist Sandinista government, Mr. Levin said. The opposition won.
Over time, more American influence operations have been mounted not secretly by the C.I.A. but openly by the State Department
and its affiliates. For the 2000 election in Serbia, the United States funded
a successful effort to defeat Slobodan Milosevic, the nationalist leader, providing political consultants and millions of stickers
with the opposition's clenched-fist symbol and "He's finished" in Serbian, printed on 80 tons of adhesive paper and delivered by
a Washington contractor.
Vince Houghton, who served in the military in the Balkans at the time and worked closely with the intelligence agencies, said
he saw American efforts everywhere. "We made it very clear that we had no intention of letting Milosevic stay in power," said Mr.
Houghton, now the historian at the International Spy Museum.
Similar efforts were undertaken in elections in wartime Iraq and Afghanistan, not always with success. After Hamid Karzai was
re-elected president of Afghanistan in 2009, he complained to Robert Gates, then the secretary of defense, about the United States'
blatant attempt to defeat him, which Mr. Gates
calls in his memoir
"our clumsy and failed putsch."
At least once the hand of the United States reached boldly into a Russian election. American fears that Boris Yeltsin would be
defeated for re-election as president in 1996 by an old-fashioned Communist led to an overt and covert effort to help him, urged
on by President Bill Clinton. It included an American push for a $10 billion International Monetary Fund loan to Russia four months
before the voting and a team of American political consultants (though some Russians scoffed when they took credit for the Yeltsin
win).
That heavy-handed intervention made some Americans uneasy. Thomas Carothers, a scholar at the Carnegie Institute for International
Peace, recalls arguing with a State Department official who told him at the time, "Yeltsin is democracy in Russia," to which
Mr. Carothers said he replied, "That's not what democracy means."
But what does democracy mean? Can it include secretly undermining an authoritarian ruler or helping challengers who embrace democratic
values? How about financing civic organizations?
Advertisement
In recent decades, the most visible American presence in foreign politics has been taxpayer-funded groups like the National Endowment
for Democracy, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, which do not support candidates but
teach basic campaign skills, build democratic institutions and train election monitors.
Most Americans view such efforts as benign -- indeed, charitable. But Mr. Putin sees them as hostile. The National Endowment for
Democracy gave a $23,000 grant in 2006 to an organization that employed Aleksei Navalny, who years later became Mr. Putin's main
political nemesis, a fact the government has used to attack both Mr. Navalny and the endowment.
In 2016,
the endowment
gave 108 grants totaling $6.8 million to organizations in Russia for such purposes as "engaging activists" and "fostering civic
engagement." The endowment no longer names Russian recipients, who, under Russian laws cracking down on foreign funding, can face
harassment or arrest.
It is easy to understand why Mr. Putin sees such American cash as a threat to his rule, which tolerates no real opposition. But
American veterans of democracy promotion find abhorrent Mr. Putin's insinuations that their work is equivalent to what the Russian
government is accused of doing in the United States today.
"It's not just apples and oranges," said Kenneth Wollack, president of the National Democratic Institute. "It's comparing someone
who delivers lifesaving medicine to someone who brings deadly poison."
What the C.I.A. may have done in recent years to steer foreign elections is still secret and may not be known for decades. It
may be modest by comparison with the agency's Cold War manipulation. But some old-timers aren't so sure.
"I assume they're doing a lot of the old stuff, because, you know, it never changes," said William J. Daugherty, who worked for
the C.I.A. from 1979 to 1996 and at one time had the job of reviewing covert operations. "The technology may change, but the objectives
don't."
Correction : Feb. 18, 2018
An earlier version of this article stated incorrectly that Aleksei Navalny, a political opponent of the Russian president,
Vladimir V. Putin, had received grants from the National Endowment for Democracy. In fact, an organization employing him received
one $23,000 grant from the endowment in 2006.
Scott Shane is a national security reporter for The Times and a former Moscow correspondent.
A version of this article appears in print on Feb. 18, 2018 , on Page SR 4 of the New York edition with the headline: America
Meddles in Elections, Too.
The article states: " but by 2011 Boot had another war in mind. 'Qaddafi Must Go,' Boot
declared in The Weekly Standard. In Boot's telling, the Libyan dictator had become a threat
to the American homeland." -- -- - There is reported evidence that Libya was a war crime. And
the perpetrators are Free. See info below:
They speak of "The Rule of Law" while breaking the law themselves They are the dangerous
hypocrites that bombed Libya, and created hell Thousands upon thousands are dead in this
unfortunate country Many would still be alive, if our "leaders" had not been down and
dirty
Libya is reportedly a war crime and the war criminals are free Some of them are seen
posturing on the world stage and others are on T.V. Others have written books and others are
retired from public office And another exclaimed: "We came, we saw, he died" as murder was
their accomplice
They even teamed up with terrorists to commit their bloody crimes And this went unreported
in the "media": was this by design? There is a sickness and perversion loose in our society
today When war crimes can be committed and the "law" has nothing to say
Another "leader" had a fly past to celebrate the bombing victory in this illegal war Now
Libya is in chaos, while bloody terrorists roam secure And the NATO gang that caused all this
horror and devastation Are continuing their bloody bombings in other unfortunate nations
The question must be asked: "Are some past and present leaders above the law? Can they get
away with bombing and killing, are they men of straw? Whatever happened to law and order in
the so- called "democracies"? When those in power can get away with criminality: Is that not
hypocrisy?
There is no doubt that Libya was better off, before the "liberators" arrived Now many of
its unfortunate people are now struggling to exist and survive The future of this war torn
country now looks very sad and bleak If only our "leaders" had left it alone; but instead
hypocrisy: They Speak
"... They divide us with race, sex, and religion. If we came together all the working class people, from every race, you'd see the oligarchs true face. They'd innact martial law in a heartbeat, and run to their underground base in the Ozarks. That's the painful truth. ..."
"... That's why Richard Nixon replaced the draft with a lottery that has evolved into a volunteer armed forces. We were nearly the verge of another civil war in this country. ..."
"... So Jimmy, once again, hit it out of the ballpark with this podcast on why the war hawks fear Tulsi ..."
"... She really scares the war hawks and just as importantly she scares the huge profits these war hawks and allied corporations (the parent company of GE which owns MSNBC makes turbine engines for the military) have made off these unnecessary and tragic wars since the 9/11 attacks. ..."
They divide us with race, sex, and religion. If we came together all the working class
people, from every race, you'd see the oligarchs true face. They'd innact martial law in a
heartbeat, and run to their underground base in the Ozarks. That's the painful
truth.
I served in Vietnam (31 May 1967 - 31 May 1968), so I'm approximately around the same age
as Phil. I told everyone I knew that if we invaded Iraq - this was during the lead-up in 2002
to vote on GWB's Iraq War resolution - having just a volunteer armed forces in the strategic
sense, let alone the invasion of Iraq would violate international covenants against illegal
wars of aggression - we would eventually have down the road a military blunder and a foreign
policy debacle that would rival the one we had in the Vietnam War.
If GWB had somehow
convinced the American people and the Congress to bring back the draft after the 9/11
attacks, I assure you we would have withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq long, long ago. But
the war hawks in Congress and the Pentagon love their private, (essentially) quasi-mercenary
volunteer armed forces after how badly they got burnt during the anti-war protests against
the Vietnam War.
That's why Richard Nixon replaced the draft with a lottery that has evolved
into a volunteer armed forces. We were nearly the verge of another civil war in this country.
So Jimmy, once again, hit it out of the ballpark with this podcast on why the war hawks fear Tulsi. Remember they can't smear her based on the fact that she was an officer who did two
tours of duty in the war zone, so they try to smear her because she is supposedly a puppet of
Putin, that is, a fifth columnist or fellow traveler as they did during the Red Scare in the
McCarthy era. I would definitely vote for her as a fellow war veteran for president, but she
has a very hard road to travel to win the nomination.
She really scares the war hawks and
just as importantly she scares the huge profits these war hawks and allied corporations (the
parent company of GE which owns MSNBC makes turbine engines for the military) have made off
these unnecessary and tragic wars since the 9/11 attacks.
He not only acknowledged early on that his initial support for the Iraq war was wrong, but
spent the rest of his career fighting for a more restrained and peaceful foreign policy. Rep.
Jones was one of the original Republican co-sponsors of
the first House antiwar resolution to end
U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen . He co-authored an op-ed with
Reps. Khanna and Pocan in 2017 in support of their resolution:
We believe that the American people, if presented with the facts of this conflict, will
oppose the use of their tax dollars to bomb and starve civilians in order to further the
Saudi monarchy's regional goals. Our House resolution is a first step in expanding democracy
into an arena long insulated from public accountability. Too many lives hang in the balance
to allow this American war to continue without congressional consent. When our bill comes to
the floor for a vote, our colleagues should consider first the solution proposed by the
director of Unicef, Anthony Lake, for stopping the unimaginable suffering of millions of
Yemenis: "Stop the war."
It is unfortunate that Rep. Jones did not live to see the House pass that resolution to end
U.S. support for the war, but when a new version of that resolution passes later this month it
will be thanks in no small part to his leadership.
Jones became a reliable scourge of
unnecessary and unauthorized foreign wars wherever they happened to be
. He saw the continuation of open-ended and illegal wars as an attack on the Constitution and
an abuse of the men and women who volunteered to serve their country. His opposition to these
wars earned him the enmity
of Republican hawks , who repeatedly and
unsuccessfully sought to unseat him through primary challenges. Whatever their disagreements
with him may have been over the years, his constituents recognized and appreciated his
integrity and his dedication to the country.
The cause of peace and restraint has lost one of its great defenders, TAC has lost
one of our good friends, and America has lot one of its most honorable and decent public
servants. May his memory be eternal.
I hope that good and true Americans inspired by his example will pick up the colors he
carried so long and faithfully, carry them forward, renewing his dogged efforts to rein in
military intervention and preserve true freedom.
For all that, you may be certain that somewhere the vermin are jumping for joy, because
when it comes to their vile wars and meddling they brook no dissent, and Jones's voice was
strong and sure, grounded in truth and "the better angels of our nature".
Very sorry to have lost this good and valuable American. Hats off also to the people of
his district, many of them soldiers or families of soldiers, who kept sending him back to
Washington. May they find someone to replace who has the same gumption, character, and
commitment to basic Americanism.
If there were more people like him in Washington, we wouldn't be in the state we're in. I
wrote him a "fan" letter back in 2006 or thereabouts, about his regrets about the Iraq war
and writing to all the families of those KIA. Also appreciated him being one of the few in
Congress that actually tried to follow the Constitution and do something about our national
debt. He also was all about constituent service,especially for veterans and those in Eastern
North Carolina affected by the recent hurricanes. Eternal rest, grant him, Oh Lord, and let
perpetual light shine upon him.
"... However, he was one of the few politicians initially supporting the Iraq invasion to later express profound public regret over his decision , and went on to become a consistent advocate for ending regime change wars and Washington's military adventurism abroad. As part of these efforts, he was an original Board Member of the Ron Paul Institute. ..."
Rep. Walter Jones, Jr. died at the age of 76 on Sunday after an extended illness for which was a granted a leave of absence from
Congress last year.
The Republican representative for North Carolina's 3rd congressional district since 1995 had initially been a strong supporter
of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and even became well-known for getting french fries renamed as "freedom fries" in the House cafeteria
as a protest against French condemnation of the US invasion.
... ... ...
However, he was one of the few politicians initially supporting the Iraq invasion to later express profound public regret
over his decision , and went on to become a consistent advocate for ending regime change wars and Washington's military adventurism
abroad. As part of these efforts, he was an original Board Member of the Ron Paul Institute.
Remembering Jones as a tireless advocate of peace, Ron Paul
notes that he " turned
from pro-war to an antiwar firebrand after he discovered how Administrations lie us into war . His passing yesterday is deeply mourned
by all who value peace and honesty over war and deception." The Ron Paul Institute has also called him "a Hero of Peace" for both
his voting record and efforts at shutting down the "endless wars".
And Antiwar.com also describes Jones as having been among the "most consistently antiwar members of Congress" and
a huge supporter
of their work:
By 2005, Jones had reversed his position on the Iraq War. Jones called on President George W. Bush to apologize for misinforming
Congress to win authorization for the war. Jones said, "If I had known then what I know today, I wouldn't have voted for
that resolution."
Jones went on to become one of the most antiwar members of Congress, fighting for ending US involvement in Afghanistan,
Syria, Libya, and Yemen.
Also the BBC describes Rep. Jones' "dramatic change of heart" concerning the Iraq war starting in 2005, after which he began reaching
out to thousands of people who had lost loves ones in combat.
Rep. Walter Jones led an effort in the House to call French Fries "Freedom Fries" instead, but came to profoundly regret his role
in supporting Bush's war.
Noting that "no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq" and that the war was justified by the Bush administration based
entirely on lies and false intelligence, the BBC describes:
At the same time, Mr Jones met grieving families whose loved ones were killed in the war. This caused him to have a dramatic
change of heart, and in 2005 he called for the troops to be brought home.
He spoke candidly on several occasions about how deeply he regretted supporting the war, which led to the deaths of more than
140,000 Iraqi and American people.
"I have signed over 12,000 letters to families and extended families who've lost loved ones in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars,"
he told NPR in 2017. "That was, for me, asking God to forgive me for my mistake."
In total he represented his district for 34 years, first in the North Carolina state legislature, then in Congress. He took a
leave of absence last year after a number of missed House votes due to declining health.
"... The 1940s are the point where the permanent military industrial complex that we know of today starts to take hold. Slightly later it got the name by which we call it today thanks to a speech by President Eisenhower at the very tail end of his presidency in 1961. Sadly Mr. Eisenhower did nothing to stop the growth of the war-machine only choosing to warn us about it with nearly no time left in office. One would have expected bold action from a man known for his bravery and cunning ..."
"... Washington chose to go with "Global Hegemon" America and has not looked back. But at this point massive military spending still required some sort of reason to spend hundreds of billions per year. Iraq and Afghanistan were enough justification to keep millions of men in uniforms on bases all over the world mostly doing pushups and cleaning the toilets in a "global war on terror". ..."
"... Since war is no longer necessary to justify the MIC the US is much more free to not engage in warfare. In fact war is completely unnecessary. At some point advertisements for automobiles had to stop mentioning their superiority to horses. We are at the same point with the MIC. Politicians and the mainstream media do not need to search for/create enemies because they are no longer needed. The US military is to be forever massive and expensive and profitable and it may even become very peaceful because of this. Why work when you can make billions doing virtually nothing? ..."
The US Military
Industrial Complex no longer needs neither actual wars nor the threat of war for its own survival.
This factor could actually change dynamic of this institution/bureaucracy in our lifetimes and it
may actually be changing as we speak.
Very often something will evolve and become ubiquitous to the degree that we forget its
origin.
Putting a dead tree in your house on Christmas is a good example, few people think
of why this is done, they just do it because it has been done for a long time and thus seems
completely natural and important to do so every year. A justification for doing it is no longer
needed, it is something done by default. In some ways the necessity to start questionable wars of
luxury is much like that Christmas tree – an odd tradition that is not of an importance or value
anymore.
In order to break this down we need to go back to the start.
It is hard for people in our times, especially foreign people to understand the fact
that the United States was not a massive military power until WWII.
Today sole hyperpower
was at a time not that long ago a much different nation militarily and foreign policy speaking. In
1914 at the start of the Great War in Europe the territorially massive United States had a total
armed forces of
around
166,000 men
.
From 1776 until that point the manpower of US forces was minimal by
European standards
. That America of those times was an isolated self-focused America that
many today long for. When the US entered WWI shedding the binds of its isolationist tendencies it
bulked up to nearly 3,000,000 soldiers by the end of 1918. However, directly after the Great War
finally ended the military severely deflated itself back down much closer to its original size.
"The Good War" in the 1940's was the final nail in the isolationist coffin
as
American forces would forever remain in the millions of men after the defeat of Germany and Japan
by the Allies.
The 1940s are the point where the permanent military industrial complex that we know of
today starts to take hold.
Slightly later it got the name by which we call it today thanks
to a speech by President Eisenhower at the very tail end of his presidency in 1961. Sadly Mr.
Eisenhower did nothing to stop the growth of the war-machine only choosing to warn us about it with
nearly no time left in office. One would have expected bold action from a man known for his bravery
and cunning.
The ideological justification for retaining a massive US military in peacetime was
Communism.
A global Communist threat seemed like something grand enough to be worth
throwing away a large portion of America's traditional (and very successful) identity.
As time went on wars of questionable origins in Korea and Vietnam continued to provide proof of
the need for massive military spending and continued expansion.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90's American forces could have (in theory)
reduced in size as there was no longer any real geopolitical competitor to the US.
This was
a "turning point" moment when America could possibly have gone back to being the America that was
and scaled down to a few hundred thousand men under the umbrella of a few thousand nuclear warheads
and enough billions of dollars to make sure that the US would never "fall behind" from a weapons
standpoint.
But this was not to be.
Washington chose to go with "Global Hegemon"
America and has not looked back. But at this point massive military spending still required some
sort of reason to spend hundreds of billions per year. Iraq and Afghanistan were enough
justification to keep millions of men in uniforms on bases all over the world mostly doing pushups
and cleaning the toilets in a "global war on terror".
Now there is a new "Russian threat" that is hard for politicians to define or prove
exists but is just juicy enough for them it is still call for increasing defense spending or build
system X in European country Y that they can't find on a map.
As we can see since WWII, the US military has gone from dealing with direct threats
(Germany, Japan) to direct threats via proxy (The Soviet Union in Korea/Vietnam) to overinflated
threats (Iraq, Afghanistan) to fake threats (today's Russia).
I would argue and even offer
that at this point there is no political means nor will to ever go "back" to the isolated America.
That America as a concept is dead and both the politicians and the public understand and support
the US having a massive military. No threat is needed any more as having a massive military is no
longer even a question. It is a default position like seeing the world as round – only a tiny
handful of lunatics of zero influence could argue otherwise and debating with them is pointless.
Furthermore as we have seen any politician who goes against the military industrial
complex (MIC) is deemed a traitor and "against the troops".
This current state of things is actually very good from the standpoint of peace and America's
reputation.
Since war is no longer necessary to justify the MIC the US is much more free to
not engage in warfare. In fact war is completely unnecessary.
At some point advertisements
for automobiles had to stop mentioning their superiority to horses. We are at the same point with
the MIC. Politicians and the mainstream media do not need to search for/create enemies because they
are no longer needed. The US military is to be forever massive and expensive and profitable and it
may even become very peaceful because of this.
Why work when you can make billions
doing virtually nothing?
The full interview is at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67y2V3ksdlA it's a interesting interview, especially considering Kushner lack of
experience in this area and composition of his team.
This interview was in 2017. As of 2019 the results were zero and with recent Israeli actions problem probably became worse. Palestine conflict after so many Palestinian brood was spilled by Israel
looks like a permanent feature which, unfortunately, might one day to bring Israel down iether by unleashing a war with Iran
(without USA support), or when the USA might decide to toss Israel to wolfs.
Notable quotes:
"... You can view the complete interview here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZyGpirUMvk . ..."
"... Watch the full interview before making a judgment. ..."
"... Try to grasp the real power struggles underneath the headlines and hype. ..."
"... It's almost as if cronyism and nepotism breed incompetence. Who knew? ..."
"... One reason Jared has been chosen to interact with Israel is because he is a practicing Koshier Jew and long time family ties and friends with Israli PM Netanyahu since Jared was a young child and in fact Jared would give up his bedroom when Netanyahu came to visit. ..."
Jared Kushner, President Trump's senior adviser and son-in-law, is interviewed at the Saban Forum on the topic of Israeli-Palestinian
peace and his talking points get crushed by Israeli telecom billionaire Haim Saban
....Watch the full interview before making a judgment. Because he's betting that you
won't because of your short attention span.
silverskid1, year ago
There's no story here. I watched the interview. It's a nothing-story. Of course the premise of Trump and his team as peacemakers
in Israel is a bad joke-- but Kushner hasn't been "taken down" and "humiliated."
His demeanor throughout the interview was normal for him. The problem lies in what he says, and that's a different matter
entirely. You're show is way to shallow. Try to grasp the real power struggles underneath the headlines and hype.
Kim Nguyen, 1 year ago (edited)
Jared sounds like that guy in your international relations class who is presenting his term paper, which he composed by collecting
the cliff notes.
In terms of social issues, the achievement of peace between Palestine and Israel may be somewhere around P vs NP. There's no better
person to expose the ridiculous of this team and how grossly unqualified they are than an Israeli or a Palestinian person. You
can tell he feels insulted by the composition of this team.
Touting a bankruptcy lawyer for a committee to solve the middle east problem, jesus h. Christ we are in trouble. Kushner sounds
like daddy-in-law on the campaign trail. Every thing is so vague as to be rendered useless. We are going to fix the middle east.
Yeah, how?
We are going to fix the problems there. Yeah, you said that but how are you going to fix it? Well the Iranians are
a problem. Uh huh, we know that, how are you going to fix it? Also the Palestinians and Israelis don't seem to get along either.
The talking while saying nothing just keeps going with this Administration.
Priceless, when I first heard that Kushner was tasked with working on bringing peace to the Middle East my first thought was
who? That that idiot Trump could throw this milk toast Jewish nobody into such a complex, sensitive protracted policy issue speaks
volumes. From what I now know Kushner is a failed real estate agent with a father who is a convicted felon. Just cause he's married
to Big orange daddies equally vacuous dumb daughter seems to be the only reason he is even in the White House. What a disgrace.
1 year on, and this little pecker wood is still just as inept, but at least we can finally begin to see through that fake (and
very creepy) smile. The criminal Trump organization is falling apart at the seems, I think the only thing holding it all together
is the sheer strength of the criminal investigations. Once those are all wrapped up, the Trump org. Will just collapse into a
nasty little pile of rubble at Trumps feet. Fingers crossed Jared and Ivanka will be swept right up into the collapse and find
themselves and in prison as well
So what he saying is Israel is still just a victim they do nothing wrong to stimulate the wars going on in the Middle East
don't do anything they're just playing victims. ??? It's well-known what part did Jesus play in the explosion of the Mesopotamia
Cruise liner for the Americans to get into the war and save England where the Jews benefit in and got his real out of it through
the Rothschild.
The Jewish bankers have been front and center of every war right in the middle stirring up the problems every country that
took them in the Jew would find out their secrets their dislikes for the enemy that you will then go to the enemy and tell him
everything hit the Jews host said causing War then the Jew finances both sides.
I know people like that who was start s***and watch the fight Jews have also claimed that they are A different race from your
average Caucasian. Rh-positive bloodline
I grew up around them and i know that to be true about their conversational interactions them and Italians I just like black
American people in that aspect, you may think it's an argument but it's not, you may think they are joking but they're expressing
the irony of a situation or a persons stupidity.
Trump seems at times to be allergic to real knowledge, competence and expertise - except for the crooks in his cabinet that
he hired to do his dirty work, like Mnuchin. And Trump could have hired real Middle East experts to be on his team. But no, he
hired his son in law - someone he trusts, but also someone with no real expertise in the field, someone who's totally clueless.
It seems like loyalty is 100% to Donald Trump, and knowledge, competence and expertise count for absolutely nothing.
Janet Johnson2 weeks ago (edited)
Ok Packman... so what is your expertise or qualifications? Your experience.. if any? IQ? What are you..15..16?? What qualifies
you to peck away at the Trumps and all interactions with world leaders?
One reason Jared has been chosen to interact with Israel is because he is a practicing Koshier Jew and long time family
ties and friends with Israli PM Netanyahu since Jared was a young child and in fact Jared would give up his bedroom when Netanyahu
came to visit.
I understand Jared has a very high IQ. You Packman are just plain mean. Your friend there with you is even less impressive.
You both sit around and poke fun of brave people who actually go out and try to do something to contribute and better this messed
up world. I hope you aren't old enough to vote bc you aren't capable of making a wise choice yet.
Super Sonic 1 year ago (edited)
Good god we have complete fcking idiots running this country. This guy was absolutely SPOT ON! More people like this need to
tell Trump and his cronies exactly this. The best bankruptcy lawyer to negotiate peace in the Middle East-wtf?? They have not
the dimmest dullest notion on how to run a country starting with that orange ape at the top! ISIS on the run, good economy, low
unemployment rate, Thank-you Obama!
David everyone keeps on talking about the Trump team and how its biased toward Israel. But what about all the other so called
teams of other administrations. What about the Obama team?
What about the Bush team when Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered the PLO peace, what about the Clinton team when Ehud Barak
practically offered 97% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem?
Oh and again while Bush was in office what about the fact that Israel removed itself and all of its settlers from Gaza? And
what we got in return was an Iranian based about 40 minutes from Tel Aviv??
Why do you concentrate on the Trump team and not the "teams" we've had for the past 20 years or since the Oslo accords began.
People keep on saying that the Trump team is not good for the peace process but I insist what peace process???
We've had this peace process since the late 80's and nothing has happened under the most leftist governments in Israel: Rabin,
Peres, Barak, Olmert, all these Prime Ministers couldn't bring peace with the varying American teams....so why do you pick on
Kushner???
Kushner had the balls to come out and say it like it is: There is NO solution to the conflict...
Eric Grosch1 month ago
So Trump and Kushner won't solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So, who is your exemplar of someone who has done so? The
United States government has been funding Israel greatly and the Palestinians less so for years. Trump came to understand that
Israel knows which side its bread is buttered on, so it sides with the US on most questions and the US sides with Israel on
most questions.
Palestinians hate the US and Israel more or less equally, so Trump rationally withdrew funding from the Palestinians.
That was a divisive move, but the parties, Israel and Palestinians have already been divided since 1948, the year of the
founding of modern Israel. It has long been US-policy to promise recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move its
embassy there.
Trump finally did it. Divisive? Sure, but so what? The parties are already divided.
sam n1 year ago
Stop Zionism. It preaches the same ideology and Isis and Nazism. it considers one group of people more superior.
Abban A7 months ago
Kushner only in the picture because his father in law and because he is a Jewish. He has zero international ,foreigners
policies . Basically trump forcing Arab world leaders to pass this deal or else . There will be no peace in Middle East with
those guys in charge and in office. Just more innocent people will die .
"... By Chakravarthi Raghavan, Editor-emeritus of South-North Development Monitor SUNS, is based in Geneva and has been monitoring and reporting on the WTO and its predecessor GATT since 1978; he is author of several books on trade issues; and Jomo Kwame Sundaram, is Senior Adviser with the Khazanah Research Institute, and was . an economics professor and United Nations Assistant Secretary General for Economic Development. Originally published at Inter Press Service ..."
"... Data governance infrastructure ..."
"... Enterprise competition ..."
"... Consumer protection ..."
"... Trade facilitation ..."
"... Describing what these TNCs are trying to push through as "digital colonialism" seems apt. In contrast to traditional colonialism, characterized as it was by massive investments in manpower and other resources required to conquer far-flung overseas territories, the marginal cost of adding one more overseas territory to a digital colonizers empire is miniscule compared to what old-school colonizers had to pony up to expand their list of colonies. ..."
"... Add to this weak regulatory firewalls in developing countries and market saturation in developed nations, it's obvious why these TNCs are determined to push through an international policy framework that advances their drive to uncover new pockets of growth in the developing world. It's also telling that they're aggressively pursuing this end before developing countries can mount a cohesive defense of their digital sovereignty. "Beware Proposed E-commerce Rules" indeed ..."
Beware Proposed
E-Commerce Rules Posted on February 10,
2019 by Jerri-Lynn ScofieldBy
Chakravarthi Raghavan, Editor-emeritus of South-North Development Monitor SUNS, is based in
Geneva and has been monitoring and reporting on the WTO and its predecessor GATT since 1978; he
is author of several books on trade issues; and Jomo Kwame Sundaram, is Senior Adviser with the
Khazanah Research Institute, and was . an economics professor and United Nations Assistant
Secretary General for Economic Development. Originally published at Inter Press
Service
In Davos in late January, several powerful governments and their allies announced their
intention to launch new negotiations on e-commerce. Unusually, the intention is to launch the
plurilateral negotiations in the World Trade Organization (WTO), an ostensibly multilateral
organization, setting problematic precedents for the future of multilateral negotiations.
Any resulting WTO agreement, especially one to make e-commerce tax- and tariff-free, will
require amendments to its existing goods agreements, the General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS) and the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreements. If it is not an
unconditional agreement in the WTO, it will violate WTO 'most favoured nation' (MFN)
principles.
This will be worse than the old, and ostensibly extinct 'Green Room' processes -- of a few
major powers negotiating among themselves, and then imposing their deal on the rest of the
membership. Thus, the proposed e-commerce rules may be 'WTO illegal' -- unless legitimized by
the amendment processes and procedures in Article X of the WTO treaty.
Any effort to 'smuggle' it into the WTO, e.g., by including it in Annex IV to the WTO treaty
(Plurilateral Trade Agreements), will need, after requisite notice, a consensus decision at
Ministerial Conference (Art X:9 of treaty) . It may still be illegal since the subjects are
already covered by agreements in Annexes 1A, 1B and 1C of the WTO treaty.
Consolidating Power of the Giants
Powerful technology transnational corporations (TNCs) are trying to rewrite international
rules to advance their business interests by: gaining access to new foreign markets, securing
free access to others' data, accelerating deregulation, casualizing labour markets, and
minimizing tax liabilities.
While digital technology and trade, including electronic or e-commerce, can accelerate
development and create jobs, if appropriate policies and arrangements are in place, e-commerce
rhetoric exaggerates opportunities for developing country, especially small and medium
enterprises. Instead, the negotiations are intended to diminish the right of national
authorities to require 'local presence', a prerequisite for the consumer and public to sue a
supplier.
The e-commerce proposals are expected to strengthen the dominant TNCs, enabling them to
further dominate digital trade as the reform proposals are likely to strengthen their
discretionary powers while limiting public oversight over corporate behaviour in the digital
economy.
Developing Countries Must Be Vigilant
If digital commerce grows without developing countries first increasing value captured from
production -- by improving productive capacities in developing countries, closing the digital
divide by improving infrastructure and interconnectivity, and protecting privacy and data --
they will have to open their economies even more to foreign imports.
Further digital liberalization without needed investments to improve productive capacities,
will destroy some jobs, casualize others, squeeze existing enterprises and limit future
development. Such threats, due to accelerated digital liberalization, will increase if the
fast-changing digital economic space is shaped by new regulations influenced by TNCs.
Diverting business through e-commerce platforms will not only reduce domestic market shares,
as existing digital trade is currently dominated by a few TNCs from the United States and
China, but also reduce sales tax revenue which governments increasingly rely upon with the
earlier shift from direct to indirect taxation.
Developing countries must quickly organize themselves to advance their own agenda for
developmental digitization. Meanwhile, concerned civil society organizations and others are
proposing new approaches to issues such as data governance, anti-trust regulation, smaller
enterprises, jobs, taxation, consumer protection, and trade facilitation.
New Approach Needed
A development-focused and jobs-enhancing digitization strategy is needed instead. Effective
national policies require sufficient policy space, stakeholder participation and regional
consultation, but the initiative seeks to limit that space. Developing countries should have
the policy space to drive their developmental digitization agendas. Development partners,
especially donors, should support, not drive this agenda.
Developmental digitization will require investment in countries' technical, legal and
economic infrastructure, and policies to: bridge the digital divide; develop domestic digital
platforms, businesses and capacities to use data in the public interest; strategically promote
national enterprises, e.g., through national data use frameworks; ensure digitization conducive
to full employment policies; advance the public interest, consumer protection, healthy
competition and sustainable development.
Pro-active Measures Needed
Following decades of economic liberalization and growing inequality, and the increasing
clout of digital platforms, international institutions should support developmental
digitization for national progress, rather than digital liberalization. Developing country
governments must be vigilant about such e-commerce negotiations, and instead undertake
pro-active measures such as:
Data governance infrastructure : Developing countries must be vigilant of the
dangers of digital colonialism and the digital divide. Most people do not properly value data,
while governments too easily allow data transfers to big data corporations without adequate
protection for their citizens. TNC rights to free data flows should be challenged.
Enterprise competition : Developing countries still need to promote national
enterprises, including through pro-active policies. International rules have enabled wealth
transfers from the global South to TNCs holding well protected patents. National systems of
innovation can only succeed if intellectual property monopolies are weakened. Strengthening
property rights enhances TNC powers at the expense of developing country enterprises.
Employment : Developmental digitization must create decent jobs and livelihoods.
Labour's share of value created has declining in favour of capital, which has influenced
rule-making to its advantage.
Taxation: The new e-commerce proposals seek to ban not only appropriate taxation,
but also national presence requirements where they operate to avoid taxes at the expense of
competitors paying taxes in compliance with the law. Tax rules allowing digital TNCs to reduce
taxable income or shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions should be addressed.
Consumer protection : Strong policies for consumer protection are needed as the
proposals would put privacy and data protection at risk. Besides citizens' rights to privacy,
consumers must have rights to data protection and against TNC and other abuse of human
rights.
Competition : Digital platforms must be better regulated at both national and
international level. Policies are needed to weaken digital economic monopolies and to support
citizens, consumers and workers in relating to major digital TNCs.
Trade facilitation : Recent trade facilitation in developing countries, largely
funded by donors, has focused on facilitating imports, rather than supply side constraints.
Recent support for digital liberalization similarly encourages developing countries to import
more instead of developing needed new infrastructure to close digital divides.
Urgent Measures Needed
'E-commerce' has become the new front for further economic liberalization and extension of
property rights by removing tariffs (on IT products), liberalizing imports of various services,
stronger IP protection, ending technology transfer requirements, and liberalizing government
procurement.
Developing countries must instead develop their own developmental digitization agendas, let
alone simply copy, or worse, promote e-commerce rules developed by TNCs to open markets, secure
data, as well as constrain regulatory and developmental governments.
Describing what these TNCs are trying to push through as "digital colonialism" seems apt.
In contrast to traditional colonialism, characterized as it was by massive investments in
manpower and other resources required to conquer far-flung overseas territories, the marginal
cost of adding one more overseas territory to a digital colonizers empire is miniscule
compared to what old-school colonizers had to pony up to expand their list of colonies.
Add to this weak regulatory firewalls in developing countries and market saturation in
developed nations, it's obvious why these TNCs are determined to push through an
international policy framework that advances their drive to uncover new pockets of growth in
the developing world. It's also telling that they're aggressively pursuing this end before
developing countries can mount a cohesive defense of their digital sovereignty. "Beware
Proposed E-commerce Rules" indeed
It is still cold in davos, all the more reason to feel carefully, and be very sure
that the P-crats are not slipping you "a mickey" in the butt, because they
always repeat always do it!
The comment, and questions posed aren't clear.
The announcement (widely reported in media) was made to media at Davos after a breakfast
meeting, and almost immediately it appeared on WTO website as a "communication" from the
members at the breakfast meeting.
Beyond "intention" to negotiate, everything else was vague – whether it be issues to be
negotiated, where and how etc.
Why does this make me think of MERS and how the finance industry diverted at least
hundreds of thousands of dollars in transaction recording fees away from local government
real estate offices? If popular government is to remain meaningful it had better have in
place effective means of enforcing its tax entitlements and the will to do it.
"... Is this political nationalism a viable way of resisting neoliberalism today? Can it gainsay the primacy of economic rationality and the culture of narcissist consumerism, and restore meaning to the political question concerning the common good? Or has nationalism irreversibly become an ethnic, separatist project? It is not easy to say. So far, we have witnessed one kind of response to the social insecurities generated by the global spread of neoliberalism. This is a return to ethnicity and religion as havens of safety and security. ..."
Nationalism was an emancipatory political project during the anti-colonial struggles of the
second half of the 20th century. It was not tribalist or communalist.
According to Eric Hobsbawm in Nations and Nationalism since 1780, its aim was to extend the
size of the social, cultural and political group. It was not to restrict it or to separate it
from others. Nationalism was a political programme divorced from ethnicity.
Is this political nationalism a viable way of resisting neoliberalism today? Can it gainsay
the primacy of economic rationality and the culture of narcissist consumerism, and restore
meaning to the political question concerning the common good? Or has nationalism irreversibly become an ethnic, separatist project? It is not easy to say. So far, we have witnessed one kind of response to the social
insecurities generated by the global spread of neoliberalism. This is a return to ethnicity and
religion as havens of safety and security.
When society fails us owing to job insecurity, and, concomitantly, with regard to housing
and healthcare, one tends to fall back on one's ethnicity or religious identity as an ultimate
guarantee.
Moreover, nationalism as a political programme depends on the idea of the state. It holds
that a group defined as a "nation" has the right to form a territorial state and exercise
sovereign power over it. But given the decline of the state, there are reasons to think that
political nationalism has withdrawn as a real possibility.
By the "decline of the state" I do not mean that it no longer exists. The state has never
been more present in the private life of individuals. It regulates the relations between men
and women. It regulates their birth and death, the rearing of children, the health of
individuals and so forth. The state is, today, ubiquitous.
What some people mean by the "decline of the state" is that, with the existence of
transnational corporations, it is no longer the most important site of the reproduction of
capital. The state has become managerial. Its function is to manage obstacles to liberalisation
and free trade.
Perhaps that is one of the challenges of the 21st century. How is a "nation" possible, a
"national community" that is not defined by ethnicity, on the one hand, and, on the other, that
forsakes the desire to exercise sovereign power in general and, in particular, over a
territorial state?
The university is perhaps the place where such a community can begin to be thought.
Rafael Winkler is an associate professor in the philosophy department at the University
of Johannesburg
We have until recently never had government as aggressive, reckless, or psychiatrically fascinating as now.
Appointment on Bolton essentially confirms Fred Reed diagnose of Trump: "profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a real-estate
con man who danced just out of reach of the law.
Notable quotes:
"... Until Bush II, those governing were never lunatics. Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Obama, Clinton had their defects, were sometimes corrupt, and could be disagreed with on many grounds. They weren't crazy. ..."
"... The problem with the current occupants of the White House is not that they are conservatives, if they are. It is that they are nuts. ..."
"... Start with the head cheese, Donald Trump, profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a real-estate con man who danced just out of reach of the law ..."
"... A particularly loathsome sort of politician is one who dodges his country's wars when of military age, and then wants to send others to die in later wars. This is Pussy John, arch hawk, coward, amoral, bully, willing to kill any number while he prances martially in Washington. Speaking as one who carried a rifle in Viet Nam, I would like to confine this fierce darling for life in the bottom of a public latrine in Uganda. ..."
"... I remarked how it seemed so strange that many of these hawks never fought in a war even when they had ample opportunity in their youth ..."
"... The crazy irresponsibility of Trump's foreign policy is entirely counter productive & inexcusable, however it's symptomatic of a slowly swelling sense of unconscious desperation. The reality, the feeling of unconstrained power the US experienced in the 90's & naughties has gone. The US has slowly woken to the nightmare possibility of real peer competitors. ..."
American government has become a collection of sordid and dangerous clowns. It was not
always thus. Until Bush II, those governing were never lunatics. Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy,
Johnson, Nixon, Obama, Clinton had their defects, were sometimes corrupt, and could be
disagreed with on many grounds. They weren't crazy. Today's administration would seem
unwholesome in a New York bus station at three in the morning. They are not normal American
politicians.
In particular they seem to be pushing for war with Iran, China, Russia, and Venezuela. And
-- this is important -- their behavior is not a matter of liberals catfighting with
conservatives. All former presidents carefully avoided war with the Soviet Union, which
carefully avoided war with America.
It was Reagan, a conservative and responsible president,
who negotiated the INF treaty, to eliminate short-fuse nuclear weapons from Europe. By
contrast, Trump is scrapping it. Pat Buchanan, the most conservative man I have met, strongly
opposes aggression against Russia. The problem with the current occupants of the White House is
not that they are conservatives, if they are. It is that they are nuts.
Donald the Cockatoo
Start with the head cheese, Donald Trump, profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a real-estate
con man who danced just out of reach of the law. His supporters will explode in fury at this.
All politics being herd politics, the population has coalesced into herds fanatically pro-Trump
and fanatically anti-Trump. Yet Trump's past is not a secret. Well-documented biographies
describe his behavior in detail, but his supporters don't read them. The following is a bit
long, but worth reading.
"I always get even," Trump writes in the opening line of that chapter. He then launches
into an attack on the same woman he had denounced in Colorado. Trump recruited the unnamed
woman "from her government job where she was making peanuts," her career going nowhere. "I
decided to make her somebody. I gave her a great job at the Trump Organization, and over time
she became powerful in real estate. She bought a beautiful home.
"When Trump was in financial trouble in the early nineties .."I asked her to make a phone
call to an extremely close friend of hers who held a powerful position at a big bank and
would have done what she asked. She said, "Donald, I can't do that." Instead of accepting
that the woman felt that such a call would be inappropriate, Trump fired her. She started her
own business. Trump writes that her business failed. "I was really happy when I found that
out," he says.
"She had turned on me after I did so much to help her. I had asked her to do me a favor in
return, and she turned me down flat. She ended up losing her home. Her husband, who was only
in it for the money, walked out on her and I was glad. Over the years many people have called
me asking for a recommendation for her. I always gave her bad recommendation. I can't stomach
disloyalty. ..and now I go out of my way to make her life miserable."
All that because (if she exists) she declined to engage in corruption for the Donald. That
is your President. A draft dodger, a pampered rich kid, and Ivy brat (Penn, Wharton). This
increasingly is a pattern at the top: Ivy, money, no military service.
A particularly loathsome sort of politician is one who dodges his country's wars when of
military age, and then wants to send others to die in later wars. This is Pussy John, arch
hawk, coward, amoral, bully, willing to kill any number while he prances martially in
Washington. Speaking as one who carried a rifle in Viet Nam, I would like to confine this
fierce darling for life in the bottom of a public latrine in Uganda.
Pussy John, an Ivy flower (Yale) wrote in a reunion books that, during the 1969 Vietnam War
draft lottery, "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered
the war in Vietnam already lost." In an interview, Bolton explained that he decided to avoid
service in Vietnam because "by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me
that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no
great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to
take it away from."
This same Pussy John, unwilling to risk his valuable being in a war he could have attended,
now wants war with Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Syria, and Afghanistan. In these wars millions
would die while he waggled his silly lip broom in the West Wing. His truculence is pathological
and dangerous.
Here is PJ on
Iran: which has not harmed and does not threaten America: "We think the government is under
real pressure and it's our intention to squeeze them very hard," Bolton said Tuesday in
Singapore. "As the British say, 'squeeze them until the pips squeak'."
How very brave of him. He apparently feels sadistic delight at starving Venezuelans,
inciting civil war, and ruining the lives of millions who have done nothing wrong. Whence the
weird hostility of this empty jockstrap, the lack of humanity? Forgot his Midiol? Venezuela of
course has done nothing to the US and couldn't if it wanted to. America under the Freak Show is
destroying another country simply because it doesn't meekly obey. While PJ gloats.
Bush II
Another rich kid and Yalie, none too bright, amoral as the rest, another draft dodger, (he
hid in the Air National Guard.) who got to the White House on daddy's name recognition. Not
having the balls to fight in his own war, he presided over the destruction of Iraq and the
killing of hundreds of thousands, for no reason. (Except oil, Israel, and Empire. Collectively,
these amount to no reason.) He then had the effrontery to pose on the deck of an aircraft
carrier and say, "Mission accomplished." You know, just like Alexander the Great. Amoral. No
empathy. What a man.
The striking pattern of the Ivy League avoiding the war confirmed then, as it does now, that
our present rulers regard the rest of America as beings of a lower order. These armchair John
Waynes might have called them "deplorables," though Hillary, another Yalie bowwow hawk, had not
yet made the contempt explicit. This was the attitude of Pussy John, Bushy-Bushy Two, and
Cockatoo Don. Compare this with the Falklands War in which Prince Andrew did what a country's
leadership should do, but ours doesn't..
Wikipedia: "He (Prince Andrew)
holds the rank of commander and the honorary rank of Vice Admiral (as of February 2015) in the
Royal Navy, in which he served as an active-duty helicopter pilot and instructor and as the
captain of a warship. He saw active service during the Falklands War, flying on multiple
missions including anti-surface warfare, Exocet missile decoy, and casualty evacuation"
The Brits still have class. Compare Andrew with the contents of the Great Double-Wide on
Pennsylvania Avernus.
Gina
A measure of the moral degradation of America: It is the only country that openly and
proudly engages in torture. Many countries do it, of course. We admit it, and maintain torture
prisons around the globe. Now we have a major government official, Gina Haspel, head of the
CIA, a known sadist. "Bloody Gina." Is this who represents us? Would any other country in the
civilized world put a sadist publicly in office?
Think of Gina waterboarding some guy, or standing around and getting off on it. You don't
torture people unless you like it. The guy is tied down, coughing, choking, screaming, begging,
desperate, drowning, and Gina pours more water. The poor bastard vomits, chokes. Gina adds a
little more water .
What kind of woman would do this? Well, Gina's kind obviously. Does she then run off to her
office and lock the door for half an hour? Maybe it starts early. One imagines her as a little
girl, playing with her dolls. Cheerleader Barbie, Nurse Barbie, Klaus Barbie .
Michael Pompeo
Another pathologically aggressive chickenhawk. In a piece in Foreign Affairs he describes Iran as a "rogue state that America must eliminate
for the sake of all that is good. Note that Pompeo presides over a foreign policy seeking to
destroy Venezuela's economy and threatens military invasion, though Venezuela is no danger to
the US and is not America's business; embargoes Cuba, which in no danger to the US and is not
America's business; seeks to destroy Iran's economy, though Iran is no danger to the US and
none of Americas business; sanctions Europe and meddles in its politics; sanctions Russia,
which is not a danger to the United States, in an attempt to destroy its economy, pushes NATO
up to Russia's borders, abandons the INF arms-control treaty and establishes a Space Command
which will mean nuclear weapons on hair trigger in orbit, starts another nuclear arms race;
wages a trade war against China intended to prevent its economic progress; sanctions North
Korea; continues a seventeen-year policy of killing Afghans for no discernible purpose; wages a
war against Syria; bombs Somalis; maintains unwanted occupation forces in Iraq; increasingly
puts military forces in Africa; supports regimes with ghastly human-rights records such as
Saudi Arabia and Israel; and looks for a war with China in the South China Sea, which is no
more America's business than the Gulf of Mexico is China's.
But Pompeo is not a loon, oh no, and America is not a rogue state. Perish forfend.
Nikki Haley
A negligible twit -- I choose my vowel carefully -- but characterized, like Trump, PJ, and
Pompeo Mattis
"After being promoted to lieutenant general, Mattis took command of Marine Corps Combat
Development Command. On February 1, 2005, speaking at a forum in San Diego, he said "You go
into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a
veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun
to shoot them. Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun
to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling."
Perhaps in air-to-air combat you want someone who regards killing as fun, or in an
amphibious assault. But in a position to make policy? Can you image Dwight Eisenhower talking
about the fun of squaring a man's brains across the ground?
The Upshot
We have until recently never had government as aggressive, reckless, or psychiatrically
fascinating as now. Again, it is not a matter of Republicans and Democrats. No administration
of any party, stripe, or ideology has ever pushed to aggressively toward war with so many
countries. These people are not right in the head.
I remember in high school one of my teachers stating how weird it seems that it would be the
leadership of the US military who would call for the American government to intervene less in
the affairs of other countries and to not be so quick to use military force. This was, of
course, decades ago.
A few years ago, I had a conversation with one of my colleages. He remarked how scary it
was that so many American politicians were calling for war with Russia (with Hillary Clinton
leading the pack?). I remarked how it seemed so strange that many of these hawks never fought
in a war even when they had ample opportunity in their youth (Vietnam).
Fred is absolutely correct: the current administration is pathological & insane.
However, it's worth remembering that their insane behavior is based on the same Imperial
goals that have been in play since at least 1945.
The crazy irresponsibility of Trump's foreign policy is entirely counter productive &
inexcusable, however it's symptomatic of a slowly swelling sense of unconscious desperation.
The reality, the feeling of unconstrained power the US experienced in the 90's &
naughties has gone. The US has slowly woken to the nightmare possibility of real peer
competitors.
China & Russia are real novelties -- & as such, damn scary. Taken together, they
are near equal military & economic rivals of the US.
To US elites this is almost incomprehensible. How ? How did China suddenly become leaders
in cutting edge tech? How did Russia suddenly appear with hypersonsic missiles ?
It's impossible ! Given the already existing moral & psychological inadequacies of
individual Trump team members, insanity & juvenile behavior are fairly predictable
responses .
The fact that you left Bill Clinton off this list (you know, the president that fired
Tomahawk missiles into the country of Sudan to take attention away from the Lewinsky
hearings, sexually assaulted subordinate women for decades, and spent time banging underage
sex slaves via the Lolita Express, pardons a bunch of Puerto Rican terrorists in 2000 to help
swing PR votes to his bag of shit wife in the New York Senate race and was, oh yeah, a draft
dodger) is pathetic even for you , Kiko. I guess NAFTA makes up for all that rapey shit, huh?
And when can we expect a detailed critique of the Mexican political climate, Kiko? Is it
still never? A little too worried about that knock on the door if you bring up all the
inconvenient murder going on down there, and all of the gutless politicians and law
enforcement that turn a blind eye to it, you insufferable hypocrite?
No administration of any party, stripe, or ideology has ever pushed to aggressively
toward war with so many countries. These people are not right in the head.
Now there, I will certainly agree with Mr. Reed, but in a qualified way. The Trump
administration is somewhat more warlike and interventionist in its talk than previous ones
have been. But, so far, all talk (except for its repudiation of the Iran nuclear deal, which
is ominous).
Also, even in terms of the bellicose hot air, the current regime's increase over its
predecessors is a matter of degree, not of kind. Even the increase itself I'd call
incremental.
Also, I wrote, "So far, all talk." That doesn't mean I'm not concerned. As the man who
jumped off a skyscraper said, when passing the 2nd floor, "All right so far!"
So what's the difference between Trump's neocons and the neocons who would have run Hillary?
Nothing. There is no one more chicken hawkish, and slavish to Israel than Hillary.
Give Trump some credit. He tried to ease ties with Russia and end war in Syria. But look how
the Jewish supremacists in media and Deep State goons all jumped on him. And almost no one in
the Establishment came to his side.
Obama and his goons pushed the Russia Collusion Hoax. Obama and Bush II have more in
common.
@Sean
wages a trade war against China intended to prevent its economic progress
"About time too. Nixon deciding the US would getting pally with China was a hostile act as
far as Russia was concerned."
Exactly right. Glad someone else remembers things as they were. Getting pally with China
will turn out to be the most disastrous mistake the USA has ever made in foreign policy.
Arrogantly thinking that we could make them our junior partners we have given or sold them
everything which made us great. Our industries, technology, patents, education at premier
research institutions etc. Now, utilizing everything we provided them, they will surpass and
then suppress us. Meanwhile our ignorant politicians, blinded by traitorous, dual-citizen
economists and bankers who promised a new economy based upon finance and "information", plod
along, single file, to oblivion.
Start with the head cheese, Donald Trump, profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a
real-estate con man who danced just out of reach of the law. His supporters will explode in
fury at this.
Most of us knew that Trump is a flawed man but were willing to overlook that because he
was the only one talking sense on immigration and offering solutions that would benefit white
America. Of course, after two years Trump has been all tweet and little action on immigration
and appears poised to sell out out to Javanka, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers and the
Business Roundtable.
He's narcissistic and a bit of a con man but not profoundly ignorant. Profoundly ignorant
people don't become billionaires and will themselves to the presidency.
Trump has done a 180 on his campaign foreign policy and filled his administration with
Israel first neocon retreads from the George W. Bush era instead of America firsters. People
like Bolton deserve all the hate and condemnation heaped upon them by Fredrico.
Fredrico just hates Trump because he doesn't worship Mexico and Mexicans like Fredrico
does and spoke the truth about many Mexican illegals being predisposed to violent crime.
Fredrico and his hispandering Bobbsey twin Ron Unz get easily triggered at the slightest
criticism of hispanics, even if based in fact, and fly into a foaming at the mouth rage.
@KenH
The first priority of any president is staying alive, which probably explains why every US
president, including Donald Trump ends up doing the exact opposite of what they promise on
the campaign trail. As to Trump's neocon advisors, I suspect they were appointed by the deep
state, with him having no say in the matter.
"... The job paid minimum wage and exposed Warren firsthand to the topics that would later define her career: the power of corporations and the effects of bankruptcy on the American consumer. ..."
"... Warren, who had been sharply critical of Clinton in part over her ties to Wall Street, ultimately chose not to challenge her for the Democratic party's nomination and endorsed the former secretary of state's campaign. It was also during this time that Warren proved among the few capable of getting under then candidate Donald Trump's skin. ..."
"... At the same time, Warren became a top target of conservatives and Trump himself. The president has repeatedly mocked Warren with the derisive nickname "Pocahontas" – including at an event intended to honor Native Americans. ..."
"... Republicans first tried to push the notion that Warren used her Native American ancestry to further her career in the 2012 Senate race, homing in on a single questionnaire in which she claimed mixed ancestry. ..."
"... But the matter did not end there. The Washington Post published a story revealing Warren listed her race as "American Indian" while seeking a Texas bar registration card in 1986. ..."
"... Warren's platform includes the single-payer healthcare system Medicare for All, debt-free college tuition and anti-corruption legislation designed to restore accountability in government. She is also poised to unveil a proposal that would impose a wealth tax on Americans worth over $50m. ..."
Warren's official entry into the race has differed sharply from when she captured widespread liberal enthusiasm in
her unlikely bid for the Senate seven years ago.
The two-term senator will join a crowded Democratic primary
field with no clear frontrunner – and several contenders jockeying to claim the progressive mantle that she
aspires to grasp. She has also found herself contending with a lingering controversy for previously identifying as
Native American over the course of nearly two decades.
The question now is whether Warren, who moved early to build an expansive field operation in anticipation of
her presidential run, can overcome early setbacks and reclaim her role as the Democratic party's top foil to
Donald Trump.
Born to middle-class parents in Norman, Oklahoma
, Warren has spoken
candidly about how her family's livelihood was upended when her father's heart attack forced him out of work.
Addressing crowds across the country, Warren often recalls how her late mother – determined not to lose the
family's home – "pulled on her best dress" and got her first paying job at the department store Sears.
The job paid minimum wage and exposed Warren firsthand to the topics that would later define her career:
the power of corporations and the effects of bankruptcy on the American consumer.
Her research in bankruptcy law – and the impact on the average person's medical bills, mortgage payments and
other installments – led Warren to become a leading expert on the subject and rise in the academia world.
"These are the issues she still cares about," said Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School who helped
recruit Warren to its faculty.
"I think she is extraordinary for this reason, that she got into politics because she cared about some issues.
She didn't get into politics because she wanted to be in office and then tried to figure out what issues she cared
about."
Warren cultivated a profile as a populist firebrand against the backdrop of the Great Recession, earning the
ire of Wall Street by spearheading the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – an agency
established under the Obama administration as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill of 2010.
Upon being passed over to head the agency she helped create, Warren decided to continue the fight from within
the government, embarking on a campaign to win back the late senator and liberal icon Ted Kennedy's seat from the
Republican incumbent, Scott Brown, in the high-profile 2012 Massachusetts Senate race.
Roughly $70m was spent on the bitterly waged contest, which catapulted Warren to the national stage.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Elizabeth Warren speaks during day two of the Democratic national convention in Charlotte, North Carolina,
on 5 September 2012. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
The race also saw Warren cement herself as a leader of the burgeoning progressive movement within the
Democratic party; branding the choice before voters as "Wall Street versus you", Warren viewed the election as an
opportunity to hand a major defeat to what she once
dubbed
as "the largest lobbying force ever assembled on the face of the earth".
Following her victory, Warren's profile grew so rapidly that speculation swiftly emerged over a potential White
House run in 2016, despite the inevitability of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. A group of progressives even mounted
a #DraftWarren campaign.
Warren, who had been sharply critical of Clinton in part over her ties to Wall Street, ultimately chose not to
challenge her for the Democratic party's nomination and endorsed the former secretary of state's campaign. It was
also during this time that Warren proved among the few capable of getting under then candidate Donald Trump's
skin.
After Trump derided Clinton as a "nasty woman", Warren famously riffed: "Get this, Donald. Nasty women are
tough, nasty women are smart and nasty women vote, and on November 8, we nasty women are going to march our nasty
feet to cast our nasty votes to get you out of our lives forever."
The 2016 presidential election did not, however, produce the groundswell of unified opposition to Trump that
Democrats
had hoped for. Instead, it left the party in search of a clear leader to fill the void left by
Obama's departure from the White House.
For Warren, it looked as though her moment had arrived.
In the early days of the Trump administration, Warren quickly emerged as the face of the Democratic opposition,
matching the president's tweets with sharp ripostes of her own and holding his cabinet nominees to account when
they appeared for consideration before congressional committees.
During the confirmation process for the former attorney general Jeff Sessions, Warren famously read a letter
written 30 years prior by Coretta Scott King, in which the widow of Dr Martin Luther King Jr warned of Sessions'
civil rights record from the time of his nomination for a federal judgeship.
Silenced by Republicans mid-speech
on the Senate floor, Warren read the letter on Facebook Live. The hashtag
#LetLizSpeak trended on Twitter and the phrase "Nevertheless, she persisted" was coined.
At the same time, Warren became a top target of conservatives and Trump himself. The president has repeatedly
mocked Warren with the derisive nickname "Pocahontas" – including at an event intended to honor Native Americans.
Although Warren long ignored the president's taunts, she took the unusual step of addressing the issue head on
in October by making public the results of a DNA test revealing that she did, in fact, have some Native American
ancestry.
Rather than putting the topic to rest, Warren's move was rebuked by some tribal leaders, who felt it
politicized their identity, and reignited the story.
Republicans first tried to push the notion
that Warren used her
Native American ancestry to further her career in the 2012 Senate race, homing in on a single questionnaire in
which she claimed mixed ancestry.
An exhaustive investigation by the Boston Globe found no evidence that Warren benefited from doing so, and
nearly every living Harvard law professor involved in her hiring
has said
it was not a factor in their votes to offer her a tenured position.
"When we brought her to Harvard, no one had a clue that she thought of herself as Native American," said
Laurence Tribe, the school's professor of constitutional law.
"I think she's had an unfair rap," he added. "I don't think it's the case that she ever exploited her family's
background or ancestry in a way that some people seem to think she did."
The Cherokee nation, one of the groups that was critical of Warren, said she privately apologized to to tribal
leaders.
But the matter did not end there. The Washington Post published a story revealing Warren
listed her race
as "American Indian" while seeking a Texas bar registration card in 1986. Warren apologized once more, telling reporters: "I'm not a tribal citizen.
"My apology is an apology for not having been more sensitive about tribal citizenship and tribal sovereignty. I
really want to underline the point, tribes and only tribes determine tribal citizenship."
Warren remains a popular figure in the Democratic party
and was
easily re-elected to a second Senate term in the 2018 midterm elections.
Even so, she received fewer votes in her home state than Charlie Baker, the Republican governor of
Massachusetts, prompting Warren's hometown paper to urge the senator to reconsider a presidential bid.
"While Warren won re-election, her margin of victory in November suggests there's a ceiling on her popularity,"
the
Boston Globe editorial board
wrote. "Baker garnered more votes than she did in a state that is supposed to be
a Democratic haven."
She's hard-edged, not personally, but ideologically. She takes very sharp and
controversial positions
Barney Frank
"While Warren is an effective and impactful senator with an important voice nationally, she has become a
divisive figure," the board added. "A unifying voice is what the country needs now after the polarizing politics
of Donald Trump." Those close to Warren dismissed the editorial as having more to do with the personal biographies and
inclinations of those who sit on the board. "She's hard-edged, not personally, but ideologically," said Frank. "She takes very sharp and controversial
positions."
"So, yeah, they're going to be people who are unhappy with her."
More challenging for Warren, friends and former colleagues said, would be the task of distinguishing herself
within a diverse field of Democratic candidates that includes at least three of her Senate colleagues and a record
number of women seeking the party's nomination.
Warren's platform includes the single-payer healthcare system Medicare for All, debt-free college tuition and
anti-corruption legislation designed to restore accountability in government. She is also poised to unveil a
proposal that would impose a wealth tax on Americans worth over $50m.
Fried, who served as solicitor general under Ronald Reagan, said he disagreed with some of the more expansive
economic policies touted by Warren. But her greatest asset as a candidate, he acknowledged, would be to approach the campaign with the same steely
resolve to elevate the middle class that endeared her to voters seven years ago.
Although he is only occasionally in touch with Warren as she embarks on what will undoubtedly be a grueling
campaign for America's highest office, Fried recalled recently sending Warren a lengthy article about capitalism
and income inequality.
To his surprise, he received a response from Warren 10 days later. She had not only taken the time to read the
article, but highlighted a portion that stood out to her. "How many presidential candidates would do that?" Fried asked.
In her email, Warren also recounted to her old colleague how not very long ago they sat together on a flight
discussing the prospects of a Clinton presidency.
That day never came to fruition, Warren noted.
"I don't know what lies ahead," she added. "But I know what I'm fighting for."
While controversy around her heritage lingers, voters call the Democrat's fight against economic
injustice 'inspiring'
On a cold, blustery January day in 1912, immigrant women walked out of the Everett Mill in the
->
Massachusetts
factory town of Lawrence demanding higher wages and better working conditions. Mill owners and
city government responded in a swift and heavy-handed manner; local militias and police forces were called to the
streets. Protesters died. Many more were arrested.
On a cold, blustery February day 117 years later, the
Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren stood in front of Everett Mill
->
to announce her candidacy for president of the United States
, channeling the spirit of those women as she told
her supporters that they were in a fight for their lives against a rigged system that favors the rich and
powerful.
ss="rich-link">
Why women 2020 candidates face 'likability' question even as they make
history
Read more
"These workers – led by women – didn't have much. Not even a common language. Nevertheless, they persisted,"
she said. "The story of Lawrence is about how real change happens in America. It's a story about power – our power
– when we fight together."
For Warren, who grew up in an economically struggling Oklahoma household and who first rose to mainstream
prominence by handing out practical financial advice to American families, the word "fight" is central to her
platform and political ethos – it was a word peppered throughout her speech.
But on Saturday, she made clear that hers was not just a fight against president Donald Trump, but against a
system she described as one where the rich, privileged and powerful oppress the rest of the country.
"The man in the White House is not the cause of what is broken, he is just the latest – and most extreme –
symptom of what's gone wrong in America, a product of a rigged system that props up the rich and the powerful and
kicks dirt on everyone else," she said. "So once he's gone, we can't pretend that all of this never happened."
The backdrop of the mill, where the so-called Bread and Roses strikes originated, was symbolic. But so too was
the choice of the modern day city of Lawrence, which is one of those places in America that has felt left behind
in recent times. To many in New England, Lawrence is synonymous with crime, drugs and poverty. The Republican
governors of Maine and New Hampshire have invoked the city's name when laying blame for the opioid crises in their
states. As was the case at the time of the strikes, Lawrence is a working class city of immigrants, with a
population that is about 80% Latino. It is a city where wealth is nearby, but out of reach for many.
Sebastian Brown, 31, moved to Lawrence five years ago. While he had yet to choose a candidate to support, he
was excited by Warren's message and was happy Warren chose the town as the site of her announcement.
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
I think we need a woman president and I think it will be the fight of our lives
Vicki Ward, rally attendee
"This is a working class city. And I think her – and Bernie [Sanders] – are running on platforms that speak to
the working class and how they're being screwed over by the rich and powerful," he said. "And I think she's a
great messenger for it."
While there was optimism about Warren's candidacy at her rally, she enters an already crowded Democratic field
amid
->
r
enewed controversy over her past identification as Native American.
For years now – since even before he was president –
->
Trump has needled Warren on the issue
, calling her "Pocahontas". He and others accuse Warren of falsely
presenting herself as Native American to gain unfair advantages in life.
The controversy was re-ignited last week when the Washington Post
->
published Warren's 1986 registration card
for the Texas State Bar. In it, she listed "American Indian" as her
race.
Warren has now apologised repeatedly for identifying as Native American, saying in recent days that she "should
have been more mindful of the distinction with tribal citizenship and tribal sovereignty". She still maintains
that Native American ancestry was part of her family's story passed down to her.
->
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Elizabeth Warren called Donald Trump the 'most extreme' symptom of a broken system. Photograph: Cj Gunther/EPA
How damaging the controversy will be remains to be see. Warren enters a diverse Democratic field where other
candidates belong to minority groups: New Jersey senator
->
Cory Booker is African American
;
->
California senator Kamala Harris
was born to an Indian mother and a Jamaican father.
->
Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
is both the first Hindu and first Samoan-American member of Congress, and
the former San Antonio mayor
->
Julián Castro is Latino
. When the Democratic race gets heated, Warren's portrayal of race could prove to be a
point of attack.
Peter Devlin, a 56-year-old dentist from the nearby town of North Andover, said he was at the rally to hear
what Warren had to say but said that the Native American controversy "is going to be a problem" for her campaign.
"I voted for her as senator, but I'm concerned about her electability," he said. "It's going to be a tough run.
She's got a bit of baggage and she's so sort of cliche progressive liberal that I think there's a lot of America
that's not up for that. But I want to hear what she's up to."
ss="rich-link">
Stacey Abrams on the ticket? Democrat's star turn fuels talk for 2020
Read more
However, other attendees, like 64-year-old Vicki Ward, who drove two hours to the event from Vermont, were
ready to throw their support behind Warren on the first day of the senator's presidential campaign.
"I think she's got the qualities that we need," she said. "I think we need a woman president and I think it
will be the fight of our lives."
Maryann Johnson, who came to Warren's announcement from New Hampshire, also said she was already sold on
Warren.
"I basically agreed with everything she said. We need to have more equality, there needs to be less corruption
in government," she said. "She's inspiring."
We have until recently never had government as aggressive, reckless, or psychiatrically fascinating as now.
Appointment on Bolton essentially confirms Fred Reed diagnose of Trump: "profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a real-estate
con man who danced just out of reach of the law.
Notable quotes:
"... I remarked how it seemed so strange that many of these hawks never fought in a war even when they had ample opportunity in their youth ..."
"... The crazy irresponsibility of Trump's foreign policy is entirely counter productive & inexcusable, however it's symptomatic of a slowly swelling sense of unconscious desperation. The reality, the feeling of unconstrained power the US experienced in the 90's & naughties has gone. The US has slowly woken to the nightmare possibility of real peer competitors. ..."
American government has become a collection of sordid and dangerous clowns. It was not
always thus. Until Bush II, those governing were never lunatics. Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy,
Johnson, Nixon, Obama, Clinton had their defects, were sometimes corrupt, and could be
disagreed with on many grounds. They weren't crazy. Today's administration would seem
unwholesome in a New York bus station at three in the morning. They are not normal American
politicians.
In particular they seem to be pushing for war with Iran, China, Russia, and Venezuela. And
-- this is important -- their behavior is not a matter of liberals catfighting with
conservatives. All former presidents carefully avoided war with the Soviet Union, which
carefully avoided war with America.
It was Reagan, a conservative and responsible president,
who negotiated the INF treaty, to eliminate short-fuse nuclear weapons from Europe. By
contrast, Trump is scrapping it. Pat Buchanan, the most conservative man I have met, strongly
opposes aggression against Russia. The problem with the current occupants of the White House is
not that they are conservatives, if they are. It is that they are nuts.
Donald the Cockatoo
Start with the head cheese, Donald Trump, profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a real-estate
con man who danced just out of reach of the law. His supporters will explode in fury at this.
All politics being herd politics, the population has coalesced into herds fanatically pro-Trump
and fanatically anti-Trump. Yet Trump's past is not a secret. Well-documented biographies
describe his behavior in detail, but his supporters don't read them. The following is a bit
long, but worth reading.
"I always get even," Trump writes in the opening line of that chapter. He then launches
into an attack on the same woman he had denounced in Colorado. Trump recruited the unnamed
woman "from her government job where she was making peanuts," her career going nowhere. "I
decided to make her somebody. I gave her a great job at the Trump Organization, and over time
she became powerful in real estate. She bought a beautiful home.
"When Trump was in financial trouble in the early nineties .."I asked her to make a phone
call to an extremely close friend of hers who held a powerful position at a big bank and
would have done what she asked. She said, "Donald, I can't do that." Instead of accepting
that the woman felt that such a call would be inappropriate, Trump fired her. She started her
own business. Trump writes that her business failed. "I was really happy when I found that
out," he says.
"She had turned on me after I did so much to help her. I had asked her to do me a favor in
return, and she turned me down flat. She ended up losing her home. Her husband, who was only
in it for the money, walked out on her and I was glad. Over the years many people have called
me asking for a recommendation for her. I always gave her bad recommendation. I can't stomach
disloyalty. ..and now I go out of my way to make her life miserable."
All that because (if she exists) she declined to engage in corruption for the Donald. That
is your President. A draft dodger, a pampered rich kid, and Ivy brat (Penn, Wharton). This
increasingly is a pattern at the top: Ivy, money, no military service.
A particularly loathsome sort of politician is one who dodges his country's wars when of
military age, and then wants to send others to die in later wars. This is Pussy John, arch
hawk, coward, amoral, bully, willing to kill any number while he prances martially in
Washington. Speaking as one who carried a rifle in Viet Nam, I would like to confine this
fierce darling for life in the bottom of a public latrine in Uganda.
Pussy John, an Ivy flower (Yale) wrote in a reunion books that, during the 1969 Vietnam War
draft lottery, "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered
the war in Vietnam already lost." In an interview, Bolton explained that he decided to avoid
service in Vietnam because "by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me
that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no
great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to
take it away from."
This same Pussy John, unwilling to risk his valuable being in a war he could have attended,
now wants war with Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Syria, and Afghanistan. In these wars millions
would die while he waggled his silly lip broom in the West Wing. His truculence is pathological
and dangerous.
Here is PJ on
Iran: which has not harmed and does not threaten America: "We think the government is under
real pressure and it's our intention to squeeze them very hard," Bolton said Tuesday in
Singapore. "As the British say, 'squeeze them until the pips squeak'."
How very brave of him. He apparently feels sadistic delight at starving Venezuelans,
inciting civil war, and ruining the lives of millions who have done nothing wrong. Whence the
weird hostility of this empty jockstrap, the lack of humanity? Forgot his Midiol? Venezuela of
course has done nothing to the US and couldn't if it wanted to. America under the Freak Show is
destroying another country simply because it doesn't meekly obey. While PJ gloats.
Bush II
Another rich kid and Yalie, none too bright, amoral as the rest, another draft dodger, (he
hid in the Air National Guard.) who got to the White House on daddy's name recognition. Not
having the balls to fight in his own war, he presided over the destruction of Iraq and the
killing of hundreds of thousands, for no reason. (Except oil, Israel, and Empire. Collectively,
these amount to no reason.) He then had the effrontery to pose on the deck of an aircraft
carrier and say, "Mission accomplished." You know, just like Alexander the Great. Amoral. No
empathy. What a man.
The striking pattern of the Ivy League avoiding the war confirmed then, as it does now, that
our present rulers regard the rest of America as beings of a lower order. These armchair John
Waynes might have called them "deplorables," though Hillary, another Yalie bowwow hawk, had not
yet made the contempt explicit. This was the attitude of Pussy John, Bushy-Bushy Two, and
Cockatoo Don. Compare this with the Falklands War in which Prince Andrew did what a country's
leadership should do, but ours doesn't..
Wikipedia: "He (Prince Andrew)
holds the rank of commander and the honorary rank of Vice Admiral (as of February 2015) in the
Royal Navy, in which he served as an active-duty helicopter pilot and instructor and as the
captain of a warship. He saw active service during the Falklands War, flying on multiple
missions including anti-surface warfare, Exocet missile decoy, and casualty evacuation"
The Brits still have class. Compare Andrew with the contents of the Great Double-Wide on
Pennsylvania Avernus.
Gina
A measure of the moral degradation of America: It is the only country that openly and
proudly engages in torture. Many countries do it, of course. We admit it, and maintain torture
prisons around the globe. Now we have a major government official, Gina Haspel, head of the
CIA, a known sadist. "Bloody Gina." Is this who represents us? Would any other country in the
civilized world put a sadist publicly in office?
Think of Gina waterboarding some guy, or standing around and getting off on it. You don't
torture people unless you like it. The guy is tied down, coughing, choking, screaming, begging,
desperate, drowning, and Gina pours more water. The poor bastard vomits, chokes. Gina adds a
little more water .
What kind of woman would do this? Well, Gina's kind obviously. Does she then run off to her
office and lock the door for half an hour? Maybe it starts early. One imagines her as a little
girl, playing with her dolls. Cheerleader Barbie, Nurse Barbie, Klaus Barbie .
Michael Pompeo
Another pathologically aggressive chickenhawk. In a piece in Foreign Affairs he describes Iran as a "rogue state that America must eliminate
for the sake of all that is good. Note that Pompeo presides over a foreign policy seeking to
destroy Venezuela's economy and threatens military invasion, though Venezuela is no danger to
the US and is not America's business; embargoes Cuba, which in no danger to the US and is not
America's business; seeks to destroy Iran's economy, though Iran is no danger to the US and
none of Americas business; sanctions Europe and meddles in its politics; sanctions Russia,
which is not a danger to the United States, in an attempt to destroy its economy, pushes NATO
up to Russia's borders, abandons the INF arms-control treaty and establishes a Space Command
which will mean nuclear weapons on hair trigger in orbit, starts another nuclear arms race;
wages a trade war against China intended to prevent its economic progress; sanctions North
Korea; continues a seventeen-year policy of killing Afghans for no discernible purpose; wages a
war against Syria; bombs Somalis; maintains unwanted occupation forces in Iraq; increasingly
puts military forces in Africa; supports regimes with ghastly human-rights records such as
Saudi Arabia and Israel; and looks for a war with China in the South China Sea, which is no
more America's business than the Gulf of Mexico is China's.
But Pompeo is not a loon, oh no, and America is not a rogue state. Perish forfend.
Nikki Haley
A negligible twit -- I choose my vowel carefully -- but characterized, like Trump, PJ, and
Pompeo Mattis
"After being promoted to lieutenant general, Mattis took command of Marine Corps Combat
Development Command. On February 1, 2005, speaking at a forum in San Diego, he said "You go
into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a
veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun
to shoot them. Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun
to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling."
Perhaps in air-to-air combat you want someone who regards killing as fun, or in an
amphibious assault. But in a position to make policy? Can you image Dwight Eisenhower talking
about the fun of squaring a man's brains across the ground?
The Upshot
We have until recently never had government as aggressive, reckless, or psychiatrically
fascinating as now. Again, it is not a matter of Republicans and Democrats. No administration
of any party, stripe, or ideology has ever pushed to aggressively toward war with so many
countries. These people are not right in the head.
I remember in high school one of my teachers stating how weird it seems that it would be the
leadership of the US military who would call for the American government to intervene less in
the affairs of other countries and to not be so quick to use military force. This was, of
course, decades ago.
A few years ago, I had a conversation with one of my colleages. He remarked how scary it
was that so many American politicians were calling for war with Russia (with Hillary Clinton
leading the pack?). I remarked how it seemed so strange that many of these hawks never fought
in a war even when they had ample opportunity in their youth (Vietnam).
Fred is absolutely correct: the current administration is pathological & insane.
However, it's worth remembering that their insane behavior is based on the same Imperial
goals that have been in play since at least 1945.
The crazy irresponsibility of Trump's foreign policy is entirely counter productive &
inexcusable, however it's symptomatic of a slowly swelling sense of unconscious desperation.
The reality, the feeling of unconstrained power the US experienced in the 90's &
naughties has gone. The US has slowly woken to the nightmare possibility of real peer
competitors.
China & Russia are real novelties -- & as such, damn scary. Taken together, they
are near equal military & economic rivals of the US.
To US elites this is almost incomprehensible. How ? How did China suddenly become leaders
in cutting edge tech? How did Russia suddenly appear with hypersonsic missiles ?
It's impossible ! Given the already existing moral & psychological inadequacies of
individual Trump team members, insanity & juvenile behavior are fairly predictable
responses .
The fact that you left Bill Clinton off this list (you know, the president that fired
Tomahawk missiles into the country of Sudan to take attention away from the Lewinsky
hearings, sexually assaulted subordinate women for decades, and spent time banging underage
sex slaves via the Lolita Express, pardons a bunch of Puerto Rican terrorists in 2000 to help
swing PR votes to his bag of shit wife in the New York Senate race and was, oh yeah, a draft
dodger) is pathetic even for you , Kiko. I guess NAFTA makes up for all that rapey shit, huh?
And when can we expect a detailed critique of the Mexican political climate, Kiko? Is it
still never? A little too worried about that knock on the door if you bring up all the
inconvenient murder going on down there, and all of the gutless politicians and law
enforcement that turn a blind eye to it, you insufferable hypocrite?
No administration of any party, stripe, or ideology has ever pushed to aggressively
toward war with so many countries. These people are not right in the head.
Now there, I will certainly agree with Mr. Reed, but in a qualified way. The Trump
administration is somewhat more warlike and interventionist in its talk than previous ones
have been. But, so far, all talk (except for its repudiation of the Iran nuclear deal, which
is ominous).
Also, even in terms of the bellicose hot air, the current regime's increase over its
predecessors is a matter of degree, not of kind. Even the increase itself I'd call
incremental.
Also, I wrote, "So far, all talk." That doesn't mean I'm not concerned. As the man who
jumped off a skyscraper said, when passing the 2nd floor, "All right so far!"
So what's the difference between Trump's neocons and the neocons who would have run Hillary?
Nothing. There is no one more chicken hawkish, and slavish to Israel than Hillary.
Give Trump some credit. He tried to ease ties with Russia and end war in Syria. But look how
the Jewish supremacists in media and Deep State goons all jumped on him. And almost no one in
the Establishment came to his side.
Obama and his goons pushed the Russia Collusion Hoax. Obama and Bush II have more in
common.
@Sean
wages a trade war against China intended to prevent its economic progress
"About time too. Nixon deciding the US would getting pally with China was a hostile act as
far as Russia was concerned."
Exactly right. Glad someone else remembers things as they were. Getting pally with China
will turn out to be the most disastrous mistake the USA has ever made in foreign policy.
Arrogantly thinking that we could make them our junior partners we have given or sold them
everything which made us great. Our industries, technology, patents, education at premier
research institutions etc. Now, utilizing everything we provided them, they will surpass and
then suppress us. Meanwhile our ignorant politicians, blinded by traitorous, dual-citizen
economists and bankers who promised a new economy based upon finance and "information", plod
along, single file, to oblivion.
Start with the head cheese, Donald Trump, profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a
real-estate con man who danced just out of reach of the law. His supporters will explode in
fury at this.
Most of us knew that Trump is a flawed man but were willing to overlook that because he
was the only one talking sense on immigration and offering solutions that would benefit white
America. Of course, after two years Trump has been all tweet and little action on immigration
and appears poised to sell out out to Javanka, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers and the
Business Roundtable.
He's narcissistic and a bit of a con man but not profoundly ignorant. Profoundly ignorant
people don't become billionaires and will themselves to the presidency.
Trump has done a 180 on his campaign foreign policy and filled his administration with
Israel first neocon retreads from the George W. Bush era instead of America firsters. People
like Bolton deserve all the hate and condemnation heaped upon them by Fredrico.
Fredrico just hates Trump because he doesn't worship Mexico and Mexicans like Fredrico
does and spoke the truth about many Mexican illegals being predisposed to violent crime.
Fredrico and his hispandering Bobbsey twin Ron Unz get easily triggered at the slightest
criticism of hispanics, even if based in fact, and fly into a foaming at the mouth rage.
@KenH
The first priority of any president is staying alive, which probably explains why every US
president, including Donald Trump ends up doing the exact opposite of what they promise on
the campaign trail. As to Trump's neocon advisors, I suspect they were appointed by the deep
state, with him having no say in the matter.
"... Now the Times acknowledges: "The price tag, which includes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and increased spending on veterans' care, will reach $5.9 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2019, according to the Costs of War project at Brown University. Since nearly all of that money has been borrowed, the total cost with interest will be substantially higher More than 2.7 million Americans have fought in the war since 2001. Nearly 7,000 service members-and nearly 8,000 private contractors-have been killed. More than 53,700 people returned home bearing physical wounds, and numberless more carry psychological injuries. More than one million Americans who served in a theater of the war on terror receive some level of disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs." ..."
"... Kagan has a great deal invested in the Afghanistan war. He and his wife Kimberly served as civilian advisers to top generals who directed the war and elaborated the failed strategies of counterinsurgency (COIN). He has been a vociferous supporter of every US war and every escalation, arguing most recently for the US military to confront Russian- and Iranian-backed forces in Syria. ..."
"... A leading figure in the Democratic Party, Smeal is no Jane-come-lately to the filthy campaign to promote the war in Afghanistan as a "humanitarian" exercise in promoting the rights of women ..."
"... Aside from costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of Afghan women, the US war has left women, like the entire population, under worse conditions than when it began. Two-thirds of Afghan girls do not attend school, 87 percent of Afghan women are illiterate, and 70-80 percent face forced marriage, many before the age of 16. ..."
"... The attempt by the likes of Smeal and leading elements within the Democratic Party to cloak the bloodbath in Afghanistan as a crusade to "liberate" women and promote "democracy" is itself a criminal act. ..."
"... Afghanistan is a shitshow due to elite meddling. This editorial was nothing more than virtue-signaling to those that still hate war. But the anti-war movement is effectively dead anyway. There are anti-war people, but no anti-war movement. That's the crowd that the New York Times was appealing to. This is a stunt; nothing more. ..."
"... It was USA imperialism (under Carter and Brzezinski) which first had made Afghanistan a hell for women, but colonial feminists do not care for the facts. ..."
"... That is very true. "Death by a thousand cuts" was Brzezinski's scheme to destroy the Soviet Union in Central Asia. A few years ago, he was interviewed by a journalist from PRC who asked if he had any regrets with all the destruction and death it caused. Brzezinski said, "None". ..."
An editorial published by the New York Times on February 4 titled "End the War in Afghanistan" has provoked a backlash from prominent
supporters of the decades-long US "war on terrorism" and the fraud of "humanitarian intervention."
The Times editorial was a damning
self-indictment by the US political establishment's newspaper of record, which has supported every US act of military aggression,
from the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the US wars for regime change in Libya
and Syria beginning in 2011.
The editorial presents the "war on terror" as an unmitigated fiasco, dating it from September 14, 2001, when "Congress wrote what
would prove to be one of the largest blank checks in the country's history," i.e., the Authorization for Use of Military Force against
Al Qaeda and its affiliates, which is still invoked to legitimize US interventions from Syria to Somalia, Yemen and, of course, Afghanistan.
On the day that this "blank check" was written, the Times published a column titled "No Middle Ground," which stated "the Bush
administration today gave the nations of the world a stark choice: stand with us against terrorism, deny safe havens to terrorists
or face the certain prospect of death and destruction. The marble halls of Washington resounded with talk of war."
It continued, "The nation is rallying around its young, largely untried leader-as his rising approval ratings and the proliferation
of flags across the country vividly demonstrate "
This war propaganda was sustained by the Times, which sold the invasion of Afghanistan as retribution for 9/11 and then promoted
the illegal and unprovoked war against Iraq by legitimizing and embellishing the lies about "weapons of mass destruction."
With the first deployment of US ground troops in Afghanistan, the Times editorialized on October 20, 2001: "Now the nation's soldiers
are going into battle in a distant and treacherous land, facing a determined and resourceful enemy. As they go, they should know
that the nation supports their cause and yearns for their success."
Now the Times acknowledges: "The price tag, which includes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and increased spending on veterans'
care, will reach $5.9 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2019, according to the Costs of War project at Brown University. Since nearly
all of that money has been borrowed, the total cost with interest will be substantially higher More than 2.7 million Americans have
fought in the war since 2001. Nearly 7,000 service members-and nearly 8,000 private contractors-have been killed. More than 53,700
people returned home bearing physical wounds, and numberless more carry psychological injuries. More than one million Americans who
served in a theater of the war on terror receive some level of disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs."
The massive loss of life, destruction of social infrastructure and vast human suffering inflicted by these wars on civilian populations
are at best an afterthought for the Times. Conservative estimates place the number killed by the US war in Afghanistan at 175,000.
With the number of indirect fatalities caused by the war, the toll likely rises to a million. In Iraq, the death toll was even higher.
What does the Times conclude from this bloody record? "The failure of American leaders-civilians and generals through three administrations,
from the Pentagon to the State Department to Congress and the White House-to develop and pursue a strategy to end the war ought to
be studied for generations. Likewise, all Americans-the news media included-need to be prepared to examine the national credulity
or passivity that's led to the longest conflict in modern American history."
What a cowardly and cynical evasion! Three administrations, those of Bush, Obama and Trump, have committed war crimes over the
course of more than 17 years, including launching wars of aggression-the principal charge leveled against the Nazis at Nuremberg-the
slaughter of civilians and torture. These crimes should not be "studied for generations," but punished.
As for the attempt to lump the news media together with "all Americans" as being guilty of "credulity" and "passivity," this is
a slander against the American people and a deliberate cover-up of the crimes carried out by the corporate media, with the Times
at their head, in disseminating outright lies and war propaganda. The Times editors should be "prepared to examine" the fact that
journalistic agents of the Nazi regime who carried out a similar function in Germany were tried and punished at Nuremberg.
The Times editorial supporting a US withdrawal reflects the conclusions being drawn by increasing sections of the ruling establishment,
including the Trump administration, which has opened up negotiations with the Taliban. It is bound up with the shift in strategy
by US imperialism and the Pentagon toward the preparation for "great power" confrontations with nuclear-armed Russia and China.
The Times ' call for an Afghanistan withdrawal has provoked a heated rebuke by defenders of the "war on terrorism" and "humanitarian
intervention," who have denounced the newspaper for defeatism. Such a withdrawal, a letter published by the Times on February 8 argued,
would "accelerate and expand the war," "allow another extremist-terrorist phenomenon to emerge," and "result in the deaths and abuse
of thousands of women."
The signatories of the letter include Frederick Kagan, David Sedney and Eleanor Smeal.
Kagan has a great deal invested in the Afghanistan war. He and his wife Kimberly served as civilian advisers to top generals
who directed the war and elaborated the failed strategies of counterinsurgency (COIN). He has been a vociferous supporter of every
US war and every escalation, arguing most recently for the US military to confront Russian- and Iranian-backed forces in Syria.
Likewise Sedney, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense responsible for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, now working
at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Married to a top lobbyist for Chevron who worked extensively
in Central Asia, he has his own interests in the continuation of US military operations in the region.
Smeal is the president of the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMD) and a former president of the National Organization for Women
(NOW), who is widely described as one of "the major leaders of the modern-day American feminist movement."
A leading figure in the Democratic Party, Smeal is no Jane-come-lately to the filthy campaign to promote the war in Afghanistan
as a "humanitarian" exercise in promoting the rights of women. In 2001, Smeal and her FMD circulated a petition thanking the Bush
administration for its commitment to promoting the rights of women in Afghanistan. After the bombing began on October 7, she declared,
"We have real momentum now in the drive to restore the rights of women." A few days later, she and representatives of other feminist
organizations showed up at the White House to solidarize themselves with the US war.
Urging on the conquest of Afghanistan, she wrote, "I should hope our government doesn't retreat. We'll help rip those burqas off,
I hope. This is a unique time in history. If you're going to end terrorism, you've got to end the ideology of gender apartheid."
Aside from costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of Afghan women, the US war has left women, like the entire population,
under worse conditions than when it began. Two-thirds of Afghan girls do not attend school, 87 percent of Afghan women are illiterate,
and 70-80 percent face forced marriage, many before the age of 16.
Recent reports suggest that the maternal death rate may be higher than it was before the war began, surpassed only by South Sudan.
While USAID has poured some $280 million into its Promote program, supposedly to advance the conditions of Afghan women, it has done
nothing but line the pockets of corrupt officials of the US-backed puppet regime in Kabul.
The attempt by the likes of Smeal and leading elements within the Democratic Party to cloak the bloodbath in Afghanistan as a
crusade to "liberate" women and promote "democracy" is itself a criminal act.
On October 9, two days after Washington launched its now 17-year-long war on Afghanistan and amid a furor of jingoistic and militarist
propaganda from the US government and the corporate media, the World Socialist Web Site editorial board posted a column titled "Why
we oppose the war in Afghanistan." It rejected the claim that this was a "war for justice and the security of the American people
against terrorism" and insisted that "the present action by the United States is an imperialist war" in which Washington aimed to
"establish a new political framework within which it will exert hegemonic control" over not only Afghanistan, but over the broader
region of Central Asia, "home to the second largest deposit of proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world."
The WSWS stated at the time: "Despite a relentless media campaign to whip up chauvinism and militarism, the mood of the American
people is not one of gung-ho support for the war. At most, it is a passive acceptance that war is the only means to fight terrorism,
a mood that owes a great deal to the efforts of a thoroughly dishonest media which serves as an arm of the state. Beneath the reluctant
endorsement of military action is a profound sense of unease and skepticism. Tens of millions sense that nothing good can come of
this latest eruption of American militarism.
"The United States stands at a turning point. The government admits it has embarked on a war of indefinite scale and duration.
What is taking place is the militarization of American society under conditions of a deepening social crisis.
"The war will profoundly affect the conditions of the American and international working class. Imperialism threatens mankind
at the beginning of the twenty-first century with a repetition on a more horrific scale of the tragedies of the twentieth. More than
ever, imperialism and its depredations raise the necessity for the international unity of the working class and the struggle for
socialism."
These warnings and this perspective have been borne out entirely by the criminal and tragic events of the last 17 years, even
as the likes of the New York Times find themselves compelled to admit the bankruptcy of their entire record on Afghanistan, and their
erstwhile "liberal" allies struggle to salvage some shred of the filthy banner of "human rights imperialism."
"The failure of American leaders -- civilians and generals through three administrations, from the Pentagon to the State Department
to Congress and the White House -- to develop and pursue a strategy to end the war ought to be studied for generations. Likewise,
all Americans -- the news media included -- need to be prepared to examine the national credulity or passivity that's led to the
longest conflict in modern American history."
What the New York Times should propose is a Nuremberg-style trial for the war criminals responsible for the genocide of millions,
the devastation of of the Middle East and Africa, and the looting of the US Treasury by war profiteers and the political duopoly.
If these criminals are NOT held accountable for their actions NOTHING will be learned and the violence, death and destruction
will continue.
"The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law, acted as Head of State or responsible
government official, does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."
Gore Vidal rightly named America as the United States of Amnesia. They NEVER learn from their own history and they are never told
about what their terrorist government does in their name.
Eleanor Smeal's comment about "ripping off those burqas" in Afghanistan reminds me of Louisiana congressman John Cooksey's post-9/11
suggestion that police should pull over and question anyone with ''a diaper on his head''. Both use religious intolerance to increase
the power of the state.
"A leading figure in the Democratic Party, Smeal is no Jane-come-lately to the filthy campaign to promote the war in Afghanistan
as a "humanitarian" exercise in promoting the rights of women."
wouldn't it be more correctly "Janey comes lately" ..as in "Johnny come lately"..?
The completely insane fraud of waging imperialist war for "women rights" has been , unfortunately, extensively documented..the
US occupation has strengthened not weakened the Taliban
"The WSWS stated at the time: "Despite a relentless media campaign to whip up chauvinism and militarism, the mood of the American
people is not one of gung-ho support for the war. "
Not really in agreement with this statement although, everything has changed in almost 20 years.....
There are always elements that are gung ho for war. And I'll agree that the number was abnormally high for Afghanistan. But I
do think the majority still reluctantly agreed to the war as a necessary measure to fight "terrorism" as the more-than-likely-to-be-a-false-flag
9/11 event was very fresh in everyone's mind.
Afghanistan is a shitshow due to elite meddling. This editorial was nothing more than virtue-signaling to those that still
hate war. But the anti-war movement is effectively dead anyway. There are anti-war people, but no anti-war movement. That's the
crowd that the New York Times was appealing to. This is a stunt; nothing more.
What's more interesting is that the liberal elites will probably do their best to continue on with the war. But either way,
the USA will likely lose. In fact, it's already lost the war. The Taliban have won this one. That the elitists can't see that
shows just how far gone they are.
It was USA imperialism (under Carter and Brzezinski) which first had made Afghanistan a hell for women, but colonial feminists
do not care for the facts.
That is very true. "Death by a thousand cuts" was Brzezinski's scheme to destroy the Soviet Union in Central Asia. A few years
ago, he was interviewed by a journalist from PRC who asked if he had any regrets with all the destruction and death it caused.
Brzezinski said, "None".
"I take it as a given that President Trump is an incompetent nitwit, precisely as his critics
charge. Yet his oft-repeated characterization of those wars as profoundly misguided has more than
a little merit." As many have said, Trump is the symptom, not the disease.
Notable quotes:
"... Still, I find myself wondering: If a proposed troop drawdown in Afghanistan qualifies as a "mistake," as O'Hanlon contends, then what term best describes a war that has cost something like a trillion dollars, killed and maimed tens of thousands, and produced a protracted stalemate? ..."
"... And, if recent press reports prove true, with U.S. government officials accepting Taliban promises of good behavior as a basis for calling it quits, then this longest war in our history will not have provided much of a return on investment. Given the disparity between the U.S. aims announced back in 2001 and the results actually achieved, defeat might be an apt characterization. ..."
I don't wish to imply that political leaders and media outlets ignore our wars altogether.
That would be unfair. Yet in TrumpWorld, while the president's performance in office receives
intensive and persistent coverage day in, day out, the attention given to America's wars has
been sparse and perfunctory, when not positively bizarre.
As a case in point, consider the op-ed
that recently appeared in the New York Times (just as actual peace talks between the
U.S. and the Taliban seemed to be progressing
), making the case for prolonging the U.S. war in Afghanistan, while chiding President Trump
for considering a reduction in the number of U.S. troops currently stationed there. Any such
move, warned Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, would be a "mistake" of the first
order.
The ongoing Afghan War dates from a time when some of today's recruits were still in
diapers. Yet O'Hanlon counsels patience: a bit more time and things just might work out. This
is more or less comparable to those who suggested back in the 1950s that African Americans
might show a bit more patience in their struggle for equality: Hey, what's the rush?
I don't pretend to know what persuaded the editors of the Times that O'Hanlon's
call to make America's longest war even longer qualifies as something readers of the nation's
most influential newspaper just now need to ponder. Yet I do know this: the dearth of critical
attention to the costs and
consequences of our various post-9/11 wars is nothing short of shameful, a charge to which
politicians and journalists alike should plead equally guilty.
I take it as a given that President Trump is an incompetent nitwit, precisely as his critics
charge. Yet his oft-repeated characterization of those wars as profoundly misguided has more
than a little merit. Even more striking than Trump's critique is the fact that so few members
of the national security establishment are willing to examine it seriously. As a consequence,
the wars persist, devoid of purpose.
Still, I find myself wondering: If a proposed troop drawdown in Afghanistan qualifies as
a "mistake," as O'Hanlon contends, then what term best describes a war that has cost something
like a trillion dollars, killed and maimed tens of thousands, and produced a protracted
stalemate?
Disaster? Debacle? Catastrophe? Humiliation?
And, if recent press reports prove true, with U.S. government officials accepting
Taliban promises of good behavior as a basis for calling it quits, then this longest war in our
history will not have provided much of a return on investment. Given the disparity between the
U.S. aims announced back in 2001 and the results actually achieved, defeat might be an apt
characterization.
Yet the fault is not Trump's. The fault belongs to those who have allowed their immersion in
the dank precincts of TrumpWorld to preclude serious reexamination of misguided and reckless
policies that predate the president by at least 15 years.
You have to compare Trump with the alternative. The D's /progs make war on free speech,
attack the presumption of innocence, want essentially uncontrolled mass immigration and
relentlessly push in the direction of war with Russia. Add their cynical Russiagate
hoax-witch hunt for further illustration
of the danger they present. As many have said, Trump is the symptom, not the disease.
"I take it as a given that President Trump is an incompetent nitwit, precisely as his critics
charge. Yet his oft-repeated characterization of those wars as profoundly misguided has more
than a little merit."
I'm with Bacevich on the insanity of Endless War, but I question why he has to denigrate
Trump in his lead in. The cynical side of me believes that Bacevich thinks he has to be a
Trump-hater if he is to be listened to.
Hey Andrew sir Democracy is messy. But DJT is on your team and the MSM/Liberal
progs/Neocons aren't. Worth reflecting on
@fnn "As many have said,
Trump is the symptom, not the disease"
Actually, Trump is the microbe not the virus. He's the opportunistic microbe that attaches
itself to a sick and diseased body-politic. As to symptoms, they are borne by society
at-large and now manifest themselves in the majority of Americans who one way or the other
are "Lost in TrumpWorld"
Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the
Rich Richer
By Dean Baker
The Old Technology and Inequality Scam: The Story of Patents and Copyrights
One of the amazing lines often repeated by people in policy debates is that, as a result
of technology, we are seeing income redistributed from people who work for a living to the
people who own the technology. While the redistribution part of the story may be mostly true,
the problem is that the technology does not determine who "owns" the technology. The people
who write the laws determine who owns the technology.
Specifically, patents and copyrights give their holders monopolies on technology or
creative work for their duration. If we are concerned that money is going from ordinary
workers to people who hold patents and copyrights, then one policy we may want to consider is
shortening and weakening these monopolies. But policy has gone sharply in the opposite
direction over the last four decades, as a wide variety of measures have been put into law
that make these protections longer and stronger. Thus, the redistribution from people who
work to people who own the technology should not be surprising -- that was the purpose of the
policy.
If stronger rules on patents and copyrights produced economic dividends in the form of
more innovation and more creative output, then this upward redistribution might be justified.
But the evidence doesn't indicate there has been any noticeable growth dividend associated
with this upward redistribution. In fact, stronger patent protection seems to be associated
with slower growth.
Before directly considering the case, it is worth thinking for a minute about what the
world might look like if we had alternative mechanisms to patents and copyrights, so that the
items now subject to these monopolies could be sold in a free market just like paper cups and
shovels.
The biggest impact would be in prescription drugs. The breakthrough drugs for cancer,
hepatitis C, and other diseases, which now sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars
annually, would instead sell for a few hundred dollars. No one would have to struggle to get
their insurer to pay for drugs or scrape together the money from friends and family. Almost
every drug would be well within an affordable price range for a middle-class family, and
covering the cost for poorer families could be easily managed by governments and aid
agencies.
The same would be the case with various medical tests and treatments. Doctors would not
have to struggle with a decision about whether to prescribe an expensive scan, which might be
the best way to detect a cancerous growth or other health issue, or to rely on cheaper but
less reliable technology. In the absence of patent protection even the most cutting edge
scans would be reasonably priced.
Health care is not the only area that would be transformed by a free market in technology
and creative work. Imagine that all the textbooks needed by college students could be
downloaded at no cost over the web and printed out for the price of the paper. Suppose that a
vast amount of new books, recorded music, and movies was freely available on the web.
People or companies who create and innovate deserve to be compensated, but there is little
reason to believe that the current system of patent and copyright monopolies is the best way
to support their work. It's not surprising that the people who benefit from the current
system are reluctant to have the efficiency of patents and copyrights become a topic for
public debate, but those who are serious about inequality have no choice. These forms of
property claims have been important drivers of inequality in the last four decades.
The explicit assumption behind the steps over the last four decades to increase the
strength and duration of patent and copyright protection is that the higher prices resulting
from increased protection will be more than offset by an increased incentive for innovation
and creative work. Patent and copyright protection should be understood as being like very
large tariffs. These protections can often the raise the price of protected items by several
multiples of the free market price, making them comparable to tariffs of several hundred or
even several thousand percent. The resulting economic distortions are comparable to what they
would be if we imposed tariffs of this magnitude.
The justification for granting these monopoly protections is that the increased innovation
and creative work that is produced as a result of these incentives exceeds the economic costs
from patent and copyright monopolies. However, there is remarkably little evidence to support
this assumption. While the cost of patent and copyright protection in higher prices is
apparent, even if not well-measured, there is little evidence of a substantial payoff in the
form of a more rapid pace of innovation or more and better creative work....
Progressive Taxes Only Go So Far. Pre-Tax Income Is the Problem
By Dean Baker
In recent weeks, there have been several bold calls for large increases in progressive
taxation. First we had Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), often referred to as
AOC, proposing a top marginal tax rate on income over $10 million. This sent right-wing
talking heads into a frenzy, leading many to show they don't know the difference between a
marginal tax rate and an average tax rate. (AOC's 70 percent rate would only apply to an
individual's income above $10 million.)
More recently, we had Senator Elizabeth Warren propose a wealth tax that would apply to
people with assets of more than $50 million. This tax could have Jeff Bezos sending more than
$3 billion a year to the Treasury.
Given the enormous increase in inequality over the last four decades, and the reduction in
the progressivity of the tax code, it is reasonable to put forward plans to make the system
more progressive. But, the bigger source of the rise in inequality has been a growth in the
inequality of before-tax income, not the reduction in high–end tax rates. This suggests
that it may be best to look at the factors that have led to the rise in inequality in market
incomes, rather than just using progressive taxes to take back some of the gains of the very
rich.
There have been many changes in rules and institutional structures that have allowed the
rich to get so much richer. (This is the topic of my free book Rigged.) Just to take the most
obvious -- government-granted patent and copyright monopolies have been made longer and
stronger over the last four decades. Many items that were not even patentable 40 years ago,
such as life forms and business methods, now bring in tens or hundreds of billions of dollars
to their owners.
If the importance of these monopolies for inequality is not clear, ask yourself how rich
Bill Gates would be if there were no patents or copyrights on Microsoft software. (Anyone
could copy Windows into a computer and not pay him a penny.) Many other billionaires get
their fortune from copyrights in software and entertainment or patents in pharmaceuticals,
medical equipment and other areas.
The government also has rules for corporate governance that allow CEOs to rip off the
companies for which they work. CEO pay typically runs close to $20 million a year, even as
returns to shareholders lag. It would be hard to argue that today's CEOs, who get 200 to 300
times the pay of ordinary workers, are doing a better job for their companies than CEOs in
the 1960s and 1970s who only got 20 to 30 times the pay of ordinary workers.
Another source of inequality is the financial sector. The government has aided these
fortunes in many ways, most obviously with the bailout of the big banks a decade ago. It also
has deliberately structured the industry in ways that facilitate massive fortunes in
financial engineering.
There is no reason to design an economy in such a way as to ensure that most of the gains
from growth flow upward. Unfortunately, that has largely been the direction of policy over
the last four decades.
We can ignore the inequities built into the way we have structured the economy and just
try to tax the big winners, as is being proposed. However, there are two major problems with
this route, one practical and one political.
The practical problem is that the rich are not stupid. They will look to find ways to
avoid or evade the various progressive taxes being proposed. Both AOC and Warren have relied
on advice from some top economists in describing their tax proposals, but even the
best–designed tax can be gamed. (Is it worth $3 billion a year for Jeff Bezos to remain
a US citizen? As a non-citizen he wouldn't pay the wealth tax.)
Gaming the tax system will mean that we will collect considerably less revenue than a
static projection would imply. It also will lead to the growth of the tax gaming industry.
From an economic standpoint, this is a complete waste. We will have people designing clever
ways to try to hide income and wealth, and in some cases getting very rich themselves in the
process.
The political problem with going the tax route is that people attach a certain legitimacy
to the idea that income gained through the market is somehow rightfully gained, as opposed to
say, income from a government transfer program, like food stamps. The rich will be able to
win support from many non-rich by claiming that the government has taken away what they have
fairly earned.
By contrast, it is much harder for a drug company billionaire to cry foul because a drug
developed with public funds, and selling at generic prices, has destroyed the market for his
$100,000–a–year cancer drug. In the same vein, CEOs might have a hard time
getting sympathy for the complaint that new rules of corporate governance make it easier to
shareholders to bring their pay down to earth.
It is great that the rise in inequality seems likely to be a major topic in the 2020
presidential campaign. However, it is important that we think carefully about how best to
reverse it.
Matthew Daly - Associated Press - February 7, 2019
WASHINGTON -- Democrats including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York are calling
for a Green New Deal intended to transform the U.S. economy to combat climate change and
create thousands of jobs in renewable energy.
The freshman lawmaker and veteran Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts are teaming up on the
plan, which aims to eliminate the U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.
A joint resolution drafted by Ocasio-Cortez and Markey sets a goal to meet ''100 percent
of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable and zero-emission energy
sources,'' including dramatic increases in wind and solar power.
A news conference at the Capitol is set for Thursday, the day they introduce the
resolution.
While setting lofty goals, the plan does not explicitly call for eliminating the use of
fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, a nod to pragmatism that may disappoint some of
Ocasio-Cortez's strongest supporters.
Even so, their Green New Deal goes far beyond the Clean Power Plan proposed by President
Barack Obama. President Donald Trump has scrapped Obama's plan, which imposed emissions
limits on coal-fired power plants, as a job-killer.
The Democrats are likely to meet resistance to their proposal in Congress, especially in
the Republican-controlled Senate. Trump, who has expressed doubts about climate change, also
is likely to oppose it.
The resolution marks the first time Ocasio-Cortez and other lawmakers have attached
legislative language onto the Green New Deal, a concept that until now has been largely
undefined other than as a call for urgent action to head off catastrophic climate change and
create jobs.
Several Democratic presidential hopefuls have embraced the idea of a Green New Deal
without saying exactly what it means.
Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement that the plan will create ''unprecedented levels of
prosperity and wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and
security.'' She calls for a ''World War II-scale mobilization'' that includes high-quality
education and health care, clean air and water and safe, affordable housing.
Answering critics who call the plan unrealistic, Ocasio-Cortez says that when President
John F. Kennedy wanted to go to the moon by the end of the 1960s, ''people said it was
impossible.'' She also cites Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Lyndon B. Johnson's Great
Society and the interstate highway system begun under Dwight D. Eisenhower as examples of
American know-how and capability.
While focusing on renewable energy, Ocasio-Cortez said the plan would include existing
nuclear power plants but block new nuclear plants. Nuclear power does not emit greenhouse
gases, which contribute to global warming.
The resolution does not include a price tag, but some Republicans predict it would cost in
the trillions of dollars. They denounced the plan at House hearings on climate change on
Wednesday.
The Green New Deal would be paid for ''the same way we paid for the original New Deal,
World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich and decades of war -- with public
money appropriated by Congress,'' Ocasio-Cortez said.
Government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects ''so the public gets a
return on its investment,'' she said.
New Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker got a warning of sorts from Moody's ahead of the
governor's first budget address. The rating agency's most recent report* highlighted the
usual crises Pritzker must tackle: ballooning pension debts and chronic budget deficits.
Moody's rates Illinois just one notch above junk largely due to the state's finances and
malgovernance.
Moody's says new revenue likely will be required to achieve stability, as you'd expect,
because rating agencies love higher taxes. But for the first time, the agency has included
outmigration among its top-three credit concerns. That matters because Pritzker's number one
prescription to "fix" Illinois is tax hikes, something that's sure to accelerate Illinois'
out-migration trend and further erode the state's tax base.
---------------
Moody's is politely explaining that they are 180 deg out of cycle, the negotiation has
been finished, in the past.
Is the new gov confused or is he consciously doing the crawl back step? Whatever, the gov
will be confused no longer, he is clearly in crawl back stage, the next chapter in
bankruptcy.
It is now all about deciding which industry stays and which goes; a re-agglomeration, the
second step of the Hicksonian jump, shift expectations operator; you have to move stuff
around according to the agreement.
What we are experiencing today is the worst and most extreme form of predatory and parasitic
financialised monopoly crony capitalism (crapitalism), allied with blatant aggressive
jingoistic militarism and the crudest form of imperialist exploitation.
I'm not sure even Marx envisaged anything this corrupt and degraded. This must be the
terminal stage of crapitalism's death throes. It can only end in war and complete
collapse.
It comes as no surprise to see the Faux Left Blairite Backstabbers and the
Oh-So-Right-On-Politically-Correct Trudeau Regime leading the charge for a bog standard
Pinochet style US coup behind the likes of Trump, Bolton, Pompeo and recycled neocon war
criminal and death squad queen Abrams.
They have taken off the mask and showed their true colours. The final outcome is uncertain
but the fall out will extend way beyond Venezuela. It may well sound the death knell of our
current system.
Isn't it amazing how the scum of the Earth arrange to get into high places? I am totally
outraged that Canada had anything to do with fostering a coup in Venezuela! It disturbs my
sense of national sovereignty and I rue the day that Trudeau made this apostosy a member of
his cabinet. What a poor choice for a Minister of Foreign Affairs! Just consider Canada's
recent problems with Saudi Arabia, the Meng problem with /China, the chastising of Russia
because it protected its sole military base on the Black Sea and now this foolish
interference in Venezuela's internal affairs brought on by US sanctions. Canada's stupidity
in all these matters makes me bilious.
Trudeau made Soros' protege Chrystia Freeland part of his cabinet because it was on that
condition that Soros generously funded and otherwise caused Trudeau's election bid to be well
supported. Billionaires make "democratic" politics so very easy. Canadians, naive,
unquestioning, insouciant, swayed by very well rewarded PR & media and with the
transacted aquiesence of the other two warmongering neoliberal parties (Conservative &
NDP) voted their hopes and Justin Trudeau to PM. But positioning Chrystia Freeland on the
global stage and creating a neoliberal path to imperious fascist globalization is the
assigned purpose of the swish disposable Canadian Dauphin. Harper played his Soros assigned
role, Trudeau will play his and Chrystia hers and they, as quislings all, will exit rewarded
as pet functionaries of Soros and his overly entitled ilk. We authorize Soros by wishing
& believing this coup is at worst simply a flawed democracy. Ukraine was a Soros coup,
Canada is a Soros coup and Venezuela is a Soros coup. All very, very profitable. Don't look,
this is how omelettes are made. Our political parties are always for rent by billionaires
–that is the main function of political parties. Being corrupt is a design
characteristic not a flaw. Buying political parties in supposed democracies is easier, less
risky and much more profitable than stealing candy from babies. Canada is undefended against
billionaires, invest here, concentrated public assets and resources are available and the
quaint people are professionally deactivated. m\\
Nations should explore better system to break US hegemony
"The US dollar is used for the international oil and gas trade and a wide part of global
trade. This gives the US an exorbitant privilege to sanction countries it opposes.
..
The latest sanctions on Venezuela's state-owned oil company aim to cut off source of foreign
currency of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro's government and eventually force him to step
down.
..
A new mechanism should be devised to thwart such a vicious circle"
My question is really about those at the top of the power pyramid (those few hundred
families who own the controling share of the wealth of the world) -- those who position
idiots like Bolton to do their work, do they comprehend 'exergy' decline ?
If we can, then can they not? I agree with Parenti that they are not
'somnambulists'. They are strategists looking out for their own interests, and that means
scrutinising trends in political movements, culture, technology and, well, just about
everything. I find it hard, the idea that all these people -- people who have seen their
businesses shaped by resource discovery, exploitation and then depletion, have no firm grasp
on the realities of dwindling returns on energy.
The models were drawn up 47 years ago. I think that some of them at least, do
understand that economic growth is coming to a halt, and have understood for decades. If true
then they are planning that transition in their favour.
These hard to swallow facts about oil are still on the far fringes of any political
conversation. The neoliberal cultists are deaf to them for obvious reasons; the socialist
idealists believe that a 'New Deal' can lead us off the death train, but mostly ignore the
intractable relationship between energy decline and financial problems; even the anarchists
want their work free utopia run by robots and AI but stop short of asking whether solar
panels and wind turbines can actually provide the power for all that tech. It's the news that
nobody wants to think about, but which they will be forced to thinking about in the very near
future.
The Twitter feed 'Limits to Growth' has less than 800 followers (excellent though it
is).
I do not want to get into the mind of the Walrus of Death Bolton! I do not want to know
what he does, as he does. But at lower levels of government, and corporatism, there is an
awareness of surplus energy economics. And as Nafeez has also pointed out, the military (the
Pentagon) are taking an interest. And though it could rapidly change, who really appreciates
the nuances of EROEI? I'm guessing at less than a single percent of all populations? And how
many include its effects in a integrated political sense?
Its appreciation is sporadic: ranging from tech-utopia hopium to a defeated fatalism of
the inevitability of collapse. Unless and until people want to face the harshness of the
reality that capitalism has created: we are going to be involved in a marginal analysis.
There are very few people who have realised that capitalism is long dead.
Dr Tim Morgan estimates that world capitalism has conservatively had $140tn in stimulus
since 2008 -- without stimulating anything or reviving it at all. In fact, that amounts to
the greatest robbery in history -- the theft of the future. Inasmuch as they can, those
unrepayable debts -- transferred to inflate the parasitic assets of capitalists -- will be
socialised. Except they cannot be. Not without surplus energy.
Brexit, gilets jaunes, Venezuela, unending crises in MENA, China's economic slowdown, etc
-- all linked by EROEI.
It is a common socio-politico-economic energy nexus -- but linked together by whom? And
the emergent surplus energy-mind-environmental ecology nexus? All the information is
available. The formation of a new political manifesto started in the 1960s with the New Left
but it seems to have been in stasis since. Perhaps this might stimulate the conversation.
According to Nate Hagens: there is 4.5 years of human muscle power leveraged by each
barrel of oil. We are all going to be working for a very long time to pay back the debts
the possessing classes have built up for us -- with absolutely no marginal utility for
ourselves.
We are subsidising our own voluntary slavery unless we develop an emergent ecosocialist
and ecosophical alternative to carbon capitalism. We cannot expect paleoconservative carbon
relics like Bolton -- or anyone else -- to do it for us. The current political landscape is
dominated by a hierarchical, vested interest, carbon aristocracy. We can't expect that to
change for our benefit any time ever. Expect the opposite.
Graeber has a point, though. We could already have a post-scarcity, post-production society
but for the egregious maldistribution of resources and employment. Andre Gorz said as much 50
years ago (Critique of Economic Reason). Why do we organise around production: it makes no
sense but for the relations of production are, and remain, the relations of hierarchical
rule. So long as we assign value to a human life on the basis of meritocratic productivity --
we will have dehumanisation, marginalisation, and subjugation (haves and have nots). So why
not organisation around care, freedom and play?
Such a solution would require the transversalistion of society and not-full-employment: so
that no part of the system is subordinate, and no part is privileged. All systems and
sub-ordinate (care) systems would be co-equal, of corresponding value and worth. So, without
invoking EROEI, that would go a long way to solve our exergy, waste, pollution, and
inequality problems. It is the profligate, unproductive superstructure: supporting rentier,
surplus energy accumulating, profit-seeking suprasocieties -- that squanders our excess
energy and puts expansive spatio-temporal pressures on already stretched biophysical
ecological systems that engenders potential collapse. It is their -- the possessing classes
-- assets that are being inflated, at our environmental expense. When it comes to
survivability, we cannot afford a parasitic globalised superstructure draining the host --
the ecologically productive base. Without the over-accumulation, overconsumption, and wastage
(the accursed share) associated with the superstructure of the advanced economies -- and
their cultural, credit, military imperialisms I expect we could live quite well. Without the
pressures of globalised transportation networks, and unnecessary military budgets -- the
pressure on oil is minimised. It could be used for the 1001 other uses it has, rather than
fuelling Saudi Eurofighters bombing Yemeni schoolchildren, for instance. The surplus energy
could be used to educate, clothe and feed them instead. That would be a better use of
resources, for sure.
If we took stock of what we really have, and what we really are -- a form of spiritual
neo-self-sufficiency, augmented and extended into co-mutual care and freedom valorising
ecologies we wouldn't need to chase the perceived loss all over the globe, killing everything
that moves. The solutions are not hard, they are normative, once we are shocked out of this
awful near-life trance state of separationism. Thanks for the link.
It seems to me that there are two parallel arguments going on.
One is about social organisation, attitudes towards and policies determining work, money,
paid employment, technological development and the distribution of weath.
The other is fundamentally based on the laws of thermodynamics and concerns resource limits,
energy surpluses, the role of 'stored sunlight' in producing things and doing work for each
other, pollution and projections about these into the future.
I am surprised that Graeber (just as an example) seems to basically ignore the second of
these even though he clearly is an incisive thinker and makes good points about the first. It
is taken as a given that, theoretically at least, human civilisation could re-organise around
a new ethic, transform the economy into a 'caring economy', re-structure money, government
and do away with militarism. In terms of what to do now, as an individual, what choices to
make, it is disconcerting to me when talk of these ideals seems to ignore those latter
questions about overshoot.
I wonder if the egalitarian nature of much of indiginous North American society was
inescapably bound with the realities of a low population density, low technology,
intimate relationship with the natural world and a culture completely steeped in reverence
for Mother Earth.
The talk I hear from Bastani or Graeber along the lines of 'we could be flying around in jet
packs on the moon, if only society was organised sensibly' rings hollow to me.
Welcome to my world! Apart from as a managerial tool, systems thinking has yet to catch on
in the wider population. According to reductive materialism: there are two unlinked
arguments. According to Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) there is only one integrated argument --
with two inter-connected correlative aspects. We can only organise around what we can
energetically afford. Consequently, we cannot organise around what we cannot afford -- that
is, global industrialised production with a supervenient elitist superstructure.
Let's face it : ethical arguments carry little weight against organisation around
hierarchical rule. The current talk of an ethical capitalism -- in mixed economies with
'commons' elements -- is an appeasement. and distractional to the gathering and ineluctable
reality.
The current (2012) EROI for the UK is 6.2:1 -- barely above the 'energy cliff' of 5:1. The
GDP 'growth' and bullshit jobs are funded by monetised debt (we borrow around £5 to
make every £1 -- from Tim Morgan's SEEDS). From the Earth Overshoot Day website: the UK
is in economic overshoot from May 8th onward.
These are indicators that we will not be "flying jetpacks on the moon": even if we
reorganise. Everyone, and I mean everyone, will have to make do with less. A lot less.
Everything would have to be localised and sustainable. Production would be minimised, and not
at all full. Two major systems of production -- food (agroecology) and energy -- would have
to be sustainable and self-sovereign. And financialisation and the rentier, service economy?
Now you can see why no one, not even Dave the crypto-anarchist, is talking about reality.
Elitism, establishment and entitlement do not figure in an equitable future. We can't afford
it, energetically or ethically.
So when will the debate move on? Not any time the populace is bought into ideational
deferred prosperity. All the time that EROEI is ignored as the fundamental concept governing
dwindling prosperity -- no one, and I mean no one, will be talking about a minimal surplus
energy future. The magic realism is that the economic affordances of cheap oil (unsustainably
mimicked by debt-funding) will return sometime, somehow (the technocratic superfix). The
aporia is that the longer the delay, the less surplus energy we will have available to
utilise. Something like the Green New Deal -- that has been proposed for around two decades
now -- may give us some quality of life to sustain. Pseudo-talk of a Customs Union, 'clean'
coal, and nuclear power, will not.
An integrated reality -- along the model of Guattari's 'Three Ecologies' -- of mind,
economy, and environment is well, we are not alone, but we are ahead of the curve. The other
cultural aporia is that we need to implement such vision now. Actually, about thirty years
ago but let's not get depressive!
We are going to need that cooperative organisation around care and freedom just to get
through the coming century.
As mentioned elsewhere here, Venezualan oil deposits are not all that the hype cracks them up
to be. They are mostly oil sands that produce little in the way of net energy gain after the
lengthy process of extraction.The Venezuala drama is about the empire crushing democracy
(i.e. socialism), not oil. [not that this detracts from Kit's essential point in the
article].
The Left (as well as the Right), by and large have not come to terms with the realities of
the decline in net surplus energy that is unfolding around the world and driving the
political changes that we see. So they still view geopolitics in terms of the oil economy of
pre-2008.
The productive economies of Europe are falling apart (check Steve Keen's latest on Max and
Stacy -- although even i he doesn't delve into the energy decline aspect).
The carbon density of the global economy has not changed in the 27 years since the founding
of the UNFCCC.
The Peak Oil phenomenon was oversimplified, misrepresented and misunderstood as a simple
turning point in overall oil production. In truth it was a turning point in energy
surplus.
I predict that by the end of this or next year, everyone will be talking about ERoEI.
Everyone will realise that there is no way out of this predicament. Maybe there are ways to
lessen the catastrophe, but no way to avert it. This will change the conversation, and even
change what 'politics' means (i.e. you cannot campaign on a 'new start' or a 'better,
brighter future' if everyone knows that that physically cannot happen).
Everyone will understand that their civilisation is collapsing.
Does Bolton understand this?
If you were referring to my earlier comments about Venezuelan extra heavy crude: it's
still massively about the oil. The current carbon capitalist world system does not understand
surplus energy or EROEI, as it is so fixated on maximal short term returns for shareholders.
It can't comprehend that their entire business model is unsustainable and self cannibalising.
Which is bad for us: because carbon net-energy (exergy) economics it is foundational to all
civilisation. The ignorance of it and subsequent environmental and social convergence crises
threatens the systemic failure of our entire civilisation. The Venezuelan crisis affects us
all: and is symptomatic of a decline in cheap oil due to rapidly falling EROEI.
I can't find the EROEI specifically for Venezuelan heavy oil: but it is only slightly more
viscous than bitumen -- which has an EROEI of 3:1. Let's call it 4:1: the same as other tight
oils and shale. Anything less than 5:1 is more or less an energy sink: with virtually no net
energy left for society. The minimum EROEI for societal needs is 11:1. Does Bolton understand
this? Francis hit the nail on the head there.
Do any of our leaders? No. If they did, a transition to decentralisation would be well
under way. Globalised supply chains are systemically threatened and fragile. A globalised
economy is spectacularly vulnerable. Especially a debt-ridden one. Which way are our leaders
trying to take us? At what point will humanity realise we are following clueless Pied Pipers
off the Seneca Cliff -- into globalised energy oblivion?
The rapid investment -- not in a post-carbon transition -- but in increased
militarisation, and resource and market driven aggressive foreign intervention policies
reveal the mindset of insanity. As people come to understand the energy basis of the world
crisis: the fact of permanent austerity and increased pauperisation looms large. What will
the outcome be when an armed nuclear madhouse becomes increasingly protectionsist of their
dwindling share? Too alarmist, perhaps? Let's play pretend that we can plant a few trees and
captive breed a few rhinos and it will all be fine. BAU?
The world runs on cheap oil: our socio-politico-economic expectations of progress depend
on it. Which means that the modern human mind is, in effect, a thought-process predicated on
cheap oil. Oleum ergo sum? Apart from the Middle East: we are already past the point where
oil is a liability, not a viability. Debt funding its extraction, selling below the cost of
production -- both assume the continual expansion of global GDP. Oil is a highly subsidised
-- with our surplus socialisation capital -- negative asset. We foot the bill. A bill that
EROEI predicts will keep on rising. At what point do we realise this? Or do we live in hopium
of a return to historical prosperity? Or hang on the every word of the populist magic realism
demagogue who promises a future social utopia?
EROEI = Energy Returned on Energy Invested (also known as EROI = Energy Return on Investment)
EROEI refers to the amount of usable energy that can be extracted from a resource compared
to the amount of energy (usually considered to come from the same resource) used to extract
it. It's calculated by dividing the amount of energy obtained from a source by the amount of
energy needed to get it out.
An EROEI of 1:1 means that the amount of usable energy that a resource generates is the
same as the amount of energy that went into getting it out. A resource with an EROEI of 1:1
or anything less isn't considered a viable resource if it delivers the same or less energy
than what was invested in it. A viable resource is one with an EROEI of at least 3:1.
The concept of EROEI assumes that the energy needed to get more energy out of a resource
is the same as the extracted energy ie you need oil to extract oil or you need electricity to
extract electricity. In real life, you often need another source of energy to extract energy
eg in some countries, to extract electricity, you need to burn coal, and in other countries,
to extract electricity you need to build dams on rivers. So comparing the EROEI of
electricity extraction across different countries will be difficult because you have to
consider how and where they're generating electricity and factor in the opportunity costs
involved (that is, what the coal or the water or other energy source -- like solar or wind
energy -- could have been used for instead of electricity generation).
That is probably why EROEI is used mainly in the context of oil or natural gas
extraction.
The C.I.A. IS all about Regime Change. I am not convinced that they are all bad just a clique
within. They are inexplicably connected with that government behind the Government. They are
not connected with the office of the Executive but follow the orders of a few that have no
regard for The People, constitutionally. If they were, drugs would have been squashed,
decades ago.
There was one leading US politician whose name escapes me for the moment. When Chavez was
president, he complained bitterly that Venezuela's oil wealth was being squandered on things
like healthcare, education, literacy and welfare. It could have been given instead to hard
pressed Wall Street fund managers in bigger bonuses. He wasn't being ironic.
"Everything (to the contrary) is propaganda"
Yes, they will never stop. Just think of this brand-new propaganda lie of Maduro allegedly
preventing aid shipment to come into Venezuela. See BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47143492
: " Venezuelan soldiers have blocked the crossing ahead of a delivery arranged by
opposition leader Juan Guaidó, who has declared himself interim president ".
Notice the word " ahead " in this sentence. This word appears because there was
never a " delivery " (truck) with aid shipment at the bridge!
The Venezuelan government ("Maduro") blocked the bridge only because of war-threatening
Columbia and USA.
If you want to send aid shipment to Venezuela you can send as much as you want anytime. Of
course you have to respect the regulations of the custom (like in every other country!). But
that's all!
Whets foul with this story?
Well, this aid " delivery " cannot have been collected in Colombia – and thus
being taken away from the people of Colombia, who are much poorer than the people of
Venezuela. So it would have to come from other country (USA, Europe, China, Japan). And then
you would not land this aid shipment in Columbia (a harbour, an airport), drive it, in
hot-humid air, through half of Colombia to the border crossing bridge of Cúcuta. Then
cross the bridge and then drive it through half of Venezuela!
Instead aid shipments for Venezuela would be landed directly in Venezuela – in an
Venezuelan harbour or airport.
@50 bobzibub... your link doesn't bring me to the article, but i suspect it is more then just
crystallix - the canuck gold mining company - that are pushing for a change in power in
venezuala.. as i understand it, there are a number of canuck mining and oil related interests
where they would like to exploit venezuala and can't seem to get around the democractically
elected gov't of maduros..
looks like
this might be related, or the article you were trying to post? an american judge says
crystallex can have citgo, lol....
As neocolonial empire of it s own (albeit the one that is vassal of the USA) yes it does,
especially in xUSSR state where EU wants to capture the makets. Ukraine is a nice example
here.
Does the European Union generate external instability?
The historic achievement of peace within a Europe of universal norms is belied by the external
instability engendered by violent and incoherent interventions.
By Branko Milanovic
The European Union is justly admired for making war among its members impossible. This is no
small achievement in a continent which was in a state of semi-permanent warfare for the past
two millennia.
It is not only that we cannot even imagine the usual 19th and 20th century antagonists, such
as France and Germany, going to war ever again. The same is true of other, lesser-known
animosities which have led periodically to bloodlettings: between Poles and Germans, Hungarians
and Romanians, Greeks and Bulgarians. Unthinkable is also the idea that the United Kingdom and
Spain could end up, regarding Gibraltar, in a reprise of the Falklands/Malvinas war.
Destabilised
But creating geopolitical stability internally has not, during the last two decades, been
followed by external geopolitical stability along the fringes of the union. Most of the big EU
member states (UK, Poland, Italy, Spain) participated, often eagerly, in Operation Iraqi
Freedom, which led to the deaths of some half a million people, destabilised the middle east
even further and produced Islamic State.
Then, seemingly not having learned from this fiasco, France and Italy spearheaded another
regime change, this time in Libya. It ended in anarchy, another civil war, two competing
governments and a UN Security Council deadlocked for years to come -- since it is clear that
China and Russia will not in the foreseeable future vote to allow another western military
intervention.
The wars along the long arc from Libya to Afghanistan, in which EU powers participated, were
the proximate cause of large refugee flows a few years ago, which continue even now. (As I have
written elsewhere, the underlying cause of migration is the large gap in incomes between
Europe, on the one hand, and Africa and the 'greater middle east', on the other, but the sudden
outbursts were caused by wars.)
The next example of generating instability was Ukraine, where the then government of Viktor
Yanukovych, having only postponed the signing of an EU agreement, was driven out of power in
2014 in a coup-like movement supported by the union. It is sure that a reasonable
counterfactual, with the same EU-Ukraine agreements being signed and without a war in eastern
Ukraine and with Crimea still part of Ukraine, would have been much preferable to the current
situation, which threatens to precipitate a war of even much greater dimensions.
Finally, consider Turkey, in an association agreement with the European Economic Community
since 1963, and thus in a membership-awaiting antechamber for more than half a century. The
initial period in power of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was marked by pro-European policies, a
desire to create an 'Islamic democracy', in the mould of the Christian democracies of Italy and
Germany, and civilian control over the army. But realisation that, because of its size and
probably because of its dominant religion, Turkey would never be recognised as part of Europe
led Erdoğan, gradually, to move in an altogether different direction -- with an almost
zero chance that he would come back to his original pro-European stance.
The endless waiting period, with similarly protracted negotiations over what are now 35
chapters which need to be agreed between candidate countries and all 28 (or soon 27) members,
is what lies behind the frustration with the EU in the Balkans. Long gone are the days when
Greece could become a member after a couple of months (if that) of negotiations and an
agreement between the French president, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, and the German
chancellor, Helmut Schmidt. The European bluff -- it neither has the stick nor the carrot --
albeit long hidden behind the veil of negotiations, was recently called by the Kosovo
leadership, when it engaged in a trade war with Serbia. The EU could express its 'regrets' but
it was squarely ignored. In the past, nether Kosovo nor any other Balkan state would have dared
to defy Europe so openly.
Slow and hesitant
It all means that Europe needs a much better thought-out external policy with respect to its
neighbours. There are already some signs that it is moving in that direction but it is doing so
too slowly and hesitantly. A multilateral compact with Africa is needed to regulate migration
from a continent with the fastest rising population and lowest incomes. Much more European
investment -- in hard stuff, not conferences -- is needed. Rather than complaining about
China's Belt and Road initiative, Europe should imitate it -- and, if it desires to counteract
Chinese political influence, invest its own money to make more African friends. A similar set
of much more proactive policies is required within the framework of the Mediterranean
initiative, while military options in the region should be forsworn no less clearly than they
are within the union.
When it comes to the potential members, as in the Balkans or the western republics of the
former Soviet Union, interminable talks should be replaced by either special association with
no expectation of EU membership or clearer, time-limited negotiations leading to membership.
Both would manage expectations better and avoid the build-up of resentment and frustration.
The most important challenge is the relationship with Turkey. The EU does not have a
blueprint for a Turkey after Erdoğan; nor can it offer anything to the Turkish secular
opposition, as it is not clear within itself whether it wants Turkey in or out. It should be
rather obvious that a European Turkey, with its vast economic potential and influence in the
middle east, would be a huge economic and strategic asset. Such a Turkey would also behave
differently in Syria and in Anatolia, because it would have an incentive to follow European
rules.
This rethinking of the EU's neighbourhood policy thus calls, in short, for three things:
greater economic aid to Africa, no support for wars or regime change, and much clearer rules
and time-limits for membership talks.
Perhaps, you ascribe to the EU successes that it did not create.
The formation of the EU is not the vehicle that created, nor sustained, the uneasy peace.
I suggest it was the resolution of WW2 that has determined the current state of
tolerance.
I fear that the formation of the EU, in the end, will be the cause of a re-instigation of
the age old skirmishes that have plagued the world, as you say, for two millennia.
The destruction of the Middle East by the West, not just the EU but the US, is a
foolishness of biblical proportions.
The EU's disposition of Greece and Brexit are red flags that the EU is an unsustainable
contrivance that will eventually, come undone. The mercantilist wars between France, England,
Spain, Germany, Italy, etc, may rise again. Hopefully, I'm wrong.
We just got done conquering Iraq. We haven't stayed to loot the oil.
The US has NOT successfully conquered Iraq (has not pacified the country). Oil is not like
a bag of diamonds, which you can grab and run. In order to steal a worthwhile amount of the
greasy stuff, you have to make a substantial investment up front, in wells and shipping
terminals. Not even the greediest thief will risk his money if there is even the slightest
chance that his wells and terminals will be blown up by righteous nationalists. This is why
the US hasn't stolen much from Iraq.
So now you believe we're going to Venezuela to take their crappy heavy oil?
That the US hasn't been able to steal much from Iraq tells us little about whether the
Americans have larcenous motives with regard to Venezuela. Especially as Trump has been
talking loudly about the oil.
It would be easier for us just to build a pipeline to Alberta and import all their
cheap, shut-in heavy crude.
" Second, Venezuela's central bankers were persuaded to pledge their oil reserves and all
assets of the state oil sector (including Citgo) as collateral for its foreign debt. This
meant that if Venezuela defaulted (or was forced into default by U.S. banks refusing to make
timely payment on its foreign debt), bondholders and U.S. oil majors would be in a legal
position to take possession of Venezuelan oil assets."
Solid proof that it was the empire who invented the practice of "debt trap" and is still
flourishing with it.
hunor, February 7, 2019 at 6:24 am GMT
Thank you ! Made it very clear. Perfect reflection of the " Values of Western Civilization ".
Reaching to grab the whole universe, with no holds barred . And never show of any interest for the " truth". They are not
even pretending anymore , awakening will be very painful for some.
Reuben Kaspate, February 7, 2019 at 2:38 pm GMT • 100 Words
Why would the U. S. based White-Protestant aristocracy care a hoot about the Brown-Catholic elites in the far off land?
They don't! The comprador aristocracy in question isn't what it seems It's the same group that plagues the Americans.
The rootless louts, whose only raison d'ę·tre is to milk everything in sight and then retire to coastal cities, i.e. San
Francisco, if you are a homosexual or New York City and State, if you are somewhat religious.
Poor Venezuelans don't stand a chance against the shysters!
CIA Was Aiding Afghan Jihadists Before the Soviet Invasion
by Nauman
Sadiq Posted on
February 05, 2019 February 1, 2019 Originally, there were four parties involved in the
Afghan conflict which are mainly responsible for the debacle in the Af-Pak region. Firstly,
the former Soviet Union which invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. Secondly, Pakistan's
security agencies which nurtured the Afghan jihadists on the behest of Washington.
Thirdly, Saudi Arabia and the rest of oil-rich Gulf states which generously funded the
jihadists to promote their Wahhabi-Salafi ideology. And last but not the least, the Western
capitals which funded, provided weapons and internationally legitimized the erstwhile
"freedom fighters" to use them against a competing ideology, global communism, which posed a
threat to the Western corporate interests all over the world.
Regarding the objectives of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, the then
American envoy to Kabul, Adolph "Spike" Dubs, was assassinated on Feb. 14, 1979, the same day
that Iranian revolutionaries stormed the US embassy in Tehran.
According to recently
declassified documents of the White House, CIA and State Department, as reported by Tim
Weiner for The Washington Post , the CIA was aiding Afghan jihadists before the
Soviets invaded in 1979.
President Jimmy Carter signed the CIA directive to arm the Afghan jihadists in July 1979,
whereas the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December the same year. That the CIA
was arming the Afghan jihadists six months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan has been
proven by the State Department's declassified documents; fact of the matter, however, is that
the nexus between the CIA, Pakistan's security agencies and the Gulf states to train and arm
the Afghan jihadists against the former Soviet Union was formed several years before the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Historically, Pakistan's military first used the Islamists of Jamaat-e-Islami during the
Bangladesh war of liberation in the late 1960s against the Bangladeshi nationalist Mukti
Bahini liberation movement of Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahman – the father of current prime
minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, and the founder of Bangladesh, which was then a
province of Pakistan and known as East Pakistan before the independence of Bangladesh in
1971.
Jamaat-e-Islami is a far-right Islamist movement in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh –
analogous to the Muslim Brotherhood political party in Egypt and Turkey – several of
whose leaders have recently been hanged by the Bangladeshi nationalist government of Prime
Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed for committing massacres of Bangladeshi civilians on behalf of
Pakistan's military during the late 1960s.
Then, during the 1970s, Pakistan's then-Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto began aiding
the Afghan Islamists against Sardar Daud's government, who had toppled his first cousin King
Zahir Shah in a palace coup in 1973 and had proclaimed himself the president of
Afghanistan.
Sardar Daud was a Pashtun nationalist and laid claim to Pakistan's northwestern
Pashtun-majority province. Pakistan's security establishment was wary of his irredentist
claims and used Islamists to weaken his rule in Afghanistan. He was eventually assassinated
in 1978 as a result of the Saur Revolution led by the Afghan communists.
Pakistan's support to the Islamists with the Saudi petrodollars and Washington's
blessings, however, kindled the fires of Islamic insurgencies in the entire region comprising
Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Soviet Central Asian States.
The former Soviet Union was wary that its forty-million Muslims were susceptible to
radicalism, because Islamic radicalism was infiltrating across the border into the Central
Asian States from Afghanistan. Therefore, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December
1979 in support of the Afghan communists to forestall the likelihood of Islamic insurgencies
spreading to the Central Asian States bordering Afghanistan.
Even the American President Donald Trump
recently admitted : "The reason Russia invaded Afghanistan was because terrorists were
going into Russia; they were right to be there." Incidentally, Trump also implied the reason
why Soviet Union collapsed was due to the economic burden of the Soviet-Afghan War, as he was
making a point about the withdrawal of American forces from Syria and Afghanistan.
Notwithstanding, in the Soviet-Afghan War between the capitalist and communist blocs,
Saudi Arabia and the rest of Gulf's petro-monarchies took the side of the capitalist bloc
because the former Soviet Union and Central Asian states produce more energy and consume
less. Thus, the Soviet-led bloc was a net exporter of energy whereas the Western capitalist
bloc was a net importer.
It suited the economic interests of the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries
to maintain and strengthen a supplier-consumer relationship with the Western capitalist bloc.
Now, the BRICS countries are equally hungry for the Middle East's energy, but it's a recent
development. During the Cold War, an alliance with the industrialized Western nations suited
the economic interests of the Gulf countries.
Regarding the motives of the belligerents involved, the Americans wanted to take revenge
for their defeat at the hands of communists in Vietnam, the Gulf countries had forged close
economic ties with the Western bloc and Pakistan was dependent on the Western military aid,
hence it didn't have a choice but to toe Washington's policy in Afghanistan.
In the end, the Soviet-Afghan War proved to be a "bear trap" and the former Soviet Union
was eventually defeated and was subsequently dissolved in December 1991. It did not collapse
because of the Afghan Jihad but that was an important factor contributing to the dissolution
of the Soviet Union.
Regardless, more than twenty years before the declassification of the State Department
documents as mentioned in the aforementioned Washington Post report, in the 1998
interview to the alternative news outlet The CounterPunch Magazine , former
National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, confessed that the
president signed the directive to provide secret aid to the Afghan jihadists in July 1979,
whereas the Soviet Army invaded Afghanistan six months later in December 1979.
Here is a poignant excerpt from the interview: The interviewer puts the question: "And
neither do you regret having supported the Islamic jihadists, having given arms and advice to
future terrorists?" Brzezinski replies: "What is most important to the history of the world?
The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation
of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"
Despite the crass insensitivity, one must give credit to Zbigniew Brzezinski that at least
he had the courage to speak the unembellished truth. It's worth noting, however, that the
aforementioned interview was recorded in 1998. After the 9/11 terror attack, no Western
policymaker can now dare to be as blunt and forthright as Brzezinski.
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused
on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and
petro-imperialism.
On Twitter and from the Senate floor, Paul made clear his distaste for McConnell's amendment
that warns that "the precipitous withdrawal of United States' forces from either country could
put at risk hard-won gains and United States national security."
Paul, a non-interventionist, instead hailed Trump for being "bold enough and strong enough"
to end the war in Afghanistan that began after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The
senator argued there was no longer a military mission for U.S. troops to remain. He called
McConnell's amendment an "insult" to Trump.
"How do you leave precipitously after 17 years?" Paul asked. "We are no longer fighting
anyone who attacked us on 9-11."
Paul called the amendment -- which McConnell authored and is widely viewed as a rebuke to
Trump's plans to withdraw troops from the two countries -- a product of a "war caucus" that
Paul said includes Republicans and Democrats.
Read more here:
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article225518415.html#storylink=cpy
McConnell has been careful not to
criticize Trump, instead focusing on some Democratic opposition. But the amendment cleared the
Senate 90 minutes after Paul spoke with a 70 to 26 vote and support from senators from both
parties.
McConnell labeled the provision as an "opportunity for senators to go on the record about
what the United States should be doing in Syria and Afghanistan."
He'd made his views clear: "I believe the threats remain. ISIS and al Qaeda have yet to be
defeated. And American national security interests require continued commitment to our missions
there."
Trump came under sharp criticism from his own party after claiming in a tweet in December
that the U.S. had defeated ISIS in Syria and that he was ordering a "full" and "rapid"
withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, defended
the amendment and criticized the press for casting it as a rebuke to Trump.
"This is the process working the way it was intended to, for the (president) to raise these
issues and then discussions take place," Risch said.
Paul has been a longtime critic of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and last year
dispatched his Senate committee staff to the country to document what he says is "wasteful
spending of taxpayer dollars" and "rampant corruption."
Read more here:
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article225518415.html#storylink=cpy
The freezing of Venezuelan gold by the Bank of England is a signal to all countries out of
step with US interests to withdraw their money, according to economist and co-founder of
Democracy at Work, Professor Richard Wolff. He told RT America that Britain and its central
bank have shown themselves to be "under the thumb of the United States."
"That is a signal to every country that has or may have difficulties with the US, [that
they had] better get their money out of England and out of London because it's not the safe
place as it once was," he said.
"... Many of us, actually most of us, were pleased with candidate Trump's declared intent to end our involvement in endless foreign interventions. He would put America first and refrain from sending our troops where they don't belong. Once elected, his record was mixed. ..."
"... PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: [W]e spent a fortune on building this incredible base. We might as well keep it. And one of the reasons I want to keep it is because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran because Iran is a real problem. ..."
"... There also appears to be an effort to keep the Rojava Kurds as a proxy force after our troops withdraw to Iraq. We continue sending combat and engineering equipment into Rojava and fully intend to continue providing air support to the YPG. We just can't let it go. ..."
"... I see a confrontation in our future, especially with all the Iraqi PMS units in western Iraq. ..."
Many of us, actually most of us, were pleased with candidate Trump's declared intent to end our involvement in endless foreign
interventions. He would put America first and refrain from sending our troops where they don't belong. Once elected, his record was
mixed.
We launched an ineffective volley of cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase in response to a trumped up gas attack, but we never
sought to establish a no fly zone and risk war with Russia. For a while we were well on our way to establish an enduring client state
in east Syria. We assumed this was all the doing of the cabal of manipulating neocons that Trump surrounded himself with. His call
for immediate withdrawal of troops from Syria surely proved this true. Finally Trump was allowed to be Trump. He was even seeking
a way out of Afghanistan, after a literal lifetime of war in that godforsaken land.
The neocons are fighting back bigly. The pace of withdrawal from Syria was slowed and there is no indication we would ever
give up our outpost on the Baghdad-Damascus highway at Tanf. Why? I think Trump laid out HIS thoughts on the matter during the traditional
pre-super bowl presidential interview.
-- -- -- --
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have to protect Israel. We have to protect other things that we have...
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you want to keep troops there [Iraq] now?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: [W]e spent a fortune on building this incredible base. We might as well keep it. And one of the
reasons I want to keep it is because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran because Iran is a real problem.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Whoa, that's news. You're keeping troops in Iraq because you want to be able to strike in Iran?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, because I want to be able to watch Iran. All I want to do is be able to watch. We have an unbelievable
and expensive military base built in Iraq. It's perfectly situated for looking at all over different parts of the troubled Middle
East rather than pulling up. And this is what a lot of people don't understand. We're going to keep watching and we're going to
keep seeing and if there's trouble, if somebody is looking to do nuclear weapons or other things, we're going to know it before
they do.
-- -- -- --
So, We are staying in Iraq to keep an eye on Iran and we are doing this to protect Israel. It was not any of the neocons who said
this. It was Trump himself. So much for America first. There also appears to be an effort to keep the Rojava Kurds as a proxy force
after our troops withdraw to Iraq. We continue sending combat and engineering equipment into Rojava and fully intend to continue
providing air support to the YPG. We just can't let it go.
However, Baghdad has thrown a monkey wrench into this developing Trump doctrine. Iraqi President Barham Salih has told Trump to
slow his roll.
-- -- -- --
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi President Barham Salih said on Monday that President Donald Trump did not ask Iraq's permission for
U.S. troops stationed there to "watch Iran."
Speaking at a forum in Baghdad, Salih was responding to a question about Trump's comments to CBS about how he would ask troops
stationed in Iraq to "watch" Iran. U.S. troops in Iraq are there as part of an agreement between the two countries with a specific
mission of combating terrorism, Salih said, and that they should stick to that. (Reuters)
-- -- -- --
I see a confrontation in our future, especially with all the Iraqi PMS units in western Iraq.
This article from 2017 looks like it was written yesterday. Trump betrayal of his elctorate on multiple levels, essentially on all
key poin of his election program mkes him "Republican Obama".
What is interesting about Trump foreign policy is his version of neoliberal "gangster capitalism" on foreign arena:
might is right principle applied like universal opener. Previous administrations tried to put a lipstick on the pig. Trump
does not even bother.
In terms of foreign policy, and even during the transition before Trump's inauguration, there were other, more disturbing signs
of where Trump would be heading soon. When Fidel Castro died on November 25, 2016,
Trump seemed jubilant as if he had somehow been vindicated, and took the opportunity to slander Castro as a "brutal dictator" who
"oppressed his own people" and turned Cuba into a "totalitarian island".
Notable quotes:
"... However, when he delivered his inaugural address on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the government's back on a long-standing policy of cultural imperialism , stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first". ..."
"... Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office -- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat. ..."
"... The entire conflict with Russia that has developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. ..."
"... Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from wars for regime change, Trump sold out again. "I love WikiLeaks -- " -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding. ..."
"... AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States? ..."
"... AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing? ..."
"... AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to arrest Julian Assange? ..."
"... While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US, witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to them. ..."
"... Since NAFTA was implemented, migration from Mexico to the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately drove them away from agriculture ..."
"... As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact, per capita GDP is nearly a flat line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures that have been implemented, the US leads the world . ..."
"... To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only when the US reaps the greater share of benefits. ..."
"... As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son -- then what an abysmally poor choice he is ..."
"... On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism, which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced. ..."
"... As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism . Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics. ..."
"... As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition. ..."
Trump could have kept quiet, and lost nothing. Instead what he was attacking -- and the irony was missed on his fervently right
wing supporters -- was someone who was a leader in the anti-globalist movement, from long before it was ever called that. Fidel Castro
was a radical pioneer of independence, self-reliance, and self-determination.
Castro turned Cuba from an American-owned sugar plantation and brothel, a lurid backwater in the Caribbean, into a serious international
actor opposed to globalizing capitalism. There was no sign of any acknowledgment of this by Trump, who instead chose to parrot the
same people who would vilify him using similar terms (evil, authoritarian, etc.). Of course, Trump respects only corporate executives
and billionaires, not what he would see as some rag-tag Third World revolutionary. Here Trump's supporters generally failed, using
Castro's death as an opportunity for tribal partisanship, another opportunity to attack "weak liberals" like Obama who made minor
overtures to Cuba (too little, too late).
Their distrust of "the establishment" was nowhere to be found this time: their ignorance of Cuba and their resort to stock clichés
and slogans had all been furnished to them by the same establishment they otherwise claimed to oppose.
Just to be clear, the above is not meant to indicate any reversal on Trump's part regarding Cuba. He has been consistently anti-communist,
and fairly consistent in his denunciations of Fidel Castro. What is significant is that -- far from overcoming the left-right divide
-- Trump shores up the barriers, even at the cost of denouncing others who have a proven track record of fighting against neoliberal
globalization and US interventionism. In these regards, Trump has no track record. Even among his rivals in the Republican primaries,
senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul had more of an anti-interventionist track record.
However, when he delivered his inaugural address
on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the
government's back on a long-standing policy of
cultural imperialism
, stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill
with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations
to put their own interests first".
Russia
Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office
-- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy
conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat.
Instead, Trump continued the sanctions, as if out of meek deference to Obama's policy, one founded on lies and antagonism
toward Trump himself. Rather than repair the foul attempt to sabotage the US-Russian relationship in preparation for his presidency,
Trump simply abided and thus became an accomplice. To be clear,
Trump has done precisely nothing
to dampen the near mass hysteria that has been manufactured in the US about alleged -- indeed imaginary -- "Russian intervention".
His comments, both during the electoral campaign and even early into his presidency, about wanting good relations with Russia,
have been replaced by Trump's admissions that US relations with Russia are at a low point (Putin agreed: "I would say the level of
trust [between Russia and the US] is at a workable level, especially in the military dimension, but it hasn't improved. On the contrary,
it has degraded " and his spokesman called
the relations " deplorable ".)
Rather than use the power of his office to calm fears, to build better ties with Russia, and to make meeting with Vladimir Putin
a top priority, Trump has again done nothing , except escalating tensions. The entire conflict with Russia that has
developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. Russia had actively facilitated
the US' war in Afghanistan for over a decade, and was a consistent collaborator on numerous levels. It is up to thinking American
officials to honestly explain what motivated them to tilt relations with Russia, because it is certainly not Russia's doing. The
only explanation that makes any sense is that the US leadership grew concerned that Russia was no longer teetering on the edge of
total socio-economic breakdown, as it was under the neoliberal Boris Yeltsin, but has instead resurfaced as a major actor in international
affairs, and one that champions anti-neoliberal objectives of enhanced state sovereignty and self-determination.
WikiLeaks
Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from
wars for regime change, Trump sold out again.
"I love WikiLeaks --
" -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding.
After finding so much use for WikiLeaks' publication of the Podesta emails, which became incorporated into his campaign speeches,
and which fuelled the writing and speaking of journalists and bloggers sympathetic to Trump -- he was now effectively declaring WikiLeaks
to be both an enemy and a likely target of US government action, in even more blunt terms than we heard during the past eight years
under Obama. This is not mere continuity with the past, but a dramatic escalation. Rather than praise Julian Assange for his work,
call for an end to the illegal impediments to his seeking asylum, swear off any US calls for extraditing and prosecuting Assange,
and perhaps meeting with him in person, Trump has done all of the opposite. Instead we learn that Trump's administration may
file arrest charges against Assange
. Mike Pompeo ,
chosen by Trump to head the CIA, who had himself
cited WikiLeaks as a reliable source of proof about how the Democratic National Committee had rigged its campaign, now declared
WikiLeaks to be a "
non-state hostile intelligence service ," along with vicious personal slander against Assange.
Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks was one that he defended in terms that were not just a deceptive rewriting of history, but one
that was also fearful -- "I don't support or unsupport" WikiLeaks, was what Trump was now saying in his dash for the nearest exit.
The backtracking is so obvious in this
interview
Trump gave to the AP , that his shoes must have left skid marks on the floor:
AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on
Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with
the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States?
TRUMP: When Wikileaks came out never heard of Wikileaks, never heard of it. When Wikileaks came out, all I was just saying
is, "Well, look at all this information here, this is pretty good stuff." You know, they tried to hack the Republican, the RNC,
but we had good defenses. They didn't have defenses, which is pretty bad management. But we had good defenses, they tried to hack
both of them. They weren't able to get through to Republicans. No, I found it very interesting when I read this stuff and I said,
"Wow." It was just a figure of speech. I said, "Well, look at this. It's good reading."
AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing?
TRUMP: No, I don't support or unsupport. It was just information .
AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to
arrest Julian Assange?
TRUMP: I am not involved in that decision, but if Jeff Sessions wants to do it, it's OK with me. I didn't know about that decision,
but if they want to do it, it's OK with me.
First, Trump invents the fictitious claim that WikiLeaks was responsible for hacking the DNC, and that WikiLeaks also tried to
hack the Republicans. Second, he pretends to be an innocent bystander, a spectator, in his own administration -- whatever others
decide, is "OK" with him, not that he knows about their decisions, but it's all up to others. He has no power, all of a sudden.
Again, what Trump is displaying in this episode is his ultimate attachment to his class, with all of its anxieties and its contempt
for rebellious, marginal upstarts. Trump shuns any sort of "loyalty" to WikiLeaks (not that they ever had a working relationship)
or any form of gratitude, because then that would imply a debt and therefore a transfer of value -- whereas Trump's core ethics are
those of expedience and greed (he admits that much).
This move has come with a cost , with members of Trump's support base openly denouncing the betrayal. 6
NAFTA
On NAFTA , Trump claims he has not changed his position -- yet, from openly denouncing the free trade agreement and promising
to terminate it, he now vows only to seek modifications and amendments, which means supporting NAFTA. He appeared to be
awfully quick to obey the diplomatic pressure of Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and Mexico's President, Enrique Peńa
Nieto. Trump's entire position on NAFTA now comes into question.
While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US,
witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support
for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to
them.
This really deserves to be treated at length, separately from this article. However, for now, let's keep in mind that when
Trump complains about Canadian softwood lumber and dairy exports to the US, his argument about NAFTA is without merit. Neither commodity
is part of the NAFTA agreement.
Moreover, where dairy is concerned, the problem is US overproduction.
Wisconsin alone has more
dairy cows than all of Canada . There is a net surplus , in the US' favour, with respect to US dairy exports to Canada.
Overall,
the US has a net surplus in the trade in
goods and services with Canada. Regarding Mexico, the irony of Trump's denunciations of imaginary Mexican victories is that he
weakens his own criticisms of immigration.
Since NAFTA was implemented,
migration from Mexico to
the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately
drove them away from agriculture.
As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact,
per capita GDP is nearly a flat
line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures
that have been implemented, the
US leads the world .
To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims
he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only
when the US reaps the greater share of benefits.
His arguments with respect to Canada are akin to those of a looter or raider. He wants to block lumber imports from Canada, at
the same time as he wants to break the Canadian dairy market wide open to absorb US excess production. That approach is at the core
of what defined the US as a "new empire" in the 1800s. In addition, while Trump was quick to tear up the TPP, he has said nothing
about TISA and TTIP.
Mexico
Trump's argument with Mexico is also disturbing for what it implies. It would seem that any
evidence of production
in Mexico causes Trump concern. Mexico should not only keep its people -- however many are displaced by US imports -- but it should
also be as dependent as possible on the US for everything except oil. Since Trump has consistently declared his antagonism to OPEC,
ideally Mexico's oil would be sold for a few dollars per barrel.
China
Trump's turn on China almost provoked laughter from his many domestic critics. Absurdly, what figures prominently in most renditions
of the story of Trump's change on China (including his own), is a big piece of chocolate cake. The missile strike on Syria was, according
to Wilbur Ross, the "
after-dinner entertainment ". Here, Trump's loud condemnations of China on trade issues were suddenly quelled -- and it is not
because chocolate has magical properties. Instead it seems Trump has been willing to settle on
selling out citizens' interests , and
particularly those who voted for him, in return for China's assistance on North Korea. Let's be clear: countering and dominating
North Korea is an established favourite among neoconservatives. Trump's priority here is fully "neocon," and the submergence of trade
issues in favour of militaristic preferences is the one case where neoconservatives might be distinguished from the otherwise identical
neoliberals.
North Korea
Where North Korea is concerned, Trump chose to manufacture a "
crisis ". North Korea has actually done nothing
to warrant a sudden outbreak of panic over it being supposedly aggressive and threatening. North Korea is no more aggressive than
any person defending their survival can be called belligerent. The constant series of US military exercises in South Korea, or near
North Korean waters, is instead a deliberate provocation to a state whose existence the US nearly extinguished. Even last year the
US Air Force publicly boasted of having
"nearly destroyed" North Korea -- language one would have expected from the Luftwaffe in WWII. The US continues to maintain roughly
60,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea, and continues to refuse to formally declare an end to the Korean War and
sign a peace treaty
. Trump then announced he was sending an "armada" to the Korean peninsula, and boasted of how "very powerful" it was. This was in
addition to the US deploying the THAAD missile system in South Korea. Several of his messages in Twitter were written using highly
provocative and threatening language. When asked if he would start a war, Trump glibly replied: "
I don't know. I mean, we'll see ". On another occasion Trump stated, "There is a chance that we could end up having a
major, major conflict with North
Korea. Absolutely". When the world's leading military superpower declares its intention to destroy you, then there is nothing you
can do in your defense which anyone could justly label as "over the top". Otherwise, once again Trump posed as a parental figure,
the world's chief babysitter -- picture Trump, surrounded by children taking part in the "Easter egg roll" at the White House, being
asked about North Korea and responding "they gotta behave". Trump would presume to teach manners to North Korea, using the only tools
of instruction that seem to be the first and last resort of US foreign policy (and the "defense" industry): bombs.
Syria
Attacking Syria , on purportedly humanitarian grounds, is for many (including vocal supporters) one of the most glaring contradictions
of Trump's campaign statements about not embroiling the US in failed wars of regime change and world policing. During the campaign,
he was in favour of Russia's collaboration with Syria in the fight against ISIS. For years he had condemned Obama for involving the
US in Syria, and consistently opposed military intervention there. All that was consigned to the archive of positions Trump declared
to now be worthless. That there had been a change in Trump's position is not a matter of dispute --
Trump made the point himself :
"I like to think of myself as a very flexible person. I don't have to have one specific way, and if the world changes, I go
the same way, I don't change. Well, I do change and I am flexible, and I'm proud of that flexibility. And I will tell you, that
attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me -- big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And I've been watching
it and seeing it, and it doesn't get any worse than that. And I have that flexibility, and it's very, very possible -- and I will
tell you, it's already happened that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much. And if you look back over the last
few weeks, there were other attacks using gas. You're now talking about a whole different level".
Bending to the will of the prevailing Cold War and neo-McCarthyist atmosphere in the US, rife with anti-Russian conspiracy theories,
Trump found an easy opportunity to score points with the hostile media, ever so mindful as he is about approval ratings, polls, and
media coverage. Some explain Trump's reversals as arising from his
pursuit
of
public adulation -- and while the media play the key role in purveying celebrity status, they are also a stiff bastion of imperialist
culture. Given his many years as a the host of a popular TV show, and as the owner of the Miss Universe Pageant, there is some logical
merit to the argument. But I think even more is at work, as explained in paragraphs above.
According to Eric Trump it was at the urging of Ivanka that Donald Trump decided to strike a humanitarian-militarist pose. He
would play the part of the Victorian parent, only he would use missiles to teach unruly children lessons about violence. Using language
typically used against him by the mainstream media, Trump now felt entitled to pontificate that Assad is "evil," an "
animal ," who would
have
to go . When did he supposedly come to this realization? Did Assad become evil at the same time Trump was inaugurated? Why would
Trump have kept so silent about "evil" on the campaign trail? Trump of course is wrong: it's not that the world changed and he changed
with it; rather, he invented a new fiction to suit his masked intentions. Trump's supposed opponents and critics, like the Soros-funded
organizer of the women's march Linda Sarsour, showed her
approval of even more drastic
action by endorsing messages by what sounded like a stern school mistress who thought that 59 cruise missiles were just a mere "slap
on the wrist". Virtually every neocon who is publicly active applauded Trump, as did most senior Democrats. The loudest
opposition
, however, came from Trump's
own base , with a number of articles
featuring criticism from Trump's
supporters , and one conservative publication calling him outright a "
weakling
and a political ingrate ".
Members of the Trump administration have played various word games with the public on intervention in Syria. From unnamed officials
saying the missile strike was a "one off," to named officials
promising more if there
were any other suspected chemical attacks (or use of barrel bombs -- and this while the US dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb in
existence on Afghanistan); some said that
regime change was not the goal,
and then others made it clear that was the ultimate
goal ; and then Trump saying, "Our policy is the same, it hasn't changed.
We're not going into Syria " -- even
though
Trump himself greatly increased the number of US troops he deployed to Syria , illegally, in an escalation of the least
protested invasion in recent history. Now we should know enough not to count this as mere ambiguity, but as deliberate obfuscation
that offers momentary (thinly veiled) cover for a
renewal of neocon policy .
We can draw an outline of Trump's liberal imperialism when it comes to Syria, which is likely to be applied elsewhere. First,
Trump's interventionist policy regarding Syria is one that continues to treat that country as if it were terra nullius ,
a mere playground for superpower politics. Second, Trump is clearly continuing with the
neoconservative agenda and its hit list of
states to be terminated by US military action, as famously confirmed by Gen. Wesley Clark. Even Trump's strategy for justifying the
attack on Syria echoed the two prior Bush presidential administrations -- selling war with the infamous "incubator babies" myth and
the myth of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). In many ways, Trump's presidency is thus shaping up to be either the seventh term
of the George H.W. Bush regime, or the fifth straight term of the George W. Bush regime. Third, Trump is taking ownership of an extremely
dangerous conflict, with costs that could surpass anything witnessed by the war on Iraq (which also continues). Fourth, by highlighting
the importance of photographs in allegedly changing his mind, Trump has placed a high market value on propaganda featuring dead babies.
His actions in Syria will now create an effective demand for the pornographic trade in pictures of atrocities. These are matters
of great importance to the transnational capitalist class, which demands full global penetrability, diminished state power (unless
in the service of this class' goals), a uniformity of expectations and conformity in behaviour, and an emphasis on individual civil
liberties which are the basis for defending private property and consumerism.
Venezuela
It is very disturbing to see how Venezuela is being framed as ripe for US intervention, in ways that distinctly echo the lead
up to the US war on Libya. Just as disturbing is that Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, has a clear conflict of interest
regarding Venezuela, from his recent role as CEO of
Exxon
and its conflict with the government of Venezuela over its nationalization of oil. Tillerson is, by any definition, a clear-cut
member of the transnational capitalist class. The Twitter account of the
State
Department has a battery of messages sternly lecturing Venezuela about the treatment of protesters, while also pontificating
on the Venezuelan Constitution as if the US State Department had become a global supreme court. What is impressive is the seamless
continuity in the nature of the messages on Venezuela from that account, as if no change of government happened between Obama's time
and Trump's. Nikki Haley, Trump's neocon ambassador to the UN, issued
a statement that read like it had been written by her predecessors, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, a statement which in itself
is an unacceptable intervention in Venezuelan internal affairs. For Trump's part, from just days
before the election, to a couple of weeks
after his inauguration, he has sent explicit
messages of support for anti-government
forces in Venezuela. In February, Trump
imposed sanctions on Venezuela's
Vice President. After Syria and North Korea, Venezuela is seeming the likely focus of US interventionism under Trump.
NATO
Rounding out the picture, at least for now (this was just the first hundred days of Trump's presidency), was Trump's outstanding
reversal on NATO -- in fact, once again he stated the reversal himself, and without explanation either: "
I said it was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete ". This came just days after the US missile strike against Syria, and just as
Ivanka Trump was about to represent
his government at a meeting of globalist women, the
W20 . NATO has served as
the transnational military alliance at the service of the transnational capitalist class, and particularly the military and political
members of the TCC. 7
Saving Neoliberalism?
Has Trump saved neoliberal capitalism from its ongoing demise? Has he sustained popular faith in liberal political ideals? Are
we still in the dying days of liberalism
? If there had been a centrally coordinated plan to plant an operative among the ranks of populist conservatives and independents,
to channel their support for nationalism into support for the persona of the plant, and to then have that plant steer a course straight
back to shoring up neoliberal globalism -- then we might have had a wonderful story of a masterful conspiracy, the biggest heist
in the history of elections anywhere. A truly "rigged system" could be expected to behave that way. Was Trump designated to take
the fall in a rigged game, only his huge ego got in the way when he realized he could realistically win the election and he decided
to really tilt hard against his partner, Hillary Clinton? It could be the basis for a novel, or a Hollywood political comedy. I have
no way of knowing if it could be true.
Framed within the terms of what we do know, there was relief by the ousted group of political elites and the liberal globalist
media at the sight of Trump's reversals, and a sense that
their vision had been vindicated.
However, if they are hoping that the likes of Trump will serve as a reliable flag bearer, then theirs is a misguided wishful thinking.
If someone so demonized and ridiculed, tarnished as an evil thug and racist fascist, the subject of mass demonstrations in the US
and abroad, is the latest champion of (neo)liberalism, then we are certainly witnessing its dying days.
Is Trump Beneficial for Anti-Imperialism?
Once one is informed enough and thus prepared to understand that anti-imperialism is not the exclusive preserve of the left (a
left which anyway has mostly shunned it over the last two decades), that it
did not originate with the
left , and that it has a long and distinguished history
in the US itself , then we can move
toward some interesting realizations. The facts, borne out by surveys and my own online immersion among pro-Trump social media users,
is that one of the
significantreasons
why Trump won is due to the growth in popularity of basic anti-imperialist principles (even if not recognized under that name): for
example, no more world policing, no transnational militarization, no more interventions abroad, no more regime change, no war, and
no globalism. Nationalists in Europe, as in Russia, have also pushed forward a basic anti-imperialist vision. Whereas in Latin America
anti-imperialism is largely still leftist, in Europe and North America the left-right divide has become blurred, but the crucial
thing is that at least now we can speak of anti-imperialism gaining strength in these three major continents. Resistance against
globalization has been the primary objective, along with strengthening national sovereignty, protecting local cultural identity,
and opposing free trade and transnational capital. Unfortunately, some anti-imperialist writers (on the left in fact) have tended
to restrict their field of vision to military matters primarily, while almost completely neglecting the economic and cultural, and
especially domestic dimensions of imperialism. (I am grossly generalizing of course, but I think it is largely accurate.) Where structures
such as NAFTA are concerned, many of these same leftist anti-imperialists, few as they are, have had virtually nothing to say. It
could be that they have yet to fully recognize that the transnational capitalist class has, gradually over the last seven decades,
essentially purchased the power of US imperialism. Therefore the TCC's imperialism includes NAFTA, just as it includes open borders,
neoliberal identity politics, and drone strikes. They are all different parts of the same whole.
As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son --
then what an abysmally poor choice he is. 8
On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism,
which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now
contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced.
In addition to that, given that his candidacy aggravated internal divisions in the US, which have not subsided with his assumption
of office, these domestic social and cultural conflicts cause a serious deficit of legitimacy, a loss of political capital. A declining
economy will also deprive him of capital in the strict sense. Moreover, given the kind of persona the media have crafted, the daily
caricaturing of Trump will significantly spur anti-Americanism around the world. If suddenly even Canadian academics are talking
about boycotting the US, then the worm has truly turned. Trump can only rely on "hard power" (military violence), because "soft power"
is almost out of the question now that Trump has been constructed as a barbarian. Incompetent and/or undermined governance will also
render Trump a deficient upholder of the status quo. The fact that nationalist movements around the world are not centrally coordinated,
and their fortunes are not pinned to those of Trump, establishes a well-defined limit to his influence. Trump's antagonism toward
various countries -- as wholes -- has already helped to stir up a deep sediment of anti-Americanism. If Americanism is at the heart
of Trump's nationalist globalism, then it is doing all the things that are needed to induce a major heart attack.
As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism
. Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner
in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics.
As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power
of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation
of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition.
"... Trump's White House Has a Massive Security Problem. Jared Kushner isn't the only Trump official who got a special pass after security experts said he shouldn't be allowed to access national-security secrets. ..."
"... After he was cleared by the White House, Kushner's file was reportedly submitted to the C.I.A. to be evaluated for an S.C.I., or "sensitive compartmented information" clearance -- an even higher designation. It didn't go well: ..."
"... After reviewing the file, CIA. officers who make clearance decisions balked, two of the people familiar with the matter said. One called over to the White House security division, wondering how Kushner got even a top-secret clearance, the sources said. Given his various entanglements, the CIA.'s alarm makes sense. ..."
"... I don't trust Kushner, but denying clearances is the main weapon used by the Deep State to retain control, and Trump was right to place his own man in charge. Note the media sources mentioned are Deep State media, who quote "the CIA" as though that is a person to be trusted. ..."
"... I'm sure people like Ron Unz and the Saker would be denied clearances if appointed to a position in Washington if Deep Staters were gatekeepers. The "CIA" prefer narcissistic retired military officers who lack a soul and wave the flag. ..."
The Ziocons are now fully in charged at the WH. They are wild and giddy with power, ready to set the whole world on fire.
Pence has no need to undermine Trump. He can just wait. All the militant Zionist Trump brought into the WH have already done
that ..and Trump let them. Who do you suppose Kushner has shared US secret intelligence with Israel for sure, probably Saudi in
exchange for their allying with Israel. We use to worry about spies and moles in government but now they are the government.
Trump's White House Has a Massive Security Problem. Jared Kushner isn't the only Trump official who got a special pass
after security experts said he shouldn't be allowed to access national-security secrets.
by Tina Nguyen
January 25, 2019 11:44 am
AFP
The CIA took one look at Kushner's SCI application and freaked out, calling over to the White House to find out how he even
got the lower level clearance.
[MORE]
In May, after months working under an interim clearance, Jared Kushner's request for a permanent security clearance, which
would allow him to see top-secret material, was finally granted. At the time, observers took this as an indication that Donald
Trump's son-in-law, who'd reportedly attracted Robert Mueller's attention for his ties to various foreign entities, was in the
clear.
On Thursday, however, an NBC News report threw that conclusion into doubt. In fact, two sources familiar with the matter told
the outlet, Kushner's clearance was only approved because Trump's handpicked director of security personnel overruled two career
White House security specialists, who had recommended against Kushner receiving top-secret clearance after seeing the results
of his F.B.I. background check.
Kushner's case represents a worrisome pattern for the White House. Per NBC, Trump's director of security, Carl Kline, overruled
security experts in at least 30 cases, recommending that Trump officials be granted clearances despite troubling information uncovered
in their background checks. That number is indeed extraordinary.
Prior to the Trump administration, White House security experts had only been overruled once in the past three years. (The
White House told NBC, "We don't comment on security clearances." A CIA. spokesman said the same, and Kushner's lawyer, Abbe Lowell,
had "no comment." Kline, a former Pentagon employee, could not be reached for comment.)
Denying a security clearance to a White House official, noted Daniel Jacobson, a former lawyer in Barack Obama's administration,
is not something that's done lightly. "It is not normal for the head of the Personal Security Office to ever overrule the career
employees who adjudicate clearances," he wrote on Twitter. "It takes some pretty bad stuff to be denied a clearance. The fact
that there have been thirty denial recommendations of WH staff in the last 1.5 years is itself crazy, before you even get to the
overruling part."
After he was cleared by the White House, Kushner's file was reportedly submitted to the C.I.A. to be evaluated for an S.C.I.,
or "sensitive compartmented information" clearance -- an even higher designation. It didn't go well:
After reviewing the file, CIA. officers who make clearance decisions balked, two of the people familiar with the matter
said. One called over to the White House security division, wondering how Kushner got even a top-secret clearance, the sources
said. Given his various entanglements, the CIA.'s alarm makes sense.
@renfroI don't trust Kushner, but denying clearances is the main weapon used by the Deep State to retain control, and
Trump was right to place his own man in charge. Note the media sources mentioned are Deep State media, who quote "the CIA" as
though that is a person to be trusted.
I'm sure people like Ron Unz and the Saker would be denied clearances if appointed to a position in Washington if Deep
Staters were gatekeepers. The "CIA" prefer narcissistic retired military officers who lack a soul and wave the flag.
"... An indefinite military presence in Iraq makes no more sense for the U.S. than it does to have one in Syria. Keeping troops in Iraq isn't going to give the U.S. any knowledge about what Iran's government is doing inside its borders, and announcing that their mission is an anti-Iranian one exposes them to potential attack from militias aligned with Tehran ..."
"... Another country with a large permanent garrison of US Troops to join Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc. how long will this occupation of Iraq last? Five years? Fifty years? We have had Troops in Germany and Japan for 73 years. How long will this continue? For another 100 years? ..."
"... The neocons will not rest until we have US boots on the ground in every nation on earth. Enough of this foolishness. ..."
Trump wants to
keep U.S. forces in Iraq so they can "watch" Iran:
President Trump plans to keep United States troops in Iraq to monitor and maintain pressure on neighboring Iran, committing
to an American military presence in the region's war zones even as he moves to withdraw forces from Syria and Afghanistan.
"I want to be able to watch Iran," Mr. Trump said in an interview aired Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation." "We're going to
keep watching and we're going to keep seeing and if there's trouble, if somebody is looking to do nuclear weapons or other things,
we're going to know it before they do."
An indefinite military presence in Iraq makes no more sense for the U.S. than it does to have one in Syria. Keeping troops
in Iraq isn't going to give the U.S. any knowledge about what Iran's government is doing inside its borders, and announcing that
their mission is an anti-Iranian one exposes them to potential attack from militias aligned with Tehran.
Many Iraqis already want U.S. forces out of the country now that ISIS has been dealt with, and there will probably be even more
demanding our withdrawal if Trump tries to keep U.S. forces there for this purpose.
Trump's suggestion that Iran might "do nuclear weapons" is more of the same propaganda that he and his officials have been pushing
for months. Iran is unable to develop and build nuclear weapons because it is complying with the nuclear deal that Trump reneged
on. Thanks to the nuclear deal, the IAEA is able to conduct very intrusive inspections as part of the most rigorous verification
regime, and they would be the first to know if Iran were violating the restrictions set down in the JCPOA.
It is unlikely that the Iraqi government is going to agree to a U.S. presence that is being justified by hostility to its neighbor.
Iraq's president has already said that the U.S. military presence is permitted in the country only for the purposes of counter-terrorism:
Iraq's government wants to maintain good relations with Iran, and it isn't going to go along with an anti-Iranian agenda that
can only harm Iraq's economic and security interests. Many of Iran's neighbors are not as obsessed with and hostile to Iran as the
Trump administration, and Iraq definitely doesn't want to be a front-line state in some anti-Iranian coalition. Trump's proposal
would needlessly put U.S. troops at greater risk in Iraq, and it would gain the U.S. nothing except more resentment from Iraqis.
Another country with a large permanent garrison of US Troops to join Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc. how long will this
occupation of Iraq last? Five years? Fifty years? We have had Troops in Germany and Japan for 73 years. How long will this continue?
For another 100 years?
The neocons will not rest until we have US boots on the ground in every nation on earth. Enough of this foolishness.
@Bill Instead of looking at this issue using a microscope, reading history about how
Empires fall lends wisdom and insight. Arrighi's book, (I believe) is called "The Long
Twentieth Century." He details how empires and huge trading giants rise and fall.
He details the rise of Italy's banking system during the Middle Ages as well as Spain's
Empire, the Dutch trading hegemonies and most enlightening how the British Empire rose and
fell.
We are seeing tell-tale symptoms of a US that's in trouble with a slow erosion of the US
$$ hegemony. The financial growth of China has begun degrading the US market with hi-tech and
other products. Thusly, you see Tim Cook of Apple apoplectic over China's Huwaii (sp?)
flooding the European market with less expensive computers, cellulars, notebooks, etc.
We see the practical nature of Exxon Mobile that views the short geographic distance
between the US (its military) to Venezuela's oil and mineral-rich soil. An easy pick, rather
than becoming further embroiled in the Middle East.
Targeting Venezuela suggests a geopolitical shift away from the Middle East (and Israel)
to countries that are less expensive to plunder yet with vast resources to be stolen. A
telling sign in the slow deteriorating US Hegemony.
"... This reminds me of the gerontocrats of the Soviet Politburo in the worst stagnation years who had to appoint the likes of Chernenko to top positions. ..."
"... The one thing the Mr MAGA's administration has in common with the late Brezhevian Politburo is its total inability to get anything done. My wife refers to the folks in the White House (since Dubya came to power) as the " gang that couldn't shoot straight " and she is right (she always is!): they just can't really get anything done anymore – all their half-assed pseudo-successes are inevitably followed by embarrassing failures. ..."
Remember the almost universal reaction of horror when Bolton was appointed as National
Security Advisor? Well, apparently, either the Neocons completely missed that, which I doubt,
or they did what they always do and decided to double-down by retrieving Elliott Abrams from
storage and appointing him US Special Envoy to Venezuela. I mean, yes, of course, the Neocons
are stupid and sociopathic enough not to ever care about others, but in this case I think that
we are dealing with a "Skripal tactic": do something so ridiculously stupid and offensive that
it places all your vassals before a stark choice: either submit and pretend like you did not
notice or, alternatively, dare to say something and face with wrath of Uncle Shmuel (the
Neocon's version of Uncle Sam).
And it worked, in the name of "solidarity" or whatever else, the most faithful lackeys of
the Empire immediate fell in line behind the latest US aggression against a sovereign nation in
spite of the self-evident fact that this aggression violates every letter of the most sacred
principles of international law. This is exactly the same tactic as when they make you clean
toilets with a toothbrush or do push-ups in the mud during basic training: not only to
condition you to total obedience, but to make you publicly give up any semblance of
dignity.
...Finally, these appointments also show that the senior-Neocons are frightened and paranoid
as there are still plenty of very sharp junior-Neocon folks to chose from in the US, yet they
felt the need to get Abrams from conservation and place him in a key position in spite of the
strong smell of naphthalene emanating from him. This reminds me of the gerontocrats of the
Soviet Politburo in the worst stagnation years who had to appoint the likes of Chernenko to top
positions.
The one thing the Mr MAGA's administration has in common with the late Brezhevian
Politburo is its total inability to get anything done. My wife refers to the folks in the White
House (since Dubya came to power) as the " gang that couldn't shoot straight "
and she is right (she always is!): they just can't really get anything done anymore – all
their half-assed pseudo-successes are inevitably followed by embarrassing failures.
LOL Deep State is a term used by the simple minded. There is no 'deep state' there is
however a shadow government and it is made up of various groups all jockeying for
their own interest.
We have the 'Establishment..i.e. the two parties who want to maintain
their political power. We have the Corporate Elites and Globalist ' who want to control the
world's commerce and economies. We have Wall Street who doesnt want any restrictions on their
financial crimes. We have Domestic Business Interest who want laws and policies favorable to
them. We have Foreign Interest who want to use the US for their country.
Sometimes they join forces when their interest coincide, sometimes they don't.
Outside of this shadow government we have Ideological Activist of various kinds that can
be useful or not to the Establishment, the Globalist, Wall Street, Domestic Business Interest
and Foreign Interest.
All of the above are why we cant and don't have coherent policies on anything foreign or
domestic.
People like you who want to ascribe everything to some giant conspiracy in the CIA help to
dumb people down , its easier for the lazy to have one or two big scary entities to blame.
You cant even explain what the CIA conspiracy is can you? Tell us how the CIA maintains their
conspiracy against the US and what their goal is. How does the CIA maintain their secret
agenda when the CIA is subject to new CIA directors with every change of presidents and
parties?
"... Now add numerous different 'companies' with their own books and stupendous amounts of transfers between them. That in a nutshell is not just the Pentagon but the whole US financial economy. ..."
"... It also smacks of distorted priorities when the US military can fund and construct a small town sized base with a private 18 hole golf course, a multi room cinema, a McDonalds and a Burger King in faraway Iraq while the US government can't find enough funds to re pave a major road just outside of Washington DC. ..."
@bluedog There are thousands of examples, but here is a recent one from my blog:
Feb 2, 2019 -- USAF to Reopen Unneeded Airbase
A great example of waste and corruption in the US military is the plan to rebuild and
reopen Tyndall Air Force base. The number of aircraft in the USAF has fallen nearly in half
over the past 20 years, so it has far too many airbases that are expensive to operate. For
example, after F-22 bases were selected only half as many F-22s were procured as planned, so
all F-22 bases have ample room for more aircraft.
Last year, Tyndall Air Force F-22 base in Florida was destroyed by a hurricane. Tyndall's
F-22s were quickly relocated to other bases. Some questioned why such expensive aircraft were
based in an area with hurricanes since several F-22s undergoing maintenance were destroyed.
Nevertheless, the Air Force just announced at least $3 billion will be spent over five years
to rebuild and reopen unneeded and poorly located Tyndall!
Politics are important and the base is a mess, but the Air Force should have proposed
spending a couple billion to clean up Tyndall and prepare it for industrial or other
productive private sector uses. But our Congress and Pentagon are so selfish and corrupt they
don't give a damn about wasting money. Just bill the taxpayers and always blame poor
readiness and accidents on a lack of funding!
@bluedog As much as I support the notion that the Pentagon is awash in corruption, the
media reports about missing trillions are incorrect and the result of either deliberate
misrepresentation or (more likely) the lack of competence on the part of those reporting to
comprehend complicated material.
The reports originated from the recent audit work done on the Pentagon. I'm not sure
exactly how long a period this covered (and to be honest, can't be bothered to look it up
right now) but it was a 10-20 year period.
Included in the preliminary reports was the unaccounted for adjustments totaling up to
several trillions of dollars. Here's the thing most people reporting on this fail to grasp,
adjustments are not expenditures. There a bookkeeping gimmick to balance the books.
The debit and credit side need to be balanced out. This is what adjustments do. They
balance the books. But as they can appear on either the credit or the debit side and on both
sides at the same time, they can be used to artificially inflate the books (to make a company
look more valuable than it is) or to hide real expenses. More likely in the case of the
Pentagon, due to systemic failures of accurately forecasting (real) expenditures, inability
to stick to budgets and ignoring (at least some) of the financial paperwork needed to satisfy
the accountant, they had to make numerous adjustments all over the place to balance their
books.
In addition, it is highly likely that these trillions include the same adjustment multiple
times, not because 'it' (what ever it is) happened multiple times, but because it is included
in the books of each level in the Pentagon hierarchy that reports its finances
independently.
For example, a specific ship in the Navy spends more on their operational cruise than it
should have. This means adjustments on its financial report. The fleet it belongs to also has
to adjust its books. The US Navy also has to include the adjustment and ultimately the
overall Pentagon books will include it too. The same adjustment reported multiple times.
It also works if the ship spends LESS than was budgeted for. A surplus also requires an
adjustment in the books with the same result as above.
Last (purely theoretical) example; let's say you have 3 companies. You put $ 1 million in
company A.
You transfer this in batches to company B. You put in the books (of company A) as
'reservations', ie money to be spend later. When this comes into company B, you put it in the
books as 'investments' ie implying the money is to used by company B for expenditures. Again
you transfer this in batches, this time to company C, again as 'reservations'. You book them
as 'investments' in company C and guess what, you then transfer these into company A as
'reservations'.
Company A now has an additional $ 1M coming into it which you label 'investments'. The
value of company A now appears to be $ 2M ($ 1M investments from company C and $ 1M in
reservations) as it it not evident from the books of ONLY company A that it is the same $ 1M.
You need to see all of the books to make sense of what is happening, in this case to
distinguish between what are real revenue and expenses and what is just pumping around of the
same money.
Now add numerous different 'companies' with their own books and stupendous amounts of
transfers between them. That in a nutshell is not just the Pentagon but the whole US
financial economy.
Note for the accountants out there, I know, the last example is extremely simplified. It
merely serves to illustrate the subject in an easily understood manner.
@Johnny Rico I believe they are referring to the practice of diverting funds that would
otherwise go to maintain vital infrastructure, health care services and sanitation to over
purchase military equipment by the billions in order to maintain a high level of income for
the armaments industry.
It also smacks of distorted priorities when the US military can fund and construct a
small town sized base with a private 18 hole golf course, a multi room cinema, a McDonalds
and a Burger King in faraway Iraq while the US government can't find enough funds to re pave
a major road just outside of Washington DC.
They could also be talking about the weird practice of US tax money getting flushed down
the toilet by funding one army project after another that always, always goes over budget,
under delivers on promises, breaks down too easy and can't fight off decade old tech if they
don't cancel it after a billion or so is lost.
As for me, when I look at the US, I shake my head when I notice that the military
industrial complex and the Government have become one and the same thanks to the revolving
door between private companies and US Gov offices.
@AnonFromTN Just imagine for a second that everything "Made in China" disappears from the
US stores. Then ask: why is the superior indispensable democratic country cannot supply its
citizens with all this crap? Why does it have to rely on communist dictatorship to produce so
much, from nails, electric bulbs, and appliances to clothes?
I can answer this, and it wasn't always that way. Listen to Linda Ronstadt's lyrics.
The superior indispensable country became a liberal democracy in 1912 with the advent of
Wilson's progressive era reforms. The 16'th amendment is used to back up the instability of
banks -- remember TARP? 17'th is used to make Senators into populists and hence break state
power. Senators then become easy to bribe and maneuver as they cannot be recalled by their
state Legislature, and no longer do the bidding of their voters. Federal Reserve Act, IRS,
March to War, and so on. Women's suffrage made easy to maneuver and emotionally driven women
prey for the tribe.
It takes awhile for some things to manifest. The U.S. export of Jobs and American
Patrimony began under Clinton. The idea was for Wall Street to make some wage arbitrage. The
Wall Street China/China gambit then began, and transplanted companies exported from China at
just under the American price. The Patrimony of America was gifted to China, all of the
knowledge from the past was monetized for today, so the future was screwed.
This is yet another reason (how many do you need) for our hand rubbing friends to be
disallowed from ever being near money or finance.
Justinian of Byzantium prevented Jews from being in government, teaching in schools, or in
counting houses -- what goes for banking today.
This still didn't work for us, because their descendants from Pale of Settlement,
immigrated to U.S. to become today's Neo-Cons.
Seriously, Ron Paul or Tulsi Gabbard speaking of democracy is one thing, but having
gangsters and psychopathic thugs like Pompeo, Bolton or Abrams in charge really sends a message
and that message is that we are dealing with a banal case of highway robbery triggered by two
very crude considerations:
First, to re-take control of Venezuela's immense natural
resources. Second, to prove to the world that Uncle Shmuel can still, quote , " pick up some small crappy
little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business ",
unquote.
The obvious problem is that 1) nobody takes the US seriously because 2) the US has not been
capable of defeating any country capable of resistance since many decades already. The various
US special forces, which would typically spearhead any invasion, have an especially appalling
record of abject failures every time they stop posing for cameras and have to engage in real
combat. I assure you that nobody in the Venezuelan military cares about movies like "Rambo" or
"Delta Force" while they carefully studied US FUBARs in Somalia, Grenada, Iran and elsewhere.
You can also bet that the Cubans, who have had many years of experience dealing with the (very
competent) South African special forces in Angola and elsewhere will share their experience
with their Venezuelan colleagues.
"... Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by all those people he himself appointed, poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish friends with all the victimization BS. ..."
"... I think Israel is just a capitalist creation, nothing to do with Jews, just a foothold in he middle east for Wall St to have a base to control the oil and gas there, they didn't create Israel until they discovered how much oil was there, and realized how much control over the world it would give them to control it. ..."
"... It is the love of money, the same thing the Bible warned us about. Imperialism/globalism is the latest stage of capitalism, that is what all of this is about, follow the money. ..."
I heartily dislike and find despicable the socialist government of Maduro, just as I did
Hugo Chavez when he was in power. I have some good friends there, one of whom was a student
of mine when I taught in Argentina many years ago, and he and his family resolutely oppose
Maduro. Those socialist leaders in Caracas are tin-pot dictator wannabees who have wrecked
the economy of that once wealthy country; and they have ridden roughshod over the
constitutional rights of the citizens. My hope has been that the people of Venezuela,
perhaps supported by elements in the army, would take action to rid the country of those
tyrants.
Hard to take this guy seriously when he spouts Fox News level propaganda.
Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by
all those people he himself appointed, poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish
friends with all the victimization BS.
Its clear that voting no longer works folks, this is an undemocratic and illegitimate
"government" we have here. We let them get away with killing JFK, RFK, MLK, Vietnam, we let
them get away with 9/11, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria. They've made a mess in Africa. All
the refugees into Europe, all the refugees from Latin America that have already come from CIA
crimes, more will come.
We wouldn't need a wall if Wall St would stop with their BS down there!
You can't just blame Jews, yes there are lots of Jews in Corporate America, bu t not all
of them are, and there are lots of Jews who speak out against this. We were doing this long
before Israel came into existence. You can't just blame everything one one group, I think
Israel/Zionist are responsible for a lot of BS, but you can't exclude CIA, Wall St,
Corporations, Banks, The MIC either. Its not just one group, its all of them. They're all
evil, they're imperialists and they're all capitalists.
I think Israel is just a capitalist creation, nothing to do with Jews, just a foothold
in he middle east for Wall St to have a base to control the oil and gas there, they didn't
create Israel until they discovered how much oil was there, and realized how much control
over the world it would give them to control it.
Those people moving to Israel are being played, just like the "Christian Zionists" here
are, its a cult. Most "Jews" are atheists anyhow, and it seems any ol greedy white guy can
claim to be a Jew. So how do you solve a "Jewish Problem" if anybody can claim to be a Jew? I
think solving the capitalist problem would be a little easier to enforce.
All of the shills can scream about communists, socialists and marxists all they want.
Capitalism is the problem always has been always will be. Its a murderous, immoral,
unsustainable system that encourages greed, it is a system who's driving force is maximizing
profits, and as such the State controlled or aligned with Corporations is the most advanced
form of capitalism because it is the most profitable. They're raping the shit out of us,
taking our money to fund their wars, so they can make more money while paying little to no
taxes at all. Everything, everyone here complains about is caused by CAPITALISM, but nobody
dares say it, they've been programmed since birth to think that way.
We should nationalize our oil and gas, instead of letting foreigners come in and steal it,
again paying little or no taxes on it, then selling the oil they took from our country back
to us. Russia and Venezuela do it, Libya did it, Iraq did it, and they used the money for the
people of the country, they didn't let the capitalists plunder their wealth like the traitors
running our country. We're AT LEAST $21 trillion in the hole now from this wonderful system
of ours, don't you think we should try something else? Duh!
It is the love of money, the same thing the Bible warned us about.
Imperialism/globalism is the latest stage of capitalism, that is what all of this is about,
follow the money. Just muh opinion
US Sanctions as a Tool To Perpetuate Neocolonialism
by Nauman
Sadiq Posted on
February 02, 2019 January 31, 2019 It's an evident fact that neocolonial powers are ruled
by behemoth corporations whose wealth is measured in hundreds of billions of dollars, far
more than the total GDP of many developing nations. The status of these multinational
corporations as dominant players in international politics gets official imprimatur when the
Western governments endorse the congressional lobbying practice of so-called "special
interest" groups, which is a euphemism for corporate interests.
Since the Western governments are nothing but the mouthpiece of business interests on
international political and economic forums, therefore any national or international entity
which hinders or opposes the agenda of corporate interests is either coerced into accepting
their demands or gets sidelined.
In 2013, the Manmohan Singh's government of India had certain objections to further
opening up to the Western businesses. The Business Roundtable, which is an informal
congregation of major US businesses and together holds a net wealth of $6 trillion, held a
meeting with the representatives of the Indian government and literally coerced it into
accepting unfair demands of the Western corporations.
The developing economies, such as India and Pakistan, are always hungry for foreign direct
investment (FDI) to sustain economic growth, and this investment mostly comes from the
Western corporations. When the Business Roundtables or the Paris-based International Chamber
of Commerce (ICC) form pressure groups and engage in "collective bargaining" activities, the
nascent and fragile developing economies don't have a choice but to toe their line.
State sovereignty, that sovereign nation states are at liberty to pursue independent
policies, particularly economic and trade policies, is a myth. Just like the ruling elites of
the developing countries which maintain a stranglehold and monopoly over domestic politics;
similarly, the neocolonial powers and multinational corporations control international
politics and the global economic order.
Any state in the international arena which dares to transgress the trade and economic
policies laid down by neocolonial powers and multinational corporations becomes an
international pariah like Castro's Cuba, Mugabe's Zimbabwe; or more recently, Maduro's
Venezuela.
Venezuela has one of the largest known oil reserves in the world. Even though the
mainstream media's pundits hold the socialist policies of President Nicolas Maduro
responsible for economic mismanagement in Venezuela, fact of the matter is that
hyperinflation in its economy is the effect of US sanctions against Venezuela which have been
put in place since the time of late President Hugo Chavez.
Another case in point is Iran which was cut off from the global economic system from 2006
to 2015, and then again after May last year when President Donald Trump annulled the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), because of Iran's supposed nuclear ambitions. Good for
Iran that it also has one of the largest oil and gas resources, otherwise it would have been
insolvent by now.
Such is the power of Washington-led global financial system, especially the banking
sector, and the significance of petrodollar, because the global oil transactions are pegged
in the US dollars all over the world, and all the major oil bourses are also located in the
Western financial districts.
The crippling "third party" economic sanctions on Iran from 2006 to 2015 have brought to
the fore the enormous power that the Western financial institutions and the petrodollar as a
global reserve currency wields over the global financial system.
It bears mentioning that the Iranian nuclear negotiations were as much about Iran's
nuclear program as they were about its ballistic missile program, which is an equally
dangerous conventional threat to Israel and the Gulf's petro-monarchies, just across the
Persian Gulf.
Despite the sanctions being unfair, Iran felt the heat so much that it remained engaged in
negotiations throughout the nearly decade-long period of sanctions, and such was the
crippling effect of those "third party" sanctions on Iran's economy that had it not been for
its massive oil and gas reserves, and some Russian, Chinese and Turkish help in illicitly
buying Iranian oil, it could have defaulted due to the sanctions.
Notwithstanding, after the brutal assassination of Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate
in Istanbul on October 2, and the clear hand of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in the
murder, certain naïve political commentators of the mainstream media came up with a
ludicrous suggestion that Washington should impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia.
As in the case of aforementioned Iran sanctions, sanctioning Saudi Arabia also seems
plausible; however, there is a caveat: Iran is only a single oil-rich state which has 160
billion barrels of proven oil reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million barrels per
day (mbpd) of crude oil.
On the other hand, the Persian Gulf's petro-monarchies are actually three oil-rich states.
Saudi Arabia with its 266 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and 10 mbpd of daily crude
oil production, and UAE and Kuwait with 100 billion barrels of proven reserves, each, and 3
mbpd of daily crude oil production, each. Together, the share of the Gulf Cooperation
Countries (GCC) amounts to 466 billion barrels, almost one-third of the world's 1477 billion
barrels of total proven oil reserves.
Therefore, although imposing economic sanctions on the Gulf states might sound like a good
idea on paper, the relationship between the Gulf's petro-monarchies and the industrialized
world is that of a consumer-supplier relationship. The Gulf states are the suppliers of
energy and the industrialized world is its consumer, hence the Western powers cannot sanction
their energy suppliers and largest investors.
If anything, the Gulf's petro-monarchies had "sanctioned" the Western powers in the past
by imposing the oil embargo in 1973 after the Arab-Israel War. The 1973 Arab oil embargo
against the West lasted only for a short span of six months during which the price of oil
quadrupled, but Washington became so paranoid after the embargo that it put in place a ban on
the export of crude oil outside the US borders, and began keeping sixty-day stock of reserve
fuel for strategic and military needs.
Recently, some very upbeat rumors about the shale revolution have been circulating in the
media. However, the shale revolution is primarily a natural gas revolution. It has increased
the probable recoverable resources of natural gas by 30%. The shale oil, on the other hand,
refers to two starkly different kinds of energy resources: firstly, the solid kerogen –
though substantial resources of kerogen have been found in the US Green River formations, the
cost of extracting liquid crude from solid kerogen is so high that it is economically
unviable for at least a hundred years; secondly, the tight oil which is blocked by shale
– it is a viable energy resource but the reserves are so limited, roughly 4 billion
barrels in Texas and North Dakota, that it will run out in a few years.
More than the size of oil reserves, it is about per barrel extraction cost, which
determines the profits for the multinational oil companies. And in this regard, the Persian
Gulf's crude oil is the most profitable. Further, regarding the supposed US energy
independence after the purported shale revolution, the US produced 11 million barrels per day
(bpd) of crude oil in the first quarter of 2014, which was more than the output of Saudi
Arabia and Russia, each of which produces around 10 million bpd. But the US still imported
7.5 million bpd during the same period, which was more than the oil imports of France and
Britain put together. More than the total volume of oil production, the volume which an
oil-producing country exports determines its place in the hierarchy of petroleum and the
Gulf's petro-monarchies constitute the top tier of that pyramid.
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused
on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and
petro-imperialism.
Ever hear of the "Hague Invasion Act" passed under Bush? In short, if you are an American
or an American ally (e.g. Israeli) and you find yourself in Hague charged with war crimes or
crimes against humanity, the Pentagon is authorized to go into the Hague, if necessary, and
break them out-
I remember being utterly amazed about 10 years ago when the Germans wanted to just look at
their gold in the vaults at the New York Fed, and were told by the US authorities "NO!" , and
the Germans backed down. And another moment of gob-smacking arrogance during the Reagan years
when the US refused to recognize the World Court's jurisdiction when Nicaragua sued the US for
mining it's harbors. The US refused to participate, lost the case and was able to get away with
not paying the judgment. Is my memory faulty on any of this?
I'm sympathetic to the argument, but coming from an academic the presentation is a bit
sloppy. Not only does he invent the meaningless phrase "quo bono" (as has been pointed out,
it's "cui bono") he's wrong about World Bank Presidents being former Defence Secretaries (the
current incumbent is Korean, anyway). He's completely confused about the legal side, and has
invented an entirely mythical organisation -- the "United Nations International Court." He
seems to be mixing up two organisations: the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which
is nothing to do with the UN, and settles international law questions where the countries agree
to accept its judgements, and the International Criminal Court also in The Hague which deals
with violations of international humanitarian law, and is a treaty-based organisation of which
the US is not a member anyway.
Five minutes checking in Wikipedia could have avoided all these errors. I wonder how many
others there are? As I say, I'm not unsympathetic to the argument, but you expect better from a
distinguished academic.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United
Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began
work in April 1946.
The seat of the Court is at the Peace
Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it
is the only one not located in New York (United States of America).
The Court's role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes
submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by
authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.
The Court is composed of 15 judges, who are elected for terms of office of nine years by
the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. It is assisted by a Registry,
its administrative organ. Its official languages are English and French
It predates the United Nations as the Permanent Court of International Justice, although it
has a link to the UN now, as practically all global organisations do. The UN is obviously the
right place to elect the judges, for example. It is not a "UN Court" and has jurisdiction only
over international law questions where both sides agree in advance to accept the verdict. The
article is conflating and confusing two organisations in the Hague, quite different, which in
each case have a link to the UN, but are not, individually or collectively, a "UN Court."
I second David's remarks. The author should get his terms right and be clear what court he's
referring to -- he does seem to conflate the ICC and the ICJ.
One other correction: I believe it was FDR, not LBJ, who famously remarked "He may be a son
of a [family blog] but he's our son of a [family blog]," in reference to the Nicaraguan
dictator Anastasio Somoza.
When Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
announced her candidacy for the presidency on CNN last month, I had a feeling I'd be
writing about her a fair bit. Not because I particularly want her to be president, but because
I knew her candidacy would cause the narrative control mechanizations of the political/media
class to overextend themselves , leaving them open to attack, exposure, and the weakening of
their control of the narrative.
Mere
hours before her campaign officially launched, NBC News published an astonishingly blatant smear piece titled "Russia's
propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard," subtitled "Experts who
track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of
support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard." One of the article's authors shared it on Twitter with the
caption, "The Kremlin already has a crush on Tulsi Gabbard."
The article reported that media outlets tied to the Russian government had been talking a
lot about Gabbard's candidacy, ironically citing as an example an RT article which
documented the attempts by the US mainstream media to paint Gabbard as a Kremlin agent. The
article's authors cited the existence of such articles combined with the existence of "chatter"
about Gabbard on the anonymous message board 8chan (relevant for God knows what reason) as
evidence to substantiate its blaring headline. Even more hilariously, the source for its weird
8chan claim is named as none other than Renee DiResta of the narrative control firm New
Knowledge, which was
recently embroiled in a scandal for staging a "false flag operation" in an Alabama Senate
race which gave one of the candidates the false appearance of being amplified by Russian
bots.
This pathetic, juvenile language from one of the authors of that astronomically awful NBC
News article gives you a sense of what they're trying to accomplish here. Smear campaign
fully underway https://t.co/jvl5pFRr0P
This article is of course absurd. As we
discussed recently , you will always see Russia on the same US foreign policy page as
anti-interventionists like Tulsi Gabbard, because Russia, like so many other nations, opposes
US interventionism. To treat this as some sort of shocking conspiracy instead of obvious and
mundane is journalistic malpractice. There are many, many very good reasons to oppose the war
agendas of the US-centralized empire, none of which have anything to do with having any loyalty
to or sympathies for the Russian government.
But we will continue to see this tactic used again and again and again against any and all
opposition to US-led interventionism for as long as the Russiagate psyop maintains its grip
upon western consciousness. And make no mistake, these smears have everything to do with
anti-interventionism and nothing to do with Russia. There will never, ever be an antiwar voice
who the political/media class and their centrist followers espouse as good and valid; they'll
never say "Ahh, finally, someone who hates war and also isn't aligned with Russia! We can get
behind this one!" That will never, ever happen, because it is the opposition to war and
interventionism itself which is being rejected, and in the McCarthyite environment of Russia
hysteria, tarring it as "Russian" simply makes a practical excuse for that rejection.
All the biggest conflicts in the world can be described as unipolarism vs multipolarism: the
unipolarists who support the global hegemony of the US-centralized empire at any cost, versus
the multipolarists who oppose that dominance and support the existence of multiple power
structures in the world. The governments of Russia, China, Iran and their allies are
predominantly multipolarist in their geopolitical outlook, and they tend to be more in favor of
non-interventionism, since unipolarity can only be held in place by brute force and aggression.
Unipolarists, therefore, can always paint western anti-interventionists as Russian assets,
since the Russian government is multipolarist and opposed to the interventionism of the
unipolarists.
The nonstop propaganda campaign to keep the coals of Russia hysteria burning white hot at
all times can therefore be looked at first and foremost as a psychological operation to kill
support for multipolarism around the world. It can of course be used to manufacture consent for
escalations against Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, Iran etc as needed, but it can also be
used to attack the ideology of anti-interventionism itself by smearing anyone who opposes
unipolar oppression and aggression as an agent of a nefarious oppositional government.
The social engineers have succeeded in constructing a narrative control device which
encapsulates the entire agenda of the unipolar world order in a single bumper sticker-sized
talking point: "Russia opposes Big Brother, therefore anyone who opposes Big Brother is
Russian." This device didn't take an amazing intellectual feat to create; all they had to do
was recreate the paranoid insanity of the original cold war, and they already had a blueprint
for that. It was simply a matter of shepherding us back there.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, there emerged a popular notion of a " peace dividend " in which defense
spending could be reduced in the absence of America's sole rival and the abundant excess funds
used to take care of the American people instead. The only problem was that a lot of people had
gotten very rich and powerful as a result of that cold war defense spending, and it wasn't long
before they started circulating the idea of using America's newly uncontested might for a very
expensive campaign to hammer down a liberal world order led by the beneficent guidance of the
United States government. Soon the neoconservatives were pushing their unipolarist narratives in high levels
of influence with great effect, and shortly thereafter they got their " new Pearl
Harbor " in the form of the 9/11 attacks which justified an explosion in defense spending,
interventionism and expansionism, just as the neoconservative Project for a New American
Century had called
for . And the rest is history.
And now our collective consciousness is planted right back in the center of that paranoid,
hawkish political environment of the first cold war. The main difference now is of course that
Russia is nothing remotely like a superpower today, and that the establishment Russia narrative
is made entirely out of narrative, but the most important difference is that this time the
establishment narratives are not taking place within the hermetically sealed bubbles of major
news media corporations. People are able to communicate with each other and share information
far more easily than they were prior to the fall of the Berlin wall, and westerners are able to
easily access Russian media and anti-interventionist narratives if they want to.
Whoever controls the narrative controls the world, as I never tire of saying. This
difficulty in replicating the hermetically sealed media environment of the original cold war
poses a severe challenge for narrative control, and it is for this reason reason that there is
now so much skepticism of the establishment Russia narrative. It is also the reason for the
establishment's aggressive maneuvers to censor the internet, to demonize Russian media, and to
smear anti-interventionist perspectives.
But we can't keep living this way. We all know this, deep down. The people at the helm of
the unipolar world order are advancing an ecocidal world economy which is stripping the earth
bare and filling the air with poison while at the same time pushing more and more aggressively
against the multipolarist powers, one of which happens to have thousands of nuclear warheads at
its disposal. The unipolarity so enthusiastically promoted by the neoconservatives and their
fellow travelers has reached the end of the line after just a few short years, and now it's
time to dispense with it and try something else. They will necessarily smear us with everything
but the kitchen sink for saying so, but we are right and they are wrong. The state of the world
today proves this beyond a doubt.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet
merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin
Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . The best way to get around the internet censors
and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish.
"... Afghanistan is now the longest war in U.S. history, making any withdrawal seem anything but "precipitous." Syria hasn't even been authorized by Congress. In both cases, our men and women in the armed forces have already achieved the goals that are militarily attainable. "It doesn't get much more pathetic," Congressman Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, said of the Senate vote. ..."
"... taken at face value, it inverts Congress's constitutional war powers by allowing lawmakers to shirk their power to declare war while frustrating presidential efforts to pursue peace. ..."
"... When Trump twice bombed Syria without congressional approval, the Beltway applaude ..."
"... The one bright spot in the Senate vote was that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar were all on the side of withdrawal. ..."
"... Trump has heeded the hawks in his party -- and inside his own administration -- on Yemen, Iran, and perhaps soon Venezuela. Breaking free of their stranglehold could help put his presidency back on track. Otherwise he will end up ceding foreign policy to the progressives who want to usher him out of office either by impeachment or electoral defeat. ..."
"... Trump's call to bring the troops home has left him isolated in Washington. If he makes withdrawal a priority in the State of the Union, he may find that he has more company throughout the country than he thinks. ..."
"... Seriously, he's got too many warmongers in his administration to go after Congress. If he's serious about ending these wars he needs to clean house in his administration of the perpetual warmongers. Once he's done that then go after Congress. To do anything less is Trump talking it one way, while his administration does something completely different. ..."
"... I believe the above quote shows that there are lawbreakers and warmongers in both political parties. None of the above countries "Afghanistan and Syria" invaded or attacked America. Therefore I believe they are in violation of international law. ..."
Who says Democrats and Republicans can't agree on anything? Washington closed ranks Thursday
behind two wars President Donald Trump has proposed winding down as the Senate voted 68-23 to
advance a resolution warning against "precipitous withdrawal" from Afghanistan and Syria.
Afghanistan is now the longest war in U.S. history, making any withdrawal seem anything
but "precipitous." Syria hasn't even been authorized by Congress. In both cases, our men and
women in the armed forces have already achieved the goals that are militarily attainable. "It
doesn't get much more pathetic," Congressman Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, said of the
Senate vote.
The resolution is non-binding, like the Democrats' toothless measures to stop George W.
Bush's Iraq "surge" over a decade ago. Still, taken at face value, it inverts Congress's
constitutional war powers by allowing lawmakers to shirk their power to declare war while
frustrating presidential efforts to pursue peace.
When Trump twice bombed Syria without congressional approval, the Beltway applaude
d. Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward's book repeats the president's probing questions
about how long we must stay in Afghanistan with an air of disbelief better suited to "fake
news" shared on Facebook. Trump's call late last year to bring troops home from both war-torn
countries elicited bipartisan criticism and the abrupt resignation of Pentagon chief James
Mattis.
To make matters worse, only three Republican senators -- Ted Cruz of Texas, John Kennedy of
Louisiana, and Mike Lee of Utah -- voted to stand with their president against these endless
nation-building exercises. Kentucky's Rand Paul, who was not present for the vote, would surely
have been a fourth. Even Chuck Schumer, the third straight Senate Democratic leader to have
voted for the Iraq war, opposed this anti-withdrawal amendment.
During the State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Trump should call Congress's bluff.
He should dare legislators to do their jobs and vote to authorize continuing these wars -- or
he will end them. Put the onus on the House and Senate to fulfill their constitutional
duties.
Trump may find that he has unlikely allies in his would-be 2020 Democratic presidential
foes. The one bright spot in the Senate vote was that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren,
Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar were all on the side of
withdrawal. How many ambitious Democrats will vote to give a Republican president a blank
check for war as an election year approaches?
GOP lawmakers will have to decide whether they stand with their president -- who wants to
cut America's multi-trillion dollar losses in the Middle East -- and
rank-and-file Republican voters in ending these wars. Those who want to stay in Syria and
Afghanistan quite likely cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton.
Up until now, Trump's big fight with the establishment has been over immigration and the
border wall. Amid his belated turn towards the more populist parts of his program, he should
not forget to spend political capital on America's wars as well. Trump
now says Republican congressional leaders misled him on the wall. It has been even worse on
foreign policy.
Partisans are dug in on the border. But on war, Trump has some opportunities to win over
converts. Will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sit stone-faced behind him as he agrees with the
Progressive Caucus on foreign policy?
Much is riding on whether a course correction is possible in Afghanistan and Syria.
Trump has heeded the hawks in his party -- and inside his own administration -- on Yemen,
Iran, and perhaps soon Venezuela. Breaking free of their stranglehold could help put his
presidency back on track. Otherwise he will end up ceding foreign policy to the progressives
who want to usher him out of office either by impeachment or electoral defeat.
Trump's call to bring the troops home has left him isolated in Washington. If he makes
withdrawal a priority in the State of the Union, he may find that he has more company
throughout the country than he thinks.
Mearsheimer has some main tenets of realist foreign policy include:
The lobby and its fellow travelers are not used to being told no. Time for them to create
and fund volunteer corps and do their own dirty work on their dime and at their own risk.
Trump should demand Congress debate and authorize the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. It
would be good policy and good politics. And good for the Constitution.
Wouldn't hold my breath on Trump doing any such thing on ending of the Middle Eastern Wars.
Seriously, he's got too many warmongers in his administration to go after Congress. If he's
serious about ending these wars he needs to clean house in his administration of the perpetual
warmongers. Once he's done that then go after Congress. To do anything less is Trump talking it
one way, while his administration does something completely different.
The article states: "Who says Democrats and Republicans can't agree on anything? Washington
closed ranks Thursday behind two wars President Donald Trump has proposed winding down as the
Senate voted 68-23 to advance a resolution warning against "precipitous withdrawal" from
Afghanistan and Syria."
-- -- -- -
I believe the above quote shows that there are lawbreakers and warmongers in both
political parties. None of the above countries "Afghanistan and Syria" invaded or attacked
America. Therefore I believe they are in violation of international law. More info at link
below.
I am extremely disappointed that both of my State's Democratic Senators voted to keep the wars
going.
However, I'm sure they did so only to spite Trump.
They don't either of them support more Long War. Of course, they don't want to be blamed
either in the case of another terrorist attack for not being tough enough. But this vote was
not one of principle.
That means they would not fight for it. They just did it. I suspect much of the vote in the
Senate was like that, and that the rather large number of non-votes is because of that.
During the State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Trump should call Congress's bluff.
He should dare legislators to do their jobs and vote to authorize continuing these wars -- or
he will end them. Put the onus on the House and Senate to fulfill their constitutional
duties.
Would that he would but he won't.
Mr. Trump shan't read this good advice because it seems he only reads what the Kushners put
in front of him and (for the most part) hires only people who despise him–people who are
married to the pro-war Blob in DC.
How come Poland's at 6% & Lithuania is at 29%? Don't they both import American LNG?
And how come Estonia is at 3%? Sounds like the Estonians import Russian gas. Bulgaria's at
37%. Now what were the assurances John McCain gave Sofia regarding alternative gas options to
Southstream? Please spell them out for me again, I'm pretty slow, you know!
What is so ridiculously ClusterFrack-Failed about this, is that BGR nixed a CNG Pipeline
Deal with RUS under pressure from the EU_EXECUTIVES.
Instead of Jobs and Transit Fee Income, BGR will have to stand in line and pay more for
CNG since TRK picked up the Pipeline. The Southeastern EUROZONE are STILL going to Import
that same RUS_CNG.
The project created controversy due to non-compliance with European Union competition and energy
legislation, in particular the Third Energy Package , which
stipulates the separation of companies' generation and sale operations from their
transmission networks.
It was seen as rival to the Nabucco pipeline project. Construction
of the Russian onshore facilities for the pipeline started in December 2012. The project
was cancelled by Russia in December 2014 following obstacles from Bulgaria and the EU, the
2014 Crimean
crisis , and the imposition of European sanctions on Russia. The project has been
replaced by proposals of Turkish Stream and Tesla pipeline .
Interestingly, the BAK Shalom group, which you called far-left, is one of the most
fanatical pro-Israel lobby groups in Germany. In my opinion, being a supporter of Israel
automatically means being far-right.
Its interesting that in Asia, the USG also says it wants to help build infrastructure for
LNG use (as an element of its anti China strategy) but then also wants Asian nations like
Vietnam to buy American LNG (to reduce America's trade deficits, etc.) once the
infrastructure is in place.
Except it would be economically stupid for anyone in Asia to buy more expensive US LNG,
when adequate supplies of LNG at lower costs are available from nations like Australia,
Malaysia and Indonesia and of course Qatar.
I guess when you really can't compete because you subsidize the military and FIRE sectors
and don't invest in your society, you resort to government interference in the market or
"regime change", and then criticize anyone for doing the same thing. Hypocrisy at its
finest.
" it has offered to sell high-priced LNG from the United States (via port facilities that do
not yet exist in anywhere near the volume required)." -- facilities that are themselves
dangerous and highly controversial. Oregon is in the midst of one of those controversies,
trying to stop construction of an LNG export "facility" at Coos Bay, a scenic but impoverished
port on the southern Oregon coast. It would come with a pipeline across the state, which is
also highly unwelcome. LNG facilities are a fuel-air bomb waiting to happen, if it should leak
-- the Oregon coast is subject to Magnitude 9 subduction quakes and tsunamis. The project would
also involve massive dredging that would threaten the local seafood industry. And gas pipelines
are subject to their own threats, doubly so in earthquake country. Maybe they can be built
uncontested in Europe -- but I doubt it.
Imagine the response of the USA Goobermint if, in an obverse scenario of the Venezuelan
fiasco, the Roosians and Chai-nese decided Trump was an undemocratic dictator and declared
they are depositing all USA payments they owe into Bernie Sander's accounts?
Oh, I'm sorry, bad analogy: unlike Guaido, Sanders actually ran and would be hanging
around the oval office if we had a democracy.
I note by other sources "Acting President of The United State", John Bolton, has stated he
will send President Murado to Gitmo .....Apparently, a coup took place and Trump has been
demoted from Chief Moron to Acting Moron of the United States.
Expect the Venezuelan White Helmets to appear real soon. This "project" is being run using
the same plan as Syria. This means that shortly there will be reports that the Bolivarian
government has used chemical weapons it doesn't have against the "freedom fighters".
Dominance in technology still represent pretty powerful lever used to damage and possibly subdue Russia. King of
technological imperialism.
Notable quotes:
"... As a result, the Soviet and post-Soviet elites adopted the rules established by Washington: they became intermediaries between Western corporations and the wealth of their countries. Russia paid for this deal with the destruction of its industry and the emergence of oligarchs, enriched by mediation. But there were wins. The country has developed large national corporations that have become prominent players on the global map. The same "Gazprom". Over time, Russia has its own ambitions to expand the volume and list of exported goods. ..."
"... In response, 5 years ago, the US led an attack on it, declaring sanctions. ..."
"... - Full and unconditional surrender of Russia in the economy. The West wants through its representatives to manage Russian companies, without intermediaries to enter the Russian domestic market and get the fattest pieces. ..."
"... In addition, in the eighties the USSR lost to the West ideologically. Our society has accumulated a great fatigue from ascetic "socialism" and international expansion with ideological background. The Western model of life and economy began to seem more attractive. ..."
"... -- In the late eighties the Soviet Union accumulated external debts, in full working printing press in order to Supplement the budget and ensure the salary of the people. The planned economy was unable to provide the country with basic goods. And today, private business is able to buy anything and anywhere. Agriculture not only feeds the country on its own, but also has become a major exporter of grain, poultry and pork. The financial system is arranged very rationally: the state debt is minimized and plays a purely technical role, budget revenues exceed expenditures. ..."
"... And from this point of view, the country is again at a crossroads. In 2019, we can see a new wave of the global economic crisis. The first signs of this were already evident at the end of last year, when commodity prices fell sharply and the shares of American companies fell in price. If these trends continue, Russia will not receive easing of sanctions. So, we need to act and strongly non-trivial. ..."
"... It is already clear with whom we can develop further: with the leading Asian countries. At the same time, expanding commodity expansion in foreign markets, it is important to move to a new mercantilism: sell excess, buy only the most necessary, and produce everything else within the country. ..."
Article from the newspaper: weekly "Arguments and Facts" № 1-2 09/01/2019
Is the scenario of suffocation of the USSR, carried out by the US 30 years ago, similar to
the events that are happening now, and what Russia needs to fear most? "AiF" asked these
questions to the Director of the Institute of new society, economist Vasily Koltashov.
How the world has changed
Alexey Makurin," AIF": Looking at the events taking place in recent years, you catch
yourself thinking that all this has already happened. The current strategy of suffocation of
Russia by America one in one copies the same strategy of times of Reagan. In the eighties, the
United States also hampered the construction of a gas pipeline from Siberia to Europe. The fall
in oil prices also drained our budget, and defense spending grew. And the army was involved in
the conflict in the southern country: Afghanistan. The West deliberately repeats the plan that
brought him victory in the cold war?
Vasily Koltashov: it's more of a coincidence. But even if there is some scenario, the game
this time is some stupid. In the days of Reagan and Bush senior Americans were more rational,
thinner. And now, in everything they do, there is an element of hysteria caused by the need to
respond to the complex state of their own Affairs. Compared with the eighties in the us huge
public debt and huge bubbles in the stock market, threatening investors ruin. The imbalances
that have accumulated in the economy are blocking the development of industrial production.
Much other than agriculture and raw material extraction is often expensive and uncompetitive.
These problems provoke a conflict not only with Russia, but also with China, with other
Eurasian centers of capitalism, which took shape in recent decades.
30 years ago, Western countries revived and developed after the crisis of the seventies. The
orbit of influence of the USA included Pakistan, Turkey, China. Now Trump has stopped financing
Pakistan. In Turkey, there was an attempt of a coup d'état in which Ankara accused
Washington. The Americans are waging a trade war against the Chinese. These and other countries
that do not find a common language with the United States, are increasingly trading among
themselves. The American press writes about the" Eastern Entente", implying the Eurasian
powers.
Increasingly, there are disputes and conflicts between Americans and their European allies,
which was unthinkable before. In such a situation, a plan to weaken Russia, similar to the
scenario of Reagan advisors, can no longer work.
-- What did the West want, putting pressure on the USSR in the eighties?
- I think the West did not seek to destroy the Soviet Union, but just tried to solved a more utilitarian
problem: acquiring new markets for their products. At that time, neoliberal globalization became the
main mechanism of economic growth, it was important for the West to draw countries into its
orbit, which were previously somehow isolated from the world market. They bought the Russian nomenklatura like they buy local
elites in Latin America and tried to concert Russia into Latin American country. They almost succeeded.
How did Ronald Reagan scare the USSR by joking on August 11, 1984?
-- What about Reagan's "evil Empire"statement?
-- It was preparation for the beginning of negotiations from a position of strength. Behind
this ideological rhetoric was another meaning: if you continue to maintain its planned economy,
closed to free trade, we will begin to destroy it, and if you agree to our terms, we will offer
you a deal.
As a result, the Soviet and post-Soviet elites adopted the rules established by Washington:
they became intermediaries between Western corporations and the wealth of their countries.
Russia paid for this deal with the destruction of its industry and the emergence of oligarchs,
enriched by mediation. But there were wins. The country has developed large national
corporations that have become prominent players on the global map. The same "Gazprom". Over
time, Russia has its own ambitions to expand the volume and list of exported goods.
In
response, 5 years ago, the US led an attack on it, declaring sanctions.
- What is their purpose in the current situation?
- Full and unconditional surrender of Russia in the economy. The West wants through its
representatives to manage Russian companies, without intermediaries to enter the Russian
domestic market and get the fattest pieces.
How Russia has changed
- This time Russia does not give up and attacks itself, as is happening in the same Syria.
What changed?
- The country and enterprises are now run by people with a market view of the world who know
the value of the wealth they dispose of. It was for Gorbachev that Soviet factories were an
abstraction, he did not understand their true value. His concessions to the US and Europe were
completely irrational from a commercial point of view. It's impossible now.
In addition, in the eighties the USSR lost to the West ideologically. Our society has
accumulated a great fatigue from ascetic "socialism" and international expansion with
ideological background. The Western model of life and economy began to seem more
attractive. The war in Afghanistan was declared meaningless. And now the Syrian conflict,
Russia does not solve a particular ideological goals. The military plays the role of guards of
its economic interests. Without any doubt, it would be more difficult for our government to
agree with OPEC on limiting oil production, if not for the successes in Syria. This agreement
in 2017-2018 allowed to raise oil prices and helped to resume economic growth in Russia.
-- Was it possible for the Soviet leadership to influence world oil prices?
- The USSR, too, nothing prevented to sit down at the negotiating table with OPEC. But that
wouldn't change the situation. Saudi Arabia and other oil exporters were then loyal allies of
the United States. The West then concentrated all the world's capital, he put the OPEC
countries conditions: create comfortable prices for us, and we will invest in your economy.
And today, Saudi capital seeks to play an independent role, Riyadh's relations with
Washington have become cooler, and with Moscow, on the contrary, warmer. And the US itself is
increasingly supplying hydrocarbons for export: it is predicted that in 2019 they will come out
on top in the world for oil production. But this leadership is provided to Americans by
expensive shale oil, the extraction of which becomes unprofitable at prices below $ 40 per
barrel. So, for the US, very low oil prices are now also unprofitable.
On the other hand, the dependence of the Russian budget on oil and gas today is also higher
than 30-35 years ago, when the country had a more powerful industry. This is an additional
risk.
-- What new qualities acquired by the Russian economy allow it to successfully withstand
Western pressure?
-- In the late eighties the Soviet Union accumulated external debts, in full working
printing press in order to Supplement the budget and ensure the salary of the people. The
planned economy was unable to provide the country with basic goods. And today, private business
is able to buy anything and anywhere. Agriculture not only feeds the country on its own, but
also has become a major exporter of grain, poultry and pork. The financial system is arranged
very rationally: the state debt is minimized and plays a purely technical role, budget revenues
exceed expenditures.
Where the main threats
-- But aren't the military expenditures, which have to be made in the conditions of
confrontation with the United States, too high? Will it not be possible that the new arms race
will be too much for the country?
- Financing of the defense industry to the detriment of consumer and other civil industries
usually occurs in the planned mobilization system, where all the resources of the country are
concentrated by the state. And in a market economy, such imbalances appear only during the war,
when budget distortions arise and private companies begin to focus more on military orders than
on grass-roots demand. There is no such thing in Russia now, although the government's
attention to defense capability is growing along with the pressure of the US and its
allies.
- Where does the main danger come from in such a situation?
-- Not exactly from the USA. The main threat to Russia is low effective demand within the
country. The weakness of the ruble, the low rate of economic growth -- all this is a
consequence of the poverty of the mass buyer.
And from this point of view, the country is again at a crossroads. In 2019, we can see a
new wave of the global economic crisis. The first signs of this were already evident at the end
of last year, when commodity prices fell sharply and the shares of American companies fell in
price. If these trends continue, Russia will not receive easing of sanctions. So, we need to
act and strongly non-trivial.
With whom will trade? Expert on how Russia can live under sanctions
It is already clear with whom we can develop further: with the leading Asian countries. At
the same time, expanding commodity expansion in foreign markets, it is important to move to a
new mercantilism: sell excess, buy only the most necessary, and produce everything else within
the country. This is a traditional trade on the "method of cat Matroskin", which existed for
thousands of years: "To buy something you need, you must first sell something unnecessary." All
need to produce themselves.
And it is important to support the Russian buyer. This may be a preferential mortgage loan
at 3-5% per annum, which will stimulate demand for housing and the sectors of the economy that
are associated with construction. This may be an increase in the number of school teachers,
doctors and kindergarten workers. We need an hourly wage to let people know what their time is
worth. It is extremely important to have a tax-free minimum income (at least 50 thousand rubles
per month). It is necessary to interest migrant workers to live in Russia and leave money in
our country, which will help to create new jobs. We need to directly give people money and
encourage all kinds of entrepreneurship, release the economic energy of society.
Technological superiority is a weapon and the USA know how to use it.
Notable quotes:
"... Made in China 2025 is the Chinese government's 10-year plan to update the country's 10 high-tech manufacturing industries, which include information technology, robotics, aerospace, rail transport, and new-energy vehicles, among others. ..."
"... Without U.S. semis, China will not be able to process the technology necessary to push forward the Made in China 2025 program. "American chips in many ways form the backbone of China's tech economy," Shah said. ..."
"... The Trump Administration's tariffs on Chinese goods were intended to severely disrupt the Chinese tech-advancement initiative. But Shah says that making U.S. chips more expensive for China could have consequences for the U.S. as well. ..."
"... "Over 50% of Chinese semiconductor consumption is supplied by U.S. firms In 2017, China consumed $138bn in integrated circuits (ICs), of which it only produced $18.5bn domestically, implying China imported $120bn of semis in 2017, up from $98bn in 2016 and $73bn in 2012." ..."
"... If the two leaders are unable to come to some sort of trade resolution at the meeting, U.S. tariffs on over $200 billion worth of Chinese goods will increase from 10% to 25% on January 1, 2019. ..."
"... While US has the upper hand on semis, a trade embargo on semis will (1) slows down China's move towards achieving Made in China 2025, (2) at the same time give China the impetus to rush ahead will all resources available to achieve the originally omitted goal of being self-sufficient in tech skills and technology, and (3) seriously hurt companies like Intel, AMD, Micron, and Qualcom as a huge percentage of their businesses are with China, and with that portion of their business gone, all these companies will end up in a loss and without the needed financial resources to invest into new technology in the near future. ..."
As trade tensions run hot between the U.S. and China, President Trump might have one key advantage in the trade war, according
to Nomura.
Analyst Romit Shah explained that China's dependence on U.S.-made advanced microchips could give Trump the upper hand.
"We believe that as China-U.S. tensions escalate, U.S. semiconductors give Washington a strong hand because the core components
of Made in China 2025 (AI, smart factories, 5G, bigdata and full self-driving electric vehicles) can't happen without advanced microchips
from the U.S.," Shah said in a note to clients.
BEIJING, CHINA – NOVEMBER 9, 2017: US President Donald Trump (L) and China's President Xi Jinping shake hands at a press conference
following their meeting at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Artyom Ivanov/TASS (Photo by Artyom Ivanov\TASS via Getty Images)
Made in China 2025 is the Chinese government's 10-year plan to update the country's 10 high-tech manufacturing industries, which
include information technology, robotics, aerospace, rail transport, and new-energy vehicles, among others.
One of Made in China 2025's main goals is to become semiconductor self sufficient. China hopes that at least 40% of the semiconductors
used in China will be made locally by 2020, and at least 70% by 2025. "Made in China 2025 made abundantly clear China's commitment
to semiconductor self-sufficiency. Made in China 2025 will upgrade multiple facets of the Chinese economy," Shah said.
According to Nomura's estimates, China is currently about 3 to 5 years behind the U.S. in dynamic random-access memory (DRAM)
chip production. However, Shah explained that if the trade war persists, the consequences could set Chinese chip production behind
by 5 to 15 years.
Without U.S. semis, China will not be able to process the technology necessary to push forward the Made in China 2025 program.
"American chips in many ways form the backbone of China's tech economy," Shah said.
Consequences for U.S.
The Trump Administration's tariffs on Chinese goods were intended to severely disrupt the Chinese tech-advancement initiative.
But Shah says that making U.S. chips more expensive for China could have consequences for the U.S. as well.
One concern centers around intellectual property theft. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been working hard to punish China
for allegedly attempting to commit espionage. For example, the DOJ believes China was attempting to spy on the U.S. through Huawei
and asked U.S. allies to drop
the Chinese tech equipment maker.
However, while many U.S. chipmakers, such as Advanced Micro Devices (
AMD ), Qualcomm (
QCOM ) and Micron (
MU ), expressed gratitude that the DOJ was intervening
to prevent intellectual property theft, the companies are also concerned that it could spark retaliation from their Chinese business
partners and result in loss of access to the Chinese market. "Joint ventures, IP sharing agreements and manufacturing partnerships
are the price of admission into China, and thus far, companies are playing ball," Shah explained.
Shah essentially calls the Chinese tariffs a double-edged sword. While tariffs will hurt the Chinese if they can't have access
to freely source U.S. chips, it could also hurt U.S. chipmakers if they lose their business in China. According to Shah's research,
"Over 50% of Chinese semiconductor consumption is supplied by U.S. firms In 2017, China consumed $138bn in integrated
circuits (ICs), of which it only produced $18.5bn domestically, implying China imported $120bn of semis in 2017, up from $98bn in 2016 and $73bn
in 2012."
Trump
and China's President Xi Jinping are scheduled to meet at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on Thursday for a two-day
meeting. If the two leaders are unable to come to some sort of trade resolution at the meeting, U.S. tariffs on over $200 billion
worth of Chinese goods will increase from 10% to 25% on January 1, 2019.
"China could source equipment from Europe and Japan; however, we believe there are certain mission-critical tools that can only
be purchased from the U.S. We believe that U.S.-China trade is the biggest theme for U.S. semis and equipment stocks in 2019. Made
in China 2025 can't happen without U.S. semis, and U.S. semis can't grow without China. We hope this backdrop drives resolution,"
Shah said.
Heidi Chung is a reporter at Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter:
@heidi_chung .
R
While US has the upper hand on semis, a trade
embargo on semis will (1) slows down China's move towards achieving Made in China 2025, (2) at the same time give China the impetus
to rush ahead will all resources available to achieve the originally omitted goal of being self-sufficient in tech skills and
technology, and (3) seriously hurt companies like Intel, AMD, Micron, and Qualcom as a huge percentage of their businesses are
with China, and with that portion of their business gone, all these companies will end up in a loss and without the needed financial
resources to invest into new technology in the near future.
Apart from semis, China holds the throat of the US in the supply of
rare earth (used in semis, military weaponry, ans astronomical), as well as antibiotics..
The French economist Thomas Piketty argued last year in a surprising best-seller, "Capital in
the Twenty-First Century," that rising wealth inequality was a natural result of free-market policies,
a direct challenge to the conventional view that economic inequalities shrink over time. The controversial
implication drawn by Mr. Piketty is that governments should raise taxes on the wealthy.
Notable quotes:
"... His speeches can blend biblical fury with apocalyptic doom. Pope Francis does not just criticize the excesses of global capitalism. He compares them to the "dung of the devil." He does not simply argue that systemic "greed for money" is a bad thing. He calls it a "subtle dictatorship" that "condemns and enslaves men and women." ..."
"... The Argentine pope seemed to be asking for a social revolution. "This is not theology as usual; this is him shouting from the mountaintop," said Stephen F. Schneck, the director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic studies at Catholic University of America in Washington. ..."
"... Left-wing populism is surging in countries immersed in economic turmoil, such as Spain, and, most notably, Greece . But even in the United States, where the economy has rebounded, widespread concern about inequality and corporate power are propelling the rise of liberals like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who, in turn, have pushed the Democratic Party presidential front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to the left. ..."
"... Even some free-market champions are now reassessing the shortcomings of unfettered capitalism. George Soros, who made billions in the markets, and then spent a good part of it promoting the spread of free markets in Eastern Europe, now argues that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. ..."
"... Many Catholic scholars would argue that Francis is merely continuing a line of Catholic social teaching that has existed for more than a century and was embraced even by his two conservative predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Pope Leo XIII first called for economic justice on behalf of workers in 1891, with his encyclical "Rerum Novarum" - or, "On Condition of Labor." ..."
"... Francis has such a strong sense of urgency "because he has been on the front lines with real people, not just numbers and abstract ideas," Mr. Schneck said. "That real-life experience of working with the most marginalized in Argentina has been the source of his inspiration as pontiff." ..."
"... In Bolivia, Francis praised cooperatives and other localized organizations that he said provide productive economies for the poor. "How different this is than the situation that results when those left behind by the formal market are exploited like slaves!" he said on Wednesday night. ..."
"... It is this Old Testament-like rhetoric that some finding jarring, perhaps especially so in the United States, where Francis will visit in September. His environmental encyclical, "Laudato Si'," released last month, drew loud criticism from some American conservatives and from others who found his language deeply pessimistic. His right-leaning critics also argued that he was overreaching and straying dangerously beyond religion - while condemning capitalism with too broad a brush. ..."
"... The French economist Thomas Piketty argued last year in a surprising best-seller, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," that rising wealth inequality was a natural result of free-market policies, a direct challenge to the conventional view that economic inequalities shrink over time. The controversial implication drawn by Mr. Piketty is that governments should raise taxes on the wealthy. ..."
"... "Working for a just distribution of the fruits of the earth and human labor is not mere philanthropy," he said on Wednesday. "It is a moral obligation. For Christians, the responsibility is even greater: It is a commandment." ..."
"... "I'm a believer in capitalism but it comes in as many flavors as pie, and we have a choice about the kind of capitalist system that we have," said Mr. Hanauer, now an outspoken proponent of redistributive government ..."
"... "What can be done by those students, those young people, those activists, those missionaries who come to my neighborhood with the hearts full of hopes and dreams but without any real solution for my problems?" he asked. "A lot! They can do a lot. ..."
ASUNCIÓN, Paraguay - His speeches can blend biblical fury with apocalyptic doom. Pope Francis
does not just criticize the excesses of global capitalism. He compares them to the "dung of the devil."
He does not simply argue that systemic "greed for money" is a bad thing. He calls it a "subtle dictatorship"
that "condemns and enslaves men and women."
Having returned to his native Latin America, Francis has renewed his left-leaning critiques on
the inequalities of capitalism, describing it as an underlying cause of global injustice, and a prime
cause of climate change. Francis escalated that line last week when he made a
historic apology for the crimes of the Roman Catholic Church during the period of Spanish colonialism
- even as he called for a global movement against a "new colonialism" rooted in an inequitable economic
order.
The Argentine pope seemed to be asking for a social revolution. "This is not theology as usual; this is him shouting from the mountaintop," said Stephen F. Schneck,
the director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic studies at Catholic University of
America in Washington.
The last pope who so boldly placed himself at the center of the global moment was John Paul II,
who during the 1980s pushed the church to confront what many saw as the challenge of that era, communism.
John Paul II's anti-Communist messaging dovetailed with the agenda of political conservatives eager
for a tougher line against the Soviets and, in turn, aligned part of the church hierarchy with the
political right.
Francis has defined the economic challenge of this era as the failure of global capitalism to
create fairness, equity and dignified livelihoods for the poor - a social and religious agenda that
coincides with a resurgence of the leftist thinking marginalized in the days of John Paul II. Francis'
increasingly sharp critique comes as much of humanity has never been so wealthy or well fed - yet
rising inequality and repeated financial crises have unsettled voters, policy makers and economists.
Left-wing populism is surging in countries immersed in economic turmoil, such as Spain, and,
most notably, Greece. But even in the United States, where the economy has rebounded, widespread
concern about inequality and corporate power are propelling the
rise of liberals like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts,
who, in turn, have pushed the Democratic Party presidential front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton,
to the left.
Even some free-market champions are now reassessing the shortcomings of unfettered capitalism.
George Soros, who made billions in the markets, and then spent a good part of it promoting the spread
of free markets in Eastern Europe, now argues that the pendulum has swung too far the other way.
"I think the pope is singing to the music that's already in the air," said Robert A. Johnson,
executive director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, which was financed with $50 million
from Mr. Soros. "And that's a good thing. That's what artists do, and I think the pope is sensitive
to the lack of legitimacy of the system."
Many Catholic scholars would argue that Francis is merely continuing a line of Catholic social
teaching that has existed for more than a century and was embraced even by his two conservative predecessors,
John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Pope Leo XIII first called for economic justice on behalf of workers
in 1891, with his encyclical "Rerum Novarum" - or, "On Condition of Labor."
Mr. Schneck, of Catholic University, said it was as if Francis were saying, "We've been talking
about these things for more than one hundred years, and nobody is listening."
Francis has such a strong sense of urgency "because he has been on the front lines with real people,
not just numbers and abstract ideas," Mr. Schneck said. "That real-life experience of working with
the most marginalized in Argentina has been the source of his inspiration as pontiff."
Francis made his speech on Wednesday night, in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, before nearly 2,000 social
advocates, farmers, trash workers and neighborhood activists. Even as he meets regularly with heads
of state, Francis has often said that change must come from the grass roots, whether from poor people
or the community organizers who work with them. To Francis, the poor have earned knowledge that is
useful and redeeming, even as a "throwaway culture" tosses them aside. He sees them as being at the
front edge of economic and environmental crises around the world.
In Bolivia, Francis praised cooperatives and other localized organizations that he said provide
productive economies for the poor. "How different this is than the situation that results when those
left behind by the formal market are exploited like slaves!" he said on Wednesday night.
It is this Old Testament-like rhetoric that some finding jarring, perhaps especially so in the
United States, where Francis will visit in September. His environmental encyclical, "Laudato Si',"
released last month, drew loud criticism from some American conservatives and from others who found
his language deeply pessimistic. His right-leaning critics also argued that he was overreaching and
straying dangerously beyond religion - while condemning capitalism with too broad a brush.
"I wish Francis would focus on positives, on how a free-market economy guided by an ethical framework,
and the rule of law, can be a part of the solution for the poor - rather than just jumping from the
reality of people's misery to the analysis that a market economy is the problem," said the Rev. Robert
A. Sirico, president of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, which advocates
free-market economics.
Francis' sharpest critics have accused him of being a Marxist or a Latin American Communist, even
as he opposed communism during his time in Argentina. His tour last week of Latin America began in
Ecuador and Bolivia, two countries with far-left governments. President Evo Morales of Bolivia, who
wore a Che Guevara patch on his jacket during Francis' speech, claimed the pope as a kindred spirit
- even as Francis seemed startled and caught off guard when Mr. Morales gave him a wooden crucifix
shaped like a hammer and sickle as a gift.
Francis' primary agenda last week was to begin renewing Catholicism in Latin America and reposition
it as the church of the poor. His apology for the church's complicity in the colonialist era received
an immediate roar from the crowd. In various parts of Latin America, the association between the
church and economic power elites remains intact. In Chile, a socially conservative country, some
members of the country's corporate elite are also members of Opus Dei, the traditionalist Catholic
organization founded in Spain in 1928.
Inevitably, Francis' critique can be read as a broadside against Pax Americana, the period of
capitalism regulated by global institutions created largely by the United States. But even pillars
of that system are shifting. The World Bank, which long promoted economic growth as an end in itself,
is now increasingly focused on the distribution of gains, after the Arab Spring revolts in some countries
that the bank had held up as models. The latest generation of international trade agreements includes
efforts to increase protections for workers and the environment.
The French economist Thomas Piketty argued last year in a surprising best-seller, "Capital
in the Twenty-First Century," that rising wealth inequality was a natural result of free-market policies,
a direct challenge to the conventional view that economic inequalities shrink over time. The controversial
implication drawn by Mr. Piketty is that governments should raise taxes on the wealthy.
Mr. Piketty roiled the debate among mainstream economists, yet Francis' critique is more unnerving
to some because he is not reframing inequality and poverty around a new economic theory but instead
defining it in moral terms. "Working for a just distribution of the fruits of the earth and human
labor is not mere philanthropy," he said on Wednesday. "It is a moral obligation. For Christians,
the responsibility is even greater: It is a commandment."
Nick Hanauer, a Seattle venture capitalist, said that he saw Francis as making a nuanced point
about capitalism, embodied by his coinage of a "social mortgage" on accumulated wealth - a debt to
the society that made its accumulation possible. Mr. Hanauer said that economic elites should embrace
the need for reforms both for moral and pragmatic reasons. "I'm a believer in capitalism but
it comes in as many flavors as pie, and we have a choice about the kind of capitalist system that
we have," said Mr. Hanauer, now an outspoken proponent of redistributive government policies
like a higher minimum wage.
Yet what remains unclear is whether Francis has a clear vision for a systemic alternative to the
status quo that he and others criticize. "All these critiques point toward the incoherence of the
simple idea of free market economics, but they don't prescribe a remedy," said Mr. Johnson, of the
Institute for New Economic Thinking.
Francis acknowledged as much, conceding on Wednesday that he had no new "recipe" to quickly change
the world. Instead, he spoke about a "process of change" undertaken at the grass-roots level.
"What can be done by those students, those young people, those activists, those missionaries
who come to my neighborhood with the hearts full of hopes and dreams but without any real solution
for my problems?" he asked. "A lot! They can do a lot. "You, the lowly, the exploited, the poor
and underprivileged, can do, and are doing, a lot. I would even say that the future of humanity is
in great measure in your own hands."
"... This included "unprecedented steps going far beyond our obligations," Lavrov said, and noted that part of Washington's "systematic" attempts to undermine the treaty included "testing drones that matched the characteristics" of ground-based cruise missiles banned in the treaty, as well as installing "MK 41 launching systems for the defense shield in Europe that can be used to fire mid-range Tomahawk cruise missiles without any modification." ..."
"... Putin noted further in the midst of Lavrov's remarks, "This is a direct a violation of the INF." And Lavrov also added, "Such launchers have already been completed in Romania, more are scheduled to be put into service in Poland and Japan." ..."
"... Alarmingly, Putin concluded his remarks by saying Washington could be imperiling in the long term the landmark New START treaty, set to expire in 2021. ..."
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) has effectively collapsed following the
US announcing Friday that it's suspending all obligations under the treaty. Predictably
Moscow's response has been swift, with President Vladimir Putin saying in a meeting with his
foreign and defense ministers that Russia will now pursue missile development previously banned
under its terms .
Putin said "ours will be a mirror response" in a tit-for-tat move that the Russian president
ultimately blames on Washington's years-long "systematic" undermining of the agreement. "Our US
partners say that they are ceasing their participation in the treaty, and we are doing the
same," the Russian president said . "They say that they are doing
research and testing [on new weapons] and we will do the same thing."
Crucially, however, he noted that there were no plans to deploy short and mid-range missiles
to Europe unless the US does it first -- a worst nightmare scenario that has rattled European
leaders ever since talk began from Trump that the 1987 treaty could be scrapped.
Putin still seemed to allow some degree space for last minute concessions as "still on the
table" possibly in line with the Trump administration's desire to modernize and update a new
treaty taking into account new technological and geopolitical realities, such as China's
ballistic missile capabilities.
"Let's wait until our partners mature sufficiently to hold a level, meaningful conversation
on this topic, which is extremely important for us, them, and the entire world," Putin said.
But also lashing out during the press conference that followed the meeting with top officials
Putin
described :
Over many years, we have repeatedly suggested staging new disarmament talks, on all types
of weapons. Over the last few years, we have seen our initiatives not supported. On the
contrary, pretexts are constantly sought to demolish the existing system of international
security .
Specifically he and FM Sergei Lavrov referenced not only Trump's threats to quit the
agreement, which heightened in December, but accusations leveled from Washington that the
Kremlin was in violation. The White House has now affirmed the bilateral historic agreement
signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan will be suspended for 180 days. Lavrov insisted
that Moscow "attempted to do everything we could to rescue the treaty."
This included "unprecedented steps going far beyond our obligations," Lavrov said, and noted
that part of Washington's "systematic" attempts to undermine the treaty included "testing
drones that matched the characteristics" of ground-based cruise missiles banned in the treaty,
as well as installing "MK 41 launching systems for the defense shield in Europe that can be
used to fire mid-range Tomahawk cruise missiles without any modification."
Putin noted further in the midst of Lavrov's remarks, "This is a direct a violation of the
INF." And Lavrov also added, "Such launchers have already been completed in Romania, more are
scheduled to be put into service in Poland and Japan."
Alarmingly, Putin concluded his remarks by saying Washington could be imperiling in the long
term the landmark New START treaty, set to expire in 2021.
" as well as installing "MK 41 launching systems for the defense shield in Europe that can
be used to fire mid-range Tomahawk cruise missiles without any modification."
US trying to get from Russia top position first-response list and get Europe on that
position.
Neocons should be remembered as oldcons because their bag of tricks is so well known that
they don't fool anyone. Think about this Reagan era fossil who tries to arrange his little
coup in Venezuela and will fall flat on his face. Think also about these Pompeo and Bolton
who are so desperate that they didn't even spend the necessary time to learn the checkers
rules before trying to take on Putin in his favorite chess play. No really, the level of
mediocrity and the lack of strategy or even sheer preparedness of these dudes is so low that
they may even be hung by their own subordinates who can't even stand that stench of fool
play. Trump should be ashamed he hired these clowns to ride their one trick ponies while the
titanic goes down. History will not be kind with him.
Additionally, just last week the Russian Ministry of Defense invited foreign military
attachés and journalists to inspect the new Iskander 9M729 cruise missile. This is the
one that the US claims is in violation of the INF treaty. Representatives of the US and NATO
were invited and expected to be there, but they never showed up.
Interestingly, the 9M729 has a heavier warhead, and thus shorter range, than the older
9M728, which the US has not claimed violates the INF treaty. See it for yourself:
This is the one that the US claims is in violation of the INF treaty. Representatives of
the US and NATO were invited and expected to be there, but they never showed up .
About standard to ignore what doesn't fit the agenda.
Additionally, just last week the Russian Ministry of Defense invited foreign military
attachés and journalists to inspect the new Iskander 9M729 cruise missile. This is the
one that the US claims is in violation of the INF treaty. Representatives of the US and NATO
were invited and expected to be there, but they never showed up.
Interestingly, the 9M729 has a heavier warhead, and thus shorter range, than the older
9M728, which the US has not claimed violates the INF treaty. See it for yourself:
This is the one that the US claims is in violation of the INF treaty. Representatives of
the US and NATO were invited and expected to be there, but they never showed up .
About standard to ignore what doesn't fit the agenda.
"... Big tech companies have bullied competitors and outrun ethical standards in an effort to "own the world," Jean Case, the CEO of the Case Foundation and a former senior executive at AOL, told Yahoo Finance this week. "Many of those big companies are crowding out new innovations of young upstarts. That's not healthy," she said, in response to a question about Google and Facebook. ..."
Big tech companies have bullied competitors and outrun ethical standards in an
effort to "own the world," Jean Case, the CEO of the Case Foundation and a former
senior executive at AOL, told Yahoo Finance this week.
"Many of those big companies are crowding out new innovations of young upstarts.
That's not healthy," she said, in response to a question about Google and
Facebook.
"On the technology side, look, things have changed so fast," Case said. "I think
we just haven't kept pace with some of the ethics policies and frameworks that we
need to put around this stuff...used by millions of millions before thought is
given to implications."
Case made the comments in a conversation that aired on Yahoo Finance on Thursday
at 5 p.m. EST in an episode of "
Influencers
with Andy Serwer
," a weekly interview series with leaders in business,
politics, and entertainment. In addition to her comments on big tech, Case
explained why a woman can be elected president, what National Geographic has done
to thrive amid media industry tumult, and how it felt at AOL in the heady early
days of the internet.
"... My 95 year old aunt here in NL lived thru the NAZI occupation. She said its sad that the nice decent Americans of 1945 have now become like the people we fought. ..."
The launch of INSTEX -- "Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges" -- by France, Germany, and the UK
this week
to allow "legitimate trade" with Iran, or rather effectively sidestep US sanctions and bypass SWIFT after Washington was able
to pressure the Belgium-based financial messaging service to cut off the access of Iranian banks last year, may be too little too
late to salvage the Iran nuclear deal .
Tehran will only immediately press that more than just the current "limited humanitarian" and medical goods can be purchased on
the system, in accordance with fulfilling the EU's end of the 2015 JCPOA -- something which EU officials have promised while saying
INSTEX will be "expansive" -- while European companies will likely continue to stay away for fear of retribution from Washington,
which has stated it's "closely following" reports of the payment vehicle while reiterating attempts to sidestep sanctions will "risk
severe consequences" .
As a couple of prominent Iranian academics
told Al Jazeera this week: "If [the mechanism] will permanently be restricted to solely humanitarian trade, it will be apparent
that Europe will have failed to live up to its end of the bargain for Iran ," said political analyst Mohammad Ali Shabani. And another,
Foad Izadi, professor at the University of Tehran, echoed what is a common sentiment among Iran's leaders: "I don't think the EU
is either willing or able to stand up to Trump's threat," and continued, "The EU is not taking the nuclear deal seriously and it's
not taking any action to prove to Iran otherwise... People are running out of patience."
But Iranian leadership
welcomed the new mechanism as merely a small first step: "It is a first step taken by the European side... We hope it will cover
all goods and items," Iranian Deputy FM Abbas Araqchi told state TV, referencing EU promises to stick to its end of the nuclear deal.
The European side also acknowledged it as a precondition to keeping the nuclear deal alive, which EU leaders sea as vital to their
security and strategic interests : "We're making clear that we didn't just talk about keeping the nuclear deal with Iran alive, but
now we're creating a possibility to conduct business transactions," German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
told reporters on
Thursday . "This is a precondition for us to meet the obligations we entered into in order to demand from Iran that it doesn't
begin military uranium enrichment," Maas said.
What is INSTEX?
A "special purpose vehicle" that will allow European businesses to trade with Iran, despite strict US sanctions.
According to media reports, INSTEX will be based in Paris and will be managed by German banking expert Per Fischer, a former
manager at Commerzbank. The UK will head the supervisory board.
The European side intends to use the channel initially only to sell food, medicine and medical devices in Iran. However,
it will be possible to expand it in the future. --
DW.com
Technically US sanctions allow some limited humanitarian trade and limited goods; however the White House's "maximum pressure"
campaign on Iran has still scared away European giants like Seimens, Maersk, Total, Daimler, Peugeot, Renault, and others.
This brings up the central question of whether skittish European countries will actually return to doing business with Iran, the
entire purpose on which the new mechanism rests. The dilemma was summarized at the start of this week by outspoken Iran hawk Sen.
Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who told the AP
"The choice is whether to do business with Iran or the United States." He warned, "I hope our European allies choose wisely."
Thus far a number of analysts and observers have remained far less optimistic than the European sponsors of INSTEX. One particular
interview with geopolitical analyst and journalist Luc Rivet, cited in Russian media, outlines
the likelihood for failure of the new payment
vehicle : "I don't know what companies will make use of that mechanism to sell to Iran," Rivet said, noting that countries still
consider it "dangerous" to be caught working with Iran.
Addressing the current restriction of INSTEX facilitating medical and pharmaceutical goods transactions, he continued:
Who produces this equipment? You think that Siemens will sell to Iran? Never, because they sell to America many other things
as well And Siemens is afraid of losing the American market.
No matter if a handful of companies resume or continue business with Iran he explained that an "incredible number of companies"
won't. He added: "It's much easier for Chinese and Russian companies to make deals with Iran. The Europeans are scared in an incredible
way. The companies are afraid by ricochet of being in the eye of the storm with the Americans."
He concluded, "That's very dangerous for European companies," and repeated, "I don't know anybody who will dare to go with this
Instex system."
And the New York Times in asking the same question --
But Will Anyone Use
It? -- concludes similarly that "given that most large companies have significant business in the United States, very few --
if any -- are likely to use the trading mechanism for fear of incurring Washington's wrath."
However, the test will be whether or not a steady trickle of small companies gives way to bigger companies. The NYT report
continues :
But the financial mechanism could make it easier for smaller companies with no exposure in the United States to trade with
Iran and could promote trade in medicine and food, which are not subject to sanctions. European diplomats say that, in the beginning,
the concentration will be on goods that are permitted by Washington, to avoid an early confrontation .
But much could also depend on just how fierce the White House reaction will be. If the past months' Trump administration rhetoric
is any indicator, it will keep large companies scared and on the sidelines.
Europe has had double the tariffs on American cars than we had for theirs. It's time for us to quadruple the tariff on European
cars, to make up for the tariff imbalance that Europe has taken advantage of for decades.
Before World War II the question was, "Who will stand up to the demands of Germany?" Now the question is, "Who will stand up
to the demands of the United States?" It is clear that as far as means and methods are concerned Washington flies the swastika.
History has come full circle.
The following quote from J. R. R. Tolkien makes the point, "Always after a defeat and a respite," says Gandalf, "the shadow
takes another shape and grows again." The irony of our times is that the shadow has moved from Germany to the US.
Consternation and craven refusal to confront the reality of our times is again in vogue. We are walking towards madness crying,
"Let the other fellow fix this!"
My 95 year old aunt here in NL lived thru the NAZI occupation. She said its sad that the nice decent Americans of 1945
have now become like the people we fought.
Just one more to a long list of Trump appointments. I believe Trump is some kind of pervert, like the ones that like
to get whipped, only Trump likes to get stabbed in the back. XXX , 34 minutes ago
He does what Sheldon and Bibi tell him.
You think you're so ******* smart, but this some how eludes you?
YYY, 3 hours ago (Edited)
Donald Trump's House of Cons, Clowns, Crappolas, Criminals, and Conspirators:
Taming of financial oligarchy and restoration of the job market at the expense of outsourcing and offshoring is required in the
USA and gradually getting support. At least a return to key elements of the New Deal should be in the cards. But Clinton wing of Dems
is beong redemption. They are Wall Street puddles. all of the them.
Issues like Medicare for All, Free College, Restoring Glass Steagall, Ending Citizen's United/Campaign finance reform, federal jobs
guarantee, criminal justice reform, all poll extremely well among the american populace
If even such a neoliberal pro globalization, corporations controlled media source as Guardian views centrist neoliberal Democrats
like Booker unelectable, the situation in the next elections might be interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... Bhaskar Sunkara is a Guardian US columnist and the founding editor of Jacobin ..."
"... 2016 has shown that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. When it comes down to the choice of either win with a platform that may impact the wealth and power of their owners, or losing, they will always choose the latter, and continue as useful (and well paid) idiots in the charade presented as US democracy. ..."
In their rhetoric and policy advocacy, this trio has been steadily moving to the left to keep pace with a leftward-moving Democratic
party. Booker ,
Harris and Gillibrand know that voters demand action and are more supportive than ever of Medicare for All and universal childcare.
Gillibrand, long considered a moderate, has even gone as far as to endorse abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice)
and, along with Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders' single-payer healthcare bill. Harris has also backed universal healthcare and free college
tuition for most Americans.
But outward appearances aren't everything. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand have been making a very different pitch of late -- on
Wall Street. According to
CNBC , all three potential candidates have been reaching out to financial executives lately, including Blackstone's Jonathan
Gray, Robert Wolf from 32 Advisors and the Centerbridge Partners founder Mark Gallogly.
Wall Street, after all, played an important role getting the senators where they are today. During his 2014 Senate run, in which
just 7% of his contributions came from small donors, Booker raised $2.2m from the securities and investment industry. Harris and
Gillibrand weren't far behind in 2018, and even the progressive Democrat Sherrod Brown has solicited donations from Gallogly and
other powerful executives.
When CNBC's story about
Gillibrand personally working the phones to woo Wall Street executives came out, her team responded defensively, noting her support
for financial regulation and promising that if she did run she would take "no corporate Pac money". But what's most telling isn't
that Gillibrand and others want Wall Street's money, it's that they want the blessings of financial CEOs. Even if she doesn't take
their contributions, she's signaling that she's just playing politics with populist rhetoric. That will allow capitalists to focus
their attention on candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have shown a real willingness to abandon the traditional
coziness of the Democratic party with the finance, insurance and real estate industries.
Gillibrand and others are behaving perfectly rationally. The last presidential election cost $6.6bn -- advertising, staff and
conventions are expensive. But even more important than that, they know that while leftwing stances might help win Democratic primaries,
the path of least resistance in the general election is capitulation to the big forces of capital that run this country. Those elites
might allow some progressive tinkering on the margins, but nothing that challenges the inequities that keep them wealthy and their
victims weak.
Big business is likely to bet heavily on the Democratic party in 2020, maybe even more so than it did in 2016. In normal circumstances,
the Democratic party is the second-favorite party of capital; with an erratic Trump around, it is often the first.
The American ruling class has a nice hustle going with elections. We don't have a labor-backed social democratic party that could
create barriers to avoid capture by monied interests. It's telling that when asked about the former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper's
recent chats with Wall Street political financiers, a staff member told CNBC: "We meet with a wide range of donors with shared values
across sectors."
Plenty of Democratic leaders believe in the neoliberal growth model. Many have gotten personally wealthy off of it. Others think
there is no alternative to allying with finance and then trying to create progressive social policy on the margins. But with sentiments
like that, it doesn't take fake news to convince working-class Americans that
Democrats don't really have their interests at heart.
Of course, the Democratic party isn't a monolith. But the insurgency waged by newly elected representatives such as the democratic
socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ro Khanna and others is still in its infancy. At this stage, it isn't going to
scare capital away from the Democratic party, it's going to make Wall Street invest more heavily to maintain its stake in it.
Men like Mark Gallogly know who their real enemy is: more than anyone else, the establishment is wary of
Bernie Sanders . It seems likely that he will run
for president, but he's been dismissed as a 2020 frontrunner despite his high favorability rates, name recognition, small-donor fundraising
ability, appeal to independent voters, and his team's experience running a competitive national campaign. As 2019 goes on, that dismissal
will morph into all-out war.
Wall Street isn't afraid of corporate Democrats gaining power. It's afraid of the Democrats who will take them on -- and those,
unfortunately, are few and far between.
Bhaskar Sunkara is a Guardian US columnist and the founding editor of Jacobin
Just like universal health care, let's give up, it's too hard, we're not winners, we're not number one or problem solvers
and besides, someone at some time for some reason might get something that someone else might not get regardless if that someone
else needs it. Let's go with the Berners who seem to believe there will never be none so pure enough to become president.
The corporate state does not cast the votes. The public does.
Leaning farther to the left on issues like universal healthcare and foreign wars would be agreeing with the public. Not only
the progressive public, but the GENERAL public. The big money donors are the ONLY force against the Democrats resisting these
things.
2016 has shown that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. When it comes down to the choice of either win with a platform
that may impact the wealth and power of their owners, or losing, they will always choose the latter, and continue as useful (and
well paid) idiots in the charade presented as US democracy.
Bernie's challenge will "morph into all-out war". "Wall Street isn't afraid of corporate Democrats", blah, blah, blah. But we're
going to continue to play along? Why? Oh yeah, Bhaskar Sunkara will have us believe "There is no alternative". Remember TINA?
Give it up, man, just give it up.
One dollar, one vote.
If you want Change, keep it in your pocket.
We can't turn this sinking ship around unless we know what direction it's going. So far, that direction is just delivering money
to private islands.
Democrats have a lot of talk, but they still want to drive the nice cars and sell the same crapft that the Republicans are.
Taxing the rich only works when you worship the rich in the first place.
Election financing is the single root cause for our democracy's failure. Period.
I really don't care too much about the mouthing of progressive platitudes from any 2020 Dem Prez candidate. The only ones that
will be worth voting for are the ones that sign onto Sanders' (or similar) legislation that calls for a Constitutional amendment
that allows federal and state governments to limit campaign contributions.
And past committee votes to prevent amendment legislation from getting to a floor vote - as well as missed co-sponsorship opportunities
- should be interesting history for all the candidates to explain.
Campaign financing is what keeps scum entrenched (because primary challengers can't overcome the streams of bribes from those
wonderful people exercising their 'free speech' "rights" to keep their puppet in govt) and prevents any challenges to the corporate
establishment who serve the same rich masters.
Lol, Social Security, Medicare, unemployement protections, so many of the things you mentioned, and so much more, were from the
PROGRESSIVE New Deal, which managed to implement this slew of changes in 5 years! 5 years! You can't criticize "progressives"
in one sentence and then use their accomplishments to support your argument. Today, the New Deal would be considered too far left
by most so called "pragmatic liberals." I assume you are getting fully behind the proposed "Green New Deal" then, right?
Vintage59 pointed out lots of things people have changed. Here's an exhaustive list of the legislation passed by people
who didn't get elected but were more progressive than the people who did:
There is also a steadily growing list of Democrats who did worse in elections than a hypothetical Democratic candidate had
been projected to do.
The party can either continue being GOP-Lite or it can start winning elections. It can't do both.
Nobody is going to get elected on a far left platform. Not in the USA and not anywhere. That's just a fact. And everybody
is going to need $$$ in the campaign. Of course candidates are going to suck up to Wall street and business in general.
And we would have been a thousand percent better off with HRC in the white house than we are now with the Trumpostor.
We don't need a candidate with far-left platform, we need one that is left-leaning at all. HRC and her next generation of clones
are mild Republicans.
Those who want to push the Democrats to the left in order to win perhaps need to stop talking to each other and talk to
people who live outside of LA and NY. If you stay within your bubble it seems the whole world thinks like you.
How old will Sanders be in 2020?
The people (outside the coasts) lean to the left some big issues. Medicare for all. Foreign wars. etc.
A sane person might ask why in the hell the left-side party is leaning farther to the right than the general public.
Sanders is a dinosaur. If there is a reason for Wall Street to be wary of him then it is that the mentally challenged orange
guy may win another term if the Democrats run with Sanders.
Hopefully, Sanders will understand what many of his supporters do not want to see: At some time age becomes a problem. If
the Democrats decide to move to the left rather than pursuing a pragmatic centrist approach, Ocasio-Cortez might be an option.
If they opt for the centrist alternative, it might be Harris or Gillibrand. Or, in both cases, a surprise candidate. But Sanders'
time is over, just as Biden's Bloomberg's.
It's true, but Trump is such a clusterfuck that an 80yo president is still be a better situation. Many countries have had rulers
in their 80s at one time or another.
Trump is clearly showing early-stage dementia now. Compare footage of him 10+ years ago to anything within the last 6-12 months
and it's obvious. The stress levels of being the POTUS + blackmailed by Putin + investigations bearing down on him . . . it's
wearing him down fast.
Anti-trust would be a very good place to start with.
Universal healthcare is a lot harder than you seem to think. I'd love it, but getting there means putting so many people out
of work, it'll be a massive political challenge, even if corporations have no influence. Progressives might be better off focusing
on how to ensure the existing system works better and Medicaid can slowly expand to fill the universal roll in the future.
Where has offering candidates who actually have a chance to win gotten us? Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, the ADA, Title
9, Social Security, and more. None of these exist without constant changes. All took years to pass against heavy opposition. None
went far enough. All were improvements.
The list of wrongheaded things that were also passed is longer but thinking nothing changes because it takes time is faulty
logic.
Our capitalist predators are still alive and well. The finance, insurance, and real estate
organizations are the worst predators in the USA.
They will eat your babies if you let them.
"... The Guardian has lost all sense of proportion – mention Tommy Robinson and the entire staff through themselves to floor and roll round like dying flies – yet for when it comes to US neocons they go all misty eyed, redolent of a broody couple when they come across a particularly adorable baby. ..."
"... I would wager a medium sum that Tisdall is on a payroll other than the Grauniad's, or he's an actual asset per Ulfkötte's books and media appearances. ..."
"... George Bush spent his adult life organizing operations and wars that killed a few million people. Anyone who has spiritual beliefs must wonder how it is to die with so much killing on your record or conscience (if you have one). ..."
"... That's something I've wondered about many times. If you review John McCain's actions and comments before he died, it seems these people don't have a conscience. ..."
"... Reagan was primarily a mantle piece for the banking, oil and defense sectors to run wild. Is it really so hard to believe GHW Bush was running the National Security Council? It was a CIA wet dream come true (especially after the alligator-armed "investigations" of the 70's. ..."
"... The Deep State Guardian. Why don't they just change their name to 'The Daily Thatcherite' and have done with it. ..."
"... They should just show it's full title: The Guardian Of The Establishment ..."
"... well, yeah. but for us mad people it goes deeper even than that: https://geopolitics.co/2018/12/02/in-memoriam-george-h-scherff-jr-aka-george-hw-bush-sr/ ..."
British and most western media are either in the direct or indirect pay of their governments. What journalist can expose this
for us? Any of you willing to make the biggest scoop of the 21st century? Tom Bradbury at ITN must be on the spook payroll, for
starters? MI6 had foreign correspondents for years, but domestic mouthpieces must now be on the take too? All paid to demonise
Russia and Putin.
The Guardian has lost all sense of proportion – mention Tommy Robinson and the entire staff through themselves to floor and
roll round like dying flies – yet for when it comes to US neocons they go all misty eyed, redolent of a broody couple when they
come across a particularly adorable baby.
Simon 'white helmets' Tisdall is especially egregious – one can imagine him throwing darts at a picture of Putin while
producing his latest homily to the murderous actions of gangsters like Bush and his crime family.
Its hard not to despair now this has become the official face of Britains so-called liberal media.
I would wager a medium sum that Tisdall is on a payroll other than the Grauniad's, or he's an actual asset per Ulfkötte's
books and media appearances. As with Michael White, with whom I had a very illuminating argument via email a few years back.
He *is* an asset, not a journalist (and a massive dick, to boot)
I thought the attitude of the Bush family to their fellow Americans was best illustrated by Barbara's response to the plight of
the homeless victims of Katrina who had been transported to the Houston domed stadium. They spent their nights there sleeping
on hard benches and when good ole Babs heard of it, she opined that they probably had never had it so good so why were they complaining.
Could Mother Theresa have had greater generosity of spirit?
Not just one article, the awful Guardian is full of contents eulogising [yet another] mongrel of a president.
But look at conservative media. The crazy Infowars.com described this Bush as an Anti-American Globalist and Traitor!! .. and
zerohedge.com is celebrating: "The Evil Has Died" and "In 2016 he voted for Hillary Clinton, because the Deep State Swamp sticks
together". https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-02/exploring-dark-side-bush-41
Just tell me, who is the rabid neo-con right-wing rag that is glorifying wars and mass murderers?
The late Robert Parry, sad to say. Maybe that now both the 'MacBeths' are stains on the tarmac – Parry's notes of the bloodstained
legacy of that dynasty can finally be displayed? That Barbara was one cold blooded mother! Would have happily pulled a trigger
on JFK, MLK herself (some think).
Just about the whole century from the setup of the Fed, the two world wars, the depression,
Hitler, Korea, Cuba all of it, had a a Bush hand in it. He was the self crowned Caesar having publicly executed the whole of Camelot
and left us with a poison toad, reminds us how low the Bush's took the USA.
George Bush spent his adult life organizing operations and wars that killed a few million people. Anyone who has spiritual
beliefs must wonder how it is to die with so much killing on your record or conscience (if you have one).
That's something I've wondered about many times. If you review John McCain's actions and comments before he died, it seems
these people don't have a conscience. If you surround yourself with people of similar mindset and in a climate where war
is considered obligatory for US Presidents, you go into self denial. Wars are probably like an addiction for these people and
once you get to that stage you no longer have a conscience.
During John McCain's funeral where all living ex-presidents were in attendance, someone remarked on Twitter, 'Quick, lock the
church doors and hold the war crimes trial in the church!'. This was a far more realistic observation than the sickening McCain
apologist BBC coverage we were subjected to.
At the weekend I went to the place where Oliver Cromwell lived. There was an American tourist who told us she was shocked about
Oliver Cromwell being dug up from his grave and his head stuck on a pike. She said it was gruesome. I was tempted to say that
at least that was 350 years ago, and similar things are happening today in Iraq, Syria and Libya – all places where the US has
instigated the chaos and supports the perpretators. I resisted the temptation.
I note that Cromwell thought he was chosen by God to do what he did. But again that was in different times and there were some
redeeming factors in what he did, Probably on par with Obama – who wreaked havoc on the Middle East but reached agreements on
Iran and Cuba. Plus Obama looked cool while killing and droning.
But what goes around comes around. I sense the pure evil involved in the current regime change wars, government, media etc
will pay a heavy price – whether in this life or the next.
The state controlled BBC has just done another puff piece on McCain saying what a splendid chap and great statesman and all round
good egg he was.
The MSM likes to slag off Vlad The Bad by droning on about how he was in the KGB. But Bush wasn't just IN the CIA, he was the
BOSS of the CIA, at a time when hundreds of thousands of Central American peasant farmers and Indians were being killed by CIA
trained and orchestrated death squads.
Mark: jayzus Mark, don't you just want to projectile vomit when you see all this absolute bullshit, just straight out revising
of history, just the lies, on and on . I was involved in a Central American solidarity group in the 1980s – early 90s here in
Aussie, found out then all about U.S style 'democracatic values' and 'human rights concerns' and death squads and various fascists
fully supported by the United States, and places like Guatemala and Nicaragua. Its all an illusion for 'polite society' and the
gullible to believe in. Sigh
I can't remember the exact figures but I think it was over 200,000 murdered in Guatemala out of a population of 4 million. It
was the same story in El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Colombia. And of course the CIA satrap Noriega was hauled off in chains
when that country was invaded. But Uncle Sam is finally paying a price for his antics south of the border. Those societies were
wrecked and brutalised beyond repair. There is now an unbelievably high murder rate of women in Guatemala. Millions of those people
have sought some kind of refuge in the belly of the beast, causing an immigration crisis, with an illegal immigrant population
that may be as high as 30 million. Hence all the uproar over Trump's wall. The immigration crisis was a factor in Trump's election,
just as the tidal wave of migrants from the destroyed countries of the Middle East was a factor in Brexit. Cameron, Sarko and
Clinton thought it was a spiffing idea and quite a wizard wheeze to bomb Libya back to the Stone Age. So we now have a Mad Max
failed state complete with warlords and slave markets just across the Med. What goes around, comes around. You can't expect to
export violence and mayhem abroad and remain immune to it at home.
Mark: after Efrain Rios Montt seized power in a coup in Guatemala in 1982, US Ambassador Frederick Chapin declared that thanks
to the coup of Rios Montt "the Guatemalan Govt has come out of the darkness into the light". That sums it up in one sentence,
and you're probably aware of the mass killing and disappearances under his genocidal tyranny. Reagan kindly submitted that Rios
Montt was 'getting a bum rap on human rights, the same Reagan who declared the Contra's were 'The moral equal of our founding
fathers'. In El Salvador, the same mass slaughter, the same mass upheaval, and even murdering Archbishop Romero. You only need
to look at what happened in Central & South America to understand what the United States really represents.
That's entirely right. People understandably despise and revile people like Brady and Hindley, Sutcliffe, Dahmer, Bundy and the
like. But they killed a handful of people and were often very damaged individuals to begin with. And at least they did their own
dirty work. Subhuman scum sucking filth like Bush, Bush 2, Obama, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Blair, Straw and Campbell
are a thousand times worse. They kill millions without getting their hands dirty, and preen and posture as great statesmen and
public servants, expecting deference and state funerals and puff piece obituaries from nauseating, loathsome, lickspittle media
hacks like Tisdall.
Nailed it Kit. The attempt at revionism and rewriting history by these craven creatures, these sycophantic slimebag shills for
Imperialism and War and the Anglo Zionist Empire. They don't speak truth to power, they protect and grovel to the powerful. The
eulogising and fawning of Bush was stomach churning, as it was for the arch Imperialist McCain when he croaked. Thank God for
alternative news sites, and yeah Caitlin Johnston @ medium nailed it as well, as Fair Dinkum mentioned. Where's John Pilger when
you need him?
What no one seems to realize is that the VP often takes charge of the US National Security Council when POTUS is not able to attend
meetings, which are held weekly. Under Eisenhower it was Richard Nixon who often took charge of the meetings -- Tim Weiner's book
"Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA" gives some details on this. Reagan was primarily a mantle piece for the banking,
oil and defense sectors to run wild. Is it really so hard to believe GHW Bush was running the National Security Council? It was
a CIA wet dream come true (especially after the alligator-armed "investigations" of the 70's.
I don't know but as a fairly apolitical individual, I never much bothered with the Kennedy Assasination. All that changed when
during the fiftieth anniversary, BBC Radio Four ran a program which included an interview with the Dallas police officer who was
handcuffed to Lee Harvey Oswald when he was shot by Jack Ruby. The consensus of that program was that the case was open shut and
Oswald did it. Around that time, several newspapers in the UK featured articles claiming that Oswald acted alone.
Whether or not anyone actively involved still lives, their descendants still do and the probable organising body too. There
still appears to be determination in some quarters to spread disinformation about the case. Given that as long ago as the late
seventies the House of Representatives Assassination Committee concluded that JFK's death was probably the consequence of a conspiracy,
determination amongst the mainstream media to lay Kennedy's death at the hands of Oswald alone suggests that there is still determination
that the truth never becomes public.
I'm sickened by the Guardian's and BBC's obedience to the US neocon project to seek, or create, and destroy "enemies" and whilst
ignoring all the disgusting atrocities that arise as a consequence.
The Guardian is not even worth the paper it's printed on. It's become The Guardian Of The Establishment rather than of the
Truth which it used to proclaim.
It is in danger of losing its budgie-cage-liner status. If budgies can talk they may refuse to evacuate on it. What kind of person
maintains ties to such a a poor excuse for cage toiletry. The moral crunch time for their journalists (actually their opinionists)
came and went a long time ago.
What a great piece. My parents knew them in New York and they came over once and left behind an embossed packet of White House
cigs. I asked my father (before he died) what he thought of them and all he ever said was he thought that Barbara was the intellect
in the family.
Bloody annoying, thanks Pater.
"The induction of DU weapons in 1991 in Iraq broke a 46-year taboo. This Trojan Horse of nuclear war continues to be used more
and more. DU remains radioactive longer than the age of the earth (estimated at 4.5 billion years). The long-term effects from
over a decade of DU exposures are devastating. The increased quantities of radioactive material used in Afghanistan are 3 to 5
times greater than Iraq, 1991. In Iraq, 2003, they are already estimated to be 6 to 10 times 1991, and will travel through a larger
area and affect many more people, babies and unborn. Countries within a 1000-mile radius of Baghdad and Kabul are being affected
by radiation poisoning
"DU remains radioactive longer than [ ] 4.5 billion years." It's worse than that. It loses half of its radioactivity in that time.
The good news is that that slow release means "D"U doesn't zap you much. The bad news is it's chemically toxic, like a heavy metal
(which it is).
Also no mention of the body of circumstantial evidence linking Bush to JFK's murder, though Bush repeatedly insisted that he couldn't
recall his whereabouts that day (I can precisely recall where I was, and I was 9 years old in 1963), in spite of the fact that
solid documentary evidence exists that puts him in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963.
The very first Google Search I did was this, (George H.W. Bush+November 22, 1963) and it yielded a page like the following link,
which began my research into the JFK Assassination.
"... Capitalism has at different times or in different places offered concessions to mobilisations of the working class. It offers the fiction of political choice and representation. It provides a fig-leaf of regulation to impinge on the very worst excesses of the free market and private accumulation ..."
An anti-Trotskyist rationale for supporting imperialist war The war for regime change waged in Syria by the NATO powers, in
alliance with Al Qaeda, behind the backs of the peoples of America and Europe, is the outcome of three decades of US-led wars across
the Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia.
These crimes of US and European imperialism have not only claimed millions
of lives and turned more than 60 million people into refugees. They have exposed the fact that the basic contradictions of capitalism,
which led to world war and the October Revolution in the 20th century, remain unresolved.
Despite the deep unpopularity of these bloody wars, which have cost trillions of dollars amid the deepest economic crisis of capitalism
since the 1930s, attempts by voters to end or limit them, by voting governments out of office in America and Europe, have failed.
Successive governments of all political colorations have, on the contrary, stepped them up, and it is clear that this has become
a policy endorsed by an entrenched ruling class. When the Syrian regime invited Moscow to help it fight the NATO-backed opposition
militias in 2015, for example, NATO escalated the war into a military standoff with Russia, a nuclear power. A century after the
outbreak of World War I and the Russian Revolution, the capitalist system is teetering on the brink of a nuclear conflagration.
The paragraphs quoted from Hensman in which she extols Western capitalist states providing democratic mechanisms through which
the working class can "fight back" - notwithstanding the 4 decades of unbroken counterrevolution that bring us into the present
- don't just embody the political dead end reached by those who broke from international revolutionary solidarity and Trotskyist
struggles against both Stalinism and imperialism.
They do something much worse and, in my view, more fundamental. They highlight how the thinkers that cluster around groups
like the ISO have completely lost - if they ever had it - the ability to think dialectically. Their political conclusions lead
me to conclude in turn that they actually don't comprehend the most essential principles of Marxist critical analysis of capitalism
or how dialectical materialism builds a complete picture of the totality that is our socio-economic environment.
Capitalism has at different times or in different places offered concessions to mobilisations of the working class. It
offers the fiction of political choice and representation. It provides a fig-leaf of regulation to impinge on the very worst excesses
of the free market and private accumulation.
But - and this is the key thing! - it is in its essence, in the most primitive, unchanging logic of its momentum and inexorable
development, always but always a system in which the privileges and power of capital will be elevated above those of workers.
It is constitutionally organised around that core function. If you don't understand that, every analysis that follows will be
useless.
By proceeding in his analysis from revolutionary concepts of class struggle, exploitation, alienation, and the material basis
for historical development, Marx was able to build - brick by brick - a critique of capitalism itself. Pseudo-left groups like
the ISO or the DSA do the exact opposite - they start from false principles and work towards over-elaborated false conclusions.
It isn't in other words just the case that they err on this or that detail. The whole premise and therefore all the conclusions
are useless - and must be rejected wholesale!
"... The Bilderberg set call people like you either their "dogs" (if you are in politics or the military) or the "dead." ..."
"... What do you mean "where criminals mingle with ministers". That is assuming that ministers are not criminals. Considering that there will be ministers from the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK, I'd suggest that there is a near 100% certainty that some, if not all, the ministers there are criminals. ..."
"... That one group of almost-certainly-criminals meets another group of almost-certainly-criminals is hardly surprising. That the whole shebang is protected by the host's police force is even less so ..."
Convicted criminals. Such as disgraced former CIA boss,
David Petraeus, who's just been handed a $100,000
(Ł64,000) fine and two years' probation for leaking classified information.
Petraeus now works for the vulturous private equity firm KKR, run by Henry Kravis, who does arguably Bilderberg's best impression
of Gordon Gecko out of Wall Street. Which he cleverly combines with a pretty good impression of an actual gecko.
... ... ...
"Can I go now?" Another no. So I continued my list of criminals. I moved on to someone closer to home:
René Benko, the Austrian real estate baron, who had a conviction
for bribery upheld recently by the supreme court. Which didn't stop him making the cut for this year's conference. "You know Benko?"
The cop nodded. It wasn't easy to see in the glare of the searchlight, but he looked a little ashamed.
... ... ...
I decided to reward their vigilance with a chat about HSBC. The chairman of the troubled banking giant, Douglas Flint, is a regular
attendee at Bilderberg, and he's heading here again this year, along with a member of the bank's board of directors, Rona Fairhead.
Perhaps most tellingly, Flint is finding room in his Mercedes for the bank's busiest employee: its chief legal officer, Stuart Levey.
A Guardian editorial this week branded HSBC "a bank beyond shame" after it announced plans to cut 8,000 jobs in the UK, while
at the same time threatening to shift its headquarters to Hong Kong. And having just been forced to pay Ł28m in fines to Swiss regulators
investigating money-laundering claims. The big question, of course, is how will the chancellor of the exchequer,
George Osborne, respond to all this? Easy – he'll
go along to a luxury Austrian hotel and hole up with three senior members of HSBC in private. For three days.
High up on this year's conference agenda is "current economic issues", and without a doubt, one of the biggest economic issues
for Osborne at the moment is the future and finances of Europe's largest bank. Luckily, the chancellor will have plenty of time at
Bilderberg to chat all this through through with Flint, Levey and Fairhead. And the senior Swiss financial affairs official, Pierre
Maudet, a member of the Geneva state council in charge of the department of security and the economy. It's all so incredibly convenient.
Let's see, maybe because we have read over their leaked documents from the 1950s in which they discussed currency manipulation
and GATT. Everything they have discussed in their meetings over the past decades has almost come to fruition. There are elected
officials meeting with criminals such as HSBC. Did you even read the article? If you did, and you are not het up or whatever you
call it, then you are of a peasant mentality, and there is no use talking to you.
The Bilderberg set call people like you either their "dogs" (if you are in politics or the military) or the "dead." I won't
be looking for your response because you have confirmed that you do not matter.
Carpasia -> MickGJ 12 Jun 2015 10:52
Thank you for your comment, my good man. Hatred is human, and helps us all to avoid pain, for pain, especially unnecessary
pain, is allowed to be hated by the agreement of all, if nothing else is. I would hate to be beaten by Nazis. Thus, I would avoid
going to a place where that could occur. That is how hatred works for me. It is the only way it can work, and not be pernicious
to the self and others.
I distrust the international order as it is the means, harnessed by money, whether corporate or state or individual or monarchical,
by which this world is being destroyed. Could things have been better? Jesus is on one end of the spectrum, and Lord Acton on
the other, of the spectrums of viewpoints from which that could be properly assessed.
If the corruption at the heart of the international
order is not regulated properly, this world will come to an end, not the end of the world itself, but the end of the world as
we know it. This is happening now. The world is finite.
I am not a xenophobe. In my experience, the people that are most likely to hurt me, and thus deserve fear, are those closest.
Perhaps that is a cynical way of describing it, but anyone who thinks honestly about it would accede to the notion that it is
the people who "love" us that hurt us the most, for we agree too be vulnerable to them. It is the matrix of love.
As for Austria and Bavaria, I have visited both places and they were, both, the cleanest locales I have ever seen, with Switzerland
having to be mentioned in the same breath, of course.
I take a certain liberty in writing. I am not damning the human race, or strangers to me. If I did not entertain, but caused
offence, I apologize to you. I do not possess omniscience, and my words will have to speak for themselves.
Thank you, again.
DemonicWarlordSlayer 12 Jun 2015 08:02
"How Geo Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler's Rise to Power" in the UK Guardian >
"Did Geo H W Bush Coordinate a JFK Hit Team" at Veterans Today >
"9/11 Conspiracy Solved, Names, Connections, Details" on youtube....dot-to-dot of the
Demonic Warlord's Crimes Against Humanity....end feudalism.
Carpasia 12 Jun 2015 07:09
Excellent article.
I visited Austria once, and I know of what he speaks. It was the one place I have ever visited that I thought I would be jailed
if I littered. I was wandering at the time, but I tentatively had a meal of chicken and departed henceforth.
Austrians are an interesting lot, to be sure. That they are perfect goes without saying. Their main virtue is that they do
not travel, and that strangers, which we call tourists these days, are not welcomed. If only we were all like that, the world
would be a far better place.
Austrians do everything well, including crime. Some of the greatest crimes in the world have been committed by Austrians, but
their crimes did not include not having their papers.
During World War 2, and I pass over Hitler, the German machine of death had an unusually high proportion of Austrians in commanding
roles assisting it. It can not be explained away by saying they were some kind of faux Germans, and so it matters not. Indeed,
if anything, Germans are faux Austrians, looked at in the broad brush of history. Men of many nations joined the Germans and adorned
themselves with the Death's Head, but many Austrians might as well have tattooed it onto their foreheads. I know of what I speak,
for I read on it, and will justify if questioned.
Reinhard Heydrich is an epitome of this, in the true sense of the word. Kurt Waldheim was another, too young too rise too far
before the Ragnarok of May of 1945, but government of the world was not out of his reach, a man who had materially assisted the
transportation of the Jews of Thessaloniki to the gas chambers of Auschwitz and, when challenged, was unrepentant, not as a racist,
but as something worse even, as a man whose great virtue was that he followed orders. It is order that the Austrians value over
everything. Even crime is ordered.
In the common-law west we think criminals are disordered beasts to be locked up. We do not give them papers. They are registered
only to warn us of their existence, and we do not like to let them travel, as much as we could benefit by their absence, because
we think they flee to license, and we think it wrong to inflict them upon innocents abroad. In Austria, the criminal is the man
with no papers. If he has papers, all is well, and he is no criminal, whatever he has done.
colingorton 12 Jun 2015 03:19
What do you mean "where criminals mingle with ministers". That is assuming that ministers are not criminals. Considering that
there will be ministers from the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK, I'd suggest that there is a near 100%
certainty that some, if not all, the ministers there are criminals.
That one group of almost-certainly-criminals meets another group of almost-certainly-criminals is hardly surprising. That the
whole shebang is protected by the host's police force is even less so.
How far can all this mutual back scratching go? It seems that the only alternative left is far too drastic, but there really
seems to be no place for a legal alternative, does there?
Why not spread a huge trampoline over the US and bounce those missiles back to their origin. That is probably more feasible
than the theory that because the US has a 10 to 4 preponderance of nuclear weapons over [say Russia] then the US can destroy Russia
10 times over, whereas the Russians can only destroy the US 4 times over. Some crazies think those odds are good.
This kind of thing must give the Demtards some major cognitive dissonance (insofar as they have any cognition). They're the worst
jingoes in wanting to push the confrontation with Russia to the very brink and beyond, so they would be the normal target audience
for this kind of sham "missile defense" propaganda, certainly if a Democrat or less hated Republican president proposed it. But
they have such Trump Derangement Psychosis, they'll have to denounce this even though it's for their yearned-for nuclear war.
As for the SDI technology, they'd be better off with Opus's proposal to put a thick ring of $1000 bills in space to block the
missiles. Might work for asteroids and flying saucers too.
Trump used the occasion of the MDR launch to exaggerate the possibilities of new missile defense systems...
Trump was again making a public demonstration that he is an ignorant loudmouth. I skimmed that Missile Defense Review
and saw the equivalent of a research paper written by a lazy college student. Huge margins, many space-eating illustrations, and
much repetition helped to "catapult the propaganda". It was 108 pages of nonsense designed to give the impression we need to throw
more taxpayer money to Big Weapons Companies.
The cost to put 1 kilogram into low-earth orbit are some $5,000-$20,000.
Unfortunately those "rods from god" don't have to be the size of telephone poles. A 2 inch thick and 72 inch long bar of tungsten
moving along at 2 miles/second would destroy any armored vehicle it hit, and also a great many other things. If one of them struck
the generator at the electrical power plant, there isn't going to be any electricity from that plant for a long while.
I don't know why these things haven't been deployed, but it might come down to common sense and low profit. The US has opened
a can of worms with weapon-carrying drones, and doing this with a simple and inexpensive orbital weapon might have been recognized
as 'undesirable'. Big Weapons Companies don't stand to roll in the big bucks like they do with the USS Ford or the F-35. And possibly
nobody could make them work. I just don't know.
Once again, that new Missile Defense Review was a combination of really stupid and amazingly dishonest. It could also
get us all killed well before the worst effects of climate change arrive.
Will the captive Corporate Media ever free itself to the extent that the American voting public will be thoroughly educated as
to the costs to the social fabric that these monstrous military projects entail? -- to healthcare, to the infrastructure, to education,
to Social Security, and the list goes on and on.
Looks like Russia and China's plan to do a reverse USSR bankruptcy on the US is bearing fruit.
Putin's announcement of all those advanced weapons, few of which are actually being rolled out, was just what the US MIC was
looking to push for the next round of juicy R&D contracts. It could almost have been made to measure for hungry DC lobbyists.
Maybe it was.
US debt is growing exponentially, until it doesn't. What then? The Yugoslavia solution, 50 odd countries from the no longer
united states?
james , Jan 18, 2019 4:02:32 PM |
linkHarry Law , Jan 18, 2019 4:03:04 PM |
link
What's wrong with you snowflakes, we have to worry more about a 'mine shaft gap' Russia probably has far more mine shafts than
the US, but don't worry in the event of a nuclear war all is not lost, with more mine shafts "and with the proper breeding techniques
and a ratio of say ten females to each male they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within 20
years". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybSzoLCCX-Y
Yes, it's possible Putin's 1 March announcement was a counterattack in the Hybrid Third World War aimed at the fiscal ruination
of the Outlaw US Empire.
Some may recall Putin asking Slick Willie to join NATO in 2000. Well, it turns out that request was made
once
before in 1954 , a fact I was unaware of until today. One must ponder the reasons why Molotov's request was nixed in 1954
despite willingness to negotiate regarding the stated objections. I wonder if Ike was even informed of this development given
the extremely evil Dulles brothers were in charge of State and CIA at the time. I'm sure I'm not the only one who missed the revelation
of that fact. It appears the elimination of Russia as a nation-state has always been the goal, just as it was for the British.
Re: Lysias @11 Do the warmongers think that nuclear winter is bogus?
and Anne Jaclard @ 15.
Yes, Anne Jaclard is correct.US political and military leaders have either ignored or rejected the peer-reviewed studies on
the long-term environmental consequences of nuclear war. They don't fit the agenda.
For more details, please see the article that I wrote for the Federation of American Scientists,
Turning A Blind Eye Toward Armageddon -- US Leaders Reject Nuclear Winter Studies
Thanks for providing the link to your article. In it I note the same tactics utilized by tobacco causes cancer and climate
change deniers to smear the studies and deny any potential Nuclear Winter. Clearly, the people involved in such denialism are
the most immoral people one might imagine. Unfortunately, I see no evidence to soften your assessment:
"My own personal assessment of the state of the nuclear danger today is that it is profound. The United States is sleepwalking
towards nuclear war. Our leaders have turned a blind eye to the scientifically predicted consequences of nuclear war, and our
military appears to be intent on making "Russia back down." This is a recipe for unlimited human disaster."
As you probably know, Putin has said Russia is ready and will not back down, that it is up to the Outlaw US Empire to alter
its aggressive, provocative behaviors and policies. Brinksmanship is clearly occurring, but as you observe, there's no discussion
of that fact happening within the Outlaw US Empire; although now with the INF Treaty pullout, a few voices in Europe are finally
being raised.
thank you very much Steven Starr @21
worth remembering the studies done by JFK govt after the Cuban Missile Crisis
William R Polk writes that they war gamed nuclear conflict, and the conclusion reached was that once USA (or Russia, or now China)
used a nuke, then the result would be escalation until all nukes had been used.
Leaders disbelieved this result, and redid the war games over and over again, but the result was the same. It does not matter
if one nation only intended a "limited" or strategic attack, escalation is inevitable, and it would be the end of human civilization
as we know it.
Take a look at Polk's article here:
www.williampolk.com/assets/the-cuban-missile-crisis-in-reverse.pdf
quote
1)
it
is
almost
certain
that
neither
the
American
nor
the
Russian
government
could
accept
even
a
limited
attack
without
responding;
2)
there
is
no
reason
to
believe
that
a
Russian
government,
faced
with
defeat
in
conventional
weapons,
would
be
able
to
avoid
using
nuclear
weapons;
3)
whatever
attempts
are
made
to
limit
escalation
are
likely
to
fail
and
in
failing
lead
to
all
out
war;
and
4)
the
predictable
consequences
of
a
nuclear
war
are
indeed
an
unimaginable
catastrophe.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy produced by Mattis was published on 19 January 2018, far in advance of Putin's 1 March 2018
address, and advocated for additional expenditures beyond what was legislated. IOW, Putin's speech had no bearing on the increase
in weapons procurement as such was already planned. Furthermore, it's little secret that a technological breakthrough is being
counted on to recharge the Outlaw US Empire's languishing tech sector whose only viable R&D arm for decades is DARPA; thus, the
call for revamping Star Wars ought to be seen as part of that effort.
@31 I think it is more likely the recoil will cause it to spin around like a Catherine wheel firing off Rods from God in all directions.
It will be like the Fourth of July.
You can get into all kinds of detail, but the bottom line is that offense is much cheaper than defense. This was true before and
probably even more true now. Unlimited range nuclear cruise missiles and underwater drones, relatively tiny hypersonic glide vehicles
changing course erratically while falling out of the sky at Mach 27 (latest test) are going to be very expensive to stop if at
all. If it costs you 100 million to defend yourself from a 1 million dollar missile ... well the other guy just builds more missiles.
You can get into all kinds of detail, but the bottom line is that offense is much cheaper than defense.
In my opinion you've nailed it. All the defensive systems I know of are constructed like a house of cards. They're vulnerable
to every kind of disruption, and against a competent opponent none of them are going to work. But never fear - there is big money
in pretending to try.
I used an extract from the link rather than the article title because that title is quite deceptive.
Only two methods of pure defense come to mind. First would be a Science Fiction "blaster" like in Asimov's Foundation series.
The closest we have to them are lasers, and present day models don't have enough power or the ability to blast through nasty weather.
I suspect that tipping the interceptor rockets with small nukes would stop the hypersonic devices in their tracks. The downside
of these is something called EMP, or ElectroMagnetic Pulse. High altitude bursts will probably do at least as much damage to the
US as would the bombs aboard the hypersonic gliders, and quite possibly more.
Because of the demands of the US Empire, the US can't play nice with the rest of the world. But some of us can most definitely
make immense profits from the situation. The ABM (Anti Ballistic Missile) industry may get to join the makers of the F-35 and
the barely floating new Navy ships in the drive for massive profits.
the pair @4 said in part;""war is a racket" as the saying goes. it's usually less about actual capability than it is keeping all
the usual suspects latched firmly on the "military industrial" teat. it's basically the world's largest welfare program disguised
as "national defense" and - coupled with financial fraud/smoke and mirrors -"
Gates to hell are open, Satan's elves know only death economy stock but backs, not the laws of physics!
"One figure who has benefited financially from the crisis, according to Evans, is Prime Minister Theresa May's husband, whose
employer Capital Group owns a large amount of shares in a weapons manufacturer that supplies the Saudi military. The company's
shares in Lockheed Martin, an arms-dealer who produces laser-guided missiles such as the one that blew up a bus full of school
children in Yemen last year, was worth about $6.5 billion as of last March."
My calculator says that this amount of money divided by the 240 little missiles which will come as part of the deal is $1.5
million bucks. That's a lot of taxpayer dollars for something which basically doesn't work. The next link is from 2013, but I
doubt if much has changed, for this Iron Dome business was always more about soothing Apartheid State civilians than actually
working.
feel fairly certain that the US will create their own illusion of security and then, from within that bubble, they will become
even more aggressive in pursuing "regime change" and other globalist matters as countries will continue to refuse to bend to their
will. We've seen how the Republicans reacted to an "apologetic" Obama when he traveled abroad: labeling him a foreigner. We've
seen how the Democrats reacted to the simple act of hacking an e-mail server and publicizing the data: it's 9/11! And we've seen
them respond to Trump: labeling him beholden to foreign interests. I can only see this type of thing escalating in the future.
It's depressing to think about it.
If the US feels like they've secured themselves against any potential missiles, there's nothing stopping them from trying to
break up Russia or vaporizing the coastline of China aside from their own sensibilities. Which seem to have gone out the window
entirely, based on the latest Buzzfeed coverage.
I quit! We know that a "limited nuclear war" is an illusion. The effects of a nuclear accident at Fukushima have been ignored,
denied, covered up or rationalized as the collateral damage of global warming/climate change. The use of "tactical" nukes will
create similar effects that are also ignored. Nuclear restraint will be an invitation to a lack of restraint as this military
"necessity" transforms into full blown insanity. The terminal irony is that we're already at the point of full blown insanity
for failing to impose any limits on the proliferation of nuclear war fantaseis. Therefore, I quit! I refuse to participate in
the generation of more verbiage on this subject. We must demand the strict control of all nuclear weapons and research through
an international program of demilitarization. The first step is to take the political promoters of this madness away from the
microphones. We need a full frontal assault on militarism as the true enemy of the people. To participate in discussions of the
feasibility of further nuclear elaboration is to become part of the insanity. I quit!
not that many years ago, no matter who you asked or where you sourced it, the consensus was pretty much that surface-to-air missile
defense systems were not particularly effective. then came the war in Syria and suddenly incoming missiles were being shot out
of the air with remarkable rates of success. 50%, 60%, 70%, sometimes even 100%! and this was presumably without engaging the
vaunted s-300, s-400 systems. then, of course, Putin declared his new array of super-duper hypersonic missiles...against which
there is presently, apparently, no defense. but then i read that Lockheed Martin was awarded a 2.9 billion dollar contract to
develop Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared Satellites, designed to fill the gap that exists for early hypersonic detection,
and i gotta wonder. and then i think of an anomaly like the 21 trillion unaccounted for down at DOD and i try to extrapolate the
limitations on R & D.
At the Counterpunch site is a takedown of Donald Trump and his "war cabinet" .
The Pentagon has been playing games over the years with its testing program for missile defense. Targets typically follow a
preprogrammed flight path to a designated position; interceptor missiles also fly to a preprogrammed position. Global positioning
satellite receivers are placed on the target to send its position to ground control, and the necessary target location is downloaded
to a computer in the kill vehicle. Finally, decoys are given a significantly different thermal signature than the target, making
it easier for sensors on the kill vehicle to distinguish between objects.
I knew there had been cheating going on, but not that it had been quite this bad.
Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jan 19, 2019 1:17:21 PM | 66
"I knew there had been cheating going on, but not that it had been quite this bad."
In this kind of corporate-controlled hierarchy (which is more or less every hierarchy), how could there not be cheating, whatever
level of cheating is necessary to give the desired result. In this case there's tremendous pressure on those conducting the war
game to set it up so it produces the result wanted by the weapons contractors: The government should buy these systems.
Personnel are selected according to their sincere belief in this framework. They don't even consider it cheating, but the rightful
way of the world. And if someone is enough of a rogue (they'll consider HIM the rogue) to want a "real" answer, he'll just be
replaced by someone who believes in the corporate imperative.
It's the same as how most STEM types sincerely believe science exists to serve corporate imperatives. Thus for example every
system-conducted food safety test is designed to give the result desired by agribusiness. And if against the odds the test gives
adverse data, researchers have multiple rationales for excluding it as "irrelevant".
And of course that kind of manipulation is so rife in drug trials that even the mainstream media couldn't keep it from becoming
a public scandal. They're still keeping the lid on the systematic fraud of food testing though.
So it's no wonder that capitalism reaches exactly the end point its critics always forecast - extremely expensive weapons that
don't work, extremely expensive drugs that don't work and are often harmful, extremely expensive food (artificially kept cheap
at the retail checkout via massive government subsidies) that doesn't work (poor nutritional value, empty calories) and is loaded
with poison.
So the ticking clocks are in a race. What'll it be, nuclear war, mass death from poisoned food, mass death from the generally
toxified environment. And a big part of it is that under late capitalism, professional cadres not only have no integrity but are
devout believers in the religion of corporate rule and how from these benevolent despots manna will trickle down to all.
But the only real trickling down is the acid rain, the volatile pesticide and radiation fallout, and the missiles.
Liberal part of American elite never formulated a coherent rebuke to the insanity of Star Wars. The assumptions of Star Wars are
too close to their common wisdom, namely that USA should pursue what it richly deserves, the position of an unquestioned sole
superpower on the globe that sets the rules for the rest, at collects some tribute from the lesser in the form of fines for violation
of the rules that are imposed on the rest. MAD does not have place is such a world so should be eliminated.
The concept that pursuit of this ideal is futile, expensive and diverts energies and minds in USA from solving actual life
problems of Americans, not to mention those in other nations is alien to our elite thinking. We are the force for good, so the
stronger our force the better.
In the meantime we have problems like this one. Moscow subway is very proud that its system expands by 5-10% every year and
the percentage of delayed trains is 5 times smaller than in Paris. They do not compare themselves to NYC where the subway system
hardly expands and the percentage of delayed trains is about 30% rather than 1% in Paris and 0.2% in Moscow. NYC system also consumes
an amazing amount of money. The arts of corruption, mismanagement and achieving very little for a lot are more widely spread than
MIC.
But the new missile-defense strategy rests most of its hopes on other technologies that essentially do not exist, and may never
do so. The review says, for example, that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter could be networked with new sensors and outfitted with
new missiles to take out adversary missiles on the launch pad. Tests have shown that the F-35 can do this. But the distance
is the larger problem: the jet basically has to be in the enemy's airspace already.
The notion of multiple F-35s loitering over China and Russia waiting to kneecap rockets during liftoff is a fantasy.
When I read that new " Missile Defense Review" report this is one of the absurd claims which had me shaking my head.
The F-35 isn't invisible. In the unlikely event it could even reach enemy launch sites, a good radar would know it was there.
A keen set of eyes or ears could possibly hear the howl of the engine or just spot it. And a VERY average infra-red detector could
detect that super-hot engine. One of the many problems with the airplane is its short range. Even if it could somehow get there,
it can't stay. The plane will need fuel. The pilot will need to eat, potty, and eventually sleep. Build a special hyper-expensive
robot model and it still won't work. But the neocons seem to have sold it to President Gullible, and that's all that matters.
The kinetic weapons aren't a cost issue. A single Tomahawk is $1M - nor do you need a telephone pole sized projectile to do a
lot of damage.
The real issue is targeting and survivability. Hitting something from even low earth orbit is non-trivial, particularly if
it is a purely ballistic system unless the target is both stationary and very large. And, as the author mentions, these systems
are notably easy to hit if they are on low earth orbit.
I wouldn't worry about the US military capabilities anymore. There is steady erosion across the board, from quality of personnel
to the capabilities of weaponry. While still formidable, America's forces are becoming less so with each passing year. In all
face-to-face mock-up competitions, American soldiers, sailors and airmen always finish next to last. Every invitation by Russia
to participate in such exercises (from Aviadarts to Tank Biathlon to Army Games) is invariably declined by the Pentagon, lest
it leads to an embarassing display of borderline incompetence.
Russia, on the other hand, is improving rapidly in all areas.
Add to it the yawning gap in fiscal health (Russia is as sound as the US is sick), and it's getting clear that all of Trump's
posturing is nothing but a desperate bluff. It worked once by inducing outright panic into the decrepit Soviet leadership in the
late 1980s, so why not try it again...?
Putin is no Brezhnev, however. And America is a very different country also (not in a good way). Nothing of substance will
come of it this time around. Russians are already preparing for the inevitable collapse of the START treaty. They will be going
back to tens of thousands of strategic nukes and beyond, until the West either collapses or sues for peace.
Fallout from Chernobyl rendered Welsh sheep too radioactive to eat for a good many years. Recently, (last couple of years) I was
told by a Bavarian that they still could not eat wild boar in Bavaria for the same reason.
As you suggest, a purely ballistic system is nearly worthless. The flying crowbar (or telephone pole) would have turned into
a guided munition. Getting a signal through the plasma sheath surrounding weapon has been a big problem. Lots of people have been
working on solutions, and the Russians claim to have found one. From a Popular Science story:
To get the signal to make the short leap to the spacecraft, the Russian researchers propose blasting the resonating plasma
layer with radio waves generated from the spacecraft. Like the signal from earth, some will be absorbed and some reflected
back to the spacecraft. But the reflected waves should be modulated by changes in the electric field caused by the signal sent
from earth. Meaning the signals returning to the spacecraft should carry a ghost of the signal sent form earth and absorbed
by the plasma.
A search turned up several different proposals, so person has to assume one or more of them is going to work. One reason to
worry about this is the possibility of attacking missile silo ICBMs. Until very recently it was thought only a nuclear weapon
would destroy one of these, but a properly sized kinetic impactor would surely do just as well. Worst of all, the warning time
from when the impactors were detected on radar until they hit would be really short.
There are other possibilities which had best be left untouched in deference to the sensitivities of The Surveillance State.
The EU didn't impose austerity on the UK, its own government did. We don't have the euro, in
case you haven't noticed. The US is our top overseas buyer. If we want more of that, we'll
have to take something like TTIP or worse.
The EU was a voice for African, Caribbean and Pacific producers against US transnationals,
and offered favorable terms. We've weakened that voice.
Brexit makes us more dependent on the IMF, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup
and Morgan Stanley. They're not EU bodies.
Britain opposed EU democratisation for forty years by upholding national governments' veto
powers over proposals supported by elected MEPs.
You voted against everything you claim to uphold. Because it was a vote against
everything.
None of that's even the issue. Do you have an insight to offer beyond antipathy to the
EU?
New emails published by the U.S. Department of State reveal the real motives behind the
international invasion of Libya.
The new emails of Hillary Clinton reveal that the real reason behind the invasion were
primarily the countries large gold and oil reserves, and the extension of French influence in
North Africa.
Fort Russ reports:
The U.S. State Department has published a series of emails that reveal the volume of gold
reserves of Gaddafi. According to the documents, the reserves are so great that they could
become the basis for creating a pan-African currency, which, in turn, could compete with the
dollar in the region.
Also, the reasons for intervention were identified as the major oil reserves of Libya and
the strengthening of French influence in North Africa. However, in 2011, Western leaders
welcomed the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime as a democratic step. "Long live Benghazi, long
live Libya, long live the friendship between France and Libya!", – said French President
Nicolas Sarkozy.
"You showed the world that you can overthrow the dictator and have chosen freedom!" –
said the Prime Minister of Great Britain David Cameron, speaking to the Libyan people."The
people of Libya got rid of a dictator. Now it has a chance," claimed the Vice-President of USA
Joe Biden.
In the past five years, the violence and chaos in Libya has not stopped. In the background
of this, "Islamic State" is gaining momentum in the country and has captured new territory. In
January 2016, dozens of people were killed as a result of terrorist.
Previously, "Islamic State" had claimed responsibility for the attack on a training camp in
Zliten. According to the correspondent of the newspaper The Jerusalem Post Ariel Ben Solomon,
from the outset it was obvious that intervention in Libya would lead to negative consequences
for the country.
"The email to Clinton is confirmed by the results of studies that began to appear after the
invasion of Libya, organized by France with U.S. support. Major oil reserves of the country
were the main reason for intervention. Dictators lead many African countries, but the West is
in no hurry to intervene in each of them. The Obama administration from the beginning was
guided by rather naive misconceptions on the actions that needed to be taken to resolve the
situation in Libya after the war," said RT political analyst Ariel Ben Solomon.
Source:
http://yournewswire.com/clinton-email...Ozzie Crosby2 years ago
America needs war to survive. The United States IS the infidel. It's not just propaganda.
pav_k20072 years ago
modern day robbers! K Lyall2 years ago
Imagine a NWO puppet like her in the White House for 4 more years!
10 11
View reply Hide replies 1979USHI2 years ago The
Western nations governments are totally out of order and need to be taken to a real world
court. Notta
Dr2 years ago
incredibly disgusting what we are learning about warmongering corporate globalist elites. there
is a strong move starting in the other direction....more conservative nationalist leaders are
rising up everywhere. these monsters ask need to be arrested, tried and severely
punished....held to the highest level of accountability.
January 25, 2019For Thierry
Meyssan, one of the consequences of the successive ends of the bipolar and unipolar world is the re-establishment of colonial projects.
One after the other, the French, Turkish and English have publicly declared the return of their colonial ambitions. We still need
to know what form they will adopt in the 21st century. by Thierry Meyssan Part 3 - The British Empire
As for the United Kingdom, it has been hesitating for two years about its future after the Brexit.
A little after the arrival of Donald Trump at the White House, Prime Minister Theresa May went to the United States. Speaking to
the representatives of the Republican Party, she proposed re-establishing the Anglo-Saxon leadership of the rest of the world. But
President Trump has been elected to liquidate these imperial dreams, not to share them.
Disappointed, Theresa May then travelled to China in order to propose that President Xi Jinping share control of international exchanges.
The City, she said, was ready to ensure the convertibility of Western currencies into Yuan. But President Xi had not been elected
to do business with an heiress of the power which had dismantled his country and imposed on the Chinese their opium war.
Theresa May tried a third version with the Commonwealth. Some of the ex-colonies of the Crown, like India, are today enjoying powerful
growth and could become precious commercial partners. Symbolically, the heir to the throne, Crown Prince Charles, was raised to the
Presidency of this association. Mrs. May announced that we are on our way to a Global Britain.
In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph on 30 December 2018, the British Minister for Defence, Gavin Williamson, published
his analysis of the situation. Since the fiasco of the Suez Canal in 1956, the United Kingdom has implemented a policy of decolonisation,
and has withdrawn its troops from the rest of the world. Today, it conserves permanent military bases only in Gibraltar, Cyprus,
Diego Garcia and the "Falklands", to give these islands their imperial title.
For the last 63 years, London has been oriented towards the European Union, invented by Winston Churchill, but to which, initially,
he never imagined that England would belong. The Brexit "tears this policy to shreds". From now on, "the United Kingdom is back as
a global power".
London is planning to open two permanent military bases. The first will probably be in Asia (Singapore or Brunei), and the second
in Latin America - most likely in Guyana, in order to participate in the new stage of the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy of the destruction
of those regions of the world which are not connected to globalisation. After the "African Great Lakes", the "Greater Middle East",
it's time for the "Caribbean Basin". The war will probably start with an invasion of Venezuela by Colombia (pro-US), Brazil (pro-Israëli)
and Guyana (pro-British).
Neocons are "enemies of the people" independent of their party affiliation. Nuremberg principles were written not for nothing.
Notable quotes:
"... he thought Ahmed Chalabi was "the most unfairly maligned man on the planet" long after the Iraqi exile's dissembling was apparent to everyone except the staff of Commentary magazine; and as Boot notes in his mea culpa, he totally failed to notice the dark side of the GOP. "It's amazing how little you can see when your eyes are closed," he squeaks. ..."
"... The problem here isn't really Boot. It's the eternal forgiveness that journalists and intellectuals bestow upon colleagues who should be cast out for errors of immense and tragic consequence. ..."
There is an unforgettable passage in Graham Greene's classic "The Quiet American" in which the
title character, a CIA agent named Alden Pyle, admits that Vietnam is much more complicated
than he'd imagined. "I had not realized how tribal politics was and how divorced it could be
from principles or conviction," Pyle says. Surveying the wreckage of the American war effort,
he adds, "Looking back with greater introspection and humility after the passage of more than
fifteen years, I can finally acknowledge the obvious: it was all a big mistake."
Greene's admirers will recognize that these lines do not actually come from his 1955 novel.
They are from Max Boot's new book, " The Corrosion of
Conservatism: Why I Left the Right ." Boot, a leading intellectual in the conservative
movement for the past two decades, is now apologizing for nearly everything he has done and
abided. He is denouncing not just Donald Trump, but the Republican Party as a whole. "Upon
closer examination," he writes in his 260-page atonement, "it's obvious that the whole history
of modern conservatism is permeated with racism, extremism, conspiracy-mongering, ignorance,
isolationism, and know-nothingism."
The temptation is to say, Bravo, here at last is a Republican willing to admit the emperor
has no clothes. That's the reaction of lots of journalists and
pundits who have flipped
through Boot's book. Jacob Heilbrunn wrote in the
Washington Monthly that Boot's "readiness to reexamine his old convictions is admirable."
Adam Serwer, writer at The Atlantic, tweeted , "You don't want to
punish people for getting the right answer." Boot is no longer a Republican (he quit the party
after Trump's election) but he is hardly an outcast in the political world -- he is a
Washington Post columnist, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and a CNN
analyst. Such is the sweet life of a born-again intellectual.
It's easy to understand why a penitent like Boot appeals to liberals and other members of
the Trump resistance. He ratifies their sense of having been correct from the start, and his
confession is enunciated in perfect sound bites, with just the right dose of abasement. Boot is
an irresistible spectacle -- the sinner with tears running down his cheeks dropping to his
knees at the altar of all that is good, proclaiming that he has seen the light and wants to
join the army of righteousness. But here's the thing: Boot is only half-apologizing. And
because he's been wrong so many times and with so many ill consequences, he should be provided
with nothing more than a polite handshake as he's led out of the sanctuary of politics,
forever.
When I say wrong, I mean Guinness World Records wrong. In his first book, " Out of
Order ," Boot argued that the Supreme Court erred when it ruled in Brown v. Board of
Education that school segregation violated the Constitution ("I am not proud of 'Out of
Order,'" he now says); he was a key proponent of the invasion of Iraq ("Once we have deposed
Saddam, we can impose an American-led, international regency in Baghdad, to go along with the
one in Kabul," he proclaimed in 2001);
he thought John Bolton was treated unfairly when Democrats
opposed his 2005 nomination for ambassador to the United Nations ("He seems like a good choice
to help drain the U.N. cesspool of corrupt bureaucrats and self-serving tyrants");
he thought
Ahmed Chalabi was "the most unfairly
maligned man on the planet" long after the Iraqi exile's dissembling was apparent to everyone
except the staff of Commentary
magazine; and as Boot notes in his mea culpa, he totally failed to notice the dark side of the
GOP. "It's amazing how little you can see when your eyes are closed," he squeaks.
That's a lot of wrong. It's so much wrong that I can't imagine how or why anyone could look
at Boot and think, "Ah, here's a man we should listen to." I can pre-empt Boot's response to
this -- in his book, he complains that "doctrinaire leftists" will be satisfied with nothing
less than his "ritual suicide" for the war crimes he's committed. I've exchanged a few cordial
emails with Boot (we both graduated from the University of California, Berkeley, a few years
apart, and worked at its student newspaper, the Daily Californian ), and I can honestly say he seems a nice and
bright enough fellow to whom I wish no physical harm. But like Alden Pyle, he has helped create
so much havoc, he has been wrong so completely, that it would be the definition of insanity to
treat his ideas as fodder for anything other than a shredder. Here's a real line from "The
Quiet American," spoken about Pyle by the novel's weary narrator, that suits Boot perfectly: "I
never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused." Pyle's innocence, the
book explains, "is like a dumb leper who has lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no
harm."
The problem here isn't really Boot. It's the eternal forgiveness that journalists and
intellectuals bestow upon colleagues who should be cast out for errors of immense and tragic
consequence.
Boot is a perfect example, because he has been wrong so many times in such major
ways and is actually willing to admit it. But there are vast numbers of pundits , masters of
spin , and
allegedintellectuals who have been wrong
enough on enough big things (not just war, but climate change and more) to merit laughter
rather than praise. Yet there they are,
stroking their chins on our finest
op-ed pages and cable news channels. Mutual forgiveness is a necessity among pundits who are
stuffed with nonsense much of the time; without mercy on demand, they might all be out of jobs.
It's no surprise that Boot's book arrives with admiring blurbs from D.C. heavyweights James
Fallows, Jon Meacham, and David Corn, among others.
Whatever the truth, and I become daily more distrustful of the media that regularly attack
Putin in this way, I doubt very much if his crimes in this regard come anywhere near those of
Bush, Cheney, Blair, Cameron, Obama, and Bill and Hillary Clinton.
This is just routinely parroted by the MSM and equally routinely expanded upon by them.
Organs like the Guardian/ BBC casually announce that Putin has stolen £40 billion
(sometimes this is casually raised to £200 billion, which would make him the richest
man on the planet and people like Gates/ Buffett poor as church mice by
comparison.)Occasionally someone does ask for details, like bank transfers, property holdings
or whatever.
Nothing is ever forthcoming. All they come up with is that he has some nice Italian suits
and a nice gold watch that cost him $1,200.
Apart from that, these allegations must be true because some financial fraudster mate of
Khordokovsky who sought refuge in the US said so. Sounds pretty convincing to us here in the
MSM – what more evidence do you need? Of course Putin is just a kleptocratic thug and
James Bond cartoon villain who has people murdered purely for the fun of it.
Very late in the game I finally saw the documentary Icarus recently. I had passed it up
because I thought I could predict that it would be rampantly dishonest, and an exercise in
propaganda. It having received an Academy award seemed to be an independent confirmation of
my prejudice.
Well, I was right for once. It was disgraceful, and the most common image in it was of
Putin, accompanied by feeble ad hominem claims, without any counterpoints of any kind. So the
core issue, cheating at the Olympics, turned out to be presented with no context at all, for
the anti-Russian smear job. No mention of Balco, Carl Lewis, Marion Jones, and just a few
seconds of an unidentified Lance Armstrong.
So now we see awards for propaganda. The Americans don't do fairness or integrity, but now
they don't even pretend.
Tolkien also comes to mind here.
Us 'hobbits' are treated as inferior beings by the 'Saurons', 'Nazguls' and 'Gollums' of this
world.
Gandalf ?
We're waiting
Comments were true and apposite enough, but it's all been said really. But given that this is
largely an information war the truth needs continuously asserting.
Our opponents – the Guardian (minitru on thames) the New York Post (Pravda on the
Hudson) the Washington Post (Izvestia on the Potomac) – sole tactic is constant
repetition, this should be our tactic also but with evidence to back it up.
We need to constantly expand our readership and challenge the lunatic narrative of the
PTB. We are now in a pivotal historical moment. If we fail it will be Hunger Games.
I agree about the repetition but do you want to know what I think? I think you need to
play MSM and others a little bit at their own game. They don't back anything up with
evidence. They write short pieces of fiction as statements of fact. Yet they are
believed.
The thing is all 'our' evidence is already out there just by taking a look. (e.g White
Helmets will take you 15 minutes to doubt that narrative) You have an army of
researchers/journalists (e.g Kit Klarenberg, Vanessa Beeley etc) posting detailed evidence
out there. A lot of the independent/academic articles I read are well backed up with evidence
but the problem is to someone not up to speed, is less inclined to read a long article backed
up by detailed reasoning and evidence within it.
I think this article is clear and credible and prompts those new to independent thought to
look at different sources of information.
So perhaps more independent writing, which is creative setting out the facts in an
intelligent way as above and invite (through links) the reader to look at the evidence which
is plentiful, at their leisure.
Humour is another good way of spreading the message. The CJ Hopkins piece a few days ago
very effective.
Skripals case reminds us that the Red Brigades in Italy and Baader-Meinhof in Germany were
entirely bogus and controlled intelligence operations. It's the same story with the "Symbionese
Liberation Army" in the US. Then there's Gladio and Northwoods.
Realpolitik has become surrealpolitik. In Skripals case Russia was immediately blamed,
despite the fact an investigation had barely begun That instantly suggests british intelligence
services participation in Skripals poisoning.
Were are currently the father and daughter who were allegedly poisoned is unknown. Why they
are in hiding is also unknown. But such quetions are never raised by MSM.
In the Middle Ages, everybody knew that witches, fairies, pixies and elves existed and were
responsible for everything that went wrong in life, like the cows or the pigs falling sick or the
hens stopping laying. But round about the early 1600s, judges and juries started demanding
evidence and acquitting defendants in witch trials. They accepted their existence, but still
wanted to see some evidence. The folk in the 1600s were probably more sceptical and less
credulous than our friends like Harding at the Guardian today.
The public can be persuaded to accept almost anything providing the story chimes with deep
seated fears or prejudices, such as Russians threatening 'our way of life' (fears and prejudices
continually stoked by the media of course)
Skripal. The final illustration is the alleged of poisoning with "Novichok" of Sergei
Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury in March 2018. This was immediately blamed on
Russia, again before an investigation had been concluded, followed by sanctions, the expulsion
of Russian diplomats (including by Australia) and a general tirade of abuse against Russia in
general and President Putin in particular.
The Skripal case is a classic illustration of Coleridge's willing suspension of disbelief,
Roh's magical realism and Orwell's doublethink (the act of simultaneously accepting two
mutually contradictory beliefs as correct) all rolled into one.
Rob Slane ( www.theblogmire.com 9
January 2019) has brilliantly deconstructed the many logical, scientific and political
absurdities in the official story. One will wait in vain for the merest hint of this demolition
in the mainstream media.
One possible reason for this non-coverage of the actual evidence and instead a non-stop
barrage of disinformation, suppression of evidence and manipulation of the public can be found
in the activities of a shadowy organisation known as the Institute for Statecraft, and one of
its projects known as the Integrity Initiative (sic).
Fresh revelations are emerging about this project on a daily basis and a proper analysis
must await developments. Suffice to note at this point that the Integrity Initiative is
known to be funded by the United Kingdom government, ostensibly to counter 'Russian
disinformation.' It is rather a major project to spread falsehoods about Russia through
"clusters" of journalists working in mainstream media outlets.
The latter have gone beyond the willing suspension of disbelief and instead actively promote
disinformation they know to be untrue. It is not only potential embarrassment that prevents
this story getting the attention it deserves. It is a strong suspicion, no more than that at
the time of writing, that a D Notice has been issued in the United Kingdom and
Australia.
The effect has been to prevent discussion of what is an extraordinary campaign to mislead
the public, attack opposition politicians and the alternative media, and generally undermine
what used to be regarded as a free press.
That some of the same personnel involved in the Integrity Initiative are also involved in
the Skripal matter (itself subject to a D Notice) reinforces the belief that this project has
wider tentacles than originally thought .
March 20, 2018, marks the 15th anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq. While the American footprint in Iraq has drastically
changed over 15 years, a significant number of the original cheerleaders for the invasion still hold prominent roles in the media
today:
John Bolton, Fox News contributor
Bolton was President George W. Bush's
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control when the Iraq War began.
Bolton backed an Iraq invasion as early as 1998, when he signed a letter from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC),
a neoconservative group led by William Kristol, urging then-President Bill Clinton to attack Saddam Hussein. As the State Department's
top arms-control official during President Bush's first term, Bolton played a role in pushing the allegation that Saddam Hussein
sought uranium in Africa.
"We are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq." [BBC,
11/20/02
]
"I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct." [Talking Points Memo,
5/14/15 ]
Larry Kudlow, CNBC senior contributor
Kudlow was economics editor of
National Review and a co-host of CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer when the Iraq War began.
"Could it be that a lack of decisive follow-through in the global war on terrorism is the single biggest problem facing the stock
market and the nation today? I believe it is. The shock therapy of decisive war will elevate the stock market by a couple-thousand
points." [ National Review ,
6/26/02 ]
"Every day we wait for the impending invasion of Iraq is a day Saddam Hussein grows stronger, a day our national security is threatened,
and a day our economic security is jeopardized." [ National Review ,
2/6/03 ]
Boot's bloodthirstiness is united with a peculiar naďveté about America; it must be said that in this respect he is not unlike
Lansdale. Could it really have been, as Boot wrote in 2017, that only Trump opened his eyes to the fact that it's a bit easier
to be a white guy in America, that "I benefitted from my skin color and my gender -- and those of a different gender or sexuality
or skin color have suffered because of it"? Good for Max if he's had a change of heart and seen the world through more empathetic
eyes; one only wishes he could've had those moments of reflection, which seem so modest and so reasonable, circa 2001. But that
might not have changed anything. He wrote as recently as 2013 that he feels "No Need to Repent for Support of the Iraq War." He
declares, "I feel no shame being part of the 75 percent of Americans who believed at the beginning that this was a war worth waging."
This move is not quite honest: Boot wants to submerge himself into the center of a crowd, one of the democratic mass, when in
fact he was at its vanguard, pushing for the Iraq War early and often.
"Once Afghanistan has been dealt with, America should turn its attention to Iraq." [ The Weekly Standard ,
10/15/01 ]
"In places like Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and very shortly Iraq, ordinary people clamor for American intervention, and welcome
U.S. troops as liberators." [Nimitz Memorial Lecture at University of California, Berkeley,
3/12/03 ]
"No need to repent for support of [the] Iraq war." [ Commentary ,
3/18/13 ]
"But how exactly does the Iraq War differ from previous wars? From World War I, when the Great Powers were said to have 'sleepwalked'
into a conflict that no one really wanted?" [ Commentary ,
7/6/16 ]
Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist
Cohen
was a Washington Post columnist when the Iraq War began.
"Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or
possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise." [ The Washington Post ,
2/6/03 ]
"Initially, I thought bringing down Saddam Hussein was a good cause. I was wrong -- not about the cause, but about its practicality."
[ The Washington Post ,
4/1/08 ]
Ari Fleischer, Fox News contributor
Flesicher served as President Bush's
press secretary as the Iraq War began.
"My point is, the likelihood is much more like Afghanistan, where the people who live right now under a brutal dictator will view
America as liberators, not conquerors." [ The New York Times ,
10/12/02 ]
"There's no question that if force is used, it will achieve the objective of preserving the peace far faster than the current
path that we're on." [White House press briefing, 2/14/03
]
"Given the chance to throw off a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein, people will rejoice." [White House press briefing,
3/21/03 ]
"I think that if you look at the Iraqi people, the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly pleased with the fact the United States has
helped them to get rid of the Saddam Hussein regime. That was clear from their dancing in the streets, from the way they tore down
the statues. And I think that is the viewpoint of the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people." [White House press briefing,
7/1/03 ]
Sean Hannity, Fox News host
Hannity was also a syndicated talk radio host
and a Fox News host when the Iraq War began.
"We're going to find all the weapons of mass destruction." [Fox News, Hannity & Colmes , 2/19/03, via Nexis]
"I was a real believer in the Iraq War. I still am to this day. I still feel that there were probably weapons of mass destruction.
I do believe they were likely moved to Syria in the long lead-up to the war." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show
,
9/7/16 ]
Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard editor-in-chief
Hayes was a senior writer at The
Weekly Standard when the Iraq War began.
"Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives
and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi
financial support for al Qaeda." [ The Weekly Standard ,
11/24/03 ]
Hayes' 2004 book was titled The Connection: How Al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America .
[ Media Matters ,
6/30/04 ]
Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editorial director
Hiatt has been
editorial page director of The Washington Post since 1999.
As Media Matters has
documented , the Washington Post editorial page -- headed by Hiatt since 1999 -- repeatedly echoed the Bush administration's
claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. A February 6, 2003,
editorial began, "After Secretary Of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it
is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."
The Post 's editorial page also
linked the need to invade Iraq to the 9/11 attacks:
During the past decade the United States vowed many times to disarm Saddam Hussein, who made no secret of his hatred and enmity
toward the United States; but when the Iraqi dictator resisted, the United States chose to abandon its vows rather than use the
force that would have been needed to enforce them. In every case, the calculation, stated or unstated, was the same: Pay tribute,
don't make trouble, and maybe nothing worse will happen.
In the ruins of Lower Manhattan in September 2001, most Americans saw evidence that this calculation was incorrect as well
as craven. The nation's enemies would not be deterred or mollified by a gentle response; they would be emboldened. President Bush
rightly concluded that the nation had to defend itself more vigilantly but also that no defense could succeed unless accompanied
by an offensive against the terrorists and the states that sheltered them.
Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard editor-at-large
Kristol was a co-founder of
Project for a New American Century, a neo-conservative think-tank Kristol used to crusade for the Iraq War.
Saddam Hussein "will not disarm peacefully. And he must be disarmed. So war will come. The war itself will clarify who was right
and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about
Saddam's regime." [ The Weekly Standard ,
3/17/03 ]
Kristol bragged that the war would last just two months:
In 2015, Kristol
defended
the decision to invade Iraq:
Even with the absence of caches of weapons of mass destruction, and the mistakes we made in failing to send enough troops at
first and to provide security from the beginning for the Iraqi people, we were right to persevere through several difficult years.
We were able to bring the war to a reasonably successful conclusion in 2008.
Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal editorial page editor
Gigot has been the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal since 2001.
Under Gigot, the editorial page
frequently hyped the likelihood that Saddam Hussein was close to producing or obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Journal
forwarded alarmist claims about Iraq's nuclear capabilities on numerous occasions:
August 2, 2002: "Above all, a debate would let Mr. Bush demonstrate that he has by far the stronger case. Even the critics
concede that Saddam is a threat, after all, a tyrant who has gassed his own people, tried to kill a U.S. President and whose military
routinely fires at American pilots patrolling no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
said Monday that before the Gulf War Saddam was 'within a year or two' of having nuclear weapons. And at Wednesday's Senate hearings,
former Iraqi nuclear engineer Khidir Hamza said Saddam will have enough weapons-grade uranium for three nuclear bombs by 2005."
August 29, 2002: "There is always the chance that Congress could refuse the President. But this must be measured against the
strong case the Administration has, a case Vice President Dick Cheney pressed earlier this week in Nashville. Mr. Cheney flatly
declared that when it comes to a nuclear-armed Saddam, 'the risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action.'"
September 25, 2002: "And then there is the redoubtable Mr. Blair, an ally who continues to risk dissent in his party and country
for a cause in which he believes. Yesterday Mr. Blair released a dossier of intelligence on Iraq. The 50-page report describes
how Saddam has tried to buy uranium from Africa for use in nuclear weapons, has 20 missiles that could reach British military
bases in Cyprus as well as Israel and NATO members Greece and Turkey, and stating that Iraq's chemical weapons are on standby
for use within 45 minutes. 'The policy of containment is not working. The WMD program is not shut down. It is up and running,'
Mr. Blair told Parliament."
September 9, 2002: "Democrats hardly need two more months now to deliberate over this evidence, most of which they already
know. They merely want to push any decision past Election Day so their votes won't put their Senate majority at risk. They can
then posture as statesmen for two months but only declare themselves after the day when voters would be able to hold them immediately
responsible. Let's hope Saddam's nuclear weapons program is operating on the same wait-until-the-election timetable."
A January 27, 2003, editorial was titled "If Saddam Survives."
Judith Miller, Fox News contributor
Miller was a New York Times reporter
when the Iraq War began.
Miller produced a series of now-debunked reports that the Bush administration used to buttress its claim that Saddam Hussein possessed
weapons of mass destruction. As Franklin Foer wrote for New York magazine:
During the winter of 2001 and throughout 2002, Miller produced a series of stunning stories about Saddam Hussein's ambition
and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, based largely on information provided by [Ahmad] Chalabi and his allies --
almost all of which have turned out to be stunningly inaccurate.
For the past year, the Times has done much to correct that coverage, publishing a series of stories calling Chalabi's
credibility into question. [ New York magazine, 6
/7/04 ]
In a 2004 interview, she told The New
York Review of Books: "My job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My
job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal."
Former New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller
discussed
Miller's Iraq War reporting with Media Matters in 2011:
New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller says one of his biggest mistakes as editor was not addressing the paper's
misleading pre-Iraq War coverage sooner, including the reporting of former Times writer Judy Miller.
Keller tells Media Matters that he is "not at all" surprised that Miller ended up at the "conservative" Fox News Channel
after she left the Times under a cloud of controversy related to her Iraq reporting.
Keller, who announced Thursday that in September he will leave the post he has held since July 2003, said: "Judy was the author
of a lot of those stories, and I should have dealt with the stories and with her I think as the sort of first order of business
when I took the job rather than waiting until the following year."
Keller was referring to the unusual
editor's note the
Times published on May 26, 2004, in which it admitted many of its pre-war stories about weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq -- a number of which were reported by Miller -- misrepresented the situation before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"The whole Judy Miller WMD experience was ... one of the low points of the last eight years," Keller said.
Joe Scarborough, MSNBC host
Scarborough
was hired by MSNBC as the Iraq War began.
Joe Scarborough repeatedly cheered on the Iraq War and attacked people who criticized it.
"Congressman [Jack] Kingston [R-GA], give me a quick response. How could there be anyone left on the planet today that doesn't
believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?" [MSNBC, MSNBC Reports , 3/5/03, via Nexis]
Toppling Saddam Hussein "will mean the end of his weapons of mass destruction." [MSNBC, MSNBC Reports , 3/11/03, via
Nexis]
"I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types
. I just wonder, who's going to be the first elitist to show the character to say: 'Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong'? Maybe
the White House will get an apology, first, from the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Now, Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war
.
"Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief UN weapons inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein?
Well, Mr. Ritter actually told a French radio network that -- quote, 'The United States is going to leave Baghdad with its tail between
its legs, defeated.' Sorry, Scott. I think you've been chasing the wrong tail, again.
"Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step
forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions
were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their
mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing." [MSNBC 4/10/03 via
FAIR ]
Bret Stephens, New York Times columnist and MSNBC contributor
Stephens
was editor of The Jerusalem Post when the Iraq War began.
As The New Yorker
noted , in 2003 Stephens' Jerusalem Post "named one of the Iraq War's chief architects, Paul Wolfowitz, its 'man of
the year.'"
"Saddam may unveil, to an astonished world, the Arab world's first nuclear bomb." [ The Jerusalem Post ,
11/15/02 ]
Stephens criticized the Obama administration's case for military intervention in Syria by contrasting it with Bush's decision
to invade Iraq, which he claimed was made based on "highly detailed" intelligence revealing weapons of mass destruction. Stephens
claimed that the "testimony of U.N. inspectors like Hans Blix" supported the Bush administration's case for war, and accusations
that the Bush administration lied were "libel" and "cheap slander." In fact, Blix told CNN in 2004 that the Bush administration "chose
to ignore" his team's concerns about the lack of solid evidence in favor of war, and that prior to the invasion the evidence of WMDs
in Iraq was revealed to be "shaky." [ Media Matters ,
4/13/17 ]
David Frum, Atlantic senior editor
Frum was a speechwriter for President
Bush when the Iraq War began.
Frum is renowned for writing George W. Bush's
"Axis of Evil" speech. Alex Nichols
described
Frum's Iraq boosterism in 2017:
Bush chief speechwriter Michael Gerson, a fellow fanatical interventionist and veteran of the neoconservative underworld, tapped
Frum for the speechwriting team in 2000. His greatest accomplishment was the authorship of Bush's 2002 State of the Union speech,
now known for its most famous phrase, "axis of evil." The axis was a grouping of three countries -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea
-- that were implicit allies in a plot to destroy America. The supposed ties between the three mostly came down to their mutual
love for imaginary "weapons of mass destruction" and non-existent collaboration with al-Qaeda. As Trump threatens war crimes against
civilians in Iraq and Syria, sanctions Iran despite its compliance with our nuclear agreement and threatens "fire and fury" for
North Korea, Frum must be held accountable for cementing them as boogeymen in the public imagination.
Frum resigned his post in February 2002 in order to join the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank then
working in close association with the Bush administration. With them, he emerged as one of the most enthusiastic supporters of
the War on Terror. In 2004, Frum and former adviser to the Bush Department of Defense Richard Perle published a book titled An
End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. Its text was as audacious as its title. "An End to Evil will define the conservative
point of view on foreign policy for a new generation -- and shape the agenda for the 2004 presidential-election year and beyond,"
a description of it reads. By this time, the Iraq War was in full swing, and Frum and Perle offered full-throated apologia. Under
the assumptions that the war would bring stable democracy to Iraq and that the imaginary WMDs would be located soon enough, they
called for similar action against North Korea and Iran.
Eli Lake, Bloomberg View columnist
Lake was a State Department
correspondent for United Press International (UPI) when the Iraq War began.
As
noted
by Adam Weinstein for Gawker, Lake
argued
for the legality of the Iraq War in a 2003
column for UPI:
"On the facts of the case, it is hard to argue that Iraq has given up its weapons of mass destruction. ... With this kind of
evidence, far from being an international outlaw, the United States would be a the (sic) defender of the entire institution of
international (sic) should it lead a war to disarm Iraq."
Eliot Cohen, Atlantic contributing editor
Cohen was a co-founder
of Project for the New American Century.
MSNBC's Zachary Roth described
Cohen's role in boosting the Iraq War in 2013:
[Cohen] was a key agitator for an Iraq invasion and for a maximalist response to the 9/11 attacks. In a November 2001 op-ed
in which he called the War on Terror "World War IV," Cohen argued that the US. should "target" Iraq because it had "helped al
Qaeda" and "developed weapons of destruction." Not long after, he touted a spurious connection between Muhammed Atta, the chief
9/11 hijacker, and Saddam's regime. In Congressional testimony in 2002, Cohen framed a stark choice for policymakers: Allow Saddam
"to acquire weapons of mass destruction or to take action to overthrow him." In 2007, Cohen became a top adviser to Condoleezza
Rice at the State Department.
Ann Coulter
Coulter was a prominent conservative author and
commentator when the Iraq War began.
Coulter, alongside Sean Hannity,
pushed lies about Army Ranger Pat Tillman's opposition to the Iraq War. Asawin Suebsaeng
wrote in 2017 for The Daily Beast about Coulter's Iraq War boosterism and how she has pivoted away from it under Trump:
"I think Iraq was a crucial part of the war on terrorism -- if you had to choose between Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd take Iraq
over Afghanistan," Coulter said on a Fox Business panel, debating anti-war libertarians, in late 2011. "PATRIOT Act, fantastic,
Gitmo, fantastic, waterboarding, not bad, though [even harsher] torture would've been better."
Coulter went on to tell a bewildered John Stossel and Matt Welch that "[Iraq] is a fantastic country for regime change," that
"torture works beautifully," and that position regarding potential blowback or unintended negative consequences to the war were
merely a "crazy ACLU argument."
Rush Limbaugh
Limbaugh was also host of his own radio show when the Iraq War began.
On April 7, 2003, Rush Limbaugh said
, "We're discovering WMDs all over Iraq." On September 26, 2007, Limbaugh
called soldiers who advocated withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." Limbaugh has
subsequently tried to justify the Iraq War, even declaring that President Bush should be
added
to Mount Rushmore . In January 2018, Limbaugh
accused the "deep state" of faking weapons of mass destruction evidence in Iraq to damage Bush.
Nicole Wallace, MSNBC host
Wallace
was George W. Bush's communications director as the Iraq War began.
"[Obama's] legacy on foreign policy is going to be that he didn't start a war in Iraq. He wasn't the president, thank God, in
the years after 9/11." [MSNBC, 5/30/14 ]
"... As we have explained elsewhere, the cost of Empire is now nearing $1 trillion per year when you count foreign aid and security assistance, homeland security, the $200 billion Veterans budget and debt service on past wars. Add that to $2.5 trillion of entitlements that neither party will touch and what will soon by $1 trillion per year of interest expense and you have nothing less than a Fiscal Doomsday machine. ..."
"... That is, spending that will be pushing 25-30% of GDP and a revenue base that amounts to less than 17% of GDP. Literally, the nation's fiscal accounts are being drawn and quartered by the dual menace of the Welfare State and Warfare State. ..."
"... In fact, during the past 27 years Imperial Washington has lost all memory that peace was ever possible at the end of the cold war. Today it is as feckless, misguided and bloodthirsty as were Berlin, Paris, St. Petersburg, Vienna and London in August 1914. ..."
"... Needless to say, there is no peace on earth today for reasons mainly rooted in Imperial Washington – not Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, Tehran, Damascus, Mosul or Raqqah. The former has become a global menace owing to what didn't happen in 1991. ..."
"... So doing he should have demobilized the military-industrial complex by putting a moratorium on all new weapons development, procurement and export sales; dissolved NATO and dismantled the far-flung network of US military bases; slashed the US standing armed forces from 1.5 million to a few hundred thousand; and organized and led a world disarmament and peace campaign, as did his Republican predecessors during the 1920s. ..."
"... Unfortunately, George H.W. Bush was not a man of peace, vision or even mediocre intelligence. He was the malleable tool of the War Party, and it was he who single-handedly blew the peace when he plunged America into a petty argument between the impetuous dictator of Iraq and the greedy Emir of Kuwait that was none of our business. ..."
We've got NATO on our mind today because we learned this morning that the mere suggestion this obsolete relic of the Cold War
should be abandoned tends to trigger an absolutely virulent outburst of Trump Derangement Syndrome in the mainstream media.
So long as we were talking about the folly of Trump-O-Nomics and the Donald's rookie mistake in embracing an egregious stock market
bubble that is destined to crash and a failing, geriatric business cycle that at age 115 months has "recession ahead" written all
over its forehead, our host, Mika Brzezinski, was happy to nod approvingly.
But when we veered off into approval of the Donald's efforts to rein in the Empire and make peace with the Russkies, it was an
altogether different matter. We no more than launched the thought of it than Mika was sputtering in disbelief – as if we had committed
a grotesque sacrilege in public:
STOCKMAN: Beyond that – beyond that, trump tried to do the right thick with America first. He's been stymied at every turn
of the road. He was right. They wouldn't let him do it. He was right. NATO is obsolete. We should get rid of it. Everybody went
after him for he's trying to do the right thing in Korea and yet they keep coming after him on the basis of the status quo, which
has been wrong for last 60 years. So on the one hand, his economic policy is a failure. On the other hand, his effort to rein
in the empires I call it and get to something we can afford is being stymied. And then he's filled the swamp with $100 billion
more for the Pentagon that is doesn't need. That's the deep end of the swamp."
BRZEZINSKI: "David, David, hold on a second, hold on, hold on. You did a lot."
STOCKMAN: "Yes."
BRZEZINSKI: "I just want to like hone in on one – are you saying we should pull out of NATO?" [crosstalk]
STOCKMAN: "Sure. NATO is obsolete."
BRZEZINSKI: "What?"
STOCKMAN: "NATO is obsolete. It was only set up to stop the Soviet Union and 50,000 tanks on the Warsaw front. That ended 25
years ago. We don't need NATO. Europe can take care of itself. Russia's a pint-sized economy, 7 percent of size of U.S. economy.
NATO, US GDP combined is $36 trillion, Russia's $1.5 trillion. You think the Europeans can't handle it? Germany spends 1 percent
only of GDP on defense. If they really thought that the Russians were heading through the Brandenburg Gate, they would be providing
for their own defense. They're not pacifists.
So if you wonder why we insist that a fiscal calamity is barreling down the pike – just consider the implications of this exchange.
MSNBC is ground zero for the so-called progressive Left. Yet it has become so deranged by the Donald and convinced that he was elected
not because the electorate rejected its threadbare agenda, but because Putin and the Russkies threw the election to him, that it
has become a full-fledged champion of the War Party.
As we have explained elsewhere, the cost of Empire is now nearing $1 trillion per year when you count foreign aid and security
assistance, homeland security, the $200 billion Veterans budget and debt service on past wars. Add that to $2.5 trillion of entitlements
that neither party will touch and what will soon by $1 trillion per year of interest expense and you have nothing less than a Fiscal
Doomsday machine.
That is, spending that will be pushing 25-30% of GDP and a revenue base that amounts to less than 17% of GDP. Literally, the
nation's fiscal accounts are being drawn and quartered by the dual menace of the Welfare State and Warfare State.
Yet with respect to the latter, the last time we checked the old Soviet Union slithered off the pages of history 28 years ago.
Shortly thereafter the 50,000 Red Army tanks, which had been arrayed menacingly (and unbeknownst to the CIA, largely without spare
fuel) behind the Iron Curtain, were mostly melted down for scrap by the destitute statelets of the Warsaw Pact (Poland, Rumania,
Bulgaria, Albania etc.) and 14 ex-Soviet Republics (like Belarus, Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine, etc.)
What was left of the Soviet Empire was the rump state of Russia – shorn of much of its industrial base and with an aging population
of just 140 million compared to the 425 million souls who had been incarcerated in Stalin's dystopia.
So, yes, there was every reason to declare "mission accomplished" and disband NATO because the much exaggerated conventional military
threat of the Soviet Union had literally vanished from the face of the earth. At that point, NATO was, in fact, pointless.
So when President George Bush the Elder, who was no wimpy Yale pacifist, promised Gorbachev in 1989 that in return for his acquiescence
to the reunification of Germany that NATO would no move " a single inch to the east", he wasn't exactly selling the "free world"
(as they called it) down the drain.
In fact, as the above map unfolded, the 77-Years War that had incepted in August 1914 was finally over. If you want to count bodies,
150 million were killed by all the depredations which germinated in the Great War, its foolish aftermath at Versailles, and
the march of history into the second world war and cold war which followed inexorably thereupon.
To wit, upwards of 8% of the human race was wiped-out during that span. The toll encompassed the madness of trench
warfare during 1914-1918; the murderous regimes of Soviet and Nazi totalitarianism that rose from the ashes of the Great War and
Versailles; and then the carnage of WWII and all the lesser (unnecessary) wars and invasions of the Cold War including Korea and
Vietnam.
So finally the time had come for Washington to lead the world into a golden age of peace, disarmament and prosperous commerce
among the nations.
Yet there was a virulent threat to peace still lurking on the Potomac after the 77 Years War ended. The great general and president,
Dwight Eisenhower, had called it the "military-industrial complex" in his farewell address.
But that memorable phrase had been abbreviated by his speechwriters, who deleted the word "congressional" in a gesture of comity
to the legislative branch. So restore Ike's deleted reference to the legislative pork barrels and Sunday afternoon warriors of Capitol
Hill and toss in the legions of beltway busybodies that constituted the civilian branches of the cold war armada (CIA, State, AID,
NED etc.) and the circle would have been complete.
It constituted the most awesome machine of warfare and imperial hegemony since the Roman legions bestrode most of the civilized
world.
In a word, the real threat to world peace circa 1991 was that Pax Americana would not go away quietly into the good
night.
In fact, during the past 27 years Imperial Washington has lost all memory that peace was ever possible at the end of the cold
war. Today it is as feckless, misguided and bloodthirsty as were Berlin, Paris, St. Petersburg, Vienna and London in August 1914.
Needless to say, there is no peace on earth today for reasons mainly rooted in Imperial Washington – not Moscow, Beijing,
Pyongyang, Tehran, Damascus, Mosul or Raqqah. The former has become a global menace owing to what didn't happen in 1991.
What needed to happen back in 1991 was for Bush the Elder to declare "mission accomplished" and slash the Pentagon budget from
$600 billion to $250 billion.
So doing he should have demobilized the military-industrial complex by putting a moratorium on all new weapons development,
procurement and export sales; dissolved NATO and dismantled the far-flung network of US military bases; slashed the US standing armed
forces from 1.5 million to a few hundred thousand; and organized and led a world disarmament and peace campaign, as did his Republican
predecessors during the 1920s.
Unfortunately, George H.W. Bush was not a man of peace, vision or even mediocre intelligence. He was the malleable tool of
the War Party, and it was he who single-handedly blew the peace when he plunged America into a petty argument between the impetuous
dictator of Iraq and the greedy Emir of Kuwait that was none of our business.
By contrast, even though liberal historians have reviled Warren G. Harding as some kind of dumbkopf politician, he well understood
that the Great War had been for naught, and that to insure it never happened again the nations of the world needed to rid themselves
of their huge navies and standing armies.
To that end, he achieved the largest global disarmament agreement ever made during the Washington Naval conference of 1921, which
halted the construction of new battleships for more than a decade.
And while he was at it, President Harding also pardoned Eugene Debs. He thereby gave witness to the truth that the intrepid socialist
candidate for president and vehement antiwar protester, who Wilson had thrown in prison for exercising his first amendment right
to speak against US entry into a pointless European war, had been right all along.
In short, Warren G. Harding knew the war was over, and the folly of Wilson's 1917 plunge into Europe's bloodbath should not be
repeated at all hazards.
The Unforgiveable Sins 0f George H.W. Bush
Not George H.W. Bush. The man should never be forgiven for enabling the likes of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Gates and
their neocon pack of jackals to come to power – even if he did denounce them in his bumbling old age.
Even more to the point, by opting not for peace but for war and oil in the Persian Gulf in 1991 he opened the gates to an unnecessary
confrontation with Islam. In turn, that nurtured the rise of jihadist terrorism that would not haunt the world today – save for forces
unleashed by George H.W. Bush's petulant quarrel with Saddam Hussein.
We will address more fully on another occasion the 45-year-old error that holds the Persian Gulf is an American Lake and that
energy security requires it be patrolled by the Fifth Fleet. As history proves, the real answer to high oil prices everywhere and
always is high oil prices and the wonders they work to rebalance the global energy market.
But first it is well to remember that there was no plausible threat anywhere on the planet to the safety and security of the citizens
of Springfield MA, Lincoln NE or Spokane WA when the cold war ended.
But rather than dismantling the NATO machinery, virtually the opposite happened. NATO has been expanded to 29 countries including
such powers as Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and now the statelet of Montenegro that has a military half the size of the
police force of Philadelphia.
In the context of this relentless and pointless NATO expansion to the very borders of the shrunken Russian state, Washington not
only sponsored and funded the overthrow of Ukraine's constitutionally elected government in February 2014. But once it had unleashed
a devastating civil war, it relentlessly blocked the obvious alternative to the bloodshed that has claimed 10,000 civilian and military
casualties.
That is, it's partition of its population among the Russian speaking provinces in the Donbas and Crimea and Ukrainians in the
west. After all, partition was accomplished peacefully in the artificial state of Czechoslovakia and at the insistence of NATO bombers
in the short-lived nation of Yugoslavia.
Had not the Donald been stopped cold by the hail of hysteria which emanated from the War Party and their dutiful stenographers
in the main stream media, the next step after his historic meeting with Putin in Helsinki would have been to take up where George
H.W. Bush faltered in 1991.
That is, on the dismantlement and interment of NATO and the reopening of Europe to peaceful commerce among all the nation's that
had been artificially separated by the now long departed Iron Curtain.
The fact is, Washington doesn't need its budget-busting $720 billion defense budget to defend Europe from Russia, nor should it
be endlessly haranguing those nations to waste more of their own money on defense than they already are.
That's because there is absolutely no reason to believe that Russia wants to attack Germany or any other country in Europe. Indeed,
the very idea is just plain madness.
As shown by the table below, the NATO-28 (excluding the US) are now actually spending $250 billion per year on defense
(2017). That's 4X Russia's entire military budget of $61 billion .
Likewise, the GDP of Russia is but $1.5 trillion compared to $18 trillion for the NATO-28. So is Cool
Hand Vlad so completely foolish and reckless as to think that he could invade and occupy territories that have an economy 13X bigger
than that of Russia?
Actually, it's far more ludicrous than that. The rump of Russia today is a giant hydrocarbon province attached to some wheat fields,
timber lands and mineral deposits – all dependent upon an aging work force afflicted with an undue fondness for Vodka etc.
What that means is that Russia must export its commodities big time or die. In fact, during 2017 Russian exports totaled $357
billion or 26% of its GDP. And 55% of that went to Europe!
Moreover, when you breakdown Russian exports it is plain to see that the industrial maw of Europe is the port of first call for
its vast tonnages of exported commodities. These included $173 billion of oil and gas and $60 billion of iron, steel, aluminum, precious
metals, forest products, fertilizers, grains and copper, among others.
Finally, the table on defense spending by country below speaks for itself as to the purported Russian threat. If the German government
really feared that Russian tanks would be soon rolling through the Brandenburg Gates, it would have more than 20 operational tanks,
and it would spend far more than $40.6 billion or 1.2% of GDP to defend itself.
And the same is even more true of the former Warsaw pact countries that are located cheek-by-jowl on Russia's border. Yet Romania
spends the tiny sum of $2.8 billion or 1.2% of GDP on its military.
Likewise, the figure for Hungary, which learned all about Soviet-style invasions in 1956, spends only $1.2 billion or barely 1.0%
of GDP. And besides that, its intrepid leader, Viktor Orban, doesn't even support NATO's ridiculous sanctions on Putin's cronies
and allies.
And as for the allegedly threatened Baltic states, their combined defense budgets are less than $1.5 billion, representing a minuscule
1.7% of combined GDP; and Bulgaria, fast upon the Russian Lake called the Black Sea, spends only $660 million or 1.4% of its GDP.
In short, European policy action on the defense spending front trumps all the hot air that wafts from NATO's spanking new Brussels
headquarters. Their governments and parliaments positively do not think they are threatened by the Russian Bear because they aren't.
What would help a lot, therefore, is for the Great Disrupter to forget about his unfortunate infatuation with the idea that bigger
is always better, and do what no other American politician in thrall to the Warfare State has been unable to do since 1991 when the
Soviet Union vanished.
That is, declare "mission accomplished" with respect to NATO and disband it forthwith.
You could call it a Mercy Killing. Indeed, a couple more NATO summits at which they are browbeat to waste ever more money on defense,
and the Europeans themselves may well start begging for exactly that.
Then again, could you imagine how loudly the progressive left would be screaming if the Donald even entertained the thought deep
beneath his bedraggled Orange Comb-Over?
"... Professor Cohen is indeed a patriot of the highest order. The American and "Globalists" elites, particularly the dysfunctional United Kingdom, are engaging in a war of nerves with Russia. This war, which could turn nuclear for reasons discussed in this important book, is of no benefit to any person or nation. ..."
"In a Time of Universal Deceit -- Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act" is a well known quotation (but probably not of George
Orwell). And in telling the truth about Russia and that the current "war of nerves" is not in the interests of either the American
People or national security, Professor Cohen in this book has in fact done a revolutionary act.
Like a denizen of Plato's cave, or being in the film the Matrix, most people have no idea what the truth is. And the questions
raised by Professor Cohen are a great service in the cause of the truth. As Professor Cohen writes in his introduction To His
Readers:
"My scholarly work -- my biography of Nikolai Bukharin and essays collected in Rethinking the Soviet Experience and Soviet
Fates and Lost Alternatives, for example -- has always been controversial because it has been what scholars term "revisionist"
-- reconsiderations, based on new research and perspectives, of prevailing interpretations of Soviet and post-Soviet Russian history.
But the "controversy" surrounding me since 2014, mostly in reaction to the contents of this book, has been different -- inspired
by usually vacuous, defamatory assaults on me as "Putin's No. 1 American Apologist," "Best Friend," and the like. I never respond
specifically to these slurs because they offer no truly substantive criticism of my arguments, only ad hominem attacks. Instead,
I argue, as readers will see in the first section, that I am a patriot of American national security, that the orthodox policies
my assailants promote are gravely endangering our security, and that therefore we -- I and others they assail -- are patriotic
heretics. Here too readers can judge."
Cohen, Stephen F.. War with Russia (Kindle Locations 131-139). Hot Books. Kindle Edition.
Professor Cohen is indeed a patriot of the highest order. The American and "Globalists" elites, particularly the dysfunctional
United Kingdom, are engaging in a war of nerves with Russia. This war, which could turn nuclear for reasons discussed in this
important book, is of no benefit to any person or nation.
Indeed, with the hysteria on "climate change" isn't it odd that other than Professor Cohen's voice, there are no prominent
figures warning of the devastation that nuclear war would bring?
If you are a viewer of one of the legacy media outlets, be it Cable Television networks, with the exception of Tucker Carlson
on Fox who has Professor Cohen as a frequent guest, or newspapers such as The New York Times, you have been exposed to falsehoods
by remarkably ignorant individuals; ignorant of history, of the true nature of Russia (which defeated the Nazis in Europe at a
loss of millions of lives) and most important, of actual military experience. America is neither an invincible or exceptional
nation. And for those familiar with terminology of ancient history, it appears the so-called elites are suffering from hubris.
I cannot recommend Professor Cohen's work with sufficient superlatives; his arguments are erudite, clearly stated, supported
by the facts and ultimately irrefutable. If enough people find Professor Cohen's work and raise their voices to their oblivious
politicians and profiteers from war to stop further confrontation between Russia and America, then this book has served a noble
purpose.
If nothing else, educate yourself by reading this work to discover what the *truth* is. And the truth is something sacred.
America and the world owe Professor Cohen a great debt. "Blessed are the peace makers..."
This is a compelling book that documents and examines the senseless and dangerous demonizing of Russia and Putin. Unfortunately,
the elites in Washington and mass media are not likely to read this book. Their minds are closed. I read this book because I was
hoping for an explanation about the cause of the new cold war with Russia. Although the root cause of the new cold war is beyond
the scope of this book, the book documents baseless accusations that grew in frequency and intensity until all opposition was
silenced. The book documents the dangerous triumph of group think.
"On my planet, the evidence linking Putin to the assassination of Litvinecko, Nemtsov, and Politkovskaya and the attempt
on the Skripals is strong and consistent with spending his formative years in the KGB. The naive view from Cohen's planet is
presented on p 6 and 170."
Ukrainian history. That's evident to any attentive reader. I just want to state that Ukrainian EuroMaydan was a color revolution
which exploited the anger of population against the corrupt neoliberal government of Yanukovich (with Biden as the best friend,
and Paul Manafort as the election advisor) to install even more neoliberal and more corrupt government of Poroshenko and cut Ukraine
from Russia. The process that was probably inevitable in the long run (so called Baltic path), but that was forcefully accelerated.
Everything was taken from the Gene Sharp textbook. And Ukrainians suffered greatly as a result, with the standard of living dropping
to around $2 a day level -- essentially Central Africa level.
The fact is that the EU acted as a predator trying to get into Ukraine markets and displace Russia. While the USA neocons (Nuland
and Co) staged the coup using Ukrainian nationalists as a ram, ignoring the fact that Yanukovich would be voted out in six months
anyway (his popularity was in single digits, like popularity of Poroshenko those days ;-). The fact that Obama administration
desperately wanted to weaken Russia at the expense of Ukrainians eludes you. I would blame Nuland for the loss of Crimea and the
civil war in Donbass.
Poor Ukrainians again became the victim of geopolitical games by big powers. No that they are completely blameless, but still...
It looks like you inhabit a very cold populated exclusively with neocons planet called "Russiagate." So Professor Cohen really
lives on another planet. And probably you should drink less American exceptionalism Kool-Aid.
"... Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason. ..."
Didn't help that the ostensibly neutral DNC was sending emails saying that they should play
up Bernie Sanders' Jewish faith (among other attack strategies), fed debate questions to the
Clinton campaign or tried to limit opportunities for Bernie and Hillary to share a stage
together.
Bernie Sanders is widely considered by many to be one of the most popular American
politicians, more than Trump and certainly more popular than Hillary. I think an interesting
phenomenon to notice is the lengths the GOP, in particular, will go to in order to convince
the average voter that anything that cuts taxes is inherently good for the 'little guy,'
while anything that raises taxes is bad.
Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of
the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the
deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that
many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason.
We've known since WW2, that fighting fascism is difficult. Benito Mussolini defined fascism
as "Barely able to slip a cigarette paper between business and government." And when business
runs government, we have even exceeded fascism. The new battle against fascism is not going
to be easy.
ISLAMABAD -- U.S. peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad said on Saturday that Washington was ready
to "address legitimate concerns" of all Afghan sides in order to restore peace in
Afghanistan. Since being appointed in September, Khalilzad has met with all sides, including
the Taliban, Afghan officials and Pakistan's political and military leadership in efforts
aimed at finding a negotiated end to America's longest war in neighboring Afghanistan.//
The US managed the overthrow of the Afghanistan government seventeen years ago, then
creating a puppet government with a feckless army to fight the Afghan resistance while
assassinating many of the Afghan leaders who fought to regain their country, and now the US
is ready to "address legitimate concerns" of all Afghan sides?
Well the Afghan officials are US puppets, so rule them out of legitimate concerns (as the
Taliban has done). Pakistan? They fully support the Taliban's return to government, so that's
a "legitimate concern" as is the Taliban's return to power.
Anything less ain't gonna work, that's obvious. Khalilzad was appointed in September to
achieve results in six months, which is soon. So get with it, Zalmay. Get the US troops out
of there as the Taliban demands in your "peace" talks.
[T]he units have also operated unconstrained by battlefield rules designed to protect
civilians, conducting night raids, torture and killings with near impunity, in a covert
campaign that some Afghan and American officials say is undermining the wider American
effort to strengthen Afghan institutions.
The "special forces" and the people trained by them don't follow rules. This has been
going on for a long time.
The Clinton administration has enforced a near-total ban on the supply and sale of U.S.
military equipment and training for the Colombian military because of its deep involvement
in drug-related corruption and its record of killing politicians, human rights activists
and civilians living in areas controlled by guerrilla groups.
The piece goes on to say that Special Forces were immune from this ban on training a
foreign military to kill politicians, human rights activists and civilians" . It names
dozens of nations where this was happening.
Of course not all US Special Forces are wild and lawless. Unfortunately the ones who do
behave are at risk of being killed themselves.
Whenever you have a combination of lousy leadership and "Special Forces", there is going
to be a problem. Australia has recently made the news in that regard.
Individually, each claim is staggering: apparent execution of detainees; reported use of
so-called drop weapons, planted to cover up unlawful killings; confirmed reports of
commandos flying a Nazi flag on a combat patrol; alleged "blooding" of rookies, initiation
rites in which newcomers were pressured to execute unarmed men. In one particularly
sadistic case, a prosthetic limb was allegedly pilfered from the corpse of a dead Afghan,
only to be repatriated and repurposed as a novelty binge-drinking implement.
At some point a Special Forces person is going to shrug and say "so what?" He or she knows
they can double or triple their pay with Blackwater-type mercenary forces. So except for
taking minimal precautions against going on trial, they can do as they please.
The base attack took place in Maidan Wardak Province, where US Special Forces troops were
evicted five years ago for atrocities.
In 2013 President Hamid Karzai demanded the withdrawal of all U.S. Special Operations
Forces (SOF) from Wardak province after charges that U.S. special forces stationed in Wardak
province engaged in harassing, annoying, torturing and even murdering innocent people.
A Memorandum of Understanding signed May 12, 2012 between the U.S. military and the Afghan
Defence Ministry was trumpeted by the Obama administration as giving the Afghan government
control over such operations.
But a little-noticed provision of the agreement defined the "special operations" covered
by the agreement as those operations that are "approved by the Afghan Operational
Coordination Group (OCG) and conducted by Afghan Forces with support from U.S. Forces in
accordance with Afghan laws."
That meant that the SOF was still free to carry out other raids without consultation with
the Afghan government, until Karzai threw them out. But not the CIA.
The idea that the US isn't REALLY trying to win wars strikes me as more of a
rationalization of failure than a real explanation. The US is an economically declining power
that is trying to use its military dominance to maintain, and ideally increase its power. So
wouldn't it be in the US's best interests if Afghanistan or Iraq (for example) were
completely controlled by US controlled puppet governments, and US controlled corporations
were making huge profits by exploiting those countries mineral and human resources? Wouldn't
that be far more profitable than the mere creation of chaos?
Part of the reason I tend to find your ideas less than plausible, Pft, is that you always
seem to vastly exaggerate the competence and power of the US or transnational elites you
suspect are controlling everything. So I don't think the US's wars are either "fake" or
"forever". Instead they are failures. And they can't last forever, because the corrupt system
that generates them needs some successes, and soon, in order to continue to survive.
López Obrador comes to the presidency as a man of the left, but the space for
maneuvering that he has for a left agenda is minimal. Mexico's economy, through geography and
trade agreements, is fused with that of the United States. More than 80 percent of Mexico's
exports go to its neighbor to the north, while Mexico's financial sector is almost entirely at
the mercy of Northern banks.
Already, López Obrador has had to deal with the leash from Northern banks that
sits tightly around Mexico's throat. On October 28, after the election, López
Obrador canceled the project to build a new airport for Mexico City. This new airport -- at a
cost of US$13.4 billion -- is seen as far too expensive (Istanbul has just inaugurated a new
airport, far bigger, for almost US$2 billion less). The peso fell, the Mexican stock market
fell, Fitch downgraded Mexico to "negative," and international investors frowned.
Then, in early November, legislators from López Obrador's party -- Morena --
proposed laws to limit bank fees. Mexico's stock market collapsed. It was the worst single-day
loss of the BMV stock index in seven years. The bankers sent López Obrador a
message: don't rock the boat.
Hastily, López Obrador's choice for the finance ministry -- Carlos
Urzúa -- scolded the legislators and winked to the banks. Urzúa, an
economist, has spent years consulting for the World Bank and other such agencies. It is hard to
find an economist these days who has not put his fingers into a consultancy for either the
World Bank or the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The economics profession has slid almost
wholesale into the pocket of international agencies that are committed to a very asphyxiating
version of public policy -- one that goes by the name of neoliberalism. It is a policy
framework that favors multinational corporations over workers, one that seeks to control
inflation rather than find ways to improve the livelihood of people. Finance is the religion,
while Money is God.
López Obrador and Urzúa do not have the political power to
challenge the order of things.
IMF Comes to Mexico City
Just a month before López Obrador takes office, the IMF sent a team to Mexico.
This team came to do a study based on the IMF charter's Article IV. Its
report set limits on what López Obrador's government can do. There is the
usual verbal concern expressed for inequality and poverty, but this is just window-dressing.
Nothing in the IMF staff statement indicated a policy that would tackle Mexico's grave problems
of poverty and inequality.
What the report details instead is a caution that López Obrador must not try to
invest funds in infrastructure that benefits the Mexican people -- investment, for instance, in
the sclerotic oil industry (Pemex). Mexico, an oil exporting state, imports oil because it has
limited refining capacity. López Obrador has said he wants Mexico to properly
develop the state-run oil firm Pemex. But the IMF staff statement says that "further
improvements of Pemex's financial situation are a prerequisite before new investments in
refining can be contemplated." López Obrador will be forced to make drastic cuts
in Pemex and to continue to drain the exchequer to import oil. No structural change is going to
be possible here without a negative IMF report, which would further encourage an investment
strike into Mexico.
Someone should encourage the IMF to stop sending staff teams into countries like Mexico.
Each report is identical to the previous one. Nothing seems to be learned by these teams. Years
ago, a senior IMF economist told me that when he arrived in a Central Asian country he knew
nothing of that country, he got to see nothing of it when he was there and he knew virtually
nothing when he drafted the Article IV review. All he did in the country was sit in one
air-conditioned room after another, listen to canned reports from nervous finance ministry
officials and then develop the report based on the IMF's same old recipe -- make cuts, target
welfare, privatize and make sure that the banks are happy.
Latitude for creative policy making is simply not available. The IMF comes to town to tell
new governments to behave. López Obrador and his cabinet will have to listen. Any
deviation from the IMF recipe will make investors flee and foreign investment dry up. It is so
easy these days to suffocate a country.
IMF Comes to Buenos Aires
For the past two decades, the IMF had found it difficult to dictate terms in Latin America.
From 2002 to 2007, left-leaning governments governed most of the region, where economic
activity was helped along by high commodity prices (including oil prices) and high remittance
payments.
Even Mexico's conservative President Felipe Calderón (2006-2012) had to lean
into the prevailing winds of Bolivarianism. In 2011, at the Community of Latin American and
Caribbean States, Calderón championed integration of Latin America -- something
that is least to be expected from a Mexican head of government, because Mexico is firmly
integrated into the United States.
The world financial crisis from 2007 hit Latin America hard. Calderón went to
Davos the next year and said that Latin America would be insulated from the crisis. Far from
it, Mexico had already begun to suffer job loss as the economy of its main trade partner -- the
United States -- contracted. An IMF
study found that Latin America lost 40 percent of its wealth in 2008. Public finances
contracted, and public investments declined. Inflation led to higher poverty rates and to
social instability.
A quick summary: Why did Latin America's economies suffer a crisis after 2007? It was not
because of the left-leaning governments and their policies. It was because of the
over-leveraged financial system, only one of whose asset bubbles -- U.S. housing prices --
collapsed. Deep integration into and reliance upon the U.S.-dominated financial system, and
poor diversification of their economies from the U.S. market, meant that as the U.S. banks
contracted, Latin America felt the pain. Over 80 percent of Argentina's private debt was in
dollars in 2002, while only a quarter of Argentina's economy was geared toward exports. This
was the fuel that was fated to burst into flame. It is this dollar reliance that could not be
corrected.
The exported economic problem had a political impact. It weakened the left-leaning
governments, even as these governments tried to ameliorate the crisis. Many of these
governments -- from Argentina to Brazil -- lost elections, while social turmoil struck others
-- from Venezuela to Nicaragua. It is in this context that the International Monetary Fund
returned to Latin America with a vengeance.
After two decades of relative absence, the IMF has now returned to Argentina (on which
please see this dossier from
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research). Its Article IV staff
statement from December last year pointed to the problems of high borrowing in foreign
currency, a problem that was recognized in 2001-2002. But the power of international finance --
centered at Wall Street and the City of London -- prevented any easy pivot out of this problem.
It was easier to demand cuts from the already meager incomes of ordinary people.
In 1994, Mexico suffered from what became known as the "tequila crisis," as the peso
collapsed when international capital fled the country. The government would not place capital
controls to protect the peso against currency speculators. The "tequila effect" then spread to
South America. No one was prepared to stand up to the dollar and the speculators. From the
forests of Chiapas, Subcomandante Marcos of the Zapatistas spoke out in favor of the pockets of
the forgotten, the people who did not cause the crisis but who would bear the cost of these
financial shenanigans. Once more, with help from the IMF, the pockets of the forgotten from
Argentina to Mexico will suffer so that finance is left intact.
This article was produced by Globetrotter , a project of the
Independent Media Institute.
The MSM and its allies in the controlled alternative media, and the global private-interest
financial, investment and banking system, are a tag-team, indispensable to each other.
Control of money and control of information. The first narrowly concentrates wealth and thus
power and influence. The second through agenda-driven selection, lies, censorship, spin,
misdirection and so on – disinformation – controls people's sense of what is real
and possible, thus dis-empowering them.
The American military and CIA have provided most of the overt and covert 'muscle' for that
control system.
The combined effort of narrowly controlled and narrowly advantaging globe straddling
finance, media, and muscle has facilitated the development of a near global Empire. In common
with traditional Empires this new Empire had totalitarian ambitions: but since its reach was
global, this is really a first attempt at global totalitarian control.
Russia under Putin – leaving aside China – has developed enough strength to
attempt alternative modes of communication and finance and development, not as adjuncts or
subordinates to the Empire's efforts in those regards. And their military is antidote and
opposition to the totalitarian project.
The forgoing is pretty obvious stuff, but I think that the Saker's concluding paragraph
provides a limiting summary of how the issue can play out.
"But fundamentally the Russian people need to decide. Do they really want to live in a
western-style capitalist society (with all the russophobic politics and the adoption
of the terminally degenerate "culture" such a choice implies), or do they want a
"social society" (to use Putin's own words) – meaning a society in which social and
economic
justice and the good of the country are placed above corporate and personal profits.
You could say that this is a battle of greed vs ethics."
This is a simplistic way of looking at the choices available. We are all caught up in
transitional culture processes, no matter where we live. The conjunction of the cornucopia of
new technology and unprecedented environmental and social challenges is everywhere at play,
leading who knows where?
What the Russian people have been given, and this is near singular on Earth, is a
protected and enhanced opportunity of developing a culture in which honest national discourse
is a predominant feature. This is in complete contrast to the predominant 'fake news' system
of discourse control that is in place in so many countries. And full and honest discourse
will create its own original cultural developments.
The Russian adoption of more honest discourse is already having global influence. An
example is Russia Today, which far from perfect and all that, still provides an enormous
advance over the extremely controlled western mass media, and a powerful foe to 'fake
news'.
Perhaps the most visible exemplar of rationale discourse has been Putin himself, with for
example his marathon annual Q and A with the Russian people, or his articulate well
considered sallies on many issues
And with that – if Russia can use unfettered reason writ large as a prime ingredient
of cultural and political development, as a basic developmental 'steering tool' – then
the simple dichotomy of "western-style capitalist society" vs "a society in which social and
economic justice and the good of the country are placed above corporate and personal profits"
, as much as I'm sympathetic to the latter, seems to me to be a limiting way of expressing
the range of potential beneficent possibilities.
The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted nine years. But it was largely successful in building
a stable government and the Soviets left a mostly competent Afghan military behind. Three
years later Russia ended its financial support for the Afghan government. Only that gave the
guerrilla the chance to destroy the state.
After 18 years in Afghanistan the U.S. military seems still unable to create and train
competent local forces.
The $8 billion spent on the
Afghan airforce have resulted in a mostly incapable force that depends on U.S. contractors to
keep its birds flying. This was the result of unreasonable decisions:
Aviation experts have criticized a decision to phase out the old workhorses of the Afghan
forces -- Russian-made Mi-17 helicopters -- for American-made UH-60 Black Hawks.
Mr. Michel, the retired general, said the Mi-17 was "the perfect helicopter" for
Afghanistan because it can carry more troops and supplies than the Black Hawk and is less
complicated to fly.
"Let's be candid," he said of the switch. "That was largely done for political
reasons."
The U.S. military built an Afghan force in its own image:
American trainers have built an Afghan Army that relies heavily on air power that the air
force might not be able to provide for years, said John F. Sopko, the special inspector
general for Afghan reconstruction.
Why the U.S. military, which since Vietnam proved inept at fighting local guerrilla,
believed that its ways of fighting suits an Afghan force is inexplicable. If the Taliban
manage to win without an airforce why should the Afghan military need one?
As Mr. Khan was driven away for questioning, he watched his home go up in flames. Within
were the bodies of two of his brothers and of his sister-in-law Khanzari, who was shot
three times in the head. Villagers who rushed to the home found the burned body of her
3-year-old daughter, Marina, in a corner of a torched bedroom.
The men who raided the family's home that March night, in the district of Nader Shah
Kot, were members of an Afghan strike force trained and overseen by the Central
Intelligence Agency in a parallel mission to the United States military's, but with looser
rules of engagement.
... ... ...
that the two most effective and ruthless forces, in Khost and Nangarhar Provinces, are
still sponsored mainly by the C.I.A.
This conflict between militarized CIA proxy forces and forces trained by the U.S. military
played out in every recent war the U.S. waged. In Iraq CIA sponsored Shia units clashed with
Pentagon sponsored Sunni militia. In Syria this CIA trained 'rebels' ended up shooting at
U.S. military trained 'rebels' and vice versa. In Afghanistan the rogue force under CIA
control is some 3.000 to 10,000 strong. It large alienates the same population the Afghan
military tries to protect.
Unity of command is an important condition for successful military campaigns. As the
military works in one direction while the CIA pulls in another one, the campaign in
Afghanistan continues to fail.
A similar split can be seen in Afghanistan's political field. The CIA is notorious for
bribing Afghan politicians, while the military launches anti-corruption campaigns. The
political system installed by such competing forces is unsustainable.
The last Afghan election with the top candidates being the Pashto Ashraf Ghani and the
Tajik Abdullah Abdullah, was marred in irregularities. The uncertain outcome led the U.S. to
fudge the results by making Ghani president and Abudullah his 'chief executive'. Both are now
again
competing against each other in the elections that are to be held later this year. They
will be as irregular as all elections in Afghanistan are. The disputed outcome might well
lead to new clashes between ethnic groups.
This upcoming conflict will further weaken the Afghan state. Why hasn't anything be done
to prevent it?
@1 @3
While appearing weak, incompetent and clueless the US implements chaos exactly as
intended. It works in Congo, it works in Libya, it works in South America and it works in
Afghanistan. Chaos is very profitable for extracting resources and supplying and controlling
the world narcotic business.
The USA goal is an incompetent state, a permanent war and the destruction of any stable
Afghan government that could make relations with neighboring states. Permanent conflict
prevents unity and transnational trade through the region. Same goes for the Baluchistan
rebels in the south.
Isolate Iran is all and no strategic care or thinking about anything else.
The USA will fight until the last Afghani civilian is killed.
"... The point of this practice is to propagate lies into the public consciousness. It's a method that can be used to distract and disseminate and divide. The accuracy of the statement is immaterial. ..."
"... The point is, once it has been said it cannot be unsaid. There are countless examples: "Assange was working for Russia", "Trump ordered Cohen to lie to Congress", "Russia hacked the US election", "Donald Trump worked for the KGB", "Assad gassed his own people", "Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite". The list goes on and on and on. None these have been proven. All were asserted without evidence, fiercely defended as facts, and then discretely qualified. ..."
"... The lie was told, the audience laughed, the reality was created. "Labour are behind in the polls, anybody who says otherwise is a laughingstock" . The lie goes around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on. That's why fake news is so important to them, and so dangerous us. ..."
Trump has been a disappointment to his base and is yet to implement half the policies he discussed on the campaign trail, but
he's not fully and totally being controlled by the warhawking Deep State yet, either. His policy of peace with North Korea and decisions
to pull out of Syria and Afghanistan show that there is a tug-of-war ongoing inside the administration. It's probably no coincidence
that this latest of many "bombshells" comes so quickly
on the heels of Trump's announcement of the Syria withdrawal. Careful "leaks", planted stories and social media witch-hunts remind
Trump how precarious his position is, whilst simultaneously distracting the public – both pro-Trump and anti-Trump – from real issues.
The case-specific "why?" doesn't matter so much as the general aim of this type of manipulation. The important question
is: Why does the media tell lies if they know they will be revealed as such? Clearly, the lies serve a purpose, regardless of their
retraction or qualification. Telling a lie loudly and then taking it back quietly is an old propaganda trick – it allows the paper
to maintain a facade of "accountability".
The point of this practice is to propagate lies into the public consciousness. It's a method that can be used to distract
and disseminate and divide. The accuracy of the statement is immaterial.
The point is, once it has been said it cannot be unsaid. There are countless examples: "Assange was working for Russia", "Trump
ordered Cohen to lie to Congress", "Russia hacked the US election", "Donald Trump worked for the KGB", "Assad gassed his own people",
"Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite". The list goes on and on and on. None these have been proven. All were asserted without evidence,
fiercely defended as facts, and then discretely qualified.
That is the purpose of "fake news", to forge the Empire's
"created
reality" , and force us all to live in it. These are world-shaping, policy-informing, news-dominating narratives and are nothing
but feathers in the wind .
A perfect exemplar of this occurred just two days ago on the BBC's flagship Political debate show Question Time :
me title= The (notionally impartial) host not only sided with right-wing author Isabel Oakeshott in criticising
Labour's polling, but then joined in mocking the Labour MP Diane Abbott for attempting to correct the record. Both Oakeshott and
Fiona Bruce, the host, were
factually incorrect – as shown a hundred times over since. But that doesn't matter.
The lie was told, the audience laughed, the reality was created. "Labour are behind in the polls, anybody who says otherwise
is a laughingstock" . The lie goes around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on. That's why fake news is so important
to them, and so dangerous us.
Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now
he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.
"... In addition, Trump is a pretend President. He doesn't control his own government. Hell, a single judge anywhere in the hinterlands evidently has the power to veto pretty much whatever the Trumpster does. It's clear that the real power resides in the hands of the Ruling Class, most of whom are unelected and unaccountable. Judges. Bureaucrats. Regulators. The Deep State. They now run the show. ..."
Great article and right on target. In fact, we don't have a real democracy anymore. We have a
Potemkin Village democracy. Our national legislature is paralyzed and impotent. And honestly,
that's the way its membership likes it. Pretend to govern. Hold tight to the seats of
privilege and status.
In addition, Trump is a pretend President. He doesn't control his own government. Hell, a
single judge anywhere in the hinterlands evidently has the power to veto pretty much whatever
the Trumpster does. It's clear that the real power resides in the hands of the Ruling Class,
most of whom are unelected and unaccountable. Judges. Bureaucrats. Regulators. The Deep
State. They now run the show.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media plays the role of Orwell's Squealer the Pig from Animal
Farm. Propagandists. Purveyors of fake news and fake truth. This is not going to end well.
The only question is how and when the ending comes.
Russia's PL-19 Nudol, a system U.S. military
intelligence assesses will be focused primarily on anti-satellite missions, was successfully
tested twice in 2018. The weapon, which was fired from a mobile launcher, was last tested on
Dec. 23 and marked the seventh overall test of the system, according to one of the people who
spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The Russian anti-satellite weapon is expected to target communication and imagery satellites
in low Earth orbit, according to the other person, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.
For reference, the International Space Station and the Hubble Space Telescope travel in low
Earth orbit.
While anti-satellite missiles are by no means new, the latest revelation comes less than a
year after Putin touted his nation's growing military arsenal.
"I want to tell all those who have fueled the arms race over the last 15 years, sought to
win unilateral advantages over Russia, introduced unlawful sanctions aimed to contain our
country's development: You have failed to contain Russia," Putin said during a national address
in March.
A recently unclassified report from the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, or
NASIC, explained how the U.S. advantage above the Earth's atmosphere is eroding to "an emergent
China and a resurgent Russia."
The NASIC report said there number of foreign intelligence and imaging satellites "has
tripled" to 300 in orbit in the last two decades. The U.S. itself has 353 of its own space
assets in orbit for those purposes. In response, military superpowers have poured funding into
researching and developing anti-satellite weapons.
Missiles are the most high-profile, physical manifestation of anti-satellite weapons. Frank
Slazer, the vice president of space systems at the Aerospace Industries Association, told CNBC
about how those missiles may be physically effective, but are likely not the "first line of
approach on this."
"You'd much rather jam the satellite, blind it [with a laser], or take over its control
systems with a cyberattack," Slazer said. "Kinetic impacts could cause problems for other
nations, besides the one you are attacking, and possibly for your own system's for many years
afterwards."
Both Slazer and the NASIC report pointed to the example of China's anti-satellite test in
2007. China fired an anti-satellite missile at one of its own, discarded weather satellites.
The test was successful, but the satellite shattered into thousands of pieces, which continue
to zip around in an orbital cloud of deadly debris.
"A huge percentage of the debris in low earth orbit is still attributable to that one test,"
Slazer said.
As far as the U.S. military's ability to defend against anti-satellite weapons, the assets
and capabilities in orbit "are the same as they have been for awhile," Tommy Sanford, director
of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, told CNBC.
Sanford contends that there has not been much in the way of progress when it comes to
defending U.S. space-based assets. Sanford gave the example of using networks of smaller and
cheaper satellites, like cubesats and nanosats, to offer "effective platforms to augment and
support missions carried out by the DoD's larger exquisite satellites."
"The idea behind a distributed architecture for space support is – instead of having
one exquisite target – you'd have a system which could presumably survive some loss of
its elements and still be able to provide function," Slazer said.
"... The first, directed outward, finds its expression in the global War on Terror and in the Bush Doctrine that the United States
has the right to launch preemptive wars. This amounts to the United States seeing as illegitimate the attempt by any state to resist
its domination. ..."
"... The second dynamic, directed inward, involves the subjection of the mass of the populace to economic "rationalization", with
continual "downsizing" and "outsourcing" of jobs abroad and dismantling of what remains of the welfare state created by President Franklin
D. Roosevelt's New Deal and President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. Neoliberalism is an integral component of inverted totalitarianism.
The state of insecurity in which this places the public serves the useful function of making people feel helpless, therefore making
it less likely they will become politically active and thus helping maintain the first dynamic. ..."
"... By using managerial methods and developing management of elections, the democracy of the United States has become sanitized
of political participation, therefore managed democracy is "a political form in which governments are legitimated by elections that
they have learned to control". ..."
"... Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state because
of the opinion construction and manipulation carried out by means of technology, social science, contracts and corporate subsidies.
..."
According to Wolin, domestic and foreign affairs goals are each important and on parallel tracks,
as summarized at Wikipedia,the United
States has two main totalizing dynamics:
The first, directed outward, finds its expression in the global War on Terror and in the Bush Doctrine that the United
States has the right to launch preemptive wars. This amounts to the United States seeing as illegitimate the attempt by any
state to resist its domination.
The second dynamic, directed inward, involves the subjection of the mass of the populace to economic "rationalization",
with continual "downsizing" and "outsourcing" of jobs abroad and dismantling of what remains of the welfare state created by
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. Neoliberalism is an integral component
of inverted totalitarianism. The state of insecurity in which this places the public serves the useful function of making people
feel helpless, therefore making it less likely they will become politically active and thus helping maintain the first dynamic.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Wolin's Inverted Totalitarianism provides the ground work for my suspicions regarding faux populists Obama and Trump:
By using managerial methods and developing management of elections, the democracy of the United States has become sanitized
of political participation, therefore managed democracy is "a political form in which governments are legitimated by elections
that they have learned to control".
Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state
because of the opinion construction and manipulation carried out by means of technology, social science, contracts and corporate
subsidies.
Actually, I think that in the end Russia has to thank the British for sending a great message
to her traitors and gangsters. Apart from the Skripal case, the UK seems up to confiscate the
wealth Russian expats in the UK looted back home. On the one hand, it's ~ $10bn worth that
will be definitely lost for Russia, on the other if the UK's treatment of Skripal and runaway
oligarchs won't heal Russian traitors and gangsters from their blissful enamourment with
England's climate, I don't know what will.
@Mike
P I can't find the comment because the comment archive is down -- I think it was
annamaria who reported that the British were holding assets of Russian oligarchs and that
Russia wanted the funds back. The speculation was that Teresa May would take possession of
the assets.
As these two articles state, most of the Russian billionaire oligarchs are Jewish
So at least (conspiracy theory) part of the Skripal scheme is for Teresa May to be an
angel and return their assets to the Jewish billionaires who stole Russian wealth fair and
square.
Despite ths supposed intense push by the US to harm the Iranian economy, parts of thst certaainly in place, without publicity
US policy has recently gone the other way, not so vigorously harming the Iranian economy. For starters we have that the US gave
"temporary" exemptions from the renewed US sanctions agaainst nations importing Iranian oil for 8 major such importers. The
upshot is not all that much of a reduction of such exports from Iran, an obviously crucial factor.
Then we have more recent subtle pro-Iranian decisons, most importantly Trump's annoucement of US removing troops from Syria. This
helps Iran, even if the removal is slowed down as seems likely. We also have SecState Pompeo pressuring the Saudis to end their
boycott against Qatar, which has retained both political and economic relations with Iran, not to mention having just whupped
Saudi Arabia in soccer 2-0.
So, we, or at least I, do not know what precisely is going on inside Iran, long a highly repressive regime, despite its facade
ofs pseudo-democracy. They have been continuing to adhere to the JCPOA nuclear deal, even as recent reports have them possibly
setting up increased uranium enrchment facilities and activities. While there havee been many demos against the government over
the troubled economy, it seems that these have slowed down, or at least reporting of them has.
The US does not determine all that happens in Iran, but it seems that currntly the US has an inconsiistent verging on incoherent
policy regarding Iran. But for Iran, this turn from full ostility, combined with a possible upturn in world oil prices, may
explain an unreported stabililization in Iran.
Karl Kolchak , January 19, 2019 6:30 pm
Probably because the "reports" of unrest were more MSM BS–or Iran managed to root out and arrest all of the CIA provocateurs
who were "meddling" in Iranian politics.
likbez, January 19, 2019 8:12 pm
Karl,
Probably because the "reports" of unrest were more MSM BS–or Iran managed to root out and arrest all of the CIA provocateurs
who were "meddling" in Iranian politics.
I think you are too optimistic. And you should probably talk about CIA-Mossad-MI6 provocateurs, not so much about CIA provocateurs.
Or, more correctly, foreign interests controlled disaffected strata of the population.
The meddling will continue, and money are flowing to destabilize the Iranian government and induce the "regime change" via
yet another color revolution. So it remains to be seen if mullahs are vigilant enough and not "fossilized" like the USSR leadership
was ( if we view the USSR as an example of yet another theocratic regime) to withstand this attack. BTW Soviet nomenklatura was
simply bought by the same alliance of CIA-Mossad-MI6 and the lure of getting the lion share of privatized resources of the country.
I am sure that any drop in the standard of living due to sanctions will be exploited to the fullest extent possible to generate
unrest and possibly the regime change.
Please note the success of recent neoliberal counter-revolutions in Argentina and Brazil against more progressive governments.
That means that chances for neoliberal counter-revolution in Iran are probably non-zero, even though neoliberal ideology was discredited
in 2008 and is sustained only pure power of neoliberal propaganda machine, which makes Third Reich propaganda look pretty amateurish
in comparison.
If we view neoliberalism as "Trotskyism for the rich" (financial elites of the world unite) it is clear that it has staying
power. And that means that the "Permanent Neoliberal Revolution" in best Trotskyite tradition will continue.
Also, if you have a country in which the population grows fast and the standard of living gradually deteriorates as was the case
in many Arab countries before the Arab spring, you can always find enough people to support a color revolution against the current
government. It is so easy to exploit the legitimate grievances of the population if you have money to pay for a cadre of "professional
revolutionaries" (students are very lucrative target here), and control at least a part of MSM.
The fact that installed after the color revolution puppets will be much worse, and that looting of natural resources will be
the natural result, will be realized by the strata of population which had driven the color to its success only later. In other
words, the promises of EU standard of living tomorrow, if you get rid of mullahs is a very successful social mousetrap like it was in Ukraine
before that.
Just look at the drop of that standard of living in Ukraine after the EuroMaydan color revolution (sponsored by Nuland and
friends)
Also, any theocratic regime has elements of instability within itself. At some point, people became tired of regimes driven
by religious dogma. As soon as the CIA-Mossad-Mi6 alliance can provoke some ethnic group on insurrection all bets are off.
I think the power of the neoliberal center (US+EU) to stage color revolutions so far remains largely intact.
ilsm, January 19, 2019 9:55 pm
There was a suicide bombing 6 Dec 18 near Chabahar, Iran, an Indian run (financed) port that will link into Afghanistan and
on up the east side of the Caspian, and an alternate route to One Band one road (OBOR). The US has relieved India of sanctions
regarding Chabahar, which competes with Gwadar in Pakistan for access to China's OBOR. In this regard to court India and to
snub OBOR the US would side with Iran..
There have been reports of Saudi support for Baluch separatists, the area being inhabited with a Baluch faction.
There had been a similar attack a couple of years ago also attributed to foreign meddling.
Baluchs live in the area overlapping Pakistan and East Iran. The area was ceded to the two countries by the Sultan of Oman,
who did not want to keep his holdings on the north side of the Arabian Sea.
In the eastern part of Iran the US including associates of McCain and Bolton have entertained MEK, which represents a tiny
minority within Iran. MEK would be a terror group on the lines of HTS but it does US bidding like HTS, so the US supports
Salafi terror groups despite the blithe about GWOT.
In terms of Iran crude oil there are numerous waivers to US sanctions.
The Iranian authorities are using the foreign aggression to good advantage. All the Ayatollahs need do is say: "look at what
the outsiders did to Libya".
Yes. Not an "insurance policy" for overturning the election. But I'd say that how they
used the dossier was exactly how they intended to use it:
- to get wiretaps from the FISA court;
- to poison Trump campaign media relations;
- to justify a cloud of suspicion (17 intelligence agencies agree!) over the Trump
Administration that prompts a special council investigation after Trump fires Comey.
But there is a more basic problem with your analysis: You think personalities
matter. You think it is absurd that the establishment would choose Trump as President over
Hillary. That is their firewall. What you and millions of others think is impossible is a
lever for manipulation/psyop. Constitutional lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama can be
nothing but good! Western democracies are trustworthy! Well funded humanitarian organizations
working in a war zone are heros! Etc.
(Repeating:) MAGA is a Deep State/establishment POLICY CHOICE as much as it is Trump's
campaign slogan. A populist nationalist is exactly what they wanted to lead the Empire
(just as a populist socialist was what was wanted when Obama was elected.) Trump
"unlikely" win was conveniently pinned on the Russians and Wikileaks.
How else does one explain Trump's Deep State/establishment nominations that further the
agenda of people that are supposedly against Trump:
VP PenceBesties with McCain
John BoltonMost neocons are 'Never Trump' (or pretend to be)
Gina HaspelBrennan's acolyte
William BarrLong time friend of Bushes, Mueller, and Comey (Comey is
Mueller's pal)
"... Even voters too ignorant to see Trump for what he really was - voters that are misinformed to the point that they unwittingly and continually vote against their own best interests - realized how much the Dems have sold out to Wall Street. ..."
"... That's why they anointed Obama who then proceeded to squander eight years of opportunity to remove big money from politics and enact progressive reforms to health care, the environment, etc. ..."
"... Bernie is a bit long in the tooth, so I am all in for Liz Warren. She's the only one with both the courage and the intelligence to take on the big money that controls our politics. ..."
"... Sanders or Warren would mean a change from neoliberal war mongering of the Clinton/W model. If the Democrats offer up another Clintonite they will lose. They need to offer something positive to the 90% who have lost the last 40 years of class war. ..."
The neoliberalism of the Democratic Party elite (and most of the rank and file) is one big
factor in our 2016 loss. Even voters too ignorant to see Trump for what he really was -
voters that are misinformed to the point that they unwittingly and continually vote against
their own best interests - realized how much the Dems have sold out to Wall Street.
HRC would have been nominated in '08 if she had kissed more Wall Street you-know-what.
That's why they anointed Obama who then proceeded to squander eight years of opportunity
to remove big money from politics and enact progressive reforms to health care, the
environment, etc.
Bernie is a bit long in the tooth, so I am all in for Liz Warren. She's the only one
with both the courage and the intelligence to take on the big money that controls our
politics.
Therefore, you can expect the Russian trolls to be coming for her in force. If you read
anything negative about Warren in the coming months, check the source and don't trust the
accuracy.
Sanders or Warren would mean a change from neoliberal war mongering of the Clinton/W
model. If the Democrats offer up another Clintonite they will lose. They need to offer
something positive to the 90% who have lost the last 40 years of class war.
Broadly, authoritarianism is the desire to impose one's own worldview on others in one's
society by institutionalized coercion. Authoritarians, therefore, see punishment as an
appropriate response when members of the group with which they identify [...] diverge too
far from values that the authoritarian believes are best for society – even if the
punished person has neither caused direct harm to another nor infringed another's
rights.
Yep,
The party has circled its wagons.
They insist that the Evil Vlad stole the last election.
Therefore, no need to examine Obama's centrist/neoliberal policies and the socio-economic
conditions that fueled the rejection of Hillary.
We're doomed to repeat our errors.
The farcical DNC leadership echoes the days of Brezhnev's intransigent politburo.
This is the realistic perspective we have to adopt in the US: the Democratic establishment
is part of the neoliberal machinery that has generated Bush's wars, Obama's bank bailouts,
deportations, and drone executions, and now Trump's anti-democratic populism.
"... Bernie's bid was crushed by Clinton's superdelegates. No amount of throwing money against him in the direct sense was doing any good. He took popular positions on issues and stubbornly stayed on-message. ..."
In regards to the Hillary v Bernie question, it also didn't help that the primary vote was
wildly skewed by so-called 'superdelegates,' who don't actually commit their votes until the
DNC convention, but were being counted by the media as having already voted for Hillary,
which made it appear to many of the uninformed that Bernie didn't have any chance of winning,
which may have been intended to keep Bernie supporters home on primary day under the
assumption that Hillary was unbeatable.
As sensible as your suggestions may be, what you're calling for would require at least three
constitutional amendments to be practical - including scrapping the first amendment.
Maybe we should strive towards attainable goals instead?
Didn't help that the ostensibly neutral DNC was sending emails saying that they should play
up Bernie Sanders' Jewish faith (among other attack strategies), fed debate questions to the
Clinton campaign or tried to limit opportunities for Bernie and Hillary to share a stage
together.
Bernie Sanders is widely considered by many to be one of the most popular American
politicians, more than Trump and certainly more popular than Hillary. I think an interesting
phenomenon to notice is the lengths the GOP, in particular, will go to in order to convince
the average voter that anything that cuts taxes is inherently good for the 'little guy,'
while anything that raises taxes is bad. Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of
the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the
deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that
many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason.
Progressive believe in inclusion and if that is "moralistic rhetoric" then so be it.
The litany goes "round and round.
Hillary Clinton:
" you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of
deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you
name it!
"Barack Obama:
"Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, the
presidential hopeful said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion "
Bernie's bid was crushed by Clinton's superdelegates. No amount of throwing money against him
in the direct sense was doing any good. He took popular positions on issues and stubbornly
stayed on-message.
Half of Americans don't bother voting for president. Why is the American media full only of people who insist that the country
is divided in half between Democrat and Republican supporters? Where are the people of influence who think it's a problem and
reflects poorly on the country that half of eligible voters don't see a reason to participate, and that it's worth changing things
in order to get more people to change their minds about that?
Both parties are content with being unpopular, but with political mechanisms ensuring they stay in power anyway. The Democrats
aren't concerned with being popular. They're content with being a token opposition party that every once in a while gets a few
token years with power they don't put to any good anyway. It pays more, I guess.
It still looks like if Americans want to live in a progressive country, they'll have to move to one. But as it is clear that the
neoliberalism of establishment Democrats has little or nothing to offer the poor and working class, or to non-wealthy millennials,
the times they are a-changing.
The Deep State is not monolithic. I would not be surprised that at the same time as Iran
Contra there were other large scale covert operations going on.
There certainly are ongoing operations that are directed at keeping actual nationalists
(like I believe Putin to be) from gaining power in important resource countries in Africa and
other continents
Llike the operation that brought down Gough Whitlam without the need for Perkin's
(Economic hitman) jackals which were probably used to kill Olof Palme.
It does appear that a portion of the Deep State was really disappointed and didn't
give up when other billionaires got Trump elected.
What makes folks think that the Bush secret cabal has gone away?
I see a splintering or bankruptcy of many elite coming as part of the new order.....cull
the herd...... If only the elite would take each other down in this event I would be
pleased.....grin
Leave the rest of us to pick up the pieces and move on with life after our global
private finance/God of Mammon world collapses.
I agree with comment #2 Richard Steven Hack that Hersh is playing his role of keeping
focus off more recent crimes against humanity by exposing the deeds of the dead but staying
tight lipped about deeds of the living.
If Hersh is now revealing secrets he couldn't while Bush was still alive, I wish he would
tell us what connection there was between Bush and the JFK assassination. Unfortunately,
Hersh's disgraceful book "The Dark Side of Camelot," suggests he will not. That book
reflects thinking by Hersh's CIA and Secret Service sources that Kennedy was such a bad
person and president that it's a good thing he was killed. The book never explicitly says
this, but it's the underlying thought.
Hersh seems to be engaged in a bit of revisionism to whitewash Bush's role on
Iran-Contra. Probably he has been strong armed, like so many others today
President Bush decapitated the Iran-Contra investigation by pardoning 6 figures including
Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, whose trial was about to begin, with Bush himself
likely called to testify. ." Bush first consulted his attorney general at the time, William
Barr. Barr has just been named by Trump as attorney general.
Interesting article on Barr here (i broke the link with space). The swamp just keeps
getting nastier
Bush was basically the acting President during the Reagan years like Cheney was during his
sons regime. Cheney and Bush go way back. Bush like Cheney knew everything going on.
"On May 14, 1982, Vice President Bush's position as chief of all U.S. covert action was
formalized in a secret memorandum (signed "for the President" by Ronald Reagan's National
Security Adviser William P. Clark and declassified during the congressional Iran-Contra
hearings)."
Gee, what a surprise, GHW Bush committing ongoing acts of treason, first as DCI then,
Veep, then POTUS. Yet another bit of evidence backing my hypothesis that the CIA quickly
gained control of the Executive branch of the Federal government soon after its
inception.
It would be tempting to call it the Mafiosi States of America except that so few Italians
or Sicilians are involved.
Saker's Anglo-Zionist Empire is quite close to reality, although I prefer my own Outlaw US
Empire.
What I was trained to portray the USA as to students is a massive lie, some of which I
knew at the time, but not to the extent I now know. Frankly, I'm rather glad my elders have
all passed--to be told you've been living a lie your entire life is an affront to one's
dignity that's hard to top.
"... By Thomas Neuberger. Originally published at DownWithTyranny! ..."
"... I'd argue that under Trump, the national security establishment not only hasn't missed a beat but indeed has gained dangerous strength. Now it is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism. -- William Arkin, former NBC war reporter ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan the latest superspook," they said, "to be reborn as a TV newsie . He just cashed in at NBC News as a 'senior national security and intelligence analyst' and served his first expert views on Meet the Press . The Brennan acquisition seeks to elevate NBC to spook parity with CNN , which employs former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director Michael Hayden in a similar capacity. ..."
"... Other, lesser-known national security veterans thrive under TV's grow lights. Almost too numerous to list, they include Chuck Rosenberg, former acting DEA administrator, chief of staff for FBI Director James Comey, and counselor to former FBI Director Robert Mueller; Frank Figliuzzi, former chief of FBI counterintelligence; Juan Zarate, deputy national security adviser under Bush, at NBC ; and Fran Townsend, homeland security adviser under Bush. ..."
"... At this point Arkin is selling the idea, with which I agree, that the security state has become so powerful that it's able to use the news networks, who compete for "spook parity," as their sales platforms. ..."
"... And there's no real evidence that the FBI is either -- is that competent of an institution, to begin with, in terms of even pursuing the prosecutions that it's pursuing. But yet we lionize them. We hold them up on a pedestal, that somehow they are the truth tellers , that they're the ones who are getting to the bottom of things, when there's just no evidence that that's the case. ..."
"... And we tend, again, to say "Donald Trump's Homeland Security Department." Donald Trump couldn't find the Department of Homeland Security if somebody set him on the streets of New York -- of Washington, D.C. So it's not Donald Trump's Homeland Security Department. It's our Homeland Security Department. And I think it's important for us to recognize that this is a department that is really operating on its own behalf and out of control . ..."
"... if a President Sanders attempted to do all that, what would be the response of the national security apparatus, guardians of the status quo? Whom would they serve, the billionaire owners of the established, corrupt-but-lucrative bipartisan state, or the Sanders-led revolutionary FDR-style government they're constitutionally sworn to defend? ..."
"... The Guard had the power to "make or break emperors." Are we growing our own Praetorian Guard, or giving them leave to grow, under cover of their anti-Trump "resistance"? If I were one of the national security superspooks, I'd want nothing better than to be welcomed -- and washed clean -- by acceptance into that well-praised effort. Doors would open publicly that before were open only in secret. ..."
"... the form of government he leaves behind may be worse, especially if he cements in the public mind the rightness of superspooks acting as new-minted kingmakers. Sanders supporters, take note. ..."
The Praetorian Guard declares a cowering Claudius emperor after murdering Caligula (from
a painting by Lawrence Alma-Tadema)
I'd argue that under Trump, the national security establishment not only hasn't missed
a beat but indeed has gained dangerous strength. Now it is ever more autonomous and
practically impervious to criticism.
-- William Arkin, former NBC war reporter
File this under "Praetorian Guard Watch."
William Arkin is a longtime NBC reporter, primarily covering war and national security news.
He recently quit NBC, offering his reasons in an online " departure
letter ." There he castigated the media's coverage of the president, calling them at one
point "prisoners of Donald Trump."
"Of course he is an ignorant and incompetent impostor," Arkin wrote. "And yet I'm alarmed at
how quick NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell
more conflict and more war. Really? We shouldn't get out Syria? We shouldn't go for the bold
move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, though we should be concerned
about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really
earn for the Cold War? And don't even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this
historically destructive institution?"
Please notice the last sentences above, about the growth in reputation -- and
irreproachability -- of the national security state: "And don't even get me started with the
FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?"
Then he gave an interview
to Democracy Now 's Amy Goodman. Part of that interview went this way (emphasis mine
throughout):
AMY GOODMAN: So, you talked about the people who populate the networks as pundits,
and you've been a fierce critic of the national security state, or at least understanding who
it is who is explaining things to us.
Reading from Politico , " Former CIA Director John Brennan the latest
superspook," they said, "to be reborn as a TV newsie . He just cashed in at NBC News as a
'senior national security and intelligence analyst' and served his first expert views on
Meet the Press . The Brennan acquisition seeks to elevate NBC to spook parity with CNN
, which employs former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA
Director Michael Hayden in a similar capacity.
Other, lesser-known national security veterans thrive under TV's grow lights. Almost too
numerous to list, they include Chuck Rosenberg, former acting DEA administrator, chief of
staff for FBI Director James Comey, and counselor to former FBI Director Robert Mueller;
Frank Figliuzzi, former chief of FBI counterintelligence; Juan Zarate, deputy national
security adviser under Bush, at NBC ; and Fran Townsend, homeland security adviser under
Bush."
And it goes on and on and on. These are now the pundits. And so, when you have a situation
like President Trump announcing he will immediately withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and halve
the troops that are in Afghanistan, you have this massive attack on him that's actually
led by the permanent national security state under the guise of pundits on television
.
At this point Arkin is selling the idea, with which I agree, that the security state has
become so powerful that it's able to use the news networks, who compete for "spook parity," as
their sales platforms.
But in doing so, he's making another point as well, if not mindfully -- that the national
security state is approaching (or has approached) the status of a latter-day Praetorian Guard,
a military organization without whose approval no one can become or remain president.
He gets there in stages. First, this:
WILLIAM ARKIN: Well, I think that you've -- I mean, what you said stands for
itself, Amy. But I would add to it that I think the real crisis is that when we have a panel
discussion on television, in the mainstream press, and even in the mainstream newspapers, we
don't populate that panel with people who are in opposition. We have a single war party in
the United States, and it's the only one that is given voice.
And I think that probably because of the phenomenon of Donald Trump -- let's just be
honest about it -- really what we see on TV now is former Obama administration officials
masquerading as analysts who are nonpartisan, when in fact they are partisan .
Brennan, Clapper (he who lied to Congress but, as an approved insider, was forgiven), and a
number of other "former Obama administration officials" are not just partisan, pro-endless war
advocates "masquerading as analysts"; they are "analysts" working to delegitimize Donald Trump.
Whether not Trump is a legitimate president, that "partisan superspooks" are uncritically
accepted as part of the takedown operation should be concerning.
Arkin seems to recognize this. Later in
the interview he's asked to explain his comment about the FBI, which I noted above.
AMY GOODMAN: And, William Arkin, you also write, "don't [even] get me started with
the FBI : What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?"
WILLIAM ARKIN: Well, there's a crazy collateral damage of Donald Trump. And that is
that there are a lot of liberals in America who believe that the CIA and the FBI is going
to somehow save the country from Donald Trump .
Well, I'm sorry, I'm not a particular fan of either the CIA or the FBI . And the FBI , in
particular, has a deplorable record in American society, from Martin Luther King and the
peace movements of the 1960s all the way up through Wen Ho Lee and others who have been
persecuted by the FBI .
And there's no real evidence that the FBI is either -- is that competent of an
institution, to begin with, in terms of even pursuing the prosecutions that it's pursuing.
But yet we lionize them. We hold them up on a pedestal, that somehow they are the truth
tellers , that they're the ones who are getting to the bottom of things, when there's
just no evidence that that's the case.
AMY GOODMAN: And what do you mean by the "creeping fascism of homeland security"?
WILLIAM ARKIN: You know, I was against the creation of the Homeland Security
Department in 2003, to begin with. First of all, don't like the word. "Homeland security"
sounds a little bit brown-shirty to me. But, second of all, it was created to be a
counterterrorist organization, a domestic counterterrorist organization. And all during the
Obama administration, we heard Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, saying,
"You know, we are counterterrorism." But since then, we've seen they're creeping into
cybersecurity. We've seen them creeping into election security. We've seen ICE and TSA become
the second and third largest federal law enforcement agencies in the country. And so, now
homeland security sort of has become a domestic intelligence agency with really an unclear
remit, really with broad powers that we don't fully understand .
And we tend, again, to say "Donald Trump's Homeland Security Department." Donald Trump
couldn't find the Department of Homeland Security if somebody set him on the streets of New
York -- of Washington, D.C. So it's not Donald Trump's Homeland Security Department. It's our
Homeland Security Department. And I think it's important for us to recognize that this is
a department that is really operating on its own behalf and out of control .
I'd like you to ask yourself this. If a President Bernie Sanders wanted better relations
with Russia and North Korea, and went about it in a smart, safe way; wanted to bring
manufacturing back to the U.S. by smartly but radically renegotiating our billionaire- and
corporate-friendly trade deals; wanted to radically reduce spending on the
national security apparatus , on our endless wars, and spend instead on government-provided
services like Medicare for All (which, by the way, would devastate several powerful,
well-funded industries and bipartisan donor constituencies) and for good measure, started
jailing bankers again
if a President Sanders attempted to do all that, what would be the response of the national
security apparatus, guardians of the status quo? Whom would they serve, the billionaire owners
of the established, corrupt-but-lucrative bipartisan state, or the Sanders-led revolutionary
FDR-style government they're constitutionally sworn to defend?
As a reminder :
The Praetorian Guard was an elite unit of the Imperial Roman army whose members
served as personal bodyguards to the Roman emperors. [T]he Guard became notable for its
intrigue and interference in Roman politics, to the point of overthrowing emperors and
proclaiming their successors. In 312, the Guard was disbanded by Constantine the Great [after
defeating them and their latest declared emperor at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge ].
The Guard murdered Caligula -- insane, incompetent and dangerous -- and declared Claudius
emperor, the first of its many "interferences." After Claudius was poisoned, they transferred
allegiance to Nero. It went like this for centuries (of which we have none, by the way).
The Guard had the power to "make or break emperors." Are we growing our own Praetorian
Guard, or giving them leave to grow, under cover of their anti-Trump "resistance"? If I were
one of the national security superspooks, I'd want nothing better than to be welcomed -- and
washed clean -- by acceptance into that well-praised effort. Doors would open publicly that
before were open only in secret.
In that sense, Trump may be even more dangerous than he's now considered to be. What he may
do while still with us may be frightful to consider. But the form of government he leaves
behind may be worse, especially if he cements in the public mind the rightness of superspooks
acting as new-minted kingmakers. Sanders supporters, take note.
''Tis booming because the left/liberal/metropolitan muesli crunching elites (and I include
the Tories in that) who have reigned disdainfully over us since the Second World War have
ignored our fears over mass immigration and the changing of our established traditions and
cultures. They have also connived in the insanity of insisting every hair brained liberal
idea is worthy of being protected by the human rights legislative farce. Rapists being
offered a say in the upbringing of their issue, school uniforms being dragged into law and a
thousand and other one 'special issues' to a tiny minority being rammed down the throats of
the fed up majority at every opportunity by activists.
But that's the point, isn't it? That populist has been so vaguely defined that it encompasses
anything the authors don't like. It's a straw man, a pejorative.
Populism is a belief in the goodness of people, a belief that masses make better decisions
than elites and that the the rule of the elite come at the expense of the demos.
It's a term synonymous with grassroots, popular democracy. Proponents of elite rule with
reductionistic views democracy (rule with the consent of the governed and all that trash)
call their grassroots opponents 'populists' in attempt to tie them to strong men.
Noam Chomsky has a view on this issue and I am inclined to think he has a better
understanding of it than the author of this piece.
Chomsky rejects the term "populism" in this matter and offers, instead, the proposal that
;
"Working people are turning against elites and dominant institutions that have been
punishing them for a generation"
The theory of 'cause and effect' seems eminently more sensible to me than the shrill cries
of "It was the internet wot dun it"
The elites and dominant institutions that Chomsky refers to ( including mainstream media )
precipitated the current shift and would do better to acknowledge the part they played in it,
rather than insult and demean the consequential reaction of people on the receiving end of
it.
The enemy is not populism, it's the right's capture of the populist narrative. Trump is a
faux populist that has nothing but disdain for the people he employs and the people
rules.
The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through
our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my
ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
Isaac Asimov
"A Cult of Ignorance". Newsweek, January 21, 1980.
the very old school Christian conservative libertarians and old skool nutty right have
seized on the success populist narrative has had in recent elections and referendum.
I would argue that is is because establishment figures in the Democratic party -- the New
Democrats -- decided that the days of class struggle were over, that 'we are all capitalists
now' and ceded the populist narrative to the right. Yes, this a populist moment and the
question is not if we can reestablish faith in the elite but whether we can ensure that the
new populism goes is a left rather than right direction.
I don't agree that populism lacks depth -- probably because when I think of populism I
think of left populist intellectuals like Friere, Martin-Baro and the like who thought that
democracy should be built on the virtues of the people.
The occupy movement was a populist movement. It said we, the people on the ground, know
better than the elites in the towers. It made decisions democratically, this in stark
contrast to the hierarchical structures of decision making exercised by the financial elite.
I think populism, or grassroots, popular democracy has intellectual depth and
sophistication. Take a look a the writing of Sheldin Wolin, Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, David
Graeber . . .
I don't agree with most of the definitions of populism we've been offered -- I think they
are little more that pejoratives dressed in academic language and have as much depth as the
right's favored "snowflake" pejorative.
I remember watching 'Tomorrows World' ' in the 1970s and they showed us an unpuncturable
cycle tyre that would last 25,000 miles.
The patent was bought by Europe's largest cycle tyre manufacturer, and AFAIK that was the
last ever heard of it.
If that happened why is the water fuel idea so fanciful?
If you inject water into the inlet port or combustion chamber of a petrol engine, compression
ratios, power output and efficiency can be raised dramatically, this has been known since WW1
and was employed in high altitude aero engines during WW2, yet has never been taken up by any
major car manufacturer as far as I know, why?
So the notion that inventions could be suppressed for commercial reasons is really not
fanciful at all, it would make less sense for such technology, if it existed, to be made
altruistically available on a single purchase basis than to shitcan it.
As far as I can see, our country has been ruled by a right-wing, monied elite for many
years- not a 'liberal' one. Liberals at least tend to think in terms of economic equality and
social freedoms, whatever their other faults might be.
But many working class and middle class people still carry on voting Tory even though it's
against their own interests.
We don't have a 'liberal elite' in the UK. We still have the old-fashioned right wing Tory
elite in power based on class and wealth. Why 'liberals' get all the abuse these days is
beyond me.
I'm researching populism on youtube - and it is seedy- and I have yet to turn on the FB news
feed, but the algorithms do support populism- watch a PragerU video and the feed is full of
other rightwing nonsense.
And all of it has the same empty lines.
I watched the Oxford Union Steve Bannon address- and it could have come from a left
winger- the globalised corporate world has abandoned the little guy, and Trump is fixing
it.
The on message is the MSM is lying
PC and activists are totalitarian = commies
either capitalism or socialism [commies] = freedom vs enslavement
and an over whelming anti intellectualism - where have we heard that before.
True but there is still a case for having decent housing etc and training our own
professionals as well and not hollow out professionals from less advantaged countries. When
we took hundreds of nurses from the Philippines in 2000 and whole clinics there had to shut
to terrible detriment of ill locals
"But populism has two chief characteristics. First, it offers immediate and supposedly
obvious answers to complicated problems, which usually blame some other group along the
way."
I think this point (simple solutions to complex problems) is often overstated. If you take
the issue of immigration (an issue that has fuelled populism) , it actually shouldn't
necessarily be that difficult to bring the number of new immigrants down, except that the
political and media establishment pretend that it is.
Take Trump's plan to build a wall on the Mexican border. I see absolutely nothing wrong
with this as it is ultimately every country's prerogative to defend its borders.
Ditto for intra-EU immigration (perhaps the main reason for Brexit): the EU acts as if
this principle of free movement is sacred, but why should that be the case? Or Germany, where
I live, where the constitution guarantees a right to asylum for those seeking refuge in the
country. Again, this is spoken of as though it were cast in stone, when it really shouldn't
be that difficult to amend. So I don't necessarily believe that solutions to problems always
have to be difficult and complicated.
I agree that advances in people's abilities to interact with greater numbers of other people
tend to usher in periods of social upheaval. A lot of the current nationalistic,
anti-foreigner sentiments are the result of our initial reactions against unfamiliar
influences coming from groups with whom we previously had relatively little contact.
Brexit, "Make America Great Again", and similar movements are the collective screams of
resistance against dealing with unfamiliarity, learning new things, and growing. Over time,
we will adapt, but this will probably require a generation or so, at minimum.
Of course, given the high pace of technological change, we are likely to be collectively
bonded together even more tightly before we are able to adapt to the current state of the
world. It won't be long before people will all be interconnected via implants, which means
that each and every thing we do and every emotion we have will be sent out over the
net.
In a way Populism is somewhat similar to Marxism: implicit message is that the class struggle
in the societies is the key problem, which is completely true. American middle class was robbed
from 1970th of a considerable chunk of its standard of living. So it is not surprising that the
neoliberal elite ( the News Class of as they are called the US nomenklatura) now feels threatened
and resorts to censorship, usage of intelligence agencies and mass surveillance, and other
oppressive tactics to squash the dissent.
But in such cases the dissent grows stronger despise such an efforts and might turn, at some
point, into insurrection against financial oligarchy as Marxists predicted.
The only problem is with Marxism is that they considered working class to the the next
dominant class and this proved to be a false idea. That will never never happens.
Populism is a range of political approaches that deliberately appeal to "the people,"
often juxtaposing this group against a so-called "elite." There is no single definition of
the term, which developed in the 19th century and has been used to mean various things
since that time. Few politicians or political groups describe themselves as "populists",
and in political discourse the term is often applied to others pejoratively. Within
political science and other social sciences, various different definitions of populism have
been used, although some scholars propose rejecting the term altogether.
the wiki
page is a bit more expansive you should try reading it.
The left is also guilty of populist ideas- blaming the rich, or banking [when in the UK we
get a lot of tax from international banking as a service].
The right has just seized on populism and mainly through social media- brexit and trump
are proof its works- but the people behind the populist message are the same old tired neo
con christian right of the Reagan era and the sad old far right conspiracy nut jobs. Their
message failed in the past- but people like Rees-mogg can now seize on this technique.
Your misunderstanding of what socialism means indicates you swallow the new right wing
propaganda. Poorly funded education will result in people without proper opportunity- S.Korea
is not a socialist country but they spend a huge amount on education and reap the rewards.
But they have a culture where children doing well academically is praised but can also have
negative pressure consequences.
It is complicated and worth discussion but populism wants the easy message.
One of the better reports on populism I've see recently is ''European Disunion'' by Yascha
Mounk, a lecturer on government at Harvard
https://newrepublic.com/article/143604/european-disunion-rise-populist-movements-means-democracy
.
A analysis by Harvard ''Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and
Cultural Backlash'' found that the primary factor driving populism is a cultural backlash
i.e. against [neo]liberal policies and immigration.
Populism is growing because wealth is being concentrated into the hands of the wealthy, at
the expense of everyone else.
Generations, instead of doing better, through working are doing worse because governments
are allowing individuals and corporations to reduce terms and conditions of the
workforce.
Twenty years ago, many UK workers had company pension schemes and jobs that paid the rent
& bills. Now, the pensions have largely dried up and as housing has got more expensive,
and incomes have shrunk.
Those at the top are pushing those beneath them closer to a bowl of rice a day, and shrug
at the social consequences as inevitable - and a necessary step to protect shareholder values
and profits.
In essence, it is the same situation that gave rise to populism in the thirties.
Who do you blame for the fact that house prices have gone up?
Who do you blame for the fact that your pension is going to be smaller than your
parents'?
Thing is the populist politicians are the very same people who cut your pension and made
money out of it. They just want you to blame someone else.
Some highlights from this thread (no names, no pack drill):
Populism is a kickback and correction to the forty years of political correctness where
the white masses of Europe and America were forbidden by the liberal establishment to be
their real selves
People are fed up with the elite consensus because of the failures of the elites.
Perhaps the reason that "populism" is thriving is that the liberal elites who ruled us
in the entire post war period became complacent out of touch with those they were meant to
represent.
there are millions of others whose voices have been ignored or silenced by the
mainstream news
We are disenfranchised by what the elites are saying because the elites control the
narrative in a way that makes sure the power will always reside with them.
The MSM has always been biased-
Why is democracy booming the article asks.
Well because the lies and bullshit of the liberal elite are there for all to see.
Take a look at what the MSM refuses to report, or what it deliberately distorts,
You can see the problem. It's like they are all reading from the same limited script which
has been handed to them. Given the freedom to express our opinions, we are regurgitating what
someone else has told us to say.
Maybe we should not be too pessimistic. The levels of opportunity for expression that the
internet and social media have given us might currently have exceeded our ability to think
critically about whatever bullshit we are being fed, but future generations may be better.
After all, it's only a small step from doubting whatever mainstream thought tells you, to
starting to wonder who is telling you to doubt those things and why and then to actually go
back and think for yourself about the issues.
So Corbyn and Trump are the same because they both have shirts. Well, color me
convinced!
Like so many of these articles -- including the long but uninformative 'long read' on the
same topic -- there is no mention of the failures of the elites.
Clinton sold us a false bill of goods. The Washington Consensus on economics would make
the country richer and, after some 'pain', would benefit the working class. Sure you wouldn't
be making cars but after some retraining you would work in tech.
This was a broken promise -- de industrialization has devastated the upper midwest. The
goods are made in China and the money goes to Bezos. People are rightly upset.
The Washington Consensus on war sold us a false bill of goods. Instead of peace through
strength we have seen a century of endless conflict. We have been caught in state of constant
killing since 2001 and we are no safer for it. Indeed the conflicts have created new enemies
and the only solution on offer is a hair of the dog solution.
People are fed up with the elite consensus because of the failures of the elites. Nowhere
are the repeated failures of the elites, the decades of broken promises mentioned in the
articles. Instead, those of us who prefer Sanders to Clinton, Corbyn to Blair are mesmerized
by emotional appeals and seduced by simplistic appeals to complex problems. And they wonder
why we don't accept their analyses . . .
TL;DR -- clickbait didn't get us here. The broken promises of the Washington consensus
did.
Why is populism booming asks the writer - simple, because people feel that no-one's
listening. Can it really be a surprise to The Guardian Opinion writers that people who have a
zero hours contract, pay a high rent and have little job security won't vote for more of the
same?
It's not a question as the writer suggests of 'if this wave of populism drifts into
authoritarianism or worse' it's more a question of when - and when it does the liberal left
will still be asking themselves - why?
I've grown very sceptical over the years about the whole issue of asylum. To me, the idea
that an individual can cross a border illegally without a visa, or without even a passport,
and then suddenly become quasi legal be declaring that they wish to seek asylum is a bit of a
farce. The situation becomes even more farcical when failed asylum seekers still aren't
deported. As for humanitarian and ethical obligations, I don't really buy into that either
because the demographics of the world are such that the West is at risk of losing its very
identity if it feels "obliged" to accept everyone seeking asylum and/or work from the world's
more troubled regions. I see the admission of refugees as a generous gesture, not as an
obligation.
If he can only succeed in a positive environment then there's not much hope for him, he needs to be able to fight and prove
he's got what it takes. As it is I'm not sure he's got it.
That's not what I said at all and you know it.
Last time, the only stories that the NYTimes and (mostly) the Guardian could manage to run were Bernie-negative
stories. The NYTimes has already begun the exact same campaign for the 2020 cycle. By comparison, the Guardian
has been providing balanced Bernie coverage.
Do not count on the mainstream media to support him. They're already hard at work smearing him and he hasn't even announced yet.
Half the time they dont even mention him as being a likely contender. It's Biden all day, all night. Might as well be Hillary
again.
Expect 2020 to be quite contentious, possibly even more than 2016. That just means as a supporter of Bernie you'll have to
work twice, maybe three times as hard. The corporate media is going to suppress and challenge him as much as possible. They don't
even mask it anymore.
[Jan 16, 2019] Corporatism is the control of government by big business. This is what we have in the USA today. The main difference between corporatism and fascism is the level of repressions against opposition. Corporatism now tales forma of inverted totalitarism and use ostracism instead of phycal repressions
That is why we need a Constitutional amendment to get the money OUT of politics. Make bribery illegal. THEN, we will not need
Wall Street, which doesn't serve MOST of the population of this country, and is mostly responsible for the wealth gap and lack
of opportunities for most of the population.
I'm not fooled. These are not progressives, they are corporatists, beholden to their donors. They have no courage, no interest
in serving their constituencies, but are only interested in the power and money. What our country , and the world, needs is radical
change from the profit-first point of view. I won't support either one of them.
These corporate-Dem candidates are not being forced to sell out to win elections. Quite the
opposite in fact. They are risking losing their elections for the sake of selling out.
Surely, many will comment that Democrats have no choice but to take the money in order to be
competitive. I have one truism for such folks to ponder: Why would you trust your allegiance
to those who don't care if you win?
Basic logic: rich people win the general election either way, so long as the
primary-winning Democrat is in their pocket (the GOP is always on their side). So this
monetary affection is certainly more about fixing an no-lose general than it is about ousting
Trump, or any Republican.
More correctly is probably say that FBI and CIA can act as a single agency when their interests are threatened. And based on
the fact that investigation was run by FBI counterintelligence division, which is a branch of CIA (with dotted line reporting)
it was CIA (Brennan and Obama) which was at the helm. The problem with powerful intelligence agencies that very soon
the tail starts wag the dog. Which happened in the USA around 1963.
Clearly this was a soft coup, organized along color revolution schema, so well known by both State Department and CIA,
and adapted to the USA government structure. Mueller investigation was a classic move designed to paralyze and undermine the
President.
1. The president of the US was made head of the Executive Branch (EC) of the federal
government by Article 2 of the present constitution of the US. He is also Commander in Chief of
the armed forces of the federal government. As head of the EC, he is head of all the parts of
the government excepting the Congress and the Federal courts which are co-equal branches of the
federal government. The Department of Justice is just another Executive Branch Department
subordinate in all things to the president. The FBI is a federal police force and
counter-intelligence agency subordinate to the Department of Justice and DNI and therefore to
the president in all things. The FBI actually IMO has no legal right whatever to investigate
the president. He is the constitutionally elected commander of the FBI. Does one investigate
one's commander? No. The procedures for legally and constitutionally removing a president from
office for malfeasance are clear. He must be impeached by the House of Representatives for
"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" and then tried by the US Senate on the charges. Conviction
results in removal from office.
2. According to these transcripts of congressional testimony by some of the participants,
the FBI decided all by itself after Comey was fired to consider acting against Trump by
pursuing him for suspicion of conspiracy with Russia to give the Russians the president of the
US that they supposedly wanted. Part of the discussions among senior FBI people had to do with
whether or not the president had the legal authority to remove from office an FBI Director. Say
what? Where have these dummies been all their careers? Do they not teach anything about this at
the FBI Academy? The US Army lectures its officers at every level of schooling on the subject
of the constitutional and legal basis and limits of their authority.
3. Following these seditious and IMO illegal discussions the FBI and Sessions/Rosenstein's
Justice Department sought FISA Court warrants for surveillance against associates of Trump and
members of his campaign for president. Their application for warrants were largely based on
unsubstantiated "opposition research" funded by the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign.
The judge who approved the warrants was not informed of the nature of the evidence. These
warrants provided an authority for surveillance of the Trump campaign.
4. IMO this collection of actions when added to whatever Clapper, Brennan and "the lads" of
the Deep State were doing with the British intelligence services amount to an attempted "soft
coup" against the constitution and from the continued stonewalling of the FBI and DoJ the coup
is ongoing. pl
"... By Jessica Corbett, staff writer at Common Dreams. Originally published at Common Dreams ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, called the news "a reminder that when it comes to Iran, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo are batshit insane ..."
"... Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), tweeted, "Make no mistake: Bolton is the greatest threat to the security of the United States!" Parsi, an expert on U.S.-Iranian relations and longtime critic of Bolton, called for his immediate ouster over the request detailed in Journal ..."
"... Bolton: Chickenhawk-in-Chief ..."
"... Great point. None of my fellow comrades who actually participated in firefights (not just drove trucks behind the lines) are eager to be led into battle by National Guard and bone-spur deferrals, much less student deferral draft dodgers. ..."
"... Why did Trump appoint Bolton? ..."
"... I think Bolton is a sop to Sheldon Aldelson. He may be playing a similar role to "The Mooch", I hope. ..."
"... Likewise, Pompeo is the Koch brother's man. Both authoritarian billionaires trying to guarantee their investment in Trump. You see the US is being run like a business, or is that like a feudal fiefdom? ..."
"... Steven Cohen has an interesting editorial in RT, not about directly about Bolton but about the war parties' demand for ongoing M.E. conflict. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/448688-trump-withdrawal-syria-russia/ ..."
"... see what we could do ..."
"... Trump is interested in what is good for Trump. Why he thinks Bolton at his side is good for him is a mystery. Rather a hand grenade with the pin pulled in your pocket than Bolton. Much the same can be said of Pompeo. ..."
"... I agree with author Nicholas Taleb's view of the military interventionists, who include Bolton, that have repeatedly urged that we "intervene in foreign countries -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria -- whose governments did not meet their abstract standards of political acceptability." Besides the losses suffered by our troops and economy, as Taleb observed each of those interventions "made conditions significantly worse in the country being 'saved'. Yet the interventionists pay no price themselves for wrecking the lives of millions. Instead they keep appearing on CNN and PBS as 'experts' who should guide us in choosing what country to bomb next." Now, after imposing economic sanctions on Iran, they're evidently again seeking war. ..."
Posted on
January 14, 2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. I am surprised
that Bolton has lasted this long. Bolton has two defining personal qualities that are not
conducive to long-term survival with Trump: having a huge ego and being way too obvious about
not caring about Trump's agenda (even with the difficulties of having it change all the time).
Bolton is out for himself in far too obvious a manner.
By Jessica Corbett, staff writer at Common Dreams. Originally published at
Common Dreams
Reminding the world that he is, as one critic put it, " a reckless advocate
of military force ," the Wall Street Journalrevealed
on Sunday that President Donald Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton "asked the
Pentagon to provide the White House with military options to strike Iran last year, generating
concern at the Pentagon and State Department."
"It definitely rattled people," a former U.S. official said of the request, which Bolton
supposedly made after militants aligned with Iran
fired mortars into the diplomatic quarter of Baghdad, Iraq that contains the U.S. Embassy
in early September. "People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about
hitting Iran."
"The Pentagon complied with the National Security Council's request to develop options for
striking Iran," the Journal reported, citing unnamed officials. "But it isn't clear if
the proposals were provided to the White House, whether Mr. Trump knew of the request, or
whether serious plans for a U.S. strike against Iran took shape at that time."
Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts University, called the news "a reminder that when it comes to Iran, John
Bolton and Mike Pompeo are batshit insane."
Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), tweeted, "Make no
mistake: Bolton is the greatest threat to the security of the United States!" Parsi, an expert
on U.S.-Iranian relations and longtime critic of Bolton, called for his immediate ouster over
the request detailed in Journal 's report.
"This administration takes an expansive view of war authorities and is leaning into
confrontation with Iran at a time when there are numerous tripwires for conflict across the
region," NIAC president Jamal Abdi warned in a statement . "It is
imperative that this Congress investigate Bolton's request for war options and pass legislation
placing additional legal and political constraints on the administration's ability to start a
new war of choice with Iran that could haunt America and the region for generations."
In a series of moves that have elicited concern from members of Congress, political experts,
other world leaders, and peace activists, since May the Trump administration has
ditched the Iran nuclear deal -- formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA) -- and reimposed
economic sanctions .
NIAC, in November, urged the new Congress that convened at the beginning of the year to
challenge the administration's hawkish moves and restore U.S. standing on the world stage by
passing measures to block the sanctions re-imposed in August and November , and
reverse Trump's decision to breach the deal -- which European and Iranian diplomats have been
trying to salvage .
Iran continues to comply with the terms of JCPOA, according to the United Nations nuclear
watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However, Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's
nuclear chief, told state television on Sunday
that "preliminary activities for designing modern 20 percent (enriched uranium) fuel have
begun." While Iran has maintained that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, the nation would
still have to withdraw from the deal if it resumed enrichment at the level.
As Iran signals that it is considering withdrawing from the JCPOA, the Journal
report has critics worried that Bolton and Pompeo have the administration on a war path -- with
Bolton, just last week, insisting without any evidence that Iranian leadership is committed to
pursuing nuclear weapons. Some have compared that claim to former Vice President Dick Cheney's
infamous lie in 2002, to bolster support for the U.S. invasion, that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction.
As the Journal noted, "Alongside the requests in regards to Iran, the National
Security Council asked the Pentagon to provide the White House with options to respond with
strikes in Iraq and Syria as well."
So Bolton wants war with Iran? Pretty tall talk from a man who during the war in 'Nam
ducked into the Maryland Army National Guard because he had no desire to die in a Southeast
Asian rice paddy as he considered the war in Vietnam already lost. His words, not mine. The
Iranian military will not be the push over the Iraq army was. They are much better equipped
and motivated and have a healthy stock of missiles. They even have the Russian-made S-300
anti-aircraft missile system up and running.
Once you start a war, you never know where it will go. Suppose the Iranians consider –
probably correctly – that it is Israel's influences that led to the attack and so
launch a few missiles at them. What happens next? Will Hezbollah take action against them as
well. If the US attacks Iran, then there is no reason whatsoever for Iran not to attack the
various US contingents scattered around the Middle East in places like Syria. What if the
Russians send in their Aerospace Forces to help stop an attack. Will they be attacked as
well? Is the US prepared to lose a carrier?
And how will the war end? The country is mountainous like Afghanistan so cannot be occupied
unless the entire complete total of all US forces are shipped over there. This is just lunacy
squared and surely even Trump must realize that if the whole thing is another Bay of Pigs, it
will be his name all over it in the history books and so sinking his chances for a 2020
re-election. And if the justification for the whole thing is a coupla mortars on a car park,
how will he justify any American loses? At this point I am waiting for Bolton to finish each
one of his speeches and tweets with the phrase-
Great point. None of my fellow comrades who actually participated in firefights (not just
drove trucks behind the lines) are eager to be led into battle by National Guard and
bone-spur deferrals, much less student deferral draft dodgers.
Calling Bolton on Pompeo "batshit crazy" cries out for revisions in the APA Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual (DSM).
Why did Trump appoint Bolton? A saying of LBJ, I believe attributed to Sam Rayburn, might
illuminate. "It is better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent
pissing in."
Likewise, Pompeo is the Koch brother's man. Both authoritarian billionaires trying to
guarantee their investment in Trump. You see the US is being run like a business, or is that
like a feudal fiefdom?
Not to be a broken record but should we blame the Dems? Arguably Trump's "out there"
gestures to the right are because he has to keep the Repubs on his side given the constant
threat of impeachment from the other side. Extremes beget extremes. There's also the Adelson
factor.
Of course this theory may be incorrect and he and Bolton are ideological soul mates, but
Trump's ideology doesn't appear to go much beyond a constant diet of Fox News. He seems quite
capable of pragmatic gestures which are then denounced by a horrified press.
The point might be, sure the Dems as part of the duopoly created the context within which
Trump now acts as president. Nonetheless there is a direct linear responsibility for his
actions that rests with him.
Unless you consider him so impaired as not to be responsible for his actions ;-)
So will the buck stop with Obama/Hillary for destroying Libya, the half million dead in
Syria, the covert support for the Saudis in Yemen which started under Obama, the coup in
Honduras, the deterioration in US/Russia relations to the point where nuclear war has once
again started to become thinkable? By these standards Trump's wrecking ball is quite
tiny.
It's not like the Obama administration and the EU didn't strike a nuclear deal with Iran
to freeze nuclear capable production and allow for lifting of sanctions -- how could they
have gone further? How could its deal be worse then the saber rattling of Trump/Bolton? Not
saying this as a fan of the Obama administration in general.
Pied Piper Memo. It's up in Wikileaks. Clinton campaign laid out a strategy to help Trump along so he would be their opponent.
They bet that he was too far out there for the general public to vote him in as
president.
...Everyone
including Trump was shocked he won. He has made an only partly successful hostile takeover of
the Republican party. The fact that he got only at best the second string, and mainly the
fourth string, to work in his Administration, Trump's repudiation of international
institutions and his trade war with China are all evidence that he was chosen by anyone, much
the less a cabal you create out of thin air called "the oligarchy"
As Frank Herbert said in Dune, the most enduring principles in the universe are accident
and error. Trump did not want to win. This was a brand-enhancing stunt for him that got out
of control.
Something for our would be Croesus and his minions: If you go to war with Persia, you will
destroy a mighty empire OK, not so mighty, but an empire nevertheless.
The US has previously run multiple conventual war simulations and in all cases the US lost
against Iran, only when the US used its nuclear option did the US prevail. The implications of a nuclear strike and how the Russian Federation will react, to having
yet another one of its allies attacked is unknown?
Really -- who cares? Any claim of 'all' is difficult to support under the best of
circumstances and unwise. Besides, suppose we could 'prevail' in a war with Iran -- why
should or would we want to? Are you OK with a little war with Iran if a couple of
conventional war simulations suggest we could win?
1) I really hope jim webb gets the def sec job. That would be a strong signal.
2) if the TDS infected bi-partisan consensus wants to impeach. They can build on this. I
suspect they won't though.
3) Keep in mind Trump like some trash talk. Pompeo seems here to stay. Not sure about
Bolton. But, as we saw with N. Korea, sometimes the crazy gets dialed up to 11, right before
things get calmed down.
Because that worked so well in the Balkans and Iraq and Libya, etc, etc etc. The world is
not what you think it is. Let us compare Iran as a country with America's loyal ally Saudi
Arabia as an example. Would you believe that Iran has a Jewish population that feel safe
there and have no interest in moving to Israel? In Saudi Arabia, if you renounce Islam that
is a death sentence. Women have careers in Iran and drive cars. Woman have burkas in Saudi
Arabia and have very few freedoms. Iran has taken in refugees from the recent wars. Saudi
Arabia has taken virtually none from Syria. Iran wants to have their own country and work out
their own problems as they are a multicultural country. Saudi Arabia is a medieval monarchy
that has been exporting the most extremist view of Islam around the world using their oil
money. Ideologically, all those jihadists the past few decades can be traced to Wahhabi
teachings. Now tell me that if you had a choice, which country sounds more attractive to live
in?
Having been to Iran, it is an amazing place and they are the most welcoming of people. One
of the few places I have seen female taxi drivers, too. Women are very self-assured there
– they will blow past men to get to what they want to do. Lots of people don't like the
Islamic government (and they will note that to you), but as you mentioned, they are NOT
medieval.
The government praises science and technology in roadside ads up and down the
country. The ads, by the way, are almost always in Farsi and English, as English is the 2nd
language of the country. And I'd like to add that they love Americans. It didn't matter what
town I was in and we went to some small towns. I literally had people yelling "We love
America" and asking for my autograph. And no – I am not famous. They are the most
generous, gregarious people I have ever met in my life.
I have odd memories of my trip like being in a taxi going into Tehran listening to a
instrument only version of Madonna's La Isla Bonita (they really like Madonna). And going to
beautiful mosques which are filled with mirrors and coloured light so it's almost like a
disco (mirrors and water are ancient pre-Islamic symbols). And the gardens – in odd
places like underpasses that happen to have a bit of opening to light and rain. Where ever
they can stick a garden they will do it.
Iran is a hodgepodge of so many thoughts, peoples, and currents. One thing they are though
– is fiercely loyal to Iran. Not the government, but to their homeland, to their
people. There is no way we would win. Due to geography and due to the losses they would be
willing to sustain we would be destroyed. We would lose so badly that it would look like the
First Anglo-Afghan War where only one Brit got back after the entire army was destroyed. We
tussle with them on their own land at our peril.
Saudi Arabia is America's loyal ally! You mean the SA that financed, planned, and manned
the 9/11 attacks?
Because SA is a bigger shithole than Iran is no argument. What does need to be faced is that
SA has a lock on American politics through its financial control of Washington DC swamp
dwellers.
The Balkans is quiet now. Iraq became a mess when Paul Bremer snatched defeat from near total
victory.
Libya, Syria and Ukraine are the victims of malevolent US meddling (as was Vietnam). I am
hoping that President Trump can reverse course and create a foreign policy that puts the
interests of people first, particularly the interests of the people of the USA. Forlorn hope
perhaps.
I would not want to live in either of them.
Well said. All religious fundamentalists are dangerous because they believe they are the
"chosen ones" and therefore superior to "non-believers", whose lives are less important and
therefore expendable if and when they feel so inclined.
(1) Echoing other responses, I suggest we ask the "Iranian people" if they would like the
U.S. to help them into modernity. Given our track record in Iran and other ME nations, I'm
not sure they would welcome our assistance, particularly if it involved "a few explosions" or
so.
(2) It is "the people" that are always hurt first, and the most, in such interventions,
not the government.
I wasn't sure if this was a serious comment or one meant to provoke. It did provoke me to
make an earlier response. I thank the moderators for blocking it (sincerely – not being
sarcastic).
Bah, who cares about a little collateral damage. The Iranian people obviously don't know
what's good for them. We just need to bring back Wolfowitz to make sure they are on hand to
lay down palm fronds before the US forces as they enter Baghdad after we nuke it into rubble.
Speaking of sociopaths, I am sure Darth Vader would make himself available to advise from
Wyoming. Where the hell is Elliot Abrams when you need him. What's Rumsfeld doing these days?
How great would it be to get the old gang together again, under the maniacal leadership of
Bolton. Maybe Dubya would be willing to do the "mission accomplished" as the smoke clears
over the whole MENA region. What a great bunch of guys.
You're a regular humanitarian bomber. Reminds me of "Assad must go" and the fact 'we'
never bombed him but all the people, all around the nation of the ilk you pretend to want to
help by doing the same thing in Iran.
At best, you are speaking a bunch of hooey without thinking. Oh, and last I heard Iran has
not invaded another country for something like 400 years. Look in your mirror.
Are the Iranian people asking us to invade their country? In the U.S. there seems to be
this bizarre nonchalance about war, which used to be considered a terrible scourge. After the
recent disasters in Libya, Ukraine, and Iraq, "regime change" should be discredited. The U.S.
has caused nothing but misery in the third world. We should focus on our own human rights and
democracy problems. If we want to do something abroad I favor ending our support for Israeli
crimes against Palestinians.
Gotta keep the military industrial complex well fed.
George Orwell was right, sadly; constant state of military alert and occasionally shifting
loose alliances between three competing major military powers.
What a waste of human resources.
IMHO, Bolton serves two roles in the Trump Administration.
As a symbol for the hawkier folks in Congress and the media
As a foil to Trump in a good cop-bad cop, or bad cop-worse cop role, if you prefer
The first provides air cover and the second forestalls ground action. The air cover says
see what we could do , and the ground action blusters to draw attention by
the media thereby serving to defuse any escalationist tendencies pushed by neo-cons.
Bolton is a price of admission, and will not have much of a purpose as the effects of the
Iran sanctions become more evident and that regime becomes more pliable. The people on the
ground in Iran seem to want de-escalation and more normal lives, like so many around the
world and at home.
Trump is interested in what is good for Trump. Why he thinks Bolton at his side is good
for him is a mystery. Rather a hand grenade with the pin pulled in your pocket than Bolton.
Much the same can be said of Pompeo.
I have never understood the lust for war with Iran it looks entirely irrational to me. The
Iranian government may not be to your taste and pursue policies you dislike in the
extreme, but is this a reason to gin up a war. I could never support such a conflict and would
do whatever I could to thwart it.
This is not news and while concerning is not fundamental.
Bolton was hired precisely because of his uberhawk obsession with Iran. That is in fact
the central credential that he brought to the table and as such there should be zero surprise
in this. Indeed the only real shocker is that he asked for plans rather than pulling them out
of his own fevered mind as he usually does.
And as others have noted the Pentagon draws up plans like this all the time. This kind of
speculative planning is a big part of what the Pentagon does and somewhere no doubt is
someone who is paid to prepare for the "inevitable" war in Jamaca.
The question really is whether we will act upon these plans, or some others, and from what
I read of this article that is no more likely than it was a few months ago. Scary yes but no
scarier than it already was.
Well, what do they want us to think? Of course this is predictable–even
SOP–for Bolton. But someone in the Pentagon is offering some pushback, or wants to
suggest there is resistance. Or someone in the CIA. Some of these people prefer wars to
quagmires, especially after an exhausting 20 years. And climbing into bed with the Saudis and
Israelis to fight Iran may not appeal to everyone.
Some may even see that Iran is a much more promising place for consumer and capital
growth, and implementation of bourgeois democracy, than Saudi Arabia. But Mr. Bolton might
say that that's the point.
I think we may be closer to war with Iran than most of us care to think. Trump is under
siege from multiple investigations with no room to run, the Democrats now have the House and
will only intensify the pressure, Pompeo and Bolton–both Iran hawks–are now in
charge of our foreign policy, and a former Boeing executive (with stock options?) is in
charge of the Pentagon, Trump is also being pushed into war by Saudi Arabia and
Israel–his two closest buddies–and probably the two most malign influences on US
policy, and finally, our economy is beginning to look shakey, and the normal functions of
government are now in shutdown. Shock doctrine holds that now is the time to act.
I recall a piece by Chris Hedges and Ralph Nader posted by another commenter here that he
would likely do so BEFORE the Dems took control of the House. I thought there was a lot of huffing and puffing going on, except for the likelihood of
wagging the dog, a tried and true tactic of US presidents.
Was chatting to a someone who was a junior official in the GWB administration. He
suggested the first thing Bolton does when he joins an administration is request these plans.
If you didn't, you wouldn't be able to take advantage of any interesting events to bomb Iran.
Besides, he hasn't actually implemented them yet!
Amusingly its standard bureaucratic form to ensure you have plans on file. Otherwise when
asked to list the options, how would you make sure your plan for covert opps, or democracy
subsidizing/subverting payments appeared to be the most reasonable plan on the table?
Bolton is the same paleoconservative he ever was. And in that sense he is refreshing. One
gets tired of seeing Israelis and Saudis make proposals for spending American lives on
countless critically important projects.
There's also word that the US and Bolton have been giving quiet encouragement, with the
new President in Brazil, for a Venezuela intervention.
I think it's important, though, not to simply characterize these people as monsters but to
finger the system behind them. There was word before the election that Ms. Clinton has become
chummy with Bolton and some of the other neocons; we might be looking at much the same if she
had been elected.
Also, Kissinger bombed Cambodia and set off a genocide. Bolton is awful, but nothing
whatsoever will make me yearn for Mr. K. I have a friend who's still unhappy with me because
I turned down an invite to dine with him long ago, but I was just too frightened of what I
might say in his presence.
We can take it for granted that they are nuts–but nuttiness is like monstrousness,
not always so useful as explanation. They're also operating out of the logic of a
contradictory and decaying system. The neocons are the ideological successors of the
neoliberals (who liked to follow with the velvet fist rather than lead with it, but hardly
eschewed it). . . the culmination of much of the same logic. Egalite and fraternite trail far
behind these days.
I agree with author Nicholas Taleb's view of the military interventionists, who include
Bolton, that have repeatedly urged that we "intervene in foreign countries -- Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria -- whose governments did not meet their abstract standards of political
acceptability." Besides the losses suffered by our troops and economy, as Taleb observed each
of those interventions "made conditions significantly worse in the country being 'saved'. Yet
the interventionists pay no price themselves for wrecking the lives of millions. Instead they
keep appearing on CNN and PBS as 'experts' who should guide us in choosing what country to
bomb next." Now, after imposing economic sanctions on Iran, they're evidently again seeking
war.
The National Security Advisor is a senior official in the executive branch. Who placed
these people in charge of our nation's foreign policy and to act in our name?
There is no threat to the United States involved here. I don't recall being given the
opportunity to vote on them or the policies they represent and push. It's past time these
individuals be removed from positions of power and influence and for American soft power and
diplomacy to be restored to preeminence. I want this country to stand for peace, freedom,
equal opportunity and hope; not war, chaos, fear and death.
"... By Jessica Corbett, staff writer at Common Dreams. Originally published at Common Dreams ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, called the news "a reminder that when it comes to Iran, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo are batshit insane ..."
"... Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), tweeted, "Make no mistake: Bolton is the greatest threat to the security of the United States!" Parsi, an expert on U.S.-Iranian relations and longtime critic of Bolton, called for his immediate ouster over the request detailed in Journal ..."
"... Bolton: Chickenhawk-in-Chief ..."
"... Great point. None of my fellow comrades who actually participated in firefights (not just drove trucks behind the lines) are eager to be led into battle by National Guard and bone-spur deferrals, much less student deferral draft dodgers. ..."
"... Why did Trump appoint Bolton? ..."
"... I think Bolton is a sop to Sheldon Aldelson. He may be playing a similar role to "The Mooch", I hope. ..."
"... Likewise, Pompeo is the Koch brother's man. Both authoritarian billionaires trying to guarantee their investment in Trump. You see the US is being run like a business, or is that like a feudal fiefdom? ..."
"... Steven Cohen has an interesting editorial in RT, not about directly about Bolton but about the war parties' demand for ongoing M.E. conflict. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/448688-trump-withdrawal-syria-russia/ ..."
"... see what we could do ..."
"... Trump is interested in what is good for Trump. Why he thinks Bolton at his side is good for him is a mystery. Rather a hand grenade with the pin pulled in your pocket than Bolton. Much the same can be said of Pompeo. ..."
"... I agree with author Nicholas Taleb's view of the military interventionists, who include Bolton, that have repeatedly urged that we "intervene in foreign countries -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria -- whose governments did not meet their abstract standards of political acceptability." Besides the losses suffered by our troops and economy, as Taleb observed each of those interventions "made conditions significantly worse in the country being 'saved'. Yet the interventionists pay no price themselves for wrecking the lives of millions. Instead they keep appearing on CNN and PBS as 'experts' who should guide us in choosing what country to bomb next." Now, after imposing economic sanctions on Iran, they're evidently again seeking war. ..."
Posted on
January 14, 2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. I am surprised
that Bolton has lasted this long. Bolton has two defining personal qualities that are not
conducive to long-term survival with Trump: having a huge ego and being way too obvious about
not caring about Trump's agenda (even with the difficulties of having it change all the time).
Bolton is out for himself in far too obvious a manner.
By Jessica Corbett, staff writer at Common Dreams. Originally published at
Common Dreams
Reminding the world that he is, as one critic put it, " a reckless advocate
of military force ," the Wall Street Journalrevealed
on Sunday that President Donald Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton "asked the
Pentagon to provide the White House with military options to strike Iran last year, generating
concern at the Pentagon and State Department."
"It definitely rattled people," a former U.S. official said of the request, which Bolton
supposedly made after militants aligned with Iran
fired mortars into the diplomatic quarter of Baghdad, Iraq that contains the U.S. Embassy
in early September. "People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about
hitting Iran."
"The Pentagon complied with the National Security Council's request to develop options for
striking Iran," the Journal reported, citing unnamed officials. "But it isn't clear if
the proposals were provided to the White House, whether Mr. Trump knew of the request, or
whether serious plans for a U.S. strike against Iran took shape at that time."
Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts University, called the news "a reminder that when it comes to Iran, John
Bolton and Mike Pompeo are batshit insane."
Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), tweeted, "Make no
mistake: Bolton is the greatest threat to the security of the United States!" Parsi, an expert
on U.S.-Iranian relations and longtime critic of Bolton, called for his immediate ouster over
the request detailed in Journal 's report.
"This administration takes an expansive view of war authorities and is leaning into
confrontation with Iran at a time when there are numerous tripwires for conflict across the
region," NIAC president Jamal Abdi warned in a statement . "It is
imperative that this Congress investigate Bolton's request for war options and pass legislation
placing additional legal and political constraints on the administration's ability to start a
new war of choice with Iran that could haunt America and the region for generations."
In a series of moves that have elicited concern from members of Congress, political experts,
other world leaders, and peace activists, since May the Trump administration has
ditched the Iran nuclear deal -- formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA) -- and reimposed
economic sanctions .
NIAC, in November, urged the new Congress that convened at the beginning of the year to
challenge the administration's hawkish moves and restore U.S. standing on the world stage by
passing measures to block the sanctions re-imposed in August and November , and
reverse Trump's decision to breach the deal -- which European and Iranian diplomats have been
trying to salvage .
Iran continues to comply with the terms of JCPOA, according to the United Nations nuclear
watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However, Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's
nuclear chief, told state television on Sunday
that "preliminary activities for designing modern 20 percent (enriched uranium) fuel have
begun." While Iran has maintained that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, the nation would
still have to withdraw from the deal if it resumed enrichment at the level.
As Iran signals that it is considering withdrawing from the JCPOA, the Journal
report has critics worried that Bolton and Pompeo have the administration on a war path -- with
Bolton, just last week, insisting without any evidence that Iranian leadership is committed to
pursuing nuclear weapons. Some have compared that claim to former Vice President Dick Cheney's
infamous lie in 2002, to bolster support for the U.S. invasion, that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction.
As the Journal noted, "Alongside the requests in regards to Iran, the National
Security Council asked the Pentagon to provide the White House with options to respond with
strikes in Iraq and Syria as well."
So Bolton wants war with Iran? Pretty tall talk from a man who during the war in 'Nam
ducked into the Maryland Army National Guard because he had no desire to die in a Southeast
Asian rice paddy as he considered the war in Vietnam already lost. His words, not mine. The
Iranian military will not be the push over the Iraq army was. They are much better equipped
and motivated and have a healthy stock of missiles. They even have the Russian-made S-300
anti-aircraft missile system up and running.
Once you start a war, you never know where it will go. Suppose the Iranians consider –
probably correctly – that it is Israel's influences that led to the attack and so
launch a few missiles at them. What happens next? Will Hezbollah take action against them as
well. If the US attacks Iran, then there is no reason whatsoever for Iran not to attack the
various US contingents scattered around the Middle East in places like Syria. What if the
Russians send in their Aerospace Forces to help stop an attack. Will they be attacked as
well? Is the US prepared to lose a carrier?
And how will the war end? The country is mountainous like Afghanistan so cannot be occupied
unless the entire complete total of all US forces are shipped over there. This is just lunacy
squared and surely even Trump must realize that if the whole thing is another Bay of Pigs, it
will be his name all over it in the history books and so sinking his chances for a 2020
re-election. And if the justification for the whole thing is a coupla mortars on a car park,
how will he justify any American loses? At this point I am waiting for Bolton to finish each
one of his speeches and tweets with the phrase-
Great point. None of my fellow comrades who actually participated in firefights (not just
drove trucks behind the lines) are eager to be led into battle by National Guard and
bone-spur deferrals, much less student deferral draft dodgers.
Calling Bolton on Pompeo "batshit crazy" cries out for revisions in the APA Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual (DSM).
Why did Trump appoint Bolton? A saying of LBJ, I believe attributed to Sam Rayburn, might
illuminate. "It is better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent
pissing in."
Likewise, Pompeo is the Koch brother's man. Both authoritarian billionaires trying to
guarantee their investment in Trump. You see the US is being run like a business, or is that
like a feudal fiefdom?
Not to be a broken record but should we blame the Dems? Arguably Trump's "out there"
gestures to the right are because he has to keep the Repubs on his side given the constant
threat of impeachment from the other side. Extremes beget extremes. There's also the Adelson
factor.
Of course this theory may be incorrect and he and Bolton are ideological soul mates, but
Trump's ideology doesn't appear to go much beyond a constant diet of Fox News. He seems quite
capable of pragmatic gestures which are then denounced by a horrified press.
The point might be, sure the Dems as part of the duopoly created the context within which
Trump now acts as president. Nonetheless there is a direct linear responsibility for his
actions that rests with him.
Unless you consider him so impaired as not to be responsible for his actions ;-)
So will the buck stop with Obama/Hillary for destroying Libya, the half million dead in
Syria, the covert support for the Saudis in Yemen which started under Obama, the coup in
Honduras, the deterioration in US/Russia relations to the point where nuclear war has once
again started to become thinkable? By these standards Trump's wrecking ball is quite
tiny.
It's not like the Obama administration and the EU didn't strike a nuclear deal with Iran
to freeze nuclear capable production and allow for lifting of sanctions -- how could they
have gone further? How could its deal be worse then the saber rattling of Trump/Bolton? Not
saying this as a fan of the Obama administration in general.
Pied Piper Memo. It's up in Wikileaks. Clinton campaign laid out a strategy to help Trump along so he would be their opponent.
They bet that he was too far out there for the general public to vote him in as
president.
...Everyone
including Trump was shocked he won. He has made an only partly successful hostile takeover of
the Republican party. The fact that he got only at best the second string, and mainly the
fourth string, to work in his Administration, Trump's repudiation of international
institutions and his trade war with China are all evidence that he was chosen by anyone, much
the less a cabal you create out of thin air called "the oligarchy"
As Frank Herbert said in Dune, the most enduring principles in the universe are accident
and error. Trump did not want to win. This was a brand-enhancing stunt for him that got out
of control.
Something for our would be Croesus and his minions: If you go to war with Persia, you will
destroy a mighty empire OK, not so mighty, but an empire nevertheless.
The US has previously run multiple conventual war simulations and in all cases the US lost
against Iran, only when the US used its nuclear option did the US prevail. The implications of a nuclear strike and how the Russian Federation will react, to having
yet another one of its allies attacked is unknown?
Really -- who cares? Any claim of 'all' is difficult to support under the best of
circumstances and unwise. Besides, suppose we could 'prevail' in a war with Iran -- why
should or would we want to? Are you OK with a little war with Iran if a couple of
conventional war simulations suggest we could win?
1) I really hope jim webb gets the def sec job. That would be a strong signal.
2) if the TDS infected bi-partisan consensus wants to impeach. They can build on this. I
suspect they won't though.
3) Keep in mind Trump like some trash talk. Pompeo seems here to stay. Not sure about
Bolton. But, as we saw with N. Korea, sometimes the crazy gets dialed up to 11, right before
things get calmed down.
Because that worked so well in the Balkans and Iraq and Libya, etc, etc etc. The world is
not what you think it is. Let us compare Iran as a country with America's loyal ally Saudi
Arabia as an example. Would you believe that Iran has a Jewish population that feel safe
there and have no interest in moving to Israel? In Saudi Arabia, if you renounce Islam that
is a death sentence. Women have careers in Iran and drive cars. Woman have burkas in Saudi
Arabia and have very few freedoms. Iran has taken in refugees from the recent wars. Saudi
Arabia has taken virtually none from Syria. Iran wants to have their own country and work out
their own problems as they are a multicultural country. Saudi Arabia is a medieval monarchy
that has been exporting the most extremist view of Islam around the world using their oil
money. Ideologically, all those jihadists the past few decades can be traced to Wahhabi
teachings. Now tell me that if you had a choice, which country sounds more attractive to live
in?
Having been to Iran, it is an amazing place and they are the most welcoming of people. One
of the few places I have seen female taxi drivers, too. Women are very self-assured there
– they will blow past men to get to what they want to do. Lots of people don't like the
Islamic government (and they will note that to you), but as you mentioned, they are NOT
medieval.
The government praises science and technology in roadside ads up and down the
country. The ads, by the way, are almost always in Farsi and English, as English is the 2nd
language of the country. And I'd like to add that they love Americans. It didn't matter what
town I was in and we went to some small towns. I literally had people yelling "We love
America" and asking for my autograph. And no – I am not famous. They are the most
generous, gregarious people I have ever met in my life.
I have odd memories of my trip like being in a taxi going into Tehran listening to a
instrument only version of Madonna's La Isla Bonita (they really like Madonna). And going to
beautiful mosques which are filled with mirrors and coloured light so it's almost like a
disco (mirrors and water are ancient pre-Islamic symbols). And the gardens – in odd
places like underpasses that happen to have a bit of opening to light and rain. Where ever
they can stick a garden they will do it.
Iran is a hodgepodge of so many thoughts, peoples, and currents. One thing they are though
– is fiercely loyal to Iran. Not the government, but to their homeland, to their
people. There is no way we would win. Due to geography and due to the losses they would be
willing to sustain we would be destroyed. We would lose so badly that it would look like the
First Anglo-Afghan War where only one Brit got back after the entire army was destroyed. We
tussle with them on their own land at our peril.
Saudi Arabia is America's loyal ally! You mean the SA that financed, planned, and manned
the 9/11 attacks?
Because SA is a bigger shithole than Iran is no argument. What does need to be faced is that
SA has a lock on American politics through its financial control of Washington DC swamp
dwellers.
The Balkans is quiet now. Iraq became a mess when Paul Bremer snatched defeat from near total
victory.
Libya, Syria and Ukraine are the victims of malevolent US meddling (as was Vietnam). I am
hoping that President Trump can reverse course and create a foreign policy that puts the
interests of people first, particularly the interests of the people of the USA. Forlorn hope
perhaps.
I would not want to live in either of them.
Well said. All religious fundamentalists are dangerous because they believe they are the
"chosen ones" and therefore superior to "non-believers", whose lives are less important and
therefore expendable if and when they feel so inclined.
(1) Echoing other responses, I suggest we ask the "Iranian people" if they would like the
U.S. to help them into modernity. Given our track record in Iran and other ME nations, I'm
not sure they would welcome our assistance, particularly if it involved "a few explosions" or
so.
(2) It is "the people" that are always hurt first, and the most, in such interventions,
not the government.
I wasn't sure if this was a serious comment or one meant to provoke. It did provoke me to
make an earlier response. I thank the moderators for blocking it (sincerely – not being
sarcastic).
Bah, who cares about a little collateral damage. The Iranian people obviously don't know
what's good for them. We just need to bring back Wolfowitz to make sure they are on hand to
lay down palm fronds before the US forces as they enter Baghdad after we nuke it into rubble.
Speaking of sociopaths, I am sure Darth Vader would make himself available to advise from
Wyoming. Where the hell is Elliot Abrams when you need him. What's Rumsfeld doing these days?
How great would it be to get the old gang together again, under the maniacal leadership of
Bolton. Maybe Dubya would be willing to do the "mission accomplished" as the smoke clears
over the whole MENA region. What a great bunch of guys.
You're a regular humanitarian bomber. Reminds me of "Assad must go" and the fact 'we'
never bombed him but all the people, all around the nation of the ilk you pretend to want to
help by doing the same thing in Iran.
At best, you are speaking a bunch of hooey without thinking. Oh, and last I heard Iran has
not invaded another country for something like 400 years. Look in your mirror.
Are the Iranian people asking us to invade their country? In the U.S. there seems to be
this bizarre nonchalance about war, which used to be considered a terrible scourge. After the
recent disasters in Libya, Ukraine, and Iraq, "regime change" should be discredited. The U.S.
has caused nothing but misery in the third world. We should focus on our own human rights and
democracy problems. If we want to do something abroad I favor ending our support for Israeli
crimes against Palestinians.
Gotta keep the military industrial complex well fed.
George Orwell was right, sadly; constant state of military alert and occasionally shifting
loose alliances between three competing major military powers.
What a waste of human resources.
IMHO, Bolton serves two roles in the Trump Administration.
As a symbol for the hawkier folks in Congress and the media
As a foil to Trump in a good cop-bad cop, or bad cop-worse cop role, if you prefer
The first provides air cover and the second forestalls ground action. The air cover says
see what we could do , and the ground action blusters to draw attention by
the media thereby serving to defuse any escalationist tendencies pushed by neo-cons.
Bolton is a price of admission, and will not have much of a purpose as the effects of the
Iran sanctions become more evident and that regime becomes more pliable. The people on the
ground in Iran seem to want de-escalation and more normal lives, like so many around the
world and at home.
Trump is interested in what is good for Trump. Why he thinks Bolton at his side is good
for him is a mystery. Rather a hand grenade with the pin pulled in your pocket than Bolton.
Much the same can be said of Pompeo.
I have never understood the lust for war with Iran it looks entirely irrational to me. The
Iranian government may not be to your taste and pursue policies you dislike in the
extreme, but is this a reason to gin up a war. I could never support such a conflict and would
do whatever I could to thwart it.
This is not news and while concerning is not fundamental.
Bolton was hired precisely because of his uberhawk obsession with Iran. That is in fact
the central credential that he brought to the table and as such there should be zero surprise
in this. Indeed the only real shocker is that he asked for plans rather than pulling them out
of his own fevered mind as he usually does.
And as others have noted the Pentagon draws up plans like this all the time. This kind of
speculative planning is a big part of what the Pentagon does and somewhere no doubt is
someone who is paid to prepare for the "inevitable" war in Jamaca.
The question really is whether we will act upon these plans, or some others, and from what
I read of this article that is no more likely than it was a few months ago. Scary yes but no
scarier than it already was.
Well, what do they want us to think? Of course this is predictable–even
SOP–for Bolton. But someone in the Pentagon is offering some pushback, or wants to
suggest there is resistance. Or someone in the CIA. Some of these people prefer wars to
quagmires, especially after an exhausting 20 years. And climbing into bed with the Saudis and
Israelis to fight Iran may not appeal to everyone.
Some may even see that Iran is a much more promising place for consumer and capital
growth, and implementation of bourgeois democracy, than Saudi Arabia. But Mr. Bolton might
say that that's the point.
I think we may be closer to war with Iran than most of us care to think. Trump is under
siege from multiple investigations with no room to run, the Democrats now have the House and
will only intensify the pressure, Pompeo and Bolton–both Iran hawks–are now in
charge of our foreign policy, and a former Boeing executive (with stock options?) is in
charge of the Pentagon, Trump is also being pushed into war by Saudi Arabia and
Israel–his two closest buddies–and probably the two most malign influences on US
policy, and finally, our economy is beginning to look shakey, and the normal functions of
government are now in shutdown. Shock doctrine holds that now is the time to act.
I recall a piece by Chris Hedges and Ralph Nader posted by another commenter here that he
would likely do so BEFORE the Dems took control of the House. I thought there was a lot of huffing and puffing going on, except for the likelihood of
wagging the dog, a tried and true tactic of US presidents.
Was chatting to a someone who was a junior official in the GWB administration. He
suggested the first thing Bolton does when he joins an administration is request these plans.
If you didn't, you wouldn't be able to take advantage of any interesting events to bomb Iran.
Besides, he hasn't actually implemented them yet!
Amusingly its standard bureaucratic form to ensure you have plans on file. Otherwise when
asked to list the options, how would you make sure your plan for covert opps, or democracy
subsidizing/subverting payments appeared to be the most reasonable plan on the table?
Bolton is the same paleoconservative he ever was. And in that sense he is refreshing. One
gets tired of seeing Israelis and Saudis make proposals for spending American lives on
countless critically important projects.
There's also word that the US and Bolton have been giving quiet encouragement, with the
new President in Brazil, for a Venezuela intervention.
I think it's important, though, not to simply characterize these people as monsters but to
finger the system behind them. There was word before the election that Ms. Clinton has become
chummy with Bolton and some of the other neocons; we might be looking at much the same if she
had been elected.
Also, Kissinger bombed Cambodia and set off a genocide. Bolton is awful, but nothing
whatsoever will make me yearn for Mr. K. I have a friend who's still unhappy with me because
I turned down an invite to dine with him long ago, but I was just too frightened of what I
might say in his presence.
We can take it for granted that they are nuts–but nuttiness is like monstrousness,
not always so useful as explanation. They're also operating out of the logic of a
contradictory and decaying system. The neocons are the ideological successors of the
neoliberals (who liked to follow with the velvet fist rather than lead with it, but hardly
eschewed it). . . the culmination of much of the same logic. Egalite and fraternite trail far
behind these days.
I agree with author Nicholas Taleb's view of the military interventionists, who include
Bolton, that have repeatedly urged that we "intervene in foreign countries -- Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria -- whose governments did not meet their abstract standards of political
acceptability." Besides the losses suffered by our troops and economy, as Taleb observed each
of those interventions "made conditions significantly worse in the country being 'saved'. Yet
the interventionists pay no price themselves for wrecking the lives of millions. Instead they
keep appearing on CNN and PBS as 'experts' who should guide us in choosing what country to
bomb next." Now, after imposing economic sanctions on Iran, they're evidently again seeking
war.
The National Security Advisor is a senior official in the executive branch. Who placed
these people in charge of our nation's foreign policy and to act in our name?
There is no threat to the United States involved here. I don't recall being given the
opportunity to vote on them or the policies they represent and push. It's past time these
individuals be removed from positions of power and influence and for American soft power and
diplomacy to be restored to preeminence. I want this country to stand for peace, freedom,
equal opportunity and hope; not war, chaos, fear and death.
"... Good article. It accurately spells it out about the contempt and disrespect that America has of other countries, and the coercive tactics that America often applies to them. ..."
"... It really goes back to what Marine corps Major General Smedley Butler once reflected on, in 1933, about the U.S.,. He said: "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism". Apparently, that is how other countries see us operating as too. ..."
For another example I turn to U.S. Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, who just sent a
letter to both Uniper and BASF to stop work on the Nordstream 2 pipeline or else face
further U.S. sanctions.
The Bild report raised the ire of some German politicians in Berlin. Fabio De Masi, a top
Left Party MP, demanded that the government reprimand Grenell, saying
: "The US Ambassador seems to make an impression that he is a viceroy of the Washington
emperor.
This is the real face of Trumpian diplomacy. Stop acting in your own best interest or we'll
bankrupt you.
The situation at this point is pretty clear. While our military strength is formidable it is
not, however, a blank check to enforce political edicts anymore.
In a world where U.S. prosperity is dependent on the prosperity of the entire world,
threatening financial ruin is just as much of a bluff as threatening physical ruin.
And we're seeing that bluff being called a lot. Country after country are now simply showing
U.S. strongmen like Pompeo, Bolton, Mattis and even Trump himself, the door and there is little
to no real response from them.
Trump tried to scare Erdogan into submission with sanctions and a collapse of the lira
last year. When it didn't work, Erdogan knew where his allies were. He acted accordingly,
siding with Putin's energy security for Turkey rather than a mercurial U.S.
India did the same thing over the purchase of Russian S-400 missile defense systems. They
said some nice things, invited us to talks and then sent us packing without a deal.
Germany refuses to yield on Nordstream 2.
Qatar was the first to pull out of the Syrian conflict and then turned around and
negotiated a major exploration and development deal with Iran in the North Pars gas
field.
Even Japan is in constant talks with Russia about working out their differences
officially (again, against U.S. wishes) and sign a peace treaty. Japan needs Russian energy
badly and Putin is patient enough to wait Prime Minister Shinzo Abe out while calling out his
hypocrisy.
Good article. It accurately spells it out about the contempt and disrespect that America
has of other countries, and the coercive tactics that America often applies to them.
It
really goes back to what Marine corps Major General Smedley Butler once reflected on, in
1933, about the U.S.,. He said: "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active
military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I
served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that
period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall
Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism".
Apparently, that is how other countries see us operating as too.
"... With Warren wanting to be at the table with the elites, perhaps she took the advice of Larry Summers. In her memoir, "A Fighting Chance", she mentions a dinner conversation where she was told by him 'I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. ..."
"... Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. ..."
"... Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People -- powerful people -- listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don't criticize other insiders.' ..."
With Warren wanting to be at the table with the elites, perhaps she took the advice of
Larry Summers. In her memoir, "A Fighting Chance", she mentions a dinner conversation where
she was told by him 'I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an
outsider.
Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to
them.
Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People --
powerful people -- listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one
unbreakable rule: They don't criticize other insiders.'
"... Mitt Romney, Commander of the Fake Internationalists Newly-inaugurated Senator has been promoted to standard-bearer for the bipartisan War Party, filling in for John McCain. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of ..."
Mitt Romney, Commander of the Fake
Internationalists Newly-inaugurated Senator has been promoted to standard-bearer for the
bipartisan War Party, filling in for John McCain.
No surprise: Senator Mitt Romney does not like President Donald Trump, as he recently
explained in TheWashington Post . But what, one wonders, was the former GOP
presidential candidate thinking two years ago when he supped with the man he now claims to
deplore while seeking an appointment as secretary of state?
Much of Romney's complaint is over manners. Yes, the president is a boor. Most people,
including many of Trump's supporters, recognize that. Trump won not because of his etiquette
but because of what he stood for -- and against.
Romney also defended The Blob, Washington's bipartisan foreign policy establishment. In his
article attacking the president, he offered the usual vacuous bromides that characterize the
interventionist consensus, which poses as internationalism but with plenty of bombing raids,
illegal occupations, and nation-building. Most importantly, this perspective presumes permanent
American domination, irrespective of cost.
Romney wrote: "America has long been looked to for leadership. Our economic and military
strength was part of that, of course, but our enduring commitment to principled conduct in
foreign relations, and to the rights of all people to freedom and equal justice, was even more
esteemed." Indeed, "The world needs American leadership, and it is in America's interest to
provide it. A world led by authoritarian regimes is a world -- and an America -- with less
prosperity, less freedom, less peace."
In fact, Romney appears more committed to dependence on allies than American leadership. For
him, these are two sides of the same coin. The only alternative he sees to Washington in
control is the bad guys leading.
Related is Romney's apparent belief that foreign policy is fixed, irrespective of
circumstance: the very same U.S.-dominated alliances created in 1950 are needed today. Although
America's friends have raced ahead economically, politically, even militarily, Washington must
forever treat them as helpless derelicts. For instance, Russia, a weakened declining power,
faces the U.S. and Europe -- which together have more than 20 times its GDP. Yet Romney sees
Moscow as the greatest threat facing America. It is 1945 all over again.
Romney's most important omission is Iraq. After the war there turned bad, he remained silent
about his support for it. The Iraq disaster is an important reason why Trump won and other
Republicans, including Romney, lost. In 2008, Americans rejected John McCain, the very symbol
of promiscuous war-making. Four years later, Romney criticized President Barack Obama for
leaving Iraq too soon, by which the Republican nominee probably meant leaving at any time. In
saying he would keep more troops in Iraq, he ignored the fact that the Iraqis had refused to
negotiate a status of forces agreement with the Bush administration.
Romney also failed to mention Afghanistan, both as a presidential candidate in 2012 and
senator in 2019. After all, what good can be said for entering the 18th year of nation-building
in a region of little strategic interest? As for Syria, last November, Romney predictably
denounced as "recklessness in the extreme" exiting a multi-sided civil war in a country never
important to America.
Now Romney is being touted as the new standard-bearer for the bipartisan War Party, filling
in for John McCain. Bloomberg columnist Hal Brands theorized that Romney was attempting to
"position himself as heir to John McCain as the congressional conscience of U.S. diplomacy"
(defined as advocating policies designed to prolifically kill and destroy).
Towards this effort, Romney is articulating "a renewed Republican internationalism based on
opposition to aggressive authoritarian regimes." Brands celebrates Romney's Russophobia, saying
he "deserves credit for being anti-Russia before being anti-Russia was cool." No hint that the
U.S. might have contributed to Moscow's hostility through the aggressive "internationalism" of
Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- violating commitments not to
expand NATO, dismantling Moscow's Slavic friend Serbia, and encouraging violent regime change
against an elected government that neighbored Russia. After all, equivalent Russian
intervention in Mexico would have triggered an extremely hostile reaction in Washington.
Neoconservative Max Boot lauded Romney for throwing "down the gauntlet to President Trump."
Indeed, argued Boot, "it now falls upon Romney to champion the cause of principled conservatism
in Washington." Boot hoped the freshman senator would lead a general opposition and seemed
especially pleased at Romney's support for the interventionist status quo.
Yet the passion-less Romney is a poor substitute for the perennially angry McCain. It is
difficult to imagine Romney leading Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman on another apocalyptic
ride, demanding that death and destruction be visited upon an enemy du jour. Indeed, Romney
admitted as much, complained TheNew York Times , which noted that he said he
"would only speak out against Mr. Trump on issues of 'great significance,' which means not
much."
Worse, Romney is a typical denizen of Washington and lacks any connection to the disastrous
consequences of his policies. Give McCain credit: he and his sons served in the military. Not
Romney. He received four deferments during the Vietnam War, explaining that he "had other
plans." This sounds eerily like Dick Cheney, who said his five deferments reflected "other
priorities."
Moreover, none of Romney's five sons served. That is, of course, their prerogative. But
their decision further insulated Romney from any consequences of his policies. His response to
questions about their lack of service: "One of the ways my sons are showing support for our
nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president." Did Romney
believe working for him was as dangerous as fighting Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah? Or that his
personal interest in winning the election was as important as the nation winning a war?
My friend William Smith at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at Catholic University
argued that Romney's article "is another clear sign that the bipartisan political establishment
is largely oblivious to the terrible tragedy of wartime casualties disproportionately inflicted
on certain communities." Candidate Trump did particularly well in states that so suffered.
Complained Smith: "What is astonishing is that, after all this tragedy, Romney offers only
cliched neoconservative bromides to the many heartbroken communities across the nation."
However, The Blob, which dominates foreign policy under both parties, poses an even larger
problem. These policymakers consider permanent war to be America's natural condition. They seek
to suppress dissident views to ensure united support for permanent war. Anyone who hesitates to
back every proposed new intervention is demonized and marginalized.
The favorite technique, recently employed by Frederick Kagan in The Hill, is to call
opponents, irrespective of their actual positions, "isolationists." Thus did Kagan urge left
and right "internationalists" -- meaning military interventionists -- to work together to
defend "the principle that the United States must remain actively engaged in the world," by
which he meant warring without end on multiple countries.
Exclaimed Kagan: "The isolationists who have condemned the United States involvement in the
Middle East and the rest of the world for decades are about to get their wish. We will witness
what the world looks like when left to its own devices."
Egads. Imagine what might have happened had the U.S. not intervened in the Lebanese Civil
War, armed Turkey to kill tens of thousands of Kurds and destroy thousands of Kurdish villages,
invaded Iraq and triggered sectarian conflict, fostered civil war in Libya and the chaos that
followed, supported decades of violent occupation over millions of Palestinians by Israel,
backed murderous Saudi Arabia in Bahrain and Yemen, supported a coup against Iran's
democratically elected government and a brutal invasion backed by chemical weapons against
Iran's Islamist regime, actively underwritten tyranny across the Middle East, and tried to sort
out the Syrian Civil War. Something bad might have happened.
Yeah.
In Syria, Kagan views as "isolationist" the withdrawal of an illegal military deployment
that risks violent confrontation with Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Russia over minor stakes. In
contrast, "internationalism" means war everywhere all the time, especially in a country like
Syria.
Trump, complained Kagan, is leaving "Afghanistan for no clear reason whatsoever." No reason
other than Washington long ago having achieved its objective of degrading and displacing
al-Qaeda and punishing the Taliban for hosting al-Qaeda. And eventually having recognized,
after more than 17 years passed, trillions of dollars were spent, and thousands of lives were
lost, that using force to create a liberal democracy in Central Asia is a fool's errand. Why
leave, indeed?
It has oft been recognized that Donald Trump is a flawed vehicle to achieve almost any
foreign policy end. However, he still possesses far more common sense than Mitt Romney. It is
time to rescue "internationalism" from those who love humanity so much that they would destroy
the world in order to save it.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
.MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
"No reason other than Washington long ago having achieved its objective of degrading and
displacing al-Qaeda and punishing the Taliban for hosting al-Qaeda."
One should avoid the back pedal here. the Taliban did not host Al Quaeda in the manner
your reference suggests.
I truly voted against Romney when he ran for president because of his omnidirectional
belligerence. I also didn't like his vulture capitalism style (and I did technical due
diligence for venture capital activities as a side line).
Romney just guaranteed that he won't get the nomination. Amazing, really, stupid and
gratuitous.
He could at the least have shown a little "growth" in the direction of populist disgust with
the wasteful, reckless, failed wars, not to mention concerns about the growth of government and
corporate mass surveillance of the public, and the continuing unholy collaboration between Wall
Street, Silicon Valley, and Washington in ripping off taxpayers and importing cheap labor to
take American jobs.
Not Mitt. He seems to think he's running for president of our utterly discredited,
pseudo-meritocratic "Establishment".
Let's all thank the knuckle-headed Utahns for delivering another unimaginative empty suit to
the Nation's State House. Sure, Trump is often a boor, and unmistakably human, but give me a
man-child with conviction and Devil-may-care determination over a dapper dolt whose ideas are
contrived platitudes and whose passion is a Macbeth-like obsession with stature and power any
day of the week and twice on Sunday. Well written Mr. Bandow! Keep fighting the good fight.
I get the sense that the "isolationist" line doesn't work any more. It was a commonly used
rhetorical weapon 10 years ago, and it effectively silenced opposition. Now it's not used much,
and it seems to be ignored or derided when it is used. Most Americans understand now that
maintaining and expanding an empire is destroying us.
You really don't get Romney, do you. Who are you to decided what anyone sees or feels. Do you
think you could use the word seems like a professional journalist. I don't construe
Romney that way. You SEEM to put words in his mouth and thought in his head. Please be
professional.
My take is Mitt see's himself as a Gerald Ford calming effect, for this 4 year disruption, the
Swamp battles with. The Deep state needs an impeachment win and soon. With that said it will be
ever difficult for the Beltway to change Americans perception , they don't trust the
government.
For someone so smart Romney should realize that Americans will reject him (again), when he
takes up the mantle of McCain (again) as quickly as they did the last time. But that he fails
to realize that substance trumps form, which is why 67 million Americans voted for the
President, demonstrates what a shallow narcisst and sociopath he is. I mean, it's okay to rob
your neighbor so long as you say "please" and "thank you," isn't it?
The writer states: "Now Romney is being touted as the new standard-bearer for the bipartisan
War Party, filling in for John McCain."
I believe The "War Party" are:
"The Maniacs of Militarism"
The maniacs of militarism are creating wars
Countries are bombed by warmongering whores
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and other countries too
Are hell holes of the earth, "The work," of this insane crew
Enabled by politicians in positions of power
These well dressed war criminals hide and cower
The generals salute their political masters
Then the brainwashed obey these bemedaled disasters
Cities are destroyed and reduced to rubble
Where are the perpetrators that created all this trouble?
They are residing in luxury and given fancy titles
War crimes trials are needed, and are so vital
But this is not happening: the system is corrupted
And these evil beings, by some are worshiped
Blood-soaked villains that never do the fighting
They are the "experts" that do the inciting
They are the producers of death and destruction
Others are profiteers of all the bloody actions
Missiles, bombs and horrendous weapons
There is no end to the endless aggression
Millions are dead, and millions are homeless
Millions are refugees, and all this is atrocious
Once they had jobs, families, and homes as well
Then their countries were bombed by the agents from hell
Setting the world on fire is what these war arsonists do
The money for their depredations comes from me and you
They have made us all accessories to their criminal acts
Our Taxes are the blood money and that is a fact
Will the people ever say: "We have had enough"?
And put all these villains in secure handcuffs
Then lock them up in maximum security prisons
Then, we can say "goodbye" to the maniacs of militarism
[more info at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-maniacs-of-militarism.html
-- --
And:
"More War "
More war is needed to keep armies trained and employed
More wars are needed so that countries can be destroyed
More killing, bombing, destruction and death
More of this is needed until the victims have nothing left
[read more at link below]
Romney is such an empty suit i'm not sure if he isn't weakening his position just by virtue
that, he Romney, supports it.
Does this guy inspire anyone to any emotion other than revulsion? Along with Hillary, they
both strike me both as elites who want to become president, not from any actual passions or
desires, but because they've run out of other things to add to their C.V.
The only thing I can say with certainty that Mitt Romney believes in, is Mitt Romney. So I'm
intensely skeptical that ANYONE in America, aside from the most firebrand resistance types, are
going to take anything coming out of this corporate drone's mouth with any seriousness. And
even for the resistance types the support would equally follow a labrador retriever, just so
long as it opposed Trump, so Mitt doesn't even have that thin thread of loyatly going for
him.
I guess that leaves him with the neocons as BFFs. They're welcome to each other.
Why are we ragging on Romney? Is it because he had the audacity to criticize Trump? Shouldn't
we wait until he actually does something bad before ragging on him? Has he lied 6,000 times in
the last few years, for example? Did he refuse to rake the forests?
I think Romney is simply miffed that the boorish Trump became president and he did not and
sadly, he may be running for president again. I think someone used the word revulsion about
Romney. I approve. It's ironic the boorish Trump isn't nearly as revolting as the urbane Mitt.
@Mike Clements
For me it's the straw man arguments that are most egregious. As an Arizonan, I knew John
McCain, and Romney is no McCain (whose like we will never see again, if we're lucky).
Just to single out one objection to Mr. Bandow's argument: Romney didn't refer to the SOFA,
which supposedly required Obama to abandon Iraq, for the very good reason that Leon Panetta,
who should know, has said that Obama, with plenty of time to do it, made no effort whatsoever
to re-negotiate the SOFA 2011 deadline. Panetta regrets this and so do I.
Romney is the epitome of the decay of the USA. Further, he shows the complete inability of the
Republican party to choose the correct casting. After Bush and Iraq they propose McPain. After
the Great Financial Crisis they propose Mittens. It's akin to cast Dany de Vito to play
Casanova. When Trump is gone, this party is finished.
I approve. It's ironic the boorish Trump isn't nearly as revolting as the urbane Mitt.
That Americans are revolted more by Romney than by Trump, in fact, speaks well for them. All
morally mature folk should be repelled more by a polite, urbane, well-scrubbed pirate, who made
his fortune destroying people's lives and wealth than by a loud-talking, crude womanizer, who
creates wealth and, in fact, shows his concern for the people below him more than the polite,
charming, well-bred pirate.
@Jeeves, Obama would have stayed in Iraq if the Iraqi's had allowed us to continue to kill with
impunity. Thankfully, they said no. And why on earth would you regret us not negotiating a new
SOFA?
If Utah has a problem with Trump they could have elected a Democrat.
Romney is obsolete. Never Trump Republicans are sinking in a tar pit. Romney cannot be
nominated much less elected even if Trump does not run. He can help with the impeachment of
Trump if it comes to that. But again, a Democrat would be more useful.
"... What's 5 billion dollars for a largely useless wall compared to this. The mind boggles. ..."
"... "People say the Pentagon does not have a strategy. They are wrong. The Pentagon does have a strategy; it is 'Don't interrupt the money flow, add to it.'" -Col. John R. Boyd (USAF Ret.) John Boyd (Fighter Pilot, Tactician, Strategist, Conceptual Designer, Reformer) died in 1997. ..."
Those Porky Pentagon Earmarks Never Really Went
AwayIn fact, the new scheme is even more venal, underhanded, and wasteful. By
Winslow T. Wheeler
•
January 11, 2019
Michael
Hogue In past years, Congress has become notorious for adding dubious items we call "pork" to
spending bills. That way, senators and House members can advertise themselves to their
constituents as bringing home the bacon, while picking up a few campaign contributions from
thankful contractors along the way.
This practice was particularly notorious in defense bills, especially, and only became worse
during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After they were exposed spending billions of taxpayer
dollars for earmarked projects like museums, artificial lungs, and VIP air transports for
senior generals, bureaucrats, and lawmakers, Congress supposedly reformed the practice of
earmarking -- first in 2007 by the Democrats in the majority, and again in 2011 by the
Republicans in the majority, who claimed to have banned them altogether.
In truth, both parties in Congress have simply swapped the pork system for a scheme that is
even more venal and underhanded. They've circumvented their own rules and are putting even more
pork in defense bills than before. They hypocritically proclaim that their bills are
earmark-free, while simultaneously boasting about the pork to constituents. They deceptively
pay for the hidden earmarks by raiding essential accounts for soldiers' pay and military
readiness, and they readily accept hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions
from the very contractors who received huge chunks of the billions of dollars that Congress
added.
The new pork system is deceptive and complex. It took all of my 31 years of experience on
Capitol Hill to fully unravel it, with the help of some excellent research from two outstanding
watchdog groups, Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Taxpayers Protection
Alliance.
Advertisement
To explain, let's start with one of the more brazen acts of hypocrisy.
On October 22, Niels Lesniewski
reported in Roll Call that 10 senators from both parties announced
in a letter to the House and Senate leadership that they wanted to strengthen the existing
ban on earmarks and make it impossible for anyone to "bring back earmarks" as President Donald
Trump and others have
suggested . Their
new bill , they said, would impose even more serious procedural blocks on any earmark in
any bill. But the bill, the senators' press release, and their letter are a sham. Another
Roll Call reporter pointed out that gimmicks
and various porky items in a new
Department of Defense appropriations bill gave the lie to the idea that contemporary bills were
free of earmarks. And Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance noted at
the same time that the new DoD appropriations bill, just signed into law, was already stuffed
with hundreds of earmarks costing billions of dollars.
The explanation of Congress's new, more deceptive and expensive pork system starts with
Trump declaring
that "America is being respected again" on September 28, while signing an appropriations
bill into law that provided $675 billion to the Pentagon. The bill was passed in the House
of Representatives with the vote of four of every five House members and in the Senate with
almost nine of every 10 senators.
Speech after speech credited the bill with solving the problem of planes that cannot fly,
ships with repairs delayed for years, and pay increases for soldiers who deserve more for their
service.
Notably, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top-ranking Democrat on the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, praised the bill he helped
to write, saying , "The
priority of this defense bill is supporting our troops . This bill shows what Democrats and
Republicans can accomplish when we work across the aisle to solve problems." The chairman of
the subcommittee, Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, who had an even larger hand in
shaping the bill,
said , "I am proud to present this legislation to my colleagues and urge their strong
support."
The issues they didn't talk about
Despite numerous speeches in the congressional record praising the defense spending bill,
important details attracted not one word of discussion. The bill was riddled with earmarks, and
the very pay and military readiness accounts that member after member praised were being raided
to pay for it. This is hardly new. In my three decades on Capitol Hill, this behavior was
typical -- and even self-styled "pork busters" including, I regret to say, the recently passed
Senator John McCain, were known to participate. Despite the rule changes in 2007 and 2011,
nothing ultimately changed for the better. Today, the money flow for earmarks has greatly
increased, and the process that was once evident with a little inspection has been almost
totally obscured.
What earmarks? The legislation has none; it says so. The joint explanatory statement (JES)
for the defense spending bill, which purports to clarify the statutory text, contains the
following on page two : "The
conference agreement does not contain any congressional earmarks as defined by clause 9 of rule
XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives."
That rule defines an earmark as
spending specifically requested by a member of Congress for "an entity, or targeted to a
specific State, locality or congressional district ." But simply fuzz up the authorship,
recipient, or location of an added spending item, and it transforms from an earmark to a
"congressional special interest item." There are hundreds of those, most of them buried in
sparsely worded tables in the JES.
But these congressional special interest items are important: the conference committee that
wrote the JES went to some length to cite them to the Pentagon for special treatment; they made
the congressional special interest items subject to special rules to prevent DoD from reducing
the amount to be spent. That conference committee, appointed to resolve differences between the
House and Senate versions of the bill, consisted of senior members of the same House and Senate
defense appropriations subcommittees who wrote the original bills, such as Senators Durbin and
Shelby.
Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS)
reported that 68 procurement programs in this defense bill received $7.5 billion in new,
unrequested spending, a large portion
going to the Lockheed Corporation. These are blatant earmarks, as explained by TCS, which also
pointed out that the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee added $5.6 billion to the
procurement account for these items, while its Senate counterpart added a more generous $6.2
billion. The bill was "compromised" by the conference committee at a level above both: $7.5
billion.
The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) tabulated
all the add-ons in the bill -- not just the 68 in Procurement -- above the Pentagon's
request. Again, the Senate Defense Subcommittee proved more generous than the House, and again
the final conference was higher than either subcommittee's recommendation. TPA found 679
earmarks costing $19.3 billion.
Pigs in a poke
Are these earmarks all pork, that is, poorly justified spending slipped into bills to enable
a member to boast that he or she can "bring home the bacon" for jobs back home or to appease
defense corporations?
The authors of this bill don't want you to know. In the past, earmarks would specify things
like "Intrepid Naval Museum," "Fort Richardson Running Trail," or "Fort Huachuca Readiness
Center" as the recipient, and for a short period, committee reports identified them and their
House or Senate sponsors.
Now, none of that is done. Instead, sparsely worded tables contain vague entries like
"Program Increase." Many add a hint such as designating the increase for "modernization" or
"silicon fiber research." But there is nothing to indicate the state or district, the
contractor, or any other specifics. Hence, they do not technically qualify as "earmarks."
However, after the bill is law, congressional staff contact the Pentagon to make sure it knows
where the money is to go -- and what will happen if it doesn't.
The rules meant to reform earmarking have made the practice worse. It is now more opaque,
and it gobbles up more money than ever. The $19.3 billion TPA found in 2019 absolutely dwarfs
the
amounts that I and others, such as the Congressional Research Service and the
Committee
Against Government Waste , found in these bills before the so-called reforms took hold.
Perhaps the biggest joke is the recent debate on whether it would be a good idea to "bring
back earmarks." They never went away. The hypocrisy of the members who opine on this is only
exceeded by the cluelessness of the press and the president, who raised it as something to
ponder. Then there's the mendacity of those 10 senators who designed their phony legislation to
pretend earmarks are gone and must not be allowed to come back. The last section of their bill
reads as follows : "(e) APPLICATION. -- This section shall not apply to any authorization
of appropriations to a Federal entity if such authorization is not specifically targeted to a
State, locality, or congressional district."
Yes, you are reading that right: the bill exempts any earmark that fuzzes up the targeted
location, and under the existing system that would be all of them. The 10 authors of this fraud
are the following: Senators Claire McCaskill, Jeff Flake, Pat Toomey, Mike Lee, Ben Sasse, Rob
Portman, Joni Ernst, James Lankford, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz.
Too big to be hidden
Despite the carefully applied opacity, some of the biggest giveaways and their authors are
clear. The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee chairwoman, Texas Republican Kay Granger,
was widely
identified as behind $726 million added for six additional F-35Cs to be built by Lockheed
in her Fort Worth congressional district.
But is this an example of pork? Granger and official Pentagon witnesses would surely testify
that more F-35Cs are urgently needed. Others, including myself and colleagues at the Project on
Government Oversight, will tell you that the F-35 is an ineffective
boondoggle and is
not ready for initial operational testing, let alone expanded production. However, despite
many critical Government Accountability Office evaluations and embarrassing official and
leaked reports from
the Pentagon, the majority of Congress rejects such advice and welcomes more F-35 spending.
Pork is in the eye of the beholder.
However, such easily identified earmarks are few and far between.
Trump requested
$676 billion for the defense bill; the final Conference Report reduced that by $1.1 billion to
$674.9 billion. How was the additional $19.3 billion found by TPA for 679 earmarks stuffed into
a bill that cut spending?
While publicly
touting the "largest pay raise for troops in nearly a decade" and claiming the bill
"improves military readiness," Defense Subcommittee Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Durbin, and
other authors actually cut the budget for both.
They reduced
the Pentagon's request for military pay, the Military Personnel account, by $2.1 billion.
That's right: while praising themselves for supporting higher pay, they actually cut the budget
for it. The request was $148.2 billion; the bill provided $146.1 billion.
Praising their handiwork on supporting military readiness, they
cut the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) request from the Pentagon by $5.8 billion.
O&M is a huge diverse account, but it is also the heart and core of spending for training,
maintenance, spare parts, military depots, and everything else that means "readiness." The
Pentagon requested $199.5 billion; it got $193.7 billion.
The way they cut both the Military Personnel and O&M accounts was notably duplicitous. A
veteran journalist, John M. Donnelly, reported
in Roll Call that most cuts were obtusely justified with explanations such as
"Revised Estimate," "Historical Unobligated Balances," and "Not Properly Accounted."
My own research shows $809 million of cuts in those "Revised Estimates." They are completely
unexplained in any text and neither committee report from the House or Senate appropriations
committees mentions any such reduction. They appear to have been an invention of the conference
committee.
When I worked for a Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee member (Republican Senator
Pete Domenici of New Mexico), I observed staffers being instructed to phony up reductions with
just such a ruse. In one case, to make room for all senators' earmarks, the subcommittee
chairman, Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, directed the staff to use the earmark
dollar total to determine the cuts to be announced. I suspect this crude offset technique
underlies the "revised estimates" that appeared out of nowhere.
In both R&D and Procurement, they cut $1.5 billion using "Historical Unobligated
Balances" or "Historical Unobligations" as a reason. An unobligated balance is money that DoD
has planned but not yet spent: the program may be behind schedule, or it may be on schedule,
but the timetable for sending out the money has not occurred yet. Here, some unidentified actor
took the money away without a word of explanation as to what parts of the program were being
lost or why.
The "Not Properly Accounted" justification meant $706 million in unexplained cuts.
Another term in the bill is "Rate Adjustments"; they cut $124 million. How is this different
from "Revised Estimate" or "Historical Unobligated Balances?" The House Defense Subcommittee
contains not a word of explanation. The Senate
Defense Subcommittee report contains assertions of "Improving funds management: Rate
adjustments," but that is all the explanation you get.
Further indecipherable cuts included "Unjustified Growth," another $1.1 billion; "Excess
Growth," $468 million; "Underexecution," $134 million; and "Insufficient Justification," $35
million.
Yet another ruse was to transfer $2 billion out of the O&M budget to Title IX of the
bill that funds the "Global War on Terrorism." But there, only $1.4 billion of the transferred
$2 billion is actually retained. The transfer is a shell game.
There are other ruses in other parts of the bill; the details are mind-bending, but you get
the point.
They were cutting military pay and readiness accounts so they could add to the DoD Research
and Development (R&D) and the Procurement accounts. That's where the vast majority of the
earmarks -- rather, congressional special interest items -- are.
In R&D they added
$3.9 billion to the Pentagon's request. The account went from $91 billion to $94.9 billion. In
Procurement, they added
$4.8 billion to the Pentagon's request of $130.6 billion. Some of the earmarks in these
accounts were huge. The controversial F-35 got over $2 billion in several earmarks, the
notorious Littoral Combat Ship got $950 million, unrequested C-130s got $640 million, and so
on.
Other unspoken consequences
While money over the years was being redirected to earmarks, something very different was
happening at the other end of the world -- among our operating military forces.
On January 8, 2014, 29-year-old Liuetenant Wes Van Dorn died when his MH-53E Sea Dragon
helicopter, beset with maintenance problems the Navy had deferred, caught fire due to frayed
wires and a leaking fuel line. He had been battling for three years to get adequate spare parts
and much-needed refurbishment work to bring these old and unreliable helicopters up to
minimally safe flying condition. His was only one of
several lethal accidents involving the MH-53E resulting from inadequate maintenance, as
reported by Mike Hixenbaugh and others in the The Virginian-Pilot and in a
new documentary by investigative reporter Zachary Stauffer.
Such accidents resulted from raiding O&M money, such as in 2010 when, for example,
Democratic Defense Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha of Pennsylvania cut O&M by a
net $2.3 billion to stuff money into earmarks.
Advertising the earmarks they said didn't exist
Though their legislation proclaims earmarks banned, the authors of the defense bill changed
their tune when they self-advertised to constituents.
In a press release from his personal office, Senator Dick Durbin
declared , "From Rock Island Arsenal to Scott Airforce Base and Naval Station Great Lakes,
Illinois [t]his bill safeguards Illinois defense jobs by continuing investments in our state's
defense installations and initiatives." Durbin took credit for funding nine programs in
Illinois, costing $2.8 billion, most of it for Boeing -- headquartered in Chicago and the
producer of the Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornet and MQ-25 Stingray refueling drone.
Subcommittee Chairman Shelby
claimed he helped acquire $8.3 billion for 25 projects in Alabama.
Granger
claimed she helped win over $12.3 billion for Fort Worth -- including $9.4 billion for
Lockheed's F-35, $1.8 billion for Lockheed's C-130J, and $1.1 billion for the Bell Boeing
V-22.
Note that they each claimed credit not just for their add-ons but for the entire program
expense, including both the Pentagon-requested money and money spent outside their states or
districts. For example, the C-130 is assembled in Marietta, Georgia, not Durbin's Illinois, and
the F-18's engines are contracted by General Electric in Ohio. In fact, the entire F-18 is
fabricated in Missouri; Durbin is advertising himself not to workers but to the Boeing
headquarters.
The ranking member on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Pete J. Visclosky of
Indiana, did not participate in these overblown claims. His website shows no press release
listing defense budget goodies for his Indiana district.
The under the table incentives
On the other hand, Visclosky was no shrinking violet when it came to accepting campaign
contributions from the corporations benefiting from the legislation's earmarks.
OpenSecrets.org, a project of the Center for Responsive Politics that documents federal
campaign contributions, shows that for his 2018 reelection campaign, Visclosky
accepted $347,933 from defense-related donors,
$59,800 of it from Lockheed . The $347,933 constituted 27 percent of Visclosky's
total campaign contributions , reported as of November 2018. For these and other efforts,
Visclosky is getting a promotion: with the Democrats taking over the House next year, he is
slated to be defense subcommittee chairman.
The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member, Senator Durbin, does not run
for reelection until 2020. The OpenSecrets.org data on his last election in 2014 show that
Durbin
accepted $236,549 from defense aerospace donors, making him the Senate's top beneficiary of
such donations at the time. Adding other defense contribution categories, he
took in $455,799 .
Senator Shelby's total reported defense-related contributions for his reelection in 2016,
before he became defense subcommittee chairman, were $334,800. Commensurate with his elevation
to chairman in 2018, he
received $1,048,000 , nearly tripling his defense-related total, and he is four years away
from his next campaign in 2022.
Granger, Durbin, and the others will resent any implication that their actions are
influenced by the generosity of Lockheed or other defense contractors, lobbyists, and PACs.
Indeed, campaign finance laws, as written by Congress, make it
hard to conclude that contributions illegally influence congressional decision-making, and
a recent
Supreme Court ruling makes it even more difficult.
The bottom line
All this adds up to a Pentagon budget process in Congress that is:
Dishonest : The
bill and its authors proclaim it is free of earmarks, but it has 679 of them costing $19.3
billion according to research from an independent group. Deceptive : The bill's authors,
with huge support from the rest of Congress, proclaim their dedication to better pay for the
troops and military readiness, and yet cut those very accounts by almost $8 billion. The
reductions are arbitrary and vague, and are used to offset those 679 earmarks. The senators and
representatives circumvent their own rules on earmarks by fuzzing up sponsors, recipients, and
locations, making the entire process opaque. Hypocritical : Imagine the gall of nine
Republicans and one Democrat with their bill to profess earmarks gone and making sure they
don't "come back." There is nothing new about members of Congress posing as pork reformers and
actually being pork enablers; however, these 10 assume an unprecedented level of cluelessness
among the press; in some but not all corners, they were right to do so. Mercenary :
$19.3 billion in earmarks makes rich material for senators and representatives to advertise
themselves, with considerable exaggeration, as successful porkers for their states and
districts. They also accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from the contractors, lobbyists,
and PACs that benefit from the millions, if not billions, of dollars that the Pentagon never
requested.
All this is not illegal, but according to common English, it is venal.
Winslow T. Wheeler worked in the U.S. Senate for Republican and Democratic senators and
in the Government Accountability Office on national security issues for 31 years. After he left
the Senate in 2002, he ran the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense
Information, which moved to the Project on Government Oversight in 2012. He retired in
2016.
"People say the Pentagon does not have a strategy. They are wrong. The Pentagon does have a
strategy; it is 'Don't interrupt the money flow, add to it.'" -Col. John R. Boyd (USAF Ret.)
John Boyd (Fighter Pilot, Tactician, Strategist, Conceptual Designer, Reformer) died in
1997.
This is a solid article by a very respected critic of the obscene defense spending and weapons
programs. I believe Mr Wheeler early on was on this F-35 debacle, labeling it the flying swiss
army knife. (aplogies to the manufacturer of the knife and its fans.) Notable of recent are a
series of feel good reports that the F-35 is combat ready, etc. Hopefully, the pilots of the
F-35's will never have to face the real test.
Thank you, Mr Wheeler, for the continuation of exposing this fraud.
Now that we are well into this new era of draining the swamp, we are all over our heads in muck
and democracy AND prosperity are in danger of drowning. Venal is awfully polite.
who has spent time in Ukraine knows how deep hatred of Russia goes
I don't know where is Ukraine you spent your time and in what company, but this is
complete BS. The South-Eastern Ukraine hates the Western Ukrainian "banderovtsi" as much as
the Russians do if not more -- after all, the followers of Bandera operated mostly on the
Ukrainian soil. There are deranged individuals in every country, of course, and Ukraine has
been subjected lately to intense hate propaganda as well as repressions, but there is no
hatred of Russia. This is contradicted by both sociology and everyday behavior of Ukrainian,
which move to Russia in droves, spend time in Russia, support Russian sport teams, etc.
we are supposed to dismiss the actual wishes of Ukrainians, Estonians, Poles, Georgians
and other peoples who hate Russia (and love the US)
Nobody is asking about what the real Ukrainians, Estonians, Georgians or even Poles
actually think, least of all the US. There are almost as many Georgians living in Russia as
there are in Georgia, and they show no desire to move back. In 2008 during the conflict,
their biggest fear was that they'd be deported.
The Ukraine's Maidan was a violent coup, where a few thousand militants armed and trained
abroad overthrew a government elected by the entire country. Protests that immediately
started all over the country were suppressed with force -- the one in Donbass still is.
How could anyone with an access to Internet remain unaware of these facts is beyond
me.
@Peter
Akuleyev Why should anyone freaking care and put his ass in the line of fire because you
bunch of primitives hate Russia? Between having a nuclear cataclysm because you pathetic
dwarfs of nations are frustrated to have a neighbour you can't bully and Russia obliterating
you, I say let Russia obliterate you, thus we won't have to suffer the ear-hurting
dissonnance of your incessant whining any more. Though I doubt Russia would stomp on you.
When you see shit, you don't stomp on it, you don't want you don't want your shoes to stink,
you just walk around it.
@EugeneGur
That's an interesting point. Even if true, doesn't matter. One could wonder ..who are the
people populating Ukrainian Armed Forces?
Or who are the guys, in Ukrainian Armed Forces, presently engaged against Donbass? All of
them. Including those is logistics/maintenance depots far away from the (current) line of
separation?
The will to fight against "Russia" ranges from a deep hate to simply not wishing to go
against the (current) Ukrainian government. The former are in those "shock" battalions. The
later are manning the logistics train. And everything in between.
Now .if/when a real shooting starts, as soon as Russia, as expected (and desired) by the
most of readers here, starts delivering ordnance into operational depth of Donbass enemy, the
ratio hate/don't care shall shift, hard and fast. Not in Russian favor, I suspect.
In my opinion, no dementia. Too many careers and institutions are built on continuing
hostility towards Russia. First ECB President Duisenberg's ph d thesis had as title 'The
economic consequences of peace', something like that, his conclusion was that
demilitarization was possible economically, when controlled sensibly.
Did anyone read 'The Iron Mountain Report', I never quite knew what to make of it, but it
also is about if demilitarization is possible. Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American
Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990 describes how the USA weapons industry skillfully
prevents that spending on useless weapons diminishes. The history of the later Roman empire,
the army in control.
Naomi Klein's book "Shock Doctrine", encapsulated by this post as "global elites used periods of crisis around the world to force
damaging neoliberal policies derived from the Chicago School and Washington Consensus upon unhappy populations that suffered greatly
as a result."
Notable quotes:
"... Eventually, Poland emerged as the major US agent of influence within the EU (along with GB) with the adamant anti-Russian stance. Which taking into account the real state of Polish manufacturing deprived of the major market is very questionable. Later by joining sanctions, they lost Russian agricultural market (including all apple market in which they have a prominent position). ..."
"... Gowan's book, Global Gamble, is also good on the details of shock therapy in the former Warsaw Pact nations. One key problem was that shock therapy partly rested on he assumption that western European buyers would want to invest in modernizing plant and equipment in industries they acquired, but it quickly turned out that the German and other western buyers were really interested only in acquiring new MARKETS for their own products. ..."
"... I remember a couple of paragraphs about Poland in my Economics 101 course, some 20 years ago. Was it in in Mankiw's book? or Lipsey-Chrystal? I do not remember anymore. One of those vicious neoliberal propaganda mouthpieces, anyway. The textbook pitched Poland's success story against Russia's abject failure, claiming that the former had dismantled and shut down all its inefficient state-run companies, while the latter still kept its unprofitable heavy industry on life support. ..."
"... Somehow neoclassical economists always distort history into a cartoonish parody that confirms their models. ..."
"... If you looked carefully, you could still find older books, barely touched, that touted Albania as a neoliberal success story along the same lines as Poland. Albania almost collapsed in civil war in 1998. ..."
"... The author's criticism doesn't really address Klein's central points at all, which would be that the crisis was used as leverage to ram through otherwise politically unpalatable change, and that a great deal of the constraint forcing that was provided by actors both undemocratic and external. He seems to be of the school that regards such niceties as beside the point, as long as various macroaggregates eventually rose. ..."
"... Any discussion of the Polish economy that completely ignores this massive level of economic outmigration, and it's continued rise among the young, misses a great deal. In a vibrant economy, it seems unlikely that so many educated Poles would find, for example, lower tier jobs in Britain to be their best path forward. ..."
"... Out-migration is a huge factor in eastern and central Europe and without it, the picture would look entirely different. The Baltics, Bulgaria and Romania are even more affected. ..."
"... Inter-war Poland is celebrated a lot in Poland these days, conveniently ignoring the facts it was really a totalitarian state – when Czechoslovakia was Muniched in 1938, Poles (and Hugarians) were quick to grab bits of territory right after that. ..."
"... Poland has taken around a million Ukrainians over the past ten years so while many Poles are emigrating to Europe, they are being replaced by Ukrainians, who are ethnically and linguistically fairly similar to Poles. ..."
The argument largely seems to hold for the original poster boy example in Chile with the Pinochet coup against the socialist Allende
regime. A military coup replaced a democratically government. Whiole Chlle was experiencing a serious inflation, it was not in a
full-blown economic collapse. The coup was supported by US leaders Nixon and Kissinger, who saw themselves preventing the emergence
of pro-Soviet regime resembling Castro's Cuba. Thousands were killed, and a sweeping set of laisssez faire policies were imposed
with the active participation of "Chicago Boys" associated with Milton Friedman. In fact, aside from bringing down inflation these
rreforms did not initially improve economic performance, even as foreign capital flowed in, especially into the copper industry,
although the core of that industry remained nationalized. After several years the Chicago Boys were sent away and more moderate policies,
including a reimposition of controls on foreign capital flows, the economy did grow quite rapidly. But this left a deeply unequal
income distribution in place, which would largely remain the case even after Pinochet was removed from power and parliamentary democracy
returned.
This scenario was argued to happen in many other narions, especially those in the former Sovit bloc as the soviet Union disintegrated
and its successor states and the former members of the Soviet bloc in the CMEA and Warsaw Pact also moved to some sort of market
capitalism imposed from outside with policies funded by the IMF and following the Washington Consensus. Although he has since expressed
regret for this role in this, a key player linking what was done in several Latin American nations and what went down after 1989
in Eastern and Central Europe was Jeffrey Sachs. Klein's discussion especially of what went down in Russia also looks pretty sound
by and large, wtthout dragging through the details, although in these cases the political shift was from dictatorships run by Communist
parties dominated out of Moscow to at least somewhat more democratic governments, although not in all of the former Soviet republics
such as in Central Asia and with many of these later backsliding towards more authoritarian governments later. In Russia and in many
oothers large numbers of people were thrown into poverty from which they have not recovered. Klein has also extended this argument
to other nations, including South Africa after the end of apartheid.
likbez
The level of the naivety of Barkley Rosser is astounding.
Poland was a political project, the showcase for the neoliberal project in Eastern Europe and the USSR. EU was pressed to provide
large subsidies, and that marionette complied. The commenter ilpalazzo (above) is right that there has been " a tremendous development
in real estate and infrastructure mostly funded by the EU that has been a serious engine of growth." Like in Baltics and Ukraine,
German, French, Swedish and other Western buyers were most interested in opening market for their products and getting rid of
local and xUSSR competitors (and this supported and promoted Russophobia). With very few exceptions. University education system
also was partially destroyed, but still fared better than most manufacturing industries.
I remember talking to one of the Polish professors of economics when I was in Poland around 1992. He said that no matter how
things will develop, the Polish economy will never be allowed to fail as the USA is interested in propelling it at all costs.
That means that there was no CIA activity to undermine the financial system, deindustrialize the country, and possibly to partition
the county like it was in Russia with Harvard mafia (Summers, Shleifer, etc.)
Still, they lost quite a bit of manufacturing: for example all shipbuilding, which is ironic as Lech Wałęsa and Solidarity
emerged in this industry.
Eventually, Poland emerged as the major US agent of influence within the EU (along with GB) with the adamant anti-Russian
stance. Which taking into account the real state of Polish manufacturing deprived of the major market is very questionable. Later
by joining sanctions, they lost Russian agricultural market (including all apple market in which they have a prominent position).
But they have a large gas pipeline on their territory, so I suspect that like Ukraine they make a lot of money via transit
fees simply due to geographic. So they parochially live off rent -- that why they bark so much at North Stream 2.
Polish elite is a real horror show, almost beyond redemption, and not only in economics. I do not remember, but I think it
was Churchill who said " Poland is a greedy hyena of Europe." This is as true now as it was before WWII.
Now they are propelled by cheap labor from Ukraine, which they helped to destroy (along with Sweden and Germany)
My post seem to have vanished into oblivion so I'm pasting from the clipboard.
I am a Pole and have been a daily reader here since 2008. I hope a better versed compatriot will come out of the closet and
give a better picture (I know there are a few).
Let's just say the shock was pretty bad. In terms of amount of human suffering the worst was dissolving state owned farms.
Hundreds of thousands of people were just let go without any help, although many farms were profitable and others could be restructured
or converted into collectives etc. I live in a small town where there was a huge state farm and I can see former employees started
to recover and get by just recently judging by the looks of their dwellings.
Most of the manufacturing and heavy industry was sold off and extinguished. We used to have pretty decent capital producing
capabilities like tooling etc. Not a trace of that now. There is a lot being manufactured now here but mostly simple components
for german industry to assemble.
Pension system was thoroughly looted by you know who and is a ticking time bomb. Most of it was quasi privatized – that is
managed by western companies but still part of the state system. There were supposed to be individual saving accounts managed
by sophisticated investment specialists but the money ended up invested in state bonds, issued to subsidize it. Managing fee 7
– 10 percent charge on every payment into the system, regardless of performance, anyone? It was a heist of the century.
The ticking time bomb is because a large part of young people working now are working on non – permanent contracts that don't
pay benefits. These people won't have any pension at all and there are a lot of them.
Healthcare is single payer fund but heavily underfunded. Private practice and hospitals are allowed and skim most profitable
procedures leaving the rest to public fund. There are unrealistic limits on number of procedures so if you need to see a specialist
in July or later prepare to pay cash or wait till January.
Municipal service companies, at least the most lucrative ones have ben sold off to foreign investment funds. A few of our cities'
municipal companies, like central heating or energy have been sold off to german municipal companies (!). State telecom has been
sold off to french state telecom (and one of the biggest and most famous fortunes made).
Local printed press is 90% german corps owned.
This is a map of state rail company railways in 1988 and 2009 . It
has been a meme here for some time. It is true. Cancelled lines are the subsidized ones workers relied on to get to job. I closely
know a thousand years old town that had rail built in 1860 by germans and liquidated right in 1990. The populace is now halved,
all young emigrated, businesses dead. There have been a huge investment in freeways and other kind of roads so every one has to
own a car to get to her job. Most cars are used 10+ year old german imports. Polish car mechanic and body shops are the best in
the world specialists of german automotive produce.
I live in a small contry town that was a home to a wealthy aristocrat. There is a beautiful baroque palace and huge park, the
complex is literally a third part of town. After the war it was nationalized, there were sporting facilities built in the park
for locals and school pupils to use. The palace was re-purposed as medical facility and office complex for state farm management.
In the nineties the whole thing was given back to aristocrat descendants – a shady bunch hiding in Argentina AFAIR. They couldn't
afford to keep it so they sold it to a nouveau – riche real estate developer. He fenced the whole thing off and refurbished into
a sort of conference complex – it is underway and still not clear what's gonna happen with it. The effect is that a third of my
town that used to be public space is fenced off and off limits now.
To conclude, there has been a tremendous development in real estate and infrastructure mostly funded by the EU that has been
a serious engine of growth. Lot of people got mortgage and financed homes or flats and there has been a whole industry created
around it. A few crown jewel companies (copper mining, petroleum and other chemistry) are state owned. But most of the sophisticated
furnishings used in real estate are german made (there is german made nat gas furnace in 95% of newly built homes) etc. Two million
young people emigrated to work mostly to UK and Ireland. I'd lived in Dublin for a year in 2003 and there were Chinese people
as salespersons in groceries and seven – elevens everywhere, now there are Poles instead.
Recommended reading about the transformation years dealing is this book:
Thanks for this. Gowan's book, Global Gamble, is also good on the details of shock therapy in the former Warsaw Pact nations.
One key problem was that shock therapy partly rested on he assumption that western European buyers would want to invest in modernizing
plant and equipment in industries they acquired, but it quickly turned out that the German and other western buyers were really
interested only in acquiring new MARKETS for their own products.
And in agriculture, they both insisted on the elimination of subsidies within the eastern nations, and proceeded to use the
area as a dumping ground for their own (often subsidized) agricultural surpluses.
All this gets back, in my minuscule view, to failure to have a decent answer to one little question:
What kind of political economy do "we, the mopes" want to live within?
And related to that, what steps can and must "we, the mopes" take to get to that hopefully wiser, more decent, more homeostatic
and sustainable, political economy?
And it likely doesn't matter for us old folks (obligatory blast at Boomers as cause of all problems and distresses, dismissing
the roots and branches of "civilization," current patterns of consumption, and millennia of Progress), given what is "baked in"
and the current distribution of weatlhandpower. But maybe "we, the mopes" can at least go down fighting. Gilets Jaunes, 150 million
Indians, all that
But without an answer to the first question, though, not much chance of "better," is there? Except maybe locally, for the tiny
set of us mopes who know how to do community and commensalism and some other "C" words
"We, the mopes" could make some important and effective changes. Enough of us, and soon enough, to avoid or mitigate the Jackpot?
Thanks very much for this. Very graphic. So, if you would, could you explain who the Law and Justice Party is, and why they
won the election, and what exactly are they doing to make themselves popular? Are they in fact enacting certain social programs
that we can read about or are they primarily relying on something else, like mainly Catholic traditionalism, for their political
power?
I remember a couple of paragraphs about Poland in my Economics 101 course, some 20 years ago. Was it in in Mankiw's book?
or Lipsey-Chrystal? I do not remember anymore. One of those vicious neoliberal propaganda mouthpieces, anyway. The textbook pitched
Poland's success story against Russia's abject failure, claiming that the former had dismantled and shut down all its inefficient
state-run companies, while the latter still kept its unprofitable heavy industry on life support.
It is unsurprising to read that Poland followed a more nuanced approach. Somehow neoclassical economists always distort
history into a cartoonish parody that confirms their models.
That was in the early 2000s. The university was then brand new and was still filling the shelves of the library. If you
looked carefully, you could still find older books, barely touched, that touted Albania as a neoliberal success story along the
same lines as Poland. Albania almost collapsed in civil war in 1998.
Klein at least provided footnotes, and sources for her claims. Which are conspicuously absent from this piece.
The World Bank, (World Development Indicators, 2006), one of Klein's sources, has a nationwide poverty rate only for 1993,
and has it at 23% at that point, or between 2.3 times and more than 4 time the most common estimate he cites under the ancient
regime.
The same source has unemployment averaging 19.9% in 1990-92, and 19% in 2000-2004.
As to the later poverty rate, Klein's source is Przemyslaw Wielgosz, then editor of the Polish edition of le Monde Diplomatique,
who gives this: " Poles living below the 'social minimum' (defined as a living standard of Ł130 (192,4 EUR) per person and Ł297
(440,4 EUR) for a three person family per month) affecting 15% of the population in 1989 to 47% in 1996, and 59% in 2003." but
whence he obtains these figures he does not say. Given that it falls in a period when unemployment was pushing 20% for a prolonged
period, and that both the EU's subsidies and outmigration to the EU as an escape valve only start to kick in in 2003, the figure
seems not wildly implausible.
The author's criticism doesn't really address Klein's central points at all, which would be that the crisis was used as
leverage to ram through otherwise politically unpalatable change, and that a great deal of the constraint forcing that was provided
by actors both undemocratic and external. He seems to be of the school that regards such niceties as beside the point, as long
as various macroaggregates eventually rose.
The contrast between what was done, and what Solidarnosc had claimed to be all about when in opposition is incredibly striking,
basically the difference between libertarian Communism and uber Dirigisme style capitalism.
Any discussion of the Polish economy that completely ignores this massive level of economic outmigration, and it's continued
rise among the young, misses a great deal. In a vibrant economy, it seems unlikely that so many educated Poles would find, for
example, lower tier jobs in Britain to be their best path forward.
Yes, your unemployment and poverty rates are lower if a significant fraction of the population works elsewhere in the EU, and
reatriates the money. Though the pattern may cause a few other problems. (while many nations like to export their unemployment,
not everybody wants to import it.)
Out-migration is a huge factor in eastern and central Europe and without it, the picture would look entirely different.
The Baltics, Bulgaria and Romania are even more affected.
The migration from Poland does not have only economic reasons. A lot of Poles migrate because they find the polish society
(especially small towns and rural) very stiffling.
A friend of mine left Poland the moment she got her MSc – literally, the same day she was on a bus to Germany. She's now a
sucessfull woman, director level at a large consultancy. Yet her father calls her "old spinster" (this is the polite version),
as she wasn't maried by 30, and she basically avoids going to Poland.
She says she could never be as sucessfull in Poland, being a woman, and not being keen on marrying. I've heard similar stories
from young Poles, not just women.
Inter-war Poland is celebrated a lot in Poland these days, conveniently ignoring the facts it was really a totalitarian
state – when Czechoslovakia was Muniched in 1938, Poles (and Hugarians) were quick to grab bits of territory right after that.
Kasia, January 10, 2019 at 5:17 pm
Poland has taken around a million Ukrainians over the past ten years so while many Poles are emigrating to Europe, they
are being replaced by Ukrainians, who are ethnically and linguistically fairly similar to Poles.
So Poland is proof that nationalist, populist policies can indeed work. Poland has had to taken rough measures with our judicial
system and media to ensure globalist forces do not undermine our successes. No one, I mean no one, in Poland mouths the words,
"diversity is our strength". Internationalist, liberal minded people who are so susceptible to globalist propaganda, are generally
the ones leaving the nation. Indigenous Western Europeans who are suffering the joys of cultural enrichment and vibrant diversity
are starting to buy property in Eastern Europe - more Hungary than Poland - but as the globalists push even more multiculturalism
and continue to impoverish indigenous Europeans, Eastern Europe will become a shining beacon on the hill free of many of the evils
of globalisation.
Big brass and government executives play both sides of the military revolving door,
including "the only adult in the room."
Before he became lionized as the "only adult in the room" capable of standing up to
President Trump, General James Mattis was quite like any other brass scoping out a lucrative
second career in the defense industry. And as with other military giants parlaying their four
stars into a cushy boardroom chair or executive suite, he pushed and defended a sub-par product
while on both sides of the revolving door. Unfortunately for everyone involved, that contract
turned out to be an expensive fraud and a potential health hazard to the troops.
According to a
recent report by the Project on Government Oversight, 25 generals, nine admirals, 43
lieutenant generals, and 23 vice admirals retired to become lobbyists, board members,
executives, or consultants for the defense industry between 2008 and 2018. They are part of a
much larger group of 380 high-ranking government officials and congressional staff who shifted
into the industry in that time.
To get a sense of the demand, according to POGO, which had to compile all of this
information through Freedom of Information requests, there were 625 instances in 2018 alone in
which the top 20 defense contractors (think Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin) hired
senior DoD officials for high-paying jobs -- 90 percent of which could be described as
"influence peddling."
Back to Mattis. In 2012, while he was head of Central Command, the Marine General
pressed the Army to procure and deploy blood testing equipment from a Silicon Valley
company called Theranos. He communicated that he was having success with this effort directly
to Theranos's chief executive officer. Even though an Army health unit tried to terminate the
contract due to it's not meeting requirements, according to POGO, Mattis kept the pressure up.
Luckily, it was never used on the
battlefield.
Maybe it shouldn't be a surprise but upon retirement in 2013, Mattis asked a DoD counsel
about the ethics guiding future employment with Theranos. They advised against it. So Mattis
went to serve on its board instead for a $100,000 salary. Two years after Mattis quit to serve
as Trump's Pentagon chief in 2016, the two Theranos executives he worked with were indicted for
"massive"
fraud , perpetuating a "multi-million dollar scheme to defraud investors, doctors and
patients," and misrepresenting their product entirely. It was a fake.
But assuming this was Mattis's only foray into the private sector would be naive. When he
was tapped for defense secretary -- just three years after he left the military -- he was worth
upwards of $10 million . In addition to his retirement pay, which was close to $15,000 a
month at the time, he received $242,000 as a board member, plus as much as $1.2 million in
stock options in General Dynamics, the Pentagon's fourth largest contractor. He also disclosed
payments from other corporate boards, speech honorariums -- including $20,000 from defense
heavyweight Northrop Grumman -- and a whopping $410,000 from Stanford University's public
policy think tank the Hoover Institution for serving as a "distinguished visiting fellow."
Never for a moment think that Mattis won't land softly after he leaves Washington -- if he
leaves at all. Given his past record, he will likely follow a very long line, as illustrated by
POGO's explosive report, of DoD officials who have used their positions while inside the
government to represent the biggest recipients of federal funding on the outside. They then
join ex-congressional staffers and lawmakers on powerful committees who grease the skids on
Capitol Hill. And then they go to work for the very companies they've helped, fleshing out a
small army of executives, lobbyists, and board members with direct access to the power brokers
with the purse strings back on the inside.
Welcome to the Swamp
"[Mattis's' career course] is emblematic of how systemic the problem is," said Mandy
Smithberger, POGO's lead on the report and the director of its Center for Defense
Information.
"Private companies know how to protect their interests. We just wish there were more
protections for taxpayers."
When everything is engineered to get more business for the same select few, "when you have
a Department of Defense who sees it as their job to promote arms sales does this really serve
the interest of national security?"
That is something to chew on. If a system is so motivated by personal gain (civil servants
always mindful of campaign contributions and private sector job prospects) on one hand, and big
business profits on the other, is there room for merit or innovation? One need only look at
Lockheed's F-35 joint strike fighter, the most expensive
weapon system in history, which was relentlessly promoted over other programs by members of
Congress and within the Pentagon despite years of test failures and cost overruns , to see what
this gets you: planes that don't fly, weapons that don't work, and shortfalls in other parts of
the budget that don't matter to contractors like pilot training and maintenance of existing
systems.
"It comes down to two questions," Smithberger noted in an interview with TAC.
" Are we approving weapons systems that are safe or not? And are we putting
[servicemembers'] lives on the line" to benefit the interests of industry?
All of this is legal, she points out. Sure, there are rules -- "cooling off" periods before
government officials and members of Congress can lobby, consult, or work on contracts after
they leave their federal positions, or when industry people come in through the other side to
take positions in government. But Smithberger said they are "riddled with loopholes" and lack
of enforcement.
Case in point: current acting DoD Secretary Patrick Shanahan spent
31 years working for Boeing , which gets about $24 billion a year as the Pentagon's second
largest contractor. He was Boeing's senior vice president in 2016 just before he was confirmed
as Trump's deputy secretary of defense in 2017. Last week he recused himself from all matters
Boeing, but he
wasn't always so hands off. At one point, he "prodded" for the purchase of 12 $1.2 billion
Boeing F-15X fighter planes, according to Bloomberg.
But the revolving door is so much more pervasive and insidious than POGO could possibly
catalogue. So says Franklin "Chuck" Spinney , who worked
as a civilian and military officer in the Pentagon for 31 years, beginning in 1968. He calls
the military industrial complex a "quasi-isolated political economy" that is in many ways
independent from the larger domestic economy. It has its own rules, norms, and culture, and
unlike the real world, it is self-sustaining -- not by healthy competition and efficiency, but
by keeping the system on a permanent war footing, with money always pumping from Capitol Hill
to the Pentagon to the private sector and then back again. Left out are basic laws of supply
and demand, geopolitical realities, and the greater interest of society.
"That's why we call it a self-licking ice cream cone," Spinney explained to TAC.
" [This report] is just the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot more subtle stuff going on.
When you are in weapons development like I was at the beginning of my career, you learn about
this on day one, that having cozy relationships with contractors is openly encouraged. And
then you get desensitized. I was fortunate because I worked for people who did not like it
and I caught on quickly."
While the culture has evolved, basic realities have persisted since the massive build-up of the military
and weapons systems during the Cold War. The odds of young officers in the Pentagon making
colonel or higher are slim. They typically retire out in their 40s. They know implicitly that
their best chance for having a well-paid second career is in the only industry they know --
defense. Most take this calculation seriously, moderating their decisions on program work and
procurement and communicating with members of Congress as a matter of course.
" Let's just say there's a problem [with a program]. Are you going to come down hard on a
contractor and try to hold his feet to the fire? Are you going to risk getting blackballed
when you are out there looking for a job ? Sometimes there is no word communicated, you just
don't want to be unacceptable to anyone," said Spinney. It's ingrained, from the rank of
lieutenant colonel all the way up to general.
So the
top five and their subsidiaries continue to get the vast majority of work, usually in
no-bid contracts
($100 billion worth in 2016 alone) , and with cost-plus structures that
critics say encourage waste and never-ending timetables, like the $1.5 trillion F-35. "The
whole system is wired to get money out the door," said Spinney. "That is where the revolving
door is most pernicious. It's everywhere."
The real danger is that under this pressure, parties work to keep bad contracts alive even
if they have to cook the books. "Essentially from the standpoint of Pentagon contracting you
are not going to have people writing reports saying this product is a piece of shit," said
Spinney. Worse, evaluations are designed to deflect criticism if not oversell success in order
to keep the spigot open. The most infamous example of this was the
rigged tests that kept the ill-fated "Star Wars" missile defense program going in the
1980s.
* * *
Everyone talks about generals like Mattis as though they're warrior-gods. But for decades,
many of them have turned out to be different creatures altogether - creatures of a
semi-independent ecosystem that operates outside of the normal rules and benefits only a
powerful minority subset: the military elite, defense contractors, and Congress. More recently,
the defense-funded think tank world has become part of this ecology, providing the ideological
grist for more spending and serving as a way-station for operators moving in and out of
government and industry.
Call it the Swamp, the Borg, or even the Blob, but attempting to measure or quantify the
revolving door in the military-industrial complex can feel like a fool's errand. Groups like
POGO have attempted to shine light on this dark planet for years. Unfortunately, there is
little incentive in Capitol Hill or at the Pentagon to do the very least: pull the purse
strings, close loopholes, encourage real competition, and end cost-plus practices.
"We generally need to see more (political) championing on this issue," Smithberger said.
Until then, all outside efforts "can't result in any meaningful change."
So tell me again how "Mad Pedo" evaded Obama's axing of all the non-compliant General(s)
and Admiral(s) in charge of the U.S. strategic command?!!!
Answered my own question. He's like the rest of them since the Balkans that just does
counter insurgencies!...
"SUCCESS" in every direction on the weather vane you look!!!
Or... Another way of saying it.
How to build your successful U.S. military career turning $8 trillion in unfunded
liability debt into $200 trillion in unfunded liability debt in less than 20 years!
Who wants to line up for that 'self help book"?!!!
Mattis is just another self serving cockroach in a U.S uniform.
__name___3O4jF">Realname Wild tree , 31 minutes ago
link
It has nothing to do with the defense of our nation, or the unnecessary spilling of the
blood of our nation.
It has everything to do with greed at the expense of our youths blood and the nations
security. Follow the money.
As the light of truth shines as this article illustrates, the cockroaches scurry.
Rumsfield's DoD 2 trillion missing comment the day before 9/11 comes to mind. Wonder how he
knew.......
It has nothing to do with the defense of our nation, or the unnecessary spilling of the
blood of our nation.
It has everything to do with greed at the expense of our youths blood and the nations
security. Follow the money.
As the light of truth shines as this article illustrates, the cockroaches scurry.
Rumsfield's DoD 2 trillion missing comment the day before 9/11 comes to mind. Wonder how he
knew.......
"... Bankers, pharmaceutical giants, Google, Facebook ... a new breed of rentiers are at the very top of the pyramid and they're sucking the rest of us dry @rcbregman ..."
"... 'A big part of the modern banking sector is essentially a giant tapeworm gorging on a sick body' ..."
"... This piece is about one of the biggest taboos of our times. About a truth that is seldom acknowledged, and yet – on reflection – cannot be denied. The truth that we are living in an inverse welfare state. These days, politicians from the left to the right assume that most wealth is created at the top. By the visionaries, by the job creators, and by the people who have "made it". By the go-getters oozing talent and entrepreneurialism that are helping to advance the whole world. ..."
"... To understand why, we need to recognise that there are two ways of making money. The first is what most of us do: work. That means tapping into our knowledge and know-how (our "human capital" in economic terms) to create something new, whether that's a takeout app, a wedding cake, a stylish updo, or a perfectly poured pint. To work is to create. Ergo, to work is to create new wealth. ..."
"... But there is also a second way to make money. That's the rentier way : by leveraging control over something that already exists, such as land, knowledge, or money, to increase your wealth. You produce nothing, yet profit nonetheless. By definition, the rentier makes his living at others' expense, using his power to claim economic benefit. ..."
"... For those who know their history, the term "rentier" conjures associations with heirs to estates, such as the 19th century's large class of useless rentiers, well-described by the French economist Thomas Piketty . These days, that class is making a comeback. (Ironically, however, conservative politicians adamantly defend the rentier's right to lounge around, deeming inheritance tax to be the height of unfairness.) But there are also other ways of rent-seeking. From Wall Street to Silicon Valley , from big pharma to the lobby machines in Washington and Westminster, zoom in and you'll see rentiers everywhere. ..."
"... It may take quite a mental leap to see our economy as a system that shows solidarity with the rich rather than the poor. So I'll start with the clearest illustration of modern freeloaders at the top: bankers. Studies conducted by the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements – not exactly leftist thinktanks – have revealed that much of the financial sector has become downright parasitic. How instead of creating wealth, they gobble it up whole. ..."
"... In other words, a big part of the modern banking sector is essentially a giant tapeworm gorging on a sick body. It's not creating anything new, merely sucking others dry. Bankers have found a hundred and one ways to accomplish this. The basic mechanism, however, is always the same: offer loans like it's going out of style, which in turn inflates the price of things like houses and shares, then earn a tidy percentage off those overblown prices (in the form of interest, commissions, brokerage fees, or what have you), and if the shit hits the fan, let Uncle Sam mop it up. ..."
"... Bankers are the most obvious class of closet freeloaders, but they are certainly not alone. Many a lawyer and an accountant wields a similar revenue model. Take tax evasion . Untold hardworking, academically degreed professionals make a good living at the expense of the populations of other countries. Or take the tide of privatisations over the past three decades, which have been all but a carte blanche for rentiers. One of the richest people in the world, Carlos Slim , earned his millions by obtaining a monopoly of the Mexican telecom market and then hiking prices sky high. The same goes for the Russian oligarchs who rose after the Berlin Wall fell , who bought up valuable state-owned assets for song to live off the rent. ..."
"... Even paragons of modern progress like Apple, Amazon, Google , Facebook, Uber and Airbnb are woven from the fabric of rentierism. Firstly, because they owe their existence to government discoveries and inventions (every sliver of fundamental technology in the iPhone, from the internet to batteries and from touchscreens to voice recognition, was invented by researchers on the government payroll). And second, because they tie themselves into knots to avoid paying taxes, retaining countless bankers, lawyers, and lobbyists for this very purpose. ..."
"... Even more important, many of these companies function as "natural monopolies", operating in a positive feedback loop of increasing growth and value as more and more people contribute free content to their platforms. Companies like this are incredibly difficult to compete with, because as they grow bigger, they only get stronger. ..."
"... Most of Mark Zuckerberg's income is just rent collected off the millions of picture and video posts that we give away daily for free. And sure, we have fun doing it. But we also have no alternative – after all, everybody is on Facebook these days. Zuckerberg has a website that advertisers are clamouring to get onto, and that doesn't come cheap. Don't be fooled by endearing pilots with free internet in Zambia. Stripped down to essentials, it's an ordinary ad agency. In fact, in 2015 Google and Facebook pocketed an astounding 64% of all online ad revenue in the US. ..."
"... Rentierism is, in essence, a question of power. That the Sun King Louis XIV was able to exploit millions was purely because he had the biggest army in Europe. It's no different for the modern rentier. He's got the law, politicians and journalists squarely in his court. That's why bankers get fined peanuts for preposterous fraud, while a mother on government assistance gets penalised within an inch of her life if she checks the wrong box. ..."
"... The biggest tragedy of all, however, is that the rentier economy is gobbling up society's best and brightest. Where once upon a time Ivy League graduates chose careers in science, public service or education, these days they are more likely to opt for banks, law firms, or trumped up ad agencies like Google and Facebook. When you think about it, it's insane. We are forking over billions in taxes to help our brightest minds on and up the corporate ladder so they can learn how to score ever more outrageous handouts. ..."
"... One thing is certain: countries where rentiers gain the upper hand gradually fall into decline. Just look at the Roman Empire. Or Venice in the 15th century. Look at the Dutch Republic in the 18th century. Like a parasite stunts a child's growth, so the rentier drains a country of its vitality. ..."
Bankers, pharmaceutical giants, Google, Facebook ... a new breed of rentiers are at the very top of the pyramid and they're
sucking the rest of us dry @rcbregman
'A big part of the modern banking sector is essentially a giant tapeworm gorging on a sick body'.
This piece is about one of the biggest taboos of our times. About a truth that is seldom acknowledged, and yet – on reflection
– cannot be denied. The truth that we are living in an inverse welfare state. These days, politicians from the left to the right assume that most wealth is created at the top. By the visionaries, by the job
creators, and by the people who have "made it". By the go-getters oozing talent and entrepreneurialism that are helping to advance
the whole world.
Now, we may disagree about the extent to which success deserves to be rewarded – the philosophy of the left is that the strongest
shoulders should bear the heaviest burden, while the right fears high taxes will blunt enterprise – but across the spectrum virtually
all agree that wealth is created primarily at the top.
So entrenched is this assumption that it's even embedded in our language. When economists talk about "productivity", what they
really mean is the size of your paycheck. And when we use terms like "
welfare
state ", "redistribution" and "solidarity", we're implicitly subscribing to the view that there are two strata: the makers and
the takers, the producers and the couch potatoes, the hardworking citizens – and everybody else.
In reality, it is precisely the other way around. In reality, it is the waste collectors, the nurses, and the cleaners whose shoulders
are supporting the apex of the pyramid. They are the true mechanism of social solidarity. Meanwhile, a growing share of those we
hail as "successful" and "innovative" are earning their wealth at the expense of others. The people getting the biggest handouts
are not down around the bottom, but at the very top. Yet their perilous dependence on others goes unseen. Almost no one talks about
it. Even for politicians on the left, it's a non-issue.
To understand why, we need to recognise that there are two ways of making money. The first is what most of us do: work. That means
tapping into our knowledge and know-how (our "human capital" in economic terms) to create something new, whether that's a takeout
app, a wedding cake, a stylish updo, or a perfectly poured pint. To work is to create. Ergo, to work is to create new wealth.
But there is also a second way to make money.
That's the rentier way : by leveraging control over something that already exists, such as land, knowledge, or money, to increase
your wealth. You produce nothing, yet profit nonetheless. By definition, the rentier makes his living at others' expense, using his
power to claim economic benefit.
'From Wall Street to Silicon Valley, zoom in and you'll see rentiers everywhere.'
For those who know their history, the term "rentier" conjures associations with heirs to estates, such as the 19th century's large
class of useless rentiers, well-described by the
French economist
Thomas Piketty . These days, that class is making a comeback. (Ironically, however, conservative politicians adamantly defend
the rentier's right to lounge around, deeming inheritance tax to be the height of unfairness.) But there are also other ways of rent-seeking.
From Wall Street to Silicon Valley , from big
pharma to the lobby machines in Washington and Westminster, zoom in and you'll see rentiers everywhere.
There is no longer a sharp dividing line between working and rentiering. In fact, the modern-day rentier often works damn hard.
Countless people in the financial sector, for example, apply great ingenuity and effort to amass "rent" on their wealth. Even the
big innovations of our age – businesses like Facebook
and Uber – are interested mainly in expanding the rentier economy. The problem with most rich people therefore is not that they are
coach potatoes. Many a CEO toils 80 hours a week to multiply his allowance. It's hardly surprising, then, that they feel wholly entitled
to their wealth.
It may take quite a mental leap to see our economy as a system that shows solidarity with the rich rather than the poor. So I'll
start with the clearest illustration of modern freeloaders at the top: bankers. Studies conducted by the
International Monetary Fund and the
Bank for International Settlements – not exactly leftist
thinktanks – have revealed that much of the financial sector has become downright parasitic. How instead of creating wealth, they
gobble it up whole.
In other words, a big part of the modern banking sector is essentially a giant tapeworm gorging on a sick body. It's not creating
anything new, merely sucking others dry. Bankers have found a hundred and one ways to accomplish this. The basic mechanism, however,
is always the same: offer loans like it's going out of style, which in turn inflates the price of things like houses and shares,
then earn a tidy percentage off those overblown prices (in the form of interest, commissions, brokerage fees, or what have you),
and if the shit hits the fan, let Uncle Sam mop it up.
The financial innovation concocted by all the math whizzes working in modern banking (instead of at universities or companies
that contribute to real prosperity) basically boils down to maximizing the total amount of debt. And debt, of course, is a means
of earning rent. So for those who believe that pay ought to be proportionate to the value of work, the conclusion we have to draw
is that many bankers should be earning a negative salary; a fine, if you will, for destroying more wealth than they create.
Bankers are the most obvious class of closet freeloaders, but they are certainly not alone. Many a lawyer and an accountant wields
a similar revenue model.
Take
tax evasion . Untold hardworking, academically degreed professionals make a good living at the expense of the populations of
other countries. Or take the tide of privatisations over the past three decades, which have been all but a carte blanche for rentiers.
One of the richest people in the world,
Carlos Slim , earned his millions by obtaining a monopoly of the Mexican telecom market and then hiking prices sky high. The
same goes for the Russian oligarchs who rose after the
Berlin Wall fell , who bought up valuable state-owned assets for song to live off the rent.
But here comes the rub. Most rentiers are not as easily identified as the greedy banker or manager. Many are disguised. On the
face of it, they look like industrious folks, because for part of the time they really are doing something worthwhile. Precisely
that makes us overlook their massive rent-seeking.
Take the pharmaceutical industry. Companies like
GlaxoSmithKline and
Pfizer regularly
unveil new drugs, yet most real medical breakthroughs are made quietly at government-subsidised labs. Private companies mostly manufacture
medications that resemble what we've already got. They get it patented and, with a hefty dose of marketing, a legion of lawyers,
and a strong lobby, can live off the profits for years. In other words, the vast revenues of the pharmaceutical industry are the
result of a tiny pinch of innovation and fistfuls of rent.
Even paragons of modern progress like Apple, Amazon, Google
, Facebook, Uber and Airbnb are woven from the fabric of rentierism. Firstly, because they owe their existence to government discoveries
and inventions (every sliver of fundamental technology in the iPhone, from the internet to batteries and from touchscreens to voice
recognition, was invented by researchers on the government payroll). And second, because they tie themselves into knots to avoid
paying taxes, retaining countless bankers, lawyers, and lobbyists for this very purpose.
Even more important, many of these companies function as "natural monopolies", operating in a positive feedback loop of increasing
growth and value as more and more people contribute free content to their platforms. Companies like this are incredibly difficult
to compete with, because as they grow bigger, they only get stronger.
Aptly characterising this "platform capitalism" in an article,
Tom Goodwin writes : "Uber, the world's largest taxi company, owns no vehicles. Facebook, the world's most popular media owner,
creates no content. Alibaba, the most valuable retailer, has no inventory. And Airbnb, the world's largest accommodation provider,
owns no real estate."
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest 'Every sliver of fundamental technology in the iPhone, from the internet to batteries and from touchscreens to voice
recognition, was invented by researchers on the government payroll.' Photograph: Regis Duvignau/Reuters
So what do these companies own? A platform. A platform that lots and lots of people want to use. Why? First and foremost, because
they're cool and they're fun – and in that respect, they do offer something of value. However, the main reason why we're all happy
to hand over free content to Facebook is because all of our friends are on Facebook too, because their friends are on Facebook because
their friends are on Facebook.
Most of Mark Zuckerberg's income is just rent collected off the millions of picture and video posts that we give away daily for
free. And sure, we have fun doing it. But we also have no alternative – after all, everybody is on Facebook these days. Zuckerberg
has a website that advertisers are clamouring to get onto, and that doesn't come cheap. Don't be fooled by endearing pilots with
free internet in Zambia. Stripped down to essentials, it's an ordinary ad agency. In fact, in 2015 Google and Facebook pocketed an
astounding
64% of all online ad revenue in the US.
But don't Google and Facebook make anything useful at all? Sure they do. The irony, however, is that their best innovations only
make the rentier economy even bigger. They employ scores of programmers to create new algorithms so that we'll all click on more
and more ads.
Uber has
usurped the whole taxi sector just as
Airbnb has upended the hotel industry and Amazon has overrun the book trade. The bigger such platforms grow the more powerful
they become, enabling the lords of these digital feudalities to demand more and more rent.
Think back a minute to the definition of a rentier: someone who uses their control over something that already exists in order
to increase their own wealth. The feudal lord of medieval times did that by building a tollgate along a road and making everybody
who passed by pay. Today's tech giants are doing basically the same thing, but transposed to the digital highway. Using technology
funded by taxpayers, they build tollgates between you and other people's free content and all the while pay almost no tax on their
earnings.
This is the so-called innovation that has Silicon Valley gurus in raptures: ever bigger platforms that claim ever bigger handouts.
So why do we accept this? Why does most of the population work itself to the bone to support these rentiers?
I think there are two answers. Firstly, the modern rentier knows to keep a low profile. There was a time when everybody knew who
was freeloading. The king, the church, and the aristocrats controlled almost all the land and made peasants pay dearly to farm it.
But in the modern economy, making rentierism work is a great deal more complicated. How many people can explain a
credit default swap
, or a collateralised debt obligation ? Or the revenue
model behind those cute Google Doodles? And don't the folks on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley work themselves to the bone, too?
Well then, they must be doing something useful, right?
Maybe not. The typical workday of Goldman Sachs' CEO may be worlds away from that of King Louis XIV, but their revenue models
both essentially revolve around obtaining the biggest possible handouts. "The world's most powerful investment bank," wrote the journalist
Matt Taibbi about
Goldman Sachs , "is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything
that smells like money."
But far from squids and vampires, the average rich freeloader manages to masquerade quite successfully as a decent hard worker.
He goes to great lengths to present himself as a "job creator" and an "investor" who "earns" his income by virtue of his high "productivity".
Most economists, journalists, and politicians from left to right are quite happy to swallow this story. Time and again language is
twisted around to cloak funneling and exploitation as creation and generation.
However, it would be wrong to think that all this is part of some ingenious conspiracy. Many modern rentiers have convinced even
themselves that they are bona fide value creators. When current Goldman Sachs CEO
Lloyd Blankfein
was asked about the purpose of his job, his straight-faced answer was that he is "
doing God's
work ". The Sun King would have approved.
The second thing that keeps rentiers safe is even more insidious. We're all wannabe rentiers. They have made millions of people
complicit in their revenue model. Consider this: What are our financial sector's two biggest cash cows? Answer: the housing market
and pensions. Both are markets in which many of us are deeply invested.
Recent decades have seen more and more people contract debts to buy a home, and naturally it's in their interest if
house
prices continue to scale new heights (read: burst bubble upon bubble). The same goes for pensions. Over the past few decades
we've all scrimped and saved up a mountainous pension piggy bank. Now pension funds are under immense pressure to ally with the biggest
exploiters in order to ensure they pay out enough to please their investors.
The fact of the matter is that feudalism has been democratised. To a lesser or greater extent, we are all depending on handouts.
En masse, we have been made complicit in this exploitation by the rentier elite, resulting in a political covenant between the rich
rent-seekers and the homeowners and retirees.
Don't get me wrong, most homeowners and retirees are not benefiting from this situation. On the contrary, the banks are bleeding
them far beyond the extent to which they themselves profit from their houses and pensions. Still, it's hard to point fingers at a
kleptomaniac when you have sticky fingers too.
So why is this happening? The answer can be summed up in three little words: Because it can.
Rentierism is, in essence, a question of power. That the Sun King Louis XIV was able to exploit millions was purely because he
had the biggest army in Europe. It's no different for the modern rentier. He's got the law, politicians and journalists squarely
in his court. That's why bankers get fined peanuts for preposterous fraud, while a mother on government assistance gets penalised
within an inch of her life if she checks the wrong box.
The biggest tragedy of all, however, is that the rentier economy is gobbling up society's best and brightest. Where once upon
a time Ivy League graduates chose careers in science, public service or education, these days they are more likely to opt for banks,
law firms, or trumped up ad agencies like Google and Facebook. When you think about it, it's insane. We are forking over billions
in taxes to help our brightest minds on and up the corporate ladder so they can learn how to score ever more outrageous handouts.
One thing is certain: countries where rentiers gain the upper hand gradually fall into decline. Just look at the Roman Empire.
Or Venice in the 15th century. Look at the Dutch Republic in the 18th century. Like a parasite stunts a child's growth, so the rentier
drains a country of its vitality.
What innovation remains in a rentier economy is mostly just concerned with further bolstering that very same economy. This may
explain why the big dreams of the 1970s, like flying cars, curing cancer, and colonising Mars, have yet to be realised, while bankers
and ad-makers have at their fingertips technologies a thousand times more powerful.
Yet it doesn't have to be this way. Tollgates can be torn down, financial products can be banned, tax havens dismantled, lobbies
tamed, and patents rejected. Higher taxes on the ultra-rich can make rentierism less attractive, precisely because society's biggest
freeloaders are at the very top of the pyramid. And we can more fairly distribute our earnings on land, oil, and innovation through
a system of, say, employee shares, or a
universal basic
income .
But such a revolution will require a wholly different narrative about the origins of our wealth. It will require ditching the
old-fashioned faith in "solidarity" with a miserable underclass that deserves to be borne aloft on the market-level salaried shoulders
of society's strongest. All we need to do is to give real hard-working people what they deserve.
And, yes, by that I mean the waste collectors, the nurses, the cleaners – theirs are the shoulders that carry us all.
"... If I had the talent and energy, I might write a sequel to the 'Quiet American', to be entitled 'The Noisy Englishmen.' It would feature a series of inept conspiracies, involving ludicrous means used in support of preposterous ends, necessitating one ham-fisted cover-up after another. ..."
"... The central characters might be loosely based on Christopher Steele, Matt Tait, Eliot Higgins, and our former UN Ambassador Matthew Rycroft, author of the July 2002 Downing Street memorandum, in which Sir Richard Dearlove was quoted explaining how, in Washington, 'the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.' ..."
"... There is a 1990's British historian (whose name I've been trying to rediscover without success) who wrote a sunny book saying Britain should return to its imperialist ways to bring light to the dark and repressive world we live in. It was a great hit with Blair and his henchmen. Blair used its arguments in his notorious 1999 Chicago neo-conservative/liberal interventionist speech. ..."
"... I'd draw attention to "The Brideshead Revisited" generation especially at Oxford in the early 80's. Unashamedly celebrating their wealth and upper middle class privately-educated backgrounds, they viewed themselves as a gilded, golden generation, preened in narcissism, adept at networking and self-promotion. They are the generation now in power - politically, financially, in the deep state. Their fantasy of again ruling the world (with American and Zionist aid) has led to a series of catastrophic blunders and overreaches in both foreign and domestic policies. ..."
"... Our economic power - the base of any imperial power - is shrinking daily. All the Oxfordites (chief amongst them Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove) are still playing Oxford Union/PPE games and stabbing each other joyously in the back as though there's no tomorrow. It most ressembles the halluciogenic decadence of the court of late Imperial Rome. ..."
After contemplating the likely intelligence and propaganda efforts of HMG over the last 15 years or so I am puzzled as to motivation.
Why? Why? The UK is now a regional power for which events in places like Syria would seem to have little to do with the welfare
of Britain. Why? I suppose that the same question can be asked for the US and I have.
In re "Our man in Havana" I think there
are many issues raised in the work that apply directly to the trade of espionage.
The question why? is a very interesting but also very dispiriting one, but also one which it is quite hard to get one's head
round. I hope to have something more coherent to say about it.
Among many reasons, however, there has been a kind of intellectual disintegration.
If I had the talent and energy, I might write a sequel to the 'Quiet American', to be entitled 'The Noisy Englishmen.'
It would feature a series of inept conspiracies, involving ludicrous means used in support of preposterous ends, necessitating
one ham-fisted cover-up after another.
The central characters might be loosely based on Christopher Steele, Matt Tait, Eliot Higgins, and our former UN Ambassador
Matthew Rycroft, author of the July 2002 Downing Street memorandum, in which Sir Richard Dearlove was quoted explaining how, in
Washington, 'the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.'
Subsequently, of course, he set about colluding in the process. And, sixteen years later, Dearlove is still at it, with 'Russiagate'
-- and the product being actually accepted much more uncritically by the MSM than it was then.
And that is one of the problems -- nobody any longer pays any penalty for failure, or indeed feels any sense of shame about
it..
There is a 1990's British historian (whose name I've been trying to rediscover without success) who wrote a sunny book saying
Britain should return to its imperialist ways to bring light to the dark and repressive world we live in. It was a great hit with
Blair and his henchmen. Blair used its arguments in his notorious 1999 Chicago neo-conservative/liberal interventionist speech.
As the Colonel eloquently asks:
"I am puzzled as to motivation. Why? Why? The UK is now a regional power for which events in places like Syria would seem
to have little todo with the welfare of Britain. Why?"
I'd draw attention to "The Brideshead Revisited" generation especially at Oxford in the early 80's. Unashamedly celebrating
their wealth and upper middle class privately-educated backgrounds, they viewed themselves as a gilded, golden generation, preened
in narcissism, adept at networking and self-promotion. They are the generation now in power - politically, financially, in the deep state. Their fantasy of again ruling the world
(with American and Zionist aid) has led to a series of catastrophic blunders and overreaches in both foreign and domestic policies.
Our economic power - the base of any imperial power - is shrinking daily. All the Oxfordites (chief amongst them Theresa May,
Boris Johnson and Michael Gove) are still playing Oxford Union/PPE games and stabbing each other joyously in the back as though
there's no tomorrow. It most ressembles the halluciogenic decadence of the court of late Imperial Rome.
(I don't include the Maurice Cowling-ites in this fandango because they strike me as more Little Englanders. Though Peterhouse
is of course, shamefully, the HQ of the Henry Jackson Society).
Numerous MSM articles appear about Trump's standing up to the Generals: Mattis, Kelly, Dunford, etc. Yet Bolton feels free to
conspire against the President's agenda? The narrative that Trump is fighting for his campaign promises, but allows Bolton and
Pompeo to scheme against him does not make any sense.
A more realistic take is that rump is a faux populist. He is the Republican Obama - pretending to be a populist
peacemaker while working for the establishment. The "populist hero" is a gimmick that reinforces people's belief in USA democracy
and the righteousness of USA actions. The Trump/Deep-State conflict is a propaganda psy-op.
The major inconsistency here is why the Deep State is hell bent of deposing him. Is The Trump/Deep-State conflict
is a propaganda psy-op? I do no not think so.
Trump is certainly a 'faux populist' as all right wing populists are: promises to the people while promoting the interests of
the 1%. But there is a genuine struggle going on within the ruling class due to the crisis of neoliberal governance. The world is
a complex place and Washington's influence is declining. No surprise that parts of the US elite that got used to "full spectrum
dominance" are panicking. And it is all real.
Notable quotes:
"... "The president's statement offered the latest illustration of the dramatic gyrations that have characterized his foreign policy and fueled questions about whether his senior advisers are implementing his policies or pursuing their own agendas." ..."
"... Here we have the question asked, in effect: Are Trump's senior people going rogue? Does the master of spin Washington Post, by putting the question in a manner sympathetic to Trump and unsympathetic to Bolton and Pompeo, and by extension the hordes denouncing Trump's decision to reduce US involvement in Syria suggest a new orientation in the Mockingbird media? ..."
The Washington Post article that b links to ("never signed off") has the headline " 'They
can do what they want' Trump's Iran comments defy his top aids"
The "They" in the quote in the headline is a reference to Iran in Syria. "President Trump
stuck a dagger in a major initiative advanced by his foreign policy team:
Iran's leaders, the president said, "can do what they want" in Syria.
With a stray remark, Trump snuffed out a plan from his national security adviser, John
Bolton, who this fall vowed that the United States would not leave Syria
"as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders." Pompeo has of course also obsessed
over Iran.
Now the next paragraph in the WP piece is I think quite remarkable: "The president's
statement offered the latest illustration of the dramatic gyrations that have characterized
his foreign policy and fueled questions about whether his senior advisers are implementing
his policies or pursuing their own agendas."
Here we have the question asked, in effect: Are Trump's senior people going rogue? Does
the master of spin Washington Post, by putting the question in a manner sympathetic to Trump
and unsympathetic to Bolton and Pompeo, and by extension the hordes denouncing Trump's
decision to reduce US involvement in Syria
suggest a new orientation in the Mockingbird media?
Also note that acting Defense Sec Patrick Shanahan, who was injected immediately into his
position when Trump gave Mattis the boot, is becoming part of the strategic scene.
From the NYT: "He is the brightest and smartest guy I worked with at Boeing," said Carolyn
Corvi, a former executive at the company. "He has the ability to see over the horizon and
{implement needed change]."
"Ana Mari Cauce, the president of University of Washington, worked with Mr. Shanahan ....
She said his outsider perspective was helpful in questioning old practices,
forcing people to look at problems in different ways."
There's only one thing necessary to maintain the respect and affection of DC's ruling political and media class: affirm standard
precepts of US imperialism & militarism. You can work for Trump, or cheer menacing authoritarians, and you'll still be revered
as long as you do that:
Nikki Haley @NikkiHaley
Congratulations to Brazil's new President Bolsonaro. It's great to have another U.S.-friendly leader in South America, who
will join the fight against dictatorships in Venezuela and Cuba, and who clearly understands the danger of China's expanding influence
in the region.
"... Very interesting. It is understandable that Trump does not read briefings, if all he is fed is a variety of permanent war options at odds with his strategic goals. ..."
"... Trump had lunch with Lindsay Graham who has allegedly said that Trump is "reconsidering ". The Neocons haven't given up.. ..."
Gareth Porter, in an article published in the American Conservative, definitively shows that
Trump's Dec. 19 announcement of the US withdrawal from Syria was, in fact, the end of a fight
of at least a year, between Trump on the one side and his national security team, lead by
Mattis and Dunford on the other. Published accounts of the policy process over the past year
"show that senior national security officials and self-interested institutions have been
playing a complicated political game for months aimed at keeping Trump from wavering on our
indefinite presence on the ground in Syria ," Porter writes. "The entire episode thus
represents a new variant of a familiar pattern dating back to Vietnam in which national
security advisors put pressure on reluctant presidents to go along with existing or proposed
military deployments in a war zone . The difference here is that Trump, by publicly choosing a
different policy, has blown up their transparent schemes and offered the country a new course,
one that does not involve a permanent war state."
Porter cites an April 2018 Associated Press account of an NSC meeting at which Trump's
impatience with his national security team boiled over. At that meeting, Trump ordered them
unequivocally to accept a fundamentally different Syria deployment policy. Instead, they framed
the options as a binary choice -- either an immediate pullout or an indefinite presence in
order to ensure the complete and permanent defeat of Islamic State. Mattis and Dunford, Porter
continues, were consciously exploiting Trump's own defensiveness about a timeline–he had
attacked Obama during the 2016 campaign for imposing a timeline in Afghanistan–"to press
ahead with their own strategy unless and until Trump publicly called them on it."
"The Syria withdrawal affair is a dramatic illustration of the fundamental quandary of the
Trump presidency in regard to ending the state of permanent war that previous administrations
created. Although a solid majority of Americans want to rein in U.S. military deployments in
the Middle East and Africa, Trump's national security team is committed to doing the opposite,
" Porter concludes. "Trump is now well aware that it is virtually impossible to carry out the
foreign policy that he wants without advisors who are committed to the same objective. That
means that he must find people who have remained outside the system during the permanent war
years while being highly critical of its whole ideology and culture. If he can fill key
positions with truly dissident figures, the last two years of this term in office could
decisively clip the wings of the bureaucrats and generals who have created the permanent war
state we find ourselves in today."
Trump has called the bluff of the permanent warfare crowd and now has his decision, but the
possibility of sabotage by that crowd's assets inside the Pentagon cannot yet be discounted.
This is indicated by an exclusive Reuters report claiming that planners at the Pentagon are
proposing that the YPG be allowed to keep the heavy weapons that the US has supplied it with,
though Reuters' sources stress that the planning is still at an early stage and nothing's been
decided yet. And yet, there must be a reason why this is being reported now. It obviously would
throw a monkey wrench in the arrangements that Trump is trying to make with Erdogan to keep
eastern Syria stable in the wake of the US withdrawal. It would also represent a back down from
US promises made earlier to the Turks to retrieve the weapons and Erdogan would throw a fit.
Certainly, the idea that the U.S. military can retrieve all of the weapons that it handed over
is a dubious one, at best , and there are legitimate questions about whether or not Turkish
troops could really operate in the Middle Euphrates valley near the Iraqi border, hundreds of
kilometers from the Turkish border.
But the key to the proposal is this: The recommendation "is a rejection of Trump's policy to
withdraw from Syria," a person familiar with the discussions told Reuters. So, really, it is an
attempt at sabotage.
Very interesting. It is understandable that Trump does not read briefings, if all he is fed
is a variety of permanent war options at odds with his strategic goals. The Syrian war that
matters is clearly now being fought within the USG and Trump has won the latest battle. As
Porter says, this war will only be won if Trump can successfully replace key Borg positions
with people of his own.
If the pullout can be completed without being sabotaged, Russia ought
to be able to seamlessly step in guarantor of peace - and the SAG and Iraq between then can
finish IS. The permanent war crowd with then just have to vent their frustrations elsewhere.
A good outcome for all.
He was IMO suckered into taking a lot of these people because he didn't know anyone in
government. His problem will be to find people not already working for the other side.
"that the YPG be allowed to keep the heavy weapons that the US has supplied it with"
I would love to find out what those "heavy weapons" were exactly. I have been putting up
comments all over the place saying that as far as I have been able to find out the US has not
supplied anything with a barrel bigger than an 80mm mortar or a vehicle heavier than a MRAP.
Up to now no-one has contradicted me. The reason the US did this was precisely this
situation, not to upset the Turks if gear was left behind.
Am I wrong? Is this equipment now regarded as "heavy weapons"?
I have looked as to where I might post my comment on this important site; this article seems
to be the best fit for my comment on another site about the retirement of Gen Kelly and a
link to an interview with Gen Kelly (I hope Col Lang will be lenient in allowing a secondary
posting of my comment from another site):
On the subject of trump this AM, zerohedge has a summary of an interview with Gen Kelly
which occurred just prior to his departure-to say that it was "bone crushing hard" probably
is a long way from describing the difficulty of that Chief of Staff job in a chaotic white
house working for a chaotic individual.
I have just a ton of respect for Gen Kelly-even in this totally mucked up country with all
of its unending flustercucks, there are individuals still willing to step up and try,
emphasis on try, to restore some sanity to the situations. God speed, Gen Kelly!!
Two factors not mentioned are the SAA and support from Russia. Turkey may be somewhat off the
hook for a deep thrust if Syrian forces move in and convince the YPG to stand down, by force
or otherwise. As Col. Lang points out, starving the YPG of ammunition is a practical
approach. If the PMU links up with Syrian forces to secure the eastern border areas, the
Kurdish interests should be balanced out. My point being that the so-called vacuum left for
Iran to fill is an overplayed shadow puppet.
If anyone still thinks that Donald Trump has some master plan to kill off his Deep State
adversaries they should check themselves into therapy. I know withdrawal is hard, but admitting
you have a problem is the first step to curing it.
He doesn't have a plan. He may fight them but it won't be with any kind of master plan to
trap them in some beautiful bit of political judo.
Frankly, Vladimir Putin he is not.
No, Trump is winging things at this point. While he still has the office he's trying to do
some of the things he promised. Doing that may keep him in power for a few more months.
But with his walking back the timetable for pulling troops out of Syria after a visit from
Lindsay Graham (R-MIC/AIPAC) should tell you all you need to know about Trump's willingness to
stand up to the pressure he's under.
Add to that the opening salvo from Mitt Romney (R-Wall St.) and it becomes pretty clear that
Trump was told what the score really is. When, not if, the Democrats push for impeachment or a
25th Amendment proceeding against him Graham and Romney will lead a GOP revolt against him,
siding with Senate Democrats to get rid of him.
That's been the point of this from the beginning. Pat Buchanan and I both talked about this
from the moment he was elected. Pat reminding us of what happened to Nixon who was hounded out
of office because he did the unthinkable -- ending the Vietnam War.
I've been simply looking at this from the standard libertarian perspective that "War is the
health of the state" and Trump's opposition to our Middle East follies would net him nothing
but contempt.
The Makinder "Heartland" view of Geopolitics holds complete sway in Washington, Downing St.
and the Pentagon. And as such, the Middle East is the access point to the Heartland and that
means destroying both Russia and Iran to ensure that Germany never joins them.
This is why The Swamp will not let Trump make nice with Putin. It's why the British deep
state and intelligence community was so eager to help Hillary Clinton fabricate the Russiagate
controversy through the creation of the Steele Dossier.
It's why outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, would only
entertain a peace deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan as long as the U.S. maintained all of
its military presence there.
In other words, accept our colonial presence here to ensure you stay in the 19th century and
we no longer have to fight openly.
If for nothing else, Trump's firing Dunford was a brief bit of joy that may outlive his
presidency. Not much else will.
Look, the Deep State is vast and cruel. Nancy Pelosi's first act as Speaker of the House was
to declare open season on Trump. She'll wait until the Mueller report to start the process but
she seems pretty confident she'll get what she needs.
Michael Cohen likely provided the road map to Trump's shady business dealings (far beyond
his pecadillos) which will be used against him. Impeachment isn't a legal proceeding, it's a
purely political one.
There is no standard of proof. If you're hated by enough of the right people, you're done.
That's it. In a time of unlimited corruption counting on people to act honorably is a fool's
game.
And Trump at this point is the head fool.
You don't announce something like the withdrawal from Syria and all that that entails only
to walk it back 10 days later because someone threatened you.
In fact, Trump's best, and frankly, only course of action now is to go on the offensive. And
Elizabeth Warren memes, no matter how entertaining, are not getting this done.
As I lay out in this video, the threat of exposing all of the corruption is his best play.
It may cost him everything but if he's going down the best thing he can do to MAGA is take as
many of them down as possible.
Spot on Tom. Ending a Predator Class war for global hegemony (the Makinder World Island
quest) is a capital offense for any President. That's why JFK was offed... (the Nixon tale is
not credible... Nixon sabotaged LBJ's negotiations with the N. Vietnamese and with Kissinger
dragged on the war until the US was kicked out in '75).
Trump could appeal to the American people over Syria and Afghanistan claiming that as the
Peace President he is being threatened... Maybe DoJ gets cleaned out; Mueller has
nothing.
Order the acting AG to appoint Special Prosecutors for Clinton, Feinstein and Pelosi and
others for their treason and their Chinese Business Dealings
Declassify all of the JFK and other documents that you promised to release, the Mexican
stand off ends the day Trump leaves office and they bankrupt and imprison him and his
family.
Name the CFR, and all other Globalist Organizations and NeoCons, as Foreign Agents and
force register all of their members as Foreign Agents.
Pull the Security clearances from all people not currently employed by the Govt,
especially the CFR members and similar organization.
Name the ADL and SPLC as Hate Groups and appoint a special prosecutor to go after
them.
PS Stop appointing people who want you dead in the key positions in your government
PPS Pardon Assange and give him diplomatic passage to some country that won't extradite
him like Iceland or perhaps Switzerland.
We will stay because our Israeli bought government wants it. They will never allow Trump
to exit Syria.
Here is a list of politicians who carry Israeli Citizenship ... Good to know and explains
a lot
112 CONGRESS
THE US SENATE [13]
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) Dianne Feinstein
(D-CA) Al Franken (D-MN) Herb Kohl (D-WI) Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) Joseph Lieberman
(Independent-CT) Carl Levin (D-MI) Charles Schumer (D-NY) Ron Wyden (D-OR) Michael Bennet
(D-CO)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [27]
Gary Ackerman (D-NY) Shelley Berkley (D-NV) Howard Berman (D-CA) Eric Cantor (R-VA) David
Cicilline (D-RI) Stephen Cohen (D-TN) Susan Davis (D-CA) Ted Deutch (D-FL) Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Bob Filner (D-CA) Barney Frank (D-MA) Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) Jane Harman (D-CA) Steve
Israel (D-NY) Sander Levin (D-MI) Nita Lowey (D-NY) Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) Jared Polis (D-CO)
Steve Rothman (D-NJ) Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) Adam Schiff (D-CA) Brad
Sherman (D-CA) Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) Henry Waxman (D-CA) Anthony Weiner (D-NY) John
Yarmuth (D-KY)
Here is a list of Israel's 'contributions' to US senators
Things have been quite active in the Eastern Mediterranean lately, with Israel, Cyprus and
Greece pushing forward for the realization of the EastMed pipeline, a new gas conduit destined
to diversify Europe's natural gas sources and find a long-term reliable market outlet for all
the recent Mediterranean gas discoveries. The three sides have reached an agreement in late
November (roughly a year after signing the MoU) to lay the pipeline, the estimated cost of
which hovers around $7 billion (roughly the same as rival TurkStream's construction cost). Yet
behind the brave facade, it is still very early to talk about EastMed as a viable and
profitable project as it faces an uphill battle with traditionally difficult Levantine
geopolitics, as well as field geology.
The EastMed gas pipeline is expected to start some 170 kilometers off the southern coast of
Cyprus and reach Otranto on the Puglian coast of Italy via the island of Crete and the Greek
mainland. Since most of its subsea section is projected to be laid at depths of 3-3.5
kilometer, in case it is built it would become the deepest subsea gas pipeline, most probably
the longest, too, with an estimated length of 1900km. The countries involved proceed from the
premise that the pipeline's throughput capacity would be 20 BCM per year (706 BCf), although
previous estimates were within the 12-16 BCm per year interval. According to Yuval Steinitz,
the Israeli Energy Minister, the stakeholders would need a year to iron out all the remaining
administrative issues and 4-5 years to build the pipeline, meaning it could come onstream not
before 2025.
The EastMed gas pipeline is expected to start some 170 kilometers off the southern coast
of Cyprus and reach Otranto on the Puglian coast of Italy via the island of Crete and the
Greek mainland.
Cyprus,Crete,Greece, Italy....
Yes, very stable EU supply line going through the most stable countries in the EU.
Yeah, I'm having trouble with the sub sea depth numbers too, despite the route cuts the
conflicts to a half a dozen from an infinite number.
Intuitively, shipping LNG offers comparable delivery price albeit at lower volumes,and can
be done off shore.
Even here in bucolic Pensyltucky, delivery of natty to market is limited by a lack of
piping infrastructure, limiting the gas boom. It gives the tree huggers time to throttle the
business. Figuring that the political climate and costs are going to get better with time
passing is foolish.
Also considered is price, still cheap, cheap, cheap.
Our local natty supplier just applied for, and received a price reduction, effective next
fall.
Since most of its subsea section is projected to be laid at depths of 3-3.5 kilometer,
in case it is built it would become the deepest subsea gas pipeline, most probably the
longest, too...
oh yeah bitchez. nothing could possibly go wrong with that plan. /s
none has even discovered the goods yet ... and we are told we have to go to war about
building some (((PIPELINES))) on something to be discovered in the future ... if ever
....
as Abba Waterloo song said the history books on the shelf just keeps repeating itself ...
that is why is not that difficult to see through the BS ...
World War I we are told was over some archiduke being killed by some extremist ...as a
result 1/3 of the Serb nation was killed ...
"... Trumpism's Contradictions and American Jews, and Islamophobia ..."
"... "I do not stop repeating it to French Jews. Not only is the National Front not your enemy, but it is without a doubt the best shield to protect you. It stands at your side for the defense of our freedoms of thought and of religion against the only real enemy, Islamist fundamentalism." ..."
"... Is Antisemitism on the rise? ..."
"... Anti-Semitism among Liberals and Conservatives ..."
"... Evangelical Christians: Friends of Israel, Enemies of secular American-Jews? ..."
"... What would happen to Jews in America and the relationship with Israel if they lost support from evangelical Christians? ..."
As it becomes increasingly apparent that the populist billionaire business "Messiah" behind
the mask of the "Trumpism" cult is merely in power to "Make America Great Again" by
transferring even more wealth from the lower and middle classes to the top 1% of wealthiest
Americans, the politics of rightwing extremism will intensify and even greater sociopolitical
division is inevitable. Billionaires and millionaires behind rightwing populism represent a
desperate effort to save the privileges that capitalists enjoy by driving a segment of society
ideologically and politically to the extreme right even if this entails embracing even more
austere police state methods, especially surveillance, than currently exist.
The Justice Department under Trump introduced harsher measures for petty crimes, loosening
any safety net protections of minorities from police abuse, while easing up on regulations
affecting white collar crime. Along with racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and misogyny,
anti-Semitism is in the broader mix that characterizes a segment of Trump supporters that the
Republican Party mobilizes. For the Republican Party to continue catering to the establishment
while claiming to be anti-establishment, populism is a useful vehicle as it breaks the
solidarity of the working class by advancing the policies of social discrimination.
The neoliberal establishment would have achieved the same goals of capital concentration
with a Democrat president in power. This was the case under both Bill Clinton and Barak Obama
catering to a different popular base distinguished by traditional Democrat identity politics
– feminists, gay rights, and greater integration of minorities into the capitalist
mainstream. While Republican rhetoric and policies project false hope to rightwing elements
from Reagan Democrats, Evangelicals to neo-Nazis that the social contract will be anti-elite
and focused on the white majority feeling threatened by identity politics, Democrats remain
focused on reviving the old Cold War with Russia and catering to Wall Street, while promoting
cultural and lifestyle issues with a greater commitment to balance the welfare state with
corporate welfare. Ironically, Democrat identity politics is actually just as divisive because
it refuses to address issues along structural lines, thus leaving many among the masses to be
duped by the promises of populist rhetoric.
Trumpism's Contradictions and American Jews, and Islamophobia
Although anti-Semitism has a long and ugly history, no minority group in US history has
suffered greater discrimination and institutionalized racism than African-Americans. The white
Anglo-Saxon majority has historically categorized ethnic immigrants in a hierarchy based on
skin color, ethnic origin, and religion. American Jews were not exempt from ethnocentrism,
remaining a favorite target of the KKK among other rightwing groups. Because class in some
cases transcends ethnicity, race and religion, Jews that became capitalists or moved into
middle class professions benefited from assimilation into the institutional mainstream much
more than those of the same faith in the lower middle class and working class.
By the early 21 st century, American Jews were well integrated into the
mainstream, reflecting society's diversity ideologically, politically, and socioeconomically.
From 2000 until 2016, Jewish voting patterns indicate that between two-thirds and three-fourths
supported the Democrat presidential candidates. Although these percentages are very similar to
Hispanic Catholic voting trends, stereotypes deeply ingrained in society remain just below the
thin façade of political correctness where saying the right thing in public is the only
thing that matters. Many within the rightwing populist movement accept the stereotypes that
Jews are in control of everything from Wall Street to the media, the political arena, higher
education, and the entertainment industry.
Interestingly, it never even occurs to anti-Semites to ask why so many of the elites are
Anglo-Saxon Protestant. This is indicative that American racists believe it is natural to be
Anglo-Saxon protestant and be among the elites because national identity rests with this
category of people since the republic was founded. While it is true that Jews are in every
sector of society, just as are Christians, a larger percentage of Jews is integrated into the
capitalist class in comparison to other minorities especially blacks and Hispanics. However, it
is blatantly false that Jews control the entire institutional structure and use it to advance
some amorphous "Jewish agenda", as neo-Nazi and other conspiracy theorists propagate. On the
contrary, throughout European and US history Jews have proved more loyal and more conformist to
the institutional structure than any other minority.
Conspiracy theories about Jewish control of the institutional structure are the basis of
anti-Semitism that has declined since the interwar era as much in the US as in Western Europe,
though the same does not hold true for Eastern Europe. With the rise of populism in American
politics during the presidential campaign of 2016, anti-Semitism assumed the spotlight once
again, despite the fact that Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner is Jewish with business and
personal connections to Israel. Moreover, top administration officials in control of financial,
economic and trade policy are also Jewish linked to Wall Street and specifically the
multinational financial syndicate Goldman Sachs.
While it is true that all US presidents cater to Wall Street, and all presidents since
Ronald Reagan have relied on former Goldman Sachs executives who have been invariably Jewish to
conduct fiscal, economic, trade and foreign policy, it is especially noteworthy that Trump has
long-standing links to Jewish billionaires. This in itself would not be unusual except that his
has been using populist anti-big business, anti-elite rhetoric to appeal to populist elements
among them neo-Nazis, KKK, and other varieties of racists and anti-Semites. The glaring
contradiction that cannot be reconciled is that Trumpism symbolizes and emboldens ethnocentrism
while the administration includes millionaire and billionaire American Jews who are in the
awkward position of accepting rightwing populism so that they can advance neoliberal
policies.
It is hardly surprising that some emboldened Trump supporters have engaged in anti-Semitic
activities, assuming that their leader really represents the extremist white Christian masses
rather than the multi-ethnic, including Jewish, capitalist elites. In March 2017, prominent
Jewish-American groups demanded that Trump denounce anti-Semitism in light of a rise in
documented incidents in different parts of the country. The corporate media exposed this issue,
but like Jewish organization the media did not frame it in its larger context of rightwing
populism where anti-Semitism is but one of many aspects of racism. Trump's refusal to accept
responsibility for his brand of populism giving rise to anti-Semitism was revealing and
somewhat shocking to all people embracing pluralism but especially to Jews who assumed he would
be friendlier because his daughter is married to Kushner.
Trump had no choice but to reject the suggestion that Trumpism entails anti-Semitism.
Admitting that Trumpism leads to anti-Semitism would have forced the president to accept that
his ideological/political movement is politically and culturally racist at its core and that
his administration is driven by the politics of exclusion rather than integration in a
pluralistic society. Even more alarming, the entire Republican establishment with few
exceptions refused to denounce the racist core of Trumpism, thus demonstrating that the party
clings to the rightwing populist base even when some within that base are neo-Nazis.
Contrary to how the media and many analysts who focused on the cult of personality see
Trumpism, this phenomenon did not fall to earth from space. It has deep roots in both parties,
but especially in the Republican Party going as far back as the 1920s. Despite "Trumpism" as an
integral part of the Republican Party and American society, anti-Semitism has actually remained
relatively low in comparison with Western Europe and especially Eastern Europe where it is only
exceeded by Islamic countries. Of course, opinion polls and hate crime reports cannot possibly
measure with any degree of accuracy the level of anti-Semitism across society. People conceal
their attitudes toward Jews as they do toward Muslims and blacks because in a pluralistic
society where political correctness takes precedence overt racism is unacceptable –
politically incorrect and bad for business given that the American consumer base is
multi-ethnic.
Some analysts were encouraged that anti-Semitism has been on the decline in the last two
decades because of the rise of Islamophobia, a form of religious discrimination that spiked
after the Iranian Revolution and assumed astronomical proportions after 9/11. However, the rise
of rightwing populism, which includes Christians driven by prejudice against other faiths, has
emboldened anti-Semitism as much in the US and across Europe in the past two decades when the
neoliberal elites celebrated the triumph of globalization. Neoliberalism is the catalyst in the
rise of globalization, the rise of rightwing populism and the rise of Islamophobia in the last
two decades.
Combined with a persistently anti-Islam bias in the media that has been reinforcing
Islamophobia and the rise of rightwing populism aimed at Islam in general and Muslim immigrants
specifically, the war on terror has been a catalytic factor in the change of mass attitudes
from anti-Semitism to Islamophobia. The fact that Israel has been pursuing apartheid policies
toward Palestinians and pursuing a militarist approach to foreign policy has worked in its
favor when it comes to attracting mainstream conservative and Cold War liberal elements across
the US and Western Europe, thus transferring the historic focus of prejudice from Jews to
Muslims.
France's National Front under Marine Le Pen is a good example of a political party that has
been focusing more on the Muslim enemy where all bourgeois political parties also focused
rather than clinging to anti-Semitism that carries a political and social stigma. In an
interview in June 2014, she stated: "I do not stop repeating it to French Jews. Not only is
the National Front not your enemy, but it is without a doubt the best shield to protect you. It
stands at your side for the defense of our freedoms of thought and of religion against the only
real enemy, Islamist fundamentalism."
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/marine-le-pen-national-front-jews-muslims/523302/
Ironically, the rising tide of populism across Western and Eastern Europe as well as Trump's
America has reinvigorated racists of all sorts, despite the official policies of governments to
support Israeli apartheid policies and militarism while keeping Islamophobia in the forefront
of the political dialogue. The fact that the US claims to support the war on terror while
remaining a major arms supplier to countries like Saudi Arabia where most jihadists have
originated and where the regime has been supplying jihadist rebels with weapons in both Syria
and Yemen does not seem to register any more with liberals than with conservatives. While the
US and EU arms manufacturers make billions in profits selling weapons to countries with a
history of supporting jihadists, the Western media and governments continue to promote the myth
about strengthening national security against Islamic terrorism, thus promoting Islamophobia
and xenophobia.
Although anti-Semitism has deep roots throughout the Western World as does Islamophobia,
many Christians learned anti-Semitism from their families while they learned about Islamophobia
from mainstream media and politicians since the Iranian Revolution. Overt or subtle hiding
behind political correctness, religious prejudice is convenient for opportunistic bourgeois
politicians, for the media and pundits when there are serious structural problems in the
economy as in 2008 great recession. Racists default the rise in unemployment, stagnant wages,
and political polarization following 2008 to Jewish elites and immigrant workers rather than
the political economy predicated on socioeconomic inequality and political marginalization.
The neoliberal system that creates greater socioeconomic inequality thrives on racism,
anti-Semitism and Islamophobia because it distracts focus from the root causes of structural
problems in society. Rightwing populism in the US and Europe finds a popular response from
angry middle class and working class that are unable to discern the structural inequality that
the political economy creates. Blaming Jews, Arabs, Hispanics, Blacks, and other minorities
because the system does not integrate the "native majority" into the upward trajectory of the
mainstream is simple and convenient because it also fulfills an emotional need to vent. Adolph
Hitler's belief that people need someone to hate rather than abstract systems and institutions
beyond their comprehension works just as well today as it did in the turbulent 1930s.
Is Antisemitism on the rise?
In January 2017 there were 40 to 68 bomb threats (depending on the source) against Jewish
community centers in 27 states, with Jewish cemeteries the most well publicized targets. When
we consider that the number of anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses in 2015 were twice as
many as in 2014, it appears that anti-Semitism had been rising under the Obama administration
pursuing neoliberal policies. Statistics from public opinion polls indicate that anti-Semitic
incidents rose immediately after Trump won the presidency, something that hardly surprised many
critics who had been warning that such is the price of appealing to extreme rightwing elements
for political support.
FBI statistics on hate crimes indicate that there have not been significant changes since
the presidential election of 2012, but threats against Jewish centers and Jewish journalists
did experience a spike in threats once Trump won the election. It is noteworthy that the
reporting of anti-Semitic incidents is more accurate and prevalent than the reporting of
racial, ethnic, or religious prejudice of other groups that the media routinely overlooks both
at the local but especially the national level. Hate crimes motivated by religion have targeted
Jews and Muslims since Trump's election, although Islamophobia spiked sharply since 9/11 and it
is under-reported in comparison with anti-Semitic incidents. While institutional anti-Semitism
is very low partly because of the cordial US-Israeli ties but also because Jews are more
thoroughly integrated in society, the same is not the case for institutional racism aimed at
Muslims and blacks.
Because Trump won with a populist appeal, it was inevitable that xenophobia aimed at Muslims
and Latin Americans as main targets, racism, sexism, homophobia, and chauvinism as main
cultural traits would become even more acceptable driven by the politics of division. In very
subtle ways, rightwing news organizations that have been supporting Trump have been promoting
social discrimination; some daring to cross the line to attack Jews backing liberal causes and
the Democrat Party. Although anti-Semitism finds no expression in public policy as does
Islamophobia, America's ideological orientation has become so rightwing than the Democrats find
it necessary to attack the Republican president by reviving Cold War anti-Russia propaganda.
Instead of remaining focused on specific allegations of corruption, collusion, money
laundering, and above all Republican policies that worsen inequality and weaken the middle
class and workers, Democrats committed to neoliberal policies are just as guilty as Republicans
for avoiding the key issue of social justice.
Anti-Semitism among Liberals and Conservatives
Anti-Semitism is subtle even among those liberal elements that cling to political
correctness often used to conceal real intentions. Leftist critics of Israel are driven by the
apartheid conditions and Israel's militarist approach to foreign policy and by the neoliberal
orientation of the entire Western World that the Israeli business and political elites support.
Critics are concerned that the Israeli government, not people, has come a very long way in
emulating the Third Reich's racism when it comes to treatment of Palestinians. This does not
mean that all leftists are free of anti-Semitism and they are not using Israel's horrific
policies to justify racism. Because it is true that anti-Zionism can lead to legitimizing
anti-Semitism, it is essential to denounce any form of discrimination and differentiate between
government policy and ethnic or religious prejudice. Labeling any critic of Israeli anti-Semite
merely for supporting peace in the Middle East is propaganda and a sign of using the pretext of
anti-Semitism to suppress dissent.
Rightwing elements are more comfortable in anti-Semitism because it is an integral part of
their ideological orientation. Besides the KKK, neo-Nazi groups and some new elements that
emerged with the explosion of rightwing media, anti-Semitism as an integral part of the
ideological rightwing has historical roots among Christian business and political elites that
looked the other way during the 1930s when the Third Reich was systematically persecuting Jews.
Anti-Semitism from the right has found expression from a number of social media outlets where
the white nationalist ALT-RIGHT among others has increased their anti-Semitic attacks with hate
speech. The anti-Defamation League reported 2.6 million tweets aimed at Jewish journalists in
12 months, summer 2015 to summer 2016. Although Trump does not use anti-Semitic rhetoric and he
has long-standing ties to Jewish millionaires and billionaires, many of his working class
Christian supporters assume he is talking about Jews in the liberal "fake" media when he speaks
of 'enemies of the people'.
https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-task-force-issues-report-detailing-widespread-anti-semitic-harassment-of
As the latest layer building on existing ones of American rightwing populism, Trumpism is
indicative of an ideological, political and cultural orientation, but also a reflection of
one's values as well as aspirations and illusions about what a populist regime led by a Messiah
businessman can deliver to its middle and working class base. Deeply imbedded in Trumpism is
anti-Semitism from the extreme right that has gained legitimacy because Trump is president, no
matter his ties to Jewish business elites. While the liberal left as represented by Senator
Bernie Sanders, the son of Jewish immigrants, has also criticized the financial and media
elites that include Jews, there is hardly a comparison between the Sanders movement to pursue
social justice for all people and the politics of hate and division that Trump and his
Republican propagandists promoted.
Evangelical Christians: Friends of Israel, Enemies of secular American-Jews?
Ever since the preeminence of neoconservatives in the Reagan decade of the eighties, there
has been a strange alliance between American Jews and Evangelicals. Besides their common
distaste for Muslims, their common Cold War militarist foreign policy and their common
conservative social values that brought these two groups closer together they seem like natural
allies, using religious dogmatism to justify imperialist foreign policies and social
inequality. Evangelicals have consistently remained in a military-solution mode when it came to
foreign policy hotspots and viewed Israel as defender of the Christian West against the Muslims
becoming radicalized after the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
The alliance between American Jews and Evangelicals began showing cracks in the presidential
elections of 2008 and 2012, but especially in 2016 when many Jews backed Hillary Clinton while
Evangelicals sided with Trump who promised them Reagan-style social and judicial conservatism,
along with jobs and economic nationalism intended to "make American great again", partly
implying the integration of white Christians into the mainstream from which they had been
excluded under the neoliberal regime of Bill Clinton and Obama. Besides the Evangelicals vote
for Trump and the American secular Jews largely backing Clinton in 2016, the rift between
Evangelicals and Jews was evident in the "liberal" vs. the populist rightwing media wars over
the Trump administration's policies and personalities such as Steve Bannon, former Goldman
Sachs banker and Breitbart news executive and no stranger to racism, white nationalism, and
anti-Semitism.
Israeli neoliberal and militarist elites continue to hope that they can have Evangelicals
supporting Israel, just as they supported Trump win the election. The Israeli-Evangelical
alliance appears on firm ground, but it is becoming increasingly problematic because Trumpism
not only entails xenophobia, ethnocentrism and nationalism, but anti-Semitism among many of its
voters, even some younger Evangelicals. The Republicans and the rightwing media have tried to
identify liberal Jews as the enemy, but such rhetoric only reinforces anti-Semitism.
Evangelicals and rightwing media have hammered at the close identification of the Democrats
with Jewish billionaires like George Soros famous for his support of liberal causes. This
association has reinforced anti-Semitism among the rightwing populists, largely because the
rightwing media and politicians keep at it.
Ironically, the same criticism of Jewish billionaires and their liberal causes is also made
across much of Europe, especially in Eastern Europe where the commitment to diversity and
pluralism is a pale imitation of what exists in Scandinavian countries. The same criticism is
never leveled against liberal Anglo-Saxon billionaires like Warren Buffet or others, projecting
the impression that Jewish money somehow corrupts the political process more than Protestant
money. The obvious hypocrisy on the part of right wingers including Evangelicals regarding
Jewish money vs. Protestant money influencing the political arena extends to Israel treated as
a friendly militarist state while Muslim militarist states are deserving of condemnation.
What would happen to Jews in America and the relationship with Israel if they lost
support from evangelical Christians?
Neoliberals from the Clinton and neoconservative leftovers from the Reagan decade have
cultivated close ties between American Evangelicals and Israel but the relationship is showing
signs of deterioration largely because the younger Evangelicals question the wisdom of
one-sided US foreign policy. Although public opinion polls indicate that American Jews largely
mistrust Evangelicals, Evangelical organizations remain committed to support of Israel as a
frontline state against the Arabs and radical Islam. This ideological commitment is largely
based on money pouring into Evangelical churches and their affiliate NGOs that are tools of
recruitment and indoctrination. The highly organized Evangelical groups using the media,
educational centers and Christian media remain a political force that helped to elect Trump
while keeping the populist wing of the Republican Party strong.
The irony of Evangelical support for Israel is that some of its members are anti-Semitic.
Ever since the Reagan administration, rightwing Christian fundamentalist elements, which
American Jews and the Israeli lobby have been trying to mobilize, are not just anti-Muslim but
some are anti-Semitic as well. While the war on terror shifted the focus of American
Evangelicals to the imminent Muslim threat as they understand it, this does not mean that
anti-Semitism disappeared. On the contrary, as socioeconomic conditions deteriorate, and as a
segment of the population perceives that Jewish elites from Wall Street to media and Hollywood
are to partly blame for the elusive American Dream not trickling down to the masses,
anti-Semitism will rise and support for Israel will diminish. Trump's 'America First' economic
nationalism and slashing foreign aid as part of neo-isolationism will eventually impact Israel,
especially as the administration will drive budgetary deficits and the public debt to record
levels because of corporate tax cuts and more corporate welfare at the expense of health and
social programs.
Regardless of who is in the White House, the US will always support Israel diplomatically
because both political parties have done so since 1948 and they will continue to do so for many
reasons. This is not only because of the very powerful Israeli lobby, but also the fact that
Israel serves the convenient role of perpetuating destabilization in the Middle East that helps
the defense industry of the US. Despite the apartheid conditions toward the Palestinians,
Israel will remain a key US ally even if younger Evangelicals question US support and even if a
segment of the rightwing Republican popular base becomes more anti-Semitic.
Conclusion
The political correctness rhetoric of liberals and conservatives alike notwithstanding, the
socioeconomic effects of neoliberal policies on society gives rise to ultra-rightwing
ideological and political movements. Through the media, the political and socioeconomic elites
help to indoctrinate and mobilize the masses into the rightwing camp using it as the popular
base of the Republican Party that caters to Wall Street, as much as the Democrats use identity
politics to mobilize their popular base while also catering to Wall Street. Given that the
two-party system represents the interests of the same elites despite ideological and political
affiliations among the elites, the masses merely follow instead of breaking away to create a
class-based grassroots movement that would bring social justice through systemic change.
Rightwing populism becomes the grassroots movement and its followers are convinced that it is
the vehicle to the fulfillment of the social contract; an illusion that conservative
politicians, media and pundits constantly reinforce.
Mobilizing the remnants of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, Trumpism gained
momentum because neoliberal policies exacerbated socioeconomic polarization under Obama.
Although Trumpism will fade away along with Trump at some point, its imprint on society will
remain as did that of Reaganism that helped to bring a segment of the population father to the
rightwing ideological domain where discrimination assumes an unspoken legitimacy just below the
surface of political correctness. The rightwing orientation of society as an integral part of
deradicalization of the masses is essential to maintaining the political economy of inequality,
although it comes at the cost of the absence of social justice and social discrimination.
The bourgeois value system is based on individualism, but bourgeois institutions and
policies have historically promoted discrimination on the basis of group identity disregarding
the merits of the individual. Like all forms of prejudice rooted in ignorance, fear and social
conditioning, anti-Semitism is no different. It is futile to assume that anti-Semitism can be
mitigated in isolation of all other forms of prejudice separate from the larger issue of a
socially just society. All social, economic and political indicators point not to greater
social discrimination and prejudice in a society where the mass concentration of wealth at the
expense of the middle and working classes has resulted in the search for enemies to blame,
whether Muslims, Jews, Mexicans, etc.
As the US slowly creeps down the road of more authoritarianism and a surveillance state,
becoming less tolerant of differences and diversity amid its inevitable decline as the world's
preeminent economic power, it will have a much weaker middle class and a working class with
lower living standards. A segment of the population whose identity rests with the flag and the
cross will become more open to the idea of a police militarized state that enforces conformity
through constant surveillance and stricter laws that punish petty criminals while allowing the
legalized corporate thieves to enjoy a privileged status in society.
In the absence of embracing human rights and social justice there cannot possibly be an end
to anti-Semitism any more than any other form of prejudice. If the political economy feed a
culture of prejudice because it has an interest in maintaining the institutional structure,
then it is hardly surprising that prejudice would be widespread. Under neoliberalism thriving
under Trumpist populism, various forms of prejudice will manifest themselves once the promise
of "Make America Great Again" never filters down to the masses.
Jon V. Kofas , Ph.D. – Retired university professor of history – author of ten
academic books and two dozens scholarly articles. Specializing in International Political
economy, Kofas has taught courses and written on US diplomatic history, and the roles of the
World Bank and IMF in the world.
If [neoliberal] left is understood as Clinton DemoRats, then it's just a second war party. Just look at Hillary. Such an
anti-war hero.
Notable quotes:
"... For decades, a common myth pervading the American political arena has been that the left is anti-war. ..."
"... But they are as much opposed to war as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) – at least he is honest about his appetite for blood and desire for perpetual regime change, no matter who occupies the Oval Office. So, from where did this mendacity come? ..."
"... In 2008, the United States was entrenched in an election battle and two major wars – Afghanistan and Iraq. The Democrats portrayed themselves as the anti-war party, promising to correct the foreign disasters of the incumbent administration. Since then, it's as if former President George W. Bush never departed. The Democrats have championed military interventions, twiddled their thumbs under President Barack Obama, and nominated a hawk to lead the party in 2016. ..."
"... Today, the [neoliberla] left has united with the neoconservatives in opposition to President Donald Trump's decision to bring 2,000 troops home from Syria and potential plans to withdraw from Afghanistan. Because they loathe Trump so much and don't want him to be portrayed as a more peaceful president than his predecessor, leftists demand that U.S. forces permanently stay in the region, facing death or serious injury. ..."
"... Attempting to locate a handful of consistent anti-war Democrats is like trying to spot Vice President Mike Pence with a woman other than his wife at a restaurant: It's never going to happen. ..."
"... For the last century, virtually every war, invasion, and occupation have been given the stamp of approval by Democrats. President Woodrow Wilson dragged the U.S. into one of those wars-to-end-all- wars fiascos. President Harry Truman sent thousands of young men to their deaths in Korea, setting the stage for perpetual global interventionism. President Lyndon Baines Johnson escalated American involvement in Vietnam. The Democratic leadership approved of the Iraq War, and Obama destabilized an entire region, killed American citizens, and intensified the drone bombing campaign. ..."
"... Outside of Capitol Hill, the predominantly left-leaning mainstream media have never seen a war it didn't like. In the last two years alone, the vacuous TV commentators have employed the same two strategies: Demand action against Russia (eh, Paul Begala ?) and oppose President Trump for using diplomacy and other tactics to institute peace ..."
Otto von Bismarck once said, "People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or
before an election." For decades, a common myth pervading the American political arena has been that the left
is anti-war.
But they are as much opposed to war as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) – at least he is
honest about his appetite for blood and desire for perpetual regime change, no matter who
occupies the Oval Office. So, from where did this mendacity come?
In 2008, the United States was entrenched in an election battle and two major wars –
Afghanistan and Iraq. The Democrats portrayed themselves as the anti-war party, promising to
correct the foreign disasters of the incumbent administration. Since then, it's as if former
President George W. Bush never departed. The Democrats have championed military interventions,
twiddled their thumbs under President Barack Obama, and nominated a hawk to lead the party in
2016.
Progressives, the same ones who, under Republican administrations, routinely held massive
anti-war rallies on days that ended in "y," have been eerily silent for the last ten years.
Today, the [neoliberla] left has united with the
neoconservatives in opposition to President Donald Trump's decision to
bring 2,000 troops home from Syria and potential plans to
withdraw from Afghanistan. Because they loathe Trump so much and don't want him to be
portrayed as a more peaceful president than his predecessor, leftists demand that U.S. forces
permanently stay in the region, facing death or serious injury.
Is this a case of Freaky Friday politics, or has the left always been
pro-war?
Anti-War Democrats, Please Stand Up
Attempting to locate a handful of consistent anti-war Democrats is like trying to spot Vice
President Mike Pence with a woman other than his wife at a restaurant: It's never going to
happen.
Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the man who switches from Independent to Democrat when it
suits the occasion, has come out of the closet on occasion as a hawk. In addition to
supporting the so-called Little War in Kosovo in the 1990s, Sanders
revealed to ABC News in September 2015 that the U.S. could use its military forces when not
attacked and apply sanctions on adversaries.
For the last century, virtually every war, invasion, and occupation have been given the
stamp of approval by Democrats. President Woodrow Wilson dragged the U.S. into one of those
wars-to-end-all- wars fiascos. President Harry Truman sent thousands of young men to their
deaths in Korea, setting the stage for perpetual global interventionism. President Lyndon
Baines Johnson escalated American involvement in Vietnam. The Democratic leadership approved of
the Iraq War, and Obama destabilized an entire region, killed American citizens, and
intensified the drone bombing campaign.
Outside of Capitol Hill, the predominantly left-leaning mainstream media have never seen a
war it didn't like. In the last two years alone, the vacuous TV commentators have employed the
same two strategies: Demand action against Russia (eh, Paul
Begala ?) and oppose President Trump for using diplomacy and other tactics to institute
peace.
So, how exactly is the left anti-war?
The Born-Again Right
When it comes to foreign policy, there are now three wings of the GOP: hawks, doves, and
those who realize the doctrine of the last 20 years has failed.
One of the biggest surprises since Trump's election is that the right has become
increasingly more cautious about seeking dragons to slay and erecting Old Glory on every plot
of land in the world. House Republicans have
slashed foreign aid in the billions, Senate Republicans have voted to end America's
role in Yemen's humanitarian crisis, and prominent figures in the White House have asked one
simple question: Why should the United States be the policeman of the world?
Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to the president, recently
dismantled the hawkish Counterfeit News Network when he told Wolf Blitzer:
"What I'm talking about, Wolf, is the big picture of a country that through several
administrations had an absolutely catastrophic foreign policy that cost trillions and
trillions of dollars and thousands and thousands of lives and made the Middle East more
unstable and more dangerous. And let's talk about Syria. Let's talk about the fact -- ISIS is
the enemy of Russia. ISIS is the enemy of Assad. ISIS is the enemy of Turkey. Are we supposed
to stay in Syria generation after generation, spilling American blood to fight the enemies of
all those countries?"
Comments that should draw praise from the left have been met with mockery and
scorn.
US Foreign Policy
H.L. Mencken was right when he said that "every decent man is ashamed of the government he
lives under." There is no other area in government that should instill more shame in the
population than foreign policy.
The political theater of sending young men and women overseas to fight in wars is a
tragicomedy: a comedy for those who don't have to wield a weapon and a tragedy for those who
do. It is easy and comfortable for politicians and pundits, a paltry few of whom have ever done
any of the fighting, to shout platitudes as if they were reincarnated John Waynes.
It's clear that politicians of all stripes have blood on their hands. The only difference is
that some policymakers showcase this human flesh with pride, while others pretend to be
benevolent. Trump's foreign policy has not been perfect, but it has been far superior to what
has transpired over the years. To rebuke the president's withdrawal of soldiers in an NPC-like
manner makes you complicit to atrocity.
"... Senate Resolution on December 19, 2019 which calls for "a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline ..."
"... Calling for a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. ..."
Senator Ron Johnson (R- Wis) and Richard Durban (D-Ill) and 39 of their colleagues introduced a Senate Resolution on December
19, 2019 which calls for "a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline" as shown
here :
Here is a list of co-sponsors of the resolution:
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), ranking member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation; and Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Ben Cardin
(D-Md.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), James Risch (R-Idaho),
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.),
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.),
Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.),
Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Roger Wicker
(R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).
Here is the resolution (currently unnumbered) in its entirety:
Calling for a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the
Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
... ... ...
Whereas the United States has important national interests in the Black Sea region, including the security
of three NATO littoral states, the promotion of European energy market diversification by ensuring unfettered European access
to energy exporters in the Caucuses and central Asia, and combatting use of the region by smugglers as a conduit for trafficking
in persons, narcotics, and arms;
Whereas the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a proposed underwater natural gas pipeline project that would provide
an additional 55,000,000,000 cubic meters of pipeline capacity from the Russian Federation to the Federal Republic of Germany
through the Baltic Sea;
Whereas the Russian Federation's state-owned oil and gas company, Gazprom, is the sole shareholder of the Nord
Stream 2 project;
Whereas, in 2017, there was spare capacity of approximately 55,000,000,000 cubic meters in the Ukrainian gas
transit system;
Whereas Gazprom cut off natural gas exports to Europe via Ukraine in 2006, and again in 2009, over supply and
pricing disputes with Ukraine's state-owned oil and gas company, Naftogaz;
Whereas transit of Russian natural gas to Europe via Ukraine declined precipitously after the completion of
Nord Stream 1 in 2011, falling from 80 percent to between 40 and 50 percent of Russia's total exports to Europe;
Whereas, in 2017, Russian gas accounted for 37 percent of Europe's natural gas imports, an increase of
5 percent over 2016;
Whereas, on December 12, 2018, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning both the
Russian Federation's aggression in the Kerch Strait and the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline; and
Whereas, on December 11, 2018, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution calling upon
the European
Union to reject the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and urging the President to use all available means to promote energy policies in
Europe that reduce European reliance on Russian energy exports:
... ... ...
(9) applauds and concurs with the European 2 Parliament's December 12, 2018, resolution condemning Russian aggression in the
Kerch Strait and
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, calling for the pipeline's cancellation due to its threat to European energy security, and calling
on the Russian Federation to
7 guarantee freedom of navigation in the Kerch Strait;
and
(10) urges the President to continue working with Congress and our allies to ensure the appropriate policies to deter the Russian
Federation from further aggression.
Fortunately, these two neocons can make all the proclamations they want but without President Trump's support it's all just
words; neocon virtue signalling. And of course President Trump won't support what they're doing because he campaigned on and governs
as an anti-war president.
Ron Johnson is a Bushie neocon who actively supported the neocon ˇJebe! (Please Clap) Bush while Durbin is a Hillary Clinton
neocon who actively supported that drunken, corrupt, warmongering shrew.
Thank all that's holy that we have a genuine anti-war POTUS in office and not either of those two neocons, both of whom were
utterly in the pockets of defense contractors.
Thanks for your research on relevant naval law. The Ukrainian vessel is reported to have violated the ongoing protocol by failing
to take on a Russian pilot as it transited the strait and an important bridge could potentially have been attacked by those vessels.
This was a provocation by Ukraine that seems to have its desired effect on the U.S. Senate. For essential background on the Ukrainian
civil war, I recommend reading Stephen F. Cohen's article in the Nation in 2014, titled "Kiev's atrocities and the Silence of
the Hawks." https://www.thenation.com/article/kievs-atrocities-and-silence-hawks/
In these times, the real political debate is centered around the issues of migration and
national identity. It's what Brexit was all about. It's the reason the one thing all Trump
supporters really want him to do, is to build the wall. It would be an international symbol
of our longing for and right to nationhood a billion dollar monument to nationalism and a
trigger for nationalist revival.
This is why the forces of globalism will throw everything at stopping it's construction.
If Trump leaves office and that wall is not built, his presidency will have been for
naught.
"... The Pity of It All : A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933 ..."
"... Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results. ..."
"... Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal emphasis on an American dominated global empire. ..."
"... Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. ..."
"... Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. ..."
"... Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed. Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia. Or you can count their billions. ..."
"... The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop, confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality. ..."
"... Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country. They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on. ..."
"... "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper" ..."
"... "The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. " ..."
"... Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention. ..."
"... " (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper does not say that." ..."
"... But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld? ..."
"... Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS. ..."
"... But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence of the manifest destiny. ..."
At the Huffington Post, Jim Sleeper addresses
"A Foreign-Policy Problem
No One Speaks About," and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, even if he's not a warmongering neocon
himself. The Yale lecturer's jumping-off point are recent statements by Leon Wieseltier and
David Brooks lamenting the decline of
American power.
In addition to Wieseltier and Brooks, the "blame the feckless liberals" chorus has included Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, David
Frum, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and many other American neoconservatives. Some of them have
been chastened, or at least been made more cautious, by their grand-strategic blunders of a few years ago ..
I'm saying that they've been fatuous as warmongers again and again and that there's something pathetic in their attempts to
emulate Winston Churchill, who warned darkly of Hitler's intentions in the 1930s. Their blind spot is their willful ignorance
of their own complicity in American deterioration and their over-compensatory, almost pre-adolescent faith in the benevolence
of a statist and militarist power they still hope to mobilize against the seductions and terrors rising all around them.
At bottom, the chorus members' recurrent nightmares of 1938 doom them to reenact other nightmares, prompted by very similar
writers in 1914, on the eve of World War I. Those writers are depicted chillingly, unforgettably, in Chapter 9, "War Fever," of
Amos Elon's
The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933. Elon's account of Germany's stampede into World
War I chronicles painfully the warmongering hysterics of some Jewish would-be patriots of the Kaiserreich who exerted themselves
blindly, romantically, to maneuver their state into the Armageddon that would produce Hitler himself.
This is the place to emphasize that few of Wilhelmine German's warmongers were Jews and that few Jews were or are warmongers.
(Me, for example, although my extended-family history isn't much different from Brooks' or Wieseltier's.) My point is simply that,
driven by what I recognize as understandable if almost preternatural insecurities and cravings for full liberal-nationalist belonging
that was denied to Jews for centuries in Europe, some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves
into the Iraq War, and they have continued, again and again, to employ modes of public discourse and politics that echo with eerie
fidelity that of the people described in Elon's book. The Americans lionized George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and
many others as their predecessors lionized Kaiser Wilhelm, von Bethmann-Hollweg, and far-right nationalist associates who hated
the neo-cons of that time but let them play their roles .
Instead of acknowledging their deepest feelings openly, or even to themselves, the writers I've mentioned who've brought so
much folly and destruction upon their republic, are doubling down, more nervous and desperate than ever, looking for someone else
to blame. Hence their whirling columns and rhythmic incantations. After Germany lost World War I, many Germans unfairly blamed
their national folly on Jews, many of whom had served in it loyally but only a few of whom had been provocateurs and cheerleaders
like the signatories of [Project for New American Century's] letter to Bush. Now neo-cons, from Wieseltier and Brooks to [Charles]
Hill, are blaming Obama and all other feckless liberals. Some of them really need to take a look in Amos Elon's mirror.
Interesting. Though I think Sleeper diminishes Jewish agency here (Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are no one's proxy) and can't
touch the Israel angle. The motivation is not simply romantic identification with power, it's an ideology of religious nationalism
in the Middle East, attachment to the needs of a militarist Sparta in the Arab world. That's another foreign policy problem no one
speaks about.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:11 pm
"Democracy in in the Middle East" was always just a weasel-word saying of "let's try to improve Israel's strategic position
by changing their neighbours".
The neocons basically took a hardline position on foreign interventionism based out of dual loyalty. This is the honest truth.
For anti-Semites, a handful of neocons will always represent "The Jews" as a collective. For many Jews, the refusal to come to
grips with the rise of the neocons and how the Jewish community (and really by "community" I mean the establishment) failed to
prevent them in their own midst, is also a blemish.
Of course, Jim Sleeper is doing these things now. He should have done them 15-20 years ago or so. But better late than never,
I guess.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:16 pm
P.S. While we talk a lot about neocons as a Jewish issue, it's also important to put them in perspective. The only war that
I can truly think of that they influenced was the Iraq war, which was a disaster, but it also couldn't have happened without 9/11,
which was a very rare event in the history of America. You have to go back to Pearl Harbor to find something similar, and that
wasn't technically a terrorist attack but rather a military attack by Japan.
Leading up to the early 2000s, they were mostly ignored during the 1990s. They did take over the GOP media in the early 90s,
using the same tactics used against Hagel, use social norms as a cover but in actuality the real reason is Israel.
Before the 90s, in the 70s and 80s, the cold war took up all the oxygen.
So yeah, the neocons need to be talked about. But comparing what they are trying to do with a World War is a bit of a stretch.
Finally, talking about Israel – which Sleeper ignored – and the hardline positions that the political class in America have
adopted, if you want to look who have ensured the greatest slavishness to Israel, liberal/centrist groups like ADL, AJC and AIPAC(yes,
they are mostly democrats!) have played a far greater role than the neocons.
But I guess, Sleeper wasn't dealing with that, because it would ruin his view of the neocons as the bogeymen.
Just like "liberal" Zionists want to blame Likud for everything, overlooking the fact that Labor/Mapai has had a far greater
role in settling/colonizing the Palestinian land than the right has, and not to speak about the ethnic cleansing campaigns of
'48 and '67 which was only done by the "left", so too the neocons often pose as a convenient catch-all target for the collective
Jewish failure leading up to Iraq.
And I'm using the words "collective Jewish failure" because I actually don't believe, unlike Mearsheimer/Walt, that the war
would not have gone ahead unless there was massive support by the Israel/Jewish lobby. If Jews had decided no, it would still
have gone ahead. This is also contrary to Tom Friedman's famous saying of "50 people in DC are responsible for this war".
I also think that's an oversimplification.
But I focus more on the Jewish side because that's my side. And I want my community to do better, and just blaming the neocons
is something I'm tired of hearing in Jewish circles. The inability to look at liberal Jewish journalists and their role in promoting
the war to either gentile or Jewish audiences.
Kathleen, May 6, 2014, 6:53 pm
There was talk about this last night (Monday/5th) on Chris Matthew's Hardball segment on Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice pulling
out of the graduation ceremonies at Rutger's. David Corn did not say much but Eugene Robinson and Chris Matthews were basically
talking about Israel and the neocons desires to rearrange the middle east "the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad" conversation.
Bumblebye, May 6, 2014, 2:33 pm
"some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves into the Iraq War"
Have to take issue with that – the neo-cons hurled young American (and foreign) servicemen and women into that war, many to
their deaths, along with throwing as much taxpayer money as possible. They stayed ultra safe and grew richer for their efforts.
Citizen, May 7, 2014, 9:03 am
@ Bumblebye
Good point. During WW1, as I read the history, the Jewish Germans provided their fair share of combat troops. If memory serves,
despite Weimar Germany's later "stab in the back" theory, e.g., Hitler himself was given a combat medal thanks to his Jewish senior
officer. In comparison to the build-up to Shrub Jr's war on Iraq, the Jewish neocons provided very few Jewish American combat
troops.
It's hard to get reliable stats on Jewish American participation in the US combat arms during the Iraq war. For all I've been
able to ascertain, more have joined the IDF over the years. At any rate, it's common knowledge that Shrub's war on Iraq was instigated
and supported by chicken hawks (Jew or Gentile) at a time bereft of conscription. They built their sale by ignoring key facts,
and embellishing misleading and fake facts, as illustrated by the Downing Street memo.
Keith, May 6, 2014, 7:47 pm
PHIL- Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little
difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which
are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine.
The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's
emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results.
Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal
emphasis on an American dominated global empire.
So yes, the nationalistic emphasis is an anachronism, however, the decline of the US in conjunction with the extension of a
system of globalized domination should hardly be of concern to elite power-seekers who will benefit. In fact, the new system of
corporate/financial control will be beyond the political control of any nation, even the US. If they can pull it off. An interesting
topic no doubt, but one which I doubt is suitable for extended discussion on Mondoweiss. As for power-seeking as a consequence
of a uniquely Jewish experience, perhaps the less said the better.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes that
10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition with
them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on the
same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over the
Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself
is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support the political
movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty antisemite whose followers killed many thousands
of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those left behind perished
during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any of them would identify
with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
(I know I'm always grabbing OT threads of discussion, but when it comes down to it, I know much less about Zionism and Israel/Palestine
than many, if not most of the regular commenters here.)
I also am going to drift further off-topic by saying there is strong evidence that the slaughter in Odessa last Friday was
highly orchestrated and not solely the result of spontaneous mob violence. Very graphic and disturbing images in all of these
links:
" and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, ..>>
Stop it Sleeper. Do not continue to use the victim card ' to explain' the trauma, the insecurities, the nightmares, the angst,
the feelings, the sensitivities, blah blah, blah of Zionist or Israel.
That is not what they are about. These are power mad psychos like most neocons, period.
And even if it were, and even if all the Jews in the world felt the same way, the bottom line would still be they do not have
the right to make others pay in treasure and blood for their nightmares and mental sickness.
As near as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), the Ukrainians themselves are about half and half pro Russia and Pro NATO.
Your glance at the history of the region as to why this is so, and your text on historical Ukranian suffering and POTV on MW commentary
on this –did not help your analysis and its conclusion.
There's a difference between isolationism and defensive intervention, and even more so, re isolationism v. pro-active interventionism
"in the name of pursuing the democratic ideal". See Ron Paul v. PNAC-style neocons and liberal Zionists.
Also, if you were Putin, how would you see the push of NATO & US force posts ever creeping towards Russia and its local environment?
Look at the US military postings nearing Russia per se & those surrounding Iran. Compare Russia's.
And note the intent to wean EU from Russian oil, and as well, the draconian sanctions on Iran, and Obama's latest partnering
sanctions on Russia.
Imagine yourself in Putin's shoes, and Iran's.
Don't abuse your imagination only by imagining yourself in Netanyahu's shoes, which is the preoccupation of AIPAC and its whores
in the US Congress.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes
that 10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition
with them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on
the same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over
the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel
itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support
the political movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty anti-Semite whose followers killed
many thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those
left behind perished during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-Zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any
of them would identify with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
Yonah writes The freedom of Ukraine is a worthy goal. If the US is not able to back up our attempt to help them gain their
freedom it is not something to celebrate, but something to lament.
What are you saying? Ukraine has been an independent nation for 22 years. What freedom is this? What we have witnessed is that
one half of Ukraine has gotten tired that the other half keeps on electing candidates that represent those Ukrainians that identify
with Russian culture. They (the western half) successfully staged a coup and purged the other (eastern half) from the government.
You call that "freedom". Doesn't it embarrass you, Yonah, that the armed militias that conducted that coup are descendants of
the Bandera organization.
Does that ring a bell? These are the Ukrainians that were involved in the holocaust. Does Babi Yar stir any memories Yohan?
It was a massacre of 40,000 Jews just outside of Kiev in 1942. It was the single largest massacre of Jews during WWII. The massacre
was led by the Germans ( Einsatzgruppe C officers) but was carried out with the aid of 400 Ukrainian Auxillary Police. These were
later incorporated into the 14th SS-Volunteer Division "Galician" made up mostly Ukrainians. The division flags are to this day
displayed at Right Sector rallies in western Ukraine.
Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were
almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed.
Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis.
Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this
is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia.
Or you can count their billions. In any case, the neutral posture is sensible for Israel here. Which is highly uncharacteristic
for that government.
Toivo S- The history of Jew hatred by certain anti Russian elements in the Ukraine is not encouraging and nothing that I celebrate.
Maybe I have been swayed by headlines and a superficial reading of the situation.
If indeed I am wrong regarding the will of the Ukrainian people, I can only be glad that my opinion is just that, my opinion
and not US or Israel or anyone's policy but my own. I assume that a majority of Ukrainians want to maintain independence of Russia
and that the expressions of rebellion are in that vein.
My people were murdered by the einsatzgruppen in that part of the world and so maybe I have overcompensated by trying not to
allow my personal history to interfere with what I think would be the will of the majority of the Ukraine.
But Toivo S. please skip the "doesn't it embarrass you" line of thought. Just put a sock in it and skip it.
Well thanks for that Yonah. My wife's family descended from Jewish communities in Odessa and Galicia. They emigrated to the US
between 1900 and 1940. After WWII none of their relatives left behind were ever heard from again. Perhaps you have family that
experienced similar stories. What caused me to react to your post above is that you are describing the current situation in Ukraine
as a "freedom" movement by the Ukrainians when the political forces there descended from the same people that killed my inlaws
family (and apparently yours to). Why do you support them?
ToivoS- I support them because I trust/don't trust Putin. I trust him to impose his brand of leadership on Ukraine, I don't trust
him to care a whit about freedom. It is natural that the nationalist elements of Ukraine would descend from the elements that
expressed themselves the last time they had freedom from the Soviet Union, that is those forces that were willing to join with
the Nazis to express their hatred for the communist Soviet Union's rule over their freedom. That's how history works. The nationalists
today descend from the nationalists of yesterday.
But it's been 70 years since WWII and the Ukrainians ought to be able to have freedom even if the parties that advocate for
freedom are descended from those that supported the Nazis. (I know once i include the Nazi part of history any analogies are toxic,
but if I am willing to grant Hamas its rights as an expression of the Palestinian desire for freedom, why would I deny the Ukrainian
foul nationalist parties their rights to express their people's desire for freedom.)
Political parties are not made in a sterile laboratory, they evolve over history and most specifically they emerge from the
past. I accept that Ukrainian nationalism has not evolved much, but nonetheless not having read any polls I assume that the nationalists
are the representatives of the people's desire for freedom. And because Putin strikes me as something primitive, I accept the
Ukrainian desire for freedom.
What are you supporting? Let me refresh your historic memory: Black's Transfer Agreement. Now apply analogy, responding
to ToivoS. Might help us all to understand, explore more skillfully, Israel's current stance on the Putin-Ukranian matter .?
(I think Nuland's intervention caught on tape, combined with who she is married to, already explores with great clarification
what the US is doing.
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play
the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. Most people here would probably disagree with Sleeper, because he does
not deny that the world needs a cop, nor that the US would play a positive role, if it only had the means and the desire to
do so. People here (overwhelmingly) see the US role as a negative one (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let
the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world,"
The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that
embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop,
confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have
us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock
it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality.
Contrast that with the realist or realism approach recommended by George Kennan, and followed by this country successfully
through the end of the Cold War. That approach is conservative and contends we should stay out of wars unless the vital national
security interests of the US are at stake, like protecting WESTERN Europe, Japan, Australia, and the Western Hemisphere. This
meant we could sympathize with the plight of all the eastern Europeans oppressed by the Soviets, but would not defend militarily
the Hungarians (1956) or the Czechs (1968). It also meant we wouldn't send US troops into North Vietnam because we didn't want
to go to war with the Chinese over a country that was at best tangential to US interests. When we varied from that policy (Vietnam
and Iraq wars, Somalia) we paid a very heavy price while doing nothing to advance or protect our vital national security interests.
The sooner this country can return to our traditional realism-based foreign policy the better. Part of that policy would be
to disassociate the US from its entangling alliance with Likud Israel and its US Jewish supporters that espouse the Likud Greater
Israel line.
Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily
involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country.
They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to
get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend
and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews. It is also directed
at Neoconservative foreign policy advocates, comprised of Jews and non-Jews, and overlap between the two groups. Please also note
my use of the term "major role", and that I am not saying the Neocons and their supporters (Jewish or non) were solely responsible
for our involvement in the Iraq war. I am offering these caveats in the hope that the usual changes of antisemitism can be avoided
in your or anyone else's response to my arguments.
The influence of Neocons on US foreign policy has been very harmful to this country and poses a grave danger to its future.
It would be wise for you to reflect on that harm and those dangers and decide whether you belong in the realist camp or want to
continue running with the Neocons.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews.
What about the role of *liberal Zionists*, like Hillary Clinton, in supporting and promoting the Iraq War? Clinton still hasn't
offered an apology for helping to drive the United States in a multi-trillion dollar foreign policy disaster - and she has threatened
to "totally obliterate" Iran.
What about Harry Reid's lavish praise of Sheldon Adelson?
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has for some time billed the Koch brothers as public enemy No.1 .
But billionaire Republican donor Sheldon Adelson? He's just fine, Reid says.
"I know Sheldon Adelson. He's not in this for money," the Nevada Democrat said of Adelson, the Vegas casino magnate who
reportedly spent close to $150 million to support Republicans in the 2012 presidential election."
@ yonah fredman "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper"
Strange
"state into the Armageddon .. "
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to
play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. "
Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention.
" (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they
want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act
like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper
does not say that."
You do tho, without quoting anyone "here".
BTW Pajero, strawmen no matter how lengthy and seemingly erudite, rarely walk anywhere
I'm going to put this down as Jewish navel gazing.
Jews are disproportionately liberal. Jews make up a huge chunk of the peace movement. Jews are relative to their numbers on
the left of most foreign policy positions.
Iraq was unusual in that Jews were not overwhelming opposed to the invasion, but it is worth noting the invasion at the time
was overwhelming popular. Frankly given the fact that Jews are now considered white people and the fact that Jews are almost all
middle class they should be biased conservative. There certainly is no reason they should be more liberal than Catholics. Yet
they are. It is the degree of Jewish liberalism not the degree of Jewish conservatism that is striking.
But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct
from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul
Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld?
Strongly antiwar incumbent Rep. Walter Jones (R – NC) has won a hotly contested primary tonight, defeating a challenge from
hawkish challenger and former Treasury Dept. official Taylor Griffin 51% to 45%.
Voter turn out was light .. tea party types did a lot of lobbying for Griffin here .but Jones prevailed. Considering the
onslaught of organized activity against him by ECI and the tea partiers for the past month he did well.
@ lysias
Let's refresh our look at what Ron Paul had to say about foreign policy and foreign aid. Then, let's compare what his son has
said, and take a look of his latest bill in congress to cut off aid to Palestine. Yes, you read that right; it's not a bill to
cut off any aid to Israel.
Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will
not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS.
The heavy artillery included the detestable Karl Rove, former Governor and RNC Chair Haley Barber and the War Party's highly
paid chief PR flack, Ari Fleischer.
But it was Neocon central that hauled out the big guns. Bill Kristol was so desperate to thwart the slowly rising anti-interventionist
tide within the GOP that he even trotted out Sarah Palin to endorse Jones's opponent"
But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it
here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence
of the manifest destiny.
"... Stocks have always been "a legal form of gambling". What is happening now however, is that a pair of treys can beat out your straight flush. Companies that have never turned a profit fetch huge prices on the stock market. ..."
"... The stock market suckered millions in before 2008 and then prices plummeted. Where did the money from grandpa's pension fund go? ..."
"... Abraham Lincoln said that the purpose of government is to do for people what they cannot do for themselves. Government also should serve to keep people from hurting themselves and to restrain man's greed, which otherwise cannot be self-controlled. Anyone who seeks to own productive power that they cannot or won't use for consumption are beggaring their neighbor––the equivalency of mass murder––the impact of concentrated capital ownership. ..."
"... family wealth" predicts outcomes for 10 to 15 generations. Those with extreme wealth owe it to events going back "300 to 450" years ago, according to research published by the New Republic – an era when it wasn't unusual for white Americans to benefit from an economy dependent upon widespread, unpaid black labor in the form of slavery. ..."
"... Correction: The average person in poverty in the U.S. does not live in the same abject, third world poverty as you might find in Honduras, Central African Republic, Cambodia, or the barrios of Sao Paulo. ..."
"... Since our poor don't live in abject poverty, I invite you to live as a family of four on less than $11,000 a year anywhere in the United States. If you qualify and can obtain subsidized housing you may have some of the accoutrements in your home that you seem to equate with living the high life. You know, running water, a fridge, a toilet, a stove. You would also likely have a phone (subsidized at that) so you might be able to participate (or attempt to participate) in the job market in an honest attempt to better your family's economic prospects and as is required to qualify for most assistance programs. ..."
"... So many dutiful neoliberals on here rushing to the defense of poor Capitalism. Clearly, these commentators are among those who are in the privileged position of reaping the true benefits of Capitalism - And, of course, there are many benefits to reap if you are lucky enough to be born into the right racial-socioeconomic context. ..."
"... Please walk us through how non-capitalist systems create wealth and allow their lowest class people propel themselves to the top in one generation. You will note that most socialist systems derive their technology and advancements from the more capitalistic systems. Pharmaceuticals, software, and robotics are a great example of this. I shutter to think of what the welfare of the average citizen of the world would be like without the advancements made via the capitalist countries. ..."
The poorest Americans have no realistic hope of achieving anything that approaches income equality. They still struggle
for access to the basics
... ... ...
The disparities in wealth that we term "income inequality" are no accident, and they can't be fixed by fiddling at the edges of
our current economic system. These disparities happened by design, and the system structurally disadvantages those at the bottom.
The poorest Americans have no realistic hope of achieving anything that approaches income equality; even their very chances for access
to the most basic tools of life are almost nil.
... ... ...
Too often, the answer by those who have hoarded everything is they will choose to "give back" in a manner of their choosing –
just look at Mark Zuckerberg and his much-derided plan to "give away" 99% of his Facebook stock. He is unlikely to help change inequality
or poverty any more than "giving away" of $100m helped children in Newark schools.
Allowing any of the 100 richest Americans to choose how they fix "income inequality" will not make the country more equal or even
guarantee more access to life. You can't take down the master's house with the master's tools, even when you're the master; but more
to the point, who would tear down his own house to distribute the bricks among so very many others?
mkenney63 5 Dec 2015 20:37
Excellent article. The problems we face are structural and can only be solved by making fundamental changes. We must bring
an end to "Citizens United", modern day "Jim Crow" and the military industrial complex in order to restore our democracy. Then
maybe, just maybe, we can have an economic system that will treat all with fairness and respect. Crony capitalism has had its
day, it has mutated into criminality.
Kencathedrus -> Marcedward 5 Dec 2015 20:23
In the pre-capitalist system people learnt crafts to keep themselves afloat. The Industrial Revolution changed all that. Now
we have the church of Education promising a better life if we get into debt to buy (sorry, earn) degrees.
The whole system is messed up and now we have millions of people on this planet who can't function even those with degrees.
Barbarians are howling at the gates of Europe. The USA is rotting from within. As Marx predicted the Capitalists are merely paying
their own grave diggers.
mkenney63 -> Bobishere 5 Dec 2015 20:17
I would suggest you read the economic and political history of the past 30 years. To help you in your study let me recommend
a couple of recent books: "Winner Take all Politics" by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson and "The Age of Acquiescence" by Steve Fraser.
It always amazes me that one can be so blind the facts of recent American history; it's not just "a statistical inequality", it's
been a well thought-out strategy over time to rig the system, a strategy engaged in by politicians and capitalists. Shine some
light on this issue by acquainting yourself with the facts.
Maharaja Brovinda -> Singh Jill Harrison 5 Dec 2015 19:42
We play out the prisoner's dilemma in life, in general, over and over in different circumstances, every day. And we always
choose the dominant - rational - solution. But the best solution is not based on rationality, but rather on trust and faith in
each other - rather ironically for our current, evidence based society!
Steven Palmer 5 Dec 2015 19:19
Like crack addicts the philanthropricks only seek to extend their individual glory, social image their primary goal, and yet
given the context they will burn in history. Philanthroptits should at least offset the immeasurable damage they have done through
their medieval wealth accumulation. Collaborative philanthropy for basic income is a good idea, but ye, masters tools.
BlairM -> Iconoclastick 5 Dec 2015 19:10
Well, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible economic system, except for all those other economic
systems that have been tried from time to time.
I'd rather just have the freedom to earn money as I please, and if that means inequality, it's a small price to pay for not
having some feudal lord or some party bureaucrat stomping on my humanity.
brusuz 5 Dec 2015 18:52
As long as wealth can be created by shuffling money from one place to another in the giant crap shoot we call our economy,
nothing will change. Until something takes place to make it advantageous for the investor capitalists to put that money to work
doing something that actually produces some benefit to the society as a whole, they will continue their extractive machinations.
I see nothing on the horizon that is going to change any of that, and to cast this as some sort of a racial issue is quite superficial.
We have all gotten the shaft, since there is no upward mobility available to anyone. Since the Bush crowd of neocons took power,
we have all been shackled with "individual solutions to societal created problems."
Jimi Del Duca 5 Dec 2015 18:31
Friends, Capitalism is structural exploitation of ALL WORKERS. Thinking about it as solely a race issue is divisive. What we
need is CLASS SOLIDARITY and ORGANIZATION. See iww.org We are the fighting union with no use for capitalists!
slightlynumb -> AmyInNH 5 Dec 2015 18:04
You'd be better off reading Marx if you want to understand capitalism. I think you are ascribing the word to what you think
it should be rather than what it is.
It is essentially a class structure rather than any defined economic system. Neoliberal is essentially laissez faire capitalism.
It is designed to suborn nation states to corporate benefit.
AmyInNH -> tommydog
They make $40 a month. Working 7 days a week. At least 12 hour days. Who's fed you that "we're doing them a favor" BS?
And I've news for you regarding "Those whose skills are less adaptable to doing so are seeing their earnings decline." We have
many people who have 3 masters degrees making less than minimum wage. We have top notch STEM students shunned so corporations
can hire captive/cheaper foreign labor, called H1-Bs, who then wait 10 years working for them waiting for their employment based
green card. Or "visiting" students here on J1 visas, so the employers can get out of paying: social security, federal unemployment
insurance, etc.
Wake up and smell the coffee tommydog. They've more than a thumb on the scale.
I am a socialist. I decided to read this piece to see if Mr. Thrasher could write about market savagery without propounding the
fiction that whites are somehow exempt from the effects of it.
No, he could not. I clicked on the link accompanying his assertion
that whites who are high school dropouts earn more than blacks with college degrees, and I read the linked piece in full. The
linked piece does not in fact compare income (i.e., yearly earnings) of white high school dropouts with those of black college
graduates, but it does compare family wealth across racial cohorts (though not educational ones), and the gap there is indeed
stark, with average white family wealth in the six figures (full disclosure, I am white, and my personal wealth is below zero,
as I owe more in student loans than I own, so perhaps I am not really white, or I do not fully partake of "whiteness," or whatever),
and average black family wealth in the four figures.
The reason for this likely has a lot to do with home ownership disparities, which in turn are linked in significant part to
racist redlining practices. So white dropouts often live in homes their parents or grandparents bought, while many black college
graduates whose parents were locked out of home ownership by institutional racism and, possibly, the withering of manufacturing
jobs just as the northward migration was beginning to bear some economic fruit for black families, are still struggling to become
homeowners. Thus, the higher average wealth for the dropout who lives in a family owned home.
But this is not what Mr. Thrasher wrote. He specifically used the words "earn more," creating the impression that some white
ignoramus is simply going to stumble his way into a higher salary than a cultivated, college educated black person. That is simply
not the case, and the difference does matter.
Why does it matter? Because I regularly see middle aged whites who are broken and homeless on the streets of the town where
I live, and I know they are simply the tip of a growing mountain of privation. Yeah, go ahead, call it white tears if you want,
but if you cannot see that millions (including, of course, not simply folks who are out and out homeless, but folks who are struggling
to get enough to eat and routinely go without needed medication and medical care) of people who have "white privilege" are indeed
oppressed by global capitalism then I would say that you are, at the end of the day, NO BETTER THAN THE WHITES YOU DISDAIN.
If you have read this far, then you realize that I am in no way denying the reality of structural racism. But an account of
economic savagery that entirely subsumes it into non-economic categories (race, gender, age), that refuses to acknowledge that
blacks can be exploiters and whites can be exploited, is simply conservatism by other means. One gets the sense that if we have
enough black millionaires and enough whites dying of things like a lack of medical care, then this might bring just a little bit
of warmth to the hearts of people like Mr. Thrasher.
Call it what you want, but don't call it progressive. Maybe it is historical karma. Which is understandable, as there is no
reason why globally privileged blacks in places like the U.S. or Great Britain should bear the burden of being any more selfless
or humane than globally privileged whites are or have been. The Steven Thrashers of humanity are certainly no worse than many
of the whites they cannot seem to recognize as fully human are.
But nor are they any better.
JohnLG 5 Dec 2015 17:23
I agree that the term "income inequality" is so vague that falls between useless and diversionary, but so too is most use of
the word "capitalism", or so it seems to me. Typically missing is a penetrating analysis of where the problem lies, a comprehensibly
supported remedy, or large-scale examples of anything except what's not working. "Income inequality" is pretty abstract until
we look specifically at the consequences for individuals and society, and take a comprehensive look at all that is unequal. What
does "capitalism" mean? Is capitalism the root of all this? Is capitalism any activity undertaken for profit, or substantial monopolization
of markets and power?
Power tends to corrupt. Money is a form of power, but there are others. The use of power to essentially cheat, oppress or kill
others is corrupt, whether that power is in the form of a weapon, wealth, the powers of the state, or all of the above. Power
is seductive and addictive. Even those with good intensions can be corrupted by an excess of power and insufficient accountability,
while predators are drawn to power like sharks to blood. Democracy involves dispersion of power, ideally throughout a whole society.
A constitutional democracy may offer protection even to minorities against a "tyranny of the majority" so long as a love of justice
prevails. Selective "liberty and justice" is not liberty and justice at all, but rather a tyranny of the many against the few,
as in racism, or of the few against the many, as by despots. Both forms reinforce each other in the same society, both are corrupt,
and any "ism" can be corrupted by narcissism. To what degree is any society a shining example of government of, for, and by the
people, and to what degree can one discover empirical evidence of corruption? What do we do about it?
AmyInNH -> CaptainGrey 5 Dec 2015 17:15
You're too funny. It's not "lifting billions out of poverty". It's moving malicious manufacturing practices to the other side
of the planet. To the lands of no labor laws. To hide it from consumers. To hide profits.
And it is dying. Legislatively they choke off their natural competition, which is an essential element of capitalism. Monopoly
isn't capitalism. And when they bribe legislators, we don't have democracy any more either.
Jeremiah2000 -> Teresa Trujillo 5 Dec 2015 16:53
Stocks have always been "a legal form of gambling". What is happening now however, is that a pair of treys can beat out
your straight flush. Companies that have never turned a profit fetch huge prices on the stock market.
The stock market suckered millions in before 2008 and then prices plummeted. Where did the money from grandpa's pension
fund go?
Gary Reber 5 Dec 2015 16:45
Abraham Lincoln said that the purpose of government is to do for people what they cannot do for themselves. Government
also should serve to keep people from hurting themselves and to restrain man's greed, which otherwise cannot be self-controlled.
Anyone who seeks to own productive power that they cannot or won't use for consumption are beggaring their neighbor––the equivalency
of mass murder––the impact of concentrated capital ownership.
The words "OWN" and "ASSETS" are the key descriptors of the definition of wealth. But these words are not well understood by
the vast majority of Americans or for that matter, global citizens. They are limited to the vocabulary used by the wealthy ownership
class and financial publications, which are not widely read, and not even taught in our colleges and universities.
The wealthy ownership class did not become wealthy because they are "three times as smart." Still there is a valid argument
that the vast majority of Americans do not pay particular attention to the financial world and educate themselves on wealth building
within the current system's limited past-savings paradigm. Significantly, the wealthy OWNERSHIP class use their political power
(power always follows property OWNERSHIP) to write the system rules to benefit and enhance their wealth. As such they have benefited
from forging trade policy agreements which further concentrate OWNERSHIP on a global scale, military-industrial complex subsidies
and government contracts, tax code provisions and loopholes and collective-bargaining rules – policy changes they've used their
wealth to champion.
Gary Reber 5 Dec 2015 16:44
Unfortunately, when it comes to recommendations for solutions to economic inequality, virtually every commentator, politician
and economist is stuck in viewing the world in one factor terms – human labor, in spite of their implied understanding that the
rich are rich because they OWN the non-human means of production – physical capital. The proposed variety of wealth-building programs,
like "universal savings accounts that might be subsidized for low-income savers," are not practical solutions because they rely
on savings (a denial of consumption which lessens demand in the economy), which the vast majority of Americans do not have, and
for those who can save their savings are modest and insignificant. Though, millions of Americans own diluted stock value through
the "stock market exchanges," purchased with their earnings as labor workers (savings), their stock holdings are relatively minuscule,
as are their dividend payments compared to the top 10 percent of capital owners. Pew Research found that 53 percent of Americans
own no stock at all, and out of the 47 percent who do, the richest 5 percent own two-thirds of that stock. And only 10 percent
of Americans have pensions, so stock market gains or losses don't affect the incomes of most retirees.
As for taxpayer-supported saving subsidies or other wage-boosting measures, those who have only their labor power and its precarious
value held up by coercive rigging and who desperately need capital ownership to enable them to be capital workers (their productive
assets applied in the economy) as well as labor workers to have a way to earn more income, cannot satisfy their unsatisfied needs
and wants and sufficiently provide for themselves and their families. With only access to labor wages, the 99 percenters will
continue, in desperation, to demand more and more pay for the same or less work, as their input is exponentially replaced by productive
capital.
As such, the vast majority of American consumers will continue to be strapped to mounting consumer debt bills, stagnant wages
and inflationary price pressures. As their ONLY source of income is through wage employment, economic insecurity for the 99 percent
majority of people means they cannot survive more than a week or two without a paycheck. Thus, the production side of the economy
is under-nourished and hobbled as a result, because there are fewer and fewer "customers with money." We thus need to free economic
growth from the slavery of past savings.
I mentioned that political power follows property OWNERSHIP because with concentrated capital asset OWNERSHIP our elected representatives
are far too often bought with the expectation that they protect and enhance the interests of the wealthiest Americans, the OWNERSHIP
class they too overwhelmingly belong to.
Many, including the author of this article, have concluded that with such a concentrated OWNERSHIP stronghold the wealthy have
on our politics, "it's hard to see where this cycle ends." The ONLY way to reverse this cycle and broaden capital asset OWNERSHIP
universally is a political revolution. (Bernie Sanders, are you listening?)
The political revolution must address the problem of lack of demand. To create demand, the FUTURE economy must be financed
in ways that create new capital OWNERS, who will benefit from the full earnings of the FUTURE productive capability of the American
economy, and without taking from those who already OWN. This means significantly slowing the further concentration of capital
asset wealth among those who are already wealthy and ensuring that the system is reformed to promote inclusive prosperity, inclusive
opportunity, and inclusive economic justice.
yamialwaysright 5 Dec 2015 16:13
I was interested and in agreement until I read about structured racism. Many black kidsin the US grow up without a father in
the house. They turn to anti-social behaviour and crime. Once you are poor it is hard to get out of being poor but Journalists
are not doing justice to a critique of US Society if they ignore the fact that some people behave in a self-destructive way. I
would imagine that if some black men in the US and the UK stuck with one woman and played a positive role in the life of their
kids, those kids would have a better chance at life. People of different racial and ethnic origin do this also but there does
seem to be a disproportionate problem with some black US men and some black UK men. Poverty is one problem but growing up in poverty
and without a father figure adds to the problem.
What the author writes applies to other countries not just the US in relation to the super wealthy being a small proportion
of the population yet having the same wealth as a high percentage of the population. This in not a black or latino issue but a
wealth distribution issue that affects everyone irrespective of race or ethnic origin. The top 1%, 5% or 10% having most of the
wealth is well-known in many countries.
nuthermerican4u 5 Dec 2015 15:59
Capitalism, especially the current vulture capitalism, is dog eat dog. Always was, always will be. My advice is that if you
are a capitalist that values your heirs, invest in getting off this soon-to-be slag heap and find other planets to pillage and
rape. Either go all out for capitalism or reign in this beast before it kills all of us.
soundofthesuburbs 5 Dec 2015 15:32
Our antiquated class structure demonstrates the trickle up of Capitalism and the need to counterbalance it with progressive
taxation.
In the 1960s/1970s we used high taxes on the wealthy to counter balance the trickle up of Capitalism and achieved much greater
equality.
Today we have low taxes on the wealthy and Capitalism's trickle up is widening the inequality gap.
We are cutting benefits for the disabled, poor and elderly so inequality can get wider and the idle rich can remain idle.
They have issued enough propaganda to make people think it's those at the bottom that don't work.
Every society since the dawn of civilization has had a Leisure Class at the top, in the UK we call them the Aristocracy and
they have been doing nothing for centuries.
The UK's aristocracy has seen social systems come and go, but they all provide a life of luxury and leisure and with someone
else doing all the work.
Feudalism - exploit the masses through land ownership
Capitalism - exploit the masses through wealth (Capital)
Today this is done through the parasitic, rentier trickle up of Capitalism:
a) Those with excess capital invest it and collect interest, dividends and rent.
b) Those with insufficient capital borrow money and pay interest and rent.
The system itself provides for the idle rich and always has done from the first civilisations right up to the 21st Century.
The rich taking from the poor is always built into the system, taxes and benefits are the counterbalance that needs to be applied
externally.
Iconoclastick 5 Dec 2015 15:31
I often chuckle when I read some of the right wing comments on articles such as this. Firstly, I question if readers actually
read the article references I've highlighted, before rushing to comment.
Secondly, the comments are generated by cifers who probably haven't set the world alight, haven't made a difference in their
local community, they'll have never created thousands of jobs in order to reward themselves with huge dividends having and as
a consequence enjoy spectacular asset/investment growth, at best they'll be chugging along, just about keeping their shit together
and yet they support a system that's broken, other than for the one percent, of the one percent.
A new report from the Institute for Policy Studies issued this week analyzed the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans
and found that "the wealthiest 100 households now own about as much wealth as the entire African American population in the
United States". That means that 100 families – most of whom are white – have as much wealth as the 41,000,000 black folks walking
around the country (and the million or so locked up) combined.
Similarly, the report also stated that "the wealthiest 186 members of the Forbes 400 own as much wealth as the entire Latino
population" of the nation. Here again, the breakdown in actual humans is broke down: 186 overwhelmingly white folks have more
money than that an astounding 55,000,000 Latino people.
family wealth" predicts outcomes for 10 to 15 generations. Those with extreme wealth owe it to events going back "300
to 450" years ago, according to research published by the New Republic – an era when it wasn't unusual for white Americans
to benefit from an economy dependent upon widespread, unpaid black labor in the form of slavery.
soundofthesuburbs -> soundofthesuburbs 5 Dec 2015 15:26
It is the 21st Century and most of the land in the UK is still owned by the descendants of feudal warlords that killed people
and stole their land and wealth.
When there is no land to build houses for generation rent, land ownership becomes an issue.
David Cameron is married into the aristocracy and George Osborne is a member of the aristocracy, they must both be well acquainted
with the Leisure Class.
I can't find any hard work going on looking at the Wikipedia page for David Cameron's father-in-law. His family have been on
their estate since the sixteenth century and judging by today's thinking, expect to be on it until the end of time.
George Osborne's aristocratic pedigree goes back to the Tudor era:
"he is an aristocrat with a pedigree stretching back to early in the Tudor era. His father, Sir Peter Osborne, is the
17th holder of a hereditary baronetcy that has been passed from father to son for 10 generations, and of which George is next
in line."
If we have people at the bottom who are not working the whole of civilisation will be turned on its head.
"The modern industrial society developed from the barbarian tribal society, which featured a leisure class supported
by subordinated working classes employed in economically productive occupations. The leisure class is composed of people exempted
from manual work and from practicing economically productive occupations, because they belong to the leisure class."
The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, by Thorstein Veblen. It was written a long time ago but
much of it is as true today as it was then. The Wikipedia entry gives a good insight.
DBChas 5 Dec 2015 15:13
"income inequality" is best viewed as structural capitalism. It's not as if, did black and brown people and female people somehow
(miraculously) attain the economic status of the lower-paid, white, male person, the problem would be solved--simply by adjusting
pay scales. The problem is inherent to capitalism, which doesn't mean certain "types" of people aren't more disadvantaged for
their "type." No one is saying that. For capitalists, it's easier to rationalize the obscene unfairness (only rich people say,
"life's not fair") when their "type" is regarded as superior to a different "type," whether that be with respect to color or gender
or both.
Over time--a long time--the dominant party (white males since the Dark Ages, also the life-span of capitalism coincidentally
enough) came to dominance by various means, too many to try to list, or even know of. Why white males? BTW, just because most
in power and in money are white males does not mean ALL white males are in positions of power and wealth. Most are not, and these
facts help to fog the issue.
Indeed, "income inequality," is not an accident, nor can it be fixed, as the author notes, by tweaking (presumably he means
capitalism). And he's quite right too in saying, "You can't take down the master's house with the master's tools..." I take that
ALSO to mean, the problem can't be fixed by way of what Hedges has called a collapsing liberal establishment with its various
institutions, officially speaking. That is, it's not institutional racism that's collapsing, but that institution is not officially
recognized as such.
HOWEVER, it IS possible, even when burdened with an economics that is capitalism, to redistribute wealth, and I don't just
mean Mark Zuckerberg's. I mean all wealth in whatever form can be redistributed if/when government decides it can. And THIS TIME,
unlike the 1950s-60s, not only would taxes on the wealthy be the same as then but the wealth redistributed would be redistributed
to ALL, not just to white families, and perhaps in particular to red families, the oft forgotten ones.
This is a matter of political will. But, of course, if that means whites as the largest voting block insist on electing to
office those without the political will, nothing will change. In that case, other means have to be considered, and just a reminder:
If the government fails to serve the people, the Constitution gives to the people the right to depose that government. But again,
if whites as the largest voting block AND as the largest sub-group in the nation (and women are the largest part of that block,
often voting as their men vote--just the facts, please, however unpleasant) have little interest in seeing to making necessary
changes at least in voting booths, then...what? Bolshevism or what? No one seems to know and it's practically taboo even to talk
about possibilities. Americans did it once, but not inclusively and not even paid in many instances. When it happens again, it
has to happen with and for the participation of ALL. And it's worth noting that it will have to happen again, because capitalism
by its very nature cannot survive itself. That is, as Marx rightly noted, capitalism will eventually collapse by dint of its internal
contradictions.
mbidding Jeremiah2000 5 Dec 2015 15:08
Correction: The average person in poverty in the U.S. does not live in the same abject, third world poverty as you might
find in Honduras, Central African Republic, Cambodia, or the barrios of Sao Paulo.
Since our poor don't live in abject poverty, I invite you to live as a family of four on less than $11,000 a year anywhere
in the United States. If you qualify and can obtain subsidized housing you may have some of the accoutrements in your home that
you seem to equate with living the high life. You know, running water, a fridge, a toilet, a stove. You would also likely have
a phone (subsidized at that) so you might be able to participate (or attempt to participate) in the job market in an honest attempt
to better your family's economic prospects and as is required to qualify for most assistance programs.
Consider as well that you don't have transportation to get a job that would improve your circumstances. You earn too much to
qualify for meaningful levels of food support programs and fall into the insurance gap for subsidies because you live in a state
that for ideological reasons refuses to expand Medicaid coverage. Your local schools are a disgrace but you can't take advantage
of so-called school choice programs (vouchers, charters, and the like) as you don't have transportation or the time (given your
employer's refusal to set fixed working hours for minimum wage part time work) to get your kids to that fine choice school.
You may have a fridge and a stove, but you have no food to cook. You may have access to running water and electricity, but
you can't afford to pay the bills for such on account of having to choose between putting food in that fridge or flushing that
toilet. You can't be there reliably for your kids to help with school, etc, because you work constantly shifting hours for crap
pay.
Get back to me after six months to a year after living in such circumstances and then tell me again how Americans don't really
live in poverty simply because they have access to appliances.
Earl Shelton 5 Dec 2015 15:08
The Earned Income Tax Credit seems to me a good starting point for reform. It has been around since the 70s -- conceived by
Nixon/Moynihan -- and signed by socialist (kidding) Gerald Ford -- it already *redistributes* income (don't choke on the term,
O'Reilly) directly from tax revenue (which is still largely progressive) to the working poor, with kids.
That program should be massively expanded to tax the 1% -- and especially the top 1/10 of 1% (including a wealth tax) -- and
distribute the money to the bottom half of society, mostly in the form of work training, child care and other things that help
put them in and keep them in the middle class. It is a mechanism already in existence to correct the worst ravages of Capitalism.
Use it to build shared prosperity.
oKWJNRo 5 Dec 2015 14:40
So many dutiful neoliberals on here rushing to the defense of poor Capitalism. Clearly, these commentators are among those
who are in the privileged position of reaping the true benefits of Capitalism - And, of course, there are many benefits to reap
if you are lucky enough to be born into the right racial-socioeconomic context.
We can probably all agree that Capitalism has brought about widespread improvements in healthcare, education, living conditions,
for example, compared to the feudal system that preceded it... But it also disproportionately benefits the upper echelons of Capitalist
societies and is wholly unequal by design.
Capitalism depends upon the existence of a large underclass that can be exploited. This is part of the process of how surplus
value is created and wealth is extracted from labour. This much is indisputable. It is therefore obvious that capitalism isn't
an ideal system for most of us living on this planet.
As for the improvements in healthcare, education, living conditions etc that Capitalism has fostered... Most of these were
won through long struggles against the Capitalist hegemony by the masses. We would have certainly chosen to make these improvements
to our landscape sooner if Capitalism hadn't made every effort to stop us. The problem today is that Capitalism and its powerful
beneficiaries have successfully convinced us that there is no possible alternative. It won't give us the chance to try or even
permit us to believe there could be another, better way.
Martin Joseph -> realdoge 5 Dec 2015 14:33
Please walk us through how non-capitalist systems create wealth and allow their lowest class people propel themselves to
the top in one generation. You will note that most socialist systems derive their technology and advancements from the more capitalistic
systems. Pharmaceuticals, software, and robotics are a great example of this.
I shutter to think of what the welfare of the average citizen of the world would be like without the advancements made via
the capitalist countries.
VWFeature 5 Dec 2015 14:29
Markets, economies and tax systems are created by people, and based on rules they agree on. Those rules can favor general prosperity
or concentration of wealth. Destruction and predation are easier than creation and cooperation, so our rules have to favor cooperation
if we want to avoid predation and destructive conflicts.
In the 1930's the US changed many of those rules to favor general prosperity. Since then they've been gradually changed to
favor wealth concentration and predation. They can be changed back.
The trick is creating a system that encourages innovation while putting a safety net under the population so failure doesn't
end in starvation.
A large part of our current problems is the natural tendency for large companies to get larger and larger until their failure
would adversely affect too many others, so they're not allowed to fail. Tax law, not antitrust law, has to work against this.
If a company can reduce its tax rate by breaking into 20 smaller (still huge) companies, then competition is preserved and no
one company can dominate and control markets.
Robert Goldschmidt -> Jake321 5 Dec 2015 14:27
Bernie Sanders has it right on -- we can only heal our system by first having millions rise up and demand an end to the corruption
of the corporations controlling our elected representatives. Corporations are not people and money is not speech.
moonwrap02 5 Dec 2015 14:26
The effects of wealth distribution has far reaching consequences. It is not just about money, but creating a fair society -
one that is co-operative and cohesive. The present system has allowed an ever divide between the rich and poor, creating a two
tier society where neither the twain shall meet. The rich and poor are almost different species on the planet and no longer belong
to the same community. Commonality of interest is lost and so it's difficult to form community and to have good, friendly relationships
across class differences that are that large.
"If capitalism is to be seen to be fair, the same rules are to apply to the big guy as to the little guy,"
Sorry. I get it now. You actually think that because the Washington elite has repealed Glass-Steagel that we live in a unregulated
capitalistic system.
This is so far from the truth that I wasn't comprehending that anyone could think that. You can see the graph of pages published
in the Federal Register here. Unregulated capitalism? Wow.
Dodd Frank was passed in 2010 (without a single Republican vote). Originally it was 2,300 pages. It is STILL being written
by nameless bureaucrats and is over 20,000 pages. Unregulated capitalism? Really?
But the reality is that Goliath is conspiring with the government to regulate what size sling David can use and how many stones
and how many ounces.
So we need more government regulations? They will disallow David from anything but spitwads and only two of those.
neuronmaker -> AmyInNH 5 Dec 2015 14:16
Do you understand the concept of corporations which are products of capitalism?
The legal institutions within each capitalist corporations and nations are just that, they are capitalist and all about making
profits.
The law is made by the rich capitalists and for the rich capitalists. Each Legislation is a link in the chain of economic slavery
by capitalists.
Capitalism and the concept of money is a construction of the human mind, as it does not exist in the natural world. This construction
is all about using other human beings like blood suckers to sustain a cruel and evil life style - with blood and brutality as
the core ideology.
Marcedward -> MarjaE 5 Dec 2015 14:12
I would agree that our system of help for the less-well-off could be more accessible and more generous, but that doesn't negate
that point that there is a lot of help out there - the most important help being that totally free educational system. Think about
it, a free education, and to get the most out of it a student merely has to show up, obey the rules, do the homework and study
for tests. It's all laid out there for the kids like a helicopter mom laying out her kids clothes. How much easier can we make
it? If people can't be bothered to show up and put in effort, how is their failure based on racism
tommydog -> martinusher 5 Dec 2015 14:12
As you are referring to Carlos Slim, interestingly while he is Mexican by birth his parents were both Lebanese.
slightlynumb -> AmyInNH 5 Dec 2015 14:12
Why isn't that capitalism? It's raw capitalism on steroids.
Zara Von Fritz -> Toughspike 5 Dec 2015 14:12
It's an equal opportunity plantation now.
Robert Goldschmidt 5 Dec 2015 14:11
The key to repairing the system is to identify the causes of our problems.
Here is my list:
The information technology revolution which continues to destroy wages by enabling automation and outsourcing.
The reformation of monopolies which price gouge and block innovation.
Hitting ecological limits such as climate change, water shortages, unsustainable farming.
Then we can make meaningful changes such as regulation of the portion of corporate profit that are pay, enforcement of national
and regional antitrust laws and an escalating carbon tax.
Zara Von Fritz -> PostCorbyn 5 Dec 2015 14:11
If you can believe these quality of life or happiness indexes they put out so often, the winners tend to be places that have
nice environments and a higher socialist mix in their economy. Of course there are examples of poor countries that practice the
same but its not clear that their choice is causal rather than reactive.
We created this mess and we can fix it.
Zara Von Fritz -> dig4victory 5 Dec 2015 14:03
Yes Basic Income is possibly the mythical third way. It socialises wealth to a point but at the same time frees markets from
their obligation to perpetually grow and create jobs for the sake of jobs and also hereford reduces the subsequent need for governments
to attempt to control them beyond maintaining their health.
Zara Von Fritz 5 Dec 2015 13:48
As I understand it, you don't just fiddle with capitalism, you counteract it, or counterweight it. A level of capitalism, or
credit accumulation, and a level of socialism has always existed, including democracy which is a manifestation of socialism (1
vote each). So the project of capital accumulation seems to be out of control because larger accumulations become more powerful
and meanwhile the power of labour in the marketplace has become less so due to forces driving unemployment. The danger is that
capital's power to control the democratic system reaches a point of no return.
Jeremiah2000 -> bifess 5 Dec 2015 13:42
"I do not have the economic freedom to grow my own food because i do not have access to enough land to grow it and i do not
have the economic clout to buy a piece of land."
Economic freedom does NOT mean you get money for free. It means that means that if you grow food for personal use, the federal
government doesn't trash the Constitution by using the insterstate commerce clause to say that it can regulate how much you grow
on your own personal land.
Economic freedom means that if you have a widget, you can choose to set the price for $10 or $100 and that a buyer is free
to buy it from you or not buy it from you. It does NOT mean that you are entitled to "free" widgets.
"If capitalism has not managed to eradicate poverty in rich first world countries then just what chance if there of capitalism
eradicating poverty on a global scale?"
The average person in poverty in the U.S. doesn't live in poverty:
In fact, 80.9 percent of households below the poverty level have cell phones, and a healthy majority-58.2 percent-have computers.
Fully 96.1 percent of American households in "poverty" have a television to watch, and 83.2 percent of them have a video-recording
device in case they cannot get home in time to watch the football game or their favorite television show and they want to record
it for watching later.
Refrigerators (97.8 percent), gas or electric stoves (96.6 percent) and microwaves (93.2 percent) are standard equipment in
the homes of Americans in "poverty."
More than 83 percent have air-conditioning.
Interestingly, the appliances surveyed by the Census Bureau that households in poverty are least likely to own are dish washers
(44.9 percent) and food freezers (26.2 percent).
However, most Americans in "poverty" do not need to go to a laundromat. According to the Census Bureau, 68.7 percent of households
in poverty have a clothes washer and 65.3 percent have a clothes dryer.
"... In his just published book, War With Russia? ..."
"... To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless repetition." ..."
"... Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared. ..."
"... The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned. ..."
Throughout the long Cold War Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University was a
voice of reason. He refused to allow his patriotism to blind him to Washington's contribution to the conflict and to criticize only
the Soviet contribution. Cohen's interest was not to blame the enemy but to work toward a mutual understanding that would remove
the threat of nuclear war. Although a Democrat and left-leaning, Cohen would have been at home in the Reagan administration, as Reagan's
first priority was to end the Cold War. I know this because I was part of the effort. Pat Buchanan will tell you the same thing.
In 1974 a notorious cold warrior, Albert Wohlstetter, absurdly accused the CIA of underestimating the Soviet threat. As the CIA
had every incentive for reasons of budget and power to overestimate the Soviet threat, and today the "Russian threat," Wohlstetter's
accusation made no sense on its face. However he succeeded in stirring up enough concern that CIA director George H.W. Bush, later
Vice President and President, agreed to a Team B to investigate the CIA's assessment, headed by the Russiaphobic Harvard professor
Richard Pipes. Team B concluded that the Soviets thought they could win a nuclear war and were building the forces with which to
attack the US.
The report was mainly nonsense, and it must have have troubled Stephen Cohen to experience the setback to negotiations that Team
B caused.
Today Cohen is stressed that it is the United States that thinks it can win a nuclear war. Washington speaks openly of using "low
yield" nuclear weapons, and intentionally forecloses any peace negotiations with Russia with a propaganda campaign against Russia
of demonization, vilification, and transparent lies, while installing missile bases on Russia's borders and while talking of incorporating
former parts of Russia into NATO. In his just published book, War With Russia? , which I highly recommend, Cohen makes a
convincing case that Washington is asking for war.
I agree with Cohen that if Russia is a threat it is only because the US is threatening Russia. The stupidity of the policy toward
Russia is creating a Russian threat. Putin keeps emphasizing this. To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring
us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless
repetition."
Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the
Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of
cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared.
The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media
and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media
to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful
use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo
Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned.
The demonization of Russia is also aided and abetted by the Democrats' hatred of Trump and anger from Hillary's loss of the presidential
election to the "Trump deplorables." The Democrats purport to believe that Trump was installed by Putin's interference in the presidential
election. This false belief is emotionally important to Democrats, and they can't let go of it.
Although Cohen as a professor at Princeton and NYU never lacked research opportunities, in the US Russian studies, strategic studies,
and the like are funded by the military/security complex whose agenda Cohen's scholarship does not serve. At the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, where I held an independently financed chair for a dozen years, most of my colleagues were dependent on
grants from the military/security complex. At the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, where I was a Senior Fellow for three
decades, the anti-Soviet stance of the Institution reflected the agenda of those who funded the institution.
I am not saying that my colleagues were whores on a payroll. I am saying that the people who got the appointments were people
who were inclined to see the Soviet Union the way the military/security complex thought it should be seen.
As Stephen Cohen is aware, in the original Cold War there was some balance as all explanations were not controlled. There were
independent scholars who could point out that the Soviets, decimated by World War 2, had an interest in peace, and that accommodation
could be achieved, thus avoiding the possibility of nuclear war.
Stephen Cohen must have been in the younger ranks of those sensible people, as he and President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet
Union, Jack Matloff, seem to be the remaining voices of expert reason on the American scene.
If you care to understand the dire threat under which you live, a threat that only a few people, such as Stephen Cohen, are trying
to lift, read his book.
If you want to understand the dire threat that a bought-and-paid-for American media poses to your existence, read Cohen's accounts
of their despicable lies. America has a media that is synonymous with lies.
If you want to understand how corrupt American universities are as organizations on the take for money, organizations to whom
truth is inconsequential, read Cohen's book.
If you want to understand why you could be dead before Global Warming can get you, read Cohen's book.
It is very interesting and educational to read this pre-election article two years later and see where the author is
right and where he is wrong. The death of neoliberalism was greatly exaggerated. It simply mutated in the USA into "national
neoliberalism" under Trump. As no clear alternative exists it remain the dominant ideology and universities still
brainwash students with neoclassical economics. And in way catchy slogan "Make America great again" under Trump
means "Make American working and lower middle class great again"
It is also clear that Trump betrayed or was forced to betray most of his election promises. Standrd of living of common
americans did not improve under his watch. most of hi benefits of his tax cuts went to large corporations and financial
oligarch. He continued the policy of financial deregulation, which is tantamount of playing with open fire trying to
warm up the house
What we see under Trump is tremendous growth of political role of intelligence agencies which now are real kingmakers and can
sink any candidate which does not support their agenda. And USA intelligence agencies operated in 2016 in close cooperation
with the UK intelligence agencies to the extent that it is not clear who has the lead in creating Steele dossier. They are
definitely out of control of executive branch and play their own game. We also see a rise of CIA democrats as a desperate
attempt to preserve the power of Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ('soft neoliberals" turned under Hillary into into warmongers
and neocons) . Hillary and Bill themselves clearly belong to CIA democrats too, not only to Wall Street democrats, despite the fact
that they sold Democratic Party to Wall Street in the past. New Labor in UK did the same.
But if it is more or less clear now what happened in the USa in 2016-2018, it is completely unclear what will happen next.
I think in no way neoliberalism will start to be dismantled. there is no social forces powerful enough to start this job, We
probably need another financial crisi of the scale of 2008 for this work to be reluctantly started by ruling
elite. And we better not to have this repetition of 2008 as it will be really devastating for common people.
Notable quotes:
"... the causes of this political crisis, glaringly evident on both sides of the Atlantic, are much deeper than simply the financial crisis and the virtually stillborn recovery of the last decade. They go to the heart of the neoliberal project that dates from the late 70s and the political rise of Reagan and Thatcher, and embraced at its core the idea of a global free market in goods, services and capital. The depression-era system of bank regulation was dismantled, in the US in the 1990s and in Britain in 1986, thereby creating the conditions for the 2008 crisis. Equality was scorned, the idea of trickle-down economics lauded, government condemned as a fetter on the market and duly downsized, immigration encouraged, regulation cut to a minimum, taxes reduced and a blind eye turned to corporate evasion. ..."
"... It should be noted that, by historical standards, the neoliberal era has not had a particularly good track record. The most dynamic period of postwar western growth was that between the end of the war and the early 70s, the era of welfare capitalism and Keynesianism, when the growth rate was double that of the neoliberal period from 1980 to the present. ..."
"... In the period 1948-1972, every section of the American population experienced very similar and sizable increases in their standard of living; between 1972-2013, the bottom 10% experienced falling real income while the top 10% did far better than everyone else. In the US, the median real income for full-time male workers is now lower than it was four decades ago: the income of the bottom 90% of the population has stagnated for over 30 years . ..."
"... On average, between 65-70% of households in 25 high-income economies experienced stagnant or falling real incomes between 2005 and 2014. ..."
"... As Thomas Piketty has shown, in the absence of countervailing pressures, capitalism naturally gravitates towards increasing inequality. In the period between 1945 and the late 70s, Cold War competition was arguably the biggest such constraint. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been none. As the popular backlash grows increasingly irresistible, however, such a winner-takes-all regime becomes politically unsustainable. ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... "'Populism' is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens that they don't like." Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually both. ..."
"... According to a Gallup poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population. ..."
"... The re-emergence of the working class as a political voice in Britain, most notably in the Brexit vote, can best be described as an inchoate expression of resentment and protest, with only a very weak sense of belonging to the labour movement. ..."
"... Economists such as Larry Summers believe that the prospect for the future is most likely one of secular stagnation . ..."
"... those who have lost out in the neoliberal era are no longer prepared to acquiesce in their fate – they are increasingly in open revolt. We are witnessing the end of the neoliberal era. It is not dead, but it is in its early death throes, just as the social-democratic era was during the 1970s. ..."
In the early 1980s the author was one of the first to herald the emerging dominance of neoliberalism in the west. Here he argues
that this doctrine is now faltering. But what happens next?
The western financial crisis of 2007-8 was the worst since 1931, yet its immediate repercussions were surprisingly modest. The
crisis challenged the foundation stones of the long-dominant neoliberal ideology but it seemed to emerge largely unscathed. The banks
were bailed out; hardly any bankers on either side of the Atlantic were prosecuted for their crimes; and the price of their behaviour
was duly paid by the taxpayer. Subsequent economic policy, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, has relied overwhelmingly on monetary
policy, especially quantitative easing. It has failed. The western economy has stagnated and is now approaching its lost decade,
with no end in sight.
After almost nine years, we are finally beginning to reap the political whirlwind of the financial crisis. But how did neoliberalism
manage to survive virtually unscathed for so long? Although it failed the test of the real world, bequeathing the worst economic
disaster for seven decades, politically and intellectually it remained the only show in town. Parties of the right, centre and left
had all bought into its philosophy, New Labour a classic
in point. They knew no other way of thinking or doing: it had become the common sense. It was, as Antonio Gramsci put it, hegemonic.
But that hegemony cannot and will not survive the test of the real world.
The first inkling of the wider political consequences was evident in the turn in public opinion against the banks, bankers and
business leaders. For decades, they could do no wrong: they were feted as the role models of our age, the default troubleshooters
of choice in education, health and seemingly everything else. Now, though, their star was in steep descent, along with that of the
political class. The effect of the financial crisis was to undermine faith and trust in the competence of the governing elites. It
marked the beginnings of a wider political crisis.
But the causes of this political crisis, glaringly evident on both sides of the Atlantic, are much deeper than simply the financial
crisis and the virtually stillborn recovery of the last decade. They go to the heart of the neoliberal project that dates from the
late 70s and the political rise of Reagan and Thatcher, and embraced at its core the idea of a global free market in goods, services
and capital. The depression-era system of bank regulation was dismantled, in the US in the 1990s and in Britain in 1986, thereby
creating the conditions for the 2008 crisis. Equality was scorned, the idea of trickle-down economics lauded, government condemned
as a fetter on the market and duly downsized, immigration encouraged, regulation cut to a minimum, taxes reduced and a blind eye
turned to corporate evasion.
It should be noted that, by historical standards, the neoliberal era has not had a particularly good track record. The most dynamic
period of postwar western growth was that between the end of the war and the early 70s, the era of welfare capitalism and Keynesianism,
when the growth rate was double that of the neoliberal period from 1980 to the present.
But by far the most disastrous feature of the neoliberal period has been the huge growth in inequality. Until very recently, this
had been virtually ignored. With extraordinary speed, however, it has emerged as one of, if not the most important political issue
on both sides of the Atlantic, most dramatically in the US. It is, bar none, the issue that is driving the political discontent that
is now engulfing the west. Given the statistical evidence, it is puzzling, shocking even, that it has been disregarded for so long;
the explanation can only lie in the sheer extent of the hegemony of neoliberalism and its values.
But now reality has upset the doctrinal apple cart. In the period 1948-1972, every section of the American population experienced
very similar and sizable increases in their standard of living; between 1972-2013, the bottom 10% experienced falling real income
while the top 10% did far better than everyone else. In the US, the median real income for full-time male workers is now lower than
it was four decades ago: the income of the bottom 90% of the population has
stagnated for over 30 years .
A not so dissimilar picture is true of the UK. And the problem has grown more serious since the financial crisis. On average,
between 65-70% of households in 25 high-income economies experienced stagnant or falling real
incomes between 2005 and 2014.
Large sections of the population in both the US and the UK are now in revolt against their lot
The reasons are not difficult to explain. The hyper-globalisation era has been systematically stacked in favour of capital against
labour: international trading agreements, drawn up in great secrecy, with business on the inside and the unions and citizens excluded,
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the
Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) being but the latest examples; the politico-legal attack on the unions;
the encouragement of large-scale immigration in both the US and Europe that helped to undermine
the bargaining power of the domestic workforce; and the failure to retrain displaced workers in any meaningful way.
As Thomas Piketty has shown, in the absence of
countervailing pressures, capitalism naturally gravitates towards increasing inequality. In the period between 1945 and the late
70s, Cold War competition was arguably the biggest such constraint. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been none.
As the popular backlash grows increasingly irresistible, however, such a winner-takes-all regime becomes politically unsustainable.
Large sections of the population in both the US and the UK are now in revolt against their lot, as graphically illustrated by
the support for Trump and Sanders in the US and the Brexit vote in the UK. This popular revolt is often described, in a somewhat
denigratory and dismissive fashion, as populism. Or, as Francis Fukuyama writes in a recent excellent
essay
in Foreign Affairs : "'Populism' is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens
that they don't like." Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is
generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually both.
Brexit is a classic example of such populism. It has overturned a fundamental cornerstone of UK policy since the early 1970s.
Though ostensibly about Europe, it was in fact about much more: a cri de coeur from those who feel they have lost out and been left
behind, whose living standards have stagnated or worse since the 1980s, who feel dislocated by large-scale immigration over which
they have no control and who face an increasingly insecure and casualised labour market. Their revolt has paralysed the governing
elite, already claimed one prime minister, and left the latest one fumbling around in the dark looking for divine inspiration.
The wave of populism marks the return of class as a central agency in politics, both in the UK and the US. This is particularly
remarkable in the US. For many decades, the idea of the "working class" was marginal to American political discourse. Most Americans
described themselves as middle class, a reflection of the aspirational pulse at the heart of American society. According to a Gallup
poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population.
Brexit, too, was primarily a working-class revolt. Hitherto, on both sides of the Atlantic, the agency of class has been in retreat
in the face of the emergence of a new range of identities and issues from gender and race to sexual orientation and the environment.
The return of class, because of its sheer reach, has the potential, like no other issue, to redefine the political landscape.
The working class belongs to no one: its orientation, far from predetermined, is a function of politics
The re-emergence of class should not be confused with the labor movement. They are not synonymous: this is obvious in the US
and increasingly the case in the UK. Indeed, over the last half-century, there has been a growing separation between the two in Britain.
The re-emergence of the working class as a political voice in Britain, most notably in the Brexit vote, can best be described as
an inchoate expression of resentment and protest, with only a very weak sense of belonging to the labour movement.
Indeed, Ukip has been as important – in the form of immigration and Europe – in shaping its current attitudes as the Labour party.
In the United States, both Trump and Sanders have given expression to the working-class revolt, the latter almost as much as the
former. The working class belongs to no one: its orientation, far from predetermined, as the left liked to think, is a function of
politics.
The neoliberal era is being undermined from two directions. First, if its record of economic growth has never been particularly
strong, it is now dismal. Europe is barely larger than it was on the eve of the financial crisis in 2007; the United States has done
better but even its growth has been anaemic. Economists such as Larry Summers believe that the prospect for the future is most likely
one of secular stagnation .
Worse, because the recovery has been so weak and fragile, there is a widespread belief that another financial crisis may well
beckon. In other words, the neoliberal era has delivered the west back into the kind of crisis-ridden world that we last experienced
in the 1930s. With this background, it is hardly surprising that a majority in the west now believe their children will be worse
off than they were. Second, those who have lost out in the neoliberal era are no longer prepared to acquiesce in their fate – they
are increasingly in open revolt. We are witnessing the end of the neoliberal era. It is not dead, but it is in its early death throes,
just as the social-democratic era was during the 1970s.
A sure sign of the declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual voices raised against it. From the
mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was increasingly dominated by monetarists and free marketeers. But since the western
financial crisis, the centre of gravity of the intellectual debate has shifted profoundly. This is most obvious in the United States,
with economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Dani Rodrik and Jeffrey Sachs becoming increasingly influential. Thomas Piketty's
Capital in the Twenty-First Century has been a massive seller. His work and that of
Tony Atkinson
and Angus Deaton have pushed the question of the inequality to the top of the political agenda. In the UK,
Ha-Joon Chang , for long isolated within the economics
profession, has gained a following far greater than those who think economics is a branch of mathematics.
Meanwhile, some of those who were previously strong advocates of a neoliberal approach, such as Larry Summers and the Financial
Times 's Martin Wolf, have become extremely critical. The wind is in the sails of the critics of neoliberalism; the neoliberals
and monetarists are in retreat. In the UK, the media and political worlds are well behind the curve. Few recognize that we are at
the end of an era. Old attitudes and assumptions still predominate, whether on the BBC's Today programme, in the rightwing
press or the parliamentary Labor party.
Following Ed Miliband's resignation as Labour leader, virtually no one foresaw the triumph of
Jeremy Corbyn in the subsequent leadership election.
The assumption had been more of the same, a Blairite or a halfway house like Miliband, certainly not anyone like Corbyn. But the
zeitgeist had changed. The membership, especially the young who had joined the party on an unprecedented scale, wanted a complete
break with New Labour. One of the reasons why the left has failed to emerge as the leader of the new mood of working-class disillusionment
is that most social democratic parties became, in varying degrees, disciples of neoliberalism and uber-globalisation. The most extreme
forms of this phenomenon were New Labour and the Democrats, who in the late 90s and 00s became its advance guard, personified by
Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, triangulation and the third way.
But as David Marquand observed in a review for the New Statesman , what is the point of a social democratic party if
it doesn't represent the less fortunate, the underprivileged and the losers? New Labour deserted those who needed them, who historically
they were supposed to represent. Is it surprising that large sections have now deserted the party who deserted them? Blair, in his
reincarnation as a money-obsessed consultant to a shady bunch of presidents and dictators, is a fitting testament to the demise of
New Labour.
The rival contenders – Burnham, Cooper and Kendall – represented continuity. They were swept away by Corbyn, who won nearly 60%
of the votes. New Labour was over, as dead as Monty Python's parrot. Few grasped the meaning of what had happened. A Guardian
leader welcomed the surge in membership and then, lo and behold, urged support for Yvette Cooper, the very antithesis of the
reason for the enthusiasm. The PLP refused to accept the result and ever since has tried with might and main to remove Corbyn.
Just as the Labour party took far too long to come to terms with the rise of Thatcherism and the birth of a new era at the end
of the 70s, now it could not grasp that the Thatcherite paradigm, which they eventually came to embrace in the form of New Labour,
had finally run its course. Labour, like everyone else, is obliged to think anew. The membership in their antipathy to New Labour
turned to someone who had never accepted the latter, who was the polar opposite in almost every respect of Blair, and embodying an
authenticity and decency which Blair patently did not.
Labour may be in intensive care, but the condition of the Conservatives is not a great deal better
Corbyn is not a product of the new times, he is a throwback to the late 70s and early 80s. That is both his strength and also
his weakness. He is uncontaminated by the New Labour legacy because he has never accepted it. But nor, it would seem, does he understand
the nature of the new era. The danger is that he is possessed of feet of clay in what is a highly fluid and unpredictable political
environment, devoid of any certainties of almost any kind, in which Labour finds itself dangerously divided and weakened.
Labour may be in intensive care, but the condition of the Conservatives is not a great deal better. David Cameron was guilty of
a huge and irresponsible miscalculation over Brexit. He was forced to resign in the most ignominious of circumstances. The party
is hopelessly divided. It has no idea in which direction to move after Brexit. The Brexiters painted an optimistic picture of turning
away from the declining European market and embracing the expanding markets of the world, albeit barely mentioning by name which
countries it had in mind. It looks as if the new prime minister may have an anachronistic hostility towards China and a willingness
to undo the good work of George Osborne. If the government turns its back on China, by far the fastest growing market in the world,
where are they going to turn?
Brexit has left the country fragmented and deeply divided, with the very real prospect that Scotland might choose independence.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives seem to have little understanding that the neoliberal era is in its death throes.
Dramatic as events have been in the UK, they cannot compare with those in the United States. Almost from nowhere,
Donald Trump rose to capture the Republican nomination
and confound virtually all the pundits and not least his own party. His message was straightforwardly anti-globalisation. He believes
that the interests of the working class have been sacrificed in favour of the big corporations that have been encouraged to invest
around the world and thereby deprive American workers of their jobs. Further, he argues that large-scale immigration has weakened
the bargaining power of American workers and served to lower their wages.
He proposes that US corporations should be required to invest their cash reserves in the US. He believes that the North American
Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) has had the effect of exporting American jobs to Mexico. On similar grounds, he is opposed to the TPP
and the TTIP. And he also accuses China of stealing American jobs, threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports.
To globalisation Trump counterposes economic nationalism: "Put America first". His appeal, above all, is to the white working
class who, until Trump's (and Bernie Sander's) arrival on the political scene, had been ignored and largely unrepresented since the
1980s. Given that their wages have been falling for most of the last 40 years, it is extraordinary how their interests have been
neglected by the political class. Increasingly, they have voted Republican, but the Republicans have long been captured by the super-rich
and Wall Street, whose interests, as hyper-globalisers, have run directly counter to those of the white working class. With the arrival
of Trump they finally found a representative: they won Trump the Republican nomination.
Trump believes that America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's resources
The economic nationalist argument has also been vigorously pursued by
Bernie Sanders , who ran Hillary Clinton extremely
close for the Democratic nomination and would probably have won but for more than 700 so-called super-delegates, who were effectively
chosen by the Democratic machine and overwhelmingly supported Clinton. As in the case of the Republicans, the Democrats have long
supported a neoliberal, pro-globalisation strategy, notwithstanding the concerns of its trade union base. Both the Republicans and
the Democrats now find themselves deeply polarised between the pro- and anti-globalisers, an entirely new development not witnessed
since the shift towards neoliberalism under Reagan almost 40 years ago.
Another plank of Trump's nationalist appeal – "Make America great again" – is his position on foreign policy. He believes that
America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's resources. He argues that the country's alliance system is unfair,
with America bearing most of the cost and its allies contributing far too little. He points to Japan and South Korea, and NATO's
European members as prime examples. He seeks to rebalance these relationships and, failing that, to exit from them.
As a country in decline, he argues that America can no longer afford to carry this kind of financial burden. Rather than putting
the world to rights, he believes the money should be invested at home, pointing to the dilapidated state of America's infrastructure.
Trump's position
represents a major critique of America as the world's hegemon. His arguments mark a radical break with the neoliberal, hyper-globalisation
ideology that has reigned since the early 1980s and with the foreign policy orthodoxy of most of the postwar period. These arguments
must be taken seriously. They should not be lightly dismissed just because of their authorship. But Trump is no man of the left.
He is a populist of the right. He has launched a racist and xenophobic attack on Muslims and on Mexicans. Trump's appeal is to a
white working class that feels it has been cheated by the big corporations, undermined by Hispanic immigration, and often resentful
towards African-Americans who for long too many have viewed as their inferior.
A Trump America would mark a descent into authoritarianism characterised by abuse, scapegoating, discrimination, racism, arbitrariness
and violence; America would become a deeply polarised and divided society. His threat to impose
45%
tariffs on China , if implemented, would certainly provoke retaliation by the Chinese and herald the beginnings of a new era
of protectionism.
Trump may well lose the presidential election just as Sanders failed in his bid for the Democrat nomination. But this does not
mean that the forces opposed to hyper-globalisation – unrestricted immigration, TPP and TTIP, the free movement of capital and much
else – will have lost the argument and are set to decline. In little more than 12 months, Trump and Sanders have transformed the
nature and terms of the argument. Far from being on the wane, the arguments of the critics of hyper-globalisation are steadily gaining
ground. Roughly two-thirds of Americans agree that "we should not think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our
own national problems". And, above all else, what will continue to drive opposition to the hyper-globalisers is inequality.
"... The crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response should be a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created and distributed around the globe ..."
"... The IMF also admits that it "underestimated" the effect austerity would have on Greece. Obviously, the rest of the Troika takes no issue with that. Even those who substitute "kick up the arse to all the lazy scroungers" whenever they encounter the word "austerity", have cottoned on to the fact that the word can only be intoned with facial features locked into a suitably tragic mask. ..."
"... Yet, mealy-mouthed and hotly contested as this minor mea culpa is, it's still a sign that financial institutions may slowly be coming round to the idea that they are the problem. ..."
"... Markets cannot be free. Markets have to be nurtured. They have to be invested in. Markets have to be grown. Google, Amazon and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than governments. ..."
"... The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists that the provision of work alone is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market. Yet even Adam Smith, the economist who came up with that theory , did not agree that economic activity alone was enough to keep humans decent and civilised. ..."
"... Governments are left with the bill when neoliberals demand access to markets that they refuse to invest in making. Their refusal allows them to rail against the Big State while producing the conditions that make it necessary. ..."
The crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response should be a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is
created and distributed around the globe
Sat 8 Jun 2013 02.59 EDT First published on Sat 8 Jun 2013 02.59 EDT
The IMF's limited admission of guilt over the Greek bailout is a start, but they still can't see the global financial system's
fundamental flaws, writes Deborah Orr. Photograph: Boris Roessler/DPA FILE T he International Monetary Fund has admitted that some
of the decisions it made in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis were wrong, and that the €130bn first bailout of Greece was
"bungled". Well, yes. If it hadn't been a mistake, then it would have been the only bailout and everyone in Greece would have lived
happily ever after.
Actually, the IMF hasn't quite admitted that it messed things up. It has said instead that it went along with its partners in
"the Troika" – the European Commission and the European Central Bank – when it shouldn't have. The EC and the ECB, says the IMF,
put the interests of the eurozone before the interests of Greece. The EC and the ECB, in turn, clutch their pearls and splutter with
horror that they could be accused of something so petty as self-preservation.
The IMF also admits that it "underestimated" the effect austerity would have on Greece. Obviously, the rest of the Troika takes
no issue with that. Even those who substitute "kick up the arse to all the lazy scroungers" whenever they encounter the word "austerity",
have cottoned on to the fact that the word can only be intoned with facial features locked into a suitably tragic mask.
Yet, mealy-mouthed and hotly contested as this minor mea culpa is, it's still a sign that financial institutions may slowly be
coming round to the idea that they are the problem. They know the crash was a debt-bubble that burst. What they don't seem to acknowledge
is that the merry days of reckless lending are never going to return; even if they do, the same thing will happen again, but more
quickly and more savagely. The thing is this: the crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response from the start should have
been a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created and distributed around the globe, a "structural adjustment",
as the philosopher
John Gray has said all along.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at governments that run up debt. And, of course,
its loans famously come with strings attached: adopt a free-market economy, or strengthen the one you have, kissing goodbye to the
Big State. Yet, the irony is painful. Neoliberal ideology insists that states are too big and cumbersome, too centralised and faceless,
to be efficient and responsive. I agree. The problem is that the ruthless sentimentalists of neoliberalism like to tell themselves
– and anyone else who will listen – that removing the dead hand of state control frees the individual citizen to be entrepreneurial
and productive. Instead, it places the financially powerful beyond any state, in an international elite that makes its own rules,
and holds governments to ransom. That's what the financial crisis was all about. The ransom was paid, and as a result, governments
have been obliged to limit their activities yet further – some setting about the task with greater relish than others. Now the task,
supposedly, is to get the free market up and running again.
But the basic problem is this: it costs a lot of money to cultivate a market – a group of consumers – and the more sophisticated
the market is, the more expensive it is to cultivate them. A developed market needs to be populated with educated, healthy, cultured,
law-abiding and financially secure people – people who expect to be well paid themselves, having been brought up believing in material
aspiration, as consumers need to be.
So why, exactly, given the huge amount of investment needed to create such a market, should access to it then be "free"? The neoliberal
idea is that the cultivation itself should be conducted privately as well. They see "austerity" as a way of forcing that agenda.
But how can the privatisation of societal welfare possibly happen when unemployment is already high, working people are turning to
food banks to survive and the debt industry, far from being sorry that it brought the global economy to its knees, is snapping up
bargains in the form of busted high-street businesses to establish shops with nothing to sell but high-interest debt? Why, you have
to ask yourself, is this vast implausibility, this sheer unsustainability, not blindingly obvious to all?
Markets cannot be free. Markets have to be nurtured. They have to be invested in. Markets have to be grown. Google, Amazon
and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they
avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than governments.
And further, those who invest in these companies, and insist that taxes should be low to encourage private profit and shareholder
value, then lend governments the money they need to create these populations of sophisticated producers and consumers, berating them
for their profligacy as they do so. It's all utterly, completely, crazy.
The other day a health minister,
Anna Soubry
, suggested that female GPs who worked part-time so that they could bring up families were putting the NHS under strain. The
compartmentalised thinking is quite breathtaking. What on earth does she imagine? That it would be better for the economy if they
all left school at 16? On the contrary, the more people who are earning good money while working part-time – thus having the leisure
to consume – the better. No doubt these female GPs are sustaining both the pharmaceutical industry and the arts and media, both sectors
that Britain does well in.
As for their prioritising of family life over career – that's just another of the myriad ways in which Conservative neoliberalism
is entirely without logic. Its prophets and its disciples will happily – ecstatically – tell you that there's nothing more important
than family, unless you're a family doctor spending some of your time caring for your own. You couldn't make these characters up.
It is certainly true that women with children find it more easy to find part-time employment in the public sector. But that's a prima
facie example of how unresponsive the private sector is to human and societal need, not – as it is so often presented – evidence
that the public sector is congenitally disabled.
Much of the healthy economic growth – as opposed to the smoke and mirrors of many aspects of financial services – that Britain
enjoyed during the second half of the 20th century was due to women swelling the educated workforce. Soubry and her ilk, above all
else, forget that people have multiple roles, as consumers, as producers, as citizens and as family members. All of those things
have to be nurtured and invested in to make a market.
The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists that the provision of work alone
is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market. Yet even Adam Smith, the economist who
came up with that theory , did not agree
that economic activity alone was enough to keep humans decent and civilised.
Governments are left with the bill when neoliberals demand access to markets that they refuse to invest in making. Their refusal
allows them to rail against the Big State while producing the conditions that make it necessary. And even as the results of their
folly become ever more plain to see, they are grudging in their admittance of the slightest blame, bickering with their allies instead
of waking up, smelling the coffee and realizing that far too much of it is sold through Starbucks.
"... I don't like using the term "neo-liberalism" that much because there is nothing "new" or "liberal" about it, the term itself just helps hide the fact that it's a political project more about power than profit and the end result is more like modern feudalism - an authoritarian system where the lords (bankers, energy companies and their large and inefficient attendant bureaucracies), keep us peasants in thrall through life long debt-slavery simply to buy a house or exploit us as a captured market in the case of the energy sector. ..."
"... Since the word "privatisation" is clearly no longer popular, the latest buzzword from this project is "outsourcing". ..."
"... As far as I can see "neo-liberalism", or what I prefer to call managerial and financialised feudalism is not dead, it's still out and about looking around for the next rent-seeking opportunity. ..."
"... In the political arena, is enabling porkies facilitate each other in every lunatic pronouncement about "Budget repair" and "on track for a surplus". And its spotty, textbook-spouting clones ("all debt is debt! Shriek, gasp, hyperventilate!") fall off the conveyor belts of tertiary education Australia-wide, then turn up on The Drum as IPA 'Research Fellows' to spout their evidence-free assertions. ..."
"... And don't forget the handmaiden of neoliberalism is their macroeconomic mythology about government "debt and borrowing" which will condemn our grandchildren to poverty - inter-generational theft! It also allows them to continue dismantling government social programs by giving tax-cuts to reduce "revenue" and then claiming there is no money to fund those programs. ..."
"... "Competition" as the cornerstone of neoliberal economics was always a lie. Corporations do their best to get rid of competitors by unfair pricing tactics or by takeovers. And even where some competitors hang in there by some means (banks, petrol companies) the competition that occurs is not for price but for profit. ..."
"... We find a shift away from democratic processes and the rise of the "all new adulation of the so-called tough leader" factor, aka Nazism/Fascism. From Trump to Turkey, Netanyahu to Putin, Brazil to China, the rise of the "right" in Europe, the South Americas, where the leader is "our great and "good" Teacher", knows best, and thus infantalises the knowledge and awareness of the rest of the population. Who needs scientists, when the "leader" knows everything? ..."
"... There are indeed alternatives to neoliberalism, most of which have been shown to lead back to neoliberalism. Appeals for fiscal and monetary relief/stimulus can only ever paper over the worst aspects of it's relentless 'progress', between wars, it seems. ..."
"... Neoliberalism seems vastly, catastrophically misunderstood. Widely perceived as the latest abomination to spring from the eternal battle 'twixt Labour and Capital, it's actual origins are somewhat more recent. Neoliberalism really, really is not just "Capitalism gone wrong". It goes much deeper, to a fundamental flaw buried( more accurately 'planted') deep in the heart of economics. ..."
"... In 1879 an obscure journalist from then-remote San Francisco, Henry George, took the world by storm with his extraordinary bestseller Progress and Poverty . Still the only published work to outsell the Bible in a single year, it did so for over twenty years, yet few social justice advocates have heard of it. ..."
"... George gravely threatened privileged global power-elites , so they erased him from academic history. A mind compared, in his time with Plato, Copernicus and Adam Smith wiped from living memory, by the modern aristocracy. ..."
"... In the process of doing so, they emasculated the discipline of economics, stripped dignity from labour, and set in motion a world-destroying doctrine. Neo-Classical Economics(aka neoliberalism) was born , to the detriment of the working-citizen and the living world on which s/he depends. ..."
I don't like using the term "neo-liberalism" that much because there is nothing "new" or
"liberal" about it, the term itself just helps hide the fact that it's a political project
more about power than profit and the end result is more like modern feudalism - an
authoritarian system where the lords (bankers, energy companies and their large and
inefficient attendant bureaucracies), keep us peasants in thrall through life long
debt-slavery simply to buy a house or exploit us as a captured market in the case of the
energy sector.
Since the word "privatisation" is clearly no longer popular, the latest buzzword from this
project is "outsourcing". If you've had a look at The Canberra Times over the last couple of
weeks there have been quite a few articles about outsourcing parts of Medicare and Centrelink, using labour hire companies and so on – is this part of a current LNP plan
to "sell off" parts of the government before Labour takes the reins in May?
As far as I can see "neo-liberalism", or what I prefer to call managerial and
financialised feudalism is not dead, it's still out and about looking around for the next
rent-seeking opportunity.
Neoliberalism "dead"?
I think not.
It is riveted on the country like a straitjacket.
Which is exactly what it was always intended to be, a system gamed and rigged to ensure the
wage-earning scum obtain progressively less and less of the country's productive wealth,
however much they contributed to it.
The wage theft and exploitation Neoliberalism fosters has become the new norm.
Neoliberal idealogues thickly infest Federal and State Treasuries.
In the political arena, is enabling porkies facilitate each other in every lunatic
pronouncement about "Budget repair" and "on track for a surplus".
And its spotty, textbook-spouting clones ("all debt is debt! Shriek, gasp, hyperventilate!")
fall off the conveyor belts of tertiary education Australia-wide, then turn up on The Drum as
IPA 'Research Fellows' to spout their evidence-free assertions.
The IPA itself has moles in govt at every level--even in your local Council.
Certainly in ours.
Neoliberalism is "dead"?
Correction.
Neoliberalism is alive, thriving---and quick to ensure its glaring deficiencies and
inequities are solely attributable to its opponents. Now THERE'S a surprise.....
Agree! And don't forget the handmaiden of neoliberalism is their macroeconomic mythology
about government "debt and borrowing" which will condemn our grandchildren to poverty -
inter-generational theft! It also allows them to continue dismantling government social programs by giving tax-cuts
to reduce "revenue" and then claiming there is no money to fund those programs.
Neoliberalism will not be dead until the underpinning of neoliberalism is abandoned by ALP
and Greens. That underpinning is their mindless attachment to "budget repair" and "return to
surplus". The federal government's "budget" is nothing like a currency user's budget.
Currency users collect in order to spend whereas every dollar spent by the federal government
is a new dollar and every dollar taxed by the federal government is an ex-dollar. A currency
cannot sensibly have "debt" in the currency that it issues and no amount of surplus or
deficit now will enhance or impair its capacity to spend in future. A currency issuer does
not need an electronic piggybank, or a Future Fund, or a Drought Relief Fund. It can't max
out an imaginary credit card. It's "borrowing" is just an exchange of its termless no-coupon
liabilities (currency) for term-limited coupon-bearing liabilities (bonds). The federal
budget balance is no rational indicator of any need for austerity or for stimulus. The
rational indicators are unemployment (too small a "deficit"/too large a surplus) and
inflation (too large a "deficit"/too small a "surplus"). Federal taxation is where dollars go
to die. It doesn't "fund" a currency issuer's spending - it is there to stop the dollars it
issues from piling up and causing inflation and to make room for spending by democratically
elected federal parliament. The name of the game is to balance the economy, not the entirely
notional and fundamentally irrelevant "budget".
"Competition" as the cornerstone of neoliberal economics was always a lie. Corporations do
their best to get rid of competitors by unfair pricing tactics or by takeovers. And even
where some competitors hang in there by some means (banks, petrol companies) the competition
that occurs is not for price but for profit.
And changing the electoral system? Yes indeed. After years of observation it seems to me
that the problem with our politics is not individual politicians (although there are notable
exceptions) but political parties. Rigid control of policies and voting on party instruction
(even by the Greens) makes the proceedings of parliament a complete waste of time. If every
policy had to run the gauntlet of 150 people all voting by their conscience we would have
better policy. The executive functions could be carried out by a cabinet also elected from
those members. But not going to happen - too many vested interests in the parties and their
corporate sponsors.
With the election of Bolsonaro in Brazil (even though nearly 30% of electors refused to vote)
it may be a little presumptuous to dissect the dead corpse of neoliberalism, as Richard
Denniss' hopes that we can.
What is absolutely gob-smacking is that Brazilians voted for him; a man that Glenn Greenwald
describes as "far more dangerous than Trump" , that Bolsonaro envisages military
dictatorships as "being a far more superior form of government" advocating a civil war
in order to dispose of the left.
Furthermore, the election of this far-right neoliberal extremist also threatens the Amazon
forest and its indigenous people; with a global impact that will render combatting climate
change even more difficult.
Locally, recent Liberal Party battles over leadership have included the neolib factor, as the
lunatic right in that party - who I suspect would all love to be a Bolsonaro themselves -
aggressively activate their grumblings and dissension.
Oh, Richard how I wish you were right; but in the Victorian election campaign - currently
underway - I have seen Socialist candidates behaving in a manner that doesn't garner hope in
a different way of doing politics.
The fact that 'our' democracy is based on an adversarial, partisan system leaves me with
little hope.
Alain Badiou wrote that "ours is not a world of democracy but a world of imperial
conservatism using democratic phraseology" ; and until that imposition is discarded 'our'
democracy will remain whatever we are told it is, and neolibs will continue to shove their
bullshit down our throats as much as they can.
We find a shift away from democratic processes and the rise of the "all new
adulation of the so-called tough leader" factor, aka Nazism/Fascism. From Trump to
Turkey, Netanyahu to Putin, Brazil to China, the rise of the "right" in Europe, the South
Americas, where the leader is "our great and "good" Teacher", knows best, and thus
infantalises the knowledge and awareness of the rest of the population. Who needs scientists,
when the "leader" knows everything?
Have the people of the world abrogated their democratic responsibility?
Or is it the gerrymandering chicanery of US Republican backers/politicians( so long as you
control the voting machines ) that have sent the ugly message to the world, Power is yours
for the making and taking by any means that ignores the public's rights in the decision
making process. Has the "neo-liberal" world delivered a corrupted system of democracy that
has deliberately alienated the world's population from actively participating fully in the
full awareness that their vote counts and will be counted?
Do we need to take back the controls of democracy to ensure that it is the will of the
people and not a manipulation by vested interest groups/individuals? You're darn
tootin'!!!
A thoughtful piece. Thanks. There are indeed alternatives to neoliberalism, most of which
have been shown to lead back to neoliberalism. Appeals for fiscal and monetary
relief/stimulus can only ever paper over the worst aspects of it's relentless 'progress',
between wars, it seems.
Neoliberalism seems vastly, catastrophically misunderstood. Widely perceived as the
latest abomination to spring from the eternal battle 'twixt Labour and Capital, it's actual
origins are somewhat more recent. Neoliberalism really, really is not just "Capitalism gone
wrong". It goes much deeper, to a fundamental flaw buried( more accurately 'planted')
deep in the heart of economics.
Instead of trying to understand Neo-Classical Economics it is perhaps more instructive to
understand what it was built, layer by layer, to obscure. First the Land system, then the
Wealth system, and finally the Money system (hived off into a compartment - 'macroeconomics').
Importantly, three entirely different categories of "thing" .
In 1879 an obscure journalist from then-remote San Francisco, Henry George, took the world
by storm with his extraordinary bestseller Progress and Poverty . Still the only
published work to outsell the Bible in a single year, it did so for over twenty years, yet
few social justice advocates have heard of it.
George set out to discover why the worst poverty always seemed to accompany the most
progress. By chasing down the production process to its ends, and tracing where the proceeds
were going, he succeeded spectacularly. From Progress and Poverty , Chapter 17 - "The Problem Explained"
:
Three things unite in production: land, labor, and capital. Three parties divide the
output: landowner, laborer, and capitalist. If the laborer and capitalist get no more as
production increases, it is a necessary inference that the landowner takes the gain.
George
gravely threatened privileged global power-elites , so they erased him from academic
history. A mind compared, in his time with Plato, Copernicus and Adam Smith wiped from living
memory, by the modern aristocracy.
In the process of doing so, they emasculated the discipline of economics, stripped dignity
from labour, and set in motion a world-destroying doctrine. Neo-Classical
Economics(aka neoliberalism) was born , to the detriment of the working-citizen and the
living world on which s/he depends.
Einstein was a fan of George, and used his methods of thought-experiment and powerful
inductive reasoning to discover Relativity, twenty years later. Henry Georges brilliant
insights into Land (aka nature), Wealth (what you want, need), and Money
(sharing mechanism) are as relevant as ever, and until they are rediscovered, we are likely
to re-run the 1900's over and over, with fewer and fewer resources.
"The game motif is useful as a metaphor for the broader rivalry between nations and
economic systems with the rise of imperialism and the pursuit of world power. This game has
gone through two major transformations since the days of Russian-British rivalry, with the
rise first of Communism and then of Islam as world forces opposing imperialism. The main
themes of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games include:
US imperial strategy as an outgrowth of British imperialism, and its transformation
following the collapse of the Soviet Union;
the significance of the creation of Israel with respect to the imperial
project;
the repositioning of Russia in world politics after the collapse of the Soviet
Union;
the emerging role of China and Iran in Eurasia;
the emerging opposition to the US and NATO.
This work brings these elements together in historical perspective with an understanding
from the Arab/ Muslim world's point of view, as it is the main focus of all the "Great
Games"."
Jay Dyer discusses the book here, its strengths and weaknesses:
It has become all too easy for democracy to be turned on its head and popular nationalist
mandates, referenda and elections negated via instant political hypocrisy by leaders who show
their true colours only after the public vote. So it has been within the two-and-a-half year
unraveling of the UK Brexit referendum of 2016 that saw the subsequent negotiations now provide
the Brexit voter with only three possibilities. All are a loss for Britain.
One possibility, Brexit, is the result of Prime Minister, Theresa May's negotiations- the
"deal"- and currently exists in name only. Like the PM herself, the original concept of Brexit
may soon lie in the dust of an upcoming UK Parliament floor vote in exactly the same manner as
the failed attempt by the Greeks barely three years ago. One must remember that Greece on June
27, 2015 once voted to leave the EU as well and to renegotiate its EU existence as well in
their own "Grexit" referendum. Thanks to their own set of underhanded and treasonous
politicians, this did not go well for Greece. Looking at the Greek result, and understanding
divisive UK Conservative Party control that exists in the hearts of PMs on both sides of the
House of Commons, this new parliamentary vote is not looking good for Britain. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek! "deal" -- would thus reveal the life-long scars of their true
national allegiance gnawed into their backs by the lust of their masters in Brussels. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
Ironically, like a cluster bomb of white phosphorous over a Syrian village, Cameron's Brexit
vote blew up spectacularly in his face. Two decades of ongoing political submission to the EU
by the Cons and "new" labour had them arrogantly misreading the minds of the UK
voter.
So on that incredible night, it happened. Prime Minister David Cameron the Cons New Labour
The Lib- Dems and even the UK Labour Party itself, were shocked to their core when the
unthinkable nightmare that could never happen, did happen . Brexit had passed by popular
vote!
David Cameron has been in hiding ever since.
After Brexit passed the same set of naïve UK voters assumed, strangely, that Brexit
would be finalized in their national interest as advertised. This belief had failed to
read
Article 50 - the provisos for leaving the EU- since, as much as it was mentioned, it was
very rarely linked or referenced by a quotation in any of the media punditry. However, an
article published four days after the night Brexit passed,
" A Brexit Lesson In Greek: Hopes and Votes Dashed on Parliamentary Floors," provided
anyone thus reading Article 50, which is only eight pages long and double-spaced, the info to
see clearly that this never before used EU by-law would be the only route to a UK exit.
Further, Article 50 showed that Brussels would control the outcome of exit negotiations along
with the other twenty-seven member nations and that effectively Ms May and her Tories
would be playing this game using the EU's ball and rules, while going one-on-twenty-seven
during the negotiations.
In the aftermath of Brexit, the real game began in earnest. The stakes: bigger than
ever.
Forgotten are the hypocritical defections of political expediency that saw Boris Johnson and
then Home Secretary Theresa May who were, until that very moment, both vociferously and very
publicly against the intent of Brexit. Suddenly they claimed to be pro- Brexit in their quest
to sleep in Cameron's now vacant bed at No. 10 Downing Street. Boris strategically dropped out
to hopefully see, Ms May, fall on her sword- a bit sooner. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by
Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
So, the plucky PM was left to convince the UK public, daily, as the negotiations moved on,
that "Brexit means Brexit!" A UK media that is as pro-EU as their PM chimed in to help
her sell distortions of proffered success at the negotiating table, while the rise of "old"
Labour, directed by Jeremy Corbyn, exposed her "soft" Brexit negotiations for the
litany of failures that ultimately equaled the "deal" that was strangely still called
"Brexit."
Too few, however, examined this reality once these political Chameleons changed their
colours just as soon as the very first results shockingly came in from Manchester in the wee
hours of the morning on that seemingly hopeful night so long ago: June 23, 2016. For thus would
begin a quiet, years-long defection of many more MPs than merely these two opportunists.
What the British people also failed to realize was that they and their Brexit victory would
also be faced with additional adversaries beyond the EU members: those from within their own
government. From newly appointed PM May to Boris Johnson, from the Conservative Party to the
New Labour sellouts within the Labour Party and the Friends of Israel , the
quiet internal political movement against Brexit began. As the House of Lords picked up their
phones, too, for very quiet private chats within House of Commons, their minions in the British
press began their work as well.
Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley -
The Unz Review
This article by Brett Redmayne is certainly right re the horrific sell-out by the Greek
government of Tsipras the other year, that has left the Greek citizenry in enduring political
despair the betrayal of Greek voters indeed a model for UK betrayal of Brexit voters
But Redmayne is likely very mistaken in the adulation of Jeremy Corbyn as the 'genuine
real deal' for British people
Ample evidence points to Corbyn as Trojan horse sell-out, as covered by UK researcher
Aangirfan on her blogs, the most recent of which was just vapourised by Google in their
censorship insanity
Jeremy Corbyn was a childhood neighbour of the Rothschilds in Wiltshire; with Jeremy's
father David Corbyn working for ultra-powerful Victor Rothschild on secret UK gov scientific
projects during World War 2
Jeremy Corbyn is tied to child violation scandals & child-crime convicted individuals
including Corbyn's Constituency Agent; Corbyn tragically ignoring multiple earnest complaints
from child abuse victims & whistleblowers over years, whilst "child abuse rings were
operating within all 12 of the borough's children's homes" in Corbyn's district not very
decent of him
And of course Corbyn significantly cucked to the Israel lobby in their demands for purge
of the Labour party alleged 'anti-semites'
The Trojan Horse 'fake opposition', or fake 'advocate for the people', is a very classic
game of the Powers That Be, and sadly Corbyn is likely yet one more fake 'hero'
My theory is, give "capitalism" and financial interests enough time, they will consume any
democracy. Meaning: the wealth flows upwards, giving the top class opportunity to influence
politics and the media, further improving their situation v.s. the rest, resulting in ever
stronger position – until they hold all the power. Controlling the media and therefore
the narrative, capable to destroy any and all opposition. Ministers and members of
parliaments, most bought and paid for one way or the other. Thankfully, the 1% or rather the
0.1% don't always agree so the picture can be a bit blurred.
You can guess what country inspired this "theory" of mine. The second on the list is
actually the U.K. If a real socialist becomes the prime minister of the U.K. I will be very
surprised. But Brexit is a black swan like they say in the financial sector, and they tend to
disrupt even the best of theories. Perhaps Corbin is genuine and will become prime minister!
I am not holding my breath.
However, if he is a real socialist like the article claims. And he becomes prime minister
of the U.K the situation will get really interesting. Not only from the EU side but more
importantly from U.K. best friend – the U.S. Uncle Sam will not be happy about this
development and doesn't hesitate to crush "bad ideas" he doesn't like.
Case in point – Ireland's financial crisis in 2009;
After massive expansion and spectacular housing bubble the Irish banks were in deep
trouble early into the crisis. The EU, ECB and the IMF (troika?) met with the Irish
government to discuss solutions. From memory – the question was how to save the Irish
banks? They were close to agreement that bondholders and even lenders to the Irish banks
should take a "haircut" and the debt load should be cut down to manageable levels so the
banks could survive (perhaps Michael Hudson style if you will). One short phone call from
the U.S Secretary of the treasury then – Timothy Geithner – to the troika-Irish
meeting ended these plans. He said: there will be no haircut! That was the end of it.
Ireland survived but it's reasonable to assume this "guideline" paved the road for the
Greece debacle.
I believe Mr. Geithner spoke on behalf of the financial power controlling – more or
less-our hemisphere. So if the good old socialist Corbin comes to power in the U.K. and
intends to really change something and thereby set examples for other nations – he is
taking this power head on. I think in case of "no deal" the U.K. will have it's back against
the wall and it's bargaining position against the EU will depend a LOT on U.S. response. With
socialist in power there will be no meaningful support from the U.S. the powers that be will
to their best to destroy Corbin as soon as possible.
My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This
article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals
(even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax
havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's
estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!
There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that
off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages
because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes
(even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions
by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems.
MIGA!
Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much
desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked
against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that
struggle against such reality.
I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread
communist. Hopeless ideas!
" This is because the deal has a provision that would still keep the UK in the EU Customs
Union (the system setting common trade rules for all EU members) indefinitely. This is an
outrageous inclusion and betrayal of a real Brexit by Ms May since this one topic was the
most contentious in the debate during the ongoing negotiations because the Customs Union is
the tie to the EU that the original Brexit vote specifically sought to terminate. "
Here I stopped reading, maybe later more.
Nonsense.
What USA MSM told in the USA about what ordinary British people said, those who wanted to
leave the EU, I do not know, one of the most often heard reasons was immigration, especially
from E European countries, the EU 'free movement of people'.
"Real' Britons refusing to live in Poland.
EP member Verhofstadt so desperate that he asked on CNN help by Trump to keep this 'one of
the four EU freedoms'.
This free movement of course was meant to destroy the nation states
What Boris Johnson said, many things he said were true, stupid EU interference for example
with products made in Britain, for the home market, (he mentioned forty labels in one piece
of clothing), no opportunity to seek trade without EU interference.
There was irritation about EU interference 'they even make rules about vacuum cleaners', and,
already long ago, closure, EU rules, of village petrol pumps that had been there since the
first cars appeared in Britain, too dangerous.
In France nonsensical EU rules are simply ignored, such as countryside private sewer
installations.
But the idea that GB could leave, even without Brussels obstruction, the customs union,
just politicians, and other nitwits in economy, could have such ideas.
Figures are just in my head, too lazy to check.
But British export to what remains of the EU, some € 60 billion, French export to GB,
same order of magnitude, German export to GB, far over 100 billion.
Did anyone imagine that Merkel could afford closing down a not negligible part of Bayern car
industry, at he same time Bayern being the Land most opposed to Merkel, immigration ?
This Brexit in my view is just the beginning of the end of the illusion EU falling
apart.
In politics anything is connected with anything.
Britons, again in my opinion, voted to leave because of immigration, inside EU
immigration.
What GB will do with Marrakech, I do not know.
Marrakech reminds me of many measures that were ready to be implemented when the reason to
make these measures no longer existed.
Such as Dutch job guarantees when enterprises merged, these became law when when the merger
idiocy was over.
The negative aspects of immigration now are clear to many in the countries with the imagined
flesh pots, one way or another authorities will be obliged to stop immigration, but at that
very moment migration rules, not legally binding, are presented.
As a Belgian political commentator said on Belgian tv 'no communication is possible
between French politicians and French yellow coat demonstrators, they live in completely
different worlds'.
These different worlds began, to pinpoint a year, in 2005, when the negative referenda about
the EU were ignored. As Farrage reminded after the Brexit referendum, in EP, you said 'they
do not know what they're doing'
But now Macron and his cronies do not know what to do, now that police sympathises with
yellow coat demonstrators.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance
cultures manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
@Digital
Samizdat Corbyn, in my opinion one of the many not too bright socialists, who are caught
in their own ideological prison: worldwide socialism is globalisation, globalisation took
power away from politicians, and gave it to multinationals and banks.
@niceland The
expression class war is often used without realising what the issue is, same with tax
evasion.
The rich of course consume more, however, there is a limit to what one can consume, it takes
time to squander money.
So the end of the class war may make the rich poor, but alas the poor hardly richer.
About tax evasion, some economist, do not remember his name, did not read the article
attentively, analysed wealth in the world, and concluded that eight % of this wealth had
originated in evading taxes.
Over what period this evasion had taken place, do not remember this economist had reached a
conclusion, but anyone understands that ending tax evasion will not make all poor rich.
There is quite another aspect of class war, evading taxes, wealth inequality, that is
quite worrying: the political power money can yield.
Soros is at war with Hungary, his Open University must leave Hungary.
USA MSM furious, some basic human right, or rights, have been violated, many in Brussels
furious, the 226 Soros followers among them, I suppose.
But since when is it allowed, legally and/or morally, to try to change the culture of a
country, in this case by a foreigner, just by pumping money into a country ?
Soros advertises himself as a philantropist, the Hungarian majority sees him as some kind of
imperialist, I suppose.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance cultures
manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
Well , I am reading " The occult renaissance church of Rome " by Michael Hoffman ,
Independent History and research . Coeur d`Alene , Idaho . http://www.RevisionistHistory.org
I saw about this book in this Unz web .
I used to think than the rot started with protestantism , but Hoffman says it started with
catholic Renaissance in Rome itself in the XV century , the Medici , the Popes , usury
This whole affair illustrates beautifully the real purpose of the sham laughingly known as
"representative democracy," namely, not to "empower" the public but to deprive it of
its power.
With modern means of communication, direct democracy would be technically feasible even in
large countries. Nevertheless, practically all "democratic" countries continue to delegate
all legislative powers to elected "representatives." These are nothing more than consenting
hostages of those with the real power, who control and at the same time hide behind those
"representatives." The more this becomes obvious, the lower the calibre of the people willing
to be used in this manner – hence, the current crop of mental gnomes and opportunist
shills in European politics.
I would only shout this rambling ignoramus a beer in the pub to stop his mouth for a while.
Some of his egregious errors have been noted. and Greece, anyway, is an irrelevance to the
critical decisions on Brexit.
Once Article 50 was invoked the game was over. All the trump cards were on the EU side.
Now we know that, even assuming Britain could muster a competent team to plan and negotiate
for Brexit that all the work of proving up the case and negotiating or preparing the ground
has to be done over years leading up to the triggering of Article 50. And that's assuming
that recent events leave you believing that the once great Britain is fit to be a sovereign
nation without adult supervision.
As it is one has to hope that Britain will not be constrained by the total humbug which
says that a 51 per cent vote of those choosing to vote in that very un British thing, a
referendum, is some sort of reason for not giving effect to a more up to date and better
informed view.
@Digital
Samizdat Hypothesis: The British masses would fare better without a privatized
government.
"Corbyn may prove to be real .. .. old-time Labour platform [leadership, capable to]..
return [political, social and financial] control back to the hands of the UK worker".. [but
the privateers will use the government itself and mass media to defeat such platforms and to
suppress labor with new laws and domestic armed warfare]. Why would a member of the British
masses allow [the Oligarch elite and the[ir] powerful business and foreign political
interests restrain democracy and waste the victims of privately owned automation revolution?
.. ..
[Corbyn's Labour platform challenges ] privatized capitalist because the PCs use the
British government to keep imprisoned in propaganda and suppressed in opportunity, the
masses. The privateers made wealthy by their monopolies, are using their resources to
maintain rule making and enforcement control (via the government) over the masses; such
privateers have looted the government, and taken by privatization a vast array of economic
monopolies that once belonged to the government. If the British government survives, the
Privateers (monopoly thieves) will continue to use the government to replace humanity, in
favor of corporate owned Robots and super capable algorithms.
Corbyn's threat to use government to represent the masses and to suppress or reduce
asymmetric power and wealth, and to provide sufficient for everyone extends to, and alerts
the masses in every capitalist dominated place in the world. He (Corbyn) is a very dangerous
man, so too was Jesus Christ."
There is a similar call in France, but it is not yet so well led.
Every working Dutch person is "owed" 50k euro from the bailout of Greece, not that Greece
will ever pay this back, and not as if Greece ever really got the money as it just went
straight to northern European banks to bail them out. Then we have the fiscal policy creating
more money by the day to stimulate the economy, which also doesn't reach the countries or
people just the banks. Then we have the flirting with East-European mobsters to pull them in
the EU sphere corrupting top EU bureaucrats. Then we have all of south Europe being extremely
unstable, including France, both its populations and its economy.
It's sad to see the British government doesn't see the disaster ahead, any price would be
cheaper then future forced EU integration. And especially at this point, the EU is so
unstable, that they can't go to war on the UK without also committing A kamikaze attack.
@Brabantian
Thank you for your comment and addition to my evaluation of Corbyn. I do agree with you that
Corbyn has yet to be tested for sincerity and effectiveness as PM, but he will likely get his
chance and only then will we and the Brits find out for sure. The main point I was hoping to
make was that: due to the perceived threat of Labour socialist reform under Corbyn, he has
been an ulterior motive in the negotiations and another reason that the EU wants PM May to
get her deal passed. Yes, I too am watching Corbyn with jaundiced optimism. Thank you.
"... What sticks in the neoliberalism craw is that the state provides these services instead of private businesses, and as such "rob" them of juicy profits! The state, the last easy cash cow! ..."
"... Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church. ..."
"... when Thatcher and Reagan deregulated the financial markets in the 80s, that's when the trouble began which in turn led to the immense crash in 2008. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism is just another symptom of liberal democracy which is government by oligarchs with a veneer of democracy ..."
"... The state has merged with the corporations so that what is good for the corporations is good for the state and visa versa. The larger and richer the state/corporations are, the more shyster lawyers they hire to disguise misdeeds and unethical behavior. ..."
"... If you support a big government, you are supporting big corporations as well. The government uses the taxpayer as an eternal fount of fresh money and calls it their own to spend as they please. Small businesses suffer unfairly because they cannot afford the shyster lawyers and accountants that protect the government and the corporations, but nobody cares about them. ..."
"... Deborah's point about the illogical demands of neoliberalism are indeed correct, which is somewhat ironic as neoliberalism puts objective rationality at the heart of its philosophy, but I digress... ..."
"... There would not be NHS, free education etc. without socialism; in fact they are socialism. It took the Soviet-style socialism ("statism") 70 years to collapse. The neoliberalistic capitalism has already started to collapse after 30 years. ..."
"... I'm always amused that neoliberal - indeed, capitalist - apologists cannot see the hypocrisy of their demands for market access. Communities create and sustain markets, fund and maintain infrastructure, produce and maintain new consumers. Yet the neolibs decry and destroy. Hypocrites or destructive numpties - never quite decided between Pickles and Gove ..."
"... 97% of all OUR money has been handed over to these scheming crooks. Stop bailing out the banks with QE. Take back what is ours -- state control over the creation of money. Then let the banks revert to their modest market-based function of financial intermediaries. ..."
"... The State can't be trusted to create our money? Well they could hardly do a worse job than the banks! Best solution would be to distribute state-created money as a Citizen's Income. ..."
"... To promote the indecent obsession for global growth Australia, burdened with debt of around 250 billion dollars, is to borrow and pay interest on a further 7 billion dollars to lend to the International Monetary Fund so as it can lend it to poorer nations to burden them with debt. ..."
This private good, public bad is a stupid idea, and a totally artificial divide. After all,
what are "public spends"? It is the money from private individuals, and companies,
clubbing together to get services they can't individually afford.
What sticks in the
neoliberalism craw is that the state provides these services instead of private businesses,
and as such "rob" them of juicy profits! The state, the last easy cash cow!
Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it
will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers. It's acolytes are required
to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or
Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because
that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and
it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be
made a fully fledged bastard.
Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a
neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot
be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self
serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church.
It's subsumed the entire planet, and waiting for them to see sense is a hopeless cause. In
the end it'll probably take violence to rid us of the Neoliberal parasite... the turn of the
century plague.
"Capitalism, especially the beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has
won and countless people have gained as a result."
I agree with you and it was this beneficial version of capitalism that brought down the
Iron Curtain. Working people in the former Communist countries were comparing themselves with
working people in the west and wanted a piece of that action. Cuba has hung on because people
there compare themselves with their nearest capitalist neighbor Haiti and they don't want a
piece of that action. North Korea well North Korea is North Korea.
Isn't it this beneficial capitalism that is being threatened now though? When the wall
came down it was assumed that Eastern European countries would become more like us. Some have
but who would have thought that British working people would now be told, by the likes of
Kwasi Kwarteng and his Britannia Unchained chums, that we have to learn to accept working
conditions that are more like those in the Eastern European countries that got left behind
and that we are now told that our version of Capitalism is inferior to the version adopted by
the Communist Party of China?
@bullwinkle - No , when Thatcher and Reagan deregulated the financial markets in the 80s,
that's when the trouble began which in turn led to the immense crash in 2008.
Neo-liberalism is just another symptom of liberal democracy which is government by oligarchs
with a veneer of democracy.
This type of government began in America about 150 years ago with the Rockefellers,
Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, Ford etc who took advantage of new inventions, cheap immigrant labour
and financial deregulation in finance and social mores to amass wealth for themselves and
chaos and austerity for workers.
All this looks familiar again today with new and old oligarchs hiding behind large
corporations taking advantage of the invention of the €uro, mass immigration into
western Europe and deregulation of the financial "markets" and social mores to amass wealth
for a super-wealthy elite and chaos and austerity for workers.
So if we want to see where things went wrong we need only go back 150 years to what happened
to America. There we can also see our future?
The beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has won
Free education and the NHS are state institutions. As Debbie said, Amazon never taught
anyone to read. Beneficial capitalism is an oxymoron resulting from your lack of
understanding.
especially the beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has won and
countless people have gained as a result.
At one and the same time being privatized and having their funding squeezed, a direct
result of the neoliberal dogma capitalism of austerity. Free access is being eroded by the
likes of ever larger student loans and prescription costs for a start.
they avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than
governments
Let's not get carried away here. Let's consider some of the things governments can do,
subject only to a 5 yearly check and challenge:
force people upon pain of imprisonment to pay taxes to them
pay out that tax money to whomever they like
spend money they don't have by borrowing against obligations imposed on future taxpayers
without their agreement
kill people in wars, often from the comfort of a computer screen thousands of miles
away
print money and give it to whomever they like,
get rid of nation state currencies and replace them with a single, centrally controlled
currency
make laws and punish people who break them, including the ability to track them down in
most places in the world if they try and run away.
use laws to create monopolies and favour special interests
Let's now consider what power apple have...
- they can make iPhones and try to sell them for a profit by responding to the demands of
the mass consumer market. That's it. In fact, they are forced to do this by their owners who
only want them to do this, and nothing else. If they don't do this they will cease to
exist.
The state has merged with the corporations so that what is good for the corporations is good
for the state and visa versa. The larger and richer the state/corporations are, the more
shyster lawyers they hire to disguise misdeeds and unethical behavior.
If you support a big government, you are supporting big corporations as well. The
government uses the taxpayer as an eternal fount of fresh money and calls it their own to
spend as they please. Small businesses suffer unfairly because they cannot afford the shyster
lawyers and accountants that protect the government and the corporations, but nobody cares
about them. Remember, that Green Energy is big business, just like Big Pharma and Big Oil.
Most government shills have personally invested in Green Energy not because they care about
the environment, only because they know that it is a safe investment protected by government
for government. The same goes for large corporations who befriend government and visa
versa.
@NeilThompson - It's all very well for Deborah to recommend that the well paid share work.
Journalists, consultants and other assorted professionals can afford to do so. As a
self-employed tradesman, I'd be homeless within a month.
@SpinningHugo - Interesting that those who are apparently concerned with prosperity for all
and international solidarity are happy to ignore the rest of the world when it's going well,
preferring to prophesy apocalypse when faced with government spending being slightly reduced
at home.
@1nn1t - That is a point which just isn't made enough. This is the first group of politicians
for whom a global conflict seems like a distant event.
As a result we have people like Blair who see nothing wrong with invading countries at a
whim, or conservatives and UKIP who fail to understand the whole point of the European Court
of Human Rights.
They seem to act without thought of our true place in the world, without regard for the
truly terrible capacity humanity has for self destruction.
Deborah's point about the illogical demands of neoliberalism are indeed correct, which is
somewhat ironic as neoliberalism puts objective rationality at the heart of its philosophy,
but I digress...
The main problem with replacing neoliberalism with a more rational, and fairer system,
entails that people like Deborah accept that they will be less wealthy. And that my friends is the main problem. People like Deborah, while they are more than
happy to point the fingers at others, are less than happy to accept that they are also part
of the problem.
(Generalisation Caveat: I don't know in actuality if Deborah would be unhappy to be less
wealthy in exchange for a fairer system, she doesn't say)
Good critique of conservative-neoliberalism, unless you subscribe to it and subordinate any
morals or other values to it.
She mentions an internal tension and I think that's because conservatism and neoliberal
market ideology are different beasts.
There are different models of capitalism quite clearly the social democratic version in
Scandinavia or the "Bismarkian" German version have worked a lot better than the UKs.
Yet, mealy-mouthed and hotly contested as this minor mea culpa is, it's still a sign
that financial institutions may slowly be coming round to the idea that they are the
problem.
How is it a sign of that? We are offered no clues.
What they don't seem to acknowledge is that the merry days of reckless lending are never
going to return;
Try reading a history of financial crashes to dislodge this idea.
... even if they do, the same thing will happen again, but more quickly and more
savagely.
This may or may not be true but here it is mere assertion.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at
governments that run up debt.
At this point I start to have real doubts as to whether Deborah Orr has actually read even
the Executive Summary of the Report this article is ostensibly a response to.
All the comments that follow about the need for public infrastructure, education,
regulated markets and so on are made as if they were a criticism of the IMF and yet the IMF
says many of those same things itself. The IMF position may, of course, be contradictory -
but then that is something that would need to be demonstrated. It seems that Deborah has not
got beyond reading a couple of Guardian articles on the issues she discusses and therefore is
in no position to do this.
Efforts are being made to narrow the skills gap with other countries in the region, as
the authorities look to take full advantage of Bangladesh's favorable demographics and help
create conditions for more labor-intensive led growth. The government is also scaling up
spending on education, science and technology, and information and communication
technology.
Which seems to be the sort of thing Deborah Orr is calling for. She should spend a little
time on the IMF website before criticising the institution. It is certainly one that merits
much criticism - but it needs to be informed.
And the solution to the problems? For Deborah Orr the response
... from the start should have been a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth
is created and distributed around the globe, a "structural adjustment", as the philosopher
John Gray has said all along.
Does anyone have any idea what this is supposed to mean? There are certainly no leads on
this in the link given to "the philosopher" John Gray. And what a strange reference that is.
John Gray, in his usual cynical mode, dismisses the idea of progress being achieved by the
EU. But then I suppose that is consistent from a man who dismisses the idea of progress
itself.
... Conservative neoliberalism is entirely without logic.
The first step in serious political analysis is to understand that the people one opposes
are not crazy and are not devoid of logic. If that is not clearly understood then all that is
left is the confrontation of assertion and contrary assertion. Of course Conservative
neoliberalism has a logic. It is one I do not agree with but it is a logic all the same.
The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this [the need
for public investment and a recognition of the multiple roles that individuals have].
Wrong again.
It insists that the provision of work alone is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a
market.
And again.
This stuff can't be made up as you go along on the basis of reading a couple of newspaper
articles. You actually have to do some hard reading to get to grip with the issues. I can see
no signs of that in this piece.
@NotAgainAgain - We are going off topic and that is in no small part down to my own fault, so
apologies. Just to pick up the point, I guess my unease with the likes of Buffet, Cooper-Hohn
or even the wealthy Guardian columnists is that they are criticizing the system from a
position of power and wealth.
So its easy to advocate change if you feel that you are in the vanguard of defining that
change i.e. the reforms you advocate may leave you worse off, but at a level you feel
comfortable with (the prime example always being Polly's deeply relaxed attitude to swingeing
income tax increases when her own lifestyle will be protected through wealth).
I guess I am a little skeptical because I either see it as managed decline, a smokescreen
or at worst mean spiritedness of people prepared to accept a reasonable degree of personal
pain if it means other people whom dislike suffer much greater pain.
"There is a clear legal basis in Germany for the workplace representation of employees in
all but the very smallest companies. Under the Works Constitution Act, first passed in 1952
and subsequently amended, most recently in 2001, a works council can be set up in all private
sector workplaces with at least five employees."
The UK needs to wake up to the fact that managers are sometimes inept or corrupt and will
destroy the companies they work for, unless their are adequate mechanisms to hold poor
management to account.
Capitalism, especially the beneficial capitalism of the NHS, free education etc. has
won
There would not be NHS, free education etc. without socialism; in fact they are
socialism. It took the Soviet-style socialism ("statism") 70 years to collapse. The neoliberalistic
capitalism has already started to collapse after 30 years.
I'm always amused that neoliberal - indeed, capitalist - apologists cannot see the hypocrisy
of their demands for market access. Communities create and sustain markets, fund and maintain
infrastructure, produce and maintain new consumers. Yet the neolibs decry and destroy.
Hypocrites or destructive numpties - never quite decided between Pickles and Gove, y'see.
@JamesValencia - Actually on reflection you are correct and I was wrong in my attack on the
author above. Having re-read the article its a critique of institutions rather than people so
my points were wide of the mark.
I still think that well heeled Guardian writers aren't really in a position to attack the
wealthy and politically connected, but I'll save that for a thread when they explicitly do
so, rather than the catch all genie of neoliberalism.
@CaptainGrey - deregulated capitalism has failed. That is the product of the last 20
years. The pure market is a fantasy just as communism is or any other ideology. In a pure
capitalist economy all the banks of the western world would have bust and indeed the false
value "earned" in the preceding 20 years would have been destroyed.
If the pure market is a fantasy, how can deregulated capitalism have failed? Does one not
require the other? Surely it is regulated capitalism that has failed?
97% of all OUR money has been handed over to these scheming crooks. Stop bailing out the
banks with QE. Take back what is ours -- state control over the creation of money. Then let
the banks revert to their modest market-based function of financial intermediaries.
The State can't be trusted to create our money? Well they could hardly do a worse job than
the banks! Best solution would be to distribute state-created money as a Citizen's
Income.
@1nn1t - Some good points, there is a whole swathe of low earners that should not be in the
tax system at all, simply letting them keep the money in their pocket would be a start.
Second the minimum wage (especially in the SE) is too low and should be increased.
Obviously the devil is in the detail as to the precise rate, the other issue is non
compliance as there will be any number of businesses that try and get around this, through
employing people too ignorant or scared to know any better or for family businesses - do we
have the stomach to enforce this?
Thirdly there is a widespread reluctance to separate people from the largesse of the
state, even at absurd levels of income such as higher rate payers (witness child tax
credits). On the right they see themselves as having paid in and so are "entitled" to have
something back and on the left it ensures that everyone has a vested interest in a big state
dipping it hands into your pockets one day and giving you something back the next.
@Uncertainty - Which is why the people of the planet need to join hands.
The only group of people in he UK to see that need were the generation that faced WW2
together.
It's no accident that, joining up at 18 in 1939, they had almost all retired by 1984.
To promote the indecent obsession for global growth Australia, burdened with debt of around
250 billion dollars, is to borrow and pay interest on a further 7 billion dollars to lend to
the International Monetary Fund so as it can lend it to poorer nations to burden them with
debt.
It is entrapment which impoverishes nations into the surrender of sovereignty,
democracy and national pride. In no way should we contribute to such economic immorality and
the entire economic system based on perpetual growth fuelled by consumerism and debt needs
top be denounced and dismantled. The adverse social and environmental consequence of
perpetual growth defies all sensible logic and in time, in a more responsible and enlightened
era, growth will be condemned.
This is from 1999 and in 2018 we see that Mills was right.
Notable quotes:
"... Personnel were constantly shifting back and forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. ..."
"... the military had become an active political force. Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference. And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military. ..."
"... Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." ..."
"... In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical, and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States. ..."
"... The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. ..."
"... Mills's prediction that both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more dominated by the military ..."
"... Business firms, still the most powerful force in American life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always choose the latter over the former. ..."
"... Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. ..."
One of the crucial arguments Mills made in The Power Elite was that the emergence of
the Cold War completely transformed the American public's historic opposition to a permanent
military establishment in the United States. In deed, he stressed that America's military elite
was now linked to its economic and political elite. Personnel were constantly shifting back and
forth from the corporate world to the military world. Big companies like General Motors had
become dependent on military contracts. Scientific and technological innovations sponsored by
the military helped fuel the growth of the economy. And while all these links between the
economy and the military were being forged, the military had become an active political force.
Members of Congress, once hostile to the military, now treated officers with great deference.
And no president could hope to staff the Department of State, find intelligence officers, and
appoint ambassadors without consulting with the military.
Mills believed that the emergence of the military as a key force in American life
constituted a substantial attack on the isolationism which had once characterized public
opinion. He argued that "the warlords, along with fellow travelers and spokesmen, are
attempting to plant their metaphysics firmly among the population at large." Their goal was
nothing less than a redefinition of reality -- one in which the American people would come to
accept what Mills called "an emergency without a foreseeable end." "
War or a high state of war
preparedness is felt to be the normal and seemingly permanent condition of the United States,"
Mills wrote. In this state of constant war fever, America could no longer be considered a
genuine democracy, for democracy thrives on dissent and disagreement, precisely what the
military definition of reality forbids. If the changes described by Mills were indeed
permanent, then The Power Elite could be read as the description of a deeply radical,
and depressing, transformation of the nature of the United States.
Much as Mills wrote, it remains true today that Congress is extremely friendly to the
military, at least in part because the military has become so powerful in the districts of most
congressmen. Military bases are an important source of jobs for many Americans, and government
spending on the military is crucial to companies, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which
manufacture military equipment. American firms are the leaders in the world's global arms
market, manufacturing and exporting weapons everywhere. Some weapons systems never seem to die,
even if, as was the case with a "Star Wars" system designed to destroy incoming missiles, there
is no demonstrable military need for them.
Yet despite these similarities with the 1950s, both the world and the role that America
plays in that world have changed. For one thing, the United States has been unable to muster
its forces for any sustained use in any foreign conflict since Vietnam. Worried about the
possibility of a public backlash against the loss of American lives, American presidents either
refrain from pursuing military adventures abroad or confine them to rapid strikes, along the
lines pursued by Presidents Bush and Clinton in Iraq. Since 1989, moreover, the collapse of
communism in Russia and Eastern Europe has undermined the capacity of America's elites to
mobilize support for military expenditures. China, which at the time Mills wrote was considered a serious threat, is now viewed by American businessmen as a source of great potential
investment. Domestic political support for a large and permanent military establishment in the
United States, in short, can no longer be taken for granted.
The immediate consequence of these changes in the world's balance of power has been a
dramatic decrease in that proportion of the American economy devoted to defense. At the time
Mills wrote, defense expenditures constituted roughly 60 percent of all federal outlays and
consumed nearly 10 percent of the U. S. gross domestic product. By the late 1990s, those
proportions had fallen to 17 percent of federal outlays and 3.5 percent of GDP. Nearly three
million Americans served in the armed forces when The Power Elite appeared, but that
number had dropped by half at century's end. By almost any account, Mills's prediction that
both the economy and the political system of the United States would come to be ever more
dominated by the military is not borne out by historical developments since his time.
And how could he have been right? Business firms, still the most powerful force in American
life, are increasingly global in nature, more interested in protecting their profits wherever
they are made than in the defense of the country in which perhaps only a minority of their
employees live and work. Give most of the leaders of America's largest companies a choice
between invading another country and investing in its industries and they will nearly always
choose the latter over the former.
Mills believed that in the 1950s, for the first time in
American history, the military elite had formed a strong alliance with the economic elite. Now
it would be more correct to say that America's economic elite finds more in common with
economic elites in other countries than it does with the military elite of its own....
"... Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. ..."
"... Indeed, a national security policy that sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, thinkable once again. ..."
"... George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address , counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." ..."
"... Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country. ..."
"... Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime. ..."
"... Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick it in their face). ..."
"... America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics. ..."
President Donald Trump's
recent statement on the Jamal Khashoggi killing by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince might well be considered a metaphor for his foreign
policy. Several commentators have suggested that the text appears to be something that Trump wrote himself without any adult supervision,
similar to the poorly expressed random arguments presented in his tweeting only longer. That might be the case, but it would not
be wise to dismiss the document as merely frivolous or misguided as it does in reality express the kind of thinking that has produced
a foreign policy that seems to drift randomly to no real end, a kind of leaderless creative destruction of the United States as a
world power.
Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of Britain in the mid nineteenth century, famously said that "Nations have no permanent friends
or allies, they only have permanent interests."The United States currently has neither real friends nor any clearly defined interests.
It is, however, infested with parasites that have convinced an at-drift America that their causes are identical to the interests
of the United States. Leading the charge to reduce the U.S. to "bitch" status, as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
has artfully put it , are Israel and Saudi
Arabia, but there are many other countries, alliances and advocacy groups that have learned how to subvert and direct the "leader
of the free world."
Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the
three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. It is difficult to find a part of the world where an actual
American interest is being served by Washington's foreign and global security policies. Indeed, a national security policy that
sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet
Union in 1991, thinkable once again. The fact that no one is the media or in political circles is even talking about that terrible
danger suggests that war has again become mainstreamed, tacitly benefiting from bipartisan acceptance of it as a viable foreign policy
tool by the media, in the U.S. Congress and also in the White House.
The part of the world where American meddling coupled with ignorance has produced the worst result is inevitably the Middle East...
... ... ...
All of the White House's actions have one thing in common and that is that they do not benefit Americans in any way unless one
works for a weapons manufacturer, and that is not even taking into consideration the dead soldiers and civilians and the massive
debt that has been incurred to intervene all over the world. One might also add that most of America's interventions are built on
deliberate lies by the government and its associated media, intended to increase tension and create a casus belli where
none exists.
So what is to be done as it often seems that the best thing Trump has going for him is that he is not Hillary Clinton? First of
all, a comprehensive rethink of what the real interests of the United States are in the world arena is past due. America is less
safe now than it was in 2001 as it continues to make enemies with its blundering everywhere it goes. There are now
four times as many designated terrorists as there were in 2001, active in 70 countries. One would quite plausibly soon arrive
at George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address
, counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington
might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment
of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary
common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former
into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."
George Washington or any of the other Founders would be appalled to see an America with 800 military bases overseas, allegedly
for self-defense. The transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the military industrial complex and related entities like Wall Street
has been catastrophic. The United States does not need to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are armed to the teeth
and well able to defend themselves. Nor does it have to be in Syria and Afghanistan. And
If the United States were to withdraw its military from the Middle East and the rest of Asia tomorrow, it would be to nearly everyone's
benefit. If the armed forces were to be subsequently reduced to a level sufficient to defend the United States it would put money
back in the pockets of Americans and end the continuous fearmongering through surfacing of "threats" by career militarists justifying
the bloated budgets.
... ... ...
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests [email protected]
.
but even small steps in the right direction could initiate a gradual process of turning the United States into a more normal
country in its relationships with the rest of the world rather than a universal predator and bully.
Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute
the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country.
To expect mutations -- no matter how slow or fast in a
trait that appears deeply embedded in our DNA is to be naive. Add to that the intractable stranglehold Zionists and organized
world Jewry has on our nuts and decision making. A more congruent convergence of histories and DNAs would be hard to come by among
other nations. Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone
of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime.
Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give
him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick
it in their face).
Hey, how about a Rand Paul-Tulsi Gabbard fusion ticket in 2024, not a bad idea, IMHO.
Going back to the Administration you can see the slimy Zionist hands of Steven Miller on all of those foreign policy statements.
Trump is allowing this because he has to protect his flanks from Zionists, Christian or otherwise. He might be just giving Miller
just enough rope to jettison him (wishful thinking on my part). Or he doesn't care or is unaware of the texts, a possibility.
1. Because that defies human nature. See all of history if you disagree.
2. America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples
who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics.
The beginning of USA foreign policy for me is the 1820 or 1830 Monroe Declaration: south America is our backyard, keep out.
Few people know that at the time European countries considered war on the USA because of this beginning of world domination.
When I told this to a USA correspondent the reply was 'but this declaration still is taught here in glowing terms'.
What we saw then was the case until Obama, USA foreign policy was for internal political reasons.
As Hollings stated in 2004 'Bush promising AIPAC the war on Iraq, that is politics'.
No empire ever, as far as I know, ever was in the comfortable position to be able to let foreign policy to be decided (almost)
completely by internal politics.
This changed during the Obama reign, the two war standard had to be lowered to one and a half.
All of a sudden the USA had to develop a foreign policy, a policy that had to take into consideration the world outside the USA.
Not the whole USA understands this, the die hards of Deep State in the lead.
What a half war accomplishes we see, my opinion, in Syria, a half war does not bring victory on an enemy who wages a whole
war.
Assad is still there, Russia has airforce and naval bases in Syria.
Normally, as any history book explains, foreign policy of a country is decided on in secret by a few people.
British preparations for both WWI and WWII included detailed technical talks with both the USA and France, not even all cabinet
members knew about it.
One of Trump's difficulties is that Deep State does not at all has the intention of letting the president decide on foreign policy,
at the time of FDR he did what he liked, though, if one reads for example Baruch's memoirs, in close cooperation with the Deep
State that then existed.
The question 'why do we not leave the rest of the world alone', hardly ever asked.
The USA is nearly autarcic, foreign trade, from memory, some five percent of national income, a very luxurious position.
But of course, leaving the rest of the world alone, huge internal consequences, as Hinckley explains with an example, politically
impossible to stop the development of a bomber judged to be superfluous.
Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990
Good luck. A fight over resources with the biggest consumer of resources, the People That Kill People and all their little buddies
in the Alphabet Soup of Law Enforcement and Intelligence Depravity..
That could get a fella hurt. Ask Jack and Bob Kennedy.
"The bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Russia is now worse than it was towards the end of the Cold War". Classic American
cold warrior mentality. The present-day Russian Federation is assimilated to the former Soviet Union.
Tragically for America, and the West in general, President Trump is unrecognizable from
candidate Trump :
'This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we the people reclaim control over
our government. The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals,
massive illegal immigration and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry Their financial resources are virtually
unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their
immorality is absolutely unlimited.'
"... And that bloody word...'modernisation' (Moderni- z -ation - for the management speak geeks). Why is it every time I come across that word in meetings, it means some worker is either losing money or losing their job? ..."
"... the monetisation of everything and the use of language to make the neo-liberal nightmare through which we are living seem, not only the norm, but the only way. ..."
"... Social security becomes welfare and suddenly masses of society (the majority of benefit claimants being in work) are not drawing on an insurance policy but are in receipt of 'welfare' subject to the largesse and judgements of an ever more cruel and avaricious 'elite'. ..."
"... I'm a big fan of Steven Poole's Unspeak , which looks at the way in which terms and terminology have been engineered precisely to hollow out meaning and present an argument instead. A kind of Neoliberal Emperor's New Clothes, the problem is that, obviously, if your vocabulary and your meanings become circumscribed, it limits what can be said, and even how people think about what's being said. ..."
And that bloody word...'modernisation' (Moderni- z -ation - for the management
speak geeks). Why is it every time I come across that word in meetings, it means some worker
is either losing money or losing their job? Or some manager is about to award themselves
a bonus?
@gyges1 - No, she is surely railing against the monetisation of everything and the use of
language to make the neo-liberal nightmare through which we are living seem, not only the
norm, but the only way.
Social security becomes welfare and suddenly masses of society (the majority of benefit
claimants being in work) are not drawing on an insurance policy but are in receipt of
'welfare' subject to the largesse and judgements of an ever more cruel and avaricious
'elite'.
Language matters and its distortion is a political act.
But without these Exciting New Word Uprating Initiatives, we can never win The Global Race...
or something.
I'm a big fan of Steven Poole's
Unspeak , which looks at the way in which terms and terminology have been engineered
precisely to hollow out meaning and present an argument instead. A kind of Neoliberal
Emperor's New Clothes, the problem is that, obviously, if your vocabulary and your meanings
become circumscribed, it limits what can be said, and even how people think about what's
being said.
(By the way, the link's to Amazon, but, obviously, you may find you have a better
"Customer Experience" if you get from somewhere less tax-dodgy.)
"... I was, of course, referring to the families of the disappeared in Chile. They are, of course, relevant and should not be excluded from any arguments about neoliberalism and its effects. Nor should the families of the disappeared in Argentina, though it is less well known, the junta was entrusted with the introduction of neoliberal policies in Argentina. ..."
"... The Argentinian military coup, like those in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Nicaragua, was sponsored by the US to protect and further its interests during the Cold War. By the 1970s neoliberalism was very much part of the menu; paramilitary governments were actively encouraged to practice neoliberal politics; neoliberalism was at this stage, what communism was to the Soviet Union; the ideological wing of the Cold War. You may be familiar with Operation Condor? ..."
"... It has been pretty firmly established that the Allende regime was victim of US sponsored military coup and that said coup was sponsored to protect US interests. The Chicago boys then flew into Chile to use the nation as a laboratory for the more outlandish (at the time) neoliberal policies they were unable to practice at home. ..."
"... The political class, with the aid of their subservient corporate media quislings, have taken our language apart and used it against us. We have been backed into a corner, we are told, by both Labour and Tories, that there is no choice, either rabid profiteering or penury and we have, to our everlasting shame, lapped up every word of it. ..."
"... We have become so embedded in the language of individuals, choice, contracts and competition that we cannot see any alternative. Even Adam Smith understood the difference between "economy" and "society" when he argued that labor is directly connected to public interest while business is connected to self-interest. If business took over the public sphere, Smith argued, this would be quite destructive. ..."
@finnkn - Apologies. I was, of course, referring to the families of the disappeared in Chile. They are, of course, relevant
and should not be excluded from any arguments about neoliberalism and its effects. Nor should the families of the disappeared
in Argentina, though it is less well known, the junta was entrusted with the introduction of neoliberal policies in Argentina.
The Argentinian military coup, like those in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Nicaragua, was sponsored
by the US to protect and further its interests during the Cold War. By the 1970s neoliberalism was very much part of the menu;
paramilitary governments were actively encouraged to practice neoliberal politics; neoliberalism was at this stage, what communism
was to the Soviet Union; the ideological wing of the Cold War. You may be familiar with Operation Condor?
To be clear: I am arguing that the direct effects of 'actually existing neoliberalism' are very far from benign. I do not argue
that the militarisation of Central and South America are the direct consequence neoliberal theory.
@finnkn - Well I think many would. It has been pretty firmly established that the Allende regime was victim of US sponsored
military coup and that said coup was sponsored to protect US interests. The Chicago boys then flew into Chile to use the nation
as a laboratory for the more outlandish (at the time) neoliberal policies they were unable to practice at home.
Neoliberalism was first practiced in authoritarian states; the states in which neoliberalism is most deeply embedded are (surprise,
surprise) increasingly authoritarian, and neoliberalism solutions are regularly imposed on client/vulnerable states by suprastructures
such as the IMF, the EU, and the World Bank. Friedrich Hayek and Adam Smith were very clear that the potential for degeneracy
existed. We have now reached that potential; increasingly centralised authority, states within states, the denuding of democratic
institutions and crony capitalism. Neoliberalism in practice is very different to neoliberalism in practice. Rather like 'really
existing socialism' and Marxism.
works best in authoritarian states because (in practice, if not in theory
As the statistics on that link show, there are certain countries (notably Russia and the Ukraine) where the +65 age group disapprove
of the change to democracy and capitalism. In the majority, however, people of all ages remain in favour.
For 'job' read 'bribe' (keep your mouth shut or lose it), for 'management' read 'take most of the interest out of the job
for everybody else and put them on a lower scale', etc. I guess you get my drift.
It's sad that you have such a negative, self-hating attitude towards your work.
Work is usually – and certainly should be – a central source of meaning and fulfilment in human lives. And it has – or could
have – moral and creative (or aesthetic) values at its core
Spoken like a true champagne socialist in a creative industry. How do you find meaning and fulfillment, or creative values, in
emptying bins, cleaning offices, sweeping the streets and a whole load of other work which needs doing but which is repetitive,
menial and not particularly pleasant?
There are two ways to get people to do work that needs doing but wouldn't be done voluntarily: coercion or payment. I think
the second is a more healthy way to run a society.
I've thought pretty much the same myself. Democracies can be good or bad (as the Greeks knew well)...but in our politic-speak
it is used to denounce and make good; as in "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East"...it is intended to make us feel
something good about Israel, as it humiliates the Palestinians and steals their land.
In ancient Greece....'tyrant' simply meant
'usurper' without any neccessary negative association....simply someone who had usurped political power...they recognized that
tyrannies could be good, bad or indifferent.
In Rome, dictator simply meant the cahp that took over fpr periods of six months at a time, during times of crisis.
I used to vacation in Yugoslavia in Marshall Tito's time....it was a wonderful place, beautiful, inexpensive and safe...very
very safe. What came into the power vacuum after he died in 1980...what happened to the country? I'd argue that his was a good
dictatorship or tyranny....
I'm also not too sure what the 90% of people unaffected by and uninterested in power politics in any given country feel about
the 'liberation' of Libya and Iraq from their prior dictatorships...I'm sure that plenty of people whose previously steady lives
have been wrecked, are all that thrilled.
I have recently been exercised by the right's adoption of "Social Justice". In the past it was the left and churches who talked
of social justice as a phenomenon to empower the poor and dispossessed, whether in this country or the developing world. Social
Justice was a touchstone of Faith in the City, for example, but it seems now to be the smoke screen behind which benefits are
stipped from the "undeserving poor".
Most of this crap comes from America. Crappy middle-management bureaucrats spouting "free-market" bollocks.
The efficiency of the private sector - some nob with a name badge timing how long you've been on the toilet.
Freedommm!!!!
It is not just neoliberalism. Everyone is at it - sucking the meaning out of words. Corporate bullshit, public sector bullshit.
Being customers of your own government is a crime that everyone is guilty of. This is what Orwell railed against decades ago,
and it has got worse.
Case in point; just look at the way in which the Cameron set about co-opting words and phrases justifiably applied to his own
regime and repurposed them against his detractors.
For example, people who took a stand against the stealth privatisation of the NHS were branded as "vested interests", quite
unlike the wholesome MPs who voted for the NHS bill who, despite the huge sums of money they received from the private healthcare
lobby, we are encouraged to believe were acting in our best interests by selling our health service to their corporate paymasters.
Or the farcical attempt to rebrand female Tory MPs as "feminists" despite their anti-social mobility, anti-equality, anti-human
rights and anti-abortion views.
The political class, with the aid of their subservient corporate media quislings, have taken our language apart and used
it against us. We have been backed into a corner, we are told, by both Labour and Tories, that there is no choice, either rabid
profiteering or penury and we have, to our everlasting shame, lapped up every word of it.
@Obelisk1 - You have single-handedly proven Massey's argument. We have become so embedded in the language of individuals,
choice, contracts and competition that we cannot see any alternative. Even Adam Smith understood the difference between "economy"
and "society" when he argued that labor is directly connected to public interest while business is connected to self-interest.
If business took over the public sphere, Smith argued, this would be quite destructive.
Our whole conversation seemed somehow reduced, my experience of it belittled into one of commercial transaction. My relation
to the gallery and to this engaging person had become one of instrumental market exchange.
But in the eyes of the economic right, that is precisely the case. Adjectives like altruistic, caring, selfless, empathy and
sympathy are simply not in their vocabulary. They are only ever any of those things provided they can see some sort of beneficial
payback at the end.
maxfisher -> Venebles 11 Jun 2013 06:20
@Venebles - I was simply joining many commentators in the mire. Those that dispute the neoliberal worldview are routinely dismissed
as marxists. I thought I'd save you all the energy, duck.
I'm not sure that the families of the disappeared of Chile and Argentina would concur with you benign view of neoliberalism
and its effects.
CIA democrats of which Obama is a prominent example (and Hillary is another one) are are Werewolfs, very dangerous political beasts,
probably more dangerous to the world then Republicans like George W Bush. But in case of Ukraine, it was easily pushed into Baltic orbit,
because it has all the preconditions for that. So Nuland has an relatively easy, albeit dirty task. Also all this
probably that "in five years we will be living like French" was pretty effective. Now the population faces
consequences of its own stupidity. This is just neoliberal business as usual or neocolonialism.
Notable quotes:
"... populists on the right ..."
"... hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties ..."
"... Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment ..."
Let's recap what Obama's coup
in Ukraine has led to shall we? Maybe installing and blatantly backing Neo Nazis in Ukraine might have something to do with the
rise of " populists on the right " that is spreading through Europe and this country, Hillary.
America's criminal 'news' media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama regime began
planning for
a coup in Ukraine . And that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it
inside the
U.S. Embassy there . And that they hired members of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties , Right
Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change
it to Freedom Party, or "Svoboda" instead). And that in February 2014 they did it (and here's the
4 February 2014 phone call instructing the U.S. Ambassador
whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations
that the Embassy organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. 'news' media misrepresented as
'democracy demonstrations ,' though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption, even more than today's U.S. does,
and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end Ukraine's corruption -- which instead actually soared after his coup there).
But wait there's more .... Remember
that caravan of refugees making their way through Mexico? Guess where a number of them came from? Honduras. Yep. Another coup that
happened during Obama's and Hillary's tenure.
In a recent op-ed in The Washington Post, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
used a review of Henry Kissinger's latest book, "World Order ," to lay out her vision for "sustaining America's leadership
in the world." In the midst of numerous global crises, she called for return to a foreign policy with purpose, strategy and pragmatism.
She also highlighted some of these policy choices in her memoir "Hard Choices" and how they contributed to the challenges that
Barack Obama's administration now faces.
**
The chapter on Latin America, particularly the section on Honduras, a major source of the child migrants currently pouring into
the United States, has gone largely unnoticed. In letters to Clinton and her successor, John Kerry, more than 100 members of Congress
have repeatedly warned about the deteriorating security situation in Honduras, especially since the 2009 military coup that ousted
the country's democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. As Honduran scholar Dana Frank points out in Foreign Affairs, the
U.S.-backed post-coup government "rewarded coup loyalists with top ministries," opening the door for further "violence and anarchy."
The homicide rate in Honduras, already the highest in the world, increased by 50 percent from 2008 to 2011; political repression,
the murder of opposition political candidates, peasant organizers and LGBT activists increased and continue to this day. Femicides
skyrocketed. The violence and insecurity were exacerbated by a generalized institutional collapse. Drug-related violence has worsened
amid allegations of rampant corruption in Honduras' police and government. While the gangs are responsible for much of the violence,
Honduran security forces have engaged in a wave of killings and other human rights crimes with impunity.
Despite this, however, both under Clinton and Kerry, the State Department's response to the violence and military and police
impunity has largely been silence, along with continued U.S. aid to Honduran security forces. In "Hard Choices," Clinton describes
her role in the aftermath of the coup that brought about this dire situation. Her firsthand account is significant both for the
confession of an important truth and for a crucial false testimony.
First, the confession: Clinton admits that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office.
"In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa
in Mexico," Clinton writes. "We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could
be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot."
Clinton's position on Latin America in her bid for the presidency is another example of how the far right exerts disproportionate
influence on US foreign policy in the hemisphere. up 24 users have voted. --
Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment
@snoopydawg@snoopydawg
Obama, Hillary and the rest of that administration knew it was a coup because that was the goal.
"..4. (C) In our view, none of the above arguments has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution. Some are outright
false. Others are mere supposition or ex-post rationalizations of a patently illegal act. Essentially: --
the military had no authority to remove Zelaya from the country;
-- Congress has no constitutional authority to remove a Honduran president;
-- Congress and the judiciary removed Zelaya on the basis of a hasty, ad-hoc, extralegal, secret, 48-hour process;
-- the purported "resignation" letter was a fabrication and was not even the basis for Congress's action of June 28; and
-- Zelaya's arrest and forced removal from the country violated multiple constitutional guarantees, including the prohibition
on expatriation, presumption of innocence and right to due process. " https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TEGUCIGALPA645_a.html
That evil woman thinks she has the right to preach to others about how to handle the very fallout from the horrific disasters
that she HERself created? Hillary, look in the mirror, you evil woman.
Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met "a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do, and
where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.
" The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or
other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don't want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told
what to do and where to go and how to live and only given one version of reality.
"I don't know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it's a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic
institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we've got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to combat
it."
This arrogance of looking down on the populace is very part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude of the ruling class takes
to the rest of us peons. They created this unreality for the American people and have suppressed our right to know what is really
happening in the world. Obama destroyed the Occupy Movement with violent police attacks and kettling. And then disgustingly, Clinton
comes out with her hubristic victim blaming.
The Clintons are nearly single handedly responsible for much of the destruction of the American middle class and the repression
of poor and black people under Bill and the violent destruction of many countries under Hillary. And yet neither Clinton is willing
to own up for all the human misery that they have caused wherever they go. Unfortunately, the one place they refuse to go is just
away forever.
The belief that HRC & her circle are principled & progressive is just as fictitious as the belief that they lost to a reality
TV host because of stolen emails, social media trolls, & a (fictitious) conspiracy between the reality TV host & the Kremlin:
https://t.co/iyTC1M6uws
Clinton says Europe should make clear that "we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge & support." Isn't this
the attitude we denounce Trump for? Speaking of irony, Clinton's regime wars in Libya & Syria (& Iraq, indirectly) fueled the
migration she wants to stop. https://t.co/CIkkGRRKNd
This ego-maniac sees the world's problems - which she had a huge hand in creating - only through the lens of her electability.
Apparently, the only problems the world has are the one's that keep her from sitting in the Oval Office. Everything else is
fine. She is deplorable.
That evil woman thinks she has the right to preach to others about how to handle the very fallout from the horrific disasters
that she HERself created? Hillary, look in the mirror, you evil woman.
Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met "a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do,
and where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.
" The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king
or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don't want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to
be told what to do and where to go and how to live and only given one version of reality.
"I don't know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it's a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic
institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we've got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to
combat it."
This arrogance of looking down on the populace is very part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude of the ruling class takes
to the rest of us peons. They created this unreality for the American people and have suppressed our right to know what is
really happening in the world. Obama destroyed the Occupy Movement with violent police attacks and kettling. And then disgustingly,
Clinton comes out with her hubristic victim blaming.
The Clintons are nearly single handedly responsible for much of the destruction of the American middle class and the repression
of poor and black people under Bill and the violent destruction of many countries under Hillary. And yet neither Clinton is
willing to own up for all the human misery that they have caused wherever they go. Unfortunately, the one place they refuse
to go is just away forever.
@gulfgal98 Because they just HAVE to get a rich, far-right, patriarchal white woman elected at any cost for the sake
of 'making history'. If these idiots really wanted to make history, they'd work like hell to put someone in charge who actually
had the balls to hang the pigs and their collaborators for their crimes.
The belief that HRC & her circle are principled & progressive is just as fictitious as the belief that they lost to a
reality TV host because of stolen emails, social media trolls, & a (fictitious) conspiracy between the reality TV host &
the Kremlin: https://t.co/iyTC1M6uws
Clinton says Europe should make clear that "we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge & support." Isn't
this the attitude we denounce Trump for? Speaking of irony, Clinton's regime wars in Libya & Syria (& Iraq, indirectly)
fueled the migration she wants to stop. https://t.co/CIkkGRRKNd
This ego-maniac sees the world's problems - which she had a huge hand in creating - only through the lens of her electability.
Apparently, the only problems the world has are the one's that keep her from sitting in the Oval Office. Everything else
is fine. She is deplorable.
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole
west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating
about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in
2001?
His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some
totally obscure Zionist activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National
Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Zionist Committee. If that doesn't qualify him
as an "insider," I don't know what does.
Excerpts from The Zionist Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a
Misguided Immigration Policy :
Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power
Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the
greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly.
We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until
the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario,
the great material wealth of the Zionist community will continue to give it significant
advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power
is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft
money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to
Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with
selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.
Zionist voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the
nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los
Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more
quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a
matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms
us.
All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to
play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very
scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least
a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the
new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often
competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new
immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south
Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go
before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent
enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no
melting pot!
For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Zionist community is thus in
a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions
that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American
alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese,
and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided
Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is
that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger
Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not
think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans,
Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.
Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Zionist legislative
representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S.
Senates with 10 Zionist members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court
to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be
we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually
believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will
go to Israel?
If Steinlight was obscure or not, I do not know.
What struck me in one of his articles is how he sees the holocaust story as essential to Zionist power in the USA.
Also in that article he wondered if at some point in time Jews might be driven out of the
USA, 'but, there is always the life boat Israel'.
That Israel will collapse the minute Zionist power in the USA [eventually] ends, he seems unable to see
this.
About your quote, it seems to have been written before it became clear to the world that
western power is diminishing.
So even if Zionist power over the West remains, Zionist power in the world is diminishing
too.
NATO, EU, Pentagon, neocons, whatever, may still want war with Russia, my idea is that on the other
hand that more and more people see this intention, and are absolutely against.
While western influence is receding, Assad still is there, Russia has bases in Syria, Erdogan, on what side is he ?; and so on and so forth.
The battle cry 'no more war for Israel' exists for a long time in the USA. And I interpret discussions on
this side of the Atlantic about increasing anti-Semitism as the acknowledgement of the fact that more and more people
on this side begin to criticize Zionists, especially with regard to Palestinians.
"... Look, mostly this whole patriotism/nationalism word game is just sadly funny. You are a patriot if you think like me. You are a nationalist if you don't. Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. If I am a patriot, I am good, if you are a nationalist, you must be bad. ..."
... Look, mostly this whole patriotism/nationalism word game is just sadly funny. You are a patriot if you think like me. You
are a nationalist if you don't. Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. If I am a patriot, I am good, if you are a nationalist,
you must be bad.
I think that the wisdom of Humpty Dumpty when speaking to Alice fits here:
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is which is to be master -- that's all."
"... Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left. ..."
"... Every single person who has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil. ..."
"... Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth. ..."
"... Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check. ..."
The US will be celebrating Veterans Day, and many a striped flag shall be waved. The social
currency of esteem will be used to elevate those who have served in the US military, thereby
ensuring future generations of recruits to be thrown into the gears of the globe-spanning war
machine
Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their
country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its
shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left.
Every single person who
has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other
than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been
fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for
imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil.
I just said something you're not supposed to say. People have dedicated many years of their
lives to the service of the US military; they've given their limbs to it, they've suffered
horrific brain damage for it, they've given their very lives to it. Families have been ripped
apart by the violence that has been inflicted upon members of the US Armed Forces; you're not
supposed to let them hear you say that their loved one was destroyed because some sociopathic
nerds somewhere in Washington decided that it would give America an advantage over potential
economic rivals to control a particular stretch of Middle Eastern dirt. But it is true, and if
we don't start acknowledging that truth lives are going to keep getting thrown into the gears
of the machine for the power and profit of a few depraved oligarchs. So I'm going to keep
saying it.
Last week I saw the hashtag #SaluteToService trending on Twitter. Apparently the NFL had a
deal going where every time someone tweeted that hashtag they'd throw a few bucks at some
veteran's charity. Which sounds sweet, until you consider three things:
2. The NFL has taken millions of
dollars from the Pentagon for displays of patriotism on the field, including for the
policy of bringing all players out for the national anthem every game starting in 2009 (which
led to Colin Kaepernick's demonstrations and the obscene backlash against him).
3. VETERANS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RELY ON FUCKING CHARITY.
Seriously, how is "charity for veterans" a thing, and how are people not extremely weirded
out by it? How is it that you can go out and get your limbs blown off for slave wages after
watching your friends die and innocent civilians perish, come home, and have to rely on charity
to get by? How is it that you can risk life and limb killing and suffering irreparable
psychological trauma for some plutocrat's agendas, plunge into poverty when you come home, and
then see the same plutocrat labeled a "philanthropist" because he threw a few tax-deductible
dollars at a charity that gave you a decent prosthetic leg?
Taking care of veterans should be factored into the budget of every act of military
aggression . If a government can't make sure its veterans are housed, healthy and happy in a
dignified way for the rest of their lives, it has no business marching human beings into harm's
way. The fact that you see veterans on the street of any large US city and people who fought in
wars having to beg "charities" for a quality mechanical wheelchair shows you just how much of a
pathetic joke this Veterans Day song and dance has always been.
They'll send you to mainline violence and trauma into your mind and body for the power and
profit of the oligarchic rulers of the US-centralized empire, but it's okay because everyone
gets a long weekend where they're told to thank you for your service. Bullshit.
Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct
designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It
glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be
recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't
wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to
unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth.
The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make sure
no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of evil,
stupid, meaningless violence. The way to do that is to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it
clear that you do not consent to the global terrorism being perpetrated in your name. These
bastards work so hard conducting propaganda to manufacture your consent for endless
warmongering because they need that consent . So don't give it to them.
Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the
Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly
waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to
shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy
coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable
warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check.
This Veterans Day, don't honor those who have served by giving reverence and legitimacy to a
war machine which is exclusively used for inflicting great evil. Honor them by disassembling
that machine.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
So the USA Congress operates under CIA surveillance... Due to CIA access to Saudi money the situation is probably much
worse then described as CIA tried to protect both its level of influence and shadow revenue streams.
Notable quotes:
"... The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch, is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing. ..."
"... I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community Inspector General 2014 ..."
"... The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly," wrote Grassley in a statement. ..."
"... According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with "bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper." ..."
"... Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications ..."
"... CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director ..."
"... During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance," said Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016. ..."
CIA intercepted Congressional emails about whistleblowers in 2014
The Inspector General expressed concern about "potential compromise to whistleblower confidentiality" and "chilling effect"
Newly-declassified documents show the CIA intercepted sensitive Congressional communications about intelligence community whistleblowers.
The intercepts occurred under CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The new disclosures
are contained in two letters of "Congressional notification" originally written to key members of Congress in March 2014, but kept
secret until now.
In the letters, then-Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough tells four key members of Congress that during
"routing counterintelligence monitoring of Government computer systems," the CIA collected emails between Congressional staff and
the CIA's head of whistleblowing and source protection. McCullough states that he's concerned "about the potential compromise to
whistleblower confidentiality and the consequent 'chilling effect' that the present [counterintelligence] monitoring system might
have on Intelligence Community whistleblowing."
The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch,
is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence
agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing.
"Most of these emails concerned pending and developing whistleblower complaints," McCullough states in his letters to lead Democrats
and Republicans on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees at the time: Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Saxby Chambliss
(R-Georgia); and Representatives Michael Rogers (R-Michigan) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland). McCullough adds that the type
of monitoring that occurred was "lawful and justified for [counterintelligence] purposes" but
"I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive
Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community
Inspector General 2014
The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The
fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers
raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly,"
wrote Grassley in a statement.
According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with
"bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper."
Grassley adds that he repeated his request to declassify the letters under the Trump administration, but that Trump intelligence
officials failed to respond. The documents were finally declassified this week after Grassley appealed to the new Intelligence Community
Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
History of alleged surveillance abuses
Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the
possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications. A Congressional staffer involved at the time says Clapper's
response seemed to imply that if Congressional communications were "incidentally" collected by the CIA, the material would not be
saved or reported up to CIA management.
"In the event of a protected disclosure by a whistleblower somehow comes to the attention of personnel responsible for monitoring
user activity," Clapper wrote to Grassley and Wyden on July 25, 2014, "there is no intention for such disclosure to be reported
to agency leadership under an insider threat program."
However, the newly-declassified letters indicate the opposite happened in reality with the whistleblower-related emails:
"CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually
shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy
Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director."
Clapper has previously come under fire for his 2013 testimony to Congress in which he denied that the national Security Agency
(NSA) collects data on millions of Americans. Weeks later, Clapper's statement was proven false by material leaked by former NSA
contractor Edward Snowden.
"During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance,"
said
Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016.
"Top officials, officials who reported to Director Clapper, repeatedly misled the American people and even lied to them."
Clapper has repeatedly denied lying, and said that any incorrect information he provided was due to misunderstandings or mistakes.
Clapper and Brennan have also acknowledged taking part in the controversial practice of "unmasking" the protected names of U.S.
citizens - including people connected to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump - whose communications were "incidentally" captured
in US counterintelligence operations. Unmaskings within the US intelligence community are supposed to be extremely rare and only
allowed under carefully justified circumstances. This is to protect the privacy rights of American citizens. But it's been revealed
that Obama officials requested unmaskings on a near daily basis during the election year of 2016.
Clapper and Brennan have said their activities were lawful and not politically motivated. Both men have become vocal critics of
President Trump.
Can you imagine what kind of place the US would have been under Clinton?!!!!!!
All the illegality, spying, conniving, dirty tricks, arcancides, selling us out to the highest bidder and full on attack against
our Constitution would be in full swing!
When intel entities can operate unimpeded and un-monitored, it spells disaster for everyone and everything outside that parameter.
Their operations go unnoticed until some stray piece of information exposes them. There are many facilities that need to be purged
and audited, but since this activity goes on all over the world, there is little to stop it. Even countries that pledge allegiance
and cooperation are blindsiding their allies with bugs, taps, blackmails, and other crimes. Nobody trusts nobody, and that's a
horrid fact to contend with in an 'advanced' civilization.
Forget the political parties. When the intelligence agencies spy on everyone, they know all about politicians of both parties
before they ever win office, and make sure they have enough over them to control them. They were asleep at the switch when Trump
won, because no one, including them, believed he would ever win. Hillary was their candidate, the State Department is known overseas
as "the political arm of the CIA". They were furious when she lost, hence the circus ever since.
From its founding by the Knights of Malta the JFK&MLK-assassinating, with Mossad 9/11-committing CIA has been the Vatican's
US Fifth Column action branch, as are the FBI and NSA: with an institutional hiring preference for Roman Catholic "altared boy"
closet-queen psychopaths "because they're practiced at keeping secrets."
Think perverts Strzok, Brennan, and McCabe "licked it off the wall?"
I agree with you 100%. Problem is, tons of secret technology and information have been passed out to the private sector. And
the private sector is not bound to the FOIA requests, therefore neutralizing the obligation for government to disclose classified
material. They sidestepped their own policies to cooperate with corrupt MIC contractors, and recuse themselves from disclosing
incriminating evidence.
Everyone knows that spying runs in the fam. 44th potus Mom and Gma BOTH. An apple doesn't fall from the tree. If ppl only knew
the true depth of the evil and corruption we would be in the hospital with a heart attack. Gilded age is here and has been, since
our democracy was hijacked (McCain called it an intervention) back in 1963. Unfortunately it started WAY back before then when
(((they))) stole everything with the installation of the Fed.
The FBI and CIA have long since slipped the controls of Congress and the Constitution. President Trump should sign an executive
order after the mid terms and stand down at least the FBI and subject the CIA to a senate investigation.
America needs new agencies that are accountable to the peoples elected representatives.
A determined care has been used to cultivate in D.C., a system that swiftly decapitates the whistleblowers. Resulting in an
increasingly subservient cadre of civil servants who STHU and play ostrich, or drool at what scraps are about to roll off the
master's table as the slide themselves into a better position, taking advantage to sell vice, weapons, and slaves.
What the hell does the CIA have to do with ANYTHING in the United States? Aren't they limited to OUTSIDE the U.S.? So why would
they be involved in domestic communications for anything? These clowns need to be indicted for TREASON!
It's interesting that Clapper is against abandoned by Trump Iran deal.
Tramp administration is acting more like Israeli marionette here, because while there a
strategic advantage in crushing the Iranian regime for the USA and making a county another Us
vassal in the middle East, the cost for the country might be way to high (especially if we count
in the cost of additional antagonizing Russia and China). Trump might jump into the second
Afghanistan, which would really brake the back of US military -- crushing Iran military is one
thing, but occupying such a county is a very costly task. And that might well doom Israel in the
long run as settlers policies now created really antagonized, unrecognizable minority with a high
birth rate.
Vanishing one-by-one of partners are given due to collapse of neoliberalism as an ideology.
Nobody believes that neoliberalism is the future, like many believed in 80th and early 90th. This
looks more and more like a repetion of the path of the USSR after 1945, when communist ideology
was discredited and communist elite slowly fossilized. In 46 years from its victory in WWII the
USSR was dissolved. The same might happen with the USA in 50 years after winning the Cold
War.
Notable quotes:
"... a vanishing one by one of American partners who were previously supportive of U.S. leadership in curbing Iran, particularly its nuclear program. ..."
"... The United States risks losing the cooperation of historic and proven allies in the pursuit of other U.S. national security interests around the world, far beyond Iran. ..."
Only well calibrated multilateral political, economic and diplomatic pressure brought to
bear on Iran with many and diverse partners will produce the results we seek.
"Then there were none" was Agatha Christie's most memorable mystery about a house party in
which each guest was killed off one by one. Donald Trump's policy toward Iran has resulted in
much the same: a vanishing one by one of American partners who were previously supportive
of U.S. leadership in curbing Iran, particularly its nuclear program.
Dozens of states, painstakingly cultivated over decades of American leadership in blocking
Iran's nuclear capability, are now simply gone. One of America's three remaining allies on
these issues, Saudi Arabia, has become a central player in American strategy throughout the
Middle East region. But the Saudis, because of the Jamal Khashoggi killing and other reasons,
may have cut itself out of the action. The United Arab Emirates, so close to the Saudis, may
also fall away.
Such paucity of international support has left the Trump administration dangerously
isolated. "America First" should not mean America alone. The United States risks losing the
cooperation of historic and proven allies in the pursuit of other U.S. national security
interests around the world, far beyond Iran.
... ... ...
European allies share many of our concerns about Iran's regional activities, but they
strongly oppose U.S. reinstitution of secondary sanctions against them. They see the Trump
administration's new sanctions as a violation of the nuclear agreement and UN Security Council
resolutions and as undermining efforts to influence Iranian behavior. The new sanctions and
those applied on November 5 only sap European interest in cooperating to stop Iran.
... ... ...
The United States cannot provoke regime change in Iran any more than it has successfully in
other nations in the region. And, drawing on strategies used to topple governments in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the United States should be wary of launching or trying to spur a military
invasion of Iran.
Lt. Gen. James Clapper (USAF, ret.) is the former Director of National Intelligence.
Thomas R. Pickering is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Russia and
India.
"... Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts ..."
"... The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people were killed in the course of the three conflicts. ..."
"... Civilians make up over half of the roughly 500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as well. ..."
"... This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011. ..."
Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts
Brown University has released a new study on the cost
in lives of America's Post-9/11 Wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people
were killed in the course of the three conflicts.
This includes combatant deaths and civilian deaths in fighting and war violence. Civilians make up over half of the roughly
500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as
well.
This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly
in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of
the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011.
The report also notes that over 60,000 US troops were either killed or wounded in the course of the wars. This includes 6,951
US military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.
The Brown study also faults the US for having done very little in the last 17 years to provide transparency to the country about
the scope of the conflicts, concluding that they are "inhibited by governments determined to paint a rosy picture of perfect execution
and progress."
"... You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal. ..."
"... Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little naive, by most foreigners. ..."
"... Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite. ..."
"... Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with Russia. ..."
"... The problem however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people. ..."
"... The only thing Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia. ..."
"... The US 'Deep State' did this in response to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump attempting to put the interests of the American people first . ..."
Billed as a 'referendum on Trump's presidency', the US Midterm Elections drew an
unusually high number of Americans to the polls yesterday. The minor loss, from Trump's
perspective, of majority Republican control of the lower House of Representatives, suggests, if
anything, the opposite of what the media and establishment want you to believe it means.
An important clue to why the American media has declared permanent open season on this man
transpired during a sometimes heated post-elections press conference at the White House
yesterday. First, CNN's obnoxious Jim Acosta insisted on bringing up the patently absurd
allegations of 'Russia collusion' and refused to shut up and sit down. Soon after, PBS reporter
Yamiche Alcindor joined her colleagues in asking Trump another loaded question , this time on the 'white
nationalism' canard:
Alcindor : On the campaign trail you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw
that as emboldening white nationalists...
Trump : I don't know why you'd say this. It's such a racist question.
Alcindor : There are some people who say that now the Republican Party is seen as
supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric. What do you make of that?
Trump : Why do I have among the highest poll numbers with African Americans?
That's such a racist question. I love our country. You have nationalists, and you have
globalists . I also love the world, and I don't mind helping the world, but we have to
straighten out our country first. We have a lot of problems ...
The US media is still "not even wrong" on Trump and why he won the 2016 election.
You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out
MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more
clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal.
Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at
least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the
world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation
for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses
and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little
in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little
naive, by most foreigners.
Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the
Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with
the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the
public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to
increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite.
Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's
money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he
appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to
the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an
all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and
people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the
American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on
the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that
country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with
Russia.
These are but a few examples of the "globalism" that drives the Washington establishment.
Who, in their right mind, would support it? (I won't get into what constitutes a 'right mind',
but we can all agree it does not involve destroying other nations for profit). The problem
however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such
military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian
collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly
the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people.
The only thing
Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of
Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington
establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while
advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia.
Words and their exact meanings matter . To be able to see through the lies of
powerful vested interests and get to the truth, we need to know when those same powerful vested
interests are exploiting our all-too-human proclivity to be coerced and manipulated by appeals
to emotion.
So the words "nationalist" and "nationalism", as they relate to the USA, have never been
"dirty" words until they were made that way by the "globalist" element of the Washington
establishment (i.e., most of it) by associating it with fringe Nazi and "white supremacist"
elements in US society that pose no risk to anyone, (except to the extent that the mainstream
media can convince the general population otherwise). The US 'Deep State' did this in response
to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist
vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the
expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump
attempting to put the interests of the American people first .
John Bolton suffers a crippling shortage of olives.
Notable quotes:
"... "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy," ..."
"... "Looks like your eagle has already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?" ..."
Meeting with US national security adviser John Bolton in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir
Putin made a comment about Washington's hostility that went right over the hawkish diplomat's
head. "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows
in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy,"
Putin said in a meeting with Bolton in Moscow on Tuesday.
"I have a question," the Russian president added. "Looks like your eagle has
already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?"
About 15-20 minutes to get through (the facilitator seems like a bit of a wet blanket), but
fascinating to read, if like me, most of what you hear about Putin has been filtered through
the MSM.
A couple of reflections:
Putin does detail. He is courteous and patient. He is highly pragmatic and appears to be
widely (and, for my money, effectively) briefed.
For those of us lucky enough to follow VVP in his native language – it is indeed a
delight. (And – mind you – it was only after I took the time to follow him in his
native language that I was able to appreciate this person and his leadership abilities. If one
follows him through NYT – no chance that would give one an accurate picture.) He is erudite, informed, and has a wicked sense of humour, as shown in this clip: https://www.rt.com/news/442068-putin-olives-eagle-bolton/
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
December 10, 2019 © Photo: Wikipedia Donald John Trump has turned back the clock in the Western Hemisphere to an era that saw coups and political unrest as the order of the day. Trump and his administration of far-right anti-socialists and pro-fascists have already overthrown the democratically-elected government of President Evo Morales of Bolivia. Trump has announced a policy of turning up the heat on President Nicolas Maduro's government in Venezuela by ratcheting up the economic blockade of Cuba, a Venezuelan ally.
Print this article
December 9, 2019 |
Editor's Сhoice
US and UK Military-Intelligence Apparatus Campaigns to Destroy Jeremy Corbyn
Days before Britain's historic election, the UK's military-intelligence apparatus is
turning to the corporate media and US government-funded NATO cut-outs to smear Labour leader
Jeremy Corbyn with evidence-free Russiagate allegations.
The Saudi/US Partnership: Evil Begets Evil
To the top
![11 Nations]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/55b273a2371d2211008b9793":{"contentType":"image/jpeg","aspectRatioW":3167,"aspectRatioH":2159}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/55b273a2371d2211008b9793?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
![Syracuse New York]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/59b2be5c45e2381d008b5876":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":4,"aspectRatioH":3}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/59b2be5c45e2381d008b5876?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
debra
millet/Shutterstock
![soho New York city]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de800e9fd9db247a976a267":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":4,"aspectRatioH":3}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de800e9fd9db247a976a267?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Ryan
DeBerardinis/Shutterstock
![The Liberty Bell.]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80a7ffd9db23e5a1dd0f7":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":4,"aspectRatioH":3}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80a7ffd9db23e5a1dd0f7?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
![Harrisburg, North Carolina]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5d60177b00ef2b6aa56bf1e1":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":6549,"aspectRatioH":4912}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5d60177b00ef2b6aa56bf1e1?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
![kentucky derby]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80db9fd9db252bf4b2083":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":1333,"aspectRatioH":1000}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80db9fd9db252bf4b2083?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Michael Hickey/Getty
Images
![university of alabama football fans]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80dfcfd9db2413c3a5eea":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":911,"aspectRatioH":683}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80dfcfd9db2413c3a5eea?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Dave Martin/Getty
Images
![mexican american flag]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80748fd9db24dc40f4fe2":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":4,"aspectRatioH":3}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80748fd9db24dc40f4fe2?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
David McNew/Reuters
![San Francisco]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de8079efd9db239ec1a8f34":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":1595,"aspectRatioH":1196}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de8079efd9db239ec1a8f34?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
![South Dakota]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80e54fd9db2417a02be09":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":517,"aspectRatioH":388}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80e54fd9db2417a02be09?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Scott Olson/Getty
Images
![louisiana music new orleans]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de8086cfd9db24eb80e8128":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":5033,"aspectRatioH":3775}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de8086cfd9db24eb80e8128?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
![PIPELINE NATIVE AMERICANS]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de808bdfd9db23afd1df6e8":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":709,"aspectRatioH":531}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de808bdfd9db23afd1df6e8?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Sputnik Screenshot
Serhii Filimonov post showing Ukrainian far-right figures posing in front of Hong Kong
Polytechnic University
Sputnik Screenshot Poster
for an "academy of street protest" featuring lectures by several Ukrainian far-right figures
Sputnik Screenshot Facebook post by "Free Hong Kong Center" defending "Gonor" members'
visit to Hong Kong
Originally from: 
Patti C 14 hours ago
Trump and Pompeo are abhorrent. They have destroyed our foreign policy. No one in their right
mind should be voting for Trump for a second term. This administration has no credibility
nationally and internationally. Americans who support Trump are ruining our country and are
voting against their interests over and over again. Wake up! Republicans and Mitch McConnell
should be punished for the amoral Trump Administration. Democrats need to dominate in the 2020
elections! Democrats need to work with all communities across the country to save our
democratic republic. Vote Democrats across the nation in 2020. 10 hours ago About what? He
actually said the Government has determined. And we all know how unreliable this government
is.
Al Terego Oz 1 day ago
Interesting how quickly it's gone from being possibly a mine to definitely a mine. Like
thumb_up 3 Reply reply Link link Report flag 
Simple
Way To Relieve Nail Fungus Explained (Clear Nail Plus)
healthbenefits.vip
3
Ways Your Cat Asks For Help
Dr.
Marty
7
'Deadly Sins' You'll Commit When Hiring a Financial Advisor
SmartAsset
![[Photos] Family Adopts a New Dog Then Vet Sees It And Calls The Cops](https://images.outbrainimg.com/transform/v3/eyJpdSI6IjhlNjI3YWJjNzQ0ZmM0NTEyNzViMmE5OWUyMTFjOTNlZjZiNzM1MmYyOGU0NzE4YWIwODg1ZDk1NTM2YjkwNTQiLCJ3IjoyNDAsImgiOjIwMCwiZCI6MS41LCJjcyI6MCwiZiI6NH0.webp "[Photos] Family Adopts a New Dog Then Vet Sees It And Calls The Cops")
[Photos]
Family Adopts a New Dog Then Vet Sees It And Calls The Cops
JOL
![[Gallery] Try Not To Laugh At These Hilarious Photos That Perfectly Depict Each State](https://images.outbrainimg.com/transform/v3/eyJpdSI6ImJhMzI3NTkyMGY4YzhhOTU1ZWY0MzZhYzc2NWU3MjE1MDEwN2NlMjUyNWU0Y2ZjMjg0NTJmOGMxNjI5MTllNjIiLCJ3IjoyNDAsImgiOjIwMCwiZCI6MS41LCJjcyI6MCwiZiI6NH0.webp "[Gallery] Try Not To Laugh At These Hilarious Photos That Perfectly Depict Each State")
[Gallery]
Try Not To Laugh At These Hilarious Photos That Perfectly Depict Each State
Daily
Choices
13
Facts About How Julian Koepchke Survived 11 Days in the Forest
Ranker
Opinion
No Trump, please! Orlando Sentinel gets a jump on 2020 endorsements.
2
Opinion
Harvard did the right thing by revoking Kyle Kashuv's admission
3
Opinion
The DNC tweeted 'Boy Bye' and now the election is over
4
Opinion
On Russia collusion, Trump is right and George Stephanopoulos is wrong
5
Opinion
Trump has a credibility problem with Iran. Shanahan's departure makes it worse.
euro is beginning to look like a credible rival to the dollar.
+5
+5
'Never
say never': Hope Hicks told reporters she'd consider...
Trump
ducks the media after assault on 'dangerous & sick'...
Trump
DENIES concern over son Don Jr.'s legal exposure for...
+5
+5
+5
The
Facial That Celebrities Say Takes 10 Years Off Your Face
Marie
Claire | Hanacure
Undo
Kelley Blue Book
Subcompact
Luxury SUV Best Buy of 2019
Kelley Blue
Book
Undo
MoneyWise.com
20
Places Where $150K Is Enough To Retire
MoneyWise.com
Undo
MoneyPop
50
Of The Most Useless Cars Ever Made
MoneyPop
Undo
BlitzLift
Historians
Agree That She Was The Most Powerful Woman In History
BlitzLift
Undo
Novelodge
The
One WD40 Trick Everyone Should Know About
Novelodge
Undo
Kiwi Report
What
Happened To Jenna Jameson? We Can't Look Away... The New Look Is Mes
Kiwi
Report
Undo
1 Smart Penny
Seniors
With No Life Insurance Should Do This Before March 31
1
Smart Penny
Undo
NewRetirement
How
Much Money Do You Really Get from a Reverse Mortgage?
NewRetirement
Undo
by Taboola
by
Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored
Links
Promoted Links
Promoted
Links
YOU MAY LIKE
History101
Hidden Room Of Thomas Jefferson's
History101
Undo
EternalLifeStyle
Steve Harvey Burst Into Tears When He
Realiz
EternalLifeStyle
Undo
Discount Car
Insurance Quotes
Mount Arlington, New Jersey Drivers Surpri
Discount
Car Insurance Quotes
Undo
Comments
30
Loading...
The reality of
Arabia, from Trump's point of view during his electoral campaign, was as follows:
